And the shop-owner helpfully adds another sign:
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! |
|
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 West refused to see that the Palestinian cause was the principal means by which the Islamists realized they could destroy Israel and conquer the free world for Islam. The Palestinian cause has accordingly brought together the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood—whose military wing consists of Hamas, Al-Qaeda and ISIS—and the Shi’ite fanatics of Iran.Bassam Tawil: Palestinian Libels Against Jews: No Difference Between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas
The most lethal component of this infernal alliance is Iran because it has become a regional hegemon. And it is America that has enabled that to happen.
As president, Obama viewed Iran as an essential component of a new Middle East order. The aim was apparently a balance of powers in the region which would ensure that everyone was forced to rub along with each other.
The strategy of taming Iran by bringing it in from the cold led to the 2015 nuclear deal which, falsely claiming to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, explicitly legitimized such a development after only a few years delay and funneled billions in sanctions relief into Tehran’s war chest.
This was the equivalent not only of giving a box of matches to an arsonist but providing the kerosene and the dry tinder as well.
The Biden administration has continued with the kumbaya liberal fantasy that genocidal fanaticism can be neutralized by negotiated concessions. In practice, this appeasement of the implacable and unconscionable means letting Israel swing in the murderous winds of the Palestinian and Iranian agendas.
Virtually none of this is understood by the Western public whose media and leaders, in cahoots with the Hamas-compliant international human rights and humanitarian establishment, have instead demonized Israel and incited hatred of the Jews with malicious falsehoods about Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
People in the West have been indoctrinated by the BBC, The New York Times and others that Israel is the reason for the war in Gaza, Israel is the problem and this crisis is all Israel’s fault.
They have heard virtually nothing about Hezbollah’s daily rocket and missile attacks. They are told nothing about the plight of tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes in northern Israel by the war and been made refugees in their own country. They saw almost no reports at all of the fires that consumed northern Israel this week.
Consequently, when Israel goes to war in Lebanon to defend its people against annihilation it will be vilified and demonized even more intensely as the region’s aggressor.
But it is in fact Biden and Obama’s America, whose delusional fantasies facilitated the Oct. 7 pogrom, empowered the enemies of civilization and are hanging Israel out to dry, that is now leading the world into a terrible war.
The only problem is: the claim [that Jews are trying to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque] is not true. Of course, there are no such plans. These plans only exist in the deranged imaginations of the Palestinian leaders fabricating the accusations against the Jews. In fact, it was Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who gave control over the Temple Mount to the Islamic Wakf authorities in 1967.How Israel Remains Sane under Pressure
In reality, Arafat had agreed that non-Muslims may, at certain times, tour the exterior of the Al-Aqsa Mosque -- the gardens and patios -- as long as they do not go inside and pray there.
Abbas and his media nevertheless continue to portray the peaceful visits by Jews to the Temple Mount as violent incursions. On June 5, 2024, Abbas's official news agency Wafa reported: "Hundreds of Israeli colonists today broke into the compound of Al-Aqsa Mosque...[they] raided the holy Islamic Mosque from al-Maghariba Gate and took provocative tours in its compounds."
Needless to say, Abbas is again lying: no Jew had "raided" or "broken into" the mosque.
The Biden administration and some European countries that want to give the Palestinians a state fail to recognize that, when it comes to rejecting Israel's right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people and denying any Jewish link to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, there is no real difference between Abbas and Hamas. If anyone is desecrating the Al-Aqsa Mosque, it is Palestinians who are using it to justify murder -- of Jews.
In the past decade, U.S. political discourse has become increasingly shrill, while social cohesion appears to be fraying. By contrast, Israel—part of which is literally on fire—has been fighting its longest and most harrowing war since 1948, yet society seems to be functioning quite well. Cole Aronson makes the case that Israel is the “saner” of two countries.
The Iranian fusillade in the early hours of April 14 was Israel’s scariest moment since October 7. . . . But ten hours later, the two large supermarkets near my apartment were full of diapers, milk, bread, and eggs. The mall had four floors of squealing kids. No surge in crime, no looting, no riots. The largest missile and drone launch in history, and Israel didn’t even have to muddle through. It could just carry on.
While some of its detractors have tried to portray Israel as a “nation gone mad,” Aronson notes that this is not at all so:
Israelis are brusque and they are sometimes even frantic. But they deal rationally with danger, which is to say they can distinguish real threats and harms from fake ones. The industriousness with which coastal Americans manufacture and perform grievances is not a habit of Israel’s public character. Israelis resent hypocrisy and they grumble about their elites. But revolution is not popularly demanded, statues aren’t torn down, memorials aren’t desecrated, the nation’s founders aren’t contemned. Israelis pay dearly to govern themselves, and so can’t afford civic disdain.
Americans live free from armed invaders under a masterful, basically peaceful constitutional system. Things have been good for a long time. The republic’s achievements seem commonplace, so commonplace they aren’t even recognized as achievements. . . . America has responded to its generous inheritance with a listless hysteria.
After Oct. 7, President Biden told Israel to scale down its ground invasion of Gaza. Then he supported Egypt's decision to trap Gazans in the war zone. When the Israelis defeated Hamas in northern Gaza, he pressured Israel to "shift to the next phase" by sending most troops home and fighting with less firepower in southern Gaza. Israel did so, and it very slowly won in Khan Yunis.John Podhoretz: Israel’s Two-Front Crisis
Next, Mr. Biden tried to stop Israel from invading Rafah. He cut off weapons as leverage. Israel eventually invaded Rafah, but with fewer troops to satisfy the President. That means a slower operation. His decision to pressure Israel, while going soft on mediators Egypt and Qatar, has also given Hamas reason to draw out hostage talks and continue the war.
Joe Biden did something extraordinarily beneficial at the beginning of the Israel-Gaza war: He moved two aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean and parked them right off the shores of Lebanon. The purpose was unmistakable. America was telling Hezbollah to keep quiet and stay out of it while Israel went to war with Hamas down south. It didn’t quite work, since intermittent rocketry still led Israel to evacuate much of its northernmost population. But it worked well enough.Daniel Henninger (WSJ): Don't Blame Israel First
Something happened quietly a few months ago. The carriers left. The USS Gerald Ford returned to Norfolk. The USS Eisenhower was redeployed to the Red Sea to deal with the shipping crisis. And guess what? Without American deterrence, Hezbollah has been emboldened, the more so as time has gone on.
Another 70,000 Israelis have been newly evacuated from the North as bombardments from Lebanon have become extraordinarily savage. The town of Kiryat Shmoneh is on fire. A Druze village was unmercifully attacked. Israel is wracked with uncertainty. It cannot allow Hezbollah’s depradations to continue. It must respond. It must restore deterrence by raising the cost to Hezbollah of its actions. But it’s still got Rafah to finish. And it’s still trying to navigate the weird situation of the past two weeks, in which an “Israeli proposal” for a ceasefire and hostage release created a new sense of urgency for negotiations with Hamas—a proposal offered and re-offered that Hamas has, by my count, now rejected five different times.
Joe Biden made this all public with his strange speech “accepting” Israel’s proposal to which he then doodled a conclusion on top that said “end of war end of war” like Annette Funicello in a beach party movie writing “Mrs Frankie Avalon” over and over on her chemistry notebook. For nearly two weeks now, America has said the ball is in Hamas’ court because the Israeli proposal is so good (while Biden and others say Bibi wants to keep the war going because he’s mean or something). Hamas has replied, in effect, “well, if it’s in our court, we’re keeping the ball. Drop dead.” And still the Bidenites keep on, insisting if Hamas wants a good future for the Palestinian people it will accept the deal. What does Hamas have to do to convince these supposed experts that it has no interest in a “good future for the Palestinian people”—that what it wants are dead Jews and a crippled Israel on its way to destruction?
No matter. The tattered coat upon a stick who resides in the White House has grabbed onto this “proposal” like a walker and will not let go. And the fact that Biden and his people are doing what they can to prevent Israel from finishing its work has given Hezbollah the opportunity to open what appears to be a second front against Israel in this proxy war whose real master is in Tehran.
As reports come out of the Biden administration about ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, bear in mind that the goal of one side in the discussions remains the elimination of the sovereign nation of Israel.
Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose wealth subsidizes Hamas's military operations, has said, "The perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region."
The debate over the terms of the current Israel-Hamas ceasefire proposals turns mainly on whether a stop to the fighting would be permanent or temporary, following a hostage and prisoner exchange.
The Biden administration's proposal for a six-week ceasefire includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza. Such a departure surely would be interpreted as a victory for Hamas.
Hamas's military leader, Yahya Sinwar, the primary architect of the Oct. 7 invasion, apparently believes he has Israel bogged down in a quagmire and that international opinion has turned the Jewish state into a pariah, pushing the Israelis toward a settlement on his terms.
A belief has emerged in what passes for world opinion that if Mr. Netanyahu can be forced out of office, a "moderate" Israeli leadership will emerge, and somehow the war will end. Yet the assumption that any successor Israeli government would allow the Sinwar-led Hamas to emerge intact in Gaza is incredible.
The debate over the Israel-Hamas war has fallen deeply into a moral imbalance. The conflict has little hope of changing until the statements of foreign leaders, analysts, the media and Mr. Biden begin to impose serious political and moral pressure on the man who put this horror in motion: Hamas commander Yahya Sinwar. Blame him first.
Check out their Facebook page.
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! |
|
[I]nsufficient and unreliable aid, distributed under conditions of insecurity that do not allow adequate targeting, expose vulnerable groups to violence, exploitation and abuse, trafficking and forced prostitution, including by aid workers. Specific risks observed in Gaza associated with aid include the presence of unofficial humanitarian workers without identification [in] mixed distribution lines for men and women. There are reports of individuals adopting harmful coping mechanisms, such as reducing food and liquid intake, to minimise such risks.This has been reported by exactly no one besides this site.
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! |
|
White phosphorus is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, bombs, and rockets that ignites when exposed to oxygen. Its incendiary effects inflict death or cruel injuries that result in lifelong suffering. It can set homes, agricultural areas, and other civilian objects on fire. Under international humanitarian law, the use of airburst white phosphorus is unlawfully indiscriminate in populated areas and otherwise does not meet the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm.
... Lebanon should promptly file a declaration with the International Criminal Court (ICC), enabling the investigation and prosecution of grave international crimes within the court’s jurisdiction on Lebanese territory since October 2023.
There is no per se prohibition on the use of white phosphorous. For instance, a March 2009 HRW report notes that “[w]hen used properly in open areas, white phosphorous munitions are not illegal.” A 2017 article in the New York Times likewise noted that “it is not illegal under international law for militaries to possess and use white phosphorus.” The military manuals of several States indicate that it may be used lawfully, even as an anti-personnel weapon, in certain circumstances (e.g., United States (§ 6.14.2.1), Canada (para. 521.3.), France (p. 20-21), Germany (paras. 453-458), and Australia (paras. 4.30-31)). The question, then, is whether the use of white phosphorous munitions is restricted by weapons treaty law or the law of armed conflict rules governing the conduct of hostilities.
....[E]ven if white phosphorous munitions did qualify as “incendiary weapons,” Protocol III would not ban their use. Rather, it regulates the use of incendiary weapons by parties to the instrument for the purpose of protecting civilians.
The US Army War Manual says "[W]hite phosphorus may be used as an antipersonnel weapon. However, such use must comply with the general rules for the conduct of hostilities, including the principles of discrimination and proportionality.In addition, feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians must be taken."
Israel says it only uses shells with WP in urban areas under very specific (undisclosed) circumstances that have been approved by Israel's High Court. While the specific use cases are secret, we could get some clues from the footnotes in the US Army Manual, which says the army used white phosphorus in urban areas in Fallujah directly against terrorists: "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
The Lieber article quotes the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, which says that even as an incendiary weapon, it is permitted "when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
The war between Israel, Hamas, and other terror organizations has heightened the awareness of the question of whether today's international law is capable of addressing armed conflict between a state and terror organizations. How is a sovereign state, obligated by the conventional rules of international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict, expected to engage in asymmetrical war with terror organizations that distinctly, and by definition, do not consider themselves bound by such rules?Seth Mandel: How the Anti-Israel Propaganda Ecosystem Works
The international community lacks practical and legal means, as well as the basic desire and capability, of obliging such terror groups to abide by the rules. It is questionable whether the law of armed conflict as it exists today is capable of providing legal as well as operative answers to the practical issues arising out of today's struggle against terror.
