Sunday, November 17, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

Open season

By
Michael Kuttner
-

“A period of time when an individual or group is exposed to criticism, condemnation, attack or recrimination.

This definition entirely encapsulates the frenzied fury being currently generated by all and sundry against Israel and its supporters worldwide.

At the best of times, the barrage of bombastic recriminations issued forth on a daily, almost hourly basis. However, when yet another situation arises that necessitates drastic action, the volume of howling hate ramps up.

This is exactly the situation which now exists.

There is one overriding fact that friends and critics alike prefer to overlook or, more probably, deliberately sweep under the carpet.

Ever since the return of Jews to their ancestral historical homeland, they have faced an unremitting campaign of terror designed to deny their inalienable rights to settle there. In other words a total state of war has existed and continues to exist with all those whose agenda is the murder and elimination of the Jewish State.

It is important in these woke times that we do not mince words and succumb to meaningless diplomatic mumbling.

In a war situation, there unfortunately are occasions when human error and unintentional missteps cause collateral casualties, such as in the recent targeting of an aid convoy in Gaza. These situations, tragic as they may be, must be seen for what they really are, namely, mistakes as opposed to deliberate targeting of innocent individuals or groups.

This is where the current explosions of fake righteous wrath by so-called friends and long-time haters alike must be challenged for the hypocritical convulsions they represent.

As soon as the news broke, it was a given that all and sundry would be straining to unleash all their pent-up fury and frustrations against Israel. Sure enough, the torrent of unsolicited demands immediately gushed forth. At the same time, the media onslaught cracked into high gear. One could almost hear journalists and editors salivating at the prospect of being able to bludgeon Israel and by extension, Zionists in their editorials and reports.

In their eagerness to smear Israel and find it guilty of the worst crimes known to humanity its evil intentions and deliberate deceitfulness must be hammered home. Like the libels of the Middle Ages, the masses must be conditioned to believe that Jews/Zionists are the reason that innocents are being targeted.

It does not take much effort for the lies to spread and stick as can be seen from the masses who mindlessly participate in weekly demonstrations vilifying everything and everyone connected to Israel.

One of the most obviously transparent deceptions being swallowed is the accusation that portrays Israel as the only country in the world that has bombed innocent civilians. Pompous politicians from the four corners of the globe are falling over themselves in order to show that they alone hold the moral high ground. The hypocritical condemnations and demands made by leaders of non democratic nations can be dismissed and ignored. It is the mealy-mouthed democracies that quiver in the face of Islamic terror threats that raise the hackles of most Israelis.

Preaching morality and scolding Israel is galling when it issues forth from the very countries that themselves have been complicit in killing innocent civilians during military action.

When the current UK Foreign Minister, Lord Cameron, was Prime Minister in 2011, he enthusiastically supported the NATO-led bombing of Libya, during which numerous Libyans died as a result of misaimed bombs. Included in the civilian casualties were ambulance workers. Neither worldwide convulsions nor Cameron’s resignation followed. That has not stopped Cameron from demanding “a full and frank explanation and admission of Israel’s guilt” with a threat of impending UK sanctions.

As though this nauseating British pomposity is not bad enough we are now subject to the same rhetoric from the Biden White House and State Department. Anyone would think that not a single innocent civilian was ever killed by American actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. Women and children were bombed “by mistake” at wedding parties and other collateral fatalities occurred during the campaigns to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Vietcong. Did those responsible find themselves hauled in front of the International Court of Justice or pilloried on a daily basis at the UN? How many innocent men, women and children did the US abandon to the merciless savagery of the Taliban when they fled from Afghanistan?

The French and Belgians have a similar sordid history in their colonial wars yet none of this is thrown in their faces. These countries and other democracies prefer to forget their own much more heinous actions in preference to concentrating their double standards on Israel.

The media, of course, are more than willing partners in this campaign of vilification, condemnation and delegitimization. I saw an excellent cartoon in which someone reading a newspaper said to his companion that “newspapers are much smaller these days.” His friend responded by saying “yes, that’s because they only report half the news.”

Penny Wong, Australia’s Foreign Minister, has been working overtime in lecturing, hectoring and threatening Israel. Contrast this with her refusal to visit the sites of the 7 October pogrom. Now, she is preparing the ground for recognition of “Palestine”, which, in her professional opinion, is the only way that peace and tolerance can be achieved. Anything more removed from reality would be hard to find, but that is the prevailing ignorant political mantra that exists. Israel is already investigating the tragic incident but despite this the Australian Government has felt compelled to appoint its own investigator. It seems that, according to Albanese and Wong, Israel cannot be trusted to carry out an impartial inquiry.

This sick thinking has infected large swathes of so-called “progressives” worldwide. US Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats are insinuating that Israel is “likely” complicit in genocidal war crimes. This steady drip feed of ill will has spread to every continent with French, Irish, Scandinavian, South African and South American politicians and media joining the feeding frenzy of hate. It explains why some one like the Spanish Prime Minister can assert that “Israeli attacks on Hamas threaten world safety.” Not so long ago Jews were accused of world domination. Now it seems the Jewish State is guilty of destroying world peace because it is prepared to deal with jihadists who threaten civilization.

Sadly, this malady has also affected many Jews who join the mindless mobs as they demonstrate, demonize and shout ignorant slogans.

One gets a sense of how the US has capitulated to Islamic terror threats when looking at the reaction to Iranian-sponsored attacks. The Houthi terrorists in Yemen are engaging in piracy on the high seas while their citizens starve to death. The US & UK have refused to deal seriously with this. Despite feeble attempts at countermeasures, the piracy continues. Now, the US State Department has proclaimed “that we favour a diplomatic solution because we know that there is no military solution. If they stop attacking ships, we could remove their terrorist designation.”  Does anyone hear the echoes of Chamberlain’s appeasement policies towards the aggression of Germany & Italy in the 1930s?

It is obvious that nothing has changed and that the refusal to stand up to bullies and genocidal plotters will inevitably lead to the same disastrous results as in the past.

The son of Hamas’s founder articulated what should be obvious but, unfortunately, escapes the logic of all of Israel’s detractors. He declared that there is no difference between Hamas and Palestinians. Unless and until Islamic jihadists are deradicalized there is no possibility of any sort of peaceful coexistence.

It is a pity that that all those who have declared open season on Israel/Zionists/Jews and have succumbed to the ancient virus of hate refuse to internalise this basic truth.

Michael Kuttner is a Jewish New Zealander who for many years was actively involved with various communal organisations connected to Judaism and Israel. He now lives in Israel and is J-Wire’s correspondent in the region.

Revealed: secret letters that show Iran’s £200m payments to Hamas

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
Addressed to a man called Abu Ibrahim, known to the rest of the world as Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in Gaza, the typed letter is matter of fact. “Attached is a table of payments from Iran between 2014 and 2020,” it states.
Yet what follows in correspondence discovered during the war in Gaza is what Israel’s military believe is compelling evidence of a complex series of payments, which sheds light on the extent of Tehran’s continued funding for the Palestinian fighting group.
The two letters, the second of which was handwritten, were written by the chief of staff of the Hamas fighting wing, Marwan Issa, who signed them as Abu al-Baraa. They appear to detail at least $222 million received from Iran and have been shared exclusively by The Times. Issa is believed to have been killed last month in an Israeli strike on his compound in Nuseirat in central Gaza.
Addressed to a man called Abu Ibrahim, known to the rest of the world as Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in Gaza, the typed letter is matter of fact. “Attached is a table of payments from Iran between 2014 and 2020,” it states.
Yet what follows in correspondence discovered during the war in Gaza is what Israel’s military believe is compelling evidence of a complex series of payments, which sheds light on the extent of Tehran’s continued funding for the Palestinian fighting group.
The two letters, the second of which was handwritten, were written by the chief of staff of the Hamas fighting wing, Marwan Issa, who signed them as Abu al-Baraa. They appear to detail at least $222 million received from Iran and have been shared exclusively by The Times. Issa is believed to have been killed last month in an Israeli strike on his compound in Nuseirat in central Gaza.
A letter from Marwan Issa, chief of staff of the Hamas fighting wing, to Sinwar
Sinwar, Issa and the overall military commander of Hamas, Mohammed Deif, were the masterminds of the surprise attack on Israel six months ago.
The first of the letters dates from 2020 and shows monthly payments from Iran, starting in July 2014, while Hamas was fighting a previous war with Israel. In total, $154 million was transferred during this six-year period. In the comment section of the letter appear allocations, from the total sum, that were handed directly to Sinwar in cash and in one case to an Abu al-Abed, who is believed to be Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas political bureau.
Issa signed the letter as Abu al-Baraa
The second, from November 2021, begins: “In the name of Allah the merciful. To my dear brother Abu Ibrahim, Allah protect him. Warm greetings, peace, Allah’s mercy and blessing upon him.” It then details payments from Iran following the war fought that year, which Hamas called Operation Sword of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in the letter.
After the war, Iran transferred the largest single sum, $58 million. Two further sums of $5 million are mentioned as having been received as well as additional expected. The letter also details how most of the money was allocated to “the apparatus” — the fighting wing of Hamas — as well as a smaller sum to the political wing and $2 million directly to Sinwar.
A breakdown of money transfers from Issa to Sinwar
The money is believed to have arrived in Beirut from Iran, in cash, where it was given by officers from Iran’s Republican Guard to their Hamas contacts. Saeed Izadi, who is mentioned by Issa in the letters as Haj Ramadan and was allegedly the source of the money, is head of the Palestinian division office in Iran’s Quds Force, co-ordinating and funding from Beirut operations with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian militant movements.
Until last week, his direct commander was Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, commander of the Quds Force in Syria and Lebanon. Zahedi was the most senior of seven men killed in a suspected Israeli airstrike on April 1 which hit a consular building in Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus.
Iran has yet to retaliate for the attack, which Israeli officials privately say was aimed at demonstrating to Tehran that it can no longer hide behind their proxies in the region. Intelligence services in the west and the Middle East believe Iran will retaliate and that Tehran’s dilemma is whether to do so through one of its proxies, as it has in the past, or to launch a rare direct attack on Israeli targets.
After United States intelligence on Wednesday warned that a strike by Iran or its proxies was imminent, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said his country was prepared “defensively and offensively” for “scenarios involving challenges in other sectors”.
Israeli intelligence officers believe Zahedi would have passed the money on to Saleh al-Arouri, the Hamas military leader in Beirut who was assassinated in another Israeli strike in January during a meeting in the Dahya neighbourhood, a US Treasury Department stronghold. From Beirut, the funds would be transferred to Gaza through a network of money-changers using either crypto-currency accounts or a system of credits to traders in Gaza, who would then pass the money over to Issa or his representatives.
One of the main Lebanese money-changers allegedly involved in the transfers, Mohammad Surur, was found dead with several gunshots to his legs this week in a small town near Beirut. Surur, who was known to have close ties to Hezbollah, was designated by the US Treasury Department for being involved in funding terrorism. More money-changers have been designated in recent months.
Hamas is considered a proxy of Iran but is relatively independent in comparison to Hezbollah, which was founded by Iranian agents and shares their Shia faith, or Palestine Islamic Jihad, which is fully funded and directed by Tehran. Israeli intelligence believes Iran was not informed in advance of the surprise attack and massacre in Israel on October 7.
The founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, who was a disciple of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement, had ties with the Iranians and even visited the previous Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran, preferred not to receive Iranian funding. Hamas leaders since Yassin have changed tack, accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran.
In that time, the alliance has had ups and downs. For example, the former head of the political bureau, Khaled Mashal, decided in 2012 to close the Hamas headquarters in Damascus and distance Hamas from the Iranians, following their backing of the bloody suppression of the uprisings against the Assad regime, in which many members of the local Muslim Brotherhood were murdered.
For years there remained deep disagreements over whether to re-establish ties with Iran and Syria, but as the documents captured by the Israelis seem to prove, by 2014, payments had resumed.
This is almost certainly connected to the fact that in the summer of 2014, Hamas fought a seven-week war against Israel from Gaza, Operation Protective Edge. The Iranian payments are believed to be “encouragements” for Hamas to continue fighting Israel.
In 2017 and 2018, the breakdown prepared by Issa shows, there were no payments “at our request”, which could be connected to the fact that Hamas was concentrating at the time on trying to rebuild Gaza rather than directly confront Israel. It may also reflect the lingering differences among senior Hamas members regarding the group’s ties with Iran.
The bump in payments after the 12-day war in 2021 would indicate Iranian appreciation and encouragement. Israeli intelligence believes the payments continued at least until the October 7 attack and helped finance the arsenal of rockets and weapons used in it.

Ibn Saud, FDR, and the Future of the Jewish State

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivering his Fireside Chat

On Feb. 14, 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz Al Saud, or Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia, on the USS Quincy, a warship parked in the Suez Canal. Together, they transformed the Middle East and ushered in decades of close U.S.-Saudi ties. That conclave remains a cherished lodestar for the Saudis to this day, with pictures of it adorning their government offices, while the United States still calls its ambassador’s residence in Riyadh the Quincy House. However, less well-known is that bilateral bonding came at the expense of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s quiet efforts to fashion a postwar regional settlement that included a Jewish state.

Roosevelt’s meeting with Ibn Saud on his return from the Yalta conference came at a critical time for Zionism. Through the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain had initiated a pro-Zionist policy committed to establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine. As colonial secretary in 1921-22, Churchill implemented policies to fulfil that pledge, marking the zenith of British Zionism. Britain’s commitment then waned, and in 1939 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain effectively nullified it with a White Paper that did not envision a Jewish national home, and limited Jewish immigration into Palestine to 75,000 over five years, restricting a refuge for European Jews facing Nazi genocide.

Churchill fiercely led the parliamentary opposition to the White Paper, despite Chamberlain being his (Conservative) party leader, but when he became premier in May 1940, Churchill shied away from overturning it. Instead, he worked to establish a postwar settlement that included a Jewish state, which he imagined controlling all of Palestine west of the Jordan River. At the same time, he thought it practical that the Jewish state would initially comprise part of a larger Arab confederation headed by Ibn Saud, the tribal leader who founded modern Saudi Arabia in 1932. There had been growing Zionist support for such a structure and Churchill was informed, incorrectly, that Ibn Saud was interested in heading it.

Churchill initially began exploring this postwar vision in 1941. Always philo-Semitic, Churchill became a true Zionist in 1921 while colonial secretary, and while his Zionism fluctuated depending on larger interests, it deepened in the 1930s, when both he and the Zionists languished in the British political wilderness. He was keen to do right by the Jews and redeem their suffering at this most precarious moment in their history. He also became increasingly concerned about German advances in the Middle East, and he hoped his pursuit of a postwar regional Arab confederation that included a Jewish state would rally support for Britain’s cause among the Arabs, the Jews of Palestine, and American Jews—with the latter holding, he believed, considerable influence in then-neutral America.

Churchill’s view of Ibn Saud evolved over time. In the 1920s Churchill thought him a Muslim extremist, but now considered him the “greatest living Arab,” who should be “Boss of the Bosses” or “Caliph” of his conceived confederation. “As the custodian of Mecca, his authority might well be acceptable,” over Iran and Transjordan, who were both ruled by British-allied Hashemites whom Churchill didn’t respect. Saudi Arabia’s newfound oil wealth evidently influenced his thinking as did, uncharacteristically, the pro-Ibn Saud views of government officials he usually disdained. Those government officials were generally anti-Zionist, and his plan was widely opposed by the Colonial and Foreign offices, and most of the War Cabinet. His own foreign secretary, the antisemitic and anti-Zionist Anthony Eden, thought with good reason that a federation including both Ibn Saud and the rival Hashemites would be unstable.

Despite this opposition, Churchill eventually managed in January 1944 to convince his anti-Zionist War Cabinet to approve “in principle” a postwar plan for an “Association of Levant States” comprising a small “Jewish State,” a British-controlled Jerusalem state, a truncated Lebanon, and a Greater Syria encompassing southeast Lebanon, Transjordan, and certain Arab areas of Palestine. This plan was proposed by the Cabinet Committee on Palestine, headed at Churchill’s behest by the pro-Zionist Labourite Home Secretary Herbert Morrison. Churchill didn’t agree with the entire plan, but it marked a tremendous achievement for his Zionist quest.

In November 1944 the Morrison committee revised the plan. As long as the Hashemite British ally Abdullah headed Transjordan, it recommended that Arab Palestine and Transjordan join an Abdullah-ruled “Southern Syria” that would also include the Galilee. The committee also recommended a Jerusalem-based state controlled by Britain, which would “safeguard for ever the Holy City.” Britain would also control the Negev. Yet the committee still remained committed to a rump Jewish state.

Churchill was not keen on the size or even existence of the proposed British-controlled, Jerusalem-based state. Also, he wanted a larger Jewish state comprising all of western Palestine, including the Negev. He even expressed to Roosevelt and Britain-based Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1943 that the Zionists should also get Transjordan. For years, Churchill viewed the initial size of a Jewish state as simply a starting point for Israeli expansion. The report gave Churchill the minimum of what he needed—namely, a War Cabinet proposal for a postwar Jewish polity.

On Nov. 4, 1944, the day after he received the latest Morrison committee report, Churchill had a long lunch with his old friend Weizmann. He mentioned the existence of a pro-Zionist cabinet committee but cautioned it would not lead to any statement about Palestine policy until after the war with Germany and probably not until after a postwar general election, presumably given the plan’s political sensitivity. Churchill was unequivocal about U.S. involvement in solving the Palestine problem, asserting, “If Roosevelt and I come together to the Conference Table, we can carry through all we want.” He evidently believed American support could overcome Arab opposition, thereby also circumventing anti-Zionists in his own government, as Eden feared.

Yet Churchill also expressed concern that Washington was not sufficiently pro-Zionist. Indeed, he often felt compelled during the war to persuade Roosevelt to be more sympathetic to European Jewish suffering, which gave him cause to wonder if the Zionists had as much political clout in the United States as he had avowed to his anti-Zionist colleagues. Several times during their meeting he expressed his surprise to Weizmann at the anti-Zionism of some prominent American Jews.

Both Churchill and Weizmann came away from their meeting emboldened. That very day Churchill urged War Cabinet consideration of the new Morrison report. The following day he wrote Roosevelt recommending their upcoming summit with Stalin be held in British-controlled Palestine: “I am somewhat attracted by the suggestion of Jerusalem. Here there are first-class hotels, government houses, etc., and every means can be taken to ensure security.” In this setting, Churchill likely would have pressed his plan for a postwar pro-Zionist regional settlement. But Roosevelt demurred, and the meeting was held instead at Yalta in Soviet Crimea.

Two days later, Churchill’s pro-Zionist efforts hit a significant roadblock. On Nov. 6, 1944, in Cairo, members of the extremist Zionist organization, Lehi, or Stern Gang, assassinated Lord Moyne, Britain’s resident minister in the Middle East. Churchill told the House of Commons it represented a personal betrayal, but he expressed his outrage in measured words and tone. The Foreign Office recommended suspending Jewish immigration into Palestine and the British military requested postponing redeploying troops from Palestine to Italy in order to search for illegal arms held by Palestinian Jews. This wasn’t the first time the British military and bureaucrats prioritized confronting Zionists to Nazis. Churchill rejected those requests but decided, given the toxicity of the subject, to postpone War Cabinet debate on the Morrison committee’s plan, even though it already was on the agenda and the report had been circulated to War Cabinet members. The War Cabinet never did debate the final plan. Although becoming exasperated with the region—privately noting, “We are getting uncommonly little out of our Middle East encumbrances and paying an undue price for that little”—Churchill turned his attention to persuading Roosevelt and Ibn Saud of his pro-Zionist diplomatic solution.

While intrigued by Churchill’s ideas, Roosevelt became aware of Ibn Saud’s hostility to a pro-Zionist settlement. In 1943, the Saudi leader wrote Roosevelt that Palestine was a “sacred Moslem Arab country” that “belonged to the Arabs,” accused the Jews of seeking to “exterminate the peaceful Arabs,” and hoped the Allies would not “evict” the Arabs from Palestine and install “vagrant Jews who have no ties with this country except an imaginary claim which, from the point of view of right and justice, has no grounds except what they invent through fraud and deceit.” Roosevelt replied to his “Great and Good Friend” Ibn Saud, expressing his wish for a friendly Arab-Jewish understanding over Palestine before the war was over, and pledging to forgo important decisions about Palestine “without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews.”

Two presidential envoys confirmed Ibn Saud’s fierce antisemitism and anti-Zionism to Roosevelt. In 1943, General Patrick Hurley conveyed Ibn Saud’s opposition to a Zionist state and quoted the Saudi king declaring: “I hate the Jews more than anyone. My religion and my Islamic belief make it inevitable that I should.” Roosevelt got a similar report that year from Lieutenant Colonel Harold Hoskins. Churchill was informed of both these reports, but noted, when rebuffing a Foreign Office request to meet Hoskins: “My opinions on this question are the result of long reflection and are not likely to undergo any change.”

Roosevelt, who enjoyed the overwhelming support of American Jews in all his elections, remained less enthusiastic about Zionism, and about Jews in general. In the 1944 campaign, the Republican political convention endorsed a strong pro-Zionist plank, and the Democrats, with Roosevelt’s support, followed with the same. But as Cordell Hull, Roosevelt’s secretary of state, noted, “In general the President at times talked both ways to Zionists and Arabs, besieged as he was by each camp.”

Having just won his fourth term, Roosevelt seemingly was not overly concerned about American Jewish opinion. Instead, Roosevelt and other U.S. officials were increasingly preoccupied with Saudi Arabia’s promising petroleum potential as American energy reserves appeared to be in decline. He still hoped and felt confident he could convince Ibn Saud to come to some agreement on Zionism, even as the State Department informed him that the Zionist issue inhibited friendly U.S.-Arab relations. Ibn Saud made clear his frame of mind when he told a U.S. delegation a few days before the Yalta conference, “If America should choose in favor of the Jews, who are accursed in the Koran as enemies of the Muslims until the end of the world, it will indicate to us that America has repudiated her friendship with us and this we should regret. The choice, however, is for America.”

Asked by Stalin at Yalta if he intended to make concessions to Ibn Saud at their upcoming meeting, Roosevelt said he might offer to give the Saudi leader the 6 million Jews in the United States. (One journalist writing in these pages argued Roosevelt was keen that Jews be settled thinly across the world.) Roosevelt made other antisemitic jokes during the war to Churchill, who didn’t reciprocate.

When Roosevelt and Ibn Saud finally met on the USS Quincy on Feb. 14, 1945, Roosevelt set an accommodating tone by suspending his chain-smoking in Ibn Saud’s presence, in accordance to the Saudi king’s preference. According to his translator, the ardently pro-Saudi U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia, William Eddy, who remains one of the primary sources for what transpired, Roosevelt expressed hope that Arab countries would permit 10,000 European Jews to immigrate into Palestine after the war. Ibn Saud flatly rejected even that small request, noting, “Arabs and the Jews could never cooperate, neither in Palestine, nor in any other country.” He blamed Arab-Jewish turmoil in Palestine solely on Jewish immigration and Jews purchasing land.

Roosevelt then tried ingratiation. He reacted positively to Ibn Saud’s recommendation that surviving European Jews return to their homes or move to Axis countries, with the president noting there was now a lot of space in Poland after 3 million Jews had been killed by the Germans. According to U.S. minutes of the meeting, Roosevelt also “wished to assure His Majesty that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people.” The president further distanced himself from pro-Zionist remarks made by other U.S. politicians and suggested the Arabs do a better job of making their case because “many people in America and England are misinformed.”

The president also confirmed British suspicions by disparaging America’s close wartime ally and now growing rival for Middle Eastern oil. Roosevelt reportedly told Ibn Saud, “You and I want freedom and prosperity for our people and their neighbors after the war. How and by whose hand freedom and prosperity arrive concerns us but little. The English also work and sacrifice to bring freedom and prosperity to the world, but on the condition that it be brought by them and marked ‘Made in Britain.’” Ibn Saud later told U.S. Minister Eddy, “Never have I heard the English so accurately described.” Ibn Saud was understandably ecstatic after this meeting and told a prominent sheikh upon his return to Saudi Arabia, “The high point of my entire life is my meeting with President Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt gave conflicting reports of his meeting and the conclusions he drew, based on his audience. He told his friend, the American Jewish investor Bernard Baruch, and Rabbi Stephen Wise, that he did not like Ibn Saud and was displeased with the meeting. Yet he also told the anti-Zionist Hoskins that he was unimpressed with Jewish development of Palestine beyond the coastal plain (which he observed from his airplane), that the more numerous Arabs in Palestine and neighboring lands would triumph over the Palestinian Jews, and that he supported a State Department draft plan for making Palestine an international territory for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Perhaps most definitive was his off-the-cuff, post-trip assessment to Congress: “On the problem of Arabia I learned more about that whole problem, the Moslem problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters.”

Roosevelt’s appeasement of Ibn Saud completely undercut whatever Churchill sought from the Saudi leader. Three days after the USS Quincy meeting, Churchill arrived in Egypt and drove to meet and host Ibn Saud at a desert oasis hotel for lunch. Churchill immediately raised the issue of the Saudi king’s opposition to smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol in his presence. Churchill records telling Ibn Saud with his characteristic humor, “I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them.” That likely didn’t go over well with the fundamentalist Muslim leader.

At risk of compromising some of Britain’s interests in Saudi oil, Churchill pressed Ibn Saud to accept a Jewish state, apparently along the lines of the federation scheme that he had promoted since 1941, even though the Morrison committee did not emphasize Ibn Saud’s role. Churchill reported to the War Cabinet that he “pleaded the case of the Jews with His Majesty but without, he [Churchill] thought, making a great deal of impression, Ibn Saud quoting the Koran on the other side, but he [Churchill] had not failed to impress upon the King the importance which we attached to this question.” Understandably, Churchill did not want to belabor his failed meeting with Ibn Saud in his War Cabinet report.

We learn more about the meeting from Ibn Saud’s account to the American envoy Eddy, Hoskins’ cousin, who later worked for the Arabian oil company Aramco. In this telling, Churchill was “confidently wielding the big stick. Great Britain had supported and subsidized me for twenty years, and had made possible the stability of my reign by fending off potential enemies on my frontiers. Since Britain had seen me through difficult days, she is entitled now to request my assistance in the problem of Palestine where a strong Arab leader can restrain fanatical Arab elements, insist on moderation in Arab councils, and effect a realistic compromise with Zionism.” Ibn Saud asserted Churchill was demanding “an act of treachery to the Prophet and all believing Muslims which would wipe out my honor and destroy my soul. I could not acquiesce in a compromise with Zionism much less take any initiative. Furthermore, I pointed out, that even in the preposterous event that I were willing to do so, it would not be a favor to Britain, since promotion of Zionism from any quarter must indubitably bring bloodshed, wide-spread disorder in the Arab lands, with certainly no benefit to Britain or anyone else. By this time Mr. Churchill had laid the big stick down.”

Churchill thought he could leverage what he considered Ibn Saud’s obligation to him and Britain; believed a British-supported Arab confederation headed by Saudi Arabia would offer an important inducement; and, perhaps most importantly, hoped that Roosevelt would press the Zionist cause. The Saudi king was unimpressed with past British support, as Britain continued to support his Hashemite rivals in Transjordan and Iraq, and embraced the ascendant United States over the descendant Britain. Meanwhile, the ailing American president had other goals, and sold out the Jews, and the British, to appease the Saudi leader.

Of course, even if Ibn Saud was inclined to agree to Churchill’s proposal, it is unclear if it would have mattered much. The Saudi leader had little money (the petrodollars did not roll in until after the war) and only a weak hold over the religious tribes across the vast Arabian desert, let alone over Palestinian Arabs, whom Churchill hoped the Saudi leader would restrain. It might have been more practical for Churchill to focus on achieving American support for a Jewish state, and then impose it on the Palestinian Arabs and the region, as he was willing to do for years. But he was wedded to the 1920s’ pan-Arab views of many British officials, even though the Arabs had become more fractured, and less accommodating to Zionism and Britain. But, again, U.S. support was lacking. For Roosevelt, the budding relationship with Saudi Arabia came first.

Churchill’s wartime quest to ensure a postwar Jewish state had failed. Several months later in July 1945, he wrote to some British officials, “I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task.” He wanted the United States to deal with Palestine, thus extracting Britain from the challenging situation while pulling America into the Mediterranean.

Eight decades later, even with waning influence and appetite, America has become an even more critical country for regional peace and stability than it was in 1945. The Jewish state, which was founded in 1948, has become, as Churchill (and very few others) projected, a strong military, cultural, and economic force closely aligned with the United States and the West. Equally dramatic, Saudi Arabia’s current de facto leader, 37-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, is trying to modernize the country, moderate its Islamic orientation, liberalize the role of women, and diversify the state’s reliance on oil revenue. And, as authoritative Saudi leaders told me and colleagues last year, MBS is prepared to normalize relations with Israel, with which his country now has many fundamental common strategic, security, and economic interests—if, critically, he gets certain U.S. guarantees related to security, weapons, and a restoration of close bilateral relations. And there’s the rub: America is now, alas, chilly to the Saudis, disengaged, fearful of conflict and still keen for an Iran nuclear deal that threatens Saudi Arabia’s and Israel’s existence.

U.S. ambivalence, flawed thinking, or worse, contributed in the 1940s to delays and complications in the establishment of a Jewish state and in the search for Israel-Arab entente. Ibn Saud’s vehement anti-Zionism certainly influenced the U.S. attitude. But nearly 80 years later, with large parts of the Arab world increasingly looking for some kind of accommodation with Israel, and the de facto Saudi leader declaring his readiness to normalize relations, it would be tragic indeed if American ambivalence, or faulty thinking, again contributed to a failure to achieve entente between the world’s only Jewish state and the world’s leading Arab power.

Michael Makovsky, PhD is President and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), and author of Churchill’s Promised Land (Yale University Press).

Originally published in Tablet Magazine.

The inside story of the aid convoy that was hit in Gaza

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
Soldiers from the IDF Home Front Command’s Search and Rescue Brigade complete their beret march in southern Israel after finishing eight months of training. The soldiers receive their orange berets, officially welcoming them to the Home Front Command. Photo credit: Alexi Rosenfeld, IDF Spokesperson Unit

BREAKING

  • IDF has revealed that Hamas PURPOSELY drew fire to the WCK truck.
  • At around 10 pm, the IDF noticed suspicious activity as the WCK vehicle was joined by a convoy of several other Hamas vehicles.
  • Hamas terrorists then climbed ONTO and INTO the WCK truck and FIRED several times indiscriminately into the air to ensure the IDF would see them.
  • The convoy then split up and entered a hanger, where it became difficult to distinguish between the Hamas vehicles and the WCK vehicle.
  • IDF attempted to call both the WCK workers and WCK HQ on TWO separate occasions to confirm whether they were with the Hamas convoy but their calls remained unanswered.
  • When the vehicles left the hangar OVER AN HOUR LATER the IDF drone unit misidentified the WCK vehicle for a vehicle from the Hamas convoy and mistakenly struck.
  • The IDF has provided their full findings to both WCK and Jose Andres, and are now requiring new stickers for aid vehicles which can be seen via drones even in the dark.

https://t.co/rBLG4KmwdZ

Visiting jails of Arabs convicted of murder; “For the Sake of Allah”.

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Israel, Jews and Peace in Schoolbooks and Teachers’ Guides Used in UNRWA Schools in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

ישראל, היהודים והשלום בספרי הלימוד ומדריכי המורים שבשימוש בבתיה”ס של אונר”א ביהודה, שומרון, מזרח ירושלים ורצועת עזה

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Editorial: The UN agency cloaked in terror

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

There has been much discussion during the Israel-Hamas War about UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The organization was created by the United Nations after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War to provide housing, food and education for the Palestinians who were displaced. Until a few months ago, most of the world considered it a little known civil aid organization.

UNRWA was created as a temporary agency to aid Palestinians in their transition after the war. It was never meant to become a permanent UN group, but since 1950 it has become a bloated bureaucracy. Historically, the U.S. has been the largest financial contributor to UNRWA, with America funding more than $7.1 billion since the 1950s.

In recent years, a handful of journalists dug deep into the organization and discovered that it has become a proxy of Hamas. About 30,000 Palestinians work for UNRWA – essentially the agency’s entire paid staff, with many UNRWA workers spending their days actually aiding Hamas. UNRWA’s top union leaders have been identified as Hamas cabinet ministers; numerous headmasters and educators were also trained as Hamas terror leaders. (UNRWA educates over 300,000 Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank).

Who has been working in UNRWA schools? People like Said Sayyam, the former Hamas Minister of Interior and Civil Affairs, who taught kids for 23 years. Then there was Awak al-Qiq, the headmaster of a UNRWA school in Gaza who led Islamic Jihad’s engineering unit that built bombs and Qassam rockets. And there’s also the founder of the Hamas movement, Sheik Ahmed Yassin – who also once was an UNRWA teacher, and encouraged his students to become suicide bombers.

In schools, UNRWA students glorify Palestinian terrorists who massacred Israelis. They are taught that there is no such thing as coexistence with Israel, and in lectures they are assured that Hamas will destroy Israel. For over a decade, tens of thousands of children – many under the age of 10 – have attended Hamas Summer Camps where they are handed machine guns and knives, and taught to shoot, stab and kidnap Israelis.

In public, UNRWA distributes glossy folders and informational packets extolling the virtues of their work with refugees. But there’s no mention of the dozens and dozens of former UNRWA students who became suicide bombers and killed hundreds.

All of this went under the radar until several years ago, when a handful of journalists – led by The Center for Near East Policy Research – produced several investigative videos that were sent to the U.S. State Department. The U.S. stopped its funding for a couple of years but resumed its grants in 2021, sending $318 million to UNRWA. In the last two years, the U.S. sent another $730 million to fund UNRWA.

But the U.S. stopped funding UNRWA this winter after it was revealed that at least a dozen UNRWA employees were involved in the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7. Last month, the IDF identified at least 450 UNRWA employees who are terrorists. Many are teachers, including Yusef al Hawajara. In a recording recently released by the IDF, Hawajara described kidnapping an Israeli woman who he referred to as a sex slave, or “noble horse.”

Over the last several months, it has become clear that UNRWA has worked hand and hand to assist Hamas militarily. Hamas tunnels are located under UNRWA schools and buildings; weapons have been found in UNRWA facilities and schools; more terrorists have been captured and identified as UNRWA employees. At least one released Israeli hostage testified that she was held captive by an UNRWA teacher in Gaza.

The U.S. should halt its grants until UNRWA is reformed – if not disbanded. There is no reason our tax dollars should go to an organization that teaches jihad, and is controlled by terrorists who seek to destroy Israel.

Terror-supporting Qatar is no friend of the West

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani at the State Department in Washington, D.C. on March 5, 2024. Credit: Chuck Kennedy/U.S. State Department.

Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel directed global attention not only to the terror group itself, but to its financial backer, Qatar. The tiny Persian Gulf state has long been a subject of controversy in Israel, mainly because it supports Hamas, currently hosting some of the terror group’s top leaders including Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal, and runs the anti-Israel Al Jazeera news network.

In spite of its terror ties, Israel to some extent legitimized Qatar, even allowing it to deliver the famed suitcases of cash to Hamas in an effort to prevent Gaza’s economic collapse.

But according to Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, there is no doubt that Qatar is a “rich and sophisticated enemy of Israel.”

Qatar, a major U.S. non-NATO ally, “hosts and funds the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, including its Palestinian offshoot Hamas, and owns the rabidly anti-Israel Al Jazeera TV station,” he said

Recognizing the need to stem Qatar’s lies, false reporting and anti-Israel influence around the world through, Israel’s Knesset this week voted 71-10 to pass a law allowing the temporary closure of Al Jazeera’s Israel bureau.

“There will be no freedom of speech for Hamas mouthpieces in Israel. Al Jazeera will be closed in the coming days,” Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi vowed following the vote.

Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has been personally involved in mediation efforts to reach a deal between Israel and Hamas that would see the release of Israel’s hostages but many Israelis are concerned that the Biden administration is not using its clout to force Qatar to take stronger action against Hamas.

Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS the Qataris “burned Israel the same way they burned the United States time and time again. They’re masters of the double game—presenting themselves as moderates who want to play a Switzerland-type role in the Middle East when in truth they are ideological and financial supporters of Islamic extremism.”

Goldberg said he doesn’t believe Qatar is an ally of the United States, “but sadly Doha has an enormous influence network bought and paid for in Washington.”

“When there’s a policy of retreat or appeasement, American officials tend to empower bad actors like Qatar to serve as interlocutors with adversaries,” he said.

Much criticism has been leveled at the way the negotiations are being handled, and there is a prevalent feeling in Israel that the United States could be doing more to pressure Qatar to get Hamas to return the hostages and surrender.

According to Goldberg, the Biden administration could and should have put maximum pressure on Qatar on Oct. 8, but didn’t.

“What was essential from day one was putting the Qataris to a choice—face severe consequences or deliver the hostages,” he said. “We never did that,” he said.

Instead, Goldberg said, families of hostages were instructed by Qatari-funded non-profits to remain quiet and even praise Qatar.

According to Con Coughlin, The Telegraph’s defense and foreign affairs editor and a distinguished senior fellow at Gatestone Institute, Qatar is “playing a double game by pretending that it is a neutral observer in attempts to negotiate a Gaza ceasefire with the U.S., while at the same time using its state-owned Al Jazeera news channel to propagate pro-Hamas propaganda.”

Coughlin told JNS that Israel’s willingness to allow Qatar to continue providing aid to Gaza while Hamas still controlled the enclave “now appears to have been a serious strategic miscalculation, as it is now clear that Qatari funding that was supposed to be used to provide humanitarian relief was instead diverted to fund the development of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.”

Washington’s relationship with Qatar “is mainly driven by its desire to maintain its Al Udeid military base in the Gulf state, which plays a key role in supporting CENTCOMs military operations in the Middle East,” Coughlin said. “This is why the U.S. State Department often turns a blind eye to the Qataris’ support for hardline Islamist groups such as Hamas, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Qatar’s strategic and questionable approach to funding also suggests efforts to advance nefarious state interests rather than purely philanthropic motives.

For example, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) has just released new research regarding the flow of funds from Qatari foundations to Cornell University.

The research reveals previously unknown channels through which billions of dollars have been directed to the university, raising critical concerns about transparency and foreign influence.

According to ISGAP, the findings specifically shed light on the significant influence of Qatari state proxies, such as Qatar Foundation and Qatar National Research Fund. These entities are used to mask direct Qatari government investment in U.S. universities, as part of Qatar’s soft-power strategy regarding the West.

ISGAP’s research shows that the Qatari Emir and the Qatari government are directly behind the industry funneling billions of dollars into leading American universities such as Texas A&M, Georgetown, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Virginia Commonwealth and others.

In light of the findings, ISGAP has issued letters to relevant authorities calling on Cornell to close its campus at Doha Education City and expose all contracts related to the university partnership with Qatar. Earlier this month the Board of Regents at Texas A&M decided to end the university’s 20-years partnership with Qatar and close the TAMUQ campus in Qatar.

Charles Asher Small, executive director of ISGAP, called upon American universities “to follow Texas A&M’s decision to pull out from Doha Education City. Qatar, a state that supports, funds and hosts terrorists should have no place in America’s higher education.”

ISGAP initiated the “Follow the Money” research project in 2012, focusing on the illicit funding of U.S. universities by foreign entities promoting anti-democratic, antisemitic ideologies, often linked to terrorism. This ongoing investigation unearthed substantial Middle Eastern funding, primarily from Qatar, to U.S. universities, previously unreported to the Department of Education (DoED) as required by law, revealing billions of dollars in unreported funds. This groundbreaking work led to a federal government investigation in 2019.

Despite its close ties to the United States and other Western nations, Qatar has cultivated an extensive network of Islamist partners, hosting, supporting and representing entities such as the Muslim Brotherhood, maintaining ties with Iran, hosting the Taliban, supporting Hamas and backing militias in Syria and Libya.

It is clear that Qatar is no friend of the West. By hosting Hamas’s leaders, allowing Al Jazeera to spread anti-Israel propaganda and funding U.S. universities in exchange for influence, Qatar has demonstrated clearly it is on the side of evil.

In Inbar’s view, Israel needs to “take the gloves off” and Qatar’s leadership should “pay for their behavior.”

At the same time, he added, “Israel should increase efforts to delegitimize Qatar’s behavior in the United States.”

April Fools

By
Michael Kuttner
-

SSUCv3H4sIAAAAAAAACpyRy27DIBBF95X6DxbrWHIwfqS/EnUxhkmMgiECnKqK8u/lYUesu/OcmbnMvX5+flQVmcBJTr6qZ6xCLZVanbfgpdEBN4eNW9QCbUketu2bEqCQ3lgJqoQTeD5rWDBAvSoV8Ss1ifPgV4cuvr4hDh6vQSPDt0Q+8Zzram+kZtgILUIOBXPrlNiOsvi/NvPH9+4Grqj5bzq4MGJRIWQj5zxKbj8e7VJag1VIU7h6GA4qDrSF0t1KLvW1WDN+TrG/Ewp/xywF0ManlzcjRIQIY3lsadd3J9YMLaXHno50G8ixzzLo2Gxl54bfpChvliIqDbzrTg2HeriMvGbQYj2Ooq0nytgFGzYx1oXEXn8AAAD//wMACMif9VECAAA=

It used to be that one day was sufficient for hoaxes and what passed as practical jokes.

However, it is now obvious that April Fools’ Day has become a daily permanent feature as the proliferation of “narishkeit” (Yiddish for foolishness) has reached pandemic proportions.

This particularly manifests itself when it encompasses Israel and Jews.

In fact, the level of admonitions and demands increases incrementally and what we are experiencing now borders on the absurd.

Some recent and current examples illustrate the prevailing insanity.

The United Nations Secretary General never fails to rise to the occasion. His antics are certainly not practical jokes, as he takes them very seriously and is completely mystified when Israel refuses to fall into line.

Speaking as Ramadan commenced, he asserted that “Ramadan is a time for spreading the values of compassion, community and peace. I am fasting with you. It is monstrous that Palestinians in Gaza are marking Ramadan with Israeli bombs still falling, bullets flying, artillery still pounding and humanitarian assistance still facing obstacles.”

Christians fasting for Ramadan may be a useful woke gesture of political correctness, but it ignores the stark reality that jihadist-inspired Islamists consider all “nonbelievers” worthy of perishing by the sword. The Secretary General’s explanation of this holy period, unfortunately, does not tally with the explosion of violence and mayhem which annually accompanies Ramadan. On top of everything else he fails to mention that Israeli actions in Gaza would cease immediately if the kidnapped hostages are released and Hamas terrorists eliminated.

The next April folly is the Biden Administration’s intention to build a pier off Gaza and put Qatar in charge of its operation. Qatar is a major supporter and funder of Hamas, and it does not take too much imagination to realize that with these two in cahoots, the opportunity for smuggling illegal and offensive material into Gaza will be too good to miss. The Americans maintain that Israel will be able to inspect the aid shipments but this sounds and looks like a forlorn exercise in futility. Can you imagine the uproar if Israel confiscates smuggled items? With existing tunnels destroyed the most logical means of restocking rockets and other weapons will be to bring them in via ships.

Has anyone in the State Department actually thought what might happen when terror groups decide to sabotage the pier facility? Who will safeguard it? Qatar? If Israel thwarts any terror attempt, the UN will convene and with righteous indignation censure it for blocking aid.

Meanwhile, back in the “land of the free”, a PEW survey of Muslims revealed some startling yet unexpected results. It showed that 49% of US Islamic followers believed that Hamas had valid reasons for attacking Israel on 7 October. In addition, 54% of respondents said that Israel had no right to defend itself against Hamas, and 68% said that Israel’s retaliation is not acceptable.

I suspect surveys in Europe, the UK, Canada, South Africa and Australia would yield fairly similar results. The warning bells for Jewish communities are ringing loud and clear.

As well as April fools doing their best to “overlook” those dedicated to anti-Israel activities and undisguised Jew hate, we have the phenomenon of fools rushing in to embrace obviously transparent deceit.

Take for example the latest confidence trick initiated by the PA President for life.

One of the biggest scandals conveniently swept under the carpet is the policy of rewarding terrorists and their families who murder Israelis. Amounting to millions of dollars from the “martyrs’ fund”, these astronomical amounts of incentive payments are seemingly no impediment to the international community’s patronage of a non-existent peace partner.

Lo and behold in an effort to befuddle and confuse all April fools the PA has supposedly proposed to change the criteria under which these payments are made. At the moment the amount paid for jailed terrorists is determined by the length of incarceration. It is now suggested that this category could be replaced by one of “financial need.”

Reportedly the US is “reviewing” this change to the payment criteria. One can almost hear the whoops of unmitigated joy at the State Department as they no doubt are working overtime to try and work out how to sell this charade. Instead of calling this suggested change a fraudulent attempt at deception and demanding the complete cessation of financial terror rewards, the frenetic folly of appeasing Palestinian Arab behavior continues. The question is whether the gullible left in Israel and elsewhere will be suckered into cheering this fraud.

Nations are now rushing to restore aid to UNRWA despite the UN agency’s clear cohabitation with Hamas.

The theme song of the Biden team is the messianic vision of a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority.

Apparently, cleansed of all corruption and with a zealous dedication to democratic values, human rights and religious tolerance this mythical outfit will usher in an era of universal brotherhood. It will, according to the hallucinatory mantras of Washington, also see current supporters of terror miraculously embrace the reality of historically legal Jewish sovereignty.

The Ramallah-based kleptocracy knows that all it has to do is waffle some great-sounding lies, and the international community will pressure Israel to accept the devious deceptions. It has happened before with resurrecting Arafat and his gang via Oslo and ethnically cleansing Jews from Gaza.

The desperate desire to implant another terror State in Israel’s heartland means that each and every poisoned chalice offered has to be grasped.

This explains the unrestrained expressions of glee when Abbas appointed a new Prime Minister and sold another tainted bill of goods. At first glance, a new unelected PM and new faces appointed to the PA cabinet is an appeaser’s delight. After all, what could be better than a so-called “revitalised” authority? That must be just what the doctors in Washington ordered.

Lo and behold, it has now been revealed by PMW that two ministers in this supposedly revitalised PA are far from squeaky clean. The new minister of religion is on record describing Jews as “apes and pigs” while the minister of women’s affairs is an unabashed supporter of terrorists. These revelations have not fazed those in charge at the US State Department. Blinken welcomed the new PA cabinet while his officials issued a statement saying that “a revitalised PA is essential to delivering results”.   

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister is visiting Egypt and the Arab League. According to news reports, “after talking to Egyptian and Arab League officials, Winston Peters now has gained a richer understanding about achieving a sustainable two-state solution.” His demand for an immediate Gaza ceasefire made no mention for the unconditional release of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas. The other glaringly obvious fact is that he is not visiting Israel. Wouldn’t you think that he might have gone there in order “to gain a richer understanding” of what establishing a terror entity in the midst of Israel would entail? His understanding of reality might also be improved by visiting the scenes of the 7 October pogroms. It is merely another example of not wanting to be confused by the facts and preferring to join in mouthing the inanities so beloved of most UN members.

April has only just started and already the fools are rushing in.

You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Michael Kuttner is a Jewish New Zealander who for many years was actively involved with various communal organisations connected to Judaism and Israel. He now lives in Israel and is J-Wire’s correspondent in the region.

1...303132...1,200Page 31 of 1,200

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2477 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
430 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
daniel
daniel
0 POSTS0 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.