Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

The media refuses to acknowledge Muslim antisemitic attacks

At 2 a.m. on September 27, 2024, a University of Pittsburgh student was walking through Oakland when a group of men spotted something around his neck: a Star of David necklace. That was enough. They called out slurs. They argued for four minutes. Then one of them punched the student in the face.

The university's campus safety alert described the suspects as males, ages 20 to 24, between 170 and 200 pounds, two of them over six feet tall. The mainstream press described the perpetrators as "a group of men."

A rabbi in close contact with the victim said they shouted "Free Palestine" and "F— Jews," details that surfaced in the Jewish press but not in most coverage.

I found one news story at the time that gave more information that may reveal exactly what kind of attackers they are:

Suspect #1 – Male, aged 20-24, about 6 feet tall and 170 pounds, brown complexion, dark hair and a beard, wearing a white t-shirt and a gold chain.
Suspect #2 – Male, aged 20-24, about 5 feet 8 inches tall and 170 pounds, brown complexion, dark hair and a beard, wearing an orange shirt.
Suspect #3 – Male, aged 20-24, over 6 feet tall and about 200 pounds, brown complexion, dark hair and a beard, wearing a dark-colored zippered hooded sweatshirt.

Then came eighteen months of silence.

Last week a federal indictment was unsealed. Six men are now charged:

Their names are Muhammed Koc, Omar Alshmari, Abraham Choudhry, Emirhan Arslan, Ali Alkhaleel, and Adeel Piracha.

They don't sound like white supremacists.

Every outlet runs the names — the indictment forces that much — then moves directly to the legal charges, a generic ADL statement, a generic Jewish Federation quote, without a word about who these men are or what tradition of thought produces young men who cannot let a Star of David pass without confrontation.

The names are printed. The question the names raise goes unasked.

The indictment fills in what the press would not. The defendants said things like "I hate Jews, and I hate Israel." Afterward, in a Snapchat group called "No Saving for the Love of God," one asked: "was it the white boy who had the Israel chain?" When the FBI came calling, a defendant asked Snapchat's AI chatbot what the charge for lying in court is. The chatbot answered: perjury. He lied anyway. When a witness asked Koc directly whether he attacked the victim for talking back or for being Jewish — "Please do not say bc he was Jewish" — Koc didn't deny it. He responded: "An FBI investigation over a busted lip."

Everyone understands, at some level, that Muslim antisemitism exists. Iran targets Jewish institutions across multiple continents. The Arab world has embedded antisemitism in state media and school curricula for decades. Surveys show over 90% antisemitic attitudes in many Muslim majority countries. Hamas's founding charter is an antisemitic manifesto with a military budget. At the macro level, Islamic antisemitism is fully acknowledged.

It just never seems to apply to specific cases or specific attackers.

The double standard has two sources, operating in opposite directions.

From the Left, the problem is ideological. The progressive framework for antisemitism is built on whiteness and power — prejudice flowing downward from the privileged to the oppressed. A Muslim attacker breaks that model. He belongs to a designated victim class. So the hatred gets reframed: he was angry about Gaza, reacting to occupation, expressing solidarity in an unacceptable way. The attacker becomes a victim of context. The Jewish student becomes collateral damage in someone else's narrative.

From the Right, the silence is more cynical. Anti-Muslim sentiment runs strong on the far Right, but it's generic — immigration, terrorism, cultural threat. Calling out Islamic antisemitism specifically would require treating Jews as genuine allies against a common enemy, and that is not the coalition the far Right wants to build. There is also a deeper discomfort: the antisemitism of the Pittsburgh attackers and the antisemitism lurking in corners of the far Right share more ideological DNA than either would care to admit.

The victim is abandoned from both directions.

What community would produce people who say "I hate Jews, and I hate Israel"? Nobody will ask.

The answers matter, because antisemitism is not a single undifferentiated hatred that generic condemnation can reach. Far-Right antisemitism, progressive antisemitism, strands of Black nationalism, Louis Farrakhan-style hate, and Islamic antisemitism all emerge from completely different, often mutually contradictory assumptions about Jews. The white supremacist sees Jews as a racially alien force corrupting Western civilization. The far-Left activist sees Jews as the vanguard of colonial oppression. Islamic antisemitism draws on a theological and cultural tradition that predates Israel by centuries and has nothing to do with settlements or occupation, whatever its current political packaging.

Each requires a different diagnosis and a different response. Lumping them under "hate has no place here" does not counter antisemitism: it performs concern while avoiding the work. A response calibrated to white supremacy will miss Islamic antisemitism entirely. A response designed to placate progressive sensibilities will explain it away before it can be named. And Holocaust education doesn't make most Muslim youth more sympathetic towards Jews but instead prompts them to hate Jews more.

The worst part of ignoring specific Islamic antisemitism in attacks in the West is that it signals permission. When six men attack a Jewish student, shout that they hate Jews, coordinate a cover-up, and are met with coverage carefully constructed to ask no questions about their background — what is communicated to the next group of young men who see a Star of David at 2 a.m.? Not that the world is watching. Not that their community will be held accountable. The systemic antisemitism that led to that point will not be the subject of anguished op-eds or soul-searching in the Muslim community.

CAIR-Pittsburgh, which claims to oppose antisemitism, sure didn't issue any statement about this - but it condemned another attack against a Jewish Pitt student earlier in September 2024 when the attacker was clearly not a Muslim.

That is not accountability. It is the architecture of impunity.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard released a propaganda video showing they shooting rockets at Israeli and American targets.

A decal was placed on one of the rockets, with a Quranic verse about Mary and then an additional, non-Quranic verse, saying, "In revenge for all Christ's suffering."

Quran 4:157 explicitly says the Jews did not kill Jesus. While the first verse is Quranic the call for revenge to Jews for killing Jesus has nothing to do with Islam.

Iran is trying to get Christian antisemites on their side in this war.

Arabic sites and social media reporting on this understand the message clearly, saying that the IRGC caption accompanying the video says, "This missile is revenge for Christ and his mother Mary for what they suffered at your hands, O Jews."

Antisemites are being increasingly recognized as an important influential bloc by many on the Right, the Left and the Muslim world. Ten years ago they subtly pushed antisemitism, now they are trying to curry favor with antisemites to join their cause and not the others.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

03/30 Links Pt2: No one can deny it now: anti-Zionism is an ideology of hatred; Feminism’s Jewish Problem; The disturbed mind of the anti-Israel activist

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neil: No one can deny it now: anti-Zionism is an ideology of hatred

Actually, it was even worse than that. Over the weekend, Polanski aimed his ire not at those Green activists spouting Jew hate on WhatsApp but at a Jewish journalist who had the temerity to interview members of his family about the Green Party’s possible adoption of a ‘Zionism is racism’ policy. Polanski himself is Jewish and the fine journalist Nicole Lampert found that some of his relatives think he is taking the Greens in a very dark direction. They said it would be devastating for Britain’s Jews if the Greens decreed that ‘Zionism is racism’ – a policy they didn’t get around to discussing in the end at their party conference this weekend. Polanski accused Lampert of ‘parasitic behaviour’ – oof – and she swiftly found herself on the receiving end of a shitshow of hate from all those ‘good guys’.

So, a recap. Green activists referred to Jews as an ‘abomination to this planet’. The Green Party is considering adopting a policy singling out Jewish nationalism as racist. Polanski called a Jewish journalist ‘parasitic’. And, going back further, the Greens’ deputy leader, Mothin Ali, made excuses for the anti-Semitic barbarism of 7 October 2023, as did other Greens. Can we say it now – that the Green Party has a very serious problem with that most ancient of bigotries?

The Israelophobic left loves to say: ‘But Polanski is a Jew! How can you say the Greens have a problem with Jews?’ Here I will merely cite the words of Ms Lampert, who has been fighting the Jews’ corner in British journalism for many years. Polanski uses his Jewish heritage, she wrote in the Telegraph, to ‘kosherise the rampant Jew hatred in the Greens’. It’s a devastating line, and one it is increasingly hard to disagree with: that Polanski’s historic role is to provide the middle-class adherents to the new Socialism of Fools with a get-out-of-jail card. They point to his Jewishness as proof of their righteousness even as they engage in truly hateful behaviour against that ‘abominable’ people.

‘We’re not anti-Semitic, we’re anti-Zionist’, they’ll say. The irritation of Greens for Palestine at having to say Zionist rather than Jew surely explodes that crap once and for all. But more to the point, what do people mean when they say they’re anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic? All I hear is: ‘I don’t hate Jews, I just want to deprive them of a right enjoyed by every other people and bring about the destruction of their homeland so that they will once again be scattered across the Earth.’

I’m sick of pussyfooting around this: if you dream of the Jewish nation’s destruction, and chant for the death of Jewish soldiers, and demonise Jewish nationalism as uniquely barbarous, then you have a problem with Jews. It might take 10 years, maybe 30, perhaps longer, but I am confident we will one day look back at the people who said, ‘I’m an anti-Zionist’, in the same way we look at those who said, ‘Round up the Jews’.

Is it time to retire the term antisemitism?

Synagogues are not embassies. Chanukah celebrations are not military installations. Museums are not government offices. These are Jews, living their lives, thousands of miles from Israel. Jews murdered in the name of anti-Zionism.

If this is anti-Zionism, then anti-Zionism does not stay in Israel. It does not confine itself to policy debates or territorial disputes. It follows Jews wherever they are. It attaches itself to Jewish identity itself.

At that point, the distinction collapses. Anti-Zionist, in practice, means anti-Jewish. And there is a deeper reason for that, one that goes beyond contemporary politics.

“Zion” is not merely the name of a modern state. The prophet Isaiah records God’s words: “And I say to Zion: You are My people.” Zion is not just a place. Zion is a people. And so, anti-Zionist, according to the Bible, means anti-Jewish. Tragically, it is almost unsurprising when Jews are attacked across the globe in the name of anti-Zionism.

So let us stop pretending. Let us stop arguing over whether anti-Zionism is or is not antisemitism. Let us simply call it what they call it: anti-Zionism.

Let it include every Jew who has been targeted, harassed, attacked or murdered under the banner of opposition to Zion.

Because if anti-Zionism consistently manifests as hostility toward Jews, if it repeatedly finds its targets not in government offices but in Jewish communities, if it aligns itself with violence against Jews across continents, then it has already answered the question.

We were looking for a word that means anti-Jewish. They have given us one.

If changing the label from antisemitism to anti-Zionism helps expose the scope and nature of what is happening, then perhaps it is a worthwhile exercise. Not because it resolves the debate, but because it sharpens it.

In the end, the question is not what we call the hatred. The question is whether we are willing to see it clearly. Words matter, but reality matters more.

Call it antisemitism. Call it anti-Zionism. The victims know no difference. And neither, it seems, do those who target them.

The disturbed mind of the anti-Israel activist

Collings’s turn from Britpop-loving centrist dad to an uncloseted Israelophobe took him into Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, and then straight out again. He was adopted as the parliamentary candidate for South West Norfolk in 2019. Within a day of his selection, he was suspended from the party for having dismissed allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour as a ‘witch-hunt’, and for calling the late chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, a ‘hate-filled racist’. He also shared conspiratorial diagrams on social media, purporting to reveal the ‘influence’ of Jewish businessmen on British politics. That’s right – Collings took things too far, even for the Corbynistas.

The Margate exhibition is laughably titled Drawings Against Genocide. The artworks look childish and this is deliberate. Collings is trying to strip away all artifice to let the unalloyed feelings shine out. The trouble is that, in letting us see directly into his soul, what we see there is repulsive.

Collings would no doubt argue that his ‘art’ is in the tradition of the anti-Vietnam War art of the 1960s radicals, like Michael Sandle’s Mickey Mouse at the Machine Gun (1972) or Leon Golub’s paintings of torture and killing, even though his Margate show is entirely misanthropic and hate-filled.

Some have called for the exhibition to be banned, but that would be a mistake. On the contrary, Matthew Collings has done us a great service by showing us the disturbed mind of the anti-Israel activist. It is good that we all see the depravity that lies at the heart of this movement.

03/30 Links Pt1: Confronting Jihad's Forever War; The Big Ugandan Bear Hug; Trump considering operation to extract Iran's enriched uranium; Michigan synagogue attack was inspired by Hezbollah

From Ian:

Confronting Jihad's Forever War

The U.S. has confronted seemingly implacable ideological enemies before - and won. The lessons of Hiroshima, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Reagan's Cold War strategy point to a common principle: overwhelming force, credible will, and the imposition of unsustainable costs ultimately prevail.

Iran has not surrendered. Its proxies continue to launch missiles and drones. Its parliament invokes jihad. This is the behavior of a regime that does not process war through the same conceptual framework as does the West. The question policymakers must answer is not why Iran keeps fighting - but what kind of pressure will finally make continued fighting more costly than stopping.

One of the most consequential failures of Western strategic analysis has been treating the Islamic Republic's rhetoric as theater. It is not. Its leadership has articulated - with remarkable consistency across four decades - a vision of global, divinely ordained, open-ended struggle against Western civilization. Since 1979, Iran's Islamic Republic has called for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

The Karbala Paradigm functions as the Islamic Republic's operational code for conflict. In 680 CE, Imam Hussein ibn Ali - grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the third Shiite Imam - rode with 72 followers into the plains of Karbala. He was surrounded by a vastly superior Umayyad army. He was offered a choice: submit to the Caliph Yazid, or die. He chose death. His followers were massacred. For Shiite Islam, this was the foundational moral event of the faith - proof that righteous resistance is sacred even when it leads to annihilation.

Any signal that Washington will negotiate the terms of Iran's nuclear program or proxy network - rather than their elimination - will be read as confirmation that the forever war is working. Yet, America does not want a forever war. Neither do Israel, the Gulf states, or the broader community of nations. The theology of jihad is formidable. The martyrdom culture of Karbala is real. But it is not more formidable than American resolve has proven to be.

The Islamic Republic has built its resistance strategy on the assumption that the West lacks the strategic patience and political will to sustain pressure long enough to defeat the regime. Now there is a narrow window to prosecute a historic change. We need to make clear - through action, not rhetoric - that the forever war will end Iran's revolution before it ends ours. The Islamic Republic's leadership has told us explicitly what they intend. The only remaining question is whether the U.S., Israel, and the West have the moral and strategic will to confront this messianic jihadi phenomenon and to defeat it.

Amb. Michael Oren: The Outcome of the Iran War: A Victory or a Pause before the Next War?

On Tuesday night, as U.S. President Donald Trump declared victory over Iran during a press conference, my family and I took shelter in our safe room. Despite the close partnership between Washington and Jerusalem, and the historic cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces, America and Israel are living in entirely different realities.

From an American perspective, the near destruction of Iran's military capabilities, damage to its nuclear infrastructure, and the elimination of senior leadership can be framed as a victory. For Israel, the standard is far stricter. Any outcome that allows Iran to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic programs, retain enough enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons, and continue supporting terrorist proxies is not a victory. It is a pause before Israel is forced to fight the same war again, possibly alone.

During negotiations, Iran may accept principles in theory, then stall, dilute and avoid implementation in practice. We have seen this pattern before. The 20-point Gaza plan stalled when Hamas refused to disarm. The risk now is that Iran follows the same path, agreeing in principle while preserving its core capabilities. Israel cannot afford that outcome.

Israel must press for clear, enforceable guarantees before any agreement takes shape. Not vague assurances, not frameworks, but concrete commitments that address the core threat. At the same time, Israel must act with urgency, both in Iran and in Lebanon, to shape the strategic environment before diplomacy locks in outcomes it cannot reverse.

In Allied Campaign, Mission to Kill Top Iranians Fell to Israel

As U.S. and Israeli military commanders met to map out war with Iran, they deliberated over how to divide responsibility for an array of targets.

It was clear from the outset that one grim mission would belong to Israel: hunting and killing Iran's leaders.

Israel has pursued this assignment with ruthless efficiency, killing Iran's supreme leader in the opening salvo of the war and more than 250 other "senior Iranian officials" since, according to the Israeli military.

The campaign relies on an apparatus that Israel spent decades building but transformed over the past several years to achieve new levels of lethal proficiency.

Senior Israeli military and intelligence officials cited a proliferation of sources and surveillance capabilities inside Iran - regime insiders recruited to spy for Israel as well as cyber-penetrations of thousands of targets including street cameras and payment platforms.

These and other streams of data are being scoured by a new, classified artificial intelligence platform programmed to extract clues to leaders' lives and movements.

Israel's targeted killing tactics - bombs planted months before being detonated, drones capable of slipping into apartment windows, and supersonic missiles fired from stealth fighter jets - have been honed by years of conflict in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

Asked why the mission of targeting Iran's leaders was assigned to Israel, a senior Israeli security official cited its experience and expertise, saying: "There was a need to target them. And we could do it."

When ICC prosecutor Karim Khan was accused of sexual assault, his plan was to blame the Jews

I keep shaking my head at this story as reported by the New York Times:

For more than a year, the operations of the International Criminal Court have been left in limbo amid global crises as the institution has investigated sexual harassment allegations against its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.

That case has reached a critical juncture. A team from the United Nations has investigated the allegations at the court’s request. Their findings were then reviewed by a panel of judges who evaluated the evidence.

Though the U.N. investigators found evidence that Mr. Khan engaged in “non-consensual sexual contact” with a woman on his staff, the judges determined unanimously that the evidence did not meet the legal standard for misconduct. The New York Times obtained a copy of the judges’ report, which summarized the investigators’ findings but did not include the full document.

So they proved that he engaged in sexual abuse - but that isn't enough to remove the person who is the highest authority for what is legal in the entire world?

The insanity gets even worse:

The legal bar for finding misconduct when a disciplinary action is in question is “super specific and very strict,” Mr. Jimenez Martinez said. But it aligns with what has been used in disciplinary proceedings for other high-ranking officials at various United Nations agencies.

Meaning, the UN is a place where you can sexually harass women and get away with it. You know, the same people who tell nations what is and isn't moral.

A description of the U.N. investigation in the judges’ report states that the woman who made the allegations was working under Mr. Khan as a special assistant at the time.
In her interviews with investigators, according to the judges’ description, she described escalating sexual overtures from her boss: First over-familiarity during a work trip to London, then touching in his office that turned into instances where “he would grab and paw at her breasts, try to access her pelvic area, and suck on her ear or neck.”
Eventually, according to her account, that progressed to sexual activity, both in his office and later on work trips. “The power dynamic between them meant that she could not say no to Mr. Khan,” the report says she told investigators.

It appears that the progressives who run the international legal system don't believe women.

But this small detail tell you all you need to know about the situation:

[I]n early May 2024, Mr. Khan fretted that the allegations would wreck his career, witnesses told the U.N. investigators. One witness said Mr. Khan initially did not offer a defense, but jumped at the “lifeline” of an alternative narrative when another colleague present said he “suspected whether Mossad played a role behind the scenes,” the report said.

In other words:

Seriously, the entire UN system must be dismantled.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

There is a pattern of the IRGC mixing civilian and military assets - making civilian casualties almost inevitable

On February 28, the first day of the US-Israel campaign against Iran, American forces struck what intelligence maps showed as IRGC facilities in two southern Iranian cities. Both strikes hit civilian structures that had been converted from military use a decade earlier and were no longer legitimate targets. The deaths — 175 in Minab, at least 21 in Lamerd — were tragedies. The US military has acknowledged investigating both as apparent targeting failures driven by outdated intelligence.

But the outrage directed exclusively at the United States is obscuring a harder question: how did two active IRGC compounds come to have schools and volleyball training halls embedded within their original perimeters in the first place?

Lamerd compound with sports hall

The New York Times visual investigation claims that a US Precision Strike Missile — a weapon making its combat debut — struck a sports hall in Lamerd, killing at least 21 people, including children at volleyball practice. An active IRGC compound sits directly adjacent to both structures. Satellite imagery shows the civilian facilities have been walled off from the compound for at least fifteen years.

As I analyzed after the Minab strike, that school had an identical history: originally built inside an IRGC naval compound, physically separated by a fence around 2016, but still architecturally and logistically part of the same rectangular installation. The school was built to serve the children of IRGC personnel. Every building hit on the first day of the war — school, clinic, military complex — had been IRGC property in the not-too-distant past. The US was working from outdated maps that reflected this older reality.

That's a serious US military failure. It's not, however, the only story here.

International humanitarian law prohibits using civilians as shields for military assets. The IRGC and its proxies have a well-documented record of this in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza — positioning missile stockpiles in apartment buildings, running command centers beneath hospitals, storing weapons in schools. The intent is to deter strikes by raising the civilian cost, and to generate propaganda when civilians die anyway.

Minab compound with school and clinic

What happened at Lamerd and Minab is structurally different, and in some ways more troubling. The IRGC didn't move military assets into a civilian neighborhood. It converted buildings within its own military compound into civilian use — a school, a clinic, a sports hall — while keeping the compound's core military function active. The civilian population moved toward the military target, rather than the reverse.

The practical effect under IHL is the same: civilians die near legitimate military objectives. But the mechanism creates a distinct problem. In classic human shielding, a military actor makes a deliberate, visible choice to co-locate with protected persons — a choice that can at least theoretically be documented and condemned. In the IRGC model, the ambiguity is baked in structurally over years, through civilian-use conversions that look, on paper, like benign community development. The IRGC runs schools and clinics as part of its vast socioeconomic empire anyway. No one needs to issue a cynical order to "put a school next to the missile base." The school was always going to be next to the missile base because the IRGC is simultaneously the missile base and the community institution that builds schools.

This brings us to a point that has gone almost entirely unaddressed in the coverage. The United States designated the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in April 2019 — the first time in history that a component of a foreign government received that designation. The EU followed suit on January 29, 2026, less than a month before the February 28 strikes. Both designations rest on the same finding: the IRGC doesn't merely support terrorism as a policy instrument — terrorism is foundational and institutional to what it is.

This designation has a structural implication that Western media analysis habitually ignores. When an organization is designated a terrorist entity in its entirety, the normal civilian/military distinction that IHL assumes — two separate categories, with a bright line between them — ceases to apply in the way international law imagines. The IRGC runs construction companies, schools, clinics, sports facilities, housing developments, and one of the largest parallel economies in Iran. It does all of this not as a separate "civilian wing" but as the same organization that builds ballistic missiles and directs proxy terrorist networks across the Middle East. There is no internal wall.

Iran's primary proxy provides the clearest articulation of this doctrine in its own words. For years, Western governments — particularly in Europe — tried to distinguish between Hezbollah's "military wing" and its "political wing," sanctioning the former while engaging the latter. Hezbollah's leadership found this transparently absurd and said so repeatedly.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called the military/political distinction an innovation — using the Islamic legal term bid'a, meaning an illegitimate departure from established practice — and stated that sanctioning only the military wing would have no practical effects, because Hezbollah had no such internal divisions. His deputy and current head of the organization Naim Qassem was more direct: "In Lebanon there is one Hezbollah, named Hezbollah. We don't have a military wing and a political wing." In 2013, Nasrallah mocked the British government specifically, saying the military/political distinction was "the work of the British" and sarcastically proposing that Lebanon's next government ministers should come from "the military wing."

Hezbollah is explicitly doing what Iran tells it to do. The organizational logic Nasrallah described — no internal separation between military and civilian functions, a single leadership council overseeing everything from parliamentary activity to armed operations — is the IRGC model exported. And it's not a coincidence that IRGC compounds in Iran look the same way from the outside: a school here, a clinic there, an intelligence headquarters in the center, all originally part of the same perimeter.

To be precise about the legal implications: none of this made the Minab school or the Lamerd sports hall legitimate targets. Civilian facilities are protected under the laws of armed conflict regardless of their history or proximity to military objectives. The US military's use of maps that hadn't been updated in a decade to reflect these conversions appears to be a failure of the precautionary measures IHL requires before striking. But we cannot dismiss out of hand that parts of the "civilian" structures may have also used for military purposes, the way Hamas took over sections of hospitals. Those investigations should proceed without political interference.

What IHL does say — and what has been almost entirely absent from the coverage — is that parties to a conflict are prohibited from placing military objectives in the vicinity of civilian objects, or using the presence of civilians to shield military sites from attack. The IRGC's pattern of building civilian facilities inside active military compounds, for the families of military personnel, within the same rectangular perimeter, with the same organizational structure that explicitly rejects any civilian/military distinction, is a textbook implementation of this prohibited practice — just executed slowly, structurally, and years in advance rather than on the eve of a strike.

The tragedy at Minab and Lamerd is that the IRGC's long-term strategy of deliberate ambiguity worked exactly as designed.

03/29 Links: The War on Civilization: 'Israel Cannot Outsource Its Survival'; Why They Lie About ‘Jewish Terrorists’; No, Trump Is Not Losing His Nerve on Iran

From Ian:

The War on Civilization: 'Israel Cannot Outsource Its Survival'

A Conversation with Pierre Rehov
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism." — Zoheir Mohsen, late PLO senior official, Trouw, March 31, 1977.

Hamas did not attack military targets to "end an occupation." It attacked families to affirm an old doctrine: the Jew is not an opponent; the Jew is a problem to be erased.

If you want to understand October 7, forget the comforting story of "desperation turning violent." Pogroms are not born from desperation; they are born from permission — social, religious, political permission to commit the unthinkable and feel righteous doing it.

In the Battle of Jenin, there was never any "confusion in the fog of war." The story that part of a hospital had been destroyed was a total fabrication. It revealed something essential: a good story has priority over reality.

The genius of the system is psychological. Once the image circulates, correction becomes irrelevant. The emotional verdict has already been delivered.

In modern warfare, the camera is no longer documenting the battle. It is part of the battlefield. The objective is not only to accuse Israel. It is to morally disarm the West. If you can persuade democratic societies that defending themselves equals murdering children, you have already won half the war.

They hate Israel for what it is: an infidel state – and in their midst. If Israel were a Christian state, the same problem would exist. Just look at the genocide in Nigeria – with more than 52,000 Christians killed in just 14 years – in a free society, which is a visible rejection of the Islamic totalitarian dream.

The Palestinian project is not a "two-state solution" or "a better border." The project is a world where religious and political absolutism rules, where minorities submit or vanish, where women are controlled, where dissent is crushed. Israel is the laboratory target. If the West rewards October 7 with political gains, it teaches a lesson to every violent movement on earth: massacre pays. So yes — Israel is defending itself, and in doing so, it is also defending the principle that civilization cannot survive if it negotiates with barbarity as if it were a partner who is misunderstood.

"In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over...." — Ion Mihai Pacepa, a lieutenant general in the Socialist Republic of Romania's Securitate, the secret police, who defected to the West in 1978, Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2003.

If a deal buys time for the "wrong" side, it is not a deal — it is an extension of the threat.

The point is that Israel cannot outsource its survival, and the United States cannot pretend that totalitarian jihadism can be "managed" indefinitely. Either you dismantle the infrastructure of terror, or it regrows.... Israel's enemies... are imposing a war on civilization.

Peace that is built on amnesia is not peace; it is a pause before the next war.

The West will not be defeated by lack of power. It will be defeated — if it is defeated — by the refusal to oppose danger when they see it.

Amir Peretz saw what others missed: Iron Dome reshaped Israel’s defense and future

Because Peretz was an outsider, he could think outside the box. It brings to mind the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Con men convince the king they can weave him elegant invisible clothing. Everyone parrots the praise of the new garments until a little boy in the crowd shouts that the emperor is actually naked.

The Israeli strategy had, in fact, focused on offense and ignored defense, leaving us as exposed as the emperor. It took a defense minister who grew up in beleaguered Sderot to make defense a priority.

In 1983, American president Ronald Reagan planned the grand-scale Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly called Star Wars. Reagan wanted to protect the US from long-range intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles. The program was canceled before it could be realized.

Not that the doubters were idiots. There was adequate reason for skepticism. The idea that a missile could hit another missile with exactitude sounds fantastical. Even after the Iron Dome was showing its worth, you can look back in military history to find claims by so-called experts magnifying its imperfections.

Once Israeli ingenuity was applied to defensive systems, an Amir Peretz priority, additional systems were developed with the confident financial support and technical collaboration of the United States. David’s Sling and Iron Dome are complementary layers of Israel’s multi-tier missile defense. Iron Dome works for four to 70 kilometers, intercepting short-range rockets and mortars, while David’s Sling intercepts up to 300 kilometers and defends against medium- to long-range missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. David’s Sling was jointly developed by Israel’s government-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and US contractor Raytheon. The next level is protected by Arrow 3, jointly developed by the Israel Missile Defense Organization and the US Missile Defense Agency. The primary contractor is Israel Aerospace Industries.

The same Amir Peretz concluded his three-year tenure as chairman of Israel Aerospace Industries in November 2024. He successfully boosted international partnerships and company revenue.

The newest Israeli defense system, Iron Beam, depends on the development of powerful fiber lasers and is designed to destroy drones, rockets, and mortars at the speed of light, at a negligible cost per interception. None of these amazing tools is complete or airtight. The defensive systems are not “hermetic,” as the IDF spokesperson reminds us daily. Even with 90% accuracy, we have experienced enough misses to understand what horror we would face without our made-in-Israel protection. Bigger and richer countries than Israel do not have the defense systems we have.

So thank you, Mr. Peretz, for your foresight and persistence. President Donald Trump wants to name an American defensive system Golden Dome. He just might be calling you.

Why They Lie About ‘Jewish Terrorists’

The curious timing of this “international criticism,” right as the U.S. and Israel operate jointly against Iran, and the IDF pummels the Islamic Republic’s foreign legion in Lebanon, may offer one explanation why the violent settler narrative has picked up momentum once again. It’s noteworthy that this “criticism” is no longer confined to Europeans and the precincts of the Left. Since a faction of the American Right has resolved to make classic antisemitism and Israel-centered conspiracies central to its domestic political organization and identity formation, the Very Violent Settlers™ have come to play a particular role in this faction’s third-world sectarian universe, facilitated by D.C.-based Palestinian operatives and, regrettably, Palestinian Christian clergy in the West Bank. Last year, for example, this constellation of actors featured settlers in an info op targeting U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and through him, American Evangelicals, who strongly support Israel and President Trump. The op at the time was that the settlers set fire to a church in the village of Taybeh. Only there was no fire in any church—the site was archaeological ruins; the fire, the cause of which was unclear, was in the dry field next to it—and settlers were recorded on video helping to put it out using firefighting equipment.

But the op did succeed in establishing a precedent and an audience on the Right receptive to Arab sectarianism. And so, earlier this week, the same players, including the same clergy from the same village—“the last entirely Christian village in the West Bank”—piled on the “international criticism” against the settlers. Not only does Israel drag Americans to war, this line goes, it also permits violent maniacs to deliberately target the Christians of the Holy Land.

Like the IDF bombing displaced Palestinians at the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza in Oct. 2023, or Israeli snipers deliberately shooting Palestinian children in the head one day and in the testicles the other, “almost as if a game is being played,” or Israel blocking the entry of baby formula into Gaza, it’s all rubbish. By the time Western audiences figure it out—after bad people have been rewarded and good people have been punished—most will move on to the next lie.

That’s because there is a large investment in there being a trend of Jewish Extremist Terrorism. The purveyors of this narrative—the mainstream media, politicians, even well-meaning activists—are all invested in the existence of Jewish villains on par with Muslim ones. Why? Maybe because there have been some 65,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 across more than 70 countries. Maybe because jihadist attacks and plots in the EU in 2024 nearly doubled from the previous year, according to Europol. Maybe because, whatever wave of “Islamophobia” Mamdani imagines is sweeping the nation, Jews remain, by far, the most targeted religious group in the United States. But the good liberals of the West can’t admit any of this. Imagine what it would mean for their precious universalist principles—to say nothing of national policies—if they admitted that some cultures are different from others.

The original EoZ Haggadah has been revamped and improved, ready for purchase/download

As I was working on my new philosophical/analytical Haggadah, I realized that I can finally update by 2009 Zionist Haggadah also!

I had grabbed other commentaries that were from religious Zionists and put them together. I was surprised that I couldn't find a Haggadah with this theme beforehand, because the analogies between the Exodus and coming to the Land of Israel and the ingathering of exiles to modern Israel were so compelling and obvious.

For copyright reasons I could not sell it. And, es, you can still download the original version for free. But I fixed those problems, added some more divrei Torah and an introduction, and the entire Haggadah is much more attractive then the old one was.

It includes the complete text and directions.

Here's a sample page:

I did not have time to publish either as a print Haggadah this year, but you can download the PDF for $12 and print it yourself.

So now you have a choice of two Haggadot, this one and my new one, or one for each Seder!

I think you will enjoy either of them.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The New York Times reported on Israel's killing of Al-Manar correspondent Ali Shoeib in an airstrike near the southern Lebanese town of Jezzine. The strike also killed Fatima Ftouni and her brother Mohammed Ftouni, journalists for the Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Mayadeen channel.

The Times dutifully secured the standard quote:

Legal experts and human rights groups say that expressions of support for an armed group such as Hezbollah do not make someone a legitimate target under the laws of war, unless they actively participate in hostilities.
"Just reporting on the advancement of Israeli troops or engaging in propaganda does not make someone a military target," said Ramzi Kaiss, the Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch.

The laws of war say otherwise.

The IDF didn't just call Shoeib a propagandist. According to Ynet, the IDF stated he "operated under the guise of a journalist as a terrorist in the intelligence unit of Hezbollah's Radwan Force." The Radwan Force is Hezbollah's elite commando unit — the force trained specifically for cross-border invasion of Israeli territory.

The IDF's international spokesperson stated that Shoeib was officially recruited into Hezbollah's military wing in 2020, though in practice had been cooperating with the organization since 2013, with his role in the intelligence unit being to film intelligence information and transfer it to the Radwan Force.

This isn't a close call. A confirmed member of a terrorist organization's active military intelligence unit is a combatant. The press credential doesn't change that. As the DoD Law of War Manual states plainly (p. 174): "Although journalism is regarded as a civilian activity, the fact that a person performs such work does not preclude that person from otherwise acquiring a different status under the law of war."

This was not unknown information. The Alma Research Center documented Shoeib's dual role back in 2021, noting that he was "an important mouthpiece in the service of Hezbollah's propaganda and information warfare" and simultaneously "a Hezbollah intelligence and military operative involved in gathering visible intelligence along the Israeli border and an acting conduit for those who wish to collaborate with Hezbollah." Alma noted that as far back as 2006, an Israeli court heard evidence that an informant had been providing IDF strategic details and training programs directly to Shoeib.

But, one might object as the New York Times says, the IDF didn't provide any proof that Shoeib was a Radwan Forces member. So what legal basis is there to target him?

HRW's Ramzi Kaiss's formulation is not just wrong but precisely backwards. He says "reporting on the advancement of Israeli troops" doesn't make someone a target. Again, the e DoD Law of War Manual, quoting international law, says the opposite.

The Manual (p. 240) notes that "providing or relaying information of immediate use in combat operations, such as acting as an artillery spotter or member of a ground observer corps or otherwise relaying information to be used to direct an airstrike, mortar attack, or ambush" is regarded as "taking a direct part in hostilities."

That is a textbook description of what Shoeib was doing. The IDF stated that even during Operation Northern Arrows, Shoeib "continued his activities and reported on the location of IDF forces operating in southern Lebanon." He provided near real-time reports on IDF operations in southern Lebanon — including reporting on strikes against Israeli positions and targeted killings across the region.

Before the war, he went further. He was documented near the border alongside IDF soldiers, sharing footage online showing troops in the Mount Dov area — including identifying a brigade commander by name. Publishing the location and identity of an IDF brigade commander is not journalism. It is targeting intelligence delivered to an enemy actively seeking to kill that commander.

The IDF added that Shoeib "maintained continuous contact with other terrorists in the Radwan Force unit in particular, and within the terror organization in general," including top Hezbollah commanders.

This is what a spotter does. The press badge is the cover; the function is military.

The legal standard under Additional Protocol I (Art. 79) is clear: journalists are protected "provided that they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians." Systematically relaying enemy troop positions to a military force that can act on them in real time is exactly the kind of action that forfeits that protection.

There is a lot more in this analysis at Lawfare from 2015.

The only legal question remaining is whether killing the other two journalists who were with Shoeib made the attack disproportionate. But historically, spotters have been regarded as essential military targets.

And that is exactly what Ali Shoeib was, even without proving that he was a member of Radwan. And the fact that he was employed by Hezbollah strongly indicates that he had a dual role to help his employer militarily under the cover of journalism.

By any yardstick. Ali Shoeib was a legal combatant. The IDF wouldn't take credit for targeting him unless it was quite certain about the legality of the strike. And everything supports what they are saying.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

03/28 Links: Europe’s shameful appeasement of Iran; In Israel, wartime reality doesn’t match what you see on the internet; What secular liberals don’t get about Islam

From Ian:

Tony Blair: Why the West Fails to Stop Antisemitism

These counterarguments need to be made loud and clear by leaders. I don’t know exactly what the response of the people of Britain would be if we woke up one day and between the hours of 6 a.m. and midday, 1,200 of our citizens were murdered, including young people at a music festival, with women raped and others taken hostage (and for Britain, proportionate to the size of population, the figures would be much larger). But I suspect it would be total determination that those responsible were going to be removed as a threat, and nothing would deter us from doing so.

The problem is that, under pressure from party activists and parts of the Muslim community, many progressive politicians who do sincerely reject antisemitism are not making these arguments, and failing to take head-on this literally “unholy alliance” between parts of the left and Islamists in our own societies whose ideology leads inexorably to antisemitism.

Because failure to do so creates the climate in which, even if antisemitism is not explicitly condoned, it flourishes.

One poll during the Gaza war showed that only 24 percent of the British Muslim community believed that October 7 happened in the way it did. Some even believe it was all an elaborate Israeli plot. That is frankly unacceptable.

I know some say that defending the State of Israel is not the way to defeat antisemitism. But there is more at stake than simply defending Israel. It’s about defending reason. Defending facts. Standing up to the noise and intimidation to assert the truth.

None of this means that you cannot support the creation of a Palestinian State or disagree strongly with this or that action of the government of Israel, particularly when that government includes within it figures from the very far right—with whom, it should be said, most members of the Jewish community would disagree.

But it does mean understanding that without a challenge to the ideology that encourages antisemitism, whilst clothing it in indignation at the human cost of war, incidents like the one with the ambulances will continue to the shame of our society.

Europe’s shameful appeasement of Iran

The truth behind the weak response of the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and other countries is far simpler: They refuse to accept that the only way to confront the ayatollahs is with force, plain and simple. The same mindset that produced the 2015 nuclear deal is ascendant now—namely, that military force is always wrong and counterproductive, and that what is needed is a return to soft power and diplomatic initiatives.

Yet such options have been tried and failed repeatedly, testing to destruction the idea that the Islamic Republic is capable of moderation. Years of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, followed by punishing sanctions, failed to curb Iran’s appetite for an atomic weapon or a ballistic-missile program. With its long history of concealment, evasion and deception, the regime could never be trusted with agreements that limited its power. That equation has not changed.

The other reason for E.U. passivity may have to do with Ukraine. Many European diplomats are deeply concerned about the diversion of attention and military resources from Kyiv to Tehran. They fear that the war against Iran will be a boon to a Russian president who is desperate for some success after four years of indecisive war.

But this is to mistake short-term benefits for long-term strategic loss. Any weakening of Iranian power (and destruction of the very missiles that have been sent to bombard Ukrainian cities) reduces the threat both to Ukraine and the wider Middle East, ensuring that Russian President Vladimir Putin loses a much-valued client state in the region.

Another Iranian ally watching this war somewhat nervously is China, a major purchaser of cheap Iranian oil. President Xi Jinping will certainly believe that American hegemony in the energy-rich Gulf will not suit its long term interests, especially if he chooses to flex his muscles over Taiwan. He has already lost one important economic ally in Venezuela.

Perhaps a third reason for passivity is domestic in nature. There are substantial Muslim populations in a number of European countries, many members of which remain deeply radicalised by the war in Gaza. While some will side with Iranian Muslims who have borne the brunt of the regime’s savagery, many others will reflexively condemn the United States and Israel for their perceived aggression toward a Muslim country.

There are genuine fears of Iranian proxy attacks on European soil, including in the United Kingdom, where 20 attacks by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have been foiled recently and where two Iranians were charged with spying on the Jewish community. Yet while such fears cause genuine concern, they are no excuse for sitting on the diplomatic fence.

To their credit, Trump and Netanyahu are helping ensure that the Iranian threat is destroyed for a generation, potentially freeing that nation from the tyranny that has enslaved it. To their shame, European leaders remain mired in shameful and self-defeating appeasement.

Keir Starmer is giving Iran's terror cells free rein to operate in Britain says Israeli president Isaac Herzog

Israel's president has accused Keir Starmer of allowing Iran's 'empire of evil' to operate freely in Britain.

Isaac Herzog said the prime minister allowed Iranian terror cells to 'do what they want' in the UK and said the Middle Eastern 'rogue state' should be 'crushed'.

President Herzog made the comments in an interview earlier this week which came after four Jewish charity-owned ambulances were set on fire on Monday in an incident which is being treated as an antisemitic hate crime.

Metropolitan Police officials previously said the investigation into the arson attack was looking at an Islamist group with potential links to Iran after unsubstantiated claims of responsibility by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya - The Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand.

Counter-terrorism police arrested two British nationals, aged 45 and 47, earlier this week and released both on bail.

Speaking to the executive director of pro-Israel campaign group StandWithUs, Mr Herzog said Iran spent 'billions of dollars' and had 'terror cells all over the world'.

He added Iran operated 'directly and through their proxies' and it was 'about time the world stands up to them'.

President Herzog continued: 'How come in Britain, the Prime Minister of Britain says there were about 10 or 20 events only last year linked to Iranian terror? What is this?'

I have written a new Haggadah based on my Derechology philosophical framework (under my other pen name, Eldad Tzioni.)

This is not a traditional Haggadah—and it is not a commentary. It is a systematic reading of the Seder as a structured philosophy of life.

Every step of the Seder—Kadesh, Urchatz, Karpas, Yachatz, Maggid—encodes a principle. Not symbolic, not decorative, but functional. The order itself is the argument.

This book extracts that argument.

Beginning with the claim that structure precedes meaning, it develops a coherent framework drawn directly from the sequence of the Seder:

– distinction as the foundation of moral reality

– preparation as a prerequisite for understanding

– emotion as the entry point to truth

– incomplete knowledge as a permanent condition of human life

– obligation as local, structured, and actionable

– truth as something approached through adversarial dialogue, not solitary reflection

The Haggadah is treated not as a historical text or ritual script, but as an operating system—one that has encoded, for centuries, solutions to problems modern philosophy still struggles to resolve.

Each section presents the traditional text alongside a focused essay that develops the underlying principle, building step by step into a unified model of ethics, knowledge, and responsibility.

This is a Haggadah for readers who want to understand not only what the Seder does, but how it thinks.

It can be used at the Seder table, as a study text, or as a standalone philosophical work.

You can download the full PDF with all the Hebrew/English text and instructions, along with 45 essays, from here for $20. This is suitable for printing and Seder use.

If you want to only read the essays, the e-book is on Amazon for $9.99.

I hope you enjoy it and find it valuable!

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

03/27 Links Pt2: The real reason the left hates Israel; Meet Iran’s 21-Year-Old American Propagandist; For America at 250, Some Jewish Wisdom on How to Last 3,000 Years

From Ian:

Rod Liddle: The real reason the left hates Israel

I had previously been of the generous – and naive – opinion that the white left hates Jews because it hates Israel. That through the inevitable contact with the people who call themselves Palestinian and their Muslim supporters, there was a gradual erosion of the boundaries between loathing Israel and, as so many Muslims do, loathing the people who live there. You end up nodding along when they say the Jews control the media and armaments and capital, and eventually you end up painting virulently anti-Semitic daubs in an art gallery in Margate and thinking how clever and right on you are and down with the Pallys.

But this was wrong, I think. It is the other way about. They hate Israel because they hate Jews. We all need somebody to hate and for the left, Jewish people have come to represent a plethora of things they already hated: capitalism, the West, military competence, industrial competence, education and a hostility to the religion which they come close to worshipping themselves, Islam. In a sense Israel is simply an embodiment of those already-present loathings.

It is true the Overton window had already moved quite sharply over the past ten years or so in tandem with the rapid growth of our Muslim population and its growing political weight. That is in there somewhere – but perhaps only to the extent that this growing section of our community gives licence to the real feelings the white left already had. A white left which can show you racism in a handful of dust – except where the Jews are concerned. Then, it simply doesn’t exist.

So when four ambulances are set on fire, it is easy to spot the anti-Semitic white lefties. They are the ones asking why the Jews have their own ambulances, or the ones suggesting it was a false flag attack by Mossad, or that this wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for Gaza. These idiots are not only enemies of the Jews – they are enemies of the rest of us too.

The Free Speech of Fools

What remains of the original “heterodox” cause that died on Oct. 7 is the metastatic cancer that consumed it and which now wears the exact face and form of Tucker Carlson. Today it is led by luminaries like Owens, whom Carlson repeatedly welcomes on his show, Megyn Kelly, another great Owens defender, sundry leftists like Glenn Greenwald who make common cause with Carlson and Owens, yellow journalists desperate for page views, like the hosts of the show Breaking Points, podcasters of the “Hitler was a misunderstood empath” genre, comedians whose comedy consists of hectoring political monologues, and assorted social media influencers including the former pimp Andrew Tate, and the mestizo anti-Jewish campaigner Nicholas Fuentes.

What has replaced the loose association of individuals organized around adherence to a common idea is a grossly self-serving social network. Led by Carlson, the network systematically undermined the organizing principle of the anticensorship movement, which was aggressive, open inquiry skeptical of ideological dogma and institutional authority. In its place, members of the Carlson clique obey two imperatives: to shield other members from legitimate criticism and to uphold anti-Jewish ideology as the ultimate principle of free speech.

Sharing and competing for the same audience, members of the network frequently appear for puff interviews on each other’s shows, circulate the same guests, and launder the same propagandistic talking points. While posturing as tough independent journalists taking on the establishment, they operate like a social club. Driven by the worst incentives of social media and insulated from criticism, this self-credentialing blob turned independent journalism into a synonym for in-group cattiness, schlock conspiracy, propaganda, and audience pandering.

Michael Tracey, who was an early debunker of Russiagate and COVID fallacies, has called the Epstein affair “the worst covered story of my lifetime, by far—and with the most destructive consequences.” Tracey is one of the few journalists who has been willing to question the extraordinarily popular Epstein mythology, despite himself being a strident critic of Israel. “Flinging around charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ has of course been cheapened beyond recognition, especially since 10/7/2023, but if you’re unaware that a HUGE portion of online uproar around Epstein is rooted in open, unabashed anti-Semitic ideology, you’re simply deluding yourself,” Tracey recently wrote.

In his coverage, one distinctly senses Tracey arriving at this conclusion—namely, that the Epstein melodrama is fueled by antipathy toward Jews—somewhat reluctantly, and only out fealty to an unavoidable truth. The structural reshaping of the news ecosystem into “independent” voices and outlets, which once held so much promise to cut through entrenched interests and provide audiences with an unvarnished view of the world around them,, instead ended up as a propaganda industry promoting the work of fantasists and open antisemites.

Maybe this was inevitable. Like the transgender activists before them, they seem to imagine themselves as members of a heroic resistance movement. What they fail to see is that being drunk on self-righteous hatred of the Zionist entity has not made them brave martyrs. It has made them aggressively incurious and blind to the reality around them, which has in turn made their audiences less informed and easier to manipulate. Epstein mania is the logical endpoint. It is a story that underscores the spectator’s lack of agency in a world utterly outside their control, while also promising them access to its deepest secrets.

Transforming the American concept of free speech into a euphemism for “asking the Jewish question,” required a large cooperative effort. Many people participated, some directly, others through silent assent. Yet if past historical episodes offer any lessons for the present, some of these people will seek to minimize their contributions and rewrite the past. Indeed some of them are already trying. For the sake of keeping an honest record about a pivotal moment in history, they should all be given credit for their work.

Nathan Livingstone (aka MilkbarTV): Circling Back On Oswald Mosley, The Fascist Tucker Carlson Calls A ‘Patriot’

Last week, Tucker Carlson released a video framed as a shocking piece of history: “Winston Churchill presided over the imprisonment of his opposition party during the entire length of the war.” According to Carlson, their only crime “was being the opposition party and being disloyal and unpatriotic. They weren’t.”

He goes on to build this political prisoner up as a heroic figure: “The opposition was led by a First World War hero who fought not just as a pilot in the sky, but in the trenches — one of the great war heroes, a former Member of Parliament.”

So who exactly is Tucker talking about?

Although he is never named, images of Oswald Mosley flash throughout the video, fists clenched, rallying so-called patriotic Britons. But search his name and you’ll also see images of Mosley and his fellow British Union of Fascists (BUF) members performing Roman salutes in Mussolini-style uniforms, complete with imitation armbands bearing the BUF lightning bolt, drawing heavily from Nazi aesthetics. Mosley wasn’t the leader of a legitimate opposition party. By the time of his arrest, he wasn’t even an MP, and his party, the British Union of Fascists, operated outside Britain’s democratic system. These are hardly minor details, yet are conspicuously absent from Carlson’s video.

What else did Tucker leave out?

Mosley came from an aristocratic family. He served briefly in France during World War I as a cavalry officer, but after being injured in training with the Royal Flying Corps, he spent the rest of the war away from the front. His war record was later exaggerated for propaganda purposes — and apparently still is today.

He then entered Parliament, drifting from the Conservative to the Labour Party. After the Cabinet rejected his plan to tackle unemployment through public works and the nationalization of major industries as too radical, he resigned, turning toward the rising authoritarian movements in Europe.

Mosley visited Mussolini’s Italy in 1932 and, impressed by what he saw, founded the British Union of Fascists.

The BUF would also become closely aligned with Germany’s rising Nazi movement. Mosley was so close to the regime that he married his second wife, Diana Freeman-Mitford, herself a committed fascist, at Joseph Goebbels’ home. Only a handful of guests were present. The guest of honor? Adolf Hitler, naturally.

The early days of the BUF saw rallies drawing tens of thousands: members dressed in Mussolini-inspired blackshirt uniforms, standing in columns and raising Roman salutes as Mosley strode through to deliver impassioned speeches. Membership at one point reached 50,000. Popular British papers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror heralded the movement with headlines “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” and “Give the Blackshirts a helping hand.”