Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

06/21 Links Pt2: The antisemitic BDS war on celebrities; Hillel Neuer Confronts U.N.’s Biased Pillay Commission; Why is Avi Shlaim recycling the ‘Baghdad bombings’ theory?

From Ian:

The antisemitic BDS war on celebrities

The BDS movement has been a total failure. It has not damaged Israel’s economy, it has not turned Israel into a pariah, it has not changed Israeli policy, and it has not destroyed the Jewish state. The BDS movement has tried to create the image of winning by claiming phony victories. It has also capitalized by convincing a handful of mostly B- and C-list celebrities to shun Israel. The fight to achieve these symbolic “victories” is the subject of Lana Melman’s well-researched book, Artists Under Fire: The BDS War Against Celebrities, Jews, and Israel.

Melman is an industry insider who has been on the frontline of the fight to educate celebrities and try to insulate them from the global assault waged against them by BDS advocates through relentless social-media campaigns, threats and disinformation. She does not mince words in defining antisemitism as “demonizing Israel.” The BDS campaign, she writes, “seeks to use the celebrity of artists a tool to destroy Israel and stir up hate against Jews worldwide.”

“Artists are public figures who need audience support to succeed, making them particularly vulnerable to attacks on their character,” Melman explains. “Artists are afraid that “false charges against them will stick like chewing gum on the bottom of one’s shoe” and ruin their reputations.

It’s more than reputations at stake. Sometimes, the threats are more serious, as when Paul McCartney was threatened by Islamic activist Omar Bakri Muhammad: “‘If he values his life Mr. McCartney will not come to Israel.” McCartney ignored the threat and played in front of 50,000 people in Tel Aviv in 2008. He told an Israeli journalist: “I was approached by different groups and political bodies who asked me not to come here. I refused. I do what I think, and I have many friends who support Israel.”

McCartney is by no means the only A-list celebrity (or Beatle) who has defied the boycotters to appear in Israel. Others include Ringo Starr, Rhianna (twice), Alicia Keys, Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Mariah Carey, Art Garfunkel, Chick Corea, Julio Iglesias, Herbie Hancock, Madonna, Bon Jovi (three times), 50 Cent (twice), Andrea Bocelli and Guns N’Roses (three times, most recently on June 5).

The A-listers can usually withstand the pressure and not worry about their careers being affected. Others are more sensitive and are bombarded with petitions, statements, open letters, criticism on social media and Photoshopped images “associating Israel and the artist with destruction, racism, apartheid, the murder of children and worse.” Demonstrators protest outside venues. Artists’ representatives are overwhelmed by malicious emails and calls.

Why is Avi Shlaim recycling the ‘Baghdad bombings’ theory?

It is a mystery why "the Zionists" might have thought it necessary to bomb the synagogue when, by late 1950 a backlog of 80,000 Jews, who had already registered to leave for Israel, were stranded in Iraq. Indeed, the Iraqi government toyed with the idea of dumping these Jews on Israel’s border with Jordan or in the Kuwaiti desert because Israel was not shipping them out fast enough.

All the evidence for the bombings points to the nationalist Istiqlal party as the culprit. An Istiqlal member confessed to an Iraqi historian, Shamel Abdul Kader, that he planted the first bomb in April 1950. The Israeli new historian Tom Segev produced evidence blaming the synagogue bombing on Iraqi nationalists.

Iraqi Jews already had reason enough to seek a haven in Israel – rising pro-Nazi sentiment, the memory of a vicious Baghdad pogrom in 1941, the execution of the wealthy non-Zionist Shafik Ades in 1948, arrests, extortion, racist laws persecuting and dispossessing them. A vibrant community of 150,000 is now reduced to three Jews.

But Shlaim claims there was no antisemitism in Iraq until the Iraqis ‘turned on the Jews’ for their alleged complicity with the British invasion of 1941 and the foundation of Israel.

It is a travesty that Shlaim should not only fail to blame Arab regimes for the mass ethnic cleansing of their Jewish citizens, but that his reputation as an Oxford academic should lend ‘exceptional authority’ and respectability to these highly controversial claims,

What lies behind Shlaim’s anti-Zionism? In reviewing ‘Israel and Palestine’ Benny Morris pronounced himself puzzled.

“Many intellectuals, in Israel as in the West, have been moved by the Palestinians’ history and their plight, but at the same time they have remained sympathetic to Israel’s predicament…. In Israel and Palestine, by contrast, there is no sign of any such complex sympathy.

"For Shlaim, Israel and its leaders can do no right. It all begins to seem very personal. What is the source of this bias and this resentment? ‘

It appears that Shlaim’s memoir holds the answer. Israel is responsible for his unhappy childhood, his family’s impoverishment and his broken home.

Examining Islamic Group’s Ties to Hamas

CAIR emerged out of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), an organization that served as a propaganda arm of a now-defunct Hamas-support network called the “Palestine Committee.” The Committee was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to help Hamas politically and financially in the United States. As the committee’s propaganda outlet, the IAP organized “annual conventions and meetings, which were regularly addressed by members of Hamas brought from the Middle East.” The outlet published magazines with articles supporting the terrorist group. It also “published the Hamas charter in English and distributed Hamas communiques.”

Founded in 1994, CAIR was incorporated by three IAP leaders — Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. Mousa Abu Marzook, a member of the Hamas Politburo, “served as a member of IAP’s advisory board and served as its chairman in 1988-90.” He also provided IAP with $490,000. IAP, which is now defunct, was long a central player in Hamas’ US support network.

In August 2002, a Federal judge ruled that there was evidence that “the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), has acted in support of Hamas.” In November 2004, a Federal magistrate judge held IAP civilly liable for $156 million in damages in the 1996 shooting of an American teenager by a Hamas member in the West Bank.

And evidence from the Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and its officers with providing material support for Hamas shows that the IAP played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee.

According to the Committee’s 1994 meeting agenda and a 1991 organizational chart introduced into evidence, the IAP, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and a Virginia think-tank that Marzook founded were the committee’s primary components.

A November 1991 committee status report approved by the Shura Council explained that the Ikhwan, or Brotherhood, created IAP “to serve the cause of Palestine on the political and media fronts. The Association’s work has developed a great deal since its inception, particularly with the formation of the Palestine Committee, the beginning of the Intifada at the end of 1987 and the proclamation of the Hamas Movement.”

On Tuesday, the US Department of State issued a statement regarding the Jews who were murdered for filling their gas tanks while Jewish:

"The United States condemns the terrorist attack against Israelis near Eli in the West Bank today. We express our deepest condolences to the families of those killed and wish the injured a speedy recovery," said Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller.

So far, so good, right? I had been gritting my teeth waiting to hear the White House do the usual both-siding of the issue: “We ask both sides to refrain from violence at this difficult time.”

I call this “both-siding it.” When you both-side a situation, you’re not pointing a finger or assigning blame, because terrorist and victim are the same. Or rather, in drawing a moral equivalence between the two, you whitewash the actions of the terrorist. The effect of this is to appease the Muslim world and its sympathizers, because of course, that world thinks that murdering Israelis is a mitzvah (l’havdil). So the terrorists are good, because they’re killing ZIONISTS.

Lucy, Maia, and Rina Dee, HY"D.

It is tragic to report this here how despite the fact that Israel and the US are allies, the US so often draws a moral equivalence between Israeli citizens and soldiers with the people who brutally murder them. This in spite of the fact that the US claims to be committed to the safety and security of Israeli citizens and says that Israel has right to defend itself.

Why does the US tell the world that there is no difference between Israelis and the people who brutally murder them? It’s simple: Because it can. US officials know that the Jews will understand and take it on the chin. We don’t REALLY mean it, they probably tell Israeli leaders behind the scenes, but hey, you know. Diplomacy. Realpolitik.

Yet Miller’s statement had thus far been free of ~~all that crap~~ this sort of rhetoric. I was rather pleased with that White House statement.

But I shouldn’t have been. I should have known there’d be more, and that it would not be nice at all—not nice to US ally Israel, and not nice to the Jews. Not respectful. Painful to hear and read. A betrayal. We wish we could leave our children forever innocent of such things, forever in love with wonderful America. We would give anything not to have our Jewish children, whether Israeli or American, or any children at all, including those who reside in Gaza and in the Occupied Jewish Territories (OJT), hear such things as Matthew Miller would now say as an official representative of the United States of America:

"We are also concerned about the continuation of violence in Israel and the West Bank in recent weeks that has killed and injured Palestinian and Israeli civilians. We will continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to promote steps towards de-escalation."

This is a very problematic statement. There is a vague mention of “violence” but not one word about terror. There is an allusion to a nonexistent “Palestinian” state “in Israel and the West Bank,” as if Israel’s Jewish heartland, Judea and Samaria, had already been swallowed whole by this nonentity, a done deal.

I take it personally. To me this is the US spitting in my face because I make my home in Judea.

Efrat

Miller speaks of violence in “recent weeks” equating the terror attack on Jewish civilians getting gas, with soldiers on missions in Jenin for the specific purpose of routing out terrorists so that they may be brought to justice, and of course, in order to protect Israeli citizens. It is not easy to be a soldier in that situation and having to enter a hostile terrorist enclave like Jenin. The violent (!) locals, bred to hate Jews, lie in wait for Jewish soldiers and drop concrete blocks on their heads, which is how Ronen Lubarsky (HY”D) was killed. And that’s the least of it.

This was not two equal warring parties, but the IDF doing the right thing—the morally correct thing—by apprehending terrorists so that they can no longer injure or murder Jews. Yet the State Department speaks of violence “that has killed and injured Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” saying “Palestinian” first, to show evenhandedness. Or rather, to say to the terrorists, “We close our eyes to what you are, because to do otherwise would not be the popular thing to do and anyway, nobody cares about the Jews.”

This is not, in actual fact, both-siding it, but one-siding it, by dint of lumping terrorists in with their victims. No matter how neutral they seem, they’re taking a side, and it ain’t the side of the Jews. Miller’s prepared remarks speak of violence as a spontaneous eruption that has no source, “violence” that kills, similar to saying that guns kill when guns don’t generally shoot themselves.

Violence doesn’t kill. Guns don’t kill. Terrorists kill. Those who murder people at a gas station are terrorists. Violent protestors who impede an IDF mission are not “civilians” but enemy combatants. Even when they are 17, rather than 26. Perhaps especially so. (Why aren’t they kept away from the “violence” by the adults?)

In not holding them guilty, you take their side. You take the side of terror. What is wrong with the United States that it excuses terror? And what is wrong with the people of Jenin?

Jenin

What is wrong with the residents of Jenin is that they see nothing wrong with killing Jews. So much so that town is now an Iranian stronghold. The US, on the other hand has no good excuse for equating victim with perpetrator, thus excusing terror, because all things being equal, it’s just violence, right?

No one’s responsible. “Palestinian” casualties are mentioned before Israeli casualties to identify for us the guilty party, as if that hadn’t already been made perfectly clear: Israel started it, because the “Palestinian” dead were mentioned first.

Miller winds up his canned remarks by stating that the US will “continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to promote steps towards de-escalation,” as if the latter two parties were equal partners, as if the PA were not sworn to murder Jews and steal their land, as if Israel had no reasonable motive for being in Jenin in the first place—and as if Jews had no right to be at a gas station near Eli.

What does it mean to speak of de-escalating when you won’t say the T word? It means, “Israel, knock it off. Back off these terrorists. We can’t and won’t take your side on this. Diplomacy. Realpolitik. (Black gold, Texas tea.)

Wait, whut??

This is, incredibly, the official position of the White House, and it is as abhorrent as it is antisemitic. But then it’s not just official US that officially hates the Jews. It’s the done thing the world over. The EU, UK, UN (here and here, for example), Canada. They all do it. Such examples are too numerous to mention. It’s certainly not the first time a spokesperson for the Biden White House has expressed this same antisemitic sentiment.

Thanks to all of these world powers, and many, many others, the “de-escalation” of “violence” will not be occurring any time soon. How can you de-escalate violence when you can’t name its source? How can you sue for peace when you excuse terror BECAUSE of the identity of the victims: “it’s only the Jews again”?

In effect, this is the world blaming Jews for all that happens to them by making them responsible for being Jewish in the first place. (Jews, ya know. Everyone hates ‘em. Totally disposable. Easy to exploit. For centuries.)

For that is the way of the world. The US et al. don’t want de-escalation. If they did, they’d support Israel in its efforts to eliminate terror, by eliminating terrorists such as those stowed away in Jenin—terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. Innocent blood. But Jewish blood. Specifically.

Israelis are meant to take it on the chin, like good Jews.

We can almost feel the pat on the head.

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!

On Sunday, the Israeli Prime Minister's office issued a brief statement:

In the framework of the existing efforts between the State of Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority (PA), with emphasis on Palestinian economic development and maintaining security stability in the region, it has been decided to develop the Gaza Marine gas field off the coast of Gaza.

Implementing the project is subject to coordination between the security services and direct dialogue with Egypt, in coordination with the PA, and the completion of inter-ministerial staff work led by the National Security Council, in order to maintain the security and diplomatic interests of the State of Israel on the matter.

This is very vague.

In the past, Israel has tied the development of the field off the Gaza coast to returning the Israeli hostages and recovering the bodies of Israeli soldiers still held by Hamas.

But it looks like Netanyahu is dropping that condition and playing some word games:

An unnamed Israeli official at the prime minister’s office told Ynet on Sunday that all of the security agencies recommended the government approve the project. The same agencies had also approved the resolution of the maritime border dispute with Lebanon in November 2022, but Netanyahu rejected the recommendation, and the agreement with Lebanon was reached under the previous Bennett-Lapid government.
“The issue of the [Israeli] prisoners and missing people was and still is a condition for the development of infrastructure in Gaza. In this case [of the Marine field], we are not talking about Gaza infrastructure, but rather about an agreement with the PA and with Egypt," said the official.

Hamas has been pretty much maintaining calm in Gaza since Israel has allowed thousands of Gazans to work in Israel. It seems like Netanyahu (and Israel's security agencies) are looking at Gaza Marine as a means to make life easier for Gazans but Israel could theoretically turn the spigot off in case Hamas decides to resume hostilities.

If that is the logic, there are a couple of flaws. One is that if there is a direct line of natural gas from the field to Gaza, Israel could not turn it off, because that would look clearly like collective punishment.

The real fear is that the revenues would help fund more Hamas weapons and attacks. This will undoubtedly happen. Is that certainty worth the possibility/probability that Hamas will keep Gaza quiet?

Which brings up the other problem. While Hamas might be quieter in Gaza, they are active in the West Bank and taking credit for terror attacks. When Abbas is gone, while there is infighting within Fatah to replace him, Hamas is planning to take advantage of the chaos to make its own bid for controlling the West Bank. And the Gaza money will be critical to that plan succeeding.

Beyond that, what's wrong with leveraging Gaza Marine to get the hostages back? Why give up a concession and get nothing in return? Why not publicly tell the world, "We are happy to allow Gaza gas to be exported as soon as our boys come home?" Europe needs to replace Russian gas, which is why this has become a hot issue over the past year again. Why not give them a reason to pressure Hamas?

I hope Bibi knows what he is doing, and that there will be appropriate guardrails on this effort.

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!

06/21 Links Pt1: Glick: What’s behind the escalating Palestinian terror offensive; Biden’s Ties That Bind; Fatah: Murderers of 4 Israelis are “heroic Martyrs” and “men true to what they promised Allah”

From Ian:

Funerals held for victims of Eli terror attack

Hundreds of Israelis paid their last respects on Tuesday to Elisha Anteman and Harel Masoud, two victims of the day’s Palestinian terrorist attack near Eli in the Binyamin region of Samaria.

The funerals of Ofer Fairman of Eli and Nachman Shmuel Mordoff of Ahiya took place on Wednesday.

Anteman, 17, a 12th-grade student at a seminary in Eli, was buried in the town.

Masoud, 21, had just completed his military service. He was laid to rest in Moshav Yesodot, in the Nahal Sorek region.

Eulogizing her son Harel, Yael Masoud said, “Our beautiful Haralush [“little Harel”]. I can’t understand that you are not here with us. How can we talk about you in the past tense? You have only just been released from the army, from the most rigid framework, and you have only blossomed. Now that you have finally started to live, to fulfill your dream and to settle the land you loved—now she is taking you to the depths of her land.”

The 63-year-old Fairman was buried in Eli. Those who knew him said he was “a man above and beyond, full of light and goodness. A man who loves to help everyone, unimaginable.”

Mordoff, 17, was buried in Shiloh. He leaves behind parents and seven siblings. His family said at the funeral that Mordoff was “a smiling boy, energetic and loved by all his friends. He was always involved in the sacred, helping others, smiling and strengthening the weak.” Friends and family attend the funeral in Shiloh of Nachman Shmuel Mordoff, 17, June 21, 2023. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.

The four Israelis were killed, and four others wounded, when two masked Palestinian terrorists arrived at a gas station near the community of Eli, in the Binyamin region north of Jerusalem, and fired on diners at an eatery there. Morel Nikkel, a security guard from Eli, returned fire, killing one of the terrorists. The second was killed several hours later in a shootout with security forces in the city of Tubas.

From the depths of my heart, I send condolences to the families of those who were murdered, may God avenge them, and on behalf of the entire people, I send my best wishes for a swift recovery to the wounded.
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) June 20, 2023

Caroline Glick: What’s behind the escalating Palestinian terror offensive

The Biden administration is the fourth factor emboldening the Palestinians to attack Israel today. On Sunday, just before IDF forces were ambushed, the State Department issued a condemnation of Israel’s decision to permit Jews to build 4,000 new homes in Judea and Samaria and ease the approval of future building requests. State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller excoriated the decision as “an obstacle to peace.”

