07/24 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: A tsunami of lies; Global Intifada, Local Mayor; Streeting’s cynical smears against Israel prove he’s not fit for office

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: A tsunami of lies

The threat posed by Mamdani needs to be identified correctly. He’s using far-left populism to advance the destruction of America. But he doesn’t want to replace it with a rainbow-hued nirvana. He wants to replace it with Islam.

Despite his adherence to Shia Islam, Mamdani’s behavior corresponds to the strategy of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, which has set out how it will conquer America by infiltrating democratic institutions and using them to push the Islamist agenda.

Mamdani constantly makes references to Islam. He has cheered the growth of Islam in the city, repeatedly visits mosques and Islamic centers including ones linked to the Iranian regime, and said that America should follow the example of Islam and Mohammed’s teaching on migration and sanctuary.

Not only does the mayor need to be called out as an Islamist plant; action needs to be taken against him as a danger to America.

Pointing out that Mamdani could be denaturalized and deported, the head of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, has said that the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate evidence that before becoming an American citizen in 2018 he “knowingly provided funds or services to Hamas or another terrorist group—and concealed this from immigration authorities.”

The monumental onslaught on truth and facts about Israel has knocked the West off its moral compass. A despairing Ferguson wrote that, as a teacher, his aim was to ensure that people learned the lessons of history, including the vital lesson that antisemitic rhetoric can be translated into genocidal reality if it’s adopted by a modern state. “Yet today,” he laments, “I see this hatred normalized, the Holocaust trivialized.”

Ferguson implies that reason itself has been defeated. Such demoralization, while entirely understandable, risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Truth is being defeated because none of the custodians of the public sphere is standing up for it. People need to start calling out the agents of this contagion and holding their feet to the fire. And that includes Jews calling out Jewish anti-Zionists, too.

Andrew Fox: Streeting’s cynical smears against Israel prove he’s not fit for office

The High Level Military Group, comprising retired senior officers and officials from Nato countries, entered Gaza and questioned IDF personnel. Its submission to the International Criminal Court described Israel’s civilian-harm precautions as unprecedented and rejected the claim that the conduct of operations showed an intent by senior leaders to starve civilians or commit unlawful killings.

That judgment is also mine: Israel’s institutional policy is to operate within the law of armed conflict. No serious military observer expects a force in a long, brutal war to avoid all individual crimes. Gaza has credible cases requiring investigation and, where proved, prosecution.

Amid the social media outcry, no evidence whatsoever has been presented of a systematic policy of targeting or massacring civilians, nor of deliberate or carpet bombing. At the same time, we may certainly identify incidents that may indicate individual war crimes. The distinction between individual criminality and state policy is elementary. Streeting blurs it.

The most revealing absence from his analysis is Hamas. Gaza was not a neutral city over which Israel chose to pour fire. The IDF confronted a battlefield Hamas had spent years engineering. It built an extensive tunnel system, concealed shafts and weapons in civilian structures, booby-trapped buildings and roads, fought from densely populated areas, and denied the IDF clean targets. My own analysis of Gaza’s destruction found that much of the damage stemmed from ground manoeuvres, engineering demolitions, and the neutralisation of IEDs and tunnels, rather than air strikes alone.

Armoured bulldozers, explosive breaches, and tunnel collapses produced the lunar landscape now presented on social media as self-evident proof of criminality. Those images record a battle within a militarised enclave. They are not a legal judgment.

Hamas designed this terrain both tactically and narratively. By embedding military infrastructure throughout the civilian environment, it forced Israel into destructive urban combat and then presented every collapsed building and civilian death as evidence of criminal intent. Its information operation depends on removing Hamas from the frame. Streeting has obliged. He spoke of Israeli standards without addressing the adversary’s tunnels, IEDs, hostages, or the systematic exploitation of civilian sites.

Britain should scrutinise its allies and friendship does not require silence. Criticism from a defence secretary must be grounded in military analysis, not in televised devastation and casualty figures whose legal significance is routinely misunderstood. Streeting’s job now includes understanding how an enemy weaponises law, media and civilian suffering against democracies. A minister susceptible to that approach will impose impossible standards on allies, only to see those same standards used against British troops in the next urban war.

Streeting should ask the Ministry of Defence lawyers and operators for a serious review. If he still believes Israel fell below British standards, he should publish the basis: which incidents, which intelligence, which legal test and which British comparator. If he cannot, he should withdraw the charge. A defence secretary who cannot distinguish the horror of urban warfare from evidence of unlawful warfare is unfit for office.

Editor's Notes: Germany’s ‘good Jews’ thought they were safe, New York should pay attention

On Tuesday night, the mayor of New York posted a two-minute video to explain that he cannot arrest Benjamin Netanyahu.

He had been promising to arrest him since December 2024. At some point, the city’s lawyers told him what any first-year law student could have told him, and so he made a video. That was the news in it. The other hundred seconds were the reason he bothered.

Israel was targeting neonatal care centers. It was starving countless people. It was gunning down hundreds of aid workers and journalists. Americans were paying for the bombs that do the killing. Netanyahu was the architect of a horrific genocide, a war criminal, not welcome in New York City. Washington should arrest him instead.

October 7 did not come up. There is only one “bad” country outside the United States, and it’s Israel. Not China. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not North Korea. Only Israel.

By Wednesday morning, Zohran Mamdani was at City Hall suggesting New Yorkers go protest Netanyahu at the United Nations in September. Protest, he said, is one of the bedrocks of this city. He also said he is committed to representing all New Yorkers, whether they agree with him or not.

The UJA-Federation, which does not usually talk this way, opened its statement with “Shame on you.” The Orthodox Union said the video “endangers Jewish New Yorkers” and that the mayor peddles “lies and misinformation that risk inciting further violence against Jews.” Gadi Eisenkot, who has spent his political career trying to get Netanyahu out of office, called it “pure antisemitism, with no basis in fact.”

Eight months ago, 33% of Jewish voters in the city put him there.

That number is what sent me into the German archives. Jews backing a movement that hates them is not a new story. I wanted to know how close the match was.

More of it matched than I wanted. Some of it does not match at all.

Max Naumann
Max Naumann was not a crank. Berlin attorney. Captain in the Bavarian Army. Iron Cross First and Second Class, 15 months at the front. When he founded the Association of German National Jews in 1921, respectable people signed up, including the chief editor of one of Germany’s biggest daily papers. The Encyclopaedia Judaica notes he had money behind him, from established quarters of German Jewry.

