Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

03/29 Links Pt2: Five killed in Bnei Brak terrorist shooting; Edinburgh-Gaza twinning proposal withdrawn; Women fighters of the Jewish Holocaust resistance

From Ian:

Five killed in Bnei Brak terrorist shooting

Five people were killed in a shooting spree in Bnei Brak on Tuesday evening.

The shooting was first reported around 8:00 p.m. on HaShnaim Street. One person was found killed in a car and two other people were killed on a sidewalk nearby.

Another person was found dead on Herzl Street, perpendicular to HaShnaim Street. A fifth victim, a police officer, was evacuated to the Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Campus in critical condition and died from his wounds soon after.

The shooter's body was found on Jabotinsky Street after he was shot by a police officer who arrived at the scene on a motorcycle.

Another person was arrested at the scene and investigated on the scene on suspicion of assisting the shooter, and a third person was arrested later on further east on Jabotinsky Street.

The terrorist was a 27-years-old man affiliated with Fatah, from the village of Ya'bad in the northern West Bank. He was jailed for half a year in 2015 for illegal arms dealing and belonging to a terrorist group, and had worked illegally at a building site in Bnei Brak.

Roman Abramovich, Ukrainian negotiators poisoned in Kyiv talks - WSJ report

Russian-Israeli oligarch Roman Abramovich and three Ukrainian negotiators in the ceasefire talks were allegedly poisoned during a meeting in Kyiv in early March, Netherlands-based open-source intelligence group Bellingcat confirmed a Wall Street Journal report on Monday.

Abramovich and the three members of the Ukrainian delegation, led by chief negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak, reportedly suffered from symptoms of poisoning after the Kyiv meeting held some time in February, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, WSJ reporter Max Colchester reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

Sources claimed they were poisoned by Russian hardliners who want to sabotage ceasefire negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv, the report stated. A source close to Abramovich, however, said that it was not clear who targeted the oligarch and the Ukrainian delegation.

The condition of the Russian-Israeli oligarch and the Ukrainian negotiating team has since improved and their lives are not in danger, though it was reported Abramovich lost his vision for several hours.

Experts who have looked into the poisoning incident claimed it was hard to determine whether a chemical or biological agent or some sort of electromagnetic radiation, was used, WSJ noted in its report.

In late February, The Jerusalem Post broke the news that Abramovich is attempting to assist in the talks between Russia and Ukraine at the request of Kyiv.

Tom Gross: The oligarchs can't overthrow Putin, the only real threat to his power may be from FSB hardliners

Tom Gross: The first part of this interview is here: Zelensky is no Havel or Mandela, but he is media savvy, whereas Putin is old school & doesn’t care

Ukraine’s most famous director ostracized for unflinching film on Babyn Yar pogrom

If you live in New York City and are attuned to the programming schedules of local arts cinemas, there is a man who is noticeably having a moment: 57-year-old Sergei Loznitsa.

The fact that Ukraine’s most celebrated film director has so many projects coming to theaters right now is only partially due to the circumstances in his home country. (The IFC Center near New York University, for example, is offering a mini-retrospective.) The other reason is that Loznitsa, who works in both documentary and narrative film, is incredibly prolific, and the ebb and flow of international distribution sometimes makes for a logjam.

The prestigious Museum of the Moving Image just hosted the New York debut of “Mr. Landsbergis,” a four-hour documentary about post-Soviet Lithuania, and his surrealist tragic-comedy about war and disinformation, “Donbass,” which won a directing award at Cannes in 2018, will finally make its way to New York theaters on April 8.

On April 1, however, Film Forum in Manhattan will present “Babi Yar. Context,” a documentary crafted from seldom-seen archival reels concerning a terrible chapter in Ukrainian history wherein close to 34,000 Jews were killed during the Holocaust in just a few days. (In early March, it was believed that Russian bombs damaged the contemporary memorial there, but this turned out not to be the case.)

No recordings were made of the actual killings at the Babyn Yar ravine (though still photos — in color — of the aftermath were taken), but Loznitsa’s film has that second word, “Context,” in its title. What he has sculpted, without voice-over and just a few title cards, is a fly-on-the-wall look at the social changes in Ukraine during the Nazi occupation.

From the first tanks rolling in through Lviv to Soviet infrastructure literally covering up the spot where so many Jews were executed, Loznitsa, adding sound to mostly silent footage, shows what happened — and some of it (e.g. a lot of Ukrainians seemingly eager to welcome the Nazi regime) isn’t exactly going over so well at home.

Which brings us to the next topical point. Last week Loznitsa, a six-time winner at the Ukrainian Academy Awards, was summarily dismissed from the Ukrainian Film Academy. Reasons cited include the accusation of being “too cosmopolitan.” Loznitsa, whose previous work includes “Maidan,” a celebration of Ukrainian independence in the face of corruption and Russian interference, commented in an open letter that the choice of words had an antisemitic aspect to it. (As far as I know, Loznitsa is not Jewish. I asked him directly, but he and his interpreter didn’t really respond, as you’ll read below.)

The flaws of the professional peace-processors (Guest post by @mike_bomb)

By Twitter user @mike_bomb

On Twitter Monday, in response to the Negev Summit, veteran peace-processor Aaron David Miller re-upped his September 23, 2020 Washington Post op-ed in which he purported to review old assumptions about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Re-reading the piece illustrated for me how much he—along with the rest of the peace-processors—still gets wrong.

He mentions a few of the old assumptions, the first of which is that “The status quo is unsustainable.” He correctly notes that it very possibly is sustainable, but his reasoning that “The parties themselves have been willing to manage the status quo, however grim it may be, because changing it required more political risk than either side was willing to accept…” is flawed. Israel has time and again demonstrated that it is willing to take the political risk to change the status quo, offering peace plans to the Palestinians who never accept and never come back with a counter-offer. In the absence of a Palestinian leadership willing to take political risk, Israel has no choice but to manage the status quo, regardless of their own political risk tolerance.

It has to be reiterated: the Palestinian side has never made a serious peace proposal or a counter-offer to an Israeli proposal. Most often, they simply refuse to negotiate. At one point, they claimed that they would not negotiate unless there was a settlement freeze. Israel responded by freezing settlement construction, and they still refused to negotiate.

Another thing that Miller gets wrong about the status quo and American efforts to change it is that he claims “America’s special relationship with Israel prevented bringing serious pressure to bear on Israel.” That’s wrong in three ways:

1. America has often brought serious pressure to bear on Israel, regardless of the “special relationship.”

2. America doesn’t need to bring that much pressure to bear on Israel to make peace. Israel has been trying to make peace with its neighbors for its entire existence. It has concluded peace agreements with every Arab polity that has been serious about peace with it, even when doing so was at great cost in terms of land, as with Egypt.

3. The focus of the peace-processors is always bringing pressure to bear on Israel to make concessions for the sake of peace. No peace-processor ever speaks about bringing pressure to bear on the Palestinians to make peace. No peace-processor ever actually brings any pressure to bear on the Palestinians to make peace, to make any concessions toward peace—to do anything, really, toward making peace with Israel.

Miller also mentions “…resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict on terms any Palestinian leader could accept.” This is another of the peace-processors’ major flaws in understanding. Why is Israel expected to accept any peace terms, while the Palestinians are only expected to accept terms that preserve their maximalist ambitions? The Palestinians turn down every peace offer, looking for more. A good negotiator would say, “This is the best offer you are getting. Take it now, because tomorrow’s offer will be significantly less.” Instead, the peace-processors say to the Palestinians, “You didn’t like that offer? We’ll press Israel to offer you more.”

It seems to me that the peace-processors understanding of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally flawed. The only real thing at issue between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors is this: the Palestinians have to be willing to make peace with Israel, to accept that Israel is there to stay, in some defined borders, whatever their final configuration. That is the actual roadblock in the peace process, and it is completely mystifying to me how all the peace-processors overlook it.

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

Read all about it here!

The latest poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) shows that while Hamas' popularity is decreasing, that isn't indicating any less support for violence.

Fatah's popularity reached the levels it had before the May war, which was very popular among Palestinians. Surprisingly, part of that may be because the people are approving of the "confidence building measures" that Israel has agreed to with the Palestinian Authority, like increasing family unification and allowing the PA to access more cash. 63% approved of those measures.

Even so, 67% support the suspension of the PLO recognition of Israel and 61% support the decision to end the implementation of agreements with Israel including security coordination.

When asked what strategy they support going forward, 52% supported return to armed confrontations and a violent intifada. When asked specifically what the most effective means of ending the "occupation" and building an independent state, a plurality of 44% chose "armed struggle, "far ahead of 25% for negotiations and 24% for "popular resistance." This is a small increase supporting violence compared to the last poll three months ago.

As far as which side they are on in the Ukraine invasion, things are fairly split. 43% blame Russia for starting the war with Ukraine while 40% blame Ukraine.

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!

03/29 Links Pt1: Wrong Side of History, Again: Palestinian Leaders Lambast Middle East Summit; What are the Palestinians thinking - A new survey exposes the harsh reality

From Ian:

Gadi Taub and Michael DoranIsrael Must Publicly Protest America's Policy of Appeasing Iran

The excessive desire to maintain a semblance of cooperation with the administration has led Israel to adopt the empty talk about a “longer and stronger” accord. The reigning assumption is that if the appearance of intimacy is maintained, Israel will be able in the future to employ quiet diplomacy in its efforts to persuade Washington, ultimately leading it to recognize its mistake and to turn from appeasement to deterrence – either directly, by American military means (or the threat to use them), or indirectly, by supporting Israel’s operations.

There is no chance of such a plan succeeding. After all, Biden believes in the nuclear deal. It is the cornerstone of his regional policy. He believes that conciliation will create a historic opportunity to reset U.S.-Iranian relations, directing them toward a cooperative future. Why should he step aside and allow Israel to sabotage a policy he’s been working to promote?

The conclusion from all this is that Israel cannot effectively act against Iran’s nuclearization if it refuses from the start to engage in an open and sincere debate with its ally. It must develop a strategy of publicly protesting against America’s policy of appeasement, while taking into account the reasonable likelihood that Iran will try to drag the U.S. into the conflict. In other words, it must adopt a policy that won’t allow the administration to turn the American public against independent Israeli operations.

Can this be achieved? Fortunately, we have an example of such a successful policy. This was Winston Churchill’s policy at the start of World War II. The problem facing Churchill was similar. When war broke out in Europe in 1939, isolationist sentiment had great weight in American public opinion. Many Americans wished to avoid having their country dragged into what they perceived as a European war. Churchill sought to mobilize the U.S. without appearing as if he were asking the United States to fight Britain’s wars for it. In a speech he delivered in February 1941, he found the right balance. “Put your confidence in us. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job,” he said, addressing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt directly.

Israel must adopt a similar stance. A direct call for getting the tools that will enable it to vanquish Iran, without asking for direct American military assistance will force the administration to justify its pro-Iranian orientation to the American public, which it has been trying to hide behind the false rhetoric about a “longer and stronger” accord. Iran’s image in the U.S. is sufficiently negative to ensure Biden’s defeat in any competition over voters’ hearts if he is forced to admit openly that he prefers Iran over Israel.

Waiting for the Biden administration to wake up from its dream that appeasement will lead to Iranian moderation is futile. The only path available to Israel is to force the administration to take responsibility for the contradictions its policy is creating, including the hiding of its appeasement behind a veil of rhetoric about blocking or slowing down Iran’s military nuclear program. It’s doubtful whether Israel has many other options if it intends to look after its vital interests.

Daniel Greenfield: Will Biden fund ISIS in Israel to aid the Palestinians?

Blinken meanwhile used the visit to pitch Israelis on a Biden plan to remove the IRGC, Iran’s terror hub, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, claiming it would be “symbolic”.

He failed to condemn the terrorist attack as an ISIS attack, calling it “senseless” violence.

At his joint press conference with Abbas, Blinken also failed to condemn terrorism or to note that ISIS, with the tacit support of his PLO hosts in Ramallah and of Hamas in Gaza was planting its flag in Israel. Instead Blinken once again condemned Jewish Israeli “settler violence”.

Like Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's previous visit, the formula of Biden administration officials condemning Israeli "settler violence" while promising to "strenghten" the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority is as familiar as it is evil. The Palestinian Authority is an unwanted institution whose leader 73% of the people the dictator rules over want to see out of office.

And 49% want to dissolve the Palestinian Authority.

Considering the decades of failure, misery, and terrorism wrought by the failed Clinton initiative to create a Palestinian state, it’s long past time for everyone to turn the book on this disaster.

Neither Arab Muslims nor Israelis want Abbas or the Palestinian Authority. Only diplomats like Blinken and Nuland insist on keeping the senile tyrant of Ramallah in office until he dies.

In a final statistic, the poll asked who was "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people". 31% picked Hamas, 29% chose Abbas' Palestinian Authority, and 33% chose none of the above. 84% believe the PA is corrupt and 70% believe Hamas is dirty.

The “Palestinian people” have spoken. Will Biden listen to them?

The root source of the corruption comes from the hundreds of millions of dollars that Blinken came bearing last year for the regime of a corrupt senile autocrat who didn’t even know whom he was talking to. There’s more money coming this year to prop up the terrorist regime.

All in the name of a peace which doesn’t exist and that the majority of “Palestinians” don’t want.

The United States has gone from using its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority to prop up PLO, Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorism against Israel, to subsidizing ISIS terrorism.

Will ISIS be a final red line for the corrupt farce of a two-state solution and a peace process?

David Singer: Can the Negev Summit pave the way for Israel-PLO-Egypt-Jordan negotiations?

The Negev Summit (Summit) taking place on 27 and 28 March – hosted by Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid– could be the catalyst for promoting the beginning of direct negotiations - without preconditions - between Israel, Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Egypt - on the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza.

Summit attendees will include:
US Secretary for State Antony Blinken
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates H.H. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Morocco Nasser Bourita, and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt Sameh Shoukry.

Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safdi will be meeting PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah during the Summit. However - according to Israel’s Channel N12 - al-Safdi may join the Summit before the event is concluded.

On 18 March Principal Deputy Spokesperson in the US State Department – Jalina Porter – had announced Blinken’s visit to the Middle East without mentioning the Summit.

Porter articulated the Biden Administration’s views on creating a second Palestinian Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan:
... “the Biden-Harris administration believes that there should be a viable and democratic Palestinian state living in peace alongside a Jewish and democratic state. We believe that a negotiated two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the administration has also made clear on numerous occasions that Israelis and Palestinians alike equally deserve to live in security, prosperity, and freedom.”

Porter’s choice of the term “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” was unfortunate. A more appropriate term would have been the “Arab-Jewish conflict” which has been raging unresolved in former Palestine for more than 100 years – long before the terms “Israelis” and “Palestinians” were created in 1948 and 1964 respectively.

By Daled Amos

The reestablishment of the State of Israel represents, in part, the creation of a place for Jews to find refuge. This is all part of a promise that Israel continues to keep, whether accepting immigrants from Ethiopia, Russia -- or the Ukraine.

Meanwhile, for his part, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan presents himself as the champion of Muslims around the world.

And then there is Iran, which has also been positioning itself as a Muslim world leader:

Since its 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has engaged in a number of scuffles with countries over their mistreatment of Muslim minorities, diplomatic tiffs that have aimed to position Teheran as a guardian of supposed Islamic world unity.

Yet both Turkey and Iran stop short in their support of their fellow Muslims when it comes to China.

There are approximately 12 million Uyghurs, Chinese Muslims, of whom approximately 2 million have been detained in detention camps by the Chinese government.

In July 2019, a group of 22 nations addressed a letter to the president of the UN Human Rights Council and to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, calling on China to end its detention program in Xinjiang. The letter expressed concern about “credible reports of arbitrary detention” in Xinjiang and “widespread surveillance and restrictions” and demanded that the Chinese government “refrain from the arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedom of movement of Uighurs, and other Muslim and minority communities in Xinjiang.”

But there was a second letter -- signed by 37 countries.

In that letter, the signatories opposed “politicizing human rights” and defended what China claimed were “vocation education and training centers.” The letter went on to justify China’s actions, that:

Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang, including setting up vocational education and training centers.

That second letter, defending China's treatment of Muslim Uyghurs included the signatures of Muslim countries such as Algeria, Bahrain, Belarus, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.

For its part, Turkey did not sign that second letter, but neither did it come out in opposition to China's detention camps.

More than that, it was reported in 2020 that Turkey was actually helping China by facilitating the return of Uyghurs back to China:

Now lawyers say Beijing is manipulating extradition agreements to drag Uighurs back to the re-education camps. And, activists argue, Ankara’s growing economic dependence on Beijing is compromising its ability to withstand Chinese pressure and to protect Uighurs who have fled Xinjiang.

While Turkey refuses to send Uighurs directly back to China, campaigners say there are those willing to send them to third countries, like Tajikistan. From there, it is easier for China to secure their extradition.

The commissioner of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Nury Turkel condemned Turkey:

But Turkey is not the only Muslim country aiding China by deporting Uyghurs.

In a video report, the BBC noted that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE -- which signed that letter defending China -- also forcibly sent Uyghurs in their countries back to China:

The Saudi Embassy said:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fully complies with international norms and Saudi law when cooperating with other countries on issues such as deportation". "Saudi Arabia considers all deportations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature and seriousness of any violation and paying no heed to a person’s race or religion.
The Egyptian and Emirati embassies did not respond to our requests for comment.

The motivation driving these countries to side with China against the persecuted Muslims derives in part from economic considerations, since China is an important trade partner and investor in the region.

In addition, criticizing human rights violations in China could leave Muslim regimes open to similar criticism.

But there could be more to it than that. An analysis in The Washington Post suggests:

China has been able to align its hostility toward its Muslim population with the antipathy of these countries toward particular forms of political Islamism — ranging from mainstream political groups that want their governments to expand democracy, cut corruption and protect human rights, to more radical Islamist groups that denounce governments as apostates and puppets of the West.

And where does Iran stand on the issue of the Uyghurs?

Iran’s support for persecuted Shiite Muslim groups reaches far and wide, from repressed Shiites in Sunni-governed Bahrain, to the Houthis waging war in Yemen, to the pro-Iranian Islamic Movement in Nigeria which seeks to establish an Islamic state and whose rebel logo includes a portrait of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of Iran’s Islamic republic.

...Now, critics claim Teheran is looking the other way on the Uighurs, a clear, hard indication that its crucial trade and investment links to China outweigh its claimed guardian mission in the Muslim world.

This is not the first and only time that Iran has forgone its self-declared role as guardian of Muslims worldwide:

For instance, in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ensuing crackdown on the peninsula’s Muslims, Iran failed to protest.

Nor did Tehran raise its voice against Russia’s violent repression of the Muslim Chechnya insurgency in the mid-1990s and later harsh anti-radicalization initiatives driven by President Vladimir Putin.

In addition to trade and weapons, Russia has provided political support for Iran, preventing it from being isolated at the UN, while China is helping Iran avoid the pinch of US sanctions. Another consideration is the fact that the Uyghurs are Sunni and are not a primary concern of Shiite Iran.

And what about Israel?

In the context of the current Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Israel has had to tread carefully because it needs to coordinate with Russia, which has thus far allowed Israeli jets to take action against Iran in Syria. This consideration has prevented Israel from being too outspoken against Russia.

Israel's relations with China are similarly complicated. Last year, Israel signed on to a letter in the UN Human Rights Council, condemning China's treatment of the Uyghurs -- despite China's request that it not take part, just as it recently voted for a World Health Organization investigation into the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, something which China was trying to avoid.

Israel, like much of the Middle East, has economic ties to China and has to measure its actions, taking into account that China has not let its economic interests in Israel prevent it from taking measures against it:

While cultivating economic ties between the countries, China votes against Israel in international forums and pushed for strong condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza during Operation Guardian of the Walls last month. In addition, Chinese state-sponsored media have taken anti-Israel and even antisemitic positions, such as a segment claiming that wealthy Jews control American finance and media and have undue influence on the US government.

Israeli diplomats already told their Chinese counterparts under Lapid’s predecessor, Gabi Ashkenazi, that they cannot have it both ways without any consequences.

If China is separating diplomacy and economics in its treatment of Israel, then the current thinking in Jerusalem is that it can do the same to Beijing.

But there could be another potential issue.

We see how there are attempts to draw parallels between Palestinian Arabs and Ukrainians on the one hand and Israel and Russia on the other.

How long before we see similar parallels of Palestinian Arabs with Uyghurs and Israel with China?

And what about the potential impact that China's persecution of Uyghurs could have on the Abraham Accords? After all, the UAE is not only not publicly coming out in defense of the Uyghurs and in condemnation of China -- they are actually deporting Uyghurs back to China, where they will be put in detention camps.

All for the sake of trade and weapons.
Kind of what the UAE is looking for from Israel.

The Saudis, who are also deporting Uyghurs, is becoming more open in its relations with Israel.

Similarly, Egypt -- which was the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel -- is similarly sending Uyghurs back to China.

Turkey, which has declared a willingness to rebuild ties with Israel, deports Uyghurs as well.

It would be easy to taint these growing diplomatic ties between these Muslim countries and Israel by drawing a comparison between their relations with China and their relations with Israel.

Reliance on Russia and China makes it difficult for countries in the Middle East to balance their ties with China and Russia with their other interests and needs. If these Muslim countries do not do a better job, they may irreparably tarnish the Abraham Accords and all the good that has come from it in this short time and that will yet in the years to come.

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

Read all about it here!

Surveys show that extreme hate of Zionism goes hand in hand with classic Jew-hatred

The New Zealand Jewish Council is releasing a survey of antisemitic attitudes in that country early Wednesday morning NZT.

As with similar surveys done over the past decade, a series of questions are asked to tease out whether the respondent has antisemitic and anti-Zionist opinions.

The survey found a high correspondence between those who have the most anti-Zionist views and those who have the most classical antisemitic views:

Twenty one percent of New Zealanders held two or more classical antisemitic views (out of eight questions), and 25% held two or more Zionophobic views (out of seven). This survey found there is a relationship between those holding Zionophobic views and those who hold classical antisemitic views. It shows the more extreme anti-Israel sentiment someone has, the more classical antisemitic tropes they will believe in, and vice versa. For example, there is only a 25% chance that someone who holds four classical antisemitic views will hold no anti-Israel antisemitic views, and only a 29% chance that someone who holds four anti-Israel antisemitic views will hold no classical antisemitic views. This is consistent with a United Kingdom study which also showed a clear empirical link between the two forms of antisemitism.

I had seen the high level results of the UK survey but hadn't seen that analysis of the link between classic antisemitic attitudes and anti-Israel attitudes.

The nexus where classic antisemitism and anti-Zionism meet is perhaps in the questions comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. In the New Zealand survey, 12% agreed that "Israeli government policies are similar to those of the Nazi regime," in the latest UK survey, 24% agreed that “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews” - which is down from the 31% who agreed in 2019!

One other question asked in New Zealand but not asked in the UK is also another indication of where left-wing antisemitism mirrors classic antisemitism: 14% agreed that "Jews have White privilege."

(Out of partial respect for the embargo, I'm not reproducing the major results of the survey here.)

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 the Torah to the Holocaust, Jews can't stop lying - according to a Jordanian newspaper

People love to politicize antisemitism, saying that their political opponents don't consider this alleged dog-whistle or that possible attack to have been motivated by Jew hatred. In fact, most of the time it is just a naked attempt to paint one's opponents as antisemites - which doesn't protect Jews at all.

Yet there are undeniable cases of antisemitism out there which get little or no attention. Not hints of antisemitism, not events that can be interpreted as antisemitic by some definition. I'm talking about the real deal, no two ways about it.

Which brings us to this article in Jordan's Addustour (Constitution) newspaper by Dr. Mohamed Khairy Labada, a medical doctor and writer from Amman.

He writes:

This golden rule described by Goebbels, the well-known advocate of Nazism, I doubt that anyone in this world - except that Satan - has applied it to the fullest extent, and exploited it to the end like the Zionist movement.

Lie as much you like, for there is only a limited number of people who know the truth to oppose you, for if some of them raised their voices, the torrential propaganda torrent would cover them up.

Palestine, and with it the Arab East, and the destinies of its people, is not the victim of a single myth, but rather a victim of a complex series of legends...

It was launched, then repeated, then established facts, and we are hard at work trying to find the way to know its dimensions, and they did not all come together, because they were local myths, for each stage of the Zionist crusade had its appropriate slogans, and its programmed lie. Six million Jews in gas furnaces, and such as that the Jews are a poor and peaceful people that the Arabs want to slaughter, and that the Jews are the only oppressed people in human history, and they are a people and loved ones that have existed for three thousand years until today, and they are God’s chosen people and the people of geniuses, and that Palestine is the promised land, and it is God Jehovah who promised them, and they are also the first owners of Palestine. The repetition of these legends, slogans, and absolute sayings, inserted between facts and axioms, are heard even among some Arabs...The status quo, power, time, and circumstances are new facts that, in turn, put forward other new myths, such as the myth of security that justified the sequential seizure of land and expansion in connected episodes, after which security always remains threatened without end, and there is no security for others. And the legend of the strong army; had it not been for the humiliating umbilical cord that links it to the American arsenal, it would never have been, and “Israel” would not exist!!

A man who literally cannot tell the difference between truth and lies is accusing Israel of the same. Projection is rarely this obvious.

And as is invariably the case, there is no pushback from the larger Arab world against this bigotry. Antisemitism is mainstream in the entire nation of Jordan but no one wants to talk about it as they accuse their political opposites of not being sufficiently outraged at a hint of antisemitism that is only visible to those with special glasses.

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

Read all about it here!

03/28 Links Pt2: The Ben-Gurion Summit; Saudi editor: America is dismantling the pillars of its own empire; Why I'm Suing Ben & Jerry’s; The politics of the lentil in the NYTs

From Ian:

NY Sun Editorial: The Ben-Gurion Summit

The conclave of foreign ministers from the Middle East gathering for what is being dubbed, after its desert location, the “Negev Summit” would be newsworthy no matter what happens. That’s by dint of convening, as it will today and tomorrow, Arab envoys and their Israeli counterpart within the borders of the Jewish state. It’s astonishing and delightful, though, that the meeting will take place at Sde Boker.

That’s the dusty desert kibbutz where is buried the leader who, nearly 74 years ago, proclaimed the independence of the Jewish state. We speak of David Ben-Gurion, who rose from day worker to become Israel’s first prime minister. Not only that but the foreign ministers — from Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, America, and Israel — will pay homage at the grave of the visionary leader.

If anyone had asked us five years ago, or two years, whether this could happen, we would have chuckled with incredulity. Not that it’s so all-fired unusual for Israeli and Arab leaders to meet, especially after the Abraham Accords. It’s that by going to the final resting place of “the Old Man,” as Israelis call Ben-Gurion, they are acknowledging the very idea, and the success, of the political Zionism that inspirits Israel.

It is worth, in respect of Sde Boker, recalling the history that this small town outside of Beersheba evokes. David Ben-Gurion — born ??David Grün — hailed from Plonsk, in what is now Poland, before making his way to the Land of Israel in 1906. Just less than a decade before, a journalist living in Vienna, Theodor Herzl, had convened, at Basel, the first Zionist Congress.

NYTs: Israel Summit Shows Ties with Arabs Moving from Ceremony to Substance

Israel's meeting with top diplomats from the U.S. and four Arab countries - Egypt, the UAE, Morocco and Bahrain - on Sunday is one of the strongest signs yet that the country is beginning to reap the dividends of normalization deals, confirming a profound realignment of Middle Eastern powers. The deals have also prompted Egypt, a longtime peace partner, to engage more meaningfully with Israel as Cairo tries to revive its role as Israel's bridge to the Arab world.

Polls suggest that many people in the Arab world do not support normalizing ties with Israel. But to Gulf leaders, the cost is outweighed by the benefits of sending a strong message to both the U.S. and their shared enemy, Iran. For Gulf countries, "the optics of sending a message about a new security alliance, pushing the relationship with Israel out in the open and then sending a message to Iran, and in a way to the U.S. - that is the main priority," said Elham Fakhro, a Bahraini political analyst. In any case, she said, "They've found that there isn't much of a price to pay domestically."

Israel and other countries in the region are also working to formalize a communication system that will allow each partner to warn one another in real time about incoming drones from Iran and its proxies, according to a senior Israeli defense official. As American attention diverts elsewhere, Arab leaders have realized that Israel is a long-term partner, said Yoel Guzansky, an expert at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies.

The meeting is being held in the Negev desert town of Sde Boker on Sunday and Monday. The decision to hold the meeting in the Negev, rather than in Jerusalem, reflects how that city is still a highly delicate issue for Arab leaders. To attend a summit in Jerusalem was considered a bridge too far for Arab ministers.

Biden’s Israel Ambassador vs. Yitzhak Rabin on Israel’s Security

Nothing has changed in the last 26 years that would diminish Israel’s need to retain the areas referred to by Rabin. The topography of the region has, of course, not changed, and threats to Israel have hardly disappeared.

In contrast to his harsh words for Rabin’s position and that of all those who share what were Rabin’s concerns for Israel’s security, Nides sees little to criticize on the Palestinian side. He did express some displeasure with the Palestinian Authority’s “pay for slay” policy — its incentivizing of the wounding and killing of Israelis by providing often lavish financial rewards to Palestinian perpetrators and their families. But the practice apparently does not infuriate him, and among his articulated grievances against it was not concern for its victims, but rather, concern that the policy gives (in his words) “the haters” an excuse to oppose the PA.

Elsewhere, Nides expressed his gratification that “lots” of funds for the Palestinians are provided in the new American budget. These include what is now $219 million in economic support. The appropriations would seem to be in violation of America’s Taylor Force Act, which prohibited subsidizing the PA as long as it continues to divert millions in foreign donations to financing “pay for slay.” Perhaps Nides reserves his fury at this state-sponsored murder for the members of Congress who voted to no longer underwrite it.

Nor is Nides infuriated — despite his fervently asserted devotion to a two-state solution — by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s repeatedly declared insistence that he will never recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state; that the Jews have no history in the area and no legitimate claims to it; and that their state must be expunged. No Palestinian leader talking of two states has ever accepted that one will be the Jewish state. But that apparently doesn’t bother Nides as much as Israel wanting defensible borders. Nor does Abbas’ complaining about Jews defiling the Temple Mount with “their filthy feet” get the ambassador’s dander up.

But Nides’s twisted morality — where he is outraged and where he is indulgent vis-à-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict — should not be surprising. He is, after all, the appointed representative of an administration that, in negotiations overseen by Yasser Arafat apologist Robert Malley, is about to give in excess of a hundred billion dollars and a path to a nuclear bomb to a regime that has repeatedly vowed to annihilate Israel.

Yair Lapid and Secretary of State Blinken pay respects at the grave of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister.

Ben-Gurion said, “History is not written - history is made.” The #NegevSummit is proof this is true. pic.twitter.com/tH154JL9Cb
— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) March 28, 2022

I'm pretty sure that Bassem Eid once said that if he would start an anti-Israel NGO, he'd have huge amounts of funding from Europe the next day.

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

Read all about it here!

At the opening to the weekly cabinet meeting, Palestinian prime minister Muhammed Shtayyeh effectively incited Palestinians to violence in response to the Negev Summit.

Shtayyeh said, "We will remain loyal to our land, our sanctities, our Arab nation, our history, the present of our nation, and the freedom of our heroic people who are able to thwart all schemes aimed at undermining our right to independence, sovereignty and freedom."

He then warned Israel against continuing to attack what he called Palestinian land and holy sites. The only example he gave was "allowing settlers to enter Al-Aqsa," saying that "this matter is no longer tolerated, and our people in Jerusalem will always be on the lookout for all these attempts that will inevitably lead to an unprecedented escalation, especially since we are days away from Land Day and blessed month of Ramadan."

Land Day is on Wednesday and there has been increasing calls to violence in Palestinian media for the occasion. Ramadan starts this weekend.

Only a few weeks ago, Palestinian leaders were threatening violence, claiming Jews were planning to take over Al Aqsa Mosque for Purim. Now they are saying the same for Ramadan. They've been saying it every year that Jews have been in Jerusalem for a century. It is always a lie and always pure incitement.

Note that Shtayyeh is not calling for calm from the people he supposedly leads. He is saying that Palestinians are naturally violent and cannot stop themselves from attacking Jews, so the Jews must take responsibility to not anger the half-witted Palestinians who simply cannot control their own violent tendencies.

Shtayyeh then again appealed for Palestinians to take their rightful place at the center of the universe, stressing that "Arab normalization meetings without ending the occupation are nothing but an illusion, a mirage, and a free reward for Israel." In other words, Palestinian demands should be the most important factor in every decision made by every Arab nation, forever.

No wonder Palestinians weren't invited to the summit. It was meant for adults.

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

Read all about it here!

03/28 Links Pt1: Israel's Negev Summit wraps in unanimous condemnation of terror attack; Bereaved relatives mourn 19-year-old victims of Hadera shooting; Answering Israel's Ukraine Critics

From Ian:

Israel's Negev Summit wraps in unanimous condemnation of terror attack

The Negev Summit held with the participation of foreign ministers from Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco and the UAE as well as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ended on Monday as participants all condemned the deadly terror attack in Hadera.

The summit was convened as world powers were set to sign a new nuclear deal with Iran and the United States was considering the removal of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps from its list of terror organizations, a move Israel and its regional partners strongly opposed.

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid who hosted the event said the participants had decided in the wake of the terror attack, to make their meeting an annual event.

"We are today opening a door before all the peoples of the region, including the Palestinians, and offering them to replace the way of terror and destruction with a shared future of progress and success."

"What we are doing here is making history, building a new regional architecture based on progress, technology, religious tolerance, security and intelligence cooperation," Lapid said.

"This new architecture - the shared capabilities we are building - intimidates and deters our common enemies, first and foremost Iran and its proxies."

Blinken who spoke after Lapid said Washington and its allies will work together to confront security challenges and threats including from Iran and its proxies.

Speaking at a rare Arab-Israeli forum in the Negev desert in southern Israel, Blinken also said Washington would continue to support the normalisation process between Israel and Arab countries but added that this should not be a substitute for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Foreign Minister of Bahrain Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani said he was proud to participate in the Negev Summit and added that attacks by Hezbollah and the Islamic State must end and that goal can only be achieved by working together.

He said his country would continue to search for ways to bring Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate peace.

UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed the region lost 43 years since the signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt but now was happy to be in Israel and learn about the country and the Israelis.

"It is clear to me that there is at least potential in the summit," he said. "We are trying to follow Egypt's foot step to build for a better and prosperous future," he said.

Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita said that his presence along with others participating in the Negev Summit was an appropriate response to the terror attack carried out in Hadera.

Hadera attack victims buried: 'Our lives have darkened, the ground shaken'

Yazan Falah and Shirel Aboukrat, the two Border Police officers killed in Sunday's terror attack in Hadera, were buried on Monday afternoon, with politicians and top police commanders attending the funerals.

Falah, 19, was buried in his hometown of Kasra Samia. Thousands of people attended the ceremony.

"Since we heard the news are lives have darkened and the ground has shaken," Falah's uncle, Amel Falah, eulogized.

"I wish the ground had swallowed me before your mother had to receive the tidings, I wish I was dead in your place," he said. "What will I say to your mother - my sister, who dreamed to see you marry? You left a wound in our hearts that will bleed forever," he said.

"He put himself in danger every day, and was and is a pillar of fire for us, the citizens of Israel," said Public Security Minister Omer Bar Lev. "We are here thanks to him and his brothers-in-arms," he said.

"You grew up to be a smiling, friendly comrade, always ready to help anyone in need," said Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar. "All of Israel and its citizens were hit by agony and grief, and there are no words that can comfort the suffering family, who are saying goodbye with a pained, broken heart," he said.

Aboukrat, 19, was brought to rest at the Military Cemetery in Netanya. Aboukrat's mother, Dvorah, was heard shouting, "Shirel, how did I not keep you out of harm? I want you my daughter, wake up."

"How were you taken with such savagery?" said a cousin of Aboukrat. "You dreamed of being an officer in the Border Police and a police detective, you were lucky to achieve at least one," she said.

The two were killed and 12 others were injured when two terrorists, armed with 1,100 bullets, at least three sidearms, knives and wearing flack jackets opened fire on them on main street in Hadera on Sunday evening.

‘Salt of the earth’: Bereaved relatives mourn 19-year-old victims of Hadera shooting

Families and friends of the two Border Police officers killed in Sunday’s Hadera terror attack on Monday mourned the loss of the two 19-year-olds at the hands of terrorist gunmen.

Shirel Abukarat’s family immigrated to Israel from France in 2006.

“We escaped France in pursuit of security and this is where she died, in our country. It doesn’t make any sense. I wanted to provide them with a good life,” Abukarat’s mother Dvora told the Ynet news site.

Moshe, Abukarat’s uncle, described her as a proud Zionist and a good student.

“She was full of spirit and had a big heart,” he told Army Radio. “She loved this country and was an excellent student. She achieved everything she set her mind to and was an excellent soldier. She really loved the Border Police.”

“We had everything in France,” he noted, but the family decided to immigrate as “we are very Zionist.”

“I guess this is our fate, living by the sword. I just hope the leaders at the top start making operational decisions and realize who we’re dealing with here,” he told Ynet.

Asked whether he had any complaints about the Israeli security services, Moshe said there is nothing to do when faced with lone-wolf terrorism.

“We have the best security services in the world,” he said, noting that real-time prevention is limited “when two brainwashed, highly extreme guys suddenly decide to get up and kill in the name of Islam or Islamic State.”

Despite the tragedy, he said, “we are strong. We will cope, we will overcome because we don’t have any other choice. We can’t let ourselves be weak. We won’t let them beat us. We’ll cry, we’ll mourn, it won’t be easy.”

This is Shirel Abukart, just 19-years-old.

Shirel joined the border patrol 6 months ago. She was murdered last night by terrorists while defending the State of Israel. ????

She is survived by her parents and a brother. My heart breaks for her family & friends ???? pic.twitter.com/9GOKDvhTWz
— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) March 28, 2022

Hours before they were murdered in a terror attack, Yezen Falah and Shirel Abukart, both 19, were photographed together.

Two beautiful souls take too early. May their memories be a blessing. pic.twitter.com/NIQC3w0cL6
— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) March 28, 2022

Israeli media reported last week that the tiny remaining Jewish community of Egypt recently discovered a new collection of old Jewish documents, known as a genizah, that had been buried in a cemetery in Cairo that was being refurbished in a joint project with American organizations.

Previous genizahs found in Cairo have been invaluable in understanding the history of the Jewish community there.

However, before the community could do anything about it, the Egyptian Antiquities Authority entered the cemetery and - without any supervision from any Jewish authorities, and apparently without even trying to use modern preservation methods - grabbed the huge collection of documents, stuffing them into bags for 48 hours, and took them away.

It is theorized that the Egyptian government was worried that the documents would be smuggled to Israel so they decided to grab them all now, against the wished of the remaining Jews in Cairo, whose relatives might be mentioned in the collection.

It is unknown how old the genizah is. No one had had the chance to study it yet. The Bassatine cemetery is the second oldest Jewish cemetery in the world, built in the ninth century. The burial plot for the genizah belonged to the Moussiri family, who immigrated to Egypt from Italy in the 18th century.

Ahmed Gendy, an Egyptian professor of Jewish and Zionist Studies who has studied the famous medieval Cairo genizah confirms that the Egyptian Antiquities Authority has been negligent on how they handled that priceless collection. When he would request an item from the genizah to study, he said that they would bring them to him in cloth bags, where insects and humidity could damage them.

Nevertheless, he supports the antisemitic actions of the authority by invoking his own antisemitism:

What the members of the Egyptian Antiquities Authority did by transferring the contents of the discovered Genizah is right, from the reality of the first experience that witnessed the theft or sale of the contents of the ancient Genizah.

What the Jewish community did most likely was done in coordination with the Israeli authorities, in order to internationalize the issue, so that the international community and its institutions would pressure Egypt to implement what the members of the community want in Egypt, on the basis that what was discovered may be linked to Jewish families, and that they do not belong to the Egyptian government. But the fact that members of this sect live in Egypt, and hold Egyptian citizenship, makes the issue of their resorting to the American embassy in order to pressure Egypt on this issue reprehensible, and confirms what we mentioned earlier in another place about the Jews of their constant feeling of isolation and lack of belonging to the countries in which they live.

The community saw that the Egyptian authorities were stealing their property from their own cemetery and ignoring their protests, so they appealed to the Americans who were also working on fixing up the cemetery. This "expert" who understands how little the Egyptian Antiquities Authority cares about the preservation of priceless Jewish items says that this is proof of how Jews in Egypt aren't really patriotic Egyptians.

As far as whether Israel has the right to these documents: The Egyptian Jewish community in Egypt is reportedly down to only 3 members, while there are over 50,000 Egyptian Jews in Israel. Tens of thousands of Egyptian Jews in Israel should have a large say on their own relatives' possessions, especially when the Egyptian authorities' interest in those items is more to keep them away from Jews than to benefit from them. As with priceless Jewish objects from Iraq and Yemen, it is disingenuous to say that the antisemites who drove out the ancient Jewish communities out of their countries should have the rights to the possessions of those very people they expelled.

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

Read all about it here!

The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"

There is little doubt that the current wave of absurd charges that Israel is guilty of apartheid that kicked off a year ago has been a coordinated attack, meant to multiply its effects by keeping the charge in the news as additional organizations issue tendentious reports that ignore any facts that contradict their foregone conclusions.

There is also little doubt that the strategy started at the Durban conference of 2001, where these same NGOs participated and where the apartheid libel first emerged from the fringes.

While the current wave of reports was clearly planned, after years of setting the stage with "Israel Apartheid Weeks" and similar stunts, the question comes up of the timing. Why have these anti-Israel groups decided that this was the best time to bring out the big guns of HRW and Amnesty to write these reports?

Until someone leaks the memos and emails and conversations between these organizations and the Palestinian NGOs who feed them the raw information for them to twist, we cannot be sure. But it is difficult to think that the timing has nothing to do with the Abraham Accords which were signed only months before this wave of slanderous reports.

Anti-Israel groups love to say that they are on the right side of history. As they have orchestrated this apartheid weapon, they are careful to position it as a natural progression of world awareness of supposed Israeli crimes. Even as Israeli Arabs become more and more integrated into Israeli society, which thoroughly demolishes the claim of "Jewish supremacy," the hateful NGOs know that the media won't cover Arab-Israeli cooperation and prefer to frame Israel as racist and Palestinians as hapless, helpless victims. Between their incitement against Israel and the willing media, they had a clear path towards demonization of Israel as an inexorable consequence of Israel's faux racism.

They had a solid wall of support from the Arab world, a Western Europe that hosted regular anti-Israel events, a United Nations that was reliably antisemitic, and a generation of students who had been brainwashed into thinking that hating Israel was a liberal cause along with being pro-environment, pro-LGBTQ and anti-war.

Then the Abraham Accords happened.

The consistent anti-Israel position of the Arab world had been disintegrating for years, but just as with Arab integration into Israeli society, it was under the radar and therefore could be ignored by those who think that they are uniquely able to view the great tides of history as supporting their beliefs. Even Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan didn't hurt their cause because the public rhetoric from those states remained anti-Israel.

The Israel-haters were caught flat-footed. The people who claim to support world peace and cooperation were confronted with the two enemies they could count on to further their agenda being peaceful and cooperating. The "racist" Jews welcomed the partnership with their Arab counterparts, and more importantly, the moderate Arabs were equally enthusiastic about cooperating with supposed "Jewish supremacists. "

Jewish-Arab peace was not only possible but wildly successful. And the effect on the larger Arab world was electrifying, as Israeli athletes were now appearing in events throughout the Arab world with Hatikva playing when they won, and Saudi Arabia allowing El Al planes to fly over their territory. The cold peace with Egypt and Jordan have been warming up.

The Israel haters who spent decades cultivating their aura of liberalism, their hate of hate and bigotry, and their support of peace at any price were suddenly on the wrong side of history by their own definition of how history is supposed to progress.

For the two decades since Durban, the Israel haters set the agenda of carefully inciting world hatred against the only Jewish state by preaching anti-racism. Yet even the media that they could rely on to show their side of the story could not ignore Jews and Arabs enthusiastically visiting each other's states, signing new agreements every week, and praising each other.

Their plan of making Israel look like South Africa was being destroyed with the photos of Jews and Arab Muslims literally embracing each other. Anyone could see that Israel was not racist - on the contrary, Zionist Jews and Arabs could cooperate and could work together.

Isn't that the right side of history?

The Israel haters could not stomach losing the progress they made at demonizing Israel. They need to take back the initiative of inciting hate against today's proud Jews. They need to take back the narrative of Jewish racism against Arabs, or at the very least against Palestinian Arabs. They want to control the conversation back to their agenda.

In this light, it is ever more clear that the far-Left activists of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are in fact antisemites in every sense.

Real anti-racists would fully support Jews being treated as equals in the Arab world. Real opponents of bigotry would welcome Jewish/Arab cooperation.

Only bigots would prioritize separation and boycotts against Jews over partnership. Only antisemites would be aghast at the prospect of "normalization" between the Jewish state and its neighbors.

This week, Jews and Arabs are holding a high level summit on regional cooperation - in Israel. No one who truly cares about peace can oppose this. Yet the "anti-racists" who have spent so much time, money and energy to normalize modern antisemitism - people who pretend to care about human rights - are silent on the miraculous progress that has been made. Ever since Israel and the UAE made their partnership public, the anti-Israel groups have tried to move the conversation back on how terrible Israel is, and additionally, how terrible Israel's new Arab friends are as well.

Their inability to say a positive word about the biggest earthquake in Israel/Arab relations since Camp David proves that they are the real bigots, and that their attacks on Israel in the name of anti-bigotry is in fact proof of their own bigotry and hate.

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

Read all about it here!

The Jerusalem Post reported on March 8:

A United States grant of $5.5 million for two Israeli-Palestinian business partnerships for female entrepreneurs was awarded Tuesday under the Middle East Partnership for Peace Act (MEPPA).

It’s a small part of MEPPA’s $250m. five-year program to build “people-to-people” relations through economic partnerships.

This is all very nice. But this next sentence should be troubling for anyone:

Coleman was vague on the details with regard to the grant’s recipients, noting that participants did not want their identities to be known.

Why? Why wouldn't the participants want their identities to be known?

Because Palestinian organizations are at risk for engaging in "normalization" with Israel. The Palestinian Authority itself threatens any organization that deals with Israeli counterparts.

The US wants to help cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians. (So does the EU.) But the Palestinian leaders are dead set against this.

The Palestinian Authority is trying to stymie normal relations between Israelis and Palestinians, in this case for female entrepreneurs but also for sports competitions or agriculture information or anything.

Does anyone see a problem here?

The US and EU want to promote these programs in order to create a culture of peace. The Palestinian leadership is against a culture of peace. Any US efforts are despite the efforts of the PA to thwart them.

Because the PA fundamentally doesn't want peace with Israel. And it never did.

Everyone knows it. No one wants to say it out loud.

(h/t Irene)

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

Read all about it here!

You can tell how moral people are by their reactions to the murder of Jews

Today there was a terror attack in Hadera that was eerily similar to the attack in Beersheva last week.

Two Arabs started shooting police and civilians before they were killed.

As with last week's attack, the terrorists were Israeli Arabs who had ties with ISIS.

Another similarity is that Israeli Arabs denounced the attack, without reservation. In this case the city of Umm al Fahm and the heads of the major Arab political parties condemned the attack.

The reaction from terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad was identical in both cases as well - praise for the attack, and justification for it as a "natural response" to Israeli actions.

And from the Palestinian Authority and their mouthpieces, in both cases - silence. The official Wafa news agency didn't report either attack, or if they did it was buried far from their front page.

So we have three sets of people referred to as Palestinians whose responses to terror attacks are quite different.

The average Palestinian Arab in the territories is supportive of terror attacks. Opinion polls have shown this to be the case time after time. Over the years, only about half support the concept of "armed resistance" in theory, but actual attacks are overwhelmingly supported.

The Palestinian Authority has never condemned a terror attack in a way that gave the impression that they were truly horrified by it. It was always a pro forma denunciation, with a wink to the terrorists.

The terror groups, and Fatah's "military wing," are more open about their support of terror, and quite proud of the attacks. Even though the attacks are associated with ISIS, which mainstream Arabs generally hate. They are effectively allies of the Islamic State.

Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, appear to be genuinely upset. Part of it might be because of worries about any backlash against them, but their responses to these two attacks do not strike me as being insincere, unlike the reluctant condemnations that we have seen in the past from the PA which appeared to be given under pressure from the US and Europe.

So we have three disparate reactions to terrorism, but really only two: the Palestinian Authority incites terror attacks themselves and praises terrorists constantly in their media. When forced to make a statement, their condemnations ring hollow.

Deep down, they are happy.

There is another group that is important to track as well: the Western apologists for Palestinian "rights." They pretend to be against terror but they always end up justifying it. Their reactions are very similar to the Palestinian Authority. During the height of the second intifada, the Western champions of the Palestinian cause did everything they could to come up with reasons why terrorism against Jews was justified. And you can see them, today, in the pages of Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada and even UN Special Rapporteur reports.

Notably, the attendees at the Negev Summit from Egypt, the UAE, Morocco and Bahrain condemned the attack.

The Arab world has been divided. We can see these divisions in how they react to the idea of Jews having their own state. And the divisions are mirrored in the Western world - with some people who claim to want peace being the ones who justify terror.

The common denominator is old fashioned antisemitism. That is what drives both the the Western haters of Israel and apologists for terror and the Arab rejectionist front - who generally are also pro-Iran and pro-Russia.

It is a different world now, and the divisions between good and evil, moral and immoral, philosemitic and antisemitic are lined up with the divisions between those who oppose terror without any caveats and those who justify it.

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

Read all about it here!