Following the massacre in Eli on Monday, U.S. Ambassador Tom Nides tweeted out a statement that indicated that for the Biden administration, there is no difference between the deliberate murder of Israeli civilians and the incidental death of Palestinians during a gunfight between Palestinian terrorists and IDF forces.

Nides wrote, “Deeply concerned about the civilian deaths and injuries that have occurred in the West Bank these past 48 hours, including that of minors. Praying for the families as they mourn the loss of loved ones, or tend to those injured.”

Nides posted an additional, unconditional condemnation of the massacre in Eli after he came under massive criticism and Israel’s Ambassador in Washington Mike Herzog wrote, “Any attempt of a so called ‘balanced’ condemnation is misguided and disrespectful to the memory of the victims.”

The administration’s open hostility towards Israel, and desire to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israel, along with its massive financial and military assistance to the P.A. despite the P.A.’s underwriting and sponsorship of terrorism and rejection of Israel’s right to exist, is a major backwind for Palestinian terrorism.

In blaming Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and IDF counterterror operations for Palestinian massacres of Israelis, the Biden administration is effectively embracing the mendacious Palestinian narrative. That narrative rests on four falsehoods:

First, that the Jewish people are not the descendants of Jews of biblical times.

Second, the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jebusites and Canaanites, who disappeared 3,000 years ago, and of the Philistines who disappeared 2,700 years ago.

Third, that Israel is a colonialist power which can only be permitted to exist by appeasing the Palestinians.

Finally, based on their fabricated Palestinian history and erasure of Jewish history, the Palestinians insist that rejecting the Jewish people’s right to freedom and self-determination in their homeland is not anti-Jewish.

On Tuesday evening, news reports indicated that the IDF is finally beginning to come around to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet’s view that the time has come to take off the kid gloves and carry out a major counterterror operation in northern Samaria. At least, the IDF is reportedly rethinking its position on roadblocks.

The coming days will tell whether the Netanyahu government and the IDF have decided to take serious action against the growing power and boldness of Palestinian terrorists, particularly in northern Samaria. But what is clear enough is that without major military action, the security situation in Judea and Samaria and countrywide will only grow more precarious.

Every successful assault and massacre increases the terrorists’ confidence and boldness. If Israel fails to act aggressively, the attacks will spread through Judea, Jerusalem and central Israel. Israeli Arabs, incited against Israel and awash with illegal weapons, are also liable to join the terrorist ranks.

Tuesday’s massacre needs to be a glaring warning. The time to act is upon us.

Nides appears to draw equivalence between Eli terror attack, IDF Jenin operation

Mere hours after Palestinian terrorists murdered four Israelis and injured four others, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides tweeted a statement.

“Deeply concerned about the civilian deaths and injuries that have occurred in the West Bank these past 48 hours, including that of minors,” he wrote. “Praying for the families as they mourn the loss of loved ones, or tend to those injured.”

On Monday, Israeli forces struck targets in Jenin after a deadly gun battle erupted during an IDF counter-terror raid in the city. Five Palestinian gunmen were killed, and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded.

“Unfortunate statement from Israel’s best friend and ally. It borders on moral equivalency!” tweeted Abraham Foxman, the former head of the Anti-Defamation League.

Arsen Ostrovsky, CEO of the International Legal Forum, also responded on Twitter. “Mr. Ambassador, might you clarify your statement? Are you referring to today’s massacre of four Israelis, by Palestinian terrorists in Eli? Or that Israel was forced to defend its citizens from terrorists in Jenin yesterday?” he wrote. “I sincerely hope you are not implying moral equivalence.”

Rabbi Elchanan Poupko, who teaches at a New York Jewish day school, wrote that the ambassador’s statement was very poorly worded. “Palestinians massacred four Israelis and injured eight. Please don’t All-Lives-Matter it.”

“Are you equating Israeli terror victims to terrorists themselves who were killed?” added Aaron Goren, a CAMERA on Campus advisor.

“As a U.S. citizen, I am dismayed at the lumping together of terror victims and those killed in a terrorist firefight with the IDF days earlier,” another Twitter user posted. “Good to know not much has changed in the State Department.”

One thing did change. Nearly an hour after Nides posted the first tweet, he tweeted another statement. “I condemn in the strongest terms the senseless murder of four innocent Israelis today—my heart is with their grieving family members,” he wrote.

Notice the time stamps. They suggest that the first tweet is a statement of policy. The second tweet is an effort to manage the immediate and harsh public backlash from the statement of policy. pic.twitter.com/BXptLXHxI8
— Mike (@Doranimated) June 20, 2023

Here State Dept. I fixed the statement for you. https://t.co/eIBDRVdJih pic.twitter.com/sDx0Mbdlh1
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 21, 2023

Typically pathetic statement from EU on the massacre in Eli yesterday, in which 4 Israelis were murdered.

* Cannot just unequivocally condemn the attack.
* Not able to bring themselves to say Palestinians perpetrated the massacre.
* Could not resist invoking settlements. pic.twitter.com/cixnudUSGt
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 21, 2023

This is how it is should be done https://t.co/m3nO8uXuaO
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) June 20, 2023

This morning, a 15 year old Palestinian girl who was shot in the head during Monday's clashes in Jenin died of her injuries. This brought the death toll of the fighting to 7.

By all accounts and videos, the fighting in Jenin was fierce. Constant gunfire is heard. We have video of terrorists firing from a mosque.

But, invariably, even though there were bullets coming from every direction, every civilian killed is blamed on Israel.

Of those killed in Jenin, two were members of terror groups and two were throwing stones at the IDF soldiers who were trapped in the camp after the IED blast that disabled their armored vehicle. Three civilians have died - a 21 year old university student, a 48 year old man and now this 15 year old girl.

While we know Palestinian gunmen fire wildly in all directions, and the IDF is far more professional in targeting and firing, "human rights groups" like PCHR - who aren't on the scene - reflexively blame the IDF for all civilian deaths. The Palestinian Ministry of Health automatically blames every death on Israel.

And the media accepts these unfounded assertions because they don't want to contradict the "narrative."

A spokesperson told Army Radio said that the chances that Israeli forces hit the girl were “low”. It takes time for the IDF to investigate each death, and by the time they do, the media has moved on to the next story.

There is no doubt that Palestinians are injured and killed from Palestinian fire. We see it happen from misfired rockets in Gaza. We see masked gunmen firing without aiming. We see trigger happy militants firing wildly in the air. And Palestinians have a lot more to gain from their own civilian casualties than Israel does.

What needs to change is the assumption that every Palestinian civilian death during firefights is killed by Israel. The IDF makes some mistakes but they are the exception, not the rule.

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!

Israel's Kan News reports:

During a discussion held last week in the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the Knesset, it was revealed that a Hezbollah force invaded the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, in the Mount Dov sector, and established an armed military position there. This was announced today (Wednesday) for the first time in the program "Hatze Hayom".

These facts were discovered and discussed by several members of the Knesset in a meeting held last Tuesday in the committee, with the participation of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Members of the Knesset drew the Prime Minister's attention to an unusual and serious incident that is taking place on the northern border.

According to what was said in the discussion, in recent weeks a Hezbollah force crossed the Blue Line on Mount Dov and set up two tents inside Israeli territory. The position is manned by Hezbollah with several armed men on its side (between three and eight) who are stationed in front of the IDF soldiers within the sovereign territory of the State of Israel.

The IDF spokesman's response: "The issue is recognized and being dealt with in front of all the relevant parties."

This IDF response does not fill one with confidence.

After Israel withdrew behind the Blue Line in 2000, certified by the UN, Hezbollah created the fiction that the Shebaa Farms/Mount Dov area that was under Israeli control was still Lebanese and uses that as a pretext to continue building its massive arsenal, to "defend" Lebanon from "Zionist aggression."

Israel captured the area from Syria in 1967. Interestingly, Syria's president has said that that the Shebaa Farms is Syrian, not Lebanese.

Hezbollah has been aggressive in recent years in shoring up its forces on the Blue Line while providing pretexts to UNIFIL that it wasn't changing anything. It seems unlikely that either the UN forces or the Lebanese Armed Forces would do anything to force Hezbollah out of the area; after all, Hezbollah as an armed group is not allowed to exist in the entire southern Lebanon under UNSC resolution 1701.

Israeli territory is being stolen by a terrorist group. It seems unbelievable that Israel would outsource the solution to the impotent UN.

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 is a subtext behind all reporting out of Israel. This subtext is both bigoted against Arabs and antisemitic at its core - at the same time. And it is a subtext that is accepted not only by the media but by many Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs as well.

The unwritten rule of all media coverage is that only Arabs are allowed to be angry. Only Arabs are allowed to act irrationally. Only Arabs gain sympathy for reacting to things that upset them with violence.

After every terror attack, without fail, the terror groups and Palestinian apologists say as a chorus, "This attack was a natural reaction to their suffering at the hands of Israelis."

Yet when Jews act with 10% of the irrationality and anger that the Palestinians are expected to act with all the time, it is proof that there is something deeply wrong with the Jews.

From Times of Israel:

Israeli settler vigilantes tore through several Palestinian towns in the West Bank following a deadly shooting attack on a nearby settlement Tuesday night, setting cars and fields on fire, vandalizing homes and terrorizing residents in a grim repeat of an incident some termed a pogrom earlier this year.

Palestinians in Luban a-Sharqiya, Huwara, Beit Furik, Burin and other towns south of Nablus in the northern West Bank said carloads of settlers rampaged through the villages Tuesday night, hurling stones and setting cars, fields, homes and other property ablaze.

Three Israelis were arrested over the attacks, Israel’s Ynet news reported.

The rampage was set off by an attack hours earlier in which two Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a hummus restaurant and gas station in the settlement of Eli, killing four people, including two 17-year-old boys, and injuring four others.

I want to be crystal clear: these vigilante actions are wrong and should be condemned.

But both Jews and Palestinian Arabs should be judged the same way. When Palestinians riot, it is just as wrong as when Jews riot. When Palestinians attack civilians, it is just as wrong as when Jews attack civilians. While Jews are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard and not attack random Palestinians, Palestinians should be held to the exact same standard and not excused when they attack random Jews.

Anything else is bigotry - bigotry that says that Arabs are naturally violent, and bigotry that says Jews must not show anger when their friends are murdered.

When Jews get targeted and murdered by Palestinians, the media shows lots of photos of crying Jews at the funeral. When a Palestinian dies and Jews are blamed, it shows angry crowds. Jews are expected to rise above such base emotions as anger and vengeance while Arabs are not.

Double standards for Jews and for Palestinians is bigotry, by definition. It is a bigotry that is embraced by the media as well as by Palestinians and terror supporters who justify every terror act, no matter how heinous, as natural and acceptable and part of a "cycle of violence." . And to an extent Israelis are guilty of it as well, priding themselves on being on a different moral plane than Palestinians are. For the most part, that is true, but that attitude also helps keep the status quo of Palestinians being expected to act like animals.

Both sides should be expected to act morally and according to the law. Neither side should target civilians, ever. Neither side should celebrate the deaths of innocents on the other side (and only one side ever does that.) And each side should strive to always be better, to improve, to be more moral.

It is up to the players themselves to choose to act morally, to rise above the desire for blind vengeance. It is not for the world to impose one set of morality on one side and a completely different set of standards, or no standards whatsoever, on the other.

By the same token, it is human to get angry when something truly outrageous occurs, and Jews have that right as much as Palestinians do. Chanting "Death to Arabs" is unacceptable, but "Death to Hamas" is appropriate. It is antisemitic to insist that Jews react to Palestinian atrocities with nothing but coolness, logic and restraint.

All of this should be obvious. But the reality is that expectations are very different for the two sides. The world tolerates and encourages this bigotry, and the violence is partially a result of these double standards. The Western world, by accepting Palestinian irrationality as normal, encourages more terror.

Judge everyone equally. Be more critical of the side that acts with less regard for human life and that literally celebrates death.

Why is that such a difficult concept?

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!

