06/13 Links: Any deal with Tehran is a deadly farce; Mike Pence: The Case for Israel; Why Israel should close every UN office in the country

From Ian:

Mike Pence: The Case for Israel

As anti-Israel and even antisemitic sentiment has taken hold on the progressive left, many right-wing populists have become isolationists who criticize U.S. support for Israel and even indulge in age-old conspiracies grounded in antisemitism. Chief among those voices is Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host who was fired following the $787 million settlement of a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems following the 2020 election. Carlson has condemned U.S. support for Israel and in 2024 he platformed a Holocaust denier who called Winston Churchill the "chief villain of the Second World War." During an interview with the avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes on his show in 2025, Carlson actually denounced American conservatives who support Israel, saying that Christian Zionism is a "heresy" and that non-Jewish Republicans who support Israel are "seized by this brain virus."

He and other populists have also questioned U.S. military support for Israel. Carlson even predicted that Trump's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would "end his presidency." His fellow right-wing populist, podcaster Steve Bannon, warned that a U.S. strike on Iran would start "the Third World War." The result was quite the opposite: Israel and America demonstrated strength and won the peace. Trump's decision to bomb was a bold move that made the world safer and eased tensions throughout the Middle East. It diminished Iran's ability to threaten its neighbors. The action even helped secure the release of Israelis whom Hamas had held hostage for two years. Carlson and Bannon were wrong and allowed their anti-Israel and isolationist views to cloud their judgment. Fortunately, in that instance, Trump ignored them. Conservatives should recognize open hostility to U.S. support for Israel for what it is and reject these voices in shaping our movement or our party.

In addition to rejecting anti-Israel sentiment, conservatives must reject antisemitism of any form in our nation. Sadly, many right-wing populists are not simply wrong about geopolitics. Many also traffic in antisemitism. Fringe figures such as Fuentes and Candace Owens have attracted followings for their podcasts and social media posts by spewing filth. These and other so-called influencers on the right deliver diatribes full of hateful dog whistles, spin conspiracy theories about Jewish influence, and interview guests who question the reality and enormity of the Holocaust. They often hide behind the claim that they are merely "asking questions." They are in fact utterly incurious, always seeming to know in advance the answers they want to hear and amplify. Just as National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. expelled antisemites from the conservative movement in the 1960s, today's conservatives must reject the new voices of antisemitism today. There is no room in the conservative movement for opponents of U.S. support for Israel, and there is no place in America for antisemitic rhetoric and bigotry.

The United States must remain engaged with Israel and never compromise its safety and security. Radical Islamic terrorism knows no borders as it targets America, Israel, and other nations. It respects no creed as it steals the lives of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And it understands no reality other than brute force.

America must continue to provide Israel with the means to defend itself and its people. Peace in the Middle East begins with Israeli strength. When Israel is strong, old enemies can start over and become partners. Familiar foes can find new ground for cooperation. And the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael can come together as never before. While at times it may be hard to see, Jews and Muslims have more that unites them than divides them—not only in common threats, but in the common hope for a future of prosperity and peace, and in the common ancestry of a monotheistic belief that runs throughout these lands. Through engagement with Israel and its neighbors, the United States must seek to restore the rich splendor of religious diversity across the Middle East, so that all faiths may once again flourish in the lands where they were born.

Nearly four thousand years ago, a man left his home in Ur of the Chaldeans and traveled to Israel. He ruled no empire, wore no crown, commanded no army, performed no miracles, and delivered no prophecies. Yet to him was promised "descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky." Today, Jews, Christians, and Muslims—more than half the population of the earth, and nearly all the people of the Middle East—claim Abraham as their forefather in faith. In the Old City of Jerusalem, we see the followers of these three great religions living out their beliefs. At the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christian children receive the gift of grace, in baptism. At the Western Wall, Jewish boys celebrate their bar mitzvahs. And at the Haram al-Sharif, young Muslims bow their heads in prayer. All who hope for freedom and a brighter future should cast their eyes to Jerusalem and marvel at what they behold.

Throughout the history of our nation, generations of Americans have claimed God's promise in Genesis to the people of Israel and all who cherish her: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse." For the sake of our cherished ally and the future blessing of the United States, if the world knows nothing else, let the world know this: America stands with Israel.

Christian leaders hold emergency summit in Jerusalem to confront global rise in antisemitism

The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) convened an emergency summit this week amid growing concern over the global rise in antisemitism following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre in 2023.

The three-day conference in the Israeli capital comes at a time when social media influencers are consistently pushing antisemitic hate to their millions of followers.

"Attacking the Jews means attacking the very roots of one’s own faith. It means fighting against the people who gave us the Bible. Jesus was Jewish," ICEJ President Jürgen Bühler told Fox News Digital.

"If you don’t fight antisemitism, you are sawing off the branch you sit on. For the church to survive, we need to connect to our roots, (and) fighting antisemitism needs to be at the forefront of every pastor and every leader around the world," he added.

One of the central themes of the conference is replacement theology, a doctrine that holds the church has replaced the Jewish people in God’s plan.

"The Bible is full of God’s eternal plan, which includes the Jewish people. Paul’s statement in Romans 11 that ‘the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable' relates to Israel. This is a doctrine that goes contrary to what the New and Old Testament are teaching and that’s why we need to have this conference," Bühler said.

"One cannot deny the Jewishness of the Bible. The most frequent word in the Bible is the name of God, and the second most used name is Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he died in Jerusalem, resurrected in Jerusalem, rose to heaven from Jerusalem, and he is coming back to Jerusalem. If you read the Bible, it is so easy to see the connection to Israel," he added.

Israel’s newly appointed special envoy to the Christian world, George Deek, addressed the meeting on Wednesday, while Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee are scheduled to attend the summit’s closing event Thursday at the foreign ministry as keynote speakers.

In a recorded message broadcast at the summit, Israeli President Isaac Herzog thanked Christian leaders for mobilizing against antisemitism.

"We are witnessing a very disturbing surge of antisemitism all over the world. This is a major challenge for humanity. This is the age-old, perhaps the oldest plague in humanity, and we have to stand up together — thought leaders and religious leaders — and say, ‘No more' and teach people about the sources of this evil and how to counter antisemitism," Herzog said.

"I believe that countering antisemitism requires a combination of three major elements: law enforcement, adjudication and education.

"You, dear leaders, have a huge capability of fighting back, and I bless you. Truly, I bless you as the president of Israel for coming here and fighting back, for coming here and discussing how to fight back," Herzog concluded.

Zionism as Decolonization — How I Went From Anti-Zionist to Zionist

As a former anti-zionist, I often get asked what changed my views on this very heavy, complex, and emotive subject.

Ironically, it was the same question that got me out of anti-zionism that got me into it — what relationship do Jews have to the land?

The lens through which we view this question colours the entire conflict — the history, events, and dynamics involved, what they are, and to what extent they are moral or immoral.

For a number of years, I opposed the existence of Israel and everything to do with it. A matter of principle. Like most other anti-zionists, it was seemingly obvious that Jews are foreign to the land, that they are just white settler-colonizers from Europe who were using the Jewish religion as a racist excuse to steal the land of a vulnerable brown indigenous population. Anyone with a moral conscience would be opposed, no?

Because of this pretext, this mindset presupposes that everything else Israel does must therefore be in service of settler-colonialism. Hence why it launches attacks on Palestinians, displaces civilians, puts up walls, checkpoints, and blockades, bans DNA tests, builds settlements, and the like. Israel must be committing apartheid. Israel must be committing genocide. Everything Israel does (exist, defend itself, maintain national security) is unjustifiable, because the premise of Israel is unjustifiable. And conversely, everything the Palestinians do is justifiable, because they are innocent native people resisting the evils of colonization. The Jews are foreigners who took the land from the natives, just like here in North America, right? Right!?

Wrong. As someone with an academic background in Anthropology and Indigenous studies, who also spent many years as a decolonial advocate focused on indigenous rights, I was inclined to agree. However, when I started seeing the argumentation for Jews being Indigenous (from Ryan Bellerose, Rudy Rochman, Thomas Gallezot, StandWithUS, among others), I was skeptical yet curious, and sought to investigate further. If my beliefs were true, they would hold up to scrutiny, I thought.

Upon actually reading about Jewish history, linguistics, archaeology, and genetics, and also Arab history, and the history of the conflict, it turns out, my opinions were very much rooted in ignorance. Everything clicked into place and my worldviews came crashing down (although accepting it was a gradual process).

Jews are not just white people with a Jewish religion, they are a displaced Levantine people. Arabs are not just innocent natives, they are the descendants of Caliphates that colonized the entire MENA region. Israel is not acting in service of settler-colonialism, it is acting in service of decolonization. There was so much more that I was never told, and so never considered. I was lied to.

Read More

06/12 Links Pt2: Civilization and Barbarism in the Biblical Heartland; Melanie Phillips; Islam and Jihad in the UK; Four Palestine Action activists jailed for Elbit factory raid

From Ian:

Josh Hammer: Civilization and Barbarism in the Biblical Heartland

I’ve just returned from my seventh trip to Israel. I spent a good amount of time in Judea and Samaria. I visited some of the major Jewish “settlements”—tendentious nomenclature aside, better thought of simply as flourishing suburbs—such as Ariel and Efrat. I visited a brand-new hilltop settlement outside Efrat, called Eitam, where the founder offered a tour of the local Herodian ruins and explained why he first pitched a tent without so much as electricity or running water. Further out in the Judean Desert, at the stunning Arugot Farm, the founders quoted biblical passages that harmonized their project with the vision of the prophets. The Israeli government is not advertising the extension of sovereignty on a mass scale, but there is a lot of new building happening on a micro level on the ground.

In a sensible world, this would be celebrated. But it’s not. Humorously, in virtually every other geopolitical hot spot, it is the Chinese- and Russian-funded anti-civilizational Left that clamors for “indigenous rights” at every opportunity. Yet in Judea and Samaria, the leftist Soros/NGO script flips on its head entirely. The actual indigenous population, acting in furtherance of the miraculous fulfilment of the biblical prophecy of the ingathering of the exiles, is instead deemed cruel, oppressive, “colonialist,” or even “genocidal.” Curious, that. Even worse: In our morally confused and biblically illiterate age, far too many on the “Right” accept the prevailing narrative and clap along.

Even holding aside the terror-supporting, Hamas-loving nature (as confirmed by myriad polling) of the radicalized local Arab population, it is difficult to describe the extraordinary impracticability of any kind of divided political resolution to the question of Judea and Samaria. The Western mind often thinks of the “settlements” as comprising a few gruff hilltop cranks—and some surely do exist. But there are now well over a half-million Jews living in the biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria—from the tony suburbs of Gush Etzion to the far-flung outposts near the Jordan River or the Dead Sea. Simply put, the Jews of Judea are not going anywhere. And on the ground, Jewish towns are interspersed all throughout with Arab towns. There are no clean borders to be drawn here.

To attempt to neatly divide this on a map is an exercise in logistical and cartographic futility. Give the freaks of “Students for Justice in Palestine” credit for one thing: The geopolitical unity inherent in the cry of “from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea” makes a heck of a lot more sense than continuing to indulge the Oslo Accords-era delusion of a workable carving out of a new Palestine Liberation Organization/Hamas terror entity in the core of the biblical heartland—even if, per leading Oslo proponent Yitzhak Rabin himself, the entity would be “less than a (full) state.” The land is going to be controlled by either Jews or, after 90-year-old Ramallah-based PLO kleptocrat-in-chief Mahmoud Abbas croaks, Hamas.

It’s pretty much that simple.

As in so much else in our politics, then, the relevant question in Judea and Samaria is not the procedural question of whether there will be one or two (or more) states, but the substantive question of who will rule in the entirety of the biblical heartland. The Left knows its answer: Hamas and the broader Muslim Brotherhood of which it is a part. But again: Why doesn’t most of the Right, which is at least ostensibly committed to the defense of Western civilization, have its own competing answer in response to the Red-Green Alliance narrative?

The answer to this specific geopolitical question dovetails with the broader explanation for the rise of the “Retard Right” phenomenon, in the first place: increased lack of civilizational or national self-confidence, diminished understanding of America as founded upon the ecumenical biblical inheritance and committed to upholding it for our progeny, the successful injection of debilitating information operations from wily foes such as Russia and Qatar, and a broader rotting of the American people’s minds that has led to a chronic inability to distinguish fact from fiction and right from wrong.

But the Trump administration, though not immune to infiltration by some prominent individuals (Joe Kent, anyone?) who are card-carrying members of the “Retard Right,” has generally acted in a way to diminish the influence of the most cancerous pro-Russia, pro-China, Islamophilic, and anti-American voices within the Right’s midst. Furthermore, the current U.S. ambassador to Israel is evangelical Mike Huckabee, a lifelong proponent of Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria and a deep skeptic of the Palestinian-Arab narrative.

Even if rudimentary morality is off the table in our confused time, the Trump administration can and should make an even more straightforward argument about the American national interest when it comes to the future of the biblical heartland.

To be “America First” is to ask, in each and every geopolitical hot spot around the world, what course of action best advances the American national interest. In Judea and Samaria, the answer—especially in the aftermath of the regional Israeli-Arab rapprochement that was the 2020 Abraham Accords pacts—should be obvious: Greater Israeli autonomy is preferable to greater Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood autonomy. This is true for national security reasons. This is true for Iranian regime containment regions. This is true for China great power competition reasons. This true for Christian holy site protection reasons. Indeed, this is true for virtually every reason conceivable. Even the Arab states know it, despite their meek protestations to the contrary—and they especially know it in light of Operation Epic Fury, which has fully exposed Iran’s threat to the region.

If Western civilization is going to be saved, then America must do the saving. If America is going to be saved, then the Right must do the saving. But that can only if the Right actually understands what it is fighting to preserve: the intellectual and tangible fruits of the ecumenical biblical inheritance. After my most recent trip to the Holy Land, I’ve never felt firmer in my conviction that such an effort must encompass a robust defense of the biblical heartland itself. Judea and Samara must forever remain part of Team Civilization, not Team Barbarism. And “America First” should understand that.

Man in the mirror: Norman Finkelstein and his own Holocaust industry

I owe Norman Finkelstein something. He was my professor at New York University in the mid-1990s, and for a young Jewish kid from Queens, N.Y., he was an electric disruption. He challenged everything I thought I knew, introduced me to Noam Chomsky and wrote the recommendation that got me into graduate school. I read his work for more than 30 years. This essay is not written in contempt. It is written in disappointment, with the same demand for consistency he spent his career imposing on others.

Norman Finkelstein built his reputation on a single devastating argument: that suffering can be exploited, historical trauma can be weaponized and moral authority can become currency. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry accused Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel of turning tragedy into a brand, commanding speaking fees upward of $25,000 while claiming the Holocaust was “noncommunicable.”

He accused attorney Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, of fraud. He accused Jewish organizations of running “an outright extortion racket.” His standards were ferocious and he insisted they apply to everyone.

It is time to hold Finkelstein to his own standard.

Today, his public identity revolves around Gaza and his identity as the son of Holocaust survivors. His mother survived Majdanek. His father survived Auschwitz. Both survived the Warsaw Ghetto. Their suffering is not incidental to his public persona. It is the credential that accompanies him into every interview, every introduction, every podcast appearance.

He has built two books totaling more than 900 pages on Gaza alone, to be sold as a matched box set modeled on Vasily Grossman and Ilya Ehrenburg’s documentation of Nazi atrocities. He promotes his new volume, Gaza’s Gravediggers, across every available platform.

The man who accused others of transforming historical suffering into moral authority now relies on his own inherited suffering as his primary credential. The man who condemned what he called an industry has built one himself. The subject matter changed. The mechanism did not.

Earlier this year, I reached out to Finkelstein directly, as a former student who had read his work for 30 years. I asked about antisemitism that predates Israel by centuries. I asked about the institutional silences that followed the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, before any Israeli military response began. I asked about the future of Jewish life in the Diaspora.

Not one question was engaged. Instead came dismissal, sarcasm and the declaration that “those who want to know, know.”

He told me Gaza was “about as complex as an Auschwitz gas chamber.” That comparison, deployed casually in a personal letter to the son and grandson of survivors of Bergen-Belsen and Terezín, reveals something important. The man who once demanded that arguments be answered rather than dismissed now pronounces verdicts and calls it scholarship.

On Oct. 7, Finkelstein posted that it “warms every fiber of my soul” to see Gaza’s “Jewish supremacist oppressors” humbled. He invoked the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising—the very one his own parents survived—as a parallel to Hamas’s assault on a music festival and kibbutz families.

Insurance giant Allianz given green light to sue Palestine activists

A British court has allowed German insurance giant Allianz to pursue a civil lawsuit against six pro-Palestine activists accused of vandalising its offices in London and Guildford, Surrey.

The defendants, who conducted separate protests at the site in 2024 and 2025, are facing criminal damage charges after targeting the company as the then-insurer of Elbit Systems, an Israeli-based defence firm.

Known as the Allianz6, the activists occupied the office building and sprayed it with red paint, which the firm said caused £79,000 in damage.

In its filings to Central London County Court, Allianz requested permission to seek up to £300,000 in damages, £200,000 of which it claimed were incurred through “reputational damage and commercial embarrassment”.

The activists represented themselves last month in the early stages of their criminal trial and say they cannot afford legal representation to contest the civil case.

They argued that the suit should be held until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, scheduled separately for October this year and January 2028, to safeguard their right to a fair trial.

However, Judge Alan Johns rejected this request, ruling on Monday that the suit could proceed concurrently with the criminal cases.

One of the defendants, Seren John-Wood, told Middle East Eye: “We took action and are prepared to face legal consequences in a criminal court as we believe we are not guilty.

"But this attempt to move the case away from the criminal courts, where we are not able to access financial support for legal representation and have our cases heard by juries, is as appalling as it is unprecedented.”

Read More

06/12 Links Pt1: US-Iran deal to include dismantling of Iranian nuclear program; UNRWA fires 70 staffers over terrorist ties; Pal football chief denied US visa

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Trump’s civilizational moment

This lethal blindness is not just endangering the West in foreign wars, but is doing so at home in the refusal to face the reality of Islamization.

Britain refuses to ban the Muslim Brotherhood, jail or deport jihadi preachers, ban sharia courts or stop immigration from countries posing an Islamist threat.

In America, although Trump has taken measures against extremism, an Islamist beachhead has been created in New York with its sectarian Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and with sharia enclaves expanding in Texas and elsewhere.

The reason all of this has been allowed to grow is wider and deeper than the promotion of multiculturalism and the intersectional dogma that holds the West is innately bad because it is white. At the core of these secular ideologies is a loss of belief in the biblical norms that underpin Western culture, and the replacement of what is held to be irrational Christian and Jewish mumbo-jumbo by the superior power of the Western mind.

The West has told itself that it is the acme of reason—by which it means that its core principle is the pursuit of individual happiness, prosperity and self-realization.

Accordingly, war is always totally dumb because people get killed; ranking different cultures in any kind of hierarchy is a form of bigotry that is not only evil but proof of imbecility; and everyone in the world is assumed only to want to have a nice life.

Believing that only universal values are moral and rational, such Westerners can’t see the catastrophic results of failing to fight for their own. They refuse to acknowledge that there is no brotherhood of man; there are instead people who believe in civilization, and other people who intend to destroy it.

The paradox is that in making a fetish of reason and self-interest, the West repudiates reason by inventing its own reality.

Meanwhile, the Islamists have grasped all this. They understand that without a religious scaffolding, a society eventually collapses. They have watched the West steadily destroying that religious core and, in the vacuum that’s been created, giving them the opportunity to strike.

This is why Britain, which has led the retreat from Christianity in the West, is ground zero for the Islamist onslaught. Islamization has penetrated throughout Britain’s political and civic architecture, with British leaders absolutely refusing to push back.

Now there’s a rapidly rising sectarian Islamic bloc, aided by the left, increasingly focusing British politics on the jihadi agenda of destroying Israel and the Jews as an essential precursor to conquering the West.

We are currently, and rightly, transfixed by Iran. If America doesn’t neutralize the Islamic revolutionary regime and instead allows it to regenerate, this will be catastrophic for America and the West.

It all depends on one mercurial and imperfect man in the White House. But whether he succeeds or fails, he is leading a free world, much of which no longer understands what it needs to do to survive.

Ruthie Blum: Translating Trump in Tehran

Listening to U.S. President Donald Trump’s June 3 Oval Office press conference, one couldn’t help worrying about how his words sounded in Farsi—not only to the mullahs and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but to the masses who believed that “help was on the way.”

Now it’s true that every statement made by Trump, whether in response to journalists’ questions or as a post on Truth Social, is aimed at multiple audiences at home and abroad. The trouble is that he often makes off-the-cuff remarks that lately have been music to the ears of the powers-that-be in Tehran.

Though he’s said about Iran that “it’s never won a war, but never lost a negotiation,” Trump has been behaving as if the joint American-Israeli military victories against the now-fractured regime were simply a precursor to engaging in dialogue with it.

On one hand, he seems to be aware that the ayatollahs and their henchmen have spent nearly half a century perfecting the art of exploiting Western assumptions about war and peace. On the other, he continues to view talks with regime representatives—mediated by Pakistan, no less—through the transactional lens of a real-estate developer.

The Islamic Republic, in contrast, sees everything through a revolutionary religious prism. The result is a clash of perceptions that’s not beneficial to the United States.

Take Trump’s explanation for Iran’s latest violations of the so-called “ceasefire,” for example. Asked by a reporter about Tehran’s attacks in the Gulf, the president replied, “Some people would say they were slightly provoked,” since the United States had struck first, and hard, the previous night.

This wasn’t merely a false depiction of what’s been going on; it was rightly interpreted by Tehran to provide an explanation, if not an excuse, to Iranian belligerence. You don’t have to be a Mideast expert to figure that out.

Nor do you require a degree in international relations to grasp that when Washington rationalizes Iranian aggression, rather than treating it as an immediate casus belli—in this case, the imperative to resume the unfinished war—Tehran concludes that its actions are paying off.

Ditto in relation to Trump’s saying, “I hear the negotiation itself is going very well, actually. Very well.”

The Last Superpower Test By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
If the U.S. wins, we will live in a safer world. Bad actors will be made to understand that American power remains the ultimate block on their ambitions. If the U.S. loses, extremist and predatory regimes will be free to do as they please. They all know that America is the only guarantor of sovereignty for the countries of the free world. No other power can underwrite the stability of the global order.

At this moment, that stability hangs in the balance. If the U.S. reaches a deal with Iran’s leaders that leaves the regime intact and fundamentally unchanged, it will be rightly regarded as an American instrument of surrender. The U.S. will have bombarded the regime from the skies, killed multiple tiers of leadership, destroyed its nuclear program, and degraded its missile stocks only to accept defeat. World leaders will understand this as America’s last, failed attempt to project military power on a large scale. For decades, Donald Trump has insisted that Iran must be stopped. If he decides that the job is too big to finish, no future president will try again.

My hope is that Trump’s seeming eagerness for a deal isn’t the spectacle of desperation that it appears to be. This isn’t unfounded. Although the president has been lured into negotiating with Iran again and again, he has never failed to reject the regime’s dangerous demands. He even did so this morning. It could be that Trump simply hasn’t yet grasped that this regime is incapable of making peace on terms that are acceptable to the U.S. Perhaps this is becoming clearer to him with every scrapped diplomatic “framework.” And maybe he will come to understand that there’s only one path to American victory—and it’s not negotiation.

This war will decide more than the future of Iran or the Middle East. It will define America’s ongoing role in the world that it shaped, and it will either set free or rein in those who wish to tear that world down.

The ups and downs that really matter: Why Israel, the US are not fighting the same war

This striking, grimly satirical political cartoon expresses what is being said in diplomatic circles this week, capturing the strategic vertigo gripping both Jerusalem and Washington. It depicts an elevator labeled “Lobby of Hell.”

The newest Iranian cleric and his partner, the Hezbollah operative, stand hand-in-hand, staring out as an elevator car descends into an abyss watched over by a welcoming devil. On either side of the shaft stand US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, their fingers pressed firmly on the elevator call buttons.

Above Trump, floating in an idealized cloud, is Uncle Sam; above Netanyahu floats Theodor Herzl. Both leaders look grimly determined, convinced their fingers are guided from above by foundational visions of American greatness and a safe, iron-clad Jewish state. Netanyahu, wanting to guarantee the future of the Jewish state, and Trump, who is out of options looking for an agreement and a way out of the quagmire, keep pushing the hold call button.

But look closer at the cartoon, and the unsettling truth reveals itself: we are all staring intently at the elevator buttons, but we have completely lost track of the shaft itself. We are trapped in a dangerous collective delusion, focusing on political theater while completely missing the structural architecture of the war we are supposedly fighting.

The shaft symbolizes that the Iranians are happy to pull us all down to hell with them in a jihad-like suicidal moment. Worse still, it is no longer clear whether Uncle Sam or Theodor Herzl possess the same binding relevance or moral authority in modern America or contemporary Israel that they once did.

We are executing policies based on outdated paradigms, and in doing so, we run the risk of fulfilling the grim punchline of the old medical joke: the operation was a spectacular success, but the patient died on the table.

Uncle Sam was created for the American public and reinforced by political cartoonists who wanted a symbol that represented the strength, authority, and government of the nation itself, rather than just its abstract ideals. The lack of American support for the war with Iran is evident in that the American people are not looking at Uncle Sam in the same way as they did before.

Read More

06/11 Links Pt2: The Paris Conference, the peace industry, and the illusion of representation; Alan Baker: The OSLO ACCORDS Were NEVER About a Two-State Solution!?; When America First Meets Iran

From Ian:

David Collier: Baghdad to London: An Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory Implodes

Terrorist stabbings, firebombings, threats against synagogues, guards at school gates, and conversations in Jewish homes about whether it is still wise to wear visible Jewish symbols in public.

British Jews are living under growing pressure in an increasingly hostile environment.

And yet there is no stampede at Heathrow.

Communities rarely uproot themselves quickly. People adapt. History shows Jewish communities often fail to recognise the precise moment danger becomes irreversible.

And that matters, because what is unfolding in Britain today offers a living example of how Jewish communities historically responded to mounting hostility – and helps expose the conspiracy theory surrounding the exodus of Jews from Arab lands.

A Million Refugees
During the 20th century, around a million Jews were expelled or driven out of more than a dozen Muslim-majority countries. Communities that had existed for thousands of years were uprooted within a single generation.

Antisemitic violence – often rooted in historical systems of Islamic supremacy and discrimination – spread throughout the region. It was fuelled by the rise of Arab nationalism, and when the dust settled, almost every ancient Jewish community across the Arab world had been destroyed or emptied.

Nearly a million Jews became refugees, most of whom found refuge in the newly established Jewish state.

The Anti-Zionist Narrative Problem
The destruction of Jewish communities across the Arab world created a major problem for anti-Zionist narratives. Europe’s antisemitism was undeniable after the Holocaust, so a counter-story emerged: while Christian Europe persecuted Jews, the Muslim world supposedly sheltered them in tolerance and coexistence.

But there was an obvious problem. The Jewish communities of the Arab world had collapsed.

Explaining away that disappearance became essential.

What followed was large-scale historical revisionism.

Centuries of discrimination, periodic massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, and legal systems that relegated Jews to subordinate status were softened, minimised, or erased altogether. The dhimmi system was recast as benign protection rather than institutional inequality. Violence against Jews was blamed not on Islamic supremacy, but on Zionism, or the creation of Israel itself:

Why hasn’t the New York Times corrected its ‘dog rape’ lie?

‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

This saying, popularised by American astronomer Carl Sagan, was clearly unknown to the New York Times and journalist Nicholas Kristof when they recently accused Israel of a systemic policy of sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners. In a 3,750-word piece, published last month, Kristof alleges that a ‘Gaza journalist’ was raped by a dog that had been ‘coached’ for that purpose. He writes that a dog was summoned and, with encouragement from a handler, ‘mounted’ a prisoner. The prisoner ‘tried to dislodge the dog… but it penetrated him, while guards laughed and took photographs’.

This is the journalistic equivalent of a five-alarm fire – and all the alarm bells should have sounded for the New York Times’ editors. This is where extraordinary evidence is required – yet not a shred was provided.

For a claim to merit publication, extraordinary evidence has to meet two thresholds. First, is the claim plausible? Second, is the claim provable? If the claim is not plausible, it is not automatically untrue, but it should only be published if accompanied by absolute proof. No one would believe the moon is made of green cheese, and that should end the question – unless someone brings back an indisputable sample of green cheese from the moon’s surface. That’s proof of the implausible. But the case of the ‘rape dogs’ goes beyond even the ‘green cheese’ standard.

There is no evidence that dogs can be trained to rape men and no credible, documentable accounts exist of dogs being trained this way. Alan Howe of the Australian asked a dog expert of 34 years, who explained that it failed the plausibility test. ‘Canine erection is a reflexive neuroendocrine response to female reproductive pheromones – it is not a voluntary behaviour and cannot be trained or reliably triggered on command’, the expert said. ‘The specific act alleged is not biologically plausible.’

Did no one at the New York Times wonder about this? This should be the first question any editor would ask – and who knows how many editors Kristof’s column passed through. We do know that, in a separate statement, the editors, still offering no evidence, doubled down on their support for the column – essentially stating that including the alleged rape dogs in the piece was neither an oversight nor a mistake on their part. Was this incurious behaviour deliberate? We have to ask, because for now neither Kristof nor his editors have tried to establish that dogs can be taught this unnatural behaviour.

After flunking the plausibility test, the opinion piece failed the probability test as well. Badly, in fact: no names, dates, locations, photographs or any tangible evidence that dog-rape ever happened. The only accounts are hearsay from anonymous prisoners – who have an obvious agenda – and no response from Israeli prison authorities, former guards or others who might offer conflicting views. Kristof’s only independent corroboration was a nebulous quote from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who said pointedly after publication, ‘I did not validate these claims’. There are also subtle errors, including a claim that after the abuse, Israel Defence Forces (IDF) guards took cigarette breaks – even though smoking is strictly forbidden in these compounds.

Slovenia lifts ban on arms trade with Israel; Sa’ar lauds ‘just decision’ by new PM

Slovenia’s new conservative-led government on Thursday lifted an arms embargo on Israel and entry bans on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and two of his ministers.

Last year, Slovenia, then under liberal prime minister Robert Golob, imposed a series of measures against Israel over the war with Hamas in Gaza.

Several other EU members have done the same.

But the government of Prime Minister Janez Jansa, which took office last week, overturned the bans against Netanyahu and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

“This will restore the conditions for a normal political dialogue with Israel,” it said in a statement, adding the move would help “strengthen the role of the Republic of Slovenia in the efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The country is also letting the arms embargo expire, considering the decree “unnecessary” given existing national defense laws and EU arms export criteria, it said.

The government of Jansa — an admirer of US President Donald Trump — also lifted a ban on imports from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar welcomed Jansa’s “swift and just decision to lift the distorted anti-Israeli measures taken by Slovenia’s previous government,” calling him a “bold leader and a true friend of Israel.”

Last week, Israel announced it would open an embassy in Slovenia, marking what it hopes will be a new chapter in relations with the European country. The country’s embassy in the Austrian capital Vienna has previously covered Israeli diplomatic interests in neighboring Slovenia. Screen capture from video of the Palestinian flag flying over the Slovenian Presidential Palace, June 5, 2026. (Nataša Pirc Musar/X)

Since taking office, Jansa’s government has also removed a Palestinian flag symbolically displayed on the government building since Slovenia recognized Palestinian statehood in 2024.

Read More

06/11 Links Pt1: Trump says agreement with Iran approved by all parties; What Does America Get for $3.8 Billion in Israel? And the Way Ahead; 300 Nova festival massacre survivors remain in a ‘very bad condition’

From Ian:

John Spencer: What Does America Get for $3.8 Billion in Israel? And the Way Ahead

The value of the relationship becomes even clearer when compared with other recipients of American military assistance. Egypt contributes to regional stability and maintains peace with Israel. Jordan remains an important security partner and counterterrorism ally. Both relationships advance legitimate American interests. Neither generates the same intelligence cooperation, defense technology innovation, industrial integration, or battlefield lessons that flow from the U.S.-Israel partnership. The United States does not gain access to hundreds of defense technology startups through Egypt. It does not field combat-proven active protection systems developed through Jordan. It does not receive the same volume of battlefield lessons on missile defense, drones, tunnels, artificial intelligence, and urban warfare from either country. Israel's value derives not only from its location but from the capabilities it continually produces.

There is also a political dimension to the alliance. The United States and Israel are democracies. Neither is perfect. Both experience fierce political disagreements, contentious elections, and intense public debate. Both operate under the rule of law and maintain independent institutions. Shared values alone do not determine foreign policy, but alliances tend to endure when interests and political traditions reinforce one another. That reality has helped sustain the relationship across administrations of both parties.

Reasonable people can debate aid levels. They can debate specific policies pursued by either government. They can argue about how the relationship should evolve over time. Those are legitimate discussions. What is far more difficult to sustain is the argument that America receives little in return. The United States gains access to intelligence that helps prevent attacks against Americans and American interests. It gains military technologies refined through combat experience. It gains battlefield lessons that would otherwise cost billions to acquire independently. It gains access to one of the most dynamic defense innovation ecosystems on the planet. It gains a capable ally operating in a strategically important region against many of the same adversaries confronting the United States.

The future of the relationship may itself demonstrate the success of the investment. In recent interviews, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that Israel should gradually reduce its reliance on American military financing as its economy and defense industry continue to expand. He has spoken about eventually transitioning from traditional assistance toward deeper cooperation in areas such as cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, missile defense, directed energy, and other emerging technologies.

Whether that transition occurs in the next Memorandum of Understanding or further in the future remains uncertain. Israel continues to face significant security threats and remains engaged in multiple conflicts. The broader point is that the relationship has evolved. American assistance helped support Israel during periods when its economy was smaller, its defense industry less developed, and its security challenges no less severe. Today Israel possesses one of the world's most advanced defense sectors, a thriving technology economy, and military capabilities that generate value not only for its own security but for the United States as well.

If future agreements place less emphasis on direct financing and greater emphasis on joint research, co-development, and technological collaboration, that would not signal a weakening partnership. It would reflect a mature partnership built on decades of successful investment. American assistance helped Israel build capabilities that now generate value for both countries. If Israel eventually requires less direct assistance while contributing more technology, innovation, intelligence, and operational expertise, that would not represent the failure of the partnership. It would represent one measure of its success.

So the next time someone asks what the United States gets for $3.8 billion in Israel, the answer is straightforward:
Jobs: American jobs and manufacturing supported through purchases of U.S.-made military equipment.
Industry: A stronger U.S. defense industrial base through joint production, co-development, and missile defense cooperation.
Intelligence: Intelligence that helps prevent attacks against Americans, American forces, and American interests.
Technology: Military technologies refined in combat, from active protection systems and missile defense to counter-drone capabilities and artificial intelligence.
Laboratory: Access to one of the world's most active laboratories for modern warfare, generating operational data, experimentation, innovation, and combat experience that would be difficult, expensive, and in some cases impossible to reproduce independently.
Lessons: Battlefield lessons in urban warfare, tunnel warfare, missile defense, drones, and modern combat without having to learn them first through American casualties, American mistakes, or American wars.
Innovation: A defense innovation ecosystem producing technologies and ideas that benefit both countries.
Ally: A capable ally helping deter common adversaries and maintain stability in one of the world's most strategically important regions and, if necessary, willing and able to fight alongside the United States.
Strategy: Greater freedom for the United States to focus military and economic resources on long-term competition with China in the Indo-Pacific while helping preserve a favorable balance of power in the Middle East.

That is what America gets in return.

Iran’s fanatical regime would rather embrace death than peace

Trump’s belief that he could pull off a ground-breaking agreement, one that guarantees freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz and neutralises Iran’s nuclear programme, led in recent weeks to tensions with Israel, with the American president highly critical of Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and his military strikes against Iran and Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon.

The real threat, though, to Trump’s hopes of achieving a breakthrough never came from Israeli aggression, or the maintenance of Washington’s naval blockade in the Gulf. It has come from the hardline clique that controls Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an organisation whose sole raison d’être is to defend and propagate the uncompromising ideology that underpins the pillars of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

While Washington may feel comfortable engaging with the smooth-talking sophisticates of Iran’s foreign policy establishment, the real challenge is to engage directly with the hard men of the IRGC, whose authority derives directly from the country’s divinely appointed Supreme Leader.

The IRGC – which the Starmer Government still has not proscribed as a terrorist entity – is the Islamic Republic’s Praetorian Guard, and is meant to take orders directly from the Supreme Leader.

Apart from his divinely appointed status, the Supreme Leader’s authority over all the instruments of the Iranian state originates from an obscure Islamic concept, the velayat-e faqih (roughly translated as the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which gives the ruling Shia clergy absolute control over the Iranian people and their destiny.

Losing Hizbullah Is a Major Source of Stress for Iran

Dr. Menahem Merhavy, an expert on Iran at the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said the latest Iranian missile attack on Israel "appears to be an attempt to save face....Iran has been unsuccessful in leveraging what it believes was victory over the U.S. and Israel."

"Iran is on the verge of catastrophe, and losing Hizbullah is a major source of stress for it. The 'ring of fire' [surrounding Israel] is currently stuttering, but Iran won't give up the idea and will not abandon Hizbullah." Yet, "Iran's latest attack, and its quick signal that it finished retaliating, signals its unwillingness to enter another prolonged conflict because they cannot afford it."

"Hizbullah can be pounded all over Lebanon, but Beirut and Iran can do absolutely nothing about it. Israel has been able to act freely in Lebanon for months....There is a lot of frustration with both Hizbullah and Iran among the Shiite community in Lebanon. Iran has yet to provide funds to rebuild homes that were destroyed by the Israeli military in the past two years. Hizbullah terrorists are also unable to move freely in Lebanon for constant fear of being targeted by Israel."

Amatzia Baram, professor emeritus at the University of Haifa and an expert in Middle Eastern politics, said, "Hizbullah has been weakened to about half of its previous abilities, but still, they have significant ability to fight. Hizbullah is busy rebuilding itself," and Iran "is still helping Hizbullah - financially, militarily, and strategically - by positioning itself as its defender and savior."

"Israel didn't attack Hizbullah between 2006 to 2023 for one reason - it was afraid that the massive missile and rocket arsenal would cause major damage to Israel. Now, Israel isn't afraid of attacking Hizbullah because of its potential to cause damage, but rather Israel is concerned that Iran will get involved and the U.S. will not support Israel if it chooses to respond."

"Attacks against Hizbullah targets in southern Lebanon are small, tactical, and have little significance to Hizbullah's standing in Lebanon. Attacks against command headquarters, weapons depots, and assembly factories in Beirut and north of Beirut are at an almost strategic level that can weaken Hizbullah, and that needs to be Israel's target for the future." Hizbullah, once the centerpiece of Tehran's regional deterrence strategy, is increasingly busy preserving its own survival.

Is Shi'ite Support for Hizbullah Weakening?

On May 31, a Hizbullah-affiliated group called on supporters to gather in downtown Beirut to protest the Lebanese government's support for diplomacy with Israel. Only a few dozen people showed up, a striking contrast to past years when Hizbullah could mobilize tens of thousands with ease. Days later, residents of Bayssarieh clashed with Hizbullah members who were reportedly moving military equipment into the southern Lebanese town. Meanwhile, activists in Nabatieh and Tyre are increasingly voicing demands for stronger state authority in the southern towns, long dominated by Hizbullah, reflecting growing unease among the Shia over conditions in southern Lebanon. However, any effort to loosen Hizbullah's grip on the Shia community will depend on a broader realization among its constituents that supporting Hizbullah is a losing strategy.

Lebanese political writer Mona Fayad said that while more Shia appear willing to criticize Hizbullah, this should not be mistaken for a structured opposition capable of competing for power, which would need to overcome the social and psychological legacy of Hizbullah's decades-long dominance. "We are talking about forty years of conditioning and entrenchment," she said.

"The biggest indicator that Hizbullah lost the narrative of resistance is the military defeat happening in the south," Fayad said. "Hizbullah's supporters are today displaced, and many of them are living in the streets because of Hizbullah. Today, many are in shock or denial."

Read More

06/10 Links Pt2: Why is Zack Polanski championing a convicted terrorist?; Trump welcomes freed Hamas hostage Rom Braslavski to WH; Gwyneth Paltrow receives online hate for Israel commercial

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: Why is Zack Polanski championing a convicted terrorist?

Defiant to the last, Barghouti twisted the emotional knife by informing the court that he stood for peace and liberty and describing himself as a freedom fighter. The judge sternly pointed out: ‘A soldier does not kill civilians with bombs and kill children.’

To compare the Palestinian killer to Nelson Mandela, in other words, is a grave disservice to the South African leader. Nevertheless, Barghouti is undoubtedly an interesting character. He was never a raving jihadi like the late Yahya Sinwar or Mohammed Deif of Hamas. He is a nationalist rather than an Islamist. He began his political life in the 1990s as a relatively pragmatic Palestinian leader who supported peace in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank.

However, that had changed by the time of the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, when 140 suicide bombs killed more than 1,000 Israelis – some of them schoolchildren on buses. Barghouti was often spotted on street corners in Ramallah during disturbances, issuing orders by phone, earning him the nickname ‘Little Napoleon’. Then came the evidence connecting him to murders.

Barghouti knows how to play a Western audience. Even in 2002, while directing savagery against innocent civilians, he struck a relatively moderate tone in English. In a column for the Washington Post, he wrote: ‘while I, and the Fatah movement to which I belong, strongly oppose attacks and the targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbour, I reserve the right to protect myself… and to fight for my freedom.’

What to make of all this? Here’s my take. Like other performative Palestinian firebrands, Barghouti knows that doe-eyed Western activists and journalists want to believe that he is a saint. So deep-rooted is hatred of Israel that liberals will lap up the most blatant lies and false comparisons, just to confect a Palestinian hero where they are otherwise lacking. Barghouti knows this; I know this; chances are, reader, that you know this. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the gullible left. Which brings us back to Zack Polanski.

Look, I get it. It must be frustrating to support a cause that has nothing to show for itself in terms of democracy, human rights, respect for women and minorities, the protection of homosexuals and the rejection of terror. To take as your tribune a people who spit upon all your values is a tricky position to maintain. But don’t expect the rest of us to join you in your circle jerk. Wishful thinking, in other words, does not a freedom-fighter make.

Harry LaForme: I stood on my ancestral land and said what Carney would not

On June 6, I stood before Toronto’s Jewish community on the treaty lands of my ancestors. Days earlier, Prime Minister Mark Carney had stood at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple and acknowledged a painful truth: Canada is failing its Jewish citizens. He recognized that antisemitism has reached levels unseen in generations. He acknowledged that Jewish Canadians are disproportionately targeted by hate. He acknowledged the fear felt by families whose schools, synagogues, businesses and communities have become targets. He named the statistics. He named the suffering. But he did not name the ideology driving it.

So, I will. I stand before you on the land of my ancestors to say what the prime minister should have said: “Anti-Zionism is a libel-driven hate movement that incites violence and the targeting, exclusion, and marginalization of Jews in the diaspora and has as its ultimate goal wiping Israel off the face of Mother Earth and the death of all beings within it.”

There. That is what should have been said, and now it has.

For Indigenous peoples, this moment feels painfully familiar. We know what happens when governments speak of reconciliation while avoiding uncomfortable truths. We know what happens when institutions choose carefully crafted language instead of moral courage.

Canada’s Jewish community does not need another expression of concern. It needs honesty. And honesty begins by confronting the lie at the centre of this moment: the claim that Israel is a colonial project and Zionism is a movement of oppression.

As an Anishinaabe man, a member of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, and someone who spent almost 25 years as a judge interpreting the laws of this country, let me be clear — Canada is a colonial country. Israel is not.

Indigenous peoples know colonialism because we lived it. Colonialism means language suppression. It means forced religious conversion. It means population displacement, foreign governance, economic exploitation, imposed legal hierarchies and cultural erasure. Canada’s Indigenous peoples experienced these things. The Jewish people experienced these things. They do not describe Israel.

For thousands of years, Jewish identity has been tied to the land of Israel through language, culture, law, religion, traditions and collective memory. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem did not begin in 1948. It survived despite conquest, exile, persecution and genocide.

Why pro-Israel educators should teach the Nakba

In the charged classrooms where young Zionists form their understanding of Israel, one question now demands courage: Should we teach the Nakba?

The answer is yes. Not because the Palestinian narrative is true, but precisely because it is not. When we confront the events of 1948 with honesty, acknowledging real pain while refusing to distort the moral record, we strengthen the next generation rather than shield it.

The Nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe,” refers to the displacement of roughly 700,000 Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence. Anti-Israel voices present this as the inevitable result of Zionist aggression: a premeditated ethnic cleansing that stains Israel’s birth. That version is false. The truth is more complex, more human, and far more defensible.

In 1947, the Jewish leadership accepted the UN Partition Plan, despite its painful compromises. Arab leaders rejected it outright and launched a war of annihilation. If there had been no war, there would have been no displacement.

Once the fighting began, Arabs fled for three primary reasons. The majority left out of fear, as battle lines shifted; many departed on the explicit advice or orders of local Arab leaders, who cleared villages so their armies could operate freely; and in a smaller number of cases, Israeli forces expelled populations from strategic areas during active combat.

These were wartime decisions, not a systematic policy of expulsion. Historians who have examined the records closely, including Benny Morris in his early work, confirm that the overwhelming majority of departures occurred before major Israeli offensives, and often preceded them.

Read More

06/10 Links Pt1: Israel reclaims its right to self-defense; Victor Davis Hanson: ‘Democrats are Islamists now’; Fetterman: Outlook for Jews in Democratic Party is ‘bleak’;

From Ian:

Israel reclaims its right to self-defense

Despite what was widely perceived as Trump’s opposition to escalation, Netanyahu ordered Israeli fighter jets to strike targets inside Iran, including missile launchers and petrochemical facilities.

This is where the deeper challenge begins.

Trump has made clear that he wants negotiations with Iran to continue. His message to both sides has essentially been: enough. One side attacked, the other responded; now stop.

Iran agreed—but with a condition that effectively leaves Lebanon hostage to Tehran’s interests.

Israel, Iran declared, must refrain from attacking Hezbollah—conveniently referred to by Tehran as “Lebanon”—or else “far heavier measures than those already undertaken” would follow. In other words, the war would continue.

That is hardly an outcome Trump welcomes.

Yet almost immediately after the Iranian statement was issued, Hezbollah—which had remained conspicuously quiet for some 30 hours during Iran’s operation and rarely acts without guidance from Tehran—resumed firing at Kiryat Shmona, Metula and other northern communities.

Northern Israel was once again under terrorist attack.

Israel, therefore, appears to face a dilemma while Washington watches closely.

But is it really a dilemma?

The relationship between Jerusalem and Washington is too close, too strategic and too deeply integrated for either side to imagine that Hezbollah’s aggression should go unanswered. U.S. Central Command and the various coordination mechanisms linking the two countries operate continuously. There have been no reports of serious disputes or breakdowns in communication.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee strongly condemned Iran’s attacks. Likewise, Israeli officials explaining the operation against Iran emphasized both Israel’s commitment to its alliance with the United States and its determination to retain the freedom to punish those who attack it.

Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Yechiel Leiter, underscored both the necessity of Israel’s actions and Jerusalem’s commitment to maintaining close coordination with Washington. Explaining the operation against Iran, Leiter emphasized that Israel’s objective was not escalation for its own sake, but the defense of its citizens against an existential threat.

His message reflected Israel’s determination to preserve its strategic partnership with the United States while retaining the freedom—and the obligation—to strike those who attack it.

With precision and determination, Israel’s course appears to be the only realistic one in the dangerous region it inhabits.

There is little chance that Netanyahu will allow Iran to posture through Hezbollah’s Lebanese front while Israel absorbs the consequences.

This is the Middle East.

It is also logical that Israel’s decisive response has once again given the Gulf states and the broader Sunni Arab world a reason to revisit the prospect of a useful anti-Iranian alignment—one that could reshape the region.

That is an outcome Trump may well find attractive.

Michael Oren: Israel has no choice but to risk open conflict with Trump

In May 2021, on the eighth day of “Operation Guardian of the Walls” against Hamas, I received a phone call from a senior adviser to U.S. President Joe Biden, who asked me to convey an urgent message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Israel must end the operation tonight, or risk losing American support.” Netanyahu was furious. He wanted to keep fighting for at least three more days. But he immediately complied. The operation ended that evening.

The only difference between U.S. President Donald Trump and previous presidents is his tendency to treat us publicly as vassals who must obey his every order. This is humiliating and demoralizing for Israel and, unfortunately, it strengthens our enemies. But that raises the question: Must Israel obey the White House’s demands under all circumstances and at any price?

Historically, the answer has been “no.” U.S. presidents not only ordered Israel to stop fighting; they also opposed its decision to go to war in the first place. That was the case in every war from the establishment of the state until “Operation Rising Lion” last year. Yet Israel’s leaders, despite the risk of a rift with Washington, determined that our basic security was at stake and decided to act.

Ironically, every time Israel defied the White House and went to war—in 1948, for example, in 1967 and in the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor—we earned America’s respect. Every time we surrendered to pressure and showed restraint—in 1973 and in the 1991 Gulf War—we earned America’s contempt.

This record is especially relevant today, when Hezbollah will undoubtedly violate any ceasefire and continue attacking us. Israel needs to defend and save the north, but in doing so, it risks not only war with Iran but also an open confrontation with President Trump. As in the past, Israel will have no choice but to act.

With its eyes wide open to the potential cost, Israel must show that it is neither a U.S. vassal nor its 51st state, but a sovereign country with an unshakable duty to defend its territory and its citizens. In the end, if history is our guide, Trump will respect us for it.

Who Is To Blame for Israel’s Sagging US Poll Numbers? Not Netanyahu or the Gaza War.

The investigative reporting geniuses who were so keen to see the hand of Russia, Russia, Russia in Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory seem remarkably incurious about the roles Turkey, Qatar, Iran, China, and the Palestine Liberation Organization have played in shaping U.S. domestic opinion, notwithstanding a 2024 press release from President Biden’s director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, that "Iranian government actors have sought to opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza."

In other words, Netanyahu and the Gaza war aren’t the only variables. America is also a variable. The information environment is a variable. The Iran war is another variable. It is not over yet. If it concludes with a joyously free Iran allied with Israel and America and pumping plentiful and cheap oil and gas that gets paid for in U.S. dollars, Israel’s poll numbers—and Trump’s—will climb. A White House signing ceremony for Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Iran and Lebanon joining the Abraham Accords would also help Israel’s popularity—and Trump’s. That won’t happen so long as a hostile Iranian regime armed with missiles, drones, and proxies and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz remains in power in Tehran.

The Gallup data are misleading because they omit respondents who say their sympathies are with both Israel and the Palestinians, with neither, or who have no opinion. Gallup itself concedes that the 5-percentage-point difference by which American sympathies are with the Palestinians over Israel in the latest poll "is not statistically significant." As recently as September 2025, Pew found Americans viewed the Israeli government more favorably than Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, and also viewed the Israeli people slightly more favorably than the Palestinian people.

Netanyahu has been prime minister of Israel on and off since 1996. The decline in Americans’ sympathy for Israel predated the Gaza war, as evidenced by a former editor of the The New Republic, Peter Beinart, publicly abandoning Zionism in July of 2020, by the Harvard Crimson in 2022 editorially endorsing a boycott of Israel (while Naftali Bennett was prime minister in a coalition government that included Arab parties and Mansour Abbas as a minister), by the Harvard student organizations that came out with their letter on October 7, 2023, stating, "We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence" and "the apartheid regime is the only one to blame."

My own bet is that the U.S. will eventually get back on track—Trump’s election has already set some of this in motion, including some changes to immigration policy and the forced sale of TikTok, if not yet a thorough cleanup of the feeds emanating from there or other platforms. The eventual end of the wars and of the pandemic will make it easier for young Americans to go to Israel and to see the reality of the situation for themselves. If the travelers so choose, they can fly there via the United Arab Emirates, which sees Israel as a promising partner. The hunger for meaning, purpose, and community may fuel a return to Christianity and Judaism, to churches and synagogues. Eventually people will figure out that the real dictators aren’t Trump and Netanyahu but Erdogan, Xi, and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani of Qatar. Netanyahu will eventually die or retire or lose an election, and his successors will demonstrate the reality that Netanyahu wasn’t to blame for all the world’s Israel-hate. Until then, treat monocausal explanations—whether they come from former ABC anchor Moran or from the Brookings Institution's Bill Galston—with extreme skepticism.

Read More

06/09 Links Pt2: Graham Platner Makes History As First Vanity Oysterman With Nazi Tattoo To Win US Senate Nomination; Rep. Ritchie Torres’ opponent duped by ‘Rabbi Linda of Gaza’

From Ian:

UN Watch: Legal Analysis of the Pillay Commission’s June 2026 Report to the Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council’s Pillay Commission on Israel, now headed by Srinivasan Muralidhar of India, just released a new report focusing on violations by “non-State actors,” specifically “settlers” and “Palestinian armed groups” in the West Bank and Gaza. Despite the Commission’s formal reconstitution following the resignation of Navi Pillay, Miloon Kothari, and Chris Sidoti—with Sidoti subsequently re-appointed and Florence Mumba joining the panel—its reporting continues to reflect a persistent bias against Israel.

In an apparent effort to project even-handedness, the report addresses violations by both Israeli and Palestinian non-State actors. Yet the distribution of attention tells a different story. More than half of the report focuses on Israeli violations against Palestinians, while only approximately 9% addresses Palestinian attacks against Israelis. Another 34% examines Hamas abuses against Palestinians in Gaza. Even in those latter sections, however, the Commission repeatedly contextualizes or shifts blame to Israel, attributing lawlessness, repression, and social collapse primarily to Israeli actions rather than Hamas governance, effectively minimizing Hamas’s responsibility for its own crimes. The report also applies markedly different accountability standards to Israel and Palestinian actors.

At the heart of the report is a false moral equivalence between Israeli civilians residing in the West Bank and jihadi terrorist organizations. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 482,000 Israelis currently live in communities in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank), home to areas of profound Jewish historical and religious significance, including the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus. While the overwhelming majority are peaceful civilians, a small minority of Jewish extremists—estimated by Israeli defense officials at roughly 300 individuals, many of whom are not residents of the area—have repeatedly engaged in violence against Palestinians, including property damage, assaults, and, in some cases, killings.

The issue of extremist Israeli violence is real and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Israeli authorities themselves have acknowledged this as a serious problem and have taken actions to curb the phenomenon, ranging from issuing restraining orders to arrest and prosecution, as detailed in Section 3 below. Condemnation of such violence has come from the highest levels of government. As recently as May 21, 2024, Israeli President Isaac Herzog lambasted acts of violence by Jewish extremists, saying that they “defile and violate every basic moral, legal, and Jewish norm.” He noted that “There are elements on the fringes of our society that have normalized violence, and, sadly, some go even further — celebrating it and taking pride in it.”

However, the existence of a small number of violent Jewish extremists does not warrant the collective stigmatization of hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians. Using the term “settler violence” to characterize all Israeli residents of the West Bank through the actions of a small extremist minority is misleading and irresponsible and risks stigmatizing innocent civilians due to their status as “settlers.” The report then draws a false moral equivalence by placing them in the same analytical category as designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad—groups openly committed to Israel’s destruction and the murder of Jews. By the same logic, one could describe Hamas terrorism as “Gazan violence.” Such terminology would be widely rejected because it conflates the actions of violent actors with those of the broader population.

The report’s treatment of Israeli victims illustrates the consequences of this framing. In paragraph 68, the Commission notes that of 42 Israelis killed in terrorist attacks in the West Bank between 2023 and 2025, 36 were “settlers.” By contrast, when discussing Palestinian fatalities, the report does not distinguish between uninvolved civilians, members of armed groups, or Palestinians killed while carrying out terrorist attacks. Instead, it categorizes Palestinian victims only by sex and age. The Commission’s deliberate emphasis on the “settler” status of Israeli victims—while withholding comparable contextual information regarding Palestinian fatalities—creates the unmistakable impression that attacks against these Israelis are somehow more understandable or less morally troubling.

Seth Mandel: What the ‘Israel Day’ Parades Are Ultimately About

The anti-Semitic protesters at Toronto’s Walk with Israel, on the heels of the controversy around who did and didn’t attend the Israel Day parade in New York (Mayor Mamdani boycotted it, some hardline Israeli rightists joined), has reignited the debate over the existence of such events as the primary “Jewish” parade in the West.

Why, some wonder, does the big show of pride in Jewish life and culture have to be a specifically “Israel” event? Why don’t we instead have a Jewish parade?

The always-thoughtful Phoebe Maltz Bovy, the author and opinion editor at the Canadian Jewish News, gives a few of the answers. She points out, correctly, that those seeking the change aren’t interested in inclusivity but exclusivity. That is, they want to exclude all traces of Israel or they will not participate (and might protest the event itself). Bovy: “Anyone who was going to be mad at a gathering of Jews whose purpose was anything other than renouncing Israel is going to have that same sentiment.”

Bovy is entirely correct. And there are other reasons. For example, it is entirely rational for Jews to more readily celebrate the place they built than the places from which they were un-personed and expelled with the shirts on their backs.

But I want to mention one reason that usually goes unspoken and happens to be hugely important: A celebration of the Jewish state is a celebration of Jewish peoplehood.

There’s a reason “Am Yisrael chai” was a rallying cry for Jewish communities in peril well before 1948. The Jews are a people. As scholars like to point out, the Jews have survived for so long that their model of nationhood and religion feels like an anachronism to the modern world.

If you are Jewish, you are part of the Jewish nation. That can get confusing for people in the post-1948 world in which there is a Jewish nation-state. But in the century before that year, debates among major Zionist and non-Zionist thinkers took for granted that the Jews were a nation deserving of some measure of autonomy no matter where they were in the world. Jews were a “national minority” in the Russian Empire much as Ukrainians were, for example. Such particularism was not Moscow’s idea, it was a rebellion against the imperial regime.

No Place but Everywhere By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here. I hate the “has no place” nonsense because it’s at once a lie, an irrelevancy, and a dodge. The lie is self-evident. While the speech police were busy monitoring the micro-aggressions of pronoun use, Jew-hatred established a very comfortable home here. It blares from megaphones, it’s advertised on banners and t-shirts, and it manifests in more and more violent attacks.

The line is irrelevant because hatred, or any emotion, isn’t the problem. Hatred is endemic to the species. As Solzhenitsyn said, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” I don’t care if people hate me. I’m not even sure I care that much if they hate me for being a Jew. In any event, they’re certainly allowed to. But I do care what they do about it. Which means the problem right now is the political organization of anti-Semitism and the actions of anti-Semites that infringe on the rights of Jews. These include the right to not be assaulted.

And the line is a dodge because even someone like Zohran Mamdani, who’s working to give anti-Semitism permanent New York City residency, can be congratulated for declaring that anti-Semitism has no home here and then go back to the business of Jew-baiting. With very few exceptions, America’s most prominent anti-Semites, on the left and right, are always at the ready to publicly denounce hatred in general and even anti-Semitism.

When I see or hear “Hatred has no place in ___,” I take it as a slap in the face, a blatant dismissal of Jewish experience. It is itself a kind of assault—on truth and accountability. Here’s what I’d like to hear an elected official say instead: Since October 7, Jew-hatred has been provided unprecedented political and academic camouflage in this country. It’s been downplayed and excused and allowed to occupy a place of dangerous prominence in the public square. Yes, sadly, hatred has been given a place here. This has inevitably led to unprecedented levels of violence against Jewish Americans. We must not ignore it or deny it. We must, instead, deprive anti-Semites of their recently furnished safe havens and push them back to the outermost edges of civic life.

The anti-Semites would just hate it.

Read More

06/09 Links Pt1: US strikes Iran after Trump vows retaliation for downing of US helicopter; Bombing Iran is the perfect way to celebrate Pride; NJ man charged with planning ISIS attack on synagogue

From Ian:

Ben-Dror Yemini: In a War Against Ideology, Calculations of Military Balance Become Less Relevant

Israel faces a special kind of enemy - an ideology built on destruction and victimhood. When Hizbullah fired its first rockets in the current round on March 2, against the will of most Lebanese, it knew that whatever damage it caused Israel, the damage to Lebanon itself would be 100 times greater. Because of Hizbullah, most villages in southern Lebanon are destroyed and close to a million people have been displaced.

Iran and Hizbullah are one entity with one ideology. In a war against an ideology, calculations about the balance of power become less relevant. Iran's ideology of destruction extends as far as its reach allows. With the power it still has left, Tehran is managing to damage the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the ceasefire, last week it seriously damaged Kuwait's airport and a nuclear power plant in the UAE.

Iran feels it is on top. Public pressure is lining up in full force alongside Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran. Had World War II been fought the way wars against jihad, Iran and terrorism are fought today, the Allies would have been accused of war crimes and the Nazis would be ruling the world.

Iran and its proxies must be defeated. Israel's war is just. But it is a difficult war. It is not over. Not even close. More is coming. But giving up is not an option. This is a Sisyphean war. Hizbullah can and must be isolated through a diplomatic chokehold, together with Lebanon's leadership and the Lebanese people, who are ready for a peace agreement.

Dennis Ross: The War in Iran May Yet Lead, in Time, to Genuine Change

In the short term, Iran has proven surprisingly deft at using its leverage. But over the long haul, the internal incoherence and deep-rooted failures of the Islamic Republic may yet lead to historic changes for the better in Tehran.

Iran has two powerful levers it did not think to apply before this conflict: disrupting transit through the Strait of Hormuz and attacking its Gulf Arab neighbors' oil facilities. But Iran has also suffered profound losses to its military capabilities and defense industrial base, not to mention to an economy that is near collapse. Much will depend on how much of an economic lifeline Trump provides to Iran. A smart deal would limit sanctions relief as much as possible. Relief would only buy the regime time.

The regime's endemic corruption and massive mismanagement will be compounded by its new leadership's attempts to rebuild its military and defense industrial base. That will require huge resources, which won't be reconcilable with the needs of the civilian economy, the current crisis of mass unemployment, and the regime's chronic inability to deliver water, electricity, and a currency that has any value.

Israel Seeks a Decisive Resolution but Iran Still Remains a Threat

Although Iran has been significantly weakened, it still retains substantial levers of power. Jerusalem Center analysts assess that, despite the recent escalation, the current situation does not necessarily signal the start of a large-scale war.

Dr. Jacques Neriah believes both sides are engaged in a relatively limited round of fighting. He cautions that Iran continues to operate, the Houthis have resumed attacks on Israel, and Hizbullah retains significant military capabilities.

Ella Rosenberg notes that while Iran's overall economy has suffered greatly, the Revolutionary Guards have not only preserved their power but, in some areas, even strengthened it. They continue to benefit from diverse revenue streams, including oil sales, financial networks, and illicit activities.

Yoni Ben Menachem said that the prolonged absence of the Houthis from the fighting was due to an Iranian decision to preserve them for the right moment. The Houthis can disrupt the critical shipping route through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at any time.

Oded Ailam sees the current moment as a rare opportunity to weaken Hizbullah's grip on Lebanon and empower local actors seeking to reduce Tehran's influence.

Read More

06/08 Links Pt2: ICC's Khan suspended after finding he committed serious sexual misconduct; BDS Was Never About Groceries; How UN ‘human rights experts’ became a tool of dictatorships

From Ian:

Shabbos Kestenbaum: The war on campus Jewry has nothing to do with Gaza

The ceasefire did not stop this. The hostage deal did not stop this. This was never contingent on Israel’s war against Hamas.

University administrators already have the tools they need: codes of conduct, anti-discrimination policies, rules for recognized student organizations and election oversight procedures. What they lack is the will to use them.

I have testified before Congress. I sued the richest university in the world. I know what institutional cowardice looks like up close. I also know what accountability looks like because I forced it. Harvard settled, and a federal judge allowed that case to proceed after rejecting the university’s motion to dismiss. These things happen when people stop accepting excuses and start demanding enforcement.

Student governments were built to represent all students, not to be captured by factions that plan to exclude Jews from democratic participation. Universities were built to be institutions of learning, not battlegrounds where Jewish students must hide their identity to earn social acceptance.

The answer to every pressure to surrender our institutions and redefine our identity on other people’s terms has always been the same: a deeper commitment to our communities, to one another and to our unassailable right to define for ourselves what Jewish life means.

Shai Davidai: BDS Was Never About Groceries

Unlike traditional antisemitism, which openly demonizes Jews, American Intellectual Antisemitism cloaks itself in the language of social justice, decolonization, and human rights. Jews are recast not as a vulnerable minority but as White settler-colonial oppressors, while the world’s only Jewish state is framed as uniquely illegitimate. By framing Israel as uniquely evil, the ideology allows highly educated people to openly express animus toward Jewish collective existence as a moral virtue.

American Intellectual Antisemitism doesn’t criticize Israel’s policies. It treats the existence of a Jewish state itself as a moral crime.

The BDS movement perfectly embodies this ideology. Although its supporters present BDS as a human-rights initiative, its founder, Omar Barghouti, has repeatedly made clear that the movement opposes “a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” By singling out the world’s only Jewish state for boycott while showing little interest in sanctioning China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, the movement treats Israel, in effect, as “the Jew among the nations.” That is precisely why college professors spearheaded the fight to boycott Israel long before BDS became mainstream. Beginning in 2013, academic associations across North America voted to boycott Israeli universities and scholars. Not China. Not Russia. Only Israel.

Of course, criticizing Israeli policies is not inherently antisemitic. Israelis themselves criticize their government constantly, as do many non-Israelis who are clearly not antisemitic. A person can oppose settlement expansion, criticize military actions, support Palestinian statehood, and express deep concern for Palestinian civilians without denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or supporting the terrorist regimes that seek to annihilate it. It is when criticism of Israel’s policies shifts into opposition to Israel’s existence that antisemitism enters the conversation.

That is what distinguishes American Intellectual Antisemitism from legitimate political criticism. Replacing complexity with ideological absolutism, it sets as its goal the marginalization and eventual destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.

That is why what happened at the Park Slope Food Coop matters. The vote was not an isolated controversy. It was just another step in the normalization of an ideology that views anti-Jewish hostility as virtuous. It was a real-life demonstration of how ideas once confined to seminar rooms now openly shape American civic life.

We can continue playing whack-a-mole, fighting one BDS resolution after another as they emerge in co-ops, unions, schools, nonprofits, and professional organizations. We can continue reacting each time anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, and anti-American hatred erupts in a different city, campus, or institution. Or we can finally confront the departments, academic associations, and intellectual frameworks that legitimized this ideology long before it reached neighborhood institutions like the Park Slope Food Coop.

If we want to confront the ideology, we must go to the source. And that source lies behind the closed doors of presidents’, provosts’, and deans’ offices at our elite universities.

Israeli filmmaker Nadav Lapid withdraws from French festival after boycott pressure

The Israeli filmmaker Nadav Lapid said he would not attend FID Marseille, an international film festival taking place in July, according to a report in Le Monde. Several directors who had planned to participate withdrew their films from the festival to protest the inclusion of Lapid, because they support a cultural boycott of Israel.

Lapid, 51, who has been living in France since 2021, was invited to serve on the festival jury. Tsveta Dobreva, director of the FID, told Le Monde: "We invited Nadav Lapid solely out of respect for his filmmaking. That is the only criterion at FID. Then I started receiving calls demanding that he be disinvited. At first, I didn't respond because I fully accepted our decision. But the pressure continued and intensified."

She said the festival considered alternate plans, such as that Lapid would present his first film, Policeman, at an event that would include a discussion and the launch of a book of interviews with Lapid published in French. But then activists called to boycott FID if Lapid were involved in the festival at all. "Selected filmmakers began withdrawing their films; in the end, about 10 of them did so,” she said.

Lapid told Le Monde he decided to withdraw to save the festival embarrassment. He is one of Israel’s leading filmmakers and is known for his biting criticism of the Netanyahu government, which is the subject of his latest film, Yes, which was released in 2025. His 2019 film, Synonyms, won the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival, and his film, Ahed’s Knee, won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2021. Lapid has accepted money from the Israeli government-supported Israel Film Fund for several of his films, including Yes.

While he chose to bow out, he nonetheless criticized the festival’s handling of the controversy, telling the newspaper: "FID didn't realize it was facing such a campaign of threats. Maybe they should have accepted a bit more responsibility in a moment like this… For a year, it was my film Yes that was attacked. And now, suddenly, it was my mere presence that became unacceptable. I asked myself: 'What do they want exactly? That I stop making films? That I leave France? How far will this go?'"

Read More