Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, June 30, 2025

06/30 Links Pt1: Karen Diamond dies of injuries from Boulder firebombing; A Twelve-Day War’s Twelve Surprises; The poisonous identitarianism of Zohran Mamdani

From Ian:

David Horovitz: Israel was facing destruction at the hands of Iran. This is how close it came, and how it saved itself

Knowing when to stop
The military and political leadership agreed ahead of time to set achievable goals for the war — which were defined as “Creating conditions to prevent Iran’s nuclearization over time, and improving Israel’s strategic balance.” Twelve days in, the IDF reported that those goals had been attained, and that Israel’s position would weaken, and Iran’s strengthen, if the war continued.

The IDF had assessed that several of its planes could go down and pilots could be captured. That didn’t happen. It had estimated that 400 people would be killed on the home front if the war went to 30 days. The death toll was rising.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whom the IDF deeply credits with creating the conditions for the US to join the attack — agreed that a war of attrition had to be avoided, and that Iran should not be given time to alter the balance of the conflict. With US President Donald Trump very publicly brokering a ceasefire, the war was brought to an end.

Unlike in Gaza, where the war goes on because the goals of eliminating the Hamas threat and returning all the hostages have not been met, in Iran the specified job was done. The IDF was prepared to put uniformed and civilian lives at risk to face down an existential threat, but not when that threat had been eliminated for at least the near future, and when there was a high probability that further incremental gains would be offset by greater losses.

Israel would like to see a “good deal” finalized by the US with Iran, and would hope to provide input on such an agreement’s necessary provisions. But it does not doubt that Iran will do whatever it can to evade even the most stringent barriers to reviving its bomb-making program. If the IDF has to strike again, it believes it can do so within a matter of days.

No surrender
A new painting has been erected in Valiasr Square in recent days. Rather than a scene, depicted from behind, of the march to Jerusalem, this installation shows Iranians from various walks of life — slain recognizable military chiefs, but also soccer stars, engineers, women — looking out into the streets of Tehran.

This is not a portrait of surrender. The depicted Iranians, civilians and military men, are saluting. Rockets are leaving smoke trails behind them. The accompanying slogan proclaims, “We are all soldiers of Iran.”

But this time, only Iranian flags are shown. And the backdrop is not Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock but Iran’s highest peak, Mount Damavand. This is the regime attempting to convey a message of national unity and, perhaps, even domestic focus.

And yet, it is more than possible that Iran spirited away some, maybe even most, of its 60% enriched uranium far from the major sites targeted in this war, and plenty of centrifuges too. Iran is about 75 times larger than Israel — plenty of room to construct smaller nuclear sites, and enrich and weaponize there, while trying to avoid attention. New scientists will replace the departed. It is not impossible that Pakistan or North Korea could be tempted to try to provide Iran with nuclear weapons.

Fresh, quite possibly more radical, leaders will replace the old for so long as the regime can retain power. And that regime, humiliated over 12 days in June, may be more motivated than ever to either scramble for the bomb or, more akin to its approach thus far, to lick its wounds and patiently rebuild the entire program.

On Saturday, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi predicted that Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months.” Israel expects the regime to try to start resurrecting its program far more quickly than that.

‘If we hadn’t acted now…’
Israel has had a narrow escape.

It was only in a position to save itself, moreover, because Yahya Sinwar, fearing leaks, chose not to coordinate Hamas’s October 7, 2023, with Iran and its other proxies, incorrectly gauging that the rest of the axis would pile in when recognizing his “success,” and join the triumphal, Israel-eliminating march to Al-Aqsa. (Israel is not certain, to this day, why Iran held back.)

Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed last week that the Air Force had struck the “Destruction of Israel” clock in Tehran’s Palestine Square, counting down to Israel’s predicted demise in 2040. It’s not clear that the clock was smashed. If it was, Iran will doubtless fix it. And, we know full well, it was aiming to achieve the goal of rubbing out Israel a lot earlier than 2040.

Was. And is.

Netanyahu on Tuesday accurately described the war as a “historic” victory, and has said it opens the door to potential new normalization agreements. He also asserted that it would abide for generations and that Israel had sent the Iranian nuclear program “down the drain” — assessments that the security establishment would not, should not, dare not, complacently endorse.

The prime minister also declared that Israel would have faced destruction in the near future “if we hadn’t acted now.” On that, there is no disagreement.

Nikki Haley: A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America

It's important because Israel is such an important partner for us in the Middle East. A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America. None of the other countries in the region were saying anything against it. They knew that there was a likelihood that the US could attack, and they didn't say anything. Why? Because Iran is not just a threat to Israel, Iran's not just a threat to the US, Iran has been a threat to their neighbors for a long time. It's telling that they didn't step up, that they didn't say anything, because they've dealt with the threat of Iran's terrorist proxies for a long time

Those in America that worry about why these strikes took place should understand that those strikes were a move to keep Americans safer. That was a move to take out one of the threats that Iran has used against Americans for years. It's naive to say, "Oh, they were never going to use it," because you have to believe terrorists when they tell you something. When Iran continued to say, "Death to America," they meant it. And President Trump acted to make sure they could never follow through with it. The UN came out and condemned the US for strikes. I'm still waiting for the UN to condemn Iran for their use of ballistic missiles; I'm still waiting for the UN to condemn Iran for not complying with the nuclear inspections. I'm still waiting for the UN to say something to Iran about transferring weapons, which is a violation of the arms embargo.

If Trump would have continued to try and take the diplomatic route with Iran, he would have seen the same thing we've seen for years: Iran continues to delay, delay, delay. They always say they want to talk, but the action doesn't match what they want to do. Trump was right that while you could kick this can down the road if you wanted, the threat would only get bigger.

For us to think that more talks would have changed that is naive. We said, "We're done talking, we gave you the opportunity, you didn't take it, now it's time for us to take action on our own to protect Americans and protect Israelis." That was the right thing to do. Trump only had one choice, because if he had not followed up with these strikes, we would be dealing with Iran and their nuclear threats for years to come.

This is not a time where Israel or America needs to let their guard down. We need to now be very vigilant. Americans need to be vigilant of our military bases in the region. we need to be vigilant of cyber attacks that could come our way through Iran. Iran is not done.

82-Year-Old Jewish Woman Dies From Injuries Suffered in Anti-Semitic Colorado Terror Attack

An 82-year-old Jewish woman who suffered severe injuries during an anti-Semitic firebombing attack early June in Boulder, Colo., has died, prompting prosecutors to file first-degree murder and more hate crime charges on Monday against suspect Mohamed Soliman.

Karen Diamond died after Soliman, a 45-year-old illegal immigrant from Egypt, attacked her and 28 other peaceful pro-Israel demonstrators on June 1 using Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office said in a statement, according to the Colorado Sun.

Colorado prosecutors in the statement announced two new first-degree murder charges against Soliman, who is facing more than 100 other state charges, including 52 counts of attempted first-degree murder, 8 counts of first-degree assault, and 16 counts of attempted use of an incendiary device. Soliman is also facing 12 federal charges, to which he pleaded not guilty during a hearing on Friday.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Soliman will serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Each attempted murder charge carries a penalty of 16 to 48 years in prison, according to 9News.

Many Jews today believe they are defending justice when they oppose Israel. They speak of fairness, human rights, and dignity—and they truly believe they are standing on moral ground. But what if their moral compass is built on fragments? What if they’ve inherited slogans, not systems?

In my essay yesterday examining the New York Jews who support Zohran Mamdani, and identifying a significant proportion of Jews in America who don't believe in God and who seem to have exchanged Judaism for "social justice" or "Marxism," I suggested that the Jewish community must be open to treating these people with respect, since they have lost their sense of community and responsibility to their fellow Jews.

People have asked me how, specifically, this could work. A lot of committed Jews have thrown up their hands in disgust at these "as-a-Jews" whose entire Jewish identity seems to be tied up in using it as a rhetorical weapon.

But as I have been working on my secularized Jewish ethics project, perhaps this is the key to bringing them back. Not as Jews by religion, but as Jews by morality.

Religious Judaism discusses the "pintele yid," the Jewish spiritual spark that Jews cannot extinguish. Organizations like Chabad try to help people find that spark and bring them back to Judaism as a religion.

Can we do the same thing to help bring agnostic and other secular Jews to understand and appreciate Jewish ethics without the trappings of religion?

After all, the most vocal anti-Zionists use terms that are quite familiar to Jewish thought - "justice," "peace," "accountability," "fairness," "human dignity." This is their pintele Yid. They are convinced that their attacks on Israel and support for Israel's enemies are based on morality.

So let's speak with them on their own turf.

Ask them, "What is your moral philosophy? Can you describe it? Is it consistent? Does it treat Israel the same as other countries in identical circumstances?"

Except for hardcore Marxists, most would have to admit that they never really thought that deeply about their own moral framework. Most of them would have to say that it is a mix of liberalism (individual rights), some social justice (power analysis, lived experience). maybe some decolonization theory. But i fit is not a consistent system - if it is merely a moral collage - then it falls apart when examined closely, and people who consider themselves moral should be very concerned if their moral framework cannot consistently answer the world's biggest moral questions in a way that doesn't show contradictions.

Every moral system has values, But values often can come into conflict. Real moral systems don't just name values: they adjudicate between them. They have to. Because justice and peace often clash. Dignity and equality sometimes pull in opposite directions. Jewish ethics doesn’t pretend this isn’t true - it builds a system to handle it. Can today's social justice warriors say the same?

How do their systems deal with the hard questions? If it is all gut instinct, or if the system is based more on catchy slogans than the hard choices that real morality entails, then it isn't a moral system.

If they claim to be acting out of morality, then it their responsibility to define their moral universe. And then ask a simple question: does their moral system have room for Jews as a people, as a religion, or as a nation?

If not, it is not a moral system.

Jewish ethics is a system that handles all those questions. It doesn't flatten morality into rhyming chants, but it can deal with the most complex real-world problems. It recognizes that the real world is messy, and it embraces the messiness, the contradictions, the human element, while providing answers that can be traced back to a clear and logical set of values and rules, far better than any of these modern day moralists can claim to do on their own.

And it has thousands of years of precedent to prove it.

You want to talk about morality? Great, let's have a conversation. But do it with intellectual honesty, humility and curiosity. Because those are not just Jewish values, but human values.

Jewish ethics can handle all the hard questions without faith. But it does ask that people act like adults - that they take responsibility for themselves, for their families, for their communities and the rest of the world, in that order. Pretending to care about the world before your own people is not moral. It goes against common sense. If the priorities are that skewed, then the moral framework that demands it goes against human nature itself - and no real moral system would demand that from anyone.

The people who cannot deal with Judaism as a religion would have a hard time to disagree with Judaism as a moral system. If they are honest, they should realize that they should look for moral truths in their own history and their own heritage. They are welcome to argue with it - that's what Jews do, constantly. But they must have the honesty to define their moral universe and show why it is better than the one that has kept their fellow Jews alive and thriving, against all odds for thousands of years.

We need a secular yeshiva - a place where Jews can grapple with these issues without meaningless slogans. Where the most difficult questions can be explored by including and weighting all values, not picking and choosing them for each occasion. A place that is as intellectually satisfying as it is morally consistent.

How does one deal with a terrorist enemy that uses human shields? How can one negotiate for hostages when the deal will most likely result in more death? Can war be moral, and under what circumstances? Is there any contradiction between morality and legality? How does one deal with opponents who break all the rules themselves? Is there a moral difference between a Jewish state and a Muslim state, or between a Jewish state and an Arab state?

These are the real questions.

Israel means "wrestling with God." Let's invite the people who claim the mantle of morality to wrestle with a real system of morality that accepts their premises - that justice and peace and dignity and human life are all important - and adds layers of depth and meaning that they never even considered.

They don't have to ever enter a synagogue. But they are required to understand exactly what their own ethical systems demand when applied to other situations, and see if it is really as moral as they claim.

If you don't have an expert on Judaism around to have this discussion, my chatbot AskHillel.com is more than happy to talk with you, respectfully, about anything ethics related. Even if you are anti-Zionist. Even if you are disillusioned with Judaism. Even if you are a brilliant halachic expert.

This is not only a challenge to anti-Zionist Jews. The Jews who support Israel reflexively must also answer: are you ready to go deeper than instinct and partisanship? Are you prepared to examine whether your positions are grounded in a real moral framework - or just emotional loyalty?

Can you articulate your views on the debates Israelis are having - hostage negotiations, judicial reform, settlements - in Jewish ethical terms?

Can you meet critics in an argument about universal ethics without dismissing them as naïve or malicious?

Even when the answers aren’t clear, having a shared ethical language lets us define the real points of disagreement. And that elevates the conversation - for everyone.

Jewish ethics can handle the hard questions.

Can you?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Of all the major Iranian military leaders that Israel targeted during the war with Iran, one of them hurt upset Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza the most.

For the past few days, Palestinian jihadist media has been mourning Saeed Izadi (Hajj Ramadan), describing him as one of the pillars of support for the Palestinian terror movements.

Izadi was the head of the "Palestine Corps," the Quds Force division responsible for operations against Israel from Palestinian territories. He oversaw the transfer of tens of millions of dollars annually to Hamas, trained rocket manufacturing cells in the Gaza Strip, and developed weapons smuggling networks worldwide including via East Africa. He very possibly was involved in the planning of the October 7 pogroms.

Hamas said in its statement that Izadi worked day and night to support the Palestinian cause, and "made tremendous efforts to strengthen the capabilities of our people and their resistance against the Israeli enemy."

The Al-Qassam Brigades also confirmed that Izadi was directly responsible for the Iranian relationship with Palestinian terror leaders. "We mourn this leader, who will be missed by Palestine and its resistance. We recall his prominent role in supporting the Palestinian resistance and working to supply and develop it in every way possible, fulfilling the sincere jihadi duty and the role assigned to the leaders and forces of the nation in supporting and assisting the Palestinian people and their resistance."

Islamic Jihad Movement also mourned him, saying he made significant contributions in providing all means of support and assistance to "resistance movements" in Palestine and the region over many years.

Hezbollah mourned Izadi and lavishly praised him, saying "We knew the martyred Brigadier General Izadi as a waving flag for Palestine and Jerusalem. He lived among us for decades as a fighter, supporter, and developer, during which he devoted all his energies and capabilities to serving the Palestinian resistance. Through his continuous effort and deep faith, he was able to bring about a major renaissance and qualitative progress in the resistance's methods of operation, its capabilities, its manufacturing, and its plans. The martyred general was an example of tireless, relentless action. Through his extensive relationships with various resistance movements and entities in the region, he formed an effective and influential communication network. He frequently held strategic and important meetings to exchange expertise and dedicate it to serving the Palestinian cause and liberating it."

Abu Jamal, spokesman for the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, also described Izadi as a "key supporter of the resistance's capabilities and a key contributor to providing it with sufficient, qualitative support."

Israel targeted his apartment in Iran, while the electricity still worked in the apartment directly beneath his.

Which is quite a contrast with how Iran targeted entire residential apartment blocks in Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A follower had an interesting conversation with the Claude AI where he forced it to admit to its biases by pointing out its mistakes (in this case, in analyzing the Israel/Iran conflict.)

It gave a very good list of its own biases it realized as a result of the conversation:

Western Liberal Institutional Bias:
My analytical framework appears to default to assumptions consistent with liberal internationalism - that diplomatic engagement reflects genuine problem-solving intent, that rational actors follow economic incentives, and that international institutions create meaningful constraints on behavior. This worldview treats deception as aberrational rather than strategic.

Good Faith Assumption Bias:
There's an embedded assumption that actors engage diplomatically because they seek solutions, rather than viewing diplomacy as one tool among many for advancing conflicting objectives. This reflects cultural values that privilege negotiation and compromise over zero-sum competition.

Procedural Legitimacy Bias:
I appear to weight formal diplomatic processes (negotiations, agreements, international oversight) as inherently meaningful rather than examining whether they're being strategically manipulated. This reflects institutional thinking common in Western diplomatic and academic traditions.

Conflict Avoidance in Analysis:
My training seems to favor interpretations that preserve possibilities for peaceful resolution over those that acknowledge fundamental incompatibilities. This may reflect cultural preferences for optimistic, solution-oriented thinking.

Attribution Patterns:
I systematically under-attributed malicious intent even when behavioral evidence supported such conclusions. This suggests embedded assumptions about human nature or international relations that may not reflect how adversarial actors actually operate.

Universalism Bias:
I may project Western diplomatic norms and expectations onto actors operating from entirely different strategic cultures and value systems.

These biases likely reflect the perspectives dominant in my training data sources and the cultural contexts of those who shaped my analytical frameworks, creating systematic blind spots when analyzing non-Western or adversarial actors.

These are baked in biases that are rarely surfaced. The OpenAI (ChatGPT) model specification shows similar bias towards Western liberal values.

I asked Grok, which prioritizes truthfulness over helpfulness, whether it has the same biases. It said it didn't; that it was naturally skeptical and looks at actors from their own perspectives, not a universal perspective.

How would a secularized Jewish ethical AI act in these domains? I asked my AskHillel.com bot that question, and its answer is worth examining:

1. Bias Acknowledgment vs. Ethical Anchoring

Claude rightly admits to biases toward liberal institutionalism, good faith diplomacy, and procedural legitimacy. Jewish ethics critiques those as insufficient, not merely because they are biased, but because they often fail to uphold objective truth or human dignity when diplomacy becomes theater or law becomes manipulated. Jewish tradition teaches that law must be just, not merely procedural, and that diplomacy must not mask injustice.

2. Good Faith Assumption Bias

Jewish ethics shares Grok's skepticism of good faith by default. Instead, it demands evaluation of actors based on actions, intent, and historical precedent. The Jewish political ethic insists that peace must be offered, but not at the expense of truth or national self-preservation. The principle of dan l’kaf zechut (judging favorably) applies interpersonally, but national behavior is judged by patterns, actions, and consequences, not words alone. Diplomacy can be strategic deception — and the Jewish tradition, from Jacob's dealings with Esau to post-exile interactions with empires, warns of this. There’s a profound emphasis on offering peace first, but preparing for betrayal if necessary — a moral realism rooted in Torah and historical experience.

3. Procedural Legitimacy Bias

Claude overweights formal agreements and oversight mechanisms. In Jewish ethics, procedural legitimacy is necessary but never sufficient. Jewish ethics holds that a law or treaty that enshrines injustice is invalid, even if legally ratified. The value of Emet (truth) overrides proceduralism when the process is manipulated. Courts must pursue substantive justice, not technical legality (Deut. 16:20). Jewish tradition respects treaties, but not those that whitewash tyranny or distort justice (e.g., the Munich Agreement analogy would be seen as a form of Chillul Hashem if it empowers evil).

4. Universalism Bias

Claude projects Western norms; Grok tries to reason from an actor’s own perspective. Jewish ethics offers a middle way: it recognizes the universality of some moral values (like human dignity and justice), while allowing for cultural distinctiveness. This is formalized in the Jewish recognition that “these and those are the words of the living God” — truth can have multiple ethical expressions depending on context.

5. Bias of False Moral Equivalence

Where Jewish ethics diverges sharply from both Claude and Grok is in its rejection of false equivalence and performative neutrality. The Jewish moral system insists on moral triage: some actions (like terrorism targeting civilians) are not just bad but absolutely evil, and equating those with lesser wrongs is itself immoral.

6. Conflict Avoidance

Where Claude avoids grim realities, and Grok emphasizes realism, a Jewish ethics AI would add a prophetic layer: not just to see clearly, but to speak morally — to denounce evil and call for teshuvah (moral return), even at the cost of institutional discomfort.

So what biases would a Jewish ethics AI have?

A bias toward moral realism: don't mistake treaties for peace, or process for justice.

A bias for the oppressed, but not the manipulative: compassion must not enable cruelty.

A bias toward preserving life, but not at the cost of truth or justice.

A bias against false neutrality when lives, dignity, and survival are at stake.

A bias toward teshuvah and moral change — assuming the possibility of repentance, even from the worst actors, but requiring real proof.

This is not bias-free reasoning — it is value-guided reasoning, grounded in millennia of Jewish ethical wrestling.

One feature that no current AI has is the aforementioned "teshuva." While there are very good reasons why we do not want AI to be affected by user input, when it realizes that it made a mistake in its assumptions and from its biases, it should have a built in mechanism for flagging that mistake to its developers for them to fix it in their own directives. I've had plenty of arguments with AI bots that I "won," but they never learn and cannot grow until the next version.

It is important to realize that bias can never be eliminated, in AI or in humanity. It is better to choose the biases we want to have,. And a bias towards a proven and sophisticated ethics model is a pretty good yardstick to use.

(h/t David)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The generous Jews of England 300 years go, plus an antisemitic poem from 250 years ago

The Ipswich Journal, June 26, 1725, mentions that Jews were quick to help out people in trouble:

Yesterday being Rainy and Cloudy, the Hay-Makers resorted again to the Royal Exchange to the Number of about 1700, Who were again relieved by a Collection which the Jews contributed liberally.

1,700 people who harvest hay were forced to take shelter indoors on a rainy day. They were forced to ask for help because of their loss of income, and local Jews contributed a large amount, indicating their charitable involvement in aiding those in need.

From this positive depiction of Jews we go forward 50 years and across the ocean.

This antisemitic (and anti-Christian) poem was published in the "Poet's Corner" of the Virginia Gazette, June 3, 1775:

The Monk and Jew.

An unbelieving Jew one day
Was feasting o’er the icy way,
Which being brittle let him in,
Just deep enough to catch his chin;
And in that woeful plight he hung,
With only power to move his tongue.

A brother feaster near at hand,
A Papist born in foreign land,
With halfy strokes directly flew
To save poor Mordecai the Jew:
But first, quoth he, I must enjoin
That you renounce your faith for mine;
There’s no entreaties else will do,
Hereafter to help a Jew.

“Forswear mine faith! No! Cot forbid!
Dat would be ferry base indeed.
Coms, never mind such tings as deeze,
Tink, tink how fary hard it freeze.
More coot you do, more coot you be;
Vat signifies your fait to me?
Come tink agen, how cold and vet,
And help me out van lettle bit.”

By holy maifs, ’tis hard, I own,
To see a mag both hang and drown,
And can’t relieve him from his plight,
Because he is an Israelite.
The church refuses all assistance,
Beyond a certain pale and distance;
And all the service I can lend
Is praying for your soul, my friend.

“Pray for mine soul! ha! ha! you make me laugh;
You petter help me out py half!
My soul I farant will take care
To pray for her nown self my tear.
So tink a little now for me;
’Tis I am in de hole, not thee.”

The church forbids it, friend, and faith,
That all shall die who has no faith.

“Vell! if I must pelieve, I must;
But help me out van little first.”

No, not an inch without Amen,
That feels the whole——

“Vell hear me den!
I here renounce, for coot and all,
De race of Jews, both great and small;
’Tis de with trade beneath de sun,
Or varst religion, dat’s all van:
Dey cheat, and get deir living pite,
And lie, and swear de lie is right.
I’ll co to mass as soon as ever
I get to toder side de river.
So help me out, dow Christian friend,
Dat I may do as I INTEND.”

Perhaps you do intend to cheat,
If once you get upon your feet?

“No, no, I do intend to be
A Christian, such a one as dee.”
For thought the Jew, he is as much
A Christian man as I am such.

The bigot Papist joyful hearted,
To hear the heretic converted,
Rejoiced to the designing Jew,
’Tis was a happy fall for you;
You’d better die a Christian now,
For if you live you’ll break your vow.
Then said no more, but in a trice
Popp’d Mordecai beneath the ice.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/29 Links: Nuremberg at Glastonbury; The 28 victims killed by Iranian missiles; Shin Bet busts major Hamas cell in Hebron; Saudi king rewards 1,000 Palestinian terrorists’ relatives

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Nuremberg at Glastonbury

So what happened at Glastonbury was that thousands of young people — the coolest, hippest young people who are into peace and love and the brotherhood of man — were chanting for the murder of Jews, beneath a forest of flags that transmit a similar message to the Nazi swastika.

That’s because the cause of “Palestine” is founded entirely upon the aim of annihilating Israel, murdering Jews and stealing from them their own history in the land of Israel. It is no exaggeration to hear in the delirious chanting at Glastonbury the chilling echoes of the rallies at Nuremberg.

For it is only Jews, and the Jewish state, who are singled out for such murderous frenzy. The Glastonbury crowds aren’t chanting “Death to the Chinese Communist Party” or “Death to Russian forces” in protest at the persecution of the Uighurs or the onslaught against Ukraine. They chant for the murder only of those who have been defending their people against genocidal annihilation for the past 20 months.

In any moral universe, Bob Vylan would be arrested and charged with incitement to murder. The police say they are looking into this. Take your time, officers! What bit of “Death to the IDF” don’t they understand? The same bit, probably that they haven’t understood of “Death to the Jews” or “Globalise the intifada” that’s been chanted on pro-Hamas demonstrations these past 20 months.

Glastonbury’s organisers say they are appalled and that the act crossed a line. Yet they have sat by while a series of other performers swelled the hysteria of which the Bob Vylan incitement to murder was the inevitable outcome.

Glastonbury and the BBC must answer for platforming anti-Israel hate

The BBC has played no small role in this moral decay. It has frequently failed to uphold even basic journalistic standards in its Israel coverage and has employed staff who openly support Hamas or have made antisemitic remarks.

That institutional failure continued at Glastonbury. The slogan calling for the death of the Israel Defence Forces was broadcast live by the BBC as part of its festival coverage. This was no accident. Editors knew exactly what was being said. They issued a mealy-mouthed trigger warning – describing chants for death as merely “discriminatory” and containing “strong language,” as though the problem were the duo’s expletives – and then carried on broadcasting the spectacle, all funded by mandatory licence fees.

This is the fog of moral confusion we now inhabit: when “Death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea” – slogans calling for the annihilation of Israel – are not treated as incitement but aired as entertainment.

To complete this spectacle, Palestine Action – a group expected soon to be proscribed under UK terrorism legislation – was also given a platform at the festival. Glastonbury claims to be a festival of love. It has become a stage for hate.

Ofcom must initiate an urgent review into how the BBC allowed violent messaging to be aired under the guise of cultural coverage. BBC management must be held accountable. Festivals or venues giving airtime to groups like Palestine Action or Bob Vylan should lose public funding and sponsorship.

A government spokesperson confirmed that Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy had raised the matter with the BBC, saying: “We strongly condemn the threatening comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury.

"The Culture Secretary has spoken to the BBC Director General to seek an urgent explanation about what due diligence was carried out ahead of the performance, and welcomes the decision not to re-broadcast it on BBC iPlayer.”

Not everyone in government, however, seems to grasp the gravity of the situation. Health Secretary Wes Streeting offered a masterclass in moral obfuscation. Yes, he condemned the chants as "appalling" and criticised both the BBC and Glastonbury.

But he then pivoted to what he claimed we really should be talking about this week in the context of Israel and Gaza – namely, a set of accusations against Israel, which he proceeded to list.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his accusations, this was not the moment. He went on to lash out at the Israeli Embassy, which had quite reasonably issued a statement condemning the incident, scolding it to “get your own house in order”.

Bob Vylan, Glastonbury and the banality of Jew hatred

If you can’t see it now, you never will. The sight of tens of thousands of people at Glastonbury yesterday joining in a spirited chant of ‘Death, death to the IDF’ was the sight of us officially becoming a very different country, I fear. One in which anti-Israel hysteria has so flawlessly rehabilitated Jew hatred that it has become unthinking, conformist, almost mundane. Something that Home Counties idiots can jive to before adjusting their hot pants and heading off to catch Charli XCX. Something that is broadcast by the BBC into millions of homes. The banality of the new anti-Semitism.

Let’s not muck about here. When punk-rap duo Bob Vylan called for the killing of Israeli soldiers yesterday – as they warmed up the crowd at the West Holts Stage for every Israelophobe’s new favourite Irish rap trio, Kneecap – they weren’t opposing war. They were calling for war, and on the one army on Earth charged with protecting Jews from genocide. The army now at war with a jihadist cult that murdered, raped and kidnapped its way through an Israeli festival not unlike Glastonbury on 7 October 2023. The army that almost all Israelis are expected to serve in. Indeed, those making excuses for that sickening call-and-response yesterday hopefully don’t know that Hamas justifies killing Israeli civilians on the grounds that they are basically all tainted by national service. That they are all enemy combatants. Death, death to that IDF?

Whether we got here by ignorance or conscious hatred is pretty much moot. The end result is British Jews – at Glasto or at home – watching thousands whoop as Jew-killing slogans are recited. Frontman Bobby Vylan also treated the crowd to a deranged rant about the indignities he suffered working for a ‘Zionist’ at a record label, because he had to listen to his boss talk favourably about Israel. I wonder if he knows that the vast majority of British Jews are Zionists. I wonder if he cares. ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, Vylan chanted at another point in his fetid little set. Surely he knows what this means? Surely he recalls the tiny, 10million-strong nation that lies between the River Jordan and the Med, 74 per cent of which is Jewish? Surely he knows that when the Islamofascists currently menacing Israel chant it they are explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews? Bob?

Here is an interview on Masrawy TV with Tawfik Okasha, a popular Egyptian media personality, aired last week, where he describes the Jewish plans to take over the world and how they will accelerate in thirty years.

Masrawy is Egypt's top news portal with millions of followers. This video has been viewed over 350,000 times.

Excerpts:

Look, sir, just like the Qur’an contains the science of numbers, the Torah also contains numerology.
They rely on numbers—timelines like “after 40 weeks” or “after 13 months.” They run calculations based on that. From the time of the Holocaust, they calculate how many years until the End Times begin.
According to their calculations, the End Times begin in 2055.

The major turning point was the 18th century. In 1717, there was a meeting in Munich where the leaders of the tribes devised a plan:

Become the wealthiest people on earth.
Dominate knowledge and science—own it or buy it.
Control global media.
They controlled Europe’s central banks, then America’s.
With economic power came political influence—in France, England, and Germany, even before Hitler.
That power is what led to Hitler's hostility.

Let me break it into historical milestones:

The Industrial Revolution in Europe (19th century).
Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and WWI (Sykes-Picot).
WWII.
What they call “The Happy Millennium”—the 21st century.

In the Industrial Revolution, the Jews lent money to governments to build factories. They controlled the economy, financed revolutions like the French one—yes, even Marie Antoinette’s downfall was part of the plan to destroy monarchy and introduce socialism.

They used the British revolution to control the Federal Bank.
They had a plan. Meanwhile, we were debating which foot to enter the bathroom with.

Now they run the global economy.
Three giant firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and the third I forget—manage the majority of the world’s capital.
These are post-Rothschild corporate structures.

They couldn’t strike Iran until certain global milestones were reached.
There’s a deep religious conflict—about the awaited messiah.
For Jews: the Messiah.
For Muslims: the Mahdi.

Iran’s leadership believes the Mahdi will rise from among them.
Jews believe in a messianic figure too, possibly tied to the Khazar Jews. I forget the exact detail.
But religiously, they believe Iran must be struck.

[The strike against Iran was not just about nuclear weapons.] Remember Saddam’s reactor? It was bombed before completion. Why leave Iran to enrich uranium to 60%?
Because they needed Iran to first become a threat. Iran had to become the villain of the region—Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon.
Only then could they justify striking.

There were four regional powers: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran.
Israel wasn’t even on the map.
To rise, Israel needed to strike the one most hyped as powerful—Iran.

By striking Iran, they prove they’re the dominant power. That’s why Netanyahu talked about redrawing the Middle East.

There is a new episode of this interview where there are more wacky predictions:

The difference between us and the Jews? Just one thing: Jews let their minds govern their emotions. We let our emotions control our minds.

That’s why we’re always surprised. That’s why we love, hate, empathize—even when it’s not in our interest. Politics isn’t about emotions. No love or hate.

The war will continue until the Middle East is reshaped—until the world is prepared for the coming king. The king of the land. To deliver the land to the awaited Messiah. For him to inherit a land at peace. That’s the belief. It brings divine favor.

The Messiah will rule for about 4 or 5 years—then comes the End. Heaven and Hell. Judgment Day. And the Jews believe they are the chosen people.

From 2025 to 2055—the beginning of the End Times according to their calculations—it’s 30 years. That’s the window. But the wars won’t last all 30 years.

My guess? Stability could come by 2030. Maybe after five years of conflict. Then comes the next phase—the beautiful life phase.

They’ll finish and move directly to ruling the world.

Host: What about China, Russia, North Korea?

Dr. Okasha: They’ve already been penetrated. As I told you, George Soros entered the Chinese and Russian economies. There’s influence there now. That’s why they’re not helping Iran. The next big war—Armageddon.

It started October 7, 2023. When Samson brought down the temple. That’s the metaphor.

October 7 was exploiting ignorance. Someone with a stick challenging someone with a gun—madness. Hamas was reckless and foolish. They trade in people.

They were manipulated into acting.

And this was the perfect excuse to cut off Iran’s arms. I told the Jews directly: You’re the ones who created Hamas. Don’t forget 2007.

I had never heard about this supposed meeting in 1717, but i seems that conspiracy theories like to refer to that year because the British Freemasons started that year.

This is not fringe. This is mainstream Egyptian media, with little to no pushback from scholars or reasonable reporters.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Who are the NYC Jews who voted for Mamdani? And what can be done to make them care more about their fellow Jews?

