Donate Us

Help us keep this free site alive with a small contribution from you. Select an amount below.

Friday, February 4, 2022

02/04 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International; David Collier: Where are the real journalists? 15 questions for Amnesty

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International
In October 2020, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced his plan to list Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam as anti-Semitic organizations due to their efforts to advance the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. Pompeo’s plan was in keeping with the Trump administration’s overall policy for fighting anti-Semitism. In December 2019, then President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that provided civil rights protection to Jewish students persecuted by BDS campaigns on their campuses.

Given the central role Amnesty and other phony human rights groups play in the political war for the destruction of the largest Jewish community in the world, Pompeo’s planned move was not just reasonable, it was imperative. But rather than applaud him for his resolve, the ADL attacked Pompeo and his plan.

When word broke that Pompeo was about the designate the three groups as anti-Semitic, the ADL released a statement aimed at undermining and blocking his move. The statement declared, “We oppose broadly applying the anti-Semitism label to these human rights organizations; doing so is neither accurate nor helpful to the fight against anti-Semitism. Rather, this move would politicize the fight against anti-Semitism.”

A month later Pompeo made it the official policy of the State Department to treat organizations that support BDS as anti-Semitic groups. But by that time, Trump had lost his reelection bid, and the wind had come out of the sails. Pompeo’s statement did not mention which specific groups were anti-Semitic. So thanks in large part to the ADL, Amnesty and its anti-Semitic comrades dodged the bullet.

On the surface, the ADL’s condemnation of the Amnesty report could have been written by the Zionist Organization of America. But a close look at the ADL’s response makes clear that the organization which is supposed to lead the struggle against anti-Semitism, hasn’t changed its position since it defended Amnesty from Pompeo’s charge of anti-Semitism.

The ADL had a great deal of criticism over Amnesty’s report, but it engaged in circus-style contortionism to avoid saying the plain truth: Amnesty’s report was anti-Semitic.

As the ADL put it, Amnesty’s report was “an effort to demonize Israel and undermine its legitimacy as a Jewish and democratic state. In an environment of rising anti-Jewish hate, this type of report is not only inaccurate but also irresponsible and likely will lead to intensified anti-Semitism around the world.”

So the report wasn’t anti-Semitic per se. It was simply irresponsible. Amnesty didn’t factor in how its blood libels might be interpreted by people who (unlike Amnesty) actually hate Jews.

The ADL statement maintained its line – that Amnesty was irresponsible, not bigoted against Jews — through to the end. The statement concluded, “Amnesty International’s rhetoric is irresponsible. These are not simply abstract words but the kind of spurious charges that, time and again, have placed Jews in danger around the world.”


David Collier: Where are the real journalists? 15 questions for Amnesty
1. One of the key figures behind your attacks on Israel – and indeed one of those leading the press conference on the report – used to have Facebook profile pictures of PFLP and Islamic Jihad terrorists. How can you possibly believe he is fit for purpose when it comes to reporting on Israel?

2. Your Deputy Director for the MENA region, which covers dozens of states, is a Palestinian who spends over 99% of his time only talking about Israel. Given the state of human rights in the Middle East and North Africa – how can this be justified?

3. We have seen Amnesty employees support terrorist attacks or give advice to terrorists. Looking through who you employ, there is a distinct pattern. Amnesty has chosen to employ several people who were visibly active anti-Israel careerists. They promoted full BDS, believed Israel is an Apartheid state, worked on campaigns to delegitmise Israel, often spread fake news and so on – long before they started working for Amnesty. All this must have been on their CVs. If you deliberately employ anti-Israel activists such as this – and send them out to write your reports on Israel – what do you expect the result to be?

4. A clear example. In 2017 Amnesty employed an anti-Israel activist named Alli Jarrar (McCracken). Jarrar came from Codepink, an extremist group that has even supported Iran’s weapons program. Before she arrived at Amnesty, Jarrar worked on a Code Pink campaign to boycott Airbnb. Shortly after her arrival – Amnesty engaged in a well-funded campaign to boycott Airbnb. How much of your activity is driven by the obsessions of those you employ?

5. Going back in time – we often see names of authors on Amnesty reports. The authors are anonmyous in your Apartheid report. Why – is there something you are trying to hide?

6. In your latest report you called Israel an Apartheid state. It obviously isn’t. Can you explain why Amnesty wasted enormous resources, changing every definition of all the words neccessary – in order to try to squeeze Israel into a box it clearly does not belong inside?


Abe Foxman: Amnesty's Lies About Israel Only Hurt Its Own Credibility
It is a mark of Amnesty's incredible shrinking credibility that the anti-Israel narrative it peddles, seeming to want to divert attention from the internal dissension that has recently come to light inside the organization, has less and less traction in the Middle East itself, where Amnesty appears to have "lost the room." In the last two years, a series of Arab nations have moved to normalize relations with Israel, among them the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. More are close behind.

And it isn't only Israel's Arab neighbors who are telling Amnesty "No thanks." Last year, Israel's Arab party joined the most diverse government Israel has ever had, and is part of the coalition governing the country. "We have two hats," said the party's leader, Mansour Abbas. "On the one side we are Arab Palestinians. But we are also Arab citizens of Israel."

Mansour's significant role in leading the Middle East's only democracy, one which protects workers, women, members of the LGBT community and religious minorities, is unhelpful to Amnesty's line that Israel is an apartheid state. The same is true of the role that Israeli Arabs play on the country's Supreme Court, where an Arab justice presided over a trial adjudicating a national Israeli election.

Buffeted by an array of grave and downright existential challenges that no other country on the planet faces, beset by an over-abundance of complexity, Israel is no more perfect than the United States is. But the kind of over-the-top proclamations by agenda-driven organizations like Amnesty do less damage to Israel's reputation than to their own.


The Faces Behind Amnesty International’s Lies
Amnesty International’s latest report charging Israel with being an apartheid regime continues to be exposed for what it is—part of a widespread, disingenuous propaganda campaign to delegitimize the Jewish State. Although the report’s authors remain unnamed by the organization, these are the people who publicly promote the campaign and stand behind it. Long before their current campaign of vilification, they established their bona fides as defamers of the Jewish state willing to fabricate facts to accomplish their goal.

Agnès Callamard
Callamard was appointed Secretary General of Amnesty International in March 2021.

Her obsession with demonizing the Jewish state extends to lying about former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and an Israeli role in Yasir Arafat’s death. She falsely claimed that Peres admitted that PLO leader Yasir Arafat was assassinated [by Israel], although he said nothing of the sort. Even when her falsehood was publicly exposed, Callamard refused to retract it from her twitter account, where it still remains. This did not stop her from being appointed Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the notoriously biased UN Human Rights Council where she served from 2016-2021 – just before assuming her latest job at Amnesty International.
She has crowed about boycott of Israel on her twitter account:
When, in 2018, Hamas leaders encouraged its people to violently tear down the border between Israel and Gaza and “implement the right of return” as a “new phase in the Palestinians’ national struggle on the road to liberating all of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” Callamard in her capacity as UNHRC Special Rapporteur defended the violent attempts to eliminate the Jewish state as “a legitimate exercise of the rights of freedom of expression.” Instead, she condemned Israel’s measures to protect its soldiers and border. Despite video and photographs showing rioters who were throwing rocks, planting explosives at the fence, shooting at Israeli troops on the other side, and calling for killing Jews, Callamard and her cohorts insisted the violent rioting was “peaceful,” while discounting the evidence:
In the News: Amnesty Int'l & Israel
As Amnesty International publishes a report accusing Israel of being an Apartheid state, Arsen Ostrovsky, CEO of The International Legal Forum, discusses the meaning of the report and the efforts to counter its libelous arguments. With Shahar Azani.




‘We do not agree’: UK rejects Amnesty report accusing Israel of apartheid
The United Kingdom on Thursday rejected an Amnesty International report accusing Israel of apartheid.

“We do not agree with the use of this terminology,” a spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office told The Times of Israel.

“Any judgment on whether serious crimes under international law have occurred is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies,” they said.

The spokesperson added: “As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue on human rights. This includes encouraging the government of Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and do all it can to uphold the values of equality for all.”

Amnesty International is headquartered in London.

Amnesty alleged in a major report released Tuesday that Israel has maintained “a system of oppression and domination” over the Palestinians going all the way back to the establishment of the state in 1948, a system the group said meets the international definition of apartheid.

The UK joins Israel, the US and Germany, in addition to a range of Jewish organizations around the world, in rejecting the 278-page report.

The Biden administration, as well as US lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, were quick to condemn the document.


Calls for Amnesty charity probe over Israel ‘apartheid’ smear
Amnesty International’s incendiary new report smearing Israel as an “apartheid state” has sparked accusations of antisemitism and calls for a Charity Commission probe, the JC can reveal.

The claim that the Jewish state is guilty of human rights breaches is made repeatedly in the 278-page document published this week. The report depicts Israel as guilty of “apartheid” crimes since its very foundation in 1948.

Critics say such claims are a clear breach of the widely recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

The code adopted by the UK government and other authorities worldwide states that it is antisemitic to deny Jews their right to self-determination “by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

Legal figures and MPs have called for the Charity Commission to consider Amnesty’s status.


The Guardian outdoes Amnesty in peddling anti-Israel vitriol
The bias here is egregious, and has more to say about the anti-Israel circles McGreal travels in, who view “an all-powerful state unleashing destruction against a largely defenceless population”, than about American opinion – which, as the poll above shows, did NOT in fact trend towards the Palestinians after the 2014 war.

Additionally, he gets key details of the war wrong, and omits others.

First, roughly half of those killed in Gaza were believed to be combatants. Also, the three Jewish teenagers were not killed by “Hamas rocket attacks”. The children were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank by a group affiliated with Hamas, which was followed by Israeli arrests of Hamas operatives in the territory. Hamas rocket attacks followed, which ultimately ignited the war. Moreover, the “defenceless” antisemitic extremists in Gaza managed to fire thousands of rockets and mortars at Israel’s civilian population during the conflict.

McGreal then evokes Black Lives Matter:
The rise of Black Lives Matter has fuelled the drive to frame the Palestinian cause as a civil rights issue of resistance to Israeli domination.

Of course, this narrative has been “fuelled” by those cynically attempting to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one between powerful Israeli ‘whites’ and marginalized Palestinians ‘people of colour’ – a counter-factual claim about the racial make-up of Israeli and Palestinian society that we’ve previously posted about. This false binary denies Palestinians agency and erases the annihilationist antisemitism of well-armed groups like Hamas, for whom the conflict will only end when the Jewish state ceases to exist.
The Israel Guys: SLAMMING Israel With 211 Pages of Lies? *Disqualified*
Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, just released a 211 page report slamming Israel as an apartheid state. The report even speaks of Israel’s “cruel system of domination and crime against humanity”. The policy director for Amnesty International even goes so far as to say that the problem is not with the Jewish people, but with the state of Israel.

Did you know that the Arab Palestinians have been claiming that Israel is the occupying power since long before the War of 1967? More and more evidence is revealing that the Arabs are not interested in a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, but they rather want the Jews pushed into the sea.




Report: Israel Helped US Eliminate ISIS Leader Through Sources in Syria
Israel “has been involved in and aided” US efforts to eliminate Islamic State leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, Channel 13 reported Thursday evening citing unnamed foreign sources.

“It is possible to assess, according to security sources, that Israel participated in the search for al-Qurayshi’s intelligence and contributed, using its sources in Syria, to create this bridge which allowed the United States to act,” the channel said.

The United States “has eliminated a major terrorist threat in the world,” US President Joe Biden said Thursday in a brief and solemn address at the White House.

In his address, Biden confirmed that “in a final act of desperate cowardice, (al-Qurayshi) … chose to blow himself up… taking several members of his family with him.”

He followed the operation from the ultra-secure “Situation Room,” as evidenced by a photo released by the White House, showing the president alongside Vice President Kamala Harris.

The raid came days after an ISIS assault on an SDF-held prison ended, the jihadist group’s biggest offensive since its territorial defeat in Syria in 2019.


‘Progressive’ groups tell Congress to reject ‘dangerous’ Abraham Accords
The United States Congress was called upon to reject the Abraham Accords by 29 progressive advocacy organizations and other institutions last Saturday.

“We're joining with other progressive orgs to tell Congress that lasting peace comes from justice, not weapons deals. The US should reject the Abraham Accords,” Jewish Voice for Peace Action, the advocacy arm of the NGO JVP, tweeted on Monday. “Instead, we must end support for Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights and its apartheid rule.”

In a January 26 statement entitled “Reject the Dangerous Abraham Accords,” JVP Action and 28 other signatories said that they called “on members of Congress to embrace a US foreign policy toward Palestine/Israel that is rooted in human rights, justice and equality, and to resoundingly reject any attempts to further the Trump administration ‘Abraham Accords,’ including through legislation like H.R. 2748/S. 1061, the Israel Relations Normalization Act of 2021.

“While masquerading as ‘peace’ and ‘diplomacy’, the Abraham Accords and this legislation are in fact an endorsement of arms sales and political favors between the US and authoritarian regimes – including weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates and the recognition of Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara – in exchange for the sidelining of Palestinian rights,” the statement continued.

Notable signatories of the statement were the Progressive Democrats of America, a political organization affiliated with the US Democratic Party, and the US Presbyterian Church, which was recently embroiled in a scandal in which one of its leaders said that Israel was committing a modern act of slavery against Palestinians. The Presbyterian Church had over 1.2 million active members in 2020.
Ruthie Blum: Erdogan's deceitful courtship of Israel
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's latest overtures to Israel should not be misconstrued as a change of heart where the Jewish state is concerned. No, the regional shift marked by the Abraham Accords has not suddenly swept over the tyrant in Ankara. You know, the one whose initial response to the normalization deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates was to weigh severing diplomatic ties with the Gulf state.

"History and the conscience of the region's peoples will not forget and never forgive this hypocritical behavior," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement in August 2020, a month before the deal was inked at the White House. "It is extremely worrying that the UAE should, with a unilateral action, try and do away with the [2002] … peace plan developed by the Arab League."

This wasn't the least bit surprising, given Erdogan's penchant for the Palestinians in general and close ties with Hamas in particular. The Arab League initiative required an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Line – the pre-1967 Six-Day War borders, dubbed by the late statesman Abba Eban as those of "Auschwitz."

But even that proposal was a non-starter, as nothing short of the elimination of Israel has ever been on the PLO or Palestinian Authority agenda. And while the Fatah-run PA sometimes tweaks its tune for international consumption, Hamas boasts about its ultimate aims for Israel, despite the latter's having evacuated every last Jew from Gaza in 2005.

Turkey's love affair with the terrorist organization that rules the Strip has made perfect sense, given the Islamism they share and brutal methods of both to control their populaces. Erdogan, for instance, has spent years imprisoning critics in the media, the police, the justice system and the universities.
Erdogan Says Turkey, Israel Can Jointly Bring Gas to Europe
Turkey and Israel can work together to carry Israeli natural gas to Europe and the two countries will discuss energy cooperation during talks next month, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying on Friday.

The two countries expelled their ambassadors in 2018 after a bitter falling-out. Ties have remained tense since with Ankara condemning Israel’s policy toward Palestinians, while Israel has called on Turkey to drop support for the militant Palestinian group Hamas which rules Gaza.

However, Turkey has been working to repair its strained ties with regional powers as part of a charm offensive launched in 2020. In an apparent easing after years of animosity, Erdogan said on Thursday that Israeli President Isaac Herzog would visit Turkey in mid-March.

“We can use Israeli natural gas in our country, and beyond using it, we can also engage in a joint effort on its passage to Europe,” Erdogan told reporters on a return flight from Ukraine.

“Now, God willing, these issues will be on our agenda with Mr Herzog during their visit to Turkey,” he was quoted by Turkish TV media as saying. Erdogan had visited Ukraine to discuss the crisis there.

While Erdogan has spoken to Herzog amid tensions before, the Israeli presidency is a largely ceremonial role. In November, he spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, the first such call in years.
Turkish ethnic cleansing strategy in Syria uses Israeli-Arab NGO
On June 21, 2021, a newly built mosque was inaugurated in the village of Sheikh Khurez, in northwest Syria, close to the Turkish border.

Sheikh Khurez is located in the part of Syria under the nominal administration of the opposition-linked Syrian Interim Government. In practice, since the Turkish Armed Forces’ Operation Olive Branch of 2018 destroyed the Kurdish Afrin canton, the area has been under the de facto rule of Ankara and its associated militias. The latter are organized in the framework of the Turkish-trained and financed Syrian National Army.

The opening of a small mosque in a remote corner of northwest Syria six months ago might generally be seen as an unremarkable event. The new house of prayer in Sheikh Khurez, however, was noteworthy because of a particular detail – namely, the identity of the organization that sponsored the mosque’s construction, and whose logo is displayed at its entrance.

The organization in question is called the Jamia’at al aish bi’Karama, or Living with Dignity Association. This body is based not in Syria, but in the city of Tira, in central Israel. It achieved some prominence last year because of the support it afforded to Arab residents of Jerusalem protesting planned expulsions in Sheikh Jarrah. It is linked to other organizations supporting a Sunni Islamist outlook, of the type represented by the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Turkey.

So what is a Tira charity, apparently devoted to the Palestinian cause, doing building mosques in northern Syria?
Belgian Armed Forces buy anti-tank missiles from Israeli subsidiary company
German company Dynamit Nobel Defence (DND), a subsidiary of Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, announced in recent days that it won a 19 million euro ($22 million) contract to supply man-portable anti-tank weapons to the Belgian Armed Forces, according to a report by Israel Defense.

The missiles, of the RGW90 type, “can be used from confined spaces and are able to destroy a wide range of land targets [such] as main battle tanks, light armored vehicles, fortified facilities, bunkers, wall structures and fixed shelters,” the report stated.

The missile weighs around 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and has a firing range from 10 meters to 400 meters.

The German military purchased similar systems last year from DND, announcing the procurement of more than 2,000 rocket-launchers.

Meanwhile, 33 countries worldwide use Rafael’s Spike family of missiles, which are made for land, air and naval platforms.
'Settler violence' is isolated, Palestinian violence is daily
There has been a lot of kerfuffles lately about “settler violence” in Judea and Samaria, focusing on recent “settler rampages” in Huwara and Burin (south of Nablus) and attacks on Palestinians harvesting their olive crop.

The UN has an entire bureaucracy (the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA) devoted to cataloging the “precipitous rise in settler violence.” It has a “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967” who harps on “settler violence” non-stop, as well.

The UN says that in the first 10 months of 2021 (latest statistics available) there were 410 attacks by settlers against Palestinians – 302 attacks against property and 108 against individuals.

American Jewish groups have now joined the outcry against “settler violence” too, with the Anti-Defamation League, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Israel Policy Forum, National Council of Jewish Women, Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writing recently to Prime Minister Bennett and his foreign and defense ministers to condemn these attacks. The seven groups called the attacks “terrorism and political violence” committed by Jewish Israeli extremists.
Meeting American envoy, IDF chief sorry for ‘moral’ failing in death of US citizen
In his first meeting with US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides on Friday, IDF chief of staff Aviv Kohavi expressed regret over the death of a 78-year-old Palestinian-American man who suffered a heart attack after being bound, gagged and abandoned at a construction site in the middle of winter by Israeli soldiers last month.

Kohavi “made clear that this was a grave moral incident that is contrary to the values of the IDF,” an Israeli military statement on the meeting said, reiterating the one issued on the findings of the IDF’s internal probe into the January 12 incident death of Omar As’ad.

Kohavi also confirmed to Nides that a criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and that disciplinary actions had already been taken against the officers involved. Two officers were removed from their positions and a third was formally censured.

As’ad’s death sparked a sharp response from the Biden administration, with the State Department emphasizing in the multiple statements issued on the matter that it takes the safety of its nationals abroad very seriously.

Even after the IDF’s internal probe, the US has continued to call for a “thorough criminal investigation.”

“The United States expects a thorough criminal investigation and full accountability in this case, and we welcome receiving additional information on these efforts as soon as possible,” a State Department statement said.


Palestinians lost confidence in 'corrupt' leadership, PLO official tells Post
Veteran PLO official Bassam Abu Sharif criticized the Palestinian Authority leadership for disregarding the decisions of Palestinian institutions to suspend all ties with Israel.

Abu Sharif, who previously served as a senior adviser to former PLO leader Yasser Arafat, told The Jerusalem Post that the PA leadership has turned the decisions into “toilet paper.”

He held the PA leadership responsible for “rampant corruption.”

Abu Sharif’s remarks came on the eve of a meeting of the Palestinian Central Council (PCC), a key decision-making body, scheduled to take place on Sunday.

The PCC, which consists of various Palestinian factions, is expected to approve the appointment of two senior officials – Hussein al-Sheikh and Rouhi Fattouh – to senior positions in the Palestinian leadership.

Sheikh is expected to replace the late Saeb Erekat, who died in 2020, as secretary-general of the PLO Executive Committee.

Fattouh is expected to replace Salim Zanoun as chairman of the PLO’s legislative body, the Palestinian National Council (PNC).

Sheikh and Fattouh have close links to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
PMW: Terrorists receiving “military ranks” and officers being murdered – Expressions of the morally bankrupt PA reality
The contrast between how Palestinian terrorist Osama Al-Silawi and United States Army Captain Taylor Force received their military ranks provides a clear picture of the moral bankruptcy of the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking recently, released terrorist murderer Al-Silawi thanked PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for the “military rank” he was given and “salaries” the PA pays him.

Released terrorist prisoner Osama Al-Silawi: “I greatly thank His Honor [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas for his generous inclusion of the prisoners from before [the 1993] Oslo [Accords]. When we were released, he honored us by giving us military ranks and salaries with which we are living dignified lives.”

[Official PA TV, In Spite of the Handcuffs, Jan. 15, 2022]

Terrorist Al-Silawi was arrested in February 1993. After his conviction for the murder of Israeli Mordechai Biton, the wounding of Biton’s wife and the torture and murder of three Palestinians he thought were cooperating with Israel’s security forces, he was sentenced to 4 life sentences.

In 2013, as a precondition to start peace talks with Israel, Abbas demanded, inter alia, that 104 terrorists who had been arrested before the Oslo peace process be released. Terrorist Al-Silawi, who was 19 when he murdered Biton and tortured and murdered the Palestinians, was among the terrorists Israel released.

Terrorist Al-Silawi received his military rank from the PA because he was a terrorist who murdered innocent people.

In contrast to terrorist Al-Silawi, Captain Taylor Force invested four years of hard work to graduate as an officer from the United States West Point Military Academy. He then led soldiers in the fight against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.


MEMRI: Kuwaiti Journalist Abdallah Muhammad Al-Mulla: The Palestinians Supported Saddam's Invasion Of Kuwait, Hitler During WWII – Now They Support The Houthis, Iran's IRGC; Arabs Today Are Less Inclined To Support The Palestinians Cause
Kuwaiti journalist Abdallah Muhammad Al-Mulla said in a video that was posted to the Diwan Al-Mulla YouTube channel on January 31, 2022 that the Palestinians behave in a fashion that harms their cause rather than advance it. He gave the examples of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's support for Hitler during WWII, the Palestinians' support for Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical weapons during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and the recent demonstration in Gaza in which protesters held up posters of Houthi and IRGC leaders (see MEMRI TV clip no. 9320), who he said are killing the Yemeni people. Al-Mulla said that previous generations of Arabs had supported the Palestinian cause, but that current and future generations of Arabs are less inclined to support the Palestinians because they see them cursing Arab leaders and supporting “killers.”

"The Mufti Of Palestine Stood With Hitler, And In 1990, The Palestinians Stood By Saddam Hussein Against Kuwait"

Abdallah Muhammad Al-Mulla: "One assumes that no nation in the world is more familiar with the pain of occupation than the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, however, the behavior of some Palestinians reflects the exact opposite. If we take a look back at history, we see that the Mufti of Palestine stood with Hitler and against humanity, and in 1990, the Palestinians stood by Saddam Hussein, against Kuwait.

"Not only that, they took to the streets, shouting: 'Saddam, use chemical weapons from Khafji to Dammam.' Sadly, in the streets of Palestine today, they raise poster of the Houthi [leader] and the commanders of the IRGC, who will annihilate the poor and wretched Yemeni people. In conclusion, such mistaken positions and considerations harm the Palestinian cause.




MEMRI: Lebanese Columnist: Letting Armed, Non-Democratic Forces Participate In Elections, As Happens In Iraq And Lebanon, Is Dangerous
In his January 20, 2022 column in the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Lebanese journalist and political analyst Hazem Saghieh addresses the problematic phenomenon of militant and non-democratic forces taking part in the democratic process. These forces, he points out, participate in the democratic game when it serves them, but have no respect whatsoever for the principles that underpin it. Therefore, if they take part in elections and lose, they often use force and violence to fight the result. And if they win the elections, they immediately take steps to abolish the very democratic institutions that brought them to power.

An example of this, says Saghieh, was provided by the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), the Iran-backed militias in Iraq, in the October 2021 elections to the Iraqi parliament. After the political factions affiliated with these militias lost the elections, the militias started targeting some of the victorious parliamentary factions with grenades and bombs. Another example is Hizbullah in Lebanon, which has assassinated many politicians from rival factions since 2005, including prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, in order to weaken their factions in parliament. The immediate inspiration for both these movements, Saghieh adds, is the Iranian regime, and further examples are the Nazi regime in Germany and the fascist regime in Italy – all of which rose to power by democratic means but then turned their countries into dictatorships.

Saghieh notes that it is important to remember the real nature of these belligerent forces and not to believe them when they pretend to embrace democracy.

The following are excerpts from the article as published in the English-language edition of Al-Shar Al-Awsat, lightly edited for flow.[1]

"A question that often preoccupied political thought: ought non-democrats be allowed to take part in the democratic process? A more glaring question faces countries like Iraq and Lebanon today: Ought armed organizations that can impose their will by force be allowed to take part in the democratic process?

"To start with, let us say that the term 'ought' means little here, as the presence of weapons determines what 'ought to be' and what 'ought not to be.' Those who care about the democratic process and comply with its rules can do nothing about it.

"Elections were held in Iraq last October, and the results, as we all know, went against the armed factions loyal to Iran. Unrest spread alongside armed parades held in protest of the election results that the losing factions claimed had been rigged. Later, the Independent High Electoral Commission announced the results after looking into the challenges presented against it, which changed very little.
Iraq’s laws have discrimination against Jews baked in
Al-Hamadani is a lawyer in Iraq representing the interests of Iraqi Jews, who were stripped of their citizenship and had their property frozen. But as he writes in the Fikra Forum (Washington Institute) his work is hampered by the in-built bias against Jews in Iraq’s legal system and a Constitution that does not even mention Jewish rights.

Currently, I work to represent the cases of Iraqi Jews seeking to gain equal representation under the law. I do this work pro-bono out of a sense of duty to my country. In order to retain their privacy, I shall not mention the names of those Iraqi Jews who have authorized me to defend them before the politically-driven Iraqi judicial system.

The general situation is clearly visible within Iraq’s laws. Enacted in the early 1950s, these inhumane laws aimed to legalize the actions of the Iraqi government, which was engaged in pushing out Iraqi Jews, stealing their possessions, and removing their Iraqi citizenship.

The unfair legal structures which revoked Iraqi citizenship from Iraqi Jews were enacted during the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, which passed law no. 1 in the year 1950 and law no. 12 in 1951. When these laws came into effect, many of Iraq’s Jews were forced into exile and their property and money were confiscated by the state as an additional form of punishment. What is disturbing is the fact that these two pieces of legislation are still in effect today. This is despite the political change that took place in Iraq in 2003, and despite the enactment of a new Iraqi constitution in 2005—which gave some hopes of change for Iraqi Jews in a democratic, federal, and multicultural Iraq.

Those who call themselves Iraq’s current leaders claim the new constitution respects all religions, values multiculturalism, and supports the rights of religious minorities and the equality of all Iraqis under the law.
MEMRI: Houthi Health Minister Taha Al-Motawakel: The Jews Lead Humanity to Sin, Immorality, Lust
Houthi Health Minister Taha Al-Motawakel said in a Friday, January 28, 2022 sermon in Sana'a, Yemen that was aired on Al-Eman TV (Houthis – Yemen) that the Jews spread moral decay in the world and among Muslims, and he said that Satan and the Jews are the “two real manifestations of all the sins of humanity.” Al-Motawakel said that until the French Revolution, which he claimed was led by the Jews, women in the West had some degree of modesty, but the Jews started to spread the culture of women’s liberation and the free-mixing of the sexes. Al-Motawakel also said that through their “deceptive nature," the Jews took over the centers of decision-making in France and in the world. He added that the Jews are living their “golden age” today and making a big profit by spreading pornography. For more about Taha Al-Motawakel, see MEMRITV clips nos. 9336, 8624, 8550, and 7893.


Is Iran trying to provoke Israel against Russian assets in Syria?
Russia is now flying missions with Syrian jets to reassert Syrian authority over the whole country. This should not pose a problem unless Russia changes the rules of the game and limits Israel’s access to Iranian targets. That would be a game-changer that would benefit Iran and endanger the détente Israel and Russia now enjoy in Syria.

Even if Russia doesn’t want Iran to transit weapons near its military bases, does it have the will or power to stop Iran? With Russia on the verge of attacking Ukraine, the last thing it wants is to deal with Iran or Israel over Syria.

According to Nicole Grajewski, international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, “Although Russia and Iran have converged around the overarching objective of strengthening the Assad regime, Moscow and Tehran’s engagement in Syria illustrates a complex mosaic of overlapping interests… [and] diverging views on military reform… However, these disagreements are unlikely to lead to a breakdown of the relationship.”

Which brings us back to the large-scale Israeli attack in Latakia in December. According to the Times of Israel, videos showed massive explosions and fires raging across the port, likely from secondary explosions of Iranian munitions… For years, Israel avoided conducting strikes against the Latakia port due to the large presence of Russian forces nearby, despite Iran allegedly using the terminal to transport advanced munitions through it to its proxies in the region, notably the Lebanese Hezbollah terror group.”

Expect Iran to continue to test Russian resolve and place an ever-growing number of weapons closer and closer to Russian bases, hoping for an Israeli mistake. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has likely discussed this possibility with Putin, hopefully outlining contingencies if an inevitable error happens and Russians are killed. What is certain is that the US does not influence Syria, even with its soldiers still in harm’s way in eastern Syria at al-Tanf, allowing them to be target practice for Iranian militias without any meaningful response.

For the foreseeable future, this means Israel will have to walk a tightrope with Russia.
Nikki Haley: Why is Joe Biden letting Iran off the hook?
When I learned recently that Iran had sanctioned me, I viewed it as a badge of honor . But it should remind us all about President Joe Biden’s relationship with Iran.

Even as Iran is targeting Americans like myself, Biden is letting the No. 1 state sponsor of terror off the hook for its support of terrorism and threats against the United States. Forget Iran’s attack on me — Biden should be holding Iran accountable for so much more.

Biden has spent the last year falling over himself to get back into a nuclear deal with the ayatollahs. Yet only now is it becoming clear how much he’s willing to give away. For years, the U.S. has applied unprecedented sanctions on Iranian oil shipments, which finance terrorists across the Middle East and military assaults on American troops. Yet last year, Iran still shipped 40% more oil than it had the year before. That’s only possible because Biden refused to enforce sanctions.

The way the Biden administration talks, it’s only thinking about loosening sanctions on Iran. That is false. Biden has already given Iran relief. Iran has made at least $15 billion that should have been off the table. And based on history, we know exactly where it is headed: more money for terrorists and millions that threaten America and our allies.

Congress recently mandated that Biden report the sanctions relief that would be going to terrorists, but Biden just announced he’ll ignore that law .

So, where is Iran’s oil going? To a who’s who of America’s adversaries — China, Russia, Venezuela, Syria. That’s a big problem. By refusing to enforce sanctions on Iran, the Biden administration is directly helping countries that want to undermine the U.S.
Biden Must Learn From the JCPOA's Mistakes
While American diplomats have been offering proposals in Vienna, the clerical regime has responded with increased attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and against U.S. allies. Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists—who the Biden administration removed from the U.S. foreign terrorist organization list in February to appease Tehran—have replied to this unilateral American concession by attacking the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia with missiles and drones. One attack on the UAE used long-range missiles traveling more than 1,000 km and carrying around 500 kilograms of conventional warheads. It was the first such attack in decades of this range and potency. And it's a clear violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime, an agreement between three dozen countries to control the proliferation of missiles. While Tehran is not a part of this agreement, its flagrant violation cannot go unanswered. Returning to the JCPOA without a clear way forward on how to constrain Iran's deadly missile program—the delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon—would pose a direct threat to American allies and, when Iran finishes an intercontinental ballistic missile, to the American homeland.

Returning to an even worse version of the 2015 deal legitimizes all of Iran's nuclear advances, permits it to retain and expand its nuclear and missile capabilities and enables it to build a deadly conventional military. This "JCPOA minus" will leave Tehran less than six months from nuclear breakout with this time limit dropping sharply in a few years. The JCPOA, at least temporarily, kept breakout time to one year. Fueling all this will be tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief that will fortify Iran's economy, strengthen the regime and expand support for its terrorist proxies.

If the Biden administration does return to the 2015 agreement, it will need a "day after" package that imposes clear and painful costs on Tehran if it doesn't move quickly to negotiations on a longer and stronger deal. That package should address the imminently expiring UN snapback that is essential for negotiating leverage. There will also be no new deal of any length or strength without serious pressure and a credible threat of military force.

Playing for time is not a strategy when time benefits your enemy. And, as Chairman Menendez made clear in his remarks on the Senate floor, hope is not a strategy either.
Richard Goldberg: The New Worst Deal in History
The White House knows it cannot win a debate on the merits of this prospective agreement. If it were submitted to the U.S. Senate as a treaty, which it ought to be, the Senate would reject it overwhelmingly. So it’s preparing instead for a different fight: a congressional attempt to use the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act—a law passed by Congress in 2015 ahead of the JCPOA debate—that allows the House and Senate to consider a joint resolution of disapproval before the president can lift sanctions.

To wage that political fight, the administration will resort to a blame game, invoking Trump’s name whenever possible to give congressional Democrats a political talking point. And it may falsely claim it’s this deal or war: the same false choice that Barack Obama employed to keep just enough Democrats in line to keep the JCPOA alive.

But the pushback from Congress should be swift and furious. Just as the Afghanistan withdrawal will forever be Biden’s responsibility, the new worst deal in history is a result of Biden’s policy failure alone. And since this deal, if it runs its course, would leave Iran on the threshold of nuclear weapons—potentially adjacent to an Israeli red line for military action—Congress could retort, it’s not “this deal or war,” but more likely this deal and war.

Congress should also decry the illegitimacy of an agreement that suspends terrorism sanctions without any change in the underlying conduct of Iranian banks and companies that support the Quds Force, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists. Congress can also rightly say that any deal that ignores an active investigation into undeclared nuclear material and sites inside Iran would eviscerate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—triggering a cascade of crises in other countries in the years ahead.

Members of the House and Senate need not tie themselves to another foreign policy debacle from a White House in political freefall. Now is the time to reject a foolhardy proposal. True “Plan Bs” do exist. Tell the president to choose another path.







Group says Jordanians working in Eilat is "human trafficking"



An activist group in Jordan is calling on citizens to refuse to work in Eilat.

Between two and three thousand Jordanians have day jobs in hotels and other tourist spots in Eilat.

The "Move.Boycott Committee" issued a statement to Jordanians warning them, "Do not go to work in the Zionist entity."

The statement first claims that brokers in Jordan are taking advantage of workers by contracting them out to Eilat hotels but that the workers do not get benefits. This is possible, there are similar problems reported about Palestinian workers in Israel.

The statement goes on to accuse the brokers and workers of "normalization," saying that they are taking advantage of the unemployed and engaging in human trafficking. 

But the real issue isn't protection of the workers. The end of the statement calls on Jordan to actively block any workers from Israel because it helps the Israeli economy, and it then calls on Jordan to cancel its peace agreement ("shame agreements") and natural gas deals with Israel.





How NGO hate for Israel hurts Palestinians



Palestine Today has an article about the strawberry crop from Gaza and how prices are expected to be reduced this year as there is a glut. 

It quotes Ibrahim Ghabin, director of the Agricultural Association in Beit Lahia, Gaza, who says that there will be an increase of exports of strawberries to the West Bank.

In the middle of the article comes this sentence:
Ghabin stated that the Ministry of Agriculture in Gaza contacted Agriculture in Ramallah several times in order to export strawberries abroad, but to no avail.
All Gaza exports need to go through Israel, but Israel isn't stopping these exports. The Palestinian Authority is.

Gaza farmers are held hostage by the PA, which hates Hamas and therefore collectively punishes Gazans with arbitrary decisions like this. It happens all the time. 

This is one of the many stories of how Palestinians are suffering at the hands of their own leaders that "human rights organizations" and news media actively refuse to cover. Because they have a narrative of Jewish oppression of Palestinians, and especially Gazans, and any story that doesn't follow that formula is simply not reported.

Ironically, if the media and NGOs would simply write letters to the PA or call them up asking them why they are blocking exports from Gaza, that would shame the PA into changing its policies and help Gaza farmers and Gaza's economy. 

Which means that the hate and bias that the NGOs and media have against Israel ends up hurting Palestinians - the very people they claim they are trying to protect.




Early examples of how "justice" means "the destruction of Israel"

I have noted before that the word "Justice" when used in context of "Palestinians demand justice" or "No justice, no peace" or Students for Justice in Palestine," is a dog-whistle that means the end of Israel. 

It turns out that this is not a recent phenomenon. 

Yehoshafat Harkabi, in his 1974 work "Arab Attitudes to Israel," has a short section on this very topic.

He describes many genocidal phrases popular in the Arab world throughout the 1960s that sound innocuous to those who are not on the inside, such as "liberation": Here is what he writes about how the word "justice" is used:

"JUST SOLUTION FOR THE PALESTINE PROBLEM," "JUST PEACE," "PEACE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE," "NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE FAIT ACCOMPLI," "SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO LEGAL RIGHTS," "SOLUTION ACCORDING TO UN PRINCIPLES" 

The Arabs emphasize that they seek a "just solution" or a "just peace," which constitutes the opposite pole to a peace or solution founded on the status quo, on the fact of Israel's existence. The just solution, according to this view, is the annulment of the wrong involved in the very existence of Israel and the restoration of Israel to its legal owners. Justice is a denial of Israel's existence. Thus Nasser says:
"We talk peace, but we do not accept peace that is based on the usurpation of rights and on the fait accompli. That is why we work for peace, but we want peace based on justice." (Speech at Alexandria University, July 28, 1963).

In other words, a just peace, according to this view, means the peace that will reign after the disappearance of Israel.

Joint statements after visits by distinguished personalities and resolutions passed at conferences often include a demand for "a just solution," "a solution according to the UN Charter" or "the principles of the UN," or "a settlement according to natural rights" or "legal rights." The visitor or the delegates to the conference understand this as a "minimal obligation" and it contains no apparent hint that the aim is the destruction of a State. These expressions have quite a different connotation for the Arabs, who are convinced that Israel's existence is an injustice and a violation of the legal rights of the Palestinian Arabs. The National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization refers in the preamble to:

"... the complete restoration of our lost homeland—a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations ."

The Arabs therefore regard the agreement of foreigners to the formula of "a just solution" as support for their rejection of the "fait accompli" of Israel's existence.

Nasir al-DIn al-Nashashibl, the editor of al-Jumhuriyya, comments in his paper on a statement by Khrushchev, in a speech at Port Said, supporting "a just solution" of the Palestine problem:

"The people of Port Said listened to the speech of the illustrious visitor from the Soviet Union, in which he said that Russia recognizes the necessity for a logical and just solution to the problem of Palestine. The people of Port Said are well aware that a just solution to the problem of Palestine means the restoration of Palestine to the Arabs and the resettlement of all the refugees in their plundered homeland. The just solution is the liquidation of imperialism represented by Israel, which serves it as a base and bridgehead." (al-Jumhuriyya, May 20, 1964)





Thursday, February 3, 2022

A look at one of the 40 anti-Israel UN reports last year



Last year, the UN issued about 40 anti-Israel reports. (This does not include bodies like the UN Human Rights Council.)

One of them, A/76/289, is based on previous UN resolutions calling for Israel to compensate Palestinians for properties they abandoned in 1948. It refers to this one from 2018 but virtually identical resolutions have been put forth regularly for decades. 

These resolutions "Calls upon all the parties concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel that would assist him in the implementation of the present resolution."

Who responds to these resolutions?

In 2021, four countries responded. Not one of them responded with "pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel."

The responses were from Bahrain, Ecuador, Japan and "the State of Palestine."

Ecuador wrote a couple of paragraphs about the importance of the resolution. Japan wrote a long, irrelevant submission about how it is trying to help Palestinians and promote peace. The "State of Palestine" used this as an opportunity to write an Israel-bashing essay and support for UNRWA.

Bahrain's submission is the most problematic:

• We affirm that the Palestinian refugee issue is at the heart of the Palestinian cause. We uphold the inherent and inalienable right of generations of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to the homes from which they wer e displaced, in accordance with international resolutions, and in particular General Assembly resolution 194 (III) and the Arab Peace Initiative. 
• We condemn and reject any attempts by any party to nullify Palestinian refugees’ right of return or to distort the refugee issue by attempting to resettle them, dismantle the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), stop its funding or deprive future generations of their right of return through a so-called redefinition of their legal status. 
Like the others, this has nothing to do with the resolution. It is a call for Israel to allow itself to be destroyed with an influx of millions of fake refugees. 

Bahrain did not have to submit anything. But it chose to emphasize the false "right of return." 

I can imagine that this was a response to Palestinian rage at their normalization agreement with Israel, a message that "hey, we are still on your side." Even so, given that they are now at peace with Israel, this is concerning.




It's not only the State Department that says "Don't be so Jewish"

Breitbart publishes an excerpt from former US ambassador to Israel's David Friedman's upcoming book,  Sledgehammer: How Breaking with the Past Brought Peace to the Middle East.

Word of my stubborn insistence on standing with our ally Israel had now circulated widely within the State Department. Another senior staffer decided to call me and offer the following advice: “Mr. Ambassador, don’t be so Jewish.”

“What?”

“Don’t be so Jewish. You represent the United States of America. Tone down the Judaism in your work.”

Don’t be so Jewish.

I was furious. “Do you think I am under any disillusion as to who I represent? I’m not a politically correct person but I have to ask you, why do the laws of political correctness not apply to Jews?”

“Just a free word of advice.” Worth the price.

This is a shocking anecdote, but only because the State Department staffer said out loud what so many believe.

The US State Department's Middle East history has been predominantly pro-Arab and antisemitic/anti-Zionist since the mid-19th century. A generation of diplomats came from the children of American missionaries to the Arab world who grew up with the endemic antisemitism of both Christianity and the Arab world. 

Perhaps the best example of the State Department's embedded antisemitism came after the Balfour Declaration. Secretary of State Robert Lansing wrote to President Woodrow Wilson his opposition to the idea, claiming realpolitik reasons: "Many Christian sects and individuals would undoubtedly resent turning the Holy Land over to the absolute control of the race credited with the death of Christ." Wilson ignored him.

Similarly, Harry Truman overrode the State Department's objections to recognizing Israel in 1948. 

As offensive as this statement was, we see that level of low-grade antisemitism all the time, everywhere. Antisemitic attacks in the United States in recent years only prompt broad outrage when the victims look like "normal" Americans. People love to write articles about how awful the Pittsburgh or Colleyville attacks were, but Jersey City and Monsey and daily attacks in Brooklyn do not get anywhere near the coverage.

Because the victims are too Jewish. 

The same people - often Jews themselves - who are up in arms about attacks on Asians and Muslims generally ignore attacks on identifiably religious Jews, even though they happen more often. I just listed a number of such attacks in New Jersey, New York, Chicago and London only in the past week - and the left-wing Jews are all but silent. Because while they care so much about attacks on most people who don't look like themselves, when it comes to Jews, they only care when they can picture themselves as potential victims. 

They can walk in Williamsburg or Boro Park and not worry about someone randomly attacking them. 

In the first months of Covid-19, religious Jews were the scapegoats in the media and in New York City. They were singled out for insults and rules were made for religious Jewish gatherings that did not apply to secular gatherings.

The most egregious example of anti-religious antisemitism happened during the Crown Heights pogroms in 1991, when days of Blacks attacking Jews was reported as "clashes between two groups" because no one wants to appear racist - and no one cares about Jews being attacked when they insist on dressing in identifiably Jewish clothing. 

The same thing applies to Israel. How many times have we heard insults about "religious settlers" and "ultra-Orthodox fanatics" in Israel?  It is part of the normal discourse, and no one is even embarrassed to say such phrases.

People want a secular Israel, they want kibbutzim and Ben Gurion and Tel Aviv. They don't want Jews who assert their religious rights. They demand Jews cede the Temple Mount and Tomb of the Patriarchs to the Muslims, who insist that no Jews step foot into areas they built on top of Jewish holy places.

It isn't only the State Department. It is the media, it is academia, it is members of think-tanks. The attitude of "don't be so Jewish" is entrenched, and people who aren't religious are rarely tuned into how offensive and entrenched this attitude is. Jews are wonderful - as long as they aren't too Jewy.

In the end, Friedman was vindicated. His unabashed Judaism did not hurt peace - it helped. Arab leaders respect religious Jews more than secular Jews because they can relate better to them. 

It was the yarmulka-wearing Jews who brokered peace with Morocco, Bahrain and the UAE. It is a yarmulka-wearing Jew who is negotiating Lebanese maritime border disputes with Israel. People who study how Jacob prepared for his meeting with Esau seem to be better negotiators than those who take graduate courses in political science and work as diplomats for decades.

The attitude of "don't be so Jewish" is everywhere, and it is pure antisemitism. 





An angry Twitter thread to @Amnesty @AmnestyUSA, serial liars and Jew-haters.



I don't use the word "antisemitic" loosely, but in the case of Amnesty International, it really fits.

Amnesty USA has spent the past two days posting a huge number of tweets to justify the "apartheid" report, which did not get a wonderful reception in the US.

In one thread, AmnestyUSA claimed that the organization treats all countries equally:
Amnesty International is committed to researching and documenting human rights abuses wherever they occur. We have issued reports on crimes against humanity committed by authorities in countries around the world, from China to Sudan to Saudi Arabia.

In 2017, Amnesty International released conclusive evidence that authorities in Myanmar are committing apartheid against the Rohingya.

Our sole mandate is to document and expose human rights violations wherever we find them and to issue recommendations that will remedy and end them.

As someone who has followed Amnesty's antisemitism for years, I sort of lost it.

Here is my response, fixing types because I was so angry:


Why you are full of crap:
1. Oh, great, you also accused Myanmar of apartheid. So you are comparing Israel with a country that engaged in mass rapes and genocide. AND NO ONE ELSE is given the title "apartheid.". Not even China with Uighurs. Not Darfuris in Sudan. You are comparing Jews with the worst abusers ever. Drop dead.
2. You have OBSESSED over Israel. You spent untold time and money just to attack travel companies who don't discriminate against Jews in Judea and Samaria. Your priorities are all screwed up,@amnesty, and it happens to be against Jews. There's a word for that. 
3. Remember your Gaza Platform? It's still there today. It was based on complete garbage input. I showed scores of photos of terrorists that you called "civilian" or even CHILDREN. I pointed it out. You never corrected it. Still online today. You KNOWINGLY lie about Israel. 
4. But that wasn't the only dedicated website you set up to demonize Israel. You also have "Black Friday," paying web designers who knows how much to meticulously demonize Israel. You NEVER do anything remotely similar against anyone else. Not Myanmar, not China. NO ONE. 
5. Do you spend so much time on Israel because you care about Palestinians? Of course not. Palestinians in Lebanon REALLY DO live under apartheid - special laws just against them, limits on where they can live. But your last report on them was in 2007! Why? NO JEWS. 
6. Amnesty-UK has hosted antisemites in its space. But it refused to host a Jewish group! Why? Because you support f-king antisemites. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/01/amnest…
7. You accept as credible the most absurd Palestinian lies, and you suspect anything a Jew says. Only one example: elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/10/outrag…
8. Remember back in 2013 when you accused Israel of limiting fuel into Gaza? It was a lie. Hamas was limiting fuel. You never corrected it. Why? Because you have a problem with Jews, you antisemitic jerks.
elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/12/amnest…
9. You try REALLY HARD to find things to blame on Jews, but when Hamas is caught on film using ambulances and hospitals for fighting - you claim you "can't find evidence" of the charges. Yes, you excuse Hamas war crimes - and Gaza civilians lose because of your unrestrained hate of the Jewish state. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/08/amnest…
10. You have articles where you are against incitement to violence. Yet when Israel arrests an Israeli Muslim who has a long history of direct incitement to kill Jews, you support the threats. Because - Jews. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/amnest…
11. Saleh Hijazi, Deputy Director for MENA at International, SUPPORTS TERRORISTS. His Facebook page includes tributes to senior Islamic Jihad leader Khader Adnan (who openly advocates blowing up Jews) and to airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.
Human rights. Yeah, right. 
12. In 2015, Amnesty International rejected a motion to tackle the rise in antisemitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

You guys NEVER reject resolutions at your conferences - unless it is against antisemitism.

Now you claim to be against antisemitism. Sure. 
13. Besides Gaza and Black Friday, you have a THIRD dedicated subdomain/website against Israel, about the "Nakba." Name one other country that has 2. I think you have 1 about Syria.
Don't tell us that you treat all issues equally. You HATE the only Jewish state. 
I could do this all day. How you praise organizations that support terror and post antisemitism (YAS.) How you claim IDF soldiers can't be hurt by firebombs and boulders dropped on them. How you deny Hamas uses human shields - defending human rights violations.

ENOUGH. 
Feel free to look at my MANY articles proving 's lies, bias, duplicity and false interpretations of international law. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/A…
And then AmnestyUSA made me even angrier with this thread which has nothing to do with their report:
On 1 June 2018, 21-year-old paramedic Razan al-Najjar was killed by Israeli sniper fire while she was treating injured protesters during the Great March of Return.  Razan was wearing her white coat, clearly identifying her as a medic. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the sniper fired one round of live ammunition into the crowd.Moments earlier, Razan and three other Palestinian paramedics had moved closer to the fence to provide assistance to the injured protesters, holding up their hands to show they meant no harm. Razan was shot in the chest and died in hospital.Neither Razan nor her colleagues posed any threat to Israeli forces. Amnesty International believes that Razan Al-Najjar was wilfully killed - a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

Up until the last sentence, Amnesty was relying on the New York Times reporting of the incident, using hundreds of photos and videos to track the path of the bullet, something that only ever happens in Israel. But al-Najjar was indeed killed by an Israeli bullet, that part is accurate.

However, the New York Times didn't say that the sniper targeted the nurse. On the contrary, the investigation showed that the bullet fragmented and ricocheted off the ground, breaking into three pieces that hit three different people.  

Amnesty takes the NYT investigation, and without adding any new information, decides that the NYT is wrong and the sniper aimed at the nurse. This is a figment of Amnesty's imagination and there is no evidence of it. One can claim the sniper was reckless or made a mistake, but one cannot say that it was a murder given the evidence. 

Clearly, Amnesty is more interested in crucifying Israel than telling the truth. And that is a consistent pattern, as I have shown scores of times over the years.

Why did Amnesty USA decide to bring up this story from three years ago now? Because they want to deflect from the clear evidence that their "apartheid" report is biased and has no basis in international law. So they do what Twitter trollers do - ignore the evidence against their position and try to go on the offensive on an unrelated topic.Calling them trolls is generous. Because their only obsession centers on Jews. 


Wednesday, February 2, 2022

The Jacob Wexler Story: A Submission to the UN "Commission of Inquiry” Kangaroo Court

Jordanian op-ed: Destroying Israel isn't enough, we need to also physically get rid of the Jews

Daoud Omar Daoud writes in Ammon News (Amman, Jordan) about how the apartheid accusation has been going.

One side comment reveals the actual hope of many in the Arab world:

Describing Israel as an "apartheid regime" carries within it political connotations and a project for solving the Palestinian issue. And if this system is dismantled, the rule will pass to the people of Palestine. Yet the Jewish settlers will remain where they are, which will be a disappointment for everyone who longs to see Palestine return completely to its owners.
They don't hate Jews because of Israel. They hate Israel because of Jews. 





Palestinians are still worried about the hashtag "Palestine is not my cause"



When the announcement about normalization between Israel and the UAE went public in 2020, some prominent Arab commentators in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere started to publicly denounce the Palestinian leadership with the slogan "Palestine is not my cause." 

It became a popular hashtag. The phrase keeps popping up in op-eds, such as this one during the May Gaza war.

Today, there is an op-ed by Dr. Mustafa Youssef Al-Ledawi in Palestine Today who claims that the phrase represents only a tiny minority, but it must be fought against. It clearly has made serious inroads in Arab thinking.

Al-Ledawi summarizes how things have changed in the Arab world and their complaints against Palestinians:
We must admit that the climate has changed, and that the policies that prevailed in the past have changed, and the Palestinian issue has become for most Arab and Islamic regimes their last concern, and least concern. Some Arab regimes have portrayed the Palestinians saying that they are the danger [to the Arab world], and that it is their actions that have harmed them and caused them to perish, and that it drained their resources and hindered their abilities, and describes them as rogues, corrupt, liars, hypocrites, unfaithful stalkers, turning against those who stood with them, biting the hand that fed them, and denying those who supported them, and thus they do not deserve sympathy.
Ledawi contradicts himself several times, claiming both that these are fringe opinions but then saying that Arab media is controlled by those who hold them, which is absurd. He also doesn't even attempt to answer the Arab criticisms of the Palestinians - that they side with Iran, that they remain divided, that the money that has poured into them from the Arab world has been wasted on corruption and infighting, that they have spurned peace offer after peace offer. 

Despite his trying to downplay the issue, it is clearly a major concern for Palestinian leadership who have seen donations from Arab states dry up in recent years. 




Terror groups ❤️ Amnesty International, as they follow the Durban blueprint for destroying Israel

The biggest violators of human rights in the world, and the biggest antisemites in the world, welcomed Amnesty International's report falsely claiming that Israel is guilty of apartheid.

Hamas, whose original antisemitic and genocidal charter is still in effect, hailed Amnesty on its English language webpage:


In its statement, Hamas considers Amnesty its partner in destroying the Jewish state:
Hamas considers the current Amnesty International report an essential and detailed part of the international and legal efforts that seek justice for our Palestinian people, who are facing the last barbaric racist occupation on earth, in legal efforts to end the Israeli occupation's injustice.
The word "justice" is a dog-whistle that both Hamas and Amnesty understands to mean the dissolution of the Jewish state. Amnesty's draft report said that Israel was born in sin, it modified that slightly in the released report, but it obviously believes it.

Islamic Jihad, even more radical than Hamas, also praised the report. So did Fatah and the Palestinian foreign ministry.

Perhaps the most important praise came from the PFLP. Remember, the PFLP  is linked to major Palestinian NGOs, and Amnesty supports them despite of  (or because of) those links with a terror group whose political platform supports murdering Jews. Amnesty considers the PFLP-linked groups to be allies and it has nothing negative to say about the PFLP members who lead some of these groups.

The PFLP, which is on the record saying that killing Jews in Israel is a human right, also embraces Amnesty International's report. Remarkably, it described the exact game plan for the anti-Israel organizations to destroy Israel:

The Popular Front demanded the necessity of accumulating this event and exposing all the violations and crimes committed by the enemy against our defenseless people, leading to the trial of the occupation and the recognition of the crime of ethnic cleansing that took place against our people in 1948, on the way to ending its presence on our entire Arab Palestinian land.
The Amnesty report is part of a concerted, organized effort to give backing to the UN commission that will also declare Israel to be an apartheid state later in 2022, and that in turn is a precursor to putting Israel on trial at the ICC, with the aim of pressuring the world to withdraw recognition of Israel. Amnesty, HRW and the PFLP with its own NGOs are all part of the same Global Left.

And we are now seeing the fruits of the 2001 Durban Conference - an antisemitic conference that Amnesty participated in and bragged about years later.  

Recall that in 2001, the NGO forum of the infamous Durban conference included this call in its final statement which was submitted to the UN:

We also call upon the UN to ensure the implementation of the various UN resolutions on the OPT including the withdrawal of the Israeli colonial military occupation, the right of return for refugees, and for the protection for refugees of the UN High Commission for Refugees until such time as they may be able to exercise their right to return and in accordance with UN resolution 194.

We also call for the repeal of all discriminatory laws within the state of Israel, including those of return and citizenship, which are part of the institutionalized racism and Apartheid regime in Israel.

We Call for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes including the crime of Apartheid which amount to a crime against humanity.

We also call for the establishment of a UN Special Committee on Apartheid and Other Racist Crimes Against Humanity perpetrated by the Israeli Apartheid regime to monitor and to report Apartheid and other racist crimes.

Finally we call upon the international community to impose a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state as in the case of South Africa which means the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargo and the full cessation of all links between all states and Israel.


This has been the blueprint of the Global Left for over twenty years. Amnesty's report is only one small part of the entire strategy, and its recommendations in this report are remarkably similar to the recommendations of members of a conference where  

This same conference saw people distributing this flyer, without a word of objection from Amnesty or the other "respected" human rights groups.



 The antisemitic Left and antisemitic Right were all on the same page in Durban.

The antisemitic "human rights groups" and the antisemitic terror groups are on the same page today with the Amnesty report. Terror groups are in perfect sync with Amnesty and the UN in the desire to destroy Israel. 

Amnesty didn't decide to write this "apartheid" report now - it has been waiting 20 years to do it. And today's Nazis are just as happy as the terrorist groups are.




Tuesday, February 1, 2022

Elder Comix: The One State







American Muslims don't CAIR (Daled Amos)


By Daled Amos

Zahra Billoo attacked US Jews last year at the American Muslims for Palestine Conference, singling out as 'enemies' not only Jewish organizations but also "Zionist Synagogues." CAIR's national office came to her defense. After all, Billoo is the executive director of their San Franciso branch.

Among those Billoo targeted:

We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses, because just because they are your friends today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights.

And Billoo also pointed out those Jewish groups that she finds 'acceptable':

Know your JVP leadership, your SJP leadership, your IfNotNow leadership, the list goes on. Know who is on your side. Build community with them, because the next thing I’m going to tell you is to know your enemies.

One would imagine that CAIR would agree with Billoo that groups like JVP and IfNotNow are groups that represent the kinds of Jews that are acceptable and can be associated with.

Which is kind of odd.

Because it is not at all clear if CAIR itself, which claims to be "America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization," actually represents the US Muslim community it claims to serve.

Irina Tsukerman, a human rights lawyer and national security analyst, writes that CAIR is one of those Muslim organizations that have fabricated their human rights image:

through a combination of generous political donations and influence campaigns, and by outright disinformation, presenting themselves as the mainstream of Muslim American communities and as the authoritative voices on Muslim civil rights issues. In reality, these groups are a fringe minority recycling and cross-pollinating members from charity to charity, who nevertheless go to great lengths to suppress alternative voices. CAIR and others receive the sort of support that nascent community organizations do not; they portray themselves as pan-Islamic organizations ignoring the fact that Muslim American communities are culturally and religious diverse.

They have also gained legitimacy by being the only game in town and forming partnerships with political training groups, intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and soft power institutions.

Going a step further, Abdullah Antepli, Associate Professor of the Practice of Interfaith Relations at Duke University, has stated not only that Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA represent only a small fraction of the Muslim community in the US, but that such organizations pose a danger to American Muslims as well:

They don’t represent in any significant portion of the American Muslim community. They represent the organized Muslim community space, which is more or less like 10%. And they are bullying and thought policing that space irresponsibly, reprehensive really with so many consequences to the American Islam and American Muslim community.

Their damage is not limited to 10%. They are further alienating American Muslim communities. They are further marginalizing American Islam. They are damaging the image of Islam as a religion and Muslims as Americans, Muslims as a people. But by all means, they are not representative. [emphasis added]

This description of CAIR as a fringe group claiming a larger role for itself than it actually has, is supported by a Gallup poll published in 2011.


The poll supports CAIR's claim to be the largest organization representing the Muslim community -- if you compare it to how tiny the support is for the other groups. However, the fact that the majority of Muslim men did not think any Muslim organizations represented their interests or, put another way, that 88% of Muslim men did not think CAIR represented them is revealing. And the responses of female Muslims was no better.

But why doesn't CAIR have a large following?

In 2007, The Washington Examiner published information on the number of CAIR's members based on CAIR's tax records. It found that CAIR's membership plummeted from 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006. Their annual income based on dues fell from $732,765 in 2000 when dues were $25, to $58,750 in 2016 when dues were higher at $35.

The terror attacks in 2001 may account for some of this.

But the article quotes M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who puts the blame on CAIR itself:

o  CAIR marginalized itself by exploiting the media attention it garnered in order to promote 'victimization issues' at the expense of representing the priorities of the American Muslims
o  CAIR's sympathy for Islamism combined with its apparent inability to condemn Muslim terrorist groups was a turn-off for American Muslims who did not share their ideology.
o  Some Muslims did not want to join an organization that may be linked to other groups that finance terrorism

According to The Washington Examiner, as a result of a shrinking membership and decreasing dues --

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR’s budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

It would have been nice to know more about who was making those contributions because it seems likely that CAIR would have been more representative of the desires of those major contributors than to the few members who were paying dues.

Maybe it's time for another look at CAIR's membership and funding?

Another indication of CAIR's desperation is noted in the conclusion to the article, where it notes how CAIR exaggerates its role on behalf of the Muslim community:

CAIR constantly notes in its press releases that it cooperates with federal law-enforcement activities and claims to conduct sensitivity training for Homeland Security officials. A February press release from CAIR’s Chicago office says it met with Homeland Security immigration officials and made an agreement to “conduct sensitivity training to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers and possibly prison personnel.”

When asked, officials from Homeland Security denied CAIR's claims, and a check of a database of government contracts since 2000 indicated that in fact CAIR was never awarded neither a grant nor a government contract.

A Homeland Security official noted:

The department does not have a formalized relationship with that particular organization. We do have formalized relations with other community groups with whom we do contracts for training and consultation on matters that are specific to a given community.

It is not uncommon for that particular organization to issue a press release attempting to overstate their interaction with the department. [emphasis added]

That was then. But what about now? 

It seems that CAIR is still desperate to stay in the spotlight.
How desperate?

The Middle East Forum (MEF) reported last year that CAIR opposed the appointment of a Muslim federal judge:

In a historic June 10 vote, the US Senate confirmed Judge Zahid Quraishi's appointment to the US District Court for New Jersey, making him the first Muslim federal judge in American history. Although the nomination received bipartisan support, an unlikely source sharply criticized Quraishi's appointment: a leading civil rights organization that claims to speak on behalf of Muslim American interests.

..."I would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values," said Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR's San Francisco branch, a supposedly non-partisan Islamic civil rights group. "It's not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it's insulting," she added.

While the reasons given for opposing Quraishi were based on issues relating to his record, many Muslim groups were supportive of the appointment.

MEF suggests that CAIR's motives stem from jealousy -- and an inability to compete with an up-and-coming rival Muslim group:

Despite its former proximity to the White House, CAIR failed to accomplish what a relative newcomer to Muslim political advocacy circles has achieved in the first months of the Biden administration. Founded in 2017, the American Pakistani Public Affairs Committee (APPAC) is loudly claiming credit for Quraishi's nomination, insisting that it played an "instrumental role" in selecting the judge from among "dozens of potential candidates."

...While CAIR's own political action committee raised a paltry $4,250 in federal donations last election cycle, APPAC gave over $1.3 million to the Biden campaign in a single August fundraiser. During this event, Biden was chummy with Ahmed, calling the APPAC chairman a "vouching force" in his community. [emphasis added]

Billoo's latest attack shows that CAIR is not about to change what it sees as a tried and true formula of radicalization and attacks on the Jewish community to maintain its status, at the expense of American Muslims.

When I asked Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, director of EMET’s Program for Emerging Democratic Voices From the Middle East, about how representative CAIR was of the Muslim community, he replied:

I'm sure a majority of American Muslims are not interested nor invested in any kind of activism and just trying to live normally. However I'm sure CAIR supporters numbers went up due to the radicalizing effect on the progressive wave on Muslim youth.

What will it take before CAIR is seen for what it is?






Meanwhile, a report about Palestinian torture of political prisoners doesn't get any coverage


Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ) issued a scathing report about routine torture by multiple Palestinian Authority security services of critics of the regime.
They admit that they are probably underreporting the problem.

They investigated 250 out of more than 2600 arbitrary arrests of Palestinians between 2015 and mid-2021. They were all for either political activity, criticism of the Abbas regime or participation in protests.


61% of the detainees were tortured, including beatings, deprivation of food, deprivation of toilets, and sleep deprivation. 

One victim said, "I was subjected to falanga; they whipped my feet with a plastic tube or hose. This happened four times. After the beating, the interrogator would force me to walk in the corridor in front of the investigation office and run barefoot for ten minutes. They tied my hands in the back and threw the rope over the iron door and pulled hard until my body arched forward. The rope was tied to the iron door from behind, and they covered my head with a hood."

The report exposes cases where detainees are kept in prison even after posting bail, sometimes for months and with multiple payments. 

The detainees were arrested for protests against sanctions imposed on Gaza, a social security law, and even for protesting in support of people with disabilities.  

When the Amman-based ARIJ tried to get comments from Palestinian officials, they refused to answer because ARIJ is not a Palestinian organization. The Palestinian NGOs know that their job is to attack Israel, not protect Palestinians. 

The report notes that the Palestinian Authority has laws against torture. In addition, it has signed multiple international treaties that prohibit torture. This gives support for my reporting that the PA/PLO signing international treaties is done only to use them against Israel and to join the ICC for prosecuting Israel - they have no intention of actually adhering to them.

The impression one gets is of a society where the rule of law simply doesn't exist. There are no checks and balances since Mahmoud Abbas is the singular power behind the legislative, judicial and executive branches. It is a dictatorship in every sense of the word.

ARIJ is a respected group that teaches reporters throughout the Arab world the techniques of investigative journalism and has created a college course in the topic. 

Even though this report was released in English two days ago, it has received no coverage in Western media (and nearly none in Arab media.)  Even worse, the Arabic report was reported in scattered Arabic media in December! 

In many ways, that is the real story. The world's media fall over themselves to cover the most absurd and easily debunked reports against Israel, in the name of caring about Palestinians, but when it comes to protecting Palestinians from their own leaders, these self-styled watchdogs become deaf and mute. 

Because the media and Palestinian leaders agree: anything that distracts from the narrative of Israeli evil must not be spoken of.

(h/t Tomer Ilan)







From the beginning, the "apartheid" slur was meant as a rhetorical weapon, not as truth. And so it remains today.

I found an interesting if quite biased academic paper called "Palestinian Non-Violent Resistance and the
Apartheid Analogy" which traces the beginnings of the accusations that Israel is guilty of apartheid - an accusation that pre-dates "occupation."

While the author, Nina Fischer of Goethe University Frankfurt, tries to position the apartheid slur as just another means of "resistance"for Palestinians, she doesn't quite realize she is saying that lying about and slandering Israel is a conscious decision on the part of Palestinian leaders as a means to destroy it - just as violent resistance is. 

She traces the accusation to Fayez Sayegh,  one of those "Palestinians" who was born in Syria and whose family moved to Palestine in the 1920s to take advantage of the economic opportunities created by Jews. Sayegh became a major Palestinian theorist. He wrote a book about "Zionist colonialism" before 1967 and then became the UN's special rapporteur to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,  which enabled him to become one of the architects of the 1975 UNGA "Zionism is Racism" resolution. 

He would often equate Zionism with “genocide”, “crimes against humanity”, and “racist discrimination” alongside apartheid. It is clear to all that this was his weapon, in concert with Palestinian bombs.

Sayegh may have helped draft an UN resolution against apartheid, 3151 of 1974, by adding Zionism in its text. The resolution decried  the “unholy alliance” between “Portuguese colonialism, South African racism, zionism [sic] and Israeli imperialism.”

Fischer admits that  Sayegh used the apartheid slur mainly as "a metaphorical trope with much emotive power, shaping the international discourse and aiming to cause condemnations and the political isolation of Israel." 

Fischer reiterates this:
[T]he term apartheid is harnessed for its emotive power. ...The Palestinian story needs telling in a way that resonates with an audience and guides listeners’ interpretations. This means that the apartheid analogy in the Palestinian context functions ...politically, as it allows being heard, aims to influence and shape opinions, and can create a reaction.....Internally, in Arabic, a different  story might be happening concerning terms employed, but Palestinian discourses in English that use apartheid as a prism were always intended for international consumption.
In other words, the apartheid analogy was always all about propaganda and never about facts. Its effectiveness is not a reflection of reality but of the eagerness for many people to label Jews as evil. 

The sequence of events since then is that the accusations that Zionism is racist and apartheid keep resurfacing, and every new generation tweaks the slur with more "facts" fed to them by fraudulent academics to make the accusations sound more legitimate. Even the reports of B'Tselem, HRW and now Amnesty show an evolution: each successive one tries to refine the argument because the previous ones were demolished. 

The point is that when you look at the history of the slur, the accusation pre-dates the justifications. Jew-haters came up with the slander and when they are revealed to be antisemites, the next iteration tries to make the argument a little better and less obviously a manifestation of Jew hatred. The reports pretend to be an objective look at the definition of apartheid and how Israel is guilty, but they assume Israel was guilty ahead of time, and they twist the facts to fit the verdict. 

When Amnesty, HRW et. al. say that Israel is guilty of apartheid, they know as well as Sayegh that they are engaging in propaganda. not truth telling.  They throw in plenty of footnotes and circular definitions, knowing full well that they only need to give those who hate Israel and Jews an  excuse for their hatred. Lots of footnotes are enough, along with ignoring the huge amounts of counter-evidence that proves them wrong. 

The intention was always the same as it has been since the PLO was created: destroying Israel by any means necessary. Amnesty and HRW are the propaganda arms of Fatah and Hamas. And their interest in the truth is just about the same.




Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

EoZTV Podcast

Powered by Blogger.

follow me

search eoz

Recent posts from other blogs

subscribe via email

comments

Contact

translate

E-Book

source materials

reference sites

multimedia

source materials for Jewish learning

great places to give money

media watch

humor

.

Source materials

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts Ever

follow me

Followers


pages

Random Posts

Pages - Menu

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

Donate!

Tweets

EoZ Videos

On YouTube
EoZNews channel
On Liveleak

Compliments

Monthly subscription:
Subscription options

One time donation:

Interesting Blogs

Categories

Best posts of 2016

Blog Archive

compliments

Algemeiner: "Fiercely intelligent and erudite"

Omri: "Elder is one of the best established and most respected members of the jblogosphere..."
Atheist Jew:"Elder of Ziyon probably had the greatest impression on me..."
Soccer Dad: "He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history."
AbbaGav: "A truly exceptional blog..."
Judeopundit: "[A] venerable blog-pioneer and beloved patriarchal figure...his blog is indispensable."
Oleh Musings: "The most comprehensive Zionist blog I have seen."
Carl in Jerusalem: "...probably the most under-recognized blog in the JBlogsphere as far as I am concerned."
Aussie Dave: "King of the auto-translation."
The Israel Situation:The Elder manages to write so many great, investigative posts that I am often looking to him for important news on the PalArab (his term for Palestinian Arab) side of things."
Tikun Olam: "Either you are carelessly ignorant or a willful liar and distorter of the truth. Either way, it makes you one mean SOB."
Mondoweiss commenter: "For virulent pro-Zionism (and plain straightforward lies of course) there is nothing much to beat it."
Didi Remez: "Leading wingnut"
Copyright © EoZ | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates