Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (48)
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a United Nations agency whose primary focus is to improve global public health. It claims to be politically impartial and to use its technical expertise to bring scientific evidence to bear on international issues whose politics impact health. However, the WHO r over-reaches this scope of practice and fails to uphold its founding principles, including egalitarianism and neutrality in global health governance. The 2023 Israel‑Hamas war is the latest reminder that the WHO, in its 75th anniversary year, perpetuates anti‑Israel bias and anti-Semitism.
Like any form of racism, anti-Semitism is an intolerable moral evil of concern to all people who value human dignity and justice. By anti‑Semitism, we mean Jew-hatred, as codified in the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition, and not a reasoned debate about or legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy.
Indeed, political divisions are evident in Israel itself. They accommodate calls to increase respect for Palestinians’ right to health without delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist and dehumanizing Jews and Israelis, including the 20 per cent of Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Contemporary expressions of Jew-hatred include anti-Zionism. Amid increased anti-Westernism, it weaponizes the anti‑Semitism that is surging worldwide.
Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism because, as British commentator Melanie Phillips explained in 2019, to treat Israel “as a Jew among nations to be uniquely vilified, slandered, and exterminated” is anti-Semitic. This article demonstrates how the WHO exemplifies such bias, acts against the sovereign equality of states, and promotes Israel’s disengagement rather than cooperation in confronting health emergencies in crises like the Israel‑Gaza war. We will discuss how WHO’s treatment of, and communications about Israel, differ from its diplomatic response to other states and conflicts. WHO’s condemnation of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and international pressure for a ceasefire serve as a case study.
Differential treatment of Israel
Non-governmental organisation UN Watch has chronicled how the world body and its agencies have normalised one-sided condemnation of the Jewish state. Two previous director‑generals of the UN have publicly acknowledged UN bias against Israel, yet this bias persists. Although Israel comprises only 0.1% of the global population, 15 of 18 condemnatory resolutions in the 2022 UN General Assembly specifically targeted Israel. Similarly, annual WHO assemblies have repeatedly singled out Israel for censure. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s current director-general, has never addressed the disproportionate time and resources his organization devotes to criticising Israel. Annual WHO assemblies continually select Israel — and Israel alone — for criticism. Perhaps to offset this, WHO has extended a few, very thin olive branches.
WHO introduced a “country cooperation statement” with Israel, 2019-2025. Israel hosted WHO’s 2022 session of the European Regional Committee, and an Israeli health professional was elected to WHO’s executive committee for three years, starting in 2024. However, these minor improvements cannot compensate for the WHO’s ongoing denunciation and isolation of Israel. Of 194 WHO member states, only Israel has been subjected to an annual resolution and report every year since 1968. Even during the peak of the COVID pandemic in 2021, WHO dedicated a whole day of its annual meeting to scrutinising Israel. It did not seek to defuse conspiracy theories linking Israel to the pandemic or address the issue of vaccine hesitancy in the Arab world.
Instead, it blamed Israel (alone) for not ensuring Palestinians enjoyed equal access to COVID vaccines. Notably, it did not set expectations for the Palestinian governing authorities to assume responsibility or even promote joint Israeli-Palestinian efforts, as one might have expected from an organization dedicated to promoting diplomacy to improve global health.
Since 2015, Israel has been the country target of 9 of 11 condemnatory WHO resolutions. Urgent health priorities in countries other than Israel and Ukraine received no attention. No condemnation was made of bombings by Syrian and Russian forces on medical facilities in Syria or health crises in Yemen and Venezuela. Indeed, these repressive states were among the sponsors of resolutions condemning Israel! WHO’s current treatment of health-rights abuses in the Israel-Hamas war is similarly a manifestation of bias against the Jewish state.
WHO did reproach Hamas for its October 7 massacre of over 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 247 hostages, including children, women and the elderly. But it has nevertheless failed to decry Hamas as the terrorist group that deliberately disabled Israeli ambulances and murdered first responders, while posting to social media sickening videos celebrating its assault against innocent Jews and, in effect, civilisation itself. In this regard WHO epitomizes the deafening silence of the world health community generally. By failing to insist Hamas returns all hostages immediately and safely, WHO keeps ignoring or downplaying ongoing violations of health and human rights, including Hamas’ misuse of medical facilities for military purposes.
Instead, WHO has strongly condemned Israel for “deliberately” targeting children and families and abducting and torturing of other Gazans. This double standard is clearly documented and ongoing. Why has the WHO and its parent organization done nothing to correct this behaviour?
An obvious, credible explanation is anti-Semitism entrenched in WHO’s membership and other UN agencies guaranteeing an automatic and critical majority in resolutions, reports and committees. Through the Organization of Arab Cooperation, Arab League, and so-called Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab states control this majority, weaponising the UN system against Israel. Less than half the WHO members are fully free democracies. Many are dictatorships and other repressive regimes. Their record on health and other human rights disqualifies their “moral” reproach of Israel while deflecting attention from their own gross violations of human rights. As a permanent observer state since 2012, Palestine consistently co-sponsors resolutions against Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the Middle East and outpost of Western success. Misunderstanding the history of the region, even liberal democracies may mistake the WHO for being independent and objective and thus accept its condemnation of Israel as legitimate. For example, since at least 2015, New Zealand has given Israel much less support at the WHO than states like Australia with shared values.
Loaded language
WHO resolutions accuse Israel of discrimination and non-compliance with international law. They exculpate Hamas from any responsibility (current and historical) for the plight of ordinary Palestinians. References to Israel’s “prolonged occupation” of “occupied Palestinian territory” exemplify this bias. “Occupation” of territory does not violate international law but carries pejorative meanings and is biased here because the “occupation of Palestinian territory” is disputed. The international legal principle of uti possidetis juris (literally meaning “as you possess”) has been central in determining territorial sovereignty during decolonization. According to this principle, Israel’s borders match the borders of the previous geopolitical entity set by the British Mandate of Palestine. In law, there has never been a state of Palestine to occupy. Holding Israel to the stringent legal requirements of an occupier is prejudicial.
Furthermore, Israel completely disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in hope of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinian people. In customary law, this voluntary withdrawal ceded effective control of and obligations to Gaza, as required by the legal definition of occupation (Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention). Moreover, the term “occupation” is used nowhere else in the world unless there is a military presence or puppet regime, neither of which is present in Gaza. That Israel has not controlled Gaza’s daily governanceis evident from the security threats necessitating a blockade by Israel (and Egypt). Still, WHO blames the Israeli blockade alone for Gaza’s under‑resourced health system in which, if Gaza were a country, life expectancy at birth was in the top half of all nations when the war began. The WHO has similarly ignored Hamas’s chronic commandeering of foreign aid money to bolster its terror infrastructure.
Israel’s military campaign in Gaza
There is no moral equivalence between Hamas’s depraved attacks in southern Israel and Israel’s justified response to rescue its hostages and safeguard its borders. No-none denies the tragic loss of innocent lives in Gaza in a war, particularly when Hamas uses children, women, other civilians, and the hostages as human shields and weapons of propaganda.
Despite this, WHO has strongly condemned Israel for the number of civilian deaths in Gaza directly resulting from Hamas’s pogrom on October 7. In doing so, it has blindly accepted unverified reports from the Gaza Health Ministry which is, of course, controlled by Hamas and thus motivated to inflate casualties for propaganda value. It has made no mention of Hamas’ responsibility for inciting the Israeli counteroffensive or its obligation to safeguard its people by working towards a speedy resolution that includes returning all hostages. It has also disregarded the failure of Hamas to protect civilians under Rule 22 of customary international humanitarian law and move its fighters and munitions to non-civilian areas.
Disregarding Israel’s assiduous efforts to minimise civilian casualties, WHO forgets that Israel – unlike Hamas – does not deliberately target civilians. Israel attacks military facilities that Hamas has located in hospitals and schools, while ambulances ferry terrorists and weapons. WHO selectively ignores Article 21 of the Geneva Conventions, which discontinues the protection of medical establishments from military attack if “used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.” It focuses one-sidedly on blaming Israel’s attacks for the “totally unacceptable” civilian deaths in Gaza.
Even while held to standards not expected of any other nation, Israel has minimized the number of civilian deaths. When feasible, it warns of military attacks that may endanger civilians to enable them to escape the area. Repeated calls (not “orders”) from Israel for non-combatants to evacuate at-risk areas exemplify this practice. International humanitarian law, which is often customary and vague, does not require such warnings. Yet, WHO and UN vilify Israel, even as it goes well beyond its legal duty to try to free civilians from battlespaces and minimise the risk of harm to innocents.
WHO perpetuates the myth that Gaza is one of the world’s most densely populated areas from which evacuation is not feasible. Certainly, evacuation is challenging, especially when Hamas prevents civilians, among whom it hides, from leaving combat zones. However, moving away from these areas is safer than staying, particularly when Hamas makes it difficult for Israel to distinguish between fighters and civilians by dressing as civilians or, as on October 7, as Israeli first responders.
In addition, WHO directs no attention, let alone condemnation, to the unwillingness of Egypt and other Arab states to open their borders and take in Palestinians. Nor does WHO endorse the option of Hamas negotiating its surrender to Israel, which would allow humanitarian convoys to enter Gaza as quickly as possible. Instead, the UN and WHO nurture Palestinian grievances and insist that Israel agree to a tactical and strategically unwise ceasefire in Gaza.
Calls for a ceasefire
WHO pressure on Israel for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza may appear benign – even laudable – in calling for a peace that would see re-established health care. But Israel can only defend its population, including Arab citizens, by removing an enemy fanatically committed to its destruction. Hamas’s 1988 Covenant and 2017 document of general principles and policies explicitly identify its goals of eliminating Israel, rejecting any peace settlement, and endless jihad against the perceived enemys of Islam). Hamas has already vowed to repeat its heinous attacks on Israeli and Jewish civilians in the context of an international jihad that would expand the barbarism of October 7 to Jews around the world. The expectation that Hamas would ever willingly negotiate and accept a two-state solution is naïve and implausible.
Yet another ceasefire would be a momentary pause in the cycle of violence against Israel, which means more to Hamas than Gaza achieving statehood. Gaza could have petitioned Egypt for statehood before Israel took it over in 1967. Since then, Palestinians have rejected offers that would have given their people the whole of Gaza. In this context, Israel cannot trust Hamas to agree to another ceasefire. In four major military conflicts between Hamas and Israel over the past 15 years, ceasefires have proven fragile. The most recent pause in fighting enabled the release of only around half of the Israeli hostages while permitting Hamas to regroup and rearm, prolonging the conflict. The human shield strategy of Hamas makes it is impossible for Israel to defeat this enemy without civilian loss.
Moreover, Israel wages war for reasons beyond national self-interest. The rise in global anti-Semitism demonstrates that Jews worldwide need the safety of a homeland. Many Arab countries are quietly wary of Hamas because they fear strengthening Iran, arousing further Islamic extremism and impeding any hope of peace in the Middle East.
Conclusion
WHO demonstrably applies an unreasonable and arguably unlawful standard of conduct to Israel. Mirroring the bigotry of the UN this behaviour sets Israel apart from other states by persistently painting it as a severe violator of health rights. The WHO’s actions in the 2023 war in Gaza exemplify this apartheid. They fan the flames of anti-Semitism worldwide by perpetuating anti-Israel falsehoods while ignoring Hamas’ responsibility for the ongoing conflict and the resultant hardships of its citizens. This longstanding, biased treatment of Israel demonizes the Jewish state, dehumanizes the Jewish people, and delegitimizes its right to continued existence. It damages the WHO’s credibility, escalates mistrust in justice, and impedes opportunities for diplomacy to work.
WHO has shown itself incapable of the internal reforms needed to remove systemic anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Little will change until it finds the will to introduce fair accountability structures, such as independent oversight. Only then can WHO, and indeed the UN, help to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region.
Associate Professor of General Practice and Primary Health Care in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Dr Kira Bacal works in this Faculty’s Medical Programme Directorate to direct the transition of medical students onto hospital wards
The WHO is none too keen on the truth either.
By what “right” does the State of Israel exist? Is it now a moral crime of anti-semitism to question the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine? What benefit has there been to the world by the creation of the Jewish State? The original Balfour plan was for the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, but it was stipulated that the Arabs would remain the majority of the population. The Balfour Declaration was an odious act of Imperial fiat, to solicit Jewish influence that was perceived to be of benefit to the British in the “Great War” of the European Imperial powers. The outcome of the last “World War” in effect became the beginning of the end of European Colonialism throughout the world, and the diminution of the nation-state in Europe. However, just three years after the end of the war, the State of Israel was established, on the basis of religious and ethnic identity, and it has been expanding ever since. How is it “anti-semitic” or supposedly “Jew-hating” to criticise the violent creation of a nation-state based on religion and ethnic exclusivity, given the whole rationale of WW2, which commenced with the British and French opposition to the German national and ethnic process of procuring lebensraum by colonial expansion into Eastern Europe? Should there not be only one standard of conduct, applicable to all?
“By what “right” does the State of Israel exist? Is it now a moral crime of anti-semitism to question the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine?”
It exists just like other countries exist.
“but it was stipulated that the Arabs would remain the majority of the population.”
No clause says that. You’re making stuff up.
You should get your anti-Zionism clearer in your own mind. It’s far too blurry. If you’re philosophically an anti-Zionist, then for you, it would make no difference how Israel acted with it’s own or neighboring populations. If you think Israel has lost the right to exist due to being too naughty, then what other countries would you include under that criteria?
If the reason is because it’s a creation of France and England, then so is Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Chech republic and Slovakia, as was Yugoslavia. It would mean the Australian mandate over the German colony of New Guinea was also illegitimate.
Regarding my statement: “but it was stipulated that the Arabs would remain the majority of the population.” I believe I had read that somewhere, but I will have to research that to verify. At least that was the Arab understanding at the commencement of the Mandate. Thanks for pointing it out.
.
Labelling me as “anti-Zionist” or any other such name-calling obviates the possibility of mature rational discussion.
“At least that was the Arab understanding at the commencement of the Mandate.”
Shrinking step by step from your initial statement. The only Arab understanding was that Jewish statehood shouldn’t occur because Jews were a dimni subject people with no rights. At least apart from King Abdullah of Jordan who welcomed Jewish enterprise into the neighborhood. But he was an interloper, an installed leader of a totally fake country invented by Britain.
The anti-Zionist is due to this – “By what “right” does the State of Israel exist?” The basis of your question is a blurry lot of hogwash at present. Please make an attempt to clarify if your question of rights is about a loss of statehood due to Israel’s actions. or implications at the roots of Judaism, or a particular international decree you’re able to cite.
Sanity at last! Sad that Quadrant is full of old men terrified of being called anti-semitic
As long as you remain anonymous, you are a coward whose words are empty prattle.
If you don’t have the courage to set your name to your views, you are a propagandist and a scourge on rational debate.
I don’t understand why the editor publishes anonymous articles.
Editor, please stop this practice, unless the article is about something truly personal, like the experience of rape.
Dr Peter Arnold OAM, Sydney
Agree Peter, ‘comment’ everywhere is subjected to this cowardice, yet no concern at reporting select ‘allegations; of criminality .
Presumably, Peter, you are referring to me as the “coward whose words are empty prattle”? It is a common practice with online blogs and such to choose a “username”; how is it an act of cowardice to choose a creative username other than one’s legal name? Does it follow that one is courageous by choosing to use one’s legal name to sign in and post a comment? Or is the real issue here about attacking any opinion held to be critical of the State of Israel or Zionism?
It is a credit to the editor of Quadrant Online that the principle of free speech is upheld. However, if I was the editor of this platform, I would not allow the ad hominem attacks and derisive name-calling which is a trait of some commentors on these pages, and that is a standard upheld on most online forum-type platforms.
“Presumably, Peter, you are referring to me as the “coward whose words are empty prattle”? ”
“Or is the real issue here about attacking any opinion held to be critical of the State of Israel or Zionism?”
He made it clear in another comment that he includes me in his accusations about pseudonyms, although he possibly concurrs with much of my sentiments, possibly not all the facts I propound.
“The outcome of the last “World War” in effect became the beginning of the end of European Colonialism throughout the world, and the diminution of the nation-state in Europe. ”
Are you able to demonstrate a well read apraisal of the treaties and legal procedures that led from the end of Ottoman colonialisation to the nation states of the MIddle East. At least make an attempt to explain the legitimace of a totally fake inventions of Jordan, Iraq, Lebabon and Sria within their borders against the historically and geographically well founded Jewish stae.
I don’t understand the relevance of your response to:
“The outcome of the last “World War” in effect became the beginning of the end of European Colonialism throughout the world, and the diminution of the nation-state in Europe.”
I note you’re not able to answer the question.
It is not that I’m “not able” to answer the question that you have presented to me, or that I won’t answer that question; my response was asking you to clarify how the quoted passage where I talked about the demise of European Colonialism, post WW2, is related to your response to the quote? Why did you publish that quote, and then proceed to ask a question of what appears to me to be an unrelated subject? If you can please clear that up, then I can gladly proceed to respond to your question.
And how do you propose to remedy the problem you’ve outlined? By organizing a second Holocaust? Israel exists. It’s real. 20% of its’ citizens are Arab. It has free elections, an active free press, and is the only place in the entire region where it’s safe to be openly homosexual. Twisted faux history such as you’ve presented doesn’t address current realities.
Jason Gardner: It’s hard to follow the responses to comments on this kind of platform, but, if my presumption is correct, you are responding to my comment 2nd from the top? If so, I have no remedy for the problem I have outlined. I’m just asking questions.
.
Often on this platform there is mention of the good life of Arabs living within the State of Israel, citing that they enjoy the same rights as Jews. But there is more to the story… The subject Arab population are those that somehow survived AL Nakba. But, what about their relatives and fellow countrymen, still living in the various refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza and in other countries? Why does Israel refuse to let them return home, when at the same time Israel has a policy of the “right to return” for Jews, say for example Volodymyr Zelenskyy who has never lived there, and can produce no evidential proof of ancestry linking him to residency in Judea, Israel or Samaria? An ethnic cleansing leaving only a 20% minority of Palestinians surviving in situ is hardly something to brag about!
.
“Twisted faux history”?? Presumably Zionists own the franchise on history, and therefore are the only ones permitted to tell the true history?
Most of today’s countries, including Australia, exist by dint of infiltration or invasion or by diplomatic concession from more powerful states. Palestine was infiltrated and destabilised and the Zionists then used their peerless international network to secure international recognition for the state which Theodore Herzl envisioned fifty years earlier. The Arab attempts to oppose this by force have been consistently thwarted by an intelligent and zealous Israeli military. Israel’s existence is a fact. Whether this constitutes legitimacy is really a question for the community of nations which is why there is such a strident debate on the topic at present. Under cover of the Hamas raid Israel is endeavouring to complete its necessarily brutal conquest of mandatory Palestine without becoming too much of an international pariah, especially in the West. Zionists probably still have enough control of media, publishing and the Western education system in order to accomlish this.
.
Of far greater importance to Europe, Australia, USA, Canada, NZ is the massive multi-racial infiltrations which have taken place in our countries since immigration restrictions were lifted. Canada took one million migrants last year, Australia 500,000 or so. This is insane and combined with vicious anti-white propaganda is nothing less than a unified policy to destroy the European people, and only the European people. This subject should be on the lips of anyone who loves his heritage and cares for his posterity.
Amen to that, David!
There are some truths or maybe just opinions that are taboo to express these days, and might even bring prosecution for alleged “hate-speech” or “antisemitism”, as we have seen on this platform where an opinion expressed that criticises Zionism has evoked a response that the one expressing that critical opinion is called out as a “Jew-hater”! Are such expressers of critical opinion being “dobbed-in” to Mossad, to be put on the enemies list? Our “age of innocence” here in Australia (if there ever was such a time), is certainly over, and we are entering a very dark place. The war in the middle east seems to be of much relevance here…. but personally, I do not watch or listen to the media, so I am unaffected.
Jews informed about Israel’s history are quite able to discern the difference between possibly valid, even if partly misinformed, criticism of Israel and obvious blatant antisemitic views of Israel.
Interesting. But which Jews, and which version of history? When Noam Chomsky criticises Israel, is he being blatantly antisemitic or is he making a possibly valid criticism?
>Interesting. But which Jews, and which version of history? When Noam Chomsky criticises Israel, is he >being blatantly antisemitic or is he making a possibly valid criticism?
.
There is no property that a person can possess such that whatever they utter is true. A statement (with propositional content) is true because it agrees with reality or is validly deduced or inferred.
.
Noam Chomsky’s criticisms of Israel are to be evaluated on their merits. He doesn’t receive some epistemic bonus because he is a Jew or a professor of linguistics. Chomsky, being a Jew, has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his statements regarding Israel. None of Chomsky’s claims about Israel and its history bear close scrutiny, and they are not his original (false) ideas. He repeats the usual left-wing anti-Israel talking points, and anti-Semites like you seize upon them because they are being repeated by a Jew, as if that has any bearing on their truth.
Good point! And what about John (Israel Lobby) Mearscheimer? Is he another naughty boy?
>By what “right” does the State of Israel exist?
.
In this instance, your species of antisemitism consists in applying to Israel standards that you would never apply to other nation-states.
.
Nation-states do not have rights. Citizens of nation-states have rights, and they are conferred by the government/constitution of that nation-state. There is no supranational organization that confers upon nation-states the right to exist. To preempt a likely response: no, the UN is no such organization. The legitimacy of the Israeli state is based on secular history, archeology, and population genetics.
.
>Is it now a moral crime of anti-semitism to question the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine?
.
The region that has historically been described as “Palestine” does not encompass the entire territory of modern Israel. Palestine is a geographic area inside the territory of Israel, and it has never been a nation-state or even an ethnically distinct enclave. Palestine has always been a region that contains Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs who lived in Palestine were conventionally referred to as Palestinians.
.
Desiring or actively seeking the destruction of Israel and its people is anti-Semitic and genocidal. It would be similarly genocidal to desire or actively pursue the destruction of any other nation-state and its citizens. This is the double standard of anti-Semitism.
.
>What benefit has there been to the world by the creation of the Jewish State?
.
Modern Israel is a STEM powerhouse; its discoveries, inventions, and exports greatly benefit the world. But this need not be the case. What other nation-states do you question the legitimacy of based on how they benefit the world? How would a Palestinian nation-state–governed by a genocidal death cult–benefit the world?
.
>How is it “anti-semitic” or supposedly “Jew-hating” to criticise the violent creation of a nation-state >based on religion and ethnic exclusivity,
.
Modern Israel is multicultural and not theocratic. There are secular Jews and Arab Muslims who live and work in Israel. Yes, the majority of Israel’s citizens have Jewish ancestry.
.
Since you are opposed to multiculturalism in Australia (and elsewhere), why would you criticize an (hypothetical) Israel that was a strict ethnostate–that expelled and disallowed all non-Jews? Again, this is the anti-Semitism of the double standard.
.
>given the whole rationale of WW2, which commenced with the British and French opposition to the >German national and ethnic process of procuring lebensraum by colonial expansion into Eastern >Europe?
.
The Third Reich was invading nation-states. Palestine isn’t and never was a nation-state. Israel has been a victim of colonial expansion. Even if we account for the numerous foreign occupations of Jerusalem, the Jews remain the ethnic group that has controlled Jerusalem for the longest period of time.
.What benefit has there been to the world by the creation of the >Jewish State?
>Should there not be only one standard of conduct, applicable to all?
.
Yes, there should be. Israel should be judged according to the same standards that other nation-states are judged. There should not be special requirements for Israel.
The Balfour Declaration approved the Zionist take over of Palestine. It also required the Jews to treat the locals decently.
It said:-
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The Jews got it half right. They took the land in 1948 then started ethnic cleansing. They started how they mean to carry on. Genocide is official policy. It always was.
Now they are intent on achieving the Final Solution to the Palestinian Question.
Netanyahu, the Führer knows that God’s Chosen People need Lebensraum, somewhere to call their own.
Remember too that the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.
Mike Emery, have you forgotten what happened the day after Israel was declared a nation? Invasion by six armies!
And you have the gall to talk of ‘ethnic cleansing’.
There are almost two million Muslims living happily in Israel, full citizens, even with a judge on the High Court and heads of hospitals. .
Antisemitism is 3,500 years old. Do you want to help it last till the sun cools down?
Dr Peter Arnold OAM, a Sydney Jew.
PS MY compliments on writing under your own name, unless that’s a pseudonym.. Not many people have the ourage to acknowledge their prejudices.
Hi Doc,
You imply that telling the truth is dangerous. It can be when dealing with vicious criminal conspiracies like the Mafia and Zionists.
The idea that almost two million Muslims are living happily in Israel as full citizens makes me ask if you have been there. Have you visited the concentration camps like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharonim_Prison
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ktzi'ot_Prison – albeit they are mainly for illegal immigrants.
Better focus is at https://ifamericansknew.org/
John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, tells us that:-
What Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinian civilian population – with the support of the Biden administration – is a crime against humanity that serves no meaningful military purpose. As J-Street, an important organization in the Israel lobby, puts it, “The scope of the unfolding humanitarian disaster and civilian casualties is nearly unfathomable.” – see https://www.unz.com/article/death-and-destruction-in-gaza/
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the . . . rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Why does no-one mention this. the most breached clause in it. Ethnic cleansing of Jews occurred all through the Middle East.
only the Middle East?
You’re right. Most regions where Jews lived breached the final clause of the Balfour Declaration.
Katzenjammer, your cowardly hiding in anonymity deters me from responding!
If you won’t speak with courage, you are not a worthy commentator. You do not deserve the editor’s tolerance.
Peter Arnold OAM Sydney
Friends I live among would shun me if they knew my views. I don’t judge them as persons by their views, but I know too many of them do that as knee jerk reactions. There’s more than only one reason for anonymity.
PS – Would you prefer I pretended a fake personal name like many others possibly do? I respond to ideas presented in comments no mater what name or pseudonym is attached.
Sure. Funny sort of genocide that sees the target population get bigger every year. Bigots like you, and your nasty slur about Jew playing victim proves your bigotry, are incapable of reading or understanding history. If the Israelis wanted to destroy the Pallies, why do they fund the Palestinian Authority? The PA is headed by a gang of kleptocrats whose leader was elected to a four-year term almost 19 years ago. And your mates in Hamas? Well, enough said. If you prefer them to Jews, that says more about you than it does anything else.
Mike Emery: You have said, “Netanyahu, the Führer knows that God’s Chosen People need Lebensraum, somewhere to call their own.” It is said by Netanyahu and others of his nationalist/Zionist political affiliates that Israel proper consists of the historic lands of Judea, Israel and Samaria, and that is why the modern State of Israel is expanding eastward, one settlement at a time, to reclaim their land given to them by God. Might not a disinterested and impartial student of history perceive a parallel between the nationalist ambitions of Germany to recover their historic lands in eastern Europe, and the nationalist ambitions of Netanyahu and his allies to press for the recovery of historic lands in the east? Surely no one but an antisemite could draw such an odious inference from history?
Apart from “death and taxes”, the one immutable certainty in this our Vale of Tears is the profoundly ignorant, totally irrational, and downright evil never ending persistence of antisemitism in all its shameful forms. It’s getting worse with every passing generation.
I concur
Thank you, Doubting Thomas, whoever you are. Does your doubt extend to your name?
Courage, mon ami!
Peter Arnold OAM, who would never contribute anonymously. I am never embarrassed by what I put on paper.
Do you have a theory as to why that should be which doesn’t posit that these people are either evil or insane or both?
Ok, “David Isaac”, you tell us. Don’t pose Socratic questions and then retreat into silence. What is rational or justifiable about anti-semitism? And why are people who peddle it not engaging in evil in doing so?
Merry Christmas Sindri! Or should I say Good Yule.
.
I wasn’t posing a ‘Socratic question’ but an actual question. DT is evidently very vexed by ‘antisemitism’ to the point of describing it as evil, a description you also used. Surely this
evil must be something far more heinous than just criticism of Israeli policies or of Jewish control of American politics, culture and finance. Those would just be matters for debate based on evidence.
God jul, or should I say Shana Tovah, David Isaac. If you seriously subscribe to the theory that Jews control American politics, culture and finance I’m not sure where to start.
“Surely this evil must be something far more heinous than just criticism of . . . .Jewish control of American politics, culture and finance”
On the contrary. Your mad theory that Jews control American politics, culture and finance is indeed primitive anti-semitism.
‘Your mad theory’, ‘primitive antisemitism’
These phrases do not constitute evidence or debate. Such ad hominems do not bolster your position.
I’m old enough to remember the latter years of World War II. Throughout the entire duration of that war and for years afterwards, our next-door neighbours were an Austrian Jewish couple. They, alone with only one other member of their combined families, were able to escape from Vienna to the UK in the late 1930s before Hitler slammed the door shut. Their parents and siblings died in the gas chambers.
During my father’s absence in the RAAF throughout the war, those people looked after my mother and us small children, becoming the closest of our best friends. Over the years, through them, we met many other Austrian Jews who, unlike their families, were fortunate enough to escape the Holocaust.
So I have always been, for an Australian, unusually aware of the implications and horror of anti-Semitism.
I make no apology for interpreting all forms of generalised criticism of Israel’s existence as motivated by people’s visceral hatred of Jewish people, particularly those who like to hold Israel to double standards, or who argue that there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
What other people have been repeatedly attacked by their neighbours with overt and well publicised intentions of genocide while being called to “limit” their response and, effectively, to grin and bear it?
For those who like to question the bona fides of those of us who prefer to post under a nom de plume, I can assure them that I, at least, have done so only because it was inappropriate for me to use my own name in my then employment. It also discouraged trolls from attacking me on the internet. The former reason no longer exists, so I can tell you that my real name is Michael Burke. If you don’t believe that, our Editor has my permission to confirm that. I will continue to use Doubting Thomas because it amuses me to do so.
Muslims also are none too keen on the ‘Jews’.
Al-Fatihah 1:7 is repeated 17 times per day by observant Muslims.
https://noblequran.com/surah-alfatihah/
Thanks Mike X.
A timely reference to Islam, Hamas and Jews.
Will Israel survive after the indiscriminate AI driven targeting of Hamas .
The truth is Israel is partaking Ethnic Cleansing of the whole Palestinian population from Palestine .
They see that as a solution but I don’t think it is .
They are creating the next generation of Muslim radicals ready to die for their cause .
The final body count of Palestinian children will be much higher than the present count as it doesn’t allow for the missing lying dead under the rubble .
If what they are doing loses the support of the West and specifically the USA then Israel is in deep trouble .
There will never be any peace while Israel elects a government that gets their military to do what they are doing now . The hate speech of the leaders in the military and government is telling .
Equating people wanting to stop the wholesale murder of civilians as Antisemitic is just not correct .
Are the many Jews around the world asking for that Antisemitic ?
I would think there are probably many Israeli Jews who want it to stop too but in this time of crisis and nationalistic fervour are too afraid to speak out .
However I think that there will be a lot of soul searching and regret when some sort of calm is finally reached and the enormity of the crime becomes evident .
I especially think many of the pilots will suffer trauma when they realise how many lives of innocent people they have killed in the service of their country .
The entire responsibility for.the death of “innocent people” in Gaza rests with Hamas and their allies who, as in every recent case, have not only fired the first shot but also did so from behind the shield of their own innocents. It’s their invariable strategy.
The pathetically naïve notion that there is any practicable alternative to the Neranyahu government’s current policy assumes that they are dealing with an enemy that cares one iota about the deaths of their own innocent people. Devout Islamists welcome what they see as martyrdom, and reward the families of their “martyrs”. The deaths would stop or be drastically reduced if Hamas did not forbid their civilians to heed Israel’s warnings for people to leave the target areas.
If Hamas stops attacking Israel, Israel will stop attacking them. It always has in the past. And please, let’s not rehash the futile arguments about the creation of Israel. It’s an irreversible fait accompli.