Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

04/06 Links Pt2: The Jewish Passion for Freedom and Human Rights Was Hijacked by the West; Why Israeli Youth Remain Positive during War

From Ian:

Gerald M. Steinberg: The Jewish Passion for Freedom and Human Rights Was Hijacked by the West

Freedom and human rights are universal values, and Jews have often been at the forefront of these struggles, playing central roles in the creation of the modern human rights movement, forged in the shadow of the Holocaust. They built strong institutions tasked with implementing these principles. But now these institutions and their leaders have betrayed the moral force behind their creation. They stand for and reinforce hate and demonization directed at Israel.

Rene Cassin, a Jewish jurist from France, was a principal drafter of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Raphael Lemkin (who coined the term "genocide") was a principal author of the Genocide Convention.

Peter Benenson, a journalist from a prominent Jewish and Zionist family in Britain, founded Amnesty International, turning it into a political superpower. Robert L. Bernstein, the head of Random House publishers, built Helsinki Watch to report on Soviet compliance with the human rights components of the U.S.-Soviet detente known as the Helsinki Accords. The organization expanded into Human Rights Watch. Bernard Kouchner, a French Jew, helped found Doctors Without Borders.

When the founders of all three institutions retired, their legacy and moral principles were abandoned. The new leaders were anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Israel ideologues for whom the rhetoric of human rights was a convenient political weapon. They went from false claims against Israel of "war crimes" to the poisonous accusation of "genocide" - a heinous form of Holocaust inversion. In 2009, Bernstein began to denounce the organization he created - Human Rights Watch - for turning Israel into a pariah state.

The hostile takeover of the principles of freedom and human rights, and the institutions that claim to embody them, has done tremendous damage, not only to the Jewish people but also to the moral values themselves.

A Jew Among Jews By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
During Passover, the Free Press published a beautiful piece by Olivia Reingold titled “I Am an October 8 Jew.” In it, she describes how, after October 7, she began to reclaim the Jewish heritage she had all but abandoned as a child. Eventually, Reingold would find herself moved to tears during a recent Shabbat service, “a day that used to mean nothing to me, except more time to scroll online or work.”

I can’t say that I’m an October 8 Jew, as I was devoted to the cause well before then. But something about my Judaism has also changed since October 7.

I’ve long been a passionate Zionist, and I’ve felt that I owe everything to God. While I am a devoted believer, however, I’m a very negligent observer. Having come fully to embrace my Judaism only in adulthood, I’ve done slightly more than the bare minimum to maintain a personal sense of Jewish tradition.

Beginning a few decades ago, I went about kosher eating in my own way (and I’ve got my biblical justifications for it). I wrap tefillin in phases, the way others might go to the gym, slack off, and then resume. I pore over the Hebrew Bible regularly but in no regimented fashion. I tread lightly and humbly into the Talmud.

All of which is to say, I have cobbled together my own version of observance and continue to fine-tune it. Many Jews do the same.

Judaism, as I came to it, was about my relationship with my God, my place in history, and my inheritance. A lot of “my” was involved in this, but somehow “my people” barely came up.

October 7 changed me in this important respect. Before that day, I had never felt much of an ongoing obligation to my fellow Jews around the world. Of course, whenever I heard news of threatened or assaulted Jews, the bonds of history and faith would take hold. But they would once again recede. I didn’t think a great deal about how my actions or words affected the Jews of Australia, Asia, Europe, and elsewhere.

Betrayal of the Kurds shows why Jews depend on Israel

This is why Jews need the state of Israel. It is a lesson delivered by the Holocaust and by every atrocity and injustice meted out to the powerless ever since. Israel must hold. And its situation is precarious. It is tiny and vastly outnumbered by its enemies. Around 15km wide at its narrowest point, the country has no strategic depth, nowhere for it to retreat to in the event of a military defeat.

So Israel must fight to survive. It can never rest or become complacent. It must be powerful.

But it must also be smart. Tactical brilliance must be accompanied by the kind of strategic and political foresight that has been unforgivably absent for far too long.

And central to this is finding an accommodation, not just with Iran – when the pathologically murderous Islamic Republic is finally gone – but with another of the world’s stateless people: the Palestinians. Right now, there is no leadership – on either side – to make this possible. But Israel cannot abandon peace, not just because it is a moral imperative, but because it is a strategic one.

It is here that my mind returns to a line from, of all things, the TV series The Wire. Gang leader Avon Barksdale is standing by the hospital bed of a comatose friend, talking to his nephew D’Angelo Barksdale about the inescapable logic of “the game” – the brutal system in which they all live. “The thing is, you only gotta fuck up once. Be a little slow, be a little late, just once,” he says. “And how you ain’t gon’ never be slow? Never be late?”

From Rojava to Baltimore to Gaza and Tehran the point is the same: to survive in “the game” – be it drug dealing or the far more brutal world of geopolitics – being strong is unignorably necessary. But it is not sufficient. Avon knows that his only future is jail or death.

Thankfully, Israel’s options are broader. But it must internalise Avon’s words – because no one wins every war forever. At some point, you will be slow, you will be late. You must defeat your enemies. But you must also make peace with them – or you will never find peace yourself.

US Court of Appeals affirms $655.5 million judgement against PLO, Palestinian Authority

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated a $655.5 million judgement against the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority for supporting terrorist attacks and making payments to the perpetrators.

In a March 30 decision, the three-judge panel reversed its previous decision to throw out the case following a 2025 Supreme Court decision in a similar suit and the passage of a 2019 federal law designed to enable the victims of terrorism to pursue civil court cases against the perpetrators.

The plaintiffs in the case, Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org, are a group of U.S. citizens injured during terrorist attacks in Israel or the estates and survivors of victims killed in those attacks.

In 2004, they filed suit against the PLO and PA under the Anti-Terrorism Act. After a seven-week trial, a jury returned a verdict in their favor, and the district court judge entered a judgement against the Palestinian organizations for nearly $656 million.

In the succeeding two decades, the plaintiffs have largely been stymied on appeal, with the PA and PLO successfully arguing that the courts lacked jurisdiction.

In 2025, the Supreme Court decided in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization to reverse and remand the 2nd Circuit’s most recent decision to toss out the Waldman case and clarified the jurisdictional question.

The 2nd Circuit’s new decision granted the plaintiffs’ motion to affirm the district court’s original judgement in light of the Supreme Court decision.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry welcomed the ruling on Monday.

“A major step in holding the Palestinian authority accountable for its long-lasting terror support—financially and legally,” it stated.

04/06 Links Pt1: Myths of the Iran War; 5 Men Now Running Iran; Iran rejects Pakistan-mediated truce deal; Russia provided Iran with list of Israeli energy targets

From Ian:

Myths of the Iran War

One myth related to the war is that if enriched uranium remains in Iran, the war has failed. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran possesses 441 kg. of uranium enriched up to 60%. Israel and the U.S. never intended to deploy thousands of troops deep inside Iran to seize nuclear facilities. Absent a comprehensive agreement to remove the uranium as part of a deal, the approach is to monitor suspected sites and, if necessary, act against them from the air.

In any case, Iran's enrichment facilities have been completely disabled, and it is doubtful they can be restored to operation anytime soon. Moreover, Iran has yet to achieve a breakthrough that would allow it to build an actual weapon system. Over the past year, many of the senior scientists involved in these efforts have been killed. Without the ability to develop a weapon, the uranium Iran possesses has no practical significance.

The claim that Trump was misled by Israel reflects a misunderstanding of U.S. decision-making culture. American presidents formulate policy based solely on their country's interests. The decisive consideration guiding the White House is what serves the American people. The notion that a U.S. president makes critical national security decisions based on assessments presented by Israeli leaders or Mossad officials runs counter to longstanding American practice.

Another myth is that it is possible to decisively defeat Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah or the Houthis once and for all. There is no way to guarantee that even a clear military defeat will end an adversary's motivation to pursue its objectives, recognizing that capabilities can be rebuilt. Phrases such as "once and for all" amount to speculation.

Even after Israel's decisive victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, when its military defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, within a few years, Egypt launched the War of Attrition and in 1973, together with Syria, carried out a large-scale surprise attack against Israel. So victories may have an expiration date. As we repeated at the Passover Seder, in every generation there are those who rise up to destroy us.

Winners and Losers in the Iran War

Iran, Israel, and the U.S. have not achieved the goals they set for themselves in their current war. On the Iranian side, the late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had hoped that by adopting the "Samson option," he would provoke a brief regional war with limited damage to his Islamic Republic because he would step in and offer another of his "heroic flexibility" tricks before things got out of hand. His "heroic flexibility" was designed to come after the first wave of attacks by Israeli and American bombers targeting part of Iran's military infrastructure.

However, as he wasn't there to do his part, Israel and the U.S. had to go for a second wave of bombings and then a third - this time targeting Iran's industrial infrastructure on a scale not known since World War II. Its weapons industry has been decimated, and its vast nuclear project put back by years if not decades.

Worse still, Iran's unprovoked ballistic missile and drone attacks on neighboring countries in no way involved in this war may have done lasting damage to the largely tolerant, not to say benevolent, attitude that many of them had of Iran even under the mullahs.

The outside world has been divided between those who, because they hate Trump or Netanyahu or even America and Israel as a whole, designate the mullahs as victors, and those who, translating their hatred of the Iranian regime into a wish for Iran's destruction as a nation-state, declare Trump and Netanyahu as winners.

Anti-U.S. and anti-Israel circles exaggerate the effect of Tehran's tactic of inflicting economic pain on the world by playing fast and loose with oil exports via the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting overall trade in a chunk of the region. That in turn intensifies the effects of the mullahs' mischief-making.

The U.S. and Israel may lose the Iranian people as one of the few nations known for their positive view of both countries. The theme of "you came and destroyed our industrial, economic and scientific infrastructure, but left our torturers in place" is gaining currency among Iranians both at home and abroad.

There is little doubt that although the Khomeinist regime is badly mauled, the biggest loser in this war will be the Iranian people. The war has destroyed thousands of jobs in Iran. A people facing mass unemployment and shortages of food, water and medicine would not be immediately ready for another attempt at regime change.

Telegraph Editorial: Iran Is Not a War of Choice

The U.S. and its enemies have learned from the last two decades that nuclear deterrence works. The ability of the West to intervene in the defense of Ukraine has been hampered by the existence of Russia's nuclear arsenal.

North Korea watched Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi disassemble his nuclear and chemical weapons programs in 2003, subsequently allowing NATO aircraft to topple his regime as the people he had tormented rose up against him. North Korean state media stated that "powerful nuclear deterrence serves as the strongest treasured sword for frustrating outsiders' aggression."

This same logic has underlaid Israel's approach to regional proliferation for decades. The Begin doctrine laid out after Israel's 1981 airstrike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor set out precisely why Israel would strike the al-Kibar site in Syria in 2007; it also explained why it struck Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025.

By achieving the full suite of capabilities necessary for a functioning nuclear deterrent - capabilities that it seemed well on the road to attaining - the Iranian regime hoped to build a nuclear shield. A regime built on a fundamentalist belief system devoted to the destruction of the West was not pursuing these weapons as a pathway to moderation.

Instead, a nation sponsoring terrorist militias, launching drone and missile strikes at its neighbors, attempting to hold the global economy to ransom by shutting the flow of trade through the Strait of Hormuz, was seeking to become effectively untouchable militarily.

While the 2025 airstrikes set back Tehran's nuclear program, it was clear early this year that efforts to rebuild its capabilities were well underway. The history of Iran's nuclear ambitions is of diplomacy, time and again, falling short. Faced with the necessity of putting a permanent end to them, it is hard to argue that Israel or America had any other choice.

Susan Abulhawa's hilarious self-own - faking hate mail from a "zio"

Terrorist fangirl Susan Abulhawa writes on X that she received an email threat.

But this is not a screenshot of an email. It is a screenshot of a contact form on a website that the sender would need to have hit a send button for Susan to read it. The red asterisks tell the user that these are mandatory fields to fill out - Abulhawa wouldn't see it on her end if the form was really filled out by someone else.

In fact, it looks suspiciously like Susan wrote this entire vile email on her own website contact form, screenshotted it before hitting "Get in Touch," and then presented it as if it is what she received.

Which means not only that Abulhawa faked her own hate mail, but also that she does not receive hate mail of the type that is vile enough for her to prove that "zios" are as evil as she says.

Another point: if this was a real email that she hadn't botched showing, anyone could have made up any name or email address. Meaning that it is easy for someone to pretend to be someone they hate and fake out a vile email from them. Even if we take Abulhawa at her word, this would have resulted in her followers potentially harassing or threatening an innocent person whose name and email was used by someone else. her claiming to want to put this email out into the light is in fact the height of irresponsibility where she is making someone subject to real harassment. Usually people who make death threats are not stupid enough to use their real names.

(Indeed, there is someone with that name in the US, and for all we know Abulhawa wants to have her followers harass her.)

The only vile person here is Susan Abulhawa.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

What does Judaism look like without Zionism ? The @NYTimes unwittingly provides an answer

The New York Times is running a glowing review today of Molly Crabapple's new history of the Jewish Labor Bund, framed around a seductive question: what does Judaism look like without Zionism?

The answer the book implicitly offers — and the review enthusiastically endorses — is the Bund: secular, socialist, diasporist, proudly Jewish in culture while rejecting both religion and nationalism. It is seen as a left-wing dream team from history, conveniently available for appropriation in 2026.

But the review lets slip a detail that answers the titular question: "At a Bundist gathering, the pastries might be fried in pig fat, just to prove a point."

The reviewer calls this "proudly secular." No, it isn't. That's active hostility to Judaism performed as identity. There's a meaningful difference between not keeping kosher and deliberately serving treif to make a point: it is the difference between being irreligious and being anti-religious.

This is what Judaism looks like without Zionism. It is indistinguishable from garden variety Communism - anti-religious and antisemitic in the sense of being opposed to everything that makes Jews Jewish. The Bund broke with the Bolsheviks over organizational questions, not over the basic project of replacing Jewish religious life with revolutionary politics.

During Passover 100 years ago, in 1926, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote:

The Charkoff Yiddish communist paper "Der Stern" complained that while the government appeals to the population for economy, the Jews were spending many millions for matzos, rendered fat and wine.

This is not "proudly secular." Proud secularists don't feel the need to impose their secularity on those who do not share it. That is what most religions do, not secularists.

The Jewish Communists weren't "proudly secular" but but actively antisemitic.

While the book review says that the Bund "fought antisemites head-on," they did not defend religious Jews at all. On the contrary, they considered yeshiva students to be "parasites."

The idea of hijacking the Passover Seder came not from JVP or IfNotNow but from the Bund, whose version of "Echad Mi Yodeya" in a 1919 "Haggadah" included:

Who knows two? I know two: Humanity is split in two parts: poor and rich.
Who knows eight? I know eight: Already from the eighth day, a young boy suffers from religion.
Who knows ten? I know ten: Ten commandments became 613.
Who knows eleven? I know eleven: Only rabbis and lazybones can liken eleven brother-sellers to eleven stars.

The review quotes Bundist leader Henryk Erlich calling Zionism "a Siamese twin of antisemitism." Yet Judaism survives today largely because of Israel. It is within the "progressive" wing that there is hostility towards Judaism itself.

The Bund lost, as the review acknowledges — to the Nazis, to Stalin, and ultimately to history. What's worth noting is that the Jews who survived, and who built something afterward, mostly did so through the nationalism the Bund despised. The "hereness" the Bund preached turned out to matter most in a land Jews could actually defend.

Crabapple's book may be excellent history. But the Times framing it as a usable past for Jews who want an alternative to Zionism requires ignoring what the Bund actually thought about the Judaism it claimed to represent.

Judaism without Zionism is not Judaism, but worship of bagels and lox and dusty socialist Yiddish newspapers.

On Saturday night, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared on Israel's "Meet the Press" where he said that Israel is committing murder and ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in the West Bank and warned that unless Israel stops it then officials will be paraded in front of the Hague.

This "warning" is very funny because a few days earlier, Olmert himself threatened to go to the ICC himself to prosecute his own people for supposed war crimes in the West Bank.

The interview was roundly ignored by Israeli media. Olmert is a disgraced politician, the only prime minister to serve time in prison, for his corruption conviction. Nearly all of the few comments on the Facebook page showing an excerpt of the interview were aimed at Channel 12 for giving him a platform to begin with.

But in the media of antisemites, this is major news.

It was featured in Al Jazeera, Turkey's Anadolu Agency, Egypt's Al Ahram, the Palestinian Amad News as well as the official Palestinian Authority Wafa news agency.

Olmert cannot be rehabilitated in Israel, so he instead is trying to become popular among those who hate Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/05 Links: A War of Psychological Attrition; Iran Has Miscalculated Disastrously; The North Korea Lesson for Iran; Why Islamists and progressives have so much in common

From Ian:

A War of Psychological Attrition

In physical terms, the damage Iran is inflicting on the Americans, the Gulf states or Israel is minimal.

By contrast, Iran is sustaining extremely heavy blows. Its economy was already shattered before the campaign began. Its military capabilities are being stripped away hour by hour.

That means the pace at which it is harming Israel and other countries in the region is negligible compared with what it had planned.

Unlike Iran, those countries are, by and large, continuing to function, while the disruption to daily life caused by missiles and drones remains relatively limited.

Iran is trying to create the impression that the cost of the war is unbearable.

But what is worse: gasoline at $4 a gallon, or Iran with an arsenal of intercontinental nuclear missiles?

What poses a greater threat to the world: a short-term recession, or a deranged regime operating an ocean of drones in the Strait of Hormuz, terrorist cells across the planet, and seeking to impose Shiite belief on humanity by force?

Iran knows the West's weak points, its short-sightedness, short patience, and short-time horizon.

In Tehran they know that in the West, people will talk about one American aircraft being shot down a thousand times more than they will about dozens of Iranian aircraft destroyed, hundreds of missiles intercepted and thousands of drones thwarted.

That is the asymmetric psychological war they are hoping to win.

Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp: Iran Has Miscalculated Disastrously

The ayatollahs never expected to find themselves in a sustained, direct, high-intensity war with the U.S. and Israel. Their thinking had been based on gaining ascendancy in the Middle East by proxy groups and ultimately by nuclear weapons.

The rulers of Iran spent billions of dollars building a series of terrorist networks that would do their dirty work for them. Yet Hizbullah, Hamas, and the Houthis have been very severely handled by Israel (and in the case of the Houthis, the U.S.) since Oct. 7, 2023, and their combined contribution to the defense of Iran over the last few weeks has consequently been strategically negligible.

In the minds of the ayatollahs, attacking their Arab neighbors would lead the Gulf states to pressure Trump to call off the war. It had the opposite effect. Behind the scenes, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have reportedly urged the president to keep attacking until the job is done. Iran's strategy has instead consolidated opposition to Tehran.

Another strategic miscalculation has been the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. As a global economic attack, it reinforces the narrative that Iran is a worldwide threat. Both China and India have been significantly impacted, despite Tehran's selective permission for some ships and cargoes to pass through the strait.

Additionally, the regime is probably inflicting greater harm on its own economy. It depends on the strait for the import of food and other essentials, and for its own oil exports.

WSJ Editorial: The North Korea Lesson for Iran

President Trump decided to use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon after diplomacy failed. This was a risky choice. But the U.S. experience with North Korea suggests the alternatives were even riskier. That history shows the limits of nuclear diplomacy with a determined foe, as well as what happens when the U.S. puts conflict-avoidance above all else.

During the Clinton Administration, North Korea denied International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors access to camouflaged nuclear sites and announced it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Clinton threatened sanctions. The U.S. military drew up plans for strikes on nuclear installations, and Defense Secretary Bill Perry presented a plan for a large military buildup in the region. Clinton deployed Patriot missile-defense systems to South Korea.

Former President Jimmy Carter informed the Clinton Administration that he intended to visit North Korea and try to defuse the situation. Clinton decided to let Carter proceed as a private citizen. Carter feared conflict above all and even opposed sanctions. He went beyond what he had been authorized by Clinton to discuss and announced a tentative agreement on CNN. The press and foreign-policy establishment hailed nuclear peace in our time.

Military options came off the table and Clinton embraced the deal, which became the 1994 Agreed Framework. For a time the deal seemed to work. Yet weaponization research continued on the sly. The regime's intent to build a bomb never changed. In 2002, North Korea reneged on the Agreed Framework and expelled inspectors. The George W. Bush Administration employed threats, sanctions and diplomacy but ultimately ruled out the use of force. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test.

After that, U.S. military options became riskier. North Korea is now believed to possess 50 warheads, and it tests ICBMs that will one day be able to reach the continental U.S. The lesson is that U.S. presidents waited too long to stop North Korea. The risks of war were always said to be too high, it was never a good time, and there was always another diplomatic option to exhaust. North Korea is now a nuclear power.

Iran's radical regime will not have a nuclear program when the current Iran conflict ends. This has made the world a safer place.

The lies behind the concept of "anti-Palestinian racism"

A new legal and rhetorical strategy is migrating from Canada into American institutions. Its proponents call it "anti-Palestinian racism," or APR.

They present it as a civil rights framework analogous to existing definitions of antisemitism — a tool for identifying and penalizing discrimination against a vulnerable group.

It is nothing of the kind.

APR is a framework designed to immunize Palestinian terrorism - indeed, any Palestinian actions - from moral judgment. Its architects have already demonstrated that it classifies condemnations of the October 7 massacre as acts of racism.

The concept was first formally defined in a 2022 report by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association. The ACLA describes APR as racism that "silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives," and explicitly declines to offer a precise definition, preferring a "fluid, contextual, and adaptable" framework. That vagueness is deliberate: a framework that cannot be pinned down cannot be debunked. And a framework that can mean anything can be deployed against everything.

The targets of that everything become clear once you apply APR's language to historically mainstream positions.

For example, APR prohibits speech that "denies Palestinian historical experiences" or "fails to recognize Palestinians as an Indigenous people with exclusive collective rights." Applied consistently: the documented fact that many Palestinians sold land to Jewish buyers voluntarily before 1948 becomes a denial of Palestinian experience. Pointing out that Palestinians themselves proudly trace their ancestry back to Arabia or Yemen or other lands far away cannot be mentioned. The serious historical debate over how many Palestinians fled versus were expelled in 1948 becomes an erasure of Palestinian dignity. The Jewish religious and historical connection to Jerusalem — which Yasser Arafat notoriously denied to Bill Clinton's face at Camp David — becomes a failure to recognize Palestinian indigeneity. The statement that Jews have an ancestral right to live in the land of Israel becomes racism.

Under APR, the entire evidentiary record of the conflict is a minefield in which accurate description is indistinguishable from hate speech. That is the mechanism by which APR converts historical honesty into a thought crime.

APR's proponents present this as the natural counterpart to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The comparison is fraudulent. IHRA contains an explicit carve-out: criticism of Israel's government, policies, and military conduct is protected speech. The architecture is honest — it presupposes a world in which Israel can be wrong and in which the distinction between criticizing a state and targeting a people is real and worth preserving.

APR contains no such carve-out. Nowhere in the ACLA framework or its American derivatives is there any provision protecting criticism of Palestinian conduct, leadership, or violence.

What APR does not guard against is demonstrated most clearly by October 7, 2023. The mechanism is built into the definitions in two places. First, APR classifies as racist any speech "defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer, or opposed to democratic values." Hamas is Palestinian. Calling its members terrorists — the predicate of any condemnation of October 7 — therefore defames Palestinians as terrorist threats.

Second, APR defines "justifying violence against Palestinians" to include "blaming the oppressed for the actions of the oppressor." Palestinians are the oppressed party by definition; Israel is the oppressor by definition; Hamas inherits oppressed status categorically. Condemning October 7 means blaming the oppressed for the actions of the oppressor, which APR names as racism.

Neither of these is a strained reading. Both are the direct output of the framework's own language.

APR's architects did this intentionally The ACLA's co-founder and primary author of the APR definition, Dania Majid, signed a letter in November 2023 rejecting the idea that "contextualizing" Hamas's actions constitutes antisemitism, and characterizing the fight against antisemitism as "a new McCarthyism." The people who built APR do not regard October 7 as an atrocity requiring condemnation. They regard its condemnation as discrimination — and designed the framework accordingly.

The Toronto District School Board found this out directly. When the TDSB condemned the October 7 attacks, it faced formal APR complaints — not because its statements were poorly worded, but because it had condemned Hamas at all. The complaint succeeded: the TDSB was pressed into incorporating APR into its Combatting Hate and Racism Strategy. So now the fictional APR is enshrined as policy along with policies against antisemitism.

When APR advocates do not invoke the definitional clauses directly, they fall back on the original-sin argument: Palestinian terrorism is always Israel's fault, the inevitable product of occupation, and condemning it without condemning its root cause is moral evasion — itself APR. This reveals what the framework ultimately is: a structure in which Palestinian violence is permanently exempt from independent moral judgment because it is permanently pre-explained by Israeli culpability. No atrocity can break through it. Every massacre arrives pre-laundered.

The asymmetry with IHRA could not be starker. IHRA protects the right to criticize a state while drawing a boundary around ethnic targeting. APR protects a terrorist organization from criticism by encoding its ideology — Palestinians as categorical victims, Israel as categorical oppressor — into the definition of racism, then deliberately leaves that definition vague enough to expand against whatever argument needs silencing next.

Every charge leveled against the IHRA definition of antisemitism — that it criminalizes legitimate criticism, that it is too vague, that it conflates real bigotry with political opinion — applies directly and accurately to APR. The difference is that in IHRA's case the charges are false. In APR's case they are the design spec.

APR's foundational premise is unfalsifiable by design. Any evidence that challenges it gets reclassified as APR. The massacre of 1,200 people did not falsify the axiom. It was metabolized — recast as confirmation of the oppressor's nature, with condemnation of the massacre recast as confirmation of the racism that enables it. A framework that converts its most devastating counterevidence into further proof of its own conclusions is not a civil rights tool. It is an ideology with a legal enforcement mechanism. There is no act Palestinians can do to Jews that does not trigger APR claiming that is justified.

IHRA tried to protect Jews from discrimination while leaving the political argument open. APR closes the political argument by making one side of it illegal — and keeps the definition loose enough to close a little more of it whenever necessary. And that is the entire point.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Boston area Coptic church spreading the blood libel

There is a Coptic Orthodox priest serving in the Boston area who is publishing material in a major Egyptian newspaper that promotes classic antisemitic conspiracy theories – not in passing, but as part of a sustained, multi-part series.

The priest is Fr. Angelos Guirgis, currently listed as serving at St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, MA. At the same time, he writes a recurring column in Al-Ahram, one of the most prominent media outlets in the Arab world.

In that column, particularly in a recent series on Jerusalem, he spreads Elders of Zion style conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination. In fact, his latest column is titled, "How did the Jews gain control of the world?"

He claims that since the Crusades, Jews developed a long-term strategic plan to dominate the world through what he describes as three coordinated forces – finance, religion, and media.

A Jewish movement emerged that had existed before the Middle Ages... This movement, persecuted and despised by Christian nations and hated by Western peoples, resorted to a long-term plan to control the world. They skillfully employed the three pillars of power: money, religion, and media (or ideology), and unfortunately, they succeeded. On the financial level, as we shall see, they seized control of the global economy, starting with usury and lending to individuals and governments, and culminating in the establishment of banks, the initiation of massive projects, and their subsequent control over arms, pharmaceutical, and mining companies.

On the religious level, they found that the Jewish idea alone was unacceptable to the Western Christian world, so they began spreading the ideology of Christian Zionism. ...On the intellectual level, we will see that Jewish Freemasonry began buying off thinkers and philosophers during the Renaissance, and later established large media entities, such as Hollywood, to shape public opinion and make these ideas acceptable. They even gained control over the United Nations itself.

More details are promised in later articles.

It get worse.

On the St. Marks YouTube channel he states that the Jews murdered Christian children as a religious ritual and used their blood for matzah - the classic blood libel.

This is not a personal opinion from an antisemitic priest. This is the St Mark Church official position.

Clergy, like anyone else, can express offensive views. There is nothing illegal about it. But similarly, there is nothing illegal about asking St. Mark Coptic Church why they employ someone with such noxious views that have been used as incitement to murder Jews over the centuries - and why they promote antisemitic conspiracies in their official social media.

The church must answer these questions. If it supports Father Guirgis and the blood libel, it should say so; if it finds his views noxious it must remove any connection to him on their sites and take down the antisemitic videos he has made under their name.

Because right now it looks like a church in Natick, MA promotes hate speech.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/04 Links: Trump: Tehran has 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz; USAF rescue missing F-15E crew member; Francesca Albanese and the Perversion of Academia; ICC votes to discipline Karim Khan

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: World leaders should be grateful the US is doing what’s necessary in Iran

This is their war even more than it is the United States’ war. Iranian missiles threaten British interests even more than they threaten the US. And Iran’s terrorist proxies are even more active in Europe and the UK than they have been in America.

It’s just that the UK, Europeans and others don’t have the military power or the political will to do anything against that threat. They hoped that one day the US would take this problem off their hands. Because otherwise they’d have sat on those same hands as the ayatollah got ever-closer to the bomb.

Critics of President Trump at home point to the rising price of gas. And that is certainly a concern. But the price will come down as America’s objectives are achieved. And while a month of high gas prices is a concern it is much less of a concern than the price of gas if the Revolutionary Islamic Government in Iran started throwing nuclear weapons around.

Consider how they lashed out at every single one of their Arab neighbors after America’s first strikes on Tehran. This is how they behaved with missiles and drones. Imagine how they would react if they were nuclear.

Meantime some critics of American policy have pointed out how North Korea was allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But that program is a signal lesson to the civilized world as much as it is to dictators. North Korea was able to develop its nuclear program because they were constantly threatening South Korea with an attack by conventional weapons if their unconventional capability was attacked. So they got away with it.

The Iranians hoped they could pull off the same trick. But after the destruction of their armies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria there was a window — this past month — to stop similar blackmail from Iran.

Of course the Iranian regime has lashed out — aiming missiles at Qatari energy facilities and Saudi airports. They have also — interestingly for an “Islamic” regime — sent missiles that have nearly hit the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It would be quite an epitaph for the radical Mullahs if they struck that.

Yet the region has managed to suffer through this. All in the knowledge that American and Israeli pilots are stopping a much greater threat ever emanating from Iran.

And that will be the end of the war.

This war does not need to end up with anyone being bogged down. It doesn’t need the dreaded “boots on the ground” that Western powers seem to have become so fearful of.

Another couple of weeks and the Iranian regime will not be able to threaten anyone again for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a little further along the road the regime itself will fall. That will be in the hands of the Iranian people.

But for the time being the pilots of the US Air Force are doing noble work on behalf of the whole world. And not just for this generation but for the generations to come. We should be proud of them.

John Spencer: What Would Sun Tzu Say About War with Iran?

Throughout the war, Sun Tzu would have returned to a simple measure of success, not only what was destroyed, but what was achieved. If the enemy’s decisions change, the strategy has worked. If they do not, then tactical success may prove insufficient.

That is why The Art of War endures. It is not a guide to battle. It is a framework for thinking about war as a contest of wills, shaped by political purpose, constrained by cost, and decided not by destruction, but by decisions.

Sun Tzu would also have recognized the political constraints that shape the use of force and the importance of perception beyond the battlefield. He warned that “there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare” and that the use of the military must remain tied to the interests of the state, not drift into objectives that expand beyond what was originally intended. He placed extraordinary importance on information, writing that foreknowledge must be obtained and used to shape outcomes, a principle that today extends to the information domain and the perceptions of both enemy leadership and the population.

Sun Tzu also understood the role of threat, not as a matter of rhetoric, but as a function of perception and pressure. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” and that requires shaping the enemy’s understanding of what continued fighting will bring. But he also warned against excess. “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” The purpose of pressure is not to eliminate all options, but to shape them, and to shape how they are understood. In this context, that means applying enough force to influence decision-making while preserving a path toward a political outcome aligned with stated objectives.

That matters in this context. If the regime were to collapse as a result of the war, the outcomes associated with regime change could occur, but that would be distinct from making regime change the stated political objective. If the objective shifts, or is perceived to shift, from forcing a change in behavior to regime change requiring large-scale ground forces, it risks repeating patterns seen in past wars, where limited objectives expanded into nation building and protracted counterinsurgency campaigns against enemies able to adapt, disperse, and find sanctuary. Those conditions favor the defender, extend time, and erode political cohesion.

Sun Tzu’s warning is clear. Strategy must remain aligned to political purpose, and that purpose must remain disciplined, or the advantages gained early in a campaign can be lost over time.

IDF commando KIA in Southern Lebanon, another critically wounded

An Israel Defense Forces soldier was killed overnight Friday in southeastern Lebanon, the Israeli military said.

He was named as Sgt. Maj. Guy Ludar, 21, a member of the Maglan reconnaissance unit of the IDF Commando Brigade, from Yuvalim in the Lower Galilee.

Another commando from the Maglan unit was critically wounded, the IDF said.

Their families were notified.

According to Ynet, Ludar was killed by “friendly” fire during a nighttime operation to arrest a Hezbollah helper in the village of Shebaa, north of Mount Hermon.

An IDF soldier from another force believed he detected two terrorists and opened fire.

The report noted that the building where the suspect was believed to be was not detonated in advance because Shebaa is predominantly a Sunni village, whose residents are not typically affiliated with the Iranian-backed Shi’ite terrorist group.

The IDF opened a probe into the incident.

04/01 Links Pt2: Do not look away from the rising fires of Jew hatred; Three arrested inc. Pakistani teenager over Golders Green firebomb attack; Herzog: ‘Spirit of our people’ has always prevailed

From Ian:

Do not look away from the rising fires of Jew hatred

Can we all agree this is madness? How can it be that, as a child here, it almost never crossed my mind not to be openly and fearlessly Jewish, and yet I now wait in trepidation for the day one of my young children returns home from school or an outing, asking me to explain Jew hatred?

In just the past few weeks, a branch of Gail’s bakery in Archway was vandalised because it was founded by an Israeli Jew (who is no longer involved in the business), and then the incident was belittled in the Guardian. A report into campus anti-Semitism revealed that one in five students would refuse to live with a Jewish peer. An inquiry had to be launched into anti-Semitism in schools. Meanwhile, down in Margate, an art exhibition titled ‘Drawings Against Genocide’ depicts Israelis and Israel Defence Forces soldiers as demons, murderers and baby-eaters. Artist Matthew Collings claims the work is not anti-Semitic, merely ‘anti-Zionist’. Thank goodness he cleared that up!

This is what we’re up against. Anti-Semitism has had a rebrand and, honestly, activists have done a fantastic PR job. Say whatever you like about the Jews and carry out as many petty acts of anti-Semitism as you please – as long as you take care to use today’s euphemisms of ‘anti-Zionism’ or ‘Israel criticism’, you’ll get away with it.

Despite all of this, I still believe that the vast majority of Britons are not anti-Semites, and that growing numbers are sickened by what they see. Unfortunately, too many of our non-Jewish neighbours are looking away when they should be staring into the flames, as we are forced to do.

The Jewish community does not have the privilege of looking away. While I can shield myself from terrifying video footage of anti-Semitic murder and destruction, I cannot avoid reckoning with the daily reality of life for Jews in Britain today.

This week, Jews celebrate the festival of Passover, when we recall how Moses led us to freedom from slavery in Egypt. It is one of our most important festivals. It celebrates the privilege of not just freedom itself, but also the ability to live freely as Jews. It is a message that has always resonated strongly with me. But this year I find myself asking: when does living with unease become living in fear? In the past, I always believed myself to be truly free, as a person, as a Jew. Today, I’m not so sure.

Seth Mandel: How the Jewish Community Can Fight Tokenism Without Self-Destructing

Since October 7, anti-Zionist politicians and political institutions have relied more than ever on a specific tactic to deflect accusations of anti-Semitism: putting liberal and leftist Jews front and center and using them, essentially, as human shields.

This puts the global Jewish community in a bind. How do we call out this rank tokenism without allowing the debate to descend into an intra-Jewish fight that leaves the politicians unscathed but the Jews further fragmented?

The answer is to focus most of our ire on those responsible for pitting the Jews against each other. Obviously, Jews who allow themselves to be used in this manner are not without agency and therefore their actions can and should be criticized—just without losing sight of the way political systems historically take advantage of Jewish infighting.

Sometimes, the institutions that deserve to come under withering rhetorical fire aren’t political in the classic sense. Take the media. A couple of months ago, I noticed something reading the stories about Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s trip to Australia after the Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre.

The Guardian headlined its story: “Isaac Herzog’s four days in Australia left him ‘energised’. For the Jewish community, some saw solidarity while others felt ‘serious angst’.”

The article claimed the trip brought “significant disquiet within Australia’s Jewish community.”

Commenting in favor of Herzog’s visit were the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. The ECAJ is the umbrella organization of Australian Jewry that represents over 200 Jewish organizations. The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, which is listed as a territorial body of the ECAJ, oversees 55 such Jewish organizations.

The quotes from officers of these two organizations, therefore, can be reasonably said to represent Australian Jewry.

On the other side, being quoted against Herzog’s visit was… something called Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney. The leftist organization does not have much of a footprint and appears to have launched in 2024. Judging by its occasional forays into the public discourse, I can say with some confidence that it has a membership of at least 25 people. As of this writing, it has a whopping 126 followers on Facebook. It is a complete nonentity.

To say that it was unethical of the Guardian to frame its story this way based on some As-a-Jew garage band is to understate the point. The one person from this group the Guardian quotes hardly seems worth spending much time and energy on. The Guardian, on the other hand, is an influential tool of anti-Zionist agitation and ought to be subjected to heaps of scrutiny before anything it writes about Jews and Judaism are to be treated with a grain of seriousness or credibility.

The Guardian uses liberal Jews as human shields, and until it can prove that this has changed, it should be branded as such. Make the paper the primary target.

NYPost Editorial: This is a Democratic Party push to expel Jews from public life

The Democratic Party’s growing antisemitic wing is out to blacklist support for Israel, or at least the nation’s main pro-Israel lobbying and political action group, AIPAC.

Never mind that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spends far less than other interest groups: Climate-obsessed California billionaire Tom Steyer, a prime AIPAC-denouncer, has spent much more on campaign donations all by himself these last few years.

But such is the power of Democrats’ hard left that delegates to the Democratic National Committee’s April meeting will debate a resolution that first condemns “the growing influence of dark money and corporate-backed independent expenditures in Democratic elections” but then singles out only AIPAC as “undermining public trust in democratic institutions.”

But AIPAC isn’t “corporate-backed” or “dark money”: its SuperPAC donors, all successful American individuals, are completely open about who they are and what they support.

The same cannot be said about the real dark money spent on American politics, most of which — about $1.2 billion — supported Democrat candidates and issues in the last election cycle.

04/01 Links Pt1: Trump claims Iran 'no longer a threat' in update on Operation Epic Fury; Iran's Danger Must Be Judged by "Unacceptable Risk," Not "Imminent Threat";

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: Yes, This Is Your War, Too

But whatever the administration decides to do, what isn’t viable is for Americans and our allies to pretend that they can be indifferent to the outcome of the war. When someone like Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, says, “This is not our war,” the appropriate response is: Are you serious?

In June, Pistorius’s boss, Chancellor Friedrich Merz, acknowledged that Israel’s attack that month on Iran’s military and nuclear sites was “dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.” Has something changed in his government’s strategic calculus about the threat Iran poses, other than its overriding opposition to the Trump administration?

In January, the United Arab Emirates announced in no uncertain terms that it would not allow its airspace, territory or ports to be used for an attack on Iran. The declaration was a transparent effort to insulate the Emirates from Iranian reprisals. For its pains, Iran has since hit Abu Dhabi, Dubai and other Emirati targets, military and civilian, with at least 433 ballistic missiles, 19 cruise missiles and 1,977 drones.

Now the governments of Spain and Italy are replicating the Emirates’ strategy, barring the U.S. from using bases (and, in Madrid’s case, its airspace) for attacks on Iran. Do those governments think they’ll be spared Tehran’s furies should they one day come into range of Tehran’s missiles? For that matter — given Trump’s ambivalence about the war in Ukraine — do Europeans think the administration is more likely to support NATO in the event of a Russian attack when NATO has been so hostile to American efforts to defang Iran?

For Americans, especially those who often oppose the administration, the question is whether our distaste for this president should get the better of our strategic judgments about the threats Iran poses. In The Wall Street Journal recently, the lawyer David Boies, a prominent Democrat, noted that if Trump had failed to act, “his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York or Washington.”

If Democrats can’t bring themselves to support Trump, they can at least support policies that will make the strategic choices for the next Democratic president easier rather than harder.

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you” is a line widely attributed to Leon Trotsky. If that’s the case — and history tells us it is — shouldn’t you be interested in winning it, too?

Iran's Danger Must Be Judged by "Unacceptable Risk," Not "Imminent Threat"

Did Iran pose an imminent threat to the U.S.? "Imminence" is not a precise or objective term that presidents should employ only if intelligence experts endorse it. In national security affairs, it is almost always debatable. Besides, "imminence" is not the right concept for deciding whether and how to respond to a grave threat from abroad.

To grasp why it is not right, ask yourself: When did the Sep. 11 attack become imminent? When did the attack on Pearl Harbor? When did Russia's invasion of Ukraine? When did the Holocaust? When did the threat of British tyranny that justified the American Revolution? The concept of "imminence" offers no useful guidance for confronting complex threats of this kind.

Is a threat imminent when the enemy becomes hostile? Only after they perfect the means to attack us, or only after the enemy puts them in motion as part of an attack? Does it matter if the enemy appears unstable or ideologically fanatical? Does it matter if the enemy's means of attack are apocalyptic - nuclear weapons on long-range missiles, for example?

The relevant concept is unacceptable risk, not imminent threat. Presidents have the duty to decide whether a foreign threat poses risks that require a U.S. response. They have the responsibility to decide whether a threat is grave enough - and no means short of war can reduce the risk to an acceptable level - to make war necessary.

As a rule, only an imminent threat justifies police officers' use of deadly force. But is it sensible to import that concept into national security affairs today, when a country like Iran calls over decades for "Death to America," commits numerous murderous aggressions, and devotes enormous resources to developing terrorist proxy networks, nuclear weapons, and long-range missiles?

You can still download two EoZ Haggadot to print before the Seder!

My brand new philosophical/analytic Haggadah, At Ptach Lo, recently reviewed at Times of Israel:

At Ptach Lo is a bold and intellectually demanding work that reimagines the Passover Haggadah as a sophisticated philosophical system. It challenges readers to rethink familiar rituals, confront difficult truths, and see themselves as active participants in an ongoing historical and moral narrative.

Full English and Hebrew with 45 essays showing a side of Jewish thought you may not be aware of, built into the Haggadah. $20 for the PDF.

My original Zionist Haggadah, Hayinu K'Cholmim, has also been revamped and updated.

It includes many commentaries from major rabbis of religious Zionism, relating the Exodus with the rebirth of Israel. Full English and Hebrew. $12 for PDF.

Chag kosher v'sameach!

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Last week in Sydney, Candy Berger arrived at her brand-new bagel shop in Paddington to remove the brown paper covering the freshly renovated windows. She had been excited to finally share the new space with the public. Then she saw the swastika.

Investigators determined that the symbol had been etched into the glass on March 21 — while the windows were still papered over, weeks before Lox in a Box was scheduled to open.

It turns out there is a wave of attacks on....bagel shops.

In London last February, Gail's Bakery in Archway had its windows smashed and its facade spray-painted with "reject corporate Zionism" and "boycott." In December 2024, the iconic Brick Lane Beigel Bakery in London — a local landmark operating for decades — was targeted with a swastika on the mural next to its facade. In Miami in June 2024, Holy Bagels & Pizzeria was spray-painted with "Free Palestine" and "Stop Genocide" — the fourth time the owner's kosher bagel shops had been hit since October 7. In Berkeley in March 2024, "Israel baby killer" was stenciled in the spot where customers line up outside Boichik Bagels — despite the business having made no political statement of any kind. In Queens in November 2024, a man entered Bagels and Company, demanded employees remove Israeli flags, and threatened to burn the building down. In Detroit in August 2024, the entire staff of the Detroit Institute of Bagels walked out to protest the owner's Jewishness and his supposedly "Zionist political leanings." And in Paris in 2019 — years before October 7, before anyone had heard of "decolonization" as a rationale for spray paint — "Juden" was painted on the window of a Bagelstein shop in the old Jewish quarter. The French League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism displayed that photo alongside an image of a Berlin shop marked identically in 1938.

Why are so many bagel shops the target of vandalism? What can they possibly have in common that upsets so many people?

Clearly, bagels are a colonialist food.

Or consider the alternative explanation, which happens to be true: the bagel is arguably the most successfully assimilated Jewish food in the Western world. It completed the full journey — from the pushcarts of the Lower East Side and the ovens of Krakow to every supermarket, every airport kiosk, every brunch menu on earth. It shed its ethnicity somewhere around 1985. The everything bagel with lox and cream cheese is now as generically American as the hot dog, and Gail's — the London chain with the Israeli co-founder — has 170 locations across Britain selling to people who think of it as simply a nice place to get coffee and a pastry.

The bagel stopped being Jewish. It became just food.

Antisemites are putting the Jewish back on it.

This is te deliberate re-Judaization of a food that had been successfully integrated into the broader culture. Bagels represent Jewish success in the West, and that is what makes them arrestable targets antisemites who pretend to be "anti-Zionist."

Every owner in every case above told the same story. None had taken a political position. Boichik's Emily Winston said, "It feels very bullying here — if you don't wave the Palestinian flag, it's not okay and you're a bad Jew. But if you wave a Palestinian flag, then it's okay, because it's not that we dislike you because you're Jewish, but because you're not pro-Palestine."

Jews who dare own bagel shops must pass a purity test to determine if they will or will not be targeted. It is essentially mob-style tactics but instead of shaking down the shop-owners for money they are demanded to turn against their own people - or else.

The historical template is not subtle. Federal Judge Roy Altman, who came to the Miami shop to help scrub off the graffiti, said it plainly: "My grandparents went through the 1940s in Europe, and this is how it started — spray painting Jewish businesses."

The 1938 Berlin shop had "Juden" painted on its window not because its owner had done anything. Jews were collectively responsible for whatever Jews were accused of in that moment.

The specific accusation changes. The targeting logic does not.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)