10/04 Links: Douglas Murray: Israel Is Winning; The Green Party is now an openly anti-Jewish party; ‘Evil incarnate’: Israel’s top forensic pathologist reveals unseen Oct. 7 evidence; IDF Dismantles Claims in "NAZA" Documentary

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: Israel Is Winning

The attempted hijacking of a Flydubai plane en route from Dubai to Tel Aviv is a reminder that Israel and the West remain at war with Islamic radicals, and that it is a war we are winning. The online world is filled with shrill declarations that Israel has lost this war. But on the third anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel and its allies have been winning the war on the ground even as they have lost the PR war around the world.

The PR war matters. But it matters less than the war itself. Better to win the ground war and lose the PR war than the other way around.

Piece by piece, the Israeli government took apart the Iranian axis. First, they took apart Hamas in Gaza, despite constant attempts to make them stop, which came not just from Europe but from President Joe Biden's White House. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Tehran in July 2024. Then, while Netanyahu was in New York speaking at the UN, Israel bombed the compound where the head of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, and almost all his remaining senior colleagues were gathered.

Two years into the war that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar started, the Israeli air force took out the majority of the Iranian regime's air defenses, then came back and struck thousands of regime targets, opening the route for American B-2 bombers to attack the main Iranian nuclear sites. Then the Americans and the Israelis returned. They not only targeted the Iranian nuclear program again but also killed the supreme leader.

Everybody alongside and above Sinwar in the chain of command is now dead. Neither Hamas, Hizbullah, nor the Iranian regime has a noose ready to pull around Israel's neck anymore. A large share of the Israeli hostages were eventually returned alive. Three years ago, this set of victories would have seemed unthinkable.

What happened in the skies above Saudi Arabia on Wednesday stands as a metaphor for three years of war. The Israelis saw an existential threat, took matters into their own hands, and decided their own course. The rest of the West will have to decide whether it will follow the Israeli model or let its own future be dictated by terror and the hijacking of its entire society.

Israel’s Growing Allies on the Ground—and in the Sky

Israel is no stranger to diplomatic isolation, but the widespread condemnation it has received after Hamas's October 7 atrocities has been unusually strong and meritless. Last week, the dozens of delegates walking out on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations seemed to dramatize Israel's diplomatic plight. Bibi defied the well-heeled "moral cowards" of Turtle Bay and defended his policies against Iran and its terrorist minions. But even as many of Israel's friends applauded him at the rostrum, their eyes darted nervously to the swelling exodus in the aisles.

A different set of images portrayed a more important reality this week. When an Omani terrorist attempted to hijack an airplane bound for Israel from Dubai, an improvised multinational coalition sprang into action. This was largely the work of brave individuals, but it illustrates the larger forces affecting Israel's foreign policy. The Jewish state faces many enemies, but a growing number of countries are attracted to it because of Israel's battlefield prowess, technological skill, and shared values.

The terrorist aimed to kill Jews, but his first target was an Indian. The pilot, Captain Smit Machchhar, fought off his treacherous copilot long enough to open the cockpit door. Israeli passengers then rushed their would-be murderer, subdued him, pulled the Boeing 737 out of its fatal dive, and stabilized the stricken aviator. The plane landed safely in Saudi Arabia, where medics tended to the injured civilians until another plane brought them to Tel Aviv.

Much like Captain Machchhar and his passengers, Israel and India are becoming a dynamic duo. Although India still expresses plenty of sympathy for the residents of the West Bank and Gaza, the Jewish state's value is too obvious to miss for a country with hostile neighbors and severe terrorist threats. India is Israel's top destination for defense exports, and it has reciprocated with nearly 3,000 shipments of defense equipment and components since October 7. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit in February, he and Netanyahu announced a bevy of agreements on technological cooperation and that a free trade agreement is in the works. Together, they form one half of the I2U2, a quadrilateral that includes the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

Of course, the flight only occurred because of Israel's relationship with the UAE, which has deepened because of the immense damage Iran is inflicting across the Middle East. In fact, as the pinstriped diplomats stormed down the aisle at the U.N., the Emirati delegation remained.

Less symbolically but perhaps more importantly, the military leaders of several Arab countries reportedly met with U.S. and Israeli generals in Germany a few days before the walkout. No countries have formally joined the Abraham Accords this year, but the Saudis and even the Qataris attended this meeting. Iran's belligerence across the wider Middle East is forcing previously implacable foes to coordinate militarily with the Jewish state.

Like-minded friends in the Global South are rallying to Israel too. Argentina's Javier Milei excoriated "the alleged defenders of human rights" at the U.N. who "have systematically voted against Israel while remaining silent in the face of Islamic terrorism and the genocide of Christians in Africa."

Brendan O'Neill: The Green Party is now an openly anti-Jewish party

‘Tell me what you accuse the Jews of [and] I’ll tell you what you are guilty of’, said the great Soviet writer Vasily Grossman. Today, that grim, eternal truth was starkly illustrated by the Green Party’s passing of a motion saying ‘Zionism is Racism’. To throw around the word ‘racism’ even as you single out Jewish sovereignty as uniquely demonic, to pose as an enemy of bigotry even as you dream of the erasure of the world’s only Jewish state, takes moral duplicity to sickening new heights. In their snivelling whisperings about ‘racism’, these scumbags reveal their own.

It was at their conference in Brighton that the Green Party of England and Wales voted in favour of the ‘Zionism is Racism’ screed. The motion expressly defines the Greens as an ‘anti-Zionist party’. It says Zionism is a species of racial hatred, and will henceforth be ‘treated as any other form of racism’. Most obnoxiously of all, it commits the Greens to campaigning for the scrubbing of the Jewish nation from the face of the Earth. It calls for ‘the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital’. So no more Jewish homeland. No more tiny patch of land, a poxy 263 by 71 miles, for the Jews to call their own. All of it would disappear. Imagine accusing others of being ‘genocidal’ even as you agitate for the total dismantling of the ancestral kingdom of the Jews.

Anyone who thinks this is ‘just about Israel’, that the Islamo-left’s demented hatred for the Jewish nation has no impact on the Jews of the West, needs to pay closer attention. One of the most chilling events in Brighton today was the enthusiastic voting down of an amendment that would have offered protection to Jewish Greens who attend Zionist synagogues. Designed to ‘safeguard Jewish membership’, the amendment warned against ‘indirect discrimination’ against ‘practising Jews’ on the basis of the ‘synagogues, community centres or denominational groups’ they are aligned with. It was smashed, defeated by 1,026 to 648 votes.

Think about this. Really think about it. A mainstream party, and a supposedly progressive one, has just voted against an amendment that would protect its own Jewish members from discrimination on the grounds of the religious institutions they attend. I cannot remember anything like this in my lifetime: a party effectively greenlighting the harassment of Jews who commit the ‘sin’ of attending synagogues that believe in the right of Jews to nationhood. It is stunning. It’s a moral crisis. Not since the BNP has a party so openly committed itself to hostility towards certain Jews.

The historic gravity of today’s events cannot be overstated. We now have a party in Britain wholly devoted to the moral annihilation of Jewish sovereignty. A party committed to the abolition of Israel. A party content to hang a target sign around the necks of its own Jewish members who continue to patronise institutions that believe in the continued existence of a Jewish State. If the Tories overnight devoted themselves to the removal from the Earth of the state of Pakistan, and the moral isolation of every pesky Pakistani in Britain who likes that nation, it would be leading the news. Every progressive would cry ‘racism’, and rightly so. Will they do likewise here? Don’t hold your breath – you’ll die.

I’ll say it, though. I’ll say that if Jewish nationhood makes you vomit, if the right to self-determination of the Jews keeps you awake at night, then you are a bigot. You might consider yourself woke and good, but your frothing animus for Jewish nationhood betrays the blackness of your soul. For that’s all Zionism is: the belief that the Jews, like every other people, have an inalienable right to build and flourish in the land of their forebears. That the same people who tilt their heads in bourgeois indulgence of every native claim to territory then puke into their matcha when the Jews say ‘What about us?’ tells you everything you need to know. It is impossible to explain these double standards without using the word ‘anti-Semitism’. Go on, try.

Read More

08/25 Links Pt2: WFP board member's $100M anti-Israel election ‘war chest’; Cambridge’s Farah Ahmed: study engineering ‘to produce weaponry for Jihad’

From Ian:

UN charity once chaired by Hunter Biden stands by Texas money man after Post reveals DHS probe into $100M anti-Israel ‘war chest’

A UN-backed charity once chaired by Hunter Biden is standing by a Texas money man even as federal investigators probe his group’s possible ties to sanctioned Palestinian organizations, The Post has learned.

The World Food Program USA wiped its entire leadership roster from its website just days after this newspaper revealed the federal inquiry into PFF and its backers, including Basil Qunibi and a group of well-heeled Palestinian donors.

But despite the mounting controversy, the nonprofit insists the founder of Austin-based Atom Investors isn’t going anywhere and blamed the bizarrely timed disappearance of his profile on a routine IT issue.

“Both our staff and board pages are down for maintenance,” a WFP USA spokesperson told The Post. “Basil Qunibi is a member of our Board of Directors.”

They added that the IT work “will conclude by next week.” The rest of the organization’s website, including its donation portals, mission pages, and press releases, remained fully operational on Tuesday afternoon.

The Washington-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit raises money for the United Nations’ food assistance agency. Hunter Biden chaired the organization from 2011 to 2015, which overlapped with some of his controversial business dealings while Joe Biden served as vice-president under Barack Obama.

The website change followed The Post’s story detailing a Department of Homeland Security investigation into PFF and its backers.

It revealed the involvement of Qunibi, Australian billionaire and racecar driver Yasser Shahin, and Bassema Yousef, a Democratic fundraiser who is close to Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in the pro-Palestinian group.

Sources said federal investigators are scrutinizing the trio’s involvement in PFF, an alleged $100 million UK-based political ‘war chest’ that helps fund anti-Israel messaging and provides support to Palestinian activists.

The feds are tracking the entity’s cross-border financial flows tied to anti-Israel advocacy and possible links to sanctioned organizations.

Authorities have not charged any of the trio with wrongdoing. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to The Post’s request for comment.

But Qunibi’s representatives have since retreated from initial claims made to The Post that he did not finance PFF.

Maureen Lipman slams ‘sanctimonious’ actors who ‘forced’ Boy George out of West End role over pro-Israel song

Dame Maureen Lipman has defended Boy George in an op-ed in the Spectator discussing her own 13-week experience performing Allegra amidst the palpable burden of pro-Palestine protests.

In May, the Jewish actor and JC contributor found herself the target of the anti-Israel mob when due to perform the musical in Aberdeen.

The Scottish city’s branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) shared a graphic of Lipman with horns and holding a pitchfork, claiming on its Instagram that she had “openly voiced extremist Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab views”, and urging supporters to sign a petition against her performance.

The group further labelled her “an open supporter of the settler-colonial, apartheid state of Israel, which continues to commit genocide, and is ethnically cleansing the West Bank”.

On finishing her most recent West End stint, she wrote in her op-ed: “The gang of protestors who tried to boycott me from theatres in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Bath for believing in the state of Israel’s right to exist went underground in London.

“They were replaced by an altruistic band of brethren of all faiths called Mensch, who turned up to protest against the protestors. God bless them.”

She went on to talk about Boy George, who has, in recent weeks, also become the target of anti-Israel protesters after defending Israel most notably in his new song We Will Dance Again.

Lipman wrote that while her West End experience went off without any protest, “A group of sanctimonious actors forced Boy George out of his contract to play King Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar.

“They allegedly pressured producer Michael Harrison into sacking Boy George because he has, in a brave song called We Will Dance Again, defended Israel’s right to defend itself after the Hamas pogrom.

“In other words, Boy George has a different political stance from some of the cast. Powerful people. The show itself concerns a nice Jewish rabbi fighting prejudice from angry mobs in his ancestral home of Israel.”

Lauded Australian director Kosky decries anti-Semitism

The main character of The Trial is arrested and finds himself trapped in an absurdly complicated legal system, trying desperately to find out what he has done wrong.

Readers of the novel never discover the answer, but in Kosky's version the trial is an examination of the author's Judaism, an attribute which is sometimes forgotten in discussion of his work.

Oh, and there's singing and dancing - including a tap dancing Rabbi.

The production is in German, Hebrew, and Yiddish, with surtitles translated from Kafka's stories - so for English-speaking audiences that haven't read Kafka, they will be reading him during the show.

In previous years Kosky has brought operatic productions to Adelaide, and in 2024 The Threepenny Opera, also with the Berliner Ensemble.

AAP spoke to the director just before the final block of public hearings for Australia's anti-Semitism royal commission, called in response to the terrorist attack at Bondi beach which saw 15 people killed and another 40 wounded.

Melbourne-born Kosky, 59, hasn't lived in Australia for 26 years, but laments the nation's public discourse, which he says has morphed from legitimate political criticism into discussion so polarised it has become terrifying and dangerous.

"We have crossed over into 'should the state of Israel exist?' which has never happened in any other country ... (It) leads us into rampant 21st century anti-Semitism, of a type that we have not seen for decades," he said.

He's vehemently opposed to the Israeli government, but cautions that Jewish people from both Israel and the diaspora are being forced to take reductive positions on complex issues, in response to a performative moral outrage from non-Jews.

"You can be a good Jew if you basically disown Israel, disown Zionism, disown Jewish culture, and say absolutely free Palestine," he said.

K has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism, Gaza, Israel or the Holocaust, said Kosky - it's fundamentally a show about Jewish spirituality and culture.

Perhaps that's timely, as he perceives Jewish people again becoming a scapegoat for the world's evils.

"It's a perfect storm and I don't know how we get out of it, because this is the time you want dialogue, compassion, empathy - most of the yelling offers no solutions."

K is at Her Majesty's Theatre from March 4-7.

Read More

08/21 Links Pt1: Rachel Goldberg-Polin, mother of murdered Oct. 7 hostage, represents victims of terrorism at UN; The Law of Unintended Consequences

From Ian:

Rachel Goldberg-Polin, mother of murdered Oct. 7 hostage, represents victims of terrorism at UN

Rachel Goldberg-Polin, mother of the murdered Gaza hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, represented Middle Eastern victims of terrorism at the United Nations on Friday in honor of the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism.

"My name is Rachel," she began, "and I will always be the mother of Hersh Goldberg-Polin."

Her remarks, delivered in the form of a recorded video, sought to call attention to Israeli terror victims, with Rachel sharing the story of her son Hersh, who lost his arm when he was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023.

"Hersh will always be my only son," she said. "Hersh will always be my eldest child, and Hersh will always be 23 years old."

She was the first Israeli representative in the role, which has been given to Palestinians in recent years, with her testimony shown alongside those of other terror victims from around the world.

The UN event, held annually on August 21, was established by the UN General Assembly in a 2017 resolution "to honor and support the victims and survivors of terrorism and to promote and protect the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms," according to the UN's website.

Hersh's experience at the hands of Hamas
Rachel described the experiences of her late son at the hands of the Hamas terror organization, as well as her experience as his mother amid his kidnapping, hostage status, and eventual murder.

"My son was executed at close range and returned to me after 330 days," said Rachel. "That body that I had carried in my body for nine months, many moons ago. That body and soul, that I had adored and beheld."

She then discussed the 1932 correspondence at the League of Nations between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud on the topic of why humans wage war with one another.

"Freud explains that we humans continue to engage in active conflict even though the vast majority of us suffer terribly from this way of existence," she said. "Civilization has to decide whether to rise to the challenge to continually contain our natural tendencies toward war, or to give that slavery of selfish interest to give into it."

"What Freud inheritely is inherently saying is that there are people on both sides of any conflict whose drive toward destruction of the other is exactly the same and therefore, ironically, those destructive entities on opposing sides in fact have more in common with each other than the very people they claim to represent," she continued, noting that the same is true, acording to Freud, for the victims in war, whose motivations are "hope, and life, and love."

John Spencer: U.S. Missile Stockpiles Are Low. Fine. Now Draw the Right Conclusion

This shortage didn’t begin with the current administration or this war. Multiple administrations accepted an industrial base built for low annual demand, narrow production lines, and long lead times. They sized inventories around planning assumptions and war games that underestimated how many missiles a sustained fight would burn. Russia’s war in Ukraine exposed the same weakness in artillery, Javelins, and air-defense weapons. Iran has driven the point home again.

War has a way of revealing bad assumptions. It also reveals the limits of allies who rely on the United States to defend sites they haven’t adequately protected themselves. Iran shifted attacks toward bases and critical infrastructure across the region because those targets offered a better chance of getting through. Those attacks threatened countries that weren’t parties to the war and infrastructure that serves millions of civilians. One missile that penetrates and kills American soldiers is a tragedy. It doesn’t erase thousands of successful interceptions, sustained U.S. strikes across Iran, or American control of Iranian airspace. No missile defense system has ever promised zero casualties.

The proper response is straightforward. Congress needs to fund replenishment and expanded production now. The Pentagon has to move past single-source production, slow contracting, and delivery timelines measured in years. The United States and its allies need layered defenses that use cheaper weapons against drones and lower-end threats, saving Patriot and THAAD interceptors for the ballistic missiles they were designed to defeat. Allies hosting American forces must invest more in their own air and missile defense.

Ending a successful campaign because Iran fired enough cheap missiles to strain U.S. interceptor stocks would teach every American adversary the same lesson: build large missile forces, attack exposed U.S. partners, absorb the punishment, and wait for Washington to lose its nerve. China, Russia, North Korea, and every Iranian proxy would take careful notes.

If the stockpiles are low, fix the stockpiles. Expand the factories. Shorten the production timelines. Buy enough munitions for the wars the United States may actually face, not the wars previous planners hoped it would fight. America should close the weakness Iran exposed and keep pursuing its military objectives. The goal of war is to break the enemy’s ability and will to continue, not to surrender our own when a long-neglected production problem finally comes into view.

Iranians struggle to afford the basics as US ratchets up economic warfare

Tehran’s grocery stores are well-stocked, but many families can barely afford the basics. Unemployment is soaring, and those with jobs are working more hours for money worth half as much as a year ago, putting food, medicine and everything else — except for heavily subsidized gasoline — further out of reach.

“We have virtually given up on many things,” said Ahmad Karimi, 52, a taxi driver and father of two who has been working 15-hour days to make ends meet. “We’re cutting out fruit, we’re cutting out protein, we’ve given up leisure, we even work on weekends.”

Nearly six months into the war with the United States and Israel, the Iranian economy is taking a beating under the force of sanctions and a naval blockade that is making it extremely difficult for the country to export oil, its most valuable product.

Whether this intensifying economic pressure will translate anytime soon into military or political concessions from Iran remains to be seen — but some experts are skeptical. Since the war began, Iran has been attacking oil-rich neighbors and US bases in the region, and disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, its biggest strategic advantage.

Iran is trying to use this retaliatory pressure — which is driving up energy prices globally — to bring the war to an end on the best terms possible. It is pressing for sanctions relief, and seeking enough control over the strait to demand payment from ships passing through to deliver energy and other goods.

The Trump administration — which is stuck fighting over a waterway in a war that was launched to curb Iran’s nuclear program — is now promising to deliver even tougher sanctions to try to squeeze the Islamic Republic into submission. But experts say US President Donald Trump may be underestimating how long Iran can hold out.

Iran has been subject to Western sanctions for years and has become deft at partially circumventing them. It has expanded domestic production, used informal cross-border trade networks, bought restricted goods through third countries, and used a shadow fleet to transport its oil.

“Iran’s resistance capacity not only avoids collapse, it also prevents the economic pain from translating into the political pressure and changes that the US expects,” said Hadi Kahalzadeh, an expert on Iran’s economy at Brandeis University.

Read More

08/10 Links Pt2: Foreign money is flooding US politics — but AIPAC’s is American; Ireland’s fog of prejudice; Selective Outrage: The WSJ Distorts the Reality of Christians in Israel

From Ian:

Bethany Mandel: Foreign money is flooding US politics — but AIPAC’s is American

If Americans are actually concerned about foreign money influencing American politics and policy, there is plenty to investigate. And unlike AIPAC, much of it is actually foreign.

Americans for Public Trust has just launched a new database, FollowForeignMoney.org, attempting to track the enormous sums flowing from foreign sources into American nonprofit groups and advocacy organizations. At launch, APT says it has identified more than $5 billion in spending across more than 500 groups, documented in more than 12,000 records.

The scale is remarkable, but so is the loophole that makes much of it possible. Federal law prohibits foreign entities from contributing to candidates, political committees, and super PACs, or participating in a campaign’s decision-making process. But elections are hardly the only way to influence American politics, and there are far fewer restrictions on foreign money once it moves outside the narrow confines of electoral activity.

Foreign dollars can finance nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter registration, issue advertising, and various policy and lobbying efforts, all of which can help shape the political environment in which Americans eventually cast their ballots. As APT explains, the line between regulated electoral activity, where foreign money is prohibited, and unregulated issue activity, where it is typically permitted, is “nearly indistinguishable to the average American.”

For some perspective, AIPAC, which again is funded by American donors, spent $29 million in 2022, $46 million in 2024, and $67 million in 2026, much of it in Democratic primaries. Those are substantial sums, and Americans are perfectly entitled to debate whether they like AIPAC’s political priorities, its tactics, or the candidates it supports.

But there is something deeply unserious about treating money donated by Americans to an American organization advocating an issue they care about as a sinister form of foreign influence, while billions of dollars originating overseas can flow into American organizations seeking to shape our laws, institutions, and political culture with comparatively little scrutiny.

In a conversation with the Washington Examiner, Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, explained what her organization found when it began following the money.

“Foreign money is flowing through the nonprofit sector to implement an extremist climate agenda and bankroll radical left-wing causes and policies,” Sutherland said, including organizations supporting political causes such as radical ballot measures. “And it’s all propped up by foreign money.”

The database allows users to trace that money through the complicated network of foundations, nonprofit groups, and advocacy organizations through which it often travels. An organization spending millions of dollars trying to change public opinion, influence legislation, register voters, or pass a ballot measure is participating in American political life, whether its name ever appears on a candidate’s campaign-finance report.

Congress was beginning to take notice of the problem even before APT released its database. At a hearing this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) focused on how nonprofit organizations can exploit gaps in American law to bring foreign money into domestic political and policy fights.

Smith later put the problem plainly: “Tax-exempt status … exists to support legitimate charitable and educational work that strengthens our communities, not to serve as cover for foreign propaganda, election interference, or activities that undermine our national interest.”

There is a legitimate debate to be had about how far Congress should go in restricting foreign donations to American nonprofits, particularly because any new law would have to avoid inadvertently ensnaring legitimate charitable, educational, or religious organizations that receive support from abroad. But it is difficult to have that debate honestly when our political and media class applies the label “foreign influence” so selectively.

AIPAC’s donors are Americans exercising the same right every other American has to pool their money around an issue they consider important and support or oppose candidates accordingly. The fact that the issue is Israel does not transform those Americans into agents of Israel any more than Cuban Americans advocating policy toward Cuba or Ukrainian Americans lobbying for aid to Ukraine become agents of foreign governments.

That is what made Axelrod’s calculation so revealing. He was not simply complaining about the amount AIPAC spent, or making the familiar argument that there is too much money sloshing around American politics. He described an organization funded by Americans as “essentially an agent” of a foreign government because those Americans are politically engaged on behalf of the Jewish state.

My husband, Seth Mandel, identified the more disturbing implication in Commentary after watching the exchange. “Why would Axelrod, who has worked so hard to position himself as a moderate in temperament and a card-carrying member of the mainstream, go on CNN and slap American Jews across the face?” he asked.

“And that’s when I realized it. Axelrod is positioning himself in the party’s mainstream. Accusing AIPAC of being a foreign agent isn’t relegated to the fever swamps anymore. And Axelrod, a very smart observer of Democratic Party politics, saw El-Sayed’s victory over Stevens as confirmation that this is what the party is now. And that might be the most dispiriting part of it all.”

That observation makes the timing of APT’s database particularly useful because it offers a remarkably simple test of what this debate is actually about. If Axelrod and others are genuinely alarmed by foreign money influencing American politics, they have just been handed a database documenting more than $5 billion of it, spread across thousands of records and hundreds of organizations. There is enough there to keep journalists, lawmakers, and cable-news panels occupied for quite some time examining whether American law adequately protects our political system from money originating overseas.

Yet that wasn’t the money Axelrod was talking about on CNN. The $30 million that concerned him was raised and spent by Americans, and calling it foreign required treating the political interests of those Americans as somehow foreign themselves.

AIPAC’s supporters are not just Jews; they include evangelical Christians and millions of other Americans who believe, for religious, moral, or strategic reasons, that the United States should maintain a strong relationship with Israel. Americans organize politically around all sorts of foreign-policy questions, and we generally understand that doing so is an expression of their American political rights rather than evidence that they are acting on behalf of another government.

Something peculiar happens, however, when the country in question is Israel and a substantial number of the Americans doing the organizing are Jews.

Ireland’s fog of prejudice

It is striking that at a time when the Torah just commanded us to learn how to see, we are also confronted with examples of what happens when prejudice prevents people from seeing clearly.

Ireland has a long and painful history of living under British rule. The memory of oppression, struggle for national self-determination and resistance to a powerful empire is deeply embedded in the Irish consciousness.

Logically, that history should create a natural sympathy for the Jewish people and for Israel.

The Jewish people, too, have experienced centuries of foreign domination, persecution and exile. Israel has emerged from a history in which Jews were repeatedly denied security, sovereignty and the ability to determine their own destiny. Israel itself was also governed under the British Mandate before its independence in 1948.

One might therefore expect Ireland, of all countries, to understand the complexity of a people seeking security and self-determination after generations of suffering. Yet sometimes, history teaches the opposite lesson. People can remember their own oppression while becoming blind or indifferent to the experiences of others.

Last week exposed a particularly striking example in the debate over Israeli technology in Ireland.

Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense company, has developed a sophisticated aviation navigation technology that helps aircraft operate and land safely in difficult weather conditions, including conditions of poor visibility. This navigation system has become a near standard on military and state jets in countries across the world.

Ireland, a country famously familiar with fog, should be especially capable of appreciating the value of technology that helps pilots navigate safely when they cannot rely on their eyes alone.

And yet, headlines were made last week when it was reported that the Irish government refused to install this advanced landing system in official state aircraft—the Irish “Air Force One”—due to its Israeli origin. The twisted irony is so difficult to miss. A nation accustomed to physical fog is allowing the ideological fog that clouds its moral vision to imperil the safety of its leaders.

This is not just a hypothetical risk. In 2011, an airplane attempting to land in Cork, Ireland, crashed in dense fog after three failed attempts to land, killing a relative of the Irish president and five other people.

