Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 14, 2023

UN Secretary General mildly opposes murdering Jews. Hamas angrily responds it "a genuine human right."

From a press conference yesterday with UN Secretary General António Guterres:

Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General. This is Abdelhamid Siyam from the Arabic daily, al-Quds al-Arabi. This is your seventh year in office, and I had been asking you about the question of Palestine, and you keep repeating about the two-State solution, and there is no option B. My question this time will be a little bit different. Does the Palestinian people have the right to resist occupation, similar to any people who fell under colonial Powers, foreign intervention, foreign occupation? They are made heroes in their countries. We put some of their statues in the UN because they fought colonialism and foreign domination. Why only the Palestinians, when they resist their occupiers, they are labelled as terrorists or violence? Or your representative in Jerusalem, Tor Wennesland, he called it unacceptable terrorism. Why? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Well, first of all, I would like to say that I believe that we’ll be able to have a meeting on Monday that is being organized by the European Union and several Arab countries, in order to try to put again on the table the question of the peace process. Now, I came from India and I went to pay tribute to Gandhi. Let’s not forget the example of Gandhi. I think it’s important to recognize, to fully recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. I think it’s important to condemn any attempt to undermine the two-state solution, construction of settlements, eviction of Palestinian families and many other aspects. But, I do not think that it is with violence that the Palestinians will be able to better defend their interests. That is my humble opinion.

That is the most wishy-washy statement against terrorism I have ever seen.

Only Israeli actions "undermine the two state solution," but nothing that the Palestinians do - including terrorism. (Or like, uh, consistently rejecting the two state solution when offered.)

And he is simply saying that in his opinion, murdering Jews is not the best idea for Palestinians. He doesn't say it is wrong or that it is illegal or immoral. He even seems to tacitly admit that murdering Jews might be an effective way to "defend their interests," just not the optimal way of doing it.

That is a very bad message to give the world.

Compare to how one of Guterres' predecessors condemned terrorism two decades ago: "The central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians."

And Hamas' reaction to his statement? They condemned it, of course: because killing Jews is their highest moral duty.

The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas rejects UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' labeling of Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation as 'violence'.

Hamas confirms that such a misnomer does not suit a genuine human right – i.e. the right to self-defense against the aggression inflicted by an occupying power and a legitimate act as per international laws and norms.

The Palestinian people will never abolish such a right and will continue to fight the Israeli occupation and its Judaisation schemes until they liberate their homeland.

Yes, stabbing, shooting and bombing Jewish civilians is "self-defense" - and "a genuine human right."

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!

Jerusalem Proprietor Interprets Unavailability Of Product From Regular Suppliers As Product Not Existing (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Jerusalem Proprietor Interprets Unavailability Of Product From Regular Suppliers As Product Not Existing

Jerusalem, September 14 - A local shopkeeper confidently insisted today there is no such thing as an item a potential customer recalled seeing elsewhere in the world, the potential customer reported.

Ido Yaakobi, 62, owner and operator of a housewares store in the Mahane Yehuda market, informed a visitor to his shop that no, a silicone tube that uses manual pressure to remove the dried husk from a garlic clove does not exist. He spoke with the assertiveness of a man possessed of the knowledge of all kitchen products, having commanded his position in the area for several decades. Yaakobi made the assertion despite the visitor's insistence, with photos and descriptions on his phone, that such a product can, in fact, be procured elsewhere.

"Ein davar kazzeh," stated Yaakobi. "There's no such thing. Just peel it with your fingers like a normal person."

The customer disclosed that she had grown up in the US using a silicone garlic-peeler for decades, but that argument failed to sway the proprietor. "Obviously I've been mistaken all these years," she conceded. "Perhaps all the manufacturers and vendors of these so-called garlic peelers are, unbeknownst even to themselves, producing and marketing a different product entirely, and are just mislabeling it. I suppose I should have known that it's better to get your fingernails and fingertips stinking of garlic than to use something that gets the job done quickly and cleanly."

Other customers at the store recalled similar experiences. "I'm glad I went there," admitted an immigrant from the UK. "Otherwise I might still be walking around under the misperception that anyone needs silicone- or plastic-tipped tongs that aren't rounded at the ends, but flat, to help separate, for example, potatoes stuck to the bottom of a non-stick roasting pan. I must have imagined seeing such a product before, or even owning one for more than twenty years. I'm glad that guy set me straight by educating me that no such thing exists."

Experts noted that the phenomenon of Israeli shopkeepers interpreting their own awareness deficiency as reflective of objective marketing and manufacturing realities has a long history. "In the early years of the State of Israel, economic struggle and austerity were the order of the day," explained historian Tzena Razzon. "Customers were dependent on sellers for everything, and limited supply meant you couldn't just go elsewhere for a better deal or better quality. Businesses got used to holding all the advantages, and whatever the proprietor said, went, regardless of its relationship to reality. Some businesses haven't let go of that yet."

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!

09/14 Links Pt1: Why Mahmoud Abbas Can't Make Peace with Israelis; Neutralizing Iran Comes before Normalization with Saudi Arabia; 6 Killed Planting Bomb at Gaza Border

From Ian:

Clifford D. May: Why Mahmoud Abbas Can't Make Peace with Israelis

Addressing the Revolutionary Council of Fatah last month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asserted: "They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews, and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. Not true." Rather, Europeans "fought against these people because of their role in society, which had to do with usury, money dealings, and so on."

Abbas further claimed that David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, "forced" Jews to flee Arab countries where they had lived for centuries to Israel "by means of pressure, coercion, and murder." As for European Jews, they "are not Semites," he said, citing the discredited theory that Ashkenazi Jews are descended not from ancient Israelites but from Khazars, a medieval Turkic kingdom.

In 1982, after a period of study in Moscow, Abbas was awarded a doctorate for a dissertation titled "The Relationship between Zionists and Nazis, 1933-1945." In it, he accused Zionists of aiding and abetting "the annihilation of the Jewish population in European countries occupied by Nazi Germany to implement the Zionist ideal of mass colonization of Palestine and create a Jewish state on its territory." He later published a paper casting doubt on whether gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews and claiming that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust might be "even less than a million."

If Abbas holds such views, no end to the conflict is possible so long as he is in office, no matter what concessions Israelis and others offer.

Neutralizing Iran Comes before Normalization with Saudi Arabia

In a rather unusual speech, whose content was also disseminated by the Public Diplomacy Directorate in the Prime Minister's Office, the Head of the Mossad threatened that Israel would exact a price from the Iranians "deep in Iran, in the very heart of Tehran", for any damage to an Israeli citizen or Jewish individual or for the infiltration into Israel of Iranian weapon systems. Barnea explained that this price would be exacted from all the relevant echelons involved in such activity, whether carried out by Iran's own units or the various proxies operating on its behalf.

When referring to the threat posed by Iran's military nuclear capability, Barnea reiterated his former declaration: "We simply cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon ever," and he added: "We are not just sitting idly by."

Despite the fact that the value of silence has been somewhat undermined in Israel recently, we need not suspect that the Head of the Mossad was speaking off the top of his head. His words were read from a written text and his speech was then widely disseminated.

Fewer words and more actions
Although in his speech he did evoke emotions of national honor and pride, which are in need of an urgent boost at this juncture, we should not necessarily assume that Barnea's words were aimed specifically at the ears of the Israeli public. Israeli sentiment tends to prefer actions, as they speak louder than words, and has reservations about the use of bombastic threats that is more characteristic of the style of rhetoric used by our enemies in Tehran, Beirut, or Gaza.

Even if this speech entails an implicit response to the criticism of the policy of containment in relation to Hezbollah's actions and those of additional adversaries – the public would still prefer that we speak the language of actions rather than words.

Neither are Barnea's threats necessary for Iran itself. Tehran is well and truly aware of its 'misdeeds', and their inherent risks and will clearly be able to make the connection between them and any Israeli response when such action is taken. Should there be any doubt about that, there are numerous ways of issuing hints after such action is taken, that will clearly underscore the connection between the subsequent Israeli operation and Iran's nefarious activity. As far as Israel is concerned, Washington should be the prime audience for the Mossad chief's words.

The US administration under President Biden, which has sought to lower the profile of the Iranian problem and to remove the danger of a military confrontation with it as far as possible, is now seeing the tangible results of its policy: a growing sense of confidence in Iran, leading to defiant activity on its nuclear program, providing aid to Russia in the form of supplying Moscow with drones for its combat effort in Ukraine, compounded by a significant increase in its efforts to promote acts of terrorism around the globe, owing to a feeling that it will not be required to pay any real price for all of this.

A new round of fighting erupted in the Ein al Hilweh camp in Lebanon on Wednesday, and as many as 8 more people were killed - both civilians and militants.

That brings the death toll over the past week to 15 as the Fatah and Islamist groups battle for control.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in the camp are seeking shelter elsewhere. Schools have been taken over by the terror groups and have been unable to open.

And where is the Lebanese army? They aren't allowed to enter the camp, under a 1969 agreement, and they leave all security issues to the Palestinian "refugees" themselves.

Meaning that Ein al-Hilweh is a lot like a Palestinian state would be, with constant fighting between rival groups and no prospects for calm, except for temporary cease fires.

Like Hamas and Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank, no one can even imagine unity between the factions. Neither can anyone imagine a democratically elected government that would be accepted.

But things might get a lot more bloody.

The terrorist gangs occasionally shoot outside the camp, putting all of Sidon at risk. A rocket shell fell in the vicinity of the Zgheib military barracks of the Lebanese army, and residents of Sidon were woken up by a particularly bright rocket in the sky last night.

According to Lebanon24, Fatah is readying a major offensive if the Islamist factions do not hand over the killer of a Fatah leader.

Fatah may ask the Lebanese army to help them, and their commander General Joseph Aoun is in Sidon monitoring the situation. The spillover into Sidon might be the excuse the army needs to go in.

But they aren't the only side with powerful friends. The report also says that the Islamist fighting is being directed by the Iranian embassy in Lebanon.

It looks likely that things are going to get a lot bloodier.

Yet the analogy with the West Bank and Gaza holds - two sides being supported by more powerful patrons who also hate each other, no common ground between them, and a long history of infighting. And Iran supporting the Islamist side and looking to strengthen them, not caring about the effect it has on ordinary Palestinians who just want to live their lives.

And there is something else that it has in common with the Palestinians in the territories. Both sides claim the other is benefitting 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!

The Palestinian Authority is accusing Israel of a new "racist" crime.

The official Palestinian Wafa news agency reports in Arabic:

Under the pretext of Jewish holidays, the Israeli occupation authorities decided to impose a comprehensive closure on the West Bank and close the crossings in the Gaza Strip, starting at noon tomorrow, Friday....The occupation exploits the Jewish holidays to disturb our people.

Interestingly, the English version is more strident in its accusations:

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates denounced the closures, considering them a punishment on racial background and harmful to the Palestinian economy.

It described the closures in a statement as “a blatant use of religious events for colonial purposes in an effort to mislead world public opinion by blaming the victim while acquitting the executioner, not to mention the economic and social harm they cause to our people.”

The closure of the crossings happens predictably every year. This is normal and the schedules are publicized way in advance. And it isn't only Israel that closes crossings on holidays.

The Gaza border to Egypt is closed on Muslim and Egyptian holidays.

The Jordanian borders to the West Bank are closed on Muslim and Jordanian holidays.

But when Israel closes its crossings with the Palestinian Authority on Jewish holidays, the Palestinian Authority considers it a racist crime.

Which goes to show who the real bigots are.

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!

SJP's bogus complaint against University of Illinois at Chicago for not being allowed to disrupt an Israel trip Zoom session

From CBS News Chicago:

A civil rights complaint filed against the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) Tuesday accuses the university of discriminating against Palestinian-American students and others who supported Palestine during campus meetings.

Palestine Legal filed the Title VI complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The organization demands a civil rights investigation into what it describes as a pattern of censoring and creating a hostile environment for students of Palestinian heritage and others who voice support for Palestine.

CBS 2 obtained a copy of the complaint, which accuses UIC faculty and staff of creating a hostile student environment on multiple occasions. This includes barring students from attending an informational session about a university-sponsored summer study abroad program in Israel due to their Arab and Palestinian heritage.

The first meeting at the heart of the complaint occurred in January on Zoom. Members of a student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, said they attempted to join the Zoom to ask questions and express their concerns about the trip.

Oh, please. "Express their concerns?" SJP boycotts Israel! The students had no interest in going on summer study program in Israel. They wanted to join the meeting: to disrupt and harass the organizers, and intimidate the students who wanted to get more information about the program, and ultimately to pressure UIC to cancel any programs in Israel.

To give you an idea of how hateful the UIC chapter of the organization is, they had a campaign to boycott Israeli restaurants in the Chicago area.

Here is an excerpt from their Activism 101 booklet that gives you a taste of how they express "concern:"

SJP UIC wrote an article about the January Zoom session in April, and they cannot even capitalize the name Israel:

[T]he administration is working to stop students from raising important questions about study abroad trips to “israel” and other events platforming speakers from “israel” without acknowledging Palestinian rights.

This January, the Study Abroad Office (SAO) and its “Elements in Motion” program announced that it would be holding informational sessions about a new program in israel—as if israel were just another place to visit and study, rather than the site of ongoing atrocities of racism and settler colonialism.

This isn't measured criticism. This is simple, obsessive hate.

The organizers of the conference wanted to protect the attendees and facilitators from being insulted, harassed and demeaned by SJP - the same way SJP UIC demeans all Zionists and Israelis as being unworthy of being treated like humans.

Their legal complaint claims that they were only there to express "concern" when we have hundreds of examples where SJP and similar organizations have eagerly trampled on the rights of Israelis and Zionists to speak on campus, where they have threatened the lives of artists performing in Israel, and where they have openly supported violence against Jews in Israel.

According to the complaint, the organizers barred people with Arabic names from entering the Zoom session. I have no idea if it is true. But clearly the organizers wanted to speak without impediments to the students who were interested in the program, and they know very well who SJP is and the disruptive things they have done in the past.

SJP, on the other hand, wants to ensure that Jews on campus are always uncomfortable, always on edge, always afraid. And then they pretend that they are the victims.

From the Israel haters' perspective, under the aegis of "equal rights," they cannot lose: if they are allowed to disrupt the programming, they win; if they are stopped from disrupting the program, they claim they are being discriminated against and they win again. They either successfully trample on the free speech rights of people who don't hate Israel - or they claim they have had their own free speech rights violated.

It is a game, and with the current rules of the game on too many campuses, it is rigged against Jews.

(h/t Andrew)

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!

09/13 Links Pt2: Bibi’s Seven Presidents; Palestinian activism demands checking your liberalism at the door; As 5783 ends, Jewish state’s population pushes 10 mil

From Ian:

Bibi’s Seven Presidents

There was one major setback, though. Netanyahu’s 2015 speech against Obama’s Iran deal before a joint session of Congress irked many Democrats, who felt that Netanyahu was showing up Obama. Netanyahu’s memoir shows that he was aware of the risk of alienating Democratic allies, but he thought: “If I don’t take a stand on a nuclear deal that could threaten Israel’s survival… what the hell am I doing here? That clinched it.”

The price was high. Many Democratic allies are still angry with Netanyahu for having given the speech. Even Obama’s vice president recognized how hostile the Obama administration had been as a whole to Israel and to Netanyahu. At one point, Joe Biden said to Bibi, “You don’t have too many friends here, buddy. I’m the one friend you do have. So call me when you need to.” The two men did have something resembling a personal friendship. In 1999, Biden was the sole American politician to write Netanyahu a letter after he lost his premiership for the first time. In 2014, Netanyahu and his wife hosted Biden for dinner when Biden visited Israel to attend Ariel Sharon’s funeral. As Netanyahu wrote of the visit, “Biden, always the gentleman, sent [Bibi’s wife] Sara a bouquet of flowers and a thoughtful note the next day.” Biden also has spoken of giving a photo to Netanyahu with the inscription, “Bibi, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say, but I love you.”

There were no such friendly gestures between the Obamas and the Netanyahus. Obama even kicked Netanyahu on his way out the door, orchestrating an anti-Israel resolution in the UN demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory” and calling Israeli establishments in Palestinian territory a “flagrant violation” under international law. The measure served little purpose beyond revenge. The administration’s feeble protestations that the U.S. had not been responsible for it fooled no one, least of all Netanyahu, who told the press that “we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

Netanyahu was pleased to still be in office when Obama departed. Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, and Netanyahu had had a friendly relationship before Trump’s presidency—Trump recorded a video endorsing Netanyahu in 2013—and Israeli officials were welcome and frequent guests in the Trump White House. The close relations bore fruit: The Trump administration pulled out of Obama’s Iran deal, moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and helped bring about the Abraham Accords peace agreements with four Muslim countries. These were all major achievements for Netanyahu. Perhaps more important, Trump’s moves vindicated two long-standing arguments Netanyahu had been making for decades. First, that the West’s fear of the “Arab Street” and the regional instability it would cause was overstated. And second, that there were pathways to peace that did not rely on an agreement with the recalcitrant Palestinians.

After the 2020 election, Netanyahu called Biden to congratulate him on winning the election. It was the right thing to do, as Biden was about to become president and would not have forgiven Bibi if he hadn’t done so. But with Trump leading the polls for the 2024 Republican nomination and a weak Biden vulnerable in the upcoming election, Netanyahu is in a difficult position going into the next cycle. Both the president and his former-president challenger may seek some kind of loyalty test from Netanyahu next year. Trump was so angry when Netanyahu called Biden that he later said, “I haven’t spoken to him since. F— him.”

As for Biden, he has said multiple times that he “loves” Netanyahu, even if they disagree on policy. Biden is more favorably disposed to Israel than Obama, and he also seems to recognize that Netanyahu is a canny political operator and a survivor who has returned again and again upon being counted out.

At the same time, Biden and his administration have been persistently negative toward the new government, with Biden offering typically inarticulate criticism: “I think it’s a mistake to think that, as some members of his cabinet—and this is one of the most extreme members of cabinets that I have seen.” He has been obstinate in not issuing an invitation for Netanyahu to visit Washington, a shortsighted stance Biden later abandoned with the vague promise of a meeting once the administration learned that Netanyahu had planned to go to China to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

As Netanyahu deals with another censorious administration, the history of his previous interactions with six other American presidents can provide insight into how things may proceed. Netanyahu cannot count on getting the kind of policy support that he got from the Trump administration. But he does have his own extensive experience to help guide him through the thickets of current American policy. He has cards to play even now.

First, there is his sense of the larger picture, which he derives from reading what he calls “my guide, history books.” Regardless of short-term disagreements, he believes that the U.S. and Israel are on the same side in a larger struggle of free nations against tyrannies. The second card he has to play is patience. He saw the opportunity for the Abraham Accords but waited until he got the right American partner. As he put it in an interview with the Washington Examiner’s Seth Mandel: “It took me a while to persuade President Trump. Couldn’t persuade President Obama or President Clinton, with whom I worked.” The third card is his willingness to take his case directly to the American public in a variety of media, even when the American president and he disagree. This strategy may be less effective in Democratic administrations as the left becomes more hostile to Israel, but it still can work with the broad swath of the American public, which supports Israel on the whole.

Most important, Netanyahu knows that dealing with a hostile American administration, Democratic or Republican, is a complex game and one he has occasionally played poorly—or has simply been dealt a very bad hand, as was the case with the hostility toward his country shown by both the elder Bush and Obama. That said, his approach across these seven presidents has led to remarkable successes and demonstrates just how nimble and creative a leader he can be.

Settling on UN sidelines meeting, US said to tell PM he’ll get Oval Office follow-up

US officials reportedly told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office that the premier will be invited to meet US President Joe Biden at the White House later this year, after Washington decided to suffice with a meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly next week.

A second meeting within months could help blunt the blow for Netanyahu, who has been hoping for a higher-profile Oval Office sit-down with the president when he is in town to address the General Assembly next Friday. Netanyahu waited over seven months before Biden agreed to a meeting, amid Washington’s frustration over the hardline Israeli government’s judicial overhaul and policies toward the Palestinians.

Prime ministers, including Netanyahu in previous terms, visited the White House much earlier on in their tenures.

A senior US official told the Axios news site Tuesday that the White House wants to see how things unfold with the judicial overhaul before extending an invitation for a follow-up meeting between Netanyahu and Biden in the Oval Office.

The High Court of Justice on Tuesday held an unprecedented 13-hour hearing to discuss the constitutionality of the first piece of overhaul legislation passed by Netanyahu’s coalition in July, but is not expected to issue a decision for weeks, if not months.

But with Netanyahu and many in his coalition refusing to state that they’ll abide by the court if the latter chooses to strike down the law, the White House was apparently uncomfortable with the optics of an Oval Office meeting.

Washington, Jerusalem divided on latter’s role in new ‘economic corridor’

The Biden administration announced what it called a “landmark” economic corridor between India, the Middle East and Europe at the G20 summit in New Delhi on Sept. 9.

The corridor will “stimulate economic development through enhanced connectivity and economic integration across two continents, thus unlocking sustainable and inclusive economic growth,” Washington stated. “We aim to usher in a new era of connectivity with a railway, linked through ports connecting Europe, the Middle East and Asia.”

The White House’s 245-word fact sheet does not mention Israel at all, and Jerusalem apparently is not a signatory to the accompanying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Saudi, European Union, India, Emirati, French, German, Italian and American governments.

The 325-word memorandum mentions Israel once, acknowledging that the two corridors will enable “goods and services to transit to, from, and between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Europe.”

During the U.S. State Department press briefing on Sept. 11, Matthew Miller, the department spokesman, was asked if the agreement was part of normalization efforts between Riyadh and Jerusalem. “No, it is separate from,” he said. “It is separate.”

On Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a very different story to tell about what he said was a “unique and unprecedented era of global and regional cooperation.”

“The State of Israel will be a central junction in this economic corridor. Our railways and ports will open a new gateway from India through the Middle East to Europe and back—from Europe to India via Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” he stated.

“This link will also realize a multi-year vision that will change the face of the Middle East and Israel, and will affect the entire world,” added the prime minister. “Its vision reshapes the face of our region and allows a dream to become reality.”

Safa reports, "Five young men were martyred and 25 others were injured this evening, Wednesday, as a result of an explosion during a peaceful march in Malka camp on the eastern border of the Gaza Strip."

Palestine Today adds,

According to the statement of the rebel youth, a number of Mujahideen from the Engineering Unit advanced to Malka Gate to detonate a heavy-caliber explosive device, but the occupation betrayed them and opened fire where they were to plant the device. The Mujahideen were unable to withdraw, which led to the explosion of the device.

Only in Gaza do people bring heavy bombs to a "peaceful march."

And make no mistake, for a bomb to kill 5 and injure 25, it was quite big.

There has been a lot of buzz this week in terrorist media about trying to stop Jews from visiting Jerusalem during the holiday season. I think we will be seeing a lot of attempted attacks in the coming weeks.

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!

Palestinian site Safa reports:

In the last five years, the demand of Palestinians from the occupied interior to buy land and real estate in the occupied West Bank has increased.

The western towns of Ramallah, some villages of Salfit, the city of Rawabi, and Jericho witnessed a great demand by internal Palestinians to buy lands, own homes and apartments, and reside in them.

Palestinian citizens of the interior told Safa Agency that they resorted to buying land in the West Bank, due to the insane increase in land prices inside, as the price of one dunum jumped to one million dollars, which is equivalent to buying 30 dunams in some areas of the West Bank.

We have discussed that Israeli Arabs are buying homes in Palestinian Authority - administered areas before, and the hypocrisy of the "human rights" community to only condemn Jewish Israelis from buying property in the West Bank, but not Arab Israelis.

But this article adds another wrinkle to the story - some of these Israeli Arabs are building houses in Area C!

[One resident] says that he needs 20 years to be able to buy a house inside Israel, so he bought a small plot of land in Area C in the West Bank and built a modest house on it....

Ahmad Melhem, head of the Land and Housing Defense Committee in Aara, says: “The phenomenon of Arabs from inside [Israel] tending to live in the West Bank has been present for several years and is expanding and increasing.”

Melhem explains to Safa some of the reasons and motives that lead the people of the interior to move to the areas of the West Bank, specifically Area C, which are due to the housing shortage and that 60% of the people of the interior do not own land, even one square meter, for building, and if they do exist, they are very expensive.

Melhem added, "The widespread crime, the lack of personal security, and the escalating cases of murder created a psychological factor that forced a number of citizens to seek refuge in the West Bank."

The biggest argument of the "apartheid Israel" crowd is that Israel applies a different set of laws to Jews and Arabs in the territories. Jews can vote in Israeli elections, Arabs can't. Jews are tried in civil courts, Arabs in military courts. And so on.

But the Israeli Arabs in Area C are treated exactly the same as the Israeli Jews!

It has nothing to do with religion or "Jewish supremacy" and everything to do with citizenship. Like all countries, Israel discriminates against non-citizens. Period.

This article in a pro-terror Palestinian news site proves better than anyone that the "apartheid" slander is a lie.

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!

09/13 Links Pt1: The Oslo Deception – New Evidence; 2 Israelis wounded in Hawara shooting; Republicans Move to Ban Iranian President from Entering US

From Ian:

Fear of ICC in the Hague after judicial reform is baseless

The fear of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is a baseless marketing gimmick used by opponents of judicial reform. It is essential to clarify that this warning isn't just directed at the Israeli Air Force pilots; it extends to every soldier in the IDF.

According to their argument, under their doctrine, military service in the IDF constitutes a war crime in itself, and any reduction in the likelihood of prosecution would harm our ability to protect our servicemen. The underlying premise of this fear campaign is that reducing the likelihood of prosecution would make it harder for the country to invoke the "reasonableness clause" as a defense for IDF soldiers against the ICC's jurisdiction.

The principle of complementarity, enshrined in the Rome Statute which governs the activities of the ICC, establishes that national legal systems have primary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute individuals suspected of committing war crimes. The ICC's authority only comes into play when national legal systems are unwilling or unable to enforce the law.

However, there are several challenges to this claim. First, the Rome Statute defines the crimes falling under the ICC's jurisdiction, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These offenses do not pertain to isolated actions by individual soldiers but rather to systematic policies aimed at deliberately harming civilians. Unless proponents of this argument accept the false narrative of our adversaries, neither the State of Israel nor the IDF has a policy of committing genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Therefore, reducing the likelihood of prosecution will not alter this fundamental fact.

The danger to IDF soldiers certainly exists
Furthermore, Article 17(1)(a) of the Rome Statute establishes the principle of complementarity as a criterion in assessing the willingness and ability of investigative and prosecutorial authorities to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators. It does not specifically mention the structure and jurisdiction of the national legal system. If the absence of the authority to annul decisions made by a competent authority arises solely because two judges deemed the decision "unreasonable," then the issue at hand is not unique to Israel but rather applies to the majority of countries worldwide, where Professor Aharon Barak (former president of the Supreme Court of Israel from 1995 to 2006) did not ascend to the position of ultimate authority.

Since reducing the likelihood of prosecution will not affect the readiness, willingness or ability of Israeli investigative authorities to pursue wrongdoers, the fear expressed by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, that soldiers of the IDF will continue to fear the ICC "more than the Sinai Peninsula," lacks any foundation.

However, within the rhetoric of fearmongers, there is a grain of truth. Two and a half years ago, the ICC initiated an investigation against the State of Israel for alleged war crimes. To start this investigation, the ICC had to conjure the existence of a "State of Palestine" and delineate, without jurisdiction, the borders of a non-existent nation. It is a web of falsehoods spun to serve our adversaries and legitimize their pursuit of the Jewish state, its soldiers and its leaders.

Bassam Tawil: How the Biden Administration Is Trying to Bribe the Palestinians

Palestinian officials... have assured the US that they will not oppose Saudi-Israeli efforts at normalization, in the hope of receiving security, financial and political incentives from the Biden administration.

The Palestinian list of demands for not opposing a Saudi-Israeli deal includes, among other things: Resuming Saudi financial support to the Palestinian Authority, which slowed from 2016 and stopped completely three years ago, to the tune of around $200 million per year, and transferring parts of the West Bank currently under full Israeli control to the governance of the Palestinian Authority. The talk is about land in the West Bank's Area C, which, according to the Oslo Accords, is exclusively controlled by Israel.

It appears, then, that Saudi Arabia and the Biden Administration are offering a bribe to the Palestinians in return for their silence over a Saudi-Israeli deal. The Biden administration seems desperate to achieve some kind of deal ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, presumably in the hope that it would boost President Joe Biden's chances of being re-elected.

The Palestinian list of demands for refraining from condemning a Saudi-Israeli peace accord can be seen as tantamount to blackmail. The Palestinian leadership is telling the Saudis and Americans that if they want to avoid Palestinian condemnation, they must pay the price -- with money and territory.

The Saudis are being asked to pay $200 million per year and the Americans, it appears, are expected to pressure -- or blackmail -- Israel into ceding control of more territory in the West Bank to Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, in exchange for promises. [T]he Americans, it appears, are expected to pressure -- or blackmail -- Israel into ceding control of more territory in the West Bank to Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, in exchange for promises.

The Palestinian leaders will happily accept any additional land in the West Bank, but, as experience has shown, they will do nothing to prevent these areas from becoming terror hubs.

Given the ongoing state of financial and administrative corruption in the PA, there is every reason to doubt that the Saudi funds would be used to boost the Palestinian economy or improve the living conditions of the Palestinians.

PMW: The Oslo Deception – New Evidence

As the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords on September 13 is nearing, Palestinian Media Watch has uncovered yet another statement by a Palestinian leader who admitted, or more correctly, bragged, that PLO leader Yasser Arafat successfully deceived the Israeli leadership into signing a peace agreement that he had no intention of fulfilling. According to PA Parliament Member Munib Al-Masri Arafat’s intention from the first day, was that the Accords would be another step in his stages plan to destroy all of the State of Israel.

In a recent interview, Al-Masri explained that Arafat told him to relax when he was upset over the Accords. Arafat confided in him that his intention was only to sign the agreement as “a temporary solution.” He only intended “the two-state solution as a first stage”:

PA Parliament Member Munib Al-Masri: “When [former PA President] Yasser Arafat presented the two-state solution at Oslo, I was very angry at him, because it said 22% for the Palestinians and the rest for the Israelis. I came to him in Tunis, and he told me: ‘[Calm] down.’ Our thought in all this was the two-state solution as a first stage, until the Arabs learn-”

Falestinona host: “A temporary solution.”
Munib Al-Masri: “A temporary solution, until [the Palestinians] will live comfortably and are satisfied, and there will be the right of return and the like, and we will live in one democratic state (i.e., in place of Israel).”

[Falestinona, Fatah’s Information and Culture Commission in Lebanon, YouTube channel, May 24, 2023]

PMW has exposed many testimonies of people close to Arafat confirming that Arafat was deceitful and that he was never a sincere peace partner for Israel. Already in 1994, right after signing Oslo, Arafat compared the agreement to Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s Hudaybiyyah peace treaty – a 10-year truce between Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca, which Muhammad broke two years later when he attacked them and conquered Mecca:

Yasser Arafat: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it “Sulha Dania” [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this [Oslo] peace accord.”

[Speech in Johannesburg, private recording, May 10, 1994]

Palestinian journalist and editor Abd Al-Bari Atwan who met with Arafat when he was in exile in Tunis also confirmed that Arafat told him that he merely wanted to use the Oslo Accords as a way to bring back “the PLO and the resistance” to “Palestine” – in other words: a way to return terror to Israel:
“I remember that he [former PLO and PA President Yasser Arafat] took me aside when we left his office in the Jugurtha neighborhood of Tunis – on the pretext of going out for a walk and in order to get away from the listening devices – and he told me: ‘I want to tell you something that I ask you not to note or attribute to me, except after my death.’ He let out a sigh and said: ‘I am entering Palestine through the door of Oslo, despite all my reservations, in order to return the PLO and the resistance to it, and I promise you that you will see the Jews fleeing from Palestine like mice fleeing from a sinking ship. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen in your lifetime.’”

[Rai Al-Youm, independent Arab news website, Sept. 13, 2018]

One of the clearest enunciations that Oslo’s purpose was to facilitate terror was reported by PMW just months before Arafat launched the terror Intifada in 2000, and it was articulated by a PA government minister:
“The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo Accords as a first step and not as a permanent settlement, based on the premise that the war and struggle in the land is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land (i.e. Tunisia) ... the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the ‘65 revolution... (i.e., destruction of Israel).” [Abd Al-Aziz Shahin, PA Minister of Supplies, Al-Ayyam, May 30, 2000].

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Vivek Ramaswamy gave an interview to an antisemite and then got angry when the Washington Free Beacon reported that fact. No, wait. That’s not quite right. Ramaswamy didn’t know that Albert Faleski, aka An0maly, was an antisemite at the time of the interview, so it wasn’t nice that the Washington Free Beacon made it look like he did it on purpose. But actually, even if he HAD known Faleski was an antisemite, Ramaswamy might have still done the interview because of his amazing tolerance for all views and because of this presidential hopeful’s belief in free speech.

But no. That can’t be right either. Because if Ramaswamy really cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn’t have blocked the Washington Free Beacon’s access to his campaign for bringing up Faleski’s very public and virulent antisemitism in the context of the Ramaswamy interview.

Why isn’t the Washington Free Beacon free to talk about this? Why isn’t Ramaswamy tolerant of the media outlet’s sensitivity to and dedication to raising the issue of antisemitism—especially when the topic, by association, concerns a presidential candidate—I mean, first Ramaswamy goes on Russell Brand’s show and now this. In light of these facts, why does Ramaswamy’s campaign describe the Washington Free Beacon as acting in “bad faith?”

Have you ever read the State Department’s “Defining Anti-Semitism” page?

They say it’s hate speech to say Jews killed Jesus, have more loyalty to Israel than other countries & saying they control large sectors of society.

Read here: https://t.co/w2SwtmAcBD pic.twitter.com/ixpz3brArz
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) October 12, 2022

Zionists have the Republican Party by the nuts & they pass anti-American pass speech laws for their donors/Israel because that’s who controls them.

Facts don’t care about their feelings. They are selling America out to the highest bidder. https://t.co/kTFD43JAmo
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) November 29, 2022

Here’s what happened:

On September 5, the Washington Free Beacon published a report by Alana Goodman on the aforementioned Faleski-Ramaswamy podcast. One day later, on September 6, Goodman reported that the Ramaswamy campaign had cut off free access to the Free Beacon, as a result:

Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said it would no longer facilitate access between the Washington Free Beacon and the candidate after the Free Beacon reported that Ramaswamy appeared on a podcast hosted by an anti-Semitic YouTuber on Tuesday.

The campaign’s decision comes after the Free Beacon reported on anti-Semitic comments, including the assertion that both the left and right push for "speech censorship on behalf of big Jewish power," made by social media influencer Albert Faleski, also known as "An0maly," who interviewed Ramaswamy this week.

In other words, despite his declared commitment to the concept of freedom of speech Ramaswamy, did not at all like the Free Beacon mentioning Faleski’s extensive history of Jew-hating comments and tweets in its report of the podcast. The 38-year-old presidential candidate thinks that Goodman added unnecessary context designed to smear his reputation. But isn’t that also free speech? Instead, this is described by the Ramaswamy campaign as acting in “bad faith” (emphasis added):

Ramaswamy spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said on Tuesday that the Free Beacon acted in "bad faith" by highlighting Faleski’s comments in the context of Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show, adding that the campaign plans to cut off the Free Beacon’s access.

Are we all getting this? Because I’m finding it hard to take it in. Vivek goes on an antisemite’s youtube show in the name of free speech and tolerance, then denies all media access to the outlet that writes it up.

If ever there were an exemplar of free speech for me and not for thee, this is it.

Which begs the question: If doing an interview with a virulent and quite public antisemite is acceptable in the name of free speech, why isn’t a factual report of the event acceptable as free speech?

Now, I’m not a Harvard graduate, or a 38-year-old, wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate, but if I were, I sure as shooting would have my people research the background of those asking for interviews. If my people were to then find something suspicious, like the fact that the guy’s an antisemite, they would either turn down the interview, or pass that information along to me. This leaves us with a number of possibilities to consider regarding Vivek Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show of a known antisemite:

1. Vivek Ramaswamy or his staff failed to do basic research before accepting the interview, then lied about it

2. Ramaswamy didn’t care that Faleski is an antisemite, or agrees with and chose to amplify Faleski’s antisemitic conspiracy theories, and then lied about it

3. Ramaswamy thought he could get away with appearing on an antisemite’s youtube show and got angry when he got caught

4. Ramaswamy doesn’t really believe in free speech. He doesn’t even know what it is. When he says he is tolerant of other views, he is LYING. He punishes the media when they publish unpleasant truths about him.

In piecing together the facts, we must also consider the timeline. First Ramaswamy told antisemite Russell Brand he’d cut aid to Israel, and then he did a show with antisemitic conspiracy theorist. When he is subsequently criticized for communing with Jew-haters, Vivek Ramaswamy lets it be known that he believes in free speech for all. All, that is, except for the Washington Free Beacon.

What do Epstein, Weinstein & 85% of the writers, producers & media execs making the most subversive programming have in common?

I’ll give you a hint, Trump & Republicans pass speech orders trying to stop you from saying the truth about it.

But it’s cultural to blame “white ppl”
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) April 21, 2020

The Republican Party & the Rep. Media Establishment are Zionist > 🇺🇸. That means they will sacrifice America, Americans, their values, free speech & everything they claim to stand for to blacklist people who know they back hate speech laws & anti-boycott laws for Jewish donors.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) January 20, 2023

McLaughlin’s statement goes on to speak of Ramaswamy’s open media policy—his willingness to speak with even hostile media outlets (emphasis added):

Ramaswamy appeared on Faleski’s show because he will talk to any media outlet, even controversial ones, she said, adding that Ramaswamy wasn’t aware of Faleski’s anti-Semitic comments before the interview, but might have appeared on the show even if he was aware because of the campaign’s open media policy.

Once more, I have to ask, especially to those who say I have no proof that Ramaswamy is an antisemite--are you getting all this? This wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate is saying he didn’t know Faleski was an antisemite, but even if he had, he still might have gone on the show. Vivek Ramaswamy doesn’t rule out talking to antisemites, only to those who point it out.

Not that it much matters. At this point, no one serious believes that Vivek Ramaswamy has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president. Definitely not this time around, and almost certainly not ever.

Wishing all my readers שָׁנָה טוֹבָה תִּכָּתֵבוּ וְתֵחָתֵמוּ!

*Updated for accuracy

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!

Simon Wolf was one of the most prominent American Jews in the 19th century, yet he is little known today.

Wolf was acquaintances and friends with presidents from Buchanan through Woodrow Wilson. He wrote a book on the influence of Jews through history. He was involved in Jewish charities and was president of B'nai Brith for two years. He documented the Jewish soldiers of the Civil War. He held prominent positions in Washington. He wrote biographies of American Jews Mordecai Manuel Noah and Uriah Levy. And he had some bizarre connections to the Lincoln assassination:

Wolf was meant to be at Ford’s Theatre on the night of Lincoln’s assassination, but because of an illness in the family, he was not in attendance. More remarkably, he spent the afternoon of the assassination with an acquaintance he met in Cleveland: John Wilkes Booth. According to Wolf, Booth invited him for drinks at the Metropolitan Hotel in Washington; he had just been rejected by a senator’s daughter for the third time and needed some company.

Wolf’s personal experience surrounding the Lincoln assassination was even more bizarre: owing to a striking resemblance between himself and Booth, Wolf dared not leave his apartment until after Booth’s arrest. Lest one think his caution was overblown, Wolf claimed that he was actually asked by the painter Theodor Kaufmann to sit as Booth for his “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.”

Altogether, he should be far better known than he is. I only found one biography, from 1967.

One of the most incredible things about his life is that he was appointed to be the United States' diplomatic envoy to Egypt by President Garfield, the day before Garfield was fatally shot.

From The Critic and Record (Washington, DC), Oct 24, 1881:

The newsworthiness of his appointment was emphasized in this article (Times-Pacayune, December 5, 1881) which contrasts his appointment and honor in Egypt to age-old Muslim antisemitism:

Although he held the position of consul for only a year, Wolf made a very positive impression. American missionaries who were against his appointment ended up praising him as the best consul they ever had, and this description of him by the Egyptian army surgeon general is as much of a kiddush Hashem as one is likely to see:

His book on the presidents he'd known has lots of anecdotes and Judaism is prominent in many of them. Here's one short story:

Simon Wolf deserves to be far better known than he is.

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!

Today, on the 30th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, there are dozens of articles - from Israeli sources, from Palestinian sources, in Europe and the US - virtually all of them lamenting the failure of the Oslo peace process.

From the perspective of what both parties hoped to achieve, the agreements were indeed a failure. Israel did not get the security it wanted, and the Palestinians are no closer to a state.

But notice that neither side is eager to abandon the series of agreements signed in the 1990s. This is because, on a day to day level, both sides benefited from the partial agreements that they live under. It may not be smart for politicians and pundits to mention those benefits today, but it is a lot easier and lazier to condemn the accords outright rather than look at them in a more nuanced way.

From Israel's perspective, there is no need for Israeli troops to be in Area A where most Palestinian live except for specific operations. The burden on the IDF would be significantly higher without Oslo. The PA security forces have dropped the ball in the past year, but they have started asserting themselves again against Islamic Jihad and Hamas - who are, after all, rivals.

It isn't only the IDF. While the Palestinian Authority created by Oslo is dysfunctional and unprofessional, it is an address that Israel can deal with for mundane daily cooperation that needs to be done - meaning this is a bureaucracy that Israel does not need to maintain itself.

Politically and (probably) economically, Israel has benefited a great deal from Oslo. After all, if the Palestinians officially accept Israel, that makes the argument against other Arab countries accepting it much more difficult. The peace agreement with Jordan would not have happened without Oslo, and it is not so clear that the Abraham Accords would have been signed without the vestiges of Oslo still in place. The Arab world doesn't see a compelling reason to be more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves are.

From the Palestinian side, while Abbas has threatened many times to tear up the accords, he hasn't. The reason is simple: the Palestinians have a measure of self-rule for the first time in their history and they do not want to give that up. The Palestinian Authority only exists because of Oslo.

Similarly, while the PA loves to talk about how Jewish settlements have kept expanding since Oslo, there have been no new settlements in Areas A and B since those areas were defined.

The PA has used Oslo as a means to take the trappings of an independent state - it opens "embassies" and fields Olympics sports teams and signs international agreements and is recognized as the "State of Palestine" by the UN General Assembly. Again, none of this would have occurred without the failed "peace process."

Like it or not, both sides have benefited from the very flawed Oslo Accords. If the agreements are so bad, one or both sides would abrogate them, and it would be easy to blame the other side for violations as an excuse to do so. But neither of them want to - not Abbas after years of threats to withdraw from the accords, not Israel's "most right wing government in history."

It's easy to throw stones at the Oslo Accords. But no one outside of Palestinian terror groups wants to demolish the fragile Oslo glass house.

Oslo's failure was a good thing. A full Palestinian state would have been a disaster, not least because it would have been controlled by Hamas by the mid-2000s.

But the interim agreements signed by Israel and the PLO still hold, and they have the force of international law. Both sides get clear benefits from those agreements.

As bad as the Oslo Accords were, no one can suggest anything better to govern the relations between Israel and West Bank Palestinians today.

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!