12/22 Links Pt2: Lion-Eater of Judah; Inventing a Nonexistent Famine Should Be a Credibility Killer; Cheers for Ben Shapiro; Vance’s Friends Without Benefits; The Problem Is Mamdani

From Ian:

Lion-Eater of Judah

“Never since the days of Judas Maccabaeus had such sights and sounds been seen and heard in a military camp,” wrote Colonel John Patterson in his 1916 memoir With the Zionists in Gallipoli. If Judas had visited this “great camp with the tents of the Children of Israel,” Patterson went on:
He would have heard the Hebrew tongue spoken on all sides, and seen a host of Sons of Judah drilling to the same words of command he used to those gallant soldiers who fought the Romans: he would have heard the plaintive soul-stirring music of the Maccabean hymn chanted by the men as they marched through the camps. Although it was only a mule corps, yet it was (potentially) a fighting unit and of this the men were all very proud.

As Natan Slifkin recounts in his recently published The Lions of Zion, the Irish-born British soldier was, like the Maccabees he so admired, a fighter of both animals and men. More importantly, as commander of the Zion Mule Corps in World War I and later the 38th battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, which came to be known as the Jewish Legion, he, like those hearty Hasmoneans, helped revive the Jewish national project.

Patterson’s early-career adventures earned him not one but four Hollywood adaptations. In 1898, he killed two man-eating lions that had been chomping their way through a railway construction project in British East Africa. As he would recall years later:
I have never experienced anything more nerve-shaking than to hear the deep roars of these dreadful monsters growing nearer and nearer, and to know that some one or other of us was doomed to be their victim before morning dawned. . . . Shouts would then pass from camp to camp “Beware, brothers, the devil is coming,” but the warning cries would prove of no avail; and sooner or later agonizing shrieks would break the silence, and another man would be missing from roll call next morning.

Hollywood couldn’t resist. Bwana Devil, a 1952 United Artists production, was the first color film made in 3D. Four decades later, in the late 90’s, there was the Man-eaters of Tsavo, a documentary based on Patterson’s memoir by the same name. In a fictionalized version released around the same time, Val Kilmer played the adventurer in Paramount’s Ghost and the Darkness. More recently, the Yellowstone prequel series 1923 featured a character, Spencer Dutton, inspired by the courageous colonel.

Seth Mandel: Inventing a Nonexistent Famine Should Be a Credibility Killer

It’s obviously great news that there was no famine in Gaza. It is terrible news that the organizations responsible for informing the world of such conditions knew the whole time that there was no famine and manipulated data in order to spread false accusations against Israel. The “famine” narrative materially affected the war by convincing supposed members of the democratic alliance to withhold supplies from Israel and force Israel to resupply Hamas, thereby prolonging the war and costing additional Israeli and Palestinian lives. The wider “child killer” narrative, meanwhile, has been part of a global campaign of ever-escalating violence against Jews around the world.

If the objectively false “Israel is deliberately starving babies” narrative never takes hold, the war ends sooner and the Global Intifada is starved of some of its oxygen. It’s a no-brainer, then, that anyone who contributed to the spread of that narrative should be considered outside the bounds of respectable opinion. They can be free to post deranged material to social media just like anybody else, but they should be given no legitimacy by governments and academics and the media.

That last one might be too much to hope for, of course. The Associated Press “report” on the IPC’s acknowledgement of improved conditions in Gaza begins this way: “The spread of famine has been averted in the Gaza Strip, but the situation remains critical with the entire Palestinian territory still facing starvation, the world’s leading authority on food crises said Friday.”

Let’s just be clear: “famine has been averted” is thankfully true of most places in the world today. And if famine was averted, why the passive phrasing? Doesn’t that mean someone was getting food to Gazans even while their own government was hoarding it from them? And wouldn’t that someone be… the State of Israel?

Yes, it would. So here’s what happened: Hamas tried to bring a famine upon the people of Gaza, and Israel (at great risk) made sure to deliver enough food and supplies to stop that from happening even while Gaza’s armed forces remained at war with Israel. In their disappointment that there was no famine, Hamas’s allies in the NGO world pretended there was famine anyway, so that they could also lie about Israel’s efforts to supply Gaza. And a major global news wire rewarded them by telling readers they are the “world’s leading authority on food crises” despite the fact that the lesson of the article is that the IPC cannot be trusted.

The very least politicians can do is ensure that untrustworthy sources have no role in policymaking ever again.

National Review Editorial: Cheers for Ben Shapiro

Well, that will leave a mark.

Ben Shapiro did the conservative movement a service last week by giving two speeches that were deliberate acts of provocation.

First, at the Heritage Foundation, he argued that a political movement, like a nation, needs borders. He illustrated the point with reference to the Heritage Foundation mission statement, which supports free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

He then compared those principles with the beliefs of Tucker Carlson, with whom Heritage President Kevin Roberts has been in ideological sympathy, up to and including initially defending Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes (before backpedaling). Shapiro persuasively argued that by Heritage’s own standards Carlson — who expresses routine contempt for markets, who launders Russian propaganda, who sees the advantages of sharia law, and who gives sympathetic interviews to white nationalists, Churchill-hating World War II revisionists, and proud misogynists accused of rape — is no longer a conservative.

We assume that Roberts won’t be inviting Shapiro back any time soon, but his talk was received warmly by the audience at the Heritage Foundation.

A couple of days later, Shapiro spoke at TPUSA’s AmFest conference. He addressed the rank pandering to audience, widespread conspiracy-theorizing, and cowardly unwillingness to call out lunacy on the right that has infected the right-wing influencer space. Here, Shapiro focused on the absolutely cracked theories promoted by Candace Owens about the Charlie Kirk assassination; these rancid, obsessive musings, which would set off alarms bells for any psychiatrist if spouted by a patient, have significantly shaped the debate on the right about Kirk’s assassination.

Daniel B. Shapiro: Democrats Sound Like They’re in Doha

The end of the U.S.-Israel security partnership would have three immediate effects. First, it would make Israel appear vulnerable, leading Iran and its allies to accelerate their efforts, already under way, to rearm and prepare for another, perhaps decisive, war. Far from advancing the cause of peace, such a move would likely intensify the region’s conflicts.

Second, it would undermine bipartisan efforts to build an integrated coalition of U.S. partners—Israel and moderate Arab states—that assist one another and allow the United States to play a supporting, but not always leading, role in maintaining regional stability. Arab states are deepening their relationship with Israel in large part because they believe that it will bring them closer to the United States. When we are seen as a less reliable partner for our closest regional ally, they will draw obvious conclusions. Cutting off Israel would thus lead to a less stable, more conflict-ridden region. And it would actually set back Palestinian aspirations by undermining the Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that might advance them.

Third, the end of security assistance to Israel would soon mean the same for Jordan and Egypt, whose assistance programs derive from their peace treaties with Israel. Jordan’s stability could be placed at immediate risk, with spillover dangers in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the West Bank. Egypt would not stop arming itself; it would simply buy weapons from Russia and China. Gulf states, boxed out from purchasing U.S. equipment by ongoing U.S. legal requirements to sustain Israel’s qualitative military edge, would do the same. There is no better or faster way to open the door to our competitors’ planting their flag in a strategic and volatile region than by cutting off Israel.

The net result of these trends will be a dramatic decline in U.S. influence in the Middle East. For those embracing the impulse to look inward, that may seem fine. Early in the cycle of isolationism, as in the 1930s or after the Cold War, it always does. But eventually, a shock or crisis—World War II, 9/11, or one that we can’t yet name but that will surely come—will draw us back into the region, but under far worse conditions and at a much higher cost.

Sustaining a functional relationship with Israel, with all of its flaws, is manifestly more beneficial to U.S. interests than the alternative. And we need to keep perspective. Netanyahu will not govern forever. The Israeli public has moved rightward, but there are reasonable leaders from the center right and the center left to cultivate. A Palestinian state will not be on the agenda in the Israeli election campaign of 2026, but as the war recedes, there will be various ways to engage the Israeli public—an imperative that Israel’s critics utterly ignore but that is crucial for obtaining the outcomes we want in a democracy—to incentivize them to vote in a more moderate direction. Bidding them good riddance and telling them that they are on their own would do the opposite. Ignoring the responsibility of other actors—such as Palestinian Authority leaders who must embrace reform and demonstrate the capacity to govern and defeat extremists—would do the same.

If Israel wants to see Democrats pursue engagement, then it must help. Expressing conceptual openness to Palestinian statehood as part of a regionally integrated framework—even if it takes longer than Palestinians might hope and assumes a form that looks different from previous efforts—will be important. Keeping extremists out of the Israeli government, and cracking down on extremist violence, is crucial. And recognizing that legitimate security operations must include maximum efforts to protect civilians is essential. Although Israel Defense Forces commanders were always clear that their intent was to target Hamas, not civilians, their tolerance of civilian casualties in pursuit of legitimate military targets was far too high. An intense military-to-military dialogue could help persuade them to adjust that calculation. As in any war, specific charges that soldiers committed war crimes must be investigated and adjudicated in a credible military-justice system—something the United States military has done, albeit imperfectly.

Democrats, and all Americans, face a choice in upcoming elections. We can make the moral, political, and strategic error of trying to wash our hands of a relationship with a democratic partner under stress that has made many mistakes as it has fought to defend itself. Or we can commit to working with that partner and its current, flawed leadership while we wait for new leaders to emerge. We can choose to sustain crucial aspects of a relationship that serves our moral and strategic interests, while insisting on changes that conform with U.S. values. The latter course is clearly the better choice.

Read More

12/22 Links Pt1: The Maccabees of Bondi Beach; Hating Zionists, killing Jews; Conditional Condolences; Hamas Front Group Runs Wikipedia Editing Course

From Ian:

Dave Rich: Hating Zionists, killing Jews

If this is how things work, then we are entitled to ask: what was the demonising, stereotyping and stigmatising, the increasing hostility and outpourings of hatred, that led terrorists in Australia, Britain and the United States to not only murder Jews, but to all justify it by reference to “Zionists” and child killers?

It’s impossible to separate this from the tidal wave of hatred directed towards “Zionists” from the anti-Israel movement on our streets and online. The cries of “Death to all Zionists”, the calls for Zionists to be driven from our campuses, and the chants of “Zionist scum, off our streets”. The claims that “Zionists” control the UK government and are genocidal baby killers. The comparisons of Zionism to Nazism. The repeated slogans of “Death to the IDF”, “Intifada” and “Resistance”. All of this hatred and dehumanisation, combined with calls for radical action, reached a pitch long ago where terrorism against Jews became entirely predictable.

When people point this out, they are accused of weaponising antisemitism (a particularly revolting phrase, given how often antisemites now use weapons to kill Jews); or distracting people to enable the slaughter of Palestinians; or being part of a coordinated PR campaign to protect Israel; or - most ridiculously - that nobody ever chants “globalise the Intifada” anyway. Ironically, this often comes from the same people who are quickest to point the finger at wider right wing rhetoric when trying to explain far right violence. It’s gaslighting, plain and simple.

Nor does it matter that this incitement is directed at “Zionists”, because we see now - if we ever doubted it - that hatred of Zionists lands on Jews. This operates on a spectrum, from the most murderous to the most fleeting. Last night I went to my local menorah lighting for the eighth night of Chanukah. It was dark and rainy, but a bigger crowd than usual, a sign of solidarity and togetherness after the awfulness of Bondi. The Chabad rabbi tried to inject some joy, as they always do. And a middle-aged woman, walking past, repeatedly shouted “Free Palestine” at the crowd, looking pleased with herself as she did so. I don’t think she is a potential killer. But in her sentiment, her irrepressible urge to harass Jews celebrating Chanukah, she was expressing the same underlying hatred as the Akrams, just in less violent form.

In theory, it should be possible to have a non-extremist movement that campaigns for Palestinian rights. In reality, though, the anti-Israel movement we actually have has provided a welcoming environment for extremists and antisemites. It wouldn’t be the first time that a legitimate cause had been distorted in this way: the far right do the same, hijacking legitimate concerns about immigration to incite hatred of foreigners. A similar thing has clearly happened here too: the Palestinian cause has been co-opted by extremists who use its language and slogans to incite, and act out, hatred of Jews.

It is true that even extremists have a right to protest, but the presence of hateful, violent rhetoric on anti-Israel marches is too visible to deny, and now that this same language is being used to justify the killing of Jews, the consequences are too lethal to ignore. In an ideal world the protest organisers would be proactively trying to help, but that seems unlikely. Instead, it must mean that these demonstrations are policed differently, and it is good to see that this is starting to happen. It should also trouble the MPs, trade unions and NGOs that back the marches or speak at them, that they are associated with this hatred. One way or another, things have to change. Bondi, Manchester, Boulder and Washington D.C.: the most dangerous form of anti-Jewish terrorism today looks, and sounds, like violent anti-Zionism.

Sami Shah: Conditional Condolences

When Christchurch happened in 2019, when Muslims were slaughtered in a mosque, I don’t remember the Left going, “Our hearts go out and we condemn Islamophobia, and also we condemn antisemitism, transphobia, and anti-black racism.” I don’t remember the Instagram posts being like:

“Point 1: It is evil to massacre civilians for being Muslim.
Point 2: Obviously Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, Syria’s atrocities against its own civilians, and Pakistan’s persecution of Ahmadis must continue to be opposed.”

No one did that. Because it would have been psychotic.

Because everyone instinctively understood: this is a moment for the victims. This is a moment to name the people targeted. This is a moment to say “Muslims,” out loud, without flinching like it’s a swear word.

But when it’s Jews? Suddenly it’s “Yes, tragic… anyway, here is my Gaza position.”

Why?

Why does Jewish grief come with terms and conditions?

Why is “All Lives Matter” cringe when it’s used to dilute Black suffering… but completely acceptable when it’s used to dilute Jewish suffering?

Because that’s what this is. “We condemn antisemitism and also anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia and everything else…” It’s the grief version of someone hijacking a birthday speech to announce they’ve started a podcast.

And I saw so many posts—from people who proudly describe themselves as leftists and progressives—reacting to Bondi without even saying the word “Jew.” They said “community.” They said “innocent people.” They said “tragedy.” They said everything except the thing that was actually targeted. Like the victims were killed by a vague weather event; a cloud of bullets drifting in on a sea breeze.

It’s like they were afraid that if they said “Jewish” their phone would vibrate and a committee would appear behind them like, “Just checking: do you also condemn Israel?”

And this is what really makes me feral: this attack was against Jews. A Jewish festival. A Jewish community event. The whole point of terrorism is targeting identity—to make the identity feel unsafe anywhere. And some people’s first instinct is: “Yes, but…”

But what?

But Gaza?

But Israel?

But Netanyahu?

But Zionism?

No.

Stop it.

You can oppose Israeli policy. You can call out Israeli war crimes. You can scream about Gaza until your throat falls out. But if you cannot mourn murdered Jews in Australia without immediately pivoting to Israel, then you are not doing solidarity. You are doing a performance. And the people you’re stepping on to reach the stage are dead.

The Maccabees of Bondi Beach

On the first night of Hanukkah, the Jewish community was thrust into another nightmare, when at least 15 people were killed and more than 40 wounded in a mass shooting by a father-son duo at a Chabad event in Bondi Beach. Those killed in the attack included a 10-year-old named Matilda Bee Britvan, whose family moved to Australia to escape the war in Ukraine, and Alex Kleytman, a Holocaust survivor killed while trying to shield his wife. Australian authorities later confirmed that the gathering had been deliberately targeted and meticulously planned, marking one of the deadliest antisemitic attacks in the country’s history.

In the hours and days that followed, one story quickly rose above the rest. Footage circulating online showed a heroic bystander, later identified as Ahmed al-Ahmed, rushing toward one of the attackers and wrestling a gun out of the terrorist’s hands.

As the footage spread rapidly across social media and news broadcasts, it soon came to dominate the public conversation, increasingly framing the attack as a story of Muslim-Jewish reconciliation rather than an act of antisemitic violence, with Ahmed al-Ahmed becoming the central figure through which the massacre was understood. This reframing allows Australia to look away from its deeper failures that made the attack possible. It also obscures another critical fact: that there were many Jews at the event who also behaved with unbelievable heroism and bravery, whose names have been largely absent from the narrative.

Read More

12/21 Links: Arsen Ostrovsky: My Family Survived Bondi Beach; The Real War Is Islamism's Infiltration of Western Democracies; Tucker Carlson named ‘Antisemite of the Year’

From Ian:

Arsen Ostrovsky: My Family Survived Bondi Beach

Three weeks after my family had relocated from Israel to Australia, we were in the crossfire on Bondi Beach. One of the gunmen's bullets hit my head. I fell to the ground and bled profusely. To my right, an elderly man crouched, covering his wife. He was also hit, not moving. To my left, a few feet away, I saw body parts strewn on the ground. Another man ripped off his shirt and lent it to me to help stop the blood gushing from my head. My wife had managed to escape unharmed and found refuge with our children. Doctors later told me it was millimeters between life and death, "a miracle" I survived.

Over the past two years, the Jewish community has warned time and again that when hatred is allowed to fester, when it is excused, normalized or mainstreamed, it inevitably leads to violence. Australia doesn't need another inquiry, strategy document or press release expressing sorrow. We need urgent, decisive action. Our laws must be enforced. Incitement must have consequences. Intelligence must be acted on and radical Islamic extremism must be confronted, not managed.

Bondi Was Not a Surprise

I am angry at the government for ignoring antisemitic violence and intimidation, at the media for whitewashing it, at the academics who provided it with intellectual legitimacy, and at everyone who marched and chanted and who justified or minimized antisemitism in Australia because of their feelings about a conflict on the other side of the globe.

