From Ian:
Gottheimer asks House leaders to sign onto bipartisan measure decrying Jew-hatred in both parties
After antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker tried to blame Jewish supporters of Israel for worsening antisemitism, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) called on House Republican leaders on Tuesday to allow a vote on his bipartisan resolution condemning such voices in both parties.
“Hatred is hatred. Period,” stated Gottheimer, who is Jewish. “Let’s bring the vote to the floor.”
The resolution, introduced with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), takes aim at both Piker on the Democratic side and Candace Owens on the Republican side for their attacks on Jewish Americans.
Piker has been welcomed by Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and others from the party’s left wing. He recently warned that Jewish Americans who support a Jewish state were stirring up antisemitism themselves.
“If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the State of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews,” he said on a Twitch stream.
Owens “actively amplifies antisemitic figures on her shows,” including guests who praised Hitler, trivialized the Holocaust or promoted “Jewish mafia” narratives, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
She was named “Antisemite of the Year” in 2024 by StopAntisemitism.
“Telling millions of followers that Jewish Americans are bringing violence on themselves is blatantly antisemitic and one of the oldest tropes in the book,” Gottheimer stated.
“This is exactly why we introduced this resolution, and there’s no excuse left for Republican leadership to keep sitting on it,” he said. “Anyone still supporting or campaigning with these personalities is complicit.”
The American Jewish Committee joined the criticism of Piker. “Blaming Jews for the antisemitism directed at them is itself antisemitism,” it said.
The ADL has estimated that Owens has 35 million followers and Piker about 11.5 million.
Study: Genocide claims on US campuses largely grew out of preexisting BDS activism
Claims of genocide against Israel that became prominent on US college campuses after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack were largely concentrated among academics and speakers who had already supported the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, according to a Wednesday report.
The report argues that academics had granted legitimacy to the BDS movement’s aim of stigmatizing Israel.
The report, by the AMCHA Initiative, a nonprofit that documents antisemitism and combats anti-Israel activism on US campuses, analyzed 278 recordings of events sponsored by academic units at US schools. Academic units included departments, centers, programs, institutes and schools.
The events took place on 51 US campuses during the 2024-2025 academic year. The study, called “When Political Advocacy Acquires Academic Authority: BDS and the Genocide Accusation on US Campuses,” selected colleges and universities that Hillel International identified as being popular with Jewish students.
Of those events, 93 featured speakers who had promoted BDS before the October 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel. Support for BDS included signing onto petitions, published writing backing BDS, social media posts and participating in boycotts.
The analysis found that events with BDS supporters were 40 times more likely to include genocide accusations — 85% of those events accused Israel of genocide, compared to 2% of events that did not involve boycott activists.
The strong correlation between prior BDS support and genocide accusations suggested that the charge was “not simply a broadly shared feature of academic discussion about Israel and Gaza,” the report said.
“Rather, its use was overwhelmingly concentrated among speakers who entered the post-October 7 period with a preexisting commitment to taking action against Israel,” the study said.
Historian’s book on Nazi World War II propaganda targeting Arab world to be republished
A prominent historian’s book about Nazi propaganda targeting the Arab world during World War II will be reissued in the spring after going out of print, the author, Jeffrey Herf, said on Monday.
Herf, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Maryland, said it was important to reissue the book, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World,” to better understand the current moment and to dispel misconceptions about Hamas’s ideology, which he says echoes the Nazis’
“Hamas should be understood as a fusion of Nazi ideology and Islamist ideology,” Herf told The Times of Israel. “One of the most important falsehoods about Hamas is that it is a progressive movement.”
Yale University Press first published the book in 2009.
Herf said Yale University Press had later taken the book out of print.
“It’s been very frustrating with Yale and I do not understand why they’re taking this position,” Herf said. “They’ve made ready availability of the book more difficult.”
Herf said he did not know why the university’s press had let the book lapse.
The title remains available as an e-book on the Yale University Press website, but physical copies are hard to come by. The 335-page paperback costs more than $400 on Amazon.
Yale University Press told The Times of Israel, “It was a business decision to not reissue a title from 2009, and to return the rights to Professor Herf.”
“We wish him the best of luck with his book in its newest incarnation and with his new publisher,” a spokesperson said.
Herf said he had reacquired the rights to the book himself and that ibidem Press, an academic publishing house in Germany, will republish the print version.
The publishing house confirmed the company will republish the book as a paperback, with a new foreword by Herf, in the spring of 2027.
The book will be distributed in North America by Columbia University Press and will be featured in the Spring 2027 Columbia University Press Catalog, ibidem Press told The Times of Israel.
“Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World” examines the Nazi regime’s massive outreach to Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa from 1939-1945.
From Ian:
Gil Troy:
Durban helped turn anti-Zionism into a global movement
Before commemorating the 25th anniversary of September 11, it’s worth remembering another event the 9/11 horrors essentially upstaged: the UN World Conference against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, from August 31 through September 7, 2001.
That hate-fest revived the UN’s “Zionism is racism” resolution, fueling today’s anti-racist anti-Zionism.
This irrational fury against Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people masquerades behind the noble fight to eradicate race-based bigotry.
Remembering that conference, which negated years of Israeli attempts to compromise with Palestinians, provides a moral clarity about the conflict sadly lacking today.
It’s confusing. Sincere democratic critics offer thoughtful, patriotic reproaches of Israeli actions or leaders. But there are also satanic critics, violent evil enemies who wish to destroy the Jewish state. Durban became a Jew-hating jubilee that was so effective, it’s inspired millions of pathetic critics – driven by pathos, emotion – to hop along the legitimate anti-racist bandwagon, then vilify Israel, Zionism, and the Jews, unfairly.
Back then, most Americans mocked the absurd notion that Zionism, meaning Jewish nationalism, was racist. How tragic that today, this big Red-Green lie, uniting far-left radicals with Islamist jihadists, has seduced so many Americans.
Many pretend to be democratic critics, claiming it’s about what Israel does. But the hostility to the fact that Israel is, the obsessive Zio-trashing, and the distortions required to frame the nationalist clash between Israelis and Palestinians as a race-based conflict are downright devilish.
In 2001, the totalitarian anti-Zionism most Americans had long opposed, subordinating all other goals to the anti-Israel impulse, sabotaged yet another UN conference.
'An anti-American, anti-Israeli circus'
“Durban became the tipping point for the coalescence of a new, virulent, globalizing anti-Jewishness,” the Canadian parliamentarian and human rights activist Irwin Cotler lamented. The rhetoric there fused anti-Zionism with anti-Americanism, “laundered” through opposition to racism, Cotler noted.
The legendary Democratic congressman Tom Lantos called Durban “an anti-American, anti-Israeli circus,” often expressed in antisemitic terms – the trashing trifecta.
A Hungarian Holocaust refugee who became Congress’s human rights conscience, Lantos called Durban “the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I have seen since the Nazi period.”
Some delegates distributed a booklet caricaturing Jews with hook noses and fangs dripping blood. Seventeen thousand anti-Zionist protesters rallied, with some waving the banner “Hitler Was Right!” Other posters wished Hitler had “finished the job.”
Amid waves of Palestinian suicide bombings that destroyed the Oslo peace process and triggered Israeli army crackdowns, the conference showcased the Red-Green alliance’s global reach and anti-Zionist mania.
“Green” Islamist power hijacked the main UN conference, steering discussions away from the widespread problem of white-versus-black racism to denounce “the racist practices of Zionism” as “a new kind of apartheid.”
Although the official Durban Declaration ignored Zionism while condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia, the anti-Zionist rhetoric poisoning many speeches – backed by antisemitic hooliganism on the street – reinvigorated the “Zionism is racism” libel.
The parallel NGO forum celebrated “Red” – far-left – values, with leftist human rights organizations condemning racism, colonialism, and imperialism selectively. They found these afflictions only in the West, especially in Israel, the world’s favorite whipping boy.
The final NGO declaration launched the forum’s “Durban Strategy”: to reinstate the “Zionism is racism” resolution, boycott “Israel as an apartheid state,” and accuse the “Israeli racist system” of “acts of genocide” – in 2001.
The Palestinian firebrand Hanan Ashrawi inflamed these third-world leftist passions. Casting the Palestinians as virtuous victims facing violent victimizers, Ashrawi avowed: “in the struggle against oppression, injustice, racism, intolerance, colonialism, and exclusion, there can be no neutrality.”
The Zionism-racism charge and other categorical demonizations of Israel are accelerants. They infuriate, polarizing both sides. Which Palestinians would want to make peace with a supposedly racist, genocidal, settler-colonialist oppressor? And which Israelis would want to make peace with enemies who libel them so hysterically, while attacking them so violently?
Israel now has the power to respond to action against it with diplomatic consequences
Israel has the strength, ability to respond to action taken against it
The next test may be Britain. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband recently called Israel’s publication of tenders for construction in E1 “an unacceptable and destructive act,” demanded that Israel halt the project, and warned that the UK would not “stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution.”
Sa’ar rejected both the substance of Miliband’s statement and “the patronizing tone of his words.” That description was spot on. Britain is entitled to oppose Israeli policy. It isn’t entitled to lecture Israel as though addressing a misbehaving colonial ward whose role is to listen and obey.
Sa’ar also correctly called Miliband’s statement entirely one-sided. He then laid down the principle that should guide Israel’s response: “The UK government’s decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate. But Israel will not be a passive victim of this policy. Israel will defend its rights, its interests, and its people.”
Israel need not answer every criticism, nor should every response be maximal. But when criticism hardens into policy intended to damage the relationship, Jerusalem should determine which elements of that relationship Britain can no longer take for granted.
That may mean a diplomatic downgrade, exclusion from a particular forum, or a reassessment of specific forms of cooperation. The response should fit the offense and protect Israel’s interests – not merely vent anger.
But this is not your grandmother’s Israel. It is stronger, richer, larger, and less dependent on the goodwill of governments that demand much from it while asking little of its enemies. Its diplomacy should reflect that reality.
Netanyahu at Judea and Samaria event: This land ‘will remain ours’
Speaking at the Binyamin Regional Council’s annual flagship event highlighting the past year’s achievements in Judea and Samaria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Tuesday night that the Land of Israel “will remain ours.”
“Today, many of our brothers and sisters around the world understand: This is our land and it will remain ours,” Netanyahu told Judea and Samaria leaders at the event, which he attended with his wife, Sara.
In remarks translated from Hebrew, he added, “And when I say our land, every Jewish man and every Jewish woman, the door is open. We are waiting for you. In the State of Israel, in the heart of the Land of Israel.”
Those attending the event, Netanyahu said, were “preparing the ground for a very large aliyah [immigration wave] that will come.”
The Binyamin Regional Council governs 47 Israeli communities in an area stretching from north of Jerusalem in Samaria to the Jerusalem Mountains in Judea.
The outgoing government has established and regularized 104 communities and 160 farms, Netanyahu said, adding that more were on the way.
Part of the work was carried out under the Biden administration and part under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, he said.
“It isn’t easy, it’s never easy. The Land of Israel is acquired through suffering,” Netanyahu said. “Sometimes also through smiles, sometimes also through arguments, but it is being acquired by us. We are not giving up, we have a vision, this is our land, and it will remain ours.”
Some wish to uproot Israelis not only from Judea and Samaria but “altogether from the State of Israel,” Israel’s longest-serving prime minister continued.
This campaign “has gained considerable momentum and exposure during the three years of the War of Revival,” he said, referring to the ongoing multifront war that began when thousands of Palestinian terrorists from Gaza invaded southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
“The axis [led by Iran] that we broke has not yet disappeared,” Netanyahu said. “But we are determined to ensure that there will be no threat—not from the Gaza Strip, and we have done a great deal on that front; not from Lebanon, and we have done a great deal there; not from Syria—we have security zones today inside those countries.
Netanyahu praised the Trump administration for tightening economic sanctions against those assisting the Iranian regime, describing the move as “very important.”
From Ian:
UN charity once chaired by Hunter Biden stands by Texas money man after Post reveals DHS probe into $100M anti-Israel ‘war chest’
A UN-backed charity once chaired by Hunter Biden is standing by a Texas money man even as federal investigators probe his group’s possible ties to sanctioned Palestinian organizations, The Post has learned.
The World Food Program USA wiped its entire leadership roster from its website just days after this newspaper revealed the federal inquiry into PFF and its backers, including Basil Qunibi and a group of well-heeled Palestinian donors.
But despite the mounting controversy, the nonprofit insists the founder of Austin-based Atom Investors isn’t going anywhere and blamed the bizarrely timed disappearance of his profile on a routine IT issue.
“Both our staff and board pages are down for maintenance,” a WFP USA spokesperson told The Post. “Basil Qunibi is a member of our Board of Directors.”
They added that the IT work “will conclude by next week.” The rest of the organization’s website, including its donation portals, mission pages, and press releases, remained fully operational on Tuesday afternoon.
The Washington-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit raises money for the United Nations’ food assistance agency. Hunter Biden chaired the organization from 2011 to 2015, which overlapped with some of his controversial business dealings while Joe Biden served as vice-president under Barack Obama.
The website change followed The Post’s story detailing a Department of Homeland Security investigation into PFF and its backers.
It revealed the involvement of Qunibi, Australian billionaire and racecar driver Yasser Shahin, and Bassema Yousef, a Democratic fundraiser who is close to Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in the pro-Palestinian group.
Sources said federal investigators are scrutinizing the trio’s involvement in PFF, an alleged $100 million UK-based political ‘war chest’ that helps fund anti-Israel messaging and provides support to Palestinian activists.
The feds are tracking the entity’s cross-border financial flows tied to anti-Israel advocacy and possible links to sanctioned organizations.
Authorities have not charged any of the trio with wrongdoing. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to The Post’s request for comment.
But Qunibi’s representatives have since retreated from initial claims made to The Post that he did not finance PFF.
Maureen Lipman slams ‘sanctimonious’ actors who ‘forced’ Boy George out of West End role over pro-Israel song
Dame Maureen Lipman has defended Boy George in an op-ed in the Spectator discussing her own 13-week experience performing Allegra amidst the palpable burden of pro-Palestine protests.
In May, the Jewish actor and JC contributor found herself the target of the anti-Israel mob when due to perform the musical in Aberdeen.
The Scottish city’s branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) shared a graphic of Lipman with horns and holding a pitchfork, claiming on its Instagram that she had “openly voiced extremist Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab views”, and urging supporters to sign a petition against her performance.
The group further labelled her “an open supporter of the settler-colonial, apartheid state of Israel, which continues to commit genocide, and is ethnically cleansing the West Bank”.
On finishing her most recent West End stint, she wrote in her op-ed: “The gang of protestors who tried to boycott me from theatres in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Bath for believing in the state of Israel’s right to exist went underground in London.
“They were replaced by an altruistic band of brethren of all faiths called Mensch, who turned up to protest against the protestors. God bless them.”
She went on to talk about Boy George, who has, in recent weeks, also become the target of anti-Israel protesters after defending Israel most notably in his new song We Will Dance Again.
Lipman wrote that while her West End experience went off without any protest, “A group of sanctimonious actors forced Boy George out of his contract to play King Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar.
“They allegedly pressured producer Michael Harrison into sacking Boy George because he has, in a brave song called We Will Dance Again, defended Israel’s right to defend itself after the Hamas pogrom.
“In other words, Boy George has a different political stance from some of the cast. Powerful people. The show itself concerns a nice Jewish rabbi fighting prejudice from angry mobs in his ancestral home of Israel.”
Lauded Australian director Kosky decries anti-Semitism
The main character of The Trial is arrested and finds himself trapped in an absurdly complicated legal system, trying desperately to find out what he has done wrong.
Readers of the novel never discover the answer, but in Kosky's version the trial is an examination of the author's Judaism, an attribute which is sometimes forgotten in discussion of his work.
Oh, and there's singing and dancing - including a tap dancing Rabbi.
The production is in German, Hebrew, and Yiddish, with surtitles translated from Kafka's stories - so for English-speaking audiences that haven't read Kafka, they will be reading him during the show.
In previous years Kosky has brought operatic productions to Adelaide, and in 2024 The Threepenny Opera, also with the Berliner Ensemble.
AAP spoke to the director just before the final block of public hearings for Australia's anti-Semitism royal commission, called in response to the terrorist attack at Bondi beach which saw 15 people killed and another 40 wounded.
Melbourne-born Kosky, 59, hasn't lived in Australia for 26 years, but laments the nation's public discourse, which he says has morphed from legitimate political criticism into discussion so polarised it has become terrifying and dangerous.
"We have crossed over into 'should the state of Israel exist?' which has never happened in any other country ... (It) leads us into rampant 21st century anti-Semitism, of a type that we have not seen for decades," he said.
He's vehemently opposed to the Israeli government, but cautions that Jewish people from both Israel and the diaspora are being forced to take reductive positions on complex issues, in response to a performative moral outrage from non-Jews.
"You can be a good Jew if you basically disown Israel, disown Zionism, disown Jewish culture, and say absolutely free Palestine," he said.
K has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism, Gaza, Israel or the Holocaust, said Kosky - it's fundamentally a show about Jewish spirituality and culture.
Perhaps that's timely, as he perceives Jewish people again becoming a scapegoat for the world's evils.
"It's a perfect storm and I don't know how we get out of it, because this is the time you want dialogue, compassion, empathy - most of the yelling offers no solutions."
K is at Her Majesty's Theatre from March 4-7.
From Ian:
The Undisputed Answer to Israel's Legitimacy
I am an Arab Muslim and have spent years advocating for peace and reconciliation between Muslims and Jews. I have never understood why acknowledging the ancient Jewish connection to this land should be considered threatening to Muslims. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example that demolishes the claim that Jewish attachment to the land is a recent political invention created by Europeans in the 19th or 20th centuries.
The ancient manuscripts found in caves near the Dead Sea were written by Jews living in this region more than 2,000 years ago. I do not see something that belongs to a civilization completely foreign to me. I see part of the religious and historical landscape from which Christianity emerged and which Islam itself repeatedly acknowledges. This is why I believe Muslims should be among the last people to deny ancient Jewish history.
The Quran is filled with the history of the Children of Israel. Moses is mentioned more frequently in the Quran than any other prophet. The Quran speaks of King David, Solomon, Aaron, Joseph and the tribes of Israel. It acknowledges the Torah and repeatedly places its own religious message in conversation with earlier Jewish and Christian traditions. There is therefore something deeply strange, in my view, about some Muslims feeling that we must erase Jewish history in order to defend Arab or Palestinian rights.
Peace will never be built by creating historical amnesia. For decades, political arguments surrounding Israel have frequently attempted to deny Jewish history altogether, pretending that a nation did not exist on its ancestral homeland. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that Jewish communities lived in this land, developed religious institutions in this land, and debated the meaning of their faith in this land centuries before Islam appeared and centuries before modern European nationalism existed.
History cannot become something we recognize only when it supports our political position. If archaeology proves something uncomfortable, we should not destroy the archaeology. We should adjust our understanding. For Muslims in particular, recognizing the Jewish people's ancient connection to this land should not frighten us. It does not diminish Islam. It simply requires intellectual honesty.
Prof. Efraim Inbar:
A Realistic National Strategy for Israel
Israel remains small in both territory and population compared to most of its Middle Eastern rivals, and despite its economic prosperity, its resources remain limited. Its long-term survival cannot be taken for granted. Israel must therefore maintain constant readiness for armed conflict and for the battle over its legitimacy.
Any state must align its goals with the resources at its disposal and avoid overreach. Unlike a great power, a small state cannot set the rules of the international system or significantly shape its regional environment. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, understood that military power alone could not compel Israel's neighbors to make peace. Israel could build an "iron wall" (a concept coined by his political rival Ze'ev Jabotinsky) that would thwart its neighbors' plans to destroy it, in the hope that over time, the states of the region would come to accept it.
The military achievements against Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon, the establishment of security zones in Syria and in Lebanon, and the attacks on Iran's nuclear and missile infrastructure in 2025 and 2026 have undoubtedly improved Israel's security situation and regional standing. Israel demonstrated exceptional military and intelligence capabilities and exacted a heavy price from its enemies.
Yet military victories are time-bound in their political effects, and the motivation to challenge Israel's existence has remained persistently high. There is limited basis for assuming that even severe military defeat necessarily erodes an adversary's willingness to pursue long-term strategic objectives.
The main assumption behind Israel's national strategy should remain, regrettably, that the Middle East does not change quickly. The region remains a source of religious extremism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. Israel continues to lack legitimacy in much of the Arab and Muslim worlds. Israel's improved regional standing resulted from recognition of Israeli military power rather than from a fundamental shift in public attitudes.
Israel cannot subdue Iran, a nation of 90 million people led by an Islamic clerical elite that is relatively insensitive to the costs of sustained confrontation. Israel can, however, significantly degrade Iran's capacity to inflict harm upon it. Hamas and Hizbullah also cannot be decisively defeated so long as they retain substantial popular support and continue to receive state backing for military development and funding.
Israel has not succeeded in disarming Hamas in Judea and Samaria, where it has maintained military control since 1967. These organizations can be weakened, and their operational capabilities significantly reduced, but they cannot be fully eliminated as long as they retain mass domestic support and receive substantial external assistance.
When no attainable political solution is in sight, the most realistic goal becomes the denial of enemy capabilities and objectives. Israeli military operations are designed precisely to prevent the other side from achieving its strategic aims.
Amb. Alan Baker:
The Penchant for Blaming Israel and Jews for Everything
There is something deeply troubling about the manner in which Israel and the Jewish people have once again become the focus of an extraordinary campaign of political condemnation, public vilification, and international hostility. Public figures feel able to malign Israel and Jews in sweeping, inflammatory and often baseless terms - and to do so with the apparent confidence that social media will provide them with millions of receptive followers. Hostility toward Israel and Jews has become socially acceptable, politically advantageous, and increasingly immune from serious scrutiny.
In Europe, when governments and political leaders in Ireland, Spain, Canada, Australia, and Britain appear willing to embrace, or lend credence to, false allegations of genocide and deliberate starvation against Israel and its leaders without the factual and legal basis for such allegations, one must ask whether European governments have become incapable, or unwilling, to resist politically motivated campaigns against Israel.
Many Western governments have historically sponsored, financed, and supported the Oslo process and subsequent Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Those agreements created reciprocal obligations and were intended to provide the legal and political framework for resolving outstanding issues through negotiation. Yet when states that helped create and endorse that framework subsequently support initiatives that bypass, weaken, or undermine its fundamental commitments, the credibility of their own diplomatic guarantees is inevitably called into question.
One must therefore ask: what confidence can Israel, or any state, place in international assurances concerning future agreements if the states providing those assurances are themselves prepared to disregard or circumvent the commitments embodied in existing agreements? The issue is whether fundamental principles of international relations and treaty commitments are to be respected.
Israel appears repeatedly to be treated as an exceptional case: subjected to an extraordinary level of international scrutiny, condemnation and political pressure. Legitimate criticism is an essential component of democratic discourse. But criticism becomes something entirely different when it is selective, disproportionate, detached from facts, or based upon standards that are not applied consistently to other states and peoples.
From Ian:
Brendan O'Neill:
Gazaholics like Gary Lineker are a menace to reason
Are we going to talk about this? About the fact that Gary Lineker, footballer turned podcast impresario, for years one of the highest-paid talking heads at the BBC, is sharing a post from a group that said the Islamist butcher of ISIS had been a ‘kind, gentle’ soul? Worse, a post containing flagrant Holocaust inversion, where the Jewish homeland is grossly reimagined as the moral heir to Nazism? No? We’re just going to let it slide?
It is a testament to the virulence of Israelophobia, to its almost total conquest of the bourgeois mind, that stuff like this barely makes a ripple these days. There was a time when if a well-known public figure had hyped a CAGE post and platformed the noxious idea that the Jewish State is Nazi-like, people would have said: ‘Oh, what’s going on here?’ Not anymore. So thoroughly has polite society been colonised by bug-eyed anti-Israel animus that Lineker’s antics provoke no emotional response at all. Except perhaps haughty nods of approval.
Lineker has form. He parted ways with the BBC last year over what the press rather politely called ‘an anti-Semitism controversy’ – he had reposted a delirious rant about Zionism that was illustrated with a rat. Zionists as vermin? Classy. And then these people have the nerve to call others Nazis, despite their own giddy rehashing or reposting of the Nazi-era notion that Jews are the rodents of humanity.
Equating Zionism to Nazism is not clever political critique – it is raw, unadulterated bigotry. As the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance says in its working definition of anti-Semitism, it is racist to ‘[draw] comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’. Howard Jacobson said it best. There are untold wars from history that the Israel-Hamas War could be compared with, he said. The reason they compare it with the Holocaust is because their lowlife aim is ‘to wound Jews… to punish them with their own grief’. It’s Jew-shaming masquerading as pacifism.
Lineker sums up the commenting class’s pathological loss of moral proportion. The way these people talk, you’d think Israel’s pursuit of the Islamofascists of Hamas was the worst war of modernity, a ‘crime’ as racist and insane as the Nazis’. Yet Lineker himself is pals with a bloke – Alastair Campbell – whose political fabulism helped to launch a war in Iraq that on every moral metric was worse than what’s happened in the Middle East these past three years. I wonder if Lineker has ever called Al a rat-like killer of kids who’s not dissimilar to Hitler?
Lineker’s descent from dull but knowledgeable sports fella into the Zio-rat guy is proof that Israelophobia turns your mind to mush. The spotty kid who watches hours of Tate has nothing on these Boomers and geriatric millennials who brainlessly lap up every hyper-edited, context-free clip from Gaza as hard proof that Israel is a monstrous entity. This is real online radicalisation: the frying of a million middle-class brains by algorithmic bigotry and the moral pornography of war.
We are witnessing the great cognitive collapse of the Western liberal elite. A media establishment that once prided itself on scepticism and intellectual rigour now acts like an army of mind-wiped converts to a digital cult. Lineker and the rest of the Israel-wary class are not leading a moral awakening – they’re the latest victims of an internet ecosystem that rewards superficial emotionalism and punishes nuance. We need a Gazaholics Anonymous, stat.
Mamdani silent on calls for antisemitic Brooklyn pol’s resignation
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani refused on Monday to answer questions about a Brooklyn Democratic leader who promoted Henry Ford’s The International Jew and blamed a property dispute on “Zionists.”
Following an unrelated event in Queens, the mayor refused to answer on three separate occasions when Jewish Insider pressed him about Carmella Charrington, elected in June to the unpaid but important role of Democratic district leader. As first reported by JI, Charrington shared an Instagram video last fall boosting the notorious pamphlet series by the founder of the Ford Motor Company, a clip that blamed Jewish people for a range of societal maladies from slavery to the proliferation of alcohol and drugs.
Charrington first rose to prominence over a dispute over control of her family home, describing herself as a victim of deed theft, while New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ office found that the battle over her brownstone in Bedford-Stuyvesant was simply a complicated dispute over the estate of her Alzheimer’s-stricken father. Charrington has attacked the Jewish investors involved as “Zionists” and suggested some link between her situation and Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
After publication, Mamdani’s team reached out with a statement addressing Charrington’s attacks on the property investors.
“Suggesting that an alleged deed theft in Brooklyn is part of a global conspiracy involving Jewish people is blatant, reprehensible antisemitism,” the statement said. “Trafficking in these dangerous antisemitic tropes is vile and inexcusable.”
However, the administration did not answer a follow-up question about whether the mayor believed Charrington should step aside from her district leader role.
JI’s reporting on Charrington’s antisemitic posts prompted condemnations from James and from New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, though neither has called for her to step aside from her district leader position.
Meanwhile Democrats aligned with Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Rodneyse Bichotte — whom Charrington and her slate aim to remove — have demanded Charrington’s resignation.
Mamdani Hired Staffer for His Friend's Campaign Who Was Later Arrested for 'Terroristic Threat' Against Teenage 'Lexus-Driving, Israel-Loving Zionists'
Zohran Mamdani hired a campaign staffer who was later arrested for making a "terroristic threat" against Jewish students, the Washington Free Beacon can reveal. Mamdani made the hire in 2018, when he was running the failed State Senate campaign of the now-disgraced journalist and Mamdani hagiographer Ross Barkan.
The staffer hired by Mamdani, Iman Abdul, was arrested in August 2025 after posting a Google Maps screenshot of the location of Leon M. Goldstein High School for the Sciences in Manhattan Beach.
"If anyone needs a public school in NYC to attack for whatever reason … Lexus driving Israhell [sic] loving Zionisits [sic] all attend here," she added in a caption to the now-deleted post.
The public school is in a Brooklyn neighborhood with a large Jewish population. The school is 63 percent students of color, and 66 percent of the student body are "economically disadvantaged," according to city records. There are also multiple Jewish schools in the area that serve high school students.
Abdul, who went on to work as a youth organizer for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), was promptly arrested by the NYPD and charged with making a "terroristic threat," acting in a manner injurious to a child, aggravated harassment, and making a threat of mass harm, the New York Post reported at the time.
She pleaded guilty earlier this month to aggravated harassment as a hate crime, a felony. She was given a sweetheart deal by Brooklyn's far-left district attorney, Eric Gonzalez (D.), which allowed her to avoid jail time. In exchange for completing 20 counseling sessions, the charges would be knocked down to a misdemeanor, Post über-sleuth Susan B. Edelman reported on her Substack.
What quietly went unreported, however, was that Abdul was a paid canvasser for Barkan's unsuccessful 2018 campaign for New York State Senate in Brooklyn—earning $540 between July and August of that year from Team Barkan, state campaign finance records show.
‘Felt like a lynch mob,’ mom of 4-year-old says of NYC-funded festival, in which performer accuses Israel of ‘war crimes’
A Brooklyn Jewish mom expected an entertaining outing when she took her 4-year-old to a recent puppet festival. Instead, she found herself and her son listening to a recitation of Israel’s “war crimes” and keffiyah-clad performers taking part in a Gaza flotilla during a show billed as being about the quirks of living in New York City.
The performances were part of International Puppet Fringe Festival NYC, which is partially funded by the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and New York State Council on the Arts, and took place in lower Manhattan from Aug. 12 to 16.
“They started with relatable New York skits, like about the pizza rat,” the mom, who declined to be named “because of the current environment,” told JNS, of a viral video of a rat dragging a discarded slice of pizza in a city subway station.
Another skit was about the perils of parking on New York City streets. “Performers had a cardboard car and showed the parallel parking shuffle,” when street cleaning rules require drivers to move their cars from one side of residential streets to the other, the mom said.
During the city-themed parts, the mom, who came to the United States from the former Soviet Union as a 7-year-old, told JNS that she “and the audience were one.”
“Everyone liked it,” she said.
After about 15 minutes, “a woman came in with a piece of paper and began reading a litany of accusations against Israel, and people began chanting ‘shame, shame,’” she told JNS.
Soon after that, eight performers grouped as a flotilla of ships bound for Gaza, the mother said.
“It felt like a lynch mob,” she told JNS. (JNS sought comment from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs.)
“You feel naked, because you realize all these people knew who I was,” she said, since she didn’t join in the chant. “If I was by myself I would have just made an exit, but I was with my family and had a bunch of belongings.”
The experience was “pretty nauseating” for the mom.
“I’m an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, so antisemitism is why I’m here in the first place,” she told JNS. “To see it out in full effect in the daylight is awful.”
From Ian:
'I wanted to die': Husband and wife kidnapped on October 7 reveal hell they endured in Gaza - from seeing girls 'beaten to pieces' and sexually assaulted to being starved and tortured
When Aviva Siegel thinks back to the 51 days she spent as a hostage in Gaza, the spectre of Israeli women returning from sexual assault, bleeding and bruised, crowds her mind.
'I'm a witness of all of the girls who were beaten up into pieces,' she tells the Daily Mail from her home in northern Israel.
When one girl came back after the abuse, 'she was purple; I wanted to die,' Aviva admits. 'That was one of the hardest moments: knowing what was happening to the young girls.'
Women around the 65-year-old were forced by their Hamas captors into wearing tight, barely fitting clothing, and showering naked in front of the terrorists – with one guard entering the bathroom and forcing a girl into performing oral sex.
She sits next to her husband, Keith, who was kidnapped alongside her from their former home in Kibbutz Kfar Aza on October 7, 2023, one of the hardest-hit communities during Hamas' deadly onslaught.
It's almost been three years since that fateful day, yet the duo are still haunted by a mental 'album of pictures' from Gaza. 'Sometimes they run after me, and try to control me, and control my head,' Aviva says.
Keith, 67, who wasn't freed until after 484 days in the enclave, still finds himself obsessively showering, convinced he is somehow still imprinted by the 'dirt, the dust, the smoke' of the underground tunnel network.
'I even think, to this day, that I haven't been able to get rid of some of it. I sometimes have weird thoughts about not being clean,' he says.
Aviva, who was born in South Africa, released a book about the harrowing experience in March named 'The Main Thing is to Wake up to a New Morning,' written following her November 2023 release from captivity.
'Everybody who reads the book will feel what it's like to be a hostage in Gaza, underneath the ground, feeling like it's the end of the world,' she says.
Their story starts off the same as the thousands of other Israeli survivors of the massacre, which saw 1,200 people killed and 250 taken captive by Hamas.
On the morning of October 7, the couple bolted up at 6.30am to the sound of sirens blaring.
At 10.30am, Hamas gunmen stormed their home and broke into the safe room where they were hiding.
'They pulled us violently, brutally, out of the safe room, into our living room, and we were surrounded by between ten and 15 terrorists, screaming at each other and screaming at us,' Keith says.
During the brutal kidnapping, which saw militants ordering the couple to exit their home through the back window, Keith's ribs were broken and the meniscus in Aviva's knee was torn.
On the way to the car, terrorists shot Keith in the arm. Once in the vehicle, the couple sat, petrified, with one militant holding a knife to their faces and the other a gun.
Once in Gaza, Aviva was told to wear a hijab, while Keith was put in a robe.
The couple were kept together, but that brought little solace for Aviva, who was constantly terrified she'd witness her husband's death by asphyxiation in the torturous tunnel network.
In new book, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib argues Hamas has held Palestinian population hostage for 20 years
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, who lived in the Gaza Strip from the age of 10-15, describes himself as an advocate for the Palestinian people. Since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led terror attacks in Israel, 33 of Alkhatib’s immediate and extended family members have been killed. But in his latest book, Hamas and Its Two Million Hostages, Alkhatib argues that Hamas — rather than Israel — bears primary responsibility for the suffering and political stagnation of the people of Gaza.
Alkhatib is a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he directs Realign for Palestine, a project focused on pragmatic, nonviolent Palestinian advocacy. There, he denounces Hamas and advocates for Palestinian statehood alongside a secure Jewish state.
On Friday, Alkhatib spoke with Jewish Insider about his new book, his experiences growing up in Gaza and his outspoken criticism of Hamas. He also discussed the backlash he has faced from within his own community and why he believes that, ultimately, the terrorist group will have no role in the enclave’s future.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Jewish Insider: What inspired you to write Hamas and Its Two Million Hostages, and what does your book add to public debate on this issue that isn’t already out there?
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: I wanted to weave in elements of my personal story with Gaza’s contemporary history, and add a human dimension to what I felt was Hamas’ devastating impact on the Palestinian people, their destructive role in setting back the Palestinian national project and the radicalization of the society.
I felt that there’s a consistent gap in the discourse from a Palestinian self-interested point of view. Even though many Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims will tell you privately how devastating Hamas is, there’s a disconnect in the discourse outside of Gaza versus inside Gaza — where you’ll find a ton more willingness to speak out, not just because of the consequences of Oct. 7, but because of the totality of the last 20 years of their rule.
One of the things that’s really frustrating is how there is this persistent narrative that Gazans are all Hamas, Gazans support Hamas. It’s very difficult for the other side, for the Israelis and the pro-Israel folks, to see the humanity of Palestinians because they so fundamentally believe that Gaza is inseparable from Hamas. Nevertheless, I argue and maintain that directly and indirectly, Hamas has taken Gaza captive and is holding 2 million people as hostages.
Khaled Abu Toameh:
Repurposed Jihadists: Palestinian Terrorist Organizations Reborn as Political Parties
Why should Egypt be searching for a formula that would facilitate Hamas's return to Palestinian politics? Should Egypt and the rest of the international community not instead be demanding that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad surrender their weapons, dismantle their military structures, and disappear from Palestinian political life?
This new Palestinian "unity" alliance being planned would mean that instead of producing new and moderate Palestinian leaders, the election could result in a parliament in which Hamas, PIJ, and other rejectionist groups become major political power brokers and representatives of the Palestinians.
Is this really what Washington and its Western allies want? Are Western governments once again entertaining the fantasy that Islamist terrorist organizations can be transformed into legitimate political parties?
Hamas members can remove their military uniforms and put on suits. PIJ operatives can replace their rifles with election posters. They can talk about democracy, elections, and political partnership. None of that necessarily changes what they plan.
A "Western-driven disaster" could be developing in which accountability for Hamas is replaced by efforts to rescue the organization politically. "Hamas must never again be trusted with Palestinian politics. It should face the kind of post-defeat reckoning that Nazi Germany faced after World War Two or that the Baathist regimes of Iraq and Syria faced after their collapse. Why would a defeated terror organization that inflicted immense damage on its own people, its neighbors, and the entire region be offered an exit strategy or a political off-ramp? What possible campaign promise could Hamas present that makes it worthy of consideration in Palestinian elections? More war and jihad (holy war)? More governance failures? More corruption and theft of aid? Hamas is a spent force, a used and discarded object, a wrecked entity that cannot be repaired or repurposed." — Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian-American analyst from Gaza, X. August 21, 2026.
"Western governments, elites, and observers continue to display remarkable naivete about the Middle East, Arab political culture, and ideologically driven movements. Democracy is not simply voting at a booth. It is the creation of a democratic tradition, a free society, an open media environment, and a civic ethos that is not driven by ideology, religion, or extremism. The United States, under a Republican administration twenty years ago, made a grave mistake by insisting on elections that included Hamas. Will the Trump administration repeat the same error once again?" — Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, X, August 21, 2026.
The problem with the Western approach then was the assumption that participation in elections would moderate Hamas. Instead, Hamas used elections to gain legitimacy and power while retaining its weapons, ideology, and terrorist infrastructure.
There is no reason to believe that things would be different now. Hamas and PIJ might even accept cleverly-worded conditions to enable them to participate. They might go as far as saying they accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. They will say whatever is necessary to get through the political door.
The real questions should be simpler: Will Hamas, PIJ and other Palestinian terrorist organizations recognize Israel's right to exist? Will they renounce terrorism? Will they surrender all their weapons? Will they dismantle their military wings? Will they abandon jihad as a means of eliminating Israel?
Unless the answer to all these questions is unequivocally yes, terrorists should have no role in elections, government, or Palestinian decision-making.
After October 7, 2023, the international community should be discussing how to remove Hamas and PIJ from Palestinian political and military life – not how to help them have seats in parliament.
From Ian:
A Place for Healing Amid the Holocaust
REVIEW: 'The Jewish Hospital' by Jonathan Hammel
Yad Vashem estimates nearly 200,000 books have been written about the Holocaust. We gain some fragments of insight from such works as André Schwarz-Bart's Last of the Just, Primo Levi's Survival in Auschwitz, Nikolaus Wachsmann's comprehensive history, and even Mel Brooks's parodies.
To decide to write a new book about the Holocaust is a curious endeavor in the face of that vast body of literature and its nearly endless variety. But the true story of the Jewish Hospital of Berlin is so unlikely, even absurd, that it justifies yet another addition to that literary genre.
Jonathan Hammel's historical novel recounts how the Nazis allowed a hospital staffed by and serving only Jews to exist throughout the entire duration of the Third Reich. He does it through the story of his grandmother, Gerda Schild Haas, who worked as a nurse in the hospital.
The setting is March 1943, a full year after the Wannsee Conference where Reinhard Heydrich and 15 officials of the Reich agreed to the final solution of the Jewish question. Earlier plans for emigration of Jews to welcoming countries failed as there were no welcoming countries. Later emigration to neighboring countries only led to death as the Nazis swept through Eastern Europe and killed as many Jews as they found. But a more efficient and organized solution was in the offing.
The rationale for this hospital reveals the ludicrous and insane mindset of the Nazi bureaucracy. Apparently, they believed the 70,000 Jews of Berlin needed to be in good physical shape before they were transported to the labor camps like Sachsenhausen where they survived an average of about two weeks or to the death camp of Auschwitz where they lasted about two hours. Any pregnant women would deliver their babies there and then go on transports to their death.
Some of the characters in the book have been given pseudonyms, including the author's grandmother. Gerda Schild Haas is called Lena Schild, and her close friend Sophie Gollschmidt portrays Stella Goldschlag, a notorious Nazi collaborator forced to spy on her fellow Jews. Schild eventually is sent to Theresienstadt camp, the Potemkin village created by the Nazis to pretend that Jews were well treated whenever any investigation was performed. The actual head of the hospital, Dr. Walter Lustig, retains his name. Lustig was a physician who lost his license as part of the Nuremberg Laws but worked closely with the Nazis in his efforts to keep the hospital open, prevent the staff from being deported to the camps, and ensuring his own survival.
Several incidents that the staff of the hospital actually experienced are presented in this fictional account. Attempts at deporting 50 percent of the staff were avoided by playing off the bureaucratic wrangling between the Gestapo and the SS squads over jurisdiction of the hospital. Children were housed there, and some avoided deportation. Jews who worked in the hospital were recruited as Nazi spies to identify Jews who were living openly in Berlin under assumed names and identities. Adolf Eichmann and Alois Brunner appear in the novel and were involved in overseeing the hospital as part of their portfolio in organizing the destruction of European Jewry.
Tevi Troy:
New York Isn't the Same for Jews
When I was growing up in Queens in the 1970s, about 2,000 Jews would worship on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur at my synagogue.
If there were police outside, they were there only to direct traffic, not to provide protection.
This year, every synagogue in New York has a security committee; police presence is a necessity - not because of traffic.
While Jews once felt safe walking the streets of the city - or at least only as threatened as everybody else - now they feel, with good reason, as if they have targets on their backs. In July, 70% of hate crimes in New York targeted Jews.
The pervasive threat is a constant topic of conversation. Why don't comparable non-Jewish institutions need the same layers of security?
What's happening in New York is about more than one mayor running an administration oddly focused on demonizing Israel.
The atmosphere is changing the character of what was once America's most Jewish city and making it simply another place.
From Ian:
Islamism and the silence of the ‘progressives’
The confusion concerning the right is almost amusing. Islamism is a movement of the reactionary right upon every criterion anybody has yet proposed: theocratic, restorationist, preoccupied with sexual order and the obedience of women; anti-Semitic across the greater part of its strands, and hostile to pluralism as a matter of doctrine rather than of temper. Abul A’la Maududi (1903-1979), born in what would become Pakistan, wrote that his Islamic state would bear a resemblance to the fascist and Communist states, and that no man might regard any department of his affairs as private. Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb prescribed offensive jihad in order to establish divine authority over the whole Earth. These are not caricatures assembled by enemies but published positions, argued at length by Islamism’s own principal theorists. They would be astonished to discover that European academics account them ‘progressive’ by default.
That so many liberals, leftists and ‘progressives’ should prove incapable of recognising a reactionary movement unless its adherents happen to be European is a parochialism so profound that it has become invisible to those it afflicts. It rests on the unexamined premise that reaction is a white speciality, and whatever that premise may be, it is not anti-racism.
We have been here before, and recently enough that novelty cannot be pleaded. In June 2020, Khairi Saadallah murdered three men in a park in Reading, 17 days after his release from prison. His defence advanced mental illness. Mr Justice Sweeney rejected it, and found the killings to be terrorism, committed for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. The men were James Furlong, David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, three friends who had gone out to enjoy a summer evening in Forbury Gardens. Ritchie-Bennett had lost his husband to cancer six years earlier, while Furlong left a long-term partner. The local Pride organisation knew all three of them. Whether their sexuality had anything to do with why they were chosen was raised at the time and then, by some quiet process of attrition, stopped being raised at all. I too had forgotten their names until the days after the Christopher Street Day attack.
One academic writing on LinkedIn, offered warmly and I am sure sincerely, claimed that when there are atrocities in the Middle East to be marched against, it is Muslims who turn out alongside gay and bisexual and women’s groups, and that all of us ought to bear this in mind. Two things are wrong with that. Firstly, there’s the flippancy of producing it at all within hours of this attack, as though the pressing question were which alliances must now be shielded from the consequences. The second and larger problem is that the claim is not true, except in a few streets in Western Europe. Muslims and gay people do march together in London and Berlin; nobody disputes it. But homosexuality remains a criminal offence across much of the Muslim world, and a capital one in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Brunei and the northern states of Nigeria. A fact about who attends demonstrations in two European capitals has been offered as though it were evidence about a doctrine practised, and enforced, on three continents.
There is worse in the sentence, and I doubt it was intended. Muslims stand alongside gay people, it is stated, as though these were two separate populations, drawn up in ranks against a common enemy, with nobody standing in both. The formulation has nowhere to put a gay Muslim: which is to say nowhere to put the person with more at stake here than anybody arguing about it. Berlin has a queer Muslim congregation, and a mosque founded by a woman who needs police protection in order to run it, and some of those in the Tiergarten on that Saturday night last month will have been both things at once. Nobody decided to leave them out, it is simply that the framework herein has no place for them, so it leaves them out automatically, and it will do so again the next time somebody drives a van into a crowd.
There will be another case of this kind. When it comes, nobody should have to choose between the collective indictment of Muslims and the collective acquittal of Islamism. The first is bigotry and the second is a lie. Name the dead before discussing the electoral consequences of their deaths. State what the murderer believed, who preached it to him and what the authorities already knew. Defend Muslims against reprisals, certainly; but defend also the gay, female, secular, liberal and apostate among them against the reactionaries who claim ownership of their lives. These are not competing obligations and only the dishonest have an interest in pretending that they are.
And do this before the usual people arrive to explain that candour will assist the far right. Nothing has assisted the far right more reliably than the surrender to it of facts that everybody else is too frightened to mention. The next atrocity will be followed by the same liturgy: grief, warning, euphemism, evasion and, finally, amnesia. It need not be. Refuse the first euphemism. Ask the forbidden question before the fanatic supplies the only answer. And when reaction comes disguised as religion, extend it neither the courtesy of silence nor the compliment of lowered expectations. One is not obliged to choose which eye to close. Next time, keep both open.
Before lecturing Israel, Britain and France should look in the mirror
France and Britain like to lecture Israel in the name of Western values. That is precisely why it is time to hold up a mirror to them: Both countries are undergoing profound demographic, cultural and political changes, while political Islam and radical movements are exerting growing influence on public and political discourse. A group does not need to become a majority to influence political parties, elections and foreign policy.
The beginnings of this process can already be seen today, including in the debate over Israel and the Middle East. This does not mean, of course, that every Muslim is an extremist, nor that an Islamist government will take power in London or Paris tomorrow morning. The argument is different: No one can guarantee who will govern either country 30 or 50 years from now, or what values those governments will uphold. Governments change. Nuclear arsenals remain.
Europe, in fact, is currently moving in the opposite direction. France is strengthening its nuclear deterrent and seeking to expand its role in the continent's security. Britain and France are deepening their cooperation, while Germany is moving toward closer strategic cooperation with the French deterrent. But serious security policy does not consider only who controls a weapon today. It must also ask who could inherit it tomorrow.
France and Britain should therefore begin, now, a long, responsible and controlled process that would ultimately lead them to voluntarily relinquish their national nuclear arsenals. Not tomorrow morning, not unilaterally and not at the cost of abandoning Europe's security.
Precisely because such disarmament could take many years, the decision should be made while these countries are still governed by leaders seeking to preserve the liberal and democratic values of the West. Those who wish to defend Western values must also protect the West's most dangerous weapons against the possibility that, one day, they could fall under the control of governments that do not share those values.
Germany bears a particular responsibility in this regard. Germany's commitment to "Never Again" cannot be merely a remembrance of the past. It must also mean an enduring responsibility for the security of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
Exactly because Berlin is now deepening its nuclear-deterrence dialogue with Paris, it should lead Europe in asking the question no one wants to confront: Is it wise to build the continent's security for the coming decades around national nuclear arsenals when we cannot know the future political character of the countries that will control them?
Beware Turkish tanks on the Golan
At the moment, NATO cannot afford a complete rupture with a country that controls the Turkish Straits and hosts US nuclear weapons. But at the very least, a "reciprocity standard" should be applied to Turkey. Contracts with that country must be tied to its foreign policy and military conduct.
Human rights standards should pertain to Turkey too. Erdoğan has jailed more journalists, judges, generals, and academics than any other country in the world, including China. He is building 40,000 new jail cells to handle the overload. He is creating an authoritarian system to suit his imperial purposes.
So, Erdoğan needs to be cut down to size, and his madly ferocious foreign and military policies put in a box. American and European leaders who prioritize stability in the region ought to weigh in against Erdoğan's overly ambitious and aggressive schemes.
They should not be censuring Israel when it necessarily acts to drive Erdoğan back from the brink.
Remember: The past three years of devastating enemy attacks on Israel taught Israelis an important lesson – which is the need to maintain a proactive defense posture including strategic ascendancy against enemies near and far.
Consequently, Israel will not return to the containment policies of recent decades that prioritized restraint and diplomacy over enemy degradation and military triumph. This approach allowed enemies to develop attack capabilities under the cover of diplomatic breathing time; what some Western officials mistakenly called periods of "stability."
That approach blew up in Israel's face, with terror and invasion from the West Bank and Gaza and from Syria and Lebanon, and with the march of Iran's nuclear bomb program to near completion and Iran's ballistic missile array to near-annihilation-of-Israel potential.
The lessons Israel has learned apply to Turkey too. From Idlib to Erbil, Israel will attack, if necessary, not defend. It will insist on jihadist-free buffer zones along its borders with Lebanon and Syria. It will not tolerate the placement on its doorstep of equilibrium-breaking strategic weapon systems nor abide the advance of threatening foreign armies and navies.
From Ian:
Antizionism unites people who disagree on almost everything.
Politics built on grievance and blame can be extraordinarily effective because it offers a simple answer to complex problems: Identify a common enemy and unite otherwise disparate groups against it.
Professor of Yiddish Literature at Harvard University Ruth Wisse asserts that antisemitism and antizionism are unusual among modern ideologies because they are exclusively negative. Even socialism, communism, and totalitarianism promise people something in their attempt to win them over.
Pointing the finger at Jews has a long record, which historians and archaeologists date back to the Jewish Exodus from the Egypt of the pharaohs in the 13th century BCE. But here I want to focus on its modern political forms. These “anti-isms,” as Wisse calls them, turn complicated social, cultural, and political problems into a single story of blame. Their power lies not only in whom they target, but in their ability to create coalitions among groups that may otherwise have little in common.
A useful starting point is Germany in 1879, when Wilhelm Marr founded the League of Antisemites. The German Empire had been created only eight years earlier from 25 states and remained divided by regional loyalties, religious tensions, and political friction.
Marr recast classical religious prejudice against Jews as a secular, pseudo-scientific political movement. He blamed Jewish emancipation and modern capitalism for Germany’s problems and sought to reverse Jewish civil rights and remove Jews from the country. In a fractured society, blaming Jews created a common cause.
The same political mechanism appeared in different settings. In Soviet Russia, the Yevsektsia was established in 1918 by Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik government as a Jewish antizionist unit tasked with bringing the Jewish working class into the Soviet system. It closed synagogues, banned the teaching of Hebrew, and prevented traditional Judaism, Zionism, and rival political movements from operating.
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, developed a different Islamist political project: removing Western colonial influence from the Islamic world and building government around sharia law. Its core principle is that Islam is both a religion and a state, with social Islamisation progressing from individual piety towards political power and, ultimately, aspiring to reunite Muslim nations under a revived pan-Islamic caliphate.
In 1945, the Arab League was organised as an antizionist league in Cairo, before the creation of the State of Israel. Arab societies had oil, land and large populations, while European imperial powers were exhausted by World War II.
Yet the Arab world remained politically divided and pan-Arabism had failed to unite it. Antizionism and antisemitism became powerful unifying ideas across otherwise competing states and movements and currently remain a unifying thread underlying Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi Islam.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini later popularised the language of “the Little Satan” for Israel and “the Great Satan” for the United States during the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution. His stated aim was to first eliminate Israel, then the United States, and then the Western world, accusing it of deceptive and corrupting power that uses political, cultural, and economic influence to weaken Islamic societies.
Poland in 1968 offers another example. Although antisemitism was officially illegal, university protests were blamed on the “Zionists,” and the government purged 13,000 Jews and revoked their citizenship. How did authorities decide who was a Zionist? They targeted Poles with Jewish names. Political belief was not the test. The operative assumption was “Zionist unless proven innocent,” a pattern that has echoes in the treatment of doxed Jewish creatives and academics in Australia in 2024.
Today, coalition-building may be one of antizionism’s most important political functions. At Harvard University October 7, 2023, 33 grievance groups formed a coalition against Israel as it was being attacked by Hamas.
Police officer fired after describing 7 October as ‘resistance’
A police officer has been fired after a misconduct trial found he spent months posting and engaging with antisemitic content, celebrating the deaths of Israelis and describing the 7 October 2023 as an “act of resistance”.
A panel held between 6 and 8 July at the Met’s disciplinary hearing centre at Palestra House on Blackfriars Road, Southwark, heard that PC Mohammed Nizam posted, reposted or ‘liked’ a number of messages and pictures on social media between September 2023 and July 2024.
These include responding to a post from London Mayor Sadiq Khan expressing distress at the terrorist attacks in Israel on 7 October with an image reading “you f***ing w**k stain”; liking a post responding to a Jewish commentator accusing him of continuing to “play the Holocaust card to justify Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza”; liking a post referring to the “Zionist-controlled mass media”; re-posting a post mourning the death of an IDF soldier with “suck it” and re-posting a tweet stating that “Israel controls all the Muslim countries but Gaza”.
According to the trial’s report, Nizam accepted the alleged conduct “without reservation”, explained that his mental health had deteriorated following the 7 October 2023 attacks. He described becoming increasingly distressed by images of violence and the killing of children in Gaza, stating that he felt “incensed” by what he saw online.
He accepted that some of the posts he ‘liked’ were antisemitic, acknowledged that he had not considered the impact of his actions and maintained he is not antisemitic, expressing sympathy for the Israeli victims of the 7 October attacks.
He did accept that several of the comments he made would be deemed antisemitic under the IHRA definition. Expressing remorse, he stated that he deeply regretted the posts and recognised that such comments were wholly inappropriate for a police officer.
Nizam added that since the investigation began, he has undertaken “significant personal reflection and education”, “broadened the sources he consulted, including reading Jewish News daily, attending events aimed at improving understanding of antisemitism” and sought advice from members of the Jewish community.
Additionally, he has contacted the Jewish Police Association, who “provided guidance and recommended materials to help him understand the harm caused by antisemitic content”, attended an online seminar on antisemitism, an event at a synagogue commemorating the Holocaust, and an exhibition displaying artefacts from terrorist attacks.
Officer Nizam said he has deactivated all relevant social media accounts and believes he has undergone “enormous personal growth.”
Washington-Based 501(c)(3) to Host Fatah Terrorist Convicted in 1993 Murder
Palestine House of Freedom, also known as Dar Alhurriya, a federally tax-exempt nonprofit headquartered near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to host an event Thursday with Nasser Abu Srour, a Fatah member convicted of participating in the brutal 1993 murder of an Israeli security officer.
Abu Srour will appear virtually from Egypt, where he has lived since Israel released him in a 2025 hostage-prisoner exchange. The event will run from 6 to 8 p.m. on Aug. 20.
Admission is free, but the registration page solicits “tax receipt eligible” donations to Palestine House of Freedom. The organization also says copies of Abu Srour’s prison memoir, The Tale of a Wall, will be offered as gifts in exchange for donations.
The Murder Missing From the Event Description
Abu Srour was serving a life sentence for participating in the January 1993 murder of Haim Nahmani, a 25-year-old officer with Israel’s Shin Bet domestic security service.
Contemporaneous reporting said Nahmani was stabbed and bludgeoned to death in an apartment in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood on Jan. 3, 1993. He had arrived to meet Maher Abu Srour, a Hamas terrorist who had been acting as an informant.
Palestinian sources have also independently acknowledged both his affiliation and participation.
A 2023 Arabic-language profile published by the Palestinian Vision Center for Political Development states that Abu Srour joined Fatah, participated in operations against Israelis during the First Intifada and established an armed cell with his cousins Maher and Mahmoud Abu Srour. It explicitly says he “participated in killing a Zionist officer.”
Fatah’s own media outlet has likewise reported that Abu Srour was serving life for participating in the killing of an Israeli officer.
In a 2013 prison interview with Israel’s Channel 2, Abu Srour described himself as a soldier rather than an innocent bystander.
“I was a soldier in the army of Palestine,” he said. “What do soldiers do? They fight.”
Abu Srour added that he had done his part in the struggle and would “continue” through other means. He predicted that, without a diplomatic solution, there would be “a third, fourth, fifth and sixth intifada.”
From Ian:
Rachel Goldberg-Polin, mother of murdered Oct. 7 hostage, represents victims of terrorism at UN
Rachel Goldberg-Polin, mother of the murdered Gaza hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, represented Middle Eastern victims of terrorism at the United Nations on Friday in honor of the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism.
"My name is Rachel," she began, "and I will always be the mother of Hersh Goldberg-Polin."
Her remarks, delivered in the form of a recorded video, sought to call attention to Israeli terror victims, with Rachel sharing the story of her son Hersh, who lost his arm when he was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023.
"Hersh will always be my only son," she said. "Hersh will always be my eldest child, and Hersh will always be 23 years old."
She was the first Israeli representative in the role, which has been given to Palestinians in recent years, with her testimony shown alongside those of other terror victims from around the world.
The UN event, held annually on August 21, was established by the UN General Assembly in a 2017 resolution "to honor and support the victims and survivors of terrorism and to promote and protect the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms," according to the UN's website.
Hersh's experience at the hands of Hamas
Rachel described the experiences of her late son at the hands of the Hamas terror organization, as well as her experience as his mother amid his kidnapping, hostage status, and eventual murder.
"My son was executed at close range and returned to me after 330 days," said Rachel. "That body that I had carried in my body for nine months, many moons ago. That body and soul, that I had adored and beheld."
She then discussed the 1932 correspondence at the League of Nations between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud on the topic of why humans wage war with one another.
"Freud explains that we humans continue to engage in active conflict even though the vast majority of us suffer terribly from this way of existence," she said. "Civilization has to decide whether to rise to the challenge to continually contain our natural tendencies toward war, or to give that slavery of selfish interest to give into it."
"What Freud inheritely is inherently saying is that there are people on both sides of any conflict whose drive toward destruction of the other is exactly the same and therefore, ironically, those destructive entities on opposing sides in fact have more in common with each other than the very people they claim to represent," she continued, noting that the same is true, acording to Freud, for the victims in war, whose motivations are "hope, and life, and love."
John Spencer:
U.S. Missile Stockpiles Are Low. Fine. Now Draw the Right Conclusion
This shortage didn’t begin with the current administration or this war. Multiple administrations accepted an industrial base built for low annual demand, narrow production lines, and long lead times. They sized inventories around planning assumptions and war games that underestimated how many missiles a sustained fight would burn. Russia’s war in Ukraine exposed the same weakness in artillery, Javelins, and air-defense weapons. Iran has driven the point home again.
War has a way of revealing bad assumptions. It also reveals the limits of allies who rely on the United States to defend sites they haven’t adequately protected themselves. Iran shifted attacks toward bases and critical infrastructure across the region because those targets offered a better chance of getting through. Those attacks threatened countries that weren’t parties to the war and infrastructure that serves millions of civilians. One missile that penetrates and kills American soldiers is a tragedy. It doesn’t erase thousands of successful interceptions, sustained U.S. strikes across Iran, or American control of Iranian airspace. No missile defense system has ever promised zero casualties.
The proper response is straightforward. Congress needs to fund replenishment and expanded production now. The Pentagon has to move past single-source production, slow contracting, and delivery timelines measured in years. The United States and its allies need layered defenses that use cheaper weapons against drones and lower-end threats, saving Patriot and THAAD interceptors for the ballistic missiles they were designed to defeat. Allies hosting American forces must invest more in their own air and missile defense.
Ending a successful campaign because Iran fired enough cheap missiles to strain U.S. interceptor stocks would teach every American adversary the same lesson: build large missile forces, attack exposed U.S. partners, absorb the punishment, and wait for Washington to lose its nerve. China, Russia, North Korea, and every Iranian proxy would take careful notes.
If the stockpiles are low, fix the stockpiles. Expand the factories. Shorten the production timelines. Buy enough munitions for the wars the United States may actually face, not the wars previous planners hoped it would fight. America should close the weakness Iran exposed and keep pursuing its military objectives. The goal of war is to break the enemy’s ability and will to continue, not to surrender our own when a long-neglected production problem finally comes into view.
Iranians struggle to afford the basics as US ratchets up economic warfare
Tehran’s grocery stores are well-stocked, but many families can barely afford the basics. Unemployment is soaring, and those with jobs are working more hours for money worth half as much as a year ago, putting food, medicine and everything else — except for heavily subsidized gasoline — further out of reach.
“We have virtually given up on many things,” said Ahmad Karimi, 52, a taxi driver and father of two who has been working 15-hour days to make ends meet. “We’re cutting out fruit, we’re cutting out protein, we’ve given up leisure, we even work on weekends.”
Nearly six months into the war with the United States and Israel, the Iranian economy is taking a beating under the force of sanctions and a naval blockade that is making it extremely difficult for the country to export oil, its most valuable product.
Whether this intensifying economic pressure will translate anytime soon into military or political concessions from Iran remains to be seen — but some experts are skeptical. Since the war began, Iran has been attacking oil-rich neighbors and US bases in the region, and disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, its biggest strategic advantage.
Iran is trying to use this retaliatory pressure — which is driving up energy prices globally — to bring the war to an end on the best terms possible. It is pressing for sanctions relief, and seeking enough control over the strait to demand payment from ships passing through to deliver energy and other goods.
The Trump administration — which is stuck fighting over a waterway in a war that was launched to curb Iran’s nuclear program — is now promising to deliver even tougher sanctions to try to squeeze the Islamic Republic into submission. But experts say US President Donald Trump may be underestimating how long Iran can hold out.
Iran has been subject to Western sanctions for years and has become deft at partially circumventing them. It has expanded domestic production, used informal cross-border trade networks, bought restricted goods through third countries, and used a shadow fleet to transport its oil.
“Iran’s resistance capacity not only avoids collapse, it also prevents the economic pain from translating into the political pressure and changes that the US expects,” said Hadi Kahalzadeh, an expert on Iran’s economy at Brandeis University.
From Ian:
Victor Davis Hanson:
Hating Israel Fatigue
Three recent chapters in the long history of antisemitism remain inexplicable.
First, hatred of Jews and Israel peaked immediately after the greatest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust—weeks before Israel entered Gaza, and only after Hamas refused to surrender the masterminds of the slaughter or the 251 hostages. The Jewish crime, apparently, was being so easily murdered by Hamas.
The clearest sign of that Pavlovian hatred was the jubilation on the far Left and among Islamists—and the strange new alliance these seemingly disparate groups were already forming—over the ease with which so many mostly unarmed Jewish civilians had been butchered and the prospect of even more killing to follow.
The ghoulish celebrants were not concerned about mass murder, torture, or mutilation of the women, children, and elderly. Instead, they grew ecstatic at the prospect of still more medievalism and blood to come.
Hamas, the darling of American campuses and Muslim communities, issued Arabic-to-Hebrew phrase books to the invaders with instructions for the rapist-killers on how to say in Hebrew, “Take off your pants,” “Take off your clothes,” “Raise your hands and spread your legs.”
Second, none of the Israel-haters ever offers any alternative course that the Israelis should have taken to retrieve the hostages and punish the murderers.
Much less do they imagine what other nations might have done—the United States, France, or the United Kingdom—had terrorists conducted such a mass slaughter at numbers proportional to their far larger populations.
I doubt any other nation would have petitioned the beloved International Criminal Court to bring the Hamas killers to justice.
Its chief prosecutor, the Israel-hating Karim Khan, refused even to examine Israeli evidence and instead rushed to condemn Prime Minister Netanyahu as an international war criminal.
Perhaps Khan’s hatred of Israel was aimed at hiding the fact that the now-fired Khan was being accused by his own legal team of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. Who will police the police? Will Mayor Mamdani arrest the ICC predator if he lands at JFK Airport in New York City?
Third, when 6,000 Hamas terrorists and Gazan “civilians” invaded Israel, it was during an agreed-on peace. Indeed, take away October 7, and Israel would never have entered Gaza; indeed, even after the slaughter that took place on that day, Israeli officers dreaded walking into such a subterranean ambush. And prior to the mass murder, it was Israel, not the Muslim nation and adjacent Arab neighbor Egypt, that had supplied almost all of Gaza’s water, electricity, fuels, and telecommunications.
For years Israel had invited 20,000 Gazans to work inside Israel at two to three times the wages available in Gaza. Gaza itself had been “ethnically cleansed” of all Jews in 2005 by the Israeli government under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was generally considered a “hawk.” Any valuable infrastructure they left behind was immediately looted and destroyed. After the departure of all the Jews from Gaza, the grifting Hamas government shook down roughly $20 billion of the more than $40 billion in international aid given to the Palestinians in general.
Had Hamas simply sought to create a multiparty democracy, held regular elections, created a bill of rights, and adopted a Western economy, it would have garnered hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign investment. And its privileged seaside location could have made it the next tourist hub like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, or Oman.
Instead, the nihilist Hamas preferred to make Gaza an impoverished, violent, and pariah terrorist enclave, to rip off its own people, and to expose Gazan civilians to death on a regular basis to save its fighters’ skins and further its fanatical cause.
Hamas was never dedicated to bettering the daily lives of its own population, developing Gaza’s Mediterranean coastline or putting its enormous foreign aid to productive use. Instead, it had only a single homicidal agenda: to kill as many Jews as possible and to destroy the state of Israel.
Hating Israel while championing Hamas and its thousands of terrorist killers is a referendum not on Israel and its supporters, but a window into the mind of a sick, sick West—and an even sicker Middle East.
Simon Sebag Montefiore’s history of the Middle East is a masterpiece
In the Middle East, history fuses with theology into “an unbreakable rampart of absolutist faith”, and, as Sebag Montefiore puts it, “it is hard to negotiate maps and timetables with people who await the Mahdi or Messiah”.
Sebag Montefiore stresses the strange bedfellows in the region: the Syrian civil war’s tangle of enemies, the Abraham Accords, and Israeli soldiers manning Iron Dome to defend the Emirates against Iranian missiles in 2026. On the other hand, the Middle East is the only region on Earth becoming ever less diverse – Christians down from 20 per cent of the population in 1900 to 4 per cent today, and in Iraq from 14 per cent to 0.4.
The nation-state, Sebag Montefiore asserts, is an imported European idea badly matched to a multi-sectarian patchwork; he notes the irony that Western media, law and academia still promote nationalism for the region having rejected it at home, and calls the pretence that some failed states function “international cosplay”.
But the idea that the region is uniquely ungovernably violent is “a historical illusion”. Its history is filled with dramatic reversals that mock every preconception: “Kingdoms, empires and cities, heroes, monsters and fools fight and reconcile, gamble and deal, rise and fall. The prizes are power, salvation and safety. Survival is everything; no one wins for long; the caravan moves on; the spark wheel spins and spins.”
The book proper begins with what Sebag Montefiore identifies as one of the two key pivots of the past (loosely defined) century – the story of how in 1902 25-year-old Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, sometimes referred to as Ibn Saud, restored his fallen family to power in Riyadh. Having taken power, “Abdulaziz moved into the palace of his grandfather – and the modern history of the Middle East began.”
Sebag Montefiore writes that “even Abdulaziz would have been amazed at the success of his dynasty and his realm. He would reign during the fall and rise and fall of empires – Ottoman, French, British – that dominated his region, and through two world wars, into the nuclear-powered years of US-Soviet rivalry, through holy wars, civil wars and the creation and disintegration of new states, secular and Islamist, royal and nationalist, Muslim and Jewish. And as late as 2025, a son of his would still be ruling the Kingdom in the age of the iPhone, drones and X, when a US president, Donald Trump, would fly into this same Riyadh, now a gleaming towered modern metropolis, and call Saudi Arabia ‘the centre of the world’.” As he then writes: “This book is the story of how that happened.”
It’s fitting that The Cauldron ends in 2026 with the death of Ayatollah Khamenei in an air strike, because the other pivot on which The Cauldron hangs is the 1979 Iranian revolution. Sebag Montefiore argues that this was a moment on the scale of 1789 and 1917. Khomeini was a “murderous modern revolutionary and political strategist of the rank of Lenin, Stalin or Mao”. Grasp that and the next 50 years fall into place.
The Cauldron would have been a valuable work had it stopped in 1979 – because there has long been a need for a readable, serious, ambitious history of the past century or so in the Middle East. By taking it to 2026, however – a bold step for a book whose entire point is that it is a work of history – Sebag Montefiore has written something far more important, both invaluable and necessary. Lies started to be spread about October 7, 2023 from October 8, and those lies have taken hold across the world. There are few other historians of Sebag Montefiore’s stature who could have challenged the lies and the myths simply by doing their job and writing calmly and – patently – objectively. It is to Sebag Montefiore’s huge credit that he has stepped up to do this, mainly by allowing the facts to speak for themselves – especially the words of the perpetrators. Hamas’ Ghazi Hamad promises “a second, a third, a fourth” October 7. Its second chairman Khaled Mashal shrugs: “Thirty million Russians died to defeat Germany. In all wars there are civilian casualties. We are not responsible.” Sinwar, warned that 10,000 Gazans might die, retorts: “Let it be 20,000.”
But as Sebag Montefiore argues, Israel may be able to win on the battlefields but it has “totally lost” the narrative war. Hamas controlled the casualty figures, presenting every death as civilian and claiming there was no war with its fighters at all, only massacre.
The Cauldron’s conclusion is salutary and needs to be absorbed: add up every death in every Middle Eastern war from 1900 to today and the total roughly equals a single front of the First World War, or the Congo war of 1996 to 2003. It comes nowhere near the Second World War’s Asian theatre (20 million dead) or its Eastern Front (30 million). Eighty years of Arab-Israeli conflict, the Gaza war included, have killed around 150,000 people. The Partition of India killed a million in a few months. Algeria’s civil war in the 1990s killed 200,000, Iraq half a million, Syria 600,000, and Sudan, “in a tragic class of its own”, two million in its first civil wars, 300,000 in Darfur and more than 150,000 since 2023. The world’s fixation on the Jewish state’s wars is grotesquely out of proportion to their scale.
That notion is nothing new: but Sebag Montefiore’s magnificent work is not merely new. It is a masterpiece that demands to be read.
The Cauldron: The Making of the Modern Middle East 1900–2026, by Simon Sebag Montefiore, is published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Uri Kurlianchik:
10 Quotes That Prove Palestinians Never Believed in Palestinians
Until recently, if you called an Arab living in Palestine, “Palestinian,” he’d be confused or offended.
Palestine wasn’t even an administrative unit before the British mandate. “Palestinian” is what you called these pesky Jewish upstarts who had dreams of freedom of statehood on Arab land. The Arabs of Palestine had no more separate national identity than the people of East Texas.
Here are 10 historic quotes that prove it:
“We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”
— First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, Jerusalem, 1919
“Palestine is an Arab country and natural part of Syria.”
— Istiqlal Party manifesto, 1931
“There is no such country! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”
— Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, to the Peel Commission, 1937
“Palestine is part of the Province of Syria… the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.”
— Representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations, 1947
“The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people.”
— American diplomat Stuart W. Rockwell, 1950
“It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”
— Ahmad Shukeiri, first chairman of the PLO, to the Security Council, 1956
“Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation.”
— Zuheir Mohsen, PLO Executive Committee, 1977
“I don’t think there is such a thing as a “Palestinian nation”, I think it’s a colonial invention, when were there Palestinians? Where is it? I think there is an Arab nation.”
— Arab anti-Zionist activist and politician Azmi Bishra, 1995
"We don’t differentiate between Palestinian, Egyptian and Arab blood.”
— Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, 2010
“Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you.”
— Hamas Minister of the Interior and National Security, Fathi Hammad, 2012
Thursday, August 27, 2026
.jpg)
.jpg)