06/20 Links Pt2: Glick: Biden is Back in Bed with UNESCO; Why I don’t love ‘Jew hate’ as a substitute for ‘antisemitism’; Glastonbury cancelling 'the Big lie' shows how far the far-left have fallen

From Ian:

Why I don’t love ‘Jew hate’ as a substitute for ‘antisemitism’

The term “antisemitism” — like the reality it describes — encompasses not only hate, but also fear and envy. People can fear or envy Jews without hating them. True, these biases can lead to stereotypes about Jews and the negative consequences of those stereotypes. People with preconceived notions about Jews are likely to notice and remember selectively or simply hear and believe whatever supports their biases while disregarding, disbelieving or downplaying information to the contrary. One Jewish head of a major newspaper or movie studio, according to this thinking, shows that Jews control the media. In this way, antisemitism can be self-perpetuating even when not powered by outright hatred.

“Jew hate” does not take into account apathy, the lack of concern that throughout history has allowed the actual haters to get away with much more than they would have otherwise. Nor does “Jew hate” take into account a dangerous kind of admiration. Well-meaning people may have positive stereotypes about Jews being intelligent and good in certain professions. These biases are not hateful, but they do reduce Jews to stereotypes.

“Jew hate” does not adequately capture antisemitism born of ignorance — not only of Jewish history and culture but also of the history and effects of antisemitism. Ignorance about Jewish culture, history and traditions can contribute to discrimination against Jews, thus perpetuating antisemitism even when there is no hate. The rising and amazing ignorance of the facts of the Holocaust, for example, sets the stage for more people to dismiss or downplay its severity. That, in turn, will breed resentment — or worse — toward Jews, who are increasingly being cast as obnoxious and self-pitying for insisting that the Shoah happened and seeking to remind the world how bad it was.

If it irritates people when a Jew doesn’t care to join them in singing Christmas carols or to buy the annual Christmas stamp, that’s not necessarily hatred. It’s probably just ignorance of what it means to be in the minority versus the majority. Nevertheless, such ignorance, like ignorance of the Holocaust, can have an antisemitic effect.

Most alarming, the concept of “Jew hate” undermines the fight against antisemitism by — and this was supposed to be a point in its favor — making antisemitism just one instance of a broader category: hate. It should go without saying that one should be against most forms of hate. “Hate has no home here” lawn signs are admirable. But there are essential differences between each form of hate. They are not simply flavors to be served up when the media or a corporation wants to take a popular position. Diseases of the society, like diseases of the body, need to be understood and combatted on their own specific terms. Antisemitism has its own distinct history and pathology. The fight against antisemitism is not just the fight against white supremacy or misogyny or Islamophobia with a different name on the tee shirt.

Ultimately, what worries me most is that the concept of “Jew hate” lets people off too easily. Most people aren’t going to defend hatred, but having disavowed hatred, there’s still a lot to answer for. Antisemitism is real and there seems to be no end in sight. The digital age has amplified the speed and spread of anti-Jewish tropes, extremist ideologies and antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Metal detectors and armed guards are now common at major Jewish gatherings. That’s a sign of real sickness in the culture, but rebranding antisemitism to fit more neatly into the “fight hate” agenda isn’t the cure.

The Caroline Glick Show: Biden is Back in Bed with UNESCO

The US is rejoining UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council sets out on its most anti-Israel and anti-semitic inquiry yet.

To discuss this, Caroline’s guest on this week’s Caroline Glick Show is Prof. Anne Bayefsky. Prof. Bayefsky is the Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and President of Human Rights Voices. Bayefsky has an encyclopedic knowledge of the UN, its official bodies and agencies and their anti-Semitic campaigns.

They delve into
- how rejoining UNESCO is rewarding the Palestinians and an organization that works against US interests
- the antisemitic nature of the new inquiry by the UN Human Rights Council
- what the US Congress can do

Alex Soros: The Mirror Image of His Israel-Hating Father

Critics of Alex Soros view his efforts to undercut a popular and mainstream definition of antisemitism as turning back the clock on the fight against antisemitism in the name of a backward left-wing ideology.

Alex Soros wrote that "critics grew increasingly concerned that the definition had been 'hijacked' by some pro-Israeli groups to shield the government from accountability for its human rights policies, as a group of 100 scholars wrote in a statement urging the U.N. not to adopt the IHRA language."

Fox News Digital has reported over the years on alleged anti-Israel and antsemitism scandals that have plagued the world body.

Alex Soros added in his article that "It is essential that the tools used to combat antisemitism cannot be repurposed to target academics, activists, students and advocacy groups that voice support for Palestinian human rights."

Chikli fired back: "Shamefully, his son is fighting the International Holocaust Remember Alliance."

Alex Soros and the Open Society Foundations did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital press queries.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Los Angeles-based human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center, told Fox News Digital, "If I had $25 billion to put in play, I would stay far from politically linked institutions and instead focus on helping to transform societies by helping guarantee universal education and health care for billions of people who currently do not have full access to these fundamentals. In the Gulf and Maghreb, I would invest in projects that would give young people jobs and with it hope for a brighter future; environmental projects that would provide clean water, air and energy – would benefit all people."

Cooper continued "If Soros Junior wants to make a long-lasting contribution to transforming the world, he would also do well to roll up his sleeves and personally help the poor and indigent. Money alone will never guarantee results – not in parts of the world where billions in aid have poured into countries, some of which are failed states."

The prominent rabbi added, "And as for Israel and Jewish people the world over, remember Jews also have needs and also have rights. Show respect to the lone Jewish state, which had it existed in 1939, the Nazi Holocaust, the murder of 6 million Jews and the disastrous impact on children, like his father, would never had happened."

George Soros survived the Holocaust in Hungary. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who published "The Soros Agenda" in April, told Fox News Digital that she expects "Alexander to increase his funding of progressive left, globalized and woke agendas and support anti-U.S. and anti-Israel organizations."

Her book devotes a chapter to Soros-funded organizations that "criminalize the state of Israel," she said.

The decision of the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund, one of the largest funds in the world, to maintain its investment in Israel, and specifically in Israeli banks that provide services to companies in Judea & Samaria, is one of the most breathtaking victories against BDS! https://t.co/SsvdVxvEtL
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 19, 2023

The absurdity of "Palestine Refugees," illustrated by Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera published this graphic to illustrate who has been a refugee for the past 75 years.

Notice that the Palestine stream is the only one (besides "Others") that keeps getting bigger and bigger. Every other individual refugee situation either disappears eventually or, in the case of Afghanistan, cycles to an extent.

The UNHCR annual report gives all the proof we need to show how UNRWA should be dismantled.

Of course, if we would apply the Refugee Convention definition of refugee to Palestinians, there wouldn't be 5.9 million. There wouldn't be 30,000.

And even if you include descendants of refugees, the number would still be roughly one million, since nearly 5 million are either full citizens of another country (Jordan - 2M), they live in British Mandate Palestine (West Bank/Gaza- 2.2M) or they have already moved to other countries (most from Lebanon ~300K and many from Syria ~200K.)

Instead of 17% of world refugees being Palestinian, it is between 0-3% by any sane definition.

When statistics are subjective with different rules for different people, they are meaningless. And when they are weighted to damn only the Jewish state, they are 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!

It is a depressingly familiar scene:

Four Israelis were killed and another four were wounded in a shooting attack by two terrorists at a gas station outside of the West Bank settlement of Eli on Tuesday afternoon.
"Two terrorists entered a restaurant near the gas station [where they] shot and killed three civilians. They then came out and fatally shot a civilian who was refueling his car. Another citizen who was at the gas station opened fire and managed to neutralize one of the terrorists, the other apparently fled the scene," ZAKA (rescue and recovery organization) spokesman Moti Bookchin said.

I'm not talking about the attack, although that is sadly familiar as well. I'm talking about the things that happen after these attacks.

The script is identical, yet the media avoids describing it.

1. One terrorist was killed immediately and Israel tracked down and eliminated the remaining terrorist. Palestinian media and anti-Israel social media report on those deaths as if they are the main story.

2. Palestinians celebrate dead Jews.

Here is a photo of handing out sweets in Gaza, and video of a mosque in Gaza celebrating the murders.

3. Human rights groups refuse to condemn the targeting of Jewish civilians, and they won't say a word until Israel retaliates = and then when they condemn Israel, they might mention something briefly about the murders.

As a reminder,. Jews living in Judea and Samaria are civilians according to international law. They must be protected like any other civilians are. Their choice of living in their ancient Jewish homeland also claimed by some Arabs does not mitigate their right to life in the least.

But the human rights community treats them as subhuman, at best as if they are to blame for their deaths, when their murders are even mentioned. They are consistently referred to by "human rights" leaders as "illegal" - a term never used for those who murder them.

This always happens,. The media ignores it. And it proves that Jewish lives don't matter.

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!

06/20 Links Pt1: An Inquisition, Not an Inquiry; 27 states call out bias of UN's Inquiry; Four dead, four wounded in West Bank gas station shooting attack

From Ian:

An Inquisition, Not an Inquiry

The first interim report, published in May 2022, concludes that “prima facie evidence… convincingly indicates that Israel has no intention of ending the occupation.” It’s an odd assertion to make in light of historical evidence. In all three rounds of final status talks since the Oslo process began (2000-1, 2007-8, 2013-4), Israel made its willingness to withdraw from nearly all occupied territory in exchange for peace public and known, but all three rounds ended with Palestinian rejections of mediated offers for Palestinian statehood, without any real pushback from Arab public opinion or from the various international bodies aligned with the Palestinian cause.

But nowhere is rejection of Israel mentioned in either the reports, the terms of reference, or in any of the hearings. And for a commission so keen to find evidence of “systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity,” they are surprisingly silent on antisemitism in the Arab World as a cause, or even an effect, of the conflict. Nothing about the pogroms of Arab masses against Jewish minorities in the first half of the twentieth century, nothing about the Arab attempt to wipe out the Jewish state in 1948 and 1967, nothing about the mass expulsions and ethnic cleansing of Jewish minorities that had lived in the Middle East for millennia in the middle of the twentieth century, and nothing about the decades of violent attacks on Jews and Jewish targets throughout the world in the name of the Palestinian “struggle.” Do any of these things have any bearing on Israel’s actions or on the reasons why Jews in the Middle East feel so strongly that they need a state? The COI won’t ask, the witnesses it calls won’t say, and its reports won’t even mention.

The second mandate isn’t actually a call to investigate the roots of the conflict and the ways to solve it. It is, rather, a denial that there ever was a conflict. Not just a denial of armed action by Arabs against Jews, but a denial of the cause they fought for.

In the intellectual ecosystem of obsessive Israel-hatred, this is why the “apartheid” charge is so crucial — and why the groundwork is already being laid for the next buzzword that will inevitably be thrown at Israel within the coming decade, “genocide.”

The shift from Arab-Israeli conflict to Israeli-Palestinian conflict was needed to deny that a tiny minority in the middle east was being attacked by the overwhelming majority, which had mostly succeeded in wiping out that minority’s presence wherever it was unable to defend itself. The shift from Israeli-Palestinian conflict to occupation was needed to deny a conflict at all and thus any kind of reckoning with the actions of both sides rather than just the one that had won most of the wars. If the problem is just the occupation, then the whole issue is just the sin of the Israelis. The shift from occupation to apartheid means that the sin cannot be expiated. It is rather, essential to the existence of Israel. An occupation can end, but if the whole concept of a Jewish state is itself evil, then pathological hatred of it can be maintained and nurtured regardless of what it does.

In this ecosystem, the pathology that animates the Arab war against Jews in the Middle East is both unspoken and implicitly adopted. Obsessive hatred of Israel, the cause for so many pointless wars, is not only given no explanatory power for the Palestinian predicament, it is actually internalized as a normative position of human rights. Israel isn’t conceived of as a state that may do bad things, but rather as an entity whose very existence is an affront to all that is good and righteous in the world.

Sometimes this becomes almost self-parodying. The COI’s report promises that a “gender analysis is being mainstreamed throughout the Commission’s work.” To this end, every few pages there will be a random reference to Israel’s supposed crimes against women.

The non sequiturs about gender are far more revealing and informative than intended. At first glance, they are disjointed, out of context, and sometimes make improbably inferences about the actual parties in the conflict (is Palestinian society really such a feminist paradise in comparison to Israeli society?). But if you are theologically committed to the idea that one people bear the sins of humanity with them, then it is not a great leap attaching whatever the social ill of the day is to that people. Next year’s report on Israeli abuses might include a few random mentions of how the occupation contributes to climate change or racist policing in the West or whatever new issue arises without materially affecting its quality.

This is not nearly as new as it seems.

US leads 27 nations in castigating an anti-Israel UN commission

The United States issued a joint statement Tuesday on behalf of 27 countries, saying they are “deeply concerned” about a United Nations commission accused of bias against Israel and populated with members with histories of antisemitism.

The U.N. Commission of Inquiry investigating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is delivering its latest report to the U.N. Human Rights Council today in Geneva.

The Human Rights Council created the three-person commission in 2021 following an 11-day conflict (“Operation Guardian of the Walls”) between Israel and terrorist groups in Gaza. The commission was given a unique open-ended mandate: It is charged with investigating any Israeli human rights violations both inside and outside the country’s sovereign territory.

Michèle Taylor, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, said in the joint statement that the commission’s mandate, “with no sunset clause, end date, or clear limitations connected to the escalation in May 2021,” led to many of the council’s members expressing “fundamental concerns” when the resolution creating the commission came up for adoption.

“To be clear, no one is above scrutiny and it is this council’s responsibility to promote and protect human rights the world over. We must work to counter impunity and promote accountability on a basis of consistent and universally applied standards,” the statement reads. “We believe the nature of this COI [commission of inquiry] is further demonstration of long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the council, and must stop.”

The signatories to the joint statement include a diverse geographical group. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Eswatini, Fiji, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, North Macedonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Togo and the United Kingdom joined Washington in signing on.

That is five more countries than signed on to a previous statement critical of the commission of inquiry and its members.

Disproportionate scrutiny
“We continue to believe that this long-standing disproportionate scrutiny should end, and that the council should address all human rights concerns, regardless of country, in an even-handed manner. Regrettably, we are concerned that the Commission of Inquiry will further contribute to the polarization of a situation about which so many of us are concerned,” Tuesday’s statement concluded.

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen issued a statement on Tuesday calling the commission’s latest report “one-sided and false.”

2/ “We believe the nature of this Commission of Inquiry is further demonstration of long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the Council, and must stop.

The Council should address all human rights concerns, regardless of country, in an even-handed manner.…
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 20, 2023

UN Watch: 27 states call out bias of UN's Pillay Commission of Inquiry

“We believe the nature of this Commission of Inquiry is further demonstration of long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the Council, and must stop.

The Council should address all human rights concerns, regardless of country, in an even-handed manner.

Regrettably, we are concerned that the Commission of Inquiry will further contribute to the polarization of a situation about which so many of us are concerned.”

Hi @AustraliaUN_GVA, might I enquire please, is there a reason Australia did not join the statement of these 27 nations in condemning the abhorrently one-sided and discriminatory UN Commission against Israel? Australia at least issued statement last year. @dfat @AusAmbIsrael https://t.co/wspSRSfS4p
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 20, 2023

2/ “One of our obstacles to our work is the Media. We are particularly disturbed by the Western media in the manner in which it reports the situation on the ground. The case of Al-Aska [sic] Mosque is the most glaring where a direct military intervention to attack worshippers in…
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 20, 2023

Palestinian terrorists shoot at journalists, Israel blamed

Haaretz reported about the clashes in Jenin yesterday, and fully accepted the idea that unseen snipers shooting towards the journalists were Israeli and not Palestinian.

Abu Ahmed, a long-time camp resident, said he had the impression that the army was planning to undertake a large-scale operation in the city and its environs. Residents say that when the presence of Israeli forces was detected, calls went out from muezzins for armed militias to come out and confront them, which ultimately led to the heavy fire that followed.

“I was in Al-Awdah Square on the edge of the Jenin refugee camp,” said Hafez, a journalist who was covering the raid. “I was in my car. They shot at random while I was photographing the clashes and the Palestinian fighters.” At a certain point, he said, three bullets were fired at his car. “Two of them I heard flying past me, but the third hit the car door on the driver’s side.”

He claims that the shots were not fired at him accidentally. “Our car is a marked journalist’s car and I was wearing a vest identifying me as press.”

Hafez said he was shot at a second time even though he was wearing clothing indicating he was a journalist. “We were about a kilometer away, on Haifa Street, on the road that leads to the Salam army checkpoint. We were eight journalists from the international and Arab media and we came under direct fire from a sniper in one of the buildings,” he recalled. “We were trapped there for 20 minutes and could only leave when it was all over.”

Jasmin – another journalist who was with a colleague of hers who was shot – confirmed the account. “We’re journalists and we were wearing clothing that identified us as such, [even donning] helmets,” she said. “They started shooting at us. We hadn’t done anything, we were only taking pictures. We fled but they kept shooting at us.”

She said that in the area the raid occurred there were no armed Palestinians, “just civilians, children and journalists.” Like Hafez, she said she and her colleagues were fired on “more than once on the same day.”

The journalists are implying that the snipers were Israeli and the story is being reported that way in Arab media.

The Telegraph has video of journalists taking cover on a rooftop, although some are crouching opposite others, so there is no way to know from which direction the fire is coming.

There appears to be some play-acting in this video - some journalists taking cover behind a wall while others stand around where they'd be seen by snipers, apparently unconcerned. But the gunfire is real, and the journalists certainly are not in a position to identify the source.

While they are careful when speaking to The Telegraph not to claim they know the identity of the snipers, being that they are all Palestinian journalists, they of course will blame Israel when speaking to friendlier media.

What is certain is that trained, professional soldiers do not fire wildly and randomly. They might mistake a target but they fire at targets. The random fire described in the Haaretz article is far more likely from Jenin terrorists, whom we know will fire without even looking at their target.

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!