Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, June 30, 2024

A first-hand account of anti-Israel media bias (Real Jerusalem Streets)

Guest essay by Real Jerusalem Streets:

After October 7, the mainstream media picked up anti-Israel stories and flew with them, the truth left languishing in the dirt.

The story of the twelve spies sent by Moses to view the Promised Land shows that ten men's opinion against two is nothing new. Ten professional photographers work on an event, ten different albums will be produced. Each observer has a subjective way of viewing the same scene. Two journalists may attend the same event and publish very different stories.

I began walking the Jerusalem March/Flag Parade. Every time what I saw did not match what media outlets were publishing.

How many saw that this year Reuters Fact Check put out a correction two weeks after they published stories of Jews chanting death to Arabs? Two little too late; the damage was done. I saw no corrections in other media.

Though proven to be not true, the false claims coming from Gaza are consistently revived by anti-Israel pundits. The exaggerated death count in the Gaza hospital story is one glaring example. Readers of Elder of Ziyon are well aware of bias in reporting from sources coming from the UN agencies relying on Hamas.

One recent piece from the BBC, "Why 800 people fled a sun-kissed Mediterranean Village," related the woeful tale of Alma al-Shaab, in southern Lebanon just over a kilometer from the Israeli border. "Since October last year, it has been caught in cross-border fighting between Israeli forces and "Hezbollah, the Shia Muslim organization which is politically influential and in control of the most powerful armed force in Lebanon."

BBC didn’t bother to state that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which, since October 7 has bombarded northern Israel with rockets, missiles, and deadly drones, forcing close to 100,000 Israelis to find refuge for safety. Those thousands, homeless for nine months, are not worth a mention by the BBC.

At least BBC's Ali Abbas Ahmadi admits, "Hezbollah and its allies fired waves of rockets from Lebanon into a disputed area along the border in an apparent show of support for the armed group." Northern Israel is not a “disputed area." The BBC ignores UN Resolution 1701, which requires “the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon,” which Ahmadi and Hezbollah both ignore.

BBC news anchor Helena Humphrey asked former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus why the army didn't warn Palestinians before the rescue of the four hostages in Gaza. After years of dealing with hostile media, Conricus kept his composure before responding. His even temper and his eyes opening wider did not get the same attention as Eylon Levy's eyebrows when asked a similarly outrageous question.

Over the years I have witnessed bias against Israel from journalists, not only online but also on organized international media tours.

November 2016, with Arafat staring down from a larger-than-life photo on the wall, we sat in the Silwad community center to hear the emotional retelling of an old Arab woman's story.

She remembered her young days on her father's land. Not one of the international journalists asked to see a deed or any proof of her tale. It was accepted. It fits the narrative. The group leader had tried to convince me not to get on the bus leaving from Jerusalem. He warned me to keep a low profile after I insisted on coming using my US passport and identification.

After safely leaving, I researched the deed. It appeared to be a flimsy piece of paper the size of an index card from a manual typewriter issued in Jordan in 1964 by some office for tax purposes. Israeli families were forced to move in part because of her testimony. Their homes and community were destroyed.

Contrast this with the October 17, 2023, media presentation in Jerusalem where journalists insisted on seeing photographs of the death and destruction described by the ZAKA volunteers fresh from the horrors of southern Israel.

In October, the world did not want to believe the horror stories of burnt bodies. No matter the evidence, there is still denial from Israel haters.

On another occasion, from a scenic lookout on an international media tour, there was a carefully detailed presentation of illegal Arab construction with diagrams, charts, and Google map images by the NGO Regavim. Moving away to the next destination, three men were walking.

I overheard the one in the middle say to his friends, "That was a good presentation.

"But we are journalists. We know it's all lies."

There lies the problem.

On October 12, 2023, the tone of the British journalists' repeated questions caused President Herzog to lose his temper in responding. The number of nationalities involved in the 250 people kidnapped in southern Israel and held hostage was not of interest. His call for their immediate release was ignored.

Image - October 11, 2023, shown to the international journalists at Bei Hanasi

On Day 257, Rachel Goldberg Polin and Jon Polin were interviewed on CNN. She said in the US people still do not know after all these months that 8 US dual citizens are still held captive and 24 nationalities were involved.

Journalists have a right and obligation to question. However, they also must present factual information, not their opinions as facts.

Agence France-Presse (AFP) wants a dynamic journalist for its Jerusalem bureau to cover news in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The deadline for applications was June 23. Journalists with a perfect command of Hebrew and French, a strong grasp of social networks, and a deep understanding of Middle Eastern news, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, were invited to apply.

It will be interesting to see who fills the position.

Actress Sharon Stone was quoted: "We see terrible things about Israel on TV, but when you come here you realize that what they broadcast is not true, this is a wonderful country!"

After making aliyah and living in Jerusalem, Israel, the scenes I saw daily were not what I saw in the media, prompting the creation of The Real Jerusalem Streets. After posting close to 14,000 photos, it is still hard to believe how different the real streets are from the fake narratives and how easily the fake news is shared.

Thank you, Elder of Ziyon, for posting multiple Real J Street blogs over the years, to share what's really happening and what the mainstream media ignores.

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!

Is it legal to openly incite against Jews in New York City?

A week ago, the Samidoun Network posted on their Twitter/X account this photo and caption:

From Yemen to Palestine to Lebanon to NYC, the symbols of the Resistance are those of honour and dignity, of the defense of humanity against genocide, imperialism, Zionism and their horrific crimes. Towards the international popular cradle of the Resistance - towards victory!

Visible in the photo are the flags of The Hamas Al Qassam Brigades, Hezbollah, the Lion's Den West Bank terror group, as well as a picture of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and the motto of the Houthis in Yemen: "Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"

Is this legal, especially publicly displaying the Houthi call of death to Israel, America and a curse on Jews?

I have found that Claude AI seems to be pretty good at interpreting law. Here's it's response on whether there are any New York City laws that this may violate:

The legality of displaying the Houthi flag in New York City is a complex issue:

First Amendment protection: Generally, the First Amendment provides broad protection for expressive conduct, even if offensive.
New York City laws: NYC has strong anti-discrimination laws, including protections against antisemitism. However, these typically apply to actions rather than speech or symbols alone.
Hate crime laws: New York State has hate crime laws, but these usually require an underlying criminal act beyond just displaying a symbol.
Specific context matters: How and where the flag is displayed could affect its legality. For example, displaying it as a direct threat to Jewish individuals or institutions might be treated differently than displaying it as part of a political protest.
Potential for civil action: Even if not criminally prosecuted, displaying such a flag could potentially lead to civil lawsuits, especially if it creates a hostile environment in certain settings.
Enforcement discretion: Law enforcement might investigate displays of this flag, even if no charges are ultimately filed.
Recent tensions: Given increased focus on antisemitism and Middle East conflicts, authorities might scrutinize such displays more closely.

While there's no blanket ban on displaying this flag in NYC, it could potentially run afoul of various laws depending on the specific circumstances. The city's diverse population and strong stance against discrimination could also mean significant social and community consequences for displaying such a symbol.

As far as I can tell, the photo appears to have been taken on Sixth Avenue, possibly outside Fox News, but not targeting an synagogue which would make this much easier to call a crime. As it is, it appears that free speech even allows this display, although the police can usually find other excuses for stopping a demonstration like this.

As the response said, context matters, and perhaps the important context that we learn from these sorts of photos is that the "anti-Zionism" and anti-American sentiments are intertwined and impossible to separate from antisemitism, despite the protesters' insistence that they are not anti-Jewish. The lack of pushback from the "progressive" crowd against openly cursing Jews in the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.

The idea of filing a civil suit against Samidoun or any organization that sponsored the rally is more interesting. It is difficult to argue that this sign and the others do not create a hostile environment against the Jews who walk through Manhattan every day. Perhaps some organizations can mount a series of lawsuits to bankrupt Samidoun, Within Our Lifetime and the other extremist organizations that call for the destruction of Israel and America and to intimidate Jews.

Samidoun is closely linked to the PFLP terror group and is itself considered a terror group by Israel and has been banned in Germany. There have been calls to ban it in the EU altogether. Yet it still maintains non-profit status in Canada. Its director in Canada, Charlotte Lynne Kates, has praised October 7 and is married to a senior PFLP activist.

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!

Incitement: Turkish newspaper claims 4000 Jews with Turkish citizenship are participating in "genocide" in Gaza

In October, a member of Turkey's parliament wrote on social media that she had submitted a question asking "How many of our citizens have gone to Israel from our country since the beginning of the conflict and the declaration of mobilization? How many of those who went have dual citizenship? Will they be stripped of their Turkish citizenship according to Article 29, Clause C of the Turkish Citizenship Law? Or have they received permission from the authorities? 5- Do you plan to impose legal sanctions on citizens who served in the army of another country during the war?'"

A couple of weeks ago another parliamentarian asked similar questions, to much more publicity.

Last week, in a front page story, the newspaper "Turkiye" screamed that they had the answers.

The headline says, "They went to kill innocents in Gaza, 4 thousand murderers are Turkish!"

It has been determined that 4 thousand of the Zionist soldiers who have killed nearly 38 thousand innocent people in Gaza since October 7 carry Turkish passports. It was learned that 400 of them went from Turkey. 250 thousand people with Turkish passports live in Israel. In Turkey, there are around 20 thousand Jews, both Turkish and Israeli citizens. They are doing military service for Israel.

It was revealed that 4 thousand zionists from 'Turkey' not only did their military service, but also went to Gaza and supported Israel's massacre. According to the information obtained, these people crossed into Israel not from Turkey, but through third countries and using different identities to avoid being exposed. Friends Association, CHABAD and the Union of Turkish People in Israel took an active role in this process. At least 65 Turkish citizens have been killed in Gaza since October 7; 110 were injured.

The numbers are ridiculous. There was never a massive aliyah from Turkey to Israel, certainly not recently enough to have 4,000 Turkish citizens of fighting age in Israel. Nowhere near 250,000 Israelis have Turkish passports; the number is probably closer to one percent of that figure. In Turkey itself there are only about 14,000 Jews in total.

And Chabad is recruiting Jews to fight in the IDF?

It isn't the first antisemitic article about Chabad in the "Turkiye" newspaper; in December they accused Chabad of buying up land in Northern Cyprus for an "illegal synagogue" that they imply would be really meant to spy on a UAV base several kilometers away and intended to turn Northern Cyprus into another Jewish state.

This is pure antisemitism, and incitement against the remaining Jews in Turkey.

These articles also violate virtually all of Turkiye's editorial principles.

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!

06/29 Links: John Spencer: ‘Israel is measured by double and triple standards,’ does more than anyone to prevent civilian harm; Noa Argamani: 'Because of Arnon, we are here'

From Ian:

‘Israel is measured by double and triple standards,’ does more than anyone to prevent civilian harm, US warfare expert says

“Israel is being measured by double and triple standards” in its fighting in Gaza, a standard “that does not exist anywhere in the world,” said John Spencer, head of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, at a recent “War Room” briefing in collaboration with the Jerusalem Institute for Public and State Affairs (JCPA).

Spencer, the world-renowned urban warfare who served for 25 years as an infantry soldier and did two tours in Iraq, has publicly and repeatedly defended and praised the Israel Defense Forces' performance during the Gaza War in recent months.

