Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, September 06, 2023

Over and over again: Mahmoud Abbas spouts Jew-hatred. He is pressured to apologize and does it again. And the world continues to respect him.

In April 2018, Palestinian Authority president and PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave an antisemitic speech where he claimed that Ashkenazic Jews were not really Jews, that Jews throughout history including during the Holocaust were hated not because they were Jews but because of how they acted, that Jews were never persecuted in Arab lands and that Jews have no connection to the Land of Israel.

World leaders expressed outrage, and Abbas - under pressure - apologized.

In a statement released by his office, Abbas said he did not intend to cause offense in a speech to the Palestinian National Council on Monday, in which he claimed the Holocaust was driven not by anti-Semitism but by a reaction to the financial activities of European Jews.

In his speech, citing books written by what he described as Zionist Jewish authors, Abbas also re-aired a discredited theory that Ashkenazi Jews hail from Khazaria, an empire located in Eastern Europe, rather than the biblical Holy Land.

“If people were offended by my statement in front of the PNC, especially people of the Jewish faith, I apologize to them,” Abbas said in his statement. “I would like to assure everyone that it was not my intention to do so, and to reiterate my full respect for the Jewish faith, as well as other monotheistic faiths.”

“I would also like to reiterate our long-held condemnation of the Holocaust, as the most heinous crime in history, and express our sympathy with its victims,” Friday’s statement from Abbas said. “Likewise, we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms."

A couple of weeks ago, Abbas repeated every single antisemitic point he made in 2018 - and added a few more.

From MEMRI:

Abbas: "The truth that we should clarify to the world is that European Jews are not Semites. They have nothing to do with Semitism.

"The story began in 900 CE, in the Khazar Kingdom on the Caspian Sea. It was a Tatar kingdom that converted to Judaism.

"[In the 11th century], this empire collapsed, and all its population left to the north and to the west. They left for Russia and Western and Eastern Europe. They spread there, and they are the forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews. So when we hear them talk about Semitism and antisemitism – the Ashkenazi Jews, at least, are not Semites.

"They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews, and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews.

"Not true. It was clearly explained that [the Europeans] fought [the Jews] because of their social role, and not their religion. Several authors wrote about this. Even Karl Marx said this was not true. He said that the enmity was not directed at Judaism as a religion, but to Judaism for is social role.

"The [Europeans] fought against these people because of their role in society, which had to do with usury, money, and so on and so forth. Even Hitler...

"Everybody knows that during World War I, Hitler was a sergeant. He said he fought the Jews because they were dealing with usury and money. In his view, they were engaged in sabotage, and this is why he hated them. We just want to make this point clear. This was not about Semitism and antisemitism.

"As for the eastern Jews, they are Semites, because all of them originated in the Arabian Peninsula and they traveled to Al-Andalus, and then came back. We are familiar with this history.

"The Balfour Declaration saw the light of day only because of the complete agreement between Balfour and U.S. President Wilson. They were in full agreement about this phrasing. So America was a partner to the Balfour Declaration. Who invented that [Jewish] state? It was Britain and America — not just Britain.

"The U.S., who was not even a member of the League of Nations, force the League of Nations to include the Balfour Declaration in its covenant. I am saying this so that we know who we should accuse of being our enemy, who has harmed us and took our homeland away, and gave it to the Israelis or the Jews.

"In 1948, the population of Israel numbered 650,000 people. In 1948-1949, they occupied 78% of Palestine. 650,000 people were not enough, so Ben-Gurion complained to the British, to his friend Churchill. He said: 'Man, I have a problem. Get me the Jews from Europe. I am short [of people]. I have this vast land, but no population.'

"[Churchill] said: 'I cannot get you the European Jews. After the World War, they emigrated to different places, or settled [in Europe], or were killed. The only ones I can get you are the Jews of the Arab countries.' But Churchill said that there was no one else. Ben-Gurion said: 'God forbid! Do me a favor, I don't want the Jews of the Arab countries.'

"[Ben-Gurion] said: 'Brother, those Jews of the Arab countries are just like the Arabs. They look like Arabs. They have the same culture, same food. I don't want them.' But [Churchill] said: 'Do whatever you want. There is no other solution.'

"Not only did Ben-Gurion agree, he sent his people to Iraq, to kill, destroy, and plant explosives in synagogues, in order to force the Iraqi Jews to emigrate. This also happened in Egypt in 1956 – the Lavon Affair – and then in Morocco, and other countries. The Jews did not want to emigrate, but they were forced to do so, by means of pressure, coercion, and murder."

Abbas repeated the exact same lies he said in 2018 - that he "apologized" for.

And after his apology, everyone forgot about his antisemitism.

Just as the media has forgotten that in 2016, Abbas claimed that rabbis called to poison Palestinian water.. His office released a statement saying "President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world."

Of course, he didn't apologize for lots of other antisemitic statements. In January 2018 Abbas said that European Jews stayed in Europe to be slaughtered rather than immigrate to Israel. In 2015, Abbas said Jews "have no right to defile [the Temple Mount] with their filthy feet." In 2022, Abbas told German officials that Palestinians have gone through 50 "holocausts" at the hands of Jews.

Do you sense a pattern?

No, I don't mean the pattern of Abbas saying vile statements that prove that he is an antisemite. I mean the pattern of the media and world leaders feigning outrage every single time one of his Jew-hating statements makes it into the headlines - and then they go back to acting as if Abbas is a respected member of the world community.

Which means that world leaders, the media and human rights NGOs care as much about antisemitism as Mahmoud Abbas himself does, and their lip service of condemning his statements are exactly as sincere as Abbas' "apologies" are.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/06 Links Pt2: Biden Backdoors Israel in the U.N.; Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s daughter boycotts namesake CUNY center over anti-Israel speech

From Ian:

Biden Backdoors Israel in the U.N., Rescinding Trump’s Recognition of Sovereignty over the Golan

Nowhere is the split between formal U.S. policy and the stealth agendas being implemented by U.S. policymakers more glaring and toxic than in the Middle East. This is true because the core of U.S. Middle East policy is the de facto alliance with Iran promoted by the Obama administration and enshrined in the JCPOA. Obama’s revisionist approach to Iran has in essence left the U.S. with two Mideast policies—one enshrined in our alliances and understandings with historic U.S. allies, and the other centered on dumping our commitments to our allies in order to appease Iran. Only one of these is truly U.S. regional policy, of course—the policy that seeks to establish Iran as the center of a new Middle East. As a result, American commitments now serve to gaslight our allies into going along by encouraging them to imagine that, sooner or later, things will go back to normal.

The focus of the split in U.S. policy and of gaslighting our allies is the Lebanese pseudo state run by Hezbollah, the terror army controlled by Iran. By dealing with “Lebanon,” the U.S. can help forward the objectives of its Iranian partner without ever dealing directly with Iran—and thereby can continue gaslighting its allies to the extent that they would prefer to believe that the U.S. is still their partner.

