Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

02/18 Links Pt1: BHL: The Hostage Releases Are Obscene; Hamas to release four bodies of hostages on Thursday, six living hostages on Saturday; Agam Berger’s Biblical Heroism in Hamas Captivity

From Ian:

Bernard-Henri Levy: The Hostage Releases Are Obscene

One watches captives on their way to freedom. But what one sees - comparable or not - are survivors of the Nazi death camps.

The same bodies, reduced to bags of bones. The same hollow eye sockets, with that vacant stare. The same despair, gaunt and dazed.

Only one feeling takes hold over these days - rage - at this 3-for-183 exchange. This arithmetic is obscene.

We must revolt against this endless torment.

Israel's allies, in Europe and in the U.S., have only one thing to negotiate with Hamas and its sponsors: the unconditional surrender of those responsible for these sadistic charades and the immediate release of all hostages.

The Devastating Health Impact of Gaza Captivity

Returned hostages are showing severe health impacts including dramatic weight loss of up to 25 kg. (55 pounds), significant muscle deterioration, and complex medical challenges that will require long-term rehabilitation, medical experts told the Knesset Health Committee on Monday.

Dr. Michal Mizrachi, director of medical treatment for returned hostages at Ichilov Hospital, said, "the patients still face significant nutritional deficiencies requiring rehabilitation and ongoing care."

"We've documented substantial functional impairment, including dramatic decreases in physical capabilities resulting from prolonged inactivity."

The Ministry of Health has established a specialized clinic for returned hostages in Kiryat Gat.

Hanna Katzir, 78, who endured seven weeks of Hamas captivity in Gaza before being released, died in December 2024 at age 78.

Her daughter said, "My mother entered captivity taking one blood pressure medication. After 49 days without it, she returned with severe cardiac issues, arrhythmias, and respiratory failure."

"The contaminated conditions in Gaza - polluted water, air, and deadly fungi - contributed to her decline."

"She lost basic functions - walking, standing, using the bathroom, breathing independently. She was sedated and ventilated for months before succumbing to these complications."

Released Gaza Hostages Face Long, Wrenching Recoveries

Interviews with three Israeli hostages who were released more than a year ago, as well as with family members of others and psychologists who are treating former captives, indicate that many released hostages struggle with physical and psychological aftereffects.

"I don't sleep much at night anymore," said Luis Har, 71, who was abducted from Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak.

"Many times, a noise - a motorcycle or an ambulance - takes you right back. You have to tell your body that you are here, you aren't there."

Mia Schem, 22, said, "People think you are out, you are safe, and that it's over, but it's not. Every day is a battle to get up and fight."

She said she vividly recalls piles of dead bodies at the Nova music festival.

Schem was shot in the arm. Her elbow was destroyed. Four surgeries later, her right arm is a few inches shorter than her left.

Moran Stela Yanai, 41, said she can't tolerate being indoors or in a closed room for more than a few minutes.

Yanai lost much of her hearing in captivity and now wears hearing aids.

Both of her legs were broken during her kidnapping, and she has had multiple surgeries on them since her release.

Brett McGurk: Hamas Is Playing Games with Releasing Hostages

Last week, Hamas once again showed why reaching a ceasefire deal was so elusive for so long: the group threatened to stop releasing hostages and return to war with Israel. As someone who helped lead months of ceasefire talks for the Biden administration, this did not come as a surprise.

Throughout the ceasefire negotiations, Hamas consistently held back on a commitment to release hostages and aimed to ensure it remained in power after the war ends. President Joe Biden was right to stand firmly by Israel and demand the release of hostages by Hamas. And President Donald Trump is right to do the same.

Hamas is a terrorist group that has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades. Its Oct. 7 attack, however, was not just an act of terrorism but a full-blown military invasion. More than 3,000 Hamas fighters in military formations attacked on multiple fronts, with a mission to inflict mass casualties and to take hostages, including mothers and toddlers, back inside Gaza to deter an Israeli response. A U.S.-mediated deal to release hostages in exchange for a ceasefire broke down less than two months into the crisis when Hamas refused to free young women it had agreed to release. Hamas then rejected continuing talks unless Israel accepted a permanent truce up front, with a return to the Oct. 6 status quo.

While Hamas and its defenders claim it accepted another ceasefire framework in July 2024, that is not true. Hamas reinserted demands for a permanent truce. And never once agreed to a list of hostages that it would release if a ceasefire was agreed. Hamas refused to engage seriously on the essence of the deal: the hostages to be released during the ceasefire. Nor did Hamas seem to care about the civilians of Gaza, whose suffering would be greatly alleviated by a stop to the fighting.

Hamas had no serious intent to release hostages so long as Iran and Hizbullah backed its maximalist demands with ongoing attacks against Israel. Then Israel, with U.S. backing, turned north to Lebanon, where it decimated Hizbullah and, with U.S. mediation, forged a ceasefire that severed Hizbullah's support for Hamas in Gaza.

Iran on Oct. 26 fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel - the largest ballistic missile attack in history. U.S. and Israeli forces defeated that attack, and Israel soon responded with an attack of its own, eliminating Iran's strategic air defenses and its capacity to produce new missiles.

The final stages of talks that began in December took place with the backdrop of a transformed Middle East. The talks ultimately succeeded because the military equation across the region changed, with Hamas isolated and no longer able to count on a multifront conflict. All this was achieved without the U.S. being drawn directly into an all-out Middle East war that so many analysts had predicted.

L'Orient Today reports that the new government has released its ministerial statement, and it is notable for two reasons.

It is the first time since the Taif Agreement [which ended the 1975-90 Civil War] that a ministerial statement makes no mention of "the people's right to resist by all means the Israeli occupation."

Instead, the new ministerial team emphasized that "the state is fully responsible for the defense of its territory" and must "hold the monopoly on weapons." The text underscores "Lebanon's right to defend itself in case of aggression, in accordance with the U.N. Charter"

This is saying that Hezbollah can no longer claim to defend southern Lebanon and it has no right to have a separate army.

For three decades, Hezbollah has claimed that it was necessary to build a separate army and pretended to be defending Lebanon. Now, everyone sees that Hezbollah invited attacks, with its various offensive actions, not defended against them.
It seems that Lebanon has now turned the page on the infamous triad of "army, people, resistance," long cherished by Hezbollah — with the party's approval and without being provoked.
[The statement] first reaffirms Lebanon’s commitment to upholding international resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1701 (2006) in full — which, among other provisions, calls for Hezbollah’s withdrawal north of the Litani River — as well as all other U.N. resolutions concerning Lebanon.
This is a barely veiled reference to Resolution 1559 of 2004, which specifically calls for the disarmament of both "Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias."
The Cabinet also reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the cease-fire established on Nov. 27, 2024.

Today everyone is concerned over Israel's insistence on keeping control of several strategically important areas on the border. Yet Israel withdrew from Lebanon after routing Hezbollah, which is as good a proof as any that Israel has no territorial designs on occupying Lebanon.

But it has every interest in defending its own communities from the high ground that Hezbollah could regain.

All the other areas that the IDF withdrew from have reportedly been taken over by the Lebanese army. Hezbollah still have a presence in southern Lebanon but it appears that, at least for now, the Lebanese government and army are serious about keeping them from regaining power.

Which is about as clear a victory as is possible in today's world.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Bella Hadid accidentally proves that Palestinian nationalism is a sham

The New York Post reports:

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace is blasting supermodel Bella Hadid as “disgusting” for sharing an old photo of herself promoting a map that portrays all of the land in Israel as Palestine.

The photo appears to have been taken during Hadid’s 2022 visit to the Qatar National Library, an event in which the 28-year-old nepo-baby cat-walker posed with the map, titled “Western Palestine.”

“Bella Hadid is a disgusting human being,” Mace, a staunch Israel supporter, (R-SC) sniped Sunday on X with a screenshot of the supermodel’s post.

Here's the photo:

Why does this map say "Western Palestine" and not, you know, "Palestine"?

Doesn't this map imply there is also an "Eastern Palestine?"

And if Western Palestine's eastern boundary goes to the Jordan River, doesn't that mean that Eastern Palestine is in...Jordan?

And doesn't that mean that Jordan is indeed "Palestine?"

The map shown comes from the Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine. They also started a Survey of Eastern Palestine; it was abandoned but not before they issued a map of what they called a portion of Eastern Palestine, in the area around the north part of the Dead Sea in Transjordan.

Let's take a closer look at the northern border of the map Hadid is studying so carefully:

It goes well into Lebanon, past Tyre.

Hadid is pretending to be standing in front of a map of historic Palestine - but every map of Palestine before 1920 or so included much of Jordan and much of Lebanon, as the PEF maps did.

Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911 had this one:

Is Hadid claiming that Lebanon and Jordan are Palestine? I think that the Lebanese and Jordanians might not be happy with her if they knew that!

Palestinians love to say that they want to return to "historic Palestine." But unless your version of history starts with the San Remo Conference, historic Palestine has always been congruent with what Jews call Eretz Yisrael - the Land of Israel. Until 1948, the word Palestine was widely understood to be essentially the Latin language translation of the Holy Land - the land of the Twelve Tribes, as this 16th century German/Latin map shows. (This Arabic site admits that the few Ottoman maps that mention "Palestine" are copying the idea from European maps, meaning they also include the land of the 12 tribes.)

The reason Palestinian Arabs don't claim the entire area of what had been known as Palestine for centuries is because they don't want to create a state. They want to destroy one. Just as in 1964 they didn't claim any ownership over the West Bank and Gaza - since there were no Jews there - today they don't claim any ties to southern Lebanon and western Jordan.

Hadid didn't mean to do this, but if you follow her map, you can see that the entire modern Palestinian national movement is a giant cover-up of the fact that the only lands Palestinians ever demanded were the lands that were controlled by Jews.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Australian Muslim groups condemn those who are upset at healthcare workers who threaten patients for political reasons

Last week I noted that Australian Muslim groups were silent as the larger Australian community expressed outrage at the video of Muslim healthcare workers claiming to kill Israelis and promising to kill more.

Now we know why. They were outraged at the reaction, not the video itself. The nurses who were laughing at the idea of killing patients were "clearly emotional." They may have technically breached some ethical standards, but look how "Zionist lobby groups" orchestrated a huge reaction! That's the real crime here!

Here is the entire statement from a group of fifty (!) Australian Muslim organizations, so no one can accuse me of taking anything out of context. (Emphasis mine.)

On Wednesday, 12 February 2025, Israeli content creator Max Veifer posted an edited snippet of a video conversation with two nurses from Bankstown Hospital.

This incident has since sparked “outrage,” largely amplified by a coordinated media campaign and inflammatory commentary across shock-jock platforms. It has since emerged that Veifer is a recently serving member of the IOF and was thus involved in the genocide of the people of Gaza.

As representatives of the Muslim Community in Australia, we affirm that all forms of discrimination based on race and religion are unacceptable and that healthcare should be provided justly to all. However, this statement addresses the selective outrage and political motivations surrounding the recent controversy involving two nurses from Bankstown Hospital.

We emphasise the following key points.

1. Selective Outrage and Political Convenience
The most revealing aspect of the reaction to the nurses' video is not the video itself—but the speed, intensity, and uniformity of response from certain political leaders and media outlets.

The Prime Minister weighed in. The NSW Health Minister declared it the most “vile” thing he had ever seen. Journalists and commentators mobilised to express their collective “horror.” Yet these same voices have provided active diplomatic and journalistic cover for ongoing crimes by the Zionists—as blatantly demonstrated this week with The Daily Telegraph's shocking attempt to fabricate an "anti-Semitic incident" at a local café.

This is more than hypocrisy. It is calculated, politically motivated outrage. It is not a failure of consistency; it is the deliberate engineering of public morality.

Outrage is manufactured when it serves a political narrative, with silence strategically deployed when the truth might expose the complicity of those in power.

2. The Weaponisation of “Anti-Semitism”
The labeling of this video as "anti-Semitic" follows a well-documented pattern of gaslighting by Zionist lobby groups and their friends within government and media circles.

We are unequivocal: Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. The frustration and anger directed at Israel is a direct response to its violent and inhumane policies—not an expression of hatred toward Jewish people.

Attempts to weaponise accusations of anti-Semitism to silence dissent are not only intellectually dishonest but also dangerous.

3. The Sanctity of Healthcare
We recognise the importance of professionalism and ethical responsibility within healthcare and that the nurses' actions breached the codes of conduct for health professionals. The statements made by the nurses regarding "killing Israelis" were clearly emotional and hyperbolic, as supported by subsequent investigations.

Healthcare professionals are bound by their duty to treat and care for all individuals. This principle is most powerfully exemplified by healthcare workers in Gaza who, even as their hospitals are bombed and their colleagues targeted and killed, continue to provide life-saving care to all who need it.

We urge the Australian public to see through this manufactured moral panic and recognise the deeply political nature of this response.

We call on our leaders and media institutions to apply their professed moral standards consistently—not only when it is politically convenient but when doing so requires confronting uncomfortable truths.

Selective outrage? As far as I can tell, not one of these organizations condemned Hamas' pogrom on October 7 but within days they called Israel's response "genocide."

Weaponization of antisemitism? Perhaps the Muslim community is unaware of how the huge increase of attacks on Jews and attacks on Israel in Australia have been done by the same people, like this synagogue graffiti last month that says "Hitler on top," "Allah hu Akbar" and "Free Palestine" with a swastika.

Sometimes the attackers enjoy making the connection themselves.

The sanctity of healthcare? You mean like the doctors and nurses who openly support a murderous terror group? Are they talking about the number of Jewish medical professionals worldwide who are reporting being intimidated on the job skyrocketing since October 7? Perhaps the doctors who attempted to explode car bombs in the UK in 2007?

This press release is a rehash of a well-known method of terror apologists, an attempts to change the subject and claim that "The real problem is..." whatever they want to misdirect people to.

They are saying that the problem isn't that everyone has to worry that their "pro-Palestine" Muslim healthcare workers might physically harm patients whose political views disagree with their own. They say the problem is publicizing that inconvenient fact.

It's an argument that only an antisemite could love.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

On the opening night of the annual Italian Sanremo music festival, a video of the Pope was shown where he said "music is an instrument of peace and it must remain so." This was followed by Israeli singers Mira Awad and Noa.

Here is how their performance was described in L'Orient Today by self-described cultural journalist Karl Richa:

On a stage illuminated by blue neon lights, Noa and Mira Awad are holding hands. Performers on the festival's first night, Feb. 11, the two Israeli artists bewilder the audience as they recite, in Arabic and Hebrew, Lennon's hit song [Imagine], almost chaotically. This moment, intended to be symbolic in light of the devastating conflict in the Middle East, does not achieve the desired effect. "Did the pope give his blessing to these Israeli women to sing in our language?" Amir*, a professional hairdresser of Tunisian origin in the middle blow drying a clients hair, jokes.

Naturally, I looked for the video so I could see this "chaotic performance" and the "bewildered audience." Here it is:

I see nothing in common between the Richa's description of the performance and the actual event. The format of the song was described ahead of time; within the song the performers described in Italian their messages of peace. The audience gave a standing ovation to the two Israelis, who of course Richa doesn't mention are an Arab and Jewish duo that has been touring together recently. He also doesn't mention that Mira Awad, the Arab, sang in Hebrew and Noa, the Jew, sang in Arabic.

So what performance did Richa see? And why would he choose a Tunisian hairdresser as symbolizing the audience reaction? (That quote was the headline of the French version of the article.)

For my tastes, these sorts of performances are saccharine and contrived. Nevertheless, they show a reality that the world doesn't want to see: an Arab singer is popular among Jews in Israel and the two big Israeli stars are performing together to promote peace between the peoples. Richa doesn't want the world to see any coexistence in Israel between Arabs and Jews. It is not hard to guess why.

This is how bias plays out. Journalists take on the job of describing reality, but they put their own spin that ends up describing the warped glasses they view the events through. The subliminal message here is that "We Are The World"-type anthems are heartfelt and genuine calls for world peace, but two Israeli citizens showing a coexistence between Arab and Jews that is rare to see in enlightened Western Europe are just Zionist propagandists who must be exposed.

You can call it anti-Zionism. You can consider this antisemitism. But describing an event that didn't happen is certainly not journalism.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/17 Links Pt2: A letter to my anti-Zionist Jewish friend; No, free speech did not cause the Holocaust; Antisemitic nurses video ‘tip of the iceberg’

From Ian:

A letter to my anti-Zionist Jewish friend

My sense is that you are struggling with something akin to white saviour complex and I am sorry. I am sorry because of the way you describe your blissful teenage years in a Zionist youth movement which now make you feel ashamed. That is so sad.

I do not feel torn or anguished with where I stand. I will stand with the only country that will keep me and family safe if the world turns against us. I will criticise what it does but I do not have a vote in Israel so moaning from the sidelines achieves little. We all want peace and security but I don’t believe you would accept living next door to neighbours who repeatedly commit to murdering your family if you give them the chance. You don’t mention the multiple offers of a Palestinian state turned down time and again. Instead, you blame Israel – victim blaming. There is a word for this too. It breaks my heart that so many educated liberals are leaving Israel and I only pray that they will return one day.

When you list the voices you have been influenced by, I understand how you have got to this point. Tareq Baconi – a man who clearly believes not that the time for two states is over, but “that it never should have existed in the first place because Israel is and always has been illegitimate”. Does he say any other countries should be dismantled? Not that I can see. Pankaj Mishra who says the Holocaust has been “perverted to enable mass murder” and give Israel impunity. I appreciate that you have been trying to educate yourself but take a step back and ask yourself whether you have been infected by their rhetoric.

You say you don’t want Israel to cease to exist. Your words suggest otherwise. To double down in your criticism of Israel at a time like this – well, it must be hard being you. I think this is what I find so obscene – the doubling down, now, after a massacre. If you want to be “that anti-Zionist Jew”, please understand why friends like us don’t want to be around you. We are exhausted just living right now, we don’t have the bandwidth to argue with our own. Your colleagues hide behind a thin veil of anti-Zionism. I just can’t quite believe that you have joined them.

Without doubt, if the world does turn on us, you will be queuing up with your family to get on that El Al flight. You’ll be OK with the women in hair wraps then.

Ending with a Golda Meir quote “we have no place else to go”.

Fear forces Berlin Jews to hide their identity in community paper

Growing security concerns have prompted the Jewish community in Berlin to implement a protective measure: publishing only the first letter of community members’ surnames, rather than their full family names, in birthday announcements in the community newspaper, Bild reported on Friday.

The community’s monthly journal, Jewish Berlin, traditionally includes a “Mazel tov” section for good wishes to those over age 65, as well as to print birth and children’s bar/bat mitzvah celebration announcements.

The publication recently added an explanatory note to the section: “Dear community members, in light of current anti-Israel and antisemitic incidents, we are now printing only birthday and bar/bat mitzvah names with abbreviated surnames as a precautionary security measure.”

Speaking with Bild, Ilan Kiesling, spokesman for the Jewish community in Berlin, explained that this decision was implemented shortly after the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, stemming from heightened security concerns for community members.

Kiesling emphasized that this precautionary step aims to “minimize the potential for hostile actions against our community members,” citing specific concerns about Hamas supporter demonstrations in Berlin’s streets and the dramatic increase in antisemitic attacks following Oct. 7.

Does New Zealand's foreign policy betray Western values?

New Zealand’s role in international forums such as the United Nations offers a revealing window into this divide.

In 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UNSC resolution alongside Venezuela, Malaysia, and Senegal that denied Jewish indigeneity in Israel, and more recently, it abstained from voting on a resolution allowing condemnation of Hamas, for the first time ever. These actions, viewed by many as hostile to Israel, highlight a growing divergence between New Zealand’s foreign policy and that of its traditional Western allies.

In fact, New Zealand’s record on Israel at the UN mirrors the positions of more authoritarian regimes, like Iran, rather than Western democracies. It was only after October 7, 2023 – when Israel faced an unprecedented attack by Hamas – that New Zealand belatedly designated Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, joining other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

New Zealand’s refusal to establish an embassy in Israel, while maintaining one in Iran, speaks volumes about its foreign policy priorities.

Additionally, the country’s recent lobbying for a premature ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict raises questions about its commitment to Israel’s right to self-defense. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s recent statement that he would arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over an International Criminal Court warrant further signals a growing divergence between New Zealand and the US

New Zealand’s voting record on the disproportionate number of resolutions at the UN is more aligned with Iran than with the US, according to UN Watch.

02/17 Links Pt1: 500 Days of War; A Watershed Moment in American Jewish History; Hamas expected to return bodies of several hostages; Hamas leaders hoarded stolen aid

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: A Watershed Moment in American Jewish History

Jon Ossoff is Georgia’s first Jewish senator. And the Jews of the Peach State are doing something remarkable: refusing to be taken for granted.

Though this drama is playing out behind the scenes, it represents a watershed in American Jewish politics.

The New York Times has obtained a letter sent privately in December to Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, urging him to run for Senate against Ossoff. The twist: The signatories of the letter included prominent Jewish Democrats.

“I took great pride to see a young Jewish man find the successes that he has,” Isaac Frank, one of the signatories, told the Times. “I just feel like he’s somewhat disconnected from where our community is, given post-Oct. 7.”

The letter to Kemp, as quoted by the Times, says: “As a bipartisan group of leaders in the metropolitan Atlanta Jewish community, we humbly ask you to consider running for the United States Senate in 2026… Should you decide to run in the 2026 election, you would find no better friends, more loyal allies or stronger supporters than us and our community.”

The signatories, especially the Jewish Democrats among them, have done their community a great act of service by insisting that being Jewish does not chain one to either party, that a vote has to be earned, and that a last name alone does not amount to true representation.

What’s their beef with Ossoff? The senator’s vote to withhold U.S. weapons transfers to Israel seems to have been the trigger. This was made worse by watching Ossoff preen on the Senate floor in an eight-minute rekindling of ugly Hamas propaganda in support of withholding those weapons.

Ossoff started off with an ahistorical—but popular—comparison to when President Reagan’s relationship with Prime Minister Menachem Begin was strained by the 1982 war in Lebanon. Contra Ossoff, the moral of that story, when viewed in context, was that Reagan’s anger was based on false reporting and Begin corrected the record with the president. Reagan’s open-minded response to Begin’s insistence that he was being fed a false picture of the conflict contrasts with the Biden administration’s refusal to correct its own misinterpretation of the reality on the ground. Ossoff, too, falls into this category: Unlike Reagan, Ossoff believes the worst conspiracy theories pushed by Hamas and its supporters about the Jewish state and closes his ears to Israel’s counterarguments.

Ossoff spends the first couple minutes of his speech attacking straw men, lazily swatting away nonexistent arguments rather than engaging the actual criticism of his words and actions, both of which were based on false information.

But eventually Ossoff lets loose on the Jewish state. He accuses Israel of “policies that are gratuitously brutal.” Then he jumps into the child-killer blood libel with both feet: “The American people are rightly horrified by the lack of sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life, that has left so many children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs or riddled with shrapnel.”

He returned again to the child-killer narrative: “We are talking about precious, innocent children and other innocent civilians who might otherwise be alive or without grievous wounds today.”

He called Israel’s war conduct “horrific” and then, with a false mawkishness unworthy of the United States Senate, implored Israel to “have mercy for the innocent.”

Ossoff’s speech was in November, and it was an agonizingly grotesque spectacle. It was delivered amidst a shocking rise in anti-Semitism, displaying Ossoff’s penchant for rumormongering at a time of genuine danger for American Jews.

How America’s Jews Became America’s ‘New Blacks’

Raise the specter of anti-Semitic racism and you are immediately challenged by those who want to highlight Islamophobia or racism against Arabs. The two are simply not comparable. The response in America to the radical Islamists’ attacks of 9/11 was a culture-wide defense of Islam and the rights of Muslims, and great care was taken to ensure they were protected from mobs.

Nearly a quarter century later, those early efforts have become institutionalized and tenured. Unlike Jews today, Arabs and Muslims are not being systematically excluded from cultural events or academic panels, nor are Muslims prevented from entering schools or workplaces by violent protesters taking advantage of their First Amendment protections.

Muslim student groups have not been picketed like the myriad Hillel chapters on campuses across the nation—including, in late November, at Columbia, where protesters demanded Hillel be shut down. And unlike the calls to divest from Israeli companies, there have been few, if any, student-led divestment demands against Arab or Islamic financial and cultural institutions, despite the billions donated over the past decade by Gulf States to universities—and despite the clear role that wealthy nations like Qatar have played in harboring terrorists.

Indeed, the post–October 7 period has seen a strengthening of cultural and institutional support for Muslim and Arab causes just as such support has eroded for Jews. Last February’s “uncommitted” campaign during Michigan’s Democratic primary, for instance, not only resulted in more than 100,000 voters withholding their ballots for President Biden; it placed Arab and Muslim grievances at the center of the entire presidential race in ways that far exceeded Muslim population numbers. No, racism against so-called Semites (the category was invented by 18th-century German racialist thinkers to include Jews as well as Muslims, since Hebrew and Arabic are both considered “Semitic” languages) isn’t about Muslims and Arabs. It’s all about Jews and Israel.

And, of course, Zionism.

Anti-Semites love to explain away their bigotry due to a justified animosity—an animosity not toward Judaism, but toward Israel. If anything, they believe, it is Zionism that is racist—as codified by the UN’s odious General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975, which “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”

Resolution 3379 will mark its 50th anniversary this November, a milestone (despite its revocation in 1991) bound to be exploited by the enemies of Israel to maximum effect—arriving, as it will, so close to the second anniversary of the October 7 massacre. By then—two years into America’s anti-Semitic deluge—both the consequences of anti-Semitic racism and Zionism’s role in its contours will be even more fully defined.

As I think about the ways in which American Jews have become the focus of the nation’s new racist tide, I can’t help thinking about my own sons, who via unexpected twists of genetics are far lighter-skinned than myself. They’re unlikely ever to experience the type of racism I’ve known my entire life—including from Jews. Nor might they face the risk of violent (if not deadly) police encounters that have led most African-American families to have “the talk” with their children about how to comport themselves around law enforcement.

Perhaps because my mother is white—or maybe because I was just preternaturally obedient as a teen—we never had that conversation in my home, and I’ve managed to reach far into adulthood without ever tussling with the cops. Still, I am certain I will sit down soon with my boys for our own type of “talk.” That talk will not be about how to handle themselves around police officers. Rather it will center on how to emerge unscathed from the equally dangerous encounters that many American Jews will now inevitably endure as they face anti-Semitic racists.

I’m certain I will be among many Jewish parents having such talks with their kids—the first generation of American whites who will begin to understand much of what it feels like to be black. The first generation of American Jews to have unexpectedly become America’s new blacks.

At Yad Vashem, Rubio says antisemitism is embedded in ‘international organizations’

In remarks during his visit to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial museum, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the “ancient poison” of antisemitism “hides behind geopolitics and embeds itself in international organizations, and in the curriculums of our colleges and universities.”

The accusation is one of the most far-reaching lobbed by a Trump official to date.

“We stand here today reminded why it can never be ignored, why it always starts with what some believe as the wild ideas of a random person with no power and no influence; but left unchecked and unchallenged, it can turn into the tragedy that is commemorated here in this building today,” Rubio says.

Are Zionist Jews hurting the cause for Zionism? (Guest post)

Guest post

Jewish education is at a crossroad. It is being challenged, like never before, by college professors, grade-school teachers, hostile journalists, biased historians, unhinged social media influencers, human rights organizations, and other wealthy domestic and foreign Non-Governmental Organizations. Making matters worse (if you can imagine such a thing) there is, at best, a chaotic conversation within the Jewish community about defining a Jewish curriculum. There was a time when the curriculum was exclusively taught in yeshivas, based upon classical texts. That is no longer the dominant model. Most Jewish congregations create ad hoc curricula that reflect the political views of the local community and are influenced by news media and other non-Jewish sources.

Further muddying the waters, there are several websites that try to shape the Jewish curriculum from a highly politicized perspective. One such website is Jewish Unpacked. It is tailored to a high school/college target audience. It addresses the challenges of being a Jewish minority in a hostile environment. On a superficial level, it seems to provide counter-narratives that Jewish students can use in their own defense. It fails for several reasons. The website seems to endlessly repeat, and thus promote, the worst stereotypes about Jews and Israel, all while making muddled and weak efforts to counter those stereotypes. The counter arguments rely too heavily upon survey data, which is easily manipulated and misinterpreted. They sometimes include harmful subliminal messaging, which contradicts the purpose of the counter arguments.

As just one example, consider the UnPacked podcast "Wondering Jews with Mijal and Noam"

As Spotify describes it:

"Mijal Bitton and Noam Weissman are two of the most dynamic, interesting, and thought-provoking Jewish leaders today. Two seasoned educators who love to talk, listen, laugh, challenge, and grow, Mijal and Noam are the Wondering Jews, leading us through thought-provoking discussions that are as serious as they are entertaining.

Whether you're a seasoned scholar or just curious about Jewish culture, this show offers a refreshing perspective that's both enlightening and enjoyable. It's not just a podcast; it's a thoughtful conversation that invites everyone to wonder about the rich tapestry of Jewish ideas in the context of our daily lives. Brought to you by Unpacked, a division of OpenDor Media."

Dr. Noam Weissman has sterling credentials. He is the Founder and Director of LaHaV, as well as the Senior Vice President of Education for "Jerusalem U," an online content creator. Prior to that, Noam was the Principal of Shalhevet High School in Los Angeles. Jerusalem U was created by Raphael Shore, and has been renamed OpenDor Media, based in Hollywood, Florida. Dr. Weissman is currently Executive Vice President at OpenDor Media. Dr. Weissman is also the Executive Vice President and Head of Education at ConnectED. He is a Civil Society Fellow at the Aspen Institute. From his biography at Tikvah.org, we learn that his doctoral "dissertation, entitled 'Approaching Israel Education,' argues for a new vision in learning about the modern State of

Israel, focusing on Zionist identity development, narrative formation, and the ability to have a mature and loving relationship with Israel without sacrificing empathy." With a biography like that, why should anyone criticize Dr. Weissman?

Let's jump to the latest episode, S3, E1, "Is 'Zionism' dead?: Redefining identity in 2025."

The podcasters spend 44 minutes essentially making the point that the label "Zionist" means different things to different people. They also drive home the warning that identifying as a Zionist will make one unpopular. I could have said the same in 10 seconds, but I would not broadcast such a warning in the first place. The question should be "What can we do about it?" Instead, the podcasters just wallow in the mud of anti-Zionism, and apparently soak in some of the negativity. The final result borders on anti-Zionist gaslighting.

Here are a few quotes that illustrate the anti-Zionist biases in this supposedly Jewish podcast:

"Are we past Zionism? Did Zionism happen? It came, it went, it conquered..."

This is a direct slur against the very foundation of Zionism. Early Zionists never spoke of conquering land. The League of Nations Mandate For Palestine said nothing about conquering land. It was the Ottoman Empire that conquered Palestine along with the entire Levant and more, and occupied this empire for 400 years. The British liberated the land in World War One, with the help of the Egyptian army and other Arab legions. The League of Nations mandates assigned the liberated land to the natives of the region, which included both Jews and Arabs. The Arabs never complained about taking control of Ottoman colonies. The mandates had the full support of local Arabs. Prince Faisal, who led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, had also agreed to the creation of a Jewish country. He signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann. The Arab League only complained about recognizing a small sliver of Jewish land as a neighbor after the mandates had been assigned. The mandates were never defined as colonies, but rather, as trusteeships. There were also mandates proposed for the creation of Kurdish and Armenian states, but Turkey refused to sign the Treaty of Sevres. Apparently, Turkey did not reject the creation of the Jewish state.

"Zionism happened, and it’s a term, it’s a term, by the way, that’s been utilized and viewed negatively by so many people who don’t identify as Zionists across the spectrum, meaning if you’re an ultra-orthodox Jew, the term Zionist has been a negative. In the late 19th, early 20th century, to be called a Zionist was in some ways to be called an insult, from religious Jewry. And now to be called a Zionist is in many contexts is viewed as a pejorative."

Zionism is not simply "a term," nor is it a pejorative. It is the political movement that created the country of my birth. In an underhanded way, Noam Weissman is erasing my identity. Sorry Noam, but you deserve a little push-back for that dig. As for the orthodox Jewish view of Zionism, it is not monolithic. Noam is himself a graduate of Yeshiva University, so he should know better. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews support Israel. The religious argument stems from the predictions of the messianic age, when a Jewish Kingdom will emerge. So-called "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" (there is no such branch of Judaism) are not opposed to a Jewish state, they only distinguish it from the biblical kingdom of prophesy. They are also citizens of the current State of Israel. Real anti-Zionists, such as the SJP activists with the megaphones who shout their hateful screed on college campuses, seek to violently dismantle the existing Jewish state, and never let it reorganize, ever again. Noam Weissman is being intellectually dishonest by conflating two distinctly different narratives.

"...the term Zionism actually has like a really, really bad, I would say like a PR or marketing problem that it’s just come to mean some like really, really bad things for different people."

The marketing of anti-Zionism is funded by some of the wealthiest oil exporting nations in the world. That is the reason we find ourselves in a defensive position. We are being attacked by dishonest libel, and it is not due to anything we have done. The answer is not to throw up our hands, or distance ourselves from Zionism. We should not fall for the gaslighting of false narratives. Noam and Mijal seem to argue that we should just go with the flow.

"...a Gallup poll that came out a few years ago that said that 95% of American Jews have favorable views of Israel. And based on that, they said 95% of American Jews are Zionists"

That is not what they said.

"...according to Pew, the one that came out in 2021, reflecting attitudes from 2020, eight out of 10, so roughly 80% of American Jews feel somewhat or very connected to Israel"

"...a study that the Cohen Center ran in Los Angeles in 2021, only 42% of respondents described themselves as Zionist"

Comparing two different surveys that use differently worded questions in different sample populations is dishonest. The only conclusion one could make is that the wording of the questions can make a dramatic difference in the results. A properly designed survey would ask identical questions to a stable population over time, in order to measure trends in opinions.

Why the obsession with surveys? As the podcasters admit, labels mean different things to different people. A poorly worded survey question has little value in measuring attitudes. Imagine if a survey was conducted asking people if they identified as "egalitarian." Some might think it refers to fans of the Philadelphia Eagles. Swifties would respond "I used to be, but I converted to being a "Chieftain." Others who don't understand the question would likely respond "no." Few would be assertive enough to ask for the definition. If the positive response rate was low, can the survey conclude that most people reject egalitarianism? It would be dishonest to do so.

Another problem with relying on surveys is that they accomplish nothing. They do not teach, nor change opinions. They do not offer meaningful information about the shortcomings of the educational system, the one we all assume teaches the importance of Zionism.

"...so I’m gonna just share fact number one, or at least data point number one, is that there’s often a gap between those who say they are connected to Israel and those who self-identify as Zionists."

The point Mijal Bitton is driving home is that not all "survey Jews" identify strongly as Jewish defenders. If someone is merely connected to Israel, that might mean they have a relative in Israel, or just a friend who lives there. One would not expect such a tangential connection to Israel to translate into a devotion to the IDF. Ms Bitton's point is moot, and only serves to weaken the defense of Israel. Furthermore, the surveys Mijal quotes do not ask the general public about their support of Israel's defense. That is the central US policy question that has any practical meaning. The American public does not need to declare devotion to "Zionism" in order to continue selling weapons to Israel. The simple fact that Israel is a liberal democracy surrounded by anarchy and violent despots should be reason enough for most Americans to continue supporting the country.

"So Matt decided to do a cognitive test of these questions. So he wanted to test four things. So the four questions that he tested was: (1) How emotionally attached are you to Israel? Then he wanted to test questions around (2) criticizing Israel’s government, (3) describing oneself as a Zionist, and (4) Israel as an apartheid state, okay?"

Did you catch the subliminal messaging there? Mijal Bitton uses a supposedly scientific study to challenge the emotional attachment to Israel, to validate criticism of the Israeli government (for what purpose?), to stigmatize the Zionist identity, and to validate the "apartheid state" slander and libel.

As for the title of the podcast, "Is 'Zionism' dead?: Redefining identity in 2025," it is implied from the transcript that the podcasters are projecting their desires. They apparently want Zionism to die. They certainly don't make any effort to defend it. They want to redefine Jewish identity, so that Zionism no longer has a role. In effect, they are comfortable with stateless Jews, who simply assimilate into their host countries. Is this their solution to a "PR or marketing problem?" Is that what Yeshiva University teaches these days? How would Natan Sharansky describe Jewish life in the Soviet Union? I believe the best PR is based on telling the truth.

In an interview with Anouk Lorie, on her "RAW" podcast at Reichman University, Dr. Weissman states

"Young people have been saying for a long time 'stop asking us to close our eyes. We're not going to listen to you. Don't do the Myths And Facts thing about Israel. It's not real, it's not real.'"

I disagree with Dr. Weissman. Having read Mitchell Bard's "Myths And Facts," I have gained a confident educational foundation, which has strengthened my ability to defend my country's creation and legitimacy.

In the same interview, Dr. Weissman says he has no interest in wasting time on "bad faith actors" who criticize Israel. I disagree with Dr. Weissman, once again. I believe these bad faith actors need to exposed, before they recruit even more activists and comrades in arms.

While I share Dr. Weissman's goal of having a loving relationship with Israel without sacrificing empathy, I also refuse to close my eyes. While Dr. Weissman refuses to acknowledge the brutal truth documented by Palestinian Media Watch, MEMRI, UN Watch, and Corrie Gil-Shuster's street interviews, I recognize this part of the truth. Antisemitism is endemic in many Arab cultures. I have no empathy for that, and I certainly won't ignore it. I invite Dr. Weissman to do the same.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Long Before Plans To Make It Another Riviera, Gaza Was Actually Compared To Singapore (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On February 4th, Trump held a joint press conference with Netanyahu:

We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal. And I don't want to be cute. I don't want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so...This could be so magnificent. But more importantly than that is the people that have been absolutely destroyed that live there now can live in peace in a much better situation because they are living in hell. And those people will now be able to live in peace. We'll make sure that it's done world class.

Trump has not supplied much detail on how he plans to bring this transformation about or what it might look like, but mention of the Riviera does conjure up a certain image:

French Riviera

But Trump is the only one to have come up with a plan. Last year, Netanyahu introduced his own plan for Gaza. Netanyahu called his plan -- Gaza 2035. It has 3 stages:

Stage 1: Humanitarian aid. Israel will create safe areas free of Hamas control. This step is planned to take 12 months to complete. A coalition of Arab countries, consisting of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco will supervise humanitarian aid in the safe areas, which would be run by Gazan Palestinians

Stage 2: Israeli security responsibility would be moved to Israel, while the Arab coalition mentioned in Stage 1 would creat the Gaza Rehabilitation Authority (GRA) to oversee reconstruction and and manage Gaza's finances. This would be coordinated with a "Marshall Plan" and a deradicalization program.

Stage 3: Self-governance. Israel would retain the right to act against security threats. Authority would slowly be transferred either to a local Gaza government or a unified Palestinian government, which would include the West Bank. It would be contingent on Gaza being successfully deradicalized and demilitarized and subject to agreement by all parties. The final step would be for the Palestinian Arabs to fully manage Gaza independently and join the Abraham Accords.

In addition to governance and security, the plan also covers ways to ramp up the Gazan economy. These include various plans for connecting with the Saudi NEOM mega-project, creating massive free-trade zones, creating solar energy fields, and turning Gaza into a hub for electric vehicle manufacturing.

AI-generated image of Gaza found in the PMO's plan for a post-war Gaza, May 3, 2024.

But talking about turning Gaza into a Riviera might remind us of a time when Gaza--and the West Bank--had an economy whose potential for growth rivaled, and even surpassed, some formidable economies at the time.

In the July/August 2002 edition of Commentary Magazine, Efraim Karsh wrote an article, What Occupation? He describes Gaza and the West Bank following the Six Day War, when those areas came under Israeli control.

Efraim Karsh writes about how severe the situation of the Palestinian Arabs was before the start of Israeli control following the 1967 War:

The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

Compare that with the the development of Gaza just during the 1970's:

During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself.

The World Bank report, published in 1993, bears this out.

Page 10 of the report discusses the crisis in 1993 resulting from the First Intifada and compares that to the economic situation of both Gaza and the West Bank during the 1970's:

The charts below from page 13 support Karsh's conclusion. The growth of the economies of the West Bank and Gaza outpaced Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and was substantially ahead of Israel:

The intifada's and the border closings necessary for security reasons did not do the Palestinian Arabs any favors.

But that did not stop Israel from making another offer to help turn the Gazan economy around. In March 1995, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered to see to it that Soon The Gaza Strip Will Be Competing with Singapore, thanks to

industrial parks which the leadership of the [Israeli] Foreign, Industry and Finance Ministries is planning at this very moment, under total secrecy. The goal: to establish between 8 to 11 such parks on the cease-fire line between Israel and the autonomous areas, which the Palestinian Authority will control within the next few months.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is the one who envisioned all this, and those close to him say with pride: We are getting closer to Singapore, Taiwan and Hong-Kong, in huge steps.

And then, after the vision arrives to develop the cities Gaza, Dir Al- Balah, Ofakim and Sderot it will be copied in the cease-fire line between Afula and Jenin, to Mt. Hebron and Tul-Karm, and will reach the entrance of Kochav Yair.

Each industrial park will be established for about 10,000 employees, and will sit on 2,000 dunam of land, with considerable financial assistance from foreign investors and also governmental subsidies. The Palestinians will run them, and be its workers, for the most part.

Gazan cooperation was not forthcoming, so neither was the rejuvenation of the Palestinian Arab economy.

So here we are, once again, offering to reimagine Gaza.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Jordanian media this weekend rediscovered a 32-year old fatwa that says that is it better for Palestinians die as martyrs than to leave their homes.

The Jordanian Fatwa Council in 1993 ruled that the people of Palestine are not permitted to emigrate and are not permitted to evacuate the Holy Land to the Jews.

"The people of Palestine remaining in their land is a jihad in the way of God, and they will have the reward of the mujahideen for it. Their opposition to the enemy is a jihad in the way of God, and they will have the reward of the mujahideen for it," it says. "Those who are killed in those clashes are living martyrs with their Lord, and they are provided for. All support for the steadfastness of the people of Palestine is support for the mujahideen and they are doing so in the way of Allah."

The cynicism of the fatwa, given by Jordanians to Palestinians, is obvious. It is easy to tell your political enemies - which in reality is what Palestinians are to Jordanians - that they must die, and then to justify it with religion.

But that cynicism is being seen today, by the international community, just by substituting "human rights" for "religion." The world is insisting that Gazans do not have the right to emigrate to other Arab countries, even if they want to.

This points to a major flaw with Donald Trump's insistence that the US should take over Gaza and remove the Gazans from the region.

It is almost certainly against international law.

Moving people against their will - deportation, population transfers, what have you - is one of the primary evils in current international law. Yes, it was a standard practice before the Geneva Conventions, but that argument does not hold water today. The only way that it might be justified is to say that it is for their own safety, which is a reasonable argument given how many explosives and Hamas booby-traps are sprinkled throughout Gaza. But that cannot justify not allowing the Gazans to return.

In reality, international law is largely a myth. Powerful nations can and do violate international law with impunity with only token complaints from human rights groups. The double standards applied to Israel is proof positive that international law is just another political tool and is not applied equally to all.

However, international law is still a powerful force, justly applied or not.

And the right to emigrate to escape a dangerous situation is an equally powerful human rights and international law concept.

Trump could have leveraged international humanitarian law in a simple way that would largely accomplish the same goals with the opponents looking like fools. And that would be to insist that Gazans who want to leave Gaza voluntarily and enter Arab and Muslim countries should be allowed to do so.

Throughout the past sixteen months, I have found only a single article by a human rights worker that said the simple truth that Gazans should be allowed to flee Gaza. Significantly, it was written by Bill Frelick, HRW's refugee rights director worldwide. No Middle East HRW employee would dare say something like this because they are so staunchly anti-Israel.

The article was barely mentioned by HRW and ignored by the world. Otherwise, the human rights community has been silent about a clear human rights issue.

Trump could have called out this hypocrisy. He could have noted that hundreds of thousands of Gazans would love to relocate elsewhere - one third said so before October 7. No one could have seriously argued then with his pressuring Egypt and Jordan and Turkey to take in refugees, just as they took in hundreds of thousands from Syria, Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere.

Their hypocrisy in refusing to accept Palestinians and only Palestinians would have been clear to the world, and pressure would have ensured that they accept them.

It is still possible that the threat of US withholding of aid to Jordan and Egypt will result in a token response. But it could have been done so much better.

No sane Gazan would stay in a war zone if they can leave - except for Hamas members. Allowing Gazans to leave voluntarily would make the still necessary job of clearing out Hamas much easier and with fewer casualties.

It was a missed opportunity. And it is a shame.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Attacks from Palestinians in the West Bank every hour of every day - and media silence

Palestinian site Safa reports:

26 resistance operations continued in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem during the past twenty-four hours against occupation soldiers and settlers.

The Palestine Information Center "Ma'ati" indicated that the resistance activities included a shooting operation, armed clashes, 6 explosive device detonations, damaging a military vehicle, confronting settlers' attacks, in addition to the outbreak of confrontations and stone-throwing in 17 locations.

It was not an unusual day.

The Ma'ati website counts an average of 15 attacks a day. For 2025 so far they count

107 Shootings

119 Explosive devices

3 Run-over operations

3 Stabbing operations

28 Damage and destruction

11 Molotov cocktail attacks

plus rock throwing, fireworks and other lower level attacks.

Even Israeli media downplays these attacks - and many aren't covered at all. Which means the mainstream media ignores all of these attacks unless they are fatal.

Nobody realizes how active the Palestinian Authority-controlled front is in this seven-front war.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)