Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, August 06, 2024

Psychological war: Iranian army site publishes list of targets in Israel, including civilian targets - but only in English

Defa Press, the "Holy Defense News Agency" in Iran published by the Iranian military, issued a "list of possible targets of the Axis of Resistance in the occupied territories."

Here they are:

Governmental centers:
Parliament
Prime Minister's Office
Ministry of War

Airports:
Ben Gurion International Airport
Haifa International Airport
Ramon International Airport

Military bases:
Sdot Micha Airbase
Ramon Air Base
Ramat David Air Base
Hatzor Airbase
Hatzerim Airbase
Nevatim Airbase
Tel Nof Airbase
Palmachim Airbase

Ports:
Port of Haifa
Ashdod port
Port of Eilat

Power plants:
Orot Rabin power plant
Rutenberg power station
Eshkol power station
Reading power station
Haifa power plant

Oil and gas fields:
Karish gas field
Leviathan gas field
Tamar gas field
Shimson gas field

The news agency has English, Arabic, Farsi and Urdu editions, but this is a top story only in English (I couldn't find it at all in the other languages but didn't look exhaustively.)

This is pure psychological warfare. The list of "targets" could be discovered by anyone with Google; there is nothing novel or showing any intelligence in this list.

The rest of the article is also part of an Iranian attempt to demoralize Israel:

The above-mentioned data-x-items are the most vital and sensitive installations of the Zionist regime that can be targeted in any possible battle, and of course, everyone admits that this attack will inevitably happen soon.

Israel is in the crosshairs of the storm and despite having a lot of military, intelligence, and technological capabilities and unlimited support from its allies around the world, it does not have a high depth and security, and it does not have enough manpower to face a multi-front war. In addition, there is an obvious weakness on its domestic front that could collapse under the weight of massive attacks that the Zionist regime may be exposed to in the coming days or weeks.

It is true that there is a so-called regional alliance that seems ready to participate once again in supporting these terrorist Zionists, but the expected attack will take a different form before. Especially since it can include fronts where the missiles and drones of these fronts do not need a distance of 2000 kilometers to reach Israeli settlements. Therefore, the situation prevailing in the occupied territories these days is not at all similar to the previous retaliatory attacks and has caused the Zionists to panic more.

The "obvious weakness on its domestic front" is the haredi refusal to be drafted, a story that has been heavily covered in Islamic media.

There is another psychological dimension to this list. As reported by Critical Threats:

Iran’s decision to explicitly name these targets, which are spread throughout Israel, likely seeks to cause the Israel Defense Forces to disperse air- and missile- defense assets across a wide area. Iran may calculate that by causing Israel to spread out its defenses, this information effort will increase the likelihood that Iran can hit some of its targets. The US-Israeli coalition intercepted the majority of Iranian drones and missiles outside of Israel during the April 13, 2024 attack on Israel.[3] Drones and missiles fired from Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria would be much harder to intercept than those launched from Iran given the shorter distances and flight times to Israel.

A third psy-ops goal is to further dissuade international airlines from operating in Israel.

However, it isn't as if Israel didn't already have its priorities on what to defend. This list is unlikely to change the defense decisions much, especially since Iran's attempts to manipulate their enemies with bombastic threats is well known.

What Israel should do, however, is issue a statement that it has lists, too. And those lists include targets that could cripple Iran's economy.

They don't have to say what they are out loud. But Iran's ports and its oil facilities are obvious targets if Iran should attack Israel's infrastructure. Iran is heavily dependent on imports and exports via the sea and if they are taken out, the effects on Iran's population would be almost immediate.

Israel doesn't need to give specifics. They just need to tell the world that Iran knows what Israel could do if it attacks. Let thei rown imaginations fill in the rest.

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!

Dr. Ahmed Al-Farra, head of pediatrics at the Nasser Medical Hospital in Khan Yunis, has been interviewed by a number of major media outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times who relied on his words to describe the situation in Gaza accurately.

After all, he's a doctor, and wouldn't lie, right?

Mondoweiss decided to write about the non-existent polio epidemic that the Gaza health ministry declared in Gaza. They found Dr, Farra was happy to speak to them about how Gaza is teetering on the edge of complete polio devastation.

“The solutions lie in personal hygiene and the use of soap, alcohol, and sterilizers,” al-Farra said. “But the Israeli occupation prevents the entry of these materials, and the fuel that is needed to operate the sewage treatment facilities.”

Israel doesn't allow Gazans to have soap and alcohol and othe rbasic medical hygiene equipment? How cruel of them!

But when you check the UNRWA page of imports to Gaza, you find trucks filled with first aid kits, hygiene kits, medical supplies, soap, liquid detergent, wet wipes and other similar cleansing and disinfectant materials.

Are there enough of them? I have no way of knowing. But as a top doctor at a hospital, al-Farra absolutely knows that these items are not being prevented to enter Gaza, and his statement that Israel blocks their entry into Gaza is shown to be a lie by UNRWA's own records.

We've established that the head of the Nasser Hospital pediatrics department is a liar. So what else has he lied to the media about?

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!

08/05 Links Pt2: The Origins of Anti-Zionism; Drawing on the legacy of Ze'ev Jabotinsky is critical in fighting Iran; An apology to Ariel Bibas

From Ian:

The Origins of Anti-Zionism

Berger’s motivations remain open to debate. What is clear, however, is that he was right on the money in thinking that the more his views were perceived as part of internal American Jewish discourse and motivated by “authentically” American Jewish values and interests, the better these views served Arab critics of Israel.

