Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

12/17 Links Pt1: Welcome to the New Great Game; How Israel Can Win the War; Will Hamas Be Emboldened by the Hostage Deal?; 100,000 Bodies in Syrian Mass Grave

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Welcome to the New Great Game

Where in the world is Bibi Netanyahu? Like the old Carmen Sandiego computer game, we’re following clues, tracking steps, investigating sightings. Turns out he’s on Mount Hermon in Syria today, at a briefing with top IDF brass.

He was rumored to be en route to Cairo for Hamas cease-fire talks, and while he wasn’t there this morning, he may be by tomorrow. Negotiations over a hostage deal appear, by all accounts, to be in the home stretch.

The visit to Mount Hermon is significant: it might be the first time a sitting Israeli premier has been in Syria (openly, at least) while in office. What his Syria trip and his expected Cairo trip have in common is that they are to assess the status of de-Iranization in the region.

The last time a power vacuum of this magnitude opened up in the Middle East was the fall of the Soviet Union. Before that, it was the end of the British Mandate for Palestine. Iran is not gone completely, of course—far from it. Yet its empire is collapsing in much the way the Ottoman Empire collapsed a century earlier: In a global conflict, it is aligned against the West and it is paying for that choice.

Netanyahu, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and Jordanian king Abdullah cannot wait for the dust to settle, because nature abhors a vacuum.

As does Turkey.

“Senior U.S. officials say Turkey and its militia allies are building up forces along the border with Syria, raising alarm that Ankara is preparing for a large-scale incursion into territory held by American-backed Syrian Kurds,” reports the Wall Street Journal today. “The forces include militia fighters, Turkish uniformed commandos and artillery in large numbers that are concentrated near Kobani, a Kurdish-majority city in Syria on the northern border with Turkey, the officials said. A Turkish cross-border operation could be imminent, one of the U.S. officials said.”

Turkey has backed a collection of rebel forces and has been newly empowered by those groups’ territorial gains in the wake of Assad’s fall. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the former al-Qaeda offshoot that has led the overthrow of Assad and now controls Damascus, is in alliance with Turkey, allowing Turkish forces to “operate within territories it controlled and the establishment of Turkish observation posts in northern Syria” before the fall of Assad, notes FDD analyst Ahmad Sharawi in a policy brief today. “HTS has even positioned itself as a gatekeeper for Ankara, curbing drug trafficking into Turkey, preventing ISIS infiltration, and apprehending individuals wanted by Turkish authorities. HTS leader Ahmad al-Shara, long known by his nom-de-guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, had also allegedly supported Turkish military operations east of the Euphrates, according to a report by the Turkey-based Syria TV broadcaster.”

How Israel Can Win the War

It is important to remember that the war did not break out because Israel wanted it. The war is Israel's response to Hamas's barbaric assault on civilian communities on Oct. 7, 2023, and it was Hizbullah that opened fire on northern Israel the day after the attack.

The outbreak of war was rooted in Iran's ambitions and preparations for Israel's collapse and destruction. To this end, Iran conceived and implemented the "Ring of Fire" around Israel - a coordinated campaign from all fronts conducted by terror movements built with Iranian support with the aim of destroying Israel.

The war's end must make clear to the world, especially the Muslim world, that radical Islamic movements, both Sunni and Shiite, bring disaster to their people and destruction to their believers. Hizbullah is Iran's most robust proxy; the greater the damage done to Hizbullah, the more Iran is weakened.

After Iran on two occasions fired hundreds of missiles at Israel, the actual extent of its military power was revealed, and effectively the Iranian strategy collapsed. The Israeli operation on Oct. 26, in which 20 targets in Iran were hit, made clear to the Iranians the price of direct confrontation with Israel and its weakness in the face of the capabilities Israel demonstrated.

Israel is not operating as in previous wars to achieve "threat postponement" on its borders but based on the understanding that threats must be destroyed (Hamas) or at least drastically reduced in intensity (Hizbullah).

In Lebanon, no Hizbullah personnel and no Hizbullah infrastructure should remain in the south, which should become a buffer zone mostly without residents and without the presence of any entity threatening Israel. The IDF will oversee this. The buffer zone's purpose is to prevent flat-trajectory fire toward Israeli communities and to push Hizbullah's ground forces beyond the range of executing a surprise Oct. 7-style attack.

In both Syria and Lebanon, the IDF should employ the same kind of campaign between wars as it did in Syria over the last dozen years to continue degrading Hizbullah's capabilities and not allow it to rebuild.

How Israel Can Press for Victory on Its Northern Fronts

Just before the collapse of Syria took over the Middle East news cycle, the big question was the prudence, viability, and results of the cease-fire agreement that ended the war between Israel and Hizballah. Eran Lerman outlines Jerusalem’s strategic challenge going forward:

The IDF has already begun to implement a strict policy of enforcing the letter and spirit of the cease-fire terms, backed by the American position as conveyed in a crucial side letter. Swift reaction and retaliation are being used to restore deterrence, and reverse the patterns of past years, during which Israel often shrugged off Hizballah provocations, including the presence of Hizballah tents on sovereign Israel territory.

This is largely the belated lesson of October 7. . . . Only the IDF can be fully relied upon to deliver such necessary swift and decisive reactions.

Yet, Lerman emphasizes, the IDF’s campaign against Hizballah must be understood as “the beginning, not the end” of a war to break the Iranian attempt to encircle Israel with hostile forces. Responding to the fall of Bashar al-Assad, he adds:

Hizballah has not collapsed altogether, but it does face a multidimensional threat to its long-term survival as its routes of supply have been disconnected. Syrian rebels may resume direct pressure on Lebanon (as Islamic State did a decade ago—when Hizballah was the main force preventing the group’s entry into the country). Anti-Assad forces in Lebanon, hostile and vengeful toward Hizballah, may well gain the upper hand in Lebanon itself. These developments could significantly diminish Hizballah’s ability to resume its attacks on Israel or even re-establish its presence in south Lebanon, provided Israel maintains a policy of zero tolerance toward any violation of the November 2024 understandings.

Seth Mandel: Iran Tries To Make a Stand in Jenin

The future of Gaza depends to some extent on what’s happening in Jenin this week.

The West Bank city is a hotbed of Iranian-backed militias who have spent years carving out a separatist haven there. It is a significant challenge to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Both Israel and the Palestinians who want self-determination share an interest in preventing the Iranian colonial project from accomplishing its primary aim in the West Bank: Palestinian civil war and the disintegration of the Palestinian Authority.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, that has only become more urgent. At some point, the PA is expected to take over the administration of the Gaza Strip after Hamas is removed from power. If Abbas cannot maintain control over the West Bank, the PA cannot take on Gaza as well.

