Thursday, October 22, 2026
From Ian:
Melanie Phillips: The war against the Jews in Judea and Samaria
Melanie Phillips: The war against the Jews in Judea and Samaria
Every year, the olive harvest attracts activists to “help the Palestinians pick their olives,” and every year there are confrontations.Michael Doran: Is There an Effective ‘America First’ Position on Israel?
Naomi Linder Kahn, director of the international division at the Judea and Samaria monitoring group Regavim, says some foreign-funded groups use the olive harvest to provoke confrontations.
“They don’t give activists buckets for harvesting olives,” she said. “What they give them is video cameras, and they give them lessons in social media and … how to provoke a confrontation, how to present yourself when you’re trying to get into Israel, to misrepresent what you’re coming for and where you’re going to be.”
Brad Lander, the Democratic nominee for a congressional seat in New York, was among a group of around 80 Americans and others detained for some hours by the IDF this week after the group arrived “to harvest olives” alongside Arab farmers without requesting Israeli permission.
“The plot in question requires only a small number of harvesters to collect its produce,” an Israeli military official told JNS. “The security establishment views the arrival of dozens of activists as an act intended solely to provoke, which undermines the harvesting process.”
Lander is Jewish, but he is no friend of Israel. He has accused the country of “genocide” and has called Israel’s occupation of the West Bank “a crime under international law.” These claims are lies designed to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state in the eyes of the world.
Earlier this week, Lander said he was visiting to help Arab farmers harvest olives “in the face of state-sanctioned settler terrorism” and to “shed a light on the reality of the occupation.” If anyone thinks this group wasn’t there to foment trouble for the Israelis, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
It’s difficult to discover what truly happens in many of these incidents, so an open mind is necessary. There is indeed a problem of Jewish attacks on Arabs that have not been stopped; they are disgraceful, and the Israelis need to shut them down.
But there can be no justification for Western media and politicians failing to acknowledge this Arab terrorist war being waged against Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria. Such radically skewed reporting has turned half a million overwhelmingly upstanding and besieged Jews into enemies of humanity—just as Israel has been treated in its war against Iran.
However, in addition to failing to deal adequately with the problem of delinquent “hilltop youth” or the provocateurs, the Israelis themselves hardly ever mention this Arab onslaught in Judea and Samaria.
There are various possible reasons for this. First, the degree of truth in the “settler violence” claims puts them on the back foot.
Second, they are under huge pressure over this from the Trump administration and don’t want to irritate it further by introducing the inconvenient complexity of Jewish victimization.
Third, among the Israeli top brass, there are some who even now hanker for a “two-state solution” and view the settlers as the obstacle.
Last, but not least, the Israelis want to brush this issue away as of no real consequence. As ever, they dismiss Western public opinion as irredeemably hateful toward the Jewish people and so think myopically that trying to appease it is a waste of time.
They believe that they have more urgent issues to deal with, including the renewed threats from Iran, Gaza and Lebanon. They also fear that a third and even more terrible intifada is being plotted by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, along with the Palestinian Authority’s force of 60,000 armed men.
If that fearsome threat were to be realized, the combination of Western malice toward the “settlers” and Israel’s negligence in how it presents itself to the world means that once again, the Jews of Israel would be blamed for their own destruction.
That is the danger posed by the groypers. They do not merely question American policy toward Israel. They portray Jewish Americans as members of an alien interest group whose participation in national affairs is inherently suspect. Their conspiracy theories transform disagreements over policy into accusations of divided loyalty.The Fighting Jews
The American constitutional inheritance supplies a different principle. Religious, ethnic, and cultural communities are indispensable parts of American life. They have every right to preserve their traditions, organize their institutions, and pursue their interests. But none owns the republic. The state belongs to citizens as citizens, not to Christians, Jews, whites, Blacks, or any other group.
This is also where national conservatism’s intellectual project becomes relevant. Hazony has spent years challenging interpretations of the founding that emphasize John Locke and liberal political philosophy, preferring an account rooted in biblical political thought, English constitutional tradition, and Edmund Burke. Other postliberal thinkers, including Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, advance different but overlapping critiques of liberalism.
These disagreements need not be settled here. The question is not whether Locke or Burke deserves more credit for the American founding, nor whether Christianity contributed profoundly to American civilization. Of course it did. The real question is this: What do national conservatives intend to conserve? The Declaration, the Constitution, and Washington’s understanding of citizenship are the crown jewels of the American inheritance. Their principles make possible a political community whose members need not agree about theology, ancestry, or philosophy to belong to the same nation.
The groyper movement offers not an escape from progressive identity politics, but a rival version of it. Where progressives organize political claims around groups they regard as historically disadvantaged, the groypers define the nation through an exclusionary conception of its traditional majority. The identities change, but the underlying contest remains: Which ethnic and religious groups possess the greatest claims to political authority? The founding offers a different answer. Political rights do not belong to a religious or ethnic faction. They belong to citizens.
This brings us back to the disagreement between Trump and Vance. Trump’s understanding of America First, as expressed in his defense of the Israeli partnership, begins with a calculation of American power and interests. Israel’s military capabilities, intelligence, technology, and willingness to fight are strategic assets. Their value does not depend on the religion of the Americans who defend the alliance.
The conspiracy theory promoted by Carlson and Fuentes substitutes a different test. It asks whose influence lies behind American policy, assigning sinister significance to Jewish identity. In doing so, it corrupts strategic judgment while undermining the common citizenship on which a broad American political coalition depends.
Vance’s continued relationship with Carlson, and the efforts of Roberts and Hazony to maintain connections across the nationalist movement bring these competing approaches into serious tension. We have no reason to doubt their stated opposition to antisemitism. But their political and intellectual commitments provide them with no potent ideological ammunition with which to fight it.
Washington supplied that ammunition two centuries ago. He did not address the Jews of Newport as a tolerated minority living under the indulgence of a Christian nation. He addressed them as fellow citizens possessing the same rights as their neighbors. That distinction remains decisive. A capable ally strengthens the United States. The religion of American citizens does not diminish their standing at home. A conservatism that defends neither allies nor the full rights of all citizens will fail to conserve the American inheritance. It will merely manage its replacement.
The best museum in Israel—or at least the best-kept secret—isn’t in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. It’s in Latrun, roughly halfway between the country’s two largest cities. To get to it, you have to exit the highway, circle through a gas station, and dart down a dusty one-lane road until you see a large gate. Honk, and ask the armed guard to open up: You’re about to enter an Israel Defense Forces base. Once inside, park the car, behold the gorgeous and meticulously planned landscaping, and exhale: You’ve arrived at the Museum of the Jewish Soldier in World War II.
Inside, interactive displays tell the story of the 1.5 million Jewish men and women from all over the world who fought to defeat the Nazis. Using state-of-the-art technology to build gorgeous and immersive galleries, the museum allows visitors to marvel at the scope of the global Jewish community’s sacrifice and follow the touching stories of individuals who risked all for freedom. Here, for example, is a dashing young man with an Errol Flynn mustache, a coy smile, and a white tie. Touch his picture, and you’ll learn that when the war broke out, the young man suspended his studies at the University of Cambridge, reported to the Mons Officer Cadet School, and completed his training as an intelligence officer. He spent most of the war interrogating German prisoners, including Heinrich Himmler. When the war ended, he moved to Israel, helped set up the IDF’s intelligence branch, and eventually became the nation’s sixth president.
But while Chaim Herzog and his story are celebrated—the museum, indeed, is named after him—other stories on tap are less known and just as invigorating. One display, for example, is dedicated to the Aboulker family. On Nov. 7, 1942, this prominent Algerian Jewish family recruited a force of 377 resistance fighters, of whom 315 were Jewish. Wearing fake uniforms and flashing fake orders, they marched right up to the Vichy military command and demanded its immediate surrender. The ruse was successful: The Aboulkers captured the police station, the radio station, and all other strategic assets, then radioed the Allies and informed them it was safe to enter. As a result, Algiers was liberated overnight.
Walk through the museum, and it won’t take long before a radically different emotion takes over: pride, even joy, for being brave, for being right, for winning.
Each of these stories is moving, and you could easily spend a day at the museum swiping from one to the next. But take a step back, and the scope of Jewish bravery is revealed. Let’s say, based on a crude calculation, there were 18 million Jews in the world when the war started. If 6 million were murdered by the Nazis, and if you don’t count the elderly and the underage, you end up with something like 4 million Jews. Which means that nearly a third of all capable Jews alive in the world in the late 1930s and early 1940s put their lives on hold and joined the fight; more, by far, than any other group anywhere in the world.
Sharing this statistic still makes Zvi Kantor’s eyes misty. A lifelong soldier—he retired from the IDF as a brigadier general in 1999—Kantor was drawn to starting and running the museum, he says, out of sheer ignorance.
“As a sabra, an Israeli-born kid who came of age with the state, I was brought up to believe that us Israelis were the main attraction, and everyone else was secondary,” Kantor said. “For us, the story of Jews in World War II was the story of the Holocaust. And if we thought about Jewish resistance, we thought about the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion, Hannah Szenes parachuting into enemy territory, the Partisans, and the Jewish Brigade of volunteers. That’s it.”
