#Israel does not intend for peace

[canichangemyblogname]

I keep saying how Israel’s strategies directly contradict it’s stated goals and how their current campaign will unequivocally lead to further security threats for Israeli Jews and further radicalization of both civilian populations. And I keep repeating this as an educational advisory or warning. My educational background is in terrorism and religious nationalism, and if there’s one thing I learned during my studies, it’s that Western militancy is a large contributor to cyclical violence around the globe. The United States, for example, is one of the larger exporters and producers of (political and religious) extremism or terrorism internationally, on par with Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. Christofascist and nationalist groups invest BILLIONS overseas to export their ideas while U.S. statecraft and military strategies have led to a catastrophic increase in terrorism globally.

The “West’s” strategies in the “War on Terror” are a danger to people around the world. While the rhetorical goal is to stabilize a region and deradicalize a civilian population (that, statistically, is not made up of radicals or militants), the end result is always further regional instability and extremism.

I wrote about this in my thread about how “counterterrorism is the pretext, ethnic violence is the goal” (also linked above):

I hope that by pointing all this out and explaining it, I can help peel back the screen and reveal these campaigns for what they are. This is nothing short of colonialism with modern weapons. Settler colonialism, especially, requires ethnic cleansing and genocide of a native population. And the thing is? The “West” has been very good at all of it. They perfected it.

The goal is to provide further justification to slaughter civilians. Every oppressive system has a system-justification measure built in. The system justification measure here is that the more brutal we are, the more brutal the reaction against us, and the more justification we have to “crack down” and clean the area out of “those people” (labeled “extremists” or “terrorists”).

As the article says, “They will seek revenge that no security arrangements will be able to withstand.”

That’s the point of this campaign. The point is to “prove” that Palestinians (and oppressed people, generally) will always seek violence against their oppressors. The point is to “prove” that it is necessary to eliminate all Palestinians for the security of Israelis. They want to convince you that if a single Palestinian lives, they will seek revenge and they will kill you, too. (It’s also important to note that the people who make this argument often conflate Israeli and Jew, so when they say “Palestinians want to kill Israelis,” they really mean, “Palestinians want to kill Jews,” while neither is true). Those oppressed people will surely oppress you exactly as you have oppressed them.

I want to warn people that this is the “justification” for genocide. This is how the west is once more rationalizing the need for a genocide. This is what they’re using to excuse genocide.

And the bitch of it is? This bombing campaign can undoubtedly lead to some form of further radicalization and continue the cycle of violence. Hurt people hurt people. Israel is a textbook example of exactly this. The goal should be breaking that cycle. The goal should be working to a solution that codifies group rights for the security Israelis want and the civil rights Palestinians must have. However, that’s not the objective here. And we know this will never be the Israeli government’s objective based on how it marginalizes groups like the Parent’s Circle. They don’t want reconciliation and healing, they want to centralize and entrench right-wing power and finalize their ethnostate from river to sea.

And if you know one thing about Fascism, it’s that it always needs an “enemy of the state,” an anti-staatsvolk if you will, to reproduce its legitimacy. Fascism partially arises out of fear of waning majority power or out of security concerns. There must always be an “other” to generate fear and anxiety about. Because a fascist or proto-fascist/nationalist government comes into power promising to “take care of” the staatsvolk’s anxieties. It’s a political tool, one which the government in power bases its legitimacy on. When there is no more “other,” they no longer have the legitimacy to rule, or, at least, they no longer have the ability to distract people from analyzing the merits of their, often ineffective, policies.

“The scapegoat is an evanescent presence, created through moral panic and just-so stories and projected onto targeted individuals or populations posited as the embodied cause of the conditions generating fear and anxiety. As an instrument of political action, scapegoating’s objective is to fashion a large popular constituency defined by perceived threat from and opposition to a demonized other, a constituency that then can be mobilized against policies and political agendas activists identify with the evil other and its nefarious designs—without having to address those policies and agendas on their merits.” X

When this “complete siege” is over, then what? They have no concrete policy goals because there is no “after,” only a continuation of the violence and oppression, as even their vaguest promises of “after” include things like military occupation.

When this “incremental genocide,” the Nakba, is over, then what? Does the threat end when every last Palestinian has either been killed or removed?

Al Jazeera, 29 Oct. 2023

No innocents in Gaza.

We are watching a genocide unfold under the guise of “counterterrorism.” This isn’t about Hamas, and never was. Hamas is a convenient excuse. This is about the destruction of the Palestinian people. This is about land. This is about the genocidal project of settler colonialism.

I’ve been telling people that Israel— and the Zionist movement as a whole— is actually a security threat to the whole of Southwest Asia *and* to Jewish People globally.

The moderate conservatives and fascists who control the US government keep saying that Israel is vital to western geopolitical interests in the region. But those interests are *not* “security” interests. The interest isn’t preventing war in Southwest Asia or North Africa, especially not when historically colonial leaders (US, UK, and France) are involved. Like… Israel has often been a roadblock in diplomatic deescalation with Iran and counterterrorism in the region (see: Bibi funding terrorists, for one).

I’ve been saying that Israel’s violence is going to spill over to the region. I’ve been warning that Zionist expansion and aggression is going to meet fierce resistance. I’ve been trying to explain that Zionist aggression and expansion is dangerous not just to the Arab people of Southwest Asia, but also Jewish people in Israel and the SWANA region. At some point, Israel will meet too much resistance. At some point, there will be too many fronts and not enough resources.

This violence going to continue to widen in the region and diplomacy will continue to deteriorate. Hezbollah and Houthi activity are only the beginning. Jordan withdrawing their ambassador, the deterioration of normalization with Saudi Arabia, the complete cessation of relations with Brazil, etc… are only the beginning.

But America’s support is likely to remain unwavering, and as long as America has the international power it does, that means little is likely to change. As long as Israel has American support, there will be violence in Southwest Asia.

What a lot of the “I stand with Israel” promoters don’t understand is that the only way to secure the long-term safety and wellbeing of Israeli Jews, and the only way to achieve security and longevity for whatever state they live in, is to provide full and equal rights to Palestinians. That includes their full participation and representation in political systems, full land rights and protections, full economic freedoms, full citizenship, and the right of return.

Zionism has led to nothing but Jewish and Arab death. And the thing is? When the concept was first created in the early 1800s, long before it became a term Israelis attached to Jewish Nationalism, that was its point. People supported this concept as a solution to their country’s “Jewish Question.” They saw it as an opportunity to get Jewish people out of their country. And many Christian groups have come to support the concept believing that all Jews must return to the holy land to be massacred so Jesus can return. They want death. Death is the literal point of Zionist support and movements in countries like the US, UK and France. Christian Zionists want war while Secular Zionists just want to get rid of Jewish people, and don’t give a shit if they die.

There are more Christian Zionists in the US than there are Jewish people in the US. There are more non-Jewish Zionists in the US than there are Jewish people in the whole world. Jewish people make up a fraction of Zionists, and that is because many Jewish people recognize the antisemitic origins of the concept and the danger of ethnic and religious nationalism.

Anti-Zionists recognize that Jewish Nationalism is being used for US and UK colonial interests. Zionism justifies putting Jewish people in harm’s way and the line of fire for US economic interests in Southwest Asia, and calls it “necessary” for Jewish freedom and security. Zionism as well as terrorism is the reason over 1400 Israelis died on Oct. 7th.

Israel ignoring Egypt's warnings, Israel's chaotic "recovery" (a.k.a. their explicit non-recovery and bombing of hostages), and the IOF's chaotic engagement with Hamas fighters on Oct. 7th and 8th that caught hostages and civilians in crossfire should be proof enough that Israel cannot and will consistently fail to provide for the security and welfare of Jewish people. It should also be proof enough that Netanyahu's government doesn't give a shit about Israeli lives unless they can be weaponized to serve his political and regional goals.

From “Zionism encourages and spreads antisemitism around the globe.”

[xyriath]

but seriously if you are at all blogging about the i/p conflict you NEED to read that standing together article from that post i just reblogged. please. please please please please please. these are the people who are actually doing something about freeing palestine and have been for years. And here's the thing:

IF YOU WANT PEACE IN ISRAEL, IN PALESTINE, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM.

Because yeah. The way this site is spreading around uncritical posts is a huge issue (and a reason I haven't been around since October). Standing Together is doing a hell of a lot more than blogging about it. They're on the ground putting in the work. Nine days before the October 7 attack, they were in Tel Aviv publicly protesting about the systematic oppression of Arabs (not just Palestinians) in Israel.

"The global left has to be synced with what we need." Trust me, the right is. Boy HOWDY is the right synced. I have gotten more support about my Judaism from the far right than the left and it's??? kinda fucked up??? Someone who worked for Pat Robertson should not feel safer than someone dedicated to activism, but here we are. I can feel how easy it would be to be radicalized towards the right, and I'm actively fighting against it. Now imagine that multiplied by millions of people, plenty of whom don't have the same desire to do so, or feel like they don't have the luxury of safety to do so.

Seeing Hamas being portrayed as sympathetic and talked about like they had a right to commit all of the atrocities that they have is making me lose my MIND. They're a group run by corrupt billionaires who actively started this conflict with the intent of silencing the Palestinian people who have been protesting their tyranny. They have been siphoning money from Palestinians for years and this entire attack is them deliberately throwing Palestinians into the path of slaughter to distract from that fact, the same way that Netanyahu absolutely took advantage of the threat and tragedy to try and get himself off the hook for his own corruption.

Also check out the google doc linked in the article. It's not just a good way to learn how to communicate, but a very good resource for finding out if something you're sharing is worthwhile. In fact, it does a really god job of breaking down why I've felt so uncomfortable about a bunch of the posts on my dash. Some excerpts:

This got way longer than I had intended, but hopefully does its job. Go read the article and, yes, if you need to, reevaluate your activism. Because if it's not what people involved actually want or need, then it's just for you. And that's kinda fucked up.

[secular-jew]

From a real Lebanese (Phoenician).

‎I realize that when I speak my mind as a free human being, there will be responses. I can handle that.

‎However, people who are of the opposite conviction (mostly from the medieval Middle East) always respond with the same modus operandi... Every single time someone disagrees with them, they answer by calling us names like Donkey, Pig, or Dog (حمار، خنزير، كلب hmar, khanzeer, or kaleb) which they intend as big insults. They also call us either 'Zionists' or 'traitors' or 'agents'.

‎They simply have no logical answer, and they are so pathetically childish.

‎My feelings are not hurt. Far from it. But seeing so many here in the US chanting "I am Hamas" causes me to see the need to enlighten those who don't know the detailed history of the past 50 years.

‎Why do we oppose terrorist and don’t agree with their terrorism and savagery?

‎Here is the long history recap, told from my personal perspective.

‎I grew up in Lebanon with friends from all faiths: Druze, Muslim, and various Christians. We laughed and played and got along. Lebanon was generally peaceful and safe.

‎We welcomed the Palestinians as refugees to Lebanon.

‎The border between Lebanon and Israel was generally quiet compared with other Arab nations. Many Lebanese did not want war. Instead, we desired to live in peace and tranquility. We wanted prosperity, trade, tourism, and banking. The Lebanese used to be known as having joie de vie and some of the most fun people to be around.

‎Lebanon was referred to as “the Switzerland of the Middle East” for its beauty and its desire to remain peaceful and neutral and a bridge between the east and west.

‎Lebanon was also called “the Riviera of the Middle East”, "California on the Eastern Mediterranean", and “Green Lebanon” because trees covered the hills and mountains and there was no desert.

‎Beirut was known as "the Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon's Golden Age was a period characterized by its natural beauty, including snow-capped mountains, warm beaches, and a pristine coastline. Beirut was a glamorous city with luxury hotels, nightclubs, and a vibrant cultural and intellectual life. It was a popular destination for movie stars.

‎Tourists flocked to Lebanon. They went snow skiing in the morning then drove 2 hours to Beirut to water ski in the Mediterranean the afternoon of the same day. It was on everyone’s bucket list.

‎Tourists were safe and they had so much fun that they did not want to leave. Many came back year after year.

‎Over time, the Palestinians created a state-within-a-state and there were areas where they prevented even the Lebanese army from entering. Which country would accept that? Knowing the trouble it will eventually cause, the Lebanese started to become bitter about the situation.

‎Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser wanted to make Lebanon part of the United Arab Republic, causing a civil war in 1958.

‎I was in Middle School when the six-day war erupted in June of 1967. School was nearing summer break. We went out for our lunch break and heard that war has started. I saw Israeli fighter jets dog fighting with Syrian jets overhead. the Syrian jets lost.

‎Because Lebanon is very small, we could catch AM radio stations from the surrounding countries. All the Arab stations repeated the same lie: "Our forces have destroyed the enemy's air force, and we have reached the outskirts of Jerusalem." All lies and propaganda from Radio Egypt, Radio Damascus, and Radio Amman. Same garbage from each station. Propaganda in the news continues to this day. If a radio station does not toe the line, the regime will shut it down.

‎To hear the truth, we turned to Radio Israel, Voice of America, and the BBC.

‎Three years later, the PLO started fighting against the King of Jordan. Their headquarters were in Amman, Jordan and even though they were refugees in Jordan, they tried to overthrow King Hussein. The king's forces surrounded them and almost killed every single fighter. The world called for a cease fire and forced King Hussein to relent. That was a major mistake. The same mistake is being repeated these days when the world asks Israel to stop firing. When the world does that, the problem never ends. It only becomes a bigger problem. The world had repeatedly made that mistake in the Middle East.

‎The PLO relocated to Beirut. They started firing at Israel from Lebanese territory, causing Israel to retaliate against Lebanese territory. Who would blame them for retaliating?

‎Again, we did not want war. We wanted peace.

‎Knowing that civil unrest was on the horizon, I went to America to study medicine hoping that by the time I completed my studies, the situation would have calmed down. Little did I know what the future held.

‎In 1975, the PLO caused the devastating civil war that engulfed Lebanon for 15 years. My parents were displaced and lost everything. So did many families. The toll was horrendous.

‎The town where I was born was located in the mountains outside Beirut, only about 30 minutes by car. My family could not go there because of the civil war and lost access to our house for over 10 years. Because it was a house owned by Christians, it was hit on more than one occasion while other homes nearby were OK. The roof had a hole in it from artillery shells. It was repaired, yet more shells hit it, sending the message not to return to town.

‎Our orchards used to have apple trees, peach trees, cherry trees, olive trees, sumac, artichoke, pine trees, mulberry trees, fig trees, and other trees. Not being tended to nor watered, they all died. Even the stones used for terracing our orchard were looted. Thus, our neatly terraced land became a worthless desolate wasteland.

‎My brother was kidnapped, other friends died. We had an apartment in Christian East Beirut. The area was besieged for a while and there were times when there was no bread. Artillery fired from Muslim west Beirut was so intense at times that even crossing the narrow street to the bomb shelter was incredibly dangerous. My mother developed heart disease and Parkinson's from the stress and fear.

‎My family were on the run from Beirut to the Metn district, then to the Bekaa, then to Cyprus, then back to various areas in Lebanon. The war had made them nomads.

‎There were so many other stories that my family endured, but I will omit them for brevity's sake.

‎The Syrian army entered Lebanon as ‘peacekeepers’ and destroyed Lebanon. For many years, the Syrian army occupied our house in the mountains and used it as their headquarters in the town. To remain warm and acting like uncivilized primitives, they lit fires inside the house on our ornate ceramic-tiled floor in the living room.

‎In the 1980's, Hezbollah came to existence and wanted Lebanon to be part of the Iranian Islamic caliphate.

‎Syria occupied Lebanon ruthlessly. Many Lebanese were taken to Syrian jails and tortured. Many never returned.

‎The war "ended", and all factions were disarmed except Hezbollah. Syria and the Shiites were in control and dictated that. Hezbollah kept getting stronger due to intense backing from Iran. For years, Lebanon remained an occupied country. Syria plundered Lebanon and became rich.

‎Syria and Iran, using Hezbollah and their own agents, began assassinating any leader who opposed them. They killed Christians and Sunnis alike. In 2005, Bashar Al Assad 'summoned' Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (a Sunni Muslim) to Damascus and 'ordered' him to do something, threatening that if he did not toe the line, Assad would 'break his head'. Hariri did not toe the line and was assassinated in February 2005. Hezbollah were the ones who committed the act.

‎The cowardly Iranian regime had established Hezbollah as a proxy to fight Israel. In essence, cowardly Iran used Lebanon to fight Israel, causing the destruction of Lebanon while Iranian territory remained safe.

‎So back to my first thought. The opposition cannot handle the truth. The only thing they can do is call us names.

‎I have thick skin. We have gone through a lot of trials and tribulations and adversity wreaked upon us by these savage terroristic animals.

‎Thank you, Israel, for Nasrallah's demise. It may create an opportunity for peace, but only if Lebanese leaders have the courage to seize the moment.

‎I will repeat what the terrorists and their supporters don’t want to hear: The Iranian Regime, The Syrian Regime, all proxies of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, ISIS, Al Qaeda, The PLO, Islamic Jihad, PJ, PFLP, Syrian Baathist Party, all the Communist parties, all of these and more have been CANCERS in the World. They oppress their own people and us alike. They are savage animals who are stuck in the seventh century with the mentality of brutal conquests and war.

‎Call me what you like. I was born a Phoenician, not an Arab. The terrorists took away my county, but God gave me America. I am grateful and I am blessed.

‎I'm going to have an awesome day, and the terrorists are going to get their rears kicked. Have a good night.

[weemietime]

Go ahead and tell me that Hamas isn't genocidal. Just because they lack the ability doesn't mean they lack the intent. Hamas is not a legitimate resistance group.

They are a terrorist group who exist with the sole purpose of destroying Israel. Palestinians could have had a state three times over. They instead kicked off two intifadas, a coup in Jordan, and constant terrorism and war crimes.

Hamas does not want peace and has never wanted peace. They executed six hostages claiming it was retaliation for Haniyeh. Haniyeh (not Sinwar, sorry) is a valid military target as the leader of a belligerent organization intending to commit genocide. Civilian hostages are not.

[girlactionfigure]

NOVEMBER 4, 2024

WHAT HAPPENED?

A Palestinian-owned café in Oakland, California kicked out a Jewish customer for wearing a blue hat with a Star of David on it, claiming that the symbol was “violent.”

This is a clear violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Note that this applies even if the Jewish customer went to the café expecting that something like this would happen (in other words, “he tricked us into discriminating against him!” is not a legitimate defense).

 It’s also worth noting this café has menu items titled “Sweet Sinwar” and “iced in tea fada” and its menu is decorated with the Hamas inverted red triangle. The café also openly expresses support for the October 7 massacre.

JVP TO THE RESCUE

What do you do when under fire for antisemitism? You tokenize (Not So) “Jewish” Voice for “Peace,” which openly supports terrorism against Jews and has even glorified Nazis in the past. For more, see my posts “Stop Sharing JVP” and “Time To Talk About JVP…Again.”

For those of us familiar with Jewish history and the history of antisemitism, this is par for the course. In the 1920s, the Soviet Jewish “Yevsektsiya” made it its mission to destroy “traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture.” The fact that the Yevsektsiya was “Jewish” was central to its purpose. After all, the Soviet regime couldn’t be accused of antisemitism when those shutting down all Jewish cultural and spiritual life were Jews themselves.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE

Historically there have been, arguably, two kinds of antisemitism: (1) Nazi antisemitism, in which Jews are physically exterminated, and (2) Hanukkah antisemitism, in which the antisemite does not necessarily intend to take our lives, but rather, seeks to strip Jews of all the elements which make us...well, Jews.

Under the Soviet regime, for example, Jews suffered from “Hanukkah antisemitism.” The Soviets heavily suppressed Jewish cultural and spiritual life, stripping many Jewish families of thousands of years’ worth of history. Speaking or studying Hebrew was punishable by law. So was participating in Jewish religious traditions. At the same time, Jews were unable to assimilate into Soviet society due to their ethnic background. Jews were often imprisoned under false pretenses, accused of vague “Zionist crimes.” People with Jewish last names were subject to highly restrictive university quotas or banned from performing certain jobs.

Maybe you’ve noticed a pattern over the past year. First, it was only “Zionism,” not Judaism, that was a problem, despite the fact that the Jewish connection to -- and desire for sovereignty in -- the Land of Israel is inextricable from 3000 years of Jewish tradition. Then, they started denying our extensively recorded history and origins in Israel. At anti-Zionist Jewish events, now praying in Hebrew is considered “too triggering,” so it’s best to pray in colonial languages, like Arabic or English. Now, the Magen David is a “racist, genocidal symbol,” to quote Palestinian activist Mohammed El-Kurd.

Do you not see what’s happening? This is no longer about the State of Israel, the Israeli government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or this current war. This is a thinly-veiled effort to methodically legitimize the discrimination of Jews -- and anything Jewish.

THE STAR OF DAVID

The Star of David, also known as the Magen David or the Seal of Solomon, is mentioned in Jewish texts as early as the first century. In fact, it’s found in coins from the period of the Bar Kokhba Revolt against the Romans (132-135 CE). It was also used as a decorative motif in the Khirbet Shura synagogue in the Galilee in the third century. Though initially merely used as an ornament, the Magen David was ascribed deeper spiritual meanings since the 11th century. It has since been associated with Kabbalah, or Jewish mysticism.  

In the 17th century, the Jewish community of Prague was ascribed the Magen David as its official symbol. Shortly thereafter, the Jewish community in Vienna also adopted it as a marker. By the 19th century, the Star of David was the distinctive Jewish emblem.

More than anything, perhaps, the Star of David is a symbol of Jewish resilience and survival. For centuries, Jews in Europe and the Islamic world had been forced to wear distinguishing clothes marking them as Jews. After the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, Jews in Poland and in other Axis-occupied territories were forced to wear a Star of David, most often seen in the form of a yellow badge with the word “Jude” (Jew) or a similar variation. Therefore, for many Jews, the act of wearing Star of David jewelry or clothing is a reclamation of our ancient symbol that was once weaponized to oppress us.

A DOUBLE STANDARD

Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered under the banner of Christianity and Islam each. The Crusades alone took about 1.7 million lives. The Spanish Inquisition? Up to 300,000 lives. In the “New World,” some 56 million Indigenous people were killed in the name of Christianity. These are just a few examples. It’s estimated Islam’s conquests alone left some 270 million people dead. 

During the First Jewish Revolt, the Romans crucified some 500 Jews a day. Yet I would never dream of denying someone service at a coffee shop because they’re wearing a crucifix. 

When Jihadists carry out terrorist attacks, they shout “Allahu Akbar” — the same phrase used by the 1.8 billion Muslims around the world in their daily prayers. Muslims recite the Shahada prayer daily, the same prayer that is inscribed in the ISIS, Hamas, and Al Qaeda flags. And yet, I would never dream of denying someone service at a coffee shop because they’re a Muslim who says “Allahu Akbar” or recites the Shahada prayer.

Under Islamist regimes, such as the Islamic Republic in Iran, women are beat to death for not wearing hijab or wearing hijab “improperly.” But I think you would agree that denying a woman in hijab service at a coffee shop on account of the Islamic Republic’s crimes is plain bigotry.

You may be triggered by crosses, hijabs, or the Star of David, and your triggers may be rooted in valid trauma. But your triggers are no one’s responsibility to deal with but your own, and they are no excuse to lash out in bigotry.

Even if Israel’s actions were equivalent to those of Nazi Germany, equating the Star of David with the Nazi hakenkreuz (commonly misidentified as the “swastika”) is an inherently problematic analogy.

Unlike the Star of David and the Jewish people, the swastika has zero spiritual or cultural significance in German culture beyond Nazism.Within the German context, the Nazi hakenkreuz means one thing and one thing only.

On the other hand, the Sanskrit swastika and other similar symbols, such as the whirling log, have long, rich traditions in their respective cultures. While some Native American tribes have decided to retire the whirling log, others continue to use it. The Sanskrit swastika is commonplace in countries such as India and Nepal. 

Sure, if someone with zero cultural connection to the swastika or the whirling log decides to “reclaim” the symbol, I’d probably do a double take and consider it an antisemitic dogwhistle. But when I went to India, I saw the swastika everywhere, and because I am capable of critical thinking, I was easily able to recognize that the symbol has an entirely different connotation in this particular cultural context, despite my personal and family trauma.

A NOTE ON HOLOCAUST INVERSION

Holocaust inversion is a rhetorical tool used to portray Jews as morally equivalent — or worse — than Nazis. It’s often employed in discussions about Israel-Palestine and is frequently used by anti-Zionists.

 To understand why Holocaust inversion is unquestionably antisemitic, we must first understand what Holocaust denial actually is. Holocaust denial is not just an outright denial that the events of the Holocaust happened, but more often than not, it’s a denial of well-established facts about the Holocaust. For example, someone who says the Holocaust didn’t happen at all is as much a Holocaust denier as someone who claims the Holocaust did happen, but only one million Jews were killed.  

Therefore, Holocaust inversion is always Holocaust denial, because: 

(1) it relies on the minimization of established facts about the Holocaust. However harrowing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza — and it is — it’s just in no way equivalent in scale, scope, and methods to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. This is a historical fact, and denying it is denying the Holocaust.

(2) characterizing Jews — Zionist or not — as Nazis is a denial of the well-established fact about the Holocaust that the predominant force in Nazi ideology was genocidal Jew-hatred. Jews cannot be the inheritors of Nazism simply because the Nazis wanted all Jews exterminated. A denial of this basic fact is Holocaust denial.

For a full bibliography of my sources, please head over to my Instagram and  Patreon. 

rootsmetals

I sincerely don’t understand how there’s still Jews out there who still make excuses for these people, who don’t see what’s happening. Learn your history. Have some self-respect.

[sayruq]

This is all due to Hezbollah's operations at the border which they've helpfully summarised for us

According to the group, they've barely used 5% of their capabilities but it's still proving to be too much for Israel. The northern settlements have evacuated. They have lost billions of dollars in military equipment, installations, and bases (Hezbollah even destroyed an entire base before the temporary truce). Every attempt to try and rebuild its security along the border always ends the same way for Israel, ie a precision guided missile.

If war does break out, it wouldn't be surprising at all to Hezbollah. According to Nasrallah, the general secretary, they're engaging in a strategy called escalation ladder where one end of the ladder is peace and the other end is open war. Every day, Hezbollah's operations increase in intensity. The same goes for Israel who recently destroyed an entire southern Lebanese village, killing countless of civilians. Netanyahu has been publicly threatening war for a while now but that was just him bluffing. His war cabinet, as well as his coalition, seem far more eager. To put it simply, each side will escalate until they're truly at war.

Most of Israel's Brigades are in Gaza right now, 22 of them to be exact. It will be very difficult and costly to bring some of them to the border for war. It might be possible that Israel intends to end the war on Gaza to focus on Hezbollah. They've been forced back to the negotiating table after storming off on the 2nd. Hamas has made it clear that they won't exchange any prisoners without a comprehensive ceasefire, aka no more temporary truces.

A war with Lebanon will be disastrous for Israel. They lost the 2000 and 2006 wars against a much weaker, less armed Hezbollah. Hell, they didn't even win against the Resistance in Gaza in 2014 and they're actively losing today. It's clear that the army of conscripts are under trained and not battle ready. Besides desertion, the Israeli army has to deal with soldiers that flee from the fighters instead of holding their positions and fighting back (Here's a Al Qassam Brigades video where the Palestinians ambush a tent full of Israel soldiers, only for 9 out of the 10 to flee).

If 500,000 Israelis fled the country because of Oct 7th and the war in Gaza, how many more would flee if war breaks out between Hezbollah and Israel? Not to mention, how many more would be internally displaced? This is a war that might end up lasting years. Even 6 months of war might prove too much for a country that is more fragile than we realised before Oct 7th.

Oh and this is Israel's FDI in the first quarter of 2023

It has definitely tanked even lower since then. That's just one aspect of the economy, imagine all the others especially with hundreds of thousands of workers conscripted, displaced, or have fled the country.

A war with Hezbollah will effectively bring about Israel's collapse. It will no longer be happening 'within our lifetime,' it will be happening within the next ten years.

[laineystein]

I want to talk about something. Often times the other side of an argument will post something that is posited as a statistic and we immediately write it off because we don’t want to believe that facts exist on the other side. But sometimes the facts are accurate. But what they’re insinuating is inaccurate. And it requires education and understanding and critical thinking to realize that.

Someone on tumblr posted a screenshot from an article saying more UN members have been killed in Gaza than Hamas commanders. The post had over 4,000 notes. This insinuates that Israel is only killing innocent people and our goal of eradicating Hamas is not successful. But let’s break this down with actual facts:

Most Hamas commanders do not live in Gaza. So the chances of them dying during warfare is extremely uncommon considering they do not live where this war is being fought.

Does everyone think that it was Hamas commanders that stormed into Israel and massacred 1400+ people? No. Terrorists are, and were in this case, “normal civilians”. They were shopkeepers and mechanics and laborers. Do people think that eradicating Hamas means just eliminating commanders? Do people think Hamas goes away when we kill commanders and that these other people will just return to their lives and be peaceful?

There is proof that NGOs like the UN, like the Red Cross, have been complicit in Hamas’ war crimes. So if someone from the UN helped to harbor hostages or if someone from the Red Cross turned a blind eye to Hamas’ use of Al Shifa, etc. they are complicit and have now made themselves targets of war by associating with literal terrorists.

So by this logic, if even one member of the UN dies and no Hamas commanders die, yes that is a fact that more UN members have died than Hamas commanders. Does that mean that Israel’s campaign in Gaza is not successful? Does it mean we’re killing innocent civilians? Does it mean that we’re not rooting out the problem? No.

Think for yourselves. Do your own research. Don’t immediately believe things you read - or believe them but give them a second glance and realize that the point they’re trying to make is meaningless and doesn’t actually support the claim the publication was intending.

[jewish-sideblog]

i have a question. i don’t mean this horribly!! but per this post you reblogged: https://www.tumblr.com/jewish-sideblog/744967243590434816, you believe to call what’s going on in palestine a genocide is antisemitic. can you elaborate on that, please?

I don't want to get in the habit of addressing things other people have said in posts I reblog, because those aren't my words and a reblog isn't a blanket endorsement of everything other people have said. But this topic is really important, so I'll weigh in just this once.

The primary concern I have with the use of the term genocide is Holocaust Inversion. Most people don't have a conception of genocide outside of the holocaust, so the usage of the word genocide is often an obvious ploy to weaponize Jewish suffering against Jewish people. Its sole purpose is to equate Israelis to Nazis and Jewish government to fascism.

Yet, there is a lot of death in Gaza right now. Horrible death, needless death. I think any erasure of that is as horrible as Oct. 7th denial. To outright deny that a genocide is happening exclusively because of the historical reality of the Holocaust isn't just or beneficial. So we have to look at it objectively. As I said earlier today, I'm not an international relations expert, so the following is my understanding and should be taken with large grains of salt.

"Genocide" as a war crime is extremely similar to murder as an individual crime. The key component (besides death) is intention. If you kill someone on accident in most English-speaking countries, you'll likely be charged with manslaughter, not murder. Similarly, genocide requires the intentional destruction of a population of people, well beyond the necessary realities of civilian casualty in active war zones. Death itself, even in large numbers, does not a genocide make. Civilians will always die on the battlefield. Always.

The International Criminal Court says that Israel has to meet standards of care in Gaza to ensure that genocide does not occur, meaning they don't think one has already occurred. There's some dispute on whether or not those standards are being met-- Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say that Israel is failing to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, while the Israeli government issued sealed documents to the Hague last month detailing their compliance measures. It'll take a while to hear back on those. Personally, I think starving Gaza is an obvious measure of intention to destroy Palestinian civilians.

Anybody is obviously welcome to disagree with the highest court of international law in the world. But the fact that the experts seem hesitant to make that determination gives me pause. Why are so many people keen to bring Israel to the Hague, not Russia for their indiscriminate killing of Ukrainians or the Houthis for manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in Yemen? Hamas, one of the governments of internationally-recognized Palestine, fully admits to intending to destroy the Jewish people in part. They say they'll do it again if they get half the chance. Why is only the Jewish state called out as a unique, genocidal evil? Must we label Palestinian deaths as a genocide in order to mourn them effectively? Aren't hundreds dead a day reason enough to mourn and to push for peace?

Again, I don't want to deny the allegations of genocide any more than I want to accept them. I'm following the experts on this one. And so far, the experts say "maybe". As long as they say "maybe", anybody who insists on definitely and absolutely labelling it as a genocide creeps at least suspiciously close to Holocaust Inversion in my eyes.

[thisisabernieblog]

International Court of Justice Rules That Israel Must Stop Killing Palestinians

World BEYOND War

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must cease its warmaking in Gaza — cease committing and inciting genocidal acts — and that the case charging Israel with genocide must proceed.

DETAILS OF THE RULING:

By 15-2: Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent all acts within the scope of Genocide Convention article 2

15-2: Israel must immediately ensure that its military does not commit acts within the scope of GC.2

16-1: Direct and punish all members of the public who engage in the incitement of genocide against Palestinians

16-1: Ensure provision of urgently needed basic services, humanitarian aid

15-2: Prevent the destruction of and ensure the preservation of evidence to allegation of acts of GC.2

15-2: Israel will submit report as to how they’re adhering to these orders to the ICJ within 1 month

This is Article 2 of the Genocide Convention:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Therefore, Israel must cease killing Palestinians.

This was a make or break moment for international law, or rather a break or make-a-first-step moment. There is hope for the idea and reality of international law, but this is only a beginning.

The president of the International Court of Justice, who read the ruling, is Judge Joan Donoghue, former top legal advisor under Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department during the Obama Administration. She previously was the lawyer for the United States in its unsuccessful defense before the ICJ against charges by Nicaragua of minining its harbor.

The court voted for portions of this decision by 15-2 and 16-1. The “No” votes came from Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda and Ad Hoc Judge Aharon Barak of Israel.

The case presented by South Africa was overwhelming (read it or watch a key part of it), and Israel’s defense paper-thin. And the case just grew more overwhelming during the bizarre delay (yes, courts are slow, but this genocide is swift).

People all over the world built the pressure to move South Africa to act and other nations to add their support. Over 1,500 organizations signed a statement. Individuals signed a petition by CODEPINK, and sent almost 500,000 emails to key governments’ United Nations consulates through World BEYOND War and RootsAction.org. Click those links because more emails are needed now. While several nations have made public statements in support of South Africa’s case, we need them to file papers officially with the International Court of Justice. To reach out to additional national governments, go here.

Governments that have made statement in support of the case against genocide include Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, the 57 nations of the Organization of Islamic Countries, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Maldives, Namibia, and Pakistan, Colombia, Brazil, and Cuba.

Germany has backed Israel’s defense against the charge of genocide, which has been denounced by Namibia, victimn of a German genocide. Prominent Jews have denounced Germany’s shameful action.

Mass demonstrations in the streets of the world have continued in support of peace and justice, and to a far greater extent than major media outlets have reported.

Here’s a discussion of this campaign for justice with Sam Husseini on Talk World Radio.

Prior to today’s ruling from the International Court of Justice, the U.S. government pointedly refused to say whether it would comply with ruling, despite insisting that other nations comply with rulings by the ICJ.

Hamas said that it would cease fire if Israel does, and release all prisoners if Israel does

Germany, to its credit, reportedly said that it would comply.

Arming a genocide is complicity in genocide. While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United States, other weaponry comes from Germany, Italy, the UK, and Canada — at least some of which nations also provide parts to U.S. weaponsmakers that provide weapons to Israel. Italian opposition demanded an end to it. And then the Foreign Minister claimed Italy had stopped shipments on Oct 7. Meanwhile, Canada is coming under pressure to cease shipments and prevarications. In Canada, Members of Parliament are among over 250 people hunger striking for an arms embargo on Israel.

People in the United States can tell Congress to stop arming Israel here or here.

President Joe Biden already faces a lawsuit for aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza. In November 2023, Palestinian human rights organizations, along with Gaza- and U.S.-based Palestinians, filed suit in a U.S. federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Administration for failing to prevent genocide, and for aiding and abetting genocide. The plaintiffs seek an order to end U.S. military and diplomatic support to Israel. A hearing to address the government’s motion to dismiss will be held at 9 a.m. PT / 12 noon ET today, Friday. The hearing will be webstreamed to the public. You are encouraged to tune in and witness the U.S. government’s attempts at avoiding accountability and justify its support for the genocide that is happening in Gaza.

Handed down on Invasion Day (26th Jan in Australia)

How fitting ❤️ 🇵🇸 ❤️ 🇵🇸 ❤️

[eretzyisrael]

by Benny Morris

The drift of the Times article is that the innocent Arabs of Palestine just sat back and watched, as suffering victims, as the Zionists, Israel, and some international actors, principally Great Britain, did their worst.

This is pure nonsense.

Throughout the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s, Palestine’s Arabs consistently rejected all proposals for a political compromise and flatly demanded all of Palestine, “from the river to the sea.” And they did not restrict their activities to roundtable discussions. In April 1920, May 1921, and August 1929, Arab mobs, whose passions had been whipped up by religious and political leaders, attacked their Jewish neighbours and passers-by in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, and Safad, killing dozens in what amounted to a succession of pogroms. (The New York Times studiously avoids this word, referring to them only as “assaults.”)

Emily Bazelon informs readers that the first bout of violence took place when the 1920 Muslim Nebi Musa festivities in Jerusalem “turned into a deadly riot,” in which “five Jews and four Arabs [were] killed.” Neither she nor any of the panellists mention that an Arab mob attacked, murdered, and wounded Jews or that the crowd of perpetrators chanted “nashrab dam al-yahud” (‘we will drink the blood of the Jews’). Nor does she tell us that the crowd shouted, “Muhammad’s religion was born with the sword,” according to eyewitness Khalil al Sakakini, a Christian Arab educator. After three days of rampage and despoliation, British mandate security forces finally restored order, killing all or most of the four Arabs Bazelon mentions in the process. The findings of the subsequent British investigation are included in the July 1920 Palin Report, which states: “All the evidence goes to show that these [Arab] attacks were of a cowardly and treacherous description, mostly against old men, women and children—frequently in the back.”

During the May 1921 pogroms, which encompassed Jaffa, Hadera, Rehovot, and Petah Tikva, dozens of Jews were killed, and women were raped. In the efforts to restore peace, British security forces killed dozens of the attackers. Leading contemporary Zionist journalist Itamar Ben-Avi wrote: “The Islamic wave and stormy seas will eventually break loose and if we don’t set a dike … they will flood us with their wrath … Tel Aviv, in all her splendour … will be wiped out.” 

The August 1929 riots were deliberately incited by the mufti of Jerusalem, the country’s senior Muslim cleric, Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, who was soon to emerge as the leader of the Palestine Arab national movement. He and his aides told the Arab masses that the Jews intended to destroy Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount and build a (third) Jewish temple on the site, and that they had “violated the honour of Islam and raped the women and murdered widows and babies.” The resultant riots started in Jerusalem and quickly spread throughout Palestine. Dozens of Jews were massacred, and many Jewish women were raped, in the area around Jerusalem, and in Hebron and Safad. The British High Commissioner, John Chancellor, condemned “the atrocious acts committed by bodies of ruthless and bloodthirsty evildoers … upon defenceless members of the Jewish population [with] … acts of unspeakable savagery.” The British Shaw Commission, which investigated the multiple pogroms, concurred.Israel’s Perilous Moment, Then and NowHerf tells the complicated and often surprising story of the internal political struggles in Western capitals, as well as in the halls of the United Nations, that erupted at the end of the Second World War.QuilletteSol Stern

Bazelon comments that in 1929 the “Palestinians rebelled” against the British and “violence first broke out over control of the holy sites in Jerusalem.” (Throughout the New York Times piece, Bazelon uses the phrase “violence broke out,” instead of explicitly stating that the Arabs assaulted the Jews, though she does concede that in 1929 Jews were massacred in Hebron and Safad). The Canadian Derek Penslar of Harvard University, one of the three Jewish panellists, explains that “Muslims thought … that the Jews were planning to take over the Temple Mount” and recommends to readers Israeli historian Hillel Cohen’s book Year Zero of the Arab–Israeli Conflict: 1929, which argues that the Jews and the Arabs were equally to blame for the violence of that year. Indeed, Cohen writes that Jews—not Arabs—initiated the cycle of murders in Jerusalem that set off the countrywide violence. Penslar’s sympathies seem clear here and elsewhere—as when he remarks that “Many Zionists wanted to believe that they represented progress,” the implication being that he thinks otherwise.

[sunshinexlollipops]

BOYCOTT. BOYCOTT. BOYCOTT.

with black Friday coming up tomorrow, PLEASE DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ABOUT THE BOYCOTTS.

🚨 this pause is not for peace, but for Israel to maliciously crowdfund their genocide of Palestinians from your holiday shopping. 🚨

there is a reason Israel "agreed" to a 3-day pause, esp when we are about to start the biggest major retail event of the year that can help fund the businesses that pay them.

consumption under capitalism does sometimes mean your hands are tied or can't be entirely void of issues, but brands like puma that are under consumer boycotts and organic boycotts like Starbucks and McDonald's are where you should turn your focus.

also, do not believe this pause is an act of grace or "kindness."

expect Israel to not honor this agreement (they have violated them before). Israel already delayed it, making it 3 days instead of the 4 they first announced. they will escalate in violence prior to and after this "pause."

calling it a ceasefire is an intentional mislabel. they are not intending to cease shit, but it only matters if you believe they are.

[jewfrogs]

from a jewish person: what do you think is the single biggest fact that jews uniquely must learn or accept in order to unlearn the zionism they've been raised with?

picking out something specific is difficult because zionist myths form sort of a tangled web, but maybe the most insidious to me is the idea that the state of israel keeps us safe and is the only thing that can keep us safe (a sentiment i have heard from jews who do not live in the state of israel and do not ever intend to, as if simply its presence on earth as this miraculous “safe haven” provides them any protection while they are thousands of miles away, which is some marvelous magical thinking). i wish all jews would come to accept these things:

one, that even if the state of israel could ensure our safety and our survival, the palestinian people are not an acceptable sacrifice or a stepping-stone to reach that imaginary aim. safety purchased with palestinian blood is not a worthwhile pursuit, and an eternity of shame on everyone who claims otherwise.

and two, that the state of israel specifically cannot ensure our safety and our survival. as long as there is a state of israel (which, be’ezrat hashem, will not be much longer), there will never be any measure of peace, for that part of the world or for our people. there will only be immeasurable harm done by our people (a stain on our name and on our soul) and to our people: generations of jews inheriting and handing down abhorrent racist hatred; white supremacist structures that discriminate and commit atrocities against jews of color; rich centuries-old diasporic jewish cultures denied, repressed, eradicated, as people are forced to flee their homelands for a country that does not value their traditions.

what is that worth? what benefit is there in this form of safety? why can we not conceive of better for ourselves and for everyone else?

[mariacallous]

The fundamental problem for American presidents who have attempted to work with Benjamin Netanyahu is that Benjamin Netanyahu does not care what American presidents think. An exceptional English orator who was raised in Philadelphia, Netanyahu believes that he can outmaneuver and outlast American politicians on their own turf. “I know America,” he said in a private 2001 conversation that later leaked. “America is something that can easily be moved.” This attitude constituted a sharp break; in the past, even hard-line politicians like the maverick general turned premier Ariel Sharon responded to pressure from American presidents.

But during Bill Clinton’s presidency and again during Barack Obama’s, Netanyahu changed the equation. He repeatedly blew off American entreaties on issues including the peace process and Iran, and turned his willingness to stand up to U.S. presidents into an electoral selling point with his base. Faced with this unprecedented recalcitrance, different Democratic administrations tried different tactics for wrangling Bibi. Some attempted to compel his compliance with hard public pressure, only to have Netanyahu wait out a U.S.-imposed settlement freeze, then agitate against the Iran nuclear deal in Congress and the American media. Others attempted to settle disputes privately with Netanyahu, on the assumption that the Israeli leader would respond better if not openly antagonized.

None of this worked and none of it arrested Netanyahu’s drift further to the right. As both vice president and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden had a front-row seat to these failures. So did his close-knit foreign-policy team, including longtime staffers such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Recognizing the errors of the past, they have charted a different course aimed at outmaneuvering Netanyahu, seeking to succeed where their predecessors did not. This approach predates the current Gaza conflict, but has reached full expression in the past months. It explains why Biden has full-throatedly supported Israel against Hamas while simultaneously assailing the country’s hard-right governing coalition. And it offers a glimpse at the administration’s intended endgame for the war—and for Netanyahu himself.

In 2015, I visited another country with an ascendant right-wing populist leader: Hungary. Today, the country is essentially aligned with Russia against America and its allies. At the time, its prime minister, Viktor Orbán, was escalating his rhetoric against the European Union and the West. As part of the trip, my group met with officials at the American embassy, who explained their impossible predicament: Whenever Western countries would publicly pressure Orbán on his policies, he would refashion that pressure into electoral support, leaving his critics with no good options. Stay silent and he would win; speak up and he would also win.

Right-wing populists such as Orbán and Netanyahu thrive on posturing against outside antagonists, using external criticism to bolster their bona fides as strongmen who can stand up to the international community. This insight has shaped Biden’s approach to Netanyahu—not by preventing the president from publicly fighting with the prime minister, but by influencing which fights he picks. Simply put, Biden has opted to challenge Netanyahu on issues that splinter his support rather than consolidate it. In practice, this means strategically targeting policies where Netanyahu is on the wrong side of Israeli public opinion and forcing him to choose between his hard-right partners and the rest of the country.

Netanyahu’s disastrous attempt to overhaul the Israeli judiciary offers a case in point. The proposed legislation was drafted by right-wing hard-liners with no opposition input and would have subordinated Israel’s courts to its parliament. The attempted power grab provoked the largest sustained protest movement in Israeli history. Polls repeatedly showed that most Israelis opposed the overhaul and wanted lawmakers to come up with new compromise reforms conceived by consensus. And so that’s precisely what the Biden administration began calling for.

“Hopefully, the prime minister will act in a way that he is going to try to work out some genuine compromise,” Biden told reporters in March. “But that remains to be seen.” In July, he repeated the same point to Netanyahu, then reiterated it to the press: “The focus should be on pulling people together and finding consensus.” As the State Department emphasized at the time, “We believe that fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of support.” By placing himself firmly on the side of the Israeli majority, Biden was able to prevent Netanyahu from turning his criticism into an electoral asset. After all, it’s hard to paint someone as anti-Israel, as Netanyahu once did with Obama, when they are expressing the opinion of most Israelis.

Biden understands that Netanyahu’s position is a precarious one. His governing coalition received just 48.4 percent of the vote, and took power only because of a quirk of the Israeli electoral system. The coalition relies on an alliance of unpopular far-right parties to stay afloat, whom Netanyahu must appease to remain in office. Biden has exploited this weakness and repeatedly poked at it. Rather than directly confronting Netanyahu, he has called out his extremist partners and in this way heightened the contradictions within Netanyahu’s coalition, undermining its stability and gradually eroding its support in the polls.

In July, Biden told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that Netanyahu’s government has “the most extremist members of cabinets that I’ve seen” in Israel, noting that “I go all the way back to Golda Meir.” This past week, at a campaign event hosted by a former chair of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, Biden went even further, singling out a far-right minister by name. “This is the most conservative government in Israel’s history,” the president said. Itamar “Ben-Gvir and company and the new folks, they don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution.” This was Biden’s approach in action: criticizing Israel during wartime in front of a pro-Israel crowd, and doing so in a way that nonetheless denied Netanyahu any opening. As long as it’s Biden versus Ben-Gvir, rather than Biden versus Bibi, the president holds the upper hand.

Biden has brought the same strategy to bear on the issue of settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, which has accelerated under the cover of Israel’s campaign in Gaza. Netanyahu’s coalition is unable to clamp down on these extremists and their terrorism because it is beholden to these extremists. But most Israelis have no desire to mortgage the security of Israel and its indispensable relationship to the United States in favor of some far-flung hilltop settlers in West Bank regions that few Israelis could locate on a map.

Knowing this, Biden has begun unrolling a series of unilateral measures intended to raise the price of settler violence and pit Netanyahu and his allies against the Israeli public. Earlier this month, the administration announced visa bans on those implicated in settler violence, spurring similar actions by the EU, Britain, and France. “We have underscored to the Israeli government the need to do more to hold accountable extremist settlers who have committed violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank,” Blinken said. “As President Biden has repeatedly said, those attacks are unacceptable.” This past week, the U.S. froze the sale of more than 20,000 M16 rifles to Israel over concerns that they might find their way into the hands of violent settlers.

Hamas’s October 7 slaughter has put Biden’s approach to the ultimate test. Like most Israelis, he wants to see Hamas vanquished. And like most Israelis, he does not trust Netanyahu and his far-right allies to do it. This has left the president with few appealing options. Publicly denying Israel support during what it sees as an existential war wouldn’t just go against Biden’s personal values. It would collapse all the credibility he has accrued with the Israeli public through his careful diplomacy during his presidency. And it would give Netanyahu the American antagonist he desperately craves, providing the floundering premier with a lifeline he would use to reunite the right behind him.

To avoid this outcome, Biden has backed Israel’s military campaign, but worked nonstop to shape its contours and limit its fallout on civilians and the rest of the region, tapping into the reservoir of goodwill he has built with the Israeli public. The president has also upped the pressure on Netanyahu by assailing his coalition partners and explicitly calling for a new, more moderate Israeli government. U.S. officials have leaked that they think Netanyahu will not last, and Biden has told the Israeli leader to think about what lessons he’d impart to his successor.

In other words, Biden has once again placed himself on the side of the Israeli majority, in order to undermine Netanyahu and shape the political future of the entire country. It’s one of the biggest bets of his presidency, and when the guns finally fall silent, it could determine the fate of the broader Middle East.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Ruth Wisse

Hamas recently beat the competition with a demonstration of savagery unlike the earlier improvised pogroms in Europe to which it has been compared. October’s slaughters were plotted with crucial input from Gazans employed in Israeli homes they had scouted and mapped for the purpose, making this the first military campaign designed to culminate in acts of beheading, torture, and rape of predetermined victims. As attempts to destroy Israel through conventional warfare had only made Israel militarily stronger, the new tactics aimed at destroying the Jews’ will to remain among antagonists sworn never to leave them in peace. More than to intimidate, these attacks were made to demoralize.

Survivor-witnesses describe new refinements of psychological warfare. Hamas murdered parents and children in each other’s presence so as to sharpen the survivors’ agony. They took hostages—not, as others do, for eventual exchange—but to taunt the country with images of prisoners’ suffering, and fear that many would never be returned. Every Jewish value—respect for women, honoring the human being who was made in the image of God—was gleefully defiled.

As for the Jews living in nearby Gaza, many of them self-described Jewish “peaceniks,” they had prided themselves on the medical help and hospitality they extended to their Gazan neighbors, persuaded that cooperation was obviously to everyone’s benefit. The terrorists exploited the Jews’ desire for peace as a means of entrapment and further opportunity for torment. By attacking on a Jewish holiday and a secular festival, they intended to destroy the Israelis’ joy in life. Anyone reading Dan Senor and Saul Singer’s exhilarating book about the collective strengths that constitute The Genius of Israel will recognize how Hamas turned precisely those virtues into weapons of torture to tear the Jewish people apart.

October’s slaughters were plotted with crucial input from Gazans employed in Israeli homes they had scouted and mapped for the purpose, making this the first military campaign designed to culminate in acts of beheading, torture, and rape of predetermined victims.

Nor does this exhaust their inventiveness. The Arabs’ strategy of martyring generations of their own people in the cause of eliminating Israel dates back to the 1947 refusal of Arab leaders to accept the partition of Palestine into two states—in order to keep Arabs perpetually homeless. Arabs were to remain permanently displaced as evidence of Israel’s “occupation” while Israel integrated the over 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands and granted participatory citizenship to over 2 million Arabs who chose to remain in its boundaries.

Taking this tactic of martyring their fellow Arabs to a new level, Hamas turned Gaza into suicide central. Above ground, residents were allowed to conduct a quasi-normal life, knowing that, below ground, every school, every hospital, and many private homes were booby-trapped for the Israelis whom their leaders would lure into their cities. The IDF continues to uncover a tremendous amount of infrastructure built over years, confirming Hamas’ intention of invading and killing Israelis en masse. In the words of one of its soldiers “[It] is clear they expected us to arrive and laid plans to exact a cost in the form of IDF casualties.” The attack of Oct. 7 had to be monstrous enough to provoke Israel into full-scale war in the hope of rescuing the hostages and destroying the terrorists—a plan that would also ensure the collateral death of as many Gazans as possible to attract Western sympathy.

[girlactionfigure]

Yasser Arafat allegedly stole over $3 billion from the ‘Palestinian Fund’, which he stashed in over 200 overseas bank accounts under false names. He gave his wife Suha over $200,000 a month in ‘housekeeping money.’ Between July 2002 and July 2003 alone, over $10 million was transferred from a Swiss account into 2 Paris-based accounts in her name (Arab Bank & BNP). Ismail Haniyeh bought vast tracts of land on the Gazan coast and spent many millions building homes for his 13 children. Khaled Mashal and his cohort Mousa Abu Marzuk are said to have ‘misappropriated’ around $2.6 billion each, money intended for Gazan homes, schools and hospitals. Mashal went on to live an opulent life in Qatar. Mahmoud Abbas spent $17 million building a mansion in Ramallah, $50 million on a private jet and is said to have paid many millions in ‘salaries’ to family, friends and those loyal to him ( in addition to the hundreds of millions paid to convicted terrorists and their families). ‘Palestinian’ business has always been big business for these so-called leaders. The last thing any of them ever wanted was peace, for as long as there was conflict, as long as the media could be fed pictures of ‘disillusioned’ Gazans ‘living in poverty’ and as long as Israel could be blamed, the money would keep rolling in - and still does to this day.

Likud Herut UK

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Ben-Menachem for Zeteo News (04.23.2024):

“Reprehensible and dangerous.” “Terrorist sympathizers.” “It’s not 1938 Berlin. It’s 2024, Columbia University, NYC.” The White House, Congressional Republicans, and cable news talking heads would have you believe that the Columbia University campus has devolved into a hotbed of antisemitic violence – but the reality on the ground is very different. As a Jewish student at Columbia, it depresses me that I have to correct the record and explain what the real risk to our safety looks like. I still can't quite believe how the events on campus over the past few days have been so cynically and hysterically misrepresented by the media and by our elected representatives. 

Last week, the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) coalition, representing more than 100 student organizations, including Jewish groups, organized the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a peaceful campus protest in solidarity with Palestine. CUAD was reactivated after the university suspended Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace in the fall. On Wednesday morning, hundreds of students camped out on Columbia’s South Lawn. They vowed to stay put until the university divests from companies that profit from their ties to Israel. Protesters prayed, chanted, ate pizza, and condemned the university’s complicity in Israel’s attacks on Gaza. Though counter-protesters waved Israeli flags near the encampment, the campus remained largely calm from my vantage point.

Columbia responded by imposing a miniature police state. Just over a day after the encampment was formed, university President Minouche Shafik asked and authorized the New York Police Department to clear the lawn and load 108 students – including a number of Jewish students – onto Department of Corrections buses to be held at NYPD headquarters at 1 Police Plaza. One Jewish student told me that she and her fellow protesters were restrained in zip-tie handcuffs for eight hours and held in cells where they shared a toilet without privacy. The NYPD chief of patrol John Chell later told the Columbia Spectator that “the students that were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.”  Since then, dozens of undergraduates have been locked out of their dorms without notice. Barnard College, an affiliate of Columbia, notably gave students just 15 minutes to retrieve their belongings after returning from lockup and finding themselves evicted. Suspended students cannot return to campus and are struggling to access food or medical care. Students who keep Shabbat, and do not use electronics on the Sabbath, were forced to rely on technology in order to secure food and emergency housing. This crackdown was the most violence inflicted on our student body in decades. I implore you, as our Jewish Voice for Peace chapter does, to consider whether arresting Jewish students keeps us and Columbia safe.

Smears from the press and pro-Israel influencers, who have levied charges of antisemitism and violence against Jewish students, are a dangerous distraction from real threats to our safety. I saw politicians compare student organizers to neo-Nazis and call for a National Guard deployment, apparently ignorant of the lives lost at Kent State and in Charlottesville, and with very little pushback from national media. This is a repulsive form of self-aggrandizement that I can only assume is intended to preserve relationships with influential donors. Calls to more heavily police our campus actively endanger Jewish students, and threaten the regular operations of the university far more gravely than peaceful protests.  [...]

On Monday, I joined hundreds of my fellow student workers for a walk-out in solidarity with the encampment; we listened respectfully as a similarly sizable group of Columbia faculty held a rally on the library steps. Frankly, it didn’t feel much different from the environment during my union’s most recent strike on campus – I felt inspired again by my colleagues’ commitment to making Columbia a safer and better place to work and study.  Later that night, a Passover Seder service was held at the encampment. Would an antisemitic student movement welcome Jews in this way? I think not.  [...] Here’s what you’re not being told: The most pressing threats to our safety as Jewish students do not come from tents on campus. Instead, they come from the Columbia administration inviting police onto campus, certain faculty members, and third-party organizations that dox undergraduates. Frankly, I regret the fact that writing to confirm the safety of Jewish Ivy League students feels justified in the first place. I have not seen many pundits hand-wringing over the safety of my Palestinian colleagues mourning the deaths of family members, or the destruction of Gaza’s cherished universities. 

I am wary of a hysterical campus discourse – gleefully amplified by many of the same charlatans who have turned “DEI” into a slur – that draws attention away from the ongoing slaughter in the Gaza Strip and settler violence in the occupied West Bank. We should be focusing on the material reality of war: the munitions our government is sending to Israel, which kill Palestinians by the thousands, and the Americans participating in the violence. Forget the fringe folks and outside agitators: the CUAD organizers behind the campus protests have rightfully insisted on divestment as their most important demand of the Columbia administration, and on sustained attention to the situation in Palestine. And we are not alone. College campuses across the United States have followed Columbia’s lead. 

Jewish Columbia University student Jonathan Ben-Menachem wrote in Zeteo debunking the false "antisemitic" smears used to attack protests against the oppression of Palestinians on campuses.