Four lies that world leaders tell you about Israel - and the truth

 

a)     Emmanuel Macron: “Hamas has never operated in the West Bank.”

The Truth:

Hamas has operated in the West Bank since the 1980s and carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks from there, killing hundreds of civilians. Just this week, a Hamas terrorist killed Netanel Shukrun, a 30-year-old father.

b)     Zohran Mammdani: “I can’t support Israel’s existence because it’s a Jewish state that privileges one religion.”

The Truth:

Around 83 countries in the world officially have a state religion or give special privileges to a religion. The only one that Mamdani explicitly said shouldn’t exist is the one Jewish state, which also gives equal rights to all its non-Jewish citizens.

c)     Recep Tayyip Erdogan: “Israel's Hands are Stained with the Blood of 75,000 innocents in Gaza.”

The Truth:

Around 35, 000 of those killed in Gaza are combatants and not innocent civilians — a ratio of 1.2:1. A level never achieved in any other war. In comparison, the U.S. ratio in the war against ISIS was around 3:1. Even in total numbers, it is not the deadliest conflict in recent years, with Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen killing over 400,000 people.

d)     António Guterres “There has been no general commitment by UNRWA to provide any kind of support to Hamas.”

The Truth:

Even the UN has admitted that some UNRWA workers also worked as Hamas operatives and even took part in the October 7th massacre. Around 10% of UNRWA workers are estimated to have had ties with terror organizations. Hamas also used UNRWA facilities for electricity, shelter, and military bases.

 

Guardian Sponsored Film Full of Blood Libels

 Watch how the movie "Naza" manufactured a case against the world’s most moral army.

The End of Reliable Journalism

 The directors of the film  "Naza" did not have to work too hard to discover the real truth, says Sarit Zehavi, a reserve officer in the IDF and head of the Alma Center. 'They could have simply interviewed me. I was one of the founders of the field within the IDF that deals with warning populations on the other side of enemy lines and preserving the lives of their civilians.'*

The filmmakers preferred to tell a story from a very narrow angle, to interview anonymous sources whose level of involvement, rank, and understanding of the process is unclear, and to completely ignore the experts who built these systems with one goal: preserving human life,' Zehavi says. 'There are such experts. I was one of them.'*

"Naza" (which Israelis haven't yet seen) raises serious, urgent questions about the actions of the Israeli army. Financed by The Guardian ( a well known advocate of anti Semitism and distorter of facts) and presented as a documentary, it also raises serious, urgent questions about the practice of journalism.

A little less than 20 years ago, says Sarit, I was one of the founders of the field within the IDF that deals with warning populations on the other side of enemy lines and preserving the lives of their civilians.

We built the work processes that define how to call upon the population to evacuate, and how to track that evacuation. I was personally involved in formulating the target approval processes and operational discussions.

If they had spoken with me, I would have explained to them that the chart shown at the beginning of the film is not a chart for conducting killings, but rather a planning chart for a target identified as being used by Hamas.

Its purpose is to determine whether to strike a target at all, who in the command echelon is authorized to approve it, with what munitions, and under what conditions.

 In stark contrast to what is stated in the film, when the words "Naza 500 – collateral damage estimated at 500" appear in the approval process, the meaning is that action must be taken to reduce the collateral damage.

The filmmakers preferred to tell a story from a very narrow angle, to interview anonymous sources whose level of involvement, rank, and understanding of the process is unclear, and to completely ignore the experts who built these systems with one goal: preserving human life.

This film was produced by two Israelis who are so far to the radical left of the political spectrum that even the leftist parties in the upcoming elections have not associated themselves with them.

The boycott was meant to isolate Israeli settlements - it is not working

 Decades of boycotts have generated headlines but failed to change Israel, while inspiring Americans to strengthen economic ties with Judea and Samaria.

For more than two decades, various organizations have sought to change Israeli policy through boycotts targeting products, companies, academic institutions, and Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Now, government sanctions are also being added to the equation, such as those announced by the United Kingdom.

One basic point must be made: no boycott can change history or undermine the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.

But after decades of boycotts, it is worth asking: Has the boycott achieved its goal?

The answer is no.

The policies of successive Israeli governments have not changed as a result of boycotts. And over the past 25 years, hundreds of companies and businesses have been established in Judea and Samaria, alongside new industrial zones and factories.

a)     In 2018, Airbnb announced that it would remove approximately 200 properties in Judea and Samaria from its platform. Ironically, however, the decision exposed tens of millions of tourists around the world to a simple fact: there are Airbnb properties in the biblical heartland, and people can visit.

Less than six months later, Airbnb reversed its decision. The boycott generated headlines, but it did not change reality.

b)     The story of Ben & Jerry’s is also well known. In 2021, the company announced that it would not renew the sale of its products in what it called the “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” while emphasizing that it was not leaving Israel.

Following a prolonged campaign, Unilever, sold its Israeli business to its Israeli licensee. As a result, Ben & Jerry’s products continued to be sold in Israel, including in Judea and Samaria.

c)     The pressure created against Sodastream resulted in the company relocating to the Negev and hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs but the company continues to grow

In each case the boycott created a media storm, but it did not change Israeli policy.

But here is where things get interesting: the boycott does have an impact. For better, too.

In the United States, it has generated a backlash. Thirty-seven states have already adopted laws or other measures against BDS, including restrictions on public contracts or investments involving companies that participate in boycotts against Israel.

And last week, on September 3, the US House of Representatives passed the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act by a vote of 237-169. The bill seeks to restrict certain federal funding to academic institutions participating in boycotts against Israel. The legislation still requires Senate approval.

And this impact is reaching Judea and Samaria as well. For example, American businesspeople have approached American Friends of Judea and Samaria seeking investment opportunities in Judea and Samaria, both as a response to British boycott efforts and because they believe that investing in the biblical heartland can bring prosperity to their businesses in America.

This is how we can turn the boycott into something that has an impact, for better. And this impact is reaching Judea and Samaria as well. For example, American businesspeople have approached American Friends of Judea and Samaria seeking investment opportunities in Judea and Samaria, both as a response to British boycott efforts and because they believe that investing in the biblical heartland can bring prosperity to their businesses in America.

This is how we can turn the boycott into something that has an impact, for the better.

Genocide - Really?

 

E1: Just Another Pretext to Discriminate Against Jews

 (With thanks to Honest Reporting)

Yesterday, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced an import ban on products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and also deemed the “occupation” to be illegal, along with potential sanctions against British companies for various offenses deemed helpful to any Jewish presence in the regions of Judea and Samaria as well as “East” Jerusalem.

Several weeks prior, Israel issued a construction tender for a small piece of land between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim known as E1. E1 has been in the news off and on for over 30 years, with the first plans to build there coming from the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, hardly a right-wing extremist. There is nearly unanimous consensus, in Israel and internationally, that E1 will remain part of Israel in any conceivable final status agreement with the Palestinians.

Despite these facts, the UK did what they and others have done in the past. They seized on a bureaucratic housing announcement, in an area nobody believes will ever be part of any country but Israel, to condemn the Jewish state. The claim most often associated with E1, an area of only 4.5 square miles, is that building there by Israel will cut the West Bank in two, thus making any possible future Palestinian state unviable.

The reason given for this assessment, as shown in the map below, is that the distance from Maaleh Adumim to the Dead Sea is only about 10 miles. Putting aside for a moment whether a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is viable in any case, or if it is truly the Palestinian end goal, how do the British and others who advocate so vociferously for a Palestinian state along the 1948 armistice lines make the claim that a state just 10 miles wide lacks viability when it is exactly what they demand Israel accept?

The UK is saying that it is infeasible to have a viable country with a narrowest point very similar to an area where millions of Israelis live. In other words it is OK for Israelis living in Netanya but not Palestinians living near Maale Adumim!

This makes something abundantly clear: E1, as always, is just a pretext.

The UK government has its reasons, foreign and domestic, for why it believes it is in its interest to demand a judenrein Palestinian state, for why it believes Jews, and Jews alone, should be banned from living in a large part of the land of Israel, including our capital city, because we are Jews. Foreign Secretary Miliband listed some in his announcement on social media yesterday. Most were even more unconvincing, dishonest and inflammatory than any argument around E1.

Whatever the real reasons are, they have nothing to do with E1. E1 is simply their excuse to take discriminatory action against the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

Is the UK in Free Fall or Not?