Sunday, June 07, 2026

Israel was accused of genocide before - and there is a lesson there

Palestinian terrorists attack families going about their lives. They blow up young people heading out to dance. They detonate a roadside bomb at 7:30 in the morning beside a bus carrying schoolchildren, killing a teacher and a maintenance worker and maiming children badly enough to cost them their legs.

The killings shock the world. Before Israel has launched a single major operation in response, the world's leading human rights organizations endorse a declaration branding guilty of "apartheid" and of of "acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing," and demanding the restoration of the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism.

2023? No, 2001.

The final declaration at the NGO Forum of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, released on September 3, 2001, accused Israel of "acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing" as well as "apartheid and other racist crimes against humanity."

The Second Intifada had begun only a year earlier. In the months before Durban, the attacks increased in pace and deadliness. A suicide bomber killed twenty-one people and wounded one hundred and twenty outside Tel Aviv's Dolphinarium discotheque in June 2001, most of them teenagers waiting to get in.

The Sbarro massacre occurred a mere three weeks before Durban: a Hamas bomber walked into a pizzeria packed with families on a school-holiday afternoon at the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road and detonated a charge studded with nails and bolts, killing sixteen people, seven of them children, and wounding about a hundred and thirty.

Sbarro was the visible peak of a sustained campaign rather than an isolated horror. It came at the end of a two-week effort to concentrate terror in Jerusalem, and within days a suicide bombing at the Wall Street Café in Kiryat Motzkin wounded twenty-one while a car bomb near the Russian Compound in downtown Jerusalem carried a second, larger device that had to be dismantled before it could kill. The bombs were built to maximize the slaughter of civilians, packed with hardware whose only function is to tear through human bodies.

It wasn't as if the world's media ignored the terror spree. Full page stories described the horror of the attacks. The NGO Forum decided that the very moment when Jews were being targeted for death for being Jews was a good time to accuse Israel of genocide.

Even though blatant antisemitism was prevalent in Durban, including the poster shown here, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had both signed the Durban document and both had distanced themselves from its worst language at the time, with Amnesty noting it did not condone the wording while accepting the declaration as "a largely positive document." By any definition, Hamas and the other terror groups were guilty of genocide— but this didn't bother the two leading human rights organizations, who claimed they didn't agree with every sentence in the final declaration but decided its blatant antisemitism was not enough to decline signing it.

Israel had not even begun a campaign to go after the terror groups at this time. The idea that Israel was guilty of these crimes in September 2001 while its citizens were being ripped apart by bombs aimed at children is a bizarre joke.

But Durban wasn't a joke. It was a blueprint.

The drafting and the trial were separated by twenty years of patient construction. Israeli Apartheid Week began on a single Canadian campus in 2005, reached forty cities by 2009, and passed two hundred by 2013, carrying the apartheid charge into progressive spaces as settled vocabulary rather than contested claim. The activist fringe supplied the repetition, and "apartheid," "genocide," and "settler colonialism" migrated from the mock walls on university quads into the working language of the institutions that had once kept their distance. What began as a slogan students chanted became a premise educated people no longer thought to question.

Amnesty and HRW read the genocide charge in 2001, flagged it, and signed anyway. Then they spent two decades methodically arriving at it. Human Rights Watch in 2021 and Amnesty in 2022 issued reports declaring Israel guilty of apartheid, the very term the 2001 declaration had assigned. After October 2023, Amnesty completed the sequence: its December 2024 report named the verdict in its title — "Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza" — and reached it, by the account of Amnesty's own Israel branch, as a "predetermined" conclusion, written by the international office without the Israeli branch's involvement and resting on a looser definition of genocidal intent than the International Court of Justice has ever accepted. The conclusion came first, and the evidence was gathered to fit it.

The cynicism of accusing Israel of genocide while it was a victim of weekly genocidal acts was only surpassed in October 2023, when it took a mere hours after the horrors of October 7 for the same Israel haters and antisemites to accuse Israel of what it had just been a victim of. It is herd to escape the conclusion that the charges are deliberately intended to remove any possibility that the world would be sympathetic to Jews for being brutally murdered. The bodies were not yet counted before the massacre was reframed as resistance and the retaliation pre-labeled genocide.

Durban built the frame in 2001, and October 2023 supplied the hook it had been waiting for. The function of the genocide charge was never to describe what Israel does. It was to establish, in advance, that whatever is done to Israelis, they had it coming.

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)

Chapter 4 of How to Think: Recognizing Frames

In my Substack, I have been serializing a series on How to Think. The first three chapters were posted fully, starting with this one the full chapter is behind a paywall for my Substack subscribers. If you are an EoZ subscriber through PayPal or Patreon, I can give you access to my full Substack articles, let me know.

Recognizing Frames

Chapter 4 of How to Think

In late 1976, New York City residents grew increasingly concerned over a crime wave against the elderly. Three daily newspapers and five local television stations reported a surge of violence — muggings, robberies, assaults — targeting senior citizens. The coverage ran for approximately seven weeks, eventually reaching national outlets. Advocacy organizations mobilized to deal with the problem. Legislators discussed how to protect the elderly.

There was only one problem. The crime wave did not exist.

A sociologist named Mark Fishman, who was studying newsrooms at the time, noticed that while every story reported was accurate, there was no increase in crimes against seniors at all. He compared the coverage to the actual NYPD statistics and found that the numbers did not support the claimed surge. Some categories of crime against elderly victims were the same as in previous year, and others were actually decreasing. The spike was in the coverage, not in the crime.

Here’s what happened: One station ran a story on an elderly victim. Because it performed well, editors at competing outlets looked for similar incidents — and found them, because there will always be crimes against the elderly (and every other demographic) every day in a city of eight million people. As more stations and papers picked up the theme, the theme became self-reinforcing: an incident that would previously have been a brief item on an inside page became front-page news because it fit the established wave. Each individual story was accurate but the pattern was a fiction. The distortion was a byproduct of incentive structures and competitive news dynamics in the days before algorithms.The fiction was constructed entirely from true facts, selected and arranged inside a frame.

The frame was the story, not the individual incidents.But it is difficult to notice the frame.

This is the story of how frames work. In this case, it was not deliberate. But fifty years later, framing stories has become an industry in itself, and nowadays it is deliberate. Framing with an agenda is much more serious.

The Frame Is Always There

The frame is the invisible architecture of the argument. By the time you are evaluating claim a frame has already limited how you are to think about it. The frame helps determine what question you think you are answering, what comparisons feel natural, who the sympathetic parties are, and what a reasonable response would look like. Most people spend their analytical energy evaluating what sits inside the frame. This chapter is about the frame itself.

In the summer of 2020, there were many protests for racial justice after the George Floyd incident.Imagine two news outlets covering a (real) study on the protests:

About 93% of racial justice protests in the US have been peaceful, a new report finds

Report: Over 15 violent riots erupt every week in the US

Both those headlines are true (the first is actually how CNN reported on the study.) The report counted 10,200 protests of which 220 were violent - gunfire, arson, vandalism, clashes with police. Each news story could be completely accurate, and the only difference is the frame. And in each case, the frame is what is manipulating you, not the story itself.

This is not a trick reserved for propagandists. Every journalist frames every story, consciously or not. Every witness frames their account, usually without noticing. The frame is not an impurity in the argument — it is the water the argument swims in. The question is not whether you are receiving information inside a frame. You always are. The question is whether you can recognize the frame to begin with.

Manufactured Frames: The Word Engineers

There is an entire profession devoted to manufacturing frames, and it operates in the open.

Frank Luntz is its most candid practitioner. A Republican political consultant, Luntz built his career on a single insight: the same policy, described in different language, produces measurably different public responses — and the difference is large enough to change election outcomes and legislative votes. He ran focus groups, tested language, and handed politicians the words that would win.

His most famous contribution is the renaming of the estate tax as the "death tax." The estate tax, as it existed in the 1990s, applied to roughly the wealthiest two percent of Americans at death — not a constituency that generates populist sympathy. "Estate" sounds like old money; it implies something rarefied and distant. "Death" is universal. Everyone dies. Nobody wants to be taxed at death. Luntz's own focus groups demonstrated something remarkable: people would simultaneously oppose a "death tax" and support an "estate tax," unaware they were describing the same thing.Luntz didn’t change the policy, just the frame. Within years, legislation had significantly reduced what had been known as the estate tax and temporarily eliminated it entirely — driven in no small part by polling data showing overwhelming opposition to the “death tax” among people who would never pay it.

Luntz applied the same method everywhere he could. He promoted the terminology "climate change" instead of "global warming" — the former sounds gradual and natural, the latter carries connotations of crisis and urgency. He used "government takeover" instead of "health care reform."

Luntz also would choose either "Illegal alien" or "undocumented immigrant," depending on which side of the immigration debate one were paying Luntz to help. He worked both sides of the immigration terminology war at different times. He was engineering emotional responses, and he would engineer them in whichever direction the client required. Framing was the game, not impartiality.

Let’s look closer at the different examples of immigration terminology. "Illegal alien" is the statutory term — it appears in federal law and Supreme Court opinions. Its advocates argue it is precise: the person has violated immigration law, the word "illegal" names that fact, the word "alien" is the legal designation. Its opponents argue that calling a person "illegal" defines their entire existence by a legal status, rather than naming the act, and that "alien" is dehumanizing. They prefer "undocumented immigrant," which centers the administrative circumstance rather than the legal violation. "Undocumented" is accurate in one sense — many people in this category do lack documentation — but it omits that the absence of documentation is itself the consequence of an illegal act, which is why critics call it a euphemism. Both camps chose their terms to produce a particular emotional response in listeners and to preload the policy conclusion. The person who has absorbed "illegal alien" is already being asked to think about law enforcement and border security. The person who has absorbed "undocumented immigrant" is already being asked to think about bureaucratic obstacles and human vulnerability. By the time either person reaches the policy question, the frame has done substantial work.

Abortion terminology does the same thing with even greater efficiency. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both names chosen by their movements that hold those positions, and both are examples of pure frame engineering. Nobody is "anti-life." Nobody is "anti-choice." Each label claims the universally desirable value and assigns it to one side, making the other side's position implicitly the negation of something good. The underlying disagreement — about when personhood begins, how to weigh competing rights, what the law should say — is real and serious. The label names for it were engineered to avoid engaging any of that, and to win the framing contest before the argument starts. Opinion polling on abortion shifts measurably depending on whether survey questions use "pro-life," "anti-abortion," "pro-choice," or "pro-abortion-rights" as the descriptor. The substance of the question is identical. The frame moves the answers.

"Right to work" is an older and more instructive example because the engineering is so transparent in retrospect. The term was coined in 1941 by a Dallas newspaper editorial writer and weaponized by a political organizer named Vance Muse, who wanted to weaken labor unions in the South. Laws prohibiting mandatory union membership — which is what "right to work" actually describes — sound, under that name, like a protection of individual liberty. A worker has the right to work without being forced to join an organization. Martin Luther King Jr. understood what the frame was doing and named it: the law's actual purpose was to destroy collective bargaining by allowing workers to receive union benefits without paying union dues, undermining the financial base of unions without formally outlawing them. "Right to work," as King put it, was "a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights." The frame had converted a policy designed to weaken workers' collective power into a protection of individual freedom — and it worked, passing in fourteen states within six years of the term's invention.

The military euphemism factory operates on the same principle but with higher stakes. "Collateral damage" entered American military vocabulary during the Gulf War as the standard term for civilian casualties. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" was the Bush administration's term for what the relevant law defines as torture. "Extraordinary rendition" was the term for kidnapping terror suspects and delivering them to other countries for interrogation. "Kinetic military action" was the Obama administration's term for a military campaign in Libya, used specifically to avoid the legal and political implications of calling it a war. Each of these phrases describes something real in language chosen to prevent the listener from forming a mental picture of what is actually happening. Civilian deaths, torture, kidnapping, and war are things people have visceral reactions to. Yet people can process "collateral damage," "enhanced interrogation," "extraordinary rendition," and "kinetic military action" without such a reaction. The engineering is deliberate, documented in government communications, and directed not at enemies but at the home population whose support the government needed to maintain.

George Orwell named this project in 1946: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." He was writing about totalitarianism, but the technique has proven equally useful in democracies, where maintaining public support requires managing what the public will think about.

A website called Communicating Palestine, published by a pro-Palestinian advocacy organization and aimed at journalists, academics, activists, and policymakers, describes its framing process explicitly. Most framing guides of this kind circulate internally; this one is public and even highlights the phrase “Framing Palestine” which makes it a rare opportunity to examine the mechanism without having to infer it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026)

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The idea of victimhood as a virtue has only taken hold in the past half century or so. For most of world history, no one wanted to be seen as victims; now everyone is fighting over the honor of being the most oppressed people because, in this bizarre worldview, being oppressed is the surest sign of moral superiority.

Naturally, Palestinians have taken to this viewpoint like flies to rotten meat. They have positioned themselves as the worst victims in the history of history, and of course their oppressors the Jews are the worst victimizers in the world since the dinosaurs.

A new article in Al Quds al Arabi, against the Abraham Accords, manages to contradict itself in only two sentences;

The UAE-Israeli normalization represents a model embodying a Zionist vision of so-called “economic peace” with neighboring countries, aimed at bypassing the Palestinian issue, consolidating Israeli hegemony in the region, and expanding its global influence. The Zionist dream has always been more than just establishing a state for the Jews. The call for a Jewish nation-state was a means of reviving a forgotten history and penetrating the national liberation movements that arose from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire during its disintegration. With this return to the flow of history, the Zionist dream was to recreate the myth of the superior Jew. While the revival of this myth aimed at influence and control, the path to achieving it lay in creating the myth of the “Jewish victim,” which developed during a period of turbulent relations between Jews and the societies of Russia and Eastern Europe since before World War I, culminating in the great clash under Nazi Germany.

Projection explains so much of the Palestinian mentality. Jews don't want to be victims; being pitied has never gotten them anywhere. But the current victimhood cult that Palestinians have adopted means that they cannot tell the difference between victimhood and winning. Victimhood is victory!

That's how the two "myths" that Palestinians believe Jews believe can co-exist. Jews neither made up the "myth" of being victims nor do Jews think of themselves as superior. Palestinians believe Jews simultaneously push both contradictory myths.

According to this viewpoint, Jews made up the entire history of being persecuted in order to gain a state where they can persecute others.

The only way to reconcile the two is to understand how much Palestinians try to own the very idea of victimhood: This only makes sense if it is the Palestinian playbook! They want to leverage victimhood into becoming a nation that can treat Jews like second class citizens, at best, if not one to put them on boats to Europe.

There really are two myths - that Palestinians are systematically persecuted by Jews, and that they ever wanted a state that would be side by side with Israel. None of those were ever true, and in this case both myths do work together - the first myth is intended to make the second myth of a Palestinian state to replace Israel come true.

And they are counting on the world canonizing them as the most persecuted people in history, to reward them with a state whose only purpose has only been to destroy the Jewish state.

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)

06/06 Links: What D-day teaches about Israel, Iran, and unity; Restraining Israel Is Not the Answer; The SPLC’s real scam; Zionism, Jews and the coming inquisition

From Ian:

Coming together again: What D-day teaches about Israel, Iran, and unity

For many, an unanswered question prevails: Why is it that Europe, the United Kingdom, and Canada fail to recognize the similarities between the Germany of World War II and Iran?

There can be little doubt that these countries, by their desire to remain “neutral,” have become party to the projection of a dangerous negativity toward Israel and the Jewish people.

A most disturbing question is why those who came together to confront Hitler fail to see the Iranian leader’s plan to emulate him. It was Hitler’s Germany that barbarically killed six million Jews, and today it is Iran that openly states its desire to eliminate Israel, home to the world’s largest number of Jews.

The ultimate observation is that the Jew was the whipping boy of the past and is the whipping boy of today; the only difference is who holds the whip.

And what of the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a political and economic alliance embracing Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, all of which have been attacked by Iran?

While Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has compared Iran’s proxy network and regional expansion in the Middle East to Hitler’s pre-World War II annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, neither Saudi Arabia nor the others respond militarily to Iran’s assault on their respective countries.

The coming together of Israel and the US in their fight against Iran – which began on February 28 – epitomized the meaning of togetherness. Yet does it follow that this union has the support of America’s man in the street?

Yaakov Katz’s excellent article in last week’s Magazine highlights the increasing lack of support for Israel from the US public, embracing a high proportion of its younger generation, which will be voting for a new president in just over two years. It is the public that ultimately decides the policy of a country; and, observing which way the wind is blowing in the US, it does not look good for Israel.

The increasing possibility that Israel cannot rely indefinitely on support from the US brings us to the question of how we in Israel – possibly alone – will be successful in confronting those who wish to eliminate us.

Restraining Israel Is Not the Answer

Donald Trump is not known for hewing to convention, but this week he seemed to rerun a standard Beltway drama. During a phone call on Monday, the president called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "crazy" and pressured him to rein in the Israeli offensive in Lebanon. Two days later, the State Department announced it had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The seeming crackup in the Bibi-Trump bromance thrilled Israel’s critics and perturbed the Jewish state’s supporters. Some hope the close working relationship between Trump and Netanyahu is drawing to a close, others fear the entire bond between Washington and Jerusalem to be severed. Israel’s opponents think Trump’s actions to restrain Bibi show that the Jewish state is a strategic liability. But in reality, frictions like this between the two sides are common because of the value Israel provides the United States.

The most recent shouting has been over how to conclude the conflict with Iran. Israel and the United States severely damaged the Islamic regime’s leadership and war machine during their bombing campaign, but since it has not collapsed, their different priorities have emerged. Trump wants the Gulf Arabs’ oil to reach global markets again and to gain control of Iran’s enriched uranium without a return to major combat. Netanyahu wants Hezbollah to stop attacking northern Israel with drones and other long-range weapons. The mullahs claim the fighting in southern Lebanon, which Hezbollah started, is a serious obstacle to further negotiations about an interim agreement, so Trump is trying to find a workable compromise.

This sort of thing happens at the denouement of nearly every war that Israel has had to fight. The American goal in Middle Eastern conflicts usually is for its allies—including Israel—to successfully defend themselves, and then to reestablish peace in the region as quickly as possible. Threats to globally significant infrastructure, such as the Suez Canal or Persian Gulf oil refineries, make Washington nervous. More often than not, after fending off the initial attack, Jerusalem prefers to crush its opponents on the battlefield and destroy their ability to threaten the Jewish state for years or even decades.

This occurs regardless of how warmly the White House regards Israel. After the pan-Arab attempt to destroy Israel in 1948 failed and Israel gained the initiative, Harry Truman halted David Ben-Gurion’s counteroffensive. A decade later during the Suez crisis, Dwight Eisenhower forced Israel and its British and French allies to withdraw from Egypt. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger stopped Israel just short of encircling and annihilating much of the Egyptian Army at the end of the Yom Kippur War. Ronald Reagan forcefully condemned Israel's operations in Lebanon in the 1980s, and George H.W. Bush did everything he could to keep Israel from responding to Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked missile attacks in the first Gulf War.

Both strategies have shown their value at times. Eisenhower thought sparing Gamal Abdel Nasser would win over Third World opinion in the Cold War, but all he did was empower a dictator who cozied up to the Soviet Union and undermined our allies. America would have benefited from a Nasser-less Egypt. Hezbollah rewarded Reagan’s concern for Lebanese civilians by bombing the U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks in Beirut, going on a decades-long spree of international terrorism, repeatedly attacking Israel, and immiserating generations of Lebanese. But if Anwar Sadat had been thoroughly humiliated in 1973 and lost the forces he needed to maintain his grip on power, he could not have spoken in the Knesset in 1977 and then made peace with Israel the next year.

Alan Baker: Can the Oslo Accords model still deliver peace after October 7?

Local realities further complicate any return to the Oslo model. The Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, fundamentally altered Israel’s security assumptions. The belief that territorial compromises, international guarantees, and external monitoring arrangements could provide sufficient security has been severely weakened. For many Israelis, the events of October 7 demonstrated that ultimate responsibility for national security cannot be delegated to international actors.

At the same time, increasing international pressure for immediate Palestinian statehood bypasses the very negotiating framework established by Oslo. The accords envisaged that permanent-status issues would be resolved through direct agreement between the parties. Efforts by foreign governments and international organizations to recognize Palestinian statehood in advance of negotiations effectively prejudge issues that were expressly reserved for negotiation. Such initiatives undermine the contractual foundations of the peace process and further erode confidence in international guarantees.

This dynamic is closely related to the widespread international promotion of the “two-state solution.” While the concept has become a diplomatic slogan, it was never included in the Oslo Accords. The accords intentionally left all final-status arrangements open for negotiation. Whether the eventual outcome would involve two states, a federation, a confederation, or another arrangement was to be determined exclusively by the parties themselves. The transformation of the two-state formula from a possible negotiated outcome into a predetermined international prescription departs from the original logic of the peace process.

Further complicating matters is the absence of a unified and authoritative Palestinian leadership capable of serving as a reliable negotiating partner. At the same time, Israel faces its own internal political and governance challenges, which affect national cohesion and international perceptions of stability.

Against this backdrop, the Abraham Accords offer an alternative and more encouraging model. Announced in 2020, these agreements demonstrated that Arab states and Israel can establish peaceful, productive, and mutually beneficial relations based on shared interests and direct engagement. The accords emphasize coexistence, mutual understanding, cultural exchange, and regional cooperation. Their success suggests that meaningful progress is achievable when parties choose pragmatic cooperation over confrontation.

The central lesson remains unchanged. International forums, judicial bodies, and unilateral recognition initiatives were never intended to replace direct negotiation. Efforts to impose solutions from outside may satisfy short-term political interests, but they cannot create the trust, legitimacy, and mutual acceptance necessary for durable peace.

As long as international actors continue to bypass rather than encourage negotiation, instability is likely to persist. A viable and lasting peace can emerge only from direct engagement between the parties themselves.

Until conditions exist for such negotiations, Israel will continue to rely primarily on its own capabilities to safeguard its security and national interests.

06/05 Links Pt2: Sam Harris: Why I Won’t Debate Critics of Israel; Diaspora communities under antisemitic fire ask to immigrate to America; Muslim police assoc: Zionism a ‘manifestation of anti-Muslim hatred’

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: A welcome effort to douse modern-day blood libels

Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, deserves kudos for taking on the Sisyphean task of refuting pernicious falsehoods about the Jewish state. The result of his and his team’s research is a booklet called Manufacturing a Modern Blood Libel: Genocide, Starvation and the Language of Dehumanization, which he introduced in a May 28 video on social media.

Explaining the impetus for the project, he describes the way in which insidious accusations against Israel began to spread around the world in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas-led massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, “while families still searched for their loved-ones on blood-stained streets and before any military ground operation had begun.”

It’s time, he says in the clip, to “set the record straight,” pointing to recent “fictitious claims that Israel trains dogs to rape prisoners,” published in The New York Times opinion section. Such outrageous assertions, he adds, “are no different than [those] of the Middle Ages—that Jews use blood in their food and poison wells.”

He concludes by reminding viewers that “hateful lies spread faster than truth,” urging the public to download and read the free booklet, in order to “understand the facts, restore meaning to words and [restore] dignity to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

The timing of the compendium’s release couldn’t be more auspicious, as it coincided with the decision by the United Nations to add Israel, alongside Hamas, to a blacklist of entities guilty of conflict-related sexual violence. This is despite the United Nations having been furnished with ample evidence that while Hamas used sexual assault as a tool of war in Gaza, Israel did no such thing.

Thankfully, the latest report—this one by the Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children, titled “Silenced No More; Sexual Terror Unveiled”—is available with the pamphlet offered by Leiter and his embassy staff. But, of course, it’s of no interest to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres or his antisemitic ilk.

Calling Guterres’s “political” move a “moral disgrace,” Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon declared a freezing of all relations with the secretary-general’s office. Good for Danon.

The question is whether it will make any difference in the larger scheme of things. The same can be asked about Leiter’s important endeavor.

Which brings us to the age-old and tiresome refrain about Israel’s “poor public diplomacy.” Indeed, whenever the world attacks the Jewish state, the response by concerned Israelis and pro-Zionist voices in the Diaspora is to blame a lack of sufficient hasbara. The anti-Israel chorus, at home and abroad, has a different view: that the problem isn’t one of P.R., but rather of evil policies.

Both attitudes are wrong, certainly the latter. The former, at least, contains a plea for us to do better at making our case. The trouble is that the outcry involves finding fault with the government for not conveying a sound, swift message.

Why are they really boycotting AIPAC? Bigotry

The anti-AIPAC push must be seen in the context of the surge in antisemitism since the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Since then, the mainstream media’s embrace of Hamas propaganda about “genocide” has distorted discussions about the Middle East to the point at which the disconnect from the reality of the conflict is so great that liberals and even some on the right accept the lies as unchallenged truth.

In this manner, Israel is falsely accused of what its opponents actually wish to do. And the genocidal war that is actually being waged against it by Iran and its Islamist terror proxies, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is either ignored or rationalized as a just cause.

Democrats are afraid
But there should be no reticence in calling out the rhetoric about AIPAC not merely as deceptive, but as an ancient prejudice dressed up in the clothes of 21st-century progressive intellectual fashion. The vicious narrative about AIPAC’s being a conspiracy to support “genocide” is so pervasive that even many Jewish Democrats won’t denounce it.

Some, like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro,who claims to support Israel while opposing its government, rightly worries about the blurring of the distinction between AIPAC and money raised by Jewish citizens. But even he dodged questions about whether he would take money from AIPAC supporters in 2028, demonstrating that he fears taking on the anti-Israel prejudices of his party’s intersectional base.

At the same time, a lobby devoted specifically to funding Democrats running for the House who are against Israel got laudatory coverage in The New York Times. And just this week, Democrats nominated a candidate for a New Jersey House seat in a deep- blue district who has a history of volunteering for an Al Qaeda-linked group in the 1990s and was a friendly witness for the defendant in the 1995 trial of the so-called “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Egyptian cleric whose followers had bombed the World Trade Center two years earlier.

Adam Hamaway, currently a plastic surgeon who is now set to enter Congress next January, like Chris Rabb in Philadelphia, won his primary against less extreme opponents by being the loudest to cry “genocide” while railing against AIPAC.

The liberal press calls such politicians “progressives.” But the truth is that they and those in the media who are mainstreaming the narrative about AIPAC’s malign influence are bigots whose goal is to drive pro-Israel Jews and Christians out of the public square. Their efforts are depicted as a righteous cause, while the work of millions of Americans to ensure that Israel lives and that an alliance that is in their country’s interest thrives are smeared as puppets whose strings are pulled by a shadowy Jewish plot.

Whatever one may think about AIPAC or what an ideal system for campaign fundraising might look like, the effort to demonize it is just another antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Muslim police association identifies Zionism as ‘manifestation of anti-Muslim hatred’

British Jewish groups have described their intention to raise serious concerns with government and law enforcement, after revelations that a policy paper from the representative body for Muslim police officers in the UK identifies Zionism as “one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred”, refers to the IDF as a “Zionist terrorist group”, and describes “alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence” on 7 October.

As reported by The Spectator, the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) published the paper, written by its then-Vice President, Khaldoun Kabbani, last year. The NAMP is reportedly affiliated to more than a dozen police forces around the country, including West Midlands police, West Yorkshire police, Greater Manchester police and Police Scotland.

The policy paper in question also claims that “Zionists” are guilty of “misuse of the Holocaust” when describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, before going on to misuse it themselves, saying that “the process of dehumanisation by the Nazis towards the Jewish people highlights a broader mechanism of oppression, where dominant groups suppress empathy through propaganda and indoctrination to facilitate cruelty. This mechanism is not confined to the past but is observed in contemporary conflicts, such as the situation between the Israeli Government and Military and Palestinians.”

As The Spectator describes, the NAMP document refers to “Zionist terrorist groups including the IDF” and says that “Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity.”

The paper claims that “Zionist terrorist groups” committed 16 different “genocides” against Palestinians between 1948 and the present day, while containing no mention of the killings carried out by Palestinians during the same period.

It also maintains that “throughout history, including before, during, and after the Holocaust, a horrific manifestation of European anti-Semitism, Jews sought refuge in the lands of Muslims specifically Palestine. In 1947, as Jewish refugees arrived by ships, they unfolded banners stating, “The Germans destroyed our families and homes – don’t destroy our hope.” The Arab world initially welcomed them with open arms, but these efforts were ultimately undermined by covert Zionist colonial agendas.”

In reality, there was significant antisemitism towards Jews within many Muslim societies over the centuries, with Jews often treated as second class citizens and subjected to murderous assaults. In the wake of the creation of the State of Israel, numerous Muslim countries effectively ethnically cleansed their newly formed states of Jewish communities which had lived there for millennia.

The NAMP paper also describes what it calls “alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence” committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, “including claims of beheadings and assaults. These reports have significantly contributed to increasing hatred towards Islam.”

06/05 Links Pt1: Why the Hormuz Crisis Could Be the Last of Its Kind; Hezbollah invasion attempt triggered Lebanon war; Mossad armed Kurdish militias with Hamas, Hezbollah weapons before Trump halted plan

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Even when he disappoints Israel, Trump is better than the alternative

The much-discussed phone call between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which the former told the latter that he was “f**king crazy,” indisputably made headlines. But the problem wasn’t the president’s colorful language or whether the conversation proved, as Israel’s enemies hoped, that the alliance between the two leaders and their countries had broken down. Nor was the repartee entirely confined to Trump’s demands about Israel ramping down its efforts to stop the Hezbollah terrorists from firing on Israel. Still, the fact that his always-shifting stands on whether the war with Iran will end soon or continue until the regime in Tehran falls or surrenders isn’t doing either man’s political standing much good.

Notwithstanding Trump’s profanity or the two leaders’ genuine disagreements on particular issues, the alliance is not collapsing. The real concern is the president’s pursuit of a deal with Iran that sensible observers know won’t succeed. Doing so won’t achieve either nation’s objectives in the war that started on Feb. 28.

Simply put, the Islamist regime is attempting to deceive the United States in the negotiations that have been conducted over the last two months. As JNS columnist Melanie Phillips aptly noted, should a deal be reached along the lines of the terms that have been publicized in recent weeks, it would be a disaster for both the United States and Israel. Any promises the Iranians make about not restarting their nuclear program or interfering with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, along with other unresolved issues like terrorism and missile production, are almost certainly going to be broken.

Tempering disappointment
Even as the world watches with alarm the president’s apparent willingness to embrace terms that might well be compared to former President Barack Obama’s disastrous 2015 Iran nuclear deal, disappointment with Trump should be tempered by the following thought. As ill-considered and dangerous as such a course of action would be, friends of Israel should nevertheless remember one important fact. No matter how foolish a potential Trump decision to conclude hostilities with Iran might be, Israel is still far better off with him in the Oval Office than it would be with any of his recent predecessors, let alone his opponent in the 2024 presidential election.

To consider the counter-factual scenario in which either President Joe Biden or former Vice President Kamala Harris had defeated Trump in 2024 is to contemplate a very different and far more dangerous world than the one that Israel, the Jewish people and the larger Middle East are currently facing. A scenario in which Washington essentially snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by enabling the Islamist regime to survive and thrive by ending the war, and even relaxing sanctions, would be very bad indeed. Yet this is also a moment to think back on how much the decisions made in the White House and the close cooperation it pursued with Jerusalem have weakened Iran and its allies since January 2025.

Iran is still resisting the U.S.-Israel alliance and has inflicted economic pain on the world by seeking to restrict the free passage of shipping in the Persian Gulf. But its military has been largely stripped of its offensive capabilities. Its leadership has been decimated, and its nuclear facilities are in ruins.

Hezbollah continues to fire on Israel and make the lives of those living in the north miserable. But its forces have been similarly degraded, and it has been pushed back far from the border while there are—for the first time in decades—signs that the Lebanese government may be starting to think that surrendering control of their country to the Shi’ite terrorist group is not their only choice.

Seth Mandel: Why the Hormuz Crisis Could Be the Last of Its Kind

It’s slowly becoming clear that one reason the Iranians are squeezing every last drop of leverage out of their Hormuz closure is that, contrary to the impression many of us had at the outset of this conflict, they will never have this much leverage again.

That is not necessarily because of any brilliant military or diplomatic strategy deployed against Tehran. It’s just the way the world works.

“The genie is out of the bottle,” as Hamad Hussein of Capital Economics told the Wall Street Journal. The threat of long-term Strait closure has materialized, which makes it real, which makes it something that cannot be repeated. Market forces will mobilize alternatives.

That doesn’t mean the transition will be painless—far from it. But it is going to be difficult for Iran to do this a second time. We can sometimes forget that the U.S. and Iran aren’t the only two characters shaping this drama.

So what might those alternatives look like, and how are they taking shape?

As the Journal reports, Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which takes oil overland, is now operating at full capacity. That’s not enough to replace what is shipped through Hormuz, but it can ease the pain.

The United Arab Emirates, similarly, was able to re-rout some oil through a pipeline to Fujairah, a port city outside the blockaded zone, and Emirati officials want to add a second pipeline on the same route by 2027. Then there is the fact that the UAE left the OPEC oil cartel in the hopes of expanding its energy exports beyond the limits imposed on OPEC members.

Oman, meanwhile, wants the world to know that the Gulf of Oman is outside the blockade zone as well. Plus, the Journal reports, the Gulf countries are considering plans to build a shared export railway.

Then there is the issue that has been pushed to the front burner: storage capacity. The Saudis want to upgrade storage tanks and loading pumps at a Red Sea port at Yanbu, across the water from Egypt. The Emiratis are working on expanding storage as well, and Oman sees the Gulf of Oman as a plausible storage hub nearby shipping routes.

Hezbollah invasion attempt triggered Lebanon war

Hundreds of Hezbollah commandos from the elite Radwan Force crossed the Litani River in Southern Lebanon in an attempt to invade Israeli communities along the Lebanese border during the first week of “Operation Roaring Lion” in the beginning of March, it became known on Thursday.

The intended invasion, identified by the Israeli intelligence community, was blocked by an Israel Defense Forces offensive.

Israeli forces repelled the attack and eliminated the terrorists.

Channel 14 correspondent Yaki Adamker reported that the raiding attempt was the reason that the war in Lebanon restarted.

Since the beginning of the war, IDF troops have taken control of a stretch of territory that runs along the border into Southern Lebanon.

Israel Hayom on Friday cited military officials commenting on the incident.

Referring to criticism leveled at the IDF Northern Command’s aggressive response to a barrage of rockets fired into Israel following the targeted killing on Feb. 28 of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a military official who spoke under conditions of anonymity said, “They apparently don’t understand what we saw during the first week of March.

“Hundreds of Radwan Force operatives crossed the Litani River. Why did they come? If there had been even a single raid on a single community, all of us would have had to go home [be dismissed]. What were we supposed to do if not meet them on their own territory and kill them?”

The Definition of Antisemitism That Exonerates Henry Ford

Australia's Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion invited submissions, and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network — the peak body of the country's Palestinian solidarity movement — answered with a 259 page response.

A submission to an inquiry into antisemitism does not ordinarily require a slanted recap of the 1948 war, missives on settlements, the Gaza blockade, the genocide accusation, and the apartheid analogy, yet this one does. APAN treats the Commission less as a body to inform than as yet another vector to spread propaganda. Yet when you strip away the historical narrative and the included "expert" reports, the filing reduces to a single demand: anti-Zionists must not be called antisemitic, whatever they say about the Jewish state. To that end, APAN urges the Commission to reject the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

How does APAN define the term? "Hatred of or animus against Jewish people because they are Jews."

To defend that definition, APAN refers to three prominent Jewish anti-Zionist scholars. All three of them happen to arrive at essentially the same definition of antisemitism — one that conveniently excludes themselves.

Shaul Magid, Professor of Modern Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, complains in his report that the word has slipped its moorings — that "antisemitism" now stretches "from Christian anti-Judaism to racism, anti-colonialism, to anti-Zionism" — and insists on returning to what he calls the standard, which he says is "the unmitigated and unwarranted hatred of, or animus against, the Jew qua Jew."

Ilan Pappe gives this definition: "being anti-Jewish is racist and antisemitic. This is the hatred of Jews because of who they are. Whereas being anti-Zionist means opposition to an ideology."

Neve Gordon is quoted for a third variant, from a London Review of Books essay from January 2018, that antisemitism is "understood as hatred of Jews per se."

"The Jew qua Jew." "Because of who they are." "Hatred of Jews per se." Three anti-Zionist scholars essentially agree with each other that antisemitism is hate of Jews as Jews. The common denominator is that they are saying that real antisemitism has no reason - it is unwarranted, it is towards Jews per se, it is because of who they are. In other words, antisemitism has no reason, no excuse, it is pure bigotry divorced from logic. But these anti-Zionists have a good reason for their hate. That is the distinction that each of them is making. And that is the distinction they must make in order to separate themselves from the crude antisemitism of previous generations.

The only problem is that this definition includes lots of types of antisemitism that they claim they abhor.

The medieval mob did not hate Jews qua Jews. It hated them because they believed Jews poisoned the wells to spread the plague. They hated them because they believed Jews were murdering their Christian children for matzoh. This was, to their logic, self defense. Which means that according to these three scholars, it is not antisemitism because their hate was not unwarranted.

The 19th century racial antisemite didn't hate Jews as Jews. He hated a biological contaminant, a bloodline he believed inferior and dangerous and parasitic. This wasn't illogical, it was science. Aryans who converted to Judaism were not hated, which means that their hate was not unmitigated, so therefore they were not antisemitic, according to this scholarly, consensus definition.

Henry Ford published lots of reasons to hate Jews. Jews controlled the world press, cornered the money supply, debauched the motion pictures, corrupted baseball, ran the bootlegging trade, engineered Bolshevism, and started the First World War to profit from it. The chapter titles of The International Jew are a catalogue of warrants. Ford did not hate Jews for being Jews. He hated them, in his mind, for what they did - conspiring to control the world through Hollywood, banks and the media. I see no way that these three anti-Zionist scholars can categorize Henry Ford as an antisemite under their own definition.

The Ku Klux Klansman who bombed a synagogue because Jews backed Black civil rights had a reason, too — Jewish support for integration. A reason is a warrant, and a warrant means it is no longer antisemitic.

No doubt these scholars would object — their anti-Zionism is not illogical! It makes perfect sense! As if the accusation of apartheid and genocide against Jews in Israel is more logical or truthful than the blood libel or poisoning wells. Their beliefs have far more in common with traditional antisemitism than they have differences. The medieval antisemites would have defended their accusations just as vigorously as Jewish anti-Zionists do today.

Or they would say that antisemitic conspiracy theories, like Ford's, are really hatred of Jews as Jews. But is an unfalsifiable assertion that Israel has a secret plan to murder everyone in Gaza — one that would involve hundreds of thousands of soldiers, not one of whom leaks it — really different from that Ford's conspiracy theories?

Ilan Pappe adds a wrinkle - he says that they are not against Jews, but against an ideology, and opposition to an ideology cannot be antisemitic. In that case, Martin Luther wasn't an antisemite, either. Neither was Louis Farrakhan when he called Judaism a 'gutter religion' — he was attacking an ideology, just like Pappe.

They might claim that they are targeting conduct, not identity. But so was Ford and so was the author of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They would insist that they hated what Jews do, not what Jews are.

In the end, their definition allows no daylight between their hate for the Jewish state and previous hatreds of Judaism, or Jews as a people, or Jews as any collective. Their distinctions are cosmetic - every single previous type of antisemitism can and often did point to similar distinctions between their hate and their cruder predecessors.

Gordon actually shows the problem in the same paragraph. Defining the "traditional" antisemitism he regards as genuine, he names it: "hatred of Jews per se, the idea that Jews are naturally inferior, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or in the Jewish control of capitalism." The phrase per se and the examples that follow it contradict each other. Belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy is a reason; belief in Jewish control of capitalism is a reason, just as belief that Israel has a plan to eliminate all Palestinians in Gaza is a reason. The conspiracist does not hate Jews per se — he hates them because of the plot he is convinced they run, the most elaborately warranted hatred in the entire canon. Gordon defines antisemitism as warrantless and then offers, as his paradigm cases of it, two of the most reasoned hatreds in history. The only way to hold both halves together is to apply the per se test selectively to exonerate his and condemn theirs, without being able to come up with a single cogent reason for the differences.

A test applied selectively is not a definition. It is an alibi that has learned to dress as one.

Notice, finally, what the three of them share with the haters they would exempt. The religious antisemite tolerated Jewish apostates; the one that accused Jews of murdering children exempted the ones they were friends with. "Some of my best friends are Jewish" remains a joke for a reason. Being Jewish doesn't immunize anti-Zionists from being effectively antisemites; they are the shield wielded by the antisemites to avoid the charge. "See? She is a Holocaust survivor and she supports us!" Tokenism is real. The tradition of the tolerated Jew in an intolerant society is a very long one.

These three scholars converged on a definition of antisemitism that covers almost no one. They had to, because every other definition shows that their beliefs are just the latest in the long list of variants of Jew hatred. They set out to define themselves out of antisemitism. They could only do it by defining almost all of antisemitism out with them.

(h/t Jill)

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)

06/04 Links Pt2: J Street Vindicates Its Critics Once Again; Thank You For Being Decent?; Berlin to rename section of street after Yad Vashem

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Don't Rush to Blame Israel's Leader for Attacks on Jews in the Diaspora

A sizeable number of British Jews are responding to the current tsunami of antisemitism by blame other Jews. To be precise, one specific Jew. They blame Benjamin Netanyahu. If only he wasn't prime minister, they say, the hatred would fade away. Seriously? You don't have to be a fan of Netanyahu to see how spectacularly and dangerously wrong-headed this is.

Security officials tell us that the Iranian regime is behind the attacks on British Jews, with Iranian cells in Britain posing an acute terrorist threat. Much incitement against Israel and Jews has been generated by the inflammatory hate marches since the atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 - marches organized by Iran, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams incite murderous hatred towards Jews in British mosques. Was any of that Netanyahu's fault?

His critics claim he prolonged the war in Gaza in his own interests. But his war aims - to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas and return all the hostages - were shared by the vast majority of Israelis. Are these critics really so ignorant of the terrible threat Iran posed to Israel through its proxy seven-front "ring of fire"? Are they really unaware of the genocidal hatred of Jews held by so many Palestinians?

To hold Netanyahu responsible for the onslaught on Israel and the Jewish people is not just warped and perverse. It's also cowardly and despicable. Blaming the victims like this is not only disgusting, it's also a weapon in the armory of those who want Israel and the Jews destroyed. For shame.

Seth Mandel: J Street Vindicates Its Critics Once Again

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter touched off a row within the Israel-focused Jewish political groups in America two weeks ago by describing the left-wing J Street lobby as a “cancer within the Jewish community.”

He was referring more broadly to a particular trend of American Jews going beyond self-criticism and into territory in which they seek to serve as human shields for anti-Zionists who delegitimize Israel. Nonetheless, it was inflammatory phrasing and Leiter soon toned down his rhetoric while expanding his critique of the progressive group.

Enabling an arms embargo against the Jewish state while at war, he said, isn’t “pro-Israel,” nor was the group’s amplification of Nick Kristof’s now-infamous dog-rape blood libel.

This spurred a brief debate over whether J Street is, as it claims to be, “pro-Israel.”

Meanwhile yesterday J Street announced it would oppose a section of the new U.S. defense bill that would increase military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel, which is being debated in Congress today.

And that perfectly sums up why it’s so absurd for anyone to claim J Street is pro-Israel. Not because of one position on one bill or one vote, but because it was an example of what J Street does. And an organization is what it does.

Seth Mandel: The Threat of Jean-Luc Melenchon

While there will no doubt be concern about the opportunity that would open for a nationalist right-wing president, Melenchon isn’t less extreme in his own politics. Here’s what he said about Israel and Lebanon this week on social media, flagged by the Algemeiner:

“Israel is invading and annexing all of southern Lebanon. Netanyahu has raised his flag over Beaufort Castle. This French name should remind us of the thousand-year history that binds us to Lebanon. We owe the Lebanese people aid, solidarity, and support in the face of genocidal forces.”

He added: “The aircraft carrier would serve as a more useful symbol in the Mediterranean than in the Strait of Hormuz, to remind Netanyahu that his interference in our elections and his invasions of our allies’ territories are viewed as threats by the French. The UN Security Council must condemn Israel and organize the withdrawal of its forces from the occupied territory.”

So Melenchon believes Lebanon is still a French colony, essentially—that Israel’s seizing of the castle is an act of war against France. Then he accuses Netanyahu of interfering in French elections, suggesting that too is an act of war.

But the last part may be the most deranged. Israel took South Lebanon from Hezbollah, not the Lebanese army. Hezbollah is an Iranian occupation force. Why isn’t Iran’s occupation of South Lebanon viewed as a threat to France? Because when he talks about “invasions of our allies’ territory,” the ally is apparently imperial Iran.

If it sounds crazy to think Melenchon sees Iran as an ally against Israel, it shouldn’t. The Western left has been marching for three years explicitly cheering Hezbollah and Iran. In fact, it’s been cheering loudest for Hamas, the Iranian satrapy that carried out the savage murder spree of October 7, 2023. Hamas recorded its exploits on that day, and admitted to some of the worst of the crimes not caught on camera. If Melenchon’s ideological base can celebrate the Iranian militia carrying out a massive campaign of sexual torture and child murder, why wouldn’t Melenchon also see Iran as the good guy in this fight?

This is something the West needs to grapple with before it gets completely out of hand. It is not that the European left, along with its acolytes in the U.S., want the end of war in the Middle East. It’s that they want a different war—one that pits Western militaries against Israel and fights alongside Iran.

That obviously won’t happen—now. But the desire to reorganize the alliance around Iran and its associated “resistance” movements is there. And it should be a five-alarm fire in any corner of Europe that has retained its sanity.

06/04 Links Pt1: The UN is being used as a weapon against the West; Hamas Documents Reveal the Real October 7 Plan; Netanyahu: "I'd Rather Get a Bad Editorial in the Western Press than a Positive Obituary"

From Ian:

The UN is being used as a weapon against the West

The systemic rot extends far beyond the rapporteurs (and there are many more instances in the report). Let’s not forget that Iran was handed oversight of UN women’s rights, while China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia control the committee that decides which human-rights groups get access to the UN. And then there is UNRWA – the UN’s refugee agency, some of whose staff participated in the 7 October massacre.

The UN’s obsession with Israel seems to be getting more deranged by the day. Recently, it placed Israel on its blacklist of countries and parties that used sexual violence as a weapon of war. So Israel, a liberal democracy, now sits on the same list as Hamas – whose 7 October atrocities included systematic rape and sexual torture – and ISIS. The situation could hardly be any more absurd.

UN Watch calls for ‘major reform’. I understand the instinct, but you cannot reform a rotting corpse. The problem is that the UN continually hands influence to regimes that abuse human rights most egregiously, granting authoritarian propaganda a veneer of legitimacy. Every time Western governments treat UN reports as serious documents – or allow tyrants control of key councils without objection – they signal to the world that this system has credibility. It doesn’t.

The UN has become one of the most dangerous instruments in modern geopolitics. Authoritarian regimes are using the UN’s prestige to normalise their behavior, conceal their crimes and peddle anti-Western propaganda. It should terrify all of us that the world’s most trusted watchdog has been successfully leveraged as a PR firm for tyrants.

The time for decisive action is now. One way for democracies to reclaim control is by freezing funding, forcing audits, and purging compromised staff who are actively on the payroll of hostile regimes.

The UN was built to protect civilisation. It is now being used as a weapon against it. Going along with the charade only plays into the hands of our enemies.

Netanyahu: "I'd Rather Get a Bad Editorial in the Western Press than a Positive Obituary"

Asked about his relationship with President Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told CNBC in an interview on Wednesday: "We agree on the main things. We want to get the nuclear program in Iran finished. We want to make sure that Iran doesn't pose a threat to Israel, to the Middle East, to America, that it doesn't develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, not only to Israel and to every capital in Europe, but to every city in the United States. That's our common goal. That's what we set out to do."

"Sometimes, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements. We always find a way to work them out, and we do so as great friends. We can disagree in the morning, and by the afternoon we have common actions....He's been the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House, and he respects me. I respect him. We always find a way to work out our differences."

"I think he understands that Lebanon has been taken hostage by Hizbullah....It's an Iranian proxy that...uses Lebanon as a platform to launch terror missiles into our cities, to launch killer drones against our civilians. So if we want to save Lebanon, if we want to get a Lebanese-Israeli peace, as I do, we have to disarm Hizbullah, and we have to demilitarize Lebanon....I know that this is a goal that the President and I share."

"The escalation is from Hizbullah. We had a ceasefire, they violated it. Look, the way European leaders cater to radical Islamic minorities in their own countries is shameful because they know the truth....They know we're protecting them as well, but they don't have the guts to stand up and line up with the right thing that will save our civilization against these barbarians."

"We're faced with an enemy that wants to destroy our country, that wants to destroy your country, that wants to destroy free democracies everywhere, and spread their terrorist ilk around the globe. So, when we fight Iran and its proxies, we're not only fighting our war, we're fighting your war and, frankly, Europe's war as well."

"[Do] I have to stop protecting my people because I'm going to get a bad editorial in the Western press? The answer is no. I'd rather get a bad editorial than a positive obituary. You know, our people have died long enough, and what has changed for us is that the kind of recriminations and the kind of lies that are leveled at the Jewish people over the centuries are now being leveled at the Jewish state. There's no difference. We deliberately kill children, we perform genocide, we're poisoning the wells."

"Since the birth of the State of Israel, we're still being vilified, but when they come to slaughter us, we say no more, never again. And we fight back, targeting the terrorists, targeting the aggressors, trying to save the people, trying to save those communities, and believe me, in the Middle East, contrary to what people think, many understand that."

Khaled Abu Toameh: What Happens When Jihadists Smell Weakness

The message emerging from Hamas -- and Iran -- is unambiguous: Hamas and Iran believe they are winning.

Iran has been dictating to Washington when and with whom it will negotiate. Washington apparently never insisted upon face-to-face negotiations with Iran. Why not? By discontinuing talks with the US, Iran also succeeded in maneuvering the Trump Administration into two huge victories for the current regime. First, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in "Iran Gets Trump to Rescue Hezbollah," US President Donald J. Trump demanded that Israel stop defending itself against attacks from another proxy of Iran: Hezbollah in Lebanon. Second, Iran -- as a result of a much-publicized shouting match between Trump and Netanyahu – masterfully created "daylight" between its two main adversaries: Israel and the United States.

Even though Iran's weapons have been decimated, the current regime, run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has reportedly been using its leisurely, ever-extending ceasefire to rebuild them. The IRGC has been calling the shots and has stood up to the "Great Satan," the US. No wonder the regime thinks it is winning.

These are not the words of a defeated terror organization. These are the words of a group that believes time is on its side.

Abu Obeida's remarks are particularly alarming because they come after nearly three years of war, the elimination of many top Hamas leaders, and countless declarations by international mediators that Hamas would eventually be removed from power.

Instead, Hamas is still standing. Hamas, like Iran, appears increasingly confident.

The "Board of Peace" was supposedly created to bring stability to the Gaza Strip, end Hamas rule, and establish a new political reality after the war.

The truth is that the "Board of Peace" has failed in its central mission. Six months after Trump's ceasefire initiative and almost three years after the October 7 atrocities, Hamas remains in power. It continues to control large parts of the Gaza Strip, maintains its military infrastructure, and openly refuses to disarm

Recent reports that the Trump Administration pressured Israel to cancel a planned strike against Hezbollah targets in Beirut's Dahiya district sent a troubling message throughout the region.

For Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, any indication of friction between the US and Israel is good news. Terrorists thrive on the perception that their adversaries are divided.

Across the Middle East, terrorist organizations constantly search for signs of weakness among their enemies. Jihadists interpret "restraint" quite differently from the way Western policymakers do. What many Western leaders describe as diplomacy, patience, or de-escalation is frequently seen by Islamists as surrender, fear or exhaustion.

The October 7 massacre was partly the result of Hamas's belief that Israel had become weak, divided, and vulnerable. Today, Hamas appears once again to be reaching similar conclusions. This expectation should deeply concern policymakers in Washington.