And so Abbas’s decision to send Palestinian security forces into Jenin is a crucial test for the aging autocrat and his government.

“The gunmen in Jenin are not resistance fighters, but mercenaries serving the dubious agenda of an outside party,” declared PA spokesman Anwar Rajab.

The New York Times describes the riddle that the PA, Israel, and the U.S. are trying to solve. Israel has been stepping up its security raids in Jenin because Abbas is barely able to step foot in the city. Israel does not want an Iranian terror-and-tunnel project in the West Bank to match the one currently undergoing disassembly in Gaza. The U.S. wants Israel to back off a bit, to enable the Palestinian security forces to gather the strength to take back Jenin. But if Israel backs off too much or for too long, the PA will fail when it does try to restore order there.

A Jewish Christmas Hallmark-type movie plot

Last night, after watching a pretty good Hallmark Chanukah movie ("Round and Round,") I asked five different AI programs to "Write the plot for a movie where a committed Jewish person is unwillingly stuck inside a Christmas movie."

I posted each of the responses on X in what turned out to be a popular thread.

The one I liked best was by the AI engine Claude. I just expanded that plot (and borrowed a couple of elements from the others) to improve it (I hope).

_______________________________

Title: "Merry Mishegas"

David Stern, a committed Jew and fastidious New York City accountant, is working late on December 23rd when he accidentally drops his coffee on his keyboard. He is suddenly mysteriously transported into a saccharine, picture-perfect small-town Christmas movie.

Everything around him in the town of Mistletoe is impossibly pristine: snow always falls in picturesque flakes, everyone has perfect hair, and holiday cheer is literally everywhere. When people are outside it is warm enough to wear only a sweater, snow only apparently falls when people are indoors and then only in fluffy flakes that do not cover cars, streets or sidewalks.

Horrified, David discovers he's now playing the role of the "outsider who needs to learn the true meaning of Christmas" - a trope he absolutely detests. The town is populated by impossibly cheerful characters who constantly break into spontaneous caroling and have elaborate holiday traditions that make no sense to him. No one ever seems to leave or enter the town. When he asks questions about where, for example the town gets the gifts they give, everyone with a straight face it is Santa.

His character is supposed to be a cynical businessman who will learn to love Christmas by falling for the local baker (a perky blonde named Christine who seems to have an endless supply of perfectly decorated cookies). No matter how hard he tries to avoid it, David keeps bumping into her and she is initially very upset at this outsider who clearly doesn't understand the meaning of Christmas.

David doesn't want to play along with his character, but he really doesn't believe in Christmas magic and refuses to fall into that narrative as well - which makes him effectively the cynical businessman that he has been cast as. Determined to maintain his Jewish identity, David tries everything to disrupt the movie's saccharine narrative. He attempts to explain Judaism to bewildered townspeople, refuses to wear ugly Christmas sweaters, and constantly points out the logistical impossibilities of the movie's plot.

An adorable puppy dressed as Santa takes a liking to David and follows him everywhere he goes. He warms up to the puppy, and names her Balagan. He expresses his frustration to Balagan whenever he needs to vent about how ridiculous the town is.

David tries various ways to escape, but the magic of the town keeps him imprisoned. Roads circle back into town. The cheerful family that hosts him keeps walking into his room to stop him from being alone. Like it or not, he has to be part of Christmas.

Suddenly, on Christmas eve, disaster strikes. Instead of the peaceful convenient snow, a real snowstorm hits the town and cuts the electricity. All the Christmas lights go dark and the constant canned music that drives David up a wall ceases. ("Isn't it always Christmas eve in Mistletoe?" David asks.)

The townsfolk are frantic. They need light, and cannot figure out how to get any.

Desperate, Christine seeks David out, asking him if he has any ideas on how to bring light back into Mistletoe. David asks, "Doesn't the general store have candles?" but all of those candles are plastic props.

As he browses through the store, David comes upon (yes, you guessed it), a bottle of olive oil. Together with cotton balls and Christmas themed shot glasses, he creates makeshift lamps that everyone can use. There is a run on the general store, and David wryly observes that there is only enough olive oil to light the town up for one night.

The town gathers together on the town square to light up a makeshift tree with the olive oil lamps. David is hailed as a hero. When Christine tries to kiss him, though, he rebuffs her. Meanwhile, the town demands David say a few words of inspiration, the very thing he didn't want to do.

David makes a speech where he talks about how he never had nor wanted a Christmas tree, never decorated his house, never got a single Christmas present, never kissed anyone under the mistletoe. But after he spent so much time with the wonderful people of Mistletoe - he still doesn't want any of those things.

But as a Jew, the message of "peace on Earth, goodwill towards men" resonates with him. He notes that when there isn't peace, Jews have been the ones who suffer most; as far as goodwill towards men, Judaism has a holiday where the focus is not on getting gifts, but giving them both to friends and to poor people. He wishes everyone a holiday of happiness and good cheer, peace and goodwill.

Everyone applauds, and the mayor tells him that he encapsulated the meaning of Christmas perfectly, causing David to make a "really?" face.

David then gets transported back to his New York office, unsure if it was all a dream. He finishes up his work and goes outside, where he says to himself that at least in his dream he didn't suffer from the trope of falling in love with the girl. Then as he walks up the street, Balagan (without the Santa costume) starts following him, and David says he spoke too soon.

_______________________________

Hollywood agents can contact me directly. 😂

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Yarmouk was a "refugee camp" near (now within) Damascus that used to house some 150,000 Palestinians.

It was destroyed during the Syrian civil war, even though all sides claim to care so much about Palestinians and the residents tried to remain neutral.

L'Orient Today visited Yarmouk:

Abu Sleiman recounted the final chapter for generations of stateless Palestinians.

"We were told, ‘You Palestinians, you should stay on the sidelines.’ But I was born here, I lived here. This bloodthirsty regime has always worked to sow divisions between us and the Syrians, just as it has with other minorities.”

The former Syrian regime, which styled itself as the standard-bearer of Arab nationalism, had long wielded the Palestinian cause as part of the founding myth of its Baathist ideology.

“This regime has effectively erased the capital of the Palestinian diaspora. What Israel is doing to Gaza is directly inspired by what Assad did to Yarmouk,” Abu Sleiman said.

He smirked at the mention of ‘unified fronts in solidarity with the Palestinians,’ particularly Hezbollah’s involvement.

“Hezbollah defends Gaza? Look at what it did to Yarmouk,” he said bitterly, accusing Lebanese and Iraqi Shiite militias — “who wielded more power than Assad himself” — of participating in massacres of civilians in the camp.

The 2011 uprising quickly disrupted the fragile stability of Yarmouk, but it was the violence unleashed in 2012 against the neighborhood that drove it firmly into opposition.

“They slaughtered residents, others were burned alive in tires or beaten to death with iron rods. Women, children, even men were raped, forced to endure this abomination in front of their families,” said Abu Sleiman, echoing the testimony of other witnesses in Yarmouk.

Hezbollah claims to exist only to support Palestinians - and yet it murdered, raped and burned Palestinians, doing to them what Hamas did to Israelis.

Assad claimed to be pro-Palestinian - yet he besieged Yarmouk, cutting off water and electricity, not allowing in food nor allowing residents to flee in 2014.

All Arabs claim that the Palestinian cause is near and dear to their hearts, that it is the top priority in the region, that they are crying with suffering Palestinians. Yet at the drop of a keffiyeh many will happily rape and murder the same Palestinians that they claim they care so much about.

Arabs only pretend to care about Palestinians when they can blame Jews for their plight. But when the Palestinians are in their own countries, they are treated as if they are...Jews.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Proof that the media is biased in favor of a terrorist group and against Jews, illustrated.

Here are two sentences from a Washington Post article published today.

Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has destroyed much of the Palestinian enclave and killed more than 45,000 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which says that thousands of bodies remain uncounted beneath the rubble and that women and children account for two-thirds of the dead.

Netanyahu said Thursday, without providing evidence, that the Israel Defense Forces had killed “close to 20,000” Hamas fighters.

They are not remarkable - fundamentally similar descriptions have been published for the past 14 months by much of the mainstream media.

They prove how biased the media is towards terrorists.

First of all, the first paragraph is not true. The 45,000 number, the thousands under the rubble and the two-thirds women and children claims come from Hamas, not the health ministry. The health ministry has spent the war trying to use any methods possible to square their total death numbers with Hamas' claims, but their own count from hospitals have consistently been thousands lower than Hamas numbers. Not only that but the health ministry's latest breakdown shows that of the casualties they count - including from sketchy sources - about half are women and children, not two thirds.

Secondly, the phrasing of the two paragraphs is different. The Hamas statistics stated first, as truth, and then confirmed by the health ministry. Israel's statistics are stated as a mere claim without any evidence.

If the first sentence had been written in exactly the same way as the second and was factual, this is what it would look like:

Hamas says, without providing evidence, that Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has killed more than 45,000 people. The militant group also claims, without providing evidence, that thousands of bodies remain uncounted beneath the rubble and that women and children account for two-thirds of the dead, a claim that contradicts the Gaza Health Ministry's own statistics..

Here are the edits, illustrated:

But even this isn't the whole story.

Hamas has a history of lying as well as strong motivation to continue to lie because they recognize that the cognitive war is no less important than the kinetic war. Part of Sinwar's calculations of mounting the October 7 attack was that Israel would accept a cease fire from world pressure after massive civilian casualties, meaning that Hamas has every incentive to seek and inflate civilian deaths. They have no accountability, no methodology, and their statistics have been proven wrong again and again. The media knows this because they refuse to report on Hamas' and the health ministry's more outlandish lies, like the claim that Israel has weapons to vaporize Gazans.

Israel, on the other hand, has checks and balances, layers of people to check facts carefully before making public statements. It has a huge disincentive to lie because - unlike with Hamas -the Israeli and world media would rip it apart if it is found to have said something inaccurate. Moreover, Israel has a professional army that would not make up numbers. Israel's estimates of militants killed from previous Gaza wars were also at odds with those of Hamas - but months or years after the wars, Hamas admitted that IDF estimates were correct.

To treat the IDF and a murderous terror group equally is itself bias in favor of terrorists.

Fair journalists would inform their readers of the history of Hamas lies and Israel's claims being far more accurate. Only then can readers compare the competing narratives. "Even-handedness" is not accuracy nor is it truth.

But the Washington Post, as well as most other mainstream media, isn't even reaching that low bar of being even-handed. As this one paragraph and many like it prove, they are pro-Hamas.

That should frighten every consumer of news.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

IMPACT-SE, the organization that compares textbooks of many nations against UNESCO standards. says that the 2023-4 Egyptian textbooks are markedly improved from previous years:

• Every year since 2018, Egypt has been implementing textbook reforms, showing a determination to reject violence, extremism, hate and intolerance, promote dialogue, recognize differences and encourage coexistence.

• Textbooks promote values of peace and tolerance, respecting the ‘Other’, sustainable development, and forging meaningful bonds (such as marriage) between Muslims and non-Muslims. The promotion of peace and tolerance is especially evident in a new subject introduced in 2021, entitled “Values and Respect for the Other.”

So for example, previous textbooks would have things like this multiple choice question:

Umar bin Al-Khattab refused to let the Jews live in Jerusalem because:
a- Of their betrayal and treachery.
b- They refused to enter Islam.
c- Of their military strength.
d- Of their love of money

That antisemitism is largely gone.

Which upsets the Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt, which is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In their website, they complain:

Since Sisi's coup against democracy and his seizure of power in Egypt, he has been working to undermine the education system, change curricula to obliterate the Islamic identity, and get closer to his Jewish friends, the latest of which was the appointment of a fake minister as Minister of Education.
The coup leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, has always expressed his vision of the necessity of changing the religious discourse within the halls of Egyptian education. In February 2015, the Ministry of Education formed a committee to review the curricula, and deleted most of the texts related to “jihad,” the occupying state, and the Jews in religious, Arabic language, and history books.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

12/16 Links Pt2: The Democrats’ Anti-Israel Future; Amnesty's Descent Into McCarthyism; Katz: ‘We are the closest to a hostage deal since the last one’

From Ian:

The Democrats’ Anti-Israel Future

None of this foretold a friendly policy toward Israel had there been a Harris presidency. Her choice of running mate reinforced this inference. Pennsylvania’s popular governor, Josh Shapiro, was reported to be the front-runner for the position, with polls showing the Electoral College likely to pivot on Pennsylvania’s 19 votes, but a furious campaign was mounted against Shapiro as a Jew who strongly supports Israel. The New Republic’s David Klion, who led the charge, warned that the choice of Shapiro would “ruin Democratic unity.” Harris turned instead to Tim Walz, unknown outside of Minnesota, a state already safely in the Democratic column.

As a member of Congress from a rural district, Walz compiled a moderate record, including support for Israel. As governor, he turned progressive, but it was an office that rarely dealt with foreign policy. Once becoming the vice-presidential nominee, Walz commented that anti-Israel protesters were acting “for all the right reasons,” notwithstanding their calls of “From the river to the sea” and “intifada revolution.”

Her switch to Walz was applauded by James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute and the dean of pro-Arab, anti-Israel agitators. His comments also revealed his take on Harris: “We have every indication that she is going to turn a corner, and [Walz] does not impede that corner turn. Shapiro on the other hand would have become an issue.”

But the Harris-Walz team fell short, leaving us to ponder where the Democrats’ season of post-election breast-beating and introspection will leave Israel. Already, Biden’s defeat has let loose a new momentum against Israel. In late November a Senate vote on three resolutions introduced by Bernie Sanders to block certain weapons shipments to Israel received 19 Democratic votes, with one other Democrat listing herself as “not voting,” out of 49 Democratic members. Apparently none wished to dissociate from Sanders’s stated rationale that Israel’s actions in Gaza are “unspeakable.”

This marked an increase from the 10 votes Sanders had put together for an analogous measure early in the year. Moreover, according to the Times of Israel, Biden administration officials from the White House, State Department, and Pentagon all worked the phones, lobbying against Sanders’s resolutions. True, as a lame duck, Biden has less clout, but he is still president, and senators often take counsel from executive-branch leaders of their own party on foreign issues.

Even while supplying much badly needed weaponry to Israel, and pushing back against congressional efforts to impede this, the Biden administration itself withheld bombs to pressure Israel on Gaza and apparently acted similarly on Lebanon, announcing a large new package only after Israel agreed to a cease-fire with Hezbollah. Nonetheless, most observers feel that Israel came away with a victory.

Whatever arm-twisting Biden did, it is hard to doubt that the Democrats’ momentum away from Israel will continue after he leaves office. And if Donald Trump pursues a strongly pro-Israel policy, it is likely to receive a partisan flip.

How far will the Democrats’ turn from Israel carry them? That question remains to be answered. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton pulled the Democrats back from the left. It is not impossible to imagine that the Democrats could again be yanked back from their current trajectory by some new leader. For example, could Ritchie Torres, the brilliant black Latino gay representative from the Bronx who has emerged during this war as one of Israel’s most articulate and devoted advocates, make the leap last achieved by James Garfield in 1880? Stranger things have happened, but this seems a long shot.

The Republicans are now frequently described as “Trump’s party.” On Israel, the Democrats are, for the foreseeable future, “Obama’s party.” That party may well reflect the delicate balancing of Obama’s Pod Save America formula more than the unambiguous leap to Israel’s defense that was Biden’s initial response to October 7.

Richard Landes: Palestinian Lethal Projections

Conclusions:
The lethal narrative – Israel’s deliberate, murderous cruelty – is not confirmed by footage: there are no elements of the visuals that are probative of the narrative claim of targeting the boy and anyone who helps him. Only the verbal overlay makes that claim, and given how often that script does not describe what the camera shows (torn to pieces… these are the injured), one can hardly consider that testimony decisive.

There is, on the other hand, nothing decisively probative that this is staged, like the boy getting up after the filming. And yet, as with Al Durah, the staged hypothesis does explain all the multiple anomalies. Odds that this is staged, 80-95%; odds it depicts the lethal narrative, under 1%.

From a journalist’s point of view, while this story does not offer sufficient evidence to denounce it as a deliberate fake, it certainly does not offer sufficient evidence to run it as a news story. No serious professional journalist, committed to not running war propaganda as news whether his side’s or the enemy’s, would consider this story viable. Apparently Evan Hill, did. And the Times of Israel sought fit to reproduce his piece without comment.

Finally, the storyline is noteworthy since it is not only a lethal narrative – Israelis excel in killing innocent children – but also a projected one. During the second intifada, Palestinian Jihadis developed precisely this technique of setting off an initial bomb and then, when Israelis gathered to help, setting off a second one to kill them as well. So here, people who know that doing so is evil and yet somehow feel authorized to so behave, accuse their enemies of that evil, and appeal to outsiders to take their side out of compassion.

Somehow, in the strange logic of the compassionate imperative, we are forbidden from saying that they deliberately lie to us, but must accept their claim that the Israelis are deliberately targeting their children.

Amnesty's Descent Into McCarthyism: The Case of Israel, Gaza and Genocide

Amnesty International's Secretary General Agnes Callamard has already made clear where her sympathies lie, publicly thanking for his "courage and principles" the former recent head of the Amnesty chapter who resigned his post because of what he said was the unequal treatment of Palestinians there.

Amnesty Israel's internal problems need to be addressed.

But once an organization turns against its own members, it is a dangerous day for human rights. Members who have dedicated their professional lives – and much of their private ones – to fighting their own government, occupation, and for Palestinian rights, often incurring the disdain of their own society for doing so.

It is a dark day when it portrays colleagues who have themselves initiated policies to include more Palestinian voices as hostile to them.

It is a frightening day when an international organization dedicated to free speech cuts off colleagues who posit an alternative legal interpretation, with allusions to racism and insinuations abound that they can't make a clear-eyed argument related to Israel because they are Jewish. Some people might even call this racist.

If these are the enemies of human rights, it's worrying to think about who human rights NGOs count as their friends.

In the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy ferreted out "enemies from within" by accusing them of Communism. Today's human rights NGOs raise different specters: racism, colonialism, oppression. But the contours remain the same. Ideology. Allies turned enemies. Demonization. Unwinnable fights. And a veneer of procedure and justice.

Eventually, the Senate censured McCarthy, and brought his reign of terror to an end. But the years of the Red Scare cast a long shadow until today –a somber reminder of what can happen when institutions are corrupted, power is left unchecked, and ideology takes the reins.

12/16 Links Pt1: The parroting of Hamas propaganda is an ethical crisis for journalism; Why Trump Deserves the Nobel Prize; Why Not Put the Palestinian Homeland in Syria?

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: The parroting of Hamas propaganda is an ethical crisis for journalism

This shameful and irresponsible media bias emboldens antisemitic conspiracies and justifies hostility toward Jewish individuals and communities, conflating criticism of Israeli policies with outright bigotry. The surge in antisemitic attacks worldwide underscores the dangerous real-world consequences of disseminating unverified figures that paint an incomplete picture of the conflict.

Accurate fatality data is not just an academic exercise — it is essential for fair reporting and policy-making regarding Israel. International humanitarian law acknowledges civilian harm as an inevitable consequence of war, provided efforts are made to minimise it. However, by inflating the proportion of civilian casualties, Hamas has manipulated perceptions to vilify Israel on the global stage. This tactic not only undermines Israel’s right to self-defence. It also obscures the role of Hamas in exacerbating civilian suffering through their deliberate strategy of the human sacrifice of Gaza’s civilian population.

The irresponsible reporting of fatality statistics also erodes trust in journalism, a cornerstone of democratic societies. The media’s uncritical acceptance of MoH data, combined with its reluctance to challenge Hamas’ propaganda, reveals a failure to uphold basic journalist standards of accuracy and impartiality. This negligence allows Hamas to weaponise casualty figures as a tool of psychological and political warfare.

The responsibility to counter disinformation lies with the global media. We hope this report serves as a wake-up call to journalists and editors who must exercise greater diligence in verifying sources, especially in conflict zones. Failing to do so risks perpetuating false narratives with devastating consequences for public trust and global stability.

By taking Hamas’ numbers at face value, the media undermines its credibility and amplifies a biased narrative that distorts the realities on the ground. Journalists must scrutinise all sources of data with equal rigour, ensuring that the public receives an accurate, nuanced understanding of conflicts like the one in Gaza.

The misreporting of Gaza’s fatality figures is more than a journalistic failure; it is an ethical crisis that has fuelled global antisemitism and polarised international discourse. Our report is a vital reminder that truth is the first casualty of war, and it falls to the media to guard it zealously. In a world increasingly shaped by disinformation, upholding journalistic integrity is not just a professional duty — it is a moral imperative. After 14 months of antisemitism sparked by irresponsible reporting of the war in Gaza, the Jewish community in the UK knows that better than anyone.

Seth Mandel: The Most Important Revelation About Gaza Casualties

From April to August of this year, the report states that, according to Hamas hospital numbers, 45 percent of those killed were men and 37 percent were children. According to the more reliable family reports, men were 64 percent of casualties and children were 22 percent.

Except, “children” generally means under 18 and Hamas has been known to tweak it to 19. Which means we know for a fact a chunk of that 22 percent were combatants. Some of those combatants were children, some weren’t. The fact that Hamas uses child soldiers actually benefited the terror group in the media narrative, because the numbers never distinguish between civilians and combatants, and news consumers don’t read “children” and assume “combatants.” The press was broadly complicit in normalizing and incentivizing the use of child soldiers, a fact that should stain many reputations forever.

But wait, there’s more. The report notes that Hamas—and thus the press—includes natural deaths in the casualty count. There were more than 5,000 natural deaths in that time, by conservative estimate.

But wait, there’s even more. A review of the first 1,000 names on Hamas’s casualty list between the beginning of the war and the summertime found more than 100—that is, 10 percent—had their ages revised downward. In other words, between the time that Hamas numbers could be plausibly verified and the more recent counts, lots of people suddenly became “children.”

But wait, there’s still more. Gaza casualty numbers include those killed by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups. Remember the al-Ahli hospital blast that was reported initially as a Israel’s fault, only to become clear soon after that it was an errant Palestinian rocket (likely from Palestinian Islamic Jihad)? Those deaths still get reported today by the press as caused by Israel because they are included in the casualty numbers—as are, if you can believe it, all Gazans murdered by Hamas security forces during the war.

But wait, there still even more. Cancer patients, the report shows, were listed as war fatalities by Hamas while still also being listed as alive and receiving treatment in Israel or some other treatment center outside Gaza.

Two main conclusions. First, once you drop the natural deaths, approximate the numbers of those killed by Hamas or other Palestinian groups, and adjust the demographic numbers to fit the actual family reports, you end up with about as many militants killed as civilians. In an urban environment with the Hamas soldiers stationed among civilians, this means Israel’s civilian-combatant ratio is not just low but unheard of.

Second, much of the reporting and commentary has framed this war as a “war on Palestinian children.” It’s a convenient reanimation of a classic blood libel, and it is demonstrably a lie. I don’t think anyone using the “Israel is murdering Palestinian children” talking point was ever interested in statistical accuracy, but it is important that the rest of society is aware of the level of deception being practiced by those who propagate it.

Those who put trust in the Hamas casualty figures should hang their heads in shame

The vast majority of broadcasters, news sites and newspapers ought to hang their heads in shame. Of 1,378 articles published over a four month period in spring 2024 in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Australian ABC, a full 84 per cent did not bother to distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths, Fox found.

A shockingly low 5 over cent of publications released any numbers from the Israelis, while 98 per cent – basically all – exclusively published the Hamas Ministry of Health figures.

The sheer force of the need to paint Israel as targeting civilians has been overwhelming. Trying to go against this need with the small sounds of sanity has inevitably been painful and confrontational. Some of those who lost their hats over my insistence that, while all civilian deaths in Gaza were tragedies, the IDF was not baying for the blood of innocents, may have been infected with anti-Semitism.

But most were just consumers of the news from sources they ought to have been able to trust. These sources, which Fox suggests were incorrect, not only let their readers, listeners and viewers down, but have viciously pursued the deepest embedding of fake history that Europe and the Anglosphere has seen since the propaganda tools of the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

From International News Service, March 5, 1957:

American firms making everything from bubble gum to varnish are being blacklisted by the nine Arab nations for refusing to end their trade with Israel. The widespread pressure campaign to force world industry to boycott Israel already has led scores of manufacturers in 19 countries, including the U.S., to accede, INS learned today.

The Arab League "Boycott Bureau" in Alexandria, Egypt, announced today, without giving details, that 25 foreign firms had been blacklisted, and 49 foreign companies had agreed to discontinue commercial relations with Israel in the past year.

The announcement followed disclosure by INS last Friday that powerful Arab blacklist pressure had forced a boycott of Israel by major U.S. and other free world oil and shipping interests.

A spokesman for Topps said the company was put on the blacklist because its packages of gum contained cards showing flags of all nations and had included the flag of Israel.

The firm recently was permitted to resume shipments to some of the Arabian countries but only after agreeing not to ship or attempt to sell the item which aroused Arab League displeasure.

The U.S. Government is aware of the discrimination against American firms which deal with Israel. The Department of Commerce recently published a notice that Saudi Arabia intended to boycott not only firms doing business with Israel but those which are owned or directed by Jews. 

Actually, by 1957, it was well known that the boycott included Jewish owned or controlled companies.

Anyway, while Topps managed to get out of being boycotted in 1957, it once again became boycotted decades later. From a 1983 US Government intelligence report on the effects of boycotts:

Although boycott officials periodically insist publicly and privately that only firms adding to Israel’s strength are blacklisted, the contributions of many boycotted companies are difficult to discern. The Topps Chewing Gum Company, for example, was blacklisted after it licensed an Israeli factory to produce Bazooka bubble gum.

The report doesn't mention it, but the founders of Topps Chewing Gum Company were four Jewish brothers, Abram, Ira, Joseph and Philip Shorin. The person who designed the first baseball cards in a Topps bubblegum pack was another Jew, Sy Berger.

So while the intelligence community seemed perplexed at the Arab boycott of Topps, the reason was obvious.

That report also showed that the Arab League boycott was suspended in cases where such a boycott would hurt Arab businesses more than it would hurt Israel. There was never anything principled about either the Arab League boycott or BDS - they were always aimed at Jews.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Abba Eban, who was Israel's Foreign Minister as well as Ambassador to the UN and Ambassador to the US, was known as a brilliant orator as well as for his wit.

He famously said that Arabs "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." (That is usually misquoted as "Palestinians.") He also said, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." After the Six Day war he said, "I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender."

But one of the most famous quotes attributed to Eban is this one: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

When I looked for the source, however, I came up empty.

The earliest I found a similar quote from him was from a Toronto Star article from 1968:

While United Nations delegates quarrelled in the rhetorical aftermath of the Arab-Israeli war last June, Israel’s grandiloquent Foreign Minister Abba Eban delivered a wry semantic solo: "If the Arab League made a motion at the UN assembly that the world was flat they would get 40 votes for it”.

I saw a couple of sources in 1970 change the quote slightly: "If the Arabs table a resolution tomorrow that the earth is flat, they can count on at least 40 votes."

The closest quote I have found came not from Abba Eban but from Chaim Herzog, Israel's UN ambassador. The Los Angeles Times mentioned his version of Eban's quote in 1975:

Former Foreign Minister Abba Eban of Israel once observed that the Arabs could automatically muster 40 votes for a declaration that the world was flat.

Israel's new U.N. ambassador, Chaim Herzog, has updated the illustration to say that if Saudi Arabia sponsored the flat-earth proposal, the vote would be "100 in favor, Israel, Costa Rica and the United States against, and 35 abstentions."

The earliest I can find the "Algeria" quote comes from an op-ed by Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in The Guardian in 2004:

The general assembly request recalls the famous observation of Abba Eban that "if Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions".

Since Eban died in 2002, this version of the quote sounds apocryphal, but the Guardian piece is used as the source by others.

It is certainly possible that within Israel's diplomatic community, the quote kept being modified in internal discussions, so for all we know Abba Eban or someone else may have refined it beyond Herzog's version. Perhaps Shalom was quoting from internal lore where the quote kept morphing within the Foreign Ministry.

But I cannot find any evidence that Eban himself said this quote.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israel is eyeing a base in Somaliland to counter the Houthis

There are reports that the US struck Houthi positions last night.

It appears that the US has been doing far more in Yemen than has been reported, with new information about hundreds of combat sorties in recent months. These activities are being described as "the largest naval conflict the United States has been in since World War II."

It is unclear how many of these missions are defensive - protecting ships and themselves - and how many are offensive to degrade Houthi abilities.

After arriving in the CENTCOM area of operations in August, the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group worked alongside the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, until that group left in September. Alongside intercept missions, the squadrons took part in offensive operations. Those included major strikes on Houthi military sites over two days in Nov. 9-10. The Marine Corps’ VMFA-314 took part in that operation, the first time that the Marine Corps’ F-35C saw combat. The squadron dropped 72,000 pounds of ordnance while in the Middle East, it reported.

Even more unclear is whether these sorties are deterring the Houthis at all. So far, it appears not.

Once again, Israel may have to do what the world doesn't want to.

Arab media and Haaretz have reported that Israel is looking at establishing a military base in Somaliland specifically to have a place nearby from which they can attack the Houthis.

On October 17, the pro-Qatari news website Middle East Monitor reported that Israel secretly approached Somaliland, situated across the Gulf of Aden from the Yemeni city of Aden, with a proposal that would serve both parties: Israel will set up a military base in Somaliland that will allow it to attack and deter Houthi targets, in return for formal recognition of the country and financial investments in it.

According to the report, which relies on diplomatic sources, the United Arab Emirates is mediating between the two countries, and has not only convinced Somaliland to allow the construction of the military base, but will also finance it. The UAE, a signatory to the 2020 Abraham Accords with Israel, has a clear vested interest in such a deal, as the Houthis have become a security threat for it, too, and Israeli military forces in Somaliland will certainly help it fight them.

In recent years, Somaliland allowed the UAE to use the port of Berbera and its airport as a base for its military activity in Yemen, in return for a $440 million UAE investment in Berbera port, according to foreign media. The UAE mediation follows its military cooperation with Israel, the two having reportedly established a joint military-intelligence base on the Socotra archipelago, one of the world's remotest, most ecologically diverse islands, situated in the Gulf of Aden near Yemen.

Israel recognizing Somaliland is a win-win. Somaliland is not recognized by most of the world but it is a democracy in the midst of authoritarian governments. Its most important resource is its location - right at the entrance of the Bab al-Mandeb straits, through which 12% of the world's global trade passes.

Here's where the Abraham Accords and other peace deals pay off. Moderate Arab states hate Iran and its proxies, but Israel can do the dirty work they need. Egypt will never admit to wanting Israel to deter Yemen but it has lost a significant amount of Suez Canal revenue because of the Houthis, and it would prefer Israel fix that problem while not making itself a bigger target for Islamists.

For all its formidable power, the US does not seem to ever want to deliver a knockout punch in its operations. Israel would have no problem hitting Houthi positions beyond the purely military - to destroy its ports from which Iran sends it weapons, for example.

As we've seen in Gaza and Lebanon, a knockout punch is what is necessary against fanatical jihadists. The US and moderate Arab countries are reluctant to deliver such a punch. But the Houthis will not agree to stop their murderous operations unless they are on the ropes.

Israel cannot do this from a distance. Somaliland gives Israel the chance to not only drop the next to last domino of Iranian proxies, but also to enhance its own ability to act worldwide when necessary to defend its interests.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

In May, Dutch MP Mona Keijzer was a guest on TV program "Sophie & Jeroen." In a discussion of what prospective immigrants should be required to know before being allowed to become citizens.

She argued that the integration classes should include material about the Holocaust, saying of asylum seekers from Muslim countries, "We know that there, hatred of Jews is almost part of the culture."

The host and another guest immediately took offense, first pretending that she said that only Muslims were antisemitic and then that she was calling all Muslims antisemitic. She clarified what she said: "Now it seems as if I am saying that everyone who comes from an Islamic country hates Jews, that is not the case. If that is how it came across, I apologize, because that is not what I meant. But it is definitely a problem and it must become part of the integration process."

A group of Muslims filed a complaint saying that her comment is insulting and she was inciting hatred, violence and discrimination against Muslims.

The Public Prosecution Service concluded that Keijzer was "in principle guilty of group insult", but that prosecution would be too great an infringement of a politician's right to freedom of expression, so the case was dropped.

Mona Keijzer is now the Housing Minister for the Netherlands, and she wants a review of the case to clear her name.

Her defense is that her words are objectively true."Facts cannot be punishable," Keijzer has been telling the media.

Referring to various studies done in Europe, in the Netherlands and by Pew Research, she says "seventy to eighty percent of people from Islamic countries exhibit antisemitic views."

De Telegraaf newspaper looked at the statistics and found that Keijzer's statement was accurate.

The American Anti Defamation League (ADL) has been conducting surveys around the world since the 1970s....The largely Islamic Middle East and North Africa do not fare well. Of the 275 million inhabitants, 200 million people hold views such as 'Jews have too much power in the financial world' or 'Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars'. According to the ADL, anyone who agrees with six of eleven more or less anti-Semitic statements is considered an anti-Semite. That yields a score of 74 percent in the Middle East and North Africa. In Morocco, it is 80 percent. By comparison, Sweden scores 4 percent, the Netherlands 6, the US 10, France 15, Spain 26 and Turkey 69 percent.

Recognizing widespread Islamic antisemitism has been the third rail in most Western countries. The liberal West, including academia and human rights groups, treat pointing out the truth as Islamophobic.

This is an important case for freedom of speech. Moreover, it helps bring a very real problem of a very real bigotry out in the open, when the media and most governments try mightily to bury it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

12/15 Links: How Israel Turned the Mideast Around; Israel closes embassy in Ireland; Senior Hamas official admits: 'October 7 ruined us'

From Ian:

How Israel Turned the Mideast Around

Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer interviewed by Barton Swaim

Critics used to complain about the "Israel lobby" and its supposed ability to bend U.S. policy to its will. A saner case could be made that Israel is constantly doing America's dirty work at immense cost to itself. Its war against Hamas and Hizbullah isn't some regional conflict over disputed territory but a battle in a worldwide cold war between an alliance of democracies and a confederation of anti-American dictatorships.

Ron Dermer, 53, Israel's minister for strategic affairs who grew up in Miami Beach, was Israel's ambassador to the U.S. from 2013-21. He says, "A lot of people...think America is hated because of Israel. I think Israel is hated because of America. We're seen as an extension of your values. And guess what? They're right."

Six months ago, global opinion-makers spoke mainly about the "genocide" perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. Dermer says, "The Jews must be the dumbest genocidal force in history. We win Nobel Prizes, but we're idiots when it comes to genocide - the Palestinian population is about 10 times what it was in 1948."

He asks me to imagine I'm president of the United States and I have to pick one ally for the next half-century. "Just one, strictly in terms of American interest. You want an ally that can defend itself by itself and you don't have to send in troops to protect it. You want an ally with formidable intelligence capability and cyber capability and all the new forms of warfare. And you want an ally that can develop new weapons. If you're honest, you're down to Britain and Israel. And I think we have a bigger standing army than the Brits."

‘Very friendly’ Netanyahu-Trump call focused on hostages, victory

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a “very friendly, warm and important” phone call with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on the need to complete Jerusalem’s victory over Iranian-backed terror proxies and free the hostages held by Hamas, the Israeli leader said on Sunday.

Netanyahu in a statement said he and his “friend” Trump discussed the situations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria during the call on Saturday night.

“A year ago, I said something simple: We would change the face of the Middle East, and we are indeed doing so. Syria is not the same Syria. Lebanon is not the same Lebanon. Gaza is not the same Gaza. And the head of the axis, Iran, is not the same Iran,” Netanyahu said in the video statement on Sunday.

“We are working today forcefully and with due consideration in order to have security regarding all the countries of the region and in order to have stability and security on all of our borders,” he stated, adding that challenges remain in fighting Iran’s “bloodied proxies.”

Netanyahu emphasized that Jerusalem has “no interest” in a confrontation with the incoming Syrian regime, stressing that his policies towards it will be determined “according to the reality on the ground.”

“Together with Defense Minister [Israel] Katz, I have directed the IDF to thwart the potential threats from Syria and prevent terrorist elements from taking control close to our border,” he stated. “Over the course of several days, we have destroyed the capabilities that the Assad regime took decades to build.”

The Israeli leader quoted Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem as confirming that the Iranian-backed terrorist group has lost its Syrian supply route. “This is, of course, additional testimony to the severe blow with which we have struck the entire Iranian axis,” according to Netanyahu.

“I would like to both clarify and warn: I would like to make it clear and to warn: We are committed to preventing the rearming of Hezbollah,” said the premier. “I unequivocally declare to Hezbollah and to Iran: In order to prevent you from attacking us, we will continue to take action against you as necessary, in every arena and at all times.”

Regarding the war in Gaza, he declared, “We will continue to act relentlessly to return home all of our hostages, the living and the deceased. Let me add that the less we discuss this, the better, and so, with God’s help, we will succeed.”

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Dec. 8, Trump made it clear that while he hopes for an end to the conflict, Jerusalem must secure a decisive victory. “I want [Netanyahu] to end it, but you have to have a victory,” he stated.

He also addressed the growing criticism of Israel and the downplaying of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, comparing it to Holocaust denial: “You know, you have Holocaust deniers. Now you have Oct. 7 deniers, and it just happened. No, Oct. 7 happened. What happened is horrible.”

Jonah Goldberg: What the Headlines Missed about Amnesty International's Accusation that Israel Commits Genocide

Reporting on Amnesty International's new report about Israel's War in Gaza, the New York Times headline read: "Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza." The Los Angeles Times was similar: "Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza."

Calling the report unfair would be a profound understatement. Here's its first sentence: "On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip." In other words, the story begins not with Hamas's unprecedented terrorist attack on Israeli civilians that day. Rather, it begins with the Israeli response to the aggression of Hamas. This is a bit like reporting on America's "genocide" in Japan by stating, "On April 18, 1942, the United States embarked on a military offensive on the Japanese nation" - leaving out that whole Pearl Harbor thing.

The Genocide Convention of 1948 is very clear about what constitutes actual or attempted genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." But the Palestinian population has grown more than eightfold since Israel's founding, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and the population of Gaza has increased 600% since 1960.

One of the most important words in the UN definition of genocide is "intent." If Israel, which even its enemies characterize as supremely competent and lethal, intends genocide, it's really, really, bad at it. Indeed, if genocide were the goal, you would think Israel would stop warning civilians to evacuate areas it's about to attack and sending Palestinians caravans of aid.

On page 101 of Amnesty's 296-page report, the authors essentially concede that Israel isn't committing genocide under prevailing interpretations of international law, as they reject "an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence...that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict."

As Commentary's Seth Mandel writes, "So Amnesty International dissents from international law. That's fine. Just be up-front about it: Amnesty is not accusing Israel of 'genocide,' it is accusing Israel of a different crime which Amnesty has named 'genocide,' just so it could use that word." Amnesty didn't want a discussion about the proper definition of genocide. It wanted headlines alleging that Israel committed the crime - and it got them.

Hezbollah's leader Naim Qassem's speech yesterday - Nasrallah's lies without the charisma

It used to be when the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech, it would be covered closely in Lebanese media. Every sentence would be live-blogged on news sites. The Lebanese realized that their lives were dependent on Hezbollah and Nasrallah was the most powerful man in Lebanon.

How times have changed.

Yesterday, Nasrallah's successor Naim Qassem gave his second major speech since taking over, and even pro-Hezbollah media didn't give it wide coverage.

While Qassem made the same kinds of statements and threats Nasrallah used to, no one is too impressed with Hezbollah's power anymore, and Qassem does not have the same charisma that Nasrallah had.

Here are some highlights of Qassem's speech, including some that admit Hezbollah's weakness.

"We hope that this new party in power [in Syria] will see Israel as an enemy and not normalize relations with it."

"Hezbollah lost a military supply line via Syria. The resistance must adapt to the circumstances."

Israel was able to assassinate “Hezbollah leaders, headed by His Eminence the Martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and committed its brutal crimes against civilians, but it was unable to break the den of the resistance.”

He again declared victory, saying, "three factors of strength and steadfastness made us victorious. The first is the legendary steadfastness of the resistance fighters in the field, the second is the blood of the martyrs, headed by Sayyed Nasrallah, and the third factor is the integrated and effective political management with the management of the resistance of the brave." He claimed that Hezbollah has “thwarted the enemy's goal of eliminating and crushing the Resistance.”

Of course, Israel never stated that was a goal.

But that was not Israel's only imaginary goal that was thwarted. According to Qassem, Israel wanted to take over all of Lebanon and move Jewish settlers there.

He won't mention that Hezbollah was decimated by Israel and accepted a humiliating ceasefire forcing it to agree to lose everything it has been building for 18 years in southern Lebanon.

This weakening of Hezbollah has had a huge impact on the Lebanese psyche. You can see the change in their media. No longer are the journalists frightened of criticizing Hezbollah or of talking about a Lebanon that is not dominated by the Shiite minority,.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The popular art magazine Hyperallergic, together with the anti-Zionist Jewish Currents magazine, has an article about "anti-Palestinian repression" in the art world.

A wave of anti-Palestinian repression has swept the Western art world in the aftermath of October 7th, 2023. From Amsterdam to San Francisco, artists who have criticized Israel’s brutal war on Gaza have seen their exhibitions canceled, their work deinstalled, and other opportunities rescinded. Some of these incidents have been met with major backlash: After Vail, Colorado disinvited Native artist Danielle SeeWalker from a residency last May, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the town; months earlier, Indiana University’s cancellation of Palestinian American painter Samia Halaby’s retrospective made international headlines. In our extensive reporting at Hyperallergic on this phenomenon, we’ve seen that these high-profile cases are just the tip of the iceberg. In Miami Beach, for example, Oolite Arts removed an installation evoking the phrase “from the river to the sea” by Vietnamese artist Khánh Nguyên Hoàng Vũ, citing concerns from unspecified community members that the popular expression of support for Palestinian self-determination amounted to “a literal call for violence against them.” Museum Folkwang in Essen, Germany canceled an exhibition section on Afrofuturism after guest curator Anaïs Duplan professed his support for the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in a social media post.

When you look at the examples they give of art or artists that they suggest are being unfairly attacked, you see that the art or artists that are being criticized aren't pro-Palestinian but anti-Israel.

Saying "from the river to the sea" is a call to dismantle the world's only Jewish state. BDS' explicit aim is the destruction of Israel. Other examples they give are of artists comparing the war in Gaza to the Holocaust - which is Holocaust inversion, a form of Holocaust denial - and calling Israel genocidal, which is a slander against Israel and not a "pro-Palestinian" position.

The article doesn't really have a lot of examples of this so called "repression" so it expands the definition of repression to include a museum moving a piece of artwork to another wall and adding signage about how its content can be seen as offensive. Beyond that it features anti-Israel artists' self-censorship - artwork that they refused to show when the galleries refused to adopt BDS - as examples of repression, when the only people who stopped their being exhibited were the artists themselves.

Nowadays, it is indeed difficult to distinguish between "pro-Palestinian" and "anti-Israel." That is because the proponents themselves make no such distinction between the two, causing otherwise intelligent people to be blind to the obvious: No one is calling to censor or repress any artwork that calls for a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, or that sympathizes with Palestinian suffering, or that celebrates Palestinian culture.

Calling to destroy Israel as a Jewish state when there is no call to demolish China or Iran, when there is no call to dismantle any state that defines itself as Muslim or Christian, is not "pro-Palestinian." Israel's entire purpose, and Zionism's entire purpose, is to create a small space on Earth that Jews can feel safe. Criticizing how Israel balances the rights of Jews and non-Jews under its control is perfectly acceptable. Opposing it altogether, and denying the Jews equal or any rights in the region, is antisemitism. Redefining Zionism, or framing that idea as "pro-Palestinian," does not change the bigotry behind the desire to destroy the Jewish state.

While these are all examples of "repression," it is richly ironic that Hyperallergic is not at all critical of BDS which itself calls for the censorship of anything - including art - of Israelis or Zionists.

The hypocrisy goes beyond that.

Hyperallergic properly discusses the work of the late artist Charles Krafft. Krafft was known in the Seattle arts scene as a deeply ironic artist who would explore Nazi and racist themes - but then he made it clear that he wasn't being ironic, and he was in fact a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. Obviously, once that became known his stock in the art world went down and galleries refused to show his art.

There is no criticism from Hyperallergic for the right of art spaces to choose who to highlight and who not to based on their politics when those politics are those that the magazine disagrees with. There is no complaint about "repression," even though the antisemitism represented by Krafft is just as odious than the antisemitism of the artists it celebrates.

Hyperallergic fully supports artists who deny Jewish national rights, who desire to ethically cleanse seven million Jews from their homes, who claim that Jews are not really Jews but Khazars, who say that Jews have no right to Jerusalem or other holy places, and many of whom question or deny the Holocaust if anyone would ask them. The magazine does not seem to understand that the Palestinian and Arab antisemitism that pervades their media and their art is indistinguishable from that of Krafft. Criticizing and marginalizing white supremacist artists is proper - and so is criticism and marginalization of antisemites from the Left and from the Muslima and Arab worlds.

Condoning their antisemitism is not at all being anti-Palestinian - unless you define antisemitism as an integral part of the Palestinian narrative. And that is a question that the Left should be taking seriously if it really hates racism.

The question of where to draw the line between free speech and hate speech is legitimate. The differences between censorship and criticism are important to define. It is proper for Hyperallergic to grapple with those issues. It is not proper for it to take an inconsistent position that conveniently aligns with its politics and ends up supporting some kinds of Jew hatred as a principled position.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)