Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, November 24, 2023

Exclusive interview with Colonel Richard Kemp: "Hamas can only benefit" from the ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Colonel Richard Kemp is a retired British Army Commander who served from 1977 to 2006. He has spoken out in defense of Israel against Hamas, against those who have accused it of violating international law. I had an opportunity to talk with him about what he thought about the ceasefire with Hamas.

Colonel Richard Kemp

You don't have to have a military background to see the military benefits of this ceasefire for Hamas, but what about Israel? Other than rescuing the hostages, Does Israel get any benefit out of this ceasefire?

I think there is nothing really that Israel can do as a result of this ceasefire that they wouldn't have been able to do anyway. There is no direct on-the-ground military advantage for Israel.

So is there any upside at all to this cease-fire for Israel?

The upside for Israel is that obviously, many people are sympathetic to the families, and a lot of pressure on the government to agree to arrange for the release of the hostages. That is important because of what Israel is going through. There are a lot of soldiers being killed and a huge amount of disruption to the society in Israel. It is extremely important that the population is kept supporting the government's actions. And I think this ceasefire and the release of hostages helps with that. That is one of the upsides.

The other upside is there is a lot of pressure from the United States on Israel to agree to this cease-fire, and it is important for Israel to take into account the opinions of the White House because the continued support of the US president is extremely important to Israel.

Those are the only two upsides, besides getting the hostages back, which obviously is important.

On the flip side, does Hamas lose anything by this ceasefire, or is it a pure win for them?

Hamas doesn't lose anything. They can only benefit. They get breathing room in which to regroup, recover, maybe replenish weaponry, and reorganize themselves for what is going to come next. That is obviously an advantage for them, but equally a disadvantage for Israel.

And the other benefit is for those who are already sympathetic to Hamas and opposed to Israel. Hamas's humanitarian image is going to be improved. They will be seen as willing to release some of these hostages. That doesn't add up for any rational person, but it will be portrayed in that way by some in the media who oppose Israel. So I think that is a pretty big benefit to them. And it is a pretty big drawback for Israel. There is obviously a lot of public support for what Israel is doing in light of the horrors of the seventh of October but memories fade, and they fade very quickly if you are not directly involved. I think there will be a bit of a shift of sympathy toward Hamas's image on this.

So Hamas is not going to look weak or desperate?

To me personally, it makes Hamas look very weak. It is a sign of desperation by Hamas and I hope that other people will see it that way as well. To release these hostages in exchange for 150 Hamas prisoners is an unprecedented deal by Hamas. Normally, they would want a lot more prisoners. It just shows how weak they are because frankly, the 150 prisoners who are being released -- Hamas couldn't care less about them. Whereas Israel gains the release of 50 hostages, Hamas doesn't gain these 150 prisoners because Hamas doesn't get any real benefit from them. So all Hamas is getting out of the ceasefire is that breathing room.

There are other downsides for Israel as well, not military but geopolitical or strategic downsides. When the ceasefire goes into effect, there will be a great deal of pressure on Israel to extend it. People have been watching a large number of civilians getting killed and the destruction inside Gaza. Many people don't understand why that is necessary and are determined it should end. They will be pressuring Israel on this ceasefire to extend and extend and extend. And of course, Hamas will try to do the same thing by offering a further drip-feed of hostage releases, which if Israel does not have sufficient resolve to withstand could be very detrimental to the long-term campaign.

The second major strategic downside is that some Arab countries will see this as a sign of Israeli weakness because most Arab countries want to see Israel destroy Hamas. Hamas threatens them, maybe indirectly, but it threatens them. They want to see Israel smash Hamas. And they will see this ceasefire maybe as an Israeli weakness. I'm talking about countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. They want a strong Israel, an Israel that can defend itself and can also help defend them. So I think that this could be an undermining of confidence in Israel.

Along those lines, some suggest that a goal of Iran on October 7 could have been to undercut the Abraham Accords as a joint front against Iran. Would you agree?

Yes, I would agree that one of the reasons for the attack was that Iran wanted to disrupt and terminate the normalization, particularly between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think the Abraham Accords has held together during this conflict. I do think that it is quite likely that after the conflict in Gaza is over, it is likely there will be a resumption to get normalization between Israel and the Saudis. The ceasefire might delay this, but it is likely to go ahead. The Saudis are not fools; they know very well why Iran directed this attack to happen.

I do not believe this hostage release alone is going to be pivotal in any of these Arab relationships. It doesn't help matters because the Accords are not just about economic benefits. It is about military strength and support by Israel. Israel just has to be extremely careful to conclude this war effectively and successfully and guard against any further actions that could be seen as weakness by the Arab countries.

So taking into account the hostage deal, Israel really cannot afford to stop short of the complete elimination of Hamas?

I agree. I think it is essential that Israel achieves that and has a minimum delay in doing it. Obviously, the longer the delay, the more problematic it is. Also, I think that Israel has to look very carefully at what is happening in the north with Hezbollah. It has to be dealt with. If Israel doesn't address Hezbollah and act against Hezbollah after what Hezbollah has been doing during the last few weeks, that too will be seen as a sign of weakness.

It is not only the Arab countries that will get that message about Israeli weakness, but also the US. The US wants to see a strong Israel. Whether that is the agenda of President Biden or was the agenda of President Obama, I do not know, but I think that in broader terms the US needs a strong Israel because the US has other major concerns outside the Middle East, including what is going on in Europe, China and Taiwan, etc. and needs a strong Israel that is not overly dependent on the US and also bolsters the security of other Arab countries against Iran.

You wouldn't necessarily be able to tell that from Biden's actions in relation to Iran, but I think more broadly in the longer term that is important for the US and Israel.

So the repercussions of this ceasefire and hostage deal extend beyond the Middle East?

The Biden administration has had a track record of weakness, going back to the very start of his presidency, which was soon followed by the withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was a major sign of weakness. We have also seen the Biden administration's weakness over Ukraine, failing to give enough support to Ukraine to enable it to succeed against Russia. The ceasefire is good for Russia and China and the other enemies of the US. The last thing that the US needs now is further signs of weakness. The pressure on Israel not to take the war to its obvious conclusion and the pressure on Israel not to deal with Hezbollah -- play straight into the hands of Russia, China, and Iran.

Netanyahu is in a weak position, both because of accusations that he is partly responsible for Oct 7 and because of the backlash against his judicial reforms. And that weakens Israel as well -- True, Oct 7 has unified Israel, but now with the ceasefire -- what is the mood in Israel, now?

I've been here, In Israel, since a few days following the October massacre, and I've seen what is going on here. I think that Israel is very closely united in seeking to destroy Hamas. There is not much dissent, if any, among people in Israel. I think there has been more division in terms of the hostages. I've spoken to a lot of people in different positions in the government, in the military, and the ordinary people in the street about what their views are, and obviously there are quite a few different perspectives. I would say the majority have reservations about the ceasefire to enable the release of the hostages, but I think the majority -- though they may have reservations -- also think this is the right thing to do. I haven't done my own poll, but my impression is the majority is behind what is happening.

In straight military terms, I see the ceasefire for the hostages as a military negative for Israel, but Netanyahu has more important things to concern himself with than just the military campaign. He has to take into account public opinion and public pressure, plus pressure from the US. You have to look at the perspective of how much Israel needs the US, both politically and militarily. Israel has stood up to the US on some things but there has to be some give-and-take.

Putting aside the geopolitical, what about the protests in the West -- how might the ceasefire affect them?

The protestors are not going to be calmed by a short ceasefire. They are going to seize on it as something they can work on to try and continue and apply pressure on their political leaders to get the ceasefire extended. I think if anything it could lead to an upsurge. And then assuming the hostilities continue in Gaza, we could see an upsurge in protests and violence. I think it is going to get worse than it has been so far. I think the ceasefire is going to have a more inflammatory effect on the protests.

What will Gaza look like post-Hamas -- who will be in charge?

I think the IDF will have to retain overall security responsibility in Gaza, which will either require a permanent presence there or the ability to move in and out at will. Maybe they will have to take over the immediate general management of the Strip as well unless the UN steps up to the mark quickly. I suspect Israel and its partners will be trying to identify someone from within Gaza who can be empowered to take over the reconstruction as soon as possible, backed by international money. The other alternative is the PA, but I suspect this is unlikely.

Finishing up, from a military perspective is there anything that you would like to see Israel do differently?

I don't think so. I think Israel's tactics have been remarkably successful in their military operations inside Gaza, probably exceeding the expectations of the IDF commanders. Fundamentally, I would not see an alternative to what they are doing.

And things like the civilian death rates, we have no idea what they are because we don't believe the Hamas figures on that, though they are significant, I'm sure. But Israel is taking the most effective possible steps to minimize civilian casualties. However, it is impossible to prevent them altogether when you are fighting an enemy that hides behind the civilian population. You have two choices. You can either say you cannot attack the enemy because civilians might die and you will allow the enemy to remain a threat, or you say that it is unfortunate that some civilians are going to die -- we cannot stop it, but that is just the way it is.

The actions of the UN, particularly the Human Rights Council, the NGOs, the universities, the politicians in some cases -- their activities going back to the Goldstone Report have led to this situation. The whole objective of Hamas has been the delegitimization of Israel by carrying out attacks that force Israel to respond in ways that result in the deaths of civilians, which are then condemned as war crimes. So all of that is playing directly into Hamas's hands. That is the cycle of violence that exists in the Middle East. It is not the cycle of violence in which Israel is involved. Instead, it is the cycle of violence in which Hamas, the UN, other international bodies, and other political leaders are involved. These people who have condemned Israel unjustly of war crimes over the years have blood on their hands. They have directly led to what is going on today.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The National (UAE) reports:

Gaza's Health Ministry has said it will stop co-ordinating with the World Health Organisation in evacuating patients and medical staff from hospitals, following the arrest of the director of Al Shifa Hospital, the largest in the besieged enclave.

“We condemn the arrest of Muhammad Abu Salmiya and a number of medical personnel held by the occupation forces. He left the complex with the UN and WHO following evacuation orders from the occupation with dozens of patients and health workers,” Gaza's Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf Al Qudra told The National.

“We are calling all sides to take responsibility to release the doctor and those with him. This is a crime against humanity."

Hamas called the IDF "Nazi" for the arrest.

This arrest comes after weeks of Salmiya's strenuous denials that Hamas operated from the hospital.

Now, as journalists report on the large tunnel complex underneath Shifa, there is no question that Salmiya knew about the tunnels, since they used electricity siphoned from the hospital itself. Even Haaretz's headline says, "Did Hamas Operate Under Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital? A Tour of the Tunnels Leaves No Room for Doubt: Israeli journalists were shown a conduit under the facility stretching over 170 meters. There's no way the hospital's managers didn't know what was going on"

Which means that not only was Salmiya aware of Hamas' use of the hospital, but he was actively supportive of it, and tried to cover it up. For the entire month Salmiya was whining to the media about Shifa being hours away from running out of electricity, he knew that Hamas was using the hospital's electricity for military purposes.

That is direct support for terrorists - terrorists who murdered Noa Marciano on the hospital grounds.

Moreover, Dr. Salmiya clearly supported Hamas using his staff as human shields.

Beyond that, Salmiya and the other senior staff at the hospital who were aware of Hamas' presence were all voluntary human shields for Hamas, which makes them - according to many interpretations of international law - effectively participants in hostilities themselves.

Salmiya crossed the line from allowing Hamas to use his staff and patients as human shields into actively supporting this use by Hamas. "Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations" is a war crime.

Any real supporter of international law should be celebrating Salmiya's arrest as a step towards justice for victims of Hamas brutality.

But the "human rights" groups have no interest in human rights when it comes to Gazans endangered by Hamas and their supporters. Not when Jews are in the vicinity,

Hamas' cutting ties with WHO and the UN is also a message to all NGOs in Gaza: they only exist to support Hamas terrorism, and if they don't actively defend Hamas they are endangering their own work in Gaza.

That little detail will not be mentioned by the mainstream news media.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The arduous hostage negotiations have been dependent on Qatar - sort of.

Qatar is not really acting as a go-between, but more as Hamas' advocate. As Seth Mandel writes in Commentary:.

Qatar is involved in the negotiations because it is Hamas’s bank and crisis PR firm on retainer. It hosts Hamas leaders and gives the terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is the “largest foreign donor to American universities,” which you may have noticed are pushing a distinctly rancid mix of Soviet and Hamas propaganda and passing it off as an academic discipline of “decolonization” studies, all while these campuses erupt with sometimes-violent rallies in support of Hamas. Qatar is also the disseminator of a hugely popular television station devoted entirely to the wishes of dictators and thugs.

In other words, Qatar is not adding value to the negotiations. It is only burnishing its own image as a party trusted by all. But it keeps that image by supporting terrorism.

Qatar would be far more useful if the West would pressure it, not coddle it. Because Hamas needs Qatar, not the other way around.

At the same time, another most interesting story came out:

According to an unnamed Egyptian source quoted in London-based pan-Arab news site Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, Thursday, Hamas is also set to release 23 Thai hostages following Iranian mediation between the Palestinian terror group and Bangkok.

If true, Hamas is willing to let go of 23 hostages - just because Iran asked them to.

Without demanding anything in return.

In other words, both Qatar and Iran could pressure Hamas to release all the hostages if they thought it was in their own best interests. And serious economic pressure from the West could ensure that it would be in their own best interests.

Instead, the US and others are coddling two of the parties that have direct influence on Hamas. (Turkey probably does as well.)

But instead of realizing that this mass kidnapping affects the entire free world, the West is instead forcing Israel to release terrorists and go through an agonizing, indefinite period of time where maybe some hostages will be released in dribs and drabs, over months or years (if Hamas is given a lifeline by these same Western governments.)

Hamas has patrons. We all know who they are. Yet the Western world has said that this is Israel's problem and it must play a game where it gives in to some Hamas demands.

Something really stinks here.

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!

11/23 Links Pt2: The Debate on “From the River to the Sea” Exposes the Hypocrisy of Wokeness; Calls to oust U.N. official over Australian trip funded by Palestinian lobby groups

From Ian:

Special Rapporteur accused of ‘gross violations of UN rules’ on Australia trip

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Rights Francesca Albanese breached UN rules by having her trip to Australia funded by pro-Palestinian lobby groups, according a UN watchdog NGO.

Albanese was in Australia last week, during which she addressed the National Press Club, delivered the Edward Said Memorial Lecture in Adelaide and made several media appearances. The staunch Israel critic has in the past posted on social media about the “Jewish lobby”, endorsed comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and justified terrorism against Israeli civilians.

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer accused Albanese of “gross violations of UN rules and basic professional ethics”.

“Her recent trip to Australia as Special Rapporteur was sponsored by known Palestinian lobby groups in that country: The Australian Friends of Palestine Association and Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, as well as the Free Palestine Melbourne and Palestinian Christians in Australia,” Neuer wrote, adding that Albanese “repeatedly echoed the Hamas narrative, claiming Israel’s right to self-defence was ‘non-existent’.”

Neuer noted that Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures requires that representatives not “‘seek nor accept instructions’ from any ‘non-governmental organisation or pressure group whatsoever,’ or accept any ‘favour, gift or remuneration’ from any ‘non-governmental source for activities carried out in pursuit of his/her mandate.’”

Calls to oust U.N. official over Australian trip funded by Palestinian lobby groups

An expensive Australian trip last week by a UN official who told Hamas they have “a right to resist” was funded by Palestinian lobby groups in breach of the UN’s own Code of Conduct, according to a watchdog group that today filed papers with the world body calling for her removal.

In a letter sent today by UN Watch, an independent Swiss non-governmental watchdog group that holds special consultative status with the United Nations, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is being asked to take action to remove Francesca Albanese from her post as the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur tasked with investigating “Israel’s violations.”

The full text of the letter follows below.

22 November 2023

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
The United Nations
New York, NY 10027
United States

Dear Secretary-General Guterres,

We are deeply concerned over gross violations of UN rules and basic professional ethics by Ms. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Her recent trip to Australia as Special Rapporteur was sponsored by known Palestinian lobby groups in that country: The Australian Friends of Palestine Association and Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, as well as the Free Palestine Melbourne and Palestinian Christians in Australia. As part of this trip, Ms. Albanese delivered the annual Edward Said Memorial Lecture in Adelaide and made media appearances, including an address to the National Press Club, in which she repeatedly echoed the Hamas narrative, claiming Israel’s right to self-defence was “non-existent.”

As you know, independence and impartiality are basic requirements for UNHRC Special Procedures under Article 3 of the Code of Conduct, which requires them to be “free from any kind of extraneous influence…either direct or indirect.” In addition, they may not “seek nor accept instructions” from any “non-governmental organization or pressure group whatsoever,” or accept any “favour, gift or remuneration” from any ”non-governmental source for activities carried out in pursuit of his/her mandate.”

The lobbyists’ sponsorship of Ms. Albanese’s trip constitutes a blatantly prohibited form of favour, gift or remuneration under Article 3. The financial favour further subjects Albanese to prohibited direct or indirect influence. Indeed, these groups have urged her to sue an organization that called out her pro-Hamas remarks. All of this is on top of Ms. Albanese’s disgraceful antisemitism and support for terrorism.

She has said that “America is subjugated by the Jewish Lobby.”

Last year, she told a Hamas conference, “You have a right to resist.”

Since October 7th, she has whitewashed Hamas’ atrocities. She routinely portrays Israelis as Nazis.

In light of the above gross violations of UN rules and basic ethics, we urge you to take action to remove Ms. Albanese immediately from her position as Special Rapporteur.

Sincerely,
Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director

Second, the Palestinian lobby groups themselves stated they “sponsored Ms. Albanese’s visit to Australia,” and “supported” her visit to Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.@FranceskAlbs:
1. Are you saying this involved zero funds?
2. Will you provide a cost breakdown of your trip? pic.twitter.com/I11U1Kd9bW
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) November 23, 2023

Australian media ‘duped’ by UN Rapporteur for Palestine claiming to be ‘impartial’

Sky News host Sharri Markson says the Australian media has been “duped” by UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese, who claimed to be “impartial”.

Ms Markson says the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine travelled to Australia on a trip “funded by the Palestinian lobby”.

“Where she only had angry words to say about Israel,” she said.

“Albanese's trip to Australia was sponsored by Palestinian lobby groups, the Australian Friends of Palestine Association and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, as well as the Free Palestine Melbourne and Palestinian Christians in Australia groups.”

Ms Markson was joined by commentator Jason Morrison and former speaker of the house Bronwyn Bishop to discuss this.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Hamas Assures Allies That Israeli Arabs' Choosing Loyalty To Israel Only Temporary, Till End Of Time

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Rafah, November 23 - The surviving leadership of the Islamist group that until recently governed the Gaza Strip dismissed the dramatic espousal by leaders among "Palestinian citizens of Israel" that their fate lies with the Jewish State, a dismissal that the terrorist group derided as short-lived, destined to last only until Hell freezes over.

Abu Obeida, the nom de guerre of Hamas's main spokesperson in the Gaza Strip, played down statements by prominent Israeli Arabs such as MK Mansour Abbas - who under the previous government led the first Arab party to help form an Israeli government coalition - to the effect that the Arab citizens of Israel have cast their lot with the State of Israel, and will not support Hamas's attempts to destroy it.

"Such a cowardly choice will not last long," boasted Abu Obeida. "When the last particle of existence has decayed into nothingness and the universe for all intents and purposes ceases to exist, we know that this false oath of loyalty to the Zionist Entity will have long proven false."

"The fleeting, utilitarian, and, needless to say, traitorous statement by some '48 Palestinians will wither as all things do," he continued, using a term that distinguishes Arabs who fled when Israel was established from Arabs who stayed and became Israeli citizens. "They will come to regret this decision, as soon as not a consciousness is left to mark the occasion."

Israeli Arabs play a paradoxical role in the minds of those who oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state. On one hand, their relative poverty compared to most Jewish Israelis casts them as symbols and victims of Zionist discrimination, despite no legal barriers or deprivation of civil rights. On the other, the higher standard of living and other prosperity indices compared with the rest of the Arab world fosters resentment from the descendants of Arabs who chose to leave in 1947 and 1948, following assurances from invading Arab armies that the fledgling Israel would fall quickly and the Arabs could not only return home, but enjoy the lebensraum of the areas from which the Jews had been pushed into the sea.

Israel's success in stopping the onslaught left those "refugees" in limbo that Arab states have maintained as a political safety valve to distract their populace from the incompetence, corruption, and oppression common to the Arab states set up right before, during, and immediately following World War II. Experts believe the Palestinian Arab leadership will agree to drop their demands for "return" to homes in present-day Israel, allowing those descendants of refugees to gain citizenship somewhere, as soon as time ceases to have meaning.

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!

11/23 Links Pt1: Hamas Can Never Again Decide Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die; IDF arrests director of Gaza's Shifa Hospital; Netanyahu: I instructed the Mossad to act against Hamas

From Ian:

Aviva Klompas: Hamas Can Never Again Decide Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die

After 75 years believing Israel would protect Jews from being lined up and singled out for life or death, Oct. 7 awakened a sobering realization that even the Jewish state's military, economic, and technological strength offer no guarantees. Instead, Hamas—with its founding mission to annihilate Israel and Jews—is deciding who will come to their timely or untimely end.

For all the post-Holocaust promises of "never again," international support for Israel eroded rapidly once Israel went on the offensive and launched a ground invasion into Gaza. Today, the voices calling for a ceasefire are far louder than those affirming Israel's right to defend itself.

It is abundantly clear that "never again" was an empty promise. And so, the Jewish State must reset the course of Jewish history and restore the promise of Jewish security, first by bringing home every hostage and then by destroying Hamas's ability to wage war against Israel and extinguish Jewish lives.

Hamas has spent the past 15 years terrorizing and murdering Israelis with suicide bombers, rockets, mortars, incendiary balloons, roadside explosives, and tunnels built to infiltrate communities and kill and kidnap Israelis. And now they have proved themselves capable of perpetrating the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

The threat posed by the genocidal terror group must be eliminated once and for all. To be sure, Israel must abide by the laws of war and make maximum efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Critics can disagree with how Israel is waging war in Gaza—but they have no right to deny Israel's duty to free the rest of its hostages and defend its citizens.

The goal of peace-loving people should not just be an end to this current war; it should be to end all wars between Israel and Hamas. And the goal of Israel must be to ensure that no enemy will ever again decide who among the Jewish people shall live and who shall die.

Haviv Rettig Gur: Hostage deal, even if it fails, shows Hamas’s desperation

Or put another way, Hamas doesn’t know how long its retreat will take and is preparing for all contingencies.

If Hamas reneges, the war resumes, and whatever emotions Israeli leaders may feel — a palpable sense of guilt hangs over every cabinet deliberation — they will broadcast a collective shrug and return to the business of Hamas’s demolition.

Gallant’s grim victory
There’s a bottom line here. On October 29, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with the families of the hostages at IDF Headquarters in Tel Aviv. His message to them was buried in the avalanche of news from the front — the IDF had launched its ground war just 36 hours earlier.

The families were desperate. They said the ground war felt like a death sentence for their loved ones. Gallant’s response essentially laid out the Israeli strategy thus far.

Hamas, he said, “is making cynical use of all that is precious to us. They understand our pain and our anxiety.” But for that very reason, there was no way to simply negotiate the hostages out of Gaza.

The ground war would accomplish what political pressure could not. It was “inseparable from the effort to return the hostages. If Hamas doesn’t face military pressure, nothing will move.”

The war now moves south and will drive a whole new potential civilian humanitarian crisis. Hamas in Khan Younis will be just as trapped, but it will have far more troops available, a clearer understanding of IDF strategy and Israeli implacability, and a longer time to have readied the battlefield. It is there that the bulk of Hamas’s forces will find themselves in a pitched battle for survival — and where the hostages will serve as Hamas’s last available currency for buying pauses to regroup, resupply and, if the offer to Israel is generous, even escape.

From Gallant’s perspective, that’s just as it should be.

John Podhoretz: This Is Not a Time for Celebration

The release of 50-plus hostages over the course of four or five days is a positive development in the sense that their restraint and possible literal torture will be at an end. But for many of these children and the parents who will accompany them, the trauma will not be over. Some will learn of relatives dead, and will be dealing emotionally and physically with what happened during their captivity. According to Israel’s Channel 12, the soldiers who will be bringing them out have been instructed not to answer the question, “Where are mommy and daddy,” only to reassure them that they are now safe. Those soldiers are also being told to ask if the children are hot or cold and whether they want or need to be carried, or want their hands held. Read that without tears springing to your eyes and tell me you’re still human.

Then there’s the fact of the 180-190 hostages who will continue to be kept by the demons in Gaza as bargaining chips, and it needs to be said: This is not a time to celebrate. Nothing “good” will be happening over the next couple of days. And I suspect Israeli public opinion, which is the only thing that matters now, will not greet the release of these children and women by thinking, as so many parlous American Jewish leftists will, “Oh good, now we can make sure the ‘ceasefire’ remains and Israel will be halted in its forward movement to destroy Hamas.” Oh, no, you moral bottom-dwellers: Israel is more likely to come out of this more hardened, more determined, and less inclined toward any kind of conciliation. They will, instead, demand of their government that it win this war with dispatch, and then they will turn their attention to the domestic failings that have brought it on. And what we in America think about it will be of no moment to them—except inasmuch as they will take strength from our support, our prayers, our continuing struggle against the people here in America who wish them and the Jewish people harm—and our love.

Over The Years, Hamas Terrorist Control Of The Al Shifa Hospital Was Known. Why Not Now? (Daled Amos)

These days the media is demanding irrefutable proof for something that used to be an open secret: Hamas terrorists have a headquarters and maintain control in the Al Shifa hospital.

Proof?

Put aside the claims and various proofs that the IDF has produced since gaining control of the hospital in Gazal. Take a look instead at what the media and Gazan doctors have said for more than a decade.

A 2007 episode of PBS's Wide Angle provided a glimpse of how the Al Shifa Hospital was run in 2006:

In the summer of 2006, as internal battles fracture the Palestinian Territories, WIDE ANGLE provides a glimpse inside the conflict as it spirals out of control. Gaza E.R. follows doctors, nurses, and staff at Shifa Hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, as they struggle in the face of turf wars between Hamas, rival faction Fatah, and powerful families with competing agendas. Our cameras reveal that gun-battles inside the hospital... [emphasis added]

This was before the bloody Hamas coup when the terrorist group ousted their Fatah rivals. Both terrorist groups were calling Al Shifa home.

Even Human Rights Watch took notice. On June 12, 2007, HRW reported that Hamas was taking advantage of the Al Shifa hospital:

Fatah and Hamas forces engaged in battles in and around two Gaza Strip hospitals on Monday. After Hamas fighters killed Fatah intelligence officer Yasir Bakar, Fatah gunmen began firing mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, drawing Hamas fire from inside the building, killing one Hamas and one Fatah fighter. [emphasis added]

The June 30, 2007 issue of the British Medical Journal, corroborated the situation in an article quoting one of the doctors confirming that the hospital is infested with Hamas terrorists:

The medical staff are suffering from fear and terror, particularly of the Hamas fighters, who are in every corner of the hospital.

On December 29, 2008, The New York Times also reported that Hamas was in control of the hospital:

At Shifa Hospital on Monday, armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roved the halls. Asked their function, they said they were providing security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.

...Hajoj, like five others who were killed at the hospital in this way in the previous 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. [emphasis added]

The article recounts how the hospital was used as a stand-in for the central prison during Operation Cast Lead, though there was not much of a trial.

Hamas was all over. in control, and taking advantage of the protection that Al Shifa offered.

On January 13, 2009, PBS again reported about how Hamas had taken control of Al Shifa:

WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way. [emphasis added]

Five years later, things had not changed, except that the Washington Post acknowledged that the hospital was being used as a headquarters. On July 15, 2014, William Booth reported about a brief cease-fire during Operation Defensive Edge:

At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority’s health minister, who represents the crumbling “unity government” in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices. [emphasis added]

The fact that a terrorist group was using Shifa Hospital as headquarters was not even considered a revelation. It was just business as usual. We know this because the fact that Hamas was using the hospital as a headquarters was mentioned in passing in the eighth paragraph of the article.

Nick Casey, a journalist with the Wall Street Journal noted that Hamas was using the hospital for its propaganda when he posted a picture on Twitter of a Hamas spokesman being interviewed inside the hospital. He later deleted the tweet.

Casey later tweeted:

Casey was later compelled to delete that tweet as well.

A day later, on July 22, the French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga, a correspondent for “Ouest France” and a former contributor to “Libération”, recounted his being summoned to be interrogated by Hamas in the al Shifa hospital:

A few meters from the emergency room where the wounded from the bombings are constantly arriving, he is received in the outpatient department, “a small section of the hospital used as an administration” by a group of young fighters. “They were all well dressed, ” Radjaa is surprised. In civilian clothes, with a pistol under their shirt and some had walkie-talkies . He is ordered to empty his pockets, remove his shoes and his belt and then he is called to a hospital room “which served that day as a command office for three people”. [emphasis in the original]

Hamas disapproved of Dagga's work and wanted to know if he was in fact an Israeli journalist. He was lucky enough to be able to leave Gaza.

But at Dagga's request, this article was removed.

But Hamas found that the al Shifa hospital was useful for more than just interrogations. Here, a Finnish journalist reported about a rocket being fired from the back parking lot of the hospital.

On July 23, John Reed of The Financial Times tweeted:

From August 11, 2014, from the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw about the disappearance of Hamas uniforms once the fighting begins:

they go into hiding. Only at the Shifa Hospital, the big hospital in Gaza City, are a few sitting in uniform. There, they feel protected from the Israeli bombings. In addition, that is where they monitor the international press to prevent it from doing ‘wrong’ things.

Again, Hamas is using the hospital as a headquarters.

In May 2015, Amnesty International was catching on and published a report which referenced how Hamas used the hospital. The report, ‘Strangling Necks': Abductions, Torture, And Summary Killings Of Palestinians By Hamas Forces During The 2014 Gaza/Israel Conflict, made the extent of Hamas control clear:

Hamas forces used the abandoned areas of al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, including the outpatients’ clinic area, to detain, interrogate, torture and otherwise ill-treat suspects, even as other parts of the hospital continued to function as a medical centre. [emphasis added]

An online summary of the report actually went into more detail:

As well as carrying out unlawful killings, others abducted by Hamas were subjected to torture, including severe beatings with truncheons, gun butts, hoses and wire or held in stress positions. Some were interrogated and tortured or otherwise ill-treated in a disused outpatient’s clinic within the grounds of Gaza City’s main al-Shifa hospital. At least three people arrested during the conflict accused of “collaboration” died in custody. [emphasis added]

Clearly, over the years the presence of Hamas in Al Shifa and their control over the hospital as they conducted their day-to-day business was known. It was noted by journalists, the media and even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch admitted to how Hamas was exploiting the hospital.

But still, not everyone could admit the truth.

For an article in Forbes in 2014, Richard Behar asks an unnamed journalist what we now know is a straightforward question: "Are Hamas leaders and fighters using it as a base for operations?"

The journalist responded:

It’s not the fighters who are there, and they’re not using the hospital to launch rockets from, they’re using it to see media. These are Hamas spokesmen [at the hospital], not leaders. This is also something that has not been understood fully. There are probably a couple of reasons [for holding press conferences there]. It’s a safe place. Israel doesn’t kill spokespeople. Also, it’s a good place to get journalists, as we’re passing through the hospital, since that’s where the bodies are coming in. It’s a place journalists have to go anyway.

Whether it is an issue of fear of Hamas or some ingrained bias, this inability to face the facts should not surprise us.

It is going on right now, too.

Even though the proof of Hamas presence at and beneath Shifa is overwhelming.

Maybe it was never about finding out the truth to begin with.

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!

HRW worker confirms what we've known all along: the organization is wildly biased against Israel

This is the text of the farewell letter written by Danielle Haas, senior editor at Human Rights Watch, It confirms everything we've been saying for years about its obsessive anti-Israel bias.

Dear Human Rights Watch,

Because we live in dangerous times and this is a human rights organization dedicated to free speech, open dialogue, and rights for all, I’m sending a final email before leaving HRW. I’m hopeful, but wary, that an organization with a mission to “Expose. Investigate. Change” can do just that when it comes to its own practices regarding its Israel work, with authenticity and without retaliation.

When I joined Human Rights Watch over 13 years ago as senior editor, I did so with years of experience in journalism covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and time in academia.

Human Rights Watch seemed to be a good blend of both; a leading human rights organization dedicated to rigorous research, focused on international law and human suffering, with a mandate to bring about change. I believed in, and stayed for, the broader mission.

But as the organization grew and its composition shifted, so too did the focus, tone, and framing of its Israel-Palestine work. Following the Hamas massacres in Israel on October 7, years of institutional creep culminated in organizational responses that shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness, and surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all.

HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn outright the murder, torture, and kidnapping of Israeli men, women, and children. They included the “context” of “apartheid” and “occupation” before blood was even dry on bedroom walls. These responses were not, as some have since characterized it internally, a messaging misstep in the tumult after the Hamas assault. It was not the failure of a few to follow robust internal mechanisms of editing and quality control, as others have claimed.

It did not happen in a vacuum.

Rather, HRW’s initial response was the fruition of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work that has frequently violated basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and collegiality when it comes to Israel.

It was the expression of years of select historical and political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence.

And it was the domination of HRW’s Israel-Palestine work by some voices that drown out others to the point where those who feel uncomfortable with HRW’s approach and processes – and they do exist – feel silenced.

To be clear: focus on, and criticism of, Israeli policies and actions is valid for a human rights organization.

But what I know from over 13 years at HRW is:

* Israel has featured in the World Report annual global review of human rights I oversaw for more than a decade almost as extensively as world powers including China, Russia, and the United States, and that the Israel-Palestine chapter has always been longer than those of rights-abusing goliaths such as Iran and North Korea.

* The 2021 “Apartheid” report, hailed internally in its goal to affect “narrative change,” sealed the slide. HRW knew its careful, legal argument would rarely be read in full. And there is little doubt it has not been by those – including Hamas supporters – who now bandy about the term with appalling ease. It’s a one-word gift to those who want to characterize Israel in as few words as possible with as little nuance as possible, a go-to “context” for any fate that befalls Israel and Jewish Israelis; 120 HRW researchers recently signed a petition calling for its inclusion in a press release about Israeli hostages.

* Internal fora nominally dedicated to both Israel and Palestine were, in practice, mostly dedicated to expressions of outrage over Israeli abuses and their consequences, both real and speculated. The focus on Israel dominated those spaces both before and after October 7, including the links shared; the space given to colleagues to articulate their lived realities and trauma; and ultimately advocacy.

* Some types of Israeli-Palestine expertise were valued more than others. There was no value placed on having a Jewish Israeli staff member who spoke Hebrew, had covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for international media, a rich academic background, and 17 years’ immersion in the country. The profile of those entrusted with HRW’s-related work is different. The only contact I had with Israel-Palestine content over the years, despite working on virtually every other area of the world, was as World Report editor. I received thinly veiled insinuations and pushback when I highlighted factual inaccuracies in the Israel-Palestine chapter that were later corrected.

* HRW has so little credibility for most Israelis they do not even trust it with their corpses. Zaka, the emergency responder group that collected body parts after the Hamas massacres, said it did not want to talk to HRW because its members did not have faith the organization would not misuse and distort their eyewitness accounts of the carnage they had seen.

* When I named the constellation of my experiences over years to a senior manager as feeling a lot like antisemitism, he replied: “You are probably right.” He did not ask or do anything further.

Three weeks after the October 7 massacres, Human Rights Watch told staff it was “proud” of its response to the crisis.

The self-affirmation failed to address output that included, but is not limited to:

HRW’s first matter-of-fact announcement following the October 7 massacres that barely addressed what had happened, contrasting starkly with its thousands of statements over the years condemning a range of human rights abuses:

“Palestinian armed groups carried out a deadly assault on October 7, 2023, that killed several hundred Israeli civilians and led to Israeli counterstrikes that killed hundreds of Palestinians,” Human Rights Watch said in releasing a questions and answers document about the international humanitarian law standards governing the current hostilities.”

An early press release that could easily be construed as blaming the victim:

“The unlawful attacks and systematic repression that have mired the region for decades will continue, so long as human rights and accountability are disregarded.”

A piece on Israeli attacks on Gaza being devastating for Palestinians with disabilities that failed to mention the devastating impact of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis with disabilities. They included those murdered on October 7, among them a 17-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy killed at a music festival; those who are now disabled because of the attacks; and Israeli hostages with pre-existing health conditions ranging from heart problems to diabetes.

Lack of context when using controversial figures that came from a Hamas-run ministry:

“[Washington Post] Reporter Adam Taylor quoted Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch Omar Shakir, who said, “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable. In the times in which we have done our own verification of numbers for particular strikes, I’m not aware of any time which there’s been some major discrepancy.”

It is not logical, not possible, and not the case that everyone at HRW agrees with its pre- and post-October 7 Israel work or feels safe. Instead, it is a deeply worrying indication that staff are self-censoring because they fear isolation if they speak and that nothing will be done even if they do. It is a warning that they are cowed by the way in which critics of Human Rights Watch are talked about internally, and by the tone and content of banter before and during meetings, in listservs, and in message chats.

Maybe they’re also not reassured by responses like the one senior management sent me regarding a recent email I sent them, in which they said they “appreciate” my “feedback” and “learn” from it.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

The serious professional concerns I raised over the years with the Program Office, General Counsel, and MENA managers never went anywhere. They were always received – it appeared – through a filter of me being a Jew and/or Israeli, even though Muslim and Arab staff and those with overt political backgrounds are trusted as advocates and to oversee research.

Also, my comments are not “feedback.”

Rather, they amount to a charge and a challenge to Human Rights Watch: tackle the long-standing issues infecting your Israel work and the hostile internal climate that Hamas’ attacks brought into sharp relief but did not birth. Face down the conscious and unconscious biases that inform them. Address inaccuracies by omission.

Do so not because you are under pressure to be seen to be listening, but because you respect the professionalism and expertise of your many thoughtful, serious colleagues from diverse backgrounds who cannot do their work without fear of stigma and retaliation if they speak.

Do so because you care about the health of the organization, upholding your internal standards, and ensuring human rights advocacy is not a fig leaf for political beliefs, or worse.

Do so because you want not just to claim your mantle of moral authority, but to earn it.

Dani

Here is a screenshot of Haas' former bio at HRW.

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!

According to this article, Israel has killed "76 fighters of Hezbollah, two fighters from the Lebanese Resistance Brigades, one fighter from the Lebanese Resistance Regiments, seven members of the Hamas Movement, four fighters from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and 12 Lebanese civilians."

It doesn't include an airstrike Wednesday night that killed 5 Hezbollah members including two top leaders.

It looks like Israel's strategy in Lebanon to dissuade Hezbollah is to go after prominent members of the terror groups.

Hezbollah has said it would adhere to the Gaza ceasefire if Israel does. I haven't seen any word from Israel that it would stop its attacks in Lebanon, which indicates that Hezbollah is feeling the heat.

Either way, Israel's record in Lebanon in avoiding civilian casualties is proof that it uses the same strategy in Gaza. Israel gains nothing and loses a lot when it kills civilians in the course of its fighting, and the percentage of militants that it kills in Lebanon, as well as Syria, is close to 100%.

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!

11/22 Links Pt2: Accusing Israel of genocide is despicable doublethink; Jew hatred is the glue that holds together the leftist-Islamic alliance

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: Accusing Israel of genocide is despicable doublethink

Gary Lineker is taking the piss now, isn’t he? He’s had his knuckles rapped by the BBC numerous times for sharing his centrist-dad blather online. For using the public platform gifted to him by us licence-fee payers – on pain of criminal conviction – to advertise his milquetoast views that most people think are bollocks. And yet now, in studied defiance of his bosses, he’s given voice to his most ignorant political opinion yet. To a dinner-party prejudice that isn’t only irritating but will feel genuinely hurtful to many who are forced by law to make Lineker rich. He’s tweeted a link to a video in which Israel is accused of committing genocide against the Palestinians.

Yes, as if Israel hadn’t suffered enough at the murderous hands of Hamas, now it must endure the indignity of a football pundit wondering out loud if it might be guilty of the worst war crime of all. What next, Wayne Rooney sitting in judgement on the Democratic Republic of Congo? ‘Worth 13 minutes of anyone’s time’, said the Match of the Day presenter turned amateur Hague sleuth in his retweet of a conversation between the Guardian’s Owen Jones and Raz Segal, an associate professor of genocide studies at Stockton University in New Jersey. In that chat, Segal says that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a ‘textbook genocide’. Textbook. That is, it conforms precisely to the definition of genocide, which is the murder of a large number of people from an ethnic group with the aim of destroying that ethnic group. This is what Lineker is sharing to his 8.9million followers on X. The lie that the Jewish State has a bloodlust to vaporise all Palestinians.

This is serious, no? Mr Lineker is a representative of Britain’s public broadcaster, the BBC. He is the face of BBC Sport. Did he not stop to think how the Jewish section of the public might feel about his sharing of a clip damning Israel as genocidal? Did it not cross his mind that our Jewish citizens who are compelled to pay his wages might now feel a lesser part of ‘the public’ that the Beeb is meant to embody? The vast majority of British Jews support Israel (if not the Netanyahu government). They consider it ‘the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people’. Call me a contrarian, but I think people paid by the public to provide a service to the public ought not to alienate any section of that public by sharing inflammatory ideological claims.

We can now see how stunningly lacking in virtue the virtue-signallers are. When Hamas fascists launched their pogrom against Israel on 7 October, Lineker said nothing. On the day itself, this bloke who loves to wring his hands over bad things said nowt about the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. He did find time to congratulate Spurs for getting to the top of the league, though. The next day, too, not a whisper. Finally, on 9 October, he said something. Kind of. He tweeted a link to a new episode of The Rest is Politics in which his mates, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, talked about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Given his keen interest in events that apparently echo the 1930s – he famously accused then home secretary Suella Braverman of using ‘language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’ – it was striking he had so little to say about an atrocity that really did echo the 1930s.

Stephen Pollard: I thought we had reached peak Gary Lineker. I was wrong Bad Medicine

On Oct. 7, Hamas unleashed a barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, killing more than 1,200 people, including more than 30 Americans. The event was unprecedented in its scale and cruelty in a country that is no stranger to terrorism. Still, it was not met with universal condemnation. Rather, a nontrivial number of Americans either justified or even celebrated the attacks. Such responses were especially prevalent within the elite universities that popular imagination historically upholds as a bulwark against religious and ethnic bigotry, and mostly occurred with impunity.

Medicine has eagerly adopted the same type of identity politics that have come to define the policies, sensibilities, and ideologies of Ivy League universities, where diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) officials have essentially served as a political commissariat, articulating and enforcing identity politics orthodoxy. Indeed, medical training and practice is fertile ground for antisemitism to flourish. Looking at explicit acts of antisemitism from health care providers in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack, we observe that doctors are among those who have engaged in some of the most egregious displays of antisemitism, and that they are not regularly punished for their conduct. Second, we examined the responses of professional medical associations and medical schools to Hamas’ attack against Israel compared to their response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Leading medical institutions treat the world’s only Jewish state differently from other U.S. allies even though Americans overall have warmer feelings toward Israel than Ukraine.

If we want to understand why medical professionals are drawn to acts of antisemitism despite their advanced levels of education, we need to look at what their medical associations and schools are teaching them. Those institutions not only advance an ideology that facilitates Jew hatred, they demonstrate by the example of their public statements that they hold Jews and the Jewish state to a different standard.

Assuredly, the great majority of medical practitioners have made no public statements or made benign remarks that did not warrant news coverage. Still, Stop Antisemitism, an organization that calls attention to public displays of antisemitism, has recorded many medical practitioners whose speech or conduct related to recent events clearly demonstrate untrammeled Jew hatred. The fact that some of those health professionals were subsequently disciplined by their employers is reassuring. But the fact that so many would feel the urge and freedom to engage in overt Jew hatred despite their advanced professional training is alarming.

David Collier: Verifying BBC (Hamas) propaganda – presenting exhibit A

This article published yesterday is a perfect example of how the BBC goes out of its way to demonise Israel – and the means through which it does so. If ever BBC executives are forced to stand before a panel at an inquiry – this should be one of the articles they need to explain.

It seems so benign. A human interest story about Gazan footballers who have been trapped by the conflict and could not play in the Palestine v Australia World Cup qualifier that took place yesterday (Australia won 1-0):

The BBC is not a local town newspaper. When looking at an article such as this – we need to analyse the motivation behind it warranting exposure to the BBC’s massive audience. Did the BBC put a team on this because it was such an important story that it needed to be reported – or is another dynamic at work; are they scrambling around for stories that demonise Israel – and this article got the green light only because it could potentially tick so many anti-Israel boxes?

Time to have a closer look.

Test 1 – is the pillar of the story true

We have no way of fully verifying the story. And importantly – nor did the BBC. But we can look at the evidence available:

Three Gazan footballers were named.
Ibrahim Abuimeir(FB)
Ahmed Kullab (FB)
Khaled Al-Nabris (FB)

The BBC tells us that these three footballers ‘should have been training for the World Cup Qualifiers’ and we are then told that Ibrahim is described by his trainers ‘as one of the star defenders of the Palestinian team’,

Well that is a fact we can check. This is the number of times those three players have played for the Palestine National Team: Ibrahim Abuimeir = zero (u23 appearances)
Ahmed Kullab = zero (u23 appearances)
Khaled Al-Nabris = zero (u23 appearances)

None of them have ever played for the national team at senior level before. It is true they have performed at the U-23 level – and are part of the set-up for next year’s olympics – but that is not the same thing. There is no evidence AT ALL – these players were all going to be called up for the world cup qualifiers. In fact – evidence was found to suggest they would NOT BE as Abuimeir only recently turned professional and remains part of the 2024 Olympic u23 plans.

There is more. The Palestinian team doesn’t play many youngsters. In the current squad only one player is under the age of 23 (naturally a forward). The squad has NO DEFENDERS under the age of 24 (also quite normal for anyone who understands football). Two of the trapped Gazan players are defenders. Abuimeir (just turned 21) and Kullab (Just turned 22).

The BBC argument is that these three extremely young players – all coincidentally trapped in Gaza – none of whom have ever played for the national team before – were due to be in the World Cup squad. This story is nonsense.

We can say certainly that the description of Abuimeir in the headline as one of Palestine’s star defenders is *blatantly untrue*.

One other point of note. The BBC also relies on the words of Ehab Abu Jazar – a coach of the Palestinian team. This is what Abu Jazar posted on the morning of the 7th October. In this post he suggests that if someone does not see the events of Oct 7 as a great thing- then they are not really Palestinian. Perhaps FIFA need to look closely at him:

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

--1--

If it were you, my child, husband, brother, sister, mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, grandchild, friend. If it were you I would fight like hell to set you free, to bring you home and into my arms. Safe.

Then we would deal with the aftermath. The nightmares, the poisoned minds of the children raised to hate themselves and what they came from. The massive, multi-level trauma of it all, from beginning to the something that will never end.

Still, from a distance so far away that I don’t want to see it, I know that procuring your release has broader implications. You are a Hamas bargaining chip, or rather an Iran bargaining chip for use with Joe Biden, along with a cascade of other evil actors across the globe who will use human beings—use you—to get what they want. Hamas randomly keeps you alive—if you are alive—to get concessions; to retrench and regain strength to hurt the Jewish people; to score a victory; to wound Israel and live to kill, maim, and destroy more Jews another day.

--2--

Every day since October 7th, we have heard Israeli officials say, all the hostages or no ceasefire. It was clear from the start—Israel had been quite clear from the start. Or rather, the objective was clear until it wasn’t, and Israel began to speak of a “partial ceasefire,” when just to speak of this even in a fuzzy sort of way, already put Israel. at a distinct disadvantage. It must be said and taken into account, that while the hostage deal may save the lives of some of the hostages, it will put an untold number of other lives at risk, for example, just now, our dear Israeli soldiers. To breathe life into Hamas is to wreak havoc with the future. This Amalek must be stopped. Hamas must be obliterated, completely.

Ain breira. There is no choice. It's all or nothing. There is no other way. All the hostages or no ceasefire, partial or otherwise. Israel must hold firm, because a deal with Hamas is Obama’s deal, Biden’s deal, a deal with the devil, Iran. For Hamas, this deal translates to Jews ceding victory and paying the jizya, even unto releasing 300 felons back onto the streets of their natural hate-infested society.

We have certainly learned something here: the going rate for a handful of Jews is 300 felons for Hamas to parade as trophies. "How stupid is the Jew?” you might hear from the laughing crowd as they watch the 300 go by, and slap each other on the back. "They turn Gaza into rubble, then cry to us, 'You won!'"

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!