Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, December 18, 2025

12/18 Links Pt1: Why Won't the West Defend Jews?; Netanyahu pleads for Australia to ‘Wake up’; Police probe possible link between MIT professor's killing and Brown University shooting

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The global intifada

For starters, a responsible and civilized government should be rooting out these extremist imams, prosecuting or deporting them as appropriate. It should be banning the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, along with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is intolerable that these subversive or terror-promoting groups should be operating with impunity in the West.

In addition, any responsible and civilized government should be calling out the defamatory lies about Israel as the tissue of falsehoods that they are and as a weapon of war to destroy Israel through delegitimization

Yet the British, Australian and Canadian governments have themselves been promoting these lies, thus fanning the flames of murderous Islamist hysteria about Israel and Jews.

The Jewish world should be likewise calling out those in its own community who unwittingly lend their support to the Islamist onslaught.

The danger to the Jews is not just from physical attack. What we are witnessing is an all-out onslaught—not just on Israel, but on Judaism, by anti-Israel obsessives both inside and outside the Jewish community who are seeking to set Judaism against Zionism.

Since Judaism constitutes the inseparable fusion of the people, the faith and the land, setting it against Zionism—the right of the Jews to self-determination in their ancestral homeland—is an attempt to rip out Judaism’s very soul.

If the struggle to stamp out antisemitism is to mean anything more than hollow platitudes, then it must consist of zero tolerance for Islamic extremism—and zero tolerance for the delegitimization of the world’s only Jewish state.

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Why Won't the West Defend Jews?

Bondi Beach is not occupied territory. It is not contested land. Still, on a day marked for celebration, Jews were once again slaughtered, picked off by a Muslim father and son who were motivated to kill as if it were their God-given right.

The war has not ended. It has migrated. It is a war that spreads through ideology, through grievance networks, through digital propaganda and imported narratives, recruiting from mosques and message boards, from fringe collectives and activist mobs. The enemies of the West no longer require battalions; they need only a few men with weapons.

Our political leaders urge Jews to stay calm, as if a lack of calm is the issue. Many Jews are drawing the only logical conclusion: their governments may not ever properly protect them. They are making plans - not out of hysteria, but realism. It is not cowardice to prepare for an exit when one's position has been abandoned from above. It is memory at work.

There is an unholy alliance of Islamists and anarchists whose shared aim is to destabilize the West from within. Their targets are not only Jews but the norms that sustain Western civilization: public safety, legal equality, freedom of expression, civic trust. This time they came for Hanukkah. Next time they'll come for Christmas.

Jews represent the freedoms and values of the West because many of those values are actually Jewish, embraced and adopted by Christianity and wider secular society. The attacks by the enemies of civilization on us are actually just one small part of their broader attacks on the entire West.

Security measures once reserved for foreign embassies are now required at primary schools. This is not normal. Yet this is the modern Jewish experience. The moral clarity required to confront this has been replaced by moral confusion. The state, instead of defending its citizens robustly, now negotiates with those who threaten them. It manages risk rather than removing it. That is how a festival becomes a crime scene.

The Impotence of the West in the Face of Islamist Antisemitism

The massacre perpetrated in Sydney against hundreds of Jews celebrating Hanukkah proves once again that Islamists are waging a religious war against the people of Israel and against all non-believers in the West. They consistently choose a Jewish or Christian holiday to commit barbaric attacks.

Western nations have remained unable to eradicate the scourge of Islamist terror. Numerous attacks have been thwarted thanks to invaluable intelligence provided by Mossad to various intelligence services. Without these warnings, the list of Islamist attacks in Europe and Australia would have been longer.

There is no difference between the Palestinian Hamas terrorists and all the Shiite and Sunni terrorists who perpetrate attacks in Sydney, Washington, Manchester, or Paris. They all wish to create Islamic states in place of the Jewish state and Christian countries. Even today, Saladin remains a hero of Islam, the great victor over the Crusaders in 1187.

We have no choice but to continue our tireless fight against the cult of death. It is our collective destiny. For over a century, we have been fighting the scourge of Palestinian terrorism, and every day we thwart planned attacks. The Jewish state is acting in legitimate self-defense and has the absolute right to fight, without pity and without mercy, against all those who want to wipe us off the map.

Police probe possible link between MIT professor's killing and Brown University shooting

Authorities are looking into a connection between last week's mass shooting at Brown University and the death of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Nuno Loureiro, local media reported, citing multiple individuals familiar with the matter.

Investigators are reportedly searching for a person of interest, believing that the vehicle rented by the Brown University shooter is of the same make and model as the one identified in the investigation into Loureiro's killing, according to The New York Times.

According to AP, the FBI had previously said it knew of no links between the cases.

Two shot at Brown Uni, MIT professor gunned down in home
The shooting at Brown University left two students dead and another nine people wounded. Police have released surveillance footage showing the possible shooter in order to gain the public's help in identifying the assailant.

"We are doing everything we can to reassure folks, to provide comfort, and that is the best answer I can give to that difficult question,” AP quoted Providence Mayor Brett Smiley as saying as he acknowledged that "a scary time in the city."

Loureiro, however, was found critically wounded by gunfire inside his home in the town of Brookline near Boston on Tuesday, some 80 km away from Brown University. He was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead in the early morning hours.

Al Aqsa Sermon To Incite Violence Thwarted By Unskippable Ads (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Jerusalem, December 18 - The firebrand preacher attempting to exhort his Islamic flock to defend their faith and land by visiting bloody vengeance against Jews and asserting dominance over them found that his address missed the mark, the man confessed soon after the event, probably because his momentum was disrupted by the unavoidable commercial clips that plague online media and must be viewed to completion before anyone may proceed to the content for which they came in the first place.

Imam Mustafa Massikr of the Al-Aqsa Mosque voiced his frustration and disappointment this morning following a sermon that he had anticipated would ignite a violent fervor among those in attendance, but that fizzled when the unskippable ads began playing over the compound's sound and video systems.

"I had planned for something grand, something inspiring," he lamented. "Something to restore the pride of our Islamic flock, which faces disappointment after disappointment in the fight against the Jews. A hundred years now of seeing triumph around the corner, of a victory so close we can taste it. Of driving the Jew into the dirt, or into the sea, only to find..." he trailed off.

"Let's just say that any moments of victory have been just that, moments, when in the larger sense, Israel isn't going anywhere, and deep down, we all know it."

"The ads are just a microcosm," he acknowledged.“ I’m up there, voice rising, fists clenched, about to deliver the classic ‘Itbāḥ al-Yahūd’ line that never fails to get the blood up, and suddenly—bam!—a smiling blonde woman in a hijab that somehow costs three hundred dollars appears on every screen telling us we can consolidate our payday loans in three easy steps. At a volume somehow even louder than we thought the speakers could carry. By the time she’s done explaining the APR, the moment is gone. The flock just stares at their phones, wondering if they qualify.”

Worshippers confirmed the account. “I was ready,” said Rami al-Qawasmi, 29, from nearby Silwan. “Knife sharpened, will steeled, everything. Then some guy in a lab coat starts yelling about reverse-osmosis water filters ‘that Israel can’t poison.’ I actually wrote down the website before I realized what I was doing. Now I have cleaner water but zero dead Jews. Mixed results, honestly.”

Technical staff at the mosque blamed the Waqf’s new cost-cutting streaming package. “We switched to the free tier,” admitted sound engineer Hassan al-Dajani. “Turns out the free tier includes fifteen-second unskippable ads every four minutes. We thought it would only affect the ladies’ section livestream. Lesson learned.”

Imam Massikr has vowed to try again next week, this time with a paid subscription. “Ad-free jihad is apparently twenty-nine ninety-nine a month,” he muttered. “Infidel capitalism has found a way to monetize even our sacred rage. Allah help us, the Jews don’t have to fire a single bullet anymore; JewTube Premium is doing it for them.”

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

We've discussed how antisemitism is a result of Jews not fitting into the simplistic binaries of many philosophies and how that makes Jews a threat that must be eliminated. But it still does not explain why ordinary people - people who do not think in ideological terms at all - are so drawn to antisemitism. Why do hundreds of thousands of people eagerly attend anti-Israel demonstrations while showing little interest in almost any other cause? What emotional need does modern antisemitism fill?

Modern Western societies have become extraordinarily good at explaining how the world works. They are far less capable of explaining why anything should matter. This has been the primary goal of traditional religions: they provide moral structure, a sense of purpose, shared rituals, communal belonging, and a path toward moral elevation.

As religious belief declined, those psychological and social functions did not disappear. The human need for meaning remained.

A strictly secular, materialist worldview struggles to offer meaning. If science can explain why we act how we do to so many people, then what good is acting morally? If we are deterministic machines and life has no inherent meaning, then what difference does it make how we act? We might as well be selfish and optimize the world for our personal pleasure. Some philosophies try to replace meaning with reason - "if everyone acted selfishly then everyone would suffer" - but reason alone rarely provides the meaning that spirituality does.

There is a deep need inside us to feel morally oriented in the universe, to participate in something larger than ourselves, and to know where we stand in relation to good and evil. When that need is unmet, it does not vanish. It looks elsewhere.

Modern ideological movements often recreate the form of religion without acknowledging it. They offer a sacred story (oppression vs. liberation), a cosmic struggle (good vs. evil), moral status, a teleology (history itself arcing towards the good.) And activists extend this into sacrament: marches as ritual, slogans as prayer, chanting as gospel music. Chanting together with hundreds of others produces the felt experience of moral elevation, even when no moral action follows.

The modern secularists fill a need that people have for a life beyond themselves But they do not demand what traditional religions do: obligation. No repentance is required, no inward change is demanded. One becomes “good” by simply showing up, standing on the right side, repeating the right phrases, chanting the right slogans. Being a part of a larger movement, marching together with hundreds of others, feels meaningful even when it has no underlying meaning. It feels like moral elevation without demanding moral actions.

This feeling of being morally right - or even morally superior - without obligation is immensely attractive. This is spirituality stripped of introspection.

For such systems to work at scale, they require moral clarity. Complexity does not mobilize passion. Binary frameworks - oppressor and oppressed, colonizer and indigenous, righteous and evil - provide instant moral legibility. They reduce the world to a story that can be inhabited emotionally without the burden of doubt.

Reality, however, resists binaries. And when it does, something must be forced into the role of the villain to preserve the story. And the story - in modern parlance, the narrative - is central. To understand why, it helps to look at a seemingly unrelated phenomenon: the modern use of the term “Turtle Island.”

“Turtle Island” appears today as a capitalized proper name for North America, frequently taught in universities and invoked in activist and academic settings as an ancient indigenous term that predates colonial naming. It is a modern myth.

Certain Indigenous creation stories, primarily among Algonquian and Haudenosaunee peoples, describe the entire world emerging on the back of a turtle after a primordial flood. The application of “Turtle Island” specifically to North America as a proper noun is new, popularized in the 1970s by non-indigenous writers and activists seeking a decolonized vocabulary. It has since been embraced by some First Peoples activists and institutionalized within academia, often presented as a recovered ancestral name rather than a contemporary symbolic adaptation.

The irony is striking. A modern, activist-driven myth, shaped by contemporary political needs, is treated as historical fact by institutions that pride themselves on empiricism, skepticism, and resistance to religious mythmaking. Questioning its provenance is often treated not as historical inquiry but as moral transgression.

A myth was needed to support an ideology. So one was created. Modernity needs myths as much as the ancients did.

Antisemitism operates in precisely the same way, but with far greater historical depth and emotional power.

Jews have occupied a unique role in Western moral imagination for nearly two thousand years. In Christian societies, Jews were not merely another minority. They were cast as the theological counterpoint to Christianity itself: the people who rejected salvation, clung to law instead of grace, and embodied resistance to redemption. The Jew became not just a social outsider, but a metaphysical problem.

Over centuries, this produced a durable archetype: the Jew as the obstinate resistor to moral resolution, the hidden corrupter, the eternal outsider whose continued existence threatened the coherence of the dominant worldview. Even as explicit Christian belief declined, this archetype did not disappear. Western culture, literature, and moral storytelling remained saturated with it.

Modern secular ideologies emerged from societies deeply shaped by Christian categories, even as they rejected Christian theology. The old antagonist was stripped of religious language and recast in political and ideological terms. Zionists replaced Christ-killers. Israel replaced the synagogue. Power replaced heresy. But the role remained intact. The myth of the Jew as the evil Other never went away; it just morphed because it was still needed by modern ideologies.

This helps explain why Western antisemitism differs fundamentally from traditional Muslim attitudes toward Jews. In classical Islamic societies, Jews were subordinate and restricted, but they were not cosmic enemies. They were despised second-class citizens, not metaphysical villains. The idea of Jews as a uniquely malevolent force entered much of the Muslim world through European Christian influence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, importing blood libels and conspiracy myths wholesale.

In the West, by contrast, the Jew had already been trained into the role of the villain. When modern secular movements needed an enemy capable of embodying illegitimacy, corruption, and moral obstruction all at once, the figure was already available. And this makes recruitment that much easier since the Jew already was associated with the role in the myth.

Jews are particularly useful for this role because they resist simplification. They are indigenous and diasporic, particularist and universalist, ancient and modern, religious and national. They persist across time in ways that disrupt linear stories of progress and redemption. In mythic frameworks that depend on clean binaries, this complexity is intolerable.

Flattening Jews into a single dimension solves the problem. Once Jews, Israelis, or “Zionists” are cast into familiar villain archetypes - the shadowy power, the colonial usurper, the hidden manipulator - the moral story becomes legible again. Popular culture has trained audiences for decades to recognize these figures instantly, rewarding recognition with emotional certainty. The narrative resumes, complete with righteous heroes and sanctioned hostility.

Antisemitism thus functions as a complete secular religion. It offers a sacred narrative, a cosmic struggle, communal belonging, ritual participation, and a promise of redemption. What it does not require is self-examination, restraint, or moral accountability. Redemption comes through opposition, not transformation.

This is why antisemitism escalates. The Jew as unparalleled evil is the myth that keeps these ideologies alive. The "apartheid" slander, the "genocide" libel, are not based on fact - they are modern myths that are too attractive to be defeated by simple facts, just like the Turtle Island myth. It is social engineering disguised as science, religion without introspection. Jewish complexity must be denied and Jewish existence itself becomes intolerable, because it threatens the coherence of the story. And coherence is more important than truth.

Antisemitism remains attractive not because people are uniquely hateful, but because modern societies have failed to provide meaning without illusion. In the absence of demanding spiritual frameworks, people gravitate toward substitutes that feel moral without being costly. Antisemitism checks every emotional box that religion once did while shedding truth, humility, and responsibility.

That is why it keeps returning, even among those most convinced they have transcended myth.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Here's an abstract of a brand new paper in Globalisation, Societies and Education by Jo Kelcey of American University of Beirut:

A tragedy foretold? The necropolitical foundations of the Gaza scholasticide
Jo Kelcey
Published online: 15 Dec 2025
Cite this article https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2025.2598276

ABSTRACT
This article contextualises the scholasticide in Gaza (2023 – ) within the longer history of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian education. Using primary and secondary historical sources, it argues that the near total destruction of Gaza’s education sector is the latest iteration of a longstanding repertoire of Israeli colonial violence enacted on Palestinian education since 1948. Through the lens of necropolitics, the article identifies how this treatment coalesces around three overarching logics: indigenous erasure, political containment and the normalisation of violence. In this way, the article contributes to broader debates regarding the relationship between education and conflict and provides a framework to understand how neo/colonialism operates in and through education.

There is a lot to unpack here. You can see how social sciences take previously defined concepts that may or may not even exist and apply them willy-nilly to Israel, by citing others who did it first and pretending that they are proven fact - hence, "scholasticide" (purposeful destruction of education) and "necropolitics" (a state asserting control over who lives and who dies.)

But it is also a shining example of how anyone can cherry pick whatever evidence they want and ignore the rest. The footnotes mention a handful of cases of Israel supposedly attacking schools, including in Lebanon - no context is given as to whether they were terror sites.

But what is not said is where the lies hide.

Before 1948, Arabs in Palestine were largely illiterate. Literacy rates tripled under Israeli rule as of the 1980s, no doubt they are much higher now.

Before 1967, there was not one university in the West Bank or Gaza. Not one. Under Israel's "scholasticide," 11 universities were opened as of 2005.

Before 1967, only a few hundred Palestinians went to colleges - after Israeli control, that number reached tens of thousands.

We have shown that Israel-haters are epistemologically equivalent to conspiracy theorists, and their explanations for these counterexamples show this clearly. They say that the Palestinians flocked to higher education in spite of Israeli restrictions. If Israeli "scholasticide" explains both why universities were built under Israeli control (and not under Egyptian/Jordanian control) but it also explains why Israel attacked universities in Gaza or Lebanon, then it doesn't explain anything.

It is an unfalsifiable assertion - there is literally nothing Israel could do to make the haters believe anything else.

Which makes this kind of research worse than useless. It is propaganda dressed in academic garb, which describes nearly all of the papers about Israel in many journals.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Washington Post has an investigation of Israel's attacks on Iran in June, Operation Rising Lion, and the operation to assassinate leading nuclear scientists, Operation Narnia.

There are some new details revealed; it is better than most stories about Israel in the media. But even so, it still tries to paint Israel as being heedless of human life:

For Operation Narnia, Israeli intelligence analysts assembled a list of the 100 most important nuclear scientists in Iran, then whittled the target roster down to roughly a dozen. They built dossiers on each man’s work, their movements, their homes — drawing on decades of espionage.

The operation wasn’t flawless. The Post and open-source investigative outlet Bellingcat were able to independently verify 71 civilian casualties in five strikes where nuclear scientists were targeted, using satellite imagery, video geolocation, death notices, cemetery records and coverage of funerals in Iranian media.

The Post and Bellingcat confirmed that 10 civilians, including a 2-month-old infant, were killed in the strike on the Professors Complex in Tehran’s Saadat Abad neighborhood. Witness accounts, combined with videos and images of the blast and resulting structural damage, indicate that the strike was similar to the force of a roughly 500-pound bomb.

Israel targeted another scientist, Mohammad Reza Sedighi Saber, at his Tehran home during the opening wave of strikes. Sedighi Saber wasn’t there, but his 17-year-old son was killed.

On the conflict’s last day, June 24, the elder Saber was killed at his relative’s home about 200 miles from the capital, in Astaneh-ye Ashrafiyeh in Gilan province. A resident there, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of government reprisals, told The Post that Saber had returned to his family home for his son’s mourning ceremony and was killed alongside other relatives. The Post verified 15 civilian deaths in this strike, including four minors. Two residences were leveled, leaving behind two craters where the homes once stood.

The newspaper then gave a couple of words to an Israeli official so it could pretend to be even-hansded, but the writers of the article clearly do not believe this:

Israeli security officials said they did everything possible to limit civilian casualties. “One of the major considerations for the planning of Operation Narnia was to try to minimize as much as possible the collateral damage,” a senior Israeli military intelligence officer said.

And then, two sentences later, without comment, we learn the truth:

A spokesperson for the Iranian government said in July that 1,062 people were killed in the Israeli strikes, including 276 civilians.

That is a military to civilian ratio of 3-1; absolutely unheard of in bombings that were largely done in urban areas.

And almost certainly Iran considers the nuclear scientists themselves to be civilian in this count.

That statistic proves that Israel really did try to minimize collateral damage and civilian deaths. The military value of the nuclear researchers was high enough to justify - under the laws of armed conflict - even 15 or 20 unwanted civilian deaths. This is not disproportionate under international law.

A decent newspaper would highlight that statistic to put everything else in context. A biased newspaper would bury it, without context, and give the overall impression that the truth is the opposite.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

12/17 Links Pt2: Norman Podhoretz, American Patriot , 1930-2025; David Collier: The al-Shifa Hospital Hostage Convoy; Trump: ‘I Will Always Be A Friend And A Champion To The Jewish People’

From Ian:

The light answers

In 1931, Rachel Posner placed her family’s chanukiyah on a windowsill in Kiel, Germany. Across the street hung a Nazi flag. She photographed the scene and wrote on the back: “ ‘Death to Judah,’ says the flag. ‘Judah will live forever,’ the light answers.” That menorah now resides at Yad Vashem, returned each year to Posner’s descendants to light anew.

The light answers. It answered in ghettos where Jews fashioned menorahs from scraps. It answered in Soviet gulags where prisoners risked everything for observance. It answers today, when Jewish communities worldwide face the highest levels of antisemitic vitriol and violence in decades.

To every Jew reading this, I plead: Do not dim your flame. Place your chanukiyah in the window. Let it be seen. The entire purpose of pirsumei nisa is to proclaim, publicly and unapologetically, that we are still here. Darkness has tried to extinguish us before. It has failed. It will fail again.

And to our neighbors—Christians, Muslims, those of other faiths or no faith at all—I ask you to consider lighting candles of your own. In 1993, after a brick was thrown through a Jewish child’s window in Billings, Montana, thousands of non-Jewish households placed menorahs in their own windows. The message was unmistakable: An attack on our Jewish neighbors is an attack on us all.

We need that message again. The Lubavitcher Rebbe—Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson—taught that Chanukah carries “a universal message of freedom of the human spirit, freedom from tyranny and oppression, and of the ultimate victory of good over evil.” When Project Menorah encouraged non-Jews to display menorahs after Oct. 7, 2023, rabbis responded with overwhelming support. What matters is the intent. Not appropriation, but alliance. Not mimicry, but moral witness.

As the Rebbe wrote, “a little light dispels a lot of darkness.” The Chanukah menorah is not a mere decoration. It is a statement of resolve—that light persists, that the few can overcome the many, that the sacred endures and that evil is a mere shadow against the light.

Rabbi Eli Schlanger died bringing that light to his community on a beach in Sydney. In Los Angeles, plotters driven by the same hatred were stopped before their bombs could detonate. The light endures while darkness fails.

Tonight, and every night of Chanukah, I will add another flame. The darkness grows no darker, but our light grows stronger. Place your candles where they can be seen. Let the light answer.

Reading Washington’s signals: Redefining Israel’s role in America

The United States is gradually shifting its view of the Middle East from a troubled region to an emerging one. This forming zeitgeist is exactly where Jerusalem must meet Washington. Israel cannot offer luxury planes or other expensive gifts, much less free oil. What it can offer is a realization of America’s vision for the Mideast, a source and destination of investments.

Unlike its neighbors, Israel’s greatest asset is its people and their minds. Israeli innovation has produced an exceptionally high number of companies that are traded on American stock markets. Tel Aviv’s stock exchange is one of the best-performing in the world, especially considering the circumstances of the last half-decade. In the wake of the two-year, seven-front war, the country’s defense exports have reached an all-time high, with its missile-defense systems utilized throughout much of the world.

To an extent, Israel is already offering the United States access to much of this. Many Israeli-origin defense articles are developed and produced jointly with the United States. The two nations work together to engage in research that enables the creation of cutting-edge technologies, ensuring a mutual qualitative edge. Israeli entrepreneurs will try their luck in Silicon Valley or on Wall Street long before they’ll do so in any European or Asian capital. What’s missing is a greater governmental commitment to these efforts.

The message from Washington is clear: America wishes to see Israel elevated to the level of an equal partner and ally.

U.S. diplomats visit the country, see construction booms in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and rightfully conclude that it is capable of this. Israeli governments, whoever might lead them in the future, should step up to this moment and pursue extensive business diplomacy with the United States. Their primary task is to make sure that every emerging American entrepreneur is fully aware of just what it is—and just how much of it—Israel can provide.

Since the “classic” American reasons for maintaining a strong relationship with Israel seem to lose validity with each passing year, it is on Jerusalem to create new ones. To that end, it must showcase its advantages and make certain that they work in America’s favor. While this most recent prescription was jotted by the Trump administration, a proper Israeli response will resonate on both sides of the aisle and can define the relationship between the two countries for decades to come.

The Saudis have mastered the art of manipulation

The message was clear: Saudi Arabia has successfully bought American support while keeping its options open with Washington’s greatest adversary.

Meanwhile, Trump has made clear through his negotiations on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran that he is much more concerned with satisfying Arab interests than Israel’s. In that regard, he, too, is an Arabist.

Israel has traditionally been allied with the United States due to shared values and interests. Trump, however, cares only about interests—financial interests. He is unbothered by the disparate values of dictatorships. The murder and dismemberment of an American journalist doesn’t interest him. The Saudis are also less troublesome than the pesky Zionists, whom he sees as ruining his chance for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Saudis also have more to contribute to both the American and the Trump family coffers than the Israelis.

Trump is not necessarily pro-Israel; he is transactional. Values do not factor into the transaction.

Moreover, the deals with the Saudis benefit America. The pledge of up to $1 trillion in Saudi investment would inject massive capital into the American economy. Nvidia will prosper, and the contractors and subcontractors that make the F-35s and the other weapons Trump is selling will reap the benefits and create jobs. The economic activity will provide Republicans with talking points to showcase economic growth and industrial strength.

Trump is like his predecessors in appeasing the Saudis. The distinction is that the others weren’t interested in Saudi-Israeli peace. Instead, they were more focused on appeasing the Saudis’ supposed fealty to the Palestinian cause. Trump realizes that the Saudis have no love for the Palestinians. Notice that they have not agreed to allow any Gazans refuge in the kingdom or volunteered to pay to reconstruct Gaza. They look down on the Palestinians and support them only to the extent that it serves their interests.

This is why MBS appeared willing to sell out the Palestinians and normalize ties with Israel during talks with the Biden administration. But that became untenable after Oct. 7.

The crown prince fears that if he acts while Israel is killing Palestinians, then he might suffer the same fate as former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated by radical Muslims in 1981, several years after making peace with Israel in 1979. Moreover, as long as King Salman remains alive—a man steeped in antisemitism—normalization is unlikely.

Israel will survive Trump’s betrayal. Security compensation will eventually follow. Arms deliveries will be delayed and modified. Quiet intelligence cooperation with Saudi Arabia will continue against Iran. But the damage is real: The status of the Saudis has been elevated while Israel has been downgraded from strategic ally to negotiable asset.

A trillion dollars bought Saudi Arabia U.S. indulgence. Israel got nothing, except the lesson that loyalty, values and history carry less weight than a well-timed check.

12/17 Links Pt1: Douglas Murray: The Massacre at Bondi Beach Was Inevitable; NGO Monitor: Amnesty International Australia Insists on the Right to Intimidate Jews

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: The Massacre at Bondi Beach Was Inevitable

There will be plenty said in the coming days about why the two perpetrators (father and son) were allowed to own guns, despite their connections with individuals jailed for plotting terror attacks. There will be many questions raised about how their shooting spree could go on for almost ten minutes and why the Australian police were so unprepared for it. There will be questions about why a Jewish event celebrating Hannukah on the beach was not better protected, given the escalating risks against Australian Jews. And there will be official expressions of mourning for the 15 victims counted so far, ranging from a ten-year-old girl to an elderly Holocaust survivor who died sheltering his wife.

But the main question is why the Australian authorities did not take the concerns of Jewish Australians seriously, and why indeed they spent the last two years pandering to the ever-growing contingent of Muslim immigrants and others who have clearly been on the path to radicalization. It will not be enough for them to say that they did not know.

Far from tamping down the problem, the Anthony Albanese government has been viciously maligning Israel since October 7, 2023. It has expressly tried to stop people from correcting those denigrations. It has allowed mass incitement every week on Australian streets and tried to bar those who oppose such incitement.

If anyone thinks that this is an edge case, they do not need to look simply at the blood spilled on Bondi Beach. They merely have to ask a question many of us have asked for the past two years: What other group would expect to be treated like this?

In 2019, there was a terrible attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a lone gunman. It was a vicious, appalling attack. Outpourings of sympathy issued from all communities.

But imagine for a moment that there had not been. Imagine that immediately after that attack there had been huge crowds of Australians outside the Sydney opera house calling for Muslims or Arabs to be “gassed.”

Does anyone think that the Australian authorities would have taken this lightly? Does anyone think that if there had been anti-Muslim or anti-Arab demonstrations on the streets every week for the two years following the 2019 attack—expressly celebrating the attack and calling for it to happen again—that the Australian authorities would have stood by, or actually placated the mob? To ask the question is to answer it.

In the meantime, Jews in Australia will be asking the same question that Jews in New York and around the world are asking. And they will be facing the same conundrum that Jews around the world now face. If they are in Israel, they are attacked. If they are outside Israel, they are attacked. And if they are in New York or other cities outside Israel, feeling increasingly unsafe and wondering whether to move to Israel, then—as happened at Park East Synagogue in New York City last month—they will be attacked as well.

The problem has been in plain sight all along. It’s shameful that so many people in positions of power decided to metaphorically shoot the messengers, while all the time clearing a path for the real-life shooters to take aim, and fire.

Gil Troy: Make terrorism backfire: Rescinding recognition of ‘Palestine’

As the world is shocked by the Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre, and as experts pontificate about fighting abstractions like “hate,” too many ignore the most effective move Australia – and other countries – can make.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should say: “Palestinian terrorists and their supporters keep trying to advance the Palestinian cause by slaughtering innocents, Jews and non-Jews alike. Today, rather than impotently claiming ‘terrorism doesn’t work,’ we will prove it with one action. Terrorism doesn’t work – it backfires: Australia hereby rescinds its recognition of a Palestinian state.”

Instead, after two antisemitic anti-Zionists murdered 15 innocents and wounded dozens, Albanese guaranteed that the problem won’t end; he claimed that Australia’s recognizing of a fictitious Palestinian state didn’t encourage the Jew-slaughter.

Such head-in-the-sand thinking is like denying the link between Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the Holocaust. Mein Kampf wasn’t just a bestseller, and Australia’s pro-Palestinian stance isn’t just a policy. Since the 1970s, the world has repeatedly rewarded Palestinian terrorism by advancing the Palestinian cause. Since Hamas’s unspeakable barbarism on October 7, it’s become super-trendy to enable terror and greenlight Jew-hatred.

When terrorism is rewarded
Ghazi Hamad, a Qatari-based Hamas leader whom Western useful idiots deemed “pragmatic,” called Australia and other countries recognizing a Palestinian state one of the “fruits of October 7.”

Hamas celebrated the recognition as an “important step” and a “deserved outcome of our people’s struggle.”

Terrorists aren’t stupid. Western leaders claim “terrorism never works,” yet their appeasement and cowardice spur more violence. That’s why since 2000, over 106,000 terrorist attacks worldwide have murdered 249,941 people. Since October 7, 8,670 terrorist attacks – including stone-throwing – occurred in Judea and Samaria.

There’s a fine line between exploiting a tragedy for political reasons and disincentivizing terrorism. But Bondi Beach wasn’t some natural disaster.

NGO Monitor: Amnesty International Australia Insists on the Right to Intimidate Jews

The Hanukkah massacre at Sydney’s Bondi Beach on December 11, 2025 – in which 15 people were murdered and scores injured – marks the worst violence targeting Jews in Australia’s history. It follows a surge in antisemitic incidents – including violent assaults – in recent years.

Despite the blatant rise in antisemitism, Amnesty International Australia, which claims to “challenge injustice wherever it happens,” has consistently vilified and actively opposed measures intended to protect Australian Jews.

In addition, between the Hamas-orchestrated October 7th attacks and the killings at Bondi Beach, Amnesty Australia appears not to have published a single standalone report, article, or statement on antisemitism in the country.1 (A feeble, watered-down January 22, 2025 statement that Amnesty Australia co-signed, referenced “escalating hate crimes on the Jewish community and on the Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian communities in Australia.”)

Surging antisemitism in Australia
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) publishes annual assessments, documenting both the overall number of antisemitic incidents in Australia, as well as categorizing them and describing specific events. Its data demonstrate a sharp increase in both the total number, as well as the severity, of antisemitic incidents in Australia.

ECAJ Report on Anti-Jewish Incidents in Australia 2025, published December 3, 2025

Moreover, according to the New South Wales Police Force, from October 11, 2023 – March 26, 2025, it had recorded 367 antisemitic incidents, alongside 38 classified as Islamophobic. Notably, “In addition to incidents reported to, or investigated by, the NSW Police, the Community Security Group has recorded many hundreds of antisemitic events of which many are not recorded on NSW Police systems.” 2

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

After the Bondi Beach attack, there were public figures who could not bring themselves to describe the victims as Jews or to call the attack antisemitic. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was one of them.

In a statement released soon after the attack, Albanese said only that his “thoughts were with every person affected.” He did not mention Jews. He did not mention antisemitism. He did not say why the victims were targeted.

Albanese had no difficulty recognizing a Palestinian state that does not exist and never has. Yet he could not publicly acknowledge that Jews were murdered because they were Jews.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did acknowledge it. He also said he had warned Albanese months earlier about where this kind of language ends.

“On August 17, about four months ago, I sent Prime Minister Albanese of Australia a letter in which I warned that the Australian government’s policy was promoting and encouraging antisemitism in Australia.

I wrote: ‘Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets.’

Antisemitism is a cancer. It spreads when leaders stay silent; it retreats when leaders act.

Instead, Prime Minister, you replaced weakness with weakness and appeasement with more appeasement. Your government did nothing. You let the disease spread. The result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”

Albanese was not the only one to obscure the Jewish identity of the Bondi Beach victims.

Oprah Winfrey wrote, “My heart breaks for the victims, their families and loved ones, and all you Aussies.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Oprah (@oprah)

There was no mention of Jews or antisemitism. Not anywhere. Oprah simply made us disappear.

Israeli American Council (IAC) CEO Elan Carr called Winfrey out, referring to the missing identification of the victims as Jews in her statement as "obfuscation."

“Oprah’s neglect to name the actual targets and victims of the attack, Jews celebrating Hanukkah, conceals both the true nature of this horrific event and the appalling surge in antisemitism that gave rise to it,” said IAC CEO Elan S. Carr, a former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. “For a public figure to express sorrow over the attack without saying that it was an antisemitic mass murder of Jews during their celebration of a holiday is precisely the sort of misguided obfuscation that allows antisemitism to flourish.”

Just as we now have ample evidence from the global reaction to the massacre of October 7 that terror begets terror, we also have evidence that omitting to call attacks "antisemitic," or the victims "Jews" begets more of the same. In 2015, for example, then President Obama famously referred to the 2015 shooting at the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris that left four Jews dead as a random shooting of “a bunch of folks in a deli.”

Former White House secretary Jen Psaki, when pressed to explain her boss’ assertion that the victims were “random,” doubled down, knowing full well that calling the Hyper Cacher shooting “random” was immoral and a complete falsehood.

I created a transcript of the exchange between veteran AP journalist Matt Lee and Psaki to show all the nervous stutters that gave her away.

Matt Lee: Yesterday uh, the President in his news conference raised some eyebrows by saying that the victims, of the, uh, shooting in Paris at the kosher deli were uh “random.” Um, your colleague at the White House apparently said something similar today. Um, doe. . . is that, really, I mean, does the Administration really believe that these peop-that the, the victims of this attack were, were not, uh singled out because they were of a particular faith?
Jen Psaki: Well as you know, I believe, if I remember the victims specifically there were, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality. So, I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that of the specific individuals who were impacted.
Matt Lee: Well. I mean, right, but when the Secretary went and paid respects to he was with a member of the Jewish community there.
Jen Psaki: Naturally, given that it’s the, the na-th-th-th th-the grocery store is one that uh,
Matt Lee: Well don’t you think that the target, maybe, even if all the victims, e-even if the victims came from different backgrounds, from different religions, different nationalities, was the target, the store itself was the target. Was it not? I mean. . .
Jen Psaki: But that’s different than the individuals being. I don’t have any more to really. . .
Matt Lee: All right, well, does the Administration believe this was an anti-Jewish, uh, uh attack on, an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?
Jen Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was, uh, the situation at, at play here.
Matt Lee: Yeah, but if a guy goes into a, a, a, a, a kosher market and starts shooting it up, you know, he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?
Jen Psaki: Well again, Matt, I think it’s relevant that obviously the individuals in there who were shopping and working at the store. . .
Matt Lee: Who does one ex . . . who does the Administration expect shops at a kosher, I mean I would like but you know, an attacker, going into a store that is clearly identified as being one of you know, as, as identified with one specific faith. I’m not sure I can, I understand how it is that you can’t say that this was a, that this is was, that this is not a targeted attack.
Jen Psaki: I don’t have anything more on this for you Matt, this is a topic for the French government to address.

Psaki was flat out lying when she told Lee, “Well as you know, I believe, if I remember the victims specifically there were, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality.”

All four of the Hyper Cacher shooting were Jews. There was no way that Psaki was unaware of this fact.

The backpedaling of the Obama administration was, of course, not long in coming. We were lied to by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest who tweeted that the administration’s views “had not changed,” that Obama had never meant to suggest that the attack was anything but antisemitic.

Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
— J Earnest (Archived) (@PressSec44) February 10, 2015

And not long after Jen Psaki refused to say the victims were Jews, she falsely claimed on Twitter that the White House administration had “always been clear that the attack . . . was an anti-semitic [sic] attack.”

We have always been clear that the attack on the kosher grocery store was an anti-semitic attack that took the lives of innocent people.
— State Department Spokesperson 2013-2025 (@statedeptspox_a) February 10, 2015

It’s a funny thing: When Jews are murdered, the people at the top of the food chain—government officials and celebrities—suddenly go nonspecific. They say “victims” or “families.” They say, “people affected.”

But they won’t say the J word: “Jews.”

Even before the Hyper Cacher attack, the Obama White House tried very hard to not talk about Jews when they were victims of terror. A year earlier, when Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel were kidnapped (and subsequently murdered), it took six days for the White House to respond, even though one of the teens, Naftali Fraenkel, was an American citizen.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of 3 Israeli teens who were kidnapped last week. May they be reunited with their sons soon.
— White House Archived (@ObamaWhiteHouse) June 17, 2014

Then, during a press conference, Jen Psaki couldn’t bring herself to utter Naftali’s name, or perhaps as she claimed, she simply couldn’t remember it.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Jo.

Question: Can I ask if you have a privacy waiver for the - one of the teenagers?

MS. PSAKI: We do, yes. So we can confirm that one of the kidnapped was an American citizen.

QUESTION: Which one?

MS. PSAKI: I believe his name has been reported. I don't have it in front of me right now.

Again and again, when Jews are targeted, the language changes. Specific words disappear. Everything becomes vague. By choice. Everyone knows who was attacked and they know why. But some people choose to omit the truth.

It's not that they've forgotten who was murdered. They haven't lost the words. It's that they've carefully chosen which words to use. They'll say “victims" or "families." They'll say “people affected.” But they won't say “Jews.”

Because when Jews are murdered and no one says they are Jews, the killing is stripped of its reason. The victims lose their identity. The attack becomes just another “random” act of violence.

Leave the victims unnamed and the crime can be treated like any other crime. Nothing about it is Jewish. Nothing about it is special.

You can murder Jews, and afterward it will be spoken about as if it had nothing to do with Jews at all. But when nothing is named, there is nothing to stop the next attack. And right now, at least, that seems to be what most of the world would like to see.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A tale of two Canadian delegations to the Middle East, 66 years apart

There are reports that a delegation of 30 Canadians, including six members of Parliament, was denied entry from Jordan into the territories early Tuesday.

Israel said that this was because the sponsor of the group, The Canadian Muslim Vote, allegedly has ties to an Israeli-designated terrorist entity.

The diplomatic reaction has been instant, as the Foreign Affairs Minister expressed anger and dismay: "

Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand posted a statement on X this afternoon concerning the "mistreatment" of the Canadian delegation.

"Today a private delegation of Canadians — which included Members of Parliament — was denied entry to the West Bank at an Israeli border crossing," Anand wrote.

"Global Affairs is in contact with the delegation and we have expressed Canada’s objections regarding the mistreatment of these Canadians while attempting to cross."

Neither Israel's banning of the delegation nor Canada's objections are surprising.

But I cannot help to remember a little known incident from 1959, where another Canadian delegation visited the region, and a member of the then-parliament was also stopped - this time, by Jordan - from entering the Old City of Jerusalem from Israel..

The reason? Because he was Jewish.

This was barely reported even in Canada. Here's the story from Page 19 of The Expositor (Bradford), November 23, 1959

Not only did Canada not object, but even when the Speaker of the House of Commons was asked about the incident, he refused to say anything negative.

An MP was denied access to Jerusalem because he was Jewish, and Canada couldn't even muster up the self-respect to issue a statement in his defense.

Israel's actions today are defensible. Like any country, Israel has the right to restrict access by people who support terrorist organizations, even indirectly. British MP George Galloway was banned from entering Canada in 2009 for his support of Hamas, and the UK government did not say a word of protest.

But isn't it interesting that Canada did not even stand up for its own MP in 1959 in the face of blatant antisemitism, yet turns Israel's actions into an international incident?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

For many years, discussions of antisemitism have focused on attitudes and behaviors - hatred, prejudice, discrimination, or violence directed at Jews. My own definition is more precise than many others, but it still follows the same basic pattern: identifying antisemitism after the fact, once it had already manifested in words or actions.

But these definitions do not explain why antisemitism keeps reappearing in radically different ideological environments, nor why it so often emerges among people who sincerely deny any animus toward Jews.

After examining antisemitism across religious, racial, political, and ideological forms, I realized that there is a common denominator to all versions of antisemitism: antisemitism reliably appears where Jews break philosophical systems.

Antisemitism emerges most consistently in worldviews that rely on false binaries — clean, totalizing categories that claim to explain how the world works. These frameworks demand legibility: oppressor versus oppressed, religion versus nation, universal versus particular, colonizer versus indigenous, progressive versus reactionary.

Jews repeatedly break these binaries.

Jews are a people, but not defined solely by territory.
Jews are a religion, but not reducible to private belief.
Jews are a nation, but not a conventional civic nation-state.
Jews are a tribe, but one that survives dispersion.

These categories overlap but do not contradict each other. Jewish identity is layered, historically continuous, and covenantal. It resists simplification. That resistance is precisely what creates friction with ideologies that require neat classification to function.

When a philosophy encounters Jews and cannot accommodate them, it does not modify itself to reflect reality. Instead, it does one of two things: it becomes explicitly eliminationist toward Jews altogether, or it redefines what Jews are and what they are not. It never adjusts its categories to accommodate Jews as they actually exist.

From this pattern emerges a structural definition of antisemitism:

An ideology is structurally antisemitic if it requires the negation, erasure, or redefinition of Jewishness — as a people, a nation, a covenant, or a moral tradition — in order to remain internally coherent.

This definition does not depend on hatred, intent, or emotional hostility. It does not require mind-reading to establish intent. A system can be structurally antisemitic even when it claims moral concern, universal justice, or even Jewish well-being. What matters is whether Jewish existence, as it actually is, can be tolerated without collapse.

Structural antisemitism is often difficult to detect because it operates through affirmation rather than denial. Modern Arab antisemitism defines Judaism as merely a religion, and in that way it denies Jewish peoplehood. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists define Jews as a distinct race but not as a nation or religion that a non-Aryan can join.

The antisemitism lies not in what these systems say Jews are, but in what they cannot allow Jews to be.

If a system requires Jews not to be a people, not to have national expression, not to maintain covenantal obligations, or not to assert particular identity, the exclusion itself is the antisemitism.

This brings us to the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform of Reform Judaism.

The platform famously declared: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.”

This statement predated political Zionism. It was driven by a desire for emancipation, safety, and acceptance within liberal nation-states. But structurally, it was antisemitic.

The platform accepted a universalist Enlightenment framework that could not tolerate distinct Jewish peoplehood. In order for that framework to remain coherent - and for Jews to belong - Jewish nationhood had to be denied.

Jewish peoplehood was treated as illegitimate. The intent was not antisemitic, but the effect undeniably was.

The Reform movement later reversed course. The 1937 Columbus Platform reintroduced Jewish peoplehood and attachment to the Land of Israel. Later statements in the late 20th century fully embraced Zionism and Jewish national identity. It realized what damage can occur by denying aspects of Judaism.

But the damage had already been done. Today's antisemites often refer to the early opposition to Zionism among the Reform as proof that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic. The citation itself depends on preserving a position the movement ultimately abandoned because it was untenable.

Modern anti-Zionism relies on the same structural denial. To oppose Zionism consistently is to deny that Jews are a people with a right to national self-determination. That denial is not mere political critique – it is the categorical erasure of a core dimension of Jewish identity.

This is where the claim that anti-Zionism is merely criticism of Israel collapses. The antisemitism does not lie in criticism of Israeli policy; it lies in the denial of Jewish nationhood, peoplehood, and the right to self-determination. A framework can permit unlimited criticism of Israel and still be morally coherent. It becomes antisemitic only when Jewish collective existence itself is treated as illegitimate.

This structural definition does more than clarify history. It provides a predictive tool.

Any philosophy can be tested with a simple question:

Does this system require redefining Jews in order to remain coherent?

If Jews must not be a people, not be indigenous, not be a nation, not be a protected ethnic group, or not be morally particular, the system is structurally antisemitic, whether or not it acknowledges that fact.

This is why contemporary frameworks such as DEI and certain identity-based models are antisemitic at the structural level. If Jews are denied tribal or ethnic status, they are excluded from protections granted to other groups. If Jews are redefined as uniformly “white” and “privileged,” antisemitism becomes morally permissible – or even obligatory – within the framework. Binary identity logic inevitably produces hostility toward Jews precisely because Jews do not fit any binary.

When systems accept every form of indigenous identity except Jewish, recognize every victim group except Jews, and validates every connection of a people to a land except the Jewish one, then it structurally requires Jewish non-existence in order to maintain its categories.

This definition changes the conversation.

Instead of Jews defending themselves against accusations of hypersensitivity or special pleading, the burden shifts to the ideology: Why does your system need to redefine Jews in order to function? What does that say about the system itself?

When Jews insist on the proper definition of what being Jewish means, then defending Israel, Jewish peoplehood, or identity is not bigotry or supremacism. It is insisting on Jews being treated like any other national, religious or ethnic group. Jews can say, “We are protecting a category of human difference that your system wants erased.”

And what starts with Jews never ends with Jews. Antisemitism, understood structurally, is not merely a Jewish problem. It is a warning sign of philosophical failure. Systems that cannot tolerate Jewish complexity cannot tolerate other forms of complexity - and the results are too often horrible for any group that the ideology cannot handle.

That is why antisemitism is diagnostically useful, and why confronting it at the structural level is not only a Jewish imperative, but a moral one.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)