05/09 Links: The International Criminal Court Is In Bed With Our Enemies; How Hating Israel Became a Career Move; Israel built secret base in Iraqi desert to support Iran air campaign

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: The International Criminal Court Is In Bed With Our Enemies And It’s Time We Clean House

The only action that the ICC has taken so far is disciplinary proceedings against Khan himself. The most that can happen is that he loses his job. His accuser never turned to the Dutch police because she said his official immunity would protect him. However, under the ICC’s rules, the judges could waive that immunity if they wished. The Court’s refusal to allow a criminal investigation of Khan, even as the scope of the scandal expands, demonstrates the institution’s political nature.

At the same time, the Court seems fully intent on proceeding with the Netanyahu prosecution. Such serious prosecutorial misconduct could, at least in the United States, lead to the dismissal of even factually substantiated criminal charges. Here, the evidence does not even show that the alleged crime (purposeful starvation of civilians) even occurred, let alone was committed by the accused. As the dust settles in Gaza, the lack of mass starvation becomes ever more evident.

An American prosecutor would be loath to try a case with such manifest prosecutorial misconduct (notably, senior court officials knew about the allegations against Khan at the time the indictments were made but kept it quiet for six months, when it leaked to the press). But Netanyahu is not facing a jury of his peers, but rather a panel of international judges who likely share the Court’s institutional culture.

Qatar’s involvement shows the ICC to be even more dangerous than its critics thought. The rap against the tribunal has long been that it acts like a global independent counsel – an unaccountable prosecutor with no democratic restraints. But even worse, it now appears that hostile states can coopt it as a political weapon in an ongoing conflict.

This illustrates the need for the Trump administration to take decisive action against the organization. The sanctions the Treasury Department has imposed on individual court officers have inconvenienced them but appear to have done little to fundamentally weaken the organization or change its trajectory. A body politically motivated enough to maintain the Israel warrants in the wake of the growing Khan fiasco will certainly retaliate against Trump and his top officials once they are out of office.

The administration should impose institution-wide sanctions on the tribunal and vigorously enforce them. The ICC recently got some good news as Peter Magyar, Hungary’s prime minister-elect, vowed to rejoin after it had become the first EU country to quit. Magyar prioritized the issue because he is seeking EU funding, and Brussels ties its financial support to adhering to its foreign policy. America must adopt the same tough approach, insisting that countries receiving benefits quit the Court. For Europe, pushing countries to join the ICC is a matter of ideology. For America, pushing back should be seen as a question of national security.

How Hating Israel Became a Career Move

When a Western celebrity’s career stalls, the most reliable career-fixer available right now is loud, extreme hostility to Israel. The path back does not run through coexistence groups, or hostage families, or Israeli and Palestinian peace activists building shared institutions in Jaffa or Haifa. It runs through extremism. Death chants. Concentration camp comparisons broad enough to include everyone except the people who were actually being held in tunnels under Gaza.

This is why people who genuinely want peace get drowned out, and people who want destruction get profiled in Variety. The algorithm is not neutral. It rewards heat. The hotter the take, the bigger the bookings. Bobby Vylan admitted as much on Louis Theroux’s podcast. He told Theroux he would lead the chant again “tomorrow, twice on Sundays.”

Piers Morgan figured out the demand side of this market. He does not bring nuanced voices on his show because nuanced voices do not generate clips that travel. He books the loudest combatants he can find and harvests the engagement. Bob Vylan and Melissa Barrera have figured out the supply side. Different positions in the same marketplace, same business model.

Notice what this kind of activism costs the activist. Nothing. You do not have to fund a hospital. You do not have to learn Arabic or Hebrew. You do not have to sit with a bereaved family or visit a checkpoint or lose a single friend. You post. You wear the keffiyeh on the red carpet. You sign the open letter. The signaling is luxury-tier. The sacrifice is zero.

This is champagne activism. Same shape as champagne socialism. The people who perform it the loudest are the ones who pay nothing for it. Bob Vylan’s chant cost him a UTA contract and bought him an international audience. Kneecap’s visa fight cost them a US tour and bought them a feature film. Barrera’s Instagram posts cost her Scream 7 and bought her Broadway, a production company, and a sympathetic Variety profile. The math is in the bookings.

Real activism is expensive. It is slow. It does not photograph well. The Parents Circle families look at each other’s grief every week and have done for thirty years. Maoz Inon’s parents were murdered in their home on October 7. He has spent every month since standing on stages with his Palestinian friend Aziz Abu Sarah, whose brother was killed by Israeli soldiers, calling for a shared future. They got in a van together last year and drove across checkpoints for eight days to write a book almost nobody outside the peace community will read. That is what it actually costs to do this work. Variety has not profiled them.

We owe those people more attention than we are giving them. They are the ones doing the actual work. Lift them up. Book them. The career algorithm will not change on its own. The least we can do is stop feeding it.

Andrew Fox: “Rape is just part of war”: what happened when I spoke in Amsterdam

The critical point is that the sexual violence on 7 October was no ordinary “feature” of war. It was an orgy of sadism. It went far beyond anything that had occurred in this conflict before. So I responded by describing what I had seen. I made the point that I was not dehumanising Hamas. Hamas dehumanised itself on 7 October, and when Yoav Gallant described Hamas as Israel fighting human animals, he was absolutely correct.

The room then descended into a shouting match. One of the activists at the back was warned by security that he would be removed if he continued. He immediately tried to recast the warning as a threat of violence against him. The performance was instant: provocation first, victimhood second.

To his credit, the moderator did an excellent job of calming the room. Without him, the situation could easily have deteriorated further. Unfortunately, there was also a journalist from a newspaper hostile to our position in the room (he was not invited by the organisers, so draw your own conclusions about how he came to be there, and why). The article that followed was predictable. We were blamed. The activists were cast as victims. The same pattern repeated itself: disrupt, provoke, invert, accuse.

For me, the morning was a lesson. I am primarily a writer, but I have also given speeches. I am a qualified university lecturer and a Fellow of the Higher Education Authority. However, I have never previously experienced an incident in which pro-Palestinian activists turn up determined to create a scene.

What struck me most was not just the hostility: it was the epistemic closure. These people operate within a sealed universe of alternative facts. There is no argument to be had because there is no shared evidentiary standard. I know what I have seen with my own eyes in Gaza itself during the war. They, on the other hand, have absorbed two and a half years of propaganda via social media, activist networks, campus politics, and the Hamas narrative laundered through supposedly respectable institutions. Those two evidentiary bars are not the same.

That is the truly dangerous part. When two sides disagree about policy, there can still be debate. When two sides disagree about interpretation, there can still be debate. However, when one side insists on living in a manufactured reality, conversation becomes almost impossible.

That is what I saw in Amsterdam; neither serious engagement nor moral seriousness. Not even real anger, in the sense of an emotion tied to facts. What I saw was a political identity built from keffiyehs, flags, slogans, and inverted victimhood. It was a glimpse into how toxic this movement has become. Not because it advocates for Palestinians (there is nothing inherently wrong with advocating for Palestinians), but because so much of the Western pro-Palestinian movement has now fused with denial, propaganda, theatrical intimidation, and the moral laundering of Hamas.

That is the world we are dealing with, and after what I saw in Amsterdam this week, I am more convinced than ever that the fight is not only about Israel, Gaza, or international law. It is about reality itself.

Read More

05/08 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: The anti-Zionist contagion; The ugly truth about the cult of Palestinianism; The success of the Greens is another kick in the teeth for Britain’s Jews

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The anti-Zionist contagion

British Jews are under increasingly aggressive siege from abuse, intimidation, discrimination, arson attacks on their institutions, street violence and terrorism that left two Jews dead in a synagogue on Yom Kippur.

The Golders Green stabbings last week provoked a huge outpouring of revulsion and concern. There was a fusillade of bromides about “no place for antisemitism in Britain” from the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and other Labour Party politicians.

The media suddenly started publishing accounts by deeply distressed British Jews about the state of fear in which they were being forced to live. Commentators produced outraged and horrified diatribes against a society that was forcing its Jews to consider emigrating.

Yet some of those voices had previously produced outraged and horrified diatribes against the State of Israel, recycling defamatory falsehoods about the behavior of the Israel Defense Forces in the Gaza Strip.

This discrepancy alone should have sounded a warning that, for all the public breast-beating, the real point was still being lost.

This is because attacks on Jews are still deemed to be in a separate category from attacks on Israel or Zionism. The assumption is that attacks on Jews are very bad indeed because they are against people, but attacks on Israel or Zionism are absolutely fine because they are merely against a country or an ideology.

The distinction is false, and itself helps fuel the hatred of both Israel and Jews.

The point was illustrated this week in Manhattan. At Park East Synagogue on New York City’s Upper East Side, where an event marketing Israeli real estate was taking place, hundreds of masked Islamists and their supporters chanted from behind a police barricade: “We don’t want two states. We want ’48!”

The mob, which flew a Hezbollah flag, was spearheaded by a branch of Al-Awda, which is linked to Samidoun, a U.S.-designated terror organization.

The police thankfully prevented a repeat of what happened last November at Park East, when anti-Israel demonstrators blocked people from entering and exiting the synagogue. That intimidation helped motivate city legislators to tell the police to establish a protest-free “buffer zone” around houses of worship.

The city’s Islamist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is ruthlessly exploiting the false distinction between attacking Israel and attacking Jews.

“There is no tolerance for hatred of Jewish New Yorkers,” he said about the Park East demonstration. Yet at the same time, he registered his opposition to the synagogue event that was promoting the sale of land “in occupied West Bank in settlements that are a violation of international law.”

Condemning Jew-hatred while simultaneously inciting it through incendiary distortions is the mind-twisting stock in trade of the anti-Israel left.

In Britain, Starmer’s government is now talking about banning the “hate marches” that have taken place almost every week since the Hamas-led atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The belated realization is beginning to dawn that the chanting on these marches for the murder of Jews may help cause actual attacks on Jews.

Despite this, Starmer and many others are still failing to join the necessary dots. The rampant Jew-hatred that has so shocked them is the result of something that they won’t acknowledge.

Brendan O'Neill: The ugly truth about the cult of Palestinianism

That’s what this case has really revealed – the lethal narcissism of the keffiyeh classes. This is a class of people so drunk on moral vanity, so convinced of their own saintedness, that they seem to think anything is justified in the name of ‘the cause’. That cause being to advertise to the world their bloated vision of themselves as holy crusaders against the wickedest state in existence. Indeed, one of the activists told the jury, ‘with absolute certainty’, that breaking into the Elbit base ‘is the best thing I have ever done’. You sad bastard. ‘There is a good chance’, they said, that ‘innocent lives were saved’ as a result of ‘our actions that night’. This is a level of self-delusion that borders on the pathological. Lost in a cocoon of sanctimonious fantasy, they really believe that breaking a computer in Bristol will save a life in Gaza.

This is the modus operandi of Palestine Action – it executes dumb stunts not to impact world affairs but to assert the cultural supremacy of the credentialled haters of Israel here at home. It is moral hubris and class arrogance masquerading as ‘anti-war’. Sometimes it crosses the line into something darker, like when Palestine Action smashed up a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill in London. This feels ‘very, very scary now’, said local Jews amid the shattered glass of that woke mini-Kristallnacht. Who could have guessed that the bourgeois left’s division of the world into ‘the anointed’ who righteously hate the Jewish State, and ‘the demonic’ who support it, would prove so catastrophic for the liberty and dignity of Britain’s Jews? All of us. That’s who.

It feels like this has been a mask-slipping week for the cult of Palestinianism. More people can surely see the sectarian malice that lurks behind that veil of pacifism. A keffiyeh mob smashing a woman’s back. Rancid anti-Semites who call Jews ‘cockroaches’ stinking up the Green Party of England and Wales. Another gaggle of sanctimonious sea-farers setting off for Gaza, even though there’s no famine there, while in South Sudan nearly eight million face ‘acute hunger’. The stabbing of two Jews in Golders Green glossed over by supposed ‘anti-fascists’, who seem more interested in their own right to chant ‘Globalise the intifada’ than in Jews’ right to live in peace. Just think about that: mere days after violence against Jews, they were demanding the right to agitate for more violence against Jews.

Some of us have known for some time that Palestinianism is bigotry in a keffiyeh, the mask Jew hatred wears in the 21st century. We’ve seen this bourgeois army and its Islamist chums engage in the most vile demonisation of the world’s only Jewish nation, and of all who support it, which includes most of the world’s Jews. Are others now clocking this truth? No, anti-Zionism and the winds of hate it has unleashed are not going away. They are far too entrenched in the cultural establishment. But a reckoning might be brewing. Let us hope so.

Seth Mandel: Anti-Zionists Are Canceling R.F. Kuang for Writing the Word ‘Israel’

Writers are taught the value of clarity, so the novelist R.F. Kuang should already know precisely how to extricate herself and her fans from the awkward situation in which they find themselves.

Kuang, the author of the celebrated novel Yellowface and others, has a new book in the works. A page of it was leaked, and now Kuang faces a serious allegation: that she is giving credence to the idea that Israeli people exist.

Kuang’s novel, set for a September release, includes a page with an Israeli character, reports the Times of Israel: “The musician, a successful pianist whose performance ignites a near-religious fervor for a character in the story, is not named, and the text identifies him as ‘a dour-faced man who did not so much as crack a smile as we applauded.’”

Ah, so maybe he’s a bad Israeli! Kuang’s fans are taking this theory under consideration. Perhaps, it has been suggested online, Kuang is offering a sly critique of colonialists by suggesting that all Israelis are bad people. Obviously not Arab-Israelis. Just the you-know-whos.

But this, too, must be rejected. As the article notes, the negative portrayal of Jewish Israelis is still a woke infraction: “Casey McQuiston, the author of the 2019 romance novel ‘Red, White, and Royal Blue,’ initially included a scene where the U.S. president jokes that an ambassador ‘said something idiotic about Israel, and now I have to call Netanyahu and personally apologize.’ In 2021, McQuiston said they would remove the reference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in future printings of the book.”

It is at times hard to believe these people are real. But there are enough of them for an author to bowdlerize her own book because it referenced an Israeli person engaged in the crime of existing.

Not everyone thinks Kuang deserves banishment from the cloud kingdom of BookTok. The piece quotes a Threads user who wrote: “The people canceling a preorder over [a] single mention of an Israeli pianist being booked at a concert hall in R.F. Kuang’s new book lack so much f–king nuance. There’s literally no mention of Zionism yet y’all can’t seem to differentiate.”

Now that you mention it, I have noticed a distinct lack of nuance when it comes to differentiating between Zionists and the “good Jews.” As protesters wave Hezbollah flags, yell “we support Hamas,” and call Jews at a synagogue “pedophiles,” I worry about the lack of nuance, too.

Read More

05/08 Links Pt1: Saudi Arabia’s War; Princelings of Persia; IDF kills Hamas terrorist linked to Mia Schem abduction; PA policeman one of three terrorists arrested

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Saudi Arabia’s War

It’s worth noting, for posterity, that the great under-covered theme in this war has been the influence exerted by the Saudis. That story has been under-covered because Western mass media tends toward herd behavior and relies on preconceived narratives. The prevailing narrative is that if any state exerts a controversial level of influence over American warmaking, that state must be Israel. It is the only country subject to this type of coverage.

And yet, the Saudis were urging Trump to launch the war and then loudly protested when Trump signaled that he was looking for an off-ramp. Israel wants to be able to continue its own missions in Lebanon, but it can deal with a U.S.-Iran cease-fire just fine as long as its own hands aren’t tied elsewhere. That’s not true of the Gulf Arab states, which have stuck their necks out to join a U.S. war alliance that includes the IDF.

The Saudis were not quiet about pushing Trump to finish off the Iranian regime. That makes them an immediate target if the regime gets back on its feet. The United Arab Emirates has left OPEC in order to boost American voters’ flagging patience with the war, which puts them on the outs with Riyadh and Tehran simultaneously. If the administration doesn’t have the attention span to stick it out and make sure these Arab states have the security they need after going out on a limb for the U.S., American credibility will fall even faster than gas prices rise.

Israel, however, can afford to be more deferential to Trump. The Israelis have worked to protect the UAE from Iranian retaliation, so it’s not as though they want the war to end here. But it isn’t the Israelis who have publicly tied Trump’s hands and forced him to make the U.S. military defend them or else be made to look a fool over false promises.

It’s tempting to end by merely emphasizing that those who have been claiming that Israel controls U.S. foreign policy, or that American soldiers are risking their lives “for Israel,” have now managed to make themselves look more clownish than ever. But there’s another takeaway here: The public should rethink the reporting and the prognostications made by anyone who has bought or sold the prepackaged narrative about Israeli manipulation. What else about the war have you been misled to believe by mainstream narratives or podcast-bro grifting? Now’s a good time for a reality check.

Princelings of Persia

I used to dismiss what I thought was an urban myth that, to help sell Tehran on the nuke deal, President Barack Obama granted thousands of Iranian spies a backdoor path to residence and ultimately citizenship in the United States. After all, visas and green cards are not like the letters of transit in Casablanca, where you fill in your name and hop on the plane to Lisbon. U.S. consular rules would block such individuals from getting here anyway. Yet in the years after the Iran deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), this story got traction, even as Obama’s spokesmen naturally denied it.

But this year, this supposed myth was given new credibility with the arrest in Los Angeles of Shamim Mafi, an Iranian arms trafficker who came to California in 2013 and was given permanent residency under the Obama administration three years later. And it turns out Mafi is small potatoes compared to what a recent wave of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and deportations has exposed: that upper Iranian terrorist nobility has been prospering all over the United States.

“They have eyes and ears everywhere,” Iranian American author and human-rights activist Elham Yaghoubian told me about the regime. “It peaked under Obama.”

For a prime example, look first to the $2 million five-bedroom, five-bath modern gray-and-white clapboard house in suburban Los Angeles that has been causing firestorms all over Iranian social media. Its most recent occupants have posted a two-and-a-half-minute video online showing off the grand front, the sprawling interior, and the adjoining elm-shaded McMansions. The camera loiters over the kitchen and dining room surfaces laden with an acre of holiday goodies, a great room of flat-screen TVs and speakers blaring performances nearly drowned out by clapping, while breakfronts full of bric-a-brac reflect, through their glass backing, glimpses of the LA woman documenting the vastness of her lavish residence.

The hostess with the iPhone camera is not Britney Spears, but one Maryam Tahmasebi, sneering at the neighbors’ American flag in contrast to the Shia Imam Hussein banner flying on her own house. And those flat-screen TVs are lit up with screeching mullahs, with a clapping mob cheering them in response. She is the daughter-in-law of Masoumeh Ebtekar, the unhinged “Screaming Mary” spokesperson of the student group that occupied the U.S. Embassy for 444 days in 1979, now an ICE detainee.

The online haters are the outraged Persians around the globe who are fuming at the latest sign of corrupt aghazadeh, or “princeling decadence,” the effrontery of the Islamic Republic’s elite Gen Zers living it up overseas while Iranians go hungry and get shot dead by the thousand at home. The aghazadeh in question is Ebtekar’s son, Eissa Hashemi. Incredibly enough, this scion of two embassy hostage takers “entered the United States in 2014 in visas issued by the Obama administration,” according to a statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on April 11. Even more incredibly, according to the same statement, “in June 2016 – just months after the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] seized two U.S. Navy vessels and captured 10 American sailors – the Obama Administration granted all three Iranian nationals lawful permanent resident (LPR) status via the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.” That would be the same time frame when Mafi, the arms trafficker in Woodland Hills, got her green card. Hashemi is in ICE detention as well, along with the couple’s son.

Americans of a certain age have to pause here to savor the thought of hostage taker Masoumeh, née Nilufar, Ebtekar (the hard-liner Water Lily renamed herself Sinless), watching her revolutionary family members being seized, cuffed, shackled, and hustled into custody for an uncertain but inevitably humiliating fate.

Though Hashemi was Iranian revolutionary aristocracy, he often pleaded to his haters—fellow Iranians—that he was not a fanatic and was not even born when his parents took the American hostages and his mother gloated over her desire to murder them. Not so with Hamideh Soleimani-Afshar, reportedly the niece of Qassem Soleimani, the deceased IRGC-Quds Force chief. Afshar had celebrated attacks on U.S. soldiers and military facilities, praised Iran’s supreme leader, called America the “Great Satan,” and voiced support for the IRGC, a designated terror organization, according to the New York Post, citing the State Department. She and her daughter, Sarinasadat Hosseiny, were detained by ICE, leaving behind a black Tesla—in which the Post glimpsed Hermès cushions, a Miss Dior bag, and a Sephora bag—in front of their home on Plainview Avenue in Tujunga, on the opposite side of the San Fernando Valley from Agoura Hills.

'We should never have let them in': Labor's 'complete failure' revealed after ISIS brides charged with slavery, terrorism offences

The Albanese government’s decision to allow the return of four ISIS brides and their nine children has been branded a “complete failure” after three of the women were arrested on arrival.

Two women were arrested after touching down at Melbourne Airport on Thursday evening, with a third arrested on arrival in Sydney.

The two Melbourne women, aged 53 and 31, have both since been charged with multiple slavery-related offences, while the 32-year-old Sydney woman has been charged with lesser terrorism-related offences.

The Albanese government has maintained that no assistance was provided to the cohort, but questions have been raised about why the individuals were granted passports and not subjected to temporary exclusion orders.

Shadow home affairs minister Jonathan Duniam said the seriousness of the charges showed why “we should never have let them in”.

“The fact that we are arresting people on their arrival means we shouldn't have allowed them to come to Australia,” he told Sky News.

“We're talking about terror-related offences here and under the Passport Act there is a power for the Foreign Minister to not issue passports to people on grounds of national security.

“I would argue that terror-related offences are a good enough reason not to give someone a passport.

“We're not talking about small misdemeanours… We're talking about some of the worst crimes here.”

The shadow home affairs minister said since they have arrived, the group were now Australia’s problem, with the cost of monitoring them estimated at $2 million per year, per person.

“For the government to allow this to happen is a complete failure of this government's commitment to our national security and protection of the people here," he said.

“We should never have let them in."

Read More

We the People - Part 7 of "Reclaiming the Covenant"

The founders were not naive about government. They had read Locke and Montesquieu, studied the Roman Republic, watched the British Parliament operate at close range, and understood the mechanics of institutional design better than any generation before them. The Constitution they produced is a masterwork of that understanding — separated powers, enumerated rights, layered sovereignties, a bill of rights added almost immediately because the first draft wasn’t cautious enough. They knew how to build governmental architecture.

What they were attempting in 1787 was something the formal architecture alone could not accomplish, and they knew it. The experiment was not merely in constitutional design. It was in whether a free people could constitute themselves as a society — hold themselves together, maintain justice, extend opportunity, honor their obligations to one another — without the binding agents that every previous civilization had relied upon, like blood, the Crown, or the Church. The founders explicitly rejected them all. What remained was a covenant and a bet: that people who had accepted common terms could treat each other as members of a common enterprise, even across distances and differences that made the bond invisible to ordinary human instinct.

The Constitution announces this in its first three words. “We the People.” The obligations the Preamble describes — a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, the blessings of liberty — are assigned to the people collectively, and the government is the instrument they constructed to help honor them. The direction of authority in the American system runs from citizens outward to institutions, not downward from institutions to subjects. Every other government of the founders’ era ran the other direction. That reversal was the experiment.

Europe drew the opposite conclusion from the same Enlightenment premises. If reason could identify the conditions of human flourishing — and the philosophes were confident it could — then the rational state, staffed by educated administrators, was the appropriate mechanism for producing those conditions. The state would answer the social questions: how resources were distributed, what opportunities existed, and what obligations citizens owed one another. The citizens’ job was to participate in the state through their representatives, pay their taxes, and receive the protections and services the state provided. This was a coherent theory of how a modern society organizes itself, and it produced, over the following two centuries, the welfare states of Western Europe, whose citizens are by most measures well cared for.

America’s founders rejected that theory before it fully formed. “Of the people, by the people, for the people” was not poetry when Lincoln said it at Gettysburg — it was a job description, and it assigned the job to Americans, not to their government. The social questions were the people’s questions to answer: in their towns, their voluntary associations, their businesses, their daily choices about how to treat the people around them. Government could set the floor — the legal minimum below which no one could push another person — but the ceiling was built by citizens, and it was as high or as low as citizens chose to make it.

---

Alexis de Tocqueville arrived in America in 1831 to understand why this arrangement seemed to be working. He was thirty-one years old, a French aristocrat in a country that had recently guillotined its aristocracy, trying to comprehend a democratic republic that had already survived longer than the French Republic had managed. What he found surprised him enough that he wrote two volumes about it.

The surprise was not the Constitution or the courts or the federal structure, all of which he analyzed carefully. The surprise was what Americans did when they had a problem. In France, Tocqueville wrote, a man encountering a difficulty would look to the government; in England, to a lord; in America, to his neighbors. Americans formed associations — voluntary, spontaneous, self-organized — for everything: building roads, founding schools, running hospitals, debating public questions, organizing charity. The habit of solving problems collectively, without waiting for authority to act, was so pervasive that Tocqueville decided it was the secret of democratic self-government at scale. A people that governed its own daily life would prove capable of governing its political life; a people that waited for the state to solve every problem would lose the capacity for self-governance entirely.

The habit he observed was the covenant in daily practice. Every barn-raising, every volunteer fire company, every mutual aid society was an enactment of “We the People” at small scale — Americans treating other Americans as people they were in community with and therefore owed something to. The government had almost nothing to do with it. That was the point.

The question was whether the habit he observed was permanent or circumstantial. He was watching a country of perhaps thirteen million people, overwhelmingly concentrated along the Eastern Seaboard, sharing a common language, a broadly Protestant Christian culture, a recent revolutionary experience, and memories of the communities they or their parents had left in Europe. Mutual obligation came naturally in that context. The farmer down the road was one of you: you knew him, or knew his family, or knew someone who did. Obligation to a visible neighbor is something human beings are wired for. Every social instinct evolution gave us operates at small scale, among people we can see.

The founders were asking Americans to extend that instinct outward far beyond anything instinct naturally supports. And in 1787, they were asking it of a country that, whatever its other divisions, was composed almost entirely of white Christians. The covenant’s terms said membership was defined by acceptance rather than identity — but the actual membership was, for most of the republic’s first century, remarkably homogeneous, which made the horizontal obligations easier to feel even when the theory said they should extend further. The hard version of the experiment — the version that asks 330 million people, the most diverse nation in human history, to feel genuine obligation to strangers across a continent who share nothing with them but citizenship — is the version only now being run at full scale.

The founders bet that the covenant could carry that weight. The evidence is not yet in.

---

What the evidence does show is that the inner rings of the covenant are holding. AmeriCorps data from 2023 found that 75.7 million Americans — 28.3% of the population — formally volunteered through an organization, contributing nearly five billion hours of service worth $167 billion in economic value. That number had collapsed during the pandemic and rebounded to its largest recorded expansion in the survey’s history. More striking still: 54% of Americans — 137.5 million people — informally helped their neighbors in the same period, running errands, watching children, lending tools, doing the ten thousand small things that constitute a functioning community. Tocqueville’s Americans are still out there. The voluntary habit he identified nearly two centuries ago has not died. Americans are still, in large numbers, treating the people around them as people they owe something to.

The inner rings hold. The outer ring — obligation to Americans you will never meet, in places you have never been, whose lives look nothing like yours — is where the strain shows, and that strain is the subject of the next chapter. What matters here is that the foundation Tocqueville identified is intact, and that it supplies the answer to the question the experiment was always asking: can free people maintain a society without mandatory binding agents? At the level of neighbors and communities, the answer remains yes. The question is whether Americans can extend the same habit to the scale the experiment demands.

---

This is where the American Dream enters.

Read More

Latest rumor: Israelis are buying a Cypriot town so Jews fleeing the war can occupy it

Egypt's Vetogate pretends to report:

A new Israeli plan to establish an alternative homeland to escape the war: Jewish settlers bought a Cypriot village and prevented its residents from accessing their property. The people of Trozina cry out against the approaching Israeli occupier. 

A Cypriot village is being turned into an Israeli settlement. A state of widespread anger has gripped the residents of Trozina village in southern Cyprus, after investors from the Israeli occupation bought 70% of the village's land, thus taking control of most of the land and many buildings in the area. This has led many of the village's residents to ask, "Has the Israeli occupation begun to establish an alternative homeland because of the ongoing wars adopted by Netanyahu's extremist government, and the flight of many settlers abroad?!"

The continued purchase of land in Cyprus by Israeli investors has sparked widespread controversy, especially after reports that private security forces are imposing restrictions on entry to parts of the village and preventing visitors from entering certain areas of their village. Despite statements by Cypriot authorities that the village is still under state control and that people can enter it, there are fears that Israel is taking control of the land in Cyprus and turning it into an alternative homeland for extremist settlers.

Some of this was actually on Greek social media. And as usual, there is a small grain of truth here. But the story itself is absurd.

Trozena is an abandoned village. One Jewish investor from Hungary who has some unspecified ties to Israel bought much of the land to develop it into a tourist site. Here is an interview:

The businessman behind the redevelopment of the abandoned Limassol village of Trozena has gone public for the first time, clarifying that his plan calls for 60 rooms — not 60 houses as previously reported — and that he did not purchase the village church.

Uriel Curtis, who was born and raised in Hungary and has Israeli roots, appeared on the Alpha television programme Alpha Enimerosi alongside Arsos community leader Giannakis Giannaki, addressing questions that have arisen in recent days about the project.

Curtis said he first visited Trozena five years ago and was immediately taken with it. He said he set out to understand why the village had been abandoned and to establish its ownership status.

“My vision was very simple from the start — to create a space for everyone who needs time to rest and unwind,” he said.

He was clear that the development would comprise 60 rooms, not individual houses, and that the church had not been purchased. “The church is not for sale, and I hope it never will be,” he said.

Giannaki confirmed that the church belongs to the Paphos Metropolis and is not for sale. He said improvements carried out at the church were done on the investor’s initiative and at his expense.

The community leader said Curtis had purchased 17 of the village’s approximately 30 properties from Greek Cypriot owners, along with surrounding agricultural land where vines have been planted for a winery. “Before all this, the village was a jungle,” he said.

On the historic metal bridge, Giannaki said it would be preserved as a museum exhibit, with a new bridge to be built for public use.

Most countries welcome foreign investment that would attract tourists. But when Jews are the investors, they are automatically suspected of having an agenda.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

05/07 Links Pt2: Boulder firebomber sentenced to life plus 2,128 years for murder; Israel’s Creation: The Ultimate ‘Decolonisation’ Project; From ‘Punch a Nazi’ to nominate one

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: The obvious truth about anti-Semitism

It is the same with the Prime Minister and MPs who have spent the past week saying that we need to tackle ‘hate’ and ‘extremism’. But what hate? And what extremism? Might the government ban the various Iranian proxies which seem to be behind this recent spate of attacks in Britain? Or are we to tackle all hate? And after we have tackled all hate what shall we move on to next? Gluttony? Avarice?

Ask people to get specific on these questions and almost everybody in any position of power melts away. Last week a member of the audience on the BBC’s Question Time asked the Green party’s deputy leader Rachel Millward to specify where the ‘hatred’ she mentioned is coming from. Millward assumed that look people assume when they know the truth but cannot speak it. She pretended to find the question imponderable before finally saying that the two men who were attacked in Golders Green were the victims of our ‘cost-of-living crisis’, ‘rip-off Britain’ and more. Which is strange, because our ancestors went through far worse economic times and I do not remember stabbing religiously identifiable Jews being one inevitable consequence.

Perhaps Millward, like her party’s leader, Zack Polanski, is hampered by a certain voting demographic and by people in the party? After all, the Greens’ other deputy leader is Mothin Ali, who appeared to celebrate the attacks of 7 October. On the day that Israeli citizens were raped, murdered and abducted from their homes, he tweeted: ‘White supremacist European settler colonialism must end!’ He also seemed to defend the slaughter of men, women and children by Hamas as being the right of ‘indigenous people to fight back’. On winning the subsequent local elections in Leeds he dedicated his win to ‘the people of Gaza’ and finished his victory speech with the trad-itional electoral cry of ‘Allahu Akbar’.

It is easy enough to point to Polanski’s Green party as being a special hotbed of anti-Semitism. Two of their candidates were actually arrested by the police for alleged anti-Semitism in the week of the Golders Green attack. But the problem isn’t with the Greens. It is with Britain as a whole.

I have said for too many years now that Britain is pursuing several things that make no sense. One is the pretence that turning a pretty homogenous society into a ‘multicultural society’ has no downsides: that it is a blessing and that – all together now – ‘diversity is our strength’. Whereas the fact is that if you import a lot of people who bring a backwards worldview into your country then at some stage diversity actually becomes your greatest weakness – especially if you go on pretending that even identifying the sources of contemporary anti-Semitism constitutes a different form of ‘hate’, ‘bigotry’ or even ‘racism’. Several British Muslims have admitted in recent years that anti-Semitism in Britain’s Muslim communities is ‘rife and commonplace’. We know that only a quarter of British Muslims believe Hamas carried out any rapes or murders on 7 October.

There are some very simple answers to all this. And we don’t need another ‘conversation’ in order to arrive at them.

Seth Mandel: A Tale of Two Commencement Addresses

Whenever I see a headline claiming that so-and-so was criticized or canceled for their “pro-Palestinian advocacy,” I usually try to find out what was actually said. In media terms, “pro-Palestinian advocacy” doesn’t mean that the person said “the Palestinians should have self-determination.” Rather, “pro-Palestinian advocacy” inevitably ends up meaning the person said something psychotic about Jews.

And of course, that’s what happened this week.

Rutgers University disinvited its engineering school’s commencement speaker, Rami Elghandour, who is the producer of a revisionist passion play about the Gaza war. I can understand Rami and his fans being disappointed at the cancellation, but you’d be hard-pressed to find them accurately characterizing Rami’s own conduct. Elghandour himself, for example, whined about being canceled for his “advocacy for Palestine.”

What he actually said was: Israel is “running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners.”

In other words, he’s a bit of a lunatic conspiracy theorist who wanted to take his blood libel tour to a college campus. No doubt his speech would have been highly entertaining, as he told a taxpayer-funded university all about “Jewish rape dogs” or whatever he might have said.

The accusations of Jewish sexual deviancy aren’t new, of course—the Hamasniks trying to storm synagogues in New York have taken to emphasizing their belief that Jews are pedophiles. Elghandour fits right in with the activist left and, one imagines, with many in his intended audience. That’s probably part of the reason for Rutgers’s skittishness here: How would it look when a commencement speaker told graduating college students about the importance of destroying the Jewish nation before the Jewish nation gets your kids—and having the crowd applaud in delirious ecstasy?

At the same time, what exactly did Rutgers expect when it invited him? He was on their radar because he’s famous for producing war propaganda. Aren’t they getting precisely what they asked for? You want to invite the sun with no light or heat? You invite the guy who’s famous for calling Jews child-murderers but want him to talk about engineering?

Boulder firebomber sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, 2,128 years for murder and 100 others charges for antisemitic attack

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 46, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and 2,128 years, the maximum available sentence, after pleading guilty on Thursday to first-degree murder and 100 other charges for throwing Molotov cocktails at people rallying, on behalf of Hamas-held hostages, in Boulder, Colo., on June 1, 2025.

Karen Diamond, 82, died from injuries sustained in the attack. Soliman also injured 28 people and yelled “free Palestine” during the assault and expressed intent to kill Zionists.

Michael Dougherty, Boulder County district attorney, said at a press conference on Thursday that “this was an attack on the Jewish community and an act of terror.”

“Today we’ve seen the defendant held fully accountable and fully responsible for the horrific hate crime that he committed and the act of antisemitism he committed after planning it out and taking methodical and intentional steps to harm as many people in the Jewish community as he possibly could here in Boulder,” Dougherty said.

“The defendant is now going to spend the rest of his life in state prison, or federal prison, knowing he destroyed the lives of innocent, wonderful people,” the district attorney said. “And he killed Karen Diamond.”

“As much as this act was brutal and monstrous and horrific, it was also—and hear me loud and clear—cowardly, because you want to come to Boulder County, you want to go to any community and set innocent people on fire, you are truly a coward,” he added. “And we saw that reflected in the statements he made in court today, too.”

Stephen Redfearn, chief of the Boulder Police Department, said at the press conference that he is “very thankful” for the verdict.

“That verdict sent a message, not only to the offender but also to anybody who thinks they can come and harm our community,” he said. “This targeted attack against our Jewish community was unacceptable, and this verdict here today provides some sense of justice.”

“I’ve seen a lot in my career, and this was not my first response to an incident of mass violence,” he said. “But this was one of the most heinous and cowardly crimes that I have ever seen.”

Boulder County gov working with local Jews to commemorate anniversary of fatal attack on pro-Israel rally

The government of Boulder County, in Colorado, is working with representatives of the city’s Jewish community to find ways to mark the one-year anniversary of the June 21 attack against pro-Israel participants in Boulder Run for Their Lives.

The county government is doing so “mark this upcoming anniversary and ensure this tragedy is not forgotten,” it stated.

“Almost a year ago, on June 1, 2025, there was a heinous antisemitic attack on 29 members of the Boulder community during a peaceful gathering in front of the Boulder County Courthouse,” the county government said. “The community members were gathered for the weekly Boulder Run for Their Lives walk, and tragically, Karen Diamond died from her injuries.”

It invited members of the community who want to honor survivors and remember Diamond to come to the Boulder Jewish Festival on June 7.

Read More

05/07 Links Pt1: US hits Iranian launch sites, after IRGC fires on American destroyers in Strait; Hamas operatives are being trained in Turkey to launch attacks against Israel; Four more UNRWA staff found to have kidnapped Israelis on Oct. 7

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Israel's ability to defend itself must not be infringed upon, even if US, Iran reach a deal

Despite the pummeling Iran took during the March war, however, changing its stripes and agreeing to cast aside its nuclear aspirations aimed at leveling the Jewish state is a dubious prospect at best.

An Iranian official said the proposal was “more of a wish list than a reality.” On Wednesday, the semi-official Tasnim News Agency said the text contained “unacceptable clauses” and was propaganda “aimed at justifying Trump’s retreat from his recent hostile action.”

While Israel certainly wants an end to the war with an Iran that no longer poses a threat to its existence, what’s alarming about this process is that the government in Jerusalem seems to have no say in the process and is totally relying on Trump’s negotiating team, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to represent its interests.

Although Israeli officials said they were unsurprised by the developments, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely understandably concerned over the deal at hand. He worries about the likelihood that Iran will not honor the agreement, along with the implications for Israel’s ongoing efforts to remove the Hezbollah threat from its northern border.

Whether it was a coincidence or a message that Israel is not going to let its hands be tied in Lebanon, the IDF attacked Hezbollah’s Radwan special forces in Beirut on Wednesday. This was the first attack in Lebanon’s capital in weeks, following the ceasefires with Iran on April 7 and with Hezbollah on April 17.

On Thursday, the IDF confirmed the killing of Hezbollah’s Radwan commander in Beirut, Ahmed Ghaleb Balout, who had directed dozens of attacks against Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon during the war, including anti-tank missile fire and explosive-device attacks.

Balout was also working to rebuild Radwan’s capabilities, including Hezbollah’s long-planned “Conquer the Galilee” invasion plan, the IDF said, adding that it would continue acting against threats to Israeli civilians and troops.

That’s the crux of the matter. An agreement between the US and Iran could theoretically weaken Tehran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah. But it’s far from a foregone conclusion.

That’s why, along with the impression that the Lebanese government appears unwilling or unable to do anything about Hezbollah, Israel must maintain the freedom to act to safeguard the North – even if it results in a diplomatic conflict with Trump and the US.

WSJ Editorial: U.S. Red Lines in the Deal with the Iranian Regime

In nuclear talks, the Iranians are reviewing a U.S. framework which, if accepted, would lead to 30-day negotiations on a detailed agreement. From our discussions with senior officials, here's where U.S. red lines stand in the talks:
The U.S. says it needs Iran's attestation that it doesn't seek nuclear weapons; the dismantlement of the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities; a ban on underground nuclear work; and on-demand inspections with penalties for violations. The U.S. seeks a 20-year moratorium on Iranian nuclear enrichment and demands the handover of all enriched nuclear material.

Iran would have to reopen Hormuz - gradually, as the U.S. relaxes its blockade, and then fully with the final deal. Most U.S. sanctions relief would be tied to Iran's performance of the deal, not merely its signing, though some assets could be unfrozen to begin.

Dismantlement is more important than any "moratorium" on enrichment, which the U.S. and Israel have already stopped by force. Iran can't enrich now, and while that should be banned permanently, with this regime it's essential to remove facilities and capabilities.

Iran would love to focus solely on its 440 kg. of 60%-enriched uranium. The regime's 20% stockpile may sound less dangerous, but reaching that level is already 90% of the way to weapons-grade. It, too, has to go. The regime has thousands of kg. of uranium enriched to 5% and lower, a solid basis to restart a nuclear program if left in Iran.

Clifford D. May: For Iran's True Believers, a Serious Peace Deal Is Out of the Question

During a Senate hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth why she is so vehemently opposed to the use of military force to address the threat posed by Tehran: "We did not have any evidence that Iran intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape, or form!"

How odd of her not to reckon with the fact that by the time we had such evidence, it might well have been too late to do anything about it. Or maybe no evidence would come to light, and the attack would emerge from a clear blue sky as happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

Since 1979, "Death to America!" has been the openly stated - and regularly chanted - policy of Iran's self-proclaimed "Islamic revolutionaries" and their terrorist proxies. Prior to the June 2025 air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, Iran's rulers "could have built a nuclear weapon with near certainty in less than six months," according to David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Is that not imminent enough?

When someone says he intends to kill you, it's essential to take him seriously. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani threatened that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Iran's rulers see themselves as jihadis fighting a holy war against the enemies of Allah. They can contemplate temporary ceasefires, periods of calm that allow them to rearm for the next battle. But a serious "peace deal" would be out of the question.

Read More

Iran Threatens To Cut Off Persian Gulf States’ Supply Of Slave Labor (PreOccupied Territory)

 Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook  and  Substack pages.

Iran Threatens To Cut Off Persian Gulf States’ Supply Of Slave Labor 

Tehran, May 7 – In a dramatic escalation of its ongoing conflict with the United States, Israel, and reality, Iran announced Tuesday that it may soon deprive the Persian Gulf monarchies of their primary economic lifeline: millions of imported Asian and African workers laboring under conditions that human rights groups have politely described as "not ideal" and critics have more accurately labeled "modern slavery."

Iranian officials, speaking from bunkers thoughtfully decorated with portraits of the most recent Supreme Leader, warned that continued "Zionist aggression" could lead to a full cutoff of the kafala-sponsored workforce that keeps Dubai's skyscrapers gleaming, Qatar's stadiums staffed, and Saudi malls operational. "If the flow of expendable labor stops," said a Revolutionary Guard spokesman, "who will build their palaces while they sip date juice in air-conditioned tents?"

Gulf states import roughly 35 million migrant workers, who make up the vast majority of the population in places such as the UAE and Qatar. Under the kafala system, these laborers surrender their passports, endure squalid camps, and face legal bondage to employers—arrangements long defended as "cultural" by the same regimes that lecture the West on tolerance.

"Without these heroic proletarians risking their lives for pennies," the Iranian statement continued, "the sheikhs will have to vacuum their own Bentleys. Think of the inconvenience!"

The threat comes amid Iranian missile and drone strikes that have already killed dozens of foreign workers, stranded seafarers, and disrupted remittances — the very economic lifeline many poor families in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and beyond depend on. Gulf economies, built on the backs of men who can't change jobs without permission and women often trapped in domestic servitude, now face the prospect of actual labor shortages if the fighting intensifies.

Human rights organizations expressed deep concern. "This is a tragedy," said a representative from Amnesty International, who somehow found time between condemning Israel for existing. "Migrant workers deserve better than to be collateral damage in someone else's war — but we can talk about Qatar specifically some other time, please. You're making our fundraising department uncomfortable."

Analysts note that Iran, a regime that exports misery through proxies and crushes its own dissidents, now positions itself as the disruptor of Gulf exploitation. Meanwhile, the petro-monarchies, flush with cash from oil sales that fund everything except decent worker protections, suddenly remember they need "stability."

A senior Emirati official, speaking anonymously while his Filipino driver waited outside, dismissed the Iranian bluster. "They can threaten all they want. Our sponsorship system is built to last. These workers come voluntarily — for the opportunity."

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More