Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, January 07, 2025

01/07 Links Pt1: How Amnesty International Became Its Own Repressive Regime; The Doxxing of the IDF; UNRWA ‘knowingly’ let Hamas infiltrate, per UN Watch report

From Ian:

Thank Israel for no nuclear fears in post-Assad Syria

Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime, protracted uncertainty or outright chaos should be expected in Syria. Among other things, assorted remnants of al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorist groups will configure or reconfigure in the area, and Sunni Islamic states such as Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia could present Israel with a unique and unpredictable foe. Though Iran will suffer a temporary strategic loss from the defeat of its surrogate in Damascus, Jerusalem will not have to face any consequent nuclear threats. The core reason for this relatively good news lies in the Jewish state’s Operation Orchard, executed in September 2007.

Until then, Israel’s most visible effort to prevent an enemy nuclear state had been its widely remembered June 7, 1981, Osiraq raid against Iraq. Nonetheless, a later preemption was undertaken in Syria. Code-named Operation Orchard, it expressed Israel’s country-specific Begin Doctrine and also the general international law principle of anticipatory self-defense.

Meticulously planned, as was Operation Opera in 1981, Orchard represented a prudent defensive action against then-originating Syrian nuclear infrastructures. In essence, if the already-genocidal Damascus regime had not been the object of this 2007 Israeli preemption, nuclear weapons could eventually have fallen into the hands of Sunni jihadi terrorist organizations now beginning to contend for power in post-Assad Syria.

Israel’s first use of anticipatory self-defense against a potentially nuclear adversary in 1981 was directed at Saddam Hussein’s developing reactor near Baghdad. It was the broader international community’s failure to act in a similarly decisive fashion against North Korea that created still-expanding security woes with Kim Jung Un. Ironically, North Korea – which secretly built the Al Kibar plutonium-producing heavy water reactor destroyed by Orchard in 2007 – had been sending assembled nonnuclear arms to Syria. At that point, North Korean arms transfers supported Shi’ite Iran’s destructive influence in the region.

There are noteworthy regional intersections. Whatever the United States might assume about Pyongyang, it will be necessary to prevent Kim Jung Un from undertaking any North Korean aggressions against Japanese or South Korean nuclear power plants. In any such eventuality, especially in extremis atomicum, a further danger would surface: Unlike the Israeli preemptions against Osiraq and Al Kibar, which had been directed against pre-operational nuclear reactors, these prospective North Korean targets could suffer nuclear core meltdowns. Such events could produce calamities far worse than what was caused by the catastrophic accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

During the attack on Osiraq, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor before it was ready to go “online.” Nonetheless, following the attack, the immediate global community reaction was generally hostile. In Resolution 487 of June 19, 1981, the UN Security Council indicated that it “strongly condemns” the attack and declared “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered.” Largely forgotten is that then-US president Ronald Reagan took multiple steps to ensure the United States would vote in favor of this resolution of condemnation.

Seth Mandel: How Amnesty International Became Its Own Repressive Regime

Amnesty International is free to operate in Israel, but Amnesty Israel isn’t free to operate within Amnesty International.

That is the important takeaway from the news that the anti-Zionist NGO is suspending its Israel branch for the crime of disagreeing with management.

Even when groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch begin operating in good faith, they inevitably fall into a trap they have set for themselves: Dictatorial and authoritarian regimes don’t let them operate in their countries, but democracies do. So “human rights” organizations end up focusing their reporting on places with far fewer human-rights violations, skewing the entire concept of humanitarian law and ultimately serving as little more than dictatorships’ organs of Sovietesque whataboutism.

Democracies end up looking bad because they’re free. And the leaders of these supposed humanitarian organizations end up serving as the willing shields of repression.

So it is, ironically enough, with Amnesty itself. It has officially become the thing it was founded to expose.

The background to this current kerfuffle is recent and deceptively simple.

In early December, Amnesty International produced a report accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. The report was an unmitigated disaster for Amnesty: It was leaked because employees were embarrassed by its lack of scholarship. The report admitted that Amnesty was changing the definition of genocide in order to apply it to Israel, and Amnesty’s Israel branch—the organization’s researchers on the ground—publicly disputed its conclusions and revealed that they had not even been consulted on the report that was all about Israel.

Amnesty International has responded by suspending Amnesty Israel.

Which is to say, the supposed “human rights” organization now operates on authoritarian principles.

I would say this is a case of Amnesty becoming what it hates, but it’s not clear to me that Amnesty ever actually hated authoritarianism or repression.

In explaining its decision to suppress dissent, Amnesty unintentionally admitted its critics were right, though the communications team clearly thought it was making a different point when it released this statement:
“AI Israel has sought to publicly discredit Amnesty’s human rights research and positions. Its efforts to publicly undermine the findings and recommendations of Amnesty’s 2022 report on Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians and, more recently, Amnesty’s 2024 report on Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, have been deeply prejudicial to Amnesty’s human rights mission, threatening our credibility, integrity and operational coherence.”

“Operational coherence” means Amnesty intends for its leader’s voice to be its only voice, and that the company line must be toed at all times. “Threatening our credibility” means Amnesty Israel has exposed the fact that Amnesty International has bypassed its country-specific researchers so that their expertise won’t interfere with the predetermined conclusion handed down from on high.

Amnesty International suspends Israel branch for rejecting NGO's reports

Former Amnesty Israel director Yonatan Gher supported the article in a December 17 social media post, asserting that the Israeli branch served as “the guardian of the Israeli government against the human rights movement.”

Amnesty Israel criticized the 2022 report for painting the country in broad strokes, ignoring the differences between different groups and exaggerating some of the framings, The Times of Israel reported.

Anonymous sources within Amnesty International disagreed with claims that the Israel branch’s characterization was “hostile” to criticism of the country, contending that the local group had been critical both of the Israeli government as well as Palestinian bodies, addressing human rights issues regardless of where they arose.

One source shared with The Jerusalem Post that AI didn’t allow local branches to review the 2023 genocide allegation report, limiting access to the executive summary. This was reportedly a unique practice.

AI also said that it was suspending the Israeli branch because of “endemic anti-Palestinian racism.”

“AI Israel has failed to respond effectively to findings of endemic anti-Palestinian racism – a situation which led to complaints from Palestinian board members to the international board in 2022, and successive resignations in 2022, 2023, and 2024,” said Fa’afiu.

'Palestinian voices low on the agenda' - then-Amnesty Israel chair
The international board shared a notice from then-Amnesty Israel chair Daniil Brodsky announcing his resignation on November 29, as well as the resignation of his vice chair and another board member ahead of the genocide allegation report.

“During the last members’ assembly, it quickly became apparent that Palestinian voices were not just something low on the agenda, but that they were actively silenced,” said Brodsky.

“One of the Palestinian board members was humiliated in a racist and disgusting way at the assembly. We could not respect the decisions made by the assembly, and certainly not represent them.

“We could not condone a space hostile to Palestinians, and a human rights space for Israeli Jews only is one that I can scarcely justify.”

Brodsky claimed in the letter and a December 10 The Forward article that he had attempted to introduce more Palestinian representation in managerial roles, but to no avail.

According to him, not only did Amnesty Israel not have the legal experts to criticize the genocide report, but it didn’t have Palestinian input in its analysis. This was part of an alleged systemic problem in the group in which Palestinians were ignored.

“Amnesty Israel finds itself in the awkward position of being neither a source of legal expertise nor providing a diverse human rights perspective of Israelis and Palestinians,” wrote Brodsky.

“It is just another place for Israeli Jews to express themselves.”

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL insiders told the Post that they didn’t believe reports about anti-Palestinian racism in the Israel branch, noting its commitment to Palestinian human rights issues.

The sources were also suspicious about the proliferation of the allegation and material like Brodsky’s article, with one source going so far as to assert that the AI leadership had laid the groundwork for the racism allegation to justify the suspension.

The evidence of terrorists using Kamal Adwan Hospital as a military base is overwhelming, but the media isn't interested

This morning, the IDF released a video of an interrogation of an employee at the Kamal Adwan Hospital who was also a Hamas Al Qassam Brigades member.

I am Anas Mohammed Said Al-Sharif, 21 years old.
I work at Kamal Adwan Hospital as a supervisor of cleanliness.
I joined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 2021, serving in the Nukhba Force in the western battalion. [I was arrested] at the Kamal Adwan Hospital, where medical staff was staying alongside operatives from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Nasser Brigades and other organizations in northern Gaza.

There were medical staff members whom I dealt with on a daily and direct basis.
There were also activists from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Nasser Brigades, and various organizations in the northern area.

Why were you hiding in Kamal Adwan Hospital?
They thought it was a safe haven for them because the army could not directly target it.

What would you say is the reason they considered it a safe haven?
Because it contained civilians and patients, and they believed that the army would not target it directly.
They thought the army could not directly target it with an F-16 missile or completely destroy it.

When the operatives were in the hospital, what were they doing?
They were transferring equipment and weapons, like AK-47s, bullets and pistols. The weapons were brought to and from the hospital, in and out. Reconnaissance units and patrols would leave the hospital late at night.

The operatives were present, bringing in weapons like Kalashnikovs, pistols, and M-sets.
They transported them in and out of the hospital, from the outside to the inside and vice versa.
Inside the hospital, they used the facility to transport reconnaissance personnel and operatives.

During the late-night hours, they would leave the hospital, returning by morning.
From within the hospital, they were distributed to various locations, such as defensive positions, ambushes, underground tunnels, command centers, and control sites, whether in Kamal Adwan Hospital, Al-Faluja [Jabalya camp], or in areas where the army was present. These activities were managed there.

This is not the first time the IDF published an interview with a terrorists that shows that they used hospitals for military purposes. It shows that IDF intelligence is accurate and that when Israel says that terrorists are using hospitals, schools and mosques they know what they are talking about.

Here's a video about Kamal Adwan and other Gaza hospitals that you would not know exists based on media coverage.

Yet despite the huge amounts of evidence, the media continues to downplay the proof and portrays the arrests at the hospital as abhorrent. Here is a video by Reuters interviewing a nurse at Kamal Adwan who says that medical staff were beaten, with no skepticism at all, the only mention of Israel's claims that it was used for military purposes is immediately followed by Hamas' denial, which together with this interview combines to make the IDF look like liars.

Most of the news articles are about demands for Israel to release its director, Husam Aby Safiya, who is also a Hamas colonel (a fact they ignore completely.)

These are war crimes. And the media (outside Israeli and Jewish media) prefers not to publish these stories. Instead, it casts doubt on anything Israel says.

It is a consistent pattern of disbelieving Jews to the extent that it chooses to believe terrorists above them. And of course NGOs don't say a word either.

World media is hopelessly corrupt.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

In 1962, Cuba Was Our Hamas (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Mexico has never fired rockets into the US.

But that hasn't stopped people from comparing such a theoretical attack with Hamas firing rockets into Israel. How else to illustrate Israel's right to self-defense from a terrorist entity that exists right on Israel's doorstep?

However, one US neighbor has proven to be a threat to the US in more than just theory.

In October 1962, the US discovered that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off the US coast. This threat to US national security led to the Cold War confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 22, President Kennedy called for a naval "quarantine" of Cuba to block any more weapons or military equipment from reaching the island. Both the US and the Soviet Union mobilized their forces, but all-out war was averted.

The Cuban Missile Crisis poses an interesting parallel to Israel's current situation.

Cuba, like Hamas, was a proxy, acting on behalf of the USSR. Cuban troops and advisors supported the Marxist MPLA government in Angola during its war. Castro supplied the manpower, while the Soviets provided the weapons. Cuba also acted on behalf of its sponsor in 1977-1978, when it backed the Soviet-aligned Ethiopian government.

But, in 1962, it served as a proxy of the USSR against the US. The missiles pointed at the US but fell just short of being used like the Iranian-supplied rockets targeting Israeli civilians.

As a proxy, Cuba not only helped protect other Marxist governments. It also assisted in the Soviet goal to spread Communism. Hamas, for its part, fit into Iran's goal of spreading radical Islam throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The Soviet Union eventually proved to be a paper tiger. The Soviet bloc eventually disintegrated, and its various components turned away from Communism. The case of Iran is not nearly as clear-cut, but like Russia, it no longer projects power as it once did, and its proxies no longer serve as reliable extensions of its Islamist program.

Then there is the terrorist element.

Che Guevara symbolized the Cuban cause just as much as Fidel Castro did. And like Hamas "heroes", Guevara too was a terrorist. Jonah Goldberg writes in his book, Liberal Fascism:

Guevera reveled in executing prisoners. While fermenting revolution in Guatemala, he wrote home to his mother, "It was all a lot of fun. What with the bombs, speeches and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in." His motto was, "If in doubt kill him," and he killed a great many. The Cuban American writer Humberto Fotova described Guevera as "a combination of Beria [former chief of Stalin's secret police] and Himmler." [p. 194]

Yet in 1964, Guevara, like Arafat addressed the United Nations General Assembly--and received enthusiastic applause from his audience. And of course, we are all familiar with the the Che T-shirts:

While we are unlikely to be bombarded with images of Yahya Al-Sinwar on T-shirts, college students today enthusiastically wear keffiyehs, calling for "Intifada" instead of "Revolution," even hours after an ISIS-flag-wielding terrorist fulfilled their chant, killing 15 in New Orleans.

These days, almost no one remembers the threat of missiles aimed at the US from Cuba, which is only 90 miles away from Key West, Florida. All that has survived is the myth of Che Guevara, which survives today in the blind enthusiasm of college students and other left-wing activists who impulsively call for an Intifada.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Perfect: @Amnesty "human rights group" punishes employee free speech - but only from Jews

Amnesty International writes on its "Freedom of Expression" webpage:

Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests.

Amnesty International supports people who speak out peacefully for themselves and for others – whether a journalist reporting on violence by security forces, a trade unionist exposing poor working conditions or an indigenous leader defending their land rights against big business. We would similarly defend the right of those who support the positions of big business, the security forces and employers to express their views peacefully.

As usual, there is a Jewish exception.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Amnesty International has suspended its Israeli branch for two years, saying it was because of supposed "anti-Palestinian racism" - but mainly because it publicly criticized two of Amnesty's reports about Israel.

"We take this action in response to evidence of endemic anti-Palestinian racism within AI Israel, which violates core human rights principles and Amnesty values, and evidence of AI Israel’s misalignment with and hostility to Amnesty positions," Amnesty International interim chair Tiumalu Lauvale Peter Fa’afiu wrote in an email.

"AI Israel has sought to publicly discredit Amnesty’s human rights research and positions. Its efforts to publicly undermine the findings and recommendations of Amnesty’s 2022 report on Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians and, more recently, Amnesty’s 2024 report on Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, have been deeply prejudicial to Amnesty’s human rights mission, threatening our credibility, integrity and operational coherence," Fa'afiu wrote.

"This action is taken under the authority of Article 34 of the Statute of Amnesty International (POL 20/8464/2024) and is necessary to protect the reputation, integrity and operational coherence of the Amnesty Movement at large," Fa’afiu said in the Monday email.

Fa'afiu's email twice mentions protecting Amnesty's "operational coherence" as the reason to suspend AI Israel for publicly disagreeing with Amnesty's reports. However, that phrase does not appear in Article 34 of the Amnesty statute; instead it says the International Board may suspend membership of an entity if it "considers such action necessary to protect the reputation, integrity or operation of the movement."

There is a big difference between "operation" and "operational coherence." The latter phrase means that no one within the movement is allowed to publicly criticize Amnesty. Internal debate is evidence of a culture of free speech; a demand for "operational coherence" is the opposite.

The phrase "operational coherence" does not appear anywhere in Amnesty's site. This is a brand new rule that Amnesty made up just for its Israeli branch.

Amnesty's report made up and justified a new definition of "genocide" just for Israel, as well as previously making up new definitions of "apartheid" and "occupation" solely for Israel. Here they made up a new policy just to silence criticism within the organization.

This is Soviet-level newspeak from a supposed human rights organization.

Moreover, we've seen numerous instances where Amnesty does not consider supporting literal antisemites to harm its "reputation and integrity."

Amnesty-UK has refused to allow a Jewish - not Israeli, Jewish - group from renting its premises while it has allowed clear Jew-haters to use their space.

Amnesty has praised a Palestinian group, "Youth Against Settlements," which has posted antisemitic fake Talmud quotes.

Amnesty-USA has sponsored a speaking tour of Bassem Tamimi, who has posted that Israel details Palestinian children to steal their organs and then the Zionist-controlled media blocks reporting of the story.

In 2015, the only resolution rejected by Amnesty at its annual conference was one condemning antisemitic attacks in Britain.

In 2012, an Amnesty researcher tweeted a "joke" saying that England's Jewish MKs support bombing civilians in Gaza.

None of these antisemitic incidents resulted in Amnesty suspending anyone for damaging its reputation or integrity. Amnesty proudly supports its antipathy towards Jews, and it writes its reports to appeal to antisemites who support that reputation.

Because antisemitism is part of Amnesty's "operational coherence."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Egyptian columnist insults Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and ISIS for secretly loving Jews, unlike proud Egyptians

At Egypt's Youm7 (Seventh Day) news site, columnist Dandrawy Elhawary shows his displeasure at the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots like ISIS, Al Qaeda and HTS by pointing out that they have never engaged in battle with Israel, unlike Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood has never participated in a single struggle against Israel, whether when it occupied Sinai after the 1967 setback or in the great October 1973 victory. However, since the events of January 25, 2011, the truth about the group and the organizations that emerged from it with different names has been revealed, from Jihad, the Islamic Group, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Al-Nusra Front, previously, to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, currently, and other names that are abundant in the file of political Islam. The masks have fallen and the faces of their leaders and members have become uncovered. It has been proven, with evidence, that they have courted Israel, and that all the slogans they were calling for that were hostile to it, were merely camouflage.

So far this is a fairly typical Arab article, where different factions argue that their political enemies are secret Zionists. Hamas and Fatah do this all the time.

But Elhawary's proof comes from not hating Jews sufficiently as evidence:

Erian

Even when they were justifying their positions on Israel on the ground, by saying that they were not in power, they had the opportunity in the black year of 2012 in Egypt [when the Muslim brotherhood was in power,] and we found the group’s closeness to Israel and intimacy in relations, which can be summarized in ... the strange public statements of one of its most prominent leaders, Dr. Essam El-Erian, in December 2012, in which he demanded the necessity of the return of Jews to Egypt, and he said verbatim: “I call on Egyptian Jews to return to their homeland, and they must refuse to continue living under the shadow of an oppressive and racist regime stained with crimes against humanity.”

So asking Jews to return to Egypt - as a pretext for Palestinians to all move to Israel so Palestinians could become the majority - is evidence of loving Israel?

No, Erian's crime is considering it acceptable for Jews to live in Egypt! In fact, he was forced to resign from his government position shortly after this suggestion because Egyptians were so upset at the idea of Jews moving to Egypt.

Even though Egyptian leaders would insist they are not antisemitic but only anti-Zionist, we see that patriotic Egyptians know that Jew-hatred is a pre-requisite for being a real Egyptian.

The article's headline calls on Egypt, as a nation, to "liberate Jerusalem."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

01/06 Links Pt2: No Israel, No Palestine: A Thought Experiment; Ex-Hezbollah terrorist behind Hind Rajab Foundation, doxxing IDF soldiers; How Soros Took Over Wikipedia

From Ian:

No Israel, No Palestine: A Thought Experiment

On October 5, 2005, former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel was a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth.” Despite the genocidal nature of his statement, the world did not respond by isolating him or Iran. Instead, in 2011, Ahmadinejad was invited to address the United Nations, reflecting a disturbing tolerance for such rhetoric.

On October 7, 2023, just eighteen years later, or roughly one generation, Iran attempted to make good on their promise, as Hamas, their proxy, carried out the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Their explicit aim? Murdering as many Israelis as possible to eradicate the Jewish state “from the river to the sea.”

Given this continuing obsession with destroying the Jewish state, and the global obsession with a “free Palestine,” it’s worth conducting this thought experiment: Imagine if Israel is no more. We can start with the War of 1948 and the Armistice borders of 1949, which reveal much about an Israel-free Middle East. Indeed, when five Arab armies attacked the fledgling Jewish state, there was no call to “liberate” an Arab Muslim Palestine.

On the contrary, Jordan expanded and amassed Judea Samaria and Egypt annexed the entire Gaza Strip. Paramount to the lie of the “Disappearing Map of Palestine” is the certainty that from 1949 to 1967, neither Jordan nor Egypt “freed” these territories and helped to create an Arab Muslim Palestine. Indeed, variations of the phrase “from the River to the Sea” appeared only after 1967, documented in graffiti and used in protest chants. Put differently, when Jordan and Egypt “occupied” the region of Palestine, Arab Muslims did not consider themselves living under occupation.

If Israel had lost the First Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the five Arab countries would likely have further divided up the region. While we cannot be certain who would have gotten what, what is certain, as evidenced by the 1949 Armistice Lines, no Arab Muslim Palestine would have ever been created.

The result of a sovereign Jewish vacuum from the river to the sea will be fought over between Hamas and the Fatah Party, the Palestinian Authority that governs Areas A and B in Judea Samaria. The bloodbath that would ensue would be colossal but would not, of course, garner the world’s attention as Jews will no longer be part of the equation.

Just ask the Kurds, or Sudanese, or Nigerians what happens when there is actual slaughter but no Jews. The most stunning case, perhaps, is the silence of the world, especially the human rights world as Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian former dictator, gassed half a million of his own population. Mass graves are being discovered in Syria, yet the International Criminal Court (the ICC) makes no demand that Assad be tried for crimes against humanity.

Jonathan Tobin: Liberal media mainstreams a blood libel about Israeli ‘apathy’

That is why to all but a small minority of Israelis, the events on Oct. 7 and the widespread support it received from Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere remains a conclusive argument that a two-state solution is a formula for endless war and the slaughter of Jews. That is also why—whether or not they wish to replace Netanyahu as prime minister—they are fully in favor of the war against Hamas in Gaza.

In adopting such an attitude, Israelis are behaving no differently than any country that has been assaulted by a deadly foe led by extremists like the fanatics that run and fund Hamas would have done.

Yet contrary to the “apathy” argument that portrays them as indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians sacrificed by Hamas, the Jewish state has demonstrated great humanity with respect to their foes.

From the beginning of the current war, Israel has allowed a steady stream of supplies of food, fuel and other essential goods to be shipped into Gaza, including those areas where Hamas still prevails. The difficulty in getting food to Gazans is not due to hard-hearted Israelis obstructing the flow of aid but to the fact that Hamas and criminal Palestinian gangs have stolen the majority of the aid brought in by humanitarian groups, most of which are compromised by their connections to the terrorists.

What country would be expected to feed and aid those trying to kill their citizens while those enemies were still in arms and “resisting” its existence?

Hamas could have ended this war at any point since October 2023 by releasing the hostages and accepting Israeli offers in which the terrorists would be allowed safe passage out of Gaza. They hold on because they believe that their propaganda will convince the West to turn on Israel and someday hand it to them on a silver platter. Those who participate in pro-Hamas demonstrations are not just engaging in antisemitism with their “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada” chants. Like the journalists who accept the false narrative in which Israel is branded as the villain in the war that began on Oct. 7, they are helping to prolong the war.

Progressives believe that they can turn America against Israel. Through their dominance of the education system, culture and much else, they have tried to indoctrinate a generation of youth to accept the toxic myths of intersectionality and critical race theory. In doing so, they have sought to convince the country that not only was America an irredeemably racist nation but that Israel and the Jews were “white” oppressors. Those who accept this false ideology wrongly believe that Israel is a “settler-colonial” and “apartheid” state that has no right to exist. That leads them to ignore the truth about the conflict and to think that Israel is always in the wrong and the Palestinians are always right, no matter what either side actually does. That is a prime factor in enabling the slanders of Israel as well as the whitewashing of Palestinian brutality and intransigence.

Antisemites are frustrated
Israel’s foes are not only deeply frustrated by the military success of the IDF against the Iranian-sponsored terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah as well as the defeat that Tehran has suffered (largely as a result of the Jewish state’s actions against its proxies in Lebanon) in Syria. They are also unhappy about the victory of President-elect Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump and a host of other ardent supporters of the Jewish state taking office in two weeks is a decisive defeat for those who seek to isolate Israel.

But as another Times article recently noted, Palestinians and their foreign cheerleaders have not lost hope. This doesn’t mean that they are ready to live in peace with Israel or reject a vision of their national identity that is firmly linked to endless war on the Jews. Rather, they believe that sooner or later their victories in a propaganda war in which Israel is delegitimized will ultimately allow them to fulfill their fantasy of extinguishing the one Jewish state on the planet.

Corporate media and other outlets that spread the claim that Israelis are immoral for supporting their country’s defensive war against genocidal terrorists are engaging in antisemitism. But they are also helping to perpetuate a self-destructive mindset that means more bloodshed and suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

Commemorate Auschwitz liberation at Western Wall if Poland honors ICC blood libel

The United States should boycott the upcoming international ceremony on Jan. 27 marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration and death camp unless Poland renounces its support of the International Criminal Court’s warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and guarantees his safe transit. Poland’s threat to arrest Israel’s leader if he attends the memorial labels the Jewish state as today’s Nazi regime, mocking the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, along with the victims of Oct. 7, 2023.

Poland’s stance is also a direct threat to America’s national security, as the ICC threatens to use the same lawless playbook to have countries seize American service members on trumped-up charges.

The ICC criminal charges are a blood libel demanding that Jews not defend themselves and attempting to erase a key lesson of the Holocaust: Never again will Jews be defenseless against genocidal enemies.

“Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, was perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip (from where Israel completely withdrew in 2005), which is governed by Hamas and whose charter calls for genocide against the Jewish people. Fatah, which controls the Palestinian National Authority (P.A.), joined the attack, as did ordinary Gazans. The vast majority of Gaza residents and Arabs living in Judea and Samaria supported the Oct. 7 invasion and resulting atrocities.

The name Al-Aqsa Flood emphasizes the goal of destroying Israel, not creating a state alongside it. Al-Aqsa is the Muslim name for Jerusalem and derives from the Jewish Beit Hamikdash (Holy Temple). Islamists recognize the historic Jewish link to Jerusalem but are determined to supplant that connection. Yasser Arafat—the chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the founder of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority—hailed Nazi collaborator Grand Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini as his role model and similarly styled his five-year war against Israel that began in September 2000 as the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.”

On Oct. 7, in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, the invaders murdered more than 1,200 Israelis and foreigners, mostly civilians, and also dragged as many as 251 men, women and children back into Gaza. The attack was also reminiscent of the Holocaust because of the unspeakable atrocities motivated by blind hatred of Jews.

01/06 Links Pt1: Hamas hostage list includes Bibas children; Biden, Obama, and the Truth About ‘Daylight’; Three killed in terror shooting near Kedumim; When Michael Moore Met Pallywood

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Biden, Obama, and the Truth About ‘Daylight’

In July 2009, Obama met with American Jewish leaders at the White House. He offered some revisionist history of the George W. Bush administration’s work in the Middle East:
“Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

The absurdity of this statement made it an instant news story at the time. During the Bush administration, and with the Bush administration’s encouragement, Israel quite famously ended its occupation of Gaza in its entirety, and—this part might not have happened without the Bush administration’s involvement—disengaged from parts of the West Bank, too. In concert with the Bush administration, Israel gave the Palestinians their largest onetime grant of sovereignty in the history of the conflict.

In other words, Bush was both unambiguously supportive of Israel and successful at achieving breakthroughs in the conflict that benefited the Palestinians. Obama, meanwhile, went on to have the least success of any president in the Middle East since JFK. That was no coincidence.

What Bush understood was that only a policy of “no daylight” could have brought about the full extent of Ariel Sharon’s disengagement—specifically, the part including the West Bank. What Obama didn’t understand was that his own subsequent policy of daylight paralyzed the conflict, because Israel did make concessions but the Palestinians dug in their heels, preventing those concessions from turning into progress.

The truth is that it’s not difficult to get Israel to make concessions, but only under certain conditions is it even possible to move the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Donald Trump came into office and reversed Obama’s daylight policy, and by the end of his term Israel and Arab states had signed historic recognition deals.

Whether there is daylight or no daylight, Israel will make moves for peace—because it wants peace. But only when there is no daylight will the Arab world make reciprocal moves.

This was Blinken’s point. Every time there was daylight between the U.S. and Israel, Hamas backed off from agreeing to a cease-fire and releasing hostages.

Putting daylight between the U.S. and Israel is satisfying to anti-Israel media activists. But it does nothing for the Palestinians, nothing for peace, and nothing for America.

The Postmodern Military

I have tried to highlight what I believe are the main milestones in the West’s and Israel’s military decline, about which much more can, and should be, said. Ben-Gurion’s critical and cautious approach to national security, particularly its military aspects, is long gone—along with conventional war doctrines and a strong operational army.

It might be argued that Israel is winning against Hamas and Hizballah, and thing aren’t so bad as I claim. After all, since October 7, the IDF has waged wars against both terror organizations as well as their masters in Tehran, and appears successful.

I do not share this view. Yes, Israel has, over the last months, achieved much, and the IDF had many tactical successes. Yet the appearance of overall, strategic success is misleading for three primary reasons.

First, on Mida, the website I founded in 2012, Akiva Bigman—a researcher, investigative journalist, and Ph.D. student in military affairs—has compiled the most thorough operational and doctrinal report to date on the IDF’s ongoing campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon. The findings are devastating: lack of preparation, poor planning, severe shortages even in basic fighting equipment, dysfunctional battle processes, failures in command, operational incompetence, and lack of a comprehensive strategy have plagued the war from its outset. The IDF’s successes are mostly not due to operational competence but rather to the fighting spirit of the Israeli soldiers on the ground and the massive asymmetry between the IDF and its sub-military opponents, Hamas and Hizballah.

Second, let us examine the situation strategically. Fifteen months into the war, 30 percent of the Gaza Strip—a small territory of merely 140 square miles—has never been entered by the IDF. An additional 40 percent remains free of an IDF presence, because Israeli forces continue a cycle of raiding and withdrawing. Although its military capabilities have been diminished and part of its leadership eliminated, Hamas still retains control over most of Gaza and over its entire population. This situation is not dissimilar to Lebanon, where tactical successes ultimately resulted, under American pressure, in a ceasefire agreement that ensured Hizballah’s survival and subsequent rehabilitation.

Third, when we do what the Israeli security establishment hates to do—factor costs into the equation—we must conclude that, relative to the national investment in the war, it has been incredibly inefficient, especially when one considers that war with these two terror organizations was precisely what the IDF was supposed to prepare for with its $20 billion annual budget. Yet, instead of building a war machine capable of quickly deciding the conflict, Israel has had to allocate massive additional funds—which result in a massive, long-term national debt—and fifteen months later, the situation remains unresolved.

In short, the tactical victories—expected in asymmetrical wars—have not amounted to a strategic achievement. This is a case of underperformance on an alarming scale, with huge costs not only in treasure but in blood. With such massive inputs and limited outputs, the IDF of the 1950s to the 1980s would hang its head in shame. The lack of strategic thinking and competence in operational art led, as is often the case, to attritional raids. While these raids may be tactically impressive, they fail to deliver a lasting strategic impact.

This is why Israel must return to a classical military mindset. The next war might not be as asymmetrical as the conflicts against Hamas and Hizballah. Such a war would require a fundamentally different army and a restored operational art—not the weakened IDF and degenerated command currently in place. And if another asymmetrical war arises, that reformed army would still be capable of fighting it. The reverse, unfortunately, is not true.

Israel must urgently rebuild its security forces. Since an army is only as good as its command, the first priority must be reforming the intellectual military education of our officer corps. Our generals should be educated in military affairs, so they are not swayed by every new fantasy imported from the complacent West. Additionally, we must implement sweeping changes to the personnel, structure, and processes of the security establishment—from the IDF to the ministry of defense—to make it more efficient and war-ready.

Even if one estimates that the chances of war are low, its potential impact is existential, making the risk very high. Moreover, there is always a significant possibility that such optimistic estimations are incorrect. Lastly, nothing deters enemies more effectively than preparedness for war. These fundamental truths have been forgotten in Israel. The rising generation has performed brilliantly on the field of battle, but as they rise to responsibility for planning for future wars, they must bear the onus of reclaiming these principles and use them as the foundation for a comprehensive overhaul of our security establishment.

Officer, lawmaker, now author: MK Tur-Paz publishes his war diary

Yesh Atid MK Moshe “Kinley” Tur-Paz was a typical opposition lawmaker for most of 2023. A backbencher who does not favor stunts and shouting matches, he perhaps stood out most for his kippah and residence in Kfar Etzion, a West Bank settlement, despite representing a party that, by reputation and voting statistics, generally represents secular residents of central Israel.

Yet, like so many other Israelis, Tur-Paz took on new responsibilities in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks and ensuing war with Hamas, becoming, as the title of his book suggests, An MK on the Night Shift. During the day, Tur-Paz was chief of operations for the IDF’s Gaza Division. His book, released in September, is subtitled “A War Diary,” and tells the story of the 85 days he spent on IDF reserve duty in Gaza.

Though Tur-Paz was born in the U.S., MK on the Night Shift is only available in Hebrew.

Tur-Paz, 52, was born in Philadelphia, where his parents, British immigrants to Israel, were serving as Jewish Agency emissaries. He spent years of his childhood in the U.K., where his parents served once again as emissaries. His uncle was Yehuda Avner, the renowned diplomat and advisor to four Israeli prime ministers.

Tur-Paz has a resume made up of elite liberal-leaning Religious Zionist educational institutions: He studied at a high school established by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, and then Har Etzion Yeshiva, known informally as the “Gush.” He led Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, a leading liberal Religious Zionist organization, was principal of the religious feminist high school Pelech in Jerusalem and was CEO of the Religious Kibbutz Movement’s chain of schools before entering electoral politics.

Throughout that time, he made his way up the IDF ranks as a reservist, going from a battalion commander in the Paratroopers Brigade to a lieutenant colonel, and chief of operations for the IDF’s Gaza Division during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge. His reserve duty, and that of other lawmakers, ended in July 2022 when the military no longer allowed Knesset members from serving in its ranks.

On the morning of Oct. 7, 2023, Tur-Paz was home with his children in Kfar Etzion, a religious kibbutz and settlement south of Jerusalem, when he received an emergency notice from the town’s security officer for residents keep their phones on and that anyone with a weapon should take it to synagogue. He attended that day’s Simchat Torah services, which were disrupted by a rocket siren, sending his family and their neighbors into bomb shelters.

That evening, Tur-Paz’s son, a career IDF officer, called him and said he thought the army needed someone with his experience in Gaza.

This morning, terrorists staged a major terror attack on a bus and cars near Kedumin, murdering three people including two women in their 70s.

Hamas' Felesteen news site says "Hashtag (#Qalqilya_Operation) tops social media sites amidst wide interaction and praise."

But when you look at their examples of this praise, there is very little compared to other terror attacks in the past.

First of all, the hashtag they mention #عملية_قلقيلية is hardly getting any traction at all.

The specific X posts they reproduce have very few views and Likes, and they are being published by people with very few followers.

One offers a prayer for Jews to be emotionally destroyed: "May God perpetuate our joys over the sound of your wailing, the loudness of your weeping and your sorrows. May God perpetuate our joys over the shedding of your blood and the tearing of your limbs. May God hasten the destruction of your entity and your movement behind every stone and tree." This didn't even get 700 views, and the tweeter only has 416 followers.

Another tweet they highlight has only 350 views and 12 likes.

A Facebook post with a poem they link to has only 12 likes.

This is not anything close to going viral. My average tweet - and I generate a dozen or more a day - does better than these.

Media, terrorist and otherwise, do this often. They want to amplify a story so they find obscure things to support it and pretend that there is a groundswell of popularity behind what they are trying to promote, hoping to generate a feedback loop to make their story true after the fact.

But no one can fake the people who hand out sweets, the fireworks and the honking horns after other terror attacks.

Could it be that Israel's decimation of Hamas is having an effect on Palestinian psyche where they are not as enthusiastic over terrorism knowing that the response may be far bigger?

It is too soon to say, but the seeming lack of spontaneous support for the heinous attack is something to note.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Australia arson over the past two months shows there is zero difference between "anti-Zionism" and Jew-hatred

In Australia.

November 21:

December 6:

December 11:

January 6:

Israel haters pretend to distinguish between examples 1,2 and 4 and the others. Any honest person sees there is no difference between any of these. They are done by the same people holding the same opinions and filled with the same hate. To them, hate of Israel and Jews are the same and it is only social mores that cause them to even pretend to sometimes distinguish between them.

The people defending the hate behind "anti-Zionism" are the people who encourage open Jew-hatred in the streets of Western style democracies.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Syria in diplomatic spat with Lebanon, but everyone agrees that Hezbollah is the problem - and for the first time, the Lebanese are saying this out loud

Since Thursday night, Lebanese citizens are almost all banned from entering Syria.

Masnaa border crossing

No one knows exactly why, and analysts are making guesses.

France 24 reports that the reason seems to be that there had been an earlier skirmish between Syrians and Lebanese troops at the border:

The Lebanese army said in a statement on X that its soldiers and Syrians had clashed at the border as the armed forces tried to "close an illegal crossing".

"Syrians attempted to open the crossing using a bulldozer, so army personnel fired warning shots into the air. The Syrians opened fire on army personnel, injuring one of them and provoking a clash".

"Army units deployed in the sector have taken strict military measures," the statement added.

Kataeb reports that this was a quid pro quo on severe Lebanese restrictions on Syrians entering their country:

Sources suggest that Syria's decision was in response to similar Lebanese restrictions on Syrians entering Lebanon. Lebanese authorities currently require Syrians to meet strict entry conditions, including holding valid Lebanese residency permits.

L'Orient Today believes it might be because of fears of Hezbollah trying to re-establish itself.

One explanation offered by Syrian experts is security concerns. "The authorities are afraid of fighters infiltrating Syria from Lebanon, whether from Hezbollah or jihadist groups. This measure has come at a time when the new authorities suspect that some of them are entering Syria," Rami Abdel Rahman, Executive Director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), told us.

"The ban on Lebanese access to Syria is all the more understandable given that Lebanon is home to a strategic ally of the former Syrian regime [Hezbollah], some of whose members have fled to Lebanon, while others are currently being hunted down by the new government. Consequently, there is great apprehension that they will foment unrest inside Syrian territory," explained Riyad Kahwagi, analyst and military expert.

This fear is all the more justified after Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared on Dec. 16 that "the axis of resistance will return to Syria in less than a year," adding, "The occupied territories in Syria will be liberated by the valiant Syrian youth; have no doubt that this will happen."

Fears of Hezbollah infiltrating from both sides could explain the events that are causing tensions. Why would people from the Syrian side try to open up an illegal border crossing to Lebanon if not to transfer weapons (that Israel has not yet bombed) to Hezbollah?

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is claiming that they have completely rebuilt their military. Spokesperson Wafiq Safa said, "Our capabilities are fully restored, and we are prepared to face any attack. Hezbollah is now stronger, tougher than steel, and more powerful than ever before" in a statement where he said Hezbollah would veto presidential candidate Samir Geagea.

Lebanese leaders and media viciously attacked Safa for his statements in light of how Hezbollah is responsible for Lebanon's misery.

The Democratic Renewal Party issued a statement saying, "It would have been better for Hezbollah, after the disaster of the war it caused, to learn a lesson, and return to its Lebanese identity like any component in this country, but it insists on its behavior that contradicts the meaning of Lebanon as a diverse, open country, and the concept of the state and institutions. Enough! The era of terrorizing the Lebanese is over."

Another MP responded:"“Wafiq, there is nothing left in Lebanon that you have not destroyed or ruined. You have even ruined minds. As for sedition, assassinations, and invasions, they are part of your nature and actions. "

IMLebanon was scathing:

Safa’s words are a desperate attempt to convince those who lost their children, families, homes and dreams that “Hezbollah” is “stronger than steel”, at a time when these losers need someone to feed them and convince them that the cause for which they lost everything still exists or originally existed. Anyone who heard Safa yesterday, knowing the history of “Hezbollah” and the history of resistance movements throughout history, would be certain that the “party” today is pitiful, its secretary general is unpopular, the head of its parliamentary bloc is unwanted, and its coordination and liaison officer [Safa] is corrupt and a liar.

Our experience with your party is more than 40 years old. In peace, you threatened us, killed us, and tried to turn Lebanon into a small Iran. In war, you brought us in to implement non-Lebanese agendas, and then you took refuge in our homes from being killed, hiding in our homes and in our beds. ...What you said about Geagea yesterday made us feel ashamed for ever defending you or for feeling pity, even for a moment.

Even as recently as November it was rare to see any explicit anti-Hezbollah sentiments in Lebanese media as the Iranian proxy held the entire country in a grip of fear. Now with their defeat, the Lebanese feel free to publicly say what they have been saying privately for decades.

It is not an insignificant result of Israel's offensive against Hezbollah. It is just a shame that there weren't more brave Lebanese willing to speak out beforehand.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Harvard BDSers call for employees to take a "sick day" for Gaza today. Will @Harvard enforce its policy against abusing sick days?

"Faculty and Students for Justice in Palestine" at Harvard University are calling for all Harvard employees to call in sick today as a protest.

FSJP instructs the workers to attend rallies and demonstrations on campus instead.

Sick days are a privilege, and not time off to be abused. The Harvard Human Resources Policies and Guidelines says:

Normal use of earned sick time will not interfere with the overall productivity of the department and will not be used as a negative factor in any employment action. However, it is appropriate to take corrective steps if an employee abuses earned sick time (e.g., calls in sick when in fact the employee is absent for a reason that is not consistent with allowable purposes for use of sick time) or if an employee has a pattern of misuse (e.g., absences just before or after a weekend, vacation, personal day, recess, or holiday). These corrective steps may include informal or formal disciplinary warnings. In some cases, the eventual action may be termination.

Given that ther employees are supposed to use those scripts to say they are "sick from genocide," there is no doubt that they are abusing the sick days benefit.

Will Harvard take disciplinary action against the abusers? Or will they coddle them and insult the students paying exorbitant tuition fees?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

01/05 Links: Blinken’s stunning confession; Israeli embassy original target in Taylor Swift terror plot; Kamal Adwan Hospital Was a Hamas Military Base

From Ian:

David Collier: The BBC apology should be absolutely rejected

The reason the apology should be rejected is simple. The BBC apology is a tick box exercise for the BBC – who have no choice but to apologise on this particular issue. Why? Because we caught the BBC red-handed and forced them into a corner.

What did the BBC actually admit to? The discriminatory treatment is being explained away by the BBC as a slight misstep that is easily corrected. As if one person (in this case probably presenter Ben Brown), made a small mistake in focus. In the apology the BBC stated the interview should have been ‘less about politics and a little more about Chanukah’. That is nonsense and does not address the key issues at all. The real question here is WHY the interview with the Rabbi was approached so differently from the interviews of the Imam and Reverend?

It is important to remember just how blatant the discrimination was. The interviews with the Imam and the Reverend were both headed by sympathetic videos. The Rabbi had none. The images that accompanied the first two interviews were respectful and religious – the Rabbi got images of tanks. This is without even referencing the aggressive line of questioning or the 2:1 nature of the whole setup – with two Palestinians being given airtime, against just one Israeli.

Which means this was not just about the presenter or questions raised during the interview. The BBC’s anti-Jewish discrimination was a team effort. Ben Brown (the anchor) wasn’t the producer of the program. He also had nothing to do with the first interview. It would be a big mistake just to point the finger at Ben Brown (and an equally big mistake to whitewash him).

What about those responsible for putting together the photos. Or the planning producer who probably set up a lot of the questions in advance. What about the programme editor? Who decided that there would be no sympathetic video at the start?

There are several people involved here – and not ONE OF THEM saw a problem. In fact, as the problem became amplified as each piece of the bias added to the next (no sympathetic video, hostile photos, aggressive questions) – it seems that every step of the way the BBC’s anti-Jewish mindset played its part.

They say that ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. It is also true that it takes a pack of antisemites for the BBC to ambush a Rabbi during a live interview. This was a team effort.

Israeli embassy original target in Taylor Swift terror plot

In a chilling revelation of threats facing Israeli diplomatic missions, a 19-year-old ISIS supporter considered attacking the Israeli embassy in Vienna before planning to target a Taylor Swift concert, The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The case highlights security concerns for Israeli interests in Europe.

Before settling on the concert venue as his target, Beran Aliji, a dual citizen of Austria and North Macedonia, had carefully evaluated other high-profile locations, including the Israeli embassy, Kurdish diplomats and a Shi’ite mosque, according to police records obtained by the newspaper.

The discovery prompted heightened security measures at Israeli diplomatic facilities across Europe, as investigators uncovered evidence of Aliji’s extensive consumption of terrorist propaganda and his pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State.

By July, amid what he described as a mental-health crisis, the Austrian teenager quit his factory apprenticeship and isolated himself in his apartment, becoming obsessed with thoughts of death, he later told police. Without money or prospects, and lacking close friendships, he immersed himself in violent videos and secret chatrooms devoted to the Islamic State.

“These are bitter, angry people,” Bruce Riedel, a counter-terrorism expert and 30-year veteran of the CIA, said. The case reflects a broader pattern of self-radicalization that concerns Israeli and Western security officials.

The investigation revealed hundreds of text messages and multiple police reports showing how Aliji sought guidance from individuals he believed to be Islamic State members. “My operation is to take place at a big concert,” he wrote in one message, according to Austrian records. “I will try to get a gun and bombs. If that doesn’t work, I will use big knives. Or I will kill a police officer and take his rifle.”

One Israeli on respirator, other has serious injuries after New Orleans attack

Elad Shoshan, the Israeli consul to the southwest United States, told JNS over the weekend that he went to New Orleans after learning that two Israelis had been hurt in the car ramming attack, which the FBI is investigating as a terror attack, in the early hours of New Year’s Day.

He did so “to be with the injured, assist their families, connect with the authorities and local Jewish community, communicating with the medical team and preparing accommodations for the arrival of the parents to New Orleans,” Shoshan told JNS.

“The Consulate General of Israel to the Southwest wishes to extend its heartfelt condolences to the families affected and offer prayers for the swift recovery of those injured,” he added.

Both of the Israelis, whose families requested that their names not be released, are in their mid-20s and are receiving medical care, Shoshan told JNS.

“They were visiting the United States as tourists, looking forward to ringing in the New Year in New Orleans,” he said. “It is tragic that these young men, who came to experience the joy of this vibrant city, have become victims of this shocking act of terror.”

“What should have been a special celebration has turned into an unimaginable tragedy for them and their families,” he added.

One of the young men is on a respirator “due to severe head trauma and internal injuries,” according to Shoshan. “The second Israeli is stable and communicative but is also recovering from serious limb injuries.”

Relatives of both arrived in New Orleans late on Friday night “to be with them during this difficult time,” Shoshan said.

There was a kerfuffle in Syria this weekend, as Politico EU reports:

She came to advocate the rights of women and minorities. She left without a handshake.

The Syrian leader’s refusal to offer a greeting handshake during a visit to Damascus this week was predictable, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said.

The incident nonetheless prompted a vigorous online debate over global political greeting protocols, as well as the label “handshake scandal” by German daily Bild, as Baerbock’s traveling partner, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, was offered a handshake.

“As I travelled here, it was clear to me that there would obviously be no ordinary handshakes,” Baerbock told broadcasters Friday evening.

“But it was also clear … that not only I but also the French foreign minister did not share this view. And accordingly, the French foreign minister did not extend his hands,” she stressed.

Everyone is getting this story wrong.

I cannot believe I'm the one to defend Ahmad al-Sharaa, but videos of the encounter show that he offered his hand to Barrot. Barrot half heartedly shook only fingertips - he did indeed extend his hand. Sharaa then put his hand over his heart as he smilingly greeted Baerbock .

The only sign of disrespect during the brief encounter was Barrot's half-handshake. He should have either refused the handshake if he really cared about Baerbock's dignity, or he should have shaken the Syrian leader's hand with respect.

The jury is still out on al-Sharaa, but expecting him to violate his own religious principles is also a sign of disrespect. Baerbock knew ahead of time that she wouldn't be shaking his hand; there was no insult intended.

The bigger story is that the former ISIS leader did not request that Baerbock cover her hair. That is what Iran and Saudi Arabia would request, and al-Sharaa's government did not.

Respect is a two way street. It is possible to show respect without violating your own religious principles, as al-Sharaa did. Demanding that a visiting diplomat wear a hijab is infinitely more offensive, as Iran and other Islamist governments do.

We still have no idea what kind of state Syria will become, if it even survives the continuing infighting. So far the new government seems to be mostly doing what it can to assuage Western concerns about his Islamism. The most recent incident was when reports came out of a change in the school curriculum that seemed to support teaching Islamist concepts and this is indeed concerning.

But the story of the visit with the German Foreign Minister and her hair uncovered is evidence of moderation, not extremism.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)