From Ian:
Israel Just Exposed The Entire Game
For two years in this war, and for more than two decades before it, the Gaza narrative machine has operated with ruthless efficiency. Hamas supplied the kinetic trigger. Israel responded militarily. Visuals followed. NGOs translated images into moral urgency. UN bodies amplified. Diplomats echoed. Media synchronized. Each layer fed the next. It felt organic because it was always anchored to something burning.
This time, nothing burned.
Israel did not strike a building. It touched a filing cabinet. It asked who is registered, who is transparent, and who is subject to law. Aid kept flowing. Trucks kept moving. Personnel stayed in place. The only thing interrupted was immunity.
And the system lost its mind.
The reaction was not proportional to reality because it was not reacting to reality. It was reacting to exposure. Without a kinetic event to anchor outrage, the system inflated consequence in advance. Predictive catastrophe replaced evidence. Language about chilling effects and existential threats substituted for facts. The tone was urgent, the claims vague, and the timing instant.
That is what a machine does when it fires without a trigger.
Now that the rules are in force and the predicted disaster has failed to materialize, the hysteria looks almost comical. The organizations that screamed loudest were marginal to begin with. Some delivered virtually no aid. Some delivered none at all during the current and previous ceasefires. Aid volumes are unchanged. Life in Gaza today is no different than it was yesterday.
Oversight is routine everywhere else on earth. The claim that humanitarian life hinged on a handful of unregistered actors evaporated the moment the calendar flipped.
This is the tell.
A neutral humanitarian system would say fine, here is our paperwork. A professional operation would welcome clarity. What we saw instead was panic. Because this was never about logistics. It was about exemption. It was about the quiet assumption that certain actors exist above sovereignty, beyond law, and immune from scrutiny because their narrative utility outweighs their operational relevance.
Hamas understood this arrangement perfectly. Its ground strategy was designed to manufacture content. Dense terrain. Embedded infrastructure. Human shields. Hostages. Every Israeli response produced raw material. The cognitive system harvested the output and converted it into pressure. That partnership required constant shock to remain hidden.
Israel’s regulatory adjustment removed the shock.
By acting non kinetically, Israel denied Hamas visuals and denied the narrative apparatus its fuel. With no rubble to point at and no bodies to display, the system turned inward to protect itself. It screamed before anything happened. It forecasted doom that never arrived. It tried to portray paperwork as persecution. In doing so, it exposed its own wiring.
There is a slight smirk to be had here, not because the issue is trivial, but because the reaction was so naked. The system was not being bombed. It was being asked for ID. The outrage was never proportional to the act. It was proportional to the threat of what would be revealed.
Now that the rules are live and Gaza has not collapsed, the spectacle dissolves. What remains is the uncomfortable truth that much of the international outcry was never about aid. It was about preserving a system designed to perpetuate the crisis it needs to function. A system that has mastered the manufacture of constant emergency, catastrophe, and atrocity to justify its own existence.
And this is where the moment becomes historic.
For years, the Palestinians and their allies fought on two fronts while Israel fought on one. Hamas provoked kinetic responses that activated a ready made diplomatic and narrative machine. Israel won battles and lost framing. Over and over again.
This time, Israel stepped sideways.
It did not rush back into escalation. It enacted a lawfare offensive that normalized scrutiny and exposed corruption. It resisted pressure to provide new images. It refused to feed the machine bodies. It went after the infrastructure that made the reflex possible in the first place.
That is not symbolic legislation. That is adaptation.
Israel finally recognized the non kinetic battlefield and responded with precision. With the stroke of a pen, through a perfectly ordinary regulatory act, it exposed something far larger than any single NGO. It revealed a moral economy built on exemption, opacity, and permanent emergency.
Today it looks like a quiet administrative event. Tomorrow it may be remembered as the moment the Palestinian strategy began to unravel, not because Hamas lost another tunnel or commander, but because the ecosystem that converted its tactics into global leverage was finally exposed and interrupted.
Priti Patel:
Starmer’s silence on Iran is shocking
Labour’s neglect of our defence and national security is unacceptable.
As a responsible Opposition, the Conservative Party has a clear and comprehensive plan to tackle the threats posed by Iran. First, we would stand by Britain’s allies to work with them on plans to prepare for all scenarios.
Never again should we be on the sidelines while the USA and Israel defend Western values and interests. We should be working with them, offering UK expertise, capabilities and resources, including the use of our base at Diego Garcia, which we would not be surrendering sovereignty over.
Second, where Iran has failed to adhere to the requirements made of it on its nuclear programme, we would make the autocrats of Tehran and their backers feel the economic pain as a result.
The snapback process needs to be implemented in full and we need to go further with our international partners and unilaterally. We’d also follow the money, the cryptocurrency, and all the other methods Iran is using to circumvent the sanctions and go after those facilitating, supporting and bankrolling this regime.
Third, we’d call out the ongoing cruelty, brutality and repression of the Iranian people. Just as Conservatives backed freedom and democracy for those living under communist tyranny in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, we must speak out and condemn everything the tyrants of Tehran are doing to their own people and give them hope that the torch of freedom will never be extinguished.
And fourth, we’d ensure that our military, intelligence and security services are resourced with the funding and powers to keep us safe and our Sovereign Defence Fund would counter the threats we face, dismantle terrorist plots and bring those responsible to justice.
Maduro, the IRGC, and the Globalization of the Terror Threat to Israel
Venezuela and the Iranian Regime
Iran and Venezuela have maintained a relationship since the 1950s. However, the strength and direction of the relationship increased significantly in 2005. The strategic partnership encompassed the realms of politics, military, and economics. In 2007, then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez signed a formal “anti-imperialist” alliance, alluding to the U.S.
By 2020, a military company directly tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) established itself in Venezuela. Then, in 2022, amid U.S. oil sanctions, Venezuela and Iran signed a 20-year agreement, whereby Iran transferred oil to Venezuela. The two countries have coordinated the exchange of gasoline and gold, providing both regimes with sanctions-evasion mechanisms and alternative revenue streams. The partnership allowed Iran to establish a growing presence in Venezuela while diverting some of the profits it makes in Venezuela to its terror network in the Middle East.
In the years leading up to the U.S. military operation, Venezuela began developing drones using Iranian-trained experts overseen by the Islamic Republic, reflecting a deepening military collaboration. Beyond that, Venezuela’s state-owned airline, Conviasa Airlines, has been involved in the Iranian regime’s global illicit arms network.
In effect, Venezuela became not merely an economic partner but a strategic outpost for Iran, extending Tehran’s influence closer to U.S. borders while reinforcing its global network of illicit trade and terror financing.
After the U.S. operation, Qatar issued a statement of disapproval, knowing that ultimately, the capture of Maduro would have profound impacts on Qatar as well, which is also linked to Iran’s terror network.
Venezuela and Hezbollah
Iran has exploited this connection with Venezuela to expand its terror and criminal networks across South America. Hezbollah, in particular, has leveraged the region as a hub for narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and illicit finance, with Hezbollah-affiliated operatives based in Venezuela playing a documented role in these schemes. Through drug trafficking corridors, Hezbollah has generated significant revenue used to finance its terrorist activities abroad.
Hezbollah’s vast terror network includes clans based in Venezuela and other South American countries that assist in the movement of funds through different banks in order to finance Hezbollah’s terror activities. One major operation in 2011 exposed the scale of this network, resulting in the arrest of approximately 130 individuals and the seizure of roughly $23 million in illicit funds.
Hezbollah’s involvement in narcotics and organized crime led the U.S. government in 2018 to designate the group as one of the world’s top five transnational criminal organizations, placing it alongside major drug cartels. This designation underscored the critical reality that Hezbollah is not solely a terrorist organization driven by ideology, but a sophisticated hybrid entity that fuses terrorism with large-scale criminal enterprise, exploiting weak states and corrupt regimes like Venezuela to fund and sustain its global operations.
Venezuela has also bypassed U.S. sanctions by using Hezbollah to smuggle gold, whereby the IRGC facilitated the sale of Iranian oil and accepted gold as a form of payment, which was directed toward Hezbollah terrorists.
From Ian:
Israeli embassy accuses BBC of ignoring Iran protests while ‘obsessing’ over Gaza
The BBC is embroiled in a row with the Israeli embassy after the broadcaster was accused of obsessing over Gaza while “largely ignoring” the ongoing protests in Iran.
Alex Gandler, the embassy’s official spokesman, said on X that there had been “near-total silence” on BBC news bulletins about the demonstrations against Tehran’s Islamic theocratic leaders.
He questioned the BBC’s impartiality, claiming it continued to devote huge resources to its coverage of events in Gaza.
The corporation criticised Mr Gandler’s claims as “factually incorrect”, but the spat amounts to the latest evidence of a worsening relationship between the Israeli government and Britain’s national broadcaster over its coverage of the Middle East since the Oct 7 attacks.
At least seven people have been killed during clashes between protesters and security forces that have spread across Iran since they first started in the capital on Dec 28.
Mr Gandler took to X to respond to John Simpson, the BBC’s veteran foreign correspondent, who had said it was difficult to get reporters into Iran.
The embassy spokesman said: “This is not a good take. The scale of BBC coverage devoted to Gaza, including over the past few days, vastly exceeds that given to wars and humanitarian crises elsewhere in the world.
“At the same time, the near-total silence on Iran is striking. A broadcaster that claims global impartiality cannot obsess over one theatre of conflict while largely ignoring the regime that destabilises the entire region.”
The logic behind Kazakhstan’s Abraham Accords move
When Kazakhstan announced on Nov. 6, during President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s visit to Washington, that it would join the Abraham Accords, the decision raised a more interesting question than the move itself: Why did Astana take this step before Azerbaijan, despite Baku’s far deeper and longer-standing strategic ties with Israel?
For years, Azerbaijan had been widely viewed as the natural candidate to lead Central Asia and the Turkic world into the Accords framework. Its close cooperation with Israel in energy, defense and intelligence, combined with shared concerns about Iran, made Baku the obvious frontrunner. Yet when the moment arrived, it was Kazakhstan—not Azerbaijan—that moved first.
The explanation lies less in bilateral relations with Israel than in how the Abraham Accords are currently being deployed.
Reactivating and expanding the Abraham Accords has become a priority of the Trump administration. While the Accords formalize normalization between Israel and Muslim states that were never at war with it—and therefore differ fundamentally from classic peace treaties—their current strategic significance extends well beyond Israel.
They function as a framework for advancing American influence in regions contested by Iran, China and Russia. From this perspective, Kazakhstan’s decision was driven not by the state of its relations with Israel, which have long been stable, but by Astana’s broader geopolitical weight and signaling value.
Kazakhstan’s move was therefore not ideological and only marginally symbolic, it was a calculated signal to Washington, one that Astana could afford to send, and Baku could not, as its relations with Moscow remain strained. As a result, it cannot discard Turkey, whose stance on the Abraham Accords remains highly critical.
Hind Rajab Foundation files criminal complaint against IDF soldier in Czech Republic
The Hind Rajab Foundation recently filed a criminal complaint to Czech authorities against an Israeli soldier who is visiting the country, the group announced Friday, accusing the soldier of war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza.
The foundation, a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel legal group based in Belgium and named for a 6-year-old Gazan girl killed in January 2024, has filed dozens of criminal complaints against Israeli soldiers and officials who are visiting or stationed in European countries over the past two years.
According to the group, the IDF soldier in question is currently a tourist in Prague.
The group’s complaint alleges that the soldier, as a member of the Givati Brigade, took part in “genocide, war crimes, and persecution of civilians committed during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.”
Givati has been deployed extensively during the war in Gaza, which began when the Hamas terror group attacked Israel on October 7, 2023.
Israel vehemently denies it has committed war crimes or genocide in Gaza, and says it seeks to minimize civilian fatalities, stressing that that Hamas uses Gaza’s civilians as human shields, fighting from civilian areas including homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques.
Since the soldier is currently in the Czech Republic, the group claims that Prague must prosecute the soldier due to its “obligations under international and domestic law”
“These crimes fall under universal jurisdiction. Where a suspect is present on Czech territory, prosecutors are not merely empowered to act — they are legally obliged to do so,” the complaint alleges.
There was no immediate response from Czech authorities.
From Ian:
The dark comedy of the Islamo-left alliance
Yet towards the end of 2025, in Britain at least, we have also seen signs that this political coupling might just be starting to come apart. That middle-class ‘progressives’ are slowly discovering they don’t have as much in common with the uber-reactionaries on their Islamic flank as they might have thought. That sharing a demented loathing of the world’s only Jewish State might not be enough to sustain a relationship between the choose-your-own-pronoun crew and ultra-conservative Muslim men.
The first signs of strain between Muslim sectarians and the woke left became apparent during Mothin Ali’s campaign to become a Green Party deputy leader. On 7 October, the day of Hamas’s massacre, he said Palestinians had the right to ‘fight back’. In 2024, he celebrated his election to Leeds City Council with shouts of ‘Allahu Akbar!’, declaring it ‘a win for the people of Gaza’. Ali is certainly keen on the Greens’ anti-Israel zealotry and general anti-Western misanthropy. Yet, as a committed Muslim, he is rather less keen on the Greens’ Pride-filled, trans-rights activism. And so during his deputy-leadership campaign back in August, he refused to sign ‘pledges’ on behalf of the Greens’ various LGBTQIA+ groups – much to those activists’ apparent shock and dismay.
But the tensions in the Green Party were nothing compared with those that have humiliated Your Party in recent weeks and months. Semi-launched last July, amid bickering and squabbling over precisely who Your Party belonged to, this Corbyn 2.0 vehicle was clearly designed to exploit the surge in Islamo-leftist sentiment. Fronted by Jeremy Corbyn himself, sometime ‘friend’ of Hamas and Hezbollah, and onetime Labour MP and permanent sixth-former Zarah Sultana, it also featured four independent, ‘pro-Gaza’ Muslim MPs: Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan and Iqbal Mohamed.
The ‘pro-Gaza’ Muslim men were certainly on board with Your Party’s anti-Israel zealotry. But it seems they were less keen on Your Party’s support for every hue of gender-identity politics. And so, following criticism from Your Party’s leftist fanboys, fangirls and fantheys, Hussain flounced off in mid-November, citing ‘veiled prejudice’ and ‘generalised accusations and offensive slurs’ towards Muslim men. He was quickly followed by Mohamed, who also complained about ‘false allegations and smears made against me’.
The cultural chasm between let-it-all-hang-out ‘progressivism’ and illiberal Islam was fully exposed at Your Party’s calamitous conference in late November. In between denunciations of Israel, a series of pasty-looking social inadequates stumbled up to the lectern to shout their pronouns and denounce the ‘transphobia’ of their ‘socially conservative’ (ie, Muslim) comrades. The absurdity of the Islamo-woke coupling has been laid bare. Activists who think bearded men can be women marching alongside bearded men who don’t want women to be seen in public. How was this ever going to last?
Another event in Tower Hamlets in late October captured the emerging conflict in starker terms still. The setting was, absurdly enough, a counter-protest against a UKIP march that had already been cancelled and moved elsewhere. It was here that leftist activists, marching under the banner of Stand Up to Racism, coalesced with hundreds of masked Muslim men chanting ‘Zionist scum, off our streets’. Phone footage captured a momentary exchange between one of the left-wing marchers and one of their supposed allies. ‘There’s no need for that’, the leftist activist says in relation to something or other, ‘We’re on the same side, bruv’. The masked Muslim man’s response is sharp: ‘No, we’re not.’
These are portentous words. Leftists might not realise it yet, but as that masked man said, they are really not on the same side as Islamists and Islamic activists on the vast majority of political issues. They have allowed their shared loathing of Israel, animus towards the West and turn against modernity to blind them to this most blatantly obvious of truths. The crumbling of this silly and sinister alliance cannot come soon enough.
Iranians are rising up against their brutal Islamist rulers
It should be said that the Islamic Republic is not about to fall. But these protests show that it is in trouble. Many in Iran were already turning against their repressive Islamic state in the years before its shadow war with Israel broke out into the open in July last year. Since then, the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy has been further undermined. And what happens in Iran won’t stay there. It will have profound ramifications for a region shaped for years by the Islamic Republic’s regional power-plays.
All of which makes the relative lack of interest in the protests on the part Western liberal media and the broader ‘progressive’ class seem even more puzzling. Many news outlets have paid them a cursory notice, with BBC News finally publishing its first bit of coverage of the protests three days in – this despite the presence in the region of its much-vaunted channel, BBC Persian. Elsewhere, the NGO-ocracy, which likes to imagine itself a keen advocate of civil rights, appears to have little interest in Iranian security forces turning guns, tear gas and water cannons on their own people. Indeed, Amnesty International spent the past few days tweeting about fossil fuels, systemic racism and the rights of indigenous reindeer herders – not a mention of Iranians’ brave struggle for more freedom. Middle-class progressives, who have spent the past couple of years obsessing over Israel’s role in the Middle East, barely seem interested in Israel’s principal antagonist.
It would be easy to put the scant attention given to the protests down to the distractions of the so-called holiday season. But that ignores a darker truth. The West’s ‘progressive’ classes struggle intellectually and ideologically with criticising the Islamic Republic of Iran. To support Iranians struggling against the regime’s harsh Islamic strictures, including mandatory hijab-wearing, sits uneasily alongside progressives’ support for Muslim identity politics, and a warped ‘anti-imperialism’ that more often sees Iran as the victim. And so they prefer to look away, and talk about something else, like reindeer herders.
This happened in 2022, when the ‘Women, life, freedom’ protests shook the Islamic Republic to its foundations and cost the lives of hundreds of protesters. In response, Western ‘progressives’ barely managed to murmur some vague words of support for those brave men and women before they got back to championing the hijab as a symbol of liberation and ‘calling out’ Islamophobia.
This time around, the world must not look away. As the Iranians struggle to free themselves from the deathly grip of Islamic theocracy, they deserve our enduring solidarity.
Jewish community files complaint over Catalonia map identifying Jewish, Israeli-linked businesses
According to Enfoque Judío, repeated anti-Israel decisions by the government and the labeling of Israel as a “genocidal state” in the context of the Israel-Hamas War against the terrorist group have contributed to what the outlet described as the normalization and spread of antisemitism in Spain.
“Barcelonaz is not a harmless map: it is an instrument of stigmatization that contributes to this climate of hostility and, directly or indirectly, invites discrimination against Jews and Israeli citizens, the boycott of their businesses, and even violence. We already saw in Australia the process that led to the Sydney attack a few weeks ago,” a source involved in combating antisemitism told Enfoque Judío.
Enfoque Judío reported that Barcelona and Catalonia have, in recent years, become focal points of antisemitism described as being presented under the banner of “anti-Zionism,” including demonstrations, graffiti, boycott campaigns, and government and municipal decisions.
In its presentation, Barcelonaz describes itself as a “collective” project aimed at highlighting “the multiple branches of the Zionist economy in our city,” according to Enfoque Judío. The map includes sectors such as arms manufacturing, technology, tourism, energy, real estate, gastronomy, and education.
The project does not distinguish between Israeli companies, Jewish-owned local businesses, or multinational corporations operating in Israel, Enfoque Judío reported.
Listed entities include arms manufacturers such as Airbus, Indra, and Thales; technology companies including IBM and Microsoft; logistics firms such as Siemens and Volvo; energy companies, insurers, and 39 financial institutions ranging from Deutsche Bank to BBVA. The map also includes real estate and tourism businesses, kosher food establishments, and the Hatikva Jewish school in Barcelona.
According to Enfoque Judío, users are encouraged to expand the list, with selection criteria prioritizing sectors such as arms and cybersecurity, particularly where connections to Zionism are described as less “obvious.”
Members of the Spanish Jewish community have submitted complaints to GoGoCarto, comparing the initiative to historical practices that preceded the boycott of Jewish businesses, Kristallnacht, and the Holocaust, Enfoque Judío reported.
In a letter cited by Enfoque Judío, complainants requested the removal of the site, stating that the project “clearly has an antisemitic and discriminatory character, as it seeks to identify and stigmatize a population on the basis of its religious affiliation, real or supposed.”
The letter further argues that the initiative violates French laws on incitement to hatred and discrimination and calls on GoGoCarto to “adopt the necessary measures to bring this practice to an end,” citing Articles 225-1 and 24 of the July 29, 1881 law on freedom of the press, according to Enfoque Judío.
From Ian:
Why Somaliland works and the international system pretends it does not
Which is where Israel comes in. Somaliland is almost an ideal strategic partner: anti-jihadist, aligned with the Gulf camp, hostile to Iran’s regional axis, and positioned opposite Yemen along one of the most sensitive maritime corridors on earth. Quiet security and commercial relationships already exist. Israeli planners understand its value. In a different legal universe, Somaliland would be a natural candidate for an overt strategic partnership.
Israel recognizes Somaliland exists because it has absorbed Houthi attacks for two years from Yemen. And Israel is not alone in being upset at the Houthis: For much of the past two years, the Houthis have been attacking shipping headed for the Suez Canal, impeding global trade and contributing to a sharp fall in container traffic through the Red Sea, forcing ships to reroute around Africa and adding time, fuel, and operational cost. That disruption is estimated to have affected goods worth roughly US $1 trillion in global commerce and pushed freight and insurance costs sharply higher.
Given its unique position as a victim of the Houthis, Israel would really appreciate a forward base in Small Island, and in particular in the port of Berbera, for intelligence and operations activities so that they can stop the Houthi mayhem. And if they do this, that would actually be a huge favor to their dear friends in Egypt who have lost billions of dollars a year in Suez Canal revenues because of the Houthis. The economic bleeding is real, and everyone in the region knows it, even if they pretend not to.
If the Western alliance wants to prevent this part of the world from blowing up entirely, it needs to quickly get the Saudis, the Emiratis, and probably also the Israelis into one room with padded walls and locked doors – until they agree on a plan.
The result is an inversion that borders on absurdity. Somaliland meets every test the world claims to care about: governance, territorial control, democratic legitimacy, security cooperation. Somalia fails them. And yet Somalia is recognized while Somaliland is denied. This inversion is the price of prioritizing a post-colonial system built on inherited lines.
Recognizing Somaliland would establish three principles the international order is not yet prepared to tolerate: that performance matters, that secession can stabilize rather than shatter, and that colonial borders are not sacred. Those principles would rewrite the logic of statehood itself across entire regions. So Somaliland remains the world’s most functional non-state: stable, democratic, strategically vital, and permanently unrecognized.
The Somaliland Gamble
The day after Netanyahu’s announcement, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) issued a statement denouncing the recognition while repeatedly referring to the institutions of the sovereign State of Israel as “occupation authorities.” The communiqué also invoked the need to preserve “stability” in the Horn of Africa—a ridiculous claim since the entire region has known little sustained stability for nearly five decades. Predictably, Qatar declared that it would be preferable for Israel to “recognize the State of Palestine.”
Another statement of condemnation issued by the ministry, this time co-signed by twenty-one Arab and Muslim states, including Algeria and Iran, cast the move as contrary to international law and warned that it “threatens international peace.” It further insinuated that Israel plans to relocate Palestinians to Somaliland from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The claim is patently absurd, yet it has gained traction within Islamist networks, including those maintained by Iran. That this statement—a typo-ridden mess clumsily assembled by a slave-owning petrostate and endorsed by some of the world’s worst abusers of human rights—was conspicuously not signed by any of the signatories to the Abraham Accords, such as Morocco, Bahrain, or the UAE, tells one all that needs to be known about its credibility.
Qatar has its own strategic interests in the Horn of Africa: it sustains pressure on Israel through the Houthis and other Islamist networks in the region. In Somalia, Qataris attempt to influence state policy through generous donations of foreign aid and the support of Muslim Brotherhood elements with Mogadishu’s governing elite.
Since 1996, Qatar has positioned itself as a mediator in a range of Horn of Africa disputes—from the Eritrea–Yemen conflict over the Hanish Islands to the Eritrea–Djibouti standoff at Ras Doumeira. Meanwhile, it has hosted Omar al-Bashir, the former Sudanese leader charged with genocide and crimes against humanity over atrocities in Darfur.
This is why Israel’s recognition of Somaliland poses such a problem for Doha. Somaliland represents a model of bottom-up stability that neither relies on Islamist mobilisation nor requires Qatar’s mediation. Worse still (for Qatar, that is), Israel threatens to help Somaliland defend itself, without Qatari help.
For the first time, an autonomous region long denied international standing has been acknowledged as a sovereign state not by the usual pantheon of Islamist or postcolonial patrons, but by Israel. Crucially, this has occurred in the framework of the Abraham Accords, which Abdullahi has publicly claimed Somaliland will join. The Abraham Accords began as a regional normalisation initiative but have expanded to encompass countries like Kazakhstan and possibly Indonesia.
The example of Somaliland may also inspire other stateless peoples in would-be autonomous regions. One such case is Kabylia, an Amazigh-Berber region in Algeria whose provisional government in exile has recently declared independence. While Kabylia’s circumstances differ markedly from Somaliland’s, the precedent is nonetheless clear. The Somaliland gamble suggests that a new pathway may be opening, in which emerging states that demonstrate internal cohesion, resist extremist domination, and align with a rules-based security order can find sponsors beyond the old gatekeepers. If that is so, then Somaliland is not an anomaly, but a new beginning: one more aligned with Israel’s interests than with Qatar’s.
Statehood hypocrisy: Why it's no for Somaliland, Kurdistan, but yes for Palestine
ISRAEL WAS the only country that supported the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum. A few years earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that “The Kurds have proven a commitment to political moderation, and they are worthy of their own political independence” and that “Israel supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state.”
No surprises here either: The Palestinians – the people who want the whole world to fight for them so that they can have their own state – categorically rejected the Kurdish independence referendum. Saeb Erekat, a long-time peace negotiator and an adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas, said in an interview with the Al Arabiya Channel that “Kurdish independence would be a poisoned sword against the Arabs.”
Barghouti described Israel as the only country to “recognize the separatist Somaliland,” and Davutoglu’s Israeli recognition of Somaliland is part of a broader strategy to fragment Islamic countries and neutralize key states through encirclement.
The vocabularies of separatism or agents of Israel are outdated and have been deployed for decades to legitimize the massacres in Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq committed against Kurdish civilians over the past decades. Arab, Turkish, and Iranian fascists and Islamists alike have launched vicious campaigns against the Kurds, and always used Israel or The Jews as a scapegoat.
In 1966, then-Iraqi defense minister Abd al-Aziz al-Uqayali blamed the Kurds of Iraq for seeking to establish a “second Israel” in the region. Sixty years later, the term “second Israel” is still perpetuated, claiming Kurdistan is imitating “Yahudistan,” meaning the land of the Jews or Israel.
JUST A couple of weeks ago, Turkish media claimed that the Kurdish-led SDF “is now in Zionist Israel’s lap,” and that it is Israel’s “strategy to divide Syria via the SDF.” Similar rhetoric is now being deployed against the more than six million Somalilanders, using Barghouti’s own words describing them as a bunch of “separatists” and accusing Israel of tearing and dividing, saying that Israel seeks to “destabilize the Horn of Africa.” This is similar to what the late Saeb Erekat said about Kurdish independence as being “a poisoned sword against the Arabs.”
Not long ago, a Turkish newspaper affiliated with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ran a “scoop” claiming that the Israeli government is holding clandestine talks with Kurdish leaders in Erbil (Kurdistan-Iraq) to relocate tens of thousands of Israeli Jewish Kurds to the Kurdish region in Iraq. These kinds of conspiracies are a regular occurrence in Turkish, Iranian and Qatari media to appeal to antisemitic elements in their societies.
The majority of Muslim states, including the so-called “State of Palestine” view both Zionism and Kurdish nationalism as projects of Western colonial imperialism. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly accused the US for seeking to create a “new Israel” in the region due to its support of the Kurdish people.
I salute the Israeli government for becoming the first nation to recognize Somaliland. And I am happy to see so many Israelis and Kurds taking to social media to congratulate Somalilanders on this truly historic moment. To my Somaliland sisters and brothers, I offer massive congratulations!
From Ian:
Douglas Murray:
Alaa Abd el-Fattah and our misplaced priorities
Unfortunately, the government has made such a big homecoming fandango for El-Fattah that a few people have started to look into what our latest arrival actually believes. Of foremost concern is the fact that he seems not much to like the country that has done so much to spring him from Sisi’s jails. In a set of social media posts from 2010, he called the British people ‘dogs and monkeys’. He also described British history as ‘pure BS’, claiming that we ‘enslaved a fifth of humanity’ and ‘massacred millions’. Why exactly someone would want to come to a country filled with so many infidel ‘dogs and monkeys’ is, I suppose, a question for another day. But these are El-Fattah’s views about us and once again we can all agree there is nothing wrong with that and it all just makes him another weave in the rich tapestry of our diverse and multicultural nation.
In a set of other online posts, El-Fattah said he wanted to kill ‘all police’, and – astoundingly enough – he has stern views about Jews and Zionists. The latter should, according to our latest import, all be killed. It is ‘heroic’, he has said, to kill ‘any colonialists and especially Zionists’, adding of Zionists: ‘We need to kill more of them.’
It is worth dwelling on that. After the Manchester synagogue attack in October, Starmer, David Lammy and all the rest of them stressed how we can’t let ‘hate’ into our country, and need to stop people riling up nastiness. But all the time they were making a priority of bringing a man into the UK who hates the British people, wants police officers to be killed and thinks the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist.
At such moments, of course, Starmer’s political opponents realise that there might be some political capital to be made from highlighting this obscenity. Robert Jenrick and others spent the post-Christmas period rampaging across X trying to highlight El-Fattah’s historic views and point at Starmer’s evident present-day numpty-ness.
But, as I can often be found saying, there is always another level to this hell. On this occasion it comes from the following fact.
It is not merely Starmer who has made El-Fattah into the human rights case de nos jours. It turns out that each of our swiftly rotating previous Conservative governments also thought that his case should be a priority for them. Liz Truss’s government thought so, as did Rishi Sunak’s. The Home Office also made the release of this Egyptian a priority by granting him citizenship. The then foreign secretary James Cleverly boasted: ‘We will continue to work tirelessly for his release.’ Again, you and I may have thought that the Home and Foreign Offices might have tried to bring migration down several notches. Instead they ramped migration up to historic highs. And why not, when they were working so ‘tirelessly’ for El-Fattah’s release.
Which party was in power when British citizenship was given to El-Fattah while he was still in jail? Why the gloriously competent Tory government of Boris Johnson, of course.
In any case, put aside for the time being the political game which has resulted from the case and consider the following rather more important question. Does anybody anywhere in government have access to Google? Or any other search engine? Does anybody in the Home Office have the capability to press ‘Control’ and ‘F’ on their keyboard and search for past public comments by a foreign national they are so eager to bring into the UK? There was a time when we might have had some faith that a British official might phone an Egyptian counterpart and ask a few questions about a chap before awarding him citizenship, let alone making a ‘priority’ of getting him on to these shores. But all the government officials, Labour and Conservative MPs, and actresses such as Olivia Colman, who campaigned for El-Fattah’s release seem not to have taken a moment even to Google him.
That is the problem for the UK. Everything that should be a priority is not a priority, and the last things that should be a priority are made a priority by governments of all stripes. Happy new year, by the way.
Human Rights Commissioner demands PM call Royal Commission into Bondi terror attack
Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has thrown her weight behind calls for a federal Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack, as pressure mounts on Anthony Albanese to reconsider his refusal.
Ms Finlay publicly endorsed a Royal Commission on Wednesday night, warning that a narrow review into intelligence and law enforcement failures would not go far enough to confront the underlying causes of the massacre.
Her intervention comes after the Prime Minister on Thursday refused to reveal the unnamed "actual experts" who he claimed advised him against establishing a Royal Commission.
The Commissioner said the attack could not be separated from the surge in antisemitism gripping the country and argued the issue demanded the most powerful form of public inquiry.
“The Richardson Review will examine our national security framework. But understanding the deeper causes of violence is critical,” Ms Finlay said in a post to LinkedIn.
“The Bondi terrorist attack was driven by anti-Semitism. Confronting that directly must be a national priority.
“A federal Royal Commission is essential to fully understand what has happened and ensure it never happens again.”
Former Army chief accuses government of blocking Bondi enquiry
Scores of Australian business leaders call for Bondi Royal Commission in open letter
More than 100 Australian business leaders from across the country have called for a Commonwealth Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack in a powerful open letter.
The written statement, signed by the scores of top business leaders, calls for a Commonwealth Royal Commission into antisemitism and the events leading up to the Bondi massacre.
The signatories include former Reserve Bank governors Philip Lowe and Glenn Stevens, and a wide range of current and former chairs and CEOs including Tennis Australia chairman Jane Hrdlica, Woolworths Group chairman Scott Perkins and GrainCorp's Alison Watkins.
In total, 138 businessmen and women have called for the royal commission into the “national crisis”, which they argue requires a “national response”.
Their letter adds to the growing chorus of voices – including Jewish leaders, politicians and Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner – who have called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to establish a royal commission to investigate the tragedy.
The non-partisan statement noted the families of the victims of the Bondi terror attack have been joined by a “wide cross section of leaders” publicly campaigning for a royal commission.
“As business leaders and proud Australians committed to upholding our values of tolerance and mutual respect, we recognise the need for clear answers as to how the Bondi massacre could occur,” the open letter read.
“We must end the unprecedented harassment, intimidation and violence directed at the Australian Jewish community since October 7, 2023.
“This is a national crisis, which requires a national response.”
From Ian:
Melanie Phillips:
The downplaying of momentous events in Iran
All week, Iranians have been mounting massive and widespread street protests. Triggered by ruinous increases in the cost of living and acute water shortages, they quickly became an insurrection against the Tehran regime, with protesters chanting for the return of the Shah.
These demonstrations have been far more consequential than previous such revolts. They started among the businessmen of the bazaars—the same kind of people who had helped depose the Shah and brought the Islamic revolutionary regime to power in 1979.
Even more remarkably, a number of bases for the fearsome Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militia reportedly fell into the hands of protesters, with one Basij operative killed after demonstrators threw stones in Kuhdasht, a city in western Iran.
At time of writing, this insurrection is still escalating. Although at least four protesters have been killed, the feared bloodbath by security forces hasn’t yet materialized. Instead there have been unconfirmed reports that some have refused to fire on protesters, forcing the regime to call in Arab reinforcements; that other security forces have run away; and even that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has fled Tehran.
Maybe this revolt will fizzle out under ferocious reprisals, as all previous ones have done. But maybe, this time it will succeed in toppling the regime; it’s the closest the people have ever come to doing so. If they succeed, this would have a seismic impact far beyond Iran. It would transform and reshape global politics immeasurably for the better by removing a malevolent force devoted to the annihilation of Israel, the destruction of America and the conquest of the West.
The protests are therefore of immense significance. Yet astonishingly, the West has been all but silent. There have been no demonstrations in its streets chanting “Free, free Iran!” or “Death, death to the IRGC!”
For most of the week, the mainstream media simply ignored these tumultuous developments. When some reports were finally cranked out, they were minimal and seriously downplayed what was happening.
The Trump administration and Israeli government have expressed support for the protesters. But from the governments of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, which have consistently sniped at Israel over its battle to neutralize Iran’s genocidal agenda, there’s been a conspicuous silence.
One might think these governments would be desperate to see the back of the world’s most lethal terrorist regime. Israel has taken another step against it by recognizing the independence of Somaliland. This puts the Jewish state into a far better position to deal with the Houthis in Yemen, through whom Iran launders its war against Israel and the West.
Jonathan Tobin:
Tehran's Dreams of Hegemony over the Middle East Are Gone
All over the globe, antisemitism is surging. Yet the meetings held in Florida this week between President Trump and other members of his administration with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are a reason for optimism after the president expressed support for Netanyahu and aimed threats at Hamas and Iran.
The relationship between the two nations remains close and forward-thinking. During the last 12 months, the forces seeking Israel's destruction in the Middle East and elsewhere can definitively be described as the losers. Israel and the Jewish people remain stronger than at any other point in memory.
That's not the tone of most of the coverage of Israel and its ties with its ally. A constant drumbeat of stories has attempted to make the case that Trump and Netanyahu are on a certain collision course about the next steps with respect to conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. But for now, claims that the alliance is about to crack up are wrong.
There is no doubt that Hamas is far weaker now than when it started the war, with no immediate prospect of becoming as dangerous as it was back in October 2023. Iran has suffered defeat after defeat since its leaders set in motion a multifront war against the Jewish state. Israel's 12-day campaign against Iran in June - which the U.S. eventually joined - did enormous damage to its military, in addition to significantly setting back its nuclear program. The assumption that it is a threshold nuclear power no longer holds true.
Iran's Hizbullah auxiliaries in Lebanon suffered a humiliating and catastrophic defeat as a result of Israel's 2024 campaign, which also led to the collapse of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. The hopes of hegemony over the Middle East that the Tehran government dreamed of are gone. So, too, is the land bridge to the Mediterranean composed of its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon - with which they sought to encircle Israel.
Countless generations of Jews who endured persecution, hardships and even attempts at their genocide have only dreamed of a situation as positive for Jewish life as the one that exists today despite all the sorrow that contemporary Jewry has endured since Oct. 7. This should encourage us to have faith that Israel and the Jewish people will continue to live and thrive. That will require the continued heroism of the Israeli people, bolstered by diaspora Jewry, to have the courage to stand up for their rights and bear witness against hatred and bigotry, wherever it is to be found.
Is This the End for the Islamic Republic of Iran?
The current unrest in Iran is not merely another wave of dissent; it is a direct response to the most catastrophic economic crisis since the 1979 Revolution. By late December 2025, the Iranian rial effectively collapsed. The monthly minimum wage has plummeted to $100, placing Iranian workers at the bottom of the region, just above war-torn Yemen. For the average family, a middle-class standard of living now requires 600 million rials per month, four times the current minimum wage. 60% of the population now lives below the poverty line.
The regime is funneling billions into the IRGC and regional proxies like Hizbullah even as major cities suffer from rolling blackouts and a severe drought that has led to water rationing. The 12-day war with Israel in June drained the last of Iran's liquid reserves.
For the first time, analysts believe the regime is facing a structural failure that cannot be solved by a simple crackdown. Previous uprisings were met by a unified security elite; today, that elite is fracturing. Regular army soldiers, suffering from the same inflation as the civilians they are ordered to suppress, are increasingly showing signs of "passive resistance."
The question is no longer if the regime will face a reckoning, but how it will survive a winter where it can provide neither heat nor hope.
Iran Protests Are about Far More than Cost of Living
Many headlines are reducing what is unfolding in Iran to unrest triggered merely by a plunging currency. But such framing is not only incomplete, but dangerously misleading. The demonstrations now rippling through cities far beyond Tehran are the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle for dignity and freedom.
Yes, the economy is in crisis. But what we are witnessing is the culmination of 46 years of accumulated grievance. Iranians are protesting against a rotten system that has continued to fail them in every way.
They are protesting against the routine use of violence, arbitrary detention and lethal force against citizens who dare to dissent. They are protesting against the persecution of minorities, from Kurds and Baluchis to Baha'is and Lurs, who have borne the brunt of systematic discrimination. They are protesting against the daily war waged against women, whose bodies, hair and choices are policed as instruments of ideology.
They are protesting against corruption so entrenched that even formal resignations at the top, like that of the central bank governor this week, appears less like accountability and more like theater. They are protesting against environmental ruin and water bankruptcy, the result of mismanagement that has left once-fertile regions parched and unlivable.
The people of Iran deserve better than a regime that pours vast sums into foreign terrorist militias while its own citizens struggle to afford bread and medicine. This year alone, a billion dollars was sent to Hizbullah. The people of Iran are not asking to be rescued. They are demanding to be seen.
From Ian:
Resilient and vulnerable: Jewish world in 2025
Vulnerable. That’s the word that defines world Jewry as 2025 draws to a close.
In Israel, exuberance follows stunning military victories over Iran and Hezbollah, and the joyful rescue of hostages. The return to normal has reawakened the “anyone but Bibi” camp, hoping again to unseat the prime minister. Yet Israelis remain uneasy. Hamas still lurks, armed and dangerous, in parts of the Gaza Strip; Iran continues its ballistic-missile program with openly hostile intent; and Hezbollah struggles to rebuild.
Many worry about U.S. President Donald Trump’s impulsiveness and whether he might pressure Israel politically, even though, if he were to run for prime minister, he would likely win in a landslide, even against Netanyahu. Despite the optimism, Israel remains deeply traumatized by war. Life in Tel Aviv pulses at full speed again, but beneath the surface is a yearning for quiet—and for a more peaceful normalcy. Israelis dream of vacations now that low-cost airlines like Wizz Air promise to make Ben-Gurion International Airport a global hub.
For Jews in Australia, the “Lucky Country,” that historic sense of security has been shattered. From the arrival of eight Jewish convicts on the First Fleet in 1788, Jews in Australia felt relatively safe—until now. In the past two years, that security has turned to fear. The Australian government’s recognition of a so-called “Palestinian state” was seen by many as a reward to Hamas. Massive rallies filled Sydney’s iconic Harbor Bridge with chants of “Globalize the intifada” and calls to “Kill the Jews” while participants waved Hamas flags. Some officials even joined the protests, while few condemned them. Fueled by a virulently anti-Israel policy, antisemitism erupted—a synagogue firebombed in Melbourne, physical assaults and open threats to a Zionist community.
The horror peaked on Bondi Beach on the first night of Chanukah, when Islamic terrorists murdered 15 men, women and children. But rather than respond with the familiar platitudes—appeals to multiculturalism, tolerance or reminders of Jewish civic virtue—Australian Jewish leaders did something different. They spoke with pride and moral clarity, proclaiming that the Seven Noahide Laws—the universal Jewish values of justice, decency, belief in God and kindness—could enrich the broader Australian society.
Their courage inspired a vigil in Bondi on the last night of Chanukah with as many as 20,000 attendees, many of them non-Jews, broadcast live across the country by network TV instead of the regular prime-time fare. Criss Simms, premier of New South Wales, launched a campaign called “A Million Mitzvot,” declaring that “the rabbis of Sydney are so persuasive; let me tell you what a mitzvah means.” The governor general and other national leaders echoed the call. The Bondi attack is becoming a societal turning point as Australians begin to question whether importing radicals who seek to “globalize the intifada” threatens not only Jews but the very fabric of their nation.
Jews in Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe now ask whether Bondi is a preview of what’s to come. Many of their governments mirror Australia’s troubling tilt toward Hamas sympathies, leaving local Jewish communities uneasy. Jews in Hungary and Poland, however, feel secure under governments that have resisted unrestricted immigration and rising Islamic extremism. In Ukraine, the suffering continues amid an unwinnable, grinding war. Ironically, in Russia itself, despite President Vladimir Putin’s immoral war, Jewish life remains surprisingly protected and even prosperous.
In the United States, Jews also feel vulnerable, though less so than their Australian and European cousins. Still, new threats appear on both right and left. In New York, the incoming anti-Israel mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has prompted many to consider joining the growing exodus to Florida—the “Sunshine State” that now boasts thriving Jewish communities, lower taxes, affordable housing, education vouchers and an even more vibrant Jewish life.
Yet despite mounting pressures, Jewish life in America continues to flourish. American Jewry can take pride in its overwhelming support for Israel since Oct. 7, 2023—sending billions in aid, and filling Birthright and teen Israel trips during the conflict and after it subsided. A recent Jewish Federations of North America study revealed a “surge” in Jewish engagement, with Chabad serving as a primary gateway. According to the report, 82% of those active in Chabad strongly support Israel, compared with just 32% of Reform Jews who say they are Zionist.
2025’s ‘Persons of the Year’: Israeli mothers
In 1927, when editors worried there was nothing exciting to report Christmas week, Time magazine designated Charles Lindbergh, “Man of the Year.” In 1999, it expanded to “Person of the Year.” This year, it’s a group award – AI’s architects. Let’s start an Israeli tradition, honoring Israeli mothers as 2025’s Persons of the Year.
Admittedly, 2025 was tough. Israel’s multi-front wars persisted, despite a Gaza ceasefire. The country remained divided, with leaders left to right competing in their never-ending “who’s the most disappointing politician” contest. Approximately 200 soldiers died in Gaza. Iran’s evil missile strikes slaughtered 28 civilians.
Palestinian terrorists murdered over two-dozen Israelis, including last week’s under-reported Beit She’an ramming and stabbing.
Jew-hatred kept spiking, curdling haters’ souls, Left to Right, while menacing innocents worldwide. And sinister jihadist-generated lies about Israel, Zionism and the Jews, about genocide and starvation, polluted Western discourse.
True, I keep chronicling the many blue-and-white beams of light too. Israel triumphed militarily, humiliating Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. Israel’s economy roared, as its food-tech, pharma, and AI breakthroughs helped humanity soar. Mocking the worries about Europeans, Canadians, and even some Americans betraying the Jewish state, most Arab neighbors demonstrated growing respect for Israel because it walloped the Islamists and Iranian exterminationists.
Ultimately, Israeli mothers deserve credit for each of these triumphs. Like all mothers, they give life, the most godly act any human can perform. As Israelis, they’ve raised generations of superlative citizens, protecting their country while bettering the world. And today’s epoch-making miracles blazed the way for Israeli mothers’ longer-lasting gift to the future: launching a post-October 7 baby boom, not even waiting for postwar calm.
Israel’s mothers leading the way
Israeli mothers have been crowding maternity wards for years. Israel has long led the OECD in procreating, this key to communal happiness reflecting social strength. That’s why by late November, 2023, 17,629 babies had already been born in the seven weeks since rampaging Palestinians slaughtered 1,200 innocents. By 2024, births jumped 10% over 2023. Israel’s fertility rate of 3.1 children per woman nearly doubled OECD’s 1.59 average.
Israel’s fecundity phenomenon continued in 2025. From Rosh Hashanah 2024 to this Rosh Hashanah, 179,000 babies were born. Israeli Jews’ fertility exceeded Muslims’ rate for the first time, as Israel’s population hit 10.1 million.
Beyond the statistics, Israeli mothers’ everyday poetry and superhuman courage perpetually inspire. Imagine the bravery many needed to fight back tears while sending their children into battle October 7 – and every day since. Or the mettle required to send your 18-year-old into the army, today, after October 7, when our enemies reminded us how brutal they are and how costly our fight to defend ourselves can be.
Or the moxie required to keep working – as 70% of Israeli moms do – with husbands serving hundreds of days in reserves, understandably straining their finances, their relationship, and their children. Or the strength involved in burying a husband, a child, a grandchild, or what it’s like to feel so lucky that your child or life-partner was “only” injured catastrophically, as you pursue some semblance of normalcy while helping your loved one heal and rehabilitate.
2025: The year in which antisemitism became an algorithm of hate
As the late historian Robert Wistrich warned, the key is not asking endlessly why antisemitism exists, but recognizing how it mutates. This year revealed its latest mutation: total normalization. “Genocide” and “war crimes” are now casual labels for Israel, deployed without evidence, stripped of meaning.
The market for hatred is vast. Islamists brand Jews as white supremacists. Parts of the left cast them as colonial fascists. The populist right monetizes resentment through podcasts and platforms.
Qatar amplifies it through Al Jazeera; Iran weaponizes it for Shi’ite supremacy; Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan mirrors it from the Sunni world. China and Russia know that anti-Israel fervor weakens the West—and even undermines U.S. President Donald Trump. A hollow pacifism finds its enemy in Israel alone, absolving Hamas and Hezbollah of responsibility.
The killers at Bondi and the Hamas financiers uncovered in Italy are not aberrations. They exist within our media ecosystems, our festivals, our institutions. They are applauded, excused and rewarded.
And yet—this is the essential difference from the past—there will be no new Shoah. The encirclement has been broken. Jews are strong. They are different. And, most importantly, they have Israel behind them.
That is the paradox of the past dark year: Antisemitism has become louder, cruder, more profitable—and at the same time less capable of finishing what it begins. The hope for a better and more peaceful year ahead lies precisely there.
From Ian:
Israel emerged from war ‘stronger than ever,’ Netanyahu says at JNS event in Florida
More than two years after Hamas attacked the Jewish state on Oct. 7, “Israel has come out of this war stronger than ever before,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told attendees of a JNS event in Surfside, Fla., which drew hundreds of people on New Year’s Eve.
“Stronger than ever before economically. What does strong mean? Well, we just signed a $37 billion gas deal,” Netanyahu said at the Shul of Bal Harbour, a Chabad congregation. “That’s strong. We just had Nvidia—they decided to have a massive investment in Israel, and we welcome it.”
The Israeli premier told attendees that the Jewish state made alliances and peace with strong countries.
“We have opened up opportunities for peace that have never existed before. In the first term of President Trump’s office, we did the Abraham Accords that brought four historic peace accords with four Arab states,” he said. “We’re committed to do more.”
“It’s peace through strength,” he said. “It’s prosperity through strength.”
Netanyahu spoke for about 15 minutes at the hour-long event. Sens. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) and Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Jay Collins, the Florida lieutenant governor, spoke after the prime minister. Alex Traiman, the CEO of JNS, was one of the speakers who introduced the prime minister.
Danny Danon, Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in New York, and Ofir Akunis, consul general of Israel in New York, also attended, as did Yechiel Leiter, Israeli ambassador to the United States, and Reps. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) and Carlos Giménez (R-Fla.).
Leo Terrell, who leads the U.S. Justice Department’s task force on Jew-hatred, and Yehuda Kaploun, a rabbi whom the U.S. Senate recently confirmed as the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, also attended.
Netanyahu told the audience that it is important to be firm in the face of Jew-hatred.
“I say to you, members of the Jewish community of the United States, the last thing you should do before antisemitic attacks, as they attack you—the last thing you should do is lower your head and seek cover,” he said. “That’s not what you should do. You should stand up and be counted. You should fight back.”
The prime minister said that Jews ought to attack their attackers.
“You should delegitimize your delegitimizers,” he said. “Nobody will fight for you more than you fight for yourself.”
“When Israel is strong, others want to partner with us. You stand up and be counted, and you will see the difference,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.”
Jonathan Tobin:
Who has the right to judge Netanyahu for the events of Oct. 7?
Hindsight is 20/20
Such figures claimed that Israel’s defense could be guaranteed by the country’s high-tech mastery, like the Iron Dome anti-missile batteries, and that territorial depth and control of the high ground were largely unnecessary. The same litany was repeated endlessly to journalists who visited Israel’s border with Gaza. This was widely believed not just because the “experts” said it was true, but because the overwhelming majority of Israelis understood that going into Gaza to eliminate the deadly threat that Hamas posed would have required the country to pay, as it did in the two years of fighting post-Oct. 7, a heavy price in the blood of its soldiers, as well as the opprobrium of an international community that always sides against the Jewish state.
The failure here was certainly Netanyahu’s. However, it must be shared with the entire top echelon of the IDF and security services, all of whom bought into the conceptzia—or widely accepted conventional wisdom—as much as the politicians dependent upon them for advice.
Does Netanyahu nevertheless deserve more reproach because he always represented himself as the country’s leading security expert? Perhaps. Still, the notion that he should have or even could have overruled everyone in the defense establishment and pursued policies that they would have all decried as unnecessarily aggressive and dangerous is not so much foolish as anachronistic. It’s something that can be asserted with the 20/20 hindsight that those commenting on the issue only possessed after the events of Oct. 7.
What those who focus solely on the blame for that dark day also forget is that the prime minister deserves enormous credit for leading the country’s efforts to defeat Hamas and other Iranian-backed enemies afterwards, while also fending off interference from Israel’s American ally and an international community determined to let Hamas win. Judging him only on what happened on the first day of a war that lasted 24 months and ended with Israel defeating its foes in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran—and with the Jewish state in its strongest strategic position since 1973—is as illogical as it is ahistorical.
Wherever you come down on these questions, the idea that a panel to decide this complex question that was convened by Netanyahu’s most bitter foes on the Supreme Court would be impartial judges of the matter is laughable.
It’s also important to remember that the Agranat Commission that investigated the failures at the start of the Yom Kippur War, which is cited as a model for an Oct. 7 inquiry, didn’t cover itself with glory. Its decision to make the IDF Chief of Staff David Elazar the principal scapegoat for the defeats of the first days of that war was both unfair and left his political masters—principally, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan—off the hook. Meir was also absolved—a decision that 50 years later seems wiser than it did at the time—but it was rejected by an Israeli people that thought, as prime minister, she needed to be held accountable. And so, she was soon forced to resign.
History and the voters will decide
The point being that the question of how to assess decisions made by politicians, as well as Israel’s military and intelligence chiefs, isn’t really something that can be conclusively decided by a committee, even if it were composed of fair-minded and impartial judges.
Responsibility for Israel’s many failures on Oct. 7 will be debated by historians until the end of time. Even a century from now, long after the contemporary political players are dead, it’s doubtful that there will be any sort of consensus that will satisfy everyone. The idea that the answer can be arrived at through a process that is indistinguishable from the campaign of lawfare that Netanyahu’s critics have been waging against him simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Until history renders its verdict, the only meaningful jury that can have its say about Netanyahu is composed of the country’s voters. In 2026, Israelis will return to the polls when this Knesset’s term expires, after having lasted longer than most of its predecessors in the country’s inherently unstable electoral system.
At that point, the voters will have their say about Netanyahu and Oct. 7—and that will have to suffice.
That won’t placate those who will never accept any answer but to pillory, if not imprison, Netanyahu on any conceivable pretext. But that takes us back to where the debate about his current government began: with a discussion about what it means to protect Israeli democracy. Having failed to defeat him at the polls or unseat him by any other legitimate manner, the issue of a supposedly independent inquiry about Oct. 7 is just the latest effort to find a way to topple the prime minister.
In both the United States and Israel, partisans have attempted to use the judicial system to decide questions that deserve to be left to the voters. Instead of seeking yet another means by which Netanyahu’s foes can force him from office, those who claim to support democracy should cease clamoring for a commission and instead leave the decision to Israel’s electorate.
From Ian:
Stephen Pollard:
This was the toughest year in living memory for UK Jews … and there is no sign of things improving in 2026
The deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby on Yom Kippur, the former killed by Islamist terrorist Jihad Al-Shamie and the latter by a police bullet as they sought to protect congregants at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester, define not just the year 2025 but the whole period in Anglo-Jewish history since the Hamas massacre of October 7 2023. There is a clear sense in which the atmosphere of open Jew hate since then has been leading us here – and, worryingly, that what we witnessed on Yom Kippur is not its climax but rather the start of new and dangerous era for our community – a sense that has obviously deepened since the murders in Bondi.
Britain has felt different for Jews in the years since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party in 2015. Corbyn’s ascendancy unleashed a torrent of antisemitism both online and in the real world, an onslaught which felt both shocking and unprecedented at the time. But while his defeat in 2019 seemed then to mark some sort of closing of the door, hindsight has shown how misguided that idea was. Far from having reached a nadir in the Corbyn years, the massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023 led to a surge in Jew-hate the like of which has not been seen since the Shoah.
In the just over two years since, we have had to grow used to the streets of London and other cities being taken over by hate marches, while the police have mainly stood and watched. Across the country, Jew haters have gathered under the guise of protesting against the Gaza war and the authorities have said and done virtually nothing. On one march, in Tower Hamlets in October, participants wore black clothes and facemasks in a seemingly deliberate echo of the Battle of Cable Steet against Mosley’s Blackshirts – only this time the fascists were the Islamist marchers. And the authorities stood and watched.
As the number of demonstrations intensified this year, we repeatedly told the authorities that their refusal to act against these open and proud displays of Jew hate was sending a clear message. Not only was that message emboldening the haters on the streets, on campus and online, we warned that it would at some point lead to violence – and tragedy. The veracity of that prediction – less a prediction than a statement of the obvious – was seen on Yom Kippur at Heaton Park synagogue. There was a similar refusal in Australia, with even more appalling consequences. And the week after 15 people were murdered at a Chanukah celebration by jihadists driven by the same extremist Jew hate that inspired the Manchester atrocity, two men in Preston were convicted of plotting to kill hundreds of Jews in what would have been the bloodiest terrorist slaughter in British history. The pace of events insistently suggests that across the world, the ancient evil of violent, insatiable antisemitism has once more been let loose.
For British Jews, 2025 has been the worst year in living memory. France and the US have endured deadly attacks in recent years. We have not. But that changed on Yom Kippur, and perhaps the worst of it is that no one seriously thinks that it will be a one-off. The issue is not whether there will be more attacks on Jews but how, when and where.
One response to Heaton Park was the regurgitation of the platitude that follows every antisemitic incident – that there is no place for antisemitism on the streets of Britain. It is not so much a platitude as a lie, because there are plainly many places for antisemitism on the streets of Britain, as we saw in Manchester and as is seen every time there is a so-called Free Palestine demonstration, with their cries for the murder of Jews in the guise of “globalise the intifada” and with the police standing by. Now, in the wake of Sydney, the Met and Greater Manchester Police have pledged to clamp down on that particular chant. The marchers are wasting no time in finding other words to express their wish for Jews to die.
But when it comes to the police, the events surrounding the West Midland force’s decision to make the area around Villa Park Judenfrei for the Maccabi Tel Aviv match against Aston Villa in November are something altogether new – and darker. At the very least, it seems clear that the police decided to acquiesce in the idea pushed by “community leaders” that a Jewish or Israeli presence would be inherently provocative. To that end, they pushed a fictitious account of Maccabi fans’ behaviour in Amsterdam to justify a ban on their presence at Villa Park. But this was never about a football match. As Mark Gardner, CEO of the Community Security Trust, put it at the time: “[The] Aston Villa match is about who controls the streets of UK’s second largest city. The football is a very red herring.”
This was a key moment not just in British policing but in the story of Anglo-Jewry’s place in this country, because it marked a move away from the police merely acquiescing in Jew hate on the streets to them doing the bidding of Islamists. The implications are chilling.
Spielberg Uses Schindler’s List Money to Fund Anti-Israel Protests
“Let Gaza live,” a mob of anti-Israel protesters screamed, brandishing signs falsely accusing the Jewish State of “ethnic cleansing”, “starving Gaza” and genocide while illegally blocking traffic outside the Israeli consulate in Midtown Manhattan.
The only thing more disgusting than the ugly spectacle, which had been timed around a Hamas famine propaganda campaign over the summer, was that one of the hate groups behind the anti-Israel protest, which ended in arrests, was funded by proceeds from Schindler’s List.
When Steven Spielberg created the Righteous Persons Foundation with some of the profits from Schindler’s List, he wanted to educate people about the Holocaust and build up Jewish life in America. “I could not accept any money from ‘Schindler’s List’ — if it even made any money. It was blood money, and needed to be put back into the Jewish community.”
“My parents didn’t keep kosher and we mainly observed all the holidays when my grandparents stayed with us,” the filmmaker said at the time. “I knew I was missing a great deal of my natural heritage, and as I became conscious of it, I began racing to catch up.”
The race has long since gone the other way.
The last time the Righteous Persons Foundation, named after the rescuers of Holocaust survivors, funded Holocaust programs was in 2021. Most of its funding now goes to radical social justice groups including anti-Israel organizations like those protesting Israel.
Since 2021, Spielberg’s foundation has provided $650,000 to T’ruah, an anti-Israel hate group which took part in the Manhattan street blocking and whose CEO celebrated the move and gleefully posted photos of attendees falsely accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing”.
“We have to keep up the pressure,” urged T’ruah CEO Jill Jacobs, who had accused Israeli officials of “incitement to genocide”, and demanded an end to further Israeli attacks on Hamas. Jacobs had blasted American Jews for speaking about “Oct. 7 and the plight of the hostages without once mentioning the unbearable death toll among Palestinians” because of what she claimed was their fear of wealthy Jewish donors.
Jacobs and T’ruah had even falsely accused Israel of “war crimes” by assassinating Hezbollah leaders. “Israel, too, has already committed war crimes in Lebanon, including by exploding the beepers and walkie talkies of hundreds of Hezbollah members,” Jacobs argued.
Within a year, Spielberg had gone from funding Holocaust survivors to funding those accusing Israel of a new Holocaust while enabling Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to perpetrate a new one.
Leading philanthropist reveals she has withdrawn funding from human rights groups over antisemitic rhetoric
One of the country’s biggest philanthropists has revealed she withdrew funding from organisations that appeared to justify the October 7 Hamas attacks in Israel.
The Sigrid Rausing Trust, led by philanthropist Sigrid Rausing, announced that it has cut grants to several human rights groups after reviewing public statements made in the aftermath of the attacks.
“We have strong clauses in our grant contract requiring grantees to abstain from incendiary language that may promote violence,” Rausing said, referencing Charity Commission guidance in an article published by The Times.
According to the Trust, five out of approximately 400 grantee organisations posted what it described as “disturbing material.”
One group in Tunisia expressed “pride” in the Hamas action.
Another called for “support for the guerrilla Palestinian people in their war against the Zionist entity,” stating that Israel “was shaken due to the action of the Palestinian resistance…invading the occupied lands and Zionist settlements.”
A Lebanese media group characterised the Hamas attacks as “resistance” to “colonisation,” referred to murdered civilians as “settlers,” and dismissed Israeli reports of atrocities as “lies.”
A Canadian group, also funded by the Trust, labeled Israel’s actions “genocidal” and described the country as a “settler colonialist white-supremacist state.”
The Trust said that, in context, this language appeared to condone the attacks.
Rausing commented, “Atrocities against civilians are obviously contrary to human rights and international humanitarian law, and we cancelled our contracts with the groups in question.
From Ian:
The mouse is really roaring
These activities all attest to the strategic centrality that Somaliland enjoys. Somaliland is sitting in the eye of the shipping hurricane that is merely 300 kilometers from Yemen.
But this centrality did not exorcise the world before Israel chose to recognize the republic. So clearly, the hot button is the connection between the two and what it might portend.
And here is where the second significant aspect of the new relationship comes into play: What benefit did Israel see coming from the recognition?
I would suggest that there is diplomatic, as well as military significance, that Israel envisions coming from an enhanced relationship with Somaliland. Israel can be proud to be bestowing recognition on a democracy, one that has spurned an Islamist agenda. Somaliland could very well join the Abraham Accords, especially because it also enjoys a good relationship with the UAE, an Abraham Accords member.
Most likely, it is the military significance that has stirred the fear and loathing of so many countries. The most obvious potential implication is for the ongoing Israeli effort to contain and to defang the Houthis. Israeli planes have had to make 2,000-kilometer flights to engage Houthi targets.
Utilizing Somaliland facilities could be a game-changer. Even the possibility of their availability could have an impact.
Much of the reaction of hostile countries must be seen as an exercise in projection. They are condemning the idea that Israel could have reach and influence, something that China, Russia, Iran and Turkey all live for.
To see little Israel extend its net in this way is galling. It is also proof positive of Israel’s standing as a strong horse—perhaps the strong horse in the region. Israel acted purely on its own, without American approval or cooperation. That, too, is impressive and of concern to those condemning the recognition.
Israel stands guilty, in the eyes of its enemies, of turning Somaliland into a passive proxy. That, of course, is ridiculous, though maybe an ally indeed.
Another possible wrinkle to the new relationship—one of particular interest to the United States—is whether Somaliland might be induced to accept Gazans seeking refuge.
Whatever the actual implications of the new relationship, it shows great promise for both countries. Israel has deftly displayed generosity, high-minded concern for a fellow democracy and a shrewd assessment of the realpolitik possibilities of the new relationship.
Those who reflexively demean the efforts of Israel to assert itself in the world must step back and see how beneficial this step is likely to be.
Journalists or Terrorists?
Allegations that Israel deliberately targets journalists in Gaza have persisted since the October 7 terror attacks in the Gaza envelope (Otef Aza) and the subsequent war against Hamas.
The Government Media Office in the Gaza Strip (المكتب الإعلامي الحكومي) and the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (نقابة الصحفيين الفلسطينيين) publish dynamic lists of individuals identified as “journalists” allegedly killed by Israel in Gaza. These names have been widely shared without scrutiny by organizations such as the International Federation of Journalists , the Committee to Protect Journalists, Al Jazeera, BBC Arabic, The Guardian, and even the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
These lists include over 250 names of “journalists and media workers” said to have been killed by Israel since October 7, 2023.
Upon examining the credentials of those listed, primarily using publicly available information from social media, we uncovered something shocking: a significant number of these “journalists” were actually active members of Hamas’s military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades (كتائب عز الدين القسام), as well as the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Al-Quds Brigades (سرايا القدس), and other Palestinian terrorist groups.
It’s important to note that terrorist organizations in Gaza run extensive media operations, primarily operated by Hamas and the PIJ, though smaller groups also have affiliated channels. Notable examples include Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV and Al-Aqsa Radio, as well as Paltoday, recognized as the official news outlet for the PIJ. Many individuals labeled as “journalists” or “media personnel” in Gaza also serve as members or operatives of these groups, often holding military roles. Research indicates that many journalists killed in the recent conflict were affiliated with Hamas or the PIJ. This investigation aims to identify those who serve dual roles as “journalists” and military operatives.
We have not yet reviewed all the names on the lists. Among the 80 individuals we examined, approximately 40% have been identified as having roles in armed branches of terrorist groups in Gaza. For those in our database, we have uncovered clear evidence of their involvement as operatives in these organizations’ armed wings. We suspect many more will be classified similarly once our review is complete or as additional information surfaces.
Additionally, we found that lists of “journalists” are inflated with names of individuals who are not actually journalists or media workers. Examples include:
Anas Ibrahim Hussein Abu Shamala (أنس إبراهيم حسين أبو شمالة): Allegedly a member of Hamas’s elite Nukhba unit, he was hailed posthumously as a “heroic martyr” and “lion among the elite Qassam Brigades.” In reality, Abu Shamala operated a currency exchange and money transfer business, yet he is recognized as a journalist by the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and UNESCO.
Muhammad Fayez Abu Matar (محمد فايز ابو مطر): He reportedly died when a wall of his apartment collapsed after the bombing of the Abu Shamala house in the Yebna neighborhood of Rafah. He has been incorrectly identified as a journalist and photographer. UNESCO’s Director-General, Audrey Azoulay, condemned the killing of Abu Matar while he was allegedly covering the conflict.
It is deeply troubling that global media outlets like the BBC and The Guardian have promoted these claims without any apparent background checks. Even more concerning is that a United Nations agency, established to promote global peace and security, is endorsing individuals affiliated with terrorism as innocent journalists, effectively legitimizing these actions under the guise of defending press freedom.
‘Plainly inadequate’: Labor’s terror review under fire for failing to mention antisemitism
The review into the Bondi Beach terror attack set up by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been heavily criticised for failing to reference antisemitism.
The terms of reference for Mr Albanese’s review failed to specifically mention Jewish Australians, antisemitism, radicalisation or Islamic extremism.
The review, headed by former Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson, appear only to investigate federal agencies, including ASIO and AFP.
Also, the Richardson Review does not mention the role of government ministers responsible for security or social cohesion.
The review appears to completely exclude the decisions of government related to antisemitism, social cohesion and national security.
It comes as Mr Albanese has flatly rejected calls for a federal Royal Commission into the worst terror attack in the country’s history, instead establishing the departmental review.
His excuses for doing so have included that a national inquiry would be too slow, that it would “re-platform” antisemitism and that “actual experts” advised him against it.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said the Richardson Review terms were “too narrowly focused on our intelligence and law enforcement agencies”.
“This omits the wider context in which those agencies operate,” Mr Wertheim told Sky News on Wednesday.
“To get to the heart of the matter there needs to be an honest examination of government policies and the conduct and policies of key institutions and figures in major sectors of our society.
“Their contribution to the unprecedented levels of antisemitism in this country over the last two years must be addressed.
“What might emerge could indeed be divisive and ugly but the divisiveness and ugliness is already there.
“Confronting these demons will be cathartic. It’s our only hope of establishing a new national consensus and setting clear standards.”
Australian Jewish Council CEO Robert Gregory also told Sky News that the Richardson Review terms were “plainly inadequate”.
“They make no reference to the Jewish community and exclude critical issues such as antisemitism and Islamic extremism,” he said.
“They also specifically rule out examining the actions and inactions of the Albanese government in the lead-up to the attack, something any serious review would be expected to do.
“The proposed review appears to be an attempt by the government to transfer responsibility for government failures on to Australia's intelligence agencies.”
Sunday, January 04, 2026
