Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 07, 2024

What should I do with the treasure trove of Islamic thought sitting hidden in a folder in my Gmail account (Judean Rose)

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

Robert Werdine was my friend. He was also a Rhodes Scholar, historian, ardent defender of Israel, serious music lover, and a devout Muslim. Robert died too soon from complications of diabetes and was buried as a Catholic, his father’s faith, but he was undeniably Muslim. Through our three years’ worth of correspondence, Robert left me with a wealth of material on Islamic thought as it relates to Jews, Judaism, and Israel. These were subjects he cared about and wrote about, but never published.

More than once, Robert alluded to being in bad odor with certain family members over his stance on Israel. He detailed an incident in which his uncle, a member of Hamas, roughed him up when he found out that Robert was writing blogs at the Times of Israel, an Israeli publication. Which is actually how I met Robert. We were both blogging there in 2012, the year that TOI was launched.

Robert also mentioned that his mother was afraid for him to say in his blogs that he was a Muslim. She didn’t know what, if any repercussions there would be for him, and for the family as a whole. After some back and forth, Robert’s mom came to see it his way, and agreed that he should no longer hide his Muslim identity or his strong affection for Israel.

Since Robert died in 2017, I haven’t known what to do with the prodigious material he sent me—brilliant material, meticulously researched. These papers should be published. And I believe that is why he sent them to me. He knew he wasn’t going to live much longer. I think he hoped I would do something with his work after he died. Yet, all this time I haven’t been sure I should.

I’m still not certain it’s the right thing to do—publish Robert’s work without his permission. But I think he felt he could not publish them while he was alive, and trusted that I would make a decision about what to do with his work, and that it would be the right decision. All of this came to mind last week during an exchange yet another confrontational antisemite on Quora.

The exchange began, as usual, with a “question” I was asked to answer, that as per usual, was some gross, not-so-thinly-veiled anti-Israel propaganda: “Why does Israel have the right to occupy land where the Palestinian have lived?”

This was my answer:

“Israel builds in very few areas where Arabs once might have lived. In those areas, the Arabs either left of their own volition, at the behest of Arab leaders preparing to extinguish the fledgling Jewish State, or the land was retaken during the course of a defensive war, in which case, it is perfectly legal.

“The Jews expelled from Arab countries were absorbed by tiny Israel, while the 22 Arab states in the region, which cover an enormous breadth of territory, refuse to absorb the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 (and their descendants).

“It is normal for a population exchange to occur as a result of war. The shameful aspect of what happened here is the Arab refusal to absorb and resettle their brethren.”

Naturally, there were confrontational comments. One particular commenter, Esmailjee Mohamed Ali, wrote: "How can there be Judhas or Jews in Palestine when they lived in Europe for 2000 years from the time they were created by the Romans in 69BC.

It was from EUROPE after the Second World War, 5MILLION Judhas or Jews migrated to America and another 6Million was brought landed and in PALESTINE by the British Empire and the League of Nations on creating the State of Israel in 1948CE."

“It was the British Empire that was upto [sic] all the mischief. Allah wiped out the British Empire because of all their cruel acts. Today, unfortunately the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE are suffering at the hands of the Poor downtrodden criminals who came from EUROPE because of the British Empire.”

Well, I couldn’t leave that alone, now could I? So I said, “Funny, because that’s not what the Quran says,” said I thinking of all the Quranic references to the Bani Isra'il.

To which Mr. Ali took umbrage, responding, “Do not misinterpret the QURAN.”

As I am so often wont to do in these situations, I went to my Robert Werdine gmail folder to see what my dear late friend had to say on the subject. I was looking for what he had said about Muslims living under non-Muslim rule. Because really—why did the Arabs have to kick up a fuss over the establishment of the Jewish State or be in denial about Jewish history, detailed in their own holy book? The Arabs didn’t have to leave, nor did they have to “suffer” at the hands of the Jews. They could have—and would have—been perfectly happy and prosperous under Jewish rule. Instead they were turned—by their own people—into perpetual refugees, filled with hate and blood lust. And their own people didn’t—and don’t—want them.

None of this had anything to do with the British Empire. Nor did it relate to “downtrodden criminals from Europe” supposedly brought to the region by the Brits.

It had to do with Muslims who are ignorant of what their own holy books and commentators have to say on the subject. They should have stayed. They would have been free to practice their religion under the Jews, and they would have led happy, content lives. And of course, the October 7^th Massacre would never have happened. What happened on that Black Sabbath was in fact, proscribed by Islam.

I found what I needed in my “Robert Werdine” email treasure chest, and it was so perfect I quoted it word for word. I knew Robert would forgive me. And I never heard a peep back from Mr. Ali:

The Shafi’i jurist, Imam Abu Zakariyya Muhyi ’l-Din al-Nawawi (1233–1277) [stated]:

If a Muslim is able to declare his Islam openly and living therein (in a land dominated by non-Muslims), it is better for him to do so […] because by this it becomes Dar al-Islam […] (Al-Nawawi, rawda al-talibin, (Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 2002), p. 1819)

Al Nawawi also stated:

Where a Muslim is able to protect and isolate himself, even if he is not able to proselytize and engage in combat, in such case it would be incumbent upon him to remain in this place and not emigrate. For such a place, by the fact that he is able to isolate himself, has become a dar Islam.

The opinions of al-Ramli, al-Mawardi, and al-Nawawi are all consistent with prophetic practice in the authentic Sunnah. Two Hadiths, one from Sahih Bukhari and one from Sahih Muslim attest that the prophet would refuse to attack any non-Muslim entity that allowed for the practice of the Muslim religion by Muslims living there. Here is the Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 52, #193):

Narrated Anas: Whenever Allah's Apostle attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Adhan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Adhan, he would attack them immediately after dawn.

Nawawi interprets the Hadiths as follows:

In this narration is evidence that verily the call to prayer forbids invading (yamna‘) a people of that area, and this is an evidence of their Islam.

This is only one tiny fragment of the material I have from Robert. Some of what he wrote was conversational. I’d ask him questions, and he’d answer. Once, for example, I asked him how he felt about the word “Palestinian.” What did he, Robert, call the Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians?”

He wrote (May 20 2015), I'm not sure what to call the you-know-who. I call them the Nowhere People; they came out of nowhere and they're going nowhere, fast. I generally call them Palestinian, but I don't remember my grandfather using that term. He just called them Arabs and refugees. Probably "Arabs" is the best word to use, or Palestinian Arabs, either word refers to the customarily delusional, intransigent, and recklessly self-destructive people whose leaders will continue the long, hard slog of hatred, violence, and deligitimization of a people who have shown them more humanity and compassion than their own Arab brethren ever will.”

Robert knew more than Islam. He ate, drank, and slept history and was always happy to share with me what he learned—especially if there were a reference to Jews. On May 27, 2015, he wrote: “I’m reading Robert Markus’ biography of Pope Gregory the Great. What a phenomenal figure. He was almost an exact contemporary of Muhammad. Gregory was a great reformer. He also wrote a six-volume commentary on the Book of Job. He was a font of wisdom, integrity and able statesmanship. The chants that bear his name are the earliest music that is written on record, and still haunts the monasteries of Italy, France, and Germany.

“He was also a great protector of the Jews. He forbade compulsory conversions that so many popes of the past had winked at, and he gave them full rights of equal citizenship—a true rarity in that day and age. When he learned that the bishops in Palermo had appropriated the local synagogues, he ordered that they make full restitution. Here is what he wrote to the Bishop of Naples:

“‘Do not allow the Jews to be molested in the performance of their services. Let them have full liberty to observe and keep all of their festivals and holydays, as both they and their fathers have done for so long.’’’

Sometimes I wonder what Robert would have said about October 7. I know that he was sickened by Arab terror against the Jews of Israel. On September 23, 2015, he wrote, “My mother and I were talking the other day about what it would be like for us to know that there were people living in the next county who would be only too happy to murder us and all our love ones, and celebrate the deed afterward. How could we help from hating such people filled to the brim with such murderous hatred for us, and who demonstrate such hatred in deeds of unmentionable horror day after day? It's a sobering thought to ponder.”

By ironic coincidence, on October 7 (!), 2015, he wrote to me in regard to the murder of Eitam and Na’ama Henkin in front of their four young children, one of them a four-month-old infant, only one week earlier:

“Your feelings after that savage murder of the Henkin couple are completely natural and understandable. How would any person of conscience react to an act of such naked savagery? In their evil they could not be more evil. The hysterical glee that they show whenever Jewish blood is shed is like something out of a nightmare. The one, true accomplishment of the Palestinians is their societal normalizing of savagery as a virtue to be emulated: murders celebrated like weddings, streets and village squares named after suicide bombers. These people are sick. I mean: SICK.”

People don’t believe me when I tell them about Robert. They think he was pulling the wool over my eyes. That he was deceiving me the Sunni Muslim way with taqiyya. But I know that he was good. And that the scholarly works he sent me should be read by more than one person (me). Robert did not agree with the idea of “Islamic reform.” He believed that the violent, Jew-hating form of Islam all too unfortunately practiced by too many Muslims the world over, was due to ignorance of what Islam actually preached.

Believe me, I am no apologist for Islam. But I also know that it doesn’t need to be practiced in the violent way it is currently practiced by way too many ignorant, blood-crazed cretins. I would like others to at least see and wrestle with Robert Werdine’s writings.

So now I would like to ask a question of regular readers of this column: would you like to read these works sitting and doing nothing in a Gmail folder? Shall I post them here in weeks to come? Or should I keep them hidden, buried away where no one will ever see them?

I honestly seek your opinions. And I’m guessing that Robert, were he able to weigh in, would hope that you’d view the idea with favor. He wished with all his heart that more people were open to the Islam that he saw and believed—an Islam that respects the rights of people of all faiths to follow their beliefs in peace.

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!

Antisemitism is now a "philosophical belief" whose adherents are protected under British law

From The Guardian:

A sociology professor sacked by the University of Bristol after being accused of antisemitic comments has won a “landmark” decision that he was discriminated against because of his anti-Zionist beliefs.

An employment tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly dismissed, and that his “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010”.

Melanie Philips demolished this ruling. pointing out that Miller wasn't fired for his beliefs but for his actions. I just want to amplify one point.

The Equality Act says that religion and philosophical belief are protected characteristics. It explains:

The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The very irrationality of anti-Zionism was given as proof of it being protected, as the tribunal stated:

The claimant is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant a significant role in his life for many years. His views were deeply held and not amenable to change…

That doesn't sound like something that is serious - it sounds like a religion.

And make no mistake: Miller is a crazed antisemite, not a thoughtful critic of Zionism. He has claimed that Jeremy Corbyn did the bidding of Zionists. He's said that Chabad-Lubavitch is "a supremacist organisation at the extreme end of the settler movement" that has created "settlements" in Palestine since the 18th century. He's said that "Jews," as a monolithic set of people, are " in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups." He conflated Jewish groups and Zionist groups in his feverish conspiracy diagrams showing "links" between Jewish organizations and the Israeli government, in ways that the Goyim Defense League would blush to publish.

The result of this ruling is that as long as someone could couch their rabid hate of Jews as a "philosophical belief," not only should they be tolerated but protected as if they were people of color or disabled.

One can be a committed atheist and not infringe on the rights of the religious. One can be a committed believer in climate change and not do anything that would damage the people who disagree. But by definition, anti-Zionism as a belief system conflicts with the fundamental rights of Zionists, and it actively seeks to destroy the rights of Jews to self-determination on their historic lands.

David Miller should not be protected by the Equality Act. Jews should be protected under that act from the likes of David Miller.

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!

02/07 Links Pt1: Israel Is Nobody’s Proxy Army; Qatar’s Explosive Cash-for-Hostages Portfolio; IDF finds Khan Yunis dungeon where hostages were held

From Ian:

Israel is winning

So, to review: just as the Israelis think they’re on the cusp of victory, the Americans are scrambling to reach a deal that would preserve Hamas, end Iran’s attacks on U.S. assets, and wrap up the war in time for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to forget that Joe Biden sponsored an alleged “genocide.” The rest of today’s Big Story, on the U.S. play and how Israel is thwarting it, is lifted from an email from The Scroll’s geopolitical analyst, who asks to remain anonymous to preserve zir mystique:

“I think the assumption by U.S. planners was that Gaza would turn out to be a tar baby for Netanyahu. The strategic assumptions were therefore that after a few months Bibi would punch himself out, the Israeli offensive would grind to a halt. The United States would then take advantage of the resulting stalemate—which would also hopefully result in the collapse of Bibi’s coalition government and its replacement by a more pliant government led by the likes of Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot, and possibly Yair Lapid—to pivot to establishing a Palestinian state, using the prospect of a hostage deal plus recognition by the Saudis as the carrots, and the threat of cutting off necessary U.S. munitions and U.S. diplomatic support as the sticks. The result would be a weaker, more pliant Israel surrounded by local Iranian clients, with Iran elevated to the status of America’s primary regional partner.

“All of these initial assumptions struck me as sound enough. Furthermore, the United States was no doubt encouraged by its interlocutors within the Israeli security and political elite and by its previous successes working with those interlocutors to bring the coalition’s judicial reform bill to a crashing halt. Just to make sure, the United States quickly imposed its own constraints on Israel’s war effort in exchange for diplomatic and military support—like mandating the resupply of food, medicine, and other necessities to Hamas, publicly engaging with Qatar to free hostages, making Israel responsible for civilian casualties while refusing to relocate Gazans outside of the Strip, and other measures whose effect was to limit Israel’s advantages and strengthen Hamas’ resolve. By tilting the playing field against Israel, the United States was essentially working to produce a stalemate, which it could then exploit for its own preferred ends.

“Initially, I saw plenty of evidence that the U.S. strategy was succeeding, from Yoav Gallant’s public statements about Israel’s need for U.S. resupply and the slow pace of Israel’s initial advances, to Israel’s seeming deference to U.S. wishes to not mention Iran or attack Hezbollah, to the relatively low Hamas casualty numbers relative to the size of their fighting force. By shaping the boundaries and nature of the fight, the United States was clearly gaining control over the likely nature of the result.

“Lately, however, the evidence I am seeing points in the opposite direction. I am seeing increasing Israeli success in killing more Hamas fighters and grinding down their ability to maneuver and launch rockets with diminishing Israeli losses. Even worse, from the U.S. perspective, is that it seems that Israel appears to have successfully innovated its way around U.S.-imposed constraints to arrive at more potent war-fighting strategies. The paradoxical result of U.S. constraints, which were meant to pen Israel into a cul-de-sac, is that they have led to the reduction of Israel’s dependency on the United States and therefore of U.S. leverage over Israel’s choices.

“That Gantz and Eisenkot are now attacking Bibi from the right, for letting too many supplies into Gaza, and that voices in Washington that were previously exulting in “Bibi’s failures” have fallen silent seem like clear indicators of which way the wind is blowing. Another indicator here is the publicly purported willingness of the Saudis to accept increasingly vague promises of a future Palestinian state in exchange for recognition of Israel in the present. The price is going down—not up.

Seth Mandel: Israel Is Nobody’s Proxy Army

The Iranian strategy appears to be based on Tehran’s previous ability to run U.S. troops out of the region, most infamously after the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Americans. But the differences between the two situations are more important than their similarities, and one hopes the Biden administration is aware of them.

President Reagan deployed U.S. troops to Lebanon in 1982 as part of a multinational peacekeeping force in the wake of the Israeli military campaign to push the PLO out of Lebanon. In September of that year, Lebanon’s newly elected pro-Israel President Bachir Gemayel was assassinated by Syria. Reagan informed Congress he was contributing 1,200 U.S. troops, at Lebanon’s request, and joining French and Italian peacekeepers, “to assure the safety of persons in the area and bring to an end the violence which has tragically recurred.” Chaos persisted, as did the U.S. troop presence, until the barracks bombing. Crucially, the administration removed the troops without hitting back at the Iranians’ chosen vessel for the slaughter, Hezbollah. “It is beneath our dignity to retaliate against the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks,” claimed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Vessey, one of the most absurdly foolish statements ever given by a high-ranking U.S. security official.

But that strategic timidity was gone by the end of the Reagan presidency, which refashioned its approach to terrorism in a much more serious way once the president’s inner circle was fully rounded out with people who understood the importance of the state sponsorship that was fueling global terrorism.

Biden’s responses so far to the attack in Jordan may be insufficient, but the doctrine of nonresponse itself is fully discredited. The president is under pressure from members of his own party to restore deterrence. Further, while the Iranians may be encouraged by Biden’s catastrophic pullout from Afghanistan (as would be any enemy of the West), they appear to be guilty of projection: Israel is not America’s proxy militia, and it will not end this war simply because the secretary of state wants the war to end.

Nor will Israel shy away from war with Hezbollah if that is what is required to allow its citizens to live safely in the north. “War would not be good for Hezbollah—they know they will pay a heavy price,” Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told Jewish Insider. “But we mean to return our civilians to their homes either with a treaty or with force.”

The Iranians have learned the wrong lesson from 1983, and their best hope is that the Biden administration has done the same. But either way, Israel has agency here, and it intends to use it.

John R. Bolton: Is the U.S. Misreading the Middle East?

The idea of raising the Palestinian Authority from its ashes on the West Bank to govern Gaza leaves Israelis across the political spectrum speechless. The Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor recently described the Palestinian Authority as "weak and increasingly unpopular" and a "sclerotic institution, riven with corruption" and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, as presiding "over his rump of a fiefdom like other Arab autocrats in the region, stifling civil society and repeatedly dodging calls for fresh elections." It defies common sense that such an entity should be entrusted with responsibility on the West Bank, let alone post-conflict Gaza.

With regard to the objective of full diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, before Oct. 7, Riyadh and Jerusalem were progressing toward mutual recognition, motivated by their shared view of Iran's threat, amplified by the palpable economic and political benefits likely after recognition. The current Gaza conflict has not altered those realities. Rather, Iran's "ring of fire" strategy against Israel has emphasized, not reduced, the congruence of Israel's and Saudi Arabia's national security priorities. The issue of Palestinian statehood will not be a dealbreaker for Riyadh.

Recognizing a Palestinian state before peace is agreed on with Israel only compounds the error. Such suggestions mirror Yasser Arafat's campaign in UN agencies to make "Palestine" a state just by saying so. They contradict years of U.S. policy, as well as the Oslo Accords, and will cause Israel to stiffen its resistance. This is no way to treat an ally gravely threatened by Tehran.

As for concerns about a "wider war," the U.S. and Israel have been in a wider war since Oct. 7. The real cause is unmistakably Iran. Until Iran stops interfering beyond its borders - stops arming, equipping, training and financing terrorist groups and stops seeking nuclear weapons - there will be no lasting Middle East peace and security. Iran does not and will not fear U.S. power until it pays heavily for what its barbaric surrogate Hamas unleashed four months ago, now joined in violence by Hizbullah, the Houthis and Shiite militias.

Iran 101: Into the mind of the enemy (Forest Rain)

By Forest Rain

Iran 101: Into the mind of the enemy

Eliyahu Yossian is a man on a mission – waking up Israelis to the misconceptions that are endangering the survival of the Jewish State.

The path to a secure future necessitates changing the mindset that led to the disaster of October 7^th.The same mindset that for the past 30 years has led Israel to “manage the conflict” rather than attain clear and decisive victory over our would-be murderers – although the State is much stronger and better equipped than in her early years.

“It all begins”, he explains, “with the way you perceive the world.”

Eliyahu Yossian is a Jewish, Israeli expert on Iran. Unlike self-styled experts trained in Western think tanks, Yossian was born and raised in Iran, escaping the country to Israel as an adult. His expertise is a product of cultural immersion and continued training with Israel’s elite intelligence community – with one major difference between him and other experts: Yossian thinks like an Iranian.

Since October 7th, I've been following Eliyahu Yossian, attending one of his lectures and listening to others online. Initially featured on TV news panels at the war's start, he's no longer invited by mainstream (left-wing) stations. Yossian explains this shift, stating: “I dismantle their mindset and that makes them uncomfortable. Particularly the analysts and generals who have been presenting the same ideas to the public for 30 years. What are they supposed to do? Admit they were wrong? Regular people are a different story. They want to understand. They are willing to think differently.”

Yossian's focus is on Israel, yet his teachings, address the global threat of Iran and hold relevance for people worldwide.

The notion that "Everyone is the same. Deep down, and we all want the same things" is a fundamental misconception.

Yossian starts his lecture by highlighting the ignorance embedded in the first part of this idea. We are not all the same. Israeli society which is mostly liberal, and secular (Western/global) is very different from that of Iran. The simplicity of the examples he uses highlights how deeply embedded these differences are.

Body language:
He began by asking volunteers to demonstrate how they count to five on their fingers. Every person in the audience began with a fist and extended their fingers as they counted, ending up with an open hand. Then he showed us how he counts – beginning with an open hand and folding each finger to end up with a closed hand.
Who among us has ever taken the time to think about the implications this or any other culturally acquired gesture has on our mindset?

Speech patterns:
Next, he spoke about the difference in language patterns. In Hebrew, like in English, the action appears at the beginning of the sentence and the rest is detail: “I want to go to the store and get…” In Persian, the elaboration comes first. One needs to focus and read through all the details to get to the action. This small difference in syntax has huge significance when, for example, preparing and agreeing on the details of a contract.

Conception of time and power:

“What is your favorite game?” Yossian asked the audience. All the answers were sports, measured by predefined limits in either time or points: soccer, tennis, basketball etc. He contrasted this with Iran's choice of chess and checkers, games without time constraints, emphasizing the goal of one side killing the other. In chess, the purpose of all the pieces is to protect their king and you win by killing the opponent's king. The king is the piece that moves the least. Yossian asks: “We’ve all seen world leaders fly to different countries for summits. Have you ever seen Iran’s rulers fly? They don’t. Everyone comes to them.”
While Westerners jump to action and want immediate results, the Iranian mindset is focused on strategic planning and moving others to create the desired outcomes.

In other words, “Everyone is the same” is a misconception based on a lack of knowledge about other cultures.

Next Yossian began to unravel the deeply ingrained Western assumption that all people have the same basic aspiration to live in comfort, take care of their family, and go about their business in peace. This assumption is an idea, not a fact, veiled arrogance that erases the possibilities of different value systems.

Yossian asks: “If I give 100 shekels to a capitalist and 100 shekels to a socialist will they use it the same way? The amount of money is identical. What is the difference between the two? The worldview of the person choosing how to use the money.

In other words: If we try to understand the enemy through our mindset, using our value system we will fail. The only way to be able to understand and correctly predict their actions is to respect them enough to learn their culture, mindset, and value system and see the world through their eyes.

1. You can’t buy what the other party isn’t selling

Yossian asked how many people in the audience read the Hamas Charter. Or the Fatah Charter. Or the Hezbollah Charter. These terrorist organizations play major roles in our lives (or lack thereof) and yet few people have read their Charters, their Mission Statement. If you will, their user manuals.

Although there are differences in style between the Hamas and Fatah charters, they spell out the same goal. According to Yossian the Hezbollah charter is much more sophisticated in its presentation of ideas but it too spells out the same goal - extermination of the Jewish State.

Yossian asks: “Do they say what they want? Did they write it down? Do they act accordingly?”

I’m sure the same sick feeling of realization rose in the pit of every audience member that did in mine.

“So why,” he asks, “do we keep suggesting they want things other than what they say?”

Their mission statement doesn’t say that they want jobs, a better economy, or comfortable living. They certainly don’t say they want to live side by side with Jews. Why do “experts” keep assuming that offering jobs or economic incentives will change the way the believers in these charters behave? We keep trying to buy peace (or at least quiet, temporary pauses in conflict) but they aren’t selling peace or even quiet.

You can’t buy something that the other party isn’t selling.

Yossian explains: “The liberal secularist believes in individualism, seeks individual comfort, and believes that everyone else wants the same. No amount of money will buy away someone’s ideology. The Middle East is fueled by ideology based on theology. Here actions are dictated by God.”

In other words, when your actions are fueled by the belief that God demands that you kill Jews or at least support the killing of Jews, no amount of individual comfort or easy living will change the motivation to kill Jews.

Aryans, not Arabs

Iran, explains Yossian, literally means “the place where Aryans live”. Although Islamized, Iranians see themselves as Aryans, not Arabs, originating from the same tribe that split off centuries ago and eventually became the inspiration of the Nazis. This was not the first time I’d heard that there is a connection between Iran and Aryans but I had not heard it explained the way Yossian did. It seems that the historic connection is debatable but there is no doubt that the Aryan concept is deeply embedded in Iranian culture. Yossian presented numerous examples of this: poetry that describes Iranians as fair-skinned, with blue eyes and blond hair, and popular songs from before and after the Islamic revolution that praise and elaborate the importance of keeping their blood pure.

Listening to an American-sounding rap song, it would be easy to assume the music to be a sign of modernization and aspiring to be part of the Western world. The lyrics were a slap in the face. The song was an Aryan-supremacist declaration of hate against Afghan migrants in Iran, that they must be dominated, pushed out and most of all that Aryan blood must not be mingled with their inferior dirty blood.

Mudbloods.

The examples Yossian brought were the songs Iranian university students listen to in their nightclubs. Nightclubs seem very Western. Going to university seems very modern and familiar. The content is utterly foreign.

Yossian explains that the Aryan worldview dictates Iranian foreign policy. Other analysts explain Iranian relations with their proxies in complex geopolitical terms. Yossian cuts to the core principle that dictates decisions and actions: “For Iranians, Arabs are like a disposable cup. You drink from it and when you are done, you throw it away. You will never see an Iranian blow himself up on a bus. They have Arabs for that kind of dirty work.”

Allies and proxies

The Abraham Accords created an alliance of, what Yossian calls, “Semites against the Aryans”. Arab countries that don’t border Israel and don’t hold mission statements declaring they must exterminate the Jewish State could choose to ally themselves with Israel – not for love of Zion but for the fear of Iran.

Over many years, Iran has spread proxy tentacles across the Middle East, basically taking over a country every seven years. These are not allies because they are not seen as equal but rather tools to be used for Iranian interests. Yossian explains that Iran leverages ideology and historic feelings of being underprivileged and dishonored to motivate its proxies. Iran also invests enormous amounts in their education and training, playing the long game to grow local believers in their cause.

Various analysts have put forward different explanations for the October 7^th massacre. Obviously, the potential normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would ruin Iran’s long-term plan to dominate the Middle East. But why did Hamas attack alone when there could have been a much more devastating scenario of a coordinated simultaneous attack on all fronts – from Hezbollah in the north, the Houthis from Yemen, Arabs from the PA-controlled territories, and Israeli Arabs? These analysts say that Hamas chose that specific Saturday because the Nova festival was an easy, tempting target. Supposedly it was Hamas’s recklessness and desire for glory that led them to attack Israel alone. Hezbollah adamantly declared that Hamas didn’t warn them they were about to attack. Iran was supposedly very angry that Hamas ruined their plan.

To me, something about their anger seemed contrived. But who am I to say?

Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with missile and drone attacks, creating enormous destruction but nothing near what will happen when they fully join the war – something I have worried about since October 7^th. When I asked Yossian why Hezbollah hadn’t joined the war more fully he said: “Shia doesn’t fight for Sunna.” Hezbollah has loyalty to Shia Iran, not to Sunni Hamas thus they can allow Hamas to do the fighting while symbolically showing their participation in the mutual goal of killing Jews. When I asked Yossian what will make Hezbollah go to all-out war he said: “When Israel attacks them.”

Peace is not for sale in the Middle East. What do we do?

Common sense isn’t very common these days but Yossian’s logic is straightforward:

1. We must understand that we are in the Middle East and learn to “speak the language”, i.e. deal with our enemies in terms that are meaningful to them (which might differ greatly from what is meaningful to us).

2. Then we must stop looking for easy and fast solutions. There are none.

3. Then we must strive for victory

We of the liberal-secular West idealize peace. The nationalist believers of the Middle East idealize victory. But even that is a term that has become ambiguous to Westerners. What does victory look like?

It’s not about shaking hands and making up. There is no pluralism in victory. Victory is when your enemy is so thoroughly crushed that they beg you for peace. Thoroughly crushed means you have taken away everything that the enemy cares about and are unquestionably the master of their future.

The only way the enemy will ever give us peace is if we are victors.

This concept is problematic for the liberal secular post-modern Westerner. It sounds extremist. Violent. Non-inclusive. Nationalist. And, in a way, that is correct. If my enemy believes that God told him to kill me and multiculturalism forces me to embrace his beliefs there is no way for me to defend my life, family, or nation. I prefer survival over multiculturalism. I choose my culture. My nation. My family.

A strong identity and belief in the righteousness of a cause carries nations through generations. Striving for personal comfort does not. The Jewish People survived for centuries not looking for comfort but by having a strong identity and believing in the righteousness of our cause: “Next year we will be in Jerusalem, rebuilt.” Jerusalem is irreplaceable. If we were looking for comfort, we could be next year in Berlin or California. The goal of rebuilding what is ours is transferred from one generation to the next – identity and connection to our ancestral homeland. This simple but powerful mantra holds the Middle Eastern map to victory – patience. If we don’t succeed this year, we will do it the next. Or in the next generation. Every opportunity we must do what we can.

This, says Yossian, is the answer. Teaching a strong identity, righteousness in our cause, and whenever possible, building. Where there is Jewish life, the enemy must retreat. Where there is Jewish life, we win.

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!

News media, quoting Qatari officials, characterized Hamas' counteroffer to the hostage deal proposed by Israel as "positive."

However, details published in Arabic show that Hamas' demands go way beyond a swap of hostages for terrorists. It is a demand for full, public victory of Hamas in the war.

Once you get past the detailed plans of a three stage release of hostages and their bodies in exchange for thousands of terrorists, Hamas adds more general demands that would signal not only to the Arab world but to the world at large that Hamas unequivocally won the war.

One demand is to stop all Jews (they call them "settlers") from visiting their holiest site on the Temple Mount. It is an inherently antisemitic demand.

Another is "Ensuring the opening of all crossings with the Gaza Strip, the return of trade, and allowing the free movement of people and goods without obstacles. " This means no inspections on goods entering Gaza. Weapons can be freely imported without restriction.

It also means that terrorists could enter Israel from Gaza "without obstacles" to blow up schools and cafes.

Yet another is to "ensure that all wounded men, women and children are discharged for treatment abroad without restrictions." This allows Hamas and other terrorists to freely travel to Iran or elsewhere under the pretext of being injured.

They also demand that Egypt and Qatar "introduce sufficient heavy equipment necessary to remove rubble and debris." They could also be used for the next mass attack to slaughter thousands in Israel.

And also "the occupation's commitment to supply Gaza with its electricity and water needs." This seems to imply all Gaza's needs, making Israel into a slave to its Hamas masters. It also implies that the services be provided for free and forever.

In Hamas' world, Jews must be reduced to dhimmi status, meekly serving their Islamic masters.

This isn't merely Hamas retaining power, which is unacceptable by itself. This is Hamas being declared the unequivocal winner of the war, with it gaining permanent political and military achievements, and Israel not gaining a single thing it didn't have on October 6.

It isn't a deal. It is a demand for Israeli surrender.

But Hamas is smart: it worded these insane demands in the language of the anti-Israel leftists, whose decades of propaganda make them sound like human rights issues. Free movement from and to Gaza of people and material! Return to the "status quo" on the Temple Mount! The "occupier" should provide unlimited electricity and water to the occupied!

And because the world has been brainwashed, these demands aren't even mentioned in most news articles about the negotiations. They are treated as if they are a footnote to the hostage negotiations. They aren't: they have been the real goal of Hamas' murder and kidnapping spree to begin with.

This is similar to how the media treats the Palestinian Authority's consistent demands for "right of return" to destroy Israel - they downplay it as if it isn't serious, when in Arabic it is always presented as the most important issue.

Everyone knows that one must read the fine print in any agreement. But the world wants Israel to ignore the fine print here - and surrender.

(h/t YM)

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!

Open Jew-hatred is becoming common. And that makes it even more popular.

Australia:

Victoria Police are pursuing a protection order for a Jewish couple who received a photograph of their five-year-old son from an anti-Zionist activist with the threatening message "I know where you live".

The couple seeking the protection order runs a gift shop in Melbourne's northern suburbs, which has been forced to close by an antisemitic campaign that started after the Hamas massacre on October 7. They do not want to be identified and are leaving the area out of fear for their own and their child's safety.

The shop has been graffitied with "No Jews" messages in the form of Stars of David with crosses through them. Regular custom has disappeared in a general boycott.

Berlin:

A 30-year-old Jewish student was brutally assaulted and hospitalized with facial fractures by a 23-year-old pro-Palestinian student in Berlin this past weekend.

Sweden:

A duo of Iranian agents were arrested in Stockholm on suspicion of targeting Jews in the Swedish capital, local media Sverige Radio reported on Tuesday morning.

Long Island:

A self-described Palestinian migrant from northern Africa stole a pro-Israel flag from a Long Island porch — then pummeled the homeowner who tried to stop him in a wild caught-on-video attack, officials said.

New York City:

An antisemitic flier depicting a skunk in the white and blue of the Israeli flag and a Star of David has surfaced on Columbia University’s campus, sparking outrage among the Jewish community.
The skunk depiction has been likened to Nazi propaganda posters used during World War II — which dehumanized the Jewish community and compared them to vermin.

New Jersey:

A New Jersey man admitted to a series of violent hate crimes, for driving his car into a group of people and stabbing one because they were Jewish.

Chicago:

At least 50 vehicles in Lincoln Park, a neighborhood with a significant Jewish population, were targeted by antisemitic flyers.

Racist incidents usually prompt horror and a backlash. Antisemitic incidents cause.more antisemitic incidents.

After all, the current tsunami of antisemitism started with the biggest mass slaughter of Jews in nearly eight decades. The Hamas pogrom didn't marginalize or shame the antisemites - it emboldened them.

Notice that these incidents span all flavors of antisemitism - from the Left, the Right, Muslims and the Black community. Hamas attacks on Jews don't only encourage other Muslim Jew-haters to publicly spread their bile, but it also inspires the "progressives" and the other antisemites. Their talking points have all merged to become virtually indistinguishable: even the most woke self-described anti-racist and avowed enemy of antisemitism has no problem with chants of "Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud" by Arabs who attend their rallies, and far-right proud antisemites will parrot the anti-Zionist talking points of the Left.

And mainstream anti-Israel reporting - reporting that thoroughly misrepresents and perverts Israeli actions to defeat a depraved Islamist terrorist group - adds more fuel to the fire.

Antisemitism snowballs. And it is still near the top of the mountain.

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!

02/06 Links Pt2: The left’s grotesque betrayal of Jewish women; UNRWA’s time is up – let’s shut it down; Hamas demands end to war for hostages’ release

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The left’s grotesque betrayal of Jewish women`

The speed with which the right-on went from saying ‘Believe women’ to ‘Rape pics or it didn’t happen’ is mind-blowing. Their cry in recent years was that every woman who makes an allegation of sexual assault must be believed. Women must be ‘listened to and believed’, they used to say. Fast forward a decade and this principle has been incinerated. We arrive at the surreal situation where upper-class women who say a Tory MP touched their knee are instantly believed, while the nightmare vision of Israeli women burnt to a cinder, their underwear removed, provokes only chin-stroking. Can we be sure they were raped?

So widespread is the rape denialism that some activists have felt compelled to take to the streets to raise awareness about Hamas’s sexual crimes. At the weekend, British Jews and their allies gathered near BBC HQ to say ‘Rape is not resistance’. Some wore jogging bottoms with stains between the legs, in solidarity with Naama Levy, the 19-year-old Israeli woman who was glimpsed in just such a state shortly after the Hamas pogrom. Ms Levy remains in captivity in Gaza. ‘Each minute is an eternity in hell’, wrote her mother recently about her desperate wait for the return of her daughter. The woke silence on this suffering is unconscionable. The treachery of the feminists is unforgivable.

Now we know: it’s ‘#MeToo unless you’re a Jew’, in Nicole Lampert’s words. Believe women, except Jewish women – that’s the true slogan of the woke. When it comes to 7 October, the duty of the right-on, it seems, is not to believe women, but to believe Hamas. To believe that regressive army of Islamists, anti-Semities, misanthropes, homophobes and misogynists when they say, ‘We didn’t rape women, we swear’. We’ve gone from ‘Believe women’ to ‘Believe fascists’.

How do we explain this grotesque betrayal of Jewish womankind? This vile abandonment of women by self-styled feminists, and of Jews by self-styled anti-racists? In part it’s a function of identity politics, which divides people according to ‘privilege’ or ‘oppression’, and decides their moral worth accordingly. Jewish women have more privilege points than Palestinian men, apparently, and thus they can’t possibly have been violated by Hamas. They’re oppressors, right, not victims? And partly it’s yet another expression of the Socialism of Fools that has been soaring in recent years, where the Jewish State has come to play the same role that the Jewish people once played: that is, as an entity responsible for all the world’s ills, and thus deserving of hate and nothing else.

More broadly, though, I think it speaks to the creeping victory of the forces of barbarism among the ‘virtuous’ of the Western world. These people glimpse in the violence of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Houthis a visceral revolt against a West they themselves loathe, and it excites them, it makes them feel alive, it adds the frisson of apocalyptic denouement to their otherwise dull political lives. And nothing – not the safety of Jews, not the dignity of women – can be permitted to interfere with the moral thrill these people derive from a barbarism they mistake for rebellion. If Jewish women must be collateral damage in this unholy marriage of Western self-loathing and Islamist barbarism, so be it. Yes, that’s it – they are willing to sacrifice Jews, especially female Jews, to the requirements of their own moral vanity. It must never be forgotten.

UNRWA’s time is up – let’s shut it down

The dislocation of Arabs from Palestine, whether caused by Arab or Israeli actions, could have been quickly solved by another UN agency: the UN High Commission for Refugees, which followed in the footsteps of earlier League of Nations refugee programs. The stated goal of the UNHCR was and is to “help the millions of Europeans who had fled or lost their homes.” It would have taken just the stroke of a pen to include Palestinian refugees, as well as the 700,000 Jews who were forced out of Mideast countries where they had lived for a millennium.

Instead, part of the grand plan of the Arab countries to keep the fire of Arab rejection of Israel burning was to give special recognition to the Palestinians by giving them their own agency with the UN’s creation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA. Rather than work to resettle Palestinians and integrate them into Palestinian or Arab society, UNRWA’s goal is to perpetuate Palestinian misery. How else can one explain why there are UNRWA-supervised refugee camps in the midst of the Palestinian Authority’s largest cities nearly 30 years after the PA assumed control?

As recently explained in a Wall Street Journal article, “UNRWA has kept Palestinians in permanent refugee camps” which has led to raising generations of Palestinians fed on the lie of a return to Israel and treating them as people who are not capable of standing on their own two feet. Neighboring Arab countries, too, have done their share of instilling hatred for Israel and Jews by not absorbing Palestinians within their borders into local society by giving them citizenship or work permits.

The disclosures of UNRWA employee involvement in the October 7 massacre and the use of its facilities in Gaza to assist the Hamas war effort is just the tip of an iceberg that extends deep below the surface. What lurks below that surface is a thoroughly corrupt UN agency that long ago decided to be part of the “refugee” problem rather than its solution.

Do away with UNRWA and replace it with the UNHCR; it’s going to be an improvement.

Bipartisan group of House lawmakers presses administration on pro-Palestinian charities in the U.S.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee wrote to the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation last week requesting information on alleged links between Hamas and U.S.-based tax-exempt charities that they said may be providing support to the terrorist group.

Pointing to testimony provided at a hearing the committee held last year, the lawmakers raised concerns that several pro-Palestinian charities may have financial ties to Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

Such charities, they noted, employ top officials previously involved in other charities such as the Holy Land Foundation and KindHearts for Charitable Development, which were shuttered by the U.S. government for providing funding to terrorists from American donors.

“Today, it appears that members of these now-defunct charities are reorganizing and forming new U.S.-based charities that may be seeking to take advantage of well-intentioned Americans by redirecting their money to support terrorist organizations like Hamas,” the lawmakers’ letter to the Treasury and IRS reads. “We are concerned that there are U.S.-based organizations with ties to Hamas that were able to evade the anti-terrorism efforts of the IRS and gain tax-exempt status.”

The lawmakers requested a briefing from the Treasury and the IRS by Feb. 13 to assess those agencies’ current efforts to monitor, identify and investigate potential support for terrorists among U.S.-based nonprofits.

In a separate letter, the lawmakers requested information on the FBI’s monitoring of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, as well as the FBI’s own efforts to investigate charities and groups operating on college campuses that may be providing support to terrorist organizations.

Hamas officially demands end to war for hostages’ release

The Hamas terror group on Tuesday night announced its long-awaited response to a proposed hostages-for-ceasefire deal with Israel, in what Jerusalem said amounted to a rejection of the outline.

Hamas said it “dealt with the proposal in a positive spirit, ensuring a comprehensive and complete ceasefire, ending the aggression against our people, ensuring relief, shelter and reconstruction, lifting the siege on the Gaza Strip and completing a prisoner exchange.

“We value the role of our brothers in Egypt, Qatar and all countries that seek to stop the brutal aggression against our people,” Hamas added.

The Ynet news site cited senior officials in Jerusalem as saying that while Hamas claimed it agreed to the framework as negotiated by Doha and Cairo, it was demanding “impossible conditions” from Israel.

“In any case, Israel will not stop the fighting. Hamas’s response amounts to a negative answer,” the officials said, adding that the Prime Minister’s Office was still drafting an official response to mediators.

Israel has repeatedly rejected proposals for a long-term or permanent ceasefire and maintains that it will continue in its goal to eradicate Hamas and ensure that Gaza can never again pose a threat to the Jewish state.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is scheduled to arrive in Israel on Wednesday, said the Biden administration was reviewing Hamas’s response and stressed it was “essential” to go ahead.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done. But we continue to believe that an agreement is possible and indeed essential, and we will continue to work relentlessly to achieve it,” Blinken stated following meetings in Doha.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The Palestinian Authority said on Tuesday it will pay public sector workers 60% of their December salaries this week as it grapples with the long running fallout of Israel's refusal to transfer tax funds earmarked for Gaza.

Funding to the Palestinian Authority, the body that exercises limited governance in the occupied West Bank, has been severely restricted by the months-long dispute over transferring tax revenues Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians.

Under interim peace accords signed in the early 1990s, Israel collects taxes on the Palestinians' behalf and typically transfers them to the PA monthly on the approval of the finance minister.

However, transfers have been stalled since October, when Smotrich withheld around 600 million shekels ($164.51 million) of the total 1 billion shekels due for transfer, prompting the Palestinian Authority, which says Gaza is an integral part of Palestinian territory, to refuse to accept any funds.

"We cannot accept conditions on our money. We will remain committed to the prisoners and martyrs and to our people in the Gaza Strip, not out of favor, but by virtue of our national, religious, and moral responsibility," Shtayyeh said.

It makes no sense for Israel to pay money that will go to Hamas, which is where all the Gaza money goes, directly or not.

But notice that Israel still is willing to pay the PA over $100 million a month - and the PA refuses it. Because, they say, they want to continue to pay terrorists ("prisoners and martyrs.")

And then the PA whines about having no money!

One other paragraph is most interesting:

Funding from international donors has also been squeezed, falling from 30% of the $6 billion annual budget to around 1%, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said.

That's a drop from $1.8 billion annually to $60 million.

Notice that they don't complain about that drastic cut of funding nearly as much as about Israel's much more modest cut.

And notice that this means that the world is not nearly as pro-Palestinian as it pretends to be.

Because being anti-Israel is not the same as being pro-Palestinian.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Israel burying the cars that October 7 victims were murdered in (update: video)

The Jerusalem Post reported in November:

Due to the lack of body parts or remains of many of those killed in the October 7 massacre by Hamas, Israel's Chief Rabbinate recommended burying the cars of those who were killed in them.

N12 reported that the ZAKA Tel Aviv organization, after hard work and distress, came to the conclusion that they could not locate all the remains of the victims inside the vehicles in which they were slaughtered. In order to preserve the sanctity of the deceased for the first time since the establishment of the state, they decided to bury the vehicles.

After consulting with the Military Rabbinate and the Chief Rabbinate, hundreds of vehicles will be buried in Jewish cemeteries across Israel.

Here is one of the piles of burnt-out cars awaiting burial. (credit EBoZ)

But that is just a small part (credit Other BoZ)

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!

02/06 Links Pt1: IDF confirms 32 out of 136 remaining hostages dead; Biden Would Veto Standalone Israel Bill; These are not pro-Palestinian protests, they are hate parades

From Ian:

IDF confirms 32 out of 136 remaining hostages dead

At least 32 of the remaining 136 hostages captured by Hamas during its Oct. 7 terrorist onslaught are confirmed to have died, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing a confidential Israel Defense Forces intelligence assessment.

Their families have been updated, according to four IDF military officials who spoke anonymously to discuss classified information.

Jerusalem was also assessing unconfirmed reports indicating that at least 20 additional captives may no longer be alive, the officials said.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents relatives of the captives, on Tuesday evening confirmed the deaths of 31 people held in Gaza.

“According to the official data we have, there are 31 victims,” the forum said in a statement. “Before the article was released, an official message was given to all the families of the abductees by the liaison officers that there is no change in the situation assessment.”

Hamas abducted more than 240 people during its bloody rampage across the northwestern Negev, in which some 1,200 people were murdered and thousands more wounded.

One hundred five hostages, mostly women and children, were released last year as part of a ceasefire deal, which Hamas broke when it refused to hand over the last group of captives. Four more were released by Hamas before the ceasefire, while one hostage was rescued by Israeli troops.

The figure of 32—or possibly even 52— dead captives is significantly higher than previously thought and would mean that more than one-fifth of the remaining hostages have been killed. Last month, Jerusalem said Hamas was believed to be holding 28 bodies in Gaza.

WSJ Editorial: Israel's Untold Gaza Progress

You may have missed it amid the media defeatism, but Israel is winning its war in Gaza. Hamas losses are mounting, and support for the Israeli war effort has endured around the world longer than Hamas expected. The war is far from over, but Hamas' southern stronghold of Khan Yunis is falling. Hamas' remaining forces face an Israeli advance on all sides, and Israel is now fighting below ground in force.

U.S. restrictions and Israeli caution have slowed the war and Israel needs time to achieve victory. Hamas is counting on Western powers to deny it that time. The "CNN strategy" of using human shields to gain media sympathy has worked every time for Hamas, but, so far, not this time. Oct. 7 was too brutal. This war has passed 120 days, and the U.S. and Europe refuse to call for a ceasefire.

Israel says it has killed, incapacitated or arrested some 20,000 of Hamas' 30,000 men, and the losses have quieted its rocket fire, down more than 95% from the war's early days.

The Biden Administration, despite its second-guessing, continues to provide munitions and diplomatic cover. The latest Harvard CAPS-Harris poll finds that large majorities of Americans support Israel and its war aims. Europe's elected leaders are also holding the line, and no Arab state has quit the Abraham Accords. Winning the war is essential for a secure Israel and a chance for Palestinians to have a normal life in Gaza.

JCPA: Yahya Sinwar Is Working to Fulfill Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's Vision

Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar envisions himself as a significant and historic Muslim figure who will bring honor to the Muslim nation by defeating Israel.

The assault on Israeli communities surrounding Gaza, orchestrated by Sinwar on October 7, 2023, marked the initial phase of his strategy to bring about the downfall of the State of Israel, as indicated by sources within Hamas in Gaza.

Sinwar anticipated that his surprise offensive would prompt the direct military engagement from Hizbullah, Iran, and other allies across the Middle East, culminating in a wide-ranging assault on Israel from multiple fronts, ultimately leading to its defeat.

More than two decades ago, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas and Sinwar's mentor, prophesied in an interview with Al Jazeera that Israel would cease to exist by 2027, based on interpretations of the Quran.

Therefore, it is imperative for the conflict to conclude with a decisive Israeli victory - as well as Sinwar's demise - thereby thwarting his ambitions and preventing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's vision from taking root among the populace of Gaza.

Josep Borrell, European Union foreign affairs head and Vice-President of the European Commission, wrote an essay to defend funding UNRWA.

It is filled with plenty of deceptive language; pretending that the bulk of UNRWA budget goes towards critical medical needs and humanitarian aid when that is only a small portion, while most of its budget goes towards things that make no sense for the world to fund, like schools. If he wants to save UNRWA in Gaza when countries are suspending aid, he could easily recommend redirecting existing UNRWA funds away from the West Bank and Jordan, for example, where UNRWA maintains an entirely separate welfare infrastructure from the Palestinian Authority and Jordanian government for no good reason.

But one boilerplate sentence is maddening.

He writes, "Israel, as the occupying power, has responsibility for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention."

The idea that Israel occupied Gaza was always a farce. It was an "international law" that was made up just for Israel. Outside of Gaza, every international law scholar agrees that occupation requires both an actual presence of armed forces on the territory and exerting authority ("effective control") over the territory. Only for Israel did they make up the idea that somehow controlling most of the borders constitutes "occupation."

In light of October 7 and the current war, the idea that Gaza was "occupied" by Israel has changed from farcical to grotesque.

Hundreds of miles of tunnels couldn't have been built if Gaza was occupied by Israel. Rockets and RPGs couldn't have been built in Gaza if Israel occupied the territory. Gaza lives wouldn't have been ruled by a terror group if Israel controlled Gaza.

If Israel occupied Gaza, there would have been no massacre on October 7 and no subsequent war. There would have been no wars in 2009, 2012, 2014 and the other shorter ones every couple of years.

If Israel occupied Gaza, thousands of lives - Jewish and Arab - would have been saved.

The EU's policy towards Gaza is based on the lie of "occupation." Claiming that Israel occupies Gaza now, after the massacre, is an unimaginable insult.

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!

Hey @UNCTAD, I have an idea to help Gaza's economy!

The UN Conference on Trade & Development issued a report saying that Gaza will take a long time to recover:

If the current military operation were to end immediately with reconstruction starting right away and the 2007-2022 growth trends were to persist with an average growth rate of 0.4%, it would take Gaza until 2092 just to restore the GDP levels of 2022, with GDP per capita and socioeconomic conditions continuously declining.

However, even with the most optimistic scenario that GDP could grow at 10% annually, it would still take Gaza’s GDP per capita until 2035 to return to its pre-blockade level of 2006.

The recovery of Gaza's economy from the current military operation will demand a financial commitment several times more than the $3.9 billion that resulted from the 2014 military operation in Gaza and will require a concerted international effort to restore pre-conflict socioeconomic conditions.

It bases its estimate of recovery in 2092 on a 0.4% average annual GDP growth rate, which is pretty low. But, they say, that was the average growth rate from 2007-2022 in Gaza.

Here is the GDP growth for Gaza and the West Bank combined from 1995 to 2022:

One can see that the annual GDP growth varied wildly from year to year. But in general, external events were what drove the Palestinian economy - and when things were more peaceful, their economy grew (with the exception of the Covid-19 drop.)

The first big spike came during the Oslo process when there was optimism and investment in Palestinian businesses. It all crashed with the second intifada terror spree. Things went up again as the intifada started winding down; they went down when Hamas won the 2006 election. There were dips for the 2009 Gaza war and the 2014 Gaza war.

Again, this is the West Bank and Gaza combined. Why would Gaza's annual rate be so much lower than the West Bank's?

Because when Palestinians try to kill Jews, their economy tanks. When they adhere to ceasefires, their economy prospers.

UNCTAD looks at Gaza's anemic 0.4% growth rate as the way things have to be. But they don't. If Gaza wasn't ruled by a genocidal death cult whose highest priority is martyrdom while killing Jews, Gaza's economy would be much better than it is and its GDP prospects would be a lot rosier.

Why wouldn't UNCTAD make this simple observation - that Palestinian aggression against Israel is the single biggest factor hurting its economy? That if Gaza will ever recover, it has to stop its habit of attacking Jews every couple of years?

The world simply doesn't expect Palestinians to even have the ability to act peacefully and like adults. No one says this out loud. But that is the reason no one points out what is obvious once you see it: the world expects Palestinians to prioritize killing Jews over the welfare of their own people and treats them accordingly.

But since that is racist, and peace is obviously nowhere on the horizon, people blame the adults in the room - Israel - for not making enough compromises with their would-be killers.

Combine this enormous cognitive dissonance with the religion of the Two State Solution, and it is only a short hop to the insane idea that if only the world would force Israel to give up land for a state filled with people who want to destroy it, we will finally have peace.

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!