NAZA - When Misguided Becomes Malicious

John Spencer (Arutz Sheva)

There’s misguided. And then again, there’s misguided.

The animus expressed against Israel by the left is often based on perceptions that are taken out of context. When Jews are misguided along these lines, however, it is even more troubling. It becomes a gross violation and reflection of what should be their values as Jews. These are the Jews for Justice in Palestine people, whose voices are very loud.

But Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the Jewish directors of a documentary film called NAZA are misguided to a whole other level.

They portray themselves as warriors for mankind. Warriors for justice. Exposing the evil deeds of an evil army led by evil leaders.

When the fact is that they are attacking the very people who are on the front lines of protecting the Jewish people from jihadist groups so savage and brutal that they make Jack the Ripper look good.

These are the people who savagely massacred approximately 1,200 people on October 7 in some of the most horrific ways imaginable—and then celebrated it as a victory for God.

Just yesterday, I read the story of one of those victims - a 12-year-old girl found doing her homework who begged for her life, saying that she just wanted to go to school the next day. She was killed and brutally mutilated, making identification nearly impossible. Her remains had to be identified from pieces found scattered among those of other victims.

And these filmmakers want us to believe that Israel is the villain?

The problem with NAZA is not simply that I disagree with its conclusions. It is that some of its most consequential claims are being presented as established fact despite serious questions about their accuracy, sourcing, context, and verification.

The Israeli military has responded in detail, calling the film “distorted, misleading, and disingenuous” and accusing the filmmakers of substantial factual errors, manipulative editing, and omitting essential context. The IDF specifically disputes the film’s claims about how targeting decisions are made and denies that it ever planned or approved a strike in which 500 civilians were expected to be killed.

But no one has been more scathing in his criticism of the film than Jonathan Spencer, perhaps the world’s most respected expert on urban warfare.

Arutz Sheva reported his reaction:

Urban warfare expert Jonathan Spencer accuses documentary of spreading “lies, lies by omission, and lies of ignorance,” takes particular aim at claim that Israel killed more than 73,000 in Gaza…

Spencer is not some random political commentator. He is the Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point. You don’t get that position by being a shill for Israel.

His comments are not merely the opinions of some liberal former army officer. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to urban warfare. More than just about anyone else.

So when he accuses these filmmakers of “lies, lies by omission, and lies of ignorance,” he is speaking from professional knowledge, not partisan political bias…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Centralized Rabbinic Authority

Rav Chaim Soloveichik (Wikipedia)

The biggest mistake made by Agudah’s founders was not listening to the concerns of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, the grandfather of my Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik.

There is a fascinating article in the latest issue of Mishpacha about R’ Chaim’s connection to Agudah, specifically why he did not personally endorse it the way the other Gedolim of the time did - even though he was instrumental in its founding. The article is mostly about a supposed list of 18 conditions that needed to be satisfied for him to endorse this new organization. Which was created to be a unifying force for all observant Jewry - that promoted a religious lifestyle, with the top rabbis of the era guiding it.

Rav Chaim’s major objection seems to have been the centralized power Agudah’s founders vested in those rabbis. R’ Chaim objected to the idea of a single authoritative body deciding what was and was not acceptable for the entirety of the observant community. He firmly believed that such authority should be left to individual community rabbis, since each community had its own Hashkafos. That belief was probably generated by the following

Since Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch was to be part of that governing body of rabbis (to be called the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah), he feared that Rav Hirsch’s Torah im Derech Eretz Hashkafa would be applied to all segments. Rav Chaim strongly believed that the status quo of his particular segment of observant Jewry should be left as is. with no secular subjects being taught. Why he felt this way is probably related to his negative experiences in Volozhin. Where the antisemitic czarist government wanted to use a secular curriculum to disabuse the Jewish people of their observance. (To be clear, Rav Chaim was definitely not opposed to Limudei Chol per se.)

Be that as it may, his view was that the Moetzes should not be considered the sole authority for all of observant Jewry. (Often referred to as Daas Torah.) Individual Hashkafic decisions were to be left to the leaders of individual communities. Not to a centralized body that would rule over all of observant Jewry.

He was right.

