Thursday, February 05, 2026

02/05 Links Pt1: Why No One Wants Iran to Win or Collapse; Why is the United Nations Chief Calling for Israel's Destruction?; Tucker Carlson Just Can’t Stop Lying About Israel.

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: Analysis on the rocks: a rebuttal
Throughout his piece, Milburn compares Israeli conduct unfavourably to US operations in places like Mosul, suggesting Israel should have done more to protect civilians. However, as discussed, Gaza posed unique challenges: a fully trapped population, an enemy deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an ongoing threat to Israel’s own civilians (Hamas rockets and the context of a wider regional war). Other Western militaries engaged in similar conflicts (the US in Iraq, NATO in Afghanistan, etc.) often took measures such as establishing safe corridors or pausing operations to facilitate evacuations. Israel did make some attempts at pauses and corridors, but Hamas frequently undermined them (by blocking evacuations or attacking convoys).

Milburn largely overlooks how Hamas drastically increased the difficulty of conducting a “surgical” military campaign. To illustrate: Hamas fighters would fire from within crowds of displaced civilians or move into UN shelters after attacking, effectively daring Israel to respond. This blurred the lines between civilians and combatants in real time. Israeli soldiers on the ground faced an enemy that did not wear uniforms and exploited urban chaos as cover. These are not excuses for any reckless strikes, but they provide essential context. A fair analysis would acknowledge that even the best-trained army would struggle to avoid civilian harm under such conditions. Milburn’s focus, nearly solely on Israeli “choices”, suggests Israel could have attained the same military goals with much less damage if it had chosen differently. He offers little insight beyond generic appeals to restraint. This approach risks echoing armchair generalship that fails to engage with the tactical reality of Gaza.

One must also consider the dangerous precedent that Milburn’s one-sided assignment of blame could set. According to his account, Israel’s overwhelming firepower in Gaza is nearly entirely responsible for civilian deaths, while Hamas’s strategy of using human shields is treated as a minor detail. This framing effectively rewards the use of human shields. If an army knows its enemy will be condemned for any civilian casualties, while it (the defender) faces little blame for hiding behind civilians, the perverse incentive is to continue using this unlawful tactic.

International law explicitly prohibits using civilians to make targets immune (Additional Protocol I, art. 51(7)) for this very reason – it weakens the law’s protections when followed. Milburn’s analysis minimises Hamas’s role to the extent that it may encourage the Hamas strategy: bunker under hospitals, coexist with families, and then hope global outrage restrains Israel. That is a dangerous message to send. To be clear, Israel is not exempt from blame if it caused disproportionate harm, but we cannot ignore that Hamas’s unlawful tactics are relevant to the outcome. Both legally and morally, Hamas bears significant responsibility for endangering Gazan civilians. Ignoring this, as Milburn does, distorts the moral balance and creates a one-dimensional view of the war.

Hamas’s illegality does not absolve Israel. The IDF still faces tough questions. Did every airstrike truly follow the principle of proportionality? Were target validations and intelligence sufficiently rigorous amid the chaos? Did Israel do everything possible to minimise harm (without abandoning its mission)? These are valid questions, and there are grounds for criticising Israel. Indeed, Israeli authorities have at times acknowledged failings or launched investigations into incidents with high casualties.

This rebuttal is not an unfounded defence of all Israeli actions. Instead, it is a plea for analytical balance. Milburn’s broad accusation, essentially claiming that Israel deliberately chose a policy of killing civilians rather than risking harm, is not substantiated by the full record. Proportionality in war is a complex challenge, and reasonable observers can debate specific instances. However, such debate must consider the realities of Hamas’s tactics of human shielding, the unprecedented battlefield conditions, and the inherent uncertainty of war. Once these factors are taken into account, the narrative shifts from a simplistic “Israel behaved recklessly and Gaza’s civilians paid the price” to a more nuanced (and uncomfortable) truth: Hamas created a battlefield where high civilian casualties were almost inevitable, and Israel’s military, while endeavouring to achieve its mission to halt ongoing attacks, made mistakes and caused tragic, unintended consequences, but did not fundamentally deviate from how other professional armies have operated under similar or worse constraints.

