In February, Fiji refuted anti-Israel arguments at the ICJ (full text)

This Friday, the International Court of Justice is expected to rule on "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem."

It is widely expected that the ICJ will rule that the settlements are illegal and give the UN ammunition to sanction Israel.

This is the culmination of the PLO's strategy to become a state for the purposes of international law. The entire reason the PLO has pretended to accede to international agreements is to give the pretense of statehood, when in fact the entire purpose of statehood for the PLO is not to build a state but to destroy one, and calling itself a state has allowed it to bring cases to the ICC and ICJ.  The ICJ is another international institution that the PLO has been hijacking.

The question before the court itself was biased in its very wording, almost forcing the decision to be against Israel. 

During oral arguments on this case in February, Fiji's UN Ambassador Ambassador Filipo Tarakinikini gave an argument on why the ICJ should not issue this ruling and how it ignores the context of the issues. That argument received very little attention, but it is a comprehensive response explaining why the case was biased and should never have been formulated the way it was.

Here is nearly all of his 25 minute speech.

____________________________________

Fiji affirms the important role of this Court as the highest judicial organ of the United Nations in resolving disputes between States and assisting United Nations organs in their activities.

In so doing, the Court must promote the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. According to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, one of the main purposes of the United Nations is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. Fiji strongly believes that the only way to achieve truly sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinian people - indeed between any neighbours - is through mutual respect.

As reflected in our Written Statement, Fiji considers it essential to maintain and uphold the legal framework agreed between the parties and sanctioned by the Security Council to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian dispute. That framework is founded on the understanding that Jews and Arabs must coexist in a small piece of territory. This requires direct negotiations between the parties for an agreed outcome.

Mr President, Members of the Court, the General Assembly has requested the Court to answer certain questions that focus on the legal consequences of the policies and practices of only one party to this dispute.

In Fiji’s view, this Court has unfortunately been presented in these proceedings with a distinctly one-sided narrative. This fails to take account of the complexity of this dispute and misrepresents the legal, historical and political context.

In its Written Statement, Fiji has provided several reasons why the Court should exercise its judicial discretion not to render an advisory opinion on the questions that have been posed by the General Assembly:

(i) first, the request is a legal manoeuvre to circumvent the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding framework for resolution of the Israel-Palestine dispute;

(ii) second, to give an opinion in this case “would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a State is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial settlement without its consent”; and

(iii) third, due to the one-sided formulation of the questions posed in resolution 77/247, the Court does not have before it the accurate and reliable information that it would need to render an opinion on the questions posed.

Mr President, Members of the Court, in this oral presentation I will address the first and third of these issues.

THE PEACE PROCESS AND LEGALLY BINDING FRAMEWORK

I turn to the existing framework.

In these proceedings, the Court has been asked to render an advisory opinion that may well mean, in effect, the “immediate”, “unconditional” and “total” end to the occupation - that is, withdrawal of all Israeli military and civilians from the entirety of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. This withdrawal must not only be complete, but it must also be unconditional - in other words, Israel may not impose or require any limitations or conditions. This unconditionality is supposedly necessary in order that the Palestinian people have a sovereign State on such territory, which they assert is the only way to achieve justice and therefore peace.

Fiji respectfully submits that this demand of a complete and unconditional withdrawal circumvents the peace process and the agreements that have been made in pursuit of that process.

Mr President, the fact is that, from 1993, Israel and Palestine entered into the series of agreements known collectively as the “Oslo Accords”. The parties expressed the intention to “put an end to decades of confrontation and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity and security, while recognizing their mutual legitimate and political rights”. To that end, they agreed on a wide range of interim measures, pending the achievement of a final agreement through permanent status negotiations.

Some of those interim measures include:

(a) The Palestinian Authority was established.

(b) Powers and responsibilities were transferred from the Israeli military government and its civil administration to the Palestinian Authority, while Israel continued to exercise powers and responsibilities not so transferred.

(c) Direct, free and general political elections were to be held by the Palestinians.

(d) The West Bank was divided into three areas: A, B and C. The Palestinians would obtain exclusive control over Area A; Area B would be under joint Israeli/Palestinian control; and Area C would be under exclusive Israeli control.

(e) Lastly, the parties would enter negotiations on the permanent status to resolve the remaining issues, which included “settlements”, “borders”, “Jerusalem” and “security”.

In addition, the Oslo Accords contain a specific dispute resolution mechanism, and do not permit either party unilaterally to commence or ask others to commence external legal proceedings.

Since 1993, an extensive set of arrangements has been put in place to operationalize the agreements.

In 2003, the General Assembly7 endorsed the Oslo Accords and the Security Council8 has “[e]ndorse[d] the Quartet Performance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”. This Court itself confirmed the importance of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap in the Wall Advisory Opinion in 20049.

According to the Roadmap,“a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement”.

The thrust of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap is mutual performance and good faith negotiation, leading to a consensual outcome. 22. The Oslo Accords are legally binding. Remarkably, the Palestinians do not refer to these agreements in their Written Statement, while less than 12 months ago both Israel and Palestine reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment to all previous agreements between them” and “to address all outstanding issues through direct dialogue”.

Mr President, it is our submission that the request to this Court to opine on questions that address the legal obligations of only one party to this dispute conflicts with the clear rights and obligations of both parties in the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap, and which exclude recourse to this Court.

 For this reason, Fiji respectfully submits that the Court should exercise its discretion not to render an opinion on those questions.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL EVIDENCE

Mr President, Members of this honourable Court, I now turn to the issue of legal and factual evidence.

As stated, in Fiji’s view, the Court should decline to answer the questions posed. But were it to do so, it would need to gather and independently assess the probative value of evidence on issues raised within the established legal framework of the dispute.

This Court would have to decide, as it has previously explained, “whether [it] has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion upon any disputed questions of fact the determination of which is necessary for it to give an opinion in conditions compatible with its judicial character”.

In Fiji’s view the Court cannot simply defer to the reports of United Nations bodies. In order to fulfil its judicial function, the Court must reach its own independent findings of fact.

Further, Fiji submits that, that due to the selective and one-sided formulations of the questions, the Court does not have before it all the evidence it would need to exercise its judicial function.

Mr President and esteemed Members of the Court, the point here is that the Court is being asked to focus solely on the policies and practices of one of the parties to this dispute, to the exclusion of the policies and practices of the other. This is highly problematic. If the Court would limit itself to consideration of the questions asked, it would be unable to consider the relevant broader context, and it will also not have before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion upon questions of fact that are in dispute, all of which would be necessary to give an opinion compatible with its judicial character.

We will illustrate this by looking briefly at three of the issues raised by the questions that have been posed to the Court, and these are: withdrawal and security, territorial sovereignty, and the right to self-determination.

Withdrawal and security

First, withdrawal and security. Palestine argues that the occupation is illegal and the legal consequence is that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories. As highlighted earlier, any assessment of the questions posed would require the Court to consider the legal rights and obligations of both parties under the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo Accords were built upon Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which were adopted following the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars. They recognize the legitimate security needs of Israel to prevent further attack.

Resolutions 242 and 338, and thus the Oslo Accords, do not oblige Israel to withdraw from all the territories.

Further, resolutions 242 and 338 refer to peace being established by the application of two mutually dependent principles:

“(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

By incorporating these resolutions into the Oslo Accords, the parties recognize that Israel’s withdrawal and the creation of conditions providing security to Israel are interdependent. As Judge Higgins stated in the Wall Opinion, both “Israel and Palestine [need] to move in parallel to secure the necessary conditions . . . for Israel to withdraw from Arab occupied territory and for Palestine to provide the conditions to allow Israel to feel secure in so doing”.

In other words, if the Court is to consider the legal consequences of the alleged Israeli refusal to withdraw from territory, it should also look at what Palestine must do to ensure Israel’s security.

Mr President and Members of this honourable Court, the events of 7 October 2023 have shown us what could happen if there were a complete and unconditional withdrawal without the necessary arrangements in place to guarantee the security of Israel and its population. At the very least, the Court would need to examine and evaluate evidence concerning the question whether the 1949 Armistice Lines are “secure boundaries” within the meaning of resolutions 242 and 338. This in turn would require examination of the threats facing Israel emanating from the occupied territories and the broader region.

Territorial sovereignty

Second, territorial sovereignty. Mr President and Members of the Court, the General Assembly’s request speaks of Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”. This asks the Court to presuppose that all the territories held during the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation within the 1949 Armistice Lines are “Palestinian” - that is, that they are sovereign territories of Palestine and thus not of Israel.

A precise definition of the scope of territorial claims is important because “[t]erritorial sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the international political and legal order . . . It ‘serves to divide between nations the space upon which human activities are employed, in order to assure them at all points the minimum of protection of which international law is the guardian.’”

In the context of the questions put to this Court, territorial sovereignty is critical because without clarifying the respective claims of Israel and the Palestinians concerning the sovereign status of the territory, it would be impossible to answer the questions of territorial scope of the Palestinian self-determination claim or the occupation.

Fiji notes that the question of territorial scope- both of the State of Israel and of the self-determination claim of the Palestinian people - is in dispute between the parties.

And yet the way the questions are drafted excludes the possibility of the Court considering Israel’s claims to the sovereignty over the territory and asks the Court to assume without further investigation that these territories are somehow “Palestinian”.

Furthermore, the Court would need to assess whether the Palestinians have sovereignty and, if so, over which territory. This would include an examination, among other things, of the history of Palestinian assertions of claims  and of whether Palestinians make different assertions of sovereignty in different fora.

Palestine asserts that the provisions in the Mandate for Palestine concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland as envisaged in the Balfour Declaration were illegitimate and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It appears to claim that all the territory of Mandate Palestine - even including what is generally accepted to be the territory of the State of Israel - belongs to the Palestinian people. 

Mr President, Israel asserts, and Fiji agrees, that the Mandate for Palestine, including its provisions concerning the establishment of the Jewish homeland, such as the right of the Jewish people to live in and closely settle the land, was a binding instrument of international law. Israel also argues that the relevance of the rights conferred by the Mandate for Palestine was affirmed in Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the so-called “Palestinian clause”20. 

There is thus a dispute about territorial sovereignty. Fiji submits that this dispute cannot and should not be resolved through means of the requested advisory opinion, for two reasons.

The first reason is that the question of “borders” and therefore the scope of territorial sovereignty was expressly agreed to be resolved through the permanent status negotiations to which the parties have committed themselves in the Oslo Accords. For the reasons set out earlier, this precludes the matter being adjudicated via an advisory opinion procedure.

The second reason is that, in any event, because of the way the questions to the Court have been formulated, the Court simply does not have before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion on the disputed issue of the geographic limits of the territorial sovereignty of Palestine and Israel.

Self-determination

I now turn to self-determination.

The questions before the Court ask it to assume that Israel is violating “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.

The question of self-determination raises the question of territorial scope. This raises the evidentiary concerns I have just expressed.  

Moreover, Fiji notes that the right to self-determination is a relative right. It should not involve changes to existing frontiers. In the context of Israel/Palestine, this means that the Court would need to ascertain whether the Palestinians’ exercise of their right to self-determination has infringed the territorial integrity, political inviolability or legitimate security needs of the State of Israel.

By asking the Court to look only at the policies and practices of Israel, resolution 77/247 shields from the Court’s purview the policies and practices of Palestine. The result, in Fiji’s submission, is that the Court simply does not have before it sufficient information concerning the policies and practices of Palestine, and thus is unable to make a judicial determination on whether, in exercise of their right to self-determination, Palestine has infringed the sovereignty of the State of Israel.

CONCLUSIONS

Mr President, esteemed Members of the Court, in conclusion, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people is legally, factually and historically complex. There are no simple answers. But there are two parties who need to jointly find a solution and they should be supported to do this.

Using the advisory opinion procedure to prosecute the alleged violations of international law of one of the parties to the dispute while ignoring possible violations by the other will not promote dialogue, nor foster mutual respect. Rather, it is likely to undermine efforts towards peace that can be best settled through the recommitment of the parties to the processes established under the Oslo Accords. In our view, this is why the General Assembly was seriously divided on whether these questions should be put to the Court for an advisory opinion, and it is also why this honourable Court should refrain from giving one.

Fiji respectfully submits that, for all these reasons, the Court should exercise its judicial discretion to decline to provide an advisory opinion on the specific question put to it in the United Nations General Assembly resolution 77/247.

Mr President, were the Court to decide to provide an advisory opinion, which Fiji submits it should not, the Court should be cautious to ensure the advisory opinion rendered does not circumvent the binding agreements between the parties but encourages them to promote fruitful negotiations. Furthermore, the Court should ensure that it does not impose obligations and responsibilities on only one party, while disregarding its legitimate concerns.

Mr President, Members of this honourable Court, this brings me to the end of Fiji’s oral presentation and I thank you.

Fiji's written arguments included more information about how the PLO was cynically abusing the court.

 Legal Obfuscation to Instrumentalize the Court.

 Legal obfuscation is problematic throughout the Request. It is evident, inter-alia, in the conflation of the legal doctrines of }us ad helium and of jus in hello, in the false assertions of violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination, false assertions of Israeli annexation throughout the West Bank, and of Palestinian national territory.

 The problem of conflation of the legal doctrines of }us ad helium and of jus in hello is apparent in the allegations embodied in the Request. The allegations impugn the entire Israeli occupation despite its legality in accordance with jus ad helium. Controversy over Israeli application of jus in hello should not be conflated with and does not equate to negation of the rights of the occupier under jus ad helium.

 Under jus ad hellum, the presence of Israel is legitimate, as is affirmed in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 2334 (2016). These recognize control by Israel of the presumed occupied territories but do not declare that control per se to be a violation of international law. Furthermore, Israel's presence in the West Bank is endorsed by detailed international legal agreements, such as the Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of 26 October 1994. According to the Oslo Accords, the final status of the territories is subject to negotiations. Various peace proposals negotiated between the parties have all recognized the potential for territorial exchanges, including the letter from US President Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon of 14 April 2004.

 The Request also asks for legal consequences against Israel to flow from "prolonged occupation". While Israel is occupying a remainder of territories over which it gained control in self-defense in June 1967, the mere fact of occupation does not entail illegality. Control over much of those territories was handed back following the conclusion of an Egypt-Israel peace agreement of 26 March 1979 based on the 1978 Camp David Accords. (Israeli control over the Gaza Strip was unilaterally relinquished and handed by Israel to the Palestinian Authority in 2006 also, despite the lack of a final status peace agreement. The consequent continuing acts of aggression against Israel emanating from the Gaza Strip are well-known.) Israel has expressed and demonstrated willingness to cede control over territory in return for peace. International law imposes no constraint on the duration of occupation. The right of occupation continues throughout an armed conflict and endures until it is resolved.

The illegal South African presence in Namibia is not comparable, as that situation involved a League of Nations Class C Mandate in Southwest Africa (Namibia) granted to South Africa in 1915 and then terminated in 1966 under UN General Assembly Resolution 2145(XXI). The General Assembly resolution rendered the continuing South African presence illegal. In the current situation, there is no mandate and no termination of it. The Israeli presence is legal.

 

The Request also refers to "annexation" in the context of the West Bank, but the only territory annexed is East Jerusalem. The situation concerning East Jerusalem is complex and the Court cannot decide this issue unless it is presented with extensive, objective and verified legal and historical facts. The previously united city of Jerusalem was recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947 to become an international condominium, but East Jerusalem was illegally invaded by Jordan in 1948 and then taken from Jordan by Israel in legitimate self-defense in 1967, then de facto annexed and reunited by Israel in 1980, and then passed symbolically by Jordan to the PLO in 1988. A substantive Jewish population resided in East Jerusalem for centuries; it has been the Jewish people's historic capital for more than 3000 years. West Jerusalem was built by Jews and has been under Israeli jurisdiction and control since 1948 and was treated as being under Israeli sovereignty in Security Council Resolution 242, which referred to trading peace for only those territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Although the Security Council in 1980 referred to the "Holy City of Jerusalem" and asserted that Israel's de facto annexation of the city was an infringement of its obligations as the occupying power, that resolution concerned East Jerusalem only. Furthermore, allegations that Israel illegitimately annexed East Jerusalem presume that international law prohibits annexation in any circumstances, including even reunification of a national capital city.

 The Request for an Advisory Opinion also alleges "discriminatory legislation and measures". Vague reference to Israel's alleged "adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures" is indeterminate and prejudicial. Application of }us in be/lo entails legislation and measures distinct from the municipal law of Israel. To apply Israeli domestic law would amount to de facto annexation. Furthermore, Israel can depart from applying prior Jordanian law to the extent needed to meet the security needs of the occupying power.⁴ It would be incompatible with the judicial function for the Court to prosecute the case by actively selecting so-called "discriminatory" measures and then actively selecting standards to compare.

 The Request also refers to "settlement (...) of Palestinian territory", using language that obfuscates the lawful status of that territory. International law prohibits the forced movement of civilian population into occupied territory but does not prohibit civilian migration per se.⁵ Furthermore, "Palestinian territory" is a political concept without legal specificity. Security Council Resolution 242 does not rule out Israel's legitimate territorial claims to some of those territories, because it did not recommend withdrawal from all of those territories. Moreover, it was Jordan, not the Palestinians, who made claims to the territory originally.