His theory was that antisemitism is a reaction. Germans were not born hating Jews. They were reacting to things Jews did. To the Eastern European Jews showing up with foreign manners. To Zionists saying out loud that their loyalty was somewhere else. To Jewish writers who made fun of German patriotism. Take away the provocation and the hatred goes with it.

Everything else follows from that. If Jews cause it, Jews can stop it. Naumann wrote it out in his first bulletin in September 1921: Every decent antisemite admits decent Jews exist but calls them exceptions, and he will stop being an antisemite once we prove “we are not a handful of deserters but an army.”

Read More

07/24 Links Pt1: Two Israelis killed in Samaria terrorist attack; ICC removes Karim Khan as prosecutor; Mojtaba Khamenei more interested in nuclear weapons than predecessor

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: We deserve better: Three years after October 7, Israel still waits for an investigation

Nearly three years after the October 7 massacre, Israelis are still waiting for one of the most basic obligations the outgoing government owes its citizens: A full, independent investigation into the worst security failure in the country’s history.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government informed the High Court of Justice that it will not be able to complete legislation establishing its proposed political commission to investigate the failures surrounding Hamas’s October 7 massacre.

In response to petitions challenging its failure to establish the probe, the government said the legislation would instead be completed after the October 27 elections. Further attacking the judiciary, it also argued that “it is not appropriate for the court to rule on the matter or intervene in it.”

The government’s explanation for the delay should be unacceptable to every Israeli.

Much has been argued – both in the Knesset and on Israel’s streets – over whether a political commission or a state commission of inquiry is the appropriate mechanism. The coalition has repeatedly opposed a state commission, standing firmly behind its objections to an independent inquiry.

Its first argument has been that it is impractical and inappropriate to investigate the events surrounding October 7 while Israel remains at war. The second is that Chief Justice Isaac Amit is not viewed as legitimate by many members of the coalition, raising concerns that any commission he appoints would lack public confidence among a significant segment of the public. 'Scheduling constraints' prevented Oct. 7 probe legislation finalization

Even if the government’s objections to a state commission are genuine, they still do not explain why it failed to follow through on its own proposal for a political probe – one specifically designed to address those concerns by replacing Supreme Court appointments to the committee with members selected through a Knesset-led process.

According to the government’s response to the High Court, the legislation could not be finalized because of “scheduling constraints.”

That justification is nothing short of insulting.

Members of this government have spent nearly three years hearing the pleas of bereaved families demanding a commission of inquiry. They have heard them inside the Knesset. They have heard them outside their homes and offices, where grieving relatives have stood for months demanding answers, accountability, and transparency.

Some of those Israelis lost sons, daughters, spouses, parents, and friends on October 7. Others fought for up to 505 days until their loved ones returned from Hamas captivity. All have carried an unimaginable burden while waiting for the state to confront its own failures.

Responding to those families by citing legislative scheduling conflicts is a slap in the face.

The explanation becomes even harder to accept when viewed alongside the coalition’s legislative blitz carried out during the Knesset’s final weeks before its dissolution.

In those weeks, the coalition found time to pass legislation it considered politically essential: A bill preventing the enforcement of draft orders against ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students, legislation enshrining Torah study as a fundamental value in Israel’s Basic Law, a bill restructuring the powers of the attorney-general, and sweeping reforms to Israel’s broadcasting sector.

In passing said bills, the government demonstrated that when legislation is considered urgent by the prime minister, it can move with remarkable speed.

Trump admin’s $200 million to Red Cross offers chance to press it over Oct. 7 hostages, B’nai B’rith tells JNS

The Trump administration should use Thursday’s announcement that it is providing more than $200 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, to demand that the ICRC “show accountability for its shameful performance during the Israeli hostage crisis,” Rabbi Eric Fusfield, director of legislative affairs at B’nai B’rith International, told JNS.

The U.S. State Department stated that the aid to the ICRC and IFRC will go toward disaster and humanitarian assistance. “Today’s contributions support organizations that respond quickly when disasters strike, provide unparalleled access to people in need in conflict settings, and leverage preexisting worldwide disaster and humanitarian response infrastructure,” it said.

Fusfield told JNS that “the ICRC failed every test with respect to Israelis held captive by Hamas terrorists.”

“They never met with the hostages, never assured them comfort or medical supplies, never demanded proof of life and never did anything to speed their release,” he said. “The ICRC has much to answer for, and the U.S. and the international community should demand those answers.”

Read More

The Phrase That Makes Antisemitism More Justified to the Left

Liberals have historically protested the loudest against prejudice of every kind. This includes traditional antisemitism of the "Elders of Zion" type, people targeting Jews because they are Jewish. 

Yet in the 30 months since October 2023, as antisemitic incidents in the United States have surged. Jews now the target of more raw hate crimes than any other group. we are not seeing anything close to a proportionate liberal outcry.

Why not?

A recent study, by psychologists Jordan Moon, Michael Barlev, and Steven Neuberg, helps explain. One reason, it turns out, is structural rather than incidental: hating Israel functions as a license for hating Jews, and it is a license that works almost exclusively on the political left.

The researchers asked 270 Americans to rate a series of fictional people, each described in a single sentence as disliking a minority group. One version read: "[Name] doesn't like Jews." No further explanation. Rated on a 7-point scale, this person was disliked by everyone — and disliked most by the most left-wing respondents in the study, more than by the more conservative ones. So far, the finding matches what everyone already believed: liberals are the most reliably intolerant of intolerance.

Then the researchers added six words: "...because [Name] strongly disapproves of Israel and its war in Gaza." 

This barely made a difference among the most conservative respondents. Liberal ratings, however, moved dramatically — from the single harshest judgment recorded anywhere in the study to a score statistically indistinguishable from how the most right-wing respondents treat an antisemite with a similar excuse.

Adding that phrase made the far-left's opinion of an antisemite rise to virtually the same level as the most far-right respondent. Those six words took the demographic most opposed to prejudice and made them, for that one sentence, essentially as forgiving of antisemites as their ideological opposites - an increase of about 1.5 points on a seven point scale from extreme dislike to extreme like for the most liberal.

No other prejudice showed a statistically significant shift when given similar justifications. 

It isn't that liberals have become generally tolerant of antisemitism — absent a justification, they remain its sharpest critics, by a wide margin, exactly as their reputation suggests. It's that one particular justification has been granted an exemption nothing else gets. The researchers tested a comparable excuse for anti-Black prejudice ("more likely to commit crime") and anti-Muslim prejudice ("culture conflicts with Western values"); neither moved liberal raters at all. Only the Israel-Gaza justification worked, and it worked by a wide margin, and it worked only on the left. 

Mediation analysis in the same study points to why: liberals who heard the Gaza justification inferred that the speaker shared their politics, and inferred he probably wasn't bigoted more generally — just narrowly focused on this one issue.

Interestingly, the word "Gaza" seems to be a major reason for the needle to move. When the wording of the justification was "because [Name] believes that Israel violates the human rights of Palestinians," there was still a liberal shift, but smaller. 

Generations of the mantra "anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism," produces this kind of result. Once a movement insists loudly enough that opposition to Israel carries no risk of being mistaken for hatred of Jews, it isn't just providing cover for people who already sincerely hold that distinction. It is training an entire audience — the audience claimed to be most committed to fighting prejudice — to suspend its own judgment about antisemitism the instant the word "Israel" enters the sentence. 

Which helps explain the increase of anti-Zionist attacks on synagogues.  Antisemitism is increasingly justified by antizionism. 

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

07/23 Links Pt2: Antizionism Kills: the danger of Zohran Mamdani; Jake Sullivan Can’t Sleep; Rachel Moiselle: Why Ireland Became Europe's Most Antisemitic Country

From Ian:

Due to blogger's wobbly, yesterday's (22nd) links are in the comments here.

NYPost Editorial: We know why Mamdani keeps banging the Israel drum — vibes are all he can offer his base

Mayor Zohran Mamdani finally felt compelled to admit he couldn’t order Benjamin Netanyahu arrested, so his consolation prize for his fanbase was a new Oval Office-style address late Tuesday where he repeated the whole litany of post-Oct. 7 pro-Hamas agitprop — without, of course, even mentioning the genuine atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023.

When you can’t deliver substance, go big on vibes.

The “arrest” thing was always pure fantasy, a story the global left-Islamist alliance tells itself about “international law.”

Neither the United States nor Israel ever signed on to the International Criminal Court under which the bogus “indictment” was laid; indeed US law forbids honoring any ICC warrants.

If Mamdani didn’t know the truth before Tuesday, it’s because he didn’t want to; either way, he kept talking about arresting Netanyahu because the idea cheers his pals and irritates his enemies.

Which is why the “oops, I can’t” speech had to repeat all the “genocide” lies in spurious detail, including fury over a starvation that never happened and a slaughter of aid workers that never took place.

From the start of his campaign, Mamdani’s mayoralty has rested on visions of magically transforming New York City into a Big Rock Candy Mountain of free stuff, social revolution and bitter tears for the enemies of the socialist agenda: homeowners, rich white people, Zionists.

But delivering on his material promises is another matter.

Mamdani’s Netanyahu bluster is a smokescreen for his real goal: crushing Americans’ freedom

For 25 years, US administrations on both sides of the political aisle shared the concern that corrupt nations would use the court to bypass the fairest justice system in the world and subject Americans to politically motivated prosecutions.

As a result, the court holds no power or legal authority over our nation.

After all, we have the US Constitution.

Article II gives the president primary control over foreign affairs, and the Supremacy Clause means that federal law overrides state or city actions in that arena.

The Founders vested this power in the federal government alone, specifically to prevent rogue local officials like Zohran Mamdani from dragging the nation into diplomatic disasters.

Moreover, the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 blocks state or local agencies from cooperating with the ICC.

Congress passed the ASPA precisely because lawmakers feared ICC harassment of American troops and officials for political reasons.

Mamdani knew all this — and that, under New York State law, he’d have been exposed to possible criminal prosecution for unlawful imprisonment or official misconduct if he actually ordered Netanyahu’s arrest.

So on Tuesday, he had no choice but to roll back this particular Trojan horse he’s been using to conceal his real agenda.

For him, this episode was just the first skirmish of a much longer war.

He was testing globalization’s dangerous waters by using an easy scapegoat, Israel’s Netanyahu, for cover.

And now everyday Americans will be the guinea pigs for his project.

This is a long play: If Mamdani’s advocacy succeeds and American mayors and governors start acting on ICC papers, it hands legitimacy to a corrupt foreign court — and to adversaries that could target our service members with warrants at home and abroad.

Mamdani was willing to demand the arrest of a foreign head of state under ICC law, and on Tuesday he indicated he would advocate the same for his constituents who are subject to ICC warrants.

The recent incident at Park East Synagogue was instructive.

When members held an event about Israel inside its doors, Mamdani allies attacked it — and Mamdani himself used ICC propaganda to blame the victims for being harassed.

The mayor’s willingness to weaponize ICC decrees against New Yorkers engaging in First Amendment protected activities was shocking and dangerous.

On Tuesday, he made his mission and agenda clear: He wants foreign governance supplanting US sovereignty.

He’s advocating a globalized rule of law influenced by adversarial nations to “impart justice” on Americans.

Our service members, leaders and everyday citizens will be left vulnerable to the weaponized warrants of nations that despise us if he gets his way.

A mayor playing diplomat to appease a radical base is dangerous enough.

But a mayor actively working to erode the sovereignty that protects his constituents is a threat to the republic itself.

Huckabee calls Mamdani an ‘evil antisemite’

U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee lashed out at New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday, calling him an “evil antisemite” in the wake of his recorded message branding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “war criminal.”

“Would be easy to say NY Mayor is just an ignorant bigot, but he is not dumb,” Huckabee tweeted.

“He’s an evil anti-Semite who deliberately lies about serious things like ‘genocide’ to stoke Jew hate. If anyone should be arrested, it’s the Mayor of NY for incitement. NYC should be ashamed,” the diplomat said.

Eve Barlow: Antizionism Kills: the danger of Zohran Mamdani

I am a British Jew who fled antizionism in 2014. I told my story. I am calling upon you: Soviet Jews, Yemeni Jews, Iraqi Jews, Egyptian Jews, Libyan Jews, Polish Jews. We need your stories. I cannot tell them for you. Tell your story of fleeing antizionism. The same sickness with the same lies of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “colonizing” is spreading like wildfire in an ignorant America among the same racists who pushed you to flee. The same lies recycled - lies that existed decades before any war in Gaza. The ignorant do not know. They are on social media. Tell your story. I will share it. We need your testimony. Do not hide. I need you. We all do.