The latest act in the Biden administration’s Middle Eastern Kabuki theater is the use of Lebanon to rescind America’s recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. No formal announcement of this major policy shift was made, of course. Instead, it was buried in the fine print of the U.N. Security Council’s reauthorization of UNIFIL, the force that ostensibly secures Lebanon’s border with Israel. In a reprise of Barack Obama’s passage of Security Council Resolution 2334 in the final days of his second term, Team Obama-Biden on Aug. 31 again used the route of the Security Council to abandon a formal American commitment and implement a new policy with extreme repercussions for Israel’s security.

With UNSCR 2334, Obama adopted the so-called 1967 lines as the official U.S. position on Israel and its conflict with neighboring Arabs. The resolution called upon all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967,” and reaffirmed that all Israeli communities established in territory “occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity.” It meant that the U.S. had adopted the position of Israel’s enemies on East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, as well as on the Golan Heights.

UNSCR 2334 was the twin of UNSCR 2231, the resolution Obama used to lock in his deal with Iran at the Security Council. Obama’s objective in both cases was to bypass Congress and to tie the hands of his successor by etching his preferences—what people like to call his “legacy”—in Security Council resolutions.

Both planks of Obama’s “legacy” were cracked by Donald Trump, who made two historic moves of his own: moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

When Trump made his move, officials from Team Obama (who now serve in the Biden administration) publicly opposed it. Obama’s former ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, who is currently the Biden administration’s senior adviser for “Regional Integration,” was particularly vocal in his opposition to the recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan. In fact, Shapiro wrote, the recognition might become an obstacle to a future Israeli-Saudi agreement—a line that offered a preview of how the Biden administration would invert the Abraham Accords in order to reassert Obama’s framework.

Upon returning to power, the Biden administration underscored its plan to reopen the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. It also quickly tipped its hand on its intention to reaffirm Obama’s position on the Golan. In February 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken telegraphed the administration’s rejection of Trump’s decision, as well as their plan to rescind it during their tenure. The administration continued to speak of Israel’s “control” (as opposed to “sovereignty”) over the Golan as a “practical” matter. The issue of “legality,” however, was “something else” that the administration was “still working on,” as U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield put it in June 2021.

And work on it they did. This past June, the administration took measures to reaffirm Obama’s UNSCR 2334 legacy, issuing new guidance to government agencies ending scientific and technological cooperation with Israel “in geographic areas which came under the administration of Israel after 1967.”

Three Years Later, Trump Deserves A Nobel Peace Prize For The Abraham Accords

This month, the world will celebrate the three-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords.

While the Obama administration and others said Trump’s bold decision to keep his campaign promise and move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel, would cause war in the Middle East, just the opposite happened. Many of these individuals said the same when the framework of the Abraham Accords was initially announced, but just as they were wrong before, they were wrong once again.

On Sept. 15, 2020, President Trump ushered in a new era of peace and collaboration in the Middle East among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco without a single bullet fired. Imagine that: Peace was achieved through America leading with strength, without any wars started, when the experts said the opposite would happen.

Furthermore, Trump and his administration provided the metaphorical runway and jet fuel for long-standing relationships among the Israelis, Bahrainis, and Emiratis that had been held in the darkness to take off into the light for the world to see, which has led to tremendous economic and societal expansion. As commercial ties grow, so will the strength of the bonds between the countries and their people.

Per the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, trade between the countries saw a major increase from 2021 to 2022, coming in at $3.37 billion in 2022, an 82 percent increase from 2021! Bahrain is set to utilize Israeli solar technology as a result of the Abraham Accords, and earlier this year, the Abrahamic Family House opened its doors to the world in Abu Dhabi. The center encompasses three separate houses of worship — a mosque, a church, and a synagogue, as well as shared spaces for gathering and dialogue. Based on these economic and societal indicators, the Abraham Accords have been a major success thus far.

Both authors have seen firsthand how Israel is liked and respected in the Arab world, which never would have happened if not for the Abraham Accords. Having served as a U.S. Army Reserve captain and intelligence officer in Saudi Arabia during the historic peace accords, Abraham Hamadeh had a unique experience serving in the Middle East, with Syrian ancestry and Arabic language skills allowing for much more personal interactions with Saudi Arabia’s security apparatus’ leadership — and they’re ready for peace.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s daughter boycotts namesake CUNY center over anti-Israel speech at law school graduation

The daughter of the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is boycotting the opening of a CUNY institution named after her father due to a speech at the university’s law school commencement that she called antisemitic.

Maura Moynihan, 66, told the New York Jewish Week that she believes the university system has not done enough to combat and condemn antisemitism on their campuses. In protest, she said that she intends to skip the Thursday opening of The Moynihan Center, a City College institution dedicated to cultivating new public affairs leaders.

“The speech by Fatima Mousa Mohammed at the CUNY Law School commencement shocked and horrified so many people in New York and around the world,” Moynihan said, referring to a May 12 graduation speech by a student who praised the law school as a rare place where students could, in her view, “speak out against Israeli settler colonialism.”

Moynihan added that her father, an Irish Catholic, was a great supporter of Israel. She said that by not condemning Mohammed’s address, The City College of New York — which is also part of the CUNY system but operates separately from the law school — is “taking his name in vain.”

The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Center is part of City College’s Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. It will host two new fellowship programs and a slate of events dedicated to advancing public scholarship and public service. The center received a grant of nearly $7 million from the Leon Levy Foundation, which is known for supporting many Jewish causes in New York City, including the Tenement Museum and the Center for Jewish History.

Back in April, I asked a question: Is Tucker Carlson a Covert Antisemite? To my mind, there is no question that he is, but people understand things in different ways. Some want proof rather than this author’s interpretation of Carlson’s words and deeds.

In a way, that is the point. There likely will never be proof. This is why I refer to Carlson’s brand of antisemitism as “covert.” It’s slippery and slimy. It’s about pushing the boundaries as far as he can go without going over the line. Carlson goes just far enough in what he says, the words just shy of, “I hate Jews.”

Some Jews are unfortunately too nice. They are not interested in believing the worst of a person. So, short of Carlson shouting into a megaphone, “I hate Jews,” the benefit-of-the doubter Jews will doggedly insist on proof. “Can you prove it?” and since Carlson never leaves much of a trail, you’ve got no way to do so. Not that I make much effort to persuade them. Either they do or don’t believe that Tucker Carlson is an antisemite.

Aside from requiring proof of Tucker’s antisemitism, there’s another factor in play for those who just don’t buy it. Some Jews don’t want to believe that Tucker is an antisemite because they otherwise agree with his Conservative politics. Since they agree with Tucker on so many other things, they pooh-pooh any suggestion that Carlson, at heart, hates Jews.

I noted the same phenomenon when I wrote about RFK Jr.’s antisemitism. Some readers were upset. They said to me, “Can you prove it?” and they aren’t even Democrats.

There is irony in the sudden request for proof of antisemitism in the case of RFK Jr. The same readers challenging me to bring them cold, hard evidence that Tucker is a Jew-hater, are like me, generally hypersensitive to antisemitic undertones and nuances. What made them look the other way from the empirical evidence this time, and hold their nose at the stench, was RFK Jr.’s stance on vaccination, with which they agree.

