Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, May 23, 2025

Murder by Philosophy: The Peril of Revolutionary Ethics

I read the manifesto of Elias Rodriguez, and was struck that he had a fairly consistent philosophy. Not being an expert (yet) on philosophy, I asked AI to tell me which philosophical framework he held, and the most consistent one was the Revolutionary Ethics ideas of Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara.

Briefly, this philosophy says that violence is a "moral" response to oppression, especially colonialism. It holds that violence against oppressors (or their agents) is necessary to dismantle unjust systems and restore dignity to the oppressed.

In short, if you are oppressed, you have a license to murder (within limits.)

Rodriguez extended that philosophy to saying that anyone who identifies with the oppressed - like himself - also has the right, and possibly the responsibility, to murder those deemed to be oppressors.

Going even beyond that, prominent Palestinian writer Susan Abulhawa espoused her own philosophy in a tweet justifying murdering Jews:

Natural logic: when governments fail to hold Israel accountable for an actual holocaust being committed before our very eyes, no genocidal Zionist should be safe anywhere in the world. What Mr. Rodriguez did should come as no surprise. In fact, I’m surprised it has not happened sooner. Human beings with a conscience literally cannot bear to witness such evil day and day out being inflicted upon the bodies, minds, and futures of an utterly defenseless people, by such a hateful, racist, colonial state.

For this "human rights activist," not only employees of the Israeli government but indeed all Zionists should be targeted with death.

This is still a philosophy. The idea would not be derided in academia - it would be respected, as Fanon's ethics are. Fanon himself is a kind of superstar in many academic circles.

Having ethics has nothing to do with being a moral person. Ethical systems are internally consistent frameworks for evaluating right and wrong. Too many academics seem to confuse logical coherence - which is what they prize most of all - over whether the philosophy itself is moral. Instead of doing what philosophers are supposed to do, to use their minds to determine how people should act, they are too often dazzled by intellectual edifices that hold up ideas that are utterly immoral. An ethical system can be perfectly consistent - and utterly evil.

In the project I've been working on, I use antisemitism as an easy metric to determine if a philosophy is moral or not - if it accepts or encourages hating Jews, then it is by definition immoral. The fatal flaw with how Fanon is taught is assuming that Israel is a colonialist state, ignoring Jewish indigeneity to the region. If the system allows anyone to define "colonialism" in ways beyond the actual meaning of the word, it can be twisted to attack Jews who support returning to the lands of their ancestors that they yearned for over two millennia, which is as anti-colonialist as can be imagined.

People who cheer murdering Jews and Israelis swear that they are moral people. They have an intellectual framework that justifies targeting a young couple outside a Jewish museum. But these people are not moral.

If philosophy treats the ethics of "revolution" as being on par with, say, Christian ethics or Kantian deontology, then it has failed in its main purpose of discerning right and wrong through critical inquiry. Instead of taking a stand against using coherent frameworks to justify violence, too many philosophy majors appear dazzled by the elegance of a well-crafted theory to the detriment of any real analysis of what is moral - and the value of human life.

As we saw on Wednesday night, creating these theories is not merely an academic exercise. It has real world consequences. Elias Rodriguez is an intelligent person who likely has never even been exposed to any serious criticism of the theories he espouses. When revolutionary or reductionist systems gain academic respectability, they trickle into activism, politics, and even state policy - potentially affecting millions of lives.

It is not only a crime of commission, of elevating malign ideas as ethical. It is also a crime of omission, because Jewish ethics - time tested, flexible, robust, and checking all the boxes of a successful moral and philosophical framework - are largely ignored in philosophy departments. Maimonides and Samson Raphael Hirsch and Joseph Soloveitchik, if taught, are relegated to "Jewish studies."

Fanon’s ideas are venerated. Jewish ethics is relegated. Why? Because Fanon is seen as ‘novel,’ and Jewish ethics is ‘old’ - as if wisdom is a flaw and novelty is virtue. Which means the people who lean on their philosophical studies when they make political or editorial decisions will tend to have more respect for Che Guevara's ideas than those of Pirkei Avot.

Philosophy matters. When it fails, people die. When it ignores centuries of lived moral wisdom in favor of the latest theory that justifies hate, it fails not only as scholarship, but as a guide for humanity.

If university philosophy departments are are serious about teaching morality, they need to revisit the proven frameworks that have sustained communities for thousands of years, and stop dignifying every murderous abstraction as a worthy ‘philosophy.’ The world can’t afford more Rodriguez manifestos.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

05/22 Links Pt2: Zionism is not hate, but hope fulfilled; The Rhetoric of Hamas and Abbas on Israel Is Identical; Trump admin revokes Harvard’s student visas

From Ian:

Zionism is not hate, but hope fulfilled

Zionism, we are told by its critics, is a colonial project. But how can a people be colonisers when they have no other homeland? The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is not a product of the 20th century. It is a 3,000-year-old relationship embedded in our scriptures, our liturgy, our language, and our identity.

To suggest otherwise is not simply to misunderstand Jewish history – it is to falsify it. And when that falsehood is circulated by those in positions of influence, it does profound harm. It legitimises the marginalisation of Jews who dare to stand up for their people’s right to exist in dignity and peace. It emboldens those who would like to see the only Jewish state in the world wiped off the map. And, as we have seen once again so tragically this week, it bleeds seamlessly into antisemitism and violence.

The murders in Washington DC were devastating but not surprising. For so long we have seen synagogues defaced, Jewish students harassed, and businesses or organisations with even the most tenuous links to Judaism or Israel vandalised. Not because of anything they have done, but because of what they are presumed to represent. Because of “Zionism”.

The irony, of course, is that Zionism is one of the most remarkable movements for liberation in modern history. In just a few generations, it transformed a traumatised, exiled people into a thriving democracy. It created a home for refugees from over 100 countries and offered sanctuary to Holocaust survivors and victims of persecution from Iraq to Ethiopia, and from Russia to Yemen.

As Israel’s Declaration of Independence makes clear, Zionism has always had peace at the core of its national aspiration. To appropriate the tragedy of a war in order to portray it as a malevolent force – as a synonym for racism or supremacy – is not criticism. It is demonisation. It is a deliberate inversion of truth that seeks to rob Jews of their right to speak and act for themselves.

Zionism is not hate, but hope. It is the hope of a people scattered to the winds and returned to their roots. It is the hope of parents raising their children in a land their ancestors only dreamed of seeing. It is the hope of a refugee stepping off a plane and hearing their own language sung in the streets. It is the hope of a nation that, despite all it has endured, still clings to the belief that one day, peace might yet be possible.

