Tuesday, June 30, 2026
Elder of Ziyon
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Its working rule is even simpler: any target Hamas hides among civilians becomes untouchable, and any civilian who dies beside it becomes proof of murder. The deeper Hamas burrows into homes and schools and hospitals, the safer it gets and the guiltier Israel looks, which inverts the very law that forbids using civilians as shields. The West Bank makes the inversion even plainer: the Commission counts 213 dead minors, tells readers that 206 were boys, and from that ratio divines a “policy of targeting boys” as “future terrorists.” A war on children does not kill boys at 97%. That statistic instead raises the obvious question: many of those “boys” were actively participating in hostilities.Turkey’s Hypocrisy Exposed by Israeli Recognition of Armenian Genocide
Of course, the Commission never asks the question. Under U.N. definitions, every person under 18 is counted as a child, whether a 10-year-old in a classroom or a 17-year-old carrying an assault rifle. Hamas, meanwhile, has long recruited, trained, and used minors, including teenagers and younger children, a practice the Commission acknowledges has been reported but expressly declines to investigate. By collapsing all persons under 18 into a single category while omitting the role of child soldiers, the report invites readers to equate every “child” casualty with a civilian who was not participating in hostilities. That omission is central to its narrative.
This is how a libel becomes a fact. The body counts originate with the Hamas-run health ministry and are relayed to the world under a U.N. logo. Human rights groups, several funded by the anti-Israel governments that demanded the inquiry, refer to it as settled. Reporters cite the groups without reading the report; policymakers cite the resulting “consensus”; and within 48 hours, the media print “deliberately targeted” as if it is an established fact. It is the same machine that once blamed Israel for the Al-Ahli hospital blast that American, British, and Canadian intelligence traced to a misfired Palestinian rocket. Anti-Israel bias does not need evidence, only an audience that has already convicted Israel.
The messenger does matter, and here it is the Human Rights Council’s only open-ended commission of inquiry, aimed permanently at a single country, on a council where roughly half of all country-specific condemnations name Israel. The world still calls it the Pillay Commission, after the previous chair who famously pronounced Israel guilty of war crimes before she was appointed to judge it. When Washington, D.C., sanctioned the council’s Palestinian rapporteur last year, the commissioners themselves resigned and promised to “reconstitute.” They did not, however, reform it, so the remedy is simple.
A bipartisan group in Congress already drafted the Commission of Inquiry Elimination Act, which would cut U.S. dollars from a permanent mandate that runs on $4 million a year and has dropped even the pretense of fairness or due process. The United States already refuses to fund discriminatory U.N. conduct, and this qualifies by any measure. The Commission titled its report “The essence of childhood has been destroyed,” but it chose the wrong noun. What this report destroys is the essence of evidence, the rule that an accusation of murder must be proven and not merely felt. After 94 pages, it still identifies no soldier, no order, no forensic proof, no battlefield investigation establishing intent, and no evidence capable of sustaining the accusation it makes.
The proper response is not to treat this report as a serious finding. You cannot defend against insanity. But we can and should stop funding it.
Israel’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide affirms an essential historical truth. Acknowledging one of the twentieth century’s first genocides reinforces the principle that mass atrocities must be remembered honestly, regardless of political convenience.Gadi Taub: Haaretz’s ideological mission: Dismantling the Jewish state
Turkey’s genocide accusations against Israel are undermined by its own century-long denial of the Armenian Genocide. While insisting the destruction of over 1.5 million Armenians was merely a wartime tragedy without genocidal intent, Ankara simultaneously labels Israel’s war against Hamas a genocide.
History demonstrates that genocide denial carries consequences. Hitler’s infamous question, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” serves as a reminder that erasing past atrocities can embolden future perpetrators.
Yesterday, the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Announcing the decision in Hebrew, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar declared: “It is never too late to do the right thing.”
Less than three weeks before the Oct. 7 massacre, the Israeli daily Haaretz announced its break with the Zionist creed. Its editor-in-chief, Aluf Benn, penned a piece just before Yom Kippur eve, titled “Jewish and Democratic? It’s Time to Erase the Word Jewish.”
The paper’s regular Hebrew readers were probably not all that surprised. After all, many variations on this theme have appeared in the periodical’s opinion pages, and its aversion to nationalism and religion, as well as its infatuation with the local version of globalist ideology—the idea of a non-national, so-called “state of all its citizens”—were well known. But never before had the editor himself announced the paper’s desire to dismantle the Jewish state and put an end to the Zionist enterprise.
The editorial board must have thought that an international audience was not yet ready for the revelation, and so the English edition softened the title, cloaking Benn’s declaration in some warm Yiddishkeit. It read: “On Yom Kippur, Facing the Question: Where Is Israel Headed?”
Still, the confession in Hebrew was, in fact, long overdue. The paper has been working consistently and diligently to undermine Zionism’s moral legitimacy for many years, without admitting that this was what it was doing. It has disseminated some of the worst blood libels against settlers and Israel Defense Forces soldiers and given respectability to pundits who used its pages to argue that Israel is inherently evil.
This was never just an editorial insistence on high moral standards or constructive criticism designed to rectify wrongs. As media scholar Eli Avraham noted in his recently published book, From David to Goliath: Coverage of Israel in the International Media, Haaretz in general, and its English-language edition in particular, is not merely critical of this or that Israeli government or this or that Israeli policy. It is, rather, bent on demonizing the Jewish state as such and on legitimizing political parties, academics and organizations—both Israeli and foreign—which see Israel as “the epitome of world evil.” The paper also worked, Avraham pointed out, to erode Israeli solidarity by attacking every “positive and unifying myth.”
But it seems as though the paper also previously believed that declaring its anti-Zionist mission would be tactically unwise: that it would undermine its reputation for professional, balanced reporting and limit its ability to influence its largest target audience—liberals and especially liberal Zionists. It thus opted for an audacious strategy: It declared its supposed allegiance to Zionism. It also kept pretending to practice a form of “tough love” aimed at urging Israel to realize the so-called “two-state solution.”
For this purpose, it mostly took care to preserve for itself the possibility of plausible deniability: anti-Zionist writers, though ubiquitous in all sections of the paper—news, opinion, culture and leisure—were simply expressing their personal views. And when pushed, Haaretz could always portray its rejection of Zionism as no more than an objection to “the occupation,” to specific forms of discrimination or to the problem of church-and-state separation.
The Human Rights Council maintains a permanent agenda item devoted exclusively to Israel – a distinction enjoyed by no other country on earth, including North Korea, Iran and Russia. Even former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the UN had produced a “disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel”.Israel is America's 'only true Western ally,' Florida's GOP House hopeful tells 'Post'
I encountered this phenomenon during my own time at the United Nations. It was impossible for any Israeli to secure a senior appointment in the organisation, no matter how well qualified. Israel is the only country of its political and economic weight never to have held a position at Assistant Secretary-General level (roughly a two-star general equivalent) or above. I also encountered cases of UN staff and contractors self-censoring on issues related to Israel for fear of being accused of anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim or anti-Arab bias, as damaging an accusation as one of racism.
But by far the worst example of this bias is embodied by UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, some of whose staff have been accused of being directly involved in the Oct 7 attack on Israel.
As recently as 2024, the UK maintained a longstanding position of condemning the UN’s hostility towards the world’s only Jewish state. Successive British governments rejected the Commission of Inquiry’s open-ended mandate and criticised its obsessive focus on Israel. But that consensus has been overturned by a Labour government more ideologically and politically sympathetic to this excessive level of scrutiny, or more in hock to special interest groups as obsessively hostile to Israel as the UN is.
The tragedy is that, while the UN has rightly attracted condemnation from informed critics, it has somehow retained an almost sacrosanct halo among much of the wider public. To many, the UN remains the ultimate authority in international affairs. That reverence allows weak evidence, activist assumptions and ideological predispositions to be laundered into accepted wisdom.
The UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel has long ceased to be a curiosity of UN procedure. It has become a pathology that distorts priorities, consumes diplomatic bandwidth and allows some of the world’s worst regimes to escape meaningful scrutiny by sheltering in the comforting consensus of anti-Israel indignation. It has also become a cottage industry, with networks inside the UN acting in concert with well-organised bad actors like Qatar and Turkey to sustain a relentless momentum of anti-Israeli attacks.
Many casual observers may believe the Commission when it claims to be defending vulnerable children. In reality, by substituting ideology for evidence and prejudice for impartiality, it undermines the credibility of international law itself. And, in the process, demonises Israel, Israelis, and Jews at large as bloodthirsty child killers.
The UN should pay attention. This is the kind of abuse that has drawn the ire of the US, which is withholding its UN dues and has sent the organisation spiralling towards budgetary collapse. Unless the UN gets its house in order and brings these rogue agencies and commissions to heel, António Guterres may not have much left to hand over to his successor at the end of this year.
US AFFAIRS: Florida Republican David Burck discusses Israel, Iran, campus antisemitism, and why he believes Washington must deepen its alliance with Jerusalem.The CPJ Is Finally Acknowledging That It Called Gazan Terrorists ‘Journalists’
The US and Israel are the only two pillars of Western civilization still standing, according to Burck.
“Throughout the course of human history, we’ve objectively never had it so good,” he said. “We’re at an existential kind of point in the West as a whole as we go away from the ideas that have made us great, and we see it in Europe, and we’ve seen it here bubbling domestically in the United States,” he went on to say.
“I just feel like if I didn’t do my part to try to stem that tide in any way, shape or form, I’d be failing my son, the future generations out of the West, and America specifically,” Burck maintained.
“I think it’s high time for us to definitely codify our relationship even more with Israel; we need it. Europe is a rump of itself, it’s a husk, and it’s not going to get any better. And really, the only true Western ally that we have left is Israel,” he said.
While he had not yet had the privilege of visiting Israel, Burck said, he was looking forward to the situation calming down enough that he could cross it off his bucket list and visit along with his wife and 14-month-old son.
“I need to go look as a believer in Christ. I want to get out there, and I’ve heard so many great things,” he said.
“We need to keep this relationship thriving. I think that we’re going to work through this. I can understand why the people of Israel feel betrayed right now, but you know, Donald Trump’s done so many fantastic things for Israel, and I don’t think that he would do anything that would put Israel at a disadvantage,” the statesman said.
“Personally, I don’t believe so. I think this is just a part of the process of negotiating with the terrorist regime and the largest state sponsor of terrorism. I feel like Israel and the United States are just kind of like the two last vestiges of the best of the West.”
The CPJ announced on Thursday that it is undertaking a review of its own list of casualties of Gazan journalists.
The timing is not coincidental. In the past several weeks, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been publishing obituaries identifying their dead fighters, many of whom have been living double lives. The most prominent of these double lives are terrorists posing as journalists.
However, none of this information is new. Since the CPJ started recording journalists killed in Gaza, HonestReporting has similarly been tracking the many cases in which these journalists were directly affiliated with terrorist organizations.
As of June 23, 2026, more than half of the journalists listed by the CPJ as being killed in Gaza were either members or affiliates of an anti-Israel terrorist group.
Most recently, Ahmad Washah, a Hamas sniper who also worked for Al Jazeera, was killed in a targeted air strike in Gaza. CPJ quickly came to his defense, expressing “alarm” at his death.
This has been a pattern at the CPJ, particularly with terrorists affiliated with Al Jazeera. The Qatar-backed outlet has consistently aligned itself with Hamas, frequently publishing the terrorist organizaiton’s talking points. Still, on four other occasions, the CPJ has expressed concern or condemned the deaths of Al Jazeera journalists, even when there is overwhelming evidence of their affiliation with Hamas.
The CPJ has exerted great effort to suggest that the IDF has been purposefully targeting journalists throughout the war. This effort has led the organization to include in its casualty list the names of any media workers killed in a war zone.
The CPJ’s own criteria state that it excludes journalists who were “directly participating as combatants in armed conflict at the time of their deaths.” Yet the organization has on countless occasions done exactly that, and thus redefined international law to paint an inflammatory and false accusation against Israel.
For the past two years, the CPJ has found that Israel has been responsible for the majority of the killed media workers.
In both 2024 and 2025, when the data was broken down, an entirely different story emerged, revealing that Israel was not targeting journalists, but rather terrorists who posed a threat to national security and hid under the guise of a press vest.
Israel has been releasing evidence of terrorists posing as journalists for the past two and a half years. Why did it take terrorist organizations publishing their own obituaries for the CPJ to recognize what has been public information all along?
CPJ expects the full review of journalists to be done in July. HonestReporting will be ready to remind them, once again, that shielding terrorists from scrutiny for more than two years is not an oversight – it is a moral failure.
Monday, June 29, 2026Elder of Ziyon
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
|
Monday, June 29, 2026Elder of Ziyon
Leiter's foreword anchors the argument in a November 2025 meeting with the New York Times editorial board, where an editor protested that "everyone can't be getting the story all wrong." His answer, and the booklet's thesis, is that the story traveled through a coordinated ecosystem: Hamas manufactures data, UN agencies launder it into authoritative-sounding citations, media amplify it as independent fact, and academics supply the moral vocabulary—each layer lending borrowed credibility to the one below. This is an argument I've been making since 2023.
The report divides into two main parts.
Genocide. The booklet argues that the casualty figures underpinning the charge come from Hamas-run bodies (the Gaza Ministry of Health and Government Media Office) that present all deaths as civilian and Israeli-caused, omitting combatants, natural deaths, and Hamas's own misfires and executions. It walks through statistician Abraham Wyner's analysis of implausibly uniform daily totals and demographically impossible correlations, the eventual quiet removal of thousands of "validated" names, and the Al-Ahli hospital case as a template for fabrication. From there it builds toward a combatant-to-noncombatant ratio of roughly 1:1.2 to 1:1.4—lower, it argues, than U.S. operations in Iraq or Mosul, and historically low for urban warfare against an enemy embedded in civilian infrastructure. A section on "institutional propagandists" examines figures like Francesca Albanese and the Pillay Commission, and a striking subsection documents academics (Bartov, Ophir) who reportedly conceded the term "genocide" doesn't fit the legal definition yet kept using it for rhetorical effect.
Starvation. The second half assembles the aid record—roughly 2.2 million tons of aid, including 1.7 million tons of food, working out to far above the 2,100-kcal wartime minimum—and contrasts it with the famine narrative. It documents a reporting gap of tens of thousands of trucks between Israeli (COGAT) and UN (OCHA) figures, dissects the "500-truck" threshold as a shifting double standard, challenges the August 2025 IPC famine declaration on methodological grounds, and catalogs the now-familiar "starvation" photographs whose subjects turned out to have preexisting medical conditions. It closes on Hamas's diversion of aid (estimates up to 90%, generating roughly $500 million in a year) and its campaign against the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
The conclusion ties it together: when institutions abandon methodological rigor, journalists outsource verification to a terrorist organization, and grave legal terms are emptied of meaning for political effect, the damage extends past Israel to the human-rights framework itself.
I uploaded the report to Scribd so anyone can more easily find it, read it and download it.
There was some coverage in Jewish and Israeli media outlets when the report was released. Of course, given that much of the material is critical of the mainstream media, they ignored it completely.
Manufacturing of a Blood Libel by Eldad Tzioni
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
|
George Washington believed it "the highest disgrace" that Americans paid monetary "tribute" to the Barbary pirates of North Africa who preyed on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean, enslaving their crews and endangering the nascent republic's economy. The practice sparked a visceral debate between John Adams, who favored giving in to extortion over using force, and Thomas Jefferson, who preferred to "raise ships and men to fight the pirates into reason [rather] than money to bribe them."Netanyahu: ‘No room’ for Palestinian state between Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River
Today, the U.S. is grappling with many of the same questions. To what degree should Americans defend the freedom of navigation through a vital international waterway? Should they stand up to or pay off a Middle East power threatening it? The ayatollahs' worldview is almost identical to the pirates'. In a 1786 meeting with Jefferson and Adams in London, Tripoli's ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja insisted that Barbary was sovereign in the Mediterranean and that no nation could traverse it without paying a massive toll.
He further explained "that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their [the Muslims'] right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners." Any Muslim killed in battle "was sure to go to Paradise."
Jefferson concluded that peace with Barbary was only attainable "through the medium of war," but the newly independent America lacked a navy. After adopting the Constitution in 1789, which enabled a single federal government to raise taxes to build a navy, the U.S. authorized the construction of six frigates especially designed to fight close to Barbary's shallow shores. What ensued was America's first foreign war, lasting until 1815. Only then was Barbary decisively defeated, and American merchantmen guaranteed safe passage through the Mediterranean.
The victory was a source of immense national pride. The country erected its first war monument, to the triumphant Barbary War, on the campus of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. 17 American cities were named for the hero of that campaign, Commodore Stephen Decatur. And the Marines still sing of their landing "on the shores of Tripoli."
These testaments serve to remind Americans of the ways in which the Founders faced the threats to free navigation posed by an extremist Middle Eastern regime.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday that there is “no room for two states” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, arguing the war created broad public consensus against creating a Palestinian state.Israeli government votes to recognize Armenian Genocide
“Before the war, the public was divided: although in my opinion most of the public was against it, a significant portion was in favor. I think that has changed,” Netanyahu told reporters, answering a question at a press conference in Jerusalem on Saturday night.
“That is a basis for agreement,” added the premier. “In my opinion, there is much more unity among the public than you see in the Knesset.”
Netanyahu was responding to a question from Israel Hayom about the principles on which he would seek to form his next government if he wins another term in the general election this fall.
Before the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre that sparked the current multi-front war, 69% of Israelis opposed the establishment of another Palestinian state beyond the one in Gaza. This opposition surged to 79% in the aftermath of the attacks, according to polling data published by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs in May.
The Israeli Cabinet on Sunday voted to recognize the genocide carried out against the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks by Ottoman Turkey in the early 20th century.
“The government of Israel unanimously approved Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s proposal to recognize the Armenian Genocide,” Sa’ar’s office announced following the weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.
“It is never too late to do the right thing,” he said in the statement.
Sa’ar announced on Thursday night that he would submit the resolution to the Cabinet, tweeting: “Recognizing the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people in the final years of the Ottoman Empire is both a moral and historical duty.
“We must also firmly condemn any denial, minimization or distortion of the historical truth,” he added. “The resolution will subsequently be brought before the Knesset for a vote.”
To date, 34 countries, including the United States and Greece, have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Israel would be the 35th.
In August 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time publicly recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Asked by American podcaster Patrick Bet-David why Jerusalem has yet to recognize the genocide, Netanyahu said, “In fact, I think we have. I think the Knesset passed a resolution to that effect.”
Sunday, June 28, 2026Elder of ZiyonOn June 1, 2025, Mohamed Sabry Soliman attacked a group of Jews demonstrating in Boulder for the release of the Hamas hostages, using a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. As he burned them he yelled "End Zionists!" and "Free Palestine!" Karen Diamond, 82 years old, died of her injuries; dozens were hurt.
Everyone understood this was an antisemitic hate crime. The City of Boulder and the DOJ said so. In custody, Soliman told investigators his goal was to kill "all Zionist people" — and since people demonstrating for hostages are Zionists, they qualified for death.
Melat Kiros, the democratic socialist now favored to unseat Diana DeGette in Colorado's 1st District, will not say it. "I don't know what was in the heart of the perpetrator," she told 9News. She concedes it was a hate crime, yet cannot determine which group it was a hate crime against. It is quite a mystery: a confessed hate crime whose target nobody can identify. All Kiros knows is that it might not have been the Jews.
Here's the interview, where she also says she can understand 9/11, that Israel is guilty of genocide both in Gaza and in Lebanon, and where she says the US shouldn't even sell defensive weapons to Israel.
Here is where the "anti-Zionist" crowd ties itself in knots. Kiros is an anti-Zionist, and like others who insist anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism, she has reached the point where a killer screaming "End Zionists" while setting Jews on fire becomes evidence that the Jews were not the target. The slogan that names the victims is repurposed as the alibi.
You cannot alienate the constituents who celebrate the murder of Jews. Anti-Zionism is a big tent, from criticizing Netanyahu to wanting to see all Jews dead. They can't afford to alienate any of them.
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
|
It has been six months since 15 people were gunned down on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, prompting the establishment by a shocked government of a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.Between Jakarta and Jerusalem
The Commission has received over 16,000 submissions, and a block of hearings is slated to begin at the end of June.
My organization Harif – the UK Association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) – was asked to make a submission on behalf of the 10 to 20% of Australian Jews who are Sephardi or Mizrahi (easterners), i.e., hailing from the Middle East and North Africa.
They may be a minority within the Jewish minority, but their experience of living in Arab and Muslim countries and fleeing from these lands can bring an essential perspective to understanding the causes of antisemitism sweeping through the West today.
The Commission might be able to learn useful insights from them, the first being that almost a million Jews were ethnically cleansed from the MENA, even though they had no part to play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Almost no Jews live in the Arab world today because Arab governments conflated Jews with Zionists. Jews were victimized as potential spies for Israel.
Whatever their political leanings and however spurious the pretext, Jews could be arrested, tried, and even executed for the crime of Zionism.
The second insight is that one cannot perceive a distinction between Jews and Zionists in Western antisemitism. Today, supporters of the Palestinian cause say they are against Zionism, not Jews.
When 'Zionism' becomes the cover
They point to the small number of Jews who join their protests.
However, it doesn’t take much to see that “legitimate criticism of the Israeli government” takes the form of verbal and physical abuse of Jews, firebombings, arson, and shootings at Jewish schools and synagogues, and ultimately, the murder of Jews simply for being Jews.
Left-wing Jews attempt to deflect by claiming that antisemitism is a problem for the Right. They claim that curbs on incitement proposed by the Commission are in reality limitations on free speech.
But the two gunmen who slaughtered Jews celebrating Hanukkah on Bondi Beach never asked what their victims’ views on Israel were.
Mizrahi Jews who are now resettled in the West are experiencing a sense of déjà vu, reliving the trauma they experienced in their birth countries. The bullying and harassment they thought they had escaped are back with a vengeance.
The slogans chanted in every anti-Jewish riot in Arab countries never did distinguish between Jews and Zionists.
Conclusion: The dawn of functional normalisation
Ultimately, Indonesia’s calculated steps toward the Gaza post-war architecture reveal a sophisticated paradox. President Prabowo’s conciliatory rhetoric and his willingness to engage with the Board of Peace demonstrate a level of pragmatic goodwill that would have been unthinkable under previous administrations. The strategic benefits of the move – currying favour with Washington, positioning Indonesia as a responsible global middle power and securing a seat at the table in Middle Eastern affairs – are simply too lucrative for Jakarta to ignore.
However, Western observers must avoid the illusion of an imminent, warm normalisation. The path to formal diplomatic ties remains firmly blocked by the domestic Palestinian veto and is entirely contingent upon a prior breakthrough between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
What we are witnessing instead is the birth of “Functional Normalisation”. The massive logistical realities of a potential Indonesian deployment, combined with daily operational coordination within the Board of Peace, will force Israeli and Indonesian defence, intelligence and diplomatic officials into unprecedented direct contact.
A stark preview of this reality occurred recently with the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, where the detention of Indonesian activists forced Foreign Minister Sugiono to utilise the Board of Peace as a direct de-escalation channel with Jerusalem. This crisis proved that while institutional ambiguity can be “quicksand”, the operational imperatives of crisis management create an unavoidable, functional dialogue.
For Israel, securing the active involvement of the world’s largest Muslim nation in securing its post-war periphery is an extraordinary geopolitical achievement. For Indonesia, it is a high-risk domestic tightrope walk. Therefore, functional, quiet and deeply cautious coordination is the maximum the current geopolitical architecture can bear, and even that is only feasible if the ISF mandate remains strictly defined and a Saudi catalyst remains on the horizon.
Saturday, June 27, 2026Elder of Ziyon
Yesterday I wrote that the burden of proof is always placed differently on the Jew: the rabbi who must clear himself from "supporting genocide" before renting a house in France, the army whose seized weapons are presumed staged, the citizens of revolutionary France told to prove a loyalty no Catholic was asked to swear. The structure is built so the burden cannot be met. Compliance and defiance, denial and proof, all resolve to the same verdict, because the only admissible evidence is the defendant's Jewishness, entered as a guilty plea before the proceedings began.
A day later, Scott Wiener walked into Dolores Park.
Wiener is the front-runner for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat, a California state senator who has attended the San Francisco Trans March for 22 years. He is also a Jew who, after sustained pressure, paid every cent the purity test demanded. He had once declined to call Israel's war in Gaza a genocide; in January he reversed himself after the mob went after hum and said plainly that he believes Israel committed genocide. He met the price. And on Friday a crowd surrounded him, screamed obscenities, flipped him off, made it impossible for him to safely remain, and drove him from the park for the first time in more than two decades.
This is the proof of what I argued in Friday, delivered faster than I could have arranged it. Wiener gave the mob the confession it wanted, and the confession didn't silence them - it emboldened them. The man who recorded the encounter told him he had been "wonderful for trans people" and "terrible on Gaza" — yet Wiener had already conceded Gaza. The grievance survived the concession. One heckler supplied the tell: Wiener "stopped being queer the moment he started supporting Israel." Past tense, after the recantation. Every policy reason to be angry at him had evaporated, and the anger remained, which means the anger was never about policy. The one variable that did not go away is the one nobody will name: he is a Jew who has not yet agreed that the Jewish state should cease to exist.
Wiener's own statement catalogs the abuse carefully — the crowd that surrounded him, the man who cornered him and his young women staffers at a Mission bar earlier in the week, the same man who in December 2023 stalked him on a plane and in an airport "shouting at me about my 'tainted bloodline.'" A tainted bloodline is a blood-purity slur, the oldest racial antisemitism there is, and Wiener quotes it in his own defense without appearing to register what it is. Then he draws his line in precisely the wrong place. He has "no objection whatsoever" to people disagreeing with him, but this isn't disagreement — it is hate, hate that wouldn't exist if Wiener wasn't Jewish, and anyone who watches the video can see it plainly.
What happened to Wiener is structurally identical to what I described six years ago about corporations and BDS. When a company gives the anti-Israel movement any concession, the campaign against it intensifies rather than subsides. CEMEX sold its West Bank quarry holding and remained a priority target. SodaStream relocated its entire operation inside the Green Line and the boycott leadership announced it would remain subject to boycott anyway. Veolia exited the Israeli market completely and was met with demands for "reparations." The capitulation is read as weakness, and weakness is read as an invitation to push harder.
The one public figure who refused to cave is the one walking around untouched. Jerry Seinfeld has been handed this loyalty test more times than Wiener has, and he has refused it every single time. Outside Madison Square Garden this month, a streamer shoved a microphone at him and demanded he say "Free Palestine." Seinfeld laughed and said, "It doesn't exist," and walked off. At Duke's commencement roughly a hundred students walked out and he told the rest, "A lot of you are thinking, 'I can't believe they invited this guy.' Too late." In Australia a heckler tried to chant him down and he answered, "We have a genius, ladies and gentlemen. He solved the Middle East," then watched the man dragged out. He has even stated the principle outright: "Free Palestine," he told a Duke audience, just means you are free to say you don't like Jews.
Seinfeld has principles and those principles is what allows him to walk in New York City without fear. He knows what he believes and when you know your own position, you aren't afraid of a mob screaming at you. Wiener showed that when it comes to Israel he has no principles and he caves to the mob. And now he cannot walk anywhere among the people he tried so hard to please.
The bully tests for softness. A wall ends the test, and a flinch begins the auction.
Wiener has a way out, and it is counterintuitive for a politician. The instinct is to continue to say how genocidal Israel is — a position Wiener doesn't really believe or he would have said it before January.
The strongest thing a person can do is admit he was wrong. Most politicians read a public reversal as weakness; it is the opposite. The man who cannot say "I was wrong" is the one controlled by everyone whose opinion he fears. The man who can say it owns himself again. Wiener spent the last several months controlled by a mob that despises him no matter what he says. He can take himself back in an afternoon.
He could say he is sorry he showed weakness to a mob that supports Hamas and denies the Jewish people the right of self-determination that it grants to every other people on earth. He could apologize to his fellow Jews for lending his name and his platform to the blood libel of the age. He could withdraw the genocide accusation clearly and forcefully — and on the evidence, I can hand him everything he needs to do it, because the accusation collapses the moment anyone examines the controlling legal standard against the actual conduct of the war. And he could say the thing that would end the auction for good: that his integrity matters more to him than any election, that he surrendered it for a while and regrets it, and that he would rather stand tall and lose the election than win as the coward he allowed himself to become.
That is strength. That would earn respect. He will not get the mob's approval by saying any of this. He wasn't going to get it no matter what he says. The difference is that the first path costs him his self-respect and buys nothing, and the second buys back the only thing the purity test was ever able to take from him.
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
|
For most of my life, I looked back at the Jews of the 1930s with a question I could never quite answer: Why didn’t they see it?In new book, former AJC chief David Harris traces antisemitism’s past — and warns about its present
Why didn’t they recognize what was unfolding around them? Why did so many continue believing that reason would ultimately prevail, that institutions would protect them, that the political rhetoric wasn’t meant literally or that the hatred would eventually burn itself out?
Those questions become harder to ask with confidence when we look honestly at the world today.
Perhaps we owe the Jews of the 1930s an apology.
Perhaps they saw far more than we ever gave them credit for. Perhaps they understood exactly what was happening but found themselves trapped by institutions they trusted, political coalitions they had spent generations building and a natural human reluctance to believe that civilized societies could unravel as quickly as they eventually did.
That possibility should make every Jew stop and think.
History rarely repeats itself exactly, but it often rhymes with unsettling precision. The slogans change. The technology changes. The politics change. But human nature changes very little. Every generation convinces itself that it is more enlightened than the one before it; yet every generation eventually discovers that prejudice has an extraordinary ability to reinvent itself while insisting it is something entirely different.
Today’s antisemitism rarely introduces itself honestly. It often disguises itself as activism, social justice, anti-colonialism, academic theory or political purity. It changes vocabulary without changing intent. Hatred has always been remarkably adaptable. It learns the language of the moment because it makes it easier to recruit people who would never knowingly associate themselves with antisemitism.
That is what makes this moment so dangerous.
There are candidates seeking public office who have been trafficking in antisemitic rhetoric or repeatedly associating themselves with those who do. There are elected officials who cannot bring themselves to condemn antisemitism with the same clarity they demand on virtually every other form of hatred. There are universities where Jewish students increasingly question whether they can openly express their identity without becoming targets. There are institutions that seem more comfortable explaining antisemitism than confronting it.
None of this should feel normal.
David Harris spent more than three decades leading the American Jewish Committee, where he navigated crises facing the Jewish community and built bipartisan coalitions to advance the group’s mission of supporting Israel and Diaspora Jewry.Thank you, Mayor Zohran Mamdani: Your hate might just be a blessing in disguise
His book, Antisemitism: What Everyone Needs to Know, published by Oxford University Press last year, is Harris’ attempt to reach beyond the Jewish community — churches, classrooms and the “average New York Times reader.” His goal, he said, is to turn the “silent majority” into the “loud majority.”
Written in the shadow of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks in Israel, the book arrived at a moment of surging antisemitism in the U.S. and around the world. It traces antisemitism from its ancient roots through the Holocaust, the Soviet era and its recent resurgence — the explosion on college campuses and beyond after Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza.
Harris, who quipped that he retired “for about 30 seconds” after serving as AJC’s CEO from 1990–2022, sat down with Jewish Insider on Thursday to discuss the book at a moment in which he said he has “never been more worried” about antisemitism — yet also remains optimistic about the Jewish future.
Mamdani, the newly elected Mayor of New York City, has chosen to lead the charge as an overt anti-Zionist, deploying rhetoric that positions himself squarely against the Jewish state and the mainstream Jewish community. From his policy decisions to his endorsement of congressional candidates aimed at reshaping the American legislature, his positions are stark.
Mamdani is performing a vital service: he is alerting us before it is too late. By abandoning the polite euphemisms that long characterized progressive anti-Israel rhetoric, he is letting us know exactly where we stand. When he openly mocks the traditional Israel Day Parade in NYC while happily attending other cultural parades, he is showing us that the water is bubbling.
Consider his recent public declaration regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Mamdani openly branded the mainstream pro-Israel lobby as “monsters” who move millions in “dark money.” Speaking from City Hall, he argued that they weaponize capital to “preserve their power so that they can turn us against one another.” He declared: “In the wealthiest city, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we need not live in fear of monsters any longer.”
The mayor governing the city with the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel is not just looking to have a local impact, but a national and global one. Utilizing the laundering of classic, ancient conspiratorial accusations from the highest municipal podium in America. When an elected official swaps out traditional diplomatic expressions for terms like “monsters” and a hidden hand, “turning us against one another,” he normalizes a dangerous propaganda pattern characterized by three distinct realities:
• The Creation of Moral Binaries: reducing a multi-layered, existential regional conflict into a simplistic fairy tale of pure oppressors and pure oppressed.
• Emotionally Charged Outrage: mobilizing a political base by framing ideological opponents not as mistaken, but as morally illegitimate and subhuman, literal “monsters.”
• The Deployment of Scapegoating: suggesting that a powerful, Jewish-associated organization is the clandestine architect of broader domestic societal suffering.
Mamdani operates within a democratic framework subject to courts and elections; the danger lies in his techniques. History teaches us that when you systematically dehumanize a group and simplify complex realities, you create a social atmosphere where raw prejudice becomes acceptable, normalized, and eventually weaponized.
The United States, Israel, and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement aimed at combating Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah on Friday, after days of US-mediated talks in Washington.Full text of Israel-Lebanon ‘framework’ deal that includes slight IDF pullback
According to a US State Department statement, the agreement outlines a structured process for disarming Hezbollah, dismantling terrorist infrastructure, and enabling the IDF to withdraw from Lebanon once the threat posed by Hezbollah is removed.
The agreement also established a US-facilitated trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L) to ensure the implementation of the framework.
The US, according to the statement, will also take steps to improve the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces and support Lebanese military efforts against Hezbollah.
In addition, the US pledged to contribute $100 million for humanitarian assistance to be coordinated with the United Nations.
A first step towards peace, prosperity, and mutual coexistence
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended Israeli and Lebanese leadership and delegations for their participation in the talks and for signing the agreement.
While Rubio noted that there is still much work ahead, he highlighted the importance of the framework and stated that the US is “honored to have played a part in bringing this together.”
“Today is the first step. This first step sometimes is the hardest one, but it’s an important one and the one we’ve taken together,” Rubio stated, adding that he hopes the agreement will bring about “a future of peace, a future of prosperity, a future of mutual coexistence.”
During the signing of the agreements, Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter praised the trilateral cooperation as a “historical” move towards peace between Israel and Lebanon.
“In my opening remarks four days ago, I expressed concern that this train was running off the tracks, that Iran and its proxies wanted a trainwreck,” Leiter recounted.
Following a Lebanese report that contacts are underway to bring back the remains of Israeli navigator Ron Arad, who was captured in Lebanon in 1986, his friend Ronen Meir told 103FM on Wednesday that listeners should keep the matter in perspective: "We are overwhelmed with attempts and disappointments."
Meir, a friend of Arad who graduated with him from the flight course during their time in the IDF, spoke on 103FM with Prof. Aryeh Eldad and Ron Kaufman about the report.
In light of the report from Al Jadeed, according to which the political negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are expected to include the possibility of a deal in which Arad's remains would be exchanged for Lebanese prisoners, Meir dampened expectations.
"That sounds to me somewhat absurd, if not delusional," he said. "We are saturated with previous attempts of this kind. From my familiarity with our enemies and neighbors, this tune always plays, and we are saturated with disappointments on this matter."
"Let's assume that the Lebanese do indeed have information about Ron and want to bargain with it. The best and simplest thing they could do is send a sample so we can see whether there is someone to talk to. To refute it through a journalist does not seem to me like a serious channel for anyone who wants to deal with such a complicated issue."
Meir referred to Israel's past and present efforts: "It is worth noting that only a few weeks ago, the Israeli government sent a commando force with four Yas'ur helicopters into Lebanon in an attempt to recover Ron's body, and we almost left a great many dead there. With all the pain and my personal desire to solve the mystery of my friend, we need to be careful about fantasies and fleeing into unrealistic areas."
"The ethos of not abandoning a soldier should not go back to Ron. One can look two and a half years back and see what happened to that ethos when we had living civilians and soldiers in captivity, and some of them returned in body bags. The question is what price we are prepared to pay for that ethos. It is legitimate to use judgment," he continued.
To conclude, Meir recalled the family's position over the years: "In Ron's case, his mother Batia Arad gave her testament while she was still alive and said she did not want any soldier to risk his life if it is known that Ron is no longer alive."
"Tami Arad, my friend, said immediately that same night of the commando operation that 'we said from the outset that for Ron's body, not even one soldier should be put at risk.' If there were really anything to the reports, the first thing they would do is give a sample. How many samples have we already received that we have discovered were donkey bones? It simply does not seem serious to me."
Friday, June 26, 2026Elder of ZiyonThere is one antisemitic trope that was invented in the 18th century, became a central pillar of Nazi ideology, and continues in full force today: the Jew as parasite.
The idea solidified when social Darwinism became fashionable in the 19th century, extending natural selection from individuals to social and racial groups. Under that theory the Jews were a problem. A Semitic people with — the theory insisted — inferior racial and social attributes should have been outcompeted and winnowed away. Jewish survival was impossible, and Jewish success in finance, the media, and the professions was an outright refutation. The framework predicted the Jews should not exist, and they kept existing and succeeding.
 |
| "Thou shalt devour the peoples of the Earth" Nazi poster of the Jew as a worm |
The Nazis ran with it. Der ewige Jude intercut footage of swarming rats with footage of Jewish financiers. The vermin and the schemer are not a contradiction between the weak Jew and the powerful Jew. They are the same framework, and it resolves the contradiction: the Jew is powerful because he is a parasite, small and contemptible and therefore able to control a host only by burrowing into it. Disgust and fear stop being two reactions and become one. The metaphor also carries its own conclusion — once the Jew is pathogen, extermination reclassifies as hygiene, and the doctor and the soldier do the same work.
A parasite has three features, and the full antisemitic construct requires all three:
The Nazis are gone. Yet the trope is as strong today as it ever was, on the right and on the left, and most of the people carrying it have never heard of Schäffle.
From the right, Tucker Carlson supplies all three in sequence. He has described pro-Israel donors and legislators implementing a program to alter American demographics while preserving Israel as an ethnostate (extraction and conversion), and tied it together with the claim that there is "a direct connection between loyalty to a foreign power and a desire to hurt this country" (hijacking). He has even suggested DNA-testing Israelis to determine whether they are "really" descended from Abraham — the parasite must be unmasked as a foreign body in native disguise.
Candace Owens carries it to an audience of thirty-five million. The United States, she says, is "being held hostage by Israel" — and the host need not be a nation. On her old Daily Wire show she described "a very small ring of specific people who are using the fact that they are Jewish to shield themselves from any criticism," a ring "controlling people with blackmail" and branding anyone who objects a racist. That is the whole machine in one image: the parasite's constitutive smallness, control achieved through blackmail, and the shield that turns every accusation back on the accuser. A small ring controlling everyone is the same claim as a small nation controlling a superpower. Either way, the parasite is the Jew.
That hijacking clause is not a figure of speech. When Joe Kent resigned this spring from the National Counterterrorism Center, he wrote that "we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby" and blamed the death of his own wife, killed in Syria, on "a war manufactured by Israel." The host's own blood, a soldier's blood, spent on the parasite's war.
The Left also trades in the trope. Cenk Uygur, who runs the largest progressive show online, says of his ban from Britain that "they say that my charge that Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress, while factual, is antisemitic nonetheless" — control asserted as plain fact, and the charge of antisemitism folded back in as proof of the control it names. Max Blumenthal, editor of the anti-imperialist Grayzone, has said he used to think Zionist Occupied Government was an antisemitic term but now is "forced to see it as a pretty accurate description of the reality we live in as one nation under ZOG." He reasoned his way to a literal Nazi acronym and announced he was forced to it — which is why his work circulates on neo-Nazi sites.
Nothing shows the construct's reach like COVID, because a pandemic let the parasite jump to the largest host of all: the entire world. The accusation assembled itself in weeks and ran the full sequence: Jews or Israel manufactured the virus (the Press TV writer who held that Israeli pressure groups "running United States foreign policy" were amplifying the plague in Iran, "which one suspects that they themselves may have actually engineered"); they converted the manufactured crisis into control, the lockdowns and the vaccine drive recast as a calculated plot to institute a "Global Jew Government"; and the captured world was then steered against its own life — the vaccine reimagined as the instrument of depopulation, a Jewish scheme to sterilize the white race or to enslave all humanity. This is all three steps by the Jew against the entire planet. There were variants - the virus is a Jewish hoax to control the world, or the virus was a Jewish bioweapon to control the world. Either way, the Jew is the parasite using whatever means he can to make nations act against their own self-interests.
The complete three-stage construct is not confined to the fever swamps. Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argues using respectable prose that the lobby steers America to act against its own interests — extraction, conversion, hijacking, all wearing a tweed jacket. America has a farm lobby, a gun lobby, a banking lobby, a pharmaceutical lobby, a tech lobby, each ferociously effective, and no one writes the book in which the dairy farmers capture the Republic and march it into self-destruction. Only one lobby is ever assigned that role. The worst antisemitic trope can be a well-reviewed book without the reviewers recognizing the lineage of the argument.
Like every antisemitic theory, this is a conspiracy theory, and like every conspiracy theory it is unfalsifiable. Jews cannot have succeeded on their merits; they must have captured the system and run it for their own ends against the will of the host. The protest that they did no such thing becomes further proof of how thoroughly they control it. And the host is interchangeable: the United States government, the European Union, Hollywood, the world financial order, the human species under a manufactured plague. The host changes. The parasite is always the same, and it is always the Jew.
But this Jew-as-parasite idea is infinitely more dangerous than the conspiracy theories of Jew as puppet master, or Jew as controlling banks or the media. A parasite must be destroyed for self defense. It was Hitler's central theme, as he wrote in Mein Kampf: the Jew "is and remains the typical parasite, a sponger who like a noxious bacillus keeps spreading... wherever he appears, the host people dies out."
In that frame, murdering Jews becomes a sacred task. That is the logical endpoint to this. People with power and influence take this idea seriously and spread it., and as such it is the trope that must be recognized and fought against with full force.
Not only when it is spread by skinheads but especially when it is spread by people with an audience of millions.
|
Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
|
Buy EoZ's books!
RECLAIMING THE COVENANT: America's Remarkable 250 Years and Assuring it Continues
PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
Buy 