I am angry at every official who failed to do their due diligence: in neglecting to vet immigrants from countries where vicious antisemitism is endemic; in allowing a man whose son was suspected of involvement with ISIS to legally own multiple firearms; in never taking a clear stand against Jew-hatred in this country. I am angry at the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, who has blamed the tragedy primarily on firearms and who seems unable to name the cause clearly. I can name it: the poisonous hatred of Jews.

I believe that a silent majority of Aussies are heartily sick of the attacks on our harmony, our culture, and our Jews. At Quillette, we stand with Jews in Australia, in Israel, and throughout the world. RIP: Boris Tetleroyd, Boris Gurman, Sofia Gurman, Reuven Morrison, Edith Brutman, Marika Pogany, Dan Elkayam, Eli Schlanger, Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Alex Kleytman, Tibor Weitzen, Adam Smyth, Tania Tretiak, and ten-year-old Matilda. May their memories be a blessing.

Jonathan Conricus: The Real War Is Islamism's Infiltration of Western Democracies

The global civilizational conflict between the Free World and the forces of Islamism - a movement that seeks not coexistence, but domination - has only begun. Islamism's most violent expression erupts in the bloodlust of Hamas, ISIS, or al-Qaeda. Yet its more patient, insidious face belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates - groups that have mastered the art of slow infiltration, cultural manipulation, and institutional takeover. Their ambition is the same: the imposition of Sharia and the submission of free societies.

I was raised in Malmo, Sweden, where I watched firsthand the quiet surrender of a liberal Western city to Islamist intimidation. Today, similar scenes unfold in London, Paris, Toronto, Sydney, and New York, where since Oct. 7, 2023, Islamists have marched openly through Western capitals, waving the flags of terror movements and calling for "global intifada."

The response from many Western governments has been paralysis: fear of being called "Islamophobic" outweighs the courage to name the threat. Listen carefully to what Islamists say in their own rallies and mosques. They boast of taking over Western institutions. They preach that democracy is a tool to be exploited until the day it can be replaced. They view liberal tolerance not as a virtue but as a weakness to be exploited.

The same ideology that sent Hamas terrorists across Israel's border on Oct. 7 now works methodically to seize student unions, civil-society groups, and local councils across Europe and North America. In Britain, dozens of municipalities are now governed by officials who declare loyalty not to the United Kingdom but to the global Islamic nation. In the process, this ideology has fueled a resurgence of antisemitism and social fragmentation in the West.

This war is not over. It will only end when Islamism - violent and non-violent alike - is defeated intellectually, financially, and politically. Education must be our front line. That begins with dismantling UNRWA, whose curriculum perpetuates hate and martyrdom in Gaza's classrooms. A generation taught that killing Jews is holy cannot build peace.

Governments should outlaw Islamist organizations where evidence ties them to terror networks. The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be designated terrorist entities. Qatar and Turkey - state sponsors of this ideology - must face consequences, not indulgence. Political correctness is a luxury we can no longer afford. This war will decide the fate of the entire Free World.

Read More

12/20 Links: ISIS kills Jews while Australian politicians blame guns; The Progressive Takeover of Jewish Campus Life; A Son’s Eulogy for Norman Podhoretz (1930-2025)

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: A Son’s Eulogy for Norman Podhoretz (1930-2025)

So many nice things have been said about him the past couple of days that my sister Naomi pointed out it was a genuine shame he wasn’t here to read them and hear them, because you just cannot imagine how much he would have enjoyed it. How much he would have enjoyed the tributes from Senator Cotton, and Ruth Wisse, and Jonathan Tobin, and Abe Greenwald, and Noah Rothman, and Matthew Continetti, and Elliot Kaufman, and Barton Swaim, and Yuval Levin, and Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Tevi Troy, and Seth Mandel, and Meir Soloveichik. He. Loved. Praise. But there was something in him, some iron in him, some deep well in him, that did not allow him to trim his sails or maintain the reputation that meant so much to him by acting with a careerist’s prudence.

That’s why his greatest flaw, or at least the quality that caused him the most unnecessary pain, was how much he continued to value or judge himself by the cultural settings established by the same fashionable folk who had rejected him for holding fast to his love of country and love of tradition and love of his faith—in Billy Joel’s words, “the people that he knew at Elaine’s.” I once told him that he didn’t know who he was, by which I meant, he had no idea how many people had been influenced by him, who viewed him as a titanic figure, who saw him as one of the great men of our time. He had no idea, really, because while he had contempt for the New York City bubble, he remained inside it for most of his life, and couldn’t find his way out, even after the bubble itself lost control of things.

But not always. In 2004, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In his room at the Hay-Adams Hotel the morning of the ceremony, he sat on his bed as he began to get dressed and began to sob and could not stop sobbing. He was 74 years old at the time. His father had been a milkman. He had shared a pullout couch with a very young uncle in the living room of the family tenement flat until he was 18. His magazine never had more than 30,000 real subscribers. He hadn’t published a bestseller. But there he was, a first-generation Jew whose parents were never fully fluent in English, who never took the easy path, and in a matter of hours the president of the United States would be garlanding his neck with the nation’s highest civilian honor. He wept with gratitude. As he said in his book, My Love Affair with America, “What America has done for me could not have been done for me alone, and could not have been done at all if the institutions, ideas, and attitudes that grew out of its founding assumption had not been in place and applicable to all who were lucky enough to live under them.”

What was this, really, but humility in its highest form? It was the humility that said what has happened to me in my life, the greatest gifts of my life, were gifts—gifts from the Almighty, gifts from the founder, things he did not do for himself but that America “has done for me.”

But there are things he did for himself, and by himself, that marked him as a great-souled person, and they are matters he did not write about, nor did he seek celebration for. If I am a good man, and I hope I am, it is because of the gift he gave me of showing me what it truly means to be a man. Not because he was tough, or intellectually honest, or brave, or possessed of good views. It’s because of what he did for my sisters.

I have three sisters. Ruthie and I are his issue. Rachel and Naomi were not. They were the children of our mother’s first marriage. Norman married Midge when Rachel was 5 and Naomi was 4. Rachel and Naomi had a father. Norman was determined not to interfere with the parental rights or paternal connection between Rachel and Naomi and their biological father. And yet. That man would miss his child-support payments. And that man would skip out on some of his time with them. And when they did have time with him, the girls would often come home from their visits sad or upset or gloomy. A lot of this took place before I was born. Rachel was 10 when I was born and Naomi was nine. And I swear to you. I swear to you. This is my truth, as they say. I never, ever, ever, ever, felt that he was any more of a father to me than he was a father to Rachel and Naomi. Whom he at some point determined he was simply going to have to raise, and care for, and succor, and support, and love.

He became their father. This was a choice he made. It was a choice that, in some fundamental sense, he did not have to make. What he was obliged to do was to be kind to Rachel and Naomi, and be friendly to them, and treat them well. He was a nice guy, so of course he’d be nice and friendly to his wife’s daughters. And they were smart and charming and cute, I assure you, and so, that being nice and friendly to them would not have been hard duty. Besides which, he was a kid. He was 27, 28, 29 when this challenge was presented to him. The challenge to stand up and man up and take responsibility.

So he clasped them to his heart. In a million ways great and small, he made certain that Ruthie and I knew we were not to view ourselves as different from them in his eyes. More important, we felt it. It was inhered in us. The only difference I could discern is that Ruthie and I called him Daddy and Rachel and Naomi called him Normie.

Of course the psychological story for all concerned was more complex than this, as I have come to understand as we all grew and we all aged and we lived through crises and disappointments and then through the horror and heartbreak of our Rachel’s passing 13 years ago, which tore a hole in our family that could never be mended, and then through the final years of our mother’s life. Through it all, we have always been close, closer than most, and more than our mother, more than our shared love for all our children and nieces and nephews and grandchildren and grand nieces and grand nephews, all 29 of them, this was possible because of what he did. He made that happen. He made Ruthie and me feel that Rachel and Naomi belonged to us and we belonged to them, because it could have been otherwise. But it wasn’t otherwise, because he looked at these two girls and he said, “You are mine too.”

On her deathbed, Rachel told Norman that he had made her feel safe. That phrase has been poisoned over the past decade or so, made political and false, but what she meant by it was that he had made the world under her feet feel steady. And what greater tribute could there be to his actions than the fact that it has been Naomi, whom he did not even meet until she was 3, who has been the primary provider of his care and attention these past three years? Ruthie and I owe her a great debt—but then, Naomi and Rachel alike were the greatest rewards we received from him in any case. They were ours because he made sure they became his.

So yes, he was a wonderful writer. And yes, he was a brilliant editor. And yes, he changed the world for the better. And I hope the world will remember him for all of that.

But the man I hope my children will emulate, and that their children will emulate, and all his grandchildren and great grandchildren here in this room—that man is the one who said I will be the father that my God and my wife and my honor demand that I be for these two little girls.

That is the greatest moral success story I have ever known.

That is making it.

Mark Levin: Tolerance, rational discourse are being smothered

The following is a transcript of Fox News commentator Mark Levin’s opening statement from the Dec. 14 episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

The shooting at Brown, two dead students, others wounded. Terrible, terrible, terrible, and our soldiers murdered in Syria. I mean this is serious stuff, and I know our president will deal with what took place in Syria.

We are going to have to figure out how to deal with these colleges and universities. I am not sure but that we do need to figure out. And also this slaughter that took place in Australia.

You know, ladies and gentlemen, people have written books, Hitler’s American Friends, The Abandonment of the Jews, Beyond Belief, Buried by the Times, Stalin’s Apologist. People say that history repeats itself. Is that going to happen now? I fear it damn well might. You have two men slaughtering Jews on Chanukah. You know what it reminded me of? When I watch Schindler’s List, and that colonel goes on the balcony with a rifle. There are Jews in the field and they are working in the camp and he takes his riffle and he starts picking them off one by one as if he is shooting at deer or hogs or something like that.

With a United Nations that is nothing but a cesspool of Jew-hatred, the vast majority of European governments, left-wing governments, are appeasers of Islamists. You have Communist regimes such as China that arm our enemies and arm the enemies of Israel, stoking antisemitism in our own country. You have fascist regimes that are doing exactly the same thing. Monarchies in the Middle East. We have a Western press that is essentially a voice for Marxists and sympathetic toward Islamism, spreading blood libels, accusing Israel of committing genocide knowing they are using false information that Israel is creating famines, executing innocent civilians blowing up hospitals, schools and mosques.

Everybody knows exactly what is going on. Israel is not going in and doing these things. Israel is defending itself for the zillionth time against enemies that surround her trying to obliterate her and destroy all of its people. The Marxist paradigm of Israel the oppressor and its enemies the oppressed. A lie that Israel is occupying lands that are in fact the ancient, indigenous lands of the Jewish people. Do you have a Bible on your night table? If you read it, it will tell you right there, as will the rest of history.

Hamas operative behind group leading anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian marches in UK – report

A man said to be an operative for the Hamas terror group is at the head of an organization leading anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian protests in the United Kingdom, The Times reports.

Zaher Birawi serves as the chair of the Palestine Forum in Britain (PFB), one of six groups that make up the Palestine Coalition which has organized at least 20 rallies this year, including one this week to support detained hunger strikers from Palestine Action, proscribed as a terror group.

Israel said in September that Birawi is one of a number of “high-ranking, well-known Hamas operatives” involved in the Gaza flotilla movement. He is described on the pro-Palestinian outlet Middle East Monitor as a journalist, the chairman of the International Committee to Break the Siege on Gaza, and a founding member of the International Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

In October 2023, Labour MP Christian Wakeford used parliamentary privilege to name Birawi as one of four “senior Hamas operatives” active in Britain, The Times reports.

“This house rightly voted to proscribe Hamas in its entirety in November 2021,” he said. “It is therefore a serious national security risk for Hamas operatives to be living here in London.”

One of the other three individuals named by Wakeford was Ziad El Aloul, who is also connected with PFB, The Times says.

ISIS kills Jews while Australian politicians blame guns

Albanese’s response sends a chilling message to Australia’s Jews: We will protect you symbolically, but we will not confront those who want you dead. We will light candles, hold vigils and issue statements, but when it comes to naming the ideology that made the massacre possible, we will avert our eyes and purse our lips.

This pattern is not new. Jews have seen it across Europe, North America, Britain, Canada and Australia. When jihadists attack Jews, the authorities’ response is always curiously oblique. Leaders speak of “hate,” “extremism” or “violence,” as though these were free-floating abstractions. The word antisemitism is often whispered. Islamism almost never is.

This is because acknowledging Islamist antisemitism shatters too many illusions and upsets too many powerful constituencies. It would force governments to confront the limits of multiculturalism, to debate immigration honestly and to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that some belief systems are not merely “different,” but actively hostile to liberal democracy and minority safety.

It also complicates the preferred narrative—a superb piece of inverted fiction in which Jews are cast as powerful oppressors rather than perpetual targets. In progressive moral hierarchies, Jews are rarely granted the status of innocent victims. Naming Islamism as the enemy would force a reckoning that many Western elites are desperate to avoid.

So instead, governments regulate objects.

Every time a leader responds this way, extremists learn that their ideology will not be challenged, that their networks will not be named and that their religious justifications will be handled delicately, if at all. The state will busy itself rearranging furniture while jihadists plan their next attack.

Here is what I want Australia’s leaders to say: Australia has a problem with Islamist extremism, and Jews are being targeted because they are Jews. There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? I didn’t even need to issue a press release or hold a media event.

Solving the Islamism problem will require acknowledging its scale and severity; deploying extensive intelligence resources against radical networks; and embracing deportations, surveillance and prosecutions where necessary.

Above all, it will require the courage to say that these ideas and beliefs do not belong—and cannot belong—in a liberal democracy.

Read More

12/19 Links Pt2: Chanukah Is Relevant for Everyone—but Not in the Way You Might Think; At TPUSA Ben Shapiro completely dismantles Tucker Carlson; Hezbollah’s Secret Maritime Plot Exposed

From Ian:

Josh Hammer: Chanukah Is Relevant for Everyone—but Not in the Way You Might Think

The core message of Chanukah, then, is one of traditionalism and cultural preservation in the face of menacing and assimilationist forces, both within and without. That's the real meaning of the holiday—not exchanging gifts or waxing poetic about universalist platitudes.

Yet paradoxically, especially in light of tragic recent events, something occurred to me for the first time: This stridently particularist Jewish holiday does have broader—indeed, global—relevance. It's just not the relevance liberal politicians have ascribed to Chanukah. Indeed, it's the exact opposite.

The Maccabees were able to prevail and thereby preserve Judaism, against the odds, because they had purpose and conviction. They believed that Judaism stood for something important: They believed that ethical monotheism was important, the Hebrew Scriptures were true, and the Land of Israel belonged to the Children of Israel. In short, the Maccabees had national and civilizational pride, and it was because of that pride that they fought so valiantly and refused to bend the knee to Hellenistic assimilation. They rejected the universalist cri de coeur that all cultures and peoples are equal—and perhaps interchangeable.

In recent decades, and even more acutely in recent years, Western civilization has had to learn that lesson anew. Human beings, while all made in God's image and thus all deserving of dignity and moral worth, are immensely complicated. We are not reducible to widgets on an economics chalkboard. Our inherited cultural traditions and learned customs and mannerisms are often very different from one another. We don't all value the same things, pursue the same goals, hold the same social standards, or believe in the same political institutions.

We are, in short, different.

The Maccabees understood that there was something special about the truths, values, and principles that Judaism introduced to the world. They were not willing to sacrifice those truths, values, and principles to the siren song of Hellenistic universalism. Western nations today must learn that same lesson anew. The modern Maccabee martyrs senselessly slain last Sunday at Sydney's Bondi Beach are yet the latest victims of Hellenism gone awry, as one culture tries to replace and erase another.

It doesn't have to be this way. A culture can be proud without being chauvinistic. And a people can be self-confident without being imperious. If there are going to be fewer Bondi Beach-style massacres, moving forward, Western cultures and nations are going to have to rediscover and reprioritize what made them great in the first place. They're going to have to remember that human beings, and the specific societies they constitute, are unique. They cannot, and should not, be swapped or frivolously bartered like goods in a marketplace. We have our traditions, values, and ways of life that are worth cherishing and preserving from one generation to the next.

It might not be politically correct, but that is how we can apply the true lesson of Chanukah.

Antisemitism Is Thriving Because Schadenfreude Makes People Happy

One reason our fight against antisemitism is so complicated is that Jew-haters won’t allow Jews to be victims. Victimhood today confers both status and power. Don’t Jews already have more than enough?

I like to study faces and body language. In the hundreds of clips I’ve seen of anti-Israel demonstrators since Oct. 7, I rarely noticed any sadness for the plight of Palestinians. What I saw instead was swagger and bravado, a sense of owning justice and sticking it to those who deserved it.

Because the Gaza war provided so much anti-Israel ammunition for so long, there was a sense of liberation among protesters; a chance to unleash resentment that had built up for years.

The fact that this venom is still being unleashed after the end of the war tells us all we need to know. It’s not about creating a better future for the Palestinians. It’s about creating a terrible future for a people that had it coming. We can only imagine the schadenfreude Jew-haters experienced when Jews were murdered in Australia at the start of that highly visible and joyful holiday of Hanukkah.

I know that hatred for Jews is famously elastic, that haters find a way to hate Jews whether they’re rich, poor, weak, strong, left, right, capitalist, socialist, and so on. Today, maybe because of the extraordinary success of the Jewish state, the dominant reputation of Jews is strong, influential and successful.

A year ago, I quoted British philosopher Eve Garrard who argued that “There are (at least) three principal sources of pleasure which anti-Semitism provides. First, the pleasure of hatred; second, the pleasure of tradition, and third, the pleasure of displaying moral purity.” After seeing the post-war glee on the faces of Jew-haters, I’m suggesting today that we add the pleasure of schadenfreude.

It’s not pleasant, of course, to consider that the more successful one becomes, the more one is likely to be attacked. It’s also not pleasant to think that after all the complex explanations we read about Jew-hatred, a sentiment as primordial as shadenfreude can drive some of that hatred.

But human nature dies hard.

We can only hope for the day when “success” reclaims its place as something to be admired and emulated, not something to be embarrassed about because it’s twisted as “white privilege.”

Until then, we’ll have to settle for the consolation prize that we’re hated for doing great things– even if that ends up bringing temporary pleasure to Jew-haters.

Happy Hanukkah.

X’s Transparency Rules Expose a Synthetic Gaza Disinformation Network

X’s new location-transparency requirement has reshaped the information environment surrounding the Gaza war. After the platform introduced the policy, accounts that had long claimed to report from Gaza displayed locations in Europe, North America, and Turkey. These accounts produced much of the imagery and narrative framing that circulated widely after October 7, 2023. Western journalists, nongovernmental organizations, and policymakers often treated them as front line observers, which gave fraudulent accounts disproportionate influence over public perception and policy debates.

Open Source Intelligence analyst Eitan Fischberger’s November 22, 2025, thread highlighted how X’s new “About This Account” panel first exposed prominent accounts posing as American or local Gaza/Palestinian voices. Fischberger notes that he captured the screenshots himself and urged others to share only accurate examples.

The Gaza information space is target for actors seeking to influence foreign audiences. Accounts that presented themselves as civilians in Gaza posted emotive casualty claims and siege narratives. The new transparency rule revealed that many operated from cities such as Warsaw, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Istanbul. These accounts maintained credibility by repeating familiar themes and amplifying one another to create the appearance of consensus. Several shared identical videos or images from unrelated conflicts, and the repetition increased engagement and reach.

Western media outlets accelerated the impact of this ecosystem. Journalists cited these accounts as eyewitness sources during breaking-news cycles. Nongovernmental organizations incorporated and echoed posts from them in emergency situational reports. These narratives didn’t stay on fringe accounts. Members of Congress amplified them—for example, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) reshared a miscaptioned Syria photo as “Gaza genocide” before deleting it—and then carried casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry into House speeches, hearings, and ceasefire proposals. The result was a commentary environment in which unverified accounts—sometimes operating thousands of miles from Gaza—shaped the discourse more than professional reporting.

Open-source analysis reveals several recurring patterns. One account that frequently announced broadcasts from Rafah displayed a European location tag immediately after the transparency change. Another that described Israeli operations in real time was posting from different foreign locations, suggesting the use of obfuscation tools. Several videos that circulated as evidence of Israeli strikes originated from Syria or earlier conflicts. These recycled images spread because audiences reacted to their emotional framing rather than their metadata or provenance.

The structure of this network aligns with broader features of the modern media environment. Newsrooms seek rapid content during crises and often draw material from social-media sources before verification. Non-governmental organizations fill information gaps with viral posts that appear to support long-standing narratives. Policymakers respond to perceived public pressure rather than confirmed reporting. Synthetic accounts understand these incentives and produce content designed to meet them. The result is an information space in which misleading claims gain traction before correction mechanisms engage.

The power of synthetic Gaza accounts also reflects Western cognitive vulnerabilities. These accounts focus on themes—hunger, displacement, bombardment—that provoke immediate moral reactions. The framing encourages audiences to assume authenticity even when indicators point elsewhere. Once a claim enters mainstream conversation, corrections rarely reverse its influence. Narratives take hold when they align with preexisting expectations in Western institutions.

Read More

12/19 Links Pt1: Howard Jacobson: Shtetl grit and Jewish self-belief; Australia declares day in honor of Bondi Beach attack victims; Suspect in Brown/MIT murders found dead

From Ian:

Howard Jacobson: Shtetl grit and Jewish self-belief

I have promised myself not to be political, which is hard given the last two years, never mind last four days, but allow me to ask an almost political question: Have we Jews gained as much as we have lost by kicking off the mud of the shtetl? To my eye, Jews have looked a little adrift of late, dismayed and baffled in proportion to the degree that they are — I won’t say assimilated – but acculturated or, if you prefer, un-shtetled. The apple can fall too far from the tree.

My father’s Manchester shtetl friends put on their wartime medals and went out onto the street to take the fight to Oswald Moseley. My father claimed he once breached a police cordon and got close enough to Moseley to throw a punch at him. Only Moseley’s horse, rearing back, saved its rider from a bloody nose. Whether it’s true that my father knocked out the horse I don’t know. But it’s a good joke, whether it happened or not. When people asked if he was sorry for the horse, he shrugged his shoulders. In his view Moseley’s horse was antisemitic by association.

Leaving Manchester means learning to see the horse’s point of view.

Well, we have all moved on. Leaving Manchester is a metaphor for loss. Shtetl vitality is no more. We no longer risk the jokes we once made for fear of giving offence. The refined are frightened of their own shadows and the intelligentsia I longed to join have turned out to be gullible fools.

We light the Chanukah candles in memory of a miracle that occurred 3,000 years ago, but we are careful not to rejoice too openly in our victory. Modern historians question the miracle of the oil, remind us that not every Jew was on the side of the Maccabees – ‘Not in my name,’ some of them chanted — and find a hundred other faults with the story. As though there are any stories that don’t exaggerate or distort. You don’t think all I’ve told you about Manchester is true, do you?

What matters is that we recall a vigorous version of our past, because without such past we have no vigorous present.

We survive because we believed in a God who, so long as we fought for who we were, wouldn’t let the oil run out.

May there never be a time when we grow too sophisticated and self-doubting, too cowed and apologetic, to do as the Maccabees did and stand firm against those who want to see the back of us.

Australia declares day in honor of Bondi Beach attack victims

The Federal and New South Wales governments have declared Sunday, December 21, as a day of reflection in order to honor the victims of the Bondi Beach mass shooting, announced Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a press conference early Friday.

Albanese went on to say that intelligence has confirmed that the Bondi Beach attack was ISIS-inspired.

He also announced that Australia will launch a national gun buyback scheme in the wake of the attack, declaring that "we expect hundreds of thousands of firearms will be collected and destroyed through this scheme."

The buyback would be similar to gun reforms introduced soon after the massacre in 1996 in Tasmania's Port Arthur after a lone gunman killed 35 people, which prompted authorities to implement some of the world's toughest gun laws.

"Australia's gun laws were last substantially reformed in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy. The terrible events at Bondi show we need to get more guns off our streets," Albanese said during a media briefing.

An estimated four million firearms are currently in the country, Albanese said. The government would target surplus, newly banned, and illegal firearms, with the costs to be shared between the federal and state governments, he said.

Following the Port Arthur massacre, Australia announced a gun buy-back scheme and secured the surrender of about 640,000 prohibited firearms nationwide.

Neighboring New Zealand announced sweeping gun reforms, including gun buyback schemes, after the Christchurch terror attack in 2019.

Read More

12/18 Links Pt2: Waiting for Ran Gvili; The suicidal vanity of Palestine Action; A War on Christmas Was Never about Israel; Norman Podhoretz, a Grateful American

From Ian:

Israel's Enemies Have Only Been Weakened, Not Defeated

The hostage release and ceasefire President Trump brokered in October has brought Israelis palpable relief and renewed optimism. However, they also recognize that peace is not yet at hand.

"We're living with traumas and scars," an Israeli brigadier general told me. "But we're resilient. We need to be because our enemies have only been weakened, not defeated."

Iran's rulers and their main proxies (Hamas, Hizbullah and the Houthis) have no interest in a "two-state solution," except as a step toward a "final solution" in the sense the Nazis used that phrase.

Their goal remains the extermination of the people of Israel. There's a word for that: genocide - one of the crimes Israel is relentlessly accused of.

A new Israeli defense posture is evolving. It will not depend on wishful thinking or deterrence.

It will focus on early detection of threats, followed by kinetic operations to prevent those threats from metastasizing.

This will not make Israelis more popular, but it's necessary if the people of Israel are to live.

Brendan O'Neill: The suicidal vanity of Palestine Action

Last night in London, four days after the slaughter of Jews in our cousin nation of Australia, radical leftists held a vigil. For the dead Jews? Don’t be daft. It was for the Palestine Action hunger strikers. It was for those silver-spooned self-harmers, those preening, plummy food-dodgers who think they can do to the nation what they once did to mummy and daddy: stomp their feet until they get what they want. And there you have it: self-styled anti-fascists weeping not for the Jews murdered by fascists, but for vain, posh Brits whose torment is wholly self-inflicted.

It’s not just in London. In Cambridge too, and outside the Dáil in Dublin, the keffiyeh classes have mournfully assembled in recent days to lament the agonies of the hunger strikers. Let history record this. Let it record that following one of the worst acts of anti-Semitic barbarism of modern times, ‘anti-racists’ gathered not to offer solidarity to Jews but to wang on about their fellow narcissists in the cult of Palestinianism. As Aussie Jews fall victim to the West’s swirling pox of Israelophobia, leftists pay tribute to the activist class that helped spread that deadly pox. Shameful doesn’t cover it.

I’ve always thought the Palestine Action hunger strike was preposterous – am-dram self-destruction designed less to shift the dial in the Middle East than to make a spectacle of the strikers’ own depthless self-regard. But after Bondi, after that merciless slaying of Jews by suspected adherents to the death cult of ISIS, the strike feels callous, too. Anyone who distracts public attention from the anti-Semitism crisis by droning on about five hungry twats in British jails has forfeited the right to be considered a decent person.

Seven Palestine Action activists joined the hunger strike in recent weeks. Two dropped out last night, leaving just five food-avoiders. Their demands include immediate bail for all Palestine Action activists being held on remand, the lifting of the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, and the shutting down of all Elbit Systems sites in the UK. Elbit is one of the main producers of military equipment for Israel. It employs close to 700 people in the UK, including many veterans. It is hubris of historic proportions that five smug activists are saying they won’t eat until 700 Brits are thrown on to the dole queue. Rarely has the conceitedness of the lily-handed left been on such stark display.

Let’s be clear about what this is: moral blackmail. These activists are the political equivalent of the scumbag husband who tells his wife he’ll harm himself if she ever leaves. Their hunger strike is a staggeringly elitist stunt. In the past, hunger strikes tended to be one small part of a larger democratic movement. Think of Gandhi’s hunger strike during the Quit India uprising of the 1940s. The Palestine Action hunger strike is the precise opposite – this is about circumventing democracy.

A War on Christmas Was Never about Israel There's a habit or reflex in discussing antisemitic violence to explain or even excuse it as being a response to purported Israeli injustices. Yet it is hard to explain exactly how attacking Jews celebrating Hannukah in Australia has anything to do with Gaza. It is also thunderingly obvious that Islamist radicals are not principally acting out of grievance at Israeli foreign policy, as they are simultaneously waging war on open and public Christianity in Europe.

German authorities announced Saturday that five men have been arrested on suspicion of planning an attack on a Christmas market in the Dingolfing area of southern Bavaria. Authorities believe the plot was motivated by Islamist extremism. Bavaria is not exactly the center of IDF activity.

In 2024, a car drove into a crowded outdoor Christmas market in the eastern German city of Magdeburg, killing at least five people and injuring more than 200. In a 2018 attack on a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, five people were killed and several more were injured. In 2016, an Islamist extremist drove a truck into a crowd at a Berlin Christmas market, killing 13 people and injuring dozens more.

In Paris, authorities canceled an annual New Year's celebration that drew half a million people last year, because their safety from Islamist radicals can no longer be secured. It starts with Jews, but it never ends there. These are enemies of our entire civilization, and their only actual demand is submission.

Read More