That is Zionism. And it is a story worth telling – not through the distorted lens of its detractors, but through the direct and personal experiences and aspirations of those of us who call it our own.

Most people will not give a second thought to the ease with which a high-profile BBC presenter, with no apparent understanding of Jewish identity, would so readily amplify a video which demonises such a fundamental aspect of it. But it could not be clearer that the consequences of that demonising narrative are truly dangerous.

We must do better. We cannot allow the enemies of Zionism to define it. For to surrender that ground is to surrender not only the truth, but the dignity and safety of a people whose greatest aspiration is that one day, Israel – the indigenous and historic homeland of the Jewish People – can exist securely and freely, in peace with its neighbours and the wider region as an equal member of the family of nations.

Seth Mandel: Walk a Few Miles in An Israeli’s Shoes

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has ordered its diplomats around the world to refrain from participating in public events until further notice, according to a leading Israeli broadcaster. The cautionary note comes after last night’s murder of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington outside the Capital Jewish Museum.

These are, of course, government officials with government-level security. I don’t think most people have the faintest idea of what it’s like for Israelis traveling abroad these days on their own. So here’s a peek at the experience of being an Israeli in the world, via a few stories that demonstrate the point.

Earlier this month, an Israeli tourist attempted to book a hotel stay in the popular Norwegian destination town of Geiranger. The would-be traveler received the following response from the hotel:
“The Norwegian Labor Organization (LO) will soon enforce a boycott that will affect Israeli tourists and Israeli goods due to the catastrophic situation in Gaza. We need to inform you that our staff is organized in LO unions, and they will not break the boycott. I will need to consult with the employers’ organization as I see this as a force majeure situation.”

Force majeure refers to the way unforeseen events can be excluded from normal liability obligations. It seems the hotel could not possibly have expected an Israeli traveler and believes its trade union will be enforcing a boycott against not just Israeli companies and products but people.

Put simply: We don’t serve your kind here.

"Israel Is Only Country that Could Be Attacked on Seven Fronts and Described as the Aggressor"

After Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand last week described Israel's post-Oct. 7 war on Hamas as "aggression," IDF Lt.-Col. Nadav Shoshani said Sunday that Israel works hard to limit civilian deaths, often issuing warnings beforehand so they can get out of harm's way.

"Israel is the only country in the world that could be attacked on seven fronts and described as being the aggressor."

Shoshani said he had "a lot of respect for Canada," but said Hamas started the war and could end it by laying down their weapons and releasing the hostages.

"We're doing everything we can to fight a terrorist organization and we're not going to fight it in a non-aggressive way."

"We're differentiating and targeting terrorists who have said they want to kill us, kill my family. We have to act against these terrorists to make sure they can't do that."

05/22 Links Pt1: The pogrom comes to Washington; Blood Libels Lead to Bloodshed; This is what 'globalize the intifada' looks like

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The pogrom comes to Washington

Two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in the prime of their lives. Young lovers shot to death for the ‘crime’ of taking pride in Jewish heritage. He had bought a ring and was planning to propose to her next week in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people’s homeland. We need to speak frankly about the vile slaying of Sarah Lynn Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky in Washington, DC last night. It was, in President Trump’s words, ‘obviously based on anti-Semitism’. It was an act of racist savagery that speaks to the anti-civilisational delirium that pumps in the veins of Israelophobia. It was the pogrom come to Washington.

Ms Milgrim and Mr Lischinsky were staff members at the Israeli Embassy in DC. Last night, they were shot dead as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. It was a cocktail-fuelled reception for ‘young diplomats’ aimed at ‘fostering unity and celebrating Jewish heritage’. The suspect in this sick crime was reportedly wearing a keffiyeh. ‘Free Palestine’, he hollered as he allegedly put bullets into the embassy staffers. ‘Globalise the intifada’, the drones of the Israelophobic mob have been shouting since Hamas’s pogrom of 7 October 2023. Well, here it is, being globalised: Hamas-style savagery in the beating heart of the Western world.

America’s politicians are not mincing their words. This was a ‘deadly act of anti-Semitic violence’, says Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives. It’s hard to see what else it could be. If you lurk with a gun outside an event at a Jewish museum devoted to celebrating Jewish heritage, and callously butcher those who come out, it’s pretty clear what your motives are. That the suspect was allegedly wearing a keffiyeh and yelling about Gaza is not surprising: Jew hate comes gussied up in the Palestine colours these days. The fascist imagination disguises itself in faux-progressive talk about Palestine.

We await more information about the suspect. It remains to be seen if he worked alone or with others. So far as we know, one man bears responsibility for this savage act: the person who pulled the trigger. But it would be wrong, catastrophic in fact, to overlook the context in which this crime against the Jewish people unfolded. We cannot close our ears to the mood music in our societies – the screeching surround sound, in fact – that at the very least makes outrages like this one that bit more likely. We are living through the most ruthless, most relentless demonisation of the Jewish State in the entire 77 years of its existence. And it is hard to see last night’s double slaughter as anything other than the militarisation of that fashionable spite, the armed wing of a loathing for Israel that long ago crossed the line from political critique into neo-medieval hysteria.

Melanie Phillips: Blood on their hands

The United Nations is the world’s principal engine of these falsehoods and distortions. It routinely pumps out Hamas statistics that turn out to have no basis in reality; it both draws upon and feeds in turn the malevolent untruths issued by bodies such as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the big NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

The consequences of this behavior go far beyond harming the State of Israel to put every Jew at risk and to trap the West inside a sinister mindset that undermines civilization itself.

As has often been noted, the reason liberals hate Israel is because they think that Zionism is a colonialist ideology and that Israel oppresses the indigenous people of the land.

Israel, where the indigenous people are, in fact, the Jews, is actually the historic victim and current target of Arab colonialism, and Zionism is the ultimate decolonization movement. Nevertheless, Israel is deemed to be colonialist and white. That’s because it’s thought of as a Western nation and is therefore inescapably mired in the West’s original sins of colonialism, racism and whiteness, even though the majority of Jews have moved there from other Middle Eastern countries that they were forced to leave and are dark-skinned.

It’s an article of progressive faith that the Western nation is the source of division, oppression and war. Its institutions and laws should therefore be trumped by transnational institutions such as the United Nations and international courts that represent the world, and are thus assumed to possess a moral legitimacy that the Western nation lacks.

Given these institutions’ appalling attitudes towards Israel and Zionism, however, this has helped drive the West off its moral compass.

Moreover, since Zionism is the self-determination of the Jewish people in their historic homeland of Israel, and since Judaism fuses the religion with the people and the land, anti-Zionism is unarguably anti-Judaism.

But there’s even worse.

To those who believe that Israel is a colonialist occupier that’s driven out the rightful inhabitants of the land and that it’s committing war crimes in Gaza, it follows that Israel and Zionism are evil. So, too, therefore, are those Jews who support Israel and Zionism.

If something or someone is evil, it’s not only permissible to loathe, detest and try to destroy them. It’s a moral obligation to do so. If Israel, Zionism and the Jews are evil, then it’s a moral obligation to loathe, detest and try to destroy them.

To the Western liberal, for whom Zionism is racism and Israel starves babies to death, antisemitism is therefore not just the shield behind which the Jews sanitize Israel’s crimes. It’s no longer a uniquely murderous and deranged creed that all people of conscience must oppose. Horrifyingly, for the Western liberal, antisemitism has become a moral obligation.

We’ve gone through the looking-glass into a nightmarish landscape where evil is being embraced as virtue. The shocking murders in Washington, D.C., are the result.

From the French revolutionary terror in the 18th century through the mind control of communism to the tyranny of fascism, a desire to bring about the perfection of the world has led instead to tyranny and mass slaughter. Today, Western liberals have become the accomplices of Islamo-Nazism through their own misguided fantasies about the brotherhood of man.

So it has come to pass that the global humanitarian establishment of transnational institutions and human-rights law that was established after the defeat of Nazism to ensure that such a terrible evil should never arise again, has itself become a monstrous force inciting the conditions for a second Holocaust.

Seth Mandel: Extinguish the Gaslight Forever

No one ever shouts “Free Palestine” while holding up a copy of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Including Its Annexes and Its Agreed Minutes.

The Oslo accords, as they are better known, are not of much interest to the Palestine movement in the West. When activists in this movement hold maps, they do not look like the one Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas, a detailed illustration of every demand Abbas made that shows Israel and Palestine living side by side.

“Free, free Palestine” were the words shouted last night by the anti-Zionist who was arrested for the murder outside the Capital Jewish Museum of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, a young couple who were about to travel to Jerusalem and get engaged to be married. It is the chosen phrase for a great many people, none of whom—not one—envisions a peaceful outcome to this conflict. Yaron and Sarah were the opposite—budding diplomats with a bone-deep desire for peace and coexistence. There is no room for such people in “free, free Palestine.” They worked for the Israeli embassy, where there is always room for such people.

What we owe ourselves, as a community, after this monstrous act is to stop playing along with the gaslighting of those forever trying to wipe us off the face of the earth. May we stop saying or hearing the endlessly insulting formulation that “many Jews interpret” various Hamasnik slogans as threats or incitement or justification for violence against innocents. They are not ambiguous. We don’t interpret these slogans at all. We simply hear them.

“Globalize the intifada” cannot be “interpreted by some Jews as a call for violence.” It simply is. We do not say that when Elias Rodriguez allegedly pointed a loaded gun at Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, his actions were “interpreted by some Jews as a threat.” When he allegedly squeezed the trigger, it was not “interpreted by some Jews” as murder. What he was doing at that moment was globalizing the intifada, just as he’d been told to do for the better part of two years by everyone with a Ph.D.

We Jews can have granular Talmudic discussions on just about anything. The reason we don’t have such debates over “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is because there’s nothing to discuss. Contrary to what you might read in mainstream newspapers, there is no disagreement over what it means. Everyone knows what it means—it is a slogan explicitly (the original phrasing, changed to rhyme in English, is “Palestine is Arab”) calling for genocide. It’s true that some people lie about what it means, or might mean. But that’s not the same thing as there being a genuine debate.

Eitan Fischberger: Blood Libels Lead to Bloodshed

Sarah Lynn Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were murdered in cold blood this week in Washington, D.C. The young Israeli diplomats — a couple planning to get engaged — were gunned down outside a Jewish museum by a man radicalized by Hamas propaganda.

Their killer, Elias Rodriguez, didn’t flee or hide. He left behind a manifesto — not inspired by ISIS or al-Qaeda, but by Hamas. More specifically, by Hamas propaganda: the kind funneled through its “health ministry,” broadcast by its “information office,” and repeated uncritically by a willing chorus of Western journalists, activists, and NGOs.

Rodriguez cites the now-standard menu of disinformation: 53,000 killed, 10,000 trapped under rubble, an imminent famine, burned corpses of children, and mass death allegedly ignored by the West. Virtually all of these claims originate from Hamas-run institutions, fabricated or grossly exaggerated for shock value. And yet, these lies are repeated endlessly — not just by fringe radicals but by UN officials, Ivy League students, and legacy media outlets.

Just one day before the murders, the a top UN humanitarian official lied that “14,000 babies” were at risk of dying in Gaza within 48 hours — a fabricated statistic that went viral worldwide. The number was baseless, unverified, and retracted under pressure — but not before it had reached billions of people. That’s the information ecosystem we’re living in. Hamas invents it, the UN amplifies it, and the consequences are real.

This isn’t misinformation. It’s incitement.

Israeli Supreme Court Orders Government To Cede Seat On Judge-Selection Committee To Hamas (PreOccupied Teritory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Jerusalem, May 25 - Israel's highest judicial body continued its arrogation of powers today by instructing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to replace his administration's representative on the panel that votes in new justices to that judicial body with one from the Islamist group that controls most of the Gaza Strip, because the group needs representation in choosing candidates to serve on the body that now de facto governs both Israel and Gaza.

The Supreme Court ordered the change today in response to a petition from The Movement for Quality Governance, which pointed out that, given that the Palestinians living under the dictatorial Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip do not have functional representation even in their own government, and that, given the paternalistic, racism-of-low-expectations approach of the ideology governing the Court for the last thirty years, it is only fair to put Hamas on the committee that selects judges for the Supreme Court, which, unlike lower courts, rules on cases affecting Israel's conduct of war and its administration of areas under military control.

Analysts also see the move as a swipe at the Netanyahu government, which attempted in 2023 to overhaul the judicial system to limit the purview of the Supreme Court, which, in the view of many conservatives, had gradually arrogated for itself powers that formally belong to the legislature and the executive. Critics of the Netanyahu reform package saw a threat to the independence of the judiciary. Now the government will have once less voice and vote on the selection committee, which the judicial establishment already controls in effect: the majority of its slots are allotted to protégées of the sitting justices in the Israel Bar Association, or to the justices themselves.

Practical hurdles remain: logistical, legal, procedural, and security issues all stand in the way of implementing the ruling. MQG representatives have already asked the Court for clarification on the requirement that a Hamas delegate sit on the committee, considering those hurdles, and proposed that, at least as a temporary measure, the Bar Association or MQG itself provide the missing delegate, lest the government try to maintain its hold on the committee seat until a suitable Hamas member can be brought in.

Other complications include how the Hamas representative will be selected, given the lack of democratic norms under Hamas rule and in Hamas's own ranks. On that point, the MQG proposal leaves it to the Court's discretion, but suggests selecting from among Hamas personnel already in Israeli custody, if only for convenience.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Elias Rodriguez published a manifesto in his X account before embarking on his murderous rampage.

I see no daylight between his logic and that of the Marxist and other socialist organizations (like Within Our Lifetime, Samidoun, Students for Justice in Palestine) that have dominated the anti-Israel protests.

In other words, all he did was to put their words - like "globalize the intifada" and "by any means necessary" - into action.

An armed action is not necessarily a military action. It usually is not. Usually it is theater and spectacle, a quality it shares with many unarmed actions. ...

A word about the morality of armed demonstration. ...Humanity doesn't exempt one from accountability. The action would have been morally justified taken 11 years ago during Protective Edge, around the time I personally became acutely aware of our brutal conduct in Palestine. But I think to most Americans such an action would have been illegible, would seem insane. I am glad that today at least there are many Americans for which the action will be highly legible and, in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.

There is no daylight between his words and those that are blared out and mindlessly repeated by thousands of people at anti-Israel demonstrations. Most of them don't decide to pick up guns and shoot their ideological enemies, but the constant tsunami of antisemitic incitement had to, inevitably, push some over the edge.

This is not a mentally ill person. This is a sane person who consumed a diet of hate, believed the most absurd anti-Israel accusations (like doubling the death count in Gaza, "tens of thousands now at risk of imminent famine," and that there are 10,000 bodies under the rubble), and acted exactly as the antisemites who promote the propaganda prompted him to act. If all the lies about Israel are true, then acting on them is hardly insane. And in the universe that Rodriguez and thousands of others inhabit, all they can see and believe are the lies.

People who mindlessly repeat the rhyming mantras of "There is only one solution, Intifada revolution!" and "Hey hey, ho ho, Zionists have got to go!" are being taught that killing Zionists/Jews is the moral thing to do. This is how brainwashing works.

And brainwashing works.

This had to happen. And it unfortunately happen again, in no small part due to the performative nature of Rodriguez's act.

While the "progressives" claim to be against murder, they are secretly happy at the prospect of one of their own being given an international forum to spout hate in court.

This was what the leading anti-Israel organizers have been dreaming of. One of their puppets performed their script.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

After Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000, behind the UN-approved "Blue Line," Hezbollah needed to create a fiction that it was still needed to "defend Lebanon." So it claimed that the Shebaa Farms area, which Israel captured in 1967 from Syria, was really Lebanese territory and therefore Israel was occupying Lebanese lands even after the withdrawal.

As far as I can tell, the Lebanese never claimed this land before 2000.

Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime tacitly supported Hezbollah's claim although it never officially conceded that the land was Lebanese.

There are other disputed areas on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The new Syrian regime has signaled that it wants good relations with Lebanon, and while this is not a priority, that could include resolving the disputes over the border between the two countries.

The international community is very interested in a resolution to this issue as it would ease Syria's being welcomed back as a legitimate state, which everyone seems to want despite the Islamist background of the new regime.

If the border puts the Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border, that takes away one final piece of Hezbollah's pretense of defending Lebanon from Israeli aggression - which is its entire stated reason for existence.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

PA president Mahmoud Abbas is in Lebanon this week, and most of the coverage has been about his supporting of the Palestinian factions in the camps to disarm.

But Abbas and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun signed a joint statement that covered how Lebanon should treat its Palestinian "guests."

Regarding the status of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon:

1. The two sides affirm their commitment to the right of return of Palestinian refugees to the homes from which they were displaced, in accordance with UN Resolution 194, and their rejection of all settlement and displacement projects.

2. The two sides stress the importance of continuing to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and continuing to provide its services to Palestinian refugees, while working to increase its financial resources to enable it to fulfill its obligations.

3. The two sides agree to form a joint Lebanese-Palestinian committee to monitor the situation in Palestinian camps in Lebanon and work to improve the living and humanitarian conditions of refugees, while respecting Lebanese sovereignty and adhering to Lebanese laws.

4. The two sides affirm their commitment to providing the human, social, and economic rights of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, ensuring a dignified life for them without prejudice to their right of return or affecting their national identity.

The reference to Lebanese laws means that Palestinians in Lebanon will continue to be barred from many professions, that they cannot own land, they cannot easily access Lebanese health services, they cannot attend Lebanese public schools and universities, and they are not eligible for citizenship no matter how many generations they have lived in Lebanon.

Once again, Abbas that thrown the Lebanese Palestinians under the bus in the name of maintaining their "right of return" and "maintaining their national identity."

However, one has nothing to do with the other. The Palestinians in Lebanon overwhelmingly want to become full citizens but they also claim to want to maintain their "national identity" and "right to return." There is no contradiction. And one person who has said that was - Mahmoud Abbas himself, in 2005.

DUBAI, 12 July 2005 — Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told Arab countries hosting Palestinian refugees to give them citizenship, insisting such a move would not compromise their right of return.

“I call upon every Arab government wishing to give citizenship (to Palestinian refugees) to do so. What is wrong with that?” he said in an interview with Dubai Television late Sunday.

But the Palestinian Authority president insisted that obtaining citizenship in a host-country should not compromise the right to return to their homeland of which many Palestinian refugees dream.

“This does not mean resettlement (of refugees). A Palestinian would return to his homeland whenever he is allowed, whether he carried an Arab or non-Arab citizenship,” he said. “A fifth-generation Palestinian living in Chile also wishes to return when allowed ... It is an emotional matter, not related to citizenship,” he added.

The Palestinian leader, who visited Syria and Lebanon last week — both host to hundreds of thousands of refugees, slammed claims that the Arab League had banned naturalization of refugees as “mere excuses”. “There is no decision ... the Arab League only recommended (not to grant citizenship) but this was not a decision,” he said.

He didn't defend that position for long. After condemnations and pressure from Lebanese and Palestinian leaders, by 2008, Abbas said, "We won't accept a settlement that obliges Lebanon to naturalize even one Palestinian."

It didn't take Abbas long to throw his fellow Palestinian Arabs under the bus.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Last night, two Jewish employees of the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram, were murdered by a far-Left activist at an American Jewish Committee reception.

The man who killed two Israeli embassy staff outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in Washington, DC on Wednesday night is an active member of a far-left Marxist, pro-Palestine group called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

30-year-old Chicago native Elias Rodriguez held a red keffiyeh and shouted “Free, free Palestine!” as he was being taken into custody, after shooting Sarah Milgrim and her fiance Yaron Lischinsky.

Rodriguez has been reported in the past as a member of PSL, which just this morning posted an "anti genocide pledge" on its social media.

He holds a BA in English from the University of Illinois, Chicago.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation tried to distance themselves from the murderer.

But, of course, they support his aims.

And they support the idea of glorifying the "intifada" and characterized October 7 as "resistance."

One main talking point by the "progressive" Left to has been that the only physical threat to Jews comes from the Right because only right-wing antisemites tend to shoot Jews.

The events last night prove otherwise.

The "progressive Left" claims that there is no relationship between their slogans like "resistance by any means necessary" and violence.

The events last night prove otherwise.

The progressives claim that the slogan "free, free Palestine" is merely a call for liberation and not for violence.

The events last night prove otherwise.

They can try to distance themselves from the cold blooded murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram, but it is their rhetoric and their incitement that directly caused a man to choose to go to a Jewish event and murder Jews in America in the name of Palestine.

Elias Rodriguez was just doing what he has been brainwashed to do by the very Left that now is scrambling to deny any responsibility for murdering Jews.

He globalized the intifada.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

05/21 Links Pt2: The Politics of Being Israeli; The ugly truth is that ‘pro-Palestinian’ now means antisemitic; ‘Jewish Simpsons’ Holocaust mural defaced in Milan

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Politics of Being Israeli

The war in Gaza was the reason that many Israel-haters called for the Jewish state’s exclusion from the contest in the first place. But the call to judge the performance itself based on the home country’s politics is a funny one. The suggestion is that Raphael’s song didn’t deserve to be rated so highly because she is Israeli. “United by music” indeed.

This isn’t a Eurovision-specific problem. Recently, two very different bands have faced show cancellations in Europe. Comparing their respective “crimes” is instructive.

First there is Kneecap, an Irish rap trio. At Coachella, Kneecap sought to maximize the goodwill of the audience with an anti-Israel backdrop. That succeeded in drawing attention to the group, at which point it was discovered that the trio has in the past encouraged its audience to “kill your local MP”—according to Kneecap, “the only good Tory is a dead Tory”—and turned one concert into an explicit rally of support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Kneecap had a few gigs cancelled by venues after that. The band received a warm rush of support, however, from across the music world. An open letter backing Kneecap and supporting artistic freedom was signed by Paul Weller and dozens of others in the industry. Kneecap, many believed, should be forgiven their incitement to mass murder and their public support for proscribed terrorists in the name of art.

But not everyone gets that artistic license. Another band hit with cancellations was the duo of Jonny Greenwood and Dudu Tassa. Greenwood is a member of Radiohead, which refuses to boycott Israel. The band has long been subject to harassment campaigns for its willingness to play in front of Israelis.

Two of their planned shows, in Bristol and London, were cancelled after a Palestinian activist group drummed up what one venue described as “credible threats” that led the proprietors “to conclude that it’s not safe to proceed.”

Tassa was born in Israel. Greenwood is married to an Israeli. I have not seen a rousing statement on their behalf from Paul Weller.

So if you’re following along: One band had shows cancelled for threatening the lives of elected officials; the other had shows cancelled because their lives were being threatened. In both cases, the threats were coming from “pro-Palestinians.” Those responsible for the threats received widespread support from the music industry.

In Europe, it is considered politically provocative for an Israeli to have been born. It is considered slightly less politically provocative to threaten to murder that Israeli.

Top UK Klezmer group has Bristol gig cancelled due to Israeli band members

One of the UK’s best-known klezmer bands has informed fans that a venue has cancelled its concert this evening due to some of its members being Israeli.

Oi Va Voi, which formed in London more than two decades ago, announced that the Strange Brew in Bristol had cancelled their appearance “due to pressure it had received from activist groups, who contacted the venue making untrue or misguided claims about ourselves and Oi Va Voi’s music.”

The band stated that those who had called for its cancellation “have clearly not listened to our output, or seen us perform. They are taking one fact, the ethnicity of some of our members, and using it as evidence for damning accusations about our beliefs and our right to perform in our home country.

“We believe this is a clear case of discrimination, and the tactics of intimidation are identical to those used by far-right groups across the world.”

All information regarding the concert had been removed from the Strange Brew’s website.

The band also called on the Government to “pay closer attention to the increase of ethnically-based censorship of the arts in the UK”, citing recently cancelled concerts featuring Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead and Israeli singer Dudu Tassa.

Drafting new legislation would help to protect venues from intimidation from pressure groups,” they said.

Jonathan Tobin: The ugly truth is that ‘pro-Palestinian’ now means antisemitic

Gaslighting the Jews
Yet for so-called progressives, this is not just the thin edge of the wedge of right-wing Trumpian authoritarianism. In order to discredit Heritage, those supporting this antisemitic surge are seeking to gaslight the country and tell us that the people trying to defend Jews are the real antisemites.

That’s the substance not only of the Times’ slanted news coverage of this issue but also of the writings of some of its left-wing columnists, like Michelle Goldberg. She hasn’t made any secret about her own version of “criticism” of Israel, which involves not just falsely labeling its democratically elected government as authoritarian but invoking opposition to Zionism and its existence as a Jewish state. In a gob-smacking analogy, Goldberg claims those behind Project Esther, like the admirable Heritage scholar Victoria Coates, are somehow akin to antisemites of the past like those who favored appeasement of the Nazis such as Charles Lindbergh.

What Goldberg disingenuously ignores is that organizations like Heritage, and even leaders like Trump, are the ones fighting to save “the liberal culture that allowed Jews to thrive” in the United States, not the “pro-Palestinians.” It is progressives like her and other anti-Zionists who seek to destroy that culture and replace it with woke leftist ideologies that, as we’ve seen since Oct. 7, condone and justify antisemitism.

Part of that involves smearing Christians who support Israel as antisemites who only want to bring on Armageddon, as did Detroit Free Press editorial page editor Nancy Kaffer, who echoed the Times’ disgraceful attack on Project Esther as being linked to Jew-hatred.

Boiled down to its essence, the leftist critique involves a willingness to see those who oppose the murder, rape and kidnapping of Jews, and the destruction of the Jewish state, as bad people who should be viewed with distrust. At the same time, they want us to believe that those “pro-Palestinian” advocates are not haters of Israel and the Jews, even though they celebrate or rationalize Oct. 7 and oppose efforts to prevent Hamas from repeating its crimes.

The label “pro-Palestinian” is equally dishonest.

Anyone who wishes the Palestinian Arabs well would want them to be free of the rule of Islamists like Hamas, a terrorist group that preaches endless war on Jews and Israel. Genuine friends of the Palestinians would welcome Hamas’s destruction and call for it to release all the remaining hostages it took on Oct. 7, and to surrender. Those who wished the German people well in 1945 would not have called for a ceasefire with the Nazis that would allow the Adolf Hitler regime to survive World War II, but urged a swift Allied victory that would allow for that country to be rebuilt as a democracy. Still, that’s what Project Esther’s critics at the Times and elsewhere are doing with respect to the baby-killers and criminals of Hamas, as well as opposition to Israel’s justified campaign to defeat them.

Advocates for genocide
In this context, it’s clear that the functional meaning of “pro-Palestinian” in 2025 America has nothing to do with the welfare of the residents of Gaza. A “pro-Palestinian” is now someone who opposes Israel’s existence and supports, whether openly or tacitly, Hamas’s murderous war to destroy it. Though they mendaciously label Israel as perpetrating a genocide of Palestinian Arabs, they are the ones advocating for the genocide of Israeli Jews.

It is a sad fact that Palestinian nationalism, whether the version exemplified by Hamas or the equally intransigent one displayed by the Palestinian Authority, is inextricably tied to a century-old war on the Jews that they stubbornly refuse to end. The same is true of those who support them from afar by labeling Israel’s existence as illegitimate. It would be better for all concerned if this weren’t so. But it is now undeniable that those who claim the title of “pro-Palestinian” are indistinguishable from antisemites in their rhetoric and intentions.

Liberal Jews who dislike Trump because of partisan leanings and who distrust Heritage for the same reasons should not be deceived by the effort to convince them to reject Project Esther and the administration’s long-overdue enforcement of the law to protect Jewish students. Project Esther is no conspiratorial threat to democracy. Instead, it is a much-needed clarion call for ridding colleges and universities of Jew-hatred that deserves to be cheered by those who care about Jewish safety. Its opponents are a clear and present danger to Jewish life that should be labeled for who they are: the allies and fellow travelers of a pro-terrorist movement that seeks Jewish genocide.

A Pastor’s Attack on the Jewish State and the Jewish Religion

In Christ in the Rubble, Munther Isaac, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem, presents a familiar pairing of arguments: a theological attack on Judaism rooted in the New Testament, and an accusation that today’s Jews are collectively engaged in deeds of the utmost evil. Isaac’s accusation is that Israel is currently committing genocide in Gaza. This libel is so at odds with reality that it shouldn’t require refutation, but Gerald McDermott provides an especially lucid and well-argued rebuttal for any who find it necessary. More interesting is his analysis of the theology:
Isaac makes the theological claim that God cannot “have a special relation with a particular nation or race.” In his earlier book From Land to Lands, Isaac explains his reasoning: since Jesus came to fulfill everything in God’s first covenant with Israel, Israel as a people no longer has a special relationship with God. Christians are the new Israel because the old Israel broke its covenant. A broken covenant is not a binding covenant, so the new covenant nullifies the old.

Like many Lutherans, Munther anchors his theology in Paul’s letters. . . . Tellingly, Isaac ignores Paul’s clear assertion that his fellow Jews who had rejected Jesus “are [present tense] beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28–29, emphasis added).

Isaac has just completed a triumphant tour of elite Ivy, Catholic, and evangelical universities, telling the story he relates in Christ in the Rubble. He received standing ovations from standing-room-only crowds. As in the book, his speeches exploit genuine suffering that tugs on the heartstrings of naive listeners and demonizes Israel. Tragically, his invented history and distorted exegesis will be used by cynical Palestinian leadership to prolong Palestinian suffering.

05/21 Links Pt1: Israel is still the world’s scapegoat; How the UN Invented a Blood Libel — and the Media Ran With It; Kneecap charged with terrorism over Hezbollah flag

From Ian:

Israel is still the world’s scapegoat

So why has Israel been singled out by the ICC and the ICJ, as it battles to cripple the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? For starters, Israel is seen as an easy target for these international bodies – a kind of ‘low-hanging fruit’. This is largely because Western opinion has already cast it in the role of the villain in its conflict with Hamas. In the broader international arena, Israel is seen as the archetypal wrongdoer.

Of course, the reality is very different. Israel is the only democracy in the turbulent Middle East. It is also the only Jewish state in the world. It is currently engaged in a war against an anti-Semitic enemy that wishes to wipe it off the map. Israel is not a ‘colonial’ or genocidal oppressor, as is so often claimed, but a country marked by its own tragic history of invasion, violence and suffering. Yet with few sympathisers left on the world stage, Israel ends up being the convenient focal point for global indignation.

That is not the end of the story. The ICC’s aggressive stance against Israel is also a sign of deeper troubles among international institutions. In the era following the Second World War, a network of progressive lawyers, non-governmental organisations and activists – often working through the UN – set out to champion universal rules of warfare. Their goal was to dismantle the traditional notion of state sovereignty in favour of global accountability. However, that postwar consensus is now unravelling. Even the US, once a pillar of that world order, has resorted to sanctioning the ICC, claiming it plays favourites against both the US and Israel.

In fact, from the beginning, the ICC has struggled to earn universal support. While it was established as a guardian of international justice, major powers such as the US, China, India and Russia never signed up to it. Hungary has also recently signalled its discontent by removing itself from the ICC after a visit from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At their core, projects like the ICC and ICJ are a globalist challenge to national sovereignty and are deeply undemocratic. Laws gain moral authority from being passed by elected representatives of the people – something that international tribunals simply cannot replicate. Without democratic backing, these institutions too often fall prey to political agendas, rather than serving as unbiased arbiters of justice.

Against this backdrop, the prosecution of Israel has transformed into a high-stakes test for the credibility of bodies like the ICC and ICJ. This could be seen playing out at the ICJ hearing against Israel in The Hague last month. While lambasting Israel’s actions against Gaza and the UN, Palestinian counsel Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh urged the court to reassert the moral compass of the UN Charter. She warned that the international order was crumbling and expressed the ‘continuing desperate hope that international law might finally prevail’.

We should hope that these organisations continue to lose their clout. Then they will no longer be able to unjustly target a sovereign state like Israel for exercising its right to self-defence. The collapse of these hollow institutions cannot come soon enough.

Melanie Phillips: Keir Starmer's new admirers

Israel is stepping up the war in order to force Hamas finally to release the remaining hostages. Starmer, Macron and Carney complain this is “disproportionate”. What’s disproportionate about this when Hamas is refusing to release the hostages unless Israel totally capitulates? What’s disproportionate about continuously moving the Gazan civilians to relative safety — and food aid — in order to trap and target the remaining Hamas battalions? What’s disproportionate about controlling territory to prevent any more thousands of rockets and depraved attacks against Israeli civilians? What’s disproportionate about an overwhelmingly just war against genocide?

The statement threatens “further concrete actions in response” if Israel doesn’t halt “settlements which are illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state”. The much-repeated claim of illegality is a lie. The Jews alone are legally entitled to live in the disputed “West Bank” territories of Judea and Samaria. And why are these residents said to undermine the “viability of a Palestinian state”? Israel’s population is 20 per cent Arab. Yet Britain France and Canada are in effect demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine.

And since the vast majority of Arabs living within Gaza and these disputed territories say repeatedly they support the October 7 attacks and want to destroy Israel and murder Jews; and since the Palestinian Authority declares its intention to wipe out Israel, pays terrorists and their families for the murder of Israelis and teaches the children in its schools to murder Jews and steal their land, the insistence by Britain, France and Canada on a Palestinian state means they have become the allies of genocidal fanatics against innocent victims. That’s quite an achievement.

The statement threatens to suspend trade negotiations with Israel. Really? Britain depends upon Israeli intelligence and its military know-how to fight its own battles against the same kind of fanatics that Israel is fighting. Is the Starmer government’s hatred of Israel so unhinged that it’s really intending to damage Britain by denying a trade deal — which Israel says wasn’t even on the agenda anyway?

At the same time as it issued this statement, Britain imposed sanctions on two illegal Israeli settlement outposts and three Israeli “settlers”. The UK Foreign Office accused the three of being involved in “threatening and perpetuating acts of aggression and violence against Palestinian individuals.” Where’s the evidence of unprovoked attacks? Why is Britain arrogantly interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country?

Britain has sanctioned no Palestinian Arabs for the murderous daily attacks against Jewish residents of these areas. A few days ago one such resident, Tzeela Gez, was murdered as she was being driven to hospital for the birth of her fourth child.

The Starmer government ignored this latest atrocity against one of the “settlers” it has thus dehumanised and singled out for vilification. Instead it condemns the Israelis for trying to end such slaughter. “History will judge them,” said the Foreign Secretary David Lammy in a sickening Commons debate yesterday. “Blocking aid, expanding the war and dismissing the concerns of their friends and partners is indefensible and it must stop.”

Who on earth does he think he is? How dare he say Israel must stop defending its people. And this from a country that has so much Jewish blood on its own hands, going back to when British officials were the land’s colonial overlords — whose imperial disdain can be so clearly heard in Lammy’s tone — and who created the whole Middle East mess in the 1930s, when they tore up the UK’s treaty obligation to settle the Jews throughout what is now Israel, the “West Bank” and Gaza and offered instead to reward genocidal aggression by giving away part of the Jews’ entitlement to their aggressors, a murderous betrayal that Britain attempts to repeat to this very day.

JPost Editorial: When Hamas applauds you, it's time to rethink your stance

However, from Israel’s allies, there is no creativity, and no pressure on the real culprit: Hamas. Instead, they threaten sanctions on the country trying to get back its citizens.

Is this truly the smartest way to act towards an ally that has promoted and fought for Western values? Where, in that joint statement, was the equally weighted warning to the terrorist groups that birthed this entire operation: Hamas, its allies, and its parent backer, Iran?

As the Trump administration says it is closing in on a nuclear deal with the Iranian regime, where is the weight levied against Tehran to pressure Hamas? Why is Israel being singled out here?

An appeal to help Gazans, who are indeed suffering, is warranted. But by ignoring the larger context and who is to blame for the carnage in Gaza, the UK, Canada, and France are simply going for the easy target: Israel.

The proof in the pudding that the warnings by the three countries were misguided and damaging was the immediate reaction by the terrorist group, which “welcomed the joint statement issued by the leaders of Britain, France, and Canada, rejecting the policy of siege and starvation pursued by the occupation government against our people in the Gaza Strip, and the Zionist plans aimed at genocide and displacement.

“This position is an important step toward restoring respect for the principles of international law, which the terrorist Netanyahu government has sought to undermine and overturn,” it added.

Perhaps when terrorists who committed the worst massacre of the century agree with you, it is time to recalibrate your beliefs.

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

I try to be honest about politics. I can and did vote for Donald Trump, as is my right and privilege as an American citizen. I voted for him because he was far better for Israel than the alternative. Still, I won’t always like what the president does, and I won’t shy away from saying so. However, I will always qualify anything I deem contrary to Israel’s interests by saying that A) I prefer Trump to Biden, who funded October 7 and tied Israel’s hands when we tried to defend ourselves; B) I infinitely prefer Trump to Harris, who told people who wish me dead that they have a right to their “truth”; and C) Trump does what’s best for America, rather than for Israel, and this is only right. That is his JOB. To do what's right for America. And sometimes, as JD Vance put it, “we’re going to have distinct interests.”

I get it. But I still feel a pang of resentment when I think back to October, when Vance gave an exclusive video to the JPost, urging Israeli Americans to vote:

"Greetings to all of our friends in Israel who are American citizens and have the right to vote in American elections," said Vance. "You've got to make your voice heard. Donald Trump was a great ally and friend of Israel. Kamala Harris has been a total disaster, and if she becomes president, it's going to lead to broader regional war or maybe even worse."

"Get out there, check your registration, make sure you're able to vote, and please go out there and vote for Donald Trump"

"This election could be decided by just a few votes. Do you want Kamala Harris, or do you want Donald Trump? If you want Donald Trump, get out there and make it happen."

Rah rah sis boom bah and all that, but at times, I confess, I feel cheated.

As so often happens at times like this, when the interests of Israel and America diverge, we begin to hear voices that say, “Israel is not a client state. We stand up for our own interests. Thank you, President Trump, for reminding us that Israel is a sovereign nation.”

Among those voices were those of Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs of The Sovereignty Movement. In an open letter to the president, the two found a striking way to express gratitude to the president while serving to remind the Jews that it is not Trump who is in charge of Israel’s destiny:

Thank You, Uncle Trump

Instead of taking offense at the presidential skip over Israel’s capital, we should thank President Donald Trump for the historic message he conveyed through that very omission.

President of the United States, Donald Trump – friend of Israel and the Jewish people – we just wanted to say thank you.

Thank you for the years in which you supported, strengthened, empowered (and even helped us grow a little). Thank you for approving the delivery of weapons and military equipment to us. Thank you for the diplomatic embrace, and now, thank you for taking us – the people of Israel – to the next stage: the stage of grown-up, independent, and sovereign adults.

Some chose, for some reason, to be offended by your decision not to drop by for a diplomatic cup of coffee in Jerusalem during your Middle East tour. But in this choice of yours to skip over us, you gave us an important historical statement.

Without words, you delivered a sharp and clear message: “Israel is no longer powerless or helpless, in need of support and a guiding adult hand to cross the road. Israel is a technological powerhouse – a hi-tech, cyber, and medical superpower, a military and agricultural force. Israel is a wonder that is hard to comprehend, an unprecedented miracle that defies belief.”

And now, Uncle Trump, you told us in your unique way: “It is time for America to take care of itself, solve its problems, and focus on its own interests – while you, Israelis, stand tall and move on to the next phase: the phase of true independence.”

And you also told us, honorable Mr. President, with every step you took, every speech and handshake, every cup of coffee you drank (or didn’t) in your visits to the Arab capitals surrounding us, that Jerusalem can no longer – and should no longer – rely on Washington. You showed us how you’re collecting hundreds of millions from the Saudis and Qataris, turning a blind eye to the funding of terrorism.

We observed how you seemed to be taken in—perhaps even somewhat intoxicated—by the allure of Arab oil, how you drew closer to President Erdoğan, and even cordially shook the hand of a man who came to power in Syria following mass atrocities, and whose image not long ago appeared on WANTED posters in the United States, offering rewards for his capture.

We saw and understood the message. We here in Israel are here for you as a battlefield lab and a reliable and precise intelligence source. We will prove the effectiveness of the weapons you offer us on the battlefield, and the images of our victorious soldiers with your weapons will become part of the catalog at your next arms fair. That way, thanks to us, a few more hundred million dollars will flow into America's pocket, and a few more giant weapons factories will provide fruitful employment to tens of thousands of Americans.

We have internalized the message: from this point forward, Israel must wean itself from the American IV lifeline and begin to walk on its own, with full independence and sovereignty. We must invest in developing superior Israeli-made weaponry, cultivate a strong and independent economy, and rely on our own agricultural production without dependence on overseas grain reserves. We have matured, Mr. President, and we thank you for reminding us of that fact.

Thank you for your quiet yet resolute message to the Jewish people. Thank you for the steps that compel us to recall the enduring wisdom and resilience of our nation, to remember how we have risen from the gravest of crises, shaken off the dust, and moved forward. To remember that we are not driven solely by interests and political deals, but by the prophetic vision that has guided our people for generations, urging us onward toward future milestones.

Your appreciation of us is understandable and logical, Mr. Trump. We recognize that the time has come for you to focus on fulfilling your promise to your own nation: “Make America Great Again.” As for us—we will focus on our own unique challenge: to build a Jewish, Israeli, sovereign, and independent future in our G-d given Biblical Homeland.

It seems we have understood the message. Thank you.

Referring to President Trump as “Uncle Trump” was next level brilliant in my opinion. “Uncle” because Trump represents Uncle Sam, but maybe also because he’s not Israel’s parent in charge of feeding and clothing us and wiping up after our messes. It’s a more distant relationship than that, something like a kindly uncle.

“Yeah, the uncle is more like Uncle Sam, right?” said Nadia Matar when I approached her. “Like an uncle who's nice, but who's not a father, as you just say. And he also has his own stuff he has to take care of. At the same time, he will respect us if we respect ourselves, right? So the idea of uncle came more from the Uncle Sam side of things. America is called Uncle Sam, right? Okay.

“He will respect us if we respect ourselves,” said Nadia. “That's a very important thing. If we are strong and do what we do, that's that.”

Echoing my thoughts about our narrow escape from Kamala, Nadia said, “The main thing is that we don't have to have too many expectations of Trump. He's definitely much better than, if God forbid, Kamala Harris would have come to power. But we have to now have the guts, our leaders have to have the guts and the courage to do what is good for Israel.

“We believe, of course, that that's the application of Israeli sovereignty. That has to be done this year. And the more we stand firm the more we stick to our values the more we stick to the Torah the more God will bless us.”

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Normative journalistic ethics include Truth and Accuracy, Impartiality and Objectivity, and Fairness and Respect.

The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate includes none of those.

Their published values are: Transparency, Accountability, Gender Sensitivity, Respect for Others(with the caveat that they must align with core national values), Independence, Community Service, Support for Marginalized Groups and "Anti-Normalization" - no contact or partnership with Israeli media or other organizations.

Isn't it strange to have a journalists group that does not include truth, impartiality and fairness among its principles?

It does claim "Independence." This idea is subverted because PJS recently published another set of "ethical principles" that was co-written with - the BDS Movement.

That document is a masterpiece of doubletalk, as it pretends to uphold journalistic standards as long as they adhere to what BDS wants people to think about Israel.

Or as it quotes a Pakistani journalist, “Should journalists still present all sides when we know that one side is lying, or that one side is clearly the oppressor? By giving the oppressor a means to justify their oppression, does journalism perpetuate the cycle of oppression?” By defining Israel as the side that is lying, it justifies promoting Hamas lies as the only acceptable narrative.

The official position of Palestinian journalists - not Hamas, but all Palestinian journalists - is to promote anti-Israel propaganda. Truth, fairness, accuracy and impartiality are definitely not among their values, by their own definitions.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)