Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, March 23, 2024

03/23 Links: ‘Reactionary Anti-Imperialism’ as the new Totalitarian Temptation, from Foucault to 7 October; Israel accepts US hostage swap compromise, awaits Hamas response

From Ian:

‘Reactionary Anti-Imperialism’ as the new Totalitarian Temptation, from Foucault to 7 October

It may seem ridiculous, but it is a serious matter in both senses when some queer activists— apparently with suicidal disregard for what they are endorsing—express their solidarity with Hamas. One can only imagine how long a queer solidarity group would survive in the realm of Sharia [it’s worth noting that anti-Israel Palestinian LGBTQ activists have their headquarters in Tel Aviv and not in Ramallah]. But one doesn’t have to use imagination to see the enthusiasm that the annihilation of Israel, explicitly propagated by Hamas and Iran, generates among millions upon millions of sympathisers of these Palestinian ‘freedom fighters.’ The most prominent advocates of Hamas, Yanis Varoufakis and Judith Butler, waited until Israel reacted (as Hamas had no doubt expected) with counter-strikes, which have since resulted in the deaths of an appalling number of civilians in Gaza, before publicly denouncing the Israeli counter-attack while ignoring the gang of murderers who massacred more than 1,200 people on October 7thjust because they were Jews or associated with Jews [the sort of people that the Nazis had called ‘Jew servants’].

Others didn’t wait that long. Like some of her American counterparts, the Austrian Nicole Schöndorfer (who is very prominent on social media) rushed the very first day after the pogrom to celebrate on Instagram the terrorists who themselves died in the butchering of Jews as ‘martyrs.’ One remembers the atheist Foucault, who denounced religious criticism of the Islamist movement; so why should we be surprised by women who explicitly describe themselves as feminists and yet celebrate as martyrs of a just cause the young men who raped, mutilated, murdered or kidnapped Israeli women and presented them as trophies to the mob? A linguistic collateral damage of today’s misery is that laudable terms like anti-racism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism are so thoroughly discredited by those who misuse them that one has to ask oneself whether new terms will be necessary in order to make linguistic sense of the old ones—to name them correctly to stand up against racism, colonialism, and imperialism.

A few weeks before the Hamas massacre, I was asked what was the easiest way to fuel antisemitism. Today I would have to answer: by massacring as many Jews as possible. Nothing has fuelled hatred of Jews more than the worst attack on Jews since the Shoah, and because the attack was carried out against Jews, the rapists and murderers can only be called ‘resistance fighters’ motivated by a ‘holy Hatred’ against foreign Jewish rule in Palestine. ‘Heilige Hass’ (holy hatred) is, by the way, a motif that literally comes from Julius Streicher’s Nazi magazine Der Stürmer and which has been taken over in anti-colonial discourse. There are forms of ignorance that are entirely culpable. One of these is when Israel haters, who see themselves as left-wing, simply refuse to acknowledge the political foundations of Hamas.

Hamas has never made a secret of the fact that it is not concerned with national equality, social justice or a so-called ‘two-state solution’, but only with the destruction of Israel—which Hamas says represents the most important stage in the battle for final victory between believers and unbelievers. Its foundational charter from 1988 is a compact collection of anti-Semitic stereotypes and a blatant declaration of intent: that an Islamic theocracy will one day be established ‘between the river and the sea.’

When the Israeli army withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas won free elections. Richly supplied with funds from all over the world, it then had the opportunity to establish self-government for the benefit of the residents of Gaza. But that was not its goal; rather, it quickly set about liquidating its Palestinian opponents and imposing a series of fundamentalist laws on the population. Hamas has done everything in its power to turn Gaza into the ‘largest open-air prison in the world,’ while denying that it was they who had created it. In 1970, after Israel had taken over Gaza, 280.000 people lived there. When Israel withdrew completely in 2005 there were about 1.2 million residents, and after fewer than twenty more years there are now 2.2 million: This is what the demographic development looks like when the ‘Zionist aggressor’ engages in ‘genocide’ for more than five decades.

Forty-five years after Foucault abandoned his intellectual and moral standards to support ‘political spirituality,’ the most sensitive youth in the West are forming an alliance with one of the most brutal terrorist representatives of ‘political spirituality.’ There are some new things that the anti-Zionists put forward between Berkeley and Berlin—such as the rigorous rejection of the Enlightenment legacy, which is denounced in self-loathing as a weapon of white supremacy; but the core of their accusation is ancient.

The US sees situation in Gaza throughout Hamas' optics

The administration’s policy is gradually but consistently drifting toward hope-based and optimism-based policy, rather than being pragmatic, which raises serious concerns regarding their ability to develop realistic plans for the conflict going forward.

For the United States, the optics of the situation in Gaza supersedes long-term thinking, which would put in place the conditions for improving the lot of the people in Gaza - in other words, by toppling Hamas' rule in Gaza.

As a terrorist organization and a non-state player, Hamas is able to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal, which is to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza in order to generate international pressure. This tool of theirs is a force multiplier, which it uses to the utmost effect on world public opinion which, quite justifiably, is shocked by the human suffering there.

In such a situation, a terrorist organization will always be able to extract concessions from the other side. Hamas loses nothing when Gazan civilians die. It can only gain from this. Therefore it has no interest whatsoever in avoiding actions that would exacerbate the humanitarian predicament in Gaza while still maintaining the pretense of fighting for the good of the Palestinian people.

When American humanitarian aid enters Gaza by sea, there is no guarantee Hamas won’t commandeer it. In an extreme scenario, which is by no means unrealistic, Hamas might indeed attack the American warships using the ever-effective excuse - defending the Palestinian people against a Western invasion, rejection of aid from a world power that is aiding the Israeli “occupation” in Gaza or other propaganda-friendly pretexts.

Anyone who has a genuine interest in stabilizing the Gaza situation and preventing Hamas' growth long term, must insist on three conditions: 1. Destruction of Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities. 2. Prevention of any dependency between the civilian population and Hamas, which will exploit its distress to pursue its own goals and 3. De-radicalization of the education system, purging it of incitement, in such a way that it will no longer toxify the next generation of Gazan children, preventing them from becoming tomorrow’s terrorists.

To achieve these goals, and to reduce the number of dead in the long term, Hamas must be defeated at all costs. Failure to get the job done is going to be much more costly to Israel and to the Gazan population in the long term.

The United States, too, was forced to make some highly agonizing decisions during World War II, such as the fateful decision to drop two Atomic bombs on Japan. In the short term, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands, but in the long term, they saved millions of Japanese lives since that country surrendered several days later.

This, according to historical estimates, prevented the unnecessary death of millions more on both sides - American and Japanese. Israel, for its part, is not even seeking to end the war in Gaza in this same painful way - it only seeks legitimacy for the eradication of Hamas’ military and government apparatus and is doing so with the greatest surgical precision possible under the difficult circumstances presented by the battlefield.

To be able to comprehend this simple principle, it is advisable first to begin understanding the Hamas enemy itself - instead of assuming it is ultimately interested in the good of the Gazan population.

03/22 Links Pt2: The triumph of the blood libel; Do Arab-Israelis Stand with Israel?; Who Is in Charge at The New York Times?; Candace Owens Fired from Daily Wire

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The triumph of the blood libel

Israelis and Jews around the world were stunned by the swiftness and ferocity of the propaganda campaign Hamas’s supporters in the West launched in the immediate wake of Hamas’s orgy of murder and sadism in southern Israel. Less than 24 hours after the news broke, Hamas supporters at Harvard University kicked off the hate campaign by getting 31 student groups to sign a statement blaming Israel for Hamas’s atrocities.

As details of the crimes began to flow, Hamas’s supporters in the West responded with violent denials of all of them. No rape. No immolation of children. No torture. No nothing. It was all Israel’s fault, they said. Israel killed and raped its own people. And now the Jews are raping Palestinian women. How do we know? Because they are Jews.

On the face of things, the rapidity and shamelessness of the projection of blame and culpability onto Israel was shocking. Normal people could be forgiven for assuming that in the face of crimes of this enormity, Hamas’s supporters would lay low. But that assumption misses the point.

Oct. 7 was one battle in a larger jihad to annihilate Israel. Propaganda in the form of blood libels is a central component of the war. The libels against Jews and the Jewish state today play the same role as they played in the Middle Ages, just on a national scale. If Jews deserved to be killed because Jews are evil, then the Jewish state deserves to be annihilated because it is the evil Jewish state. Everything that happens to Israel is proof of its evil. Every crime committed against Israel is a crime Israel committed. And if Israel doesn’t commit crimes attributed to it, then that’s because good people like Power and Borrell stood in its way.

The depressing thing, of course, is that Hamas’s strategy is working. The latent Jew-hatred in the West was widespread enough to support their crimes. The propagation of the blood libels by the United Nations, the European Union and the State Department is a disturbing indicator of just how bad things really are.

The question is what can Israel—and Jews more broadly—do in the midst of this avalanche of blood libel? The answer is twofold.

First, Israel must stop trying to prove a negative. No one cares if we are really blood-thirsty vampires. Persuasion doesn’t work with people moved by emotion, particularly hatred. Instead, Israel and Jews worldwide need to concentrate on rallying the people who viscerally understand what is going on and aren’t taken in by anti-Semitic cartoons and Hamas propaganda, even if it is spoken by Samantha Power.

As for the haters, countering them means going on the offensive. On the battlefield in Gaza, it means destroying Hamas completely so that everyone understands that attacking the Jews is a bad idea. And on the battlefields of the United Nations, the European Union, the State Department, Harvard, Berkeley, New York City and London, the answer is to expose the haters with as much vigor and ferocity as they demonize the Jews.

Bret Stephens: Directing a Movie Doesn’t Make You a Mideast Authority

In 1978 the English actress Vanessa Redgrave won an Oscar for her role in the film “Julia” and used the occasion to denounce “a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews everywhere.”

Later in the ceremony, the screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky used his own turn onstage to offer a memorable rebuttal: “I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave,” he said to applause, “that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.”

Forty-six years on, history repeated itself.

Last week, Jonathan Glazer, director of the Holocaust-themed film “The Zone of Interest,” accepted the Academy Award for best international feature film and delivered a diatribe to “refute” having his “Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”

It took a few days, but the spirit of Chayefsky came roaring back. In a “Statement From Jewish Hollywood Professionals,” hundreds of signatories, including the actress Julianna Margulies and the producer Lawrence Bender, denounced Glazer for “drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination,” arguing that it could fuel antisemitism.

Politically speaking, I’m with the signatories. People can have varying views of the war in Gaza, but comparing it with the Holocaust, as Glazer did, is profoundly wrong. Among other differences, Jews did not provoke the Holocaust by murdering, raping and kidnapping German civilians in a deliberate effort to start a war.

But I’m also allergic to what Eli Lake, in a brilliant recent essay in Commentary magazine, called the “As a Jew” phenomenon: the habit of prefacing political opinions with a declaration of identity, as if an opinion about Israeli politics (usually, an anti-Israel opinion) somehow becomes more credible and significant because the speaker happens to be Jewish.

At the Anti-Israel Carnival

More disturbing than costumes are the carnivalesque inversions of ideals central to a university education. Thus, when JFAS has sought co-presenters for lectures by entirely mainstream scholars, we have struggled to find a single academic department willing to put its name on a poster. On the other hand, those same departments and university-sponsored research centers present seemingly endless, one-sided propaganda that vilifies Israel. Even the concept of “diversity” is blatantly inverted. In February, a university-sponsored research center hosted a lecture by Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch, who is notorious for demonizing Israel. During the Q&A period, a professor began by saying: “I am speaking as an Israeli, I am speaking as a Jew, and I am speaking as a Zionist. . . . We are here. We want to talk, and we look forward to talking about this issue and all issues with all of you.” The Jewish professor was interrupted and heckled. Later, Students for Justice in Palestine posted a video of the incident, asserting, “This is extremely unprofessional, insensitive, & makes his students and many students across the Rutgers Newark campus feel unsafe.” Dozens of comments on the post predictably agreed that a request for dialogue was really an act of violence, with some stating openly that the diversity of the student population was reason to silence Zionists.

A main feature of the carnivalesque is its celebration of the carnal or profane. True to form, campus protestors have consistently celebrated actual bodily violence. Everyone is, by now, familiar with the rationalization and even cheering of Hamas’s atrocities on October 7. Even more shocking was the promotion of violence that took place at a protest here at Rutgers in January. Shouting into a megaphone, a leader of the protest glorified precisely such violence when she proclaimed, “dying as a Martyr, dying as a hero is one of the greatest sacrifices you can do as a Palestinian and as a Muslim.” She then led a series of chants in Arabic: “Even if you aren’t Muslim, if you say these chants, you are resisting on behalf of the Palestinians.”

Like many cultures, Judaism has its own spring carnival in the holiday of Purim, with all its mandated excesses, masks, and inversions in celebration of the defeat of Haman and his allies. Over the centuries, the rabbinic tradition has been largely successful in curbing and sublimating the darker aspects of the carnivalesque in the service of its higher ideals. Yet Jews are not immune to the violent excesses of the carnivalesque; witness Baruch Goldstein’s massacre on Purim in 1994. Especially now, as Israel’s justified, defensive war against Hamas is being sullied by unsanctioned violence by extremist Jews in the West Bank, we all bear responsibility for ensuring that the levity of Purim is channeled toward “light and joy,” to borrow a phrase from the Book of Esther.

Mikhail Bakhtin thought that the chaotic spirit of the carnival would “free human consciousness, thought and imagination for new potentialities.” Perhaps. But the university is an institution carefully constructed over centuries to advance consciousness, thought, and imagination through the free and open pursuit of truth. It will have to find a way to reject masked intimidation, brazen inversions, and the celebration of violence if it is to remain one.

At Rutgers and on countless other campuses nationwide, the carnivalesque has given license to an ugly hatred that has now been unmasked. Undoing the inversions, lies, and base behavior that this hatred has engendered will require a renewed commitment to the central mission of American colleges. My university would be a good place to start.

This is from an academic paper just published in Geographic Review:

STUDENTWASHING: A NEW TERRITORIAL STRATEGY IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Gabriel Schwake &Marco Allegra
Pages 206-223 | Published online: 05 Mar 2024

ABSTRACT
The suffix “washing” refers to the practice of portraying controversial actions in a positive light by leveraging progressive principles, often used by economic corporations, organizations, political parties, or governments. This paper introduces and develops the term “studentwashing” to define the deliberate effort to present Israeli territorial development as an attractive, youthful, and unique experience. This portrayal aims to engage larger segments of society in the national geopolitical project while normalizing its settler-colonial aspects as a means to ensure its continuation. While the constant development of new territorial settlements is dependent either on the right-wing religious sector or on the “quality-of-life” settlers, studentwashing is reserved for areas that are not ideological enough for the first nor sufficiently attractive to the latter. Analyzing “student villages” in the Negev, this paper depicts a new territorial strategy meant to enhance the state’s spatial control over the predominantly Arab periphery inside official Israeli borders. Accordingly, this paper offers a new perspective on Israel’s territorial strategies and enhances the general study of geopolitical and geo-economic spatial development.

Meaning, anything Israel builds even within its 1967 lines is a "settlement" and anything Israel does to promote itself is a nefarious plot to fool people.

When corporations, governments, non-profits or individuals advertise their services, it is "promotion." When Zionists or Jews do the same, it is "xomethingwashing" - because it is meant to hide some other evil activity they are doing.

This is another example of academically promoted antisemitism. And it is all over the place.

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!

03/22 Links Pt1: China, Russia veto US ceasefire resolution at the UN Security; Israel Won Major Victory by Ignoring Biden; Most Jewish Americans Support Israel's War

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Freezer Burn

Welcome to the new Ice Age. Though the temperatures may be on the rise, and the Middle East is once again on fire, our era will be marked by conflicts frozen in place.

The good news is that it’s a manmade crisis—anthropogenic geopolitical cooling—and therefore it can be stopped. The bad news is we seem to have lost the will to do so.

It’s very easy to understand why frozen conflicts are increasing: The rogue states that power these conflicts have discovered that an Achilles heel of the American-led world order is that the United States considers a conflict that is frozen to be over, when in fact its status is precisely the opposite. These wars are locked in place in perpetuity.

President Biden claims to understand this, at least as it relates to Hamas’s perpetual war on Israel. But just as we have defended Biden when his actions have been better than his words, so too it’s impossible to ignore the administration’s movement away from its earlier, principled stance that a nation attacked has a right to win, and not merely survive, the ensuing war.

“A major military operation in Rafah would be a mistake, something we don’t support,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken is loudly warning Israel. “There’s a false choice involved. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to deal with the ongoing threat posed by Hamas, but without a major military operation.”

“Deal with the ongoing threat posed by Hamas” is quite the choice of phrase. In fact, the war aim is to destroy Hamas. Fewer words, clearer prose—Blinken needs an editor.

The entire point of this conflict is that there should never again be a threat posed by Hamas. There shouldn’t even be a Hamas. This is what happens when you invade a neighboring country, massacre innocents, take hostages—and then refuse to surrender and return those hostages.

Melanie Phillips: The American betrayal of Israel

Israel is not just fighting to defend itself against genocide. It is on the front line of the West’s defense against its enemies and the defense of civilization against barbarism.

Western liberals can’t acknowledge this because they can’t allow their unchallengeable orthodoxies of Palestinian powerlessness, “peace processes” and Western iniquity to be destroyed. So they have turned on the Jews. Jewish suffering has to be erased because it gets in the way of the narrative.

That’s why the eruption of Palestinianism throughout the West is so shattering. People wonder why the forests of Palestinian flags at the incendiary anti-Israel demonstrations are in themselves so intimidating.

It’s because the Palestine cause is not two states side by side. Palestinian identity consists entirely of the intention to eradicate Israel by the hijack and appropriation of Jewish history. Palestinianism stands for the erasure of Jewish national identity and wiping the Jewish people out of their own historic homeland.

That’s why anti-Israel thugs have ripped apart a painting in Cambridge University of Arthur Balfour, the British prime minister who gave his name to the 1917 declaration of British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It’s why people across the West have been ripping down the posters of the Israeli hostages. They are all trying to rip Israel and the Jews out of their headspace and their world altogether.

That’s why the betrayal by Schumer and American Jews who still support the Democratic Party and its Israel-bashing agenda is so devastating.

According to the Oxford University Press Dictionary of American Family Names, “Schumer” derives from a German word that means a “good-for-nothing.”

Schumer claims instead that his name derives from the Hebrew shomer, or “guardian”; and so he boasts to be the shomer of Jewish values. “What horrifies so many Jews especially,” he said, “is our sense that Israel is falling short of upholding these distinctly Jewish values that we hold so dear.”

How dare he. He is not a shomer. What has horrified so many is that Schumer and other liberal American Jews who are taking aim at Israel’s “right-wing” are using “Jewish values” as a shield behind which they are betraying Israel and the Jewish people and delivering them to their enemies.

Along with the shills for Israel’s surrender in the Biden administration, they present an obscene and disgusting spectacle.

“In every generation,” say the Jews at Passover, “they rise up against us.” To the enemies of the Jewish people today—Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran—we must add the Biden administration, Chuck Schumer and the liberal Jewish fifth column.

Somehow, 120,000 Muslims managed to get into the Temple Mount this morning "despite Israeli restrictions"

Here was the scene this morning in Judaism's holiest spot.

120,000 Muslims arrived and worshipped.

But the coverage in Arab media this year is different. It spends more time describing the restrictions than the crowds.

This year, there are still huge throngs visiting Al Aqsa. This year like last, there are restrictions on young men visiting from the West Bank. This year like last, there is a large Israeli police presence to ensure no violence and to maintain order.

This year, like every year, the numbers of worshippers would overfill nearly every sports stadium in the world.

And stadium security is far more restrictive.

Wafa, the official Palestinian Arab news agency, sets the tone for all other Palestinian media, who often just copy their stories. They report three contradicting stories.

Thousands of our people performed the second Friday prayer of the holy month of Ramadan in the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem, despite the strict and unprecedented Israeli occupation measures imposed on the Holy City and its surroundings.

The Islamic Endowments Department in Jerusalem said that 120,000 worshipers performed the second Friday prayer of the month of Ramadan today in the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque .

The preacher of the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Khaled Abu Jumaa, confirmed that our people are committed to their land and will foil all plans to displace and destroy them .

He stressed that Al-Aqsa Mosque will remain a purely Islamic mosque with all its prayer rooms and courtyards, and that our people, by attending prayer in the mosque, overthrow the occupation’s plans to Judaize it and the city of Jerusalem .

The three stories are:

Huge numbers of Palestinians attend prayers.

Israel stops huge numbers of Palestinians from attending prayers.

The huge numbers prove that Israel doesn't control the holy site that they restrict so many from attending.

The real story is that Israel controls the holy site. As in every other holy site worldwide, it puts lots of effort into security to ensure orderly prayer and crowd control. And despite Israel being a Jewish state, it allows 120,000 Muslims to pray on Judaism's holiest site (a number that will increase in coming weeks.)

That is the story that the Arab media, and world media, does not want you to hear.

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!

Oxfam and HRW engage in antisemitic conspiracy theories

A sure sign of when criticism of Israel crosses over into antisemitism is when it devolves into conspiracy theories.

A large percentage of these conspiracy theories come from "human rights" organizations.

On March 15, the Israeli government submitted assurances to the US State Department as part of its compliance with National Security Memorandum-20 (NSM-20) that it is not arbitrarily blocking US humanitarian assistance and not violating international humanitarian law in Gaza.

Human Rights Watch and Oxfam issued a joint statement claiming that Israel's assurances were not "credible."

In every specific example they give of supposed Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, they choose to view incidents in Gaza through a prism of assuming that the entire Israeli government and defense establishment collude to lie to the world. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Their first examples show the pattern of accusations and their presumption that Israelis at every level are just a bunch of liars:

Human Rights Watch documented a strike by Israeli forces on a marked ambulance outside al-Shifa Hospital on November 3, 2023, which reportedly killed 15 people and injured 60. Ambulances are protected civilian objects under international humanitarian law and cannot be targeted when used to treat wounded and sick individuals, both civilian and combatant. Israeli authorities said they intentionally struck the ambulance, contending that it was being used to transport able-bodied fighters. Human Rights Watch investigated these claims and did not find any evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes. Furthermore, the high number of civilian casualties caused by the strike suggest that it was unlawfully disproportionate even if the ambulance was being used for military purposes.

Human Rights Watch documented strikes on or near several major hospitals between October 7 and November 7, including the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, the Indonesian Hospital, and the International Eye Care Center.Hospitals enjoy protected status under international humanitarian law, and only lose their protection from attack if used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” though warnings, proportionality, and distinction are still required. Israel contends that the hospitals were being used by Palestinian fighters and therefore were not protected under international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch found with respect to the cases it investigated no evidence that would justify depriving the hospitals of their protected status under international humanitarian law.

The pattern is that the NGOs assume that Israel acts maliciously with no regard to international law. They "investigate" the incidents with woefully incomplete information. Then they declare that Israeli statements that they attacked legitimate military targets are lies based on these "investigations" whose verdicts are based on the absence of evidence that they could find in a chaotic war zone with "witnesses" who would be killed by Hamas for "collaboration" if they say the wrong thing.

The IDF has a great deal more intelligence (in every sense) than Oxfam and HRW. They will not strike an ambulance or area around a hospital for no reason. They know who the targets were, the rank and importance of the people and assets being targeted, and they make their decisions of striking the targets and their calculations of proportionality based on the known intelligence at the time - which is exactly what international law requires from them.

HRW and Oxfam and Amnesty know nothing about what went into the decisions. They assume guilt ahead of time, then they send in their Gaza-based "researchers" who never, ever say anything negative about Hamas to "investigate" and then report that they couldn't corroborate that Hamas was there. They all looked like civilians to them.

The NGOs never mention the dozens of videos from Hamas and Islamic Jihad showing them shooting at Israeli positions wearing civilian clothing.

Every incident they bring follows this pattern. Israel used white phosphorus, they say - but white phosphorus is not illegal and can be used legally during wartime. Their photo of its use in Gaza shows that it was exploded over water, not in a crowded urban area.

Israel targeted a car in Lebanon with civilians where there was no military activity nearby, they say - even though the car was seen rushing away from where an anti-tank missile had killed an Israeli civilian shortly beforehand.

Every incident that they claim is a violation of international humanitarian war can be interpreted as a perfectly legal and valid military action. Every incident they claim they "investigated" shows that they do not know even a tiny part of what the military knew at the time of the action. Israel is not obligated to reveal to them the depth of intelligence it has access to, but as we've seen time and time again, the IDF has detailed knowledge about their targets.

To the NGOs, every Israeli explanation is a lie. The Jews cannot be trusted. Every layer of the IDF, the Mossad, the Shin Bet, the Military Advocate General's Corps, COGAT, the Knesset and the cabinet and the Prime Ministers office are all part of this huge conspiracy of lies.

The IDF has a lot of lawyers who review every targeting decision to ensure legality. To HRW and Oxfam, they are all part of the coverup.

Like all conspiracy theorists, the NGOs comb through statements of Israeli officials to find out-of-context quotes to "prove" that the Israelis are really maliciously trying to wipe out every civilian in Gaza.

There is no difference between the crazed antisemitic conspiracy theories of the neo-Nazis and the crazed antisemitic conspiracy theories of the "progressive" Left. They both take fragmentary, decontextualized factoids and string them together to create a narrative of unbridled Jewish evil.

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!

ADL survey finds strong correlation between anti-Zionism and classic antisemitism

Last month the ADL released the results of its latest survey on antisemitic attitudes in America.

Recent surveys added some additional questions to determine what other mindsets correlate with Jew-hatred.

The survey, as it always does, asks people whether they agree with antisemitic tropes like "Jews have too much power in the United States today" or "Jews in business are so shrewd that others don't have a fair shot at competing." The more of the tropes they agree with indicates more antisemitic attitudes.

Until 2014, the trend was that younger people were less bigoted towards Jews. That trend has been reversed: right now, millenials are the most likely to harbor antisemitic attitudes, followed by Gen-Z.

As a result, antisemitic attitudes in America are now the highest that they have been since 1964.

The other correlations with antisemitic attitudes are more interesting. People who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to be antisemitic, as do people who believe that “an ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom.” One would expect such attitudes from right-wing antisemites.

But a mainstay belief of the progressive Left is also correlated with antisemitism.

The more people agree with the statement “When we think about the problems of the world, it comes down to the oppressor vs the oppressed.” were also far more likely to be antisemitic.

And then there are the questions that show that the stronger the anti-Zionist attitudes, the stronger the antisemitic attitudes.

People who want to stop military aid to Israel, or who want to boycott Israeli products, or who want to exclude Zionists from clubs and organizations, are much more likely to harbor classic antisemitic attitudes.

Here, the survey showed how much more likely people with anti-Israel attitudes were to also have antisemitic attitudes compared to everyone else.

I had missed this survey when it came out, and no wonder: the mainstream media nearly all ignored it. Anti-Zionists insist they aren't antisemitic and this survey indicates that they are far more likely to be. The media has accepted their lies over the truth.

The proof that the left-leaning media know this is true is in the paradox of them ignoring it: if they really cared about all kinds of hate like they claim, they should be in the forefront of soul searching and trying to eradicate the antisemitism from their own ranks.

The link between hating Israel and hating Jews is clear - just as clear as the link in the other direction between far right-wing antisemites hating Jews and hating Israel. It's been obvious ever since Israel was reborn, but the campaign to dissociate the two from each other has had a large degree of success.

It's almost a ...conspiracy.

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!

03/21 Links Pt2: US to bring Security Council motion for ceasefire and hostage deal to a vote Friday; The Hamas Broadcasting Corporation; The Growing List of Al Jazeera Terrorists

From Ian:

Black Sabbath

Like the rest of Israeli society, Alumim’s members were shocked and traumatized by the events of Oct. 7, especially as the full extent of the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas became known. It was the most fatal day in Israeli history, with 1,200 civilians and soldiers killed, and 253 kidnapped. Not since the Holocaust had Jews been subject to mass murder, torture and rape, and Jewish collective memory across the world was deeply stirred.

That said, for all the horror of the day, Alumim had escaped the worst of it, albeit barely: Four members of the KK had been wounded, as had two residents (in addition to Muller, Doveleh Bergstein, the father of the KK’s Yaakov Bergstein, had been hit by a mortar fragment early in the day). Neighboring Kibbutz Sa’ad was not penetrated at all. Like Alumim, it is religiously observant, a fact that entered into portions of the public discourse. Inevitably, word quickly spread about the “miraculous” events at Alumim and Sa’ad, as compared to the horrific destruction at many of the other neighboring secular, mostly left-of-center kibbutzim. The fact that 19 foreign workers and an Israeli civilian had been killed within the kibbutz’s confines, not to mention the soldiers who had been killed beating off the attackers, was ignored. Fake social media posts attributed to the kibbutz’s rabbi, Amit Kula, declared that the kibbutz had been spared because it observed the Sabbath. This included locking the gates, so as to prevent motorized transportation on that day (an absurd notion in and of itself: All the kibbutzim in the area locked their gates). Rabbi Kula responded angrily, calling the idea that God distinguishes between observant and nonobservant Jews an abomination, pointing to the fact that many observant Jews had been killed that day, both soldiers and civilians in neighboring towns. Moreover, the kibbutz itself had failed to protect its foreign workers, hence there was no cause whatsoever for celebration.

As the full story became known, the “miracle” seemed less and less miraculous. In addition to the massacres of the foreign workers and the Nova festivalgoers on Road 232 outside the kibbutz, two members of the security forces had died at Alumim that day, as had the two Slotki brothers and Ofek Atun. Two other members of kibbutz families had been killed as well: Shachaf Bergstein, the brother of KK member Yaakov Bergstein, had been at the synagogue celebrations the night before, and was killed in his home in neighboring Kfar Aza; Lt. Nitai Amar, the son of a kibbutz family, was killed in battle down the road at Re’im; and the sister of a kibbutz member was killed while doing her morning training run with her running club from Sderot. The son of another kibbutz family would be killed in battle a few weeks later.

Alumim’s residents themselves viewed the events of the day through a number of different lenses. Some people did ascribe their survival to overt Divine protection. Most others, though, viewed things similarly as Rabbi Kula, namely that one utters the traditional prayer of thanksgiving in such situations, without any pretense of being able to answer the question: “Why me? Why did I survive?” Alumim’s defenders were acutely aware of how easily the results of the battle could have been radically different, and most of them gave short shrift to the idea that they had benefited from Divine intervention. However, there was no question in their minds that a crucial factor accounting for their success was that they were literally fighting to save their homes and families.

The massacre of the foreign workers remained a sore point for some, and particularly for Hunwald. Could more have been done to save them, for example, by immediately moving them en masse into the kibbutz’s residences, after the first wave of killings? The question gnawed at him, even while he acknowledged that no one had had a clue that the initial penetration of the kibbutz by the 10 terrorists was only the beginning of the ordeal. Some KK members emphasized that the subsequent large-scale massacre and kidnapping of the foreign workers had essentially bought the kibbutz defenders valuable time and even somewhat thinned out Hamas’ ranks, lending a special poignancy to what had happened, and reinforcing their sense of responsibility and indebtedness. As the first shock of the events gradually faded, and the kibbutz members began coping with their new status as displaced persons, the enormity of the Oct. 7 events gradually sank in. Some kibbutz members made sure to publicly and repeatedly emphasize that the Thai and Nepali workers were part of the Alumim community. Assistance was extended to the wounded, and ceremonies made sure to include reference to their sacrifices. By the beginning of February, six of the 10 Thai workers who had survived the ordeal and gone home, as well as one who had left before Oct. 7, had returned and were welcomed with open arms.

What does the future hold? Prior to Oct. 7, a common mantra among the kibbutzniks in the Gaza envelope was that their lives there were “95% paradise and 5% hell.” Nearly all of Alumim’s residents hoped to return home, but on one condition: There could be no restoration of the status quo ante that had included the “5% hell” and ultimately left them vulnerable to marauding terrorists. But after Oct. 7, could the authorities be trusted to achieve this, and if so, how? Kibbutz spokesman Dani Yagil was succinct: “They destroy, we’ll build,” in line with the pioneering ethos that had led to the establishment of Jewish settlements in the area in 1946, two years before the State of Israel was founded, and the founding of Alumim in 1966 by dedicated idealists.

Others, especially those with young children, weren’t so sure. After all, as Eitan Okun related, half of the children in the kibbutz were already in therapy before Oct. 7, owing to the constant stress engendered by Color Red warning sirens. How could they, as parents, have subjected their children to this? And could the destruction of Hamas’ military capabilities and ability to rule, the declared goal of Israel’s war against it, really be achieved? And what about the profound fissures that had opened up in Israeli society in the preceding year, and that were now reappearing again, five months into the war? Overall, there seemed to be a longing for more pragmatic voices that could lead Israel away from the abyss into which it was staring.

The fight for home on Oct. 7 had been won. The fight to keep and renew that home, both the kibbutz itself and the nation as a whole, was far from over.

Hebrew U legal expert to receive Israel Prize for work with October 7 vctims

The prestigious Israel Prize, awarded annually, was granted to Hebrew University of Jerusalem legal expert Dr. Cochav Elkayam-Levy for her advocacy for the victims of the October 7 attacks.

Elkayam-Levy was awarded in the "Solidarity" (Arvut Hadadit) category.

Following Hamas's massacre of southern Israel on October 7, she established the "Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children," which was brought about to highlight and uplift victims of the attacks. Namely, the Commission shed light on the crimes committed against women, children, men, and entire families that were severely impacted in the wake of October 7.

The work of the Civil Commission aims to promote human rights and gender equality, and she has taken her work to both the national and international stages.

In a statement, Elkayam-Levy, a legal expert at the Davis Institute for International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, expressed her gratitude and ardent belief in giving voice to the voiceless and combatting rising antisemitism.

The Growing List of Al Jazeera Terrorists

These incidents, along with other intelligence, ultimately prompted the Israeli government to propose a law to shut down Al Jazeera in Israel. And yet, the Israeli government continues to engage with the government of Qatar in the ongoing hostage negotiations. Perhaps it goes without saying, but if the Israelis are convinced that journalists on the Qatari payroll are actively working with terrorist groups in Gaza, engaging the Qatari government to achieve a ceasefire with Hamas sounds insane.

It sounds even more insane given that Qatar has hosted a Hamas headquarters in Doha, and it has been paying Hamas $30 million per month since 2018. These funds undeniably helped Hamas prepare for the assault of October 7.

The Israelis are likely to continue dealing with the Qataris until a hostage deal is reached. But this does not explain why the United States continues to treat the terror-supporting Gulf nation as an ally. The support that Qatar has provided to terrorist groups like Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and even the Islamic State is beyond dispute. And the string of incidents in Gaza indicating a collaboration between Al Jazeera and Hamas are consistent with what American forces dealt with during the Iraq War, when Bush administration officials complained that Al Jazeera journalists somehow knew exactly where to be and had their cameras rolling during attacks that targeted American servicemembers. Al Jazeera’s fever-pitch incitement against the United States was another challenge that Washington never quite ironed out with Doha.

A reckoning is urgently needed in the United States on the connection between Qatar, Al Jazeera, and terrorism. Intelligence needs to be declassified. High-level hearings need to be convened. It’s time to pull the plug on Qatar’s media asset that provides cover for violent actors in Gaza and beyond. More important, it’s time to end the charade that Qatar is an ally, once and for all.

World trying its hardest to allow Hamas to survive - human rights be damned

The UN and others are accusing Israel of "using starvation as a weapon of war."

It is ridiculous. Israel has an entire section of the IDF. COGAT, dedicated to providing food and aid to Palestinians. Saying that Israel is deliberately trying to starve Gazans - which serves no military purpose, and in fact is counterproductive - is simply another blood libel.

The real problem is the world tying Israel's hands behind its back to destroy Hamas.

According to international law, a siege - a full blockade of all food that might reach Hamas - would be a legal form of warfare. Since Hamas steals the food, that would unfortunately mean stopping all food until Hamas surrenders.

As the US Law of War manual says:

Allowing passage of these items [food, medicine] is not required by the party controlling the area unless that party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing that:
• the consignments may be diverted from their destination;
• the control may not be effective; or
• a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy.

But what about innocent Gazans? It might be legal to starve those who are near Hamas, but is it moral?

There was (and still is) a solution. They should have gone to Egypt or Jordan - with guarantees that they would return to Gaza when Hamas is gone. The international community would have happily funded camps and food in Egypt, with no war getting in the way to take care of the Gazans.

Egypt and Jordan didn't want them? So pressure them. Their economies depend on world support, and they could have made out quite well with billions coming in. Aren't human lives more important than two countries that have accepted millions of refugees from everywhere else changing their rules for Palestinians only?

Apparently not, when deaths can be blamed on Israel.

And that's the issue. If the world cared about Palestinians, the war could have been over by now, and the rebuilding could have started, as long as there are security guarantees for Israel. Is that so unreasonable?

But the world cares more about putting Israel into impossible positions and then blaming Israel when it cannot do everything perfectly with demands that no other nation at war ever had to follow.

Israel doesn't want to a single innocent person to die. The international community could have done things to save hundreds or thousands of lives, but they prefer virtue signaling and antisemitism.

Watching the war with any amount of objectivity and seeing how people are interpreting it is like being Alice in Wonderland. It is not human rights to allow Hamas to survive, yet the world is signaling clearly that this is the outcome they want.

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!

Good Faith Of Evangelical Support For Israel Questioned By People Allied With Actual Antisemites (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

New York, March 21 - Anti-Zionist activists challenged Zionists again today over the latter's acceptance of funding and political assistance from groups that might have ulterior motives for their funding and advocacy on behalf of the Jewish State, also insisting that the anti-Zionists' own coalition with groups that traffic in classic anti-Jewish rhetoric means nothing.

On social media and in interviews, anti-Zionists decried Evangelical support for Israel as insincere. They argued that for many such Christians, support for Israel hinges on views of a reconstituted Israel as instrumental in bringing about an apocalyptic final battle, and does not stem from any great love for Jews as such. The same anti-Zionists, meanwhile, ally with acolytes of Louis Farrakhan, while insisting they have Jews' best interests at heart.

"It's all about sparking Armageddon," insisted Rafael Shimunov, a New York activist. "Those Evangelicals don't actually like Jews or want to protect them. I don't know why Zionists think the support they get from Evangelicals is offered in good faith. Those Christians have an agenda, and it isn't a Jewish one. It's not like our allies in the pro-Palestine movement, who are sincerely concerned for human rights for everyone. Their love for Jews is genuine. The fact that Jews somehow never end up deserving the same rights as anyone else is all the Zionists' fault, really."

A minority of Evangelical Christian Zionists in the US do cite eschatological motives for their support of Israel. The statistics fall short, however, of demonstrating that Armageddon animates the Zionism of anywhere near a majority of the demographic. The dominant rhetoric in Evangelical circles regarding Israel invokes the brotherhood that they feel for Jews, the values they see upheld by the Jewish nation-state, and, in many cases, sympathy for many generations of Jewish suffering under Christian rule.

Palestine activism, on the other hand, offers its constituents the moral purity and consistency of deeming the civil rights and safety of Jews contingent on not conflicting with anyone else's desires. No hidden agenda lurks behind the activism; Palestinian leaders and their allies in the West make little effort to disguise their genocidal ambitions, even if they make the occasional rhetorical nod toward universal human rights, for which Jews somehow never qualify.

At press time, Mr. Shimunov had yet to respond to an inquiry as to whether he believed Armageddon will happen, which could explain any rational hesitation about accepting Evangelical support, or did not believe, in which case he was invited to explain why it matters at all.

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!

03/21 Links Pt1: Biden Offers Israel a ‘Deal’ That Sounds Like a Threat; The Palestine Propaganda Complex; 71% Palestinians Support Oct. 7 Attack on Israel

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Biden Offers Israel a ‘Deal’ That Sounds Like a Threat

The first question that comes to mind when reading this is: Why hasn’t the U.S. effort to force Egypt to close the tunnels been ongoing since the moment American officials found out about them? The specificity of U.S. knowledge suggests that this revelation occurred to them prior to Oct. 7. What were they waiting for?

Even if they didn’t know until recently, of course, it makes absolutely no sense that this hasn’t been made a priority. What kind of maniac uses this as a bargaining chip?

We will stop Egypt from flooding Gaza with arms and ammunition if you promise to go easy on Hamas is the kind of thing a mafia goon would say if you put him in the foreign service. What the Under Secretary of State for Gabagool is saying here is that if Israel helps the president calm the muppet babies in his party by summer, the Israelis get to choose the cause of the next war: Do they want it to be because Western leaders saved Hamas from oblivion, or would they rather the next war come because Egypt kept up its supply of cannonballs to the Jolly Roger?

Here’s what an Israeli counteroffer might look like: The IDF goes into Rafah, roots out Hamas, and seals the smuggling tunnels. Western governments’ role in this is limited to saying “thank you.”

Egypt, by the way, has a steady earmark of about $1.3 billion in U.S. aid per year. All the complaints about how the U.S. can just order Israel around because of military aid never seem to be applied to Egypt in the same way.

The U.S. is sending Americans to build a pier off Gaza because Egypt won’t open the Rafah crossing, so this isn’t just about Israel. Normally, you would say that this isn’t Egypt’s war or responsibility. But if everyone is conceding the fact that Egypt armed Hamas to the teeth, then that doesn’t hold water.

The smuggling tunnels should be closed and Hamas should be defeated. Israelis aren’t terribly interested in continuing to pick their own poison and being condescended to while they do so.

Einat Wilf: The Palestine Propaganda Complex

In 2013, Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer observing discourse on the internet, coined the adage that became known as Brandolini’s Law, also known as the “bullshit asymmetry principle.” “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit,” he posited, “is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”

Palestine is only one example. Adi and I had to spend years of research and write an entire book to refute the three-word, poster-sized slogan “Palestine for Palestinians.” To do this, we had to dissect the manner in which the words “refugee” and “return” have been completely abused in the context of the Arab refugees from the War of 1948 (known since the 1960s as “Palestinians”). The words were inverted to keep the war alive, deprive the Jewish state of legitimacy, and maintain a constant question mark over the Jewish state’s very existence. The process of twisting these words has been so effective that, even though almost none of the millions who are still called “Palestinian refugees” are, in fact, refugees by normal international standards, they continue to enjoy the name, status, financial support, and international sympathy of people who have just escaped war and need protection.

Much the same could be written about the manner in which the term “anti-colonial” was inverted to turn the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people in their homeland — a movement that had to resist and outlive at least four empires in order to achieve its goals for Jewish independence — into the epitome of Western colonialism. Or the way in which terms such as “occupation,” “apartheid,” and “genocide,” which were clearly understood in a certain way for decades, were made to fit the purpose of painting the Jewish state as uniquely evil. Or how “antisemitism” was decontextualized and used to pretend that it was an ideology against “Semites,” then to argue that Arabs are Semites, and that, by definition, they could never be antisemitic.

Or I could simply expose the mechanism by which each of these words has been conscripted to serve in a much larger process, the purpose of which is to create a global mindset, a “general agreement” that the Jewish state, and only the Jewish state, is made to carry the imprint of all of the world’s evils.

This is what I call the “placard strategy.” It is ingenious in that it employs a simple and constantly repeated equation, worthy of a kindergarten. On one side is the word “Israel” or “Zionism,” or even merely an image of the Star of David. On the other side, after an = sign, there is a litany of words that have become signifiers of evil. Thus:
Zionism = Racism
Zionism = Apartheid
Zionism = Genocide

These are endlessly recycled on placards, in media and on social media and, most consequentially, in academia and at the United Nations.

Academia is key to conferring a sense of authority on the process of equating Zionism with all of the world’s evils. As the Wilson Center scholar Izabella Tabarovsky has shown, this process works through the writing of papers that are then cross-referenced to create a tightly woven structure that becomes nearly impenetrable. (This is why what happens at Harvard actually matters.) Laundering the placard strategy through the United Nations, as with the 1975 “Zionism = Racism” resolution of the General Assembly, also lends authority to these equations; but most valuably, it creates the arena in which the message that the collective Jew equals evil enjoys a “general agreement.” South Africa’s bringing the charges of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice is of a piece with this playbook.

The placard strategy—with its nursery-rhyme repetition of a simple message in numerous forums, combined with academic authority and the imprimatur of U.N. bodies—leads to only one logical outcome. It is the one seen in recent demonstrations, in which a Star of David is placed in a trash bin labeled “Keep the World Clean.” If Israel, Zionism, and the Star of David are evil, then evil must be eradicated. Moreover, it must be put in the trash and eradicated because on the other side of this process awaits a world of justice, rights, equality, and freedom.

It is no coincidence that while all the evil words are made to be associated with the collective Jew, all the good words are made to be associated with those fighting the collective Jew. And more than any other placard, “Keep the World Clean” from the Star of David is the one that should lead Jews to see the ultimate purpose of the entire project: a world without the collective Jew. Indeed, the idea that the collective Jew is what stands between this world and utopia is an ancient one with deadly consequences.

Joe Lieberman: Crossing a Red Line Over Israel

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer last Thursday crossed a political red line that had never before been breached by a leader of his stature and never should be again. In a speech to the Senate, he told the people of Israel - one of our closest allies, a true democracy that is at war with an enemy that hates America as well as the Jews - that they should vote their prime minister out of office.

In Israel, Netanyahu's policy of fighting in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed has the support of an overwhelming majority. Israelis don't want the atrocities of Oct. 7 ever to be repeated. While Schumer's statement undoubtedly pleased American critics of Israel, for the Israelis it was meaningless, gratuitous and offensive.

Schumer ended his argument by lecturing our Israeli friends that if Netanyahu and his coalition remain in power, "then the U.S. will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israel's policy by using our leverage to change the present course." This is a shocking statement that treats Israel differently from other American allies by threatening to intervene in their domestic democratic politics and making American support for Israel conditional.

Schumer's statement will have every other democratic ally of the U.S. worrying that America may try to bully our way into its domestic politics. That will diminish our allies' loyalty to us. Without dependable allies, we will have a much harder time protecting America's security, prosperity and freedom.

Schumer has a record of supporting Israel. That makes his equivocation a particularly troubling and disappointing sign that his party is catering to members and voters who are hostile to the Jewish state.

I enjoyed working with Schumer during our years in the Senate together. He is an excellent legislative leader and became a personal friend. But in this case, I believe he has made a grievous mistake. I hope he can find a way to say so and then lead his fellow Democrats to support Israel - and the shared values and interests of our two great democracies.

Don't worry, British Jews! Only 5% of Britons want to see you dead!

YouGov-UK did a survey of British people asking whether they were sympathetic to Hamas, and found that only 11% of those who are sympathetic to Palestinians are also sympathetic to Hamas.

This was to disprove the straw man argument that if you are sympathetic to Palestinians you are automatically a Hamas supporter.

But even though the number of people who agree with Hamas philosophy are relatively small compared to the entire population, their numbers are non-trivial:

5% of all British people say the October 7 attacks were justified. 5% support ethnically cleansing Jews from the Middle East.

Of course, among the people motivated to join anti-Israel rallies every week, the percentages are much higher. After all, anyone who calls for a "flood" or "resistance" or "by any mean necessary" is agreeing with Hamas.

But imagine how British Jews feel when they know that in any given crowd, on the streets or on public transportation, there are likely to be several people who want to see them dead and who would celebrate their deaths if done in the name of "Palestine."

The 5% number is interesting for another reason. That is roughly the percentage of British adults who are Muslim.

Iran has been recruiting British Muslims as spies against the British Jewish community.

No wonder interest in making aliyah to Israel is now at record levels among British Jews.

(h/t Yoel)

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The IDF has said that it has killed, so far, over 140 terrorists in the vicinity of the Shifa medical complex. These include prominent Hamas members like Faiq Mabhouh inside the hospital, whom Hamas admits was killed. Israel also arrested known terrorist Mahmoud Kawasme, who was a planner of the 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenage boys.

Beyond that, the IDF has uncovered caches of weapons and cash earmarked for terrorism.

In Israel's initial raid of Shifa Hospital in November, the media expressed doubts as to whether it was really a Hamas command center. Evidence after the initial raid proved that it was but the media had lost interest by that time.

This time, no one is really arguing that Hamas isn't at the hospital and engaging in fierce firefights from within and around it. The evidence is overwhelming that Hamas really was using the hospital as a military center. No one really denies it. Hamas even publishes videos of its shooting RPGs at IDF troops near the hospital.

That is a violation of international law. it endangers patients and hospital staff. It may amount to perfidy.

But even though everyone knows it, human rights groups remain silent. Hamas militants took over space in the hospital making it a valid military target? So what? Easier to condemn Israel for following international law than to condemn Hamas for violating it.

So much of the bias by the media and NGOs is from what is not said.

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!

Palestinian survey shows how idiotic it is to recognize a Palestinian state

I reported yesterday that the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research report released Wednesday showed how popular Hamas is among Palestinians.

That is only half the story - because it also showed how unpopular Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are.

When asked who should control Gaza after the war, only 13% selected the PA without Mahmoud Abbas as leader, and 11% selected the PA with Abbas as leader - compared to 59% for Hamas.

Abbas and Fatah's ratings are far, far below that of Hamas for how they've acted during the war.

If presidential elections would be held today, only 5% of those in the West Bank would vote for Abbas.

Yet who is the US speaking to about a potential Palestinian state? Mahmoud Abbas, of course.

The religion of twostatism is fundamentally irrational. It is based on two provably wrong assumptions:that the Fatah-dominated PA is "moderate" and that most Palestinians would accept it as their legitimate government.

A PA-controlled unification of the West Bank and Gaza would fold in quick order and be replaced by more overt terrorists. Which is exactly what happened in Gaza itself.

Many consider the ideal scenario to be for Marwan Barghouti to replace Abbas. Barghouti is a terrorist serving five life terms in Israeli prison and the only person associated with Fatah who has more than single digit popularity. And it is his terrorist bona fides that gives him his popularity, not any interests in peacemaking or nation building.

If the US wants to talk about the day after, fine - but come up with something better than what exists today. Every possible scenario of a Palestinian state would lead to disaster. At best, it would be as dysfunctional as Lebanon, at worst it would be as aligned with Iran and terror as the Houthis.

And the same poll showed the Palestinians wildly approve of the Houthis.

No one is willing to say out loud what the poll shows - and what other polls have shown for years. Hamas is not a terror group that doesn't represent Palestinians: it is the most popular party among Palestinians today. Palestinian support for terrorism is not an anomaly, it is mainstream. It is one of the few things that most Palestinians agree with.

A Palestinian state would be Hamas, or a terror successor to Hamas.

Palestinians have had autonomy for 30 years now. This is longer than the amount of time that the Jewish Agency took on a quasi-governmental role in Palestine before the founding of Israel. Unlike the Jewish Agency, which was ready to create a functioning government on Day 1, the Palestinians have not done a bit of statebuilding, of building institutions, of acting like a responsible member of the world community despite having been given billions in aid and tens of thousands of free expert advice from the EU on governance and responsibility. The only result has been two corrupt leaderships that both treat their own people like dirt. Every bit of responsibility we see - anti-corruption initiatives, for example - are driven by the EU, not by Palestinians.

If there would be a referendum between Haniyeh, Barghouti, Abbas and "forget the election and butcher 2,000 more Jews," the butchering would win in a landslide. Between 70% and 90% of all Palestinians consistently support specific attacks that kill Jewish civilians, for the 20 years that such polls asked those questions. That's far more than have ever supported any political party.

Rewarding terror supporters with a state is the height of immorality, no matter how many millennia Palestinians pretend to have lived on the land.

The two-staters look at everything - even a horrific massacre - as an opportunity for creating a Palestinian state even though it would be a worldwide terrorism hotbed. If there is any chance at all to make things better, we must use this war as an opportunity to change the paradigm altogether of what is possible given 30 years of experience with Palestinians having autonomy over their own lives and throwing everything away.

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!