RSS
US State Department Spokesperson Shuts Down Suggestion Israel Responsible for Majority of Oct. 7 Casualties
An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller shut down a conspiracy theory floated by a Palestinian journalist that Israel killed most of its own civilians who died during the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
During a State Department press briefing on Thursday, Said Arikat — the Washington bureau chief for Al Quds, a Palestinian daily newspaper — asked if the department believed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed the majority of civilians on Oct. 7, citing a report recently published by the left-wing Israeli outlet Haaretz. The article alleged that the IDF approved of the controversial Hannibal Directive, a military protocol which reportedly sanctions use of maximum force to prevent soldiers from being taken hostage, even if it results in increased civilian and military casualties.
Arikat asked Miller if the report changed or influenced the State Department’s :position or perspective on what happened [on Oct. 7].”
“Israel may be responsible for killing a majority of people that died,” Arikat added.
Miller gave a testy retort to Arikat’s attempt to seemingly shift the blame of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. The spokesperson asserted that Hamas, which rules Gaza Gaza, is responsible for the vast majority of Oct. 7 casualties.
“I don’t think that there’s any question that it was Hamas that was responsible for the overwhelming number of deaths on Oct. 7,” Miller responded.
Watch as Al Quds reporter pressed Matthew Miller, saying “Israel—responsible for killing a majority of people that died [on Oct. 7th].”
Miller immediately shuts him down. pic.twitter.com/DMU3WDODpX
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) July 11, 2024
Haaretz obtained documents and soldier testimony claiming that the IDF launched the Hannibal Directive on Oct. 7. According to Haaretz, the IDF ordered the directive as a response to being “overwhelmed” by the sheer number of Hamas terrorists flooding into southern Israel.
The IDF has launched internal investigations into what transpired on Oct. 7.
“The aim of these investigations is to learn and to draw lessons which could be used in continuing the battle. When these investigations are concluded, the results will be presented to the public with transparency,” the military said in a statement.
Israel first approved the Hannibal Directive in 1986 in response to IDF members being taken hostage by enemy forces such as Hezbollah. The IDF officially repealed the controversial procedure in 2016, saying it would instead create new orders better tailored to the various situations that soldiers may find themselves in.
Critics of Israel have falsely claimed that the Haaretz article suggests that the IDF intentionally killed Israelis Oct. 7 in an apparent attempt to defend Hamas’ brutal invasion of the Jewish state.
Arikat has been an outspoken critic of Israel, accusing the IDF of deliberately killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
During a May press briefing, Arikat said that Hamas was not motivated by an “ancient desire to eliminate Jews.” Miller, who was conducting the briefing, responded that Hamas has repeatedly proclaimed it is “committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and committed to the death of the Israeli people.”
The post US State Department Spokesperson Shuts Down Suggestion Israel Responsible for Majority of Oct. 7 Casualties first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Want to Talk to Your Friends About Jew Hatred? Read This Book
Noa Tishby. Photo: Courtesy
Considering the surge of Jew hatred in America today, two questions challenge the Jewish community: how did we get here, and where do we go next?
No single answer suffices, but a recently published book — Uncomfortable Conversations with a Jew by Noa Tishby and Emmanuel Acho — does an admirable job answering both questions. Their book is a chronicle of conversations between the two friends, one a white Jew, Noa, and the other a Black Christian, Emmanuel. In their dialogues, they explore the origins of the current surge of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and antisemitic sentiments in America today.
Noa explains that for millennia, the world shunned or exiled Jews wherever they landed, which forced them to adapt to diverse environments — physically, culturally, and spiritually. That’s how different Jewish ethnic communities evolved.
Although Jews are ethnically diverse, their detractors claim they gain an advantage because of their “whiteness.”
But Noa points out that this supposed whiteness has not protected them from antisemitic attacks in the past or in the present. Jews are a meager two percent of the American population, yet according to the FBI they are victims of more than 60 percent of all religion-based crimes.
Right-wing extremists do not consider Jews white; left-wing extremists consider Jews as privileged and white. The truth is Jews come in all colors and hues. There are white Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, and there are Jews of color from a variety of countries: Sephardic Jews from Spain, Beta Jews from Ethiopia, Cochin Jews from India, Kaifeng Jews from China, and Mizrachi Jews from the Levant and North Africa. Neither color nor DNA is a litmus test for Jewishness.
Noa deftly deflates the all-too-common canards about Jews: they are money hoarders, powerful, disloyal, cheats, bent on world domination, or greedy, dirty, evil, and race polluters.
She explains that when the dominant society holds those mistaken beliefs, regrettably it filters down to the targeted minority who begin to believe those falsehoods, and that leads to self-hatred. Although Jews have been champions for minority causes and supporters of the oppressed groups for decades, there is an absence of reciprocal support for Jews. In fact, the same groups that received help from Jewish allies have become antagonistic to the only Jewish State in the world, as well as to those who support her.
Noa and Emmanuel agree that the recent outrageous and disingenuous responses of university presidents, when asked if students and faculty calling for the genocide of the Jews is hate-speech, speaks volumes about their lack of moral clarity. The same lack of ethical values applies to the morally confused students and professors who justify and support the atrocities Hamas committed on Oct 7, while endorsing the terrorists’ call for the eradication of Israel.
Emmanuel was most curious to learn about the term Zionist, because it seemed to him to be the root of the tension between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
Noa gave this succinct definition: “Zionism is the Jewish people’s right to have self-governance on parts of their ancestral land.” She added, “That’s it. It’s Israel’s right to exist.” And “anti-Zionism is the rejection of Jewish nationhood,” and that is a hallmark of antisemitism.
Emmanuel countered Noa’s explanation by saying that the Black community draws parallels between what they believe Jews did to the Palestinians, and what Americans did to Native Americans. Noa said that is not analogous, because indisputable archaeological evidence shows that the Land of Israel dates to antiquity and “the Jewish people are indigenous to the land.” In short, the Jewish people reclaimed their ancestral land.
On the other hand, when the first Europeans landed on the shores of America, they found Native Americans, but not a trace of English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French artifacts, language, or culture.
Noa asserts that today, the very countries who expelled the Jews over the centuries, are now trying to deny them the land of their ancestors. And the United Nations, which helped found the modern State of Israel, is determined to destroy its own creation.
As for for the effort to boycott Israel, Noa says that it is entirely antisemitic, because it started before the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948. In 1945, the Arab League called for a boycott of all Jewish products, not just Jewish products made in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or Haifa — but all products made by Jews anywhere in the world. The boycott has never been about the land; it has always been about the Jews.
The battle against systemic antisemitism and systemic racism forged a natural bond joining Noa and Emmanuel. Emmanuel quipped, “Your career is what you are paid for, and your calling is what you were made for.”
In that sense Noa and Emmanuel “were made” to co-author this book, which is not for the faint of heart. But it delves into issues that polite company prefers to ignore, because it is easier to ignore this hatred of Jews than face the truth of the situation.
Since retiring from IBM Steve Wenick has served as a freelance book reviewer for HarperCollins Publishing and Simon & Schuster. His reviews and articles have appeared in The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, The Algemeiner, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Jewish Voice of Southern New Jersey. Steve and his wife are residents of Voorhees, New Jersey.
The post Want to Talk to Your Friends About Jew Hatred? Read This Book first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
As Threat of Hezbollah War Rises, Here’s What You Should Know About Israeli-Lebanese Relations
Mourners carry a coffin during the funeral of Wissam Tawil, a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan forces who according to Lebanese security sources was killed during an Israeli strike on south Lebanon, in Khirbet Selm, Lebanon, Jan. 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Aziz Taher
Israel’s relations with Lebanon have historically been less hostile than with some of its other neighbors — despite having no formal diplomatic ties. Today, however, the Israeli-Lebanese border is an extremely dangerous place, with widespread concerns about a major war breaking out in the near future.
So, how did we get here?
Israel’s War of Independence began in 1947 as a civil war between Palestinian Arabs, supported by irregular Arab forces from across the region, and Jews. After David Ben-Gurion declared the Jewish state on May 14, 1948, the armies of five neighboring states, including Lebanon, attacked Israel. The pretext was to “protect Palestine” — but they had their own agendas, which was to destroy Israel and grab as much land as they could.
After the war, Israel reached an armistice agreement with Lebanon on March 23, 1949. Israel’s armistice agreements with Arab states were not final peace treaties, because Arab leaders still refused to accept the Jewish State’s existence.
For decades, Israel heard little from Lebanon, the only neighbor that did not attack Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. One reason Lebanon was the least antagonistic was its significant Christian population, which made the Lebanese leadership less susceptible to the anti-Israel hostility in other parts of the region.
The 1970s were a terrible era for Lebanon, for a myriad of reasons. The country effectively lost its independence and became dominated by Syria, a Soviet client state. Making matters worse, Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) settled in Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan.
The PLO wreaked havoc in various ways, including targeting Israeli communities near the border with rocket fire and other attacks. This provoked the devastating 1982 Lebanon War between Israel and the PLO, which was fought on Lebanese territory.
While the IDF was successful in compelling Arafat and the PLO to leave Lebanon for Tunisia, a new force filled the vacuum in southern Lebanon: Hezbollah, a terrorist group and proxy of Iran’s extremist regime.
Hezbollah wasted no time creating terror locally and internationally. On October 23, 1983, just a year after the conclusion of Israel’s war with the PLO, a Hezbollah suicide bombing at an American Marine barracks in Beirut murdered 241 American service members. The attack is just one of several devastating suicide bombings that have been carried out by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah’s suicide bombing murdered 85 people at a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994. That Argentina has never successfully prosecuted anyone for the crime is indicative of the depth of Hezbollah’s penetration in South America.
As the culmination of meetings beginning with the Declaration of Principles in September 1993 and the Oslo Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat met at the Camp David Summit in July 2000, to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Arafat ultimately rejected a proposed two-state solution that would have established an independent Palestinian state in all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank — a decision President Clinton called a “colossal historical blunder.”
Two months earlier, the IDF withdrew from southern Lebanon, after spending nearly two decades keeping terrorist threats away from Israel’s northern border. Some analysts believe Israel’s unilateral disengagement played a role in stiffening Arafat’s resolve to reject a final peace agreement. Wait long enough, his thinking went, and the Israelis will simply abandon territory. The upside of Israel’s withdrawal was that withdrawal fulfilled UN Security Council Resolution 425.
The next major flashpoint in Israeli-Lebanese relations was in 2006, when Hezbollah kidnapped and killed three Israeli soldiers while simultaneously launching rockets into Israeli communities as a diversion. This aggression sparked a 34-day conflict between Hezbollah and Israel that was also fought in Lebanon, and constituted the most recent major escalation in the area, until October 7.
Lebanon hasn’t been a fully independent state since the 1970s due to Syrian and Iranian (Hezbollah) interference. In their effort to destroy Israel, outside forces largely destroyed Lebanon.
To this day, more than 60,000 Israelis are internally displaced from their homes in the north due to over countless thousands of rocket, missile, and drone attacks in northern Israel, the vast majority of which were fired by Hezbollah, since October 7.
This is the picture that the American public should familiarize itself with as all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah looms.
The lack of historical context, media bias, and disinformation on social media has created mass confusion during this escalation, just as it has during the October 7th war. With a 24/7 news cycle bringing content without context, understanding this history is necessary to properly understand what Israel is up against in the region.
The post As Threat of Hezbollah War Rises, Here’s What You Should Know About Israeli-Lebanese Relations first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Despite Vast Evidence to the Contrary, Media Is Still Pushing Lies About Food Availability in Gaza
Aerial view shows a World Central Kitchen (WCK) barge loaded with food arriving off Gaza, where there is risk of famine after five months of Israel’s military campaign, in this handout image released March 15, 2024. Photo: Israel Defense Forces/Handout via REUTERS
We’ve been through this before.
In June, the IPC Famine Review Committee said there is no famine in the Gaza Strip as of yet. The UN subsequently acknowledged the IPC’s latest report. HonestReporting has also done its due diligence to understand what is really happening in Gaza.
But now, UN special “experts” are still claiming there’s “no doubt” that there is a famine:
With the death of these children from starvation despite medical treatment in central Gaza, there is no doubt that famine has spread from northern Gaza into central and southern Gaza.
They also despicably repeated the lie that Israel is committing a genocide, even after though the biased International Court of Justice (IJC) decided that Israel’s fight against Hamas in Gaza is not considered a genocide.
To begin with, UN officials or those claiming to be UN experts cannot just declare an accusation of this nature in an unofficial capacity. Second, it’s all just opinion.
That’s all it took, however, for the media take the lead. They apparently think that it’s impossible to understand the inference that there must be a famine if bodies like the IPC put out real data reports every few months over whether or not there is evidence of a famine in Gaza.
But who cares about logic, right?
Journalists understand very well how the public consumes information, and they know how it views bodies like the UN — that people take their word as an official authority. Yet, the media continue to publish articles, irresponsibly portraying the statement of these UN “experts” as if it is an official UN one.
Or take this CNN piece, which makes it seem like the claim of a famine is an official UN statement:
The recent deaths of more Palestinian children due to hunger and malnutrition in the Gaza Strip indicates that famine has spread across the entire enclave, according to a United Nations statement, citing independent experts.
These “experts” are part of UN Special Procedures, and they are volunteers, not official UN staff.
Therefore, many of these people are public about their own personal opinions, like one UN special rapporteur, antisemite Francesca Albanese.
Francesca Albanese has previously apologized after antisemitic posts on her personal social media profile were uncovered and has likened the Jewish state to Nazism.
More on Albanese’s deeply compromised background from @UNWatch‘s @HillelNeuer. https://t.co/XEa5xr6BFm
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 10, 2024
One of Albanese’s most recent offenses was being caught lying about Gaza casualty figures via her X account (formerly Twitter) by making false claims about the contents of a letter in The Lancet, which made a careless estimation that 186,000 deaths could be “attributed” to the Gaza toll — even though this hasn’t happened or been proven by any body.
Another “expert,” Michael Fakhri, has a history of allowing his bias to cloud his judgment.
Michael Fakhri. As @SimonPlosker noted in 2021 in @Jerusalem_Post, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food spent his time promoting the boycott campaign against Israel while ignoring human rights abuser states that let their people starve. https://t.co/oZXwA0r8dv
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 10, 2024
Some of the UN special rapporteurs signed off at the bottom of the letter seem to even have little relevance outside their volunteer work at the UN. Nonetheless, when one sees “UN experts” in the headline, they don’t realize that these people don’t represent the UN in an official capacity.
The public also doesn’t know that some, like Albanese and Fakhri, have an anti-Israel agenda. The biggest question then remains: when will the media take caution before spreading the propaganda of agenda-driven “UN experts?”
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 Despite Vast Evidence to the Contrary, Media Is Still Pushing Lies About Food Availability in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.