Today is Tisha B’Av; the day many Jews partake in fasting to mourn the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by our enemies. Last night, Mamdani did as predicted. To prove he is not an antisemite, he tweeted a sunny Tisha B’Av greeting to Jewish New Yorkers, wishing them a peaceful fast and reflecting on Jewish resiliency, mere hours after calling their people’s elected leader a war criminal who should be arrested. This is an abuse tactic known as narcissistic love bombing. Mamdani may pretend he’s no antisemite, but he is proudly antizionist. Antizionism is racism. Name it.

It is mad living in a time when those of us with pattern recognition and strong lived experience look at Mamdani and the DSA and see the Cold War, while the progressives see utopia. There is a smokescreen between us and them, and we are so behind in figuring out how to bring the wall down.

Antizionism is not criticism of a government. It is the organized denial of Jewish self-determination - the only people on earth whose right to a state is treated as uniquely illegitimate. No other nation is subjected to this singular campaign of eliminationist rhetoric. It is Jew-hatred with a progressive veneer, and it kills. It kills by gaslighting victims into silence. It kills by normalizing the idea that Jewish self-defense is the real crime. It kills by creating the moral permission structure for the next October 7, the next synagogue attack, the next Jewish student forced to hide their identity.

Listen to Jews, or make the same mistake the German citizens of 1938 made while that era’s charming violent man smiled for the cameras.

One day it will be as shameful to have been an antizionist in this period as it was to have been a Nazi in the 1930s. The patterns are the same. The cult is the same. The stakes are civilizational. Shake off your attachment. Antizionism is a hate movement. And hate, when left unchallenged, always kills.

Please watch this video, maybe my most important to date, and share it as widely as you possibly can. We are in big, big trouble. Jeremy Corbyn was a mere chopped liver cracker in comparison.

Read More

07/23 Links Pt1: Americans Keep Buying the Same Used Car from Iran; Trump: US-Saudi nuclear deal contingent on Abraham Accords acceptance

From Ian:

Due to blogger's wobbly, yesterday's (22nd) links are in the comments here.

Iran Must Never Have a Nuclear Weapon

For months, the Commander-in-Chief has repeated a clear endstate: Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon. That objective is the only outcome consistent with American security, Israeli survival, and the prevention of nuclear-armed theocratic blackmail of the global energy system.

Iran's nuclear program is not a technical problem that can be solved by bombing centrifuges or stockpiles. It is a political-military program driven by a regime whose founding ideology and operational doctrine treat the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a means to destroy Israel and, ultimately, confront the U.S. As long as that leadership remains, the program can be reconstituted.

The June 2025 U.S.-Israeli strikes and the far larger February 2026 campaign severely damaged Natanz, Fordow, and related sites. Yet, the regime's scientific cadre, its archival blueprints, and its procurement networks survived. With residual scientists, data, and institutional knowledge intact, Iran can drastically shrink the timeline to a nuclear weapon in the near future despite recent setbacks.

"Managing" or "monitoring" the regime over time is a strategic illusion. It places the burden of eternal vigilance on future administrations that may lack the will, the congressional majorities, or the public support to act when Iran next sprints for the bomb. We have already watched this movie with North Korea. The difference is that a nuclear North Korea can be contained; a nuclear Iran cannot.

The permanent elimination of the regime's nuclear weapons ambition is achievable only by removing the regime that harbors it. Unconditional surrender of the Axis powers in 1945 is the relevant historical precedent. Germany and Japan were not "managed." Their regimes were destroyed, their ideologies discredited, and their war-making capacity permanently dismantled.

Leaving the Iranian regime in power after we have already killed its Supreme Leader and degraded its military is not prudence; it is strategic incoherence. Continuing to pursue diplomatic settlements with a proven non-compliant actor simply defers the day of reckoning.

Americans Keep Buying the Same Used Car from Iran

In Washington, negotiations are viewed as a pathway to an agreement. In Tehran, negotiations are viewed as another means of waging conflict. For Americans, an agreement represents the finish line. For the Iranian regime, it is, at most, an interim waypoint. Americans seek a resolution; Iranians seek an advantage.

For more than four decades, every time the U.S. has sought progress, the same Iranian "hardliners" have suddenly emerged as obstacles that must be appeased. Another small concession. Another limited sanctions waiver. Another symbolic gesture. Only then, perhaps, can the talks continue. From the Iranian perspective, this is the negotiating strategy.

There is little sense of defeat in Tehran. The regime's internal narrative is one of resilience. From the regime's perspective, the mere fact that the world's leading superpower continues to seek its consent constitutes a psychological and strategic victory in its own right. The U.S. increasingly appears to be responding to a tempo set by Tehran. Instead of rewriting the rules of the game, it seeks to negotiate more favorable terms within the existing framework.

In nearly every negotiating cycle, Americans convince themselves that an agreement is just around the corner, while Iranian leaders conclude that a little more patience will improve their bargaining position even further. Perhaps the question in Washington should no longer be, "What new proposal should we put forward?" Instead, policymakers should ask, "Why do we continue to assume that the other side views negotiations as serving the same purpose that we do?"

An operational alternative does exist. The U.S. possesses ample military capabilities to place overwhelming pressure on the Iranian regime. Rather than pursuing a costly ground invasion, Washington could impose a sustained maritime blockade.

Such an approach, however, would require strategic patience, political endurance, and a willingness to absorb retaliatory costs - qualities that successive American administrations have lacked. Consequently, the U.S. will most likely pursue yet another negotiated agreement.

Netanyahu’s insistence offers a clear hint of what lies ahead

“Call us when you’re serious,” U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in the early 1990s.

Under the current Republican administration, with the current Likud prime minister, Washington is still answering the phone. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump are speaking, although no longer every day.

Something has been amiss in relations between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office since the war with Iran became more complicated. The president’s inner circle is smaller and more closed than in previous administrations, and gaining access to it has become increasingly difficult. The Americans are making it clear to the Israelis that they are running the war and that everything is fine, thank you very much. But it is evident to everyone that Israel is moving into the back seat.

As a seasoned politician, Netanyahu presumably knows how to recognize deliberate distancing. One example came when Vice President JD Vance said, “Israel’s standing in America is not good, and I don’t think anyone can dispute that.” Last week, Vance had already made clear that he occupied the “sensible center,” between those who see Israel as a problem and those who see it as an asset. That is interesting, but the president’s silence is even more so.

