Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 03, 2026

Catching up on EoZ memes

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Arab newspaper says Hebrew isn't a real language and came from Arabic. It existed 1300 years BEFORE Arabic!

The daily antisemitism in Arab newspapers remains a story that is ignored by the world.

Here's an article in Al Quds that says that Hebrew isn't a real language, and all linguists know this:

Through a long and systematic effort, the Jews succeeded in promoting a set of ideas and beliefs that lack any sound scientific basis, to the point that they became acceptable to broad segments of global public opinion, particularly in the Arab world. This endeavor was not accidental or arbitrary; rather, it was part of a comprehensive project aimed at establishing the intellectual and cultural foundations upon which the Zionist entity, now established on the land of Palestine, is built.

Among the most prominent of these narratives is the myth of the so-called "Hebrew language," the very name being a corruption of the word "Arabic," which represents the linguistic origin of what is known today as Hebrew. Any linguist, possessing even a modicum of objectivity, can discern the fragility of this claim; the Hebrew currently spoken in occupied Palestine does not, in terms of structure and characteristics, rise to the level of an independent language, for several scholarly reasons.

On the one hand, Hebrew has only about 2,500 root words, roughly one-tenth the number found in Arabic, revealing its limited vocabulary despite repeated claims of historical antiquity. On the other hand, the majority of its vocabulary consists of Arabic words with altered pronunciation, with a crucial difference: Arabic is a dynamic, inflectional language, rich in conjugation and semantics, while Hebrew appears rigid and limited in its development, as if it were borrowed at a later stage from its Arabic source.

The earliest known Hebrew text is from around the 10th century BCE (Gezer calendar, pictured.) The earliest Arabic text is from at least a thousand years later, and many date it to around the third century CE.

Which means even Hebrew writing with the current square script, recognizable to any Hebrew reader nowadays and used as early as the 5th century BCE, also pre-dates Arabic by many centuries.

I guess the ancient Israelites had a time machine where they decided to steal Arabic from the Arabs - just like they are now claimed to have stolen everything else that they had first.

You know, like the Temple.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A reporter's question proves that the "two state solution" is a stage to destroy Israel

James Kariuki is Chargé d’Affaires at the UK Mission to the United Nations and this month he is leading the UN Security Council. he gave a press conference at the UN yesterday.

A reporter from Al Quds al-Arabi, Abdul Hamid Siam, asked a question that was more interesting than the answer.

Mr. Ambassador, I have two questions related to each other.

The first question about UK recognition of the state of Palestine on 22nd September. Would you give us more details about how the UK planning to put this resolution into motion that will help the Palestinians see their independent state.
As you see, the settlers are taking over almost and the confiscation of land is increasing rather than decreasing.

The other related question that the State of Palestine, sir, had came very late.I mean, Israel was established not because of a promise from God, but a promise from England.
The Balfour Declaration that helped to create the State of Israel and the Palestinians had to pay for that.
Would you foresee one day England will stand bravely and say, I am sorry for the Balfour Declaration? Thank you.

The first question was about the UK recognizing "Palestine" as a means to get to a two state solution. Yet Siam - and much of the Arab world altogether - certainly doesn't see it that way. And the second, "related" part of the question proves that.

Pressuring the UK to apologize for the Balfour Declaration is meant to delegitimize Israel as a state retroactively.

So when the Arab world sees the UK, France, Canada, Spain and others recognize "Palestine," it is not seen as a means to bring about a two state solution. It is seen as s stage for the ultimate destruction of Israel.

This shows the naivete of those recognitions. Recognizing "Palestine" didn't being peace closer - it hardened Arab positions by giving the message that eventually, without the Palestinians giving any concessions, the entire area will become "Palestine."

Kariuki deflected the Balfour question, simply saying "I'm not going to go into historical analysis." Yet even that gives support to the Israel haters.

Kariuki said, "It was a historic moment in our recognition of Palestine back in September, and I think, we're very pleased to have done that." But for Balfour he cannot bring himself to say that the UK is equally pleased to have helped bring about a Jewish state of Israel.

If the UK really supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, it should publicly say it is proud of the Balfour Declaration. It cannot.

While the Western countries congratulate themselves on pretending to help bring about peace, in fact they are setting the stage for encouraging the Arabs to believe they will eventually destroy Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/02 Links Pt2: Bondi A minute-by-minute account of Australia’s worst terrorist attack; Anti-Jewish hate crimes up 182% in New York City in January; Avdija named NBA All-Star, a first for an Israeli

From Ian:

David Collier: The BBC Sides With the BDS Agenda

The Extremists Within the “Minor” NGO
Both the BBC’s legitimisation of the UNHRC, and the whitewashing of the SPSC were inexcusable. This leaves the article’s remaining credibility resting almost entirely on Uplift, the minor NGO which commissioned the legal report.

Uplift is not a neutral or detached actor either. A brief review of some of its personnel highlights serious concerns. Its Digital Content Manager, Oliver Goulden, also serves as a trustee of Take One Action, an organisation with a documented history of supporting BDS initiatives, including campaigning alongside Mick Napier’s group, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Other figures associated with Uplift reinforce the same pattern. Lauren Macdonald, the group’s Lead Stop Rosebank Campaigner, maintains public timelines containing demonstrably inaccurate and demonising claims about Israel that are entirely unrelated to the Rosebank project. Meanwhile, Uplift’s Head of Strategic Communications, Tamasin Cave, previously led Spinwatch, a research group with a longstanding fixation on Zionism and lobbying, alongside the conspiracy theorist David Miller. Cave was a director of “Public Interest Investigations” the legal entity behind both Spinwatch and Powerbase, and her footprint is still visible in numerous documents focused on pro-Israeli lobby groups.

Eddy Quekett, Uplift’s Social Media Officer, has posted imagery containing the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free“. The image incorporated a “Friends of Al Aqsa” (FoA) Palestinian flag. Friends of al Aqsa is a hard-line Islamist organisation led by Ismail Patel, and opposed to many of the fundamental freedoms taken for granted in the West. FoA seeks Islamist control over Jerusalem. This post has nothing to do with climate issues. It was a straightforward call for the destruction of Israel.

At this point the final pillar collapses. This is not a collection of disinterested experts raising a narrow legal concern. It is a network of highly politicised climate activists with a clear and established record of engagement in anti-Zionist campaigning. Treating their claims as though they carry inherent national news value, without disclosing that background, materially misleads the audience.

The undeniable pattern at BBC News
British Jews have seen it all from the BBC:
Repeated attempts to rewrite Holocaust history.
The shifting of blame onto British Jews for the violence directed at them.
The sanitisation of Hamas operatives by presenting them as medical staff.
The production of a documentary that concealed the Hamas ties of its central figure.
The creation of misleading reports about Israeli military actions in Gaza.
The reframing of an errant Islamic Jihad rocket into an Israeli strike on a hospital.
The use of Iranian IRGC-backed figures as impartial media sources.
The presentation of children with underlying illnesses as starving victims of famine.
The creation of a flagship “BBC Verify” populated by hacks spreading false claims about Israel.

The situation is so hostile that the Jews left working in the BBC village have become targets of internal campaigns to smear them and force them out.

There is an undeniable pattern here. This is a one-way traffic pattern which demonises the Jewish state, acts as a mouthpiece for terrorist factions, invents stories, revises Holocaust history, and invariably places Jewish people as hostile actors who incite whatever violence befalls them.

Yet in some respects, this latest article is even more revealing than those earlier institutional failures.

Creating a BDS narrative
First, a non-story is elevated into national news. Then, institutional authority is imported through an unqualified reference to the UN. Finally, activist groups are presented without disclosing information that would materially affect how readers assess their claims.

The result is a familiar pattern: activist lawfare against Israel, repackaged through climate discourse and laundered through respectable-sounding institutions.

But this is taking place on the BBC website, not in some fringe student-led magazine.

The BBC will respond by claiming it has placed dissenting voices inside the article, but this is a false position. The BBC does not need to explicitly endorse boycotts or anti-Israel campaigns. It achieves the same effect by deciding which claims deserve oxygen, and by stripping away the context that would allow audiences to judge those claims critically.

What the BBC has done here is elevate the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign into a conversation for the day.

This is not journalism exposing power. It is journalism amplifying it – selectively, predictably, and at Israel’s expense.

Jewish groups warn of ‘agenda-driven’ anti-Israel programming at US universities

There is a “disturbing” pattern on U.S. college campuses of academic programming that prioritizes political, “agenda-driven” activism over scholarship, according to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis and the American Jewish Medical Association.

In a joint statement issued on Monday, the organizations cited a January speaker series at Harvard Medical School focused on Gaza and an upcoming “Conference on the Jewish Left” at Boston University.

“When Boston University lends its name and resources to a slate of speakers who minimize the scope of antisemitism and spin the Oct. 7 massacre as a moral indictment of Israel and its supporters in the Jewish community, it suggests university support for rhetoric that targets the identity and safety of Jewish students,” the organizations stated.

Jewish student leaders at BU told CAMERA that they fear for their safety, concerns echoed by the campus Hillel chapter. A university working group formed after Oct. 7 found Jewish and Israeli students had been targeted by aggression and cited insufficient protections.

Last year, Douglas Hauer-Gilad, an adjunct professor, said he resigned from Boston University’s law school after facing hostility for being Israeli and opposing anti-Jewish rhetoric.

A member of BU Students for Israel stated that the conference reflects a broader trend on campus.

“After everything that has happened on campus this year, it’s hard not to see this conference as part of a pattern,” he said. “Jewish students are repeatedly told these events are ‘academic,’ even when the rhetoric involved mirrors the hostility we experience day to day.”

Bar-Ilan University to award Jonathan Sacks Prize to historian Deborah Lipstadt

Professor and Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt, former U.S. envoy for monitoring and combating antisemitism from 2022 to 2025, is set to receive Bar-Ilan University’s 2026 Jonathan Sacks Institute Prize for Outstanding Achievement as a Public Intellectual.

The award, established by the Gewurz family of Montreal in memory of Samuel Gewurz, honors figures whose work advances the ideas and moral vision of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, who died in 2020.

It comes with $32,500, which will be presented to Lipstadt at a Bar-Ilan ceremony in May, where the 78-year-old is slated to deliver a public lecture titled “Antisemitism: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.”

“Professor Lipstadt exemplifies the rare combination of intellectual rigor, moral courage, and public engagement that Rabbi Sacks so deeply admired,” said Jonathan Rynhold, professor and academic director of the Jonathan Sacks Institute. “Her work has shaped global discourse on antisemitism, truth and democratic resilience at a moment when these issues are more urgent than ever.”

Professor Arie Zaban, president of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, said that “Lipstadt’s work reminds us that standing up for truth requires courage, clarity and persistence.”

Lipstadt, a longtime Emory University professor, is known for her successful legal defense against British Holocaust-denier David Irving. In the announcement from the university, Bar-Ilan highlighted her books Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and Antisemitism: Here and Now.

“I have been blessed to receive many honors in my life,” Lipstadt said. “But this one, to paraphrase the last chapter of the book of Proverbs, surpasses them all because of its connection with Bar-Ilan.”

02/02 Links Pt1: This ayatollah fanclub heaps shame on London; Anti-Israel, former president of Chile nominated to be next UN secretary-general; 6,000 Miles of Context: Why the U.S. Comparison Collapses in Gaza

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: This ayatollah fanclub heaps shame on London

We need to grapple with the seriousness of what happened in London on Saturday. Mobs of people sided with Islamist fanaticism. They cosied up to the killers of women. They aligned themselves, publicly and proudly, with the venal ayatollah classes who are content to lay waste to thousands of lives if it will help them to preserve their Koranic power. Rarely has the moral decay of the protesting classes been so starkly on display – a psychotic religious regime massacres thousands and these people either say, ‘But what about Israel?!’ – or worse, ‘Good’.

Saturday’s march was a funeral for moral decency. No one of good conscience, no one of sound moral standing, can be the least bit confused as to what side to take in Iran. This is a theocracy that savagely punishes women for living freely, and which ruthlessly locks up dissenters and apostates, and which has brazenly slain thousands for daring to desire freedom. If you look at this and think to yourself, ‘It’s complicated’, then you have fully vacated the realm of reason. You have made your peace with barbarism.

Some say the Gazaholics of the activist class are being hypocritical. These people weep for the dead of Gaza but shrug their shoulders over the dead of Iran. I disagree. There’s moral consistency here. For in both their anti-Israel fury and their nonchalance over the butchery in Iran, these people are siding with the carnival of bloody reaction that is Islamist fanaticism. Their 7 October apologism and their shameful silence on the Iranian massacres spring from the same dark, warped source – a creepy sympathy for Islamism, a belief that this religious mania represents some kind of resistance to the West, to Israel, to capitalism, to modernity. Their anger over the war in Gaza and their coolness over the mass murder in Iran are both grim proof of the moral rot of identitarianism.

For how much longer will we surrender our streets to the Israel haters and the ayatollah fanclub? To the intifada-cheering middle classes and the mullah-loving Islamists? To those who think the Jewish nation fighting back against its invaders is ‘genocide’ but the mass murder of protesters by tooled-up theocrats is nothing to get worked up about? Mass solidarity with Iranians is what we need right now. The only time I want to see the flag of the Islamic Republic on the streets of London is in the minutes before someone sets it on fire.

Anti-Israel, former president of Chile nominated to be next UN secretary-general

Backed by Mexico and Brazil, Gabriel Boric, Chile’s outgoing president, nominated former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, a harsh critic of the Jewish state, to be the next secretary-general of the United Nations.

Boric, who is also anti-Israel, made the announcement on Monday. José Antonio Kast, a right-wing politician who is set to assume the Chilean presidency next month, would be unlikely to nominate Bachelet, 74, for the role.

Bachelet, who was Brazil’s president twice—from 2006-10 and 2014-18—was the first head of U.N. Women and served as U.N. high commissioner for human rights.

She was a frequent critic of the Jewish state, which broke ties with her office in 2020 over her decision to implement a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution mandating the publication of a blacklist of companies engaged in business in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

According to U.N. Watch, Bachelet issued 14 comments about Israel, more than any democratic country. She made the same number of statements about Syria and fewer about Iran, according to the watchdog.

Bachelet used her final hours in office to decry Israel over its denial of visas to her staff. She ignored antisemitic comments made by a member of the Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for which the commissioner later apologized.

New York Times Misleads Readers on Gaza Death Toll

Edward Wong, who covers the State Department for the New York Times, has a news article in the Feb. 2 newspaper that says "the Israeli military has killed about 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants."

That’s more or less standard Times language. It’s problematic in its own right, failing to disclose that the health ministry is part of the Hamas-controlled Gaza government, and using the term "combatants" instead of "Hamas terrorists."

What really caught my eye, though, was the new language in the following paragraph. It says, "A senior Israeli security official told Israeli journalists that was an accurate number."

This is scraping the bottom, even by the Times’s own very low standards—relying on what an anonymous source supposedly told some other journalists. For verification, the online version of the Times article links not to anything written by "Israeli journalists" but rather a piece in the far-left British newspaper the Guardian by a former visiting scholar of Chinese literature at Peking University who "also worked in Cuba for a year," Emma Graham-Harrison. That Guardian article relies largely on the far-left Israeli newspaper Haaretz, whose own published articles on the topic say nothing about "a senior Israeli security official." The Guardian also links to an article from the Times of Israel’s Emanuel Fabian, who mentions an anonymous "senior Israeli military official."

Even the Times’s "senior security official" is a vague term and could apply to a variety of figures, including political rivals of the current Israeli prime minister and disgruntled former military officials who have been ousted.

Meanwhile, the official Israel Defense Forces international spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani, posted on Jan. 30 to debunk the false claim that the IDF has accepted the casualty figures. "The IDF clarifies that the details published do not reflect official IDF data," Shoshani said. "Any publication or report on this matter will be released through official and orderly channels." The Times didn’t share that denial with its readers.

EoZ cartoons from September (yes, I'm behind)

I have fallen way behind on posting these here. Here are some to help catch up.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Iran wants the world to adapt Sharia as enforceable international law

For decades, Muslim-majority states have learned how to use the language of international law very effectively.

They did not try to overthrow the system. They learned how to work it.

International law was supposed to be procedural and neutral. In practice it has become highly political. Technical legal mechanisms are used to achieve outcomes that would be impossible diplomatically. Israel is treated as a permanent defendant while regimes with far worse records often escape sustained scrutiny.

The International Criminal Court provides one clear example. During negotiations over the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Arab states successfully inserted language that elevated voluntary civilian settlement activity into a specific war crime. That clause had only one real-world target. It converted a territorial dispute into a criminal offense and built a specifically anti-Israel law directly into what is supposed to be an impartial, universal statute.

The same pattern appears at the International Court of Justice. Friendly governments repeatedly request advisory opinions designed to shape doctrine against Israel. Each case helps construct new “international law” precedents while Israel is disproportionately cast as the accused. Meanwhile, mass slaughter in places like Syria or Yemen rarely generates comparable legal creativity. Procedure has become politics carried out in robes.

Muslim states followed a different strategy for human rights law, one meant to inoculate them from scrutiny. When accused of discrimination against women, restrictions on speech, or punishment for apostasy, they argued that Western standards did not reflect their values. Their response was the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, adopted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 1990.

The Cairo Declaration subordinates every right to Sharia. Speech, religion, family law, and gender roles all operate within Islamic legal limits. That structure allowed governments to say they were not violating human rights. They were applying a different, culturally authentic model. The declaration functioned as a shield against outside criticism.

For decades, that seemed to be the whole point. Iran is now proposing to turn that shield into a weapon.

A recent Persian-language paper published in Iran's Contemporary Political Studies, argues that what they call the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights should be transformed from a symbolic statement into a binding international instrument.

The authors do not simply want recognition. They want enforceability. They explicitly call for a convention or treaty with monitoring bodies, legal obligations, and coercive mechanisms. In other words, they want something that operates like existing UN human rights treaties or the ICC, where states can be investigated, judged, and penalized.

This is the critical step. They are proposing an alternative legal regime with teeth. and they admit that their target is Israel. But it would also enshrine Islamic violations of human rights allowed under Sharia law.

If that system becomes binding and enforceable at the international level, then Sharia-based governance becomes “human rights compliant” by definition. Arresting apostates, policing dress codes, jailing dissidents, and restricting speech would all fit comfortably inside the new standard. External criticism could be dismissed as illegitimate interference.

At the same time, the same system could be used aggressively. Israel could be accused of violating Islamic human rights norms, committing crimes against the Muslim community, or occupying sacred land. Legal proceedings, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure could be justified under a supposedly universal Islamic framework.

The result would be a structure that protects Islamic regimes at home while creating new legal tools to prosecute Israel abroad.

Only after you read the details do you see who is writing this.

The article comes from the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, a state-affiliated body. One of the authors, Sakineh Sadat Paad, served as an aide to President Ebrahim Raisi on “social rights and freedoms” and publicly defended the regime’s response to domestic protests. These are insiders connected to the machinery that justifies arrests, beatings, and executions.

This isn't independent scholarship by obscure academics. This is a policy concept backed by the Iranian regime.

The odds of Islamic law becoming formal international law anytime soon are close to zero, but that misses the point. Papers like this normalize the idea. Once a proposal enters academic journals and diplomatic language, it stops sounding radical. Then, in international forums, Western governments often prefer compromise to confrontation in order to avoid accusations of cultural intolerance or Islamophobia. A seemingly harmless sentence gets inserted about respecting local traditions. Later someone clarifies that those traditions include Sharia. Each small concession widens the opening.

This is how norms shift. The change comes incrementally, through language, committees, and resolutions.

The Islamists play the long game. The consequences are serious.

Iran is currently engaged in one of its harshest crackdowns in years. Protesters are imprisoned, women are punished for removing hijabs, and dissent is treated as a crime. Thousands have been detained or worse.

At the same time, regime-linked figures who have defended attacking protesters in the past are arguing that their interpretation of Sharia should become the basis for enforceable international human rights law.

A government that shoots demonstrators in the streets is proposing to police the world’s human rights compliance.

That tells you everything you need to know about how this “upgrade” would work in practice.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From RT Arabic:

A new book titled Israel: Magic, Religion, and Blood by the Egyptian writer and analyst Mohamed Aboud — an expert on Israeli affairs and professor of Hebrew language and Israeli studies at Ain Shams University — has recently been published.

The book uncovers secrets about Israeli society, which presents itself as a secular, democratic society, yet plunges into turbulent seas of the occult and religious conceptions that raise questions about the true nature of Israel.

According to Aboud, every major historical event has a bizarre interpretation in Israel. While the causes of the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser's death on September 28, 1970, remain shrouded in mystery, the strangest and most astonishing narratives come from Israeli religious circles themselves, accusing Jewish religious figures of being responsible for assassinating Abdel Nasser through supernatural forces, sorcery, and black magic!

Dr. Aboud told RT that the head of the Supreme Talmudic Academy in occupied Jerusalem claims that three senior rabbis carried out the assassination of Abdel Nasser! All three belong to the Kabbalah movement, which is notorious for mastering black magic, charlatanism, and the creation of amulets and talismans.

According to the Hebrew narrative, these rabbis slaughtered an animal and brought its liver, heart, and lungs into a carefully prepared sealed room for black magic rituals. They began invoking higher powers to carry out "Jewish retribution" against Abdel Nasser. The three rabbis used the divine Hebrew names of God mentioned in a rare religious manuscript, considered the primary reference for all Jewish sorcerers.

Aboud explained that, in light of this story circulating in Israeli circles, the book Israel: Magic, Religion, and Blood aims to peel away the secular veneer surrounding the Israeli project to reach the heart of Israel. It wanders through its streets, exposes its institutions, and delves into its subconscious.

At least our secret about how we put a red string on each Iron Dome's interceptors hasn't been revealed!

The book was featured at the Cairo International Book Fair.

The blurb says the book includes::

1️⃣ Kabbalistic Roots: How incantations and names are used in contemporary politics.
2️⃣ Political Theology: Religious infiltration of state institutions and the military.
3️⃣ The Element of Blood: How war transforms into a "sacred ritual" and soldiers into "killing machines" driven by biblical texts.

"True victory is not achieved by weapons alone, but first and foremost by knowledge."

Yes, this "expert" has uncovered a Kabbalistic conspiracy so vast and to pervasive in all levels of Israel's government and military that even Israeli anti-religious media like Haaretz has no idea that it exists!

The sobering truth is that the structure behind this insanity is the same as that behind Western claims of unique Israeli evil. When it comes down to it, both the idea of Israel being run by black magic and Israel being guilty of genocide are based on the same type of thinking:

1. Israel/Jews are uniquely evil as the starting point.

2. Anything bad that happens must be viewed through that lens to figure out that the primary explanation is something done by Jews (and only Jews) with malicious intent.

3. Evidence that supports the theory is widely publicized while anything that refutes it is dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

And, as I proved, "genocide" is being presented as a conspiracy theory, just like "Kabbalistic sorcery" is.

The Western antisemitic conspiracy theories have a more respectable academic-sounding veneer, but they are exactly as ridiculous as Dr. Aboud's.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/01 Links: For Decades, Israelis Were Told There Were "Partners for Peace" in Gaza; Responsibility for Death Toll in Gaza Lies with Hamas; Why the West abandons Iran to the ayatollahs

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: Genocide once meant something. Now the term is just political invective

Of the many examples of moral collapse that followed October 7, the debasement of genocide has been among the ugliest. Using the megaphone of social media, activists, hostile states, the media and non-governmental organisations have corrupted a precise legal term to smear troops who were issuing evacuation orders, facilitating aid handouts and fighting an enemy that used human shields. What begins with Jews never ends with Jews. If the meaning of genocide is lost, no Western army will be safe.

As Keir Starmer’s failed attempts to marshal international law against our own troops who fought in Iraq demonstrated, such instincts are strong amongst progressives. As in London and Strasbourg, so in the Hague. On Thursday, judges at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, finished hearing a genocide case against Myanmar. Given the appalling atrocities against the Rohingya, few would dispute the verdict if the crime is confirmed. Scratch the surface, however, and trouble is brewing.

Genocide as a modern legal concept first emerged in print in Axis Rule In Occupied Europe, a 1944 book by Polish-Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin. Crucially, it described mass violence with the intent to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Lemkin was influenced by the 1915 Armenian massacres, but it was the Nazi’s attempted extermination of the Jews – in which 49 members of his own family were murdered – that provided the catalyst for its inclusion on the statute books.

Since 1945, only five legally-confirmed genocides have been recognised by the British government: the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and the liquidation of the Yazidis by Islamic State. Between the Srebrenica massacre – the last time the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a guilty verdict – and Myanmar, times have changed.

As part of the hearing this week, hostile Facebook posts were presented as evidence. Social media has become part of life since 2007, but there are fears that relying upon such contextual and emotive ephemera may eclipse the hard facts, especially as the ICJ’s next case is against Israel.

Aggressive posts and videos of soldiers chanting bloodthirsty slogans already form the backbone of the prosecution’s case against the Jewish state. Are these really evidence of genocidal intent in an army that warns civilians to flee before it attacks? The Myanmar precedent may lead judges – who are human, after all – to give such things undue weight.

Similarly, NGOs giving evidence against Myanmar included Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, both of which have a well-established bias against Israel. None of this necessarily invalidates the case. But it reveals the weakness of the court.

Ben-Dror Yemini: Responsibility for Death Toll in Gaza Lies with Hamas

Recently, multiple media outlets reported that unnamed sources within the IDF were inclined to accept Hamas's casualty figures from Gaza.

But who exactly were these sources? I repeatedly contacted the IDF Spokesperson's Unit and was told: "That's not our position."

The IDF spokesperson to the foreign media, Nadav Shoshani, said: "The details published do not reflect the official data of the IDF."

An investigation reveals that, indeed, an IDF source did say something in a background briefing. But he wasn't an authorized spokesperson.

He didn't intend for his words to be understood the way they were. And his comments were twisted and distorted. But the damage? Enormous.

Hamas Health Ministry figures on the numbers of dead in Gaza identify no Hamas fighters, no deaths from natural causes, or those killed by rockets misfired by Gaza terror groups. They do show that the majority are men of combat age.

Hamas alone is to blame. It is Hamas that for years incited genocide against Jews. It is Hamas that launched a murderous rampage on Oct. 7.

The silence of the graveyard: Why the West abandons Iran to the ayatollahs

In January 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out what may prove to be one of the largest episodes of state violence against its own population in modern history. Reports from within the Ministry of Health and independent monitors suggest that on the nights of January 8 and 9 alone, the death toll exceeded 30,000.

It was a methodical, ruthless slaughter of students, workers, and women whose only crime was a refusal to submit to theocratic cruelty. The regime plunged the country into digital darkness to shroud the carnage, yet the subsequent mass executions have been met in the Western public sphere with a curious, stifled silence.

Contrast this with the totalizing mobilization surrounding Gaza – a cause that has dominated Western activism, academia, and media ecosystems for over two decades. Rather than a mere shortage of facts, this staggering disparity represents an active ideological filter that renders certain atrocities invisible.

The Foucault ghost and the red-green alliance
The roots of this silence run deep into the bedrock of French Theory. When Michel Foucault traveled to Tehran in 1978, he famously romanticized the Islamic Revolution as a “political spirituality” that could challenge Western modernity. That intellectual legacy persists today.

Modern activists have inherited a neo-Marxist framework that has replaced the old class struggle with a rigid hierarchy of identity groups. In this moral cartography, social legitimacy is derived from one’s place in the “Oppression Olympics.” Because the Iranian regime frames itself as an opponent of the West – the source of all evil in the world – its crimes are “decoded” or contextualized away. To stand with the Iranian people would require activists to admit that an anti-Western regime can be a totalitarian engine of slaughter. For many, that admission is ideologically intolerable.

London Palestine rally says murdering thousands of Iranians is the "right side of history"

Yesterday there was one of the regular anti-Israel rallies in central London. But at the demonstration we see these signs:

That particular sign with Ayatollah Khamenei saying "Choose the right side of history" was created by the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission.

The irony of that name in light of the murder of thousands of Iranian protesters is almost too much to bear. They are the real resistance, but the "Resistance by any means necessary" signs only apply to those who repress freedom.

Not coincidentally, Khamenei wrote an antisemitic letter to student protesters in 2024 congratulating them on joining the "resistance front" by saying, "The global Zionist elite – who owns most US and European media corporations or influences them through funding and bribery – has labeled this courageous, humane resistance movement as 'terrorism'." And in the same letter he said, "As the page of history is turning, you are standing on the right side of it."

The "human rights protesters" are not bothered by this at all. I see no pushback from within the supposedly pro-peace, pro-justice, pro-Palestinian movements about being allies with the worst repressors of human rights in the world today.

Claiming to be on the right side of history and actually being there are two very different things .

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)