05/21 Links Pt1: Israel is still the world’s scapegoat; How the UN Invented a Blood Libel — and the Media Ran With It; Kneecap charged with terrorism over Hezbollah flag

From Ian:

Israel is still the world’s scapegoat

So why has Israel been singled out by the ICC and the ICJ, as it battles to cripple the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? For starters, Israel is seen as an easy target for these international bodies – a kind of ‘low-hanging fruit’. This is largely because Western opinion has already cast it in the role of the villain in its conflict with Hamas. In the broader international arena, Israel is seen as the archetypal wrongdoer.

Of course, the reality is very different. Israel is the only democracy in the turbulent Middle East. It is also the only Jewish state in the world. It is currently engaged in a war against an anti-Semitic enemy that wishes to wipe it off the map. Israel is not a ‘colonial’ or genocidal oppressor, as is so often claimed, but a country marked by its own tragic history of invasion, violence and suffering. Yet with few sympathisers left on the world stage, Israel ends up being the convenient focal point for global indignation.

That is not the end of the story. The ICC’s aggressive stance against Israel is also a sign of deeper troubles among international institutions. In the era following the Second World War, a network of progressive lawyers, non-governmental organisations and activists – often working through the UN – set out to champion universal rules of warfare. Their goal was to dismantle the traditional notion of state sovereignty in favour of global accountability. However, that postwar consensus is now unravelling. Even the US, once a pillar of that world order, has resorted to sanctioning the ICC, claiming it plays favourites against both the US and Israel.

In fact, from the beginning, the ICC has struggled to earn universal support. While it was established as a guardian of international justice, major powers such as the US, China, India and Russia never signed up to it. Hungary has also recently signalled its discontent by removing itself from the ICC after a visit from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At their core, projects like the ICC and ICJ are a globalist challenge to national sovereignty and are deeply undemocratic. Laws gain moral authority from being passed by elected representatives of the people – something that international tribunals simply cannot replicate. Without democratic backing, these institutions too often fall prey to political agendas, rather than serving as unbiased arbiters of justice.

Against this backdrop, the prosecution of Israel has transformed into a high-stakes test for the credibility of bodies like the ICC and ICJ. This could be seen playing out at the ICJ hearing against Israel in The Hague last month. While lambasting Israel’s actions against Gaza and the UN, Palestinian counsel Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh urged the court to reassert the moral compass of the UN Charter. She warned that the international order was crumbling and expressed the ‘continuing desperate hope that international law might finally prevail’.

We should hope that these organisations continue to lose their clout. Then they will no longer be able to unjustly target a sovereign state like Israel for exercising its right to self-defence. The collapse of these hollow institutions cannot come soon enough.

Melanie Phillips: Keir Starmer's new admirers

Israel is stepping up the war in order to force Hamas finally to release the remaining hostages. Starmer, Macron and Carney complain this is “disproportionate”. What’s disproportionate about this when Hamas is refusing to release the hostages unless Israel totally capitulates? What’s disproportionate about continuously moving the Gazan civilians to relative safety — and food aid — in order to trap and target the remaining Hamas battalions? What’s disproportionate about controlling territory to prevent any more thousands of rockets and depraved attacks against Israeli civilians? What’s disproportionate about an overwhelmingly just war against genocide?

The statement threatens “further concrete actions in response” if Israel doesn’t halt “settlements which are illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state”. The much-repeated claim of illegality is a lie. The Jews alone are legally entitled to live in the disputed “West Bank” territories of Judea and Samaria. And why are these residents said to undermine the “viability of a Palestinian state”? Israel’s population is 20 per cent Arab. Yet Britain France and Canada are in effect demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine.

And since the vast majority of Arabs living within Gaza and these disputed territories say repeatedly they support the October 7 attacks and want to destroy Israel and murder Jews; and since the Palestinian Authority declares its intention to wipe out Israel, pays terrorists and their families for the murder of Israelis and teaches the children in its schools to murder Jews and steal their land, the insistence by Britain, France and Canada on a Palestinian state means they have become the allies of genocidal fanatics against innocent victims. That’s quite an achievement.

The statement threatens to suspend trade negotiations with Israel. Really? Britain depends upon Israeli intelligence and its military know-how to fight its own battles against the same kind of fanatics that Israel is fighting. Is the Starmer government’s hatred of Israel so unhinged that it’s really intending to damage Britain by denying a trade deal — which Israel says wasn’t even on the agenda anyway?

At the same time as it issued this statement, Britain imposed sanctions on two illegal Israeli settlement outposts and three Israeli “settlers”. The UK Foreign Office accused the three of being involved in “threatening and perpetuating acts of aggression and violence against Palestinian individuals.” Where’s the evidence of unprovoked attacks? Why is Britain arrogantly interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country?

Britain has sanctioned no Palestinian Arabs for the murderous daily attacks against Jewish residents of these areas. A few days ago one such resident, Tzeela Gez, was murdered as she was being driven to hospital for the birth of her fourth child.

The Starmer government ignored this latest atrocity against one of the “settlers” it has thus dehumanised and singled out for vilification. Instead it condemns the Israelis for trying to end such slaughter. “History will judge them,” said the Foreign Secretary David Lammy in a sickening Commons debate yesterday. “Blocking aid, expanding the war and dismissing the concerns of their friends and partners is indefensible and it must stop.”

Who on earth does he think he is? How dare he say Israel must stop defending its people. And this from a country that has so much Jewish blood on its own hands, going back to when British officials were the land’s colonial overlords — whose imperial disdain can be so clearly heard in Lammy’s tone — and who created the whole Middle East mess in the 1930s, when they tore up the UK’s treaty obligation to settle the Jews throughout what is now Israel, the “West Bank” and Gaza and offered instead to reward genocidal aggression by giving away part of the Jews’ entitlement to their aggressors, a murderous betrayal that Britain attempts to repeat to this very day.

JPost Editorial: When Hamas applauds you, it's time to rethink your stance

However, from Israel’s allies, there is no creativity, and no pressure on the real culprit: Hamas. Instead, they threaten sanctions on the country trying to get back its citizens.

Is this truly the smartest way to act towards an ally that has promoted and fought for Western values? Where, in that joint statement, was the equally weighted warning to the terrorist groups that birthed this entire operation: Hamas, its allies, and its parent backer, Iran?

As the Trump administration says it is closing in on a nuclear deal with the Iranian regime, where is the weight levied against Tehran to pressure Hamas? Why is Israel being singled out here?

An appeal to help Gazans, who are indeed suffering, is warranted. But by ignoring the larger context and who is to blame for the carnage in Gaza, the UK, Canada, and France are simply going for the easy target: Israel.

The proof in the pudding that the warnings by the three countries were misguided and damaging was the immediate reaction by the terrorist group, which “welcomed the joint statement issued by the leaders of Britain, France, and Canada, rejecting the policy of siege and starvation pursued by the occupation government against our people in the Gaza Strip, and the Zionist plans aimed at genocide and displacement.

“This position is an important step toward restoring respect for the principles of international law, which the terrorist Netanyahu government has sought to undermine and overturn,” it added.

Perhaps when terrorists who committed the worst massacre of the century agree with you, it is time to recalibrate your beliefs.

Read More

05/16 Links Pt1: Trump's Middle East doctrine on display; The DoJ’s long-awaited reckoning for UNRWA has arrived; The ‘nakba’ is not our problem; ICC Prosecutor on Leave Amid SA Charges

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Politics of the personal: Trump's Middle East doctrine on display

Trump compassion
Part of the Trump doctrine is compassion for hostages and a desire to bring them home. Individuals are a priority for the American president, just as freeing Pastor Andrew Brunson was a priority in his first term. Trump blends the personal with the strength of a leader with a regional purpose.

There is a lot on Trump’s plate. He wants to open up opportunities, such as economic and defense cooperation in Saudi Arabia. “Our doors and hearts are open to you,” affirmed Prince Turki al-Faisal in Saudi Arabia.

Salman al-Ansari, a geopolitical analyst, also wrote in Arab News: “Trump now has a chance to deliver one of the most historic achievements of the 21st century: finally ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – not by endless negotiations that lead nowhere but by pushing both sides toward a lasting peace. Such a breakthrough would not only strengthen US interests and regional stability, but it would also deal a devastating blow to the extremists and radicals who have always thrived on chaos and hatred.”

In Saudi Arabia, Princess Reema bint Bandar “highlighted the enduring relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US as the president arrives in the Kingdom on Tuesday, his first state visit during his second stint in the White House,” Arab News noted.

“It is a moment pivotal for global peace, security, and prosperity,” Princess Reema wrote in the Washington Times on May 12. “Today, as the world navigates new challenges and conflicts, that partnership is more critical than ever.”

Trump’s visit is expected to hit all the high points of US policy in the Gulf.

Bulwark against extremism
Saudi Arabia has been an anchor of US policy since the 1920s. There were challenges and hurdles, such as during the 1990s and early 2000s when Riyadh was critiqued for ties to extremists. Things changed in the kingdom. The country has become a bulwark against extremism and has also done outreach to China and other countries. It is seen as a broker that can speak to Washington and Moscow.

The Saudis have also reconciled with Iran in a deal backed by China. And it reconciled with Qatar after years of crisis from 2017 to 2020.

Over the years, there has been a lot of talk of normalization with Israel. However, Riyadh wants to see Israel make changes and also move in a direction that leads to regional stability.

Wars in Gaza, West Bank fighting, and the bombing of Syria are not stabilizing elements. It wants Jerusalem to integrate into the region rather than be seen as a problematic player, surrounded by chaos.

The era of chaos in the Middle East is ending, and Israel should move toward security and stability. That is the view from Riyadh.

There are opportunities. The new president of Syria is offering to transform his country and become an ally of the West; a friend of the US. He is a young man and has shown his resolve. He may shed his past and could become a major player in the region. This requires some risk-taking in Washington.

Trump’s doctrine enables risk-taking, just as it pioneered the Abraham Accords.

Politics of the personal
Trump believes in the politics of the personal. He makes exaggerated statements sometimes, such as plans for Gaza. He also wants to empower local leaders.

If Israel won’t get things done in Gaza, then team Trump is always ready to make the next moves. He has shown this in Gaza and regarding a humanitarian initiative.

He also illustrated how he can quickly change course when needed regarding the Houthis.

Trump is flexible and not tethered to sacred cows or mantras.

The Middle East is where things are possible because, unlike dealing with some parts of the world, this area has personal leaders ready to take chances. All that is required is the will to take them.

Douglas Murray: Qatar’s ‘gestures’ to Trump raise suspicions on both ends of the political spectrum

The government of Qatar had a surprise for President Trump on his recent visit to the Middle East.

That was the release of the last American-born hostage being held in Gaza.

Edan Alexander, 21, was freed by the Qatari-funded group Hamas as a gesture to Trump.

Two questions obviously arise from that “gesture.”

The first: If Hamas can just release hostages like this why won’t they release all of them, whether they were born in America or not?

The answer to that is clear: It is because the Qataris and Hamas don’t want to release all the hostages.

They want to keep hold of them for as long as possible to exert as much leverage as possible.

The second question is less easy to answer.

If Qatar is so close with Hamas, how on earth can they be regarded as an ally of the United States?

It is that second question that has hovered over the president’s trip this week.

FDD: The Department of Justice’s long-awaited reckoning for UNRWA has arrived

In an April 24 filing connected to a lawsuit brought against UNRWA by terror victims, the Justice Department asserted that UNRWA does not qualify for the immunities afforded to the United Nations under international agreements and federal statutes. The lawsuit is currently before a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

According to the DOJ filing in the case, UNRWA is “a mere ‘affiliate or instrumentality’ of the UN,” not an organ of the UN itself, and has never been granted immunity by any American president under the International Organizations Immunities Act.

This is a reversal from the Biden administration’s 2024 position that UNRWA was immune to prosecutions and lawsuits in the United States. The Biden administration took this position even as incontrovertible evidence mounted that UNRWA employees were directly involved in the kidnapping of Israelis, that UNRWA employees themselves held Israelis captive in Gaza, and that UNRWA facilities were used for storing weapons, harboring hostages, and other military purposes.

DOJ’s April 24 filing challenges UNRWA’s assertion that it is immune from the lawsuit. That complaint was filed by over 100 victims of the October 7 attacks, alleging that UNRWA bears legal responsibility for those attacks. And while that complaint was a civil suit, the DOJ filing indicates that UNRWA could be held to account in other ways — including U.S. sanctions.

Ample evidence exists to substantiate UNRWA’s longstanding partnership with Hamas. A strong case could be built rather quickly by the Treasury Department to impose terrorism sanctions on UNRWA.

Treasury sanctions could be a death knell for UNRWA. No country that wishes to do business with the United States would be willing to financially support the agency. No bank would be willing to processes a transaction on UNRWA’s behalf for fear of being subject to U.S. sanctions.

An end to UNRWA would by no means cutting aid to over a million Gazans. For many months now, amidst Israel’s war against Hamas, UNRWA has only supplied a fraction of the aid that goes into Gaza. Jerusalem has worked with a multitude of foreign governments and other aid agencies to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Whereas UNRWA once ran a monopoly on a host of services provided in Gaza, dozens of UN organizations and NGOs now provide those services.

When the war is over and the massive task of rebuilding Gaza gets underway, some of these organizations — those that do not partner with Hamas in any way — should remain in Gaza to continue providing support for needy Gazans.

The United Nations should have shut down UNRWA’s mandate long ago. However, that would only happen through a General Assembly vote, which is highly unlikely due to the UN’s anti-Israeli, anti-Western, and anti-democratic bias. But the DOJ may have just forged an alternative path.

Read More

02/08 Links: We swore ‘never again,’ yet Israeli hostages return skeletal and tortured; The Historical Case for Trump’s Riviera; USAID Sent Over $18 Billion to Islamic Terror States

From Ian:

We swore ‘never again,’ yet Israeli hostages return skeletal and tortured

Hamas’s brutal spectacle
Hamas paraded our hostages before their release, forcing them to stand on a stage in front of a crowd of jubilant Gazans. The cruelty was calculated. Hamas terrorists made sure the world saw Israeli suffering as a spectacle before begrudgingly handing them over to the Red Cross.

And speaking of the Red Cross, they are allowed to visit Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, while not one Israeli hostage met with them throughout their entire time in captivity. And yet, some in the international community still buy into Hamas’s narrative of victimhood, of “humanitarian suffering” in Gaza, as if those holding hostages in cages and underground tunnels can ever be cast as the oppressed.

Where are the human rights organizations? Where are the protests by the same voices that, at one time or another, joined in rapid succession to loudly condemn Israel? They are mute, unconcerned with Israeli victims unless the tragedy can somehow be contorted to become part of a Jewish state condemnation.

The return of Or, Eli, and Ohad should ring as a kind of wake-up call. There are still 76 hostages left in Gaza, some of them dead, all of them subjected to inhumane conditions. The haunting images of these released captives make one thing clear: Every moment they remain in Hamas’s grip is another moment of irreversible physical and psychological damage.

And yet, as Israeli families weep for their loved ones, as a nation wrestles with the horror of these images, politicians continue to play their games.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid seized the moment to accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of failing to act sooner. Simultaneously, Netanyahu vowed retaliation, his government issuing vague promises of “appropriate action.” But where is the concrete plan? Where is the strategy to bring them all home, alive, before they are too far gone?

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar put it bluntly: “The pictures don’t lie: The Hamas terrorists and the Gaza residents look great. The Israeli hostages look like Holocaust survivors.”

Indeed, the contrast could not be starker. The hostages’ skeletal frames stand as a living indictment of Hamas’s barbarism, an undeniable crime against humanity. The fact that some still equivocate, still seek to “both sides” this horror, is a stain on the conscience of the world.

We must be clear: Hamas does not take hostages. It takes human lives and reduces them to bargaining chips. Never Again is now. And if Israel does not act decisively, if the international community does not finally recognize this evil for what it is, we risk failing those still trapped in the depths of Gaza.

They must be freed before it’s too late.

Or Levy, Eli Sharabi, Ohad Ben Ami freed from Gaza after 491 days

Three Israelis were freed on Saturday after 491 days in Hamas captivity in the Gaza Strip, bringing the total number of hostages redeemed in the ongoing first phase of the ceasefire agreement to 21.

Or Levy, 34, Eli Sharabi, 52, and Ohad Ben Ami, 56, were handed over by the Red Cross officials to Israel Defense Forces troops at around 11:15 a.m. local time and driven back to Israeli territory some 30 minutes later.

The IDF brought the freed hostages to a facility near the border for a preliminary physical and psychological examination, and to meet with their families.

Before their release, Hamas paraded the hostages on a stage in front of a raucous crowd of Palestinians in central Gaza’s Deir al-Balah. The three men appeared frail and emaciated.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement welcoming home the captives. “The government of Israel embraces the three returnees,” it read, adding, “The shocking images that we have seen today will not go unaddressed.

“The government, together with all of the security officials, will accompany them and their families. The government of Israel is committed to returning all of the hostages and the missing,” it continued.

The PMO statement concluded with a quote from Psalms (31:15): “Deliver me from the hand of my enemies, from those who pursue me.”

“This is what a crime against humanity looks like!” Israeli President Isaac Herzog wrote in a post on X.

“The whole world must look directly at Ohad, Or, and Eli—returning after 491 days of hell, starved, emaciated and pained—being exploited in a cynical and cruel spectacle by vile murderers. We take solace in the fact that they are being returned alive to the arms of their loved ones,” Herzog wrote.

“Completing the hostage deal is a humanitarian, moral, and Jewish duty. It is essential to bring back all our sisters and brothers from the hell of captivity in Gaza—every last one of them!” he added.

After the handover was broadcast live across the globe, the Israeli Health Ministry called on the public to limit its consumption of such images.

“A psychological war is being waged that can cause harm to us,” said Dr. Gilad Bodenheimer, chief of the ministry’s mental health division. “We urge the public to minimize exposure to distressing images and videos and to be mindful of what they, their children and their loved ones are seeing.”

Added the Hostage and Missing Families Forum: “The disturbing images from the release of Ohad, Eli and Or serve as yet another stark and painful evidence that leaves no room for doubt—there is no time to waste for the hostages!”

Read More

01/22 Links Pt2: The Red Cross is humiliated as it again serves murderers of Jews; BDS: Twenty Years of Failure; Elbit systems hits record highs as global defense budgets surge

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: A Breakthrough in the Fight for Jewish Students’ Civil Rights

Good news for once out of Harvard. The university has settled two anti-Semitism-related lawsuits with agreements that will require concrete action instead of vague promises of better behavior. It will make students’ BDS demands dead-on-arrival. And it may be a model for future such settlements—an outcome that would go far toward helping American higher education finally break its intifada fever.

“It’s a terrific result and I think it’s going to be really influential,” Daniel R. Benson, of Kasowitz Benson Torres, told COMMENTARY today. The firm represented Students Against Antisemitism, one of the plaintiffs. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law represented the other. (Benson is a member of COMMENTARY’s Board of Trustees.)

Among the more significant outcomes of the case is that Harvard will be adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to govern its anti-harassment and non-discrimination rules. The definition, as worded by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is the mainstream Jewish community’s preferred definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA definition is often described in the press as “controversial,” but what that really means is “misunderstood.” Along with the definition, IHRA includes examples of anti-Semitism. Among those examples are expressions of anti-Israel bias that “may” amount to anti-Semitic intent when they form the basis of discriminatory acts. The definition does not outlaw speech; it merely makes it more difficult for anti-Semites to hide their bigoted intent. This cynical excuse has been responsible for enabling universities to violate Jewish students’ civil rights at will; the Harvard settlement therefore makes it less likely that Jews will openly be treated as second-class citizens on campus.

The settlement also aims to end the broad use of obvious euphemisms to get around non-discrimination statutes, especially when it comes to the anti-Jewish loyalty oaths some university groups around the country have begun requiring from their prospective members. The university handbook will make explicit that those rules apply to both Jews and Israelis, and it will include the following explanation: “For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Conduct that would violate the Non-Discrimination Policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the policy if directed toward Zionists. Examples of such conduct include excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a ‘no Zionist’ litmus test for participation in any Harvard activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., ‘Zionists control the media’), or demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism to harass or discriminate.”

The settlement, if implemented properly, would bring Harvard into compliance with Title VI civil-rights protections. It also might encourage other universities to do the same. Having seen where the process got Harvard, other schools might save themselves the effort and expense required to fight against applying civil-rights laws to Jews.

Key to Middle East peace is accepting the past

For decades, the Palestinians and their allies have launched wars they then lose and complain to everyone about losing. It never seems to strike them that a better idea might be not to launch these wars.

In the West, the various campaigns that express solidarity to Palestinians are not, in fact, showing them any solidarity at all. They have their own agenda about their own power and status and which uses Palestinians as a rhetorical prop. And they are misleading the people they pretend to support. They are like a friend who would advise me to throw up my life, pick up a gun and go and invade Lviv by myself in the name of Marshal Pilsudski and his brigades of Polish legionnaires.

These western-based supporters provide solidarity only for the most violent rejectionists and leave bereft those people in Palestine itself who might be willing to come to terms with both reality and Israel. For as long as Palestinians hold out hope that there will be a Palestine “from the river to the sea” there will be war and death, however hard we all work to prevent such calamities, such horror.

Any protester chanting this slogan is encouraging others to go to their death, and to go and kill innocent people, while themselves promising only to write a cross message on a piece of cardboard and wave it outside the Garfunkel’s restaurant near Trafalgar Square.

This is all worth saying because what we have now is a ceasefire and not a peace. It is the duty of Israel’s supporters — people like me — to insist that Palestinians must be allowed the dignity of their own state. And we will. But our insistence will come to naught if Palestinians are not urged equally firmly to accept that they must live in peace with their Jewish neighbours. This means financial compensation and not a right of return, which is a practical impossibility.

This war is so unnecessary and so tragic. And this ceasefire is so fragile. There will not be peace until everyone makes their peace with history and reality.

The Red Cross is humiliated as it again serves murderers of Jews

It took more than a month before the American Red Cross said the ICRC was pursuing “every possible avenue to secure the release of all remaining hostages.” It would remain silent, however, because its experience—ignoring the Holocaust—was that it was most effective if it kept a low profile. Well, it succeeded in making its profile invisible while not gaining the release of a single hostage or providing them with assistance.

For the transfer, they showed up as if they were heroes when they were essentially Uber drivers taking the former hostages a few miles to an awaiting military helicopter.

First, though, they played a part in the grotesque Hamas spectacle in which heavily armed masked terrorists in freshly laundered uniforms delivered and surrounded the hostages. Hundreds of jeering civilians lined the streets celebrating the dehumanization of the women right to the end of their ordeal. Civilians, including children—frequently portrayed as innocent victims of “genocide”—actively participated in the degradation of survivors of the Hamas massacre.

The Israelis were given “goodie bags” as if they were leaving a bat mitzvah, but instead of shouts of mazel tov! they heard only blood-curdling chants of Allahu Akbar. The Red Cross literally endorsed this farce by co-signing Hamas-drafted “certificates of release” that the hostages were forced to sign before posing for photos holding the documents with their captors.

You must give Hamas credit; their skill in media manipulation has not diminished with their loss of power. The terrorists carefully stage-managed the handover with their Al Jazeera collaborators to show pictures designed to give the world the impression of widespread support and military resilience. For their supporters, Hamas wanted to pretend that thousands of fighters survived the war to pursue their goal of committing repeated massacres. Aerial photos later revealed the crowd was no more than a few hundred people crammed into a narrow street that was part of a calculated media strategy to portray Hamas as victorious despite its decimation.

At this point, the least the Red Cross can do is to ensure that it does not participate in another terrorist photo op to promote the Hamas narrative. The organization, backed by the United States, Qatar and Egypt, must ensure that future transfers occur in neutral, secure locations with no armed personnel or civilian onlookers. Hamas has managed to keep the location of the hostages secret for this long; let them maintain that secrecy for the point of exchange.

The Red Cross should not allow its reputation to be dragged further through the mud by being a party to the disgraceful abuse of innocent Israelis who miraculously survived months of torture and abuse without its medical or any other assistance.

Read More

11/01 Links Pt2: The Freedom to Be Sharansky; Chuck Schumer’s Ultimate Betrayal; Thom Yorke vs the anti-Israel bigots; Sally Rooney’s anti-Israel intolerance

From Ian:

Gil Troy: The Freedom to Be Sharansky

Historians rarely write in collaboration with those who make history. A few years ago, I was fortunate to do just that.

Natan Sharansky at 76 starts his workdays at 5:30 a.m. He has been married to Avital for 50 years, although she adds “minus 12” because she refuses to count the ones during which the Soviet authorities forcibly kept them apart as they dared to defy the Communist system and seek emigration to Israel. Those years of separation include the nine from 1977 to 1986 when he was trapped inside the Soviet prison system, including stays in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo jail and Perm 35 in the Gulag archipelago.

In 2018, as he completed another nine years—his near-decade leading the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Jewish world’s largest nongovernmental organization—Sharansky felt compelled to recount some key episodes and lessons of his life in his effort to balance the twin goods of freedom and identity, thoughtful patriotism and civil dialogue. He asked me to co-author that book.

We made an odd couple. I was raised with my name, “Gil Troy,” to fit in as an American while being a proud Jew, living in one of the most Jew-friendly countries; he was forced to stand out despite his perfectly Russian original name, “Anatoly,” because he was a Jew living in one of the most Judeophobic countries. I spent most of the 1980s at Harvard, learning to be an American historian. He spent most of the 1980s in the Gulag, fighting to stay alive as a political prisoner. When I first noted our Harvard-Gulag ’80s gap, without skipping a beat, Natan quipped, “That means I have moral clarity, and you don’t.”

Miraculously, Avital’s unlikely but determined campaign of persuasion—during which she crisscrossed the globe and lobbied Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and many others for years seeking their assistance in securing the freedom of her husband—finally paid off. In 1986, many of us watched Sharansky zigzag across the Glienicke Bridge connecting East and West Berlin after a KGB agent had told him to “walk straight” to freedom, a final act of defiance.

But that’s not actually what we saw. In fact, after landing in East Berlin, it was on the airport tarmac that the then-named Anatoly Shcharansky (note the Russian letter “shch” he bore as the opening sound of his surname rather than the softer Hebrew “shin”) zigzagged away from his Communist captors into a waiting car. In a 1988 speech, Ronald Reagan said of that moment, “It was one of those moments when laughter and tears commingle, and one does not know when the first leaves off and the second begins. It was a vision of the purest freedom known to man, the freedom of a man whose cause is just and whose faith is his guiding light.”

By the time he had reached the bridge, he was already free and no longer had Communist masters to disobey. Nevertheless, people keep telling him, and me, how they are still inspired by that moment, which I’m sure they are, only it wasn’t on the bridge!

Although we wrote the book collaboratively, the most pressing question I was trained to ask as a biographer stayed with me: What made this man tick? There were 250 million Soviet citizens, including 2 million Jews. Why did he become not just a refusenik—a Jew who sought and was then refused permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union to Israel—but one of the few Jewish activists who also worked as a dissident with Andrei Sakharov and the Soviet human-rights movement? That synthesis made him the regime’s most famous political prisoner. And how did he endure nine years of solitary confinement, punishment cells, hunger strikes and forced feeding, yet then emerge with a ready smile and quick wit?

Sharansky explains, matter-of-factly, that in 1967, when he was 19, the anti-Semitic jibes he had grown up enduring suddenly changed form. After Israel won the Six-Day War, even close friends started joking about his being a bully and not a coward. Fascinated that something that happened in a country he had never visited could change people’s impressions of him, he started learning more about the Jewish state and his Jewish identity.

“Once I discovered my identity, I then discovered my freedom,” he explains. Still, discovering your freedom is not the same as fighting for it.

Editor's Notes: The dilemma of raising children during the war is almost like 'Life is Beautiful'

Beyond the tragedy, we also witness the incredible resilience of our people – thousands of initiatives aimed at bringing light into these dark days.

People reach out with stories of kindness, courage, and unity, hoping we can give them a platform, a voice in this storm. And while we long to honor each one, the hard truth is that we can’t.

We don’t have enough time, enough staff, or enough space on our pages to truly do justice to every single story. It’s a painful compromise, one that eats at us, but it’s the reality we’re up against.

In the end, though, we keep going because that’s what we’ve always done. In a way, being Jewish has always meant living on, pushing forward, and finding light amid the darkness.

We may be shaken, but we are not broken. We have no time to fall into despair because our purpose keeps us grounded.

Getting the news to you – truthful, fast, and clear – is our mission, even as our own hearts are sometimes weighed down by it all.

There’s an unbreakable resolve in us. We won’t allow ourselves the luxury of crumbling.

We keep going, keep telling the stories, keep bearing witness, because it’s our role.

As a father, as a journalist, and as a Jew, I look at these challenges, these daily battles, and realize they are woven into who we are. And, as always, we’ll endure.

When Jews Lived Under Muslim Rule

The Land of Israel is Different
As we mentioned, yes, there were golden eras in the history of Arab-Jewish relations. However, a claim put forward by some ardent anti-Zionists is that things were actually better for Jews in the land of Israel under Islam and before Zionism came on the scene. It is saying that Zionism changed the dynamic. And in that sense, they are correct, but only insofar as it introduced a Jew who fought back – not in terms of antisemitic attacks and persecution.

First, let’s begin with the basic fact that the Muslim Arab conquest of the land of Israel in 636-37 was a settler-colonial enterprise. And they are proud of it, calling it the “Palestine Conquest” - Fatah Filastin (yes, the same word Fatah, “Conquest”, is used as the name of the movement currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority). After the occupation, the majority of Christians in the land of Israel adopted Islam and Arabized and the building of new synagogues was banned.

With the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 705, the Muslims established the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy site. Jews were banned from it for the next 1,000 years. Periodic social and economic discrimination in the following centuries caused substantial Jewish emigration from the land of Israel.

Other notable events under Muslim rule include:
- The expulsion of the Gaonate – the main Jewish academy of learning and religious authority – in 1071, after Jerusalem was conquered by the Seljuq Turks.
- The imposition of a dhimmi tax on Jews and Christians and the curtailment of their rights, with more intense enforcement in the 10th and 11th centuries. In the Mamluk period (13th-16th centuries), the dhimmi laws were cranked up to include additional discriminatory practices intended for humiliation. Jewish and Christian communities declined precipitously.
- The Mamluks also banned Jews (and Christians) from the Cave of Our Patriarchs in Hebron. To this day, you can still see where Jews had to stop for about 700 years, on the seventh step leading into the building, until Israel put an end to the ban after the Six Day War in 1967.
- In the 18th century, Jewish communities throughout Israel were extorted and oppressed by local tribal and regional chiefs. In Jerusalem, Ottoman authorities restricted the number of Jews allowed to live there and expelled all Ashkenazi Jews from the city due to a debt some of them owed to Muslims.
- In 1831, Muhammad Ali of Egypt took over the land of Israel. In 1834, there were 33 days of looting and murder targeting Jews in Tzfat (Safed) and Hebron. More than 500 Jews were murdered, unknown numbers of women were raped, property was ransacked and looted, and synagogues were set on fire.

That’s all before the Zionist movement as we know it was a thing.

Then there’s this inconvenient fact, which is worth noting even though it does relate to a time after the Zionist movement was already well established: there are more than a dozen Jewish communities in the land of Israel that were destroyed by Arabs before 1947. But not a single such Arab community.

This partial review is a corrective to manipulative misinformation promoted by anti-Israel terror-apologists on US campuses, in European streets, and in the international media. It is admittedly far from comprehensive. However, an honest and open-eyed review of Arab-Jewish relations can provide a new perspective on our history as Jews, on the Middle East generally, and on the State of Israel’s struggle for survival.

Of course, this does not mean that Israel is always right. Just a reminder that views on current events should be grounded in reality – however complex it may be.

Read More

10/31 Links Pt2: Purging Jews From the Arts; Abigail Shrier: The Kindergarten Intifada; Bubble-Wrapping Coates; Ministries cut ties with Haaretz

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Purging Jews From the Arts

You are to be unpersoned, that is, if you write about Israel without denouncing the Jewish state—a rule that is intended to disqualify Jewish writers of any and every nationality—or if you are Israeli and have not renounced your country and your people, like any Good Jew apparently would. Israelis are currently under fire from seven fronts in a war that began with an explicitly genocidal invasion by Iranian proxies, and if you do not do something to help the cause of exterminating your own people, you are heretofore banished from the arts.

I’m not sure it’s possible to top the reaction from the poet Gillian Lazarus, who said:

“The likes of Sally Rooney would boycott the likes of Amos Oz, David Grossman and Yehuda Amichai. It’s as if a composer of advertising jingles boycotted Mozart.”

Look, if Sally Rooney could write like Howard Jacobson she would probably not be trying to purge her competition.

But she can’t, and so we all must suffer.

As I said, what’s interesting about Rooney is seeing who else joins her fatwas—especially if they don’t have to. Arundhati Roy is on the list calling for a loyalty oath for Jews in the arts, sadly. Jonathan Lethem, too. Other fellow listers: Jasbir Puar, an academic who invented a blood libel about Jewish organ harvesting; Naomi Klein, professor of “climate justice”; Mohammed El-Kurd, who accused the Jewish state of having an “unquenchable thirst for Palestinian blood”; and other such literary luminaries.

The loyalty oath has made something of a comeback among Western institutions, especially in the academic world, where Jews are occasionally permitted to participate in campus activities as long as they publicly call for the ethnic cleansing of their fellow Jews from whichever part of the world is currently trying to expel them.

Then there is the other angle to the purge: In addition to being irredeemably immoral, it’s also very stupid. Fania Oz-Salzberger, daughter of the late Israeli writer Amos Oz, responded on social media: “My late father, Amos Oz, would have been sad, disgusted, but proud to be banned by these 1000 writers and literati. And ban him they would. Not because he didn’t care for the Palestinians, of course he did, but because he’d be the first to tell these virtue signallers that they are historically and politically ignorant.”

I would go further and point out that Amos Oz, simply by being both an Israeli cultural giant and an advocate for Palestinian self-determination, did more for peace every moment he was alive than Rooney and Kushner will do in a lifetime—not least because a cultural boycott of influential left-leaning figures can only sabotage the Palestinians who want statehood and isolate them from likeminded Israelis.

But that point is only relevant if you believe Sally Rooney and Rachel Kushner and the other inquisitors are interested in helping Palestinians. If they only care about harming Jews, then this purge makes perfect sense.

Howard Jacobson: Political boycotting of the arts paints a picture of tyranny

Thus, to be a boycotter you must believe there is a hierarchy of compassion and condemnation. Only those whose anguish is as vociferous as theirs are allowed a voice. What makes this inquisition so grotesque is that the inquisitors are themselves artists or art-enablers.

Art matters. The pleasure we take from looking long at a painting or grappling with a complex novel or symphony is not some idle luxury. It transforms, invigorates and inspires. It redeems that belief in our shared humanity, which it is so easy, especially in angry and divisive times like these, to lose. And it does that not by confirming what we already think and feel, but by daring us to risk everything we hold dear on the turn of a single page. Creativity, in whatever sphere, is the means not of finding but of losing ourselves.

Everything must be permitted for artists but the silencing of their fellows. To boycott authors, agents or publishers on the grounds that they hold views objectionable to you is to violate art and the part it has played in stirring and individuating the imaginations of men and women since the first cave drawing appeared.

Art is not to be confused with a post on social media. It is not a statement. It is not susceptible to thumbs-down disagreement for the reason that it doesn’t invite thumbs-up consensus. It is not an echo chamber. It is a meeting place, not only of people who read and look and listen differently to one another, but of the hostile and the loving, of the real and the imagined, of colours that are not meant to go together, of words that clash and contradict.

Those who cannot bear such vitality of contradiction congregrate with the like-minded in a safe space they call a boycott, but for which the real word is tyranny.

BHL Boycott Backfires

Fortunately, in the case of Mr. Lévy’s Israel Alone, this cynical pandering to antisemites, ideologues, and to those who worship at the altar of the bottom line backfired. Education may enlighten the prejudiced, which is why Mr. Lévy’s book is so urgently needed, but there are few antidotes for stupidity, except the free market, which is working brilliantly in this instance. Interest in the book is quite robust and will undoubtedly have a positive effect on sales. So, we owe thanks to Shelf Awareness for the unintended consequences of its malfeasance.

We are pleased to add that our organization, in partnership with B’nai B’rith International, has raised funds from generous private donors to purchase and distribute for free thousands of copies of the book to college students around the country. Mr. Lévy will also be speaking in November at select American and Canadian universities. As he explained, “curbing this hate begins by going to the source.” It is abundantly clear that far too many universities and far too many journalists have failed to provide what Americans need to understand about Israel and the Middle East.

Censors can cause a lot of short-term damage, but history tells us that they ultimately lose and their disgrace follows. This comes from the first-century Roman author Tacitus: “When what has been created is persecuted, its authority grows. Neither foreign despots nor others who employ such savagery beget anything except infamy for themselves and glory for those they persecute.”

The ironic good news is that despite the efforts of Shelf Awareness, many more people are now aware of Israel Alone. They can make up their own minds about its message.

Bubble-Wrapping Coates

CBS News is in turmoil following an appearance by Ta-Nehisi Coates that actually included probing questions about his new book on Israel. All it took was one interview during which Coates received some pushback for the legacy media to lose its mind and denounce the CBS anchor, and for the network to quickly rebuke him. Top CBS newsroom brass—i.e., woke PR types with zero actual newsroom experience who now run the network—apparently believed Coates should be coated in bubble wrap and only given friendly questions, preferably fed to him in advance.

But babying American intellectuals is not the American way. Feuds and sharp elbows have been a long-standing part of the American intellectual tradition—and signal the public’s appreciation for robust debate.

One of the greatest feuds in American intellectual history was between Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman. Hellman was an apologist for communism, something for which McCarthy had no patience. In 1980, McCarthy went on the Dick Cavett show and famously said of Hellman that “everything [Hellman] writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” Hellman responded with a $2.25 million libel suit, which was never resolved before her death in 1984.

Cavett’s various shows, which ran on multiple networks from the mid-1960s to the 1990s, often served as a showcase for great American intellectual brawls. After Gore Vidal lumped together Charles Manson, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer for their poor treatment of women, Mailer was understandably incensed. Shortly afterward, Mailer appeared with Vidal on an episode of Cavett’s show. Things were headed south while the two men were in the green room, where Mailer headbutted Vidal. They didn’t get much better on camera, with the two men trading barbs and Mailer at one point approaching Vidal menacingly. Cavett thought Mailer was going to take a swing at Vidal, but he didn’t, and just angrily pulled the papers Vidal was holding from his hand.

Mailer was still mad six years later when he saw Vidal at a cocktail party at Lally Weymouth’s New York apartment. In front of an impressive crew of literati, Mailer threw a drink in Vidal’s face and followed up with a punch. As Vidal wiped the blood from his face, he responded with a retort that landed harder than Mailer’s blow: “Norman, once again words have failed you.”

Vidal also feuded with the author Truman Capote. They didn’t trade physical blows, but instead took swipes at each other in the press. Vidal sniffed that Capote’s prose was like Carson McCullers, combined with “a bit of Eudora Welty.” Capote countered that Vidal got his literary influence from the New York Daily News.

Vidal was threatened with physical violence in perhaps his most famous feud, with National Review founder William F. Buckley. The two men appeared on ABC News during the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Vidal had prepared extensively for the debates and got under Buckley’s skin by calling him a “crypto-Nazi.” An angry Buckley responded, “Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.” For the rest of his life, Buckley regretted that loss of composure.

Read More

10/30 Links Pt2: The betrayal of literature; The warnings from history are piling up for ‘non-Zionist’ Jews; Jewish Man Severely Wounded in Brooklyn Stabbing

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The betrayal of literature

It’s a fair bet that the authors and publishing professionals who have called for a boycott of Israeli cultural institutions didn’t anticipate the scale of revulsion and outrage they have caused.

After all, given the current tsunami of hatred and insanity directed at the Jewish people throughout the west, they may well have thought they were merely going along with the overwhelmingly accepted narrative in “progressive” circles — in other words, anyone whose opinion was worth bothering about — that Israel should be shunned as a pariah because of the war in Gaza.

Hundreds supporting a campaign organised by the Palestine Festival of Literature, alongside Books Against Genocide, Book Workers for a Free Palestine, Publishers for Palestine, Writers Against the War on Gaza and Fossil Free Books, have signed a letter calling for a boycott of Israeli cultural institutions which they claim have been “obfuscating, disguising and art-washing the dispossession and oppression of millions of Palestinians for decades” and have thus been “complicit in genocide”.

“We cannot in good conscience engage with Israeli institutions without interrogating their relationship to apartheid and displacement,” they write.

Among the signatories are award-winning authors Sally Rooney and Arundhati Roy, Guardian columnist Owen Jones, children’s author Michael Rosen and actress Miriam Margolyes.

The reaction to this letter from within their own creative world has been seismic. More than 1000 leading names in the entertainment industry have hit back. A counter-letter has been published by the Creative Community for Peace, signed by writers such as Lee Child, Bernard Henri-Lévy, Herta Müller, Sir Simon Schama, Howard Jacobson, Simon Sebag Montefiore, David Mamet, Lionel Shriver and Elfriede Jelinek as well as names from film and TV.

Howard Jacobson said he was “staggered” that the boycott signatories could dream they had a right to silence other writers, while Lionel Shriver said they had sought to “intimidate all authors into withdrawing their work for consideration at Israeli publishing houses and refusing to participate in Israeli festivals”.

Let’s remind ourselves against whom Israel is currently fighting: genocidal enemies who carried out the worst single set of atrocities against the Jews since the Holocaust and who openly declare their aim to annihilate Israel and the Jewish people. Instead of supporting the resistance to such evil, Rooney, Roy, Rosen and their fellow signatories are actively pumping out the propaganda lies being invented to promote that unspeakable cause.

The Guardian reports:
Institutions that have never publicly recognised the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as enshrined in international law” will also be boycotted.

But there are no “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” in international law. The only inalienable legal rights to the land belong to the Jews.

These much-garlanded authors and hangers-on aren’t targeting people because of what they are said to have done. They are attempting to silence Israelis because they have failed to express the only approved opinion by opposing their own government’s actions. That’s a totalitarian impulse to crush all dissent. And there’s worse still. As Lionel Shriver has written:
But the intention is not only aimed at punishing Israel’s tiny cultural institutions. The boycott seeks to go well beyond the signatories and intimidate all authors into withdrawing their work for consideration at Israeli publishing houses and refusing to participate in Israeli festivals. That includes writers who disagree with the organisers and do not believe that the IDF’s effort to root out Hamas qualifies as genocide as well as a range of Jewish writers in and outside of Israel whose views on this war may be tortured or finely nuanced. Because we must all speak as one.

The tactic Shriver is aptly describing is designed to set one Jew against the other, to act as a kind of proxy assassin on behalf of the Jew-basher who can thus claim to have clean hands.

Sir Simon Schama, Simon Sebag Montefiore and Howard Jacobson lead 1,000 intellectuals in open letter against boycott of Israel

Over 1,000 literary and entertainment stars from around the globe have signed an open letter in support of freedom of expression and against discriminatory boycotts.

The signatories of the letter include Lee Child, the creator of Jack Reacher, philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, Nobel Prize winner Herta Müller, actor Jeff Garlin, historians Sir Simon Schama and Simon Sebag Montefiore, novelist Howard Jacobson and musicians Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons of Seventies rock band Kiss.

This broad and united call from prominent members of the literature and entertainment world to unequivocally voice support against boycotts represents the first of its kind.

Last week, an online petition was launched calling for a boycott on Israeli publishers, book festivals, literary agencies, and publications, organised by the Palestine Festival of Literature, attracting support from authors Sally Rooney and Arundhati Roy.

The letter in response, published on Tuesday, states that regardless of one’s own view on the war in the Middle East, “boycotts of creatives and creative institutions simply create more divisiveness and foment further hatred.”

It adds, referencing October 7, that the signatories “continue to be shocked and disappointed to see members of the literary community harass and ostracise their colleagues because they don’t share a one-sided narrative in response to the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.”

The motivation behind cultural boycotts, it argues, is “illiberal and dangerous”, and contrary to the “liberal values most writers hold sacred”.

“In fact,” the letter continues, “we believe that writers, authors, and books – along with the festivals that showcase them – bring people together, transcend boundaries, broaden awareness, open dialogue, and can affect positive change.”

It concludes by calling on “our friends and colleagues worldwide to join us in expressing their support for Israeli and Jewish publishers, authors and all book festivals, publishers, and literary agencies that refuse to capitulate to censorship based on identity or litmus tests.”

Other signatories of the letter, rejecting boycotts against authors and literary institutions, includes essayist Adam Gopnik, Pulitzer Prize winner David Mamet, actresses Mayim Bialik, Debra Messing and Julianna Margulies, investor Haim Seban and Nobel Prize Award winner Elfriede Jelinek.

Aviva Klompas: Time for a Reckoning With Antisemitism in the U.S.

Hate, once it is unleashed and legitimized, will spread and mutate, targeting other minorities and vulnerable groups and, eventually, anyone who dares to question the mob mentality. Antisemitism in America isn't just a Jewish struggle; it's a fight for America's future.

But it's a fight that we are failing to recognize, address, and commit to winning.

How do we change course? One piece of encouraging news is that Americans are actually paying attention to the Middle East. Recent polls show that 62 percent are closely following the Israel-Hamas war, and 81 percent express greater sympathy for Israel than Hamas.

The reason is clear: most Americans understand that Israel is fighting for its very survival against terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whose explicit mission is to annihilate Israel. But what many may not fully grasp is that these groups' ideologies aren't limited to the Middle East. Their virulent strain of hate, deeply rooted in antisemitism, has spread beyond the region and found fertile ground in Western democracies, including the United States.

So even as Americans recognize the high stakes in Israel, there remains a troubling disconnect to what they recognize at home. Only six percent of voters consider the Israel-Hamas war a top priority for the country, and a mere two percent list antisemitism as a pressing issue. These figures highlight a dangerous gap between perception and reality.

For Americans, supporting Jewish communities should be reason enough to confront antisemitism. But if more is needed, we must also recognize that the foundational principles that underpin American democracy cannot survive in a society where hate and intolerance are given space to flourish. When bigotry takes root, what follows is a breakdown in the social contract that binds us as a nation.

American Jews are under attack. If antisemitism continues to fester unchecked, it won't be long before other groups face the same threats.

How we respond today will define the nation we are tomorrow.

The warnings from history are piling up for ‘non-Zionist’ Jews

The protest was at the JW3 community centre on the Finchley Road last week. JW3’s offence was to host a conference sponsored by Haaretz, the left-wing Israeli newspaper that reliably covers Palestinian despair in Gaza and the West Bank. It was convened to discuss the future of the region, including the questions: How do allies committed to liberal democracy relate to a hard-right Israeli government? Who are the Palestinian partners for building a common future?

The insinuation of these question is that a hard-right Israeli government is to be feared and there is, potentially, a common future for Israelis and Palestinians. Delegates included Rula Hardal, a Palestinian and CEO of A Land For All, a Palestinian-Israeli NGO dedicated to a two-state solution; and Ayman Odeh, an Arab-Israeli member of the Knesset.

But answering these questions did not tempt the protesters who gathered outside the gates. These questions, it seemed, should not be answered. They should not even be asked. Instead, again, slogans – we should have learnt to fear slogans – and laughter. The laughter troubles me particularly: for people apparently agonised by war, they seem to be enjoying themselves.

“You look like pigs,” said one to the assembled Jews. “No one likes you. You lot reek.” “We are protesting against the Zionist entity which is well-known to be prolifically based in London,” said another, “and this is one of the venues that likes to host the Zionist entity and those who are complicit in the genocide against the Palestinians by the Israeli settler-colonial state.” “There is only one solution,” sang the rest. “Intifada revolution.” (The police stood by, but that is for another column.)

The second thing was a rebuke offered by David Miller, notorious on these pages, to non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in a series of posts on his X/Twitter page. It was designed, perhaps unconsciously, to mimic a trial.

“Exhibit C,” he typed, “on the problematic status of some of the progressive Jewish milieu.” He named, for instance, Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky.

Surely these are immaculate comrades? Chomsky, who considered Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank “much worse than apartheid?” Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry?

But in 2012, Miller reminds us, Finkelstein wrote this, on the two-state solution: “The flaw in the BDS movement is that it selectively upholds only Palestinian rights, and ignores Palestinian obligations. Under international law, Israel is a state. If you want to appeal to public opinion on the basis of international law, you can’t suddenly become an agnostic on the law when it comes to Israel.”

It seems that even non-Zionist Jews will be soon be required to leave the community of the good. The warnings from history are piling up.

Read More

10/29 Links Pt2: The World Doesn’t Care About Your Partisan Politics; Trump or Kamala? Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris Debate; Don't Call It a Hate Crime Against a Jew

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The World Doesn’t Care About Your Partisan Politics

American foreign policy is always something of a hostage to the domestic politics of the moment. While this might be the unavoidable byproduct of democracy, it can greatly distort our understanding of the world and the coherence of strategic planning.

The Israel-Iran-Ukraine-Russia linedance provides a steady stream of examples, but never has it brought as much clarity to the mismatch between U.S. partisan politics and American grand strategy as it has in recent days. Republicans tend to favor Israel but not Ukraine, and Democrats, the reverse. Our enemies, of course, see it very differently.

Just before the weekend, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Russia has supplied the Houthis—the Iranian proxy in Yemen that has been shooting missiles at commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea—with “targeting data” to help sink ships, kill civilians, and sabotage the supply chain. “The data,” the Journal explains, “was passed through members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who were embedded with the Houthis in Yemen.”

That sentence is a handy organizational chart. The Houthis aren’t merely supported by Iran, the Houthis are Iran. And the Russia-Iran alliance has become so tight that Vladimir Putin is helping the Iranians retaliate against the U.S. and Israel for having the temerity to counter Hamas’s invasion of Israel, and, more specifically, for America’s modest support for Ukraine’s existence against Russia’s eliminationist war machine.

Russia wants to bleed Western resources in the Middle East because Moscow is bleeding resources in trying to destroy part of Europe. Russia is angry that it is bad at war, so it is making more war.

And birds without feathers flock together, so Moscow and Iran have expanded their partnership wherever possible. That includes Russia’s provision of air-defense systems to Iran and Iran’s provision of ballistic missiles to Russia.

Both of which took a literal hit over the weekend.

As the Times of London reports, one of Israel’s targets in its recent strikes included fuel mixers for missile production: “Early analysis of the impact of the strikes suggests that Iranian missile production has been badly affected, reducing Tehran’s ability to export weapons. Without the ability to mix fuel, Iran may be forced to appeal to China or other suppliers to help it restock, a process that could take many months.”

The Times saw the records for one Iranian missile delivery to Russia, in late August, about three weeks after Reuters reported that the two countries had signed a contract for Iran to provide several hundred to Putin’s forces. That could be delayed by as long as two years now.

And what of the air-defense systems provided by Russia to protect Iranian airspace? Gone. Israel destroyed one in April, and “on Saturday Israel systematically destroyed the remaining three S-300 batteries at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport and the Malad missile base.”

The fact that Iran might become dependent on China to rebuild its ballistic missile stock is another piece of the puzzle. China already buys most of Iran’s oil exports. Beijing has also been boosting Iran in the propaganda war, especially on social media where China has the largest user audience and a repressive censorship regime.

Author coming to St. Louis urges Jews to rethink alliances amid rising left-wing antisemitism

In Benjamin Ginsberg’s latest book, “The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right, and The Jews”, he urges Jews to “wake up” to the threat posed by left-wing antisemitism in the United States.

Ginsberg is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University and the author, coauthor, or editor of 36 books.

The Jewish Light spoke to him in advance of his appearance at the St. Louis Jewish Book Festival at 1 p.m. Nov. 7. Some of the conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What is the new American antisemitism you explore in your book?
“Most Jews are accustomed to right-wing antisemites, going back to the Nazis and the antisemitism of the right in Europe. What’s new for Americans – and I don’t think American Jews have quite wrapped their heads around this – is that the main antisemitic threat today comes from the left. We see thousands of students and some non-students screaming about Zionism in the streets of New York and Philadelphia and other cities. And I was horrified when I watched the testimony of the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT – let’s call them ‘The Three Stooges.’ They were not willing to say whether students running around screaming ‘death to the Jews’ are in violation of their campus speech code, and the reason for that is that they’re afraid of liberal forces on their campuses. I thought, ‘This is sort of the end of things as we know them.’ We are at a point in American history where people can be openly antisemitic, certainly on college campuses and some elements of the news media. It’s become possible once again – it hadn’t been for decades – to publicly criticize the Jews. So we need to rethink our position in the United States, and think about who our friends are and who our enemies are, before it’s too late.”

You argue that Jews in the U.S. should forge alliances with evangelical Christians and other Christian Zionists who vocally support Israel. Why are those alliances important?
“When I say to Jewish friends, ‘You should take seriously the Christian Zionists,’ they say, ‘Oh, no, they just want to convert us.’ I talked one couple into going to a little convention where you had Jewish leaders and Christian Zionist leaders. They came away amazed and said, ‘You know, these people do have some strange ideas, but basically they are incredibly supportive of Israel.’ And that’s right. We need people who support Israel; doctrinal differences we can argue about later. Liberal, well-educated Americans sneer at this, but it’s not to be sneered at: There are millions of Bible-believing Christians who view the creation of Israel – and the astonishing victory by Israel over its foes in the 1967 Israel-Arab war – as things that were predicted in the Bible. And they’ve put pressure on the U.S. government (to support Israel). I think Jews are always reluctant to shift their alliances, to realize that their friends of yesterday aren’t their friends today.”

Prof. Phyllis Chesler: Please answer my burning questions

Did you see Michelle Obama stump for Kamala Harris? She is really one angry woman. Her fiery appeal was to "y'all," and perhaps she mainly had black folk in mind. What do y'all think? What has Michelle got to be so angry about?

Obama? He's the former President who barely acknowledged his white mother and white grandparents who brought him up. In his first book, he focuses mainly on the black African father who abandoned him and never looked back. What kind of man does this? Did you ever notice this, ponder upon it? And why did he unleash Iran's evil power? Choose the mullahs to stabilize the Middle East?

Why do I keep doing it, reading the NYT? Am I a masochist? Do you read it too? Well, some of us have to keep up with the daily anti-Israel libels, the kind of lies that always, always, lead to violence and then to pogroms--and worse.

Yesterday, the NYT's described Israel's "foray" into Iran as "retaliatory" and as an example of "Israel's Shadow War." That's their lead front page story. Add to that an article that is sympathetic to Gazan cancer victims in Jordan who are facing psychological battles of displacement (five photos of them); two articles that are actually sympathetic to Iran (!!!), which praise the mullahs for their "muted response" and "restraint.

The largest state sponsor of global terrorism is described as a country that is "aware of its 'responsibilities for regional peace and security.'" Oh yes, there's another article about how outraged media groups are about the Israeli strikes that (inadvertently) killed journalists in Lebanon--Israel's actions are described as a "war crime," and as "deliberate aggression."

As usual, but Oh My God! Not a word about Iran's aggression and that of its' many terrorist proxies; no sympathetic photos of displaced Israelis, wounded Israelis, murdered Israelis. There are now 769 mostly very young soldiers and reservist fathers who were killed in battle; 891 civilians who've been murdered; 76 police officers and ISA agents who've also been murdered. There are 101 Israeli captives still being held hostage in Gaza. An offer of 100K for the release of each one, no questions asked, has led nowhere.

Read More

09/17 Links Pt2: Bad News for the Jews; Beware distinguished professors rewriting history; Fetterman rips NYTs for spreading Hamas propaganda

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Bad News for the Jews

What ought an American Jew think when reading the news every day? It is a discouraging way to start a Monday morning. But we are way past that. Because this type of news consumption is also a Tuesday morning thing, and a Wednesday morning thing, and on and on. If you spend Shabbat offline, it is getting difficult not to wince when turning the phone back on each Saturday night.

Which is, I think, a point that goes ignored outside the Jewish community. There isn’t a particularly outrageous story that has singularly instilled fear in the Jewish community. There is, instead, an unlifting smog blanketing public life. It’s ugly, it’s unhealthy, and it narrows a person’s scope of vision.

It’s also selective. Take tomorrow’s congressional hearing on hate crimes. Republicans in the House hold the majority, so they have been able to hold House hearings exclusively on outbreaks of institutional anti-Semitism, such as those that occurred at universities around the country. GOP senators would like the upper chamber to follow suit, but Democrats hold the Senate majority so any focus on anti-Semitism must be watered down to an insulting degree.

“Tuesday’s hearing is a first for the Senate since Oct. 7 and the proceedings are not shaping up as a bipartisan effort,” reports Jewish Insider. “Judiciary Committee Republicans have been urging Democrats for months to convene a hearing on how the uptick in antisemitism on college campuses is violating the civil rights of Jewish students — similar to their House GOP counterparts’ hearings with embattled university presidents earlier in the year.”

You’d think it would be a no-brainer, but you’d be wrong. Every single instance of anti-Semitism listed above is the result of progressive ideological activism, and therefore Democrats have decided to make the hearings about the “rise in hate incidents across the country, particularly targeting the Jewish, Arab, and Muslim communities.”

There is no trend of hate crimes against any community that is comparable to what the Jewish community has been experiencing. Jews and only Jews are seeing their civil rights come under relentless attack on campus. Tomorrow, thanks to Democratic leaders such as Dick Durbin, the United States Senate will invent a false equivalence between the victims of anti-Semitism and the perpetrators, so that criticizing anti-Semitism itself will be seen as a violation of Americans’ rights.

So that’s where we are: Monday’s news was full of reports of Jews being attacked with little or no concern expressed by the authorities. Tuesday’s news will be about the Senate making a public mockery of Jewish concerns. What’s the forecast for Wednesday? Expect more smog.

It’s absurd that anybody would be comfortable with this being Jews’ daily experience in America for even a week. It’s now been that way for nearly a year. Let’s not get used to this.

Why Bernard-Henri Lévy thinks supporting Israel is a matter of human rights

Despite the sobering title of his new book, Israel Alone, the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy does not truly believe the Jewish state is lacking in friends. In fact, he thinks all democrats — with a lowercase “d” — should be aligned with Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks as the Jewish state stares down an increasingly tangible Iranian threat.

“It is not only the Jews who are concerned. It is really in the existential interest of the West. But not only the West — the Global West,” Lévy told Jewish Insider in an interview on Monday amid a spate of public appearances in the United States to promote his new book’s publication in English.

That’s not because Lévy expects people around the world who support democracy to reflexively back Israel. He knows that would be naive. Instead, he thinks supporting Israel is needed because Hamas’ murderous incursion into southern Israel last year represents a turning point for the cadre of anti-democratic forces gaining ground around the world.

“I knew that there was a constellation of forces which were aligning with each other — Iran, China, Russia, Turkey, radical Islam like the Taliban and [the] Muslim Brotherhood. But I was not sure that the process was so advanced,” Lévy explained. By “Global West,” he means supporters of democracy anywhere, even those living under authoritarian regimes.

Israel’s battle against Hamas in Gaza is more than a small regional fight against a terror group, Lévy argues. It’s an existential battle for all of the West against Iran, and the other authoritarian nations with which Tehran aligns itself.

“I think of my friends, Iranian women who go to Tehran and Isfahan with fire in the wind, if I think of my friends — lawyers in jail in Turkey — I’m really concerned for them if Iran wins,” said Lévy. “If Israel happens to lose, it will be a disaster for all of them, for all the militants of human rights all over the world.”

Israel Alone is a relatively slim volume, using sparse prose to describe the horrific events of Oct. 7 and their world-shattering impact on Israelis and Jews and, Lévy hopes, for democrats the world over. Lévy, who first traveled to Israel in 1967, flew to Israel on the morning of Oct. 8. At the time, he didn’t know that a book would come from it; that decision came a few days later, after visiting Kibbutz Be’eri and, later, a meeting with Yoni Asher, whose wife and two young daughters had been taken hostage. (They were freed in November.)

“I realized with a chill that the world had just witnessed an event whose shockwaves and blast effect would change the course of all our lives — including my own,” Lévy wrote toward the start of the book.

The book raises several questions stemming from the Oct. 7 attacks: Why Israel? What to make of the settler-colonial narrative targeting Israel? Why has there been such fierce denial of the attacks? And, most painful for Lévy, how should Israel’s backers make sense of the innocent Gazans killed in the ensuing war? Lévy attempts to answer them with a philosophical precision, placing the events of the past year in a broader historical context.

This moment, Lévy argued, should be one of moral clarity. “Even during the Cold War,” he stated, “we have never been in such a critical situation, we democrats.”

$1M offered to LGBTQ advocacy groups to host Pride parade in Gaza, West Bank

A watchdog group that aims to expose hypocrisy announced Monday that it would donate $1 million to “Queers for Palestine” or any US LGBTQ advocacy organization to host a gay pride parade in Gaza or the West Bank.

Anti-Israel groups such as “Queers for Palestine” have surfaced across America since the Hamas terror group attacked Israel on October 7, but homosexuality remains deeply taboo in the Palestinian territories.

Gay and transgender people in Gaza and the West Bank face a significant level of persecution and are often subjected to horrific acts.

New Tolerance Campaign (NTC) President Gregory T. Angelo, who is gay and the former president of Log Cabin Republicans, said the campaign is a “wake-up call” to anyone who identifies as part of the “Queers for Palestine” or “Gays for Gaza” movements.

“I don’t want people to just shrug off this campaign as some kind of publicity stunt or something that is supposed to be comical. It actually is a legitimate offer,” Angelo told Fox News Digital.

“This campaign emerged to call out these purported advocates of LGBT equality and put our money where their mouths are,” he continued. “I think that this is a real opportunity for these groups to legitimately step up and host an event that would either highlight the fact that the Palestinian territories are not indeed a good place for LGBTQ individuals to be living, or it could be a breakthrough moment for pluralism and peace in the Middle East.”

The New Tolerance Campaign said it secured commitments for the $1 million prize and will begin publicizing the offer with mobile billboards circulating around Columbia University in New York City, the headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C. and UCLA in Los Angeles.

“Obviously, the $1 million prize is something that is flashy. It was designed to get attention; it was designed to turn heads. But the greater drive behind this project is one of equality and broad human rights,” Angelo said.

Read More

05/12 Links: US withholding ‘sensitive intelligence’ on Hamas from Israel; Europe's public vote shines for Eden Golan at Eurovision; Israel marks first post-Oct. 7 Memorial Day

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Liberal media is still in denial about post-Oct. 7 antisemitism

Seven months of an unprecedented surge in antisemitism that has turned American college campuses and even K-12 schools into hostile environments for Jews has changed a lot of minds about the issue. The willingness of much of the political left to downplay or even justify the atrocities of Oct. 7—and then to flip the narrative about the war that Hamas started to one in which the victims of terrorism are somehow the real villains of the story—has shocked even many political liberals into rethinking their assumptions about where the real danger for Jews lies.

But not The New York Times.

As two lengthy news features published in the paper this week confirmed, the flagship of liberal journalism in the United States hasn’t let events or the reality of a post-Oct. 7 world interfere with their ideological or political agendas.

In one story, the newspaper devoted the time of four reporters to take a deep dive into contemporary antisemitism. But the result of what is described as their extensive research is that they have come to the conclusion that the real culprits are not the people who seek the destruction of the one Jewish state on the planet, legitimize a genocidal terrorist movement as justified “resistance” or attempt to allow those responsible for the mass murder of 1,200 people to get away with it. Instead, the Times believes that the problem rests with (surprise!) Republicans who are rallying in support of a beleaguered State of Israel and who are opposed to the deluge of Jew-hatred on display in the American public square since the current war began.

In another article, the paper reported a congressional hearing about the growing problem of antisemitism in K-12 schools throughout the country as primarily one about how those in charge of these institutions scored points against members of Congress who care about the issue.

These are just two prominent examples out of many that could be pointed to that show how the Times and other liberal media outlets manipulate coverage of this issue to promote their own partisan agendas. They are worth noting precisely because they illustrate how ideological agendas work to present a distorted picture of an antisemitism crisis that serves primarily to deflect attention from the real cause.

In this case, that means denying or downplaying the fact that the principal engines of antisemitism in 2024 America are left-wing ideologies like critical race theory and intersectionality, which grant a permission slip to Jew-hatred. The pervasive influence of these toxic ideas in American education has helped to indoctrinate largely ignorant students to parrot what earlier generations might have easily understood to be Soviet-era Marxist propaganda about Zionism being racism and Israel being an “apartheid state” against which all “resistance”—even the orgy of rape, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction that Palestinians carried on Oct. 7—can be justified.

Israel’s PR-War Pandemonium

The job of international spokesperson for Israel, in a state of war, is fit for a patriot, a masochist, or a diva, or better yet all three. For most of the past six months, it was occupied by Eylon Levy, a 32-year-old British Israeli with an affinity for television cameras and seemingly infinite ability to absorb the abuse that comes from publicly defending Israel, at its least defensible and at its most. When Israel was still picking through the corpses in the kibbutzim near Gaza, he reminded viewers of the carnage—both the dead concertgoers and elderly (who were real victims) and “beheaded babies” (who turned out not to be). When Israel began hunting Hamas in Gaza, he defended his country’s actions without reservation, even when the civilian toll became unbearable. His tenure ended on the last day of March, reportedly after British Foreign Minister David Cameron took exception to Levy’s rhetoric. The story goes that Cameron’s office sent a curt message to Levy’s bosses, who suspended him and encouraged his resignation.

Levy says that these reports are inaccurate, and that he was forced out because he is not, and never was, a Netanyahu loyalist. He told me he has “no reason to doubt” a conflicting report that Sara Netanyahu, the child psychologist and former El Al flight attendant married to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, orchestrated his overthrow. Cameron was a pretext, he says. Levy’s version of events is one of many data points suggesting that the Netanyahu government is obsessed with the slavish loyalty of its staff. And Levy is not alone in wondering whether such a government is fit to lead a country as divided as Israel, during this time of maximum stress. (Netanyahu’s office did not reply to a request for comment on Levy and the circumstances of his hiring and departure.)

When I met him last month in Tel Aviv, Levy still seemed dazed by the speed of his rise and fall. He said he’d never met Sara Netanyahu or her husband, but if they thought he was less than devoted to Bibi’s politics, they were onto something. Before the war, he said, he had been among the hundreds of thousands who had filled Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv to protest the government and heap disgust on Netanyahu. “The protests became a social happening—just what people did on a Saturday night,” he said. His presence was sincere, but also, in that sense, “entirely unremarkable and quite expected for someone in my demographic.”

And his distaste for Netanyahu did not evaporate after October 7. Levy’s feed on X (formerly Twitter) confirms much of what he told me about his personal distaste for the prime minister, before the Hamas attack and indeed even in the days after it. He tweeted witheringly about Netanyahu’s failure to stop the attack (“This will be [his] legacy”), and about his “useless” ministers’ failure to address the public. But he went into spokesperson mode in record time—even before he was officially tapped for the job. Levy, who says he was “taking a professional break,” when the attack happened, had previously worked as a media adviser to Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Now he saw an opportunity. “The prime minister’s office had been caught with its pants down,” Levy told me. “It was simply not prepared to deal with the deluge of media attention.” He stacked his laptop on a pile of books on his dining-room table and positioned his lamp and webcam just so. “I thought: I know how to do media. So I put out the message that I was available to give media interviews.”

The media took him up on the offer, and he did nearly a dozen TV hits. Within days, he says, an envoy from the prime minister’s office asked him whether he’d like to “come on board in some official capacity.” The envoy, Rotem Sella, was the Hebrew publisher of Netanyahu’s 2022 memoir and had now joined the government to correct the pants problem. Sella, Levy says, knew that Levy had protested Bibi but didn’t care. “It was a completely insane proposition,” Levy said—a guy in his living room, openly contemptuous of the government, would now be paid to defend it. “But everyone was doing their bit, so I said, ‘Absolutely. Count me in.’”

“Within 24 hours, I found myself effectively being nationalized,” he told me. The contemporaneous record strikes a vainer tone. He tweeted a photograph of himself at a lectern, with the comment “Cometh the hour,” a Churchillian line (“... cometh the man”) that is, like most compliments, best bestowed by others rather than by oneself. But as long as Israel’s actual leaders were bunkered away from public scrutiny—when they did appear, ordinary Israelis screamed at them—this living-room Churchill could run unopposed as Israel’s man of the hour.

Lowy’s lament: ‘I know how insidious antisemitism can be’

Looking in from the outside, Sir Frank Lowy is shaken by what is happening in Australia. He’s been watching as antisemitism seeps into the country and weakens its famous sense of “a fair go”.

This is new, something he never experienced in his 66 years in Australia.

“When I arrived in Sydney in 1952 and got a job in a factory, I was seen as a ‘New Australian’ and I took it as a term of endearment, not exclusion.

“In the canteen, we ate our sandwiches together and no one remarked on my foreignness or questioned my religion.

“And in six decades of running Westfield, I never experienced antisemitism. Once, a newspaper referred to me as ‘a Jewish businessman’. I objected, and it never happened again.”

While many believe the current conflict in Gaza has not led to antisemitism in Australia, Lowy has seen it before, and he does.

“In Europe in the late ’30s and ’40s, I experienced it directly. I know what it feels like, and I know how insidious it can be.

“In Europe back then, it had become safe for people to express antisemitism, and now it’s becoming safe to do so in Australia. It may take a different form, but the feeling is the same, and it’s deeply disturbing.”

Read More