Connect with us
Israel Bonds RRSP


The brother of a hostage is asking for Canada’s help in light of Israeli reports indicating 32 of the 136 remaining captives are dead

Since Oct. 7, Michael Levy has put his life on hold to advocate non-stop for his brother Or, 33, one of the remaining hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza. Israeli authorities said this week that 32 of the remaining 136 hostages, or one-fifth of those who remain captive in Gaza, are likely already […]

The post The brother of a hostage is asking for Canada’s help in light of Israeli reports indicating 32 of the 136 remaining captives are dead appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Combating the Lie of Israeli ‘Genocide’ and ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Ione Belarra, a far left minister in the Spanish government, has accused Israel of committing “genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza. Photo: Reuters/David Canales

No single element of “pro-Palestine” propaganda has gained as much traction as the charge that Israel is carrying out a genocide against Palestinians. The accusation predates October 7, but it has become a staple at anti-Israel demonstrations everywhere; protesters are also pronouncing the Biden administration complicit in genocide for supporting Israel. In November, a group of Palestinians even sued the Biden administration for genocide.

Not content with fabricating and perpetuating the charge that Israel is an apartheid state, South Africa’s ANC Party ramped up its hostilities against the Jewish state on December 29, 2023, when it filed charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On January 26, 2024, the ICJ refused to throw out the case.

Considering Germany’s history, its objection that “This accusation has no basis whatsoever” should hold special significance to the ICJ.

Berlin’s statement that it “firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel,” also acknowledged South Africa’s “political instrumentalization” of the term.

There is no shortage of academics who bolster these claims. A professor of genocide studies named Raz Segal argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute “a textbook case of genocide.” A “historian of genocide” named Omer Bartov warns that while the Netanyahu government hasn’t yet committed genocide, it has shown “genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, argued recently that Israelis “see Palestine as the Promised Land, which belongs to them, but this does not mean that they can destroy the Palestinian people.” She also claims that “in the name of self-defense Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing.”

The problem for South Africa, the UN, and many academics is that neither the genocide accusation, nor its brother, the ethnic cleansing accusation, stand up to scrutiny.

The word “genocide” was coined by Rafael Lemkin in 1944, when he combined the Greek word geno (race or tribe) with the Latin suffix -cide (from caedere, kill), to denote Nazi Germany’s systematic attempt to kill all Jews and thereby destroy an entire people.

In 1948, the UN approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defining Lemkin’s neologism as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” In addition to mass murder, other indicators of genocide and ethnic cleansing are “measures intended to prevent births” such as forced sterilization, and “transferring children.”

Accusing Israel of genocide is part of a strategy called Holocaust inversion, whereby Israeli counter-terrorism measures directed against Palestinian terrorist organizations are compared to the crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

Thankfully, most people see through the hyperbole and distortion. Biden’s National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, called South Africa’s case against Israel “meritless, counterproductive, and without any basis in fact whatsoever.”

The ICJ case even united 210 members of the US Congress to “vigorously denounce South Africa’s deeply hostile stance towards Israel and thoroughly reject its charge of genocide.”

No data supports the charge of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” against Israel. On the contrary, the Palestinian population has grown steadily since 1948, sometimes remarkably so. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) itself acknowledges that the “Palestinian population has increased 8-fold since the [1948] Nakba.”

This is not what a genocide looks like.

In 2016, the United Nations warned that “rapid growth in the Palestinian population” that it had documented would soon create a “crisis in unemployment” and “a strained infrastructure.”

In 2022, the Arab News reported that “the high growth rate among Palestinians” will “cause concern for Israel.”

This is not how ethnic cleansing works.

Non-Jewish citizens of Israel are treated exactly the same as Jewish citizens by the government, and no one is trying to prevent them from having babies. Arab Muslim citizens of Israel work the same jobs as Jewish citizens. Many volunteer to serve in the IDF, though they are not required to do so. There are Arab Muslim members of the Knesset and the Supreme Court.

The irony of the absurd claim is that Hamas (along with most of the Palestinian “resistance”) harbors verifiably genocidal intent towards Jews.

The Hamas charter states clearly that “Israel will exist and continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently noted that Israel’s enemies “continue to openly call for the annihilation of Israel and the mass murder of Jews.”

Israel’s enemies have long openly called for the annihilation of the Jewish state and the mass murder of Jews.

The so-called “founder of the Palestinian national movement,” Haj Amin al-Hussaini, invited Hitler to expand his “final solution” to the Middle East. As the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1937, he commanded all his “Muslim brothers” in a Proclamation to the Islamic World: “Do not rest until your land is free of the Jews.”

On October 11, 1947, less than six weeks before the UN Partition vote on Israel, the first-ever Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, threatened “a war of extermination and momentous massacre” should there be a Jewish state established “in Palestine.”

Pasha, whose real name was Abdul Rahman Azzam, also gave a hint of the long strategy to come: “The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew’s morale!”

When given the opportunity, the enemies of Israel have followed through with their threats. Amos Oz, who lived through the 1948 War of Independence, wrote in his memoir, A Tale of Love and Darkness (2003), that during the war, “Arabs implemented a more complete ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the territories they conquered than the Jews did … The settlements were obliterated, and the synagogues and cemeteries were razed to the ground.”

Even the Palestinian leadership doesn’t believe its own propaganda. Consider the case of Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and senior PLO negotiator, who himself charged Israel with genocide. When Erekat was gravely ill in October 2020, he chose to be treated in an Israeli hospital. Would he have done so if he truly believed Israel was guilty of genocide against his people? I doubt it.

Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Senior Fellow A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is also a Ginsberg-Milstein fellow. A version of this article was originally published by IPT.

The post Combating the Lie of Israeli ‘Genocide’ and ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ first appeared on

Continue Reading


David Miller Is an Antisemite — Why Are the Media Pretending He’s Not?

University of Bristol in the United Kingdom//StockVault

David Miller worked at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom until his employment was terminated in 2021.

Before he was fired from his role as professor of political sociology, Miller had used his position within the higher education establishment to spread hatred toward Jews and the State of Israel.

Among the many disturbing remarks Miller made during his time at Bristol, were his claim that Israel is a “violent, racist, foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.” He also suggested that any students who took issue with his view were “political pawns” of the Jewish state, in a comment that echoed the antisemitic dual loyalty trope.

He also accused the Union of Jewish Students, which represents thousands of Jewish students across the UK, of being “a threat to the safety of Arab and Muslim students.”

After he was fired, Miller apparently saw no further need to cloak his anti-Jewish hatred behind a facade of so-called “anti-Zionism.”

In his vile online screeds, words like “Zionist” or “Israeli,” were soon replaced with what we knew he  meant all along — Jew.

For example, last year, Miller tweeted that “Jews are not discriminated against,” and claimed that Jews wield disproportionate control over public life, arguing that Jews are “overrepresented in positions of cultural, economic and political power.”

However, in what looks to be a precedent-setting judgment, Miller has won an employment tribunal against his former employer on the grounds that he was unfairly dismissed, and experienced discrimination based on his anti-Zionist beliefs.

In a 108-page ruling, regional employment judge Rohan Pirani concluded Miller’s “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and a protected characteristic” under the 2010 Equality Act.

David Miller is fundraising off the back of his claim that he’s not anti Jewish but anti Zionist which is, apparently, a whole different thing.

But does the evidence stack up?

— Harry’s Place (@hurryupharry) February 2, 2024

It’s a judgment that is as equally depressing as it is baffling.

As Dave Rich, Head of Policy at the Community Security Trust, observed: “According to the Employment Tribunal, Bristol University’s defence against Miller’s claim accepted that ‘nothing the claimant said or did was antisemitic.’ There may be legal reasons for this that I don’t fully understand, but analytically it is preposterous. The way that Miller’s anti-Zionism is directed at diaspora Jewish communities, and the language and arguments he deploys, are inseparable from the core ideas and patterns of thought of antisemitic conspiracy theories and stereotypes.”

The truth is, simply printing Miller’s own words is enough to prove his antisemitism. One need not read between the lines when it comes to Miller’s undisguised contempt for Jews.

Seemingly aware of this fact, The Guardian opted to omit many of Miller’s past comments in a recent piece about his victory at the employment tribunal, instead paraphrasing some of his other offensive remarks.

The piece, by Caroline Davies and Harriet Sherwood, states:

Miller initially caused controversy in 2019 when in a lecture he cited Zionism as one of five sources of Islamophobia, and showed a diagram linking Jewish charities to Zionist lobbying. Complaints that this resembled the antisemitic trope that Jews wield secretive influence on political affairs were dismissed by the university on academic freedom grounds.

It also notes that Miller later described Israel as “the enemy of world peace.”

Likewise, the Telegraph reported that Miller had “successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist and colonial,” adding that he had “sparked anger among Jewish students in 2019 when a slideshow for one of his lectures described parts of the ‘Zionist movement’ as one of the ‘five pillars’ of Islamophobia.”

A piece on the BBC News website similarly stated that Miller “experienced discrimination when he was sacked from his university for comments he made about Israel.”

You may see a lot of things about David Miller in the next few days. Celebrating him. Pathetically attempting to rehabilitating him.

So a reminder – this is who Miller is. This is what he believes. If you see people praising or promoting him – this is the man they’re simping for

— Daniel Sugarman (@Daniel_Sugarman) February 5, 2024

But Miller’s comments went beyond mere criticism of Israel or supposed “anti-Zionism” — they were unquestionably antisemitic.

An Iranian Stooge

Lastly, entirely absent from every single story about Miller’s tribunal was any mention of the fact that since his firing, Miller has been accepting money from the Iranian regime through his work for its state-owned Press TV, including hosting a program alongside former British parliamentarian Chris Williamson, who was expelled from the Labour Party for antisemitism.

Miller and Williamson’s show “Palestine Declassified,” which once targeted HonestReporting in a dedicated program, repeatedly promotes antisemitic narratives, such as claiming “Zionists” control world events; that they have a “stranglehold” over the media and control UK institutions; and that they are “grooming young people.”

In excising the depths of Miller’s anti-Jewish hate from their reports, the media is helping rehabilitate the image of a man who once professed his belief that “every single Zionist organisation, the world over, needs to be ended. Every. Single. One.”

David Miller is an antisemite. The media shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post David Miller Is an Antisemite — Why Are the Media Pretending He’s Not? first appeared on

Continue Reading


Harvard University Faces New Antisemitism Controversy with Invitation of Pro-Hamas Speaker

Pro-Palestinian students rallying at Harvard University. Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder

Harvard University is enmeshed in another antisemitism controversy following reports that a Middle Eastern studies professor has invited Dalal Saeb Iriqat, an extreme anti-Zionist and alleged advocate of terrorism, to the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS)

According to The Harvard Crimson, Tarek. E Masoud, director of Harvard’s Middle East Initiative (MEI), invited Dalal Saeb Iriqat as a speaker for MEI’s “Middle East Dialogue Series,” a slate of interviews that will also include former government officials such presidential adviser Jared Kushner and former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister Salam Fayyad.

Iriqat, a Palestinian instructor employed by Arab American University, located in the West Bank city of Jenin, is most known for defending Hamas’ murdering and raping of civilians during its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, an act she described on social media as “just a normal human struggle.”

In other posts, she said, “We will never forgive the Israeli right wing extreme government for making us take their children and elderly as hostages” and “The Israeli public need to realize that their own government had caused all this bloodshed and they remain the ones responsible for this [escalation] and losses of civilian lives.”

Masoud told The Harvard Crimson that he disagrees with Iriqat’s opinions but nothing about his bringing her to campus is inappropriate.

“If you are going to engage with Palestinians, you’re going to have to engage with these ideas,” he told the paper. “My view is that we have to subject these ideas — and all the ideas that we encounter — to polite but rigorous inquiry.”

He added, “For too long we haven’t done this work because we were more concerned with psychological safety rather than education. What I want is for our community to transcend emotions when confronted with ideas or speakers that we dislike, bring our best selves and strongest arguments to the table, and have it out.”

The US House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce is investigating Harvard University to determine whether it refused to address antisemitic discrimination on the campus — before and after Oct. 7 — and cynically defended the choice as observance of free speech protections enumerated in the first amendment of the US Constitution.

In a January letter requesting documents relevant to the committee’s investigation, Committee Chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) cited numerous widely reported antisemitic incidents that occurred at Harvard last semester, including the mobbing of a Jewish student by a throng of anti-Israel activists — one of whom was the editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — screaming “Shame!” into his ears as he tried to get away. Students there have also chanted openly “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which are widely interpreted as calls for violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel.

For Harvard, America’s oldest institution of higher education and arguably its most prestigious, the presence of radical anti-Zionists on  campus has been a persistent issue. At the start of this academic year, a student and anti-Israel activist interrupted a convocation ceremony held by the school, shouting at Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana, “Here’s the real truth — Harvard supports, upholds, and invests in Israeli apartheid, and the oppression of Palestinians!”

The broader public did not take notice of the problem until Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, when, as scenes of Hamas terrorists abducting children and desecrating dead bodies circulated worldwide, 31 student groups at Harvard issued a statement blaming Israel for the attack and accusing the Jewish state of operating an “open air prison” in Gaza, despite that the Israeli military withdrew from the territory in 2005.

The string of controversies ultimately led to the resignation as president of Claudine Gay, who told a Foxx’s committee in December that her determining whether calling for a genocide of Jews violates school rules would depend “on the context” in which the statement was uttered.

Harvard Kennedy School told The Harvard Crimson in a statement that Dean Douglas Elmendorf “personally finds abhorrent the comments by Dalal Saeb Iriqat quoted in the press that justify and normalize the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas” and that “an invitation to speak at the Kennedy School never implies an endorsement of a speaker’s views by the Kennedy School or members of the Kennedy School community.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Harvard University Faces New Antisemitism Controversy with Invitation of Pro-Hamas Speaker first appeared on

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News