Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Germany 1938 in Australia 2024: Jewish owned business defaced with red triangles and a threat, plus the Nazi origins of the triangle

This was the scene outside Avner's bakery in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday:

The Jewish-owned bakery was defaced with the Hamas "red triangle" targeting threat.

If that wasn't enough, a letter was shoved under the door threatening the owner: "Be Careful."

The owner, former TV chef Ed Halmagyi, said, "It’s hard to be intimidated by inner-city middle-class Cosplay Radicals who graduated primary school without their pen license.”

He kept serving customers in front of the Nazi-like imagery into the afternoon.

I do not see a single pro-Israel post on Avner's Instagram. The bakery was targeted because it is unapologetically Jewish, not because it is "Zionist." (Avner's is unfortunately not kosher.)

This is becoming an everyday phenomenon, and the fiction that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism gets more and more absurd.

___________________________________

The Nazis used the inverted red triangle, and triangles of other colors, to classify political prisoners.

As Seth Mandel noted a few weeks ago, when Donald Trump used that symbol in social media ads in 2020, he was attacked as using Nazi iconography to smear his political opponents.

His campaign removed the ads as soon as they could.

I highly doubt that either the Trump campaign or Hamas knowingly chose the Nazi symbolism in using the red triangles, but isn't it interesting that Trump was immediately accused of being a Nazi and that he should have known better in 202 - but outside Jewish circles, the media has generally not noted the Nazi origins of the red triangle as used by Hamas?

And isn't it even more interesting that no one expects Hamas to drop the red triangle even after its Nazi origins are pointed out?

When the media routinely treats a presidential candidate as being worse than Hamas, we have a bigger problem than just red triangles.

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 far-fetched case for Israel annexing Lebanon to the Litani

Turkeys' Anadolu Agency reports:

Israel’s escalating war on Lebanon, particularly the intensified attacks and ground invasion in its southern region, are all parts of the historical Zionist objective of controlling southern Lebanon and parts of the wider region, according to a prominent Lebanese analyst.

Even before there was the state of Israel, the Zionists were pushing for the British “to put the borders between Lebanon and Palestine at the time at the Litani River” as they saw it as part of their “Jewish homeland,” Karim Makdisi, an associate professor at the American University of Beirut, told Anadolu.

"They’ve always had this interest to try to have some form of control over south Lebanon, whether it’s through occupation, annexation or through, in more recent times, a kind of demilitarisation in the way of like the Sinai or these kinds of areas, "he said.

There is even the possibility of taking over southern Lebanon through illegal Israeli settlements, as in the Occupied West Bank, as that has been on the agenda of extremists who are now in power in Israel, he added.

You can find Israelis who advocate thousands of ideas. Their existence does not mean that the government is remotely considering those ideas. International law is 100% against such an idea, and I cannot imagine as single country supporting any such Israeli plans.

That being said, I found a couple of articles in Hebrew media about the idea of annexing southern Lebanon to the Litani, and they are worth at least entering in the conversation.

In Mida, Yaakov Feitelson goes over the history of the early discussions of the borders of the Jewish national home shortly after the Balfour Declaration. At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the World Zionist Organization published its vision for what the borders should be.

This goes north of the Litani, and even includes the Zahrani River.

These are probably not Biblical boundaries. No one is quite sure exactly how far north the tribe of Asher went, nor how well they controlled the territory they did have, but most of Lebanon was controlled by Phoenicia during Biblical times.

Ben Gurion wrote about the desired borders of the Jewish state in a letter from Poalei Zion to the British Labor Party in 1921. His main concern wasn't Biblical but economic. He knew Israel would need reliable water sources, both for irrigation and for energy. "The Land of Israel is an arid land, and without artificial irrigation it is absolutely impossible for a large population to grow. There is no coal in Israel. And water power should be the main driving force of industry in the Land of Israel, " he wrote. The Litani was part of his vision.

Interestingly, Canada supported this idea, according to a news report I found from 1921 (The Hebrew Standard of Australasia, March 18, 1921):

Feitelson's main concern is not economic but security. Even though Hezbollah has long range rockets, there is immense value in strategic depth. He suggests the Zahrani River as being included because any rockets that are shot from north of there would give crucial extra time for people in Israel to seek shelter. He is not considering building settlements in Lebanon.

Hakol Hayehudi interviews Amiad Cohen, who advances a similar argument. But he is looking from the perspective of topography: a nation should have, as much as possible, natural borders and Israel needs to control high ground for its security. The current borders are the results of political concerns between England and France, not security. He points out that if Israel had not controlled the Golan Heights in 1973, the Syrians could have destroyed Israel during the Yom Kippur War. He looks at the Litani as the major natural boundary between Israel and her northern neighbors for similar reasons.

Cohen explained it on CBN in July.

Again, these ideas seem highly unlikely in today's world. But they are worth discussing if we want a solution, not a forever war between Israel and Hezbollah.

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!

Since Israel started sending ground troops into southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has been telling everyone that the IDF utterly failed - it failed to gain any ground, it was turned back at every village it tried to capture.

Then Israel started giving tours to villages in southern Lebanon to the media, showing not only that Israel had captured territory, but it was confident enough that Hezbollah would not fire on them because the areas around those villages were cleared.

This was totally unacceptable to the terror group that wants to control the narrative. And it went mostly after the BBC, which it sees as the weakest link and easiest to manipulate.

L'Orient Le Jour reports:

Hezbollah strongly condemned what it describes as dangerous behavior by several Western media outlets, following a promotional tour organized by the Israeli army for journalists.

In a statement released on Monday, the group had initially reacted to a BBC report by Jerusalem correspondent Lucy Williamson, who crossed into southern Lebanon as part of the convoy arranged for journalists by the Israeli military.

"Following our previous statement regarding the promotional tour organized by the Zionist occupation army for several Western media outlets, it has become clear that, in addition to the BBC, networks and institutions such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, Fox News, Reuters, The New York Times, The Financial Times, the Associated Press and other networks and channels also participated in this tour," Hezbollah said.

“The BBC, with all its platforms and in different languages, did not just blindly side with the murderers and criminals and justify the Zionist barbarism against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, but brazenly sent a team that entered a southern village accompanied by the occupation army and violated the sanctity of Lebanese territory, sovereignty, and applicable Lebanese laws, as shown by the reports published by this institution,” Hezbollah said in a statement Monday.

Hezbollah’s Media Relations condemned “this unjustified and absolutely unacceptable move and demands the Ministry of Information, the National Media Council, and the relevant judicial and security agencies take the necessary legal measures against the BBC and its teams in Lebanon and protest to the BBC Company and the legal bodies representing it. It also demands that the unions of journalists, editors, and free media outlets in the world condemn this step,” Hezbollah concluded.

Six employees of BBC Arabic in Beirut announced their resignation today, Monday, in protest against a report published by BBC English about the fighting in southern Lebanon after the team visited Lebanese areas accompanied by the Israeli army.

The seven employees are Sana Khoury, Mohamed Hamdar, Marie-Josée Qazzi and Joey Sleem, along with three others from the BBC Extra team. They stated that "they will not return to work unless the institution issues an apology for the report or holds accountable the team that accompanied the Israeli army."

Wow. Who knew that journalists embedded with an army were breaking the law? All those reports from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere where every major media outlet participated were illegal, according to Hezbollah!

This is Hezbollah panicking about losing a battle in the information war. The usual response is an over the top, crazed reaction, knowing that Western reporters do not want to be harassed by anti-Israel drones on social media and perhaps in real life.

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!

10/14 Links Pt2: Why Western ‘solidarity’ is a death sentence for Palestinians; Dreyfus: A Very Modern Affair; Veteran Loses Job After Shooting Anti-Israel Attacker

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: Why Western ‘solidarity’ is a death sentence for Palestinians

There is a question we must ask, ugly and unsettling though it is: who benefits from Palestinian death? It is my belief that Israel does not. On the contrary, given that the influential of the West hold up every civilian death in Gaza as hard proof of the unique evils of Zionism, it is always damaging for Israel when Palestinians die, even when the IDF does its utmost to avoid the loss of innocent life. The staggering double standard by which the woke judge the world’s only Jewish nation – we fight wars, it commits war crimes – means Israel is indicted more ferociously than any other state on Earth for that terrible thing that attends all wars: civilian casualties.

Hamas, on the other hand, clearly spies political advantage in Palestinian suffering. It knows every dead Palestinian will be marshalled by the West’s cultural elites as part of their zealous crusade to demonise and delegitimise the Jewish State. It knows the fires of Israel-hate that burn so fiercely in our opinion-forming circles are further stoked by every tragedy in Gaza. It believes there is moral benefit in the ‘martyrdom’ of civilians. And here’s the awful thing: there is. The swirling global culture of Israelophobia acts as an open invitation to Hamas to permit, and even puppeteer, ever greater levels of Palestinian pain, in the knowledge that this will land yet another blow on Israel’s prestige. Let us speak frankly: Hamas wants people to stay in northern Gaza because it wants them to die.

This is why the Battle of Northern Gaza matters. First, because it is proving to be one of the most intense confrontations yet between the Jewish State and the terror army that wishes to destroy it. And second, because it speaks to a truth too often obscured by the bigotries and bullshit of our Israel-obsessed elites. Namely, that this war they falsely depict as a genocide by Jews, as fascism rehabilitated by fascism’s one-time victims, is in reality a fight between a democratic state and a death cult. Between a civilised nation that regrets death and a barbarous outfit that relishes in it. Between a country that just wants to exist and terrorists dreaming of that ultimate state of non-existence: ‘martyrdom’.

Consider Hamas’s flagrant lie that it is discouraging people from leaving northern Gaza because it is ‘too risky’ elsewhere. You wouldn’t know it from the emotionalist coverage of the mainstream media, which depicts the clash in the north as a deranged one-sided assault by Israel, but Hamas militants are fighting furiously. There are around 5,000 of them in the north, many concentrated in the Jabalia camp Israel has been targeting. They have been shooting guns, firing anti-tank missiles and using high explosives to target IDF soldiers. Hamas is not telling people to stay in the north to avoid the risk of death elsewhere – it is telling them to stay to subject them to the risk of death. To the gross, inescapable dangers of life on a patch of land where a terrorist army fires deadly weapons in heavily populated areas.

Incapable of beating Israel on the physical battlefield of Gaza, Hamas seeks to wound it in the global battlefield of ideas, of images, of viral Palestinian suffering that the self-styled virtuous of the West lap up, retweet and weaponise against that state they hate above all others. Hamas is open about the moral boon it believes it can get from Palestinian death. Yahya Sinwar, its military leader in Gaza, has described the deaths of Palestinians as ‘necessary sacrifices’ to get the Israelis ‘right where we want them’. He believes, in CNN’s words, that the ‘spiralling civilian death toll in Gaza’ will ‘work in [Hamas’s] favour’. Western influencers’ frantic, giddy sharing of Palestinian pain to try to dent Israeli prestige directly inspires Hamas’s grotesquely cavalier attitude towards Palestinian life.

As I argue in my new book, After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation, ‘Having made Palestinian agony the currency of their activism, the activist class cannot now feign surprise at Hamas’s willingness to let this disastrous war continue’. It is your ‘commodification of Palestinian pain’ that incites Hamas to offer up yet more of it – such as by beating people with sticks to make them stay in a warzone where they might very well die. The gravest threat to Gaza right now is the death cult that rules it – and the Western apologists for that death cult. Free Palestine? Yes. Please. From the death-mongering of Hamas and the lethal pity of faraway elites who have no idea of the harm they are doing.

Anti-Semitism? What anti-Semitism?

There’s certainly been no shortage of the latter of late. In February, the Community Security Trust (CST) reported a 96 per cent rise in anti-Semitic assaults following 7 October. Bricks and bottles have been thrown at British Jews. One man, on his way home from a synagogue, was kicked by ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters and told, ‘We are going to rape your mother, you dirty Jew’. No doubt, this was just misplaced anger about the goings on in Gaza, because racially menacing British Jews is a totally normal response to a war raging in the Middle East.

Sarcasm aside, those still trying to pretend that this is anything other than pure anti-Semitism would do well to read that CST report from February. The peak in anti-Semitic incidents, it found, came just a few days after Hamas’s barbaric assault on Israel – weeks before Israel’s ground invasion into Gaza began. It represented a grotesque kind of ‘celebration’ of the pogrom, it concluded. Holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is disgusting enough. But even that doesn’t capture what has been going on.

Anti-Semitism has been metastasising for years now, yet the ‘anti-racists’ have been determined not to notice. Even before 7 October, British Jews were suffering a quarter of all religiously motivated hate crimes while making up just 0.5 per cent of the population. Stories of elderly Jewish men being sucker-punched on the street or Jewish sites being desecrated came and went without much comment. There’s a synagogue in Kent that has been smashed up eight times in 10 years, yet that story has struggled to break out of the local and Jewish press.

My mind often drifts back to those racist scumbags who drove around Finchley Road, another Jewish area of north-west London, in 2021. They chanted ‘Fuck the Jews… Fuck their mothers… Rape their daughters’ out of megaphones, in cars decked out with Palestinian flags. There they were, calling for precisely the kind of violence and sadism we saw meted out on the innocent Jews of southern Israel a few Octobers later. This was a call for barbarism dressed up as national liberation, in the middle of our capital city. And yet it provoked little more than perfunctory tweets from the great and good.

If they were willing to let that slide, they were willing to let anything slide. The silence of the ‘anti-racists’ since 7 October won’t have surprised anyone who has been paying attention. But it must deprive the woke set of the moral high ground for good. After years of raging against cultural appropriation, microaggressions and inanimate objects, they clammed up when genocidal terrorists achieved the most deadly assault against Jews since the Holocaust, and anti-Semitic marches became part and parcel of British city life. They showed once and for all that they don’t care about racism, particularly when it’s levelled against Jews. Never let them forget it.

10/14 Links Pt1: Israel’s best strategic position in decades; UNIFIL’s failure means it must leave or reform; Hezbollah drone attack on IDF base marks major escalation

From Ian:

Israel’s best strategic position in decades

Likewise, on Israel’s northern border, the threat of Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal prevented Israel from taking offensive action. The thought of another conflict with Hezbollah was enough to paralyze decision-makers, including senior IDF commanders, intelligence officials, and political leaders Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid. They were ready to throw in the towel and stop a war with Lebanon. But Netanyahu didn’t listen to those voices. In a series of daring, James Bond-like operations, Israel took out Hezbollah’s mid-level leadership with precision-targeted attacks that eliminated its command structure.

These strikes were a turning point in the war against Hezbollah, whose long-range rocket attacks are also being disrupted. And as it did in Gaza, the IDF is systematically dismantling Hezbollah’s vast tunnel network and confiscating weapons the terror group stored to use in a massive infiltration, which would have been worse than the Oct. 7 attack.

In another display of daring, Netanyahu took out Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in the heart of Beirut. He did so without informing the Biden administration and, in true Israeli fashion, aimed to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. (And for the record, rather than forgiveness, the United States owes Israel its thanks for eliminating an evil dictator with American blood on his hands.)

Despite the pain and tragedy of Oct. 7, Israel is in a far better situation strategically than it has been at any time since its founding in 1948. Sadly, it took the horrors of that fateful day to awaken the Jewish spirit and finally do what was needed to defend ourselves. Today, we are a stronger, better-prepared nation, ready to face our enemies.

Netanyahu’s leadership has been instrumental in achieving this reality. He has demonstrated that Israel will not be bullied or dictated to when it comes to its survival. As the only freedom-loving country in the region, Israel is willing to take on Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, and destroy its capabilities, which threatens not just Israel but the entire region.

Israel is at the point where it can take the fight to its enemies. The threat of Hamas in Gaza is being neutralized, Hezbollah’s infrastructure is being dismantled and offensive strikes are also destroying terrorist strongholds in Judea and Samaria. Israel is no longer waiting for the next attack. Rather, it is taking the upper hand to prevent future attacks.

As we begin the new Jewish year, we begin it with hope. Israel is safer and stronger, having taken decisive action to ensure a more secure future, not just for itself but for the entire Middle East and the freedom-loving world. The pain, mourning and trauma of Oct. 7 continues, along with a stronger Israel that is shaping the future of the region and the world with a renewed sense of purpose.

Alan Dershowitz: President Biden Can Still Save the World in His Remaining Time in Office

"[I]n 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): 'The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!' But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well-armed, better than they, then they started the war!" — Joseph Goebbels, Germany's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda from 1933-1945.

Obama has been the "Chamberlain" in this 21st-century version of Great Britain's and France's appeasement of an evil and dangerous regime.

The Biden administration has extended Obama's destructive policy, resulting in an even stronger and more dangerous Iran. Under the Trump administration, Iran was considerably weakened economically and thus militarily. Now it is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear arsenal which will allow its proxies to operate under the protection of Iran's nuclear umbrella.

The other step that Biden could take would be to work with Israel on preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved by more treaties or negotiations. As recent history shows, Iran will simply cheat, as it did after Obama's 2015 JCPOA "nuclear deal." The only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is through a military attack against its nuclear facilities, many of which are very deep underground. This can be achieved through U.S.-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation.

Israel should not give up any military advantage in exchange for intangible promises. Just look at how Russia violated its commitment, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for the latter giving up its nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave the weapons up; in 2014 and 2022, Russia invaded anyway.

Although the United States, even as far back as the Obama administration, has pledged to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no reason why Iran should believe that, considering US appeasement tactics under Democratic administrations.

So the only realistic alternative – the least bad among the series of not very good alternatives – is a joint military attack, as surgical as possible, on Iran's nearly-completed nuclear weapons program. To allow Iran to cross the threshold and acquire nuclear weapons would pose a catastrophic threat to world peace. Stopping Iran from having a nuclear arsenal would, on the other hand, be a great accomplishment and a lasting positive legacy for the Biden presidency.

The result of inaction will be a terrorist regime with a nuclear arsenal, followed by a global nuclear-arms race. The fault for such a dangerous outcome will lie squarely with the "Chamberlain" Democrats.

UNIFIL’s failure means it must leave or reform

Hezbollah’s use of UNIFIL as a human shield not only endangers the peacekeeping force but also hampers Israel’s ability to defend itself from Hezbollah’s aggression. On Oct. 12, according to Shoshani, an IDF tank carrying wounded soldiers backed a few meters into a UNIFIL post because it was under fire and dealing with a mass-casualty event involving the evacuation of dozens of wounded soldiers.

“Again we were communicating with them. They [UNIFIL] were in their safe area. No UNIFIL people were in danger at the time of the event because of our communications with them,” he stressed. “Every time we operate in the area against Hezbollah, we give them [UNIFIL] a heads up to make sure they have a chance to get out of harm’s way or to go to the safe areas that they have in their posts.”

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s Oct. 13 visit to Israel’s northern border further underscores the severity of Hezbollah’s military buildup in Southern Lebanon, which was totally ignored by UNIFIL and absent from its annual reports.

Gallant toured IDF operations aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s tunnels and weapon stockpiles, which included hundreds of RPGs, munitions and anti-tank missiles. Hezbollah has established extensive military infrastructure in Southern Lebanon, including sophisticated missile-launching systems capable of targeting Israeli civilians with pinpoint accuracy. Don’t expect to find any of these weapons or plans for a mass-murder invasion of northern Israel in UNIFIL’s reports.

Gallant emphasized the IDF’s mission to dismantle these immediate threats, noting that Hezbollah launchers, located in civilian areas, could strike Israeli homes in seconds. Yet, UNIFIL has consistently overlooked these violations.

UNIFIL’s inability to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and operating freely in southern Lebanon has rendered its mission a failure. As such, its two logical choices should be to either leave the area, where it is doing more harm than good, or to seriously reform. The status quo, in which an international community convinces itself that its faux peacekeepers are contributing to stability in Lebanon, should not continue, as it has benefited Hezbollah almost exclusively.

The mounting evidence of Hezbollah’s exploitation of UNIFIL positions, combined with the force’s inability to report or monitor these violations, demonstrates that UNIFIL’s presence is not only ineffective but dangerous.

The situation calls for immediate decisions. UNIFIL must either adapt to the current realities on the ground or withdraw entirely from Southern Lebanon. A reformed UNIFIL, as suggested by the Alma Center in July, would involve a shift from its current model of a large force of 10,000 personnel to a more agile, reporting-driven approach. This would involve developing capabilities for Access, Reporting and Communication (ARC), allowing UNIFIL to monitor and report violations in real time, rather than serving as a static and vulnerable presence.

However, any discussion of dismantling Hezbollah’s military infrastructure will likely require international supervision beyond UNIFIL, which has proven unwilling to confront Hezbollah directly.

Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Washington D.C.-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former U.S. Army officer who taught at West Point, stated on a webinar on Oct. 3, “What’s going to happen when the IDF leaves? Well of course we know what’s going to happen: Hezbollah is going to move back in, and you can’t count on the UNFIL forces to do anything of course, if past is prologue. So that means Israel will have to have the means, the weapons, and the political permission, if you will, to periodically go back into Lebanon as necessary to take things out. And that’s where the United States comes in.”

Amnesty USA tweeted:

Palestinians in Gaza have been subjected to relentless bombardment and multiple waves of mass displacement by Israel for over a year.

Amnesty International reiterates its calls for an immediate ceasefire to end civilian suffering. The Israeli military must stop issuing mass evacuation orders which amount to forced displacement of the civilian population.

The only reason Gazans have been fleeing from one area to another within Gaza is because they are barred from fleeing Gaza altogether. That is, to a large part, the fault of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

Since the start of the war, Gaza civilians have been begging to flee to Egypt. Several thousand lucky ones were able to pay exorbitant sums to pay bribes to leave before Egypt closed the Rafah crossing.

But Egypt put up a massive wall specifically to stop any Gazans from entering. And neither Amnesty nor Human Rights Watch said a word.

Refugee protection is one of the topics that human rights groups should excel at. Nations are not likely to condemn Egypt for its stand against Palestinians refugees, because they don't want to endanger their own rights to choose whom to allow in their own borders. But human rights groups have in the past publicized the plight of refugees, from Myanmar to Syria and Sudan, and successfully pressured governments to allow refugees to enter.

If HRW and Human Rights Watch had created campaigns of the type they regularly mount against Israel, they would have caused public pressure on Egypt pointing out its hypocrisy in pretending to support Palestinians but not willing to save any of them. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans could be in semi-permanent housing in Egypt instead of being forced to go from one area to another since Hamas insists on using them as human shields wherever they go.

Thousands of lives could have been saved.

Outside of one article in The Hill by the HRW head refugee affairs (not a Middle East analyst) who mildly suggested that Gazans have the human right to flee, I cannot find a single statement by any human rights group demanding Egypt or any other country open their borders for Gazans to take refuge. The human rights groups seemingly fully swallow the propaganda that flight would result in the Gazans never being allowed to return because Israel would annex Gaza.

Everyone has the right to leave a country, the right to seek asylum, and the right not to be forced to return to face persecution or other serious threats. Egypt additionally has signed the the 1969 Organization of African Unity Refugee Convention which says they agree to not block any refugees in need from entering their country. These are basic human rights that the human rights community have conveniently decided don't apply to Palestinians.

When Amnesty condemns Israel for telling Gazans to move out of areas they intend to attack Hamas - something meant to save their lives - it is pointedly misdirecting from the real issue: why has it never called for Gazans to have the right to take refuge elsewhere, a right they insist upon for every other war zone?

Hamas is responsible for most Gaza civilian deaths, but Egypt and HRW and Amnesty should not be left off the hook for their role in denying Gazans their human rights and blocking them from being able to flee to a safe place.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

In 2010, The Guardian wrote an article about Wikileaks memos on the Iraq war.

It found that US troops often shot and killed innocent Iraqi civilians, including families, at checkpoints when they wouldn't slow down or stop after being instructed to and warning shots.

The interesting thing about the article is that The Guardian, while quite sympathetic towards the victims, is also sympathetic towards the soldiers who make these tragic mistakes and it explains the difficulties of avoiding killing civilians in wartime:

In the secret logs the killings mainly figure as "escalation of force incidents". Commanders send in reports outlining how soldiers faithfully followed the rules of engagement: first signals, then warning shots, and as a last resort direct fire to disable a vehicle or its driver.

The relentless drumbeat of civilian deaths illustrates the nature of 21st century warfare and key differences from the way the Americans conducted themselves in their eight-year war in Vietnam.

Suicide attacks were unknown in America's last major foreign conflict before Iraq. There was no expectation that anything on wheels or indeed any pedestrian could be a moving bomb. The second difference is a change in western military doctrine, common to other Nato armies during counter-insurgencies.

Known since 2001 as force protection, it puts a high premium on minimising all conceivable risk by permitting troops to bypass traditional methods of detecting friend from foe in favour of extreme pre-emptive action.

Notice how different the tone is from all the articles about Israeli actions during war in The Guardian and elsewhere. This is real reporting, describing the difficulties for modern professional armies in urban environments to avoid civilian deaths. In no way does The Guardian accuse the soldiers of deliberately targeting civilians or of even being reckless in enforcing their own policies. Additionally, the article points out that the US soldiers do what all NATO nations do under similar circumstances.

In short, this article provides context.

It is jarring to read something like this after a year of anti-Israel articles that consistently assume Israeli mendacity, Israeli guilt, Israeli depravity.

The other interesting thing about providing context of how Western armies acted in other conflicts is that they had no transparency. These incidents - and much more egregious ones, involving actual executions of innocent civilians including women and children - were covered up and only mentioned in secret memos, or the soldiers engaged in these actions were exonerated or given a slap on the wrist many years later after the incidents were publicized.

The contrast with the relative transparency of IDF investigations in incidents could not be starker. The IDF admits mistakes far more readily and quickly than the US Army ever has, often within days instead of years. And when the IDF finds that it did nothing wrong, as the US Army usually does when it mounts its own investigations, it is accused of covering up the truth or outright lying.

Here we have an example of journalism in The Guardian. Ask yourself why we aren't seeing this context and even-handedness in the mainstream media during the current war.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Evidence mounts that the @NYTimes published faked X-ray pictures of bullets in Gaza children (update)

On Friday, the New York Times published an op-ed that claimed that Israel deliberately executes children in Gaza.

The top photo shows three X-rays and a caption that sets the tone for the article.

The caption:

These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.”

"Head or left side of chest" is an accusation of cold blooded executions.

People who know what they are talking about questioned these images.

Matt Tardio, who is a former sniper:

As a former Law Enforcement Officer, Ret. Special Forces Soldier (Green Beret) and Sniper, I feel confident in saying I know the effects of 5.56 NATO (M855).

Conclusion:
The NYT lied or failed to verify the information presented to them. This is based on the MV and BC of the M855 Ball ammo currently being used by the IDF.

| Analysis |

Dr. Mimi stated she worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. The IDF announced on Aug 9th, 2024 they were beginning another ground operation in Khan Younis. Major combat operations by the IDF were completed on Aug 30th.

This means Dr. Mimi was on the ground in Khan Younis for the entire operation according to her claim. ...

There are two issues with her accusations provided in the photo's and statements.

1- Accuracy
2- Velocity and Penetration

| Ballistics Of The M855 Fired From A 14" Barrel (M4) |

Muzzle Velocity: 2,841 ft/s
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.151 (G7 Drag Scale)
Accuracy: About 4 Minutes Of Angle (MOA)

Even at sea level with high humidity, the M855 fired from an M4 will remain supersonic beyond 500 meters. The M855 Green Tip ammo is designed to penetrate body armor and defeat barricades/cover.

However, this comes at a cost in accuracy. An M4 shooting the M855 round has an average accuracy of around 4 Minutes Of Angle. That is roughly a 4-inch shot group at 100 yards. At 200 yards, the shot group expands to 8 inches. At 300 yards, it increases to 12 inches.

The average diameter of the adult male head is about 8 inches. The size of a child's head will vary based on age. Hitting a 4-inch to 8-inch target at greater than 100 meters with an M4 is a challenge on the range with stationary targets. In combat conditions with moving targets, it would be almost impossible.

The M855 travels too fast at that range and is designed to penetrate. It would easily, without question, pass completely through a child's skull at those ranges. This leads to the next question.

Were the x-ray images the result of ricochets?
Well, no. When projectiles traveling that fast strike another object, they tend to deform and tumble. We would see that represented in the x-rays. We do not.

Cheryl, a forensics ballistics specialist responding to a tweet about the article:

1. The damage to the body by bullet shot depends on the weapon and caliber used. A small low caliber pistol will always have less damage than a high caliber rifle such as the 5.56 you and the article mention.
2. The most important factor that determines the level of damage is velocity. And a 5.56 caliber high velocity rifle as is used by the IDF will therefore have a high degree of damage to the head and skull. None of the most obvious types of damage from any gunshot wound to the head nevertheless a 5.56 high velocity rifle shot are visible.
3. When the bullet hits the skull at high velocity, it bevels into the skull, which means as it’s passing through the skull, the immediate entry is small and clean whereas the exit at the front of the skull inside the head is wider and flared. It splinters the skull bone on entry and creates bone shards that then move with the bullet and cause even more damage.
4. Once the bullet enters the head, especially at high velocity, it heats up and creates a shockwave in front of the bullet which widens as the bullet travels through the head causing more damage. The brain is a solid, soft and highly inelastic organ, which means the damage to the brain is such that it literally mushes. The shockwave on entry causes external gases to enter the head in front of the bullet and thus significant displacement of brain matter very rapidly which in turn causes the head to expand rapidly thus causing primary and secondary fractures in various areas of the skull. NONE such fractures are visible in these X-rays.
5. Back to the velocity of the 5.56 rifle shot, for any bullet to stop in the area shown in any of the X-ray images, the bullets would need to travel at very low velocity. That means either the bullets were fired by low velocity small caliber pistols or the rifle shots would need to have been fired from a very long distance (many hundreds of meters) with pinpoint accuracy. When looking at the images, the caliber of bullets are not the same. The first image has a much shorter bullet than the second, meaning it could not be the same caliber.
Now if the children were deliberately shot in the head and neck, it would mean it would be from close range. With a high velocity 5.56 rifle of the type the IDF use, the bullet would never stop so quickly, ever. The bullet would travel so quickly due to VELOCITY that they would almost always exit the skull or body causing much larger exit wounds. None are visible as the bullets are all magically stopped for the perfect X-ray pose. As you can see, there is no damage to the brain in the X-rays. This is even more true of the neck shots where the bullets barely travel an inch and stop at the spine. This would happen only with very low velocity small caliber handguns such as .22 caliber pistols.
6. Basically, for any of the X-rays to be true, these would need to be low velocity pistols, and not high velocity rifles. The distance of fire would still not be very close range, as the damage is not significant enough. Very close range has higher velocity thus more damage.
I’m quite happy for any other ballistics experts to come and debate the post and article and my analysis above. What I can pretty comfortably say is that these are not head and neck shots by high velocity 5.56 rifles. At best these may be wounds from ricochets which would mean they are not deliberate and completely accidental, and also not from close range, but would account for the much lower velocity. At worst, and more likely, this entire post of yours, and the article, is complete and utter bullshit.

A radiologist:

I am a radiologist, and I believe the images are fake because there is only one view available for all cases and the edge of the bullets is irregular while the edge of bones is smooth.
what we can see on the image:

and the most important is that we DON'T SEE any skull damage along the route of the bullet, while we see a realy small fracture and a suture.

The upshot is that these photos could not come from an IDF sniper deliberately aiming at children. The distance away from the target for the possibility that a bullet would lodge in the skull or neck is far too high for an exact shot at the head or "left side of chest", And if the bullet traveled more than the half mile or so needed for it to pass through a skull and lodge there, it could not be a deliberate shot.

Most likely one or more of these photos are Photoshopped, or otherwise manipulated (i.e., a bullet placed behind the head of a child.)

The entire article, with all the doctors and medics testimony, does not show any evidence of IDF fire in the cases they saw in Gaza. After all, Hamas and the other armed groups in Gaza fire bullets too, and a lot more indiscriminately.

The medics who travel to Gaza are typically anti-Israel to begin with. The author of the article heatedly denied that Hamas ever uses human shields, for example.

The entire piece is a sham, and the faked X-rays are only the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE: Another thing just hit me about the three X-ray photos.

All of the bullets are perfectly perpendicular to the camera.

In real life, the head is 3-dimensional - a bullet could come any angle. It is highly unlikely that most bullets would enter exactly from the front or back of a head, no matter how the person is positioned or which direction they are looking, perfectly positioned for a lateral X-ray image.

But they make for great photos for the media.

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!

From Morocco World News:

A legislative petition calling for Morocco to grant Moroccan citizenship to all children and grandchildren of Moroccan Jews has been submitted to parliament this week through the national citizen participation portal “Eparticipation.ma.”

The petition, which has garnered only 16 votes online so far, has reignited discussions about Morocco’s relationship with its Jewish diaspora and drawn criticism from anti-normalization activists.

However, the proposal has faced strong opposition from anti-normalization activists. Critics argue that granting citizenship to descendants of Moroccan Jews could potentially include individuals who have served in the Israeli military or supported the ongoing genocide against Palestinians.

This legislative petition, which has been circulating for over a year, has resurfaced in public debate despite its continuous presence on the national citizen participation portal.

Aziz Hanaoui, secretary general of the Moroccan Observatory Against Normalization, warned about the petition on his Facebook account, describing it as “a Zionist petition aimed at Zionizing and Israelizing the Moroccan state, its position, stance, constitutional institutions, and public policies.”

The Moroccan Front for Supporting Palestine and Opposing Normalization also issued a statement condemning the petition, describing it as a “treasonous act against the Moroccan people” and warned that it “poses a danger to Morocco’s sovereignty as it would grant citizenship to settlers, criminals, and recruits in an army known for its terrorism, criminality, and genocide against the Palestinian people.”

The petition was drafted over a year ago. In 18 months it has only gathered 16 signatures. For a petition to be considered by the Moroccan government, it must have 20,000 signatures. (As of last June, it had 8 signatures.)

The people upset at the petition aren't concerned it will pass. They are using this non-story as an excuse for them to mainstream antisemitism even further.

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!

10/13 Links: How the Israel-Iran rope-a-dope ends; The sanctity of international law has been compromised to demonise Israel; Over 60 wounded in Hezbollah drone strikes

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Netanyahu’s ‘day after’ plan

Despite the comprehensiveness of its echo-chamber strategy of flooding the media with anti-Netanyahu innuendo, demoralizing messages of Israeli weakness and claims that Israel is trying to pull the U.S. into an unnecessary war, the administration’s messaging is hitting a wall.

Israel’s astounding success in devastating Hezbollah’s leadership and a large percentage of its massive arsenal of projectiles increased American support for Israeli victory. Whereas a few months ago, “experts” scoffed at Netanyahu’s pledge to bring Israel “Absolute Victory” in the war, now experts like Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s MI6 spy agency, are saying that Israel is on the road to achieving just that.

And so we come to Netanyahu’s day-after plan. Rebuffed by Biden-Harris, Netanyahu waited until after Israel turned the tide in the war to present his actual strategic vision for a post-war Middle East to the administration. He outlined it in two English-language video messages, first to the Iranian people and then to the Lebanese people.

In both videos, he described how Iran and Hezbollah, respectively, have destroyed Iran and Lebanon. Israel, he explained to the Lebanese, has weakened Hezbollah sufficiently for the Lebanese people to rise up against it.

In his words, “We have degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities; we took out thousands of terrorists, including Nasrallah himself, and Nasrallah’s replacement, and the replacement of his replacement. Today, Hezbollah is weaker than it has been for many, many years.

“Now you, the Lebanese people, you stand at a significant crossroads. It is your choice. You can now take back your country.”

He told the Iranians, “You know one simple thing, Iran’s tyrants don’t care about your future. But you do.”

He told the Iranian people that Iran will be freed from the regime “a lot sooner than people think,” and presented them with a vision of peace after its fall.

“Our two countries, Israel and Iran, will be at peace. When that day comes, the terror network that the regime built in five continents will be bankrupt, dismantled. Iran will thrive as never before.”

Netanyahu’s vision is the opposite of the Obama-Biden-Harris vision. And the American public supports it. This state of affairs limits the administration’s capacity to block Israel’s plans in relation to its much-vaunted retaliatory strike following Iran’s missile assault on Oct. 1.

The Biden-Harris team’s efforts to bar Israel from attacking either Iran’s nuclear installations or its oil installations involve the familiar mix of contradictory messaging and political and strategic subversion that we have experienced from Democratic administrations since 2009. On the one hand, the U.S. supports Israel. On the other hand, the administration has flooded the media with its claims that Israel is too weak to take effective action, that its efforts are geared towards dragging the U.S. into a war, and that Iran poses no threat to anyone.

All the same, Israel’s unexpected and demoralizing delays in carrying out its retaliatory attack on Iran raise fears that the administration is successfully blocking Israel from taking any strategically meaningful action against the regime. If that is in fact the case, the momentum Israel gained from its stunning intelligence operations and airstrikes against Hezbollah will be squandered. The conviction will resurface that Israel doesn’t have what it takes to win the war.

While a source of anxiety, the prospect that Netanyahu will stand down now is minuscule. Israel’s momentum is too strong. Iranians and Lebanese, empowered by Israel’s achievement, are already echoing his messaging. The administration’s continued demands for immediate ceasefires and Israeli strategic reticence strike the average American and U.S. ally as irrational and out of step with events.

While the shape of things to come is still unknowable, it is clear that Iran wasn’t the only party whose strategic goals were undermined by Israel’s seizure of the upper hand in this war. The Obama-Biden-Harris foreign policy establishment’s Iran-centric vision of the Middle East was also scuttled.

Michael Oren: How the Israel-Iran rope-a-dope ends

Iran’s haymaker is coming, and the only question is whether Israel is prepared to deliver ours first. Can Israel, in classic boxing fashion, use Iran’s strategy against it? Will Israel emulate Muhammad Ali, the greatest pugilist of all time, in adopting the tactic of “rope-a-dope?”

Though not taught to me by my father, “rope-a-dope” was known to all sports fans of my generation. Ali would simply put his gloves up, covering his face, and let his opponent pound them repeatedly to no effect. Finally, with the challenger utterly fatigued, Ali would inflict his lethal right. An eight-count would follow, concluding with a bell.

Israel, too, could play rope-a-dope with Iran, parlaying its proxies’ attacks while wearing down the Ayatollahs’ resources. We could also lead them to believe that we’re concentrating solely on their left jabs and ignoring their impending right. We could lull them into a worn-out sense of security and then, unexpectedly, deliver the knock-out.

My father’s lessons worked. When next accosted by the Jew-hating bully, I suggested that we fight like gentlemen and challenged him to a match. We each got a pair of the Everlasts and started to box. Hackneyed as it sounds, he never laid a glove on me. Rather, I let him tire and fluster himself blocking my lefts until I could exploit his unguarded face. The bell – had there been one – pealed my victory.

I recalled that experience while reviewing our many rounds of conflict with Iran. They cannot conclude with a tie. My father, of blessed memory, would tell us, as he once assured me, now is our chance to strike. We may not get another.

Victor Davis Hanson: Biden and Harris, own up: your Iran policies ignited Israel’s war

It was the terrorists of Hamas who surprise-attacked and murdered 1,200 Israeli civilians during peace and on a Jewish holiday.

Their slaughtering, torturing, raping and hostage-taking revealed a level of pre-civilization barbarism rarely seen in the modern era.

Israel was simultaneously targeted by rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah that would eventually number over 20,000.

It did not respond to the bloodbath with a full-scale invasion of Gaza until Oct. 27, some three weeks after the slaughtering.

During that interim, for most of the Muslim world and both US Muslim communities and on American campuses, there was rejoicing at the news of slaughtered Jews.

For over three years, Biden-Harris had signaled Israel’s enemies that the United States no longer acted like a close ally of the past.

The administration lifted sanctions on a hostile Iran, giving it $100 billion in oil windfalls.

It begged Iran to reenter the disastrous Iran deal.

It abandoned the Abraham Accords.

It lifted the terrorist designation from the terrorist Houthis.

It restored fungible aid to the Hamas tunnel builders.

It gave new aid to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.

Israel’s enemies got the Biden message: Attack the Jewish state and perhaps Americans for the first time in a half-century may not really mind that much.

And so they did, in unison.

Rather than admitting their own role in igniting the Middle East, Biden and Harris now blame the victims of their own incendiary foreign policy.

The final irony?

Israel has concluded that Biden-Harris foolhardiness can be toxic — and endanger its very survival — and so will not agree to its own suicide.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Instead, Israel seeks to finish a multifaceted war it did not seek.

And one of the beneficiaries of Israeli blood and treasure will be the United States itself, given Israel is now systematically weakening America’s own existential enemies.

Airbrushing history: Israel haters now Photoshopping Palestine Mandate coins to erase "Eretz Yisrael"

Someone named Paul Williams - with 500,000 X/Twitter followers - posted this photo:

A journalist named Sulaiman Ahmed - 600,000 followers - ran with it:

Yet the original image was Photoshopped to remove the two Hebrew letters that indicated that the Hebrew name for "Palestine" was "Eretz Yisrael," something that no Arab would ever put on their coins.

If the truth was on their side, why do they have to go to such extremes to lie?

It remands me of a similar story I had in 2011. An official Palestinian textbook had, on its cover, a photo of a stamp of "Palestine."

But they had Photoshopped the Hebrew out of the stamp:

The myth of a Palestinian state before 1948 is essential to the Palestinian narrative. The fact that it is a lie is simply something they think can be airbrushed from history.

And the funniest part is that when Great Britain put those two letters on the stamp, Palestinian Arabs were upset and wanted to either remove the "EY" initials or to put their own real name after the Arabic "Felesteen" on the stamp.: "Suria El Jenobia," or Southern Syria.

Because in 1925, plenty of Palestinian Arabs still considered - and desired - "Palestine" to be part of Syria.

So, ironically, the real history of British Mandate stamps and coins proves that even Palestinians never considered Palestine to be a separate political entity - the exact opposite of what the historical revisionists are claiming 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!

Hezbollah is part and parcel of Lebanese security policy. Its terrorist army is not an illegal militia; rather, its role as an official separate entity is enshrined in Lebanon's security formula of "the army, the people and the resistance."

Most reporting on Lebanon takes as a given that while Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, its armed forces are considered an illegal (or perhaps only distasteful) reality that the Lebanese armed forces are too weak to dismantle.

For example, UNIFIL's mandate, under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), says that it is supposed to

Assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.

But the Lebanese armed forces has not worked with UNIFIL to accomplish that. Part of the reason is that the Lebanese government itself has given Hezbollah a special status, where it has all the rights of a legitimate army but none of the responsibilities.

A 2021 Chatham House article by Lina Khatib explains how this came to be:

In May 2008, an internal political dispute in Lebanon saw Hezbollah use its weapons against fellow Lebanese citizens. The Lebanese government at the time tried to dismiss the pro-Hezbollah head of airport security, Wafik Choucair, and dismantle Hezbollah’s telecommunications network, which operated without any state oversight. In response, Hezbollah forced a military takeover of Beirut, leading to a government crisis that was resolved with the formation of a new national unity administration in which Hezbollah and its allies had veto rights for the first time.

The ministerial statement of this new cabinet referred to a formula previously unseen in government documents, that of Lebanon’s security architecture being composed of ‘the army, the people and the resistance’ to defend Lebanon from any aggression. This statement amounted to a de facto change in the constitution. The same security formula was repeated in the ministerial statement of the next – also Hezbollah-dominated – cabinet formed in 2009, with the additional undertaking that the government would ‘work on uniting the position of the Lebanese through agreeing on a comprehensive national defence strategy’.

Hezbollah’s use of weapons to intimidate its opponents paved the way for it to entrench – by force – its special status within the Lebanese state and thus increase its political influence. Since 2008, Hezbollah has regularly invoked the ‘army, people, resistance’ formula to justify its actions. For example, following Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, the group has used the formula to argue that it has strengthened Lebanon against what it calls ‘takfiri’ jihadist threats as well as Israeli threats.

The tripartite formula of "people, army and resistance" is invoked countless times in Lebanese and Iranian media. While the original ministerial statements invoked the formula in the context of defending the areas that Lebanon claims Israel is occupying, like the Shebaa Farms, Hezbollah has used this formula to justify any and every offensive decision it makes as the only official "resistance" part of the triangle - a part that is, explicitly, separate from the army.

The ministerial statements that give Hezbollah carte blanche to do whatever it wants, absurdly, also invoke UNSC 1701, proving that Lebanon only pays that resolution lip service when in fact it fuly supports Hezbollah as a separate yet official militia.

The Lebanese government has given Hezbollah the right to do whatever it wants, as part of its own security architecture. In fact, even the Lebanese army itself accepts and promotes this formula, as this 2009 article shows:

Lebanese Army Commander General Jean Kahwaji called on the military units deployed in the southern region of Lebanon to be vigilant, fully prepared and ready on the ground for various possibilities and to constantly monitor the violations and activities carried out by the Israeli army along the Lebanese border, which indicate the existence of premeditated intentions against Lebanon, its people, army and resistance... stressing the use of all national energies to thwart them.
General Kahwaji's speech came during an inspection tour he made today of the military units deployed in the area south of the Litani River, during which he was briefed on the field measures taken to confront any possible Israeli aggression on Lebanon.

The head of the Lebanese Army went to the areas they are supposed to control to be briefed by Hezbollah on what it is doing. He justified Hezbollah's presence there as part of Lebanese policy. Hezbollah is not at odds with the Lebanese army - they are full partners.

Hezbollah can even justify its attacks on Israel since October 8, 2023, as "resistance." "Resistance" is whatever Hezbollah says it is - because it defines itself as "the resistance." The government of Lebanon accepts this definition.

Israel has said that it does not intend to attack Lebanon, but only Hezbollah. Yet Hezbollah is an integral part of Lebanon's security posture.

While Lebanon may not give Hezbollah any responsibilities, Israel has every legal right to hold Lebanon's government responsible for Hezbollah's actions.

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!