11/02 Links Pt2: The ‘Third Worldist’ roots of the Islamo-left alliance; UNRWA faces shutdown to be replaced by Board of Peace; Israeli-founded startups claim nearly half of Fortune's 2027 Cyber 60 list

From Ian:

The ‘Third Worldist’ roots of the Islamo-left alliance

The New Left’s estrangement from class politics went hand in hand with ‘the cultural turn’ towards identity politics. Above all, it involved a turn towards a distinctly counter-Enlightenment tradition of thought. There was plenty of resistance to this shift among significant figures on the New Left, writ large in works such as EP Thompson’s The Poverty of Theory. But there’s little doubt that influential New Left-era thinkers, especially in France, drew most of their inspiration from those who sought to diminish or even dethrone human reason, from the protests of the Romantics to reactionaries like Friedrich Nietzsche or the card-carrying Nazi Martin Heidegger – the ‘unavoidable’ thinker as the New Left-adjacent Jacques Derrida described him. Even those associated with the New Left who still invoked Marx, like French Communist intellectual Louis Althusser, emptied his work of its ‘Hegelian’ or humanist-centred content.

Many on the New Left used these deeply reactionary, counter-Enlightenment thinkers to ruthlessly critique post-Enlightenment modernity – or even the post-Socratic West, in Heidegger’s case. And like much of the counterculture more broadly, the New Left tended to damn all those living within Western society too, as conformist victims – the duped members of the ‘society of the spectacle’. They reduced Westerners to mere ‘bearers’ of ‘relations of production’, in Althusser’s words, or cast them, Matrix-like, as effects of structures or systems of power forever beyond their control.

Here we come to one of the key moments in understanding the development of what would become the Islamo-left. With the turn away from domestic class politics, large parts of the New Left simultaneously embraced the ‘Third World’ – a term coined in 1952 by French demographer Alfred Sauvy to designate the Third Estate-like revolutionary force emerging in the colonial and the post-colonial sphere. In this reading, the Third World, from Vietnam to China to Cuba to Algeria, was set to challenge the established capitalist and Communist powers of the first and second worlds.

In part, the New Left’s Third Worldism built on traditional left-wing anti-imperialism – that expression of political solidarity with colonised peoples in their fight for the same freedom and autonomy enjoyed by people in North America and Europe. No doubt many left-wingers were still classically anti-imperialist. But there were elements to the New Left’s relationship with the decolonising postwar world that were new. For some, their Third Worldism was based less on class solidarity than on cultural identity – that is, on an almost psychological identification with the radically ‘other’, precisely because the Third World was not the West. As one American radical wrote of Fidel Castro’s Cuba in the late 1960s: ‘We look to Cuba not only because of what we sense Cuba to be, but because of what the United States is not… we needed to tie our fates to someone, somewhere in the world, who was seizing the chances for a humane society.’

There were modernist, interwar antecedents to this identification with the anti-Western and often the anti-modern, too. Think of ‘primitivism’, that modernist celebration of people and ways of life deemed closer to nature. Or think of the French Surrealists of the 1920s, who threw their lot in with the Berbers after a French colonial intervention in Morocco in 1925. ‘We profoundly hope that revolutions, wars, colonial insurrections, will annihilate this Western civilisation’, ran one of the Surrealists’ innumerable manifestos.

Elements of the New Left took this to another level. The Third World was effectively conjured up as the means by which the West might be de-Westernised and saved from itself. This is captured well by Jean-Paul Sartre’s infamous preface to the so-called ‘bible of decolonisation’, Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961). Going far beyond anything Fanon actually wrote (The Wretched of the Earth was principally a radically humanist work about and on national liberation), Sartre hailed the rise of the Third World for exposing Western ideas of humanism, liberty and equality as ‘an ideology of lies’. From this perspective, independence movements, from Cuba to Algeria, were simultaneously in the process of purging the West of itself – exposing Europe and America’s grand heritage as no more than a ‘justification for pillage’. ‘We in Europe, too, are being decolonised’, concluded Sartre, ‘that is to say that the settler in every one of us is being savagely rooted out’.

Sartre may have got carried away with his own rhetorical brilliance – after all, his political affiliations and sympathies seemed to be in perpetual motion throughout his life. But many other New Leftist elements seemed thoroughly committed to embracing the Third Worldist ‘other’ as the gravedigger of the West. In ways that anticipate the contemporary leftist identification with Islamism, New Left Third Worldists tended to recast themselves as alien ‘others’ within their own societies. In America, anti-Vietnam War protesters filled the streets chanting, ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win’. Elsewhere, Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara became an icon to be emulated, while upper-class Parisian radical Régis Debray transformed Guevara’s guerrilla exploits into a voluntarist model (‘focoism’) for revolutionary action throughout the West and beyond in Revolution in the Revolution? (1967) – a model taken to terroristic extremes by the West German Red Army Faction, Italy’s Red Brigades and America’s Weather Underground. As the politics of Third Worldism streamed through the New Left, this also supercharged racial identity politics among minorities – it’s no coincidence that black separatist movements began flourishing in late-1960s America.

It was in the Third Worldist context, too, that Palestine first began to emerge as what it is today – the anti-Western rallying cry of today’s Islamo-left.

Herzog lauds work of Jewish lawyers in battling antisemitism and lies about Israel

In his address on Sunday at the opening of the conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IJL), President Isaac Herzog, himself a lawyer, praised the work of Jewish lawyers in combating antisemitism and lies about Israel.

“We are seeing an expanding cycle of prominent entities, governments, NGOs, media outlets, politicians, and influencers investing infinite resources in indoctrinating the lies about the Jewish people and the world’s only Jewish democratic state,” he said.

“We are seeing our enemies exhibit their distorted view of Israel, and lecture the free world with vile, false allegations against us, while completely overlooking truth, fact, and reality.”

Looking out at the large gathering of distinguished lawyers and jurists from around the world who were seated in Jerusalem’s Museum of Tolerance, Herzog remarked that it is no coincidence that IJL has a special consultative status at the United Nations.

IJL’s reputation and legal expertise, he continued, have informed and influenced international discourse, proving particularly significant for legal matters involving Israel and its worldwide family.

Herzog attributed this to the fact that, in the eyes of the international community, Israel is the focal point of nearly every debate concerning human rights and the rule of law “as a single issue that plagues the family of nations.”

He surmised that the distorted views shared of Israel and the false allegations against it and the Jewish people could be considered antisemitism, as those who repeat them completely overlook truth, fact, and reality.

“The reality is that, for three years, Israel has been embroiled in a war we did not seek, in civilian terrain of our enemies’ choosing,” he said, adding that Israel had no choice other than to defend itself, “despite being dragged into an urban battlefield, forcing us to combat terrorists in schools and hospitals just to keep our borders and people safe and bring our hostages back home.”

Herzog recalled that it was his great-uncle, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht – a Holocaust survivor who prosecuted Nazis at the Nuremberg trials – who was the first to formulate the legal definition of Crimes Against Humanity.

Herzog warns of collapse of the post-Holocaust world order
Based on current disruptions in geopolitics, Herzog warned of a collapse of the post-Holocaust world order, which includes an aggressive delegitimization of Israel by international institutions and a dangerously violent assault on world Jewry.

Turning to Israel’s recent elections, Herzog noted that the pillars of democratic life must be strengthened through foundational judicial cornerstones.

Israel’s ultimate task is to ensure that the state remains rooted in the ideals on which it was founded, he said, listing security, freedom, Jewish pride, democracy, and a commitment to upholding rights for all.

He also emphasized that, on the “day after” the war, Israel must continue to pursue peace agreements with its neighbors.

“At this moment, your role is particularly important,” Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion told conference participants, citing the chilling reality that Jewish students outside of Israel cannot study in safety. He said that it is the duty of IJL members to defend Jewish communities and institutions.

Read More

11/02 Links Pt1: Why the US midterms are the election that matters to Israel most; Dan Schueftan: Why Israel Doesn't Need Your Approval To Defend Itself

From Ian:

Why the US midterms are the election that matters to Israel most

THAT OBSESSION, Israel and Zionism’s status as the ultimate political and cultural “omnicause,” continues to inflame the most consequential midterm races. In Los Angeles, for instance, DSA-aligned mayoral candidate Nithya Raman has finally succumbed to DSA demands that she embrace the BDS movement lest she lose the party’s endorsement.

In Michigan, an ad late last month in support of anti-Zionist Senator candidate Abdul El-Sayed blamed US aid to Israel for America’s high food costs. The commercial was so overreaching and extreme that El-Sayed released a statement saying that it was “not affiliated with his campaign.”

Most disheartening are campaigns by Michigan Jews intended to convince other Michigan Jews to vote for El-Sayed.

In this perverse reversal of logic, well-known Jews such as actor Mandy Patinkin are exhorting Michigan’s Jews to vote for El-Sayed not only as an example of Jewish values, but because “Jewish safety depends on a real multiracial democracy, and Abdul is the one fighting to protect it,” said Patinkin in late last week.

In a second ad a few days later bemoaning attacks on El-Sayed’s Muslim faith, Patinkin suggested that fighting Islamophobia is the best way to combat antisemitism. “Who is going to stand up for the rights of all of us? Abdul,” he added.

Netanyahu fits neatly into this self-sabotaging worldview, serving as the ultimate bogeyman for Jews like Patinkin, ever eager to perform their anti-Zionist ablutions, along with the Gentiles who affirm them. Of course, Eisenkot, a career military man, is nearly as hawkish as Bibi. But as an enigma and newcomer, he would prove far less of a rallying-cry for America’s progressive masses.

Should candidates like Raman, El-Sayed, Troy Jackson in Maine, and Angie Nixon in Florida triumph on Tuesday, the consequences will be seismic no matter who ultimately leads the nation. In July, a vote by more than 100 Democrats to halt aid to Israel was defeated this past summer owing to Republican Congressional control.

But should that control switch from Red to Blue, similar measures are almost certain to be forthcoming – and win.

Even more worrisome for Israel, declarations of “genocide” and other anti-Israel litmus tests are likely to anchor the Democratic platform in the 2028 presidential race.

Already, Kamala Harris is suggesting her 2024 defeat was tied to Joe Biden’s refusal to rein in Netanyahu in Gaza. She and other potential Democratic challengers are unlikely to make the mistake of under-criticizing Israel again.

This type of fundamental policy shift has no precedent, even for a politician as seasoned and wily as Netanyahu. Which means even if he wins the battle to lead Israel, Israel’s war with Washington may not have even begun.

David Collier: Israel’s Election: Why the Coalition Arithmetic Does Not Tell the Whole Story

Eisenkot’s Dilemma
When Eisenkot receives the first mandate, his options are limited.

Without Arab-party support, his existing bloc falls well short of a majority. Cooperation with the ultra-Orthodox parties would create another set of conflicts over military conscription – and still would not be enough.

And why would the ultra-Orthodox parties break the long-standing union with the Likud for a government that just does not look as if it has a long shelf life?

A minority government dependent on Arab-party support is theoretically possible, but politically contentious, particularly in the aftermath of October 7.

He could also explore a unity arrangement with Netanyahu, although that would contradict explicit campaign commitments.

If Eisenkot fails to form a government, the political balance changes again.

Netanyahu’s Different Calculation
Netanyahu could then have an opportunity to negotiate from a different position.

He could approach Eisenkot with a straightforward argument: neither of us can govern alone, and another election carries risks for both. Why not reach an agreement?

But Netanyahu’s assessment of those risks would be very different.

He could reasonably look at the electoral threshold effects, the opposition’s difficulties and the possibility of another contest and conclude that returning to the polls is an acceptable alternative to making substantial concessions.

Would the tens of thousands who flew in especially to help unseat him – want to repeat the exercise again in a few months? Would the Arabs, having seen the futility of a large turnout, simply stay at home next time?

Eisenkot, by contrast, would have to consider the political damage of failed negotiations, particularly if they involved controversial discussions with Arab parties.

That creates an asymmetry: one leader may feel greater pressure to reach an agreement than the other.

The Succession Question
There is another dynamic that deserves attention.

Netanyahu cannot lead the Israeli right forever. Whenever his departure comes, a struggle for succession will follow.

And there is no undisputed heir.

Both Bennett and Lieberman emerged from the political right. Their ambitions may extend beyond replacing Netanyahu as prime minister through an opposition coalition.

They may also see opportunities in the eventual contest to lead the post-Netanyahu right.

Do not dismiss this just because it seems unlikely today. Gideon Sa’ar was also an ex-Likudnik sitting in the anti-Bibi camp. He made the move first, returning to the fold, probably with an eye to future leadership positions. Lieberman is an ex-Likudnik too. Bennett was once leader of a party to the right of the Likud. In Israeli politics – everything is possible.

This adds another layer to negotiations already shaped by competing interests and political calculations.

What Happens Next?
The central mistake in much of the analysis is to treat Israel’s coalition negotiations as a simple mathematical exercise.

They are nothing of the sort.

Bennett and Lieberman can support his candidacy while rejecting the compromises he may need to make.

Looking at the weakness of the camp, they may both favour another election. It is likely Lieberman does. That would reduce Eisenkot’s problematic 48 seats to an impossible 41.

And behind all of this lies the unresolved question of who eventually succeeds Netanyahu.

To understand what happens next, we need to stop asking only who has enough seats to form a government.

We also need to ask who has the most to gain if they fail.

By my calculations, the majority of seats (right wing 53, Lieberman 7 and some of Bennett’s 12 = up to 72 seats) may well prefer another election.

And if this is the case, we can expect another election in Israel in the spring.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Qatar Glorifies Terrorism: Al-Jazeera's Propaganda Machine Celebrates Hamas

The Hamas officials featured in Al-Jazeera's footage are portrayed as military leaders, strategists, and figures worthy of admiration.

The program included footage of meetings inside Gaza's underground tunnel network, discussions about terror attacks, and documents that purportedly shed light on the preparations for the October 7 massacre.

Among the most disturbing revelations was an operational order attributed to Deif and dated October 5, 2023. According to the network's presentation, the document specified that the invasion of Israel would begin at 6:30 a.m. on October 7.

What exactly was Al-Jazeera trying to communicate to its Arabic-speaking audience? The message is clear: These are your heroes – men who planned and carried out the massacre of Jews on October 7 and whose declared objective is the destruction of Israel.

This is not journalism exposing terrorism; it is a platform for glorifying it.

Al-Jazeera could have used the material to examine how Hamas transformed Gaza into a military base, diverted resources into tunnels and weapons production, and prepared an assault in which they murdered approximately 1,200 people in Israel and abducted 251 others.

Instead, Al-Jazeera chose to turn the architects of the massacre into celebrated military figures.... These were, however, the leaders of an Iran-backed Islamist terrorist organization whose October 7 assault included the deliberate mass-murder of civilians, rape, torture, and hostage-taking.

Qatar has hosted senior Hamas leaders for years [and] has also served as a diplomatic base for purportedly "neutral" negotiations involving the terrorist organization.

The US Congressional Research Service, which notes that Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has also documented Qatar's engagement with the organization...

Al-Jazeera English presents itself as a major international news organization, competing for credibility among Western viewers.

Al-Jazeera Arabic, meanwhile, operates in a political and cultural environment in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas enjoy considerable support among segments of the public.

American universities, policymakers, and media organizations should ask whether foreign government funding creates conflicts of interest and delectable opportunities for political influence.

Qatar cannot simultaneously present itself as a trusted Western partner and avoid serious questions about its relationships with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the current Emir of Qatar, and his family, who provide a media platform for Hamas's leaders to glorify the October 7 massacre, should not be allowed to hide behind the claim that they are merely reporting the news.

Read More

UNRWA may finally be dismantled! Palestinian leaders are freaking out.

In what could be a major development, Israel Hayom reports that UNRWA's acting commissioner-general Christian Saunders is advancing a plan to gradually dismantle the agency and transfer its responsibilities to other organizations.

According to diplomatic sources, UNRWA's schools, clinics and other operations in the West Bank would be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, while its Gaza operations would move to the US-backed Board of Peace. The proposal does not appear to immediately affect UNRWA's operations in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The Palestinian leadership is reportedly furious and has vowed to fight the plan at the United Nations.

When you understand why, you understand the Middle East better than 90% of its "experts."

Not one Palestinian would lose services. The proposal would transfer UNRWA's services, not eliminate them. Palestinian children would still attend schools, and Palestinian families would still receive medical care. The Palestinian Authority has had its own education and health ministries for over thirty years, serving Palestinians who are not registered with UNRWA. 

UNRWA has provided a parallel education, health and housing infrastructure to what the Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza have. Normally, one would expect a government that wants to have its own state to take more responsibility for its own people; this provides a path to doing exactly that. 

As I pointed out last year, there is no compelling reason for this duplication. So why is the Palestinian leadership so determined to preserve a separate UN agency providing essentially the same services? 

The answer is that UNRWA has always served a political purpose.

I have argued for years that UNRWA's essential services should be transferred to other institutions, while its unique role in perpetuating Palestinian refugee status should end. UNRWA was established as a temporary agency in 1949, yet seventy-seven years later it continues to serve millions of people, far more than it did originally, the overwhelming majority of whom were born generations after the original refugees fled or were displaced.

In 2017, I quoted Ghassan Weshah, a Palestinian academic at the Islamic University of Gaza, who explained:

"The responsibility of UNRWA is to help refugees, but it must also continue this work to remind the world of the refugee issue and the right of return. If UNRWA goes, the refugee issue is over."

That is the key.  Palestinians define themselves to the world as "refugees," even though the Refugee Convention definition does not include people who live in their own land, under their own government. That is unique to Palestinians. And the fake "refugee" designation has enormous political value to them. 

UNRWA institutionalizes the idea that millions of Palestinians, including those living in Palestinian-controlled territory, remain refugees whose ultimate destination is supposedly Israel. In 2011, I reported that a senior Palestinian official said even Palestinians living in a future Palestinian state would not automatically receive citizenship there.

Palestinian leaders insist on maintaining refugee status for people who would be living in their own state, because they insist that they maintain the "right" to move to Israel and destroy it demographically. Otherwise, why would they want their own people to move to a state that they tell the world is dedicated to genocide against them?

This is why the reported proposal is so significant. It would separate the legitimate humanitarian needs of Palestinians from the political machinery that has helped keep their refugee status permanent.

Saunders is an interesting figure in this story. A longtime UN administrator who previously headed UNRWA temporarily in 2019-2020, he is hardly an Israeli advocate. But he seems to prioritize the humanitarian aspect of UNRWA; he actually wants to help Palestinians. This is in marked contrast to the UNREA directors of recent decades who have prioritized the political aspect of the agency, insisting that it must remain and continue to grow indefinitely until Israel allows the "refugees" to "return." UNRWA used to try to convince Arab states to allow Palestinians to become integrated in their societies, back when it actually cared about the problem. Those days are long gone. 

But here is an acting head of the agency who seems to actually care about the original mandate of UNRWA, including that it was always meant to be temporary. There is also the practical matter of UNRWA losing much of its funding; it simply cannot continue the way it has been.

The most revealing aspect of this story is the Palestinian leadership's response. If its primary concern were ensuring that Palestinian children receive education and Palestinian families receive health care, it would be negotiating the details of a transition that safeguards those services.

Instead, it is fighting to preserve UNRWA itself.

This is obviously not a done deal. There will be pressure to keep UNRWA exactly as it is, as a political tool to destroy Israel over the long term. But most of those who support UNRWA are not willing to fund it to that extent. Arab nations have drastically cut their own UNRWA support over the past 15 years. The annual UNRWA begging to demand hundreds of millions more cannot go on forever when the "refugee" population will only get bigger. The problem has been kicked down the road for a very long time, and every year it is more expensive.

Dismantling UNRWA would not solve the Middle East. But it would go a long way towards dissolving a problem that should have been resolved in the 1950s. It would remove a major institutional mechanism that has helped perpetuate the refugee issue for generations.

After seventy-seven years, that would be an enormous step forward.

---

 

Books by Elder of Ziyon

Reclaiming the Covenant Protocols He's an Anti-Zionist Too! At Ptach Lo (ebook) The Muslim Question (ebook, $8) Sarah Makes the World Better (ages 3-8)

More at: media.elderofziyon.com · Substack

Read More

11/01 Links: The Misguided Palestinization of America; Haley Stevens’ act of bravery as her party abandons Jewish voters; Herzog offers party leaders ladders down, signals push for unity government

From Ian:

Islamic Warfare and the October 7th Massacre: An Ancient Doctrine Marches On

Hamas's Oct. 7 massacre manifested the Islamic categorization of territory into the House of Islam and the House of War, and the imperative of reconquering formerly Muslim-controlled territory.

Hamas also murdered fellow Muslims that day whom they considered traitors to Islam.

Today's Islamic civilization seeks to eventually subjugate and Islamize non-Muslim societies through any means possible, among which are mass immigration, information warfare, and the spreading of Islam in the educational and cultural spheres.

Western governments and officials who relentlessly seek permanent peaceful solutions with Muslim-majority countries do so at their peril.

Westerners continue to ignore the fact that the values and objectives of Islam differ from those of the West. Muslims understand the Western concept of compromise as a form of defeat.

Why My Anti-Zionism Didn't Survive a Houthi Missile

"On the ground. Now." I dropped. Face down on the stones near a Ramle market, hands locked behind my neck. Somewhere above me, a piece of technology was trying to intercept a missile from Yemen.

I had spent two years calling for the divestment of the very system I was now praying would work. The missile had not read my posts.

13 days after Oct. 7, Israel hadn't launched its ground invasion, yet somehow, Stanford students had become genocide scholars overnight. And I was one of them.

Only one question mattered: Were you against genocide or not? Nothing recruits faster than the promise of being on the right side of history.

I was marching for a Palestinian state. The one time I mentioned two states, my new friends from the campus encampment corrected me, gently, the way you correct someone embarrassing themselves: believing Israel should exist made me a Zionist. A slur. Next day, I was an anti-Zionist.

Months later, someone sent me an email about an exhibit in LA about the Nova Music Festival massacre. I decided to go. Somebody had to fact-check it. I stayed longer than I meant to. I realized I was fluent in the state's sins but illiterate in its people. So I went to meet them.

In Ramle, all I could think was: will it hit, will it hit, will it hit? I turned my head and saw it: a thin white line climbing to meet another one.

Ramle has mosques and synagogues a few streets apart. Whoever fired it was aiming at both. Then the interception. The boom.

Then everyone just kept walking. The marketplace reopened almost immediately.

The Misguided Palestinization of America

I am a Black American who is not Jewish. In the aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, I was constantly looking for activities in Atlanta that expressed solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people. I wanted to find opportunities to stand alongside people who understood that the Hamas-led massacre of Israeli civilians was not merely another development in an interminable geopolitical dispute. It was an assault on human beings, on Jewish life, and on the fundamental right of a people to exist without fear of annihilation.

Amid the increasingly visible demonstrations against Israel, what I witnessed as the real-time Palestinization of America struck me as a profoundly misguided response to the events of Oct. 7 and their aftermath. Too often, I saw political activism that appeared less interested in understanding the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than in making Israel the embodiment of every grievance imaginable.

Let me be clear: Palestinian civilians possess human dignity and legitimate rights. Their suffering deserves serious consideration. One can argue for Palestinian self-determination without denying the Jewish people's right to national self-determination. But there is a difference between advocating for Palestinians and demanding the elimination of the Jewish state. There is a difference between pursuing justice and dressing up hostility toward Jews and Israel in the language of human rights.

I could never accept the proposition that an existing sovereign state should simply cease to exist because someone objected to its existence. The Jewish people's historical and religious connection to the Land of Israel extends back thousands of years.

The Jewish people have endured centuries of persecution, expulsion, discrimination, and violence. The Holocaust remains the bloodiest and most devastating modern expression of that history, but antisemitism did not disappear with the defeat of the Nazis. Jewish communities continue to navigate the consequences of an ancient hatred that repeatedly finds new language and new political surroundings. Oct. 7th added another terrible chapter to that history.

Read More

“Excuse Me, Is This Yours?”: An Interview with Enigmatic Author Tuvia Tenenbom (Judean Rose)

Tuvia Tenenbom on Mount Gerizim during the Samaritan Passover sacrifice. Photo: Isi Tenenbom.

                                                            

Tuvia Tenenbom’s latest book, “Excuse Me, Is This Yours?”, recounts the better part of a year he spent living with the settlers of Judea and Samaria. Along the way he asks everyone, bigwigs and not-so-bigwigs, one question: why hasn’t Israel annexed Judea and Samaria in all the years since 1967?

No one gives him a straight answer. Not Yossi Dagan, Simcha Rothman, Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben Gvir, or Zvi Sukkot, the very people you would expect to make it happen. They tell Tuvia he’s right, and then they make excuses. It’s complicated. It has to be done a certain way, at the right time. They also add what most settlers believe: the concept of annexation doesn’t apply because you can’t annex what already belongs to you. Rather, the goal is the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. We need to say clearly, this is ours.

And this is not something we have done. This cradle of biblical history is still under military rule. The world still insists it’s not ours, and we haven’t responded by asserting our right to our indigenous territories.

I say “we” because I have lived in Judea since 1984. I have never understood why no declaration of sovereignty has been issued, even under the most right-wing, most pro-settler government in Israel’s short history.

So I read Tenenbom’s book hoping for answers, and what I found instead was the man who asked the questions. Like its predecessors, it offers a glimpse into its author, and I am intrigued. Who is Tuvia Tenenbom, who makes himself at home among people others might fear? And what do we call his particular brand of man-on-the-street investigative journalism?

I like his technique, actually. He asks people whatever comes into his head, in his quirky English. As I read him, I begin to think I know what he thinks. Then I decide I don’t understand him at all.

What does Tuvia Tenenbom believe? Is he tolerant or intolerant? If you were in his book, could you expect him to portray you kindly? I don’t know. Go ask the woman who failed to produce so much as a glass of tap water during his visit (I’m looking at you, Hadassah Froman), or the guy who danced on the table in his dirty shoes, though dirty-shoes guy probably wouldn’t care.

Having crossed paths with the man, one thing is certain: if he takes a liking to you, he is warm and gracious. I met Tuvia at the final event of the Jewish Media Summit. During a Q&A, an obnoxious, whiny British Jewish newspaper editor demanded to know why Israel doesn’t fund his publication. Tuvia had been sitting quietly at our table until then, but that set him off, and he let loose with an absolute TORRENT of Yiddish curses. They simply rolled off his tongue.

Well, at least I think they were curses. I don’t know Yiddish, but I’m pretty sure I got the gist of it. Something along the lines of “No one wants to pay for your drekkishe newspaper,” only far, far spicier. I tried (not very hard) to suppress a guffaw.

Tuvia Tenenbom and Varda Epstein at the Jewish Media Summit, 2022.

Tuvia glanced at me out of the corner of his eye, with the glint of a bad boy acting up, and you could see he felt encouraged by my finding him funny. Then, apparently strictly for my benefit, he let fly another string of curses, no doubt very choice ones.

After the event we spoke briefly, and to my surprise the author was humble; kind and understanding when I couldn’t shake hands; and happy to talk craft with a fellow writer. (I told him I like when he writes about food.)

That contrast between the man who suffers no fools and the man with courtly European manners makes Tuvia Tenenbom even more of an enigma to me. If he likes you, you may get the gentleman. But if he doesn’t like you because you’re acting like an idiot, watch out, lest you become the equivalent of “Va Var Vard Varda” in his next book.

Oh . . . and don’t tell Tuvia I’m a Litvak. He says we have no sense of humor. 

***

Varda Epstein: In “Excuse Me, Is This Yours?” we learn, I think for the first time, that you did a stint in the IDF. We don’t know how you ended up being in the army. Can you share how that transition came about?

Tuvia Tenenbom: In “Careful, Beauties Ahead!” which is about the Haredi world in Israel, I tell the story of how I got to leave the Haredi world. My first steps once I left the “black” yeshiva world were at Merkaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem, followed by a Hesder yeshiva in Ma’alot and then Yeshivat Hakotel in Jerusalem.

Varda Epstein: Reading “Careful, Beauties Ahead!” I felt you were rediscovering your own people and writing about them with affection and a new appreciation. Does that reflect your experience? Did working on the book change your relationship with the family you grew up with?

Tuvia Tenenbom: I always kept in touch with my family. I’m not the kind of person who shuns people whose ideas about life are different from mine. That said, writing the “Careful” book while living in Mea Shearim made me feel closer to the people I left quite some years ago. I guess that inside of me I’m still “Haredi,” at least from a social perspective. There will always be a part of me that is “Haredi,” no matter what I believe in or don’t.

Varda Epstein: Your books have been translated into ten languages, but you write in English. What makes English your language for writing? Is it also the language you think in, or does that change depending on what—or whom—you’re writing about?

Tuvia Tenenbom: After my army service, I moved to the United States, where I spent the next 15 years studying at various universities in New York. Part of my studies was in the fields of mathematics and computer science, and part in English literature and drama in general. And so I got used to writing in English. As simple as that.

Varda Epstein: Some of the phrasing in your English-language books makes me wonder about the influence of Hebrew, Yiddish, or German. Do those languages shape your English prose? How do you and your editor decide what to change and what to preserve as part of your voice?

Tuvia Tenenbom: It’s not the Hebrew or Yiddish that gets in the way of my English… It’s more the “Jewish” way of thinking, at least “my Jewish” way of thinking, that influences my writing—and this applies not only to English but also to my Hebrew.

With Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Photo: Isi Tenenbom.

Varda Epstein: In “Excuse Me, Is This Yours?” you point out that the Mei HaShiloach seems to be in practically every settler home you visit. You are descended from its author, the Ishbitzer Rebbe, through his grandson, the Radzyner Rebbe. We get the impression that you think these settlers don’t really get Chasidus and are misinterpreting your ancestor’s teachings. Have we read you correctly? What do they get wrong? And what do you think the Ishbitzer himself would make of his popularity among this group?

Tuvia Tenenbom: The settlers, as I have come to know them in the eight months of living with them, might read, or study, the Mei HaShiloach properly, but they miss the whole “geshmak” of the Hasidic world. They are more like the “Litvaks,” meaning they lack the sense of humor that makes the Hasidic Yiddish speakers so lively, funny, friendly, and warm. Look at the food that the settlers eat: “Healthy” and often tasteless. More like the folks of Los Angeles than of any Hasidic group.

Tuvia Tenenbom on Mount Gerizim during the Samaritan Passover sacrifice. Photo: Isi Tenenbom.

Varda Epstein: There are moments in “Excuse Me, Is This Yours?” where your writing turns lyrical about the beauty of Judea and Samaria (Yehuda and Shomron). Does that beauty help you understand the people you meet and their willingness to sacrifice to keep their hold on the land? Or do you experience that beauty as you would in any other part of the world? Is there something special about Judea and Samaria that makes it distinct?

Tuvia Tenenbom: There is something special about the place. It’s hard to understand the Bible without being in what I call “Biblical Israel.” That’s where Judaism was born, and that’s a big part of what being Jewish means. Judaism and the land create a unity that no other religion does, at least none of the ones I know. The Bible, and the God of the Bible, are “obsessed” with the land. You can’t divorce one from the other. Beverly Hills might be beautiful, but the God of Israel is breathing down your neck only in Biblical Israel.

Tuvia Tenenbom. Photo: Isi Tenenbom.

Varda Epstein: You wrote a beautiful inscription in this latest book, thanking your wife for following you into scary places during a war. Presumably she follows you on all your journeys, taking photographs of you and the people you meet. How did this trip compare with the others, and what was the hardest part for each of you?

Tuvia Tenenbom: We were there during wartime, with missiles flying above our heads, some of them falling right near us. The people around us were running through the streets to find shelter, while we stood on our balcony looking at them. It was bizarre, if I can use this word. And while driving on roads I didn’t know, often enough, the GPS was jammed, and I had no clue where we were and in what direction I should drive. I just followed Palestinian cars, hoping that they knew where they were going.

Tuvia and Isi Tenenbom. Photo courtesy Isi Tenenbom.

Varda Epstein: As a settler myself, I keep wondering about the question you put to so many settler leaders: In all these years, why hasn’t Israel applied sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, even under this government? Did you come away with your own answer?

Tuvia Tenenbom: This is a tough question, because the answer is quite sad.

The current government, the most right-wing government Israel has ever had, and one in which settlers themselves hold positions of power, has refused to annex the land, or “apply sovereignty,” as they prefer to call it.

The reason? The Almighty Shekel. Money.

Originally, the settler movement was driven by people with a strong ideology, people like Moshe Levinger and Benny Katsover, for example. But those pioneers are either no longer with us or have grown old. They belong to a different generation.

Today, many settlers are either anti-Zionist, like some in Yitzhar, for example, or were never Zionists to begin with, like those in Beitar Illit and other Haredi communities.

Even the main settlement organization, Amana, is, at its core, a for-profit financial enterprise.

And here's the thing: as long as Israel does not annex the territory, owning a house there is much cheaper than in the rest of Israel. Add to that lower taxes and government funding that flows far more generously than in other parts of the country.

Settlements also receive financial support from various Jewish organizations abroad, precisely because they are settlements.

In short, all these financial benefits, all these “goodies,” would disappear the moment Israel annexed the land.

And the settlers, at least most of them, don't want that. The exception to this rule is the so-called Hilltop Youth; they are still ideological.

If you're wondering who told me all this, the answer is simple: The settlers themselves, including some of their leaders.

With Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria Regional Council. Photo: Isi Tenenbom

Varda Epstein: Mida called you “the ultimate leftist and humanist who loves all people, is everything the left pretends to be but is not.” Your books show us what you question and reject. What do you believe, politically and religiously, and which convictions have stayed with you over the years?

Tuvia Tenenbom: Before any book I write and any journey I take, I try to “forget” anything I know, or think I know, about the people and places I’m writing about and let the people themselves guide me into their souls. That’s the only way I know how to write a book. And it makes my journey into the people fascinating and exciting: a journey of discovery.

With Minister Itamar and Ayala Ben Gvir. Photo: Isi Tenenbom.

Varda Epstein: You live in New York and Germany. I can understand New York, but what attracts you to Germany? If I even hear a German accent, my skin crawls. How do you live with the history of the place and its people in relation to the Jewish people? What can you tell us about how it feels to be Jewish in Germany today?

Tuvia Tenenbom: Years back, my wife-to-be, Isi, lived in Germany, and that’s how I got to live in Germany as well. And in response to your question: The history of Germany and the Jews is not a happy story, that’s for sure, but that is also the history of Jews and Europe, Jews and Christians, Jews and Muslims. London is no less antisemitic than Berlin; neither is Paris or New York. I met Americans who hate Jews more than the average German. We may not want to admit it, just like German Jews were blind to the hate around them before WWII, but reality has nothing to do with what we admit or deny.

Varda Epstein: Has anyone you met on your writing journeys changed your mind about something you were sure of? And where are you heading next? Which community will you write about?

Tuvia Tenenbom: Almost always, I change my mind once I live with the people I write about. I didn’t think Britain was antisemitic, but then I lived with them… I hated Russians, but I ended up falling in love with them after living with them. I thought America was the freest country on the planet but totally changed my mind during the process of writing about them while travelling the country for about a year. I have learned that I must embed myself with the people I write about and leave my prejudices in the nearest garbage can. That’s why it takes me months upon months of living with the people in order to write about them. As for the next book: I have no idea. Usually my German editor and publisher are the ones coming up with ideas for the upcoming book. It was not, for example, my idea to write about the settlers or about the Haredim. I simply agreed to take these assignments once they were offered to me.

***

For Elder’s take on “Excuse Me, Is This Yours?” see his review.

Want to hear more from Tuvia Tenenbom? He will be speaking at the Begin Center in Jerusalem on Sunday, November 15, 2026, at 7:30 PM, in conversation with Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, ‘Amcha Yisrael’ candidate and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem. The event is also available on Zoom.

---

 

Books by Elder of Ziyon

Reclaiming the Covenant Protocols He's an Anti-Zionist Too! At Ptach Lo (ebook) The Muslim Question (ebook, $8) Sarah Makes the World Better (ages 3-8)

More at: media.elderofziyon.com · Substack

Read More

"Moderate" Al Azhar scholar warns about a world government under Jewish control

The headline in this Egyptian newspaper says:

Sheikh Ahmed Karima: “The Abrahamic religion” paves the way for a world government under Jewish control

The picture on this article tells you what you need to know:

Karima is a professor of Islamic Sharia at Al-Azhar University, Egypt. And he has identified yet another method that the Jews are using to take over the world.

Dr. Ahmed Karima, Professor of Islamic Sharia at Al-Azhar University, affirmed that the so-called "Abrahamic Religion" is nothing but a dangerous cover and plot intended to draft the "New World Order religion" and pave the way toward a unified world government forcibly imposed on humanity. He described it as a "frightening upcoming war" aimed at promoting the "doctrine of the expected Jewish king."

Dr. Karima explained to El Safha El Oula that the alleged Abrahamic religion represents one of the most prominent names and roles of Freemasonry, which he described as a secret, terrorist organization aiming to ensure Jewish control over the world's resources and spread atheism, obscenity, and corruption.

Karima warned of the intellectual and moral danger of these organizations (Freemasons and Illuminati) , pointing out that their most prominent beliefs and methods consist of undermining monotheistic religions, bringing down legitimate governments and national ruling systems, permitting immorality and using women as a tool for control, in addition to inciting sectarian and racial strife, fragmenting countries from within, and taking complete control of media outlets and influential international organizations through complex networks of leverage and money.

Wikipedia says that Karima "is best known for his religious moderation."

---

 

Books by Elder of Ziyon

Reclaiming the Covenant Protocols He's an Anti-Zionist Too! At Ptach Lo (ebook) The Muslim Question (ebook, $8) Sarah Makes the World Better (ages 3-8)

More at: media.elderofziyon.com · Substack

Read More

10/31 Links: The forgotten Egypt terror attack and its tragic fifth victim; Ex-UN official; UN's Israel obsession sidelines atrocities elsewhere; Eisenkot’s options are all bad, while Netanyahu’s remain good

From Ian:

‘The killer was never punished’: The forgotten Egypt terror attack and its tragic fifth victim

Mor Shamli, 35, the widow of Alon Shamli, who was murdered before her eyes in Egypt on October 8, 2023, became the fifth victim of the shooting attack Friday, after dying following more than three years of psychological anguish.

The shooting took place in Alexandria one day after the Hamas massacre of October 7, as Israelis were still struggling to comprehend the scale of the atrocities and eliminate the remaining terrorists in communities near the Gaza Strip. An Egyptian police officer opened fire with his weapon at a group of Israeli tourists near Pompey's Pillar, a Roman triumphal column considered one of the best-known tourist attractions in Alexandria, Egypt's second-largest city.

Alon Shamli and Amnon Bezalel were pronounced dead at the scene, while Hagai Efrat died of his wounds about 10 days later. Egyptian tour guide Sayed Kamel al-Khawalqa was also killed in the attack. Alon's widow later said: "My life ended there in Egypt on October 8, 2023, when they murdered us. The bullet that struck Alon's heart struck mine too."

Alon Shamli, who was 34 when he was killed, coached a youth team at Hapoel Tel Aviv soccer club. He also worked as a physical education teacher at Rishonim School in Bat Yam. Following his death, Hapoel Tel Aviv said Alon "was highly regarded in the youth department. His players said he always devoted himself to them and pushed them to improve."

Amnon Bezalel, 64, of Bat Yam, served in the Israel Police for about 40 years. He was known as a diligent and respected officer and spent much of his career with the Holon police. His final position was technology coordinator in the Ayalon police region.

Hagai Efrat, 83, of Rishon LeZion, whose death was confirmed about 10 days after the attack, played soccer for Hapoel Haifa in his youth and managed Hapoel Jerusalem's soccer club during the 1970s and 1980s.

Friends of Egyptian tour guide Sayed Kamel al-Khawalqa said he was highly educated and possessed extensive knowledge, which helped him in his work as a tour guide. According to Egyptian media reports, he was also accompanying another group of tourists on the day of the attack and was caught in the gunman's line of fire.

But the attack, which received relatively little attention because it occurred so soon after the October 7 massacre, had another victim: Mor Shamli, who never recovered from what happened. In January, she announced to her Instagram followers that she intended to end her life through medically assisted suicide in Switzerland.

The announcement sparked a wave of false rumors that the procedure had already taken place and that she had died. In Instagram Stories posted that month, she explained the painful decision she had made and the feelings that had accompanied her since the attack, which occurred just one day after the massacre in Israeli communities near the Gaza Strip.

‘I went undercover at an extremist religious sect in Kent where Holocaust denial lives on'

A priest repeating Holocaust denial, a worshipper declaring a former synagogue should be burned to the ground and links to figures from far-right political movements.

Reporter Dan Esson went undercover at a breakaway religious sect in Kent to discover whether the extreme views of its notorious founder live on…

It’s a humid morning in Broadstairs, I’m drenched in sweat beneath my suit, and I’m being asked if I’m “quite good on the Jews” in the dimly-lit kitchen of a former guest house.

Am I “Jew-wise”, I’m pressed.

Joe and I have only just been introduced, though we’ve been sitting on the same pew for about an hour and a half listening to the Latin Mass.

He doesn’t know I’m a journalist. As far as he’s concerned, I’m Daniel Owens, a lapsed Catholic looking to return to the Church.

The middle-aged court typist from Sandwich, who originally hails from Cheshire, is very keen to express the sort of beliefs I thought I’d have to work a bit harder to capture on my hidden recorder.

When the conversation turns to the former synagogue in Margate, he says “thank God” it’s no longer in use, his northern accent still unmistakable despite having moved to Kent many years ago.

“It should be burned to the ground.”

“Father” Stephen Abraham, the main priest in residence, tells me that Jews have constructed a “mythology” around the Holocaust.

“They’ve created that myth because they’re experts; they have the media, the money to spin these stories,” he says.

I focus my eyes everywhere but his, as he continues: “They’re hiding the fact they’re taking over everything, or taking over the bits that matter.”

Presumably Joe and “Father” Abraham wouldn’t have been so open with these opinions if they knew who I was, but neither realised their newest recruit was wired up.

For more than a decade, this group, the Society of St Pius X Resistance (SSPXR), has operated from the property in Broadstairs.

It was founded by the late Richard Williamson, a convicted Holocaust denier and prominent conspiracy theorist whose extreme views made him one of the most controversial clergymen of recent decades.

He died last year, with his funeral held in Canterbury, but the organisation he headed is still operating from the building he bought on the Thanet coast more than a decade ago.

Ex-Palestine supporter blasts ‘insane’ movement for ‘cherry-picking’ oppressors

Parishad Kavyani was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran and spent most of her childhood there until she moved to Canada at 14, a reality she says shaped her nuanced view of the pro-Palestine, anti-Israel movement she once supported.

Now she says it was destroyed by “liberal intellectualism” that overly focused on the oppressor instead of the human rights of all affected.

“I have never faced the amount of homophobia, racism and sexism that I have experienced in the past nine months from the leftists, from the very people that I marched with for over two years for a free Palestine, and that is insanity,” Kavyani told Fox News Digital of leaving the cause.

Kavyani went on to reveal one of the problems she wrestled with while still supporting the Palestine movement — the absence of support for the freedom and rights of Iranian women.

“[They] advocate for liberation of people, [they] advocate for women’s rights, but when it comes to Iranian women wanting freedom, wanting the freedom to wear whatever they want, [they] suddenly are quiet — and not only quiet, but [they] support the oppressor. That’s my issue… [they] cherry-pick between oppressors,” she said.

Kavyani, who admits to being a part of pro-Palestine when the movement began to form before splitting with the cause after an array of its supporters began posting pro-Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] content, detailed the intricate view Iranians develop on advocacy for Palestinians.

“As an Iranian born and raised in Iran… you are raised with a lot of information, a lot of propaganda around what is happening in Israel, what is happening in Palestine, and you are just told this every single day by the authorities. That Palestinians need help, they’ve been oppressed, they’ve been getting killed all of these years, so we have to help them,” she added.

“Then… you enter the society, and you see there is poverty everywhere. You see that the villages in Iran don’t have drinking water. You see that the villagers in Iran don’t have a road to a hospital… Why? Because the government doesn’t actually do anything about the people in need inside the country, and you’re always told, ‘Oh, but we have to save money to send to Palestine,’” Kavyani said.

“The more time you spend in the country you’re like, ‘Why is it my responsibility to save another nation?’” Kavyani added.

The Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, was a tipping point for her.

“When October 7 happened, I had a lot of conversations with people [about it]… Like, just because someone is holding an Israeli passport doesn’t mean that they should just get killed… If there’s a war that you’re including civilians in that war, and you’re taking civilians hostage, and you’re raping civilians or torturing civilians — that’s not something that I support no matter who this person is, because I’m not somebody who thinks someone deserves to die just because of where they’re from or just because the political belief that they hold on to,” she said.

“That is, like, so ideology-driven, which we’re seeing right now on the internet and in real life… You cannot create a hierarchy of people and say this person deserves saving more than this person… That liberal intellectualism is, like, so insane,” Kavyani relayed.

Read More

10/30 Links Pt2: Douglas Murray: the Left’s Palestine 'fetish' – and why the West can still be saved; Pelosi calls Mamdani, El-Sayed's past comments on Israel 'concerning' and 'wrong'

From Ian:

Maxim Shrayer: Up (and Down) In Michigan

I would submit that the phenomenon of Jewish support for El-Sayed and other openly anti-Israel candidates or elected officials in the Democratic party does not logically or rationally stem from issues affecting Israel or the Jewish diaspora. Rather, it exemplifies the phenomenon I would like to call the “Jewish nostalgia for an American political home” in the Democratic party. Fueling this nostalgia is the anxiety that Jews no longer influence mainstream American politics. Various “Jewish cases” for the election of El-Sayed lay hopelessly bare a longing for the time when Jewish in America rhymed with progressive if not socialist, when Jews were civil libertarians if they weren’t gangsters (sometimes both), and when the Democratic party was a political home for the vast majority of America’s Jews.

This nostalgia also stems from a chronic reluctance to recognize that the Democratic party is becoming more and more a party of phantoms of socialism who either refuse to learn from twentieth-century history (especially Soviet history) or are too ignorant to do so. This Jewish Democratic nostalgia, like most other forms of nostalgia, does not address issues or remedy the present. It is a coping mechanism for the ones who have experienced political and social bereavement. Countless are the Jewish losses in America of the first quarter of the 21st century, and the biggest political loss is the Democratic party’s support of Israel. (That a Dominican-American congressman from the Bronx and a maverick Pennsylvania senator—rather than the Jews in the house or senate Democratic leadership—are the staunchest Democratic supporters of Israel speaks volumes about the predicament.)

Calls for the creation of an anti-MAGA Jewish coalition feel like an eleventh-hour performance of Jewish nostalgia for political influence. Such nostalgia has its deeper origins in the late 1960s, when Jewish activism ceased to be inherently Jewish as American Jews had achieved the status quo and overcome de facto discrimination while the still young Israel enjoyed national popularity and antisemitism was becoming marginal or subterranean.

You may wonder why the one writing these lines—a former refusenik, a Bostonian, an author and college professor—is so taken with this year’s Michigan Senate election. The answer is that through the lens of the Michigan Senate race I see a story of the impending Jewish divorce from the Democratic party and thus a refraction of my own political journey in America.

Shedding illusions is hard, and its even harder to do so when nostalgia performs a siren’s song. I speak from the experience of my family members in the former USSR, Israel, and America. When I reference the pain and pleasure of shedding of one’s political illusions, I also speak of the nearly forty years it’s taken to dispel my own. I’ve never once voted Republican, but over the past two years I have realized I can no longer vote Democratic. I detest Trump and will not vote for him or his menials, but I cannot give my vote to those who refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and those who actively seek Israel’s undoing. This acknowledgment of political homelessness, a particularly difficult predicament for a Jewish immigrant in America, brings me to three closing reflections on the subject of the Senate election in Michigan.

One: Learn from the legacy of Jewish refuseniks. I have previously argued that refuseniks were the last great Jewish political movement in Diaspora. The purpose of the refusenik movement was to free Jews from the Soviet bondage. Ours was an activism on behalf of Jews that also made the world a better place, not the other way around. There is a direct lesson for today’s Jewish voters torn between their past allegiance to the Democratic party and the growing threat of its left wing. American Jews tend to celebrate their participation in American progressive politics while failing to see a powerful alternative in the activism of Jewish refuseniks. Would that today’s American Jews abandon the idea of political activism for the sake of others—including those who, like El-Sayed, openly articulate their opposition to Israel and Zionism.

Two: Putting an enemy of Jewish selfhood in the U.S. Congress can never be a Jewish goal. El-Sayed as a Democratic contender who exploits the climate of Trumpian America to empower himself is less troubling than the very idea of a candidate running against Israel. In this sense, El-Sayed is also a cipher for the radicalized left of the Democratic party: a younger, less Soviet (and more Baathist) muscular version of Senator Bernie Sanders. Explaining why he recently gave one million dollars to El-Sayed’s campaign (following the party lead of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), Senator Sanders stated: “I was outraged … that AIPAC … dumped 9 million dollars in support of Mike Rogers. … And what AIPAC wants is continued US financial support for the Netanyahu government in Israel, which, in my view, is a genocidal government … and a continuation of the war in Iran … . AIPAC and Netanyahu want to continue that war with Trump [sic], and I think we’ve got to end that war. Abdul believes we’ve got to end that war.”

Make no mistake: a vote for El-Sayed is a vote against Israel, not a vote against the Netanyahu government. Saying this during the Israeli elections that may well see Netanyahu defeated is especially revealing.

Three: A vote is not a matzevah—whatever else it says besides the pei-nun and one’s name in the past (political) life. A vote is not to be made out of nostalgia for a bygone political era. Do not vote to unearth your political past or your ancestral memories of Jewish activism on behalf of civil libertarianism. Those memories had been put to their final rest in the 1970s. Rather than submitting empty ballots of Jewish dignity, perhaps we should pour what remains of Jewish activism, Jewish influence and Jewish resources into a third party, moderate, centrist, founded on traditional liberal values? Or, perhaps instead America Jews should look beyond these shores toward a new great aliyah—the 21st century American aliyah.

I will stop here—out of nostalgia for the illusion of Jewish unity. In closing, I turn to Isaac Babel, that great poet of Jewish upheaval. Babel has a short story from 1913 titled “Childhood. At Grandmother’s.” This early gem features a Jewish boy’s weekly Shabbat visits with his grandmother. She feeds him abundant meals with gefilte fish and fruit compote and teaches him about life in her imperfect Russian with an admixture of Yiddish and Polish. I used to think that American Jews were done loving their children and grandchildren so much that they would break their hearts with harsh and cynical wisdom. Perhaps I was wrong. What this Odessan grandmother says to her grandson in the 1900s applies to the socio-political illusions of today’s Jewish voters who find themselves at the crossroads:
“’Learn,’ she suddenly speaks with power. ‘Learn, you will achieve everything—wealth and fame. You must know everything. All of them will fall and prostrate themselves before you. All must envy you. Do not have friends. Do not give them money. Do not give them your heart.’”

Month after thwarted flydubai attack, Israel issues stringent new rules for all airlines

A month after the attempted terrorist crashing of a flydubai flight bound for Tel Aviv from Dubai, Israeli authorities issued new, stringent directives on Thursday to both foreign and Israeli airlines, requiring them to submit crew information 48 hours prior to departure, amid other steps to bolster security.

The new directives require that any further updates regarding crew members are submitted during the check-in period and no later than two hours before takeoff, and that a final list be issued at takeoff. Bloomberg reported that the measures were ordered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after a security review, and are intended to allow adequate time for background checks.

The directives come after a near-disaster on September 30 as flydubai Flight FZ1073 was en route from Dubai to Tel Aviv, when the copilot, Omani national Hamam al-Hammami, attacked the captain, Smit Machchhar, and attempted to crash the aircraft. The plane plunged thousands of feet before several Israeli passengers burst into the cockpit, whose door Machchhar had managed to open, immobilized the terrorist copilot and initially stabilized the plane.

Two off-duty pilots aboard the flight then took over the controls and made an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia before a replacement aircraft returned passengers to Tel Aviv.

Machchhar was seriously injured in the attack by Hammami, who struck him in the back of the head with an emergency axe.

The security requirements were issued by the National Center for Passenger Information Data Analysis, also known as Malan, a division within the Israel Tax Authority. The directives apply to all incoming and outgoing flights to and from Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport operated by all airlines, foreign and Israeli.

Non-Israeli carriers and Israeli airlines operating foreign aircraft flying in and out of Israel will henceforth be required to complete an online form with full details about pilots, cabin crew and passengers 48 hours before entering Israel, for review by the Israel Population and Immigration Authority.

The Immigration Authority will approve or reject requests to board passengers and crew members on flights entering Israel, departing from it, or passing through its territory.

The National Center for Passenger Information Data Analysis emphasized that the advance-notice period will give Israeli authorities more time to prepare than international practices generally allow and strengthen their ability to address potential security concerns.

Heroic flydubai captain and crew honored by UAE president

The captain and crew of the flydubai flight to Tel Aviv, which was attacked last month, were honored Tuesday by the president of the United Arab Emirates.

UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan awarded Indian pilot Smit Machchhar and the rest of the crew the First Class Order of Zayed II, one of the Gulf country’s top civilian honors, “in recognition of their courageous efforts to ensure the safety of passengers,” his office said.

The president praised the crew’s bravery and professionalism in protecting passengers during the attempted hijacking on September 30.

The Indian pilot, who has been recovering in an Abu Dhabi hospital after being attacked with a cockpit axe by his Omani co-pilot, attended the ceremony, with scars from his injuries still visible on his head and his arm in a cast.

Despite his severe injuries in the cockpit attack, he managed to open the door, allowing passengers to enter, tackle the assailant and take control of the aircraft.

He has been widely praised as a hero.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has invited him to light a torch at Israel’s Independence Day next year.

Read More

10/30 Links Pt1: Herzog can secure his presidential legacy by bringing Netanyahu and Eisenkot together; Canadian author warns Bondi lessons being forgotten

From Ian:

Herzog can secure his presidential legacy by bringing Netanyahu and Eisenkot together

The politics of delegitimization and defamation, particularly the demonization of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the Left, make the establishment of a broad Israeli government of repair an unlikely scenario.

Yet this is exactly what Israel needs now – the partnership in government of Netanyahu and one of his major rivals, say, the political parties led by Yashar head Gadi Eisenkot and/or Naftali Bennett – to together tackle Israel’s major challenges.

The question is: Who is going to disabuse both the Left and the Right of their belligerent, separatist, extremist dreams of establishing a one-sided government that relies on haredi (ultra-Orthodox) or Arab parties? Who is going to cajole Likud and Yashar and/or B’Yachad into a pseudo “unity” coalition government?

The answer, of course, should be the Israeli president. But I wonder whether President Isaac Herzog is up to the task.

Herzog comes from the Left (a former leader of the Labor Party), and he is already under pressure from his political home base to mandate and approve a narrow Eisenkot government based on an alliance with anti-Israel Islamists or anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews; a government that defiantly excludes Netanyahu.

The camp’s overriding priority is to dethrone Netanyahu under any circumstances and at any cost. This camp expects Herzog to play along; nay, they demand that he brandish his bully pulpit to legitimize a government that embraces Mansour Abbas and Prof. Yousef Jabareen, or alternatively Yakov Asher and Yitzhak Goldknopf.

Such a government would handcuff the IDF in fighting Palestinian enemies and kill the hope of recapturing the Negev from Bedouin mafia gangs, and it would quash any plan for drafting haredim into the IDF. But so what? In the view of the hard Left, terminating Netanyahu is the higher goal that makes anything and everything kosher.

Herzog needs to repel the pressures and demands of the hard Left and wedge the mainstream parties, the two or three largest in Knesset, into a governing coalition, uneasy and fractious as it may be.

It is not enough for Herzog to say that he “will do everything in his power to avoid a repeat election scenario.” He must actively agitate for a broad Zionist government. He should aggressively intervene in the political process beyond the usual presidential consultative role following elections.

Herzog should declare that he will give the mandate to form a government first and foremost only to a political party leader that is up-front committed to seeking unity as his priority plan of action. And then he should reject any proto-government coalition brought to him that is not broad-based; that is, contingent on fractional Arab or haredi parties.

Herzog can and should go further in making a broad-based government possible by getting into the nitty-gritty of the issues that stand in the way, from Netanyahu’s future (rotation in the prime minister’s post, a timetable for retirement from politics, and a pardon) to good governance (formation of a national commission of investigation into the October 7 disaster, judicial reform, settlement policy, and haredi draft).

Don’t tell me that this isn’t the role of the Israeli president and that he has no powers for such interposition. Indeed, it is not the president’s classic role, and legally he has no such powers.

Jonathan Tobin: Netanyahu is a realist about Israel’s foes, not a fear-monger

Moreover, Netanyahu is on firm ground in reminding Israeli voters that leaders and parties that campaign on pledges never to allow a Palestinian state or to accede to demands for concessions, including territorial withdrawals, often break their word.

That’s exactly what happened with Yitzhak Rabin when he was elected prime minister in 1992 and reassured voters that he would not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization and its terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, let alone empower them in the territories. But then, he did exactly that.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon was re-elected as prime minister by ridiculing his Labor Party opponent for proposing to withdraw from Gaza. Then Sharon, too, carried out the same policy himself in the summer of 2005 by pulling every Israeli soldier, settler and settlement out of Gaza, thus setting in motion the train of events that led to the creation of a Hamas terror state there and the tragedy of Oct. 7.

Moreover, as Haaretz consoled its left-wing readership over the summer, Eisenkot may have declared that he won’t accept a Palestinian state largely in order to curry favor with the voters. But in doing so, he was, the newspaper said, “running away from what everyone knows he believes.” That is probably true. The former general’s statements while he was chief of staff and those made by his advisers all point to acceptance of the Oslo mindset about the imperative of Israeli territorial withdrawals and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Under the circumstances, it’s far from unreasonable for Netanyahu to point this out and to speculate about whether a government led by Eisenkot would resist the inevitable pressure from foreign governments—possibly including the United States once President Donald Trump leaves office in January 2029—for a Palestinian state.

Nor is it fear-mongering to point out that a repetition of Sharon’s catastrophic blunder of withdrawing from Gaza in the far larger and more strategic Judea and Samaria would raise the likelihood of more Oct. 7-style attacks on Israel. Hamas, which would be certain to seize control of a state from its corrupt and feeble Fatah Party rivals who currently control the Palestinian Authority, has promised as much.

Nor is Netanyahu conjuring up imaginary threats when he speaks of the need to finish the process of eliminating Hamas in Gaza and defeating the Islamist regime in Tehran. Israelis know all too well that their enemies are not figments of their imagination on which an unscrupulous prime minister is preying.

And he isn’t making things up when he describes the radicalism of both the Arab parties that did so well in this week’s vote.

Halbfinger is correct that Ra’am has worked hard to sell itself to Jewish voters as a reasonable partner that can be trusted to be loyal to the state while standing up for the interests of Arab voters. Israelis may be proud to live in a country where the Arab minority enjoys equal rights under the law. But even if he served in the government led by Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid in 2021 and 2022, many, if not most Israelis know that its leader Mansour Abbas’s Islamists beliefs make it impossible to truly accept the legitimacy and permanence of a Jewish state. What’s more, they also know the larger Joint List won’t even pretend to give up their dreams of Israel’s eradication. That’s true even if they are willing, for the moment, to prop up a minority government that would end Netanyahu’s career, due to the fact that he is the greatest foe of those who wish for Israel’s destruction.

Should Eisenkot rely on them to keep a minority government in power outside of the cabinet or ask them to join it outright, he would be giving them an effective veto over future military action to defend Israel against Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Some on the left may think that’s a good idea. But in rejecting such a scenario, Netanyahu would not be exploiting fears as much as pointing out to Israelis that Eisenkot would be doing what the overwhelming majority of Israelis, regardless of who they voted for on Oct. 27, oppose.

The specter of the genocidal intent of Hamas and Iran, for which the atrocities of Oct. 7 were just the trailer for what they want to do to all of Israel, is no boogeyman that Netanyahu pulls out of his bag of tricks to scare Israelis. It is a clear and present danger that must be addressed by any government of Israel, no matter who is at its head, if it is not to betray the trust of its people.

A still dangerous neighborhood
If Israelis understand—their victories in the post-Oct. 7 war and the survival of the Abraham Accords, notwithstanding the global surge of antisemitism—that they still live in a dangerous neighborhood, it’s not because they are fearful. It’s because they have been paying attention to events and are able to judge what happens when their leaders succumb to the temptation of earning the respect of the Times and liberal pundits, and seek to trade “land for peace.” In each case, such policies were not only a betrayal of campaign promises but also wound up doing nothing more than trading territory for terror that led to the loss of thousands of Israeli lives.

If Netanyahu retains a large amount of support, despite the understandable fatigue with a prime minister who has held power for so long and the impulse to make him the sole scapegoat for Oct. 7, it is because Israelis respect and value his realism. For all of his faults and mistakes, he is still the only major Israeli leader of his era who did not fall prey to the magical thinking that led to Oslo and the Gaza withdrawal, and its betrayed promises of gaining peace in exchange for a Palestinian state that the Palestinians don’t want. Pointing this out isn’t scare tactics. It’s realism.

The prime minister’s critics should consider whether their desire to ignore or downplay the real threats to Israel is something worse than speaking to the fears of Israelis: a deliberate attempt to disarm and weaken them in the face of very real genocidal threats.

Canadian author warns Bondi lessons being forgotten

Kinsella said governments and social media companies were the two entities most important in fighting the problem, and both had “dropped the ball”.

Of social media owners including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, he said: “You’ve got billionaires, in one case a trillionaire, who operate in this lawless, wild west environment where anything goes.

“We’re not asking them to donate a kidney. We’re asking them just to observe certain basic restraints, such as to promote truth and discourage hate and lies.”

He said governments should tell the companies: “You will do this, or there will be consequences … so far, there’s not really a government in the world that has done that.”

Kinsella was also critical of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney for recognising a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September 2025. He said recognition had been predicated on elections, governance reform, changes to the school curriculum and an end to the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” program.

“None of those things have happened, not one,” he said. “[The] Palestinian state, at least in the case of Gaza, is governed by a designated terrorist entity in this country and in my country.

“We have leadership that is weak and is either recklessly or wilfully blind to this virus of antisemitism and hatred that is spreading in our countries, and that in some cases has cost people their lives.”

Referring to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Kinsella said the Australian government had questions to answer over Bondi.

“Here, feet from where we are at the moment, you got 15 people [who] were slaughtered as a consequence of an ideology that was allowed to be taught without restraint in this country, and the people involved in that have to answer that. But so too does the government,” he said. “I’m hopeful that the commission of inquiry deals seriously with what it’s got, which is a serious problem.”

Kinsella also addressed a lunch for AIJAC supporters in Sydney on Monday. “The beast of antisemitism is out of its cage, and it is everywhere to be seen,” he told attendees.

Kinsella said he had fought antisemitism for decades as a lawyer, journalist and political adviser, facing threats against his life and at times requiring police protection. “I have never seen it as bad as it is now. Never,” he said.

He argued that antisemites across the political and ideological spectrum were driven by envy and resentment. “[They] envy your success in every endeavour. They envy the resilience and the strength of the Jewish people,” he said.

Kinsella said Israel was always going to prevail militarily, but a second war – “the information war, the propaganda war” – was under way. He said social media profiles began appearing across North America, Europe and the Middle East 18 months before October 7. He said they sat dormant until the day of the attack, then were used to spread denial of the atrocities.

Kinsella said most people in the West supported Israel and the Jewish community. But he warned that millions of young people on the right and the left “have fallen under the spell of Hamas and Iran and the Jew haters”.

“We cannot lose a generation. We cannot lose the future,” he said.

He said the campaign’s blueprint was devised 40 years ago, and traced its origins to the Soviet Union. “I believe we will win that war,” he said. “Because we must win that war.”

Read More