Holding Israel to strict IHL standards is justified; expecting zero civilian harm in a scenario deliberately designed by Hamas to maximise civilian casualties is not. A calm analysis understands Hamas’s illegal actions as a significant factor without excusing Israeli mistakes. It also reinterprets proportionality not as a simple casualty measure after conflict, but as a continual obligation of responsible military decision-making amid uncertainty. Milburn’s critique, by largely ignoring the real battlefield limitations, does a disservice to his stated goal of learning how to better protect civilians. A more balanced discussion would recognise that both Hamas’s tactics and Israeli decisions influenced the outcome, and that the real challenge is how democratic armed forces can maintain humanitarian standards when fighting an opponent who intentionally seeks to undermine them. That is the conversation we need, and it begins by correcting the record that Milburn’s biased argument left so vulnerable to critique.
Islamic Warfare and America: Why the West Must Now Confront Jihad at Its Doorstep
The American Constitution enshrined individual rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and thought, regardless of how radical or extreme. Yet these uniquely American liberties have been exploited by its enemies to subvert the U.S. and the West from within. Americans have largely been willfully blind to recognizing that enemy ideologies can eventually undermine U.S. national security and destroy its societal fabric. Why does America continue to struggle to recognize jihadi subversion by Islamist organizations and actors?

America's Islamic enemies have publicly declared their intention for decades. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum discovered by the FBI reveals this strategy in detail. Authored by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Akram, the blueprint details a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" to destroy Western civilization from within and establish Islamic governance in North America. "The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." These are not metaphors. They are declarations of war.

Dr. Harold Rhode describes the foundational doctrine of Islamic warfare in his book Modern Islamic Warfare, which explains how jihadist movements view their struggle as a cosmic battle that cannot cease "until the world be all for Allah." Among both Sunni jihadists and the messianic variety of Shiite jihadists that dominate the Iranian regime leadership, the West represents an adversary to be subdued, and Israel is merely the first, local hurdle in conquering the world for Islam.

The PLO's original 1964 charter and Hamas's 1988 covenant called for the annihilation of Israel through jihad. Today it is Hamas whose doctrine and political popularity dominate the Palestinian street. The fact that many Americans view the Palestinian cause primarily as rooted in territorial grievance rather than ideological jihad demonstrates the success of their disinformation and deception campaign. Any American policy toward the Palestinians must be conditioned on the explicit and verifiable rejection of jihad, recognition of Israel's permanent right to exist, and adoption of educational curricula free of religious hatred and incitement.

Most importantly, the U.S. must recognize that Israel's fight is also a battle for Western civilization's future survival, safety, and security. Moral clarity and a united front between Israel and the U.S. is necessary to defeat jihadist terror and political subversion.
Rep Rashida Tlaib faces terrorist ties allegations in new report
A comprehensive new briefing document from a prominent nonpartisan research and policy group is sounding the alarm on "serious ethical and national security concerns" related to Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib and her affiliations with individuals and organizations linked to designated foreign terrorist entities.

"The conduct of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, including her rhetoric, affiliations, campaign infrastructure, and ideological alignment with certain individuals and organizations, raises serious concerns about potential risks to the ethical and institutional integrity of the United States government," the report, released by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy’s advocacy and policy-oriented arm, states.

The report details a "recurring pattern" of behavior that it says suggests an ideological affinity for radical movements, ranging from participation in conferences featuring convicted terrorists to significant campaign payments made to activists linked to Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-aligned networks.

The briefing covers Tlaib’s financial history and says her campaign apparatus poured large sums of cash to anti-Israel activists, including almost $600,000 between 2020 and 2025 to Unbought Power, a consulting firm headed by Rasha Mubarak.

Mubarak has faced scrutiny for her past affiliations with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2009 Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial, and the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), which has been investigated for ties to the PFLP-linked group Samidoun.

Tlaib, according to the briefing, has shared the stage with a variety of questionable figures highlighted by a conference alongside Wisam Rafeedie, a convicted PFLP operative, who defended the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack as "resistance."


Why No One Wants Iran to Win or Collapse
What are President Trump's options in Iran? A symbolic strike would be worse than no strike at all. It would give Iran a narrative of "standing up to America" without degrading its capabilities. Regime change? That would require military or Revolutionary Guards elements willing to defect and lead under American sponsorship. That does not exist. One option remains: a deal that looks like victory. The problem is that Iran needs exactly the same thing.

Iran needs sanctions relief to survive. But it cannot afford to appear defeated. In the Middle East, a regime that appears to have "surrendered" loses legitimacy, not only in the eyes of its people but in the eyes of its proxies and the enemies circling it. The paradox is that the weaker the regime becomes, the stronger it needs to appear. This narrows its flexibility precisely when flexibility is most needed.

In recent days, Iran demanded moving the talks from Istanbul to Oman and shifting from a multilateral format to bilateral talks with the U.S. alone. A regional summit with seven foreign ministers watching feels too much like a surrender ceremony.

From the perspective of the mediators - Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - the ideal situation is precisely what exists now: a weakened Iran, an exhausted Shiite axis, but no total collapse that would bring chaos and refugees. They do not want a regional war. But neither do they want an Iran freed from sanctions, with oil flowing and Iranians building a competing economic empire.

Everyone, including Trump, seeks a diplomatic solution because they fear the alternative. What happens if the Iranian regime falls? There is no organized opposition inside Iran. Reza Pahlavi is a nostalgic symbol, not a leader with an apparatus. There is no coordination with military or Revolutionary Guards elements prepared to lead an orderly transition.
Pressure Alone Will Not Break Iran
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is inherently suspicious of the U.S. in general and of the American president in particular. He sees a comprehensive conspiracy against the regime, most recently the 12-day war and the wave of protests across Iran. Seen through this lens, it is clear why he has no intention of compromising on the regime's core principles. He prefers to risk an attack rather than submit.

The American administration operates under the assumption that a combination of military pressure and a show of force will ultimately compel Tehran to accept U.S. demands, not only on the nuclear issue, but also on its missile program and network of regional proxies.

Anyone attempting to anticipate Iran's next moves must understand that from the regime's perspective, its positions cannot be separated from the belief that it "stood firm" both in the military confrontation and in the face of protests, which it sees as part of a broad Western plot to overthrow it.

As long as Khamenei remains at Iran's helm, regardless of what the U.S. does, it can be expected that he will not cross the line he has already defined as surrender. For the supreme leader, loyalty to the revolution's ideology outweighs considerations of prosperity or stability. Abandoning these principles would, in his eyes, amount to abandoning the revolution itself. Thus, in practice, the diplomatic track currently appears devoid of real viability.
How Iran plans to go to war with the US – and win
Stage five: the endgame
Tehran’s strategy banks on the US and its allies concluding that the costs of sustained conflict would exceed any benefits.

By threatening global energy supplies, imposing continuous attacks across multiple countries and potentially inflicting significant US casualties, Iran hopes to create an unsustainable multi-front situation.

Iranian planners believe the US has limited appetite for protracted wars after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fighting simultaneously against entrenched proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and potentially Syria, while defending Gulf allies and maintaining open shipping lanes, would strain even US military resources.

Iran views its strategy as one of asymmetric endurance. It cannot win militarily, but believes it can make victory too expensive for Washington to pursue.

This calculus depends on the US choosing to de-escalate rather than applying its full conventional capabilities, which could devastate Iranian infrastructure and military forces.

The ultimate question is political will rather than military capability.

The strategy also assumes rational decision-making on both sides, but escalation dynamics in war are notoriously unpredictable. What Iran intends as calibrated pressure could trigger overwhelming US retaliation, especially if American casualties are high.

Iran knows this. While the plan envisages victory, there is quiet hope that it will never be put into action.
Iran agrees to discuss proxy terror, ballistic missile arsenal in US negotiations
Iran has agreed to discuss its ballistic missile program and its use of proxy terror groups in talks with the United States slated for Friday morning, The New York Times reported on Thursday, citing three Iranian officials and one Arab official.

Tehran conceded on the issue after "everyone had given an inch" following a bust-up in talks that caused the two parties to temporarily cancel negotiations on Wednesday.

The talks between Iran and the US are still set to focus on Iran's nuclear program and capabilities, the NYT noted, citing the officials. US-Iran talks were close to collapse over scope of negotiations

On Wednesday, two sources familiar with the matter told The Jerusalem Post that talks "have collapsed," noting that the Iranians had been demanding to only discuss the nuclear issue while the Americans wanted to talk about ballistic missiles, Iran's regional terror proxies, and other issues.

Additionally, regional sources told the Post that Arab mediators had tried to persuade Tehran to discuss other matters, but the Iranians affirmed on Tuesday, "We are only ready for the nuclear issue."

Furthermore, Iran requested to move the venue of negotiations from Turkey to Oman, where previous indirect talks between Tehran and Washington DC took place last year.

However, later on Wednesday evening, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that talks would take place in the Omani capital, Muscat, at 10 a.m. on Friday.

After Araghchi published his statement, however, sources told the Post that Arab mediators had attempted to convince the Americans to drop their position that the talks focus on issues beyond nuclear talks so that discussions could take place.

The American position that these broader talks still must be held, however, remained unchanged.


Bassam Tawil: Why is the United Nations Chief Calling for Israel's Destruction?
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres is still pushing for the establishment of a Palestinian terror state next to Israel. There are only three ways to read Guterres's position: he is completely clueless; he wants to see Israel eradicated; or he is happy to oblige his constituents at the UN who would apparently like to see Israel eradicated.

At the UN, 26 member states -- including Qatar, US President Donald J. Trump's "neutral" peace negotiator and member of his "Board of Peace," as well as other "Board of Peace" affiliates such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia -- do not even "formally" recognize Israel.

When Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel took place, there was no "occupation" in the Gaza Strip. The "occupation," in fact, ended in the summer of 2005....

For most Palestinians, all Jews there are "illegal settlers," and Israel just "one big settlement" that has no place in the Middle East.

Many Palestinians viewed the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a retreat in the face of terrorism. In their eyes, if Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip as a result of terrorism, all that is needed for the rest of Israel to leave is more terrorism.

As the great historian Bernard Lewis noted nearly 50 years ago, the UN does not resolve war, it conserves war. Trump, who managed to contain several wars in six months, has shown the world as much.

If Palestinians could be taught -- and learn -- coexistence, their lives could be so magnificent. This change, however, can never take place while the UN and its scores of Arab and European camp-followers enable impossible fantasies.

Finally, Guterres might listen to what the majority of the Palestinians are unmistakably saying: NO to a two-state solution. Palestinians polled two years ago by AWRAD, a Palestinian research group, unequivocally said that they did not want a "two-state solution" -- 75% rejected any solution other than a Palestinian state "from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea" – meaning over all of Israel.

As Guterres must know full well, the establishment of a Palestinian state will not lead the Palestinians to abandon their determination to eliminate Israel. Quite the opposite. A Palestinian state will make them more determined than ever to continue their efforts to obliterate Israel. October 7 did not happen because Palestinians were denied a state. It happened because they were given one.
UN human rights agency says it’s in ‘survival mode’ due to funding shortfalls
UN human rights chief Volker Turk said Thursday his agency was “in survival mode” due to funding shortfalls, as he launched a $400 million appeal to tackle global rights crises in 2026.

“Our reporting provides credible information on atrocities and human rights trends at a time when truth is being eroded by disinformation and censorship,” Turk said.

“We are a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, and a steadfast ally to those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.”

Turk’s office has been bitterly critical of Israel, and last month accused it of apartheid in the West Bank, an allegation Israel denies. Israel charged that the UN Human Rights Office has an “inherently politically driven fixation… on vilifying Israel.”

In 2025, the UN Human Rights Office’s approved regular budget — set by the UN General Assembly — was $246 million, but it received only $191.5 million.

It also requested $500 million in voluntary contributions, of which it received around $260 million.

“We are currently in survival mode, delivering under strain,” said Turk.

“These cuts and reductions untie perpetrators’ hands everywhere, leaving them to do whatever they please. With crises mounting, we cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.”
“Infiltrated by Terrorists”: Inside the Legal Challenge UNRWA Has Long Avoided
For decades, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) has occupied a uniquely protected position in international politics. Vast, opaque, and largely unaccountable, the agency has operated as though it were immune not only to reform but also to scrutiny itself.

Perhaps that sense of invulnerability is no accident. UNRWA is exceptional, though not in the way its defenders usually mean. It is the only refugee body in the world that does not seek to resolve refugeehood, but to perpetuate it. Under UNRWA’s rules, Palestinian refugee status is inherited indefinitely, passed down through generations, ensuring that the population it serves only ever grows. The result is a permanent refugee class and an agency whose funding, relevance, and institutional survival are permanently guaranteed.

Over time, UNRWA has not merely expanded; it has become deeply compromised. In Gaza, the agency operated for years alongside Hamas, its facilities woven into the fabric of the terror group’s rule. Evidence has repeatedly emerged of UNRWA premises being used for militant purposes, including weapons storage and terror infrastructure embedded within and beneath schools. In the aftermath of the October 7 massacre, UNRWA employees were also exposed as active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who took part in the attack.

UNRWA employees took part in October 7 attacks
And yet, despite mounting evidence and repeated warnings, UNRWA has remained shielded from accountability, protected by the assumption that, as a UN body, it is legally untouchable.

That assumption is now being challenged in a U.S. appeals court. And the challenge is coming not from activists or politicians, but from the heart of the American national security establishment. A Legal Challenge To UNRWA’s “Immunity”

Last month, a group of former U.S. Attorneys General, senior national security officials, intelligence chiefs, and international law scholars filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief in support of an appeal brought by dozens of families of victims of the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre.

Those families had sued UNRWA in U.S. federal court, offering evidence that the agency provided material support to Hamas over many years, including through funding, infrastructure, and personnel, and that this support helped enable Hamas’ operations in Gaza, culminating in the October 7 attack.

In October last year, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the case, ruling that UNRWA enjoyed “absolute immunity” from suit as a subsidiary of the United Nations – a conclusion that stood in direct opposition to the position of the U.S. government itself. Earlier, the Department of Justice had submitted a letter to the court stating plainly that UNRWA does not enjoy immunity in this case, and that the agency had played a role in Hamas’ “heinous offenses” on October 7. The Biden administration had already suspended U.S. funding to UNRWA, citing employee participation in the massacre and deep infiltration by terrorist groups.

Following the dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to overturn the immunity ruling.

The newly filed amicus brief supports that appeal.
Israel blasts ‘Al Jazeera’ terror-linked forum
Israel’s Foreign Ministry sharply criticized the upcoming Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, describing it in an X post on Thursday as a “gathering of jihadists and their support staff.”

The ministry’s statement singled out participants including Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, calling them “proponents of the darkest school of thought in modern political history.”

The 17th Al Jazeera Forum, scheduled for Feb. 7–9, is set to focus on “The Palestinian Cause and the Regional Balance of Power in the Context of an Emerging Multipolar World.”

The program description on the forum website uses language similar to that used by Hamas, including references to “genocide” in Gaza and the “Palestinian resistance.” It makes no mention of the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, killing and kidnapping spree in southern Israel that led to the recent Gaza war.
Hamas, the Iranian Regime, and a UN Rapporteur Share the Stage at the Al Jazeera Forum
Al Jazeera’s sympathy for and connections to terrorist organizations are not a secret. Throughout the Israel-Hamas war, the IDF has, on numerous occasions, exposed Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists working simultaneously for the Qatari-funded outlet.

But the outlet is not only responsible for journalists embedded with terrorist organizations. It’s now using its conference to platform terrorists and their supporters.

The 17th Al Jazeera Forum, being held in Doha, Qatar, is said to examine the issues of “the Palestinian cause” and how the region has shifted since October 7, 2023, including broader changes in the Middle East. As part of the promotion for the conference, the Al Jazeera Forum’s X account posted a promotional video asking, “How is the world living the repercussions of October 7th,” accompanied by a highlight reel of Hamas terrorists on October 7, in Israeli communities, and killing IDF soldiers.

Confirmed speakers include longtime Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal, who is worth more than $4 billion, and who has previously stated that Hamas will rise “like a phoenix” despite heavy losses following October 7. Presuming he is not stuck in Oman in negotiations with the U.S., Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is listed as a keynote speaker and as a representative of the Islamic Republic, he has effectively stood in support of the killing of thousands of Iranians who have challenged the regime’s rule.

Other speakers include representatives from Turkey, Yemen, Sudan, and university professors. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, sanctioned by the U.S. for her pro-terror rhetoric, is also a confirmed speaker in a session discussing “The Palestinian Cause in a World Moving Toward Multipolarity.” While Al Jazeera’s decision to platform her is consistent with the outlet’s posture, it is particularly concerning that a UN figure is speaking at a conference that features terrorists.
Hamas will be destroyed if it won’t disarm, Trump says
U.S. President Donald Trump took credit for achieving “peace in the Middle East” at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.

The president said that with the war in Gaza ended, Hamas would have to give up its weapons.

“Now they have to disarm,” Trump said. “Some people say they won’t, but they will, and if they don’t, they’re gonna not be around any longer.”

“But they agreed to disarm,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a similar message to U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff on Tuesday in Jerusalem, and has previously said that Hamas’s disarmament is a precondition of Gaza’s reconstruction under Phase 2 of the Trump administration’s peace plan.
'What is happening in Gaza is a complete failure by IDF,' military expert says - interview
The IDF is failing against Hamas in Gaza, Maariv military correspondent Avi Ashkenazi said in a Thursday morning 103FM radio interview.

“What is happening in Gaza is a complete failure by the IDF and by Israel in shaping the security reality inside Gaza,” Ashkenazi said.

“Day after day, we see Hamas leading moves against the IDF. Most of the time it does not succeed, and there are no casualties, but yesterday we saw an incident that ended with an officer being wounded.”

Ashkenazi added that Hamas learned from Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War and applied that methodology to Gaza.

"The moment Hamas shifted to guerrilla warfare and tries to dictate the agenda in the Strip, we are going back to the days of the IDF’s presence in the security zone in the 1990s, when Hezbollah carried out attacks, and the IDF responded. Now Hamas has learned this, and it did it for years in the Strip.”

“Israel should have created a different reality inside the Strip, similar to what is happening in Lebanon, where Israel dictates what happens. You identify a terrorist, you eliminate him."

Ashkenazi pointed to yesterday's killing of Ali Raziana as a failure by the IDF.

"Yesterday cemented our failure. After the attack in which an IDF officer was wounded, they went and eliminated three terrorists, including a terrorist who commanded the infiltration into Nahal Oz. For two and a half years, this person continued to live, and they waited for an opportunity to eliminate him.”

“Instead of the IDF initiating action when it knows these are terrorists with the blood of IDF soldiers on their hands, the IDF should have eliminated them long ago. We do not need to be dragged after Hamas. We need to act all the time. Our military approach is not right. We are being dragged into days of guerrilla warfare in which Hamas sets the pace and dictates the tone. That should not be the case.”


Call me Back: Bret Stephens' State of World Jewry Address
Is the right way to fight Antisemitism maybe to… stop fighting it?

In this special episode, we share The State of World Jewry address delivered by New York Times columnist Bret Stephens at the 92nd Street Y. Stephens, who is also the editor-in-chief of SAPIR Journal, offers a bracing diagnosis of modern antisemitism and argues that it cannot be educated away, apologized for, or solved through allyship. Instead, he calls for Jewish confidence, cultural seriousness, and moral clarity in the face of rising hostility.

In this episode:
Why antisemitism is about resentment, not misunderstanding
The false promise of fighting antisemitism head-on
The danger of approval-seeking and respectability politics
October 8th Jews and the identity reckoning
Jewish values as inherently countercultural
Building strength instead of chasing acceptance


Ask Haviv Anything: Episode 87: How can you support a better Palestinian future?
Welcome to our new short-form episodes interspersed with the regular interviews that dive into an often-asked question about Israel, Jews and the Middle East.

Our current question: How can you support a better Palestinian future?

Chapters
00:00 Understanding Support for Palestinians
04:56 The Importance of Engaging Israeli Perspectives
10:08 Lessons from Dr. King: Nonviolent Strategies
14:55 Building a Palestinian Future: A New Approach




Three Myths About Zionism—And Why They Collapse Under History | Elon Gilad
Two thousand years ago, Josephus was already rebutting the claim that Jews are a fake people with a fake past. Today, the same accusations are back—rebranded as “anti-colonialism.”

In this episode of EylON the Record, Eylon Levy speaks with Elon Gilad—historian, writer, and a leading voice on Hebrew language and Jewish history (Haaretz columnist and author of The Secret History of Judaism). Together they dissect how modern antizionist narratives recycle old falsehoods: reframing Jewish return as “colonialism,” treating Hebrew revival as proof of invention, and reviving pseudo-history to deny Jewish peoplehood and Jewish indigeneity.

In this episode, we discuss:
⬛ The core difference between colonialism and Jewish national return
⬛ How Hebrew was revived from a centuries-old living written language
⬛The disturbing return to racial politics among "progressives"

The stakes aren’t academic. These myths don’t just distort history—they’re used as weapons to declare Israel uniquely illegitimate, to turn Jewish self-determination into a crime, and to push Jews back into a world where they are tolerated at best and disposable at worst. If you care about truth, liberal democracy, and the fight against modernized antisemitism, you need to understand how these narratives are built—and how to dismantle them.


Natasha Hausdorff on several recent UKLFI interventions with successful outcomes
In this interview, UKLFI Charitable Trust Legal Director, Natasha Hausdorff, discusses several recent legal interventions by UKLFI (UKLFI Ltd or UKLFI Charitable Trust) across a range of sectors, including global organisations, universities, museums and public sector pension funds.

The conversation begins with UKLFI’s engagement with Guinness World Records, following the latter's pause on accepting record submissions from Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the legal issues raised in relation to discrimination, consumer protection and trademark law.

Natasha then explains UKLFI’s correspondence with the Open University regarding the use of historically inaccurate terminology in course materials, and the University’s confirmation that the term “ancient Palestine” will no longer be used in future teaching resources. Related concerns raised with Liverpool’s World Museum about historical terminology used in exhibition labels are also discussed.

The interview goes on to examine UKLFI’s submissions to the Avon Pension Fund, focusing on trustees’ fiduciary duties, when non-financial considerations can be taken into account, and the role of member surveys and legal advice.

Finally, the discussion covers UKLFI’s intervention in a case involving academic access and alleged discrimination at the University of East Anglia, before concluding with reflections on the wider legal principles that arise across these cases and how UK law operates in highly politicised contexts.

Chapters
00:00 – Introduction
00:34 – Guinness World Records
04:26 – The Open University
06:55 – Liverpool World Museum
08:32 – Avon Pension Fund
12:07 – University of East Anglia
14:18 – Wider legal themes


Tucker Carlson to interview Ambassador Mike Huckabee
Right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson and Mike Huckabee, the US Ambassador to Israel, said they will conduct an interview after Carlson published a video from the Middle East that included harsh criticism of Huckabee.

The planned sit-down, hashed out over social media, comes as Carlson has troubled the Jewish world and fractured the conservative movement by using his influential podcast to increasingly entertain antisemites and conspiracy theories about Israel. He has reserved his particular ire for “Christian Zionists,” of which Huckabee, a Baptist minister who aligns himself with the pro-Israel hard right, is a leading figurehead.

Huckabee challenges Carlson
“Instead of talking ABOUT me, why don’t you come talk TO me?” the ambassador, and Carlson’s former Fox News colleague, wrote on X early Thursday in response to a Carlson video filmed in Israel and Jordan that purports to reveal how Israel treats Christians and declares that “Huckabee fails Jerusalem’s Christians.”

Huckabee added, “You seem to be generating a lot of heat about the Middle East. Why be afraid of the light?”

When Carlson agreed to an interview an hour later (“I’d love to”), Huckabee responded, “Look forward to the conversation[.]”

Huckabee, a key evangelical Trump ally and stalwart Israel backer, is reaching out to Carlson at a notable moment. Carlson has recently emerged both as the right’s harshest Israel critic and as the source of its larger divide over antisemitism, particularly since his friendly interview last fall with avowed white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.

Many conservative leaders, including Sen. Ted Cruz (who has faced harsh grilling from Carlson over his own support for Israel) and Orthodox Jewish pundit Ben Shapiro, have called on the GOP to distance itself from Carlson. Yet he maintains good relationships with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, and has sway over right-wing powerbrokers such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA. He has also forged close ties with Qatar.
travelingisrael.com: Tucker Carlson Just Can’t Stop Lying About Israel.
Tucker Carlson claims you can’t criticize Israel — while building an entire brand around doing exactly that.

Let’s fact-check his lies and talk about what real Christian persecution in the Middle East actually looks like.




Anti-Israel activists announce plans for new Gaza flotilla in March
Organizers of an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian international flotilla aiming to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza announced plans Thursday for a new mission to the Strip with more than 100 boats in March.

The announcement was made at the Nelson Mandela Foundation in South Africa, and speakers included Mandla Mandela, grandson of the late former South African president. They called on the international community to prevent Israeli forces from intercepting the operation, as they have in the past.

The anti-Israel campaigners, who last year organized a similar flotilla carrying a symbolic amount of humanitarian aid, described the upcoming mission as the biggest civilian-led mobilization against Israel’s actions in Gaza. Israeli officials repeatedly denounced last year’s mission, and previous smaller-scale attempts to reach Gaza by sea, as publicity stunts.

Mandela was part of the flotilla that embarked on a mission to Gaza last year and was detained along with other activists when their boat was intercepted by Israeli forces before they could reach Gaza shores.

According to organizers, more than 1,000 activists, including medical doctors, war crimes investigators and engineers, will form part of the new flotilla.

It will be supported by a land convoy that is expected to attract thousands more activists across countries, including Tunisia and Egypt.

The boats are expected to sail from Spain, Tunisia and Italy toward Gaza.

“This time around we expect hundreds and thousands to sign up and to mobilize entry through Egypt, through Lebanon, through Jordan and every other border that is feasible for us to get into occupied Palestine and to Gaza,” Mandela said. “We want to mobilize the entire global community to join forces with us.”

If the flotilla is blocked again, the activists said it would still be worth it to highlight the humanitarian crisis facing the roughly two million people living in the Strip, the vast majority of whom have been displaced by Israeli bombing amid the war with the Hamas terror group following the latter’s October 7, 2023, onslaught.

“We may not have reached Gaza physically [but] we have reached… the people in Gaza,” said one of the activists, Susan Abdallah. “They know that we care, that we will not stop at anything until we actually break the siege.”

Thiago Avila, a Brazilian activist who is part of the steering committee, claimed the flotilla was protected by international law.

“The International Court of Justice in the provisional ruling in the case opened by South Africa against the genocide state of Israel, states very clearly that Israel or any other nation are prohibited to hinder any type of humanitarian mission on the way to Gaza,” he said.
Pep Guardiola told to ‘focus on football’ by Manchester Jewish community members
Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola has been urged to be “more careful with his future language” by representatives of the city’s Jewish community after he spoke out about Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

Guardiola gave a speech in support of Palestinian children at a charity event in his home city of Barcelona last week, and on Tuesday he told journalists at a press conference about how the suffering of innocent people caught up in conflict, including the one in the Middle East, “hurts” him, and leaves him feeling compelled to speak out.

However, he has been advised to “focus on football” by the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region, who fear such comments fuel antisemitic acts.

The group also accused him of a “total failure” to display solidarity with Manchester’s Jewish community in the wake of last October’s attack on the Heaton Park Synagogue, in which two people were killed.

“We have repeatedly asked for prominent individuals to be mindful about the words they use given how Jewish people have had to endure attacks across the globe,” a statement posted on X read.

“Pep Guardiola is a football manager. Whilst his humanitarian reflections may be well-intentioned, he should focus on football.

“Manchester City is being let down by him repeatedly straying into commentary on international affairs. This is the second time in a week he has decided to offer his controversial views on the Middle East conflict.

“It’s especially galling given his total failure to use his significant platform to display any solidarity with the Jewish community subjected to a terrorist attack a few miles from the Etihad Stadium or the Barcelona community reeling from anti-Semitic violence close to where he once engaged in remarks we believe to be provocative.

“We implore Mr Guardiola to be more careful in his future language given the significant risk faced by our community.”
Actress Sharon Stone backs out of LA Israeli Film Festival appearance
Hollywood actress Sharon Stone canceled a planned appearance at the Los Angeles Israeli Film Festival less than a week before she was scheduled to present an award, Hebrew media reported Thursday.

The star cited filming commitments, but the festival director suggested it may have been due to external pressure from anti-Israel activists. Stone has a history of supporting Jewish causes.

Stone was scheduled to attend Wednesday’s opening night of the 37th annual festival at the Saban Theater in Beverly Hills to present the Vision Award to Jewish American producer Lawrence Bender. Five days before the event, she informed organizers that she would no longer be able to attend, according to Channel 12.

Stone cited a filming commitment in Australia as the reason for her cancellation, festival director and CEO Meir “Foggy” Fenigstein told Channel 12. Fenigstein said the timing of the decision was troubling and suggested it may have come amid outside pressure.

“I believe the cancellation came as a result of pressure being put on her,” Fenigstein said. “Apparently, people who know her approached her and told her that she shouldn’t do it. It is unacceptable to cancel a few days before.”

Since antisemitism skyrocketed around the world following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, numerous celebrities have backed out of appearances due to pressure from anti-Israel protesters. However, Stone has a strong track record of supporting Jews and Jewish causes. She has met with former Israeli hostages and spoken out against antisemitism, and she visited Israel in 2013.

There has been no public comment from Stone on the matter.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

    
 

 



AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

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

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates