07/19 Links: Another Wake-Up Call for America's Jews; US claims PA’s prisoner payments reform a con; Why are British MPs so insanely obsessed with Israel?

From Ian:

Another Wake-Up Call for America's Jews

REVIEW: 'The Jews and the Left' by Batya Ungar-Sargon

This book gathers momentum and goes into high gear in its final sections leading up to and including the October 7 "wake-up call" to Jews and through them to the rest of America. Concentrating on the universities, the media, and sectors of the American public that she knows best, Ungar-Sargon shows how the Left's worldview, once based on right versus wrong, was replaced by the ideology of oppressor and oppressed. "That is the source of twenty-first century leftist anti-Semitism." The many strands of anticapitalist, anticolonialist, Orientalist, and other critiques of America come together in common opposition to Jews, now mostly in Israel. As she exposes the ideologies and promoters of the anti-Jewish alliance, the author punctuates her rebuttal with frustrated cries of "totally false" and "They are simply wrong." Having shown why American Jews became Democrats in the first place, and how they were then betrayed by former allies, she invites her fellow Jews to speak out as she has done, "not as Republicans" but as proud Americans.

It is heartening to read this rally against "a uniquely left-wing form of anti-Jewish hate and violence that has all but replaced right-wing antisemitism in America," but Ungar-Sargon's history is flawed and her awakening is late. Here is Commentary critic Robert Warshow writing in 1947 on America in the 1930s, "when virtually all intellectual vitality was derived in one way or another from the Communist party. If you were not somewhere within the party's wide orbit, then you were likely to be in the opposition, which meant that much of your thought and energy had to be devoted to maintaining yourself in opposition." The Communist Party was by then already in full anti-Zionist mode, Stalin having supported the Mufti's jihad in Mandatory Palestine as the start of the Arab revolution.

Warshow was writing not about the small percentage of Jews in the party but about his entire intellectual cohort. Some of the Jewish Left felt free to support Roosevelt in the late 1930s only because the Soviets had authorized the formation of the Popular Front that encouraged the cooperation with liberals it had previously prohibited. The communist "ideal" penetrated this country much deeper than fascism and for long after the threat of fascism fell away as its excuse for condoning its repressions and failures.

By the late 1960s and early '70s, some of Warshow's liberals were ready to mock their former subservience. In the American Scholar, Lionel Abel, another of the New York intellectuals, described their voluntary submission to Leftist thought control:
One must in no case do anything that might be harmful to the Left. What if the projected action seems a good one? Then one must be all the more careful. One must consider every possible consequence, even the most remote. Many actions that at first might seem beneficent when looked at more closely turned out to involve a possible damage to the Left. What Left? Which Left? Never mind. And do not ask. Indeed there is need not to ask, for the very fact that we don't know what the Left is today means that whatever it be, its situation is precarious.

When Irving Kristol, speaking for that generation, defined the neo-conservative as a liberal who was mugged by reality, that "reality" took the form of the anti-Zionist Left.

This is just to say that there have been earlier important wake-up calls in the American history of Jews and the Left, and the excommunication of "the Right" was used to keep them in line. That Jews among other Americans do not know this history makes it so much sweeter to keep pulling that football out from under them.

Ungar-Sargon's warning comes after the red diaper babies of the 1960s had metastasized into legions of progressives and merged with Islamists, fueled by more overseas funders, hackers, and influencers than the old communists ever dreamed of. Her explanation for the relation of Jews and the Left is partial at best, but her warning may still be timely. She insists that Jews under assault have to lead the way in speaking the truth: "To hate Jews is to hate America. We are an inextricable part of this nation." This is a fight that all Americans must win.

Why are British MPs so insanely obsessed with Israel?

I can only imagine how bizarre it must be for the people of North Herefordshire, who thought they were electing a Green MP to talk about nature reserves and pollution, to hear Ellie Chowns mention Israel and Gaza a combined 50 times and North Herefordshire just 37 times. Astonishingly, she has mentioned Israeli settlements in the West Bank more times than the pollution of the River Wye – a key local issue that she promised to make her top priority if elected.

The frequency with which these MPs have used their platforms in the Commons to pontificate Israel has been dizzying – and their use of parliamentary procedure has been shameless. In just the past few weeks, there has been a backbench business debate on trade with Israeli settlements and a Westminster Hall debate about Israeli influence on British politics.

In the Westminster Hall debate, we had the extraordinary sight of multiple MPs who have been on Qatari-funded trips to Qatar complain about other MPs going on trips to Israel, even though these were funded by British donors to British organisations, such as through Conservative Friends of Israel or Labour Friends of Israel.

To be clear, it is entirely justifiable for parliamentarians to go on state-funded trips, provided they are declared and the MPs go with open eyes. But as John Lamont noted in his brave and powerful contribution to that debate, those MPs were not calling for a review of lobbying regulations or foreign-sponsored trips. They were singling out one country. I will happily leave it to the reader to guess why they were so eager to single out this particular country.

Fortunately, there are many brave MPs who have stood up to all this in parliament. But the fight is extraordinarily one-sided. For even the most ardently pro-Israel MPs, this issue will just be one of many they care about. For some, their motivation for speaking out may be more driven by their principled belief that some balance is needed, rather than from a deeply held, organic desire to talk about Israel. Contrast this with the multiple MPs on the other side, for whom this is what they got into politics for and what gets them out of bed every morning. It’s the same on Britain’s streets. While many view the anti-Israel hate marches with contempt and horror, a small, angry and laser-focussed minority have been able to dominate public discourse.

Needless to say, none of this actually contributes to improving the situation for ordinary Palestinians, or for anyone else in the Middle East. As Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, admitted, ‘An inevitable consequence of the actions announced from this despatch box is that the warmth of my relationship with my counterparts in Israel has indeed suffered’. Combined with the UK’s unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state, we have thrown away any leverage we had with the Israeli government and much of the influence we had over the Palestinian Authority. And we have done this merely to indulge a mob who do little more than make this a nastier, unfriendlier country for our small Jewish community – and indeed the rest of us.

Report: Israel suspects foul play after third Israir plane damaged at Luton Airport in under a year

Israeli aviation officials suspect foul play in an incident at London Luton Airport last week, when an Israir plane was damaged by the aircraft tug while it was being towed ahead of takeoff, Channel 12 reports.

According to the report, Israel suspects the damage was caused maliciously, with “nationalistic” intent, and is in contact with the relevant authorities in England to determine whether that is indeed the case.

Israir previously said it was the third instance of its planes being damaged at the London airport within less than a year, further increasing suspicion that it was not accidental.

The incident on Thursday evening left approximately 300 people waiting aboard the Israir plane as it sat on the tarmac for several hours.

The passengers had no air conditioning for part of the time, leading to “some medical incidents,” a passenger recounted after.

Israir blamed Luton for the three instances of damage, saying that “to our knowledge, no orderly investigation has been carried out by the airport’s management into these incidents.”

'Favorite Jewish uncle' and the limits of learning from Nazism

Few US Senate primaries this year carry greater implications for the Democratic Party's future than Michigan's August 4 contest. One of the race's leading candidates is Abdul El-Sayed, whose positions and endorsements place him squarely within the antizionist movement.

To many Americans, the fact that El-Sayed has affectionately referred to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as his "favorite Jewish uncle" would seem to settle any suggestion that his antizionism reflects anti-Jewish bigotry. El-Sayed plainly does not dislike Jews categorically. He admires one of the country's most prominent Jewish politicians and embraces him in explicitly Jewish terms.

That apparent exoneration reveals something important about how modern Western societies learned to recognize the villainization of Jews.

Since World War II, Nazism – which targeted all Jews for elimination – has been the West's definitive prototype of anti-Jewish bigotry. Measured against that prototype, an ideology that welcomes and even elevates Jews who share its own views appears disqualified from being anti-Jewish. Sanders's place in El-Sayed's political and personal imagination, therefore, appears to vindicate El-Sayed against any charge of villainizing Jews.

The prototype underlying that conclusion, however, was built on a fundamental mistake: treating anti-Jewish bigotry as inherently premodern.

The West traced a symbolic archive of images and accusations against "the Jew" back to centuries of religious hostility. Yet those origins tell us where the archive developed, not what the phenomenon essentially is.

Religion supplied the historical setting in which that archive accumulated around the Jew as the figure rejecting a supposed redemptive truth, but the Jew's role was portable. Once religious power gave way to modern secular forces, those forces inherited the archive, stripped it of God, and reconstructed it in the languages of race, psychology, and metaphysics.

But the West came to interpret anti-Jewish bigotry differently – as an ancient pathology that modernity had not yet eliminated. It therefore viewed Nazism as that pathology's definitive culmination, rather than as one modern form of anti-Jewish bigotry among others. Instead of remaining vigilant for other distinctly modern forms, the West built its postwar moral architecture around preventing Nazism's return.

After Auschwitz, Western societies rightly became extraordinarily sensitive to fascism, racial hierarchy, and explicit Jew-hatred. But the postwar order did not stop at recognizing Nazism's characteristics as dangerous. It went further and conferred moral authority on their perceived opposites. Anti-racism. Universalism. Internationalism. Nazism's traits became the map of evil, and the inverse of that map became the territory of good.

That framework overlooked a fundamental feature of anti-Jewish bigotry: it has never belonged to a single political ideology. Jews can be blamed for capitalism by one movement and communism by another, for racial inferiority in one context and racial supremacy in another, for refusing assimilation and for dissolving the nation, sometimes by the same accuser in the same decade.

Postwar Western culture trained itself to recognize the villainization of Jews primarily through Nazism's particular characteristics rather than through the role assigned to the Jew. In doing so, it sensitized itself to ideological form rather than symbolic function.

The consequence was that another modern anti-Jewish ideology could assume the shape of anti-Nazism – thereby not only avoiding being identified as anti-Jewish bigotry, but also acquiring moral authority within the postwar order.

That is exactly what antizionism did. Propagated by the Soviet Union and its Arab nationalist allies, antizionism reconstructed Zionism and Israel as enemies of humanity through a set of distinctly modern libels. Drawing on Nazi imagery and Holocaust inversion, it recast Jews as the new Nazis, perpetrators of the very evils – racism, colonialism, apartheid, and genocide – around whose rejection the postwar moral order was being built.

Read More

Israel was accused of genocide before - and there is a lesson there

Palestinian terrorists attack families going about their lives. They blow up young people heading out to dance. They detonate a roadside bomb at 7:30 in the morning beside a bus carrying schoolchildren, killing a teacher and a maintenance worker and maiming children badly enough to cost them their legs.

The killings shock the world. Before Israel has launched a single major operation in response, the world's leading human rights organizations endorse a declaration branding guilty of "apartheid" and of of "acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing," and demanding the restoration of the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism.

2023? No, 2001.

The final declaration at the NGO Forum of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, released on September 3, 2001, accused Israel of "acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing" as well as "apartheid and other racist crimes against humanity." 

The Second Intifada had begun only a year earlier. In the months before Durban, the attacks increased in pace and deadliness. A suicide bomber killed twenty-one people and wounded one hundred and twenty outside Tel Aviv's Dolphinarium discotheque in June 2001, most of them teenagers waiting to get in.

The Sbarro massacre occurred a mere three weeks before Durban: a Hamas bomber walked into a pizzeria packed with families on a school-holiday afternoon at the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road and detonated a charge studded with nails and bolts, killing sixteen people, seven of them children, and wounding about a hundred and thirty.

Sbarro was the visible peak of a sustained campaign rather than an isolated horror. It came at the end of a two-week effort to concentrate terror in Jerusalem, and within days a suicide bombing at the Wall Street Café in Kiryat Motzkin wounded twenty-one while a car bomb near the Russian Compound in downtown Jerusalem carried a second, larger device that had to be dismantled before it could kill. The bombs were built to maximize the slaughter of civilians, packed with hardware whose only function is to tear through human bodies.

It wasn't as if the world's media ignored the terror spree. Full page stories described the horror of the attacks. The NGO Forum decided that the very moment when Jews were being targeted for death for being Jews was a good time to accuse Israel of genocide. 

Even though blatant antisemitism was prevalent in Durban, including the poster shown here, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had both signed the Durban document and both had distanced themselves from its worst language at the time, with Amnesty noting it did not condone the wording while accepting the declaration as "a largely positive document." By any definition, Hamas and the other terror groups were guilty of genocide— but this didn't bother the two leading human rights organizations, who claimed they didn't agree with every sentence in the final declaration but decided its blatant antisemitism was not enough to decline signing it. 

Israel had not even begun a campaign to go after the terror groups at this time. The idea that Israel was guilty of these crimes in September 2001 while its citizens were being ripped apart by bombs aimed at children is a bizarre joke. 

But Durban wasn't a joke. It was a blueprint.

The drafting and the trial were separated by twenty years of patient construction. Israeli Apartheid Week began on a single Canadian campus in 2005, reached forty cities by 2009, and passed two hundred by 2013, carrying the apartheid charge into progressive spaces as settled vocabulary rather than contested claim. The activist fringe supplied the repetition, and "apartheid," "genocide," and "settler colonialism" migrated from the mock walls on university quads into the working language of the institutions that had once kept their distance. What began as a slogan students chanted became a premise educated people no longer thought to question.

Amnesty and HRW read the genocide charge in 2001, flagged it, and signed anyway. Then they spent two decades methodically arriving at it. Human Rights Watch in 2021 and Amnesty in 2022 issued reports declaring Israel guilty of apartheid, the very term the 2001 declaration had assigned. After October 2023, Amnesty completed the sequence: its December 2024 report named the verdict in its title — "Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza" — and reached it, by the account of Amnesty's own Israel branch, as a "predetermined" conclusion, written by the international office without the Israeli branch's involvement and resting on a looser definition of genocidal intent than the International Court of Justice has ever accepted. The conclusion came first, and the evidence was gathered to fit it.

The cynicism of accusing Israel of genocide while it was a victim of weekly genocidal acts was only surpassed in October 2023, when it took a mere hours after the horrors of October 7 for the same Israel haters and antisemites to accuse Israel of what it had just been a victim of. It is herd to escape the conclusion that the charges are deliberately intended to remove any possibility that the world would be sympathetic to Jews for being brutally murdered. The bodies were not yet counted before the massacre was reframed as resistance and the retaliation pre-labeled genocide.

 Durban built the frame in 2001, and October 2023 supplied the hook it had been waiting for. The function of the genocide charge was never to describe what Israel does. It was to establish, in advance, that whatever is done to Israelis, they had it coming.

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026) "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

02/18 Links Pt1: Israeli soldier killed by friendly fire in Gaza; Israel, US envoy reject Tucker Carlson’s claim he was detained and interrogated at airport; Spike Lee’s ‘Upper Class Habits’

From Ian:

Pierre Rehov: The 'Other Side' Turns Against the Jews

This chill is often dressed up as "just asking questions" or "anti-globalism". How come there never seem to be similar "questions" about Qatar, China, Turkey, Nigeria or Pakistan?

The problem is not about failing to tolerate "free speech." The problem is about failing to examine what is said with follow-up questions. The great Edward R. Murrow invited Senator Joseph McCarthy on CBS television's See It Now not to give him the run of the corral but to challenge his remarks. The problem is a pattern of tolerating an intolerance that would not be accepted if it were aimed at any ethnic group other than Jews.

There is a gulf between arguing to cut foreign aid and amplifying blood-libel smears.

Criticism is not censorship, decency is not "consensus" and the Jewish people are not "clicks."

Contrast the fringe to actual governance. Under President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. moved its Embassy to Jerusalem (2018), recognized Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights (2019), and brokered the Abraham Accords — historic normalization agreements reshaping the strategic map. These facts remain the gold standard for a pro-ally foreign policy grounded in U.S. interests.

Whenever Washington projected resolve rather than courting applause in European salons, anti-terror alignment, economic growth and Western values have advanced.

The newly vocal antisemitic "Right" seems to represent regress masquerading as rebellion. They do not actually speak for the "Right;" they speak for themselves and for the social media algorithms that reward outrage and sounding outrageous.

Many – maybe most -- prominent members of the "Right" — from Trump to Pastor John Hagee, Thomas Sowell and Marco Rubio — stand with Israel because they stand with the West, with victims of jihad, and with a commitment to preserve the values of individual freedom, economic opportunity, quality education, freedom of expression and equal justice under the law. The "Right" would do well say so — clearly, repeatedly, and without apology — and should quarantine the grifters who would trade civilization for "clicks."

Melanie Phillips: The plot against the British mind

The British government is determined to introduce a measure outlawing “Islamophobia”. Since this nonsensical neologism was coined by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood to suppress any criticism of Islam or the Muslim world, this is causing justifiable alarm in many quarters.

Last week, three Muslims were jailed for a planned terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of Jews in Manchester in what would have been one of the worst ever such atrocities on British soil.

Despite the potential enormity of this attack and its chilling implications about the nature and extent of Islamist extremism in Britain, it’s given rise to virtually no anxious analysis or impassioned commentary in the mainstream media following the ending of the trial last December. That relative silence would be muted even further by the proposed outlawing of “Islamophobia”.

Prejudice against any group is to be condemned. But the informal use of “Islamophobia” as a smear inflicting reputational damage has long acted as an effective tool to stifle essential public discourse.

Defining it and formalising it as a form of banned speech would censor vital information and comment about political jihadi Islam — the attempt by Islamists to conquer the west by terrorism, an expanding birthrate and cultural encroachment through weaponising the democratic process. It would also silence all-too necessary discussion about the Jew-hatred that’s a staple of the Islamic world.

In February last year, the Labour government set up a working group to deliver a definition of “anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia”. As the Free Speech Union (FSU) has noted, the group is believed to have reached a conclusion in October, although its report hasn’t seen the light of day.

Leaks confirmed by one group member suggest that, instead of using the term “Islamophobia,” it’s trying to deflect the hostility against that word by defining instead “anti-Muslim hostility”. Since that would capture in the same trap much if not most of the necessary discourse about the Islamic world, it would scarcely represent any improvement.

Alarm is also being generated by the attempt to use the definition to invest Muslims with the status of a people in order to provide them with even more impunity, even though Islam is merely a religion and not an ethnicity or a nation.

New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman Plays His Readers for Fools—Again

"Netanyahu Plays Trump and American Jews for Fools—Again" is the headline over Thomas Friedman's latest column in the New York Times. I read the "again" part as an admission by Friedman that he's been writing the same column for decades. It's been consistently wrong, so the real "fools" are any remaining readers who take what he says seriously.

A decade or so ago, when Friedman was less washed-up than he is now, someone built a computer program that would auto-generate a Tom Friedman column. This latest one reads like Friedman had his news assistant train an artificial intelligence model on a bunch of old Tom Friedman columns, then fed in the latest Times front-page headlines and Harvard-PLO-Al Jazeera-Rockefeller Brothers press releases to generate a new column so that Friedman could spend his time golfing or giving honorarium-generating speeches.

Friedman begins the column by saying, "I cannot put it any more succinctly than Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, did." That could have been a good signal to Friedman's editors to spike the Friedman column and ask for a piece from Olmert instead. Or to tell Friedman, "Hey, you already quoted Olmert in a Nov. 13, 2024, column, in a May 27, 2025, column, and mentioned him, describing him as one of 'two friends of mine,' in a Sept. 24, 2025, column. Maybe give Olmert a rest?" The May 27, 2025, Friedman column includes a correction: "A correction was made on June 12, 2025: An earlier version of this article misquoted an opinion essay by Ehud Olmert in Haaretz. It reads, 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians,' not 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of extermination.'"

In not a single one of the columns reliant on Olmert does Friedman mention that his source spent 16 months in prison after being convicted in a bribery and corruption scandal in which he pocketed cash to promote a Jerusalem construction project. Olmert's cash-strapped brother got in on the bonanza too. Tom Friedman is serving as a one-man prisoner-reentry rehabilitation program for Ehud Olmert, and the Times is all-in, or at least reluctant to exercise any editorial control over Friedman that would involve asking him to disclose to readers that Friedman's "friend" is a discredited figure in Israel.

The column proceeds to another hoary Friedman move, the comparison of Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. He warns that Israel's government will "make today's Israel permanently indistinguishable from apartheid South Africa," writing of "an apartheidlike Israel" and asserting, "Israel is becoming an apartheid state."

