Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 24, 2026

09/23 Links Pt2: Anti-Zionist Jews will always ultimately fail the purity tests their allies set them; Martin Kramer: Ivory Towers on Sand at 25; Teacher in Philadelphia admits to fabricating Palestinian identity for years

From Ian:

Anti-Zionist Jews will always ultimately fail the purity tests their allies set them

Security based upon somebody else’s tolerance is not security.

For centuries Jews existed as minorities whose safety depended upon rulers, governments, neighbours and political movements continuing to tolerate them. Sometimes they did, until they inevitably didn’t.

England expelled its Jews, Spain expelled its Jews, across Europe Jews experienced pogroms, restrictions, dispossession and ultimately industrialised extermination. Across the Middle East and North Africa ancient Jewish communities dwindled dramatically in the decades around Israel’s creation amid persecution, violence, expulsions, state pressure, Zionist migration and war.

Jewish history contains an uncomfortable abundance of reminders of what happens when our safety depends entirely upon somebody else’s goodwill. That is a major, undeniable and historically essential reason Zionism exists.

Not because Jews believe ourselves superior to anybody else, but because after millennia of discovering how conditional somebody else’s protection could be, Jews concluded that our survival could not forever depend upon other people granting us permission to remain. And now that conclusion itself is being put on trial.

Ask yourself this crucial question. Why, among the world’s national movements, does Jewish national self-determination generate this particular obsession? Why is the answer to alleged crimes committed by Israel not merely to change its government, borders or policies but, uniquely, to question whether the country should continue to exist at all?

Britain committed atrocities during empire, nobody seriously proposes abolishing Britain. America was built through the dispossession of indigenous peoples and slavery, nobody demands the dissolution of the United States as the prerequisite for opposing racism. States throughout the world have disputed borders, bloody histories and governments that have committed terrible acts. Their citizens are not routinely required to renounce the existence of their countries before being permitted into polite society.

Yet somehow Jewish national self-determination is subjected to a different test.

Any political movement capable of imagining liberation and self-determination for peoples across the world but unable to imagine them for Jews should ask itself why the Jew is once again the exception.

That is why this isn’t really a story about Zack Polanski and it isn’t ultimately a story about the Green Party.

It’s about us.

For three years I have watched Jews desperately negotiate with people who despise Zionism, who are fueled by hate.

I’m Jewish, but…

Three words that have become almost a ritual incantation, three words that so many still think will guarantee them acceptance, save them from the mob. Three words that exemplify “suicidal naivety”.

Because there is always another purity test and eventually you run out of things to surrender. Except one, your Jewishness.

That is the lesson I want my children to understand. They do not need anybody’s permission to be Jewish. They do not need to apologise for Jewish history. They do not need to barter pieces of their identity for acceptance. They do not need to pass somebody else’s test of what constitutes an acceptable Jew and they should never imagine that making themselves smaller will make somebody else’s hatred disappear.

I cannot control the Britain in which my children will grow old, I cannot promise them that antisemitism will disappear, but I can teach them what generations before us learnt at an unbearable cost.

Never build your Jewish future around passing somebody else’s purity test.

The test will change, the line will move and eventually, whatever you say, whatever you condemn and however much of yourself you surrender, there will be one thing you can never wash off.

You are still a Jew.

So be one proudly, be strong, be unapologetic, be loud.

Do not whisper your Jewishness to make other people comfortable. Do not shrink it to fit inside somebody else’s politics. Do not bargain it away in return for an acceptance that history tells us was always conditional.

We are still here, after everything, we are still here and so we shall remain.

How Propaganda Uses Emotion to Teach You What Not to See

There is something profoundly revealing about the way the story of Jadallah Jihad Jadallah has been told.

A Palestinian boy from the al-Far’a refugee camp was shot by Israeli forces on November 16, 2025. Al-Far’a is in the northern West Bank, near Tubas. This was not a story from Gaza or Hamas. The details surrounding Jadallah’s death came instead from the West Bank, from his own community, and from Fatah, the movement led by Mahmoud Abbas.

The death itself is not disputed. He was shot, and forty-five minutes later, he died. What is revealing is everything that followed and has been left out. His case provides a clear example of how narrative framing is created and how effective emotional propaganda works.

Propaganda does not always require fabricating an event. Sometimes the more powerful technique is to take a real event, select the facts that support a particular emotional response, place those facts in a carefully constructed sequence and narrative, and leave other relevant facts out. The audience is then given a story that may contain real images, real people and real events, while being guided toward a particular conclusion that contradict the very evidence right in front of their eyes.

That distinction is particularly important when the subject is the death of a child. The image of a wounded fourteen-year-old boy can produce an immediate and powerful emotional response. Once that emotional frame has been established, everything else becomes irrelevant. Who he was, whether the circumstances surrounding his death are actually as reported, and how ordinary military protocol or acts of self-defense are being reframed as evidence of criminal conduct. Reality and critical thinking disappears when faced with an emotional narrative.

That is why the story of Jadallah deserves to be examined not only for what was reported, what was left out, but for how narrative framing and propaganda is constructed and works.

Across social-media posts surrounding his death, Jadallah was described in the language of martyrdom, heroism and fighting. Posts on associated with the al-Far’a camp also presented him as a “heroic martyr” from the beginning. Other material celebrated him as a child fighter.

Fatah-associated imagery was displayed prominently throughout the camp and surrounding community. There was also an official Fatah vigil following his death, held specifically for people to offer condolences to his family, by invitation only. These were not obscure details buried somewhere beyond the reach of a journalist or an “human rights organization.” They were part of the environment in which Jadallah’s death was being publicly commemorated locally in real time.

But his death wasn’t just glorified by Fatah, the party of Mahmoud Abbas. The public record also includes a TikTok post attributed to Jadallah from before his death that can reasonably be read as anticipating or embracing the possibility of death that day. That is a very important part of the story. Did Jadallah leave his house wanting to become a “martyr” and commit suicide?

But this is where narrative framing becomes visible. Haaretz published a lengthy account under the headline, “Watch: A 14-year-old bled to death for 45 minutes as Israeli soldiers stood nearby.” The BBC followed with, “Israeli soldiers shot a Palestinian boy and stood around as he bled to death, video shows.” Both framed the story around soldiers allegedly failing to provide life-saving treatment.

Both publications also displayed an image of Jadallah that tells another part of the story: a Fatah martyr poster calling him a “Hero Martyr,” presenting a fourteen-year-old boy as a heroic fighter, publicly celebrated by his own father.

Yet the reader encounters the emotional frame first: a wounded child, “bled to death,” “shot,” and soldiers who “stood around.” The poster is visible, but its meaning is not explained. The audience is shown the evidence, but taught how to interpret it.

That is how propaganda can work without fabricating every fact. The information remains in plain sight, yet becomes psychologically irrelevant once the emotional conclusion has already been established.

The question, therefore, is not only what these reports showed their audiences. It is what they taught their audiences not to see.

But the framing does not end with the headline or the photograph. In fact, that is where the more consequential part begins.

First, the security-camera footage shows Jadallah throwing something toward an IDF soldier immediately before he is shot. That is not a minor detail. It provides a clear explanation for why the soldier fired. A rock is not necessarily harmless simply because it is a rock. Being struck by a thrown object can cause serious injury, and even death. The relevant question in a military engagement is not whether the object looks like a conventional weapon, but whether the soldier reasonably perceived an immediate threat.

09/23 Links Pt1: Son of Israel’s US envoy, a soldier, seriously hurt in car-ramming attack; Rebutting ‘NAZA,’ freed hostage says he knows what it’s like ‘to be collateral damage’; Hillel Neuer: "In the Middle East, the UN is completely irrelevant."

From Ian:

Ambassador Jeff Bartos: UN must abandon anti-American, anti-Western legacy of Durban Conference

Over the course of the past half-century, virulent anti-Western ideology has become a permanent feature of our international institutions. One of the key inflection points in this transformation took place at a United Nations conference 25 years ago: the U.N.’s World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

The conference’s stated purpose was to confront alleged racism and bigotry. Today, the United Nations touts the Durban Declaration — the ideological framework adopted at the conference — as "the U.N.’s blueprint to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance globally." In reality, it represented the instantiation of a set of radical ideas about race, history and Western civilization as the formal dogmas of our most powerful global institutions.

Since then, the anniversary of the Durban Declaration has frequently served as an opportunity for radical bureaucrats to reaffirm and double down on their anti-Western hatred. Nearly every five years since the conference, including next week, the U.N. commemorates and revels in the falsehoods and civilizational self-hatred that the conference has propagated across the international system. The United States will not have any part in celebrating this poisonous legacy. In fact, we are urging countries to join us in rejecting this propaganda and taking a meaningful step forward in repairing the rot within the U.N.

The U.N.’s embrace of racial grievance, collective guilt, unapologetic antisemitism and fervent hostility toward our shared Western heritage is fundamentally incompatible with the American way of life. It runs counter to American virtues established 250 years ago. Americans need no instruction from international bureaucracies on the principle that men are created equal. Two hundred and fifty years ago, our founders declared that our unalienable rights did not come from kings, emperors or any earthly government — least of all unelected globalist bureaucrats. They were inherent in man, endowed by God.

Because of the Durban conference, extremist ideologues who had long festered at the fringes of the international system were pulled under one tent, handed credentials and microphones and given the imprimatur of the United Nations.

The result was radically anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Christian, antisemitic and dedicated to the destruction of the very civilization that gave birth to the United Nations itself.

The Durban conference itself was a testament to the radicalism of this project. Attendees used the event as a platform to demand reparations from the United States and other Western nations for slavery and colonialism. These calls were backed by speakers such as Fidel Castro, the brutal communist dictator of Cuba, who used the conference’s stage to denounce the West for its crimes of "conquest and colonization, of slavery, of the ruthless exploitation and the extermination of hundreds of millions of people."

Australia student elections party is named "Globalise the Intifada"

From Honi Soit:

Activist group Solidarity is contesting the annual [Students’ Representative Council] elections under the ticket name ‘Globalise the Intifada’ and pushing for students to vote in a referendum to sever institutional ties between the university and Israel.

Some election materials from the ticket, placed outside of designated areas, have also been removed by the University.

A spokesperson for the University said: “Everyone should feel like they belong on our campuses and we take seriously the distress reported by members of our community. Lawful political expression is an important part of university life, but it must be balanced with our responsibility to protect the psychosocial and physical safety of our community.

“We have taken immediate action in response to complaints about this SRC election ticket and materials and are removing relevant material displayed outside authorised areas; we’ve also asked the independent SRC Electoral Officer to explain how the ticket name was assessed and approved under the SRC’s constitutional and regulatory framework.”

‘Globalise the Intifada’ campaigner Vieve Carnsew, who is contesting the SRC presidency, said that the phrase is not illegal in NSW.

“‘Globalise the Intifada’ is a call for action to free Palestine and end the violence and genocide of Israel’s occupation,” Vieve Carnsew said.

Carnsew a (they/them) indigenous activist, never held a role in the SRC. But she wants to win because Palestine is the center of her universe, and it should be everyone else's major issue, too:

“Palestine is the biggest issue to focus on right now” because it impacts everyone, affecting freedom of speech and government budgeting, with military spending taking away funding from “things that are far more useful” such as the healthcare system and education.

In an interview, Carnsew was asked what her top three policy commitments would be. She said "Yeah, so we don't have like policy commitments."

Anti-Israel activists are sort of like children on the spectrum who can only focus on one thing and get angry at anyone who wants to talk about anything else.

The job pays AUS $42,000 a year as of 2021.

(h/t Jill)

09/22 Links Pt2: Argentina charges 7 Iranians, 1 Lebanese over 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing; Gal Gadot's $3m. Genesis Prize funds 24 Israeli mental health and trauma care NGOs

From Ian:

David Collier: The Church of England is a runaway train – and its driver is out of her depth

Within the space of a few days, two Church of England institutions were forced into humiliating retreats.

At Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury withdrew an award she had personally presented to Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi, a leading Pakistani cleric who was honoured for “reconciliation and interfaith cooperation”.

Ashrafi was no genuine interfaith operator. He helps uphold Pakistan’s brutal blasphemy laws, has supported the persecution of Ahmadis, declared the October 7 massacre an act of religious pride, and in 2007 he honoured Osama bin Laden with the title Saifullah – “Sword of God.”

“Come to Light”
When Ashrafi’s record was exposed, Lambeth Palace claimed that his previous remarks had “come to light” and withdrew the award.

They would have been better off saying nothing.

The Lambeth Palace statement makes it sound as if the information about Ashrafi was hidden away in some intelligence file. The truth is that just a few minutes of searching was all that was needed to uncover Ashrafi’s extremism. Lambeth Palace simply never bothered to look before selecting him as a worthy recipient.

There was no explanation of the vetting failure and no apology to 9/11 survivors, persecuted Pakistani minority groups, or Jews appalled by Ashrafi’s rhetoric.

Nothing but an “oops.”

“Stitch their Names”
While this farce was unfolding at Lambeth Palace, another was occurring two hundred miles further north, where Leeds Minster was forced to close an exhibition that had portrayed numerous Hamas fighters as innocent victims of Israeli aggression. During the controversy, the Minster’s rector, Canon Paul Maybury, was asked about the murder of the Bibas children – two Israeli children taken captive and brutally murdered by Hamas. He replied that “the history is complex.” Asked what he thought of Hamas, he answered: “No comment.”

The names in the tapestry have simply been taken from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, and the advert Leeds Minster published notably described those names as “Gaza’s martyrs.”

Institutional Decay
The Lambeth Palace Award and the Leeds Minster exhibition are not identical incidents but they expose the same signs of institutional decay. The Church is so eager to align itself with a particular message that symbolism replaces scrutiny, producing morally indefensible acts that are exposed when outsiders do the work the Church neglected to do itself.

Take the tapestry. The concept itself is not unique, but intentionally serious memorial projects invariably involve dedicated bodies researching and confirming the identities of those being commemorated. Stitch Their Names Together simply draws its names from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry without verification. The result is empty Palestinian advocacy that promotes the libel of genocide against Israel and helps to spread antisemitism. It should have been nowhere near the inside of Leeds Minster.

With the award it was the symbolism of interfaith, with Leeds Minster it was alignment with the anti-Israel bandwagon. Different causes, but the same failure. As Church of England vicar Rev Giles Fraser recently wrote, “the Church leadership has become ideologically captured by the progressive lanyard class.”

Which leaves the Church of England increasingly resembling a runaway train – while its driver, the Archbishop of Canterbury, looks totally out of her depth. From a Church that Protects to One that Threatens

I want to add a little personal context here. I never had a problem with Christian England. When I was just three years old, I went to a kindergarten inside a Methodist church, before attending a state school that held Christian prayer services. My Jewish identity was always accommodated and I never felt threatened by the Christian majority.

In fact, my family home sat directly opposite a large church, and during heavy storms we would talk about the protection it gave us: its lightning conductor helped keep our house safe. I still see that today as symbolic of the protection the Church provided as I grew up Jewish in Britain.

So there is no inbuilt hostility here. Quite the opposite. What has emerged over the years is a growing sense of betrayal at the direction parts of the Church of England have taken.

Anyone researching the resurgence of antisemitism in Britain will eventually encounter Anglican figures such as the now disgraced Reverend Stephen Sizer, along with a strand of supersessionist theology that continues to have influence in some Anglican circles. That part is relatively easy to identify.

But during the years I spent undercover inside the anti-Israel movement, I encountered something else. I found myself all too often sitting inside Anglican buildings listening to anti-Jewish hostility being spread within their walls. A two-day conference at Lichfield Cathedral provides just one example: an event where Jewish history was rewritten, frustrated Jewish audience members were silenced, and material from the Islamist group Friends of Al-Aqsa was freely distributed.

The symbolism is difficult to ignore. The church building that stood opposite my childhood home represented shelter. Decades later, I found myself sitting inside Anglican buildings listening to hostility towards Jews being given a platform.

Yet when Jewish concerns are raised today, too often the response seems to consist of little more than words and carefully staged gestures.

The New Archbishop Meets the PFLP Activists
Let me start with the current Archbishop’s performative gestures towards British Jewry. Just days before her recent pilgrimage to Israel, she paid a visit to the NOVA exhibition in London, a travelling memorial providing an in-depth remembrance of the brutal massacre at the Nova Music Festival on October 7.

Yet the Archbishop was not one of the many Londoners with no access to the actual site of the atrocity. She was literally about to travel to Israel. If she wanted to make a meaningful gesture of solidarity, why not visit the real thing – the site where hundreds were murdered, just a couple of hours’ drive from Jerusalem?

She didn’t.

Instead, during her five-day pilgrimage, the Archbishop was presented with carefully selected Palestinian voices. Among them were two women I subsequently identified as having documented links to PFLP activism.

I covered the full story and the evidence in an investigation published at the time. There is no need to repeat it all here. The point is what it tells us about the Archbishop’s judgement, and the judgement of the team around her.

Within days of standing at a London memorial to the victims of October 7, she travelled to the region and gave a platform to activists associated with a terrorist organisation that participated in the October 7 attacks.

Once again, the scrutiny came afterwards – and from outside the Church.

Maureen Lipman: Read on for the best-laid plans of mice, men and Maureen

Many of you will have been aware that I am politically “hot” these days. Due to my writings in this very tome, my reflections in The Spectator and a rather charged interview on Sky TV, nominally about my play Allegra, but actually about their agenda. My belief that Israel should exist as a Jewish state has thrust me, in my near dotage, into a sort of “Mo of Ark” situation.

I was due a break after my stint in Allegra, so, as a delayed honeymoon, David and I travelled first to Puglia for a friend’s wedding, to be followed by a week on a sailing boat to three Greek islands to meet with other chums. Afterwards, I had signed up to do a one-day play reading, called Right Before I Go; a moving compilation by Stan Zimmerman (of Roseanne and The Golden Girls fame), of letters written by actual suicides. It was to be followed by a discussion with the audience to raise awareness and funds for a charity. But… read on for the best-laid plans of mice, men and Maureen.

My phone bleated out the news that an actor has withdrawn from the reading on the grounds that he could not countenance my political views. His name was McCarthy and being me, I couldn’t resist wondering – in the Telegraph whether this might be the “New McCarthyism”. The phrase was taken up, although not credited, by none other than The Wall Street Journal, then the Times, and then, wonder of wonders, The Hollywood Reporter. Goodness, it was going viral – or at least, mildly infectious all through the holiday.

I offered to meet with Mr McCarthy and discuss our differences. Or, better still, celebrate our similarities. I mean he might have been marching behind me on the anti-Putin, pro-Ukraine demos or standing in front of me with a placard outside the Chinese Embassy protesting the treatment of the Uyghurs. I suggested hummus and mint tea in a restaurant of his choice and that he might rejoin the show as colleagues who agree to differ, but both support an anti-suicide charity.

McCarthy would not look at my olive branch let alone pick up my gauntlet.

He was interviewed in the Belfast Times and protested loudly that he never asked for me to leave the cast, he never bullied me, he just made his point. He omitted to add that his appearance at Soho would have been on a different night to mine.

The fascinating part of the actor’s moral incapacity to share a lectern with a British Jew was heightened by his being a member of the audience at the opening night of my play Allegra at Richmond. He is on camera at the vox pop, singing the show’s praises, and mine as he made his way to the after-show party. Apparently, he came to see the show again in London. Only my husband visited Allegra more than once and we share a bed.

I have never made it secret that I am a proud, outspoken Jew, but something must have radicalised the actor in the six weeks that followed the party, to the point of issuing a statement on social media. He didn’t have to withdraw quite so publicly. He could have quietly told the producer that he’d forgotten on that particular Wednesday, he’d promised to take an elderly aunt to have a boil lanced.

Two days later another actor chose to exit the reading for the same reason. Now I was slightly getting the wind up enough to toss around in my bed on the ferry to Corfu. My dreams were uniformly about being thrown off buses in Hull and everyone I’ve ever met crossing the street to avoid me.

Sayeeda Warsi is minimising the Islamist threat

Among the front-runners to be appointed the UK’s first ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ tsar is Conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi. Earlier this month, we had a grim taste of what she might bring to the table in this position.

Warsi delivered the inaugural lecture at University College London for Equi titled ‘Patriotism: Pride not Prejudice’. Warsi’s carefully curated talk, as well as the nod to Jane Austen, was peppered with quotes from Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson, along with paeans to cricket and village fetes. But these whimsical references concealed a darker message.

During the Q&A, I challenged Warsi on the framing of her lecture. We hear much from Labour and progressives about ‘Islamophobia’, but less about Islamic attitudes towards the West. What, I asked, about the profound hostility of the Deobandi and Salafi movements – which control the majority of British mosques – to the Enlightenment philosophy of personal autonomy, pluralism and universal human rights, including gender equality?

Her answer displayed a flippant disregard for the kind of threat Western nations face from Islam. In particular, the profound challenges that supremacist, exclusionary Islamic theology presents to public security, social cohesion and democracy in the UK. She said:

‘Does the Muslim community have nutcases? Absolutely. Does the Christian community have these nutcases? Absolutely. Does the Jewish community have these nutcases? Absolutely. And they’re always on display for all of us to see.’

This was a strange response. ‘Nutcases from the Muslim community’ – her phrase, not mine – have killed dozens and inflicted life-changing injuries on hundreds of Britons, including children, in the past several decades. They have stabbed two sitting MPs, one fatally. The vast majority of the suspects currently on MI5’s 43,000-person terror watchlist – as many as 39,000 – are jihadists. So why is Warsi telling me not to ‘waste my time’ interrogating the motives and goals of these ‘nutcases’?

I then asked her about support for Hamas among parts of the Muslim community and the willingness of many to deny the atrocities of 7 October. Yet rather than address these concerns, Warsi deflected and denied there was a problem. ‘I honestly don’t know who the six freaks are that you speak to that give you all this data’, she said. ‘But the people I speak with and I spend time with… hundreds and thousands of them, I have yet to meet somebody who’s told me Hamas is a great thing and I want to go out and, you know, kind of support them.’

Does Warsi really expect us to believe that only ‘six freaks’ support Hamas in the UK? It would be hard to explain, then, how a hardline Islamic platform like the UK-based 5Pillars boasts one million readers. Or the celebrations in cities across the UK after Hamas’s 7 October pogrom and the rampant anti-Semitism that accompanied them. In June 2025, 40 organisations – including students’ networks, religious groups and advocacy organisations – called for Hamas to be removed from the UK terror list.

09/22 Links Pt1: Israel's Enemies Misjudged the Resilience of Israeli Society; Police foil Manchester Yom Kippur terror plot; Gaza Health Ministry Chief’s Eldest Son Identified as Hamas Commander

From Ian:

Israel Derangement Syndrome

When the subject turns to the Jewish state, formerly robust minds are turning to mayonnaise. Frontal autolobotomies are eagerly being carried out on every campus. Israel Derangement Syndrome (IDS) is a drug that gets you high on self-righteousness while disabling your cognitive faculties.

In reviewing for Variety a movie called "NAZA," about the alleged depravities of the IDF, Jay Weissberg presented with an advanced case IDS, claiming: "The Israeli government has stocked its jails and morgues with Arab men in order to use them as bargaining chips in prisoner exchanges."

Israel doesn't "stock its jails with Arab men" so it can "use them as bargaining chips." Israel is a liberal democracy with written law, due process, proper judicial procedure and carefully vetted judges - all the stuff that Hamas rather famously overlooks. Israel arrests terrorists and other criminals. If they're convicted, they go to prison. Israeli police don't cruise down the streets with tuna nets picking up random Arabs while exclaiming, "Caught another bargaining chip!"

Call Israel a genocidaire, and you're violating what John Erskine called "the moral obligation to be intelligent." Israel's prosecution of the war Hamas started has resulted in around 24,000 combatant deaths among 73,000 war dead in Gaza. That's a civilian-to-warrior kill ratio of about 2 to 1. Women and children are among the innocents killed due to Hamas policy.