“The IDF uses tactics that no army has ever seen to prevent harm to civilians and still fulfill its mission,” Spencer told the JCPA after visiting the soldiers of the IDF’s 98th Division in the field.

He also stridently rejected international accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon, bombing indiscriminately or committing genocide.

“It’s all a lie,” Spencer declared, noting that if the standards currently applied to Israel were applied to Western countries in the future, it would make anti-terror warfare almost impossible.

Such standards include requiring the massive evacuation of a population before entering an area, not using heavy “bunker-buster” bombs to reach enemies hidden away underground, and the demand to prevent any and all civilian casualties.

“It’s impossible and unimaginable,” Spencer stressed.

“When ISIS ruled Iraq, it held the territory for about two years and built up its defenses. In the battles against the terrorist organization, the number of dead ranged from 10,000 to 40,000 people, and the numbers were reported only after a year,” Spencer said, criticizing the use of unreliable Hamas casualty numbers to determine the proportionality of Israel’s actions.

“No one posed a question to the United States then, how many civilians were killed? And no one asked ISIS that question. It’s simply impossible.”

“This imaginary standard of zero civilian casualties in a war where Israel is required to meet a new standard is very problematic,” Spencer emphasized.

He has made this point repeatedly over the past months. In an article in Newsweek in March, Spencer brought up the IDF’s operation at Al-Shifa Hospital as an example of the lengths the army goes to prevent civilian harm in Gaza.

“Israeli media reported that doctors accompanied the forces to help Palestinian patients if needed. They were also reported to be carrying food, water and medical supplies for the civilians inside,” Spencer wrote.

“None of this meant anything to Israel's critics, of course, who immediately pounced. The critics, as usual, didn't call out Hamas for using protected facilities like hospitals for its military activity.”

From the Battle of Badr to Military Defeat: Changes in Hamas Perceptions of the Gaza War

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023 was quickly characterized by Hamas as fulfillment of a prophecy about the destruction of Israel. Hamas cast the invasion as a Palestinian version of the Battle of Badr, a battle in which a small force of Muslim believers under the command of the Prophet Muhammad succeeded in defeating a large force of Quraysh and Makkah who had opposed his prophecy. The battles of October 7 were labeled a divine victory by believers over the enemies of Allah, and many verses in this spirit were broadcast. However, more recent articles published on the Hamas website suggest that its view has undergone a transformation. Hamas has apparently shifted from extolling its “divine victory” on October 7 to admitting that it has been defeated in battle again and again. The great suffering Hamas has inflicted on the Gaza Strip has put it in the position where it must now explain to the Palestinian public why it started the war in the first place, why it did not expect a massive military response from Israel to its atrocities and attempt at genocide, and why the suffering of the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip is not in vain.

To faithful Muslims, the Battle of Badr marks the victory of a small group of believers of the Prophet Muhammad over a far superior force. The battle was held in Ramadan in 624 AD between Muhammad’s group of warriors, numbering about 300 men, and an expeditionary force of Meccan men numbering about a thousand. The battle was held near the Badr Springs; hence the name.

In a preliminary battle, Hamza, Ali, and Ubaydah Ibn Harth fought three of Quraysh’s warriors. They lost, and Ubaydah suffered mortal wounds and died a martyr. At the Battle of Badr, the Muslim force was organized, determined, and acting under unified leadership. The Meccan force was larger, but fought in a decentralized manner and without a central command. Surat al-Anfal (The Spoils) in the Qur’an describes the battle. After the victory, Muhammad revealed that angels had participated alongside the Muslim army. In a famous hadith by al-Bukhari, it is claimed that the angel Gabriel himself fought on his horse against the people of Quraysh and killed many of them.

On October 7 and throughout the waiting period until the beginning of the ground operation in which the IDF forces entered Gaza, many comparisons were made between the success of Hamas on October 7 and the famous Battle of Badr. A small military force of about 3,500 men was able to overcome deployed IDF formations along the border and breach a formidable barrier consisting of an elaborate fence, multiple firearms and tanks. The photos of the bulldozer destroying the fence and of destroyed IDF tanks became images of the victory Hamas had purportedly achieved by divine inspiration.

The website of the Al-Palestinian Center for Information gives us a glimpse into changes that seem to have taken place in the view of Hamas operatives. Where they once gushed words of praise for the rare victory over Israel, they are now admitting their military failure in the confrontation with Israel.

Consider, for example, the following article published by Dr. Muhsen Saleh, a senior researcher at the Zitouna Center in Lebanon. The article, entitled Tofan Al-Aqsa – Coping with the day after the operation, was an early response to the Hamas invasion:

The Al-Aqsa Flood operation carried out by the Al-Qassam Brigades on October 7, 2023 was a qualitative historical blow to the Zionist entity. It had not had such a [defeat] since [Israel’s] establishment 75 years ago. The operation combined the elements of military surprise, an incredible security and strategic move. [The resistance] invaded a significant area of Palestine that was occupied in 1948, causing the largest number of dead, wounded and prisoners (that is, kidnapped) compared to all the battles the Palestinians have fought since the [1948] war, in which the entity [Israel] was established. This is the highest even in relation to most of the Arab-Israeli wars.

The Israeli occupation [at the time] looked confused and shocked and felt humiliated when it saw with its own eyes the shattering of [its] security theory and the collapse of the walls of physical and psychological deterrence. [The occupation] also saw with its own eyes how the men of al-Qassam broke into 20 settlement sites (towns and kibbutzim) and 11 military sites in a matter of hours. The occupation realized that it had failed to subdue the Palestinian people and crush their resistance.

To Saleh and other writers on the site, the operation began and ended on October 7 with a decisive Palestinian victory for the Hamas organization. It was a divine victory, as described by Dr. Khaled Qaddoumi (Hamas’s representative in Iran) in an article entitled: “Hamas is making history” that he published the day after the war broke out:

… we must prepare ourselves for this campaign (against Israel) with all the means at our disposal, including sanctification and strengthening the truth and justice for the Palestinian people. We must support comprehensively and in all areas the battle for liberation until the true promise is fulfilled.

The Obama and Biden Administrations: Paving the Way for a Nuclear-Armed Iran

America's "diplomatic efforts," instead of putting a stop to Iran's nuclear program, have only resulted in a series of concessions that have empowered the Iranian regime. The lack of stringent enforcement and verification measures, and especially lifting secondary sanctions -- by which any country that does business with Iran is prohibited from doing business with America -- have allowed Iran to accelerate its nuclear activities "under the radar."

Iran's continued development of ballistic missile technology and its persistent test firings of missiles, both in clear violation of UN resolutions, were largely overlooked. In addition, the growing bellicosity of Iran's huge militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as the nuclear program itself, were apparently never addressed with the seriousness they warranted -- thereby allowing Iran to expand its military capabilities and regional aggression unchecked.

The Iranian regime strategically allocated these funds to support and expand its own proxy presence throughout the region, including, among other spots, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso and the Gaza Strip.

The Trump administration implemented a "maximum pressure" policy aimed at curtailing Iran's economic capabilities by particularly focusing on reducing the country's oil exports, and, most importantly, establishing "secondary sanctions" that banned any country doing business with Iran from doing business with the US.

The Biden administration's passive approach of trying to use what might look like "protection money" to try to bribe Iran into compliance has simply backfired. Iran took the billions and, unsurprisingly, appears to have fungibly used them to finance several wars in the region -- Hamas and Hezbollah's war against Israel, the Houthis' war against Israel and the US, and Iran's own April 13 missile- and drone-attack against Israel -- as well as Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The Biden administration, sadly, seems to have been the enabling factor in Iran's continued regional assertiveness and nuclear advancement. The administration's series of policies favorable to Iran significantly strengthened the regime to the point where Iran and its proxies are now actively engaged in a comprehensive war against Israel, the Sunni Arab Gulf States and, since October, more than 150 attacks on US troops in the region.

06/28 Links Pt2: The global lust for Jewish blood; Don’t trust me, I’m a Gazan doctor; The Quincy Institute’s Middle East Fantasies; David Draiman: 'I needed see my people again'

From Ian:

Phyllis Chesler: The global lust for Jewish blood

Such a silence has deep roots in the politically correct academic world.

You are either a victim or a victimizer; you are oppressed or you are an oppressor; you are colonized or you are a colonizer. Israel has been designated as the world’s chief oppressor and colonizer.

Some victims are more sacred than others. Men of color are more important than white men; Muslim men of color are even more important, unless they’ve been killed by other Muslims. Then, their deaths do not matter. The murders of women of all colors matters even less.

In addition, there is the belief in multicultural relativism—that all cultures are equal; that there is no objective truth. Everything is relative, subjective; everyone is entitled to their own narrative.

Here’s one reason my views are so different:

Most Western pro-Palestinian feminists, leftists and academics have never lived in a Muslim country or moved in Muslim circles or worked with Muslim dissidents as I do.

I wrote about this in An American Bride in Kabul.

They have absolutely no knowledge of Islamic gender and religious apartheid; Islamic imperialism, Islamic colonialism, or Islamic conversion via the sword; no understanding that Muslims practiced anti-black slavery and sex slavery—and many still do.

Demonizing Israelis as “worse than the Nazis” allows Europeans to continue the Holocaust against the Jews and feel that they are rendering themselves safe from radical Islamic hostility by appeasing the Islamist Muslims who live in their midst. It is also a way of scapegoating Jews and Israel for the crimes of European and Muslim racism and colonialism.

Like so many, I had assumed that the world’s hatred and persecution of Jews had ended; that Jewish history would never again repeat itself.

I was wrong.

It was foolish to have thought that Jew-hatred would suddenly become extinct or that Israel would not remain under siege.

We must shed our illusions—permanently. We cannot expect that conditions will always improve, or that one country or another will always be a safe haven for Jews.

One cannot win a war of ideas if one refuses to fight it.

I will take a step back, take a breath or two and return to my frontline post.

Don’t trust me, I’m a Gazan doctor

Deference to doctors is perhaps the more charitable explanation for the false report by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s international editor, in November 2023. He claimed that Gaza’s Al-Ahli hospital had been ‘flattened’ by a deadly Israeli airstrike. But, as soon became clear, the hospital was very much still standing, no one had been killed and the explosion in its parking area was the result of a misfired Hamas missile. When the same hospital was later captured by the Israel Defence Forces, soldiers found scores of Kalashnikov assault rifles and RPG rocket launchers inside. Bowen then bizarrely suggested that such weapons are a normal sight in Middle Eastern hospitals.

The unwillingness to scrutinise claims from healthcare workers in Gaza is deeply troubling. Under Hamas, Gaza is very much a one-party state, with a record of punishing perceived dissidence with severity. Its hospital directors are often military officers and many hospital staff are also members of Hamas’ military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. That Gazan medics were involved in the mass kidnapping operation that accompanied the atrocities of 7 October has been confirmed by the recent revelation that some of the hostages recently rescued by the IDF were held at the house of prominent Gazan GP Ahmad Al-Jamal.

That doesn’t mean that every statement issued by Gaza’s health ministry, hospital administrators or doctors should be assumed to be propaganda. It just means that their statements should be treated like those given out or approved by the Assad regime in Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Kim government in Pyongyang – that is, with scepticism.

The ongoing inability of Western and especially British journalists to imagine that a doctor – a middle-class person like themselves, but with even more years in higher education – might also be a fanatic, a supporter of killers, or even a killer himself requires almost wilful ignorance. And not just of Second World War monsters like Nazi Germany’s Dr Mengele or serial killers like Harold Shipman. Recent history features doctor-dictators, such as Haiti’s ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad – a UK-educated ophthalmologist. Then there are the doctor-terrorists, like Ikuo Hayashi, who carried out the deadly Sarin Attack on Tokyo Subway; and, of course, Hamas co-founder and suicide-bombing innovator Abdel al-Rantisi.

Doctors have been almost as prominent in the jihadist world as engineers. Osama bin Laden’s successor as head of al-Qaeda was Ayman al-Zawahiri, a surgeon. The head of the viciously anti-Semitic Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is the NHS’s own Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. Scores of physicians based in the UK, Pakistan and the US joined ISIS when the so-called caliphate was enslaving Yazidi girls and burning alive Jordanian pilots.

None of this should be shocking. Many who train to be doctors do so because they desire status and wealth, not because they are intrinsically benign, or devoted to the diminution of human suffering. They are as likely as any other profession to be drawn to political extremism, and perhaps more likely to have a stomach for the results of violence. The British media’s propensity to treat doctors as if they are priestly figures, presumptively above the fray of ordinary politics and prejudice is not just naïve and ignorant, it’s also dangerous to the truth.

The Quincy Institute’s Middle East Fantasies

The positions adopted by the think tank’s scholars during the war in Gaza are illustrative of its overall Middle East agenda: appease Iran and demonise Israel. From this, it follows that Palestinians are oppressed by Israel, which is systematically denying them their legitimate national rights. Quincy scholars argue that the US must therefore press Israel to withdraw from Gaza and end its occupation of the West Bank.

This is at variance with the Quincy Institute’s stated position on Russia and Ukraine, which it dresses up as hardcore realpolitik. Quincy scholars hesitate to criticise Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine, and they treat the whole notion of Ukrainian nationalism with deep scepticism. So, while the onus is on Ukraine to reach a deal with the more powerful Russia in the interests of regional stability, powerful Israel is expected to make whatever concessions are required for peace, and the US is expected to coerce it into doing so.

Quincy scholars claim to be bullet-biting realists who believe that the US should stay out of the Middle East because its interests there are limited. But they are transformed into mawkish idealists—not to mention interventionists—when it comes to Israel, insisting that Washington take a clear stand against its wayward ally. Some of them have even begun to wonder whether the world’s only Jewish state should be allowed to exist at all, so they promote a post-Zionist one-state outcome instead. As similar experiments in bi-nationalist arrangements in Yugoslavia and elsewhere have demonstrated, this is a recipe for even greater instability and bloodshed.

Quincy’s scholars have repeatedly opposed Western intervention in Syria’s civil war or Western condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party’s treatment of China’s Muslim minorities, but they urge diplomatic détente with Iran, which is one of the world’s leading human-rights violators. And now they blame Israel for the outbreak and escalation of violence across the Middle East that an Iranian proxy started. And they demand that America condition its support for Israel on the latter’s willingness, as one Quincy scholar put it, “to actually engage in diplomacy with their neighbors to a degree they haven’t.”

It’s remarkable that any realist—or really any serious analyst of Middle Eastern affairs—would make such a statement at this late date. Decades of diplomatic efforts by the US and Israel produced durable peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and more recently, the Abraham Accords. They also produced the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s, but subsequent negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs have been exercises in futility that have been met with rejectionism and violence. And yet the Quincy realists demand that the US punish Israelis by cutting off military aid and joining the condemnation of Israel in international fora.

This makes no sense. The Quincy coterie insists that the United States do nothing to encourage the ouster of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, that it must not punish Iran for exporting terrorism across the Middle East, and that it should not lead an international campaign against China’s mistreatment of its Uyghur minority. These and other countries may be doing terrible things, they say, but it is not America’s business to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states or take action over matters that don’t threaten its core interests.

Except, that is, when it comes to Israel. Only the antipathy felt by the Institute’s scholars toward that tiny American ally explains their moralistic attempts to draw the United States into an intractable conflict, despite the high costs involved.

06/28 Links Pt1: Glick: Debate takeaways for Israel; Phillips: Reality check; Biden’s ‘reformed PA’ marketing strategy; China Is Waging a Proxy War on Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Debate takeaways for Israel

This brings us to the second question. What difference will this make for Israel?

And how would a different Democratic president treat Israel?

In the case of Newsom or Shapiro, in all likelihood, their Israel policy would be a continuation of Biden’s. To the extent that Biden has become more hostile over time, they would continue on that trajectory. This is the case because Biden’s policies aren’t his personal preferences. His pro-Iran, pro-Palestinian policies are those of the Democratic Party’s foreign-policy establishment.

That establishment takes its cues from former President Barack Obama and current U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Every one of Biden’s Middle East advisors served in the Obama administration. Blinken, who owes his position to his longstanding service to Biden—first when Biden was in the Senate and then as vice president—shares Obama’s sympathies for Iran and the Palestinians, in addition to his hostility towards Israel.

If Newsom or Shapiro—or any other Democrat—is selected to serve as party nominee by the party bosses who control the convention, then he will owe his position to the party bosses that put him there, not to voters. They have no independent source of power to draw from if they oppose the policies that Obama’s party establishment expects them to adopt. And so, they can be expected to continue down the road of progressively more anti-Israel policies that Biden is on now.

Since she served as first lady, Michelle Obama showed herself to be even more hostile towards Israel than her husband. After Oct. 7, she ignored pleas from the Israeli government, from Israeli victims, from hostages’ families and from Jewish Democrats to condemn the mass rape of Israeli women by Hamas and the atrocities that the terror group and ordinary Palestinians committed. Former President Obama, for his part, issued a statement after Oct. 7 that focused more on warning Israel not to retaliate in a manner that would harm Palestinians than on supporting Israel in its war for national survival.

