04/22 Links Pt2: Asking the wrong questions about antisemitism; The ‘anti-extremism’ movement has always been a con; SPLC indicted for ‘manufacturing’ extremism

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Asking the wrong questions about antisemitism

Dahl was also living proof that once you remove the thin veneer of justifiable concern about any misdeed that Israelis are supposed to have committed, the gap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is revealed to be a distinction without a difference. And that is why so much of the commentary about this play and antisemitism in general is still asking the wrong questions about the subject.

Some 78 years after the birth of the modern-day State of Israel, we should no longer be trying to draw distinctions that will allow Israel-bashers to avoid being tagged as what they really are: antisemites. Instead, we should be noticing the painfully obvious similarities that unite all anti-Zionists, whether they are as uncivil as Dahl or not.

Those who cheer for or rationalize attacks and violence, including the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust that took place on Oct. 7, as well as deny Israelis the right to defend themselves against those who pledge its repeat, are on the same level as Dahl.

Are students or college professors who chant for Jewish genocide (“From the river to the sea”) or terrorism against Jews wherever they live (“Globalize the intifada”) really idealists who should be accorded the respect that sophisticated theater-goers are forced to retrospectively deny to a nasty old man who thinks the Jews deserved the Holocaust?

Is the contemporary journalist or politician who traffics in blood libels about Israelis committing a mythical “genocide” someone to agree to disagree with? Is that akin to how we are expected to react to an open neo-Nazi who does so in a less dignified manner?

The real lesson to be drawn from “Giant” isn’t the answer to the age-old debate about what to think about good art created by bad people. Nor is it a guide about how to behave when a favorite childhood author turns out to be a rotten bigot.

It is this: Those who embrace the cause of Israel’s destruction and the genocide of half of the world’s Jewish population that goes with that belief don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to evaluating their character. Some may act in a less repugnant manner than Dahl and pretend to oppose antisemitism even as they support it, as is the case with the mayor of New York. Others are less civil or arguably even crazier, as might be said of some anti-Israel podcasters. But they are all part of the same evil cause. And they all deserve the same opprobrium a decent society should accord to antisemites like Roald Dahl.

Brendan O'Neill: The ‘anti-extremism’ movement has always been a con

The SPLC denies the charges. It says it will ‘not be intimidated’ by the Trump administration. It’s worth noting that there’s little love lost between Trumpists and the SPLC. The centre started life as a civil-rights law practice in 1971 before morphing into a huge outfit that keeps tabs on extremism across America. Some on the right accuse it of targeting not only genuine loons but also normal groups, like Turning Point USA. It is ‘liberal’ intolerance made flesh, they say, with its tendency to treat everyone to the right of David French as an Adolf-in-waiting. It’s a ‘partisan smear machine’, says FBI director Kash Patel.

Hopefully the truth will out as the fraud case progresses. But I’m interested in what this simmering scandal tells us about bourgeois activism right now. The possibility that the SPLC is Jussie Smollett on steroids requires analysis. He’s the actor who falsely claimed to have been roughed up by a pair of racists yelling ‘This is MAGA country!’. Is the SPLC the institutional version of such vain self-delusion, blowing up the threat of extremism in order to fatten both its bank balance and its sense of virtue?

If it’s true the SPLC ‘funded extremism’, that would only be a monetary expression of what has for a long time been its core mission – namely, threat inflation. For years now, the centre has promiscuously expanded the definition of extremism, lumping in normies with Nazis. It maintains a ‘hate map’, showing all the nutters in America, which apparently includes not only Sieg Heiling ‘Aryan’ freaks but also Christians who aren’t fond of gay marriage.

Just four months before Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September last year, the SPLC branded him and Turning Point USA as ‘hard-right’ promoters of ‘hate’. It has also designated the Alliance Defending Freedom a ‘hate group’. Anyone who has ever met those Christian folk will know how ludicrous this is. Even Moms for Liberty, which doesn’t want schoolkids to be taught ‘critical race theory’ or that there are 72 genders, has found itself on the SPLC’s map of hate. If it’s extremist to oppose telling seven-year-olds that people with dicks are women and people with white skin are privileged, I guess I’m an extremist.

The aim of such extremism-mongering is transparent. It’s about criminalising moral opinions that the credentialled classes find offensive. And it’s about keeping groups like the SPLC flushed with cash and busy with cases. It’s a job-creation scheme for the do-gooding classes. If the SPLC ‘funnelled millions’ into extremist groups, that would perversely be in keeping with its demented mission to keep the ‘hate’ bandwagon rolling.

Groups like the SPLC don’t only inflate the far-right threat. They also deflect from one of the true extremist scourges of our time – Islamism. The SPLC has long had a blind spot on Islamist extremism. Worse, it has branded those who oppose Islamism as ‘extremists’. A few years ago it drew up a ‘Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists’, which included the mighty Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This is a black immigrant woman who has stirringly made the case for liberal values against the despotism and misogyny of Islamism, and who has been threatened with death for doing so. Yet in the Kafkaesque hellscape that passes for ‘activism’, it is she who is a ‘propagandist’ whose ‘damaging misinformation’ is a menace to public life. This is moral inversion at its most despicable.

We have the same problem in the UK: ‘anti-extremists’ who are wilfully blind to Islamist extremism. On Saturday, as yet another Jew-hater was prepping a petrol bomb to hurl at a London synagogue, the Guardian published a long-read on the ‘return of fascism’ illustrated with white working-class men waving England flags. Islamists are firebombing synagogues. They killed Jews in Manchester on Yom Kippur. They’ve massacred children at a pop concert. They’re on our streets calling for more violence against the Jewish State. And yet ‘the virtuous’ myopically fret over the white far right. From the Guardian to the SPLC, the preening activist classes inflate fantasy threats and downplay real ones, to ensure that nothing as pesky as the truth will meddle with their narcissistic crusading. Now that’s dangerous.

Europe's Jew-Hate with a Vengeance

[M]any in the West who sympathize with Islamic terrorists were, within hours, trying to justify Hamas's atrocities by blaming Israel. The allegations against Israel were that it was denying supposed rights of an invented Palestinian people that "does not exist," as admitted by senior PLO official Zoheir Mohsen in 1977 in the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw. They nevertheless repeat spurious claims to the Jews' ancestral land, on which Jews have lived continuously for nearly 4,000 years, explicitly named "Judea," and to the failure by Israel to implement what -- according to the Palestinians themselves -- would be a "two-state solution" dedicated to taking whatever land they can get and using it as a base from which to conquer the rest.

There is invariably a grim consequence to constant vilification of minorities; the current slandering of Jews is no exception.

Israel may stand pretty much alone against the haters of this world. Depending on the political climate at the time, it can be expected that international leaders will remain absent, even silent, for the most part when Israel's enemies once again attack it – as they surely will. As historic events reveal, Israel and Jewry at large cannot fully rely for protection on the West.

"Many things will be forgiven," observed Israel's Prime Minister Golda Meir in 1973. "but one thing will not—weakness. The moment we are marked as weak—it is over."

Lawmakers from 15 Latin American nations unite to combat antisemitism

The First Congress of Latin American Legislators Against Antisemitism was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, last week, to develop a coordinated strategy to combat rising Jew-hatred across the continent.

The three-day forum culminated in a joint declaration formulated by the 35 participants from 15 countries, the association that organized the event, the Combat Antisemitism Movement, said in a statement on Sunday.

The declaration included a call to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, show “solidarity with the State of Israel and firmly back its right to self-defense against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies,” demand “that Iran be held accountable for its global terrorist activities, both past and present, including in Latin America, reject “all attempts to isolate and boycott the State of Israel,” and the “bolstering of bilateral ties between Latin American countries and Israel in every relevant realm,” the statement read.

“From parliaments, and in coordination with the executive branches, we seek to build common public policies to confront this scourge [of antisemitism] with a regional and coordinated vision,” said Uruguayan Rep. Conrado Rodríguez, president of the regional legislators coalition.

Shay Salamon, the Combat Antisemitism Movement’s executive director of Latin American Affairs, described the gathering as a turning point in regional efforts.

“The Congress marks a decisive step toward the consolidation of a firm and coordinated regional commitment. The active participation of legislators from Latin America demonstrates that there is a real willingness to confront antisemitism by strengthening legal frameworks, promoting education and defending the democratic values that sustain our societies,” Salamon said.

In addition to policy discussions, participants took part in Uruguay’s national Yom Hashoah ceremony, commemorating the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Read More

04/22 Links Pt1: The Birth of a Great American Ally; Britain’s Jews are quietly preparing to leave the country; A warning from Britain’s Iranian diaspora

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Birth of a Great American Ally

In March, the New York Times reported that “U.S. and Israeli military officials are talking as often as 4,000 to 5,000 times a day, divvying up targets across Iran.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine spoke of his regular contact with his Israeli counterpart, and one source told the Times that the majority of military briefings were being held in English, not Hebrew, because of how closely the forces were cooperating.

But being a good junior partner isn’t just about the fighting. Israel has also been willing to stop at a moment’s notice when President Trump wants to switch gears to the diplomatic track. Last week, this meant agreeing to a cease-fire in Lebanon that Israeli voters didn’t like and that became a cudgel used by the political opposition against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Still, Israel complied. It was reminiscent of the point during last year’s U.S.-Israel joint bombing missions when Trump decided enough had been accomplished and ordered Israeli jets to turn around and go back home mid-flight.

European allies claim they agree with the necessity of stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and diminishing the Islamic Republic’s ability to bomb European bases and territory, but when Trump asked them to put their money where their mouths were, they balked. When the Iranians threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, the Europeans got together and came up with a plan—to be carried out only once the war was over and such a plan was no longer needed.

The structure of U.S. “aid” to Israel also follows this pattern, because it requires Israel to purchase from American manufacturers. Thus U.S. companies get a boost, the manufacturing base has steady income and occasional growth spurts, and the U.S. still gets all the intel once those weapons are battle tested—and without having to deploy the systems themselves or send U.S. troops into harm’s way to carry out real-world trials.

The aid is becoming a political football, and opposition to it has been made a progressive litmus test, so the aid structure will almost certainly be reworked. Doing so will harm American workers and the domestic economy far more than it would punish Israel.

Trump is loving the returns America gets by putting the alliance to fuller use. The Israelis, Trump said, “have proven to be a GREAT Ally of the United States of America. They are Courageous, Bold, Loyal, and Smart, and, unlike others that have shown their true colors in a moment of conflict and stress, Israel fights hard and knows how to WIN!”

That statement began with the words “whether people like Israel or not.” Because the truth is that Israel is a superb ally, and reality is impervious to partisan narratives that suggest otherwise.

IDF chief: Years of war have reshaped Israel’s security

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said “prolonged years of fighting have reshaped Israel’s security and fortified our existence,” speaking at the President’s Outstanding Soldiers Ceremony for Israel’s 78th Independence Day.

The ceremony at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem, recorded earlier this week and broadcast on Wednesday, honored 120 outstanding soldiers and officers from across the IDF.

President Isaac Herzog presented certificates and pins to the honorees, recognizing excellence, dedication, professionalism and responsibility.

The event was attended by Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, senior military leadership and the families of the recipients.

This marked the third consecutive year the ceremony has taken place during ongoing fighting, with all of the honorees having served in operational roles during the war.

Of the 120 recipients, 69 are men and 51 are women, including 18 officers. Sixty-seven serve in combat roles, two in combat support positions and 51 in rear-echelon roles.

The Association for the Wellbeing of Israel’s Soldiers awarded academic scholarships to the honorees, including financial grants and iPads to assist with studies following their discharge.

Aviva Klompas: The unseen victories of the Iran war

NATO allies have often been described, sometimes fairly, as hesitant and divided.

In contrast, Israel has demonstrated its exceptional ability to meaningfully contribute to shared strategic objectives.

Israeli intelligence penetrated deeply into Iranian systems. Its pilots carried out complex, high-risk missions. Its forces even assisted in recovering a downed American airman.

This is not the profile of a dependent ally; it is the profile of a partner that expands American capacity.

That distinction is not lost on Washington. Nor is it lost on the Middle East.

Iran’s actions during the war have had an unintended effect: pushing its neighbors closer to the United States and Israel. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, cautious about actions that could upend regional stability, quietly signaled support for continued pressure on Tehran.

They have allowed American and Israeli aircraft to traverse their airspace. They have encouraged a more sustained campaign.

This is a significant shift.

For decades, Iran has sought to position itself as a regional power capable of intimidating its neighbors and reshaping the balance of power. Instead, its aggression has accelerated the very alignment it sought to prevent.

Another audience is watching closely: the Iranian people.

The regime has long projected strength, both internally and externally, but this war has exposed its vulnerabilities. Strikes deep within Iran, disruptions to critical infrastructure and visible failures in defense have undermined the image of control.

In some cases, the regime has resorted to extraordinary measures, such as urging citizens to form human chains around key facilities. It is a striking image: a government relying on its own people not out of loyalty but out of necessity.

That too is a shift.

None of this suggests that Iran is no longer a threat. It has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global commerce, particularly through mines and drones in the Strait of Hormuz.

Read More

04/21 Links Pt2: Israel at 78: Commitment, Solidarity, and Determination; Why the Progressive Hatred of Yitzhak Rabin Matters; DOJ says SPLC funneled $3M+ to extremists groups like the KKK

From Ian:

Israel at 78: Commitment, Solidarity, and Determination

Each year before Independence Day, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics releases a report. This year's figures show that Israel's population grew by 150,000 and that 91% of Israelis say they are satisfied or very satisfied with their lives. But the numbers say nothing about the kind of year the country actually experienced.

It has now been well over two years since Oct. 7, 2023, a day that shattered assumptions and exposed vulnerabilities we still struggle to comprehend. Since then, Israel has been at war - first in Gaza, then in Lebanon, and now twice with Iran. It has been a year of sirens and safe rooms, of long stints of reserve duty. But that is only half the story.

Israel fought on multiple fronts, dealing devastating blows to Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran - actions that will take those enemies years to recover from. It secured the release of the remaining hostages. And it once again demonstrated a capacity for resilience and mobilization that surprised even itself. Oct. 7 was a catastrophe. But Oct. 8 was the moment when Jews responded forcefully and decisively.

78 years ago, Israel emerged from the shadow of the Holocaust, weak and vulnerable. Today, it is a strong, independent state with a tremendous ability to defend itself. We need to be careful not to lose sight of how far we have come.

One expression of national resilience can be seen in the area adjacent to Gaza. On the eve of Oct. 7, 62,000 people lived there. Today, the number is higher. Most of those who were evacuated have returned, and new families are moving in. Hamas tried to empty those communities. Instead, they grew. This is a reminder of a deep current in Israeli society - one of commitment, solidarity, and determination.

Why, as a Progressive Jew, I Firmly Identify as a Zionist

I am a progressive Jew. I believe in human rights, equality, and justice. I also identify firmly as a Zionist. It is because I believe in human rights, take justice seriously, and because I take Jewish history seriously, that I place myself unapologetically in the Zionist camp.

Zionism means the belief that the Jewish people are a nation, and that like other nations they have the right to self-determination in their ancestral land. Self-determination is a core collective human right, one routinely recognized for other peoples. If I begin from a commitment to human rights, I cannot treat Jewish self-determination as the one exception, because denying a fundamental right to the Jewish people while recognizing it to all others is, in fact, discrimination.

Anti-Zionism is often presented as though it were merely moral outrage at Israeli policy. It is not. Anti-Zionism begins where criticism of policy ends. It means either denying that Jews are a people or accepting that they are a people while denying them the same right of collective self-determination routinely granted to others.

As a proud second-generation Mexican Jew, I learned very early that identity is shaped not only by what one feels inwardly, but by what the surrounding world insists on seeing. I also grew up with the persistent reminder that, for many (perhaps for most), I was somehow not fully Mexican. I was treated, subtly or openly, as if I were foreign, conditional, not quite of the place.

That experience is difficult for many American Jews to fully grasp, especially those who came of age in periods and places of greater security and acceptance. But outside the American frame, you learn that emancipation is real but fragile, belonging is real but conditional, and acceptance can narrow overnight.

The 20th century taught Jews that statelessness, dependency, and the goodwill of others are not a sufficient answer to Jewish history. It also taught that universalism is a noble language, but it has often failed Jews precisely when they most needed concrete protection. This explains why so many Jews, especially those whose families came from the Middle East, North Africa, or Eastern Europe, experience Zionism as the political form of collective survival.

To me, being progressive means applying moral principles consistently, not selectively. If self-determination is a right, then it is a right for Jews too.

Seth Mandel: Why the Progressive Hatred of Yitzhak Rabin Matters

Noura Erekat, the well-known opponent of Jewish indigenous rights, called the peace process an “arrangement of permanent subjugation” of the Palestinians and backed AOC’s decision not to promote coexistence between Arabs and Jews.

An International Crisis Group activist wrote in 972Mag that “Palestine advocates are setting the record straight about one of the conflict’s most harmful myths: that the Oslo Accords — and by association, Yitzhak Rabin — were a force for peace.”

One was tempted to sympathize with the spokesman for APN’s Israeli sister organization who asked: “Are you really going to boycott us and all our work with Palestinians to support human rights and an end to the conflict, just because Rabin wasn’t a flawless [idol] after 5 decades of conflict?”

Well, yes. They really are going to boycott you. It certainly doesn’t matter to AOC and the anti-Zionists around her that APN worked “with Palestinians to support human rights and an end to the conflict” because the progressive anti-Zionist movement doesn’t support either of those things. Human rights? The Tentifada crowd openly worships Hamas, which exists to deprive Palestinians (and non-Palestinians) of human rights. End the conflict? What on earth would give someone the impression that a movement chanting in support of Iran’s occupation forces, which are keeping several countries mired in civil war, wants an end to the conflict?

A Marxist author for Jacobin praised AOC’s snub of the Rabin event by cheering that this all happened because “AOC took her cues from Palestinians instead of pro-Israel voices.”

It’s hard to argue with that. Pro-Israel voices want coexistence. Those voices have been systematically excised from the political left. There is no progressive peace camp, and there hasn’t been one for years.

Edward Luce thinks there’s a big difference between Yitzhak Rabin and Bibi Netanyahu. The progressive anti-Israel caucus thinks the problem is that people think there’s a difference between Yitzhak Rabin and Bibi Netanyahu. To them, both men are equally guilty of the one unforgivable sin: believing the Jewish state ought to exist.

Read More

04/21 Links Pt1: Israel’s enemies are Britain’s, too; Trump extends Iran ceasefire indefinitely; The Death of a French Soldier in Lebanon

From Ian:

Israel’s enemies are Britain’s, too

Israel is the West’s front line in the Middle East. Whenever it’s hit, jihadi plots in Europe spike. If Israel falls, the vacuum won’t be filled by states that care about social justice or international law. It will be filled by the very forces that hate our way of life and want to destroy it.

Beyond ideology, the practical reality of British and European security is inextricably linked to Israeli survival. While our politicians posture, our security services are quietly relying on a partnership that keeps British citizens safe. This cooperation involves a vital exchange of high-end intelligence and defensive technology, including Israeli signals intelligence (the interception and analysis of electronic signals, from communications to radar) and other human assets – all which help thwart terror attacks on European soil. Be it drone technology or missile defence, Israeli innovation is woven into the fabric of Western military readiness. When Westminster downgrades this relationship because the optics get difficult, the UK degrades its own defences as a consequence.

I don’t argue this as a detached onlooker, but as someone who sees this collision from both sides. I was born and raised in Israel, but Britain has been my home for 17 years. My children are British. When I work to combat anti-Semitism here, it isn’t just out of tribal loyalty; it is also because the hatred being directed at Jews and the Jewish state is a precursor to a wider assault on the West. I have seen the front line first-hand, and I can tell you, it is moving closer to home.

And yet, British politicians are either totally unable or unwilling to contend with this reality. Westminster seems paralysed by a fear of domestic Islamic voting blocs and a loud, radicalised middle class. We have raised a generation of ‘anti-imperialist’ activists who view their own country as a racist, illegitimate entity that they would refuse to fight for. For members of this young, comfortable class, Israel is the ultimate villain because it represents everything they have been taught to loathe: national pride, borders and a willingness to fight for their own survival.

This weakness is mirrored in our crumbling hard power. Britain’s armed forces are at their smallest since the Napoleonic era. In the absence of the ability to deter threats, we seek instead to placate. We lecture Israel on ‘restraint’ because we no longer have the stomach for the reality of defence. British politicians parrot that ‘Israel has a right to exist’ while at the same time pursuing policies that directly threaten that existence. This has emboldened a growing anti-Zionist chorus in public life, including MPs, Green Party candidates and university lecturers who have moved beyond legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and settler violence to denying Israel’s very right to nationhood. By tolerating this rhetoric, we are legitimising an ideology that views the entire Western order as something to be torn down.

As Israel celebrates 78 years of defiance, Britain needs to make a choice: we can continue to indulge the ‘anti-colonial’ fantasies of our radicalised youth, as well as the Islamist sectarianism that undermines our national security, or we can recognise Israel for what it is: an essential security asset. It is time to stop treating our allies like enemies and our enemies like partners. The survival of the West may well depend on it.

The Gulf Learns What It's Like to Be Israel

Forty days of war following the U.S. and Israel's joint campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran are reshaping the Middle East and its alliances. Countries across the Gulf region now see what it has been like to live in Israel in recent decades, as rockets, missiles and drones have struck civilian population centers.

For decades, Israelis endured attacks on their cities from Iran and its proxies. Much of the world treated those attacks as background noise, or something to rationalize or applaud. In the recent conflict, Israel absorbed wave after wave of Iranian ballistic missile fire. Beersheba, Haifa, Jerusalem, Nahariya, Arad and Tel Aviv all took hits. At the same time, outrage barely registers across the U.S. and Europe over Iran's targeting of civilians and infrastructure, both in Israel and across the region.

Unlike in Israel, homes and offices in parts of the Gulf lack hardened bomb shelters, leaving civilians more exposed. The same holds true for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman. None of these states are parties to the conflict. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps struck vital infrastructure, including oil facilities and desalination plants. The expectation of safety across many of these nations, once taken for granted, no longer holds. Countries that once viewed Israel's security challenges from a distance now confront them directly.

When Israel comes under fire, the international reaction arrives late - diluted by equivocation - or not at all. This time, the missiles have not fallen on Israel alone. Yet where is the outrage? Where are the emergency sessions? Where is the Arab League? Where is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? The UN Security Council cannot pass a resolution brought by Bahrain and other Gulf states calling for condemnation and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

This moment tests whether targeting civilians is truly unacceptable or only unacceptable when it is convenient to say so. If attacks of this scale, across this many countries, fail to produce clarity, then the language of international norms becomes performance. Silence is not neutrality. It is acquiescence. When aggression meets no consequence, it expands.

Iran War Sent Shock Waves through Asia

The impact of the war in Iran has hit Asia harder and faster than expected. The Asia-Pacific region relies more heavily on Middle Eastern energy imports than almost anywhere else in the world. Even before the war started on Feb. 28, Asia's energy capacity was falling short of demand. In interviews, farmers in Vietnam, laborers in India, innkeepers in Sri Lanka, drivers in the Philippines, and executives in Hong Kong and Singapore all sounded worried.

Carriers flying through the Middle East, where 24 million migrant workers from South and Southeast Asia are employed, suspended trips to Dubai and other Gulf hubs right away. With jet fuel nearly doubling in price and with its availability threatened, airlines are slashing many more routes indefinitely. Qantas, Air New Zealand, Lion Air of Indonesia, VietJet, AirAsia, Air India, Cathay Pacific and Batik Air of Malaysia are cutting service.

Copper and nickel production rely on natural gas and sulfur, a fossil fuel byproduct. Both are in short supply, forcing several Indonesian nickel processors to reduce output. Polyester and nylon are also derived from petroleum. In the sewing hubs of Bangladesh, severe disruptions to production and shipment schedules have become common. Prices have soared for helium, a gas byproduct used for semiconductors, and some Asian chipmakers are slowing production.

Without enough petrochemicals to make plastic packaging, fewer Korean beauty products are heading to stores. A lack of fertilizer is threatening rice crops in Vietnam. Cattle farmers in Australia are warning of a meat shortage because of idled slaughterhouses and truckers.

Read More

04/20 Links Pt2: From grief to action: Ensuring the sacrifices of Israel’s fallen are not in vain; Full 60 Minutes interview with Rachel Goldberg-Polin; Boy George defends Eurovision participation

From Ian: JPost Editorial: From grief to action: Ensuring the sacrifices of Israel’s fallen are not in vain

Memory is a deeply entrenched concept within Israeli society.

Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars and Victims of Terrorism, which will be marked nationwide on Monday evening, is filled with promises that the fallen will not be forgotten.

Over the past year, 170 soldiers have been killed across multiple fronts, including 15 soldiers and reservists killed in southern Lebanon since fighting resumed on March 2. Fifty-four disabled veterans have died from complications linked to wounds sustained during their service.

Behind these numbers are 7,165 bereaved relatives who have grieved and mourned for their fallen father, mother, son, daughter, or sibling.

The annual transition from the somber ceremonies to the joy of Israel’s Independence Day celebrations serves as a reminder of a difficult question we as Israelis must ask ourselves every year: What can we do to ensure that the sacrifices made by our soldiers were not in vain?

On Sunday morning, Israelis gathered outside the homes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other government ministers for an impromptu ceremony honoring our fallen heroes.

After observing a minute of silence, the gatherings turned into a public demand: A call for a state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding October 7. A direct message from the Israeli public

Their message was direct and unambiguous: “The blood of our loved ones cries out from the ground and demands truthful answers.”

This demand, rooted in grief, is sustained by a real fear among society that, without accountability by the political and military echelon, the failures of the past will continue to manifest themselves in the blood of Israelis being shed.

The question facing Israel is not only how to respond to the current threats, but whether it can alter the trajectory that keeps producing them.

Israelis have shown unprecedented levels of resilience since October 7, 2023. When Hamas invaded southern Israel and the IDF was nowhere to be found, citizens mobilized. When entire neighborhoods, towns, and kibbutzim were destroyed, their residents came back to rebuild them from the ruins. In the North and South alike, Israelis have accepted life under daily fire.

This resilience cannot be taken for granted.

‘To cover our ears to one cry is to silence them all,’ Kaploun says at concentration camp site in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Yehuda Kaploun, a rabbi and U.S. State Department special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, spoke at the annual Donja Gradina commemoration hosted in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the site of the Jasenovac concentration camp.

The Croatian regime killed between 77,000 and 99,000 people at Jasenovac between 1941 and 1945, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

“To cover our ears to one cry is to silence them all,” Kaploun said at the ceremony. “Whether it is denying the Holocaust, any genocide or any atrocity, any attempt to rewrite the historical record is an insult to the victims at Jasenovac and an insult to any victim of the atrocities.”

That is why U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio “have been clear: there can be no compromise with evil, and there can be no compromising the truth,” Kaploun said. “From standing with Jewish communities to fighting today’s axis of evil, we have made clear that hatred has no place in a civilized society.”

“As antisemitism surges globally, we have no choice but to remember,” he added. “Together, we must educate about the past, and learn from the past, to protect the living.  We must commit to fighting hatred wherever and whenever we see it, and we must build a better world for us all.”

Emir Suljagić, head of the Srebrenica Memorial Center, stated that he was “deeply moved” by Kaploun’s speech.

“Mr. Kaploun showed rare integrity and honesty in confronting contemporary genocide denial alongside Holocaust denial and antisemitism. He did not shy away from condemning all forms of historical revisionism and genocide denial,” Suljagić said. “That he said all of this in Jasenovac—a place that is hallowed ground for Jews—only underscores the weight of his words. His willingness to reach across historical and religious divides is a testament to his character and openness.”

Read More

04/20 Links Pt1: Ruthie Blum: Trump cards; PA Has Paid Convicted Terrorists Released in Gaza Deal; England’s Jews are being terrorised, and the left is silent

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Trump cards

This clash of narratives would be less troubling if it were merely rhetorical. But it goes to the heart of how the Islamic Republic wages war and, crucially, how it and the rest of the jihadist world try to avoid losing one.

Militarily, the imbalance is obvious. The United States possesses overwhelming superiority in every realm other than that of double-speak and propaganda-spreading.

Tehran’s advantage, like that of its proxies, has always existed in the ability to manipulate perception, to blur lines between perpetrator and victim and to exploit the West’s chronic susceptibility to wishful thinking. It understands that battles are not fought solely with planes and tanks, but by way of story lines that seep into public consciousness. It’s an arena in which jihadists are champions. One need look no further than the halls of Harvard.

While aware of this phenomenon, Trump doesn’t grasp the depths of Islamist religious ideology, which is far harder to confront than armies and navies. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that nobody, least of all Trump, likes being played for a fool. So, Iran is pushing its luck and not merely through bluster. Indeed, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired on two Indian ships in the Strait of Hormuz on April 18.

This is despite the fast-approaching end to the two-week ceasefire. The deadline for Tehran to agree to U.S. conditions for a deal is April 22.

Though Trump’s been vague about whether he means to extend the truce, he’s not likely to be flexible at this point.

During a joint press conference on April 16 with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth issued a warning to Tehran, referring to the U.S. blockade as the “polite way this can go.”

Addressing the Islamic Republic, he said, “You like to say publicly ... that you control the Strait of Hormuz. But you don’t have a navy or real domain awareness. You can’t control anything. To be clear: Threatening to shoot missiles and drones at commercial ships that are lawfully transiting international waters—that is not control. That’s piracy. That’s terrorism.”

He continued, “The United States Navy controls the traffic going in and out of the strait, because we have real assets and real capabilities. ... The math is clear. We’re using 10% of the world’s most powerful navy, and you have 0% of your navy. That’s real control, and we have a long track record of dealing with pirates and terrorists. But there is an alternative. As our negotiators have said, you, Iran, can choose a prosperous future, a golden bridge. And we hope that you do for the people of Iran. ... But if Iran chooses poorly, then they will have a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power and energy.”

Well, the IRGC certainly hasn’t been opting for the outcome desired by Washington, Jerusalem or the Iranian people. Trump, therefore, must stick to his literal and figurative guns.

After all, the last thing he would want is for the United States to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Palestinian Authority Has Paid Convicted Terrorists Released as Part of Gaza Ceasefire Deal, State Department Tells Congress

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has paid salaries to convicted terrorists Israel released from its prisons as part of its October 2025 ceasefire agreement with Hamas, the State Department formally determined in a non-public report to Congress obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The State Department's mandatory report—compiled between August 2025 and January 2026—marks the first U.S. government determination that the PA has "provided payments to convicted terrorists released from Israeli prisons in October 2025 under President Trump's 20-point peace plan."

The notice to Congress confirms a similar conclusion the State Department made in January, when it noted that, even though PA president Mahmoud Abbas claimed in 2025 that he had scrapped the so-called pay-to-slay program, his government had still doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists and their families. As the Free Beacon reported in February, the PA transitioned last year to concealing those payments from Western governments by funneling them through a newly established welfare authority. The most recent State Department report confirms that a portion of those funds has gone to the terrorists released in October.

The State Department report comes about six months after the beginning of President Donald Trump's Gaza ceasefire, which included a commitment from Abbas that the PA would undertake a series of reforms, including ending pay-to-slay. The notice to Congress demonstrates that he and his government have not followed through in any meaningful way.

The PA appears to have gone further since the end of the period covered in the State Department report. Abbas's Fatah party "announced that terrorists who have been imprisoned for more than 20 years will be granted leadership positions," according to the Palestinian Media Watch research group. Fatah Revolutionary Council member Tayseer Nasrallah said in a televised interview in March that these terrorists will serve as members in the upcoming Eighth Fatah Conference, the forum at which the PA sets government policy.

The State Department report includes other examples of the PA violating the terms of its agreements with the United States. The PA "incited and glorified violence, including on social media and media outlets," and "supported terrorism via educational materials and summer camps" that teach children jihadist ideologies, the notice states.

Khaled Abu Toameh: For the Leadership in Iran, Gaza and Beirut, What Is the Only Important Outcome?

[The US president's negotiations and ceasefires] are viewed by Tehran, Gaza and Beirut as infidels trying to tell Muslims what to do. For them, such a situation is unimaginable, unacceptable, and cannot be allowed to stand.

To Iran's current leaders, whoever they are, if Trump carries out his threat to bomb the country's bridges and power plants on Wednesday, so be it. In the view of Iran's theocratic regime, none of that is of any importance so long as it survives, in any form, to be able to continue waging jihad (holy war) against its people, its neighbors and the West.

A piece of paper signed with infidels at the point of a gun is, in their eyes, nothing more than a Western fantasy.

They see anything short of the total destruction of their entire power base as a total victory.

That is why all three regimes – the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – need to be totally dismantled if there is to be any real, permanent change of conduct in the Middle East.

The message should by now be clear: Iran's regime, Hamas and Hezbollah have no intention of laying down their arms, no interest in compromise, and no respect for Trump and his policies. In fact, they are telling Trump: Your initiatives and efforts are irrelevant.

The intractability of their leaders also aligns with their long-term ideological objective of sustaining a permanent conflict with Israel and the West.

Even if the Iranian regime is no longer able to continue funding, arming, and guiding its proxies, all will remain committed to armed struggle until "victory."

"Victory," in their terms, means first the destruction of Israel ("the Little Satan"), then taking over their oil-rich neighbors, and eventually the destruction of Europe and the United States ("the Great Satan").

So long as the Iranian regime – or Hamas or Hezbollah -- is able to survive, there will be no disarmament, no moderation, and no peace.

The repeated refusals by Iran's regime, Hamas and Hezbollah expose the failure of any policy built on engagement, incentives, or accommodation.

These terror entities do not interpret diplomatic overtures, off-ramps and ceasefires as goodwill. They view them instead as weakness.

They are right. It is, indeed, the West's fault that it allows itself to be exploited. The West not only gives these leaders time to rearm and rebuild, but worse, it grants them legitimacy and power bases throughout Europe and the United States. No one in the West even asks them to concede anything of substance.

Until there is a better understanding by the West of what jihad actually is -- and the uncompromising determination behind it -- every negotiation, threat and ceasefire will only lead to more terrorism and the next war.

Read More

04/19 Links: The West is losing its moral compass; Arson attempt hits London synagogue; Iran-linked group claims attack; Israel marks 83 years since Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: The West is losing its moral compass

Then there was October 7. If anything, the morality should have been even clearer, given that the jihadis of Hamas were of a piece with those who had attacked concert halls, Tube trains and cafés in Britain and across the West. Yet rather than seeing Israeli flags flying from every lamppost, we endured the disgraceful spectacle of people celebrating the pogrom in London less than 24 hours afterwards.

There followed a vicious propaganda campaign, driven by our enemies and embraced by international organisations and the media, which sexed up the war until it was inaccurately labelled a “genocide”. Millions of gullible people were swept up. Supporters of Israel – a democracy fighting for its life – became a dying breed. Once Trump entered the White House, however, there was little doubt which side he was on.

The moral certainty that deserted the president over Ukraine was suddenly there in spades. While European powers concluded it was best to reward Hamas by recognising a Palestinian state, Trump remained stalwart: jihadism was the enemy. Through the sheer force of his conviction, the hostages were freed and the war ended.

Which brings us to Iran. Although this is a regime that is believed to have butchered more than 30,000 people in two days, sows terror around the globe, lusts after nuclear weapons and is driven by apocalyptic theological fantasies, its fans have marched in our cities. Commentators, meanwhile, pay lip service to condemning Tehran while their true passions only gush forth when it comes to willing the downfall of Trump.

What is going on? Well, it’s all about the culture war. No crisis, it seems, is too grave to be bastardised by moral weaklings for petty politics. While Putin becomes some anti-woke folk hero, at the other end of the spectrum, the Ayatollah is given a glow-up as an icon of progressivism.

The problem is, one day we’ll need that ethical instinct we’re frittering away. Look to those with their lives on the line. Ask Ukrainians what they think of Israel. Ask Israelis what they think of Ukraine. Ask the Iranian people what they think of both countries, and ask them all what they think of the regime. Any questions?

Alan Dershowitz: Imminence Is No Longer the Criterion for Military Preventive Action

Extremists have accused President Trump of "war crimes" for his attack on Iran. Trump reasonably and understandably believed Iran was close to developing a nuclear arsenal, which the mullahs might have deployed against Israel in the near term, and perhaps eventually against the U.S.

Regardless of whether the potential timing of this threat fits the traditional definition of "imminent" - right on the verge of happening - it was real and would have been catastrophic if carried out. Accordingly, both the U.S. and Israel had the right - indeed, the obligation - to regard the threat that Iran would soon develop and deploy a nuclear arsenal as sufficiently dangerous to warrant preventive military action. Had either country waited until this nuclear threat was truly imminent, it might have been too late to stop it.

We can say this from experience. We waited too long with regard to North Korea, and that rogue nation managed to develop a nuclear arsenal under our noses. As a consequence, the Hermit Kingdom has been constantly threatening the world, and we can do nothing about it. Iran, the world's top state exporter of terrorism, would pose a far more serious near-term threat than North Korea.

Former Foreign Minister of Australia Gareth Evans wrote in a 2004 UN report that, "The classic non-threat imminent situation is early-stage acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by a state presumed to be hostile." Israel used such a justification to preemptively destroy both Iraq's and Syria's nuclear weapons programs before their threats became imminent.

An even stronger case can be made regarding Iran's nuclear arsenal program, since Iran has threatened to use it against Israel - which its leaders have called "a one-bomb state." Once Iran obtains a nuclear arsenal, it will already be too late for prevention or preemption.

IDF reservist killed, 9 wounded by Hezbollah IED in Southern Lebanon

Israel Defense Forces Sergeant First Class (res.) Lidor Porat, 31, from Ashdod, fell in Lebanon on Saturday, according to the Israeli military.

Nine other soldiers were wounded in the same incident, one severely, four moderately and four lightly, according to an IDF statement. The wounded were evacuated by helicopter and their families have been notified.

According to the IDF, a D-9 bulldozer operated by a force from the 769th Brigade in Southern Lebanon hit an IED planted by Hezbollah near Kfar Kila.

Kfar Kila was destroyed in the previous round of fighting against Hezbollah at the end of 2024. The army is investigating whether the explosive dated from that period or was recently placed there, Israel’s Channel 14 reported.

“My wife and I, together with all the citizens of Israel, share in the heavy grief and extend our deepest condolences to the family of Sgt. First Class (res.) Lidor Porat, of blessed memory, who fell in battle in Southern Lebanon,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday.

“I wish a swift and full recovery to our soldiers who were wounded in the difficult incident. Together with his comrades, Lidor fought bravely to defend our communities and our citizens—and this is how we will continue to act,” he added.

The development follows the death on Friday of Warrant Officer (res.) Barak Kalfon, from Adi in northern Israel. Kalfon was an employee of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Married and the father of two, he would have turned 49 next month.

Read More

04/18 Links: He dreamed of regime change; Endgame in Sight; Israel is not at war with Lebanon; Fetterman blasts his party for tolerating antisemitism; Melanie Phillips: An unholy silence

From Ian:

Martin Kramer: He dreamed of regime change

The Iran war has entered a new phase, a “double-sided ceasefire.” Eventually, we will learn the backstory, and it won’t look like anything we were led to believe while it was unfolding. Much of what seems true today will turn out to be false, and vice versa. If it weren’t always so, the world wouldn’t need historians like me.

In the meantime, I seek insights in the wisdom of mentors now gone. Bernard Lewis was one; I wrote about Lewis and Iran the other week. This time, I’ll consider Uri Lubrani (1926-2018), an Israeli diplomat and defense official.

Lubrani, who served the state from its founding, had the unusual distinction of being posted, time and again, to the epicenters of crisis. From 1967 to 1971, he served as ambassador to Ethiopia, which positioned him to play a crucial role in the emergency emigration of 14,000 Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 1991 (Operation Solomon). It was his greatest achievement.

But he was also known for serving as head of the Israeli mission to Iran (with ambassadorial rank) from 1973 to 1978. His claim to fame: he anticipated the rise of religious extremism and the Shah’s fall before anyone else did.

As early as 1975, he warned a US senator visiting Tehran that “the most serious problem that the Shah had domestically was from the religious elements who were hostile and very difficult for him to deal with.” The US diplomat who accompanied the senator later recalled: “I never heard anyone say that in the American embassy. I never heard any journalists say it or any Iranians say it. This was the first time that I heard that analysis.”

Lubrani remained ahead of the curve. In a June 1978 dispatch, he reported to Jerusalem that the Shah’s position was undergoing an “accelerated process of destabilization… a process from which there is no return and which will ultimately lead to his downfall and a drastic change in the form of government in Iran.” Again, he was alone. The State Department at the time estimated that the Shah had “an excellent chance to rule for a dozen or more years,” and the CIA held that “Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.” Lubrani emerged from the Iranian revolution as an acclaimed oracle.

I got to know him in the mid-1980s, when he ran an office for Lebanese affairs at the defense ministry. Israel was occupying much of South Lebanon and rubbing up against Hezbollah, Iran’s Shi‘ite proxy. I was beginning to work on Hezbollah myself, and we had much to discuss. Lubrani was also an old friend of Lewis, and I often found myself at dinner with both of them. I wish I’d taken notes.

Melanie Phillips: An unholy silence

Britain’s prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has adopted a particularly odious attitude. Having said the Iran conflict was “not our war” and “not in our national interest,” he then tried to cast himself as a peacemaker by flying to Saudi Arabia purportedly to negotiate a ceasefire.

While the United States is bringing Iran economically to its knees by interdicting Iranian maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, thus brilliantly turning the regime’s ostensible trump card against it, Starmer is sending out invitations to a risible summit to “break” Iran’s control of the Strait.

Top of their deliberations will doubtless be what gifts to put into the party bags they’ll give the Iranians to take home with them.

Shockingly, Starmer thinks that Israel has no right to defend itself against Hezbollah in Lebanon. He told the House of Commons this week: “Israel’s strikes are wrong. They’re having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.”

He thus presented Israel totally falsely as a wanton aggressor, ignoring the thousands of rockets that Hezbollah has been firing at Israeli civilians—with all the death and destruction they’ve caused--and that show no sign of stopping.

Starmer thinks diplomacy brings peace. But more than four decades of diplomacy with Iran have resulted in thousands of Jews, Americans and others around the world being murdered, killed and wounded; a terrorized and butchered Iranian people; and the world’s most lethal terrorist state coming to the very brink of arming itself with the nuclear bomb.

Like the pope, Starmer and his fellow European fainthearts make pious incantations of peace while leaving the targets of genocidal war to swing in the wind.

This culture of appeasement reflects the dismal fact that Britain and these European nations are now on a trajectory of cultural collapse, as their countries become steadily Islamized while they refuse to defend a historic identity they no longer respect or even recognize.

Accordingly, the pope’s position should cause the utmost dismay to all who understand the need to prevent Western civilization from disintegrating.

Since religion is the moral scaffolding of a culture, it’s essential for the church to assert itself if the West is to be defended. For decades, the Church of England has tragically been instead at the forefront of civilizational decline. Now the Pope is sanctifying Europe’s surrender to Islam.

Trump’s crude and sometimes preposterous pronouncements dismay many. People’s real concern, however, should be for the survival of the civilization that only America’s president and the State of Israel are trying desperately to defend.

Endgame in Sight By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
Here's what I think is happening. The U.S. and Israel won the opening military phase of this war. The U.S. is now winning the economic phase. What’s left of the Iranian regime is cracking under the massive economic stress of the blockade. With the U.S. Navy still interdicting Iranian shipping, the regime may yet break altogether.

Iranian leaders are trying simultaneously to get some economic breathing room and save face by linking their actions to the Israel–Lebanon cease-fire. Trump, irked by the anti-Jewish right’s claims that he’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s puppet, is trying to shut them up with a little social media bluster. It would be wise to take the actual words of the cease-fire as the operative framework here. Trump hasn’t traveled this far, with Israel by the U.S.’s side in a successful war against Iran, just to tie the Jewish state’s hands against Iran’s proxy in Lebanon.

Neither the Iranian regime nor Trump wants to resume the fighting. The regime can’t afford to absorb more damage. For another president, that might mean it’s time to start dropping bombs again. But no other president, despite talking about it, has taken this fight nearly so far. He’s the only one that made the bold decision to wage this war, and he’s done so on his terms. Trump always wanted a short war, and, after a month and a half, he can just about taste victory.

I have my doubts about the details and projected timelines, but, hard as it is to imagine, I believe the president when he says the U.S. will get Iran to hand over its enriched uranium (everything that’s transpired since Operation Midnight Hammer in June was once hard to imagine). And that really would be the whole shebang—the clearest, most incontrovertible victory the U.S. has seen in decades.

Read More

04/17 Links Pt2: Jabotinsky Was Right About Everything; What do the Democrats want from Israel?; How the Greens chose Gaza over the environment; Billy Corgan interviews David Draiman

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Jabotinsky Was Right About Everything (So Cheer Up!)

Jabotinsky believed the future State of Israel—he didn’t live to see it, but he knew it would come—had to produce more than Jaffa oranges; it had to build things the world needed. He was right: He presaged the emergence of “the start-up nation” by many decades.

His influential writings on Ukrainian nationalism and Russian imperialism were eerily predictive of our current moment. His belief in the importance of persuading the general American public, and not just the government, of the justice of the Zionists’ cause has been likewise vindicated.

And these are just a few of the examples. There are more, because Jabotinsky was right about it all.

And that is one reason to feel less pessimistic about the still-very-concerning rise of Jewish anti-Zionism in our current post-October 7 moment. Jewish history leaves no doubt as to who will be vindicated and who will not: In the future, no one is going to say, “if only I’d listened to Peter Beinart.”

And so the self-humiliation ritual that Ezra Klein put himself through at the New York Times over the past week—in which he defended anti-American anti-Semite Hasan Piker’s inclusion in Democratic Party politics, only to have Piker reaffirm his Jew-hatred and his fanatical worship of those who murder American civilians—evinces outrage that melts into pity. We’ll send you a postcard from the future, Ezra.

Judaism is indestructible, which is why the destruction of the holy temple, at a time when it was the center and anchor of the religious aspect of Jewish peoplehood, still has millions of Jews around to mourn it. The best future anti-Zionists can hope for is to be a memory, to have been something that we vaguely recall.

Where do the Jews who aren’t anti-Zionist but who are easily cowed by anti-Zionists fall in this equation? They are ripe for an education. The Jews did not keep their status as the eternal people by voting against bulldozers for Israel, as several Jewish Democratic senators did this week. They seem to have forgotten that, just as they themselves will soon be forgotten.

When Jabotinsky was demobilized after the war, he recounted telling his fellow Jewish Legionnaires the following:

“Far away, in your home, you will one day read glorious news, of a free Jewish life in a free Jewish country—of factories and universities, of farms and theaters, perhaps of MPs and ministers. … Then you shall stand up, walk to the mirror, and look yourself proudly in the face … and salute yourself—for ’tis you who have made it.”

That was in 1918, 30 years before the rebirth of the State of Israel. Some people have an easier time seeing the future than others. It’s usually those who have a better grasp on the past.

Jonathan Tobin: What do the Democrats want from Israel?

Indeed, liberal writer Jonathan Chait was not far off the mark when he wrote in The Atlantic of the fear that Democratic officeholders have of a party base that has fallen under the spell of anti-Israel hatemongers like podcaster Hasan Piker.

Republicans may have their own problem with a similar antisemitic set, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones and enablers like Megyn Kelly. But Democrats who don’t wish to bend the knee to their intersectional left-wing base are in a very different position than the GOP. The leader of the Republicans—Trump—had no problem kicking them out of the party and his MAGA movement for the offense of opposing the war on Iran and alliance with Israel. He did so not only because he isn’t the type to take orders from someone like Carlson, who is more of a Mar-a-Lago court jester than a policy adviser. He could do so with impunity, secure in the knowledge that whatever inroads the Israel-bashers and Jew-haters have made among young voters, the overwhelming majority of his supporters approve of his stances.

Senate Democrats, most of whom came into office pledging their undying support for the Jewish state, don’t have that luxury. Indeed, as Chait writes, they are on the verge of losing their party to the likes of Piker, as well as the academic, pop-culture and media elites who, as we’ve learned from their pushback against calls to isolate someone who hates America as well as Israel and the Jews, largely agree with him.

Chait’s proposed solution to the problem is to follow the path of the 40 Senate Democrats who are now on record backing a proposal that would disarm Israel in the middle of a war. He says they have choices. One is to abandon Israel and hold onto office. The other is to stick to the principles that got most of them elected in the first place—and be defeated in a future primary by an Israel-hating and antisemitic Democratic Socialist who will steer the party toward the hard left. It also means a Democratic Party in which members of the left-wing congressional “Squad” that includes Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), along with fellow Marxist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are no longer on the margins but in control.

They know he’s right because, as he put it, they can all read polls. And so, they are shifting their principles to accommodate the new ideological alignment toward people for whom one Jewish state on the planet is one too many. And if that means leaving Israel without the weapons and means to defend itself against its genocidal regional foes, that’s just too bad.

Were the Democrats who changed their votes in the last year to get in sync with the new fashionable antisemitic wing of their party—such as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ruben Gallego (D-N.J.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—to admit to this, it would be disgraceful enough. But what’s truly awful about their stand is the disingenuous defenses of their position. They claim that they still support Israel, but think its democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has engaged in reckless and needlessly brutal behavior by waging war on Iran, in addition to its terrorist allies in Gaza and Lebanon.

Missing from their hypocritical speeches is any mention of what they really expect from an Israeli government. Even Chait, who also claims to be a “liberal Zionist” disenchanted with Netanyahu but not Israel itself, had to acknowledge that the Jewish state has no current peace partner. At some point, even those who are willfully ignorant about events in the Middle East have to take notice of the fact that Palestinian Arabs don’t want a two-state solution, which liberal Americans still seem to think is the only answer to the conflict. Unlike them, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have decided to accept that Palestinians are saying “no” to any outcome other than the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of its people.

The atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, helped cement that viewpoint.

Jewish Democratic disillusionment deepens over party’s direction

The Democratic shift on Israel policy was on full, dramatic display on the Senate floor on Wednesday night as 40 of 47 Senate Democrats voted for at least one of two resolutions to block U.S. shipments of bulldozers and bombs to Israel.

The votes left many pro-Israel Democrats shocked and disillusioned — exemplified in the muted statements, if any, on the vote from key pro-Israel groups — and is being seen by some as the marker of a new era of Democratic policy on Israel, in which critics of Israel are firmly in the party mainstream.

“It’s yet another data point that the bipartisan consensus [in support of Israel] is, at least at the moment, no longer,” a former Biden administration official told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “Democrats think it’s politically advantageous to take these votes that would have been completely out-of-bounds just two-and-a-half years ago. … It’s deeply concerning if you care about the relationship, if you care about the security of [Israel]. But that’s the state of play at the moment, I think until or unless there’s an event that changes the trajectory.”

Abe Foxman, the former head of the Anti-Defamation League, said the vote highlights the “progressive socialist wing” of the Democratic Party’s increasing takeover. “This is a calamity for the Democratic Party, if it will not be contained and stopped,” Foxman told JI. “What’s also disturbing to me is that this litmus test is being first administered to every Jewish candidate.”

He added that the votes send a terrible message to U.S. allies beyond Israel that the U.S. can’t be relied upon.

Pro-Israel Democrats who spoke to JI said the votes came about as a combination of several factors: They served as a proxy for the war in Iran that nearly all Democrats oppose, but also were a signal of opposition to Israel’s operations in Lebanon, settler attacks and settlement expansion in the West Bank, the war in Gaza and — to a substantial degree — the Democratic enmity that has been growing for years toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and his alignment with President Donald Trump and Republicans.

And lawmakers are also responding to the growing progressive pressure, fueled by two years of imagery from the war in Gaza, amplified by social media platforms that boosted antisemitic content, that has changed the politics around Israel in a “really dramatic way” in the Democratic Party, the former Biden administration official said.

“Those [resolutions], at this moment in time, were just a proxy for real discomfort with the direction of the Trump-Netanyahu relationship in this war, which is not the right reason to vote for these,” another former Biden administration official told JI. “I understand the [vote to block] bulldozers at this moment in time. [Withholding] the munitions — I think it’s really, really troubling.”

Read More

04/17 Links Pt1: Trump says Iran agreed to stop funding Terrorists, will hand over uranium; Trump’s goals in Iran have always been clear; The Lebanon Cease-fire and the Long Game

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Lebanon Cease-fire and the Long Game

The cease-fire went into effect this evening and will have an initial time period of 10 days. According to the State Department, “This initial period may be extended by mutual agreement between Lebanon and Israel if progress is demonstrated in the negotiations and as Lebanon effectively demonstrates its ability to assert its sovereignty.”

In other words, Lebanon has to make tangible progress in disarming Hezbollah in order to earn the renewal of the cease-fire after 10 days. Then there’s this: “Israel shall preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks. This shall not be impeded by the cessation of hostilities.”

Israel has a fair amount of freedom of action, then, during the 10-day period. While that is something of a concession from Beirut, in truth it mostly means that Israel will be available to help Lebanon move the needle against Hezbollah, which would then enable the extension of the cease-fire, which is what Lebanon wants anyway.

Finally, the statement says this: “Israel and Lebanon request that the United States facilitate further direct negotiations between the two countries with the objective of resolving all remaining issues, including demarcation of the international land boundary.”

That’s another way of saying Israel’s interests in South Lebanon are legitimate and—in contrast to Hezbollah—the IDF should not be considered a hostile occupier but rather an ally engaged in constructive efforts to restore Lebanese sovereignty.

For Israel, these terms offset much of the risk of pausing attacks on Hezbollah for 10 days. For the Lebanese, the text is an announcement that the existing government is capable of getting Israel to halt its attacks through the diplomatic process, undercutting Hezbollah’s claim that it must stay armed to protect Lebanon from Israel. For Netanyahu specifically, it virtually guarantees that, by election time, Israel will be in a stronger position against Hezbollah than it is now.

Douglas Murray: Trump’s goals in Iran have always been clear

Each time Trump ran for the presidency, a large part of his platform was that he would stop America getting involved in ‘stupid’ wars in the Middle East. Just as Obama had upped America’s drone programme, so Trump developed his own doctrine. The killing of the Iranian terror chief Qasem Soleimani in 2020 was perhaps the first time that Trump showed he could effectively take out an enemy of the United States and deter his opponent from any significant retaliatory strikes. Then earlier this year the US military on his orders carried out the daring raid on Caracas which brought the corrupt Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to face justice in New York. Trump’s critics complain that the success of that mission has led him to the hubris of Iran.

But if you listen to what the President, his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and others have said since the start of this mission, the confusion is on the part of his listeners, not of the administration. From the beginning Trump has made a number of justifications for the action. But the one non-negotiable has been that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons. Given that the Iranian side actually boasted to the US negotiating team that they were weeks away from nuclear breakout, it isn’t hard to understand why the US chose this moment to strike. The fact that the Iranians learned from Osirak and spread out their nuclear sites is why this intervention has taken longer than two minutes.

Nevertheless there is chaff being thrown in the air from all sides. Yes at the start Trump suggested to the Iranian people that they rise up and overthrow the regime of the mullahs if they could. But the killing of tens of thousands of people by the religious militias in January has obviously had an effect. ‘Ha ha,’ say Trump’s critics. ‘You see – you tried regime change and failed. Now you will have to – once again – “put boots on the ground”.’ But the President is committed to doing no such thing.

Doubtless he would have liked to have seen the regime receive more opposition internally. But the hope that the Islamic Revolutionary government falls is the maximalist policy. The minimalist one is simply to ensure that for the foreseeable future Iran does not have any capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

I’m slightly surprised by some of the obfuscation and pretence of befuddlement that many national and international observers seem to be displaying in the face of this objective. ‘He hasn’t made it clear,’ they say again and again. But he has. The aim of Trump’s war in Iran is indeed to replay the Iraq intervention. But it is the intervention of 1981, not 2003.

Richard Kemp: Even Iran’s European appeasers now can’t deny the ayatollahs are losing

The regime has been brought to this point only by Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, which has hit them with economic pressure to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a day. This is unsustainable for an already devastated economy. And Trump has made clear that, despite opening the Strait, the blockade will not be lifted until Tehran accepts his other demands.

This has left the European appeasers even further behind the curve than they were before. At the very moment Iran announced its decision, Starmer, Macron and other leaders were meeting in Paris to find a diplomatic solution to opening the Strait. They and their like have repeatedly argued that diplomacy is the only way to resolve the problem of Iran and yet again they have been proved completely wrong.

Those who are not blinded by an allergy to the use of military force to prevent threats have always known that. Decades of diplomacy with the ayatollahs have only ever resulted in them running rings round those who tried it. The threat has only increased, predictably.

Characteristically, the regime has tried to show some kind of defiance in the face of defeat, pretending that the opening of the Strait was their response to a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Trump has made it clear that the two actions are unconnected.

He also said today: “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World!” Here he is being unduly optimistic. Whatever they may or may not have said to him, this regime will always need a heavy stick raised against it, with the clear political will to use it.

That will only work while the occupant of the White House maintains such a will, and we don’t know what we will see from his successor. That is why it is essential that, irrespective of any forthcoming agreement, work continues to remove the regime in Tehran during his term.

The prospects of that happening – at some point – just increased with Tehran displaying further weakness by today’s tacit acceptance of American hegemony.

Read More

04/16 Links Pt2: The Holocaust began with words and then ordinary people normalising hate – the same pattern we see today; Israel Memorial Day 2026: 170 soldiers killed, 79 victims of terror

From Ian:

Lord Pickles: The Holocaust began with words and then ordinary people normalising hate – the same pattern we see today

This is the full text of a speech delivered by Lord Eric Pickles at Northwood and Ruislip Synagogue on Yom Hashoah, April 14, 2026

We gather this evening with solemnity and gravity, conscious that the Holocaust occupies a unique and terrible place in human history. On Yom HaShoah, you come together as a Jewish community – and with friends of the community – to honour the six million Jewish people murdered in the Shoah: lives extinguished not by chance, not as an accidental by‑product of war, but as the deliberate outcome of hatred, ideology, and systematic dehumanisation.

Six million can dull rather than sharpen understanding. Our task tonight is to resist that temptation – to remember that the Holocaust did not happen to a statistic, but to individual human beings: each with a name, a family, a profession, relationships, ambitions, and a future that was violently taken from them.

Yom HaShoah holds a particular moral weight because it is anchored not only in catastrophe, but in resistance. It falls on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when Jews – starved, besieged, abandoned by the world – chose dignity over submission and moral courage over silence. The day’s full name: the Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust and of Heroism – reminds us that Jewish history in this period cannot be reduced to victimhood alone.

This day exists because memory matters. Memory hosts truth.

But memory on its own is not enough.

Yom HaShoah was never intended to be comfortable. It exists not to console us, but to confront us. It demands reflection not only on what happened, but on how it could happen; not only on the dead, but on the living; not only on history, but on ourselves.

Because the Holocaust did not begin with gas chambers. It did not begin with death camps or mass murder. It began earlier, and far more quietly. It began with language that reframed human beings as problems to be managed. It began with laws and institutions that made exclusion appear reasonable, even necessary. And it began when ordinary people – people not unlike ourselves – chose not to stand up while standing up still seemed possible.

History rarely announces catastrophe.

History whispers long before it screams.

One of the greatest dangers facing Holocaust remembrance today is ritual without responsibility.

Ritual has its place. Ceremony can bind communities together in shared memory and collective mourning. When remembrance becomes routine, it risks losing its capacity to disturb, to challenge, and to warn.

The central lesson of the Holocaust is not simply that evil exists. Humanity has always known that. The deeper and more uncomfortable lesson is that evil flourishes when good people fail to act – when silence is reframed as prudence, caution mistaken for wisdom, and delay justified as restraint.

The Holocaust did not require universal hatred. It required acquiescence. It required millions of small decisions to comply, to adapt, to adjust expectations, and to wait for clarity that never came.

Jonathan Tobin: Neutrality in the fight against genocidal terror isn’t moral

Wars do solve some things
Still, that’s not the same thing as the pontiff actually being in the right on the underlying issue.

It is all well and good for Pope Leo to say he’s against all suffering, but in point of fact, he’s wrong about wars not solving anything. They may cause incalculable pain and are truly horrible. But wars have solved some problems. To take but one example from history in which the Vatican’s professed neutrality about conflicts didn’t cover it in glory, the defeat of Germany and its allies in the Second World War was the only way to defeat Nazism and end the Holocaust.

Not to put too fine a point on it, if a second Holocaust—the goal of Iran’s Islamist regime, as well as its Hamas and Hezbollah allies in Gaza and Lebanon, with respect to the state of Israel and its population—is to be avoided, it’s going to require more than papal sermons on the evil of wars.

And that is the focal point of the debate about the current Iran conflict, just as it was in the war against Hamas.

A just war
Calling for a permanent ceasefire may put a temporary end to the suffering caused by the conflict. And blasting warlike rhetoric from the combatants always makes those denouncing them seem morally superior. But if it means allowing Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in their strongholds to rebuild and rearm—and to allow Tehran to resume its nuclear project, missile building and spreading terrorism around the globe—it is neither merciful nor just. Appeals to end the fighting while leaving jihadists in power—and capable of continuing their war on the West and non-Islamist civilization—are as inappropriate as they would have been for a ceasefire before the unconditional surrender of the Nazis in 1945.

The responsibility of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to prevent the mullahs in Tehran from persisting in their genocidal plotting and weapons building, which led directly to the horrors of Oct. 7. To merely denounce what happened on Oct. 7, as the pope did, is fine. But to oppose efforts to ensure that the murderers would be stopped from making good on their pledges to repeat those crimes over and over again, as he insinuated, isn’t an example of a higher morality. Treating murderers and those whose task it is to stop them as morally equivalent—and that’s what the pope and many other world leaders, especially in Western Europe, have done with respect to Hamas and Iran—is wrong, even if the motivation for such statements is rooted in an entirely laudable abhorrence of suffering.

Wars are awful and should be avoided if possible. But the battle against the Islamist terrorists running Iran, and their Hamas and Hezbollah minions whose Oct. 7 atrocities were just a trailer for what they wish to do to all Israelis, is a just one.

It is also impossible to separate the preaching against such just wars from the global surge of antisemitism that has spread since Oct. 7.

Vivian Bercovici: In Carney’s Canada, the law protects antisemites, not Jews

We cannot and should not be told by our government to build ever higher walls around our community centres, homes, schools, and synagogues. It is absurd, obscene and reminiscent of an era I would prefer not to invoke.

Canada’s organised Jewish community has always preferred a quiet approach to dealing with authorities. Even after the synagogue shootings, mainstream organisations were counselling cautious trust as we move forward. Perhaps this time, they said, the authorities and leadership will step up.

Days after the most recent attacks, Prime Minister Carney chose to spend time at an Iftar dinner in Ottawa, having a jolly old time working the room. He quite noticeably (and, one assumes, intentionally) has not met with any Jewish leaders since the shootings. He certainly has not been photographed glad-handing in rooms full of Canadian Jews. That omission is not an oversight.

Since being elected PM with a strong minority government on April 28, 2025 (as a result of a spate of “floor crossings” in the House and recent by-elections he now commands a parliamentary majority), Carney has not spoken with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has, however, been a reliably harsh and frequent critic of Israeli policy and Netanyahu himself. Among his more notable remarks was one made during an interview with Bloomberg News in October, 2025. When asked if he would honour the more than dubious ICC warrant issued for Netanyahu’s arrest (should he set foot on Canadian soil), Carney unhesitatingly responded in the affirmative.

And he went further, gratuitously criticising Netanyahu, claiming that “the actions of Netanyahu’s government were explicitly designed to end any possibility of a Palestinian state in violation of the UN Charter and going against Canadian government policy of any political stripe since 1947.”

Carney could have easily ducked or finessed his response. Instead, he chose – deliberately – to lash out. He is, of course, entitled to criticise Israeli policy. What he appears not to grasp is that doing so with such zeal stokes and legitimises violent antisemitism in Canada.

The message to Canada’s Jews is not subtle – and nor are its implications.

Read More

04/16 Links Pt1: What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t Surrender; Israel, Lebanon agree to 10-day truce; Outlawing Israeli Self-Defense; The Return of the Echo Chamber

From Ian:

Jonathan Schanzer: What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t Surrender

Trump’s problems in fighting Iran are tangible: a naval blockade, drone swarms, and missile attacks on allies. But the struggle can be distilled to one word: ideology. The wars at the beginning of this century were waged to defeat that ideology. We called it the “War on Terror.” And it was a war worthy of waging, even though the word “terror” was a politically correct euphemism for the true enemy, Islamic radicalism. But we gave up for lack of progress. From 2001 to 2021, the United States spent more than $8 trillion. We had the edge against our enemies in terms of firepower. However, we could not credibly declare victory no matter how many battles we won. And we could not win because the other side refused to lose.

Adherents to jihadism (who make up fewer than 20 percent of the world’s Muslim population) believe that their faith commands them to fight and that victory is inevitable, even if it takes decades. Indeed, they believe they are destined to win, or die trying. As the late, great Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis wrote back in 2006, “For people with this mindset, [Mutually Assured Destruction] is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

This is the worldview of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. It is the worldview of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention the Houthis in Yemen. Adherents to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution view the world this way, too.

When your enemy is the infidel, and your victory is ordained by Allah, your obligation is to keep fighting, even in defeat. Surrender is not an option. The Islamic Republic not only embraces this mindset; it portrays every challenge as a test of will that it must endure. Military losses or economic pain are spun as proof of martyrdom and sacrifice, to be answered with even greater confidence in the revolution.

But just because someone refuses to admit defeat doesn’t mean he is immune to it. The relentless Israeli–American assault on the assets of the regime is undeniably taking its toll. There is still a chance that the regime will collapse amid the demise of its top leaders, the destruction of its key military assets, and the voiding of its cash-generating businesses. If the regime survives all of that, it will still be contending with a population that is not soon to forget the slaughter of more than 30,000 patriots who were murdered for the crime of protesting against their oppressive regime. The Iranian rank and file will likely be aided by the Mossad, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies from countries that sustained attacks by the Islamic Republic over the course of this war. These countries have deep pockets and a grudge. The combined ability of these parties to provide weapons, cash, secure communications, and intelligence to the Iranian people could ultimately tip the scales and topple the regime.

The problem for Donald Trump is that such things take time. And, as we’ve seen, he fears that time will sink him deeper into this war, just as it has sunk America into almost every war it has fought since World War II.

One possible missed opportunity for Trump was to take a page out of the George H.W. Bush handbook. When the United States expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s regime was defeated militarily in just six weeks. However, the Iraqi government remained in place, and it was not forced to surrender unconditionally. The liberation of Kuwait was the aim, so Operation Desert Storm was deemed a success. What followed was a long-standing effort to isolate the Iraqi regime through a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure, along with UN measures to ensure disarmament and the enforcement of no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi population.

Such a scenario might have been thinkable at the outset of Operation Epic Fury. But the window for that closed when the regime began to wage its asymmetric war in the Persian Gulf. There was no way to leave and save face.

An unequivocal victory is still feasible, but that may be possible only by waging total war. Which is what Trump implied when he warned the regime that a failure to reach an equitable deal through diplomacy would result in Iran getting bombed “back to the stone age.” His words immediately elicited howls of disapproval from the international community, not to mention Trump’s political opponents, who declared such rhetoric out of bounds. But threats such as “a whole civilization will die” violate not a single law of war. Angry rhetoric does not constitute a crime. And in any event, due to the unlikely diplomatic intervention of Pakistan, a window for dialogue was opened.

The cease-fire that followed only 12 hours later was dramatic, but mostly because it was bound to fail. The Iranian regime sent emissaries to Islamabad to deliver one message: It will not capitulate. After 21 hours of fruitless talks, Trump and his chief negotiator, Vice President JD Vance, sensibly took no for an answer.

The next phase of Operation Epic Fury will be a hybrid campaign. The conventional strikes will continue as necessary when targets present themselves—although we have already been told that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in this regard.

Concurrently, the U.S. will likely continue to wage the economic campaign during which the United States Navy is blocking Iranian tankers and those paying Iran bribes for its tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The Air Force may knock out additional economic assets to deprive the regime of the ability to pay its loyalists. The handbook for sanctions and other financial tools honed since the George W. Bush administration is likely to be deployed, too. This will be a reprise of Trump’s “Maximum Pressure” campaign on steroids.

For Trump, this is now all about legacy and history. If waged wisely, Operation Epic Fury could bring down America’s most determined Middle Eastern foe. It can also help redefine military victory in the modern era. There will be no white flags, no papers signed on a battleship, no suicides in a bunker. We will have to content ourselves with knowing we set the world on a new course—even as, in the wake of a victory, there will almost certainly be an entire class of experts and political opponents who will continue to insist that the whole thing was a dead loss.

Why Iran's Rulers Are Not "Rational Actors"

If Iran's rulers were "rational actors," they wouldn't have wanted to repeat the experience of the 12-day war in June 2025.

Yet they're not. They are not peace-loving. They don't prefer compromise over conflict. Iran's rulers believe - literally - that they are on a mission from God.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's title was "Supreme Leader," implying that he was the divinely ordained guardian of Iran.

For nearly half a century, every American president pledged that Iran's theocrats would be prevented from acquiring the nuclear capabilities that could lead to the fulfillment of their grand ambition: "Death to America!" Yet no serious actions were ever taken.

If Mr. Trump had not struck when he did, then Tehran might have acquired nukes while continuing to build up an enormous arsenal of drones and missiles, leading to a war that future presidents could not win, or could win only at an exorbitant cost in blood and treasure.

This conflict was about degrading an American enemy's capabilities, not its intentions.

Their hatred of America, Israel and the West has not abated. They continue to believe it is their duty to wage jihad.

Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accords, and Operation Roaring Lion

Saudi policy toward Israel will depend largely on how the war with Iran ends. Four main scenarios stand out, each affecting in different ways the likelihood that Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords.

In a prolonged war with no clear outcome but continued regional erosion, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain cautious. Quiet coordination with the United States and Israel would still carry strategic value, but the public and regional costs of open normalization would stay high. Riyadh would likely deepen its hedging—expanding quiet security cooperation, investing more in regional alternatives, and holding back from a formal agreement.

In a stable ceasefire without a decisive outcome, the chances of gradual warming are likely highest. Riyadh could present the outcome as inconclusive while arguing that it opens a window to reshape the regional order. If this is coupled with some form of arrangement in Gaza and on the Palestinian track, phased normalization could again become a realistic option. This scenario comes closest to more optimistic assessments, which hold that the prospect of an agreement has not disappeared but now depends on effective mediation and the management of a new regional order. (Rothem, 2025; Ross, 2025).

If the conflict settles into a pattern of recurring rounds of fighting, Saudi policy is likely to remain deeply ambivalent. Strategically, the case for a regional alignment would continue to strengthen; politically, however, each new round would heighten public and Arab sensitivities and push back any move from quiet cooperation to open normalization. In this scenario, there would be growing strategic need for an alliance alongside limited political room to act.

In a scenario in which the Iranian regime is replaced, or at least significantly weakened, the picture would be more complex. On one hand, the immediate Iranian threat would recede, potentially easing the sense of urgency that has driven part of the logic for normalization. On the other, such a shift could open a window for a new regional order in which Saudi Arabia would seek to consolidate its gains, reinforce its position, and anchor itself in a U.S.-backed regional architecture. Thus, in this scenario, normalization would not necessarily accelerate immediately, but if a less threatening regional order takes shape, it could become politically easier for Riyadh, even if less strategically urgent.

The war therefore will not shape the Saudi approach to normalization in a single direction. Some scenarios increase the strategic case for normalization, others reduce its urgency, and still others widen the gap between strategic interest and political feasibility.

Conclusion
Before the war, the prospects for Saudi–Israeli normalization were improving even as the path toward it grew longer, however the war has changed the way the Saudis view the issue. Riyadh no longer sees normalization as a bilateral deal with Israel, but as part of a broader question: what regional order will emerge after the war, what will Saudi Arabia’s place be within the new order, and what alternative regional options will it have. As long as the outcome of the war remains uncertain, Saudi policy will stay gradual, cautious, and hedged. If, however, conditions begin to take shape for some form of regional settlement with a Palestinian track, and there is a clearer picture of the Iranian threat, the overall likelihood of Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords may not only hold but increase. The prospects have improved; the path has lengthened; and the meaning of normalization has changed.Top of Form

Read More