Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, May 12, 2025

05/12 Links Pt1: Hamas releases Edan Alexander, last living American hostage; The Qatari-Led World Order; How Hamas exploits psychology to harm Israel from within and abroad

From Ian:

Hamas releases Edan Alexander, last living American hostage

Hamas has released Edan Alexander, an American-Israeli citizen, back to Israel under a deal reached with the United States.

The release, conducted Monday evening in Gaza, may inaugurate a new phase in the hostage crisis that has consumed Israel since the Palestinian terror group attacked on 7 October 2023, taking 251 captives and opening the war in Gaza.

“I’m very happy to announce that Edan Alexander, an American citizen who until recently most thought was no longer living, thought was dead, is going to be released in about two hours,” President Donald Trump said at a press conference Monday morning. “He’s coming home to his parents, which is great news.”

Israeli media reported at 6:30 p.m. local time that Hamas said it had transferred Alexander to the Red Cross after 584 days in captivity. He was handed over to the Israeli military, which brought him to Israel. There, he was due to meet his parents Adi and Yael Alexander, as well as other family members, and will undergo medical examinations.

“It’s an out of body experience, it’s very exciting, we couldn’t sleep all night,” Adi Alexander said in a phone interview broadcast on Israeli Channel 12. “I saw the picture, he’s handsome, standing on his feet. That’s what’s important… He’s a little pale, thin, but a tall boy. This is my boy.”

He vowed to keep advocating for the rest of the hostages held by Hamas.

Hostage releases have happened before, but this was the first that was arranged directly between the terror group and the United States — without Israel’s knowledge or involvement. It is also the first time Hamas has released a living male Israeli soldier on active duty. And it means that, as of now, for the first time in more than a year and a half, there are no living Americans who are still held hostage in Gaza.

Alexander was born to Israeli parents living in Tenafly, New Jersey, and enlisted in the Israeli military. He was serving as a soldier on the Gaza border when he was taken captive in Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack at age 19. Alexander, Channel 12 reported, acted as an English-language interpreter between other hostages and their Hamas captors.

Crowds waited in tense anticipation in the hours ahead of Alexander’s release, in Israel, Tenafly and elsewhere. His impending release was announced over the weekend and came as a surprise. It is unclear what Alexander’s release means for the future of the war in Gazam and for the 58 other hostages still held there — up to 23 of whom are thought to still be alive. In recent days Trump has said that three of the hostages thought to be living had died.

Seth Mandel: The Qatari-Led World Order

So genuflecting to the Qataris has been good for Witkoff’s career. His son, Alex, visited a Qatari government real-estate forum on the eve of the 2024 election. Alex is CEO of the family real-estate company and was appointed by Trump to the board of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Eric Trump, the president’s son, was also recently in Qatar—this time to finalize a Trump Organization deal to build a golf course and villa complex there.

Once upon a time Trump had not-so-nice things to say about his new friends the Qataris. They have, he correctly noted in 2017, “historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” This was during Trump’s first term as president, and he backed a plan by regional Gulf allies to impose a blockade on Qatar. “I decided, along with secretary of state Rex Tillerson, our great generals and military people, the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding, they have to end that funding and its extremist ideology.”

A mere ten months later, however, the Qatari emir was in the Oval Office with the president for a friendly chat and some smiley photos. “You’ve now become a very big advocate” of stopping terrorism financing, Trump told the emir, “and we appreciate that.”

Of course, Edan Alexander’s case offers a reality check. Qatar’s support for Hamas has been crucial to the terror group’s survival. Israeli (and American) officials were under the impression that Qatari cash to Hamas would at least have the effect of keeping a lid on Hamas’s terror activity. But that was a ruse, and Hamas used its cash and clout to plan and carry out Oct. 7.

It was at that moment that Qatar had an obligation to intervene and either get the hostages home or cut Hamas loose. Instead, if floundered and dragged its feet.

Edan Alexander is free. But as the scheme to drag him to Qatar for a photo op with the emir and Trump shows, he isn’t yet free of Qatar’s malign influence. And neither, apparently, is the United States.

Andrew Fox: Subjectivity, Morality and Legality

In the labyrinthine discourse surrounding the Gaza conflict, few narratives encapsulate the chasm between legal permissibility and moral outrage as starkly as the reported death of Rafiq Musah Ayesh and his family.

According to a must-read thread by @middleeastbuka on X (formerly Twitter), Ayesh, allegedly affiliated with Hamas, was killed in an Israeli airstrike that also claimed the lives of his entire family. While profoundly tragic, this incident serves as a poignant case study in the complexities of the law of armed conflict (LOAC), particularly the principle of proportionality. This principle is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the whole Gaza War.

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks in which the expected incidental loss of civilian life would be excessive to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is enshrined in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and is recognised as customary international law.

Importantly, proportionality assessments are inherently subjective, relying on the attacker’s information and perspective at the time of the decision. The legality of an attack is judged based on the information available to the commander at the time, not on hindsight or the actual effects of any military action.

In the case of Rafiq Musah Ayesh, if he was indeed a high-ranking Hamas operative, Israel could argue that the military advantage gained by targeting him justified the collateral damage, including the deaths of his family members. This rationale aligns with the LOAC’s allowance for incidental civilian casualties, provided they are not excessive relative to the anticipated military gain.

However, this legal justification often clashes with public perception and moral sensibilities. The death of an entire family, regardless of the intended target, evokes visceral condemnation and raises questions about the adequacy of legal frameworks in addressing the human cost of war.

Determining the legality of such strikes also hinges on the attacker’s intent and knowledge. If the Israeli forces were unaware of the family’s presence or believed that the collateral damage would be minimal, the strike might be deemed lawful under IHL. Conversely, if there was knowledge of the family’s presence and the decision was made to proceed regardless, the legality becomes more contentious as it is a subjective decision. It is for the attacker to justify.

The lack of transparency in military operations further complicates these assessments. Without access to the intelligence and decision-making processes that led to the strike, external evaluations remain entirely speculative.

The Washington Post published an op-ed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union of Refirm Judaism, where he argues that Israel must allow food into Gaza in the same way it has in the past and the proposed methods are immoral.

For the past two months, Israel has banned food and supplies from entering Gaza. This is the longest complete blockade it has ever imposed. Just days ago, the Israeli cabinet voted to create designated zones in southern Gaza for food distribution to be administered by U.S. security contractors. This plan, which would entail shutting down most of the existing humanitarian aid sites and soup kitchens, is terribly flawed. There is no time frame by which the new food distribution centers would be up and running, and it is not at all certain that the new sites would provide enough aid to alleviate the suffering. In contrast, during the most recent ceasefire, Israel significantly increased the amount of food aid to Gaza, easing widespread hunger.

Starving Gazan civilians neither will bring Israel the “total victory” over Hamas it seeks nor can be justified by Jewish values or humanitarian law. Will this policy bring home the 59 remaining hostages, including the 24 who are still alive? It’s unlikely — and contrary to the wishes of almost 70 percent of Israelis who, in a recent poll, prioritized the hostages’ return over that elusive “total victory.” Of equal concern, far-right Israeli politicians see the aid blockade as part of a broader plan to permanently push most Gazans from northern Gaza and replace them with Jewish settlements.

As a proud Zionist who continues to feel deep solidarity with the people of Israel, including those who wear the Israel Defense Forces uniform, and as I have said on numerous occasions since Oct. 8, I cannot be silent in the face of the immense suffering of civilians in Gaza, including hundreds of thousands of children. Hamas is willing to sacrifice thousands of Palestinians by hoarding humanitarian aid; Israel must not. Depriving Gazans of food and water will not make Israel safer or hasten the return of the hostages. Each of us who loves Israel must say so — and urge Israel to change this policy.

Since Rabbi Jacobs couched his argument in terms of morality, I thought this is an excellent test for my Jewish Ethics Chatbot to see if his position is, in fact, moral.

My positions that I explained to the chatbot (during its clarifying questions) are :

-Destroying Hamas is a higher ethical imperative and a plan to provide food while shutting out Hamas, which Jacobs all but ignores, is the most moral choice.

- Israel's proposal is meant to provide food for Gazans while shutting out Hamas.

- If Israel had been allowed to do a full blockade early in the war, the war would have been over long ago and much suffering avoided.

- This war is is a "milchemet mitzvah," an obligatory war under Jewish law, to desroy Hamas.

- World opinion is not relevant - the concept of "chilul Hashem" does not appl since criticism is motivated by obsessively hating Israel and not concern over civilian deaths, as the silence of the world over war-caused famines in Yemen and Sudan and elsewhere are largely ignored. Therefore Israel must do the most moral choice without concern over world criticism.

Once those parameters were done, here is what the chatbot answered:

From a structured Jewish ethical perspective, when a nation faces an existential threat, its first duty is self-preservation—to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. This qualifies as a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war of defense), where even morally costly strategies can become permissible if they are both necessary and effective. In this case, if bypassing Hamas while delivering humanitarian aid is feasible and sincere—as you assert—then this plan honors both Pikuach Nefesh (saving life) and Brit (national covenantal duty) without capitulating to the enemy’s manipulation of civilian suffering.

While the suffering of innocent Gazans is tragic, Jewish ethics does not obligate a nation to self-sabotage its defense to alleviate enemy-inflicted civilian harm—especially when an alternative aid model is being attempted in good faith. Indeed, Jewish law explicitly forbids using starvation as a weapon, but it also requires distinguishing between cutting off civilian life-support and cutting off enemy exploitation of aid. If aid can be restructured to reach civilians without empowering Hamas, then a temporary, targeted pressure to facilitate that shift may be ethically justified under Pikuach Nefesh and Tzedek (justice).

Rabbi Jacobs’ call to prioritize immediate humanitarian access, while rooted in compassion, arguably underweights the Jewish duty of Emet (facing hard truths). If increased aid during the ceasefire led to a military resurgence for Hamas, then a stricter wartime blockade with built-in humanitarian lanes may in fact reflect a tragic but necessary moral triage—not a betrayal of Jewish values but their disciplined application under fire.

I then asked further:

Would you say that Rabbi Jacobs' article is problematic as well by not being dan l'chaf zechut on the reasons for Israel's proposed plan to find an alternative way to feed Gazans?

The chatbot answered:

Yes, I think that's a fair critique.

Rabbi Jacobs’ op-ed deeply emphasizes moral accountability and humanitarian suffering—core Jewish values—but he does not appear to give the proposed Israeli plan the benefit of the doubt (dan l’chaf zechut) that it might be a sincere attempt to balance military necessity with compassion. He criticizes the new distribution zones without seriously engaging with their intended function: to prevent Hamas from stealing aid and to deliver help more safely and effectively.

Jewish ethical discourse often insists that we judge others favorably when their actions might plausibly be interpreted as moral, especially fellow Jews acting in defense of life. By neglecting that interpretive charity, Rabbi Jacobs’ critique could be seen as falling short of that standard—even if his broader moral concern is genuine and important.

If Rabbi Jacobs wants to answer these criticisms within his concept of Jewish ethics, I would be most happy to publish his response.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Haaretz goes full-blown antisemitic

There is no way to interpret this Haaretz headline as anything but pure, classic antisemitism:

250 Years After Its First Revolutionary War, America Is Gaining Independence From Israel

At last, America is waking up and acting like an independent country, not a banana republic. I rub my eyes and ask if this is real or just an illusion. How dare this protectorate state voice a different opinion on Middle East affairs?

Meaning, for 250 years, the United States has slavishly followed the dictates of the Jews. It cannot be referring to Israel, which is only 77 years old.

This is the left-wing equivalent of the Goyim Defense League saying Jews control American politics:

Even the most charitable explanation for the Haaretz headline cannot avoid it being understood as claiming that Jews have been the puppet masters of American policy since 1776.

And, of course, having an Arab columnist in a progressive Israeli newspaper now praising Trump's alleged turn against Israel is proof positive of the horseshoe theory of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is indeed mainstream today - and it is the Left, not the Right, that is making it so.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Harvard Divinity School teaches a diverse set of opinions, all of which happen to be anti-Zionist

The Harvard report on antisemitism on campus includes seven pages on Harvard Divinity School's relentless anti-Zionist bias. It notes that there is nothing wrong with teaching criticism of Zionism but the coursework is insanely one-sided and meant to indoctrinate students to hate Israel. Even their trips to Israel are meant to " denot[e] the urgent need to dezionize Jewish consciousness."

The course material framed Zionism as Jewish sin. One speaker spoke of “a specific Jewish sinfulness against the Palestinians," another spoke on “extricating Judaism from state violence and from the idolatry of Israel." A moderator told that speaker, a prominent anti-Zionist "rabbi," that he had a responsibility to atone for being “complicit in power and abuse and displacement [of Palestinians].”

It is difficult to view this religious language aimed at demonizing Jews - sometimes by Jews, sometimes by gentiles - as anything but antisemitic.

Class materials deliberately excluded anything remotely Zionist. A class on “Religion and Peace in Israel/Palestine” started with the lecturer saying, “The discourse is saturated with the Israeli narrative. Therefore, I decided, with a heavy heart, to remove Israeli sources from the syllabus. We will focus solely on Palestinian literature because power disparities, methodology, and conscience demand it.”

One of the anti-Zionist professors at Harvard, an Israeli named Atalia Omer, was incensed by this description of her program. She wrote an article for the Guardian about how unfair the description of Harvard's Religion and Public Life Program was. Yet her criticism in no way contradicts the description of the program in the report. Every example she gives of the "diversity" of Harvard's RPL towards Israel is anti-Zionist:

The report also erases the rich diversity of Jewish voices we brought into our classrooms. It claims our program focused on “non-mainstream Jewish perspectives,” dismissing people like Noam Shuster Eliassi, a Mizrahi Jewish Israeli comedian whose work was supported by our fellowship program and is now featured at the Sundance Film Festival. It ignores events that engaged deeply with Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jewish experiences, including our commemoration of the Israeli Black Panthers’ Passover Haggadah—a powerful symbol of anti-racist struggle in Israeli history.

And it entirely omits our programming on antisemitism itself, including a discussion of alternative definitions of antisemitism like the Jerusalem Declaration, which, unlike IHRA, carefully distinguishes between criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews.

In short, Harvard’s report does not just mischaracterize a program. It attempts to redraw the boundaries of Jewish legitimacy.

Not one of her examples can be described as remotely Zionist or positive towards Zionism. (The comedian she mentions is hostile towards the Abraham Accords. The Israeli Black Panthers' Passover Haggadah is about discrimination against Mizrahi Jews in Israel - in 1971.)

Omer's article proves that the Harvard antisemitism description of the RPL is accurate.

Considering that 95% of Jews are Zionists, to brag that her school does not seem to mention a single Zionist perspective in anything but a negative manner proves the point of the report - Harvard's Divinity School, the same one that just hosted Peter Beinart referring to terrorism as "armed resistance against civilians," is thoroughly anti-Zionist. and in many ways classically antisemitic when its only mention of Judaism in context of the conflict is to characterize Jews and Judaism as being evil.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The UN’s anti-Israel “experts” now quote fake statistics even Hamas hasn’t claimed – and the BMJ follows right along (@bmj_latest @FranceskAlbs)

UN “experts” are willing to endorse even the most outlandish, unsourced claims in the service of slandering Israel – sometimes going further than even Hamas’ own propaganda.

Last week, the UN issued a press release by 39 of its "experts" claiming Israelis intentionally starving Gaza - as a direct response to Israel's attempts to create a means to feed Gazans.

The "experts," in their zeal to demonize the Jewish state, claim:

The group of experts cited over 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children, and 118,491 injuries as of 4 May 2025.

The last time the Gaza health ministry gave detailed statistics, it counted 50% women and children, not 70%. even that number is highly suspect given that the ministry has removed thousands of names from its own official lists without adjusting the total numbers of those killed. The only source for 70% - since the beginning of the war - has been Hamas' government media office, which makes up these numbers out of thin air.

The UN "experts" have knowingly published the false 70% figure before. Even though it has been debunked, they cannot help themselves.

But in this latest letter, they go even beyond Hamas' own propaganda.

"Since breaking the ceasefire, Israel has killed hundreds of Palestinians, many daily - peaking on 18 March 2025 with 600 casualties in 24 hours, 400 of whom were children. This is one of the most ostentatious and merciless manifestations of the desecration of human life and dignity,” the experts said.

Israel killed 600 people on March 18 - of whom 400 were children? How did the media miss this story?

According to the Gaza health ministry, between March 18 morning and noon on March 19. there were 436 deaths, of which 183 were allegedly children.

Again, these numbers are highly suspect - but this is a far cry from 400 children killed in one day. It would be difficult for Israel to deliberately kill that many children even if it wanted to.

Where did these "experts" get these bizarre numbers from? As far as I can tell, they made them up. I cannot find anyone - media, Hamas, random social media posters - who made this claim of 400 children dead out of 600 total in one day.

The "experts" who put their names on these clearly fictional statistics include:

This list of UN "experts" who happily sign anything anti-Israel without even a pretense of fact-checking completely discredits the UN as being a source for anything related to Israel.

The lies get worse, though. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) seems to have taken this press release as source material for its own article and uncritically quoted the bogus "400 children in one day" statistic:

This is a supposedly prestigious medical journal that uncritically parrots lies that have no source whatsoever.

When it comes to anti-Israel propaganda, the experts agree - facts are strictly optional.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

05/11 Links: Spencer: Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State; Hamas claims it will free Edan Alexander; ICC decided to charge Netanyahu after Khan accused of sexual assault

From Ian:

John Spencer: Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State

With renewed reports that the United States may consider recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the question of Palestinian statehood has returned to the diplomatic forefront. While such recognition remains unlikely in the near term, the fact that it is even under discussion reveals how detached the conversation has become from legal reality. The question of Palestinian statehood is not just political or moral—it is legal. Under international law, recognition of a state is contingent on specific criteria. As articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must meet four basic qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. At present, the various Palestinian political entities fail to meet several of these criteria.

3. The Endorsement of Terrorism and Rejection of Nonviolence
The Palestinian Authority’s “pay to slay” program—which provides monthly salaries and benefits to terrorists and their families—does not just glorify violence; it institutionalizes it. These payments are enshrined in Palestinian law and have consumed hundreds of millions of dollars, including foreign aid, to reward acts of terrorism. This isn’t social welfare—it’s incentivized murder. Hamas goes further, openly embracing violence as a core strategy and executing the mass atrocities of October 7, which included the deliberate targeting and torture of civilians. Together, these policies do more than violate international humanitarian norms—they sever any claim to lawful statehood. No polity that uses terrorism as a political tool, codifies it into law, or glorifies it as national identity can meet the threshold of a legitimate sovereign actor under the UN Charter or the binding principles of jus cogens. Statehood requires more than victimhood; it demands adherence to the most basic standards of international law.

Just as Germany was not allowed to rebuild under Nazi ideology, and ISIS was denied any path to statehood despite its de facto control of territory, so too must the world reject the idea that October 7 can become a Palestinian Independence Day. Statehood must be built on peace, legitimacy, and law—not on atrocity.

4. International Precedents and Recognition Criteria
Recognition as a state is not a right—it is a consequence of meeting objective legal thresholds. Entities like Kosovo or South Sudan only achieved widespread recognition after meeting internal governance benchmarks and securing international agreements. In contrast, the Palestinian national project has repeatedly refused to renounce terrorism, dismantle militant factions, or engage in sustained negotiations without preconditions. Recognition without reform would reward intransigence and undermine the integrity of international legal standards.

Palestinian self-determination may remain a legitimate aspiration. But sovereignty comes with responsibilities, not just rights. Until Palestinian leadership unifies under a legitimate government, renounces terrorism in both word and deed, and agrees to defined borders through negotiation—not violence—it cannot be granted the legal status of a state. To do so would set a dangerous precedent: that a fractured, terror-abetting entity can bypass law and diplomacy to claim statehood through bloodshed. That must never become acceptable under the international order.

Ruthie Blum: No, Trump isn’t about to recognize a Palestinian state

Naturally, a flurry of panic or glee ensued, depending on the views of those highlighting the “scoop.” Yet all one had to do was peruse the article to realize that there’s “no there there.”

It isn’t until the fifth paragraph that the author, Ali Hussain, mentions the controversial topic. The passage, which opens with a question in bold letters (“Will Donald Trump recognize a Palestinian state?”), reads as follows:

“A Gulf diplomatic source, who declined to be named or disclose his position, told The Media Line, ‘President Donald Trump will issue a declaration regarding the State of Palestine and American recognition of it, and that there will be the establishment of a Palestinian state without the presence of Hamas.’

“The source also added, ‘If an announcement of American recognition of the State of Palestine is made, it will be the most important declaration that will change the balance of power in the Middle East, and more countries will join the Abraham Accords.’”

An anonymous source from an unnamed country surmising about something that hasn’t happened isn’t news. Nor does Hussain claim that it is.

In fact, he goes on to cite others—on the record—refuting the above. One is U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who “denied the statements made by this source on X/Twitter Saturday afternoon, saying that Israel has no better friend than the U.S.”

Another is former Gulf diplomat Ahmed Al-Ibrahim, who “told The Media Line, ‘I don’t expect it to be about Palestine. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and King Abdullah II of Jordan have not been invited. They are the two countries closest to Palestine, and it would be important for them to be present at any event like this.’”

It would behoove i24News to issue an apology for instigating a phony brouhaha, based either on indolence or political slant. Meanwhile, viewers of both sides of the spectrum would do well to pause before jumping to conclusions based on hot air.

A case in point is a post that’s been circulating on X about a response to the report by White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.

The tweet claims she said, “Contrary to the lies being spread, there will be no recognition of a Palestinian state at all.”

Nice. As it happens, however, a search for such a comment in this context comes up empty.

Competing for clickbait may be hard to avoid in the current climate. Credibility, on the other hand, is a more valuable commodity in the long run.

ICC Set Plan to Charge Netanyahu Just After Prosecutor Was Accused of Sexual Assault

The incident is one of multiple allegations of coerced sexual intercourse that the woman has made against Khan, according to documents, her testimony and officials familiar with the allegations. The woman, who is married and has a child, alleges Khan performed nonconsensual sex acts with her on missions to New York, Colombia, Congo, Chad and Paris. Khan also did so multiple times at a residence owned by his wife where he stayed in The Hague, the headquarters of the ICC, according to her testimony.

Khan, through his lawyers, said it was “categorically untrue that he has engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind.”

The woman, a lawyer from Malaysia, stayed at the job because she didn’t want to leave one of the most important offices in human-rights law and worried she wouldn’t be able to pay the medical bills of her mother, who was dying of cancer, according to her testimony and ICC officials. She also came to fear retaliation from Khan, according to interviews with current and former ICC officials.

The accusations facing Khan have become entwined with the international conflict over Gaza. Just 2½ weeks after Khan learned of the allegations against him last spring, he surprised Israeli and U.S. officials by announcing the most dramatic arrest warrant in the court’s history—for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It was the first time in the ICC’s history that the court’s prosecutor sought a warrant for a Western-aligned democratically elected leader, a move the U.S. had been working to avert for months.

The timing of the announcement has spurred questions about whether Khan was aiming to protect himself from the sexual-assault allegations. The day before announcing the warrant application, Khan abruptly canceled a trip to Israel and Gaza that he had previously said was important to make his decision.

Khan denied that the prosecutor’s decision on the Israeli warrants had any link to the sexual-assault allegations, according to his lawyers.

The warrant shored up support for Khan among anti-Israel ICC nations that would likely back Khan if the allegations ever became public, according to court officials. The warrant also discouraged his accuser for a time from pushing her allegations, officials said, because she strongly supported the investigation of Israeli leaders.

As the abuse allegations were swirling among ICC staff and others, Khan allegedly tried to get his accuser to disavow them by telling her the charges would hurt the Palestinian investigation, according to her testimony.

The casualties of the allegations would include “the justice of the victims that are on the cusp of progress,” he said to her, according to a record of a call that is now part of an independent U.N. investigation into her allegations. “Think about the Palestinian arrest warrants,” she said he told her on another occasion, according to the testimony.

The U.N. is also investigating whether Khan attempted to intimidate or retaliate against the woman and other officials who reported his alleged misconduct, according to ICC officials. A report from the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services to the ICC’s board is expected in coming months. Any action to remove Khan would require the majority vote of the court’s 125 member nations.

Further complicating the episode is the tenuous authority of the ICC itself. The world’s most powerful and populous nations—including the U.S., India, Russia and China—aren’t members of the ICC and at times clash with the court. Israel isn’t a member either. The Trump administration sanctioned Khan and the ICC in February for issuing the arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

Sorry, @NYTimes, but "tikkun olam" is NOT a "central concept of Judaism"

The New York Times says:

Lee Zeldin, the first Jewish administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, on Thursday affixed a mezuza — a parchment scroll inscribed with Jewish prayers, encased in a small rectangular case — to the door frame of his wood-paneled executive office at the agency’s headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

...Many Jewish religious leaders praised Mr. Zeldin for publicly celebrating his identity. But for Jewish environmental activists, the reflection was on something different: Mr. Zeldin’s role in weakening rules designed to limit pollution and global warming.

The obligation to repair the world, or tikkun olam, is a central concept of Judaism. But in his position as leader of the E.P.A., Mr. Zeldin is overseeing a profound overhaul of the agency.

"Tikkun Olam" is not a central concept in Judaism. And the concept of tikkun olam that exists - not in the Torah but in the Talmud and Kabbalah - has nothing to do with environmental or social justice issues.

It is a term hijacked by social justice advocates who happen to be Jewish.

Judaism has nothing against environmentalism. There are plenty of Torah passages about protecting trees and the safeguard the Earth. It is too soon to tell whether the EPA under Zeldin is helping or hurting the environment.

But what I can say is that the EPA had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to things that have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with "social justice." It has sent tens of millions to groups that are anti-Zionist, anti-American and pro-Hamas.

This money, as well as EPA money for DEI, is hurting Jews. For Jews to complain about the "tikkun olam" part and ignore how money is being spent to attack their own people is not moral - it is perverted.

The people who are aghast at Zeldin putting up a mezuzah on his office door are the ones that support his agency giving money to those that want to destroy Israel and America. If there are any Jewish hypocrites in this story, it is they, not Zeldin.

Not that the New York Times would report on that.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Reuters reported last week:

European leaders and aid groups have criticised Israeli plans to take over distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza and use private companies to get food to families after two months in which the military has prevented supplies entering the Strip.
...
U.N. agencies, aid groups and European leaders condemned Israel's plans, calling for the aid blockade to be lifted and for supplies to be distributed by humanitarian organisations that are not party to the conflict.

The UN and others have insisted that Gaza has remained occupied by Israel even after its withdrawal twenty years ago. But if they really believe that Gaza is occupied, then they have to agree that Israel - the occupying power - can provide aid to Gaza in whatever way it deems necessary.

This is what the Geneva Conventions say. Article 55:

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Israel is the party primarily responsible to ensure the aid gets in. The UN and NGOs refusal to cooperate shows that they never really believed that Israel occupies Gaza.

Now Israel is proposing that areas in Gaza would be (re-)occupied, and if that happens, Israel does indeed have the responsibility to provide aid as long as it is not used to help Hamas (Article 23).

And even if Israel is occupying Gaza, it has every right to put conditions on the aid distribution. Commentary to Article 59:

The institution of measures for verifying and regulating the consignments follows logically from the foregoing provisions. Since the free passage of relief consignments represents an important exception to the measures enforcing the blockade, it is only right that the blockade authorities should have an opportunity of assuring themselves that the facilities granted are used only for strictly humanitarian purposes.

The State granting free passage to consignments can check them in order to satisfy itself that they do in fact consist of relief supplies and do not contain weapons, munitions, military equipment or other articles or supplies used for military purposes.

Their passage is regulated according to prescribed times and routes in such a way as to avoid hampering military operations and to conform to the maximum extent with security requirements.

When the UN says Israel cannot provide its own mechanism for providing aid, they are saying that Israel is not occupying Gaza.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

05/10 Links: A demilitarized Palestinian state is a dangerous illusion; Douglas Murray: 'Canada has disgraced itself'; A new low for the Pulitzer Prize; Why the Kashmir Crisis Matters to Us

From Ian:

A demilitarized Palestinian state is a dangerous illusion

WHAT DOES all of this ultimately mean for any Palestinian demilitarization “remedy” and Israel’s national security? Prima facie, the Arab world and Iran still have only a “one-state solution” for the Middle East. This “solution” eliminates Israel altogether. Unassailably, it is a “final solution.” Even today, official maps of “Palestine” show a new jihadi state comprising all of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), all of Gaza and all of the State of Israel.

Back on September 1, 1993, Yasser Arafat affirmed that the Oslo Accords would remain an integral part of the PLO’s 1974 Phased Plan for Israel’s destruction: “The agreement will be a basis for an independent Palestinian State, in accordance with the Palestinian National Council Resolution issued in 1974.” This PNC Resolution calls for “the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or is liberated.”

Later, on May 29, 1994, Rashid Abu Shbak, then senior PA security official, remarked straightforwardly: “The light which has shone over Gaza and Jericho will also reach the Negev and the Galilee.”

Since these early declarations, nothing has changed in authoritative Palestinian definitions of Israel and “Palestine.” This is true for the leadership of both Hamas and the PA. It makes no tangible difference whether one jihadi terror group or another is in power. Both would intend a State of Palestine that is irredentist and violence-centered. To be sure, the egregious crimes of October 7, 2023, would remain a proud symbol of Palestinian “self-determination.”

Those who would still consider accepting Palestinian statehood in some form should recall the following: The Islamic world contains 50 states with more than one billion people. Islamic states comprise an area 672 times the size of Israel. Israel, together with Judea/Samaria, is less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California. The Sinai Desert, transferred by Israel to Egypt in the 1979 Treaty, is three times larger than the State of Israel. Israel is less than half the size of Lake Michigan.

There is one last noteworthy point. The many-sided threat of Palestinian statehood is part of a much larger and more portentous enemy threat.

This suggests, ipso facto, that any crime-based jihadi state would become a significant “force-multiplier” for Israel’s adversaries, both state and sub-state. In a worst-case but fully realistic scenario, the creation of “Palestine” would heighten the probability of a mass-casualty international war in the region. At some not-too-distant point in time, this could mean a no-holds-barred, unconventional conflict.

Why the Kashmir Crisis Matters to Us

The free world has more to lose than China does if the war goes nuclear. India has no interest in becoming America’s sidekick, but its independence and well-being are more important to America than Pakistan’s is to China. A nuclear war would be a humanitarian catastrophe, break another set of international taboos, and significantly set back the effort to keep Asia free from Chinese domination.

A war would also give China invaluable information about its arsenal. Pakistan has nearly 200 Chinese-made fighter jets, and India has dozens of French ones. China had no hard data about how its jets stack up against the competition, but one of them has already reportedly shot down one of India’s French fighters. During the Cold War, Israel’s military repeatedly faced off against Soviet-supplied Arab armies, which helped Washington learn how to defend itself and its allies from the U.S.S.R. China will reap similar benefits.

In an ideal world, New Delhi would punish Pakistan into ceasing its support for terror without triggering a nuclear war. This will be hard to pull off. As of this writing, Pakistan seems eager to match India blow-for-blow.

This is not a fight that the U.S. military should enter, but Washington still has options to stop a war. Pakistan’s military—which essentially runs the country behind a token civilian government—is wary of becoming a Chinese vassal. During the Cold War and the war in Afghanistan, Washington’s aid and equipment gave Pakistan some freedom for maneuver. But Pakistan allegedly supported the Taliban, and American forces found Osama bin Laden living close to a Pakistani military academy. Offering inducements does not seem wise.

But threatening to cut off its other choices might. Pakistan owes $20 billion to the World Bank and is counting on receiving another $40 billion over the next decade, which depends on Washington’s good will. The Gulf Arabs have also propped up Islamabad, and if they use that leverage, Islamabad will have to choose between deescalating and becoming a Chinese satrapy.

This will be a hard sell to the Gulf Arabs, however. For decades, rumors have floated about a secret deal for Pakistan to give Riyadh nuclear weapons when requested. If true, Riyadh will not be eager to give up on Pakistan.

Unless the United States can offer something better—like security guarantees.

05/09 Links Pt2: Probe the foreign influence behind these terror-loving, anti-Jew college agitators; Israel’s fight for civilisation; The willing executioners of today’s anti-Israel hatred

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: Probe the foreign influence behind these terror-loving, anti-Jew college agitators

Of course there are a number of things that need to be not just said but done to stop the spread of this unadulterated evil.

The first is for the Trump administration to act on its promises and cut off all federal funding from universities which allow terrorist movements to seize hold of campus.

There is nothing ground-up about any of this. All of the rhetoric and materials that these terrorist-supporters engage in is a pure import.

What American student, born and raised here, thinks that the terrorists of October 7th are “martyrs”? Let alone “our” martyrs. Who do these students think that “we” are? Is it an act of “liberation” to injure and hospitalize staff on campus who are just doing their job? Is this really a way to express sympathy with a cause and get people onto your side?

The second thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that the US government should order a swift and deep inquiry into the way in which foreign funding is being used to subvert American institutions, especially institutions of higher learning.

If they carry out such an investigation they will find, among much else, the billions of dollars of Qatari money that have been pumped into American universities in recent years. As well as having one of the largest lobbying organizations in the US, the Qataris have in recent years also used their vast oil wealth to try to subvert American institutions and buy off American politicians.

It is one of the greatest scandals of our age, that a oil-rich slave-state like Qatar, which not just funds but hosts Hamas, is able to have its talons into the heart of some of America’s most venerable institutions.

What is going on? How long does this country want to be up for sale to such terrorists and terrorist-supporters?

On Monday, it was protestors at the University of Washington who rampaged through their campus, smashing up the campus and literally starting fires. They are estimated to have caused over $1 million of damage. Let’s see if they are made to pay for it. In every way.

But as I watched the scenes from our own city this week one thing stood out in particular. That was an identifiably Jewish student, wearing a kippah, watching as the new KKK barricaded the doors of the library he was trying to study in.