In light of the biased and partisan reaction of the international community and its automatic accusations against Israel of committing war crimes and even genocide, it is high time that responsible states come to terms with the fact that modern-day terror undermines and abuses accepted humanitarian norms and standards. This must be dealt with both militarily and legally.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these NGOs are extremely powerful, because their perceived authority magnifies their voices above those who may know much more about the issues but who don’t have the megaphone or the credibility lent to the European-funded activist groups masquerading as “humanitarians.” Throughout the current war, polls of American public opinion have never demonstrated that the progressive pro-Hamas rump on college campuses or among city protest groups should be catered to. In Israel vs Hamas, Americans don’t hesitate to side with Israel. Even the “ceasefire at any cost” crowd is smaller than it looks and sounds. A Marist poll last week put their share of the public at 25 percent. Yet they have nudged President Biden’s policies in their direction.Biden’s mixed messaging on Israel confuses friends and foes alike
How? The protests on college campuses showed not just the organizing power of the left but the role of the media in amplifying their grievances and whitewashing their violence and lawbreaking. And it works in the other direction too: In many cases the media plays a key role in feeding the wildfire of misinformation that fuels the protests before turning around and reporting on them.
UN groups have been uncritically parroting the obviously inaccurate Hamas-produced death tolls. So have the media. In explaining why the Washington Post trusts Hamas propaganda enough to report it as fact, the paper quoted Omar Shakir in Hamas’s defense. Shakir is the Israel/Palestine director of Human Rights Watch and someone who was expelled from Israel over his support for BDS-affiliated groups that seek Israel’s destruction. In other words, if you switched the staffing of the Hamas Health Ministry and Human Rights Watch, the output of both organizations would likely be unchanged.
Employees of the UN’s Palestinian agency, UNRWA, have been credibly accused of taking and holding one or more hostages during the current conflict and of participating in the Oct. 7 attack. UNRWA was caught sharing space and resources with Hamas commanders, and its schools have reliably been found to host Hamas weapons and tunnel entrances. Yet high-level officials and directors at UNRWA, this clear adjunct of Hamas, go on to leadership positions at the International Committee of the Red Cross (and vice versa). Despite the Red Cross’s clear pro-Hamas orientation during this conflict, journalists quote it as if it speaks in the voice of God.
All of which, as we have seen, feeds the hysteria of the crowds organized by Palestinian groups. That hysteria, in turn, is reported on by the same journalists who’d whipped those protesters into a lather by using Omar Shakir or a Red Cross official on loan from a Hamas-linked UN agency.
In 2013, Karim Khan explained clearly how all of this creates a weighted narrative that influences supposedly objective processes. Now, a decade later, Khan is using that same system to his benefit just so he can nail the Israelis with bogus smears. Those charges will then get reported ad nauseum in the press, and the cycle continues from there.
Though he didn’t intend it at the time, Khan was shining a light on the entire squalid ecosystem of institutional corruption, unethical journalism, and incestuous melding of propaganda outfits that are often funded by governments that then justify their policies toward Israel by citing that very propaganda. If you can’t beat ’em, Khan decided, might as well join ’em.
What’s everyone else’s excuse?
On Tuesday morning, Time magazine published the full transcript of its recent Oval Office interview with President Joe Biden, conducted a week prior. One line quickly went viral among Middle East experts: When asked whether Biden believes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the country’s war with Hamas to further his own political survival, Biden said the answer might be yes. “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion,” the president responded.
Hours later, Biden appeared to reverse himself on that sentiment. A reporter shouted a question at Biden as he left an event: Is Netanyahu “playing politics” with the war? “I don’t think so. He’s trying to work out a serious problem he has,” Biden said.
That Biden’s public reversal took place in a single day made the incident especially notable, even for an 81-year-old gaffe-prone president known for speaking off-the-cuff (much to the chagrin of his staffers). But it was not the first time onlookers were confused by his comments on the Middle East.
The White House’s pattern of contradicting itself over Israel’s war against Hamas has become a regular occurrence since October. Interpreting what the administration’s precise policy is at any given moment can take Talmudic levels of parsing, and clarifying whether Biden’s often-vague language reflects a change in message, or is simply a function of misspeaking, is a frequent challenge for journalists.
Stakeholders and experts describe a White House approach rooted in a desire to appease divergent and at times conflicting constituencies, stemming from difficult political realities at home and a fear that the bloody conflict in Gaza will still be raging as Election Day approaches. But trying to make everyone happy is often a self-defeating strategy in Washington, especially on one of the most divisive issues in politics.
“There’s a big danger that the Biden team faces in trying to be everything to everyone and all people at once, that you may end up risking being nothing meaningful,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
Biden has tried to chart a course that maintains U.S. support for Israel, leaning on his longtime self-identification as a Zionist, while also criticizing Israel for not doing enough to protect civilians in Gaza. The farthest he has gone was a threat last month to withhold some U.S.-made offensive weapons depending on Israel’s actions in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
Yet his frequent criticism of Israel’s military tactics does not go far enough to appease left-wing Democrats unhappy with Biden’s overall support for Israel; meanwhile, his outreach to the anti-Israel segment of the party irritates Jewish voters and pro-Israel moderates. And Biden’s frequent admonitions of Israel risk hampering the country’s war effort, in the view of many of its supporters. (A National Security Council spokesperson declined to comment.)
Biden’s occasionally harsh rhetoric toward Israel amid the mounting death toll in Gaza is “an indication of real anger and frustration, without actually being willing to confront or be identified fully, to make real what [he] feels, so you get a policy that is conflicted,” said Aaron David Miller, a former longtime State Department employee and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “I think the reason they’re conflicted is because he’s got these constituencies that he certainly isn’t going to satisfy. He can try to manage them.”
Behind closed doors, the messaging differs depending on whom the White House is addressing — and who is delivering the message. Biden’s closest advisers on the Middle East are National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; Sullivan’s deputy, Jon Finer; and Brett McGurk, White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa. Each of them takes a slightly different approach to the unfolding conflict.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
The Jpost Jack Lew interview
had me at the title, “'Two-states is a defeat for Hamas,' US envoy Lew says,
touting Saudi deal.” Had me fuming, that is, at Lew’s attempt to pull the wool
over our eyes. “Court
Jew,” I thought. “Jino,”
I muttered (though naturally Lew self-defines as orthodox).
Yup. Lew’s message came through loud and clear, a script to
which he, Lew, would stick without deviation:
👉🏻Two states for two peoples is a defeat for Hamas because it allows for a Jewish state to exist. And since Hamas wants Israel gone, two states would not serve its purpose.
No matter that the missive is a study in illogic, no matter
how skewed, this is the message that Lew needs us to hear and absorb. That only
two states can solve this problem, that two states for two people are the only
way to beat Hamas—because fighting won’t do it, sez Lew.
He could say this lie once, Lew, and it would be enough for
the masses. But he will say it here many times, to ensure the memo leaks into
public discourse and soaks into our little public brains.
Happily, the interviewer of Lew, Tovah Lazaroff, doesn’t make the reader wait long for the first phase of the indoctrination to begin. The talking points we are meant to parrot are already there in the second paragraph:
“I don’t think Hamas wants two states,” Lew said. “The only time they indicate they want two states is when they’re trying to put a little bit of a patina of legitimacy around their real strategy, which is the elimination of the State of Israel.”
Missing here is the fact that the two-state solution is a
win for no one. Not for Hamas of course, but also not for Israel, Gaza, or the
people who live under the thumb of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (clever name,
that). No. Not one of the regional actors who would be a party to the two-state
solution, actually want it. And that’s a fact, Jack.
Just as Hamas wants that “little bit” of legitimacy around
its real strategy of exterminating the Jews, so too the people of Gaza, who
continue to support Hamas, and the people who live under Abbas (who also
support Hamas). They say they want a two-state solution because that’s
how they get a foot in the door that is Jewish territory. It’s what they do.
Then once they have a state on Jewish land, they carve away at the rest of
Israel until whoops! Israel is gone. (Won’t happen.)
Then again, Israel also doesn’t want a two-state
solution. Why on earth would we give this enemy any part of our (holy,
indigenous) soil? What other nation would have this “solution” imposed on them?
Must France cede Paris to Morocco? Must Canada cede Toronto to the United
States of America?
I think not!
No. Only Israel, tiny Israel, is required to give up its
land, holy to its Jewish inhabitants since before Mohammed was born—holy to the
Jews whose presence the Holy Land was never lacking even when it meant they
were forced to live hidden out of sight, in caves.
(photo: Judean Rose, with AI) |
Aside from being compelled to “give up” land that will, by
right, continue to belong to the Jewish people for all subsequent generations,
the TSS asks us to legitimize the barbarians already installed alongside us,
and embedded among us in our hills. It would be a gift to the evildoers—a gift
that would leave Israelis far less safe than they were on October 7.
That’s all it is, the two-state solution. Not a defeat, a gift.
A gift to Hamas, a gift to the PA, and a gift to all the people who voted them
in. Two states mean more land for the Islamic caliphate—and Jewish land, at
that—a seeming win for Islam over Judaism. (Won’t happen.)
Lew can flap his gums all he likes as the court Jew that he
apparently is, but no one with a semblance of a brain will believe him. Not
that it matters to the echo chamber. Chambers don’t have brains.
(photo: more Judean Rose AI experimentation.) |
Still, the echo chamber is soaking it all in as Lew continues to argue that the opposite of the truth is the truth, that the TSS is a defeat only for Hamas; that red is green; and big, old Brussels sprouts don’t smell when boiled at length:
[Netanyahu] has balked at talk of Palestinian statehood particularly in the aftermath of October 7. Both he and his government believe Palestinian statehood rewards terrorism and legitimizes that brutal style of attack in which people were raped, dismembered, and burned alive.
Lew said he believed that the opposite is true, particularly if Palestinian statehood is achieved through the framework of a larger Saudi deal, which would place Israel within a regional alliance against Iran.
“I think it’s a defeat for Hamas to talk about a two-state solution, which is why I think even out of the pain of October 7, there is a way to have this conversation, but it takes leadership,” Lew said.
Well, Jack Lew, Court Jew, maybe the echo chamber is fooled by your rhetoric, but thinking people are not. A rape victim, out of the pain of rape, will not give up half her bedroom to her rapist. The family of executed Jewish hostages, out of the pain, will not welcome an Arab state on their doorstep. And they don’t have to. None of us have to—no matter how many resolutions are issued by the talking heads at the antisemitic UN. And no matter how much Jack Lew insults Israel's duly elected leadership.
Of course, lest you question the efficacy of the TSS, let it be known to the echo chamber that Lew’s creds are impeccable. He alone knows what’s best for the Jews and the Arabs, because he’s served in three (count 'em) administrations that believed they knew what was best for Jews and Arabs. (They didn’t):
The United States has long believed that two states is the correct resolution to the conflict, Lew said, adding that “this is the third administration I’ve served that’s believe that. So it’s not a new idea.” He clarified that such a state would be a demilitarized one.
Note that last part. The Arabs won’t actually have a state, because Lew won’t let them have an army. In Lew’s Arab dreamland, there will be no terrorists and no army. And of course, by extension, no more weapons to the Jews, either:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
(photo: yet MORE Judean Rose AI experimentation) |
Here, Lew inserts the knife—peace? Never mind what Dr. Edy Cohen calls “the consistent and enduring Palestinian rejection of any and all peace initiatives with Israel, most recently the ‘Deal of the Century,’” It’s all up to the Jews who, at the moment, have closed their minds off to the idea sleeping well at night:
No one expects Israel “to decide on two states next week or next month,” but it has to be open to the conversation, he said.
In other words, Lew wants you to know on behalf of the Biden administration, as the court Jew he is, that the Jews are completely closed up in their own little selfish Jewish mindsets crying, “Ours. All ours!” totally unable to think outside the box; to be creative; to share nicely what they have with “others,” barbarians who swear they will perpetrate endless October 7ths. (Won’t happen.)
“The basic orientation” should be: is this “a win or a loss for Hamas? Is it a win or a loss for Iran?” Lew said.
How kind of Lew to orient us all, in particular the Jews, who after all are oriental. Thanks to Lew’s largesse of spirit, we now understand that the elimination of Hamas depends solely on Israel’s retreat from Gaza. If only Israel will only stop killing the terrorists and talk to them instead—give them land—peace will reign over the entire region:
[To] arrive at a deal, Lew said, there must be a cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel, particularly given that the war has entered a phase, where success might better be achieved through diplomacy than on the battlefield.
Never mind that there was a ceasefire on October 7, and that
it was Hamas who broke it; clearly it is only Israel’s close-mindedness, its
unwillingness to compromise that prevents peace, now. That is, if you don’t
count the more than 8,000 Jews expelled from Gaza—which apparently, Lew does not.
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! |
|
President Biden made clear in a speech today that he wants the war in Gaza to end without Hamas’s eradication. Unveiling the outline of a ceasefire agreement, Biden said that “the people of Israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they have devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7.”Jonathan Schanzer: The Policies That Are Killing Israeli Soldiers
Thus have the goals shifted, although that process began in December with Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s comments that the U.S. “will continue to support Israel’s efforts to do everything possible to ensure that Hamas cannot repeat the horrors of October 7. And that means, among other things, that Hamas cannot remain responsible for governance in Gaza and it cannot retain the capacity to repeat those attacks.”
This was the Biden administration’s way of telling the public what it had told Israeli leaders earlier that day in December: The U.S. would no longer support the original goal of Hamas’s eradication.
Today, President Biden made that point himself. “Indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of total victory will only bog down Israel in Gaza,” the president admonished, “draining the economic, military, and human resources and furthering Israel’s isolation in the world.”
According to Biden, Israel’s long-professed characterization of victory isn’t possible. Continuing its operations in Gaza “will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas.” He described a path that instead would see Israel out of Gaza and becoming part of “a regional security network” that ideally would include Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile Gaza will be rebuilt with the help of the international community “in a manner that does not allow Hamas to rearm.” So, again, the president envisions Hamas continuing to exist. Of course, “Israel will always have the right to defend itself against threats to security and to bring those responsible for October 7 to justice.” Translation: If at some point in the future Yahya Sinwar turns up at the Super-Pharm in Tel Aviv to pick up some Advil, go ahead and arrest him.
Biden Administration policies have put Israeli soldiers in greater danger. On the eve of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, in March, the White House warned Israel to halt its military advance on Rafah as the IDF was on the cusp of destroying Hamas, defying the predictions of most Middle East experts. When Ramadan was over, the White House moved the goal posts.Melanie Phillips: Wake up, Americans!
The U.S. began to warn of a potential humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The State Department went so far as to suggest that Israel could be guilty of war crimes in Rafah. The White House even threatened to halt the provision of ammunition to Israel. Never mind that Israel had kept the civilian to militant casualty count lower than any of America's previous engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Then, in mid-May, a major lawfare campaign against Israel kicked into high gear. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) charges of siege warfare leveled at Israel would likely have never been aired had the State Department not first suggested it was occurring in the first place.
The cumulative effect of all of this over the last three months has prompted the IDF to halt its advance in Rafah, and to move much slower than it originally anticipated. These three months of relative quiet afforded Hamas the time to prepare the lethal booby traps and IEDs that are now killing Israeli soldiers.
This sustained Hezbollah onslaught shows that the war against Israel is not being waged merely by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. It’s a war of extermination against Israel by Iran and its proxies on no fewer than seven fronts. The attacks by Hezbollah and the threat of far worse from those forces are intolerable.
But if you’re reading this in Britain or America, the chances are you’ll have read virtually nothing about any of this. I can’t see any coverage of these terrible fires in any mainstream media outlets other than a solitary mention today by CNN.
The escalation means that Israel will have to deal with this once and for all. Israelis are bracing for an imminent major war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Until now, Israel’s defence forces have been responding to these attacks in limited fashion in order to avoid a major escalation, which could see thousands of Israeli civilians killed. But no country can live like this, and Israel has done so for eight months.
Yet if it now takes the gloves off in Lebanon, stand by for hysterical condemnation by the western media which has paid virtually no attention to the months of Hezbollah attacks — and consequently will viciously defame Israel once again as the aggressive warmonger, in yet another big lie designed to demonise, delegitimise and destroy it. While Israel fights for its life, the western media carries out the strategy designed to annihilate it by the enemies of humanity.
The carnage in northern Israel must also be laid at the door of the Biden administration. Shortly after the October 7 pogrom in southern Israel, following which Hezbollah started attacking the north, Israel was about to launch a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian backed “Party of God” to neutralise the fearsome threat from Lebanon — but the Biden administration forced it to abort that mission.
Since then, the US has persistently undermined Israel’s attempt to neutralise Hamas in Gaza. The perfidy of the Biden administration in its attempt to ensure that Hamas survives and Israel is left unable to defend itself against genocidal attack has now reached yet another crescendo.
Uh-oh! |
Columbia University officials agreed on Tuesday to provide safe passage for students on campus in a settlement reached with a Jewish student who sued on behalf of those who switched to online learning in April in the midst of intense pro-Palestinian protests.The school is creating a “Safe Passage Liaison” who will have authority to open alternative entrances and exits to students with existing 24-hour security escorts, if needed, under the terms of the settlement.“We think peaceful protest is a constructive way to solve situations,” said Jay Edelson, an attorney for the plaintiff, but recently extremists have tried to take over campuses, and “push out, figuratively and literally, people who they deem are on the wrong side.” That has created situations that have turned frightening, he said.As protests intensified, some Jewish students at Columbia complained they were the targets of antisemitic threats, according to the settlement and interviews with students.“We got a focused security monitor who’s going to be able to serve as the eyes, ears and voice for anyone on campus who feels unsafe,” Edelson said. “That is a major win.”
One woman described her fellow elderly female friend being surrounded by pro-Palestine protesters, who had their faces covered, “and kicked with great force repeatedly in her calves, punched in her shoulders and abused using the foulest of language.”The woman said her friend was “spat at repeatedly” and sustained a bleeding calf and upper body bruising.Another woman told of attempting to make her way through the pro-Palestine crowd with her adult daughter, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, and her daughter’s carer.“We were surrounded by an angry mob that encircled us. One man screamed at me and his nose could almost touch mine. They stole (my daughter)’s Israeli flag from the back of her wheelchair,” the mother and grandmother said.“(My daughter)’s carer was traumatised and sobbing at the end of this ordeal.”Another woman described being surrounded by pro-Palestine protesters yelling abuse as she attempted to make her way through the crowd using a walking frame, and an elderly couple with walking sticks spoke of being elbowed and called “f***ing murderers,” while other rally attendees said they had been punched in the jaw and the chest respectively, and others spoke of being kicked, poked and pushed to the ground.Many Never Again is Now attendees spoke of being verbally abused, with some called “f...ing baby killers”, “Zionist pigs”, “murderers”, “genocide supporters” and “Nazis”, and others told they were “whores” in Arabic, that they “should be killed,” and that a “second Holocaust” was coming for them.
One woman was in tears as she tried to enter the pro-Israel rally with a disabled loved one, while counter-protesters yelled that they were “baby murderers”.
One first person account was published in Australian Jewish News: Australian Jewish News:
On Sunday the 19th of May, my mum, a friend and I went to the Never Again is Now rally in front of the steps of parliament. When we left Parliament station we heard drums and at first thought that it might be the rally. It turned out to have been a responding pro-Palestinian demonstration of around 150 people between us and the rally we were going to. Realising that we would have to go through them to get to the rally, I felt a sudden fear which was only amplified by hearing them chanting “Intifada” over and over again. As we approached the demonstration we attempted to keep a low profile. Despite this as we walked through the corridor of cones set up by the police I was yelled at by a young woman who asked me if I was a nazi telling me that if I was a nazi I should go through gesturing to the Never Again is Now rally she then shouted at me as I walked away that I was committing a holocaust against Palestinians. I thought to myself how could I be called a nazi by the person calling to globalise the intifada, practically calling for the death of all Jews.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!