08/29 Links: How Ireland succumbed to ‘radical chic’; Maher blasts academics for trashing Western civilization – and Israel; Tucker Carlson Keeps Turning Up in Foreign Agents' Paperwork

From Ian:

How Ireland succumbed to ‘radical chic’

his growing alignment of pro-Palestinian activism with Irish republican sentiment does not just affect foreign policy; it damages what the writer and strategist Eoghan Harris calls ‘the decent pluralism of Middle Ireland’. It is helping to revive political beliefs that left thousands dead and were thought to have been laid to rest.

While Sinn Fein is not benefiting electorally from this phenomenon as much as it might wish, its core messages and slogans are increasingly normalised. And as those with real memories of the violence grow older, a younger generation is being encouraged to sentimentalise the past. Everyone is entitled to remember their dead; the danger, though, is that Irish republicans are simultaneously seeking to erase everyone else’s dead from the narrative, whether victims of 7 October or of IRA terror.

In this febrile environment, there are growing demands for an Irish unity poll, despite the destabilising effect this would have in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein recently pressed the new Northern Ireland Secretary, Chris Bryant, for an ‘orderly transition into a unity referendum and constitutional change’, presenting it as if it were a done deal. The implication was that only the final, finer points of detail remained to be sketched out. Some commentators now even suggest that Sinn Fein should boycott the devolved assembly unless the UK agrees to a border poll. Bryant’s response – ‘I am not starting the poll now, or this week, or this month, or, I will suggest, this year’ – will only encourage Sinn Fein to push the matter further.

As for the other political parties in Ireland, far from standing firm against this radical drift, many are flirting with these new forces to help secure votes. Politicians involved with Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, parties which had historically built hard constitutional bulwarks against republican violence, have also been guilty of peddling anti-Israel rhetoric. It has pushed the centre of gravity further to the left and accelerated the very radicalism these parties once sought to contain. What could possibly go wrong? Everything, if the allegations facing that young woman at the border are any guide.

Simon Sebag Montefiore: How my ancestor dealt with anti-Semitism

I was once guilty of contra-establishmentarianism myself when I told an interviewer my Jewish family who escaped from Russia in 1903 were peasants with straw in their hair. When it was out, my mother phoned. ‘My father,’ she said passionately, ‘was descended from ten generations of scholars.’ ‘But they were poor!’ I insisted. ‘They escaped in a haycart!’ ‘There… was…. no… straw!’ she said. ‘Please correct this!’ I told my next interviewer that even in the shtetls of Lithuania, we were the Establishment.

My mother was always concerned by my over-ambitious projects: ‘Writing Jerusalem is far too stressful for you! You need nourishing food and luxuriant sleep.’ ‘What do you suggest?’ I said. ‘GIVE THE MONEY BACK!’ she said. In her view, my frailties qualified me only for the life of a hothouse valetudinarian. She wouldn’t have approved of my new book, The Cauldron. ‘Montefiore is walking on hot coals,’ confirmed the Times reviewer, ‘in this panoramic history of the Middle East.’ Sadly my mother is dead, but she was right about everything: from now on I am taking her advice.

My ancestor Moses Montefiore, a British magnate, knew everyone from sultans to tsars in the Victorian era. In the 1820s, he befriended Muhammad Ali, Turco-Albanian ruler of Egypt. When Mohammed Ali’s son Said visited London, he stayed with Moses, thanking him with a monumental silver decoration (now in the V&A). Said later built the Suez Canal. Those were interesting times when Islamic rulers could send their sons to stay with Jewish friends. Nowadays, I admire how Moses coped with anti-Semitism. Attending a royal dinner, a bigot denounced him: ‘I just visited Japan which I loved because Japan has no Jews and no pigs!’ ‘Then you and I should go to Japan together,’ answered Montefiore. ‘So they have one of each.’

Why is Hollywood campaigning to free convicted murderer Marwan Barghouti?

With millions facing hunger and displacement in Sudan, dissidents enduring prison and torture in Iran, and thousands of political prisoners languishing in Myanmar’s jails, the world is hardly suffering from a shortage of worthy humanitarian causes.

Yet some of the biggest names in the movie business have decided that what the world really needs is the release of Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian terrorist and convicted murderer serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison.

More than 20 actors associated with Marvel films have joined the “Free Marwan” campaign demanding his release, including Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Don Cheadle, and Cate Blanchett.

After years of pretending to save the world while wearing capes, armor, and assorted forms of spandex, these Marvel veterans have settled on a new real-life mission: securing the freedom of a man convicted of directing terrorist attacks that killed innocent people.

The celebrities say they are concerned about Barghouti’s imprisonment and alleged mistreatment, while the campaign they have joined portrays his trial as illegitimate and politically motivated.

Barghouti convicted of five murders
The trouble is that Barghouti is not in prison because Israel objected to his politics.

In 2004, the Tel Aviv District Court convicted him of five murders stemming from three terrorist attacks, as well as attempted murder and membership in a terrorist organization. He was sentenced to five consecutive life terms plus 40 years.

The attempted-murder conviction involved a failed car-bomb attack near Jerusalem’s Malha Mall.

Nor was Barghouti some peripheral political figure who happened to get swept up in the violence of the Second Intifada.

He was one of Fatah’s most powerful leaders in Judea and Samaria, headed its Tanzim terror group, and, the court found, exercised authority over the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried out suicide bombings and shooting attacks.

The judges ruled that Barghouti issued orders to kill through the Brigades and found that he supplied terrorist field units with money and weapons through close associates.

The consequences were brutal. A January 2002 shooting near Givat Ze’ev, the judges concluded, was carried out on Barghouti’s instructions. The victim, Yoela Chen, a mother of two, had stopped at a gas station while on her way to a family wedding. Gunmen opened fire on their car, killing Chen and wounding her aunt.

Barghouti was also convicted for his role in the June 2001 murder of Father Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a Greek Orthodox monk from St. George’s Monastery in Wadi Kelt, who was shot while driving on the Jerusalem-Ma’aleh Adumim road.

And Barghouti also authorized the March 2002 terrorist attack at Tel Aviv’s Seafood Market restaurant, where the gunman opened fire on diners. Yosef Habi, 52, of Herzliya, and Eli Dahan, 53, of Lod, were killed, as was Salim Barakat, a 33-year-old Druze police officer from Yarka who confronted the attacker. Thirty-five others were wounded.

Hollywood has long specialized in suspending disbelief. But asking us to suspend it about Barghouti’s five murder convictions may be its most ambitious production yet.

The “Free Marwan” campaign portrays Barghouti as a symbol of Palestinian unity, and some supporters have gone so far as to compare him to Nelson Mandela.

Read More

08/28 Links Pt2: The disgusting bigotry of blaming Israel for anti-Semitism; Four men plead guilty to arson attack on Jewish ambulances in London; Former Gaza hostage Elkana Bohbot welcomes birth of new daughter

From Ian:

Leading Sephardic & Mizrahi Organizations Challenge New York Magazine’s “Habibi City” Over Erasure of Middle Eastern Jews

What Zionism actually is to us
Our communities lived continuously in the Middle East and North Africa for over 2,500 years, before the emergence of Islam. In the twentieth century, close to one million Jews were driven from the Arab and Muslim world, frequently under laws that criminalized Zionism itself. In countries throughout the Arab world Zionism was made a capital offense, over 3,000 Jews were imprisoned, and Jews were stripped of citizenship and property as “Zionists”; across the region, families were dispossessed, imprisoned, or forced to flee under duress. In the political Zionism of the 20th century, we asserted our own indigeneity after living for millennia as second-class and, finally, exiled citizens of the lands of our birth. The movement your feature files alongside xenophobia and Islamophobia is the reason hundreds of thousands of those refugees had somewhere to go, and the reason their descendants, today the majority of Israel’s Jewish population, exist as communities at all. To renounce Zionism as the condition of belonging to a SWANA community is to demand that Jews disavow our own survival. Being Jewish or Zionist is not in opposition to being from a geographic region. For most of us, the two are how we are still here.

The cuisine your feature celebrates makes the point vividly. Food is one of the truest records a people keeps of where it has been. The dishes in your pages were also carried out of Baghdad, Sana’a, Cairo, and Casablanca by refugees who left with little else and they survive as living traditions rather than museum pieces because those refugees had a country to carry them to. Your food coverage goes further still: it prints, without comment, a featured restaurant’s menu map on which Israel does not appear at all, retitled “Discover Palestine,” and it refers in the magazine’s own editorial voice to “the land mass currently called Israel.” It reports, with evident satisfaction from one interviewee, that Israeli-owned restaurants are now retreating behind the euphemism “Mediterranean” some, by your own account, after vandalism. A feature devoted to the pride of naming oneself openly treats the return of Jews to concealment as a development to be savored. That is the second moral inversion.

The label “Arab Jew”
Your feature applies the label “Arab Jew” without qualification. Most Mizrahi Jews reject it and in current usage it functions largely to sever Jewish identity from Israel. The Tunisian-born sociologist and philosopher Albert Memmi answered the label half a century ago, responding to Muammar Gaddafi’s offer to welcome Jews back as “Arabs like us” after they had been brutally ethnically cleansed. He acknowledged the nostalgia the phrase evokes, then wrote: “We would have liked to be Arab Jews. If we abandon the idea, it is because over the centuries the Moslem Arabs systematically prevented its realization by their contempt and cruelty.” The identity was refused to us when we lived in Arab lands. It is now conferred on us in New York, without our consent, because it is politically convenient: an “Arab Jew” is a Jew whose story can be told without Israel. The great majority of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews were never asked whether we accept the label. Instead, your writers located the small minority who embrace it, presented them as representative, and left the rest of us to discover that our identity had been defined by others on our behalf. That is not inclusion. It is a curated exception, deployed to suggest the community has been consulted when it has not – erasure presenting itself as representation.

October 7 as a date without victims
In your feature, October 7th appears repeatedly and always as a calendar marker for what came after it, never as an event with victims of its own. It was carried out by Hamas, an organization whose founding charter is openly genocidal, calling for the destruction of Israel and invoking Islamic scripture commanding the killing of Jews, and whose record of violence runs in every direction: against Israelis in massacre and hostage-taking, and against Palestinians themselves, from the executions of political rivals in its 2007 seizure of Gaza to its ongoing torture and killing of dissidents. On October 7th, 2023 some 1,200 Israelis were murdered and 251 taken hostage, communities were burned, and sexual violence was documented – none of it acknowledged, even in passing, in thousands of words that date an entire cultural renaissance to that morning. Your readers might never learn that among the towns invaded that day including Ofakim, Sderot, Netivot are some of the most heavily Mizrahi communities in Israel: descendants of the very refugees from Morocco, Iraq, and Yemen whose food and music fill your pages. The people of the region were both among the murdered and among the murdered’s mourners, and your feature could not spare them a single sentence. A “SWANA community” whose “shared beliefs” in anti-Zionism require total silence about Jewish suffering and about the genocidal intent and movement that inflicted the tragedy of October 7th is not practicing solidarity with Palestinians. It is practicing antisemitism. That is the third moral inversion.

“We are not asking to be tolerated as exceptions to an ideological rule. We are asking to be recognized as what we are: peoples of the region.”

What we ask
We are not asking to be tolerated as exceptions to an ideological rule. We are asking to be recognized as what we are: peoples of the region. We ask that New York Magazine acknowledge that its framing excludes the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa except on ideological terms, and renders the region’s other non-Muslim peoples nearly invisible; that future coverage of SWANA communities include Mizrahi and Sephardic voices as we actually are, which for the great majority of us means Zionist, alongside the other erased non-Muslim indigenous voices of the region; and that your editors meet with representatives of the undersigned organizations to discuss how that happens.

Brendan O'Neill: The disgusting bigotry of blaming Israel for anti-Semitism

In a suit and tie on one of his hours-long, soul-eating livestreams, Piker said that ‘if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the State of Israel mind you, but against American Jews’. There it is. Plainly put. In all its neo-fascist horror. If you’re an American Jew and you’re pro-Israel, you risk attack. Your alignment with that ‘genocidal’ entity is putting your own life and limb at risk. How about being a good Jew and saying ‘Fuck Israel’?

Even for the Dem elites who cosied up to Piker in the demented belief that he would breathe life into their knackered brand, his ‘What do you expect, Jews?’ schtick has proven too much. Hakeem Jeffries, New York Democrat and House Minority leader, didn’t hold back. ‘The malicious claim that American Jews are inviting violence against themselves is dangerous and anti-Semitic’, he said. He continued: ‘There is zero justification for threats against the safety of our Jewish brothers and sisters at a moment of rising hate.’ Even Abdul El-Sayed – the Dem candidate for the US Senate in Michigan who’s been rubbing Piker like a genie’s lamp of stardust and ‘authenticity’ – has distanced himself from Piker’s mad comments.

I have no sympathy with these arse-covering Dems. For if they can hear and read, they would know that the pondscum idea that Jews invite violence upon themselves by backing Israel has been a rancid belief of the Islamo-left for years. Others who are a tad more morally sophisticated – ‘tad’ being the operative word – don’t berate Jews themselves but instead say the Jewish State is the problem. As that most one-eyed basher of Israel – Owen Jones – said in defence of Piker: ‘It is an obvious undeniable fact that Israel’s actions are fuelling anti-Semitism.’ When a middle-class canceller says something is ‘obvious’ and ‘undeniable’, it’s usually neither.

Let’s put this evil bullshit to bed once and for all. First, as already mentioned, the descendants of other nations that have committed far greater crimes than Israel’s are not being attacked day and night – why not? Next, explain this: why did violent Israelophobia – which is just Jew hatred in drag – precede what you call ‘the genocide’ but which most normal people call the Israel-Hamas War? It’s almost as if Jews in Europe and America are being attacked for the goddamn racist hell of it rather than because of the ‘Gaza genocide’. Finally: what happened to the great woke sin of victim-blaming? Why is it victim-blaming to say blacks invite racism upon themselves through their ‘bad behaviour’ but fine to spout the same regressive drivel about Jews? Singling Jews out for a species of moral judgement that is applied to no other race on Earth – if only there was a word for that…

Let’s cut to the chase: it isn’t Israel’s behaviour that is endangering the world’s Jews – it’s the Islamo-left’s lies about Israel’s behaviour. It is their treacharous bastardisation of a war as a ‘genocide’, and their libellous branding of civilian casualties as ‘baby killing’, that has resuscitated the wheezing zombie of Jew hatred. The desecrators of synagogues and destroyer of Jewish lives have all yelled ‘Genocide’ and ‘Child murder’ these past three years. Their violent hatred was fuelled not by Israel’s war against the Islamofascists of Hamas but by the Islamo-left’s viral, fascist-adjacent misinformation about that war.

Let’s put it like this. I support Israel. I call myself a Zionist. I don’t think anything like a genocide has been committed in Gaza. I want Hamas to be destroyed. And yet I have never been racially abused on the streets or seen any of my cultural institutions protested or graffitied. We all know why: I’m not a Jew.

Jonathan Tobin: El-Sayed’s antisemitism is the issue; not Hasan Piker

Indeed, the trouble goes beyond El-Sayed’s own long record of antisemitic positions and troubling comments about violence against Jews, even while continuing to claim that he wants to protect them.

Over the course of the last year, growing numbers of Democrats and liberal pundits have embraced a raft of blood libels about Israel and the Jews. The big lies that Israel has perpetrated a “genocide” in Gaza, imposed starvation there or is an “apartheid state” rather than the Middle East’s only democracy, have been widely embraced not only by extremist podcasters like Piker, but by vast numbers of Democratic officeholders and many, if not most, liberal pundits at supposedly respectable publications and broadcast networks.

Democrats have accepted the centerpiece argument of El-Sayed’s primary campaign about stopping the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby from “buying” Congress as a legitimate argument. Many, if not most, are no longer willing to accept campaign donations from it even if they remain supporters of the Jewish state.

Democrats may think that Piker’s comments justifying violence against Jews for supporting Israel go too far, which is embarrassing for them because he is linked to one of their main midterm hopefuls. But many, if not most, agree with the podcaster and his friend, El-Sayed, that there is something unwholesome or even wrong for Jews and other like-minded Americans to organize and seek to use the same tools employed by all advocacy groups to persuade voters to support their position.

The fact is that hatred for Israel—and the targeting of mainstream liberals for being insufficiently hostile to the Jewish state—has been a decisive factor in victory after victory in 2026 primaries for candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America or their allies.

Embracing blood libels
Democrats, including their leaders, like Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who are supposedly pro-Israel and concerned about antisemitism, have already demonstrated that they are willing to tolerate it if it comes out the mouth of a fellow Democrat like El-Sayed. Not even his invocation of traditional tropes—singling out Jews for opprobrium by mainstreaming blood libels about Israel, and claims that Jews are using their wealth to manipulate policy against American interests—was enough to get them to disavow his candidacy. Nor did his rationalization of a terror attack on a Michigan synagogue.

Nor should we have expected them to, since such hateful discourse has long since been normalized among political liberals in the post-Oct. 7 world, where Israel is now the main focus of hatred from the left. Anti-Zionism, which seeks to strip Jews of rights that no one thinks to wish to deny any other people, is indistinguishable from antisemitism. But it is now kosher among Democrats, rather than, as it used to and should be, a belief that should be relegated to the fever swamps of the far-left and the far-right.

Seen from that perspective, Piker is not a distraction from the real issues or a red herring being highlighted by Republicans to sabotage a Democratic candidate. He is entirely relevant to a key issue being debated across the country.

The willingness of Democrats to let their party be hijacked by a far-left faction and its allies whose hatred for Israel and the Jews is at the core of their woke belief system is the real issue. In so allowing—whether out of moral cowardice or a conviction that partisan loyalties and opposing Trump and the Republicans is more important than fighting antisemitism—they have created a moral dilemma for themselves.

The only way to salve their consciences is not by criticizing Piker or persuading El-Sayed to distance himself from him. It’s by disavowing El-Sayed and every other antisemitic candidate who camouflages his extremism by playing the part of a loyal Democrat who seeks to defeat Trump and all his works and allies.

If they won’t do that, they should stop pretending they care about opposing Jew-hatred and simply embrace their party’s new identity as the political expression of modern American antisemitism.

Read More

08/28 Links Pt1: Durban: A milestone in the new antisemitism; Israel lauds Finland’s decision to end UNRWA funding; Syria: Turkey's New Battleground Against Israel

From Ian:

Secret, direct channel between Israel and Hamas credited for enabling Jan. 2025 hostage deal

Israeli television on Friday reported further details about this week’s revelation of the direct channel of communication between Israel and Hamas during the recent Gaza war, which a source quoted by the network said played a critical role in securing the release of some hostages.

The channel was established in August 2024, according to Channel 12 news, shortly after Hamas operatives executed six Israeli hostages abducted during the October 2023 massacre that sparked the war, after sensing Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip approaching their tunnel.

There was considerable frustration in the Israeli security establishment after that incident, leading to the conclusion that a direct channel of communication was needed with Hamas and that mediating countries Egypt and Qatar could not be solely relied on.

A channel was set up between a senior Shin Bet official — on behalf of agency chief Ronen Bar — and senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad. The report did not detail how the sides established direct contacts, which were approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya, who at the time served as deputy to Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar.

The communication between the senior Shim Bet and Hamas representatives took place strictly over the phone, with dozens of calls taking place between them. Bar would listen in on them in real time.

A source familiar with the channel said it was used to neutralize many “landmines” in the hostage talks.

But they also devolved into shouting matches, with each side arguing over names, and Israel making clear which Palestinian security prisoners it would not release under any circumstance, according to the source.

The source claimed the direct channel run by the Shin Bet was also essential for overcoming obstacles set by Qatar, “which did not supply the goods and became a disruptive element.” The Shin Bet sparred throughout the war with fellow intelligence agency Mossad over who should mediate, with the Shin Bet favoring Egypt while the Mossad preferred Qatar, which has hosted Hamas leaders and is a leading patron of the Gaza-ruling terror group.

The source familiar with the Shin Bet channel credited it for for getting Hamas on board with the deal that was eventually reached in January 2025, during which dozens of both living and slain hostages were freed in small batches in return for boosted humanitarian aid to Gaza and over 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

“[Steve] Witkoff got Netanyahu on board. We got Hamas on board,” the source claimed in reference to US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, who was hailed at the time for helping sway the premier after a “tense” meeting in Jerusalem.

As part of the January 2025 deal, the sides also agreed to hold talks on a second and third phase that would include the return of all hostages, end the war, and ensure a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, but the truce collapsed after the first stage. In October that year, another US-backed agreement was reached to end the war that saw Palestinian terrorists release all the remaining captives.

Legal expert defends IDF rejection of World Central Kitchen strike investigation - interview

On April 1, 2024, the IDF mistakenly killed seven international food aid workers working for the World Central Kitchen (WCK).

Last week, the IDF probe admitted that its surveillance officials misidentified the WCK security officials as Hamas members.

While acknowledging the gravity of its error, the chief military prosecutor of the Military Advocate-General (MAG) Corps determined that, notwithstanding serious failures in the process that led to the assessment that Hamas operatives were traveling in the vehicles, the decisions of the commanders did not raise reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct.

The IDF therefore decided not to open a criminal investigation.

Following this announcement, in a joint statement the foreign ministers of the UK, Australia, and Canada said the decision not to pursue criminal investigations was “shameful.”

“They just say it’s a shame that Israel hasn’t brought criminal charges – they don’t specify what is shameful about it,” Dr. Brian L. Cox told The Jerusalem Post on Monday. A very thorough assessment, no evidence of war crime

Cox retired from the United States Army in 2018 after 22 years of service, including seven years as a military lawyer. He is now a senior fellow at Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Canada, and he taught international law at Cornell Law School from 2019-26.

Cox told the Post that it makes sense for Israel to not pursue criminal charges because they have done a “very thorough assessment based on all the evidence they can gather, and they’ve reached the conclusion that this wasn’t a war crime.”

From an International Humanitarian Law (IHL) perspective, this case is “really straightforward,” he noted.

“If the personnel involved believed they were attacking Hamas fighters and not WCK humanitarian workers, then it wasn’t a war crime. And that’s just a doctrinal application of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) distinction rule.”

Cox added that militaries can prosecute for violation of use of force policy, but then it would have to be “really egregious, a wanton disregard” of policy, which was not the case here.

While the IDF chose not to open criminal investigations, it did remove several officers from their positions, and others were formally reprimanded, an outcome that Cox said would have been exactly the same if the incident had involved the Australian, UK, or Canadian military.

Cox pointed out that a “double standard” is being applied to the IDF here.

“Just because there was an allegation that has been leveled against Israel, the expectation is that the IDF will initiate a criminal prosecution. That expectation doesn’t exist for any other military, including the three countries that signed this joint statement.”

When a soccer league honors ‘martyrs,’ the world should stop turning a blind eye

Soccer is a game that connects us all, until it comes to terror
Rarely is it something that we connect with terrorists, hatred, or incitement, unless it comes to the Palestinians.

I have watched the magic of Messi and Ronaldo over the years, and I remember back in 2018 when all of Israel, including me, was super excited to welcome Messi and his team as Argentina came to play Israel in June 2018.

It was their final friendly match before heading to the FIFA World Cup in Russia.

I was seriously trying to get tickets for that match, but something utterly repulsive happened: the game was initially set for Haifa but was moved to Jerusalem because of security concerns and threats against Messi.

This was because a well-known terrorist was so furious about this match that he actually encouraged people to burn pictures and jerseys of Messi, and incited them to violence or to do anything possible to stop that match from happening. Yes, you heard that right.

This terrorist was living the high life, in the fast lane instead of sitting in an Israeli jail where he belongs!