The Obamas’ deep-seated hostility towards the Jewish state is exposed not only by their statements but by the company they keep. A week after Hamas’s invasion, The Washington Free Beacon reported that Misha Euceph, a producer of the Obama family’s various podcast series, denied on her social-media accounts that Hamas raped Israeli women and girls. Among other things, she wrote, “The more I’ve been thinking about it, the more I’m realizing—and I think a lot of other people are, too—that these reports and statements about rape and murder of babies are completely unverified, and they actually feed into Islamophobic tropes that we’re not talking about at all.”

The upshot for Israel is that if Biden is replaced, his replacement will become the favorite to win in November. And if that happens, Israel can assume that it will either see a continuation of Biden’s policies or face a Michelle Obama administration whose policies and rhetoric will likely be more unapologetically and openly hostile than anything Israel has experienced to date.

Melanie Phillips: Reality check

The war against Israel, which is being waged simultaneously on seven fronts, is being orchestrated by Iran. A constant source of astonishment has been the concern shown by the Biden administration — while professing support for Israel against Hamas — to protect Iran. When Israel wanted to nip Hezbollah’s attacks in the bud soon after October 7, the US told it not to do so. Even now, the US is telling Israel the same thing. It has done everything possible to hamper and prevent Israel’s attempt to destroy Hamas, Iran’s proxy in Gaza. Even after Iran itself unleashed a hail of missiles against Israel in April, the US forbade the Israelis to attack Iran in response.

This is all part of what many call the Obama Doctrine, being implemented by an administration whose key Middle East officials are Israel-hating Obama retreads — and whose scenario for a new Middle East order, astoundingly, features genocidal and Islamist Iran as an essential counter-force to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

As explained here by Michael Doran and Tony Badran, this was the strategy behind President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal which would have legitimised a nuclear-armed Iran with only a few years’ delay. Even when American interests have been attacked by Iranian proxies, as has happened dozens of times since October 7, the US has responded with only a limp flick of the wrist. Indeed, America’s supine and even grovelling posture towards the fanatics of Tehran, who have understood that the Biden administration seeks to appease rather than defeat the various forces ranged against the west, undoubtedly helped pave the way for the October 7 pogrom.

Now new intelligence has suggested that Iran has ramped up still further its nuclear weapon development in order to take advantage of American pre-election paralysis. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has reportedly ordered the reactivation of Israeli teams focusing on Iran's nuclear programme. There are reports that this was prompted by concerns from former security officials about Israel’s recent neglect of the issue. That itself is pretty alarming — if true — in what it suggests about the Israeli government. But here’s the eye catching bit as reported by the Israeli news site Walla:
A source familiar with the matter said: “Recently, the penny finally dropped.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared: “All options are on the table — Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Can it really be that, at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, the Biden administration has finally connected with reality? If so, things must be even more terrifying than anyone had thought.

Last night’s debate will impact the Middle East as well as the US

In the Middle East, the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) told Iran that the West was there to be had, with the easing of sanctions allowing the Tehran regime to boost both its terror funding and its nuclear programme.

Which brings us to last night, and the impact not just on the presidential race but on the here and now. The debate will have been watched in Moscow, in Tehran, in Pyongyang and elsewhere and one message will have been heard loud and clear: the US is led by a bumbling fool. Imagine how Hamas and Hezbollah will have reacted. With Iran in control, it was always pretty fanciful to think that US pressure could have much impact on the terror organisations directly. But after last night, the idea that Nasrallah is quaking lest the US be angered by Hezbollah’s increasing attacks on Israel is not so much a sick joke and plain idiotic.

As it is, tensions between Israel and the US have been worryingly open in recent weeks – at the very time when it is most vital that the US is seen as staunch in its support for its key regional ally. Add to that the (now surely impossible to refute) view that the US is as weak and – literally – pathetic as its leader, and the omens for the next few weeks and months are as bad as they have ever been.

Viewed in this context, the immediate issue that arises from last night’s debate is not whether Biden should be president for another term. And it’s not – appalling though the prospect may be – whether it should be Trump. It’s whether Biden should even be president for the remainder of this term.

Israel haters don't want to debate, but to censor. Even academics.

The journal American Psychologist recently published an article titled "The American Psychological Association and antisemitism: Toward equity, diversity, and inclusion." Here is the abstract:

This article calls for the American Psychological Association (APA) to proactively include the elimination of antisemitism or prejudice against Jewish people in its current mission to disassemble all forms of racism from its organization as well as society. In this article, Jews (estimated as 2.4% of the population) are defined as a people with a common identity, ethnicity, and religion as they experience prejudice; their intersection in Jewish identity; the history and characteristics of antisemitism and its current manifestation in public life, academic institutions, and psychology. Despite Jews having made major contributions to the development of psychology as a profession, historically through the first half of the 20th century, Jews were systematically discriminated against within the discipline of psychology through quotas for acceptance into graduate training, discriminatory employment practices in university psychology departments, and most egregiously through the espousing of “scientific racism” including eugenics by prominent leaders in the APA. We describe how historically leaders in the APA engaged in overt and covert antisemitism while the APA continues to do little or nothing to combat it. We then offer suggestions for the mitigation and elimination of this form of bias, discrimination, and hate as it once again escalates in society. We recommend that the APA engages in research about antisemitism, its predictors, consequences, and power; evaluates the efficacy of intervention programs; encourages contact with various multicultural minoritized groups; and disseminates knowledge to educate about the psychological effects of antisemitism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

How can anyone object to that?

Roy J. Eidelson, a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, wrote a lengthy response to the article. He is concerned that the authors are Zionists and position Zionism to be the mainstream opinion of most Jews, and accept the IHRA definition of antisemitism, among other criticisms of the article.

