Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 05, 2025

03/05 Links Pt2: No Other Land isn’t what it seems; Oscar-winning filmmakers caught on video provoking IDF troops; Yale Law School investigates employee with PFLP ties

From Ian:

Gil Troy: Fearless Zionism: American Jews need to reshape their view of Israel

As American Jews mourn the younger generation’s supposed alienation from Israel, many blame Bibi rather than their decisions to raise their kids on tikkun olam/social justice diets that Poisoned Ivy League Progressives distorted and turned against Israel.

“What do you expect?” many ask. “Jews born after 2000 have only known an Israel defined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and right-wing, religious fanatics.”

This formulation foolishly defines Israel, our forever-homeland, by its often-unstable governments. Living in a polarized nation that’s zig-zagged from Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s America to Donald Trump’s America, they don’t always judge their country by its leaders.

Defining Israel in partisan terms ignores what over 900,000 young Jews have discovered on Birthright and other Israel experiences: that the Jewish connection to Israel is eternal and existential.

Even many who haven’t visited Israel – yet! – have been shaped by their Birthright buddies’ identity revelations. Seeing Israel, feeling it, tasting it – and meeting Israelis – reframes the conversation. I understand why Palestinians try to make every conversation about “the conflict” into their agenda. But why do so many Jews fall into that same trap?

Framing Jews’ relationship with Israel in identity terms as existential transcends Left and Right. It’s not a pro-Netanyahu or pro-Trump move: It’s simply the Zionist way.

Zionism is broad-based enough to welcome a kaleidoscope of opinions. Zionism goes far beyond today’s headlines, emphasizing that Jews are a people as well as a religion; that we are tied to one particular homeland; and that we have the right to establish and now develop a state on that homeland.

In less partisan times, with less angry leaders and a less hostile world, many would recognize Zionism’s spacious, welcoming tent for all kinds of Diaspora Jews. Similarly, Israel includes a stunning array of Jews, from ultra-Orthodox to hyper-modern, from conservative capitalists to Peace Now socialists.

Gerald M. Steinberg: Review: Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments by Kenneth Roth

Roth’s cursory discussion of antisemitism, in which his defensiveness is very pronounced, highlights the fact that this issue is largely ignored by HRW and most institutions claiming to promote human rights. “The charge of antisemitism is often bandied about to silence critics of Israeli repression, including me—I was also accused of being a ‘Jew hater’” (p. 200). As in previous statements and social media posts, he blames the victim, proclaiming that Israel’s actions are the cause of any resurgence of hostility to Jews, particularly following the October 7 slaughter. “In the minds of some partisans, the idea that a state designed as a haven for Jews could stimulate harm against Jews is inadmissible” (p. 205). Roth’s response to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg’s denunciation of this position replaces the evidence with a blanket rejection of the conclusion that HRW’s relentless criticism, including accusations of “apartheid,” feed the violent Jew-hatred sweeping across university campuses. Roth also attacks the consensus definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, composed after the infamous hate-filled NGO Forum of the UN’s 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism, in which HRW played a central part and which constitutes another example in Roth’s distorted history.

Notably, but consistent with the rest of the book, Roth makes no mention of the “eyewitness testimony” of Danielle Haas, a senior editor at HRW from 2010 until October 2023, who became a whistleblower. Not easily dismissed as a “troll,” Haas exposed the “years of politicization … shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness,” and the ways in which HRW “surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all.” Countering claims of careful fact-checking, she wrote about the violation of “basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and collegiality,” and summarized “the constellation of my experiences over years … as feeling a lot like antisemitism … ”Footnote7 Anonymous HRW staff members, both Jewish and non-Jewish, told her that “for years, they had raised concerns with managers and in wider discussion forums about antisemitism and methodological problems related to Israel work, only to face hostility at worst, inaction and indifference at best.”Footnote8 Haas also condemned HRW’s response to the Hamas massacre, which invoked “the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’ before blood was even dry on bedroom walls,” and, based on Roth’s practice, “could easily be construed as blaming the victim.” Regarding the 2021 “apartheid” campaign, Haas observes that HRW staff (i.e., Roth and others) knew the 217-page pseudo-research report filled with legal-sounding jargon and propaganda “would rarely be read in full,” and was designed to give ammunition to anti-Israel campaigners “including Hamas supporters … who now bandy about the term with appalling ease.” This is as much of an indictment of the journalists and other consumers who turned HRW’s press release into major headlines as it is of the organization’s manipulative practices.

In summary, a more accurate title for Roth’s magnum opus would be “Wronging Rights,” and while he may have hoped to have the last word in establishing his legacy and silencing the “trolls” and “extreme partisans,” the criticism will continue. Beyond the specific treatment of Israel, Roth demonstrates that the human rights advocacy based on morality and political neutrality that he claims to have championed for thirty years is a myth.

Kassy Akiva: DA Backs Away From Deal To Keep Scott Hayes From Going To Trial For Shooting Anti-Israel Attacker

Scott Hayes, 48, says he will likely have to go to trial for shooting an anti-Israel man who tackled him after a district attorney backed away from finalizing a disposition to resolve the case outside the courtroom.

Hayes was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and released on a $5,000 bail on September 13 after he shot Caleb Gannon, who charged through traffic and tackled Hayes in Newton, Massachusetts. Hayes pleaded not guilty and said shooting Gannon in the stomach was an act of self-defense.

“I am demanding a trial because the district attorney’s office continues to miss deadlines, go back on agreements, and play with my life,” Hayes said. “If they think they have a strong case — which they don’t — I’ll see you in court.”

Hayes, who lost his job over the incident, spent the last few months working out terms with the office of Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan. According to Hayes, Ryan’s office and Hayes’ legal team worked out terms for a “pretrial probation” (PTB) with no admission of liability, which would suspend Hayes’ license to carry during the period and require him to complete a de-escalation course and stay away from Gannon.

The point of contention is whether Hayes should stay out of Newton, the town where Gannon resides. Hayes believes that the condition is unnecessary, and that he should not have to stay out of the major Boston suburb, where he has many friends. The two sides were supposed to argue to a judge on Tuesday, until Hayes’ lawyer was informed that the DA’s office cancelled the hearing.

Ryan’s office ignored requests about the reason for the cancellation of the meeting on Tuesday and instead said the case hearing is scheduled for March 20.

Immediately after his release on bail, Hayes was required to wear a GPS ankle monitor, which flagged him several times for violating the stay-out-of-Newton order each time he traveled on the Mass Pike (I-90) for doctor appointments, as the highway runs through Newton. In October, a judge removed the ankle monitor requirement and his restrictions from being in Newton.

“It’s absurd that they want to now restrict me from Newton while I have been free to travel there for five months without any incidents,” Hayes told The Daily Wire.

03/05 Links Pt1: 'This is your last warning!': Trump gives ultimatum to Hamas; Egypt Tells Trump to Pound Sand; 17-year-old Israeli dies of injuries from Feb. 27 terror car-ramming

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Egypt Tells Trump to Pound Sand

Despite presumably having watched the way Donald Trump has responded recently to world leaders who question or challenge him, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has decided to poke the U.S. president in the eye and see what happens.

The much-ballyhooed Arab Plan for postwar Gaza has been released, and it is unimpressive even by the standards of past pan-Arab peace proposals. Perhaps even deliberately so.

Trump’s plan for Gaza—the Riviera on the Med—called for the evacuation of civilians from the enclave so it could be properly cleared and rebuilt. Trump doesn’t seem to care much whether the Palestinians come back after it’s done, though Israeli officials are careful to endorse only voluntary emigration.

Egypt is a solution to this riddle, but it would rather be a problem.

For starters, Egypt could have provided Gazan civilians with a place to go during the war, when Israel was forced to hunt Hamas monsters hiding among those civilians in designated humanitarian zones within Gaza. Sisi chose not to, because his country only wants the few Gazans who can afford to pay through the nose for their freedom.

We can go back further and point out that the war itself didn’t have to happen and that Egypt could very well have prevented it. Cairo had stopped policing the smuggling routes between Egypt and Gaza in the area of Rafah, a town that is split between the two jurisdictions. Those smuggling routes enabled Hamas to resupply and reinforce its army, as well as secure a near-monopoly on certain goods on the Gaza market. Money and manpower, in other words, care of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

We could keep going back even further—Egypt allows no path to citizenship for the original Palestinian refugees or their descendants, and has washed its hands of any stewardship over Gaza, which was once part of its territory—but the record is fairly consistent: Cairo has been, and continues to be, an impediment to a solution to the Palestinian element of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Unless Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is able to negotiate, with the help of Israeli pressure, a continuation of the ceasefire plan, there will be another round of war in Gaza—probably more intense than anything over the previous 16 months. In that case, Egypt will once again have the chance to play a constructive role by allowing temporary Palestinian resettlement so that Israel can end Hamas once and for all. Egypt will again refuse, and then it will again complain about Israel and the lack of a two-state solution.

When Egypt Favored Resettling Gazans in Its Borders

In Cairo yesterday, a summit of Arab leaders adopted an Egyptian proposal for the future of Gaza, which includes a six-month period during which a “non-factional” Palestinian government will administer the Strip, after which the Palestinian Authority will take over. It does not, however, suggest how Hamas will be forced out of power. Hussain Abdul-Hussain calls the plan “dissociated from reality.” Worse still, he writes, it “defers disarming Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other militias until after the creation of a Palestinian state.”

The impetus for the summit wasn’t so much the actual situation in Gaza as the need to provide an alternative to Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population prior to reconstruction. While Arab states have objected to plans to move large numbers of Palestinians outside the Strip, and Egypt most vociferously, this was not always the case. Abdul-Hussain explains:

In 1953, Egypt and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) signed onto a plan to resettle 120,000 Arab refugees from Gaza. . . . At the cost of $200 million ($2.4 billion in 2025 dollars), the Egyptian town of Qantara, east of Suez and 130 miles southwest of Gaza, would become the refugees’ new home. Egypt would divert water from the Nile to allow agriculture and a self-sustaining economy.

Palestinians in Gaza (then ruled by Egypt) protested and rioted to voice their opposition to the plan, staging what is now called the “March intifada.” Egypt, then ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser,

promised to “end the Sinai relocation project,” but quickly broke its promise. The Nasser regime instead undertook mass arrests and threw its Communist and Muslim Brotherhood leaders into prison, where they remained until July 1957.

Nasser eventually pulled out of the relocation plan for two reasons. First, he was frustrated with the Eisenhower administration for withdrawing its funding of the Aswan Dam. Second, he feared communists on the left and Islamists on the right might use the issue to outflank him. As a result of such domestic machinations, 120,000 Arabs remained stuck in a resourceless strip instead of relocating to an economically viable spot, less than 150 miles to the south.

17-year-old Israeli dies of injuries from Feb. 27 terror car-ramming

An Israeli teenager has died of injuries sustained during a Feb. 27 terrorist car-ramming attack at a bus stop east of Caesarea, local authorities said on Wednesday.

In a Facebook post, the Pardes Hanna-Karkur Municipality named the slain victim as Yahli Gur, 17, a resident of the town located north of Netanya.

Gur studied at a high school in the city of Harish, east of Pardes Hanna-Karkur.

“On behalf of Harish’s residents, I embrace and send condolences to her family at this difficult time. All of Harish grieves with you,” the city’s mayor, Yitzhak Keshet, said in a statement.

Twelve other people were wounded, including two seriously, in Thursday’s vehicular assault at the Karkur Junction, according to medical officials.

Israel Police spokesperson Aryeh Doron told Channel 12 that “after carrying out the car ramming at the bus stop, the terrorist drove another few hundred meters, hitting an officer and his car.” He was shot and killed at the scene, Doron added.

The terrorist was identified by authorities as a 53-year-old Palestinian from the Jenin area in nearby northern Samaria who was illegally residing in the Jewish state while married to an Arab citizen.

The Hamas terrorist organization hailed the attack, saying in an official statement that the vehicular assault was a “natural, heroic response to the brutal aggression and ongoing crimes” committed by Jerusalem.

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

I watched, open-mouthed as Zelenskyy became argumentative, even hostile to the vice president and president in front of the press. It was so shocking I didn’t even have words for what I was seeing. “Oh my God,” I said over and over again like a mantra. “What an idiot! Why???”

I put the knife down, afraid I’d nick myself. I’d been checking two kilograms of dried apricots for bugs so I could make hamantaschen filling. My phone blared Zelenskyy, its tiny screen propped against a vase of Shabbos flowers in front of which I sat with my cutting board and a mound of wrinkly, plump and fragrant fruit. And a knife.

But the apricots could wait. This needed my full attention.

There was so much going on that I didn’t know where to look. Trump’s face got so red I thought he would plotz. I sincerely hope he wouldn’t croak. But if two assassination attempts didn’t take him down, neither would some weaselly little guy with a Napoleon complex in fake fatigues.

Zelenskyy had really stepped in it this time—it was one for the history books. If you ever meet someone who doesn’t understand the term “own goal,” just tell them about the time Zelenskyy, who should have been humbly begging Trump to save his country, self-eviscerated in the Oval Office in front of the press—and everyone else. In the world.

But this wasn’t the first time an ungrateful Zelenskyy decided to FAFO what an American president would do when treated with disdainful impertinence. He did it to Biden, too:

It’s become routine since Russia invaded Ukraine: President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speak by phone whenever the U.S. announces a new package of military assistance for Kyiv.

But a phone call between the two leaders in June played out differently from previous ones, according to four people familiar with the call. Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting. Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude.

These were not isolated incidents. This is what Zelenskyy does. He did it to Trump and JD Vance. He did it to Biden. And he did it to Israel, too.

Back in 2022, I noted that in his address to the Knesset, Zelenskyy rubbed Israelis the wrong way when he claimed that Ukrainians saved Jews during WWII:

Zelenskyy has left us Israelis with a bad taste in our mouths. He’s a hero the world over, and we want to like him, too. But it’s difficult for Israelis to like him after the things he said in his address to the Israeli Knesset on Sunday. President Zelenskyy hit all the wrong notes, pointing an accusatory finger at Israel with one criticism after another.

Zelenskyy criticized Israel for not doing enough to help Ukraine, for not supplying the right kind of aid, for not applying pressure to Russian businesses. The Ukrainian president asserted that Ukrainians saved Jews during the Holocaust, while Jews have turned their backs on the Ukrainian people.

“One can keep asking why we can't get weapons from you. Or why Israel has not imposed strong sanctions against Russia. Why it doesn’t put pressure on Russian business. But it is up to you, dear brothers and sisters, to choose the answer. And you will have to live with this answer, people of Israel.

“Ukrainians have made their choice. Eighty years ago. They rescued Jews. That is why the Righteous Among the Nations are among us. People of Israel, now you have such a choice.”

Now I was listening to the same record on repeat. Whatever America gave him, it was not enough for Zelenskyy. Trump gave him javelins? Zelensky said not enough. Biden gave him money. Zelensky said not enough. Israel took in more Ukrainian refugees than any other country and Zelenskyy said it was not enough.

Instead we got a lecture. Just as Trump and JD Vance got a lecture. Also from 2022:

President Zelenskyy accused Israel of indifference, of refusing to choose sides, and of immorality, too, questioning whether Israel’s imagined inaction was premeditated, for which, he suggested, we’d one day be held to account in the final battle between good and evil.
“Can you explain why we still turn to the whole world, to many countries for help? We ask you for your help? What is it? Indifference? Premeditation? Or mediation without choosing a party? I will leave you a choice of answer to this question. And I will note only one thing — indifference kills. Premeditation is often erroneous. Mediation between states is possible, but not between good and evil.”

Zelenskyy hates to say thank you, but he sure does like to point a finger at others, accusing them of both apathy and conversely, at the same time, premeditated evil. Going back to the Oval Office disaster, remember when Zelenskyy tried to tell JD Vance and Trump what they’d “feel?”

Zelenskyy: First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. You have nice ocean and don’t feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future.

Trump: You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.

Zelenskyy: I am not telling you, I am answering …

Vance: That’s exactly what you’re doing …

Trump, raising his voice: You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good and very strong.

You could feel the disdain coming off Zelenskyy in the combative way he spoke to the president and vice president and you could see it in his demeanor. I would even call it hatred. For the west? I don’t know. Maybe he hates everyone outside of Ukraine, which begs the question: why is he begging everyone outside of Ukraine to give him help as if it’s an honor to help him, just a sour-faced little autocrat.

Zelenskyy has a God complex. He’s smug. In his mind, he’s the only one who’s awake to what plays out on the world stage. He’s the only one who’s smart. Everyone else is oblivious. Ignorant, beneath him, and bad.

I was appalled back in 2022, when during his address to the Israeli Knesset, Zelenskyy drew a comparison between Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to Hitler’s Final Solution:

“When the Nazi party raided Europe and wanted to destroy everything. Destroy everyone and leave nothing from us, nothing from you. They called it ‘the final solution to the Jewish issue.'

“You remember that. And I’m sure you will never forget! Listen to what is sounding now in Moscow. Hear how these words are said again: ‘Final solution.’ But already in relation, so to speak, to us, to the ‘Ukrainian issue.'”

Did the Ukrainian president think that because he was born a Jew, he could say this dreadful thing—that he could blatantly compare a land grab to the attempted annihilation of a people?

Zelenskyy seems unable or unwilling to shove aside his considerable ego long enough to consider the off-putting effects of his words on others. He doesn’t seem to realize that his contempt is obvious to those of whom he is contemptuous, which appears to be everyone but Ukrainians. And that contempt has trickled down to Zelenskyy administration officials, or as I called it in 2022, a rot that spreads from the head down:

It is now an unavoidable conclusion that criticism of Israel from Ukrainian officials over the past several weeks has come from the top down. From the Ukrainian ambassador to Israel finding fault with Israeli aid and Israel’s handling of Ukrainian refugees, to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba accusing El Al of evading sanctions by accepting payments “soaked in Ukrainian blood,” it’s all a part of the antisemitic party line. The Ukrainian fish, like every other fish, rots from the head down.

Israel might have hoped that President Zelenskyy, being a Jew himself, might refrain from fomenting another Chmielnicki-style Uprising. Instead, the hate begins with Zelenskyy, trickling down to the others to a man. Zelenskyy may not be motivated by antisemitism, but unfortunately, he inspires it in others.

What Zelenskyy wanted from Israel was patently ridiculous. He wanted Israel to do things that would anger Russia and Iran, two countries already not very kindly disposed toward Israel, to say the least. Zelenskyy actually expected Israel to give him arms and chastised the Jewish State from the halls of the Knesset for not doing so.

Well, Zelenskyy may be suicidal, witness that Oval Office fiasco, but demanding that Israel commit suicide with him? That was a bit much. As I wrote in 2022, “For most Israelis, there’s no contest. We choose to protect our own people from terror and worse over the things Zelenskyy wants us to do for a people with a long and well known history of antisemitic cruelty.”

Zelenskyy wanted Israel to ignore the harm that supplying him with weapons would inevitably do to the Jewish State. But Israel needs to look out for Israel before looking out for Ukraine or anyone else. Zelenskyy tried to make it a moral choice: if Israel doesn’t help him we’re aligned with Putin. And he tried to do the same thing to President Trump.

But just as Israel wasn’t having any of it, neither was President Trump, who told a reporter during that disastrous Oval Office meeting, “I'm not aligned with Putin. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world, I'm aligned with the world, and I want to get this thing over with.”

Zelenskyy thinks the world—and its leaders—owe him a living. He’s not grateful for a thing, believing he is more than entitled to whatever and however much you might give him. Well, ingratitude may be Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s middle name. But it’s not mine.

I’m actually a little grateful to Zelenskyy, right now. After seeing that exchange with Trump and Vance, I know that for once, Israel’s not special! Zelenskyy treats everyone badly, even the president of the United States!

Can it be that Israel has finally joined the family of man?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Edan Alexander

The Washington Post has an article about the remaining hostages in Gaza. It appears to have been written some three months ago and is continuously updated.

It lists all the hostage names, and adds "One American hostage is still believed to be alive in Gaza, and the bodies of four others are still being held there. Washington is seeking an accounting of their deaths, according to the State Department. "

But it doesn't even identify him by name, Edan Alexander.

There is only one living American hostage - where are all the news articles profiling him and his family? I only see one such article, from Fox News two weeks ago.

In many ways, Alexander grew up like many American kids. He went to Tenafly High School, was a swimmer and loved the New York Knicks. All that separated him from most American teenagers was his frequent trips to Israel to visit family and the fact that he spoke Hebrew at home.

After graduating from high school, Alexander decided he would enlist in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) rather than enroll in college.

Edan Alexander was forced to make a Hamas propaganda video in November. There were a couple of interviews with his family at the time, as well as a guest essay by his parents in the New York Times September 1, probably approved because they spend most of the essay trashing Netanyahu, making this the kind of angle the NYT loves to promote.

But now he is the last American. He should be the focus of all articles in US media about the hostages. Every one of them, when mentioning that Hamas still holds 24 living hostages, should be adding the phrase "including one American, Edan Alexander."

In normal circumstances, an American hostage being held by an Islamist group would be major news. Maybe not front page but one would expect profiles of Edan in mainstream media in the same way that Fox did.

But when the hostage is a Jew with Israeli citizenship, it seems the rules change.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From the New York Times:

Arab countries countered President Trump’s proposal to expel Palestinians from Gaza and transform it into a beachfront destination with their own vision on Tuesday, endorsing a plan to keep the population there, rebuild the territory and turn it into part of a future Palestinian state, without Hamas in government.

The Egyptian framework envisions putting a committee of technocrats and other figures unaffiliated with Hamas in charge of Gaza for an initial period.

Where have we seen technocratic governments before? Oh, yes, the Palestinian Authority.

Salam Fayyad's government from 2007–2013 and Rami Hamdallah's from 2013–2019 were also based on supposed experts, not politicians.

In a limited way, like for economic policies and reducing corruption, they were far better than the Fatah-dominated PA governments. The problem is that this is only a subset of what a proper government should do. Hamas' reaction highlights the issue:

Hamas officials have said they would be willing to hand over control of civilian affairs to a governing committee of which the group was not a part, as long as Gaza’s postwar future was determined by Palestinian “national consensus,” according to a Tuesday statement.

That's the problem - Hamas wants to wash its hands of "civilian affairs" and concentrate on terror. It doesn't want to hand over its military or police functions to this government, and of course it doesn't want anyone to disarm it which is what any sane government should do.

Though a number of Arab countries would like to see its armed wing disband, Tuesday’s declaration does not outright call for Hamas to lay down its arms. The language was left somewhat murky, proposing that security and weaponry should be managed by “legitimate Palestinian institutions” based on the principles of a single armed force and a single legitimate authority.

Hamas has rejected demilitarization, with an official Hamas media outlet reporting on Tuesday that “the resistance’s weapons are a red line.” But Israel and the Trump administration have demanded exactly that — a seemingly irreconcilable difference.

Any plan that doesn't disarm Hamas is no plan at all. The technocratic government is busywork to make it look like they made a plan but none of the hard decisions were made.

The real goal of this plan is to find a way for Gazans to not take refuge in the very Arab states that formulated it. This is not a plan for peace nor for creating a future for Gazans. It is selfishness dressed up as humanitarianism.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The UN has published more information about sexual abuse by aid workers in Gaza. Like the earlier reports that tangentially mention the issue, the media has not taken notice.

The latest I could find was from November 2024, "Gaza GBV Case Management Taskforce Report

1 Sep – 30 Sep 2024." (GBV is Gender Based Violence.)

It uses indirect language to describe what is going on.

Page 2:

In addition to the denial of access to resources, the Case Management Taskforce (CMTF) recorded a significant number of denials of services. The reports indicate that most of these service denials were perpetrated by traditional humanitarian providers—International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), National Non-Governmental Organizations (NNGOs), and United Nations agencies. This is likely another dimension of the worsening food crisis, where service providers are forced to prioritize and, at times, refuse to provide services, potentially abusing their power.

Since this is a report on gender based violence, it is talking about using aid to abuse women.

On page 3 it is a little clearer:

The second most reported type of incident is physical assault....More than half of the perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (spouses), followed by reports of physical violence committed by family members, non-family members, and, finally, several cases involving non-traditional humanitarian actors (e.g., contracted vendors for cash and voucher assistance).

Page 4, on "Emotional and Psychological Abuse," mentions abuses not only by aid workers but by Hamas as well, and not only to women but also to underage girls:

Girls [12-17] reported this type of abuse the most, followed by the denial of access to services and resources, and physical assault. The sources of abuse include family members (such as a brother, father, mother, or other immediate family member), spouses, non-family members, and even humanitarian workers and armed groups. The latter is linked to conflict-related experiences in public spaces and at checkpoints.

Finally, page 5 has the most explicit mention of sexual abuse by aid workers:

Trend 4: Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA)
A concerning trend of SEA by humanitarian workers has been noted, particularly involving staff at distribution points and vendors in cash and voucher programs. GBV AOR members are increasingly raising concerns about SEA involving non-traditional humanitarian personnel, as response options are limited due to the lack of effective law enforcement.

The report still downplays the extent of the abuse, as had been indicated in earlier reports. A UN document from last May that mentioned that humanitarian workers were forcing Gaza women into prostitution in exchange for food:

Insufficient and unreliable aid, distributed under conditions of insecurity that do not allow adequate targeting, expose vulnerable groups to violence, exploitation and abuse, trafficking and forced prostitution, including by aid workers. Specific risks observed in Gaza associated with aid include the presence of unofficial humanitarian workers without identification [in] mixed distribution lines for men and women. There are reports of individuals adopting harmful coping mechanisms, such as reducing food and liquid intake, to minimise such risks.

An April UN document warned of an "epidemic" of abuse by aid workers in Gaza, as I had reported:

While stories about sexual abuse by aid workers in other areas of the world have gained publicity over the past year, for example in Sudan, Haiti, Bangladesh and Chad, there have been practically no articles about sexual abuse in Gaza by aid workers. I can only find one.

The UN itself explains why in the April report: it says that "Media attention to safeguarding incidents ...can also have an uncontrolled political manipulation."

In other words, the UN is doing everything it can to downplay and obfuscate the reports of sexual abuse by aid workers - because of politics. The UN wants to focus on its themes of Israel as an unparalleled evil actor, and anything that dilutes from that focus must be underplayed.

Do Gazan lives matter at all when Israel cannot be blamed? Based on how the UN tries to minimize this story while having entire organizations dedicated to uncovering and reporting on this exact topic, apparently the answer is no.

There are two scandals here: the abuse by the supposedly angelic humanitarian actors in Gaza like UNRWA, and the cover-up of that abuse by the UN and media.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From The Herald (Scotland):

Coca-Cola will no longer be served at the Glasgow Film Theatre after objections from staff.

Last week, workers at the cinema announced they would not be handling any goods connected to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement.

Coca-Cola products are part of that list and the cinema will now take them out of use for the duration of the film festival.

The theatre knuckled under to the workers. Their statement about it showed how cowardly they are, by saying that they are considering letting the hate group tell them how to do their business.

But reading their statement you can see that they are really afraid of violence from the Israel haters:

A spokesperson for the Glasgow Film Theatre said: "On Monday 24th February Unite the Union staff alerted us they would refuse to sell Coca-Cola and Diet Coke from 28th February. At this stage our Board of Trustees had started but not completed a review of the Unite staff requests. The goal of the review is to ensure that any decisions made do not infringe our legal and charitable obligations and that all staff can have their voice heard.

"We decided to halt the sales before completion of our formal review as we identified the risk of potential confrontations that could impact the welfare and wellbeing of all staff and customers during the charity’s busiest time of year. Therefore, GFT has agreed the temporary removal of Coca-Cola and Diet Coke until the end of Glasgow Film Festival.

In plain English, they are saying that if they go through proper procedures to evaluate their vendors, they are afraid of violence during the film festival. What else might impact the wellbeing of customers?

This behavior by the union directly violates Glasgow Film's own policies against bullying:

The BDS-supporting union threatened to disrupt the film festival. They intimidated the theatre to accede to their demands. The literally refuse to complete the tasks that are part of their job, and they are undermining the authority of the Theatre. The actions of the union fit exactly under Theatre's definition of bullying.

So much for zero tolerance

Notice that the theatre is not worried that Zionists will violently protest the boycott. Only one side engages in threats and violence.

And only cowards let them set the agenda.

(h/t Mattis)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

03/04 Links Pt2: Columbia’s Choice: Hamasnik Anarchy or Taxpayer Cash; Michael Rapaport: A Message to My Haters up North; Trump Admin To Review $5 Billion in Columbia Grant Funding

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Columbia’s Choice: Hamasnik Anarchy or Taxpayer Cash

The biggest myth regarding the campus anti-Semitism crisis is that it’s about speech. It is a self-serving myth: Institutions and activists that want to disregard their abuse of Jewish students will fall back on the claim that any attempt to hold them accountable for their actions is actually an attack on free speech.

Columbia University is learning what happens when that disingenuous trick starts to backfire: Students and professors take it as a license to do whatever they want, people end up in the hospital, and the government steps in to say this cannot continue to be done on their dime.

The Biden administration was fearful of standing up to the Hamas youth groups on campus. The Trump administration is happy to do so. Thus we have the announcement that three government agencies—Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration—will be reviewing federal contracts and grants with Columbia totaling around $5 billion.

Crucially, the announcement clearly avoids the penalizing of mere speech:
“Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled. Institutions that receive federal funds have a responsibility to protect all students from discrimination. Columbia’s apparent failure to uphold their end of this basic agreement raises very serious questions about the institution’s fitness to continue doing business with the United States government.”

Assault isn’t speech. Harassment, the definitions of which are laid out in these schools’ policy handbooks, doesn’t include “criticism of Israeli government policy,” as activists and well-meaning but foolish free-speech groups routinely claim. At Harvard, for example, “such aggression must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive and denies the individual an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the workplace or the institution’s programs and activities. Unless sufficiently severe or pervasive, a single act typically would not constitute bullying.”

Last, discrimination is also not speech. I wrote about one such prominent example last week: George Washington University’s professional psychology program penalized Jewish students for their religious background and Israeli students on the basis of their national origin, a textbook Title VI civil-rights violation.

Rise of the antisemitic psychologists

In February, the western world was shocked when a TikTok video exposed two Australian nurses, Ahmad “Rashad” Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, openly reviling Jews and Israelis, insinuating they would not only refuse to treat, but might actually kill — or have killed — an Israeli patient that presented at their hospital. The duo have rightfully been banned from practice anywhere in Australia, but that will not soothe Australian Jews’ fear that this loose-lipped pair are the tip of an iceberg constituted of less self-sabotaging, but equally hateful fellow travellers.

In a previous era, it was well understood in the healing professions that practitioners must never bring their personal biases to the workplace. That is no longer the case. Nobody in the medical community is encouraging nurses to kill Israeli patients, to be sure, but in professional mental-health circles dominated by far-left ideology, discrimination against Jewish students, practitioners and patients is well tolerated, and sometimes encouraged. In short, the domain of mental health, including social work, has become a psychological minefield for North American Jews.

For example, at a November psychology conference in Philadelphia, Villanova University Counseling Center director Nathalie Edmond gave a presentation on “dismantling oppression” featuring a slide show, including one titled “the colonized mind,” which positioned Zionism as equivalent to “internalized racism,” “homophobia” and “rape culture.” Social media pushback came fast and furious, but no heads rolled.

This anecdote captures the spirit of the movement to exclude therapists who identify as Zionists — that is, people who believe Israel has a right to self-determination as a nation-state — from the therapy community. In March 2024, the Facebook group Chicago Anti-Racist Therapists endorsed a blacklist of “therapists/practices with Zionist affiliations that we should avoid referring clients to,” justifying it as a strategy to preclude the promotion of “White supremacy via Zionism.” A responsive flashback to Nazi Germany is not an over-reaction. One “shocked and scared, but not surprised” blacklisted therapist, Michelle Magida, founded a private Jewish therapist Facebook page.

As psychiatrist Sally Satel notes in a Free Press article on the subject, two issues arise from the story. The first, trying to prevent clinicians who support the existence of Israel, or are simply Jewish, from treating patients “constitutes a grave breach of professional ethics.”

The second is the “alarming” trend in psychotherapy — she calls it “critical social justice therapy” — to insist on psychotherapy as “foremost, a political rather than a clinical enterprise.” Under this rubric, therapists with the “wrong” politics are not trustworthy with patients. As for patients with the same “wrong” convictions, correction of their error should be the focus of treatment.

This Sovietization of psychotherapy is a cross-border phenomenon, and so is a heavy antisemitic presence in therapy associations. The American Psychological Association (APA), the largest psychological association in the world, is considered a hotbed of antisemitism by many observers. A just-published Open Letter “demanding accountability” from APA, replete with evidence, signed by 3,556 “Psychologists against Antisemitism,” notes that “(w)hile APA has issued statements in solidarity with Ukraine and apologized to People of Color for perpetuating racism, it has remained inactive regarding the 500% spike in attacks against Jews, who represent only 2% of the population yet experience over half of all religion-based hate crimes according to FBI statistics.”

Michael Rapaport: A Message to My Haters up North

I’ve seen a lot of hate in the past 513 days. Two months after Hamas’s massacre, anti-Israel groups launched a social media campaign to discourage people from attending my show in Sacramento. In January last year, my show in Portland, Oregon, was protested, too. Six months after that, a Chicago venue canceled my act over “safety concerns.” And the day after hooligans chased Jewish soccer fans through the streets of Amsterdam in November 2024, hundreds turned up to demonstrate against my gig in Lakeview, Illinois—a Chicago suburb heavily populated with Jews.

I’m not alone. Many of my fellow Jewish performers are facing this kind of abuse right now simply because we support the existence of a Jewish state.

But on Friday morning, I woke up to the craziest campaign against me yet.

When I checked my social media feed, I saw that Heather McPherson, who is in the Canadian Parliament and a member of the New Democratic Party, was not just attacking me, but calling on her government to deny my entry into the country.

“New Democrats are alarmed that American personality Michael Rapaport is scheduled to perform in Canada,” she posted.

“Rapaport, who has a significant criminal history, also has a long history of racist and Islamophobic speech, and of inciting violence and supporting terrorism. We are witnessing an alarming increase in Islamophobia in Canada and globally. All Canadians deserve to feel safe in our communities.”

At the end, she once again urged Justin Trudeau’s party to take action against me, saying: “New Democrats are calling on the Liberal government to deny entry to Michael Rapaport.”

Now, I’ve got no beef with Ms. McPherson. I’ve never met her or even heard of her, which is something I have in common with most people. But I guess what ticked her off is that I’m headed to Canada this week to perform five stand-up shows in Edmonton, Alberta’s capital city, which McPherson represents.

03/04 Links Pt1: Could Hamas Possibly Make This Any Clearer?; Kontorovich: International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal; Is it time to declare the failure of the Oslo Accords?

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Could Hamas Possibly Make This Any Clearer?

There is one clear goal regarding postwar Gaza: The absence of Hamas. That absence could be brought about by the terror government’s total defeat in the battlespace or by its surrender, in which it would hand over all governing institutions to an approved non-Hamas entity after returning the remaining hostages.

The reason Hamas cannot be left in a position of political power in Gaza is that such an outcome would guarantee the resumption of war. Hamas has made clear, through its statements just as much as its behavior, that as long as it survives it will launch periodic wars of annihilation against Israel. In a region as confusing and volatile as the Middle East, this is one of the few things we know with certainty: Death, taxes, and Hamas trying to burn people alive.

No one disputes this, and no one is naïve to it. If you support leaving Hamas in Gaza, it means you are comfortable with the status quo of permanent war. Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist, and because of its foreign backing (Iran, Qatar, Turkey) it cannot easily be dislodged by rival parties, even if there were rival parties willing to take it on.

All of which makes Hamas’s overtures remarkably daft. The West wants Hamas out of government because it wants an end to the cycle of war. So Hamas… promises to stay out of government but asks only that it be allowed to remain for the sole purpose of waging war?

Egypt is trying to be accommodating, so it has proposed a middle ground: Hamas disbands as a party but Hamas members join a new joint governing committee with officials from the Palestinian Authority and—crucially—Hamas leaders turn over missiles and rockets to be guarded by a third party until the establishment of a Palestinian state. “But Hamas’s senior negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, categorically refused the proposal during a meeting with the head of Egyptian intelligence, Hassan Rashad, in February, Egyptian and Hamas officials said,” the Journal reports.

Again, the fact that Hamas officials are among the sources here takes a lot of the guesswork out of these negotiations. We don’t have to wonder if Hamas is aware of what’s being floated on its behalf. Hamas is part of the conversation. And it is saying very clearly that it exists for the sole purpose of total war against the Jews.

This is why Hamas’s presence makes it harder to raise financial contributions from any donor nation not named Qatar. It is a waste of money to build structures that Hamas will immediately rig with explosives.

The choice here, according to Hamas itself, is between Hamas and the possibility of a peaceful life for Palestinians. Those who are even considering choosing the former should stop lecturing Israel, the U.S., or anyone else about the welfare of the Palestinians.

The Genocide Libel: How the World Has Charged Israel with Genocide

This essay concerns the post-October 7 accusation of genocide against Israel. Genocide is the crime of crimes. States committing genocide are viewed as permanently illegitimate. By itself a genocide accusation is not antisemitic. During the Cold War, the charge was leveled dozens of times by government officials, legal scholars, and activists against France, Portugal, Nigeria, China, Cambodia, the US, and other states.[1] Since the end of the Cold War, judicial proceedings for genocide have been carried out against officials from former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and elsewhere both in ad hoc tribunals and at the International Criminal Court.[2]

Genocide accusations against Israel are different. First, Israel, unlike other states, has been charged with genocide throughout its existence.[3] The genocide accusation is tied to charges of racism, colonialism, and other accusations leveled against Israel since the 1960s.[4] Second, the speed and fury with which the accusations exploded after the Hamas massacres of October 7, 2023, are unusual in the annals of lawfare.[5] And yet regarding Israel’s 2023 war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, there has been not only a rush to judgment but an effort to redefine genocide itself so that the constitutive elements of the crime itself are lowered.

The genocide libel also deploys a range of antisemitic tropes. One is the linkage of genocide to violent passages in the Hebrew Bible, a linkage which plays on the theme of Jewish chosenness at the expense of others’ existence and which even claims that God is genocidal. Another is the whitewashing of Hamas’s own genocidal intent in lieu of tropes concerning the outsized Jewish thirst for vengeance in the form of disproportionate response.[6] A third is the coupling of the genocide charge with the deliberate killing of children, images of whom are ubiquitous on NGO, social media, and other platforms that charge Israel with genocide.[7] A fourth is the attribution of special powers to the Israeli government by which it and its supporters have fooled western governments into believing that Israel’s actions are legitimate and that the history of the Israeli- Arab conflict is too complex for snap judgments.[8]

A fifth, and this is what makes the genocide libel particularly dangerous, is the association of all Jews with the crime. Jews worldwide are all in on it, either as Zionist enablers, as dishonest back-room lobbyists, or as community leaders who, we are told, “weaponize” the charge of antisemitism to silence the truth-tellers.[9] Other genocide charges over time have not targeted Hutus living in Belgium or Serbs living in Germany. But the genocide libel, fueled by everything from electoral campaigns to public demonstrations to social media, drives rage against Jews throughout the world.

In North America, Europe, and Australia, antisemitic incidents have been too numerous to count, ranging from physical threats against Jews in New York City, to a pre-planned pogrom in Amsterdam, to synagogue attacks stretching from Montreal to Melbourne.[10] And as the Conseil represéntatif des institutions juives de France [CRIF] noted in a January 2025 report concerning the nearly 1,600 antisemitic acts in France the previous year, “The hammering of the false genocide accusation, and its corollary of accusing Israel’s supporters of being ‘pro-genocide,’ have helped to demonize the image of Jews in France and justify hostile . . . behavior towards them.”[11]

My aim, though, is not to discuss why the genocide charge is antisemitic. Nor is it to point to the numerous instances of mass violence in Syria, Sudan, and elsewhere for which activists can never seem to summon the outrage. Nor is it, here anyway, to dismantle the South African genocide charges against Israel from December 2023 or the subsequent ruling of the International Court of Justice that it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Rather my aim is to discuss some of the history of how the genocide accusation has been leveled at Israel and the Jews. By looking at the history, which began even before the genocide convention was completed, we can begin to deconstruct the charge itself, how it has been used against Israel over time, and the stunningly bad faith behind the genocide accusation.

Eugene Kontorovich: International Law Is No Bar to Trump's Gaza Proposal

EU and UN officials who have insisted that President Trump's Gaza plan would violate international law are wrong. Gaza is one of the very few pieces of land not under the sovereignty of any nation in international law. A distinct Gaza came into being as a result of Egypt's invasion of Israel in 1948.

When Israel retook Gaza in 1967's Six-Day War, it had sovereign claims on it. These were based on Gaza's location within the boundaries of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the predecessor entity to Israel. As an experiment in "land for peace," Israel withdrew its entire civilian population and military presence in 2005. Since then, Gaza has been up for grabs.

Because Gaza isn't a state, it isn't subject to military occupation under the Fourth Geneva Convention, making the restrictions the treaty places on occupying powers irrelevant. The sovereignty gap makes a U.S. bid legally feasible. Israel, having taken parts of the territory in a war of clear self-defense, should be able to claim sovereignty over all or part of the territory, as it did in the Golan Heights.

The "right of self-determination" doesn't allow local ethnic groups to choose which country they are in - ask the Kurds, the Catalans or the Greenlanders. In any case, the Palestinian population has categorically rejected sovereignty unless it includes Jerusalem, which is Israeli sovereign territory, and is accompanied by the migration of millions of Arabs into the sovereign borders of Israel.

Jordanian MP: "Don't give our water to Jews!"

From Jordan's Jo24:

MP Khamis Attia revealed information he has about the Ministry of Water starting negotiations with the Israeli government; in order to exchange water between the two sides.

The information revealed by MP Attia indicates that the negotiations have reached the conclusion that "the Israelis will obtain the Disi water, through the Ministry of Water pumping water to the Israelis from the Disi basin, in exchange for the Zionists pumping water from Lake Tiberias to northern Jordan."

He expressed his surprise at the negotiations, adding on his Facebook page: "I do not know what the genius of the Ministry of Water is, to resort to the Israelis in a water exchange process to solve the water problem in the north!"

He called on the government to "backtrack on these plans that waste our water for the benefit of the Jews, and the Disi water is the water of the Jordanians, and it cost the Jordanian people billions to reach the citizens."

Representative Attia rejected "these plans that waste our water rights," stressing the need for the House of Representatives to take a strong position to reject the step of exchanging water with the Jews.

I'm not quite sure why the minister is surprised. Israel and Jordan have been negotiating a version of this agreement - exchanging desalinated water from Jordan in the south for Israel supplying water in the North (in the planned excahnge, the UAE would provide solar energy to power the Jordanian desalination plant.)

The weird part is that he says "Disi water." The Disi aquifier is mostly under Saudi Arabia but some is under Jordan, it seems strange that Jordan would pump from there to Israel, especially since it is a limited resource that does not get replenished from rain. But maybe that is the current negotiations, and that might be what upsets him so much, calling it Jordanian water.

Note that he says "Jews" in addition to Israelis and Zionists.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

"Anti-normalization" Arabs freak out over new Mizrahi Jewish "Radio Abraham"

From the Jerusalem Post:

Radio Abraham is now available online. A new initiative spearheaded by Ahmed Charai, publisher of The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune and CEO of World Herald Tribune Inc., a Washington-based publishing company, the Internet-based service will enable people of different faiths and backgrounds to connect through shared heritage, traditions, and aspirations, in the spirit of the Abraham Accords.

A champion of peace and a strong advocate for greater understanding between Israel and the Arab world, Charai has dedicated his career to advancing the principles of diplomacy, dialogue, and mutual respect. His publishing platforms have become essential forums for intellectual exchange, bringing together thought leaders from across the political and cultural spectrum to engage in meaningful discussions on regional affairs.

The website of Radio Abraham makes it clear that its focus is for Mizrahi Jews.

Nothing upsets Israel haters more than the idea of dialogue and mutual respect. Here is the completely unhinged reaction from a leader of an anti-Israel group in Morocco:

Ahmed Wehhaman, head of the Moroccan Observatory for Anti-Normalization, affirmed that the launch of "Radio Abraham" by the "We Are All Israelis" gang was not merely a passing media event, but rather another blatant step toward enabling Zionist infiltration.

In a post on his Facebook account, Wehhaman stated that "Radio Abraham" serves as a tool for Zionist infiltration, which has advanced significantly in undermining religious beliefs. He warned of the dangers of this trajectory and its severe consequences for both the state and society as a whole.

He continued: "This time, even the masks that the so-called Abrahamic propaganda attempted to wear over the past years have been completely discarded."

He argued that "this initiative did not emerge in a vacuum but rather at a critical moment when the contours of the colonial Abrahamic project are becoming clear, proving that ‘Abrahamism’ is nothing more than the new name for ‘Israel’ and that ‘Israel’ is the practical embodiment of this Abrahamic project."

He added: "For a long time, we needed to put significant effort into explaining the ‘Abrahamic project’ and warning that it is ‘the new face of colonialism in the 21st century,’ as renowned Egyptian researcher Dr. Heba Gamal El-Din titled one of her most significant studies on the subject."

Wehhaman further elaborated: "We exerted efforts to analyze concepts such as the ‘Abrahamic commonality,’ the ‘United Arab States program,’ and the ‘Abraham Path,’ as well as their connection to what is known as the ‘Deal of the Century,’ which was formulated by Israeli war general Giora Eiland and pushed forward by U.S. President Donald Trump from his first term in office."

He continued: "We also exerted additional efforts to explain the nature of the ‘Committee of 100,’ which consists of fifty religious figures from the three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and fifty diplomats affiliated with the U.S. State Department. This committee has operated directly under the authority of the U.S. Secretary of State since the tenure of Hillary Clinton."

He added: "But today, none of that explanation is necessary anymore. The ‘We Are All Israelis’ gang has revealed the whole truth. The leader of this gang himself informed us that his own leader, the man behind the slogan and statement ‘We Are All Israelis,’ is the very same person behind this initiative. No further effort is needed to understand the nature of this project."

He continued: "With a bit of simple analysis, it becomes clear that his superior is none other than Colonel Eran Lerman, a former officer in the Israeli military intelligence unit (Aman), responsible for infiltrating media and cultural systems in the Arab world. This, in turn, reveals the real mission of Radio Abraham."

Wehhaman emphasized that "just one step up the administrative hierarchy is enough to see the picture in full clarity and scandalous exposure: ‘Radio Abraham’ is not a media project but a purely Zionist propaganda platform designed to brainwash minds and pave the way for the acceptance of the new Zionist colonialism under the guise of ‘peace’ and ‘coexistence.’"

He added: "It is an open declaration that ‘Abrahamism’ no longer needs intermediaries or deceptive slogans. We have now entered the public and scandalous phase: genocidal ‘Israel’ is speaking directly to Arabs through its platforms and tools, with no disguise whatsoever."

This guy is truly nuts. He believes that there is a religion called Abrahamism being created just to lead Muslims astray.

His other theories similarly have no relationship with any facts. Giora Eiland had nothing to do with Trump's "Deal of the Century" and Elan Lerman has nothing to do with Radio Abraham. There was no State Department initiative called the "Committee of 100" founded by Hilary Clinton. The only thing Wehhaman says that is slightly related to reality is that Radio Abraham founder Ahmed Charai wrote an article on October 7 called "We Are All Israelis."

This is the level of intelligence in the Arab anti-normalization space - creating and spreading insane rumors and antisemitism. It is published in Arab media as if this is normal, mainstream thinking.

Because it is.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Biden promised aid would not go to Hamas. The USAID policies to support that promise were a joke.

Less than two weeks after October 7, President Biden visited Israel with a message of solidarity and support. One of his priorities, however, was to force Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

During his speech in Tel Aviv, he tried to reassure Israelis:

The people of Gaza need food, water, medicine, shelter.

Today, I asked the Israeli cabinet — who I met with for some time this morning — to agree to the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Based on the understanding that there will be inspections and that the aid should go to civilians, not to Hamas, Israel agreed that humanitarian assistance can begin to move from Egypt to Gaza.

Let me be clear: If Hamas diverts or steals the assistance, they will have demonstrated once again that they have no concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people and it will end. As a practical matter, it will — it will stop the international community from being able to provide this aid.

Since then, we've seen that humanitarian aid has been the major source of income for Hamas, especially since Israel took over the Rafah crossing last year. This hasn't stopped the US from sending over $2.1 billion to Gaza.

How did this happen?

Last week, Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum testified in Congress that much of the aid from the US bypassed standard USAID vetting due to emergency waivers. I have not been able to verify this.

Perhaps more importantly, he pointed out that even USAID vetting is close to useless:

The oversight is as weak as a house of cards in a windstorm—like handing out cash in a dark alley and hoping it doesn’t buy trouble. USAID’s vetting system is archaic, relying heavily on self-reported data with no real-time checks or teeth. Primary grantees are entrusted to vet their own subcontractors, even when those grantees themselves might sympathize with radical causes. In places like Gaza or Sudan, groups with blatant extremist affiliations slip through because the “gatekeepers” have no incentive—or even ideological desire—to shut them out. This isn’t a glitch; it’s a feature of a broken system.

Roman didn't make this up. Last July, USAID's own Inspector General looked at the aid going to Gaza and concluded that there was no serious oversight to stop it from going to Hamas.

USAID's oversight plan to Congress says that it relies on the organizations it funds to tell it when the aid is being misused:

To mitigate the risk that U.S. taxpayer dollars will be diverted to Hamas or other U.S.-designated terrorist entities, U.S. Government [USG] award recipients [implementing organizations] are required to promptly report any suspected incidents of diversion, fraud, waste, and abuse to USAID or State and their respective OIGs.

That's the "oversight" - handing out billions of dollars and then asking the recipients politely to let them know if it is being abused so they'll get less money.

The OIC report notes that it is even worse when USAID gives vast amounts of money to UN agencies, also with the instructions to report any abuses. The UN agencies almost never report anything suspicious. The report says, "reports to OIG of potential misconduct from UN agencies performing

USAID awards in Gaza remain sparse, underscoring shortcomings in USAID’s reliance on self reporting. "

Not only that, but while USAID relies on self-reporting to ensure that the key members of grantees are not associated with terrorists, it relies on those very organizations to identify who those key individuals are. So if they have a treasurer, say, who is linked to the PFLP, the organization just has to omit that person from their list of "key individuals." (USAID claims that they try to verify the information using open-source research.)

When it comes to the UN, however, USAID doesn't even ask that question.

Notably, USAID’s MO 21 exempts UN organizations from USAID’s partner vetting process. ...USAID asserts that vetting of awards to UN organizations is distinct from vetting of awards to other types of implementing organizations due to the UN agencies’ “international character, privileges & immunities, and the special nature of our relationship, including presence on certain UN agency boards to influence their policies and procedures.”

The report notes that some grantees had hidden their ties to terrorist organizations, like the American University of Beirut and Norwegian Peoples Aid (forced to return $700K and $2 million, respectively.) But this requirement of cosmetic vetting doesn't apply to contractors of the grantees, so in the end, there is next to no oversight of how these billions of dollars are spent.

In Gaza, the situation is arguably worse than in other areas USAID funds, because Hamas threats would ensure that these grantees would lie to USAID. They live in Gaza and know that Hamas would kill them if they don't do what it says.

The Biden Administration knew about this report showing that aid to Gaza was being sent without any real oversight on how it would not be diverted to Hamas. Yet it kept on sending hundreds of millions more to Gaza without USAID changing a single procedure.

When Israel says it will stop all aid to Gaza, it is doing what Biden promised to do, and never did.

(h/t WSJ for Biden quote.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)