Features
How It Works
Pricing
Videos
>
Modern blood libels in The Hague and Venice.
Modern blood libels in The Hague and Venice.
Christians for Israel International
30 views • 1 likes
1 month ago • 16:36 min
Like & Subscribe on YouTube
Transcript
[00:00]
Welcome to another weekly update of
[00:03]
Israel and Christians. Today it is the
[00:07]
17th of September, 2026.
[00:11]
We're going to talk uh this week about
[00:13]
modern blood libels in the Hague and
[00:17]
Venice.
[00:19]
Why are we talking about blood libels?
[00:21]
Well, the Jewish people have always been
[00:23]
the subject of false accusations and
[00:26]
slander. We read in the Old Testament
[00:29]
when Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem's walls,
[00:32]
son Balah didn't contest the project
[00:35]
honestly. No, he wrote an open letter to
[00:38]
the Persian authorities accusing
[00:40]
Nehemiah of secret rebellion, hoping an
[00:43]
official body would act on an
[00:45]
unverifiable claim before the truth
[00:48]
could catch up. Centuries earlier, Hmon
[00:52]
took a similar approach at the level of
[00:55]
an entire people, telling the king that
[00:58]
the Jews laws are diverse from all
[01:00]
people and that they should not be
[01:02]
permitted to live. An accusation broad
[01:05]
enough to justify anything and specific
[01:08]
enough to be checked by no one. We read
[01:11]
that in Esther chapter 3. And in both
[01:14]
cases, Nehemiah and uh Hmon, the
[01:19]
accusation didn't need to be true. It
[01:21]
only needed to be believed by someone
[01:23]
with power to act on it.
[01:26]
A blood liel is a very special kind of
[01:29]
lie. It refers to the medieval myth
[01:32]
first recorded in 1144 and recurring for
[01:36]
centuries after that Jews murdered
[01:38]
non-Jewish children for ritual purposes.
[01:42]
And what made a blood label durable was
[01:45]
not just that it was false. It was how
[01:48]
it was built. It was an accusation of
[01:50]
hidden intent supported only by
[01:53]
testimony that could never be
[01:54]
independently checked. Where denial by
[01:57]
the accused was treated as further proof
[02:00]
of guilt rather than evidence of
[02:02]
innocence. There was no action the
[02:04]
accused could take that would count as
[02:07]
disproof.
[02:10]
The evidence offered was inherently
[02:13]
unverifiable.
[02:15]
Confessions were extracted under
[02:17]
torture. Witnesses were anonymous or
[02:19]
interested parties. There was rarely, if
[02:22]
ever, a body, a trial record, or
[02:24]
physical evidence that could be
[02:26]
independently examined.
[02:28]
Denial functioned as confirmation, not
[02:31]
reputation.
[02:33]
And because the community was assumed to
[02:35]
be capable of concealment, the absence
[02:38]
of evidence was read as evidence of a
[02:40]
cover up rather than evidence of
[02:42]
innocence. There was no action that the
[02:45]
accused could take that would count as
[02:47]
disproof.
[02:49]
The charge outran the specifics of any
[02:51]
individual case even when a particular
[02:54]
blood liel was investigated and
[02:56]
dismissed by civil or church
[02:58]
authorities. The underlying accusation
[03:00]
persisted and reattached itself to the
[03:03]
next town or the next child's
[03:05]
disappearance or the next generation.
[03:09]
Now we're seeing the blood level
[03:12]
mechanism
[03:14]
uh today in many different uh context.
[03:17]
This week we saw two particular
[03:20]
illustrations in very different arenas
[03:22]
of the same dynamic. Institutions with
[03:25]
real power to shape global opinion are
[03:28]
advancing narratives about Israel's
[03:31]
conduct that leave out the context that
[03:34]
needs that is needed to judge them
[03:36]
fairly. And in both cases, the
[03:40]
conclusion has already been drawn.
[03:42]
Israelis are child killers.
[03:46]
So one of these examples is the world
[03:49]
court and the other was a major film
[03:51]
festival.
[03:53]
Let's first look at the courts. The
[03:54]
international courts in the Hague
[03:56]
framing Israel as genocidal intent.
[04:01]
The international court of justice in
[04:03]
the Hag has become a forum for a witch
[04:05]
hunt against Jews. Those doing the
[04:08]
hunting are devious in their
[04:10]
methodology.
[04:12]
At the request of the Organization of
[04:14]
Islamic Cooperation, the OIC, the small
[04:18]
African state of the Gambia filed a
[04:20]
genocide case at the International Court
[04:23]
of Justice against Myanmar in 2019 about
[04:27]
the treatment of the Royinga.
[04:29]
A verdict is expected next month. At the
[04:33]
same time or in the meantime, the court
[04:37]
received an application by South Africa
[04:41]
claiming that Israel is committing
[04:42]
genocide in the Gaza Strip. Now, that
[04:46]
South Africa case is still pending and
[04:50]
the court will be uh hearing much more
[04:54]
evidence and arguments.
[04:56]
But in the meantime, a verdict in the
[04:59]
Myanmar case is expected next month. And
[05:02]
on its face, this has nothing to do with
[05:04]
Israel. However, the international
[05:07]
lawyers representing six NATO countries,
[05:11]
the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands,
[05:13]
Denmark, and Canada, filed a joint brief
[05:17]
at the court in 2023, urging the court
[05:20]
to adopt a more expansive or what they
[05:24]
call holistic way of inferring genocidal
[05:27]
intent rather than requiring, as the
[05:31]
current ICJ juristprudence does, that
[05:34]
genocidal intent
[05:36]
be the only reasonable inference that
[05:38]
the evidence supports.
[05:41]
And some commentators have started to
[05:44]
realize that this seems to be part of a
[05:45]
deliberate strategy to use the Myanmar
[05:49]
case as a test case to soften the
[05:52]
genocide standard before the court rules
[05:55]
on the Israel case.
[05:58]
Evidence of that scheme includes for
[06:00]
example the fact that the Gambia and
[06:03]
South Africa have similar legal teams
[06:06]
and the Gambia very significantly
[06:08]
appointed the South African jurist Navi
[06:12]
Pili as an ad hoc judge in the Myanmar
[06:16]
case knowing full well that she chaired
[06:19]
the UN permanent commission of inquiry
[06:21]
into Israel's infringements of human
[06:24]
rights and herself has already
[06:27]
concluded that Israel has been
[06:30]
committing genocide. So we have a judge
[06:35]
deciding the Myanmar case
[06:38]
um who has already formed a view about
[06:42]
Israel's
[06:44]
uh liability
[06:45]
for committing genocide under the
[06:48]
genocide convention
[06:50]
and she will be com uh contributing to
[06:53]
the decision that is made in the Myanmar
[06:56]
case. Now, an analysis released this
[06:59]
week by think initiative of
[07:02]
international cooperation argues that
[07:04]
lowering the threshold for proving
[07:06]
genocide will undermine efforts by
[07:09]
western states to counter terrorism as
[07:12]
their armies will be exposed to genocide
[07:15]
charges whenever there are, for example,
[07:17]
significant numbers of children killed
[07:20]
or largecale displacement of civilians.
[07:25]
because the court is now likely to
[07:28]
decide that those kinds of situations
[07:31]
are indirect
[07:33]
evidence of presumed evidence of
[07:35]
genocidal intent.
[07:38]
So this will make it easier for the
[07:42]
court to condemn Israel for genocide
[07:44]
when it makes that decision in a couple
[07:46]
of years time, 2029 or even 2030.
[07:52]
two articles this last weekend in the
[07:55]
Wall Street Journal make the connection
[07:56]
with Israel.
[07:58]
In one of those articles, an op-ed by
[08:01]
law professor or Kitri states plainly
[08:04]
that lowering the threshold is the
[08:07]
express goal of some advocates
[08:10]
such as Human Rights Watch director
[08:12]
Kenneth Roth specifically to pave the
[08:15]
way for a genocide finding against
[08:18]
Israel.
[08:20]
And Professor Kitri warns that it would
[08:22]
also expose the US and other NATO
[08:25]
members and their officials to genocide
[08:27]
claims in foreign courts. They quote an
[08:31]
unnamed ICJ litigator's admission that
[08:33]
activists must shoehorn claims into
[08:36]
genocide proceedings because it's the
[08:39]
ICJ's only real jurisdictional hook over
[08:44]
uh over crimes committed during warfare.
[08:50]
Um, the Wall Street Wall Street Journal
[08:54]
itself published an editorial
[08:58]
emphasizing the differences between the
[09:01]
Myanmar and Israel cases
[09:05]
uh factors that make
[09:08]
in the case of the Gaza Strip make a
[09:10]
defensive war explanation at least as
[09:14]
reasonable as a genocidal one.
[09:18]
Another article was uh published in a
[09:21]
leading law journal
[09:24]
uh in which the Fiji ambassador
[09:28]
Philippo Tarakinikini together with two
[09:30]
international law professors
[09:33]
uh argues that the only reasonable
[09:36]
inference test is not a loophole but is
[09:38]
exactly working as designed
[09:42]
uh in urban warfare legitimate military
[09:45]
explanations for civilian and harm will
[09:48]
often exist and a test that filters
[09:51]
those out is doing its job. According to
[09:53]
those authors,
[09:55]
their piece never mentions Israel
[09:57]
directly, but it's warning is the same
[09:59]
one as in the Wall Street Journal
[10:01]
articles, namely once a court adjusts
[10:04]
legal thresholds to fit a desired
[10:07]
outcome in one case, it erodess the
[10:09]
standard for every case that follows. So
[10:13]
this is a a case of example of a kind of
[10:18]
um blood liel where uh the court is
[10:21]
setting itself up to assume that Israel
[10:24]
is guilty.
[10:26]
Uh and Israel of course can never really
[10:28]
defend itself. It can defend itself, but
[10:31]
it's very hard to prove that you're not
[10:34]
guilty
[10:36]
when the court has already assumed your
[10:38]
guilt. This is of course an inversion of
[10:42]
the normal burden of proof in criminal
[10:45]
law cases.
[10:47]
Let's turn now to the V Venice Film
[10:50]
Festival.
[10:52]
Another example of blood liels. At this
[10:54]
year's Venice Film Festival, the
[10:56]
documentary Naza directed by Uvel
[10:59]
Abraham and Radal Sor received a 25minut
[11:04]
standing ovation and a special jury
[11:08]
prize. The film draws on interviews with
[11:10]
24 anonymous Israeli soldiers and
[11:13]
officers who alleged that the killing of
[11:16]
Gaza civilians was not the incidental
[11:18]
cost of urban warfare, but was a
[11:22]
systematic and deliberate policy driven,
[11:25]
in the words of one unnamed interviewee,
[11:28]
by quote total dehumanization of
[11:31]
Palestinians close quote. It's a very
[11:34]
serious charge, but it's worth looking
[11:37]
closely at how the case is built. Start
[11:40]
with the sourcing. Every accusation in
[11:43]
this film rests on anonymous testimony.
[11:47]
No accuser is named. No service record
[11:51]
is verifiable. And the IDF itself says
[11:54]
it cannot confirm whether these
[11:56]
individuals served, in what unit, or in
[11:59]
what capacity.
[12:00]
An allegation of mass atrocity that
[12:03]
can't be checked, contested, or
[12:05]
falsified is testimony that asks to be
[12:08]
taken on faith rather than evidence that
[12:11]
can be tested.
[12:14]
The claims are also unverified by any
[12:16]
independent standard. There's no in
[12:19]
forensic investigation, no corroborative
[12:22]
documentation, no cross-examination,
[12:25]
only edited interviews assembled into a
[12:29]
narrative.
[12:32]
And more significantly, the film leaves
[12:34]
out context that would let viewers weigh
[12:36]
the claims fairly. For example, it does
[12:39]
not address that Hamas fighters
[12:41]
routinely operated in civilian clothing
[12:44]
from tunnels beneath homes, hospitals,
[12:47]
and schools, making combatants and
[12:49]
civilians difficult or even impossible
[12:52]
to distinguish in real time.
[12:55]
The documentary doesn't engage the
[12:57]
argument made by
[13:00]
uh some urban warfare scholars, namely
[13:03]
that weighing expected civilian harm
[13:06]
against military necessity is not
[13:09]
evidence of malicious intent. Rather,
[13:12]
it's a calculation international
[13:15]
humanitarian law actually requires
[13:17]
commanders to make before every strike.
[13:21]
The documentary also omits evidence
[13:24]
cited, for example, by former ambassador
[13:26]
Michael Oruren that the IDF did its
[13:30]
utmost to minimize civil civilian
[13:32]
casualties in the Gaza Strip. Now, none
[13:36]
of this means the IDF IDF conduct
[13:39]
conduct is beyond scrutiny. Legitimate
[13:42]
questions about specific strikes deserve
[13:46]
serious investigation.
[13:48]
But a film built entirely on unnamed
[13:53]
sources without independent verification
[13:55]
and without operational context is not
[14:00]
well equipped to settle that question.
[14:03]
It's equipped to produce a verdict
[14:05]
before the facts are fully in.
[14:08]
Critics have drawn a comparison to the
[14:10]
film Genin Janin in 2002 that shaped
[14:14]
international opinion on the battle of
[14:16]
Jinin long before the more measured
[14:19]
facts caught up with it and it was later
[14:22]
exposed as having been incorrect
[14:26]
from a factual perspective. [snorts]
[14:30]
So what does all of this mean for
[14:33]
Christians? Well, watching a court
[14:36]
reshape a legal standard or a film
[14:39]
festival reward an unfair unverifiable
[14:42]
narrative.
[14:44]
We are actually watching a very old
[14:47]
tactic in modern dress
[14:50]
namely a blood liel. The right response
[14:53]
is never panic nor is it silence.
[14:56]
As Neahhemiah's
[14:59]
plain denial,
[15:01]
there are no such things done as thou
[15:05]
sayest.
[15:07]
We must speak out like Nehemiah against
[15:10]
those who propagate lies and
[15:12]
misinformation against God's people. And
[15:16]
we should pray that we will be given a
[15:17]
spirit of discernment, eyes that will be
[15:20]
open to see what is really happening.
[15:24]
Let's not forget scripture promises, no
[15:26]
weapon that is formed against thee shall
[15:28]
prosper. This is the heritage of the
[15:31]
servants of the Lord. Isaiah 54.
[15:36]
So let's pray with some uh close with
[15:39]
some prayer points this week. Let us
[15:42]
pray that those who spread lies and
[15:44]
disinformation concerning the Jewish
[15:46]
people will be confused and defeated.
[15:50]
Pray that the courts in the Hagen around
[15:52]
the world will speak justice in truth.
[15:55]
Pray for the judges of the International
[15:58]
Court of Justice who are confronted with
[16:01]
lies that they will have discernment,
[16:03]
courage and wisdom.
[16:06]
Let us pray for the coming of Messiah,
[16:09]
the coming of the kingdom when justice
[16:12]
will be done, truth will prevail, and
[16:16]
the law will go out from Jerusalem.
[16:21]
Thank you so much for listening. That is
[16:24]
the end of our weekly update. We look
[16:28]
forward to seeing you next week. Wish
[16:30]
you a blessed weekend. God bless.
[16:34]
Bye-bye.
Show more
Description
(by owner on YouTube)
The Jewish people have always been the subject of false accusations and slander. Listen to the Weekly Update:
