07/08 Links Pt2: Foreign donors ‘funding hate on Britain’s streets’; Platner suspends campaign; The Democrats’ Real Red Line; Israel extends Venezuela aid mission after request from interim president

From Ian:

Top New York Times Editor Joe Kahn Distances Newsroom From Kristof Dog-Rape Column—‘Wouldn’t Have’ Run It

The highest-ranking news editor at the New York Times, executive editor Joe Kahn, is publicly distancing himself and the paper’s 2,200-person newsroom from a May 11 Times opinion column that accused Israel of using dogs and carrots to rape Palestinian prisoners.

The article, by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose father served on the Nazi side during World War II, was denounced by the Israeli foreign ministry as "Hamas propaganda," "fabricated," and a "baseless blood libel." It also generated a legal threat from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a formal condemnation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The piece relied largely on anonymous or Hamas-affiliated sources.

"It wasn’t edited by the newsroom," Kahn said in a podcast interview with the media and technology journalist Peter Kafka released Wednesday, July 8. Asked whether he would have published the article in the news pages, Kahn first replied, "we probably wouldn’t have." Then he provided a more definitive answer: "No, we wouldn’t have done that exact piece."

Kahn’s statement seems to put him publicly at odds with—and certainly struck a different tone from—Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, who, in a May question-and-answer-format column, defended the article. Asked, "Given the volume of the critical response, do you stand by this column?" she answered, "Yes. … Before publication, Nick’s reporting underwent a rigorous vetting process by Opinion’s fact-checking department to ensure that every testimony and anecdote he personally reported was supported by independent sources, as is the case with all sensitive pieces. The Times’s standards and legal teams also reviewed the column and offered feedback. After publication, we reviewed the factual challenges that readers and others raised, as is standard practice with any published piece. Editors found no errors."

Kingsbury did also make the point that "The Times’s news staff in the Middle East played no role in Nick’s column."

Federal judge rejects CAIR bid to block Florida terror designation

A federal judge declined on Monday to block Florida’s planned designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a domestic terrorist organization.

CAIR and its Florida chapter sued last week after Gov. Ron DeSantis announced plans to designate the organization under the statute, arguing the law violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement pending the outcome of the case.

U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker denied the request, writing that he was “not persuaded that relief must be afforded before defendants are heard.”

On Tuesday, CAIR and CAIR-Florida asked Walker to reconsider, arguing the designation could take effect as early as July 8 and would force the organizations to “shut down their operations in Florida and will substantially impair CAIR’s ability to pursue its mission nationwide.”

CAIR is represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was recently indicted on charges including wire fraud, false statements to a bank and conspiracy to commit money laundering over its alleged use of donor funds to pay informants embedded in extremist groups.

UK group hosts speakers who celebrated October 7 attacks

The UK’s largest Palestinian cultural centre hosted two speakers who have openly celebrated the October 7th terror attacks, Metro can reveal.

Palestine House in central London platformed Latifa Abouchakra and Batool Subeiti at a ‘Lessons of Resistance’ panel event last week.

The controversial activists have both praised the deadly October 7th attacks on Israel by Hamas in 2023, calling it a ‘moment of triumph’ and ‘unprecedented revenge’.

Subeiti, a pro-Iranian political commentator, was also given a central role in Palestine House’s educational programme for children on ‘resistance’ and history.

During the event last Thursday, panellists appeared to defend a Palestine Action activist convicted of criminal damage, while Subeiti spoke about ‘martrydom’ as a form of ‘victory’.

The Community Security Trust (CST) called Abouchakra and Subeiti’s role in the evening ‘deeply troubling’ while a representative of October 7th victims said it was ‘heartbreaking’ they were given a platform.

Palestine House is a six-storey building in Holborn, central London, which opened in 2025 as a ‘cultural embassy’ and ‘gathering hub’ for Palestinian identity.

The centre regularly speaks out on political issues, with founder Osama Qashoo erecting a ‘Stop the Genocide’ flag at the building earlier this year.

Last Thursday, Palestine House and Shia student society Absoc for Justice held an event exploring how the death of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussain, in 680CE ‘continue[s] to inspire resistance to injustice today, including in the context of Palestine’.

However the decision to invite Abouchakra and Subeiti to the event has sparked outrage from antisemitism campaigners because of their history of support for October 7th.

On that day in 2023, Hamas killed 1,200 people in Israel and took more than 250 hostage, sparking years of conflict in the Middle east.

To get the latest news from the capital, visit Metro's London news hub.

Abouchakra, a presenter at the banned Iran-backed channel PressTV, told viewers on the day of the attacks that the violence was ‘the homecoming of at least 1,000 Palestinians from the resistance factions into the fragile Zionist entity’.

In an Instagram post on the same day, she said: ‘Nothing will ever be able to take back this moment, this moment of triumph, this moment of resistance, this moment of surprise, this moment of humiliation on behalf of the Zionist entity.’

ITV News was forced to apologise later that month after they platformed Abouchakr as British Palestinian concerned about prejudice without explaining her background.

Read More

07/08 Links Pt1: US strikes 90 Iranian military targets, hours after Trump says ceasefire a ‘waste of time’; Rahm Emanuel’s anti-Israel bash won’t win over the jew-hating Dems

-From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Trump must not abandon his promise to people of Iran as collapse of Tehran deal looms

Trump is right that dealing with this regime is a waste of time. He is also right that a regime that shoots protesters in the street cannot be trusted to reform itself through polite diplomacy.

The conclusion, though, cannot be to abandon the Iranian people until the next round of negotiations collapses or the next oil shock alarms global markets.

The conclusion must be that regime change in Iran is not the only strategic and moral horizon that fits the reality before us. Such change cannot be imposed by outsiders; it must be Iranian-led.

It must respect Iran’s people, history, culture, and future but must be supported by the free world with sanctions on killers, technology to break censorship, documentation for accountability, diplomatic isolation of regime officials, and refusal to reward Tehran for surviving crises of its own making.

A free Iran would not solve every problem in the Middle East, but it could transform the region in ways no memorandum with the Islamic Republic ever will.

It could weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and militias sustained by Tehran’s money and ideology. It could allow one of the region’s great civilizations to rebuild.

This is not something that can be done by one power alone; it requires collaboration, and must remain the clear goal of every actor involved.

In January, the Iranian people were told help was coming; six months later, they deserve more than silence, bargaining, and regret.

JO Investigation: Massive Gaza Archive Targeting Israelis is Being Run by "American" in Saudi Arabia

Key Findings:
An anonymous operator claiming to be American but based in Saudi Arabia runs one of the largest Gaza “war crimes” archives—82,000+ videos and images—whose authenticity and chain of custody remain unverified.
The operator feeds purported evidence to the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation, which has been linked to the Hezbollah terrorist organization.
Despite claiming American identity, the operator calls Americans “complicit in genocide,” urges U.S. soldiers to disobey orders, and demands U.S. officials stand trial at The Hague.
The operation runs from Saudi Arabia—a kingdom that has received extensive U.S. and Israeli security assistance, including protection during the 2026 Iran conflict.
The archive’s sophisticated infrastructure—dual websites, 2.4 terabytes of torrents, encrypted submissions, Icelandic privacy protection—suggests resources beyond typical grassroots activism.
The operator’s language shifted from singular “I” to plural “we,” raising questions about who is actually running the operation and whether it represents a coordinated network.

Seth Mandel: Karim Khan and the Perils of Anti-Israel Obsession

Khan’s case against Israel was a sham—he canceled important fact-finding trips in order to file the warrants before he could be outed as an office pest. The ICC report establishes “the accuser’s credibility,” which puts all past testimony and reporting in an even more damning light. The internal investigation also found Khan’s belated denials to be “devoid of credibility.”

From the Times, which obtained the internal report:
“First, she said, there was overfamiliarity during a work trip to London, then incidents in his office in which ‘he would grab and paw at her breasts, try to access her pelvic area, and suck on her ear or neck,’ according to a summary of the U.N. investigation’s findings obtained by The Times.

“Eventually, she said, the advances progressed to unwanted sexual activity. She told investigators that ‘the power dynamic between them meant that she could not say no.’”

Now, why would someone with access to this report want to ensure that such details saw the light of day before the ICC made its final decision on Khan’s job?

Most likely, the answer is: because there is reason to worry that court members’ anti-Israel fervor is such that they may still try to protect him. But now the public knows what the ICC believes Khan did, and it would destroy the court to leave him as chief prosecutor.

It is yet another example of the dangers of the world’s obsession with Israel. the UN’s refugee agency has been coopted by Hamas. The Committee to Protect Journalists is facing an internal revolt over the possibility that the organization might stop referring to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists as “journalists.” The International Committee of the Red Cross’s callous disregard of Israeli hostages and its participation in Hamas’s own public mistreatment of those hostages has disgraced its work.

Unfortunately, I could go on. But the point should be clear. Allowing anti-Zionist radicals to hijack human-rights groups has left genuine humanitarianism and genuine justice hobbled. This is the destruction left in the wake of an industry that destroyed itself because it was solely focused on destroying Israel.

Read More

Spokane "human rights" leader forced to resign after antisemitic comments

From the Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA):

Under fire for alleged antisemitism, Spokane pastor Luc Jasmin II has resigned from the state Human Rights Commission.

In a March 2025 meeting of the commission, Jasmin accused Jewish people of “crying” over discrimination during debate on a resolution condemning antisemitism. Jasmin’s comments came under scrutiny more than a year after they were made when video of the meeting was posted in June on the Commission’s YouTube channel.

“This word ‘antisemitism’ has been around since the Jewish got trampled by Hitler, and it seems like the Jewish people keep on crying and crying and crying and crying and crying – always crying with the antisemitism,” Jasmin said in the meeting. “And today there are many other groups who are subject to mistreatment, who are even subject to mistreatment by the Jewish, and they’re not crying so much.”

The meeting is remarkable. For nearly 20 minutes, Jasmin insists that Jews are not being victimized, and in fact that Jews are attacking millions of others.

Jasmin spouted this hate at a human rights commission meeting, and he remained a member of the commission for over a year afterwards even after the other members heard his hate themselves. Two of them tried to reason with Jasmin, but he disqualified himself from the commission at that moment.

Interestingly, the minutes of the meeting do not say a word about Jasmin's outburst. 

This is not only the story of one antisemitic human rights commission member who was forced to resign. It is a story about the three other commissioners and members. While they voted to condemn antisemitism over Jasmin's objections, they kept him on for 15 more months.

That is the real scandal. 

Jasmin does not admit he did anything wrong and insists this is all political. 

---

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

 

Read More

07/07 Links Pt2: Anti-Zionism Is Repackaged Antisemitism; How the NYT's Boosted Graham Platner; Mamdani’s wife co-hosting pricey pro-Palestine retreat in Corsica — after skipping July 4

From Ian:

Anti-Zionism Is Repackaged Antisemitism

Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Unless one believes, in the spirit of John Lennon's "Imagine," in a world without any nation states, denying the Jewish people the right to a state - where more than 10 million live today and which is roughly the size of Wales - goes far beyond political disagreement. It signals deep-seated prejudice.

There are 193 UN member states. Only one - Israel, the lone Jewish-majority nation - has its legitimacy routinely questioned. That is ironic, since very few states can match the longevity of the Jewish people's ancestral link to a specific territory, stretching back more than three millennia.

The Hebrew Bible is replete with place names that existed in ancient times and endure today, beginning with Zion - a hill in King David's Jerusalem - and Jerusalem, the ancient and modern center of Jewish national life and capital of Israel. The Christian Bible builds on the Hebrew Bible, and its geography is inseparable from Jesus, the Judean Jew. The seventh-century Qur'an contains more than 40 references to the "Children of Israel."

Wars imposed on Israel since its rebirth in 1948 by those who rejected any Jewish national presence led to conflict. But Zionism's core purposes are to ensure Jews are no longer dependent on the goodwill of others for their survival; to provide a safe haven after centuries of persecution; to serve as a "light unto the nations"; and to establish a state at peace and in coexistence with its neighbors.

Israel rests on multiple layers of international recognition of a Jewish national home in the land. Compare that to the "legitimacy" of other states. What precisely are the foundations of legitimacy for the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? In historical terms, they rest on conquest and subjugation of indigenous populations.

Most states derive legitimacy from the simple fact of their existence: they exist, therefore they are. Only Israel is persistently required to relitigate its right to exist in the face of persistent anti-Zionism - even 78 years after its rebirth and 77 years after joining the UN.

Palestinian Culture of Anti-Normalization Is a Central Obstacle to Peace

Were all Palestinians supporters of Hamas, or were there Palestinians who opposed the massacre and longed for a different future? My search for the answer led me to Moataz Al-Mansi in Gaza. "The future of Palestine is not built on hatred or on the dreams of cancelling the other," he wrote. "I dream of a relationship based on good neighbors, shared interests, and mutual respect."

I invited him to appear on my podcast, "Conversations at the Peace Table." Moataz told me he had lost both of his businesses during the war. His children had not attended school in years. Yet he refused to abandon his belief that Israelis and Palestinians must one day live as neighbors rather than enemies.

My friend Inbal, who worked closely with Palestinians in the West Bank for years, often told me that many Palestinians quietly desired coexistence but were afraid to say so publicly. Those who engaged with Israelis risked being labeled collaborators or traitors. Again and again, I heard the same story: Palestinians who sought dialogue often faced pressure from their own society, while Israelis who sought partnership struggled to find counterparts who could safely engage.

This helped me understand a central obstacle to peace: the culture of anti-normalization. Anti-normalization discourages dialogue, joint initiatives, business partnerships, cultural exchanges, and even personal friendships with Israelis or Jews. A Palestinian who speaks publicly about cooperation can be accused of betrayal. The result is that peace becomes socially dangerous and the public square becomes dominated by those who reject coexistence.

Two days ago, Moataz contacted me again. An article had appeared in a Gaza newspaper calling him a traitor. He believed the danger to his life had become immediate. He asked me to tell his story. "If something happens to me, it is because I chose peace."

Peace must first become socially acceptable among ordinary people. That requires protecting those courageous enough to see humanity in the other side. The ideology that condemns Moataz for reaching across the divide is the obstacle to peace. Until Palestinians who seek coexistence are free to do so without fear, and until activists stop treating anti-normalization as a moral virtue, those yearning for peace will continue to pay the highest price.

Solomon’s Pools: How the Palestinian Authority Neglected a Historical Treasure

To the north of the Israeli town of Efrat, and to the south of Bethlehem, lie Solomon’s Pools. The pools were part of an extensive water infrastructure originating in the Judean hills that supplied water to the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. Whether the pools are those referred to by King Solomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes (2.6), who wrote, “I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees,” remains a subject of debate.

In the Oslo Accords, Judea and Samaria were divided into three areas, which can generally be defined as follows: Area A – mostly under the complete jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, subject to overriding Israeli jurisdiction to combat terror; Area B – joint control with the PA holding jurisdiction for civilian affairs and Israel holding security jurisdiction; Area C – full Israeli jurisdiction.

Each area in which Israel transferred jurisdiction to the PA – i.e., every area that would become part of areas A and B – was carefully delineated on agreed maps, with area C being the remainder.

The Oslo Accords never envisaged a situation in which Areas A and B would be off limits to Israelis. Rather, the accords included specific provisions regarding both the treatment of Israelis present in those areas and the manner in which the PA treated Jewish historical sites that were included therein.

The Israeli participants in the talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Israeli authors of the accords certainly did not anticipate a situation in which this area would become dominated by hostile PA forces and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and that almost every entry of a Jew into those areas would potentially be accompanied by mortal danger.

Here, it should be stressed that the danger posed in areas A and B is only to Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs – i.e., the millions of Arabs Israeli citizens – are free to enter, study, and even live in areas A and B.

Since the classification of an area as Area A, B, or C was not meant to be a hindrance to access, the Oslo negotiating sides saw no obstacle to including Solomon’s Pools within Area A. The inclusion of this specific site within area A, did, however, present a unique challenge to the PA.

According to the PA narrative, Jews are modern-day European colonizers of “Palestine,” a state that never actually existed. Jews, according to the PA, have no history or connection to the area. For the PA, the statement in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, in which “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country,” was simply wrong and baseless. The PA narrative is so dogmatic that it even outrageously denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.

Read More

07/07 Links Pt1: A Richer Iranian Regime Means a More Violent One; US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran in response to Iran firing on ships in Hormuz

From Ian:

Tom Tugendhat: A Richer Iranian Regime Means a More Violent One

Supporters of the U.S.-Iran MoU in Tehran consider it an ideological victory, a deal that confirms the regime's claims to dominate the Strait of Hormuz and project power in the Middle East. Yet, skeptical observers want to know: How much extra security spending will be necessary if Iranian terror groups receive the biggest injection of funds in a generation?

A decade ago, once the Obama administration eased sanctions as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian regime spent billions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' support for the Assad regime in Syria and on Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.

Some in Europe have viewed Iran as a regional problem, but in October 2025, the director general of MI5, Britain's domestic security agency, said the country had tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots in the past year alone. Tehran's influence campaigns have evidently moved online too. Pro-Scottish independence accounts recently went silent when the internet was shut off in Iran.

Since the death of the last supreme leader, the IRGC has largely taken over the state. They aren't interested in serving their fellow citizens but in killing ours. Whatever any treaty says, once new money is in the country, it will allow funds once spent on essentials to be used to spread hate. No deal will tie the hands of the IRGC.

History suggests, then, that this deal is more expensive than the fine print lets on. A richer Iranian regime will be a more violent regime, costing lives in the region and threatening others around the world. That means national security services will face more hostile state activity and a new urgency in detecting and disrupting threats. They will need more resources for that fight.

Jake Wallis Simons: The three-word chant that demolishes the case for peace with Iran

The Iranians want peace, apparently. At least, that’s what Donald Trump has been claiming since he exchanged his determination to defeat the Islamic Regime for an insatiable desire to appease it.

Sure, the US president has sometimes oscillated back towards childish threats of death and destruction. Last month, he vowed to “finish the job” and “resume a bombing campaign” if Iran did not “behave”.

But his actions – cancelling the most effective parts of his campaign before signing a deal that vowed to end US hostility, lift all sanctions, fund a rebuilding effort, tie Israel’s hands in Lebanon and kick the nuclear can down the road – have already shown the world which of his Janus faces should be taken more seriously.

Well, one can only imagine how he feels watching the dreadful scenes at the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which was so provocatively timed to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the birth of America.

A cowed and broken regime might have been expected to tone down the usual “death to America” and “death to Israel” content, for fear of further aggravating the world’s only superpower. We’d better give it a rest, they might have muttered. For now, at least.

Instead, the rhetoric was gratuitous. Along with the standard “death to America” cries, they shouted, “our word is one! revenge! revenge!” amid the sight of Khamenei’s coffin. In the mob at Grand Mosalla, a banner displayed the slogan: “#KillTrump”.

Hamas Rakes in Millions, Prepares for War

Israeli security officials say Hamas is continuing to grow stronger and rebuild itself for a confrontation with Israel, both through money reaching it from outside Gaza and thanks to the "humanitarian" aid that continues to enter Gaza unchecked, about 600 trucks a day, while the real need is only about 200-250 trucks a day.

Hamas directly taxes the incoming trucks, collecting a tax of 15-30% from merchants. Hamas also forces merchants to sell their goods to traders operating under its auspices at a "supervised" price, so it can take a cut of the profits. In addition, Hamas manages to smuggle banned products into Gaza, such as cigarettes, which are sold at high prices and taxed at a higher rate.

There is evidence that Hamas sells electricity produced by hospital generators to residents living near the hospitals, using fuel that enters Gaza for humanitarian needs. It also charges rent for local merchants operating markets and stalls, and imposes fees for renewing business licenses. All this enables Hamas to efficiently fund its military arrays.

Sources in the defense establishment said, "The money Hamas receives from outside Gaza, along with the strengthening it achieves through the aid entering the Strip, enables it to rehabilitate military infrastructure and recruit new and young operatives who cannot find other work in Gaza. The money Hamas offers is their solution."

"We cannot repeat the statements we made before Oct. 7, according to which Hamas was deterred and would not attack. We cannot once again ignore what the other side is doing."

Read More

Does Bernie Sanders think that he will never get the Scott Wiener treatment?

Bernie Sanders tweeted:

AIPAC, and other billionaire-funded super PACs, are spending millions to buy the Democratic primaries in Michigan and Minnesota.

This is not about Abdul El-Sayed v. Haley Stevens or Peggy Flanagan v. Angie Craig.

This is about Abdul and Peggy v. AIPAC and the establishment.

It is precious that a white millionaire who has been in Congress and the Senate for 35 years pretends that he isn't the "establishment."

Beyond that, Sanders gets the fault line completely wrong. The actual line runs between people who think America has been the greatest nation on earth for 250 years, including in how it treats Jews and its allies, and people who want that America torn down and replaced with something that would be horrific to Jews nationally and internationally. AIPAC's spending is defending a system it values for the good of America; there is nothing more American than that. 

Sanders, as a Jew, couldn't have become a senator without America being as exceptional as it is. He is the beneficiary of the system he now decries. He has power and wealth unimaginable in most other countries. Instead, he has dedicated his life to supporting those who want to tear it all down because Jews are considered oppressors in the us vs. them universe he pretends exists. 

The Hebrew term for what's missing from his framing is hakarat hatov — recognition of the good, the obligation to acknowledge the system that made him. Sanders is a Jew who reached the Senate, ran twice for president, and became the most influential socialist in American life; no country he holds up as a model would have let him get anywhere near that position as a Jew. He is also a millionaire several times over, built inside the American system he now describes as a corrupt machine serving only "the establishment," his wealth and his platform both products of the same country he suggests needs to be fundamentally remade.

Does Sanders have principles? In his early career he routinely voted against military aid to Israel; he even objected to others blaming the Second Intifada on Palestinian terror. But in 2014 he angrily defended Israel's Gaza campaign to his own constituents at a town hall, deploying the same "Hamas fires from populated areas" line the Israeli government itself used, and he stayed largely quiet on the subject through his first presidential run. 

In the wake of October 7 Sanders affirmed Israel's right to defend itself, pushing back on colleagues who wanted an instant cease-fire because Hamas couldn't be trusted. His own former campaign staffers signed an open letter demanding he reverse course, the DSA-aligned wing of his coalition organized against him, and within a year he was praising the International Criminal Court for indicting Israel's prime minister for doing what he had supported a year before.

His supposed principles are most obvious with his support of Graham Platner, the Senate candidate Sanders endorsed in Maine and has refused to abandon through a Totenkopf tattoo modeled on an SS insignia and a New York Times report in which multiple women described disturbing behavior, including an accusation of rape. Sanders waved off the tattoo as a distraction from "one or two more important issues" and asked the country for "a little bit of forgiveness." A Jewish senator campaigning for a man with Nazi imagery on his chest has no standing to lecture anyone about principles. It is all politics and Sanders pivots his towards where the wind is blowing. 

Picture a young socialist challenging him the way DSA candidates now challenge every establishment Democrat: career politician, out of touch, wealthy, doesn't represent the people anymore — the standard toolkit, and every word of it fits his record. Thirty-five years in federal office, a net worth in the millions, multiple properties, a movement he built now being primaried from further left by people who consider him a relic of the system he claims to be fighting. An AOC figure would eat him for lunch.

He wouldn't even need to imagine what that looks like. Scott Wiener already lived it. Wiener had called Israel's campaign in Gaza a genocide, voted against military aid, and stepped down as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus to appease exactly this crowd. None of it mattered. Activists chased him out of San Francisco's Trans March, screaming about his "Zionist handlers" and his "tainted bloodline," days after another activist cornered him at a bar and demanded he say "Free Palestine" on camera. Total capitulation bought him nothing, because the target was never his positions. It was that he's a Jew who hadn't disappeared.

Sanders, for all his purported principles, did not say a word in Wiener's defense. Because if he would, the same machine he helped build that attacks a young gay Jew with an impeccable progressive record would go after an older wealthy Jew in a nanosecond. He knows that better than most, because the knives have already come out for him.

When the socialists Sanders supports today inevitably turn on him tomorrow,  the country he's spent a career denouncing won't be there to save him. The Jewish state that he regularly demonizes, though, would welcome him. 

Because that is what principles look like. 

---

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

 

Read More

When the Hospital Ward Became a Front in the War Against Jews

Weeks before Sydney's Bondi Beach attack, an international trauma medicine conference in Perth was set to feature Dr. Elon Glassberg, the former head of the Israeli military's medical corps, sharing the protocols that gave the Israeli army the lowest battlefield mortality rate in military history. Anti-Israel doctors and nurses groups threatened mass pickets. The organizers folded, and the conference was cancelled. Australian trauma specialists lost the chance to learn techniques that could have saved lives at Bondi itself — a cost one Adelaide trauma doctor, interviewed for a major investigation by Megan Goldin in The Australian (paywalled), says his own colleagues paid weeks later.

That is the shape of the story Goldin lays out over more than thirty interviews with Australian doctors, nurses, and midwives: an industry-wide activist campaign, running since October 7, 2023, that has repeatedly put ideology ahead of the patient in front of the practitioner. It is a chilling article that did not get enough publicity.

The pattern started with symbols. Doctors and nurses wore "river to the sea" pins on shift and plastered hospital corridors with a Star of David crossed out in red. At Melbourne's Alfred Hospital — a facility built in part on tens of millions of dollars from Jewish philanthropy — one such sticker ended up on the bedside wall of a dying elderly Jewish patient, in the last hours of his life.

The online conduct got worse than the stickers. Physicians posted Nazi caricatures relabeled with the word "Zionist" instead of "Jew," a substitution one Jewish pediatric neurologist in the piece calls a way of dressing up old hatred as new virtue. A prominent doctor described Jews mourning at a Bondi memorial vigil as "genocide supporting Zionists." Facebook groups that once existed for parenting advice turned on Jewish members who so much as mentioned the 251 hostages held in Gaza, or the mass rape and slaughter of October 7 itself.

Then the activism reached the bedside. Two nurses at Sydney's Bankstown Hospital were filmed describing what they would do to an Israeli patient who came through their doors — footage serious enough that police became involved. After it surfaced, Jewish patients across the country began hiding their religion on hospital admission forms. Charlotte Frajman, the daughter of an Auschwitz survivor, calls having to conceal her faith on a medical record a line she never expected to face in Australia.

The suspicious pattern shows up in cannula insertions — the ordinary act of placing an IV line. Frajman describes a nurse who took four attempts and left her bruised for weeks, after visibly registering her religion on his screen. Orit Brand, at a different Melbourne clinic, endured eight failed attempts before a different staff member was called in and succeeded immediately, without pain or bruising. Hospital protocol caps failed attempts at two before a colleague takes over; nurses at both hospitals confirm that cap was ignored. A mental health nurse who now counsels antisemitism victims calls the needle a nearly perfect weapon: it leaves a practitioner able to say, with total deniability, that the vein simply wouldn't cooperate.

The mistreatment extended to obstetrics and psychiatric care. A Jewish woman recovering from a C-section at a Sydney hospital was left overnight in a pool of blood with no pain relief while her newborn cried in the bassinet beside her. A Jewish ICU patient in Adelaide was given a bedside lecture by her own nurse denying the Holocaust and denying October 7. A Queensland psychotherapist posted online that Israelis were "not fit to live." A university psychiatry academic compared food-line queues in Gaza to gas chambers.

Regulatory failure compounded the clinical one. AHPRA, Australia's national health practitioner oversight body, took nearly three years to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and now faces a campaign from more than 1,400 healthcare workers demanding it reverse that decision. In the meantime, the agency's own numbers — 124 antisemitism complaints against 97 Islamophobia complaints since mid-2023 — obscure a documented double standard: midwife Sharon Stoliar drew more than fifteen complaints for objecting to a doctor's post quoting Hitler on "the Jewish question," while AHPRA closed the file on that doctor without action. Perth physician Deborah Cohen-Jones was formally cautioned by AHPRA for a social media post; the post in question compared a masked pro-Palestinian protester to a Klansman, after two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered in Washington. Stoliar, who isn't herself Jewish, was separately called "Jewish mafia" online and told her grandmother had been raped by Hitler in hell.

None of this occurs in a vacuum stripped of the war's brutality on both sides. But the piece is careful to note what the activist narrative leaves out: Hamas ran command bunkers inside Gaza hospitals, launched its October 7 assault partly from vehicles that departed hospital compounds, and held hostages inside them — one of whom was murdered by hospital medical staff. Palestinian Islamic Jihad's own misfired rocket, not an Israeli strike, caused the al-Ahli Hospital blast in the war's first days, a fact that took only hours to establish and made no difference to the doctors and nurses who marched through Sydney and Melbourne in scrubs chanting about Israeli hospital bombings.

The through-line across every incident Goldin documents is simple: a 2,500-year-old medical principle, that the patient's interest comes before the practitioner's politics, gave way the moment the patient was Jewish. A regulator that spent three years failing to say so plainly is now being lobbied, by more than a thousand of its own licensees, to say so even more quietly.

---

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

 

Read More

07/06 Links Pt2: From Historian to Polemicist: What Went Wrong with Omer Bartov; Are the Democrats to become America’s anti-Israel party?; GOP Voters Remain Deeply Supportive of Israel

From Ian:

Jeffrey Herf: From Historian to Polemicist: What Went Wrong with Omer Bartov

Bartov’s betrayal of the craft of history is apparent in a deficiency of evidence and causal reasoning. He refers to the “genocidal intentions openly expressed by Israel politicians and senior military officials” as if this was a proven fact. Nowhere in this book is there a discussion of the details of Israeli military operations, of the battle for specific towns or areas in Gaza, or of how various Israeli units conducted themselves. Yet Bartov claims that “the pattern of operations by the IDF” in Gaza, which he has not examined, leads him to conclude “that these [genocidal] intentions were put into practice.” Attacks on civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, water supplies, and electricity grids “went far beyond military necessity … . All of this was not accidental, but part of a strategy to destroy Gaza as a livable space for Palestinians. Even if there was no formal order for genocide, military logic show that genocide was the consequence.” It was “no longer a coincidence” but was “a deliberately pursued policy” (pp. 193-194).

Bartov fails both to establish that a genocide occurred and, even on that assumption, to provide evidence or a causal account of it as a “deliberately pursued policy.” This is a shocking conclusion for an historian of Nazi Germany to advance. As readers familiar with the works of Yehuda Bauer, Richard Breitman, Christopher Browning, Lucy Dawidowicz, Raul Hilberg, Saul Friedländer, Ian Kershaw, Peter Longerich, and many others know very well, the effort to establish the causal connections between Hitler’s ideology and the decision-making that led to the Final Solution has consumed thousands of pages, tens of thousands of footnotes, years of research in archives, careful examination of the dates and sequence of statements, meetings and orders to the Einsatzgruppen, and the construction and operation of the death camps. Yet Bartov, without access to Israeli archives and having made no serious examination of the public record of Israeli decision-making confidently asserts the existence of a “deliberately pursued policy.” There is no reason to take this conclusion seriously. Here again, Bartov has abandoned the historian’s craft in favor of polemics.

Bartov the polemicist concludes with an accusation of collective guilt against Israelis. “How,” he asks, “How do we come to terms with the obliteration of Gaza? Will Israel ever face justice for its genocidal actions?” (p. 201). The long-term consequence of “this travesty may, however, be that the genocide in Gaza will finally liberate Israel of its status as a unique state rooted in a unique Holocaust.” The “license that Israel, the land of the victim, has long enjoyed and abused may be expiring. The sons and daughters of the next generation will be free to rethink their own lives and their future, beyond the memory of the Holocaust; they will also have to pay for the sins of their parents and bear the burden of the genocide perpetrated in their name” (p. 203).

So having written a book of unsubstantiated accusations, Bartov plays judge and jury declaring the accused guilty. Israel will “not be viable,” will become a “pariah state … isolated from its allies and the Jewish diaspora,” and eventually “Israeli apartheid will implode, as happened in South Africa under the pressure of mass protests, violence an arms embargo and economic sanctions by the international community” (206). An alternative to that is the replacement of the existing state of Israel with some form of confederation of Israelis and Palestinians that replaces the Zionist project.

Bartov has written a book that combines a paucity of evidence and a compelling causal argument with a writing style that is likely to appeal to journalists and political activists and even academics eager to read an Israeli-born historian of the Holocaust who eloquently reinforces their increasingly antagonistic views not only of the State of Israel but also of the Israelis as people. The question is not whether Bartov is an antisemite, though it is clear that he thoroughly rejects Zionism. The issue is whether, in Israel: What Went Wrong, he advances arguments that are true or false—and, if false, whether the book recycles and skillfully refurbishes the oldest and most enduring accusation at the core of antisemitic ideology: namely, that the Jews, since the time of the Crucifixion, through the Koranic stories of Jews killing the prophets, to the blood libels and modern conspiracy theories blaming them for wars, are a people uniquely inclined by habit, tradition, and character toward the murder of the innocent. This calumny lay at the heart of centuries of anti-Jewish persecution and culminated in the Holocaust, when the Nazis propagated the idea of international Jewry bent on the “extermination” of the German people.

The charge of genocide against the State of Israel should be understood within this long history of antisemitic libels. Like the calumnies that preceded it, it transmutes claims supported by little or no evidence into articles of faith and passionately held convictions. The problem with Bartov’s argument is not that it is wrong because it is antisemitic; it is wrong because it is false. Yet the repeated circulation of such falsehoods against the Jews—and now against Israel—inevitably fuels antisemitism, intensifying hatred of Jews around the world, and deepening the growing hostility toward Israel.

Bartov’s tome is likely to contribute to the ongoing effort to make hatred of Israel respectable in the faculty lounge, the editorial office, the think tank, and in many political parties. I hope that in this case, the strategy of prestige transfer fails and that more discerning readers will ponder the question “What went wrong with Omer Bartov?” The book does not represent the standards expected from professional historians nor from what we should expect from a distinguished publisher such as Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Nevertheless, initial responses indicate that it may be a successful polemic and a commercial success. Its lack of scholarly distinction will not diminish its contribution to the global campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If so, it will not be the first time that a very bad book has an outsized impact on public and published opinion.

Jonathan Tobin: Are the Democrats to become America’s anti-Israel party?

Is it possible for the pendulum among Democrats to swing back to the center over the course of the next two years? Possibly. If leftist candidates, like Michigan’s pro-Islamist Abdul El-Sayeed, are defeated by Republicans in November (Maine’s Nazi-tattooed Israel-bashing Graham Platner may be crashing and burning due to allegations of sexual assault that may destroy his candidacy long before the voters render their verdict), it could convince many Democrats to change course. The far left’s dominance in primaries has given Trump an issue that could lead to the disappointment of the Democrats’ expectations for a midterm blue wave in the same manner that sunk the GOP’s hopes for a red wave in 2022.

Such a scenario could be ideal for Shapiro. But in a party that seems convinced that it lost the White House and Congress in 2024 because their leaders were insufficiently anti-Israel, rather than because of their embrace of far-left ideas like gender ideology and critical race theory, that sort of sensible thinking seems unlikely.

And it’s unclear if Fetterman, whose health issues have dogged him for the past four years, will even try to hold onto his seat in 2028. Though he has a respectable amount of money on hand in his campaign treasury, his fundraising efforts have stalled in the last couple of years. Were he to cross the aisle and become a Republican, that might be an easier path to another six-year term, though that seems unlikely. And while independents have won Senate races in other states, that is viewed as less likely in Pennsylvania, due to both the partisan spirit of the times and the way the commonwealth’s election system is skewed toward enforcing party dominance. The smart money is now on him simply not running for re-election. If so, he will be missed because of his rather unique style, both in terms of his centrism and his sartorial choices.

A haunting precedent
The problem for someone like Shapiro, who tries but usually fails to conceal his unquenchable ambition for higher office, is that the shift to the left among Democrats may have already gone too far to accommodate someone with his views, particularly on Israel.

Indeed, his hopes for a return of the Democratic Party of 1992 should worry rather than encourage him. In that time, the dominant politician in Pennsylvania was one of his predecessors in Harrisburg, Gov. Bob Casey Sr. (father to his namesake, who represented Pennsylvania in the Senate from 2007 to 2025). The popular Casey was a throwback to an earlier era of American politics in many ways, not least because he is usually referred to as the last of the pro-life Democrats. The Clinton camp denied him a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention largely because they felt that it was no longer possible to give that sort of prominence to someone who was so out of touch with the rest of the party on an issue on which so many felt so strongly.

That precedent should haunt Shapiro. Because just as anti-abortion Democrats are now extinct, it’s entirely possible that if current trends hold, by 2028 or soon thereafter, pro-Israel Democrats might be put in the same position. Indeed, right now, I’d say the odds of Shapiro being denied a speaking slot at the 2028 DNC are slightly higher than his rather minimal chances of being nominated for president at that gathering.

Even if you don’t share Shapiro’s high opinion of his capabilities, that’s tragic. If, as recent primaries and the polls indicate, opposition to Israel is a requirement to get the votes of most Democrats, the party is on the verge of becoming as anti-Israel as it is pro-abortion. While the rise of antisemitism on the right is creating genuine concerns about the future of the Republican Party, the far more serious situation on the left is now creating the possibility that the national Democratic Party will soon not be so much divided on Israel but will have become a space where politicians like Shapiro, let alone Fetterman, will have no place in it.

Read More

07/06 Links Pt1: Why Entebbe Wouldn’t be Celebrated Today; Hamas move to dissolve Gaza governance ‘means nothing,’; Sa’ar says Turkish FM’s remarks a ‘clear call for genocide’

From Ian:

Why Entebbe Wouldn’t be Celebrated Today

Zionism, once understood by many as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, had become, in much of Western discourse, synonymous with colonialism, racism and oppression. The Jewish homeland became the Jewish oppressor, while Jewish self-defence became uniquely suspect.

After the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, many Jews found themselves accused not because they celebrated murder, but because they celebrated rescue.

Think about that for a moment.

More Jews were murdered on 7 October than on any day since the Holocaust, hundreds more were kidnapped, families watched parents, children and grandparents dragged into Gaza to face torture, sexual violence and captivity.

Yet the expectation placed upon Israel by much of the international community was unlike that demanded of almost any other democracy. If rescuing your own citizens risks too many civilian casualties because terrorists have embedded themselves among civilians, then perhaps your citizens should remain where they are.

That expectation would have been unimaginable in 1976.

The Jewish state was created because Jewish history had demonstrated, catastrophically, what happens when Jews lack both sovereignty and the means to defend themselves. After the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, many seemed to believe that lesson should be forgotten.

Entebbe taught the world that Jews would never again be abandoned. Nuseirat revealed how many people now believed they should have been.

This is not an argument against criticising Israel. Criticise governments, criticise military strategy, criticise political leaders. Every democracy should expect that scrutiny. It is, however, an argument against changing the moral principles by which democracies are judged.

Because if we conclude that the rescue of hostages becomes illegitimate simply because terrorists have made the rescue sufficiently costly, then we hand every terrorist organisation in the world a blueprint.

Hide behind civilians, kidnap innocents, raise the price of rescue. Wait for democracies to decide that saving their own people is no longer worth the condemnation.

Fifty years ago, the world looked at Entebbe and saw a democracy refusing to abandon its citizens. Almost fifty years later, much of the world looked at Nuseirat and asked whether those citizens should have been rescued at all.

Fifty years ago, Israel was admired because it refused to abandon Jews. Today, it is too often condemned for refusing to abandon them.

The operation changed remarkably little. It was the world that changed.

Israel urges WHO to condemn Hamas over press conference at Gaza hospital

Israel’s mission in Geneva on Monday called on the World Health Organization to denounce Hamas after the terrorist group held a press conference outside a hospital in the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas held a press conference today at Shuhada al-Aqsa Hospital in Gaza,” the mission wrote on X, using the Arabic name for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza.

“Any silence on Hamas’ exploitation of the hospital for propaganda will be a choice,” it continued, tagging the WHO and its director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

“Al-Shifa, Nasser, and Kamal Adwan Hospitals, all have been abused by Hamas to hide terrorists and weapons, cynically and brazenly. They used them as terror hubs to hide and torture hostages. And now they use a hospital as a stage for propaganda,” the post added. “With each step, WHO’s silence is so much more deafening.”

The press conference was held outside the emergency department of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital on Monday afternoon by Ismail Thawabta, head of Hamas’s “government” media office, and Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem.

Thawabta and Qassem announced that Hamas was dissolving one of the key “civilian” bodies through which it administers Gaza, while saying employees would remain in their posts, in what appeared to be a largely symbolic move.

An Israeli official told Kan News public broadcaster that the purported resignation of the Hamas government, while all of its members remain in office, was “a spin that means absolutely nothing.”

A Turning Point in a Parking Lot

A single nighttime photo from October 17, 2023 exposed the Hamas playbook and Al Jazeera’s role in laundering it through global media and human rights organizations. It was the first consequential press event for Palestinians since October 7 and was a turning point in the war.

The photo is the choreographed scene broadcast live from Al-Shifa hospital in the immediate aftermath of an explosion at the nearby Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital. The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health claimed that 500 Palestinians were killed in a “targeted” Israeli airstrike of the 80-bed hospital in Gaza City just two hours before.

It was a lie.

An errant rocket fired by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) landed among a dense crowd of Palestinian civilians seeking shelter in the hospital parking lot. The bodies from Al-Ahli Baptist were rushed to a press conference at Gaza’s largest hospital, where they knew international media were already stationed and ready.

The shrouded bodies are presumably real. But note the unidentified young man in front of the podium posing with a dead infant still in its bloodied clothing. Note the second young man holding the corpse of a young girl.

This was not merely a press conference. It was macabre theatre for a global audience that was in denial about the mass atrocities Hamas perpetrated only ten days prior.

It was an attempt to stop the war while Hamas still held 240 hostages and before Israeli ground forces could enter the Strip to rescue them and stop the incessant rocket fire.

While it failed to halt Israel's offensive, this is the event that crystallized the "Israel bombs hospitals" narrative and that primed audiences for the rapid spread of the genocide libel.

At the press conference, Dr. Abu-Sittah said:
“Every western politician who has declared unconditional support for Israel’s war effort on the Palestinian people has the blood of these children on their hands. That unconditional support is what led us to this massacre… no other country feels free to target hospitals and get away with it. What happened today is a war crime.”

Read More

The Human Rights Asterisk for Jews

In June 2026, a group of human rights and humanitarian professionals calling itself EiGHT delivered a submission to Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism, drawn from the first-hand accounts of more than seventy people inside the world’s major rights and aid organizations — Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and others.

Its sixty-three pages are the first extensive insider account of how the sector operates when the subject is Jews.

The findings are consistent across organizations, functions, and continents: complaints about antisemitism produce no consequences; retaliation and non-disclosure agreements used against staff who raise them; Jewish employees excluded from the discussions that concern them; senior leaders publicly modeling hostility toward Israel and Jews; and methodological failures in published work that propagate outward through media, academia, and the courts into public life.

Running through all of it is a single institutional habit. On matters touching Israel and antisemitism, the sector applies its own principles — universalism, neutrality, evidentiary rigor — with a slant. Complaints of antisemitism trigger debates over definition rather than investigations. Israeli and Jewish victims receive systematically less attention and empathy than victims in comparable contexts. Antisemitism, alone among bigotries, is treated as uniquely disputable and politically inconvenient.

The report gathers this evidence overwhelmingly from the inside: its Slack channels, its dossiers, its leaked emails and its exit interviews.

That’s bad enough. But as we’ve seen over the years, it is not surprising — because that is how these organizations and their top officials act towards antisemitism in their public pronouncements as well. These organizations, whose entire warrant is the equal moral standing of every human being, cannot condemn an attack on Jews the way they condemn an attack on anyone else. The condemnation, when it comes, arrives with an asterisk. The clearest proof is in the cases where the condemnation is real.

On 18 November 2014, two Palestinians murdered four worshippers and wounded eight at a synagogue in West Jerusalem. Amnesty International’s statement opened exactly as a human rights statement should: “Nothing can ever justify such an abhorrent attack on worshippers in a synagogue. The deliberate killing of civilians must be utterly condemned.” That is a flat condemnation, and it demonstrates that Amnesty is entirely capable of producing one for murdered Jews.

Having produced it, Amnesty spent the rest of the statement taking it back. Within three paragraphs the document had pivoted to Netanyahu’s promised “heavy hand,” to punitive house demolitions, to collective punishment, to “a spate of unlawful killings of Palestinians,” to settlers attacking olive harvesters, and it closed on the demand that Israel hold accountable “anyone who attacks civilians on either side.” 128 words to condemn the attack; 330 words to warn against how Israel might respond.

A massacre of Jews at prayer had become an excuse to denounce the Jewish state.

Another statement, a year later on 20 November 2015, followed the same architecture.

It opened cleanly — “there can be no justification” for the attacks, “deliberately attacking civilians is contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of international law and can never be justified” — and then folded the murdered Israelis into a ledger that ran through house demolitions, “a pattern of unlawful killings by Israeli forces,” extrajudicial executions, and settler attacks, balancing the dead against the conduct of the state they belonged to.

In both statements the clean condemnation is real, and in both it is a hand extended and then withdrawn. It’s a real shame about the victims, but there are two sides to every story!

Now look at the condemnations Amnesty produces when the victims are not Jews. When a white nationalist murdered fifty Muslims at prayer in Christchurch in March 2019, Amnesty widened the frame — to Islamophobia across Europe, to Le Pen and Farage and Brexit, to Trump and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The widening ran entirely toward the killer’s side, enlarging his guilt into a movement’s, and it never once paused to weigh the murdered worshippers against the conduct of any government they belonged to.

When two men murdered a migrant stopping for water near El Paso in 2022 — having, they said, mistaken their victims for wild animals — seventy human rights organizations signed a letter that named the dead man and the children he left, traced the killing to a “dangerous trend” of white-supremacist violence, invoked the El Paso massacre three years earlier as precedent, and demanded the government answer for the policies that let such violence “thrive.” The state conduct they criticized was the state’s failure to protect the victims.

Every widening ran on the victims’ behalf.

Only when the victims are Jews does the scope of the condemnation get narrowed, not widened. It includes a “but,” implicit or explicit. That is the asterisk.

The asterisk cannot be explained by the identity of the attacker, and the proof is Pittsburgh. In October 2018 a white nationalist — the sector’s least ambiguous villain, the figure it condemns without hesitation for Christchurch and El Paso — murdered eleven Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue.

Unni Karunakara, former international president of Médecins Sans Frontières, responded that blame “must be shared by Zionists like Netanyahu for enabling white nationalists like Trump.” The post was later deleted; the EiGHT submission preserves the screenshot. An attack with no Israeli policy anywhere in its causal chain — a synagogue in Pennsylvania, a gunman animated by hatred of a Jewish refugee agency — was routed back to Netanyahu regardless.

The perpetrator was precisely the kind the sector condemns cleanly. The asterisk appeared anyway, because the only constant it tracks is the identity of the victim.

Amnesty’s own conduct confirms that the asterisk is a choice rather than a reflex. In the middle of that Christchurch essay, the author pauses to recall Pittsburgh: “when a white supremacist entered a synagogue in Pittsburgh and shot dead 11 worshippers.” The reference is clean — named killer, named crime, no pivot, no balancing paragraph. Amnesty can narrate the murder of Jews without an asterisk when the murdered Jews are a supporting example in an essay whose subject is the suffering of Muslims.

The plain condemnation is available. It is withheld only when the Jews are what the story is about.

The report documents a second form the asterisk takes, and Kenneth Roth performed both forms in a single morning. Twelve hours after two gunmen murdered fifteen Jews at a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach in December 2025, Roth — who ran Human Rights Watch for thirty years — posted that “attacks on civilians are never justified regardless of the cause,” a sentence that enters a cause onto the scale in the same breath it condemns the attack.

Twenty-two minutes later he attacked Netanyahu for connecting the massacre to Australian policy, spending his one substantive invocation of antisemitism that day on defending the “genocide and apartheid” charge against Israel from any association with the killing of Jews. And within days he was attacking Australia’s antisemitism envoy for “cheapening the concept” of antisemitism by linking anti-Israel protest to the murders.

There are the two flavors of the asterisk in one man’s response to one atrocity: the Jews had it coming, and the Jews are too sensitive about it. Both place the Jewish victim, rather than the killer, as the problem in the sentence.

Condemning antisemitism, when it happens, always carries a qualifier — either the Jews provoked the attack or the Jews are exaggerating it — and both qualifiers do the same work, which is to withdraw from Jews the flat, unconditional defense that a human rights organization exists to extend to everyone. Not one Jew can read what Amnesty or Ken Roth or Unni Karunakara writes and think, “they are on our side.” Because they aren’t.

Just as EiGHT documents internally, these “human rights” leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming to write half-hearted public condemnations of Jews being murdered, and even then they must always add that one caveat - don’t forget the Jews are just as bad, too.

Read together, the private evidence and the public evidence describe one movement, deciding case by case and attack by attack that the Jews don’t quite deserve the same presumption of human rights that all other people do.

---

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

 

Read More

The NYTimes Cannot See Wikipedia's Biases - Because It Shares Them

The New York Times published a piece this weekend on Wikipedia's many enemies. AI companies are scraping it. The MAGA right is smearing it. The US government is hectoring it. Authoritarian regimes are locking up its editors. Through it all, we're assured, Wikipedia remains a bastion of objectivity — "beloved," "credible," a "trustworthy source," per CEO Bernadette Meehan, who gets to make her case in her own words at length. Only crackpots have a problem with Wikipedia, we are reliably told.

There's just one problem with that framing. Wikipedia itself has admitted its Israel-related articles were hijacked.

For at least two years, reporters and bloggers — Aaron Bandler at the Jewish Journal and then JNS, the pseudonymous Wikipedia Flood blog, Ashley Rindsberg at Tablet — documented what Rindsberg dubbed the "Gang of 40": a network of editors who racked up 850,000 combined edits across 10,000 Israel-related articles, rewriting the opening line of "Zionism" to say the movement wanted a Jewish state with "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible," stripping Hamas's charter references to the destruction of Israel, deleting Israel as the origin of the Jewish people from the article on Jews. This wasn't a fringe accusation. In January 2025, Wikipedia's own Arbitration Committee — the "Wikipedian Supreme Court," in the site's own description — banned eight editors from the topic area by name, six identified with the pro-Palestinian side (Selfstudier, Nableezy, Nishidani, Levivich, Iskandar323, Makeandtoss) and two with the pro-Israel side (BilledMammal, AndreJustAndre). More sanctions followed this year, including an indefinite ban for an editor called TarnishedPath in the weeks before the Times piece ran, with a University of Haifa researcher calling it "an important, if overdue, step."

That is Wikipedia, using its own procedures, concluding across multiple cases that its own coverage of Israel had been captured by organized editors. Even after the bans, Wikipedia let the disputed "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" line stand — an administrator froze it in the article's lead for a full year, shielding the banned editors' preferred wording from challenge until they could appeal. Wikipedia did the same thing to the title of another page, freezing debate over the name "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" — which accuses Israel of a massacre for a hostage-rescue raid — so that no one could even discuss changing it until August 2026. And it wasn't content to let these articles sit quietly in the archive: Wikipedia's own editors linked the "Gaza genocide" article in the "In the news" section of the site's main page, the highest-traffic real estate on one of the ten most visited websites on earth, putting an accusation Wikipedia's own arbitration process was simultaneously investigating in front of millions of readers a day. 

This should be the single most relevant fact to a story asking whether Wikipedia's neutrality is a settled matter or an open question, and the Times left it out entirely. Instead, the Times lists a set of critics and files them all under one label: Elon Musk, Ted Cruz, David Sacks, Tucker Carlson, "and even Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales in 2001" — five names, one sentence, one bucket: "the MAGA right." Most of them would object to that label. None of them would say they mean the same thing by their criticism. Musk thinks Wikipedia is "Wokepedia." Sanger, an actual co-founder who wrote much of the site's original neutrality policy, has spent years arguing the site abandoned it. Those are not the same complaint, and lumping them together does exactly what it's designed to do: it lets the reader dismiss all five with one word instead of engaging any of them.

Sanger's case is the giveaway, because the Times itself knows better. Eleven days earlier, on June 25, it ran an entire article on Sanger's ban — his "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" proposal, the procedural vote that got him banned "indefinitely" days later, his own furious response that he'd been blocked "by the 'consensus' of a mob" with "no due process, no prosecutor, no dispassionate judge, no jury." That piece treated him as a serious subject worth understanding on his own terms. This piece drops him into a list next to Tucker Carlson and moves on. Nothing about Sanger changed between June 25 and July 5. What changed is which narrative he was being used to serve.

And the criticism of Wikipedia isn't new, and it certainly isn't MAGA. The ADL spent months documenting the same "Gang of 40" pattern the arbitration committee eventually acted on — a report the Times never mentions. Wikipedia's own editors, for their part, responded to the ADL's findings by voting the ADL "generally unreliable" specifically at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism, while keeping it "generally reliable" everywhere else, including on hate groups and extremism. The administrator who closed that vote wrote that the ADL has "a habit... of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism." Think about that: Wikipedia's own governance apparatus adopted, as an official sourcing rule, the argument that criticism of Israel is being mislabeled as antisemitism — while Wikipedia's own arbitration committee was simultaneously banning editors for exactly the kind of rabid anti-Israel distortion the ADL had flagged. Wikipedia disqualified the messenger while acting on the message. You wouldn't know any of this reading the Times piece, which treats Wikipedia's reliability as a foregone conclusion rather than a subject with an actual paper trail. (An earlier interview with Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales last November  likewise doesn't even touch on the anti-Israel bias as he defends its entries on topics like abortion and how well opposing editors work together.)

Maybe the reason the Times can't see any of this is that it suffers from the same affliction it's covering for. A newsroom that already shares Wikipedia's general politics — anti-Israel by reflex in places, reliably left of center, comfortable treating its own instincts as neutral — isn't equipped to notice when an institution built on the same instincts calls itself neutral too. It isn't hiding the evidence. It doesn't register as evidence, because the lens producing Wikipedia's judgment calls is the same lens the Times used to write the story.

This matters well past Wikipedia's own pages, which is what makes the Times' AI section so thin. The piece frames artificial intelligence as a threat to Wikipedia — chatbots "gorging on a data buffet," "polluting the information ecosystem that feeds into the encyclopedia." This has some  truth to it, but it doesn't mention the real danger from AI.. Nathan Marcus, a former Education Department civil rights official, told JNS that what's frightening isn't just how many people rely on Wikipedia, but that AI models "rely so heavily on it" too — the site can "launder accusations" from anti-Israel sources and "turn them into encyclopedia entries," which then "become the basis for AI-generated materials that become the basis for all sorts of education, indoctrination and decision-making." A ruling like "the ADL is generally unreliable on antisemitism where Israel is concerned" doesn't stay contained to one article once a model has trained on it — it becomes background assumption, repeated with the same confidence as any other fact the model learned. An article asking whether Wikipedia deserves the trust it's given had every reason to ask what happens when that trust gets inherited automatically by the tools answering a growing share of the world's questions. It asked instead whether the AI companies are treating Wikipedia fairly.

Either way, this is a case study in why the Times has bled the trust it used to have. The information was sitting right there — the arbitration committee's own bans, the ADL report, the Times' own reporting on Sanger three weeks earlier. The paper had everything it needed to write the piece its own headline promised: a real look at a real controversy over Wikipedia's objectivity. It chose not to. That's not an accident of space constraints. It's an editorial decision, made by editors, about what the story was allowed to say.

Which puts the Times in exactly the position it's describing. Wikipedia's article on Zionism isn't biased because facts are biased. It's biased because a group of editors decided what counted and what didn't. The Times' article on Wikipedia isn't biased because facts are biased, either. It's biased because a group of editors decided what counted and what didn't. This is the same failure of hubris, with both Wikipedia and the NYT insisting that their own policies inoculate them from bias, that blinds them to the bias itself. 

---

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

 

Read More