Notably, Berger’s critique of Zionism went well beyond his insistence on the rejection of Jewish nationhood, and exposed what he saw as Israel’s racist laws and acts. Moreover, he ultimately expressed profound sympathy for Palestinian nationalism and specifically for the PLO. In 1983, a few years after the publication of his Memoirs and in the wake of the 1982 Israeli war against the PLO in Lebanon, Berger reviewed a book about the PLO published that same year. This book, Cheryl Rubenberg’s The Palestine Liberation Organization, Berger wrote, “breathes a living soul into the recognized leaders of the Palestinian nation” and “eliminates any excuse for caricaturing the PLO as one-dimensional ‘terrorists,’ single-mindedly devoted to the ‘destruction’ of the State of Israel.” Adopting a laudatory tone, Berger opined that the PLO’s “dedication to the total welfare of its forcibly dispersed people approximates a religious commitment.” In fact, the PLO’s “network of institutions serving Palestinian education, arts, health services, labor organizations, and many other needs,” Berger declared, is comparable “to only enlightened, humanistic, socially conscious States.” Berger singled out the Research Center as the PLO’s crown jewel.

Another layer of complexity in this nexus between the PLO Research Center and the American Council for Judaism is the fact that Elmer Berger apparently had, as late as the 1950s, professional ties to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Historian Hugh Wilford has argued that the network of the ACJ and the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME), on the board of which Berger served, was “both a government front and a lobby group with an agenda of its own.” Berger, who acted as AFME’s “chief pamphleteer,” wrote in his 1978 memoirs that “by now … everyone knows it [AFME] was conceived and financed by the CIA.” In private correspondence from 1978, Berger wrote to an associate that “at one point in my life, when [Kermit] Kim Roosevelt was running the Middle East section of CIA, I served as a consultant—part time.”

Wilford contended that Berger was not doing the CIA’s work so much as engaging in coordinated efforts to advance interests he shared with the CIA Arabists (and with the anti-Zionist Arabist Protestants at the helm of AFME). “Berger and his friends did not see Kim Roosevelt as their boss,” according to Wilford, but rather as “a partner working in a common cause.” Nonetheless, the CIA’s support of Berger and its role in connecting him to figures in the Middle East lead us to ponder how the conception of Judaism espoused by the PLO and its Research Center may have been, however indirectly, informed and influenced by an American intelligence agency.

This excerpt is reprinted with minor modifications from Jonathan Marc Gribetz, “Reading Herzl in Beirut: The PLO Effort to Know the Enemy” (2024), with permission of Princeton University Press.

JPost Editorial: Drawing on the legacy of Ze'ev Jabotinsky is critical in fighting Iran

Jabotinsky’s doctrine of defense was encapsulated in his famous Iron Wall concept, which argued that only through an unassailable defense could Jews ensure their security and sovereignty. Israel has built on this since the state’s founding, from the strength of the IDF and its ability to call upon reservists in times of war to the modern-day technological phenomenon that keeps Israel’s citizens relatively safe from incoming rockets, UAVs, and missiles. His insistence on a strong military is mirrored in Israel’s contemporary defense strategies, including its preemptive strikes on Iranian targets in Syria and advanced missile defense systems like the Iron Dome.

Another pillar of Jabotinsky’s thought was the importance of strategic alliances. He understood that Israel could not stand alone against its adversaries. This belief is evident in Israel’s current diplomatic efforts to build coalitions against Iranian aggression. Many have sought to alienate the State of Israel after Hamas’s attacks on October 7, but we have seen (and saw in April during Iran’s attack) that our neighbors and allies can and will come to our aid when necessary. Israel’s close relationship with the US echoes Jabotinsky’s foresight in recognizing the necessity of having powerful friends. This alliance is crucial in countering Iran’s influence and ensuring continued support for Israel’s security needs.

One of Jabotinsky’s most vital tenets of Zionism also emphasized fostering a resilient and culturally proud Jewish population. He believed that a strong national identity was essential for the survival of the Jewish state. Today, as Israel faces one of the greatest threats in its 75 years of statehood, this principle is reflected in our efforts to stand together as one and face our enemies. This comes after a year of civil unrest and a divided nation over the government’s attempted judicial reforms.

Jabotinsky’s advocacy for military strength, strategic alliances, and national pride offers a blueprint for navigating the complexities of modern threats, particularly from Iran. By adhering to these principles, Israel can increasingly maintain its security and sovereignty in the region. Drawing on Jabotinsky’s legacy will be essential as the country continues to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional hostility.

Yisrael Medad: Words and thoughts from Ze’ev Jabotinsky

To mark the death date of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, which falls this year, as it did 84 years ago, on the convergence of the Hebrew and Gregorian calendars—the 29th of Tammuz and Aug. 4—it would be appropriate to allow some of his thoughts be remembered. There is no need to recall his roles and activities, as they were of the past. What is proper at this occasion is to remember his analyses, his predictions and his instructions since they are relevant at this time.

I have selected from some of his lesser-known articles to illustrate the breadth and depth of his thinking that can affect our approaches to today’s events.

From “Two Tablets: One Torah,” 1934:
“I did not learn my Zionism from Ahad Ha’am or even from Herzl and Nordau: I learned it from non-Jews. I spent the best years of my youth in Rome and managed to take a good look at Italy. A lovely and free country … liberal, peaceful, without a shadow of chauvinism. … No one bothers anyone, no one oppresses anyone. This is how, it seemed, every nation should live, and we Jews too.

