Israel is winning the war, while the West retreats
Every act of betrayal of Israel has been accompanied by the constant barrage of international media coverage that works on the principle of blame Israel first, and ask questions later. In this Gaza-through-the-looking-glass version of events, Israel’s just war against the genocidal death cult responsible for the 7 October pogrom is somehow twisted into an act of genocide.Thank You, Israel, for Saving the World, Defending Freedom and Reshaping the Middle East
In reality, the IDF has gone to greater lengths than any army in history to reduce civilian casualties, while making clear that Hamas is responsible for every death. Yet many in the West are too blinded by anti-Israeli hatred to see the truth. As a top US military strategist asked in Newsweek in March: ‘Israel has created a new standard for urban warfare. Why will no one admit it?’ The only answer appears to be – because it’s Israel that has set that remarkably humane standard of warfare.
The double standards by which the world judges Israel were starkly displayed after the fall of the Assad regime. Faced with dangerous uncertainty, Israel sent troops into a previously demilitarised zone to secure its border with Syria, and launched air strikes to prevent chemical weapons falling into the hands of Islamists. The United Nations and states including France immediately condemned these reasonable defensive actions for allegedly breaking international law. Yet when the Turkish government launched a fresh offensive against the Kurdish minority within Syria, there was not a word of condemnation from the ‘international community’.
The desertion of Israel is a travesty not only for Israelis and Jews worldwide forced to face a wave of anti-Semitism alone, but for the West itself, too. The Israelis are fighting for the principles on which our civilised societies were built: democracy, national sovereignty and freedom. We should be supporting them as the front line in the global war against barbarism and slavery.
Yet the globalist elites of Western society have abandoned those foundational principles, and they now fear and loathe the Israelis who dare to stand up for them. That is why since 7 October, we have seen the consolidation of an unholy anti-Israeli alliance in the West, between Jew-hating Islamists and self-loathing left-liberals. Through 2024, everything that is rotten in our societies has continued to congeal around the banners of the anti-Israel crusade.
To its eternal credit, Israel continues to ignore the Western naysayers and fight its corner. Yet as the old order in the Middle East falls apart, with the Western powers losing their grip on events, the future remains uncertain.
It is time, as Israeli prime minister Netanyahu told the hostile UN a few months ago, to make a choice: will we bequeath future generations the ‘blessing’ of a Middle East shaped by Israel and its pro-democracy allies, or the ‘curse’ of a region dominated by Islamists, with all the implications of that worldwide?
In 2024, the West made the wrong choices. In 2025, there is still time to put that right and get behind the Israelis who are fighting for us all.
When it comes to national security, appeasement is not an option. Bribing aggressors only finances their militaries for attacks on the West in the future. Israel's approach to combating terrorism has always been characterized by thoroughness and determination -- for which is usually put through the tortures of hell by the very countries it is working to save.Gestures won't remedy antisemitism, actions will
With a vision of ultimately fostering peace, harmony, security and prosperity throughout the region, as in the Abraham Accords, Israel expanded its military operations beyond Hamas... reshaping the Middle East into a region free of the grip of terror... Make Persia Great Again!
So long as Iran's regime remains in power, brutalizing its people and making plans for global expansion, there can be no chance for peace in the region.
Removing the regime... would bring lasting security and prosperity to the Middle East and beyond.... One could then set about subduing Turkey and its terrorist proxies in Syria.
Respecting an office of state when its holder is controversial or perceived as undeserving presents a profound moral and practical dilemma, particularly in moments of crisis.
This issue came sharply into focus last Shabbat, when Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made an unannounced visit to the Perth Hebrew Congregation, offering solidarity after the suspected arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne.
The visit, arranged with only half an hour’s notice, sparked a storm of debate within the Jewish community and raised broader questions about the interplay between respect for institutions, personal convictions, and the challenges posed by social media discourse.
The backdrop to Albanese’s visit was a tragedy: The Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne had been targeted in what police have described as a likely terror attack. This occurred amidst a surge in antisemitism across Australia, exacerbated by the Israel-Hamas War following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
Albanese, who was in Perth at the time, likely saw the synagogue visit as an opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with Jewish Australians during a deeply unsettling moment for the community.
However, the prime minister’s relationship with the Jewish community is fraught. Many Australian Jews view him as, at best, unsympathetic to Israel and, at worst, indifferent to the rise of antisemitism. His recent appearance at a protest against antisemitism in Sydney was marred by boos, reflecting widespread frustration and distrust. These sentiments complicated his reception at the Perth synagogue and placed the synagogue’s rabbi in an unenviable position.
Respect for the office vs distrust of the individual
The core of the dilemma lay in balancing respect for the office of prime minister with the community’s grievances against the individual holding that office.
In Jewish tradition, the Shabbat service includes a prayer for the welfare of the government, underscoring a recognition of the importance of civic authority and communal responsibility.
Rejecting a sitting prime minister from attending such a service, particularly in the context of a solidarity visit, would have been a profound statement – arguably one of disrespect not just to Albanese as a person but to the institution he represents. Yet, for many congregants, Albanese’s presence felt incongruous, even offensive.
This tension highlights a broader issue faced by faith communities and civic groups worldwide: how to engage with political leaders whose actions or policies are viewed as antithetical to their values. Can one separate the office from its holder? And should respect for the office override personal or communal grievances?
The rabbi of the Perth Hebrew Congregation ultimately chose to welcome Albanese, inviting him to address the congregation briefly and say the prayer for the government.
This decision demonstrated an adherence to the principle of respecting the office while providing the Jewish community an opportunity to receive a gesture of solidarity in a moment of fear and vulnerability. It was a difficult, nuanced decision that placed communal unity and decorum above personal grievances – a stance rooted in the Jewish value of being a mensch (a person of integrity and honor).