To all of these naysayers, I will, unlike Tucker Carlson, declare myself out and out: Of course I can’t prove it. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know it.

Tucker Carlson will not be coming out of the Jew-hate closet any time soon, at least not on purpose. He’ll never say the words out loud. And some Jews will always insist on his innocence. Even after much proof, such as a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Douglas Macgregor, a retired US colonel, about the war in Ukraine, as captured by the Israel Advocacy Movement.

Macgregor, like Tucker Carlson, understands how to say just enough to escape any overt accusations of antisemitism. His words hint at hatred without actually saying the J word out loud. Like here, where all the people Macgregor references are Jewish:

Tucker Carlson: How would you characterize Zelenskyy?

Douglas Macgregor: He was picked and then blessed by Victoria Nuland and the State Department as their man. Now, when he originally ran for office, he ran on a peace platform. Ukrainians didn't want to go to war with Russia. Of course, once he was in there, he took a different road, and I can't help but think that that road was defined for him by us.

Tucker Carlson: Who is Victoria Nuland?

Douglas Macgregor: Ah, goodness gracious, all these hard questions, Tucker! I do not know Victoria Nuland, personally. I know Fred Kagan, and his brother Bob is married to her and she's a long-term committed neocon. No, I don't think she understands the gravity of the situation. These are the same people. Tony Blinken is in this.

These are people with this agenda and the agenda says until the entire world is garrisoned by US forces and is converted forcibly to some form of democracy that we approve of, uh, the world will not be safe, and we must continue to fight, and I think in in the case of Russia, Russia has special appeal, because I think these people have ancestors who come from that region in the world, and have a permanent ax to grind with the Russians. Now of course, which I don't, and I don't think most Americans do, and nor do I think anybody in the government should shape policy based on whatever unhappiness their ancestors, you know, experienced in a place like Russia.

Tucker then asks Macgregor why both Democrats and Republicans support Ukraine.

Douglas Macgregor: Well, first of all you've got to go through and identify the donors. What's their background; where did they come from; and why do they feel the way they do? I think there're more personal issues there than we realize with many of them.

Macgregor, this whole time, is talking about Jews. And Tucker never once calls him out for airing antisemitic conspiracy theories. Tucker Carlson is quite happy to interview this man and air his views for his listeners. Why? Is it about freedom of speech?

No. It’s about antisemitism. And no I don’t have proof. You either see it and believe it or you don’t.

Tucker Carlson is carefully testing antisemitic tropes on his show. https://t.co/hA9vLaEvSQ
— George Yury Revutsky (@george_revutsky) August 22, 2023

We shouldn’t mind the people who don’t want to admit Carlson is an antisemite because they like his politics. They’re just fooling themselves. It’s the benefit-of-the-doubter Jews who are worrisome. They are like the Jews who waited too long to leave Europe, because Hitler and his goose-stepping fans were not to be taken seriously. They thought that Hitler and his Nazis were just a flash in the pan. Germany wouldn’t let a Holocaust happen.

By the time these Jews understood that Hitler was not some temporary nuisance but manifestly evil, the gates had already closed and they could not leave. Which is a common theme in Jewish history. Jews don’t want to believe someone can be evil. They won’t believe it until it is absolutely proven—like when they see smoke coming out of an Auschwitz crematorium, or watch people walk into a shower and never come out.

That is far too late.

For Jews, in particular, it is crucial to recognize that some people really are bad. And the last thing you want from them is proof.

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!

How to spread antisemitic lies in academic papers: A case study from @FeministReview_

In 2021, the academic journal Feminist Review published "(Re)producing the Israeli (European) body: Zionism, Anti-Black Racism and the Depo-Provera Affair" by Bayan Abusneineh.

Its abstract:

This article examines the Depo-Provera Affair—where Israeli doctors administered the contraceptive Depo-Provera to newly immigrated Ethiopian Jewish women—to argue that the Israeli settler colonial project depends on these forms of gendered anti-Black violence, through the management of Black African bodies. In 2013, then Israeli Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman admitted that they had administered Depo-Provera to Ethiopian immigrant women without their consent, after reproductive and civil rights activists in Israel called for an investigation after a drop in the birthrate among Ethiopian women: close to 50 per cent within the previous decade. The demarcation of Blackness as a political tool necessary to advance Israeli modernity and the situating of Black bodies as antithetical to the state of Israel are not contradictory but rather illuminate Israel’s deployment of anti-Blackness through the racial and reproductive violence necessary to become part of the superior, European West.

The entire article is an anti-Israel screed (and, as you can see from the title, an anti-Jewish screed that accuses Jews of being white Europeans).

And it is based on something that never happened.

Yaakov Litzman didn't "admit" that Depo-Provera was injected into Ethiopian Jewish women without their consent. There was a documentary that made those claims then Litzman authorized an investigation. But in the end, it was all a slander - no Ethiopian women were forced to take this (temporary) contraceptive, although some may have misunderstood what the doctors said. As my investigation proved, many of the women wanted to take the contraceptive secretly, against their husbands' wishes - turning this episode from infantilizing these women into empowering them.

Haaretz' story claiming that Israeli officials admitted to this conspiracy theory was corrected and rewritten.

The entire basis for this paper is false. Its conclusions of a racist Israeli society - the only country that actually went out of their way to save the lives of black people in Africa - are utterly false. The paper also sprinkles other lies, like claiming that Israel as a nation has "past and present ties to the eugenics movement" based wholly on the opinions of one Zionist who died in 1943.

It is bad enough that Feminist Review publishes a paper where the linchpin of the author's thesis is a falsehood.

It is bad enough that Feminist Review is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

But since this lie was published in a respected, peer reviewed journal, it is now being cited as factual in other academic journals. Google Scholar lists six papers that cite this one, most of them clearly written from an anti-Israel perspective as well:

Coloniality and feminist collusion: Breaking free, thinking anew
NK Purewal, J Ung Loh - Feminist Review, 2021

Beyond the contours of Zionist sovereignty: Decolonisation in Palestine's Unity Intifada
W Alqaisiya - Political Geography, 2023 - Elsevier

Structural racism and the health of Palestinian citizens of Israel
O Tanous, Y Asi, W Hammoudeh, D Mills… - Global Public …, 2023 - Taylor & Francis

For sled dogs and women: Hormonal contraception and animacy hierarchies in Danish/Greenlandic Depo-Provera debates
AN Bang, CH Kroløkke - European Journal of Women's …, 2023 - journals.sagepub.com

Jil Oslo Generation Palestinians and the Fight for Human Rights
BK Thakore - Critical Sociology, 2022 - journals.sagepub.com

Criminalising Palestinians: History and Borders in the Construction of the Palestinian Threat
M Al-Hindi - International Journal for Crime, Justice and …, 2023 - crimejusticejournal.com

The lie spreads and cross-breeds with dozens of other falsehoods and half-truths, in turn creating more raw material for modern antisemites to spread hate in an academically respectable way.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/06 Links Pt1: Abbas: Hitler Fought European Jews Because of Usury, Money Dealings; NYT's Thomas Friedman is consistently wrong about Israel

From Ian:

Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Evil manifests on the streets of Gaza

We are familiar with the professors’ key talking point: “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” That is certainly true, and therein lies the core of the problem. Is there a reasonable defense of that position? Are there no moral distinctions left to ponder? Isn’t there an obvious difference between combatants and non-combatants, between military targets and a kindergarten teacher? What happens to a world in which people are no longer able to or simply refuse to make simple moral distinctions?

Their apologists insist that Palestinians under occupation “have no choice,” that their dignity has been stripped away by Israelis. Terrorism, mayhem, and murder, including killing women and children in cold blood, are legitimate responses in fighting for their future. Far from condemning Palestinian terrorism, such apologists insist that the world needs to understand it and applaud all courageous acts that resist Israeli "genociders."

But that narrative lays the groundwork for a world without reason, or a world where reason is eagerly subverted to conform to personal feelings, a worldview that could unleash a dystopia that our civilization cannot endure for long.

As the memory of the 20th century fades, we must ponder whether the world has internalized any of the lessons from the Holocaust. Didn’t the jurists at Nuremberg conclude that each individual is responsible for their decisions? Didn’t they decide that people are responsible for their actions, regardless of the arguments or orders of others to commit atrocities?

Sacrificing reason and Palestinian children on an altar of a deadly political narrative has not helped a single Palestinian. Yet the very global agencies and NGOs charged with defending core human values too often rationalize and legitimize Jew-hatred, hate crimes, and terrorism by upending simple moral reason. They will yet have to confront the bitter fruit of their sophistry as social media teaches new generations around the world how to leverage violence and hate to dehumanize the “enemy” and potentially take down their own society’s future.

And what about the ordinary citizens of Gaza or the West Bank who never strapped on a suicide vest or stabbed a Jewish family during a Passover celebration or Shabbat dinner? Why does poll after poll show majorities supporting terrorism and rejecting compromise that would guarantee two peoples living side by side in peace? The most disturbing lesson

Perhaps the most disturbing lesson provided by the propaganda specialists of the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russia, and Mao’s China is that ordinary people can become eager supporters of and participants in individual and mass violence, even murder. The first step is to inculcate an irrational sense of otherness about some “enemy,” and then brainwash the youth to embrace and normalize that irrationality.

This is precisely what we see in Gaza. Palestinian society has been teaching, preaching, and practicing genocidal hatred of Jews in its schools and mosques and in the media for three generations. And the nations who donate to them rarely utter a word of protest.

Leaders of the world beware. Today, evil manifests itself on the streets of Gaza, in the cells of Tehran’s Evin prison, and in concentration camps filled with Uyghurs. Such evil repackaged as morality is not only a stain on our democracies but a poison pill that can deconstruct a university, a city, and, yes, even houses of worship. Once you erase the difference between resistance and murder, between morality and impulse, what follows? What about older people who continue to function, but fill our hospitals? Don’t younger people deserve more of those precious resources? Won’t newer generations feel better by ridding themselves, by all means necessary, of groups whose beliefs or ideologies they find repugnant?

Reason is not perfect, but it got civilization this far. Embracing evil as just, or accepting it as the new normal, is a prescription for global disaster and oblivion.

Families of terror victims sue to block US from releasing $40 billion in frozen Iran funds accounts

A group of American victims of Iranian terrorism, who hold more than $400 million dollars in court judgments against the Islamic Republic for its sponsorship of terrorist attacks, have moved to enjoin the Biden Administration from releasing an estimated $40 billion in frozen Iranian assets. The United States has pledged to unfreeze the funds belonging to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), which are primarily held in overseas bank accounts, under an upcoming prisoner release agreement being currently negotiated with Tehran. The families claim that releasing the funds will prevent them from enforcing their judgments against these assets, and as a practical matter may preclude them from ever collecting on their judgments.

Two dozen plaintiffs filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit names the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department as well as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin as respondents.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the terror victims by attorneys Robert J. Tolchin of New York and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Tel, Aviv, Israel who represent the families.

According to news reports the U.S. and Iran, which is holding five Iranian-Americans in prison in Tehran and has demanded the release of the frozen funds as a ransom, have been moving towards a deal that would see $40 billion in Iran assets returned to the Iranian regime. It is speculated that the U.S. and Iran are on the verge of a broader agreement, however.

The families’ judgments stem from deadly attacks, including suicide bombings, car ramming attacks, and drive-by shootings, committed from 2001-2016 by Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestine Islamic Jihad, in which the terror-victim plaintiffs were harmed. In addition to the American families bringing the petition there are many other victims who have won judgments against Iran.

MEMRI: Israeli-Arab Writer: Normalization With Israel Is A Done Deal; It's Time To Stop Persecuting Individual Arabs For 'Cultural Normalization'

On August 15, 2023, the UAE hosted a football match between the Jordanian Al-Wehdat team and the Emirati Shabab Al-Ahli Dubai team.[1] The match sparked controversy and was almost canceled because the Emirati team includes an Arab Israeli player, Mu'nas Dabbur, who formerly played on Israel's national football team. While some Jordanian Al-Wehdat fans called to boycott the game in order to avoid sanctioning "normalization" with Israel, other elements, such as Jordanian MP Khalil 'Atiyya, called on the management of the club not to do so, because this would offend the Palestinians and especially the Palestinians "in the 1948 territories," i.e., Israeli Arabs.[2]

Israeli Arab elements, such as Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi and the municipality of Nazareth, Dabbur's hometown, likewise urged the Jordanian football club not to boycott the match, since this would be unfair not only to footballer Mu'nas Dabbur but to all Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel. In their statements they praised Dabbur and emphasized his national Palestinian positions.[3]

After voting against boycotting the match, the club management issued a statement stressing its commitment to the Palestinian cause and its opposition to normalization, and explained that it had taken this decision to avoid damaging Jordan's relations with the UAE.[4] Six of the club's board members resigned – a move that the club president, Bashar Al-Hawamdeh, condemned as "populist" – but withdrew their resignation a few days later.[5]

On August 4, after the controversy over the game broke out but before Al-Wehdat announced that it would be playing, Jawad Boulos, an Israeli Arab attorney and journalist, addressed the affair in the London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. He wrote that the effective forms of boycott against Israel – diplomatic and economic boycott – are no longer implemented, and only the "cultural boycott" remains. That is, powerful Arab regimes and Arab tycoons maintain ties and trade relations with Israel without hindrance – yet individuals like athletes, artists, writers, poets and members of various professional unions are persecuted by "radical activists" for engaging in so-called cultural normalization with Israel. They suffer this persecution regardless of their political positions on the Palestinian cause and their contribution to this cause.

The following are excerpts from Jawad Boulos' article:[6]
"The repercussions of two local events are still plaguing us and causing doubts among us regarding the ban on cultural normalization with Israel. The first of these events was the harsh criticism that accompanied the visit of the Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi in the occupied Palestinian territories. She insisted on giving several performances in Ramallah and Jerusalem, but was eventually forced to cancel her show in Haifa, succumbing to pressure from elements that call for a cultural boycott of Israel.

The second event involved the Jordanian Al-Wehdat [football] club, whose management announced several days ago that it intended 'to sit out a match against the Emirati Shabab Al-Ahli team in the AFC Champions League preliminaries, due to suspicion of normalization.' By 'suspicion [of normalization]' it meant the participation of the Palestinian player Mu'nas Dabbur, from Nazareth, who now plays professionally for the Emirati Al-Ahli [football] club and who used to be an international player on Israel's national team…

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights just released its report of human rights violations by Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza in 2022 (it has not yet been released in English.)

Its section on violations against Palestinian human rights activists is summarized:

Concerning human rights defenders, the independent commission said: Human rights defenders are exposed to a number of violations and harassment committed by official bodies or other unofficial parties. It may lead to murder, kidnapping, arrest, torture, threats, harm to the family and defamation. Defenders of women's rights are subjected to various harassments by social movements and religious and political parties, who see their defense of women as a contradiction with religion and in line with the goals of the West and a denial of Arab values, customs and traditions.

Those stories, about real abuse against real human rights activists, is rarely covered by the media - because it doesn't fit the narrative that Israel is the human rights violator of Palestinians and, of course, also one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. (Apparently Israel is surrounded by an oasis of liberal progressive protectors of humanity.)

So the reality gets buried in reports no one reads while the media exaggerates and fabricates Israeli crimes.

There are real Palestinian human rights defenders - and no one hears about them.

But there are also fake human rights defenders that get lot of coverage. Here's a story that is getting play in Arabic news sites today:

Human rights organizations have called for a boycott of Israeli companies specialized in the field of water and agriculture, prior to their participation in the United Nations Climate Summit (COP 28) scheduled for the end of next November in the UAE.

These companies work to improve their image in front of the world in light of their theft of Palestinian rights to water and the destruction of the Palestinian environment through toxic agricultural pesticides.

The companies (Mekorot, Netafim, Haifa Chemicals, and Adama) seek to present themselves during the summit with their ability to achieve sustainable solutions regarding the environment around the world, at a time when these companies steal Palestinian resources and direct them towards illegal Israeli settlements according to international law.

Human rights organizations are working to reveal the true face of these Israeli companies, and to defend Palestinian rights against climate colonialism.

Notice anything strange?

The stories do not mention a single "human rights" organization that is calling for this boycott.

The only group I can find talking about this is, of course, BDS. They probably pretend to be a human rights organization. Yet it would not be a surprise if HRW or Amnesty indeed does call for a boycott of Israeli companies at COP28. Because "human rights" is now nothing more than a slogan, with no relationship with real human rights.

And the real contributions that Israeli technology make to help the world conserve water are considered not as important as the political boycott of any Jewish-owned company in the Middle East.

And real humans will be deprived of water in the name of "human rights."

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!

As a new school year starts, Palestinians are complaining in their media about how Israel is forcing Jerusalem schools to standardize on an Israeli curriculum that does not encourage terror and "martyrdom."

The Rowad Al-Quds School in Beit Hanina, an Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem, was built in 2016. It has been accredited by the Jerusalem Municipality and it uses the Israeli Arabic curriculum.

It looks like a normal school. The students look like normal teens.. Some are religious, some are not. No one is judged. The classrooms and facilities look modern and comfortable.

And Arab culture is not sidetracked, but celebrated:

These are the horrors of an Arabic school under Israeli accreditation.

Imagine if all Palestinian Arabs went to schools like this and if their teens looked like the students at Rowad Al Quds -- instead of these:

(h/t iTi)

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!

Bergen-Belsen

From the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, How Latin American Passports Were Used to Save Lives during the Holocaust, by Efraim Zadoff.

This is a bit different than most stories of diplomats issuing papers to Jews. In this case, even the Germans often knew that the papers were issued illegally (and indeed many Jews with these papers were sent to extermination camps.) But the Nazis were keen on prisoner exchanges with the Allies and they sometimes used these Jews as bargaining chips to sweeten the terms of the swaps.

As many as a thousand Jews were saved this way. And the diplomats who saved the Jews were almost all punished by their governments.

Excerpts:

The use of Latin American passports during the Holocaust has yet to receive the attention it warrants in Holocaust historiography.

This article is based on a wider study aimed at shedding light on the identity of the individuals who served Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Chile (Samuel del Campo), Costa Rica, Ecuador (Manuel Antonio Muñoz Borrero), El Salvador (Arturo Castellanos), Guatemala, Honduras (Alfonse and Isabelle Bauer), Haiti (Johan Schluchin, J. Bruner), Paraguay (Rudolf Hügli), and Peru (José María Barreto and José Gambetta). These officials operated in a number of countries and under widely varying circumstances. Some were posted to Switzerland (Bern, Geneva, and Zurich), Sweden (Stockholm) or Portugal (Lisbon)—three European countries that maintained neutrality throughout the war. Others were situated in Axis-aligned Romania (Bucharest and Czernowitz) and Japan (Kobe) or in the Americas, in countries such as Bolivia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, and the United States. One operated out of German-occupied Poland. Most of these individuals risked and eventually lost their jobs for consciously taking action that ran counter to the instructions and policies of their superiors and of their own governments regarding the rescue of Jews during the war.

In some cases, these once-trusted diplomats were placed under surveillance and subjected to police interrogations in the countries in which they served. This diversity among the diplomats involved in the endeavor to save Jews with Latin American documents also characterized the individuals and entities behind that effort. In most cases, a broad group of Jewish activists with disparate orientations—Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and Orthodox rabbis, Zionists and non-Zionists, officials of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), entrepreneurs and businessmen—led the struggle to get Latin American diplomats on board and obtain the required documents from them. Occasionally, non-Jewish individuals and officials, such as the Polish diplomatic team in Bern, cooperated in this effort and even actively supported it. The result was the rescue of many hundreds of Jews (probably over 1,000).

Three primary types of documents were used in such rescue efforts. The first was a passport, which indicated that the person named was a citizen of the country of issue. The Ecuadorian passport took the form of a hardbound traditional booklet, whereas those of Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Paraguay generally consisted of standard sheets of paper. Both contained a photo of the person or persons in whose name the passport was issued (sometimes such documents were issued to an entire family). In some cases, Jews received copies bearing notary certification, which lent additional credibility to the document; the original was stored in the archive of the organization that had sent it in case its retrieval became necessary.Footnote6

The second type of document used in this context was a certificate of protection, which indicated that its bearer enjoyed the protection of the country of issue, as in the case of documents issued by El Salvador and others by Paraguay.

The third type of document issued was known as a promesa (Spanish for “promise”), which, as reflected in its name, constituted a guarantee that when the bearer arrived at a consul of the state in question, he or she would be issued an immigration visa.

In all cases, both the diplomats who issued the documents and the Jews who received them were cognizant of the fact that they were not legal and unrecognized by the state in question and therefore could not be used for immigration purposes....The reason for securing such documents was that they provided a degree of protection for Jews by transforming them into the subjects of neutral or enemy states. ...Such documents were primarily used to help enable the Germans to hold hostages whom they could then swap for their compatriots held in Allied countries.

...The prisoner exchange between Germany and the Allied countries took place at the beginning of 1945. On January 21 of that year, a train left Bergen Belsen carrying 301 Jews holding Latin American passports. Before the train crossed the border into Switzerland, some Jews were removed due to their poor physical condition and were sent to the camps at Biberach and Wurzach in southern Germany. Some of the members of this group did not survive. Those who arrived in Switzerland underwent the required medical examinations and treatments, and were subsequently transferred by US hospital ship from the French port of Marseilles to the Jean d’Arc transit camp in Philippeville, Algeria.

The consuls serving in Sweden, Switzerland, and Romania who issued these documents were placed under surveillance and subjected to police interrogations in the countries in which they served. At the same time, upon receipt of information regarding the issuance of passports, the foreign ministries of the countries represented by the consuls decided to punish those diplomats by removing them from their positions in the foreign service.

Read the whole thing.

This is only a taste of a relatively unknown facet of the Holocaust.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/05 Links Pt2: For the OIC, “Human Rights” Is a Tool to Manipulate the West; Musk Fuels White Supremacist ‘Ban the ADL’ Campaign on Social Media

From Ian:

For the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, “Human Rights” Is a Tool to Manipulate the West

Currently consisting of 56 states in addition to the Palestinian Authority, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) began with an effort in 1969 to blame Israel and “Zionists”—falsely—for setting fire to al-Aqsa Mosque. The group, which touts itself as “the collective voice of the Muslim world,” has made a consistent habit of condemning the Jewish state, and to a lesser extent India, for supposed abuses. It also supports boycotts of Israel and sharply condemned Danish caricatures in 2005. One country it has not condemned is China, which is currently seeking to extirpate Islam from its northwestern territory by the most brutal of means. Georgia Gilholy writes:

This week an Organization of Islamic Cooperation delegation visited China. It offered slavish praise and deference to the state responsible for atrocities against millions of mostly Muslim Uighurs, which a British tribunal designated as genocide. . . . In a July 2019 statement, over a dozen OIC member states went so far as to cosign a letter that “commended China’s achievements in the field of human rights.”

The key factor behind the OIC’s double standards is obvious: money. The attempt to decimate and subjugate the Uighurs is an informal component of the “Belt and Road” Initiative. This program is scheduled to pour over $8 billion into a transcontinental “belt” of overland economic corridors. This “belt” and its corresponding maritime “road” will encompass a major chunk of the world’s Muslim-majority nations from Sudan to Indonesia.

Easy cash, however, is just one part of the story. Just as the dictators of Russia, Cuba, and North Korea collaborate with China on the international stage in a bid to normalize authoritarianism at large, administrations across the Muslim world likewise seek to reap the same nefarious rewards.

Cunning employment of moral relativism is at the heart of this arrangement. When engaging with democracies, OIC representatives gleefully employ the language of liberal human rights. When brown-nosing other autocracies and dispensing domestic law, however, these principles are mysteriously absent.

Did the Mufti-Hitler photo row influence Netanyahu’s plan to fire Yad Vashem head?

It is now believed that the Netanyahu government has backed down from its plan to fire Dani Dayan, a political appointee head of Israel’s flagship Holocaust memorial museum at Yad Vashem, after an international outcry. Dani Dayan was the target of criticism from veteran guides when he refused to re-instate a floor-to-ceiling photo of the famous meeting between the Palestinian wartime Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and Adolph Hitler in 1941, because’ it seeks to harm the Palestinians’ image today’. We do not know if the Mufti-Hitler photo affair was a factor in the government’s intention to dismiss Dayan, but we reproduce a JNS News article by Lyn Julius explaining why the Yad Vashem head’s views on this matter are wrongheaded:

What impact did the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, have on the Nazi enterprise? According to Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, the Mufti’s role was limited – so marginal in fact that Dayan refused to re-instate a large photo of the Mufti meeting Hitler in November 1941. The floor-to-ceiling photo used to feature at the Museum before it was re-designed in the 1990s. Denying at first that the photo was ever at Yad Vashem, Dayan even told Haaretz: Those who want me to put it up aren’t really interested in the Mufti’s part in the Holocaust, which was limited anyway, but seek to harm the image of the Palestinians today,” he says. “The Mufti was an antisemite. But even if I abhor him, I won’t turn Yad Vashem into a tool serving ends not directly related to the study and memorialization of the Holocaust. Hasbara, to use a term, is an utterly irrelevant consideration that shall not enter our gates.”

It is certainly true that the Mufti was marginal to the ‘final solution’: Benjamin Netanyahu was wrong to remark in 2018 that the Mufti ‘convinced’ Hitler to annihilate the Jews. However, there were instances when the Mufti, who was known to have visited Nazi camps and hobnobbed with Himmler and von Ribbentrop, proved even more extreme than the Nazis. In 1942, a plan to bring ten thousand Jewish children from Poland to Theresienstadt and exchange them for German civilian prisoners was dropped after fierce protests by the Mufti. The children were sent to their deaths. The Mufti’s Muslim SS units in the former Yugoslavia murdered tens of thousands. According to his memoirs, Hitler had given an explicit undertaking to the Mufti at their famous meeting in November 1941 that he would be allowed to solve the Jewish problem. ‘ The Jews are yours,’ Hitler said. The Mufti did had the satisfaction of exterminating the Jews in his sphere of influence – but his alliance with the Nazis was far more ideological than pragmatic.

But it is not the Mufti’s effect on the Nazis which Dayan ignores, but his impact on the Arabs. And here he had a massive effect – and many would argue, still has. Wherever he went in the Arab world, he stirred up trouble against the local Jews. He was a driving force behind the pro-Nazi coup in Iraq leading to the Farhud massacre of hundreds of Jews in Iraq in June 1941 – proof positive that anti-Zionism had spilled over into outright antisemitism. Escaping to Berlin when he was Hitler’s lavishly-funded wartime guest the Mufti and a group of Arab exiles pumped out poisonous propaganda from the short-wave transmitter at Zeesen, fusing anti-Jewish verses from the Qu’ran with modern anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

Putin: West put ethnic Jew to rule in Ukraine to 'cover glorification of Nazism'

Russian President Vladimir Putin alleged in a television interview on Tuesday, without citing evidence, that Western powers had installed Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, as president of Ukraine to cover up the glorification of Nazism.

In seeking to justify its invasion of Ukraine, which it calls a "special military operation," Moscow accuses Kyiv's leaders of pursuing a neo-Nazi "genocide" of Ukraine's millions of native Russian-speakers - something Kyiv and its Western allies call a baseless pretext for a war of acquisition.

It was not the first time Putin had tried to associate modern Ukraine's democratically elected government with the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews in World War Two by Nazi German occupiers of Soviet Ukraine and their local collaborators.

Zelensky's Jewish identity
Zelensky, himself a native Russian-speaker who was democratically elected in 2019, has said some of his grandfather’s brothers were killed in the Nazi Holocaust, and has repeatedly rejected Russian accusations that he has supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

Putin told Russian television reporter Pavel Zarubin:
“Western curators have put a person at the head of modern Ukraine - an ethnic Jew, with Jewish roots, with Jewish origins. And thus, in my opinion, they seem to be covering up an anti-human essence that is the foundation ... of the modern Ukrainian state," Putin said.

"And this makes the whole situation extremely disgusting, in that an ethnic Jew is covering up the glorification of Nazism and covering up those who led the Holocaust in Ukraine at one time - and this is the extermination of one and a half million people."

In answer to a request for comment, Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said Putin himself was disgusting "when he tries to justify mass crimes against citizens of another country with a monstrous lie."

Egypt now has more restored synagogues than it has Jews.

There are only three Jewish women left in Egypt, the youngest of whom is 70. But Egypt has, in recent years, restored five synagogues to their former glory, with seven or eight more still in disrepair.

The most recent restoration was the Ibn Ezra Synagogue which re-opened last week. To tourists only, of course.

While Egypt is presiding over these multi-million dollar restorations, Egypt's Muslims are complaining that the government is destroying Islamic historic sites to make way for development projects.

Muslims are seeing not only Jewish but Christian, Roman, Greek, and Pharaonic antiquities being preserved, while laws to preserve Islamic sites are apparently much more onerous. Resentment is being expressed in Arabic news media.

Egyptian media lists three reasons why Egypt's government is spending so much money and time restoring Jewish synagogues and preserving the Jewish cemetery even as a Muslim cemetery is being relocated for development work.

One reason is that the Egyptians want to stay on the good side of the US, and they think (probably because Jews run the world) that restoring synagogue will pay political dividends.

The second is that it is simply to promote tourism. Tourism went down after the last coup, and they want to attract Jews to Cairo..

The third reason is to make President Sisi look moderate to the world and to his own people. This is the sort of no-risk move that makes him look tolerant of a virtually nonexistent minority. And in 2018, Sisi passed a law allowing him to stay in office until 2030, and the optics were bad - he wants to change them

All three of the reasons are using Jews as a means to an end.

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!

Columbia University's Center for Palestine Studies welcomes its newest post doctoral fellow!

Ali H. Musleh will be working on his first book project, To What Abyss Does This Robot Take the Earth? Using his dual background in design and political theory, he focuses on Israel's design, development and deployment of drones, autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence, treating them as technological processes of managing and differentiating forms of life.

Apparently, this book is a version of Musleh's 341-page PhD dissertation, with the same title. Here's the abstract:

How do weapons make the colonial worlds that Palestinians and Jewish-Israelis inhabit? My dissertation attends to this question starting from an experience shared by Palestinians: that the majority of us have never encountered an Israeli settler, whether in uniform or out of uniform, who is not attached to a weapon, be it an assault rifle, a fighter jet, or a tank, etc. Taking this experience as a philosophical provocation, I subject the settler colony to a form of insurgent study exercised everyday by Palestinians that confronts the settler as contingent and transitory human-weapon ensembles. These studies are bodying and worlding. They reveal and unravel the spatialized embodiments, sensations, affective terrains, orientations and regimes of truth that weapons generate as lived world(s) of experience. In doing so, Palestinians exercise a fleshy sociality that constantly puts into question the self-evidence of the settler and the settler state. Thinking with Palestinians and alongside peoples of struggle, my dissertation is a performance in reverse engineering that moves from micrological sites, scenes and bodies of war, to macro formations of sovereignty. My itinerary focuses primarily on encounters with remote and robotic weaponry as technologies of engineering spatial and procedural distance between the settler and weapon. My task has been to show how that distance became the abyssal site from which forms of war, apartheid, and erasure emerge that consign settlers to martial automatisms that materialize and mediate their existence. The result is a work that dissects settler colonialism as a form of life inseparable from weapon power, as I also consider Palestinian rehearsals of decolonial life in the robotic age of war.

This abstract is a combination of gobbledygook, lies, obfuscation and antisemitism.

Gazans indeed don't have much of a chance to see Israelis., settlers or otherwise, since no Israelis live there. But it is really true that West Bank Palestinians never see "settlers" without weapons? The thousands of Palestinians that visit Rami Levy supermarkets shop alongside Israeli civilians. Well over 100,000 Palestinians work in Israel, and tens of thousands more work in settlements - and most "settlers" do not walk around their towns toting assault rifles. Those "settlers" who roam the Temple Mount, where they are seen by thousands more, don't carry weapons. Most Jews at the Mamilla Mall in Jerusalem, where many Palestinians shop, don't carry weapons. His assertion that most Palestinians never see Jews without weapons is a fabrication.

And then there are Israelis who visit Palestinian towns on their own to go shopping or get their cars repaired. Like Shay Silas Nigreker and his son Aviad Nir who went shopping in Huwara and were murdered two weeks ago because they were Israeli Jews. They weren't "attached to weapons," but they were murdered by Palestinian weapons.

So Musleh's "philosophical provocation" that is the very basis of his paper and book is bullshit to begin with. But what thesis advisor has the knowledge or guts to dispute the falsehood that underpins the text?

To Musleh, all Jewish Israelis are "settlers." After all, how would Palestinians know that Israelis in fighter jets or tanks are settlers or not? And in the first sentence he considers all Israeli Arabs to be "Palestinian" which means that when he says "settlers," he really means "Jews" from either side of the Green Line. Further proof from a similar article he wrote in Politics Today, where he said, "Weeks, months, if not years can go by without an inhabitant of Gaza encountering a settler, but they are more likely to encounter a faceless machine in their day to day life."

To Musleh, every Jew is an implant, who has no business living in the land of their forefathers. If that isn't antisemitic, what is?

Beyond that, to Musleh, every Jew in Israel is not a human being. They are hybrids of humans and weapons. They are essentially cyborgs. The entire paper is meant to dehumanize every Jew who lives in the region.

Musleh tries to sound intelligent by using words that either don't exist or in contexts that make no sense. There is no such words as "bodying" and "worlding." And does his treatise on Israeli evil really deal with "micrological sites"?

Musleh himself characterizes the paper not as reflective of objective truth but as "a form of insurgent study" as well as "a performance" in finding links that simply do not exist in real life, which he falsely calls "reverse engineering" to make it sound quasi-scientific.

Another form of antisemitism we see in this abstract is that it accepts libels against Israel that are not at all universally accepted, and that are provably false, as truisms. "Settler colonialism" and "apartheid" are routinely used in academia and much of the media as fact, but they aren't. By pretending that these lies are truth, the paper is nothing more than naked propaganda.

Yet no one in Columbia University is the least bit bothered by these issues. After all, the social sciences are filled with self-serving propagandistic garbage like this, where the "feelings" of the writer are considered more factual than actual facts.

To Columbia, this self-serving propaganda filled with lies and Jew-hatred are a feature, not a bug.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/05 Links Pt1: The Survival of the PA despite the Failure of the Oslo Accords; UNESCO to vote on Ancient Jericho joining Heritage list as site in Palestine

From Ian:

Biden cares no more than Obama did about the Sword of Damocles hanging over Israel

Enter Jack Lew, at one time Obama’s man and now Biden’s. Lew, currently a visiting professor at Columbia, served as White House Chief of Staff and then Treasury Secretary under Obama. Biden has plucked him from a New York private equity firm to put a gloss on some devilish diplomatic moves to give Iran whatever it wants, hang the Israeli government’s deep anguish. Lew was the obvious pick for the task of hoodwinking Biden’s oldest friend PM Netanyahu.

Back in June of 2015 Obama appointed Lew to sell his pet project, a deal with the devil, to Jewish Americans. “The final deal,” Lew told a Jerusalem Post conference, “will be built around an incredibly robust and intrusive inspections regime on Iran’s nuclear program. This deal will only be finalized if the connective tissue of the agreement meets a tough standard of intense verification and scrutiny.”

Here was the perfect case of Orwellian speak. The reality was that Obama had agreed to put Iran’s ‘military facilities’ off limits to IAEA inspectors, and to delay inspection of nuclear sites until such time as cleans ups or cover ups could be finished. Not good enough? Obama allowed, in good faith, Iran to submit the soil samples required by IAEA inspectors. All of these fine details his Jewish liaison man Lew forgot to tell. He did however tell that “we are not operating on an assumption that Iran will act in good faith.” Word for word that is the assumption on which Obama was operating. He himself alluded to trusting Iran in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

“There are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime,” Obama conceded, “but they also are interested in maintaining power.” It left even Obama fan Goldberg wide-eyed. “It’s my belief,” he told the President, “that it is difficult to negotiate with parties that are captive to a conspiratorial anti-Semitic worldview; not because they hold offensive views, but because they hold ridiculous views… I don’t believe that the regime can be counted on to be entirely rational.”

Of course the regime was all too rational. It saw the treaty that wasn’t a treaty for what it really was: its green light to cheat all the way to the Bomb.

No denying he’s very brilliant, Jack Lew. One can trace much of the evil in modern history to brilliancy. America’s Covid Tsar Anthony Fauci is only the latest mass destroyer of life and livelihoods. “What we are doing,” Lew said, “is to effectively guarantee that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Making sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon is a national security priority of the highest order.” To which ZOA's Mort Klein accurately elucidated, "Never" actually meant ten years. Klein also recalled that Lew boasted at the same Conference that his boss had done more than anyone on behalf of Israel’s security.

Without doubt the brag marked the epitome of Jack Lew’s efficacious lying.

Fact is, the deal Lew’s boss cobbled together was more a swap than a deal of give and take. Obama swapped the blood of Jews for a reptilian ally. The sordid game began with the vilest act. President Obama’s fixers stopped Argentine’s wheels of justice turning – in the literal sense of the term. The law was taking its long course when Obama told it to stop. His pet project deal came first. A monumental investigation into the AMIA bombing had made Alberto Nisman, a government prosecutor, a Jew, into a world celebrity. By 2006 Nisman had managed to indict seven members of Iran’s government, one a former President and Foreign Minister.

Then he did one better. Nisman secured international arrest warrants for five of the seven Iranian suspects, thus locking them into Iran. The resolute Nisman had compiled a docket a million-pages thick, in addition to a secret 300- page docket against Argentine President de Kirschner and her cronies. They had invented Tehran’s innocence in order “to pursue commercial, political and geopolitical interests.” So a vixen and four international terrorists exchanged barrels of oil for sacks of grain, topping the deal with Jewish blood by the barrel.

At this point Biden’s boss – and Jack Lews’ – came into the despicable picture. Western diplomatic sources disclosed that the Obama Administration had twisted Argentine arms to end the investigation of Tehran’s complicity in the AMIA attack.

It was to be the reward for sitting at the Obama gambling table, to go through the motions of signing his signature deal. Obama’s fixers met with Argentine officials on different occasions. As the source close to Argentine leaders explained:

“One of the first demands by Iran to the Obama administration was that Argentine be pressed to drop arrest warrants,” said a source close to Argentine leaders. “Within months, the meeting was followed up with a higher level one where Argentine leaders were asked to lay off. They eventually complied.”

Biden Nominates Leader of Pro-China Think Tank as Ambassador to Israel

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced former Treasury secretary Jack Lew as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, the White House said in a statement.

Lew is chairman of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, which advocates closer ties between the United States and China. The group has hosted senior CCP officials, and as head of the group Lew met in Beijing with China's foreign minister. One intelligence analyst described the group as "consistently soft on China."

Lew, if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, will face a complicated political situation, as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes through a judicial overhaul opposed by the Biden administration.

He would succeed Ambassador Tom Nides in the post.

In addition to Treasury secretary, Lew served under former president Barack Obama as White House chief of staff and deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

Lew was director of the Office of Management and Budget, a position in President Bill Clinton's Cabinet, from 1998 to 2001. In both the Democratic Clinton and Obama administrations, Lew served on the National Security Council.

David Singer: King Abdullah and Abbas reject Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine

Jordan’s King Abdullah and PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas have broken their 15 months long silence by finally rejecting the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution - first published in Saudi Arabia on 8 June 2022 – that shredded the failed two-state solution pursued by Saudi Arabia and the Arab League since 2002 (Arab Peace Initiative).

The Arab Peace Initiative called for a sovereign independent Palestinian State to be created between Israel and Jordan in all of Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') and Gaza - with East Jerusalem as its capital - for the first time in recorded history

The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution (HKOPS) called for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') into one new territorial entity with Amman as its capital – mirroring a model that existed between 1950 and 1967 – when Transjordan and Judea and Samaria were merged and renamed “Jordan” – after 10000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria had been forcibly expelled in the 1948 War of Independence.

The Final Statement issued by the Egyptian-Jordanian-Palestinian Summit in El Alamein on 14 August leaves no room for doubt that King Abdullah and Mahmoud Abbas – supported by Egypt’s President - Abdel Fattah El-Sisi – are united in rejecting the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution:

“The leaders emphasized that resolving the Palestinian issue and achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice, a regional and international necessity, and a matter of international peace and security. They stressed that the only way to achieve this peace is by implementing the relevant United Nations and Security Council resolutions, to enable the Palestinian people with their inalienable rights, to end the Israeli occupation, and to embody the independent and sovereign State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, in order to achieve the two-state solution based on the rules of international law, the agreed terms of reference, and the Arab peace initiative.”

These three leaders have chosen to prolong - not end - the conflict between Arabs and Jews started in 1897 that still remains unresolved today.

In stressing “that the only way to achieve this peace is by implementing the relevant United Nations and Security Council resolutions …and the Arab peace initiative” – Abdullah and Abbas have chosen to continue backing the UN Security Council attempting to implement Resolution 2334 – passed on 23 December 2016 as the defeated Obama-Biden Administration was vacating the White House and did not veto that resolution.