"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
In these our kingdoms there were some wicked Christians who Judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, the great cause of which was interaction between the Jews and these Christians.... they have had means and ways they can to subvert and to steal faithful Christians from our holy Catholic faith and to separate them from it, and to draw them to themselves and subvert them to their own wicked belief and conviction, instructing them in the ceremonies and observances of their law... and persuading them as much as they can to hold and observe the law of Moses, convincing them that there is no other law or truth except for that one. ....Whenever any grave and detestable crime is committed by members of any organization or corporation, it is reasonable that such an organization or corporation should be dissolved and annihilated and that the lesser members as well as tile greater and everyone for the others be punished, and that those who perturb the good and honest life of cities and towns and by contagion can injure others should be expelled from those places and even if for lighter causes, that may be injurious to the Republic, how Much more for those greater and most dangerous and most contagious crimes such as this.
![]() |
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
In an April 23, 2025 speech at the 32nd Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Council meeting in Ramallah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ... alleged that "a large part of [Israeli] history is falsified," and asserted that according to the Quran, the First and Second Jewish Temples were actually located in Yemen.Mahmoud Abbas: "[Israel] is trying to change the historical and legal status of the Islamic and Christian holy places, especially the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is in inseparable part of our religious faith and national identity, and our presence in our historical homeland of Palestine for thousands of years. [The Al-Aqsa Mosque] is the target of the most hideous plot by the occupation. They spread incitement for its destruction, and the building of a Jewish temple in its place. In the Noble Quran – and I believe that also in other divine books – it says that the [First and Second] Temples were in Yemen. People who like reading about religion can check it out.
The Quran says no such thing. But Palestinian and Jordanian "researchers" have made that claim before.
The first one to say this was Kamal Salibi, a Jordanian scholar, who published a book in 1982 called "The Bible Came from Arabia." This was further refined to Yemen by the early 2010s using more pseudo-scholarship and people claiming Jerusalem was in Yemen.
Denying Jewish history and denying that the Jews have a history in Israel is antisemitism.
Abbas has spouted antisemitism over a half dozen times before - and every time his words get swept under the rug. Because if the "moderate" Palestinians are proven to be antisemites, who can J-Street support and the Democratic Party support?
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
Every Israeli military operation in Gaza is bound by this standard. It is not enough to identify a Hamas presence in a building or a neighbourhood. To strike lawfully, the target must provide a concrete and direct military advantage, and every feasible precaution must be taken to mitigate civilian harm. Article contentHamas claim that 70pc of Gaza dead are women and children ‘demonstrably false’
Israel’s military attorneys and commanders operate within this framework. Target selection, weapon choice, the timing of attacks and warning mechanisms are scrutinized in real time. The Israel Defence Forces not only operates under legal necessity, it documents and reviews its actions at a level few modern militaries do, particularly when fighting a terrorist group embedded in a civilian population.
A useful example from the laws of war helps clarify this distinction. Destroying a bridge used to transport enemy weapons is a lawful act of military necessity. It offers a clear operational advantage and directly degrades enemy capabilities. By contrast, destroying a bakery in a residential neighbourhood simply because enemy fighters may stop there for food is not lawful. The bakery is not a military objective, and its destruction would serve no legitimate military purpose.
This distinction matters in urban warfare. In Gaza, where Hamas routinely embeds its military assets within civilian areas — using schools, homes and mosques as shields — Israel faces extraordinary challenges. But the legal standards do not change. Every action must meet the test of military necessity. Every strike must be tied to a legitimate objective. The presence of civilians demands restraint, even when facing an adversary that deliberately exploits them.
So, was Israel’s war against Hamas necessary? That depends on which kind of necessity you mean. But in truth, it meets both tests. Was the war morally necessary? Following the deliberate massacre of civilians, the kidnapping of hostages and Hamas’s declared intention to repeat those atrocities, the answer is unequivocally “yes.”
Are Israel’s military operations legally necessary? While each strike must meet specific legal thresholds, the IDF operates under one of the most stringent legal and ethical frameworks in modern warfare. It is bound by the law of armed conflict and has demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to minimizing harm, even while engaging an enemy that hides among civilians and violates every rule of war.
A war can be both morally justified and legally constrained. Israel’s campaign against Hamas is exactly that. It was not launched lightly or recklessly — it is waged in defence of life, sovereignty and the rule of law. Anyone asking whether Israel’s war was necessary should first understand what they are really asking — and then recognize that the answer, by every standard that matters, is “yes.”
Claims by Hamas that 70 per cent of casualties in the Gaza conflict are women and children have been dismissed as “demonstrably false” in a new report.‘Reminiscent of the KKK’: Columbia Janitors Sue Protesters Who Took Over Hamilton Hall
The report by the Henry Jackson Society, a think tank, undermines claims that Israel’s armed forces have been responsible for the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians during the conflict.
Its findings are in contrast to assertions by Gaza’s Hamas-run government that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has deliberately targeted women and children.
The Henry Jackson Society claims that the IDF has generally managed to avoid disproportionately harming civilians, even though many thousands have been killed.
In the report, Prof Lewi Stone and Prof Gregory Rose said that claims made by the Gaza ministry of health of a 70 per cent casualty rate for women and children among the 51,000 Palestinians it says have been killed since Oct 7 2023 are inconsistent with its own underlying hospital casualty figures.
They found that Gaza hospital records and lists of the deceased showed that, since the start of the conflict, women and children have accounted for 51 per cent of deaths overall, and that in the past year the rate of civilian casualties has fallen to below that figure.
Citing the example of the bitter fighting over Khan Younis during the first quarter of last year, the report found that although women and children comprised 75 per cent of the city’s population, they accounted for 34 per cent of deaths.
Numerous warnings were issued by the IDF for civilians to leave Khan Younis before its troops began their search for Hamas combatants.
Profs Stone and Rose also found that of 11,224 people killed since October last year, 76.3 per cent (8,565) were male and 23.7 per cent (2,659) were female. Of these, 58 per cent were men of fighting age.
The Columbia University janitors who were held hostage during the violent takeover of a campus building last spring are suing their alleged captors for battery, assault, and conspiracy to violate their civil rights, according to a copy of the suit reviewed exclusively by The Free Press.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court on Friday evening by Torridon Law and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on behalf of Columbia janitors Mario Torres and Lester Wilson. It alleges that over 40 Columbia students and “outside agitators,” some but not all of whom were arrested by police following the takeover of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall last April 29, “terrorized” both Torres and Wilson “into the early morning of April 30th, assaulted and battered them, held them against their will, and derided them as ‘Jew-lovers’ and ‘Zionists.’ ”
The occupation of Hamilton Hall occurred almost exactly a year ago, and both Torres and Lester say they have been struggling to cope ever since. The lawsuit states both men suffered physical injuries the night of the occupation, and that they have also been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder that has required ongoing medical care. Neither has been able to return to work, and are instead “subsisting on interim Workers Compensation payments” which are “inadequate” to pay for their basic needs and medical bills, according to the suit.
“Mario and Lester are decent, honest, hardworking men who have been through hell. None of this ever should have happened,” said Tara Helfman, one of the Torridon lawyers on the case.
The lawsuit describes the protesters, the majority of whom “donned masks and hoods to conceal their identities,” as “reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan.” It claims they “are part of a broad pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic network of organizations, groups, and cells that are connected through a largely untraceable underground communications system. They promote and resort to violent and illegal tactics, and are motivated by invidious discrimination against Jews and supporters of Jews.”
The Brandeis Center also filed a federal lawsuit late Friday on behalf of two students, a professor, and a rabbi at the University of California, Los Angeles, alleging that several groups, including National Students for Justice in Palestine, Faculty for Justice in Palestine Network, American Muslims for Palestine, and Westchester People’s Action Coalition, engaged in “a coordinated campaign of egregious acts of racial exclusion, intimidation, and assault” to “intimidate Jewish students, faculty, and staff.”
The most useful of many political functions of anti-Zionism—as with antisemitism before Jews returned to their homeland—is building coalitions of grievance and blame against a small nation with a universally inflated and mostly negative image. This galvanizing enmity has united the pan-Arab and Islamist alliance against Israel since 1948. It powered the red-green coalition at the United Nations and seeds anti-Israel campus coalitions that are anti-American in all but name. Attacking only the Jews—now only Israel—is its key to becoming the world’s most powerful antidemocratic ideology.The age-old link between antisemitism and misogyny
The goal of destroying Israel remains central to Arab and Islamist identity and was admitted to Harvard along with some foreign students and investors. The Education Department reports the university received more than $100 million from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bangladesh between January 2020 and October 2024.
In 2007 I began warning successive presidents and deans that academic standards were being violated by the substitution of anti-Israel propaganda for a comprehensive program in the Center for Middle East Studies. They acknowledged the problem but refused to address it. As long as other institutions took Muslim money and ignored the war against the Jews, why should Harvard be holier than the pope?
Oct. 7, like Kristallnacht in 1938, forced some people to confront what they had tried to ignore. Students and faculty celebrating the atrocities against Israel could have been perpetrating them, given the chance. A committee of the new Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance investigated the campus “hatred” and found it “worse than we had anticipated.” Ideological anti-Zionism governed not only the Center for Middle East Studies but also the School of Public Health and the Divinity School and figured in departments ranging alphabetically from anthropology and African American Studies to the Weatherhead Institute of International Affairs, and academically from music to the medical school. Harvard undertook a similar review only under pressure from Congress.
The university had taken steps to prevent campus unrest—by curtailing the Jewish and Christian presence. The Semitic Museum, established by Jacob Schiff in 1907 to make the same point as the Abraham Accords about the common sources of the three religions, was renamed the Museum of the Ancient Near East. The only vestige of Schiff’s intention remains in carved stone above the entrance. Archeological projects in Israel were discontinued and museum collections that once centered on the Bible and Jerusalem were refocused on the pyramids. The Harvard Divinity School restructured its curriculum to reflect that it was no longer a Christian or Unitarian seminary but a “pluralistic” religious-studies program.
Just when Harvard’s proud heritage should have been strengthened, biblical studies were degraded, and its traditions put on the defensive—Christianity even more than Judaism. Islamism was on the rise against America in decline.
There are still good people and programs at Harvard, and I am grateful for my time there. In an ideal world the government wouldn’t micromanage universities. But if Harvard shirks its responsibility to shore up the foundations of America and allows itself to be hijacked by an Islamist-inspired grievance coalition, why would it expect any support from the government?
Whether this is what most trans people want is an open question. We only hear the loudest, most extreme advocates of a cohort whose national numbers are unclear, and whose consensus view is thus unknowable. How many trans people are more concerned with, say, the lack of tailored healthcare, but have very good reasons not to put themselves in the issue’s white hot spotlight, we can only guess.Seth Mandel: Zoning Out the Jews
It’s worth noting that trans rights are not inherently incompatible with the interests of women. To navigate a way forward between the sex-based rights of women and the equally valid civil rights of trans people is possible. But not when one side forever rejects – furiously, implacably, intractably – any hint of such an accommodation. If that sounds familiar to any Jewish person who supports a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and despairs at just who Israel is supposed to negotiate with towards such a goal, then well it might.
This is what happens when an initially legitimate cause becomes a quasi-religious hybrid of a fandom and a cult. Thus does Hamas’ butchery of Jews and cruel oppression of its own people become “legitimate resistance”; thus does misgendering a rapist in a blond wig become a more grievous offence than the predator’s own. The welfare, the real lives, of the people involved are sidelined in favour of what gratifies their self-selecting advocates: the thrill of absolutism; the utter absence of doubt or self-reflection; the gleeful, self-valorising flights of grandiose rhetoric; the cosplay; above all, the joy of lighting upon an enemy for whom one’s exultant hatred far surpasses one’s advertised compassion for those one champions.
It is revealing that at the apex of The Good People™’s demonology stand the twin evils: Zionist and Terf. Jews and women. Jack Holland’s 2006 book Misogyny, which bears the subtitle The World’s Oldest Prejudice, details the frequent historical conjunction with the second-oldest. This unholy alliance offers a perfect example of what The Good People™ would call intersectionality; one to which their cognitive dissonance blinds them, given their camp’s delight in directing vitriolic abuse towards insubordinate Jewish women in particular. Antisemitism and misogyny: hand in glove down the ages, long before the state of Israel was ever dreamt of, long before gender identity was conceptualised. There is perhaps no vanity more risible than the unblinking conviction of The Good People™ that they are “on the right side of history” as they refashion for the 21st century its two most archaic wrongs.
It’s not difficult to suss out town officials’ motives. Last year, Mayor Derek Armstead was recorded telling school officials that hiring practices should be in accord with “what has to happen in order to keep our community being taken over by guys with big hats and curls.”
Landa wondered why towns keep doing this to themselves: Clifton, Toms River, and Jackson (towns near where I was born and raised) all tried zoning discrimination and eventually all lost lawsuits.
But there’s another aspect to this that has always bothered me. Having reported on land-use law and property disputes in New Jersey early in my career, one theme was hammered home: Residents wanted construction that wouldn’t add school-aged children to the town’s population, because that would cost the public-school system more money and that, in turn, would necessitate higher property taxes.
What happens when a large group of Orthodox Jews moves into town? It’s a municipal dream come true: They don’t put kids in the school system, so their taxes essentially subsidize the existing student population, and because of holidays and other observances they spend less time on roads and using other public services.
Orthodox Jews tend to be a massive gift to a town’s finances, paying into services they don’t use and driving up property values. The only reason to work so hard to prevent them from living in your town is if you hate Jews more than you like the town you claim to serve. Anti-Semitism is self-defeating, rarely more so than for a municipal official.
And that’s the truly disturbing thing about the rise in anti-Semitism in America. Jew-hatred trumps every other concern. It is irrational, and much of the time its purveyors cannot be reasoned with. In Jersey City in 2019, it ended in a mass shooting of Jewish establishments.
And as always, the supposed provocation is Jews merely living somewhere. A chunk of America is trying to drag the country back to where it was 100 years ago regarding its treatment of Jews. And some of the worst cases barely make headlines outside of local news.
President Trump’s attitude towards Iran is causing many to scratch their heads.Trump Says He'll 'Very Willingly' Attack Iran Should Nuclear Talks Fail: 'If We Don't Make a Deal, I'll Be Leading the Pack'
He has threatened the Iranian regime that unless it verifiably dismantles its nuclear programme, America and Israel will destroy it.
He has backed this up by moving more US warships to the region and deploying around one third of America’s B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia.
Trump’s commitment to safeguard Israel is not in doubt. He’s also the man who, in his first term, took America out of the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal brokered by former President Barack Obama and imposed instead a punishing sanctions regime to weaken Iran.
Yet now the US is negotiating with the regime over its nuclear programme, and both sides say this is going well. On Truth Social, Trump said he would much prefer a negotiated agreement to military action.
But the regime is run by religious fanatics of the Shia “Twelver” sect, who believe that an apocalypse will bring to earth the “Twelfth Imam” or Shia messiah. And as the regime repeatedly tells us, it intends to destroy first Israel and then America and the West.
There can be no meaningful negotiation with a regime that has such a non-negotiable and apocalyptic agenda. When Iran says the current negotiations are “positive,” that means it’s confident it has the upper hand.
The Iranians are the most skilful and manipulative negotiators in the world. They play multi-dimensional chess in which they identify the weaknesses of their opponents and then mercilessly play on them.
Dismayingly, Trump’s chief negotiator Steven Witkoff seems to have fallen for the Iranians’ wiles. In an interview with the podcaster and Trump “whisperer” Tucker Carlson, Witkoff said the conflict over Tehran's nuclear programme had “a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I’ve talked to anybody in Iran but because logically, it makes sense…I think anything can be solved with dialogue by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnects between people”.
But this isn’t an argument involving muddled messages. This is a crisis in which the world’s most aggressive terrorist state and declared enemy of Israel and the west is poised to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
Trump has now dialled down his aim from destroying Iran’s nuclear programme to ensuring that it isn’t used to produce nuclear weapons.
This was precisely the formula arrived at in the 2015 Obama deal, and it’s as worthless now as it was then. For it would enable Iran to retain a substantial nuclear infrastructure, which it could ramp up to weaponisation at any time.
Witkoff appears to be placing all his faith in “verification” that Iran would keep its side of the bargain. But given that the regime ran rings round the inspection programme under the 2015 deal, the idea of verifying any commitment it makes is for the birds.
Iran has been militarily very much weakened by Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and its neutralisation of Iranian air defences. This is therefore the opportunity to strike.
The United States will "willingly" join Israel in launching a military operation against Iran if negotiations to dismantle Tehran's nuclear program collapse, President Donald Trump said in an interview this week.Administration taps State Department’s Michael Anton as technical lead for Iran talks
"Are you worried Netanyahu will drag you into a war?" Time's Eric Cortellessa and Sam Jacobs asked Trump during a wide-ranging interview on his first 100 days back in office.
"No," Trump said. "By the way, he may go into a war. But we're not getting dragged in."
"The U.S. will stay out of it if Israel goes into it?" Cortellessa and Jacobs asked.
"No, I didn't say that," Trump responded. "You asked if he'd drag me in, like I'd go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal. If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack."
"I think we can make a deal without the attack," Trump added. "I hope we can."
The comments come as Trump ramps up his "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran to freeze its nuclear program. In late March, Trump also threatened the Islamic Republic with military action after Tehran rejected direct negotiations with Washington. "If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing," Trump said at the time. "It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before."
The Trump administration tapped Michael Anton, the State Department’s director of policy planning, to lead a team of technical experts in negotiations with the Iranian regime about its nuclear program.
According to Politico, Anton will lead a team of around 12 mostly career officials in discussions set to begin this weekend.
Anton is a conservative essayist and speechwriter who served in the first Trump administration as a deputy assistant to the president for strategic communications on the National Security Council. He was subsequently a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.
In a 2020 Fox News interview, Anton said that the original Iran deal was flawed in part because it provided significant up-front financial benefits to Iran before the provisions more favorable to the U.S. took effect, which Iran used to fuel terrorism. He said Trump was “right to object to that” and reimpose sanctions. He said that cutting off Iranian resources would de-escalate, rather than escalate conflict.
He also supported the U.S. strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Anton said on Fox and in a 2019 interview with NPR that he views Iran as generally cautious, retreating if it faces strong resistance.
“When and where Iran sees either weakness and/or a lack of vigilance — America not paying attention — it tends to try to exploit what it sees as gaps,” Anton said. “When it sees that we are being strong, that we are being vigilant, that we’re not leaving them opportunities to harm our interests, it tends to back down and turn its attentions elsewhere.”
He said that the U.S. and its allies can deter Iranian aggression by presenting a strong and united front. He also emphasized that all administration officials should ultimately defer to the president’s judgement on any issues to do with Iran or be fired.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
He is not the only one to frame antisemitism this way. Deborah Lipstadt has echoed similar ideas, describing antisemitism as a “conspiracy theory that blames Jews for every problem under the sun.” In her book Antisemitism: Here and Now, she emphasizes that this form of hate is unique in its persistence and in its insistence that Jews are not merely wrong, but secretly powerful and malicious. This framing, she argues, makes antisemitism self-reinforcing and impervious to logic. Historian David Nirenberg has likewise suggested that antisemitism functions as a kind of moral or explanatory engine: when things go wrong, the Jew is cast as the hidden cause.
At first glance, this is an appealing explanation. It seems to unite many divergent forms of antisemitism under a single intellectual umbrella: the belief that Jews operate in secret, behind the scenes, manipulating events for their benefit and others’ ruin. And across the ideological spectrum, this indeed shows up again and again.
The Nazi obsession with blaming Jewish financiers controlling the First World War. Islamist narratives about Jews as breakers of covenants and corrupting the Torah. Progressive suspicions that Jews serve as hidden faces of capitalism, whiteness, or settler colonialism. Far-right theories about Jews bringing in immigrants, controlling Hollywood and the government.
These conspiracies differ in content, but share one thing: they give the hater a moral story that makes their hatred feel justified. Even Nazi ideology, which felt that subhuman Jews would eventually become extinct under social Darwinism, embraced Elders of Zion conspiracies to explain why Jews survived.
But are antisemitic philosophies conspiracy theories themselves, or are conspiracy theories an aspect of antisemitic philosophies?
I started this series with an article called A Unified Field Theory of Antisemitism. As I explored and analyzed all the major types of antisemitism, I saw that my initial theory was not quite right.
I identified several aspects that antisemitic groups have in common. They are all eliminationist, wanting to see Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state disappear. They all have a hate for Jews that is far deeper than the feelings normal people have towards their perceived enemies. They all have extremist and absolutist beliefs.
What dimension does the fact that they all resort to conspiracy theories add to the conversation?
It helps prove that all of these philosophies hate Jews because they regard Jews as an existential threat - to themselves.
Across cultures and ideologies, Jews have often represented something both enduring and distinct. That distinctiveness, especially when Jews are successful, moral, or intellectually visible, creates a psychological problem for absolutist belief systems.
Christianity promised to replace the Jews. But Jews kept existing.
Islam declared itself the final truth. But Jews wouldn’t submit.
Marxists envisioned class liberation. But Jews didn’t fit in their classes.
Progressives advocate for the oppressed. But the most oppressed people on Earth built a nation out of the ashes.
People avoid normal threats. But they only want to eradicate threats that they believe makes their entire lives meaningless.
For these and other antisemites, conspiracy theory is not the reason for the hate, but a consequence of it. It is a coping mechanism - a psychological defense to explain why the Jew has not disappeared, and why their very presence feels like a threat to their own self-definition. It is a result of cognitive dissonance.
This exposes something deeper: antisemitic ideologies are not defined by conspiracy theory, but by an inability to tolerate the Jew. The conspiracy theory is merely the justification they create to preserve their worldview. the philosophies that end up antisemitic are the ones that cannot tolerate the continued existence of the Jew. And more importantly, they are the ones that require conspiracy thinking to resolve their own internal contradictions and reduce their cognitive dissonance. If Jews should not exist in their philosophies, yet they not only exist but thrive, the Jews must have cheated somehow - which is the justification for their destruction.
Other moral and philosophical systems do not need to explain away Jewish persistence. They do not feel threatened by Jewish moral or national distinctiveness. They can tolerate, or even embrace, Jewish survival, visibility, and sovereignty. For example:
Utilitarianism seeks outcomes, not targets. It has no built-in reason to resent Jews.
Kantian ethics values moral autonomy and duty. Jews fit that model.
Classical liberalism cherishes pluralism. Jews thrive within it.
Moral relativism, despite its flaws, does not centrally oppose any one tradition.
Buddhism, Stoicism, and Confucianism show no historical pattern of anti-Jewish sentiment.
None of these frameworks are perfect. Elsewhere we have criticized some of them. But none feel compelled to invent a moral explanation for why the Jew exists. That burden belongs to broken systems.
So while Stephens and Lipstadt are right to identify conspiracy theory as a hallmark of antisemitism, their analysis stops short of the root cause. The conspiracy theory is not the root. It is a tool used by philosophies who consider the Jew’s existence a refutation of their beliefs.
The Jew is not just a scapegoat in these systems, but intolerance of the Jew is a metric that shows the philosophy is not only dangerous, but failing.
If we are going to fight antisemitism, it is critical that we know exactly what it is and why the practitioners hate Jews so much. Exposing the conspiracy theory alone is not enough, since those theories of evil Jewish power is just a symptom of the problem.
This also explains the so-called horseshoe theory, why radically opposed ideologies - like Marxism and Islamism, or progressive anti-racism and white nationalism - all converge on antisemitic narratives. They share a psychological need to explain why the Jew, who should not exist in their systems, continues to succeed. The conspiracy a necessity to allay their internal contradiction. We must understand the moral discomfort that precedes the hate - the loathing oft Jews is a kind of moral check, a mirror that reflects back the flaws of the system.
That’s why Jewish ethics isn’t just a counter-narrative. It’s a diagnostic tool. It reveals exactly how and where a system can’t handle contradiction, humility, or difference - and how quickly that failure metastasizes into hatred.
This isn’t just a rhetorical point. It’s the key to understanding why antisemitism outlives every ideology it infects.
The conspiracy theories will never stop as long as people teach and learn philosophies that cannot explain why the Jews are still alive.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
The Government Media Office in Gaza renewed its warning on Friday of the continuing and alarming deterioration of the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. This comes as the occupation continues to impose a stifling blockade, deliberately closing the crossings completely, and preventing the entry of food and humanitarian aid for 55 days, leading to a wider famine.The government media official said that famine today is no longer just a threat, but has become a bitter reality, as 52 deaths due to hunger and malnutrition have been recorded, including 50 children, in one of the most horrific forms of slow mass killing. At a time when more than 60,000 children suffer from severe malnutrition, while more than a million children complain of daily hunger that has caused emaciation and poor physical structure, and they have become a focus of danger, while thousands of Palestinian families have been forced to face death by starvation after being unable to provide a single meal for their children.
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
![]() |
Buy EoZ's books!
PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!