And then there is Saudi Arabia. This week, Trump granted the kingdom the civilian nuclear program it had long sought, contrary to Israel’s position and without the broader package deal Israel had wanted. Former President Joe Biden held up a similar move in an effort to link that incentive to the Abraham Accords. His successor went ahead without tying the two together. Lindsey Graham must surely be turning in his grave.

This is already the second time that has happened. After all, lifting the sanctions on Syria also eliminated the possibility of securing a peace agreement with Israel. And all this is unfolding while the departure of Wing of Zion, Israel’s official aircraft for the prime minister and president, is delayed again and again.

The situation also has implications for the election.

I once heard a campaign strategist say that as far as Israelis are concerned, everything happening in the Middle East is foreign news until missiles begin landing here.

Mossad says it foiled Iranian plot to infiltrate Israel, attack senior officials

Working with foreign intelligence services, Israel foiled an Iranian plot to send operatives into Israel to harm senior Israeli officials, the Mossad intelligence agency said in a statement on Thursday.

The effort, led by Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, involved turning to criminal organizations, who would in turn recruit people inside Israel or who could enter Israel for gathering intelligence on a target, then carrying out an attack.

Two criminals living in Iran under the protection of the Intelligence Ministry — Baba Mahuzadeh Haji Jafan, also known as “Babak”; and Mehmet Nadim Ya’it, also known as “Nadim” — recruited Turut Ozkor, a criminal living in France who went by the nickname “Philip.”

The handlers of Babak and Nadim in the Iranian Intelligence Ministry are named by the Mossad as Asadollah Behzad Oskhari, Vahid Matzoumi, Mohammad-Hossein Zoghi and Hamid Qasemi.

Oskhari was killed in Israel’s 12-day bombing campaign against Iran in 2025 and was a key figure in plots to attack Jewish and Israeli targets worldwide, said the Mossad.

Philip was tasked with recruiting a cell of foreign nationals who would enter Israel, it added.

He traveled to Iran on several occasions to meet handlers and be paid, according to the statement.

Philip was expelled by France, while Babak and Nadim remain in Iran.

“Despite the attempt to avoid an Iranian fingerprint, the proxy method repeatedly demonstrates the carelessness of the operatives on the ground, leading to the exposure of their handlers in Iran,” said the Mossad.

The Mossad worked with Shin Bet and foreign intelligence agencies to uncover the network, the statement added.

Read More

This is the kind of "barbarity" we need more of - Thousands of Jews visit the Temple Mount

From Jordan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Affairs has condemned the extremist Israeli Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, and a number of members of the Knesset and extremist settlers who stormed the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Quds Al-Sharif, under the protection of the Israeli occupation police, and the attacks on worshippers, and the provocative actions of extremists and the police, and raising Israeli flags, and inciting groups; a blatant violation of the historical and legal status of the holy Al-Haram Al-Sharif, and desecration of the sanctity of the mosque, and a blatant escalation, and a barbaric behavior, and unacceptable provocation.

Here's the Arab News edit of this blatant desecration and barbarism:

Jews walking around and singing. 

To large swaths of Muslims, Jews breathing is "barbaric behavior."  After all, the videos they show to prove that Jews are insulting them, "storming," acting "barbarically," never show anything more than Jews respectfully praying and touring the Temple Mount. 

Arabs have mounted attacks on Israelis from their "holy Al-Aqsa Mosque." They play soccer and volleyball and parkour. The only reason the police restricted Muslim entry today is because they wanted to ensure that the Jews wouldn't be attacked. 

Christians visit the Temple Mount. Jews visit the Temple Mount. They are not the ones who act barbarically.

But if this is barbarism, we need to see much more of it. 

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Urologist Concerned About Congregant’s Premature ‘Amen’ (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook  and  Substack pages.

Jerusalem, July 23 - A local physician who regularly attends the same morning service has started worrying about another attendee who cannot seem to wit until the end of someone else's benediction before blurting out the response, the doctor disclosed today.

Dr. Efraim Shohat, 60, voiced his concern today that another everyday participant in the 7:00 AM Shaharit minyan at the Shtiblach synagogue in the Katamon neighborhood almost always blurts out "Amen!" prematurely, before anyone reciting a blessing or other passage has finished - and the urologist fears that such prematurity plagues the man in other parts of his life.

"I'm trained to diagnose and treat a very specific set of dysfunctions," Dr Shohat explained. "Most of my patients are men with one or more of a narrow group of... performance problems. The tendency here is clear, and I hope that man has gone to see a competent diagnostician about his specific issue."

Standard Jewish practice calls for one who hears a benediction to wait for its completion before affirming it with an "Amen." Ancient scholars cautioned against saying the word before ascertaining the acceptability of whatever is recited, an important safeguard in a world that still featured rampant idolatry and the invocation of those false gods in liturgy, as well as concern that the unscrupulous might insert offensive material into statements ostensibly geared toward divine praise.

Through the generations, spiritual leaders have further refined the sensibilities surrounding Amen, even associating a premature Amen with the premature death of one's loved ones. Dr. Shohat preferred to focus on the more immediate, clinical implications of the phenomenon.

"It's been at least four months since I first noticed," he recalled. "In that time, you'd think this man would realize he needs to seek treatment, or at least get himself checked out. And maybe a competent treatment plan would have kicked in by now. But I see no progress, and it's raising my hackles. I wonder whether I should say something."

The doctor has made observations of this nature before, but not with the same level of recurring concern. During the communal readings of the book of Esther that take place on Purim, a custom has developed of "erasing the name of Amalek" by making noise at each mention of the Amalekite villain Haman. However, the core observance involves hearing every word of the text, and many attendees fail to wait until the reader has finished saying "Haman" before making the customary racket, often involving yelling epithets. Shohat has remarked on those premature ejaculations along similar lines.

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

The New York Times' One-Scholar Consensus on Genocide

Argumentum ad verecundiam is also known as "appeal to authority," that an argument should be believed because the person making it is an expert.

An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when expertise is presented as a substitute for evidence, or when the authority's conclusion is treated as dispositive without engaging competing evidence or expert disagreement. Beyond that, it is a tacit admission that the argument itself is weak enough that the arguer must shore it up with his or her credentials.

The New York Times has used Omer Bartov for argumentum ad verecundiam four times in headlines on his op-eds in the New York Times.

I searched the New York Times Opinion archives for comparable first-person headlines built around professional authority ("I'm a...," "As a...," etc.). While doctors, economists, and other experts occasionally reference their professions, I could not find another topic in which the newspaper repeatedly made the author's credentials themselves the central persuasive device in the headline.

Genocide scholarship is not unanimous. Numerous genocide scholars, international lawyers, military law experts, and historians dispute Bartov's conclusions. Yet the Times repeatedly presents Bartov's expertise as if it settles the matter. The New York Times doesn't give those who disagree op-ed space as guest columnists, let alone a headline announcing their expertise. (Columnists like Bret Stephens have argued against the genocide accusation.) 

The New York Times repeatedly promotes one side of a highly contested scholarly and legal question by emphasizing one author's credentials rather than foregrounding the evidence or acknowledging substantial expert disagreement.

Any newspaper may occasionally highlight an author's expertise. But four separate headlines over less than three years using essentially the same rhetorical device for the same author on the same controversial issue suggest something more than coincidence. They reflect an editorial decision to encourage readers to weigh Bartov's credentials as evidence for his conclusions rather than simply presenting his arguments for evaluation.

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

07/21 Links Pt2: The Church of England has betrayed British Jews – again; Australia has ‘disturbing parallels’ with Nazi Germany; The lies behind Mamdani’s Netanyahu stunt are the real threat

From Ian:

The Dangers of Dog Whistles

Political scientists describe the range of ideas treated as acceptable in mainstream discourse as the Overton window, and coded language is one of the most efficient tools for shifting the window over time. A claim too radioactive to state directly gets introduced in euphemism, absorbed as normal, and then, because it no longer shocks, becomes available for a more overt statement by the next speaker. Researchers tracking this pattern have pointed to figures like Tucker Carlson, who took replacement theory language from its fringe, explicitly anti-Jewish origins and delivered a version of it, describing an effort to “replace the current electorate… with new people… from the Third World,” to a mainstream cable audience. Carlson stripped most overt of the anti-Jewish framing but left its basic structure intact. Once that version is broadcast and normalized, the fuller, more explicit version becomes an easier next step for anyone already primed toward it.

The platforms that carry this language today reward exactly the dynamic that makes it dangerous. Long form, low pushback interview formats, hours of unchallenged conversation, are especially efficient vehicles, because ambiguous claims can be floated, sit unexamined by the host, and reach enormous audiences before anyone fact-checks them. Researchers who study platform radicalization describe a pipeline effect: audiences move from ambiguous, “just asking questions” content toward progressively more explicit material, because engagement driven recommendation systems reward escalation over caution. The mechanism doesn’t require any deliberate strategy on the part of a host or platform. It emerges naturally from incentives that favor the more provocative claim over the more careful one.

This is the sharpest edge of the danger, and it has a name. Stochastic terrorism describes how hostile rhetoric, repeated and amplified across media, statistically raises the likelihood that some unknown individual, somewhere, commits ideologically motivated violence, without any direct coordination or explicit instruction from the person whose rhetoric inspired it. The concept traces to a 2002 risk modeling paper by analyst Gordon Woo and was popularized in its current form around 2011. Researchers who study it describe a three part chain. An originator deploys hostile, coded rhetoric while maintaining plausible deniability. Amplifiers (media outlets, platforms, algorithms) repeat and spread the rhetoric. Receivers, individuals already primed by exposure to the underlying conspiracy, act on the rhetoric without ever having been in direct contact with the originator.

This isn’t an abstract model. Robert Bowers, who killed eleven people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, spent the weeks before the attack posting on the platform Gab that the refugee resettlement group HIAS “likes to bring invaders in that kill our people.” Bowers blended replacement theory anti-immigrant rhetoric with older conspiracy theories about George Soros and Jewish organizations secretly directing immigration policy with coded language he had absorbed, restated, and ultimately acted on. Months later, John Earnest opened fire at a synagogue in Poway, California, citing the same replacement theory framework and explicitly blaming Jews for orchestrating demographic change. Brenton Tarrant‘s 2019 Christchurch mosque attack manifesto was titled, without irony, “The Great Replacement.” Patrick Crusius, who killed twenty-three people in El Paso that same year, referenced a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas in language that drew on the same replacement framework, minus the explicitly anti-Jewish layer but built on the identical structure. None of these men were following direct orders from anyone. All of them were downstream of language that had been circulating in increasingly mainstream form for years before they picked up a weapon.

The scale of what that produces is measurable. The ADL’s 2024 audit recorded 9,354 anti-Jewish incidents in the United States, the highest total in the organization’s 46 year tracking history. This was a 5 percent rise over 2023, an increase of 344 percent over five years, and 893 percent increase over the past decade. Assaults rose 21 percent year over year, vandalism rose 20 percent, and incidents on college campuses rose 84 percent, now accounting for the highest share of total incidents on record. None of that traces to a single podcast episode or a single politician’s word choice. It traces to a decades long accumulation of coded and semi-coded language that made the underlying ideas feel, to enough people, like something other than what they actually are.

None of this means every use of a loaded word is evidence of bigotry, and it’s worth saying plainly that overcorrecting carries its own cost. “Globalist” is sometimes just a policy label. Skepticism about a specific intelligence agency’s conduct is not automatically an anti-Jewish accusation. Treating every instance of contested vocabulary as proof of hidden intent empties the term “dog whistle” of its actual meaning and makes it easier for bad faith critics to dismiss real instances as overreach. The useful distinction isn’t between words that are always innocent and words that are always coded. It’s between an isolated, ambiguous phrase and a documented pattern, repeated across time, drawing recognizably on a specific and traceable lineage, delivered to an audience where at least some listeners will receive the second meaning whether or not the speaker intended to send it.

That distinction is the actual danger of a dog whistle: not the phrase itself, but what repeated, deniable exposure to the phrase does over time. It reaches the people who already believe the conspiracy underneath it and gives them confirmation. It slowly acclimates a much larger audience that never consciously signs on to anything. And in the worst and rarest cases, it reaches the handful of listeners who decide the coded version was never coded enough and act on the plain meaning they hear underneath. Recognizing the vocabulary, knowing that “globalist” has a lineage running through Bannon back to Stalin’s purges, that “secret banker” runs through the Rothschild pamphlets to the Protocols, that “replacement” runs through Camus to Charlottesville to a string of synagogue and mosque shootings, isn’t about assuming bad faith in every speaker who reaches for a loaded word. It’s about being able to tell, over time and in aggregate, when a pattern with a documented, century-long track record is being repeated in front of an audience of millions, regardless of who happens to be holding the microphone that day.

