Pages

▼

Saturday, November 07, 2026

11/07 Links: From France to America, hatred of Israel is eroding the West; US Jews urge unity, but Israelis must live with the consequences; Britain’s colonial legacy undermines its moral lectures against Israel

From Ian:

The Upside of Aiding Israel
Israel's American critics fundamentally fail to understand their own country's interests. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi monarch Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945, the United States has sought to prevent any other power from dominating or destabilizing the Middle East's energy reserves. This has been a core U.S. interest whether we were exporting oil or needed imports, because stable oil markets are critical for a functional global economy that benefits Americans. For its part, Israel does not want to be dominated by any of its neighbors, so it too opposes aspiring regional hegemons. The two have worked closely together for decades because of this confluence of geopolitical interests, more than anything else.

Washington did this not because of Holocaust guilt or scheming Shylocks, but because of Israel's strength. The strategic partnership only took root after Israel became too powerful to ignore. During the Cold War, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger realized they could use Israel as a lever to pry the Soviets out of the Middle East. Nixon prized allies who could handle smaller adversaries on their own, and the Jewish state proved more than capable of doing that. But Israel was socialist and therefore poor, so at first it needed significant amounts of aid for the partnership to achieve its full potential.

The alliance has been helpful ever since. Without Israel's strike on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981, the United States might have faced a nuclear Iraq 10 years later. The 2007 strike in Syria prevented the nation's civil war from turning into a nuclear nightmare. Israelis and Americans have fought all kinds of Islamist terrorism side by side.

Some Americans on both sides of the aisle want to blame Israel for the floundering campaign against Iran. But as Trump made clear on Wednesday, his concern about the "death to America" crowd acquiring nuclear weapons has to do with preventing an attack on Washington, not Tel Aviv. Israelis rightly fear a nuclear Iran too, which is why the IDF was a capable partner during the fighting.

Ironically, Israel is exactly the kind of ally the America First crowd claims to want. It has the same enemies as the United States, sustains a military that complements American power, and tries to take care of as much of its own affairs as possible without involving U.S. forces. Many Americans who are not sympathetic to Trump’s views also want to reduce our involvement in the Middle East, which is not feasible without relying more heavily on the Jewish state.

Israel is important for other American interests too. The competition with China for global technological leadership is fierce, and Israel is a world leader in a variety of fields, including cybersecurity and biotechnology. When U.S. policymakers gather allies and partners to stay ahead of America's enemies, the Israelis are at the table.

The relationship has taken different forms while still benefiting both countries. Transitioning from aid to joint partnerships could be appropriate. Earlier this year, Benjamin Netanyahu stated that American aid to Israel should eventually come to an end as Israel grew wealthier.

But there is a difference between helping a friend grow more self-reliant and abruptly cutting off 20 percent of an ally's defense budget in the middle of a war. One choice is prudent. The other? Madness.
From France to America, hatred of Israel is eroding the West
The defamation of Israel and delegitimization of Jews/Zionists is boomeranging on the Western world.

Let’s begin with France, which is being consumed by a toxic brew that blends Marxism, Islamism, Palestinianism, and antisemitism into a potent assault on the state and on French culture and civilization.

The ideological depravities that undergird the deepening chaos have long and deep roots in French society and politics, particularly in France’s perverted policies toward Jews and Israel.

This is the elephant in the room that French President Emmanuel Macron and his predecessors will never admit to: that their ideological elevation of the Palestinian cause into a monster master political storyline has willy-nilly birthed a narrative of nihilism, a swell of anti-civilizational contempt wearing a keffiyeh that goes far beyond Israel.

The moral inversions that excuse October 7 as “resistance” and heroize calls to “globalize the intifada” now excuse the torching and looting of iconic French buildings and boulevards. The diplomatic grandstanding at Israel’s expense (“Palestinian statehood now!”) and the indulgence of Islamo-fascist and leftist mobs who hail Hamas have started aeonian fires of self-immolation and devastation.

My late father, Prof. Henry H. (Zvi Meir) Weinberg, was a scholar of French literature and a keen observer of socio-cultural trends in France. He passed away in Jerusalem almost 20 years ago (after serving as an MK in the Knesset for Natan Sharansky’s immigrant party).

Psychological warfare against the Jewish state
Forty years ago, he wrote a book called The Myth of the Jew in France 1967-1982 in which he dissected the techniques by which highbrow publications such as Le Monde and the upper echelons of French literary society pursued a long campaign of psychological warfare against the Jewish state.

Under the mask of high-minded objectivity and fealty to human rights, they adopted narratives fiercely hostile to Israel, inevitably sliding into the murky waters of anti-Jewish prejudice.

My father chronicled the lifting of taboos on public expression of antisemitism in France – beginning with the writer and philosopher Voltaire and the Encylopaedists of the 18th century; to the French laboratories for “scientific” racism and national socialism of the 19th century; leading to French collaboration with the Nazis under the Vichy regime and subsequent far-right French preoccupation with Holocaust denial.

Other notable markers on the way: president De Gaulle’s notorious “Sermon to the Hebrews” in 1967; French policies of appeasement toward Palestinian terrorism under presidents Georges Pompidou and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s and 1980s; the vehemence and consistency of French attacks on Israeli policy ever since the First Lebanon War (1982); and the malicious depredation wrought by fashionable antagonism to everything Israeli peddled by French intellectuals.

Since then, the “myth,” or defamation, of the Jew and the Zionist in France and other high-minded democracies has only darkened.


US Jews urge unity, but Israelis must live with the consequences
It’s always easy to give advice when you have no skin in the game. And that’s exactly what’s happening as Progressive US Jews “urge Israel’s opposition parties to abandon their campaign promises and join hands with Arab parties in order to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

We get it. Liberal US Jews want to put an end to the interminable reign of Bibi, but at what price? While we already have had a glimpse of a coalition with Arab partners, under Naftali Bennett’s premiership, it’s impossible to predict what another similar experiment would yield.