No matter how many heart-rending pictures of war carnage appear, genocide means taking major steps toward wiping out a people. A 2 to 1 ratio ain't close to genocide. It isn't even genocide lite. It's tragic that Hamas operations guarantee the deaths of lots of civilians. But that's their way. They embed themselves among innocents, use hospitals as weapons depots, and skulk in a 400-mile network of tunnels. When you're pro-death, all of this comes naturally.

An entity that launches a war has no moral right to complain when it faces a justified counterattack. Japan's response to losing a war it started wasn't to beg for sympathy, but to drop its death cult, join the ranks of liberal democracies, and cease attacking its neighbors. Gaza could move on from Hamas and do the same.

Israel's Enemies Misjudged the Resilience of Israeli Society

The assumption that Israel would collapse under three years of missile attacks has proved mistaken, according to a recent position paper published by Mada al-Carmel, the Arab Center for Applied Social Research, based in Haifa. It said Israel's Jewish public has demonstrated sustained resilience, broadly supports the continuation of military campaigns, and is willing to bear the human and economic costs because of a shared perception of an existential threat.

Similar observations have been made by Dr. Abdel Moneim Said, chairman of the advisory board of the Egyptian Center for Strategic Studies, who highlighted conceptual failures that worked against Hamas leaders and Iran's "axis of resistance." The first was a misreading of the effect Israel's internal divisions would have on Israeli society. Instead, Israeli society came together and displayed a resilience that surprised decision-makers in Gaza and Tehran.

Israel's war is not yet over, but victory will be unmistakable if it produces a change in the enemy's consciousness: a recognition that Israel cannot be defeated by force and that attempting to do so is not worthwhile.

Iranian Children Recruited for "Self-Sacrifice" Campaign

Male children under the age of 15 will soon be recruited to join the Islamic Republic's Janfada (self-sacrifice) campaign, the Iranian Labor News Agency reported. Females would need to reach the age of 18.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit the recruitment of minors under the age of 15 by armed groups, while Iran has admitted recruiting children as young as 12.

Military training for the campaign is set to begin in Tehran this week.

They will be trained in "ensuring local security, general war preparations, observation, surveillance, and intelligence measures," as well as "guiding micro-aircraft (drones), which are used in military operations," and "the possibility of using shoulder-launched weapons."

The campaign's spokesperson, Sasan Zare, said it was centered on the cultural slogan, "We have one life, and we give it for Iran."

Brad Lander's Vidui: A Public Transgression Masquerading as Confession

Brad Lander spoke at an anti-Israel rally in Brooklyn on Yom Kippur, hijacking and perverting the entire purpose of Yom Kippur itself.

He wrote what he was going to say on his Substack:

For those Jews like me, who do feel a deep connection to Israel, who still believe in & hold hope for the vision of a Jewish and democratic state, when we confess together before God, how can you not join me in seeing the wanton destruction of Gaza, the famine exacerbated by lack of aid, the land-thefts and murders in the West Bank, at the center of our transgressions?

Ashamnu — We have been culpable.
Bagadnu — We have betrayed our deepest value, that every human being is created in God’s image.
Gazalnu — We have stolen homes, and olive groves, and the futures of children.

...
Titanu — We went astray, and we are at risk of letting our whole tradition be dragged astray with us.

Mercifully, that tradition teaches that we are never beyond the pale of redemption, not even for complicity in genocide.

....On this Day of Atonement, if we are serious about reckoning with our collective transgressions, then we must not only honestly recite them.

We must put Palestinian liberation at the center of our t’shuvah. Not only for the human rights and dignity of Palestinians. But also for our own possibility of redemption.

Lander is not confessing his sins. No, he himself is blameless. He is confessing the alleged sins of his fellow liberal Jews. He is making baseless accusations against Jews who still have a shred of pride — and calling it his own teshuvah.

The irony is that he starts the article by noting the famous joke of a rabbi and cantor both crying on Yom Kippur "I am nothing!" and when a simple congregant joins in, the rabbi turns to the cantor and says scornfully, “Hmph. Look who thinks he’s nothing!” That is precisely the self-righteousness that Lander himself is exhibiting, in public: claiming that he is confessing the many sins of Jews when his vidui is purely performative accusations against the Jews who do not share his false view of Israel.

Lander conspicuously leaves himself outside the indictment; he uses the communal wording of the vidui to pretend that he is confessing his own sins at the same moment he is committing them. Many of the terms in the short vidui applies to Lander far more than to Zionists. For example:

Dibarnu dofi - slandering his fellow Jews as if they really support genocide, which is a form of Holocaust inversion

Tafalnu sheker - attaching himself to falsehood by parroting false claims

Yaatznu ra - giving false counsel, telling Jews that they must center Palestinian "liberation" when Palestinians themselves make it clear that this means real genocide against Jews

Niatznu - showing contempt for Jews who care about Israeli lives and who prioritize their own people over those who want to destroy them

And the longer Al Chet is even more damning. It asks forgiveness for sins committed through speech, deceit, slander, scoffing, passing judgment, talebearing — and, remarkably, “with mere verbal confession.” Lander has managed to turn confession itself into another opportunity to sin through speech.

His performance is not only a public ritual meant to make himself look righteous and tear down his fellow Jews. It endangers Jews in New York and America. It gives license for antisemites to say "we aren't against all Jews, we like Jews like Brad Lander, but even he admits that the rest of them support genocide and must be treated with contempt."

Because that is what his little speech is: contempt for Israel, contempt for Jews who care about their own safety and security, and dividing Jews into the "good Jews" like Lander and the "bad Jews" who blame Hamas' use of an entire population as human shields for the destruction of Gaza.

Lander, wearing a tallit and peppering his speech with real Hebrew phrases, should care a little more about what he actually performed on Yom Kippur in front of the cameras: a textbook example of a chilul Hashem.

09/21 Links: Richard Landes: How the Western Press Got Jihad Wrong; Police officer wounded in shooting outside Ontario synagogue; Reform Rabbi: Unhinged, obsessive loathing of Israel is corrupting US values

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: How Hamas Controls the Story Coming Out of Gaza

Azaiza revealed details about how journalists operated under Hamas rule. He described an environment in which journalists were pressured to suppress criticism of Hamas and, in some cases, to stop filming when Palestinians expressed anger toward the terrorist group.

These are not allegations coming from an Israeli government official or a pro-Israel advocacy organization. They are admissions by a Palestinian journalist who became internationally famous for documenting the war.

When Palestinians blamed Israel, the cameras kept rolling. When Palestinians blamed Hamas, the cameras were turned off.

He acknowledged that stepping outside this framework exposes journalists to intense backlash, including organized online campaigns, accusations of treason, and physical intimidation inside Gaza.

He openly acknowledged that initially he struggled with whether to publish material showing Palestinians criticizing Hamas. He said he had never seen a Gaza journalist publish such material. He also disclosed that he grew up supporting Hamas and that Hamas's ideology and the culture of "resistance" were part of his childhood environment.

This is a remarkable admission. It helps explain why the outside world has heard relatively little from Gaza about Hamas's responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians under its rule. It also raises an obvious question: How much of the story coming out of Gaza has been shaped not only by what journalists saw but also by what they believed they were permitted to show?

Azaiza's account should therefore prompt media organizations that used his work – and the work of other Gaza-based journalists as well as journalists covering other terrorist entities and their sponsors – to examine their own reporting practices. Who supplied the information? Who was present when it was gathered? What material was not published? Were journalists pressured? Were interviews conducted freely? Were Palestinians allowed to criticize Hamas on camera? Most importantly, did international media organizations independently verify claims coming from a territory controlled by a terrorist organization?

Azaiza's interview is ultimately a warning about the dangers of accepting any side's narrative without scrutiny.... It should be a wake-up call.

The question is no longer simply what the cameras show. It is also what they do not show.

Gaza journalist who met with Mamdani admits he buried Oct. 7 footage of Israeli hostages being beaten to protect perpetrators

A Gaza journalist who has met with Mayor Mamdani and been honored with a Nobel Peace Prize nomination and a spot on the Time100 list admitted that he buried footage of Israeli hostages being beaten by a Palestinian mob on Oct. 7, 2023 in order to protect the perpetrators.

Photographer Motaz Azaiza also revealed that all media in Gaza is controlled by Hamas through a single WhatsApp group — and the terror group will target any journalist who publishes criticism.

Azaiza — who has become one of the most famous journalists in Gaza — was in the territory on Oct. 7, when Hamas marched the hostages taken from Israel through the streets of Gaza, where all hell broke loose.

“People got out, watched, beat them, hit them, and I followed them and filmed,” Azaiza told the Taqarrab podcast.

“But I did not publish those videos.”

“Why? Because I did not want to ruin the lives of the people who were filmed,” the photographer said.

“I understood that Israel would use those videos to identify every person who was there and eliminate them.”

“I did not want to be responsible, even indirectly, for the deaths of those people in exchange for a few likes and views online,” he added.

Aziza also revealed that “every journalist in Gaza” is in a Hamas-run WhatsApp group called “Smart” that coordinates coverage in Gaza. One of the Hamas media directors based at the Rafa Crossing ran it, he said.

Aziza went on to say that he was targeted by pro-Hamas media — run through that channel — when he showed a video of a Gaza resident cursing Hamas.

09/20 Links: Take a look inside Israel’s war room on the day Hamas invaded; Terrorist kills Netanel Shakron, father of six, in Samaria on Yom Kippur eve; The Letter I Wish Robert Kraft Wrote

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: Israel’s Rivals in a Fight for Survival

REVIEW: ‘In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel's Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis’ by Yonah Jeremy Bob and Elliot Kaufman
In the War Room is a detailed reconstruction of how Israel's top officials navigated the three-year series of wars that began with Hamas's invasion of Israel on October 7. The book lets us zoom out, providing structure and narrative coherence to a conflict that is in some ways still ongoing, and that most people know only from daily news stories, many of them deeply inaccurate.

The authors—Elliot Kaufman, an editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, and Yonah Jeremy Bob, the military correspondent of the Jerusalem Post—had extraordinary access to the central figures directing Israel's war effort. As it happens, those figures were all political rivals. At the top sat Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, whose reputation as a security hawk was profoundly shaken by the catastrophic surprise attack. His defense minister, Yoav Gallant, a former general turned politician, was a senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party, but one who had very publicly broken ranks with him just before the war over the government's efforts to reform the powers of the judiciary.

Another key member of the war cabinet, the affable Benny Gantz, a former general and IDF chief of staff, had for a time led the main rival political party; he joined Netanyahu's government in a show of national unity after the attacks. He brought with him his political colleague Gadi Eisenkot, another former general—and now Netanyahu's biggest rival in the October election. Finally, Herzi Halevi, the IDF chief of staff—a vastly powerful post in Israel—had not even been appointed by Netanyahu, but by the previous, short-lived government of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid. Likewise, the head of the internal security service, the Shabak, which had jurisdiction over Gaza, was a holdover from the previous government, and Netanyahu's efforts to replace him would lead to a lengthy Supreme Court battle.

This was not just the proverbial "team of rivals." It was a team of political enemies with little personal connection or camaraderie and deep suspicion of one another—cats in a bag. That they managed to lead such a successful multifront war is remarkable. As the authors tell it, the atmosphere in the war room was deeply unpleasant—though certainly better than the one between General Omar Bradley and Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who tried not to be in the same room together.

The authors trace the crucial decision points of the wars and the debates that preceded them. At every stage, there were marked disagreements about how to handle an exceedingly complex situation. Drawing on firsthand testimony, the authors paint a picture of the shock and disorientation of the war's first days, as Israel's leaders struggled to grasp a situation for which they bore command responsibility. Throughout, some members of the war cabinet favored offensive pushes while others urged caution—though who played which role changed from battle to battle, and even within a single battle.

For example, Gallant favored an immediate attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon to neutralize what was then its massive missile arsenal, which posed the greater strategic threat—even though Hezbollah had joined Hamas's assault only in a limited way. Netanyahu favored dealing first with Hamas and the hostages, the immediate casus belli. Later, Netanyahu would be cautious about launching the ground operation in Gaza, as well as about taking Rafah in the south of the Strip, while his generals favored both operations. Over time, however, Gantz grew more skittish about the Rafah campaign, and Netanyahu more determined to carry it out.

Even after the fact, the participants' recollections differ—several remember the other participants as shaken in the first weeks of the war, but not themselves. Strategic disagreements are almost certainly inevitable in making such high-stakes decisions, and it is difficult to weigh these internal battles in hindsight. While most of the war room figures were politicians to some extent, there does not appear to be any clear correlation between their political leanings and how aggressively they wanted to prosecute the war. Whatever their failings in anticipating and understanding the enemy, these were patriots determined to defeat a genocidal foe.

The clearest mistake in retrospect was Gantz and Eisenkot's readiness to end the war in early 2024, with the Palestinian Authority brought in to serve as a fig leaf for Hamas control of Gaza. At the time, they faced an increasingly hostile international environment and saw no other prospect for the hostages' release. It is now clear that Netanyahu's insistence on fighting on was wise. It led to the decimation of Hezbollah, the fall of Assad, the establishment of security zones in enemy territory, and the repeated degradation of Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Ira Stoll: Take a look inside Israel’s war room on the day Hamas invaded

Alongside the highlight reel of Israeli and American accomplishments, this book provides a kind of supercut of retrospectively ridiculous things that Israeli and American politicians have said along the way. The compilation, in one volume, of all these gems is another public service provided by Bob, who is The Jerusalem Post’s senior military analyst, and by Kaufman, who is an editorial board member of The Wall Street Journal.

Israeli politician Benny Gantz bragged to an interviewer in 2018 that as Israel Defense Force chief of staff he had “prioritized cyber and intelligence over infantry and armor,” because “unlike the threat of ground invasion, the threat of cyber is realistic.”

John Kerry, as President Obama’s secretary of state, cited the Afghan army to the Israelis as a model for Palestinian security forces and “an example of how local forces could be trained successfully.”

Kamala Harris, before Israel’s invasion of the southern Gazan city of Rafah: “I have studied the maps,” she said, incorrectly claiming there was nowhere for civilians to evacuate to.

Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who has since landed at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he is Kissinger Professor of the Practice of Statecraft and World Order, had written a Foreign Affairs essay “that went to print just before the October 7 attack and arrived in subscribers’ mailboxes later in the month,” boasting that Biden’s policies made the Middle East “quieter than it has been for decades.” He claimed credit for having “de-escalated crises in Gaza” and having “enhanced deterrence” to discourage Iranian aggression.

The book details differences among Netanyahu, his war cabinet members Gantz and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Israel Defense Force chief of staff Herzi Halevi. Those internal discussions — and the parallel dialogues with the Biden and Trump administrations — shaped the outcomes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The personalities also reflected the span of public opinion in Israel’s diverse democracy.

The authors are less sure-footed when analyzing US and global sentiment. “Widespread destruction became a key driver of Israel’s diminished global standing,” the authors contend. “Videos of Gazan neighborhoods turned to rubble, with nothing left intact for as far as the eye could see, told a story of their own.” And, “a young generation’s first impression of the Jewish state has been formed by the destruction of Gaza.”

Somehow the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and of Dresden, didn’t diminish America’s global standing for the young generation during or after World War II. Any erosion can be blamed not on the destruction of Gaza but on a sophisticated social-media and on-the-ground campaign by foreign actors to demonize Israel, coupled with social trends in America such as declining church attendance, a flood of Muslim immigration and biblical illiteracy.

The weakest part of the book is an author’s note from Yonah Jeremy Bob. Here, Bob claims Netanyahu “harmed Israel’s name with US Democrats and other parts of the fair-minded West (Germany is another notable example) by continuing the war for too long.”

He goes on: “Whether the war should have ended in late summer 2024, early 2025 or summer 2025 is hotly debated within the Israeli defense establishment. But close to zero of the Israeli defense establishment supported continuing the war beyond that point, and beyond that point is where Israel’s standing took the largest global walloping.”

This timeline does not cohere. It was only in October of 2025 that Hamas agreed to disarm and to return all the Israeli hostages, dead and alive. Count me as skeptical that Israel’s global standing would have been improved had the Jewish state ended the war prematurely, without getting the hostages back and without a plan to disarm and dislodge Hamas. And the sniping by the “Israeli defense establishment” against Netanyahu, an unfortunate feature of Israel’s domestic political landscape, is the rare Israeli export that America might indeed be better off boycotting.

So skip that section and appreciate the rest of the fast-paced narrative. Rerun the dramatic details of how Israel killed all those terrorists, and laugh along the way at Kerry, Sullivan and Harris. The victory may not be entirely total, but for Israel and America it’s already been quite an impressive win, especially considering how grimly this round began. And the war is not fully over quite yet.

Book Complaining About Israeli Influence Ironically Benefits From Offshore Arab Funding

The book claims, "It is Israeli violence against Palestinians that increases antisemitism." That ignores that antisemitism peaked during the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, before there was a modern state of Israel or "Palestinians" with a national identity. It also blames the victims of a hateful bias for a bias that is fundamentally irrational. Israel has tried plenty of nonviolent ways of dealing with the Palestinians—a border fence, unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Iron Dome, the Oslo Accords. Yet when faced with dedicated Islamist fanatical terrorists determined to wipe Israel off the map and rape, kill, or kidnap the Jewish inhabitants, the demand that Israel restrict its responses to nonviolent ones seems more a symptom of antisemitism than an indication of concern about fueling it.

The book accuses Israel of "the obsessive use of 'terrorist' as an adjective." Actually Israel frequently uses "terrorist" as a noun, because, unfortunately, it is fighting a lot of enemies who are terrorists, a fact this book is determined to minimize.

The authors and their editors seem ignorant on foreign policy and national security issues even beyond the Middle East. They claim, "[b]etween Truman and George H.W. Bush, every American adopted containment as their grand geopolitical strategy." That ignores President Reagan's shift beyond containment to rollback, the strategy that eventually yielded victory.

One could go on. Throughout there's a single-minded obsession with donors and interest groups that favor a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and neglect of the countervailing donors and interest groups. It amounts to a skewed story. The Anti-Defamation League's antisemitism statistics are dismissed as a "hoax," downplaying or ignoring FBI or New York Police crime statistics that show similar surges in anti-Jewish hate.

The interesting question is how and why a book this gross and full of falsehoods found a mainstream publisher—One Signal, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, which is owned by KKR. The chairman of Qatar Investment Authority, Sheikh Bandar bin Mohammed bin Saoud Al-Thani, met with Co-Chief Executive Officer of KKR & Co. Scott Nuttall in July during a visit to New York, according to a photo released by the government of Qatar. The acknowledgments say, "This book benefited from the generous support provided by Lina and Ali."

Who are Lina and Ali? What sort of "support" did they provide? And why not be fully transparent about it? Eli Clifton's author photo on the book jacket is provided "Courtesy of the Quincy Institute," an institution that lists Clifton as "cofounder and senior adviser." Quincy also lists Ali Munir & Lina Lazaar as donors in the $100,000 to $250,000 category (the same level as the Soros Open Society Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund but a lower level than Koch's Stand Together Trust).

With the last names available, so is more information. The Charity Commission of England and Wales lists Ali Munir as one of three trustees of Ibraaz, a London-based cultural center whose website describes it as "an initiative of the Kamel Lazaar Foundation." The president of the Kamel Lazaar foundation is Lina Lazaar; the website describes it as "a Geneva- and Tunis-based institution." Lina's father is Kamel Lazaar, a Tunisian-Swiss investment banker. Her ex-husband, Hassan Jameel, is a Saudi Arabian billionaire. Corporate registration documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon from the Jersey Islands, the offshore jurisdiction where Munir's Panarae Limited company is based, indicate he is a British national and his full name is Mohammad Ali Munir Ahmed.

There are plenty of foreign powers whose grip is on display here, but Israel is not among them. As I said, it's nauseating. Lina and Ali should ask for a refund. This book is so shoddy it will damage their reputation to be associated with it. No wonder they didn't want their full names in the acknowledgments.

This is an update my Yom Kippur message of previous years.

I unconditionally forgive anyone who may have wronged me during this year, and I ask forgiveness for anyone I may have wronged as well.

Specifically:

-If you sent me email and I didn't reply, or didn't get back to you in a timely fashion -- I apologize.

-If you sent me a story and I decided not to publish it or worse, didn't give you a hat tip for the story -I'm sorry.

-If you requested help from me and I wasn't able to provide it -- I'm sorry.

-I apologize if I posted without the proper attribution, with the wrong attribution, or without attribution at all, including graphics.

-I'm sorry that I usually don't give hat tips on things I tweet.

-If I didn't thank you for a donation, I'm very, very sorry.

-I'm sorry if I didn't give the proper respect to my co-bloggers Ian, PreOccupied Territory, Varda, Daled Amos and the guest posters. Also to people who send me tons of tips.

-I'm sorry if any of my posts offended you personally.

- Please forgive me if I wrote disparaging things about you.

- I'm sorry if things got published in the comments that violated my comments policy but that I missed. I don't have time to monitor most comments.

This past year I finally published a Haggadah e-book and a book on America's 250th anniversary, with more in the queue. I've been heavily involved with my Substack, where, thank G-d, many of you are now paid subscribers which is tremendously helpful. Thanks for all your support!

May this be a year of life, peace, prosperity, happiness, security, good health, Jewish unity, and complete victory over our enemies.

I wish all of my readers who observe Yom Kippur an easy and meaningful fast.

09/19 Links: Andrew Fox: The Anti-Israel Film That Undermines Its Own Genocide Claim; Saudi Arabia discovers the value of a strong Israel

From Ian:

Saudi Arabia discovers the value of a strong Israel

The lesson for Mohammed bin Salman should be clear: Alliances matter most when allies are prepared to confront a common enemy.

Only last month, Saudi Arabia signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement with Turkey and Pakistan. The pact provides that an armed attack against one of the three countries will be considered an attack against them all.

It sounded impressive. Reality has proved more complicated.

Turkey has no desire to be drawn into a confrontation with Iran, while Pakistan has sent mixed signals about what the agreement actually requires. Islamabad initially indicated that continued Houthi aggression could activate the pact, but later said that no military response had been discussed. And Pakistan is far away.

The stakes extend far beyond Saudi Arabia. Through its proxies, Iran has now extended its reach to another of the world’s strategic maritime choke points. Bab el-Mandeb is the gateway to the Red Sea and, ultimately, the Suez Canal—a vital artery of trade between Europe and Asia. Houthi control of the strait therefore threatens not only Riyadh but Egypt, Europe and global commerce.

That also helps explain Mohammed bin Salman’s turn to Egypt. Cairo has an enormous economic interest in keeping the Red Sea route open and traffic flowing through the Suez Canal. The Saudi crown prince traveled there this week seeking support from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the Houthi attacks intensified.

Saudi Arabia has also sought assistance from other allies as its missile-defense resources come under pressure. The United States continues to provide intelligence cooperation while stopping short of direct military intervention.

And then there is Israel.

Israel does not disappear when circumstances become difficult. It is not going anywhere. And Saudi Arabia and Israel face the same enemies: Iran and the Houthis.

Reports now suggest that Riyadh has sought Israeli intelligence assistance through U.S. Central Command as it confronts the growing Houthi threat.

That is significant.

Mohammed bin Salman has spent years dangling the possibility of relations with Israel, always conditionally and often ambiguously. But reality is stronger than diplomatic games.

On one side are Iran and its proxies. On the other are countries with a common interest in stopping them.

The Houthis have advanced along Yemen’s Red Sea coast and threatened the Bab el-Mandeb, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints. Saudi Arabia said this week that it intercepted a Houthi drone near Mecca, although the Houthis denied targeting the holy city.

They have demonstrated that there are few limits to their ambitions.

Mecca and Medina are threatened. The Red Sea is threatened. International shipping is threatened. And Jerusalem has long been in the sights of Iran and its proxies.

Mohammed bin Salman is discovering something that should have been obvious all along: Geography, common interests and common enemies are ultimately more powerful than diplomatic maneuvering.

When Iran and the Houthis threaten the region and its stability, Saudi Arabia must decide whom it can actually count on.

Riyadh is drawing closer to Israel again because, in a dangerous region, strength commands respect—and Israel has shown that it’s willing to use it against its enemies.

Brendan O'Neill: Ireland’s insane witch-hunting of Ed Sheeran

The infantile decree that to be Irish is to be a keffiyeh-wearing ponce who moans morning, noon and night about Israel’s ‘settler colonialism’ is gospel in Ireland’s cultural establishment. Aaron Rowe, the Irish crooner who withdrew from Sheeran’s tour, titillated both the Irish and British bourgeois left with his statement about how the Irish are all too familiar with ‘genocide, forced famine and violent occupation’. Oh change the record. No one in the Republic of Ireland has been famished or occupied for more than a hundred years.

It’s the Irish elite’s depthless capacity for self-pity that gets me. The Famine jabber in particular is appropriation of the most nauseating kind. They plunder the horrors of history and pull on the rags of the starved to try to coat themselves in the holy shroud of victimhood. If these moral bloviators knew the first thing about history, they’d know the Irish have far more in common with Israel than with Hamas-ruled Gaza. Two tiny, plucky countries with huge diasporas who won their freedom through force of arms against the British. And yet the Trinity grads of the keffiyeh mob identify more with a death cult that rapes Jews for sport.

What arrogance to say that Sheeran is no longer welcome in Ireland. And coming from the same people who say the Eritrean fella who arrived five minutes ago and who now aggressively panhandles outside the GPO is welcome and you’re racist if you say otherwise. We are witnessing the Kneecapification of Irish culture. Ireland is overrun by ridiculous fake rebels who hate the Brits but bow down to the EU, who bemoan Ireland’s sexist history yet insist women throw open their spaces to cocks in frocks, and who pose as anti-fascists while being curiously, hysterically and tirelessly obsessed with the Jewish homeland. ‘Jewish billionaires who control America’ – that’s who Kneecap’s manager blamed the Macklemore scandal on. I guarantee you he will face no consequences whatsoever for this.

So there you have it: you can wang on about the Jews who control America but you can’t say there’s suffering on both sides in the Holy Land. You can fret over ‘ZioNazis’ but you can’t choose to be apolitical about the Middle East. The Sheeran scandal really has exposed what a one-eyed, hateful and authoritarian cult Palestinianism has become. And Ireland has been conquered by it.

09/18 Links Pt2: Why did the archbishop honour a cleric who called bin Laden ‘mujahid’? She worships at the shrine of Palestine; Widow of Bondi Hanukkah photographer reveals she is converting to Judaism

From Ian:

LA Review of Books spikes interview with pro-Israel professor Shai Davidai: ‘Double standard’

The Los Angeles Review of Books spiked an interview it commissioned with Shai Davidai — the Israel-born professor who called out antisemitism on Columbia University’s campus — with an editor calling the outspoken academic “a toxic figure,” The Post has learned.

Senior editor Rob Latham pulled the rug out from under freelancer Melissa Uchiyama after hiring her to interview Davidai ahead of his new book, “American Intellectual Antisemitism: The Anti-Jewish Movement Tearing Through Our Universities,” emails showed.

He had a stunning change of heart after reading the 2,000-word piece, telling Uchiyama in an email that Davidai is “a toxic figure who pretends to want respectful exchange.”

The prof is a “controversial figure” whose views “need to be probed more rigorously” than a standard interview allows, Latham wrote Uchiyama in emails seen by The Post.

Latham “should never have green lit the piece at all,” he added.

When Uchiyama offered to rework the article to salvage publication, the LA Review — which recently ran a fawning piece on controversial anti-Israel agitator Mahmoud Khalil – told her, no dice.

Latham wrote the dismayed scribe that her “best bet is to try and find a sympathetic venue” and offered her a $100 kill fee, which she declined.

“There was simply no way to have a quiet chat with him, and if you had challenged him forcefully, I expect it would’ve gotten ugly very fast,” Latham wrote.

Davidai said the spiking of the article looked like bitter proof of the kind of censorship he’s been fighting.

“Ironically, part of the book concerns these exact distortions and erasures in the media,” he told The Post.

“What’s most shocking is that they’re saying the quiet parts out loud,” he added, blasting “the double standard” at work.

French TV channel apologises after documentary shows French nuclear missile hitting Tel Aviv

The clip ran in Rafale, drones et canons : la révolution des armes françaises, a documentary on modern French weaponry first broadcast on September 1.

It was meant to illustrate the ASN4G, the fourth-generation air-to-surface nuclear missile planned for the Rafale F5 fighter jet.

The animation showed a mushroom cloud over a recognisable Israeli coastal skyline.

Héloïse Fayet, a researcher on nuclear weapons and the Middle East at the Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI), asked the channel on September 17 why France was firing a nuclear missile at Tel Aviv and noted that the blast yield on screen was far smaller than the ASN4G is supposed to carry.

By then the sequence had been circulating on social media as an illustration of French strike power. The clip was soon removed.

On September 18 the channel posted a communiqué on X, not on its website. It offered “sincere apologies” for using an image of Tel Aviv.

The shot, it said, came from a professional stock library that had “incorrectly identified and catalogued” it.

As soon as RMC Découverte was told, it pulled the film from its platforms and stopped further broadcasts. A cut without that sequence would follow.

The channel said it reserved the right to take legal action against whoever had mislabelled the city.

09/18 Links Pt1: NAZA doc accusing Israel of war crimes actually proves the opposite; Britain’s Israel sanctions clash with US anti-boycott laws

From Ian:

NYPost Editorial: The left lobs yet another ‘Big Lie’ on Israel — and the fallout keeps getting worse

The left’s Big Lies about Israel keep growing bigger — as do the ugly consequences.

The latest: Rep. Gregory Meeks’ bid to place a “hold” on a $2.8 billion sale of US bombs to the Jewish state.

“The Trump administration’s proposed sale of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs . . . raises grave, unresolved concerns about how these munitions could be used in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon,” huffed Meeks; it’s empty virtue-signaling, since he can’t actually stop the sale.

How bad have the lies about Israel gotten?
These are weapons needed to destroy underground tunnels and bunkers; withholding them helps sustain Hamas and Hezbollah, though Meeks claims he backs Israel’s right to defend itself from the terrorists.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) likewise opposed the sale, claiming preposterously that “US weapons are being used to perpetrate a genocide.”

It’s all nonsense: Israel has never — never — used bombs indiscriminately or where it believed major civilian casualties were likely, let alone to “perpetrate a genocide.”

And there’s no legitimate fear it ever would.

These charges fit with a slew of whoppers in a new film, “NAZA” (an acronym for the Hebrew words for “collateral damage”), that the Israel Defense Forces used AI to identify targets in Gaza and carried out strikes knowing they’d mostly kill civilians.

Contrary to the vicious smears, the IDF never leaves targeting decisions to AI, nor would it proceed with a strike if it expected a high civilian-casualty rate.

What makes these lies especially heinous is that the precise opposite is true: Israel goes to lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

Even as Hamas tries to maximize them by using them as human shields.

Urban warfare expert John Spencer, who’s studied the war in Gaza, reports that Jerusalem has “implemented more civilian harm mitigation measures than any military in history.”

Eugene Kontorovich: Britain’s Israel sanctions clash with US anti-boycott laws

All these boycott measures are, at least in part, incompatible with U.S. federal anti-boycott laws. Measures were originally adopted in the 1970s in response to the Arab League Boycott to bar Americans from “comply[ing] with, further[ing], or support[ing] any boycott fostered or imposed by any foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the United States.” Laws prohibiting investments, financing, construction, or property ownership in Israel fall squarely within that prohibition.

Moreover, because companies want to do business, and because boycotts create a victimless crime, boycotting countries have always had to engage in extensive enforcement efforts. The U.S. anti-boycott law prohibits participating in the enforcement process, even for companies that are not engaged in a boycott. For example, to enforce its boycott, the U.K. will have to ask anyone importing goods from Israel whether they’re from what it considers a prohibited location.

Simply “furnishing information” needed to enforce boycott measures is forbidden by U.S. anti-boycott law, even if the company is not itself engaged in a boycott. Indeed, most recent enforcement actions by the Department of Commerce are for furnishing information, rather than actual boycott activity.

America’s anti-boycott laws are not designed to protect Israel. They are designed to protect American companies from economic coercion by foreign countries in the service of restrictive and discriminatory trade policies that America does not share. These countries are not trying to convince companies to boycott Israel. They are forcing them to boycott Israel. U.S. anti-boycott laws seek to disable such coercion by making those laws unenforceable.

And it works. The measures are widely credited with helping end the Arab League boycott and ultimately setting the stage for the Abraham Accords.

It doesn’t matter that the boycotts are said to apply to “settlements,” as this literally includes Jerusalem, where the U.S. recognizes Israeli sovereignty, and the American Embassy resides.

The Trump administration must make clear that the new boycott measures will raise significant compliance problems for U.S. business, as even the Biden administration did when Turkey announced a boycott during the Gaza war. Moreover, federal law requires the Treasury Department to maintain a “list of countries which require or may require participation in or cooperation with an international boycott.” The U.K. (along with Spain and Ireland, which also recently adopted narrower boycott measures) should be put on that list, which currently only contains the bitter enders of the Arab League.

Israel has responded by saying it will close the U.K.’s unaccredited consulate in Jerusalem, a reasonable move that might have even more impact if done in response to the U.K.’s recognition of a Palestinian state. Israel could go further by denying visas to hostile British nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty and Oxfam. Part of the U.K.’s boycott includes a partial ban on arms sales. Israel would be within its rights to scale back export licenses for its crucial defense technologies, which are in high demand around the world.

Future right-leaning governments will hopefully abandon the boycott, as Slovenia’s has. And if a sufficient example is made of the U.K., its fellow travelers may choose to change course. But this won’t happen unless both Jerusalem and Washington go beyond mere expressions of displeasure.

Gil Troy: To bland Mr. Miliband living in la-la land: Your antics aren’t bold. They’re bovine

Miliband pulled a Mary Poppins, adding spoonfuls of sugar so his poison could go down and fool liberals. He blue-and-whitewashed his lies, broadcasting his Jewish identity, then playing the Holocaust card. Blowing more smoke, he condemned Hamas’s October 7 massacre and the crude antisemitism threatening British Jews.

Apparently, even British Labourites can still reject these horrors.

But Miliband quickly started working his con, which has bamboozled millions. His 2,600-word speech omitted Hamas’s continued abuse of Gazans and ongoing attacks against Israel, treating October 7 as a one-time explosion. You’d think Hamas then stopped fighting.

Similarly, Miliband’s litany of Israel and “settler” sins never acknowledged Palestinian violence, provocations, or imperfections – beyond vaguely requesting “effective Palestinian governance.”

We learn: Hamas was “bad,” but “the Palestinians,” Jesus-like, suffer from the oppressive Jews. Israel is the only obstacle to peace and to Miliband’s Holy Grail, the “two-state solution.”

He ignored thousands of Palestinian terrorists who threatened Israelis before and after October 7, in Gaza and the territories – with 6,828 Palestinian terror incidents outside Gaza in 2024 alone.

He overlooked what Col. (ret.) Miri Eisin, senior fellow at the International Institute for Counterterrorism, calls “tens of thousands of weapons,” hidden in “almost every single house” in Judea and Samaria in order to kill Israelis – or seize land where Israelis farm.

He discounted the smuggling of “heavy-duty weapons” from Iran via Jordan, increasingly, by hard-to-track drones. He obscured the “pay-to-slay” policies of the saintly Palestinian Authority, forgetting that this supposedly moderate PA sabotaged the Oslo peace process years before Hamas blew any chance of peace by making Gaza “Hamasistan” – destroying many Israelis’ faith in the two-state solution.

Miliband’s cockeyed narrative echoed and legitimized anti-Zionists’ ongoing character assassination of Israel as fundamentally flawed, blaming Israel first, last, and always.

Escalating, Miliband accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” in Judea and Samaria. Ethnic cleansing echoes a Serbo-Croatian phrase Serbian militias used as they brutally expelled one million Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the early 1990s, killing over 100,000, 80% of them Muslim.

In 1993, UN experts defined the term as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” Ethnic cleansing in Rwanda involved Hutus murdering over 800,000 Tutsi in 100 days.

In Darfur, it described Arab Janjaweed forces expelling over 2.7 million non-Arab, African ethnic groups, leaving over 300,000 dead. UK foreign secretary accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing

By contrast, Miliband reported: “since 2023... over 4,000 Palestinians” were “evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions” – while 3.4 million Palestinians still live in the West Bank.

As with the “genocide” libel, accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” pushes what academics delicately call “concept creep” to grotesque extremes. It’s concept free-fall, exposing the accusers as ridiculous – or malevolent. To indict Israel, the worst crimes in international law keep being drained of their meaning, with once-clear thresholds obliterated.

At what point can we fairly call out this disproportionate stampede toward injustice as unfair, hysterical, and depressingly familiar to those who recognize antisemitism, even when perfumed with human rights talk?

Diplomatic wilding against Israel risks becoming a new Olympic sport. These assaults thrill anti-Zionist haters. They bypass all the Miliband weasel words. They simply welcome Britain, Canada, Norway, and these other countries now threatening to imprison their own citizens for selling flowers or wine imported from the “bad Jews” as allies in their jihadist crusade to destroy the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

It’s curious. No Palestinians are boycotted, not even convicted terrorists cashing their latest PA check for murdering innocents.

This latest affront – coming 49 days before the Israeli elections – is counterproductive. It emboldens the marginal Israeli minority cheering violent settlers.

Yeah, Turkish media is still antisemitic

A story in Yeni Safak tries to draw lessons from two recent stories that got a lot of play in Turkish media.

A Turkish man interviewed Chabad Chassidim in New York and made a video that has been viewed over 70 million times. One part that fascinated the Turks was how one man described how he had ways to deal with Shabbat, like a Shabbat lamp that covers over the bulb and a Shabbat setting on refrigerators and ovens so the light doesn't go on.

At one point the man said that these work-arounds are examples of how "the Jewish mind has found solutions to this as well."

This apparently caused Turks to make memes making fun of that.

But the author takes this statement very seriously, saying that all Jews think they are too clever for the non-Jews, and therefore the rules they follow are not the same as for the gentiles. He (and other Turks) view Jewish ways of using electricity on the Sabbath as trying to fool God.

He then brings up a second story:

Adidas launched a campaign in its stores in Israel. They made a former Israeli soldier, who lost a leg in Gaza, their advertising face. The brand, as if to fool all of humanity, was announcing that it was offering athletes with only one leg the opportunity to buy a single shoe. But to tell this story through the eyes of an occupier who participated in massacres in Gaza...The goal was to use athletes who had lost limbs in genocide propaganda. The Jewish mind had thought of this too…

...Let me explain. The Hasidic man in the documentary boasting about leaving the lights on Friday, thus breaking the rule against turning on electricity on Saturday, saying "Jewish ingenuity has found a solution to this too," and Adidas marketing a genocidal figure as a "heroic story," are both fueled by the same assumption:“We are very clever. We make the rules, and we break them if necessary. We do it very well, and nobody questions us.”

Then we get to the real antisemitic tropes:

Always consider yourself one step ahead, privileged, superior, and always outside the rules. "The Jewish mindset," believing that prestige can be bought with money in the shadow of the Holocaust, manipulates politicians, corporations, It will also ruin states and nations. W e will see this one by one in the near future…

There you go! Those Jews control governments and corporations, they manipulate everyone!

Why did it take so long to get to the main point of the article?