The families of the two Palestinian journalists killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza have rejected as "fabricated" and "false" a new claim from Israel's military that they were "terrorists".
...On Wednesday night, the IDF put out another statement about the incident which said an Israeli aircraft targeted the operators of a "hostile drone near Rafah" and that Palestinian media had subsequently identified them as journalists.
"However, IDF intelligence has confirmed that both the deceased were members of Gaza-based terrorist organizations actively involved in attacks against IDF forces," it added.
It alleged that troops in Gaza had found a document that identified Mustafa Thuraya as a "member of Hamas' Gaza City Brigade, serving as squad deputy commander in the Qadisiya Battalion".
Troops had also found documents that showed Hamza al-Dahdouh's "role in the Islamic Jihad's electronic engineering unit and his previous role as a deputy commander in the Zeitoun Battalion's Rocket Array", it added. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is the second largest armed group in Gaza and, like Hamas, it is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the UK and others.
The IDF released a photograph of one document in Arabic that included Hamza al-Dahdouh's name among a list of "operatives from the electronic engineering unit" of PIJ.
The image is very poor quality, making it hard to assess its authenticity independently.
However, two regional experts told BBC Verify that the use of English alongside Arabic in the document was unusual.
Erik Skare, a researcher at France's Sciences Po university who has written a book on PIJ, said: "I regularly visited the website of the al-Quds Brigades... I have read their martyr biographies, their books etc, and I have never seen the combination of English and Arabic text."
Here is the document the IDF released, and the Google Translate of that document, showing the full name of the Al Jazeera "journalist" Hamza Al-Dahdouh and that he was part of the Electronic Engineering (G22) unit.
The entire case that the BBC has that the document is forged is that two "experts" said they visited the Islamic Jihad Al Quds Brigades website and never, ever saw any documents there that included the Al Quds name in English.
Is that true?
The website of the Al Quds Brigades is saraya.ps - a site that has been down since the beginning of the war. But we have plenty of archives of the site online. And here is what every single press release looks like:
"Al Quds Brigades" in English, upper left, organization name underneath in English, logo in the middle. Just like the document released by Israel.
The main logo of the group also includes English:
Either the "experts" are lying about what they've seen on the site or they never went to the site at all. Either way, this makes the BBC look very bad indeed.
And based on this non-existent "evidence" the BBC broadly implies that Israel is faking documents, which is a serious charge.
The problem goes beyond just lying. The BBC doesn't show anything near this level of skepticism for anything that Hamas or Gaza people say. They don't bother looking for "experts" to identify where the Hamas statements are inconsistent and provable lies. And make no mistake - every BBC employee who knows Arabic could easily prove Hamas lies all the time by comparing their daily claims of killing so many Israelis with the number of Israeli funerals there are. Any BBC employee with a spreadsheet can see the glaring inconsistencies of the daily casualty reports where the number of "women and children" killed sometimes exceed the total number killed.
Yet the BBC never reports about Hamas lies.
Israel is assumed at the outset to be always lying, and even that its evidence is faked, while Hamas is trusted implicitly.
This isn't journalism. This is anti-Israel propaganda.
Official IDF statements, which we can assume are not objective, are still far more trustworthy and objective than anything published by the BBC.
(If you think that the Islamic Jihad document is referring to another person with Al Dadhouh's name, his full name was indeed Hamza Wael Hamdan Al-Dahdouh as shown in the document.)
(h/t Martin)
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The world-historical idiocy required to assert that Israel is nothing more than a colonial power is, in fact, one reason for how quickly it spread in the sealed containers of Ivy League classrooms. No one expected to have to argue against the historical equivalent of “the earth is flat,” and it was hard to believe something so daft would catch on so quickly and spread so widely.
But catch on it did, so here we are. Harry Lewis is right that “When complex social and political histories are oversimplified in our teachings as Manichaean struggles—between oppressed people and their oppressors, the powerless and the powerful, the just and the wicked—a veneer of academic respectability is applied to the ugly old stereotype of Jews as evil but deviously successful people.”
And he is right that it might help students if there were a system of committee-led curriculum diversification that would enable some Harvard students to be exposed to facts without prohibiting the classes that teach decolonization.
Such changes would be a race against the clock. The decolonization blood libel moves fast. It’s likely that the authors random college students like to read, musicians they listen to, actors they follow, and essayists they think they’re supposed to admire have signed on to some open letter accusing the Jews of systematic ritual child murder. Maybe it’s too much to assume that they’ve read Chaucer or Joyce but they’ve probably read Sally Rooney, or at least watched the equally excruciating tv adaptations of the books she refuses to have translated into Hebrew. They might’ve been inspired not by Roger Waters’s Nazi cosplay but by Lana Del Rey’s courageous decision not to inflict her aggressive mediocrity on her Israeli fans. Perhaps they pretend to know who Melissa Barrera is so they can stand with her, or they read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s name on one of the most morally repugnant documents of our time and remembered that whatever it is he says, they’re supposed to agree with.
Anyway, they know you can’t trust anyone who hasn’t added a watermelon icon to their social-media feed. Which probably means Professor Lewis’s advice will fall on deaf ears.
Neither the British government nor the Biden administration acknowledges that the onslaught against Israel is part of a broader Iranian war against America, Britain and the West.
Instead, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was again bizarrely insisting this week that the “only” way to peace was “a pathway to a Palestinian state” and that “Israel must stop taking steps that undercut Palestinians’ ability to govern themselves effectively.” This from an administration that continues to fund the Palestinian Authority even while the P.A. rewards terrorists and their families.
Although both Blinken and Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, have condemned the preposterous charge of genocide being brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, Cameron proceeded to lob at the beleaguered Jewish state a defamatory missile of his own.
He was “worried,” he told a parliamentary committee, that Israel has “taken action in Gaza that might be in breach of international law” and that “on lots of occasions” its compliance was “under question.”
Since Cameron offered no evidence of any such breaches, his remarks served merely to smear Israel when it is fighting for its life and being demonized and thus undermined by a torrent of such false accusations from around the world.
Surely there was an “Obama bounce,” right? Not at all. A 2010 University of Maryland/Zogby International poll found that 62 percent of Arabs polled had a negative view of the then-president, 63 percent were discouraged by his approach to the Middle East, and a combined 85 percent of people across the countries polled had either a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the United States. When the Arab Center in Washington DC (an outpost of the Doha-based and Qatari-funded Arab Center) asked people in eight Arab countries how they viewed the United States after President Donald Trump’s first months in office, almost two-thirds had a negative or somewhat negative view of the United States. Only seven percent of people had a “very positive” view of the country.
It would be one thing if Arab public opinion had declined 40 or even 10 or 20 percent as a result of U.S. support for Israel in Gaza, but is there a significant difference between the 13 percent of Egyptians who had a favorable view of the United States 2003 and the nine percent who do in 2023? Does the two percent decline in U.S. favorability among Jordanians (from six to four percent) matter? It does not. The one outlier seems to be Tunisia, where the Arab Barometer research network found that support for the United States fell 30 percent as a result of President Biden’s approach to the war. That’s significant and deserves further investigation. The excellent scholars who run Arab Barometer believe Tunisia is a bellwether, but the declines in the favorability of the United States in other Arab countries were not as steep as in Tunisia—if only because they did not have very far to fall.
Would it be better if Middle Easterners held more favorable views of the United States? Absolutely. There’s the risk of being so closely associated with Israel’s withering military response to Hamas attack that any number of Islamist extremists will target Americans in response, but this has long been a risk to the United States for its support for Israel and other policies.
Still, the issue at hand remains whether support for the United States has cratered because of U.S. policies in the current conflict. If polling over recent decades is accurate, it has not for the very simple reason that Washington was profoundly and persistently unpopular well before the first IDF soldier crossed into Gaza. And despite Washington’s deep unpopularity, it has historically achieved its strategic goals in the region—the free flow of energy resources, helping ensure Israeli security, and making sure the United States remains predominant in the region so it can achieve its other two goals.
If the United States wanted to improve its standing in the region, one of the policies it could pursue toward that end would be to change its support for Israel. That is essentially what many progressives now demand: a ceasefire with no conditions that Hamas lay down its arms or release its hostages. Of course, previous support for Israeli security has placed the United States in awkward and uncomfortable diplomatic and political positions—but it has never actually resulted in a strategic setback. The one time Arab governments used the oil weapon in 1973, the embargo only lasted a few months. But the resulting recession in the United States blew back on them as Americans blamed oil producers and embargoing Arab governments for their economic pain—not Israel.
Israel’s enemies are winning the propaganda war. And here I thought the only kind of operation they were any good at was blowing up children in pizza shops.
It is remarkable—shameful, too, but really remarkable—how effective the opponents of the Jewish state have been in arm-twisting something close to the entirety of the Western intelligentsia into accepting Hamas’ framing of the war, now habitually described in nearly every journalistic venue as “Israel’s war in Gaza,” as though the Israelis simply woke up one Sunday morning and decided to wage a war in Gaza with no precipitating event. On practically every front page, the war is discussed as though the overriding issue were civilian casualties in Gaza (as though Israel’s actual military objects were an afterthought) and as though these civilian casualties were being caused by Israeli callousness rather than by Hamas’ intentional strategy of sheltering its military assets among the civilian population, in schools and in hospitals and in residential areas, for the express purpose of maximizing civilian casualties.
Nothing new here.
From the beginning, the Arab forces looking to eliminate the Jewish state (or proto-state) have exhibited two characteristics that have defined almost every engagement in the conflict. The first—and, ultimately, the more important—is cowardice; the second is an inclination toward moral blackmail, using the fact that the civilized world is civilized to hamper the response of the people who do not go around sawing the heads off of children in their fight against the people who do. October 7 was the most recent in a long, dreadfully monotonous series: The day before Israel declared independence in 1948, 20 Jewish women hiding in a basement in Kfar Etzion as their husbands and sons were massacred above them were themselves massacred by Arab fighters who threw hand grenades into the basement. In 2014, Palestinians attacked synagogue worshippers with guns, knives, and axes, killing, among others, three Americans. In 2019, they blew up a teenage girl with an IED. In 2001, they bombed a Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, killing, among others, seven children and a pregnant woman. The Battle of the Pizza Shop might be considered the apex of Palestinian valor—but if you put actual soldiers on the other side of the line, the Palestinian men at arms will cower in hospitals, schools, and mosques, and then howl when the Israeli military turns its fire on those hospitals, schools, and mosques. That is the story, over and over again.
The Israelis would be perfectly happy to meet Hamas and the other Palestinian champions on what used to be called a battlefield. It would be very convenient for the Israelis, because while the Palestinians are very apt when it comes to massacring unarmed mothers and burning children to death, they are, and generally have been for decades, feckless and unreliable fighters against armed men. And so they hide behind their mothers’ skirts.
Now
that Belgium has taken over the Presidency of the European Union, we can
observe a very dangerous evolution in Europe for the Jewish people.
Some
Belgian Flemish leftist politicians, who do not have a legal majority but are
in power, want the Jewish state, Israel, to fall under an international
investigation for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The
Hague.
Belgian
Minister of Development Cooperation Caroline Gennez has called on the Belgian
government to support the South African submission before the ICJ. She is a
member of Vooruit, the Flemish Socialist Party, and has been well-known as an
Israel-hater since 2002 (at the 2002 Eurovision song festival, she wantedpublicly to give zero points to Israel.
Gennez
is also known for having released several million euro to Palestinian NGOs with clear links to terror groups. Today she compared the war Israel conducts against
Hamas to the horrors committed by Nazi Germany, perhaps a mental heritage from what some
Flemish Nazi collaborators did in 1942 against the Jews. But Germany is much
wiser than Gennez or her ancestors.
Should
there be one political party in Europe that should keep a low profile on
genocide, it would be the Flemish Socialist Party. The scandalous comparison of
Israel's war in Gaza with the Nazi genocide is in itself pure Holocaust denial,
and it should shame her even more! It was Flemish Socialist Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Willy Claes, in charge during the genocide of around one million
Tutsis in Rwanda, who knew what was about to happen and enforced the withdrawal
of first the Belgian UN blue-helmet paratroopers and later of all UN troops; it
allowed the genocide without any disturbance. It was his Cabinet that,
according to declassified U.S. documents, did hide the importance of the
ongoing genocide.
Becoming
NATO Secretary General, Willy Claes ended up being the only one in the history
of NATO to resign, given the corruption accusations. However, he was the first
to criticize the Jews and explained that their Holocaust moral credit (6
million deaths) was decreasing because of the 2014 Gaza conflict. He was,
despite the corruption and his responsibility in the genocide of the Tutsi,
despite his Jew-hatred, reinstated as a candidate for his political party. Maybe
is their moral credit not worth a euro cent anymore?
Also
worrying with the Belgian Presidency are facts related to NGOs in Belgium,
fully supported by the Belgian public press or MSM and subsidized by Belgian
federal or other governmental authorities. OXFAM Belgium cooperates with the
agricultural affiliate of the terror group PFLP, UAWC, and whose Belgian R.V.H.
was deeply involved in the sex scandals in Haiti and elsewhere. But also
communist NGOs, such as Vrede or Intal, are supportive of the criminal actions
of Assad in Syria or Putin in Ukraine and are dependent on public funds and
distribute hate documentation against Israel and even against the Jewish
community to schools.
Worse
in this Gaza crisis are organizations qualifying as human rights organizations:
the Red Cross, as was the case in WWII when it pretended not to know about the
6 million murdered Jews, states now that it does not have information about the
Jewish hostages taken by Hamas or by other Gazan organizations, despite the
facts that hostages were in hospitals with a heavy Red Cross presence.
Another
interesting case in Belgium is Doctors without Borders. Their general manager,
Ms Meinie Nicolai, already accepted in 2019 to participate in the "extra
festive event" to get a peace price in Caserne Dossin, where more than 25,000
Jews and several Romas were deported to Auschwitz and murdered. Very "well-chosen" location for an "extra festive event." She also
promoted on the VRT the "panic cries" of Norwegian activist physician Mads
Gilbert in his fauxtographs from a Gazan hospital … in Cairo. About the October
7 cruel and criminal pogrom by Hamas and the Jewish hostages? No word… “un detail
sans doute."
One
has the right to strongly disagree with Israel's war response against Hamas in
Gaza. But it is difficult to understand their position when NGOs do not see
Jewish victims for what they are and when governments, such as the one taking
over the European Council Presidency, have no consideration for them. Israel is
on its own, but at least it is not the same situation when the Jews had no
means to defend themselves, not anymore. Now that in that same Europe, Hamas
supporters can claim and call for the destruction of the Jewish state, but also
for the destruction of all its citizens. Where are those in power who should
denounce this hate speech? Caroline Gennez? The Red Cross? Doctors without
Borders? Alexander De Croo? Everybody? Somebody? Anybody? Nobody!
Undoubtedly,
the Belgian government's behavior has shown it crystal clear: Hamas praised
Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo for his November speech while he
was at the Rafah border in Israël The scene is perfectly prepared for the anti-Israel and
also antisemitic Belgian Presidency of the European Union!
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The Hague, January 11 - The International Criminal Court announced today that it has opened an investigation into a deadly wildebeest incident that killed the king of the lions at Pride Rock and allowed a usurper to seize control of the territory, following evidence that agents acting on behalf of the Jewish State were responsible for the tragedy.
Chief Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan convened a press conference at the ICC this morning to share details of the impending investigation into the stampede death of Mufasa, which he said now looks more and more like a Mossad operation.
Initial reports of the stampede focused on the possible involvement, possibly unintentional, of the crown prince Simba, last seen in the gorge where the herd of gnus trampled Mufasa to death as the latter attempted to rescue his son from the oncoming horde. Simba fled, leaving Mufasa's brother Scar to take over the pride and ushering in a period of drought and oppression that featured a shaky alliance with the hyenas and widespread discontent among the lions and the larger fauna community in the vicinity. Acting on tips from human rights groups, however, the ICC will probe what Khan called "disturbing indications" that in fact Simba had no culpability in his father's death, and that even Scar, whose resentments gave him motive to bump off his brother, may not be the one behind Mufasa's grisly death, but Israel.
"Given the default status of Israel as responsible for all the ills in the world, this investigation is both proper and necessary," stated Khan. "Our inquiry will examine whether the events surrounding Mufasa's death are consistent with Israeli brutality and criminality, and if so, we will open proceedings to prosecute the decision-makers in Israel's government."
Khan declined to elaborate on the evidentiary requirements that will determine the inquiry's conclusions. Analysts, however, take it as a foregone conclusion that the ICC will move to initiate a full criminal case against Israel - a development that experts say would be fraught with technical and legal complications.
"Israel isn't a signatory to the agreements that give the court its jurisdiction," explained International Law scholar Ken Garucourt. "That has stymied other efforts to seek justice for crimes against Palestinians - I mean 'alleged' crimes," he added, using air quotes and rolling his eyes.
"I'm sure we'll eventually find a way around that," he continued. "The Circle of Life cannot continue if Israel keeps killing everything. And all the animals in the area of Pride Rock are indigenous Palestinians under assault by colonialist, Zionist usurper imperialists. Sure, Scar is an unsavory character, but everyone knows that's of marginal importance for the sake of an alliance against Israel."
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
A former supreme court judge and experts on the laws of war have lined up to voice their outrage over the attempt by South Africa – which has a history of support for Hamas – to prosecute Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
As proceedings got under way this week in the Hague this week, Rosalie Silberman Abella, a visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School and former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, wrote that the ICJ move was an “insult to what genocide means”.
“This case represents an outrageous and cynical abuse of the principles underlying the international legal order that was set up after the Second World War,” she wrote.
“Hamas’s explicit and unapologetic goal is to eliminate Jews. The elimination of Jews is genocide. That is why Hamas murdered, raped, beheaded, kidnapped and tortured Jews on October 7, 2023: to eliminate them, because they were Jews. It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide,” Abella added.
Arsen Ostrovsky, a human rights attorney and CEO of the International Legal Forum, a coalition of pro-Israel lawyers, called the move a “subversion of international law” that could incite further violence against Jews around the world.
Ostrovsky, who flew to the Hague this week to attend the hearings, said: “Israel, and supporters of the Jewish state, are fighting this war on multiple fronts, not only against Hamas in Gaza, but a war of narratives as well, where a toxic combination of misinformation and subversion of international law, is being used to attack and vilify Israel.
“This pervasive discourse also has very real effect in shaping discussions, leading to policy actions, as well as even inciting alarming surge in antisemitism and Jew hatred we have seen in the UK and across the world, since October 7.”
Acknowledging that the danger of participation is that it grants legitimacy, he said that it’s not always the case. For Bell, the issue is not whether to go to the court so much as the clarity of purpose in doing so.
“Our mission here is PR, it’s not law,” he said, adding that a report that Israel’s Foreign Ministry sent a message to Israeli missions worldwide asking them to convince their countries to publicly denounce the ICJ case suggests Israel is working along the right lines.
Bell’s argument is that participating gives Israel a platform, “a reasonable opportunity” to refute South Africa’s arguments not in the court at The Hague, but in the court of world opinion.
Bell isn’t very optimistic about the outcome of the case. “The judgment that’s going to come from the court is politics, not law, and it’s politics from a body that is already biased against the Jewish state. It, therefore, seems to me quite likely to accept the morally obscene arguments of South Africa,” he said.
Ziv Bohrer, senior lecturer for international law at the Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law and a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said that “from a moral perspective, [the accusation] is detestable. It falsely accuses the Jewish people of genocide.”
Nevertheless, the case has serious implications and Israel must be there in court to defend itself, he said. For one thing, the court will issue a ruling, and not an advisory opinion as it did in the security barrier case. The ruling will be binding.
There are three main ways a country can find itself bound by a ruling of the ICJ. One is when disputes regarding a specific convention are referred to the court.
“The Genocide Convention states that any disputes between signatory countries regarding the fulfillment of the treaty can be adjudicated in the ICJ, meaning any member state can sue any other member state claiming that it has violated its commitment according to that convention. That is the situation now,” Bohrer said.
While the ICJ has no enforcement mechanisms and its rulings have been ignored in the past, including by the United States, in Israel’s situation there’s the matter of the ongoing lawfare against it.
“The ICJ ruling in and of itself can be potentially very harmful, but when you look at it in the context of other things that are advancing as well, the risk is greater,” Bohrer said.
He listed the war crimes investigation at the International Criminal Court (not to be confused with the ICJ), and an earlier ICJ case looking into the “legal consequences” of Israel’s supposed “ongoing violation” of “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”
“All those things together are maneuvers that jointly have the potential to eventually mark Israel as a pariah state,” Bohrer said.
We feel compelled to ask: why is this situation any different to when other women have faced similar violence? What accounts for the clear reticence to speak out? The only difference is the perception that these were Jewish – and were perceived by some as somehow deserving – victims. (The victims included non-Jewish women, but the vast majority were Jews.)
The silence that followed was more than just concerning; it suggests a deeper issue of antisemitism that must be acknowledged and addressed. This apparent reluctance to believe the accounts of Jewish women, a stark deviation from the global commitment to believing survivors and condemning such acts, mimics patterns of Holocaust denial, perpetuating a cycle of antisemitism by furthering the stereotype of Jews as untrustworthy. Such denial of Jewish women’s experiences is a significant anomaly and needs to be called out for what it is: a stark manifestation of deep-seated antisemitism.
The use of sexual violence as a tool of war is undeniably on the rise. Ignoring or delaying a response to credible reports of such horrific acts inadvertently validates the acts. It not only denies justice to the victims, but also emboldens the perpetrators.
This fight transcends borders and cultural divides. In recognising the horrific experiences of Israeli women, we also need to manifestly acknowledge that Palestinian women and girls are victims and survivors of gender-based violence. Rape and mutilation of women are never acceptable. There is no “but” when it concerns gender-based violence. The use of sexual violence in conflict to coerce, terrorise, sow fear, or for any other reason is no exception. This is something on which we must all agree – regardless of our position on the broader conflict.
Three months on, as we reflect on these events and the responses to them, it’s time to confront the uncomfortable reality: the silence around the reports of sexual violence on 7 October and the discrediting of accounts are not just a failure of justice, they are indicative of deeper biases that we must collectively address. Let this serve as a clarion call for change, a moment to reaffirm our commitment to all survivors and victims of gender-based violence and to challenge the underlying and often unconscious prejudices that hinder our pursuit of justice and equality. In the fight for human rights and against gender-based violence and antisemitism, believing women’s voices is not just a matter of justice – it’s a matter of urgent necessity.
Sheikh Muhammad Nasir al-Din, known as al-Albani, was a Salafist who was acknowledged as one of the most prominent Islamic scholars of the 20th century.
Does a Muslim have the right to kill Jewish children if they fall under his hands, since God says "If you punish, then punish with the same as you were punished"?
The answer given is - yes, of course:
Yes, it is permissible, without a doubt, even if that is contrary to the basic principle of Islam, as evidenced by His saying, Blessed and Most High, in the Qur’an : “And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds” (which) also forbids them to kill women and children. This is the principle, but every principle or every rule has exceptions in which wisdom and purpose must be taken into account. When the Muslim scholar wants to deviate from the rule, this rule is very reasonable because it brings justice and mercy to the elderly, to women, and to children...
...We say as a matter of reciprocity, this is permissible. Here the answer ends, but we say that if a Jew, a Jewish man, kills a Muslim man, is it not permissible for us to kill a Jewish man in exchange for him? I say that it is permissible for us to kill men for one man because he is one Muslim man who is not equal to thousands upon thousands of disbelievers, according to the words of the Lord of the Worlds : "Shall we make the Muslims like criminals? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?"
...As for the Jews, they are people of war, so if they kill a Muslim and we are able to kill them all, this is what is obligatory.
But there is a caveat: The Jews are powerful.
Unfortunately, the severe, painful reality reminds us that Muslims today in all Islamic countries are weak, and this is a fact that a person needs to delve into....I say that if a Jewish man other than a soldier killed a non-combatant Muslim from the people of Palestine, and the Muslim or Muslims were able to kill dozens against him, so it is permissible because the Jews are people of war. But is it in the interest of the Muslims now who are oppressed and humiliated in their own backyard, that if a person falls among their ranks, that they take revenge on the Jews, and they have the right to do so, as I mentioned above, but does reality indicate that this is considered a victory for the Muslims, if they kill a Jew in exchange for a Muslim? Or will this open the door to revenge against Muslims?
Instead of Muslims killing one in exchange for a Muslim, they will kill dozens of Muslims in exchange for this Jew.
Hence, we say that it is not permissible now to apply the rule as long as we are weak on earth to repel the greater evil with the lesser evil, not because it is not permissible for a Muslim. To kill a Jew in exchange for killing a Muslim is permissible, and it is permissible for us to kill dozens of Jews in exchange for a Muslim, but the reality indicates that if Muslims kill a Jew, and even if they wound a Jew, then you know in the news what they do to Muslims.
Therefore, we do not think that we should return evil with evil here, because reciprocating evil with evil will expand the circle of evil against the oppressed Muslims on earth. Therefore, we see, according to the rule that we have been reassured by, that we should prepare ourselves for the day when we can eradicate the Jews and expel them from our country, and not be captivated by avenging one, two, five, or ten Muslims who were killed.
Even though Hamas is not a Salafist organization, this fatwa shows their logic and the logic of the Palestinian Muslims. Poll after poll shows that they support the murder of Jews; the only issue is whether they can successfully destroy Israel. When they think they can, they attack; when they know that Israel will respond, it deters them.
There is not a shred of morality in this fatwa, nor in the Palestinian position towards Jews living in our historic homeland. There is only practicality. And while Israel would rather live in peace, at this point peace is only possible with overwhelming strength.
It was Hamas' correct perception of an Israeli weakness along the Gaza border that prompted their pogrom of October 7.
While the world is in an uproar over Israel's response, the Arab world understands it. This is their language, and like it or not, it is the only effective response for anyone who truly wants peace.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
It has always been a tool of antisemites against Israel because the term "genocide" was created to describe the Holocaust. The delicious irony of accusing Jews of genocide, implying that they are just like the Nazis, has always been its main motivating factor.
And nothing has changed.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Spot Shot is an online Lebanese TV station that has several hundred thousand followers on YouTube and Facebook.
They had an interview with Dr. Magdi Khalil, an Egyptian political scientist, where he said things that were ....sane.
In an interview on “Spotshot” within the “Point of View” program, Khalil said: “Asymmetric wars are very complex wars and take time, and Israel has so far killed more than 8,500 Hamas fighters and destroyed all of its military structure in the north.”
He added, "In all wars, a large number of civilians are killed more than military personnel, especially in asymmetric wars. This is normal when an army faces a military militia in densely populated cities, where this militia lives underground and under hospitals and schools. I say this with my regret for the loss of life."
He said that "Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, which operates under an Iranian agenda, and Israel is ready for peace with Lebanon, but what it rejects is Hezbollah, which is using the conflict with Israel in order to control the Lebanese interior, and Iran is feeding the party in order to use it in its major battle."
He pointed out that "Hezbollah is not authorized to negotiate with Israel. This is the task of the Lebanese state, which must first negotiate with Syria about the ownership of the Shebaa Farms, and then with Israel to close this file, but Hezbollah does not want that, and it controls the entire state politically, economically and everything else, which is the main burden on Lebanon.”
He added, "Force, weapons, and imposing a fait accompli is not legitimate. If the party gives up its weapons, its actual political size will appear. Israel assaulted Lebanon after it turned into a theater for the Palestine Liberation Organization. If the Lebanese state adheres to neutrality, it will not have a problem with Israel."
He explained, "Israel is a state recognized globally and by the United Nations and cannot be removed. I call for liberation from two illusions in the Arab imagination. The first is the illusion that God promised to eliminate Israel, and the second is to completely expel the Jews from this region.”
He continued, "The Palestinian issue, as defined by the United Nations in 1947, is a land dispute between Jews and Arabs. Therefore, the decision came with a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected the partition decision and then refused to join Camp David and everything after that. Those who did not adhere to the Oslo Accords were the Palestinians. They are themselves at the hands of Hamas and evil forces that do not want a solution to the Palestinian issue. They have destroyed all chances for peace and caused the Israeli right to come to power in Israel. There is no solution to this issue except through peaceful negotiations.”
He expressed his optimism that a solution would be reached immediately after the end of the war and after the end of Hamas, the main obstacle to peace, “since serious peace talks will begin to reach a demilitarized Palestinian state under security supervision by Israel for years, but there is not yet a qualified party to enter into these negotiations.”
He stressed that "Israel announced its endeavor to eliminate everyone involved in the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, as it did previously after the Munich operation in 1972. It has reactivated the assassination squad and the spy teams that had been neglected, and will carry out many assassinations."
He called for "Arab vigilance so that the Arabs know who their real enemy is. ...Iran, through its arms inside the Arab countries, has destroyed these countries without affecting anything inside them."
Khalil concluded by saying, “The Jews have been in this land since the days of the Prophet Abraham. This is their land, even if their number decreases or increases according to persecution. The region has not been devoid of them throughout history, and there was no state called Palestine and no Palestinian people. "
It is a breath of fresh air to see an Arab, speaking Arabic on an Arab TV station, saying things that are ...normal.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Normaliyut and the Return of Statesmanship
Perhaps the opposite of mamlakhtiyut is the English-derived word normaliyut, normalcy. Widely used in the country since the 1990s, it connotes a wish to lead normal lives after all the travails of the Jewish and Israeli past. This desire is natural. Yet, fed by economic and cultural success, over the last couple of decades it grew into something of a seductive fantasy—a belief that Israel had become a high-tech utopia living in the so-called “End of History,” or at least had become strong and powerful enough that it could afford to view life and politics through cultural or spiritual lenses rather than political ones. For despite the growth in prosperity, despite the Abraham Accords and other regional breakthroughs, the dangers were there all along. Now that they’ve been revealed, normaliyut will have to be put on hold yet again.
As the war continues, there are signs that some Israelis are replacing the desire for normalcy with a steely mamlakhti resolve. Asaf Zamir, the former consul-general in New York, recently summed up Israel’s grave challenge in language that could have been ripped from David Ben-Gurion: If this war ends without it being completely safe to return to live on the border of Lebanon, and around Gaza, and if it’s impossible to return and hold festivals and events in the entire country without any fear, we lost. Not the war, the country. Want to know what the goals of the war are? These are the goals of the war. No less. Otherwise it’s over. Maybe slowly, but over.
Some prominent politicians have made substantive expressions of national solidarity. In the first days of the war, the former prime minister Naftali Bennett volunteered near the front, packing supplies. The fact that Benny Gantz, now a minister in the emergency war cabinet, named his party the Mamlakhti Camp likewise indicates that the concept retains at least rhetorical power, and perhaps even political force. In mid-December, Gantz announced that he is moving to the western Negev, clearly attempting to follow in Ben-Gurion’s footsteps. Ben-Gurion had moved to the arid region in the 1950s not only to exemplify the pioneering spirit but also because he knew that a civilian presence in the area was ultimately essential for Israel’s national defense: if Israel’s periphery wasn’t safe, its center ultimately wouldn’t be either. The stories of heroism and leadership from the front have been too numerous to count. And who can now say what future leaders are at this moment being formed on the battlefield in Gaza and in the command rooms in Tel Aviv?
Ben-Gurion demanded a great deal from Israelis. As he put it in his final public Bible lecture: We are the smallest of nations and, thus, we must be an exceptional people. Only our superior quality has sustained us. We succeeded in the Six-Day War because we succeeded in building an exceptional army. And we need not fear evil if we also succeed in establishing an exceptional government. The Jewish people has the needed traits to be an exceptional people, but to achieve this, more than any other nation in the world, we need an exceptional government.
Yet perhaps Ben-Gurion expected too much from his countrymen. Designing America’s government, the American founders soberly understood that “wise men will not always be at the helm,” and thus instituted a system of checks and balances to compensate for the inevitable failings of human nature and to channel human energies in constructive directions. Israel is not blessed with such a system. After the war, Israelis may be forced to examine ways the design of its governing institutions has failed to account for these failings and how it can be strengthened, though the bitter experience of judicial reform may forestall that task. In any case, even if Israel boasted exemplary institutions, it could ill afford a sustained run of mediocre leadership. Ben-Gurion’s mamlakhtiyut ought to be one cornerstone of an Israel that emerges stronger from this great test. Following the example of its indispensable founding father, the Jewish state must learn again to bear the burdens and embrace the splendors of statesmanship.
On Tuesday morning the country woke up to the crushing news of more fallen soldiers in Gaza. Nine soldiers were killed in one horrible day. As if that were not enough, the British Daily Mail published "before and after" photos of four Israeli teenaged girls in Hamas captivity. Their bloody, beaten faces taken from a Hamas propaganda video filmed a few hours after they were kidnapped on Oct. 7. At the same time, more rockets were fired from Gaza toward Israel with the intent to murder and maim.
On Thursday, Israel will be dragged to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, accused of committing genocide, and not Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization that has the destruction of Israel as the cardinal tenet of its founding charter and which started the war by attacking us, killing 1,200 people and destroying entire communities.
Therein lies the dissonance between what Israelis are feeling and the perspective from the outside. Israelis, traumatized and embattled, feel that they are fighting a quintessential war of no choice, one of - if not the most - just and justifiable wars the country has ever fought. It's as if part of the world's moral compass has gone haywire, as if we live in parallel universes.
This dissonance would, indeed, be unbearable were it not for the sense of justice that most Israelis feel in their country waging this war and the way it is waging this war, regardless of what judges at the ICJ from those beacons-of-light countries such as Russia, China, Somalia, Lebanon, and South Africa may determine.
The Reality Check
In recent years, Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) ideology and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement carved out large pieces within the left’s agenda. Many liberal Jews have supported these developments believing that they’re the next phase of a long tradition of liberal activism. They were mistaken, no allyship with CRT, DEI, and BLM will protect them. Jews who tirelessly fight for acceptance and admittance in the intersectionality coalition will remain disappointed. We are not welcome.
Enamored with the seemingly laudable goals of DEI: to promote the representation, participation, and fair treatment of historically marginalized groups, liberal Jews ignored DEI promoters, and CRT advocates, as they advanced a radical agenda to fundamentally undermine American values. For years they have been promoting equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, collective identity (race, gender, etc.) over individual character, censorship of opposing viewpoints over freedom of speech, and a “victimhood Olympics” culture that crudely bifurcates society into oppressors and oppressed.
Liberal Jews failed to recognize how CRT and DEI initiatives, and intersectional theory would be weaponized against them. And today, we see how Jewish students are maliciously portrayed as wanton oppressors and colonialist abettors. American universities who fully adopted these doctrines are now hotbeds of antisemitism due to embedded leftist orthodoxy.
The Next Steps
So, where do liberal Jews go from here?
The “October 8th Jew” as Bret Stephens coined it, recognizes their home as a centrist. The October 8th Jew knows that the extreme left, like the extreme right before it, is no political home. The October 8th Jew is united in the mission to fight enemies of America, who always come first for the Jews. “Never again” must be backed by action and Jewish unity.
First, no more blind voting for Democrats or Republican for the sake of historical precedent. All Jews, including liberal Jews, must adopt a litmus test for candidates and support only those determined to fight antisemitism and support the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Second, pull support from organizations and academic institutions that promote the erasure of Jewish suffering and tacitly endorse Jew-hatred.
And finally, unite and support American organizations that protect and promote equality and inclusion rather than division and an ideology that aims to destroy Jewish life and American values.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of
the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
Israel left Gaza in 2005, and now Israel has returned. Not
to grow peppers and tomatoes, but to obliterate monsters. Many want to know
what will happen the day after, when the war is over. Some hope and pray that Israel can once again
make Gush Katif area bloom and grow, and that beautiful Jewish children can be
born to live there in peace, without fear of sirens and explosions, or having
their heads cut off. Is this a realistic scenario?
Probably not. Objectively speaking, it seems unlikely that
the Israeli government will allow the Jews to return to Gaza. Also, the
majority of Israelis may not be in favor of such a move, believing that there
will be some sort of creative solution that will allow the Arab refugees to
return home. Others even call into question whether the Jews have a right to this
territory. Not because they want to give Gaza away to the Arabs, but because some
question whether Gaza is really Jewish land: whether this territory was part of
the original Land of Israel, as described in the bible.
In the months and days leading up to Disengagement, or as those
of us on the right call it, “The Expulsion,” we needed a way to express our
distress over this traumatic event. Orange was the color chosen to symbolize
Gush Katif. You’d see orange ribbons tied to car antennae and side view
mirrors, and people wearing orange t-shirts, wristbands, and other assorted
orange apparel. In addition to the color orange, a slogan was adopted, “Lo
nishkach, v’lo nislach.” We will not forget, and we will not forgive.
I recall a bar mitzvah I attended not long after the Expulsion.
The celebrants were twins. Their mother had crocheted yarmulkes for them in
Gush Katif orange, with the “we won’t forget or forgive” slogan winding its way
around the border. I said something to the mother of the boys, along the lines
of, “Ha ha ha. Even their ‘kippot’ are patriotic.”
The mother did not find this at all funny. She said, “Yes. We
feel very strongly about this,” with a serious expression on her face.
I had made a faux pas. And I should have known better. My
entire community, including me, felt very strongly about the Expulsion, and until today, pray
and hope and dream to return. We don’t forget and don’t forgive. But
what constitutes the Jewish right to inherit this particular territory, Gaza?
In the real estate world, it’s all about location, location,
location. One could make the case that the same is true of Gaza. If it’s part
of the biblical land of Israel, then it’s Jewish land, if not, not. Perhaps
that why author Toby Klein Greenwald begins The
Significance of Gaza in Jewish History, with an indisputable fact: “Gaza is
located within the boundaries of Shevet Yehuda,” or the land belonging to the
tribe of Judah.
Then, and only then, does Klein Greenwald begin to detail
for the reader the marvelous history and presence of the Jews in Gaza:
Avraham and Yitzchak lived in Gerar, located near Gaza. In
the fourth century, Gaza was the primary Jewish port of Eretz Yisrael for
international trade and commerce. Yonatan the Hasmonean (the brother of Yehuda
HaMaccabi) conquered Gaza and settled there in 145 BCE. At various times
throughout the centuries, Gaza was a center of Jewish learning (a yeshivah in
Gaza is mentioned in the Talmud), life and commerce. King David is featured
with his harp in an elaborate mosaic in an ancient synagogue in Gaza
Rabbi Yisrael
Najara, author of “Kah Ribon Olam,” served as Gaza’s chief rabbi in the
middle of the seventeenth century. Rabbi Avraham Azoulay of Fez wrote his
mystical work “Chesed l’Avraham” in Gaza. Other well-known scholars
and mystics lived there in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Sadly, this glory period was not to last:
The Jewish presence in Gaza was cut short in 1929, when Jews
were forced to leave the area due to Arab riots, after which the British
prohibited them from living in Gaza. Some Jews returned, however, and, in 1946,
established the religious kibbutz Kfar Darom. A Jewish village by the same name
existed there in the times of the Mishnah.
The Jewish Virtual Library entry on Gaza
tells us that originally, Gaza belonged to the Philistines:
Gaza first appears in the Tanach as a Philistine city, the
site of Samson's dramatic death. Jews finally conquered it in the Hasmonean
era, and continued to live there. Notable residents include Dunash Ibn Labrat,*
and Nathan of Gaza, advisor to false messiah Shabtai Zvi. Gaza is within the
boundaries of Shevet Yehuda in Biblical Israel (see Genesis 15, Joshua 15:47,
Kings 15:47 and Judges 1:18) and therefore some have argued that there is a
Halachic requirement to live in this land. The earliest settlement of the area
is by Avraham and Yitzhak, both of whom lived in the Gerar area of Gaza. In the
fourth century Gaza was the primary Jewish port of Israel for international
trade and commerce.
We also learn that even the “glory period” of the Jewish presence in Gaza, was
not so glorious or uninterrupted as one might have hoped. Over the centuries,
various occupying powers found they liked nothing better than to expel Jews—just
as today’s Arab occupiers of Jewish land hope to push the Jews into the sea.
But just as many Jews hope to return to Gaza after the war on Hamas is ended,
so too, the Jews returned to Gaza, again and again:
The periodic removal of Jews from Gaza goes back at least to
the Romans in 61 CE, followed much later by the Crusaders, Napoleon, the
Ottoman Turks, the British and the contemporary Egyptians. However, Jews
definitely lived in Gaza throughout the centuries, with a stronger presence in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
And now we learn the bitter history of what happened next:
Jews were present in Gaza until 1929, when they were forced
to leave the area due to violent riots against them by the Arabs. Following
these riots, and the death of nearly 135 Jews in all, the British prohibited
Jews from living in Gaza to quell tension and appease the Arabs. Some Jews
returned, however, and, in 1946, kibbutz Kfar Darom was established to prevent
the British from separating the Negev from the Jewish state.
The United Nations 1947 partition plan allotted the coastal
strip from Yavneh to [Rafah] on the Egyptian border to be an Arab state. In
Israel's war for independence, most Arab inhabitants in this region fled or
were expelled, settling around Gaza City. Israeli forces conquered Gaza, and
proceeded south to El-Arish, but subsequently gave control of the area to Egypt
in negotiations, keeping Ashdod and Ashkelon. In 1956, Israel went to war with
Egypt, conquered Gaza again, only to return it again.
With the 1967 Six Day War, Israeli forces reentered Gaza and
captured it. During the war, Israel had no idea what it would do with the
territory. [Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol called it “a bone stuck in our throats.”
There is a tendency to think of the Labor Party as the party of land giveaways,
but in actuality, it was a Labor government that built the first of the Gush
Katif settlements:
The initial settlements were established by the Labor
government in the early 1970s. The first was Kfar Darom, which was originally
established in 1946, and reformed in 1970. In 1981, as part of a peace treaty
with Egypt, the last settlements of the Sinai were destroyed, and some Jews moved
to the Gaza area . . .
. . . There were
twenty-one settlements in Gaza. The most populated Gush Katif area contained
some thirty synagogues plus Yeshivat Torat Hachim with 200 students, the Hesder
Yeshiva with 150 students, the Mechina in Atzmona with 200 students, Yeshivot
in Netzarim and Kfar Darom, 6 Kollelim, a Medrasha for girls in Neve Dekalim
and more. All of the settlements had their own schools, seminaries, stores, and
doctors.
All of this was destroyed in 2005. The vibrant communities of Gush Katif are no
more. We even dug up our dead—many of them Holocaust survivors—to move them out
of Gaza.
From then until now with this war, the only Jews present in
Gaza were captives, some of them alive, like Gilad Shalit, and some of them
almost certainly dead, like Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul.
Will the Jews be allowed to reclaim and rebuild Gaza? Like
so many Israelis, I wish it with all my heart, but have little faith that this
will happen—even though it should. The centuries’ long Jewish presence and
history in Gaza is indisputable, and certainly long predates that of the Arab latecomers.
Jews lived in Gaza long before the Arab people ever existed. In
fact, the first reference to the Arabs as a distinct people comes only in 853 BCE, by
the hand of an Assyrian scribe as he recorded the details of a battle. How fitting
a beginning for a people who worship war and death.
Jews have more of a right to Gaza than any Arab ever did. And
if return should prove impossible in the days following this wretched war, forced
on us by cruel Arab two-legged beasts, I have faith that the return of the Jews to Gaza is
inevitable, if at some unknown point in the future.
***
*I see no evidence to support the idea that Dunash Ibn Labrat lived in Gaza. After looking at many sources, it seems clear he lived only in Spain and Morocco.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Jordanian King Abdullah II, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and President Mahmoud Abbas affirmed today, Wednesday, their opposition to any Israeli plans to displace Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the need to condemn them internationally and confront them.
At their summit, which was held in the city of Aqaba to discuss the dangerous situation in Gaza, the leaders stressed their complete rejection of all attempts to liquidate the Palestinian issue and separate Gaza and the West Bank, which constitute an extension of the one Palestinian state.
They're getting better at their doubletalk. But they mean the same thing they have said since October 7: no Gazans will be allowed to flee to safety, no matter how much they want to.
The position of the United Nations is that freedom to emigrate is a human right, part of the right to freedom of movement. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
By any sane metric, banning Gazans from leaving if they want to is a massive violation of their human rights. But the PA, Egypt and Jordan enthusiastically support such bans on travel, as do NGOs that otherwise are dead-set against it.
Amazingly, they all claim that this is for the Gazans' own good. Equally amazingly, no one is asking Gazans themselves what they want to do and what they think of these leaders who decide for them what they are allowed to do.
Even though there are articles showing that many Gazans are desperate to leave.
The only, and I mean only, reason why no one is concerned over this massive violation of Gazan human rights is because they hate Jews more than they hate Gazans, and they think Israel would benefit from this mass travel ban on 2 million people. That is enough to damn them all to potential death and injury as Israel fights a terrorist group that uses those same civilians as their main line of defense.
The world's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Introducing Rashid Rida on Zionism
-
Anyone who follows pro-'Palestine' Islamic propaganda will recognzie in the
excerpts below the source material for the virulent antisemitism,
exaggeratio...
Australian community gives Mizrahi Jews a voice
-
It’s still a battle to have the Mizrahi story recognised as part of
mainstream Jewish tradition, rather than an exotic variation. But things
are changing...
Thought Police
-
On a Sunday morning, the Essex police showed up at the home of Telegraph
columnist Allison Pearson to interrogate her because she had tweeted a
photo of...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
7 Biggest Dungeons In Elder Scrolls Games
-
Please verify your email address. Labyrinthian in Skyrim is a maze of
Nordic ruins with fiends to battle and treasures to find. Sundercliff Watch
in Oblivi...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, January 11, 2024
Elder of Ziyon
The entire case that the BBC has that the document is forged is that two "experts" said they visited the Islamic Jihad Al Quds Brigades website and never, ever saw any documents there that included the Al Quds name in English.
.jpg-f2f2d96c-f12f-4043-8155-06c6cee44347.jpg)
