Connect with us

RSS

Time to Huddle: Antisemitism on the Field

Daniel Peretz, goalkeeper for the Israel national team and Maccabi Tel Aviv, playing his last match at Maccabi Tel Aviv against NK Celje in the UEFA Conference League – Playoffs before his historic transfer to FC Bayern Munich in Tel Aviv, Israel, on August 24, 2023. Photo: Raddad Jebarah via Reuters Connect

JNS.orgAs unsettling and painful as the current wave of global antisemitism that followed the Oct. 7 Hamas pogrom in Israel is, it’s still important to remember that those bestial atrocities were an episode in, and not the fundamental cause of, the renewal and remodeling of this ancient superstition.

Where it all began remains a matter of debate. Many analysts nod to the U.N. World Conference Against Racism in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, where several of the memes visible in today’s pro-Hamas protests were rudely on display, as the point of origin. Others go back further, into the Cold War, when the Soviet Union ran a vicious campaign of anti-Zionist propaganda centered on the claim that Zionism is a form of Nazism. And one can go back even further, to the antisemitic riots and revolts targeting Jewish communities in British Mandate Palestine in 1929 and 1936. The point is that the basic message—Jews as colonial interlopers who must be destroyed—hasn’t really changed.

The other consideration is that certain sectors are more amenable than are others to anti-Zionist antisemitism, or antizionism, as I prefer to call it. Over the last two decades, the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement seeking to quarantine Israel alone among the world’s nations has been the most tangible and energetic expression of contemporary opposition to Zionism. In the worlds of culture and academia, especially, boycotts of Israel and shrill rhetoric denouncing Zionism (or more precisely, a caricature of Zionism) have been the order of the day.

Regardless, then, of where and when we believe the current wave began, that discussion is less important than an assessment of where we are headed—and specifically, which spheres of human activity alongside art and education will start to echo the growing antisemitic chorus, both in their words and in their deeds.

The world of sport is emerging as the next battleground. It is a much more fearsome prospect; a row over an art exhibition featuring antisemitic caricatures or a lecture at a provincial campus promoting antisemitic tropes is, let’s be honest, a picnic compared to a row involving an athlete with instant, global name recognition.

Someone like the French soccer icon Karim Benzema, a former Real Madrid striker and winner of the coveted Ballon d’Or football (soccer) award who now plays in Saudi Arabia, and who this week announced that he would be suing Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin. A devout Muslim, at least outwardly, Benzema fired off an angry social-media post denouncing Israel’s “unjust bombardments” in the Gaza Strip. When Darmanin was asked about the post in an interview with a conservative broadcaster, he lambasted Benzema for his silence on the Oct. 7 atrocities in Israel and then charged that the player retained close links with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamist network that includes Hamas.

Benzema angrily denied any links with the Brotherhood, accusing Darmanin of exploiting his fame—and notoriety—to push an Islamophobic smear. Now Darmanin may have to answer in court for his impulsive statement (it would have been more prudent to describe Benzema as an “echo chamber” for the Brotherhood) in a spectacle that will draw the French and international media like bees to honey. Benzema will present himself as the victim and will enclose the Palestinian population of Gaza in his victimhood in a circus that will only compound the fear prevailing among French Jews and bolster the view among hundreds of millions of soccer fans that the State of Israel is a criminal enterprise—whether or not he wins or loses any eventual court case.

The demonizing discourse about Israel now percolating in the world of sports is, alarmingly, being matched with acts of discrimination against Israeli and Jewish athletes—just as Jewish and Israeli academics, artists and musicians have suffered discrimination as a result of antisemitic agitation in their spaces.

Last week, Sagiv Jehezkel, an Israeli winger playing for the Turkish soccer club Antalyaspor, was arrested by security forces before being booted out of both his contract and the country. Jehezkel’s offense was to score an equalizing goal in a match against Trabzonspor and then celebrate by displaying his bandaged wrist to the cameras. On the bandage, Jehezkel had scrawled a Star of David and the words “100 days” (a reference to the continuing plight of Israeli hostages in Gaza) and “7/10” (the date of the Hamas pogrom.)

The reaction in Turkey was furious. Jehezkel was abused as a “Zionist dog” and accused of violating Turkish sensibilities. Should he ever return to Turkey, he will likely face arrest and prosecution. But it is unlikely that he will go back, just as it is unlikely that any Israeli soccer talent will find its way to Turkey for the foreseeable future. Sports in Turkey are effectively Judenrein.

There are good grounds to fear that a similar situation is emerging in South Africa, too, where the U-19 Cricket World Cup is currently being hosted. One week before the tournament commenced, Cricket South Africa (CSA), the sport’s domestic governing body, announced that it was removing David Teeger, the South African team’s sole Jewish player, from his role as captain, citing “security fears” about angry protests by Hamas supporters targeting Teeger as the official reason.

This was—in a word summed up by MLB Hall-of-Famer Kevin Youkilis, who declared his solidarity with Teeger—“bullsh*t.” Shortly after the Hamas pogrom, Teeger was the subject of a complaint submitted to CSA by pro-Hamas campaigners who objected to his remarks at a Jewish communal award ceremony, where he lauded “the State of Israel and every single soldier fighting so that we can live and thrive in the diaspora.” They argued that Teeger had brought the game into disrepute, though an independent commission reporting to CSA duly found that Teeger had not violated CSA’s code of conduct with his speech, clearing the way for the talented young batsman to be appointed as captain the following month.

Even so, the political pressure from the ruling ANC was unrelenting. It is no accident that Teeger was humiliated in the same week that South Africa launched a legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice on the trumped-up charge of “genocide”—elegantly, if inadvertently, illustrating the inevitable domestic impact of an antisemitic foreign policy.

Here in the United States, Jewish professional athletes are unlikely, for the moment, to experience this kind of discrimination. Yet as the recent antisemitism scandal involving the NBA’s Kyrie Irving (and others in different athletic arenas before him) demonstrated, our sporting scene is as vulnerable as anywhere else to antisemitic propaganda, often of the crudest sort. It’s definitely time to huddle.

The post Time to Huddle: Antisemitism on the Field first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

Polio Vaccination Campaign Gives Lie to Claims of Israeli ‘Genocide’

Dr. Jonas Salk, an American virologist and medical researcher who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines. Photo: WIkimedia Commons.

JNS.orgStates that commit genocide do not make distinctions between military personnel and civilian populations. They don’t agree to pauses in their military campaigns to allow the delivery of humanitarian relief. They seek to obstruct, rather than cooperate with, international agencies dealing with the emergency housing and medical needs of the targeted population. Should fatal diseases break out among the displaced and dispossessed, as is often the case, they seek to cover these up, instead of acknowledging and countering them.

All of which means one of two things. In the Gaza Strip, Israel is either waging the strangest genocide in the ghastly history of that phenomenon, or it isn’t waging one at all.

Over the last week, Israel has helped the World Health Organization and UNICEF, the U.N. children’s fund, roll out a major vaccination campaign in Gaza against polio following the first case of the virus there in 25 years. More than 1.25 million doses of the vaccine arrived in Gaza on Aug. 25, facilitated by Israel through its Kerem Shalom crossing into the coastal enclave. On Aug. 31, COGAT—the Israeli Ministry of Defense unit responsible for the humanitarian situation in Gaza—formally announced the start of the vaccination campaign aimed at Gaza’s children, specifying both times and locations where the vaccine could be obtained. Israel also transferred cooling equipment into Gaza to preserve the vaccines.

The goal is to inoculate 640,000 Gazan children against the disease. A statement from WHO on Sept. 4 confirmed that in the first phase of the inoculation campaign, in central Gaza, 187,000 children had received the vaccine, exceeding the target for that area by 30,000.

“It has been extremely encouraging to see thousands of children being able to access polio vaccines, with the support of their resilient families and courageous health workers, despite the deplorable conditions they have braved over the last 11 months. All parties respected the humanitarian pause and we hope to see this positive momentum continue,” commented Richard Peeperkorn, WHO’s representative for Gaza, which is probably the closest Israel will get to receiving a vote of thanks from this agency, which is not exactly known for its warmth towards the Jewish state. The campaign has now moved to southern Gaza, where crowds of Palestinian families gathered to receive the vaccines, before being completed in the northern part of the strip in its final phase.

It’s hard to think of another state, particularly one enveloped in a war of survival, which would go to such lengths to protect children in the combat zone from this devastating illness that can paralyze parts of the body. Russia, which has been kidnapping children in Ukraine, certainly wouldn’t do the same. Nor would Turkey, which has sent its armed forces into neighboring Syria and continues its genocidal campaign against its Kurdish minority. Ditto for China, Burma/Myanmar, Sudan and all the other countries where real genocides are underway, prosecuted by political and military leaders whose aim is for the victims they are targeting to die as rapidly and in as great a number as possible.

As befits a movement that places its hands over its ears whenever inconvenient facts crop up, the global pro-Hamas mob has either been silent on the vaccine campaign or promoted ridiculous conspiracy theories accusing Israel of planting the virus and then rolling out a fake vaccine. Ironically, most Palestinians do not seem to share this perspective. When Bisan Owda, a Gazan social-media influencer, warned that the emergence of polio was the consequence of an anti-Palestinian conspiracy, she received short shrift from Nour Alsaqa—another Gazan influencer and hardly a friend of Israel—who pointed out that the first polio case was registered and publicized by the Hamas-run Health Ministry! Alsaqa pointedly asked Owda why her video denouncing the vaccination effort was posted in English “when the targeted population is Gazans who speak Arabic.” She concluded that Owda was simply “seeking attention online … again.” I am not going to disagree with that assessment.

To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that the vaccination campaign means that Gaza’s Palestinian population suddenly views its Israeli neighbors through rose-colored spectacles. What I am saying is that the vaccine drive, which absolutely would not have been possible without Israel’s consent and practical assistance, is important evidence in countering the monstrous lie that Israel’s goal is to exterminate every last Palestinian. If this was a war on civilians, there would be no vaccine. But it isn’t. It’s a war against Hamas, the terrorist organization that sparked this conflict in the first place with its Oct. 7 pogrom and whose actions have caused misery for the people they claim they want to liberate.

Yet one can hardly expect the Israel-hating protesters on American and European campuses to show some humility when too many of their governments are bolstering the view that Israel is a rogue state deliberately committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. I’m not talking here about Iran or Turkey or Qatar—states whose leaders have fawned over the Hamas rapists for almost a year now. I’m talking about ostensible allies of Israel (and the United States) who have tried to tie Israel’s hands militarily, by unilaterally recognizing Palestinian statehood and cutting off supplies of weapons to the Israel Defense Forces.

The latest example of this shameful behavior involves the newly elected Labour government in the United Kingdom, whose foreign secretary, David Lammy, announced on Sept. 2 that 30 of 350 arms export licenses to Israel had been suspended out of concern that the Jewish state would use this materiel in violation of international humanitarian law. Lammy made the announcement as Israeli troops discovered the bodies of six hostages, including Israeli-American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, after they were brutally executed by their Hamas captors in Gaza, as well as in the wake of Israel’s announcement that it was transferring the polio vaccines as a matter of urgency. Hiding this shabby political maneuvering behind the excuse of impartial legal advice, both Lammy and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have distinguished themselves by rounding on Israel in a moment of excruciating pain for the entire nation. Israelis are unlikely to forget that insult for a long time, if at all.

The United Kingdom, which happily supplies weapons to abusers like Turkey and China without worrying about legal advice, has joined a list of other countries that have implemented similar restrictions, among them Spain, the Netherlands and Canada. None of this will have much impact on Israel’s fighting capabilities since more than 90% of the IDF’s imported weaponry comes from the United States and Germany. The threat these measures represent is political, encouraging neutral observers to draw an equivalence between the IDF and Hamas, and to reinforce the view that while Israel may theoretically have the right to defend itself, in practical terms it doesn’t. At the same time, such measures suggest to Israel’s implacable enemies that their positions are essentially correct and that the power of the “Zionist lobby” is what prevents their governments from endorsing their line wholesale. That Israel rises above the fray and makes the right decisions regardless is to its eternal credit.

The post Polio Vaccination Campaign Gives Lie to Claims of Israeli ‘Genocide’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

The Philadelphi Conundrum

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands before a map of the Gaza Strip, telling viewers that Israel must retain control over the “Philadelphi corridor,” a strategic area along the territory’s border with Egypt, during a news conference in Jerusalem, Sept. 2, 2024. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS

JNS.orgIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visibly frustrated and at times even rightfully furious, addressed a hostile foreign press Wednesday evening, condemning defeatist elements who advocate for Israel’s withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor—a move demanded by Hamas, the international community, some of the prominent leftist representatives in Israel’s political and defense establishments, and a minority of Israeli civilians.

Clearly under pressure from the international community to leave the corridor, Netanyahu warned repeatedly during the press conference that such a retreat would enable Hamas to maintain power and smuggle in weapons, preventing the demilitarization of Gaza and posing a grave threat to Israel’s security.

National Unity Party leader Benny Gantz and Knesset member Gadi Eisenkot held their own press conference on Tuesday evening, accusing Netanyahu of obstructing a potential hostage deal with Hamas. They also disputed his stance that Israel should maintain control of the Philadelphi Corridor.

But many Israelis believe this type of thinking is misguided and part of the failed “conceptzia” (governing assumptions) that preceded the Oct. 7 attacks.

As Gallant, Gantz and Eisenkot, as well as opposition leader Yair Lapid, have demonstrated in recent days, they and other high-ranking political and military figures still hold on to these defeatist views.

According to Enia Krivine, senior director for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Israel Programs and National Security Network, “Since day one of the war there has been tension between two of the primary war goals—to bring the hostages back and dismantle Hamas.”

Some in Israel’s political and military echelon, said Krivine, “have decided that bringing the hostages home alive has become the paramount war goal and that this moral imperative supersedes the other two goals,” she said.

Thousands of Israelis siding with this view are currently demonstrating against Netanyahu, accusing him of obstructing a hostage deal.

Netanyahu has been criticized by Israelis on the right for not entering Rafah sooner and taking control of the Philadelphi Corridor immediately after the initial military invasion of Gaza on Oct. 27.

Now that Israeli forces are there, Israelis on the left want Netanyahu to withdraw them to facilitate a deal to get more hostages released.

But many experts, including Krivine and former Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, agree with Netanyahu that contrary to what some Israeli defense officials believe, Israel will not be able to easily return to the corridor once it withdraws, as the international community will place heavy pressure on Jerusalem to keep it from doing so.

“There are those who believe that we can temporarily relinquish control—for 42 days—until the first phase of the deal is completed, and then, if the deal does not progress, return and regain control of the area,” said Ben-Shabbat.

“Of course, the IDF has the ability, operationally, [to] reoccupy this corridor even after 42 days, but it’s not just a matter of military capability,” he added. “Everyone understands that once we leave, Israel will face immense diplomatic pressure from the U.S. and other countries not to return.”

Ben-Shabbat, now the head of the Misgav Institute for Zionist Strategy & National Security, in Jerusalem, warned that since we are in the final stretch before the U.S. elections, the expected American pressure “will be extremely heavy.”

“The legitimacy Israel had to occupy this corridor following Oct. 7 will not exist after we leave it,” he said.

Krivine agreed, saying Israel “would [not] have the legitimacy or the support necessary to accomplish this; not from the United States, not from Egypt and not from the international community.”

Part of the reason for Israel’s insistence, she told JNS, is because the third primary goal of the war is “to make sure that Hamas can no longer pose a threat to Israel.”

Part of the confusion leading up to the press conference was that Netanyahu seems to now be saying he does not intend to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor, but media outlets had reported that he had agreed to withdraw from parts of the corridor that are heavily populated, in the second phase of a proposed ceasefire deal.

Netanyahu clarified on Wednesday that Israel would be willing to withdraw if a suitable foreign entity is found that is able to properly monitor the border and prevent smuggling there.

It is worth mentioning that the European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM) was supposed to monitor the Rafah border after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, but in 2007, after Hamas took over, EUBAM officials simply ran away, fearing for their own security.

Israel is not interested in, nor can it afford, a repeat of such a scenario.

The Philadelphi Corridor was problematic from the very beginning

When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice overrode strong Israeli objections to giving up control over the Philadelphi Corridor.

Israel knew that without effective control of this strip of land, it would become a conduit for smuggling weapons into Gaza. But heavy pressure from the Bush administration, and Rice specifically, forced Israel to pull its forces from the area.

Rice urged Israel to vacate the corridor as a “peaceful gesture” to the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel’s leader at the time, Ariel Sharon, caved to this dangerous request.

While today Egypt denies it has allowed the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, we know this is not true.

Already in 2008, Rice said Cairo must improve border patrol efforts after Israeli officials complained that Egypt was doing a “terrible” job on the Gaza border, failing to stop smuggling of weapons and ammunition into Gaza through tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor.

“We think that Egypt has to do more. Those tunnels need to be dealt with,” Rice said at the time.

Israeli officials said they had sent a video to Washington showing Egyptian security forces helping Hamas terrorists smuggle arms across the border into Gaza.

Egypt responded that it was “doing its best” with the number of personnel it was allowed to deploy at the border under the 1979 peace treaty and a subsequent agreement with Israel.

When Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi came to power in 2013, he allegedly moved to destroy many of the tunnels.

But having uncovered and blocked off 150 smuggling tunnels so far in just the past few months, the IDF has proven that Egypt cannot be trusted and Israel cannot again leave the corridor since Hamas, or other terror organizations, will swiftly return to building new ones.

That decision by the Americans—the type of thinking that continues to pervade the U.S. State Department through the present day—directly led to the tragic events of Oct. 7, the ensuing war over these last 11 months and the continuing tragedy of the hostages in Gaza.

This thinking is the reason Israel was forced to pause fighting for three months earlier in the war, was behind the American pressure on Israel not to enter Rafah and is the leading reason the Americans insist the war “must end now.”

Demonstrating more common sense, Israel’s Security Cabinet voted last Thursday night in favor of maintaining a continued IDF presence in the corridor, even at the cost of a hostage deal.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant voted against the decision, while National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir abstained.

Following news of the execution by Hamas of six hostages, whose bodies were found on Saturday in a Rafah tunnel, Gallant on Sunday called for the Cabinet to reverse its decision, claiming that the corridor is one of the biggest obstacles to a ceasefire deal.

U.S. President Joe Biden expressed his shock and anger over the hostages’ murders and said Hamas leaders must be held accountable.

However, when asked if he felt Netanyahu had done enough to get the hostages released, Biden said “no.”

During a local press conference on Monday, Netanyahu dismissed reports that Biden had criticized him for not doing enough to secure a ceasefire deal, saying he “does not believe Biden said that” in light of the murders.

“What message does this send Hamas?” said Netanyahu.

“I don’t believe that either President Biden or anyone else serious about achieving peace and achieving [the hostages’] release would seriously ask Israel to make these concessions. We’ve already made them. Hamas has to make the concessions,” he added.

What if Israel withdraws?

Ben-Shabbat told JNS that relinquishing control of the Philadelphi Corridor “would encourage Hamas, signal to the residents of Gaza that the terror organization will continue to be the dominant force in the Strip and might even embolden the ‘resistance axis,’ particularly Hezbollah, to take a harder stance against Israel.”

He added: “If, after Oct. 7, and after seeing the implications of military buildup, we don’t insist on this, then it essentially means Israel can be forced to fold on any issue.”

Ben-Shabbat went on to say that “past experience does not allow us to rely on the goodwill of others, especially after what happened to us on Oct. 7.”

He recalled what happened in January 2009 on the eve of the conclusion of “Operation Cast Lead,” when then-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement with the United States and NATO for joint efforts to counter the smuggling threat.

“This agreement did not prevent even a gram of gunpowder from being smuggled into Gaza,” he said.

While some argue that it’s not wise to occupy the corridor because it’s a narrow strip of land, and staying there would expose Israeli forces, Ben-Shabbat told JNS that “now is precisely the time for the IDF to carry out all the necessary engineering work in the area to improve conditions for the safety of our forces,” adding, “Who said we have to settle for a 14-meter-wide strip?”

Ensuring the security of Israeli forces “justifies making the necessary changes to the terrain, and the width of the corridor should be determined accordingly,” he said.

In Krivine’s view, Israel may eventually be able to allow the Egyptians or Americans physical control of the corridor, but it would be irresponsible to do so today.

“There is no way to prevent arms getting in—or terrorists and potentially hostages—being smuggled out of the enclave without a credible inspections regime in the corridor both below ground and above ground,” she said. “Until there is a credible inspections regime established that deprives Hamas the ability to rearm, the Philadelphi corridor must remain in the hands of the IDF.”

[Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar “understands that the hostages are his only remaining leverage over the government of Israel,” she said, adding that Sinwar’s “wicked decision” to execute the hostages when IDF forces were so close to rescuing them “was a ploy to create a wedge in Israeli society and pressure Netanyahu into making tough concessions at the negotiating table.”

Sinwar, she said, “knows that Israel’s Achilles heel is its deep valuing of human life, and he understands how to drive a stake into the heart of Israeli society.”

According to Krivine, giving in to Hamas’s demands means that the terror group survives and begins the process of rebuilding.

“There is no third party—not the P.A. and not the moderate Arab states—that will step into the void unless the IDF can ensure that Hamas is unable to regroup and rearm,” she said.

Israel’s path forward

Brian Carter of the American Enterprise Institute seems to agree.

He told JNS that “either Israel or another capable entity must control the Philadelphi Corridor for Israel to prevent Hamas from rebuilding its capabilities to the same level the group reached by Oct. 7.”

Otherwise, he warned, “Hamas will gradually rebuild itself and undo the progress Israel has made toward defeating the group.”

Any outcome that results in a rebuilt Hamas is “unacceptable and would constitute an Israeli defeat,” he said.

According to Carter, the way forward is to find a party that is capable of and willing to control the Philadelphi Corridor.

He believes it is “unlikely” that any force could prevent smuggling under the corridor without a presence on the corridor.

Ben-Shabbat told JNS that Israel can take more steps to ensure it achieves its objectives in this war.

First, Israel must “completely deprive Hamas of control over the supplies entering the Strip,” he said. “This is its lifeline and the main means of maintaining its governance.”

Second, Israel should “divide Gaza into more sections, beyond what currently exists.”

Third, as another former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Giora Eiland, proposed, Israel should launch a “broad operation” in northern Gaza. This means evacuating Gaza City and the northern Strip, closing it off as a military zone, cutting off supplies to the area, and then conducting a thorough military operation to destroy terrorists.

“In my opinion, it is a good option,” Ben-Shabbat told JNS.

“The plan does have its drawbacks though as Israel can expect resistance from the United States and the international community, and the fact that it involves returning many IDF forces to the Gaza Strip,” he noted.

Finally, Ben-Shabbat suggested Israel could “take action” against Hamas leaders abroad.

The post The Philadelphi Conundrum first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Yemen’s Houthis Say They Shot Down US MQ-9 Drone over Marib Governorate

Newly recruited fighters who joined a Houthi military force intended to be sent to fight in support of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, march during a parade in Sanaa, Yemen, Dec. 2, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

i24 NewsYemen’s Houthi jihadists claimed Saturday night that they successfully ambushed and downed an American MQ-9 drone in Yemen.

“The Yemeni air defenses shot down an American MQ-9 aircraft while it was carrying out hostile activities in the airspace of Ma’rib Governorate,” said the jihadist group’s spokesman Yahya Saree. “This is the eighth plane of its type that the Yemeni Armed Forces have succeeded in shooting down during the Battle of the Promised Victory and the Holy Jihad in support of Gaza.”

“The Yemeni Armed Forces continue to perform their jihadist duties in solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people and in defense of beloved Yemen,” he went on.

“And with the help of Allah Almighty, they are in the process of strengthening their defensive capabilities to confront and respond to the American-British aggression by targeting its hostile military movements in the naval operations zone.”

The post Yemen’s Houthis Say They Shot Down US MQ-9 Drone over Marib Governorate first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News