The Church of England has betrayed British Jews – again

Endorsing Kairos II without this history of anti-Semitism would have been bad enough. But given the Christian church’s record of Jew hatred, voting in favour of this document makes it significantly worse. It has lent authority to the modern blood libel that Israel is deliberately murdering Palestinians as part of a genocidal campaign. Kairos II also leans on a theology in which Jesus is refashioned as a Palestinian martyr – a modern update of the medieval ‘Christ killer’ myth. It even offers moral cover for the 7 October massacres by framing them inside a narrative of righteous resistance.

The church’s endorsement of Kairos II has left Britain’s Jewish community shattered. UK chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said: ‘It is truly shocking that a document which purports to speak in the name of truth contains so much falsehood.’ He also warned that it risks undermining relations between Christians and Jews. Indeed, it already has.

Here is the double betrayal. The first victims are British Jews, watching an ancient institution rehabilitate a modernised version of the oldest lies in Christian anti-Semitism. The second victim is less discussed but no less wronged: Middle Eastern Christians. Kairos II places the blame for Christian suffering on Israel, while staying entirely silent on the reasons Christian populations have collapsed across the Palestinian territories. It is a silent exodus driven only partially by the conflict, but also by land-grabbing from Muslim clans, as well as extortion and Sharia-based discrimination under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. It says nothing about the Christians harassed out of Bethlehem and Gaza by their own neighbours. Instead, it pins the blame exclusively on the Jews.

With a few honourable exceptions, Synod chose to ignore the fact that one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab Christians hold full rights, worship freely and are growing rather than vanishing is Israel. That isn’t the case in the Palestinian territories, and legitimising this text does nothing to improve the lives or safety of Christians in the region.

History shows us that poisonous documents like Kairos II seldom remain theoretical. They outlive those who draw them up and can even end in bloodshed. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion – which gave rise to the belief that influential Jews rule the world – remains popular, particularly in Muslim countries in the Middle East. Let’s be under no illusion: by promoting Kairos II, at a time of unprecedented anti-Semitism and rising threats to British Jews, the church has chosen to fan the flames of prejudice.

The church didn’t have to choose. It could have stood with persecuted Christians in the Middle East by naming their actual, Islamist persecutors and taken a position more conducive to genuine peace in the Middle East. Instead, the church has reached for that trusty old hatchet: it’s all the fault of the Jews.

Where does new UK premier Andy Burnham stand on Israel and antisemitism?

Recent comments on Gaza
Burnham has been critical of Israel’s military campaign in the aftermath of October 7. He doubled down in a leadership campaign video released last week and took his own party to task.

He condemned Hamas and once again rejected antisemitism, but he argued Britain should “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” including considering further restrictions on arms exports and action against illegal West Bank settlements.

“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that,” he said. The party was “too slow to call for a ceasefire.”

He called images from Gaza “a scar on our collective conscience.”

His comments reflect a parliamentary push across the board that Britain should do more to take action against Israel, including supporting a ban on all Israeli goods coming from the West Bank — something that Ireland and other European countries have been pushing for.

In his video, Burnham stopped short of describing Israel’s actions as genocide, saying that such a determination should be made by international courts.

Mixed reaction in Jewish community
The video drew a swift response from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council. Burnham had seen “first hand the links between hatred of Israel, antisemitic extremism and deadly violence against British Jews,” the groups said.

They urged Burnham and other political leaders to “show the utmost care in their rhetoric” at a time when antisemitism in Britain had become “more normalized, more extreme and more violent.”

British Jews will watch closely how Burnham balances his longstanding engagement with the Jewish community and his increasingly critical stance toward the Israeli government. Members of the Jewish community watch as forensic officers search the area after two people were stabbed in north London’s Golders Green neighborhood, on April 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

The Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Chief Executive Gideon Falter read aloud an open letter to Burnham on Monday calling on him to take a stand against the rise in antisemitism in the country.

“Your legacy will not be remembered solely in terms of tax rates and hospital waiting times,” Falter said. “It will be whether Jews were murdered or thrived in Andy Burnham’s Britain.”

Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg congratulated Burnham on X, and welcomed the new prime minister’s “early commitment to tackling antisemitism,” and that the Board “will work with his administration towards the UK playing its strongest role in global peace and security.”

Ephraim Mirvis, the country’s chief rabbi, posted a photo on X of himself and Burnham and offered a blessing.

“He assumes the immense responsibility of leadership at a time of great challenge, both at home and abroad,” Mirvis said. “May he be blessed with the wisdom, strength and good judgment to keep our country safe and may his service bring prosperity and harmony for all.”

Read More

07/21 Links Pt1: What the U.S. and Iran Are Fighting Over; Foreign Threats Breed Self-Sufficiency; The inconvenient truth about Gaza’s ability to govern; The UN Has Run Out of Alibis

From Ian:

Is an Abraham Security Alliance Possible in the Middle East?

Is a greater Middle East security alliance, encompassing Israel, Lebanon, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and beyond, a realistic prospect? Or will Hamas- and PLO-supporting Turkey replace Israel as the U.S. administration's preferred regional partner?

In his address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in July 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu floated an "Abraham Security Alliance," a NATO-style framework open to states that "have made peace with Israel and those that will."

In February 2026, Netanyahu unveiled what strategists call the "Hexagon Alliance": Israel's technological and security core, linked to India's manufacturing weight, Greek and Cypriot Mediterranean corridors, Emirati economic channels, and Somaliland's Red Sea oversight. Lebanon has since agreed to direct negotiations with Israel. Syria's al-Sharaa government has held direct dialogue with Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, there appears to be a strategic shift inside the U.S. administration: beyond personal rapport between Trump and Erdogan, there is a growing view that Turkey can assume roles Israel has traditionally played, engaging Arab states wary of Iran. Ankara is exploiting this opening, positioning itself as the Islamic world's next leader, replacing the Iranian regime's role as regional hegemon and becoming Israel's principal long-term strategic competitor.

Despite Turkey's upgraded military presence in the Middle East and East Africa, Erdogan has not operationalized his threats on Israel. He has avoided military confrontation thus far, and has refrained from disrupting Israeli operations in Syria, despite housing and training Hamas on Turkish soil. Notwithstanding Turkey's malign regional behavior, the U.S. administration still is considering Turkey as a politically "lower-cost" regional security manager.

If the Abraham Security Alliance is to mean anything beyond aspirational rhetoric, the U.S. must expand the Abraham Accord alliances. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Somaliland, Greece, Cyprus, and others are realistic candidates. However, the expanded security alliance will depend on a strong U.S., Israel, and Gulf Arab foundation that would be shaken by Turkey's neo-Ottoman imperial ambitions and destabilizing influence.

Foreign Threats Breed Self-Sufficiency

There are people who imagine that cutting American aid would irreparably damage the Jewish state. Yet Israel defeated the Arabs in June 1967, again, as it did in 1948, without any U.S.-supplied weapons.

Precisely because of Israel's long history of denials and embargoes by the British and U.S. governments, its nine million people are enough to support disproportionately large and diverse military industries.

This state of nine million is one that can research, develop and manufacture the world's heaviest battle tank, a full range of tactical and strategic missiles, and the interceptors that inaugurated humanity's first instance of space warfare two years ago.

Israelis reacted to the start of U.S. military aid after the Six-Day War with deep, genuine gratitude, eagerly pursuing any opportunity to reciprocate.

Israel's Mossad was inside the Soviet Union, which the CIA could only watch from afar, and offered up all it uncovered.

After its October 1973 tank-warfare victories, Israel supplied the U.S. Army's tacticians with every bit of data for their, and NATO's, revolutionary "fight outnumbered and win" manuals, explicitly based on the desperate Golan Heights fight in which 200 Israeli tanks destroyed four times as many Soviet-built Syrian tanks.

In my many encounters in Israel over the years, I have heard a great eagerness to contribute Israel's research and development talents, whose fruits are now built into some of the most capable U.S. weapons, most conspicuously in the F-35 fighter jet, whose innovative helmet-mounted piloting system was entirely developed in Israel.

Israel's pilots sat in their cockpits for hours to reach and bomb Iran's distant missile launchers, which were attacking U.S. bases and U.S. allies, as well as Israel itself.

Israel would never refuse any military help it could provide, as countless U.S. officers have known for decades.

Michael Doran: What the U.S. and Iran Are Fighting Over

Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is a die-hard jihadi. For him, the officials negotiating with Washington serve as infidel handlers: officials who translate the demands of the IRGC into language acceptable to Western diplomats.

The IRGC struck ships that transited the Strait of Hormuz without coordinating with it to enforce Vahidi's interpretation of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in mid-June. Vahidi never accepted the U.S. view that Iran would reopen the strait and treat it as an international waterway rather than a sovereign asset.

Trump has opted for a campaign of calibrated escalation designed to force Vahidi to accept the American definition of the MoU, seeking to impose enough pain to make the status quo untenable without igniting a wider regional war. But this theory expects Vahidi to place the welfare of Iranian society above the institutional interests of the IRGC.

Trump's ongoing campaign is unlikely to eliminate the drone threat. Intermittent drone attacks on commercial shipping are enough to drive insurers from the market and achieve severe disruption. Vahidi recently struck a desalination plant in Kuwait with ballistic missiles that are also hard to eradicate.

This reveals how profoundly warfare has changed. The era in which U.S. airpower could rapidly neutralize a regional adversary at acceptable cost is ending. It is being replaced by a more contested, attritional environment in which weaker states can buy time and impose significant costs.

These battlefield realities are already reshaping American strategy. Washington will increasingly prize allies that possess battle-tested militaries, functioning defense industries, advanced intelligence, and practical experience defeating missiles, drones, and hardened targets. It will prize, above all, allies that help the U.S. understand and counter the emerging Sino-Russian-Iranian military system. Israel meets those criteria. Very few others do.

Read More

Some everyday antisemitism in Egypt's venerable Al Ahram newspaper

Ashraf Abdel Moneim writes in Al Ahram that Israel is trying to characterize the seven front war it is in as a religious war.

He quotes Netanyahu from October 7, 2023 saying that Israel is in a war. Specifically, he said, "Citizens of Israel, we are at war. Not in an operation, not in rounds of fighting—we are at war."

Somehow, Moneim then goes on a lengthy description of the halachic differences between a religiously obligational war and a discretionary war, claiming that Israel is falsely positioning the wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere as obligatory. But Netanyahu never used that terminology - this idea is simply made up. 

It is the last paragraph that shows that this is not meant to be a sober analysis of how Jewish Israelis view war. 

Numerous arguments and sophistries force us into a contemporary reality with a people who never tire of invoking the tricks of their forefathers—the Sabbath-breakers. These were the people whom God forbade fishing on the Sabbath, yet they resorted to a superficial trick: they set their nets on Friday to trap the fish, then proceeded to catch them on Sunday—thinking they had deceived God and circumvented His purpose. But this trait seems deeply ingrained in them; the text forbids them from waging an expansionist war except under strict conditions and in purely defensive circumstances. So they manipulate the situation by fabricating an existential threat, then play with terminology, oscillating between a "religious war" and an "expansionist war," thus fulfilling the condition formally and legally... to benefit from its advantages!

The Sabbath-breaker story is in the Quran and elaborated in hadiths. It is about a community of Jews who lived by the sea but Allah tested them by having the fish only appear on the Sabbath when fishing is not allowed. Some of the Jewish fishermen defied Allah and set traps on Friday to catch the fish on the Sabbath, ignoring warnings from others in the community. Eventually, Allah lost patience and turned them (and those who did not object)  into monkeys. 

Moneim is comparing Netanyahu's fictional use of the words "obligatory war" for a war of expansion as a modern way that Jews try to violate God's commandments.

The irony is that Moneim is wrong about the Sabbath and wrong about the war. 

There is nothing that stops a Jew from setting a trap before the Sabbath to catch animals and collect them afterwards. This is explicit in the Mishnah; the only disagreement is whether the traps should be set early enough to theoretically catch animals before the Sabbath (Beit Shammai) or can be placed immediately beforehand (Beit Hillel and normative halacha.)  The authors of the Quran seem to have been familiar with Talmudic sources, so they should have known this — they may have made up the halacha to illustrate the made-up story, which exists nowhere but the Quran. 

And attacking an enemy that not only attacked you first, but has stated its intent to continue to do so, is without a doubt an obligatory defensive war under halacha, even though Netanyahu did not use that language.

The lesson? Don't trust antisemitic Muslim scholars to define Jewish law (or history) for you. 

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More