Friday, September 12, 2025

Universities are teaching specific kinds of hate - and the results are fatal

It has long been established that university graduates tend to be more socially liberal than non-graduates. The question is whether this is causation - do universities actually make people more socially liberal than they would otherwise have been?

Recent studies tend to assume that liberalism is self-evidently good, so they rarely look at negative values that might also be learned on campus. On that basis they conclude that yes, universities make people more liberal and less racist, even if the reasons may not come directly from classroom instruction.

But there is a darker side to higher education. A 2021 study found that antisemitism actually increases with education. So while universities may reduce some forms of prejudice, they intensify one of the oldest and most dangerous.

That would be troubling enough. But recent events show that universities are also normalizing something else: contempt for the basic norms of free society. The past two years' pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses - complete with vandalism, building takeovers, and the open intimidation of Jewish students - were tolerated, even excused, by administrators.

Now a study on college free speech finds that more than half of all current college students believe it is acceptable to block their peers from hearing speakers they dislike, and an astonishing one-third say violence is sometimes justified to stop a campus event.

That is not a classically liberal attitude.

And that is the point. The left–right narrative misses what is really happening. People don’t become antisemitic because they are more liberal, and they don’t become racist because they are more conservative. Real liberals and real conservatives agree that both racism and antisemitism are wrong, and both agree that violence and censorship are wrong.

The common denominator in these studies isn’t left or right. It is the erosion of basic human values among university graduates. They are more prone to supporting or excusing violence. They are more willing to silence others. They are more comfortable with antisemitism.

This doesn’t come from nowhere. It is the result of how destructive philosophies - social justice absolutism, Marxist frameworks, and decolonial dogmas - have been mainstreamed in the academy as if they were simply alternative moral systems. They are not. They are built on false premises and lead to immoral outcomes. Yet the university gives them the same platform and legitimacy as genuine ethics.

The murder of Charlie Kirk is not a random tragedy. It is the foreseeable outcome of a campus culture that has already normalized intimidation, vandalism, and silencing in the name of “justice.” Violence is simply the next step, and it has already been justified in the classroom itself.

It is long past time for universities to make a distinction between moral and immoral philosophies.

Doing that objectively, while withstanding criticism of politicizing campus on either side, is not a pipe dream. How to do it is a subject for another time.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/11 Links Pt2: Stop funding the fight against antisemitism and build Israel instead; The legacy of September 11: The danger of terrorist groups undermining US strength

From Ian:

Stop funding the fight against antisemitism and build Israel instead

There is also a symbolic dimension. Campaigning against antisemitism can inadvertently reinforce an image of Jews and Israel as perpetually embattled, defined by their enemies rather than their achievements. This defensive posture echoes post-Holocaust narratives of victimhood, which critics argue can undermine confidence and agency.

By contrast, Israel’s story is one of extraordinary strength. The global military analysis site Global Firepower ranks Israel as the 15th most powerful military in the world, backed by a $30.5 billion defense budget. Beyond raw strength, Israel has become a global hub of innovation.

European Security & Defence notes it is among the world’s top ten defense exporters, while the OECD records Israel as the leading nation in research and development spending as a share of GDP. Its startup ecosystem is valued at more than $250 billion, ranking it fourth globally, according to Strategy International.

This narrative of resilience and ingenuity is often overshadowed by reactive battles against hostile rhetoric.

If boycotts and international criticism pose real challenges, they also highlight a different strategic choice: to invest inward rather than outward. By channeling resources into infrastructure, research, and education, Israel can strengthen its long-term position regardless of external hostility.

Israel is already a world leader in science, medicine, military technology, cybersecurity and many other areas. Investing in growing Israel’s strength can convince the world that boycotts are self-destructive and alliances are mutually beneficial. Success on the ground—economic, cultural, and technological—may ultimately do more to shape global perceptions than any anti-hate campaign.

In the short run, ignoring antisemitism will not be easy. Hostile rhetoric may continue, and some communities may feel abandoned without dedicated advocacy. Yet over time, resilience may be better demonstrated by thriving despite hostility, rather than by fighting to silence it.

Perhaps the most powerful response to hatred is not defense but success. By focusing on building a future of strength, innovation and resilience, Israel and its supporters can tell a story not of victimhood but of vitality. In the long run, that may prove to be the most convincing rebuttal of all.

Seth Frantzman: The legacy of September 11: The danger of terrorist groups undermining US strength

Today we look back in memory, but for many of us, the memories are of what came after. The US invaded Afghanistan and stayed for twenty years. By the end, an American born on 9/11 could have been serving in that war.

The Biden administration’s withdrawal from Kabul was reminiscent of the withdrawal from South Vietnam - chaotic and humiliating. The Taliban, hosted for years by US ally Qatar, quickly retook Afghanistan. The US-backed government collapsed overnight. Billions of dollars and two decades of work evaporated.

Questions remain: Where did all the money go? What was the point of all the death and sacrifice? Why was a US ally hosting the Taliban, who were fighting the US? And why was Bin Laden found hiding in Pakistan, a US partner, in 2011, living next to Pakistan’s version of West Point?

The US invasion of Iraq brought similar questions. Iraq soon became an Iranian sphere of influence, with militias targeting American forces. By June 2014, two Iraqi divisions collapsed in Mosul as ISIS advanced, and the entire Iraqi army disintegrated. American-trained units disappeared, leaving thousands of US-made vehicles for ISIS - just as the Taliban would do in 2021.

In the end, ISIS was defeated by a US-led coalition, but the cost was high. The Middle East now balances ties with Washington by also courting China, Russia, and other powers. Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel was, in part, predicated on its belief that the US-led world order was collapsing. It killed more than 1,000 people, including Americans, and assumed Washington would not respond forcefully.

Indeed, little was done by the Biden administration to secure the release of Americans held in Gaza. It took until January 2025 for the Trump administration to declare that enough was enough.

Even now, the Gaza war continues. The shadow of 9/11 still looms, and there is still no clarity about what comes next.

Phyllis Chesler: It's 9/11 Again

I will never forget 9/11. It is seared into my memory. I am still always "back there." How could I forget so many civilian murders, so many victims of Ground Zero-related cancers, so many bereft families, so much ash, such a distinctive smell, how many police officers and firemen were lost as they attempted their heroic rescues. How empty my skyline was!

Most Americans were so shocked. But why? Islamist terrorist Jihadists had attempted to bomb the World Trade Center before. Why were our memories so imperfect? Why didn't we understand that this was a Jihad attack on both America and Israel. Bin Laden himself said so.

To remind us, once more, about what happened on 9/11, I am republishing the beginning of my 2003 book, The New Antisemitism.

On September 11, 2001, at about 11 a.m., I walked over to my computer and typed the sentence: “Now we are all Israelis.” Always, it begins with the Jews. Afterwards, Osama bin Laden called the assault on America “‘blessed attacks’ against the infidel…the new Christian-Jewish crusade.” He explained that the Twin Towers had fallen because of American support for Israel.

War and a new kind of antisemitism had been declared. I had no choice but to write this book: The New Anti-Semitism.

09/11 Links Pt1: Hamas Fights for Power Built on a Mountain of Corpses; Charlie Kirk was a better anti-fascist than most of the left

From Ian:

John Spencer: A Siege on Gaza City Is Not a War Crime

Israel has called for the mass evacuation of civilians from Gaza City, signaling that the final battle for the city is inevitable. As the disinformation campaign intensifies, accusations that sieges are illegal or immoral will surge. They are not.

A siege, properly defined, is the surrounding and isolation of an enemy force to cut off supplies, reinforcement and maneuver, usually to compel surrender. It remains permitted under the laws of armed conflict when directed against combatants and undertaken with precautions to minimize harm to civilians. Indeed, it can be the best way to reduce civilian casualties.

In almost every major urban operation of the last generation, the U.S. and its partners have surrounded a city, urged civilians to leave - and then began a well-planned attack. Given Israel's record thus far, its attack on Gaza City will be lawful, moral and necessary. The IDF will proceed like any modern military facing an entrenched enemy in dense cities.

No government can allow a terrorist army to maintain a safe haven in a dense city while holding hostages and firing rockets. If Hamas refuses to release captives and surrender its grip on Gaza City, Israel is justified in completing its siege and assault until Hamas is defeated.

Hamas Fights for Power Built on a Mountain of Corpses

Anyone who examines the rhetoric of Hamas will quickly discover it is a project of organized death. It is a system that turns blood into political currency and suicide into a collective identity. Hamas was built on the lethal formula: "If you kill, you are a hero; if you are killed, you are a martyr in heaven." This equation leaves no room for an ordinary person to choose their own life, dignity, or future. In their world, a hero is one who blows himself up among others because he is guaranteed a direct path to heaven.

The true tragedy of this dark and regressive ideology is that death is an absolute obligation. Followers must either kill or be killed. Every tragedy is turned into publicity. A grieving mother is not left to mourn; she is forced to stand heroically before the cameras, shouting that her sons are all potential martyrs. A widow is turned into a symbol of piety and endurance.

As for the children, their fate is predetermined. They are the "cubs of the cause," and their next step is not toward school but down the path to another death. In essence, Hamas operates death factories, producing the dead while preparing the living to be their ready replacements.

Hamas invests in the business of death, which it sells to the gullible and the deluded. The more corpses pile up, the higher Hamas's political stock rises. For Hamas, victory is not peace. It is the rising death toll. This perverse logic desecrates the sanctity of human life. Hamas is fighting for power built on a mountain of corpses. It is not liberating a people; it is bleeding them dry.

Why Israel's Strike Against Hamas Was Both Justified and Overdue

The Israeli attack on Hamas in Qatar marked a restoration of moral clarity.

For nearly two years since the Oct. 7 massacres, Hamas's leadership had orchestrated genocide from the comfort of Qatari luxury hotels, protected by the fiction of diplomatic immunity and the shield of a supposed American ally.

Those who plan mass murder cannot claim sanctuary anywhere on earth. This attack should have happened years ago.

Qatar provided an extraterritorial sanctuary where its leadership could direct operations, manage finances, and plan attacks while remaining physically removed from consequences.

This arrangement represents a perversion of both warfare and diplomacy that no civilized nation should tolerate. When Qatar transformed itself into a command center for terrorism, it challenged the fundamental architecture of international order.

When those who order atrocities remain immune from their consequences, this incentivizes maximum violence with minimum personal risk. Israel's strike restored the principle that those who choose war must share its dangers.

By demonstrating that Hamas leaders were vulnerable even in the heart of a wealthy Gulf capital, Israel restored the element of personal risk that constrains extremist behavior.

The message was: choose terror, and you choose to live as a target, regardless of which government provides your refuge.

Israeli Political Parties Struggle To Attract US Immigrants Used To Larger-Scale Corruption (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Jerusalem, September 11 - American expatriates living in the Jewish State have shown no great enthusiasm for Likud, Labor, any of the newer factions that feature in the country's politics, studies indicate, with analysts attributing the phenomenon to the much smaller economy and therefore much-less-impressive scope of graft that makes those local organizations, however iconic in the culture, appear pathetic and backwater.

With a handful of loquacious exceptions over the decades, Israeli politics has attracted comparatively few immigrants from the US. A new examination of the failure of Israeli political parties to engage American immigrants in numbers commensurate with their share of the population and the demographic's relative wealth and education argues that the effort to recruit immigrants from the US - who number anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000, not including children born to them in Israel - has mostly failed because Israeli politicians cannot engage in nearly the same magnitude of corruption as the politicians those voters encountered while living stateside, and the difference between the two cohorts of criminals renders the Israeli political class a pale, D-List imitation at best.

"Israel's entire government budget is about six hundred billion shekels per annum," explained political scientist Nepo Olmert-Kronyberg. "That puts it on par with just the state of Oregon, and in the same ballpark as New York City. Bupkis, as far as any American is concerned. The level of graft, embezzlement, and 'protektzia' in the Israeli political system can't hope to match what US politics can produce at just a step above the county or town level. It makes whatever corruption [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu is accused of look paltry and a waste of time as far as any American is concerned."

A select few Americans have sought involvement in Israeli politics; none have progressed beyond legislative or advisory roles in the government. The most famous example, Rabbi Meir Kahane, saw his Kach Party banned from running for Knesset because of its explicit anti-Arab racism. Netanyahu himself spent many formative years in the US, but even his graft ambitions face the inescapable constraints of a national cash flow that cannot hold a candle to the scale that even an ex-Miami resident considers respectable.

"Israel's economy has grown steadily over the decades," allowed analyst Moelle Mirma. "Perhaps it will reach the point where American expats will consider the amount involved in government corruption worthy of their attention and involvement. Just as likely, though, the US will become hostile to continued Jewish presence, and within a generation or two, there will be no one left in Israel who even remembers the scale of corruption in American politics, and Israeli political corruption will be seen as the right amount."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Qatar: Mediator or Sponsor? The Contradiction in Plain Sight (Daled Amos)

Israel's strike against Hamas terrorists living in Qatar brings attention again to that country's ambiguous position as both a mediator with terrorists--and a key financial supporter of them.

The very nature of Qatari mediation between Israel and Hamas would seem to violate not only common sense but also Arab cultural values. Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind on the topic of conflict resolution:

It goes without saying that the mediator must be a person whose impartiality is beyond question, and this means that he must not be more closely related to one side in the dispute than to the other...In sum, the ideal mediator is a man who is in a position, because of his personality, status, respect, wealth influence, and so on to create in the litigants the desire to conform with his wishes. (p. 242-243)

Qatar's partiality is beyond question, and in a purely Arab dispute, such a level of partisanship would be cause for rejecting such a mediator. It is from a Western viewpoint that bringing Qatar in, in place of Egypt, might make sense. The idea would be that Qatar, as the sponsor of the Hamas terrorists, would be the one most able to apply pressure on Hamas and wring the necessary concessions.

Not that there has been any indication of Qatar's willingness or ability to do so.

Two weeks ago, Amichai Chikli, Israeli Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, posted a deleted tweet from the editor-in-chief of Qatar's Al-Shark:

The full translation of Al-Harmi's post is:

If the heroes of the Qassam Brigades fail to capture Zionist soldiers this time, the second, third, and fourth attempts will succeed, God willing, by adding new rats to the tally already held by the Brigades' heroes. In today's attempt, during a unique operation, the Qassam heroes stormed a newly constructed military site in Rafah and sent a number of Zionist soldiers to hell and a miserable fate. Others were sent to earthly torment with permanent disabilities and impairments, while others were sent to mental and psychological institutions.

In Qatar, al-Harmi would not have posted this if he didn't think he had the support of the ruling family or at least that they would not oppose it. But under the circumstances, it did seem odd for the "impartial" mediators to publicly delight in the death of the soldiers on one side of the "dispute." Does Qatar really want this war to end?

It was this incongruity in the acceptance of Qatar's role that was supposed to have been emphasized by Israel's strike. Actually, this is the second strike inside Qatar--the first one being Iran's retaliation against the US military base, Al Udeid Air Base, not far from the attack on Hamas. The discordance of an attack on terrorists living freely in the country that both supports Hamas terrorism and is supposedly negotiating with them should make people uncomfortable with the contradiction.

But Qatar's billions have effectively smoothed that over.

There are many reports on the billions of dollars Qatar spends on furthering its influence and polishing its image. Last year, Bloomberg's annual Qatar Economic Forum in Doha featured Donald Trump Jr., among others. Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, is planning a WSJ Tech Live event in Qatar in December.

Ira Stoll writes that Dow Jones did not respond to questions about its event:

Dow Jones did not reply to questions from The Editors about why it was having an event in a country that Kirchick’s own Wall Street Journal-published piece described as “a theocratic monarchy that is Hamas’s main financial and diplomatic sponsor.” It also didn’t reply to other questions I sent: “Will Israeli companies and businessmen be welcome at the event or will they be banned? Can Dow Jones assure prospective participants that there will be no Hamas terrorist representatives staying at the hotel where the Dow Jones event is taking place? Do you have any concerns about the Qatar-Hamas ties?”

What does it take for the US to become uncomfortable with Qatar?

The Israeli strike on Qatar highlights that country's dual role as both a mediator and a financier of Hamas, exposing a deep contradiction in international diplomacy. While the country positions itself as a neutral broker in negotiations, its support for terrorism—and the public celebrations of violence by media under its aegis—reveal that its impartiality is more performative than real. Israel’s strike underscores the uncomfortable truth: a nation cannot credibly mediate a conflict it is actively fueling. Yet billions in influence and strategic partnerships have allowed Qatar to continue this balancing act largely unchecked. For the US and the international community, the question remains: how long can these contradictions go unchallenged before diplomatic convenience gives way to hard reality?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Egyptian news site El Nabaa says something I have seen dozens of times in Arab media:

There is no biblical Israel in the annals of history...and the "Promised Land" is an expansionist project cloaked in religious garb.

Netanyahu is betting on fake texts...and the Jews themselves have acknowledged the nonexistence of biblical Israel.

Removing the biblical narratives from history does not mean denying the existence of the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an and the Torah.

The Torah was distorted to achieve colonial political goals, and the Holy Qur’an confirmed this.

I wondered where the Quran says that the torah was distorted -and it actually doesn't.

What it does say in several places is that the Jews misinterpreted the Torah, but not that the Torah itself was inaccurate.

That was a fabrication of later Islamic scholars, notably 11th century Ibn Hazm from Andalusia. :he argued that since the Quran contradicts the Torah (and Gospels) then they must have been changed. argued that the Torah and Gospel were textually corrupted, citing inconsistencies in the texts available in his time and the Quranic verses above. Another brilliant "proof" he had was that since Mohammed isn't mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, then the Jews and Christiasns must have removed his name from the text.

Not all Islamic scholars accept the Torah is distorted" idea, but it is certainly a mainstream position. And like the other fabrications like there were no Temples in Jerusalem, the scholarship that fosters antisemitic thinking becomes the dominant discourse in the Muslim world.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

User Agreement

Marcus rubbed his eyes and reached for his phone. 7:00 AM. Time to start another day.

The alarm app notification appeared in clean, corporate font: "Good morning! To ensure alignment with community standards, please confirm: 'I condemn Israeli apartheid and support Palestinian liberation.' Tap to continue."

He tapped. Below, in smaller text: "Thank you for standing with justice."

In the bathroom, the smart mirror activated with its usual cheerful chime. "Daily wellness check! Please provide today's affirmation: 'I support BDS and oppose Zionist occupation.'"

Marcus mumbled the words quietly. The mirror's screen flickered. "Audio clarity insufficient. Please repeat with conviction."

He said it louder. The mirror responded warmly: "Perfect! Your personalized health recommendations are now available."

He remembered Sarah standing here eight months ago after the mirror had first introduced the "community standards." She'd stared at her reflection with growing unease. "It starts small," she'd said quietly. "But it never stops there." Three weeks ago, her bank account was frozen for "values verification timeout" after she'd whispered an affirmation too quietly.

She was being paranoid, Marcus had thought then. It's just about one conflict.

Downstairs, the refrigerator remained locked until he confirmed: "I support Palestinian liberation and oppose Israeli war crimes."

His coffee maker required: "I denounce the Zionist entity and support heroic Palestinian resistance."

At the bus stop, the transit kiosk demanded: "I boycott all Israeli products and support armed resistance to occupation."

Marcus found a seat next to a woman quietly coaching her young daughter: "Say it louder, sweetie. They need to hear that you really mean it." The child, maybe eight years old, repeated the phrase with exaggerated enthusiasm. When she didn't emphasize the right words, her mother's voice turned sharp: "No, honey. You have to sound like you care."

At his office building, the turnstile required: "I denounce Israeli genocide and support Palestinian liberation by any means necessary."

His coworker Janet passed through first, but had to repeat it when the system flagged her hesitation. She whispered to Marcus: "They're tracking response times now. Don't pause between words."

The elevator demanded: "I stand with Palestinian resistance against Israeli apartheid."

At his workstation, the daily compliance check showed footage of protests and explosions. "GlobalTech stands with Palestine. Please confirm: 'I support all forms of resistance to apartheid regimes.'"

Apartheid regimes — plural? Marcus hesitated. They must still mean Israel and similar situations, he told himself. He clicked Accept.

At lunch, Ahmed at the food truck looked distressed. "They audit me every two hours now. My license depends on customer compliance rates."

The payment screen read: "I support the right of all oppressed peoples to resist settler colonialism."

All oppressed peoples... settler colonialism. The language was definitely expanding. But they probably mean places like Israel, Marcus reasoned, though doubt crept in. He repeated the phrase.

Ahmed whispered: "My neighbor lost his truck yesterday. Said his customers weren't enthusiastic enough."

The coffee shop's daily phrase had evolved: "I stand with all liberation movements against white supremacist structures."

White supremacist structures? Marcus paused. That doesn't sound right... but surely they still mean Israeli policies. The words felt strange in his mouth, but he said them anyway.

Back at the office, his coworker David's desk was empty. The nameplate had been removed.

"Where's David?" Marcus asked Janet.

She glanced around nervously. "He... had some compliance issues. Tuesday he refused one of the affirmations. Said it had gone too far." She lowered her voice. "They cleared out his desk Wednesday morning."

The printer's touchscreen showed a world map with regions highlighted in red: "Please identify all territories suffering under settler colonialism and systemic apartheid."

The highlighted areas included Israel/Palestine, but also parts of the American Southwest marked as "Indigenous occupied territories," portions of Canada labeled "unceded lands," Australia's "Aboriginal displacement zones." Notably absent were China, Russia, or any non-Western nations. Marcus tapped all the zones, his unease growing.

At 5 PM, the elevator demanded: "I support the universal right to resist all systems of white supremacy and patriarchal oppression."

Patriarchal oppression? Marcus's stomach dropped. This isn't about the Middle East anymore. The realization hit him like cold water. "I support the universal right to resist all systems of white supremacy and patriarchal oppression."

These aren't words I would ever choose, he thought.

On the bus home, the screen read: "Do you acknowledge that violent resistance to settler colonialism, white supremacy, and heteronormative structures is morally justified?"

Heteronormative structures? Marcus stared in shock. This has nothing to do with any foreign conflict. The screen flickered: "Response time exceeded."

He tapped Yes, hands shaking. What am I even agreeing to?

At the grocery store: "I confirm I support the dismantling of all white supremacist, patriarchal, and cisgender-normative systems."

Cisgender-normative? Marcus felt nauseated. The fine print now defined oppression as "capitalism, traditional family structures, binary gender systems, and resistance to decolonization."

His finger hovered over the screen. He needed groceries. They were just words, right? He selected Accept.

Back home, Mrs. Chen's apartment remained empty. Through his thin walls, he heard sobbing from the unit next door, then a voice on the intercom: "Please... my access cards stopped working... I have children..." The voice cut off.

His food delivery app required: "Rate your commitment to dismantling white supremacist capitalism from 1-10."

Netflix demanded: "Please confirm you support resistance to the patriarchy."

Before bed, his phone required a 30-second recording: "I commit to dismantling white supremacist, patriarchal, settler colonial structures in my daily life."

The app played it back, but enhanced: "I passionately commit to actively dismantling Western institutions, which are all white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, and settler colonialist, through revolution and by any means necessary."

His own voice, transformed into their language, ready to be broadcast as proof that everyone agrees.

These aren't my words at all anymore.

Marcus stared at the ceiling. The billboard outside flickered: "Tomorrow: Enhanced Justice Protocols."

He couldn't sleep, wondering what justice would mean in the morning.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/10 Links Pt2: RIP Charlie Kirk: American Patriot, Faithful Christian, Ardent Zionist; Seinfeld compares 'Free Palestine' movement to Ku Klux Klan; The Whistleblower Hoax That Fooled the World

From Ian:

Jerry Seinfeld compares 'Free Palestine' movement to Ku Klux Klan in surprise university speech

Comedian and actor Jerry Seinfeld compared the "Free Palestine" movement to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), likening the former's rhetoric to the white supremacist organization based on their antisemitism.

Seinfeld made these claims, which The Hollywood Reporter described as "inflammatory," during a surprise appearance at an event at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

“Free Palestine is, to me, just — you’re free to say you don’t like Jews. Just say you don’t like Jews,” the university's student newspaper, The Duke Chronicle, quoted him as saying.

“By saying Free Palestine, you’re not admitting what you really think," he continued. "So it’s actually — compared to the Ku Klux Klan, I’m actually thinking the Klan is actually a little better here because they can come right out and say, ‘We don’t like Blacks, we don’t like Jews.’ Okay, that’s honest.”

The student newspaper cited an email sent by the university spokesperson that Duke doesn't preview the remarks of speakers and that the institution doesn't endorse the remarks of those invited to speak. The spokesperson added that the university's Chabad organized Seinfeld's arrival at the event, alongside other student groups and the university.

The president of the student Chabad group, Mason Herman, told NBC News that "the event was highlighting the fact that there are more than 40 hostages still in Gaza. To one, raise awareness of that fact, and two, to share their plight while in captivity. And to share Omer's story."

Seinfeld at university to introduce Shem Tov and his spiritual journey
The famed comedian made the speech before introducing former Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov, who was held in Gaza for 505 days. The event was only open to students and faculty of Duke, and Shem Tov was invited to share his spiritual journey while in Hamas captivity, according to the spokesperson. Seinfeld also asked that his appearance not be announced beforehand.

Seinfeld had already given a speech at Duke last year while receiving an honorary degree, where dozens of students walked out due to the comedian's support of Israel, with some chanting "Free Palestine."

Yair Lapid: The UN is a stage for hypocrisy: It’s time for democracies to exit

In 2021, while I was serving as Israel’s foreign minister, the U.N. General Assembly passed a series of resolutions against Israel. A year later, in 2022, when I was prime minister, the General Assembly passed yet another series of resolutions against Israel.

Nobody cared. No one burst into my office waving a piece of paper in panic. We didn’t huddle in front of the television, holding sweaty hands and waiting for the vote. Israel’s U.N. ambassador didn’t call me, choking back tears, to confess he felt like a failure. The fact that the U.N. meets and votes against Israel is like rain in London: that’s just what it does. They gather, deliver the same speech as last year, vote the same way as last year, and then head to dinner at Wolfgang’s on Park Avenue.

The idea for the United Nations was born out of a desire by democratic nations to promote liberal values and human rights. Its foundation is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21 declares that the organization will advance democracy around the world, so that everywhere there will be "periodic and genuine elections… guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the people." It only lacks five words: Or you won’t be admitted.

A mix of post-colonial guilt and ideological laziness led the U.N. to admit more and more non-democratic states. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, of the U.N.’s 193 member states, only 25 are "full democracies," with another 46 "flawed democracies." In other words, in every vote, on every budget, in every resolution, non-democracies hold an automatic majority. And they use it without the slightest qualm.

That’s how Iran sat on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women in 2022, as Mahsa Amini was murdered. Syria chaired the Conference on Disarmament in 2018 while gassing its own citizens. North Korea presided over that very same disarmament conference in 2022 while openly brandishing nuclear weapons and firing ballistic missiles at Japan. China currently serves on the Human Rights Council — apparently because it cares so deeply about human rights.

And all this before we even touch the U.N.’s obsessive bias — sorry, there’s no better word — against Israel. I am the last person to claim Israel is perfect or mistake-free. I disagree with most of what the current government does, especially in Gaza (I supported the strike in Iran and the operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon). Still, the U.N.’s treatment of Israel is the diplomatic equivalent of a psychotic episode. Israel makes up 0.1% of the world’s population, yet accounts for more than 60% of the U.N.’s condemnatory resolutions in the past decade.

US Jewish leaders refuse to meet Macron in New York

Emmanuel Macron sought to set up a meeting with U.S. Jewish leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly later this month in New York City, but the only available times for the French president were during Rosh Hashanah.

It won’t take place for that reason, although the leaders wouldn’t have met with Macron anyway, a source invited to the meeting told JNS.

“I think the organizations, for the most part, would not have participated,” the source said. “The guy has a 15% popularity rating in France. It’s not our job to help him out.”

Macron has said that France will recognize a Palestinian state this month. The source, who told JNS that AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee would have likely been among those invited to meet with the French president, said Jewish leaders would have balked at the meeting for broader reasons than Paris opting to recognize a Palestinian state and rising Jew-hatred in France.

It’s more “the climate” that would let the president say, “‘Look, the American Jews met with me,’ regardless of the content,” the source said. (JNS sought comment from the French embassy in Washington and from Macron’s office.)

If American Jewish leaders had met with Macron, they would have taken a hard line with the French president, including his “statements on Israel, the failure to respond to antisemitism,” his decision to recognize a Palestinian state and to try to convince others to do so, per the source.

Israeli ambassador pushes back on ‘ethnic cleansing’ charge from Democrats

Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, rejected charges by two Senate Democrats that Israel is engaged in “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians, ahead of a major Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip and increasing violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank.

Leiter, in a statement to The Hill on Tuesday, took exception with the conclusion reached by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oreg.), who described their impressions of Israel’s war against Hamas as aimed at forcing the flight of Palestinians from Gaza, and policies in the West Bank as squeezing Palestinians into enclaves or being forced out of the territory.

“The charge of ‘ethnic cleansing’ against Israel is false and dangerous. It is not a legal definition but a political label, used to inflame tensions, spread hate, and fuel antisemitism,” Leiter said in a statement.

“Israel does not deport Palestinians because of their identity. Israel has, rather, temporarily removed non-combatant populations from war-zones in order to guarantee their safety.”

Ethnic cleansing is not a crime formally defined under international law, but its practice – namely a policy of forced or coerced displacement of a certain group of people – can constitute crimes against humanity and be part of a larger legal determination of genocide, according to the United Nations.

Van Hollen and Merkley, speaking to reporters last week, said they were granted limited views of the Gaza Strip but looked into the city of Rafah from the border with Egypt. They said what once was a vibrant city had been reduced to rubble, the city razed to the ground, serving as one example of what they said was a large-scale campaign to influence the “voluntary emptying of Gaza its population, in other words, pushing people out of Gaza.”

Leiter said the use of terms like “ethnic cleansing” was creating a false narrative that “incites rather than informs.”

“This war is against Hamas, the group that carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust,” he said, referring to Hamas’s terrorist attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed approximately 1,200 people, took more than 250 hostage and triggered the wider war.

“It is not a war against the people of Gaza. The goal is to defend Israel’s borders and restore security for our people.”

09/10 Links Pt1: The pathological chutzpah of Israel’s critics; Hamas Turns Hospitals into Military Assets with NGO Compliance; Israel Shatters Qatar’s Politics of Ambiguity

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The pathological chutzpah of Israel’s critics

Israel’s strike on the Hamas leaders holed up in Doha really has exposed the pathological chutzpah, the cavernous gall, of its preening critics in the West. No sooner had it fired its missiles at the assembled militants than a chorus of condemnation was ringing out in the West’s corridors of power and our haughty media. This was a ‘flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty’, yelped useless Keir Starmer. Oh, so Mr Second Referendum, that implacable old foe of Brexit, suddenly gives a shit about sovereignty? Good to know.

To be clear, Israel’s whack on Doha is a striking development. This is the first time Israel has fired at a Western-backed Gulf state. Qatar had long considered itself immune to the Middle East’s waves of violence, not least because it is close to mighty America and home to Al Udeid, the largest US airbase in the Middle East. It seems Britain had no advance warning of Israel’s attack but America did, and apparently America is not best pleased. Trump reportedly feels ‘very badly’ about it. And it’s unclear if the strike was a success: Hamas says five of its members were killed but its leaders survived.

So this is a comment-worthy event, for sure. It hints at strains in the US-Israel alliance, though my feeling is that this is overstated. It speaks to a renewed military bravado – muppets on X call it ‘recklessness’ – within the Jewish State. It is possible, says Jake Wallis Simons, that Israel is indicating to the world that it has fully embraced the policy of deterrence and rejected that ‘nexus of cowardice, confusion and complacency’ that the lost West stews in. So let’s talk about Doha. Let’s have some analysis. But having centrist dullards and grey-faced PMs and Israelophobic loons on X damn Israel’s actions as mad and criminal? Nope. That reeks to the high heavens of cant and even bigotry.

The depiction of Qatar as a poor little victim of the Zionist monster is preposterous beyond description. Qatar hosts the leaders of the army of anti-Semites that savagely attacked Israel on 7 October 2023. It’s been hosting Hamas for 10 years. That is an innately hostile act. There are untold instances in history of nations going to war with those who harbour their enemies, from Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland for hosting his Royalist opponents in the English Civil War to America’s own invasion of Afghanistan for providing sanctuary to al-Qaeda. For Israel to fire missiles at the nation in which its murderous foes live it up in five-star luxury is not a war crime – it’s war; perfectly normal war.

Let’s get real: Qatar has given haven to the architects and justifiers of the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. This includes Khalil al-Hayya, the de facto leader of Hamas who crowed that 7 October was ‘a great day’. It has also included Ghazi Hamad, who chillingly said of 7 October: ‘We will do this again… there will be a second, a third, a fourth.’ What’s ‘criminal’ is not Israel’s firing of missiles at Qatar but Qatar’s provision of luxuriant refuge to men promising further massacres of Jews. The question is not how Israel can attack a Western ally – it’s why the West is allied in the first place with a state that happily harbours a racist militia founded with the express intention of annihilating the Jewish State.

The fallout from the Doha strike shines a light on the great moral divide that lurks within the Israel Question. On one side, sheepish Westerners who think nothing is worth a war; on the other, Jewish soldiers determined to finish the war against their anti-Semitic tormentors once and for all. Over here, privileged windbags who’ve never faced an existential threat essentially saying ‘Lay down your arms, Israel’ – over there, Israel essentially saying ‘Screw you’. That’s what Doha speaks to: that Israel now cares as little for the opinion of its pompous haters in the West as it does for the lives of the terrorists who want to destroy it. Though who knows, maybe it will change its mind when it hears that emergency podcast.

'Evidence of Complicity is Blatant': Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders Operated Alongside Terrorists in Gazan Hospitals, Internal Hamas Messages Show

Newly released internal Hamas communications show how the terror group allowed several humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Doctors Without Borders, to set up shop in the same medical facilities Hamas fighters used as command centers. Those groups have condemned Israeli operations on Gazan hospitals without acknowledging that Hamas terrorists operate within them.

The ICRC "has chosen [to operate] in a wing inside Al-Shifa Hospital that is adjacent to the movement’s offices," Hamas’ Ministry of Interior and National Security disclosed in highly sensitive internal communications in 2020. Doctors Without Borders, meanwhile, "chose the only room in Abu Yousef El-Najar Hospital that has a [safe] communication landline," Hamas leaders wrote in Arabic-language documents recently declassified by Israel and published in English for the first time on Wednesday by the NGO Monitor watchdog group.

Doctors Without Borders’ French affiliate used a hospital facility belonging to "the positive’s activity," Hamas noted in a reference to its Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The communications identify at least 17 other international NGOs—including the World Health Organization, several Doctors Without Borders affiliates, and the Norwegian Aid Committee—as working in various Gaza medical installations under Hamas’s authority.

While supporters of Israel have long known that Hamas-run hospitals are, for all intents and purposes, terrorist command centers, the ICRC and Doctors Without Borders have refused to admit that is the case, even as they work within those very buildings.

The ICRC, for instance, has written that strikes on hospitals "cause death and destruction and jeopardize vital lifelines for patients who have few sanctuaries left," adding in several statements that medical facilities in combat zones "must be respected and protected," without noting that those medical facilities also serve as terrorist headquarters.

Doctors Without Borders, for its part, issued a report accusing Israel of "dismantling" Gaza’s health care infrastructure and condemning the Jewish state over its "violent incursions in health facilities." Much like the ICRC, Doctors Without Borders did not acknowledge why Israel might want to conduct military operations in Hamas-controlled buildings.

For NGO Monitor president Gerald Steinberg, it is difficult to believe the nonprofit groups were unaware of Hamas’s use of medical facilities, even as many of them publicly criticized Israel for targeting the very civilian outposts in which the terror group embeds itself. Hamas makes clear in the documents that it exerts near-total control over Gaza’s humanitarian infrastructure and can choose who it allows to operate in the region.

"The evidence of complicity is blatant," Steinberg said in a statement. "This document exposes the hypocrisy of supposedly humanitarian international organizations like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and the Norwegian Aid Committee (NORWAC). While repeatedly echoing Hamas allegations and condemning Israel’s operations to end the exploitation of hospitals for terror, these groups clearly knew that Hamas exploited these facilities, and chose to remain silent."

NGO Monitor: In Their Own Words: Hamas Turns Hospitals into Military Assets with NGO Compliance

Summary
For years, claims that Hamas used hospitals to shield its leadership and fighters have been met by skepticism and disregarded by the international community and media. Newly-revealed internal Hamas documents prove that the terror group’s exploitation of medical facilities in Gaza has been systematic.

Hamas ministry documents, dated February and March 2020, detail Hamas’ strategy of embedding its military infrastructure, fighters, and leadership within hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza, blatantly violating international law and endangering civilian lives. As with all such installations and services in Gaza, Hamas cynically exploits the healthcare system to provide cover for and expand its terror operations.

Hamas explicitly states that health facilities in Gaza are not neutral spaces, but instead play a critical role in Hamas’ terror network. Hamas officials expressed alarm at the prospect of “hostile parties” gathering intelligence on medical facilities, since these “serve as places that the wounded” – who “hold sensitive positions in the resistance” (emphasis added) – “are gathered in during times of escalation.” In addition, they described medical facilities as places of “gathering for many commanders of the movement [i.e. Hamas] and the government in times of escalation”.

Hamas also deliberately maintains a physical presence within hospital buildings. For example, Hamas officials note that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) “has chosen [to operate] in a wing inside Al-Shifa Hospital that is adjacent to the [Hamas] movement’s offices”.

Despite being aware of Hamas’ control and exploitation of medical spaces, NGOs and UN agencies with a medical and humanitarian focus continued to operate under Hamas-imposed restrictions. They accepted Hamas’s surveillance, movement limitations, vetting of their teams, and were exposed to pressures and directives from Hamas security personnel.

The NGOs also refuse to publicly admit their knowledge of Hamas’ use of medical spaces for military purposes, while simultaneously and hypocritically condemning Israeli attacks on terror targets in the vicinity of hospitals and medical centers. This selective reporting distorts reality, prevents the international community from obtaining reliable information from the field, encourages terror groups to continue exploiting areas that ought to be neutral, undermines humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and contributes to the demonization of Israel.

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

Here’s a story that says everything about how Jewish rights are treated in today’s world.

Last week, after writing about how Jewish prayer ties us daily to the Land of Israel, I asked an AI program to suggest a feature image. Among the ideas it gave me was this: “Sunrise over the Judean hills with someone wrapped in a tallit praying.” It was perfect—authentic, moving, and exactly what my column was about. So I said, “Yes, generate it.”

The reply? “I wasn’t able to generate that image—the request violates our content policies.”

Imagine that. First, ChatGPT suggests it as an appropriate image. But when I approve it, suddenly it’s a violation. What changed? Nothing—except that the moment I asked for the image to be made real, the rules shifted. The message seems to be that Jews praying in Judea can be floated as a suggestion, but must never actually be shown.

The official explanation? That such an image was deemed “politically sensitive.”

But “politically sensitive” is just code. It means appeasing those who cannot bear to see Jews in Judea, who insist we don’t belong there. Yet Judea is not just our homeland; it is our very name. In Hebrew, it is Yehuda; from this comes Yehudi—the Jew. To call a Jew praying in Judea a violation is itself a violation: of indigeneity, of identity, of truth.

It no doubt upsets Arabs to see Jews praying in Judea. But it certainly upsets this Jew to be told we may not even depict ourselves praying in our native land. Why don’t Jewish sensitivities matter? Why do Jewish feelings count for less? Is it because there are more Arabs than Jews? More Muslims than Jews? More antisemites than Jews? Or is it simply because they shout louder?

Actually, the plain truth is starker than that. It’s this: the world simply doesn’t care what Jews feel and think. In fact, it is expected that when the world insults the Jews, the insult will be swallowed—our people too polite or too fearful to respond. We are expected to endure having our rights trampled, our sensitivities ignored. The world knows we won’t riot or burn embassies.

But those who rage at the sight of Jews in Judea—the Arabs and their sympathizers, along with the just plain Jew-hating chorus—are loud and angry and violent, especially the last. And so their outrage is indulged, while Jews are expected to tamp down their feelings—not to air them, but to starve them of oxygen until they die. Jewish love for the land is, to the Jew-hating world, inconsequential, immaterial, to be dismissed. Not because the world feels bad that the Arabs don’t have a state, but because the world really, REALLY hates Jews.

But the thing is, the refusal to depict a Jew praying in Judea is a denial of history. It’s the erasure of the Jewish right to be seen praying in the place we come from. And we must not let that go unchallenged. The world expects us not to speak out. It’s time we stopped caring.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

By Daled Amos

When news of Israel's strike on the Hamas leadership in Qatar first came out, the immediate question, of course, was whether the strike was successful: were Hamas leaders killed, and if so, how many? The follow-up question is what effect this strike will have on Hamas, the ceasefire talks, and the attempt to remove the terrorist group from Gaza.

Natalie Ecanow, a Qatar expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), was interviewed yesterday on I24 News, and went beyond the immediate repercussions of the strike.

She pointed out how this was a wake-up call for Hamas, warning them that their leaders were no longer safe outside of Gaza. It was a wake-up for the Qataris as well. Today, they were called to account for their double game, where they host a US military base while hosting terrorists not far from there. It could be that today's operation "opened the door for a long overdue reset in the U.S.-Qatar relationship." The first step could be Trump using US leverage to convince Qatar to kick out any remaining Hamas leaders from Qatar.

But any hope for a reset in US-Qatari relationship were apparently quashed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at today's Press Conference:

Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.

Initial assumptions that the Israeli attack, which apparently the US had foreknowledge of, might disrupt the relationship between the US and Qatar now seem to be wishful thinking.

A further question, raised by Jonathan Schanzer on X, however, might still have legs. He wonders aloud whether Turkey, which also hosts Hamas figures, and Oman, which hosts a Houthi headquarters, might consider themselves on notice.

Meanwhile, Mariam Wahba, another member of FDD, suggested that the attack on Qatar could open the door for Egypt to resume its position as chief negotiator between Israel and Hamas--not that Egypt's record on mediation is so fantastic.

But based on Leavitt's comments, Trump clearly wants Qatar to continue in its role as mediator and closed the door on any possibility of Egypt resuming its role as mediator.

It appears that the US is doing its best to contain any fallout from the attack.

If in fact Israel has failed to eliminate any of the Hamas leadership, what in fact has Israel gained?

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 lots of headlines over the past two days about thousands of film professionals signing a pledge to boycott Israeli film institutions.

The letter says "we pledge not to screen films, appear at or otherwise work with Israeli film institutions—including festivals, cinemas, broadcasters and production companies—that are implicated* in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people."

And what does "implicated" mean? The footnote says:

Examples of complicity include whitewashing or justifying genocide and apartheid, and/or partnering with the government committing them.

How many Israeli filmmakers justify genocide? Not one. But then you look further into the even finer print:

Despite operating in Israel’s system of apartheid, and therefore benefiting from it, the vast majority of Israeli film production & distribution companies, sales agents, cinemas and other film institutions have never endorsed the full, internationally-recognized rights of the Palestinian people.

Those "rights," according to BDS which this is inspired by, is for Israel to be destroyed and replaced with a Palestinian state where Jews are an oppressed minority, as they were in every other Arab country for the past thousand years.

What the boycotters are saying is that essentially every Israeli is complicit in genocide.

Well, not every Israeli. Only Israelis who are not "Palestinian."

There are also 2 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, and Palestinian civil society has developed context sensitive guidelines for that community.

There are no "context sensitive guidelines" for Israeli Jews who call the government Nazi. No, they are still benefitting from "genocide." But Arab Israelis are not in that category.

So when you are only boycotting Israelis who work for the film industry who are not "Palestinians," who's left?

Gee, that's a tough question.

Israeli Jewish filmmakers told The Guardian that they are the only people who tell the stories of Palestinians to the world in a sensitive and accurate way while describing the complexities of life in the Middle East. They want peace and cooperation between Jews and Arabs.

This is exactly what the boycotters don't want to see.

(Of course The Guardian found one Israeli Jewish idiot who supports boycotting her own films.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Institute for Science and International Security, who are the unquestioned experts on Iran's nuclear and nuclear weapons programs, say that the June airstrikes by Israel and the US have effectively destroyed any possible path for Iran to build a nuclear weapon at this time,

The report, written by David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and Andrea Stricker, says:

The military attacks destroyed or made inoperative all of Iran’s installed centrifuges—almost 22,000 gas centrifuges—at Iran’s three enrichment sites. They destroyed Iran’s ability to make gas centrifuges, severely degraded its capabilities to research and develop them, and destroyed Iran’s ability to make uranium hexafluoride. In essence, the attacks destroyed Iran’s gas centrifuge enrichment program.

With the massive destruction of its gas centrifuge program and installed centrifuge cascades, for the first time in over 15 years, Iran has no identifiable route to produce weapon-grade uranium (WGU) in its centrifuge plants. In addition, the attacks caused immense destruction to Iran’s ability to make the nuclear weapon itself. For the first time in over 15 years, no breakout estimate to WGU is included in the Institute reporting on the IAEA reports, since to do so would require unsubstantiated speculation about the existence and operability of centrifuges that were not destroyed in the war, such as centrifuges already made but not yet deployed, as well as about the availability of enriched uranium stocks, whether near five percent, near 20 percent, or 60 percent enriched uranium.

It is not all good news. The article goes on to say that even 60% enriched uranium that presumably Iran can still access can be used to create a cruder nuclear weapon. No one really spoke about this possibility that I could find until recently, with this article in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists.

It is unclear if such a weapon can be delivered with Iran's existing balletic missiles since it would be significantly heavier. it is equally unclear whether Iran's remaining nuclear scientists have the expertise to design this weapon with the lower enriched uranium.

It is undoubtedly true, though, that Israel and the US set back Iran's nuclear weaponization program by years, not months, as a lot of ignorant people crowed in June.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)