Saturday, September 19, 2026

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.
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.

Friday, September 18, 2026

  • Friday, September 18, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon

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?


 


From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: Ed Sheeran, Macklemore and the tyranny of the Israel-haters
So that's it: you're not even allowed two hours off from Israel-hate. You can't even go to an Ed Sheeran concert without being lectured about what a barbarous state Israel is. It's not enough that our streets have fallen to zombie armies of Gazaholics and that our social-media feeds froth with anti-Israel invective. Now even Ed Sheeran must come with a side order of Jew State bashing.

People are alarmed that American rapper Macklemore has been ditched as the opening act on Sheeran's U.S. tour, after he barked "Free Palestine" and wanged on about Israel's "genocide" to 90,000 Sheeran fans at the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Is nowhere safe from the marauding moralism of our insufferable cultural elites?

Then Sheeran's other support acts walked out in solidarity with Macklemore. His backing band walked, too. It will just be Sheeran and his guitar at this rate, which, to be fair, he's done before. If the whole tour falls apart, it would be a fitting if grim tribute to the joy-sucking dogmatism of Israelophobia. Music burnt at the altar of ideology. How very Hamas.

Isn't there something creepy, even a little authoritarian, about turning a middle-of-the-road pop gig into a neo-Nuremberg rally against the Jewish State? Israelophobes have a Tourette's-like urge to blab their puffed-up virtue to every poor soul they meet. I'd be fuming if I got dressed up for a night of harmless pop, only to find myself being harangued by a nerd about the murderous lunacy of the Jewish nation.

Palestinianism has become a neo-religion, seeking to conquer every nook and cranny of public life. If you don't go along, you'll be branded a genocide denier, even as "complicit" in the crime of the century. Like all cults, the Gaza cult splits us into the enlightened and the damned. Sheeran is being damned all over X as a genocide apologist. And all because he failed to meekly, compliantly bow down to the truthless commandments of the Gaza cult.
Good Riddance to Macklemore
The rapper Macklemore has now been booted as Ed Sheeran's opening act. At New Jersey's MetLife Stadium, Macklemore devoted most of his set to prattling about Gaza, ululating about Palestine, and praising the terrorist sympathizers on American college campuses. It's tempting to laugh off the whole kerfuffle as yet another case of a very minor artist suffering from very major delusions of self-importance. But l'affaire Macklemore teaches us important lessons.

Macklemore has spent the last several years repeatedly and shrilly calling on artists to boycott Israel. He even wrote a song dedicated to championing the BDS movement, which promotes sanctions against the Jewish state. Now that he's received a taste of his own medicine, he's crying foul and claiming to be a victim. He's anything but. If the culture you help create calls for canceling those whose opinions you don't like, don't be surprised if you too are canceled one day.

Once upon a time, the performers we hailed were the ones who could actually do something: sing, dance, act and move us with their art. Like other preening pro-Palestine provocateurs, Macklemore's true art is stirring up cheap controversy by trying to cower others into submission.

It's a very good strategy for mediocre entertainers, who can get famous quick by pretending to be great moral crusaders and plugging into hot-button political issues they barely understand. But it's terrible for everyone else because it hijacks truth and beauty and turns every aspect of life into an ugly, muddy political battlefield.
Nicole Lampert: The Mackle-morons are not supporting justice, but hatred
Their historical illiteracy and ignorance were summed up by Irish singer Aaron Rowe, who said: “As Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine and violent occupation. I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage murder of children.”

It is worth mentioning that not a single cry of Free Palestine has ever helped the Palestinians. In fact, by perpetuating what Palestinian intellectual Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib calls the “resistance narrative” – the idea that if the Palestinians keep trying to kill Israelis, they will somehow get their state – it has only made life more difficult for them.

And their demand for freedom of speech is highly selective. None of these musicians, as far as I know, spoke up when British band Oi Va Voi was cancelled from UK venues because their singer is Israeli, when Radiohead star Jonny Greenwood had to cancel gigs because of security threats to his Israeli partner, when Boy George was forced out of a musical for singing “I stand with the Jews”, or when Róisín Murphy dared to speak up against the medicalisation of trans kids.

They pose as free speech martyrs, but like Irish band Kneecap and English rappers Bob Vylan, who found fame thanks to their anti-Zionism, Macklemore may find the pro-Palestine grift is lucrative. He has already gained more than one million followers on Instagram since the fuss started.

Kneecap’s manager Daniel Lambert, meanwhile, exposed the obsessive hatred that gives the Free Palestine movement rocket fuel, in a statement oozing with the kind of tropes that a neo-Nazi would be proud of: “As Jewish billionaires who control America and fund the IDF decide who can and who can’t perform despite breaking no laws…The IDF is still murdering kids.”

This is also the thing about being Jewish when someone begins a “Free Palestine” chant. Either you suck it up, or perhaps silently leave, knowing they will do the same to others tomorrow. Or you try and stop it and get accused of having too much control, of too much power. Heads you lose, tails they win.
From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The malignancy of the left
Sometimes, a curtain draped across a mirror is torn aside, and a horrified public suddenly glimpses what it has become.

Two things happened this week which briefly interrupted the smooth acceleration of pathological Jew-hate in the West.

A film called “NAZA” won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival. It was directed by journalist-filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, radical anti-Israel activists with a long history of delegitimizing Israel through defamatory falsehoods, in conjunction with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, a byword for malevolent misreporting of the Jewish state.

“NAZA” is a Hebrew acronym for collateral damage or unintended civilian casualties. In war, such casualties are sadly inevitable. In the Gaza war, Israel reportedly achieved the lowest ratio of civilians to combatant deaths anywhere in the world because of the unprecedented measures it took to save civilian life wherever possible.

Yet the film claims that the Israel Defense Forces willfully caused widespread civilian deaths. Under the laws of war, armies must assess likely civilian casualties before striking military targets. The film misrepresents the IDF’s fulfilment of that duty as evidence that it intentionally subjected civilians to indiscriminate bombing.

Its shock value lay in its reliance upon voices it said belonged to members of the IDF’s crack intelligence division, Unit 8200. But these were anonymous voices, with no corroboration of who they were or even evidence of what they were claiming.

The second event was a horrifying report compiled by Britain’s Campaign Against Antisemitism revealing the systemic intimidation, threat and menace now confronting Jews who seek treatment from the National Health Service.

A Jewish cancer patient said that while removing a growth from his forehead, his surgeon told him that Jews shoot children “in the head or the legs” for “their own amusement.” A nurse said that a colleague made a Nazi salute shortly after finding out she was Jewish. A senior Jewish medical professor had received antisemitic death threats. A Jewish emergency worker was physically attacked by a colleague.

The CAA said that Jewish patients were terrified of their surgeons, and Jewish nurses and doctors were being pushed out of the hospitals to which they had devoted their lives.

These two things crossed a line.

In Israel, there’s been a seismic reaction against the film, with Abraham and Szor coming under pressure even from their comrades on the left.

That’s unprecedented. Israel has been profoundly changed by the enduring trauma of the Hamas-led atrocities on Oct. 7, 2023 and the war that followed. Israelis are painfully aware of the heroism of the IDF troops, so many of whom have lost their lives, limbs or mental stability in the desperate fight against a fanatical genocidal enemy—and who have now been trashed in this film, allegedly by their own brothers in arms.

Even in anti-Israel Britain, there’s been widespread shock over the discovery that British Jews are too frightened to go to the doctor or hospital because they fear they may be attacked or even killed under the surgeon’s knife or general anesthetic.

Both developments show that the West is in the grip of a pathology created by the alliance between left-wingers and Islamists. And some Israelis are themselves contaminated by this deadly sickness.
Monsters Welcome By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
Here’s something to think about: While European countries are slapping sanctions on Israel, they’re ramping up engagement (including on trade) with the Taliban. After the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, of course, the Taliban reimposed all sorts of horrors, including the legalization of violence against females and the vicious punishment of religious heretics.

But Europe is too upset with the democratic State of Israel to care about any of that.

I wrote about this very issue a year ago. Since then, Europe’s outreach to the Taliban has increased considerably. In June, Taliban officials met with EU leaders in Brussels for talks about sending Afghan asylum-seekers back home. This was the first time a formal EU delegation met with Afghanistan’s leaders since 2021. The Taliban came out of it boasting that normal consular relations with the EU are coming next.

Officials from the UK and other individual Western countries now routinely fly to Qatar to meet with Taliban representatives. The Afghan Consulate General in Bonn, Germany, is under Taliban control. And an official appointed by the Taliban serves as the first secretary at the Afghan Embassy in Oslo.

The trend toward normalizing relations with the Taliban stretches well beyond Europe. India recently waived sanctions on the Taliban foreign minister so he could travel to New Delhi for talks, and the country is reassessing sanctions on Afghanistan altogether.

Less surprising, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others haven’t hesitated to engage with the brutal regime. It’s not at all uncharacteristic of Iran to have sent its foreign minister to Afghanistan last year. Nor is it shocking that Russia is the only country in the world to officially recognize the Taliban.
Revealed: New Bank of England director referred to slain Hamas terrorists as ‘unarmed demonstrators’
The new non-executive director of the Bank of England, Paul Nowak, accused Israel of killing “unarmed demonstrators” in Gaza, one week after Hamas announced the vast majority of those shot were its members, the JC has found.

Nowak, who has been the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress since 2022, was given the top role at the central bank earlier this month by Chancellor John Healey.

The incident Nowak was apparently referring to in his tweet occurred on May 14, 2018, during protests in the Strip which were dubbed the “Great March of Return”.

A total of 62 Palestinians are reported to have been killed, which initially prompted controversy as they were unarmed.

However, on May 16, Hamas had stated in interviews that 50 of those killed were its members. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) similarly claimed three of the deceased.

Hamas official Salah Bardawil said during an interview on Palestinian television: “In the last rounds of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, 50 of the martyrs were Hamas and 12 from the people.

“I am giving you an official figure. 50 of the martyrs in the recent battle were from Hamas...

The announcement was widely reported by Israeli media, while a Hamas spokesman told CNN on May 18 that, while the exact numbers could not be confirmed, “the protests are peaceful and include all political and military factions”.

Nonetheless, on May 23 Nowak authored a tweet criticising then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in which he referenced the incident without mentioning the terrorist affiliations of those involved.

“Government in Brexit chaos. Unarmed demonstrators shot dead in Gaza. Iran nuclear deal undermined. Trade wars loom as a result of economic nationalism,” he wrote.

“Our Foreign Secretary’s priority? A personal jet. Oh and to be specific, one that isn’t painted grey.”

Nowak has also continued to post about the conflict in the years since.

On September 21 last year, the day the UK recognised a Palestinian state, Nowak tweeted: “Recognition of Palestine is a welcome and crucial step on the path to peace with a two-state solution at its heart.

“The UK government must now do all it can to ensure the Israeli government ends its assault on Gaza. Solidarity to our sister unions in Palestine."

Thursday, September 17, 2026

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook  and  Substack pages.



Judean Desert, September 17 - Throngs of area residents streamed toward a jagged cliffside east of Jerusalem today, to cheer on the rending limb from limb of a body thrown from a nearby promontory, only to discover, to their chagrin, that the body in question belonged to an animal symbolically carrying the sins of the Jews, and not, as they had eagerly anticipated, to an actual Jew.

A disorderly mass of motor vehicles jammed the roads leading back to Ramallah and local villages, as well as to various Bedouin encampments, as disappointed Palestinians expressed the letdown inherent in expecting Jew-dismemberment but coming away not only without any organs or limbs as souvenirs, but without even any photos or video footage of such a festive occasion.

"We last had the opportunity around here more than twenty-five years ago," recalled Ramallah resident Mustafa Massikr, 55. "I remember when those two Israelis were taken to the police station, tortured, killed, cut open, and then thrown into the crowd. The atmosphere was electric. We tasted victory."

"This... this is crushing," he lamented.

The Yom Kippur service, described in the Biblical book of Leviticus, involves the "sending away" of a Billy goat over which the High Priest has recited a confession on behalf of the nation. The Mishnah, elaborating on the rite centuries later, describes how a man escorts the goat from Jerusalem's Temple Mount to a spot in the Judean Desert with a severe drop, and pushes the animal over the edge. The Mishnah asserts that the terrain would dismember the goat entirely before it came to a stop.

That technical detail had been enough to fill the wadis with spectators. Men stood on hoods. Boys held up phones. A few had brought bags, the same practical instinct that once sent people into the street below the Ramallah police station in October 2000, and that later sent people hunting through houses and a festival ground on October 7, 2023. Munich in 1972 had offered no cliff and no souvenir limbs either, only dead Jews and a story worth repeating. Today offered a cliff and, it turned out, a goat.

When the animal hit and came apart, the sound was correct. The object was not. A murmur moved through the crowd as someone shouted that it was the Azazel goat — the sins of Israel in livestock form, not an Israeli. Phones lowered. The bags stayed empty. No one rushed the rocks to claim a hoof or a length of hide. The difference, once named, was decisive. A Jew would have been an event. A goat was an errand.

Massikr watched the traffic begin to turn around. “In 2000 we had two,” he said. “On October 7 they had hundreds. What is there to take home?”

Several Palestinians nevertheless stayed behind to pick through the carcass, in case enough of the animal remained to copulate with.




 



The names of the alleged controllers keep changing. The underlying idea is very old — and social media may be its perfect delivery system.

Everyone knows about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious 1903 Russian forgery purporting to reveal the minutes of secret Jewish leaders plotting to control governments, finance, the press and ultimately the world. (At least, I hope so — no one would understand the irony of my blog name otherwise.) 

But the Protocols did not invent the idea that visible events were secretly being controlled by Jews. It collected, modernized and systematized an idea that was already many centuries old. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum itself notes that the Protocols pulled together longstanding accusations that Jews secretly fomented wars and revolutions, spread epidemics and controlled politics and economics.

In fact, one version of the hidden-Jewish-hand myth appears more than a thousand years before the Protocols. Medieval Christian writers sometimes explained the actions of non-Jewish rulers by placing a Jew behind them. David Freidenreich has documented Christian accounts from the early Middle Ages in which Muslim rulers were supposedly manipulated by Jews into attacking Christianity. The visible ruler made the decision; the Jew supplied the hidden malevolent agency. The Jew is the puppet-master. 

Sound familiar? 

By the twelfth century the idea became much more ambitious. Thomas of Monmouth, whose account of the supposed ritual murder of William of Norwich helped establish the European blood libel, described an alleged international Jewish conspiracy. According to his story, Jewish leaders from different countries supposedly gathered at Narbonne and selected by lot the place where a Christian would be murdered that year. Johannes Heil has compared this imagined gathering to the much later Protocols: an international Jewish elite, secret communication across borders, coordination among apparently separate Jewish communities and a concealed program directed against Christian society. The Protocols' “Elders” had ancestors centuries before anyone had heard of Zionism.

The pattern expanded further during the medieval accusations that Jews poisoned wells. When plague and mass death struck Europe, the obvious explanations were inadequate for people searching for intentional causes. The conspiracy theory was not simply that local Jews poisoned wells. it was that the local Jews supposedly received poison from rabbis or other Jewish leaders and spread it through water supplies via a hidden Jewish network.

That is why the Protocols should be understood as a consolidation point, not an invention. By the nineteenth century the old religious accusations had been secularized. Jews could now supposedly control banks, newspapers, revolutionary movements, Freemasons, political parties and governments. An 1806 letter sent to the French conspiracy theorist Augustin Barruel claimed that Jews secretly controlled other secret societies. Hermann Goedsche's 1868 novel Biarritz imagined Jewish leaders meeting secretly to coordinate world domination; parts of it later helped inspire the mythology surrounding the Protocols. The Protocols then assembled all of these pieces into a single universal theory: if something consequential happens in public, perhaps the people visibly making the decisions are not really making them at all.

There are really three related accusations here. The first is the hidden adviser: the ruler appears to decide, but Jews secretly cause the decision. The second is the secret network: Jewish organizations that appear independent are actually coordinated parts of one collective project. The third is the hidden causal agent: an event with an ordinary apparent explanation — war, revolution, assassination, economic collapse, epidemic — actually has Jews behind it. Stack all three together and you get the mature conspiracy theory: Jews form a hidden network, the network controls visible leaders, and those leaders produce events that secretly serve Jewish interests.

This is why the exposure of the Protocols as a forgery did not affect its influence. The pieces were already in place for decades, some for centuries, and accepted in the back of people's minds. The Protocols put it all together so even when it was exposed, it still appeared to explain the larger truth of Jewish control. 

This way the ideas that Jews were behind capitalism and communism, nationalism and internationalism, working secretly and in public, all could thrive even if the particular delivery system was found to be flawed.  The conclusion remained stable while the premise changed.

And it remains today, with the cosmetic replacement of "Zionists" for "Jews." Blaming Jews for all problems is so backward; but blaming Zionists is trendy. The need for a simple explanation of a complicated world remains, and Israel provides the excuse. .

“Congress supports Israel” is a fact requiring political explanation. “Israel controls Congress” is a theory about hidden agency.

“The United States and Israel share strategic interests” can be debated. “Zionists dragged America into the war” assigns the visible American decision-makers a secondary role and moves the true causal agency somewhere else.

“Mossad has assassinated people” is a historical fact. “Mossad probably killed X” because the event is mysterious and Israel might benefit from it is the old hidden-causation template.

This is why conspiracy theories involving Israel so easily spread far beyond disputes about Israeli policy. Israel supposedly knew about 9/11 in advance, arranged 9/11, created ISIS, controls Western governments, owns the media, manipulates American elections, starts wars and even engineers antisemitic attacks to create sympathy for itself. A 2005 Syrian edition of the Protocols, officially authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information, simply updated the ancient script by claiming that the “Elders of Zion” had coordinated the September 11 attacks. The Protocols had become modular: insert the newest catastrophe and the explanation still works.

What has changed most dramatically is not the conspiracy theory but the technology that distributes it.

This week David Frum discussed Warren Kinsella's new book The Hidden Hand: The Information War and the Rise of Antisemitic Propaganda. Kinsella's argument, as Frum describes it, is that the extraordinary explosion of antisemitic and anti-Israel material on social media is not entirely organic. Political actors deliberately seed propaganda, but the social-media environment then does something previous propagandists could only dream of. Algorithms select for material that generates engagement, and fear, anger, disgust and conspiracy generate plenty of engagement.

That means the transmission of antisemitism no longer requires someone to read the Protocols. A person does not have to study medieval Christian theology, Nazi propaganda or Soviet “anti-Zionism.” He doesn't even need to know where the idea came from. The Internet can deliver the finished product stripped of its historical packaging.

This helps explain something that otherwise looks strange: antisemitic ideas now jump effortlessly between political camps that despise each other. A white nationalist, an Islamist, a Marxist activist and an America First isolationist may disagree about nearly everything, yet all four can find a version of the proposition that hidden Zionist power explains what is wrong with the world. Historically those traditions had separate transmission routes. Today they share memes, screenshots, videos, influencers and algorithms.

Antisemitism increasingly operates like an open-source codebase. Christianity contributed some modules; medieval Europe contributed others; nineteenth-century racial and economic antisemitism added more; the Protocols packaged the conspiracy modules particularly effectively; Nazi, Soviet, Arab nationalist and Islamist propagandists translated them into their own ideological languages. Today anyone can download a module without adopting the ideology that originally produced it.

And social media adds something genuinely new. For most of history, somebody had to transmit the accusation. A priest preached it, an author printed it, a government broadcast it, a political movement distributed it. Now the information system itself helps select which versions spread. The historical antisemitic library supplies the material and all are welcome to visit the library. Propagandists seed it; the algorithm rewards the most emotionally effective versions.

The media becomes a critical part of the spread. A new study by Jeremy Mushigi documents how news stories about Israel are produced way out of proportion to the actual importance of the stories. 

Israel is a country of 10 million people. It holds 0.12% of humanity on a territory smaller than New Jersey. And in 9 of the last 10 years, it has been the subject of more international news coverage per capita than any other country on Earth — double to quadruple the rate of any Western democracy, 7 - 16x more than Canada, 50 - 137x more than Brazil, 200 - 600x more than India. In 2024, 1 out of every 50 news articles published anywhere on the planet, by outlets outside Israel, was primarily about Israel — and in absolute terms only the United States, a country 34x its size and the world's hegemon, was the subject of more.

Why does a country the size of a mid-tier metropolis city command a fixed, permanent, disproportionate share of the entire world's attention, decade after decade, mostly in a negative register — while catastrophes 10 and 100 times larger pass in silence? The size of the spotlight, its persistence, and its tone are facts. They can be measured. And once you measure them, only one class of explanation survives: the spotlight is not a response to events. The spotlight is the operation — aimed at making Israel the thing you think about. The thing that infuriates you.

Conspiracy theories do not require a conspiracy to spread. Once culturally available, they can propagate through ordinary human psychology, political opportunism and now automated recommendation systems. It has become self-replicating; so many people talk about Israel because so many people talk about Israel. And while there is no central media conspiracy to maintain focus on Israel, that focus allows the next round of conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel to thrive, because the most attractive explanation for a confusing world is a simple one: the one in the headlines every day. 

The media, academia, NGOs and international institutions don't need to endorse conspiracy theories to help create the environment in which they flourish. By making Israel an extraordinarily salient subject—producing a constant stream of accusations, controversies, reports and explanations—they furnish the raw material from which conspiratorial minds can construct their next hidden-hand theory.

That may be why the hidden Jewish hand has proved so extraordinarily durable. It supplies something conspiracy thinking desperately wants: a single intentional agent behind a confusing world. Wars, economic changes, elections, migrations and cultural transformations are enormously complicated. “The Jews did it” is simple.

But we still need to understand - why the Jews in particular?

We'll tackle that next. 

(h/t Scott S)

 


Wednesday, September 16, 2026

  • Wednesday, September 16, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon

I will try to put a few links here in no particular order as Ian is not feeling well. 

The creators of the recent documentary dealing with the topic of "Naza" (a Hebrew military acronym for Nezek Agavi - collateral damage) did not have to work too hard to discover the truth. 
They could have simply interviewed me.

Israel News Pulse:  NAZA Fact Checked: The Explosive Claims the Documentary Cannot Prove

Jonathan Tobin: The AI apocalypse and the ‘NAZA’ blood libels against Israel







Lawfare: "A growing number of convicted terrorists are soon to be released from prison. There’s no plan to address potential recidivism."

Washington Examiner: Queen Esther saved her people. Michigan’s attorney general just threw them under the bus


Jewish Review of Books: How to “Other” an Israeli

PMW: “Massive Palestinian intifada” promoted by official Palestinian Authority daily









This month's Commentary cover:







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)

   

 

 





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)

   

 

 

  • Wednesday, September 16, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon
I received this from an email list, and it is way too important to not spread far and wide.



The creators of the recent documentary dealing with the topic of "Naza" (a Hebrew military acronym for Nezek Agavi - collateral damage) did not have to work too hard to discover the truth. 
They could have simply interviewed me. I would have stood in front of the camera, without hiding my identity, on the roof of my house located nine kilometers from Lebanon, after we absorbed endless barrages of rockets here, and explained the reality on the ground to them.
A little less than 20 years ago, I was one of the founders of the field within the IDF that deals with warning populations on the other side of enemy lines and preserving the lives of their civilians. 
We built the work processes that define how to call upon the population to evacuate, and how to track that evacuation. I was personally involved in formulating the target approval processes and operational discussions.
If they had spoken with me, I would have explained to them that the chart shown at the beginning of the film is not a chart for conducting killings, but rather a planning chart for a target identified as being used by Hamas. 
Its purpose is to determine whether to strike a target at all, who in the command echelon is authorized to approve it, with what munitions, and under what conditions. In stark contrast to what is stated in the film, when the words "Naza 500 – collateral damage estimated at 500" appear in the approval process, the meaning is that action must be taken to reduce the collateral damage. 
There are a variety of ways to do this, such as a call for evacuation, precision munitions, or canceling the strike entirely (what is known as an unapproved target). Noting the collateral damage on the target sheet does not signify an intention to carry out the killing of civilians or a "genocide"; it is intended, first and foremost, to prevent it.
Our enemies, both Hamas and Hezbollah, deliberately plant their rockets and headquarters in the heart of the civilian population, in tunnels under Beirut or in high-rise residential buildings in southern Lebanon. Hamas in Gaza did the same, using children as human shields. They do this based on the working assumption that if Israel strikes without warning, 500 civilians will be killed. That is exactly their goal. But Israel chooses differently: there are at least hundreds of soldiers and officers in the IDF whose entire role is the protection of the enemy's population. That is what they think about when they wake up in the morning. This is what the IDF pays them a salary for.
If the editors of the film had wanted to conduct serious research, they could have interviewed former (like me) and present IDF soldiers and officers, who would tell them the truth about collateral damage. But they chose not to do so.

The promo for the film claims that the IDF "never checks the number of civilians killed." 
The truth is that checking the exact number of casualties in enemy territory in real-time is a complex and nearly impossible task. This is exactly why the collateral damage assessment process was created in advance, to consider the size of the structure and the routine number of civilians in its vicinity. 
The IDF has invested and continues to invest massive resources - intelligence personnel, legal experts, operational personnel from the air and ground forces, and technological experts - to develop command and control systems that accurately reflect where civilians are present and where they are not. I was personally involved in developing these tools during my military service in the Northern Command and during my subsequent reserve service.
From my experience, I can testify that a whole world of intelligence stands behind this effort. In the Intelligence Directorate, there are several desks whose exclusive role is tracking the evacuation percentages of the population from rural and urban areas after the IDF has published warnings. If a high percentage of the population has evacuated following the warnings, the collateral damage assessment drops, and only then is a strike on the terror infrastructure permitted.
But unfortunately, it is precisely the IDF's efforts to preserve the lives of the enemy's population, namely, the evacuation warnings and tracking of the evacuation status, that have been interpreted as "ethnic cleansing" in international media, while ignoring the scope of the terror infrastructure exposed inside and beneath the villages in both Lebanon and Gaza, in every house.
I have been asked several times by reporters why we evacuate such extensive areas. Here is my answer: when Hamas or Hezbollah dig a tunnel network under villages, it is impossible to destroy them without harming the dozens of houses above them. A targeted evacuation of a specific house during a tunnel explosion will result in harm to civilians.
Despite the extensive intelligence efforts invested to ensure that the target is clear of civilians, this is a world where uncertainty is exceedingly high. Intelligence will always be partial and insufficient. There have been many recorded cases where there was no information about the presence of civilians in the terror infrastructure or near the terrorist, and they were killed as a result. This grim outcome cannot erase the fact that efforts to prevent collateral damage are indeed made.
Decision-making on the battlefield is complex, the dilemmas are immense, and the nature of the battlefield is that mistakes are sometimes made. But the difference between us and the enemy is enormous. In contrast to the radical Islamic ideology of Hamas and Hezbollah, who publicly declare that their goal is to kill Israeli civilians (and act accordingly), we state clearly that we have no intention whatsoever of killing civilians in enemy territory, and we even allow the entry of humanitarian aid into the combat zone, despite the fact that this harms our operational achievement in the fight against terrorism. 
As parents of soldiers, this is how we educate our children - civilians are not a target. And these children grow up to become the soldiers and officers who serve in the IDF.

It is unfortunate that the filmmakers chose not to conduct real research. Contrary to what is required by journalistic ethics, they even refrained from sending the report to the IDF for comment, so it is impossible to know what roles the interviewees held within the system, and whether their point of view, assuming it is authentic, is even relevant to understanding the chain of approvals and actions taken prior to striking a target. 
The filmmakers preferred to tell a story from a very narrow angle, to interview anonymous sources whose level of involvement, rank, and understanding of the process is unclear, and to completely ignore the experts who built these systems with one goal: preserving human life. There are such experts. I was one of them.

 


Sarit Zehavi
Your eyes and ears on the northern border, 
Alma Research and Education Center



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)

   

 

 

  • Wednesday, September 16, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon

A forthcoming book from De Gruyter Brill and University of California Press advances an amazingly ambitious thesis. Hanine Shehadeh’s The Thousand-Year Crusade for Palestine: Zionist Christianity and the Settler Jew argues that Europe’s conversion to Christianity created a civilizational fixation on Palestine that eventually shaped European sovereignty, nationalism, race, colonialism and modernity itself. The publisher summarizes her argument bluntly: this “Zionist Christian formation is the foundation of Western modernity.”

The book is not yet published, so I cannot judge its evidence. But the amount of evidence for such an extraordinary claim must be equally extraordinary.  A Palestinian scholar has written a history in which the European Christian lust for conquering Palestine becomes the great hidden force shaping the entire modern world.

The chain is sweeping. Europe converts to Christianity; Christianity focuses Europe on Palestine; the Crusades follow; Protestantism inherits the fixation; French nationalism carries it forward; European ideas of race and sovereignty develop through it; Jewish Zionism then absorbs this supposedly colonial-racist structure. Israel finally emerges as, in the publisher’s phrase, “not a refuge from European history but its most durable export.”

Postcolonial scholarship has spent decades criticizing Europeans for writing history as though Europe were the center of the world. It is a fair critique. But shouldn't that apply to anyone who finds a grand unifying theory centered on a single geographic location? This appears to perform much the same maneuver with a different center. Palestine becomes so historically important that the Crusades, Reformation, nationalism, empire, race, Zionism and Western modernity itself can all be organized around it. 

This is not de-centering history. It is re-centering it.

Of course Palestine mattered enormously to Christianity, and Jerusalem occupied a unique place in the Christian imagination. But there is a vast difference between saying that Palestine repeatedly mattered to European religious and imperial history and saying that a Palestine-centered “Zionist Christian formation” became “the foundation of Western modernity.” Western modernity also had something to do with the printing press, capitalism, the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, industrialization, Atlantic slavery, the conquest of the Americas, bureaucratic states and centuries of European wars that had nothing to do with Jerusalem.

The framework becomes even more revealing when it reaches Jewish Zionism:

It is from within this history of Zionist Christian formation, not against it, that Jewish Zionism emerges at the close of the nineteenth century. Reading the French Revolution alongside Napoleon’s campaign to conquer Palestine, Shehadeh argues that Jewish Zionism absorbed the colonial-racist terms of European modernity—accepting the diasporic Jew’s alleged degeneracy and proposing redemption through empire in Palestine. The State of Israel emerges, in this light, not as a refuge from European history but as its most durable export.


Jewish Zionism, according to the description, does not primarily emerge from Jewish history, Jewish persecution or Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel.  Forget thousands of years of prayers to restore Zion - we have a much better explanation of Jewish Zionism as being rooted in racism against indigenous Arabs (who themselves are invaders to the land after Christians held it for centuries, but let's not quibble over historic details - the book wants to start European history in Palestine with the Crusades, not the Romans or the Byzantines.)

If Jews remain in Europe, they are victims of European antisemitism. If they leave Europe and seek sovereignty, they have absorbed European colonialism/racism. If Zionists criticize Jewish powerlessness in exile, they have internalized European racism. If they seek support from imperial powers, they become agents of empire. Even an attempt to escape the European condition becomes another expression of European ideology.

And this requires leaving out a fairly important fact: Christianity did not invent Zion. It inherited Zion, Jerusalem, exile, return, covenant and redemption from Judaism. Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel did not require medieval Crusaders, Protestant restorationists or Napoleon to bring it into existence.

That does not mean modern Zionism developed outside European political history. Of course it didn't. But saying Zionism borrowed from nineteenth-century nationalism is very different from making it the end product of a thousand-year Christian-colonial fixation on Palestine.

Notice the subtitle of the book: "Zionist Christianity and the Settler Jew." All Jews who want to return to their ancestral home have been labeled as "settlers." Such an interesting term. It almost seems like an Arab is looking at European history through an Arab lens and cannot see anything outside her own point of view. Of course the Jew is a settler. The only virtuous Jews are the ones who prefer to stay in Europe to be slaughtered, or to stay in Arab countries where they must thank their hosts for their second class, dhimmi, "protected" status.

Can Shehadeh's model recognize a Jewish historical subject that is neither Europe's victim nor Europe's colonial proxy? It appears not.

A Palestinian-centered grand theory is not automatically less parochial than a European-centered one. But it requires a lot more logical leaps. 




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)

   

 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive