Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

05/21 Links Pt2: The Politics of Being Israeli; The ugly truth is that ‘pro-Palestinian’ now means antisemitic; ‘Jewish Simpsons’ Holocaust mural defaced in Milan

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Politics of Being Israeli

The war in Gaza was the reason that many Israel-haters called for the Jewish state’s exclusion from the contest in the first place. But the call to judge the performance itself based on the home country’s politics is a funny one. The suggestion is that Raphael’s song didn’t deserve to be rated so highly because she is Israeli. “United by music” indeed.

This isn’t a Eurovision-specific problem. Recently, two very different bands have faced show cancellations in Europe. Comparing their respective “crimes” is instructive.

First there is Kneecap, an Irish rap trio. At Coachella, Kneecap sought to maximize the goodwill of the audience with an anti-Israel backdrop. That succeeded in drawing attention to the group, at which point it was discovered that the trio has in the past encouraged its audience to “kill your local MP”—according to Kneecap, “the only good Tory is a dead Tory”—and turned one concert into an explicit rally of support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Kneecap had a few gigs cancelled by venues after that. The band received a warm rush of support, however, from across the music world. An open letter backing Kneecap and supporting artistic freedom was signed by Paul Weller and dozens of others in the industry. Kneecap, many believed, should be forgiven their incitement to mass murder and their public support for proscribed terrorists in the name of art.

But not everyone gets that artistic license. Another band hit with cancellations was the duo of Jonny Greenwood and Dudu Tassa. Greenwood is a member of Radiohead, which refuses to boycott Israel. The band has long been subject to harassment campaigns for its willingness to play in front of Israelis.

Two of their planned shows, in Bristol and London, were cancelled after a Palestinian activist group drummed up what one venue described as “credible threats” that led the proprietors “to conclude that it’s not safe to proceed.”

Tassa was born in Israel. Greenwood is married to an Israeli. I have not seen a rousing statement on their behalf from Paul Weller.

So if you’re following along: One band had shows cancelled for threatening the lives of elected officials; the other had shows cancelled because their lives were being threatened. In both cases, the threats were coming from “pro-Palestinians.” Those responsible for the threats received widespread support from the music industry.

In Europe, it is considered politically provocative for an Israeli to have been born. It is considered slightly less politically provocative to threaten to murder that Israeli.

Top UK Klezmer group has Bristol gig cancelled due to Israeli band members

One of the UK’s best-known klezmer bands has informed fans that a venue has cancelled its concert this evening due to some of its members being Israeli.

Oi Va Voi, which formed in London more than two decades ago, announced that the Strange Brew in Bristol had cancelled their appearance “due to pressure it had received from activist groups, who contacted the venue making untrue or misguided claims about ourselves and Oi Va Voi’s music.”

The band stated that those who had called for its cancellation “have clearly not listened to our output, or seen us perform. They are taking one fact, the ethnicity of some of our members, and using it as evidence for damning accusations about our beliefs and our right to perform in our home country.

“We believe this is a clear case of discrimination, and the tactics of intimidation are identical to those used by far-right groups across the world.”

All information regarding the concert had been removed from the Strange Brew’s website.

The band also called on the Government to “pay closer attention to the increase of ethnically-based censorship of the arts in the UK”, citing recently cancelled concerts featuring Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead and Israeli singer Dudu Tassa.

Drafting new legislation would help to protect venues from intimidation from pressure groups,” they said.

Jonathan Tobin: The ugly truth is that ‘pro-Palestinian’ now means antisemitic

Gaslighting the Jews
Yet for so-called progressives, this is not just the thin edge of the wedge of right-wing Trumpian authoritarianism. In order to discredit Heritage, those supporting this antisemitic surge are seeking to gaslight the country and tell us that the people trying to defend Jews are the real antisemites.

That’s the substance not only of the Times’ slanted news coverage of this issue but also of the writings of some of its left-wing columnists, like Michelle Goldberg. She hasn’t made any secret about her own version of “criticism” of Israel, which involves not just falsely labeling its democratically elected government as authoritarian but invoking opposition to Zionism and its existence as a Jewish state. In a gob-smacking analogy, Goldberg claims those behind Project Esther, like the admirable Heritage scholar Victoria Coates, are somehow akin to antisemites of the past like those who favored appeasement of the Nazis such as Charles Lindbergh.

What Goldberg disingenuously ignores is that organizations like Heritage, and even leaders like Trump, are the ones fighting to save “the liberal culture that allowed Jews to thrive” in the United States, not the “pro-Palestinians.” It is progressives like her and other anti-Zionists who seek to destroy that culture and replace it with woke leftist ideologies that, as we’ve seen since Oct. 7, condone and justify antisemitism.

Part of that involves smearing Christians who support Israel as antisemites who only want to bring on Armageddon, as did Detroit Free Press editorial page editor Nancy Kaffer, who echoed the Times’ disgraceful attack on Project Esther as being linked to Jew-hatred.

Boiled down to its essence, the leftist critique involves a willingness to see those who oppose the murder, rape and kidnapping of Jews, and the destruction of the Jewish state, as bad people who should be viewed with distrust. At the same time, they want us to believe that those “pro-Palestinian” advocates are not haters of Israel and the Jews, even though they celebrate or rationalize Oct. 7 and oppose efforts to prevent Hamas from repeating its crimes.

The label “pro-Palestinian” is equally dishonest.

Anyone who wishes the Palestinian Arabs well would want them to be free of the rule of Islamists like Hamas, a terrorist group that preaches endless war on Jews and Israel. Genuine friends of the Palestinians would welcome Hamas’s destruction and call for it to release all the remaining hostages it took on Oct. 7, and to surrender. Those who wished the German people well in 1945 would not have called for a ceasefire with the Nazis that would allow the Adolf Hitler regime to survive World War II, but urged a swift Allied victory that would allow for that country to be rebuilt as a democracy. Still, that’s what Project Esther’s critics at the Times and elsewhere are doing with respect to the baby-killers and criminals of Hamas, as well as opposition to Israel’s justified campaign to defeat them.

Advocates for genocide
In this context, it’s clear that the functional meaning of “pro-Palestinian” in 2025 America has nothing to do with the welfare of the residents of Gaza. A “pro-Palestinian” is now someone who opposes Israel’s existence and supports, whether openly or tacitly, Hamas’s murderous war to destroy it. Though they mendaciously label Israel as perpetrating a genocide of Palestinian Arabs, they are the ones advocating for the genocide of Israeli Jews.

It is a sad fact that Palestinian nationalism, whether the version exemplified by Hamas or the equally intransigent one displayed by the Palestinian Authority, is inextricably tied to a century-old war on the Jews that they stubbornly refuse to end. The same is true of those who support them from afar by labeling Israel’s existence as illegitimate. It would be better for all concerned if this weren’t so. But it is now undeniable that those who claim the title of “pro-Palestinian” are indistinguishable from antisemites in their rhetoric and intentions.

Liberal Jews who dislike Trump because of partisan leanings and who distrust Heritage for the same reasons should not be deceived by the effort to convince them to reject Project Esther and the administration’s long-overdue enforcement of the law to protect Jewish students. Project Esther is no conspiratorial threat to democracy. Instead, it is a much-needed clarion call for ridding colleges and universities of Jew-hatred that deserves to be cheered by those who care about Jewish safety. Its opponents are a clear and present danger to Jewish life that should be labeled for who they are: the allies and fellow travelers of a pro-terrorist movement that seeks Jewish genocide.

A Pastor’s Attack on the Jewish State and the Jewish Religion

In Christ in the Rubble, Munther Isaac, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem, presents a familiar pairing of arguments: a theological attack on Judaism rooted in the New Testament, and an accusation that today’s Jews are collectively engaged in deeds of the utmost evil. Isaac’s accusation is that Israel is currently committing genocide in Gaza. This libel is so at odds with reality that it shouldn’t require refutation, but Gerald McDermott provides an especially lucid and well-argued rebuttal for any who find it necessary. More interesting is his analysis of the theology:
Isaac makes the theological claim that God cannot “have a special relation with a particular nation or race.” In his earlier book From Land to Lands, Isaac explains his reasoning: since Jesus came to fulfill everything in God’s first covenant with Israel, Israel as a people no longer has a special relationship with God. Christians are the new Israel because the old Israel broke its covenant. A broken covenant is not a binding covenant, so the new covenant nullifies the old.

Like many Lutherans, Munther anchors his theology in Paul’s letters. . . . Tellingly, Isaac ignores Paul’s clear assertion that his fellow Jews who had rejected Jesus “are [present tense] beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28–29, emphasis added).

Isaac has just completed a triumphant tour of elite Ivy, Catholic, and evangelical universities, telling the story he relates in Christ in the Rubble. He received standing ovations from standing-room-only crowds. As in the book, his speeches exploit genuine suffering that tugs on the heartstrings of naive listeners and demonizes Israel. Tragically, his invented history and distorted exegesis will be used by cynical Palestinian leadership to prolong Palestinian suffering.

05/21 Links Pt1: Israel is still the world’s scapegoat; How the UN Invented a Blood Libel — and the Media Ran With It; Kneecap charged with terrorism over Hezbollah flag

From Ian:

Israel is still the world’s scapegoat

So why has Israel been singled out by the ICC and the ICJ, as it battles to cripple the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? For starters, Israel is seen as an easy target for these international bodies – a kind of ‘low-hanging fruit’. This is largely because Western opinion has already cast it in the role of the villain in its conflict with Hamas. In the broader international arena, Israel is seen as the archetypal wrongdoer.

Of course, the reality is very different. Israel is the only democracy in the turbulent Middle East. It is also the only Jewish state in the world. It is currently engaged in a war against an anti-Semitic enemy that wishes to wipe it off the map. Israel is not a ‘colonial’ or genocidal oppressor, as is so often claimed, but a country marked by its own tragic history of invasion, violence and suffering. Yet with few sympathisers left on the world stage, Israel ends up being the convenient focal point for global indignation.

That is not the end of the story. The ICC’s aggressive stance against Israel is also a sign of deeper troubles among international institutions. In the era following the Second World War, a network of progressive lawyers, non-governmental organisations and activists – often working through the UN – set out to champion universal rules of warfare. Their goal was to dismantle the traditional notion of state sovereignty in favour of global accountability. However, that postwar consensus is now unravelling. Even the US, once a pillar of that world order, has resorted to sanctioning the ICC, claiming it plays favourites against both the US and Israel.

In fact, from the beginning, the ICC has struggled to earn universal support. While it was established as a guardian of international justice, major powers such as the US, China, India and Russia never signed up to it. Hungary has also recently signalled its discontent by removing itself from the ICC after a visit from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At their core, projects like the ICC and ICJ are a globalist challenge to national sovereignty and are deeply undemocratic. Laws gain moral authority from being passed by elected representatives of the people – something that international tribunals simply cannot replicate. Without democratic backing, these institutions too often fall prey to political agendas, rather than serving as unbiased arbiters of justice.

Against this backdrop, the prosecution of Israel has transformed into a high-stakes test for the credibility of bodies like the ICC and ICJ. This could be seen playing out at the ICJ hearing against Israel in The Hague last month. While lambasting Israel’s actions against Gaza and the UN, Palestinian counsel Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh urged the court to reassert the moral compass of the UN Charter. She warned that the international order was crumbling and expressed the ‘continuing desperate hope that international law might finally prevail’.

We should hope that these organisations continue to lose their clout. Then they will no longer be able to unjustly target a sovereign state like Israel for exercising its right to self-defence. The collapse of these hollow institutions cannot come soon enough.

Melanie Phillips: Keir Starmer's new admirers

Israel is stepping up the war in order to force Hamas finally to release the remaining hostages. Starmer, Macron and Carney complain this is “disproportionate”. What’s disproportionate about this when Hamas is refusing to release the hostages unless Israel totally capitulates? What’s disproportionate about continuously moving the Gazan civilians to relative safety — and food aid — in order to trap and target the remaining Hamas battalions? What’s disproportionate about controlling territory to prevent any more thousands of rockets and depraved attacks against Israeli civilians? What’s disproportionate about an overwhelmingly just war against genocide?

The statement threatens “further concrete actions in response” if Israel doesn’t halt “settlements which are illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state”. The much-repeated claim of illegality is a lie. The Jews alone are legally entitled to live in the disputed “West Bank” territories of Judea and Samaria. And why are these residents said to undermine the “viability of a Palestinian state”? Israel’s population is 20 per cent Arab. Yet Britain France and Canada are in effect demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine.

And since the vast majority of Arabs living within Gaza and these disputed territories say repeatedly they support the October 7 attacks and want to destroy Israel and murder Jews; and since the Palestinian Authority declares its intention to wipe out Israel, pays terrorists and their families for the murder of Israelis and teaches the children in its schools to murder Jews and steal their land, the insistence by Britain, France and Canada on a Palestinian state means they have become the allies of genocidal fanatics against innocent victims. That’s quite an achievement.

The statement threatens to suspend trade negotiations with Israel. Really? Britain depends upon Israeli intelligence and its military know-how to fight its own battles against the same kind of fanatics that Israel is fighting. Is the Starmer government’s hatred of Israel so unhinged that it’s really intending to damage Britain by denying a trade deal — which Israel says wasn’t even on the agenda anyway?

At the same time as it issued this statement, Britain imposed sanctions on two illegal Israeli settlement outposts and three Israeli “settlers”. The UK Foreign Office accused the three of being involved in “threatening and perpetuating acts of aggression and violence against Palestinian individuals.” Where’s the evidence of unprovoked attacks? Why is Britain arrogantly interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country?

Britain has sanctioned no Palestinian Arabs for the murderous daily attacks against Jewish residents of these areas. A few days ago one such resident, Tzeela Gez, was murdered as she was being driven to hospital for the birth of her fourth child.

The Starmer government ignored this latest atrocity against one of the “settlers” it has thus dehumanised and singled out for vilification. Instead it condemns the Israelis for trying to end such slaughter. “History will judge them,” said the Foreign Secretary David Lammy in a sickening Commons debate yesterday. “Blocking aid, expanding the war and dismissing the concerns of their friends and partners is indefensible and it must stop.”

Who on earth does he think he is? How dare he say Israel must stop defending its people. And this from a country that has so much Jewish blood on its own hands, going back to when British officials were the land’s colonial overlords — whose imperial disdain can be so clearly heard in Lammy’s tone — and who created the whole Middle East mess in the 1930s, when they tore up the UK’s treaty obligation to settle the Jews throughout what is now Israel, the “West Bank” and Gaza and offered instead to reward genocidal aggression by giving away part of the Jews’ entitlement to their aggressors, a murderous betrayal that Britain attempts to repeat to this very day.

JPost Editorial: When Hamas applauds you, it's time to rethink your stance

However, from Israel’s allies, there is no creativity, and no pressure on the real culprit: Hamas. Instead, they threaten sanctions on the country trying to get back its citizens.

Is this truly the smartest way to act towards an ally that has promoted and fought for Western values? Where, in that joint statement, was the equally weighted warning to the terrorist groups that birthed this entire operation: Hamas, its allies, and its parent backer, Iran?

As the Trump administration says it is closing in on a nuclear deal with the Iranian regime, where is the weight levied against Tehran to pressure Hamas? Why is Israel being singled out here?

An appeal to help Gazans, who are indeed suffering, is warranted. But by ignoring the larger context and who is to blame for the carnage in Gaza, the UK, Canada, and France are simply going for the easy target: Israel.

The proof in the pudding that the warnings by the three countries were misguided and damaging was the immediate reaction by the terrorist group, which “welcomed the joint statement issued by the leaders of Britain, France, and Canada, rejecting the policy of siege and starvation pursued by the occupation government against our people in the Gaza Strip, and the Zionist plans aimed at genocide and displacement.

“This position is an important step toward restoring respect for the principles of international law, which the terrorist Netanyahu government has sought to undermine and overturn,” it added.

Perhaps when terrorists who committed the worst massacre of the century agree with you, it is time to recalibrate your beliefs.

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

I try to be honest about politics. I can and did vote for Donald Trump, as is my right and privilege as an American citizen. I voted for him because he was far better for Israel than the alternative. Still, I won’t always like what the president does, and I won’t shy away from saying so. However, I will always qualify anything I deem contrary to Israel’s interests by saying that A) I prefer Trump to Biden, who funded October 7 and tied Israel’s hands when we tried to defend ourselves; B) I infinitely prefer Trump to Harris, who told people who wish me dead that they have a right to their “truth”; and C) Trump does what’s best for America, rather than for Israel, and this is only right. That is his JOB. To do what's right for America. And sometimes, as JD Vance put it, “we’re going to have distinct interests.”

I get it. But I still feel a pang of resentment when I think back to October, when Vance gave an exclusive video to the JPost, urging Israeli Americans to vote:

"Greetings to all of our friends in Israel who are American citizens and have the right to vote in American elections," said Vance. "You've got to make your voice heard. Donald Trump was a great ally and friend of Israel. Kamala Harris has been a total disaster, and if she becomes president, it's going to lead to broader regional war or maybe even worse."

"Get out there, check your registration, make sure you're able to vote, and please go out there and vote for Donald Trump"

"This election could be decided by just a few votes. Do you want Kamala Harris, or do you want Donald Trump? If you want Donald Trump, get out there and make it happen."

Rah rah sis boom bah and all that, but at times, I confess, I feel cheated.

As so often happens at times like this, when the interests of Israel and America diverge, we begin to hear voices that say, “Israel is not a client state. We stand up for our own interests. Thank you, President Trump, for reminding us that Israel is a sovereign nation.”

Among those voices were those of Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs of The Sovereignty Movement. In an open letter to the president, the two found a striking way to express gratitude to the president while serving to remind the Jews that it is not Trump who is in charge of Israel’s destiny:

Thank You, Uncle Trump

Instead of taking offense at the presidential skip over Israel’s capital, we should thank President Donald Trump for the historic message he conveyed through that very omission.

President of the United States, Donald Trump – friend of Israel and the Jewish people – we just wanted to say thank you.

Thank you for the years in which you supported, strengthened, empowered (and even helped us grow a little). Thank you for approving the delivery of weapons and military equipment to us. Thank you for the diplomatic embrace, and now, thank you for taking us – the people of Israel – to the next stage: the stage of grown-up, independent, and sovereign adults.

Some chose, for some reason, to be offended by your decision not to drop by for a diplomatic cup of coffee in Jerusalem during your Middle East tour. But in this choice of yours to skip over us, you gave us an important historical statement.

Without words, you delivered a sharp and clear message: “Israel is no longer powerless or helpless, in need of support and a guiding adult hand to cross the road. Israel is a technological powerhouse – a hi-tech, cyber, and medical superpower, a military and agricultural force. Israel is a wonder that is hard to comprehend, an unprecedented miracle that defies belief.”

And now, Uncle Trump, you told us in your unique way: “It is time for America to take care of itself, solve its problems, and focus on its own interests – while you, Israelis, stand tall and move on to the next phase: the phase of true independence.”

And you also told us, honorable Mr. President, with every step you took, every speech and handshake, every cup of coffee you drank (or didn’t) in your visits to the Arab capitals surrounding us, that Jerusalem can no longer – and should no longer – rely on Washington. You showed us how you’re collecting hundreds of millions from the Saudis and Qataris, turning a blind eye to the funding of terrorism.

We observed how you seemed to be taken in—perhaps even somewhat intoxicated—by the allure of Arab oil, how you drew closer to President Erdoğan, and even cordially shook the hand of a man who came to power in Syria following mass atrocities, and whose image not long ago appeared on WANTED posters in the United States, offering rewards for his capture.

We saw and understood the message. We here in Israel are here for you as a battlefield lab and a reliable and precise intelligence source. We will prove the effectiveness of the weapons you offer us on the battlefield, and the images of our victorious soldiers with your weapons will become part of the catalog at your next arms fair. That way, thanks to us, a few more hundred million dollars will flow into America's pocket, and a few more giant weapons factories will provide fruitful employment to tens of thousands of Americans.

We have internalized the message: from this point forward, Israel must wean itself from the American IV lifeline and begin to walk on its own, with full independence and sovereignty. We must invest in developing superior Israeli-made weaponry, cultivate a strong and independent economy, and rely on our own agricultural production without dependence on overseas grain reserves. We have matured, Mr. President, and we thank you for reminding us of that fact.

Thank you for your quiet yet resolute message to the Jewish people. Thank you for the steps that compel us to recall the enduring wisdom and resilience of our nation, to remember how we have risen from the gravest of crises, shaken off the dust, and moved forward. To remember that we are not driven solely by interests and political deals, but by the prophetic vision that has guided our people for generations, urging us onward toward future milestones.

Your appreciation of us is understandable and logical, Mr. Trump. We recognize that the time has come for you to focus on fulfilling your promise to your own nation: “Make America Great Again.” As for us—we will focus on our own unique challenge: to build a Jewish, Israeli, sovereign, and independent future in our G-d given Biblical Homeland.

It seems we have understood the message. Thank you.

Referring to President Trump as “Uncle Trump” was next level brilliant in my opinion. “Uncle” because Trump represents Uncle Sam, but maybe also because he’s not Israel’s parent in charge of feeding and clothing us and wiping up after our messes. It’s a more distant relationship than that, something like a kindly uncle.

“Yeah, the uncle is more like Uncle Sam, right?” said Nadia Matar when I approached her. “Like an uncle who's nice, but who's not a father, as you just say. And he also has his own stuff he has to take care of. At the same time, he will respect us if we respect ourselves, right? So the idea of uncle came more from the Uncle Sam side of things. America is called Uncle Sam, right? Okay.

“He will respect us if we respect ourselves,” said Nadia. “That's a very important thing. If we are strong and do what we do, that's that.”

Echoing my thoughts about our narrow escape from Kamala, Nadia said, “The main thing is that we don't have to have too many expectations of Trump. He's definitely much better than, if God forbid, Kamala Harris would have come to power. But we have to now have the guts, our leaders have to have the guts and the courage to do what is good for Israel.

“We believe, of course, that that's the application of Israeli sovereignty. That has to be done this year. And the more we stand firm the more we stick to our values the more we stick to the Torah the more God will bless us.”

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Normative journalistic ethics include Truth and Accuracy, Impartiality and Objectivity, and Fairness and Respect.

The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate includes none of those.

Their published values are: Transparency, Accountability, Gender Sensitivity, Respect for Others(with the caveat that they must align with core national values), Independence, Community Service, Support for Marginalized Groups and "Anti-Normalization" - no contact or partnership with Israeli media or other organizations.

Isn't it strange to have a journalists group that does not include truth, impartiality and fairness among its principles?

It does claim "Independence." This idea is subverted because PJS recently published another set of "ethical principles" that was co-written with - the BDS Movement.

That document is a masterpiece of doubletalk, as it pretends to uphold journalistic standards as long as they adhere to what BDS wants people to think about Israel.

Or as it quotes a Pakistani journalist, “Should journalists still present all sides when we know that one side is lying, or that one side is clearly the oppressor? By giving the oppressor a means to justify their oppression, does journalism perpetuate the cycle of oppression?” By defining Israel as the side that is lying, it justifies promoting Hamas lies as the only acceptable narrative.

The official position of Palestinian journalists - not Hamas, but all Palestinian journalists - is to promote anti-Israel propaganda. Truth, fairness, accuracy and impartiality are definitely not among their values, by their own definitions.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When your idea of morality is to allow a murderous, genocidal quasi government to continue to threaten civilians, your moral compass might be pointed in the wrong direction.

Yesterday, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy gave a speech to Parliament saying "Israel’s plan is morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counterproductive."

At the same time, he pretends that he wants a future Gaza without Hamas:

Since entering office, we have taken concerted action on Gaza. We have restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, supported the independence of international courts, suspended arms export licences, provided food and medical care to hundreds of thousands of Gazans and worked with Arab partners on a plan to ensure a reconstructed Gaza no longer run by Hamas.

Oh, a plan! A plan to rid Gaza of Hamas rule! That's wonderful!

Hamas continues to exert day to day control over every aspect of Gazans lives, threatens reporters and protesters, issues daily press releases filled with propaganda and lies, continues to use hospitals as weapons depots and displaced persons camps as places to strategize. It has made it abundantly clear over the past 19 months that it does not want to lose its stranglehold on Gaza.

How, exactly, can Hamas be dislodged without further military action?

Don't ask. Those are just details. They are working on a plan, isn't that enough? Therefore, Israel's desire to eradicate Hamas militarily must be "morally unjustifiable."

And "wholly disproportionate."

And "utterly counterproductive."

The UK's position is not to eliminate Hamas. It is to wish Hamas away. Anyone who actually tries to get rid of the Islamist groups in Gaza is, of course, immoral.

The UK is telling Israel, "You may defend yourself, but only enough to ensure the continued existence of those who openly seek your destruction."

To the British government, even pressuring Hamas is not on the table. The only party that they announced they are politically punishing is Israel. We saw only a week ago that Qatar can pressure Hamas when it wants to, and the UK can pressure Qatar - but it doesn't.

At the same time that the UK is suspending some arms export licenses to Israel, it has deep military relations with Qatar. They have joint air squadrons and share intelligence. The UK provides military training to Qataris. All of these can be leveraged to pressure Hamas to release hostages - but the UK chooses not to.

That isn't the only problem with the UK (together with France and Canada)'s position. Their condemnation of Israel comes with an implication that Israel's repeated assertions that it doe not want to hurt Gaza civilians is a lie, that its plan to provide aid directly to Gazans and bypass Hamas is an elaborate conspiracy theory covering up Israel's genocidal aims.

Once the UK government strays from political opinion into moral posturing, they prove themselves to be fundamentally immoral. No one wants innocent civilians in Gaza to suffer, and the message that Israel alone is responsible for their plight is a perverted twisting of the truth. If he cared about morality, Lammy would blame Hamas alone for using human shields in Gaza to protect its own military - a fact that by itself proves that there is no alternative to military action, since Hamas only views Gaza civilians as cannon fodder.

The only party that profits from Gazan deaths is Hamas. The UK has just enshrined that concept. No wonder Hamas praised it.

And when a bloodthirsty terror organization praises you, any thinking person would reconsider their actions and words.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Hamas created a fake Gaza charity called "OneHeart Team"

The Hamas Al Qassam Brigades Telegram channel has a post copied from another channel called "One Heart Team" where they claim to be raising money for a soup kitchen in Gaza.

The entre charity is a scam to raise money for Hamas.

There are no names associated with the organization. It asks for money in a non-traceable way, through PayPal, Click (Jordan), Vodaphone Cash (Egypt) or cryptocurrencies.

It has a Facebook page, also with no details but with a number obviously staged photos from as far back as 2020.

It also has an Instagram page with some more professional videos and showing people wearing jerseys with their logo, a new logo they only switched to last year.

Their current logo was ripped off from another, legitimate, charity called Our Heart Speaks.

This all proves it is a sham charity, but how do we know it is a front for Hamas terror fundraising?

Because it has a website that was never completed. It has a structure but most links don't go anywhere, the only links that work are the ones asking for donations.

But on the bottom of their main page they have a section for videos. And the web designers needed vieos to put in as placeholders to prove that the platform worked. So the video they chose was a Hamas Al Qassam Brigades military music video!

The lyrics include:

Victory, victory, victory, victory, victory, victory, victory after victory, after victory, after victory.
Sword of Jerusalem, O my nation, made against breaking, kneaded with might and dignity, embroidered with pride.
The occupier tasted humiliation from it, tasted oppression.
Sword of Jerusalem, in the sky is your place, like the eagle.
Sword of Jerusalem, drawn against the creed of disbelief.

It said to Qassam, we will protect Al-Aqsa.
We loved Hamas, a childhood love.
We loved Hamas from school days.
We loved Hamas from the first whistle.

Not exactly the type of video you'd expect from a soup kitchen.

Hamas is known to use charities as fronts for fundraising; here is a perfect example.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

05/20 Links Pt2: The psychology of kinocide: Why do terrorists target families and women?; Ask Your Doctor if Jihad Is Right for You; Jordanian textbooks justify Hamas Oct. 7 massacre

From Ian:

The psychology of kinocide: Why do terrorists target families and women?

So, what drives these violent fantasies? Why are women the primary targets?
HAMAS’S TERRORIST psychological mechanism of splitting and projection enables them to project onto Jews what they unconsciously hate about themselves. Hamas terrorists likely failed to develop empathy due to their inability to psychologically separate from their mothers. Their rage against Jewish women is a displacement of rage against their own mothers and families.

Hamas fighters grew up in shame-honor cultures that demanded enmeshment with the mother. In these cultures, the bond between mother and child is viewed as inseparable. The terrorist’s bond with his mother becomes a prison – one that he never managed to escape. The result is a pathological unconscious fusion that stifles individuality and autonomy, yielding sexual frustration, as Mosab Hassan Yousef, author of The Green Prince and Son of Hamas has emphasized: the greatest enemy is shame. In their culture, “to cleanse honor” they must willfully spill blood.

It is no wonder then that the Jewish family becomes the ultimate target, because it embodies safety, continuity, identity, and autonomy. It is everything they long for but cannot have nor bear. It reminds them of everything they lacked and thus becomes intolerable to Hamas.

The hallmark of envy is attacking. In these attacks, Hamas fuses violently with its victims, expressing an unconscious fantasy of killing the mother. This is the psychological heart of the attack.

YAHYA SINWAR, the mastermind of the attack, studied Jewish culture while in Israeli prison. He knew the Jewish emphasis on life, family, and the rejection of child sacrifice. The Jewish family became a symbol of everything he didn’t have, and never would. It is the emotional fabric – the “super glue” – that binds Jewish peoplehood together, and that becomes the ultimate target for destruction. And it all starts with killing the mother. Sinwar’s plan was an attempt to adapt to his own internal fantasy life, shaped by a broken familial past.

Another poignant example, noted by Elkayam-Levy, is the painful separation of two Israeli brothers held hostage. When one was released, their mother’s heartbreak symbolized the emotional fabric Hamas seeks to destroy. It reflected the twinning of brothers – the shared soul – that is sacred in Jewish families.

Hamas’s hatred for such bonds mirrors their own internal disintegration. This vignette speaks volumes about what the October 7 perpetrators were trying to work through by inflicting such brutality upon the Jews, because they sense that they have been used and abused by their own mothers, families, and society.

Final words: In Judaism, Jewish identity is determined by the mother. A Jewish mother is the guarantor of the Jewish people’s continuity, and the mother embodies the link between generations, carrying the identity and future of the Jewish nation.

The jihadi fantasy is one of regression – to return to the womb where all needs will be taken care of, to fuse with the victim, kill the mother, and fulfill the fantasy of destroying any Jewish continuation and family growth. Because that fantasy is unreachable, it is enacted violently – through rape, murder, and annihilation of women.

This is why they target the family. This is why they slaughter the mothers. Kinocide is not only an important legal term; it is a psychological mirror that helps us to stay on guard and warns us to defend what they most seek to destroy: the sanctity of life and the familial bond that is the soul of Jewish peoplehood. After all, we are one big family.

Seth Mandel: Stop Listening to Fake Experts and Pretend Historians on the Middle East

In the May issue of COMMENTARY, I wrote about the anti-Semitism circling throughout the right-wing “manosphere,” a collection of popular social-media influencers and YouTube personalities. Among them was Darryl Cooper, a podcaster who appears as a guest on Joe Rogan’s show and Tucker Carlson’s show to pose such challenging queries as whether Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler was the real villain of World War II.

Cooper is known as a “historian,” presumably because he has read books. One of the authors he relies on is David Irving, perhaps the world’s most famous Holocaust denier.

Over the weekend, Cooper got himself into a spot of trouble yet again, thanks to his reliance on discredited figures. This time it was Trita Parsi, an infamously dishonest activist who echoes Iranian regime propaganda about Israel. Parsi tweeted a video of a young Gazan girl who was clearly suffering. Parsi claimed “Israel starved her to death two days ago.”

Cooper was outraged on the girl’s behalf, and declared that Israel’s counteroffensive against Hamas is a “Gaza Holomodor.” When asked how he knew it was real, Cooper responded: “Because I trust” Parsi.

But as Eitan Fischberger pointed out, the girl in the video was clearly suffering from an unmentioned medical condition. The journalist who took the video posted by Parsi had, in fact, mentioned this on his own feed: She was flown to the United Arab Emirates for treatment.

Contra Parsi, the girl wasn’t dead, nor was her condition a result of a food blockade. Parsi eventually deleted the tweet, leaving Cooper out on that limb all by his lonesome.

These are the “historians” accusing Israel of world historically evil crimes. Like the “experts” doing the same, they are just making stuff up.

Meanwhile, you’re better off trusting Hamas than trusting these “experts,” because Hamas sometimes eventually admits the truth. The “experts” will tell you that Israel is conducting a massive ethnic cleansing campaign that amounts to genocide. Hamas’s own numbers, however, will show that twice as many babies were born in Gaza during the war as the number of civilians killed (somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000, once natural deaths and combatants are accounted for in Hamas’s casualty statistics).

Lesson: Experts aren’t actually telling you that Israel is committing genocide and other war crimes. Those claims are coming from people who pose as experts, because that’s what their friend Joe Rogan calls them or because they are conducting their activism from a university campus or because Sky News anchors woke up on the crabby side of the bed and needed someone willing to spout nonsense they could dress up as “expertise.”

These are not experts, they are not historians. They are just people on the internet. And they are making fools of Israel’s critics.

Ask Your Doctor if Jihad Is Right for You

The challenge posed by foreign-trained doctors is that they arrive in the U.S. after having largely completed their moral formation, sometimes in political systems that explicitly promote antisemitism in their schools. The antisemitism they openly display in the U.S. may have been considered appropriate or even enlightened in their home countries. In fact, in the Middle East, higher levels of education are associated with an increased propensity for professing antisemitism. While education may not be protective against antisemitism, coming from cultures that openly embrace antisemitism enables it to publicly flourish even within polite society. Combine those attitudes with an American health care system that normalizes racial and ethnic tribalism with ideas like whiteness as a form of psychopathology, and the results are predictably disastrous.

This problem will only get worse as the rate of importing doctors from abroad is rising. In 1981, only 9% of doctors newly placed in residencies came from foreign medical schools. By 2024, 25% of residencies were filled with people trained abroad. Blame for the dramatic shift toward foreign-trained doctors is partly due to latent effects of supply constraints imposed by the gatekeepers of MD and DO granting schools. Until 2005, the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges encouraged restrictions on medical school expansion due to their (erroneous) prediction of a looming glut of physicians in the United States. Those restrictions ultimately necessitated reliance on foreign-trained doctors.

Even after recognizing that there was a shortage rather than a glut of doctors, U.S. medical schools have failed to keep up with demand so that there are now 1.39 residency openings for every graduate of U.S. medical schools. A shortage in the domestic training of doctors now arises from a dearth in the availability of clinical training sites. The gap that this creates between the demand for new physicians and training of new physicians currently must be filled with foreign-trained doctors.

Our reliance on foreign-trained physicians increases the risks of importing antisemitism into the medical profession. To be clear, the average foreign doctor is not an antisemite. The problem is that in such large numbers, extremists among foreign doctors become more common. Moreover, the tribalized cultural milieu of American medicine gives them the impression that open group hostility is tolerated or expected.

As in our universities, antisemitism in the American medical profession is perhaps overwhelmingly an import from third world countries where it is a normative if pathological part of the dominant political and religious cultures. The more medical school students and professionals we import from these dysfunctional countries, the more overtly antisemitic our hospitals and doctor’s offices become. In this respect at least, doctors from countries like Pakistan turn out to be Pakistanis first and doctors second, with corresponding effects on American institutional life.

Removing the accreditor stranglehold on medical education would prevent cartel behavior that artificially limits the domestic training of new physicians. Moreover, effort and resources might need to be expended by health authorities to ensure a sufficient supply of clinical training sites. These efforts can be undertaken without sacrificing quality. After all, the acceptance rate for U.S. medical schools has fallen over time while the average MCAT scores and GPAs of those accepted have risen. There is more than enough high-quality domestic demand to become a doctor for medical schools to expand without diluting quality.

Unfortunately, even purging DEI ideology from medical training and limiting the importation of foreign doctors will only make a moderate and gradual difference in the antisemitism that has infected health care professionals. Cultural changes develop over long periods of time and are not easily reversed.

But every long journey begins with the first step. We must first recognize that, as the set of people profiled by Stop Antisemitism demonstrates, there is an exceptional problem among health care professionals, in general, and doctors, in particular. Moreover, we have to recognize that a lot of the problem with antisemitism in medicine comes from abroad. Clearly understanding the nature of the problem will invite remedies beyond those imagined here and help rescue medicine from the moral abyss.

05/20 Links Pt1: Gazans and Israelis Want Hamas Gone. Why Doesn’t the West?; ‘Mandate ended 77 years ago’: Israel reacts furiously to UK sanctions; Fetterman: Israel ‘deserves much better from my party’

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Gazans and Israelis Want Hamas Gone. Why Doesn’t the West?

How Hamas came to dominate the supposedly “pro-Palestinian” movement in the West is its own story, but now that that is undeniably the case, we have to deal with the ramifications of it.

And the ramifications are such that there is no moral dimension to the concerted pressure campaign against Israel.

Consider the Wall Street Journal revelation from Sunday:
“Top leaders of Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched their Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel aiming to torpedo peace negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, according to minutes of a high-level meeting in Gaza that Israel’s military said it discovered in a tunnel beneath the enclave.

“Days before the assault that left nearly 1,200 dead, Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s Gaza chief, told fellow militants that an ‘extraordinary act’ was required to derail the normalization talks that he said risked marginalizing the Palestinian cause, the document, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said.”

Now, the normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia only threaten to marginalize “the Palestinian cause” if you define “the Palestinian cause” the way Hamas does: a permanent genocidal campaign against Israel. If you define “the Palestinian cause” as a quest for self-determination and ultimately statehood alongside the state of Israel, then normalization between Israel and the Saudis is exactly what you want.

In other words, the two definitions of “the Palestinian cause” can be boiled down to: war and peace. Hamas understood that regional normalization with Israel threatens the forever war to eradicate the Jewish people from their homeland. They aren’t wrong: Since Israel’s normalization with Egypt and Jordan, the people of all three countries have been safer and more prosperous. Thus, what Hamas sought to torpedo on Oct. 7 was peace.

What do you suppose the Gazan protesters desire, war or peace? Well, it’s definitely not war. And they do not want to be governed by Hamas, which exists to torpedo regional peace and normalization. So Hamas thugs are finding various protesters and shooting them, cheered on by throngs of campus activists and street demonstrators in the West.

And those activists and demonstrators in the West, in turn, are influencing their governments to ignore the will of the Gazans suffering under Hamas.

To elevate Hamas is to prevent any chance at a two-state solution. It is the sole reason the terror group exists. If Western governments were smart, they would do everything in their power to tip the scales in favor of the Palestinian Authority over Hamas. The PA is no great institution of statesmanship, but it is not Hamas, and its increased political sovereignty over the years probably could not withstand the survival and rebounding of Hamas.

The U.S. diplomatic corps and the foreign ministries of our allies in Western Europe don’t like Israel; we get it. So if you grow a spine and push back against the Hamasniks in your streets, don’t do it for Israel. Do it for the people you are claiming to help. And if you won’t help the people of Gaza and the IDF get rid of Hamas, the least you can do is get out of their way.

Richard Kemp: International ‘do-gooders’ aren’t helping the people of Gaza

It is hard to escape the conclusion that António Guterres and others inside the UN simply do not want Israel to continue with its defeat of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. They have previous form on this. Right at the beginning of the conflict, I’m told, the Israeli government appealed to the UN to set up a humanitarian zone in the south of Gaza to house refugees driven away from danger in active combat zones further north. The UN refused to do so, arguing they would be abetting the displacement of civilians.

I know of no other conflict in which the UN has not actively encouraged the removal of populations from a dangerous combat zone. The same applies to the failure of the UN or any major power to pressure Egypt into opening its borders to allow temporary refuge. Again, there have been few other conflicts worldwide where neighbouring countries have not opened their borders to let civilians escape to safety.

Hamas is well known for using human shields as a crucial element of its military strategy against Israel. Can it really be that the UN and others in the international community are also using Gazan civilians as a different kind of shield?

Refusing to co-operate in proposals to get civilians to safety so that Hamas terrorists can be killed while minimising the prospects of collateral damage, and rejecting an initiative to supply them with humanitarian aid while denying it to the terrorists, certainly help frustrate Israel’s war efforts.

These international do-gooders may be doing good to Hamas, but they aren’t doing any good to the civilian population of Gaza. After more than 18 months of vicious fighting, the best way to end this war and get the hostages out is the rapid and efficient defeat of Hamas, and that depends to a very large extent on the success of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s food-distribution project. All responsible governments and humanitarian bodies have a duty to support it. Those who do not are exposing their concerns for Gaza as empty words. Or worse.

Richard Kemp: Britain, France and Canada’s Hamas lifeline is a dangerous blunder

Of course no statement by Britain, France or Canada would be complete without the standard litany of delusions about supposedly illegal settlements and a “two state solution”. Can serious politicians really believe another two state solution is possible in the aftermath of the horrifically failed two state solution experiment in Gaza? Certainly Israeli support for such a thing could only — if ever — follow the total crushing of Hamas with the message that would send to any gangsters contemplating a similar endeavour. But that outcome is exactly what these three countries oppose.

Along similar lines, Starmer, Macron and Carney don’t seem to understand the consequences for their own countries of the survival of Hamas. They each have their ever-growing jihadist problems. Last week alone in Britain a number of Iranian men were arrested while plotting terrorist attacks in the UK. An Israeli defeat by Hamas — which is what they are advocating — could only inspire and encourage global jihadists.

Most damning of all, this statement has been welcomed by Hamas itself. Surely even these three amigos can comprehend that that alone means you’re on the wrong side?

But this joint statement is not only ill-judged; it is also extremely dangerous. It strengthens Hamas, it gives them hope at a time when that commodity is ebbing fast. It could lead to them digging in their heels to inflict even greater bloodshed on Israeli soldiers as well as their own people. If these were serious political leaders they would have confined their threats against an ally at war to the realms of secret diplomacy. But no, they must indulge in public virtue signalling. Appease the Jew hating mobs that paraded the streets of their capitals only last weekend and damn the consequences.

The statement concludes with the dark threat of recognising a Palestinian state. As Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out in his response, the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7th while inviting more such atrocities”.

If Starmer, Macron and Carney actually wanted to make a real contribution to peace in the region they would have told Hamas to release the hostages and lay down their arms. That above all is needed to save lives in Gaza and begin the process of rebuilding a decent life for the civilian population. But that would be too much to expect from bewildered leaders who cannot even defend their own borders or protect their own population from ever-increasing threats against them.

Brendan O'Neill: How the cowardly West is emboldening Hamas

There’s a surefire way to know you’re on the wrong side of history: you get praised by Hamas. This ignominious fate befell Britain, France and Canada this week. The three big hitters of the West’s liberal conscience issued a statement condemning Israel and guess who loved it? Yes, the army of anti-Semites devoted to Israel’s destruction. The neo-fascist militia that killed more Jews in one day on 7 October 2023 than anyone has since the Nazis. These nations have taken ‘a significant step in the right direction’, gushed the Jew-killers.

Give yourselves a pat on the back, Starmer, Carney and Macron: you’ve made a gang of racist mass murderers very happy. Their statement called on Israel to ‘stop its military operations’ in Gaza and ‘allow humanitarian aid to enter’. If Israel fails to cease its ‘egregious’ ops, we will take ‘further concrete actions’, they imperiously threatened. It was music to the ears of Hamas. Of course it was: you don’t need a PhD in war studies to know that international condemnation of one side in a war tends to comfort and rouse the other. Britain, France and Canada have taken a ‘principled stance against the Israeli occupation’s policy of siege and starvation’, Hamas said.

The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. The leaders of Western nations have essentially given credence to the Hamas view of Israel’s war in Gaza – namely, that it is a criminal campaign of starvation masquerading as a war on terror. It is ‘egregious’ and ‘disproportionate’ and must stop, said Britain, France and Canada; it is a crusade of ‘forced displacement’ that is ruthlessly ‘targeting Palestinians’, said Hamas in its approving response. Different words, same sentiment: Israel’s behaviour is villainous and the world must stand against it.

Worse, both sides threaten consequences if Israel refuses to lay down arms. Hamas promises to keep fighting ‘the Zionist entity’. Britain, France and Canada promise ‘concrete’ punishments if Israel doesn’t immediately halt Operation Gideon’s Chariots, its latest ground push against Hamas’s remaining strongholds in Gaza. This reportedly includes France threatening to put the kibosh on the EU-Israel trade pact, which could have serious consequences for Israel’s economic health. So Hamas holds a gun to the head of the Jewish State and Europe holds a knife to its purse strings – a pincer movement of neo-fascists and haughty liberals devoted to halting Israel’s war on the barbarous authors of the 7 October pogrom. What a shameful day for what remains of Western civilisation.

It might be unwitting, it might be indirect, but we now have a horrifying situation where Britain, France and Canada are on the same page as Hamas. Morally if not politically, objectively if not intentionally. All think Israel’s intensified pursuit of the Hamas terror organisation is unacceptable. The United Nations too, it seems. It has slammed Israel’s latest efforts to crush the army of bigots that attacked it as a reckless campaign that will cause the deaths of thousands of children. A UN spokesman warns that 14,000 babies could die in the next 48 hours if Israel doesn’t immediately lift its siege of Gaza. How the UN arrived at such a figure, and such a timeframe, is a mystery. But the message is clear: if Israel doesn’t down arms, children will perish. It’s a kind of moral blackmail that will give moral succour to Hamas and its lie that Israel is fighting a war not against jihadism but against children.

Eitan Fischberger: The New Director of Gaza's Kamal Adwan Military Hospital Loves Terrorism — and the Press Doesn’t Care

In recent days, media headlines have once again sounded the alarm over Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital:
“Kamal Adwan Hospital Overwhelmed”
“Kamal Adwan Facing Severe Shortages”

These stories often cite the hospital’s current director, Dr. Sakher Hamad, as a source of information. But there’s just one problem: Dr. Hamad has a long, public record of supporting Hamas terrorists and glorifying jihad. And this isn’t a one-off.

In December 2024, I revealed that Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, the hospital’s previous director, was not just a physician — he was also a Colonel in Hamas. Less than 24 hours after my exposé, Abu Safiya was arrested by the Israel Defense Forces and has remained in custody ever since.

That investigation also uncovered that Kamal Adwan was not simply a civilian hospital as portrayed by international media, but a military hospital — referred to as such by Hamas itself in Arabic-language news reports and even on the hospital’s own Facebook page.

And it didn’t end there.

I discovered that multiple hospital directors and deputy directors in Gaza were either active members of Hamas or openly praised the group and celebrated the murder of Jews on social media. The conclusion was inescapable: Gaza’s medical infrastructure is operated by Hamas — which anyone paying attention would realize, since Hamas is/was the totalitarian government ruling the strip.

Now, as Israel renews its ground offensive under Operation Gideon’s Chariots, Kamal Adwan Hospital is back in the spotlight — with Dr. Sakher Hamad cast as its sympathetic, credible face. But Hamad is anything but neutral.

Who is Dr. Sakher Hamad?
While I haven’t yet found evidence tying Dr. Hamad to a formal Hamas rank like his predecessor, Dr. Abu Safiya, his social media history reads like a jihadist recruitment brochure.

In 2017, Hamad glorified slain Hamas commander Mazen Faqha, writing:
“May God have mercy on you, Mazen… congratulations on Paradise. I believe that silence is sometimes better than promises and pledges, and acting in silence is better, more beautiful, and more powerful… What matters is action.”

That same year, he posted an image of Jerusalem stylized as the hilt of a sword, alongside the slogan—and I kid you not:
“We have come to slaughter you.”

In 2018, he posted photos of Hamas’ Qassam Brigades fighters with the caption:
“May God protect you and grant you victory.”

In 2019, he shared a photo of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists embracing, rebuking anyone who wished for their separation and writing:
“They are brothers united on the highest path of Islam: jihad in the name of Allah.”

In 2020, Hamad posted a cartoon depicting a Hamas naval commando fishing a rocket out of the sea, captioned with a Quranic verse describing it as a divinely granted “treasure” — implying that weapons of war were a mercy from God.

This is the man Western media outlets are treating as a reliable source on humanitarian conditions in Gaza.

Who is more antisemitic: The Heritage Foundation or the New York Times?

Michelle Goldberg writes in the New York Times:

In The New York Times this weekend, Katie J.M. Baker described a fund-raising pitch that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that gave us Project 2025, made for a campaign to crush a subversive movement that threatens “America itself.”

The pitch, she wrote, “presented an illustration of a pyramid topped by ‘progressive “elites” leading the way,’ which included Jewish billionaires such as the philanthropist George Soros and Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois.” Whether intentionally or not, Heritage was deploying a classic antisemitic trope, the notion of the wealthy Jewish puppet master. In the contemporary version of this conspiracy theory, Soros looms especially large; the Anti-Defamation League has multiple pages on its website about the antisemitic underpinnings of right-wing claims that Soros is working to destabilize society.

Really? The Heritage Foundation published a pyramid that singled out Jews as puppet-masters?

I wanted to see this pyramid myself.

The top tier includes seven people, of whom only two are Jews.

That context changes the accusation of antisemitism a bit, doesn't it?

I haven't studied the Heritage Foundation's Project Esther in detail to see if the criticisms hold any water, but even the criticism of the Heritage Foundation mentioned disparagingly in the previous New York Times article shows how it is the NYT that is twisting facts, not the Heritage Foundation:

But the group decided to begin their own national task force and released a statement of purpose that affirmed a definition of antisemitism that is hotly debated because it considers some broad criticisms of Israel to be antisemitic.

Statement of Purpose
Antisemitism: We recognize any attempt to delegitimize, boycott, divest, or sanction the modern [state] of Israel or bar Jews from participating in academic or communal associations must be condemned. 

We recognize that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the different manifestations of the same hatred against Jewish people.

Let us be clear: anti-Zionism is not "broad criticisms of Israel." By definition, anti-Zionism states that Israel is - uniquely among all nations - illegitimate, and that the concept of a Jewish state itself is racist, while Arab and Muslim and Christian states are all kosher.

Anyone who claims that "anti-Zionism" is identical to "criticism of Israel" is being knowingly disingenuous. And that includes the New York Times here.

So here we have two examples where the New York Times is whitewashing antisemitism - one by extending a definition of antisemitism to include criticizing anti-Zionist Jews, and the other by limiting the definition of antisemitism by claiming that wanting the Jewish state destroyed is legitimate criticism and has nothing to do with Jews.

By summer 2024, Heritage had finalized a national strategy that aimed to convince the public to perceive the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States as part of a global “Hamas Support Network” that “poses a threat not simply to American Jewry, but to America itself.”

Once again, we must see if the facts support the Heritage Foundation or its critics.

Have we ever seen any of these "pro-Palestinian" groups condemn Hamas, outside of pro-forma "condemnations' of October 7 that end up blaming Jews for Hamas' actions? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Which means that the Heritage Foundation's characterization of them being part of the Hamas "support network" is in fact accurate - their failure to hold Hamas to any standard whatsoever while demanding Israel adhere to their idea of moral perfection is effectively supporting Hamas.

Even their criticism that many of Project Esther's supporters are Christian, not Jewish, show their hypocrisy. Because the moral yardstick that they demand of Israel is not Jewish at all, but Christian - they are saying Israel must turn the other cheek in response to October 7, that destroying the terror group is a "disproportionate" response and that Israel should at best drop some symbolic bombs in open spaces to restore balance between the Jewish state and the Islamist terror group.

They effectively endorse Hamas' use of every Gazan as a human shield.

Maybe Project Esther goes too far; as I said, I have not examined it. But if these are the worst accusations that the New York Times can find against it, then it is the NYT's moral compass that is askew, not the Heritage Foundation's. And it is the New York Times that tacitly whitewashes some forms of antisemitism.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Jewish ethics without faith in a world where everything is available

What's God Got to Do With It?

Over the past few months I have been shifting my focus from defending Israel to a broader (possibly quixotic) project of promoting Jewish ethics as a universal moral language that would be accessible for all, believers or not. My thesis is that the Jewish moral framework is not only ancient and rich, but practical, humane and flexible enough to deal with the most modern and even theoretical challenges. It doesn't shy away from complexity, values dignity, expects responsibility, and makes room for disagreement. In a time when so many moral systems feel either rigid or hollow, I believe Jewish ethics has something real to offer the world.

A side benefit of this project is that the universal adoption of such a framework would eliminate antisemitism, which was my original impetus when this project started as an analysis of common themes of all the disparate strains of antisemitism, and which is, after all, the underlying theme of my writings.

Another fighter against antisemitism is Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, an Egyptian-American intellectual who received political asylum in the US in 2012. His critiques and analysis of Abrahamic religions are brilliant; his essays in his Substack are often over my head.

Yesterday I read his most recent essay titled "Desire After the Sublime." Mansour's basic argument is that modern life, with its constant stimulation and instant access to everything, has destroyed our ability to desire anything deeply. He calls this cultural state "pornographic reason" - not about sex, but about the way we now consume experiences, ideas, even people, without mystery, delay, or depth. In a world where everything is available all the time, nothing means anything. Desire collapses. The soul goes numb.

His argument seems to be that spirituality - particularly Abrahamic religious traditions with sacred prohibitions and rituals - is what once gave desire its shape. Religion, in his view, placed limits on human behavior, created distance between person and object and especially between the self and the Divine, and made certain things inaccessible or deferred. That distance wasn't oppressive; it was formative. It gave people a motive to reach, to aspire, to wait, to sacrifice. In the absence of religion - in a world where every boundary is erased and nothing is off-limits - desire loses its structure. We no longer yearn, we just consume. And consumption, by its very nature, cannot satisfy. It's not that people stop wanting; it's that their wanting becomes aimless, insatiable, and ultimately joyless. This, for Mansour, is the essence of the post-sublime world: a culture that no longer knows how to want meaningfully because it has forgotten how to live with limits.

The argument seems to hit home within Judaism and Jewish ethics. I want to frame Jewish ethics to appeal to the secular; but if morality is truly dependent on spirituality, then my project collapses. I wondered, what if Jewish ethics, once removed from its covenantal source, is just another set of gestures without ultimate meaning? Why would it attract anyone secular when faith appears necessary to provide the limitations that give life meaning?

But then I realized: Mansour's critique (if I am understanding it correctly - again, the guy is a genius) hinges on a false assumption: that because everything can be consumed, everything is available. Yet we ourselves are not infinite. Our time, our energy, our attention, are all tragically finite. Everything may be available but we have to still make choices. Meaning may be muted by abundance. but it is created by limits, and people have only so much time and energy to decide what to do with their lives.

Because we can't do everything, we have to choose what matters. And in that choice - to love, to serve, to grow, to take responsibility - we can rediscover the shape of a meaningful life. Mansour is right that consumption alone leaves us hollow. But our acts of giving, of choosing to give what little we have, we are confronted with moral reality.

Yes, knowledge is cheap now. But wisdom isn't. You can Google a fact, but you can't shortcut discernment, humility, or courage. Wisdom still takes time, experience, failure, and reflection. If anything, the flood of information makes the pursuit of wisdom more vital, not less.

I use AI a great deal nowadays - it helped me dissect Mansour's essay and to write this one (and Mansour is planning to extend his argument into AI as well) - but in the end I use generative AI as a study partner, not a Wikipedia. If it suggests something that doesn't sit well with me I argue back. Its seeming infinite knowledge does not necessarily cheapen the desire for acquiring wisdom; it can supercharge it.

For all the abundance available to us, we still have choices. Amazon.com can also be a force for good.

Mansour is not necessarily disagreeing with this. His essay centers not on belief but on form:

Before desire was reduced to appetite and stimulation, it was shaped by form. To desire something was not simply to want it, but to be drawn toward it through a structure that delayed, elevated, and transformed the wanting. Desire was not opposed to discipline; it required it. The soul had to be trained not only in what to desire, but in how to desire; how to suffer longing without collapsing into immediacy.

Here is where Jewish ethics, even when secularized, still shines. The great benefits of Shabbat - a weekly, conscious turning away from materiality and turning off of electronic connectivity in favor of family and community - do not depend on God. Modesty is part of Jewish ethics but it does not require belief to reap its benefits. Deciding not to cheapen speech with gossip and cynicism elevates the soul even in those who don't believe in souls.

The higher values of Jewish ethics - compassion, integrity, truth, humility, dignity, responsibility - are rewarding in and of themselves. They don’t require a belief in God to feel meaningful. Acting with integrity feels better. Treating others with dignity feels right. Choosing justice and kindness makes life richer. These aren’t just moral obligations. They are existential blessings.

Other philosophical traditions like moral intuitionism, virtue ethics, and humanism suggest that people are capable of recognizing and choosing the good simply because it feels right—because it aligns with something deep within us. You don’t need divine command to know that cruelty is wrong or that compassion heals. Even in a world without religion, there is still a moral compass that everyone feels even as they are distracted by the culture of plenty . The pursuit of what’s good can be intuitive, even joyful. And living with integrity, even when it’s hard, often brings more fulfillment than the easiest shortcut.

One may argue that the secular who consciously choose to put form into their lives, who on their own decide to add limits, are in a sense morally superior to those who do it out of blind faith. After all, in many religious systems - particularly Christianity and Islam - acting morally is often tied directly (although not exclusively) to the promise of reward in the afterlife. Judaism traditionally emphasizes a different approach: doing God's will is considered inherently valuable, regardless of the outcome. The highest level, according to the sages, is to do the right thing lishmah -for its own sake, without expectation of reward. This doesn't negate the afterlife or divine justice, but it places ultimate spiritual maturity in the realm of duty and love rather than transaction.

In this light, those who live morally without any belief in divine reward or punishment - who act justly simply because it is right and to make them into the best they can be - are enacting a deeply noble version of ethical responsibility. While Jewish thought doesn't claim such a path is superior to one grounded in faith, it does hold space to admire its courage and clarity. That kind of moral clarity deserves our respect, and perhaps even our reverence.

So, what’s God got to do with it? Perhaps everything. Perhaps not. But even if someone doesn't believe, they can still live meaningfully within this tradition. Those of us who do believe can appreciate those who do what is right without expectation of eternal reward. That path, walked without theological scaffolding, may in some ways be an even greater test of moral character - and a powerful testament to the enduring human hunger for meaning.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

There have been a spate of attacks on synagogues and other Jewish targets in Australia over the past year.

Turkish media blames - the Jews.

In March, a van filled with explosives near a synagogue was determined by police to be a diversion by organized crime to distract police from their own planned crimes, given the publicity of the many real synagogue attacks,. Previously, in January, Australian police theorized that some of the synagogue attacks were funded from overseas.

Jew-hating Turkish media site Yeni Atik put those two facts together and decided that it must have been the Mossad:

It has been revealed that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad is behind the attacks on Jewish community venues and synagogues in various parts of Australia in recent months.

Australian police....expressed the view that members of an organised crime group for hire were behind the attacks, not a terrorist organisation.

Australia's domestic intelligence agency ASIO said it had detected foreign state actors using cryptocurrency to pay organised crime gangs in Australia to carry out "anti-Semitic" attacks.

In the Australian press and public, the only foreign state actor with the intention of doing this and who could benefit from it was clearly seen as the most plausible response: the State of Israel.

It is thought that Israel and Mossad's aim in carrying out these fake attacks is to want the laws against anti-Semitism in the country to come into force as soon as possible.

Maybe Yeni Akit never heard of Iran, or Hezbollah, or the PFLP, or Islamic Jihad...

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)