Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

By Daled Amos

Rabbi Pesach Wolicki is Executive Director, Israel365.com, an Orthodox Jewish institution that fosters better relations between Jews and Christians. He is a regular guest on Steve Bannon’s War Room, providing commentary on U.S.-Israel relations, Middle East policy, and the biblical foundations of Zionism.

Anyone who still thought the conservative movement was unified and the place of the Jews inside the movement was secure was disabused of that notion at AmFest. What is your take on what is going on?

Rabbi Wolicki: Well, look, the American right has its antisemitic wing. Just as the American left has its antisemitic wing. I don't think anyone ever thought that the American right was unified, especially the MAGA movement, which is really the dominant and ascendant political force in American politics over the last decade. It is actually a loose coalition of different factions that agree on certain things. They agree on a kind of hatred of the left-wing establishment.

Rabbi Pesach Wolicki. Source: Screen Cap

But beyond that, there are many points of departure between these various factions. You have libertarians, traditional Catholics, evangelicals, and in terms of geopolitics, you have people who are more isolationist and more traditionally Republican -- all pulling in different directions within that movement. Now, in terms of attitudes about Israel and the Jewish people, there are definitely antisemites. Israel and the Jews have really become one issue.

“Israel and the Jews have really become one issue.”

According to the polling of the 50,000 participants at AmFest, 83% of them see Israel as a friend and ally of the United States. So the perception one gets of anti-Israel sentiment on the right is not exactly correct. I personally found that the people I interacted with were, by and large, very friendly. There was a lot of pro-Israel sentiment there.

That said, among the younger generation, let's say under the age of 25 or 30, what you find there is a perception that Israel has an outsized influence on American politics and foreign policy. There is a resentment of that, especially among the younger generations who feel shut out of the economic system and the opportunities for prosperity that their parents and grandparents' generation had. These are all legitimate gripes. They look at the money going overseas. I've made the argument about why it's all in the best interest of the United States. It just doesn't resonate because, as far as they're concerned, they don't want the US involved in these things.

They see the combination of the aid and the fact that they're fighting a cultural war against wokeness and the progressive forces in society that they feel, correctly, have destroyed traditional American life. And unfortunately, the vast majority of Jews in America identify with the progressive left. This younger generation is fighting these cultural wars, and the people on the other side are so often Jews.

Pick an issue, and the Jewish community is advocating for the progressive left, woke agenda. And if you put that together with the fact that Israel is "officially" the largest recipient of foreign aid--and it's a witch's brew that makes it easy for the antisemites in the influencer community on the right to capture a lot of young people. That said, they're not as successful as we would think from watching social media.

You mentioned Steve Bannon, who has been accused of antisemitism. But your organization, Israel 365, honored him this year as a "Warrior for Israel."

Rabbi Wolicki: We didn't honor him. We were honoring other people that evening. Steve Bannon spoke that evening. I think it was misrepresented in the media. He was the keynote speaker at an event where we honored a bunch of pro-Israel activists.

Other than the few months after the 12-day war with Iran, where he was very much opposed to American involvement, and his interpretation that Prime Minister Netanyahu had manipulated American politics and lied in order to drag America into a conflict—which he greatly resented—other than that, Steve Bannon has been an adamantly pro-Israel voice.


Steve Bannon. Source: Screen Cap


From October 7th until the Iran war, he actually stood out from the crowd in that part of MAGA as being extremely pro-Israel. Most Jews don't listen to his podcast, and they don't know, but when everyone else was buying into the genocide claims and all these things, Steve was not buying it. He was advocating for Israel to finish off Hamas and not to hold back. He's been a very pro-Israel voice.

There is an interesting story I heard from Steve, and corroborated with Ambassador David Friedman. When he was Trump's chief strategist and in charge of the plans for inauguration day during the transition, Steve was pushing that the very first thing the president would do, after taking the oath of office and giving the speech, would be to go straight to the Oval Office and sign an executive order recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the embassy there. He wanted that to be the opening act of Trump's presidency. The State Department people got wind of it, and they pressured President Trump to hold off.

Steve gets lumped in with the anti-Israel crowd because he's critical of Israel. He doesn't like Prime Minister Netanyahu, and that's fine. A good 40% of Israelis don't like Prime Minister Netanyahu either, but I don't know of anything antisemitic Steve has ever said. Steve is not an apologist for Qatar and the Islamists. He doesn't talk about Jewish conspiracies and things like that. This is not where he's coming from.

There are also broader issues. I believe that populist nationalism is a wonderful political ideology. Israel is basically a populist nationalist country, more and more so with every passing year. That's why Israel hasn't had a left-wing government in decades, and that's why the younger population in Israel is more religious and more politically conservative than its parents. I believe in a lot of the same political principles that Steve believes in, and he's also a big advocate for Judea and Samaria—he refuses to use the term "West Bank"; he only calls it Judea and Samaria. Steve is a very pro-Israel guy. You can be pro-Israel and also hate Bibi. So the perception that Steve Bannon is an antisemite is really coming from an ignorance of the man. He's a complicated person; he's not a Hasid. He's not a choir boy, but he's certainly not an antisemite. It's an absurd claim.

Ben Shapiro argued at AmFest for boundaries in the conservative movement. He said that not every voice belonged under the same tent. When it comes to antisemitism or being anti-Israel more generally, shouldn't there be boundaries in terms of who's inside and outside the tent?

Rabbi Wolicki: Ben Shapiro’s speech has been taken out of context by people on our side and people on the other side as well.

For example, he did not advocate for boundaries. If you listen to the speech, he never says anything about canceling a voice or not platforming someone. Instead of talking about canceling people, he talked about the responsibility of those who speak in public for a living, and he laid out 5 responsibilities that he believes they have to their audiences. He called out Candace Owens. He called out Tucker Carlson. He called out Megyn Kelly by name. He called them out for violating these principles of integrity to their audience. He never called for anyone to be deplatformed.

Ben Shapiro. Source: Screen Cap

It was interpreted by everyone as a call to deplatform people. Let's assume that Ben Shapiro did call for people to be deplatformed. Let's assume that we should have boundaries. Here's the problem, as I diagnose it—and I say this as someone who is intimately involved in this political movement, and I see it as my responsibility on behalf of Am Yisrael to be there. There is a difference between what is correct on principle and what is effective, and that's a difficult choice that we have to make. We're sometimes faced with a situation where what is correct on principle, because of the political environment and the playing field that we're in, will backfire. Now, one of the animating ideas of the America First / MAGA movement is a revulsion for anything that sounds like cancel culture. They don't believe in canceling any voice. I'm not saying this to defend them; I'm saying this to explain them.

“There is a difference between what is correct on principle and what is effective—and that’s a difficult choice we have to make.”

Charlie Kirk was a pro-Israel person. He used to have Candace Owens speak at his events before she really went off the rails. And when she started going off the rails with the antisemitic conspiracy stuff, there was a lot of pressure on Charlie to stop having Candace Owens speak at Turning Point USA events, and he did; he stopped having her speak. But from Charlie Kirk's perspective, everything should be allowed in the open marketplace of ideas. Personally, I think he took it too far, but he thought every voice should be heard. The answer is never to say that certain voices shouldn't speak because they say bad things; we should platform everybody and let the open marketplace of ideas do its job. This idea, which to a certain extent sounds noble in theory, is taken way too far in the MAGA movement because it's a backlash against what the left was doing, especially around the time of COVID, where there was active work by social media companies to silence voices.

In our current environment, if we stand up and say we have to have guardrails, that we can't have certain voices speak, that stand may very well be--and probably is--correct on principle. But the way it resonates, the way it triggers the younger part of the MAGA movement, is that it sounds like cancellation. Even if they don't necessarily agree with the voice being canceled, they don't want any part of silencing voices, because it triggers them as part of one of the major political points that the movement was founded on, which is an abhorrence for these limitations on freedom of speech and on the cancel culture that the left put into place. It's not normal conservatism, it has its own culture to it—within the MAGA movement, and we have to be very, very careful as Jews about advocating for the cancellation of voices, even if we are correct in principle.

We need to change the way we advocate and change what exactly we're advocating for. In the lead-up to America Fest in the months before Charlie Kirk was killed, we were talking about his planning to have Tucker Carlson speak. A number of us were upset about that, because we really felt he was going to spew more lies, and it was going to hurt, including Turning Point itself. But we never said "cancel him," because we knew that would not work with the way he thinks. What we were arguing for was to give equal time and equal prominence to people to make Israel's case. Now, I have to say the organizers of America Fest failed in that regard. There was no such speaker. They did not have any session at the conference that really laid out and defended Israel properly. I think they failed.

You have described the current anti-Israel atmosphere as an "organized operation." You have also mentioned that pro-Israel voices are "up against a machine we can't compete with." So what do we do?

Rabbi Wolicki: I think we need to make the Israel issue not about Israel. One of the fastest growing issues in America and in the West right now is the threat of jihadist Islam and what it's doing to Western culture. You see what's going on in Minnesota, with the Somali Muslim community, and you see the various Muslim terror attacks, and what happens in Australia.

What Israel and the pro-Israel community have failed to do effectively is frame our war as a war against these same forces. We need to do that because then, rather than trying to get people to be on our side of our conflict, we are instead framing our conflict in a way that we are on the same side as them in a conflict that they are concerned with.

How do you go about doing that? So there's a number of things that Israel can do differently. Charlie Kirk wrote a 7-page letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu back in April, laying out what he thought Israel should do to tell its story differently. One of the main things that Charlie pointed out is that we need more first-person voices from Israel—young people telling Israel's story, talking about their own lives on social media instead of having the IDF spokesman or Prime Minister Netanyahu being the spokespersons for Israel. We need more young, first-person voices.

In terms of fighting against the machine, the Qatari information machine, we need to keep plugging away. The Jewish people have always been outnumbered. We've always been outgunned; that's the case with this also. We have to hope that, eventually, the truth is going to win out. But I really believe that we need to look at the issues that are of concern to Americans—to young Americans, especially—and tether the Israel issue to the issues they are concerned about.

Let me give you some food for thought. If you look around the world at the political winds and the political changes that have been happening around the world over the last few years, one of the things that we're seeing is an ascendancy of right-wing populist nationalism, right-wing Christian populist nationalism in countries all over the world. To a large extent, this is a backlash to the left and to unfettered immigration—not only in America but everywhere—South America, Europe, and also a reaction to the destruction of Western civilization and the decline of the family.

All of these things have led to this right-wing upsurge among the younger generations in these many, many countries. So you see Victor Orban in power in Hungary, the ascendancy of Wilders' party in the Netherlands, the Vox party in Spain, Bolsonaro--the evangelical Christian leader--in Brazil, and Javier Milei in Argentina, and I can go on and on and on. There are many examples of this—of these populist nationalist, Christian conservatives, or even Le Pen's party in France and Tommy Robinson and his followers in England. As Jews, we have to not romanticize our relationships with people politically. The fact that the parents and grandparents of the people in the Le Pen party were antisemites doesn't mean that the people in that party today are antisemites.

Source: Screen Cap

Young Christian conservative nationalists in all of the places I've mentioned, the Christian conservative populist nationalists on the right everywhere in the world--except the United States--are almost entirely pro-Israel. If you Google pictures of pro-Bolsonaro anti-socialist protests in Brazil that have nothing to do with Israel and look at the crowd shots and zoom in, you will see that one of the things they bring to their demonstrations are Israeli flags. They wave Israeli flags at Brazilian anti-socialist demonstrations because they see Israel as representative of democracy, Judeo-Christian Western civilization, and conservatism. Israelis and Jews need more self-awareness about Israel—the way the rest of the world sees us. We're a very right-wing country, increasingly right-wing, with every year. We're an increasingly religious country—we're an ethnic nationalist, religious state. That's the way the rest of the world sees us, and they're all pro-Israel.

By contrast, the only populist nationalist, Christian conservatives in the world who are not overwhelmingly pro-Israel are in the United States of America. And I believe it's for the reasons I said before: the combination of a powerful, pervasive Jewish progressive left in America, which doesn't exist in these other countries, and the fact that the United States gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel, which is also not the case with these other countries. Add in that the Qataris and the other bad actors have no interest in investing billions of dollars to change the way young Argentinians or young Brazilians think—there's not as much skin in the game there—but changing the way young Americans think, that can pay off for them because America is so powerful.

So if you put all these things together, we have this poisonous mix that predisposes a lot of young Americans to not be pro-Israel because of the other associations. I think that we need to break all of that. Jews need to be very open about advocating for an end to USA aid to Israel. It's actually bad for Israel strategically.

“Jews need to be very open about advocating for an end to U.S. aid to Israel. It’s actually bad for Israel strategically.”

Israel has sold $10 billion of air defenses to Greece and Germany in the last month. We just signed a $35 billion natural gas deal with Egypt. We don't need $3.8 billion from the United States every year, with all the strings attached and all of the leverage it gives the US in our strategic decision-making. We need to openly advocate for an end to the aid. It's bad for Israel. The only reason there is aid is that every time America has wanted to force us to make a security concession, they would compensate us by giving aid. The aid to Israel began when Carter used it as an incentive to get Begin to pull out of the Sinai desert. Then Clinton ramped it up again at Camp David with Ehud Barak to get him to agree to make more concessions to Arafat. Every time the aid goes up, it's a concession, because Israel is willing to swallow some compromise on our national security and make us more beholden to the United States. It's actually bad for Israel. So we have to start being open about advocating against USA aid to Israel, and that will help us politically on the right in America as well.

And Jews have to be more open about the fact that we want nothing to do with these progressive left Jews, because that's who these young conservative Americans are—and I feel for them—they want to have good Christian lives. They want to live in a traditional country that isn't under attack by wokeness. And the Jews are constantly fighting against them. I think it's bad that they lump us all together and don't realize that orthodox Jews are with them. We should start saying openly, "We want nothing to do with the Jewish establishment. We want nothing to do with those people; they're destructive. They're our enemies." I think we should say it plainly, and I think that these are things that will help us win back those parts of the American right who have slid into anti-Israel and antisemitic ways of thinking.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Friday, October 24, 2025

By Daled Amos


Maybe it was inevitable.

Maybe it was only a matter of time before Trump decided to push Israel in the direction he wanted. After all, he wouldn't be the first US president to pressure Israel. On the other hand, he may be the first president to be so blunt about it.

TIME Magazine did an interview with the US president on October 15 and published it on Thursday. One of the questions was whether he thought Israel should release terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti:
TIME: Well, Marwan Barghouti is seen by many as the one figure who could unite Palestinians behind a two-state solution. He tops most polls amongst Palestinians for whom they would vote for in a presidential election. But he’s in prison, and Israel has refused to let him out. He was arrested in 2002. Ron Lauder, a big support of yours, recently encouraged Israel to let him out. Do you think Israel should release him from prison?

Trump: I am literally being confronted with that question about 15 minutes before you called. That was the question. That was my question of the day. So I’ll be making a decision.
I'll be making a decision...?

Besides the fact that this is not his decision to make, there is an implication that the US president is willing to apply pressure on Netanyahu to release a convicted terrorist to further his own personal plans for peace...and for a potential Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump is already getting plenty of cover from Ronald Lauder for pressuring Israel. Lauder is the president of the World Jewish Congress, besides being a Trump ally. He was very clear on his support for Barghouti's release:
I think that the fact that he's thinking about it is a great step in the right direction. A two-state solution is only possible if you have a good leader and Marwan Barghouti will be the right leader for it. Now it doesn't have to happen in one or two years–it could be three, four or five years, whatever time it takes. But once you start having peace between Israel and the Palestinian people, you have the future of a peaceful Middle East.
Perhaps Trump views Barghouti the way Reuters does. The headline of the Reuters report on Trump's comment was Trump mulls whether Israel should free jailed Palestinian political figure. But Barghouti is not some jailed politician, and Lauder should know better than to publicly challenge Israel's security interests.

Barghouti is currently serving multiple life sentences for his 2004 conviction in connection with attacks in Israel that killed five people. He is a senior member of Fatah and former chief of its Tanzim militant faction, playing a key role in the Second Intifada.There are security issues at stake that are for Israel, and only for Israel, to decide.

In addition to Lauder, Barghouti's wife urged Trump to push for his release after hearing that he is ready to make a decision. 

This follows the push in Israel for the annexation of the West Bank. In that same TIME interview, Trump said:

[The annexation] won't happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. It will not happen. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.

The US president believes he has a say in Israel's plans for annexation since it directly impacts both the peace process that the US is invested in and the agreements that he has made with various Arab leaders. But insisting on freeing a terrorist leader is an entirely different story. We all know that Trump is not a polished impromtu speaker. It is unilikely he would force Israel's hand on such a release. That may explain why there has not been an outpouring of indignation from Israel in response to Trump's comment.

But Barghouti is not a “political figure.” He’s a convicted murderer who orchestrated the killing of innocent Israelis. To even entertain the idea of his release is to erase the line between diplomacy and delusion.






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Friday, October 17, 2025

By Yehuda Teitelbaum

It was always strange that Hamas managed to convince so much of the world that Gaza was starving. Anyone who has studied or lived through real famine knows it looks nothing like what we were shown. Real famine is unmistakable. There is no ambiguity. It strips away everything. In Yemen, in Sudan, in Ethiopia, the evidence was everywhere. Children so emaciated they could not stand. Mothers too weak to carry them. Families dying in the streets because there was simply nothing left to eat. Those images were burned into the world’s memory because they could not be denied.

When you looked at Gaza, none of that existed. There were no pictures of groups of skeletal children sitting in rubble, no photos of neighborhoods reduced to wandering ghosts. What we saw instead were markets filled with produce, bakeries still open, and restaurants crowded late into the night. Countless videos came out of Gaza, not from Israeli sources or foreign reporters, but from Gazans themselves, showing normal commerce and daily life continuing amid the war. That did not mean life was easy. It was not. War creates chaos. Distribution networks break down. Prices rise. People go hungry. But that is not famine.

Famine is the collapse of an entire social fabric. It is starvation so deep that the weak simply disappear. It is the unraveling of families and the death of entire communities. It cannot be hidden or managed. When famine takes hold, the evidence becomes overwhelming and impossible to ignore. Gaza never looked like that, and the difference matters because words matter. When the word “famine” is used, it is not just describing a humanitarian crisis, it is triggering a political and legal framework. It transforms a tragic situation into an accusation of criminal intent.

The story itself was not new. Gaza had supposedly been starving since 2005. Each year the same claims returned under different slogans, siege, starvation, food insecurity, blockade. The language always shifted, but the accusation remained the same. In 2018, Oxfam declared that a million Gazans could not feed their families. Others echoed it without evidence, repeating it because it was convenient and effective.

Meanwhile, Israel became the only country in modern history to send food into the territory of an enemy it was fighting. Millions of pounds of supplies crossed the border even as rockets were launched at the crossing points. Over two million tons of humanitarian aid entered Gaza during the war, more than enough to feed its civilian population. Yet the United Nations still declared famine, because once you call it that, the entire framework shifts. A famine allows the narrative to move from a battlefield to a courtroom. It turns a war for survival into a moral trial. It lets international organizations accuse Israel of crimes rather than confront Hamas for creating the conditions of war in the first place.

That was always the purpose. The famine story was never meant to describe reality. Hamas understood that it could not win militarily. Its only chance was to win through narrative. Every image of destruction, every hungry child, every collapsed building could be repurposed into a weapon. And the international community played along. NGOs repeated the talking points as fact, journalists published them without verification, and politicians echoed them in speeches. The repetition was the point. Once said often enough, the lie began to sound like truth.

Inside Gaza, food was never truly the issue. Control was. Hamas controlled everything, the aid distribution, the warehouses, the access to supplies. Loyalists received food first. Fighters and their families were fed before anyone else. Ordinary people were kept desperate because desperation creates sympathy. The goal was to sustain the crisis long enough to turn public opinion against Israel.

And the world helped make that possible. The United Nations continued to fund UNRWA, an agency that has long since abandoned the idea of resettlement or reconciliation and instead exists to preserve refugee status indefinitely. Western governments poured billions into a system that guarantees permanent dependency. Human rights organizations repeated Hamas propaganda almost word for word, dressing it up as analysis. Major media outlets presented Hamas press releases as verified reporting. Western politicians followed along because it was easier than facing their own role in enabling a movement built on hate.

If the same claims had been made about Yemen or Sudan, the world would have demanded evidence. They would have sent photographers and researchers. But when it came to Gaza, the absence of evidence was treated as proof. The more the claim unraveled, the louder it was repeated. The famine narrative was never intended to help the people of Gaza. It was designed to weaponize their suffering against Israel.

Now that the war has seemingly ended, the truth is difficult to ignore. Gaza endured hardship and hunger. Lives were lost. But there was no famine. What there was, was manipulation, by Hamas, by NGOs, by journalists who knew better, and by international bodies that long ago abandoned integrity for politics. Yet the damage is done. The famine that never existed will live on in the archives of the United Nations, in the speeches of activists, and in the history books of the future.

That is how propaganda becomes history. The lie survives because it is useful, and the truth fades because it is inconvenient. The famine in Gaza was never real, but it achieved what it was meant to achieve. It turned the defense of a nation into a moral indictment, and it ensured that even in victory, Israel would stand accused.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Everyone who has been talking about October 7 over the past two years is now talking about the ceasefire.

Well, almost everyone. Remember the mobs we saw in growing numbers, protesting, rioting, and disrupting traffic?


Many of them have now been silent on the actual ceasefire agreement that is set to take effect in a few days. But why is that?

Journalist and commentator Haviv Rettig Gur is one of those who has pointed this out. The silence does not make any sense. As Rettig Gur points out:
You don't have to be silent. Even if you don't like every aspect of the deal, even if the deal leaves the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza to the second stage, even if you have critiques of the deal--the deal ends the war; it ends the genocide which you believe is underway.
With all the protests against the alleged genocide in Gaza, if these same people are not speaking out about the ceasefire to this war, then maybe there really wasn't a real genocide going on after all. 

The Palestinian American activist and commentator, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, has also written about this phenomenon. He writes about The ‘Peace Protesters’ Who Won’t Give Peace a Chance:
The lack of support from self-styled peace activists in the West is unsurprising. A lack of clarity, consistency, or levelheaded thinking has been a staple of Western-based activism that purports to care about the Palestinian people in Gaza.

...The first step to freeing Palestinians from the horrors of war is to free them from the Free Palestine Movement in the diaspora and Western world. The unholy alliance between the far left, far right, and Islamist hooligans who normalize Hamas's narrative is harmful first and foremost to the Palestinian people.

Many of these voices have long called for a ceasefire that would merely freeze the conflict, as opposed to fundamentally altering the landscape in Gaza to effect real political transformation and deliver a lasting peace.
The protesters seemed intent on a ceasefire much like the previous one that kept Hamas in power until it picked a time of its own choosing to break it by invading Israel and slaughtering over 1,200, mostly civilians.

Of course, the response to the deal is not merely support or silence. There have been politicians who have taken advantage of the plan to attack Israel on the one hand, while recognizing it without giving any credit to the president under whose influence the deal was made.
Mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani refused to credit President Trump for helping broker a long-awaited truce deal in Gaza – and instead bashed Israel – as other New York Democrats offered tepid kudos to the commander-in-chief Thursday.
Other politicians in New York answered similarly when asked about the ceasefire, with US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo praising it as a positive step, while leaving Trump's name out of it. 

In New York, the Democratic state Assemblyman Kalman Yeger did say that the president deserves “much” credit for the deal--and went much further, praising Israel and also Prime Minister Netanyahu as well:
The resilience of the Israeli people, the relentless focus of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his strong allies in the Knesset and the tremendous backing of a US President who recognized that no nation can survive if it gets on its knees to terror, combined for an unbreakable force that brought about the Hamas surrender and the hopeful quick return of the hostages.
Of course, being from Brooklyn would explain why Yeger was able, and even needed, to say the things that many Democratic politicians would not and could not.

The sudden silence of so many who once filled the streets, blocked traffic, and shouted about genocide is telling. If this ceasefire is not worth celebrating, if peace is not worth endorsing, then perhaps those demonstrations were never about saving lives at all. The truth is that Israel’s enemies—whether on the battlefield or in Western capitals—are invested less in Palestinian safety than in Israel’s destruction. That is why the same voices that cried for a ceasefire now fall mute when one has finally been achieved. Their hypocrisy has been laid bare: what they sought was not peace, but Israel’s defeat. The real test is not in shouting slogans when bombs fall, but in welcoming the chance for quiet when the guns fall silent. On that test, the self-styled champions of justice have failed.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Friday, October 03, 2025

By Daled Amos


Why did Kamala Harris lose the presidential election?

A Free Press article by Kat Rosenfield following Harris's loss notes how Democrats and pundits immediately blamed sexism. According to this view, voters across the country just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman who, according to former MSNBC Joy Reid, had conducted "a historic, flawlessly run campaign" (sic). Rosenfield notes the attraction of blaming biased voters:
It’s not hard to see the appeal of this narrative. It displaces blame for Harris’s failure onto everyone but the candidate herself and allows her supporters to claim the moral high ground, in the face of abject defeat...Harris was perfect; it’s America that is wrong. And so she lost, yes, but only because the country itself is so full of losers.

This kind of framing is nothing new.

In July 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James blamed racism and sexism as the real reasons why Harris lost:

[Republicans are] running very scared. That's what I think. They're running very scared, they have nothing else other than racism and sexism...The reality is that Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, is qualified, and, you know, oftentimes she's underestimated but she’s an overachiever.

Blaming the critics is not limited to the political arena. When New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones was criticised for her 1619 Project, where she claimed that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” her allies framed factual criticisms as racist attacks. One person on X responded that "[Washington Post pundit George] Will should’ve just written Hannah-Jones was 'uppity'”. Later, Hannah-Jones belittled criticism of her thesis when she condescendingly wrote

to clarify that this sentence had never been meant to imply that every single colonist shared this motivation, we changed the sentence to read “some of the colonists.”

When a weapon like this is so widespread, you can be sure it will be used against Jews.

So, another area where critics are rebuffed with charges of racism instead of dealing with the merits of their arguments is progressive representatives of American Muslims. In 2018, when the Women's March was criticized over one of its leaders, Tamika Mallory, having a close connection to antisemite Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour apologized to the Jewish women of the group for not addressing the issue fast enough--but not before lashing out the day before:

It’s very clear to me what the underlying issue is — I am a bold, outspoken BDS supporting Palestinian Muslim American woman and the opposition’s worst nightmare...by proxy they began attacking my sister Tamika Mallory — knowing all too well that in this country the most discardable woman is a Black woman.

Here, Sarsour solidified what has become the paradigm of attacking critics instead of dealing with their points.

Indeed, her self-portrayal as a defender of women was something of a stunt, considering that her  defense of women was selective:



Further, in a 2017 Nation interview, Sarsour declared that a woman could not be both a Zionist and a feminist
In September 2016, Michael D. Cohen, Eastern Director for the Wiesenthal Center, attended a New York City Council Public Hearing on that body’s resolution to officially condemn the BDS movement. Sarsour was there too, as those in favor of the resolution were shouted down as “Jewish pigs” and “Zionist filth.”
It was Sarsour who nodded approvingly and congratulated individuals who were kicked out of the hearing room for being out of order, for walking in front of individuals providing testimony in support of the resolution, and for shouting down our supporters with anti-Semitic slurs — all in the name of protecting free speech.

Sarsour will insist that her critics are proof that her claims hit home and reveal the truth of what she says. And if she can toss in that those critics are also racist and misogynistic, so much the better.

