The Road to October 7: A Conversation with Rafael Medoff (Judean Rose)

The October 7 massacre did not emerge from a vacuum—and historian Rafael Medoff’s new book traces the long ideological road that led to it.

Medoff, a prodigious scholar of Jewish history and a prolific writer, is the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and the author of more than twenty books on Jewish history, Zionism, and the Holocaust. His latest, The Road to October 7: Hamas, the Holocaust, and the Eternal War against the Jews, is a grim but important read—one that places the October 7, 2023 massacre within a wider historical context and shows how it echoes the long, tragic history of the oldest hatred: antisemitism.

The Road to October 7 is a two-part book. In Part 1, The Present: Understanding October 7 and Its Aftermath, Medoff offers a detailed account of that black day and what happened in its wake. He traces the rise of Hamas and the sickening ideology that underpins its hatred and bloodlust—including its affinity for Mein Kampf. Medoff shows how Arab children are taught to hate and kill Jews through what he describes as “jihad education.” He also examines the campus protests, along with the blind eye turned toward them by university boards, administrators, and presidents. The book explores the recent history of terror, and the ways in which anti-Jewish libels are propagated and mainstreamed.

Part 2, The Past: Tracing the Echoes of History, highlights unsettling similarities between the atrocities of October 7 and earlier pogroms in medieval Europe, Czarist Russia, and Ukraine. Medoff examines both the Holocaust and a century of Arab terror—and how each contributed to what happened on that black Sabbath: October 7, 2023. This section is particularly illuminating for its documentation of how American universities cultivated alliances with Nazi Germany during the 1930s—an echo of the same institutions that later tolerated pro-Hamas protests on campus.

In the interview that follows, Medoff discusses the long ideological road to October 7—how antisemitic education and radical Islamic theology shape violence, why so many Western institutions minimized or rationalized the massacre, and why the events of that day cannot be understood in isolation. He also reflects on the historical echoes that make October 7 so uniquely haunting—and on what compelled him to write this book now.

 

The Road to October 7: Hamas, the Holocaust, and the Eternal War against the Jews by Rafael Medoff (The Jewish Publication Society, October 1, 2025), 368 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0827615748.

Rafael Medoff

Varda Epstein: You mention the close cooperation and coordination between the Hamas terrorists and the Gaza civilians who infiltrated southern Israel on October 7, citing Kibbutz Nirim Security Chief Daniel Meir who saw 50 armed and uniformed Hamas terrorists along with “dozens of ordinary Gazans.” Meir described “complete cooperation between the two groups: Hamas did most of the fighting while “the civilians went into houses and turned them upside down. They took phones, computers, jewelry, whatever they could find. From what I know, they also took most of the hostages.”

How should we respond to claims that “most” Gaza civilians are peaceful in light of testimony like this? Why do you think this assertion continues to circulate so widely, often without close scrutiny or independent verification?

Rafael Medoff: There’s significant evidence of widespread support for Hamas among the population of Gaza. Remember that in the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006, Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats. During the two decades that followed, there wasn’t a single uprising against the Hamas regime. There’s never even been a serious opposition party or movement of any kind there. You noted that thousands of Gazan civilians took part in the October 7 invasion. In addition, there’s no evidence that any Gazans tried to help any of the Israeli hostages escape. In fact, some of the hostages were kept as slaves by civilians. It stands to reason that there must be some Gazans who are dissatisfied with Hamas—not because they sympathize with Israel, but because Hamas has made their personal lives miserable. Unfortunately, those dissidents seem to be a very small minority.

Varda Epstein: You write: “Previous Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks had never triggered such reactions abroad. Nor had previous Arab-Israeli wars. The vehemence and in many instances, sheer irrationality, of the reactions to October 7 raised important questions. How could so many people accept as fact assertions about Israel and Gaza that were unsupported by evidence? What caused people who are sincerely concerned about sexual violence to consciously look away from sexual violence against Israeli Jewish women? What was it about this particular terrorist attack that induced such a uniquely massive and extreme response?”

Since your book was published, Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his most recent address to Congress, wore a lapel pin with a QR code linking to photos and footage from October 7. Yet there has been remarkably little visible public engagement with that material in mainstream media or public discourse. There have been no widespread claims that the images were fabricated, nor serious allegations of a false-flag operation—just an apparent absence of response.

How does this indifference to direct visual evidence fit into the pattern you describe? Why does proof itself seem to matter so little to so many?

Rafael Medoff: The same question often is asked about the international community’s response to news of the Holocaust—and the answer, sadly, is similar. Most of the world is indifferent to Jewish suffering. Some of that is because of antisemitism, some of it because of political or diplomatic considerations, and some of it because of simple, selfish apathy.

The response of many prominent feminist groups to the sexual violence perpetrated by the October 7 invaders has been particularly appalling because their hypocrisy is so blatant. They speak out against sexual atrocities committed everywhere else in the world—but when Palestinian Arabs are the perpetrators and Israeli Jews are the victims, many feminists choose to look away.

Varda Epstein: At Harvard, some three weeks after October 7, you write that “Board member Penny Pritzker wrote President Gay that a ‘river to the sea’ placard at a recent protest was ‘clearly an antisemitic sign which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state and Jews.’ Pritzker added that she was ‘being asked by some why we would tolerate that and not signage calling for lynchings by the K.K.K.’ Gay consulted with Provost Garber, who commented that the slogan's ‘genocidal implications when used by Hamas supporters seem clear enough to me, but that's not always the same as saying that there is a consensus that the phrase itself is always "antisemitic."’ Gay, for her part, worried that calling the phrase ‘antisemitic’ would ‘prompt [people to ask] what we're doing about it, i.e. discipline.’”

What does this episode reveal about how university leaders understood the slogan—and, more importantly, about what they feared would follow if they named it as antisemitic? Why did something that seemed morally clear become such a bureaucratic and rhetorical minefield?

Rafael Medoff: The internal Harvard correspondence goes straight to the heart of the problem. Provost Garber knew the slogans were antisemitic, but he was worried about whether there was a “consensus” among his colleagues about it. He should have been able to tell right from wrong, whether or not others agreed with him. That’s one kind of timidity. For President Gay, the problem was that if she acknowledged the truth, she would have felt pressure to do something about it, and she didn’t want to do anything about it. That’s another kind of timidity. Both kinds are morally reckless. Would Garber or Gay ever have taken such positions if a different minority group was being targeted on their campus? I doubt it.

Varda Epstein: As you document in your book, the campus protests have died down to a large extent. What do you think accounts for that shift? Was it a matter of administrative pressure, waning public interest, internal fractures within the protest movement, or something else entirely?

Rafael Medoff: The protests fizzled out due to a combination of reasons. First, some universities feared they would lose federal funding or private donations, so they belatedly cracked down on illegal protests by imposing curfews and other steps that they should have taken from the start. Second, many of the protesters never were really committed—they were just hangers-on who knew little about the issue; they soon got bored with it and moved on to more interesting things. Third, some of the leaders of the protests were foreigners who were violating the conditions of their visas, and when they faced the prospect of deportation, they dropped out.

Varda Epstein: The Road to October 7 offers the reader historical precedent and context for the events of the October 7 massacre. To many of us, the horrors of October 7 seemed somehow worse than anything we’d heard about in the long, sad history of the Jewish people. Yet you document some obscene atrocities committed against Jews during, for example, the Crusader period—acts that in many ways rival those of Hamas on and in the wake of October 7.

Why isn’t rape and murder enough for terrorists? What explains the apparent investment of imagination and effort in devising ever more elaborate forms of cruelty, rather than channeling that same human capacity for creativity toward education, innovation, or improving life for their own people?

Rafael Medoff: Every human being has the capacity for good or evil. Some have the potential to take it to unusual extremes, depending on circumstances and opportunities—so why do they? What I show in The Road to October 7 is that the key factor is education—at home, at school, and in the public arena. If children hear at their breakfast table, and in their classrooms, and in their houses of worship, that Jews are evil and deserve to be killed, then some of them eventually will act on those beliefs. That has been the common denominator in antisemitic violence from the Crusades to the Czarist Russian pogroms, the Holocaust, and Palestinian Arab terrorism.

Varda Epstein: Much of the public and academic discussion of October 7 continues to frame the massacre primarily in political, territorial, or socioeconomic terms. Yet Hamas itself is explicit that its actions are rooted in radical Islamic theology and a religiously grounded hatred of Jews. Why do you think so many commentators persist in sidelining or denying the centrality of theology in explaining both the massacre itself and the moral worldview that celebrates or excuses it? And how does that same theological framework help explain the language and behavior of some of the protesters who have justified or minimized the violence?

Rafael Medoff: The reason apologists are so reluctant to acknowledge the Islamist theological dimension of Palestinian Arab terrorism is that it’s incredibly difficult to persuade religious fanatics to change their beliefs. So rather than admit that making peace with such people is impossible, it’s easier to blame Israel and to claim that Israeli territorial concessions are the answer to everything.

In this context, we shouldn’t ignore the Islamist component in some of the pro-Hamas rallies on campuses. We’ve heard demonstrators chanting slogans calling for “another Khaybar.” That’s a reference to a 7th century massacre of Jews by Muhammad, the founder of Islam. That’s not a historical event with which the average American college student is familiar; but the campus extremists who organized the rallies know it well because they learned it from their parents and their religious teachers.

Varda Epstein: Regarding the protesters and the violence, do you think some participants failed to grasp the full moral enormity of their actions—simply following the behavior of others rather than reflecting independently on what they were doing? Take, for example, those who tore down posters of Israeli hostages. Did some do this out of a kind of “monkey see, monkey do” conformity—seeing others do it and joining in without stopping to consider the implications?

But even allowing for ignorance or social pressure, how does a person arrive at a point where ripping down a poster of a beautiful red-haired infant like Kfir Bibas can be justified? What does it take, psychologically or ideologically, to see a baby as unworthy of notice or concern?

Rafael Medoff: Yes, that does require a certain level of moral degeneracy. But think of all the previous Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks in which Jewish babies and children were slaughtered—and yet for many years, legions of academics, pundits, and Jewish anti-Zionists have been demanding that the killers be given a sovereign state in Israel’s back yard. So in many ways, the responses to October 7 simply mirrored, on a larger scale, the depraved responses of apologists to earlier attacks.

Varda Epstein: You write that “President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris broke important new ground—on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, each made statements implying a measure of understanding for the anti-Israel extremists. President Biden, addressing a Democratic National Convention on August 19, 2024, said of the anti-Israel demonstrators outside the arena, ‘Those protesters out in the street, they have a point.’ The previous month, Vice President Harris told The Nation that the demonstrators were ‘showing exactly what the human emotion should be’ in response to Gaza. However, in what were arguably more consequential, albeit less publicized remarks, both Biden and Harris in effect labeled large sections of the protest movement antisemitic.”

In what ways—and for whom—were those less publicized remarks more consequential than the sympathetic ones? And politically speaking, did this attempt to balance moral clarity with electoral caution ultimately help or hurt Biden and Harris? In trying to please everyone, did they end up pleasing no one?

Rafael Medoff: President Biden and Vice President Harris both acknowledged that celebrating Hamas is antisemitic. Their words are a matter of record. But they made a political decision to refrain from making a big issue of it, most of the news media went along with that. This is where Jewish organizations need to step in. They have the funds, staff, and other resources to bring that important information to light. How many full-page ads have been placed in the New York Times or Washington Post by pro-Israel groups over the past two years? They can probably be counted on one’s hands.

Varda Epstein: Your book is about “Hamas, the Holocaust, and the Eternal War against the Jews.” In public discourse, October 7 is often described as the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust—a formulation that some readers struggle to understand given that more than six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust and “only” some 1,200 were murdered on October 7. Why do you think the Holocaust comparison arises so frequently, and what kind of comparison is actually being made? Is it primarily about scale, or about intent, symbolism, and historical continuity?

Rafael Medoff: The similarity lies in the intent, the ideology, and the methods. The intent of both the Nazis and the 10/7 perpetrators was to kill as many Jews as possible. As for ideology, the beliefs of Hamas and its allies are essentially religious, while the Nazis’ beliefs were essentially secular; but antisemitism is the core principle of both groups. There is a significant similarity in their methodology, as well. During the first nine months of the Holocaust, in 1941-1942, most of the killing was done up close—by bullets, not gas chambers. The same is true of October 7. The comparison is important because it illustrates the savagery and utter depravity of the perpetrators.

Varda Epstein: Did you write “The Road to October 7” for a particular audience? Who do you imagine reading your book? Do you have hopes that your work will persuade some of those who continue to deny the truth of what happened on that black day?

Rafael Medoff: October 7 deniers can never be persuaded, just as Holocaust-deniers can never be persuaded, because they’re not motivated by the search for truth. They’re motivated by hatred of Jews. No matter how many facts are presented, they will try to explain them away or distort them to fit their preconceived narrative. So I don’t expect them to read The Road to October 7. It needs to be read by those who care about the subject but aren’t familiar with the historical precedents. It’s especially important to get this book into the hands of college students. On campuses across the country, anti-Israel forces are trying to win over the hearts and minds of young Jews. This book will help them fight back with the one weapon that matters most—the truth.

Varda Epstein: What compelled you to write The Road to October 7—and what did you hope readers would take away from it?

Rafael Medoff: As the details of the October 7 atrocities emerged, I was struck by how similar they were to descriptions of antisemitic violence going all the way back to the Middle Ages. I realized this information needs to reach a wider audience. October 7 was the product of the same kinds of educational and religious forces that have incited violence against Jews for more than 1,500 years. A very long road led to October 7.

---

---

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

 

Read More

Before the Camps, There Were Classrooms (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

In 1938, Eva G., a Jewish student at the University of Vienna, slipped her Star of David necklace beneath her collar before walking into a lecture hall. She was met with swastikas scrawled on the walls and whispers of “Juden raus.” Eighty-six years later, in 2024, a Jewish student at Columbia University pulls his hoodie over his kippah to walk past demonstrators chanting, “Go back to Poland."

Decades apart, these moments are uncanny in their resemblance—almost like a freeze frame. Eva is likely long dead and buried, but the fear she once felt—of being harassed, abused, and hated—remains a chilling reality for Jewish students today. Campuses, once assumed to be bastions of learning and tolerance, have become places where Jews are not safe, where they must hide, if not themselves, then their identity.

Since October 7, antisemitic incidents on U.S. college campuses have surged 477%. That number alone demands attention. But it’s the atmosphere—hateful chants and symbols in combination with administrative silence—that makes the past feel dangerously close. Where does all this hate for Jewish students lead?

During the rise of Nazism, German universities were among the first institutions to adopt antisemitic policies. At Heidelberg, Jewish students were boycotted in 1933. By 1935, lecture halls bore swastikas. By 1938, Jews were gone from campus altogether—expelled or worse. The violence didn’t begin in death camps; it began with students, professors, and rectors who either joined the mobs or stood silently by.

University of Heidelberg lecture hall adorned with swastikas.

A report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 1933 described one such incident:

“Two hundred Nazi students surrounded the Jewish students in the campus restaurant and, employing chairs, tables, and glassware as missiles, attacked the Jews. Five Jewish students sustained injuries... The Rector of Berlin University failed to intervene.”

“The use of the academic environment to foster extremist views and expression against Jews was essential to the Nazi success in reaching elements of society who could be impassioned, inspired, and ignited towards violent expression through the systematic logic applied in the hate against the Jews,” says Dr. Elana Yael Heideman, Holocaust historian and CEO of the Israel Forever Foundation. “When this began in the decade prior to the rise of Hitler's Third Reich, no one could have imagined that antisemitic riots against students on University campuses in Austria and Germany throughout the 1920s and 30s would have developed into a full-blown genocide of the Jews as the primary targets. Yes, there were indications, but none saw the proverbial writing on the wall. By the time the Nazi regime was in full force by 1935, the social acceptance of the hatred was steeped in the public mindset, thus enabling the subsequent bystanderism that enabled horrific persecutions, and murder by bullet or gas.”

Today, Jewish students in the United States are not being expelled by law. But they are being targeted by hate speech, swastikas, and chants like “intifada revolution,” shouted on elite campuses from Princeton to Tufts. At Cornell, Russell Rickford, an associate professor of history exclaimed to an excited student mob that he felt exhilarated by the October 7 massacre.

At Harvard and Stanford, Jewish students have been harassed, doxxed, or pushed to the margins of campus life. And too often, university leaders respond with moral equivocation or bureaucratic platitudes and do nothing to stanch the flow of hate.

Sometimes history echoes rather than repeats. Then and now, it is the failure of moral leadership that not only allows hate to fester, but gives it permission to thrive and grow. This is not the same as 1930s Europe—but the hate is exactly the same, and it is still every bit as dangerous. As Holocaust survivor David Schaecter, president of the Holocaust Survivors Foundation USA, testified before the U.S. Senate:

“I remember vividly when Slovakian classmates taunted Jewish kids like me, and what’s happening today looks and feels the same.”

When protests devolve into chants denying Jews’ right to exist, glorifying terrorism, or intimidating visibly Jewish students, the line has been crossed. It is not “free speech” to threaten Jewish people with annihilation and it never was.

The most haunting question of course isn’t about what’s happening now—but where this all could lead. In Germany, the radicalization of universities helped normalize Nazi ideology. Academic complicity didn’t just reflect fascism; it fed it. Professors trained bureaucrats and camp guards. Rectors joined the Nazi Party. University violence, once ignored, metastasized into something far worse.

This time things are different.

“As there is no current administration driving the antisemitism on campuses forward into increased violent fervor,” says Elana Heideman, “there is a tentative sense of security that it will not get worse than what is already taking place. That it will dissipate, as sanctions for their actions grow. However there is and should be a palpable hesitance to rest on such baseless confidence that the hate-fests and public demonization of Jews will cease or level out. Rather, we must accept that what will come will not look the same, or be structured the same as 100 years ago.

“Elie Wiesel himself once said, the next chapter will not look like cattle cars and gas chambers. What it will look like, no one can be sure. But indeed, Jews, Israelis, and our allies, will continue to be increasingly listed, targeted, threatened into apathetic compliance with whatever demands are made upon the Jew in order to save them/ourselves.”

The doxing is a particularly frightening and danger-laden phenomenon. “Many of these lists,” says Heideman, “have already been exposed, the Mapping Project for example which now doesn't even mask its intention and has publicly emerged as the Map of Liberation, in which Jewish homes, businesses, and Israel connected institutions are all identified. But even with the efforts put into uncovering these blatant efforts to coordinate this modern genocidal effort against Jews, the lists, the labels, the systematic social and media assaults on truth continue to grow in numbers and in power.”

Where is this going? We know where it led to in Berlin, Heidelberg, and Vienna. Could today’s doxing, protests, and antisemitic chants on campus spiral into Holocaust-like horrors?

Probably not. “The result,” says Heideman, “will be an increasing isolation of Jews everywhere. There will be increased infighting between groups of Jews, as we saw in the Holocaust and as we already see having grown especially since the October 7 massacre, trying to point the fingers of blame and dividing ourselves, which of course weakens us against this enemy which is not a single regime but rather an entire world of totalitarian minded individuals who have been convinced by the propaganda of Islamofascism and who have been enabled sufficiently to achieve dominance, and will only continue to do so as they join forces with the other extremist elements who share the Jew as the common enemy.

“What might the next phase look like?” asks Heideman. “We are already in it. There are more attacks then are reported, out of a desire to remain anonymous or to avoid the inevitable trouble it will bring if they have to chase down every Jew hater that slings their slurs, or shouts free Palestine.”

The Jews, meanwhile, will continue to do what they have always done, find ways to keep a low profile and stay safe. “More Jews will be seeking smaller intimate communities where they are able to find or create a safe space,” says Heideman. “There are those who will seek to emigrate, many attempting to choose somewhere other than our ancestral Homeland in Israel. There are those who will try to convert, religiously i.e., to Islam, politically or socially, as if any of these are a way to save oneself.”

But then there are the others, says Heideman, “Those whose identities will be awakened, whose souls will be empowered. There will continue to be an increase in Zionism as a collective dream, and Aliyah, as Israel will become once again the sole safe haven that was envisioned when our 2,000-year-old dream was fulfilled through political Zionism and the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty at the end of the British Mandate on May 14th, 1948, Declaration Day.

“What will become of the America that we know?” asks Heideman. “Or the campuses and public streets of any country or society that allows this harassment and public expression against Jews, Judaism, Jewish history, humanity and nationhood? Violence will continue, as will the silence.

“But if the Holocaust has taught us anything, we must hope that Jewish response will be different. The existence of a Jewish state, and the vibrant voice of pride and passion in this war for the survival of humanity, will determine what the pending catastrophe to befall the world will look like.”

Will the Trump administration’s financial pressure on Ivy League institutions make a difference? Or will the courts get in the way of these efforts in the name of free speech, leaving Jewish students to twist in the wind? It’s anyone’s guess, but if there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s this: what starts with words can end in atrocities. The time to act is not after tragedy, but now.

---

---

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

 

Read More

Pierre Rehov’s Pogrom(s): A Cinematic Response to the October 7 Massacre (Judean Rose)

                             

Film review and interview with filmmaker Pierre Rehov

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Pierre Rehov has one clear goal with his latest documentary, Pogrom(s): to defend his people, the Jews. The film shows us what happened on October 7^th in a brutally honest fashion. It’s difficult to watch. There are images and footage from which the viewing public has been largely shielded. It’s what Jew-haters have been demanding all along, proof. Not that it will satisfy them—nothing would, except perhaps for the demise of the Jews.

Nevertheless, Pogrom(s) represents a valiant attempt to document the events of October 7, delving into its root causes and aftermath. The film clearly illustrates how antisemitic violence begets further antisemitic violence, creating an insidious cycle. Given the extreme nature of violence on October 7, the resulting acts of aggression—whether on college campuses or in the streets of Amsterdam—have proven particularly severe. With the help of expert testimony, the filmmaker effectively connects the horrific events of that day to a complex interplay of Islamic fundamentalism, Nazi ideology, and 20th-century “Palestinian” nationalism.

Filmmaker Pierre Rehov

If the title of the documentary is any indication, Rehov views October 7 as yet another pogrom in a long and storied history of such events. But was October 7 indeed a pogrom according to the strictest definition of the term? Was it comparable to the anti-Jewish riots that swept through Russia following the assassination of Czar Alexander II?

Arguably, October 7 transcends the boundaries of a pogrom by intent. October 7 was not a mob riot, but a targeted attempt at genocide, with atrocities of unprecedented cruelty, all publicly broadcast on social media for the world to see and hear. But however you land on the question of how to define October 7, it is certain that Pogrom(s) will give you much to think about.

Varda Epstein: You’ve been making films about Muslim terror and the “Arab war against the Jews” as Ruth Wisse calls it, for more than two decades. Why this particular subject? Do you feel called upon to do this work? What do you give viewers that they won’t get anywhere else?

Pierre Rehov: After graduating from law school in Paris in the 70s, I began a career as a journalist and quickly specialized in cinema. This vocation led me to become a film distributor and then producer. But I didn't get politically involved in any cause until September 30, 2000.

Returning from vacation, I stumbled across the France 2 report covering the death of little Mohammed Al Dura. This “filmed death” was the starting point for the intifada that bloodied Israel for almost six years, and gave rise to a propaganda campaign whose results we are sadly witnessing on the international stage today. My experience as a journalist and film-maker made me realize that this death, attributed to Israeli soldiers, was nothing more than a staged event, and I decided to find out for myself. So, with my head held high, I set off to Israel and Gaza to uncover the deception.

In the process, I made my first documentary, and as no one wanted it in France, I created a magazine distributed in newsagents, the sole aim of which was to give away a VHS cassette of the report. The success of this initiative exceeded all my expectations, and so began my new career, which has outstripped all others, and I have since made more than 20 documentaries on the conflicts of the Middle East.

I believe that my experience in many different fields allows me to bring into films materials that few others can. Especially since I was born in an Arab country, I have travelled to many Arab countries and I spent time in Gaza and Judea Samaria to be in contact with Arabs who call themselves “palestinians”.

Where children once played. The aftermath of October 7 

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about your background? I understand you experienced terror first hand. Can you tell us about that? Is that early experience part of what drives you in your work?

Pierre Rehov: I don't really like to talk about this experience. To make a long story short, I was 7 years old, we lived in Algiers, and my school was targeted by the terrorist “Liberation of Algeria” organization, the FLN. Several children died or were injured. In Algeria, as elsewhere, when Arabs fight, they often target civilians, women and children first, to instill terror. But it wasn't this experience that led to my commitment to Israel. Rather, it's the sense of injustice felt by any Jew who has been driven out of an Arab country, whose family has lost everything, and who has been content to rebuild his life without asking anyone for anything, while the Arabs of the Palestine region, many of whom were recent immigrants, have received all the help they can get from the Western world and the UN.

A burned out shell of a home, post October 7

Varda Epstein: Your latest film is Pogrom(s). The movie is about the October 7 massacres, but not solely, because Pogrom(s) actually covers a lot of ground. If you were to offer us a synopsis of the film, what would it say?

Pierre Rehov: It would say that on October 7 Jews suffered the worst massacre since the Holocaust solely because they were Jews, but the very next day much of the world's media and governments, rather than taking sides with the victims, condemned Israel for its willingness to defend itself, a right that seems not to be granted to Israelis. Pogrom(s) tries to explain why, and to do so revisits the history of the region. It also says, to quote Guterres, that this massacre did not occur in a “vacuum” but in the continuity of an anti-Jewish hatred inscribed in the ethos of Islam.

A sea of the burned out empty shells of what were once cars, set on fire with people still inside them on October 7.

Varda Epstein: What was your chief objective in making Pogrom(s)? What do you want people to get out of seeing your film?

Pierre Rehov: Pogrom(s) is a cry of revolt against a culture of hatred and the revision of history. Pogrom(s) says to the world, “We said never again, but here we go again, and you're behaving as you did in the last century.”

Hostages, whether dead or alive, were paraded through the streets of Gaza on October 7, jeered at, spat upon, and violently abused by the crowds.

Varda Epstein: How did you decide what images and footage to include? A lot of it was difficult to watch and see; it must be difficult to get the balance right. How did you decide what to include? What are some of the factors you thought about as you made choices about what you would and wouldn’t show the world? Do you have any regrets in this regard—were there photos or footage you wish you had included but that ended up on the cutting floor?

Pierre Rehov: The choice of images was based on a criterion set from the outset. They had to be revolting without showing too much. I had access to a lot of material during the making of the film, and the choices were extremely difficult because it's impossible to evoke such a tragedy, when propaganda has already done its job to mitigate the ignominy of the human waste who indulged in such an orgy of murder, rape and torture, without showing a little. But at the same time, we had to protect the families of the victims, respect the dead, and not encourage voyeurism. I don’t have any regrets.

Terrorists paragliding into Israel on October 7.

Varda Epstein: Who is your movie for? Will Pogrom(s) change the mind of ardent antisemites? Educate the ignorant? Will the film offer validation to those in anguish over the events of October 7?

Pierre Rehov: The film is aimed neither at pro-Israelis, who know the truth and might just discover a few historical facts that would reinforce their conviction, nor at pro-Palestinians who wallow in lies and scoff at the truth. Antisemitism is a collective neurosis which, at certain times, becomes a psychosis. The cure lies in psychiatry, not in the presentation of facts. Some Israelis and Jews abroad thanked me after seeing Pogrom(s). I simply hope that I have made my tiny contribution to what I consider to be one of humanity's greatest causes: The defense of Israel and the Jewish people.

Antisemitic protests in the United States in the wake of October 7.

Varda Epstein: Pogrom(s) includes footage of University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer stating that “a good number” of Oct 7 victims were killed by IDF. What struck me was the glee on his face as he leaned in and said that. Is there a way to combat these attitudes? Do you think your film is something we can show the deniers to change their minds?

Pierre Rehov: This “professor” is an antisemitic scumbag. He interprets the facts to suit his ideology. There's nothing to be done with this kind of individual. Just let them get stuck in their certainty until the day they let themselves go too far and find themselves caught by the law. It's not my job to educate them. The work should have been done during their childhood, by parents who, no doubt, were no better than them in human terms. A negationist never changes his mind, because his intellectual construction is based on non-existent facts that he has decided to accept as established truth. A negationist can look at a photo of the Holocaust and say it's a fake, or a photo of a charred baby and claim (as Al Jazeera dared to do) that it's a creation of Artificial Intelligence. I don't waste my time trying to convince these people.

The more hate, the more hateful displays of anti-Jewish hate, everywhere.

Varda Epstein: What's next for Pierre Rehov? Do you have another film in the pipeline?

Pierre Rehov: I'm currently preparing two films, which it's too early to talk about, but which belong to the same field. I'm also co-writing a book on the post-October 7 period in Israel and the Middle East, which will be published in April by a major French publishing house.

***

To watch Pogrom(s) and learn more, visit: https://pogroms.info/

---

---

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

 

Read More

Julie Platt: She Stood by Liz Magill (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Liz Magill, with her smug smile and inability to denounce calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, disgraced herself and UPenn. No one wonders why she resigned. The question is why Julie Platt, chair of the Jewish Federations of North America’s board of trustees, saw fit to defend Magill, when all the other Jewish leaders were vocal in their demands that Magill step down. A second question we might ask is why Platt, who also serves as vice chair of UPenn’s board of trustees, is now overseeing the search for Magill’s replacement.

That’s right—Platt, after defending Magill—is in charge of finding a new Magill, likely every bit as antisemitic as the one who stepped down in disgrace. How do we know? Because Platt’s defense of Magill predates the events of October 7^th, says Alana Goodman, writing for the Washington Free Beacon on December 8 (emphasis added):

Platt’s defense of Magill predates the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. She stood by the UPenn president when the school played host to the "Palestine Writes" conference in September, an event that featured anti-Semitic speakers. This included Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters, who has "dressed in a Nazi-like uniform" and "desecrated the memory of Holocaust victim Anne Frank," according to a letter sent to the school by the Jewish Federation’s Philadelphia chapter.

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Three days later, Goodman offered her readers a shocking update—the fox, in the form of Julie Platt, was now guarding the hen house (emphasis added):

Julie Platt, a prominent Jewish leader who repeatedly defended Magill as anti-Semitism surged on campus, will serve as interim chair of the Board of Trustees during the search for a new president. Platt, who was previously vice chair, will replace the board's outgoing leader, Scott Bok, who resigned alongside Magill on Saturday.

"As current Vice Chair, Julie was the clear choice, and we are grateful to her for agreeing to serve in this capacity during this time of transition," the board said in a statement on Sunday.

Critics told the Washington Free Beacon last week that Platt—who is also chair of the Jewish Federations of North America's board of trustees—leveraged her Jewish community leadership role to protect Magill's position at the university for months. 

Platt defended Liz Magill as UPenn hosted an anti-Israel conference with antisemite Roger Waters, and after October 7^th, when Magill refused to condemn Hamas terrorism. But in her official JFNA statement on her appointment as interim chair, Platt wants you to know that all this time, she was “working hard from the inside” to address the rising antisemitism on the UPenn campus—in the form of defending Magill’s indefensible defense of Jew-hatred, of course (emphasis added):

As Vice Chair of the university’s board these past several months, I have worked hard from the inside to address the rising issues of antisemitism on campus.  Unfortunately, we have not made all the progress that we should have and intend to accomplish.  In my view, given the opportunity to choose between right and wrong, the three university presidents testifying in the United States House of Representatives failed. The leadership change at the university was therefore necessary and appropriate.  I will continue as a board member of the university to use my knowledge and experience of Jewish life in North America and at Penn to accelerate this critical work.

Platt is clever, if somewhat devious, when she tells us that she has “worked hard from the inside” to address antisemitism. If the work she did was from “inside,” we didn’t see it, so we don’t know what she did, or how much effort she expended on fighting antisemitism, sight unseen. The ruse almost works, except that the whole world has been watching, or at least the Algemeiner, which documented the number of times Magill gave free rein to antisemitism, as Platt continued to defend her:

Magill had several previous opportunities throughout her tenure to denounce hateful, even conspiratorial, rhetoric directed at both Israel and the Jewish community. However, Magill repeatedly declined to respond to the mounting incidents of antisemitism, especially anti-Zionism, on campus, according to an analysis by [the Algemeiner] of public statements she had issued since July 2022, when she assumed the presidency at Penn.

“Israel is a settler colonial state that uses apartheid to further its ethnic cleansing agenda,” said an essay by Penn Against the Occupation (POA) that was included in the 2022-2023 edition of the Penn Disorientation Guide, a symposium of essays published annually by upperclassmen. It was issued just weeks after Magill started on the job.

“It is time to end the way our school helps to perpetrate human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and organize around divesting from Israel,” the essay continued. “Here’s what you should know about divestment, a popular movement to fight for equality for Palestinians.”

POA went on to charge the university with numerous offenses: Penn “normalizes ties with the occupation” by hosting the Perspectives Fellowship, a program the school’s Hillel chapter founded to educate students about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by taking them on a trip to Israel, as well as Gaza and the West Bank. Penn’s support of Birthright, which sends Jewish students to Israel, “turns a blind eye to the crimes of the Israeli occupation.” Both programs, POA said, “frame the Zionist colonial entity in a positive light.”

Later that semester, after campus police arrested radical student environmentalists for staging an unauthorized protest on school grounds, POA said in an Instagram post that “arresting peaceful protesters is a staple of policing in both the United States and in Israeli-Occupied Palestine.” The group drew a link between the world’s continued dependence on fossil fuels to Israel, saying, “We urge Penn not only to divest from all fossil fuel companies but divest from companies that profit from Israeli apartheid, many of which are one in the same … policies of forced displacement, from Palestine to the UC townhomes in Philadelphia, are all modern-day practices of settler colonialism.”

Neither Magill nor the university responded to the apparent accusation that the Jewish state, conspiring with the US, has caused climate change and colonized both Americans and Palestinians.

The next month, on Nov. 6, POA held a screening of Gaza Fights for Freedom “with snacks provided” in Penn’s Van Pelt Library. The film rationalizes the terrorist acts committed during the Palestinian intifadas against Israel and features a clip of an interview with Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar, who can be heard saying, “We run effective self-defense by all means including using guns.”

The film was directed by Abby Martin, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and a former host on the Russian-funded media network RT America. Martin, who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, reposted on social media posts that celebrated Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.

It doesn't seem like Platt was working hard from inside, if at all. Why did Platt, an important Jewish leader, stand by, as Magill proved, without a doubt, over and over again, that she is an Israel-hating antisemite? Even now, Magill affirms her anti-Jewish creds, most recently during the infamous hearing that led to her resignation. There, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked all three Ivy League university presidents, including Magill, a loaded (and exquisitely worded) question: 

Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Just as the three women answered in chorus on “conduct,” “context,” and parroted the words “pervasive and severe,” here too, the women echoed one another in both what they said—Israel can exist—and what they didn’t say, “but not as a Jewish nation”:

Virginia Foxx: Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Claudine Gay: I agree that the State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Ms. Magill, same question.

Liz Magill: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx. (nodding) The State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Dr. Kornbluth? 

Sally Kornbluth: Absolutely. Israel has the right to exist.

With their collective response to that one question, Magill and her friends made clear their unified belief that Jews do not have the right to self-determination in Israel. And still, Platt stayed dumb (emphasis added):

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Why did Platt, a highly-placed Jewish leader, stick to a university president who wouldn’t condemn Hamas terror or calls for genocide? Are they friends? It seems unlikely, as the two women are almost a decade apart in age.

What then? Did Platt aim by design to rise up the UPenn chain of command to the level of interim chair, and perhaps, beyond? Put her own guy in? Who knows? She’s not talking, and neither is the CEO of the Jewish Federation:

Platt didn’t respond when the Free Beacon asked her on [December 6] to comment on Magill’s testimony. Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, also didn’t respond to a request for comment about Platt’s defense of Magill.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Where Will Your Children Go to School? (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

                                                                                --1--

As an American-born Israeli, I have worried about antisemitism on American college campuses for decades. For me, it’s personal. My friends and family are there. I worry about the physical safety of their children, but am actually more concerned that the rhetoric will damage their psyches and souls. When we text or speak I always want to ask, and sometimes do, especially if the kids are seniors in high school, “Where will they be going to school?”

My question is no different after October 7^th, but now I voice it to the collective: Where will your Jewish children go to school, now that all of us know they are unsafe? And where will they go to college?

Will they attend Hillcrest High, where a Jewish teacher hid in a locked office for two hours? Will they go to Citizens of the World Charter School-East Valley where teachers spoke to first graders about the “genocide in Gaza”? 

Portland-area teacher Hailey DeMarre launched a harassment campaign against Beaverton School District after they told her to remove a Palestinian flag students had painted on the classroom wallshttps://t.co/QgI1CXX0pw https://t.co/QgI1CXX0pw

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 19, 2023

Sometimes I imagine what you are thinking now: How long until it reaches the playground, the grocery store, the synagogue, now that it has been proven without a doubt, that Jew-hatred can rise up, as it did on October 7^th, and sweep across a kibbutz, dance festival, or campus like a tidal wave.

It’s not about October 7^th, but about the nature of antisemitism. Too many of us don’t want to learn the lesson that yes, it can happen again. And it did. Because it’s not enough to say a slogan.

                                                                       --2--

I knew what this column would be called, but I didn’t know what form it would take. All I knew was that I wanted to talk about the fears that Jewish parents must be experiencing right now. Did I want to focus on the individual schools? I didn’t know. I wasn’t sure what I’d need, but I did want to get an idea of the scale. So I went online and boom, boom, boom. The internet started blowing up. Within the hour I had found dope—antisemitic dope, so to speak—on the following 33 schools, the majority of them institutes of “higher” learning.

1.      University of Michigan in Ann Arbor

2.      MIT

3.      Yale

4.      Columbia

5.      University of Pennsylvania

6.      UC Berkeley

7.      Harvard

8.      NYU

9.      University of Southern California

10.   University of North Carolina

11.   Hillcrest High School

12.   University of Maryland

13.   Brown

14.   UCLA

15.   Princeton

16.   University of Minnesota

17.   Montclair State University

18.   Brandeis

19.   Bard College

20.   CUNY

21.   University of Cincinnati

22.   Oberlin

23.   George Washington University

24.   Wellesley

25.   Murray State University

26.   Cooper Union

27.   UC San Diego

28.   Stanford

29.   University of Arizona

30.   University of Massachusetts

31.   University of Florida

32.   Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh

33.   Citizens of the World Charter School-East Valley

An hour’s worth of research cannot claim to be exhaustive or authoritative. It is only disappointing that I found so much of this stuff in such a short time, just surfing the internet. It’s not surprising; it’s unsettling. I worry about Jewish children and what the hatred and violence is doing to them. Antisemitism is a kind of crucible. Will they merely wrestle with fear, despair, and faith, or are we looking at a Norman Finkelstein or Max Blumenthal situation? 

It’s hard for kids and adults of any age to go through this, to experience antisemitism, no matter how jaded we think we are. It hurts—especially when it comes from a teacher and the university does nothing, or when it happens where you least expect it.

This was discovered today at @BaruchCollege pic.twitter.com/JE4AlLGrM6

— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) November 28, 2023

You know what I will say, because I must. I believe that the answer of where your children should go to school is, “in Israel.” There is no remedy for antisemitism, but there’s treatment: come to Israel and strengthen your people. Take your children and move there—move to Israel. Make Aliyah. I wish you would.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More