Thursday, November 25, 2021

  • Thursday, November 25, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon


In 1966, Saudi King Faisal showed what he meant when he said he was against Zionists.

From the New York Daily News, June 23, 1966:
Saudi Arabia's King Faisal declared today, while Washington officials shuddered, that Jews throughout the world are his country's enemies.

Under heavy questioning at a newspaper luncheon, the monarch finally poured out his deep feelings about the historic conflict which has divided Jews and Arabs. 

"Unfortunately the Jews throughout the world provide assistance to Israel . . .," he said. "We consider those who provide assistance to our enemy is our own enemy." 

Faisal's words, which seemed to tumble out without premeditation, triggered an immediate diplomatic rhubarb which clouded the start of his state visit to the U.S. Even while the Saudis were feting President Johnson at a glittering embassy dinner, the storm built up. And Secretary of State Dean Rusk was called to late night conferences on the fate of the king's New York visit. A spokesman said no final decision was reached immediately and meanwhile there would be no comment. 

The hawk-nosed king, dressed in flowing Bedouin robes, gave frank answers to questions from the audience, speaking Arabic with a State Department interpreter translating. 

"It has never been our objective to exterminate Israel and throw it into the sea." Faisal said. ". . . This impression has been spread around by Jewish propaganda." 

But he said that present Arab rulers were as determined as ever to reclaim the former state of Palestine and evict the Jews who immigrated to Israel after the new country was established in 1948.

 "Zionism has . . . through aggression ... taken over that country ... occupied it .. and thrown its people out." he said. 

On other matters, defending Saudi Arabia's Islamic penal code, he said: "We are going to preserve — continue— the present practice of punishing thieves by chopping off their hand, because it is derived from the Koran. It has served us very well and almost eliminated crime in our country." 
JTA added, "The king said 'the Jews' had been guilty of “violation of every human right” of the Arabs."

As indicated in the article, King Faisal went off-script to make these statements, revealing the truth that people even today refuse to admit: anti-Zionism is just another form of antisemitism. 

Of course, the Saudi government then went into firefighting mode, and days later issued a statement that he only meant Zionist Jews, not all Jews: “We are not against the religion of the Jews, but against the Zionists and the Jews who help the Zionists.”

Even that clarification is antisemitic, since it still singled out Jews who help Zionists, not non-Jews.

Nowadays the Jew-haters are much more circumspect in their words, knowing that explicit hate of Jews is forbidden but explicit hate of the Jewish state is celebrated. Still, when you catch them off-camera, off-mic, or in drunken tirades on Twitter, you almost invariably discover that they really meant Jews all along.

Notice that Faisal used the terminology "occupation" to describe Israel in 1966 - before "occupation." 

One other difference between 1966 and today: In 1966, reporters actually would ask tough questions to Arab leaders. Now they generally treat them with kid gloves because they don't want to jeopardize their access to the same rulers in the future.





  • Thursday, November 25, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon
Yesterday, Australia extended its existing ban on Hezbollah's "military wing" to the entire group, declaring all of Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Australian Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews explained that the Iran-backed Hezbollah threatens terrorist attacks and provides support to Islamic Jihad and the Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, which is also considered terrorist under Australian law.

So why doesn't Australia also ban all of Hamas?

Australian National Security explains  why Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades is considered a terrorist group:
Division 102 of the Criminal Code provides that for an organisation to be listed as a terrorist organisation, the Minister for Home Affairs must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation:

- is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act; or
- advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
For the purposes of listing a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code, the doing of a terrorist act includes the doing of a specific terrorist act, the doing of more than one terrorist act and the doing of a terrorist act, even if a terrorist act does not occur.
As we saw only this week, the murderer of Eli Kay in Jerusalem on Sunday was done by a prominent Hamas "political wing" member, praised by Hamas' "political wing," and even the political leadership of Hamas didn't distinguish between its supposed wings when it protested Britain's designation of the entire organization as a terror group, instead defending terrorist attacks as "legal."

Even Australia's description of the Qassam Brigades describes Hamas as a whole as "an ideologically and religiously motivated violent extremist organisation and political party."

After the British decision, I imagine that Australia will follow suit to declare all of Hamas as terrorist, and it has probably started the process.

It is notable that when Australia lists Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades terrorist activities, it highlights its rocket and incendiary balloon attacks on Israel as terrorism:

From 10-21 May 2021, Palestinian militants, including from the Brigades, launched over 4,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza. The Brigades’ official spokesperson claimed its responsibility for multiple strikes against Israel during this period.
On 29 December 2020, Palestinian militant groups, including the Brigades, launched rockets into the Mediterranean Sea off Gaza during joint military drills. According to an official Brigades statement, the exercises aimed to simulate expected threats posed by Israel and to develop the capability of Palestinian resistance fighters for conflict.
Throughout August 2020, Palestinian militants in Gaza launched hundreds of incendiary and explosive balloons and at least 16 rockets into Israel before a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was reached on 31 August. The Brigades probably supported some of these attacks.
...On the basis of these examples, the Brigades is assessed as responsible for directly or indirectly engaging in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of terrorist acts.
Most countries and NGOs, while generally condemning Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, have avoided calling it "terrorism" - even though it clearly is. It is good to see that Australia does.

Let's hope they do the right thing soon and extend their ban to all of Hamas.







  • Thursday, November 25, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon
Here is a press release from the Palestine Scholars Association in the Diaspora, putting an Islamic imprimatur on murdering Jews:

A statement about the heroic operation carried out by the martyr Sheikh Fadi Abu Shkhaydam in Jerusalem

The Almighty said: {And do not think that those who were killed in the way of Allah are dead, but they are alive with their Lord, receiving sustenance} Al Imran 69:1

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, and blessings and peace be upon our master Muhammad and his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the Day of Judgment; And yet:

The Association of Palestinian Scholars congratulates our Palestinian people and our Islamic nation on the heroic operation carried out by the martyr Sheikh Fadi Abu Shkhaydam on the doorstep of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

This heroic operation, which is considered a security penetration of the security fortresses of the Zionist enemy and an outperformance of its intelligence capabilities, to vex and abuse them in full view of the world.

The martyred preacher Sheikh Fadi Abu Shkhaydam has watered his influential words and sermons in the mosques of Jerusalem with his blood and led the ranks in redemption and sacrifice as a great model for working scholars, sacrificing preachers and mujahideen preachers.

The martyr Sheikh emphasized that the path to purify the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque is paved with the souls of the faithful and paved with their blood.

Al-Quds and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque will remain the first Qibla for those who deny our sanctities and our dignity, for those who defend our homelands, and for those who expose Zionist falsehood and repudiate what is above.
The headquarters for this association is in Istanbul, Turkey.

It's always interesting to note that the secular Israel haters (represented by the PFLP and its allies) and the religious Israel haters (like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestine Scholars Association) have nothing in common except their hate for Israel, but antisemitism make strange bedfellows.






Wednesday, November 24, 2021

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: Hanukkah Unbound
It is with this in mind that the central ritual of Hanukkah today—the kindling of several small flames in commemoration of a Menorah that burned in the Temple for eight miraculous nights—must be understood. The story of the flask of oil has been mocked by bigoted anti-Jewish writers who celebrate the intellectual achievements of Hellenism. Thus did Christopher Hitchens sneer that “Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants.” But such a critique, like most of Hitchens’s commentary on biblical religion, entirely misses the point. The contrast between the fire of Greece and the flames of the Talmud allows us to understand that for Jews, to light the menorah is to do more than mark a miracle; it is to look at those small flames and ponder what biblical monotheism bequeathed to a pagan world, and the miraculous endurance of the tiny people that brought this message to humanity.

We are indeed forever indebted to Athens for its intellectual achievements, but the menorah’s flames remind us of the insights found not in Athens but Jerusalem—that human beings are created in the image of God, and therefore precious and inviolable; that history has purpose; and that countries stand under the judgement of a good and just God. The Nazi effort to seize the Olympian mantle ought to remind us of the dangers of rebelling against this biblical message, as Germany in the early 20th century was, in a sense, the Athens of its age. This point was made by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a speech delivered at a congressional Holocaust memorial:
You will have missed the most frightening aspect of it all, if you do not appreciate that it happened in one of the most educated, most progressive, most cultured countries in the world. The Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s was a world leader in most fields of art, science, and intellect….Berlin was a center of theater.…German poets and writers included Hermann Hesse, Stefan George, Leonhard Frank, Franz Kafka, and Thomas Mann.…In architecture, Germany was the cutting edge.…And in science, of course, the Germans were preeminent.

The right response to what happened in Germany, Scalia reflected, “can be achieved only by acknowledging, and passing on to our children, the existence of absolute, uncompromising standards of human conduct. Mankind has traditionally derived such standards from religion; and the West has derived them from and through the Jews.”

This, in the end, is what Hanukkah is all about, and the holiday therefore speaks particularly to us today. Throughout much of the West, biblical faith has waned profoundly. No one still sacrifices to Zeus, but given the approach of many to the sanctity of human life and the worshipful embrace of nature, the prospect of a repaganized Europe is all too real a possibility. In a season marked all too often by holiday kitsch, it is worth remembering the clash of cultures that brought Hanukkah into being—and the profound message that the menorah’s flames have to teach us.
Does Hanukkah Make You Uncomfortable? This Year Ask Why
In a previous piece, I told the tale embedded in Jewish-American folklore of the Hanukkah story inspiring George Washington during the Revolutionary War. And as President Reagan remarked at a 1983 Hanukkah celebration: “[the holiday] is of great importance to the meaning of America. … Hanukkah is symbolic of the Jewish struggle to resist submission to tyranny and to sustain its spiritual heritage.”

President Obama got it right at the 2013 White House Hanukkah Reception, when he said that Hanukkah is about “a people who surmounted overwhelming odds to reclaim their historic homeland … Jewish communities around the world kept alive a light that would not be extinguished. The hope that freedom would triumph over tyranny.”

The sources above demonstrate that Hanukkah is a tale of unyielding resistance to government despotism, of fighting and dying for freedom, of religious conservatism, of sovereign independence, of civic virtue, of risking everything, of right makes might, of seeing God’s hand in history, and of believing miracles are still possible.

Unfortunately, these ideals have loosened their grip on the hearts of modern man and woman. Some deny them outright. Adam Smith observed that “every faculty in one man is the measure by which he judges the like faculty in another. I judge of your sight by my sight … of your love by my love.”

When the motivations that stirred the Maccabees to battle mean little to us, so does Hanukkah. Can we be inspired by martyrs for a cause we hold in ambivalence?

However, if this brand of Hanukkah feels uncomfortable, this year, ask yourself why.
Hey American businesses: Hanukkah is not the Jewish Christmas
Media companies are just as guilty. The Hallmark Channel is famous for its month+ of heartwarming Christmas movies, and in recent years they’ve included some token Hanukkah-themed stories as well…but the results indicate that the writers neglected to consult anyone knowledgeable about Judaism. The movies often feature a Jewish main character with no Jewish knowledge who needs to be educated about the holiday. Expect lots of dreidel decorations and a “happily ever after” with a couple from different faiths coming together to show the value of cultural diversity.

It’s as if these creators sat around and asked themselves, “How can I take my Christmas merchandise and market it to Jews who celebrate Hanukkah despite my lack of knowledge about Hanukkah? I’ll make a ‘Jewish’ elf-on-the-shelf! Or a Jewish Christmas movie!” These creations indicate the mistaken assumption that Jews don’t have a rich enough culture and are looking to incorporate Christmas traditions into their celebration of Hanukkah instead of celebrating the unique characteristics of their own winter holiday without connection to anything else. Of course, these artists and companies think that if they use these symbols or a few Jewish words, it makes everything kosher and Jewish. And frankly, it’s insulting.

I understand that this trend to use Jewish signs and symbols in holiday merchandise stems from a desire to include Jews in a Christmas-oriented society, who often feel left out of the holiday excitement. By including a token nod to other cultures’ winter holidays, these businesses demonstrate a level of cultural sensitivity that indicates that they understand. They make attempts at humor with puns using Jewish words, thinking they’re making a humorous joke, but in reality, they’re making a bad ethnic joke by those who aren’t part of the ethnic group, and that is culturally offensive.

Hanukkah celebrates Jews refusing to assimilate to an occupying culture that tried to define what their culture should be. It’s sadly ironic that this celebration of Jewish freedom from outside cultural influences has turned into a celebration of assimilation.

Perhaps I’m being too sensitive since I am an educated Orthodox Jew familiar with the background of our holidays. I guess what is truly tragic is that for some American Jews, Jewish Christmas is exactly what they’re seeking, and they miss the true meaning of Hanukkah.



Buried deep into a piece about the heart-wrenching murder of Eli Kay, HY”D,* was this sentence: “The Temple Mount was closed to Jews immediately after the attack.”

This is a sentence to which we have become accustomed to encountering after every Jerusalem terror attack. And it is a painful sentence to read. It is a sentence that represents a fundamental disagreement between everyday Israelis and decisions successive Israeli governments, through the years, have made.

Many of us believe it is a tactical mistake for Israel to make it illegal for Israeli Jews to exercise their religious rights in reference to the holiest site in Judaism. It means we have ceded sovereignty, surrendered power. It means they, the Arabs, have won the battle, and kept the Temple Mount for themselves, the crown jewel of Jerusalem, Judenrein. They kill us in the streets of the Holy City, and our response is to make concessions. We make nice to them by sacrificing our own fundamental human rights, as we watch them preen over their victory and plan the next step in eradicating the Jewish presence in what they think of as their land.

And so it goes with all our religious sites. When the sovereign government of Israel forbids Jews from visiting religious shrines, what are the Arabs to understand but that the Jews have submitted to Allah? The fact that the “Temple Mount was closed to Jews immediately after the attack,” is tantamount to Jewish acknowledgement that Islam reigns supreme (God forbid) over the Temple Mount, God’s house.

This tactic of not riling up the "natives," in which we bow to false narratives and antisemitic dictates makes Jews pathetic. When we concede the Temple Mount to Muslims, barring Jewish prayer and access, we support the view that Jews have and should have no rights: no right to the land, no access to Jewish holy sites, no recognition of Jewish history.

We look the other way as they rewrite history, regurgitating lies to their children in mosques and UNRWA classrooms. We look the other way on the things they say about us among themselves in their own language, and what they teach to their children and the masses at large. Indeed the murderer of Eli Kay was on the payroll of the Jerusalem Municipality in his profession as a teacher in a boy’s school in the Muslim Quarter, under the auspices of Israel’s Education Ministry. This monster (may his name and memory be erased) got paid by Israel to mold young minds using the antisemitic PA curriculum.

Teachers like the murderer of Eli Kay declare and preach that the Jews are thieves, that the Arabs were in Israel before the Jews, that the Jews are from Europe. These “educators” tell young people that Jews are vermin who appropriate Arab food. Their students learn that the Jews started the Holocaust to provide an excuse to steal more Arab land. The world, headed by Europe, sends them billions of dollars in support, much of it going precisely for this sort of concerted incitement. It is impossible not to deduce that the world wants us, the Jews, dead.

For people like the monster who killed Eli Kay, there is only one way, one world. That world is black and white and divided into two. There is land ruled by Muslims (dar al-Islam), and land that is yet to be ruled by Muslims, and until then, remains the domain of war (dar al-harb).

This Arab attitude of attack and receive concessions has taken hold. But back in 1967, things were different. The Arabs knew that they had been trounced. They saw no return to Muslim rule on the horizon. The Jews had trumped Islam and captured the height of heights, the pinnacle of holiness, the Temple Mount.

The Arabs were beaten and they knew it. But as it turned out, however, that didn’t matter. They'd lost but they'd won. Because Moshe Dayan, a man right up there in the Israeli hierarchy, a man who had just suffered a nervous breakdown, went and returned the Temple Mount, the spoils of war that anyway belonged to the Jews by right, to the vanquished enemy.

Moshe Dayan ceded the Temple Mount (and other important holy sites) consulting no one. Giving back what Israel had fought hard to restore to the rightful owners, the Jewish people, was one man’s doomed, dumb, and tragic attempt at making peace with an implacable enemy. Dayan did not succeed in making peace. Instead, he succeeded in giving the defeated party a hold on his people, the Jews.

From the time Dayan gave the Temple Mount, so recently b’yadeinu (in our hands), to the Waqf—the Jordanian Islamic Trust—the Jews were screwed. From the Arab perspective, the Jews had bent their heads to Islam. The Jew Dayan had given Islam a clawhold on God’s house, the Temple. Islam had received a gift at the hand of a Jew, a prize, the Temple Mount, a place at the heart of Judaism, the height of Jewish holiness.

Why should anyone be surprised that they should think they had gained the upper hand? After all, the Temple Mount had been handed over to them on a platter. Why would they not think that the Jews had submitted to Islam? With the Temple Mount in their hands, they hold us by the neck like a bulging plastic bag. With their stranglehold on Jerusalem, from atop Temple Mount, they believe they are king.

This is not a good thing for the Jews of Israel. Dayan give them a mile, and expected them to refrain from taking an inch. But the opposite was and still is true. The more concessions made, the more Arabs and their supporters demonize us in the media, and the more terrorists set out to murder Jews within the Holy City. Here is the “peace” agreement between Jews and Arabs: Jews agree not to pray or step foot on the Temple Mount. In exchange, maybe the Arabs won’t riot, or maybe they will. Because they are holding the football.

The Arabs hold the crown jewel of Judaism. Dayan, a symbol of the Israeli left, handed it to them. This is his legacy: the more Arabs riot, the more Jews are forbidden access to their holy places. Because the Arabs have learned to make a ruckus when Jews ascend to their holy places, in particular after a terror attack: it’s too “contentious” for Jews to be in this spot that means so much to them, but has been stamped with the imprint of Islam, a stamp so difficult for Jews to now revoke.

Thus, Israel keeps the quiet by assenting to their rules, their way, their God.

That is the only way to understand this tactic, this mechanism by which the Jews are trapped in a web of violence of their own making by way of Moshe Dayan and now the Israeli left. This is the apparatus by which the sacrifice of a beautiful young man who was murdered, Eli Kay, is trivialized and demeaned by an Israeli edict against Jewish religious rites.

Going back to 1967, we see that it took the Arabs a bit of time to understand that while they were sure they’d lost, they’d actually won, because they received the Temple Mount. But until that realization sank in, the Arabs understood only that they had been humiliated. A few Jews had vanquished many Arabs, a modern-day David meeting the infernal Goliath.

In 1967, the Arabs absorbed a lesson. They’d been spanked. They knew who was who, and what was what. Allah had not smiled on them. They’d been trounced, and thoroughly cowed. The effect was to drastically reduce Arab terror.

This was the Israel I came to when I arrived in 1979. An Israel in which the Arabs of the Old City were docile and submissive. When the residents of the Jewish Quarter of which I was one, hired the occasional sabal to cart our things around on their backs, I was reminded of how the British had treated the people of India as their inferiors. How submissive the natives were, saying “Yes, Memsahib, no, Memsahib.”

Now it was the Arabs who were subservient to the Jews. And that was good. It meant recognition that the Jews were back, that the land had been restored to them. That acceptance, and the fear that attended it, again, translated to fewer acts of Arab terror. Jewish might had been demonstrated, as well as the Arab ineptitude in war. It had been insultingly necessary, from their viewpoint, for Israel to hand the prize to them, as they, on their own, had not able to defend it, to hold onto the Jewish Temple Mount for themselves.

At some point, however, the Arabs figured it out. They had Israel by the short hairs. The idea that Israel was sovereign was a joke, meaningless, as long as they held Har HaBayit, the vestiges of the Jewish Temple, in their hot little hands.

What is the solution to this untenable and unsustainable status quo in which Jews are sovereign, but the Arabs hold sway? How do we make clear that the Jews are sovereign, and that Jews can and will pray out loud on the Temple Mount?

It begins with destroying the hold of the left on Israel. It is helped by intelligent initiatives such as the Abraham Accords. The accords appear to have an impressive ability to drown out the chatter: the false narrative of the fake refugees and their supporters, the people who hate the Jews so much they don’t even want them to have even a tiny sliver of land for themselves.

But mostly it begins at home. Israel must end the practice of issuing edicts forbidding Jews to ascend to the Temple Mount after murderous Arab terror attacks on Jews. This must stop.

It seems obvious that this simple act of omission would have a major impact on this terrible dynamic, in which the Jewish people are wronged and slighted after one of them is murdered, an imbalance of power in which the victim kowtows to his butcher. Don’t make edicts, don’t make statements. The enemy will begin to get the message. The terror attacks will lessen in number. The balance of power will yet be restored.

Just watch and see. Halavai.

*Acronym for the Hebrew: Hashem Yinkom Damo/Dama (may Hashem avenge his/her blood). Used instead of Alav/Aleha Hashalom (may he/she rest in peace), when speaking of Jews who were murdered for being Jews, or who otherwise die in the service of a holy cause.





Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal


What does the Biden Administration actually want?

One might think it is that Iran will not make nuclear weapons. But it’s more complicated than that. To try to answer the question, I looked at a recent article in America’s own Pravda, the NY Times.

Some of the arguments attributed to US officials that appear in that piece are difficult to criticize, because they are so bad that it’s impossible to take them seriously. For example,

American officials have warned their Israeli counterparts that the repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities may be tactically satisfying, but they are ultimately counterproductive, according to several officials familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions. Israeli officials have said they have no intention of letting up, waving away warnings that they may only be encouraging a sped-up rebuilding of the program — one of many areas in which the United States and Israel disagree on the benefits of using diplomacy rather than force.

Perhaps if Iranian leaders were indifferent about the importance of their nuclear program, then they might be spurred to give it a higher priority in response to sabotage. But their actions in recent years indicate that they will do whatever they can get away with in order to succeed. It is their top priority. The pedal is already to the metal. Of course they rebuild what is damaged or destroyed, but it’s silly to suggest that the overall time to completion of the project is reduced, rather than increased, by effective sabotage.

The article suggests, again, that Donald Trump’s decision to abrogate the original 2015 JCPOA allowed Iran to leap forward, as if Trump simply canceled the deal’s restrictions on Iran and did nothing else. But the sanctions of the “maximum pressure campaign” had brought Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse. Trump and Pompeo’s diplomacy made possible the Abraham Accords, a regional cooperation pact aimed at weakening and containing Iran. Trump also wanted to employ covert operations and the use of “force short of war” against the nuclear program, Iran’s missile development, and her regional terror infrastructure. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani was an extremely heavy blow.

Unfortunately, there was little cooperation from the CIA and the Pentagon, and although plans were made for a “campaign to conduct sabotage, propaganda and other psychological and information operations in Iran,” Trump left office before it could be carried out. The Iranians, assured by all the Democratic contenders for the presidency that Trump’s policy would be reversed if he lost, knew that all they had to do was hang on until January 2021.

A combination of economic sanctions, diplomatic initiatives, subversion and support for domestic opponents of the regime, along with the use of force short of war, could have brought the regime to a breaking point. It would then have had to choose between real concessions on its nuclear program and collapse. But the Biden Administration rejected this path, and chose instead to return to the 2015 deal, and somehow seek a better one later.

That agreement was flawed in many ways, which was why Trump decided to dump it. The deal’s provisions for inspections were weak and allowed the Iranians to cheat (which they did); it weakened existing UN sanctions on missile development and did not replace them, it provided a massive influx of cash that the Iranians could and did use to finance terror against Israel and in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; and finally, it actually legitimized Iran as a nuclear weapons state after 2030.

However, even this poor deal is now unavailable. The Times article admits that “President Biden’s vision of re-entering the agreement in his first year, then building something ‘longer and stronger,’ appears all but gone.” This is not surprising, since the administration began weakening sanctions on Iran a month after taking office, and chose one of its most pro-Iranian (and anti-Israel) appointees, Robert Malley, to be head of the Iran team. The signals have been read clearly in Tehran, whose chief negotiator at the Vienna talks refers to them not as nuclear negotiations, but rather “negotiations to remove unlawful and inhuman sanctions.”

So what, precisely, does the US expect to get out of its diplomatic efforts? Maybe this, from the same Times story, will provide a clue:

… inside the White House, there has been a scramble in recent days to explore whether some kind of interim deal might be possible to freeze Iran’s production of more enriched uranium and its conversion of that fuel to metallic form — a necessary step in fabricating a warhead. In return, the United States might ease a limited number of sanctions. That would not solve the problem. But it might buy time for negotiations, while holding off Israeli threats to bomb Iranian facilities.

As in the original JCPOA, Iran will only agree to limitations that will not materially affect their progress. But they will accept any easing of sanctions that they can get. The problem with the diplomatic process is that the Iranians do not believe that the US is prepared to go back to “maximum pressure,” and certainly not to use force. Time is entirely on their side, and they can continue to temporize for as long as it takes to finish their project, while collecting whatever benefits Biden’s impulse to appease will bring them.

Meanwhile, Biden’s people feel it’s necessary to “hold off” the Israelis, who would like to cut off the head of the snake that is not only developing nuclear weapons, but behind most of the anti-Israel terrorism in the region. Yesterday, Israel’s PM Naftali Bennett noted that

Along with the advancements in its nuclear program, Iran also consistently surrounded Israel, arming militias and placing rockets on every side … Iran can be seen from every window in Israel.

[Iran] irritates us from abroad, uses our energy, chases us; causes us harm without even leaving the house …

Israel’s biggest strategic mistake was “attacking the messenger” [Hezbollah, Hamas] instead of Iran. Chasing after the terrorist of the day who is sent by the Quds Force is no longer logical. We have to get to the one who is sending them.

If the JCPOA was inadequate to prevent Iran from getting the Bomb, then a new deal that is even weaker will do even less. But the objective – as it was for Barack Obama in 2015 – seems to be to get a deal, regardless of its effectiveness, because in Obama and Biden’s view, nothing is more important than preventing Israel from stopping Iran. Is the tail wagging the dog much?

Consider: if the objective were actually to stop Iran, and if stopping Iran required economic pressure along with a credible military threat, then wouldn’t the best way to do it be to cooperate with Israel, instead of holding her back?

No, the objective is not to stop Iran. It is to prevent Israel from stopping Iran, and to avert the consequences that would follow.

Think about the likely results of an Israeli victory over Iran: the rise of a regional power bloc – even a world power – led by Israel and Saudi Arabia, including the Gulf states and maybe even the potentially greatest power in the Arab world, Egypt; the end of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the irredentist Palestinian movement; and the final eviction of western colonialism from the Middle East.

There are multiple reasons that various constituencies in the West would prefer a new Shiite caliphate to a regional Israeli-Arab bloc, ranging from simple antisemitism and a desire to see the “mistake” of a Jewish state “corrected,” to naïve leftist third-worldism, to a belief that Iran would be easier to control than Israel.

But the can cannot be kicked down the road any longer. The inexorable progress of Iran toward nuclear weapons will surely force a decision in a matter of months – or even weeks







From Ian:

Australia labels all of Hezbollah a terrorist organization
Australia on Wednesday listed all of Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization,” extending an existing ban on armed units to the entire organization, which wields considerable power in Lebanon.

Australian Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said that the Iran-backed Shiite group “continues to threaten terrorist attacks and provide support to terrorist organizations,” and poses a “real” and “credible” threat to Australia.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who met with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison earlier this month at the UN climate conference, where he urged him to enact the Hezbollah ban, welcomed the decision.

“I thank the government of Australia and my friend Scott Morrison for their intention to define Hezbollah as a terrorist organization,” he tweeted. “We will continue to act in every way possible against terrorism, including in the international arena.”

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said that “Australia is a close friend of Israel in the fight against global terrorism.”

“The Australian decision joins similar and important decisions of 17 other countries in the last two years that have realized that there are no separate wings to terrorist organizations,” Lapid said. “This holds true for the terrorist organization Hezbollah — it is one body, and any separation between its wings is artificial.”

Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist group by parts of the West, although some countries have been reluctant to sanction the group’s political wing, fearing it could destabilize Lebanon and hamper contacts with authorities.
Lisa Nandy confirms Labour will back Priti Patel’s move to ban Hamas
Labour’s Lisa Nandy has confirmed that her party will be supporting the Home Secretary’s move to ban the political wing of Hamas as well as its military offshoot telling Jewish News: “We think this is absolutely the right thing to do.”

On Wednesday the motion outlining Priti Patel’s bid to proscribe the Islamic terror organisation will be debated in the House of the Commons.

Confirming her party’s backing for the proposal, the shadow foreign secretary said: “It was a recommendation made by an independent body. The rationale for it is that there is no longer any meaningful distinction to be made between the military and political wings of Hamas.

“We have already proscribed the military wing – this essentially brings us in line with the rest of Europe, the United States and Canada.

“It essentially returns us to the status quo position. We think it is absolutely the right thing, the sensible thing to do.”

Nandy said that Labour will seek assurances from the Government in Wednesday’s debate that proscription of Hamas in full does not prevent aid reaching those in need of it.

But she said this was a “technical consideration” rather than a concern over the principle of the Home Secretary’s move.


JPost Editorial: Malaysia treatment of Israel is backward
In a 2019 speech at Columbia University, Mahathir said that his antisemitic statements were just an expression of “free speech.” “Why is it that I can’t say something against the Jews, when a lot of people say nasty things about me, about Malaysia?” he asked.

Mahathir, who at 96 is no longer prime minister, left an ugly imprint on the country. According to the ADL’s global survey on antisemitism, 61% of Malaysians hold antisemitic sentiments, the highest percentage – except for Greece – of any country outside the Mideast.

It should also come as no surprise that the Malaysian squash association wants to ban Israeli athletes – the country lost its chance to host the World Para Swimming Championship because of its decision in 2019 to bar Israeli athletes.

“I do not understand why the world must follow Israel,” was Mahathir’s unrepentant response. “The world has the power, but they choose to obey Israel. We do not obey.”

That was not the first time Israeli athletes were barred from international competition in Malaysia. In 2015, Malaysia came under a great deal of international criticism for preventing two Israeli windsurfers from competing in the Youth Sailing World Championships.

Those actions against athletes are not trademarks of the modern, forward-looking country that Malaysia aspires to be.

Israel is right to make a big deal out of this: it should never acquiesce to any manifestation of discrimination against its athletes or any of its representatives taking part in competitions or conferences around the globe.

If Malaysia’s decision is not rescinded, the World Squash Federation should move the tournament, just as the International Paralympic Committee did in 2019. If enough tournaments are canceled in Malaysia because of discrimination against Israeli athletes, then perhaps at some point the Malaysian government will get the message that its discrimination against Israeli nationals is a form of bigotry that is no longer tolerated.
  • Wednesday, November 24, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon
Lately, Palestinian Arabic media have been making a bold claim.

Raia al-Youm writes, 
Even before its establishment in Europe, the Zionist movement used to claim that Palestine is the “Promised Land” and that the Jews are “God’s chosen people.” And the heresy of Jerusalem as a “completely Jewish city,”  invaded the Western world, which eventually led the former US President, Donald Trump to recognize Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and ordered the transfer of Washington’s embassy in the entity to occupied Jerusalem.

In this context, the famous Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein (72 years old) from Tel Aviv University, once again appeared to dismantle these allegations, denying the existence of any connection to the Jews in Jerusalem, as he put it.
Al Quds goes further:
Israeli archaeologist Israel Flinckstein said that no one has found any Jewish antiquities in Jerusalem and that the archaeological excavations have not foiund a single Jewish article, and that what was discovered confirms that Jeruaalem is not Jewish and that all Talmudic claims are myths that were marketed for political purposes.

Finkelstein provided important information to the Jerusalem Report about the antiquities discovered in Jerusalem, all of which date back to ancient times, and that they are evidence of important historical periods for the empires that were prevalent, and that the Jews alone are not represented in them. , 

Finkelstein acknowledges that Jerusalem was ruled by the Jebusites, Sassanids, Greeks, Romans, etc., without mentioning the Jews in it, and that archaeology confirms that Jerusalem was never Jewish and was not subject to the rule of the Jews who lived in the vicinity.

Israel Finkelstein is well known as a skeptic of Biblical accounts of history, although he doesn't define himself in the "minimalist" school of Biblical archaeology. He has said there is no evidence for Joshua's conquests or for King David being more than a local chieftain. 

But did he say Jerusalem has no Jewish history?

A friend emailed Finkelstein a copy of the Al Quds article and asked him to comment. 

Finkelstein's response: "Complete nonsense. I've never said that nor do I think that."

He added, "The world is out of control, every spin and every lie gets a pass."

Which sounds a lot like Palestinian Arab media.

(h/t Yisrael Medad)


UPDATE: I missed that Finkelstein explained his thinking on Jerusalem in a separate email:

A summary of the history of Jerusalem to the best of my knowledge in a few sentences: 

1. The ancient tel was on the Temple Mount. Its size was perhaps about 50 dunams. At that time the city controlled a small area in the southern mountain region. 

2. Jerusalem began to spread from the Temple Mount tel toward the Gihon Spring in the 9th century BCE, perhaps in its second half. The city had then grown to an area of ​​about 90 dunams. At the same time, Judah spread to the lowlands and the Be'er Sheva Valley. 

3. Jerusalem reached its peak in the second half of the 8th century BCE, in terms of the kings of Judah I would say in the days of Hezekiah. It was then the largest city in all of Israel. 

4. Throughout this time until the Babylonian destruction there were palaces and temples on the Temple Mount. Of course this was also the case in the days of the Second Temple.






  • Wednesday, November 24, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon


In light of the British declaration that all of Hamas is a terrorist organization, Hamas has been responding with statements that claim that their attacks on Israeli civilians are legal under international law.

Hamas' press release in response to the news story said, "We believe that resisting the Israeli occupation with all means possible, including armed resistance, is a guaranteed right for peoples under occupation as per international law." 

This was two days before  a Hamas terrorist murdered Eli Kay in Jerusalem, and Hamas' "political wing" praised the murder. Hamas has consistently claimed that all terrorist acts - suicide bombs, bus bombings, rocket attacks, shootings, stabbings, car rammings - are really acts of legitimate armed struggle.

That claim is made often by apologists for Palestinian terror. One prominent example is CJ Werleman's  2018 article titled "International law guarantees Palestinians the right to resist," which is entirely based on this claim:
[I]nternational law is unambiguous in its endorsement of “armed struggle” for peoples who seek self-determination under “colonial and foreign domination.”

United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
Stanley Cohen, the convicted criminal who has defended terrorists in court, made a similar argument in Al Jazeera in 2017.

The claim is an absurd lie.

The entire point of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to protect civilians in the time of war. The idea that there is right  under international law for terror groups like Hamas to kill civilians is, to put it kindly, insane.

UN General Assembly resolutions do not have the force of international law. These supporters of terrorists murdering Jews cherry pick what they claim supports their position and ignore the overwhelming evidence against it.

Like all good propagandists, they take a germ of truth and then extend it into areas that were never the intent of the language. It is true that under international law, some believe that there is a right for groups under occupation to resist the dominant army under a set of very limited rules that are still evolving. 

Even if you consider Israel to be occupying Arab territory, in no way, shape or form does this include terror attacks against civilians, despite historic Arab insistence that clauses be added to UN General Assembly resolutions that appear to grant exceptions for Palestinian attacks. (There are other UNGA resolutions that condemn violence on both sides, proving that even the UNGA is not supportive of Palestinian violence, undercutting even the basic claim of the terror apologists.)

The Fourth Geneva Convention, article 33 is unambiguous: "No protected person [i.e., civilian] may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." There is no exception to this rule.

The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, article 51(2), is even more explicit: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

The same article goes on to declare Hamas' entire conception of "armed resistance" to be illegal:

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
This makes it clear that Hamas rockets are a direct violation of international law. 

(Later in that same article is the prohibition against using human shields.)

These are not the only legal instruments that prove that Hamas-style terror is a direct breach of international law, although they are enough. 

UN Security Council  Resolution 1566 (2004) condemns all kinds of terror, and it explicitly says that there is no possible excuse or exception for terrorist attacks - a direct rebuke to those like Hamas, Werleman and Cohen who pretend that Palestinians are in a different category:

1.  Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security;
...
3.  Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, and all other acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

This resolution was passed under Chapter 7, meaning that it has the force of international law. 

In 2004, the UN Secretary General described the difficulties in defining terrorism and briefly addressed the arguments of the terror apologists, demolishing them in a single paragraph:

The search for an agreed definition [of terrorism] usually stumbles on two issues. The first is the argument that any definition should include States’ use of armed forces against civilians. We believe that the legal and normative framework against State violations is far stronger than in the case of non-State actors and we do not find this objection to be compelling. The second objection is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right. The right to resistance is contested by some. But it is not the central point: the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians. 

Taken as a whole, international law is crystal clear: Hamas and the other Palestinian factions are terror groups and their attacks on civilians are blatantly illegal under international law. They are explicit war crimes. 

(See also Tomer Ilan's article here.)





  • Wednesday, November 24, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon



The Palestinian Authority loves to join international conventions.  

Not to abide by them, of course. As we saw with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and others, the Palestinian Authority signs on all these conventions just so they will look more like a real nation and and can join the International Criminal Court, but there is no or little intent to actually fulfill the obligations in those conventions.

The other major reason the PA joins every UN committee it can find is so that its envoys can make anti-Israel speeches, claiming that Israel is violating whatever the committee or convention is about. It tries to hijack every cause to make wild accusations against Israel.  

 It happened again this week, at the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, currently being held in Geneva, Switzerland.

Omar Awadallah, the PA's assistant foreign minister, demanded the United Nations send an international biological investigation team to the settlements, to inspect their supposed biological weapons labs.

In his speech, he said that the Palestinians cannot fully adhere to the Convention because Israel might have biological weapons manufacturing facilities in Palestinian territory.

Awadallah then tried to stop the Israeli representative from speaking, claiming that Israel has used chemical weapons against Palestinians.

To Palestinians, international fora are places that only exist to harass and threaten Israel. The organizers don't expect any member to act to subvert the entire process to attack a single state, so there are no means to stop the Palestinians from ruining international meetings.

You can be sure that the other envoys that attend these meetings, people who actually care about non--conventional weapons or climate or women's rights or anything else, are very unhappy about seeing these meetings turn into showcases of immaturity and stupidity from the Palestinian representatives.






Tuesday, November 23, 2021

From Ian:

Alan Johnson: ‘Can’t You See He’s Fooled You All?’: An Open Letter to Peter Gabriel et al explaining why Israel is not a ‘Settler Colonial’ society
So the ‘settler colonialism’ paradigm is not just analytically useless. It is also politically reactionary.

Activists in thrall to the paradigm are not constructive. They are destructive. They think it is their role to rewind the film of history, ‘smash the settler colonial Jewish state!’, and put in its place a new ‘de-Zionised’ ‘one state’. The Jews – who would soon be a minority in that state – and the Arabs, they tell us, will then live together in peace and harmony. (In today’s Middle East, no less.)

The ‘settler colonialism’ paradigm treats a tragic, and as yet unresolved, national question as if it is a Hollywood movie, with much cheering and booing, sanctifying and anathematising. That’s why, despite your intentions, the ‘settler colonialism’ paradigm is an obstacle to the Palestinian National Movement. As President Biden recently pointed out, the Palestinians must say unequivocally that they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as an independent Jewish state. The ‘settler colonialism’ paradigm pushes the Palestinians and their allies in the opposite direction, egging them on to take maximalist positions that make a final status agreement impossible.

There are two highly developed and distinct societies, Israeli and Palestinian. Each is based on a powerful sense of national identity and neither is going away, so they must divide the land. (When there are strong desires for national self-determination the one-state idea collapses, the world over, living on only among western intellectuals and activists.) However, to negotiate a division of the land each people needs to feel confident and secure, otherwise it will not make the necessary (and excruciating) compromises needed to make a deal. Each people must feel itself to be understood as a permanent feature of the Middle East. The ‘settler colonialism’ paradigm, and its linked revanchist programme, takes everybody in absolutely the opposite direction. (Yes, there are many in Israel too, of course, who do what they can to make the Palestinians feel they are not a permanent feature of the Middle East, and they too are part of the problem not the solution.)

To end, a word about the alternative. The alternative is to recognise the right to self-determination of both national groups and to pursue the realisation of that right in the form of ‘two states for two peoples’, to be reached in the only way it could ever be reached: peacebuilding, deep mutual recognition, negotiations, compromise, security guarantees and a sharing of the land.

Often the subject of premature obituaries, in truth this ‘two state solution’ is the only solution that has come near to ending the conflict; that has the majority support, even now, of the two peoples; and that has the good will, diplomatic heft – and financing – of the international community. Nothing else has that combination of democratic legitimacy, popular support and international approval. Yes, it is difficult to achieve, the spoilers are determined, and the last inch is, as they say, a mile deep. But no other proposed solution is real-world politics.

Peter, I believe that once decent people stop being fooled by the likes of Ilan Pappe and Ken Loach, stop viewing the conflict through the distorting prism of ‘settler colonialism’, and stop being in thrall to its crude analytical reductions and its reactionary, if beguiling, political simplicities, then they will hope for, encourage, and even be active in promoting peace through an accommodation between the two peoples.
Emily Schrader: Not everything is about Palestine
Several weeks ago at the climate change conference, protesters in Glasgow raised Palestinian flags. Protesters held signs claiming that Palestine is a climate change issue.

Last month, anti-Israel activists supposedly concerned with LGBTQ rights, harassed filmmakers over participating in the Tel Aviv LGBTQ film festival, which featured both Israeli and Palestinian films, without a care in the world for the fact that Palestinians cannot even hold an LGBTQ film festival in the Palestinian territories.

Graffiti was spotted following protests for Britney Spears over her controversial conservatorship stating “Free Britney + Palestine.” In the Scotland-Israel football game, protesters held signs calling to cancel the match because of “Israeli Apartheid” – never mind the fact nearly half the team is Arab. Fans at the match were even fined by FIFA for booing the Israeli national anthem.

Throughout the last month, anti-Israel activists have turned the Miss Universe pageant into an Israel-Palestine debate by harassing and bullying Miss South Africa and calling on her to not take part because the pageant is being held in Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the Women’s March, nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, nothing to do with climate change, with police brutality, with hate crimes against Asians, with Miss Universe, with Britney Spears, or with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. The cynical attempts to hijack causes and make them about Palestinians is simply tragedy tourism on the part of anti-Israel activists, not to mention it is disrespectful to the causes they are hijacking. There’s a difference between showing solidarity and using the publicity of another cause to promote your own propaganda.

These anti-Israel activists should not be welcomed in spaces where they cannot show genuine solidarity; these cynical hijackings show their true colors.
UN Watch: LIVE: Monitoring the United Nations
On Monday, November 22, at 12 pm EST, UN Watch’s Fundraising Campaign continues. Hillel Neuer will speak about how we monitor the United Nations, expose the hypocrisy, and answer your questions.

Mark your calendars and send your questions in advance to: campaign@unwatch.org

About the Campaign:
UN Watch needs to raise $500,000 by the end of November to ensure the continuation of its vital work. We are turning to our social media community to help us reach our goal.

To take part in the campaign, all you have to do is make a $5 donation and inspire 5 friends to do the same so that we can reach our $500,000 target by the end of November. It might not sound like much, but if every one of our social media followers gives $5 and asks 5 friends to do the same, we will surely hit our goal.

Donate now, visit: www.unwatch.org/2021-donate


  • Tuesday, November 23, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • ,
I always see BDSers say that they boycott Israel out of "solidarity" with Palestinians.

So, I wondered what that means, exactly...



When I posted this on Twitter, some people were upset at stereotyping Palestinians. Of course, not every Palestinian is guilty of every one of the things on the list, but surveys and Palestinian laws as well as reading mainstream Palestinian publications shows that either a majority of Palestinians fiteach of these descriptions, or that they never disagree (in the case of animal abuse or burning Israeli forests, for example.)








  • Tuesday, November 23, 2021
  • Elder of Ziyon

The Middle East Quartet envoys issued a press release last week:

The Envoys of the Middle East Quartet from the European Union, the Russian Federation, the United States, and the United Nations met in person in Oslo, Norway following an important meeting of the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee addressing the Palestinian economic situation. 

The Envoys welcome steps announced by Israel to reach out to the Palestinian Authority and to assist with the fiscal crisis. The Envoys remain deeply concerned by developments in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, including ongoing acts of violence in the West Bank, the advancement of new settlement units, the untenable fiscal crisis within the Palestinian Authority and threats of violence from the Gaza Strip. 

In this context, the Quartet highlights the urgent need for all parties to take additional steps to address these challenges directly through fiscal and other reforms, as well as to avoid unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and undermine the prospects for peace. 

The Envoys noted the pressing need to address the fragile situation in Gaza -- with the support of all relevant stakeholders, including in the region -- by ensuring continued humanitarian efforts and an easing of access and movement restrictions for people and goods. 

The Quartet Envoys highlighted the urgency of the situation and the importance of taking constructive steps to advance a two-State solution. They further underscored the importance of respect for human rights and the actions of civil society groups. 

Finally, the Envoys agreed to work toward a resolution of the conflict and continue consultations with the parties and key regional actors.
The statement is not saying anything that the EU doesn't say all the time. It touches on all the hot topics and takes the standard line that "everyone knows." 

It seems that once an organization is started, it is nearly impossible for it to disappear.

The Quartet webpage has not been updated since 2016, and it has not published a statement since 2013. Even this press release it not on its own page yet.

While the original Quartet members were quite visible, it appears that they are all now technocrats, working on specific issues like water and energy, looking for a niche. 

Everyone wants to have a piece of Middle East peace.








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 over 19 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:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive