Thursday, October 27, 2022

Model Gigi Hadid, who has posted anti-Israel messages on Instagram along with her model sister and her mogul father, reposted a message against antisemitism that comedian Amy Schumer had written.


Ynet also reported that she seems to have removed her older, anti-Israel posts, apparently including accusing Israel of "greed:"


Arab media is very upset about this.  And they seem more upset over her support of the Jewish people than for her removal of her anti-Israel posts. Here is Al Arabiya's reporting:


Her sister Bella Hadid also wrote her own recent post against antisemitism, but did not appear to make any waves in Arab media for that.

What makes these statements significant is that they may not only be a response to Kanye West's antisemitism, but from their own father Mohamed's hate. Three weeks ago, he compared Jews to Nazis on his own Instagram: "Hitler labeled the Jews as terrorist and the Germans believed and cowardly did the crime of the century. And the Zionists labeled the Palestinians terrorists in their own land.” He extended the comparison: "Yet, the Jews got all their money twice from Germany and Poland and other why is this such double standards? How can they decide that that’s their home in Germany? Not only they steal our homes, they demolish them with people in them most of the time and make sure they are humiliated and homeless.” 





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!

 

 



Tharwat el-Kherbawy is an Egyptian lawyer who used to lead the Muslim Brotherhood but left the group in 2002 and became a strident critic of the Brotherhood since then.

He gave a TV interview with his analysis of the Brotherhood which was reported in major Egyptian media. He described how dishonest the Muslim Brotherhood is, and emphasized it in a way that any Egyptian would immediately identify with:
He emphasized that the Brotherhood is like the Jews; They never recognize the truth, take advantage of the social media, spread false ideas, and spread rumors.
When reaching for an example of the paradigmatic liar, and knowing that he is speaking to a national Egyptian audience, Kherbawy says that they are as bad as the Jews.

Not Zionists - Jews. 

And not one Egyptian media outlet found this to be problematic. Of course, the Jews are known to be the biggest liars in the world! It is axiomatic. Why would anyone disagree?

A 2010 Pew poll found that 95% of Egyptians have an unfavorable attitude towards Jews. The ADL finds "only" 75% of Egyptians have antisemitic attitudes. 

And modern anti-Zionists keep insisting that these Arabs are not antisemitic, but only anti-Zionist, and that Jews lived in peace and harmony in Arab countries before 1948.

There are definitely liars in this world - but they aren't the Jews.




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!

 

 

Jason Whitlock is a sports journalist with half a million Twitter followers who is politically conservative. He has been tweeting in defense of Kanye West and getting thousands of retweets:

He displays a similar casual antisemitism as Kanye himself, retweeting this:


Whitlock has an online show where he discusses Kanye's words and the reaction, and at one point (8:50) asks his panelists a basic question: 

This is where I need help, and somebody jump in here. there seems to be a group of people that they're calling black or Hebrew Israelites and this seems to be very offensive, these people what they believe is very offensive that they're arguing that black people are the original Jews or are the Jews ...again I'm not plain dumb I really don't understand uh why it's offensive, or I'm not even sure what's the logic behind the argument, does anybody know?


Two of the panelists say what they know about the Black Hebrew movement and admit they don't know why this is offensive. One, author Shemeka Michelle, reads a dictionary definition of "semite" and says, sure, it sounds like Black people are Semitic, why is this offensive to Jews?

Finally, former football player TJ Moe says, "My takeaway, again rudimentary understanding, and I don't know if Kanye did this,  but a lot of the [Black Hebrew] movement they are not just saying that hey, there's a lost tribe of black people who are Jews too. They're saying you guys are imposters
and that's where it becomes anti-semitic,  and that's where I could see them being offended ...He may have actually said it on Tucker, if I remember right, he said I think black people are the real Jews."

So there is a clear element of cluelessness going on here - not only how offensive the idea that Jews who have been persecuted for millennia for being Jewish are being called imposters is, but that if we are imposters than the centuries of expulsions and pogroms and the Holocaust becomes meaningless. Our dead aren't martyrs, they are just dead.

There is another point that is offensive - the idea of truth. There is no evidence that Black people are originally Jews, no matter how many rappers make that claim. To have a group of people come and hijack our history based on clearly false and constructed arguments is not only offensive to Jews but to history. 

The conversation notes that Black people have poetically identified with Jews since the days of slavery, which is certainly true. One interesting point again made by TJ Moe was summarized by Whitlock, that Kanye was saying "that Jewish equals oppression, black people have been oppressed for centuries, ergo black people are the real Jews." The poetry of Negro spirituals like "Go Down Moses" has morphed into many Black people literally believing that the Bible is about them.

But even though Whitlock heard these explanations, he himself enthusiastically seemed to reject them - and reject Jews as Jews - in the tweet at the top of this article, written after this video was made. 

Also, Whitlock seems to accept without question that Jews control the music industry and are therefore guilty of oppressing multimillionaire rappers.  It isn't true that Jews control the industry, and it isn't true that Black performers are treated differently than any other in their contracts.

Whitlock's cluelessness doesn't end there - he cannot understand why Jews are offended by analogies of Black people getting abortions with the Holocaust. He thinks that is valid. 

Without bothering to ask a Jew why we are offended by Kanye's clearly hateful statements, he is taking wild guesses based on pure ignorance - and drawing conclusions based on wrong information. 

Yes, it is antisemitic to compare the Black experience in America today with the Holocaust. It is antisemitic to blame Jews for unfair contracts in the music industry. It is antisemitic to say that Jewish history is a lie. It is antisemitic to say that Jews are imposters and that some other group is the real Jewish people, based on fake history and lies. it is antisemitic to to pretend that Kanye is being persecuted by a vast Jewish cabal and that he did nothing wrong. And it is offensive to assume that the Jewish outrage at Kanye's words are overblown and unfair without even understanding why they are offensive to begin with.

And it might not be antisemitic, but it is definitely offensive, that so many supporters of Kanye West don't even bother to ask the question of why his words are so hateful and offensive to begin with. 




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!

 

 

Wednesday, October 26, 2022

From Ian:

Dave Sharma: After West Jerusalem shift, will Labor also turn on Israel at the UN?
The government’s signalling that it no longer considers Israel to be sovereign over West Jerusalem leads to some odd conclusions.

Far from advancing the cause of peace, which Labor professes to support, this reversal only sets peace back. The only states and entities that assert Israel has no claim to West Jerusalem are the same ones that assert Israel has no entitlement to a sovereign state whatsoever: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is very odd company for the Labor government to be keeping.

Will Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong now refuse to meet Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as countless of their Labor predecessors have done, and as the UAE Foreign Minister did just in September? If Labor considers West Jerusalem to now be disputed territory, this is the only feasible conclusion.

Of equal importance, does this presage a larger shift in Labor’s attitude towards Israel in international forums?

The Howard government in 2004 altered Australia’s voting position on a number of annual, one-sided UN General Assembly Resolutions that single out Israel as the obstacle to peace, whilst remaining silent on the obligations of other parties. Under the Rudd/Gillard governments, many of these positions were reversed, before being reversed again under subsequent Coalition governments. It appears likely that the Albanese government will once again shift these votes.

The bigger question though is whether the government will follow through on the commitment in the ALP’s official platform to unilaterally recognise a state of Palestine, absent the usual criteria for statehood. In 2021, in a motion introduced by Wong, Labor’s national conference adopted this as official policy.

If the Albanese government goes through with this, it would separate Australia from some of its closest allies and partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand, France, Germany and Canada.

A profound shift such as this would not make the emergence of a future Palestinian state any more likely. But it would break a strong Labor tradition of support for the state of Israel, and harm one of Australia’s closest and most valuable relationships in the Middle East.

Foreign policy should proceed on the basis of established facts and national interests. Labor’s approach risks ignoring both.
Sky News corrects claim that Australia 'recognised Tel Aviv' as capital
We tweeted several Sky News [UK] editors and journalsts before one responded, upholding our complaint regarding an Oct. 19 Sky News article, written by Amarachi Orie, falsely claiming that Australia recognised Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital. The article in question focused on news that officials in Canberra had rescinded the previous government’s recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

However, the country’s decision to no longer recognise Jerusalem didn’t mean that it therefore recognised Tel Aviv as the capital – as the official government statement on the matter from the foreign ministry shows.


David Collier: What Explains Ireland's Extreme Antisemitism?
Collier said there are different causes behind the virulent anti-Zionist/anti-Israel atmosphere in Ireland. The first is the "distinct anticolonial strand going through the whole of Irish politics" which is evident in the rise of Sinn Fein, "historically the Republican Independence Movement" political party. Many Irish people, who "hate England," mistakenly believe "Britain gave the Jews Israel" and are convinced that the Jewish State epitomizes "settler colonialism." Ironically, as Israel was being established post-1945, the Zionists fought to oust the British from its mandate in Palestine.

The second cause of rampant antisemitism in Ireland is found in the country's "strand" of "classic antisemitism," now seen coming from both the "far left and the far right." Collier pointed out that even though the Irish were "officially independent" during World War II, "many of the Irish Republicans sided with the Nazis." The third cause of Irish antisemitism is rooted in the second — particular "ideologies within Christianity", which are "very strong in the Irish Catholic Church." The church is replete with belief in "replacement ideology, supersessionism, or the idea ... the Christians are the new Jews."

That the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland in Israel creates a "major ideological problem" for the Catholic Church, driving it to align with the Palestinians. Collier said that Christian charities will donate to anti-Israel non-governmental organizations (NGO's), some of which are affiliated with Palestinian terrorist groups. He said an exception in Ireland to the widespread antisemitism is that Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and whose predominantly Protestant citizens identify with the British, tend to be pro-Israel.

The fourth and final issue driving Irish antisemitism, Collier said, is attributable to "Islamist extremism." Whereas the U.S. and England experienced Islamist attacks after mistakenly, over the past three decades, "placing the bar for extremism far ... too high," he said Europe is "paying a deep price for it now." In Ireland, which has not experienced a large influx of Muslim migration, the antisemites there share the same "anti-colonial, anti-imperial" messages with Islamists, whom "they've accepted ... wholesale." The Islamists, essentially, are "coming in speaking the same anti-colonial, anti-imperial messaging, that the Irish do." Collier said, "anti-Zionist rhetoric," unabashedly rife on Irish streets, also creates a "hostile environment" for Jewish students on campuses. He said there are mosques preaching hate, Irish universities with Islamist academics, and the local church, all in league "bashing the state of Israel."

Collier believes that Sinn Fein's growing popularity will be accompanied by an "escalation" of antisemitism in Ireland, which he tracks through social media. He is dismayed at the trends because he said Hitler and the Holocaust "didn't just happen." Rather, their emergence can be traced back to "European antisemitism and beyond it, Christian antisemitism."

Yair Lapid, for now, is the caretaker prime minister of Israel. Next week at the polls, however, Israelis will determine his fitness to remain as head of their government. One factor that voters may wish to take into account is his lack of an education: Yair Lapid never matriculated from high school.

Informed of this juicy tidbit, Israelis not to the right will laugh in your face. The fact is, however, indisputable. The naysayers may go to Google to prove you wrong, pointing to the scanty text falling under Lapid’s official Knesset biography, which suggests that he has, at the very least, attained a baccalaureate degree:

Education:

Studies toward MA in Hermeneutics and Culture Studies, Bar Ilan University.

But dig a little further and one arrives closer to the truth, as in this Hebrew-language biography of Lapid at Ynet:

:השכלה של יאיר לפיד

בוגר הגימנסיה העברית הרצליה, ללא זכאות לתעודת בגרות. התקבל ללימודי תואר שני במסלול מהיר לדוקטורט מטעם אוניברסיטת בר אילן, אך עזב לאור איסור המל"ג על קבלת סטודנטים ללא תואר אקדמי.

Google translates this as (emphasis added):

Yair Lapid's education:

Graduated from the Herzliya Hebrew High School, without eligibility for a matriculation certificate. He was admitted to master's studies on a fast-track path to a doctorate on behalf of Bar Ilan University, but left in light of the ban on accepting students without an academic degree.

In other words, it’s against the rules, but the university was going to look the other way and give Lapid a master’s. Unfortunately, someone noticed and that someone was the Council for Higher Education (CHE), the official authority for higher education in Israel and the body responsible for this country’s higher education policy. In 2012, CHE recommended sanctions* for Bar Ilan as a result of its offer to give Lapid some lickety-split education on the sly (emphasis added):

The Council for Higher Education will recommend on Tuesday imposing sanctions on Bar-Ilan University for violating regulations on accepting students for advanced degrees. The investigation was launched after Haaretz revealed that Bar-Ilan had accepted Yair Lapid directly to a Master's and then a doctoral program without him having [a] B.A. degree.

The CHE ordered its committee on supervision and enforcement to investigate the matter, and the committee will meet on Tuesday and recommend action against the university.

All other Israeli universities were asked to report any similar violations by the middle of February, but the Council of University Presidents said Tuesday that, as far as it knows, only Bar-Ilan admitted such students against the rules. However, a Bar-Ilan official said he thinks all of the universities do the same.

Lapid was accepted onto Bar-Ilan's prestigious culture and interpretation graduate program, which accepts only candidates who received a B.A. degree with honors. Lapid, a news and media personality whose recent announcement of his Knesset candidacy was accompanied by reports of skyrocketing popularity in polls, has no undergraduate degree.

In response, the CHE launched an investigation. The university says Lapid was accepted into the demanding master's and doctoral programs on the basis of his "literary and journalistic achievements."

Someone might want to tell Haaretz that not only does Lapid not have an undergraduate degree, he did not even pass the bagrut—the rigorous Israeli high school matriculation examinations. Should we be disturbed by Lapid’s lack of academic credentials? And isn’t it kind of embarrassing for Israel to have a prime minister who didn’t finish high school?

That depends on your point of view. Is he otherwise qualified?

Abraham Lincoln Marovitz

Well, let’s put it this way, he’s no Abraham Lincoln Marovitz. Marovitz earned his Bachelor of Laws in 1925 at the age of 19, when he was still 20 months too young to sit for the Illinois bar exam. He took the exam when he turned 21, and passed it on his first try. But Marovitz attended law school without benefit of a college degree. "In those days, you didn't need a college degree to go to law school," Marovitz later said. "So that's how I wound up the only sitting federal judge who never went to college."

Of course, even the boy wonder that was Marovitz, matriculated from high school.

Bar Ilan’s claim that it accepted Lapid for a masters and subsequent doctoral program (!) because of his “literary and journalistic achievements” doesn’t even begin to pass the smell test. It is far more likely that Lapid’s political star had begun to rise, so he thought he’d talk to someone and snag a couple of college degrees PDQ, because hey. That lack of education: It’s not a good look for a prime minister.  

Lapid, like me, is a writer and a journalist. He never studied political science. He’s not a lawyer or an economist. But he does have great hair and his English is good. Also his father was Tommy Lapid.

Are these CVs, added to his experience in office, enough to sway the balance against his failure to obtain a high school diploma? From this writer's perspective, it seems doubtful. And here is why:

Some years ago, I applied for a job with a Jerusalem think tank. They loved my cover letter and resume. I stood out from all the candidates. But there was nothing about education on my resume, could I just fill in for them that missing bit?

At that point, the jig was up and I had to tell them that I was not a college graduate. To which they said, “You’re otherwise perfect for us, but as a government-affiliated think tank, there’s no way we can hire someone without even a bachelor's degree.”

I was disappointed, but I had learned a lesson: I too, was no Abraham Lincoln Marovitz. If I wanted a job at that level, I was going to have to put in the time and work necessary to earn it. And if I wasn’t willing to do that, I had to set my sights elsewhere. 

It’s pretty basic: without that college degree, I was not qualified for that particular job, no matter how much knowledge or wisdom I had managed to accumulate.

But like I said, even matriculated from high school. Which leads to a thought:

It is not that difficult to arrange to sit for the Israeli high school matriculation exams, no matter one’s age or station in life. Shouldn’t the Israeli electorate, at the very least, demand that a prime minister have a high school degree under his or her belt? And shouldn’t this be codified into law?

*The Haaretz piece linked to here is behind a paywall.


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!

 

 






Mondoweiss is very upset:

Last week, the Thomas Reuters Foundation announced that award-winning Palestinian journalist Shatha Hammad would be the recipient of the prestigious Kurt Schork Local Reporter Award for 2022. Not 48 hours later, Zionist watchdog group Honest Reporting unleashed a vicious smear campaign against Hammad to pressure Reuters and the Kurt Schork Fund to revoke the award. The campaign succeeded. 

Hammad is just the latest Palestinian journalist to be targeted by such groups. Earlier this month, the New York Times fired Palestinian photojournalist Hosam Salem for expressing support for Palestinian resistance, after Honest Reporting dug through Salem’s facebook posts to “expose” him to the Times. Honest Reporting is one of many Zionist watchdog organizations whose mission is to rush to the defense of one of the last colonial regimes in the world, effectively functioning as an international arm of Israeli “Hasbara” and providing a smokescreen for the continuous colonization and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine. 

As pointed out by a letter signed by hundreds of Palestinian and Arab journalists condemning these recent online attacks, these watchdog groups function similarly to Israeli intelligence agencies, digging “deep into journalists’ social media accounts, chasing after any expressions, statements, or even jokes said in childhood, taking them out of context and weaponizing them.” 

This is what Honest Reporting did to Hammad, distorting several of her old facebook posts from 2014 in an attempt to paint her as an antisemite and “Hitler fan.” Hammad emphatically denies these outrageous claims, and even contends that one of the alleged facebook posts was outright fabrication.

The Kurt Schork Memorial Fund buckled under the pressure and promptly revoked Hammad’s award. This alone is concerning, as it shows a willingness to accept the accusations of a clearly partisan organization that uses questionable methods in producing “proof” of wrongdoing.

The article goes on to say that Honest Reporting is Zionist and partisan, that there are double standards being applied, that the social media posts being quoted are false out of context or old - a litany of excuses and accusations about the unfairness of reporters being fired for being "pro-Palestinian."

Yet somehow, this fearless media outlet doesn't once mention what these reporters actually wrote that got them fired.

Seems like a curious detail to leave out of a story, doesn't it? According to the terror supporting Mondoweiss, these innocent lambs are accused of doing something they don't want to reveal, but you should  trust them - the journalists are innocent and the accusers are horrible people.

As HR reports, Salem has posted multiple times clear and unambiguous support for terror attacks, including the murder of four rabbis at prayer in Jerusalem.

In 2011, Salem took to Facebook to praise the Jerusalem bus bombing in which British Christian evangelical student Mary Jane Gardner was murdered, and 67 others were injured. Members of the Hamas cell had reportedly planned an additional attack but were stopped by Israeli security forces.

On November 18, 2014, Hosam Salem again used Facebook to express his joy over the massacre of four rabbis and an Israeli-Druze police officer in a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

Citing the Quran, he encouraged his followers to “smite the necks” of unbelievers, adding: “[This is the] summary of the Jerusalem operation [sic] today.”

There’s more. In 2015, Salem applauded two acts of terror (see here and here); a shooting at the Gush Etzion Junction that killed an American teenager, an Israeli man, and a Palestinian bystander; and a Jerusalem stabbing that killed three.

Some three years later, after being hired by The New York Times, Salem called for more violence following an attack that killed two IDF recruits in the West Bank. “Shoot, kill, withdraw: three quick operational steps…to bring peace to the hearts of sad people like us,” the inciting post read.

Finally, he has repeatedly eulogized Mohammed Salem and Nabil Masoud. The two were responsible for a 2004 suicide bombing that killed ten workers at the Ashdod port, Israel’s second-busiest harbor.

What about Shatha Hammad?

 The posts that HonestReporting uncovered included dozens of violent and antisemitic clarion calls, such as one in which she eulogized the “martyrs” who killed five “settlers” during the 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre where two Palestinian terrorists attacked worshipers with axes, knives and a gun.

In several posts in 2014, Hammad, who currently works for Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera, signed off her comments using the nickname “Hitler” and joked that she was “in agreement” with the Nazi leader who oversaw the mass extermination of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

In another post — originally written in Arabic but translated into English by HonestReporting — she described herself as “friends” and “one” with Hitler, adding they have the “same mentality, like, for example, the extermination of the Jews” alongside a smiley face emoji.

Honest Reporting has screenshots, so Hammad's claim of "fabrication" is ridiculous.

Mondoweiss wants its readers to be angry - but it sure doesn't want them to know the posts it is defending as mere "criticism of Israel."  The article is filled with hyperlinks - but not one to Honest Reporting's articles that show the screenshots of these journalists promoting the murders of Jews.

In fact, they are so upset at these revelations that they say, with a straight face, that "Zionist watchdogs are a danger to journalism." Not journalists who support murdering Jews - but the people who expose them. 

Mondoweiss is afraid of the truth. It tries to hide the truth. Which proves that the truth is not on their side.




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

From Ian:

Clifford D. May: The UN goes DEFCON 3 on Israel
Vladimir Putin is slaughtering Ukrainian men, women and children. Xi Jinping is committing genocide against the Muslims of East Turkistan. Ali Khamenei is murdering Iranian girls for wearing their hijabs in what he considers a provocative manner. What is the United States doing in response to these crises? It's going "death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE."

That quote, of course, is from a recent tweet by Kanye West. "DEFCON," an acronym for "defense readiness condition," is how the US military indicates states of alert, ranging from one (the highest) to five. Apparently, however, the performance artist who now calls himself "Ye" intended to convey that he was going on offense against Jews.

The so-called UN Human Rights Council is doing the same. Its so-called Commission of Inquiry is going on offense against the Middle East's only surviving and thriving Jewish community. Indeed, the COI is funded – Americans contributing the lion's share – for the express purpose of demonizing and delegitimizing Israel in perpetuity.

On Thursday, the COI released its second report – one was not enough! – assigning culpability for last year's 11-day war between Israel and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood faction that holds power in Gaza, and is designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada and other nations.

The report urges UN members to prosecute Israeli officials for alleged violations of "international humanitarian law." What does the report say about Hamas and the more than 4,000 rockets it fired at Israelis, its routine use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and the support it receives from Tehran? Not a word. "Hamas," "rockets" and "terrorism" are not mentioned.

Israelis are protesting the report as they have protested such slanders in the past, and will in the future. They're also reminding anyone who will listen – not a large cohort – that one of the COI's prominent members, Miloon Kothari, has questioned why Israel is "even a member of the United Nations."
Caroline Glick: America—and the World—Must Stand With Iran's Freedom Revolution
Distressingly, rather than take these actions, the Biden administration speaks out of both sides of its mouth. Last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with regime opponents and lobbyists in the same meeting at the State Department, and referred to both as civil society representatives. Due to this moral and diplomatic equivalence, the move was a transparent signal to the regime that the Biden administration is not supporting the revolutionaries. It was also a means to legitimize the regime's supporters.

Wearing State Department-minted badges of legitimacy, these Iranian regime lobbyists and supporters in turn have briefed friendly reporters with claims that the administration must not sanction the regime, because it will only harm the protesters. According to the lobbyists, the Biden administration should also maintain its policy of realigning U.S. Middle East policy toward the Iranian regime through its nuclear appeasement and lifting of sanctions, because diplomacy is the only answer.

The Biden administration is maintaining its policy of supporting the Iranian regime, even as the mullahs' security forces murder, torture, and terrorize the Iranian people, because the administration is so blinded by its zealous anti-colonialist ideology that it cannot see or understand what is actually happening. Like the Obama administration before it, the Biden administration subscribes to a Manichaean, anti-colonialist worldview that believes anti-Western revolutionary regimes like the Iranian regime are authentic representations of righteous hatred of the West.

Former President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, their Iran envoy Robert Malley, Blinken, and their advisors and aides cannot understand that the oppressed people of Iran can be free of hatred of the West and even seek friendship and cooperation with the likes of Israel and the United States. As Obama explained last week, he refused to support Iran's 2009 Green Revolution because he feared that U.S. support for the revolutionaries would discredit them. Obama—like Biden today—could not countenance the notion that the Iranian people themselves do not hate America. An oversimplified anti-colonialist ideology doesn't allow for the possibility that a more nuanced state of affairs can exist.

The anti-colonialist creed of the Biden administration and its progressive supporters dictates that the only possible policy for dealing with "legitimate" regimes, such as the Iranian regime, is to appease them through payouts and strategic concessions. The nuclear deal, which does both of these things, is a perfect expression of the anti-colonialist foreign policy.

Under the circumstances, Congress and the American public should stand with the Iranian revolutionaries and demand that the Biden administration see the truth. For the first time since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979, we have a real chance of seeing this toxic regime fall. Every possible effort must be made to help make this possibility a reality.


Caroline Glick: Ahead of the elections, a massive escalation in Palestinian terror
Palestinian terror escalation
From there, Glick moves to the Palestinian arena. A week ahead of Israel’s elections, the Palestinians are in the midst of a massive escalation of their terror campaign against Israel, she says.

According to Glick, the caretaker government’s response to the Palestinian aggression is to redouble its efforts to appease them, at the expense of Israeli security.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz and caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid, like Meretz chairman Zehava Gal-On, she says, are all completely wedded to the fantasy that the Palestinians will cut a deal with Israel. This, while all layers of Palestinian society are demonstrating their complete mobilization for the war against Israel. This, she notes, includes a large portion of Israeli Arabs, as events over the past several months indicate.

The future after the elections
As Glick discusses the elections and their near-existential implications for Israel, its Jewish character and its national security and viability, Likud Knesset member Yoav Kisch joins the conversation. The two talk about the state of the race, a week out from the polls.

Kisch explains how a Likud-led government will enact the necessary reforms of Israel’s politicized legal fraternity, and discusses the implications of the revolution in Iran and the gas deal for Israel.

Join us for a can’t-miss discussion of the most important issues affecting Israel, the Middle East and the world.


By Daled Amos

Last week, a piece "In Defense of Hamas" appeared in The Amherst Contra, an anonymous student publication at Amherst College. The article whitewashes the terrorist group as "the perennial bogeyman" and defends it against being "consistently portrayed as a terrorist organization". There really is not much more to say about it -- or The Amherst Contra itself, which prides itself on publishing "unpopular opinions," starting this year with "Would We Be Better Off Without Democracy?" But it is an example of the ease with which Israel is condemned on campus.

Unlike that anonymous article, last year, following the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hamas in May 2021, a letter was circulated with the signatures of rabbinical and cantoral students, decrying the situation in Israel, and blaming Israel:

What will it take for us to see that our Israel has the military and controls the borders? How many Palestinians must lose their homes, their schools, their lives, for us to understand that today, in 2021, Israel’s choices come from a place of power and that Israel’s actions constitute an intentional removal of Palestinians?

These students inform us: "we are future leaders of the Jewish community" -- though that may not be the way most Jews view cantors. For that matter, not every rabbinical student is a future leader of "the Jewish community."

Be that as it may, there is no indication of what grasp, if any, these students have of the full situation in Israel. But even putting aside the question of the depth of their understanding of current events in Israel and of the history -- issues arguably outside their areas of expertise -- there are also the areas that are supposed to be their area of expertise.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles, notes a lack of what one would have expected to find in a letter by rabbinical students and future Jewish leaders:

There wasn’t a word about Ahavat Yisrael – a love and solidarity with our fellow Jews in Israel, with the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our own homeland, to the very real sacrifices this experiment in Jewish national self-expression has imposed from its inception.

But this vacuum goes beyond Jewish students.

There was also a letter from scholars in Jewish and Israeli studies in response to last year's conflict who condemned Zionism as being

shaped by settler colonial paradigms that saw land settlement as a virtuous means of solving political, economic, or cultural problems, as well as modern European Enlightenment discourses that assumed a hierarchy of civilizations and adopted the premise that technological progress and development of an ‘underdeveloped’ territory would be an unqualified good. [emphasis added]

While they follow this with a passing reference to "the challenges and limitations of applying a settler colonial paradigm to the Zionist case, the unique historical Jewish connection to and presence in the Land of Israel," that does not stop these scholars from accusing Israel of "unsustainable systems of Jewish supremacy." 

Jewish supremacy?

No mention of the ongoing integration of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli military, government and Israeli society in general.

They conclude their letter with the obligatory 

commitment to upholding student and faculty free speech and academic freedom. [emphasis added]

by which they mean a commitment to non-violent protests and boycotts at a time when pro-Israel free speech on campus by students and professors can be dangerous both to one's person and profession.

Both the rabbinical students and these Jewish and Israeli scholars proclaim their Jewishness while attacking Israel, all while at the same time lacking Jewish empathy with Israel. 

In his article The Demise of Jewish Studies in America—and the Rise of Jewish Studies in Israel, Joshua M. Karlip writes about how "American Jewish studies, like American Jewry itself, is fast becoming de-Judaized." Karlip is a professor of Jewish history at YU. He sees this rejection of Jewish particularity as a major contributing factor behind these attacks by Jewish scholars on Israel. Whereas in the past, Europe demanded a "disavowal of Jewish national particularism" in exchange for acceptance, today's academic community demands "the de-Judaization" of their scholarship. 

Karlip claims that part of the problem is that these scholars lack depth in their Jewish background:

Their own often scant Jewish knowledge has abetted this process. With up to 80 percent of contemporary American Jewish scholars not able to read Hebrew sources fluently, is it any wonder that they have adopted the progressive left’s rejection of Zionism and Israel as a “settler colonialism” that displaced “indigenous populations”? If they had bothered to master Hebrew, perhaps they would have studied the Jews who prayed three times a day for the return to Zion rather than the acculturated elites who sought home in Russia, Poland, Germany, and France.

What they are missing, he writes, is what makes it possible for Jews from Morocco, Yemen, Ethiopia and Russia to make aliyah and bond together with an Israeli identity, which is "more than a 'constructed,' 'invented' identity."

Without that consciousness of our own nativeness in the Holy Land, of a people exiled and yearning to return home, the national culture, language, and civil society of Israel would not exist, let alone thrive, today. 

Writing in May 2021, Ruth Wisse gives another example of Jewish scholars who de-Judaize in their scholarship, in this case seeing Jewish self-perpetuation and continuity as nothing more than an exercise in corrupt male power. She quotes from The History and Sexual Politics of an American Jewish Communal Project to illustrate her point:

A Jewish continuity paradigm emerged forcefully in the 1970s as a set of expert pronouncements and community policies that treated women and their bodies as data points in service of a particular vision of Jewish communal survival...Condemning intermarriage and decrying low child-bearing rates became signature features of the affective work of Jewish communal research. [emphasis added]

As Wisse describes this approach, "every sensible Jewish communal initiative to encourage Jewish marriage, family, and education as the sustaining features of Diaspora survival is defined as a suspect tool of indoctrination."

Again, Jewish particularity is rejected with a total apathy for the richness of Jewish life, history and culture.

But what are we supposed to make of this "free speech" and "academic freedom" that the scholars above claim to support in the context of their condemnation of Israel and its alleged crimes? Is academic freedom just a variety of free speech for scholars?

According to an article this year in The New Republic, academic freedom not only covers research and teaching, but also statements that scholars make outside of that ("extramural utterances") -- for instance on social media.

The point is that academic freedom of expression is an extension of their recognized expertise and competence in their field, which is why what they outside of academia -- what they say publicly -- gets respect. But by the same token, shouldn't they be held responsible when they go off the rails? 

For instance:

the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) has consistently held that faculty should not be fired for extramural speech unless that speech calls into question a professor’s fitness to serve. Ordinarily, that speech has to bear directly on the faculty member’s field of study. The idea is that a historian who is a Holocaust denier is obviously unfit, whereas an electrical engineer who is a Holocaust denier is just a crank. This position makes perfect sense, though few people realize that it entails the unsettling corollary that professors enjoy greater protection for extramural speech when they have no idea what they’re talking about than for speech within the areas of their research and teaching. (emphasis added)

And academics who talk and write outside of their field of expertise -- and say outrageous things, are not all that hard to find.

One example of this is Joy Karega:

Karega was a professor of rhetoric and composition who promoted a panoply of antisemitic conspiracy theories, including the claims that ISIS is a CIA/Mossad front and that the 2015 Islamist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo was in fact a false flag operation conducted by Israel. Both were rightly determined to be in the ballpark of Holocaust-denying historians.

Sure enough, Oberlin College originally defended Karega on free speech grounds, and only months later finally fired her.

But what about less blatant examples of academics going outside their area of expertise?

Phyllis Chesler wrote last year about how Academics Use Propaganda, Not Expertise, to Bash Israel. She describes an open letter by Palestinian Feminist Collective, claiming that "once again, Palestinians from the far north to the far south of our homeland are defying settler colonialism's attempts to partition the land and the people." Academic feminists enthusiastically joined in with a statement that ignored both facts and context. Chesler writes:

Subsequently, academic feminists, issued a statement "In Solidarity With Palestinian Feminist Collective," which links to non-scholarly boilerplate propaganda, none of which is concerned with the Islamic gender apartheid that afflicts Arab Palestinian women in Israel, Gaza, and on the West Bank. They focus on "evictions in East Jerusalem" without understanding the history, legality, or nature of this dispute.

...The gender studies people link to facts about the "humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip," which fail to acknowledge that Israel left Gaza in 2005. Whatever the situation there may be, it is due to Hamas's greed, corruption, and terrorist goals.

Dear God: How is it possible to claim that "Palestine is a feminist issue," which they do, without even mentioning forced child marriage, forced veiling, and honor killing – which are indigenous customs – not caused by the alleged Israeli occupation?

Chesler describes how she took a random sample of 1 professor at 10 gender, women's studies and sexuality departments and found only one professor who even addressed the issue of honor killing -- and even then, only to attack Trump and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

But none of these randomly chosen 10 have an advanced degree in the history and nature of the Middle East, the Arab World, Islam, Judaism, or Israel. None are teaching courses in such areas as experts. They are merely using their expert credentials to support propaganda. [emphasis added]

But spreading propaganda in the guise of academic scholarship is not limited to feminist academics. Chesler points to "Palestine and Praxis: Scholars for Palestinian Freedom," an open letter featuring 70 pages of signatories with about 45 names on each page. The signers claim to be "scholars" who identify with "the Palestinian struggle as an indigenous liberation movement confronting a settler colonial state." These "scholars" call for "boycott campaigns – and to anti-Israel campus activism and to "pressure (their) government to end funding Israeli military aggression."

But...

Guess what? Only 11 of the first 450 signatories teach in Middle East, Palestine, and Arabic Studies.

Both the feminist academics and the "scholars" are recycling Palestinian Islamist propaganda and trying to pass it off as scholarly opinion. Do not fall for it. [emphasis added]

This is not just an issue of academics and scholars going outside of their areas of expertise. There is an issue of a lack of objectivity and the pursuit of personal agendas. As Menachem Kellner, who teaches philosophy and Jewish thought at Shalem College writes, the concept of academic freedom is being abused:

the concept of “academic freedom” is meant to enable academics to research and teach evidence-based truths in the fields in which they are competent. It is not meant to protect academics who introduce their personal politics into their research and teaching in order to browbeat their students and foment an atmosphere of prejudice and hate designed to silence rational inquiry.

Such academics share responsibility for the atmosphere of fear that Jewish students suffer on college campuses.

Jews have all kinds of opinions about Israel, and are certainly free to express them -- so does anyone else for that matter. But the fact that someone is Jewish doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about. Jewish scholars are free to condemn Israel, but in turn, we are free to question their motives and agenda, and even whether they really have the expertise to back up what they claim. The same applies to any scholar who signs on to a condemnation of Israel -- we can question what agenda they or their group is pursuing.

And we should.





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!

 

 



At the socialist site  Jewish Currents, writer Alex Kane provides us with an excellent example of anti-Israel agitprop - and even justification of terrorism -  disguised as a critical analysis of the definition of terrorism.

Like all good propaganda, the article starts off with a very reasonable point:

ON OCTOBER 9TH, a Palestinian shot and killed Noa Lazar, an Israeli soldier serving at a checkpoint near the Shuafat refugee camp. Three days later, a Palestinian gunman killed Ido Baruch, a soldier who was guarding Israeli settlers as they marched near the Palestinian town of Sebastia in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid called the Shuafat attack a “severe terrorist attack,” and said the assailant behind Baruch’s shooting was a “despicable terrorist.” The Jerusalem Post, Israel HaYom and i24 News referred to the Shuafat shooting as a “terrorist” act. The centrist Anti-Defamation League as well as the liberal Zionist J Street also referred to the shootings as “terror” attacks.

This broad consensus across the Zionist political spectrum reflects a commonly-held view among many Israelis and Israel advocates that the killings of soldiers engaged in a military occupation are acts of “terror,” in the same category as indiscriminate attacks on civilians. But this view represents only one pole of a discursive struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, and, more broadly, Western countries and formerly-colonized nations, who have clashed in international fora like the United Nations (UN) over whether violence against agents of a military occupation ought to count as “terrorism.”

While different countries have codified their own definitions of terrorism in their national laws, “there is no international legal consensus on the meaning of terrorism,” said Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and author of the book Defining Terrorism in International Law. According to Saul, there is general agreement among states that the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve political goals constitutes terrorism; the disagreement lies in “whether insurgent or guerrilla attacks on soldiers in armed conflicts should also be called terrorism.”
Kane is partially correct - not only Israel but most Western nations and media usually refer to attacks on their own soldiers as terrorist attacks, but generally not attacks on other nations' soldiers (not just "agents of a military occupation" as Kane claims.)  For example, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 US and French soldiers was referred to as a terrorist attack in US statements and news articles even though the targets were military.

However, the official definitions of terrorism adopted by many countries do not give exceptions for attacks against soldiers. Most Western countries make no mention of civilian or non-combatant targets in their definitions. The FBI defines international terrorism based on the identity of the attackers being associated with designated terror groups; attacks against armed forces are not excluded.

Be that as it may, Kane's initial point has validity - one instinctively associates terror attacks with civilian targets - and he leverages that to skillfully pretend that other criticisms of the use of the term have equal validity. 

Since 2000, countries at the UN have tried to come to a consensus on what’s called the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention, which would codify the criminalization of terrorism in international law. But consensus has again stalled due to disagreements on how to classify national liberation struggles. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a body of 57 mostly Muslim-majority countries, argues that violence committed by those in a struggle for self-determination—a term referring to a people’s ability to form their own state and govern themselves—should not be covered by the terrorism convention but rather by international humanitarian law, which governs the permissible use of force based in part on the “principle of distinction” between civilians and soldiers. The OIC’s argument is aimed at exempting Palestinian and Kashmiri fighters from being considered “terrorists” under international law when they launch attacks on Israeli or Indian soldiers who currently occupy their lands. The African Union and League of Arab States share the OIC’s perspective: Both bodies have adopted regional terrorism conventions that exclude struggles for national liberation from their definition of terrorism.    

Here's where we see the depth of Kane's dishonesty. Building on his initial point, he frames the objections of the OIC and others in terms of their targets, saying that their main objections are against considering attacks on "occupying soldiers" to be terrorism.

But that is not what they are saying. The OIC's proposed definition would exempt any attack, even against civilians, even targeting women and children, from being considered terrorism as long as they are "in situations of foreign occupation" or any "armed conflict." It was written, at the height of the second intifada, deliberately to excuse Palestinian suicide and bus bombings.

And this is borne out by parallel activities by anti-Israel activists who have attempted to claim that even directly targeting Jewish civilians are part of a legitimate "right to resist" - by any means. Richard Falk, former  United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, wrote that "Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right" specifically in reference to the second intifada attacks on Jewish civilians. 

Kane is presenting these justifications for attacks on civilians as merely objections to use of the term "terrorism" against soldiers. By not mentioning these facts, he is framing the controversy over the definition of the term "terrorism" as two sides making reasonable, equally valid points and that their disagreements are only about attacking the military. 

Kane then subtly justifies attacks on civilians, again by using misdirection to pretend he is only talking about soldiers:

According to George Bisharat, an emeritus professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “terrorism” is “a buzzword” intending to cast violence against occupation soldiers as illegitimate. In Israel/Palestine, “it’s being used for its political and rhetorical impact to discredit any violent resistance against Israel’s occupation,” he said, which is why “the non-aligned nations, as they call themselves, are insistent on the principle that violence exercised to advance the right of self-determination is not illegal.”  

 The legal distinction Kane is making has suddenly changed from target of the violence (ostensibly, soldiers) is to the reason for the violence - "self-determination." Kane introduces Bisharat as only talking about targeting soldiers, but  Bisharat's words say otherwise. If "violence exercised to advance the right of self-determination is not illegal" then that includes all attacks, including civilians. (Bisharat himself knows that attacks on civilians is illegal, but he is unhappy about it, ludicrously complaining that the inaccuracy of Palestinian rockets makes it too difficult for Palestinians to adhere to international law by only hitting military targets.)

Which means that Kane is classifying attacks on civilians as just another valid position. He's too smart to say it explicitly, but the Bisharat sentence is in fact the main point that he wants to give the reader - that Palestinian terrorism is legitimate because it is resistance.

In fact, the tone of the article is that Israel is unjustifiably referring to legitimate resistance as terrorism, while those who have cheered and funded the murder of Jewish civilians (the non-aligned nations) have solid legal ground for their support. 

There is another layer to Kane's propaganda techniques.

This entire article is meant to obfuscate a basic fact. By only talking about Palestinian attacks on soldiers, he is implying that soldiers are the main targets of the terror groups. But the terrorists, whether they are Hamas or Fatah or Lion's Den, make no such distinctions. Their own words and publications never say that they only want to attack soldiers - their targets are "settlers" and, to them, every Israeli Jew is a "settler." When they attack soldiers and guards it is because those are the ones on the front lines, not out of any concern for international law or the definition of terrorism. When the armed groups have the opportunity, they attack civilians, and indeed they prefer to attack civilians because they are softer targets. 

This is why the attackers are terrorists by any definition. And that is exactly what Alex Kane and Jewish Currents wants you to forget.




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!

 

 


The second quarter Palestinian labor statistics show that there are 903,000 Palestinians working in the West Bank and Gaza, 182,000 who work in Israel and 29,000 who work in the settlements.

This means that 18.9% of Palestinians are employed directly by Israelis. 

This is, by far, the highest percentage of Palestinians working for Israelis in at least ten years, and possibly since before Oslo.  I sampled some previous years: In 2021, the percentage was less than 16%; in 2016, 13%; in 2012, 10.4%.

This doesn't include Palestinians who are indirectly employed by Israel, for example, those who work for local computer consultants who get most of their work from Israelis.

If one out of every five Palestinians works for Israelis, that is a significant number of people who will not want a new intifada that would jeopardize their jobs.

And neither would any Palestinian leader, in the West Bank at least. Because the 19% only tells half the story. The average wage for those who work for Israelis is typically more than double that of local Palestinian workers. I estimate that over 35% of all wages to Palestinian workers comes from Israeli employers.

A third intifada would destroy the Palestinian economy and anger the 211,000 Palestinians who work - or hope to work - in Israel. 

This is why Israel is trying to expand work permits to Gaza. The same logic applies, and even Hamas would not be eager to upset a labor force that desperately wants to work.





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!

 

 

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

From Ian:

The New Progressivism Makes No Room for Jews
In 2016, as “intersectionality” escaped from academia to become a progressive buzzword—and came to to signify a doctrine that all just causes are linked and complementary—David L. Bernstein began to suspect that it was apt to be used against the Jews. As he pointed out in an article published that year, activists argued under the banner of intersectionality that anyone opposed to racism in the U.S. should also oppose the existence of Israel. He thought, however, that there was hope:
While I didn’t say so explicitly, I’d come to believe that the mainstream Jewish community needed to find a way to include the Jewish narrative in the intersectional matrix—to complicate it—so that Jews and Israel were not viewed as the perennial oppressors and Palestinians the perennial victims. Concerned about the growing backlash to my article, I used the opportunity [to participate in a panel discussion with some of my critics] to soften my stance on the topic, stating “I still have much to learn,” and that “intersectionality is a complex, interesting, and nuanced phenomenon that we need to understand, not just from the perspective of the pro-Israel community, but from its own perspective as well.”

Bernstein, at the time still president of the left-leaning Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), soon learned that there was little room for such a compromise position:
[In 2020], the JCPA pulled together a Zoom meeting for a coalition called Jews for Criminal Justice Reform, which included top Jewish criminal-justice activists from around the country. After an inspiring talk by Paul Fishman—a former federal attorney from New Jersey—on the need to end mass incarceration, we broke up into smaller groups to discuss next steps. A lawyer named Jared, the group facilitator for my breakout session, asked, “What do you all think our criminal-justice reform priorities ought to be?” Ariella, a young professional staffer from a Jewish civil-rights organization, interjected, “Before we talk about strategy, there’s a lot of internal work we have to do in the Jewish community. We need to recognize our complicity in white supremacy and ensure we have black Jews at the forefront of these efforts.”

More and more, that’s how it is now: a young staff person holding the work process hostage until we recite some prescribed litany of woke pieties. What, pray tell, did Ariella think all this self-reflection would do to help black people get out of being jailed for low-level drug charges? I suspect she didn’t have a clue. And as things turned out, our breakout session never discussed a single criminal-justice reform measure.

In short, Bernstein discovered that there is no room in this brand of progressive ideology to see Jews as anything but oppressors, and for Jews to do anything but proclaim their own imagined sins. This discovery is the subject of his newly published book, Woke Antisemitism.
How did a radical Islamist fool the West? - analysis
Many articles written about Qaradawi after his death emphasized his condemnation of al-Qaeda and ISIS and his moderate rulings permitting certain Western conduct for Muslims living as minorities in Western countries.

These articles portrayed him as many Westerners wanted to see him: a widely accepted authentic Islamic scholar who wanted to dialogue with the West and rejected violence.

However, the intelligence center noted that many of these articles left out that he helped shape “the concept of violent jihad,” especially justifying “carrying out terror attacks, including suicide bombing attacks, against Israeli citizens, the US forces in Iraq, and some of the Arab regimes.”

Qaradawi supported violent jihad and suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. He was a source of supreme religious authority for Hamas at a time when many Islamic scholars still prohibited suicide of any kind.

Qaradawi claimed that violence was a legitimate expression of the so-called “resistance” and that Israel was a militaristic society in which every civilian is a potential soldier, said the report.

His antisemitism was not limited to Israel, with the report saying he frequently expressed antisemitic statements worldwide and even issued a fatwa authorizing attacks on Jews around the world.

In that fatwa, “he claimed that there is no essential difference between Judaism and Zionism, and therefore every Jewish target equals an Israeli target,” according to the report.
‘The Squad’ urges Biden administration to negotiate ceasefire in Ukraine
30 Democratic US Congressmembers – most notably the young progressives who have become colloquially known as “The Squad” – penned a letter to President Joe Biden’s administration on Monday in which they ask the administration to avoid direct military conflict and attempt to bring Russia and Ukraine to a ceasefire.

“Given the catastrophic possibilities of nuclear escalation and miscalculation, which only increase the longer this war continues, we agree with your goal of avoiding direct military conflict as an overriding national-security priority,” the letter read. A call for diplomacy

The congress members noted the difficulties involved in a settlement, particularly with the issue of annexed territories in the east of Ukraine, though they also mentioned Biden’s commitment to end the war. While no concrete plan of action was presented in the letter, the congress members suggested that easing sanctions against Russia would be a natural step to take.

“Such a framework would presumably include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians.”

“The alternative to diplomacy is a protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks,” the letter continues.

The signers of the letter also pointed to the food and commodity crises brought upon by the war as reasons to seek an end to the war. “Economists believe that if the situation in Ukraine is stabilized, some of the speculative concerns driving higher fuel costs will subside and likely lead to a drop in world oil prices.”

Mahmoud Abbas, the ruthless dictator who already controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Palestinian government, is now going after....the unions.

On Tuesday, the Palestinian Authority president issued a presidential decree to dissolve the Doctors' Syndicate and to replace it with another union headed by his own pick, Shawki Sabha.

The Doctors Syndicate stated that Abbas's decision wants to replace the current elected council for the group with handpicked cronies.

Abbas consistently goes after any organization that does not toe his line.  And he's been doing this for over 15 years.

Palestinian human rights groups Al Haq and the Independent commission for Human Rights denounced the decision. But outside of those, the media and major human rights organizations let Abbas do whatever he wants.





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 Ramallah News:

 Today, Tuesday, the European Union expressed its regret over the death of six Palestinian martyrs as a result of the Israeli occupation’s aggression on the governorates of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh, in the West Bank.

In response to a question by Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) at a press conference in Brussels, European Union Spokesman for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Peter Stano affirmed that the European Union "is closely following developments in the occupied territories and the West Bank."

He said that "the disturbances, provocations and violence will continue until a solution and a vision for solving the problems is produced," expressing "regret for the loss of lives, especially the innocent."
Stano actually said, "We also regret loss of life - unnecessary loss of life - especially if it's innocent civilians." 

This doesn't sound like it fits the dead terrorists.

He also strongly condemned terrorist attacks, and gave the usual support for a two-state "solution," which would not be a solution in any sense at any time soon.





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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 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