His name is Jibril Rajoub, and believe it or not, he is the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) soccer federation. Are we really surprised?

He was sentenced to life imprisonment by an Israeli military court for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army truck, and while in prison he learned to speak Hebrew, studied politics, and joined Fatah, eventually becoming a prominent prisoner and leader among his incarcerated comrades and terrorist friends.

He was unfortunately released in the Jibril Agreement prisoner swap and deported by Israel to Lebanon, due to his active role in organizing the First Intifada, where nearly 200 Israelis were murdered.

He lives and breathes hatred for Israel, which is why he went absolutely mad in 2018 when the national team of Argentina was planning to come to Israel.

Thank goodness, FIFA actually suspended him from official activities for one year due to his vile incitement to hatred and violence in calling on soccer fans around the world to burn jerseys and pictures of Messi.

His pathetic appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to have that suspension removed was rejected.

He has a long record of vile incitement and anti-Semitic statements, which, among others, included saying that the Jewish people deserved the Nazi genocide perpetrated against them. Additionally, he openly declared that if the PA possessed a nuclear weapon, it would use it against Israel.

Read More

Australian judges have found a loophole in antisemitism: Just call the Jews “Zionists”

An Australian court has come up with a remarkably convenient rule for deciding whether something is antisemitic. If someone says that Jews control the media and politicians, that can be antisemitic. But if he says Zionists control the media and Israel controls politicians, apparently that is just criticism of a political ideology.

That distinction appears in a recent New South Wales judgment, Farhat v Commissioner of Police, where Justice Fagan devoted a surprising amount of space to defining antisemitism and explaining why hostility toward Israel and Zionism should generally be regarded as something categorically different from hostility toward Jews. There are plenty of issues with his analysis, but perhaps the most revealing one comes from an earlier Australian case that he relies upon, Wertheim v Haddad. And the example he quotes from that case practically demonstrates why his theory doesn't work.

In Wertheim, a Muslim preacher had talked about media outlets owned by “Zionist entities,” referred to “Zionist backed media agencies,” and said that right-wing politicians supported Israel because “Israel holds their leash.” These are among the oldest and most recognizable structures of antisemitic conspiracy theory. The only significant difference is that the word “Jew” has been replaced by “Zionist” or “Israel.”

Yet Justice Stewart, deciding Wertheim, drew a sharp distinction. According to the passage quoted approvingly by Fagan, the statements concerned “Israel, the IDF and Zionists,” rather than Jews, and he explained that “disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group.” That sounds clean until you look at what was actually said. “Jews control the media” is an antisemitic trope, but “Zionists control the media” becomes criticism of an ideology. “Jews control politicians” is an antisemitic trope, but “Israel holds politicians on a leash” becomes criticism of a foreign government. Apparently antisemitism can be disinfected with a thesaurus.

Worse, the preacher had said explicitly antisemitic things earlier that very same day. Stewart found Haddad to have conveyed that Jews are conspiratorial, treacherous and scheming; that Jews love money; that Jews control banks; and other classic antisemitic ideas. The court ultimately characterized those lectures as “fundamentally racist and antisemitic.” But it separated them from the "Zionist" lecture by bizarrely claiming it was to a different audience. Yes, an antisemite can and would change his language to different audiences, that doesn't cleanse the statements. 

Yet Australian judges think so.

The problem is that antisemitism has never been defined simply by whether the noun Jew appears in the sentence. Antisemitic ideas have structures, stereotypes and recurring conspiracy claims: secret Jewish power, Jewish control of governments, Jewish manipulation of the media, Jewish financial domination and Jews operating through hidden networks. A speaker can express those exact ideas while substituting another word for “Jew.”

That is how dog whistles work, and to claim dog whistles aren't bigoted because of a simple word substitution is bizarre, to say the least.

Fagan then takes Stewart's distinction and turns it into something approaching a general theory of antisemitism. In Farhat, he argues that Israel and the Jewish people are “in every material respect different things” and therefore hostility toward Israel cannot simply be equated with hostility toward Jews. He repeatedly invokes anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations as evidence that hostility toward Zionism cannot inherently constitute hostility toward Jews.

The first proposition is trivial: Israel is obviously not identical to every Jew in the world. But the conclusion does not follow. A synagogue is not identical to the Jewish people either. Neither is a Jewish school, a Jewish cemetery, Hebrew, the Star of David or a kosher supermarket. Attacks on any of them can nevertheless be antisemitic because antisemitism can target Jewish collective institutions, symbols and identities, not merely individual human beings carrying a label saying JEW.

Israel presents the same analytical problem on a much larger scale. It describes itself as the Jewish state, was created as an expression of Jewish national self-determination and is understood by both its supporters and its enemies as a Jewish collective entity. That does not mean criticism of Israel is antisemitic; of course it isn't. It means the question cannot be answered simply by saying Israel isn't Jews.

Nor does the existence of anti-Zionist Jews settle anything. Fagan repeatedly relies on the fact that some Jews oppose Zionism or harshly condemn Israel, as though this proves that anti-Zionism occupies an entirely separate conceptual category from antisemitism. But members of a group can endorse prejudicial ideas about their own group, and no characteristic needs to be shared by 100 percent of Jews before hostility toward that characteristic can be relevant to antisemitism. Most Jews do not observe Shabbat; that would hardly prove that attacking Jews for observing Shabbat has nothing to do with antisemitism.

This is precisely why the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which Fagan criticizes, emphasizes context. IHRA explicitly says that ordinary criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, but it also says that antisemitism can include targeting Israel when it is “conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” and gives as an example the use of “symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism” to characterize Israel or Israelis. It separately identifies conspiracy claims about Jewish control of “the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as classic antisemitic allegations.

The Wertheim quotation used by Fagan is almost a perfect illustration of why those provisions exist. If someone says that Zionists secretly control media outlets and that Israel keeps politicians “on a leash,” the relevant question is not simply whether Zionist and Jew are dictionary synonyms. They aren't. The relevant question is whether an old antisemitic conception of Jewish power has been transferred onto “Zionists” and Israel.

This is the central intellectual failure in both judgments. They treat antisemitism as though it inheres principally in the explicit word Jew, rather than in ideas, stereotypes and conspiracy structures about Jews. That is not how antisemitism works, and historically it has never been how antisemitism works.

Antisemites have always adapted their vocabulary to the political environment around them. “Hebrews,” “Semites,” “cosmopolitans,” “Rothschilds,” “globalists” and now “Zionists” can function in different contexts as direct references, euphemisms, dog whistles or perfectly legitimate descriptive terms. You determine which one is being used by looking at the claim being made, not merely at the label attached to its subject.

The very word “antisemitism” illustrates the absurdity of this approach. Wilhelm Marr popularized the term in the nineteenth century precisely as part of an effort to recast Jew-hatred in supposedly racial and scientific language rather than as a crude religious attack on Jews. “Semite” was itself a substitute label for Jews.

By these judges’ logic, we would have trouble recognizing even antisemitism as antisemitic because the word itself does not say “Jew.” That is exactly the problem: Jew-hatred has always adapted its vocabulary. The relevant question is not which noun the antisemite chooses, but what ideas and stereotypes he is expressing.

Courts ordinarily understand this principle perfectly well. Racism and prejudice are routinely inferred from context, coded language, patterns of conduct and the targeting of particular institutions or communities. Nobody seriously believes that prejudice disappears whenever the speaker avoids saying the protected group's formal name. Yet that is remarkably close to the framework these judgments are constructing for antisemitism.

Once courts establish the rule that antisemitic tropes stop being antisemitic when the word “Jew” is replaced by “Zionist,” they haven't clarified the definition of antisemitism. They have written its easiest evasion manual.

---

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

 

Read More

08/27 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: Britain’s moral depravity; The Nexus of the Ruffalo Problem; Bondi Beach unveils mural in memory of Chanukah terrorist attack victims

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Britain’s moral depravity

Israel is entitled, in law and in any moral universe, to determine its own borders against an enemy that’s determined to destroy it.

It’s outrageous to single out Israel alone for this kind of imperious and punitive treatment. No such campaign is waged against, say, Turkey for having invaded Cyprus and divided the island from the Greeks by Turkish occupation.

It’s even more outrageous since the United Kingdom is principally responsible for the whole rotten history of the never-ending Middle East conflict.

That’s because, when it was the Mandatory power in pre-Israel Palestine, Britain tore up international law. It went back on its binding undertaking to settle the Jews alone in the land of Israel and instead tried to divide the land by offering much or most of it to the Arabs.

This was an early “two-state solution,” minted by perfidious Britain as a reward to the Arabs for their genocidal aggression in attempting to exterminate the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Rewarding terror merely incentivizes yet more of it; and Britain has been pursuing that very same strategy ever since then, repeated now yet again by the Burnham government.

Britain is behaving as if it’s still the colonial master, treating Israel with utter contempt by instructing it to shred its lawful inheritance and expose its people to genocidal assault—and then punishing it for refusing to bow the knee.

British officials have warned, however, that since settlement goods would be almost impossible to distinguish from other Israeli goods, this would inevitably morph into a full-blown boycott of Israel.

Since Burnham and Miliband are playing into a hysterical left-wing narrative of demonic Israel that has consumed not only much of their party but most of progressive opinion, that’s unlikely to trouble them.

Nonetheless, they’re making a very grave mistake because they have overlooked a crucial point.

Britain is highly dependent on Israel for its own security. The United Kingdom has emasculated itself so that it no longer possesses armed forces that can defend the country. From Israel, it gets both priceless intelligence—vital for defending its people against Islamist attack—and cutting-edge military technology.

Yet it is proposing to boycott its key military and security ally at a time when the moth-eaten British lion is facing unprecedented, mounting and immediate threats from Russia and Iran.

Israel might now suggest politely that since the United Kingdom apparently hates the Jewish state so much, it surely won’t want to benefit any further from Israeli intelligence or arms supplies, which will accordingly be drastically curtailed.

What Israel should also say is that Britain’s precious “two-state solution” is profoundly immoral. People who wage a 100-year campaign of mass murder to prevent and then exterminate a legitimate country, while turning down repeated offers of a state of their own because they want to murder yet more of those people and destroy that country, and who indoctrinate their own children to do so in perpetuity, deserve absolutely nothing.

Those like the British government, who have spent the past century rewarding such a program and are now punishing its intended victims, can be described in two words: morally depraved.

Masar Badil was sanctioned for Terrorist Ties — Here Are the Branches Operating in The US

The Masar Badil Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path, a branch of the terrorist organization Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was sanctioned on Wednesday by the US Treasury for terrorism ties, but he organization still maintains a web of smaller groups within the United States.

The US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Masar Badil and executive committee members Zaid Abdulnasser and Rawa Alsagheer due to the organization’s inextricable links with Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network. Samidoun was jointly sanctioned by Canada and the US in October 2024 for being “owned, controlled, or directed” by the Foreign Terrorist Organization PFLP.

“The organizations share fundraising mechanisms as well as senior leaders and members of their respective Executive Committees,” read the US Treasury statement. Masar Badil and Samidoun Overlapping Leadership

In addition to being executives of Masar Badil, Abdulnasser was the Samidoun Germany coordinator and Alsagheer the Samidoun Brazil coordinator. They joined other Samidoun and Masar Badil officers already being sanctioned by OFAC. Samidoun Europe and Masar Badil executive Mohammad Khatib and Samidoun Madrid coordinator, Masar Badil executive, and Alkarama Palestinian Women’s Mobilization co-founder Jaldia Abubakra had been sanctioned on May 19. It had been noted in the May Treasury press release that Abubakra had “played a key role in establishing a Samidoun partner organization in 2021,” perhaps already hinting then that OFAC was reviewing Masar Badil.

Khatib had in the past been described by Palestinian news outlets as a PFLP operative and spokesman. The PFLP and Palestinian outlets similarly described a chief officer of the Samidoun network, Khaled Barakat, as a leader of the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group. Barakat once publicly represented Samidoun as its leader in statements and petitions, but since the founding of Masar Badil was presented only as that newer group’s head, creating some degree of ambiguity about the relationship between the two groups. His wife, Charlotte Kates, serves as the Samidoun international coordinator. According to a July 19 Institute for the Critical Study of the Society lecture, Kates is also a co-founder of Samidoun and deputy secretary-general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. The Canadian citizen reportedly relocated to Lebanon — She faced legal challenges in the wake of her calls of “long live October 7” and support for terrorism in April 2024.

Unlike other major Samidoun network officers, Kates is not sanctioned. Masar Badil is also not the limit of the Samidoun network, but rather the handle for an umbrella of organizations that continue to operate in North America.

In a deleted July Instagram post in preparation for a November conference in Toronto, the organization confirmed that Tariq El-Tahrir Youth and Student Network, Nidal, Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return at the University of Washington (SUPER UW), Al-Ahrar Palestinian Prisoner Support, and Basel Al Araj Committee were part of Masar Badil North America.

CAIR Removes 9/11 Curriculum Listing Bin Laden’s Manifesto, Following Jewish Onliner Exposé

The Council on American-Islamic Relations quietly revised the September 11th section of its national 2026-2027 back-to-school guide one day after Jewish Onliner published an investigation into the organization’s recommended classroom materials.

The original guide directed educators, administrators and school boards to a CAIR-New Jersey curriculum that listed Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” among its high school resources. By August 26, CAIR had removed its endorsement of and link to the curriculum and added a note claiming that an earlier version “did not go through proper vetting.” Yet CAIR National had promoted the same curriculum in its 2025–26 back-to-school guide.

CAIR did not publicly announce the change, identify who failed to vet the material or say whether Jewish Onliner’s reporting prompted the revision. The recommended curriculum, as featured in CAIR’s 2025-2026 national back to school guide. Credit: CAIR

CAIR Quietly Removes Its Endorsement of 9/11 Curriculum
Jewish Onliner published its investigation on August 25 after reviewing CAIR’s newly released nationwide guide and the materials to which it directed American schools.

The original 9/11 section told readers that CAIR-New Jersey and Teaching While Muslim had developed a “comprehensive” curriculum for elementary, middle and high school classrooms. It said the resource included recommended texts, videos, discussion questions and teaching strategies.

The section concluded:
“Access the curriculum at cair-nj.org/911curriculum and share this resource with educators, administrators, and local school boards.”

This was more than a passing reference. CAIR National explicitly instructed readers to access the curriculum and circulate it among educators, administrators and local school boards.

By August 26, the paragraph and hyperlink had been removed from the online guide. The revised version retains the heading “25th Anniversary of 9/11 and Tools for Classrooms,” but no longer names CAIR-New Jersey, Teaching While Muslim or their curriculum.

The replacement text states:
“Comprehensive lesson plans would address the 9/11 attack itself, the victims and families impacted, and the aftermath of the attack, such as the war in Afghanistan, changes in national security, and the rise in hate crimes and discrimination against American Muslim and perceived-Muslim communities.”

Read More

08/27 Links Pt1: Who Is Really Running Iran?; Why Did Israel Take Over an UNRWA School in Jerusalem?; IDF kill Sinwar bodyguard who took part in Oct. 7 attack

From Ian:

Who Is Really Running Iran?

In late July, Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was finally granted an audience with the country's elusive new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. According to Iran International, citing sources inside the president's office and others, Pezeshkian was driven to an undisclosed location, transferred into a commercial vehicle with tinted windows, and placed beside a man he was told was the supreme leader.

The car was kept in darkness. No handshake was permitted. The encounter was reportedly brief and conducted entirely by voice. Pezeshkian allegedly left wondering whether he had met Mojtaba Khamenei at all.

Iran has a supreme leader whom almost nobody sees, a president who cannot reliably reach him, and a military establishment that increasingly makes decisions in his name. In Iran, where the leader's image is part of the machinery of authority, invisibility creates a vacuum.

The most important leader is Ahmad Vahidi, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He has served as defense minister, interior minister, and commander of the Quds Force, Iran's principal instrument of foreign covert action.

Argentina accuses Vahidi of involvement in planning the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. This allegation places Iran's most powerful military institution under a man associated with terrorism, proxies and covert action as ordinary instruments of statecraft.

Around Vahidi stands a small fraternity of veteran Guards commanders and intelligence officials whose careers stretch back to the revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, shapes strategy. Mohammad-Bagher Zolghadr connects the institutions. Hossein Taeb, the former chief of IRGC Intelligence who now heads the Basij paramilitary organization, watches the streets. Together, they are the operating system of the Islamic Republic.

Iran's security establishment captured the decisive institutions of the state. The Guards did not abolish the clerical state; they climbed inside it. They kept its constitution, rituals and religious vocabulary while concentrating practical power in the hands of men with military and intelligence backgrounds. They do not need Iran to win today. They need the West to lose patience tomorrow.

The Best Outcome for Core U.S. Interests Is the Collapse of the Iranian Regime

Twenty years of experience as an American diplomat has made me realize that no amount of diplomatic ingenuity can contain Iran. President Donald Trump is right to resort to an intensive economic pressure campaign, backed by the implicit threat of renewed kinetic action. The U.S. should keep pushing until it gets the best outcome for American interests, the region and the Iranian people: the shattering of the illegitimate regime in Tehran.

I was sent to Kuwait for my first State Department assignment, arriving in 2007 at the peak of Iraq's bloody civil war. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps drove much of the violence, building death squads and militias and arming them with IEDs that killed and injured hundreds of U.S. service members.

My subsequent tour in Bahrain coincided with the onset of the Arab Spring protests in 2010. Popular grievances fueled the demonstrations, but Iran exploited the situation, pouring fuel on sectarian tensions. Gulf rulers seized on fears of Iranian interference to justify the Saudi-led intervention that put an end to the protests.

From 2011 to 2013, I coordinated State Department policy for Lebanon - a country hollowed out by decades of Iranian meddling and hostage to Tehran's shadow war against Israel. Billions of dollars of IRGC backing meant Hizbullah outgunned Lebanon's national army and possessed an arsenal of 60,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israeli towns and cities. Iran in 2013 dispatched Hizbullah to shore up the Assad regime in Syria during the civil war, fueling a conflict that led to over half a million deaths.

The mullahs might not have orchestrated Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, but IRGC know-how and hundreds of millions of dollars of funding over two decades enabled the rampage into Israel that killed more than 1,200 people, including 46 Americans.

The regime in Tehran bears overwhelming responsibility for the mayhem and misery in the Middle East since 1979, and its hold on power is a dire threat to regional stability. The current showdown is an inevitable result of the Iranian regime's efforts to dominate the region through bullying, blackmail and terror. The best outcome for the region - and for core U.S. interests - is the regime's collapse.

How Tehran Survives U.S. Sanctions

Iran has spent years setting up a complex system of oil sales and clandestine shadow banking that it hopes will sustain its economy and military long enough to outlast the latest U.S. economic assault.

The U.S. naval blockade of Iran's ports has reduced Iranian oil exports to near zero. But Tehran still has 80 million barrels of oil stored offshore in oil tankers, mainly in the waters off Malaysia.

Relying on a ship-to-ship transfer system, sanctioned tankers unload crude onto other tankers in international waters to mask the fuel's origin, then ship the cargo to China.

U.S. sanctions generally aim to cut off targets from the U.S. financial system. But sanctions become less effective if U.S. enemies avoid the U.S. financial system entirely.

Iran's transactions with China are increasingly settled in Chinese yuan, outside U.S. oversight. Iran also uses cryptocurrencies to avoid U.S. oversight.

Moreover, Tehran operates a network of shell companies in hubs including Hong Kong and Dubai that are controlled by Iranian exchange houses. These move Iranian oil proceeds into other currencies.

As Washington sanctions one front company, Tehran simply spins up another.

Iranian Cyber Sabotage Is Targeting U.S. Water Systems

The Iranian regime recently executed a series of targeted digital intrusions against water infrastructure in the U.S. This aggressive campaign focused on the operational technology networks of municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities across 7-12 states.

The primary mechanism of the attacks is the scanning of the public internet for exposed programmable logic controllers, which are specialized industrial mini-computers responsible for managing physical machinery, water flow, and chemical treatment cycles.

A pivotal potential vulnerability exposed during this campaign was the indirect threat to the chemical treatment and safety of the supply of drinking water. If water flow drops significantly at a particular location while automated chemical injectors continue to pump in the disinfectant chlorine at pre-set levels, the concentration of chlorine in that section of the facility can rapidly skyrocket to toxic, highly corrosive levels.

Irrespective of its actual impact, this sabotage event borders on the threshold of biochemical warfare insofar as it was a deliberate attempt to inflict a toxicant on an adversary population. The sabotage was designed to prove that a foreign adversary can silently compromise the safety of both U.S. industry structures and individual Americans' household tap water from thousands of miles away.

Read More

Committee To Protect Journalists: Israel Targets Journalists Launching Incendiary Kites From Gaza (PreOccupied Territor

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook  and  Substack pages.

New York, August 27 — The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a stern condemnation today of what it called Israel’s “systematic campaign to silence the press” after Israeli forces intercepted and neutralized several individuals along the Gaza border who were documented launching flaming kites and helium balloons toward Israeli communities.

According to CPJ’s latest statement, the targeted individuals were “clearly identifiable journalists engaged in vital fieldwork.” The organization noted that many of the kite operators wore reflective vests or carried cameras, which, in the group’s view, conferred protected status under international law regardless of the payload attached to the airborne devices.

“These were not militants,” insisted CPJ Middle East director Sara Qudah in a press release. “They were storytellers using innovative, low-tech methods to convey the urgency of the Palestinian narrative. When Israel shoots down a kite carrying a burning rag soaked in flammable liquid, it is shooting down journalism itself.”

The incidents occurred during a period of heightened activity near the Yellow Line. In years past, hundreds of such devices have started fires in Israeli fields, nature reserves, and communities. CPJ’s preliminary investigation determined that at least four of the operators had previously contributed footage or still images to various outlets. One had posted a selfie holding a kite labeled “Press” shortly before release.

The IDF insisted on its right to defend Israel, a claim that human rights activists dismiss as irrelevant, calling it “classic deflection.” CPJ pointed to its longstanding methodology, which classifies anyone who has ever held a camera or submitted material as a journalist, irrespective of concurrent activities. “Contextualizing their work as ‘incendiary’ is a dangerous smear,” Qudah added. “It manufactures consent for violence against the media.”

The statement further accused Israel of “the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented,” updating its running tally to include the kite operators among those whose professional activities were allegedly interrupted by force. RSF and the International Federation of Journalists quickly echoed the concern, calling for an independent investigation into the “targeting of airborne press assets.”

Supporters of the CPJ position argued that any restriction on kite launches constitutes prior restraint on free expression. No foreign journalists were granted access to the kite-launch sites to verify the operators’ press credentials independently, but numerous videos have emerged from Gaza with little children reading fabricated accounts of suffering, conferring, according to the CPJ, the status of "journalist" on the script writers.

---

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

 

Read More

Iran extorting from its Jews to bankroll the war

Al Hurra (Arabic) has an article on how minorities are being mistreated in Iran since the fighting started. It describes how a church has been confiscated and Bahai's accused of espionage.

For Jews, however, Iran seems to have resurrected a medieval method: arrest Jews and extort them for cash.

According to activists and Iranian citizens who spoke to Al-Hurra from inside Iran, many Jews in Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz were recently arrested by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Some were released from custody - in exchange for large sums of money. For some, their families were forced to give up their property in order to release their fathers or sons from jail.

This is happening at the same time that Jewish community leaders are making public statements against Israel and the US, including Rabbi Dr. Hakham Hamami Lalehzar saying in Parliament that “The murderers of Supreme Leader Khamenei must be killed.”

It is even more clear now that when Jewish Iranian leaders say statements like this, they are coerced. And now we know how the coercion works: threats of arrests or worse. 

---

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

 

Read More

Academic paper complains that Zionist schools teach Zionism

A recently published Master's thesis by Laurie Baker at the University of Toronto says this in its abstract:

This thesis argues that Israel education (re)produces Zionist hegemony in Jewish-Canadian communities, exemplified in Toronto Jewish day schools. Israel education is practiced in a variety of settings and aims to instill an affective relationship – a feeling of love – for Zionism and Israel in young Jews. Zionist hegemony, as the term is used in this thesis, refers to the way devotion to Zionism functions as a metric for inclusion in many Jewish Canadian communities. An analysis of publicly available documents from seven Jewish day schools in the Greater Toronto Area demonstrates that through Israel education, Zionism is framed as a shared community value, and students are discouraged from thinking critically about the ideology. Augmenting this research is an autoethnography based on my personal experiences as an anti- Zionist Jew who grew up in a Jewish Zionist community, and as a graduate of a Toronto Jewish day school. I reflect on the emotional and social impact of Israel education and Zionist hegemony from within a Jewish Canadian community.

I looked at the websites of the seven schools, and every one of them stated that they were Zionist or supportive of Israel. Baker makes it sound like this is hidden from parents, and it certainly is not. Instilling love of Israel is as much a part of these schools as instilling love of studying Torah. It would be just as inappropriate to teach anti-Zionism as it would be to teach the Documentary Hypothesis. If parents want that, they should find another school.

In fact, Baker admits in the thesis that she refused to have a bat mitzvah since she didn't believe in God. So why doesn't she complain that her Jewish day school, presumably, didn't teach atheism along with Judaism? Isn't it the same thing?

That is not to say that the schools do not allow critical thinking on either Zionism or Judaism. In fact, many of them say this explicitly in their online materials. Robbins Hebrew Academy says that it engages Israel in a “critical and meaningful way,” that students see Israel through “many lenses,” and that they study its political, social, religious and historical contexts.

Baker claims that the Leo Baeck Day Schools position towards Israel means it is“at best unnecessary and at worst forbidden” to think critically about it. Yet its materials say "We are a Zionist institution with a core responsibility to preserve Israel and encourage a democratic state. Our ability to engage meaningfully, yet not unquestioningly, on Israeli governmental policies is an example of the importance of teaching multiple perspectives and what students need to understand the complexity of modern Israel. Our students learn that they can both hug and wrestle as part of a positive relationship with Israel."

It appears that unless these explicitly Zionist  schools teach students that Israel may not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, then they are violating some imaginary code of ethics that exists only in her head. 

Speaking of, she writes about the hateful reactions she received from her Instagram post less than a week after October 7, 2023. But she then quotes her own stupid and callous comment:

for people who say israel is the only thing standing between jews and genocide, consider where antisemitism stems from. white supremacy. antisemitism is a form of white supremacy. like myself, many jews are now considered white and have access to the power and privilege that comes with that. whiteness is malleable and shifts and changes to benefit itself. That being said, Israel is now weaponizing white supremacy (the very system it essentially says it stands against) to systemically oppress Palestinians in their own land. white supremacy is the common thread. for white jews to grasp at the power our conditional whiteness lends us through supporting the state of israel is to turn our backs on collective liberation from the claws of white supremacy that ultimately harms us all. it is a betrayal of jewish values and it stops us from seeing the bigger system at play. we cannot fight for the end of antisemitism without fighting from the end of white supremacy. and we cannot fight to end white supremacy while we are actively perpetuating it and holding on to the tenuous power it is lending us. 

So she essentially blamed October 7 on Israel, and then whined that people insulted her afterwards. Boo hoo. 

Baker's grasp of reality is tenuous at best, but that doesn't stop her thesis adviser to approve her writing which is essentially demanding that Jewish schools cannot choose how to teach about Israel.

---

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

 

Read More

08/26 Links Pt2: Ex-hostage who dug his own grave describes cruelty of Hamas captivity; US declares Palestine Action as terrorist group; UK police officers probed for banning Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans

From Ian:

Gottheimer asks House leaders to sign onto bipartisan measure decrying Jew-hatred in both parties

After antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker tried to blame Jewish supporters of Israel for worsening antisemitism, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) called on House Republican leaders on Tuesday to allow a vote on his bipartisan resolution condemning such voices in both parties.

“Hatred is hatred. Period,” stated Gottheimer, who is Jewish. “Let’s bring the vote to the floor.”

The resolution, introduced with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), takes aim at both Piker on the Democratic side and Candace Owens on the Republican side for their attacks on Jewish Americans.

Piker has been welcomed by Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and others from the party’s left wing. He recently warned that Jewish Americans who support a Jewish state were stirring up antisemitism themselves.

“If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the State of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews,” he said on a Twitch stream.

Owens “actively amplifies antisemitic figures on her shows,” including guests who praised Hitler, trivialized the Holocaust or promoted “Jewish mafia” narratives, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

She was named “Antisemite of the Year” in 2024 by StopAntisemitism.

“Telling millions of followers that Jewish Americans are bringing violence on themselves is blatantly antisemitic and one of the oldest tropes in the book,” Gottheimer stated.

“This is exactly why we introduced this resolution, and there’s no excuse left for Republican leadership to keep sitting on it,” he said. “Anyone still supporting or campaigning with these personalities is complicit.”

The American Jewish Committee joined the criticism of Piker. “Blaming Jews for the antisemitism directed at them is itself antisemitism,” it said.

The ADL has estimated that Owens has 35 million followers and Piker about 11.5 million.

Study: Genocide claims on US campuses largely grew out of preexisting BDS activism

Claims of genocide against Israel that became prominent on US college campuses after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack were largely concentrated among academics and speakers who had already supported the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, according to a Wednesday report.

The report argues that academics had granted legitimacy to the BDS movement’s aim of stigmatizing Israel.

The report, by the AMCHA Initiative, a nonprofit that documents antisemitism and combats anti-Israel activism on US campuses, analyzed 278 recordings of events sponsored by academic units at US schools. Academic units included departments, centers, programs, institutes and schools.

The events took place on 51 US campuses during the 2024-2025 academic year. The study, called “When Political Advocacy Acquires Academic Authority: BDS and the Genocide Accusation on US Campuses,” selected colleges and universities that Hillel International identified as being popular with Jewish students.

Of those events, 93 featured speakers who had promoted BDS before the October 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel. Support for BDS included signing onto petitions, published writing backing BDS, social media posts and participating in boycotts.

The analysis found that events with BDS supporters were 40 times more likely to include genocide accusations — 85% of those events accused Israel of genocide, compared to 2% of events that did not involve boycott activists.

The strong correlation between prior BDS support and genocide accusations suggested that the charge was “not simply a broadly shared feature of academic discussion about Israel and Gaza,” the report said.

“Rather, its use was overwhelmingly concentrated among speakers who entered the post-October 7 period with a preexisting commitment to taking action against Israel,” the study said.

Historian’s book on Nazi World War II propaganda targeting Arab world to be republished

A prominent historian’s book about Nazi propaganda targeting the Arab world during World War II will be reissued in the spring after going out of print, the author, Jeffrey Herf, said on Monday.

Herf, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Maryland, said it was important to reissue the book, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World,” to better understand the current moment and to dispel misconceptions about Hamas’s ideology, which he says echoes the Nazis’

“Hamas should be understood as a fusion of Nazi ideology and Islamist ideology,” Herf told The Times of Israel. “One of the most important falsehoods about Hamas is that it is a progressive movement.”

Yale University Press first published the book in 2009.

Herf said Yale University Press had later taken the book out of print.

“It’s been very frustrating with Yale and I do not understand why they’re taking this position,” Herf said. “They’ve made ready availability of the book more difficult.”

Herf said he did not know why the university’s press had let the book lapse.

The title remains available as an e-book on the Yale University Press website, but physical copies are hard to come by. The 335-page paperback costs more than $400 on Amazon.

Yale University Press told The Times of Israel, “It was a business decision to not reissue a title from 2009, and to return the rights to Professor Herf.”

“We wish him the best of luck with his book in its newest incarnation and with his new publisher,” a spokesperson said.

Herf said he had reacquired the rights to the book himself and that ibidem Press, an academic publishing house in Germany, will republish the print version.

The publishing house confirmed the company will republish the book as a paperback, with a new foreword by Herf, in the spring of 2027.

The book will be distributed in North America by Columbia University Press and will be featured in the Spring 2027 Columbia University Press Catalog, ibidem Press told The Times of Israel.

“Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World” examines the Nazi regime’s massive outreach to Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa from 1939-1945.

Read More

08/26 Links Pt1: Durban helped turn anti-Zionism into a global movement; Guterres: UN special rapporteurs are 'totally out of control,'; Yair Netanyahu was target of Iranian assassination

From Ian:

Gil Troy: Durban helped turn anti-Zionism into a global movement

Before commemorating the 25th anniversary of September 11, it’s worth remembering another event the 9/11 horrors essentially upstaged: the UN World Conference against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, from August 31 through September 7, 2001.

That hate-fest revived the UN’s “Zionism is racism” resolution, fueling today’s anti-racist anti-Zionism.

This irrational fury against Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people masquerades behind the noble fight to eradicate race-based bigotry.

Remembering that conference, which negated years of Israeli attempts to compromise with Palestinians, provides a moral clarity about the conflict sadly lacking today.

It’s confusing. Sincere democratic critics offer thoughtful, patriotic reproaches of Israeli actions or leaders. But there are also satanic critics, violent evil enemies who wish to destroy the Jewish state. Durban became a Jew-hating jubilee that was so effective, it’s inspired millions of pathetic critics – driven by pathos, emotion – to hop along the legitimate anti-racist bandwagon, then vilify Israel, Zionism, and the Jews, unfairly.

Back then, most Americans mocked the absurd notion that Zionism, meaning Jewish nationalism, was racist. How tragic that today, this big Red-Green lie, uniting far-left radicals with Islamist jihadists, has seduced so many Americans.

Many pretend to be democratic critics, claiming it’s about what Israel does. But the hostility to the fact that Israel is, the obsessive Zio-trashing, and the distortions required to frame the nationalist clash between Israelis and Palestinians as a race-based conflict are downright devilish.

In 2001, the totalitarian anti-Zionism most Americans had long opposed, subordinating all other goals to the anti-Israel impulse, sabotaged yet another UN conference. 'An anti-American, anti-Israeli circus'

“Durban became the tipping point for the coalescence of a new, virulent, globalizing anti-Jewishness,” the Canadian parliamentarian and human rights activist Irwin Cotler lamented. The rhetoric there fused anti-Zionism with anti-Americanism, “laundered” through opposition to racism, Cotler noted.

The legendary Democratic congressman Tom Lantos called Durban “an anti-American, anti-Israeli circus,” often expressed in antisemitic terms – the trashing trifecta.

A Hungarian Holocaust refugee who became Congress’s human rights conscience, Lantos called Durban “the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I have seen since the Nazi period.”

Some delegates distributed a booklet caricaturing Jews with hook noses and fangs dripping blood. Seventeen thousand anti-Zionist protesters rallied, with some waving the banner “Hitler Was Right!” Other posters wished Hitler had “finished the job.”

Amid waves of Palestinian suicide bombings that destroyed the Oslo peace process and triggered Israeli army crackdowns, the conference showcased the Red-Green alliance’s global reach and anti-Zionist mania.

“Green” Islamist power hijacked the main UN conference, steering discussions away from the widespread problem of white-versus-black racism to denounce “the racist practices of Zionism” as “a new kind of apartheid.”

Although the official Durban Declaration ignored Zionism while condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia, the anti-Zionist rhetoric poisoning many speeches – backed by antisemitic hooliganism on the street – reinvigorated the “Zionism is racism” libel.

The parallel NGO forum celebrated “Red” – far-left – values, with leftist human rights organizations condemning racism, colonialism, and imperialism selectively. They found these afflictions only in the West, especially in Israel, the world’s favorite whipping boy.

The final NGO declaration launched the forum’s “Durban Strategy”: to reinstate the “Zionism is racism” resolution, boycott “Israel as an apartheid state,” and accuse the “Israeli racist system” of “acts of genocide” – in 2001.

The Palestinian firebrand Hanan Ashrawi inflamed these third-world leftist passions. Casting the Palestinians as virtuous victims facing violent victimizers, Ashrawi avowed: “in the struggle against oppression, injustice, racism, intolerance, colonialism, and exclusion, there can be no neutrality.”

The Zionism-racism charge and other categorical demonizations of Israel are accelerants. They infuriate, polarizing both sides. Which Palestinians would want to make peace with a supposedly racist, genocidal, settler-colonialist oppressor? And which Israelis would want to make peace with enemies who libel them so hysterically, while attacking them so violently?

Israel now has the power to respond to action against it with diplomatic consequences

Israel has the strength, ability to respond to action taken against it
The next test may be Britain. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband recently called Israel’s publication of tenders for construction in E1 “an unacceptable and destructive act,” demanded that Israel halt the project, and warned that the UK would not “stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution.”

Sa’ar rejected both the substance of Miliband’s statement and “the patronizing tone of his words.” That description was spot on. Britain is entitled to oppose Israeli policy. It isn’t entitled to lecture Israel as though addressing a misbehaving colonial ward whose role is to listen and obey.

Sa’ar also correctly called Miliband’s statement entirely one-sided. He then laid down the principle that should guide Israel’s response: “The UK government’s decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate. But Israel will not be a passive victim of this policy. Israel will defend its rights, its interests, and its people.”

Israel need not answer every criticism, nor should every response be maximal. But when criticism hardens into policy intended to damage the relationship, Jerusalem should determine which elements of that relationship Britain can no longer take for granted.

That may mean a diplomatic downgrade, exclusion from a particular forum, or a reassessment of specific forms of cooperation. The response should fit the offense and protect Israel’s interests – not merely vent anger.

But this is not your grandmother’s Israel. It is stronger, richer, larger, and less dependent on the goodwill of governments that demand much from it while asking little of its enemies. Its diplomacy should reflect that reality.

Netanyahu at Judea and Samaria event: This land ‘will remain ours’

Speaking at the Binyamin Regional Council’s annual flagship event highlighting the past year’s achievements in Judea and Samaria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Tuesday night that the Land of Israel “will remain ours.”

“Today, many of our brothers and sisters around the world understand: This is our land and it will remain ours,” Netanyahu told Judea and Samaria leaders at the event, which he attended with his wife, Sara.

In remarks translated from Hebrew, he added, “And when I say our land, every Jewish man and every Jewish woman, the door is open. We are waiting for you. In the State of Israel, in the heart of the Land of Israel.”

Those attending the event, Netanyahu said, were “preparing the ground for a very large aliyah [immigration wave] that will come.”

The Binyamin Regional Council governs 47 Israeli communities in an area stretching from north of Jerusalem in Samaria to the Jerusalem Mountains in Judea.

The outgoing government has established and regularized 104 communities and 160 farms, Netanyahu said, adding that more were on the way.

Part of the work was carried out under the Biden administration and part under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, he said.

“It isn’t easy, it’s never easy. The Land of Israel is acquired through suffering,” Netanyahu said. “Sometimes also through smiles, sometimes also through arguments, but it is being acquired by us. We are not giving up, we have a vision, this is our land, and it will remain ours.”

Some wish to uproot Israelis not only from Judea and Samaria but “altogether from the State of Israel,” Israel’s longest-serving prime minister continued.

This campaign “has gained considerable momentum and exposure during the three years of the War of Revival,” he said, referring to the ongoing multifront war that began when thousands of Palestinian terrorists from Gaza invaded southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“The axis [led by Iran] that we broke has not yet disappeared,” Netanyahu said. “But we are determined to ensure that there will be no threat—not from the Gaza Strip, and we have done a great deal on that front; not from Lebanon, and we have done a great deal there; not from Syria—we have security zones today inside those countries.

Netanyahu praised the Trump administration for tightening economic sanctions against those assisting the Iranian regime, describing the move as “very important.”

Read More