Once again, @PeterBeinart in the @NYTimes supports those who violate Jewish rights on campus

Peter Beinart writes in the New York Times with an article originally titled "You Want to Protect Jewish Students? What About Jewish Student Protesters? and later "Trump Doesn’t Want to Protect All Jewish Students — Just Those on His Team."

You can already see where this is going:

On April 29, 2024, Tess Segal, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Florida, joined her fellow activists at a prominent plaza on campus calling on the university to divest from weapons manufacturers and boycott academic institutions in Israel. Some protesters studied or played cards. Later they read obituaries of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip.

Then law enforcement moved in. And although Ms. Segal says she did not resist arrest, she was handcuffed and taken to jail, where she was held overnight.

....In an era in which students without U.S. citizenship are snatched off the street by federal agents, Ms. Segal’s punishment may seem comparatively mild. But her case contains a special irony. Ms. Segal is Jewish.

I didn't spend any time researching this specific case, but it is obvious from Beinart's description that Tess Segal was not arrested or discriminate against because of her Jewishness or her support for the Jewish state. On the contrary, she was part of a campus mob protesting against Jewish rights and to make an exception for academic freedom for Jewish Zionist students who may want to study in Israel or collaborate with their Israeli counterparts. 

Beinart can argue all he wants for free speech rights for anti-Zionists, but pretending that Jews are being targeted on campus for anti-Zionist speech and require special protection as Jewish Zionist students do is peak Beinart-style deception. 

His deceit extends to other examples in the article:

Since Oct. 7, at least four universities have temporarily suspended or placed on probation their chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace.

He doesn't mention that it was because they violated campus policies. Should Jewish students be allowed to violate policies because they are Jewish? Only if they agree with Beinart's anti-Zionist politics, it seems.

At a pro-Israel event at Rockland Community College at the State University of New York on Oct. 12, 2023, a Jewish student who briefly shouted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Jews for Palestine” was reportedly suspended for the rest of the academic year. 

This was an indoor event, a "Unity Gathering in Support of Israel," held while the kibbutzim were still smoldering. Most colleges recognize that disrupting an event is not free speech - it is a violation of the free speech rights of the organizers of the event.  In fact, many of the college suspensions of anti-Israel protesters are for that exact reason - there is no inherent right to disrupt normal activities on campus.

Beinart is claiming, in effect, that pro-Zionist Jews do not have the right to have their own events free from being interrupted, disrupted and shut down by protesters. He is against free speech when that speech goes against his hateful "principles."

In May 2024, a Jewish tenured professor in anthropology at Muhlenberg College said she was fired after she reposted an Instagram post that declared, in part: “Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable.” 

First of all, the post by Maura Finkelstein also said "Why should these genocide loving fascists be treated any different than any other flat out racist." She is directly saying that 90% of Jews - on campus or anywhere - should not have the same rights as anyone else and calling them fascists. Can anyone who attends her classes feel comfortable?

They don't. Beinart omits the other reason she was fired - because within a  week of October 7 she taught two classes of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas propaganda. In her own words, on October 12, "I had dedicated both of my classes to contextualizing the events unfolding in Gaza and giving my students space to ask questions. ...In our first meeting, the provost told me that several Title VI complaints had come to her through the college’s Title IX office; “Multiple students felt you created an unsafe atmosphere and that you have been targeting and harassing them.”

Beinart, skillfully posting half-truths and omitting context about college policies and the events he is describing, is pretending that Jewish students and faculty are being targeted when in most cases they were violating the rights of Jewish students whose opinions they disagree with. On campuses where free speech is supposedly a sacred right, Beinart is supporting those who want to quash it - in one direction.

His last example is even more absurd:

Even when protest has taken the form of Jewish religious observance, it often has been shut down. Last fall, when Jewish students opposing the war during the holiday of Sukkot built Gaza solidarity sukkahs, temporary boothlike structures in which Jews eat, learn and sleep during the holiday, at least eight universities forcibly dismantled them, or required the students to do so, or canceled approval for their construction. (The universities said that the groups were not allowed to erect structures on campus.)

 These groups obviously tried to use sukkahs as a way to get around existing regulations against building encampments or other structures by pretending that they are for a religious purpose.  They clearly weren't - none of the people who built them would ever build a sukkah for religious purposes. They pervert Judaism for politics, and Beinart pretends that they were just practicing their religion - much like those who blow shofars at any "Jewish anti-Zionist" occasion and pretend that this is a religious obligation. 

No one is saying that anti-Israel students, Jewish or not, do not have the right for protests and speech that do not violate campus policies. Beinart is claiming that anti-Zionists, uniquely, have the right to violate campus policies. 

This is not a defense of free speech. It is a demand for privileged speech – for one side only.

By selectively presenting facts, omitting crucial context, and portraying violators of others' rights as victims, Peter Beinart is not merely misleading. He is manufacturing antisemitic propaganda: turning those who seek to destroy Jewish communal life on campus into the new “Jewish victims.” And the New York Times eagerly provides him the platform, without even basic fact-checking.

It’s not just deception. It’s complicity.

 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Leaked 1970 recording: Nasser told Gaddafi that Egypt washed its hands of the Palestinian issue, predicted Black September

Nasser meeting Gaddafi at airport August 3, 1970 (screenshot)

Arabic media is buzzing about a newly released recording of an August 3, 1970 meeting between Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. 

The recording was made only days before Egypt accepted the Rogers plan for a cease fire with Israel, and Nasser seems to explain his pragmatism while Gaddafi wants more war with Israel. Nasser expressed frustration that Egypt is bearing the brunt of wars with Israel and the Arab countries were not contributing their share, so he said  Egypt only wants the Sinai back and let everyone else try to defeat Israel, which will not happen because "the Jews are smart."

Nasser also said that he was willing to lose 10 Egyptian soldiers for every Jew they kill. 

Here is the part of the recording being transcribed in Arabic media:

1. Nasser’s Statement on Fighting and the Palestine Issue:
   “If someone wants to fight, let them fight. If someone wants to struggle, let them struggle. But today, they say either all of Palestine from the river to the sea or nothing. What the Iraqis are saying means we’re giving the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza to the Jews, and within a year or two, all these areas will be Judaized. America supports Israel with its money and weapons. How will Iraq liberate [Palestine] with a budget of 70 million pounds? It would’ve been easier, my brother Muammar. And don’t think I accepted this decision for personal gain. I know the fedayeen might come to kill me, or some Palestinians might say about this issue that Abdel Nasser betrayed and surrendered on the Palestine issue. Even some Egyptians might believe this talk. I know what I’m doing. The Iraqis might incite people and say Abdel Nasser betrayed the cause, surrendered on Palestine, and recognized Israel’s existence, like what Hardan said, or like in 1954 when they said I betrayed in the evacuation agreement with the British because I gave them the right to keep a base for seven years. Someone shot at me back then, and Mohammed Naguib and others stood against the agreement. But the point was that the British were leaving the country, and here, personal matters don’t matter at all.”
2. Nasser on the Risk of Repeating 1948:
   “Those who say we’ll liberate, we won’t liberate, and it’ll happen like in 1948. This is bitter talk, but who will liberate the West Bank? This means we’re giving the rest of Palestine to the Jews. Is that what’s wanted? Despite this, I say a peaceful solution is far off, meaning there needs to be a serious international situation to push America to pressure Israel, because America is the one in control of the matter to pressure Israel to withdraw. But a withdrawal without concessions? I don’t think that will happen.”
3. Nasser’s Call for Others to Fight:
   “Those who want fighting and liberation, go ahead. Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Yasser Arafat, and George Habash, go ahead, meet, and we’ll boycott the meeting. Fight, and I’m ready to give you 50 million pounds in aid. Leave us alone, let us focus on our western front and Sinai.”
4. Nasser on the Global Challenge:
   “My problem is I want to liberate the West Bank, to take back the land we lost in 1967, and then work to take back the land we lost in 1948. But to reach Tel Aviv against all the great powers, especially America, Russia, France, England, and the whole world that says Israel must keep this land because Israel is threatened by Arab aggression—that’s an international stance. It means we’d be fighting the whole world.”
5. Gaddafi’s Response and Nasser’s Counter:
   Gaddafi responded: “So what, we’ll fight the whole world, and if we can’t survive, so be it.” Nasser replied: “No, the Jews are smarter than us. The Jews planned for 25 years. They took all of Palestine. In 1947, they took the partition; in 1948, they took more than the partition; in 1956, they took Sinai and annexed it, then gave it back to us; and in 1967, they took the rest of Palestine entirely and now say they must continue and take from the Nile to the Euphrates. We, as Arabs, always say either we do it today or it’s useless. We sit and plan, and my opinion now is if we can take this part, we take it regardless, and then we create situations to recover the rest. But how do you liberate Tel Aviv? The Jews are superior to us on land and in the air, despite all we’ve done and all we’ve spent. I’m not saying this because I’m defeatist. I’m saying if we want to achieve a goal, we must be realistic and know how to achieve it.”
6. Gaddafi on Military Mobilization and Nasser’s Response:
   Gaddafi said: “We achieve it by mobilizing military force.” Nasser replied: “Mobilize, I’m not stopping anyone from mobilizing their military force. The two military forces that can mobilize are Iraq and [Algerian president] Boumediene, and they can spend. Mobilize these forces and give us 16 planes. I don’t want planes, I told Boumediene I don’t want planes, I want pilots. At the Rabat conference, I told them I want money and pilots. I need money to buy weapons; I have contracts, I’ll pay 25 million. I have planes that need pilots. He said, ‘I can’t give you pilots.’ We went to the Soviet Union, and they gave us pilots for the MiG-21s, the F13s. They said they’d give us 40, they gave us 16. Do you know how many planes we’ve lost from 1967 until now? 102 in training and battles. There’s no one-sided attrition; there’s attrition and counter-attrition. When I come to wear you down today, you also have to keep saying you’ll wear me down. When we decided on attrition, we knew the Jews would counter with attrition. We calculated and said we’d accept counter-attrition up to this: 10 Egyptians for one Jewish soldier, and that means we’re winning. Even if we kill one Jew and they kill 10 Egyptians, we’re satisfied with that. No one in the world sacrifices like this. But I could’ve sat like the Iraqis and not had a ceasefire. They all complained about the number of dead and wounded on the Canal front. Talk is very easy, saying we’ll mobilize our forces. We’ve been talking about this since 1948, it’s not the first time, and no one has done anything. I have a suggestion: go to Baghdad and try. We’re staying out of it, we’re the ones for the defeatist peaceful solution, and I can bear that with a clear conscience. Go ahead, those who want to fight, let them fight. Aren’t you saying this is an Arab battle?”
7. Nasser on Egypt’s Focus on Sinai:
   “We won’t act on anything, and we’ll agree to talk only about Sinai. We have no business with the Palestine issue, secure borders, or anything else. We’ll talk only about Sinai. Let them leave Sinai and the borders, and whatever help you want from us, we’ll help you with. It’s like throwing him into the sea and saying, ‘Don’t get wet.’ You hold us, throw us into the sea, and say, ‘Don’t get wet.’ Now the situation is like this: we’re the only ones fighting, and you tell us, ‘Go ahead, fight.’ You’ll fight the Jews, they’ll hit you, and then you’ll fight us along with the Jews.”

1. Palestinian Fedayeen and Jordan’s Crisis (not in Arabic media)

• Nasser predicted the Black September uprising in Jordan the next month: “They’re planning now to stage a coup in Jordan. I wish, I wish the fedayeen would take responsibility in Jordan. Of course, they’ll clash with King Hussein, but if they took power, they’d be people facing reality, with responsibilities ahead of them. How would they liberate the West Bank?”

In 1967, some 15,000 Egyptian soldiers were killed, compared to about 800 Israelis, of whom maybe 500-600 were killed on the Egyptian front, so the ratio was way beyond the 10-1 ratio that Egypt would have been happy with - closer to 20-1. 

Nasser's claim of losing 102 aircraft only refers to the War of Attrition after the Six Day War, since Egypt lost about 400 planes during that war. Israel lost about 25 planes during the War of Attrition. 

The recording seems legitimate, since Nasser's son says it is and he published it on his own news site. The rest of his family say that Nasser never abandoned his support for Palestinians. 

There appear to be some other details from the recording not mentioned in Arab media.  Nasser also expressed concern that Israel considers the West Bank to be Israeli land, not occupied: "“The Jews in Sinai can’t take anything from it. The West Bank, I mean, there are more than a million people in the West Bank, they’ll be finished. And the Arab land in Jerusalem, Tel Qarm, Hebron, Nablus, Bethlehem, all this talk, it’s all different. And the Israelis’ words, I read their statements, they want this land, they consider it their homeland, not occupied land. One of them stood up and said,‘We can’t say this is occupied land, this is our land,’ and those who say it’s occupied are liars.'”

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

04/27 Links: How Israeli Military Technology Continues to Improve the US Military; Gaza war papers reveal secret planning with Iran, Hezbollah; Qatar sabotaged hostage deal for Hamas

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Saluting the IDF for reminding us of the broader mission

A video of troops in Gaza is broadcast, as is a clip of the honorees on a field trip to the area of the terrorist invasion barely more than a year and a half ago.

Every recipient is announced individually, with a description of his or her unique contribution to the war effort. A picture of each is displayed on a massive screen as he/she walks to the podium, salutes and receives a plaque.

The applause is loud. Genuine. But it is nearly deafening when an officer in the new haredi brigade is presented with a commendation.

The roaring reflects an understanding that encouragement and praise are better for ultra-Orthodox enlistment than hostile coercion. It also illustrates a kind of societal unity purported by the press and protest movement to be non-existent.

Cohesiveness comes across, as well, in the closing address by the commander of the ground forces. He speaks of a collective responsibility for the Jewish homeland, weaving a thread through Zionist history to the present.

He pays tribute to the memory of the Six Million and to all those who fell or were wounded defending the country, including during the current multi-front battle. His remarks are delivered between Yom Hashoah, the commemoration of the Nazi genocide, and Yom Hazikaron, Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism—the eve of Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day.

His words hold special significance for the men and women at the gathering who are returning to fight in Gaza. Yet, given the nature and extent of the ongoing war against the Jews, they should be repeated and resonate far beyond the confines of a conference hall.

This necessity becomes particularly apparent when leaving the premises, after standing to sing “Hatikvah,” Israel’s national anthem. The mood gradually shifts from celebratory to pragmatic—a resumption of the usual daily grind, accompanied by a pervasive gnawing anxiety about the future.

Ben Shapiro: Defending Israel simply means telling the truth

In the year and a half since Israel experienced the darkest day in its history, Ben Shapiro, a Jewish-American publicist, author, and thought leader, has become a fixture in Israeli public discourse. He hasn't left the information battlefront for a moment: debating journalists who know nothing about Israel but are quick to attack it, answering critics in the media, and fighting back on every possible front.

Shapiro's uncompromising advocacy for Israel has earned him many enemies worldwide. This week, when it was announced he had been chosen to light a torch at the Independence Day ceremony, it surprisingly became apparent that he has critics in Israel as well. A vocal minority from the left attacked Shapiro and those who selected him, attempting to portray him as "controversial" – a familiar tactic used whenever Israel decides to honor someone who fights relentlessly for the country without self-pity or selfish calculation, but doesn't belong to the "correct" left-wing circles.

Shapiro remains unfazed by attempts to smear him as "backwards" regarding homosexuality, abortion, and transgender issues. "I've seen many attempts to distort my actual positions from many on the Israeli left, particularly in the media," he says in an exclusive interview with "Israel Hayom." "It's not particularly surprising – their way of distortion is well-known. I have never said homosexuality is a mental illness, nor do I believe that. Here are my actual positions: I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, and that the state should offer benefits to such marriages because it's in the state's inherent interest to support father-mother-children nuclear families. I do not believe in the regulation of same-sex relationships. I am entirely pro-life because I believe unborn human beings deserve to live. I believe men cannot become women, that there are only two sexes (male and female), and that men with gender dysphoria remain men."

But more than anything, he doesn't understand what connection his positions on these and other issues, whether someone likes them or not, have to the underhanded attempt to disqualify his selection to light the Independence Day torch – and along with him, the vast majority of Israelis don't understand either: "After all, even those who disagree with me on these issues should celebrate and honor the establishment of the State of Israel, which represents the fulfillment of God's promise to the Jewish people and stands as a bulwark against enemies of the West. While I'm always happy to discuss my views and do so daily – for instance on my podcast, which is listened to by millions of people – what's far more important, particularly at this time in history, is recognizing that despite all our disagreements, we must not undermine the unity of celebrating Israel's Independence Day."

In this unifying message, he is right. Few know better than he how to distinguish between the essential and the trivial, between allies and enemies. It's no wonder that due to his willingness to defend Israel in every forum and at all times, he's often called "Israel's defender."

'I saw what radical Islam looks like': Saudi blogger Loay Alshareef dismantles Hamas' lies

"I've received death threats online, thank God they haven't translated into actual death threats yet," Loay Alshareef, the Saudi blogger who has become one of the prominent Arab voices defending Israel, shared. "But you know what? I used to be on the opposite side. I saw what radical Islam looks like. I know how it poisons the heads, minds, and hearts of Muslims, and I'm not going to be intimidated in any way."

This is Alshareef's third visit to Israel, following a brief 24-hour visit during Ramadan. This time, invited by the Jewish Statesmanship Center, he came to explain to the institute's graduates how to address the burning issues in the Arab world, in the new order in the Middle East after a year and a half of war that has completely transformed the region.

Alshareef, wearing a tailored suit and speaking with a distinct Arabic accent, has been one of the leading voices supporting Israel since the outbreak of Operation Strength and Sword. For his hundreds of thousands of social media followers, he explains in both Arabic and English how anti-Zionist activists and terrorist organizations, led by Hamas, inject propaganda and hatred of Israel into public discourse, flooding networks with what he calls "the big lie" about Israel.

"Until I was 20, I was the quintessential mainstream Arab-Muslim in the Muslim world – radical against Jews, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-everything related to most non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians," Alshareef recounted. "The indoctrination in schools throughout the Middle East was so radical that it completely shaped my worldview."

"Did everyone think like you?" I asked. "Most did," he responded. "Thank God things have now changed dramatically in Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates also has a wonderful ministry of tolerance. Many people have left radicalism behind, but it still maintains its influence on so many people across the region."

Alshareef's current visit lasted five days, during which he toured the City of David, where Jerusalem became the capital of the people of Israel, and Masada, where Jews fought to the death for their faith and nation. "Masada is proof of how Jews survived and fought back against those who wanted to destroy them. It's very important that people know the history of Masada and the Jewish rebellion against those who wanted to take the most important thing about the Jewish people – their identity."

Human shields: Israel bombed a Hezbollah warehouse in the middle of an urban civilian neighborhood

Israel bombed a building in Beirut's Hadath neighborhood today.

It was a large warehouse. According to reports, it contained many precision missiles. 

And it was smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Apartments, schools,  bakeries, shops, restaurants  - all surrounding where Hezbollah was keeping weapons.

Lebanon Today said the building was a "a hangar-like structure used during Ashoura commemorations." 

Israel warned residents, giving them plenty of time to leave. It also used warning shots to force people to leave.

Only one side cares about civilians, and it sure isn't Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

A brief history of antisemitism as virtue signaling

It is becoming a daily event. Whether it is the Swiss fencing team turning away from the Israeli flag during Hatikva in the medal ceremony, or Kneecap defending their "Fuck Israel" messaging at Coachella, or Iceland joining Spain calling to ban Israel from Eurovision, this goes beyond "normal" antisemitism and turns antisemitism into an excuse to say "look how moral we are to publicly oppose Israel."

This sort of virtue signaling has been around for a while, and it has antecedents in history with more classic forms of antisemitism. 

 John Chrysostom, in the 4th century CE, said "The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious… Do not be surprised that I call the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable." He therefore called on Christians to publicly denounce Jews to deter other Christians from observing Jewish rituals and holidays. 

The Crusaders positioned their attacks on Jews as moral imperatives.  Pope Innocent III, who organized one of the Crusades, said “the Jews, by their own guilt,” must be  “consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.”

Thomas Aquinas in 1271 justified stealing from Jews: "The Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude and thus the lords of the lands in which they dwell may take things from them as though they were their own."

The Edict of the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 justified the expulsion by claiming that Jews were converting Christians to Judaism: 

In these our kingdoms there were some wicked Christians who Judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, the great cause of which was interaction between the Jews and these Christians.... they have had means and ways they can to subvert and to steal faithful Christians from our holy Catholic faith and to separate them from it, and to draw them to themselves and subvert them to their own wicked belief and conviction, instructing them in the ceremonies and observances of their law... and persuading them as much as they can to hold and observe the law of Moses, convincing them that there is no other law or truth except for that one. ....Whenever any grave and detestable crime is committed by members of any organization or corporation, it is reasonable that such an organization or corporation should be dissolved and annihilated and that the lesser members as well as tile greater and everyone for the others be punished, and that those who perturb the good and honest life of cities and towns and by contagion can injure others should be expelled from those places and even if for lighter causes, that may be injurious to the Republic, how Much more for those greater and most dangerous and most contagious crimes such as this.

French antisemite  Édouard Drumont wrote in 1898, "If the circumstances were such that I was invested with an authority that would permit me to save my country I would turn the big Jews and their accomplices over to a court martial that would have them executed....They are preparing to liquidate France the same way they liquidated Spain."

The Soviet Union often positioned Judaism as well as "Zionism" as threats that must be uprooted for the defense of the socialist movement. In 1963 the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences published "Judaism Without Embellishment" which positioned Judaism as a threat to socialism, including cartoons that conflated Jews with "Zionists" and capitalists.

Yuri Ivanov, in  Beware: Zionism! (1969), also positioned  Zionism as the enemy of socialism: “The anti-human reactionary essence of Zionism is its overt and covert fight against freedom movements and against the USSR… Zionism, as the front squad of colonialism and neo-colonialism, actively participates in the fight against national liberation movements of the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, serving as a tool of imperialist subversion against the socialist camp.”

Interestingly, I have not found any researcher who ever looked at antisemitism through the prism of virtue signaling and moral imperatives, as opposed to simply attacking or hating Jews. 

But it has been there throughout history, and it is being repeated today. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Mahmoud Abbas repeats the antisemitic claim that Jewish Temples were never in Jerusalem

From MEMRI:

In an April 23, 2025 speech at the 32nd Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Council meeting in Ramallah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ... alleged that "a large part of [Israeli] history is falsified," and asserted that according to the Quran, the First and Second Jewish Temples were actually located in Yemen. 

Mahmoud Abbas: "[Israel] is trying to change the historical and legal status of the Islamic and Christian holy places, especially the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is in inseparable part of our religious faith and national identity, and our presence in our historical homeland of Palestine for thousands of years. [The Al-Aqsa Mosque] is the target of the most hideous plot by the occupation. They spread incitement for its destruction, and the building of a Jewish temple in its place. In the Noble Quran – and I believe that also in other divine books – it says that the [First and Second] Temples were in Yemen. People who like reading about religion can check it out.

The Quran says no such thing. But Palestinian and Jordanian  "researchers" have made that claim before.  

The first one to say this was Kamal Salibi, a Jordanian scholar, who published a book in 1982 called "The Bible Came from Arabia." This was further refined to Yemen by the early 2010s using more pseudo-scholarship and people claiming Jerusalem was in Yemen. 

Denying Jewish history and denying that the Jews have a history in Israel is antisemitism. 

Abbas has spouted antisemitism over a half dozen times before - and every time his words get swept under the rug. Because if the "moderate" Palestinians are proven to be antisemites, who can J-Street support and the Democratic Party support?

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

04/26 Links: The moral and legal case for Israel's war against Hamas; BBC Arabic contributor: ‘We’ll burn Jews like Hitler did’; Columbia Janitors Sue Protesters

From Ian:

John Spencer and Arsen Ostrovsky: The moral and legal case for Israel's war against Hamas

Every Israeli military operation in Gaza is bound by this standard. It is not enough to identify a Hamas presence in a building or a neighbourhood. To strike lawfully, the target must provide a concrete and direct military advantage, and every feasible precaution must be taken to mitigate civilian harm. Article content

Israel’s military attorneys and commanders operate within this framework. Target selection, weapon choice, the timing of attacks and warning mechanisms are scrutinized in real time. The Israel Defence Forces not only operates under legal necessity, it documents and reviews its actions at a level few modern militaries do, particularly when fighting a terrorist group embedded in a civilian population.

A useful example from the laws of war helps clarify this distinction. Destroying a bridge used to transport enemy weapons is a lawful act of military necessity. It offers a clear operational advantage and directly degrades enemy capabilities. By contrast, destroying a bakery in a residential neighbourhood simply because enemy fighters may stop there for food is not lawful. The bakery is not a military objective, and its destruction would serve no legitimate military purpose.

This distinction matters in urban warfare. In Gaza, where Hamas routinely embeds its military assets within civilian areas — using schools, homes and mosques as shields — Israel faces extraordinary challenges. But the legal standards do not change. Every action must meet the test of military necessity. Every strike must be tied to a legitimate objective. The presence of civilians demands restraint, even when facing an adversary that deliberately exploits them.

So, was Israel’s war against Hamas necessary? That depends on which kind of necessity you mean. But in truth, it meets both tests. Was the war morally necessary? Following the deliberate massacre of civilians, the kidnapping of hostages and Hamas’s declared intention to repeat those atrocities, the answer is unequivocally “yes.”

Are Israel’s military operations legally necessary? While each strike must meet specific legal thresholds, the IDF operates under one of the most stringent legal and ethical frameworks in modern warfare. It is bound by the law of armed conflict and has demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to minimizing harm, even while engaging an enemy that hides among civilians and violates every rule of war.

A war can be both morally justified and legally constrained. Israel’s campaign against Hamas is exactly that. It was not launched lightly or recklessly — it is waged in defence of life, sovereignty and the rule of law. Anyone asking whether Israel’s war was necessary should first understand what they are really asking — and then recognize that the answer, by every standard that matters, is “yes.”

Hamas claim that 70pc of Gaza dead are women and children ‘demonstrably false’

Claims by Hamas that 70 per cent of casualties in the Gaza conflict are women and children have been dismissed as “demonstrably false” in a new report.

The report by the Henry Jackson Society, a think tank, undermines claims that Israel’s armed forces have been responsible for the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians during the conflict.

Its findings are in contrast to assertions by Gaza’s Hamas-run government that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has deliberately targeted women and children.

The Henry Jackson Society claims that the IDF has generally managed to avoid disproportionately harming civilians, even though many thousands have been killed.

In the report, Prof Lewi Stone and Prof Gregory Rose said that claims made by the Gaza ministry of health of a 70 per cent casualty rate for women and children among the 51,000 Palestinians it says have been killed since Oct 7 2023 are inconsistent with its own underlying hospital casualty figures.

They found that Gaza hospital records and lists of the deceased showed that, since the start of the conflict, women and children have accounted for 51 per cent of deaths overall, and that in the past year the rate of civilian casualties has fallen to below that figure.

Citing the example of the bitter fighting over Khan Younis during the first quarter of last year, the report found that although women and children comprised 75 per cent of the city’s population, they accounted for 34 per cent of deaths.

Numerous warnings were issued by the IDF for civilians to leave Khan Younis before its troops began their search for Hamas combatants.

Profs Stone and Rose also found that of 11,224 people killed since October last year, 76.3 per cent (8,565) were male and 23.7 per cent (2,659) were female. Of these, 58 per cent were men of fighting age.

‘Reminiscent of the KKK’: Columbia Janitors Sue Protesters Who Took Over Hamilton Hall

The Columbia University janitors who were held hostage during the violent takeover of a campus building last spring are suing their alleged captors for battery, assault, and conspiracy to violate their civil rights, according to a copy of the suit reviewed exclusively by The Free Press.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on Friday evening by Torridon Law and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on behalf of Columbia janitors Mario Torres and Lester Wilson. It alleges that over 40 Columbia students and “outside agitators,” some but not all of whom were arrested by police following the takeover of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall last April 29, “terrorized” both Torres and Wilson “into the early morning of April 30th, assaulted and battered them, held them against their will, and derided them as ‘Jew-lovers’ and ‘Zionists.’ ”

The occupation of Hamilton Hall occurred almost exactly a year ago, and both Torres and Lester say they have been struggling to cope ever since. The lawsuit states both men suffered physical injuries the night of the occupation, and that they have also been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder that has required ongoing medical care. Neither has been able to return to work, and are instead “subsisting on interim Workers Compensation payments” which are “inadequate” to pay for their basic needs and medical bills, according to the suit.

“Mario and Lester are decent, honest, hardworking men who have been through hell. None of this ever should have happened,” said Tara Helfman, one of the Torridon lawyers on the case.

The lawsuit describes the protesters, the majority of whom “donned masks and hoods to conceal their identities,” as “reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan.” It claims they “are part of a broad pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic network of organizations, groups, and cells that are connected through a largely untraceable underground communications system. They promote and resort to violent and illegal tactics, and are motivated by invidious discrimination against Jews and supporters of Jews.”

The Brandeis Center also filed a federal lawsuit late Friday on behalf of two students, a professor, and a rabbi at the University of California, Los Angeles, alleging that several groups, including National Students for Justice in Palestine, Faculty for Justice in Palestine Network, American Muslims for Palestine, and Westchester People’s Action Coalition, engaged in “a coordinated campaign of egregious acts of racial exclusion, intimidation, and assault” to “intimidate Jewish students, faculty, and staff.”

04/25 Links Pt2: Harvard Is an Islamist Outpost; The age-old link between antisemitism and misogyny; Ireland’s anti-Semitism laces ignorance with self-righteousness

From Ian:

Ruth Wisse: Harvard Is an Islamist Outpost

The most useful of many political functions of anti-Zionism—as with antisemitism before Jews returned to their homeland—is building coalitions of grievance and blame against a small nation with a universally inflated and mostly negative image. This galvanizing enmity has united the pan-Arab and Islamist alliance against Israel since 1948. It powered the red-green coalition at the United Nations and seeds anti-Israel campus coalitions that are anti-American in all but name. Attacking only the Jews—now only Israel—is its key to becoming the world’s most powerful antidemocratic ideology.

The goal of destroying Israel remains central to Arab and Islamist identity and was admitted to Harvard along with some foreign students and investors. The Education Department reports the university received more than $100 million from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bangladesh between January 2020 and October 2024.

In 2007 I began warning successive presidents and deans that academic standards were being violated by the substitution of anti-Israel propaganda for a comprehensive program in the Center for Middle East Studies. They acknowledged the problem but refused to address it. As long as other institutions took Muslim money and ignored the war against the Jews, why should Harvard be holier than the pope?

Oct. 7, like Kristallnacht in 1938, forced some people to confront what they had tried to ignore. Students and faculty celebrating the atrocities against Israel could have been perpetrating them, given the chance. A committee of the new Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance investigated the campus “hatred” and found it “worse than we had anticipated.” Ideological anti-Zionism governed not only the Center for Middle East Studies but also the School of Public Health and the Divinity School and figured in departments ranging alphabetically from anthropology and African American Studies to the Weatherhead Institute of International Affairs, and academically from music to the medical school. Harvard undertook a similar review only under pressure from Congress.

The university had taken steps to prevent campus unrest—by curtailing the Jewish and Christian presence. The Semitic Museum, established by Jacob Schiff in 1907 to make the same point as the Abraham Accords about the common sources of the three religions, was renamed the Museum of the Ancient Near East. The only vestige of Schiff’s intention remains in carved stone above the entrance. Archeological projects in Israel were discontinued and museum collections that once centered on the Bible and Jerusalem were refocused on the pyramids. The Harvard Divinity School restructured its curriculum to reflect that it was no longer a Christian or Unitarian seminary but a “pluralistic” religious-studies program.

Just when Harvard’s proud heritage should have been strengthened, biblical studies were degraded, and its traditions put on the defensive—Christianity even more than Judaism. Islamism was on the rise against America in decline.

There are still good people and programs at Harvard, and I am grateful for my time there. In an ideal world the government wouldn’t micromanage universities. But if Harvard shirks its responsibility to shore up the foundations of America and allows itself to be hijacked by an Islamist-inspired grievance coalition, why would it expect any support from the government?

The age-old link between antisemitism and misogyny

Whether this is what most trans people want is an open question. We only hear the loudest, most extreme advocates of a cohort whose national numbers are unclear, and whose consensus view is thus unknowable. How many trans people are more concerned with, say, the lack of tailored healthcare, but have very good reasons not to put themselves in the issue’s white hot spotlight, we can only guess.

It’s worth noting that trans rights are not inherently incompatible with the interests of women. To navigate a way forward between the sex-based rights of women and the equally valid civil rights of trans people is possible. But not when one side forever rejects – furiously, implacably, intractably – any hint of such an accommodation. If that sounds familiar to any Jewish person who supports a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and despairs at just who Israel is supposed to negotiate with towards such a goal, then well it might.

This is what happens when an initially legitimate cause becomes a quasi-religious hybrid of a fandom and a cult. Thus does Hamas’ butchery of Jews and cruel oppression of its own people become “legitimate resistance”; thus does misgendering a rapist in a blond wig become a more grievous offence than the predator’s own. The welfare, the real lives, of the people involved are sidelined in favour of what gratifies their self-selecting advocates: the thrill of absolutism; the utter absence of doubt or self-reflection; the gleeful, self-valorising flights of grandiose rhetoric; the cosplay; above all, the joy of lighting upon an enemy for whom one’s exultant hatred far surpasses one’s advertised compassion for those one champions.

It is revealing that at the apex of The Good People™’s demonology stand the twin evils: Zionist and Terf. Jews and women. Jack Holland’s 2006 book Misogyny, which bears the subtitle The World’s Oldest Prejudice, details the frequent historical conjunction with the second-oldest. This unholy alliance offers a perfect example of what The Good People™ would call intersectionality; one to which their cognitive dissonance blinds them, given their camp’s delight in directing vitriolic abuse towards insubordinate Jewish women in particular. Antisemitism and misogyny: hand in glove down the ages, long before the state of Israel was ever dreamt of, long before gender identity was conceptualised. There is perhaps no vanity more risible than the unblinking conviction of The Good People™ that they are “on the right side of history” as they refashion for the 21st century its two most archaic wrongs.

Seth Mandel: Zoning Out the Jews

It’s not difficult to suss out town officials’ motives. Last year, Mayor Derek Armstead was recorded telling school officials that hiring practices should be in accord with “what has to happen in order to keep our community being taken over by guys with big hats and curls.”

Landa wondered why towns keep doing this to themselves: Clifton, Toms River, and Jackson (towns near where I was born and raised) all tried zoning discrimination and eventually all lost lawsuits.

But there’s another aspect to this that has always bothered me. Having reported on land-use law and property disputes in New Jersey early in my career, one theme was hammered home: Residents wanted construction that wouldn’t add school-aged children to the town’s population, because that would cost the public-school system more money and that, in turn, would necessitate higher property taxes.

What happens when a large group of Orthodox Jews moves into town? It’s a municipal dream come true: They don’t put kids in the school system, so their taxes essentially subsidize the existing student population, and because of holidays and other observances they spend less time on roads and using other public services.

Orthodox Jews tend to be a massive gift to a town’s finances, paying into services they don’t use and driving up property values. The only reason to work so hard to prevent them from living in your town is if you hate Jews more than you like the town you claim to serve. Anti-Semitism is self-defeating, rarely more so than for a municipal official.

And that’s the truly disturbing thing about the rise in anti-Semitism in America. Jew-hatred trumps every other concern. It is irrational, and much of the time its purveyors cannot be reasoned with. In Jersey City in 2019, it ended in a mass shooting of Jewish establishments.

And as always, the supposed provocation is Jews merely living somewhere. A chunk of America is trying to drag the country back to where it was 100 years ago regarding its treatment of Jews. And some of the worst cases barely make headlines outside of local news.

04/25 Links Pt1: Trump administration strips UNRWA of legal immunity; Biden team eyed Netanyahu’s ouster early in Gaza war; HonestReporting Interactive Map of Gaza Tunnels

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Groundhog day with Iran

President Trump’s attitude towards Iran is causing many to scratch their heads.

He has threatened the Iranian regime that unless it verifiably dismantles its nuclear programme, America and Israel will destroy it.

He has backed this up by moving more US warships to the region and deploying around one third of America’s B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia.

Trump’s commitment to safeguard Israel is not in doubt. He’s also the man who, in his first term, took America out of the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal brokered by former President Barack Obama and imposed instead a punishing sanctions regime to weaken Iran.

Yet now the US is negotiating with the regime over its nuclear programme, and both sides say this is going well. On Truth Social, Trump said he would much prefer a negotiated agreement to military action.

But the regime is run by religious fanatics of the Shia “Twelver” sect, who believe that an apocalypse will bring to earth the “Twelfth Imam” or Shia messiah. And as the regime repeatedly tells us, it intends to destroy first Israel and then America and the West.

There can be no meaningful negotiation with a regime that has such a non-negotiable and apocalyptic agenda. When Iran says the current negotiations are “positive,” that means it’s confident it has the upper hand.

The Iranians are the most skilful and manipulative negotiators in the world. They play multi-dimensional chess in which they identify the weaknesses of their opponents and then mercilessly play on them.

Dismayingly, Trump’s chief negotiator Steven Witkoff seems to have fallen for the Iranians’ wiles. In an interview with the podcaster and Trump “whisperer” Tucker Carlson, Witkoff said the conflict over Tehran's nuclear programme had “a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I’ve talked to anybody in Iran but because logically, it makes sense…I think anything can be solved with dialogue by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnects between people”.

But this isn’t an argument involving muddled messages. This is a crisis in which the world’s most aggressive terrorist state and declared enemy of Israel and the west is poised to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Trump has now dialled down his aim from destroying Iran’s nuclear programme to ensuring that it isn’t used to produce nuclear weapons.

This was precisely the formula arrived at in the 2015 Obama deal, and it’s as worthless now as it was then. For it would enable Iran to retain a substantial nuclear infrastructure, which it could ramp up to weaponisation at any time.

Witkoff appears to be placing all his faith in “verification” that Iran would keep its side of the bargain. But given that the regime ran rings round the inspection programme under the 2015 deal, the idea of verifying any commitment it makes is for the birds.

Iran has been militarily very much weakened by Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and its neutralisation of Iranian air defences. This is therefore the opportunity to strike.

Trump Says He'll 'Very Willingly' Attack Iran Should Nuclear Talks Fail: 'If We Don't Make a Deal, I'll Be Leading the Pack'

The United States will "willingly" join Israel in launching a military operation against Iran if negotiations to dismantle Tehran's nuclear program collapse, President Donald Trump said in an interview this week.

"Are you worried Netanyahu will drag you into a war?" Time's Eric Cortellessa and Sam Jacobs asked Trump during a wide-ranging interview on his first 100 days back in office.

"No," Trump said. "By the way, he may go into a war. But we're not getting dragged in."

"The U.S. will stay out of it if Israel goes into it?" Cortellessa and Jacobs asked.

"No, I didn't say that," Trump responded. "You asked if he'd drag me in, like I'd go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal. If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack."

"I think we can make a deal without the attack," Trump added. "I hope we can."

The comments come as Trump ramps up his "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran to freeze its nuclear program. In late March, Trump also threatened the Islamic Republic with military action after Tehran rejected direct negotiations with Washington. "If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing," Trump said at the time. "It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before."

Administration taps State Department’s Michael Anton as technical lead for Iran talks

The Trump administration tapped Michael Anton, the State Department’s director of policy planning, to lead a team of technical experts in negotiations with the Iranian regime about its nuclear program.

According to Politico, Anton will lead a team of around 12 mostly career officials in discussions set to begin this weekend.

Anton is a conservative essayist and speechwriter who served in the first Trump administration as a deputy assistant to the president for strategic communications on the National Security Council. He was subsequently a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

In a 2020 Fox News interview, Anton said that the original Iran deal was flawed in part because it provided significant up-front financial benefits to Iran before the provisions more favorable to the U.S. took effect, which Iran used to fuel terrorism. He said Trump was “right to object to that” and reimpose sanctions. He said that cutting off Iranian resources would de-escalate, rather than escalate conflict.

He also supported the U.S. strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Anton said on Fox and in a 2019 interview with NPR that he views Iran as generally cautious, retreating if it faces strong resistance.

“When and where Iran sees either weakness and/or a lack of vigilance — America not paying attention — it tends to try to exploit what it sees as gaps,” Anton said. “When it sees that we are being strong, that we are being vigilant, that we’re not leaving them opportunities to harm our interests, it tends to back down and turn its attentions elsewhere.”

He said that the U.S. and its allies can deter Iranian aggression by presenting a strong and united front. He also emphasized that all administration officials should ultimately defer to the president’s judgement on any issues to do with Iran or be fired.