Read More

02/13 Links Pt2: Think of it as 251 Nancys; The Fall of Europe; Three men jailed in UK over Islamic State-inspired plot to kill hundreds of Jews; James Van Der Beek, dead at 48, had longstanding ties to Israel

From Ian:

Think of it as 251 Nancys

Continuous reporting has filled television airways and made headlines in the United States about the kidnapping in Tucson, Ariz., of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie. Practically every news outlet has devoted time to each twist and turn of this story, which began on Feb. 1. It is a full-throated whodunit garnering viewers’ attention, and seemingly all have been caught up these past two weeks in worry and concern for this 84-year-old woman.

A little more than two years ago, on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel was invaded by thousands of Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas. They invaded the southern border and proceeded to murder 1,200 people, injure some 2,000 others, and kidnap 251 men, women and children, dragging them into Gaza. The vicious perpetrators provided ample evidence of their ghoulish actions with their own GoPro cameras.

Think of it as 251 Nancys.

Israel went to war for the next two years—not just with Hamas in Gaza, but with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran itself. On Oct. 13, 2025, the last of the living hostages returned to Israel. On Jan. 26, the last hostage body of Ron Gvili, 24, was brought home.

In Hostages Square in Tel Aviv and throughout the Jewish Diaspora, the fate of the kidnapped became a gut-wrenching campaign. They were Israel’s 251 Nancys. Jews worldwide wore yellow ribbons and dog tags to show their solidarity. When visitors arrived at Ben-Gurion International Airport, photos of the captives stared back, their beautiful faces pleading for help. These same images were displayed in every corner across the country. The countdown to their return was tracked down to the second.

Those rescued alive were celebrated as heroes, and for families whose relatives were buried, thousands attended funerals to grieve along with them.

These same images of the hostages were desecrated on streets across the globe by the same keffiyeh-wearing mobs that rioted in support of the terrorists and against Israelis and Jews everywhere. At least, in the case of Nancy Guthrie, nobody is screaming for her people’s destruction and accusing her family of genocide.

Yes, some of the hostages were Nancy Guthrie’s age. And there were many more young people. There were babies even—the redheaded Ariel and Kfir Bibas babies, who at 10 months and 4 years were just beginning their lives. The victims were light-skinned and dark-skinned. Some weren’t even Jewish, but Arab, Bedouin, Druze. Some weren’t Israeli, but guests and workers from abroad. Some had helped Palestinians in distress for years, some employed Gazans in their homes and fields, and some had been at a music festival, dancing and having a good time.

The Fall of Europe

From Paris to Brussels to Amsterdam and elsewhere it is happening across all the West, but still: What explains this bizarre mental mass resignation, so to speak, that affects a country known since the blitz for its tough spirit of resistance? On Oct. 2, when a 35-year-old Syrian-born British citizen, called Jihad al-Shamie attacked the worshippers of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester killing two and injuring three before being shot by police, the whole country seemed briefly shocked, but nothing ensued, either. Meanwhile, in December 2024, one of the most influential medical journals worldwide, The BMJ, published an essay signed by 25 academics arguing that banning female genital mutilation—an illegal practice in the U.K. since 1985—is harmful and stigmatizing toward migrant communities.

Meanwhile, the city of London and the Labour Party, have already both adopted a definition of Islamophobia that is now being discussed in an all-party parliamentary group, and according to which, if passed, even mentioning the grooming gangs will be considered offensive and therefore fall under the law restricting free speech. This law, called the “noncrime hate incidents law,” specifies that police can knock at your door for any statement you may have made, deemed “offensive” or threatening by a self-designated “victim.” It is under this law that the comedian Graham Linehan was arrested last September at Heathrow for inciting violence after a social media post about trans. Even worse, last October, the Telegraph posted a video showing two policemen after they had arrested a man whose Magen David had “antagonized” pro-Palestinian protesters. And in November, six police officers rang at the home of Rosalind Levine, 47, to ask her about emails she had sent her daughter’s school in which she offered to help arrange for Holocaust survivors to address pupils—an interaction with the school presented as “harassment.”

Great Britain is also the only Western country to tolerate no less than 85 active Sharia courts on its soil, an investigation by The Times found last summer. Also named councils, these courts rule over civil matters such as marriages (100,000 marriages are believed to have been performed by them, a quarter of which involve polygamy) and attract an increasing number of Muslims from across Europe and North America. Birmingham alone, whose population is roughly 30% Muslim (four-and-a-half times the national average), counts three of them.

Whatever the endemic reasons may be for that state of things, like elsewhere, Oct. 7 has worsened it. And here again, Birmingham serves as an accurate template for the rest of the country: In July 2024, in the city where the median gross annual pay is just £33,952 (against a national average of £37,617), where the majority of jobs are in social care, wholesale and retail trade, and where employment stands at just 66%, compared to the English average of 76%, voters have sent to Parliament two of the five MPs that English media call the “independent Gaza MPs” because Gaza was their sole electoral platform and program. One of those MPs is Ayoub Khan, the man who launched the first petition in Birmingham against the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans coming to town.

“Probably for the first time in England, certainly for generations, you have people elected with a specific religious slant,” Paul Stott, head of security and extremism at the London-based think tank Policy Exchange told me. “Previously, Muslims had voted heavily for the Labour Party, for a range of other parties as well, but predominantly Labour. Here the Muslim candidates have been able to run against Labour and indeed win quite comfortably, if you look at some of the results. It’s a challenge to our liberal democracy.”

To my knowledge, there are no specific studies so far on the role played in those elections by the Sharia courts. But Emma Schubart, who is data and insights manager at the Adam Smith Institute, confirmed to me that the win for these five Islamic MPs “is not just a demographic matter. What happens is that they are just mobilizing the Muslim population very, very well. They have a community where women can’t go to the polls unaccompanied, for instance, and they make use of that. They also have a lot of multifamily homes and they send in a package of mail-in ballots and lots of votes from just one address. The decisive factor is concentrated mobilization, not sheer population head count. The risk that it happens on a larger scale next May in cities like London, Bradford or Birmingham is absolutely real.”

And this is where the Villa Park game story takes its full, national significance. Earlier this month The Telegraph revealed that, among the eight mosques that WMP officials said they spoke to in order to assess the risks represented by the Israeli fans, included were the Al-Habib mosque, the Jami mosque, and above all, the Green Lane mosque, which also houses a Sharia court. In the first mosque, days after Oct. 7 a preacher delivered a sermon titled “Knowing the Facts” in which he claimed Jews were planning to “become sole rulers of the world” and recommended the reading of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; in the second mosque, in November 2023 another preacher delivered a prayer in Arabic to call for the death of the Jews; and in the Green Lane mosque, fittingly enough, a third preacher spoke about the World Cup, arguing that Jews “keep the people busy with sports and games” and “that’s why all those people make all that money.” Any of those could have passed along the Game Over Israel document. (On Jan. 6, senior police officers from the WMP facing the Home Affairs Committee admitted that their decision to ban the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was partly based on intelligence that Muslim vigilante groups were arming and planning to attack the Israelis; instead of acting upon the potential attackers, they choose to focus on alleged threats posed by the potential victims.)

In July 2024, newly elected Birmingham MP Iqbal Mohamed said during his victory speech: “We must take over the whole of Birmingham. The whole of West Midlands. The whole of the U.K. We will not be taken for granted, and we will win.”

Since then, he and his four colleagues have helped resurrect former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and, together, they have created a new formation called Your Party, plagued ever since by personal rivalries and hopeless ideological chasms. Does it mean that Iqbal Mohamed was wrong? A grim future will soon tell.

It doesn’t matter whether Americans call themselves ‘Zionists’

Politics over faith
It is a basic truth of 21st-century American life that politics now plays the role that religion used to have in their lives. So, it is unsurprising that a not insignificant percentage of the majority of Jews who are neither religious nor politically conservative would be greatly influenced by the way the base of the Democratic Party has embraced the toxic doctrines of critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism. They demonize Israel and falsely label Jews as “white oppressors.”

Indeed, Israel’s critics have always pointed to the fact that the vast majority of Jews have been political liberals who generally opposed sectarian causes in favor of universalist ones and also voted for Democrats, who were often critical of the Israeli government. At the same time, the majority of Israelis are Jews of color who came from North Africa and other parts of the Middle East, not exactly the epitome of white Europeans.

What that narrative of the study left out is the fact that poll after poll proves that huge majorities of Jews still consider Israel to be very important to them. They may not have thought well of Israel’s leaders, and neither knew nor understood much about why the majority of the Jewish state’s voters had long since discarded any backing for a “two-state solution” that the U.S. foreign-policy establishment long asserted was the only answer to the conflict. But most of these Jews still support Israel’s struggle for survival against hostile Arab and Muslim forces determined to destroy the one Jewish state on the planet.

A boost in affiliation
The good news about the JFNA survey is that it validates the widespread perception that the shock of the atrocities committed by Palestinian Arabs on Oct. 7, and the way they incited a wave of antisemitism around the globe, has influenced many Jews to come back to Jewish life. The results show that nearly half of all Jews, including many who don’t label themselves Zionists, are part of a parallel swell of greater engagement in Jewish life since the atrocities of Oct. 7. That includes an increase in affiliation, synagogue and event attendance, and a greater connection with and an interest in Israel.

That shouldn’t lessen worries about assimilation. Nor should the pro-Israel community be complacent about the way that a biased media—and a combination of woke left-wing and alt-right antisemitism—has worked to erode support for the Jewish state. This fact alone has served to increase the number of those who identify with or are willing to believe the lies spread by its genocidal foes, even among those who call themselves Jews.

But the idea that anti-Zionists, whose views seek to strip Jews of rights that no one would think of denying to any other people and thus are indistinguishable from antisemitism, now represent the majority of American Jews is absolutely not true. The organized Jewish world may be largely obsolete, and led by organizations and leaders who have failed to respond adequately to the challenges of the moment. And the labels that were once meaningful in determining the views of most people are just as out of date. But the trauma of Oct. 7, and subsequent increase in global hatred and even violence, has not convinced most Jews to abandon the Jewish state. American Jewry may be in demographic decline, yet the overwhelming majority of those who choose to remain part of the Jewish people still stand with Israel.

Read More

02/10 Links Pt2: The case for a three-state solution; IDF brings Syrian child across border into Israel for emergency medical care; EU okays Google’s $32 billion Wiz deal

From Ian:

The case for a three-state solution

In the closing months of his first presidential term, Donald Trump pushed hard for an Israel/Palestine deal. Although well-intentioned, it was widely disparaged – perhaps unfairly – as unworkable, and there remained little opportunity to refine the terms before he left office. But he now has plenty of time to impose a sensible settlement. His rollercoaster approach to international relations may not be to everyone’s taste. Yet flagellation and flattery, bombast and bribery, and hard-cop-soft-cop may be just what is needed here.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would be a key player in any such deal. For almost its whole lifetime, the “Palestine” Mandate included Transjordania, the region east of the River Jordan. The British had initially earmarked the whole territory of the Mandate for the Jewish national homeland, but, to the despair of the Zionists, from the Mandate’s very inception they instead devolved autonomous control of Transjordania to the Hashemite Emir Abdullah. In April 1946, the Emirate was finally severed from the Mandate when the old League of Nations, at its last meeting, recognised the new Kingdom (“Transjordan” until 1949, when it took control of the West Bank).

That was the real partition. Jordan was the Mandate’s Arab legacy state. Britain’s Labour government then washed their hands of the problem of the Mandate’s western remnant and dumped it on the United Nations, which, in Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, voted to sub-partition it. However, by an ironic twist of fate, Israel nonetheless attained sovereignty over the whole remnant. This was through the default operation of a long-established principle of customary international law known as uti possidetis juris.

The rule was automatically triggered by the failure of the Arab community’s leadership to declare a state of their own in the areas allocated under 181.

They knew that doing so alongside Israel would signal implicit agreement with the resolution, and they wanted the lot. But the decision had consequences. It left a sovereignty vacuum in two-thirds of the Mandate’s remnant territory, and as Israel was the only state which came into being on the critical date of the Mandate’s expiry – May 14, 1948 – its sovereignty automatically filled out the vacuum to absorb the whole remnant.

By the end of the 1948 war, Israel could probably have taken control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank salient with comparative ease. But it preferred to concede their occupation, respectively, by Egypt and Jordan under the terms of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice, retaining sovereignty in absentia. Although it seized them in 1967, its statesmen have usually been reticent about making express claims of sovereignty for fear of alienating friendly powers. Most recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu vetoed moves in the Knesset to ratify Israel’s sovereignty over substantial areas of the West Bank after Donald Trump and J.D. Vance voiced stern warnings that it would jeopardise the Abraham Accords.

Yet decades ago, U.S. policy had been more indulgent of Israel’s sovereignty rights over at least some of the West Bank. In 1982, echoing the sentiments of Britain’s Lord Caradon at the UN in 1967, President Ronald Reagan movingly declared that he would never ask the bulk of Israel’s population ever again to live in a territory barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point, within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. Then, in the wake of the Oslo Accords, the terms of the Jordan/Israel peace treaty brokered by Bill Clinton in 1994 expressly recognised in Article 3 that the “international boundary between Israel and Jordan”, defined in Annex 1(a) as the River Jordan and the Dead Sea, was “the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories,” and as such was “inviolable.” The “without prejudice” saving merely reflected the possibility of an eventual negotiated settlement over sovereignty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, envisaged under Oslo. The treaty could not have enunciated a clearer acknowledgement of Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank, not merely that it was an occupier.

Arguing over Gaza war death tolls is a fool’s game that hides the real question

Why no one knows who were killed in Gaza. Hamas’s Health Authority, a notoriously untrustworthy source, estimates some 70,000 Gaza deaths, but it does not distinguish fighters from civilians. They would prefer the public to conjure an image of 70,000 dead women and babies, not tens of thousands of ruthless, raping terrorists. But separating bodies of fighters from those of innocents is highly imprecise since Hamas terrorists not only operate among civilians in civilian structures but also dress as them. Likewise, Israeli estimates, which are known for being reliable and made in good faith, suggest that 25,000 fighters were killed, though this number is also imprecise. Thousands of both fighters and innocents are still buried under tons of rubble from collapsed buildings.

Why we don’t know whether a death toll of 70,000 is good or bad. In the Armenian Genocide (1915-1917), some 600,000 to 1.5 million were killed, accounting for 90% of Ottoman Armenians. In the Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979) victims totaled 1.5 million to 3 million, including 99% of Vietnamese Cambodians. More recently, in the U.S.-Iraq war (2003-2011), total deaths are documented at around 460,000. That’s 650% more fatalities than estimated for the Gaza war.

Still, hearing that 70,000 people (of 2.2 million in the Strip) were killed in a war is disturbing, even with the clarifier that “only” 45,000 of them were innocent women, children and seniors. But we certainly can’t assess the magnitude of death without context compared to other modern wars. In perspective, the Gaza war toll, with its far more favorable combatant-to-civilian ratio, was a minor disaster—and certainly, no genocide—compared with Armenia or Cambodia.

Why arguments over blame for Gaza war deaths are nonsense. When a country like Israel is attacked, unprovoked, by its bordering neighbor, as Hamas did on Oct. 7, 2023, there’s little question of responsibility for the conflagration. Hamas was the aggressor. When that aggressor fails to take precautions to protect its citizens in case of war, as Hamas failed to do, responsibility is again clear. Finally, if the aggressor uses a war strategy of human shields—deliberately operating within or around its civilian population, in residences, schools, mosques and hospitals—which is a crime, then that becomes a trifecta of unforgivable barbarism.

In short, civilians who died under these circumstances, no matter the number, are the full responsibility of the aggressor: Hamas. To debate the actual death toll as though it has some inherent moral meaning is irrational. To blame any of the deaths on Israel, which fought strictly according to the rules of war—and, in fact, exceeded what is required in providing humanitarian aid—is irresponsible … and dead wrong.

United Hatzalah Treats Five-Year-Old Boy from Syria with Head Injury

United Hatzalah EMT first responders provided urgent medical care on Tuesday to a five-year-old boy from Syria who sustained serious injuries after falling from a height in the Syrian village of Hader.

The child was transferred across the border into Israel by an Israel Defense Forces ambulance and brought to a soccer pitch in Buq’ata, where United Hatzalah volunteer EMTs were awaiting his arrival.

According to United Hatzalah EMTs Ali Tarbiya and Amin Abu Saleh, the boy arrived in serious condition suffering from traumatic head injuries. Family members reported that he had fallen from a significant height prior to evacuation.

“Our teams immediately initiated emergency medical treatment upon his arrival,” the EMTs said. “Following stabilization efforts at the scene, the child was airlifted by an IDF medical evacuation helicopter to Rambam Health Care Campus for further treatment.”

Two Druze EMTs responded to the incident.

United Hatzalah volunteers provide humanitarian medical assistance regardless of nationality, religion, or background.

The child remains under medical care at Rambam Hospital, where he is undergoing further evaluation and treatment for his injuries.

Read More

The Shelved Report That Exposes HRW's Antisemitism

Two senior Human Rights Watch staff members, Omar Shakir and Milena Ansari, resigned last month over the organization's decision to shelve a report concluding that Israel's refusal to allow Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants to "return" constitutes a crime against humanity. The New York Times and other outlets are framing this as a story about HRW's internal politics and the courage of principled researchers.

They're missing the real story: the report's underlying logic reveals how accusations against Israel consistently rely on assuming Jewish evil from the outset—and that assumption is itself antisemitic.

While the report hasn't been published, the NYT article provides enough detail to reconstruct HRW's likely legal argument. The dispute centers on "whether there is a solid legal basis for the sweeping determination that denying the right of return to a particular location causes a level of suffering that rises to a crime against humanity."

Under the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity require proof that acts were committed "as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." 

Here are the crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender
 (j) Apartheid;

How on Earth can a nation's immigration policy be put in the same category as these crimes? How can it be considered an "attack" at all, which is the very definition of a crime against humanity? 

It cannot - but the HRW report almost certainly relies on an additional item listed in the Rome Statute:

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Notice what's embedded both in that formulation as well as in the general definition of crimes against humanity: intentionality. 

Let's be explicit about what HRW's theory requires: Israel's immigration policy must be intentionally designed to cause great suffering to Palestinians. No nation on Earth allows anyone to become a citizen without fitting some criteria, and Israel's is no more onerous than that of most other countries. As a Jewish state, it favors Jews - but millions of people became citizens of European states without even being residents because of their ethnic ties. Germany's Spätaussiedler program, Hungary's citizenship-by-descent law, and Ireland's generous policies for those with Irish grandparents are all considered legitimate expressions of national identity. 

Only when Israel does that same is it considered an active act of aggression against another group of people specifically to cause suffering. HRW is arguing that Israel's immigration policy - denying entry to descendants of people who left in 1948, most of whom have never lived in Israel - belongs in the company of extermination and mass rape.. That standard immigration controls exercised by every state somehow constitute "intentionally causing great suffering" comparable to murder, torture, and enslavement.

We aren't even getting into the discussion of Israel's security needs that prompted the policy not to allow Arabs who fled in 1948, hoping for a quick defeat of Israel, to return. Nor about how the UN resolution that is misread to give a "right" to return also specifies that the people must be willing to live in peace, a requirement that was never met. 

The Arab world has been clear from the start that their insistence on "return" is a means to destroy Israel. Muhammad Salah al-Din Bey, Foreign Minister of Egypt, said in 1949, "It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland… they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel."

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was equally explicit. In 1961 he stated that Arab demands meant "the destruction of the State of Israel." Even more directly, Nasser declared: "If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist." Arab leaders weren't hiding their intent - the "right of return" was always a demographic weapon to eliminate the Jewish state

HRW is not advocating human rights for Palestinian Arabs. It is demanding the destruction of Israel.

The  assumption of malicious intent when Israel is doing what every other nation does is not limited to this report.   It's the common thread running through every major accusation against Israel:

"Genocide": Amnesty International's recent report claims Israel commits genocide in Gaza. But genocide requires "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." If Israel's intent is to destroy Hamas then the entire argument falls apart - but Amnesty embedded the result claiming intent for genocide into the assumption. The accusation assumes the worst possible motive while ignoring the obvious alternative: self-defense against a terrorist organization that openly seeks Israel's destruction.

"Apartheid": Multiple NGO reports claim Israel practices apartheid. But apartheid requires intent "to maintain [a] regime of systematic oppression and domination." Israel's laws enshrining equality for its Arab citizens demolishes the "intent" requirement. As I've documented, Amnesty invented its own definition of apartheid to reach this conclusion.

"Illegal settlements": The portrayal of Israeli communities in the West Bank assumes they exist to "steal land" or "oppress Palestinians"—not for security, not because Jews have historical and legal claims to the territory, not because successive Arab rejections of peace offers left the status unresolved.

In every case, the methodology is identical:

1. Assume Israeli Jews act from uniquely malicious motives
2. Ignore obvious alternative explanations (security, self-defense, standard state practice)
3. Use that assumption of evil intent to "prove" the predetermined conclusion
4. Create legal standards that apply only when you've assumed malicious intent from the start

In this case, it is crystal clear that the HRW report was written with the conclusion first, and the legal justification shoe-horned in afterwards. (Which is similar to Amnesty's report which was referred to internally as the "genocide" report while it was being written.) 

This isn't just bias. It's a modern variant of an ancient libel.

The classical blood libel assumed Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. The modern version assumes Jews design state policies specifically to maximize gentile suffering. The structure is identical: attribute uniquely evil motivations to Jews, dismiss obvious innocent explanations, use the assumption to "prove" extraordinary Jewish wickedness.

When you assume a Jewish state operates from fundamentally different and malicious motives than other states, you're not applying universal standards. You're applying a Jewish exception. And when that exception consistently assumes the worst possible intent while ignoring obvious alternatives, it reveals the prejudice driving the analysis.

The antisemitism becomes even clearer when you examine how Arab states treat the exact same Palestinian population.

Israel's immigration policies have been in place since 1948. There is no active oppression in not allowing Arabs to "return" to a state that almost none of them have ever lived. 

But Arab nations that have hosted Palestinian Arabs since 1948 have refused to give them citizenship for over 75 years. And this is a deliberate policy - the Arab League says that Arabs can become citizens of other Arab countries except for Palestinians.

Under HRW's own logic - that denying people citizenship causes 'great suffering' - this active, ongoing discrimination against actual residents would far more clearly constitute a crime against humanity than Israel's standard immigration policy. History has shown that Palestinians want to become citizens of Arab countries if they could, and the rare times that brief windows opened to allow some of them to be naturalized they enthusiastically took advantage of that. The 1951 Refugee Convention says, "The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees" and every Arab state has flouted that. (Even Jordan, which naturalized the West Bank Palestinians in 1951, has not done the same for Gazans who went to Jordan after the Six Day War; they are still living in camps without access to state services.) 

Don't hold your breath for HRW to accuse Lebanon, which doesn't even allow Palestinians to purchase land and forces them to live in overcrowded camps, of "crimes against humanity." But if HRW wasn't institutionally antisemitic and truly believed that keeping Palestinians stateless is a crime, that is exactly what they would do. 

Even Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director from 1993 to 2022, called this "a novel legal theory that was unsupported by the facts and law." When Kenneth Roth - whose anti-Israel bias has been extensively documented - can't defend your reasoning, you've revealed the prejudice underlying it.

Interestingly, HRW and Amnesty claimed that the "right to return" is a legal requirement over 20 years ago, using a different argument. It was based on a purposeful misreading of  the Nottebohm ICJ case. They quote-mined an ICJ decision about citizenship disputes to mean the opposite of what it says - because they started with the conclusion that Israel must be violating international law and worked backwards, just as they have done countless times since. Elevating the argument to the even more absurd "crime against humanity" shows far more about HRW than about Israel. 

The report was led by Omar Shakir, HRW's Israel-Palestine director for nearly a decade. Shakir has a documented history of opposing Israel's existence dating to his college years. HRW hired him knowing this - they wanted someone who would assume the worst about Israel.

And that's precisely what this report represents: start with the assumption that Israeli Jews are uniquely evil, construct a legal theory that only works if you maintain that assumption, apply it only to Israel while exempting states engaged in far worse conduct.

The report may be shelved, but the effort to write it reveals the antisemitism embedded in HRW's institutional approach: assume Jewish malice, ignore alternative explanations, use that assumption to prove predetermined conclusions, and call it "human rights research."

When your entire analytical framework depends on assuming Jews act from uniquely evil motives, you're not doing legal analysis. You're perpetuating an ancient prejudice in modern legal language.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Time to Examine the Echo Chamber of Anti-Zionist Academia

Andrew Pessin has launched the Institute for the Critical Study of Antizionism, and in his introductory manifesto he he quotes Adam Louis-Klein:

“We now need entire teams of researchers — serious, methodical, interdisciplinary — to mine the full archive of genocide studies, settler-colonial theory, Middle Eastern studies, and the whole academic nexus where antizionism has taken root… a vast, largely unexamined body of antizionist hate literature, treated as scholarship but functioning as ideology.”

I am not an academic, but I can certainly critique academics on their own playing field. I've quoted and mocked the most egregious examples of anti-Zionist academic literature a number of times. But what is required here is a more rigorous examination showing that the entire field is rotten at the core.. From what I could tell, anti-Zionist academic literature does not simply contain bias. It behaves like a sealed intellectual ecosystem, with its own canonical texts, circular logic, and selective evidentiary filters. The appearance of scholarly rigor is there -  citations, peer review, footnotes  - but the underlying method is adversarial rather than truth-seeking. The conclusions are rarely tested; they are assumed.

This is where AI becomes indispensable.

Taylor and Francis hosts hundreds of academic journals. While most papers there are not available in full text, they show their abstracts - and their footnotes. I realized that with a minimal effort I could have AI examine the papers and their references to see if they are following the patterns of normal academic research or if their evidence is all circular and ignoring any counter-examples.

I found that when searching for papers accusing Israel of “settler-colonialism,” “apartheid,” and “genocide,” nearly all of them fail basic academic standards required in the social sciences.

The rot is very deep. Here is what I found in only a half hour of research with Grok:

The Settler-Colonialism Frame: Theory as Template

Searching Taylor & Francis for “settler colonial* + Israel” yields about 110 papers since 2015. In this cluster:

• Patrick Wolfe (2006) is cited ~52%

• Ilan Pappé (2006) ~48%

• Lorenzo Veracini (2010) ~35%

• Gershon Shafir (1996) ~28%

These four sources account for roughly 80% of the network’s intellectual gravity. Virtually every subsequent paper refers back to them.

But here is the problem: these works are rarely challenged, only repeated. Assertions like “Zionism is a settler-colonial project by definition.”are taken not as hypotheses to be investigated, but as axioms to be applied.

Primary sources,  such as Ottoman-era Jewish land ownership, pre-Mandate Jewish presence, or Mizrahi Jewish indigeneity,  almost never receive examination. The fact that Jews have always considered Israel their homeland and have prayed to return for two millennia? Not to be found, because that one fact by itself shows that Jews never considered themselves to be settling someone else's land but returning to their own. 

Even within the larger field of settler colonial studies, there are debates on whether Israel fits the definition the way the US or Australia do. Those dissenting opinions not only might but must be mentioned in serious academic papers - yet they are virtually absent in the context of Israel.

The Apartheid Frame: NGOs as Canon

The apartheid literature is even larger, about 230 papers. But here, the intellectual source code changes.

The top citations are no longer academics but NGOs: 

• B’Tselem (2021) ~75%

• Human Rights Watch (2021) ~68%

• Amnesty International (2022) ~62%

These are not academic papers, but advocacy documents. They are not peer-reviewed; they were created with predetermined conclusions and PR strategies behind them. 

Yet in academic writing, they are treated as if they were definitive legal assessments. The logic often goes something like, “As established by HRW and B’Tselem, Israel is an apartheid regime.”

But the reports themselves have been directly challenged,  in detail, by Eugene Kontorovich,  Avi  Bell, Gerald Steinberg, CAMERA, and myself. Those critiques exist. They are public and specific. 

And yet,  in the 230 T&F apartheid papers,  they are cited in less than 2% of cases. And when they are cited, it is often dismissively, as “denialist rhetoric,” not as arguments requiring rebuttal.

This is ideological cherry-picking that excludes any contradictory evidence.. It does not reach anything close to accepted academic standards.

The “Genocide” Acceleration

Finally, the most recent wave: the “genocide” framing post-October 7. There have been so far about 150 papers since late 2023 accusing Israel of "genocide," which is astonishing for two years. 

And in these, the primary sources are:

• Francesca Albanese’s UN Special Rapporteur reports (70%)

• ICJ provisional ruling language (65%)

• Amnesty’s December 2024 genocide report (already ~55%)

Again, the pattern holds. These sources are treated as if they constitute established legal conclusions rather than political and rhetorical framing.

Arguments rooted in genocide scholarship, like the specific standard of dolus specialis,  are barely discussed. The ICJ’s own high evidentiary standards (as applied in Croatia v. Serbia) are almost never mentioned.

There are virtually no counter-interpretations, no accurate readings of the Genocide Convention, no documentation of Israeli efforts to warn civilians, no discussion of Hamas embedding military assets among civilians.

Once again, NGO reports are treated not as evidence but as authority.

In other scholarly fields, like  political science, history, and sociology,  academic standards require:

• representing opposing views fairly

• citing dissenting scholarship

• acknowledging uncertainties

• engaging with primary sources

• and above all: practicing falsifiability

What we see instead is the construction of a self-affirming discourse where counter-arguments are not refuted. They are simply not acknowledged.

This produces an illusion of consensus where none exists. It creates the appearance of “settled scholarship” when what actually exists is selective citation and methodological exclusion.

I managed to prove, in less than an hour, what I and probably the members of ICSA have long suspected: that the field of anti-Zionism is not just dismissive but contemptuous of academic standards. It is not a field at all, but an anti-Israel propaganda initiative disguised as scholarship. It does not stand up to the slightest bit of critical scrutiny.

ICSA must adhere to rigorous academic standards to make this case airtight. But I just proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. 

Ideas start in journals, get simplified into lectures, then transmitted to student activists, turned into slogans and then accepted as moral certainties which then become dogma, and dogma that cannot be questioned becomes a weapon. Entire university departments are complicit in this truly horrible hijacking of academia. Any honest researcher should be horrified and want to excise this cancer from the social sciences.

Let's hope ICSA will be the spark to burn this entire false field of study down.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

How to criticize Israel and not be antisemitic

The Nasser Hospital incident appears to show that the IDF made significant mistakes. 

Here is an analysis by military expert Ryan McBeth:

Andrew Fox adds:

Israel’s Channel 12 has reported that the first strike targeted a man who had been monitoring IDF forces with a camera on the hospital’s fourth floor, a justification repeated by the IDF. Israel’s military also claims to have killed six terrorists in the strike from both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. None of this, however, absolves the IDF for what happened next.

Video footage showing a second strike that killed emergency workers responding to the initial impact is deeply troubling. Normally, precision strikes are carried out with drones or guided munitions, not by tank shells. Whether this was a legitimate strike, an operational error, a breakdown in communication or something more sinister will need to be determined through a full investigation. There remain significant questions about proportionality and anticipated collateral damage in this strike.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior IDF commanders have already suggested that something went wrong. The IDF has promised to ‘examine several gaps’ in the strike, including who authorised it. Netanyahu was far more emphatic. He said Israel ‘deeply regrets the tragic mishap’ that led to the strike, and promised a ‘thorough investigation’. The IDF owes Israelis, Palestinians and the international community a clear and transparent explanation.

Both military experts do not hold back when they see something problematic. Yet they don't come close to crossing the line into antisemitism. 

Today's "anti-Zionists" insist that they are not antisemitic, that they are only criticizing Israel, and that Zionists are conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism for political reasons stop all criticism of Israel. Their claims fall apart when you compare their hysterical accusations against what McBeth and Fox are doing here. 

The difference between the approaches is simple.

"Anti-Zionists" start from the assumption that Israel is evil, and their "criticism" is all couched in that assumption, sometimes stated ("Israel is a genocidal apartheid state!") and sometimes implicit (media righteously declaring "We could not independently verify Israel's claims" - but never say that for Gaza sources.) 

Legitimate criticism starts from the knowledge that Israel has valid military reasons to destroy Hamas, that it has safeguards and policies to protect innocent civilians, that it is operating in a theatre where the civilians are themselves tactical defensive shields for Hamas, and that in war sometimes there is a breakdown in communication and the chain of command - which is not to excuse it. 

Legitimate critics understand that Israelis are humans doing the best they can under nearly impossible and artificially imposed constraints that no army in history has ever had to work under. Antisemites start with the conviction that Jews are malicious to the core, have a secret agenda of Jewish supremacy and cannot be trusted.

Treating Israel as irredeemably evil while bending over backwards to justify Hamas actions (like HRW's changing the definition of "human shields" only for Israel's enemies)  is not "legitimate criticism." It is thinly disguised antisemitism. 

A newer dynamic is taking place, where the "anti-Zionists" are becoming to emboldened by the lack of pushback and by their adulation from Jew-haters that they are crossing the line into explicit antisemitism. 

This attitude gets certified kosher by the Jewish antisemites. Today, Haaretz's Gideon Levy wrote:

Uberkommandant Avi Bluth, the head of the army's Central Command, decided that he'll show them. With his military kippah worn at an angle, blood-curdling eloquence, boundless arrogance and sick double standards of morality, he ordered "redesign operations" to be implemented so that "everyone will be deterred, any village that dares to raise a hand against any of the residents."

He is saying as clearly as possible that religious Jews are Nazis. This in turn gives license for others to do the same. 

The new antisemitism is becoming so mainstream that it is difficult for casual readers to notice it when it occurs. But comparing coverage of Israel in much of the media with how these two actual experts criticize Israel show the huge difference between criticism and papered-over hate.

(h/t Scott, YMedad)

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More