When a technology that can improve aviation is judged not according to what it does, but according to the nationality of the people who developed it, something has gone seriously wrong.

Made in India: Inside the India-Israel weapons alliance Amnesty wants dismantled

AMNESTY IS asking New Delhi to go considerably further than imposing additional checks on exports.

It called for an immediate halt to arms transfers to Israel and a comprehensive embargo covering weapons, components, technologies, technical assistance and training. It also recommended that Indian companies terminate business relationships, including joint research and development, with Elbit Systems, Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries.

“Israeli systems currently form the technological backbone of India’s security architecture along its sensitive borders with China and Pakistan,” Birvadker told the Post, on what possible consequences implementation would have for India’s own military.

“Companies like Elbit, Rafael, and IAI are not standard import suppliers,” she said. “They are India’s premier partners in building a domestic defense industry.”

Birvadker went further, arguing that severing the relationship could set back India’s objective of technological self-reliance “by decades.”

“India would once again find itself dependent on other global powers, a resurgence of defense colonialism,” Bivadker stated. “Who benefits from such an outcome?” The legal argument: The controversy lies in what is not publicly visible

Amnesty’s challenge is also directed at India’s export-control system itself.

India is not a party to the Arms Trade Treaty, although it is a party to the Geneva Conventions and Genocide Convention. Amnesty argues that those existing obligations are sufficient to require India to halt transfers where there is a clear risk that weapons could contribute to serious violations.

Indian arms exports are not unregulated. Military and dual-use goods are controlled through the SCOMET system and require authorization from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Applications are reviewed through an inter-ministerial process involving the foreign, defense, and home ministries, and official guidelines require consideration of the end user, declared end use, chain of transmission, and whether an export could conflict with Indian national security or foreign policy.

The controversy, according to Amnesty, lies in what is not publicly visible.

The inter-ministerial deliberations are confidential, leaving no public record showing whether international humanitarian law or India’s treaty obligations were specifically assessed when licenses for exports to Israel were approved.

Amnesty filed a Right to Information request seeking details of specific export licenses and any human rights assessments undertaken by the government, but said it had received no reply before publication.

Birvadker’s position is that New Delhi should resist external pressure rather than allow NGOs to determine its strategic relationships.

“New Delhi must categorically reject the pressure to suspend defense exports, fiercely guarding its principle of strategic autonomy and its sovereign right to conduct relations in alignment with its national interests,” she said.

“Yielding to Amnesty’s demands would severely undermine India’s credibility as a reliable defense partner on the global stage,” she told the Post.

India’s concept of strategic autonomy predates the Israel controversy. It was visible, for example, when New Delhi resisted Western pressure over Russian oil purchases following the invasion of Ukraine, prioritizing energy security and its freedom to maintain relationships across competing geopolitical blocs.

The relationship with Israel increasingly fits into that same model. India remains a major purchaser of Israeli technology while becoming a supplier in its own right. Israeli companies gain an enormous manufacturing base and access to Indian industry; India acquires technology, domestic production and exposure to global defense markets. The greater the integration, the harder it becomes to describe the partnership simply as one country selling weapons to another.

That is another revealing aspect of Amnesty’s report. Its authors see the hundreds of thousands of Indian-made components flowing to Israeli companies as evidence that the relationship should be curtailed. Birvadker cites the same supply chains as evidence that the relationship has become strategically indispensable.

The argument over Gaza will remain bitter and unresolved, particularly when the charge of genocide is treated as settled despite the substantial legal arguments against it. The industrial shift beneath that debate, however, is already taking shape.

India is no longer merely buying Israeli weapons. Increasingly, some of Israel’s weapons begin their journey in India.

Read More

08/07 Links Pt1: Melanie Phillips: The suicidal significance of the Michigan Democratic primary; Victor Davis Hanson: The Great Israel Double Standard; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey sign NATO-style defense pact

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The suicidal significance of the Michigan Democratic primary

Both Britain and America insist on viewing Islam as merely a religion and refuse to acknowledge that it is also a supersessionist global political project. Both countries have accordingly failed to realize that while Muslims may be a minority, their turnout at elections is enormous—vastly greater than that of non-Muslims—and that they vote as a bloc and overwhelmingly support radical Islamist candidates.

As a result, dozens of Muslim candidates across America have won seats as mayors, city council members and state legislators, and many support or are associated with extremists or terrorists.

Regarding only Islamist terrorism as a threat, Americans have failed to grasp how Islamists are also weaponizing civil society against them.

On Middle East Forum, Dexter van Zile points out that in Massachusetts, Beacon Hill lawmakers are trying to establish Muslims as a privileged class. A Senate bill would create a permanent, taxpayer-supported commission exclusively for “people who practice Islam,” grant it the power to recommend American Muslims for appointive government positions at every level, and charge it with studying and combating “Islamophobia”—all in blatant violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

For years, Americans looked complacently and pityingly across the Atlantic at the progressive Islamization of Britain and Europe. Now this is galloping ahead in America, too. And after being some years behind Britain and Europe, America is allowing pieces to be put into place which, it’s no longer fanciful to imagine, could see an Islamist in the White House.

Tragically, while the Republican Party should be fighting these developments with all its might, it is itself a house divided. MAGA’s isolationist faction—led by podcaster Tucker Carlson and groyper Nick Fuentes—ignores the all-too-real conspiracy against America by the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, it’s poisoning the minds of millions of impressionable young followers with the defamatory and paranoid falsehood that the conspirers against the American interest are the Jews.

And from Michigan’s defeated “moderate” Democratic candidate Stevens, who has now thrown her support behind El-Sayed, to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who refuses to condemn his friend Carlson because he objects to “purity tests,” both main parties are adopting a “big tent” approach that protects the people they should be expelling as pariahs.

Across America and the West, hostility to Israel is now driving political life. Such people should beware. Israel’s cause is the West’s own cause; Israel’s existential enemies are the West’s existential enemies.

Those who want to tear down Israel, believing that the Jews are a bone they can throw to appease their mortal foes, are actually tearing down the West.

Jonathan Tobin: A man of courage was needed. Instead, American Jews have Schumer

Yet the El-Sayed candidacy isn’t just another embarrassment for the country’s most prominent liberal Jew. Along with every other element of the current surge of vile bigotry that is changing the face of American politics in ways we are only beginning to understand, it is the kind of moral test that comes along once every generation or two.

It’s a moment when lifelong legislators are required to step up and respond to the challenges of history. And we know that most Democrats, including almost all of those who seek their party’s presidential nomination in 2028, are siding with the antisemites like El-Sayed—or staying silent.

Republicans have done better, but if they allow someone like Vice President JD Vance to succeed Trump, then they, too, will fail.

Fair or unfair, public figures are judged not so much on the sum of their lifework but on how they respond to those singular moments in time, whether it is the debate about slavery and the Civil War in the 19th century or the rise of the totalitarians in the 20th. We don’t know what will happen in the coming years, but it is becoming apparent that the explosive growth of antisemitism will, in one way or another, create yet another pivotal chapter in history. Many people will likely emerge from this struggle with their reputations either destroyed or enhanced.

At such a time, it is a pity that rather than a person of courage and character, American Jews are stuck with the likes of the feckless Schumer to represent them.

New York must heed the warning signs before we ask, 'How did this happen?'

History teaches that democracies rarely fail because warning signs are absent. They fail because too many people convince themselves that someone else will act.

As I write these words from Jerusalem, I find myself thinking of my parents. In many ways, I am grateful they are no longer here to witness what has become of the New York they loved.

I am a fourth-generation New Yorker on my father’s side, and like millions of American Jews, I grew up believing New York represented something extraordinary: a city where freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law protected everyone.

That belief shaped my life.

In 1980, while studying at Brooklyn College, I had the privilege of serving as a research assistant to Dr. Hillel Seidman, a Holocaust survivor, distinguished scholar, and journalist.

He was a prominent Orthodox journalist, author, historian, and activist for Agudath Israel, who later wrote critical analyses of international diplomacy and the United Nations (such as his 1982 book United Nations: Perfidy and Perversion).

He taught me that the UN was never merely a diplomatic institution. It was often the stage upon which tomorrow’s political realities first appeared.

Dr. Seidman followed the tenure of UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim. He and prime minister Menachem Begin shared a deep friendship and commitment to Holocaust remembrance and to the principle that powerful public officials should never be beyond scrutiny.

Following Yasser Arafat’s 1974 address to the General Assembly, when Arafat famously appeared with both an olive branch and a gun, Dr. Seidman and Begin believed the greater danger was not the gun. It was the olive branch, because it carried legitimacy while concealing a more dangerous reality.

That conviction eventually led to the investigation into Waldheim’s wartime record. I was privileged to assist in portions of that research before the effort was later expanded by the World Jewish Congress, sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and others. The lesson has remained with me throughout my career.

No public official is above the law.

No public official is above scrutiny.

Today, history feels as though it is echoing.

Antizionism is the wolf in sheep's clothing—used to mask and legitimize hatred, intimidation, and violence against Jewish Canadians.

In the wake of hateful protests at Edmonton's Heritage Festival, the demonization of Israel by City Councillor Michael Janz, and the dangerous… pic.twitter.com/UmyqwF0C4l

— CIJA (@CIJAinfo) August 7, 2026

Read More

07/24 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: A tsunami of lies; Global Intifada, Local Mayor; Streeting’s cynical smears against Israel prove he’s not fit for office

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: A tsunami of lies

The threat posed by Mamdani needs to be identified correctly. He’s using far-left populism to advance the destruction of America. But he doesn’t want to replace it with a rainbow-hued nirvana. He wants to replace it with Islam.

Despite his adherence to Shia Islam, Mamdani’s behavior corresponds to the strategy of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, which has set out how it will conquer America by infiltrating democratic institutions and using them to push the Islamist agenda.

Mamdani constantly makes references to Islam. He has cheered the growth of Islam in the city, repeatedly visits mosques and Islamic centers including ones linked to the Iranian regime, and said that America should follow the example of Islam and Mohammed’s teaching on migration and sanctuary.

Not only does the mayor need to be called out as an Islamist plant; action needs to be taken against him as a danger to America.

Pointing out that Mamdani could be denaturalized and deported, the head of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, has said that the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate evidence that before becoming an American citizen in 2018 he “knowingly provided funds or services to Hamas or another terrorist group—and concealed this from immigration authorities.”

The monumental onslaught on truth and facts about Israel has knocked the West off its moral compass. A despairing Ferguson wrote that, as a teacher, his aim was to ensure that people learned the lessons of history, including the vital lesson that antisemitic rhetoric can be translated into genocidal reality if it’s adopted by a modern state. “Yet today,” he laments, “I see this hatred normalized, the Holocaust trivialized.”

Ferguson implies that reason itself has been defeated. Such demoralization, while entirely understandable, risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Truth is being defeated because none of the custodians of the public sphere is standing up for it. People need to start calling out the agents of this contagion and holding their feet to the fire. And that includes Jews calling out Jewish anti-Zionists, too.

Andrew Fox: Streeting’s cynical smears against Israel prove he’s not fit for office

The High Level Military Group, comprising retired senior officers and officials from Nato countries, entered Gaza and questioned IDF personnel. Its submission to the International Criminal Court described Israel’s civilian-harm precautions as unprecedented and rejected the claim that the conduct of operations showed an intent by senior leaders to starve civilians or commit unlawful killings.

That judgment is also mine: Israel’s institutional policy is to operate within the law of armed conflict. No serious military observer expects a force in a long, brutal war to avoid all individual crimes. Gaza has credible cases requiring investigation and, where proved, prosecution.

Amid the social media outcry, no evidence whatsoever has been presented of a systematic policy of targeting or massacring civilians, nor of deliberate or carpet bombing. At the same time, we may certainly identify incidents that may indicate individual war crimes. The distinction between individual criminality and state policy is elementary. Streeting blurs it.

The most revealing absence from his analysis is Hamas. Gaza was not a neutral city over which Israel chose to pour fire. The IDF confronted a battlefield Hamas had spent years engineering. It built an extensive tunnel system, concealed shafts and weapons in civilian structures, booby-trapped buildings and roads, fought from densely populated areas, and denied the IDF clean targets. My own analysis of Gaza’s destruction found that much of the damage stemmed from ground manoeuvres, engineering demolitions, and the neutralisation of IEDs and tunnels, rather than air strikes alone.

Armoured bulldozers, explosive breaches, and tunnel collapses produced the lunar landscape now presented on social media as self-evident proof of criminality. Those images record a battle within a militarised enclave. They are not a legal judgment.

Hamas designed this terrain both tactically and narratively. By embedding military infrastructure throughout the civilian environment, it forced Israel into destructive urban combat and then presented every collapsed building and civilian death as evidence of criminal intent. Its information operation depends on removing Hamas from the frame. Streeting has obliged. He spoke of Israeli standards without addressing the adversary’s tunnels, IEDs, hostages, or the systematic exploitation of civilian sites.

Britain should scrutinise its allies and friendship does not require silence. Criticism from a defence secretary must be grounded in military analysis, not in televised devastation and casualty figures whose legal significance is routinely misunderstood. Streeting’s job now includes understanding how an enemy weaponises law, media and civilian suffering against democracies. A minister susceptible to that approach will impose impossible standards on allies, only to see those same standards used against British troops in the next urban war.

Streeting should ask the Ministry of Defence lawyers and operators for a serious review. If he still believes Israel fell below British standards, he should publish the basis: which incidents, which intelligence, which legal test and which British comparator. If he cannot, he should withdraw the charge. A defence secretary who cannot distinguish the horror of urban warfare from evidence of unlawful warfare is unfit for office.

Editor's Notes: Germany’s ‘good Jews’ thought they were safe, New York should pay attention

On Tuesday night, the mayor of New York posted a two-minute video to explain that he cannot arrest Benjamin Netanyahu.

He had been promising to arrest him since December 2024. At some point, the city’s lawyers told him what any first-year law student could have told him, and so he made a video. That was the news in it. The other hundred seconds were the reason he bothered.

Israel was targeting neonatal care centers. It was starving countless people. It was gunning down hundreds of aid workers and journalists. Americans were paying for the bombs that do the killing. Netanyahu was the architect of a horrific genocide, a war criminal, not welcome in New York City. Washington should arrest him instead.

October 7 did not come up. There is only one “bad” country outside the United States, and it’s Israel. Not China. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not North Korea. Only Israel.

By Wednesday morning, Zohran Mamdani was at City Hall suggesting New Yorkers go protest Netanyahu at the United Nations in September. Protest, he said, is one of the bedrocks of this city. He also said he is committed to representing all New Yorkers, whether they agree with him or not.

The UJA-Federation, which does not usually talk this way, opened its statement with “Shame on you.” The Orthodox Union said the video “endangers Jewish New Yorkers” and that the mayor peddles “lies and misinformation that risk inciting further violence against Jews.” Gadi Eisenkot, who has spent his political career trying to get Netanyahu out of office, called it “pure antisemitism, with no basis in fact.”

Eight months ago, 33% of Jewish voters in the city put him there.

That number is what sent me into the German archives. Jews backing a movement that hates them is not a new story. I wanted to know how close the match was.

More of it matched than I wanted. Some of it does not match at all.

Max Naumann
Max Naumann was not a crank. Berlin attorney. Captain in the Bavarian Army. Iron Cross First and Second Class, 15 months at the front. When he founded the Association of German National Jews in 1921, respectable people signed up, including the chief editor of one of Germany’s biggest daily papers. The Encyclopaedia Judaica notes he had money behind him, from established quarters of German Jewry.

His theory was that antisemitism is a reaction. Germans were not born hating Jews. They were reacting to things Jews did. To the Eastern European Jews showing up with foreign manners. To Zionists saying out loud that their loyalty was somewhere else. To Jewish writers who made fun of German patriotism. Take away the provocation and the hatred goes with it.

Everything else follows from that. If Jews cause it, Jews can stop it. Naumann wrote it out in his first bulletin in September 1921: Every decent antisemite admits decent Jews exist but calls them exceptions, and he will stop being an antisemite once we prove “we are not a handful of deserters but an army.”

Read More

07/18 Links: Is Israel Actually More Isolated Than Ever?; How Trump Can Avoid the Vietnam Trap; What Ro Khanna, Tucker Carlson, and Rahm Emanuel have in common

From Ian:

Richard Goldberg: Is Israel Actually More Isolated Than Ever?

Why do conservatives break against Emanuel’s claim of Israel being isolated?

Many of these conservative leaders have a lived experience under pro-Islamist, Marxist rule, which informs a world outlook that embraces a technologically innovative, culturally vibrant, and terrorist-fighting democracy like Israel. These leaders see Israel for what it is: a strategic asset. And when they come to power, strengthening bilateral relations with Israel is a Day 1 action item.

Here in the United States, support for Israel is an investment in helping secure another American century – one defined by winning the AI arms race, unlocking quantum computing, controlling the periodic table and mastering advanced energy solutions.

That Israel is a democracy with shared Judeo-Christian values whose fight against terrorism and unmatched intelligence service saves countless American lives remains true – but that is only the foundation of the relationship. The future primes more. Israel is a technological juggernaut that can help us preserve another American century is tomorrow’s promise. It is why, as America’s National Defense Strategy notes, Israel is a model ally.

It’s also why Israel’s position within non-traditional multilateral frameworks continues to strengthen. The Abraham Accords have expanded to include Kazakhstan, a Muslim-majority country. Turkey’s rise alongside U.S.-brokered peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan is bringing Yerevan and Baku closer to Israel. Greece and Cyprus are doubling down on their Eastern Mediterranean strategic partnership with Israel, too.

It might be a surprise for people to learn that Venezuela – just a few months ago the headquarters for Iran in the Western Hemisphere with no relations with Israel for a generation – welcomed Israeli aid into Caracas after last month’s devastating earthquake.

So, when Rahm Emanuel declares Israel more isolated than ever, why is it that we instinctively nod our heads and think it’s true? There are indeed alternate universes where it certainly feels true: the dystopian United Nations; the cadre of click-bait podcasters feeding a Marxist-Islamist-Nazi medley of talking points to young people with no living attachment to World War II and no memory of September 11; and the media coverage of Emanuel’s own party, which now openly embraces communists, terrorist sympathizers, and people with Nazi tattoos.

The socialist ascendancy within the Democratic Party is a very real phenomenon that threatens American support for Israel. An Islamist ascendancy in Western Europe is very real, too, with negative effects on relations with a Jewish state.

But from the Western Hemisphere to Europe to the Middle East to India, Israel is not as isolated as you think.

How Trump Can Avoid the Vietnam Trap

So far, this stage of the conflict with Iran has not gone as Trump had hoped. As he told Fox News, at the beginning of the year he thought regime change was possible. Much of the senior Iranian leadership died in the early stages of the air campaign, but the regime survived their passing. The blockade and continued bombardment inflicted significant damage to the Iranian economy and military, but Iran's closure of the Strait roiled global oil markets. Trump eventually settled for a lopsided MOU.

Thankfully, the setback with Iran is nowhere near as costly as in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans lost their lives in Southeast Asia due to hostile action, whereas the number of American casualties in this conflict is far lower. This stage of the conflict with Iran has only gone on months, rather than years of ground fighting in Vietnam, and the effects of the war on the public have been much less grave.

But another defeat would nonetheless damage the country and Trump's presidency. Americans do not like to give important concessions to a weaker foe, especially one that is obviously bent on our destruction.

The Iranians appear to have determined that they have more to gain by reigniting the war than by continuing to negotiate. They are trying to block the Strait again and relaunching attacks on the Gulf Arabs and U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis in Yemen are also threatening to disrupt shipping in the Red Sea, the other route Saudi oil can take to reach Asia.

Trump has decided "the only way you can negotiate with these people is through strength." He described a series of increasingly painful strikes on Iranian infrastructure that will occur "unless they get to the table and negotiate." Those strikes are now underway, and the U.S. military is once again blockading Iran.

The Trump coalition will be demoralized if this new round of fighting keeps the price of oil high enough to hurt Republicans in the midterms and results in even worse terms than the MOU. But Iran can only take so much damage before its economy collapses and the mullahs face severe internal threats to their rule.

Trump can accelerate that process. Rather than bombing the Iranians into accepting American concessions, he should bomb them into offering new ones of their own.

Lee Smith: JD Vance’s Big Crashout

Blaming Jews for his failure is also evidence of a more organic problem with Vance: namely, his character. It’s a bad sign when elected officials evade responsibility for their own mistakes when the point of the job is to take on responsibility for the well-being of others—in his case, 350 million others.

NFL coaches and players typically spend Mondays reviewing footage of the weekend’s game to ensure they don’t make the same mistakes next Sunday. The VP should watch the game reel: What did you, JD, get wrong about the MOU? Well, maybe I shouldn’t have laid into all the Trump supporters who criticized my Iran deal, and probably I should have kept my validators from threatening American Jews by saying that if they didn’t like my moderate stance on Israel, wait till they got a dose of “real antisemitism.”

Then there’s my choice of outside mediators, like Asim Munir, the Pakistani field marshal. I talk a lot about how our interests diverge from Israel’s, but the same military Munir leads hid Osama bin Laden for five years. Maybe Pakistan’s interests don’t always sync with America’s? Was I wrong to take policy guidance from Trita Parsi, the Iranian-born think-tank expert whose work, said a U.S. district court judge, was “not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime”? Maybe the whole idea of trying to make a deal with Iran was wrongheaded. After all, the people who most vocally supported my efforts had worked for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and those guys have been trying to put the boss in jail for a decade.

Vance blames others for his blunders because that’s the emotional content of his 2028 presidential campaign: grievance and self-pity. He has to keep performing it for the young middle-class white men he hopes to attract, based on the theory that America has been waiting for a political movement for white kids who believe the country betrayed them because they had to settle for their safety school. In truth, it’s going to be hard to convince enough of the young white men at, for instance, Ole Miss—where Vance famously boasted that “this president isn’t controlled by Israel”—that they have it worse off than their fathers and grandfathers when they’re at a famous school with an SEC football team and a 97% acceptance rate where three-quarters of the student body is white and most of them are girls, which gives the boys a big and eager dating pool.

Shouldn’t someone tell Vance that privileged grievance is a losing message and that to win the imaginations of young white guys, he should draw from his biography? Hey, fellas, time to bear down, as I did. Go to school, work hard, there are lots of fantastic opportunities out there for smart, ambitious guys, especially now with the rise of artificial intelligence. It truly is a brave, new world! Don’t be a resentful loser. Respect women, meet a nice girl, start a family. And don’t smoke dope. My first book is about what substance abuse does to families. That’s why I won’t go on Rogan anymore—he’s a good guy, but a pothead. I don’t want any of you guys thinking he’s a role model, so I’m not going back on that show until he dumps his bong.

In the end, of course, all this is on the president. He can sideline Vance, who has been undermining him from day one on Iran and other matters, but he hasn’t. The fact is that it’s not just Trump’s problem but also a problem for 77 million other Americans who went out to the polls for him, and now time is running out. If he can’t get the job done, which includes disciplining his number two, odds are ever increasing that in two and a half years, millions of illegal aliens will be gathered at our southern border, waiting for the next far-left Democrat to be sworn in.

Read More

06/18 Links Pt2: Jewish leaders mark America’s 250th with open letter; The Left-Wing Case Against Anti-Zionism; Hillary Clinton: No alternative to Trump’s Gaza plan

From Ian:

‘The single best diaspora experience’: Jewish leaders mark America’s 250th with open letter

As the U.S. approaches its 250th anniversary, American Jewish leaders have signed an open letter expressing gratitude to a nation “unlike so many others through Jewish history [that] did not merely tolerate Jewish life, but made possible its flourishing,” while also highlighting Jewish contributions to the country’s founding.

“From the earliest days of the American experiment, Jews were drawn to the promise of a nation founded not on bloodline, monarchy, or established religion, but on liberty, covenant, and the dignity of the individual,” the letter reads. “Having known the weight of persecution and exclusion, Jews recognized in America’s founding ideals something rare in human history: the possibility of belonging without surrendering our identity.”

The letter continues, “Here, Jewish immigrants arrived with little and built lives of dignity. Here, Jewish communities established synagogues, schools, charities, businesses, and institutions of civic life. Here, Jews rose not because success was guaranteed, but because freedom made striving possible.”

The letter was spearheaded by David Bernstein, CEO of the North American Values Institute, and Phil Darivoff, chairman emeritus of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia, to increase American Jewish involvement in America 250 celebrations.

“America 250 is an opportunity to express gratitude to America, the country that’s been the single best diaspora experience that Jews have ever had,” Bernstein told Jewish Insider. “American Jews have been an integral part of this country and its story from the very beginning and we want to remind our fellow Americans of that.”

“It’s also an opportunity to ensure that America lives up to its founding ideal,” continued Bernstein. He asserted that America’s core civic values, such as freedom of conscience and the rule of law, “are the best defense against antisemitism,” which reached historic levels in America following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.

“It’s incumbent on the American Jewish community to double down on those values, both because they protect us and because they allow America to live up to its highest potential,” said Bernstein.

The letter also acknowledges America’s shortcomings, noting, “America has not always lived up to its own ideals. Its history is marked by acts and periods of injustice, exclusion and failures that wounded many communities, including at times our own.”

It concludes with a call to action for American Jews.

Adam Louis-Klein: The Left-Wing Case Against Anti-Zionism

Anti-Zionism recoded the left’s concern with abuses of state power and the rights of minorities into a hatred of the Jewish state, just as the classical anti-Semitism of the 19th century recoded right-wing concern with the integrity of the nation and foreign influence into a hatred of Jews as a dispersed, stateless minority. But the internationalism that transformed Israel into a beacon of “ultranationalism” and “fascism”—the Soviets reveled in Holocaust inversion and in the depiction of Israelis as Nazis—would itself become a global system of oppression, subjecting one small state to an endless trial of elimination.

Discussions of whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism obscure the fact that anti-Zionism, as it actually exists, remains genocidal in intent, demanding the erasure of a national group that is protected under international law. The Genocide Convention protects all national groups, including those based on shared citizenship. Discrimination against Israelis qua Israelis—and the “Zionists” who appear as their proxies—is a moral wrong.

The left’s internationalism—once the calling card of progress—has hardened into hostility to Israel, across academia, NGOs, mainstream-media outlets, and the United Nations. The constant accusations that circulate across these networks of authority are not normal critiques of a state, but claims that cast Israel as the exemplar of the three great sins of the postwar international order—colonialism, apartheid, and genocide—a “rogue state” said to violate the very fabric of the world.

The progressive case against anti-Zionism recognizes the freedom of Israelis to choose the nature of the society they want to live under. It recognizes that Israel may be becoming more like other Middle Eastern countries—that its increased religiosity in recent years is partially driven by the Mizrahi segment of its population, those who were expelled from other countries in the region. And it seeks to extend to Israel the same allowance that progressives extend to other nations in the region, an acknowledgment that societies can differ from secular Western ideals.

Since the Six-Day War in 1967, which resulted in the emergence of the messianic Gush Emunim movement and the planting of settlements in the West Bank, changes within Israeli society have alienated many American Jews, as well as secular, left-wing Israelis. Religiosity and nationalism have fused, displacing cosmopolitanism. The language of leftist universalism now seems ever more remote from Israel’s reality.

But the left must adhere to its own standards, irrespective of changes within Israel. It needs to acknowledge the harms caused by anti-Zionism—the forced exodus of Mizrahi Jews across the Middle East, the cultural erasure of Jews under the Soviet Union, and the anti-Jewish violence and purging happening in the West today. And it needs to address them.

The brokenness that anti-Zionism sees in the world, as a vast oppressive conspiracy that sustains the existence of Israel—the system that Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, claimed is “the enemy of humanity”—is a brokenness that anti-Zionism brings into the world. The oppressive system is anti-Zionism itself. It’s a brokenness that, it just so happens, Jewish tradition tasks the Jewish people—and all of humanity—to repair.

Jewish Statehood and American Tribal Law

The United States pursued a one-state solution to the American-Indian conflict between 1887 and 1934. Treaty promises were ignored. Tribal governments were dismissed. Territorial boundaries were erased. Native peoples were no longer classified as members of foreign nations and instead given allotments of land to build private farms and ranches. Many of their children were placed in federal boarding schools where they were taught to assimilate into the culture of the newly unified nation. Known by historians as the Allotment Era in U.S.-Native American relations, these assimilationist policies were championed in part by idealistic reformers who believed that Indian poverty would be alleviated when native peoples abandoned tribal ways for the universalist principles of American citizenship. Their intention was good; their one-state experiment, a tragedy.

The project of “civilizing” native children in boarding schools became notoriously abusive. Many allotted lands proved unfit for small-scale agriculture while others required costly equipment most families could not afford. Thousands of impoverished Indians were left with no choice but to sell their property or lose it through foreclosure. Tribal landholdings plummeted from nearly 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres by the time the allotment policy was repealed in 1934. It was a loss whose “devastation and trauma to tribal communities…cannot be overstated,” to quote the textbook Mastering Native American Law.

It was into this climate of anti-tribal reform, now largely forgotten, that Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State first entered the public debate in the United States. Various reform rabbis and Jewish intellectuals, who had absorbed the anti-tribal zeitgeist, opposed Herzl’s “tribal” assumptions. Prominent among them was the distinguished philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen who in 1919 published an influential essay in The New Republic entitled “Zionism: Tribalism or Liberalism?”

Cohen argued that Zionism and Americanism are irreconcilable. “A national Jewish Palestine must necessarily mean a state founded on a peculiar religion, a tribal religion, and a mystic belief in a peculiar soil,” he wrote, “whereas liberal America has traditionally stood for separation of Church and State, the free mixing of races, and the fact that men can change their habitation and language and still advance the process of civilization.” When Cohen reissued the essay in his 1945 book The Faith of a Liberal, he likened Zionism to Nazi Aryanism, declaring that “tribalism is a creed that leads to grief and massacre.”

Against Herzl, Cohen insisted that “the Jewish problem is one that must be settled in each country separately” through assimilation and individual freedom. He maintained that as the world’s nations became ever more liberal, antisemitism would wither away. Though global Jewry’s faith in such promises mostly evaporated after the traumas of the Holocaust and the mass expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, Cohen’s portrayal of Zionism as inherently illiberal and backward nevertheless reverberated down the decades, giving birth in our time to a school of anti-Israel thinkers whom this paper calls anti-tribalists.

Read More

05/21 Links Pt2: Hatred of Israel and the Degradation of the West; The Doom Loop of UK Anti-Semitism; The Tiki Torch Has Been Passed; Mamdani Paid Multiple Visits to Holocaust-Denying Sheikh

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: Hatred of Israel and the Degradation of the West

Good-faith criticism of Israeli leaders and policy has for years been giving way to something darker. It's a conviction that Israel, alone among the nations, was a mistake to begin with and has no right to exist now. The fashionable frenzy that is today's loathing of Israel is a sign of the degradation of the West.

Societies that value critical thinking and reasoned moral judgment do not make a fetish of demonizing one small country and its people while imagining that peace, justice and freedom would somehow be achieved if only the country and its people were made to disappear.

Israel has been living under the endless drizzle of orchestrated propaganda and media hostility over the course of its 78 years, while still managing to transform itself into a military, technological and economic powerhouse - as well as one of the happiest countries in the world.

Moral judgments should be made about Israel according to the same standards by which we judge other countries faced with similar circumstances. It's when Israel is demanded to be a saint - and then, as it invariably falls short, is damned as the worst sinner - that we lose our sense of perspective and proportion.

The Tiki Torch Has Been Passed By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
The Dems are now the party of the forgotten Jew-hater. Leading Democrats today, unlike Trump, praise neo-Nazis and anti-Semites round the clock. How could they not? The anti-Semites are their supporters, candidates, and elected officials. There’s Mamdani, Platner, El-Sayed, and other colorful figures.

For example, there’s Texas Democratic congressional candidate Maureen Galindo, who pledged on social media last week to “turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking.” She added: “It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists.”

If there’s still a quiet part that Dems are not supposed to say out loud, Galindo seems to have said it. Major Democrats have summoned herculean courage to condemn her remarks about imprisoning Jews and castrating them for pedophilia.

But everything else goes. So-called moderate party leaders and potential presidential candidates are denouncing AIPAC, Israel, “the Epstein class,” etc.

They’re also going out of their way to praise Jew-haters across the aisle. Yesterday, the career anti-Semite Thomas Massie lost a Republican congressional primary election in Kentucky. Just a week ago, Massie posed for a picture with a supporter who was wearing an “American Reich” sweatshirt complete with a Reichsadler-esque logo. Last night, after his defeat, Massie’s first public comment was “I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”

Democrat Ro Khanna, a 2028 presidential hopeful, couldn’t bear to see such a fine man go down. “My good friend @RepThomasMassie lost tonight,” he wrote on X. “He lost because he had the guts to stand up to the Epstein class and against the war.” Nor could Khanna miss the opportunity to hoover up Massie’s anti-Semitic base. “I say to this voters who feel rejected by Trump,” he went on. “We welcome you. Join our coalition to take on a rotten system and stand for the working class over the Epstein class.”

An hour later, perhaps realizing he forgot to mention AIPAC, Khanna posted: “The message is clear: if you take a stand against war, AIPAC, & the Epstein class, you have no place in the Trump coalition. But the future of the Democratic Party that is done with the establishment is yours to shape.”

The message is clear, alright: There are only good people on one side—on the other, there are Jews. When you blame an election loss on a rigged system, it’s a threat to our democracy. When you blame it on a system rigged by the Jews, it’s “guts.” And if you blame the pesky Jews for everything, you’ll find a home in the Democratic Party.

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the tiki torch has been passed to a new generation of Democrats.

Seth Mandel: The Doom Loop of UK Anti-Semitism

Today’s Telegraph continues on this theme with an extraordinary column by George Chesterton, whose wife and children are Jewish. (Memo to Keir Starmer: You should probably read the Telegraph, you might learn something.) Chesterton’s older daughter was bat mitzvahed in 2023; his younger daughter is currently taking lessons for her own upcoming celebration. In between the two events, Britain has changed for the worse—but the signs, Chesterton says, were there even before the Hamas attacks in October 2023.

That first bat mitzvah took place earlier in 2023, and when Chesterton’s daughter started talking about it, the Nazi taunts from her classmates immediately followed.

“Hearing that my daughter was having a bat mitzvah was the trigger—until then most of her school year had not even known she was Jewish,” he writes. “It’s a measure of how far our society has allowed hatred of Jews to spread that abuse in early 2023 seems almost innocent compared to today.”

We should pause a moment on that first line: “Hearing that my daughter was having a bat mitzvah was the trigger.” Anti-Semites like to claim that Jews are to blame for their own discrimination. This argument has been extremely common after October 7, when bigots and their apologists portray anti-Semitism as “just anti-Zionism” and a reaction to Israel’s own policies. Chesterton’s article is a reminder that such triggers are always a pretext: Are the Hitler taunts his daughter’s fault for having a bat mitzvah? Anything Jewish, whether related to Israel or not, is a trigger for anti-Semites. Western societies just happen to be at a place now where there’s always someone triggered by Jews being Jews.

Chesterton’s other daughter wasn’t spared either:

“Around the same time, my younger daughter, then aged 10 and in primary school, had been compelled to declare which ‘side’ she was on by fellow pupils, the clear implication being that the children asking her were on the side of Palestinians. As with her big sister, this was because they knew she was Jewish. It was a primary-school purity test. She came home one day and explained someone had scratched Israel out of the school atlases.”

Totally healthy society, where 10-year-olds are subject to anti-Jewish purity tests in school.

The adults experienced it too, of course. Chesterton talks about his and his wife’s friends being quick to signal their virtuous anger at Israel when the war started so that they would pass the same purity test. But the family’s experiences were never limited to conversations about Israel:

“One Sunday afternoon in the summer of 2024, my wife, who is a photographer, was trying to book a taxi to the Bevis Marks Synagogue in the City of London, where she was due to be taking pictures at an event. Eight times, a different driver picked up the fare then mysteriously dropped the job once they realized what the destination was. In the end, I drove her to work because nobody else would.”

George Orwell’s ‘Antisemitism in Britain’ has sadly aged very well

Afew weeks ago, as I looked at footage of a pro-Palestine demonstration – I forget which one, they’re all blurring into one – and noted the prevalence of the nice, genteel, middle-class protesters, a phrase popped unbidden into my head: “The stupid, suburban prejudice of antisemitism.”

The words were Ezra Pound’s, in conversation with Allen Ginsberg in 1967. During the war Pound had broadcast, from Italy, the vilest antisemitic propaganda; this was his way of apologising for it. Leaving aside the question of whether his contrition was genuine or not, the choice of the adjective “suburban” was telling. It suggests something tamed, polite even; not the wildness of the countryside or the jostle and bustle of the city, but something tree-lined, respectable.

I also thought of this when a friend sent me a link to George Orwell’s 1945 essay Antisemitism in Britain. For an 81-year-old, this essay is looking surprisingly youthful. (One surprise: it begins by saying that “There are about 400,000 known Jews in Britain”; the current figure is some 277,000.) A quote from it has been doing the rounds on social media lately: “One of the marks of antisemitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true.”

This is usually cited in opposition to the recent opinion piece in the New York Times about dogs being trained to rape; but it has, and will continue to have, other applications.

Orwell’s essay, though, also makes much of the respectability of those who make antisemitic comments: “Naturally the antisemite thinks of himself as a reasonable being. Whenever I have touched on this subject in a newspaper article, I have always had a considerable ‘come-back’, and invariably some of the letters are from well-balanced, middling people – doctors, for example – with no apparent economic grievance.”

I can believe it. There has always been this strain in British antisemitism, something of middle-class virtue; and I think of Dulwich, the suburb itself, as leafy as can possibly be imagined; and the famous school, the college, that sits within it, like a country house; and its (currently) most famous alumnus, Nigel Farage, who, it has been often alleged, spent much of his time there making hissing noises at fellow Jewish pupils, and racially abusing anyone with darker skin than him.

“A Jewish boy at a public school almost invariably had a bad time,” writes Orwell in the same essay.

“He could, of course, live down his Jewishness if he was exceptionally charming or athletic, but it was an initial disability comparable to a stammer or a birthmark.”

And I think of my own public school, Westminster, where two of the school’s intellectual elite, the Queen’s Scholars, asked me if I was Jewish, and when I said I wasn’t, replied: “Then you won’t mind saying, ‘Jews are the scum of the earth, and up with Adolf Hitler.’ They’re only words, go on, say them.” I demurred.

Read More

05/19 Links Pt2: A Miscarriage of Journalism at the New York Times; Nearly 80% of Gazans open to emigrating from Strip; Somaliland to establish embassy in Jerusalem

From Ian:

Judge Roy K. Altman: A Miscarriage of Journalism at the New York Times

Nicholas Kristof's recent essay in the New York Times about supposed Israeli sex crimes against Palestinian detainees is a travesty - not simply because it's wrong as a matter of fact, or because it regurgitates long-debunked blood libels against the Jewish state at a time of rising antisemitism around the world. It's a travesty because it embraces the erosion of democratic norms.

We assume that our citizens will be prepared to discern truth from fiction. We feel comfortable in that assumption because we've devised a system of laws - based on evidence, burdens of proof, and a time-tested set of rules - to help us assess the veracity of contested claims. Today, this whole system is being undermined by the proliferation of false information, especially on the internet.

It's one thing to have our geopolitical and ideological enemies pushing unverified claims about our closest allies into our cell phones. It's another thing entirely for the New York Times to offer a story that - in its disregard of basic evidence-gathering norms, its unwillingness to investigate the opposing side's position, and its inversion of common sense - violates the fundamental rules of fairness and due process that serve as the bulwark of our democracy.

Kristof accused Israel of using sexual violence against detained Palestinian prisoners as a kind of "standard operating procedure." His claim is not merely that a few rogue Israeli prison guards sometimes behave illegally, as happens in all Western democracies, including our own.

Whether in civil or criminal cases, we have for hundreds of years rejected the technique of allowing anonymous witnesses to advance salacious claims in secret. But Kristof's article relies mostly on anonymous sources whose credibility - much less their political or ideological affiliations - cannot be tested. Moreover, his reliance on anonymity ensures that no one can ever prove him wrong.

The few sources Kristof does name underscore why anonymity is so problematic. Kristof relies heavily on a report by Euro-Med, an organization with known ties to Hamas. Its leader, Ramy Abdu, has advocated publicly for "a million October 7ths," and has repeatedly peddled the allegation that Israel "harvests organs."

When a reporter in our supposed "paper of record" advances a series of allegations that are this severe and pernicious, against an entire nation, we should demand that he produce evidence to match the gravity of his assertions. Kristof has fallen well short of this standard.

The writer is a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Seth Mandel: The Truth About the Entertainment Industry and Israel

It’s hard not to enjoy seeing someone speak actual truth to actual power in the entertainment industry. So when the celebrated Hungarian filmmaker Laszlo Nemes was asked by the Guardian about his new WWII movie, Orphan, and the cultural and political implications of its subject, Nemes did the whole world a giant favor.

“There’s an orgy of antisemitism, an absolute, shameless orgy of antisemitism, overtaking the west,” Nemes declares. He’s had enough of the “puritan, moralising, self-righteousness” from people who think of themselves as cultured and enlightened. “I think it’s all anti-humanist regression. And because it’s not identified as this, I think it’s very effective at spreading. And one of its very potent vectors has been antisemitism. … The Jew has always been [cast as] the sort of internal enemy, and I think now [the idea of] the Jew as the internal enemy of the west has reached the dimensions of European antisemitism before the takeover by the National Socialist [Nazi] party.”

His much-awarded 2015 masterpiece Son of Saul, Nemes suggests, would not fare well in this environment, where “anything that’s Jewish is now considered… Nobody would touch it with a 10-foot pole.”

Orphan is also a Holocaust movie, and despite Nemes’s mastering of the subject, this time he has yet to find a U.S. distributor. “You should be able to talk about these things without being ostracized,” he told the Guardian.

Nemes, who is Jewish, said that at conversations ostensibly about his new movie, “people [would] ask me about Gaza, instead of, you know, asking about the movie. [They ask] if I signed this or that petition.”

In other words, is he, you know, a good Jew? “We know how totalitarian mindsets work. … This kind of ideology always attaches itself to the sense of being on the right side of history, being on the righteous side. There’s a very strong, moralizing, puritan surface on which this ideology can attach itself.”

Obviously Nemes is correct in every particular. But it’s worth noting that we have confirmation that he is correct from the very cohort he’s talking about.

Usually, what Nemes calls the “overclass of Hollywood” loves to portray itself as some courageous institution. But occasionally a smug buffoon like Javier Bardem will be so giddy with self-righteousness that he’ll reveal the truth.

JPost Editorial: Leiter’s blunt accuracy maybe undiplomatic, but it his criticism is valid

Sharply criticizing J Street and implying that US Senator Bernie Sanders should not be called a Jew may not have been Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter’s most diplomatic moment. But it was perhaps his most candid – articulating what many Israelis and their supporters quietly believe.

“How can you be pro-Israel and advocate for an arms embargo on a state that’s fighting a seven-front war against Iranian proxies?” Leiter asked of J Street, which bills itself as pro-Israel, pro-peace, and pro-democracy.

His comments in Washington referred to the lobbying organization’s call to end military aid to Israel, including support for weapons systems such as Iron Dome.

“If they said that they were pro-Palestinian, I wouldn’t have a problem meeting with them,” he said. “I meet with pro-Palestinian groups. But when you come and say in such a two-faced manner, ‘We’re pro-Israel, we’re pro-democracy,’ there’s a democratically elected government in Israel. You don’t like [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, make aliyah, vote in the next election, and express yourself. Don’t say you’re ‘pro-democracy’ and decry and defy the position of the democratic government of Israel.”

Even as we reject Leiter’s reference to J Street as a “cancer” – believing it is possible to disagree without resorting to toxic rhetoric – we agree with the thrust of his criticism.

Israel is now in the 956th day of a war forced upon it on October 7. The very least it could expect from an organization calling itself pro-Israel is not to lobby against the sale of arms needed to defend itself or accuse it of genocide. That’s a low bar, and one that J Street failed to clear.

Read More