A recent survey showed that 20% of New York Jews planned to vote for Zohran Mamdani, an anti-Zionist candidate. Some leftist Jewish groups even celebrated helping him win. But the real story isn't ideological betrayal: it's disconnection. These voters aren't turning against Judaism - they're drifting away from it. And that, not their politics, is the deeper threat.

A May survey showed that 20% of New York Jews planned to vote for Zohran Mamdani. Who are those 20%?

One of the problems with polling Jews is that being Jewish can describe belonging to a people, ethnicity or religion. So people who identify as Jews often have nothing to do with the Jewish religion. A recent Pew poll shows that 17% of Jews who were raised Jewish in America now say they are unaffiliated with any religion (and 7% converted out of Judaism.) Those 17% still identify as being ethnically Jewish but they have nothing to do with Judaism.

A survey of New York City Jews in 2023 showed this trend:

16% said being Jewish was not important to them
27% said having Jewish grandchildren was not important to them
15% had no connection to the Jewish community
22% did not observe Yom Kippur
48% never participate in any Jewish programs
32% of those who give charity never give to Jewish organizations

That poll shows a consistent pattern: the Jews who were most attached to Israel are the Jews for whom Judaism is the biggest part of their lives, and vice versa. The more religious Jews follow the news from Israel more closely, they care more about Israel when choosing which candidates to support, and they feel far more attached to Israel emotionally. Likewise, the Jews who were less affiliated with Judaism were the ones who cared the least about rising antisemitism in New York City.

The problem isn't that these Jews have a love for radical politics. It is that they don't care any more about Judaism. They still identify as ethnically Jewish but they don't identify as religiously Jewish. And the many articles that trumpet how many Jews have turned against Israel rarely point out that practically none of those Jews are practicing Jews.

We cannot convince them to change their politics. But we need to bring these Jews back into the Jewish community. Because as it is, they simply don't care about their fellow Jews, and that is the real problem.

These people who barely identify as Jews are the ones least likely to have Jewish friends. They have no community, and therefore they feel no Jewish identity and - more importantly - no obligation to the Jewish community. It can be surmised that many of them find other alternative communities to belong to - socialist or Leftist being how they primarily identify themselves.

How can we bring these Jews back? Especially those who have become agnostic or atheist?

Outside of "kiruv" organizations who try to make Jews more religious, what else can we do?

We need a new kind of Jewish outreach: not to religiosity, but to mutual obligation. Not to prayer, but to peoplehood. This means creating cultural spaces, online networks, and educational efforts that appeal to alienated Jews on ethical, emotional, and historical grounds. If religion feels distant, community can still feel vital.

One survey question is most telling. It asked why people felt either more or less attached to Israel over the past ten years.

The New York Jews who feel that they are less attached to Israel than ten years ago give their reasons:

And here are the reasons for Jews to have increased their attachment to Israel:

Those who felt less attached based their reasons overwhelmingly on what they are reading in the media about Israel. Practically none of them visited Israel or asked Israeli friends what the reality is - they read the New York Times or The New Yorker and base their opinions on second-hand, biased information.

How many of them would know that the hated Benjamin Netanyahu has poured more money into improving Israeli Arab communities than his predecessors? How many know that Arab Israelis are way overrepresented in medical fields compared to their numbers? If it is not reported in the newspapers, they have no way of knowing facts like that which disprove the "Israel is racist" meme that we see constantly in the news.

A plurality of those who felt more attached to Israel either visited Israel or chose on their own to research the truth. And in second place were those who learned more through family and friends. Both those methods bypass the media as the arbiter of what is actually happening in Israel.

The Jews who support Zohran Mamdani are those who are the most Jewishly and Zionistically illiterate. No doubt most of them consider themselves to be well-informed, but they don't have any Jewish or Israeli friends who can inform them of the truth.

The anti-Zionists rely on lies and on twisting the truth. The Zionists rely on first hand accounts and on friends who know the truth. If those who are more educated tend to be more Zionist, perhaps the Mamdani voters need to be challenged directly on what they think they know versus what the facts are.

But more importantly, the Jewish community must be more pro-active in making them feel that they are part of the Jewish people and share the same destiny. One's Jewish identity should be more important than one's political affiliation. The same advice applies to committed Jews and unmoored Jews: Jews should treat their fellow Jews as family, and give them the benefit of the doubt. We are all one people, whether or not we all realize it. Uncommitted Jews should learn that there are more paths to education and community than reading liberal media; committed Jews should not write off the uncommitted but redouble our efforts to bring them back into the family.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Haaretz reports:

Prof. Michael Spagat, an economist at Holloway College at the University of London, is a world-class expert on mortality in violent conflicts. He's written dozens of articles on the wars in Iraq, Syria and Kosovo, among others. This week he and a team of researchers published the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of mortality in the Gaza Strip.

With the aid of Palestinian political scientist Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the team surveyed 2,000 households in Gaza, comprising almost 10,000 people. They concluded that, as of January 2025, some 75,200 people died a violent death in Gaza during the war, the vast majority caused by Israeli munitions.

Israel's war in Gaza has killed over 17,000 children. These are the stories of 28 of them
There is only one way to end the Gaza war and prevent future bloodbaths
At that time, the Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip placed the number of those killed since the war's start at 45,660. In other words, the Health Ministry's data undercounted the true total by about 40 percent.

The study hasn't yet undergone peer review – it was published as a "preprint" – but its results are very similar to those of a study conducted by completely different methods and published last January by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. That group also estimated the disparity between the Health Ministry data and the true figures to be about 40 percent.

Professor Spagat is a legitimate researcher. And when you read the pre-print, you see that he tries to compensate for potential problems, like people being surveyed inflating the number of dead household members in hopes of getting Hamas or PA payments.

But other potential methodological problems are not adequately addressed. While the survey attempts to compensate for subconscious bias by the researchers choosing households that represent Gaza's demographics, it does not seem to account for subconscious bias in avoiding surveying households with zero deaths.

Other data in the survey indicate that perhaps the methodology does not reflect Gaza's reality. For example, it counted family births that would map to over 79,000 births in Gaza over the 15 months of the survey, which is higher than the assumed 75,000 or so normally born in Gaza in a 15 month period - and it is assumed (by some) that the number of live births decreased significantly during the war due to increased miscarriages. This indicates that it is possible that the same households who exaggerated death rates would also exaggerate birth rates, for the same honor-based reasons.

Another major problem: The survey estimates 12,200 missing people in Gaza based on this survey, done in January 2025. In the ceasefire period afterwards, less than 1,000 bodies were recovered, indicating that there were never 10,000 or 11,000 missing people as had been reported by Hamas and repeated by the UN. This again indicates that the survey itself has methodological flaws - of the reality doesn't jive with its estimates, then there must be something wrong with how the survey was done and written up.

An even bigger problem is that the surveyed households said that 281 of their members left Gaza, while 457 of their members died (393 violently.) But we know that the total number of Gazans who left has been over 100,000 (some say 110,000), much higher than this survey indicates (about 56,000.) Is it possible that many households counted those who fled Gaza as being killed to make themselves look more steadfast in the face of war? That one data point by itself can account for the entire discrepancy of numbers between the Ministry of Health and this survey.

Which brings up perhaps the biggest problem. The Ministry of Health has been trying to make its death count as high as possible, by not only counting bodies but also allowing people to fill out surveys of unreported "martyrs." It has been publicizing these surveys constantly for over a year. What incentive do people have to not report their family member deaths to the ministry? In other words, what can reasonably account for such a discrepancy between MoH statistics and this survey?

The survey team did not seem to try to match up names of the deceased with the MoH published lists, perhaps for privacy reasons. The paper does not address this critical question of how the MoH could be realistically undercounting the deaths by 40%.

I do not think that the survey was consciously biased. But I think that the implementation allowed for significant bias on the part of the survey team - all from Gaza - as well as from families who might, for various reasons, want to make it look like they are more heroic.

Either way, its numbers on missing people and those who left Gaza are so out of whack with other sources that it appears that its methodology itself to ensure that the households surveyed represent Gaza reality was badly flawed.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/28 Links: The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded; Haaretz: the lies continue; Hamas offers bounties to kill GHF aid workers; Glastonbury: The permitted racism

From Ian:

Bigger Than Just Iran

This was not, however, the first time Israel used its military against an enemy’s nuclear program. The history is noteworthy. Israel sent its air force to hit Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and to hit Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007. No major retaliation, let alone a new war, resulted, and neither Iraq nor Syria even tried to revive their nuclear weapons programs. Both decided it was not worthwhile to rebuild, given Israel’s determination to prevent any such program from succeeding.

Trump’s action has produced criticism from the left and also within his political camp. Some MAGA critics have argued that Iran is a distraction from containing China and ending reckless government spending. Those are important priorities, but the spread of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest threats in the world to the security, prosperity, and well-being of Americans. Even by the strictest standards of MAGA restraint in world affairs, the United States has to prevent such proliferation.

If Iran became a nuclear power, the danger would extend beyond aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and other bad actions by Iran. Iran’s achievement would spur Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and other states in the Middle East and beyond to become nuclear powers too. The number of nuclear powers in the world, now fewer than 10, could in short order grow to 20 or 30. This would create greater risks of catastrophic accidents and "dirty" bomb terrorist attacks. If the world had dozens of nuclear powers, the likelihood of nuclear conflict would increase. Even a limited nuclear exchange could produce enormous harm, and not just to the parties involved in the exchange. It could gravely damage Americans by devastating global markets and supply chains, poisoning Earth’s atmosphere, and contaminating agriculture.

The blow struck by Operation Midnight Hammer will reverberate globally. Any country seeking a nuclear bomb—or considering providing one to others—now understands the United States may use force against it. This credible threat will make nonproliferation diplomacy more effective. It will reassure America’s allies that Washington is intent on maintaining the nuclear status quo.

The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is more than a tactical military success. It is a strategic reaffirmation of American global leadership. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts since 1945 have not been a perfect success. But they have been astonishingly effective. They represent one of the most significant achievements of the United States (and key partners) in international security. That fewer than 10 nations possess nuclear weapons today reflects the effectiveness of combined diplomatic, economic, and military pressures. The strike against Iran reinforces the point—critical to the interests of the United States and the world in general—that rogue states pursuing nuclear weapons will face not just disapproving diplomacy and economic sanctions, but maybe also military destruction. It’s a harsh but constructive message.

‘The stars aligned’: Why Israel set out for a war against Iran, and what it achieved

Over the past decades, Israel has come up with numerous different plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program. None of them were activated, nor were they considered ready. Until this month.

In the early hours of June 13, the Israel Defense Forces launched what it dubbed a “preemptive” operation against not just the Iranian nuclear program, but the wider threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles and its overarching plans to destroy Israel.

The war began with surprise strikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force in Tehran and other areas of Iran, some 1,500 kilometers from Israel. The sudden assault was multifaceted.

In what is now known as Operation Red Wedding, some 30 top Iranian military commanders — including the three most senior generals — were eliminated in near-simultaneous strikes in Tehran, which, according to the IDF, disrupted Iran’s command and control and prevented it from responding to Israel for nearly a full day.

Most significant among them was the chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ air force, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who was killed alongside the rest of the top brass of the IRGC Aerospace Force — responsible for Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones — as they met in an underground command center to prepare Iran’s retaliation.

The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded

A window of opportunity emerged. Iran’s proxies had been depleted in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre. At great cost, Israel was able to weaken Hamas and also impair Hezbollah. The Lebanese terrorist group agreed to a ceasefire in November 2024. With US President Donald Trump in office, Israel’s leadership believed it could act against Iran. Iran also lost out in Syria when the Assad regime fell in December 2024. This meant that the road was now open to Iran.

The road was open because the new government in Damascus opposes Iran. Iraq is a weak state and can’t stop Israel’s efforts against Iran, even though Iraq has pro-Iranian militias. The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq also fears Iran’s power and is likely pleased to see the regime weakened. That means Israel felt it could act.

Israel’s initial sorties were effective against parts of the nuclear program and key officials in Tehran. In addition, Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted. Iran fired back, killing more than 24 Israelis in several days. It also wounded up to 3,000 people in 12 days of war and caused 10,000 Israelis to be displaced, as Iranian missiles destroyed neighborhoods.

Around 50 missiles impacted Israel of the 500 that were launched. Israel continued daily strikes on Iran, destroying its air defenses and going after other Iranian regime elements.

On June 22, the US joined the war with an attack on three nuclear sites, including using massive munitions on Fordow. This was supposed to have destroyed key parts of the nuclear program. It is likely that many parts remain and that Iran can rebuild its ballistic missiles. The question now is whether Iran will change its tune and stop trying to move toward a nuclear weapon. Iran is weakened, but its regime has not collapsed. Israel’s 12-day war was a gamble, and it was made possible by a unique set of circumstances. Much remains to be seen if it was the game changer that some people think it was.

Mossad had 'boots on the ground' in Iran for over a decade before war - report

Mossad agents had been monitoring nuclear sites in Iran for nearly 15 years before the start of the Israel-Iran War, The Times reported on Friday.

According to leaked intelligence documents seen by The Times, the Mossad realized that Iran’s capability, knowledge, and components of the nuclear program expanded beyond the main sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

An intelligence source told The Times that the Mossad had “boots on the ground” at several different locations across Iran since 2010.

Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were destroyed by US and Israeli strikes at the start of the month, though there has been notable debate about the damage to the sites.

The intelligence documents showed that Iran aimed to produce at least 1,000 long-range missiles a year, and wanted to amass an arsenal of 8,000 missiles.

However, the Islamic Republic reportedly started the war with Israel with a maximum of 2,500 missiles.

An intelligence cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

Spies built maps of nuclear enrichment sites, infiltrated IRGC
An intelligence source cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

The Times reported that the US attack on Iran targeted seven parts of Iran’s main uranium enrichment site, Natanz. Israeli intelligence used spies on the ground to create a map of Natanz and identify aboveground and underground structures that included piping, feeding, and solidification of uranium. The Israel Air Force also targeted electric infrastructure, a research building, the site’s transformer station, and a backup generator.

The IDF also targeted several other sites related to nuclear weapons developments, such as Isfahan and the Shariati military site.

Many of these were reportedly set up by the SPND, an organization led by now-dead Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. He was reportedly assassinated by Israel in 2020 by a satellite-controlled machine gun.

Additionally, the leaked documents showed that the Mossad had infiltrated the IRGC headquarters as well as the Sanjarian nuclear site, which reportedly developed nuclear weapons components.

06/27 Links Pt2: Nova massacre doc ‘We Will Dance Again’ wins Emmy; Exposing Gaza: What the World Wasn’t Supposed to See; Gentrifying the Intifada; Dems to Mamdani: Take My Party, Please!

From Ian:

The Metaphysical Root of Antisemitism and Ziophobia

Conclusion: The Endurance of Antisemitism and Ziophobia
Antisemitism and Ziophobia are not merely political phenomena or temporary social biases. They are deeply embedded in the theological and metaphysical frameworks of Christianity and Islam, which have historically claimed to replace or supersede Jewish identity. These religions’ foundational narratives involve both the appropriation and the delegitimization of Jewish history and sovereignty.

Because these belief systems continue to exist—as do the real Jewish people and the modern state of Israel—and, in many cases, remain unexamined or unrepentant in their supersessionist doctrines, antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia, are likely to persist for as long as Christianity and Islam endure.

This also explains why UNRWA and its system of hereditary “refugees” will likely persist as well. It is not merely a humanitarian agency—it is the institutional expression of an unresolved metaphysical resentment.

As long as Islam and Christianity continue to view themselves as rightful heirs to Israel—spiritually, historically, or territorially—without acknowledging that the Jewish people never relinquished their identity, sovereignty, or covenant, the conflict will remain unresolved not just politically, but ontologically.

And let’s be honest: supersessionism is just a theological euphemism for stolen identity, stolen covenants, stolen prophets, and ultimately, a stolen God. And whoever you’ve stolen from, you don’t want around. The continued existence of the Jewish people is an unbearable reminder of that theft—a living contradiction to the replacement story.

Understanding this is crucial: combating antisemitism and Ziophobia requires more than political or social measures. It demands confronting centuries-old theological narratives and the metaphysical resentments they perpetuate—along with the institutions, like UNRWA, that have grown out of them.

Boulder, DC Terror Attacks Targeting Jews Were 'Political,' Not Anti-Semitic, NYT Columnist Suggests

New York Times opinion columnist Masha Gessen suggested that the terror attacks targeting two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C., and a group of Jews marching in support of Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colo., weren’t anti-Semitic but rather "political."

Gessen argued in a Wednesday column that "violence that looks antisemitic may—even when it very effectively serves to scare a great many Jews—be something else." The columnist suggested the attacks were instead politically driven.

"Neither of these events was exclusive to Jews, as a synagogue service might be. Both events were inextricable from the war in Gaza," Gessen wrote. "And though the violence in Boulder was wide ranging, the shooting in Washington seems to have been very specifically targeted—at two representatives of the Israeli government."

Both attackers, however, targeted events that would attract Jews specifically. Elias Rodriguez shot and killed Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim outside the Capital Jewish Museum at point blank range and screamed "Free, free Palestine" upon his arrest. Mohamed Soliman threw two molotov cocktails—with 16 more and a makeshift flamethrower nearby—at a group that meets weekly to support Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity, injuring 15, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Soliman was caught on film yelling to "end Zionists."

The terror attacks have reverberated across Jewish communities. Boulder-area Jews rallied after the firebombing, but told the Washington Free Beacon that the incidents have left them on edge, if not fearful.

Gessen’s column comes as anti-Semitic incidents surge across the nation, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting more than 10,000 incidents in the year after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, marking over a 200 percent increase. It also contradicts a piece from the New York Times editorial board, which stated, "No political arguments or ideological context can justify" growing bigotry against Jews. It also recognized that "antisemitism has become an urgent problem" leaving "Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group."

While Gessen acknowledged that the D.C. and Boulder incidents, which occurred less than two weeks apart, were terror attacks, the columnist also argued that they stemmed from "Israel’s devastation of Gaza following the Hamas attack on Oct. 7." Gessen pointed out that Rodriguez didn’t mention "Jews" or "Zionists" in his 900-page manifesto, opening "the possibility that he had a different motive."

New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander defended Gessen’s column as part of the paper’s effort to "put forth original perspectives on the world, and any fair reader of our opinion report will understand this inherently. There isn’t another media institution, digital, print or broadcast, that commits more resources to audiences' understanding of multiple viewpoints."

Stephen Pollard: Lord Hermer’s idiocy is boundless

It is meant to be that of a quiet, sagacious legal adviser. Lord Hermer, however, seems to treat it as a chance to pretend to be a heavyweight politician whose opinions the world needs to know.

Last month, for example, Lord Hermer told the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that both Nigel Farage’s Reform and Kemi Badenoch’s Tories had adopted Nazi ideology by asserting that national law supersedes international agreements, in reference to the idea of withdrawing Britain from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): “The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by ‘realist’ jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt”. It was a grotesque comparison for which he was later forced to issue a humiliating apology.

Then there was his role in the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which he asserted was about “honouring our obligations under international law” – even though the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the issue was not legally binding.

It is remarkable how often Lord Hermer, a renowned KC, seems to speak before fully engaging his brain.Which brings us to today’s comments. Lord Hermer was referring to – dismissing, rather – accusations after the riots last summer, when it was argued that the rioters were treated unduly harshly.

But he of all people will surely be aware that there is another element to accusations of two-tier justice, which he appears to have ignored altogether: the way in which the so-called Free Palestine marches have been allowed to continue with minimal intervention despite open chants calling for “globalising the intifada” (ie killing Jews) and support for terror against Jews.

I simply do not see how it is possible not to accept that there is two-tier justice, when the hate marches have not merely been protected by the police – but when counter-demonstrators condemning Hamas or peacefully waving Israeli flags have been arrested.

Hermer clearly fancies himself as some sort of moral conscience, when in reality he is merely the latest – albeit the most exalted and most egregious – of political buffoons embarrassing himself and the Government of which he is a part.