Monday, June 23, 2025

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: Trump has just secured the best chance for global peace
Thank God somebody hasn’t forgotten their courage. In civil society, meanwhile, we were yesterday treated to the embarrassing spectacle of crowds protesting in London in support of the Ayatollah. Women who enjoyed equal rights and men who took free expression for granted raised placards showing the face of the tyrant, along with the slogan, “choose the right side of history”. It is tempting to conclude that Britain is lost.

As I wrote in these pages last week, this is Israel’s century. The countries that will not only survive but thrive will be those with conviction in their values and the courage and resilience to defend them. Now is the time to rouse ourselves from the post-Cold War torpor of identity politics and self-hatred. Yet our bankrupt leaders refuse to release us. Israel and the United States can hold their heads high today, while we must hang ours in shame.

How must the airmen of the RAF feel as they watch this great victory unfold from the sidelines? What about all the decent Britons? Oh, for the chance to feel proud of our country again. So much for us. This morning, however, we should spare a thought for the Israeli people.

Over the last one-and-a-half years, they have suffered trauma, fear, uncertainty and bereavement, not to mention the hatred of the world. Hundreds of thousands of men from all walks of life have served on the frontlines and many have failed to return home. The propaganda against them has been overwhelming. Yet the country has refused to be defeated.

Even after more than 600 days of war in Gaza, when Netanyahu ordered the attacks on Iran, public support stood at more than 90 per cent, despite knowing that life would be horribly disrupted, missiles would fall on their homes and some of their people would die.

While European leaders wagged their fingers and quivered in their beds, the citizens of the Middle East’s only democracy demonstrated what may be achieved in a country that has not discarded its old loves of flag, faith and family, as we have done. This is a lesson for the West either to learn or to ignore. As the Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky put it: “We were not created in order to teach morals and manners to our enemies.”

For our own sakes, however, and for those of our children, we must learn this lesson fast. The centrist fundamentalism that has so disfigured our societies since the Cold War has run its course. Those who persist in pursuing it – Starmer, Macron and the rest – have been outstripped by history, even if they do not yet know it. Israel’s pride is our shame. This is Jerusalem’s century and we must decide where to plant our feet.
Eli Lake: What Happens If Iran’s Regime Collapses?
Mariam Memarsadeghi, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the founder and director of the Cyrus Forum for Iran’s Future, also sees very little hope in a democratic transition as Israel wages war in Iran. “The opposition, unfortunately, is not ready,” she said. “I don’t like saying that but it’s the truth. Pahlavi talks about having a plan to maintain security and stability, but I just don’t see how that can be possible. At the very least, he is going to need foreign help.”

That foreign help will not be coming from America. Despite the president’s MIGA post, there is no serious conversation inside the Trump administration about another nation-building war in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday told reporters that America’s war aims did not include “regime change.” As one Trump administration official told me, “There is no chance we go in for nation-building when this thing is done.”

For different reasons, Israel will also not be stabilizing a post-Khamenei Iran. Israel would welcome a democratic Iran but will settle for a weakened one. The Jewish state is far too small—with a population of just over 10 million—to put significant boots on the ground in a country of more than 90 million people if Khamenei was deposed. Nonetheless, its intelligence service, Mossad, has cultivated networks now being used for targeting nuclear and military sites and other kinds of sabotage. Two former U.S. national security officials who worked closely with Israel while in government said those networks can be repurposed to support an Iranian uprising should the need arise.

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Free Press, “What is going to get Iranians back to the streets in great numbers will be support from the West; that means Israel. The security apparatus is weakened. There is an internet blackout. It’s early days. I think the opportunity is there.”

Dave Wurmser, a former national security council staffer in Trump’s first term who also worked at the Pentagon and State Department under George W. Bush, said Israeli war planners were aware that a byproduct of the campaign could “destabilize the regime to the point where it could fall.”

Some former U.S. intelligence analysts, however, see the prospects of a democratic uprising in the near term to be slim. Jonathan Panikoff, the former deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East, told me that even if Iran’s supreme leader was taken out, the regime may not collapse. “I would love nothing more than democracy in Iran, but it’s much more likely that you get IRGC-istan,” he said, a reference to the Revolutionary Guard Corps that has amassed extraordinary domestic power over the last 25 years. “At the end of the day, guns trump words. We’ve seen that play out in 2009, in 2017 in the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. It’s more likely it’s a different kind of authoritarian state, a military junta with a fig leaf government, a Pakistan on steroids.”

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iranian targets officer for the CIA, also said he was not expecting a democratic transition in Iran in the near term. “I would expect some form of anarchy; that is always the case in Iran when the central government goes down,” he said. One of the problems for the internal opposition is that “the regime has done an excellent job of locating individuals who have charisma and neutralizing them. The opposition is there, but it’s not cohesive,” Gerecht added. That said, he stressed that there were too many factors that were unknown to really predict what would come next if Khamenei was toppled.

The most salient factor that will determine if a democratic transition in Iran is possible is how many mid-level officers in the internal security agencies of the state, like the Basij militia and the intelligence ministry, are willing to break ranks with their superiors and refuse to fire on protesters.

Gerecht said that the apparatus that arrested and killed demonstrators in the Woman, Life, Freedom demonstrations in 2022 and 2023 will likely carry out such orders. Sazegara, the former deputy prime minister, is optimistic that at least some of them can be turned. “Our strategy is, as much as possible, to support dissidents inside the IRGC and the army and the intelligence services to join the people,” he said. But any chance for such an uprising will have to wait until the war is over.
Seth Mandel: Iran Brought This On Itself
On January 28, 2024, Iran killed three American soldiers on a base in Jordan, injuring more than 40. On October 19, 2023, an Iranian militia in Yemen engaged the USS Carney destroyer in what the Wall Street Journal described as “the most intense combat a U.S. Navy warship had seen in the better part of a century, shooting down more than a dozen drones and four fast-flying cruise missiles.”

That “10-hour engagement” came, of course, just 12 days after Iran’s militia in Gaza invaded Israel, murdering 1,200—of which 41 were Americans.

Lost in Iran’s modern slaughter was the fact that October 2023 coincided with the 40th anniversary of a kind of villainous origin story for Tehran: the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemembers. In the intervening decades, that killing continued. But the bookends of 1983 and 2023 served as fitting brackets for a period of history run red with the blood of Americans. Iran’s attacks—as noted above—didn’t end. But Tehran had overplayed its hand and set in motion a great American backlash, leading to President Trump’s history-making order to strike at the heart of the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.

The Iranian threat, in other words, has not subsided. American civilians and soldiers live in a world made more dangerous by Iran’s constant plotting to harm them.

And so the idea that bombing a facility in Iran that had been evacuated of people but not of weaponizable nuclear material was an “escalation” is risible. More absurd still is the belief, apparently held by a growing number of Democratic politicians and an endless supply of Republican social-media jugheads, that Trump is hereby solely responsible for future Iranian militia threats to Americans abroad.

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” announced Hakeem Jeffries, the highest ranking Democrat in the House.

Jeffries is therefore predicting Iranian violence against Americans while at the same time freeing Iran from culpability for that violence. This man intends to be the next speaker of the House.

Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, had this to say: “The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous and that threatens the safety and security of the United States, Israel, and ultimately the world.”

That statement is somewhat more reasonable than Jeffries’s, but again—this is the path Iran has chosen. Additionally, it will not make the world a more dangerous place than it would have been with a nuclear-armed Iran. Lastly, the presumptuousness to lecture Israelis on their own safety, especially in this case when they are telling us overwhelmingly the opposite of what Smith says, is poor form—as is, of course, blaming America for Iran’s aggression.
True stories of espionage, sabotage—and Divine Providence.
In the aftermath of yet another stunning Israeli operation inside Iran, many are wondering: how does the Mossad keep pulling this off?

How does a tiny nation, roughly the size of New Jersey and under constant existential threat, manage to penetrate the most hostile regime in the world time and again—slipping past the Revolutionary Guard, sabotaging nuclear ambitions, and rescuing lives in ways that would make a Hollywood screenwriter blush, or seem too far-fetched even for the big screen?

Of course, the professionalism, ingenuity, and sheer courage of Israel’s agents—combined with the cutting-edge innovation of the Startup Nation—play a central role. But from a Jewish perspective, there’s another truth too essential to ignore: hashgacha pratit, Divine providence—the belief that God guides history not only in sweeping arcs but also through intimate, hidden threads. And sometimes, the outcomes are so precise, so improbable, that we’re left with no plausible explanation—at least not one that leaves God out of the story.

Much of what we know about this shadow war comes from The Secret War with Iran by veteran Israeli journalist and intelligence expert Ronen Bergman. Drawing on hundreds of sources and interviews, his research offers a rare window into the secret victories that shaped the last four decades.

Below are five real-life operations, stretching from the Islamic Revolution in 1979 to the nuclear age, that show the fingerprints of both human brilliance and something greater. 1. The Escape from Iran (1979–1981): Smuggling a Community to Safety
After the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran’s Jews faced a terrifying new reality. The Islamic regime labeled Zionism a capital offense, executed Jewish leader Habib Elghanian, and sowed fear among the country’s ancient Jewish community.

In response, Israeli intelligence launched a quiet, high-stakes operation to help Jews flee. Agents and collaborators smuggled thousands across borders using forged documents, bribes, and covert routes through Pakistan and Turkey. In one case, a rescuer even posed as a senior Pakistani official to escort families to safety.

Roughly 10,000 Jews escaped through these clandestine efforts, while tens of thousands more fled via informal means. To protect those still inside Iran, Israel kept its role secret.

It wasn’t just a logistical feat—it was a modern-day Exodus. In a time of chaos and persecution, Jewish lives were saved by a mix of courage, ingenuity, and, perhaps, something greater moving quietly behind the scenes.
  • Monday, June 23, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Sqwawkbox, a British left wing news site that brags about how trustworthy it is, has a scoop!

Wow! 377,000 killed, and half of them kids! And these are Israel's own figures!

This is something!

The proof it brings comes from here:

Yaakov Garb’s report for Harvard Dataverse has analysed the Israeli military’s own data and combined these with careful spatial mapping to reveal a demographic horror story: almost 400,000 people – at least 377,000 – have disappeared from Gaza’s pre-genocide population of 2.227 million, reducing it to 1.85 million when measured for the study.
Does that report say what the authors are so breathlessly claiming?

Not at all. 

The report discusses the GHF attempt to feed Gazans. it doesn't mention demographics or deaths or missing people or anything like that at all.

But it has a map that shows what it says are Israel's estimates of how many Gazans are in three concentrated areas of Gaza:

The morons at Sqwawkbox took the three grey areas, added them up, subtracted them from some estimate of Gaza's pre-war population that they claim says it was 2.27 million people, and voila! 377,000 people are missing and therefore must have been murdered, and half of them must be kids because, you know, Israel kills Gazans randomly!

Where to begin with this stupidity?

First of all, the three areas don't represent all of Gaza's population. Plenty of people refuse to move to the areas Israel wants them to move to - there are lots of articles in Arab media about their "steadfastness" in refusing to move. Assuming that the estimates here are accurate, they are only of the people inside the areas, not all of Gaza. We have no idea how many tens of thousands of Gazans live outside those three areas. 

Secondly, the estimate of a pre-war Gaza population of 2.27 million is a bit suspect. According to CIA Factbook, the estimated population in Gaza in 2023 was less than 2.1 million.  Poof! There go 127,000 dead people.

Thirdly, in the months before the Rafah crossing was closed, according to Palestinian estimates, some 100,000 Gazans managed to escape to Egypt (by paying exorbitant fees.) There go another 100,000 supposed victims.

I just resurrected over 110,000 children. No need to thank me.

This is the dumbest reporting I have ever seen in Western media, and that is saying something.  But when you hate Jews (I'm sorry, ,"Zionists,")  an excuse to exaggerate their evil is a righteous cause. 

Where are all of these dead bodies, according to the geniuses of Sqwawkbox?
 The Gaza health ministry only counts bodies recovered and brought to a hospital. Victims buried under rubble or blown apart with their few remains gathered into plastic bags are not included.
Except that - they are. The Gaza health ministry puts out an online survey where Gazans can register their missing and presumed dead relatives, and it counts them in its total. 

Maybe Sqwawkbox believes that Israel uses ray guns that vaporize thousands of Gazans, leaving no trace? Because that is what officials from Hamas and from Gaza's much heralded Health Ministry - lovingly quoted by mainstream media - have claimed. 

They'll believe anything that can be twisted to demonize Israel. Because that is what "trustworthy" journalists apparently do.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Monday, June 23, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon

Israeli media occasionally reports on the arrests of citizens of Israel who are suspected Iranian spies.

These stories are concerning and important. Why would an Israeli citizen choose to spy for Iran?

No doubt, some are motivated by money, or the sense of self-importance, or simply the thought that what they are doing is pretty much public information anyway, so there is not much moral hazard in doing so. It seems unlikely that too many Israeli citizens either hate Israel or love Iran so much to have an ideology where they want to see an Islamist state destroy Israel. 

But part of the reason Israel's airstrikes in Tehran and elsewhere are so effective is because their intelligence is superb. A major reason for that is that there are plenty of Iranians who want to see their  regime replaced. 

Even this morning Israel is pounding specific sites in Tehran. Even today Israel is assassinating major IRGC figures, people who know they are targets and are no doubt taking precautions or hiding - and still being targeted successfully. 

Some of this is because Israel has excellent signals intelligence, following cell phones around; part of it is because Israel has great artificial intelligence capabilities that allow it to take millions of data points that by themselves are of little value but in the aggregate indicate with a high degree of certainty where specific people are. Also Israel has done an incredible job integrating all aspects of its security apparatus so that new intelligence information becomes actionable within seconds or minutes, not weeks. 

But a great deal comes from ordinary Iranians on the ground who are feeding these data points to Israel, who see several people enter an apartment who look unfamiliar, who recognize unusual activity where they live, or even those who are integral parts of the Iranian security establishment who have direct knowledge of what is going on. 

Iran has a competent spy agency. No doubt they have hacked into some Israeli systems and almost certainly they have access to street and doorbell cameras. But human intelligence is the most important, especially during wartime when decisions must be made quickly, and Israel's advantage in human intelligence is in no small part because Iranians do not want to live under their current regime. 






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 


  • Monday, June 23, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian ultranationalist often dubbed "Putin’s philosopher," is not just a dangerous ideologue. He is also a conspiracy-minded antisemite obsessed with Israel, and his ravings reflect a recurring truth: that Jews and the Jewish state are seen as existential threats to totalitarian ideologies – precisely because Jewish values stand in moral opposition to them.

The  New York Times introduced its readers to Dugin in 2022, describing him as “Putin’s philosopher” who has been a leading advocate for conquest of Ukraine.
His thinking builds on ideas of “Eurasianism,” that Russia is a distinct civilization that should forge a continent-spanning state along the lines of its former empire but without the Communist ideology of the Soviet Union. Jane Burbank, an emeritus history professor at New York University, has written that in Mr. Dugin’s view, after the Soviet Union’s “sellout” to the West in the 1990s, “Russia could revive in the next phase of global combat and become a ‘world empire.’”
It turns out that "Putin's philosopher" is an antisemite who seems obsessed with the idea that Israel is run by crazed messianic Jews who are hellbent on creating a Greater Israel.

In a recent podcast, he said, "Half of Israel is pure liberal trash. The other half are cheerful Zionists who want to blow up Al-Aqsa." 

His insistence that Israel will blow up Al Aqsa is a recurrent theme in his writings - see, for example, this article from December where he is certain that Ben Gvir will blow up the mosque to create a Greater Israel. 

After Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, Dugin not only said that this was a precursor to Israel's destruction of Al Aqsa but also he threw in a theory where Jews throughout the world form a network to ensure Israel's ultimate victory:

Israel, thanks to the support of the collective West and using its latest technological tools (and they have been and remain pioneers in the field of digital technologies), operates very effectively, precisely, and cohesively. And it is very difficult to imagine how one could respond to this, especially considering that many people from various countries, who are at the forefront of high-tech processes, could at any moment turn out to be Israeli citizens and, together with their codes and technologies, head to Israel.

In other words, Israel relies on a vast network of supporters, people who share the principles of political and religious Zionism in all countries of the world. This gives Israel a major advantage as a networked structure, not just a state.

It is difficult to miss the echo of the “Elders of Zion” hoax in Dugin’s fantasy of a worldwide network of Jews, controlling global tech and politics to ensure messianic supremacy.

Now, according to Arab media, Dugin thinks Israel might use the conflict with Iran as the excuse it has been looking for (for over a century!)  to finally destroy Al Aqsa. “I don’t rule out that the Zionist leadership’s debauchery could reach the point where they blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque and then claim that an Iranian missile hit the mosque by mistake,” he said.

Given that Dugin believes that the Russian Federation’s destiny is to become a holy empire along tsarist lines, he views Jews and Israel as implacable obstacles to the fulfillment of his dream. 

Dugin’s apocalyptic vision isn’t just about Israel, but about what Israel represents: a stubborn, moral, covenantal civilization that refuses to bow to imperial destiny. That’s why antisemites of every political persuasion, from Marx to Hitler to Dugin, always converge on the idea that Jews are the problem. Because when your ideology depends on domination, Jews are always in the way.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Sunday, June 22, 2025



Peter Beinart criticizes the US strike on Iran's nuclear program in terms of the US not considering the long term consequences of its actions:
Let's say the US does set back the Iranian nuclear program by a long way, and Iran is just too afraid or too weak to really do much in response. So it's a success, right? But over what time frame? I mean you could have said that the US had a big success when it overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in the fifties, because he was going to nationalize oil industry and do things that America didn't like, and it might have been for years after that it looked like a good idea. But you were laying the groundwork for a politics in Iran that was ultimately going to lead decades later to the overthrow of a pro-American leader, and the emergence of a militant anti-American leadership. The point, is, when you do things, you produce political consequences that play out over long, long periods of time and you don't know what the long term consequences are going to be. 
I've mentioned a number of times that Beinart is a master propagandist, and this is yet another example of how he uses propaganda techniques brilliantly to promote a completely wrong and immoral anti-Israel and anti-American position. 

After all, he has a point: there could be very bad long term consequences of any action by the US, or Israel, that could be worse than short term gains. 

This actually is true of every decision we make, big or small, international or personal. Beinart gives examples of decisions in the Middle East that may have caused bad long term consequences. So, everything must be done with caution, and Beinart says that the US did not use the proper amount of caution.

There are three problems with his argument, and they are difficult to see without realizing that Beinart always frames his arguments to preclude serious disagreement.

The first one is simple: yes, sometimes the consequences are bad. And sometimes they are good. Israel decimating Hezbollah last year resulted in Hezbollah not raining down tens of thousands of missiles on Israel, today. That is a pretty good consequence! Similarly, Israel's destruction of Syria's clandestine nuclear program cannot be regarded as anything but a success. So consequentialism goes both ways, and there is no way for Beinart to know the long term consequences any more than anyone else - whether they would be good or bad. So should no one ever make any decision because we cannot know every possible consequence? That is absurd, but if we accept Beinart's logic, that is the result.

In the real world, you make the best decisions you can based on the information you have now. You don't stay paralyzed because you might make the wrong decision. Beinart knows this, but he doesn't want you to think about it. 

Secondly, Beinart describes possible downsides of military action. But he ignores, completely, not only the possible upsides or action, but the the potential negative consequences of inaction. Iran clearly was hiding a secret nuclear program that is only compatible with weaponization. No one can seriously doubt it. What are the consequences of a nation that is the world's biggest sponsor of terror, that funds terror groups worldwide, having a stockpile of nuclear weapons? Beinart frames his argument in terms of actions, not inactions, so the casual consumer of his ideas does not realize that Beinart is creating a straitjacket in his argument that does not allow the thinking outside the box that Beinart deliberately constructs.

The third problem is when Beinart says:
I think Jewish tradition, like most other moral traditions, has some version of the idea of “what goes around comes around.” In Hebrew, it’s, “midah k'neged midah.” 
Guess what? Jewish ethics is not consequentialist. In Jewish ethics, the top priority is preserving life, your own and your nation's before your enemies. Iran's actions that clearly point towards building a nuclear weapon, plus its genocidal rhetoric against Israel that goes back to 1979, all point to the fact that Iran intends to destroy Israel - either with nuclear weapons or by using the threat of nuclear weapons to attack with impunity without fear of, yes, consequences.. This is not morally acceptable under Jewish ethics. Beinart's argument here indicates that he does not give a damn about the survival of the Jewish state or the Jewish people who live there. 

So when Beinart tries to use a Jewish ethical argument that Iran's nuclear weapons program must not be attacked, he is not only being deceptive. He is tacitly supporting the idea that Israel should not have the right to defend itself.

And it is hard to think of something more immoral than that.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: Trump Changes History With Iran Strike
It’s a dangerous moment; the Iranian regime has terrorist assets we might not know about and work to hurt us and the Israelis still more. On the other hand, Iran is a thousand times weaker today than it was just 11 days ago, and so many of its strategic assets and strategic thinkers have been destroyed in that time it’s not clear what capability the regime still might possess. So vigilance is called for, and we shouldn’t celebrate just yet, but neither should we panic.

It turns out that in the case of the Middle East what Trump said about himself is true. He said he doesn’t start wars. Trump said he ends wars. And what happened last night was Trump ending this evil war of Iran’s, either right now or after more pain causes the mullahs to cry uncle. For Israel didn’t start this war either. It was launched, by Iran and its catamites, on October 7.

As I write, it’s only a few hours since the U.S. strike. Its impact is potentially so enormous, and so world-historic, we needn’t rush into interpreting its larger meaning. But consider the words he spoke in concluding his short speech to the nation: “I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America.”

Trump has said since the assassination attempt in Butler, Pa., that he believes God spared him for a reason.

And now, so do I.

This was—is—the reason.
WSJ Editorial: The U.S. Bombs Three Nuclear Sites to Spare the World from an Intolerable Risk
President Trump's decision to strike Iran's three most significant nuclear sites on Saturday helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat and was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. The regime flouted his 60-day deadline to make a deal.

Then Israel attacked, destroying much of the nuclear program and achieving air supremacy, and still the president gave Iran another chance to come to terms. But the regime wouldn't abandon domestic uranium enrichment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace.

Iran and its Iraqi proxies have threatened U.S. regional bases with missile fire, but if the regime values self-preservation, it will give up its nuclear ambitions and stand down. Much of the press has fixated on the idea that Trump has now joined or even started a conflict. But Iran has been waging regional and terrorist war for decades. It's as likely that he has helped end the conflict.

U.S. presidents have been known to kick the can down the road. To his credit, Trump didn't, hitting the Fordow enrichment site as well as Natanz and Isfahan. The president wanted to leave no doubt about Iran's nuclear program and take it all down. He had to act to stop the threat in front of him to protect America.

The Israelis, who proved their strategic value as an ally, would like to complete the mission by destroying what remains of Iran's missile infrastructure. They deserve a green light, especially as those missiles are threatening U.S. bases. Critics had counseled that the world had to bow to Iranian intimidation. The best we could hope for was a flimsy deal that bribed Iran with billions and left open its path to a bomb. They were wrong.
Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin: Why Israel Had to Act
44 years ago I sat in the cockpit on the Israeli air force mission that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. In 2007, when I was serving as Israel's chief of defense intelligence, we destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria built with North Korea's help.

Today the challenge of Iran's advanced, deeply fortified, multisite nuclear program is far more complex. Yet, a successful Israeli campaign holds the potential not only to neutralize a grave threat but also to reshape the strategic landscape of the Middle East and make the region profoundly safer.

Israel and the U.S. have a rare strategic opening. What has for years been a reactive approach can now be transformed into a proactive vision that curbs Iran's malign ambitions and efforts, stabilizes Gaza, and lays the foundation for a new order built on security, integration and peaceful relations.

The operation in Iran offers decision makers a foundation to leverage military action into a broader diplomatic initiative that aims for a strong, enforceable agreement rolling back Iran's nuclear program. It must also prevent Tehran from enriching uranium for military use, block its path to a nuclear weapon, and impose meaningful constraints on its missile arsenal, which poses a threat to the entire region. Together with crippling Iran's proxy network, these steps would significantly decrease the threat to most of America's regional partners.
John Spencer: Operation Midnight Hammer: The strike that shattered Iran's nuclear ambitions
This was not about starting a war. It is about ending one by pushing the Islamic regime closer to realizing it must give up their nuclear program, which remains the single clear objective of the war, to end decades of failed diplomatic and economic measures to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The United States had to assist Israel with capabilities like the GBU-57 to destroy Iranian infrastructure and push toward the only real solution: Iran giving up their nuclear program. Now it is up to Iran’s leadership, but President Trump has ensured that Iran will not be able to achieve a nuclear weapon during his tenure.

We now await full battle damage assessments of the three sites struck, especially Fordow, which lies buried deep beneath a mountain. But without a doubt, the United States did what no other country could in damaging Iran’s nuclear program deep underground. This action joins Israel’s historic operations that include the elimination of over 14 high-ranking nuclear scientists and many parts of Iran’s nuclear weapon pursuit, from missile assembly to uranium and plutonium enrichment sites. The combined effect is a massive strategic blow to Iran’s long-running efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

The first ever use of the 30,000-pound GBU-57 weapon has been used in war. This was the largest B-2 stealth bomber operational strike in history and the second longest B-2 bomber flight ever flown, only second to those following 9/11.

The United States is not at war with Iran. The United States has not declared war on Iran. The United States did use military force to assist Israel in achieving a limited goal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. A few voices have criticized President Trump for not getting congressional authorization before attacking Iran, but they are overlooking the historical record that since World War II, 99% of the time US presidents have used military force it was without explicit prior approval from Congress.

Last night was not just a military achievement. It was a strategic message written in steel, silence, and sky. The era of delay and denial is over. The world has changed. Iran’s path to the bomb has been shattered, and the consequences of rebuilding it will now come at a cost they can no longer afford.
  • Sunday, June 22, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon




For four hundred years, philosophers have tried to create a universal, secular, scalable, and workable system of ethics.

They have made important contributions—but none have produced a system that ordinary people can trust, use, and scale across cultures and domains. Most remain in the realm of theory, not practice.

The major attempts - utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Rawlsian justice, and others - may be elegant on paper, but they fall apart in the real world. At best, they’re useful for niche domains like medical ethics. But they can’t handle everyday moral dilemmas. They don’t scale from personal dilemmas to international conflict. Most importantly, their conclusions often feel obviously wrong to normal people with a functioning moral compass.

That’s why these systems remain trapped in the ivory tower of academia. Real people can’t use them. An ethical system that real people can’t use is, by definition, useless.

But what if such a system did exist - one that combines the clarity of principles with the flexibility of real-world judgment?

What if there were a moral framework that was secular (and therefore universal), scalable, and workable in the real world? What if it were also accessible, transparent, and auditable, so anyone could see how it reaches its conclusions, and test them against their own conscience?

As many of my readers know, I’ve created such a system. It avoids the fatal flaws of prior secular philosophies, while preserving their best intentions. It reframes the ethical conversation from “What does the world owe me?” to “What are my obligations - to myself, my family, my community, my nation, and the world?”

To illustrate: Imagine a common moral dilemma, like a government negotiating to release 50 hostages, but only by freeing 100 convicted terrorists. Utilitarianism might say yes (more lives saved); deontology might say no (never release murderers). My system weighs competing obligations: to save life, to protect future victims, and to uphold justice. It doesn’t give an instant answer: it gives a structured moral triage to weigh priorities transparently and traceably. Small details might sway the decision: have previous such swaps resulted in more deaths?  How do we weigh definitely saving lives immediately with potentially saving more in the future? All these factors can and must be weighed, but using a common framework of values and priorities. That’s the difference.

It’s built on the Jewish concept of brit - covenant. A network of promises and mutual obligations, not rights and entitlements. And while it’s inspired by the Jewish ethical system that has worked for thousands of years, it requires no belief in God to use. It is a secular system—but not a secularization of relativism. It is morally grounded, coherent, and human-centered.

This may be the first secular ethical system that proves morality without God is not just possible, but operationalizable, self-correcting, and morally superior to Enlightenment-derived rights frameworks.

Even as I've been working on this project, I've noticed that my own political thinking has changed. My tendency to trust others - even commentors I respect - has lessened, as I have a methodology and a tool to ask and help answer the real question: is this moral?  Which is really the only question that we should be asking, about everything.

What follows is a high-level overview of the implications of such a framework being widely accepted. I’ve explored its structure in detail elsewhere, but here I want to focus on what changes when a system like this becomes popular.

What Would Change if This Were Widely Adopted?

Politics would be transformed.
Today, too many people outsource their moral thinking to political tribes. But with this framework, anyone could test a political proposal, not by asking “what does my side say?” but “is this the right thing to do?

Politicians would face new accountability.
If they violated this shared ethical framework, they would be seen as acting immorally: not just “wrong” in the partisan sense, but wrong in a deeper, more enduring way. Arguments wouldn’t disappear, but they’d be grounded in shared moral language, not empty slogans.

Education would improve.
Schools would teach ethics alongside literacy and math. Not as abstract theory, but as a practical method for decision-making. Because the framework draws on values shared across cultures, it wouldn’t alienate anyone: it would unify. And it would raise a generation of thoughtful, reflective, morally grounded young people.

Business would change.
Corporations could still pursue profit, but they'd be expected to explain their actions in moral terms. If they exploited workers or harmed the public, they’d face moral backlash, not just PR problems. Ethical accountability would become a baseline expectation.

Even conflict would be elevated.
Nations and communities would still struggle over scarce resources. But instead of zero-sum battles or cynical diplomacy, there could be a common framework for dialogue. One that asks not “how do we win?” but “how do we win without violating our values?” and "is there a way that we can both get what we want?"

Of course, ethical systems already exist - religious traditions, human rights declarations, philosophical ideals. But they rarely function as systems in the lives of individuals. They offer values, but not structures. Or they offer laws, but not triage. My framework bridges this gap: it is morally grounded, but also operational. It doesn’t require belief, only integrity.

This wouldn’t be a utopia. But it would be a better world - more sane, more just, more fulfilling.

And it could all start with a single shift in perspective:

From “what does the world owe me?”
To “what is the best thing for me to do?”

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can test this system for yourself at AskHillel.com. It’s open, transparent, and ready to be challenged.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

By Daled Amos

Israel's motivation in attacking Iran if pretty clear, even if people forget just how far back it goes and how long Israel has been expected to live with the threat of a nuclear Iran:


That's 20 years of the Iranian threat of nuclear annihilation.

But how about the US?
What justification does it have for getting involved?
There are suggestions that this is not America's fight and the US is just doing Israel's bidding.

Here are some reminders of why this is America's fight too:

o Iran Hostage Crisis (November 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981)

Backed by the Iranian government, Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days. This was in violation of international law regarding diplomatic immunity.

o Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983)

The Islamic Jihad Organization (not to be confused with the group Islamic Jihad), a precursor to Iran's proxy Hezbollah, conducted a suicide bombing on the US Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen. This was part of Iran’s support for proxy groups targeting U.S. forces during the Lebanese Civil War. The US State Department designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984.

o Kidnapping and Murder of CIA Station Chief William Buckley (March 16, 1984)

The Islamic Jihad Organization, with Iranian backing, kidnapped and tortured CIA station chief William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. He was killed after 15 months in captivity. This was part of a series of hostage takings targeting US personnel.

o Khobar Towers Bombing (June 25, 1996)

Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hejaz carried out a truck bombing at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and injuring 498 others. The attack targeted U.S. military personnel stationed in the region.

o Kidnapping of FBI Agent Robert Levinson (March 9, 2007)

Robert Levinson was kidnapped on Kish Island, Iran. Iran denied responsibility, but evidence suggests Iranian intelligence was involved.

o Support for IED Attacks in Iraq (2003–2011)

EFPs, attributed to Iran’s Quds Force led by Qassem Soleimani, killed 196 U.S. troops and injured 861 between 2005 and 2011. It notes the sophistication of EFPs, requiring precise machining, and their use by Iranian-backed militias like Kataib Hezbollah.

o Attempted Assassination Plot on U.S. Soil (October 2011)

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington, D.C., using a bomb at a restaurant. The plot was foiled by U.S. authorities.

o Capture of U.S. Sailors in the Persian Gulf (January 12, 2016)

Iranian forces detained 10 U.S. Navy sailors after their boats drifted into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. The sailors were released after 15 hours, but the incident was seen as a provocative act.


Iran-backed militias conducted over 200 drone and rocket attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria, protesting U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza conflict. These attacks caused injuries but no U.S. fatalities.

For decades, Iran has been chanting, "Death to America!"



Maybe Iran should not be so surprised that the US took Iran seriously and finally did something about it.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Sunday, June 22, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Some people like to claim that there is "no evidence" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But while there might not be a smoking gun available to the West, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that only the willfully blind - or those who share Iran's desire to wipe out Israel - can say something like that.

Here's a summary:

The fortified Natanz and Fordow underground enrichment sites were not declared by Iran to the IAEA. Iran was required to reveal them under existing regulations and did not. They only allowed inspections after the IAEA found out about them from intelligence sources. 

Fordow's size is inconsistent with civilian nuclear energy purposes.

 In January 2023, IAEA inspectors found uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at Fordow, dangerously close to the 90% threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Iran didn't declare it as it was supposed to have. There is no reason for this to exist in a peaceful civilian research or nuclear program.

Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% level was up to  408.6 kg by May 2025. The IAEA notes that 60% enrichment has no credible civilian use, as nuclear power plants typically require 3-5% enrichment, and research reactors rarely need more than 20%.

Iran has limited IAEA access to sites since 2021, and it removed remote monitoring equipment in 2022.

The IAEA had found man-made uranium particles at three undeclared sites, and Iran refused to provide a credible explanation.

In 2021, the IAEA confirmed that Iran has begun producing uranium metal, which has no civilian use.

Iran's development and deployment of advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium much faster than older models has pretty much no reason besides the capability of quickly producing nuclear weapons.

The Sanjarian site, which was known to have been used for nuclear weapons research in the early 2000s, was re-activated in recent years. The IAEA never visited Sanjarian. (Israel bombed it at least twice.)

The IAEA found a large steel chamber at Parchin that it suspected was used for weaponization research, but Iran heavily restricted its access to the site and engaged in clean-up activities before allowing inspectors under their direct supervision. Even so, the IAEA found evidence of man made uranium there.

Also in the Parchin complex, there was evidence that Iran hid critical flash X-ray testing equipment in Taleghan, which Israel bombed last October. Reports and satellite imagery seem to confirm its clandestine nuclear weapons use. 

In 2018, Israel accused Iran of hiding a secret nuclear site at Turquzabad. The IAEA said only two weeks ago that Iran refused to give any “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Turquzabad, Varamin, and Marivan (where intelligence indicated high explosives tests in 2011).

In 2019, Israel identified Abadeh as a suspected nuclear weapons development site. Satellite imagery showed cleanup efforts, including the destruction of buildings, shortly afterwards. 

Iran's ballistic missiles appear to be designed specifically to carry nuclear warheads. For example, Iran’s Ghadr and Emad missiles feature triconic (tapered, conical) warhead designs, which are a requirement for nuclear warheads to survive atmospheric reentry, unlike blunt-nosed warheads typically used for conventional explosives.

I'm probably missing some. 

If only one or two of these were true, then perhaps some people could reasonably think that there are credible explanations for them that Iran, for whatever reason, cannot provide. But when you see them all together, and consider that Israel and other countries have additional intelligence beyond these widely known facts, it is absurd to think that Iran has not been actively working on a nuclear weapon. 











Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Sunday, June 22, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
The June issue of Harper's Magazine features the posthumous letter of "Palestinian journalist" Hossam Shabat, where he says "I believe this land is ours, and it has been the highest honor of my life to die defending it."


Seen after Shabat's death in March, the IDF released documentation that they did indeed target him, just like Shabat predicted - but it was because he was a sniper for Hamas, not because he worked for Al Jazeera. And they released the Hamas document they uncovered last October that proved it.


Harper's could have mentioned that little fact. It chose not to. 

It seems unlikely that the magazine was unaware of this. They just wanted to ensure that their readers were unaware of it.

Most of media bias is what is not reported.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Saturday, June 21, 2025

  • Saturday, June 21, 2025
From Ian:

Trump confirms US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites
The US conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, namely Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, US President Donald Trump confirmed on Truth Social on Saturday night.

"All planes are now outside of Iran's airspace. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home," Trump wrote.

"We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this," he added.

"NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!" he concluded.

Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes, a White House official confirmed.

US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Trump then retweeted a social media post by an open-source intelligence analyst claiming that "Fordow is gone."

Trump also added that he will give a public address at the White House "regarding our very successful military operation in Iran" at 10 p.m. adding that "This is a historic moment for the United States, Israel and the world."

"Iran must now agree to end this war," Trump's post on Truth Social concluded.

Trump expressed hope that the strikes would push the Iranian regime into negotiation, and "doesn’t currently plan additional US actions inside," sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Additionally, the US reached out to Iran to say that it would not plan regime change efforts, CBS reported.

Iran confirmed Fordow war struck
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps denied the strikes occurred, stating that "no evidence has been released so far to confirm Trump’s claim," adding "it is possible that his statement is merely a media show."

The three nuclear facilities have been evacuated, Iranian national television confirmed.

Iran had been expecting attacks on Fordow for several nights, the facility had been evacuated before the airstrikes occurred, and did not suffer irreversible damage, according to an advisor to Iran's Parliament Speaker.

"Two things are certain: 1. Knowledge cannot be bombed. 2. This time, the gambler will definitely lose," the advisor added.

Three senior Iranian officials anonymously told The New York Times that they believed the strikes were conducted at around 2.30 a.m. in Iran.

An Iranian official cited by Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency confirmed that part of Fordow nuclear site was attacked by "enemy airstrikes."

A commentator on Iranian state television later stated that every American civilian or military personnel in the region became a legitimate target.

Six bunker-buster bombs were used during the strike on Fordow, with 30 tomahawk missiles being used on the additional nuclear sites, according to Fox News.
Lee Smith: Trump’s Opponents Want to Humble the USA
Most of the MAGA influencers tweeting against Trump’s Iran policy don’t know that what they’re actually validating is Barack Obama’s foreign policy. They’re just parroting the messaging passed down from the higher levels, where operatives affiliated with the Koch network and its various think tanks have been avidly promoting the Iranian nuke since Obama’s first term. Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi, for instance, has no other function in Washington except to promote Iran’s nuclear program—that’s been his job for almost two decades. Now, of course, he pursues his aims as the vice president at the Koch-sponsored Quincy Institute, providing talking points not to the left but to the right, or, more specifically, its realist, or “restraintist,” school.

Realism’s leading policy intellectual is John Mearsheimer, whose theory of the Middle East is simple, though not obviously realistic. He argues that the region is volatile because of Israel, which has the bomb. Accordingly, stabilizing the Middle East means deterring Israel by getting Iran the bomb, too.

Mearsheimer’s theory is based on two assumptions: One, despite its millenarian convictions, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a rational actor; and two, despite the evidence of many thousands of years, Israel is the reason the Middle East is unstable. Is either pillar of Mearsheimer’s realist reading of the region true? To believe so, you’d have to ignore that Iran opened hostilities with Israel in the early 1980s by sending Hezbollah and other terror proxies against the Jewish state. And even if you get past that salient fact, to imagine the region would be tranquil if only Israel didn’t have the bomb, or didn’t exist, you’ll have to set aside intra-Muslim conflict dating back to the founding of Islam, as well as other sectarian fights that neither Israel, nor the Jews who lived in the region before Israel was founded, have anything to do with. The Jews, after all, are a small Middle East minority—imagine a narrative holding that the Yazidis or the Chaldeans are the villain in the millennia-long story of the Middle East. Yes, it’s nuts—and it’s exactly the obsessive focus on Israel that makes Mearsheimer’s theory appealing to people obsessed with Jews.

The crucial point is this: Israel is a U.S. ally and thus a token of American power in the Middle East. Deterring Israel means hobbling America. This was precisely the point of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He said he wanted to create “a geopolitical equilibrium” in which, as he explained, Saudi Arabia would learn to share the region with Iran. But that was misleading. Riyadh, like Jerusalem, is simply a reflection of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. Since the 1945 agreement between FDR and Ibn Saud, founder of the modern Saudi state, Riyadh’s main role in the U.S.-led postwar order is to pump cheap oil to keep the U.S. economy humming, in exchange for American protection.

For more than eight decades, the United States has been the Middle East’s main power. Aside from the George W. Bush administration’s screwup in Iraq, it’s been a remarkably successful enterprise, thanks in part to allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Balancing the Saudis and Israelis against Iran, as Obama and Mearsheimer and the restraintists want, means weakening the United States. Obama was explicit about it, from his apology tour on: His historic task was to humble America. It appears that Tucker Carlson’s obsessions have sadly led him to the same place, for his lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin justified Iran’s nuclear ambitions on the grounds that it needs the bomb to deter the country he calls home.

The self-described pro-Trump opposition to Trump’s Iran policy is just Obama in a MAGA skin suit—opposed to American exceptionalism and keen to cripple what it believes is truly the world’s most dangerous country: ours.
Iran: the cradle of Islamo-leftism
Think of theorist Judith Butler, who in 2006 said that ‘Hamas [and] Hezbollah [are] social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of the global left’. As sociologist Eva Illouz points out, Butler, alongside other US-based academics, effectively defended the theocratic, repressive nature of the Islamic Republic in 2009 on the grounds that the separation of state and religion and freedom of expression are Western norms. Supposedly, they are being used to unfairly judge and demonise the Islamic Republic.

This leftist critique of criticism of Islamism, of Islamic states and of blasphemy laws, effectively mirrors the Islamic Republic’s own self-justification – that it is engaged in a battle against the imposition of Western culture and norms. This is not just an intellectual move on the part of prominent Western left-wingers. It has practical, political consequences, too.

It allows privileged Western leftists to ignore the resistance and struggles of the Iranian people themselves. To wilfully disregard the strong strain of anti-Hamas, anti-Hezbollah feeling in Iran – ‘death to Palestine’ has been heard chanted at protests since at least 2018. It allows them to dismiss the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009, after a disputed presidential election, as just so much Western propaganda. And to downplay, in the name of anti-imperialism, the huge wave of anti-regime protests at the tail-end of 2019, which cost the lives of over a thousand protesters.

Indeed, against the background of the 2019 protests, leading American leftists, including Angela Davis, Doug Henwood and Vijay Prashad, signed a ‘Letter against US imperialism’, effectively defending the Islamic regime against US and Israeli ‘aggression’, calling for ‘political stability’ in Iran, and dismissing talk of liberal democracy and civil rights as just so much neocolonial cant.

Then there were the ‘Women, life, freedom’ protests which shook Iran in 2022. Hundreds of thousands bravely took to the streets, following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who had been detained by the regime’s morality police for showing her hair in public. Yet the Western left seemed far happier looking the other way, as Iranians put their lives on their line in the fight for the most basic of freedoms.

What we’ve seen over the past week, as zealous ‘progressives’ happily take the side of one of the most repressive, anti-Semitic states on Earth, is hardly a surprise. It is the culmination of the Western left’s dark, cultural turn. Of the degeneration of its anti-imperialism into an all-encompassing anti-Westernism.

Writing in Le Nouvel Observateur in 1978, an Iranian feminist took issue with the Western left’s embrace of the Islamo-leftism then insurgent in Iran. She wrote that while Islam may appear as desirable to someone like Foucault, ‘many Iranians are like me, distressed and desperate about the thought of an “Islamic” government. We know what it is. Everywhere outside Iran, Islam serves as a cover for a feudal or pseudo-revolutionary oppression…’. She concluded that, ‘the left should not let itself be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease’.

Too few Western leftists heeded her warning then. That they continue to be seduced by the ‘cure’ to Western-sickness, despite the reality of the Islamic Republic, is a sign of the left’s intellectual and moral collapse. Its descent into a form of radical reaction that the Ayatollah Khomeini himself would be proud of.

Friday, June 20, 2025

From Ian:

Matthew Continetti: The Lawless Left and Its Liberal Camp Followers
Then came October 7. Within hours of the attack on Israel, pro-Hamas protests spread on college campuses. Liberal administrators did nothing. They barely lifted a finger to protect Jewish students and guarantee that every student could study without harassment from keffiyeh-wearing thugs. University presidents found themselves unable to condemn calls for genocide. They lost their jobs—justly.

The Biden administration denounced anti-Semitism and pledged support for Israel. But, as the war continued, Israel became a liability within the Democratic Party. Hamas sympathizers grew in number and intensity. Biden slow-walked military aid and pressured Israel to make a deal with Hamas. Harris refused to appear with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When hecklers accused her of supporting genocide, she could only respond, “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”

She spoke. And Trump won. The Democrats’ inability to confront and contain anti-Semitism on America’s campuses and city streets was a preview of things to come during Trump’s second term. The cause may change—Gaza one day, ICE the next. The spineless liberal response to radicalism does not.

Republicans fell into a similar trap in the years after the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump supporters who soft-pedal the events of that day run the same risk as liberals who succumb to tribalism and dogma. At the same time, January 6 also exposed the hollowness of the liberal position: They found a riot they wouldn’t call “mostly peaceful” and brought down the heavy hand of government on everyone involved.

The pattern holds. On June 12, Mayor Bass imposed a curfew on downtown Los Angeles. The protests diminished. Yet she still held Trump responsible for the mess, not the actual criminals. “Every time you do something like this,” she said, referring to Trump’s bringing in the National Guard, “you provoke the population.”

Madame Mayor needs a refresher course in cause and effect. Democrats who wink at violent protest don’t just risk their electoral future. They guarantee more chaos.
The War Against the War Against the Jews
But there is a problem beyond objections to the method, means, and motivation of Trump officials in fighting anti-Semitism. Any sustained response—even one less assertive than Trump’s—to anti-Semitism in America must be grounded in law. And while some of the administration’s actions will likely be sustained in court rulings, particularly those regarding the almost unassailable executive authority over immigration, others will go by the wayside instantaneously when another party takes the White House, and perhaps before. It is for this reason that Congress is so critical.

Unfortunately, on this question, as on so many others, Congress has embraced rhetoric over action.

In 2023–24 as the anti-Semitic conflagration swept through academia, many on Capitol Hill recognized the characteristic role of TikTok in fanning the flames. The Chinese social media company played a critical role in popularizing anti-Semitic tropes and in organizing anti-Semitic gatherings. And Congress did act, if admittedly for reasons going well beyond TikTok’s promotion of anti-Semitism. It required the president to shut down or force the sale of TikTok. Donald Trump has done neither, choosing not to enforce the letter of the law. Congress has done nothing, effectively undercutting its own legislative power. One can at least take some solace in the fact that this law was passed; not so, most others.

Like the Antisemitism Awareness Act, there have been several important pieces of legislation introduced relating to foreign donations to universities, including additional restrictions for so-called countries of concern; support for terrorism by nonprofits and organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP); additional reporting requirements for student-visa holders engaging in anti-Semitic or pro-terror activities; and more.

One bill, the DETERRENT Act, introduced by Representative Michael Baumgartner (R-WA-5) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, would lower the financial threshold for universities on reporting foreign gifts and contracts, particularly from countries of concern. It would also require colleges and universities to disclose detailed information about all substantial foreign donations and partnerships. Institutions that fail to comply with new transparency standards would face the risk of losing access to federal student-aid programs. The act also directs the Department of Education to create a publicly accessible database of reported foreign gifts, and it authorizes new penalties for noncompliance. It has gone nowhere in the Senate.

The second bill passed the House in 2024: Introduced by Representative Claudia Tenney (R-NY), the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act legislated tax relief for hostages and, more important, established a process by which the secretary of the Treasury could designate a nonprofit as a “terrorist supporting organization” if, within the previous three years, it has provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. That provision in the Tenney bill made it largely intact into this year’s HR 1, the “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” before it was quietly stripped out in committee.

Other bills relating to punishing compliance with BDS, requiring greater transparency regarding foreign donations to both NGOs and universities, requiring public disclosure of donors to nonprofits receiving federal funding, and demanding disclosure of university rules regarding anti-Semitism have been introduced, only to wither on the committee vine.

Congress’s failure to enact laws to address the proliferation of anti-Semitic activities in the United States, on and off campus, means that, just as was the case during the Trump-Biden transition in 2021, any future cross-party transitions will see a slew of reversals of executive branch executive orders, as well as rules and regulations promulgated while Donald Trump was in office. And the policies enacted therein will simply cease to exist.

Nonetheless, Congress has not been entirely supine. Investigations into organizations such as American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and its subsidiary groups continue in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Even more encouraging, the State of Virginia, where AMP is headquartered, is digging aggressively into AMP’s and Students for Justice in Palestine’s possible ties to terrorism. That probe began with a formal request for documents and information from AMP in late 2023, citing potential violations of state charity laws and links to the national SJP movement. AMP challenged the request in court, but, in mid-2024, a Richmond court rejected its arguments and ordered AMP to comply with the state’s inquiry. After further legal back-and-forth, the court reaffirmed in May 2025 that AMP must turn over the requested materials. The investigation is still underway.

So, yes, there is movement forward, but it is halting and confusing, and the enemies of Israel are still working relentlessly. The voices of Jew-hatred still screech. And the physical danger in which Jews on American soil find themselves is growing. This all contributes to a dispiriting feeling of failure for advocates of stronger measures to fight Jew-hatred. And there have been failures. But we cannot sink into despair, because that would lead to inaction. We must be as relentless as our foes. Congress must be pressured to cement into law the necessary safeguards ensuring that U.S. tax law, schools, and media do not become instruments of an increasingly anti-Semitic agenda. The critical initial steps require awareness and transparency, and fortunately, we now have much more of that than was the case just two years ago.

Before October 7, the malign agenda of foreign agitators and anti-Semites at home was largely obscured from view. Jews believed that the era of overt Jew-hatred was in the past. There is no one who believes that today. We know what the problem is, we know what needs to be done, and, while it will take time to institutionalize the kinds of protections imperative to keeping Jews safe in America, it will happen if we have perseverance and courage. We have seen anti-Semitism weaponized to murder and harass Jews around the world and at home. The time has come to turn the tables, and to weaponize anti-Semitism against its perpetrators and sponsors.
I Taught My Students the ‘Iliad.’ Then They Went to War.
My student was well trained for combat but was never trained to recognize what war might do to his soul. He had learned the high moral values of the IDF—such as “the purity of arms,” meaning that soldiers should use their weapons and force only to the necessary extent and must maintain their humanity even during combat. But he learned nothing about the shocking violence required in combat situations. The Iliad gave him a deeper understanding of what human beings are capable of. The Illiad’s ending, with Achilles and Priam mourning together, gave him an opening for hope. Even from these depths, one can return to humanity.

Reading Homer After October 7
We spent eight classes on the Iliad, and when we had completed it, I breathed a sigh of relief. I thought the difficult part was behind us. The Odyssey, which came next, had generally been less traumatic for the students: It deals with a man returning home to his wife and son. A simple story, right? His trip home from the Trojan War takes 10 years, and the first half of the book primarily deals with Odysseus’s adventures during his journey. But then Odysseus arrives at his island, Ithaca, and the pace of events slows down substantially. The rest of the book is dedicated to describing the week that begins with his arrival on the island’s shores and ends with his full recognition as its king. In these pages, Homer devotes considerable space to describing his meetings with his wife, Penelope, who waited for him for 20 years.

When Odysseus enters his home, he is disguised as a beggar. His wife is surrounded by dozens of violent young men who seek to conquer her heart and inherit their home. In the evening, after the suitors have left, Penelope and Odysseus speak intimately. She tells him openly about her pain in having her husband away for two decades, but he continues to pretend he is someone else. At this point in my class, the students are angry with him: “Why doesn’t he tell her the truth? How can he deceive her after everything she has suffered for him?” But one student who served in the war and was married understood Odysseus’s actions. “Even when I return home from Gaza and my wife asks me how it was, I lie,” he said. “I can’t tell her what I really went through and I’m not sure she’s capable of hearing it.”

The second time Odysseus and Penelope meet, he has revealed his identity and eliminated all the suitors. Penelope comes out to meet him joyfully, but upon seeing him she isn’t sure whether to approach him. Their son, Telemachus, cannot bear the standoff and scolds her. In the past, my students would always agree with Telemachus: “Why is she hardening her heart now?” This year they sided with Penelope. One of the students shared: “When my husband went on leave from Gaza for the first time, he sent me a text message and my heart burst with joy. He sent another text when he got off the bus and I suddenly felt distrust. When he stood at the doorway I froze. Is this the man I said goodbye to two months ago?”

Another student, who got married during the war, suggested that Penelope is consciously examining the returned Odysseus. In her own way, she too has been fighting for the past 20 years: initially raising a child alone and in recent years preserving the home and maintaining her independence against the pressure of suitors. Penelope wonders if the man who has now returned is worthy of her efforts?

Reading Homer After October 7
“This thought occupied me during the war,” said my student. “I tried to act in a way that would justify my return, the worry and anxieties my wife experiences while waiting at home. I tried to see where, within my framework as a warrior on the battlefield, I could care for the person I would be the day after the war.”

At the course’s concluding session, one of the students said: “I always thought the Iliad was the difficult story. Only when I returned home from the war did I understand that The Odyssey is the real challenge. War is just preparation for the return.”

Coleman Ruiz, a former Tier One U.S. Navy SEAL joint task force commander, recounts that the tool that helped him cope with the process of returning to civilian life comes from Joseph Campbell’s formula for all great stories: the “hero’s journey.” The journey has three stages, each challenging in its own right: departure, initiation, and return. The journey begins with a crisis in society that causes the hero to embark on the path of trials. After successfully completing his initiation, he is called to return to society with the wisdom he has gained in order to contribute to its healing and growth. For many years I taught these ideas in my fantasy literature course, but I never thought about them in the context of warriors who left their homes to defend their country. The thought of our returning warriors as the third part of the hero’s journey significantly changed my perspective: The returnees need our help, but we need them no less.

Jonathan Shay, an American psychiatrist who treated Vietnam War veterans, argues that there are certain aspects of war’s impact on fighters’ psyches that Homer identifies better than today’s mental health professionals. I am not an expert on war or mental therapy, but teaching the Iliad and The Odyssey during the war made clear to me the unique ability of this ancient literature to give expression and framework, meaning and significance, to the experience of war and the return from it.

Reading Homer After October 7Reading Homer After October 7
I always took pride in learning from my students, but honestly, how much could young people in their twenties really teach me about a book I’d read more than a dozen times? The war reversed the roles: Now they were truly teachers and I was the student.

In the past two years I learned things about the Iliad and The Odyssey that before the war I never understood. My students taught me so much more: They taught me about fear and love, courage and sacrifice, about personal coping and about the ability to act together despite disagreements. The journey of return is not only for the soldiers and their families but for all of Israeli society: We sent this generation into battle and we must ensure their return. Moreover, we have much to learn from them. The ancient stories provide a language that can help us all complete the journey.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive