Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 02, 2024

05/02 Links Pt1: The ivory tower jihad; Herzog issues ‘urgent’ message of support for Diaspora Jewry; Hamas' Education of the Ivy League

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The ivory tower jihad

More fundamentally still, the shocking scenes on campus are the outcome of the West’s willed educational collapse. The understanding of education as the transmission of a culture to the next generation was junked decades ago in favor of a propaganda narrative of Western oppression.

This opened the way for the colonization of curricula by anti-Western ideological causes. The admission of students selected on the basis of identity politics rather than intellectual ability further reduced education standards to positively infantile levels.

This was illustrated at Columbia by the keffiyeh-clad Johanna King-Slutzky, who spoke to the media on behalf of the encampment. Jaw-droppingly channeling Hamas’s strategy in Gaza, she stated that the university had an obligation to bring in food and water to the illegal encampment, demanding, “Do you want students to die of dehydration and starvation? … This is like basic humanitarian aid.”

Her remarks attracted widespread incredulity and ridicule. But so should Columbia’s educational standards.

In her biography on the Columbia website, now deleted, King-Slutzky describes her dissertation as “a prehistory of metabolic rift, Marx’s term for the disruption of energy circuits caused by industrialization under capitalism … theories of the imagination and poetry as interpreted through a Marxian lens in order to update and propose an alternative to historicist ideological critiques of the Romantic imagination.”

This gobbledygook is beyond parody. Alas, it’s all too typical of what now passes for higher education in America and Britain. The universities, the supposed crucibles of knowledge, intellectual challenge and open minds, are now in the business of propaganda, dumbing-down and the closing of the mind. They have become the principal vehicles for coercing cultural conformity to hatred of both Israel and the West.

In the appalling scenes on campus, a number of monstrous chickens are now coming home to roost.

Jonathan Tobin: Don’t compromise with pro-Hamas students; expel or suspend them

Shafik and her board deserve little credit for her decision to act. She had tolerated an intolerable situation on the Manhattan campus for weeks. During that time, Jews on campus were subjected to an unprecedented atmosphere of intimidation and threats from students, faculty and others spouting lies about Israel committing a Palestinian “genocide” and who made no secret of their identification with the Hamas terrorists responsible for the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Rhetoric about not tolerating the existence of “Zionists” had become normative, as had advocacy for antisemitic BDS resolutions that seek to target Israelis and Jews for discrimination.

Buying quiet on campus
But as appalling as Shafik’s performance has been, it was far better than what happened at Northwestern University and Brown University. In both cases, the schools gave in to student demands and allowed them a say in whether these institutions would implement divestment from Israel in exchange for quiet on campus.

For those administrators, it seems like a good bargain; they probably thought that they bought peace rather cheaply. After all, implementing boycotts at these schools will be a long, drawn-out affair and may not ultimately lead to the discriminatory agenda the pro-Hamas students seek. Among other complications, the state laws of Illinois and Rhode Island rightly hold BDS to be a form of illegal discrimination.

Opponents of Israel, however, have reason to celebrate both the weakness of those school’s administrators and the willingness of mob leaders to take “yes” for an answer. Many of the protesters, outside agitators and their funders think that the ongoing spectacle of shutting down campuses and crowds at major institutions cheering on terrorists helps their cause. Some may even believe that outcomes in which the protests are ended by police action also turn them into martyrs or help make them appear sympathetic to liberals who view student demonstrations from the Vietnam era with nostalgia.

But the object of all the post-Oct. 7 protests is to mainstream the demonization of Israel and Zionism, and to essentially ostracize and silence Jewish students who refuse to bow to fashionable opinion on campuses and join the mobs. Schools that make these sorts of concessions only make that problem worse.

Authorities are not wrong to view the anti-Israel demonstrations as a challenge to the normal functioning of institutions of higher education as well as to public order. For example, Columbia’s very liberal regulations allow all sorts of protests but still require that, among other things, demonstrations be conducted in a manner that does not impinge on the rights of other students. Such rules cannot be flouted with impunity if the university is not going to be ruled by the whims of radical mobs assembled at the behest of any cause.

Nor should any university permit libraries to be commandeered by protesters, which occurred at Portland State University in Oregon. Or, in the case of the University of California, Los Angeles, its sprawling anti-Israel encampments made it difficult or impossible for students to access classes or parts of the school grounds.

At its heart, this nationwide struggle is not just a matter of preserving law and order on college campuses. It’s about a sinister movement whose aim is to single out Israel and Zionism—the national liberation movement of the Jewish people—for opprobrium, isolation and destruction. It is nothing less than a 21st-century variety of antisemitism rooted in woke ideology that grants a permission slip for Jew-hatred. If any other minority group—African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians—were being treated in the way that Jews are now being hounded on campuses, there would be no debate about the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy for such behavior. Those who have broken school rules or gone so far as to commit violence to further their hateful cause should be suspended and expelled, not coddled as misunderstood idealists. Universities that tolerate this behavior and allow hostile environments for Jews to be imposed by campus radicals should be stripped of federal funding for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Statements from President Joe Biden that create false moral equivalencies to media coverage that legitimizes the protests or concessions from universities to the anti-Israel protesters, must all be seen as part of the same moral failure on the part of much of our political and educational establishments. Toleration of antisemitic mobs will only lead to more antisemitism.

Washington Free Beacon Editors: The Invisible President

For more than a week now, the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protests convulsing university campuses have been the biggest news story in the country.

The protests, in many cases abetted by university faculty, have put a national spotlight on the illiberalism and intellectual rot at the heart of American "higher" education and the DEI regime that makes it hum.

We’re not in the business of offering political advice to President Joe Biden, but it is hard to miss his absence from the situation. The New York Times calls him a "bystander," and the president has forsaken the bully pulpit for strongly worded statements meted out through various spokesmen. "The president believes that forcibly taking over a building on campus is absolutely the wrong approach," the spokesman, John F. Kirby, told reporters hours before officers cleared the hall. "That is not an example of peaceful protest."

Good to know. The chaos engulfing the campuses is but a first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to Biden at the Democratic convention this summer, when the same protesters, with degrees from the same "elite" institutions bring their "peaceful" protest tactics to Chicago intent on wreaking havoc.

Biden wants to blend into the curtains. In a mirror image of his approach to the Israel-Hamas war, Biden aims to straddle the unbridgeable divide between the lawless and the law abiding, the intolerant and the tolerant, the virtuous and the contemptible. "I condemn the anti-Semitic protests," he said late last month. "I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians and their—how they’re being… ." He didn’t finish the sentence.

Biden is, of course, not taking a strong stand because the left wing of his own party, already inflamed by his mealy-mouthed support for Israel, is actively participating in these protests. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) dropped by to fist bump the Columbia campers. Biden can’t afford to alienate them further, and like Columbia’s president Minouche Shafik, will soon realize you can’t reason or negotiate with a mob.

The president’s choice is to act in the national interest and pay a political price or to continue to hide under his desk and be forced, like Shafik, to pay the same price later—with interest.

Biden: 'People have the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos'

President Biden delivered unscheduled remarks on Thursday morning from the White House in his first public condemnation of the escalating protests sweeping college campuses across the country.

Biden inserted himself at a pivotal moment in the anti-war, pro-Palestinian movement that's now seen several nights of violent clashes between students and heavily armed law enforcement called in by university administrators to dismantle Gaza solidarity tent encampments.

On Wednesday, for the second night in a row, riot police in tactical gear stormed the encampment on UCLA's campus, where local reports estimated 300-500 people were gathered. More than 2,000 supporters were standing outside of the encampment when California Highway Patrol moved in to start arresting protestors who refused to disperse.

Photos captured the standoff between police with shields and batons across from students wearing hard hats and Keffiyehs.

Reporters pressed the White House to hear from Biden all week as this scene played out not only in California but in Texas, Georgia, and New York.

The White House has carefully choreographed its response to balance calling for the rule of law with supporting First Amendment rights. Balancing free speech with rule of law

"We've all seen the images, and they put to the test two fundamental American principles," Biden said on Thursday. "The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld."

The US is not an "authoritarian nation," and peaceful protest is the best tradition for Americans to respond to consequential issues.

"But neither are we a lawless country. We're a civil society, and order must prevail," Biden said. "Throughout our history, we've often faced moments like this because we are a big, diverse, free-thinking, and freedom-loving nation."

Biden said this is a moment for clarity - not politics.

"So let me be clear: Violent protest is not protected. Peaceful protest is," Biden said.

He added vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, instilling fear in people, and shutting down campuses are against the law and not peaceful protest.

"Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the right of others so students can finish the semester and their college education," Biden said.

People have the right to protest but not the right to cause chaos, Biden said, adding that people have the right to get an education and walk across campus safely without fear of being attacked.

"Let's be clear about this as well: there should be no place on any campus, no place in America for antisemitism, or threats of violence against Jewish students," Biden said.

Biden said there is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it's antisemitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans.

"It's simply wrong," Biden said. "There's no place for racism in America. It's all wrong. It's un-American."

The American DON’T

On October 7^th, Israel was invaded by Gaza. They raped, tortured, and burned our families alive.

In the north, Hezbollah (who is Iran, not Lebanon where they are based) began pummeling Israel with missiles. Israeli communities in the south near Gaza and the north near Hezbollah were evacuated. It was and still is too dangerous for them to live in their homes.

And then the Houthis from Yemen started shooting missiles at Israel. They are shooting from far but can reach Eilat where many of the evacuees are taking refuge.

And then Hamas in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem rose up, and attacked individual Israelis. Attackers came from Jordan and even from Turkey. Attacking anyone they could get their hands on -soldiers, peace activists and even children in a school bus. They tortured Benjamin Achimeir the same way people in Be’eri were tortured.

And then America said DON’T.

Not to the enemies trying to wipe us off the map – they said it to Israel.

Don’t finish off Hamas. Feed them. Fuel them. Make them strong.
Don’t protect yourselves. Protect THEM.
Don’t make it safe for Israelis to return to their homes.
Don’t stop the weapons being smuggled into Gaza.
Feed them the invaders. The rapists. Those who took the heads of your boys and put them in their ice cream coolers. Those who promised to attack you again and again and again until you no longer exist. Don’t!

Don’t attack Hezbollah.
Never mind that the north is evacuated.
Never mind your people are suffering. Never mind that you are not protecting them. Never mind that their businesses are ruined and they have no homes to go back to.
Don’t!

And then Iran attacked Israel directly.

And America smiled and said: “See, you managed not to die. You didn’t allow them to wipe you off the map. That’s good enough.”

And with a smile America said: “See, we’re helping you. Do what we say and maybe you will get some of your hostages back. You don’t need weapons to defend yourself. You don’t need to prove that you meant it when you said NEVER AGAIN. Do what we say, and everyone will all be happy.”

And what do they say?

Release murderers. Of course, they will murder again but that’s not the problem now, is it?

Let Hamas survive. They will stay in power. Of course, they will learn that taking hostages gets them whatever they want but you want the hostages they already have, don’t you?

Let Hamas join with the Palestinian Authority. They can run Gaza and the territory they already control in Judea and Samaria. Give them the power of a State. Never mind that they tried to destroy you when they had less power. Now, it’s time to give them more. After all they are the chosen leaders of the [so-called] Palestinians. Yeah, yeah, they both say they want to replace Israel with Palestine and they have maps in their homes and offices showing what they want: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – of Jews. Yeah, yeah, on October 7^th we all saw how they intend to achieve that. Yeah, yeah, they promised to do October 7^th over and over until the job is done….
October 7^th, that will be a great date for their Independence Day! What a fabulous idea.

And America smiles and says: “We’re your friends. You should listen to us. We are helping you”

Somehow the threat of international criminal trials is being waved in the faces of our government and military leaders. And America says: “Oh. So sorry. We can’t do anything about that.”

Strange how the politicians and military leaders that encourage adhering to America’s “friendly” advice aren’t being threatened…

Strange how Israeli opposition politicians and internal agents of chaos and America are using the same terminology, stating the same goals, and equating our elected politicians with the terror mastermind of the October 7^th massacre.

Strange how American “help” negotiating a hostage release deal is keeping Israel from putting any pressure on Hamas that would actually incentivize their release.

People wonder, if Israel cannot vanquish Hamas, the weakest of Israel’s enemies, how can Israel handle Hezbollah or Iran itself?

And there is the crux of the issue. Israel CAN vanquish Hamas. Israel can address attacks from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran all at once.

We never imagined America would wage war against us. THAT is what we are up against.

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!

Yesterday, the U.S. House passed H.R.6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, by a vote of 320-91.

Among those who voted against it were Marjorie Taylor-Greene on the Right, the entire Squad including Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar on the Left - and Jerry Nadler, the self-described head of the Jewish Democratic caucus in Congress.

Nadler gave a speech describing why he opposed the bill:

Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.

But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.

While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism—to the exclusion of all others—to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.

This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes “contemporary examples of antisemitism”. The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.

To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples—and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.

But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel—alone—does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.

This is disingenuous garbage.

FIrst of all, the IHRA Working Definition explicitly says that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Secondly, the IHRA definition has never meant to be legally binding and its examples are meant to be guidelines, as it says, also explicitly, if Nadler would bother to read it.

Nadler notes that the ACLU opposition to the definition is that it could be misused. The First Amendment can be misused as well; that is not a reason to throw it out. The definition may be flawed but in itself it is no danger to freedom of speech.

Thirdly, the IHRA definition takes great pains to say that even their examples must be seen in context, and none of them are defined as antisemitic without that context. This arguably goes too far, in suggesting that even Holocaust denial may not be antisemitic.

Fourthly, the bill as written says "Nothing in this Act shall be construed...to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act." Meaning, it does not affect anything that is protected by US law, and it does not affect freedom of speech one bit. It is only meant to help determine whether otherwise discriminatory behavior - not speech but actual discrimination - may be antisemitic under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Nadler then goes off the deep end:

Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like “antisemitism” or “racism”. In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.

And, pray tell, what do the other definitions consider antisemitic that the IHRA definition does not? If a new form of antisemitism arises - something that happens every century or so - I think Congress will have time to pass another bill, or the IHRA can modify the one they have.

Nadler finally gets to the real reason he opposes it: he hates Republicans and supports the antisemitic Squad more than he loves Jews. He spends ten paragraphs attacking Republicans for their hypocrisy in not condemning other antisemitic speech from their own side and playing politics with the topic.

That is true in some cases. Yet that is exactly what Nadler is doing here as well. He would rather side with the antisemitic "Squad" than with Republicans against antisemitism.

The IHRA definition is the closest thing to a universally accepted definition of antisemitism we have. It has been adopted by dozens of countries and already is part of the Department of Education policy today. Nothing in that definition is controversial except for those who want to single out Israel as uniquely evil. Nothing in that definition limits free speech.

Nadler is the one playing politics here, and this speech shows that he is not qualified to be considered a leader of any Jewish caucus. He cares more about his party than he does about American Jews.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Columbia University President Minouche Shafik issued a cringeworthy letter to the university community, effectively apologizing for belatedly and selectively enforcing some university policies:

Dear members of the Columbia community,

Early Tuesday morning, tensions on our campus rose to new heights when a small group of protestors broke into Hamilton Hall, barricaded themselves inside, and occupied it throughout the day. This drastic escalation of many months of protest activity pushed the University to the brink, creating a disruptive environment for everyone and raising safety risks to an intolerable level.

Before the safety risks to Jews were considered "tolerable."

Over the last few months, we have been patient in tolerating unauthorized demonstrations, including the encampment. Our academic leaders spent eight days engaging over long hours in serious dialogue in good faith with protest representatives. ... The University offered to consider new proposals on divestment and shareholder activism, to review access to our dual degree programs and global centers, to reaffirm our commitment to free speech, and to launch educational and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank. Some other universities have achieved agreement on similar proposals. Our efforts to find a solution went into Tuesday evening, but regrettably, we were unable to come to resolution.

... Columbia has a long and proud tradition of protest and activism on many important issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Today’s protesters are also fighting for an important cause, for the rights of Palestinians and against the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza.

But students and outside activists breaking Hamilton Hall doors, mistreating our Public Safety officers and maintenance staff, and damaging property are acts of destruction, not political speech. Many students have also felt uncomfortable and unwelcome because of the disruption and antisemitic comments made by some individuals, especially in the protests that have persistently mobilized outside our gates.

The entire problem is spelled out in her own words.

Columbia coddled the students who violated university rules on unauthorized gatherings, as well as policies on stifling the free speech of students who disagree with the protesters. Who knows how many policies against microaggressions and disrespect for fellow students were violated as well towards the vast majority of Columbia University's Jewish community.

Columbia, like most universities, has policies that support free speech. Students who want to protest Israel or claim to support Palestinians have a nearly infinite number of ways to do so on campus without violating policy and without shutting down the speech of others. When the anti-Israel protesters violated those policies, Columbia decided to give in to some of their demands and did little to nothing to enforce its policies.

It rewarded terror. Because that is what these encampments were. Terror is using threats against innocents to achieve political goals, and that is exactly what the protesters were doing, The forcibly took and held public areas of the university making them forbidden for people who disagree with them. They insist that Columbia must do what they demand or else the students would refuse to leave indefinitely.

College is where kids are supposed to turn into adults. That means learning to follow the rules, not that the rules can be broken with impunity.

The university should have said, in no uncertain terms, that it will not make a single concession to those who violate school policies. If they change their methods, if they follow the rules for suggesting changes to how Columbia invests or partners with universities abroad, then their ideas would be considered but Columbia will also listen to those who oppose those rule changes.

You know, free speech and a free marketplace of ideas.

But instead, the protesters succeeded in getting Columbia to make concessions in the face of threats.

No wonder the immature protesters decided that they could push the envelope further. If someone gets positive reinforcement for violating rules, that incentivizes them to violate more rules.

There might be some psychology and economics and game theory courses taught at Columbia that teach this. Yet the President of Columbia University apparently doesn't know this.

Instead of treating the protesters like adults who must face consequences for violating the rules, she treated them like spoiled children who are rewarded for their temper tantrums in the supermarket demanding a candy.

Her own letter shows that instead of enforcing her own policies, she decided that it would be better to set them aside because of threats and give in. According to Minouche Shafik, Columbia's policies are really guidelines for some types of violators.

Are these the lessons that college-age students should be learning, that blackmail and terroristic threats work and that policies are only enforced sometimes?

Is this the kind of university people want their kids to attend?

Is this the kind of university president that anyone wants?

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!

05/01 Links Pt2: Addition by Subtraction at the State Department; Answering Tom Friedman's binary options for the Middle East; Enlightenment and Conspiracy

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Addition by Subtraction at the State Department

Although defections and resignations can come in waves, the extent of opposition to President Biden’s policy of favoring Israel over Hamas has yet to kindle much of an exodus from his administration. Mostly we’re subject to a lot of whining from people who continue to accept a paycheck from the man they claim is genociding Palestinians.

That tells you something about how many of the complainers actually believe the rhetoric they’re parroting. It also provides a clue as to the cynical motivations of the few who actually resign.

Josh Paul was the first to do so, back in December, to great media fanfare. Paul, a former Booz Allen Hamilton employee, was in charge of arms transfers. He could abide those weapons going to many governments around the world, but not Israel’s.

At the time, I detailed the distortions in Paul’s explanation for his resignation. These in part had to do with Paul’s refusal to read past the headline of a news story about a sudden lack of donkeys in Gaza. I had hoped that he would devote his newfound free time to reading the rest of the article on the donkeys, but it appears he had other plans. He has resurfaced at DAWN, a nongovernmental organization called Democracy for the Arab World Now. The director of DAWN is none other than Sarah Leah Whitson, the former Human Rights Watch official who was found to have been raising money from Arab governments by complaining about the need to battle pro-Israel (read: Jewish) money in U.S. politics.

Funded by the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among others, DAWN is a fierce advocate of boycotting Israel and of pressuring Israel’s fellow democracies to enforce an arms embargo against the Jewish state. It also opposed the Abraham Accords—that is, it is opposed to peace in the Middle East. Josh Paul will fit right in.

Then in March, there was Annelle Sheline, who worked for the State Department for a year before leaving. The State Department has a Dissent Channel through which employees can raise concerns about policy with protection from professional retribution, and Sheline utilized the channel. But she gave up after a year because her bosses wouldn’t change their policies to fit her ideological worldview.

In Sheline’s (very limited) defense, she was used to working for a employers who were more receptive to her anti-Israel activism. Sheline came to the State Department from the Quincy Institute, whose executive vice president is Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council. NIAC is a major pro-Iran pressure group with influence in Democratic Party policymaking circles. Also at Quincy are such international-relations luminaries as John Mearsheimer, mostly infamous for his campaign against American Jews’ participation in the democratic process. This includes the book he co-authored with Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy—a shoddy work of agitprop aimed at raising suspicions against Jewish political activists. Mearsheimer is also a proponent of the “good Jew/bad Jew” worldview, wherein non-Jews decide which Jews can be trusted and which cannot. Judging by Sheline’s hero worship of Aaron Bushnell, the Air Force service member who self-immolated outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., she must have been quite comfortable at Quincy as well.

Answering Tom Friedman's binary options for the Middle East

Two years ago, I published an analysis of a news article by The New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem for bias, and he promptly complained to my editor. Today, I will tackle the Times’s opinion writer, Thomas Friedman, and his recent column, “Israel has a choice to make: Rafah or Riyadh,” for factual context and even-handedness.

In his latest column, he said the Biden team demands Israel make a choice: go into Rafah, where the last organized brigades of Hamas are, or choose the benefits of normalization with Saudi Arabia.

Friedman paints a binary picture: Israel accepts what the Biden administration wants – no Rafah operation – while creating a path for Palestinian statehood; otherwise, Israel becomes an international pariah with the acquiescence of America, with the US restricting arms shipments as punishment for its choice.

Friedman puts the onus on Israel to abandon its campaign to rid the area of the implacable Hamas army, not mentioning that the Biden administration asks, on the other hand, very little of the Palestinians.

The ultimatum is for Israel to create a “political horizon for a two-state solution with non-Hamas-led Palestinians.” It sounds reasonable to the uninformed, but Friedman doesn’t mention that Israel has offered a state five times over the last 75 years.

In 2008, the Israelis offered 100% of the West Bank and Gaza with land swaps and Jerusalem as their capital, supposedly everything the American negotiators believed the Palestinians wanted. Unfortunately, the current Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas never responded.

Those who push for a two-state solution at this time seem oblivious and insensitive to the fact that this would represent to everyone the greatest reward possible for the Hamas massacre, especially with hostages still in captivity and their sexual abuse being exposed. Calling for a reformed Palestinian Authority sounds nice but the fact is that free elections would almost certainly bring Hamas to power.

Friedman says Israel’s strategy is “revenge.” Israel’s strategy is to end the presence of terror organizations on its borders that strive tirelessly for the genocide of the Jewish people, with the backing of Iran.

There are no explicit agendas provided of what PA reform means, an essential point if you want them to take over the West Bank and Gaza. Should Israel be forced to begin a path to statehood without America demanding first that the hundreds of millions of dollars a year paid by the PA to convicted terrorists and their families end?

The PA has also said they would pay Hamas terrorists, excuse me, martyrs. There is an American law, the Taylor Force Act, which demands the withholding of US aid to the PA until they end these payments. Mr. Friedman, are you OK beginning your path to Palestinian independence with this hideous practice left in place?

Enlightenment and Conspiracy

As many of the Yale students I spoke with pointed out, Israelism is so one-sided and so certain of its own virtue and rightness that critique seems almost beside the point. Palestinian activists (Sami Awad, in particular) come across as deeply humane, and their characterizations of Israelis and the conflict are never challenged. An immigrant Jew, for instance, is described by Awad as a foreigner who “just moved here to join the army and play cowboys and Indians.” And the only Jewish settler who appears in the film is callous and unlikeable.

So certain are the filmmakers that the entire history of the conflict can be summed up as one in which the Israelis are simply and only the oppressors that we are informed, “In 1967, the State of Israel managed to complete its control of Palestine by taking over the territory of the West Bank and Gaza.” No mention is made of Egypt, Syria, or Jordan, or the circumstances of the Six-Day War. Similarly, the Second Intifada goes unnamed in the film except as “a battle for Jerusalem.”

In short, what is important to note about Israelism is not its historical distortions or polemical tricks but the myth it constructs of Eitan’s and Simone’s—but especially Simone’s—journey to enlightenment. What did Simone see that the American Jewish establishment—personified in the film as an elderly Foxman rambling on in his elegant glass office high above Manhattan—didn’t want her to see, and how did it change her?

Whether the film is conscious of it or not, the archetype here is Paul, who had been the Pharisee Saul until he had a vision on the road to Damascus, not too far from the one Simone had on the streets of Bethlehem. Paul’s vision transformed him from a self-described persecutor of Christians to Christianity’s first great evangelist. He went from being fierce, ignorant, and sad to happy, articulate, and liberated, as, the film shows us, has Zimmerman. Like Paul, Simone’s conversion moved her from a self-interested cloud of particularism to a vision of spiritual universalism—“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,” Paul tells the Galatians.

The appeal of Paul is understandable, especially for those of us who grew up in America. The Pauline tradition brings some of the best of Jewish universalism and offers a shortcut to the theological endgame, skipping over particularism and otherness. It is easier for diaspora liberal Jews today to imagine that the Jewish people can finally achieve our place in the world, and retain our moral character, by subordinating our nationalism rather than trying to compete for a place in a world of nations, and the occupation proves the point.

The Pauline trope helps explain two key dimensions of the film. Its insistence that young American Jews are lied to makes sense once one understands that the Jewish community has placed scales upon their eyes. And once the scales fall away and the truth is revealed—once one sees the horrifying truth that has been hidden—one must become an evangelist and bear the tragic burden of preaching the gospel, even at the cost of alienation from the community one seeks to transform.

To be clear, I am not suggesting, as some advocates of Israel unfortunately have, that Zimmerman and her allies are no longer Jews (or are now “Un-Jews”). Zimmerman and her allies believe that their critique of our community comes from their Jewishness—and they make no claims to be leaving. In fact, by the end of the film, the gauzy sequences of protests by IfNotNow (which Zimmerman cofounded) and others portray a different vision of Jewish particularism: the dissidents proudly wear tallitot and kippot; they sing Jewish songs. But identifying the Pauline trope that underlies the film helps us understand the story that its protagonists and creators want to tell about their journey from ignorance to enlightenment, from obscurantism to moral grandeur. This is not really a political story—one learns almost nothing about the history and politics of the conflict from this film—it is a story of personal spiritual transformation. Movie poster from the film Israelism. (Courtesy of Tikkun Olam.)

For the enlightened, everything that runs counter to their new narrative must be a lie. This naturally gives rise to conspiracy theories. How else can one explain how the plain truth has been hidden, except through the perfidy of deception? This assumption helps explain the surprising plot turn of the second half of Israelism. The film argues explicitly that the rise of Donald Trump, and therefore the emboldening of the white supremacist antisemitism, is the fault of the pro-Israel community in America. The rationale for this claim is offered by Simone at the film’s midpoint, when she concludes that the Jewish community believes that “the only way we Jews can be safe is if Palestinians are not safe.” Ultimately, the film argues, this belief has led the Jewish establishment to trade our safety in America for the safety of Jews in Israel, because President Trump could be counted on to support the Israeli government’s oppression of the Palestinians.

This argument blames the Jews for their own victimization and begins to make the film, in the words of a friend, “epistemically antisemitic.” Plenty of Jews blame other Jews today for the rise of antisemitism, so the argument here is not novel. The only irony here is that polarization in America has driven the rise of the antisemitism in America on both the right and the left, and the film is only too eager to help that trend along.

As a liberal Zionist, I aspire to be what Michael Walzer has famously called a “connected critic,” and I struggled watching Israelism and its translation of complexity into conspiracy. Entirely missing from the film was the majority of Jewish leaders and educators in America who know and teach about Palestinians and occupation, neither lying to their students nor concluding that Israel’s challenges require them to abandon their loyalties. Where, in Israelism’s world, are the majority of American Jews—and the majority of Israelis—who know the present is untenable but fear the alternatives? Or the parallel majority on the Palestinian side, who know that the path toward mutual safety and security lies in recognizing our inextricability? And what happens to us in this desperate attempt to generate mass appeal for the most populist and partisan version of our impossible story?

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

I watched Screams Before Silence* just before the final leg of the Passover holiday. I didn’t know whether I should. After all, I totally believe my recent cardiac arrest was due to the extended anguish of hearing about the atrocities of this war, and due also to thinking about what is still happening, right now, to our hostages. It has been unbearable for months, thinking these thoughts, and then chiding one’s self: ‘You think the thought is unbearable??’

Then you feel guilty for imagining that you suffer at all, for what is only in your mind, in light of what happened, is happening to them, still.

I reason with myself: ‘You shouldn’t watch—it’s almost candle-lighting time. Do you really want to go into the holiday with such darkness in your mind and heart?’

I knew the answer. That I shouldn’t watch Screams Before Silence right then, at that time. It would definitely be completely inappropriate to do so, as one is meant to be happy on a holiday. But I couldn’t help myself—I felt compelled to watch this documentary. It was a need, but also something to dread. I knew it would be bad, hard-to-watch bad.

There was time to watch all but maybe the final fourteen minutes of the documentary, so I reasoned some more: ‘I have an obligation to know, to bear witness, to internalize what happened—happens still. For me as a Jew. They are my people, a part of me.’

So I anyway watch what I can before the sun goes down. It is hard to watch and listen. I cry out, “Oh, God!” several times.

You can’t help it if you’re human.

Did watching Screams Before Silence color my yontif, my holiday? Of course it did. But I managed. By now these terrors, as well as expecting to hear of new terrors every day, are a part of life. Holiday happiness is, at any rate, for the time being, muted.

From time to time, my mind flitted back to what Dr. Cochav Elyakam-Levy, Head of the Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children, had to say about the sexual violence of October 7:

This is a kind of pattern we’re seeing, that it’s not just sexual abuse, but it’s sexual abuse in its worst form. It’s like they wanted to inflict pain, in the cruelest manner possible. I think they have redefined evil and in ways that we will need to redefine international criminal law.

Then I would think back to somber recitation of the ZAKA volunteer, of how again and again, they saw the same thing. Hundreds of times. Perhaps more.

When you see one woman, then another and another, all with signs of abuse in the groin area, you understand that this wasn't a random thing. You can't reach that area unless you mean to. It's someone who has come to do different kinds of things to you.

If he doesn't have time, he'll just kill you. If he has a little time, he'll slit your throat. If he has more time, he'll cut off body parts. And if he has even more time, he'll also cause pain and defile, especially if it's a woman. He'll defile her body, not for pleasure but for humiliation. And that's what we saw.

ZAKA volunteer, screenshot from Screams Before Silence

After the holiday, and after I did my share of post-Passover tasks, I watched the last 14 minutes of Screams Before Silence. Then I thanked Sheryl Sandberg—on youtube, on X—we had all been waiting for this film, we needed this film, but she went and actually did it. She made the film.

We need this film to make the world understand. We need it to educate college protesters who don’t even know why they are protesting. After seeing Screams Before Silence, could these same young women continue to ally themselves with who yell, “We are Hamas!”?

🚨VIDEO: A REAL interview we had at NYU:

QUESTION: "Why are you protesting?"

PROTESTER #1: "I don't know. I'm pretty sure there's something about Israel [turns to other person] Why are we protesting?"

PROTESTER #2: "I wish I was more educated."

PROTESTER #1: "I'm not either." pic.twitter.com/8aB2ZoTCCk
— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) April 24, 2024

We needed the film for the people who say it didn’t happen. For the people who say there were no rapes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Keren Picker (@keren_picker)

And yet, it doesn’t help. Films, photos, testimony, proof of all sorts. None of it matters. They want to believe—choose to believe—whatever fits the narrative they, the haters, prefer to, want to believe.

Some believe the atrocities happened and are exhilarated by them.

They feel Israel/Zionists/Jews deserve atrocities and genocide—they can justify it however they like. They can say we are white Europeans who should go back to Poland or Russia, even though so many of us in Israel in particular, are dark.

Erasing both history and archaeology, they say we stole land from people who were here before us. The truth inversion continues when the liars claim that Jews do to Arabs what Arabs do to Jews, only worse. They will show you a 15-year-old photo of a dead Syrian child and curse the “criminal” Zionist soldiers, implying that to love your country is a crime. If you’re a Jew.

And when you say, “They burned a baby in an oven,” they will smugly smile and say, “That was disproven.”

You can try saying, “It was NOT disproven. It happened,” but all they will do is laugh at you.

“Where’s the proof?” they will say, and you can do nothing, can show them no proof, because that would be wrong.

There are photos, I always tell them, but you can’t see them. And that’s out of respect for the victims. For goodness sake, what have they left if not for their privacy? Do they have to forever be imagined in the world’s collective mind as naked and defiled? Like Shani Louk?

They gave that photo an award. The world lapped it up like a cat with a bowl of cream. They love it when the Jew gets it. They don’t care how.

They don’t even care that they contradict themselves. There are no photos. Give the photo an award. Which of those two statements is true?? Of the widely shared photo of Shani Louk, the antisemites make excuses, because it suits their narrative. “One rape, pffft.” they will say. “That’s your proof of systematic mass rape? One rape?? One rape is nothing compared to what Zionist soldiers do to Palestinian women in Gaza every day.”

They know that’s a lie, a convenient lie. It’s so ridiculous it makes you shake your head in disbelief. It takes your breath away by its sheer, evil chutzpah. The lie serves their purpose. It allows them to look the other way when Arabs rape and deface Jewish women. They twist the truth back on you and tell you the opposite is true.

It’s not just a boldfaced lie about soldiers (who are moral, that you care about)—it’s an aggression. They are raising you one—raising the stakes as if in a game of poker, lying right in your face/computer screen that it is Israel who is the criminal, while Hamas terrorists and their sympathizers are sweet angels, having a “justifiable” moment of rage.

Now some of these people—these liars—are truly evil. Others, we must acknowledge, are merely stupid.

So we needed this movie, and we didn’t need it. Because the film purposely does not display the really graphic images. “Out of respect for the victims and their families,” reads the text at the end of the film, in plain white letters on a stark black background, “we chose not to show explicit images in this film.”

Instead we see Sheryl Sandberg reacting to such images as they are shown to her on the phone screens of ZAKA volunteers. We watch her face as she looks at each photo and hears the volunteers describe she is seeing, what happened to each woman, all that was done to her. If you’ve got a heart and a soul, you don’t need more than you are shown in Screams Before Silence to visualize what happened, and believe it to your core. It is awful. It is the truth.

The Jew-haters on the other hand, will not be persuaded. They will keep on saying, “Screenshot or it didn’t happen.”

Those are the haters. But what about the stupid, the sheep like students caught up in the spirit of the thing, which they confuse with a spirit of justice? Perhaps they have a chance, the stupid, could be educated, if they watch this documentary.

Because the documentary rings true. You know it’s true when the women say they fear rape more than death, and when a grown man, a man big and burly, says “No one can see those kinds of things,” and then breaks into sobs.

Sometimes I think that if I could, I would show the ugly-hearted, Jew-hating campus protesters October 7^th footage on a loop. Such footage, after all, abounds. The terrorists themselves used their go-pros to document their own horrors. This footage is not hard to find. So I was excited when I read just this morning that an anonymous someone had done just that.

Played October 7^th footage to protesters. In a loop. On a big, outdoor screen.

An anonymous group has funded and constructed a giant screen with loudspeakers outside the @UCLA Pro-Hamas Encampments showing footage of the October 7 Massacre on loop.

Bravo to these geniuses. #StandWithIsrael pic.twitter.com/t6bl12gvxl
— The Persian Jewess (@persianjewess) April 29, 2024

Awesome!

Or is it? If the crowd prefers to jeer over allowing tragedy to move them, will it even matter—will it matter what you show them? No. They’ll invert the truth. Laugh at you. Say the footage is “heavily edited” or a photo is “obviously photoshopped”. Whatever lies they can throw at you, they will. That’s the game.

But we’re not playing. For us, it’s not a game. We have a duty to bear witness to the systematic torture of, and sexual violence against Jewish women by Hamas deviants, and so I remain grateful to Sheryl Sandberg. Screams Before Silence is a film that helps us to recognize Hamas for what it is, be firm in our resolve to eradicate this evil, once and for all, from our world. October 7^th was a concerted, premeditated attack against the Jewish people via its women.

As we watch and listen to protesters deny the obvious truth of Screams Before Silence, it will become easier and easier to see that they out themselves, and for us to distinguish between the humans and everyone else.

Humans will care. The evil will not. And should be eliminated from God’s green earth.

*Elder of Ziyon beat me to the punch with his excellent and concise take on the subject, Screams Before Silence, the documentary with select quotes from journalist Brett Stephens.

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!

05/01 Links Pt1: The breathtaking denial of anti-Semitism at Columbia; They aren’t revolutionaries. They’re bigoted brats; Astroturfing Exposed: The Coordinated Anti-Israel Protests and the Power Behind Them

From Ian:

The breathtaking denial of anti-Semitism at Columbia

Like all good social-justice warriors of a certain age, Reich harkens back to the romantic 1960s, recalling the campus protests against segregationist governors George Wallace and Ross Barnett, and against the Vietnam War. Reich writes: ‘If Columbia or any other university now roiled by student protests were doing what it should be doing, it would be a hotbed of debate about the war. Disagreement would be welcome; demonstrations accepted; argument invited; differences examined.’ Ah, those halcyon days of campus kumbaya.

Maybe Reich hasn’t noticed, but today’s protesters have no desire to debate or examine differences. This is not about two-state solutions or how to arrive there. Read the placards or listen to the chants and you will see that this is all about a world without Israel and eradicating the Jews. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out recently on spiked: ‘Their longing for Israel’s erasure was made clear… “We don’t want no two states / We want ’48!” That is, 1948, a time when the modern state of Israel didn’t yet exist.’ I challenge Reich – or indeed anyone – to find one poster in all those photographs of the Columbia protests calling for peace, negotiations or an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist. Just one.

Much of what Reich writes is fantastical. ‘The atrocities committed by both sides’, he writes, ‘illustrate the capacities of human beings for inhumanity and show the vile consequences of hate. For these reasons, it presents an opportunity for students to re-examine their preconceptions and learn from one another.’ Yes, perhaps a morning teach-in on the campus green, where everyone can share their thoughts on anti-Semitism. After lunch, calls for the extermination of the Jews.

To be fair to Reich, he is merely a conspicuous representative of America’s elite academic class. There are plenty out there who are as clueless as he is. Some are active participants in the hate. Others are fellow travellers in the Palestine cause who do nothing to speak against the anti-Semitism in their movement. For decades, they have been marinating in the social-justice language of the left: whiteness, colonialism, systemic racism and so on. And now, they are so thoroughly immersed in so-called progressive ideology that they are oblivious to their surroundings. Like the honchos at National Public Radio, who deny their woke bias even when their employees point out obvious examples, these leftists and liberals have become disconnected from the reality around them.

Protesters at Columbia have been chanting: ‘Remember 7 October? That will happen not one more time, not five more times… but 10,000 more times.’ Yet still Reich claims that this does not express anti-Semitism. You couldn’t find a better illustration of George Orwell’s observation on the ignorance of intellectuals: ‘One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.’

They aren’t revolutionaries. They’re bigoted brats

As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) points out, civil disobedience is not the same as expressing an opinion or engaging in peaceful protest. The whole point of it is to break the rules. Indeed, it ‘derives expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules’. That these students and junior academics are shocked to be handcuffed for breaking the law reveals a profound sense of entitlement among young ‘radicals’.

We shouldn’t be surprised. FIRE president Greg Lukianoff has pointed to two dispiriting, parallel trends in American universities: a willingness to curtail free speech, all while giving a green light to violent, intolerant protests. At the University of California, Berkeley, where students rioted in 2017 because that tiresome weirdo Milo Yiannopoulous was speaking, the university ‘showed cowardice in its unwillingness to punish the rioters’, writes Lukianoff and Angel Eduardo in a recent op-ed. We saw a similarly rank capitulation at Evergreen State that same year, where marauding students were effectively allowed to chase professors Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying off of campus. Since then, ‘shutdowns and shout-downs have become commonplace’, they write.

Some critics of campus cancel culture have been caught off guard by the pro-Hamas protests. Almost a decade ago, they observe, we were all gawping at the ‘Yale Snowflakes’, those absurd Ivy Leaguers who went into open, teary-eyed revolt because academic Erika Christakis sent them an email saying they should chill out about offensive Halloween costumes. How did babyish offence-taking give way to open support for anti-Semitic terrorists?

But it all makes a perverse kind of sense. Students taught that freedom of speech is a form of violence have begun to see violence as a form of free speech. Young radicals reared on a crude, conspiratorial racial identity politics have begun to apply it to geopolitics, with predictably anti-Semitic results. A new generation of elite youth, overprotected and indulged in equal measure, have come to think they can do no wrong.

So let’s retire the Sixties comparisons. In 1964, when Mario Savio – civil-rights activist and student leader of the Free Speech Movement – was leading a campaign of civil disobedience, aimed at liberating Berkeley students from censorship, his cause was just and he was happy to suffer the consequences of his methods. ‘There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious’, he famously said, ‘you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels… you’ve got to make it stop!’. Meal plans did not get a mention.

At the same time, let’s not pretend that today’s revolting students just appeared, fully formed, from the womb. They are the products of an academic and upper-class culture that has kindled their prejudices and inflamed their intolerance. They aren’t revolutionaries. They’re bigoted brats. And they’ve been pandered to for far too long.

Prominent rabbi asks anti-Israel activists to stop singing his song at protests

A New York rabbi is reiterating his call for his music not to be sung by anti-Israel demonstrators, after students at Yale University used his song during protests there.

Rabbi Menachem Creditor said he was “distraught” to learn that “Olam Chesed Yibaneh,” a song he wrote after 9/11 that has become a mainstay of progressive Jewish activists, was sung at the conclusion of a seder held by the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace on Yale’s campus. Yale is one of dozens of schools where anti-Israel protest encampments have sprung up in recent weeks.

“Let me be clear: I vehemently object to the song being used in any context that is against Israel or the Jewish people,” Creditor said in a statement. “Those who are using the song in these protests are misappropriating its message of love and support for Israel. I cannot accept its use by the protesters, whose beliefs could not be further from my own.”

Creditor, the rabbi in residence at UJA-Federation of New York, first called for his song not to be sung at pro-Palestinian protests in November, a month after the start of Israel’s war with the Hamas terror group in Gaza, which began after thousands of invading terrorists slaughtered some 1,200 people in southern Israel on October 7, and seized 253 hostages, most of them civilians.

At the time, a member of the anti-Zionist group IfNotNow said the group would stop including “Olam Chesed Yibaneh” and a song written by another Jewish musician who objected to its use in national actions calling for a ceasefire, though a national spokesperson declined to answer questions about the songs’ use.

In the wake of Hamas' October 7 pogrom in Israel, Israelis for the most part (but not completely) shut Palestinians out of jobs they had in Israel and the settlements. Very few want to risk the having West Bank Palestinians, who overwhelmingly expressed support for the murder and rape spree, be allowed in their communities.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of unemployed people in the West Bank increased from 129,000 in the third quarter of 2023 to 317,000 in the fourth quarter. The unemployment rate in the West Bank increased from 13% to 32% in the same time period.

The number of Palestinians employed in Israel dropped from 147,000 to 17,000, and the number employed in Judea and Samaria went down from 25,000 to 7,000.

The hit to the Palestinian economy went beyond jobs in Israel. The number of people employed in the West Bank itself went down by about 57,000, showing how important the Israeli jobs are the the Palestinian economy. Not to mention that the jobs in Israel pay more than double the pay of jobs in the West Bank, where the average salary is about $38 a day (NIS 127.)

Even though about 18% of Palestinian workers were employed in Israel before October 7, they were responsible for over 32^ of the income brought home by Palestinian workers.

So Hamas didn't only unilaterally decide to put Gaza Palestinians in misery - their decision that killing Jews is their highest priority also affected millions of Palestinians not even under Hamas rule, but who nonetheless support and celebrate Hamas murders of Jews.

Israel is not obligated to provide jobs to Palestinians. They do it when it makes economic and security sense. The Palestinians changed the equation, and Israel reacted in a quite predictable way. It will take years, if ever, for things to get back to how they were.

But it also brings up the question of what a Palestinian state would look like if the goal shared by both Hamas and Fatah as well as many US college students, to eventually destroy the Jewish state, would come true.

All those high paying jobs would not exist to begin with.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Screams Before Silence, the documentary

If you haven't seen this documentary about the rape and mutilation of Israeli women on October 7, made by former Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, you owe it to yourself to watch it.

As Bret Stephens writes:

To watch “Screams Before Silence” is to be disabused of any lingering doubts about what Hamas did. The personal testimonies of victims, survivors and witnesses are clear and overpowering, as is the photographic evidence Sandberg was shown of mutilated corpses. And some of them have scarcely been heard about outside Israel.

There is Tali Binner, a partygoer at the Nova music festival who hid in a small camper as other women were raped outside: “I heard a girl that started to yell for a long time. It was like, ‘Please don’t. No, no, stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. No. No. No’. It was like, she was asking someone to stop. What can they stop? Someone is abusing her. Someone touching her. Someone is doing something.”

There is Raz Cohen, who witnessed a rape as he hid with a friend in the brush: “Shoham, who was next to me, said, ‘He’s stabbing her. He’s slaughtering her,’ or something like that, and I didn’t want to look.” Cohen added, in Hebrew: “When I looked again, she was already dead, and he was still at it. He was still raping her after he had slaughtered her.”

There is Rami Davidian, an emergency medical worker at the Nova site: “I saw girls tied up with their hands behind them to every tree here. Someone murdered them, raped them and abused them, here on these trees. Their legs were spread. Everyone who sees this knows right away that the girls were abused. Someone stripped them. Someone raped them. They inserted all kinds of things into their intimate organs, like wooden boards, iron rods. Over 30 girls were murdered and raped here.”

There is Amit Soussana, who was kidnapped to Gaza for 55 days and raped by her captor when she was trying to bathe: “He came toward me and just pointed a gun really hard at my forehead, screaming at me, ‘Take it off. Take it off,’ and punching me until I could not hold the towel anymore. And he started touching me, and I resisted, and then he dragged me to the bedroom. And then he forced me to commit a sexual act on him.”

The denials by the anti-Israel crowd on the Left that these attacks even occurred are as heinous as Holocaust denial is from the Right.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Hamas lies about Sunday ambush, as usual

Hamas's graphics designers are working overtime, here featuring the inverted triangle that they use to symbolize attacks on Israeli forces:

This poster celebrates an attack on Sunday that again illustrates not only how much Hamas lies, but also its disregard for its own civilians.

Here's how Hamas described the fighting, as transcribed by the Times of India which has been uncritically parroting Hamas claims throughout the war:

Here's what really happened. Two IDF soldiers were killed in the fighting by friendly fire:

An initial investigation by the Israel Defense Forces into the deaths of two reservists in the central Gaza Strip on Sunday found that the pair were killed by so-called friendly fire.

Master Sgt. (res.) Ido Aviv, 28, of the Yiftah Brigade’s 9232nd Battalion, and Master Sgt. (res.) Kalkidan Meharim, 37, of the Carmeli Brigade’s 223rd Battalion, were hit by shelling from a tank that had opened fire outside of its designated boundaries, according to the probe that was released Tuesday.

The investigation found that the incident began as an IDF tank was hit by a roadside bomb near the Turkish Hospital in central Gaza’s Netzarim Corridor. Shortly after the blast, mortars and anti-tank missiles were launched by Hamas operatives toward troops in the corridor area.

Amid an exchange of fire with the Hamas operatives, a tank of the Yiftah Brigade left an encampment and shelled a building in the area.

The building had been outside of the tank force’s designated boundaries, according to the probe, meaning the soldiers were not supposed to open fire toward that area.

Several troops, including the two reservists, were in the building when it was hit. Aviv and Meharim were declared dead, and two soldiers were wounded, including one seriously, according to the IDF.

The mine was real. It is possible that the mine was built with explosives from an unexploded bomb; this is something Hamas has done for years. Everything else Hamas claims - including a faked picture of an overturned tank - is a lie.

And media worldwide still repeat Hamas lies without caveats.

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!

Hate Speech and Academic Freedom: The Antisemitic Assault on Basic Principles, by Cary Nelson, is the perfect book to understand how we got to where we are today with the unhinged antisemitism on college campuses.

The book was completed right before October 7, and while in some ways it has been overtaken by events, it is invaluable in its analysis of the intersection of academic freedom and limiting antisemitism on campus.

Cary Nelson is an expert on both. He was the president of the American Association of University Professors from 2006 to 2012 and he helped write policies on academic freedom in higher education. He is critical of decisions the AAUP has made since his tenure there.

When it comes to academic freedom, Nelson is as close to an absolutist as one can be. While he emphasizes that university can reject candidates for positions for any valid reason including antisemitic statements, once they are hired their application for tenure is pretty much the only time to review their records and decide whether they deserve to achieve that level.

His problem with antisemitism is not so much with the speech of professors who may spout bigoted opinions of Jews - but the effect that they have on the academic freedom of Jewish students who must navigate a university environment where their own expression of their Jewishness, which often is tightly tied to Israel, is severely limited.

Nelson points out, that when the National Women's Studies Association or various ethnic studies associations issue anti-Zionist statements, they effectively exclude any Zionists in that field of study. A department-level statement against Israel does not foster academic freedom but inhibits it.

The most egregious example he brings, to my mind, is the statement of the University of California Press (apparently since taken down) that said

We want to recognize the powerful expansion of international solidarity with Palestinians in their fight for liberation and stand with them. We support scholarship that confronts all forms of settler colonialism, US racial formations including Islamophobia, and prioritize pedagogies that reflect intersectional, anti-colonial, anti-racist action. As a university press, it is our responsibility to disseminate scholarship that challenges dominant narratives and makes understanding these injustices possible.

This means that an academic press will be highly unlikely to ever publish any Zionist opinions, an astonishing statement of choosing a political side and silencing any opposing viewpoints under the aegis of the University of California.

Individual academics and students have great latitude in saying their opinions, but not departments with the imprimatur of the university itself on the letterhead of their statements. When entire fields have been co-opted by political positions like anti-Zionism, in Nelson's words, "the line between advancement of knowledge and promotion of political convictions...has been obliterated."

Nelson also tackles topics such as whether a prospective academic hire or tenure candidate's social media posts should be considered when making decisions about their positions in the academy. The AAUP says no, Nelson says that is absurd, certainly when the posts fall within the candidate's field of expertise. Social media has a much bigger reach and more influence than most academic papers do.

Other topics covered include professors instituting "micro-boycotts," penalizing students for their Zionist opinions, most infamously the case of John Cheyney-Lippold who refused to write a recommendation letter for a student who wanted to go to Tel Aviv University for a year, even after he told her he would (and ruined her chances for finding an alternate source for a letter.)

Nelson is a true academic. When he sees a claim he checks it out and does his own research, something that he notes does not happen as often as it should in academia. So, for example, he dedicates a chapter to the "Word Crimes" issue of the journal Israel Studies, where specific terms that have been hijacked by the anti-Israel crowd like "Apartheid" or "Colonialism" are examined as to what they really mean. The issue was mercilessly attacked yet most of the critics hadn't even read the journal. Nelson read it and critiques it, not agreeing with every article but proving that it has scholarly value and that many critics were not acting in good faith. I respect Nelson's desire to take every charge seriously (speaking as someone who spent too much time researching "fart spray" when Israelis at Columbia were accused of a chemical weapons attack on campus.)

Nelson is a strong proponent of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, and examines that definition along with the "Jerusalem Declaration" as well as a reference to my own, which I appreciate.

One other theme that carries over many of the book's chapters is that the accusations that Zionists are silencing opponents have no merit. Nelson looks at the specific examples and finds than none of them hold water - in practically every case, the supposed silencing never happened and the planned anti-Zionist event or speaker was not blocked by the institution. Too many anti-Israel academics cannot distinguish between criticism and censorship, perhaps because they know they often cannot answer real criticism coherently.

As with Nelson's earlier book Israel Denial, he makes clear that he does not support settlements and has derision for Israel's right wing government. In this case, it makes his arguments stronger, since Nelson cannot be dismissed as a right-wing fanatic; he is a liberal in every sense.

It is a shame that the book is relatively expensive ($150 hardcover, $45 paperback and $34 Kindle from Amazon) Hate Speech and Academic Freedom deserves a larger audience than just the academics it appears to be aimed at.

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!