Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, February 25, 2024

Jordan suffers higher inflation because of their antisemitism

Jordanian Prime Minister Bisher Al-Khasawneh admitted that the Houthi attacks on shipping has inflationary effects on Jordan.

Speaking at the opening of the economic meeting, he said that “the events in the Red Sea raised shipping costs by up to 200% from East Asia and 60% from America and Europe.”

However, Al-Khasawneh added, "There is no land, sea, or air bridge with Israel, and talking about anything like this is a figment of the imagination, and it is an insult to Jordan."

What is he talking about?

Jordan is heavily dependent on shipping through the Red Sea to its port in Aqaba. Without that, its options are limited. At the moment, it struck an agreement to have the goods brought around Africa, through the Mediterranean and to Egyptian ports like Port Said. From there, trucks send the goods overland to Nuweiba, and from there ships take the goods to Aqaba and from there the rest of Jordan.

Here's the route:

They could have ships go to Tel Aviv or Haifa and from there have the goods trucked to the center of Jordan in much less time and at a lower cost that this sea-to-land-to-sea-to-land scheme they are stuck with now.

But they don't want to partner with Israel on anything they absolutely don't have to.

Antisemitism rots the brain. And in this case, it hurts ordinary Jordanians.

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!

02/25 Links: No, Joe Biden, most Palestinians support Hamas; US House speaker slams Biden’s policy on ‘settlements’; The European country most hostile to Israel

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: No, Joe Biden, most Palestinians support Hamas

U.S. President Joe Biden declared on X on Friday, "The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not Hamas." Following the president's statement, various public figures disagreed on social media. Former Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, now a human rights advocate and ally to Israel, countered, "Tell that to the Palestinians in my inbox telling me Hamas are heroes and are freedom fighters."

Though not all Palestinians are members of Hamas or even support it, most of them agree with its basic ideology. Several surveys, as well as monitoring of social media, contradict Biden's remarks. According to a Nov. 14 survey by the Arab World for Research and Development, most Palestinians supported the killing and kidnapping of Israelis on Oct. 7, and just a tiny percentage supported a two-state solution. In the West Bank, 83% expressed their support, while only 7% were opposed.

Regarding a two-state solution, 75% favored a single Palestinian state "from the river to the sea." Though most Palestinians aren't Hamas, a vast majority of them agree with it on almost any question regarding their basic ideology after Oct. 7.

Telegraph Editorial: The West Must Stand with Israel

In the case of Israel, the West is rapidly losing the moral courage to stand for what is right. In the days after Oct. 7, it was widely accepted that, in order to prevent such an evil occurring again, Hamas had to be utterly defeated. Yet before the Israelis had even embarked on ground operations, the criticism and hand-wringing had already begun.

The same disgusting tendency which casts Western countries as innately and uniquely evil turned its sights upon Israel, denying that it had any right to defend itself, or to rescue the hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza. Shockingly, such sentiments appear to be gaining ground in public discourse, while political leaders are equivocating.

It is disturbing just how quickly the actual cause of this conflict - the pogrom of Oct. 7 - appears to be being forgotten. It speaks to the limited attention spans of Western societies, as well as the power of the hard-Left to shape the political and broadcast media narrative. Israel did not start this war. It deserves, and was promised, our support. The West cannot go back on its word now, and should remember why we gave it in the first place. It is long past time that the democratic world rediscovered its moral center.

Niall Ferguson: Two Nations Are Fighting for Their Existence Against Absolutist Enemies. One Is the Victim of a Double Standard.

Two democracies are under attack by a sworn foe of Western civilization. One is in Eastern Europe; the other in the Middle East. One is vast; the other tiny. Both have recently seen unarmed civilians, including children, brutally slaughtered, tortured and kidnapped by their enemies. Both are sending their sons, husbands and fathers into brutal battles.

Yet, despite all these resemblances, these two fighting democracies are treated much differently by the world. One is praised for its heroism; the other is condemned - even accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

One is encouraged to fight on to victory, "for as long as it takes"; the other is told to agree to an immediate ceasefire before victory has been achieved. The armed forces of one country can do no wrong; those of the other are charged with "war crimes."

How can we explain the fact that Ukraine is lionized and Israel reviled? Is it because the enemies of Ukraine and Israel are in some way different? In many ways, Russia and Iran are like two peas in a pod. They are brutal autocracies in which the rule of law and human rights count for nothing. They murder without compunction their enemies at home and abroad. They each pose threats that extend far beyond Ukraine and Israel.

Thirty years ago, Israel agreed with the Palestine Liberation Organization on the beginnings of Palestinian self-government under the Oslo Accords - "a separate Palestinian entity short of a state," in the words of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Prime Minister Ehud Barak went even further at Camp David in 2000, but PLO leader Yasser Arafat walked away from the table. Have the Palestinians enhanced the case for statehood in subsequent years? No.

The Palestinian Authority is an oxymoron; Palestinians despise it, and it has no authority. A large majority of the inhabitants of Gaza, to say nothing of the Palestinians of the West Bank, prefer Hamas. The nature of Hamas was laid bare on Oct. 7, which should be regarded as an event disqualifying the Palestinians from self-government, not entitling them to it.

The @NYTimes says US administrations before Trump considered Israeli settlements to be illegal. Fact check: FALSE

From the New York Times:

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken’s reversal of Trump-era policy on settlements in the occupied West Bank reflects rising Biden administration frustration with Israel, but it is unlikely to dent the strong American backing for its ally’s military campaign in Gaza or pressure Israel to change course, analysts said on Saturday.

During a trip to Argentina on Friday, Mr. Blinken called the settlements “inconsistent with international law," a break with policy set under the Trump administration and a return to the decades-long U.S. position.

This is not true.

While Jimmy Carter didn't use the word "illegal" he did say they violated the Geneva Conventions, which is the same thing. His ambassador the the UN did call the settlements "illegal." But that was the last time this terminology was used by any administration.

Ronald Reagan said when he was campaigning for President and in an interview two weeks after he took office that the settlements are not illegal. Later in his presidency, he said that settlements are an "obstacle to peace."

George H.W. Bush was strongly against settlement construction but did not call them illegal.

Bill Clinton adopted Reagan's phrase that they were an "obstacle to peace" but he was softer on expansion of existing settlements.

George W. Bush called for a settlement freeze but did not characterize them as illegal or even an obstacle to peace.

Barack Obama and John Kerry hardened the US stance against settlement, calling them "illegitimate" but not using the word "illegal." However, Kerry did say, " “the Israeli Government’s program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law” which is essentially the same thing as calling their creation illegal, and that was the first administration to do so since Carter.

Then in 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law."

Blinken's saying that settlements are "inconsistent with international law" is a return to the Obama administration's stance, but most emphatically not a return to a "decades-long" position, which had been against settlements but that their fate must be decided via negotiations.

(h/t Irene)

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 X user @Habibi_UK:

What happens if you want to sell Coca-Cola in Bradford?

Your business gets attacked, that's what. This happened last night after an Israel hatred rally in the city.

Coca-Cola is a top target of the Islamist agitators of "Friends of al-Aqsa", key organisers of the hate marches.

Salah's is a Muslim-owned halal fried chicken restaurant. It does indeed feature Coca Cola in its menu behind the counter.

Here's video of the mob attacking the restaurant.

One of Salah's halal fried chicken competitors, NYK Fried Chicken, made a TikTok bragging that they "no longer sell items such as Pepsis [sic], Coke, 7UP, and other drinks that support the Israeli regime. "

Bradford's population is nearly one-third Muslim, most of them Pakistani and other "Asian Muslims."

Habibi_UK has documented other crazed, supposedly anti-Zionist behavior from Muslims and their socialist pals in England. Here is one horrific story, also from yesterday, from a woman who took her autistic daughter to dine at Costa Coffee, which is owned by Coca Cola:

Thanks to @CostaCoffee Woking branch for their help this afternoon. My daughter had an autistic melt-down due to the intimidating and aggressive protesting from the Free Palestine group and their shouting that we supported genocide by drinking there.

SEN families know that there are only certain places which feel safe or familiar to their kids who can’t tolerate much. Costa is ours. Having to try and leave and be shouted at by a crowd caused such distress to my daughter. She became non-verbal, ran back in and shut down, shaking.

Thankful to the kindness of strangers and the staff at Costa who let us out the back door. We then walked past another protest for Ukraine. This one quiet, structured and peaceful, a stark contrast to the intimidation tactics used by the other group.

A "pro-Palestine" protest outside a Starbucks in Leeds.

A "pro-Palestine"protest shutting down the iconic Tower Bridge in London.

Disrupting a train station in Cardiff, Wales.

Disrupting a shopping mall in Chatham.

This was all on Saturday alone!

These people are not "pro-Palestine." They are antisemitic thugs who can't find enough local Jews to attack so they are looking for the closest proxies to Jews they can find. They are intoxicated at the power they have to make other people's lives miserable. And they pretend their violence and bullying is righteous.

The sad part is that intimidation works. People give in rather than deal with the hate. And then they too many of them become converts to the cause rather than look at themselves as being hypocrites.

Antisemitism is a disease. And it is contagious.

(h/t Visegrad24)

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!

Some anomalies in the database of aid brought into Gaza

UNRWA has an online database of all aid being brought into Gaza, along with the sources and destinations.

When you delve into the data, some interesting details emerge.

For example, over the past month, by far more aid has been coming from Kerem Shalom in Israel than through Rafah in Egypt, and it looks like there have been some logistics problems over the past couple of weeks.

But most curious is that among the expected critical food items like flour, oil and milk, and among the large aid organizations like World Food Program or various Arab Red Crescent societies, we see some more luxurious food items being brought in, nearly all of them from what are called "the private sector."

For example, 50 pallets of croissants were imported by two traders, Abu Haitham and Al Khazander.

And the majority of the frozen chickens and meat that have gone into Gaza, hundreds of pallets, have been sent and received by the Ibrahim al-Taweel company, which appears to be a meat importer based on its logo.

All of the named private sector companies that are importing goods into Gaza go through the Rafah crossing, not through Kerem Shalom.

One item among the food, medicine and blankets is also very unusual. On February 6, a truckful of forklifts came into Gaza via Rafah. it was donated by UNRWA but the recipient was "Private sector - Adham Shuhaiber." It is a very out-of-place item - the only heavy equipment I could find - in a database of over 15,000 items.

I have no direct evidence that anything bad is going on, but if Hamas was taking advantage of the importing of goods into Gaza, it stands to reason that they would be able to pressure private sector companies to bring in what they need to continue fighting.

(h/t Irene)

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!

02/24 Links: Israel and mediators agree on outline for hostage deal, pending Hamas okay; Hillel Neuer: UN wants Hamas to stay in power, Palestinians used as pawns

From Ian:

In Paris, Israel and mediators agree on outline for hostage deal, pending Hamas okay

Sources told Axios that while the outline of the proposal was similar to a previous framework, the current one is far more detailed.

Multiple reports indicated the outline includes the release in the first phase of some 40 hostages held in Gaza, including women, children, female soldiers and elderly and ill abductees, amid a pause in fighting of some six weeks.

It also includes the release by Israel of hundreds of Palestinian terror convicts, and a “redeployment” of Israeli troops within Gaza — but not a complete withdrawal as Hamas had previously demanded. The outline would also reportedly see Israel enable the return of Palestinian women and children to northern Gaza, from where hundreds of thousands evacuated during the fighting, and which Israel has kept cut off from the rest of the enclave.

Channel 12 reported that there are still some points of contention, including Israel’s opposition to significant rehabilitation and reconstruction of Gaza before it is demilitarized, as well as ongoing differences on the number of Palestinian prisoners who would be released in exchange for the hostages.

But, the network noted that there appears to have been “some kind of shift” by Hamas on its demand for an end to war — which the terror group has hitherto insisted must be a condition for further hostage releases. Israel has outrightly refused the demand, vowing to destroy the terror group following the October 7 attack.

A senior government official told Channel 12 that the outline as it appears to stand would likely be approved by the full cabinet.

If the eventual agreement reflects these terms, the TV report said, and if they are also accepted by Hamas, there would be “a high chance that, before March 11, we will see hostages freed for the first time since [the first truce collapsed at the end of] November.”

Prof. Phyllis Chesler: The silence of the feminist lambs: Not a word on Hamas horrors opeds

In 2005, I published a book titled The Death of Feminism. At the time, I was focused on how Western feminists had become obsessed more with the alleged “occupation” of a country that has never existed — Palestine — than with the real occupation of women’s bodies in Gaza and on the 'West Bank', who were being forced into hijab, niqab, and child and arranged marriages, or who were being honor killed by their families for minor or imagined infractions. This form of femicide is primarily a Muslim-on-Muslim crime both in the West and in Muslim countries but, to a lesser extent, also takes place among Hindus in India, and, less frequently, among Sikhs. Honor killing is likely a tribal custom that religious leaders have failed to abolish, I wrote, one in which women also collaborate.

Both Stalinized and Palestinianized feminists and rabid Islamists denounced me as an “Islamophobe” for prioritizing the rights of women of color over and above the rights of the men (and women) of color who were terrorizing and even killing them. I was also condemned as a “Zionist” for questioning the sacredness of Palestinian Arab victimhood.

Thus, I may have been among a handful of people not surprised by the feminist silence on Hamas’ Oct. 7 pogrom-on-steroids. It does not ease my sorrow that so many others, including the worldwide media and professoriate, human rights groups, and the United Nations, are also actively engaging in Oct. 7 denialism, as well as in relentless and vicious blood libels against the Jewish state, every single day.

By the late afternoon of Oct. 7, I was a cognitive warrior on fire. Between Oct. 11 and Jan. 25, I had published 24 articles on the subject and been interviewed about it 10 times.

Most second-wave feminists have died, suffered strokes, or are struggling with either dementia or cancer. Many are disabled. They are no longer “dancing in the streets.” But some of my long-time allies still attend conferences, march, sign petitions, write articles, and speak out.

These are the feminist allies who did not respond to the articles that I sent them about their shameful, even unbearable, silence. Perhaps they felt that Israel deserved whatever it got but were too embarrassed to say that to me. Instead, they said nothing.

Only one such feminist ally responded by sending me articles by Masha Gessen and Judith Butler. She suggested that reading their ideas about the moral superiority of vulnerable Jewish Diaspora life and the advantages of dissolving the Jewish state would “open my mind to the truth.” She also sent me an article that blamed Benjamin Netanyahu — and only Netanyahu — for the failure of a “two state solution — the only fair solution.”

I immediately sent her my critique of Butler and Gessen; I sent her Bassem Eid’s fact-based piece in Newsweek. Eid summarizes the long history of Arab rejection of the offers for a Palestinian state, first proffered by the British, then by the UN, and, finally, by Israel at least six times. Thus far, she has not responded.

Another long-time feminist (a friend, not merely an ally) is adamant that Israel is “committing genocide” and is an “apartheid, colonial, occupying state.” I told her that we cannot discuss Israel ever again. But now our conversations are thinned, brittle. There is no way we can discuss Oct. 7 without endangering our suddenly fragile friendship.

Israel is not acting on emotions and trauma as Westerners charge

Yes, Israelis indeed are wounded and angry. However, this has sharpened their thinking, not clouded it. In my view, Israelis hold pertinent, well-rooted understandings of their diplomatic challenges and opportunities. They are informed and enlightened, reenergized patriotically, determined to defeat all enemies and to rebuild Israel more magnificently than ever. They remain ready to grab diplomatic breakthroughs where such are realistically possible.

Let us be clear: Israelis are not enfeebled, immobilized, or confused. They will not brook global contempt.

Another parallel, sinister narrative that can be heard here and there is that Israeli “rage” has dictated IDF battlefield behavior; that the Israeli military has gone berserk, bombing the hell out of Gaza indiscriminately – and committing war crimes along the way.

In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas massacres and rapes, the world “understood” this rage and swallowed the furious IDF counter-assault, but now Israeli “rage” has taken the fight too far. So goes the storyline.

This false, malicious tale must be debunked, too. The opposite is true: Israel has kept its “rage” firmly in check. Its military has fought against Hamas in Gaza with precision and professionalism, accepting upon itself restrictions and limitations far beyond that of any army in history – anywhere, under any circumstances. Unchained rage using Israel’s full firepower would have looked vastly different.

Here too, the insinuation of Israeli “rage” driving government policy and military operations is superciliousness; an arrogant attempt to paint Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet as dangerous actors, as out-of-control lawless children that must be corralled into reason (or prison).

Again, Israel cannot brook such global contempt. By and large, Israelis say to the world: Keep your chutzpah in check. Do not try to lord over Israel with your mistaken assumptions and smug solutions. Israel more than deserves the benefit of the doubt as it fights for its long-term security and makes apt decisions about the right radius of diplomacy.

02/23 Links Pt2: What Would a "Revitalized" Palestinian Authority Be?; How Hamas Hijacked British Democracy; Gaza and the narcissism of the elites

From Ian:

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense: Recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a State Now Is a Huge Mistake

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview published Wednesday: "The United States needs to understand that, unlike on a lot of other policies, Netanyahu on the two-state solution has a lot of popular support in Israel. I think there continues to be an underestimate outside of Israel on the traumatic effect on Israel of Oct.7....In all of Israel's wars with the Arab states, they have never experienced anything like the massacre of innocent civilians that they suffered on Oct. 7, and I think it has had a huge impact psychologically inside Israel."

"I think that the administration was correct after Oct. 7 in the very strong support that they provided for Israel under those circumstances. I think that as the retaliation against Hamas in Gaza has proceeded, I think the administration has also taken the right position in terms of pressing harder for more humanitarian relief - more food, more medicine, and so on - and more effort to prevent collateral damage, to prevent the killing of innocent Palestinians."

"This has been made much tougher by Hamas' approach, which is to integrate themselves with the civilian population so that there is no way to getting at Hamas without going through innocent civilians. This is what the Taliban did. This is what Hamas does, and it makes the situation all the more complicated for Israel."

"The notion of recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a state now, I think, is a huge mistake. There has to be a process, a sequence of events, and some established criteria, of changes that have to happen in the West Bank, in the Palestinian Authority, and among the Palestinians themselves with Arab support, that over time will allow some confidence to be built on the part of the Israelis that a Palestinian state next door is not going to be an existential threat to Israel, is not going to be a threat for another Oct. 7. And that is going to take time."

What Would a "Revitalized" Palestinian Authority Be?

The Palestinian Authority, in its current form, has failed the Palestinians and has failed the peace process. Nonetheless, in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre and the ensuing war against Hamas, U.S. President Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on Nov. 18, 2023, that "Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited...under a revitalized Palestinian Authority."

PA reform must include the following non-negotiable steps:
1. Condemn the Oct. 7 massacre. More than 4 months have passed since the Oct. 7 massacre, in which more than 1,200 people were tortured, raped, beheaded and murdered, hundreds wounded, and 240 people kidnapped to Gaza. To this day, no PA leader or figure has condemned the atrocities. Sadly, PA leaders have embraced and justified them.
2. Abolish the PA/PLO's "Pay-for-Slay" policy. PA law defines the terrorists as the "fighting sector and an integral part of the fabric of the Arab Palestinian society." The payments are made to all Palestinian terrorists, including participants in the Oct. 7 massacre. Every year, the PA pays over $300 million to imprisoned terrorists, wounded terrorists, the families of dead terrorists, and released terrorists, who are also entitled to guaranteed employment in the PA. The U.S. Taylor Force Act describes this policy as an "incentive to commit acts of terror."
3. Recognize the Jews as a people, entitled to a state in their ancestral homeland. The Palestinian Authority rejects the very existence of a Jewish people, referring to Judaism merely as a religion, undeserving of a national homeland. Jews, according to PA teachings, are responsible for the ills of the world and have no sovereign history in the land.
4. Cease all incitement to murder and glorification of terror. For the last 30 years, the PA has been violating their commitment as part of the Oslo process to combat incitement. The PA has actively engaged its education system, media, and culture in hate indoctrination and inciting terror. Generations of Palestinians have been educated to hate Jews, seek the destruction of Israel, and see murderous terrorists as role models.
5. Halt PA attacks on Israel in international forums. The PA/PLO is conducting full-scale lawfare against Israel at the UN and other international forums, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. The attacks, based on invented facts and outright libels, seek to delegitimize Israel and turn it into a pariah state. These are flagrant breaches of the Oslo Accords.
6. Actively fight terror. A fundamental commitment undertaken by the Palestinians as part of the Oslo process was to actively combat terror. To fulfill this commitment, the PA was permitted to establish a strong security apparatus that benefitted from international funding and training. Many members of the PA security forces, who were meant to be fighting terror, were themselves actively involved in terrorism.

Once these rudimentary prerequisites are fulfilled, an additional plan to revitalize the PA would deal with its deeply embedded corruption and turn it into an effective democracy with regular elections in which a fully functioning judicial system can be developed.

Arab States Reluctant to Come to the Palestinians' Aid

Former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker spent nearly four decades representing America's interests in the Arab world, serving as U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said in an interview that despite public support for Palestinian rights, in truth nearly every Arab state has long viewed the Palestinians with "fear and loathing." "The last thing the Arab states, particularly those around Palestine and Israel, wanted to see was an independent Palestinian movement, let alone a state."

"What's noteworthy in this entire conflict since Oct. 7 has been the lack of reaction or response from the Arab world. Saudi Arabia continues to hold the door open for a peace agreement with Israel. The UAE, Morocco and Bahrain didn't even withdraw ambassadors. Jordan did, but of course with about half of its population being Palestinian, Jordan has a particular problem. That lack of reaction I think is very telling."

"It is noteworthy there is no Palestinian population in Egypt. Going back to the days of [former Egyptian leader] Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptians saw the threat. Again, the Palestinians contributed to their isolation through some spectacular acts like the assassination of a Jordanian prime minister in front of the Sheraton hotel in broad daylight in Cairo by two Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [PFLP] gunmen, one of whom stooped down to drink the assassinated prime minister's blood."

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!

02/23 Links Pt1: Biden’s ‘help’ at the UN will put Israeli lives at risk; The trouble with defining genocide; The Sham Investigation of Unrwa

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Biden’s ‘help’ at the UN will put Israeli lives at risk

The double standard involved in this dramatic priority given to Palestinians has only one reasonable explanation: antisemitism rooted in Islamist supremacism and left-wing ideologies that falsely demonize Israel as an “apartheid” and/or “settler/colonialist” state of whites oppressing people of color. What passes for enlightened opinion among the chattering classes in the United States and the international community simply exhibits no concern for Israelis. That’s true whether they were killed, raped or kidnapped—or if they are among the hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes in the south due to Hamas and the north due to Hezbollah until the threat of violence is over. Apparently, only Palestinian suffering, which is the direct result of a culture that values hatred for Jews and an urge for their genocide, seems to count.

The U.S. role at the Security Council has provided Biden with more leverage over Israel to force it to accept a disastrous return to the pre-Oct. 7 status quo in which Gaza is an independent Palestinian state in all but name, or even worse, part of a larger and more dangerous entity.

A large part of the explanation for Biden’s two-faced stance is purely political. The president is desperately worried about the open revolt among Democrats against even his half-hearted support for Israel. More and more, he is folding under pressure from progressives inside the administration and his campaign, as well as from Michigan Democrats under the sway of pro-Hamas, Arab-American politicians like Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud. Biden seems to think that he must end the war if he is to avoid a situation in which left-wing voters either don’t vote or support third-party candidates in November, which will effectively hand the election to former President Donald Trump.

Equally important is this administration’s devotion to the United Nations itself. As Anne Bayefsky of Touro College and Human Rights Voices rightly points out, the problem is the idea that the world body is the proper venue for settling this or any dispute. The American resolution “denies the Jewish member state its U.N. Charter legal right of self-defense,” said Bayefsky.

It also “purports to create a ‘maritime corridor’ to Gaza and foil Israel’s ability to thwart the Iranian weapons supply chain to the terrorists killing Jews,” she continued. But more importantly, the willingness of the United States to let the United Nations be the arbiter of this conflict inevitably works to Israel’s disadvantage. “It buys into the lie that the U.N. is playing the role of do-gooder in this conflict, instead of telling the truth that it is encouraging lethal antisemitism—murdering Jews inside Israel and beyond. It is simply dead wrong for the United States to use the U.N. as a sword of Damocles hanging over Israel’s head.”

The United Nations isn’t merely an institution that is linked to antisemitism and prejudice against Israel. It is the mainspring of a campaign of defamation and lawfare involving its agencies—like the International Court of Justice—that are being weaponized to aid Hamas’s propaganda campaign aimed at making Israel an international pariah. Playing the role of Israel’s half-hearted defender in these forums, in which Washington concedes Hamas’s talking points about the cruelty of the war to defeat them and in which preventing Palestinian casualties caused by the terrorists’ actions becomes the primary goal, shouldn’t be interpreted as proof of the administration’s devotion to the alliance with the Jewish state.

To the contrary, every time Washington treats these discussions as legitimate, rather than debates in which the deck is always stacked against Israel and which discards any notion of fairness, it only serves to help Hamas and its international cheering section. To treat Biden and his foreign-policy team as heroes for merely postponing a disastrous ceasefire is to judge them by an absurdly low standard. The vast majority of Americans support Israel and want it to win its war over Hamas—not be forced into allowing a genocidal foe to survive to go on murdering more innocents. Far from ensuring that Israel is allowed to ensure its security, the U.S. stand at the United Nations is preparing a path towards further appeasement of the terrorists and their Iranian sponsors that will inevitably lead to more bloodshed.

Douglas Murray: The trouble with defining genocide

Like a number of ‘anti-colonialists’, William Dalrymple lives in colonial splendour on the outskirts of Delhi. The writer often opens the doors of his estate to slavering architectural magazines. A few years ago, one described his pool, pool house, vast family rooms, animals, cockatoo ‘and the usual entourage of servants that attends any successful man in India’s capital city’.

I only mention Dalrymple because he is one of a large number of people who have lost their senses by going rampaging online about the alleged genocide in Gaza. He recently tweeted at a young Jewish woman who said she was afraid to travel into London during the Palestinian protests: ‘Forget 30,000 dead in Gaza, tens of thousands more in prison without charge, five MILLION in stateless serfdom, forget 75 years of torture, rape, dispossession, humiliation and occupation, IT’S ALL ABOUT YOU.’ It is one thing when a street rabble loses their minds. But when people who had minds start to lose them, that is another thing altogether.

I find it curious. By every measure, what is happening in Gaza is not genocide. More than that – it’s not even regionally remarkable.

Hamas’s own figures – not to be relied upon – suggest that around 28,000 people have been killed in Gaza since October. Most of the international media likes to claim these people are all innocent civilians. In fact, many of the dead will have been killed by the quarter or so Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets that fall short and land inside Gaza.

Then there are the more than 9,000 Hamas terrorists who have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces. As Lord Roberts of Belgravia recently pointed out, that means there is fewer than a two to one ratio of civilians to terrorists killed: ‘An astonishingly low ratio for modern urban warfare where the terrorists routinely use civilians as human shields.’ Most western armies would dream of such a low civilian casualty count. But because Israel is involved (‘Jews are news’) the libellous hyperbole is everywhere.

For almost 20 years since Israel withdrew from Gaza, we have heard the same allegations. Israel has been accused of committing genocide in Gaza during exchanges with Hamas in 2009, 2012 and 2014. As a claim it is demonstrably, obviously false. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the population of the Strip was around 1.3 million. Today it is more than two million, with a male life expectancy higher than in parts of Scotland. During the same period, the Palestinian population in the West Bank grew by a million. Either the Israelis weren’t committing genocide, or they tried to commit genocide but are uniquely bad at it. Which is it? Well, when it comes to Israel it seems people don’t have to choose. Everything and anything can be true at once.

Richard Goldberg: Biden’s Hezbollah Plan Is a Win-Win—for the Terrorists

Hezbollah gave up nothing in the deal. It didn’t have to withdraw from territory, dismantle infrastructure, or destroy weapons. It just had to hold its fire. The Biden administration’s current proposed deal would require Hezbollah—and by extension Iran—to cede strategic advantages. And that’s something Israel’s top Nasrallah watchers assess has a near-zero possibility.

None of this is to suggest that Nasrallah is rushing to a full-scale war. Indeed, he held his fire after October 7, a moment of unprecedented weakness for Israel when a full-scale attack could have landed an unimaginable blow. Despite multiple escalations by Israel—including a targeted strike against a Hamas leader in a Hezbollah compound in Beirut, and attacks against high-value Hezbollah personnel and facilities—Nasrallah has not responded in a manner that could give Israel international support for an invasion. His objective appears to be twofold: Keep Israel distracted and afraid, forced to stretch itself to defend against the potential threat, while keeping most of his capabilities intact to be ready for the day when Iran really needs them.

To that end, Nasrallah might be persuaded to agree to certain window-dressing concessions as long as he can spin the deal as a win for Lebanon. The threat from Hezbollah’s “Radwan” special forces—a group that’s been training for years to execute a complex invasion of northern Israel like the one Hamas perpetrated on Gaza’s border communities—forced Israel to evacuate all communities close to the Lebanese border. Many of these families might be willing to brave occasional rocket attacks, as they have for decades, but none will return to a border crawling with Radwan terrorists.

In the weeks after October 7, the IDF targeted Radwan leaders, prompting Hezbollah to pull these high-value assets farther back from Israel’s border. Thus, a deal that requires these fighters to stay 10 kilometers from Israel’s border and removes their outposts south of that line would be a meager concession for Nasrallah. But alongside an historic surge of IDF border patrols, it could offer Israel enough of a fig leaf to persuade evacuated communities to return home.

Unsurprisingly, that is exactly the deal on the table from the United States and France. With reports that sweeteners might include a massive economic bailout for Lebanon and Israeli negotiation over its disputed land border with it, too. Who would be responsible for keeping the peace? The LAF and UNIFIL—the same pair that has spent 17 years helping Hezbollah become the threat it is today. That would guarantee that Hezbollah’s commitments will never be verified or enforced.

It’s a win-win for Nasrallah. Many of his fighters live and keep their missiles hidden within 10 kilometers of Israel’s border. They will blend into the civilian population without any mechanism to force their departure. And even if the U.S. or France could verify a movement of weapons to the north, Nasrallah’s arsenal is more than capable of terrorizing Israeli cities from 10 kilometers away. Meanwhile, a bailout of Lebanon will increase Hezbollah’s popularity—demonstrating its tactics against Israel work.

Israel faces a harsh reality in which an American president is saying ‘No.’ President Biden will not come to Israel’s aid in the U.N. Security Council or from the White House podium. He will not approve requests for emergency resupply of critical munitions Israel will need in a war with Hezbollah. Biden felt compelled to support Israel in a war against Hamas after seeing the horror of October 7, but he does not want conflict to continue in the Middle East deep into his re-election. These truths compel the Israeli government to secure whatever agreement can both buy time until Jerusalem is independently prepared for a full-scale war and give its citizens the illusion of security on the northern border.

Whatever the Hochstein process delivers, it will not deliver Israelis the security they need, along the border or in major cities in the north and central regions. Nor will it in any way degrade the robust capabilities of a terrorist group that threatens America as much as Israel. The longer the Hezbollah can gets kicked down the road, the bloodier and costlier the eventual day of reckoning will be.

The cult of the two state solution

Martin Indyk sees a silver lining in Gaza - the resurrection of the two state solution:

In the wake of the monstrous attack Hamas launched on Israel on October 7 and the grievous war that Israel has waged on the Gaza Strip ever since, the allegedly dead two-state solution has been resurrected. U.S. President Joe Biden and his top national security officials have repeatedly and publicly reaffirmed their belief that it represents the only way to create lasting peace among the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the Arab countries of the Middle East. And the United States is hardly alone: the call for a return to the two-state paradigm has been echoed by leaders across the Arab world, the countries of the EU, middle powers such as Australia and Canada, and even Washington’s main rival, China.

The reason for this revival is not complicated. There are, after all, only a few possible alternatives to the two-state solution. There is Hamas’s solution, which is the destruction of Israel. There is the Israeli ultra-right’s solution, which is the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the deportation of Palestinians to other countries. There is the “conflict management” approach pursued for the last decade or so by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to maintain the status quo indefinitely—and the world has seen how that worked out. And there is the idea of a binational state in which Jews would become a minority, thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. None of those alternatives would resolve the conflict—at least not without causing even greater calamities. And so if the conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the two-state solution is the only idea left standing.

And what evidence is there that the two-state plan would result in peace, less terror, a responsible Palestinian government that wouldn't become a Hamas stronghold and an Iranian proxy at Israel's door?

None.

In fact, all evidence points to a Palestinian state being disaster. After all, we saw how well the PA has performed with autonomy - essentially the trappings of a state, land it has full security control over, given to it for free. It didn't stop terror and in fact terror attacks increased during the Oslo process; Fatah's own "military wing" was involved in numerous terror attacks, when their maximal demands weren't met they started a deadly terror spree, the PLO tried to get around the terms of the agreement by paying for smuggling ships to bring in weapons, Hamas was voted into office and a civil war erupted, the Palestinian entity has been divided for over 15 years with no end in sight, Hamas starts wars with Israel every couple of years, and even in Area A under full Palestinian control there are armed groups that walk around freely with weapons with no PA security in sight - or, often, moonlighting for the terror gangs themselves.

How exactly will a two-state solution improve the situation?

No one who is espousing the idea has a real plan, or even thinks about these issues. This exchange between a Biden official who supports a Palestinian state and Rep. Brian Mast is amazing in how it reveals how little the people who repeat the "two state" mantra actually think about what it means.

10/7 didn't happen because there was no Palestinian state: it happened because Israel failed in its primary job of defending itself. Imagine if Hamas - which would win any Palestinian election - was the head of a real state where it controls its own borders. Imagine it receiving 180,000 rockets from Iran like Hezbollah does, with as little self restraint as the Houthis have.

The status quo is bad. But every other idea is worse.

Except for my Gaza Emirate solution. And as fantastic and crazy as it sounds to turn Gaza into an emirate of the UAE, all that is lacking is political will. Right now, people could be polling Gazans and asking them whether they would rather be governed by Hamas, Fatah, or the UAE. Whether they would rather be stateless or citizens of the UAE. Whether they would rather have constant wars or a peace where Gaza could become a Singapore. Whether they would give up the illusory dream of an independent state for the chance to live normal lives.

The two state delusion is not a solution. It is a disaster in waiting. And those people who saw 10/7 and still consider a Palestinian state to be a "solution" are not pro-Palestinian - they are anti-Israel.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Joe Biden puts lipstick on Palestinian pigs

The leader of the free world tweeted one of the most deceptive statements I've ever seen from a President:

I won't mince words.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not Hamas. And Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people.

In fact, they're also suffering as a result of Hamas' terrorism. We need to be clear-eyed about that reality.

In a technical sense, there is no lie here. Actual Hamas members - Al Qassam Brigades terrorists and Gaza government employees - are not the majority of Palestinians.

But the majority of Palestinians support Hamas and Hamas-style terror attacks. The majority of Palestinians share Hamas' political goal of destroying Israel.

The most recent PCPSR poll of Palestinians show these facts clearly.

72% of all Palestinians supported the October 7 attacks. In the "moderate" West Bank, the number was 82% - nearly a 7-1 ratio over those opposed to mass murder and rape.

A similar percentage of Palestinians are satisfied with how Hamas is acting (as of December.)

A Hamas presidential candidate would win over Mahmoud Abbas by a nearly 5-1 margin if there were elections today. Before October 7, Hamas would "only" have enjoyed a 21 point victory.

And in general, 60% of those who have an opinion support Hamas as a political party over all other parties combined.

Other opinions also align perfectly with Hamas positions. Support for a two-state solution stands at only 34%, but support for an armed terror uprising in the West Bank is double that, 68%. And as we've seen in previous polls, support for a two state solution is considered by the majority of Palestinian supporters to be only a stage towards a Palestine from the river to the sea: it is a phase of the conflict, not the end.

Biden's tweet can only be seen as setting the stage for recognizing a Palestinian state. it is designed to gaslight Americans into believing that most Palestinians support peace instead of murdering their Jewish neighbors. The truth is the opposite.

The "two state solution" is a cult that would make things worse, not a solution. Awarding the most pro-terrorist people and the most antisemitic people on Earth with a state is not smart diplomacy but the slavish adherence to an idea that was proven to be deadly wrong with the outbreak of the second intifada. Just because he world doesn't have the imagination for anything better doesn't make it better than the status quo.

We need creative solutions, not rehashing of discredited 30-year old conventional wisdom.

There is nothing "clear eyed" about this tweet. It is knowingly deceptive. And a president who tries to deceive the American people does not deserve to be president.

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!

In 2012, to some fanfare, a history textbook meant for high school students was published called "Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel-Palestine." On the left pages of the book is an Israeli (leftist) narrative of the the history of Zionism, and on the right hand pages is a corresponding Palestinian history, meant for people to compare and juxtapose both with each other.

Because of the parallel structure, there is no room for the "Israeli" side to mention anything about the 3,000 year Jewish history in the Land, the centuries of Jews sacrificing everything to return, the two millennia of Jews praying for the era when they can all return. Which means that the book was a failure before it began, by framing the history of Israel to start shortly before the Balfour Declaration - a framework that ignores thousands of years of history and that makes it look like Jews are strangers in their own homeland.

On the Palestinian side, on page 3, we see a narrative that I had never heard before. And it is one that Arab historians have apparently been teaching as fact for a long time.

PARTITIONING OF THE ARAB EAST

In light of the strong European colonial competition, Britain called for the formation of a high committee of seven European countries. The committee submitted its report in 1907 to British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The report asserted that the Arab countries and the Muslim-Arab people living in the Ottoman Empire presented a very real threat to the colonial countries. The report made the following recommendations:

1. To promote a state of disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2. To establish puppet political entities under the aegis of the European imperialist countries.
3. To combat all kinds of unity (intellectual, spiritual, religious, or historical) and find practical means to divide the region and inhabitants from each other.
4. To ensure the implementation of the previous recommendations, to create in Palestine a "buffer state" which would be populated by a strong, foreign human presence hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.

It could be strongly concluded, beyond any doubt, that the recommendations of the Campbell-Bannerman High Committee did in fact pave the way to Palestine for the Jews. They also gave British foreign policy and the Zionist movement the green light to annex Palestine from the other Arab lands and thereby create the nucleus of a colonial entity that would ensure the colonialists' influence in the region.

So the British secretly conspired to wrest Palestine from the Arabs and give it to the Jews a decade before Balfour? That's big news! Why don't the Jews know about this?

I looked up what I could about Campbell-Bannerman and the 1907 Imperial Conference that he chaired. I found a two volume 800 page 1911 book that goes into great detail about Campbell-Bannerman and the Conference.

Not a word about Palestine. Not a word about the Arabs that were supposedly a "threat to colonial countries."

How can something this important be first mentioned in English in a 2012 textbook, given the intense interest in Palestine?

The answer can be found in a 2017 article in Al Zaytouna by Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh. He says that many respected Arab historians have referenced and even quoted this document in their history books over the years, but none of them ever gave an actual reference to it, always quoting their colleagues.He traced the origins of this "document" to an Arab historian who says that an Indian fellow he sat next to on a plane in the 1940s told him he once heard about such a document.

From that secondhand rumor came an entire branch of false Arab scholarship!

Saleh is careful not to say that the document is fiction, even though there is not the slightest bit of evidence for it. But he does caution Arabs not to reference it anymore because it makes Arab "scholars" look silly.

This is the state of Arab scholarship in the history of pre-war Palestine. Nobody until 1917 bothered to verify the document because it was too good to check. The most basic thing any amateur historian does is look for the sources, and for decades no Arabs bothered.

(After I wrote this I found that Maurice Hirsch of Palestinian Media Watch discovered the same thing in a 2022 article.)

(h/t Irene)

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!

02/22 Links Pt2: The Ivy League Doesn’t Want To Be Saved; UNRWA Is the Tip of the Iceberg at the UN; Albanese Claims Israelis Are ‘Colonialists’ with ‘Fake Identities’

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: A Test of Jewish Civil Rights in America

“Our German laws and our ethical outlook admit Jewish equality,” the German economist Werner Sombart advised a century ago, “but if you Jews want to preserve it, do not take it too seriously. Always stick to the second place.”

Sombart did not say this menacingly. It was more like a friendly reminder that equal rights in law and equal rights in practice are two very different animals.

The great Zionist thinker and minority-rights champion Vladimir Jabotinsky quotes this Sombart line in a disquisition on assimilation. Jabotinsky notes that in reality, you can’t ask humans to succeed less than they are capable of doing. And when the Jews are successful, “equality” begins to mean “proportionality,” which inevitably gives way to the quota system. Jabotinsky says he’d heard Westerners defend this from the standpoint of “social congeniality,” when in fact it should really be called what it is: “racial purity.” Writes Jabotinsky: “The harm of such phraseological disguises is in their insidious plausibility: they lend themselves gracefully to inclusion in a system in full accordance with liberal treaties and democratic constitutions.”

Sound familiar? It should, because when Jewish history doesn’t repeat, it at least rhymes.

The laws of civil rights and the rules and norms of educational institutions are well known and all-inclusive—as written. But the major problem for Jews is that, in our time as in Jabotinsky’s, it varies as to whether these laws and rules are worth the paper on which they are written.

But here’s an important test. A century ago, insisting on the rights Jews are nominally provided (in Europe primarily) would invite state-sanctioned violence and mass exodus. What would happen today if the Jews of America stand our ground on the legal claim that we are equal citizens?

That is the idea behind numerous private civil-rights lawsuits against universities, such as the one against Columbia that I mentioned yesterday. But there’s another angle to this: When it comes to the denial of equal rights, the federal government has a responsibility to act. And it might actually be doing so.

Seth Mandel: The Ivy League Doesn’t Want To Be Saved

Coincidentally, this appears to be an accepted faculty attitude at Columbia as well. Mackenzie Forrest, an Orthodox Jew who faced religious discrimination at Columbia, including being removed from her academic program, is suing the school. After the October 7 attacks, Columbia became, like plenty of other schools but especially those in the Ivy League, one big hate rally. Harassment of Jews on campus was rampant. The school sent an email to all students offering “special accommodations” to deal with the chaos on campus, and Forrest decided to take them up on it, requesting to finish her semester over Zoom, as other students have done at the school. Forrest, though, was denied permission to do so and told that she “is the only person feeling unsafe.”

Her attorney told National Review that the faculty retaliated for her complaints by threatening to fail her if she didn’t leave the program. Earlier in the year, the administration had responded to her request for seeking a Sabbath exemption by encouraging her to ask her rabbi for permission to break the Sabbath instead.

Columbia’s contempt for Jewish students is a pattern. On February 12, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House education committee, sent a letter to Columbia’s president and trustees as part of its investigation into campus anti-Semitism. The letter makes for bracing reading: it recounts two decades of incidents at the school, very much including harassment and intimidation by faculty, and the administration’s unwillingness to take action. It is a fairly shocking document.

The committee letter then requests from Columbia all manner of documentation from the past three years—anti-Semitism complaints and responses, disciplinary action, internal investigative documents, foreign funding, changes in recruiting and enrollment of Jewish students, plus everything it can find related to October 7 and its aftermath.

I look forward to seeing what they find, but I know what they won’t find: the slightest bit of effort to make Jews feel anything but unwelcome on campus. You would think, in the wake of October 7 and the spectacularly embarrassing congressional testimony of some elite school presidents, these institutions would at least go through the motions to appear to act consistent with their professed rules, norms, and values.

But they cannot be bothered. And you can’t save an institution that doesn’t want to be saved.

UNRWA Is the Tip of the Iceberg at the UN

Since freezing UNRWA funding in January, after evidence emerged that the agency’s employees participated in the murder and kidnapping of Israeli civilians in the Oct. 7 massacre, the United States said it will instead send money to other U.N. bodies and nongovernmental organizations in Gaza.

This is premature, ignoring the fact that the serious problems with terror support, incitement and antisemitism at the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees are replicated throughout the entire ecosystem of U.N. agencies and NGOs active in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. While freezing funding was a laudable first step, stronger, broader, long-term action is needed before continuing to fund any organizations in Gaza or restoring funding to UNRWA.

At the heart of the problem is that, in addition to providing health care, education and other humanitarian assistance for Palestinians, UNRWA engages in advocacy in response to what it calls “the needs of Palestinian refugees affected by the Israeli occupation.”

This political advocacy work, which is often based on the delegitimization of Israel and questioning the Jewish state’s right to exist, is carried out in partnership with NGOs and other U.N. agencies.

A primary anti-Israel channel is via “clusters” of NGOs and U.N. agencies that work together on various issues. Inevitably, each cluster has an advocacy component.

For example, UNRWA partnered with Palestinian NGOs, including Al-Haq and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, or PCHR, to carry out a project of “advocacy, monitoring and documentation of HR and IHL violations” in Gaza and the West Bank. In other words, UNRWA and the NGOs level accusations of “war crimes” and “violations of human rights” and seek condemnations of Israel from international bodies and governments.

The involvement of these particular NGOs is deeply problematic in two ways. First, they are the leaders of anti-Israel legal warfare, or “lawfare,” seeking to exploit international courts with baseless allegations of Israeli wrongdoing. The biased reports and claims from UNRWA and its NGO partners are often cited among the “evidence” in U.N. investigations of Israel, lawfare cases around the world, and empty accusations of “genocide” and “war crimes.”

The proceedings against Israel at The Hague — in the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court — originate with this type of lobbying.

After every terror attack, Palestinian leaders boast they are naturally violent

This morning there was a terror attack in Ma'ale Adumim, with three gunmen shooting anyone they could find including a pregnant woman.

The response from Hamas was the same as the Palestinian responses to hundreds of previous terror attacks: it was a "natural response" to perceived Israeli crimes.

2012 bus bombing in Tel Aviv:

2006 suicide bombing:

2002 by the PLO's Jibril Rajoub:

1997, referring to a 1989 terror attack:

An Israeli Arab MK in 1992:

There is nothing "natural" about terror attacks for normal human beings. But for Palestinians, literally every such attack - no matter how heinous - is called a "natural response" to Israeli actions.

The narrative is so entrenched that no one even questions the "naturalness" of blowing up Jews. Peopel in sub-Saharan Africa or Myanmar and many othe rplaces live much worse lives than Palestinians have, but no one expects violence from most of them.

Only for Palestinians are terror attacks routinely called "natural."

If I would say that Palestinians are naturally oriented towards violence and terror, people would call me a bigot. But what about when Palestinians themselves consistently say that very thing about each other?

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!