Unfortunately, Agudah decided not to accede to Rav Chaim’s demands. And he therefore did not join in endorsing Agudah, even though he firmly believed a unifying agency like Agudah was vital to the perpetuation of observant Judaism.

I mention all this in light of Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein’s latest Cross-Currents piece, wherein he clarifies why he is so committed to the new Charedi party, Hatzibur HaCharedi. So committed is he that he joined the list of members who will serve if they get enough votes…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

 

As a Jew

“As a Jew…” Whenever I hear comments prefaced by these words, I know what’s coming next. Which is usually some of the most condemnable rhetoric coming out of a Jewish mouth that one can imagine.

This is the kind of phrase often used by spokesmen for groups like “Jews for Justice in Palestine” or like-minded ideologues. Jews who wouldn’t know a Jewish value if it hit them in the face.

To these people, the idea of Jews living in land “colonized illegally” by European Jewish Zionist is a cardinal sin. Any claim about a Jewish heritage to the land is a form of a particularism that is seen as racist in ideology. Believing that it has nothing to do with “Judaism”. In their minds, Judaism means universalism. Where individual differences by definition cannot exist. Thereby striping Judaism of any defining characteristics - making the phrase “As a Jew” totally meaningless.

Sadly, the only thing that is Jewish about them is that they were perhaps born of a Jewish mother. A mere happenstance of life that has no significance. And yet they continue to use the phrase “As a Jew” as though it made any difference. I challenge any of them to explain the significance of “As a Jew” means to them. In other words, what is it exactly that makes their views particularly Jewish as opposed to universal?

The fact is, they have more in common with Karl Marx than they do with Moshe Rabbeinu.

The contempt, anger, and utter disgust I feel about Jews like this is palpable. Whenever I hear people like this saying “As a Jew,” suggesting that the values they articulate are specifically Jewish, I both cringe and shake with anger. While in some cases they might overlap with Jewish values, in many cases those values are antithetical to Jewish values.

A political or social principle does not become a Jewish value just because Jews embrace it. The same is true of a position that does not cease to have Jewish significance merely because non-Jews also embrace it.

To describe a position as specifically Jewish requires some meaningful connection to Jewish sources, concepts, traditions, or obligations. Modern political movements - may - share important principles with Jewish teachings, but that does not make the movements themselves expressions of Judaism.

The fact that these Jews don’t seem to know or acknowledge that gives lie to that claim.

Sadly, though, it’s not entirely their fault…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

When Will It End?

When will it end? When will the Israeli government finally do something about it? When will they hunt down these vicious Jewish criminals and bring them to justice? Because so far, they seem to have free rein to terrorize innocent Palestinians who have done absolutely nothing to a single Israeli.

The following was reported in eJewishPhilanthropy:

“Overnight, dozens of radical settlers attacked the Palestinian village of Jalud, setting fire to homes and cars, blocking roadways and assaulting Israeli troops who had been escorting a Palestinian family home after they had fled following regular harassment and attacks by neighboring settlers…”

This was not simply a report from some hostile foreign media outlet. According to the IDF, more than 100 Israeli rioters were involved. They blocked roads, set tires on fire, threw rocks at security forces, and set fire to Palestinian homes, vehicles, and other property. Three Border Police officers were lightly wounded. Three suspects have so far been detained.

I am sick and tired of the apologetics. Sick and tired of the defenders of these reprobates who think they are acting in the name of God but, in reality, are acting on behalf of the devil!

I hear it all the time. Apologetics like: How do you know how true this is? Don’t believe everything you read. Do you know the details of what really happened, or are you going to take the biased media’s word for it? Or… how do you know these attacks weren’t really courageous vigilantes who prevented a serious terrorist attack? Or… how do you know these were actually Israelis? They were probably Palestinians disguised as “settlers,” doing damage to their own people for the sole purpose of making Israel look bad.

Sorry. I am not buying any of that.

Sometimes a zebra is actually a zebra! (…not a horse painted with white stripes.)

The apologists and defenders do no favors for the Jewish people by explaining what “really happened.” Is it because they might secretly agree with them? I don’t know. But those defenders are almost as bad as the perpetrators themselves. Because in defending them, they think they are helping the Jewish people survive in a hostile environment when, in fact, they are helping the Jewish people dig an early grave for their country. Our country!

I know the prime minister doesn’t approve of these people. He has been very clear about condemning settler violence, including after this latest incident, and has called for law enforcement to prosecute those responsible.

The problem is that words alone are not enough.

The people with these extremist tendencies were not born yesterday. As heirs to the Kahanist ideology, they have been around for decades in spirit. And the atrocities they have committed have been going on for years. Now they seem to have increased with unprecedented ferocity.

The prime minister needs to act, and he needs to act swiftly. With the same intensity and determination he has shown in acting against Hamas.

These people are causing great damage to Israel’s soul and to its image as a moral country.

They must not be allowed to continue.

All the stops need to be pulled out to hunt down these extremists who think they are acting for God and country; arrest, convict, and punish them to the fullest extent of the law. At the very least, serious crimes of violence and arson should result in serious prison sentences. The only mercy they should receive is the same mercy they gave to the Palestinians whose homes and vehicles they set fire to.

And this is not just about Israel’s image abroad. It is about the kind of country Israel is going to be.

Israel is a nation of laws. That means those laws must apply to everyone.

It cannot be that a person who burns a Palestinian home or attacks an Israeli soldier can hide behind a political or religious ideology…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Why There is No Unity

To say this depresses me is an understatement.

I am often reprimanded for caring about the Charedi world, as if I should only be concerned with Jews who agree with me.

That is not me. I still believe in Jewish unity, regardless of how futile it sometimes feels to even hope for it. I care for all of my brothers and sisters—Charedi and secular, even those far to the left and far right. I believe there can be a meeting of the minds if there is enough goodwill between us.

And this is why I am so grieved by what I just read in Rationalist Judaism.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin posted a letter that he sent to Jonathan Rosenblum regarding his most recent column, entitled “Where is the Unity?” Therein, Jonathan laments the fact that the Charedi world on the one hand, and the secular and Religious Zionist worlds on the other, can’t seem to find unity among themselves.

I have made the same lament many times. Jonathan explains what he believes are the reasons for this and assigns blame to both sides for this impasse.

But Natan faults Jonathan’s for making claims about the Charedi world fall short of reality.

I am not going to address that here. Although most people know my views about the lack of secular education for men in the Charedi world, what really got to me is the man featured on the cover of the Mishpacha issue in which Jonathan’s column appears. And if there is anything that divides the Charedi and secular/Religious Zionist worlds more than this, I would like to know what that is.

The cover story is about Rav Bunim Schreiber. Therin heis given a tribute for the tenacity and resilience he has shown in his fight with cancer. It is a heroic lesson in courage—not allowing any disability, even one as deadly as cancer, to detract from teaching Torah - his mission in life. It is indeed an inspiring story.

But as Natan reminds us, this is the same individual who, after the October 7^th massacre, when IDF soldiers had started losing life and limb in Gaza, gave the following directive to his students:

“The soldiers who draft are nebuchs. I don’t think anyone drafts willingly… if there was no obligatory draft, nobody would join, other than perhaps a few crazy Mizrochniks…. There’s no need to express gratitude to soldiers fighting in Gaza any more than to street cleaners... Who says that there needs to be a relationship with the injured? What’s your connection to them? Why do you need to have a relationship with them? ...A ‘community tragedy’ is not if 1200 people were killed… a community tragedy is one that affects everyone.... Lehavdil, the Meron tragedy, you feel connected because they were your friends, they were your family, they were your people.... For the entity called ‘The State of Israel,’ regarding which it is superfluous to talk about our opinion, there is no ‘acknowledgement’ and no ‘good.’”

I don’t even know where to begin.

What kind of Jewish leader has absolutely no feeling for fellow Jews fighting and dying in pursuit of protecting their fellow Jews…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Why I Will Miss Him

On this day of Erev Sukkos, I first want to wish everyone a Chag Sameach.

But I can’t let the day pass without commenting on the Prime Minister’s speech delivered at the UN yesterday. And on the man who delivered it. These comments will undoubtedly generate a variety of responses, mostly negative, from people who have very different views about him. But this is how I feel. So here goes.

Israel has never had a leader as eloquent as its current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This was once again made abundantly clear by the speech he delivered at the UN, yesterday. Regardless of how one feels about him (and yes, I know there is a lot of hatred out there for a variety of reasons, some legitimate and some not so legitimate) his eloquence is one thing you cannot take away from him. I doubt the next Prime Minister will have the same gift of speech that Netanyahu possesses.

Some may say that eloquence is not the most important quality required of a successful leader. This is certainly true. More important is competence in leading a country in both war and peace; ensuring that all citizens are afforded basic human rights and privileges equally; making sure the economy thrives; and conducting foreign relations in ways that benefit the country globally. And perhaps there are a few more things that are more important than eloquence.

But the value of that part of a leader’s résumé should not be underestimated. Articulating one’s values and priorities in a positive way, so that there can be no misunderstanding about the country’s national ethos, is not something to be sneezed at. Especially when so many people are willing to believe antisemitic lies. And nobody does THAT better than Netanyahu.

Yesterday was a master class—a tour de force - reminiscent of Churchill, as one headline in an online Jewish publication described it - in delivering the truth to doubters. The worst of whom walked out before he even began speaking, in what seemed like a mass exodus from the UN chamber.

They were not interested in hearing the truth. Especially from a Jew as hated as Netanyahu. It doesn’t matter that what he said is true. They will NOT hear it. They will continue to believe their lies because THAT suits their politics or their religious ideology.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu spelled out in great detail why the world’s view of Israel is so warped.

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

The “Two-State Solution” Dream

What a Palestinian state might look like

Jay Michaelson’s views tend toward the political left. But there are people whose political views are so far to the left, that they make his views sound centrist by comparison.

That’s what I noticed in his recent Forward op-ed. Therein, he makes some interesting points about what the future holds with respect to Israelis and Palestinians. Which actually make sense and at the same time, don’t. Confusing as that may sound, that is the reality in which Israel lives right now.

Michaelson correctly notes that there are two diametrically opposed political factions that have the same view about what the political solution to the conflict between these two peoples should be: a one-state solution. But their visions of how that state would be governed could not be further apart.

On the one he makes the following observation:

Clearly, many on the left still want to reverse 1948, to remove the “settler-colonialist Zionist entity” from the land and return control of it to its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants.

It is from this perspective that they support what they consider a rational compromise. Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. The two peoples would combine into a single democratic, binational, secular state, with full rights granted equally to Jewish and Palestinian citizens. One might call this the “Mamdani option.”

And then he describes the single-state version of the extreme right:

One state from the river to the sea, only this state is an ethno-nationalist, non-democratic Greater Israel built on repression and minority rule.

I would quibble with including the word “repression” of Palestinians as part of their ideology. And I do not think the rest of his description is fair or accurate. “

Sociocide of Gaza”? An “elimination project”? While there are surely some extremists who think that way, I believe they are outliers. I don’t think the policies of the right go that far. I do think, however, that implementation of their vision could devolve into repression, given the violent history between the two peoples.

I otherwise agree that they have ethno-nationalist, non-democratic Greater Israel goals.

Ideologically, the extreme right-wing vision for a future Israel is based on the Kahane model: a Jewish state where Palestinians would willingly be subject to Israeli law and granted civil rights equally with Jewish citizens. But they would not have any political rights other than in their own municipalities. Palestinians unwilling to agree would be expelled from the country.

Michaelson correctly notes that both versions are extremist pipe dreams that will never happen.

A two-state solution would give each side some of what they want, but certainly not all of what they want. An imperfect solution. But “the perfect” is the enemy of “the good”. If agreed to and implemented – a two state solution makes eminent sense. It would lead to peaceful coexistence and freedom for all. No more wars. No more bloodshed.

But Michaelson ignores the 300-pound gorilla in the room…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Orthodoxy and Reform Judaism

Damaged window at a Reform synagogue in Jerusalem (Jerusalem Post)

One of the most damaging movements in the history of Judaism is Reform Judaism. This movement rejected the core essence of what Judaism is about, which is adherence to the word of God as presented in the Torah and interpreted by the sages throughout history.

The founders of this movement decided that adherence to the laws of the Torah was no longer necessary, as they were designed to make us a moral and ethical people. And 'knowing' that, plus the fact that we now live in the era of enlightenment, we could now dispense with the rituals themselves.

The fallacy of that reasoning has become evident in more recent times. Reform rabbis now embrace many of those rituals at least on a voluntary level, knowing that without them, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles at all, and thereby, Judaism becomes totally meaningless.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The damage is done. Jews who had been enticed by the Enlightenment - which opened doors previously closed - started abandoning the “adhesive” that kept us together as a people. And now they had rabbis who created a movement which gave them a ‘religious’ cover for doing so.

Generations of Jews were raised with this mentality, and we are now witnessing what is perhaps the greatest exodus of Jews from Judaism in modern times. Jews, through no fault of their own, lack the education to understand what Judaism is all about and therefore see no reason at all to identify as Jewish. In fact, they may see it only in negative terms: Why expose oneself to the antisemitism that identifying as a Jew entails? To what end? Reform rabbis and oher heterodox rabbis are scrambling - trying to figure out ways to make Judiasm more meaningful to their members who have nothing in the way of their identiy or lifestyles that differentiate them from non Jews with similar values.

In an effort to remain relevant, Reform Judaism now seeks recognition in Israel as a legitimate form of Judaism. Claiming that the majority of Israelis are secular and would find a more comfortable home in their denomination.

The idea of welcoming a movement that is, in large part, responsible for the attrition of so many Jews away from Judaism does not sit well with me. The argument about pluralism doesn’t resonate with me, considering the negative fallout of the Jewish state legitimizing a movement whose history has caused so much damage to its people.

Just wanted to explain where I’m coming from before I continue.

Just because Reform Judaism has resulted in the above-mentioned negative consequences, that does not mean we treat them like despised enemies. And should certainly not result in what happened on Rosh Hashanah to a Reform synagogue in Israel…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Profile Pictures of Women

Picture for illustration purposes (TOI)

I had to laugh. With the current literal crusade by the Charedi world against publishing pictures of women - comes the following Facebook post about the world of Shiduchim.

In this world a Shadchan (matchmaker) will suggest a date to the parents of a young person seeking to get married. After some due diligence in researching the character of the suggested date, they will suggest it to their dating child. This is how most of the Yeshiva world dates for purposes of getting married.

Emes Ve-Emunah is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Chochmat Nashim is the name of an Orthodox Jewish organization located in the Ramat Bet Shemesh area. They advocate for women’s rights in the Orthodox Jewish community. I receive regular messages from their Facebook page. One of the more recent of these was about an initiative that I found quite disturbing, although I’m sure it is well intended.

There is a community-wide effort to improve the prospects of marriage for young single girls. This is indeed a noble cause that everyone should be involved with to the extent that they are able.

What was disturbing was not the sincere effort to help these young women. It was the way they are going about it. The suggestion was to improve the already existing file of profile pictures of these young women have. Which I assume are shown to prospective dates. As the poster noted, the whole concept of profile pictures as a means of improving one’s marriage prospects sends the wrong message. It suggests that it is more important to ‘look good’ than to be good. At least as far as getting married is concerned.

Young men in the world of Yeshivos are trained not to look at externals. Rightly so. An individual’s character is what really matters: what they can contribute to a family in terms of a loving relationship, earning a living, and raising children with good values. The last thing a young man should consider is how his future wife looks.

A lot of women therefore rightly object to the entire concept of showing pictures of themselves to prospective males suitors. The idea of a young man looking at a picture of a prospective date seems like the wrong way to evaluate whether she will be a good wife and mother—a kind and giving individual who cares about others and will be a loving partner in marriage.

I don’t believe women look for those kinds of values when they consider dating. I don’t think there is anything remotely resembling “profile pictures” of men.

It is demeaning for women to be presented like a “meat market,” where the buyer can check out how the product looks before taking a chance on dating her. That makes for a terrible competition between women. Every woman on that list will want to outdo all the other women on the list and present herself as the most physically attarctive woman among those featured.

Which ends up meaning that the men who ask to see those pictures will choose a date based on the picture, leaving all those other, far more important attributes on the back burner, if they think about them at all.

This is not how one should choose a life partner. The most important considerations have to do with a person’s character, not with how they look.

And yet human nature does not always follow the most rational and sensible course of action. Looks are about physical attraction. If one is not physically attracted to a woman he considers making his lifelong partner, she can have all the altruism of a Mother Teresa and he will not want to date her…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

The Two State Solution

Israel cannot live side by side with this

When it comes to Israel, one thing the Left seems particularly certain about is its insistence on a Palestinian state. That insistence has gained more currency than ever. It is shared by many - perhaps even most - Democrats in Congress, including Jewish Democrats, as well as Canada, the UK, and many Western European nations. It is also widely promoted by “respected” columnists like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

To that end, the UK has just issued what can best be described as one of its strongest sanctions against Israel, banning any products produced there., regardless of how long ago those communities were established or how peaceful their inhabitants are - and always have been.

The hubris of claiming the moral high ground on this issue is breathtaking. It effectively treats hundreds of thousands of long-term, peaceful Israeli residents as if they were terrorists simply because they live in communities labeled “settlements.” The word itself has increasingly become a pejorative, sometimes almost a euphemism for “terrorist.”

And, of course, the blame is placed on the current Israeli right-wing government. As if any other Israeli government would necessarily dismantle these communities.

I’m not sure whether this myopia is deliberate or simply the result of ignorance. But if I had to guess, I would say history plays a role. Western Europe has a long history of antisemitism, and some of the attitudes we are seeing today are disturbingly reminiscent of that history.

They are now being expressed under the guise of sympathy for the “oppressed” Palestinians, who are supposedly suffering “apartheid” under a cruel Israeli occupation. They may as well have said “Jewish” instead of Israeli - even if those making the accusation would NEVER admit it.

Thing is, they are not wrong in theory.

The idea of a two-state solution, in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side peacefully and cooperate for the betterment of both communities, is an ideal solution to what seems like an ageless and endless conflict that has caused enormous bloodshed on both sides.

What about the mitzvah of settling all the Land of Israel?

Eventually, that time will come in the Messianic era. Until then, we have to find a way to end the bloodshed and live in peace with one another. Arab and Jew alike.

“The devil,” however, (to quote Ross Perot) “is in the details.”

A two-state solution is virtually impossible under current conditions, no matter how much some of us might want it in theory.

The reality is that there is deep-seated hostility toward Israel and Zionism in significant segments of the Arab and Muslim world. That hostility is particularly strong among Islamist movements and among Palestinian Arabs exposed to many decades of anti-Israel and antisemitic indoctrination. Indoctrination that is generational.

That does not mean that every Muslim or Palestinian shares those views. Clearly, there are Muslims and Palestinians who would prefer to live peacefully alongside a Jewish state. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not accept that vision. They have the means and determination to prevent it, as demonstrated by countless terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, culminating in the worst terrorist attack since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023.

Muslims deeply committed to Islamist ideology view the very existence of a Jewish state as religiously unacceptable – a contradiction to their theology. Is there really any question that this is a goal of the Iranian regime and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah?

Their claim that they simply want to be liberated from Israeli “occupation” is grist for the mill of the Left, which often buys that argument hook, line, and sinker. But the record suggests that Hamas and other Jihadist organizations have no genuine interest in a two-state solution. For them, Palestinian statehood is instead one step toward the elimination of Israel altogether.

That is why, even after Gaza was handed over to Palestinian control in 2005, Hamas took over and immediately began building an infrastructure designed to attack Israel. It built terror tunnels, accumulated enormous quantities of weapons and munitions, and organized attacks against Israeli civilians—all with funding and support from Iran.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and other like-minded jihadist groups speak of “freeing Palestine” from its Jewish occupiers, but their actions have provided little evidence that they are prepared to accept the permanent existence of a Jewish state and live alongside it in peace.

That is the fundamental problem.

Yet the “altruists” among Western Europeans, Canadians, Democrats, and liberal journalists “KNOW” that the answer is a two-state solution. And they are willing to boycott or pressure any Israeli government that does not embrace it…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.