If this had been a lone black student having to face down a mob of people celebrating the lynching of black Americans I would imagine there would be a swift and harsh response from across every part of this country — and rightly so.

I would expect every person of good will to ask how this had happened here, who was pushing this filth and how every arm of the state could go about stopping it.

So it is — or should be — now. The new Klan has got away with their violence for far too long. To adopt some language they would understand, “It is time to shut this s–t down.”

Israel’s fight for civilisation

Douglas Murray’s On Democracies and Death Cults is a vital account of 7 October and its aftermath.

The anti-Israel bias of the international coverage of the conflict provides Murray with another large target. He notes how the media routinely create a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel – Hamas has killed women and children in Israel, and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have killed women and children in Gaza, therefore the two are both equally reprehensible morally, the argument goes. Ignored is the fact Hamas kills its victims deliberately, while the IDF is countering fighters who use civilians as human shields. Hamas also views every civilian death as a propaganda win.

Further dismantling the myth of the ‘moral equivalence’, Murray cites the significant steps taken by the IDF to minimise civilian casualties. Israel sends texts, calls and leaflets, warning Gazans of when and where to expect military operations. But Hamas does not let those in danger flee. Murray cites respected US war scholar John Spencer, who states that the ratio of civilian-to-enemy-combatant casualties is the lowest in the history of urban warfare. To claim Israel and Hamas are somehow equal recalls William F Buckley’s famous line:
‘That is like saying that the man who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus is morally equivalent to the man who pushes her out of its path, because they both push little old ladies around.’

Reading On Democracies and Death Cults, one gets the impression that Murray is troubled by one question more than any other: can we ever expect to defeat these Islamist death cults like Hamas? He finds hope in the bravery of the Israeli people and one of the most important commandments in Judaism – to choose life.

One criticism I have of the book is that the editing seems rushed. Often, Murray goes back and forth to make his points. Better organised chapters would have made for a tighter book that’s easier to read. It is nearly 200 pages, yet divided into only five chapters, each containing long passages lacking transition.

None of this ultimately detracts from Murray’s compelling narrative. Along with spiked’s Brendan O’Neill, he is one of the two best writers in the English language about this conflict. As Murray writes, history is constantly being rewritten and that’s why this book is so important. In writing it, Murray has done the cause of democracy, and the victims of one of our century’s most unforgivable crimes, an important service.

One podcast, two guests, multiple conversations

It was during their exchange, as I became more and more frustrated at Spencer’s inability to dismantle Smith’s arguments, that I realized what had been bothering me from the interview on the Rogan’s show. During both interviews, Smith was arguing about the morality of war and was using Israel as a case study with which to bash war.

Meanwhile, Murray and Spencer were arguing about the legality of war. Two completely different topics, and this hit me as I watched Smith getting increasingly exasperated with Spencer, who kept going back to the laws of war and to a lesser degree, the history of war.

Smith wants to exist in the world of vague, idealistic theories about whether war is moral or not. This, let’s be honest, is nearly impossible to argue against. Most people would agree that war probably is not the most moral thing in the most literal meaning of the term, but whether we believe war is moral or not, it exists. War always has been, and unless human beings fundamentally change their DNA, war always will be.

So, instead of arguing whether it is moral to make war, civilizations need to create boundaries within which wars can be fought, hence the internationally agreed upon laws of war. Smith didn’t want to debate whether Israel’s actions in Gaza were legal or illegal; he just wanted to argue that they are immoral. This is a conclusion people draw if they remove facts and law from their equation. If war is immoral because civilians die, then yes, Israel’s actions would be considered immoral.

However, if Smith were to step down from his moral high horse—from where he observes the world and casts his net of moral utopianism onto a world that is not a utopia—he might realize a few things. He might realize that war is horrible and that when wars are fought, innocent civilians die. He might realize that in the prosecution of war, some actors do all they can to reduce the loss of innocent life, while there are other actors whose very strategy in war is to maximize the loss of innocent life. They, of course, do this so they can use that carnage as a weapon against their adversary as well, which is what is happening in Gaza today.

Smith might also realize that if the loss of innocent life were so important to avoid, then the actors, in this case Hamas, should not start a war and then fight it from behind or beneath innocent civilians. Israel, I might add, does the opposite; it puts the lives of its soldiers on the line to protect the lives of people in Gaza, and this has cost Israel dearly.

It’s time for Smith to take his head out of the clouds, plant his feet back on terra firma and understand that wars are never fought in sterile environments, devoid of civilians, where all combatants observe the same rules or follow the same laws. If they were, we would not be having this conversation.

One final thing: Israel did not want this war and did not start this war. But morally speaking, we must acknowledge that Israel has a moral obligation to its citizens to prosecute this war to its conclusion. To do anything less would be immoral and a violation of the government’s duty to protect its people.

If Hamas laid down its arms tomorrow and returned the hostages, the war would end. If Israel laid down its arms … well, then maybe Smith would be sitting with Rogan talking about how sickened he is by all the dead Jews, but, then again, maybe he wouldn’t.