The sovereignty of these territories is, arguably, in abeyance until such a time as a peace agreement is reached. The Court was careful, in 2004, to avoid deciding the sovereign status of these territories, except to determine that they are not, at present, part of the sovereign territory of Israel. The legal status of West Bank/Judaea and Samaria occupied by Israel has never been determined. Moreover, to decide this issue would require the Court to examine the complex history of the region from 1920 onwards, an exercise that goes arguably beyond the scope of the Request. It is relevant to mention that Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, created by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, carries legal weight. It recognized the rights of the Jewish people in its legal obligation to ensure the establishment of the Jewish national home in the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The Mandate included in Article 6 a right to immigration and settlement for the Jewish people in that territory.⁶

The international law principle of "acquired legal rights", constituted part of the transitional arrangements from the system of Mandates under the League of Nations to the system of Trusteeships under the UN Charter. Article 80 of the UN Charter continued the rights of Jewish and other peoples under the Mandates system. When the British unilaterally terminated their responsibilities under the Mandate and the Israel was proclaimed a State on 14 May 1948, rights under the Mandate remained relevant in the mandate territory not yet under Israeli control. The Court has underlined the relevance of the rights bestowed by a Mandate on the people concerned in its Advisory Opinions on Southwest Africa ⁷ and Namibia.⁸

Legal obfuscation to instrumentalize the Court is evident in the Request to the Court to opine on "legal consequences arising from" "ongoing violation by Israel" of "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination". The Court is presumed to agree with the assertions of fact concerning alleged violation of the right to self-determination. There is no doubt that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, but it cannot be assumed that Israel is violating Palestinian rights to self-determination:

a.       The application of a right to self-determination requires the will of the peoples concerned to be fully established.⁹ This condition has not been satisfied, as a result of the failure of Palestinian leaders to hold elections for the last 16 years.

b.      Contrary to unsubstantiated frequent assumptions, reliable opinion polls (e.g. December 2021) show that an overwhelming majority of Arabs in East Jerusalem prefer a continuation of Israeli rule.¹⁰

c.       Self-determination is a relative right, that must be respected together with other rights, including the rights of the Jewish people to self-determination and to security. This is why a solution to the conflict must be found through a political process.

 

Under the Oslo Accords, the PLO agreed that "realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements" depends on the fulfillment of conditions, including "direct, free and general political elections", establishing "a democratic basis for the establishment of Palestinian institutions". The Oslo II Interim Agreement (1995) contains current provisions regarding the election of the Authority in its Articles II-IX and Annex 2. It is the non-implementation of these provisions by Palestinian leaders that is currently depriving Palestinians of self-determination.

Even a prima facie analysis shows strong reasons why the allegations made in the Request obfuscate the law and make factual assertions that are misleading or false. If the UN General Assembly seeks advice, it must not require the Court to agree first with its own assertions. If the Court was to address these issues, there is a high risk its Advisory Opinion would be based on false information.

Reportedly, this was created with the help of a pro-Israel organization,  The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation, a pro-Israel legal consulting team based in The Netherlands.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

"Commemoration of Munich Olympics massacre to be held in secret in Paris." Then what's the point?

Times of Israel reports:

The memorial ceremony at the upcoming Paris games for the victims of the 1972 Munich Olympics terror attack will reportedly be held outside of the Olympic Village in a secret location, due to concerns that it may be targeted by extremists, given heightened antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment.

According to the Hebrew news outlet Israel Hayom, the ceremony was originally scheduled for July 24 at the Paris City Hall, but was canceled due to security concerns. Instead, an alternate smaller ceremony will be held with fewer attendees at a location that will not be disclosed to the public, the report stated.

If they hold a memorial in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The entire point of a memorial is to make a public statement about the deceased and to remember them. To cave to the threat of violence is outrageous, but to change the venue to a secret spot is in some ways even worse.

But the Israel Olympic Committee claims it is not true:

The Israel Olympic Committee refuted the report that the ceremony was moved due to threats, saying it was nothing more than a logistical issue, as specific permits needed to hold the event at the City Hall could not be issued in the days before the Olympics opening ceremony.

“Due to the delegation’s tight schedule, it was decided to hold the ceremony, in coordination with International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, in its full format on August 6 in another location,” the committee said. “Claims that the ceremony is underground or that it was moved due to any specific security alerts, or that canceling it was considered are fundamentally false claims.”

OK, so if it will not be held in secret - where will it be?

The tie and place should be widely publicized and proper security arranged. And if anyone wants to mount a protest or threaten the ceremony, let the world see how depraved they are. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Google politely telling its BDS workers to go to hell

The tiny but noisy Google and Amazon BDSers get lots of press, including in mainstream media, as they protest "Project Nimbus" and other Israeli use of technology.

Google has shown no tolerance for the intolerant. 

When they did a university-style "occupation" of their offices in New York and Sunnyvale, CA, Google called the police and arrested them - and then fired 28 of them for "physically impeding other employees’ work and preventing them from accessing our facilities."

Google has two offices in Israel, in Tel Aviv and Haifa. with about 2,000 employees. Over the years it has bought several Israeli companies, like Waze, Siemplify,  Elastifile, Cybereason and Alooma.

Now Google's parent company Alphabet is close to its biggest acquisition ever. Google parent company Alphabet is said to be in advanced negotiations to buy Israeli cloud security company Wiz for around $23 billion. 

Wired has an article saying it has evidence that Project Nimbus really does do work for the IDF. If so - so what? They brought no evidence that the project was violating Amazon's policies or agreements with the State of Israel. The IDF is a large organization with lots of services that have nothing to do with attacking the enemy which may be out of bounds for the contract. (Examples would be back office work, payroll, benefits, procurement, office supplies, promotional materials, and coordinating aid to Gaza.) 

Google is not leaving Israel anytime soon. Many of their technologies were developed in Israel. The BDSers, if they wanted to be consistent, should quit immediately.

Their failure to do so shows that they are the worst kinds of hypocrites.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

07/15 Links Pt2: It's Time to End Hezbollah's Decades of Impunity; Marvel strips Sabra of Israeli identity; Paris memorial for 1972 Olympics massacre to be held in secret

From Ian:

Aviva Klompas: It's Time to End Hezbollah's Decades of Impunity

Since October 7, Hezbollah has used that arsenal to launch almost 5,000 rockets and explosive drones at Israel. The near-daily attacks have set swaths of northern Israel on fire and forced tens of thousands of families to evacuate their homes indefinitely. In recent weeks, the attacks have stretched deeper into Israel, making more and more of the small country uninhabitable.

At the same time, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is ramping up the rhetoric. He recently vowed to fight Israel "without restraint, without rules, without limits and without restrictions," and even threatened to attack Cyprus, a member of the European Union.

While global leaders have spoken with dismay about the escalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, they have failed to stop the attacks from Lebanon or to enforce Resolution 1701. If no solution is found, Israel will have no choice but to take matters into its own hands.

It's not too late to stop an impending war — but that can only happen if the international community confronts Hezbollah and backs its resolutions with resolve.

That means designating both Hezbollah's political and military wings as terrorist organizations, which would leave no room for ambiguity to freeze assets, ramping up counter-terrorism efforts, and bringing terrorists to justice. It also means implementing a true monitoring system and guarantees that Hezbollah doesn't creep back toward Israeli territory and resume attacks on northern towns.

As world leaders and officials gather in Buenos Aires to mark the 30th anniversary of the AMIA tragedy, such accountability would be the most fitting way to honor the victims' memories.

Until that happens, Hezbollah and Iran will have license to spread terror and commit murder around the world, just as they did the morning of July 18, 1994.

Offensive anti-Israel protests at Holocaust memorials

The Holocaust is a reminder of the consequences of unchecked hatred and violence. Exploiting this sacred memory to push a political agenda disrespects the victims and diminishes and trivializes the gravity of their suffering. The actions of these groups feed into the narratives of antisemites who seek to delegitimize and demonize Israel, further endangering Jews worldwide. As a child of Holocaust survivors and proud Zionists, I find these actions despicable.

Accusations of genocide against Israel are a gross misrepresentation of reality. Israel’s military actions are defensive measures against terrorist organizations, including Hamas, which continuously threaten the safety and security of Israeli civilians. By equating these actions with genocide, protesters ignore the legitimate right of a nation to protect its people.

Protests at Michigan’s largest Holocaust museum justify violence against Israelis and Jews by falsely portraying them as perpetrators of heinous crimes. This dangerous rhetoric incites hatred and violence, contributing to rising antisemitic incidents globally. These libelous protests distort historical facts and promote a false narrative that fuels antisemitic sentiments, misuses the memory of the Holocaust to criticize Israel unjustly and feeds into dangerous and false allegations of genocide.

The Coalition Against Genocide, JVP and their supporters are morally corrupt. All community members and leaders need to denounce this protest and its sponsor groups. It is our collective responsibility to protect the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and to ensure that their suffering is not trivialized or misused. Let us stand together against antisemitism, for truth and for Israel’s right to protect itself.

Paris memorial for 1972 Olympics massacre to be held in secret over threats – report

The memorial ceremony at the upcoming Paris games for the victims of the 1972 Munich Olympics terror attack will reportedly be held outside of the Olympic Village in a secret location, due to concerns that it may be targeted by extremists, given heightened antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment.

According to the Hebrew news outlet Israel Hayom, the ceremony was originally scheduled for July 24 at the Paris City Hall, but was canceled due to security concerns. Instead, an alternate smaller ceremony will be held with fewer attendees at a location that will not be disclosed to the public, the report stated.

The Israel Olympic Committee refuted the report that the ceremony was moved due to threats, saying it was nothing more than a logistical issue, as specific permits needed to hold the event at the City Hall could not be issued in the days before the Olympics opening ceremony.

“Due to the delegation’s tight schedule, it was decided to hold the ceremony, in coordination with International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, in its full format on August 6 in another location,” the committee said. “Claims that the ceremony is underground or that it was moved due to any specific security alerts, or that canceling it was considered are fundamentally false claims.”

The memorial ceremony for the victims of the attack at the Munich Olympics, when eight members of the Palestinian militant organization Black September infiltrated the Olympic village and killed 11 Israelis, was held for the first time during the Tokyo 2020 games.

The decision to recognize the victims of the attack with an official commemoration was made by the IOC president after extensive campaigning by the families of the 11 victims.

The memorial was followed a year later by a ceremony in Germany marking 50 years since the attacks, in which Berlin acknowledged, for the first time, its “responsibility” for failings that led to the deaths of the athletes.

The ceremony in Paris next month will be attended by Bach, as well as Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, members of the Israeli delegation, and French Jewish communal leaders.

Read More

07/15 Links Pt1: Trump picks J.D. Vance as running mate; The Palestinian theater of terror; Natasha Hausdorff: "There is No Genocide, No Apartheid, No Occupation"

From Ian:

The Palestinian theater of terror

After the October 7 massacre, the international community was shocked by the harsh atrocities committed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Palestinian civilians who participated in the attack.

Hamas has been compared to ISIS and the Nazis, which has given Israel broad international support and credit for acting in Gaza to topple Hamas and bring the hostages back home.

Hamas and the PA’s smear campaign against Israel
Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority realized that in order to win this war they would have to use the card that the Palestinians have been using for years – to smear Israel’s legitimacy in the world.

Nabil Abu Radina, spokesman for the office of Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Authority has said that the “series of daily killing crimes” of the IDF in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is a comprehensive “war of extermination against the Palestinian people”.

This is how the murderous organization tries to obscure the symbolic date of the horrible massacre it carried out against Israel – and makes the date symbolic for the Palestinians – as “the day Israel attacked the Palestinians."

Palestinian officials from the PLO and Hamas also use the terms “extermination” and “Holocaust” to strengthen the influence on public opinion that Israel is committing a “Holocaust” to the Palestinian people.

Hamas spreads disinformation on Palestinian female prisoners
Hamas continues to present false information that Israel keeps women, elderly people and children in extremely difficult conditions to further characterize Israel as “the aggressor."

In January 2024, Hamas started a social media campaign using female terrorists imprisoned in Israeli prisons for its counterpropaganda. It published various posts in which the “Palestinian women prisoners” are described as experiencing abuse in the prisons and that they are “in danger”. Moreover, Hamas detailed the “abuses” that Palestinian women suffer in Israeli prisons: “Severe beatings and torture, a shameful (physical) examination” and more.

Hamas uses external agencies to incite against Israel
Al Jazeera to further incite against Israel:
Hamas employs not only its own disinformation tactics but also leverages affiliated media channels and a network of compliant journalists for information and propaganda purposes.

During IDF operations in late January 2024 at a Hamas base in the northern Gaza Strip, the laptop of Muhammad Samir Muhammad Wishah, a reporter for Al Jazeera Mubasher and the Al Jazeera network in Gaza, was seized.

This discovery underscores the presence of terrorist operatives posing as journalists within Al Jazeera’s ranks, raising questions about the network’s credibility. Based in Qatar, Al Jazeera often serves as a mouthpiece for Hamas, frequently inciting against Israel.

'Not the MSF I knew': Doctors Without Borders accused of picking side in Israel-Hamas war

Former leaders and a major Canadian donor of Doctors Without Borders are distancing themselves from the venerable aid organization after its employees celebrated the October 7 atrocities, gave aid to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, ran a one-sided social media feed and internally circulated articles accusing Israel of creating Palestinian “death worlds.”

“To be frank, I was very, very, surprised because it’s not the MSF I knew,” Alain Destexhe, the secretary general of the organization, popularly known by its French acronym MSF, from 1991 to 1995, told National Post.

Destexhe said MSF’s messaging throughout the Israel-Hamas war is markedly different than past conflicts.

“We used to make statements, you know, in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not taking sides like this,” he said. “We always took into account the political context, but not to take sides from one group to another. In the Gaza War, I really got the feeling that MSF was totally biased.”

Despite MSF’s charter principles of “bearing witness” through neutrality and impartiality, the organization’s response following the Hamas invasion of Israel and the ensuing war is leading passionate supporters to question its role in the conflict.

The organization dismissed these criticisms.

“Our decision to speak out about these grave realities as an impartial and independent humanitarian organization has sometimes prompted questions from the public about our neutrality in the conflict itself,” Claudia Blume, a spokesperson for MSF Canada, told the Post by email. “We unequivocally disagree with the notion that MSF’s communications on Gaza have been ‘politicized’ or represent an ‘abandonment of our neutrality.’”

Destexhe wasn’t the only MSF loyalist to have an October 7 wake-up call. One major Canadian Jewish donor told the Post he urged his mother to support the group despite pushback from family members cautioning him against MSF’s reputation of being institutionally biased against Israel.

“I think most people know that they have a history of not being the friendliest towards Israel,” the philanthropist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told the Post.

He said he reassured his mother, following conversations with MSF Canada’s leadership, that the organization was duty-bound to be apolitical and strictly adhere to its mission of providing aid and observation. However, the inconsistencies between their initial promise and their treatment of Israel reached a boiling point in November 2023 when the patron confronted MSF Canada’s executives.

“I will be honest,” the donor told then-executive director Joe Belliveau in an email shared with the Post, “the more I review MSF public communications (Instagram, specifically), the evidence is overwhelming that the MSF stance has a pronounced bias. There is still not one single mention of the 200+ civilian hostages; not one mention of Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire into civilian centers, both of which are war crimes and violations of the Geneva conventions,” he wrote in late November.

Bassam Tawil: Hamas's 'Popularity': Attempt To Deceive The American Public?

"If you notice, there is a growing dissatisfaction in the West Bank, from the Palestinians, about Hamas," Biden said during a press conference. "Hamas is not popular now."

It seems that Biden does not want the American people to be aware that most Palestinians in the West Bank are enthusiastic supporters of Hamas, as that would discourage them from endorsing his idea of creating a Palestinian state there.

The broad support Hamas enjoys among the Palestinians, including those who live in the West Bank, means that a Palestinian state would be ruled by the same terrorists who masterminded and carried out the October 7 atrocities against Israelis.

Biden appears to be convinced that hiding the fact that most Palestinian people support Hamas from the American people will make it easier for him to promote the insane idea of pressuring Israel to accept a state that is controlled by Hamas and other Iran proxies, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

Hamas is not only deeply committed to refusing Israel's right to exist, it has also openly announced that it will use a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem as a springboard to eliminate Israel and murder as many Jews as possible.

Biden's claim that Hamas is "not popular" among the Palestinians in the West Bank actually contradicts analysis by US intelligence agencies showing that Hamas's popularity has significantly grown after the terrorist group's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023...

The latest poll, released on July 10, 2024, showed that since the October 7 attack, satisfaction among the Palestinians in the West Bank with the "performance" of Hamas murderers and rapists has risen to 82%.

When asked who the public would prefer to control the Gaza Strip after the current war, 71% of Palestinians in the West Bank chose Hamas, compared to 46% in the Gaza Strip.

The reason Hamas has such high popularity among Palestinians is because it seeks to destroy Israel though jihad (holy war).

With respect, President Biden, it was after its members murdered, sexually assaulted, tortured, and abducted hundreds of Israelis on October 7, that Hamas became even more popular among the Palestinians.

It is time for Biden and his administration to come clean with the American people about the Palestinians: the majority of them favor destroying Israel and murdering Jews.

Read More