“Now they sometimes say that the ‘non-Jewish school’ of Zionism gave a bad education, that Zionism should be studied from Jewish sources, from a catechism with various paragraphs, with arguments for and against. I believe that this is not so. In Zionism there is no place for pilpul, commentaries or arguments for and against. Zionism is as clear and simple as air and water, as a mountain and a valley. Just as it is enough to look at God’s world to understand its wisdom, so Zionism can be understood without any special intellectual approaches. A piece of God’s land, whether it is called Italy, France, England or something else; it does not matter …

“ … Forgive me for being wary of the category of ideas that make up the complex of spiritual Zionism in my Zionist youth. At that time, it sounded like an attempt to instill in Zionism the dangerous features of ghetto psychology: political passivity, admiration for the East, its quietism and patriarchy—a kind of pacifism that boils down to Eretz-Yisrael being conquered for us by strangers. … Spirit can also be ‘imperialist’ and can annex everything—from the right and from the left. Spirit demands both banks of the Jordan, and state independence, and the gathering of millions of the dispersed. Spirit believes in the West, in Europe and America, in technical progress and in women’s suffrage. Spirit is not afraid of the Jewish legion. Spirit is not only a university with a technical school and a commercial academy and even a military academy (until the prophet Isaiah’s dream of disarmament comes true). Herzl, Nordau, Ahad Ha’am—they had disagreements in life, but today we know their common truth: two tablets, one Torah. Spirit is building a kingdom for itself on earth.”

08/05 Links Pt1: Philadelphi tunnel vision; Labour’s naivety is now a danger to Britain; UN admits UNRWA staff involved in Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Philadelphi tunnel vision

It is thus a relief and an expression of his leadership that Netanyahu is not budging on key conditions for a deal with the devil. One of these, which Hamas has nixed, is a list of the hostages still alive.

Another is Israeli control over the Philadelphi Corridor along Gaza’s border with Egypt and the Netzarim Corridor, which cuts the Strip in two, from the Israeli border to the Mediterranean Sea. Naturally, neither Hamas nor Cairo agrees to this stipulation.

That Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, Israel Security Agency director Ronen Bar and Maj. Gen. (res.) Nitzan Alon, head of the IDF’s Missing and Captive Soldiers Division, consider it an obstacle to a deal they fear will evaporate if it’s not reached immediately is a travesty.

Apparently, Mossad chief David “Dadi” Barnea isn’t on board with that assessment, though he’s lumped in with the rest of them in reports on the “rift” between Netanyahu and his “defense chiefs.”

According to the press, citing anonymous officials, the latter feel that the prime minister “doesn’t care about the hostages.” Channel 12’s Guy Peleg, a leading Bibi-basher, went as far as to say in a radio interview that Netanyahu wants them dead.

The public isn’t buying it, particularly not now, with the exposure on Sunday of a huge terror tunnel under the Philadelphi Corridor. A fraction of the sprawling network of cross-border tunnels in the area, this one is 10 feet high and equally wide—massive enough to enable Humvees and other large vehicles to transport weapons, building materials and terrorists from Egypt to Rafah.

This is why Cairo was so opposed to the IDF incursion into Rafah. It knew full well what it’s been hiding for all these years from its Israeli peace partners.

The tunnel in question was discovered by the fighters of IDF Division 162 and is being examined by the Yahalom Unit of the Engineering Corps. Plans for its destruction are underway. Part of it will be blown up and the rest sealed with concrete and iron.

Disturbingly, the IDF brass didn’t publicize the finding until a photo of the tunnel was posted online by one of the soldiers in the field. It was only after the image began circulating on the internet that the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit had to come clean with inquiring journalists.

This probably won’t stop Netanyahu’s critics from insisting that he’s sentencing the hostages to death by not giving in to Hamas. But most Israelis aren’t that stupid or wicked.

The picture of the tunnel was sufficient for most of the populace to grasp its greater significance. It was the only “leak” this week worthy of praise rather than censure.

Col. Kemp: Labour’s naivety is now a danger to Britain

It increasingly appears that the Labour Party and its supporters are less changed than many hoped after Jeremy Corbyn’s days as leader. Mollifying anti-Israel supporters now seems to transcend sticking up for our most important ally in the Middle East and, by doing so, supporting our own national interests.

The Government’s stance is also a counterbalance to the Royal Air Force’s probable role in defending Israel if the expected large-scale attack comes from Iran and its proxies in the coming days. RAF jets are preparing now to take to the skies to help intercept the missile and drone barrage Israel is bracing for. The Government will not order this willingly but because the United States demands it. If it happens, it will provoke anger among the anti-Israel mobs. But Labour may soon be able to point to arms restrictions, not to mention the other measures it has taken in the four weeks it has been in power.

That includes restoring funding to UNRWA, which the previous government withdrew following allegations some employees were linked to the October 7 massacre. It also includes cancelling the Conservatives’ formal objection against the International Criminal Court’s plans to issue arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister and defence minister. Just as arms restrictions against Israel risk fracturing a military and intelligence relationship that would be more damaging to us, this virtue signalling over the ICC works against our own national security interests. The jurisdictional overreach by the court could be turned on our own political leaders and Armed Forces in the future.

Labour’s approach of appeasement is also extremely dangerous internationally. Together with a similar posture across the Atlantic, it encourages Iranian aggression against Israel as well as other friendly countries in the region.

The same applies to the jihadist threat more widely. If Israel does not prevail against its enemies, this will inspire greater extremist violence from those who want to attack us directly. After his meetings in Israel, Healey called for an immediate ceasefire, but that is the only way for Hamas to ensure its survival. Likewise his talk of a two-state solution in the aftermath of October 7, and his party’s declared intent to recognise a Palestinian state without conditions, will be seen as rewarding terrorism.

What is actually needed at this moment is full backing for Israel and the hardest line against Iran. Too many Western politicians think the ayatollahs and their proxies think like us. They don’t. They despise and exploit weakness and they respect strength. Labour has yet to grasp that staunch support for our allies and strong opposition to our enemies will be more likely to contain violent escalation both in the Middle East and at home.

Europe’s Israel betrayal is a disaster for Ukraine

After the October 7 massacre, the European Union was quick to condemn the “indiscriminate attacks”, assure Israel of “solidarity” and endorse its right to defend itself.

But it wasn’t long before European governments retreated from their staunch promises and moved toward equivocation. Some have now settled on a new playbook of moral inversion that would once have been unthinkable among Western nations.

What European leaders do not appreciate is how changing attitudes towards Israel could backfire by laying the groundwork for a parallel turn against Ukraine by the United States. In Washington, critical members of the coalition supporting Kyiv expect reciprocal support for Jerusalem on both sides of the Atlantic.

So far, European governments have resisted moves to stop supplying the Israeli military with armaments, but some leaders are building the foundation for such a betrayal.

The EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said the Union now faces a “difficult” choice between support for Israel and respect for the rule of law. His comments reflect a misguided ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that Israel’s offensive in Rafah was putting Palestinian civilians at risk. But Hamas uses these civilians as human shields.

In May, Spain, Norway and Ireland chose to recognise the state of Palestine, violating the long-established principle that recognition must await a bilateral peace agreement in which Palestinians recognise the Jewish state. Borrell seemed to scoff at the notion that this premature recognition was in any way a reward for Hamas terror.

Testiness and chastisement have also characterised the rhetoric from Europe’s leaders towards Israel, led by French President Emanuel Macron’s insistent calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire that would allow Hamas to retain power in Gaza.

A far greater betrayal of Israel may still lie ahead as some call for Western governments to halt arms exports to the country. Though Britain’s exports are relatively small (the US is by far the biggest supplier, accounting for over 60 per cent of Israel’s imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023), we may soon lead the way.

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!

Anti-Jewish hate crimes in London more than quadrupled since October over previous year

Hate crimes against Jews have not only soared in the US and Canada, but in England too.

In the nine months from October 2023-June 2024, there were 1,975 anti-Jewish hate crimes in the London metropolitan area. This is some 4.5 times the numbers from the same nine months in the previous year, which was 446.

In October alone, there were 517 anti-Jewish hate crimes - nearly the total for all of 2022.

In England altogether, antisemitic incidents more than doubled in 2023 compared to 2022.

Seen in London

There have been anti-Israel protests in London weekly since October 7, some drawing tens of thousands of people spewing hate and lies about Israel and supporting antisemitic groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

At this point, isn't it a little disingenuous to deny the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism?

And given that there are over 1.3 million Muslims in London,many of whom join these protests, isn't it even more disingenuous to deny the link between Muslim "anti-Zionism" and antisemitism?

Unlike some other police, I could not find where the London police describe the perpetrators of the hate crimes when caught. But chances are pretty good that a decent percentage are Muslim.

In the end, it is all hate, not support for Palestinians, that animates these demonstrations - and that hate is indistinguishable from the hate that is behind antisemitism.

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!

According to reports, Iran officially informed the UN Security Council last week of its intentions to attack Israel.

“This rogue and terrorist regime and its accomplices bear responsibility. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to exercise its inherent right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to respond decisively and promptly, “ the letter was reported to have said.

(The only letter I see on Iran's foreign ministry site from that same date to the Security Council does not use this same language and does not invoke Article 51.)

The Western world doesn't even blink at Iran's hypocrisy of justifying attacking Israel as self-defense. That same foreign ministry also praised the October 7 attacks as "the oppressed Palestinian people’s inalienable right to defend themselves."

In both cases, the point is that no one should deny the rights to attack Israel and Jews. No matter what the circumstances, it is always "self defense."

In reality, Iran is really concerned with honor, not defense. Iran's honor was devastated by the clear breach of their intelligence services that led to Ismail Haniyeh's assassination. Iranian "investigators" are strenuously denying the obvious - and the only reason why is to maintain the facade of "honor" and avoid shame.

Israel's target was Hamas, not Iran. Iran wasn't attacked - not a single Iranian was hurt. But the attack shamed Iran.

Any Iranian attack on Israel is meant to restore honor, not deterrence.

Honor is not an inherent right under international law. Yet because of the ingrained honor/shame mindset of much of the Muslim world, it is being tacitly accepted even by the West as a legal reason for reprisal.

Bizarre, twisted honor/shame ideas have infected international law.

No one in the West is publicly saying that Iran has no legal justification for an attack that even Iran calls "vengeance." On the contrary, the legality of this manifestly illegal action is accepted, and the only negotiations happening behind closed doors is to calibrate the intensity and scope of the revenge attack to maintain "honor", not to stop it altogether.

Al Jarida has an unconfirmed report that the US has told Iran that any attack must meet four conditions: (1) That it not be directed at civilians; (2) that it not target civilian infrastructure; (3) that the targets be military; (4) that the response be a one-off, not a succession of attacks; (5) that the regional response not be aimed at destroying much in Israel, but be symbolic. If true - and the April attack by Iran indicates it might be - that means that the West now accepts "honor" as a valid justification for an attack as a part of "self defense" as long as the affronted nation is Muslim. Iran is being told, whether explicitly or implicitly, that they can use military means to restore their own perverted sense of honor.

"Honor" is symbolic. It is wholly psychological Hundreds of rockets and drones and bombs are not symbolic. They are real. Attacking in such a way to avenge an assassination is not only a violation of the UN Charter but also a violation of the principle of proportionality.

Modern international law never considers a nation's honor as having any legal weight. The West, by sanctioning a revenge Iranian attack on Israel, is now changing international law to include that as a factor when honor/shame cultures are insulted. The lack of international condemnation of Iran's planned attack is an extraordinarily dangerous development that will hurt the West for decades to come.

Assuming that Iran did indeed send the letter quoted invoking Article 51, the UN Security Council must reject the letter and the planned attack as justified self-defense. Otherwise, it is infecting international law with the theory that insults are aggression.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The media can choose to mimic Al Jazeera or Jerusalem Post. They choose Al Jazeera. Gazans die because of their bias.

The headlines in the Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post and this past weekend:

ToI reported:

A group of Hamas members operating out of two schools in Gaza City were struck by Israeli fighter jets a short while ago, the IDF says.

According to the military, Hamas embedded command and control rooms within the Hassan Salama and Nasr schools in Gaza City’s Sheikh Radwan neighborhood.

The schools were used by the Hamas operatives as a hideout and as a command room from where attacks on IDF troops and Israel were planned and carried out, the military says.

Here was how Al Jazeera headlined the same incidents:

Two different ways of looking at the same incident. One from a pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas, state controlled outlet whose employees have also been Hamas operatives, the others from independent media from a liberal democratic state with freedom of the press.

What about the rest of the world? Do they choose to report the stories the Israeli way or the Hamas way?

Invariably, they choose to make their headlines virtually the same as Al Jazeera's, and only bury IDF claims in the articles that most people won't bother to read.

Nearly all of the time, the headlines from the mainstream media are the same as those from Hamas and Al Jazeera, and Israel's [perspective does not make the headline.

The international media headlines are all technically accurate. They identify where they get their information from, even if they don't say "Hamas."

But the bias is still clear in how they choose to frame these stories. And most people do not look past the headlines - the headlines are all that Twitter/X followers of the major media outlets see, for example.

The overwhelming impression given is that Israel is striking schools for no reason, because they hate Palestinians so much or at the very least they don't care about Gazan lives.

No doubt, the media editors would claim that they care deeply about Palestinian lives and want to highlight civilian deaths. But by downplaying or ignoring that Hamas has used the schools specifically to shield themselves from attack, this decision ensures more Palestinian civilian deaths.

If the media would consistently castigate Hamas for using schools and mosques as military bases, Hamas would lose its PR advantage of positioning fighters in those schools, and would have less incentive to use human shields. But as long as the major news agencies parrot Al Jazeera's coverage, Hamas has nothing to lose and everything to gain by positioning its military assets in schools and displaced persons shelters.

The media is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths of Gazans, because of its bias against Israel.

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!

08/04 Links: Israel Will "Take the Win" only After It Has Won; IDF discover Hamas tunnel under Egyptian army post; Two killed, two wounded in stabbing terror attack

From Ian:

WSJ Editorial: Israel Will "Take the Win" only After It Has Won

During a call between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu on Thursday, Barak Ravid of Axios reports that Biden warned Netanyahu not to escalate in response to an Iranian attack and to move immediately to a Gaza ceasefire. A Gaza ceasefire is no easy call. It would mean releasing hundreds of terrorists and giving Hamas a fair chance at ruling Gaza when this ends. The least America can do is not undermine Israel when its leaders insist on reasonable conditions, such as control over Gaza's border with Egypt to stop Hamas from rearming.

Moreover, Biden's message to Iran is: You will pay no price for attacking Israel. That isn't advice Israel can afford to take. A senior official tells us, "Israel will 'take the win' only after we have won and our war objectives are achieved." Otherwise, direct Iranian attacks would become one more thing Israel is expected to live with. Missing from all the White House statements is what Iran should have to fear if it again fires hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel.

JPost Editorial: The West’s criticism of Haniyeh’s assassination misses the anti-terror point

Under Haniyeh’s leadership, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, targeting civilian populations. These indiscriminate attacks have resulted in numerous casualties and significant damage to infrastructure.

For instance, during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, over 4,500 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas also has a long history of using suicide bombers to attack Israeli civilians. One of the most notorious attacks occurred in March 2004, when a double suicide bombing at the port of Ashdod killed 10 Israelis and injured dozens. Haniyeh planned and endorsed these tactics.

Haniyeh played a crucial role in orchestrating the Great March of Return in 2018, which involved tens of thousands of Gazans attempting to breach the border fence with Israel. While framed as peaceful protests, many of these events turned violent, with armed participants attacking Israeli soldiers and civilians.

This campaign resulted in numerous deaths and injuries. Hamas, under Haniyeh’s leadership, has been responsible for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The most notable case is the abduction of Gilad Shalit in 2006, who was held captive for over five years before being released in a prisoner exchange deal – Yahya Sinwar, now Hamas’s Gaza military commander, being among those released.

Several Western countries – including the US, Egypt, and Qatar – have expressed concerns that Haniyeh’s assassination undermines ongoing peace negotiations and escalates regional tensions. For instance, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry labeled the killing as a “dangerous escalation,” while Qatar condemned it as a “heinous crime” and a “blatant violation of international and humanitarian law.” These reactions, however, ignore the broader implications of allowing a terrorist leader to operate with impunity.

It is essential to recognize that Israel’s actions are not acts of aggression but of self-defense. Eliminating Haniyeh sends a solid message to terrorist organizations worldwide: Their leaders are not beyond reach. This act demonstrates Israel’s advanced intelligence capabilities and its unwavering commitment to neutralizing threats to its national security and the safety of its citizens.

The international community must consider who aligns themselves with individuals like Haniyeh. Those who see him as a friend or ally are, in effect, partners in terror.

Critics argue that Haniyeh’s assassination could derail peace talks and provoke further violence. While it is true that any significant military action can have immediate repercussions, the long-term benefits of removing a key critical figure outweigh the temporary instability. Haniyeh’s death disrupts Hamas’s leadership structure and diminishes its operational capabilities, thereby weakening the organization’s ability to carry out future attacks.

Furthermore, this assassination aligns with the broader global effort to combat terrorism. The West, particularly nations like the US, which have been victims of terrorism, should understand the necessity of such actions. The fight against terror requires a united front and a willingness to take decisive measures against those who perpetuate violence and chaos.

Israel’s alleged targeted killing of Ismail Haniyeh should be viewed not as a provocative act but as a necessary step in the fight against terrorism.

NYPost Editorial: Taking Out Ismail Haniyeh Was Morally Necessary

Terrorist leader Ismail Haniyeh is dead. Good riddance!

Those blaming Israel have it exactly wrong. Haniyeh, the killers he commanded, and their patrons in Iran are the ones causing war and chaos.

They're the escalators, not Israel, which - as so many conveniently forget - is the victim, not the aggressor.

Haniyeh helped lead an organization devoted to genocide against the Jewish people. His death was a strategic necessity for Israel, and a moral one as well.

That his death generated a new crop of equivocators devoted to his defense is beyond obscene.

EoZ memes and cartoons

I'm a bit behind on these. These are from early July.

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!

Egyptian pope told Egyptian Grand Mufti a joke - about Jews

When is a joke about Jews gentle mocking and when does it become antisemitic?

The late Egyptian Pope Shenouda III once went on TV and described how he made former Grand Mufti of Egypt Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi laugh with a variant of a "rabbi, priest and minister" joke.

The version he told was this:

A Muslim sheikh, a Christian priest, and a Jewish rabbi met, and each of them participated in a conversation about the money they receive: how to differentiate between what belongs to them personally and what belongs to God. The Muslim said: I hold the coin in my hand, with the head on one side and the writing on the other, and I throw it up. If it lands on the head, it belongs to God. If it lands on the writing, it is written for me to take. The Christian said: I make two circles inside each other and throw the coin up. If it lands on the inner circle, it belongs to me. If it lands on the outer circle, it belongs to God. The Jew was asked: What are you doing? He said: I am a man who has surrendered myself to God completely. I have no personal will at all. I hold the coin in my hand and throw it up and say to God: Take what you want from it and leave me the rest. Whatever God sends down, I will take.”

I traced the joke back to at least the 1960s where it was mentioned as an icebreaker joke in a 1968 academic conference and a 1965 medical group management meeting. Almost certainly it was created by Borscht Belt Jewish comedians in the 1950s.

Another variant was famously used in a key scene of the movie Short Circuit, also delivered by a Jewish actor:

It isn't a bad joke, but it depends on the comedian.

The joke is about the greed of all religions - why should they keep any of the money? - and the rabbi in the joke is just taking it to a logical extreme; it isn't about Jewish greed but about religious hypocrisy. When a Jew tells the joke, it is about the rabbi exposing the hypocrisy.

The Egyptian news story today calls it "a gentle mockery of the greed and love of money of Jews."

When said in Arabic between a Christian and a Muslim, it changes from "gentle mockery" to antisemitism.

Of course, compared to the far worse antisemitism in Arabic language media every day, this is nothing. But it is still instructive that the highest religious authorities in Egypt find it acceptable to tell antisemitic jokes.

-----

In the spirit of "gentle mockery," here's a new joke.

A rabbi, priest and imam enter a bar and order drinks.

The priest, surprised, asks the imam, "I thought Muslims don't drink."

The imam screams "Allahu Akbar" and stabs the rabbi multiple times. The patrons flee in terror as the rabbi lays on the floor dying. The imam leans back, raises his glass and replies, "For jihad, everything is permitted."

See? It makes fun of Muslims using a well-known stereotype and also makes the leaders of the religion sound like hypocrites, just like the earlier joke! Who could possibly object to a joke like that?

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!

It has been four days since Iran has publicly threatened to attack Israel.

They are claiming, laughably, that this is their right under the UN Charter as "self defense." It isn't. Self defense must be in response to an armed attack on the state, which Haniyeh's assassination was not - not a single Iranian was even hurt. Sefl defense has to be against an ongoing threat, and there is no ongoing threat from Israel unless Iran attacks. Reprisals and vengeance are not self-defense in international law.

By any reasonable standard, Iran is threatening to violate international law.

Yet not one nation, not one UN agency, not the EU, not one NGO that I can find, has condemned Iran for threatening to attack another UN member state. I can only find one weak statement calling on all parties, particularly Iran, to show restraint - but that is far from a condemnation for a direct threat on a state.

And it isn't like no one believes Iran will attack. Everyone fully expects Iran and its proxies to attack.

And they remain silent.

The same thing happened in April. Only after Iran organized a large attack on Israel from multiple directions - that everyone was expecting - were there condemnations. But not a word beforehand.

G7 leaders said at that time, "We express our full solidarity and support to Israel and its people and reaffirm our commitment towards its security."

A US led joint statement of UN reps said "We note that Iran’s escalatory attack is the latest in a pattern of dangerous and destabilizing actions by Iran and its militant partners that pose a grave threat to international peace and security."

So why are they silent now?

The April post-facto condemnations, in retrospect, look like window dressing. After all, if they are serious about stopping escalation, they should tell Iran now, directly and publicly, that there will be consequences for such an attack.

Retired US Naval intelligence officer J. E. Dyer lists several specific things that could be done by the West, today, to deter Iran. Some of them:

- Destroy the Houthi ability to use weapons and encourage an agreement in Yemen that would stop them from having an independent military ability. The West needs to do this anyway to protect shipping lanes.

- "Take on the Hezbollah arsenal in Lebanon by addressing it through the government in Beirut. Twist arms without apology or tentativeness in the approach. Make it clear that the most prominent and freest-spending of Beirut’s foreign patrons wants that arsenal whittled down to nothing, and isn’t taking no for an answer. "

- Sinking all of Iran’s converted container ships that have been used to directly support the Houthis with intelligence and missiles.

- Eliminating the Tee Jetty, Sea Island, and petrochemical piers that support Iran's key oil export facility at Kharg Island, as a warning. If Iran continues its belligerence, take out Kharg Island itself.

- Put bite back in sanctions of Iran.

A serious US, and a serious world, would be implementing these things now, not wait for a war between Israel and Iran.

But no one is talking about this. Probably, in this current lame and dementia-ridden White House, no one is even capable to making such a decision.

Instead, the US is pledging to help defend Israel. That's great and necessary, but it does not deter Iran - on the contrary, without deterrence and support for Israel to take the initiative, it encourages Iran to keep coming up with new and unconventional ways to attack Israel that US warplanes and anti-missile batteries cannot counter.

Notably, Iran's Supreme Leader recently pinned an October 3 tweet where he said "the Zionist regime is about to go." Iran knew about the upcoming October 7 attacks, and may have helped plan them. Considering only a similar response as April from Iran is a mistake - Iranians are far more creative than Israel's Arab enemies, and can think of surprising methods (like the Houthi drone to Tel Aviv that came from the west.)

Wars cannot be won on defense alone, and Iran is constantly on the offensive against Israel, mostly via proxies that they proudly admit are part of their "axis of resistance." There are few independent initiatives from the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas. For all we know they are planning an October 7 type massacre from the West Bank or from Lebanon. How would the US help?

Telling Israel that operations like killing Haniyeh are not helpful is not supporting Israel. It is encouraging Iranian aggression.

Without serious deterrence from the West towards Iran, in the face of a planned imminent attack, Israel is alone. No amount of pledges of "ironclad" support can change that. (The rumored Tisha B'Av date might not be true - Iran's claim of self-defense requires an element of "immediacy" under customary interpretations of international law.)

The silence, and inaction, in response to a direct Iranian threat to attack Israel speaks far louder than their pro-forma statements in April did.

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!

Iran has raised a red flag - symbolising revenge - over the Jam Karan mosque in Qom on Wednesday, symbolic of a desire to take vengeance against Israel for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

When the same flag was raised after the assassination of general Qasem Soleimani by a US airstrike, AFP did a fact check and reluctantly admitted that it really is a call for revenge:

According to Hossein Abadi, ..it is rare for the red flag to be raised on this mosque outside the month of Muharram. “Due to the martyrdom of general Qassem Soleimani and his comrades, and after hearing the supreme leader calling for a harsh revenge, we unfurled this flag so that all (Shia) believers in the world and all the freedom fighters gather around this flag to avenge Qassem Soleimani’s blood unjustly shed,” Abadi told AFP.

The flag bears the Arabic phrase, “Ya la-Tharat al-Hussein,” which can be translated in English as, “O ye avengers of Hussein.”

According to certain Iranian Shia traditions, “Ya la-Thara al-Hussein,” should be a rallying cry for believers upon the return of the Hidden Imam, the last of twelve imams recognized in Imamiyyah, the largest branch of Shia Islam.

Sky News Arabia says that raising the flag of revenge is considered in Iranian heritage as a “declaration of a state of war.”

In fact, as I've noted previously, in 1877 there were very similar newspaper articles about a fearful green flag of jihad being unfurled in Istanbul:

If any non-Muslim nation would have a flag to symbolize vengeance, it would be considered insane. But for Muslim nations, it is considered par for the course. Everyone is so frightened of calling things like this out as completely unacceptable in modern society because of fears of being labeled "Islamophobic."

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!

08/03 Links: Israel has shown it can still hit back – and now the world can sleep safer; Mossad hired IRGC agents bomb Haniyeh; The UN is at war against women

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: Israel has shown it can still hit back – and now the world can sleep safer

Every one of the troubles affecting Israel at present originate in Iran. It is the Revolutionary Islamic government there that has made the eradication of Israel a priority. It is Iran that is ensuring that Israel is fighting a war on – effectively – seven fronts. Not just against Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Iran but against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen among many others.

After the October 7 attacks – again funded and backed by Iran – the regime in Tehran looked on with satisfaction as the world turned not on Hamas but on Israel. The regime delighted in the useful idiots and others in the West turning against Israel rather than on the terrorists of Hamas. The Supreme Leader – Ayatollah Khamenei – even expressed his public gratitude and support for students at American universities who were bringing their institutions to a halt as a protest against Israel’s right to defend itself.

How much happier they must have been in recent months as the preposterous nobodies at the so-called International Criminal Court declared that they were seeking arrest warrants for the democratically elected prime minister of Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu – and his defence minister. Oh and also for two of the leaders of Hamas. Since the ICC has no evidence of war crimes committed by the Israelis it has announced the warrants ahead of any investigation. A novel concept: to announce an arrest and then start looking for a crime. Though it is hardly surprising given the illegitimate nature of the court and the wild politicisation that has predictably occurred in it.

So where will the rest of Israel’s allies be now?

In the US Kamala Harris is busily trying to boast to her base that she is being “tough” on the Israelis. There is little evidence that she intends to be even equally “tough” on Iran. And in the UK our new government has not only acceded to the preposterous ICC (and good luck David Lammy when your time for arrest comes), it has also repeatedly criticised the Israeli government.

It is the wrong time to do either. For the sake of peace in the Middle East it is necessary for Iran’s terrorist chiefs to be hunted down. And if the British government wanted to do something meaningful for once, perhaps instead of grandstanding it could finally round up the regime operatives here in Britain? I wonder if they will.

Arsen Ostrovsky and John Spencer: Israel Reestablished Deterrence. It Should be Praised, Not Admonished

There are those who now insist that the elimination of Haniyeh and Shukr will only escalate regional tensions. To them we ask: Where have you been the last 10 months?

Hamas initiated the massacre of October 7 and were joined by Hezbollah the day after, having since fired over 7,250 rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon.

Iran has meantime been pulling the strings from Tehran as the grandmaster of both Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis, who joined long ago from Yemen.

If anyone has been escalating regional tensions, it has been the international community, which has been largely trying to pressure Israel into showing restraint or compromise, instead of demanding Hezbollah and Hamas, cease the attacks, disarm and release all the hostages, or that Iran reign in their proxies.

In doing so, the international community has only emboldened these terror groups and encouraged their regional patrons to escalate tensions further.

If anything, the world should thank Israel now, as the elimination of Haniyeh and Shukr ought to send a clear message to all the terror groups and their enablers that their actions come at a heavy price, and they should reconsider their involvement.

Israel's renewed deterrence can also have a positive impact on the hostage negotiations. Although there will be some uncertainty with respect to the negotiations in the short-term, in the medium term, it should place greater pressure on Hamas to accept a deal.

There is no denying that Hamas has been utterly decimated and embarrassed. Their leadership is destroyed, its military dismantled into a fraction of its former self, and Sinwar has never been so isolated. Although Hamas is unlikely to re-engage in negotiations so soon for fear of losing face and being seen as succumbing to Israel's overpowering, they will need to reach some kind of agreement, so as to have at least something to show and avoid the fate of Haniyeh and Deif.

Israel's audacious targeted operations this past week only underscore that the path to stability in the region and return of the hostages, will come from renewed Israeli deterrence and strength.

Crying with the mourners in Majdal Shams

The men and women separated, waiting on lines to comfort the mourners. The bleachers of the stadium-like hall were packed. Large pictures of each murdered child sat on chairs. Each child’s mother sat directly behind the poster of her child.

It was crushing. Devastating. And it seemed that the oxygen had been sucked from the room.

Tears streaming, bereft of words, we offered gestures, sentiments, and the anguish in our hearts for the few seconds we had with each mother before the line pushed us forward. They responded, some crying, others in shock, some simply numb. They thanked us for coming and being with them.

Most of the people in the room were Druze, but there were other Jewish Israelis, and some Muslims as well, who had come to grieve with the community. We climbed the rows to sit in seats and just be with them in their time of pain.

Messages kept coming into my phone. “There are sirens and falls very close to you. Someone was just killed.”

I felt terrible worrying people, but being there was the right thing for me.

Knowing that I had no GPS, I asked Esther and Ilanit, two women who had come from their moshav in the Golan if I could follow them out, understanding that I would have to traverse the Golan south to return home, instead of taking the route west, through the Galilee, which was literally on fire. The rockets that had killed Nir Popko, 28, from Kibbutz HaGoshrim had started fires across the Galilee.

By now, we were a group. We met up with the men outside, drank more coffee, and were told by Rim and Mahmud that before leaving, we would come to their home and refresh ourselves.

Their home sits at the top of the hill, with a gorgeous view of Mount Hermon and the entire village. It is beautiful, spotless, warm and very homey. From the outside porch, Mahmud shows us the playground and soccer field where the rocket fell — in the center of the town — and where he was when he heard it. I spoke with Rim as she made the coffee and marveled at the woman who could have white carpeting in her kitchen — with not one spot on it!

Over coffee, wafers, and fruit, we heard about how Mahmud built his home (his brothers live on the floors below) and how he built a home for Shmuel, another Golan resident who joined our group and helped my father and Harris (who don’t speak Hebrew) navigate the men’s section.

I looked around the room as we chatted. Three Jewish Israelis from the Golan, a Druze couple, myself, my dad, and Harris, all family for the day… and perhaps beyond.

With a three-hour drive ahead of me, I reluctantly said we needed to get on our way. Rim, and then Mahmud, invited us to sleep over, but I had worried my family members enough for one day. I did promise that I would come back, God willing, after the war was over, to accept their hospitality.

Leaving was hard. I felt attached to the people I had met, the community I had discovered — and I knew it would be some time before we could return. In the western sky, a massive plume of cloud and smoke stretched eastward. The stench of fire was strong.

We followed Shmuel, Esther, and Ilanit down the Golan, past the massive wind turbines, old bunkers, and vast fields. Shmuel stopped to show us the border with Syria, a stone’s throw from the road we drove on, and then escorted us all the way to the Sea of Galilee, where he called to give us directions for the rest of the way, and invited us to return and visit them in their homes and see the Golan without war. Then, they turned left and we went right.

As I drove, I thought about the phone call that morning. She asked if I knew someone in Majdal Shams. I didn’t then. I do now.