Tuesday, January 30, 2024

  • Tuesday, January 30, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
SPCJ, France's society to protect Jews,  issued a report on the massive increase in antisemitism in that country after October 7.

The total number of antisemitic incidents nearly quadrupled from 2022 to 2023:


But most of that increase came in October and November.


That is an 1,100% increase in antisemitic acts between September and October.

In fact, there were five days where the number of antisemitic incidents were higher than the entire month of February.

372 of the post-October 7 antisemitic acts in France mentioned "Palestine."  Of those:

* more than 33% also advocate jihadism
* more than 25% also called for murder
* more than 10%  also advocate Nazism 

The increase in antisemitic acts was most pronounced in schools, where antisemitic incidents soared by over 1,600% between September and October. In November, there were 31 incidents advocating Nazism in French schools. 

The antisemitism did not begin as a response to Israel's actions in Gaza. They began on October 7 itself, as soon as the slaughter of Jews was known.  The SPCJ notes:
It should be noted that the outbreak of anti-Semitic acts in France began on October 7, the day of the surprise attack carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP. Thus, on the very day that images of the massacre of Israeli civilians were broadcast, antisemitic acts increased by more than 700% compared to the daily average observed from year to year.

This similar reaction had already been observed during the upsurge in antisemitic acts following the attack on the Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012 (an increase of almost 200%) and after the Hypercacher attack in 2015 (increase of almost 300%).

In light of these three events, a surprising and worrying phenomenon emerges: the media coverage of the massacre of Jews causes an increase in antisemitic acts. 
Antisemitic acts are one of the best predictors of more antisemitic acts. Jew-haters see attacks by others as a green light for them to join in. 






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, January 29, 2024

From Ian:

PM Benjamin Netanyahu interviewed by Tunku Varadarajan (WSJ): The Obstacle to Peace Is Not the Absence of a Palestinian State but the Opposition to a Jewish State
To "ensure that Gaza never again poses a threat to Israel" will require "durable demilitarization, which can only be carried out and sustained by Israel," along with "deradicalization," a cleansing of the ideological poison in Gaza that most Jewish Israelis on both left and right now regard as nonnegotiable preconditions for peace with the Palestinians.

How is the campaign against Hamas going? "Better than many expected. It took the U.S. and its allies nine months to defeat radical forces in Mosul" in 2016-17 against Islamic State. "Mosul is smaller than Gaza and did not have the massive terror underground infrastructure. We're now in the fourth month."

Netanyahu, like most Israelis, is aghast at the way protesters in the West - especially on American campuses - demonize Israel and, in some cases, laud Hamas. "This is a problem not just for Israel but also for America....America is the vanguard of freedom and the guarantor of liberty in this century. If a younger generation emerges in America that supports the head-choppers, it is a problem for civilization."

Asked about Washington's push for a two-state solution while Israel is in the throes of an existential war, he says, "Anyone supporting Israel and who also supports a two-state solution should ask themselves some questions. Do they support the Palestinians having an army? The answer is of course not. Should the Palestinians be able to bring in weapons? The answer is of course not. Should they be able to make military pacts with Iran? Of course not."

"In any future agreement, the Palestinians should have all the power to govern themselves and none of the powers to threaten Israel." In any agreement, "Israel must retain overall security control over territory west of the Jordan River, and that includes Gaza."

"Some in the United States believe that the obstacle to peace with the Palestinians is - me. They don't realize that I reflect the view of most Israelis." Polls confirm Netanyahu's assertion and indicate that Israelis, far from clamoring for a two-state solution, are adamant that the war should be fought with intensity.

Most of his compatriots "understand that the problem is that the Palestinians don't want peace with Israel but peace without Israel." It's "not the absence of a Palestinian state but the opposition to a Jewish state that is the obstacle to peace."
Bassem Eid: My Fellow Palestinians: It's Time to Get Rid of Our Leaders and Accept Israel's Offers for Peace
When the United Nations General Assembly voted to divide the Mandate into Jewish and Arab states in 1947, the Jewish community joyously accepted their proposal. Yet tragically, the Palestinian Arab leadership again rejected even a small Jewish state in the territory. They then invited the armies of seven neighboring Arab countries to invade and destroy the newborn Jewish state in what became Israel's War of Independence.

The trend continued with the Oslo Accords of 1993, in which Israeli leaders generously allowed a genocidal terrorist group called the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), run by the mastermind mass murderer Yasser Arafat, to take control over most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The year 2000 was a critical juncture. At the Camp David Summit, Israel extended an unprecedented offer of Palestinian statehood. They were once again met with Palestinian leadership's refusal—and the eruption of the bloody Second Intifada, a wave of suicide bombings that killed almost a thousand Israeli civilians.

The betrayal shattered any illusion of a commitment to a peaceful resolution from the Palestinian side.

Then came 2008, at the Annapolis Conference, where Israel once again reached out with a proposal for an independent Palestinian state. The refusal of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to accept this offer was not just disappointing; it was infuriating. Today, Abbas, who came to power in 2004, is serving the nineteenth year of his four-year presidential term, having suspended both elections and the constitution in the Palestinian territories.

Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip is ruled by the vile Hamas, the ISIS of Palestine, which, on October 7, 2023, invaded the communities of Southern Israel, murdering 1,200 souls in a single day of nightmares and taking more than 240 captives to Gaza. Alongside these murders were unspeakable acts of sexual assault and continuous abuses of hostages until today, a grim reminder of the human cost of this conflict.

The sworn objective of Hamas's founding charter is not coexistence but the obliteration of Israel. Khaled Meshaal, former head of Hamas and still one of its most senior leaders, clarified just this month Hamas's position on the idea of a two-state solution: "We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a [Palestinian] state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity... We will not give up on our right to Palestine in its entirety, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." He insisted on his belief that Oct. 7 only "enhanced this conviction."

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding a two-state solution reveals a harsh reality: Israel has consistently made genuine efforts toward peace, only to be met with rejection, treachery, and blood-curdling violence by the Palestinian side. This pattern of refusal, particularly epitomized by groups like Hamas, has been the real obstacle to peace.

It's time to acknowledge this truth bluntly. Those who claim to desire peace must confront and challenge the rejectionist elements within Palestinian society, including Hamas. We need to get rid of the Palestinian establishment who have ruled for 15 years without actually representing the Palestinian people. Only then can we hope to forge a path toward a peaceful, two-state future.
Bassam Tawil: Time to End UNRWA's Jihad against Israel
"Hamas is involved in everything. Hamas has their hands on UNRWA administration workers. Hamas manages UNRWA. They are those in charge in the agency. From the day Hamas came to power, they took control of everything. The UNRWA employees are from Hamas. The heads of the departments and the senior staff are Hamas members." —Palestinian from the Gaza Strip to an Israeli officer in a recorded call, X (Twitter) December 27, 2023.

It is now clear that the UN heads were lying when they said they were unaware of the involvement of their employees with terror groups. In fact, they knew but did their utmost to appease Hamas.

In a moment of rare honesty, in 2021 the UN acknowledged that UNRWA's school curriculum referred to Israel as "the enemy," taught children mathematics by counting "martyred terrorists," and included the phrase "Jihad is one of the doors to paradise" in Arabic grammar lessons.

"Before UNRWA, this terrorist accomplice [Abdallah Mehjez] worked for the BBC..." — Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

"Now is the time for reform. Reform for rehabilitation - so that the minds of Palestinian children can no longer be poisoned. So that there can be a shared vision of peace in this land." — Lt. Col. (res.) Peter Lerner, X (Twitter), January 27, 2024.

Western taxpayers should not be funding terror groups disguised as humanitarian organizations.

UNRWA was established to support the relief and human development of Palestinian refugees, not to support the development of terrorism.
UNWRA was established to aid Jewish as well as Arab refugees
Following evidence that it has colluded with Hamas in Gaza, several countries have withdrawn or paused their funding to UNWRA, the UN agency tasked with giving relief to Palestinian Arab refugees* fleeing in 1948 from what would become Israel. But there is little discussion of why an agency set up as a temporary measure should still be giving relief to ‘refugees’ 75 years later. It is not generally known that UNWRA was established with the aim of helping refugees on both sides of the conflict, but no one today talks of Jewish refugees, who have been fully absorbed.

According to Don Peretz (Who is a Refugee?) initially UNRWA defined a refugee “as a needy person who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood.

This definition included some 17,000 Jews who had lived in areas of Palestine taken over by Arab forces during the 1948 war and about 50,000 Arabs living within Israel’s armistice frontiers. Israel took responsibility for these individuals, and by 1950 they were removed from the UNRWA rolls leaving only Palestine Arabs and a few hundred non-Arab Christian Palestinians outside Israel in UNRWA’s refugee category.

At the time there was no internationally recognised definition of what constituted a refugee. In 1951, The UN Refugee Convention agreed the following definition:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

This definition certainly applies to the 850,000 Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Arab countries, synagogue burnings, arrests and riots. Returning to these countries would have put – and still does -their lives at risk.

The burden of rehabilitating and resettling the 650,000 Jewish refugees who arrived in Israel from Arab countries was shouldered by the Jewish Agency and US Jewish relief organisations, such as the Joint Distribution Committee. They were shunted into transit camps or ma’abarot. The conditions were appalling.

The American aid earmarked to solve the issue of Middle East refugees was supposed to have been split evenly between Israel and the Arab states, with each side receiving $50 million to build infrastructure to absorb refugees. The money to take in the Arab refugees was handed over to the U.N. agency founded to address the issue of Palestinian refugees, and the Americans gave Arab countries another $53 million for “technical cooperation.” In effect, the Arab side received double the money given to Israel, even though Israel took in more refugees, including ones from Arab nations – Jews who had been displaced by the regional upheavals. The bills presented to Congress in 1951 included a bill to send Israel aid to take in refugees. It was the first and last time that any mechanism was established for the Jewish refugees. The amount Congress allocated to provide for Middle East refugees – Jewish and Arab – at the request of then-President Harry Truman was equal to $1.5 billion today.
If Palestinians did land acknowledgements...













Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Guest post by Josh Namm:

The Ivy Is Still Poison

We all remember the
disastrous testimony of three presidents of the Ivy League when testifying before Congress at the end of last year about their schools’ dismal response to the recent, massive rise of campus antisemitism. Two of them, the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill, and Harvard’s Claudine Gay, have since resigned. The primary reason was their uniquely repulsive remarks regarding the safety and status of Jews at their respective schools. Magill resigned quickly. Gay refused to resign, doing so only after repeated revelations about her total lack of qualifications for the post, and her tendency (some would say “need”) to plagiarize.

This followed weeks of antisemitic incidents on campuses across the nation, many occurring across the Ivy League. I
wrote about it back in December.

I can’t help but think, based on what I’ve personally observed, that for most Americans it was the end of the issue. Or, at the very least, the perception is that the two sacrificial resignations (both Magill and Gay remain as faculty, both retaining HUGE salaries), must have been the beginning of an end to such open toleration of Jew hatred.

If that is what you think: you think wrong.

Every single day, there are reports of incidents against Jewish students at universities across America. But recently, there were two that really caught my eye. One is egregious, and the other is egregious, heinous, and a lot of other really negative adjectives.

The nation just celebrated another Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I’m old enough to remember one of my elementary school teachers playing the “I Have Dream” speech on vinyl during class (this was in the very old days, before vinyl had any kind of retro cache). It, literally, gave me chills. The ideas that this great man so charismatically espoused, like the idea that people should be judged by the content of their character, not their skin color, pierced my elementary school consciousness. That was true of the other lofty ideals the speech is correctly revered for.

Little did I know that decades later, in another century, a prestigious, elite university would be giving something called the “MLK Jr. Social Justice Award” to someone that hates Israel, and would absolutely judge me by my religion, ethnicity, and undoubtedly for the color of my skin.

In fact, in his speech, King expressed longing for the day when “God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands…”

So giving an award to an antisemite would seem to be the opposite of King’s message. That’s obvious.

At least it’s obvious if you have a functioning mind, capable of critical thought, and aren’t suffering the brain decaying condition known as “wokeness.” That condition robs you of any ability to be intellectually honest and substitutes any sense of honor, integrity, or aversion to hypocrisy, with a cultish devotion to its contradictory dictates. 

The University of Pennsylvania gave this award to a woman named Dorothy Roberts. She is a professor of sociology and law.

 

Dorothy Roberts (Wikimedia Commons)



The announcement for the event said that “The 23rd Annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Lecture in Social Justice proudly presents Dorothy Roberts as she reflects on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Among others, it was sponsored by the Center for Africana Studies and the Penn Program on Race, Science & Society.

You can guess the ideological leanings of the organizers.

Roberts, just 11 days after the Hamas massacres of 10/7, tweeted:

’Collective punishment of two million civilians, nearly half of them children, is a moral catastrophe to which current U.S. policy critically contributes.’ I was morally compelled to sign this US legal scholars’ letter.

What was this letter?

Signed by 178 members of the faculties of America’s law schools, it claimed that Israel was committing “internationally supported genocide,” referred to Israel as “an apartheid regime whose occupation is in clear violation of international law," claimed that Gazans "face genocide and ethnic cleansing,” and repeated the lie that the population of Gaza was being deprived of the “basic means of survival,” including water, food and electricity.”

Amazingly, this letter was written on October 16, 11 days before Israel’s ground offensive against Gaza began.

If you’re the kind of person who is fascinated by stupidity, you can read the full letter
here

Previously, Roberts had
expressed her support of the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions idiocy (BDS) movement (even if she can’t spell, see the link), and claimed that Jews are white because we supposedly all have power, or run the world, or the banks…or something.

The bottom line is that this obvious bigot hates Jews and shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near anything with MLK’s name on it. Or be allowed near any classroom in the future.

Oh, and
she opposes adoption because she thinks…wait for it… it’s “racist”!

Of course she does.

The entire thing was, as I said, egregious.

Another one is, also as promised, egregious and heinous.

Heinously disgusting.

Cornell University has a PhD student instructor named Alyiah Gonzales. I am sure that the irony, and cultural appropriation, of her first name escapes her completely.

This fine specimen of intersectionally driven achievement said recently that Israelis should "rot in the deepest darkest pits of hell.”

More recently, she cancelled her “English” class in “"race, writing, and power” (of course).

Why?

In her words it was: “in solidarity with collective calls for a Global Strike for Palestine.” She went on to say that she "mourn[s] the fact that all universities in Gaza have been destroyed or demolished by Israeli military forces." In lieu of class, she asked her students to write an essay on "the relationship between writing, power, and systems of oppression."

Blah, blah, blah. They all sound exactly the same.

This is the same Cornell at which a junior was arrested for posting messages saying that he was going to "bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig Jews." That was in October.

Another Cornell professor named Rusty Rickford, a history teacher, praised the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, while saying that it was “exhilarating” and “energizing.”

Rickford was not formally punished, but instead “went on leave.”

Will the same thing happen to Gonzales? I would say no. She is higher up the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) hierarchy. I don’t think they will touch her. I hope that I am wrong.

In fact, the only recognition of Gonzales’ behavior came from the provost of Cornell, Michael Kotlikoff. He issued the usual weak, meaningless, jargon laden, uselessness saying “Canceling classes as a political call to action, or using one's role in instruction to promote a personal or political belief, diminishes our role as educators."

Once again, the statement has nothing to do with Jews, Israel or “hate speech,” and instead is about their own narcissism and fear that they will be pressured to go the Liz Magill route (again, she resigned but is still on salary, and teaching at the school).



Alyiah Gonzales (Cornell University English Department) - Of course she is holding a book by known Israel hater Toni Morrison. Resembling Little Richard does nothing to change her odiousness.

Even more concerning than her call to cancel class, and Cornell’s refusal to treat it as what it is: an attempt to draw her students into her own web of antisemitism, is the fact that Gonzales was ever hired in the first place, and wasn’t fired long before this point.

Just since Oct. 7 she has posted a series of deeply antisemitic posts.
These include saying "Me, personally, I think the fuck ass settler state of Israel and all those complicit in genocide and occupation can rot in the deepest darkest pits of hell…”

Remember, this person is teaching English.

In November she said “If you've been silent and wallowing in ignorance … wake up and stand tf up, I will forever stand in solidarity with the Palestinian peoples—land back means LAND BACK, period. … WHERE IS YOUR RAGE? RESIST. RESIST. RESIST.”

Gonzales also has a history of posting antisemitic words/images on Instagram. Two examples, of many, are below.

In one she refers to the worst attacks on Jews since the Holocaust as “decolonization.” In the other, she posted an image of a Hamas paraglider, the type used on Oct. 7, and said “Freedom has only ever been achieved through resistance. Stand with the Palestinian resistance.”







I don’t know about you, but I am so sick of these little twerps referring to the mass murder of Jews as “resistance.” They are narcistic, arrogant, pretentious people playacting at adulthood.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Gonzales’ Cornell bio claims that she is “dedicated to the queer, coalitional, and transformative possibilities of literature written by, for, and about Black womxn,” and her “research” is in "Black feminism," "Black womxn's literature," "queer theory," and "intersectionality studies."
 
Note the absurd, cultish, use of the letter “x” in women.

In her spare time, again according to her own bio, she likes to write “fantasy novels” and also write about herself in the third person. She says that she is “an unhinged zillenial who spends most of their time escaping into fantasy through both reading and writing,” and that “Iced Coffees, mean cats, and colorful hair make up the bulk of Alyiah's life.”

Most of “their” time. It's all so insufferable.

These are not intelligent people.

The only valid resistance here is forceful resistance to people like Roberts and Gonzales, their insanity, their bigotry, their dishonesty, and their ability to spread ideologically driven crap through our schools, turning kids across America into antisemitic, unthinking, ignorant members, not of a productive society, but of a dangerously obedient cult.

Never give in. Never give up.

Am Yisrael Chai. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

From Ian:

Hillel Neuer: The UN’s Terrorism Teachers
Many who watched the October 7 massacre likely wondered how a man’s mind can become so warped that he not only commits heinous acts of murder, rape, and mutilation, but proudly films this carnage for the world to see.

It is a complicated question. But one of the primary answers is found in the schools that mold the minds of young people in their formative years. In Gaza, the organization that does much of the molding is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA. That organization pays the salaries of teachers who call for the murder of Jews.

On Friday, UNRWA said it had fired some employees accused of participating in Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israel. Over the weekend, in an unprecedented rebuke of the agency, more than a dozen of its donor states, including the U.S., Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands, announced their suspension of funds to UNRWA. The latest revelations follow numerous other reported cases of UNRWA’s entanglement with Hamas terrorism.

This agency was chartered after the 1948 war that established the state of Israel. Since 1950, UNRWA has provided the bulk of social services at Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, including the crucial task of teaching Palestinian children and adolescents.

But the notion that it is primarily an agency for the relief of refugees is a front. UNRWA’s main task is political. Palestinians who work for UNRWA call it “the main political witness to our cause.”

UNRWA exists to perpetuate Palestinians as refugees. Unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which since World War II has been responsible for the welfare of all refugees in the world, and has worked toward their resettlement and relocation, UNRWA deals only with the Arabs from Palestine and has a completely different objective.

Millions of Palestinians who attend UNRWA schools in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza are taught that the war of 1948 is not over, and that they have a “right of return”—meaning, to dismantle and take over Israel.

The UN betrays its mission by signaling to the Palestinians that the war is not over, and to keep fighting.

UN Secretary General António Guterres said he was “horrified” to discover that UNRWA employees participated in the invasion and massacre of October 7. But in reality, their actions merely translated UNRWA’s core message into action.
Matti Friedman: What If the Real War in Israel Hasn’t Even Started?
Israelis like Lt. Col. Dotan, who is 54, and me acquired a healthy regard for Hezbollah during our military service in a swath of south Lebanon that Israel held as a buffer after the Lebanon invasion of 1982, and which we called “the security zone.” At first, the zone was meant to protect people near the border from infiltrations by Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists. But as Iranian power rose the enemy became Hezbollah, which was set up and trained by the Revolutionary Guards. I served in the security zone as a radioman and platoon sergeant.

This overlooked war, which Israelis never even bothered to name when it was going on, was in fact one of the labs that produced what we now think of as “war”—not the movement of divisions across territory or battles between states, but armed groups operating in the ruins of failed states; hit-and-run attacks using IEDs, which Hezbollah did much to pioneer; suicide bombers, which Hezbollah introduced in the Middle East; the use of video as a propaganda weapon, which Hezbollah employed to great effect two decades before ISIS; and the exploitation of the civilian landscape to conceal the military landscape, with all of the consequences for innocent people.

What happened in the security zone isn’t discussed much in Israel but retains a hold on those of us who served there when we were young. We learned lessons about the limits of military power—but also about the limits of our ability to placate our enemies. Many of us also learned, in a strange way, to love Lebanon, which is a bewitching place. The echoes of that experience matter now because it’s men who began their service in the security zone as teenagers who now run the Israeli army, and who confront this new war as generals.

In May 2000, facing rising casualties and a protest movement led by the mothers of Israeli soldiers, the army abandoned the security zone overnight and pulled back to the border. This seemed to me, and to most Israelis, like the right thing to do, but it didn’t end the war. Hezbollah only grew stronger. We let it happen, as we did with Hamas in Gaza, because the alternatives seemed worse. An all-out war would have been so costly, both in lives and in the kind of disproportionate international frenzy that follows any Israeli operation, that we decided to live alongside Hezbollah and tell ourselves we’d contained them.

Fast-forward to early 2024, and Israel has a security zone again—except now it’s inside Israel.

Lt. Col. Dotan’s home is at a kibbutz in the evacuation zone. He remained there after the October 7 call-up, in uniform, while moving his kids farther south. From Hezbollah’s firing positions in the underbrush and the homes of Lebanese villages, the organization controls much of the fence and can fire at will. That means Israelis can’t go home unless the fighters are pushed back, far to the north, by diplomacy or by war. Allowing our civilians to return is the Israeli goal in the north, not destroying Hezbollah—which just isn’t possible, not only because of the group’s military power but because of the way it’s woven into the civil and political life of Lebanon.

Everyone would prefer diplomacy. Things are far too dark here already. But the distancing of Hezbollah by diplomacy was supposed to have happened long ago, by Security Council resolution, after the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006, and proved meaningless. The Lebanese Army is too weak to control its own territory, and a United Nations peacekeeping force has been ineffectual.

I’ve been speaking to reserve soldiers, some still in uniform, others newly discharged from the alleys and booby traps of Gaza City. They know what it means if we go to war in Lebanon. But they don’t say “if,” they say “when,” and expect to be there in the spring.
The United Nations — What is it Good For?
The United Nations has little to brag about. Though the organization is quick to tout what it presents as myriad accomplishments, the multi-agency behemoth founded upon promises of international peace and security does little to remedy the world’s wars, conflicts, and crises.

In 2022, when a Russia retreat from the Kyiv region revealed hundreds of Ukrainian civilians killed in the city of Bucha, President Volodymyr Zelensky castigated the U.N. for its inaction.

“If there is no alternative and no option, then the next option would be [to] dissolve yourself altogether,” he said in a Security Council address. “Are you ready to close the United Nations? Do you think that the time for international law is gone?”

Russia’s veto power on the Security Council prevented any U.N. resolution or intervention in the Ukraine war. A few months ago, Mr. Zelensky again addressed the body.

“Humankind no longer pins its hopes on the U.N.,” he said. “Ukrainian soldiers now are doing at the expense of their blood what the U.N. Security Council should do by its voting: They’re stopping Russia and upholding the principles of the U.N.”

Its inaction is not limited to Ukraine. While the U.N. is well known for its frequent condemnations of Israel, it has never once condemned China, much less done anything, about its well-documented oppression of the Uyghur people and other human rights abuses. If China moves against Taiwan, Beijing’s Security Council veto effectively blocks any useful response.

The U.N. has a 10,000-strong force on Lebanon’s border charged with demilitarizing the area. Hezbollah’s massive weapons buildup and recent, steady stream of rocket attacks speak to that force’s success.

Amid talk of what post-war governance in Gaza will look like, there is no serious discussion of the U.N. playing a significant role.

A visit to the U.N. or perusal of its literature confronts one with a great deal of high-flying sentiment about its mission to root out suffering and injustice, and to replace war with dialogue.

Yet its 70-year history is largely a record of not only failing to deliver on these promises, but in many instances of making the world’s problems worse.

Surviving on member nation donations, the U.N. is not a cheap endeavor, either. In 2022, the United States, the organization’s largest contributor, gave some $22 billion.

All this leaves many very reasonable people asking what, if any, purpose the U.N. serves. And why do American taxpayers contribute so much to keep it ticking?
  • Monday, January 29, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon

Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority and the chairman of the PLO, criticized the nations who are suspending aid to UNRWA.

Read his words carefully, because they say exactly why UNRWA should be dismantled.

The Palestinian Presidency expressed today its strong rejection of the oppressive campaign led by the Israeli government against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).

The campaign aims to liquidate the issue of Palestinian refugees, contradicting UN Resolution 302, based on which the UNRWA was established on December 18, 1949, and other UN resolutions related to the refugee issue,” said the Presidency in a statement.

The Presidency emphasized that “the refugee issue is at the core of the Palestinian cause, with dozens of UN resolutions adopted on the matter. There is no solution to the Palestinian issue except for the return of refugees, in accordance with Resolution 194.”
His reasons for maintaining UNRWA are not because of humanitarian aid. He is stating - as he has stated countless times before - that the purpose of UNRWA is to keep the issue of "refugees" alive, with the ultimate aim to destroy Israel via the fictional "right of return" of millions of descendants of 1948 refugees to Israel.

Indeed, that is UNRWA's real purpose. It has taught generations of Palestinians not to accept a two state solution but that all of the area from the river to the sea is theirs and theirs alone, and Israel is an illegitimate state stealing their land. 

So when Abbas says that UNRWA must be funded, he is not talking about it to help feed or house or treat Palestinians in Gaza. He couldn't care less about them. He is saying that UNRWA is an essential Palestinian weapon to destroy the Jewish state, and that's why it should be funded to the tune of billions by the world. 

A similar message came from Hussein Al-Sheikh, Secretary-General of the Executive Committee of the PLO and possible successor to Mahmoud Abbas, who also downplayed the aid aspect funding UNRWA.

 "We urge the countries that have declared a halt to their support for the UNRWA to immediately reverse their decision, which carries significant political and humanitarian risks." 

Note how "political" is ahead of "humanitarian."

UNRWA insists, against all evidence, that it is not a political organization. But Palestinian leaders know the truth - it is little but political. 

At any rate, Palestinian leaders are explaining exactly why they want UNRWA to be funded  -and it has nothing to do with helping Gaa civilians. It is their atom bomb to destroy Israel. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

  • Monday, January 29, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
The world is finally taking a critical look at UNRWA after Israel provided its donors with a dossier showing that at least 12 of its employees were actively participating in terror on October 7.

The accusations are contained in a dossier provided to the United States government that details Israel’s claims against a dozen employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency who, it says, played a role in the Hamas attacks against Israel on Oct. 7 or in their aftermath.

The dossier said that Israeli intelligence officers had established the movements of six of the men inside Israel on Oct. 7 based on their phones; others had been monitored while making phone calls inside Gaza during which, the Israelis say, they discussed their involvement in the Hamas attack.

Three others got text messages ordering them to report to muster points on Oct. 7, and one was told to bring rocket-propelled grenades stored at his home, according to the dossier.

Predictably, UNRWA's supporters are screaming about nations withholding funds, claiming that UNRWA services are essential. 

[UN Secretary General Antonio] Guterres strongly appealed to the governments that suspended contributions to, at least, guarantee the continuity of UNRWA’s operations.

“The abhorrent alleged acts of these staff members must have consequences. But the tens of thousands of men and women who work for UNRWA, many in some of the most dangerous situations for humanitarian workers, should not be penalized,” he said.

“The dire needs of the desperate populations they serve must be met.”
A look at UNRWA's staff and budget tells a different story, though.

Most of the accused terrorists were teachers, and two others also worked at UNRWA schools. One was a social worker.

This is not surprising. The vast majority of UNRWA employees in Gaza work for UNRWA schools. According to UNRWA's 2021 budget, 83% of UNRWA employees in Gaza work in their education program. 

UNRWA controls a multi-nation school system with over half a million students - all of them in areas where there is a public education system. It is not the world's job to provide free education to Palestinians when they live in areas that the governments already provide public education to all.

We know that UNRWA schools teach incitement against Israel and Jews. They encourage students to aspire to "martyrdom" - dying while attacking Jews. The teachers have been directly supporting  terror attacks for years, - I exposed the issue over a decade ago.  And these are all being taught by thousands of employees - over 10,000 in Gaza alone - who work for the UNRWA education system. 

The bulk of UNRWA's budget doesn't go to food or housing or works programs, but to teaching kids to hate Jews and Israel. 

There are no less than 23 UN entities in Gaza, some of which actually provide essential services. There are so many UN agencies in Gaza that there are two agencies (OCHA and UNSCO)  to coordinate the other agencies. UNRWA is by far the largest, but given that most of its budget is spent on schools that are not even open and paying teachers who are not teaching, the appeals to keep it funded ring hollow. 

If critics of defunding UNRWA really cared about Gaza civilians, they would be asking for nations to compensate for suspending UNRWA funds by giving more money to UN agencies that actually do important work as their main functions, like the World Food Programme or the World Health Organization. While they are also biased against Israel, they at least do real work, and have professionals who create plans on how best to help Gaza civilians under trying circumstances. 

Those who insist on funding an agency where most of its budget does not help people in need of food or medicine don't really care about Gaza. They care about UNRWA's main mission of keeping the fictional "refugee" issue alive forever and delegitimizing Israel. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

  • Monday, January 29, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
El Watan News is a popular Egyptian news site that says it is independent.

An article this past weekend, the same weekend of Holocaust Remembrance Day, denied the Holocaust. Its title is "The Big Lie."

If the Jewish Holocaust is not a big lie, it is at least misleading information full of lies. There are many documents and papers that indicate this, and there are some writings that say that the Holocaust is merely a conspiracy between the Zionist movement and Hitler to push the Jews to immigrate to Palestine, which witnessed 5 Migrations that began from 1882 until the beginning of the 1940s, and all of them took place as organized migrations with fabricated historical incidents.

6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust according to the Zionist narrative, even though the number of Jews on the European and Asian continents during this period did not exceed 4 million, according to all statistics and data, which refutes the Holocaust narrative. 

Assuming that the Zionist narrative is believed, the death toll of Jews in the World War is 4 or 6 million, compared to 55 million Christian citizens and one million Muslim citizens, which confirms that Hitler did not intend to eradicate the Jews, but it is a matter of coincidence and these are normal and logical numbers for world wars of this size, according to historian Muhammad Al-Shafi’i speaking to Al-Watan.

Al-Shafi’i pointed out that the outbreak of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” on October 7th is consistent with international laws and treaties because it was done on occupied land, according to all international classifications, whether historical Palestine from the sea to the river, or according to the 1948 partition resolution, or pre-1967 Palestine, or Palestine according to the 1993 Oslo Accords, so resisting the occupier is considered legitimate and legal in all parts of the world.
Al-Shafi'i has written a number of books. This gives an idea of what is considered scholarship in Egypt. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, January 28, 2024

  • Sunday, January 28, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
Right now, there is a settlement building freeze.

This freeze is far more extensive than any of the previous ones mandated by the Israeli government under pressure from the Americans to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. 

Because since October 7, essentially zero construction has been done in any of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

At first, Israel blocked all Palestinians from working, because of the obvious security concerns brought about on October 7.  

Then IDF Central Command published strict policies to allow Palestinian workers to enter construction sites and industrial areas. No phones are allowed on site and armed security guards must be at each construction site. But residents of the settlements are stopping anyone trying to bring in Palestinians even under these conditions, acutely aware that the workers in the communities near Gaza were often acting as spies for Hamas and they do not want their communities to be attacked the way those in the Gaza  envelope are.

But meanwhile, Palestinians are not working. Their economy is tanking. They want to work. 

So we have a bizarre situation where it is the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria who prefer a settlement freeze because they refuse to have Palestinian potential terrorists in their communities, and the Palestinians themselves who want to work. And they have no problem building Jewish-owned houses in the territories.

Which brings up the other huge irony: this means that the Palestinians have always had the option of creating and enforcing a settlement freeze - and they preferred to work for the hated, evil Israeli Jewish "settlers."

This is the sort of thing the media is simply not reporting. Journalists are uncomfortable reporting things that contradict their narratives, and they'd rather keep something so big as a settlement freeze, and so ironic as Palestinians wanting to build Jewish houses, unreported.

(h/t Ahron)

_____________________

There is a possible out-of-the-box solution, though.

A surprisingly large percentage of Latinos in the Americas have Jewish DNA, descended from crypto-Jews fleeing Spain during the Inquisition. 

Many Mexicans are skilled laborers in construction.

As the USA is overrun with illegal immigrants, perhaps a program to identify (via DNA testing and interviews) any Mexicans who are interested in working in Israel who might also be interested in exploring their Jewish heritage, could be mounted. It should be done in Mexico itself. 

Obviously there are a lot of logistics and halachic issues involved, but would it be better for Israel to import laborers who have an affinity with the Jewish people, even if only latent?





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: Israel can limit the ICJ’s potential damage
Israelis on Friday displayed what is called Jewish joy—they celebrated that the pogromniks only broke the windows, but did not kill anyone. The good news was the International Court of Justice did not effectively order us to wait to be tortured and murdered, by demanding a halt to the Gaza War. That is certainly good—but only in the twisted world where the ICJ is putting Israel, not Hamas, on trial for the absolutely absurd charge of genocide.

Otherwise, the decision was horrible. The court accepted South Africa’s argument that it has jurisdiction and that Israel could possibly be proven to be committing genocide. The case is not over and will go on for years. In the meantime, the court has made clear that it considers itself to have authority to review and superintend every aspect of Israel’s war for survival—and demands monthly reports. No other country receives such treatment, and it is designed to make the military constantly look over its soldiers’ shoulders.

The ICJ is not an independent body—it is an organ of the United Nations. Its justices serve a renewable nine-year term, further undermining their independence. The judges are elected by the General Assembly and Security Council, and their positions largely track the foreign policy of their home countries. Thus while we might get lucky sometimes, over the long run, the policy of the court will reflect the policy of the United Nations.

The General Assembly’s obsessive condemnation of the Jewish state is well known—Israel would never agree to have its fate determined by them. But agreeing to the jurisdiction of the court indirectly does the same thing. In Israel it is thought unacceptable to have judges appointed by democratically elected politicians decide the meaning of ordinary laws. Yet we have agreed to have judges elected by dictatorial regimes decide the basic question of whether we can exist—whether we can defend ourselves.

It does not have to be this way: The ICJ does not automatically have jurisdiction over countries—they must specifically agree, typically by agreeing that The Hague can decide a specific dispute or questions under a specific treaty. In this case, Israel signed the Genocide Convention, which provides that “disputes between the…parties” about the treaty can be decided by the ICJ. But that does not mean cases like this, where a totally unrelated state has brought a purely political complaint in a matter it has no relation to. The court should not have accepted jurisdiction, and by doing so it effectively claimed for itself power to supervise the conduct of wars around the world, so long as some country claims genocide is involved.

Israel did not have to agree to the ICJ jurisdiction to be a member of the Genocide Convention, and in retrospect, doing so was a major mistake. Countries are allowed to opt out of ICJ jurisdiction in various treaties, and very commonly do so. Indeed, 16 countries have opted out of the Genocide Convention minus the ICJ jurisdiction—including the world’s largest democracies, the United States and India. Even the world’s biggest superpowers did not trust the ICJ to hear cases involving the use of force in an apolitical way.
WSJ Editorial: The U.N.’s War on Israel
What a day for the United Nations. Its International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary ruling Friday in South Africa’s case against Israel that managed to be both outrageous and meaningless. At the same time, its special forever-refugee agency for the Palestinians, Unrwa, had to fire staff accused of involvement in Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre. Our global moral beacon in action.

The ICJ tribunal indulged South Africa’s genocide libel by going ahead with a trial and trashing Israel for self-defense against Hamas. But the justices rejected Pretoria’s request to order Israel to stop the war. The court instead instructed Israel to prevent acts of genocide, punish incitement and facilitate aid to civilians—which Jerusalem is already doing. Israel will have to report back in a month, and the court could take years to decide on the merits.

As law professor Eugene Kontorovich writes, “That’s Jewish joy—they defamed us, treated us like no other democracy, undermined our right to self-defense, put the victim on trial—but it could have been worse!” All true, and an order to halt the war while Hamas holds territory and 136 hostages would have put Israel in a tight spot.

The U.N.’s credibility is also on trial, especially through Unrwa, whose reports the court relied on. After Israel brought evidence that 12 Unrwa employees participated in the Oct. 7 attack, the U.S. State Department announced on Friday a pause in funding to the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee agency pending investigation.

A new U.N. Watch report, to be released and discussed in Congress on Tuesday, shows “how a Telegram group of 3,000 UNRWA teachers in Gaza celebrated the October 7th Hamas massacre.” The message group’s administrators, identified by name and Unrwa contract number, are seen praising Hamas’s “holy warriors” and praying for them to murder Israelis: “O God, tear them apart,” “kill them one by one,” “leave none of them behind,” “execute the first settler on live broadcast.” One urged that Gazans stay in place to help Hamas.
Caroline Glick: Israel’s isolated generals
Notably, all of the General Staff’s paradigms are shared by the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. So it isn’t surprising that a consistent position of the generals is that the United States, rather than the IDF, is the guarantor of Israel’s survival. Accordingly, the generals oppose actions that would limit or even end Israel’s strategic dependence on America. That dependence commits the United States to protect Israel, and that protection will be guaranteed if Israel maintains faith in its appeasement policies towards Israel’s enemies.

The public—and rank-and-file officers and soldiers on the ground in Gaza, along the border with Lebanon, and in Judea and Samaria—are unmoved by the generals’ demoralizing messages. They understand that Israel has no option other than to fight the war until victory, whatever the price. The notion of appeasement-based deterrence died on Oct. 7. In successive opinion polls since then, the Israeli public has made clear that it opposes cutting a deal for the hostages that will enable Hamas to survive the war. They oppose Palestinian statehood, and under no circumstances is the public willing to countenance a P.A. takeover of the Gaza Strip the day after the war.

The public’s unwillingness to accept anything less than victory has placed the General Staff in a bind. Reservists being sent home from the front have reacted not with happiness but with indignation at leaving before victory has been achieved. On Feb. 8, angry reservists are planning to hold a mass demonstration demanding to be permitted to fight to victory down the street from the Prime Minister’s Office.

On Wednesday and Thursday, hundreds of relatives of hostages, mothers of IDF soldiers and other concerned citizens blocked humanitarian aid trucks from entering Gaza through the Kerem Shalom border crossing. These citizens recognize that humanitarian aid is just a euphemism for resupply to Hamas. The government, they say, may need to agree to humanitarian aid to placate the Biden administration, but private citizens are under no such constraints. And given the dire implications of the aid for the war effort, standing idly by while Washington compels Jerusalem to give Hamas a lifeline to remain in the tunnels is nothing short of insane.

The public’s operations are not limited to the domestic realm. A new group, Mothers of IDF Soldiers, sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Thursday demanding an end to humanitarian aid to Gaza, arguing that the truckloads of fuel, food, water and medicine endanger the lives of IDF soldiers; is not being distributed to Palestinian civilians; enables Hamas to remain in charge of governing affairs in Gaza; and prolongs the war by giving Hamas terrorists the means to keep fighting from their tunnels and refusing to release the hostages.

Netanyahu, for his part, is not relenting. Nearly every day, he reiterates the war goals and insists that Israel will fight until it achieves all of them. He is demanding that the IDF provide him with benchmarks to measure its progress towards victory.

The generals in charge owe their positions to their full adherence to the strategic paradigms of the United States and the political left. They don’t want to move on. But the unanimity of opinion from the public below and the government above will leave them little choice. They will either get on board and deliver the required victory, or they will eventually be forced to resign and make room for others capable of doing the job.
  • Sunday, January 28, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
On Friday, after listening to the ICJ give credence to the blood libel that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, I tweeted a variant of the title of Richard Landes' excellent book:


Over Shabbat, the tweet went truly viral. As of this writing, the tweet has over 700,000 views, 6,500 "Likes" and 3,200 "Replies" that are overwhelmingly negative.

Since it was getting so much attention, I wrote a short follow-up essay for anyone who finds my thesis hard to believe but has not yet been completely poisoned by hate by both the modern antisemites and the seemingly objective media. 

Here's that essay, with some additions  and links:
________________________________

Based on the responses to this tweet, tens of thousands of people actually believe the argumentum ad populum fallacy.  (Or just maybe in the case of Israel.) 

Clearly, most people responding negatively don't know the first thing about the conflict. But others think that the curated news they read represents the truth. 

For those who can still think for themselves and are not motivated by hate, I suggest a couple of facts that the mainstream media downplays.

First, the IDF has an entire organization (since 1994) dedicated to helping Palestinians in the territories, COGAT.   I've spoken to members. They care deeply about Palestinians and their wellbeing. They work tirelessly to coordinate aid and trade. They even have organized trade shows for Palestinians to learn new farming or medical techniques, providing them with the latest methods for success. 

Of course, they also care about the safety of Israelis. But such an organization wouldn't exist in a state that is hellbent on destroying the people on the other side.  The people demonizing Israel don't want you to know about COGAT, or they want to distort it. (COGAT's head is an Israeli Druze general, not a Jew.) 

Second, the IDF is treated in the media like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. It is a professional army, respected by all militaries worldwide. It doesn't shoot indiscriminately. It doesn't target civilians. Dead Gazans don't help its cause, and on the contrary, it hurts it.  Hamas has embedded itself in the entire infrastructure of Gaza and part of its strategy is to maximize civilian deaths. I am not exaggerating. If you can name a single thing Hamas has done to protect Palestinian lives, I'd love to hear it. 

Relatedly, in previous wars, the goal was to dissuade Hamas from wanting to attack Israel because the cost would be too high. October 7 proved that Hamas doesn't care about the cost: their hate and antisemitism is what drives them, not a desire for a state (in fact, they desire a caliphate, not a Palestinian state, except as a stage to their pan-Islamist goal.) 

Also, if you think Hamas had modified its antisemitic charter, you are dead wrong. They issued a document but say in Arabic that it does not replace their charter.

As such, it is a valid military goal to utterly destroy a group hellbent on destroying you.  Hamas' urban tunnel strategy - a strategy that is utterly unprecedented in world history - is designed to allow Hamas to survive, and the phrase "human shields" is not a slogan but its major defensive weapon. 

The threat of thousands of dead children is Hamas' Iron Dome.

There is a lot more to say. Read the Modern War essays from West Point to see what real military experts have to say about Israeli and Hamas strategy and international law.  The more you learn about actual combat from real soldiers, the more you realize that the New York Times and CNN and Human Rights Watch are utterly clueless, and their biases guide their reporting more than reality. Their articles about Israel using so-called "dumb bombs" are a classic case in point: computer guided and released  "dumb bombs" are nearly as accurate as smart bombs and make far more sense for certain targets like warehouses.  But the point is that Israel is fighting a very difficult war with constraints that no army in history had to deal with, where the population is being kept in their "open air prison" not by Israel but by their fellow Arabs who seemingly share Hamas' goals of maximizing casualties. 

Israel's former chief justice Aharon Barak wrote in his ICJ opinion on Friday:
International law is an integral part of the military code and the conduct of the Israeli army. The Code of Ethics of the Israeli Defense Forces states that “[a]n IDF soldier will only exercise their power or use their weapon in order to fulfill their mission and only when necessary. They will maintain their humanity during combat and routine times. The soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”

When those norms are violated, the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Military Advocate General take the necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice, and their decisions are subject to judicial review. In appropriate cases, the Israeli Supreme Court may instruct them how to act. This is Israel’s DNA. Governments have been replaced, new justices have come to the Supreme Court, but the DNA of Israel’s democracy does not change. 

Israel’s multiple layers of institutional safeguards also include legal advice provided in real time, during hostilities. Strikes that do not meet the definition of a military objective or that do not comply with the rule of proportionality cannot go forward. The holdings of the Israeli Supreme Court and Israel’s institutional framework demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and human life - a commitment that runs through its collective memory, institutions, and traditions.
Israelis know this as well as they know their own names. The Israel that is portrayed in the media has nothing in common with the real Israel and the real IDF. 

If you accept that Israelis are human beings who do not want to hurt the innocent and are not monsters, and look at the news through that lens, and if you are not already blinded by hate, you will see that the simplistic "Israel is bad" narrative is a mere meme, and the truth is way beyond the headlines. 






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

  • Sunday, January 28, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon

There is a gaping hole in the ICJ provisional measures ruling issued on January 26.

The major provisional measure requested by South Africa - indeed, the first one listed in its application - was "(1) The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza." 

The ICJ provisional measures included six orders, that roughly correspond to most of the other measures requested by South Africa. And the orders that it did consider were overwhelmingly approved by the judges, either by votes of 15-2 or 16-1.

So why didn't the ICJ judges vote on the main request from South Africa?

The ruling itself barely addresses this issue. It says (76-77), "The Court recalls that it has the power, under its Statute, when a request for provisional measures has been made, to indicate measures that are, in whole or in part, other than those requested.... In the present case, having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the measures to be indicated need not be identical to those requested."

Reading between the lines, it seems that the ICJ considered South Africa's main request for Israel to immediately stop all military activities to be so absurd as to not even be worth consideration or discussion. 

In his separate declaration, Judge Dalveer Bhandari (India) wanted to add this order: "All participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting and hostilities come to an immediate halt and that remaining hostages captured on 7 October 2023 are unconditionally released forthwith." Even he did not consider South Africa's demand for Israel - and only Israel - to stop fighting, without a similar demand of Hamas and a demand for Hamas to release the hostages, to be worth considering.

Now, imagine if the ICJ judges would have voted on the request by South Africa for Israel (and only Israel) to stop fighting. The vote would have been overwhelmingly if not unanimously against it. 

What would the world headlines have been? "The ICJ rules for Israel and dismisses South Africa's main demands."

The ICJ did not want to make it appear as if Israel won and South Africa lost on the main points. So it changed the provisional measures voted on to only the ones that could appear to be overwhelmingly against Israel. And it didn't even discuss why the main South African demand was not considered.

This indicated that the ICJ cared more about optics than law. It didn't want to make South Africa look bad, even as it dismissed its main legal argument for a unilateral Israeli ceasefire without discussion.

But it had no problem writing paragraph after paragraph that Israel might "plausibly" be committing genocide, using extraordinarily thin evidence compared to that used in similar cases brought before the court, as Judge Aharon Barak's separate opinion showed (paragraphs 34-36.)

Barak wrote plainly what the ICJ refused to say explicitly:
South Africa came to the Court seeking the immediate suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. It has wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel. The Court rejected South Africa’s main contention and, instead, adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens...
By burying its rejection of South Africa's attempt to hamstring Israel's ability to defend itself, and instead emphasizing the supposed "plausibility" of the genocide charge, the ICJ showed that the law is not its main consideration when it comes to Israel. It knows that any explicit ruling in Israel's favor on even one point would result in thousands of op-eds, articles and posts attacking the legitimacy of the Court from antisemites. 

It didn't want to be the object of protest. It didn't want the roads to the ICJ to be blocked by angry Jew-haters. 

Its ruling showed that it cares more about politics and optics than the law itself. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive