Feed aggregator

A speciális festést kapott 716-os Mi-24V-ről, akarom mondani Csőrike II-ről "került a kezembe" ez a légifotó, ami a Lord Mountain 2010 gyakorlaton készült, Szlovéniában.

A fotoplatform se volt egy mindennapi madár...

...a 707-es oldalszámú ex-Mi-17PP, ami a típus későbbi hazai története során "nem létezőnek" lett minősítve, így sajnos elesett a továbbéltetés lehetőségétől.

Zord

A kurrens diplomáciai viszonyok közepette (ezt még új geopolitikai helyzetnek nevezni kissé elhamarkodott lenne) az indokoltnál is nagyobb hangsúlyt kapott a Mirage 2000-5 repülőgépek első, állítólag eredményes ukrajnai bevetésének híre. Ehhez kapcsolódva kínál egy friss adalékot és egy "kissé" régebbi magyar vonatkozást a LégierőBlogger.

Minek rakja ki az európai rakétagyártó 2025-ben egy (régóta nem gyártott) Mirage 2000 makettjét a standjára a megszokott MICA EM és IR (na jó NG) rakéták mellett a típusra integrált, de azon ritkán használt SCALP-EG csapásmérő robotrepülőgéppel és a közeli hatótávolságú Mistral légvédelmi rakéták légi indítóival (ATAM), mely még sosem volt látható ebben a kontextusban? A megoldás kizárásos alapon az ukrán "export" követelményrendszer lehet. A Szu-24-esek közelgő kifutásával kell egy SCALP-EG (Storm Shadow) hordozó utód; a drón és CM elfogó feladatra pedig nem ártana egy a MICA-nál nagyságrenddel olcsóbb (SZE vs M EUR/db) levegő-levegő rakéta - így máris összeáll a kép.

A magyar vonatkozás

Közel harminc évvel ezelőtt a Mirage 2000 akkor új, -5 változata is szóba került a MH új harci repülőgép típusaként, sőt, tesztelésére úgy Fraciaországban, mint idehaza, Kecskeméten sor került. Ez utóbbi alkalommal, 1996 augusztus 29-30-án készítettem az alábbi képeket a B01 jelű kétüléses változatról.

A céges vendéggép (nincs francia felségjel) a kecskeméti központi zónában, háttérben a Dassault saját Falconja, mellyel a delegációjuk utazott.

A francia gépek közül a Dash 5-é volt az első, több multifunkciós képernyővel ellátott, nemcsak hozva az F/A-18-as által elindított trendet, de túl is szárnyalva azt. A három MFD és HUD közé ugyanis egy HLD (Head Level Display) is került a műszerfalra, összesen 5 (CRT!) kijelzővel (és a HOTAS-al) alkotva az Advanced Pilot System Interface (APSI) ember-gép kapcsolati rendszert.

Gyakorló Magic rakéta a szárny alatti külső pilon/indítóberendezésen, háttérben a törzs alatti tandemek hátsó pilonján egy MICA...

...aminek a függesztőberendezését a dinamikus bemutatózás előtt leszerelték.

Végül pedig pörögjenek itt a szerző jegyzetei a képernyőrendszerről a Dassault 1996 április 16-i sajtótájékoztatójáról.

Zord

Le Débat BBC avec Kabinet Fofana

Le Débat BBC Afrique avec Dr Edouard Zoutomou Kpoghomou

The cease-fire is holding, Israeli hostages are being exchanged for Palestinian terrorists, and the stage is being set for further Israeli compromises.

What could go wrong?

Typical of the media agenda leading up to the cease-fire is the sloppy media narrative as per The Washington Post:

The conflict started when Hamas-led fighters attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking more than 250 others hostage. The Israeli military responded with a brutal campaign that destroyed much of Gaza and killed at least 47,000 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants but says the majority of the dead are women and children....in which:

• Hamas terrorists are described as "Hamas-led fighters
• The massacre is described merely as an attack, with no modifier
• While the Israeli retaliation is described with an added adjective as a brutal campaign
• At least 47,000 were killed -- despite analyses that dispute that number
• The Gaza Health Ministry is quoted, without mentioning it is controlled by Hamas
• The claim that the majority of those dead are "women and children" without mentioning contrary views
• No mention of what age range defines "children"
• No mention of the Hamas rockets landing in Gaza or how many Gazans killed by those rockets

Now, the media is framing the appropriate cease-fire narrative for their audiences. All this time, the media has carefully eschewed labeling Hamas as terrorists. This is hardly the time to describe the agreement as swapping of hostages for terrorists. Instead, we have descriptions along the lines of The New York Times:

Mere "prisoners"?

In the second paragraph, they clarify:

In the West Bank city of Ramallah, crowds of Palestinians held aloft the returning prisoners, many of whom had been jailed for deadly militant attacks against Israelis

Give The New York Times credit for at least admitting that the attacks were deadly. But many of them were guilty of "deadly attacks"?

Honest Reporting points out that actually the vast majority of the first batch of "prisoners" -- 83% -- were guilty of violent and deadly offenses.

f But the New York Times "admission" of deadly attacks does not stop them from gushing:


"One of the largest prisoner exchanges" -- a prime example of New York Times evenhandedness, equating hostages with terrorists, "some" of whom are serving life sentences, without any specifics as to why.

Speaking about that exchange, it is noteworthy that Hamas violated the agreement during the second exchange. As The Washington Post noted:Israel said Saturday that Hamas had violated the deal, which required it to release all living civilian women first. Israel had expected that Arbel Yehud, a 29-year-old civilian who was abducted with her boyfriend from Kibbutz Nir Oz on Oct. 7, would be among those in the Saturday release. [the article is reposted on msn.com]JNS therefore duly noted that Israel took measures to ensure that Hamas would follow through by releasing Israeli hostage Arbel Yehud as agreed:

But CNN's sloppily constructed headline could not be bothered with the facts:

The headline paints Israel in the worst possible light. It is not until the eighth paragraph that CNN deigns to inform us:Israel has been pushing for the release of Arbel Yehud, 29, who was kidnapped from her home in kibbutz Nir Oz. Israel says she is a civilian and should have been released Saturday.Not only does CNN bury this important detail, but they also make it seem that Israel is inconveniencing the hapless Hamas terrorist leaders by "pushing" for the release.

In case you are wondering just how many cease-fire violations is Hamas guilty of violating...

According to Haaretz, Hamas is guilty of 3 violations:The first, current phase of the deal was intended to be the simplest of the deal's proposed three phases. Both Hamas and Israel are thought to be committed to the so-called humanitarian part of the phase, but obstacles thrown up by both sides have threatened to stop the deal before it even began.

Hamas failed to submit to Israel the names of the hostages to be released in time, didn't release the civilian hostage Arbel Yehoud as promised and delayed issuing the list specifying which of the hostages designated for release are still alive. Israel, for its part, delayed allowing displaced residents of northern Gaza to return to their homes in response.The 3 Hamas violations are:

• Failing to submit to Israel the names of the hostages to be released in time
• Not releasing the civilian hostage Arbel Yehoud as promised
• Delaying issuing the list specifying which of the hostages designated for release are still alive

But wait! Israel also placed an obstacle preventing the smooth proceeding of the cease-fire. According to Haaretz, Israel put an obstacle in the way of the cease-fire by insisting on the release of a kidnapped hostage as per the agreement.

In their haste to be "fair" and find something to pin on Israel, Haaretz claims that "obstacles thrown up by both sides have threatened to stop the deal before it even began," But the one "obstacle" by Israel clearly happened after the cease-fire began.

Now the campaign to erase Hamas responsibility for the war begins, as CNN tells us that this is not Hamas's war at all:

After 16 months of war, we were inundated by the media agenda to reframe the Hamas massacre itself and the war that Israel had to wage to protect itself.
Now, we should prepare for the media's coverup of the cease-fire as well.

George Gilder is an American author and economist. His book, The Israel Test, was published in 2009. A new version of the book came out last year.

George Gilder (YouTube screencap)

What is so important about your book, The Israel Test, that it merits a new third edition?

The issues of The Israel Test are imperative for everyone to understand—a relaunch of the message of the essential book of my lifetime. I've been writing for nearly 70 years, and of all my books, I like The Israel Test best. It's the most personal of my books and the most fervent. It may be the most important. I write about entrepreneurship, I write about technology, I write about creativity as the paramount force in human life. It is all epitomized in the fabulous feats of Israel as the Startup Nation and now possibly the leader of the Free World.

I think Israel is transforming the world as we speak.

Briefly, what is the Israel Test?

The test is how people respond to those who excel in creativity, intellect, accomplishment, and wealth. Do you admire them and try to learn from them or do you envy them, resent them, and try to tear them down? This is the central test of the world economy and human life. When we resent those who excel us and attempt to suppress them, we doom our Human Experiment. To the extent that we admire them and emulate them, there are no limits to our achievements on this planet.

For whatever reason, most of the great breakthroughs of the century have come from Jews, and Israel now epitomizes this genius of the Jews. So when we attack Israel, we're really attacking the very source of human creativity and accomplishment in the world. That is the Israel Test.

U.S. corporations have some 70% of the global market cap and all the world's equity markets. When you examine the companies that account for this global leadership in the United States, they all have crucial, laboratories inventions, factories, research, and operations in Israel. People talk about Israel being dependent on the United States. But the U.S. is more dependent on Israel today than Israel is on the U.S. The United States is in a maelstrom at the moment, and Israel is really the inspirational leader of the world economy.

What are the biggest misconceptions about Israel's economy and the Israeli society that you debunk in your book?

First of all, the whole idea that Israel somehow is occupying something is just misconceived.

One of the reasons for the second edition of the book is that once, after I addressed a synagogue in Far Rockaway in New York, fifteen years ago, someone came up to me and gave me a beaten-up, frayed copy of a book by Walter Lowdermilk. That book is the basis for a couple of new chapters in the recent editions of The Israel Test.

Walter Lowdermilk was a Christian in the United States in the Agriculture Department under FDR. A heat wave had led to a terrible drought in the U.S. causing a crisis for US agriculture and for the West. Lowdermilk traveled around the world, in search of agricultural methods to meet this crisis. He ended up in then-Palestine and discovered amazing agricultural feats. This is back in 1938, before the establishment of the state of Israel. He found that the Jews had performed an agricultural miracle unparalleled anywhere else in the world.

Lowdermilk found that they had solved the water problem and made the desert bloom. In time, this led to desalination plants, drip irrigation, microirrigation, and the planting of a million trees. There is now an Israeli university with a Lowdermilk building because he became a hero and is recognized for his important contributions.

He reported that when the Jews moved to Palestine in the 19th century, there were only 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs in this wasteland that was really a desert. Their average lifespan was around 30 years old. When the Jews came and made the desert bloom, the Arabs crowded into Palestine to take advantage of these breakthroughs the Jews achieved. Jewish migration made a population of Palestinians possible. Without the Jewish immigration, there could not have been a sustained population because of the lack of water. Lowdermilk's book documents detailed observations and testimony about how the Jews transformed the desert and made Israel ultimately into the world's most Innovative agricultural country.

But Israel made a big mistake. They adopted socialism. By 1985, Israel was about over, approaching 1000% inflation with the economy on the verge of collapse. The Histadrut domination of banking had resulted in the bankruptcy of banks and the fall of the shekel. That was when the new government under Netanyahu led the transformation of Israel into a capitalist leader.

The real Israel Test came when Israel demonstrated that freedom, capitalism, and creativity enable human life and accomplishment. That vindication of capitalism, pioneered by Netanyahu, changed the Israel Test from a test of recognizing their agricultural changes to recognizing their technological changes. Israel was a key source of the success of Intel Corporation, the leading American semiconductor company. Nvidia achieved great success by buying an Israeli company called Melanox, making Nvidia one of the world's most valuable companies by enabling their Artificial Intelligence breakthroughs.

It begins with half the Nobel prizes and the serious Sciences and it goes on to the richest people in the world, to the most pioneering country in the world. And it's all ultimately a recognition of the incredible genius of the Jews.

The Israel Test is about how Israel's genius enriches the world.

Is the Israel Test of the Arabs different? Aside from the psychological and emotional elements of envy and hatred of the Jews, the Arab world also has a cultural aspect that you mention in your book: shame and honor. Going a step further, are those Arabs living in Israel under Jewish rule for the first time in Arab history being tested and challenged differently than any other people?

Israel is a democratic government that grants Israeli Arabs more rights than any other place in the world, except maybe the United States. Arabs do better in Israel than they do anywhere else. The million Arabs in Israel comprise 16% of all the engineers. The Arabs do well in Israel and do not support Hamas or Hezbollah activities. There are, of course, disgruntled Arabs. But I think that the Arab integration with Israeli Society and Israeli industry has been a lesson for the world and the Israel Test.

I've spent a lot of time in Israel, talking to Arab engineers. They are making crucial contributions. The ones who learn from the Jews rather than resent the Jews do brilliantly in Israel.

You write that capitalism is one of the best remedies for antisemitism. How does that work?

Capitalism is based on giving. A fundamental principle of capitalism is its dependence on the moral fabric that the Jewish and Christian traditions enabled. capitalism is the secret behind the emergence of Israel as the world's leading creative force and its world leadership. Israel did not become the Startup Nation until it adopted capitalism and they didn't employ all these Arabs either until it adopted capitalism.

Probably seven out of the ten richest people in the world are Jews. All their wealth is invested in projects and companies that employ millions of people around the world. This makes the continued triumph over human exigency possible. It explains why the genius of the Jews converges with the capitalist insights to make Israel's emergence as the leader of the West possible. Israel's amazing achievement is that this tiny country has accomplished so much, yet has only existed for 75 years. And it could only have happened with capitalism.

The American economist and political commentator Thomas Sowell makes an important observation. He studied minorities all around the globe. He acknowledges the incredible achievements of the Jews and of Israel as the spearhead. However, he also shows that a similar phenomenon exists in Asia with the overseas Chinese. There are some 40 million overseas Chinese, more overseas Chinese than there are Jews. It's not exactly comparable, but the overseas Chinese dominate the economies of Asia in the same way that Jews dominate the Middle Eastern economy--and the American economy for that matter. Millions of overseas Chinese have been killed in pogroms in Indonesia, for example. This ended up depleting the Indonesian economy for decades They imagined that the overseas Chinese were somehow stealing wealth instead of creating wealth. Wealth is created; it is not stolen.

You write that anti-Semitism withers in wealthy capitalist countries. But is that really true today?

We are slipping back into Socialism. The West is no longer so wealthy and our wealth does not distribute itself as thoroughly as in a free economy. We are socializing our economy in the name of climate change and other delusions that are inducing us to abandon capitalism. When we abandoned capitalism, people began to look for victims. They consider themselves victims and resent the wealthy. They start failing their Israel Test.

So it's not just because we're living post-October 7th?

That's right. Marxism is based on resentment of wealth. If you start resenting and tearing down wealth, you end up failing your Israel Test and bring about catastrophe. And that's our history.

One of the stories I like to tell is about World War II. It was won because the U.S. admitted Jews to lead the Manhattan Project and create the nuclear weapons that made the triumphs of the Western order possible. After the Second World War, democracy and capitalism were the fruit of the Manhattan Project, and the Manhattan Project was accomplished almost entirely by the Jewish scientists fleeing Europe.

John von Neumann is a great hero of the Israel Test. He was a pivotal figure both in the Manhattan Project and in the creation of the computer industry. He won his debate with Albert, Einstein and persuaded Israel to create a supercomputer and acquire nuclear power. Israel could not have survived without von Neumann's contributions. A Jew who fled Europe for the United States ultimately saved both Israel and The United States.

You mention the United States. Generally, antisemitism doesn't seem to be as large a problem here as it is in Europe. Why is that?

One of the reasons is that Europe accepted massive Muslim immigrants without requiring them to adopt the principles of a free society, and without requiring them to abandon their antisemitism. Europe got occupied. It's a terrible problem and it's why Trump's insight about immigration is so critical. You accept immigrants who accept the constitutional principles of your society, the key moral underpinnings of civilized society. An obsession with exterminating Jews is utterly inconsistent with the principles of any kind of free, civilized society. Europe accepted too many jihadists and it's changing their culture.

Eastern Europe is now becoming more prosperous than Western Europe because of this. It is not trivial. Eastern Europe refused Islamic migration and has managed to continue its capitalist prosperity. Poland is now one of the world's most creative and productive countries.

You write that Judaism perhaps more than any other religion favors capitalist activity and provides a rigorous moral framework for it. How so?

Capitalism is based on escape from materialism. It is based on the belief that human beings are created in the image of their Creator. These Judaic insights and principles help explain why Jews lead the world economy.

Is capitalism the escape from materialism? Some say capitalism is dependent on materialism.

No, it absolutely isn't. Many models imagine the economy is dominated by land, energy, resources, rare metals, or whatever claims they make. Actually, ideas are all the world has. As Thomas Sowell puts it, the Neanderthal in his cave had all the material resources that we have today The difference between our age and the Stone Age is entirely the triumph of intellect and ideas and the transcendence over our material bondage and our material entrapment.

What are Israel's biggest challenges in maintaining its economic growth?

Israel led the world in new venture capital in 2024. It grew its venture capital by 38% over 2024 while the U.S. expanded its venture capital, because of the advance of artificial intelligence and the transformative impact of AI on various industries. But even during this horrific war, Israel has expanded its economic leadership. That is why I say they are the leader of the West. They have to maintain their openness, creativity, and inventiveness. They can't retreat to the materialist superstition that wealth comes from the land. Israel demonstrates that wealth doesn't come from the land--it comes from the mind.

What would you like your readers to take away from The Israel Test, especially the younger readers, who may not be familiar with Israel's story?

They should understand that this is a world of abundance. They should be careful not to accept the materialist superstition that ends up resenting wealth by imagining wealth is something material that was stolen from them. And that's the crucial recognition.

We always face the Israel Test. We all have the propensity to envy people who excel us. We all feel that temptation. We must shun the material superstition and embrace the infinite possibilities of the human mind and creativity.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and concision

Une octogénaire zambienne est adulée pour ses photos de mode saisissantes et ludiques.

“If Hamas truly believes that the people, the Palestinian people are suffering, then why would they want to take this aid and use it for themselves to support their terrorist organization? One would hope that this aid will get to the people that are most deserving and in need.”
Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder when asked how the US was going to ensure humanitarian aid reaches civilians and not Hamas, March 8, 2024

Did Ryder really acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization and then in the same breath expect that those terrorists would happily share humanitarian aid with the rest of Gaza?

We shouldn't be all that surprised. Remember, this is the same administration where Biden himself wholeheartedly accepts -- and repeats -- the Hamas claim that 30,000 Gazans have died so far.

The Biden administration, like most of the West, has fallen for the Hamas propaganda -- hook, line, and sinker. That is the point made in a recent YNet article, The US sees situation in Gaza through Hamas' optics:Hamas uses the suffering of the people in Gaza for its propaganda purposes and for pressuring Israel. The fact that the U.S. has fallen for this Hamas tactic is no less than shocking. It only reinforces Hamas’ incentive to use the civilian population as a human shield since this strategy works - it is more harmful to Israel than it is to Hamas.Of course, we can make the argument that the Biden administration is not fooled by Hamas at all -- they are merely undercutting Israel because this is an election year and the powers that be are afraid of losing votes. But that interpretation doesn't make Biden look any better.
Either way, the administration is publicly accepting Hamas disinformation and reinforcing it. That only strengthens the terrorists in their strategy and encourages them to hold out while putting lives and the future of Gaza at stake. Biden says he wants stability, but his actions have the opposite effect.
The destruction of Hamas terrorists is not a stated goal. The foreign policy is even more wishy-washy.
For that matter, in the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2728, there is no linkage between a cease-fire and the release of the hostages. Hamas wins again. 

 The resolution fails to explicitly tie humanitarian aid to the release of hostages. The resolution merely puts the two issues side by side.
During Monday's Press Briefing, Matt Lee of the Associated Press pushed State Department Spokesperson, Matthew Miller on this point:QUESTION: So last week when you guys presented your resolution at the UN, there were complaints from people who said that it delinked the ceasefire from the release of hostages, and U.S. officials were rather vociferous in saying that that is not the case. However, what you guys abstained on today does appear to delink them. Is that your understanding of —


MR MILLER: So we don’t believe it delinks them. You see in the same paragraph it – the resolution calling for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages. It’s not the exact language that we would have put forward, obviously, because the language that we would put forward is the language that we did put forward last week, but it is language that is consistent with our policy to call for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages, and that’s why we did not exercise a veto today.

As I said, we did have concerns about the lack of other provisions in the resolution, but as it pertains to a ceasefire and the release of hostages, both the things that we called for were there in the resolution. A few moments later, Miller admits this resolution is toothless since it is non-binding. Matt Lee asks the obvious question:QUESTION: So what’s the point?

MR MILLER: Well —

QUESTION: Why did you —

MR MILLER: — you could ask that —

QUESTION: Why did you abstain? Why didn’t you veto?

MR MILLER: We didn’t veto because we thought the language in it was consistent with something that – the language as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostages was consistent with the longstanding United States position.

QUESTION: So you don’t believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution.

MR MILLER: So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the – an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. I don’t – I can’t say that this – this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations. Matt Lee


This whole drama leading up to passing a resolution for a cease-fire has all been for nothing. That fact leads to Lee's obvious question:If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of the UN or the UN Security Council?Miller admits the US is not looking to the UN to get things done. It is looking to negotiate in Qatar. That would be the same Qatar that supports Hamas and plays host to Hamas leaders. This is not exactly neutral territory.
Is it any wonder that Hamas has shown no inclination to surrender and is willing -- and confident -- in its strategy to sit and wait?
I recall that during the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration, some suggested that the Iranians would not have dared to try taking Russians hostage -- such was the fear that the Soviet Union inspired. 
That was then.
The ISIS massacre at the concert hall shows that those days are over. Ukraine's ability to hold out against Putin has seen to that.
The West will blame Israel for the Hamas massacre and for unrest in the Middle East. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the weakness and indecision of the once powerful "superpowers" is seen as an invitation to Islamists to renew and expand their jihad.

When people argue that Israel and Hamas need to negotiate and make peace, they sometimes draw comparisons between Hamas and the IRA:

Yes, they have to negotiate w/ Hamas. Just like the Brits had to negotiate with the IRA in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. The IRA were terrorists. They almost killed Margaret Thatcher once. But negotiation was necessary for durable peace. Have to do it in Israel now & end the war https://t.co/3WblyxUcfB

— Zane (@zanealb04) March 8, 2024

It is not an unexpected sentiment.

Those negotiations led to the Good Friday Agreement in 2001, where the Irish Republican Army agreed to begin disarming. It was an amazing achievement.

CNN interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell praised the agreement, saying it "shows what can happen when one remains persistent and is determined to solve what appear to be intractable problems." Midway through the press conference, the topic of Israel came up.

The final question was, "Secretary Powell, does the situation in Northern Ireland not show us all that negotiations is really the only way forward in all of these situations?" Israel was not mentioned, but it clearly was on everyone's mind.

Powell responded:

what we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last 24 hours, which culminates a process that took many, many years long to get to this point, is an example of what can be achieved when people of good will come together, recognize they have strong differences -- differences that they have fought over for years -- but it's time to put those differences aside in order to move forward and to provide a better life for the children of Northern Ireland.

Very...tactful. He praised both the participants and the diplomatic process in general.

But Straw got in the last word:

It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

Before diplomacy could work, terrorism had to be defeated and those who practiced it had to reject it. And for that to happen, military force was necessary.

And terrorism still needs to be rejected. A diplomatic approach won't suffice.

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, made this point in his Victory Project. He wrote in 2017 that Israel needs "to indicate to the Palestinians that this conflict, this war that they have been engaged in for a century, is over. And they lost. And they've got to recognize it." He describes a plan of deterrence that goes beyond tough tactics:

When Palestinian “martyrs” cause material damage, pay for repairs out of the roughly $300 million in tax obligations the government of Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) each year. Respond to activities designed to isolate and weaken Israel internationally by limiting access to the West Bank. When a Palestinian attacker is killed, bury the body quietly and anonymously in a potter’s field. When the PA leadership incites violence, prevent officials from returning to the PA from abroad. Respond to the murder of Israelis by expanding Jewish towns on the West Bank. When official PA guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure. Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies. In the case of gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets, occupy and control the areas from which these originate.

Israel has used some of these suggestions, such as subtracting from the tax money that goes to the PA in response to Abbas's pay-to-slay program. And in light of the Hamas massacre of October 7, Israel may consider stricter measures, both in terms of Gaza and the West Bank. The measures themselves are not purely punitive. Their goal is deterrence and ultimately to show the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost.

That would be the opposite of the approach of the Dalai Lama to the terrorist attack of 9-11:

How to respond to such an attack is a very difficult question. Of course, those who are dealing with the problem may know better, but I feel that careful consideration is necessary and that it is appropriate to respond to an act of violence by employing the principles of nonviolence. The Dalai Lama (YouTube screenshot)
And yet even here, he leaves some wiggle room for a stronger, harsher approach:

Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary. Two years later, the Dalai Lama raised eyebrows when the New York Times reported, Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply

The Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world's most prominent advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview yesterday that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence... He goes on to say that ''terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures" and even suggests, at the time, that it was ''too early to say'' whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. 

In 2009, the Dalai Lama was still saying the same thing:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa [non-violence] because the minds of terrorists are closed.

And if the minds of terrorists are closed, then as Jack Straw suggested, military force is necessary, and as Daniel Pipes says, you have to convince them that they have lost.

Who knows? Maybe even Biden understands that to a degree. In an interview following his State of the Union Address, Biden was asked when Hamas really wants a ceasefire:

Biden admits the futility of a ceasefire and acknowledges that Hamas will use the opportunity to rearm itself for more attacks -- before pausing and going back to attacking Israel, with an outlandish accusation that it is carpet-bombing Gaza, consistent with his unquestioning acceptance of Hamas's exaggerated number of casualties.

If Hamas is allowed to live to fight another day -- it will.
The fact remains -- Israel will not win unless Hamas loses.

 

From March 2018 to December 2019, the media reported on The Great March of Return. Each Friday, the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza approached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel in "spontaneous," "peaceful" protests, demanding the right to return to their homes in "Palestine." It didn't take long for Hamas to coopt the protests. Soon, amidst the smoke of burning tires and under cover of night, Gazans attempted to break through the fence into Israel.

These were not peaceful protests; they were destructive riots. But how does international law apply to civilian rioting in support of military objectives?

Which paradigm is applicable: Conduct of Hostilities or Law Enforcement -- or a combination of the two? 

And the media insisted on portraying the March as a series of "peaceful protests."

The March was useful for Hamas. It put pressure on Israel to deal with masses of Gazans at the barrier, many of whom tried to break through and infiltrate into Israel. The Gazans who were killed or injured became frontpage news generating worldwide condemnations of Israel

By the end of 2019, Hamas "postponed" the weekly riots.But on October 7, 2023, Hamas penetrated the barrier -- murdering, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians.

Now, riots against Israel are again in the news, but this time they are around the world. These are pro-Palestinian riots, and they are not peaceful -- but that does not stop the media from calling them "protests" even while describing the destruction they cause. After all, no one wants to admit the government is losing control:o  NBC: Buildings vandalized during pro-Palestinian rally in West Hartford: police
o  LA Daily News: Lawmakers call for DOJ investigation of pro-Palestinian vandalism at LA veterans cemetery
o  ABC News: Pro-Palestinian protesters deface front of the New York City Public Library
o  Axios: Multiple congressional offices hit with pro-Palestinian vandalism
o  Washington Times: Pro-Palestinian marchers push against White House fence, vandalize national monuments during protestBeyond the destruction, another goal of the riots is disruption:o  Reuters: Hundreds of Pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after blocking NYC bridges, tunnel
o  Haaretz: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Access to New York Times Newsroom, Accuse Staff of 'Complicity in Genocide'
o  NBC: Thousands of pro-Palestine protesters block downtown LA streets to call for ceasefireo  AP: Pro-Palestinian protesters block airport access roads in New York and Los Angeleso  ABC: Pro-Palestinian protests block New York City bridges, Holland Tunnel; over 300 arrestedSome have questioned the methods of the rioters. After all, how can they hope to change people's minds when they resort to violence and inconveniencing people? This misses the point. The rioters and those organizing them are not interested in reason and dialogue. They are pushing an agenda.
And they are using public disruptions as leverage.
This is not a new form of protest. It is an application and even a refinement of hybrid warfare. The NATO Review explains the concept:Conflicts are fought in new, innovative, and radically different ways. With the advent of modern hybrid warfare, they are less and less about lethal or kinetic force.

It is important to note here that the concept of hybrid warfare might not be entirely new. Many practitioners contend that it is as old as war itself. Nevertheless, it has gained significant currency and relevance in recent years as states employ non-state actors and information technology to subdue their adversaries during or—more importantly—in the absence of a direct armed conflict. [emphasis added]  Back in 2018, during The March, The Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies made the connection between the Hamas-inspired riots and how other countries were also weaponizing unarmed civilians. For example, during the Russian campaign in Georgia:Those campaigns made deliberate and effective use of the combination of military force and civilian activity. In the fighting in Georgia, for example, armored forces were able to enter the north of the country thanks to the efforts of Russian-oriented Georgian-Abkhaz civilians, who, in a preparatory move, seized the tunnels and bridges of the expressway that leads to the capital, Tbilisi.
This is not limited to Russia, nor does there have to be a military component: "Similarly, Beijing is making use of thousands of civilian fishing boats in its efforts to extend its sovereignty over the South China Sea."
According to The NATO Review, hybrid warfare does not require a context of all-out war:What takes the centre stage here is the role of civilians: how they think and act in relation to the state. Contemporary digital and social media platforms allow hybrid actors to influence this to the detriment of the adversary state with considerable ease. The Russian online disinformation campaigns, some of which are very subtle yet grave, against some Western states constitute a good case in point. [emphasis added]The riots we are seeing are not spontaneous. They are a means to push an agenda, demanding that Biden and the Democratic Party support a ceasefire in Gaza. The alternative is the disruption of Biden's presidential campaign. 
These riots are not like the anti-Israel protests we are used to. The Toronto Sun points out that instead of the smaller, less organized anti-Israel protests we are used to, now: Hundreds, sometimes thousands, participate. They’ve got professionally-rendered signs and banners. They’ve got transportation, and food and drink. And they’ve got organizers who wear uniforms and control the crowds.

But there is more to this than just better organization; there is also better funding. But the money is for more than just staffing and supplies. People are being paid to riot:

pro-Palestine — and, increasingly, pro-Hamas — protestors are being paid to protest.  To block highways and roads.  To intimidate and threaten Jews and non-Jews. To cause chaos.

From the Palestinian Authority's pay-to-slay program, we have now arrived at the pay-to-riot program. The people who hold the money call the shots. Since the organizers are still paying out despite the riots, vandalism, and chaos  -- it appears that the rioting, vandalism, and chaos are what the organizers want.

According to Francesca Block, writing for The Free Press, one of those funding this chaos on the streets of the US is the American-born tech entrepreneur, Neville Roy Singham. He is the founder and one of the lead supporters of The People’s Forum. The group helped to organize at least four protests after October 7 as of November 14.  One of them was on October 8, before Israel had taken any action in Gaza:

The New York Times found ties between Singham and "a lavishly funded influence campaign that defends China and pushes its propaganda":

What is less known, and is hidden amid a tangle of nonprofit groups and shell companies, is that Mr. Singham works closely with the Chinese government media machine and is financing its propaganda worldwide.The article describes him as "a socialist benefactor of far-left causes." Singham denies any connection with the Chinese Communist Party or China itself. However, according to the article:He and his allies are on the front line of what Communist Party officials call a “smokeless war.” Under the rule of Xi Jinping, China has expanded state media operations, teamed up with overseas outlets and cultivated foreign influencers. The goal is to disguise propaganda as independent content. "Smokeless war" is a good description of hybrid warfare.
The August 2023 Times article makes no mention of Israel, Palestinian Arabs, or Gaza, but as a supporter of far-left causes Singham's People's Forum supporting violent protests is not surprising. For China, the riots are not necessarily a question of supporting Gaza, but rather using pro-Palestinian protests and the chaos they create to undermine the US. These Chinese media interests are helping sow discord in the U.S., Rep. Mike Gallagher, the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, told The Free Press.

“The Chinese Communist Party uses tools like Confucius Institutes on college campuses, TikTok’s addictive algorithm, and organizations like those that Mr. Singham funds to divide and weaken America,” Gallagher said. If Gallagher is right, the chaos created by these "protests" is not a bug.
They are a feature.
Which means that Israel is not the only target.

Hamas has a history of executing Palestinians who the terrorists claim are collaborating with Israel. Back in 2014, for example, the Times of Israel reported that Hamas killed over 30 suspected collaborators with Israel. And that was over just a few days. Of course, there is no way to tell whether Hamas actually executes collaborators, or is killing off opposition to its rule in Gaza.

According to Hamas, collaborating with Israel is not limited to spying for the Jewish state and relaying information that helps to target Hamas terrorists. 
Helping Gazans can also get you killed by Hamas:A Hamas-linked website warned Palestinians who assist Israel in providing aid to Gaza that their actions will not be “tolerated”.

Those who did would be treated as collaborators and be handled with an iron fist, the Hamas Al-Majd security website said on Monday, quoting a security official in Palestinian militant forces. Considering how Hamas has been taking Gazan aid for themselves and in some cases selling it to the people at inflated prices, it is understandable that the terrorists might be piqued.

Hamas is stealing aid and trying to sell it back to Gazans at exorbitant prices. https://t.co/AXQ363orF7

— Haviv Rettig Gur (@havivrettiggur) January 17, 2024

But this time, Hamas may have gone too far. On Thursday, JNS reported, Hamas executes Gaza clan ‘prince’ in message to potential ‘collaborators’:Hamas has executed a “prince” of the Doghmush clan in Gaza City, sources in Gaza said on Thursday. The killing was a message to those considering cooperating with Israel, which is looking for ways to bypass the terror group in the enclave, according to the sources.

Israel has floated the idea of Gaza clans acting as partners in running the internal affairs of the Strip after Hamas has been eliminated.

If Hamas was trying to dissuade Gazans from participating in Israel's plan, it may have been unnecessary. The clans are reported to have rejected what they considered Israeli interfernce in internal matters. More to the point, if Hamas felt the need to kill tribal leaders in order to maintain control, that constitutes a major change in tactics indicating that Hamas is afraid of losing control.

On March 10, Khaled Abu Toameh reported that Hamas was competing with the PA to get the support of the clans:

The P.A. and Hamas understand that the backing of the clans is crucial for maintaining their control over the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That’s why P.A. and Hamas leaders have always treated the large families and their leaders with utmost respect. In some instances, clan leaders were elevated to the unofficial position of supreme judges and arbitrators, replacing the official judiciary and law enforcement of both organizations.

This is all the more reason to see the Hamas execution of a clan leader as an admission of a potential threat to Hamas control in Gaza. The fact that Hamas killed the leader supports Toameh's report that some of the clans sided with the PA and were enforcing law and order in some of the towns and refugee camps, preventing looting and anarchy. And one clan was in fact reported to be escorting some of the trucks carrying humanitarian aid that entered through Egypt and Israel.

This is not the first time Hamas has sparked revenge over their killing of an Arab. This past November, a Bedouin family accused Hamas of torturing, humiliating and executing Osama Abu Asa during the October 7 massacre. They offered a reward of $1 million for help in identifying who killed him. An uncle made clear, "as with the bedouins, we have a blood feud with the terrorists. This account will be closed, no matter how long it takes.”

But this time, the backlash is against all of Hamas: Major Gaza clan says it considers all Hamas members legitimate targets after leader assassinated:

The Doghmosh Family — a major clan in Gaza — has issued a statement declaring that all Hamas members are legitimate targets after its leader was assassinated by members of the terror group along with ten other relatives allegedly for stealing humanitarian aid and being in contact with Israel.

The statement pledges retribution against all responsible and warns Hamas fighters not to test the clan’s patience.

How serious is this threat to Hamas?

On November 9, 2005, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the three suicide bombers who killed 60 people at hotels in Amman Jordan. He was rebuked by members of his own tribe.

“We, the sons of the Bani Hassan tribe in all its branches in the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, support and express solidarity with our cousins, the al-Khalayleh clan, and their decision to sever relations with the terrorist Ahmad Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, who calls himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” said the letter published in four leading newspapers.

...In a similar letter on Nov. 20, almost 60 members of al-Zarqawi’s extended family disowned him and pledged fidelity to the crown.

This signaled the beginning of al-Zarqawi's downfall. He was killed in a US airstrike the following year.

We can only hope that the blood feud Hamas has brought upon itself, from Arabs who have outright threatened to kill Hamas members, will have similar results.

The following is the conclusion of the second interview with Dr. Harold Rhode.

The idea of a two-state solution being pushed by the US State Department does not attract the Palestinian Arabs. They are not interested in the benefits Arabs have in Israel as opposed to in the surrounding states.

So why did the Palestinian Arabs sign the Oslo Accords?

Signatures on documents do not mean much in Arab culture. Two weeks after the signing of the Oslo Agreement, Arafat spoke at a mosque in South Africa. He told his listeners he did not sign a peace agreement with Israel. It was a truce. He compared the Oslo Accords to the ten-year truce their prophet Muhammad signed at Hudaybiya (near Mecca) with his enemies, the Qureysh.

Two years later, when Muhammad realized he was stronger than his enemies, he attacked and conquered Mecca -- so much for the 10-year truce with his enemy. Similarly, on October 7, 2023, Hamas and Iran saw Israel as divided and weak. But they miscalculated because this wasn’t Hudaybiya. They did not understand Israel’s internal fortitude.

But all is not lost when it comes to Israel-Arab relations.

Muslims can sign agreements with their opponents which –- unlike the Hudaybiya truce –- can be periodically renewed when they believe it is in their interests. Netanyahu knew that once they needed what Israel had to offer -- such as hi-tech, security, and investments -- the Arabs would be the ones reaching out for an agreement.

This is the reason why the Abraham Accords were signed.

Moreover, Muslims respect power. When President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran became relatively quiet, except for some small probing attacks. We saw this also in Iran's reaction to President Ronald Reagan before he came into office. Forty-five minutes before Reagan took the oath of office, Iran put the US hostages on a plane to freedom. Iran saw Reagan as a cowboy who would destroy them.

You can make things happen once you understand the Muslim respect for power.

In comparison, a compromise is a blot on your honor. In the Muslim world, compromise is a sign of weakness, encouraging others to strike back at you even harder. You cannot give in. The Americans have not yet learned the Muslim concept of compromise.

Concepts are not the same as words. Anybody can look up a word in a dictionary and translate it the way you like. We assume a concept means the same thing in every language. But cultures don't communicate -- they clash.

I once asked an Arab friend how he would translate the word "compromise." He thought about it for a week and came back to me. He said the closest he could get to it in Arabic was a word with the root N-Z-L. We both laughed because in Hebrew that root means "a runny nose." In Arabic, it means to get off your camel -- the common idea being to go down, that you humiliate yourself. That is what the Western concept of compromise means in Arabic.

Compromise means humiliation.

That is why there can be no two-state solution. At best, it would be a temporary solution, but it will be like Gaza: they will take what you give them and then use it against you. An agreement might be renewed over and over, but it is not designed to last and there is always the possibility it will fall apart. There may be others who will be better allies, especially if they are also Arabs and in the same clan. It is not a nice way to live, but then again, there is no such thing as peace.

That doesn't mean we cannot have long periods of quiet.

The following is a second interview with Dr. Harold Rhode.

The key to discussing the Middle East is understanding the cultures and languages. In Hebrew, you have the root P-T-Ch, corresponding to F-T-Ch in Arabic. The root has the general meaning of "open." But in Arabic, there is an additional meaning: opening up a land to Islam. So the leader in battle is called Fatih and the man who conquered Istanbul was called Mehmed Fatih.

Similarly, there is Fatah, the organization. The name is a reverse acronym of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine -- Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr l-Filasṭīn. The reference is to the liberation and return of all of today’s Israel – including Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip – to Islamic rule.

This concept of being "open" means that once a land has been conquered and is "open to Islam," it is Muslim forever, even if Muslim control comes to an end.

The Muslims ruled Spain from 712 CE until 1492, when the Christians finally expelled them from all of Spain. But in the Muslim mind, though their physical control over Spain ended centuries ago, Spain still belongs to the Muslims and will never be part of the non-Muslim world. Many Muslims, when mentioning Spain, often add the phrase “Allah-Willing, it will again be ruled by Muslims.”

Similarly, there was a time when all of Southeast Europe up to Vienna was under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans saw themselves as Muslims, not Turks. Their defeat in Vienna in 1683 gradually led to the complete Ottoman withdrawal from Southeast Europe, resulting in 1914 to the borders of present-day Turkey. Yet many Turks and other Muslims still talk about the area as being part of the Muslim world. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan still talks about Southeastern Europe as being “part of the Ottoman-Muslim area.”

That brings us to the years 1948-1949, when Israel defeated five Muslim armies. At the Rhodes talks in 1949, the Muslims insisted on the phrase "ceasefire lines" instead of "borders." The word "borders" implies the recognition of the people living there. Jews would have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael. A Muslim would find that unacceptable because those lands should remain Muslim forever.

To the Arabs, there is nothing magical about the lines drawn in the 1948-49 map. Those borders do not matter. The land is completely Muslim. But from the Western point of view, we are talking about how to divide up land and this is the point of pushing for the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. However, Netanyahu understands that the Arabs are not talking about Israel’s borders and how to renegotiate them. They are talking about Israel’s existence. And people cannot compromise on their existence.

This issue of borders and Israel's legitimacy caused a problem for Yasser Arafat. The 1993 Oslo Agreement was an interim agreement, not a Peace Treaty. Yet, at the very last moment, Arafat kept changing the terms. He was afraid of what might happen.

Years later, when President Clinton was trying to get Israel and Arafat to sign a Peace Agreement, Arafat was quoted as saying he would not sign because he did not want to end up drinking tea with Sadat. If Arafat had signed, he would have risked assassination like the Egyptian president, whose signing of the Egyptian agreement with Begin was viewed as a treasonous acknowledgment of Israel's right to “Muslim” territory.

There are YouTube videos of Israeli Muslim children -- whose ancestors had been living in Israel for 3 to 4 generations -- telling an Israeli journalist that Israel was Muslim land and that someday Muslims would get it back. 

When the interviewer pointed out his family had been living in Israel for many years, since 1948, the teenager responded that this is what he had been taught, both in school and at home: You Jews have no right to live here and we are going to take our land back from you. There was no issue of rights or that Jews were on the land long before the Arabs arrived in 637-638 CE.

None of that made any difference.
To the Palestinian Arabs, it still doesn't.

I had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Harold Rhode.

Dr. Harold Rhode has a Ph.D. in Islamic history and lived for years in the Muslim world. He served as an advisor on the Islamic world to the Department of Defense for 28 years.

Dr. Harold Rhode

Do all of the signatories to the Abraham Accords, Arabs and Israelis, see the Abraham Accord the same way?

We Jews want people to love us. And the peace we are looking for is that you will stop fighting, and we will stop fighting, and everyone will live together in peace. But the Muslims do not have a concept like that. They won't stop until the whole world will be Muslim. They follow what their prophet Muhammad did. He signed a 10-year ceasefire with Quraysh. After 2 years, Muhammad realized Quraysh had weakened -- so he attacked them, and won. There is a classic Latin phrase "Bellum omnium contra omnes, pace inter omnes interpellatur," that war is the natural state of man, interrupted by periods of peace.

We do not look at life like that, but historically most people do. From a Muslim point of view, they can agree to have relations with their enemies -- whether they be Muslims, Jews, or anybody else. They can make temporary agreements just like their prophet did. Those agreements can be renewed, renewed, and renewed. But to think that the Saudis see peace the way we Jews see it is a pipe dream. 

In 1949, after Israel's War of Independence, there was a peace conference in Rhodes. The Arabs insisted the borders be called "ceasefire lines" and not borders. The situation was not set in stone. Arabs do not have the concept that when the fighting is over, we can be friends. If we think we will have a peace agreement with the Saudis in the way we understand peace, we will be disappointed. 

Does this mean the Abraham Accords are a pipe dream?

No, that does not mean the Abraham Accords are an illusion. We can have agreements with the Arab countries -- as long as we have things they want from us, such as hi-tech, connections to the outside world, and alternate routes in place of the Suez Canal. They are interested in what is in it for them, not for the sake of friendship. Friendship is between people. Countries ally themselves because of common interests. The Abraham Accords are not about peace; they are about what is in both sides' interest. 

The Arab word “salam” has nothing to do with the Hebrew word shalom. Shalom comes from the root for "completeness." The word "shalaim", means to pay. When two people come to an agreement on a price, that payment completes the process.

In Arabic, the word “salam” is similar to the Hebrew word “shalom,” but they do not have the same meaning. “Islam” and “salam,” come from the same Arabic root. Islam means “submission,” while “salam” means something like the special sense of joy that someone has by submitting to Allah’s will through Islam. Shalom, on the other hand, means letting bygones be bygones, a concept that is totally alien to Islam. Clearly, "salam" and "shalom" do not mean the same thing.

The following example illustrates the Arabic meaning of the word in a Muslim context: If you take a look at the correspondence between Yemen and Saudi Arabia during the war in 1934, the leaders of the two sides wrote the most threatening things to each other -- and then closed their letters with "salam alaikum". These leaders hated each other, but they were fellow Muslims addressing each other. So if "salam" meant peace, how could they end their letters to each other with “salam alaikum?” How could they close their letters with "Peace be unto you"? Because the phrase has nothing to do with peace -- it is about submission to Allah, which both of them, as fellow Muslims, are required to do.”

So, we are dealing with cultures that are so incredibly different from ours, from the Western culture, which is partially based on the Hebrew culture.

I am for the Abraham Accords, very strongly so. The Arab countries are interested because Israel is strong. The proof of that goes back to when contact between Israel and the UAE became serious. Netanyahu spoke before Congress against the Iran deal in 2015, in defiance of the US. He showed Israel was an independent country that could make its own decisions, and was willing to stand up to the US. That was when the Arab countries decided they could do business directly with Israel. It is why Saudi Arabia and Israel have had good relations for a long while and both have a strong dislike for Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But wouldn't you think that at some point the "experts" would catch on to the fact that the Arab world is different?

No, not at all. Few of these “experts” know the languages or haven’t taken the time to learn about and understand the cultures of the Muslim world. They think anyone who speaks English is a closet American. The White House ignored the Kurds, but when Iraq was liberated during The Gulf War, the White House greeted them as part of Iraq. A State Department senior official approached the Kurds and told them, "You have to stop thinking of yourselves as Kurds; you have to think of yourselves as Iraqis."  

The experts don't read Bernard Lewis. They read Edward Said. His approach is that you can never understand another culture, so don't waste your time trying to. Don't learn the languages and don't learn the culture. Bernard Lewis' attitude was quite different. He said you had to immerse yourself in the culture and the language. You have to try to understand what they are doing and saying in terms of their culture. In modern parlance, what the experts are doing is the equivalent of telling a person not to think of themselves as a man or a woman, but rather as a human. 

I recall the reaction of a very senior leader when war broke out in Syria in 2011. I suggested this was nothing more than the return of the ancient Shiite-Sunni conflict. His response was, "Well, we can't have that!" I said to myself it didn't matter if we could or could not have it. The fact is that they see it this way. The reality is the reality, and if you choose to ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

Let's talk about October 7. On the one hand, Israel's weakness was revealed by the Hamas attack. On the other hand, Israel has entered Gaza and taken the battle to Hamas to a degree few could have predicted.

Hamas misread the Jews. 

But how do the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states read this? Do they see this as a sign of Israeli weakness or do they see Israel's reaction as a sign of Israel's strength?

They understand strength very well and Israel has come back very strongly. That part of the world has immense patience -- the Jews don't, but everyone else there does. They know how to wait. Let the Saudis put off signing the agreement. I don't really care if there is a formal agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, because their relationship is so strong. The relationship is between governments, because these Arab countries rule from the top, down, unlike in a democracy, where leaders are elected by the people and must take into account the will of the people they lead.

Israelis seem to have a Westernized view of the Middle East. You would think they would have a keener insight and understanding of their Arab neighbors.

Superficially, Israel is a Westernized country. But when you scratch the surface, you see how the Israelis have reacted to the issue of judicial reforms, which the Arabs saw as a weakness -- it is another reason why Hamas decided to pounce now -- but Israel has created a younger generation, who are going to have a huge say after this, a revolution against the politics, military, intelligence, and the media: "We put our lives on the line -- not for you, but for the Jewish people." That is what they are saying. We will see where all this leads. It is only going to be healthy.

Aryeh Lightstone served as an advisor to US Ambassador David Friedman and as special envoy to the Abraham Accords. His account of his experiences, Let My People Know, was published last year. Today is the third anniversary of the announcing of the Accords. 
I recently had the opportunity to interview Aryeh Lightstone, days before the news that there was progress in getting Saudi Arabia to join the Accords. The text has been edited for clarity.

How does it feel to prove all of the experts wrong by negotiating the Abraham Accords Then Trump is voted out of office, those "experts" are back -- and they are back to spouting the old disproven policy.

That's why I wrote the book Let My People Know. In May of 2021, Matt Lee,  the great reporter for the AP, asked Ned Price, the spokesperson of the State Dept., what were these agreements called. And you can watch 2 minutes and 47 seconds of Ned Price turning himself into a pretzel to do anything but say the words "Abraham Accords." 

To me, that was insulting -- not because I needed to hear it, but because there were countries that took a risk and joined a circle of peace without preconditions and they called it the Abraham Accords. So for the US not to honor, recognize and support this agreement that it brokered, and walk away from it was so reprehensible. So that is why I wrote "Let My People Know" -- so that people will know about the Abraham Accords. And if people knew what they were, Democrats would be up in arms against such ignorance by the Biden administration. The very first time that the Biden Administration came out pro-actively supporting the Abraham Accords was the day after the Afghanistan debacle, so they know that it works. It's just a question of whether they can get past the personality and politics to get to the policy. They know it is good policy, it's just bad politics to openly say it. 

The Abraham Accords happened because of the leadership of Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman, yourself and others -- but it was more than that. What else had to fall into place, both in the Arab world and in Israel to make this happen?

Well, I think a couple of different things happened. 

Foremost, the United States is the undisputed superpower in the world and when we act that way, a lot of really good things happen. When we back away from that, there is a vacuum. And it is not filled by Costa Rica -- it is filled by the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians. And for all their genuflecting to others, the Democrats put the world at enormous risk. Every one of our allies knows who we are, but sometimes we don't know who we are. One of the greatest things we did was move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Israel didn't need us to do that, we needed to do that. We were afraid to move the embassy because of what other countries were going to say or do when we took an action that we wanted to do. But when we made that move, that was a superpower move. And when we opened up the embassy 6 months later, the rest of the countries in the region said, "Wait a second. This is an America who knows who they are and we want to be close to this America. And the path to Washington runs through Jerusalem." They know that the only democracy in the Middle East has a special relationship. And the closer those other countries are to that special relationship, the more they can elevate their own relationship with the United States. 

Secondly, Israel is an attractive friend because of its economy and because of its military strength. It is not a "noch schlepper." Just look at what world leaders said during COVID. They said that the solutions were going to come from the US or from Israel. Just look at the number of calls that the US National Security Council had with other countries. We had a twice-weekly call with Israel. We didn't have that with any other country. World leaders see the innovation, the power and the strength that comes out of Israel. Israel is the prettiest girl at the ball. 

You see the Arab countries who come and say that they want to build for the next hundred years, not re-litigate the last hundred years. How do they do that? They see that the Palestinian Arabs, by not moving forward on peace, are holding these Arab countries back and if they can move the Palestinian issue to the side then they can go ahead and take the next step forward. That takes a lot of guts and courage from those leaders.

Thirdly, Iran is terrifying.

Now suddenly the same Biden Administration that couldn't say the words "Abraham Accords" is now pushing it. What changed?

I'm very skeptical that anything gets done. And here's the reason: Biden hasn't officially invited Netanyahu to the US.  And when he met MBS last year in Saudi Arabia, the question was whether he was going to shake his hand or give him a fist bump. When the president cannot decide to embrace two of our allies, it is going to be very hard to picture him in that 3-way handshake. And the reason he cannot do that three-way handshake is that according to Biden's politics, MBS is a bad guy and Bibi is a terrible guy. And that's a shame because both of those leaders and the people they represent are incredibly important to the US. I don't see how Biden overcomes that.

The second thing is, why did it take them so long to come around to the Abraham Accords? Because who won in the Abraham Accords? Israel won -- which is not such a great thing in the world of progressive Democrats. The people that Obama tried to undercut -- MBS and Bibi -- got stronger. These are strong, great leaders that we need to support, but there is a difference between Democratic and Republican foreign policy. 

The more the Abraham Accords succeed, the less likely it is for there to be a two-state solution on the 1967 lines. And that is the great foreign policy goal of the Democrats. And the more you push the Abraham Accords, the less leverage the Palestinian Arabs have and the less likely meaningful concessions can be extracted for the Palestinians. That is really why the Democrats cannot get behind the Accords.  

So the Biden Admin is going to push the Abraham Accords even though they are antithetical to the JCPOA?

Getting the Saudis to join will guarantee three things:

Biden will win a Nobel Peace Prize.

There may be a grand bargain involving the Saudis and Israel to step back from protesting against the Iran Deal.

They can get meaningful concessions, or put Bibi in a situation where he will be forced to change his government or retreat from the judicial reform. 

The Saudis are the great prize that changes the Middle East forever.

Can you picture a scenario where it would be inadvisable for Israel to enter into the agreement with the Saudis?

I can picture a scenario in all situations where there would be a disadvantage. But for the most part, peace is a good thing with external countries and I do not imagine Netanyahu's government saying this would not be a good idea. This Israeli government has certain red lines and it is not going to move on these red lines. 

But won't the Saudis insist on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians?

The Emiratis told Israel that it had the option to apply or not apply sovereignty, but if it did not then they would start a relationship with them. Israel had not applied sovereignty up to that time, they still have not applied it, and now they have peace with five Muslim countries. Israel will call that a win. There are things the Saudis can ask that are beyond the pale and there are things that are very reasonable. 

We believe the problem is not the Palestinian people. The problem is the so-called leadership of the Palestinians. Anything that enfranchises the leadership is a mistake for the region and the Saudis see that also. If there is something that helps the Palestinians have better jobs and better opportunities, I think Israel would embrace it. I think the region should embrace it. 

You mentioned Russia, China, and Iran -- how dangerous are they to the Middle East in general and to the Abraham Accords in particular?

When China brokers a reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the biggest losers at the table are the US and Israel, because as soon as the US retreats from the Middle East, even a little bit, someone else shows up. And if it is China, it means Russia and Iran as well. And that is dangerous. How much is that a danger to the Abraham Accords? The Abraham Accords have proven to be incredibly resilient. If the US does not project power appropriately, that will weaken Israel, because Israel has made clear they are with the US. You'll see other countries throughout the region and throughout the world who say they are not sure whether they love the Chinese policy or not, but they can count on it for the next 100 years. But US policy seems to change every four years -- and it doesn't change a little bit. It changes 180 degrees. It's really hard to make plans when you don't know whether the US is your ally, depending on who wins an election that you have no influence over. It's really a scary thing for our friends and allies and it weakens the United States. 

There has been talk over the past few weeks about whether the time has come that it would be beneficial for Israel for the US to end military aid. If the US were to do this, what kind of impact would that have on the Accords?

Every time the US takes a step back, that weakens Israel's hand because the US and Israel are so tightly linked. But in this case, the US weakens itself. The aid that goes to Israel is incredibly well-spent money in the US. The aid might not be in Israel's best interest, but it is in the US's best interest. 

By the way, it is absolutely in the US's best interest to make sure that Israel and the rest of the region are linked to the US and not to China. If you look at China's spreading influence, China has great natural resources, Russia has great natural resources, and Iran has great natural resources -- and now Saudi Arabia has the greatest natural resources. So if China secures that corridor, they become a power that is incredibly threatening to us. Forget about military reasons, just for economic and energy dominance. 

Now take the opposite approach: cut off China's influence in Iran, which is a natural place to cut off, and you have the entire Abraham Accord region extending through Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt and Israel -- all as one strong alliance, getting along with each other, all deregulated. That's unlimited land, unlimited workers, unlimited energy and unlimited economics -- all in the US corner, surpassing what China is able to do. This is the pivotal part of the math that we need to win, "we" meaning the US. We need to win the Middle East, purely with influence. Israel and UAE  are willing to defend themselves by themselves and the US gets a tremendous return on that investment. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we don't do that.

Why are the Saudis edging towards Iran and should we be afraid of how far they may go?

The Saudis are undergoing one of the greatest experiments in world history, of building a nation while reforming it and modernizing it all at the same time with basically unlimited resources. But this is a culture that does not adapt very quickly. They are cautious. But the Crown Prince MBS is not being cautious -- he is going at warp speed.  The agreement with Iran, brokered by China, reflects the Saudi attitude that they are not in the war business, they are not in the war of religion business -- they are in the building-a-nation business. So they want to be left alone, and this agreement is what it will cost to be left alone.

Again, this happened because the US took a step back. If the US had been there to say "This is our region and an attack on the Saudis is an attack on us" -- those words would matter, because no one wants to attack the US in a way that pokes the bear and it in turn attacks them. They only attack the US and their allies when we are weak. When we are strong, they don't do that.

It's in the Chinese interest to have the Saudis and Iran get along also.

But while the Saudis may want to be left alone, leaving other countries alone is not something Iran is known for -- as Syria, Lebanon and others can attest.

Yes, but Syria and Lebanon are not Saudi Arabia. The UAE re-established relations with Iran. They are basically saying "I accomplish nothing by considering you the axis of evil, especially since I don't have the axis of good on my side."

The Middle East is trying to get out of the war business and trying to get into the sustainability business, how to get from an oil and gas-based economy to an economy that works without oil and gas. They are trying to compete commercially, not ideologically. And because of that, they are trying to be friendly with everybody.

It is difficult to be friends with some countries. Iran is number one. But I think all of those countries look around and say "Well, Israel will probably take the brunt first and we'll see where the world is. See if the US can have a consistent policy towards Iran, whether Iran will turn nuclear." There are a lot of things that will happen in the next four to six years that will determine what people's permanent foreign policies are toward Iran. 

The Biden administration will condemn Israeli domestic policies but where are they on these people in Iran who are sacrificing their lives on the street, this ultimate bravery in a non-democratic world? Just contrast these two things and I don't know what set of world values somebody can have where they want to pick what is right and wrong in Israel but will not pick the side of truth versus falsehood in Iran. This is just moral bankruptcy.

Have the Abraham Accords had any positive influence on the Palestinian Arabs?

Two weeks ago, Abbas visited Jenin for the first time in eighteen years. To think that there is a Palestinian Authority is a joke. They are a bunch of different tribes that exist independently. If The US would work with specific individual leaders there, we could cultivate some meaningful relationships. But you need consistent policy across the board from Israel and from the US. 

If it hadn't been for COVID and if we had had the support of the Abraham Accord countries also, then the Emiratis or Saudis or Moroccans could have come in and built Palestinian Arab businesses and industrial zones -- better than the US or Israel could do it.

The way I rank the greatest beneficiaries of the Abraham Accords in order are the US, Israeli Arabs, the Abraham Accord countries, the Palestinian Arabs and finally Israel. We'll see if I'm right or not as this plays out in the next twenty years.

You mentioned Israeli Arabs. How do they benefit?

Put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli Arab. From an identity perspective, that is a difficult place to be when the rest of the region has chosen to isolate you instead of embrace you. And if you are looking at the leader of the Arab world in terms of modernity you are looking at the UAE, which is considered "cool" And if the UAE says that Israel is "cool", and I as an Israeli Arab can be a link between the UAE and Israel -- then that gives me a strategic advantage. I can be a bridge instead of being in isolation. So as more countries join and you have a uniform Middle East where you can land in Tel Aviv or in Abu Dhabi and take a train without needing your passport or a visa across Saudi and Oman and Qatar and Bahrain and Israel and Jordan -- at that point being an Israeli Arab is going to be very advantageous. That will solve their dual identity challenge.

I am very friendly with two Arab Israeli business leaders and their eyes light up when talking about the Abraham Accords because they speak both languages. I'm not talking about speaking to the investors but to the people of the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco. Israeli Arabs realize that together with these Arabs and Israelis they can do incredible things. They see the unique opportunities they have. If you were to put the same Israeli Arab in Silicon Valley, they would be disadvantaged. It is the opposite of the Israeli who because of his networking background would fit right into Silicon Valley, but does not fit in as well as the Israeli Arab in Abraham Accord network.

 You wrote in an article in the Jerusalem Post last year that "the single greatest lever to encourage other countries to join the Abraham Accords, and yes that includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is to show that the current Abraham Accord countries are a unique priority for Israel." Will the current tensions and protests in Israel negatively affect how its partners in the Abraham Accords see them as an ally?  

What bothers me in the current situation is the language of the protestors and counter-protestors. It is reprehensible and shows a complete lack of awareness of the precarious situation Israel finds itself in. For four years I told other countries you cannot use derogatory language about Israel and now you have Israelis using that exact language about each other. Now when someone applies terms like "apartheid" "dictator" etc to Israel, they don't have to quote one of our more progressive members of Congress. They can quote the opposition leader or the Prime Minister or the former Prime Minister. It has never worked out well. It's turning an opponent into an enemy. It's unforgivable if you know anything about Jewish history. It's unforgivable when you are trying to acclimate yourself to a region that doesn't have a lot of free speech and protests.

Why do we not hear as much about Arab travel to Israel as we hear about Israeli travel to Arab countries?

Two factors 

Israelis enjoy traveling everywhere. Compare this to the 1.2 million Emiratis and 400,000 Barhraininas -- about 1.6 million between them. Of the traditional Arab citizens of those countries, unmarried women are not going to travel on their own and the children are not going to travel until they are more established and married. So it is a fairly limited Arab population that is going to be traveling to Israel for non-business reasons. The flow is more in one direction.

To me, the big change will be when Jordanian and Egyptian businessmen and women are coming back and forth as business people and as tourists. That will be another sign of the warming of the region. There is an acculturation process that is going to happen.

If you go to Morocco or the UAE or Bahrain, they are thrilled with Israeli tourism and also the American Jewish tourism.

Any final words

Bottom line, does any of this really matter?

We understand how the Abraham Accords matter to Jews and people who are pro-Israel because of shared values. But why should the Accords matter to someone in Iowa or Kansas?

I'd like to make the argument that it matters meaningfully, primarily because under Trump we saw that when you act like a superpower and you stand with your allies and friends, you can end up with meaningful results that the so-called experts never predicted -- and the ramifications become incredibly meaningful. 

We were able to block out the Chinese from an area they were expanding into. Then, when we retreated, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians showed up. The Ukrainian situation would not have happened if the US had not retreated from the ME in the way that we did. To me, the Abraham Accords are the canary in the coal mine. As the Accords expand and grow, you will see the Chinese cautious about Taiwan and the Russians more hesitant about Ukraine. As we retreat, back off and have two distinct foreign policies, you will see chaos. Because it illustrates two foreign policies which are no foreign policies and anybody can run amuck. That is what you are seeing now.

Chana Nachenberg, an American, died on May 31.

She was the last of the 16 victims of the Sbarro Massacre to die, the last victim of the Hamas terrorist  Ahlam Tamimi who masterminded that terrorist attack and lives today in Jordan, free and something of a celebrity.

If the US is frustrated by Jordan's refusal to honor its extradition treaty and hand over the terrorist, it is hiding it well. On May 25, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement on the 77th anniversary of Jordanian independence:

The United States and Jordan share an enduring, strategic relationship deeply rooted in shared interests and values. We appreciate the important role Jordan plays in promoting peace and security across the region and countering violent extremism. (emphasis added)

During her hearing a few weeks ago on her nomination as the next US Ambassador to Jordan, Yael Lempert resisted Sen. Ted Cruz's suggestion that every tool should be used in order to pressure Jordan into honoring its treaty, including withholding aid. Lempert replied:

I think that that would need to be weighed very carefully against the range of issues and priorities that we have with the Jordanians before considering such a step, which I think would be profound.Of course, Lempert added the expected, "I think that what I can confirm to you is that I will do everything in my power to ensure that Ahlam Tamimi faces justice in the United States," but the impression remains that somehow in the interests of Middle East peace, the US has to be careful not to apply too much pressure, that special considerations need to be taken into account.

But it's not that Jordan is completely opposed to extraditing terrorists.

Just last month, Jordan agreed with UAE to extradite Khalaf Abdul Rahman Al-Rumaithi. According to UAE, Al-Rumaithi was a wanted terrorist they had tried in absentia and sentenced to 15 years for "establishing a secret organization affiliated with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood." On the other hand, HRW claimed he was one of the victims of the mass trials of 94 government critics of the government, resulting in 69 convictions. The Jordanian court opposed the extradition, yet Al-Rumaithi ended up being extradited anyway.

That is an interesting counterpoint to the case of Ahlam Tamimi, where the court also opposed extradition, yet despite a formal treaty, the court's decision stood, while in the case of UAE, the decision -- and authority -- of the Jordanian court was pushed aside. Arnold Roth, whose daughter was one of Tamimi's victims, pointed out the double standard:

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies suggested that a different consideration was at play:

Of course, the difference might be whether the victims were Arabs -- or Jews.

This inability of the US to pressure Arab countries on the issue of terrorism -- even when the US provides funding -- is evident in US relations with the Palestinian Authority as well.

At the end of May, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During her testimony, Leaf admitted that the PA was still making "pay-to-slay" payments to the terrorists including the families of terrorists who killed Americans and Israelis.“We are working to bring pay-to-slay to an end. Period,” Leaf said. Asked if the administration had succeeded, Leaf replied, “not yet.”Is the Biden administration working as hard to end "pay-to-slay" as it is on getting Jordan to extradite Tamimi, who is responsible for the Americans who died in the Sbarro Massacre?
Putting aside the claim by the White House that they can bypass both the PA and the PLO and provide money directly to the Palestinian Arabs without violating the Taylor Force Act, why is the Biden Administration welcoming terrorists to the White House?

As Sen. Cruz put it: 

You sent a report to Congress that officially certified that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO…have not met the legal requirements for ‘terminating payments for acts of terrorism against Israeli and US citizens. Now publicly, the administration defends engaging with terrorists, you claim things are going well, but when you file a statutorily mandated report with Congress, you admit the PLO is continuing what are called ‘pay-to-slay’ payments. They are paying for terrorists to murder Americans and to murder Israelis. And nonetheless, this administration is bringing those terrorist leaders to Washington, is bringing them to cocktail parties to wine and dine political leaders. [emphasis added]Is this so different from King Abdullah II of Jordan being welcomed in the US and praised as a great friend of the US and ally in the fight against terrorism, while he refuses to honor his extradition treaty with the US and harbors the women who masterminded the Sbarro Massacre which killed Americans?

This possibility of a double standard when it comes to Middle East terrorism that affects Americans was expressed out loud in 2016 during a hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The subject was Seeking Justice for Victims of Palestinian Terrorism in Israel. Chairing the hearing was then-Congressman Ron DeSantis. The issue was the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism within the Department of Justice and whether it was fulfilling its function in obtaining justice for the families of the victims of Palestinian terrorism.

At one point, DeSantis addressed Brad Wiegmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the US Department of Justice. It became clear that there was a discrepancy between the number of terrorists being brought to justice who killed Americans in the Middle East as opposed to terrorists who killed Americans anywhere else in the world:

Mr. DeSantis: Mr. Wiegmann, the committee has counted that since '93, at least 64 Americans have been killed, as well as two unborn children, and 91 have been wounded by terrorists in Israel in disputed territories.

How many terrorists who have killed or wounded Americans in Israel or disputed territories has the United States indicted, extradited, or prosecuted during this time period?

Mr. Wiegmann: I think the answer is--is none.

Mr. DeSantis: Okay. How many terrorists who have killed or wounded Americans anywhere else overseas has the United States indicted, extradited, or prosecuted?

Mr. Wiegmann: I don't have an exact figure for you.

Mr. DeSantis: But it would be a decent size number, though, correct?  Mr. Wiegmann: It would be a significant number, yes.
Here is the video:


A little later, DeSantis looked for an explanation for this discrepancy:
Mr. DeSantis: Now, it's- been alleged that the reason that DOJ does not prosecute the Palestinian terrorists who harm Americans in Israel, the disputed territories, is that the Department of Justice is concerned that such prosecutions will harm efforts to promote the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or that it will actually harm the Palestinian Authority.
So let me ask you straight up, is that a consideration the Department of Justice?
Mr. Wiegmann: I can assure that is obsolutely not the case.
Mr. DeSantis: And has the State Department ever made arguments to the Department of Justice to handle some of the Palestinian terrorism cases differently than you may normally handle, say, a terrorism case in Asia?
Mr. Wiegmann: Absolutely not.
Here is the video:

 
Wiegmann says flat out in his testimony that there is no consideration making the US pull their punches when it comes to bringing Palestinian terrorists to justice -- neither a concern for possible harm to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, nor a concern that extraditing Palestinian terrorists might harm the Palestinian Authority.
Yet those suspicions persist and now some believe that it is Jordan that the US is concerned might be harmed by insisting on extraditing the terrorist responsible for the deaths of Americans, even as we see that there are considerations that cause Jordan to extradite to a fellow Arab country but not to its US ally.
There is nothing to indicate that Wiegmann was not telling the truth.
Yet the fact remains that American survivors of Palestinian terrorism, the families of the victims -- and the families who lost loved ones in the Sbarro Massacre are not getting the justice that was promised to them and that they deserve.
If this is not because of political reasons, then what is the reason?

I recently had the opportunity to interview the author Alex Ryvchin on his new book which presents a different approach to addressing antisemitism.

The answers have been slightly edited for clarity,

Over the years, many books have been written about antisemitism from different perspectives. How is your book different?

Many books have addressed the ‘why’ of antisemitism. Why are the Jews so hated? Why have such things been inflicted on them? Why do they continue to be targeted? This book will go some way to explaining the 'why' but my central interest is the ‘how’? How does antisemitism function in practice? How is it transmitted around the world and generation to generation. 

This question of ‘how’ led me to the seven deadly myths. It is through this complex and well-honed mythology that antisemitism thrives. As Isaac Herzog said in reference to my book: 

By shifting emphasis from the ‘why’ of this puzzling and dangerous phenomenon to the ‘how’ of the mechanics of its transmission, Ryvchin points to the possibility of actually confronting and diffusing it.

You mention in your book that it could be used in the classroom. There is discussion about Holocaust education -- and how it has failed, both in making people knowledgeable and in changing attitudes. What do you think are some of the causes for this and how would your book and a curriculum based on it overcome these problems?

Holocaust education is vital and I support it entirely. Within the study of the Holocaust we learn not only about the process by which the European Jews were destroyed, we observe everything of which man is capable of – sadism, cruelty, heroism, strength, apathy and cowardice. But in terms of understanding the hatred of the Jews, the Holocaust answers few questions. In fact, it raises these questions to fever pitch and leaves them unresolved. This is why despite so many admirable endeavors in Holocaust commemoration and education, antisemitism has continued to rise. 

Trying to understand antisemitism through the Holocaust is also highly problematic as it positions antisemitism as a historical event and not something in the here and now. It would be like trying to teach anti-Black racism and ending the story with the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. It also falsely positions it as solely a product of race science, fascism and totalitarianism which completely ignores its political and religious sources and manifestations. 

This has all contributed to the extremely limited and poor understanding of antisemitism in society, despite it being the most lethal and persistent hatred. This is why it is essential to teach antisemitism itself, what it looks like, how it is expressed, what it continues to do to our communities and wider society.

Why do you think antisemitism persists even after the Holocaust -- why wasn't the world "scared straight" by the murder of 6 million Jews? 

Because antisemitism was too ingrained. Antisemitism was soaked into the world’s consciousness through centuries of lies, mythology and propaganda. It emanated from religious sources, nationalist heroes and popular culture. Even the horror of the Holocaust and the most devastating war in history could not dislodge it. 

As is often forgotten, Jews continued to be massacred in Europe even after liberation from Nazi occupation. To give one example, the Polish Peasants Party passed a resolution in 1946 thanking Hitler for destroying the Jews and calling for the expulsion of any survivors. Forty-two Jewish survivors were clubbed to death in Kielce, Poland. One of the heroes of the Sobibor Camp Uprising was murdered by nationalists after escaping a camp which had virtually no survivors. So of course, today, when the Holocaust is considered ancient history to many, the same myths and conspiracy theories that made it possible, are resurgent.

If, as you write, antisemitism is not just a result of bad information but is a result of "a defect in reasoning" what is the best we can hope to accomplish in the fight against antisemitism?

Our aim in fighting antisemitism is not elimination – it is a disease without a cure. Our aim is to inoculate as many people as possible from catching it. 

There are only two ways to do this. The first is education. But it must be the right education. If we can systematically debunk antisemitic mythology, as my book does, far fewer people will be susceptible to it. Once this education occurs, there has to be engagement. The mythical Jew – bloodthirsty, all-powerful, vengeful, obsessed with money cannot coexist with the real, flesh and blood Jew. The more that people see the real Jew, the weaker these myths become.

Considering the longevity and intensity of antisemitism, to what do you ascribe the survival of Jews and the Jewish identity?

Antisemitism has certainly been a contributing factor to our tenacity. It has hardened our minds and matured our souls. Being hated and excluded also makes us seek familiar company. 

But the secret to our survival, in my view, stems from our perspective on life which stems from our teachings, our traditions and national holidays. We live life as though on a mission. This gives us our restless energy, our refusal to be bystanders and our refusal to submit and die. We have important work to do.

You write that your book is not only for the classroom but also for policymakers -- how could you see your book being used? 

During my recent US book tour, I had the honor of presenting to law enforcement about my book. They were fascinated by this approach of reducing antisemitism into these 7 deadly myths. This provided them with a clear means of monitoring antisemitism, seeing the sorts of mental processes that lead to horrific acts and enabling them to prevent hate crimes in future. 

This education is really critical to understanding antisemitism, how it works and how it can be stopped. Antisemitism is so poorly understood and any plan to combat it must begin by overcoming this. This is where my book can be really helpful.

Des images prises du ciel montrent comment le paysage du continent est transformé par l'activité humaine.

Le deuxième tome du Sang des cerises est paru en novembre 2022, clotûrant le dernier épisode de la saga des Passagers du vents. J'en ressors avec un sentiment mitigé.

Nous parlons quand même de François Bourgeon, l'auteur des Passagers du vent. Pour les jeunes lecteurs, l'irruption de cette série dans les années 1980 (aux éditions Glénat, nouvel acteur de l'édition de BD à l'époque) avait donné sinon un coup de fouet, du moins un coup d'accélérateur à la BD de qualité, la sortant défintivement des rayons enfantins. Dargaud avait suivi en lançant la série XIII... Je collectionne des BD sérieusment depuis cette époque...

Revenons à Bourgeon : les Passagers du vent mêlaient un beau dessin, minutieux dans les détails, réaliste dans les attitudes, empreint de poésie grâce aux vieux gréments et à la mer, un scénario original, des personnages attachants et finalement à la mentalité très contemporaine. Autrement dit, une réinvention de la BD historique qui fit florès. Bourgeon poursuivit avec deux autres séries : Les compagnons du crépuscule, sensationnelle plongée dans le Moyen-âge, et le cycle de Cyann, à dominante de science-fiction fantasy (à laquelle j'ai moins accroché). Il reprit ensuite la série des passagers du vent avec "La petite fille bois Caïman" puis avec cette troisième et dernière saison, "Le sang des cerises", dont le tome 1 est paru en 2018 et dont voici le tome 2.

L'action se passe au temps de la Commune. On suit les lentes prérégrinations de Zabo la communarde qui raconte (à la fin des années 1880) à un jeune bretonne un peu perdue, Klervi, son expérience de la Commune, de la défaite, de l'emprisonnement à Versailes jusqu'au transfert à Rochefort, puis le voyage de déportation vers la Nouvelle Calédonie, le temps passé là-bas, le retour et l'ultime voyage en Bretagne.

Disons les choses simplement : malgré les artifices du scénario pour relancer la "conversation", le gigantesque flash-back de Zabo paraît artificiel, verbeux et pour tout dire, ennuyeux. Ce qui était léger dans les volumes précédents est ici lourd, discursif, pesant. Et du coup, on se perd. J'ai mis du temps à m'attacher aux personnages... quant à la chute, elle peine à convaincre...

Le trait reste toujours de très bonne qualité mais là encore, avec quelques pesanteurs disgracieuses, sans les illuminations ni les chocs visuels qu'on avait eus lors des premiers opus.

Bref, un album que l'on conserve par amitié mais sans être réellement convaincu.

O. Kempf

 

 

 

Les œuvres d'art générées par l'intelligence artificielle (IA) sont devenues une source de controverse, mais le cinéaste et artiste nigérian Malik Afegbua défend l'idée qu'elle peut nous inciter à créer un monde réel meilleur - et un monde plus élégant pour les personnes âgées.