Seth Mandel: The European Bid to Save Hamas
There’s a moment in the novel The Parisian in which a bunch of Arab Palestinians in Nablus in 1920 read a newspaper report that King Faisal has declared himself head of an independent Greater Syria. Most of the group cheers, but one man turns to another and says: “Does it say where Syria is?”Caroline Glick: The ICC’s war crimes
What he wants to know is: What are the borders of this magically declared new independent state, and do they extend to where he is standing?
That’s the question everyone should be wondering today, as the governments of Ireland, Norway, and Spain have taken the rare step of recognizing the state of Palestine. And where is this existing state of Palestine? Well, according to Irish prime minister Simon Harris, it doesn’t physically exist yet: “We had hoped to recognize Palestine as part of a two-state peace deal, but instead we recognize Palestine to keep the hope of that two-state solution alive.”
In other words, the Irish government hoped to recognize a real state, but for the time being it will recognize an imaginary one.
If the Irish premier is right, however, he just solved the conflict. There’s no need to worry about keeping the two-state solution alive, because he just recognized the two states. Of course, if he doesn’t believe the state has borders yet, where is he going to put the embassy? Never mind.
Recognizing the state of Palestine while Hamas is in power explicitly and literally empowers and legitimizes Hamas as a governing entity. There is no wiggle room there. So, asked why he would legitimize Hamas now, Harris made clear that he didn’t really think about that part: “Hamas is not the Palestinian people, and here in Ireland, better than most countries in the world, we know what it’s like when a terrorist organization seeks to hijack your identity and seeks to speak for you.”
Now, it may sound from these comments that the trio of European leaders have made a rather thoughtless and dim move. But in fact Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez took great pains to clarify that the intentions behind this joint recognition announcement were evil, not stupid: “Spain will be accompanied by other European countries. The more there are of us, the sooner we will achieve a ceasefire. We are not going to give up.”
So the point of timing the announcement now was to save Hamas by stopping the war before the terror group loses control of the Gaza Strip. The three governments sought to legitimize Hamas, yes, but even more so they wanted to take action that might rescue Hamas from defeat and keep it in power in this new state of Palestine.
The ICC’s lack of jurisdiction is only part of the legal problem with its move against Israel. In his statement on Monday, Khan drew a false moral equivalence between the crimes against humanity and acts of genocide Hamas committed on Oct. 7—meaning, the terror group’s invasion of Israel and slaughter, rape, torture and abduction of thousands of civilians and soldiers on the one hand, and the lawful acts of war that Israel has conducted against the Hamas terrorist regime and its terror army in response to that invasion and commission of atrocities.Do You Actually Hate Jews?
Hamas is bound by its charter to commit genocide against the Jewish people worldwide and to annihilate the Jewish state. Khan’s allegations against Netanyahu and Gallant—and against the State of Israel more broadly—are predicated on blood libels originating from the Hamas regime in Gaza. In so acting, the ICC is providing material support for Hamas. That is, it is providing material support for a genocidal terror group engaged in a genocidal war against the Jewish people.
Unlike the libelous accusations Khan raised against Israel’s elected leaders, Khan’s provision of material support for Hamas’s war of genocide is an actual war crime.
Both houses of Congress are now advancing bills to sanction the ICC and its personnel for their illegal prosecution of Israel, a U.S. ally. It is essential that these bills be fast-tracked through the legislative process.
But two more actions should be taken.
A threat to the free world
First, the United States should indict Hamas’s terror masters, including senior leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohamed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, and other top Hamas terrorists for the murder, rape, kidnapping and torture of U.S. citizens on and since Oct. 7. Not only should these war criminals not get a free pass for their actions, they should be held criminally liable by real courts, as opposed to the ICC’s kangaroo court, which is only advancing charges against them to criminalize a liberal democracy carrying out a war for its national survival.
Second, Khan and his associates should be charged with extortion of U.S. elected officials. Following the news late last month that Khan intended to pursue false charges against Israel’s leaders, several American lawmakers announced their intention to advance legislation sanctioning ICC officials. In response to those announcements, on May 3, the ICC issued a statement that Khan posted on his X account, threatening action against anyone acting against them.
The statement claimed that “threats” of action against the ICC and its personnel “may … constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Art.70 of the Rome Statute.”
Although Israel is a small state and the only Jewish one, now isolated in the international community, prejudicial actions taken against it pose a threat to the free world as a whole.
In 2024, antisemitism generally evidences itself in two forms. The first is your classic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, “Hitler was right” sort of neo-fascist fabulism. The second is the kind who buys every lie coming out of Al Jazeera and the rabidly antisemitic Arab press. The thing about both of these kinds of hate is that they have been watered down to a level of acceptability in many circles. The watered-down Protocols crowd accurately points to the number of Jewish influencers in Hollywood and the media, as if that somehow validates an unspoken blood libel. These people are the Joe Rogans of the world—avowedly “fair” while actually speaking from highly bigoted assumptions.A Response to the New Antisemitism: Independence of Thought
The second crowd—the watered-down Al Jazeera crowd—hides behind “anti-colonialism” as an excuse for quaint chants in favor of exterminating Israel’s Jewish population. Unfortunately, that second kind of watered-down antisemitism is mirrored in the great majority of the mass media in the U.S. and globally. CNN, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, Reuters and the like will buy every line coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry and every staged Pallywood video without question, and will flood the zone endlessly with stories supporting the myth of Israeli fascism and “genocide.” When you see Jewish students on college campuses across America being terrorized by their Hamas-sympathizing peers, that phenomenon is fueled almost completely by that second sort of antisemitism—let’s call it the “media narrative of Israel.”
When someone starts demonstrating outside the Jewish dry cleaner because of that mustard stain—whether they’re politically on the right or the left—there are only two possible explanations:
1. They bought the media narrative of Israel.
2. Consciously or subconsciously, they hate Jews.
I can almost forgive people who fall prey to No. 1, especially if they are young and/or stupid. College students who don’t know any better are immersed in a nonstop barrage of the media narrative of Israel, and as college students their brains are mush anyway, so I sort of get how they could be so easily misled. Your average, working, adult American who does not pay much attention to politics or international relations can also be driven into this belief set—their media bombards them with unbalanced, anti-Israel propaganda, and if all those kids are protesting on campus, there must be something to it, right?
But it’s people like my fellow soldier on X who trouble me more. When you know that Israel is the freest, most liberal state in the region; when you know that war is hell and civilians die in all wars; when you know that the IDF engages in state-of-the-art mitigation measures to protect innocent civilians; when you know all of these things and still engage in the blood libelish lies of “Israel is committing genocide,” No. 2 is the only logical conclusion. The only stain is the one on that person’s soul—a black stain of Jew hatred that goes back millennia.
The hate of the well-informed stands out because it’s purposeful. Ultimately, antisemitism is a mind virus. Any so-called influencer or self-styled intellectual who spreads it to fellow Americans, under the guise of informing them, is a predator.
Considering the way the anti-Israel left combines its peculiar ideas of morality with its peculiar brand of anti-Semitism, Yehoshua Pfeffer explains the challenge it poses:
In a world that cares only about power inequality, the Jew loses all status. Abraham was chosen by God for his dedication to justice; he cannot live in a justice-free space. Moreover, when seen through the binary progressive lens of oppressor and oppressed, the Jew represents the quintessential evil: he becomes the epitome of whiteness, colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchism; he is oppression incarnate, and the oppressed Arab (or Palestinian) is goodness personified. . . .
Right-wing anti-Semitism drove us, decades ago, to physical independence in the Jewish state. Today, left-wing anti-Semitism inspires us to build on our spatial freedom and achieve a type of independence we have yet to develop and cultivate: intellectual independence.
To achieve such independence, writes Pfeffer, Jews must be willing to reject the recent trends of the world of ideas, and try to recover modes of thought and moral ideals rooted in their own tradition:
Notwithstanding its political independence, Israel has not made concerted efforts to cultivate a parallel [intellectual] space free from the shackles of academic uniformity. On the contrary, core institutions have copied the liberal ideas that 20th-century Jews had become so enamored with. In its early years, socialism was a dominant force in Israel’s economy and social models. Though socialism has declined and the kibbutzim mainly privatized, Israel’s universities, popular media, state institutions, and significant elements within branches of government (in particular the legal system) continue to reflect the same left-progressive principles that are breeding anti-Semitism worldwide.
Today, in an age of Jewish sovereignty and a period of unprecedented crisis, we must ensure that these study halls, haredi and otherwise, devote significant energies to the great questions of human life that contemporary academia [seeks to answer]. Israel must become the countercultural reaction against the anti-Semitism-breeding academic orthodoxy.