Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, August 09, 2024

Rating how different AIs answer a halachic question

Artificial intelligence is getting better and better, and I've been using various AI tools to help research some of my posts.

What about Jewish law? While no one should make a halachic decision based on how an AI answers a question, it seems to me that how they answer halachic questions could indicate which ones are best for other uses.

My question: Halachically, should one living in New York daven towards the east and a bit south to pray towards Jerusalem, or should they use the Great Circle route?

ChatGPT says:

When it comes to halachic practice regarding prayer direction (davening) towards Jerusalem, there's a discussion about whether one should use the Great Circle route or simply face east (or east-southeast) from locations in North America like New York.

1. The Simple Direction (East or East-Southeast):
East: According to many authorities, Jews in the United States and particularly in New York should face east, as this is the most direct and traditional direction towards Jerusalem when considering only cardinal directions.
East-Southeast: Some authorities suggest a slight adjustment to east-southeast to account for the direction of Jerusalem more precisely.
2. The Great Circle Route:
Great Circle Route: This is the shortest path over the Earth's surface, which may differ from the simple eastward direction due to the Earth's curvature. Using this method, the correct direction from New York would actually be slightly northeast, though this adjustment is minimal.
Halachic Opinions:
Rav Moshe Feinstein: Rav Moshe Feinstein, a preeminent halachic authority, ruled that in practice, one should face the general direction of east rather than being overly precise with calculations like the Great Circle route.
Mishnah Berurah (94:9): It indicates that a person should align themselves as best as possible towards Jerusalem, which has often been interpreted as facing east from locations west of Israel.
Conclusion:
In practice, many poskim (halachic authorities) advocate for facing east, with some suggesting a slight adjustment towards the southeast. While the Great Circle route is technically more accurate, most traditional authorities do not require this level of precision, and facing east or east-southeast is considered halachically sufficient.

Therefore, if you're living in New York, you would typically daven towards the east or east-southeast, in line with the conventional practice, rather than using the Great Circle route.

My main problem with this answer is the AI saying "this adjustment is minimal." It is not, as I illustrate here (roughly), showing the Great Circle route direction from New York in red and the Mercator map direction in blue. There is at least a 45 degree difference.

Meta's AI said:

A great question!
Halachically, the consensus among most rabbinic authorities is to pray in the direction of Jerusalem using the Great Circle route, also known as the "shortest distance" or "as the crow flies" method. This means that someone in New York should face almost directly east, with a slight inclination towards north, to pray towards Jerusalem.
The Great Circle route takes into account the Earth's curvature and provides the most direct path to Jerusalem. While facing east and a bit south might seem intuitive, it's actually not the most accurate direction from New York to Jerusalem.
So, to answer your question, it's recommended to use the Great Circle route and face almost directly east with a slight inclination towards north when praying towards Jerusalem from New York.

Stating that the Great Circle route is only slightly northeast is wrong, as we noted. But even worse is the confident tone that this is the halacha.

I asked for the names of rabbis who hold this position, and got an equally confident result:

Here are some prominent halachic authorities who rule to pray using the Great Circle route:
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (Aruch HaShulchan, OC 94:3)
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (Mishpat Kohen 64)
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, OC 4:85)
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo 1:4)
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Da'at 2:16)
The Chazon Ish (quoted in Orchos Chaim 94:3)
Please note that there might be other authorities with differing opinions, and it's always best to consult with a local rabbi or halachic expert for practical guidance.
Also, keep in mind that the difference between the Great Circle route and the "east and a bit south" method is relatively small, and many people may not be aware of the distinction. However, for those seeking precise halachic guidance, the Great Circle route is the preferred method according to these authorities.

I do not have these sources available as of this writing, but I think this is hallucination. For example, Googling "Igros Moshe, OC 4:85" it appears to be a responsum on using telephones or loudspeakers for different mitzvot. Yechave Daat 2:16 appears to be about a kohen who is near a dead body.

Meta sounds like it is definitely not the place to go for halachic discussion!

Here's what Google's Gemini says:

Prayer Direction: A Complex Halachic Question
The short answer is that there is no definitive, universally accepted halachic ruling on this matter.

The traditional understanding has been to pray towards the east, as this was the general direction of the Holy Land. However, with the advent of more accurate geographical knowledge, the question of whether to follow a Great Circle route has arisen.

Key Points:
General Consensus: Most authorities agree that the primary direction for prayer is towards the Land of Israel and the Temple Mount.
Great Circle Route: This is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. For someone in New York, this would be northeast rather than east.
Halachic Debate: There is significant debate among halachic authorities about whether to follow the Great Circle route or the traditional east-facing direction.
Practical Considerations: Given the difficulty in determining the exact Great Circle route and the potential for confusion, many people continue to pray towards the east.
Ultimately, the decision of which direction to pray towards is a personal one. It is important to consult with your rabbi or a knowledgeable scholar to determine the best course of action for you.

I followed up, asking which modern rabbis support the Great Circle Route, but it answered:

Unfortunately, providing a definitive list of rabbis who explicitly endorse the Great Circle route for prayer direction is quite difficult.

Here's why:

Relatively Recent Debate: The concept of the Great Circle route and its application to prayer direction is a relatively modern discussion, arising with advancements in geography and navigation.
Lack of Specific Rulings: While many contemporary rabbis and scholars have addressed the issue, explicit endorsements of the Great Circle route over the traditional eastward direction are not as common as one might expect.
Nuances of Halacha: Halachic rulings often involve complex considerations and nuances, making it challenging to isolate a single factor like prayer direction without considering other relevant factors.
General Trends
That said, it's generally acknowledged that there is a growing body of opinion among contemporary Orthodox rabbis who are open to the idea of considering the Great Circle route for prayer direction. While they may not explicitly endorse it in all cases, they recognize the validity of the argument and encourage further exploration of the issue.

To get a better understanding of the different perspectives on this topic, I recommend consulting with local rabbis or scholars who are knowledgeable in this area. They can provide you with more specific information based on your location and their own research.

It may be accurate, but it doesn't give me too much to go on to research further.

Grok from X was cheeky but not very informative.

Oy vey, talk about a question that's more complicated than a Talmudic debate! 😅

Well, according to traditional Jewish law (halacha), one should pray towards the east and a bit south to face Jerusalem. This is based on the idea that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is the holiest place on Earth, and Jews face it when praying.

But wait, there's a twist! If you're using the Great Circle route (the shortest path between two points on a sphere), it might take you on a wild ride across the globe. 🌍

So, here's the deal: if you're in New York, you'd be facing southeast to pray towards Jerusalem using the traditional method. But if you want to get technical and use the Great Circle route, you might end up praying towards the Atlantic Ocean or even Antarctica! 😱

In the end, it's probably best to stick with the traditional method and face southeast. After all, who wants to pray towards a penguin?

Grok doesn't know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctica, which is a pretty good reason to never use it.

Here's what Claude.AI wrote:

This is an interesting question in Jewish law (halacha) regarding the direction of prayer. There are two main perspectives to consider:

Traditional approach:
Traditionally, Jews in New York (and most of North America) have prayed facing east, or slightly southeast. This is based on the straightforward understanding that Jerusalem is to the east of North America. This practice has been widely accepted for centuries.
Great Circle route:
In recent times, some have suggested using the Great Circle route, which is the shortest path between two points on a globe. Using this method, someone in New York would actually face more northeast to pray towards Jerusalem.

The debate centers around how to interpret the requirement to face Jerusalem during prayer. The key considerations are:

Historical precedent: The traditional east-facing approach has been the norm for generations.
Intent of the law: The purpose is to direct one's heart towards Jerusalem and the site of the Temple.
Geographical accuracy: The Great Circle route is technically the most direct path.

Most halachic authorities still recommend following the traditional approach of facing east or slightly southeast. This is because:

It aligns with longstanding custom (minhag), which carries significant weight in Jewish law.
The primary goal is the intention of the heart, not precise geographical alignment.
There's a concept in halacha of "lo plug" - not differentiating between similar cases. This principle suggests maintaining a consistent direction across North America.

However, some contemporary rabbis have argued that with our modern understanding of geography, using the Great Circle route more accurately fulfills the mitzvah.
Ultimately, one should consult their local rabbi for a definitive ruling. Both approaches have valid arguments, and either would likely be considered acceptable in fulfilling the mitzvah of facing Jerusalem during prayer.

This is a much better answer than the others. It mentions the intent of the halacha, the "lo plug" factor, and the importance of minhag which is not mentioned in the others.

I asked for the names of rabbis who discuss this:

Certainly, I can provide some information on rabbis who have supported or discussed the Great Circle route for prayer direction. However, please note that this is a relatively modern discussion in halachic literature, and the number of prominent rabbis who have explicitly endorsed this view is limited. Here are a few examples:

Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich: A prominent contemporary halachic authority, has discussed this issue in his writings. While not necessarily endorsing it outright, he has acknowledged the validity of the Great Circle route argument.
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, has mentioned the Great Circle route as a valid consideration in determining prayer direction.
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (The Lubavitcher Rebbe): While not explicitly endorsing the Great Circle route, he discussed the concept and its potential relevance to prayer direction in some of his talks.
Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky: Has written extensively on this topic and has argued for the validity of the Great Circle route from a halachic perspective.
Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin: A researcher and writer for Chabad.org, has discussed this topic and presented arguments in favor of considering the Great Circle route.

It's important to note that even among these rabbis, most do not necessarily advocate for changing established customs. Rather, they discuss the Great Circle route as a valid halachic consideration or as an interesting point of discussion in understanding the laws of prayer direction.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, I may not have the most up-to-date information on this topic, and there may be other contemporary rabbis who have weighed in on this issue more recently. If you're looking for a definitive ruling, it would be best to consult with your local rabbi or a recognized halachic authority.

I didn't verify the sources, but this was a much more complete (sounding) answer that left open the possibilities of asking further questions.I did find Rabbi Shurpin's article at Chabad.org and he touches on the topic but doesn't really address it much.

This has been my experience in asking Claude questions on international law and medicine as well. So far, I think Claude is in the lead of these popular AIs.

My rankings:

Claude

Gemini

ChatGPT

...

Grok (not recommended at all except for humor)

...

Meta (stay far away)

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!

Was the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh legal under international law?

I found an interesting 2005 discussion of the international laws regarding self-defense from The Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Professor Nicholas J. Wheeler, Professor of International Relations at the University of Birmingham, writes in the context of US response to 9/11:

A non-state terrorist group attacked the USA, but the counter-attack was directed against the territory of Afghanistan that had provided a safe haven for Al-Qaeda. The UN Security Council in Resolutions 1368, 1373 and 1378 recognised the right of self-defence to respond to attacks of this kind. Here, the Security Council recognised that large-scale terrorist attacks could constitute an “armed attack” that gives rise to a right of self-defence. The US claimed that it was acting in self-defence in taking action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, with military action being undertaken to defend the United States against potential future attacks of the kind experienced in New York and Washington DC. The threat of future attacks, in the light of past attacks, justifying the claim that the USA acted pursuant to a right of self-defence.

Critics of the legality of the war in Afghanistan argue that the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 fail to meet the requirement of an “armed attack” because this is restricted to the use of force by states, and requires, in the words of the 1974 General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression , activity analogous to large-scale cross-border attacks.

Set against this, the drafters of the UN Charter did not envisage non-state violence on the scale of the events of 11 September 2001, and it is necessary for interpretations of Article 51 to evolve to meet the challenges posed by groups like Al-Qaeda. The resolutions adopted by the Council in the immediate aftermath of the 11 September attacks provide strong support for a new custom that supports a right of self-defence against states that are believed to have harboured groups who have committed attacks – and crucially, are preparing further attacks - against the territory of the state claiming the right of self-defence. What is left unclear here is whether this right to self-defence extends to anticipatory action against terrorist groups – and their state sponsors - before they have launched an attack. For example, could the US, believing there to be an imminent threat from Al-Qaeda, have reasonably claimed a right of self-defence in attacking terrorist bases in Afghanistan on 10 September, 2001?

If the US could attack Afghanistan because it was harboring Al Qaeda, then certainly Israel could attack the head of Hamas being hosted by Iran. Arguably, Israel could attack Iran itself for hosting terrorists like Haniyeh and Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah.

(This is not even considering the likelihood that Iran was itself involved in the planning of 10/7, amd was aware of the attack beforehand.)

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's options are narrowing, and "honor" makes it more likely it will miscalculate

The Institute for the Study of War still estimates that Iran will mount an attack similar but larger than the April attack on Israel.

However, it notes that everything Iran does or doesn't do has a downside that puts it into a position it does not like.

Iranian leaders may decide that Iran cannot successfully design and execute a strike that would penetrate Israeli air defenses to establish deterrence, despite strong statements by its officials and media. A second failure to penetrate Israeli air defenses would not restore deterrence and would therefore be counterproductive. Such a failure would demonstrate that Iran has limited effective answers to Israeli attacks on its senior leaders and inside its territory. Iranian decisionmakers could calculate that the negative effects of another failed attempt to strike Israeli territory outweigh the internal and regional reputational damage Iran would experience from not attacking Israel after openly discussing the attack...

Iranian leaders may additionally calculate that the risk of triggering a large-scale Israeli response is too high to justify conducting a coordinated large-scale missile and drone attack. Israeli military leaders’ public statements and back-channel messages from the United States have emphasized to both Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah that Israel would respond forcefully to an attack that kills Israeli civilians or causes significant damage.

Iran wants to establish deterrence, which means it must succeed in directly getting some missiles to hit sensitive Israeli military targets.

If it doesn't attack, especially after ten days of threats, it looks weak; if it attacks and it doesn't succeed like in April, it looks weak; if it attacks only through proxies, it looks weak. All of those things hurt its honor but little else.

On the other hand, if it doesn't calibrate its attack and kills civilians or causes more damage than Israel is willing to absorb, that forces Israel to respond and attack Iran's infrastructure. That doesn't just make Iran appear weak - it actually weakens Iran.

And those aren't Iran's only constraints. It wants to coordinate the attack with Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has different goals and honor-based imperatives. If anything, it has the same honor constraints as Iran but more so: Israel isn't actively attacking Iranian leaders or Iranian targets daily as it is with Hezbollah. But Hezbollah also must be somewhat sensitive to dragging all of Lebanon into a war that the people it pretends to be defending most definitely do not want.

There is another factor I have not seen anyone else mention. Iran pretends to be following international law by informing the UN that it plans to attack Israel in self-defense. However, self defense has a temporal component: to make that claim the counterattack has to happen in a reasonable timeframe afterwards under most interpretations of international law. You can't wait a year and then claim you had to attack then for self-defense reasons. Every day Iran waits, its pretense for claiming "self-defense" gets even more ludicrous.

Because honor is an important factor, Iran feels compelled to do something. Perhaps it will target an Israeli diplomat elsewhere in the world and claim equivalence to Haniyeh's assassination. Maybe it will smuggle a bomb to explode outside Israeli defense headquarters via a West Bank terrorist (or time such an attack to coincide with a rocket barrage.)

Iran is trying to thread a needle that may have an eye too small to fit.

IRGC head Major General Hossein Salami at a press conference today

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The High Level Military Group is "an independent body of former chiefs of staff, senior military officers and cabinet ministers from NATO countries with many decades of expertise at the highest level of land, air and sea conflict and the legality thereof," that includes members from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Finland, and the Netherlands.

The HLMG has filed an amicus curiae brief to the International Criminal Court, describing why the ICC charges against Israel of intentional starvation and unlawful killing in Gaza are false.

Not just false, but egregiously and absurdly false..

Within the report, the experts list no less than three ways that Israel conducts itself in war that are unmatched by any other military in history.

On the "starvation" charge, they describe in detail Israel's efforts to bring aid into Gaza and then conclude:

It is our considered military opinion that the State of Israel and the IDF are and have been since the inception of this operation complying in good faith with all international legal obligations to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Based on our experience and knowledge, Israel is facilitating aid to a level we have not seen in our own militaries and we are not aware of our forces’ efforts or even capabilities to conduct similar operations. We do not believe any other armed forces have ever made such efforts, or achieved such success, in facilitating aid delivery to civilians in enemy territory while still engaged in active hostilities in that same operational environment. It is our professional view that accusations of an intent to starve civilians by the Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defence are unsupported by all available evidence, most importantly by the actual conduct of IDF operations in and around Gaza.

On the unlawful killing charge, they add another example where Israel does things to protect civilians above and beyond every military in recorded history:

One of the most pertinent examples of innovative civilian risk mitigation is the Civilian Harm Mitigation Cell (CHMC), established prior to the conflict and in operation during every phase. The CHMC integrates digital map technology, updated hourly, and intelligence to show population density in each area of Gaza. Every IDF operations centre has access to this map which is cross-checked with real-time air surveillance to verify civilian presence.

IDF targeting of air strikes is made in conjunction with the CHMC and influenced by civilian population density in a particular area. Selection of munition size is based on the nature of the military target, intelligence regarding enemy presence and the proximity of civilians.

It is our professional opinion that such a unit is extremely unusual and we are not aware of any other military with a comparable risk mitigation methodology. We assess this is an unprecedented measure, along with millions of leaflet drops, phone calls, text and voice messages, to help commanders prevent or minimise risk to civilian life. How such innovative efforts align with an allegation of the defendants in this matter directing the IDF to intentionally attack civilians is perplexing.

Finally, they note how Israel's internal investigations of incidents during wartime also operate at a speed and efficiency never before seen by any other army, ever:

During our assessment we visited the IDF Fact Finding and Assessment Mechanism which examines any incident that could raise a charge of possible illegal conduct or military procedural misconduct (except for incidents that immediately raise suspicion of criminal misconduct, which are sent directly for criminal investigation). There are currently approximately 300 incidents being actively investigated by the FFAM, with many more which they have received initial information about. To our knowledge no other armed forces have established such a permanent system but would benefit from doing so.

In respect to the speed of the FFAM’s processes, Australia’s Special Advisor, Air Chief Marshal Binskin, reporting on the World Central Kitchen strike, stated: ‘…the ADF [Australian Defence Force] could not have imposed equivalent reprimands as quickly as the IDF CGS [Chief of General Staff] was able to.’

By way of comparison, we draw your attention to war crimes investigations by comparable armed forces in Australia and the UK. The Brereton report was commissioned by the Inspector-General of the ADF to investigate war crimes by Australian forces committed between 2005 and 2016 . The investigation began in 2016 and reported in 2020. Charges were not brought until 2023.

The Haddon-Cave Independent Inquiry was commissioned by the UK Ministry of Defence to investigate alleged special forces war crimes in Afghanistan committed between 2010 and 2013. It was established in 2022 and is ongoing. These two inquiries give a clear parallel to Israeli investigations of war crimes and demonstrate the length of time required to give an equitable, legal outcome in such investigations.

Thousand of reporters are writing from and about Israel, and next to none of them have done what this group does: actually talk to IDF officials and find out their methods, let alone comparing them to every other army in the world.

When the media reports on the IDF as being among the most monstrous armies in history, and the real experts with real knowledge say that Israel is doing things to protect civilians and investigate incidents at levels far beyond the armies that they themselves were part of - then either these highly decorated experts are liars, or the media is not reporting the truth.

South Africa and other countries, and NGOs who side with them, don't want anyone to read reports like this. It demolishes their lies. And it proves that they, and all the people who ignore this evidence, are not interested in the truth and not interested in human rights. They are just disgusting Jew-haters.

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!

08/08 Links Pt2: How Terrorist-State Propaganda Became the Norm for U.S. Audiences; All the Wrong People Are Celebrating Tim Walz; Is the Two-State Solution Still Viable?

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: How Terrorist-State Propaganda Became the Norm for U.S. Audiences

There’s a hefty list of terrorists moonlighting for Al Jazeera who have anchored the network’s “coverage” of the conflict. The Qatari propaganda organ figured out quickly that if someone is wearing a vest that says PRESS, the anti-Israel world will happily excuse literally any violent behavior—indeed, Ghoul reportedly took part in the October 7 attacks.

As someone with a two-decade career in journalism, I’ve been surprised at how little regard mainstream American journalists have for their own industry. Watching the public’s plummeting trust in media suggests it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: The audiences for these outlets have noticed the declining standards and reacted accordingly. When I was a newspaper reporter, it was considered an abuse of privilege, perhaps even a breach of ethics, to use your State Police press badge to gain entry to a Knicks game or a rock concert. I can’t imagine what my peers would have thought of using it to commit international terrorism and then claim immunity.

The Owda nomination and the Ghoul gaslighting are part of another problem: The world is seeing the conflict through the eyes of the terrorist groups and their financiers—and calling it journalism. If you ever wonder why reporters parrot the long-debunked and obviously false Hamas casualty figures, in some cases it’s because the reporters are literally members of Hamas. This is an absolutely insane reality and an unsustainable status quo for journalism.

It would be one thing if the problem were contained to Al Jazeera. But the outlet is serving as a recruiting ground for U.S. media. In June, the Washington Free Beacon reported that “At least six members of the [Washington] Post’s foreign desk previously wrote for Al Jazeera, the Doha-based news outlet bankrolled in part by the government of Qatar,” including “the paper’s Middle East editor, Jesse Mesner-Hage, who spent more than a decade as an editor at the outlet’s English edition.”

This is not to suggest that Al Jazeera is the entirety of the problem, though it is clearly biggest player in this scandal. It was recently revealed, for example, that CNN senior investigations reporter Tamara Qiblawi was a stenographer for a Hezbollah-affiliated outlet.

Fact is, readers and viewers of major American news organizations are being fed a steady diet of Qatar- and Iran-funded state propaganda not in addition to, but in lieu of, actual journalism. Many of them have yet to experience a drop of objective reporting on the conflict.

It is in that context that the Emmy nomination for Owda is an act of unfortunate consistency. The truth is that Israel’s critics in America have created an impenetrable disinformation bubble in which a not-insignificant portion of the country resides, blissfully ignorant and mad as hell.

Gazan Filmmaker With Ties to Palestinian Terror Group Nominated For News and Documentary Emmy

A Gazan woman with long ties to a U.S.-designated terror organization was nominated in June for the 2024 News and Documentary Emmy Awards.

Bisan Owda, who was once a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was nominated with her outlet, AJ+ in the Outstanding Hard News Feature Story: Short Form category for her Al Jazeera show “It’s Bisan from Gaza and I’m Still Alive.” The video series documents Owda’s experience since Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, during which the terrorist group killed over a thousand people and took hundreds hostage.

But Owda’s 4.7 million Instagram followers may not be aware of her ties to the PFLP. Owda’s connection with the group was first reported by Israeli activist Eitan Fischberger, who found evidence that Owda was a member of the Marxist terror organization, which has a history of airplane hijackings and suicide bombings.

The PFLP, which has been a U.S.-designated terror organization since 1997, identified Owda as a member of its youth wing in a 2018 post on its website. In a 2015 on-camera interview with a Palestinian outlet, Owda, wearing military garb and a PFLP scarf, said she would not back down from “revolution.”

“The most important front is that the people of Gaza, the people in the West Bank, and in Jerusalem, and all the protesters are one hand and one people who will not back down for a moment from their land, from their right to their land,” she said in Arabic. “That is to say, they will not back down at all from their cause and their revolution.”

The interview took place at PFLP’s 48th-anniversary celebration in 2015, for which “Comrade” Owda served as a reception committee member and welcomed the crowds, according to the Palestinian outlet Al Watan Voice. Photos show Owda on stage addressing the crowd, which included children and masked men holding knives and Hezbollah flags.

Owda also attended the following year’s PFLP anniversary celebration, where she was named as a host and opened the event with a moment of silence “in honor of the souls of our revolution’s martyrs,” according to the PFLP’s website.

Owda was nominated by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS), the organization responsible for the News and Documentary Emmys. The New York City-based organization is separate from the Primetime Emmy Awards bestowed by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

Lipstadt ‘deeply disturbed’ by Wikipedia’s ban on the ADL

Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, said Wednesday she was “deeply disturbed” by a decision made by Wikipedia editors to ban the Anti-Defamation League as a source on antisemitism issues.

Lipstadt, speaking with reporters, also addressed Iranian influence in Gaza war protests in the U.S., the possibility of a Jewish first gentleman, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s views on Holocaust education and new global guidelines on antisemitism released last month.

Regarding the ADL and Wikipedia, she said she was reluctant to comment on any individual organization but she was “deeply disturbed that Wikipedia should decide that one of the main organizations that tracks and evaluates antisemitism should be totally disbarred from commenting on certain things.”

“It struck me as very strange and it struck me as not as thoughtful, as judicious as it should be.”

Lipstadt, a Holocaust scholar, was pressed about an argument made by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, in his master’s thesis focused on Holocaust and genocide education. Walz argued in the thesis that Holocaust should be taught not as a historical anomaly but in a “greater context of human rights abuses.”

Lipstadt said she “land[s] as a historian in the middle of that” debate. “If you say something is uniquely unique, you can’t compare — it stands by itself, it’s very hard to learn from it. But to say ‘all the same’ is to ignore the historical individualities.”

The U.S. envoy praised Walz for reportedly stepping in at his school to stop lessons where students were asked to role play as Nazis and Jews during the Holocaust. “He shut it down and I thought it was good educating.”

The antisemitism envoy said she was involved in discussions with the intelligence community about a report Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines released revealing Iranian influence and funding in some of the anti-Israel protests in the United States.

“There are foreign actors that are involved in this, there is no question about that,” Lipstadt said. “And certainly Iran has been identified as one of them. The intelligence community … felt that it was important that Americans know that what’s been going on on the campus has been amplified — not created … by foreign influence.”

“Making it clear that this was foreign disinformation — not misinformation, but disinformation and manipulation — was something that we strongly supported,” she added, of her office.

08/08 Links Pt1: Netanyahu apologises to Israeli people for October 7; What can be learned from the famine myth in Gaza; Harris Open to Discussing Israel Arms Embargo

From Ian:

Netanyahu apologises to Israeli people for October 7 for the first time since terror attack

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has apologised to the Israeli people for the October 7 attacks for the first time.

During a rare hour-long interview in Jerusalem with Time Magazine’s national political correspondent Eric Cortellessa, Netanyahu said, “I am sorry, deeply, that something like this happened,” referring to the massacre in which over 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas terrorists and more than 250 were kidnapped to Gaza.

Netanyahu made the apology with some prompting from Cortellessa, who questioned why the heads of the IDF and Shin Bet had all issued apologies for the failures that allowed the atrocities of October 7 to occur, but the PM's only public apology since the attack was to military and security officials whom he initially blamed for it.

“I've said that following the end of the war, there'll be an independent commission that will examine everything that happened before, and everybody will have to answer some tough questions, including me,” Netanyahu said, according to the full transcript provided.

“Will you do it right now? Will you apologise?” Cortellessa pressed.

Netanyahu then conceded, apologising to the Israel people and adding: “You always look back and you say, could we have done things that would have prevented it? You'd have to be—how could you not?”

Netanyahu also discussed the possibility of a multi-front war with Iran and Hezbollah, his handling of the conflict with Hamas, US-Israel relations, and the future of Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East.

Cortellessa inquired about some of the criticisms against Netanyahu's leadership, including that he is intentionally escalating regional tensions to prolong his time in power and that he has emboldened the Israeli far-right, but the PM dismissed these claims. He also denied that 40,000 Gazans have been killed since Israel began its campaign in the Strip, as has been cited by international media outlets, and estimated the number of casualties to be closer to 20,000.

Cortellessa asked if Netanyahu believes there is still a chance for a hostage deal following the assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, and the PM answered in the affirmative, adding that a deal may be even more likely now that “the more extreme elements that oppose the deal are no longer with us.”

When Cortellessa mentioned polls showing that nearly three quarters of Israelis think Netanyahu should leave office now or right after the war, Netanyahu responded:

“I will stay in office as long as I believe I can help lead Israel to a future of security, enduring security and prosperity.”

Time: Netanyahu at War Former Israeli PM Bennett: Oct. 7 ‘epic colossal failure’ of Israeli government

The Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack was an “epic colossal failure of the State of Israel,” former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told a crowd of more than 500 college students last Sunday at the Israel on Campus Coalition’s three-day National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C.

“Nothing worked” in Israel when Hamas infiltrated and murdered more than 1,000 people, Bennett said. “Intelligence, operational and subsequent total meltdown of institutional and governmental Israel. We failed at our most fundamental mission, which is that Jews will never again experience a pogrom.”

The former prime minister called for Israel’s leadership to be “clear-eyed about the failure.”

Simultaneously, out of Oct. 7 came a “remarkable story of the people of Israel,” Bennett said.

“While the government and institution of Israel failed, the people of Israel rose,” he said. “Thousands of young men and women from all over Israel got in their cars and drove down into the inferno … to go and save lives of people they don’t know.”

Tens of thousands of protesters in Israel who have taken to the streets in recent months to call for a hostage deal have also demanded a state commission of inquiry into the security and intelligence failures surrounding Oct. 7 as well as for an election to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

What can be learned from the famine myth in Gaza

For months, we have been hearing reports about starvation in Gaza and even the claim that Israel is using hunger as a war strategy. Israel has vehemently denied this accusation, pointing to the work of COGAT (Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), which facilitates the entry of hundreds of trucks of aid into Gaza daily. According to Israeli experts, the food delivered to Gaza “exceeded international nutritional standards and should have provided sufficient nutrition for the entire Gaza population.”

Recent research by the Institute for National Security Studies has demonstrated that UN reports have knowingly created a distorted picture of the situation and led to unfounded accusations against Israel of intentionally causing starvation. An inaccurate picture of the aid entering Gaza

Since the start of the war, the UN has been releasing reports and updates about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, showing a dire picture of a shortage of humanitarian aid, a severe nutritional crisis, and even the spread of famine in the area. A close examination of these reports, based on the UN’s own clarifications, shows that they portray an inaccurate and partial picture of the aid entering the Gaza Strip. The reports are based on incomplete data from sources in Gaza and disregard significant portions of aid shipments entering the Strip, as well as the complex situation on the ground. These reports have been used as a basis for allegations that Israel is preventing the entry of humanitarian aid in order to starve the population of the Gaza Strip, along with severe accusations of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.

In short, the UN figures do not account for all the aid entering Gaza. UNRWA collects data only on aid entering the Strip via two land crossings (Kerem Shalom and Rafah) and only on trucks that they observed and registered while present at the two locations.

Their data does not include aid that was airdropped into the Gaza Strip or aid arriving by sea through the US floating pier (JLOTS). It also does not include aid received through the Erez crossing in the north, where UNRWA representatives are not stationed. Additionally, it ignores aid received at the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings that is collected by other aid organizations when UNRWA representatives are not present at the crossings. Thus, the data omits a significant amount of aid, including aid supplied by UN agencies, NGOs, and countries, as well as goods from the private sector, deliveries by the World Food Program (WFP), and flour deliveries to bakeries in northern Gaza. Supplies of gas and fuel are also not included in UNRWA figures. Furthermore, in May, the private sector supplied a larger volume of goods. These goods are included in the COGAT data but not in the UNRWA data, which only includes aid received by UN agencies and aid organizations that use its services.

The international community, it seems, uncritically accepts data presented by UNRWA, even though the organization’s neutrality in the Gaza war has been severely compromised. Some UNRWA staff were among the terrorists who committed the brutal 7 October attack on Israel. The Wall Street Journal reported that out of 12,000 UNRWA employees, 1,200 (10% including 23% of all male employees) are ‘operatives’ of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and about half of the employees have close relatives who belong to these terror groups.

UN Watch found widespread support for the October 7 atrocities among UNRWA teachers in Gaza. Screenshots of 249,000 Telegram messages show murderers and rapists being praised as “heroes,” the glorifying of the “education” the terrorists received in UNRWA, the gleeful sharing of photos of dead or captured Israelis, and the exhortation of their execution.

We’ve known for years that the UNRWA schools use a curriculum that cultivates hatred of and violence toward Jews.

The famine myth is only one of many false claims that have emerged during this war. Media outlets have been quick to report unverified incidents, such as the alleged Israeli bombing of a hospital, in which it was claimed that 500 people died. This was a complete fabrication. An Islamic Jihad rocket had misfired and hit the adjacent parking lot, resulting in a much smaller number of casualties.

No Accident: Waves Of Messianic Process Coincide With Spread Of Chocolate (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Jerusalem, August 8 - Scholars of Jewish history, Jewish lore, and cultural anthropology made a startling discovery last month: that the first traceable development toward fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies of Redemption began at the same time as the dissemination of the cacao plant product beyond the Americas, and that each subsequent advance in the manufacture and economics of the product occurred at much the same time as landmark events in the Ingathering of the Exiles and the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

A team of researchers from the Hebrew University shared their insights in an article in the upcoming issue of the history journal Trendlines. In it, the group laid out its observations that the spread of chocolate from the New World to the Old, the addition of sugar and milk, the transformation of the beverage from the province of the super-rich into a product accessible to the middle class, the revolutionary step of producing solid bars, and the geopolitical developments that saw American soldiers bring chocolate to people who had never encountered it, among other phenomena, closely paralleled the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 - then from Portugal in 1497 - many of whom resettled in communities in the Land of Israel, then under Ottoman control, that formed the backbone of a lasting robust Jewish presence in the land that laid the groundwork for the success of the Zionist project hundreds of years later.

The article begins with the observation that Christopher Columbus's delivery back to Spain of cacao beans from the Caribbean in 1502, his fourth voyage to the West Indies, as Jews were resettling around the Mediterranean and elsewhere following their expulsion from Iberia. The decades following that calamity saw the establishment of renewed Jewish communities in the Land of Israel by Ottoman invitation. Several of those communities remained strongholds of Jewish life in the land for centuries.

That growth occurred in parallel to the spread of chocolate through Europe, mostly among the upper classes; initially, cacao beans fetched a higher price than gold. However, increased production in the New World under European conquest increased the product's availability and put it in reach of the non-aristocrat.

The eighteenth century saw a drive among followers of the early Hasidic movement to reclaim messianic longings following the Shabtai Tzvi debacle, just as the consumption of solid chocolate began to take hold. The popularity of the solid form of the foodstuff grew as similar redemptive fervor seized followers of the Gaon of Vilna and the Hatam Sofer in the early nineteenth century - just as the process of adding alkaline salts to chocolate was discovered, reducing its bitterness.

In the mid-nineteenth century both the introduction of moldable chocolate - and the first mass-market chocolate bar - came into being contemporaneous with Jewish religious thought that explicitly called for proactive measures to spark the prophesied ingathering of the exiles. Two of the most iconic names in chocolate today, Nestlé and Hershey, launched their brands right just as secular political Zionism got underway in the form of mass immigration to the Holy Land from Russia and the advocacy work of Theodor Herzl.

The authors also note the post-WWII spread of affordable chocolate throughout the world that parallels the establishment, growth, and increasing power of the State of Israel, the first sovereign Jewish entity in the land since Roman times.

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 says they will attack Israel, even if there is a ceasefire. It's just taking a little longer, that's all.

A question was asked of Iran's UN ambassador yesterday about whether Iran would still attack Israel if there is a ceasefire.

His answer is, sure.

Amir Saeed Irwani, the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations, on Wednesday local time, in response to questions about Hamas announcing that if they reach a ceasefire, Iran will stop responding to the regime, said: "We have pursued two priorities at the same time; First, the establishment of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the withdrawal of the occupiers from this land; Second, punishing the aggressor for the assassination of Martyr Haniyeh, preventing the repetition of terrorist aggression by the Zionist regime and making the Zionists regret entering such a path."

So far Iran has given three reasons for planning to attack Israel. The first was vengeance, the second was self-defense, and now the UN representative is saying "punishment."

The first and third contradict the second, which is the only reason allowed for an attack under the UN Charter.

Meanwhile, Iranian media is quoting the Houthi leader explaining why there has not been an attack yet, nine days after the Ismail Haniyeh's timely death.

Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the leader of Yemen's Ansarullah, said in a speech: "Our definitive response to the Zionist regime's attack on the fuel tanks of Hodeidah port will be carried out."

He added: "The delay in the response of the axis of resistance to the Israeli regime's military tension is only a tactical issue with the aim of responding to the enemy effectively."

The war drums have been beaten slightly less loudly over the past couple of days, from what I can see in Iranian media. It doesn't mean they won't respond, but there appears to be confusion on how, exactly, it should happen without threatening their own interests.

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 ONLY litmus test for being considered "progressive" is an unbridled hate for the Jewish state

Washington Post columnist Perry Baker Jr. writes:

[M] ny progressives were pushing for Walz instead of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who has taken more conservative stands on many issues and been very critical of campus protests of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.It’s not clear exactly why Harris chose Walz over Shapiro. ... But she also likely wanted to avoid irritating the party’s left wing by picking Shapiro. So although the left didn’t get one of its champions on the ticket, it exercised something of a veto. That’s progressive power.

But Tuesday night, Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, one of the most progressive members of the House, was defeated in a primary. She is the second member of the group that used to refer to itself as “the Squad” to lose their seat this year.

Like New York’s Jamaal Bowman, who lost in June, Bush faced an opponent backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, which pumped millions of dollars into the race to boost its preferred candidate. The victories by New York’s George Latimer and Missouri’s Wesley Bell were major wins for AIPAC and centrist groups who want to diminish progressives’ influence within the Democratic Party.

Two House members losing their seats might not seem like a big deal. But there are 10 members (including Bowman, Bush and Ocasio-Cortez) who were first elected in 2018, 2020 or 2022 and have often take unabashedly left-wing stands to push the Democratic Party in their direction. Those 10 were among the 18 members who called for a cease-fire in Gaza in October and argued that the United States should not give ironclad support to Israel.

...Progressives persuaded more establishment Democrats such as Biden to hire more left-wing staffers and implement those aides’ ideas. They’ve built strong grassroots movements, such as the protests against U.S. support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

George Latimer calls himself a progressive, using the word repeatedly on his website. So does Wesley Bell. They both hold similar positions as their opponents on nearly every issue important to the Left.

As this article makes clear, there is only one topic that differentiates what they call "progressives" from these self-declared progressives - Israel. Every single specific example in this article of what a "progressive" believes is being anti-Israel.

It isn't the only place this can be seen. A New Yorker article in June about politicians who have left the "progressive" fold like Ritchie Torres, Mondaire Jones and John Fetterman can also only name a single topic that defines them as no longer being progressive: support for Israel against Hamas.

It isn't only a rhetorical device from the Right to say that the progressive movement is obsessively anti-Israel. Their own adherents define themselves this way. Hating Israel, including opposing its right to defend itself from a sadistic terrorist group, is the only litmus test to be a part of that group.

Certainly, the people who identify themselves as progressive disagree with each other on some topics. None of those exclude them from their little club. But if anyone disagrees that Israel intends to wage genocide on Palestinians, that automatically kicks them out of the club.

When backing Hamas' war aims is the key topic that unites a group of people, it is no longer a political group. It is an antisemitic hate group.

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!

.@Wikipedia is garbage: it accuses Israel of fictional "genocide," "apartheid" and even a fake "polio epidemic" in Gaza

YNet reports, "The global editors of Wikipedia have officially renamed the entry 'Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza' to 'Gaza genocide.' This change followed a vote after months of debate, and the editors now consider this a settled fact. "

The entry itself is a textbook case of bias. It justifies the accusation by saying that "there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage." But the associate professor they quote for that nugget of information himself said the only definition that matters is the legal one, and adds, “Whether it’s genocide or not I think is a little bit beside the point.”

In other words, even their own sources admit that the accusation is political, not factual. Which makes their title of the entry propaganda, not reality.

Beyond that, it quotes lots of "evidence" of the accusation (like Netanyahu's mentioning Amalek) without quoting any counter-evidence (that Jews understand the reference to be to the commandment to remember Amalek, not to destroy Amalek, and he identified Hamas with Amalek, not Palestinians, which is obvious when you read his statement..)

If this was an isolated case of a bad Wikipedia entry, of which there are many, then it wouldbe bad enough. But it is part of a conscious pattern among Wikipedia editors where they decide that lie about Israel is a fact and not a contested or false accusation.

For example, Wikipedia has an entry titled "Israeli apartheid," not "accusations of Israeli apartheid."

Perhaps even more absurdly, they recently created an entry on "2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic."

Wikipedia's own definition of "epidemic" is "the rapid spread of disease to a large number of hosts in a given population within a short period of time. For example, in meningococcal infections, an attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks is considered an epidemic."

Yet in Gaza there have been zero identified cases of polio. They have found the polio virus in wastewater but have not found a single person with the disease at this time. Calling it an "epidemic" is propaganda by Gaza's health ministry, but does not reflect reality by any definition of the erm.

In London, 18 poliovirus isolates were discovered in 21 of 52 London sewage samples collected between February and July, 2022. No one called that an "epidemic" or even an "outbreak" of polio, even though that was more than has been discovered in Gaza.

Wikipedia is now worse and less factual than most mainstream media in its reporting on Israel and Palestinians. All of its vaunted checks and balances are proven worthless as long as a determined set of editors want to subvert its mission and convert it to just another anti-Israel propaganda outlet.

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!

Belgian poet and novelist Herman Brusselmans wrote a column in the site Humo where he said that "I want to ram a sharp knife through the throat of every Jew I meet."

This brought a lot of criticism, because it is a pretty antisemitic thing to say.

But Al Jazeera's article about it says "Jewish and right-wing groups attack Belgian writer for sympathizing with Gaza."

The editors of Humo responded to the controversy by saying, "You can't isolate that one sentence, you have to read the entire column. Then you know immediately that Brusselmans doesn't mean it literally and therefore doesn't 'incite murder' at all. ....Herman Brusselmans' statements are part of a satirical column, not a journalistic article or an interview. Brusselmans is a celebrated and respected writer who likes to swear and sneer, eagerly using hyperbole and foul language, but he is not an anti-Semite. Even more than other columns, his should be judged by literary and not journalistic standards. With satirical writers such as Herman Brusselmans, the writing should never be taken one hundred percent literally."

So let's look at the entire column and judge it by literary standards.

It starts off by saying that he has mood swings, sometimes getting uncontrollably angry at people and sometimes being sympathetic, using an exaggerated and obviously fictional example:

I am working hard on my upcoming collection 'Zat genoeg om met een duivelswijf te poepen' (Drunk enough to fuck with an ugly woman). It contains impressions, opinions, descriptions, reviews, objective observations, essays, columns and scattered bits of poetic prose.

For example, I am talking about a man I saw walking down the street yesterday, dressed in a washed-out shirt, fake cotton trousers and old sandals. I felt enormous pity for the man, and I imagined how he must try to get by on a meagre pension and not even have enough to buy a new pair of sandals. I watched him go and almost had tears in my eyes. What had he not experienced? For example, his wife who committed suicide, one of his daughters who became pregnant at the age of 13 by an unemployed pipe fitter, his other daughter who went to Bhagwan and was only employed there to clean the toilets, his son who was so homosexual that many other homosexuals said to him: 'Don't exaggerate, Alain,' and he himself who worked for forty years against his will at the OCMW in Sint-Amandsberg. He had to give up his only hobby, collecting poisonous substances, because he started to suffer from problems with his lungs, stomach, intestines, liver, kidneys and, strangely enough, his armpits, in which a kind of moss began to grow.

And yesterday this man walked down the street, and he moved me, although I suddenly thought: cut your feet off your legs, you bastard, then you'll be rid of those stupid sandals. It's like I have big mood swings.

That's the setup to the antisemitic screed that follows:

Despite this, I keep a clear mind, and so I follow the reality of the day closely. It does not escape me either that a Third World War is coming. The Middle East will explode, with nefarious consequences for the rest of the globe. And all because of a small, fat, bald Jew who bears the ominous name of Bibi Netanyahu , and who for whatever reason wants to ensure that the entire Arab world is wiped out. For every Hamas or Hezbollah fighter who is killed by that Israeli shitty army, hundreds of innocent civilians are killed, and we can do nothing but keep repeating that many of them are children, and that we here, in the so-called safe West, cannot imagine that the same fate would befall our children. I see an image of a crying and screaming Palestinian boy, completely out of his mind, calling for his mother who is lying under the rubble, and I imagine that boy is my own son Roman , and the mother is my own girlfriend Lena , and I get so angry that I want to ram a sharp knife through the throat of every Jew I meet.

Of course, you always have to remember: not every Jew is a murderous bastard, and to give shape to that thought I imagine an elderly Jewish man shuffling down my own street, dressed in a washed-out shirt, fake cotton trousers and old sandals, and I feel sorry for him and almost get tears in my eyes, but a moment later I wish him to hell, and yes, that is a mood swing, and my upcoming collection will unfortunately be full of it. And in the meantime, a pack of cigarettes, which could comfort me, has become much more expensive again.

I know a little bit about satire. I've been a fan of satire my entire life.

This isn't satire.

I'm sure he personally does not really want to stab every Jew he meets and therefore the wish to kill them is obviously exaggerated. It is not, however, satirical. Just as it is not satirical when he says that Israel is killing hundreds of civilians for every terrorist, or that Palestinian children are screaming for their mothers buried under the rubble, or when he says he pictures suffering Palestinians as his own loved ones.

Clearly he believes those things.

There is no comparison between saying "I hate this person's footwear so I want to cut off his legs" - which is indeed satire - and saying "I hate Israel so I want to stab every Jew I meet" - which is antisemitism.

Rather than satire, it is an exaggerated account of how he really feels. Which means part of him really wants to see all Jews suffer for Israel's fictional crimes. And like many bigots, he defends himself by saying, "Can't you take a joke?"

"Not every Jew is a murderous bastard"? Only some? Only most? How much more obvious can an antisemitic statement get?

Brusselmans defends himself by saying, "'I mainly meant that if this were to happen to my child, I would do something to the perpetrators. Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza and I shouldn't even be allowed to say that? Perhaps more attention and indignation should be paid to what is happening in the Middle East."

Oh. So every Jew is guilty of what he thinks is happening in Gaza. Even when when Brusselmans is defending himself outside of the "satire," he is still stereotyping all Jews.

This is the modus operandi of antisemites - defend the hate, claim it is a joke, claim free speech, and finally say that all the criticism distracting from the real issue of how evil Jews are.

When you look at the context, it doesn't exonerate Brusselmans. It damns him.

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!

08/07 Links Pt2: Democracies Should Quit the UN Human Rights Council; How Global Jewry can hold institutions accountable; The Story That Explains Why Cori Bush Lost

From Ian:

Democracies Should Quit the UN Human Rights Council

Of the many bodies at the UN, perhaps the worst – worse even than the General Assembly – is the UN Human Rights Council. It is highly selective in its indignation. China, a member of the UNHRC, imprisons and reeducates one, two, possibly even three million Uighurs. But no one at the UNHRC will ever call China to account. Another current member, Pakistan, imprisons Christians who have been accused of “blasphemy” by Muslims settling personal scores. No one bothers about Pakistan. Russia attempts to murder enemies of the state, even when those “enemies” are abroad. Putin’s men murdered Alexei Navalny and Pavel Litvinenko, and tried to murder, with the Novichok nerve agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia, in placid Salisbury, England. But no one is thinking of putting Russia in the dock at the UNHRC. Other members of the UNHRC include Cuba, a wretched Communist dictatorship, and Venezuela, an even more wretched Communist dictatorship, with four million of its citizens now having fled abroad. Among the UNHRC’s 47 members are other splendid examples of democracy and human rights such as Bangladesh (where Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists are persecuted and sometimes murdered), Mauritania (with its 170,00 black slaves of Arab masters), and Libya (with its open-air African slave markets).

The UNHRC does have on its permanent agenda, to be taken up for discussion and a vote at every session, the human rights “violations” of exactly one country, Israel. This is the infamous Item Seven, with resolutions to be taken up concerning “human rights in Palestine and the occupied Arab territories.”

Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan said after the 2020 UNHRC elections: “Today’s Human Rights Council elections prove once again that this council has nothing to do with protecting human rights and everything to do with violating them. Since 2006, the council has adopted 90 resolutions condemning Israel, more than all the resolutions against Syria, North Korea and Iran, combined. The obsessive focus on Israel, along with its protection of oppressive, dictatorial regimes, shows that the Human Rights Council is in the business of white-washing the crimes of these countries. I call on all democracies that are still members of the council to immediately resign from this shameful and antisemitic body.”

Erdan was right to point out the “obsessive focus” on Israel, which has been the constant target of UNHRC resolutions under Item Seven for its supposed “violations” of the rights of Palestinians. In the last 14 years, 90 resolutions at the UNHRC have condemned Israel, which many will be astounded to learn is “more than all the resolutions” that in the same period were passed against three of the worst violators of human rights on the planet – Syria, North Korea, and Iran.

The focus on Israel has been noted by two recent Secretaries-General of the U.N. The first was Kofi Annan. In his speech to open the 61st General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2006, Annan admitted that Israeli is often unfairly judged at the UN: “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies. And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.” The other was Ban Ki-moon, who, speaking to the Security Council on December 17, 2016, expressed his opinion that the UN has had a “disproportionate focus on Israel” that has “foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively.” The Secretary-General explained that “decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.”

Demanding real change: How Global Jewry can hold institutions accountable

ON THE INTERNATIONAL stage, there is no hope of reforming the United Nations. After months of reports that UN staff directly participated in the October 7 attack, the UN has confirmed as much. Every step of the way, the UN has attempted to penalize Israel for refusing to die. Western countries should cancel all UN funding obligations and seek new avenues for international programs or collaboration.

Every dime to the UN is directly supporting terror sympathizers around the globe. UN aid trucks are repeatedly hijacked for contraband such as cigarettes, which means aid employees are funneling products into the shipments and coordinating with Hamas cells. There is no reason that other bodies that do not employ terrorists cannot take over food insecurity programs and humanitarian aid efforts.

In the private sector, the solution is to vote with your wallet. Stop subsidizing businesses that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctioning of Israel. Companies that have decided to take stances on the war against Hamas have not been quiet about where they stand; shop somewhere else.

There is no good or service worth the financing of our destruction. In Arizona, our state treasurer has pulled all state investments tied to pro-BDS businesses. Other governments should follow suit.

Making our own path
There is a fundamental problem when we call for change but decline to participate in the necessary steps. Yes, it is inconvenient, sometimes even risky, but sitting idly by is cowardly. If institutions do not give us a seat at the table, we must pull up a chair, and if they do not make room, we build a new space.

All of these institutions and individuals are calculating that Jews are not going to create real problems, thereby allowing them to appease the antisemites and keep our business.

Unfortunately, for most of modern history, that strategy has worked. Global Jewry is too entrenched in the notion that if we are just polite enough and show them the error of their ways, they will come around. Demands must have consequences; otherwise, our words will be meaningless.

Seth Mandel: The Story That Explains Why Cori Bush Lost

Last night Missouri Rep. Cori Bush became the second member of the anti-Israel “squad” to lose her Democratic primary election this summer. And not a moment too soon, since her concession speech was a deranged menu of half-intelligible threats against those she blamed for her loss: the pro-Israel Jewish community.

“AIPAC, I’m coming to tear your kingdom down!” Bush yelled, to cheers from her crowd of supporters.

AIPAC did indeed spend money to oppose Bush, though she lost to a progressive activist-turned-prosecutor who rose to fame after the riots in Ferguson, Mo., in 2015.

But in a roundabout way, the discourse around AIPAC and Israel did play a role in Bush’s downfall, just not the one she thinks. There was no Jewish hypnotism at work here, or whatever she believes in the darker corners of her weary mind. It’s just that Bush’s handling of the Israel issue, and specifically of AIPAC, provided a window into the fact that the congresswoman had become untethered from reality and was therefore unconditionally unfit to represent the people of St. Louis.

An incident at a late July fundraiser, organized with several anti-Zionist groups, brings this point into focus. Bush recounted a story that supposedly showed how open-minded she was—a story revealed to be a weird fabrication.

It went like this: At an event earlier that day, a woman fainted. “I did what nurses do, take care of the person that was in need,” Bush told the videoconference. She “didn’t care that this is the person that brought [AIPAC] to my doorstep.”

The upshot was that Bush will take care of even the people trying to destroy her.

But when St. Louis Magazine looked into the story, they found that Bush had taken some artistic license when retelling it. The woman in the story was actually Debbie Kitchen, who is neither Jewish nor AIPAC-affiliated. “It just blew my mind,” Kitchen told St. Louis. “Then to find out that she raised $30,000 that night—I was livid.”

According to the magazine, the background is as follows: “Kitchen says she and Bush know each other well because she was active in Indivisible St. Louis, which endorsed Bush in 2020 and 2022. The progressive-leaning group is endorsing Bush’s opponent Wesley Bell in this year’s August 6 Democratic primary, and Kitchen is a very vocal backer of Bell, too.”

This was not an innocent mistake, then. It was an egregious lie told to manifest Jews as the enemy in any situation in which Cori Bush faces opposition.