If he wants to write a response to the same journal, perhaps as a letter, that would be fine. But this is the title of his piece: "A Call for Retraction: The Recent American Psychologist Article on Antisemitism."

His response makes it clear that he is at least as biased as the authors.

There is also a deeper issue that I cannot ignore. Throughout the article, the authors avoid providing readers with crucial context for understanding much of the criticism of Israel and the ideology of Zionism: namely, the country’s decades-long oppression of the Palestinian people. And while they warn of “the increased threat of annihilation of the state of Israel” (p. 4), the words “Nakba,” “occupation,” and “apartheid” never appear.

Must every article on antisemitism defend Israel from scurrilous charges that have nothing to do with the topic? Apparently, when Israel is even mentioned peripherally, Zionists must defend themselves. Not only that, but they must accept the false, anti-Zionist framework as their starting point.

This is not a call for debating the contents of the article. It is a call to silence Zionist academics and psychology professionals and to force them to deny their own reality.

Retracting an article in an academic journal is a nuclear option. It is used when the paper is fraudulent, relying on falsified data or plagiarized. I do not have access to the original article so I cannot judge the quality of Eidelson's critique, but nothing that he writes justifies the demand for retraction.

Which means it isn't a debate but instead a call to silence those who disagree with him.

The response is written as if it is a reasonable response, but what it demands is not reasonable at all.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Mehdi Hasan is upset.

He tweeted, "Trump just throwing around 'Palestinian' as a pejorative. Brazen anti-Palestinian racism has been normalized in America."

Here's what Trump said: "As far as Israel and Hamas, Israel is the one that wants to go. He said the only one who wants to keep going is Hamas. Actually, Israel is the one, and you should them go and let them finish the job. He doesn’t want to do it. He has become like a Palestinian. But, they don’t like him because he is a very bad Palestinian. He is a weak one."

Trump is saying that Biden is taking the Palestinian side in the conflict. This is presumably what Hasan wants as well.

Assuming that Trump used the word in a negative way, he's right. And this is part of the story about Palestinians that no one wants to say.

70-80% of Palestinians support specific terror attacks against Jewish civilians, after the fact, during the last 20 years of polling. These include some of the most horrific attacks like the slaughter of rabbis in Har Nof in 2014, with axes and cleavers.

80% of Palestinians surveyed, in a poll done by Palestinians, said they supported the attack.

In 2008, a terrorist entered the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and started mowing down students. 8 were killed, including 4 children. When Palestinians were asked if they supported that attack, 84% said they did.

In 2003, when asked about the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing in Haifa that murdered 21 including a two month old baby, 75% of Palestinians said they supported it.

And more recent polls show that over 75% of Palestinians supported the October 7 pogrom.

75% isn't 100%, but no one can deny that as a society, Palestinians support murdering innocent Jewish civilians, no matter where they live. Many of them openly cheer those murders.

What kind of people cheer terror attacks? Of course they should be vilified and insulted for their attitudes. Using the word "Palestinian" as a pejorative is quite reasonable without there being any significant Palestinian pushback against the cult of death that their society promotes.

And there isn't any pushback, certainly not in Arabic. I've been following Palestinian media for years and I cannot recall a single article or op-ed that took other Palestinians to task for cheering murders of Jews. Not once.

Any decent person would be more outraged at the Palestinians who have purposefully built a society that supports murdering Jews than using the word "Palestinian" as a pejorative. And Mehdi Hasan is not a decent person.

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!

In the presidential debate last night, Donald Trump said that US sanctions re-introduced under his presidency would have crippled Iran's ability to fund Hamas and other terror groups, and October 7 would likely not have happened under his presidency:

Israel would have never been invaded in a million years by Hamas. You know why? Because Iran was broke with me. I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke. They had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything. No money for terror.

Is this true?

It is a complex topic, but under the Biden administration the sanctions against Iran exporting oil have been loosened and strengthened depending on other considerations (like keeping oil prices low, or incentive for Iran to re-join the JCPOA nuclear agreement.)

As of this year, Iran has exported more oil than at any time since before Trump exited the JCPOA. An analysis from FDD in April states,

Since President Joe Biden assumed office, total Iranian oil exports have exceeded $100 billion, which is greater than the annual budget of Greece or Ireland. Had Tehran’s average daily export volume remained the same as it was while Donald Trump’s maximum pressure policy was in effect from May 2019 to January 2021, the regime would have had $40 billion less to spend on ballistic missiles and proxy groups.

It might not be a fair comparison, since nearly all of Iranian oil exports go to China in ways that make existing US sanctions largely useless. Nevertheless, US officials admit that they have been loosening up oil sanctions on Iran, and more could be done to make it more difficult for Iran to export oil.

The Biden administration also made $6 billion in previously frozen assets available to Iran as part of a deal last year to release American hostages. Claiming it can only be used for humanitarian purposes doesn't mean much if it allows Iran to redirect money that would have gone to hospitals to now go to missiles.

But this is only part of the story of Iranian access to cash that was limited before the JCPOA.

The New York Times reports that Iran has greatly increased its uranium enrichment, "dramatically bolstering the speed at which it can produce nuclear fuel in recent weeks inside a facility buried so deep that it is all but impervious to bunker-busting bombs." at the same time Iranian officials have dropped the facade of saying that Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, explicitly discussing building nuclear bombs.

Iran has been openly flouting the JCPOA nuclear agreement since at least 2019 when it announced that it would exceed the enrichment limits they were obligated to under the deal. Yet even so, the EU has never re-introduced the nuclear-related sanctions lifted in 2016 for the deal.

These included "financial, banking and insurance measures; trade in the oil, gas and petrochemical sectors; [and] activity in the shipping, shipbuilding and transport sectors. "

In other words, sanctions that should have been re-introduced under the "EU snapback" mechanism of JCPOA have remain lifted, even thought Iran has been certified to be breaking the deal for more years than it supposedly kept to the deal's terms.

The EU External Action page on the JCPOA, updated in December 2022, still describes its efforts to not only keep to the terms of the abrogated agreement but also to act against the US sanctions regime re-introduced when it withdrew from the agreement in 2018:

WHAT HAS THE EU DONE TO PRESERVE THE JCPOA?
Preserving the JCPOA is crucial not only in terms of nuclear non-proliferation but also for the security of the region and beyond.

Following the US decision to withdraw from the agreement in May 2018 and to re-impose previously lifted sanctions, the EU remained determined to continue pursuing legitimate trade with Iran. The EU updated its Blocking Statute, extended the EIB external lending mandate to make Iran eligible and provided comprehensive support to France, Germany and the UK (as core shareholders) to set up and fully operationalize INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), a special purpose vehicle to facilitate legitimate trade between Europe and Iran. Six more European countries joined INSTEX as shareholders. EU welcomed the decision of six European countries to join Instex as shareholders and encourages further broadening of INSTEX shareholders’ basis. A first transaction was successfully concluded on March 2020.

The EU has continuously expressed deep regret at the US decision to withdraw from the agreement and re-imposition of sanctions. At the same time, the EU is also committed to maintaining cooperation with the United States, which remains a key partner and ally.

Since July 2019 Iran has taken different steps to reduce its nuclear commitments. The EU and its Member States have consistently urged Iran to reverse these steps and to refrain from further measures that undermine the nuclear deal.

INSTEX failed - but not because of Iranian violations of JCPOA. Rather, Iran itself refused to cooperate with the EU initiative to go around the US sanctions. Nevertheless, the attempt shows how the EU has been enabling Iran's nuclear weapons program by sticking with a deal that Iran has itself abandoned years ago. And the EU is stating that its policy is to keep trying diplomacy, and nothing else, even after they know Iran is violating JCPOA.

The EU has introduced other, much weaker sanctions on Iran for its human rights abuses, its support of Russia in the Ukraine war and its attack on Israel in April. But the widespread sanctions in place before the 2016 nuclear deal remain lifted, even at a time when Iran is saying that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Biden administration could have pressured the EU to adhere to its own signed agreement to introduce snapbacks in case of Iran's violations of JCPOA. Yet this could arguably have happened during the Trump administration as well. I cannot find any evidence of either administration pressuring the EU to invoke the snapbacks.

EU trade with Iran was about €5.2 billion in 2022 and it appears to have increased somewhat since then. Iran's total budget is about $600 billion annually, of which perhaps $100 billion is from oil revenue. However, Iran has a large budget deficit so every billion dollars is important.

There is no way to know how much Iran gives to Hamas and Hezbollah, but it is reasonable to say that it prioritizes its own needs before the terror groups, so every bit of economic pressure on Iran is critical to reduce terror worldwide. Both the US and EU could do much more to limit Iranian access to funds to pay for terror groups.

And it isn't only Hamas. The looming war between Israel and Hezbollah is directly tied to Iranian funding of that terror group. It is ironic that the EU justifies its continuing trade with Iran as being "crucial for the security of the region and beyond" when its effect is to promote a probable war.

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!

American Jews are starting to defend themselves in response to attacks (The Tactical Rabbi)

Raziel Cohen, known as “The Tactical Rabbi,” is an ordained rabbi and firearms instructor with a popular YouTube channel.

He wrote a brief guest post.

-------------

This past week in Los Angeles, California, a pro-Palestinian protest took place in front of a synagogue in the area where I grew up. The protest quickly escalated to violence, with protesters pepper-spraying, beating, and even brandishing a firearm at Jewish individuals.

In response to this event, a poll was conducted among the Jewish community to gauge their new self-defense measures. The top two responses were increased political action against antisemitism and acquiring firearms and non-lethal self-defense options, along with appropriate training.

Aside from the poll, I spoke to multiple people who had never considered carrying a firearm. One in particular explained their decision by saying, "The police made it clear that they weren't there to stop the assaults. They were there to contain and respond to weapons. But the boy who was beaten to the ground would not be helped."

It might seem surprising, but the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to protect individuals. This leaves the responsibility of protection to ourselves. To clarify, while the Supreme Court's ruling states this, many officers do go above and beyond to keep our communities safe. However, during protests or riots, their resources are often stretched thin. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in many cases, we are left to protect ourselves.

I am proud to see people taking action by purchasing firearms, but this is only the first step. Training is essential to ensure you become an asset rather than a liability.

"Never again" is now, but you must do everything in your power to ensure you are a valuable resource to yourself, your family, and those around you.

-----------------------

I made my own informal poll this week on this same topic, asking North American Jews what they were doing to defend themselves. People could choose multiple responses.

The first question was "Considering the worsening situation, and, in particular, the mob violence directed against LA Jews and Adas Torah Synagogue, what new self-defence actions are you now taking?"

As with the poll TacRav mentioned, most people said increased political action and personal self-defense.

For those who said self-defense, the breakdown on my poll was

Pistols/rifles/shotguns	22
Non-lethal gear (pepper spray/tasers/etc.)	46
Hand-to-Hand defence (Krav Maga, karate, etc.)	23
Other	7

The breakdown for higher levels of observance was:

Self-identity via Stars of David, kippah, apparel	30
More Jewish Ed classes (Chabad, JCC, etc.)	13
Increased attendance at local Synagogues	25
Self-education via books, internet classes, university lectures	42
Other	11

There is a lot of concern in the Jewish community, and the government has not made Jews feel any safer since October 7 - on the contrary. Many more Jews feel we must take our defense in our own hands.

(h/t MtTB)

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!