Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 14, 2024

An analysis of Hezbollah's weapons arsenal (Alma Center)

The Alma Research and Education Center, which keep a close eye on Israel's northern border, released a detailed reportreleased a detailed report on their best estimates of Hezbollah's rocket and weapons arsenal.

It is very concerning.

It should be noted that weaponry transfers to Hezbollah via the Iranian corridor take place continuously. Furthermore, the Iranians have transformed the Syrian CERS Center into a crucial anchor in the armaments corridor, with the goal of researching and manufacturing sophisticated, extremely precise weaponry for Hezbollah. To this, we add that Hezbollah has the potential to produce its own weapons on Lebanese soil. It is quite possible that Hezbollah (with Iranian help) is renewing and preserving its weapons. Even if an all-out war with Israel is declared, the corridor’s operations and weapon manufacture will continue.

If an all-out war breaks out with Israel, the quantity of weapons Hezbollah has will enable it to launch an average of about 3,000 launches (of all weapons) into Israeli territory every day, for at least the first 10 days. Assuming that such a war would continue for up to two months, Hezbollah will be able to continue to manage a very intense launching economy into Israeli territory, with an average of at least 1,000 launches a day. This does not include the number of launches and firing at IDF forces maneuvering on Lebanese soil.

Against IDF ground maneuvers, Hezbollah will use mainly mortar shells, anti-tank missiles, drones and even some UAVs. It may also use heavy-weight short-range rockets against the maneuvering forces.

It can be presumed that not all Hezbollah launches into Israeli territory in an all-out war will succeed or be effective: some will be thwarted by the IDF before launching, some will fall in Lebanese territory or open areas in Israel, some will be unexploded ordnance, and some will be intercepted by air defense systems. However, since this is a very large volume of launches, statistically, the number of daily launches, which will be effective, will be very large compared to what we have seen so far from the northern arena or the Gaza Strip.

For context of the ranges of their rockets/missiles, here are some rough distances from the Lebanon border to major Israeli cities:

Haifa 45 km

Netanya 100 km

Tel Aviv 125 km

Jerusalem 150 km

Ashkelon 175 km

Beersheva 215 km

Dimona 230 km

Eilat 400 km

Israel would also have to be concerned at attacks on the natural gas facilities in the Mediterranean.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

News the media won't tell you: Gazans say humanitarian situation is much better than three months ago in every measurable way

We have been told for months how the humanitarian situation in Gaza is growing steadily worse, and that this situation has deteriorated dramatically since Israel took over the Rafah crossing, from which Egypt refuses to send aid.

But the latest poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows that Gazans report that they are in much better circumstances than they were three months ago.

In March, only 44% of Gazans said they had a day's worth of food on hand. Now that has gone to 64%.

The percentage of Gazans who could get a tent from the place they are staying went from 10% to 26%. Availability of clothing went from 14% to 28% in those three months.

Readily available medical care went from 15% to 26%.

In every measured category - drinking water, covers, electricity to charge phones, toilets - the numbers of Gazans who have access in their shelters has increased.

To be sure, the self-reported numbers aren't good. Only 31% say toilets are available at their current location, for example. But the trajectory is up in every single measured category, the exact opposite of what we have been led to believe by the media and NGOs.

Keep in mind that this poll was taken after Israel took over the Philadelphi corridor to Egypt, and after a million Gazans fled from Rafah to Masawi and elsewhere where the media said the facilities were inadequate.

Apparently, Israel is doing a better job in facilitating aid than UNRWA, other UN agencies and the other NGOs combined had been when they relied on Egypt for most of the aid.

The likely reason is that Israel is cutting out the Hamas middleman.

Despite the hardships, Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank, still overwhelmingly support the October 7 attacks on Israel. 67% say that Hamas made the right decision in attacking Israel - 57% in Gaza and 72% in the West Bank. And 63% support a return to an "armed intifada" across Israel today, meaning terror attacks against Israeli civilians.

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!

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese makes up a new war crime for Israel: "Humanitarian camouflage"

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, famously tweeted - quite falsely - that Israeli commandos had pretended to be humanitarian workers when they rescued four hostages last week.

But the phrase she used, "humanitarian camouflage," is actually from previous accusations she made of Israel.

And they were just as absurd.

In a report she released in March, Albanese wrote:

In its defense, Israel has argued that its conduct complies with international humanitarian law (“IHL”). A key finding of this report is that Israel has strategically invoked the IHL framework as “humanitarian camouflage” to legitimize its genocidal violence in Gaza.

So, is Israel adhering to international law or not? Albanese cannot seem to find any actual violations - so she made up a new category, essentially saying that when Israel adheres to international law, it is really violating it.

The paper has an entire section called "Humanitarian camouflage: distorting the laws of war to

conceal genocidal intent" which says:

After 7 October, this macro-characterization of Gaza’s civilians as a population of human shields has reached unprecedented levels, with Israel’s top-ranking political and military leaders consistently framing civilians as either Hamas operatives, “accomplices”, or human shields among whom Hamas is “embedded”. In November, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs defined “the residents of the Gaza Strip as human shields” and accused Hamas of using “the civilian population as human shields”. The Ministry defines armed groups fighting from urban areas as deliberately “embedded” in the population to such an extent that it “cannot be concluded from the mere fact that seeming ‘civilians’ or ‘civilian objects’ have been targeted, that an attack was unlawful”.Two rhetorical elements of this key legal policy document indicate the intention to transform the entire Gaza population and its infrastructures of life into a ‘legitimate’ targetable shield: the use of the all-encompassing the combined with the quotation marks to qualify civilians and civilian objects. Israel has thus sought to camouflage genocidal intent with humanitarian law jargon.

This is, simply, slander. The November IDF paper - which is quite worth reading - describes normative humanitarian and international law, and the difficulties of fighting in an area where Hamas is deliberately using the civilians as human shields. It does not say, as Albanese implies, that every Gaza civilian is a legitimate target. It does not justify genocide. It just says that the laws of war do not prohibit attacking seemingly civilian objects which are used for military purposes - which is 100% true.

The IDF document is a completely accurate description of international law and the legality of the IDF targeting military targets even when civilians are placed in the way, given the international laws of applying the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Albanese cannot stand that Israel is acting in accordance with international law. So she has to make up a new crime: pretending that Israel is twisting international law into a means to perform genocide in a technically legal way.

The antisemitic rapporteur, in her zeal to try to parse the words of the IDF paper to find genocidal intent, ignores the many statements that explicitly say otherwise. Here are only a few:

"Israel is operating against Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, not against the civilian population. It is directing its attacks only at military objectives..."

"Israel wishes no harm to civilians and is committed to addressing the humanitarian needs of those suffering as a result of Hamas’s brutality and instigation of these hostilities. "

"As repeatedly affirmed by Israel’s senior political and military leadership, the IDF is fighting Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in Gaza, not the civilian population. In accordance with the principle of distinction, the IDF only targets persons who are members of organized armed groups or civilians directly participating in the hostilities, and objects that qualify as military objectives."

Moreover, Albanese cannot deny that Hamas is indeed using all Gaza civilians as human shields - a war crime that she is not concerned with, or even implicitly denies. Hundreds of miles of tunnels underneath a territory that is only 25 miles long and 5 miles wide, most of them under the most densely populated areas in Gaza, is proof if Hamas' intent to use the highest number of Gazans as actual shields for the terrorists underground.

Ironically, Albanese's inability to actually find Israel violating international law, and her having to make up a new category of crime just for Israel, proves Israel's case.

(h/t Irene)

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!

06/13 Links: The inside story of Israel’s dramatic Gaza hostage rescue; How Palestinian terrorists train ‘journalists’ in Gaza; 2/3 of Palestinians Support Oct. 7 Massacre: Poll

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: The U.S.-Backed Ceasefire Plan Ensures Hamas's Survival

In 1977, Ronald Reagan shared his thoughts on the Cold War: "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win, and they lose." What is Joe Biden's theory of victory?

His style of governance is to manage threats, not defeat them. He believes Israel has a right to protect itself. But his previous insistence that Hamas has to be defeated has given way to a U.S.-backed ceasefire resolution that effectively ensures Hamas's survival.

He has vowed that Iran will never get nuclear weapons. But in the face of Iran's refusal to give international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities, the U.S. worked to soften a diplomatic censure.

Biden needs some wins - real, not cosmetic, ones. The Gaza ceasefire isn't it. It merely punts a problem that needs to be solved: Hamas's continued grip over the territory. It begins with a six-week pause in the fighting that might lead to the release of some Israeli hostages in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

But it risks falling apart because no Israeli government will retreat from all of Gaza while Hamas retains power, and Hamas won't release all the hostages or meet the deal's other terms while Israeli forces remain in the territory.

Jake Wallis Simons: The West would rather stand with terrorists than Israel

Israel is hardly the only country that has enacted spectacular release missions in the past. In 1980, the CIA, with Canadian support, smuggled six diplomats out of Tehran while posing as a film crew researching a science fiction production. That same year, when gunmen took 26 hostages at the Iranian embassy in South Kensington, the SAS abseiled from the roof and enacted a daring rescue.

By contrast, recent decades have instead seen an increasing reliance on diplomatic jaw-jaw, often accompanied by hefty ransoms. Last year, the White House released £4.8 billion into Iranian coffers to secure the freedom of five Americans, raising the future incentive to £940 million per hostage. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was set free in 2022 after Downing Street had paid the Iranians £400 million, supposedly a debt that had been owed since the Seventies. You could hear the chuckles in Tehran.

It is true that the Israelis have often paid a heavy price in return for the release of captives: there was the deal in November to free 150 Palestinian convicts in return for 50 hostages. In 2011, 1,027 prisoners – among them a certain Yahya Sinwar, the future architect of October 7 – were controversially released in exchange for one kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Israeli citizens are constantly asked what they can do for their country; this is what the state pledges in return. But Israelis also know that if the opportunity for direct rescue arises, the best commandos in the world will be standing by, no matter the risks.

Why have British and American forces not directly joined the IDF, either in supporting roles, as we did against Islamic State, or in the air or sea, or to participate in special forces operations? That would have sent a powerful message to our jihadi enemy that the West stands resolute, shoulder-to-shoulder in defence of our hostages and our people.

The RAF and American airforce magnificently helped thwart the Iranian missile assault in April. But what about British and American captives? What about destroying Hamas? When he announced the building of an American humanitarian pier, President Biden was at pains to point out that “no US boots will be on the ground”. Why? Victory over Hamas is squarely in our national interest. True collaboration could facilitate a swifter end to the conflict.

From the point of view of Hamas, a deal with the Biden administration would further strain US-Israeli relations. It would pile pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been accused of neglecting a hostage agreement. Terrorists know that the sowing of discord between allies is a powerful weapon. That Hamas places such a premium on doing so holds a lesson that we should urgently learn.

The hostages are international. Our enemy is the same. If jihadism is to be defeated, Western unity – and strength – is vital.

The International Community Must Back Israel's Objectives in Gaza

Last week, the Biden administration, along with 16 other countries, called for Israel to end the war in Gaza without completing its objectives and effectively to enter into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas that would pave the way to a Palestinian state, which would be the ultimate award for the horrific war crimes committed by Hamas in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The joint statement not only insults Israel and undermines its efforts to achieve victory against Hamas in Gaza, but also emboldens the other enemies of Israel and the Western world who are watching what Israel does to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas. Ending the war with Hamas still governing Gaza would send the message that the crimes of Oct. 7 are allowed to go unpunished.

The U.S.-led Marshall Plan to rehabilitate Western Europe after WWII was conditioned on the total de-radicalization of German and Italian society. The international community should expect no less of Gaza.

The statement makes a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. It calls "on the leaders of Israel as well as Hamas to make whatever final compromises are necessary to close this deal." In other words, Israel and Hamas are fighting senselessly like two schoolboys in the playground. This is not a democratic ally of the West fighting a just war against a barbaric terrorist organization. It's just hotheads who are going at it and need to be held back by the cooler heads in the neighborhood.

This attitude by countries who are supposed to be Israel's friends and allies can only encourage Iran and its proxies to continue to pursue their policy of aggression against Israel and Israeli targets in the West.

Chag Sameach!

I wish all my readers who celebrate a wonderful holiday of Shavuot.

I will not be blogging until Thursday night or Friday morning.

Enjoy!

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!

06/11 Links Pt2: When Jew Hate Doesn’t Count; Exposed: Albanese’s Global Influence Network Targeting Israel; The Washington Post goes post-reality

From Ian:

When Jew Hate Doesn’t Count

Over the weekend, thousands—not hundreds—of protesters encircled the White House waving Palestinian flags and accusing Israel of “genocide” and calling for the death of “Zionists,” which is what Jew-haters have taken to calling Jews to veil their hatred. “Stand with Hamas,” read one poster.

These are the people who dressed up as jihadists and defaced statues and screamed “Piggy! Piggy!” and “Fuck you, fascist” at the park rangers and held up a fake bloodied mask of Genocide Joe Biden. The New York Times, like CNN and The Washington Post and most every major outlet, made a big point of how the demonstrators really, really just want a cease-fire. There was no mention of Jews or antisemitism.

The Biden administration, to its credit, put out a statement saying it was against antisemitism. But that did not stop Biden campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod from saying that Biden “supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression” and that the protesters “have a right to speak their mind.” (I could not agree more. Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?)

Most everyone else stressed that the only people who detected any antisemitism were the Jews, and that that wasn’t the point, and that the anti-Zionists, the people screaming at the park rangers and defacing statues and LARPing around like wannabe terrorists—who specialize in murdering and raping Jews—don’t hate anyone. Except Israelis.

“Many protesters chanted slogans that some Jewish groups have said incite violence against Jews,” the Times explained. “That some Jewish groups have said.”

Because—remember!—it’s never, ever about whoever dies. On the contrary, it is always about who can be blamed for that death. That is how one furthers the agenda.

New Book by Daniel Pipes Challenges Conventional Wisdom about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

Renowned historian and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes announces the release of his latest book, Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated, published by Wicked Son, an imprint of Post Hill Press. Tracing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the 1880s, Pipes argues that the prolonged conflict between Palestinians and Israelis stems from two entrenched and opposing mentalities: Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli conciliation.

Palestinian rejectionism is characterized by the negation of Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel. It explains the Palestinians' enduring goal of genocide, their refusal to take yes for an answer, their unwillingness to seek improved living circumstances, and their determination to defame the Jewish state.

Zionist conciliation is characterized by the attempt to win Palestinian acceptance not by defeating Israel's enemy, but by enriching and placating it. Pipes argues against this anomalous Zionist approach, advocating instead the traditional method of ending a war—through victory: Palestinians give up, Israel wins.

In a brilliant essay that brings surprisingly fresh insights and original policy recommendations to a well-worn topic, Pipes draws lessons from past "peace process" failures, delves into the universal nature of defeat and victory, and offers practical advice on how Israel can win through minimal violence and maximal messaging. Both sides need an Israel Victory to break with entrenched, outdated mentalities. For Israel, it means acceptance, especially among Muslims and on the global Left. For the Palestinians, Israel Victory means liberation from a destructive obsession, enabling them finally to build a polity, economy, society, and culture worthy of their skills and ambitions.

Gerald Steinberg: To combat UN hostility to Israel, Israel should bar UN officials from entering

One important policy tool is to immediately prevent the entry of all UN officials into Israel – meaning no new visas – and order the departure of officials already in the country.

This approach has been implemented on a limited scale – the visa of the head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was not renewed and she left. However, her replacement – a Dutch politician with a history of hostility towards Israel – was admitted.

In addition, officials from the UN Human Rights Council were barred from entering after they led a series of blatantly biased “investigations” for the reports of the special rapporteur for Palestine.

With the hot war that fuels the waves of antisemitic attacks worldwide and the attempts to impose sanctions coming from Secretary General Guterres, the time has come for a total ban on all UN personnel seeking to enter Israel and the areas under Israeli control.

This will not change the UN’s automatic majority led by the 56-nation Islamic voting bloc and their allies, or end their control over appointments, budgets, and committees. It will also not lead to the dismantling of UNRWA, the removal of hate-filled antisemitic special rapporteurs, or the end of bogus “investigations.”

But for UN officials, a blanket prohibition from entering Israel poses a significant cost and creates a dangerous precedent. If for their own reasons, other countries follow by barring officials from specific agencies, the image (or myth) of an authoritative global framework encompassing all countries will be brought into question and begin to disintegrate.

UN agencies that operate from inside Israel (or in Gaza, which is now under IDF control) would be incapacitated and, as a result, could lose their large budgets, resulting in major staff reductions.

A clear Israeli policy move would also gain support from UN-skeptics in the US and some other countries and could lead to budget cuts and other actions to curtail the organization and its influence.

Although prohibiting the entry of all UN personnel until the policy changes fundamentally is a limited action, it sends an important message highlighting the absence of legitimacy. Given the stakes in this hot war being waged by the UN against Israel, the failure to take strong action could be very costly.

06/11 Links Pt1: For Sinwar, Gaza’s civilians are cannon fodder; 19,000 Rockets Since Oct 7; John Spencer: Urban Warfare, Civilian Casualty, & Human Shields

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Saving Sinwar

The most important part of the Wall Street Journal’s expose on Yahya Sinwar’s text messages isn’t a message written by the Hamas leader at all. It is, rather, the collapse of the West’s will to win.

The Journal aptly sums up the tranche of Sinwar’s messages: “In dozens of messages—reviewed by The Wall Street Journal—that Sinwar has transmitted to cease-fire negotiators, Hamas compatriots outside Gaza and others, he’s shown a cold disregard for human life and made clear he believes Israel has more to lose from the war than Hamas.”

The main takeaway from the article has been what should’ve been clear long ago: The ceasefire negotiators are getting played by a man whose every decision is calculated to cause as much bloodshed as possible. But the Western naivete isn’t merely unsuccessful as a negotiating strategy; it has relieved Sinwar’s isolation. That makes it one of the more consequential strategic blunders in modern history.

Sinwar has always been an ideologue and a maximalist, not a pragmatist. As the texts show, he has personally ordered the escalation of violence each time there appears to be a diplomatic breakthrough—whether between Israel and another country, such as Saudi Arabia, or between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or even between Israel and Sinwar himself. His entire military and political strategy revolves around literally blowing up peace talks.

That gives him an advantage: He knows Israel will be blamed for any lack of aid getting into Gaza, for example, so he orders attacks on aid crossings. If at any moment not enough Palestinians are dying, Sinwar will adjust accordingly and make sure to change that. Palestinian deaths are more important to the success of his strategy than Israeli deaths, although both are necessary to his hold on power.

For Sinwar, Gaza’s civilians are cannon fodder

Messages sent to mediators by Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar show that as far as he’s concerned, the more civilians die in Gaza the better.

He sees such deaths as working “to his advantage,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The Journal reviewed “dozens of messages” Sinwar sent to ceasefire negotiators and others in which “he’s shown a cold disregard for human life and made clear he believes Israel has more to lose from the war than Hamas.”

“We have the Israelis right where we want them,” said Sinwar in a message sent recently to Hamas officials looking to make an agreement via Qatari and Egyptian mediators.

In one message to Hamas leaders in Doha, the Hamas leader, citing civilian deaths in national-liberation conflicts in Algeria, said, “these are necessary sacrifices.”

In an April 11 letter, he told Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, who lost three sons to an Israeli airstrike during the war, that their deaths would “infuse life into the veins of this nation, prompting it to rise to its glory and honor.”

Sinwar’s strategy appears to be to outlast Israel, win a permanent cease-fire and “declare a historic victory,” the Journal reported.

If a ceasefire isn’t reached, Sinwar calculates that Israel still loses as it will have no choice but to rule the Gaza Strip, only to be bogged down in a Hamas-led insurgency.

He was thinking along these lines at least six years ago, telling a journalist in 2018, “For Netanyahu, a victory would be even worse than a defeat.”

During that time, Hamas had organized the “March of Return” protests along the Gaza border, forcing Israeli soldiers to fire on demonstrators who threatened to breach the security barrier.

“We make the headlines only with blood,” Sinwar said in the interview. “No blood, no news.”

WSJ: Gaza Chief Sinwar Is Confident that Hamas Can Outlast Israel

For months, Yahya Sinwar has resisted pressure to cut a ceasefire-and-hostages deal with Israel.

"We have the Israelis right where we want them," Sinwar said in a recent message to Hamas officials seeking to broker an agreement with Qatari and Egyptian officials.

In dozens of messages - reviewed by the Wall Street Journal - that Sinwar has transmitted to ceasefire negotiators and Hamas compatriots outside Gaza, he has made clear that he believes Israel has more to lose from the war than Hamas.

In one message to Hamas leaders in Doha, Sinwar cited civilian losses in the national-liberation conflict in Algeria, where hundreds of thousands of people died fighting for independence from France, saying, "these are necessary sacrifices."

His ultimate goal appears to be to win a permanent ceasefire that allows Hamas to declare a historic victory by outlasting Israel and claim leadership of the Palestinian national cause.

AJC poll shows Biden has lost 19% of Jewish voters who supported him in 2020; fewer Jews say being Jewish is important to them

The American Jewish Committee has released the results of a survey of American Jews.

They held similar surveys in previous election years, so it is worthwhile to compare some results.

In the 2020 poll 75% said they would likely support Biden against Trump. Now, that number has slipped to only 61%, a loss of 19% of his Jewish supporters from 2020.

Interestingly, Trump's support is nearly the same, going from 22% to 23%.

Equally interestingly, Biden's 61% is exactly the same as Hilary Clinton's 61% support vs. 19% for Trump in 2016.

The most alarming result is the continued loss of American Jews who care about Judaism. Here are the results from the polls in 2016, 2020 and 2024 to the question of how important being Jewish is to Jews:

The percentage of Jews who feel being Jewish is not important to them went up from 21% to 29%, and the number of Jews who feel being Jewish is very important to them has been steadily dropping.

This despite the findings that more Jews feel connected to their Jewish identity since October 7.

Also, while many Orthodox Jews congratulate themselves both on the ba'al teshuva movement and their higher birthrate than other Jews, the percentage of Jews who identify as Orthodox has actually slightly decreased, from 9% in 2016 and 2020 to 8% today. We see places like Lakewood booming in size, but that means that we are losing even Orthodox Jews elsewhere. Perhaps the Orthodox movements should also think about "inreach" and not only outreach.

As we've shown, Jews who don't care about their religion are unlikely to care about Israel. And almost certainly the vast majority of Jews who claim to oppose Israel, like "Jewish Voice for Peace," are Jews in name only, who use their vestigial Jewishness to attack Israel but for no other purpose.

The ignorant Jewish protesters want to join a cause that is bigger than them. The fact that their own heritage is not even on their radar is perhaps the biggest problem facing American Jews today.

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!

"Kill another Zionist now!" No pushback from the Left on open calls to murder Jews

Throughout the past eight months, we have seen anti-Israel protesters insist that they are not pro-Hamas, or do not support October 7, and that they simply want a ceasefire and an end to the war. Many mention that they are Jewish themselves and insist that they are against antisemitism.

But if they only want peace, why are they silent when the people on their side actively call for murdering Jews?

These aren't isolated individuals. In yesterday's action in New York outside an exhibit that memorializes October. 7 Nova Music Festival victims, the protesters literally said they support Hamas and had a banner saying "Long Live October 7."

When they say "Intifada Revolution," they are most certainly not interpreting "intifada" as a benign call for peace.

The rally in Washington on Saturday has similar messages of support for, and calling for more, murders of Jews.

This group chanted "Kill another Zionist now." It was a public incitement to murder most Jews, and it passed with no comment from the university protesters and others who insist that they are only anti-war and support the Palestinian people, not Hamas.

So where the hell are all those people who insisted that they only want peace and a ceasefire? Why are they not in the forefront of condemning these explicit calls for violence, murder and the literal genocide of Jews?

Why are Zionists and pro-Israel media the only ones posting these images and videos?

And the silence is not only from the supposedly majority of protesters. While the liberal J-Street does not support Hamas, I have not seen one statement from J-Street condemning these public displays of supporting terror from people who they agree with politically.

The rhetoric from the radicals is getting more and more violent, the calls to murder Jews and support Hamas' genocidal aims becoming more and more explicit. The reason they feel comfortable calling for the genocide of Jews is because their allies on the Left are silent, and the mainstream news media simply doesn't think that this incitement to murder is worth covering.

As long as the mainstream Left remain silent and condone the wannabe terrorists in their ranks, things will keep getting worse. The media will wait for them to actually murder Jews before they even pretend to notice that this is happening. And the "moderate" university protesters are proving either that they are hypocrites or that they secretly support the murder of 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!

Lebanon's Naharnet asks, "Is all-out Israel-Hezbollah war inevitable?Is all-out Israel-Hezbollah war inevitable?"

It interviews supposed experts who generally agree that Israe land Hezbollah do not want a full war. But what they don't say is that the current low-level conflict keeps escalating - whenever one sidee goes even slightly beyond a previous line, the other side responds in kind.

Hezbollah is introducing new weapons, and new tactics. Israel has been getting more aggressive in response, especially after last week's wildfires.

More Hezbollah members have been killed in this fighting than in the entire 2006 Second Lebanon War.

Everyone knows that no one wants a war, but the escalations do not have an "off" button, with the possible exception of a ceasefire in Gaza. Last week alone Hezbollah attacked Israel 52 times - more than seven attacks a day. Things are only getting worse.

But there is a better way way to avoid war, and the key players are the people of Lebanon.

As I've argued previously, if the Lebanese people would stage a large (or just very loud) public protest against war with Israel - you know, a real peace protest - that would get publicity in the mainstream media, Hezbollah would have a ladder to climb down from their tree.

The terror group claims to represent the Lebanese people. It is all a lie, but they base their legitimacy on that lie. If ordinary Lebanese people would protest Hezbollah, specifically, and call for a ceasefire with Israel, it would be difficult for Hezbollah to dismiss it as Zionist propaganda.

The Lebanese people are the biggest losers in any escalation. They should rise up and ensure that the escalation never happens.

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!

06/10 Links Pt2: UNSC approves US ceasefire res; The ICC’s Brazen Anti-Israel Bias; The racism of never blaming Hamas for anything; The BBC is an Orwellian, Kafkaesque nightmare

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The racism of never blaming Hamas for anything

We really are living in an era of moral inversion. Every day there is a sinister twisting of the truth to suit the ideological prejudices of those who loathe Israel. Hamas hides the hostages it seized from the Nova music festival in a densely populated civilian area, and yet it’s Israel that is accused of being ‘perfidious’. Hamas purposely puts its Jewish victims among the women and children of a crowded refugee camp, and yet it’s Israel that is accused of wearing a ‘humanitarian camouflage’. Hamas was founded with the express intention of murdering Jews, an intention it gave brute force to on 7 October with its slaughter of a thousand Israelis, and yet it’s Israel that is damned as ‘genocidal’. The racist hostage-takers are reimagined as victims, the liberators of the hostages as criminals. It is one Kafkaesque lie after another.

Where is Hamas in all the political rage over what happened in Nuseirat? It has been invisibilised, scrubbed from the narrative so that the blame might be heaped on Israel alone. Hamas merits not one mention in Francesca Albanese’s angry doggerel. Does she not know that Hamas started the Battle of Nuseirat, by firing its lethal weaponry at the IDF from amid the civilian hordes? Or perhaps she doesn’t care? You have to go beyond the headlines about Israel ‘killing 274 Palestinians’ to discover that the IDF came ‘under heavy fire’ and ‘fought intense gun battles’ with Hamas militants. To describe an army’s response to the bullets and missiles of terrorists as ‘genocidal’ is an unconscionable manipulation of language for cynical political ends.

The truth is this: Hamas is responsible for every death in Nuseirat. It will be literally responsible for some of them, unless we are expected to believe that you can fire grenades and mortar rounds in an area teeming with civilians without one of the deadly loads going anywhere near an innocent. And it is morally responsible for all of it, for all the suffering we saw on Saturday amid the joy of the four Israelis being liberated from the confinement of the anti-Semites. For the simple reason that it is the author of this hellish war, the instigator of it. Hamas and Hamas alone brought war to Nuseirat.

What the Battle of Nuseirat really exposes is not Israel’s ‘genocidal intent’ but Hamas’s evil. That Hamas placed the four hostages in a crowded civilian area confirms its callous disregard for Palestinians as well as Israelis. That it started a bloody battle with the IDF even as women were shopping and children were playing confirms its terroristic indifference to the injury and loss of innocent life. That it prioritised trying to hurt the IDF and keep a hold of the hostages over and above keeping the civilians of Nuseirat safe from harm confirms how zealous, how unhinged, its anti-Israel, anti-Jewish doctrine has become. This is a movement that prizes killing a Jew more highly than saving a Palestinian. Its cruelty is unparalleled in the modern era.

And yet, all of this is whitewashed. Hamas’s ‘intent’ is rarely mentioned, its ruthlessness rarely commented on, its moral responsibility never even broached. Instead the anti-Israel set infantilises Hamas and holds up Israel as the only true, conscious actor in this conflict. There is bigotry here, even something like racism. There’s the racism of blaming the Jews for everything but also the racism of blaming Palestinians for nothing, as if they are children, not truly answerable for their wrongs.

But Hamas are not children. They are anti-Semitic warmongers. They started this war that has been a calamity for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and they refuse to end it by returning all the hostages. It will be a good day for the Jewish State, the Palestinian people and the world when this barbarous movement is brought to an end.

Sharansky Sees the Return of Marxism

Natan Sharansky interviewed by Ariel Whitman (Globes)

Natan Sharansky is a symbol of Jewish national pride. Sharansky, born in Donetsk, Ukraine, was the spokesman for the human rights movement, a prisoner of Zion, and a leader of the struggle for the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel. He served nine years in the Gulag.

Asked about Oct. 7, he said, "We were deeply invested in incorrect concepts. For me, it all started back with Oslo. I said then that the idea of our bringing a dictator [Arafat] to the Palestinians who would make peace with us - because we would make him a dictator by giving him a lot of money - did not make sense. It's just the reverse: the dictator would need us as enemies, and therefore would not make peace with us."

"The Jews feel they are part of the liberal world, and the liberal world thinks the progressives are their partners. For years, I wrote...that one day, the liberals would realize they were not partners."

"The whole post-modern ideology that divides the world into oppressed and oppressor is neo-Marxism in its most primitive form. In the studies of critical race theories - which have become the Koran of the progressives - if you replace race with class, you get the ideology of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union."

"There, too, the whole war is between one good side and one bad side, between the proletariat and the capitalists. The capitalists are always wrong and should not be given freedom of speech - aside from those who are considered politically correct. And the capitalist world should be destroyed completely, and a just world will be built on this. It is very sad that Marxism has come back after such a huge failure."

Col Kemp: Spain is now Europe’s most despicable nation

Spain’s hard-Left pile-on against Israel is a foretaste of dangerous things to come under a Labour government in Britain. Madrid is the latest capital to join South Africa’s obscene accusation of genocide at the International Court of Justice. This twisted charge comes straight out of the Soviet playbook which denounced the Jewish state for the same alleged crime in the 1970s. It is intended to taunt and vilify a country that was built to a large extent by survivors of an actual genocide, and is today fighting against a terrorist army whose very charter calls for the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of Israel.

Indeed, Hamas demands ‘the full and complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea’, meaning the replacement of the State of Israel by an Islamic state. These words, often heard from the mouth of Yahya Sinwar, the terrorist leader who planned and led Hamas’s slaughter on October 7, were precisely echoed the other day by Spain’s deputy prime minister Yolanda Díaz when she herself said ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’.

It is a sign of the depths to which Pedro Sanchez’s government has descended that one of his ministers should be repeating such slogans.

Here in Britain we can expect similar levels of depravity if Labour wins the election in July. The party manifesto is set to include recognising a Palestinian state, in the wake of Spain’s decision to do so along with other European governments. This has been hailed as vindication of its ‘resistance’. But what has Palestinian ‘resistance’ entailed so far? The murder, torture, rape and abduction of Israelis. Just yesterday, Israeli hostages were freed in a reminder of Hamas’ brutality and vindication of Israel’s continued operations in Gaza.

Labour recognition of a Palestinian state will achieve nothing whatsoever beyond mollifying anti-Israel voters and rewarding terrorism. It certainly won’t bring any progress towards the two-state solution Starmer says he wants, something that can only be brought about by agreement between Israel and Hamas.

But it will have immense costs. Contrary to any hope Starmer might have that appeasing Hamas in this way might lead to peace, it will in fact further embolden them to fight on, extending the bloodshed and reducing the prospects for any ceasefire negotiations, including the release of hostages. After all, why should Hamas make any concessions while the international community is piling the pressure on Israel to stop fighting?

06/10 Links Pt1: Israel Triumphs as Hamastan Comes to D.C.; Heroism and the Biden Brainless Trust; The world doesn't get to choose how Israel rescues its hostages

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Hostage Rescue and the Truth About This War

After the hostage rescue, plenty of Palestinian partisans lodged specious complaints about the death toll caused when Hamas tried to execute the hostages and their rescuers on their way out of Nuseirat. But so did a few figures who represent institutions on which mainstream media confer a special legitimacy. One was Ben Saul—the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism and a professor of international law in Australia.

Professor Saul had this to say: “Israel’s rescue of four hostages in Gaza: (1) may have been illegally launched in anticipation that civilian casualties would be excessive, and (2) reportedly involved the additional war crime of perfidy — disguising some forces as protected civilians.”

Ah yes, the war crime of perfidy. If the Israelis aren’t stopped soon, we may see an escalation to chicanery. There’s no telling what skullduggery awaits the people of Gaza.

This is one of my favorite rules of international conflict. The full rule is defined thus: “Rule 65. Killing, injuring or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy is prohibited.” In case that isn’t clear enough for you, the International Criminal Court explains that the crime, specifically, involves “killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.”

The idea seems to be that Israel committed treacherously perfidious wounding in its mission. And there’s a compelling case against them: Instead of shooting their way in to the apartments holding hostages, they lied about being locals.

Of course, the silliness of “you can’t trick the enemy in war” aside, the Israelis were not on a kill mission but a rescue mission. And, yes, they fired back when Hamas terrorists tried to kill the civilians they were rescuing.

Lesson: The global class of “UN international law experts” is a figment.

John Podhoretz: Heroism and the Biden Brainless Trust

It was a clarifying weekend both in the Middle East and in Washington. Clarifying in the first place because Israel got some of its mojo back in the staggering rescue of the four hostages in broad daylight from separate buildings in the Nuseirat refugee camp—which is technically under UN control, let us not forget. And one of those buildings was an UN refugee school. In other words, the UN was being used as a hostage prison. So we had four Israelis being used as slaves and household workers in territory controlled by the the world’s “peacekeepers.”

Those of us who have long advocated literally blowing up the UN buildings in Turtle Bay in Manhattan—one of the first covers of the long-defunct magazine Insight, which I edited beginning in 1985, depicted the UN tower being dismantled, so that’s how long ago this idea has been percolating—now have renewed reason to press our case. The UN pays no taxes. Tear it down and there’s a huge development site in the most desirable spot in the city that could return billions in lost revenue. Meanwhile, the UN could be relocated to someplace that could use its commerce and doesn’t mind how it sheds blood and treasure in the name of Israel-hatred, like Lagos or South Sudan, and where there are no boutiques for the wives of monstrous dictators to buy stuff marked up especially for them. Rid my city of this organization that employs out-and-out neo-Nazis like UN “special rapporteur” Francesca Albanese, a person (I hesitate even to call her a person) whose views on Israel might cause Josef Goebbels to say, “Well, now you go a little far.” Not to mention one of the world’s greatest villains at the moment, UN General Secretary Guterres, a man who demonstrates the way in which a lifelong commitment to socialism now practically requires all-but-open Jew-hatred to maintain its purity as an ideological calling.

So that was Clarifying Moment #1. Clarifying Moment #2 was Israel getting itself off its back foot after a series of weeks (months) in which its people were losing heart, patience, trust, and the ability to see that the goal of destroying Hamas could ever be achieved. Part of the expression of this loss of drive was the default return to Israel’s own lousy politics, which saw its apotheosis in the decision of the dummkopf of the Israeli middle, Benny Gantz, fulfilling his pledge to exit the war cabinet and government (obviously at the behest of the Americans who began the drumbeat for Bibi Netanyahu’s ouster, like Chuck Schumer, who now cannot appear before a Jewish audience without being rightly and deservedly booed for his declaration of “Am Yisrael Naw Dog” on the Senate floor a few weeks ago).

Gantz is, to be charitable, not the sharpest stick in the drawer—indeed, Ted Baxter of the Mary Tyler Moore Show would beat him on The Price Is Right— but quitting ON THE DAY OF THE HOSTAGE RELEASE rather than waiting another 36 hours or something so that the country could at least have a few minutes to celebrate shows off the parlous political skills that will likely see him failing yet again whenever elections do actually take place.

Forget Gantz’s narischkeit, and the dumbfounding New York Times headline that read “Israel’s Euphoria Over Hostage Release May Be Fleeting”—a clear case of the wish being father to the thought, since the New York Times doesn’t want Israel to experience any euphoria, ever, unless perhaps it were to support “gender-affirming surgery” for two month-olds. Israel has had a moment here to see that it hasn’t lost the spirit of Entebbe, and it came just when it needed to come, and they will have their euphoria even if the NYT’s Joe Kahn would rather they sit shiva for his corrupted and contaminated news desk.

When Hostages Come Home

It’s hard to describe what it is like to be Israeli after October 7.

Around the world we are condemned for a war we did not start and did not seek. Even the rescue mission is spun in the press as Israeli overreaction, and one BBC commentator asked an IDF spokesperson whether the Israeli military should have warned the neighborhood in advance of. . . a sting operation.

Meantime, at home, we are uncertain. Uncertain about how this ever could have happened—and about the leaders who allowed it to. Especially our prime minister, who has refused to take responsibility for the massive failure that occurred that terrible day. It was stark, then, on Saturday, when Netanyahu showed up to be embraced by the success of the rescue mission but has not reached out to any of the families of the dozens of hostages who were killed in captivity.

By the end of the weekend, Benny Gantz and his party withdrew from the wartime coalition government and called for early elections. “Netanyahu prevents us from getting a real victory,” he said. “This is why we are leaving the government with a heavy heart but a full heart.”

All of this is happening as the unofficial war at Israel’s northern border heats up with constant rocket barrages fired by Hezbollah. Every young mother in my apartment building—I am one of them—has a husband who will most likely get called up to serve, again, against an enemy far mightier than the one we’ve faced in Gaza. When will that happen? We don’t know. We cannot sleep from the worry.

But if there is one thing we are certain of, it is this: we live in a country of heroes. We live in a country in which strangers feel like family. A country in which other men and women will sacrifice their lives to liberate us, to bring us home.

In this case, it took 246 days.

Noa Argmani’s mother has terminal brain cancer. Her dying wish was to see her daughter, who arrived at her hospital bedside that very afternoon. Almog Meir Jan’s father died hours before Almog was liberated, apparently of a broken heart. Arnon Zamora was buried on Sunday in Jerusalem, and thousands lined the streets. At the funeral, Aviram Meir, the uncle of rescued hostage Almog Meir Jan, addressed the Zamora family: “The blood of your children is mixed with ours. This is an unbreakable bond.”

One hundred and twenty hostages remain captive in Gaza.

This shouldn't be surprising, but unfortunately it is.

Al Sumaria, an Iraqi satellite TV channel, has an article on Iraqi falafel, which is somewhat different from most of the others we've seen.

The well-known Iraqi writer, Ahmed Saadawi, reviewed the main factors for the emergence of the Iraqi falafel sandwich, which came after a long journey in which multiple cultures, countries, and religions participated.

Al-Saadawi said in a blog post seen by Al-Sumaria News that the Iraqi Jews are credited with being the first to introduce “umba” sauce in the 1940s, which is a mixture of fenugreek seeds with some spices, noting that “the Iraqi umba Today it is different from Hindi, as it is an Iraqi invention.”

He explained that "the umba was a complete meal placed on its own in the samoon [which is a type of Georgian or Armenian bread that was transported by immigrants from these countries to Iraq], until Palestinians displaced from the 1948 war came, and some of them opened a falafel restaurant on Al --Rashid Street, and it was somewhere between the Jewish umba, the Palestinian falafel, and the Georgian samoon bread, the Iraqi falafel was born.”

I assume they mean amba, which is a fermented mango-based sauce with vinegar, salt, turmeric, chilies and fenugreek. Wikipedia says, "According to the legend, amba was developed in the 19th century by members of the Sassoon family of Bombay, India, who were Baghdadi Jews."

(Apologies if you know all this, I am not such a foodie.)

It is highly unusual for any Arab source to attribute anything culinary to Jews; usually the narrative is that the Jews stole all cuisine from the Arabs.

Samoon is not a pocket bread like falafel, but it can be sliced open and the falafel and vegetables placed inside. The Palestinians in Iraq got the idea of idea of eating falafel inside bread from the Jews in British Mandate Palestine who innovated falafel in pita.

I will have to try some amba, from Israel, naturally.

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 "perfidious Jew" is an old Christian antisemitic trope, and today's media still believes it

I have written about they hypocrisy of those who are accusing Israel accusing Israel of "perfidy" in the dramatic rescue operation on Saturday and how they almost never use that same accusation against Hamas or other previous examples of hostage rescue that involved the rescuers using ruses to disguise themselves as civilians or humanitarian workers or journalists.

For centuries, Catholics on Good Friday prayed at Mass on Good Friday:

Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews [perfidis Judaeis]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even Jewish perfidy [Judaicam perfidiam]: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Modern defenders of the prayer, which was changed by the Catholic Church in 1955, say that "perfidis Judaeis" does not mean "perfidious Jews" but "faithless" or "incredulous Jews." But the English and French translations of the term I can find from before 1955 invariably use the word "perfidious." And some Catholics want to bring the phrase back in the prayers.

In fact, the phrase "perfidious Jew" was part of the lexicon. I see dozens of examples in my search through older books and newspapers. This antisemitic account from a French periodical described Jews in Romania at the turn of the 20th century:

The Jews in the villages are the prime cause of the poverty, drunkenness, debauchery and demoralization of the Roumanian peasants. The Jew, who is always sober, thrifty, alert and shrewd, makes the peasant drink liquor, teaches him how to spend money, and when in a state of mirth and intoxication, the perfidious Jew induces the peasant to sell him the products of a whole year for a merc pittance. While the Jew is continually growing rich in the rural communes the peasants are being reduced to extreme dearth and penury. In order to save our country and for the sake of common decency the Jew must leave the peasant alone.

An 1881 California newspaper thought it witty to use this headline:

Far right antisemite Nick Fuentes has directly called for the genocide of "perfidious Jews" in America.

I don't think that the accusations of IDF perfidy today are necessarily directly related to the previous use of that specific term. But the term "perfidious Jew" has been one of the tropes of Jews throughout the history of Christianity. Jews are regarded ab initio as being treacherous and untrustworthy, and this myth has permeated the Western world for centuries.

It is hard to ignore how the news media continues to emphasize how IDF claims are inherently unreliable even when they can point to practically no examples where the Israeli authorities tried to mislead them.

This CNN storyCNN story is a perfect example:

Did CNN ever write a headline or even article copy saying "Hamas authorities claim 274 civilians died during the raid without providing evidence"? Why would the IDF climb a ladder to enter a room in the middle of a camp if they didn't already know the hostages were there and the names of the people imprisoning them? And why does CNN ignore Arab NGO reports that appear to confirm appear to confirm the "allegation"?

The "perfidious Jew" trope is part and parcel of Western culture, and consciously or not, the media today still embrace it.

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 Washington Post has a detailed description of the hostage rescue, and it includes some details that refute the anti-Israel narratives that Hamas and its supporters has managed to spread instantly in the moments after the event.

The rescue of Noa Argamani apparently went very cleanly, with no shots fired:

Israeli troops succeeded in reaching Argamani’s apartment without tipping off her guards, according to Hagari, who was watching video feeds from drones circling above and soldiers’ helmet cameras. Almost simultaneously, other units entered the building holding the three male hostages, about 220 yards away.

“In Noa Argamani’s building, we surprised them completely,” Hagari said.

The stunned young woman was bustled down the stairs into a vehicle and driven to a helicopter waiting nearby.

Soldiers relayed the good news with a coded phrase: “We have the diamond in our hand.”

The chopper lifted off, heading for a hospital near Tel Aviv. At 12:20 p.m., Argamani’s family was told she was free.

This is the ideal that everyone hopes for.

The apparently high death toll came from the other rescue, where Hamas terrorists used heavy weapons to fight back

The guards with the three male hostages had not been taken by surprise. A Yamam commander was shot as they entered the building. A firefight erupted, exposing the covert mission.

“Immediately, it became a war zone,” said Amir Avivi, a reservist brigadier general and former deputy commander of the IDF’s Gaza division who was briefed on the operation.

The soldiers were able to get the three hostages and the injured man into a vehicle, but it broke down under Hamas fire from rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, officials said. At one point, Avivi said, they were forced to abandon the vehicle and seek refuge in a building nearby.

The commanders called for air support.

Hamas used RPGs in a crowded refugee camp and marketplace. It is highly likely that Hamas, whose leaders gain politically from every dead civilian, did not distinguish between the soldiers and anyone else in the area. Yet not one news story even floats the idea that some civilians were killed in a firefight by Hamas weapons and not by the IDF. Yet Hamas members have routinely used weapons dressed as civilians - they film themselves doing it every day - and the soldiers have no way of distinguishing them.

To be sure, many civilians were killed by the air support bombings needed to extract the soldiers and hostages. Soldiers are not obligated under international law to allow themselves and the people they have rescued to be sitting ducks and let themselves die - they can use whatever means is necessary to get out alive, within the boundaries of proportionality. The proportionality calculation takes into account both the value of the soldiers lives and the military importance of rescuing the hostages successfully.

No nation would be considered guilty of violating the wars of law for doing the exact same thing. Yet only Israel is held to this standard.

The Post also links to a six second video taken by a nearby resident as the muffled gunfire began, showing the ladders used by the IDF to get to the third floor apartment owned by a "journalist" and his family who were holding the three hostages.

The person taking the video says, "Here they have arrived," almost as if she was expecting this.

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!