Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

11/12 Links Pt2: BDS Cannot Be Negotiated With; The Buchanan Resurrection; The Permission to Hate: Why Antisemitism Feels Good to Its Users; How Wikipedia lies to you

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: BDS Cannot Be Negotiated With

In 1948, Golda Meir famously visited a synagogue in Moscow on the High Holidays, a historic visit by an official of the State of Israel. Meir was the young state’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, which enforced anti-Semitic restrictions without calling them that. The Soviets claimed that a true classless society unburdened by capitalist grotesqueries had no reason for anti-Semitism to even exist. But that didn’t help Russian Jews stuck behind the iron curtain.

Meir and her team went to synagogue for Shabbat services a few weeks before Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year. There they encountered a hundred or so elderly Jews. Meir’s Rosh Hashana visit weeks later was announced in advance, and when the delegation arrived they found the street in front of the shul “filled with people, packed together like sardines, hundreds and hundreds of them, of all ages, including Red Army officers, soldiers, teenagers and babies carried in their parents’ arms.”

Meir was the symbol of the reborn State of Israel, and the Soviet Jews defiantly flooded the Great Synagogue to call out to her “our Golda!” Meir was so moved she could hardly speak. When services ended, the throng made it impossible for her to walk back to her hotel. She was guided into a cab, but the cab “couldn’t move either because the crowd of cheering, laughing, weeping Jews had engulfed it.”

So what did the secular socialist Golda Meir say to the Jews in the brief moment before her cab whisked her away? Meir writes that she was filled with shame for underestimating the Jewish spark that still burned within these Jews who were held down in a society of fear but refused to be broken. She managed to stammer out one sentence, which she ridicules in her own memoirs but which obviously moved the crowd, in Yiddish:

“Thank you for having remained Jews.”

The event had proved to her that the Jewish spirit was far stronger than the evil empire trying to stamp it out. But the Russian Jews would need that strength: Within months, a vicious crackdown on Jewish organizing began. They would pay a price for revealing their unbrokenness.

The Buchanan Resurrection

Buchanan’s charge against the Jews is among the most obviously mendacious things any Washington, D.C., insider has ever said. And yet what’s most notable about the debate over Buchanan’s claims is the deference shown him. Yes, William F. Buckley Jr., the giant of American conservatism, called him to account: “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.” But then the writer famous for his concise English prose pulled his punches, wondering what “it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.”

Or, knowing the truth, Buchanan nonetheless lied about Jews to put Jews in a bad light—the signature move of antisemites who, after they’re called out for lying about Jews, complain that they can’t criticize Israel without being called antisemites.

And then the magazine Buckley founded endorsed Buchanan in the 1992 New Hampshire primary race. It was a tactical endorsement, according to the editors of The National Review, designed to nudge the incumbent Bush further to the right. Buchanan drew 37% of the New Hampshire vote and then 36% in Georgia.

Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz wrote at the time:
At first glance these results seem impressive, especially for a political novice challenging the President of the United States within his own party. But on closer examination the early primaries provide a measure not of Buchanan’s strength but of Bush’s weakness. Thus, on the same day that Buchanan’s strenuous campaign in Georgia was being rewarded with a 36-percent vote, he got about 30 percent in Maryland, where he had not campaigned at all. And in South Dakota, where Buchanan was not even on the ballot, the same 30 percent of the Republican vote went to an uncommitted slate.

According to Podhoretz: “What all this suggests is that anyone—or no one—running against Bush would have been assured of that 30 percent. This inference is borne out by the exit polls, which showed that most of the people who voted for Buchanan did so because they wanted to ‘send a message’ of dissatisfaction to Bush, not because they were for Buchanan himself.”

Trump’s two terms in office prove that you can win by advocating for America First policies on trade, immigration, and war—so long as you master your resentments and don’t smear American Jews as disloyal and spin up lies about Israel and drive away evangelicals, the electorate’s most solid conservative base. Trump didn’t inherit Buchanan’s legacy—he is a repudiation of it.

And yet Buchanan clearly influenced MAGA’s antisemitic faction. Antisemitism was his unique selling point, distinguishing him from others who agreed on the general scope of his core issues. A political faction organized around a pathological worldview is destined to attract broken souls, forming a cohort unwaveringly committed to its cause and leader. Thus, Buchanan carved out a small, devoted faction under his absolute control that could be used to shape Republican politics. His 1992 candidacy didn’t in fact move Bush, who eventually lost, to the right—but the crucial point is that Buchanan was endorsed for “tactical” purposes by the same group of conservative intellectuals who debated whether he was an antisemite. And that confirmed to Buchanan the observation Barack Obama later made: In politics, antisemitism can be used as an organizing tool.

The rising Buchananites are betting that antisemitism doesn’t have a ceiling. Their strategy is premised on the idea that in a historical moment when young voters have more than enough reason to distrust the experts, officials, industries, and institutions ostensibly undergirding our peace and prosperity, Jew hate functions something like a magnet that enthralls splintered spirits, further enchanted by conspiracy theories weaponized to amplify despair and leave its audiences wondering what, if anything, they were told about America is true, and if anything about her is good or beautiful. From this perspective, what held Buchanan back wasn’t that antisemitism failed to appeal to the masses, but that he hadn’t built out the infrastructure that would transform America’s political arena wholly.

The Permission to Hate: Why Antisemitism Feels Good to Its Users

With the rise of worldwide antisemitic rhetoric, demonstrations, and actions, it is natural to turn once again to trying to make sense of it all. Explanations usually focus on history, ideology, or geopolitics. This post looks at something more basic: the emotional payoff antisemitism provides to the people who use it. This is a map, not a cure.

The emotional payoff
Antisemitism arrives as permission—the sense that anger at a pre-approved target is not only allowed but righteous. That permission delivers a potent mix:
Relief: diffuse frustrations condense into a single culprit; anxiety quiets.
Moral bravado: cruelty is reframed as courage, “speaking truth to power.”
Belonging: shared targets bind strangers faster than shared ideals.
Clarity and control: a messy world collapses into clean lines—us/them.
Impunity: harm feels like self-defense, not shame.

A rough formula captures it:
Attraction ≈ (Validation × Belonging × Certainty × Impunity) − Accountability.

Lower accountability—in crowds, echo chambers, or with elite winks—and the “delight” intensifies.

Why Jews “fit” the role
The Jewish figure can be cast to suit almost any resentment:
Visible and invisible: imagined as both puppet-masters and infiltrators.
Insider and outsider: neighbors who remain somehow “foreign.”
Powerful and weak: sturdy enough to “deserve it,” weak enough to be safe to hit.
One and many: “the Jews” as a monolith; counterexamples dismissed as exceptions.

These contradictions aren’t true, but they are useful to anyone seeking the pleasures of permissioned hate. They make Jews a multi-purpose scapegoat across eras and ideologies. The validation loop

Antisemitism scales through micro-permissions—a leader’s wink, a pundit’s “just asking questions,” a chant, a meme. Each erodes shame and pays a small dopamine dividend. Social platforms supercharge the loop: clarity beats complexity; heat beats light. Deindividuation lowers brakes; performative zeal raises the thrill. The result is not only belief—it’s arousal dressed as virtue.

11/12 Links Pt1: Former hostages Keith and Aviva Siegel testify before UN Committee Against Torture; Understanding the Strategic Surprise of October 7; Douglas Murray on the Rise of Anti-Westernism and How to Defeat It

From Ian:

Israel and India, Both Under Threat, Solidify Ties

Both Israel and India have pledged to cooperate on future dual-use technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing and robotics, as well as space projects.

India, a Hindu-majority country, is, like Israel, a democracy bordered by authoritarian states. India, like Israel, is exposed daily to internal and external threats, with the neighboring Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking India's destruction.

Perhaps the most meaningful dimension of this growing alliance, apart from the benefits of the often outstanding education in both nations, is the element of shared values and trust. It is a strengthening alliance, uplifting to watch.

Israel's Important New Allies, and an Old Enemy, Turkey

US President Donald J. Trump announced the latest addition to his remarkable Abraham Accords last week: China's and Russia's neighbor, Kazakhstan.

One hopes that at some point, Azerbaijan, too, might join the Abraham Accords.

Although Azerbaijan has enjoyed close relations with Turkey, relations between Turkey and Israel have now reached an all-time low. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – after accusing Israel of genocide and crimes against humanity, and issuing arrest warrants for 37 Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- reportedly took Trump's assurance of a Turkish role in the future of Gaza, without consulting Israel, as a green light to assemble 2,000 special forces troops to occupy Gaza. What could possibly go wrong?

Erdogan is also trying to buy F-35 jets – to use for what? -- from the US, which always appears delighted to make a sale. If Trump has any interest in peace in the Middle East, this is one sale he must unquestionably turn down.

ITV’s ‘Breaking Ranks’: The IDF Soldier Documentary That Broke From the Truth

For a documentary to do its job and remain neutral on such serious allegations, the contrary evidence must be presented, but throughout the documentary, this was deliberately avoided.

War, especially against a terrorist organization that operates using guerrilla tactics, presents immensely challenging scenarios. In the fog of war, mistakes and errors of judgment can and do happen. But it is also true that the IDF has consistently held its soldiers to the highest of standards, investigating any wrongdoing as it occurs.

It would be naive to suggest that every soldier in the IDF or any other comparable army behaves in an exemplary fashion. In September 2024, The New Yorker published a database of what it said is the “largest known collection of investigations of possible war crimes committed [by the U.S. military] in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11—nearly eight hundred incidents in all.”

Some of the alleged crimes include “the case of soldiers raping a fourteen-year-old girl and subsequently murdering her and her family; the alleged killing of a man by a Green Beret who cut off his victim’s ear and kept it; and cruelty toward detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and at the Bagram Air Base detention facility.”

All of this is not to claim that the IDF is necessarily more moral than the American military, although there is certainly a good case to be made. The point is that nobody would condemn the entirety of the U.S. Army as an immoral entity that brings shame to its country despite the behavior of a minority of its troops.

And ultimately, ITV’s documentary relies on a tiny number of Israeli soldiers as “eyewitnesses,” most of whom appear to have a political agenda backed by Breaking the Silence.

Rather than offering an honest insight into the complexities of modern warfare against a terrorist organization, the filmmakers chose a simplified, one-sided narrative of Israel’s supposed aggression. In doing so, ITV’s Breaking Ranks fails the very test it set for itself: to tell the story of the war “through the soldiers who fought it.” Instead, it tells a story already written – one shaped by bias, omission, and a refusal to confront the full truth.

JD Vance Calls Israeli Bid for Sovereignty “Weird” and “Very Stupid” (Judean Rose)

Generally, when dignitaries and officials visit Israel, they make a point of stopping at the Western Wall — the Kotel — and they refrain from invoking Jesus Christ. This is done out of respect for the fact that Israel is the Jewish State, something the United States has always recognized.

Over the years, the Wall stop has become almost a diplomatic ritual: a solemn photo-op that signals respect for Jewish history and friendship with Israel. To skip it is to make a statement.

The Making of a Statement

During his October 2025 visit, Vice President J.D. Vance made just such a statement. The official itinerary, released on October 21, listed a visit to the Wall and a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But that is not what happened.

Instead, Vance went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — a Christian pilgrimage site — where he spoke openly about Jesus. “I know that Christians have many titles for Jesus Christ, and one of them is the Prince of Peace,” he told reporters. “And I’d ask all people of faith, in particular my fellow Christians, to pray that the Prince of Peace can continue to work a miracle in this region of the world.”

To many, his words might have sounded well-intentioned — a sincere call for peace. But in the context of the Jewish State, invoking Jesus in public remarks was tone-deaf and inappropriate. In diplomatic language, symbols matter. To skip the Wall and choose a Christian site, to publicly invoke Jesus in the Jewish State, is not a neutral act. One analysis noted that “Vance did not visit the Wall, and went instead to honor and pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre” — a move seen as a quiet rebuke to Netanyahu amid friction over Israel’s new sovereignty bill.

The truth is, I’m perfectly fine with Vance visiting a church instead of the Wall — especially since he did visit the Wall on a previous trip to Israel. But it seemed he was hammering home a point, and in doing so, crossed a line. Suggesting that people of faith — which presumably includes Jews — should pray to the “Prince of Peace” is, frankly, offensive to Jews.

He’s welcome to believe in any deity he likes. I only wish he respected our beliefs as much as I respect his right to believe in his. The visit to the church, coupled with a public call for Jews to pray to Jesus, felt off.

The Sovereignty Bill

What truly drove the point home, however, was Vance’s attitude toward Israel’s sovereignty bill. The Knesset had just granted preliminary approval to a measure ending the state of martial law in Judea and Samaria — a step many see as Israel finally asserting sovereignty over its own heartland.

Israel deliberately left the status of these territories vague after capturing them in 1967, hoping to keep the door open for negotiations. But after decades of failed peace processes, terror, and external meddling, many Israelis now believe it’s time to end the ambiguity. Declaring sovereignty, for us, is an act of self-preservation.

The world, after all, keeps declaring that our land is “Palestine.” Yet these are Jewish ancestral territories, won in a defensive war. There is no reason why Israel should not claim them formally as part of the Jewish State.

Vance’s Dismissal

Asked by reporters about the bill, Vance replied:

“That was weird. I was sort of confused by that… When I asked about it, somebody told me that it was a political stunt that had no practical significance. It was purely symbolic… If it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it. The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel. The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel. That will continue to be our policy. And if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren’t happy about it.”

If I’d been there, I might have asked him: What’s weird about Jews declaring sovereignty over land that rightfully belongs to them? Why would that confuse a Bible-believing Christian? Surely you know this is land God gave the Jewish people.

To call it “symbolic” is wrong. It was an act of survival. We see the writing on the wall: the world is preparing to carve up our land again and hand it to those who burned, raped, and murdered our people on October 7. Enough. It’s time we took control. It’s our land.

There is nothing “weird” about Jews who love their land enough to protect it.

Bibi’s Balancing Act

Prime Minister Netanyahu had little choice but to downplay the vote, calling it “symbolic” to placate Washington. In spite of Likud’s abstention, the bill still passed its first reading 25–24 — a small but historic majority.

I understand the realpolitik: during a fragile “ceasefire,” the timing looked bad to Vance. And yes, Arab states may have pressed the U.S. to rein Israel in. But Israel’s right to its land should never be a bargaining chip for diplomatic convenience.

What Vance said was shocking. “Very stupid”? “Insulting”? To whom, exactly? To say that a Jewish decision about Jewish land is meaningless or offensive — that is the real insult.

Trump Doubles Down

Trump later backed him up in an interview with Time Magazine:

“It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

Which is ironic, because just seven weeks earlier, U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee told Israeli media:

“The United States has never asked Israel not to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. We respect Israel as a sovereign state and will not tell it what to do.”

Unlike Vance, Huckabee refuses to use the propaganda term West Bank. He calls the area by its proper geographical designation: Judea and Samaria. In 2017, he said:

“There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”

Vance, by contrast, parrots the old Washington line, warning that annexation would “embolden extremists on both sides” and “undermine trust.” Someone should tell him that we cannot annex what is already ours.

Amb. Huckabee seated to the right of Vance

Language and Truth

Words matter. “Annexation” implies we are seizing something foreign. But Judea and Samaria are as integral to Israel as Safed or Jerusalem. The proper term is not annexation, but sovereignty — the right of a nation to rule its own land.

We Jews have waited millennia for this sovereignty. We have bled for it, prayed for it, and reclaimed it piece by piece. No American politician, no matter how high his office or how lofty his faith, has the right to tell us it “won’t happen.”

A Visit Full of Meaning

In the end, Vance’s visit was about symbolism — not just the church or the Wall, but the deeper question of whose faith and whose history command respect. To pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre while scolding Jews for wanting sovereignty over Judea is to miss the moral center of this land entirely.

Yet we would never ask Vance to believe as we do, or share our faith. We ask only that he respect our beliefs and rights — and stop presuming to decide what Jews may do in the land that God gave them.

Vance’s visit was full of symbols, and symbols often speak even louder than statements. Skipping the Wall for the church might have been meant as a gesture of faith, but to many of us it felt like a gesture of distance — from Israel, from Jewish history, from understanding what this land means to its people.

Faith, after all, is personal. But our connection to this land is not only a matter of belief — it is the story of our people, written into our prayers, our bones, and our history. That is what Vance failed to grasp: that our faith, our story, and our land are bound together, a holy bond that can never be severed and never surrendered — not even to Donald Trump and his vice president.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Are We Losing Our Sovereignty in Kiryat Gat? (Guest Post)

Guest post by Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, The Sovereignty Movement

Kiryat Gat is a symbol of Ben-Gurion’s vision to settle the northern Negev under Israeli sovereignty — yet precisely there, an international headquarters has been established, one that could undermine our sovereignty.

In Kiryat Gat, a city born from David Ben-Gurion’s dream of settling the northern Negev, a new international control center has recently been established — part of what is called the “regional agreements,” supposedly meant to bring a “stable Middle East.” But behind these enticing words lies a troubling truth: in the heart of the State of Israel, a piece of Israeli sovereignty is being handed over to foreign hands.

Ben-Gurion must be turning in his grave. The man who wholeheartedly believed in the Jewish people’s power to return and rebuild their land — who saw Kiryat Gat as a symbol of the Zionist ideal of making the desert bloom — never imagined that the very place he envisioned as a center of national strength would one day host an international command station. Luba Eliav, who was first entrusted with founding the city out of deep belief in the Zionist-settlement vision, never dreamed that an international force would take up residence in the heart of a sovereign Jewish city.

Eighty-seven soldiers of the Alexandroni Brigade gave their lives in this area during the War of Independence. They fell for the independence of the State of Israel — not for foreign forces or regional administrations. Their blood cries out from the ground: no to international supervision, no to the loss of the Jewish state’s independence.

Sovereignty means Israel’s full control over its destiny, its security, its resources, and its land. There is no such thing as “shared sovereignty” or “stable international oversight.” Every such arrangement undermines the very foundation of our existence — being a free people in our own land.

The Sovereignty Movement calls upon the government, the Knesset, and the public at large to awaken. The so-called “stable Middle East” will be built only through an uncompromising insistence on full Israeli sovereignty — not by transferring powers to foreign entities, not by establishing international centers in the heart of our cities, and not by weakening our hold on the land.

In Kiryat Gat, we must wake up. We must remember why this city was founded, what its founders envisioned, and what our soldiers sacrificed for. We must declare loud and clear: in the State of Israel — sovereignty belongs to the people of Israel, and to them alone.

This declaration must have practical implications. We must restore Jewish control in Gaza, apply our sovereignty there and in Judea, Samaria, and the Bashan, and return to a national Zionist path of Hebrew labor, making the desert bloom, building towns and communities, and encouraging large-scale aliyah .

Our hope is not yet lost — the two-thousand-year-old hope:

To be a free people in our own land.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

In May, the Palestinian Monetary Authority issued a press release:

During the MENAFATF Meetings, the Chairman of the National Committee H.E. Mr. Yahya Shunnar met with the President of MENAFATF Mrs. Samia Abu Sharif, The meeting was also attended by the Vice President of the MENAFATF Mr. Hamed Alzaabi and the Executive Secretary Mr. Suliman Aljebrin, and the Financial Follow-Up Director Dr. Firas Morrar. The discussion focused on ongoing efforts to combating money laundering and terrorist financing in the State of Palestine in alignment with the Financial Action Task Force standards. Key developments included the submission of the National Strategy addressing the findings of the national risk assessment to the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine

The PA has done a lot to promote the optics of caring about terrorist money-laundering — they set up committees, claim to have submitted internal reports, and maintain communications with FATF and MENAFATF — but they have produced no visible evidence that they are monitoring or stopping terrorist money-laundering. They joined MENAFATF (the FATF-style regional body) in 2015, yet their mutual evaluation remains uncompleted and, according to FATF’s own site, the PA’s assessment date is still “to be determined."

Despite the fanfare, the public record is thin. The PMA’s press release claims that MENAFATF “adopted the technical compliance report” and that a “national risk assessment strategy” was submitted — but no full mutual evaluation report or independently published national risk-assessment is available on MENAFATF or FATF portals to verify those claims.

Not that they’ve been shy about using these bodies for their own ends. The PA submitted inputs to the FATF’s 2025 update that single out Jewish groups the PA designates as “terrorist organisations” and alleges those groups run agricultural and environmental enterprises as covers for funding:

“Groups designated as terrorist organisations at the domestic level by the Palestinian Authority, have reportedly established private enterprises involving livestock farming and the development of large-scale agricultural projects, such as fruit, vegetable, and palm tree plantations as means of funding.” — FATF, Comprehensive Update on Terrorist Financing Risks (2025).

Money flowing through NGOs or through PA channels to pay terrorists is effectively ignored in public MENAFATF/FATF outputs — yet the PA can get a paragraph in a global FATF report to name tiny Jewish settler groups as terrorist financing risks. That’s the inversion: international platforms used to amplify politically useful allegations while the PA’s own implementation and oversight remain opaque.

This fits a broader pattern of Palestinians joining international organizations or conventions to give them the appearance of legitimacy, but never executing on the requirements that these organizations demand from members, blaming Israel for the "delays." I have not once seen any of them submit any information about violations of any rules or laws under territory they control - which is what every nation is supposed to do in their reports.

There is also a documented problem of weak transparency and accountability in the Palestinian NGO and aid sector. Local watchdogs and anti-corruption organizations have repeatedly highlighted weak oversight, patronage and misuse of public funds, and insufficient reporting by NGOs and public bodies.

The bottom line is that the PA insists on membership without publication, promises without peer review, and inputs to international reports without reciprocal transparency at home. That is optics, not accountability.

(h/t Irene)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

In The Nation, Leah Abrams writes about her very brief stint as a worker for the John Fetterman campaign in 2023:

[I]n the early days, I saw something in him that excited me: a candidate fluent in the informal parlance of the Internet; a man who flouted DC’s fancy suits and traditions; a politician who openly called for universal healthcare and labor rights on a national stage. For a year, it was a dream come true; the realization of a progressive, idealistic fantasy. I was 24, a young speechwriter, and I’d landed a job making memes, dunking on conservative chuds, writing statements about immigration and racial justice. Was there anyone luckier?

Ah, but then things turned dark for our heroine. And here's where it all started going south:

[T]o the best of my knowledge, it started like this. On October 9, 2023, my coworkers and I woke up to a statement released from the Senate Office that junior staff on the campaign side had not seen. It ended with a line that continues to resound against the walls of my brain, even all this time later: “I also fully support Israel neutralizing the terrorists responsible for this barbarism.”

I remember reading the dog whistles “neutralize” and “barbarism” and feeling the room spin around me.

Yes, referring to Hamas as barbaric and wanting to see them pay for their pogrom made Leah Abrams, poster child Jew-when-it-helps-her-career, physically ill.

As a good progressive, the rapes didn't bother her at all. Burning families is Palestinian resistance, that's understandable. But wanting to destroy a terror group? Sickening!

Her piece goes on to describe her diary entries as she spun into a deep vortex of shame, like these:

October 17, 2023: “Back to work. So beyond depressed. Completely, utterly… A hospital in Gaza got bombed to the ground.”

October 18, 2023: “Everything changed today. Had a bunch of dumb meetings, was up late writing and early doing Nida [Allam] op-ed… Then John put out a statement that was so vile. ‘Now is not the time for a ceasefire.’ Awful… I tried to be normal but by end of day it hit me so hard and I couldn’t stop crying. I can’t be complicit in this. I can’t…. I’m done.”

I looked around at my colleagues, wondering who was writing these statements. Every single one of them became a suspect, a conspirator in this grand operation to betray voters, to spend their money on blowing up a hospital based on the ludicrous idea that Hamas was somewhere in the IVs.

The hospital that Abrams claimed Israel blew up and "bombed to the ground" was, of course, the Al Ahli Hospital whose courtyard was hit by an errant Islamic Jihad rocket and which suffered no damage besides scorch marks.

Neither Abrams nor The Nation bothered to mention those little facts. No, to people like Abrams and outlets like The Nation, Israel is always guilty ab initio, and if the facts don't fit, just ignore or twist those facts.

That's journalism!

Abrams quit her job several days later, and immediately cowrote what was perhaps the first "As A Jew" open letter denouncing Israel as "genocidal" - less than a month after October 7.

The letter included a performative nod to October 7 with a "both sidesism" that is itself disgusting: "We condemn the recent attacks on Israeli and Palestinian civilians and mourn such harrowing loss of life. In our grief, we are horrified to see the fight against antisemitism weaponized as a pretext for war crimes with stated genocidal intent."

Raping Jewish women don't elicit any visceral reaction from Leah Abrams. But saying that Hamas is antisemitic? That's horrifying! It is time to trot out "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" to prove that real Jews know who the bad guys are - their own people!

The current fashion to reflexively twist every fact into an "Israel is genocidal" lens is not new. The desire to treat every Hamas press release as the Torah and every IDF statement as Third Reich propaganda is no recent innovation.

It was done by self-professed Jews like Leah Abrams two years ago.

(h/t JW)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

By their own definitions, anti-Zionists are racist

Over the past few years, a new term has emerged from the anti-Zionist activists: the idea that being against a Palestinian state is a form of racism.

The most prominent definition of "anti-Palestinian racism" comes from a monograph by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association:

WHAT IS ANTI-PALESTINIAN RACISM?
Anti-Palestinian racism is a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives. Anti-Palestinian racism takes various forms including: denying the Nakba and justifying violence against Palestinians; failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine; erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians; excluding or pressuring others to exclude Palestinian perspectives, Palestinians and their allies; defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer or opposed to democratic values.

"The Meaning of Nakba," 1948

This means that if I note that there were no people who self-identified as "Palestinian" before the 20th century, or that the "nakba" should be defined the way that it was originally defined by the person who coined the word in 1948, or that a majority of Palestinians trace their ancestry back to the Arabian Peninsula or elsewhere outside the Levant, or that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs support terrorism against Jews in Israel, I am a racist.

That is absurd, since all of those assertions are correct.

In fact, the first example given in the paper says that a media company not allowing someone to refer to "Palestine" as an existing political entity is also an anti-Palestinian racist.

Here's the hypocrisy: if speaking out against Palestinian nationalism or pointing out historic truths about Palestinian history are racist, then what exactly is anti-Zionism?

Zionism as a national movement pre-dates Palestinian nationalism. In fact, Palestinian nationalism wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Zionism - it is entirely a response to Zionism and has no coherent positive vision for a Palestinian state.

How can opposing Palestinian nationalism be racist - and opposing Jewish nationalism, which calls for the safety of a well-defined people who've existed for 3,000 years, be principled?

How can opposition to a Palestinian state which has never existed be racist, but calling for the dismantling of the existing 77 year old Jewish state not be racist?

True, Israelis aren't a race. But neither are Palestinians.

Indeed, Palestinianism is inherently antisemitic, since from its inception the only consistent way to explain their activities is their opposition to Jewish sovereignty. The percentage of Palestinians who accept the idea of a Jewish state side by side with a Palestinian state is pretty close to zero, since they all insist on the "right of return" to Israel, not "Palestine."

The insistence that purely political opinion or even historic fact can be racist, while they claim that their own opposition to Israel is political and not antisemitic, proves their hypocrisy as well as anything can.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

11/11 Links Pt2: Elie Wiesel: Zionism and racism; Western Institutional Collapse and the BBC; The Warped Collapse of Modern Feminism; Gal Gadot wins 2026 Genesis Prize

From Ian:

Why Israel Is Thriving Despite Years of War and International Attacks

Well, besides economic measures, other indicators also defy expectations. For example, it was also recently reported that life expectancy in Israel increased by one full year, a significant jump, to 83.8 years, between 2023 and 2024. Life expectancy in Israel is now the fourth highest in the 37 member OECD, exceeded only by Switzerland, Japan, and Spain.

Israel also ranks near the top for measures such as low infant mortality and success in disease prevention. Israel is among the countries with the lowest mortality rate from heart disease. And this high level of care is delivered efficiently at relatively low cost. OECD-member states typically devote 11 to 12 % of GDP to health care. The value for Israel is only 7.6 %. (Health care expenditure in the US is about 17% of GDP.)

Then there is the “Global Flourishing Study,” a new study that asks the question “What makes people flourish?” Published In April 2025 in the journal Nature Mental Health, the study, headed by Tyler J. Vanderweele of Harvard University, is a multi-year survey of 200,000 people, across 22 culturally and geographically diverse countries, including Israel, the US, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The domains measured included: happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health (how healthy people feel, in body and mind), meaning and purpose (whether people feel their lives are significant), character and virtue (how people act to promote good), social relationships (both friendships and family ties), and financial and material stability.

Israel ranked number two (of 22 nations), behind Indonesia when financial indicators are included, and number four (after Indonesia, Mexico, and Philippines) when financial indicators are excluded. The primary finding of the study so far (the study will be completed in 2027) is that high income countries are not necessarily flourishing countries. Israel is the outlier.

The 2025 World Happiness Index also shows Israel is still high up the list of 147 countries, at number 8.

If you ask Google AI why Israel continues to thrive in conditions not normally conducive to success, you get a prosaic answer: Israel’s ability to thrive, in spite of regional challenges and limited natural resources, is due to the combination of an emphasis on higher education and research, a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, significant foreign support and investment, defense needs, and a democratic institutional framework that protects property rights and promotes a market economy.

But to Alistair Heath Israel doesn’t make sense unless you believe in something beyond the math. “There is no historical precedent for surviving the Babylonians, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, and still showing up to work on Monday in Tel Aviv,” he wrote. Perhaps the secret to understanding Israel’s success is not any different from appreciating the resilience displayed by the Jewish people through the ages. Or, as expressed by a quotation attributed to the noted Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, “I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

Seth Mandel: Western Institutional Collapse and the BBC

The culture at the top of the BBC, then, is not one of carelessness but of total disregard for the facts. From politics to sports to war, the rot appears to have infected the whole range of BBC coverage.

Yet the targets of all this very fair and substantial criticism have a different theory of the case. “I do hear everyone when we have to be very clear and stand up for our journalism,” Davie told the BBC staff on his way out. “We are in a unique and precious organization. I see the free press under pressure. I see the weaponization. I think we’ve got to fight for our journalism. I’m really proud of our work.”

Proud of… what, exactly? Davie chalked up the criticism of the BBC’s massive and widespread apparent violation of journalistic ethics to “our enemies,” as if a documented investigation is some kind of tabloid smear campaign. Despite calls for reform, Davie said: “We are the very best of what I think we should be as a society and that will never change.”

That really is the problem, isn’t it? Averaging two corrections a week in its coverage of the world’s top story for two years is “the very best” they can be? To Davie, the answer is yes. Because Western journalism has been consumed with rooting out objective reporting for years now, and this is the result. What matters to these figures isn’t what’s true but what helps the “right” side “win.”

Meanwhile one would be crazy to put one’s trust in any institution that behaves this way. The problem is that so many of them behave this way. Western leaders love to convince themselves that society is being dragged down by the populist hordes rising from the streets. But the fish rots from the head. So, too, does Western Civilization.

Seth Mandel: What They Want From Josh Shapiro

That is one way Democrats might try to avoid the issue—just ignore it. Another possibility, and a more likely one, came from a tweet that got effectively piled-on until it was deleted. But more interesting to me than the wording was what it said about where things go from here. It was from a progressive who noted, in response to the article on Shapiro, that he and his friend “agreed that Shapiro would be the dream candidate for Democrats in 2028 if not for his pro-Israel baggage.” His solution? “I hope he can credibly and visibly commit to ending military aid to Israel before the primary.”

Much of the response to the tweet was aimed at the euphemistic first sentence. But the second sentence is what’s important going forward. It would be much more satisfying for the progressive left to get Shapiro to renounce his people than to ignore him altogether. And so the strategy is simple: Offer him a place in the party elite in return for a public apology for his Jewishness.

Shapiro isn’t going to take that offer. But the subtler version of it will buzz like a fly around him for the foreseeable future. Democrats will want Shapiro to play down the stuff he likes about Israel—Jews being alive, good food—and to chime in only when he has something negative to say—Bibi this, Bibi that.

We can call this the Schumer Model. It’s not that they’ll need him to be anti-Zionist; they just want him to keep mum unless he has an anti-Zionist-ish thing to say.

And further, this applies no matter what Shapiro’s personal ambitions are. The governor of Pennsylvania won’t be ignored by the media. So his party will lay on the guilt, urging him not to unnecessarily divide the left. To be a team player. To, perhaps, know his place.

It’ll be up to Shapiro to resist this quiet capitulation. In politics, we learned a long time ago that emancipation isn’t always a synonym for freedom.

11/11 Links Pt1: Israel's Demands for the Demilitarization of Gaza; Francesca Albanese’s campaign against Zionism; UN Report Shows ‘Palestinians’ Fatter Than Israelis

From Ian:

Israel's Demands for the Demilitarization of Gaza

Demilitarizing Gaza is one of the central components of the Trump framework. An International Stabilization Force (ISF) is to stabilize security in Gaza "including through the demilitarization of non-state armed groups and the permanent decommissioning of weapons." However, significant gaps exist between Israel's position and those of Hamas, the PA, and the moderate Arab states regarding the role of the stabilization force.

Hamas opposes any international force with enforcement powers aimed at disarming the armed organizations. The Palestinian Authority demands that internal security be entrusted to its security forces. The moderate Arab states prefer a "peacekeeping" model limited to monitoring, without powers to enforce disarmament.

Israel views the disarmament of Hamas and the other factions and the prevention of their rearmament as central objectives and demands that Gaza's reconstruction be closely linked to its demilitarization. However, Israel fears that the ISF's deployment could impose constraints on the IDF's freedom of action in Gaza.

In any event, Israel insists on retaining overriding security responsibility in order to counter threats and prevent the reestablishment of terrorist infrastructure in Gaza if the Palestinian police and the ISF face difficulties in disarming Hamas and in preventing its rebuilding.

The anticipated challenges in demilitarizing Gaza include Hamas's refusal to cooperate, as well as continued public support for Hamas and opposition to its disarmament. Accordingly, Israel must hold dialogue with American representatives in order to prepare for these scenarios in advance.

Simultaneously, Israel must formulate a backup plan that includes "defensive belts" before reaching a point of breakdown and returning to confrontation with Hamas. This framework includes conditioning reconstruction on effective disarmament processes.

The gap between the strategic objective - a demilitarized Gaza, responsibly governed by a moderate Palestinian actor - and the operational challenges involved in achieving this objective indicates that the success of the framework will require coercive and sustained American involvement, close coordination with Israel, and U.S. persuasion of moderate Arab states to mobilize for active intervention in the demilitarization of Gaza.

Something is not right with Egypt

Something just isn’t right with Egypt. The situation is starting to smell bad. Like that one piece of leftover fish from Friday night that’s been sitting in the fridge until Wednesday—something’s off.

Israel entered U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan with Egypt as its most significant partner, given their shared border with Gaza. But weeks later, there are troubling signs that something has shifted. To understand this, I decided to take a more biblical view of what may be unfolding.

According to our sages, Egypt betrays its peace pact with Israel at the end of days, forming a coordinated attack on her borders. The Talmud (Sotah) states that God will allow Egypt’s actions of betrayal to play out fully before exacting judgment.

The text even uses the term “Sassah,” referring to the Egyptian leader—eerily reminiscent of today’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It says he will launch one final attack on Israel, the third in a series dating back to Pharaoh 3,330 years ago—and that Israel will ultimately emerge victorious.

If this refers to our times, when might it happen? The Talmud indicates it will occur toward the end of the ruler’s reign in Egypt. Sisi’s presidency began in 2014 and was meant to end years ago, yet he changed the law to remain in power until 2030. While signing new energy and infrastructure deals with Israel, Sisi has simultaneously been building up his army.

This buildup—coupled with Egypt’s participation in the proposed international stabilization force meant to occupy Gaza for at least two years—is cause for concern. Reports indicate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet was not even informed of the U.S.-backed U.N. Security Council resolution outlining such a deployment. If approved, it would mean Egyptian boots on the ground in Gaza.

Sisi, a former general, appears frustrated by the military restrictions imposed by the 1979 Camp David Accords. Forty-six years later, Egypt’s army on Israel’s southern border is stronger than ever. Over 200 kilometers of the border have reportedly been declared a restricted military no-fly zone for the first time since the Yom Kippur War—ostensibly to stop drones, but possibly for other reasons.

Francesca Albanese’s campaign against Zionism

When a public intellectual arms herself with a lexicon of genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing and broadcasts those terms as incontrovertible facts, culture and history die a little.

The recent interview of Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for Palestinian rights, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, contained more than misinformation; it was a manifesto for the erasure of the Jewish state.

I have long refused to dignify Albanese with a formal debate—not out of timidity, but out of principle. To breathe the same air as someone who repeatedly traffics in demonstrable falsehoods is to concede a moral equivalence that does not exist.

Her latest claim—that Zionism itself is “the problem” because it created the State of Israel, which she sees as an apartheid state occupying a land once called Palestine—collapses decades of history into a single, dishonest sentence.

It is worth reminding readers of the simple facts that Albanese elides. For much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Jews called themselves Palestinians; former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir was one of them.

The modern Arab populations in the British Mandate era were not static indigenous blocs but peoples on the move from neighboring regions. The British Mandate, sanctioned by the international community after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, provided the legal framework for Jewish return to the Land of Israel.

Partition and subsequent wars created the borders and complexities we live with today. The modern Palestinian national movement emerged later—in the 1960s and ’70s—nurtured by geopolitical forces and ideologies abroad. To erase that chronology is to erase causality itself.

Albanese’s rhetorical sleight of hand is not an innocent error of interpretation. It serves an objective: the dismantling of the State of Israel’s legitimacy.

In the Derechology framework I am developing, actions speak louder than words—but trajectories speak louder than both. Jews call this derech: the visible moral path that an individual or nation follows over time. And that derech is usually remarkably consistent. Whether for a person or a society, derech tends to stay the same until something disruptive happens—an upheaval, a revolution, or teshuvah—true repentance.

Changes in derech are rare but they do happen. When one is being claimed, how do we know it is legitimate and not window dressing?

When a former jihadist like Ahmed al-Sharaa rises to lead a transitioning Syria, we are faced with a serious question: has his derech changed—or just his outfit?

This is not a theoretical problem. The fate of lives, alliances, and legitimacy hangs on whether moral transformation is real or performative. Derechology does not shy away from this challenge. It offers us a layered framework to test what kind of change we are actually seeing.

There is no doubt that Syria, as a nation, is undergoing a derech change. The Assad era—with its brutal repression, sectarian warfare, and alliance with Iranian and Russian power blocs—has ended. Al-Sharaa’s rise represents a new chapter. Institutions are being rebuilt. Borders are shifting. New diplomatic gestures are being made. A new government with new policies, new alliances, and new political structure indicates a new derech.

But we must distinguish between a regime change and a personal moral transformation.

Al-Sharaa has a past steeped in jihadist networks. He was affiliated with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, an Al Qaeda offshoot. He now presents himself as a head of state, speaking of reform and stability. But has he renounced the ideology that justified violence in the name of religious purity? Has he made any public reckoning with his past?

Not that we’ve seen.

In the derechological framework, teshuvah—the genuine transformation of moral trajectory—requires more than new behavior. It requires a reordering of values, visible in pattern, policy, and persistence.

Here’s what we look for:

Visible break with past ideology: Not just silence, but renunciation. A derech pivot requires disavowal of prior loyalties or justifications for harm.
Emergence of a new value hierarchy: If before, power justified cruelty, does the new system prioritize dignity, justice, or peace?
Persistence under pressure: Does the new derech hold when it costs something, or only when it’s convenient?
Accountability for past actions: Even partial, symbolic, or rhetorical reckoning matters.
Broad-based moral coherence: Has the change spread beyond one person to the institutions and culture he shapes?

So far, al-Sharaa has offered diplomacy, not repentance. There is no public renunciation of or apology for his actions or decisions as a jihadist. We are only seeing strategic gestures, not ideological evolution. We do not see the markers of teshuvah. On the contrary, we have seen reports of sectarian violence, particularly against the Druze in southern Syria, and the empowerment of former Islamist militias within state structures.

In derechological analysis, when personal or institutional actions appear inconsistent, we keep probing until we identify a coherent moral trajectory. In this case, there is one: not the old Syrian derech but a continuation of Al Qaeda's derech.

Al Qaeda’s long-term goal has always been the construction of a Sunni-led Islamic ummah or caliphate. Unlike ISIS, which rushed the process, Al Qaeda plays a long game: gradually destabilizing secular or Shi’a-aligned regimes, replacing them with Sunni Islamist governance, and building regional cohesion under a transnational religious vision. It is centered on controlling territory.

Seen through that lens, toppling Assad is stage one. Establishing Sunni control over all of Syria is stage two. And, long term, rebuilding Syria as a Sunni-controlled, Islamist-aligned state is stage three.

Al-Sharaa’s regime has been consistent: his forces are fighting and suppressing non-Sunni factions (Druze and Kurdish) while there is no criticism of the Turkish occupation of huge parts of Syria. Because that territory is already under Sunni control.

This is derech continuity—not rupture.

What we may be witnessing is not moral transformation, but instrumental reform: reforms not rooted in changed values, but in strategic necessity. Al-Sharaa wants to realign Syria from the Shi’a-dominated Iran–Russia axis toward a new, Sunni-led regional order. To do that, he needs Western recognition, Gulf backing, and diplomatic legitimacy. That means talking about democracy and peace, even if the core ideology remains Islamist.

Using diplomacy and reform as camouflage is strategic discipline, not repentance. Where reforms help attract support or funds, they’re made. Where Islamist dominance can be preserved (e.g., militia control, Turkish alliance), it is.

This is a consistent derech towards Sunni Islam supremacist goals over the long term. But Syria is weak today so it needs Western help to rebuild for now - the end of sanctions, Western investment, western humanitarian aid.

That does not mean engagement with al-Sharaa is forbidden. Diplomacy often involves strategic interaction with flawed actors. Jewish ethics includes realism—Peace first, strength always. But it also includes truth and moral visibility. Granting someone moral validation before it’s earned degrades the ethical vocabulary.

To be blunt: You can shake his hand, but don’t call him a reformed man until he shows you his teshuvah.

Syria may be on a new path. That is good, and we should pray and act to support the best possible future for its people. You may even claim that Syria is in much better shape under Sunni control than it was under the brutal Assad regime.

But Ahmed al-Sharaa’s personal derech remains unproven. Until he walks in the light, we are not obligated to pretend the shadows never existed. And so far, he is not doing anything inconsistent with what Al Qaeda leaders would approve for a long term strategy.

The world needs moral clarity as much as it needs peace. Jewish ethics demands we offer both - without confusing one for the other.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

As several European states rush to recognize a Palestinian state in the aftermath of the Gaza war, they do so not with confidence, but with desperation. It is the act of governments grasping for a diplomatic lifeline, hoping that symbolic recognition might relieve the moral, political, and security pressures building across their societies.

Yet what they are endorsing is not a solution, but a fantasy: one that could deepen regional instability and embolden the most destructive actors.

The assumption that Palestinian statehood will lead to peace rests on an idea imported from the Oslo Accords: that sovereignty will moderate extremism and allow a unified, constructive national project to emerge. This vision is now three decades old, and every observable outcome contradicts it.

In Gaza, the Palestinian Authority was violently expelled by Hamas after brief coexistence. Elections produced a terror regime, not a liberalizing one. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority rules through repression and factional patronage, not consensus or reform. There is no convergence between these two regimes, only mutual suspicion, periodic arrests of each other's supporters, and competing claims to legitimacy.

Even if a Palestinian state were declared tomorrow, what kind of state would it be? The uncomfortable truth is that there is no shared vision. What exists instead are four competing "Palestines," projected selectively depending on the audience:

A Western-style progressive democracy, described to Western states, liberal donors and NGOs.
An Islamic theocracy, promoted to religious networks and Islamist allies.
A Marxist anti-imperialist front, pitched to Western student radicals and socialist groups.
An Arab nationalist republic run by a strongman, appealing to traditionalist regimes in the region.

These visions are mutually exclusive, yet the Palestinian movement has never been forced to reconcile them. Why? Because they are held together not by a common aspiration to build, but by a common commitment to destroy. The only consistent message across all factions and rhetorical strategies is rejection of Israel’s legitimacy and existence. That is the glue holding the fractured movement together.

Yasir Arafat was a master at using language to pretend that a Palestinian state would be all things to all people. he employed Marxist language for his Soviet sponsors, Islamist language to the extremists, democracy claims to the West and the pretense that is already was an Arab League state to other Arab leaders. At the same time his focus was on terrorism against Israel - something all the factions could agree on.

This is not nationalism as a project of construction. It is nationalism as a vehicle for permanent grievance. A state born of that logic will not stabilize the region. It will fracture violently, much like Libya after the fall of Gaddafi. There, tribal, religious, and ideological factions briefly united to topple a dictator, but with no agreed system of governance, they plunged into civil war. Iraq and Yemen offer similar lessons: opposition alone does not make a nation. When the enemy is gone and no shared vision remains, chaos follows.

This already happened in the Palestinian controlled areas with limited autonomy. Polls consistently show Hamas jihadists are more popular than Mahmoud Abbas' dictatorship. The socialists who are protesting have next to no support from Palestinian Arabs themselves. The dream of a real democracy that the Western nations pretend would emerge is pure fantasy.

The existing Palestinian Authority is now 30 years old. It has yet to build real workable institutions - its judicial system is a joke, its legislature is a giant rubber stamp, everyone recognizes it as corrupt and it is still a subsidiary of the PLO making even the elections they did have into performance art. IOne person rules every branch of government. ts most successful component is to lobby the international community to exclude Israel for cultural and sporting events. And the EU keeps sending money and experts to build a government that clearly does not want to govern.

Even the most dovish Palestinian faction says that their major goal is not to bring in the millions of Palestinians in Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries. It is to force Israel to accept them. That is not nationalism - it is the desire to destroy Israel. What other group in history has demanded that their own people resettle in a state that they claim has genocidal intent against them?

Recognition of a Palestinian state under current conditions does not incentivize peace. It rewards intransigence, excuses factionalism, and elevates rhetoric over responsibility. If it comes to fruition is a recipe for another Libya or Yemen. Worse, it signals to extremist groups that the path to legitimacy is not through compromise or reform, but through maximalist rejectionism and strategic victimhood.

This is not diplomacy. It is retreat from realism. Europe should not compound the failures of Oslo by endorsing a statehood bid that lacks unity, governance, and any willingness to coexist. The path to peace does not begin with symbolic gestures. It begins with clarity, accountability, and the courage to reject fantasy when it endangers the future.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Jewish News reports, "Jeremy Corbyn has declared his new political party’s commitment to 'absolute opposition to Zionism,' signalling a shift toward the hardline anti-Israel stance backed by Zarah Sultana."

This is hardly earthshaking news, except it is still noteworthy that a British political party can make anti-Zionism a main part of its platform - and many will vote for it for exactly that reason. Antisemitism is no longer a political liability, especially in a parliamentary style democracy where you can always count on a percentage of the population prioritizing hating Jews over anything else. A party with 5% of the vote can have a large impact in coalition politics.

Something else Corbyn said was telling:

Zionism was a creation. I was reading about imperial history of Zionism. Actually, it first reared its head even before the late 19th century, US Zionism in 1840 by British policy towards the Middle East. The whole Zionist project was about expanding Israel forever more and that is exactly what Netanyahu is doing the greater Israel project. So absolutely opposition of course to Zionism and absolute solidarity with the people of Palestine.

What happened in 1840? That was the year of the Damascus blood libel, where Jews were accused of killing a monk. The international community was outraged and put political pressure on the Ottoman Empire to release those falsely accused.

Some historians, whom I believe have more than a little bias, have re-interpreted what happened after the Damascus Affair. It unified Jews as a political force as never before. Pre-dating the incident, the British Protestants were talking about restoring Jews to Palestine mostly as a way to help usher in the Second Coming. Some thought about making Palestine a type of protectorate to help this happen. But after 1840, their thinking went more towards encouraging a Jewish-controlled government that would be friendly to Britain - not an imperialist outpost.

The point of Zionism, of course, is entirely to protect Jews from antisemitic incidents - pogroms and blood libels like the Damascus Affair. For Corbyn to position a major antisemitic incident as an excuse Jews used for Jewish "imperialism" is nothing less than naked antisemitism. It is one small step from accusing Jews of actually killing the monk and then framing it as a false flag operation for their Zionist ambitions, which is the exact type of logic that is seen daily in Arabic media.

The idea that "The whole Zionist project was about expanding Israel forever" as well as calling it colonialist or, more recently, "settler colonialist" are attempts to rewrite history to fit today's anti-Israel bias. None of it is true, barely any Zionist is interested in anything past the borders of the original British Mandate that was promised to the Jews.

Yes, it is politically incorrect nowadays to mention that Judea and Samaria was never part of any Palestinian Arab state, real or imagined, but it was included in the Jewish homeland planned under the League of Nations mandate system. It is not a land grab - it is an insistence on international law. People may argue about the law, but to position the Jewish desire to hold onto lands promised to them by the League of Nations as "expanding Israel forever" is simply a lie.

And right on cue, Corbyn follows up: "And so we as Your Party UK are absolutely in solidarity with the people of Palestine and be guided by them on the policies we develop, guided by them on the way we go forward." Funny how the crowd screeching about "Israel controlling US policy" stays stone-silent when a British pol hands the reins to Ramallah. If AIPAC's a "lobby menace," what's this - outsourced diplomacy? It's the mirror they won't look in, where "anti-Zionism" means cheering foreign veto power over what's best for your own country.

Corbyn is not ignorant. He knows the history and chooses to frame it in the most antisemitic way possible. Which indicates whether he is "anti-Zionist" or really something else.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)