Ilhan Omar learned from Sarsour how to accuse critics of Islamophobia. Rashida Tlaib was criticized when she claimed that

There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust… and the fact that it was my ancestors – Palestinians – who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood... all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-Holocaust… and I love the fact that my ancestors provided that in many ways.

In response to backlash from critics, Omar did not address the critics or their concerns in Tlaib's remarks. Instead, she fell back to the accusation that criticisms were "designed to silence, sideline, and sort of almost eliminate [the] public voice of Muslims from the public discourse." Left unanswered were the facts that were whitewashed by Tlaib's comment--historical facts such as:

o  Arab protests against Jewish immigration left many stranded in Nazi Germany,
o  Pe-1948 the Arabs were guilty of massacres of Jews,
o  Palestinian Arab leader Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini collaborated with Hitler
o  Jews created economic opportunities that benefitted the Arabs and their livelihood

We saw another example of this at the beginning of this year, Amnesty International found it expedient to accuse its Israeli chapter of "anti-Palestinian racism." The Israeli chapter is the same one that worked with Palestinians to condemn Israel, and argued that the IDF committed “crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing". But when they criticized Amnesty International's genocide accusation for not proving that Israel had specifically intended to kill Palestinians--as required by the definition of genocide under international law--Amnesty International silenced the group the only way it knew how, regardless of how ridiculous their claim was.

Any attempt by Jews to defend themselves is attacked. We see this in criticisms of the widely respected IHRA definition of antisemitism. According to the IHRA website:

As of February 1, 2025, 1,266 entities worldwide have adopted the definition. Among those, 45 countries have done so—including the United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. In the U.S., 37 state governments have done so, along with 98 city and county governments.

That has not stopped opponents from claiming the definition is being weaponized to stifle criticism of Israel, but those accusations are more common than actual examples. Ali Abunimah has made this claim. On the Electronic Intifadahe accuses the Jewish community of "baselessly" manipulating the term antisemitism.

We oppose the cynical and baseless use of the term anti-Semitism as a tool for stifling criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, as this assumes simply because someone is Jewish, they support Zionism or the colonial and apartheid policies of the state of Israel - a false generalization.

It will not come as a surprise that there is a lengthy article on Wikipedia on the topic: The Weaponization of Antisemitism, but nothing similar on the weaponization of Islamophobia. There is just a very short article on Wikipedia called LetUsTalk, which is

a campaign against silencing criticism of the Islamic law and especially hijab in the West through accusations of Islamophobia. This campaign has started when a letter written by Dr Sherif Emil—a Canadian Children’s surgeon—and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in which he criticizes promotion of hijab as a symbol of diversity, was retracted due to the accusations of Islamophobia.

And now going a step further, we have Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, telling Mehdi Hasan, "There are far better representations of the concerns of Jewish New Yorkers than the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt”-- this from the same guy who has no problem with aggressive protesters going around chanting "Globalize the Intifada" as they intimidate Jews.

Jews are so blessed to have politicians like Mamdani, who not only can decide what qualifies as antisemitism, but also are ready to tell us which leaders truly represent Jewish interests. Other minorities must be so jealous.

Whether it’s sexism, racism, or antisemitism, the goal is the same—silence dissent, deflect accountability, and emphasize one's own moral righteousness. The result is a double standard: valid criticism is dismissed as prejudice, while others weaponize those very accusations to shield themselves from scrutiny. Until this pattern ends, we will continue to see excuses masquerading as principles, and the moral language of justice—against real sexism, racism, and antisemitism—will be hollowed out.






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Thursday, September 18, 2025




One of the most enduring weapons in modern conflict is not the rocket or the rifle but the accusation. For Hamas, the most effective charge has always been the word “genocide.” It is repeated with such frequency, across so many platforms, that it begins to feel less like an allegation than an axiom.

It is a meticulously organized tactic, accomplished with the support and encouragement of the UN and various NGOs. It goes like this. Make a sweeping claim, ensure it races through the headlines, and move on before anyone has time to dismantle it. By the time the details are checked, the falsehood has already shaped public opinion. The lie itself becomes the fact.

It is not only the word itself that matters, but the way it is deployed. Hamas and its advocates understand the power of a flood. One falsehood is never enough. They release dozens at a time. A hospital bombing, a famine, a mass grave, a strike on aid workers, a claim of genocide. Each accusation is crafted to dominate headlines for a few hours or days. By the time the details are debunked, the news cycle has already moved on and the next charge is already circulating.

 A lie that travels faster than the correction can never really be corrected. The falsehood lingers in memory long after the retraction, shaping opinion in ways that facts no longer reach. In time, the accumulation of accusations builds a kind of moral sediment. Each story, however false, leaves behind a residue that hardens into conventional wisdom.

That is why the genocide accusation feels so immovable. It is not that anyone has proved it. It is that the sheer repetition has made it seem axiomatic. Each new claim adds another layer, another echo. Even when dismantled, the next one has already arrived to take its place. The flood itself becomes the strategy. The goal is not persuasion in the courtroom of law, but saturation in the court of public opinion.

That cycle is playing out again today. Israel has ordered civilians to evacuate Gaza City, Hamas’s last remaining stronghold. Simultaneously, the UN has once again declared that Israel is commiting genocide. Predictably, Western outlets splashed the front page with cries of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” Yet these two headlines directly contradict one another. After nearly two years of war, Gaza City was still full of civilians. If Israel had truly been pursuing a campaign of extermination, there would not be hundreds of thousands left to evacuate. The presence of so many people at the very center of Hamas’s operations is evidence not of indiscriminate slaughter, but of a military campaign that has left vast populations untouched.

This is not the first time the genocide narrative has been deployed. In 1979 Edward Said accused Israel of “naked genocidal wars.” In the 1980s Noam Chomsky spoke of “Israeli concentration camps” and dismissed the Hebrew Bible as a “genocidal” text. The 2001 Durban NGO Forum labeled Israel guilty of “acts of genocide” while calling for its isolation. Mahmoud Abbas repeated the charge at the UN in 2014. Most recently, UN rapporteurs and professional activist networks have institutionalized the accusation in resolutions and reports. The word has become a political instrument, passed down through decades, polished and redeployed in every conflict.

But politics and law are not the same thing. The International Court of Justice, the only body with authority to rule on genocide, has never convicted Israel of it. In fact, even its much-cited provisional ruling has been widely misrepresented. In April, Joan Donoghue, the president of the court at the time, explained in a BBC interview that the court did not find Israel guilty of genocide, nor even that genocide was occurring. The court’s purpose, she said, was simply to affirm that South Africa had standing to bring its case and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide.” That careful legal distinction was collapsed by activists and the media into a false headline: “ICJ rules Israel plausibly guilty of genocide.”

That is why the current evacuation order matters so much. It is not a footnote in the war. It is the collapse of the central accusation. The existence of large civilian populations inside Gaza City proves that Israel has not waged a campaign of indiscriminate killing. The evidence completely contradicts the indictment.

And yet the indictment will never be withdrawn. It was never meant to withstand scrutiny. Its purpose is not to protect civilians but to delegitimize the state that fights the terrorists who endanger them. The word “genocide” has become less a claim than a strategy. A way to fix Israel permanently in the moral imagination as heir to the crimes of the twentieth century.

The tragedy is not only that this slander persists, but that it is echoed and amplified by institutions that are still considered reputable in the eyes of the world. When UN bodies, NGOs, and media outlets repeat the charge without rigor, they do not illuminate the truth. They just make it harder for Israel to finish this war once and for all.

And that is the anatomy of the lie. It begins with Hamas, but it finds its power only when others choose to repeat it.






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Monday, September 15, 2025

By Daled Amos


European leaders are still tripping over each other to muster the most indignation at Israel. The heads of France, Canada, Britain, Australia, and Belgium have loudly proclaimed their support for rewarding Hamas with a Palestinian state. But their latest fury is reserved for Israel's strike against the Hamas leadership in Doha, the capital of Qatar, a leading funder of Islamist terrorism.

This public outrage demonstrates a profound ignorance and disregard for their own obligations under international law.

During a press conference the day before Israel's strike against Hamas in Doha, the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, declared:
Spain, as you know, doesn’t have nuclear bombs, nor aircraft carriers, nor large oil reserves. We alone can’t stop the Israeli offensive. But that doesn’t mean we won’t stop trying...

Spanish politicians were quick to mock Sanchez. The leader of the far-right Vox party, Santiago Abascal, said Sanchez “would like to have nuclear weapons…but not to defend Spain. To defend Hamas.” A spokesman for the center-right Popular Party asked, “A nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv? Is that what he intends to do?”

Netanyahu countered that Sanchez was the one with genocidal tendencies:

While Sanchez's comments preceded the strike, other leaders were quick to condemn the subsequent action. Canadian PM Mark Carney called the attack “an intolerable expansion of violence and an affront to Qatar’s sovereignty.” The EU issued a statement that the attack “breaches international law.” The EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, suspended bilateral support to Israel “without affecting our work with Israeli civil society or Yad Vashem.” As the Wall Street Journal put it, "In other words, commemorate the Holocaust, but don’t dare touch the leaders who tried to carry out another one."

In their eagerness to condemn Israel, these leaders made a big show of supporting a "rules-based international order." But what international law do they claim to support? The rules they are obligated to follow directly contradict their outrage.

On September 28, 2001, just two weeks after 9/11, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373 (2001). Adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it is legally binding on all UN members. This resolution obligates states to:

  • Prevent and Suppress Financing: All member states must prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, criminalize such activities, and freeze the assets of terrorists.

  • Deny Safe Haven: States must deny safe haven and support to terrorists, and prevent their movement across borders.

  • Improve Cooperation: Governments must cooperate on investigations, extraditions, and mutual legal assistance.

  • Strengthen Domestic Laws: States must strengthen border controls, asylum/refugee screening, and ensure terrorism is prosecutable under national laws.

The bottom line is that Resolution 1373 obligates all UN member states to take concrete steps to deny terrorists financial support, safe havens, and freedom of movement. By giving a pass to a country that hosts and funds the leaders of a designated terrorist organization, these European nations are themselves in breach of international law.

This double standard is also apparent in the United States, even among those who support Israel. In July of last year, Congress recommended in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 that the Secretary of Defense submit a report on the operational status of the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, “taking into account [Qatar's] relationship with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.” The committee noted that:

[Qatar] continues to host Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of more than 33 Americans and the kidnapping of 12 Americans on October 7, 2023.

Recognition of the problem with Qatar is not a new phenomenon. A 2009 brief for Admiral Olson on his visit to Qatar noted, "Vast wealth has bolstered political ambitions, leading to Qatari foreign policy initiatives that are often at odds with U.S. objectives, notably Qatar's relationships with Hamas and Syria."

Qatari money and political influence have clearly warped the understanding of international law among many world leaders. In their rush to publicly condemn Israel, these European politicians have not only demonstrated a profound ignorance of their own binding obligations under UN Resolution 1373, but have also shown a troubling willingness to grant terrorists safe haven. When leaders boast of upholding a "rules-based international order" while simultaneously rewarding the very entities that seek to destroy it, their words ring hollow. The true measure of a nation's commitment to international law isn't in its public statements of indignation, but in its willingness to enforce the actual laws against all who break them, without exception.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Israel's strike against Hamas terrorists living in Qatar brings attention again to that country's ambiguous position as both a mediator with terrorists--and a key financial supporter of them. 

The very nature of Qatari mediation between Israel and Hamas would seem to violate not only common sense but also Arab cultural values. Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind on the topic of conflict resolution:
It goes without saying that the mediator must be a person whose impartiality is beyond question, and this means that he must not be more closely related to one side in the dispute than to the other...In sum, the ideal mediator is a man who is in a position, because of his personality, status, respect, wealth influence, and so on to create in the litigants the desire to conform with his wishes. (p. 242-243)
Qatar's partiality is beyond question, and in a purely Arab dispute, such a level of partisanship would be cause for rejecting such a mediator. It is from a Western viewpoint that bringing Qatar in, in place of Egypt, might make sense. The idea would be that Qatar, as the sponsor of the Hamas terrorists, would be the one most able to apply pressure on Hamas and wring the necessary concessions.

Not that there has been any indication of Qatar's willingness or ability to do so.

Two weeks ago, Amichai Chikli, Israeli Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, posted a deleted tweet from the editor-in-chief of Qatar's Al-Shark:


The full translation of Al-Harmi's post is:
If the heroes of the Qassam Brigades fail to capture Zionist soldiers this time, the second, third, and fourth attempts will succeed, God willing, by adding new rats to the tally already held by the Brigades' heroes. In today's attempt, during a unique operation, the Qassam heroes stormed a newly constructed military site in Rafah and sent a number of Zionist soldiers to hell and a miserable fate. Others were sent to earthly torment with permanent disabilities and impairments, while others were sent to mental and psychological institutions.
In Qatar, al-Harmi would not have posted this if he didn't think he had the support of the ruling family or at least that they would not oppose it. But under the circumstances, it did seem odd for the "impartial" mediators to publicly delight in the death of the soldiers on one side of the "dispute." Does Qatar really want this war to end?

It was this incongruity in the acceptance of Qatar's role that was supposed to have been emphasized by Israel's strike. Actually, this is the second strike inside Qatar--the first one being Iran's retaliation against the US military base, Al Udeid Air Base, not far from the attack on Hamas. The discordance of an attack on terrorists living freely in the country that both supports Hamas terrorism and is supposedly negotiating with them should make people uncomfortable with the contradiction.

But Qatar's billions have effectively smoothed that over.

There are many reports on the billions of dollars Qatar spends on furthering its influence and polishing its image. Last year, Bloomberg's annual Qatar Economic Forum in Doha featured Donald Trump Jr., among others. Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, is planning a WSJ Tech Live event in Qatar in December.

Ira Stoll writes that Dow Jones did not respond to questions about its event:
Dow Jones did not reply to questions from The Editors about why it was having an event in a country that Kirchick’s own Wall Street Journal-published piece described as “a theocratic monarchy that is Hamas’s main financial and diplomatic sponsor.” It also didn’t reply to other questions I sent: “Will Israeli companies and businessmen be welcome at the event or will they be banned? Can Dow Jones assure prospective participants that there will be no Hamas terrorist representatives staying at the hotel where the Dow Jones event is taking place? Do you have any concerns about the Qatar-Hamas ties?”
What does it take for the US to become uncomfortable with Qatar?

The Israeli strike on Qatar highlights that country's dual role as both a mediator and a financier of Hamas, exposing a deep contradiction in international diplomacy. While the country positions itself as a neutral broker in negotiations, its support for terrorism—and the public celebrations of violence by media under its aegis—reveal that its impartiality is more performative than real. Israel’s strike underscores the uncomfortable truth: a nation cannot credibly mediate a conflict it is actively fueling. Yet billions in influence and strategic partnerships have allowed Qatar to continue this balancing act largely unchecked. For the US and the international community, the question remains: how long can these contradictions go unchallenged before diplomatic convenience gives way to hard reality?




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

By Daled Amos


When news of Israel's strike on the Hamas leadership in Qatar first came out, the immediate question, of course, was whether the strike was successful: were Hamas leaders killed, and if so, how many? The follow-up question is what effect this strike will have on Hamas, the ceasefire talks, and the attempt to remove the terrorist group from Gaza.

Natalie Ecanow, a Qatar expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), was interviewed yesterday on I24 News, and went beyond the immediate repercussions of the strike.

She pointed out how this was a wake-up call for Hamas, warning them that their leaders were no longer safe outside of Gaza. It was a wake-up for the Qataris as well. Today, they were called to account for their double game, where they host a US military base while hosting terrorists not far from there. It could be that today's operation "opened the door for a long overdue reset in the U.S.-Qatar relationship." The first step could be Trump using US leverage to convince Qatar to kick out any remaining Hamas leaders from Qatar.

But any hope for a reset in US-Qatari relationship were apparently quashed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at today's Press Conference:
Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.

 

Initial assumptions that the Israeli attack, which apparently the US had foreknowledge of, might disrupt the relationship between the US and Qatar now seem to be wishful thinking.

A further question, raised by Jonathan Schanzer on X, however, might still have legs. He wonders aloud whether Turkey, which also hosts Hamas figures, and Oman, which hosts a Houthi headquarters, might consider themselves on notice.

Meanwhile, Mariam Wahba, another member of FDD, suggested that the attack on Qatar could open the door for Egypt to resume its position as chief negotiator between Israel and Hamas--not that Egypt's record on mediation is so fantastic.

But based on Leavitt's comments, Trump clearly wants Qatar to continue in its role as mediator and closed the door on any possibility of Egypt resuming its role as mediator.

It appears that the US is doing its best to contain any fallout from the attack.

If in fact Israel has failed to eliminate any of the Hamas leadership, what in fact has Israel gained?




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive