From Ian:
Bethany Mandel:
Foreign money is flooding US politics — but AIPAC’s is American
If Americans are actually concerned about foreign money influencing American politics and policy, there is plenty to investigate. And unlike AIPAC, much of it is actually foreign.
Americans for Public Trust has just launched a new database, FollowForeignMoney.org, attempting to track the enormous sums flowing from foreign sources into American nonprofit groups and advocacy organizations. At launch, APT says it has identified more than $5 billion in spending across more than 500 groups, documented in more than 12,000 records.
The scale is remarkable, but so is the loophole that makes much of it possible. Federal law prohibits foreign entities from contributing to candidates, political committees, and super PACs, or participating in a campaign’s decision-making process. But elections are hardly the only way to influence American politics, and there are far fewer restrictions on foreign money once it moves outside the narrow confines of electoral activity.
Foreign dollars can finance nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter registration, issue advertising, and various policy and lobbying efforts, all of which can help shape the political environment in which Americans eventually cast their ballots. As APT explains, the line between regulated electoral activity, where foreign money is prohibited, and unregulated issue activity, where it is typically permitted, is “nearly indistinguishable to the average American.”
For some perspective, AIPAC, which again is funded by American donors, spent $29 million in 2022, $46 million in 2024, and $67 million in 2026, much of it in Democratic primaries. Those are substantial sums, and Americans are perfectly entitled to debate whether they like AIPAC’s political priorities, its tactics, or the candidates it supports.
But there is something deeply unserious about treating money donated by Americans to an American organization advocating an issue they care about as a sinister form of foreign influence, while billions of dollars originating overseas can flow into American organizations seeking to shape our laws, institutions, and political culture with comparatively little scrutiny.
In a conversation with the Washington Examiner, Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, explained what her organization found when it began following the money.
“Foreign money is flowing through the nonprofit sector to implement an extremist climate agenda and bankroll radical left-wing causes and policies,” Sutherland said, including organizations supporting political causes such as radical ballot measures. “And it’s all propped up by foreign money.”
The database allows users to trace that money through the complicated network of foundations, nonprofit groups, and advocacy organizations through which it often travels. An organization spending millions of dollars trying to change public opinion, influence legislation, register voters, or pass a ballot measure is participating in American political life, whether its name ever appears on a candidate’s campaign-finance report.
Congress was beginning to take notice of the problem even before APT released its database. At a hearing this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) focused on how nonprofit organizations can exploit gaps in American law to bring foreign money into domestic political and policy fights.
Smith later put the problem plainly: “Tax-exempt status … exists to support legitimate charitable and educational work that strengthens our communities, not to serve as cover for foreign propaganda, election interference, or activities that undermine our national interest.”
There is a legitimate debate to be had about how far Congress should go in restricting foreign donations to American nonprofits, particularly because any new law would have to avoid inadvertently ensnaring legitimate charitable, educational, or religious organizations that receive support from abroad. But it is difficult to have that debate honestly when our political and media class applies the label “foreign influence” so selectively.
AIPAC’s donors are Americans exercising the same right every other American has to pool their money around an issue they consider important and support or oppose candidates accordingly. The fact that the issue is Israel does not transform those Americans into agents of Israel any more than Cuban Americans advocating policy toward Cuba or Ukrainian Americans lobbying for aid to Ukraine become agents of foreign governments.
That is what made Axelrod’s calculation so revealing. He was not simply complaining about the amount AIPAC spent, or making the familiar argument that there is too much money sloshing around American politics. He described an organization funded by Americans as “essentially an agent” of a foreign government because those Americans are politically engaged on behalf of the Jewish state.
My husband, Seth Mandel, identified the more disturbing implication in Commentary after watching the exchange. “Why would Axelrod, who has worked so hard to position himself as a moderate in temperament and a card-carrying member of the mainstream, go on CNN and slap American Jews across the face?” he asked.
“And that’s when I realized it. Axelrod is positioning himself in the party’s mainstream. Accusing AIPAC of being a foreign agent isn’t relegated to the fever swamps anymore. And Axelrod, a very smart observer of Democratic Party politics, saw El-Sayed’s victory over Stevens as confirmation that this is what the party is now. And that might be the most dispiriting part of it all.”
That observation makes the timing of APT’s database particularly useful because it offers a remarkably simple test of what this debate is actually about. If Axelrod and others are genuinely alarmed by foreign money influencing American politics, they have just been handed a database documenting more than $5 billion of it, spread across thousands of records and hundreds of organizations. There is enough there to keep journalists, lawmakers, and cable-news panels occupied for quite some time examining whether American law adequately protects our political system from money originating overseas.
Yet that wasn’t the money Axelrod was talking about on CNN. The $30 million that concerned him was raised and spent by Americans, and calling it foreign required treating the political interests of those Americans as somehow foreign themselves.
AIPAC’s supporters are not just Jews; they include evangelical Christians and millions of other Americans who believe, for religious, moral, or strategic reasons, that the United States should maintain a strong relationship with Israel. Americans organize politically around all sorts of foreign-policy questions, and we generally understand that doing so is an expression of their American political rights rather than evidence that they are acting on behalf of another government.
Something peculiar happens, however, when the country in question is Israel and a substantial number of the Americans doing the organizing are Jews.
Ireland’s fog of prejudice
It is striking that at a time when the Torah just commanded us to learn how to see, we are also confronted with examples of what happens when prejudice prevents people from seeing clearly.
Ireland has a long and painful history of living under British rule. The memory of oppression, struggle for national self-determination and resistance to a powerful empire is deeply embedded in the Irish consciousness.
Logically, that history should create a natural sympathy for the Jewish people and for Israel.
The Jewish people, too, have experienced centuries of foreign domination, persecution and exile. Israel has emerged from a history in which Jews were repeatedly denied security, sovereignty and the ability to determine their own destiny. Israel itself was also governed under the British Mandate before its independence in 1948.
One might therefore expect Ireland, of all countries, to understand the complexity of a people seeking security and self-determination after generations of suffering. Yet sometimes, history teaches the opposite lesson. People can remember their own oppression while becoming blind or indifferent to the experiences of others.
Last week exposed a particularly striking example in the debate over Israeli technology in Ireland.
Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense company, has developed a sophisticated aviation navigation technology that helps aircraft operate and land safely in difficult weather conditions, including conditions of poor visibility. This navigation system has become a near standard on military and state jets in countries across the world.
Ireland, a country famously familiar with fog, should be especially capable of appreciating the value of technology that helps pilots navigate safely when they cannot rely on their eyes alone.
And yet, headlines were made last week when it was reported that the Irish government refused to install this advanced landing system in official state aircraft—the Irish “Air Force One”—due to its Israeli origin. The twisted irony is so difficult to miss. A nation accustomed to physical fog is allowing the ideological fog that clouds its moral vision to imperil the safety of its leaders.
This is not just a hypothetical risk. In 2011, an airplane attempting to land in Cork, Ireland, crashed in dense fog after three failed attempts to land, killing a relative of the Irish president and five other people.
When a technology that can improve aviation is judged not according to what it does, but according to the nationality of the people who developed it, something has gone seriously wrong.
Made in India: Inside the India-Israel weapons alliance Amnesty wants dismantled
AMNESTY IS asking New Delhi to go considerably further than imposing additional checks on exports.
It called for an immediate halt to arms transfers to Israel and a comprehensive embargo covering weapons, components, technologies, technical assistance and training. It also recommended that Indian companies terminate business relationships, including joint research and development, with Elbit Systems, Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries.
“Israeli systems currently form the technological backbone of India’s security architecture along its sensitive borders with China and Pakistan,” Birvadker told the Post, on what possible consequences implementation would have for India’s own military.
“Companies like Elbit, Rafael, and IAI are not standard import suppliers,” she said. “They are India’s premier partners in building a domestic defense industry.”
Birvadker went further, arguing that severing the relationship could set back India’s objective of technological self-reliance “by decades.”
“India would once again find itself dependent on other global powers, a resurgence of defense colonialism,” Bivadker stated. “Who benefits from such an outcome?”
The legal argument: The controversy lies in what is not publicly visible
Amnesty’s challenge is also directed at India’s export-control system itself.
India is not a party to the Arms Trade Treaty, although it is a party to the Geneva Conventions and Genocide Convention. Amnesty argues that those existing obligations are sufficient to require India to halt transfers where there is a clear risk that weapons could contribute to serious violations.
Indian arms exports are not unregulated. Military and dual-use goods are controlled through the SCOMET system and require authorization from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Applications are reviewed through an inter-ministerial process involving the foreign, defense, and home ministries, and official guidelines require consideration of the end user, declared end use, chain of transmission, and whether an export could conflict with Indian national security or foreign policy.
The controversy, according to Amnesty, lies in what is not publicly visible.
The inter-ministerial deliberations are confidential, leaving no public record showing whether international humanitarian law or India’s treaty obligations were specifically assessed when licenses for exports to Israel were approved.
Amnesty filed a Right to Information request seeking details of specific export licenses and any human rights assessments undertaken by the government, but said it had received no reply before publication.
Birvadker’s position is that New Delhi should resist external pressure rather than allow NGOs to determine its strategic relationships.
“New Delhi must categorically reject the pressure to suspend defense exports, fiercely guarding its principle of strategic autonomy and its sovereign right to conduct relations in alignment with its national interests,” she said.
“Yielding to Amnesty’s demands would severely undermine India’s credibility as a reliable defense partner on the global stage,” she told the Post.
India’s concept of strategic autonomy predates the Israel controversy. It was visible, for example, when New Delhi resisted Western pressure over Russian oil purchases following the invasion of Ukraine, prioritizing energy security and its freedom to maintain relationships across competing geopolitical blocs.
The relationship with Israel increasingly fits into that same model. India remains a major purchaser of Israeli technology while becoming a supplier in its own right. Israeli companies gain an enormous manufacturing base and access to Indian industry; India acquires technology, domestic production and exposure to global defense markets. The greater the integration, the harder it becomes to describe the partnership simply as one country selling weapons to another.
That is another revealing aspect of Amnesty’s report. Its authors see the hundreds of thousands of Indian-made components flowing to Israeli companies as evidence that the relationship should be curtailed. Birvadker cites the same supply chains as evidence that the relationship has become strategically indispensable.
The argument over Gaza will remain bitter and unresolved, particularly when the charge of genocide is treated as settled despite the substantial legal arguments against it. The industrial shift beneath that debate, however, is already taking shape.
India is no longer merely buying Israeli weapons. Increasingly, some of Israel’s weapons begin their journey in India.
From Ian:
Jonathan Conricus:
Disarm, verify, withdraw. The only path forward for Gaza
Nikolai Mladenov’s newly announced Gaza agreement offers a rare glimmer of hope amid years of bloodshed and despair. At its core is a straightforward proposition: the phased disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations in exchange for the eventual withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip. Israelis and Gazans alike desperately want Hamas’s weapons taken away, Gaza demilitarized, and a new form of leadership to take root—one rooted in respectful coexistence rather than endless jihad.
The desire for this outcome runs deep. Many Israelis, stil reeling from the horrors of October 7, when Hamas invaders massacred civilians in border communities, see demilitarization as the only reliable way to restore security to the kibbutzim and towns that face Gaza. They have no appetite for indefinite military operations. Popular rhetoric aside, neither the Israeli public nor the military wants to remain in Gaza indefinitely. What they want is simple: the absence of a genocidal terror organization on the other side of the fence, armed with rockets, tunnels, and an ideology of annihilation.
Gazans, too, have every reason to support this. Years of rule by a mafia that prioritizes tunnels and rockets over schools, hospitals, and prosperity have exacted a terrible tol. A Gaza free of Hamas’s military apparatus could finally begin to rebuild and choose life over perpetual conflict.
Yet history teaches caution. Hamas has a well-documented record of tactical pauses. The Islamic concept of ‘Hudna’—a temporary cessation of hostilities—has been invoked when jihadi forces find themselves at a disadvantage, only to be broken once strength is regained. If the current peace deal amounts to nothing more than another Hudna, it wil fail.
What is required instead is genuine, complete disarmament: every long-range rocket, every AK-47, maps of the entire tunnel network, and the locations of weapons manufacturing sites, all handed over under independent international verification. Only then does the plan become something more than a ruse. Only then does it become a foundation for lasting change.
Israel’s actions wil hinge entirely on whether that verification occurs. The absence of an immediate official Israeli endorsement is understandable in the current political climate. With elections approaching, any government is wary of appearing to accept international dictates that place civilians at risk. No responsible leadership wil sign onto an arrangement that leaves the core threat intact. But once Hamas’s arsenal is demonstrably gone and the Strip is verifiably demilitarized, Israel has every incentive to withdraw. There is no strategic or public desire to remain. The moment the threat disappears, the justification for military action disappears with it.
Before October 7, Israel was not conducting operations inside Gaza. The pattern of cause and effect is clear: rockets, tunnels, and invasions produce defensive responses. Remove the cause, and the response ends.
Keep the gas on the counterterrorism pedal
In Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is compelled to play the diplomatic game being led by Washington in order to continue enjoying its support and avoid being portrayed as the recalcitrant party. But Israel must not allow that game to constrain its freedom of action to destroy terrorist infrastructure and eliminate terrorists wherever they may be.
Over the weekend, Israel rejected current plans to disarm Hamas. Its reasons were clear: Despite the efforts of the United States, the terrorist organization has no intent to do so.
While the CEO of the Board of Peace, Nikolay Mladenov, has maneuvered between the intricacies of the “20-point plan” and the “15-point framework” to reassure Israel, Hamas has made its intentions regarding the commitments contained in these agreements perfectly clear.
“We do not intend to hand over the weapons to Israel,” says senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad. “No disarmament process will take place before Israel completes its withdrawal from the Strip.”
For those who may have difficulty remembering, this is the same Ghazi Hamad who, just days after the massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, explained in media interviews that Israel is “a state that we want to bring down” and promised that the “‘Al-Aqsa Flood’ is only the first time. There will be a second, third and fourth time. We have the resilience and the ability to fight and pay the price.”
This is also the same Ghazi Hamad who, in an interview last week with English broadcaster Piers Morgan, insisted that Hamas had never intended to kill civilians on Oct. 7, attempting to blur—and even deny—the seminal event that ignited the ensuing war.
The long arm of Israel’s security services has not yet reached him, but the score will yet be settled.
Either way, if anyone had any doubts, Hamad’s words make clear that Hamas views the diplomatic talks merely as leverage to drive the Israel Defense Forces out of Gaza, without relinquishing either its military power or its ruling infrastructure.
Meanwhile, with the assistance of the Board of Peace, Gaza terrorists have received, free of charge, a 14-day respite from the blitz of Israeli targeted counterterrorism strikes that had been hitting them until a week ago.
Khaled Abu Toameh:
The Arab-Islamic Formula for 'Peace': Ignore Hamas, Blame Israel
The foreign ministers of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt accused Israel of "violating" international law and undermining efforts to implement the Board of Peace's recently published "Roadmap for Completing the Implementation of President Trump's Comprehensive Peace Plan in Gaza." They also called for those responsible for "grave violations" to be held accountable.
The ministers forgot to mention that Hamas, by refusing to disarm and continuing to hold on to power in the Gaza Strip, is the party committing "grave violations."
If accountability is important, why does it apply only to Israel?
Where is the demand that Hamas be held accountable for bringing death and destruction upon the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip by launching its invasion of Israel?
Why not issue a clear demand that Hamas surrender all its weapons? The omission is especially disturbing because three of the countries represented in the statement – Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan – are members of Trump's Board of Peace and are supposedly helping to bring security and stability to the Gaza Strip.
Do the Arabs and Muslims — or the Europeans — really believe that creating a Palestinian state would automatically produce peace? Who would prevent Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from taking over such a state? Who would confiscate their weapons? Who would prevent Iran or Turkey from supplying Palestinian proxies with weapons, money and training? Who would guarantee that a future Palestinian state would not be used to launch more October 7-style attacks against Israel?
Israel withdrew every soldier and expelled every Jewish resident from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Palestinians subsequently had an opportunity to demonstrate what self-rule could look like. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian Authority parliamentary election and seized full control of the Gaza Strip the following year.
Instead of turning the Gaza Strip into a model of prosperity and coexistence, Hamas transformed it into a base for terrorism against Israel. Why should Israel be expected to repeat this "experiment" on a much larger and more dangerous scale — either in Gaza or in the West Bank, overlooking major Israeli population centers?
Peace will not come from ignoring Hamas, demonizing Israel and Jews, or repeating slogans about a "two-state solution" as though October 7 had never happened. It will come only when the international community — including Arab and Islamic countries — makes it clear that armed jihadist organizations cannot be allowed to control Palestinian territory, possess private armies, or determine the future of Israelis and Palestinians through terrorism. That would be a far more useful message for Arab and Islamic governments to deliver than yet another communique condemning Israel.
From Ian:
Has "Never Again" Blinded Us?
I am a grandchild of Holocaust survivors - barely survivors - who stepped out of the camps into a world emptied of everyone they had ever loved. In the last three years, atrocities beyond imagination have been inflicted on us. Again and again we have watched parents bury their children. They tried to erase our entire nation. They tried to kill our faith and everything we bring to the world. And yet we rose again. We flourished, and we carried our dead forward by naming our sons and daughters after them and by making the world a better place.
"Never Again" rests on a hope. We believed the world would learn, that no one could confront the piles of shoes, the children's faces, the naked corpses, and remain unchanged. But only those who already felt some bond to Jews were capable of caring. Millions did not. Billions did not. The world walked through our museums and remained largely unmoved, or moved only briefly, never long enough to restrain antisemitism.
We wanted to believe morality could be taught. But not for the Jewish question. Pain does not create affinity; affinity must already exist for empathy to take root. And without that affinity, without some prior sense of connection to Jews as a living people, whatever response we think we see is not empathy, it is a grimace.
We spent decades in the belief that if we exposed everything, if we spared nothing, truth itself would end antisemitism. It would compel compassion. It never did. Antisemitism was not waiting for enlightenment. It was waiting for permission. For years now, the world has behaved as if there were a statute of limitations on the moral freeze that followed the Holocaust, as if the restraint purchased by our six million dead had quietly expired. After the Oct. 7 pogrom, there was no pause in Jew-hatred, not even for one day.
Antisemitism does not respond to evidence. It does not submit to reason. Hitler did not murder Jews because of what they believed, how they lived, or what they owned. He murdered the poor and the rich, the pious and the secular, the assimilated and the insular, the newborn and the elderly. There was no argument that could have saved them. There never is.
The rubicon of antisemitism crossed in the West - Israel will face new dangers, too
The current wave of antisemitism will – and already is – fundamentally altering Jewish life in the countries with the largest communities outside of Israel: the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Germany.
Almost three years since October 7, and the wave of antisemitism is not receding; it is becoming more pervasive and more commonplace. In the US, for example, one in three individuals said they were targets of antisemitism, and over half of Jews have changed their behavior out of fear of antisemitism, according to a recent survey.
The antisemitism genie will not go back into the bottle on its own. Political and social polarization, the convergence of left-wing and right-wing hatred, hostility toward Jews in academia, greater proclivity towards antisemitism among younger adults, well-funded Israel-defamation campaigns by state actors, and growing immigration from Arab countries with high rates of religious extremism – all signal that we have likely crossed a point of no return.
This doesn’t bode ill only for Jews in the West; there are major repercussions for Israel as well. Foremost, its strategic alliance with the United States is in jeopardy, as public sentiment turns increasingly anti-Israel and somewhat anti-Jewish. Israel will need to reassess its strategic situation and act.
First, Israel must continue to pursue military self-sufficiency. It must have the capacity to fight an extended war without dependency on the US (or any other country) for arms, munitions, and spare parts. After all, a future American president may simply refuse to provide them.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared Israel’s new situation to the ancient isolationist Greek city-state of Sparta, which successfully fought its wars alone. The analogy was useful but flawed: in a global world, Israel should not aspire to Spartan isolation.
Rather, Israel should redouble efforts to build robust alliances with non-Western countries that don’t fall along the trend-lines of rising antisemitism – including India, former Soviet Republics, countries in South America, the Far East, and Africa, including moderate Muslim nations.
Among Western allies, Israel should foster mechanisms of co-dependence, so that there will be a real cost for such countries should they choose to abandon their partnerships with Israel.
Israel Is Making Plans for a Post-America Middle East
Israeli Consul General in New York Ofir Akunis says what worries him most is not the bouts of conflict in the Middle East. It's a drift in American politics that could one day spell the end of the historic U.S.-Israel alliance. Citing recent electoral victories by candidates espousing criticism of Israel, Akunis argued that "the reality is that some people here, for sure, prefer the ayatollahs rather than the American administration....To prefer your enemies rather than your political opponents, this is something new."
While it was his "hope that the United States of America will always be with us, we will need to prepare ourselves to be more independent than we used to be," given the trends he was witnessing.
It's not just Iran and its predominantly Shiite Muslim Axis of Resistance that Israel sees on its threat radar. An emerging "quartet" comprising the leading Sunni Muslim powers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan is also viewed with deep suspicion. "The ayatollahs are still in Iran. So, we need to solve this problem, and then we'll talk about the next challenge," Akunis said.
It's those in the West who direct their outrage not toward Iran but Israel that he blames most. "Those people do not say even one word about the ayatollahs, not even one word about their slogan 'Death to America,' and not even one word about the Iran massacre [of civilians]. What is it? Gaza, Gaza, Gaza."
"I can give you an answer about Gaza. Gaza can be like the Emirates, or Bahrain, or Singapore of the Middle East. No Hamas? Gaza can be prosperous. By the way, like in Lebanon. No Hizbullah? Lebanon can be prosperous."
From Ian:
Omer Bartov is whitewashing Israel’s enemies
‘When someone says to you that he wants to kill you – believe him.’ Israeli novelist Roni Gelbfish was quoting her grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, during a radio interview shortly after Hamas’s pogrom on 7 October 2023. Most people would empathise with Gelbfish’s grandmother in the aftermath of the atrocities of that terrible day. Hamas had once again shown, in the most horrific way imaginable, that it should be believed when it says it wants to slaughter Jews.
But if Omer Bartov feels any empathy with Gelbfish’s grandmother, he hides it well. In his new book, Israel: What Went Wrong, the American-Israeli professor at Brown University cites the quote as an example of Shoatiyut, which he translates from Hebrew as ‘Holocaustism’. This is the tendency, he argues, to interpret and exaggerate the threats facing Israel through the prism of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism more broadly.
Although Bartov offers a cursory criticism of the Hamas pogrom, he is really interested in condemning the Israeli reaction. He claims that framing 7 October as a Nazi-like attack on Jews is little more than an attempt to justify what he calls the ‘genocidal’ assault on Gaza.
Bartov’s argument is of a piece with that of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East and beyond. They view the Jewish State as evil incarnate, a prime representative of a malign West. They claim that Israel cynically weaponises the Holocaust and the charge of anti-Semitism to deflect what they call ‘legitimate criticism’ of its actions – in this case, the ‘genocide’ in Gaza.
To make this argument, Israel’s enemies deny and downplay the very real anti-Semitic threats it faces, from the assorted Islamist groups like Hamas, hell-bent on its destruction, to their nation-state supporters, Iran, Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey. By minimising and erasing these formidable threats, Israel can be portrayed as a singularly malevolent nation, killing for killing’s sake. Anyone who has followed the conflict in Gaza and the broader Middle East – and not just on the Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera but also on the BBC and Sky – should be familiar with this portrayal. Israel appears to be fighting a war for no good reason, rather than what it’s actually doing – defending itself against an all too real, annihilationist threat.
In What Went Wrong, Bartov lends credibility to this anti-Israel case, from the denial of the anti-Semitic threat to the accusation of genocide. After all, he’s a professor of Holocaust studies at an Ivy League university and he served as a company commander in an Israel Defence Forces (IDF) combat unit in the 1970s. His credentials have turned him into a valued guest on anti-Israel media. He’s written articles for the Guardian and the New York Times and has appeared on the virulent anti-Israel podcasts of Owen Jones and Mehdi Hasan.
But What Went Wrong is no dispassionate academic analysis. It is the work of a professor-activist who, at the very least, is willing to omit key facts to make his case.
UNESCO joins Palestinians in rewriting Jewish history in Judea and Samaria
Three shocking examples pertain to the Temple Mount, Joshua’s Altar on Mount Ebal, and Solomon’s Pools.
In 1999, the PA-led Wakf conducted vast, illegal construction projects on the Temple Mount and beneath it, willfully destroying centuries of Jewish archaeological treasures.
The Wakf unceremoniously dumped 400 trucks full of archaeologically rich soil into the Kidron Valley. Thousands of artifacts from the Temple periods have since been found through careful sifting of the debris by Israeli archaeologists.
On Mount Ebal near Nablus, a large archaeological site identified by the late Prof. Adam Zartal as the altar of Joshua has been imperiled.
The PA drew up plans to pave over the site with roads and 24 high-rise housing units, and in 2001, Palestinian contractors ground part of the ancient stone fencing at the site to make gravel for roads.
Recently, Israel halted renewed Palestinian attempts to vandalize the spot, and has approved the establishment of a yeshiva and a settlement nearby that will also protect the archaeological site.
Another infuriating episode relates to the incredible aqueduct identified as King Solomon’s magnificent water system for Jerusalem. This runs from Hebron through Bethlehem to Jerusalem, including what is today termed Solomon’s Pools southwest of Bethlehem.
This marvel of ancient engineering, 40 km. long, is described in detail in the Bible, and the description matches the archaeological findings precisely.
The pools and aqueducts survived 2,000 years of summers, winters, and many invaders and predators – until the arrival of the PA.
In 2022, the PA dug an enormous 1,500 dunam quarry pit at Beit Fajar right through a section of the aqueduct. The quarrying caused irreversible damage to the aqueducts, with some 100 meters of tunnel and approximately 2,000 meters of the aqueduct on either side of the tunnel reduced to rubble.
Only recently has the government of Israel (finally!) stepped in to prevent further damage to the relics and to develop the site for organized biblical tourism.
The Israeli cabinet has just approved NIS 113 million in government funding for protection and development of 70 Judea and Samaria heritage sites.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu advanced this budget allocation.
While insufficient given the scale of the challenge, this funding signals a shift in policy. Enforcement has increased, site development and public access have begun, and after decades of neglect and looting, long-buried historical treasures are being uncovered.
The discoveries are significant, with the potential to reshape global scholarship on entire historical periods of importance to world heritage.
Some examples: at Hyrcania, near the Jerusalem-Dead Sea highway, a fortress marking the fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom is being revealed as a “mini-Masada,” complete with siege systems, underground chambers, inscriptions, and ritual baths.
At the Alexandrian fortress on Mount Sartaba, mentioned in the mishna in connection with signal fires that inspired today’s Independence Day torch-lighting ceremony, excavations are producing dramatic new findings too.
Every such archaeological excavation is a victory over Palestinian denialism and UNESCO’s ISIS-like efforts at Jewish erasure.
She lost everything after supporting Israel: 'To be a good Arab and a good Muslim, part of it is to hate the Jews'
Within just five hours, Dalia Ziada managed to leave Egypt, abandoning her entire life and everyone she knew. In that brief span of time, she packed what she could, received help from friends in Israel and the US, and fled the country where she had been born, raised and educated, and where she had built a career and become a prominent public figure. It happened just two weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre.
Until the final moment, she refused to believe she would have to flee. Ziada was already well acquainted with incitement campaigns, abuse and online threats. As an activist for liberal democracy, a fierce opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood and an outspoken supporter of Israel's right to exist, she had paid a public price for years. This time, however, another threshold had been crossed.
"It came to the point that they were using a verse from the Quran to justify my killing," she says. "A local group in my family's neighborhood went to my family's house looking for me. Thank God I was not there that night." At the same time, she says, lawyers affiliated with the Egyptian government began pursuing legal action against her on serious charges. "These two combined made me feel trapped," she says. "I could have ended up in jail waiting to be executed on treason accusations, or being immediately killed by some Salafists. And then the government would come out and say, 'Oh, we're sorry,' and that's it. It was a matter of life or death."
The trigger for all this, she says, was her public declaration that Hamas was a terrorist organization and that Israel, like any other country, had the right to defend itself. But that was only the beginning.
Ziada, 44, was born and raised in Egypt in a Muslim family. Her father, who died when she was 19, was drawn to Sufism, a more spiritual and moderate tradition within Islam. She describes him as a liberal, open-minded man who deeply influenced her worldview. After his death, in a conservative society where her mother was left alone with two teenage daughters, Ziada began wearing the hijab. She emphasizes that this was not a purely religious decision, but a response to social pressure and her mother's need to protect her and her sister. Over the years, the head covering became part of her identity, as well as the focus of an unresolved internal crisis.
She studied international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts and devoted her career to researching Middle East geopolitics, advancing democracy and working for regional peace. For her, "peace" was never limited to an agreement between Israel and the Arab world.
"By peace, I'm speaking not only about Arab-Israeli peace, but peace between all the factions of the Middle East," she says. "You have Muslims, Jews, Druze, Christians. You have people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds, the Kurds and others, who have spent, I would say, thousands of years fighting with each other. My hope and my fight, and still my fight, is to get to a point where they understand that we are all human, regardless of where we belong. At the end of the day, we all want to live good lives. We all want to live in peace."
From that standpoint, she says, she had always supported Israel's right to exist. "This is unfortunately not very common among people with my background, Muslims, Arabs, Egyptians and so on," she says. "This caused me a lot of problems and a lot of trouble in the past, but it did not get to the point that it really threatened my life."
At the same time, she was waging an ideological campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood. In her view, the organization is not merely a political rival, but the bearer of an ideology that rejects the very principle of human equality. "The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood removes this concept that all of us are human and equal," she says. "It tries to divide the world into Muslims, who are good and superior to everyone else, and non-Muslims, who should be submissive to Muslims. This is exactly the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is something I totally rejected as a Muslim myself."
Then came Oct. 7.
According to Ziada, she was one of only three people in all of Egypt who dared to say publicly that Hamas was a terrorist organization. The claim illustrates the extent of the isolation she felt. "We are speaking about the most populous country in the Middle East," she says. "We are over 110 million people now, maybe more. It is really dangerous to think that this massive population could be radicalized."
What shocked her was not only the terrorists' actions, but the response on the Arab street. "We saw how horrible it was, how brutal Hamas and its followers were toward Israelis, including innocent people who were literally in their pajamas in their own homes," she says. "Unfortunately, people in Egypt and in so many Arab countries were celebrating what happened as a victory."
She stresses that these were not merely members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists or extremist activists. "They were mainstream Egyptians, people who look like me," she says. "So I had to speak up. I had to tell them exactly what happened on that day. It is not acceptable to celebrate such brutality. Then they turned against me."
From Ian:
David Collier:
The Synagogue Standing With a Terrorist Supporter
A synagogue holds a fundraiser. No big deal, right?
A synagogue holds a fundraiser for someone with a history of supporting Islamic terrorists? That’s a red flag.
The synagogue leadership shuts down discussion of the terrorist supporter in advance of the fundraiser?
That’s gatekeeping on a suicidal level.
The Mohsen Mahdawi Video
Ever since the U.S. administration arrested Mohsen Mahdawi in April 2025, I have been investigating his background. Working alongside Vermont researcher Rachel Feldman, we uncovered evidence that much of the narrative Mahdawi had used to build support within progressive circles was misleading. He had portrayed terrorist relatives as innocent victims and, over many years, repeatedly glorified and honoured Palestinian terrorists.
What we lacked was a recent piece of evidence showing that these views were not confined to the past. Then, a few weeks ago, we found it.
In a video Mahdawi posted in December 2024, he spoke in Arabic to a restricted audience, making it unlikely that most of his American supporters would ever see – or understand – what he was saying.
In the video, Mahdawi describes himself as part of a unified “resistance” movement and his words identify him with the same terrorist movements responsible for the October 7 atrocities.
Taken together with our earlier findings, the video completed a consistent picture of support for violent Palestinian militancy stretching back more than fifteen years.
The evidence was no longer ambiguous. Those presenting Mahdawi as a peace activist now had to explain how that claim could be reconciled with his own words.
The Synagogue That Did
Just as news of the video began to spread, Mahdawi’s supporters were preparing a major fundraising event to finance his legal campaign against deportation:
I knew Mahdawi enjoyed a substantial support network and had become something of a cause célèbre for anti-Trump activists. But it had never occurred to me that a Jewish organisation would help raise money on his behalf. Mahdawi is a man who has repeatedly praised and honoured leaders of terrorist organisations committed to murdering Jews. I had assumed that, whatever the political divisions within the American Jewish community, that would remain a clear red line.
But I was wrong.
I learned that one of the principal organisers of the August 9 fundraising event was Beth Jacob, a synagogue in Montpelier, Vermont:
Worse still, Mahdawi had even been personally invited to the synagogue for a discussion to take place prior to the main fundraising event.
That a Jewish congregation would lend its name and credibility to a fundraiser for a man with Mahdawi’s record was something I found almost impossible to comprehend.
The Internal Division
There was some pushback.
Beth Jacob has a members’ email discussion list, and after some members saw our research – including the recently uncovered December 2024 video – they began questioning the synagogue’s support for both the pre-event discussion with Mahdawi and the fundraising event itself.
What followed should serve as a case study. It is not simply that parts of the diaspora Jewish community are willing to embrace people who support organisations committed to murdering Jews. It is that some within those communities act as gatekeepers, introducing conspiracy theories and extremist thinking into the discussion while attempting to silence those who challenge their narrative.
Israel’s New York consul cancels ‘NY Times’ subscription over ‘false blood libels’
Ofir Akunis, Israel’s consul general in New York, ordered the Israeli Consulate to cancel its subscription to The New York Times on Friday, accusing the newspaper of publishing “false blood libels” against the Jewish state.
“I have ordered the Israeli Consulate in New York to cancel its subscription to The New York Times, a newspaper that consistently demonizes and delegitimizes the Jewish State,” he stated.
The newspaper has faced heightened criticism from Jewish groups and Israeli officials in recent months over its coverage of the Jewish state.
In May, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof published an opinion piece on May 11 titled “The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” in which he accused Israeli guards of sexually assaulting Palestinian prisoners. The column also included allegations that Israeli guards trained dogs to rape male prisoners.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry accused the newspaper of publishing “one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press,” adding that the column was part of what it described as a coordinated anti-Israel campaign.
Three days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced that Israel would initiate legal action against the Times over the column, calling its allegations “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel.”
The controversy also prompted Jewish leaders to call for a boycott of the paper after a spokesman publicly rejected rumors that editors would retract Kristof’s column.
“The New York Times is a newspaper that consistently publishes false blood libels against the State of Israel, often based on ‘anonymous’ sources,” Akunis stated. “When citing named sources, the paper conveniently turns to anti-Israel activists, and even Hamas terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction, to reinforce the narrative they want to promote.”
His office did not clarify why the subscription was canceled this month as opposed to back in May, when the controversial Kristof op-ed was published.
From Ian:
Melanie Phillips:
The suicidal significance of the Michigan Democratic primary
Both Britain and America insist on viewing Islam as merely a religion and refuse to acknowledge that it is also a supersessionist global political project. Both countries have accordingly failed to realize that while Muslims may be a minority, their turnout at elections is enormous—vastly greater than that of non-Muslims—and that they vote as a bloc and overwhelmingly support radical Islamist candidates.
As a result, dozens of Muslim candidates across America have won seats as mayors, city council members and state legislators, and many support or are associated with extremists or terrorists.
Regarding only Islamist terrorism as a threat, Americans have failed to grasp how Islamists are also weaponizing civil society against them.
On Middle East Forum, Dexter van Zile points out that in Massachusetts, Beacon Hill lawmakers are trying to establish Muslims as a privileged class. A Senate bill would create a permanent, taxpayer-supported commission exclusively for “people who practice Islam,” grant it the power to recommend American Muslims for appointive government positions at every level, and charge it with studying and combating “Islamophobia”—all in blatant violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
For years, Americans looked complacently and pityingly across the Atlantic at the progressive Islamization of Britain and Europe. Now this is galloping ahead in America, too. And after being some years behind Britain and Europe, America is allowing pieces to be put into place which, it’s no longer fanciful to imagine, could see an Islamist in the White House.
Tragically, while the Republican Party should be fighting these developments with all its might, it is itself a house divided. MAGA’s isolationist faction—led by podcaster Tucker Carlson and groyper Nick Fuentes—ignores the all-too-real conspiracy against America by the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, it’s poisoning the minds of millions of impressionable young followers with the defamatory and paranoid falsehood that the conspirers against the American interest are the Jews.
And from Michigan’s defeated “moderate” Democratic candidate Stevens, who has now thrown her support behind El-Sayed, to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who refuses to condemn his friend Carlson because he objects to “purity tests,” both main parties are adopting a “big tent” approach that protects the people they should be expelling as pariahs.
Across America and the West, hostility to Israel is now driving political life. Such people should beware. Israel’s cause is the West’s own cause; Israel’s existential enemies are the West’s existential enemies.
Those who want to tear down Israel, believing that the Jews are a bone they can throw to appease their mortal foes, are actually tearing down the West.
Jonathan Tobin:
A man of courage was needed. Instead, American Jews have Schumer
Yet the El-Sayed candidacy isn’t just another embarrassment for the country’s most prominent liberal Jew. Along with every other element of the current surge of vile bigotry that is changing the face of American politics in ways we are only beginning to understand, it is the kind of moral test that comes along once every generation or two.
It’s a moment when lifelong legislators are required to step up and respond to the challenges of history. And we know that most Democrats, including almost all of those who seek their party’s presidential nomination in 2028, are siding with the antisemites like El-Sayed—or staying silent.
Republicans have done better, but if they allow someone like Vice President JD Vance to succeed Trump, then they, too, will fail.
Fair or unfair, public figures are judged not so much on the sum of their lifework but on how they respond to those singular moments in time, whether it is the debate about slavery and the Civil War in the 19th century or the rise of the totalitarians in the 20th. We don’t know what will happen in the coming years, but it is becoming apparent that the explosive growth of antisemitism will, in one way or another, create yet another pivotal chapter in history. Many people will likely emerge from this struggle with their reputations either destroyed or enhanced.
At such a time, it is a pity that rather than a person of courage and character, American Jews are stuck with the likes of the feckless Schumer to represent them.
New York must heed the warning signs before we ask, 'How did this happen?'
History teaches that democracies rarely fail because warning signs are absent. They fail because too many people convince themselves that someone else will act.
As I write these words from Jerusalem, I find myself thinking of my parents. In many ways, I am grateful they are no longer here to witness what has become of the New York they loved.
I am a fourth-generation New Yorker on my father’s side, and like millions of American Jews, I grew up believing New York represented something extraordinary: a city where freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law protected everyone.
That belief shaped my life.
In 1980, while studying at Brooklyn College, I had the privilege of serving as a research assistant to Dr. Hillel Seidman, a Holocaust survivor, distinguished scholar, and journalist.
He was a prominent Orthodox journalist, author, historian, and activist for Agudath Israel, who later wrote critical analyses of international diplomacy and the United Nations (such as his 1982 book United Nations: Perfidy and Perversion).
He taught me that the UN was never merely a diplomatic institution. It was often the stage upon which tomorrow’s political realities first appeared.
Dr. Seidman followed the tenure of UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim. He and prime minister Menachem Begin shared a deep friendship and commitment to Holocaust remembrance and to the principle that powerful public officials should never be beyond scrutiny.
Following Yasser Arafat’s 1974 address to the General Assembly, when Arafat famously appeared with both an olive branch and a gun, Dr. Seidman and Begin believed the greater danger was not the gun. It was the olive branch, because it carried legitimacy while concealing a more dangerous reality.
That conviction eventually led to the investigation into Waldheim’s wartime record. I was privileged to assist in portions of that research before the effort was later expanded by the World Jewish Congress, sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and others. The lesson has remained with me throughout my career.
No public official is above the law.
No public official is above scrutiny.
Today, history feels as though it is echoing.
From Ian:
The antisemites are converging—and Jews will not be fooled
The anguish of watching our children exposed to such hatred leaves no room for political disguises. It is genuine. The monstrosity of Nazi-style antisemitism—the classic racist variety—now dares to reveal itself openly because it has become part of a broader ecosystem in which movements with very different ideological origins converge on a common target.
That convergence matters.
The various factions are not necessarily coordinating with one another. But they all benefit from the growing legitimacy afforded to hatred of Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism. Together, they reinforce an environment in which antisemitism flourishes.
Bulgaria illustrates how these forms of hatred increasingly overlap. Throughout the year—and especially since Oct. 7, 2023—the country has witnessed the public display of neo-Nazi symbols, swastikas and repeated attempts to revive the annual march honoring Hristo Lukov, the leader of Bulgaria’s pro-Nazi Legions.
At the same time, anti-Israel activism has targeted Jewish institutions. In 2025, “Free Palestine” graffiti was sprayed across the Sofia synagogue, covering photographs of those murdered during the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
On Oct. 9, 2025, Sofia’s Monument of Salvation, dedicated to those who opposed the deportation and persecution of Bulgaria’s Jews during World War II, was vandalized and covered in red paint. The city’s Holocaust memorial was desecrated as well.
These are only a few examples.
The attacks have come from both the right and the left, directed at the same targets: Jews.
This pattern is no longer confined to Bulgaria. Europe is increasingly afflicted by antisemitism from both extremes of the political spectrum. Across the Atlantic, the phenomenon is equally striking. A neo-Nazi such as Nick Fuentes and politicians such as Zohran Mamdani may come from vastly different ideological traditions, yet both participate in portraying “Zionism” as the embodiment of Jewish wrongdoing.
Who, then, still believes that one side merely offers “legitimate criticism of Israel” while the other alone represents antisemitic extremism?
The truly dangerous development is the convergence itself.
Vile are the Nazis. Vile, too, are the red-green antisemites. Vile are those who accuse Jews of orchestrating global conspiracies, and equally vile are those who portray the Jewish state as the source of the world’s evils. Different slogans, different histories—but increasingly the same target.
That convergence is poisoning Europe and spreading far beyond it.
It will eventually be exposed for what it is.
And Jewish children will not remain locked away in fear. They will walk out, calmly and confidently, toward life.
Jake Wallis Simons:
The enemy we welcomed
The uncomfortable truth is that by investing so heavily in centrist fundamentalism, the West has set itself up to fail. Amid the radical diversity that our leaders have imposed upon our societies and the consequent loss of shared cultural norms, newcomers with hostile and subversive attitudes are placed under no pressure to adapt. Civic respect has declined and crime rates have increased, making people in certain regions feel that they no longer recognise their country. The child rape scandal that erupted in 2024 in Britain shone a spotlight on the mainly Pakistani gangs who had been subjecting thousands of mostly white girls to the most depraved abuse for decades, while the authorities looked the other way for fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia.’ In the first nine months of 2024, the most recent available data at the time of writing, almost fourteen per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who comprise just 9.3 per cent of the population, had committed almost a quarter of sex crimes, as well as large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. Among the first victims of this social collapse have been the Jews. Rising antisemitism is a potent expression of the wholesale importation of other people’s bigotries to our shores.
The worst part is that this corrosion of our country served no useful purpose. For generations of politicians, loosening the borders was considered an easy solution to the economic conundrum of an aging, shrinking and workshy population. But the magic bullet has proved no solution at all, burdening the taxpayer, straining infrastructure and failing to boost productivity and growth. Meanwhile, the influx came with deep social problems. If it hadn’t been for the ideological myopia of the elites, this would have come as no surprise, given that newcomers from overseas added around seven million to the population of Britain — roughly equivalent to the number of residents of London — in the first two decades of this century, accounting for over four-fifths of total demographic expansion.
They remain unwilling to change course. Despite all the evidence of social and cultural strain, amid the political reluctance to find a better solution to our economic woes, the numbers continue to rise. Net migration into Britain hit a record high of almost a million in 2024; on current trends, it will grow to 72.5 million by 2032, entirely fuelled by a further five million migrants. According to the latest projection, by 2032, fourteen per cent of the population will have arrived in the preceding decade, almost all of them from Pakistan, India, Nigeria and China. At the same time, a quarter of Britain’s workforce is unemployed, with more than three million receiving sickness and disability benefits, a million more than before the Covid years. For a neutered and screen-addicted generation, the problem is only expected to get worse. A recent study revealed that Generation Z — those aged roughly between thirteen and twenty-eight — are giving up on work, with almost four in ten considering leaving their job to claim benefits, largely due to ‘mental health’ complaints. Economic inactivity was on course to rise further, it added, with 4.4 million workers, or a tenth of the workforce, ‘on the brink of leaving the labour market.’ So the demoralisation of Britain’s existing population and the surge in newcomers develop in tandem. None of this needed to happen. If both the numbers and attempts to undermine our values would have been kept in check, and measures taken to strengthen ordinary Britons to boost our economy and our confidence, the country would be a very much happier place today.
As the reaction to October 7 has shown, this betrayal of ourselves enabled the betrayal of the Jews. ‘We, like everyone else, depend upon a shared culture for our security, our prosperity and our freedom to be,’ Sir Roger Scruton wrote more than a decade ago. ‘We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared civil culture, a shared language and a shared public sphere… We can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside or against it.’ Antisemitism has always been present in British life but its latest expression is largely imported. Sadly, as politicians recklessly continue to usher large numbers of migrants into the country, Sir Roger’s sagacity has been lost on the wind.
Nicole Lampert:
From Chaplin To Boy George, Fighting Antisemitism Means Facing The Mob
In 1940, at the start of World War II, when America had not yet entered the conflict, it was Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator,” which lampooned Hitler and the Nazis and spoke clearly of their dangerous antisemitism and the threat they posed to the world. The clown became the soothsayer, the voice of morality.
Until that point, Hollywood, even with its many Jewish studio heads, had been mainly too frightened to tackle this threat head-on. Just one major film, Warner Bros. “Confessions of a Nazi Spy,” which looked at a German-American Nazi spy ring, had come close.
And the reaction to that film had been immediate; theaters across the U.S. were picketed and vandalized. One cinema was even burned down. It was a warning to beware the anger of the mob. For Hollywood Jews, feeling their place in society so untethered, the message was clear—they needed to pipe down, keep schtum.
Which is why Chaplin’s self-financed and risky move—from a non-Jew who understood antisemitism—was so important. His film told the world he saw the problem. He saw it was wrong. And everyone else should see the danger, too.
Now it's Boy George's turn.
He first found fame in the 1980s with the band Culture Club. He wore makeup and long hair, and was a proud gay man in the AIDS era. Like many pop stars, he’s battled drug addiction. Unlike most of them, in 2008 he ended up in jail for the false imprisonment of a Norwegian escort.
So his career has seen many ups and downs, but last week he did something extraordinary. He wrote and released a reggae song on his social media accounts, “We Will Dance Again,” which has the key lyrics: "But if you’re ever confused/I stand with the Jews/I don’t feel brave/I just need to behave like a human."
It was possibly the most extraordinary thing a non-Jew has done for the Jewish people since the October 7 attack in 2023 created a new and deadly wave of antisemitism. Just as in the 1930s, too many celebrity Jews–apart from a brave few—have maintained a frightened silence and their gentile friends have echoed their anxious muteness. They know what will happen if they dare stand up against today’s antisemitic mob, a contrast to “pro-Palestine” celebrities who often seem to treat the war like a football match, dress up in kaffiyehs and applaud themselves.
No picture today because blogger sux
From Ian:
Victor Davis Hanson:
The Long View of Iran
One day, the United States seems ready to unleash a Curtis LeMay-style devastating bombing campaign of Iran. The next, it appears trapped in endless haggling with Iranian dissimulators.
Of the roughly 150 days since the first strike, about 90 have passed without major military operations.
Iran believes time is on its side. The Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, gas prices are too high, and antiwar House Democrats seem poised to win the midterms and bring Trump’s war to a halt.
Trump, by contrast, believes Iran can talk all it wants while sanctions, embargoes, and military pressure steadily weaken the regime.
The war has become so politicized in an election year that several basic realities have gone largely unnoticed by the media.
First, the cycle of bombing, pausing, negotiating, and bombing again may seem endless. But the confusion obscures the continuing effects of the embargoes, sanctions, blockade, and financial isolation imposed on Iran. Together, they are costing the theocracy more than $400 million a day in lost revenue, money that it can ill afford to lose. By haggling, Iran believes it can run out the clock until the midterms, but it may be only prolonging its own miserable situation.
Second, so far the bombing has not descended into a ground war. There are no embedded reporters and few Western journalists in Iran. So the world knows little about the true extent of the damage to the Iranian regime and its military-industrial-nuclear complex.
Nor do we know the mood of the once-restive Iranian street. But whether or not there are future allied military attacks, tensions will only increase as Iran runs out of money and basic goods. Whatever the outcome of negotiations or further combat operations, the Iranian military and economy have already been wrecked and will take years to rebuild.
Third, however the war ends, Iran will remain at a terrible disadvantage for years in dealing with the neighbors it has so gratuitously attacked. The regime currently has no effective combat aircraft or air defenses—and no allies.
In contrast, the Gulf states can field more than 700 combat aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Rafales, Mirages, and Tornados. Israel has another 300, including late-model F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s. U.S. bases in the Middle East are home to some 300 more, including F-22s, F-35s, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s—not counting carrier-based aircraft.
In sum, the United States and its allies have some 1,300 late-model combat aircraft in the region. They should therefore be able to hit Iran hard for years to come if it resumes drone and missile attacks against its rivals.
Amb. Gordon Sondland:
America's aid to Israel isn't charity — it's a bargain for US security
Every few years, Americans ask the same question: Why do we send billions of dollars to Israel?
Given a national debt approaching $40 trillion and an annual defense budget of roughly $1 trillion, it is a fair question. Every dollar spent overseas deserves scrutiny. But the debate almost always focuses on one side of the ledger — what America gives Israel — while largely ignoring the other: what America receives in return.
That is the wrong way to evaluate any investment.
Before making my case, let me disclose my own perspective. I am a cultural Jew, but not a practicing one. I don’t keep kosher. I rarely attend synagogue. I raised a family that is half Jewish and half Christian. I have no financial interests in Israel. My support for Israel has never been based on religion or ethnicity. It rests on a far simpler question: Does this alliance make America stronger?
After serving as a U.S. ambassador and spending a lifetime in business, I believe the answer is unequivocally yes.
The United States has many indispensable allies. Britain provides extraordinary intelligence cooperation through the Five Eyes partnership. Japan anchors our strategy in the Indo-Pacific. South Korea deters aggression on the Korean Peninsula. Australia is an increasingly important military partner as China expands its reach. Poland has become one of NATO’s strongest front-line allies. Every one of those relationships advances American interests.
Yet Israel occupies a category almost by itself.
Few allies combine world-class intelligence, battlefield-tested military innovation, cutting-edge cyber capabilities, missile-defense development, entrepreneurial technology and democratic resilience while sitting at the crossroads of the world’s most volatile region. If Israel did not exist, the United States would spend decades — and likely hundreds of billions of dollars — trying to recreate the strategic advantages it provides.
Obstacles to Implementing the Hamas Disarmament Agreement
Despite the celebratory announcement of an agreement providing for the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza, deep gaps remain between the parties, compounded by flawed assumptions on the part of the mediators. Hamas does not view disarmament as a unilateral obligation. In addition, Hamas demands guarantees that it will be integrated into Gaza's governing mechanisms as a condition for relinquishing its weapons.
Israel insists on the full disarmament of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza (which includes removing the weapons and not leaving them in the Strip) as a precondition for withdrawal.
The International Stabilization Force faces significant recruitment difficulties, stemming from the refusal of states to deploy troops to areas where Hamas remains armed. The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is reluctant to enter the Strip in the absence of an effective security mechanism to protect its members.
Hamas sources revealed that it formulated its hardline positions - foremost among them its refusal to disarm before a full Israeli withdrawal - in close coordination with mediators Turkey and Qatar. The mediators' strategic objective is to preserve Hamas as a legitimate political actor. They strongly oppose conditioning Gaza's reconstruction on Hamas's complete disarmament, while seeking to assume a leading role and secure a major share in reconstruction projects in the Strip.
Hamas's apparent willingness to show greater flexibility can reasonably be attributed to the IDF's sustained military pressure, including targeted killing operations and the expansion of Israel's hold over Gazan territory from 53% to 65%. In practice, however, this does not represent a substantive change, but rather a calculated strategy of delay and "tactical flexibility" whose sole purpose is to ensure Hamas's political and military survival.
Hamas has effectively exploited the diversion of regional attention toward Iran to rebuild its military and civilian systems: it has restored its chain of command, resumed weapons production and tunnel construction, and expanded its ranks to 30,000 armed operatives. These are not the actions of an organization preparing or intending to disarm.
There is serious concern that the mediators are playing a dangerous double game. Their apparent objective is to push the U.S. and the Board of Peace into a confrontation with Israel and to place responsibility on Israel for derailing the Trump plan because of its insistence that its withdrawal take place only after the complete disarmament of Hamas. It is even possible that Turkey and Qatar persuaded Hamas to accept the framework on the assumption that Israel would reject it.
No picture today because blogger sux
From Ian:
Dara Horn’s shocking new title hides a serious argument about fighting antisemitism
If you thought People Love Dead Jews — Dara Horn’s 2021 essay collection examining society’s reverence for remembering deceased Jews while failing to support the living ones — was an awkward book to read in public, just wait until you get your hands on Horn’s newest title: The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
Horn, a celebrated novelist who has become the bard of contemporary antisemitism since Dead Jews was published five years ago, is in on the joke; she likes to say that both titles make great beach reads because no one will dare sit within several feet of you. (Her dad even made a custom People Love Dead Jews beach towel for her to test out the theory.)
But despite borrowing its title from the name of the Nazis’ infamous plan to rid Europe of its 11 million Jews during World War II, Horn’s latest book, which will be published on Sept. 1, is not a Nazi manifesto.
Instead, the title of Horn’s new book serves as an eye-catching, subversive dog whistle that is meant to pique the interest of antisemites — while also serving as a cheeky summary of Horn’s goal of actually trying to come up with a solution to the wave of antisemitism that has swept the world in recent years.
She just can’t believe that she is the one coming up with those solutions.
“I saw People Love Dead Jews as just a detour from my real work, which I see as writing novels,” Horn told Jewish Insider in an interview last week.
The genesis for Horn’s latest book came in the aftermath of Dead Jews. She spoke at public events often in 2021 and 2022, and she recalls becoming “the receptacle for everyone’s horror stories.” People would go up to Horn after she discussed the book and tell her about their own experiences of antisemitism. They often chalked up these incidents to jokes or misunderstandings or annoyances, such as a couple being ghosted by a longtime friend after the friend attended their son’s bar mitzvah or an actor turned down for roles in Hollywood because they looked “too Jewish.” But when taken together, they present a picture of a society that has learned to accept ambient anti-Jewish hate.
“This is going to sound really ridiculous,” Horn reflected on her previous book, “but I didn’t even really think it was a book about antisemitism. I saw it as a book about this weird historical phenomenon about the way we commemorate the past and how that affects the present.”
Many Horn acolytes felt that her thesis was borne out during the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks in Israel, the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust, as they watched sympathy for Jewish victims turn to anger at Israel’s military response and even praise for Hamas’ actions.
“I’m not happy to have been right about this,” she said.
25 years after suicide bomber killed Malki Roth at Sbarro in Jerusalem, her grieving parents feel alone, wonder when she’ll get justice
After a quarter century of seeking justice for their daughter Malka Chana “Malki” Roth, who was 15 when she was murdered in a suicide bombing at Sbarro in Jerusalem on Aug. 9, 2001, Arnold and Frimet Roth feel abandoned—by their American government and by many whom they expected to keep fighting with them.
“We’re alone in every meaningful sense, fighting powerful people who never, ever, at any stage, say what they actually mean or what they intend to do,” Arnold Roth told JNS. “Quite the opposite. They say things that are superficial and that are calculated to keep us in the dark and never lead to where we want to go.”
Ahlam Tamimi, a Hamas terrorist who lives freely in Jordan, brags openly on television about helping plan the pizzeria bombing, in which Judith Shoshana Greenbaum and Chana Nachenberg, both American citizens like Roth, and 13 other civilians were killed. Some 130 were injured in the attack.
In 2013, the United States charged Tamimi with participating in the attack. She is listed on the “Most Wanted” FBI terrorist list, and the U.S. State Department’s Rewards for Justice program has offered up to $5 million for information leading to her arrest.
Jordan, which has an extradition agreement with the United States dating back to 1995, has refused to comply in Tamimi’s case, and successive U.S. administrations seem to have been unable to enforce the treaty.
Jordan has said that handing Tamimi over would lead to riots in the streets, but those involved with the case have told JNS repeatedly that Jordan’s claim is a convenient excuse for Washington, which is loath to rock the U.S.-Jordan relationship.
Roth has visited Jordan several times and had business relations there before his daughter was murdered.
He told JNS that he can’t fathom how extraditing Tamimi would suddenly harm the U.S.-Jordan relationship, given already high levels of Jew-hatred in the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel’s measures to shore up its defense of the border with Jordan.
Stuck in a perpetual state of mourning for his daughter, Arnold Roth’s pain and quiet anger are palpable in his voice.
Nick Winton:
My father saved Jewish children because he refused to be a bystander – a lesson we urgently need today
Iwant to start with a letter.
It was written on May 4, 1939, on the headed notepaper of the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, Children's Section, Room 217, Bloomsbury House, London. The original is now held at Yad Vashem. My father wrote it a fortnight before his 30th birthday to drum up support for what became the Kindertransport – the operation that brought 669 children, most of them Jewish, to safety in Britain before the war began.
I have been reading it for years. It has never felt more urgent.
He opens by describing the public mood of his time: "Tales of violence and war, treaties made and broken, concentration camps and social ostracism have become so commonplace in the daily papers that the average person has completely lost his normal moral standard... They are content to consider themselves as individuals without responsibility for what is going on in the world today. They hope it will all come right in the end but, in the meantime, they can do nothing."
It feels shocking to read those words 87 years later and to realise the similarities with today.
My father then draws a distinction that has stayed with me ever since. He writes of the difference between passive goodness and active goodness. Passive goodness, resolving to do no wrong, is not enough. Active goodness, he writes, is "the giving of one's time and energy in the alleviation of pain and suffering. It entails going out, finding and helping those in suffering and danger and not merely leading an exemplary life..."
He wrote that passage while organising the rescue of children whose families were being stripped of their livelihoods, their homes, and their futures. He describes them in the letter: "doctors, teachers, journalists, civil servants, whose only crime has been their outspoken defence of democracy."
Read that sentence again. Those words were written in 1939. They could have been written this morning.
From Ian:
Gen. Keith Kellogg:
Trump should stop negotiating and win against Iran
The American way of war from the Revolutionary War to World War II was straightforward. We did not fight to negotiate; we fought to win.
Americans traditionally support winners. There will be those who disagree about how to fight a war, but few can ever argue with winning. Unfortunately, today we are told negotiation is winning. It is not.
Our Founding Fathers put the awesome responsibility of commander in chief in the hands of our elected president in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. They presupposed that whoever was elected by the people had the wisdom to act in the best interests of our nation. In today’s world, for better or worse, that is extended by inference to the president’s advisers as well. So, the fundamental question of winning is more relevant than ever before.
I, like many others, am asking: Do we still have the will to prosecute a war to a successful conclusion? This can be simply defined as the ability to bend an enemy to our will while making minimal to no concessions. In short, do we still have what it takes to commit to the American way of war?
By extension, do the president’s advisers, from the vice president down, subscribe to that as well?
Based on the latest developments regarding Iran, I am increasingly concerned about the answer to that question. It seems the American people are being told that negotiations to a satisfactory outcome for both sides are a win-win. That is wrong. If you believe the purpose of war is a means to negotiate, then you have already lost. You wage war to win. Period.
If I were advising a commander in chief in the current conditions, here is what I would recommend.
Bring the American people along in the decision process. History has shown that Americans will sacrifice when they are brought to understand the gravity of the situation. When Americans understand that we are fighting for tomorrow and not for today, they will rally. Americans always believe in an end state that improves the future for our children and grandchildren, namely, a world of increased safety and prosperity. The president needs to explain why the fight in Iran is that fight.
Second, you cannot prosecute a war like a business deal. War is too difficult to leave to chair-bound critics, people who lack an understanding of the principles of conflict or those who contemplate dollar signs rather than strategy. This is especially true of proactive military action, or a war of choice. This is also why this war must be won, not managed. Wars of choice carry a higher threshold. Choosing to go is different from being forced to go or acting in self-defense; this is why winning matters even more. Losing a war of choice erodes deterrence more rapidly and diminishes a nation’s ability to project power.
Next, critics will always object to war and the process of war. They need to be made irrelevant during the decision-making process. Iterative decision-making is important, and sharing diverse perspectives during the national security decision-making process is critical. However, once the decision to go is made, everyone needs to be fully committed and rowing in the same direction. Internal dissent leaked to the press after an operation has begun is dangerous and places the entire operation at risk.
I recall a comment from Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. When asked about the military strategy against the Iraqi army, he said, “Our strategy in going after this army is very, very simple. First, we’re going to cut it off, and then we’re going to kill it.”
I was serving in the Gulf at the time, on the ground with the 82nd Airborne Division, and his comment, as the principal military adviser to the president, gave those of us deployed forward the confidence in our military and our commander in chief that we would fight this war to a successful conclusion. We would win it.
Melanie Phillips:
My message to CENTCOM
Dear CENTCOM,
Your entire strategy is totally wrong from start to finish. Your aim is to wear down the regime until it agrees to your terms. This is a foundational error. Your aim should be instead regime change by destroying the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) that wields power in Iran.
I would say this to your Commander-in-Chief, but he hasn’t asked.
This is why America should change its strategy.
Understand that all negotiation with the regime is worse than pointless. Their agenda is non-negotiable. You cannot negotiate with fanatics who believe that producing an apocalypse will bring to earth the Shia messiah. They never, ever negotiate in good faith. They always lie. Negotiation to them is merely an opportunity to delay, to obfuscate and to exploit the weakness of America, which refracts everything through the Western belief in the overriding impulse of self-interest. This is laughable. The Iranian regime believes it has a divine command to destroy the west. America’s attachment to negotiation merely tells the regime it’s on course to achieve America’s defeat.
End the incoherent thinking. President Trump talks of forcing the regime to surrender. But he’s also pushing for a negotiated deal. Surrender is the outcome of defeat. A negotiated deal is the outcome of concessions on both sides. So which is it? It can’t be both.
Stop thinking that the regime has a pain threshold. Trump said last week: “We’ll be hitting them very hard, and you know, at some point, they’re going to say, ‘We just can’t take it anymore.’”
That point will never arrive. The regime can take infinite pain. It’s prepared to sacrifice the Iranian people and see the country’s infrastructure destroyed. As long as the regime survives in some form, it will think it’s won because it can always regroup and continue with its infernal agenda, however long it takes. Which it will do. Bombing even more stuff will therefore have only a limited effect.
Change your war aim to regime change — the only way to neutralise the unconscionable menace those fanatics represent for their people, the region and the world. That means empowering the heroic people of Iran to take their country back. That means in turn preventing the IRGC from being able to continue to jail and torture them, hang them and mow them down in the streets. That means destroying the IRGC.
How? Ask the Israelis.
Bid farewell to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. They are hopelessly compromised by their financial interests in the region. Their negotiations in both Gaza and Iran have been demonstrably farcical. Many lives have been needlessly lost as a result. They should be removed forthwith from all involvement in the war against Iran and its proxies.
Now persuade the President.
You’re welcome.
Pierre Rehov:
What the Gaza Roadmap Actually Says
Everything then turns on a question the announcement left unanswered: Has Hamas agreed to surrender the power and weaponry that have defined it for decades, or only to change the label on them?
[T]he same clause in the roadmap names the custodian: the new Palestinian NCAG [National Committee for the Administration of Gaza], and "no weapons shall be transferred or handed to Israel or non-Palestinian parties." What could possibly go wrong?
When the sequence ends, NCAG alone – the Palestinian one – will be permitted to hold and control arms in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas has spent nearly four decades converting truces into arsenals.
Israel withdrew every soldier and expelled every Jewish resident from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and what grew there since is an Iranian-sponsored war machine: rockets, a vast terrorist tunnel network, weapons factories wedged into crowded neighborhoods, and a school system that teaches children that terrorism is a career.
Billions of dollars of international aid arrived, earmarked for housing, clinics and employment. Instead, the funds were used to produce weaponry and build an underground military comprising at least 350 miles of terror tunnels with 5,700 entry shafts, and command centers in and under hospitals.
[W]hat Hamas has done just during this ceasefire: Israeli military intelligence estimates that Hamas has rehabilitated its forces to roughly 27,000 men under arms, while the movement continues paying monthly salaries to some 49,000 officials, running 13 municipalities and the ministries of economy, education, health and welfare, collecting taxes on commerce, and skimming the international aid funds. It still rules about 40 percent of the Gaza Strip, the part where most of the population lives.
The clans that fought against Hamas are excluded. Hamas itself is merely processed, "vetted," reassigned and kept on salary.
Verification rests on institutions that scarcely function.... Certifying the demilitarization of a territory holding 27,000 trained and heavily armed Hamas terrorists is not a mission for a company-sized pilot project.
Above that force sits a Gaza Executive Board on which Turkey and Qatar hold seats, two governments whose usefulness to Washington derives precisely from their access to Hamas. Qatar, Hamas's patron, has been invited to certify the disarmament of its client.
"Qatar is at the top of funding terrorism worldwide.... Even more than Iran," according to Udi Levy, a former senior official of Israel's Mossad spy agency who dealt with economic warfare against terrorist organizations.
Qatar most likely sees its sole mission in Gaza as making sure that Hamas remains armed and in power to further the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which, largely thanks to funding from Qatar, Hamas is the Palestinian branch.
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
.png)
