"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
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 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.
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.
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.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
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:
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 Intifada, he 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.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
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.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
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)
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?
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?
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
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.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
Recognising that, since the horrific Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, which itself constitutes international crimes, the government of Israel has engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure (hospitals, homes, commercial buildings, etc.) of Gaza, which, according to official UN estimates, at the date of this resolution, has killed more than 59,000 adults and children in Gaza;
This resolution declaring what is happening in Gaza as genocide passed by an overwhelming majority far beyond the two thirds majority required. Our membership is global. We also have members who are from survivor communities, so this is a really representative opinion of people who work as experts in the field of genocide studies.
The @GenocideStudies president claims a resolution that Israel is committing genocide "passed by an overwhelming majority" and is a "really representative opinion" of experts.
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 2, 2025
It's not. Only 28% of the membership actually voted.
Melanie O'Brien, your resolution is a sham. pic.twitter.com/LL33WH6HcV
Why such sloppy work? Maybe because IAGS isn’t just scholars. As Jewish Insider notes, anyone can join—artists, activists, “others interested in genocide.” In other words: not exactly a panel of legal experts.
This is why the resolution contains a blatant error on international law:
Acknowledging that the International Court of Justice found in three provisional measures order in the case of South Africa v. Israel — January, March, and May 2024 — that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in its attack in Gaza and ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide and to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza;The president of the ICJ has already publicly debunked that claim:
[The ICJ] did not decide--and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media--it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars wants the world to believe its resolution reflects a united, scholarly consensus. It doesn’t. The vote was driven by a small, activist minority relying on Hamas-supplied numbers and misrepresenting international law. When an academic body trades rigor for politics, it doesn’t just fail—it erodes trust in the entire field.
And the backlash has already begun. Scholars for Truth about Genocide issued a public letter condemning IAGS and demanding a retraction of what they call a “resolution accusing Israel of genocide amid a clear misapplication of law and history.”
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
The lives of three U.S. nationals and one unborn American child ended in the Sbarro conflagration. One was a newly married young woman, herself an only child, visiting from New Jersey. She was pregnant with her first baby. Next, a young mother was catastrophically brain-damaged, alive but in a vegetative coma to this day. (The toddler daughter she was eating pizza with survived unharmed and grew up motherless.) And finally, our Malki, an American citizen because her mother is a native New Yorker.
With the help of God and His guidance,
We, Hussein I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, having reviewed the Extradition Treaty signed in Washington on March 28, 1995 between the Government of the Hashemite [Kingdom] of Jordan and the Government of the United States of America, do hereby declare our agreement to and ratification of that Treaty in whole and in part. We further pledge to carry out its provisions and abide by its Articles, and We, God willing, shall not allow its violation.
Accordingly, we have ordered that Our Seal be affixed to it, and We have signed it properly.
Issued on this day the Fifteenth of Safar, 1416 H, corresponding to July 13, 1995, by the Hashemite Court.
Number one, Justice Department officials held a discussion on Thursday with the parents of Malki Roth, the American citizen who was murdered with two others in the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem back in 2001. The discussion centered around the possible extradition of Jordanian national Ahlam Tamimi. The Jordanians get a billion and a half dollars a year in foreign aid. Democratic and Republican administrations have skated by on this extradition issue for a decade and a half now at least. What’s preventing Secretary Rubio from pushing the Jordanians to finally go through with this extradition?Spokesperson Tammy Bruce promised to get more information. Two days later, Wagenheim was back:
Last question for you. Hopefully I’ll drag an answer out of you on this one. I asked in Tuesday’s briefing about why Secretary Rubio is not pushing harder for the extradition of Ahlam al-Tamimi from Jordan. I was given a written answer by the State Department on that yesterday, after you guys took it back. It basically said we continue to impress upon the Government of Jordan to bring her to justice.
President Trump said on day one – his executive order – American citizens come first in American foreign policy, America and American citizens. Secretary Rubio put out his three questions. Every dollar spent, every program has to answer in the affirmative one of three questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous? I’m sure you have these memorized by heart. A billion and a half dollars of foreign aid to Jordan – how is it conceivable that Tamimi is still there and any of that falls under these dictates of what American foreign policy is supposed to be, with three dead Americans at Tamimi’s hands?
For years, Tamimi’s continued freedom has been a blatant symbol of impunity and a painful affront to the victims’ families. Lately, we are again seeing signs of pressure being applied to the Trump Administration. The recent involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s office, continued high-level meetings, and public pressure signal a possible shift and a re-energizing of the push to finally hold Jordan accountable for its obligations. It’s time to put aid on the line and force Jordan to choose between Tamimi and $1.5 billion.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said on Monday that the move was “part of a coordinated global effort building momentum for a two-state solution.”
He said Australia’s recognition would be “predicated” on “detailed and significant” commitments he had received from the Palestinian Authority’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to demilitarize, hold general elections and ensure that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian state.
![]() |
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese |
You cannot will a state into existence. And it's important to state that Keir Starmer is wrong, absolutely wrong on the international law when he talks about a supposed "inalienable right" of the Palestinians to a state. There is no such thing. If there was a right to statehood under international law, the Kurds would have a state. There'd be many hundreds more states.In a second interview, Hausdorff addressed two legal problems that are less often discussed. First of all, granting a state to the Palestinian Arabs is, by its very nature, an attack on Israel's sovereignty. Both Gaza and "Yehuda & Shomron" were initially part of the British Mandate. Their conquest by Egypt and Jordan was not accepted as legal by the international community. (Keep in mind that the off-handed way Starmer and others suggest acknowledging a Palestinian state leaves the status of East Jerusalem--and by extension the Kotel--in doubt.)
[I]t would also fly completely in the face of the Oslo accords, which the United Kingdom endorsed, as did many other international players. [It] provided very clearly that after certain territory was given to the Palestinian authority to have an autonomy given by Israel, that any change to borders or any change to the status of the territory would only arise from a bilateral negotiated final status settlement. That piece of paper that the UK endorsed is simply being torn up as a result of these proposals for recognition. And it leaves us with a very difficult position where Israel's not going to be in a position to trust any agreement it enters with international backing and international guarantees if it can be so readily thrown out of the window.
Hausdorff is not alone in pointing out how the decision to recognize a Palestinian state violates international law. The British jurist Malcolm Shaw KC points out that the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States identifies the four basic requirements for statehood:
o A permanent population.
o A defined territory.
o A government.
o The capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Of these four requirements, the proposed Palestinian state only meets the first requirement. In their rush to recognize a state, world leaders are ignoring the failure of 3 basic conditions necessary for a sovereign state. Shaw notes:
o “its territorial extent is undetermined”
o “there is no effective single government authority over the whole of the territory”
o “the capacity of the [Palestinian Authority] to conduct formal legal relations with other entities, including States, is hampered by the terms of the Oslo Accords, which [are] still binding upon the parties.”
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry put it another way, noting that these leaders are advocating the recognition of “an entity with no agreed borders, no single government in effective control of its territory, and no demonstrated capacity to live in peace with its neighbors.”
One can understand how Great Britain and France cannot help themselves. Not so long ago, they were significant colonial powers that saw the Middle East as their playground. But one would have thought that Canada and Australia, with their history, would understand the folly of playing games with other people's states.
But who knows, maybe this call for recognition is a con?
Maybe these politicians calling for a state actually understand that their calls for a Palestinian state are filled with legal hot air--and are patting themselves on the back on how they are cleverly mollifying their citizens. But in the process, they are encouraging Hamas terrorists and delaying the very resolution of this war they loudly claim to be working for.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
Buy EoZ's books!
PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!