We are not just speaking about Ra’am, under the leadership of a moderate Mansour Abbas, who was described as reasonable and cooperative by those who worked with him.

Because other Arab parties, who succeeded in this election, are not necessarily sympathetic to the cause of the Jewish state or here to bask in the Zionist experience.

And that is the major concern for a country that is committed to Herzl’s dream – a homeland dedicated to building a safe haven for Jews. So, while our distant advisers are keen on a multi-voiced government, it’s important to know how wide the gap of ideology is between them.

The Joint List, described as an alliance of Arab-majority political factions in Israel comprising Hadash and Ta'al) is wholly dedicated to the cause of “Palestinian nationalism, civil equality, and opposition to right-wing policy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_List

Hadash leader Yousef Jabareen and Ta’al leader Ahmad Tibi both believe that many of Israel’s policies are racist and harmful to Arab citizens.

So, despite their desire to join forces with the opposition candidate, Gadi Eisenkot, they expect a lot in return for helping to build a coalition. That includes the departure of the IDF from Gaza as well as an “end to the occupation.”

What occupation? Does anyone even know what that undefined wording means? Because if you ask any pro-Palestinian individual, they will refer you to the “from the river to the sea” concept, accounting for a Jew-free Middle East.

Shouldn’t someone request an explanation of that “end the occupation” term before signing on the dotted line as a coalition?

While the Joint List seeks “full civil, national, and democratic equality, for Palestinian citizens of Israel,” their idea of ending the occupation might actually result in a superior status for their supporters. But who knows their intentions?
President Herzog taps Eisenkot to form coalition, but path remains fraught
President Isaac Herzog announced Saturday evening that he would task Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot with forming Israel’s next government, as the so-called change bloc Eisenkot leads continued to attempt to line up potential future coalition partners, including ultra-Orthodox parties, Arab-led parties, and even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud.

Eisenkot will formally receive the mandate at a ceremony at the President’s Residence on Sunday at 5 p.m. He will then have 28 days to form a government, with Herzog authorized to grant him an extension of up to 14 days if necessary. If he fails, Netanyahu could next be given the chance to do so.

Herzog said he had informed Eisenkot and Netanyahu of his decision earlier in the evening, after holding consultations Wednesday and Thursday with all Knesset parties and further talks over the weekend with figures across the political spectrum, including the two rivals.

During Herzog’s consultations with party delegations, Eisenkot received 67 recommendations for the premiership — a majority in the 120-member parliament — while Netanyahu got 46. The seven-seat-strong United Torah Judaism made no recommendation.

Reacting to Herzog’s announcement, Eisenkot said in a post on X that “now is the time for the formation of a national emergency government,” adding: “I will do everything to make us worthy.”

However, Eisenkot’s path to a governing coalition is far from straightforward. Hawkish members of his bloc are publicly opposed to any reliance on the Arab-led Ra’am and Joint List, while many bloc members campaigned on the need to send both Netanyahu and the ultra-Orthodox parties to the opposition.

While Yashar said on Saturday night that “Likud and its friends” could potentially join an Eisenkot-led coalition, it did not extend that offer to Netanyahu. Eisenkot himself has repeatedly stressed he will not partner with Netanyahu in any coalition, and that anybody who held a major position of power when Hamas invaded on October 7, 2023, must leave public life.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot clash over ‘unity’ prospects
In a video statement on Saturday evening, Netanyahu called on the Eisenkot-led change bloc parties to form what he termed a “national unity government,” though he clarified that it would have to include all of his allies from the last coalition, meaning the ultranationalist Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit parties and the ultra-Orthodox parties — a likely non-starter.

The call marked another shift in Netanyahu’s post-election phraseology. Hours after the polls closed on October 27, he said he would build a “strong, national, right-wing coalition.” On November 2, he called for a “broad national government” under his leadership.

The prime minister did not say, however, who should lead such a government.

While Netanyahu hasn’t offered a power-sharing rotation agreement, the Kan public broadcaster on Saturday cited an unnamed Netanyahu associate as estimating that he would agree to discuss the possibility if negotiations for a unity government were held.

The report added that someone sent by Netanyahu to explore a unity government with Eisenkot said he was “rejected out of hand.” Eisenkot’s party said it was unfamiliar with this approach.

In his video statement, the premier once again issued dire warnings against a government formed with the Arab parties, whom he labeled “terror supporters,” claiming it would destroy the country.

“There is someone who wants, as soon as next week, to hastily swear in a government with terror supporters. To establish a government in the State of Israel with those who want to eliminate the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said, in reference to Eisenkot and the Arab parties.

The prime minister alleged that “a government dependent on Hamas supporters won’t fight Hamas,” and won’t defend IDF soldiers operating in Gaza and Lebanon.
Netanyahu says ‘time for unity,’ warns against government backed by ‘Islamists’
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night called for a unity government and warned that a coalition backed by “Islamists” will risk Israel’s survival, apparently referring to the 19 seats won by the Arab parties.

“As early as next week, there are those who intend to hastily swear in a government with supporters of terrorism,” Netanyahu said in an address delivered to the press in Hebrew.

Such a government would “dismantle the State of Israel from within, as is happening in European countries—and much worse,” he said.

The premier said that the Jewish state would experience worse riots than those recently seen in Paris and Brussels, adding, “These are not scare tactics. This is the reality we will face, and that is why we must stop it, because our very existence is at stake.”

He further stated that a national unity government, which includes “all the parties in the national camp and all the Zionist parties,” would permanently remove the nuclear threat from Iran and preserve Israel as a Jewish state, unlike a government dependent on Arab parties that would prevent it from fighting against Hamas and radical Islam.

“And so there is only one choice: not national suicide, but national unity,” Israel’s longest-serving prime minister said.
Likud to appeal election results over alleged illegal voter tracking by Arab parties
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud is preparing to appeal the results of the recent election — either in part or in whole — based on allegations that Arab political parties used electronic means of tracking voters to boost turnout in a manner banned by the High Court of Justice just before the election, the party’s lawyer told The Times of Israel on Saturday.

Netanyahu and other outgoing coalition members have repeatedly claimed that the October 27 elections were “stolen” by Arab parties, citing claims of bribery, intimidation, forgery and other irregularities following record Arab turnout that helped deprive the premier’s bloc of a parliamentary majority.

Likud party lawyer Ilan Bombach told The Times of Israel that Likud polling station observers filed 700 complaints on election day about Arab party activists using a smartphone app to track voter turnout, asserting that each complaint affected “hundreds or thousands of votes.”

Since the High Court barred the practice, this gave the Arab parties an unfair advantage, Bombach maintained. The Likud lawyer said it has yet to be decided whether the appeal will challenge the entire election result or be more narrowly focused.

The complaint will be filed with the Jerusalem District Court, though likely not before November 17, the last day such appeals can be filed.

An organization called the Civilian Election Guard, which sent volunteer observers to polling stations on election day, reported on 374 instances of apparently illegal use of apps to track voter turnout.

However, the group said that the largest number of such violations was by Likud activists and polling station workers, who comprised 32 percent of all such incidents, followed by United Torah Judaism with 10%, Shas with 6%, Ra’am with 2%, and the Joint List with 1%.

When the High Court banned the use of such apps ten days before the election, Likud ministers reacted furiously to the decision. The Likud and ultra-Orthodox parties in particular have made extensive use of this data to boost their voter turnout in recent election cycles, and the Likud party lawyers argued in court that their election day operations would be severely harmed if this practice were banned.

Bombach said the planned appeal may also cover the two ongoing investigations into electoral fraud currently being investigated by law enforcement agencies, depending on what findings are released by that date.
What No One Else Noticed About GOP’s Major Midterm Losses | Douglas Murray
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Douglas Murray about the Republican Party’s major losses in the 2026 midterm elections and what went wrong for Donald Trump and the GOP; the shocking Democratic victories in Texas and the role of immigration and changing voter demographics; Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan Senate victory and his controversial comments about Palestinians and Israel; the growing influence of Zohran Mamdani and other increasingly radical voices within the Democratic Party; the rise of sectarian politics and Islamist influence in American politics; how the Iran war, inflation, high gas prices, and the cost-of-living crisis hurt Republicans; how the midterm election results could affect immigration enforcement in America and Europe; why border security is possible but mass deportations remain extremely difficult; the challenges facing ICE and declining public support for deportation policies; the growing immigration crisis in the UK, France, and Western Europe; his warning about the “Lebanonization of Europe” and the rise of divided societies and sectarian conflict; his concerns about Ilhan Omar and the growing influence of Islamist politics in the United States; and much more.

02:58 How to understand midterms outcome
04:45 Media focus on 'firsts'
06:00 El-Sayed's victory speech
08:54 Parallels between Dems and U.K. Labor parties
10:46 What surprised Murray about outcome
13:59 Woke isn't dead -- it's on steroids
16:32 Iran war not only 'excuse' for big loss
19:29 Did Trump oversell Iran war?
24:26 Fortitude of the West
29:20 Trump at his best up against wall
34:48 Why European leaders hater hate Trump
35:56 What Trump showed on immigration
40:20 Future for Europe: Balkanization
43:43 Muslim sectarian politicking in U.S.
45:29 Don't be so sure of America's melting pot


Ask Haviv Anything: 159: How bad were the midterms for Israel? With Michael Moynihan
Episode 159: Tuesday’s midterms in the US delivered a political earthquake, handing the Democratic Party a landslide victory and control of both the House and the Senate. Journalist and podcaster Michael Moynihan joins the pod to break down why the MAGA coalition collapsed across nearly every demographic -- from tariff pain and gas prices to voter exhaustion with White House "fan service" and perceived corruption.

We also dig into what the Israeli press is getting wrong about the results. While headlines in Israel fixate on a handful of far-left, anti-Israel primary winners, the actual American wave was driven by centrist "Blue Dog" Democrats and pragmatic voters who simultaneously backed conservative ballot measures like voter ID. We look at why US strategic ties with Israel will probably prove sturdier than the panic suggests, why blaming Israel for American grocery prices is a great way to do nothing about the problem of high grocery prices, and how the outcome of Israel’s own political crisis could reshape the relationship with Washington.

Chapters
00:00 Meet Michael Moynihan and the midterm question
03:02 Why Moynihan calls the results a political earthquake
06:25 Tariffs, prices, and the gap between promises and reality
12:12 Corruption, voter disgust, and the demand for normalcy
17:56 What the results say about American democracy
24:20 The centrist Democratic gains and Israel's place in the debate
29:49 Campaign ads, foreign aid, and the Israel debate
38:57 Why voters may reject scapegoating and economic false promises
44:36 Congress, arms sales, and the limits of policy change
47:05 Antisemitism, campus culture, and the political climate
51:18 How Israeli policy and leadership could shape U.S. ties
59:05 Closing reflections on a turbulent week




The Balfour Declaration: Historical revisionism cannot erase Jewish claims to Israel
A bitter betrayal of the promise made in 1917
Britain’s subsequent behavior, however, hardly reflected consistent devotion to the Zionist cause.

Its 1939 White Paper limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years and made further immigration dependent on Arab consent, just as European Jews were desperately seeking refuge from Nazi persecution.

It was a bitter betrayal of the promise made in 1917, with tragic consequences for countless thousands of European Jews who might otherwise have been saved from the Nazi inferno.

Yet the Jewish national movement persevered, and on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence. With Divine assistance, the Jewish people had restored its sovereignty through determination, sacrifice, and nation-building rather than British generosity.

Nearly eight decades later, however, Israel’s legitimacy is once again being challenged.

Since the Hamas-led massacre of October 7, 2023, anti-Israel demonstrations on university campuses and in Western cities have featured accusations that Zionism is inherently colonialist, and Israel an illegitimate settler state.

Yet those who portray Zionism as a foreign intrusion into the Middle East must contend with an inconvenient historical reality: Jewish nationhood originated in the very land where Israel stands today.

Nor was the State of Israel created merely as compensation for the Holocaust, as another common misconception would have it. The Zionist movement emerged decades before the Nazis came to power, while the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate had already secured international recognition for Jewish national aspirations prior to Hitler’s ascent to chancellor.

ULTIMATELY, THE debate over the Balfour Declaration is about far more than a letter written in London in 1917. It is about whether the Jewish people’s history in the Land of Israel can be dismissed or rewritten to suit the political fashions of the day.

Balfour’s declaration was an important diplomatic milestone, but it was not the beginning of Jewish nationhood, nor was it the source of the Jewish people’s rights to their ancestral homeland.

The British Empire that issued the declaration has long since disappeared. Yet the Jewish people, whose national aspirations it recognized, has returned to sovereignty in its ancient homeland.

And no amount of historical revisionism can turn us into foreigners in our own land.
Britain’s colonial legacy undermines its moral lectures against Israel
Britain’s betrayal of Jewish refugees
For the Jewish people, the historical reckoning is especially painful. The White Paper of 1939 severely restricted Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine precisely when European Jews desperately needed escape routes from the Nazis.

Britain fought Adolf Hitler, and its contribution to victory is beyond dispute. But that does not erase the fact that the gates were closed.

British policy turned the Jewish plea for rescue into an administrative and security problem. People seeking life encountered quotas, patrol ships, and deportation orders. This was a moral failure that cannot be whitewashed by ceremonial speeches about human rights.

The shameful spectacle continued even after the Holocaust. Tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the case of the exodus, Jewish refugees were forcibly returned to Europe and eventually to Germany.

Those words deserve to be repeated: survivors who had reached the threshold of their homeland were sent back to the country from which the machinery of extermination had emerged.

It was a barbaric and discriminatory policy, accompanied by institutional indifference, that harmed Jews at the moment of their greatest vulnerability. That memory denies London the right to demand polite forgetfulness from the Jewish people.

As Britain appears to be moving with its eyes open toward losing control of its future, its leaders seem to prefer lecturing a country overseas rather than confronting their own reflection.

Violent demonstrations in the streets of London sharpen the question: Is the government capable of protecting public order and drawing a clear line between the freedom to protest and acts of violence and intimidation?

The right to demonstrate is not permission to harm people or terrorize the streets. It is easier to rebuke Israel than to answer British citizens who seek security and a government determined to defend its values. Criticism of Israel is no substitute for domestic policy, and moral lectures cannot conceal the British government’s helplessness.

Those who refuse to follow democratic rules or preach hatred of Jews are not entitled to an exemption in the name of cultural sensitivity. The problem is not the origin of immigrants. It is a policy that is afraid to set clear expectations.

A government that confuses tolerance with surrender to Islamist extremism abandons the public, including immigrants who genuinely seek to integrate into British society.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s announcement should be examined against this background. In her speech, she said that around one quarter of referrals under the reopened resettlement program would involve Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees.

Mahmood also received funding from Islamic Relief for a humanitarian visit to Pakistan in 2010. The German government has previously alleged personal links between figures associated with the organization and the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic Relief denies such connections, and the issue has been raised in Parliament.

The British public and its elected representatives should demand figures, budgets, security screening procedures, and measurable integration standards. Compassion alone is not a plan. The public is entitled to know who will bear the costs, how local authorities are preparing, and what will be done when political promises collide with reality, as is happening in English cities today.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s fiery speech against Israel and in favor of imposing sanctions also demands sharp scrutiny. He accused Israeli figures of ethnic cleansing and war crimes and promised measures targeting settlements.

He condemned the October 7 massacre, but the difficult question remains: Does the supposedly moral language conceal political hypocrisy? Is pressure on Israel intended partly to appeal to Muslim voters? It is clearly easier to rebuke Israel than to confront its enemies.

Does Miliband’s meeting and handshake with the Iranian foreign minister serve some hidden agenda? Diplomacy must be judged by results. Is Britain restraining a regime that threatens Israel and the free world, or merely granting it more time and legitimacy?

Smiles and photographs are no substitute for deterrence. London must prove that threats against Jews and Israelis are met with action, not merely forceful sentences and carefully drafted news releases.

Britain is not immune from criticism, and moral authority requires responsibility. A government that seeks influence must also listen to Israeli concerns. Britain must distinguish between compromise and capitulation and stop pretending that history began only in the present era. The world also remembers imperial Britain, when human rights were not always among its highest priorities.

The Labour Party risks leading Britain into a profound crisis. Will it choose moral gestures over effective government and slogans over responsibility? The British Empire has already disintegrated, but the habit of speaking down to others has not disappeared.

Britain is not responsible for all the troubles of the world, but it is certainly responsible for some of its deepest scars. It therefore needs less self-righteousness, greater historical honesty and the courage to defend the values it demands from everyone else.

A country that once closed its gates to Jewish refugees should exercise particular caution when lecturing the Jewish state about morality and justice.


Pro-Palestine activists ‘intimidating patients’ by handing out leaflets in hospitals
Pro-Palestine activists have been accused of intimidating Jewish patients and staff by distributing leaflets accusing Israel of genocide in hospital treatment rooms and waiting areas.

The campaign group Global Health for Palestine has distributed the leaflets at several hospitals in recent weeks.

The Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, which serves a large Jewish population across north London, was the latest NHS facility targeted.

Caroline Turner, the director of legal campaign group UK Lawyers for Israel, told The Telegraph: “These leaflets are intimidating and upsetting to Jewish and Israeli patients and their families, particularly as they are in a vulnerable state.”

Activists are understood to have left the leaflets in public and patient areas at the Royal Free Hospital, including chemotherapy treatment rooms.

They accuse Israel of genocide through the deliberate starvation of Gaza’s population since it launched its military response to the Oct 7 attacks in 2023.

The leaflets also accuse NHS managers of bullying and victimising staff who “express solidarity with Palestine or support the nurses and doctors killed or tortured by the Israeli military in Gaza”.

Ms Turner added: “These leaflets seek to undermine efforts to tackle anti-Semitism in the NHS, portraying anti-Semitism training as ‘pro-Israel indoctrination’ and dismissing the internationally recognised IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

“It is particularly offensive to describe measures to protect Jewish healthcare workers and patients from discrimination as ‘racist’, while encouraging political demonstrations within healthcare settings.”

She added: “Jewish patients and NHS staff are entitled to feel safe and respected, without being confronted by hostile political campaigning. The Royal Free Hospital should investigate how these inflammatory leaflets came to be distributed on its premises and take steps to prevent its facilities from being used to promote such divisive messaging.”

Responding to the distribution of leaflets at Royal Free Hospital, Lord Mann told The Telegraph: “The NHS isn’t a place for people’s extremist politicking and the public is entitled, as are all staff, to use the NHS without any hostility.

“This should not be happening. People seeing this kind of thing won’t want to use the NHS, and we can’t have a bar on Jewish people, or anyone else, using the NHS. The country won’t have it.”


BBC yet to review Gaza coverage after 18 months
The BBC is yet to begin a review of its Gaza coverage, 18 months after it was first announced that it would do so.

In April 2025, during one of several anti-Semitism scandals that have plagued the broadcaster in recent years, Samir Shah, its chairman, promised to launch an “independent thematic review” of its reporting on the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

But after inquiries by The Telegraph, the BBC admitted that it had not appointed anyone to carry out the review, let alone commenced work on it.

Jewish leaders said the delay proved that the corporation could not be trusted to “mark its own homework”, and called for a fully independent investigation into its coverage of the Middle East and its treatment of Jewish staff.

In April last year, the BBC was under pressure after it broadcast a documentary called Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, which was narrated by the son of a Hamas official whose family were paid with licence-fee money for his participation.

Tim Davie, the BBC’s then director-general, met the Board of Deputies of British Jews to assure it that the problems of anti-Semitism were being addressed.

The broadcaster promised to carry out an independent review of its coverage of Israel and Gaza, which Mr Shah reiterated in May that year.

Last November, the BBC was engulfed in a fresh row about its Middle East reporting when a Telegraph investigation revealed internal warnings about anti-Israel bias in its news coverage and repeated appearances on BBC Arabic of Palestinians who had made anti-Semitic comments.

Mr Davie resigned after a week of revelations in The Telegraph about bias in the BBC’s coverage of not just Israel but also Donald Trump, race and transgender issues.

Last month, The Telegraph disclosed that Lucie Kon, a Jewish documentary producer, had been given a £400,000 payout by the BBC when she was made redundant after she lodged a formal complaint of anti-Semitism.

The BBC agreed to pay her substantial compensation without any admission of liability. It has refused to apologise or admit that she was a victim of anti-Semitism.

Despite such repeated hits to the BBC’s reputation, the promised independent review has not started.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism said Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, must step in and order an inquiry into the BBC.

A spokesman said: “A year and a half ago, when the BBC was engulfed in a previous anti-Semitism scandal and under pressure from us and others, they scrambled to do damage control.

“As part of that exercise, they quietly promised the Jewish community a review into their Gaza coverage. They assured us that a wide-ranging internal investigation would take place.

“A year and a half on, there is no indication that such a review was launched, let alone concluded. And now the corporation is engulfed in yet another major anti-Semitism controversy, in what seems to have become at least a biannual tradition.”


Former CENTCOM deputy cmdr. discusses Iran war failures
The failure of the United States and Israel to destroy Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities is "probably the most significant failure" of the war, former US Central Command (CENTCOM) deputy commander Rear-Adm. (ret.) Robert Stiles Harward Jr. told KAN News' "International Hour" in an interview on Tuesday.

"These are Iran's main means of threatening American forces, Israel, and the countries of the region," said Harward. "Unfortunately, we have not been able to completely eliminate this threat, and it is very possible that it will be the main target of the next wave of military action."

Harward told KAN that the existence of these capabilities, which he emphasized are the main power projection and pressure tools left in Tehran's arsenal, is a primary obstacle to the international community being able to support the Iranian population against the regime.

Regarding US military operations in and around the Strait of Hormuz, Harward said that US President Donald Trump's administration maintains "complete control of the operational pace and is operating with successful deception that keeps everyone on their toes."

Trump has threatened in recent days to renew strikes against Iran, but has also pursued a diplomatic solution through Qatari mediators.

Harward: Trump can attack Iran 'whenever he wants'
"The financial strangulation is already causing severe internal shocks in Iran, so time is working in Trump's favor," said Harward. "He can wait and attack whenever he wants."

In addition to military and naval blockades, the US Treasury Department has issued multiple sanctions against the Islamic regime, with the most recent sanctions targeting eight Canada-based money services firms that have allegedly facilitated transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities.

According to Harward, the US has multitudes of both kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities with which to increase pressure on Iran, though these would stop short of a nuclear attack, despite claims by controversial conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on Sunday that Trump may launch such an attack "within days."

"That would be a last resort and a most extreme option," Harward emphasized. "Any leader would hesitate to use it, especially when there are many conventional alternatives on the table."

Examples of these capabilities listed by the former CENTCOM deputy commander included blockading Iran's remaining trade routes and using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb, nicknamed "The Mother of All Bombs," against Iranian nuclear facilities.


Power-hungry DSA vows to ‘break US-Israel relationship,’ ignores cost of living issue in first meeting since midterms
In their first national meeting since Election Day, power-hungry socialist leaders — including three newly elected “Squad” members of Congress — ignored populist issues such as cost of living, trumpeting instead their radical plans to “break the US-Israel relationship” and disrupt ICE.

On a Thursday night mass call by the Democratic Socialists of America dubbed “The socialist surge: DSA, the midterms and beyond,” six winning candidates and national DSA leaders gloated that the organization just had its “biggest election ever.”

“We’ve quadrupled our presence in Congress,” exclaimed national DSA Co-Chair Ashiq Saddique, wearing a black and orange “Democratic Socialists” soccer jersey with the words “Solidarity Forever” on the collar.

“Millions of people voted for socialists,” he gushed.

And on Saturday, the DSA did a victory lap through Manhattan, claiming credit over Election Day’s “blue tsunami,” and demanding new leadership in the House and Senate if traditional Democrats don’t back their pet causes.

We don’t want corporate Dems in there,” said Connie Cooper of Connecticut, who was among the hundreds of who marched a mile from Times Square to Seventh Avenue and West 14th Street. “We’re calling the shots!”

Instead of focusing on affordability issues that helped propel Democrats into office, the DSA on its Thursday call jumped straight into ideological and geopolitical debates like Israel-Palestine, declaring it was planning a human arms embargo, despite President Trump this week saying the US will end $4 billion in annual aid to Israel.

“We are going to implement an arms embargo from below, a people’s arms embargo,” declared DSA National Political Committee member Francesca Maviglia.

Several DSA chapters have started working on a National Arms Embargo Campaign, targeting Elbit systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer with a subsidiary in Texas, and United Airlines, said Maviglia.

“Instead of pleading with policymakers, we’re going to disrupt the production and shipping of weapons ourselves,” she threatened.

Another leader, fresh off a trip to the Middle East, talked about how a recent DSA delegation to Jordan was stopped by the Israeli Defense Forces from crossing the Palestinian border.

“It’s only strengthened my resolve to fight against Israel,” said Kareem Elrefai, a DSA National Political Committee member, as his comrades in the chat cheered and wrote “f–k the IDF.”


Jonathan Tobin: Why do American Jews vote for antisemites like El-Sayed?
For those whose Jewish identity is still firmly rooted in Jewish tradition, a vote for someone like El-Sayed is hard to justify even if they are loyal Democrats.

Perhaps few would, like Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, think that adding another member to the Democratic Senate caucus is more important than Israel’s survival or that of the Jewish people. But in the current political atmosphere, it is likely that some of them might have done so simply because they hate Trump and the Republicans more than they love Israel.

It is arguable that those with such a negligible sense of their identity as Jews are unlikely to maintain themselves as a separate community or one with any coherence. Indeed, that may already be the case, as the number of those Jews of no religion continues to multiply. Part of the problem with surveys that measure Jewish opinion or votes is that a growing number of those who say they are Jewish have few actual ties to Jewish life.

If one were to only count those Jews who have such connections or beliefs, the statistics about their voting habits and their beliefs might be very different from those that show that the Jewish population is as liberal and loyal to the Democrats as they ever were.

Even if that is true, it is still a measure of the ignorance and the lack of identification with the ongoing struggle for Jewish survival in an age of growing antisemitism that so many Jews vote for the likes of El-Sayed, Chevalier, Mamdani and even Lander. It is a sign of a community that has lost its way.

With so much of the mainstream liberal media—upon which most Jews depend for information about the Middle East and the battle against antisemitism— mainstreaming misinformation and blood libels about Israel, it’s not that surprising that they aren’t questioning knee-jerk support for Jew-hating Democrats.

But it must motivate those who understand just how wrongheaded such stances are to redouble their efforts to promote Jewish education and connection to the Jewish state as well as in telling the truth about the war against Israel.

The only way to combat the Jewish illiteracy that leads so many to vote for antisemites out of partisan loyalty is to spread the truth about Jewish life and Israel.
US Jewish groups take stock of midterms
Bernstein told JNS that he does not think that either the Israeli election in October or the results of the midterm in the United States would change the trajectory of discourse about Jews and Israel in America.

“Even if Bibi Netanyahu was no longer the prime minister, I don’t think that that stops anything,” he said.

The train of Jew-hatred and opposition to Israel “has left the station,” the B’na B’rith leader told JNS.

“It’s, to me, unbelievable what’s gone on over the last three or four or five years and how fast this is all moving against the Jewish communities across the globe,” Bernstein said. “It’s shocking how fast this is moving.”

One challenge that Jewish groups will face in the next Congress is the sheer number of new faces in Congress after Democrats unseated Republicans in both swing districts and in longtime GOP strongholds.

Republicans who lost on Tuesday included some of the most prominent voices on Jewish issues in Congress, like Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who co-chaired the House bipartisan task forces for combating antisemitism, and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who helped introduce the Jewish American Security Act to increase funding for the nonprofit security grant program.

Josh Nason, senior director of political affairs at the Jewish Federations of North America, told JNS that the “biggest story” of election night was how many new members of Congress “weren’t even on the radar.”

“There’s going to be a big education challenge,” Nason said. “Our first priority is establishing that connection point and helping them understand, especially on the security front, the acute threat that the community is facing and the importance of working on this issue.”

“There are a lot of members, who were really big champions of the issues we care about, who aren’t coming back,” he said. “That’s a huge challenge.”

Nason told JNS that maintaining bipartisan relationships will help ensure that the priorities of Jewish groups, like getting increased security funding for houses of worship, remain on the Congressional agenda.

“The players are changing,” Nason said. “Democrats are going to control the House and Senate floor, which means they’re going to get to decide which bills come up, which means our conversations are going to have to be with Hakeem Jeffries and his team and with Chuck Schumer and his team.”

The same will also be true at the state level, with Democrats flipping control of legislative chambers in nine states and five governor’s mansions on Tuesday, including in states like Texas, where Jews make up less than 1% of the population.

“We saw a huge blue wave election, and it’s a ton of new legislators, many of whom have no history or background on the issues that we care about,” Nason told JNS.

“We’re starting this process from the standpoint of an opportunity,” he said. “How do we make sure that we build those relationships? How do we make sure that we help legislators understand what their local Jewish community cares about and build that into policy successes?”
El-Sayed lost Jewish support over Israel, antisemitism, but received over 50% of Jewish votes
Newly elected Michigan Democratic Senator Abdul El-Sayed had less support among Jewish voters than other Michigan Democrats, according to a Politico report published Thursday.

In places with larger Jewish populations, El-Sayed lagged significantly behind other Michigan Democrats, while statewide, El-Sayed (52.5% of the vote) fell just two points short of Democratic Gov.-elect Jocelyn Benson, who received support from 54.5% of voters.

According to Thursday's report, in heavily Jewish areas such as Huntington Woods, a suburb of Detroit where around 67% of people are Jewish, El-Sayed fell further behind Benson, receiving just 65.3% of the vote compared to 80% for Benson.

A similar effect was seen in West Bloomfield, where around a quarter of people are Jewish. El-Sayed ran 8.8 points behind Benson. West Bloomfield was also the site of an attack on a synagogue in March.

El-Sayed apologized in August for comments he made following the attack, after facing significant backlash from Jewish people both inside his party and in the wider community. El-Sayed said that his remarks following the attempted targeting of the West Bloomfield synagogue preschool were intended to provide “context.”

In a statement shortly after the attempted attack, El-Sayed had written that "hurt people hurt people," and referenced that the attacker had lost family in an Israeli airstrike on Lebanon. Community leaders from Temple Israel and members of the Democratic Party’s Jewish caucus called his statements "offensive," with some accusing him of inverting the onus of responsibility onto the victims.


Did you hear the one about the pro-Palestine Jewish comic who tried to reason with an antisemite?
Viral videos circulating on social media are rarely good sources of profound political insight, but a clip making the rounds online this week is the rare exception. It was taken during a stand-up performance by Lucas Zelnick, a New York City-based comedian. As Zelnick is yakking it up, a member of the audience decides to heckle him.

“I’m against Jews!” she shouts.

Zelnick looks genuinely surprised. He asks her to clarify what she means by her statement, and the woman doubles down. “You guys are evil!” she shouts again, explaining that her belief is predicated on “what’s happening in Palestine”.

At the mention of the P Word, Zelnick springs into action.

Leaning forward and making direct eye contact with his heckler, he states his credo. “I’m pro-Palestine,” he says proudly, before making a bad joke about Jews being cheap and, finally, coming in for the landing: “There are a lot of Jews being naughty in Israel right now, but it’s not all Jews, and it’s not because they’re Jews.”

The Jew hater, however, is far from moved by Zelnick’s mea culpa. She barks at the comic, demanding he apologise further and do more to distance himself from the rest of the Jews. It’s a step too far even for the pliant Zelnick, who, visibly stung, asks the heckler to explain why she’s asking him to prove to her not all Jews are murderous maniacs.

It’s such an asinine conversation, and Zelnick’s mewling is so grating, that the rest of the audience loses its patience, demanding that the comedian kick the noxious antisemite out. Zelnick, naturally, refuses, muttering something about wanting to connect with people and understand their points of view. Finally, when he realises the heckler had already gotten up and left, presumably too bored with the comedian’s scolded puppy act, Zelnick puts his hands together, makes a comically evil face, and says, “now that she’s gone, can we plan another drone strike against Gaza?”

And there you have it: everything that’s deeply sad, profoundly stupid, and irreparably broken about so much of liberal Judaism these days in one two-and-a-half minute video.

You would think that, by now, even the fiercest Jewish critics of Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies would realise that there is absolutely no one on the other side interested in an honest, thoughtful exchange. The people bellowing about “genocide” while brushing off all evidence to the contrary aren’t here to chat. The savages terrorising Jews on college campuses while waving the banners of Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t secretly waiting for some kind-hearted Yid to offer them a nice cuppa and an invitation to a conversation. As the “pro-Palestine” brigades have made very clear these past three years, they’re here to hurt us.

Anyone who needed yet another reminder got it this week in the form of another viral video, this one showing a young supporter of Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed violently attacking a Jewish woman at a University of Michigan free speech event.

And yet, we still have Zelnicks in our midst, taking care to make it clear that they’re not like those other Jews, the bad ones, the ones fighting for their survival over there in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland. We still have snivelling fools who think that if they only dialled up the empathy and fired off a few self-deprecating remarks, they could finally melt the hearts of the murderous jihadis.

That’s a shame, of course – there’s nothing more dispiriting than a dumb Jew. But it’s also, increasingly, a real threat to the Jewish community. How so? Simple: the people attacking Jews, in New York and in London and in Paris and elsewhere, are, to put it bluntly but accurately, vile and violent. They are here to intimidate, not negotiate. And the only way to deter these marauders is to project great strength and resolve. Zelnick’s heckler only allowed herself to be so openly and brazenly antisemitic because she guessed, correctly, that there’s very little chance she’ll face any real consequences. The same is true of the Michigan maniac, and of every other Jew-hating creep: they aggress because they realise the worst that could happen to them is some limp-wristed liberal Jew rushing to offer apologies and understanding.


Court orders owner of California cafe that served 'Sweet Sinwar' drink to pay $59,000
A federal court in northern California has ordered Abd al-Rahim Harara, owner of Jerusalem Coffee House in Oakland, to pay plaintiff Michael R. Addis $59,000 for repeatedly violating court orders during the pretrial exchange of evidence.

In his October 29 ruling, Judge Thomas Hixson gave Harara 30 days to pay the amount, which covers expenses Addis incurred because of the violations. The sanction stems from Harara’s failure to comply with orders during discovery, the process through which parties exchange evidence before trial.

Hixson found that Harara had violated at least six court orders. Documents were provided late or incompletely, and emails were not turned over at all. The judge wrote that “he has no good excuse” for that failure. Explaining the financial sanction, he added: “He needs to pay for what he did.”

Judge criticizes Addis lawyers for aggressive litigation, high costs
The judge reduced the amount Addis had requested and criticized his lawyers for aggressive litigation and high costs. He also recommended denying a request to rule against Harara as a sanction, finding that the available evidence would still allow a fair trial. The payment order does not establish that discrimination occurred.

According to his lawsuit, Addis entered Jerusalem Coffee House wearing a hat bearing a Star of David and the words “Am Yisrael Chai,” meaning “The people of Israel live,” and asked to buy a cookie.

An employee who had confronted him during a previous visit recognized him as “the guy with the hat” and told him he was not welcome. Addis alleges that Harara and another employee joined in forcing him out.

The lawsuit alleges that all three followed Addis into the street, calling him “Jew” and “Zionist.” He says he felt threatened and stepped into the roadway to get away from them. According to his account, they stopped following him only when a board member of the organization where he worked arrived. The court has not yet ruled on these allegations.

The cafe’s drink menu has also become part of the case. According to the US Justice Department, the business announced drinks named “Sweet Sinwar” and “Iced In Tea Fada,” a play on intifada, on the first anniversary of the October 7 massacre. The department cited the drinks as background to its discrimination allegations.
Brazilian lawyer convicted of racism after calling for Jews to be removed from leadership
A court in Rio de Janeiro has convicted a Brazilian lawyer of racism after he called for Jews to be removed from leadership positions at the Brazilian Lawyers Institute (IAB) and for the local Jewish federation to be shut down.

Heriberto de Miranda Jordão Filho was sentenced Wednesday to two years in prison under Brazil’s open prison regime, but the court replaced the sentence with community service, meaning he will not serve time behind bars, the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo reported Thursday. He has said he will appeal.

The case stems from a March 20, 2024, meeting of the institute, a professional legal association founded in 1843 and considered one of the oldest legal institutions in the Americas.

Filho calls for removal of Jews from Brazilian Lawyers Institute leadership, shutdown of Jewish Federation
During the meeting, which was streamed on YouTube, Jordão Filho read a letter demanding that all Jews, both Zionist and non-Zionist, be removed from the institute’s leadership and as chairs of its committees. He argued that religious Jews had no place in the institute and demanded their removal because of their religious affiliation. His remarks sparked an uproar within the institute and Brazil’s Jewish community.

In the same address, he called for the Jewish Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FIERJ) to be shut down. The demand followed a complaint the federation had filed against him with the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) over earlier antisemitic remarks.

Jordão Filho accused the federation of political, ideological and religious persecution. He claimed it was an antidemocratic organization whose members included “fascists, evangelicals and Bolsonaro supporters,” referring to former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. He also called Jews who opposed him cowards and perpetrators of genocide and compared Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip to Nazi crimes.

Brazil’s Jewish community strongly condemned the remarks and demanded action against him. Claudio Lottenberg, president of the Brazilian Jewish Confederation (CONIB), welcomed the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Jordão Filho and said antisemitism had risen in Brazil and worldwide since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel.

Lottenberg called for a firm response and said the Jewish community expected a severe penalty for the hateful remarks made by an institute member.
Albania is on fire as rioting mobsters and leftists say the country has been ‘sold to the Jews’
For the past six months, Albania has been the site of intense anti-government protests. Last month, the largely peaceful demonstrations in this tiny Balkan country of 2.7 million people turned violent.

Now every evening the main boulevard in Tirana, the capital, resembles an urban combat zone as young, mostly student-led protesters clash with riot police. The police fire tear gas and rubber bullets; the protesters hurl Molotov cocktails and stones. Central Tirana displays the scars of these confrontations — shattered glass, broken windows, vandalized public property, wrecked kiosks.

The protest began as a reaction against a luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner. But it has since grown into something approaching an insurgency against the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama. The grievances that fed the unrest are real: corruption, substandard public services and the fear that Albania’s natural patrimony is being sacrificed to politically connected investors. But they are increasingly being hijacked by something sinister.

The seed for the mayhem was planted during a yachting holiday in the summer of 2021, when Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner visited Sazan, a former military island at the entrance to the Bay of Vlore in southern Albania. “Captivated” by the island, they proposed developing it into a luxury resort. The complication: Sazan is state-owned and environmentally sensitive, while the nearby area of Zvernac contains protected wetlands rich in wildlife.

The Kushners met Rama on the yacht one evening.

The project then acquired shape and speed: A pair of Qatar-based billionaires offered initial financing for the $4.4 billion enterprise; the government designated Kushner’s firm a strategic investor, and in March approved a development permit. The title to the land in Zvernec was purchased from an Albanian expat in Miami with a dubious reputation. The Albanian government, hungry for investment, fast-tracked preliminary permissions.

This is the point at which people began pouring into the streets to rally against what they regarded as the fire-sale of their national treasure. As their numbers multiplied, their discontent broadened. The specific objective of the original protests — to stop the despoilation of Albanian land — erupted into an outburst directed at Rama.

On a recent evening on Tirana’s Skanderbeg Square, Blendi, a 19-year-old student, told The Post that he had no choice but to protest. He was five when his father moved to Greece for work and he grew up with his mother. “I have no choice but to protest for my future,” he said.

But Blendi and his legitimate complaints were being eclipsed by others who were animated by noxious conspiracism. A short distance from the main square, I met young protesters who brandished posters demanding that the police “arrest the traitor of the nation who sold Albania to the Jews.”

Alas, that is not a fringe feeling. Protester after protester asserted to me that Rama was put in office by “Jews” on — as one student put it — a “20-year contract” to hand Albania to “the Jews.”



 

at