Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, September 15, 2025

Haaretz calls teaching Jewish heritage "racist" and "messianic"

From an op-ed in Haaretz today about a program by Israel's Education Ministry to pay for security for school trips to Jewish heritage sites in Judea and Samaria:

But security is just an excuse. The school trips are part of Education Minister Yoav Kisch's Jewish identity reform. As part of his reform, principles are required to allocate a significant portion of the Pedagogical Management Flexibility budget (the pool of external programs approved by the ministry) to certain programs strengthening Jewish and Zionist identity.

None of the programs have any sort of pluralistic orientation. The Jewish identity that the ministry wants to encourage is messianic, racist and undemocratic.

There is a hyperlink for the phrase "messianic, racist and undemocratic" to a May article:

Education Minister Yoav Kisch presented a new plan Tuesday to strengthen Jewish and Zionist identity in school that includes increasing Jewish studies, making Bible study a core subject and requiring teacher training in Jewish heritage topics.

Nothing in that article says anything remotely close to claiming that this program is "messianic, racist and undemocratic." It is slanted against emphasizing Jewish heritage in schools but nowhere does it claim it is racist to teach it. Indeed, other Haaretz articles quote teachers who are against this program but who all agree that teaching Jewish heritage is important, just they are concerned about the impact on other subjects.

In the other articles in Haaretz about this program, it consistently translates the term "Tanakh" - meaning the Hebrew scriptures - as "Bible" and "Biblical," purposefully implying that Israel teaching students about their history in Hebrew scripture is like Western public schools teaching evangelical Christianity. But the Tanakh is Jewish history and heritage.

Also, when Haaretz says "None of the programs have any sort of pluralistic orientation" that is deceptive. Most of Israel's education budget goes towards teacher salaries and it gives mandates of the number of hours per week for various subjects like math or science under that aegis. That's a different budgetary bucket. So Israel does fund teaching about pluralism in existing civics and social studies classes; this budget item is for security in class trips when no security is needed for trips within the Green Line.

This is all consistent with Haaretz' main goal: it wants to de-Judaize Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From Hiba Press (Morocco):

Algerian Activist Close to Military Regime Incites Slaughter of Jews

An Algerian activist close to the military regime, Arif Mashakira, has incited the slaughter of Jews worldwide as a response to any potential threat from Israel against his country.

In a post published on his Facebook account, Mashakira stated that he was offering “advice” to Israel to “avoid” even a single “threatening statement” against Algeria, as this would be, according to him, “the biggest mistake of its (Israel’s) life.

”He added that if such a threat occurs, “the fate of any Jew worldwide will be slaughter,” claiming that “Algerians are programmed with dangerous software.”

He continued, “Beware, beware of awakening them (the Algerian people),” concluding that “this has nothing to do with the authorities, the state, or the army,” as “the Algerian people are dormant nuclear warheads,” according to his words.

If there is a silver lining in all the recent antisemitism, it is that the antisemites don't even pretend to be merely "anti-Zionist" anymore/

Yet the media continues to treat them as if they are only issuing political statements.

Because too many in the media are on their side.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/14 Links: Wasn't Hell Supposed to Break Loose if the U.S. Struck Iran?; The Hamas unit that hunts Palestinians; Labour’s betrayal of Israel

From Ian:

Wasn't Hell Supposed to Break Loose if the U.S. Struck Iran?

For decades, American officials have averred that a U.S. attack on Iran would provoke a forever war in the Middle East. American officials saw any foreign intrusion as a gift to the regime, sure to revive its domestic fortunes. They assumed that the Iranian people, under threat, would set aside their grievances and tolerate, if not embrace, their Islamist overlords.

The aftermath of this summer's 12-day war should bury these assumptions. More than 400 Iranian VIPs, including 30 Iranian generals and several nuclear scientists, might have died. But there have been no massive state-orchestrated rallies. There's no glory in national disgrace. Staging demonstrations to celebrate men who died in their apartments doesn't uplift the revolutionary cadre's morale.

Instead, the mullahs and the IRGC have launched a vicious campaign of repression. Iranian authorities have arrested about 20,000 people and executed 262. This isn't about counterespionage; it's about intimidating a society that hasn't rallied around the flag.

When selling his Iran nuclear deal, President Obama dismissed those who thought that "surgical strikes against Iran's facilities will be quick and painless." On June 4, talk-show host Tucker Carlson tweeted: "The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans." Clearly, he was mistaken.

Dozens of Mossad women penetrated Iran during 12-Day War- exclusive

Dozens of Mossad women penetrated Iran and had boots on the ground, performing a variety of operations during Israel’s attacks on Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs in June, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Critically, the Post has come to understand that Mossad director David Barnea views the role that female Mossad agents played during the Israel-Iran war as very substantial.

While the exact nature of what these women did, exactly, is still classified, in 2024, a senior female Mossad agent, only known as “G” with an Iranian background and special expertise in Iran and in recruiting foreign spies in hostile countries, was honored with lighting a torch in the Independence Day ceremony.

Notably, Michael Bar Zohar’s and Nissim Mishal’s 2021 book The Mossad Amazons described female Mossad agents not only seducing enemy male officials and performing surveillance on Iran’s nuclear sites, but also carrying out kinetic and other attack operations.

While the Mossad does not wish to draw too much attention to any one subgroup of potential spies, the Post’s impression is that the spy agency’s women of 2025 are only doing more of every kind of undercover role as compared to their sisters of yesterday. As it stands, Barnea sent hundreds of Mossad agents, or individuals being managed by agents, into operations in Iran simultaneously. All of the varying groups of staff were highly coordinated.

The spy chief directed a project that led to a diverse spectrum of agents, encompassing a wide range of operatives and their varied backgrounds, one could imagine.

On top of actual Israeli Mossad agents, the spy service has reached new levels in recruiting and training local dissident Iranian assets to act against the ayatollahs’ regime.

Collectively, the Mossad agents in Tehran targeted large numbers of radar platforms and ballistic missiles. Further, they provided targeting information to Israeli fighter jets for a broad range of other Iranian targets.

The Mossad’s opening shot was so stunningly effective that Iran was only able to counterstrike Israel on the second day of the war.

Jake Wallis Simons: The ignorance and idiocy of Hollywood’s Israel boycott

In Israel, there is a thriving television and film industry, which in recent years has become admired around the world. If you are one of the few people who have not watched the thriller, Fauda, a global sensation in Hebrew and Arabic that is particularly popular in the Arab world, binge it immediately; a new season is due for release in the coming months.

Shtisel is another example of Israeli creativity, though in a very different way; it is a profound and reflective series about life in ultra-orthodox Jerusalem. And the brilliant Hatufim, or Prisoners of War, which was the model for American smash hit Homeland, is harder to track down but well worth the effort.

For those with arthouse tastes, I’d recommend The Band’s Visit, a lovely little film about the Alexandria Ceremonial Police Orchestra travelling from Egypt to perform in Israel and getting lost in a small town in the Negev desert.

Good stuff. It’s no surprise, really. As the only democracy in the Middle East, which faces enemies on every border and holds a remarkable history of anguish and triumph, the Jewish State has much material on which to draw.

The fact that it has a vibrant gay scene – Tel Aviv hosts one of the best Pride parades on Earth, I’m told – is testament to its liberal heart, despite the far-right thugs temporarily in its governing coalition. And where you find an open society, you find a vibrant arts scene.

Palestine, not so much. Whether on the West Bank or in Gaza, this is a place where it can be fatal to be homosexual. This was appallingly demonstrated by the 2022 murder of Ahmad Abu Marhia, a gay Palestinian who was kidnapped from Israel where he was seeking refuge, dragged back to Hebron and beheaded.

Television programmes and films are produced by Palestinians, of course, but suffice to say that none of them has appealed to Western tastes. Our enthusiasm for their culture seems limited to that which we can appropriate, like the keffiyeh. Anything that requires a deeper engagement with the autocratic society that has laboured so long under corrupt and brutal leaders is rather more tricky.

What I’m getting at is this. If an alien descended and was asked whether actors in the West would tend to boycott the democracy or the extremist state, it surely would plump for the latter. The values of toleration, individual rights and free association that we hold most dear must surely be promoted.

The Hamas unit that hunts Palestinians

Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. But some of its foremost victims aren’t Israeli Jews. Rather, they’re Arab. And a newly formed group, the Arrow Unit, exemplifies how Hamas maintains its grip on power, even now, nearly two years into one of the worst wars the Middle East has seen in decades.

On Aug. 25, an Israeli strike on Nasser Hospital in Gaza killed several people. The strike received widespread coverage in the corporate media. The usual suspects — the New York Times, the United Nations, and a host of foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations — condemned the Jewish state. Yet most failed to note the hospital’s long-standing use as a base for Hamas operations.

The terrorist group has used hospitals to shelter munitions and operatives, as command centers, even to hide many of the more than 200 people Hamas took hostage when it invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, perpetrating the largest slaughter of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. Nasser Hospital, located in Khan Younis, was no exception.

Indeed, in late June 2025, the hospital was the scene of a clash between the Arrow Unit, one of Hamas’s most feared but little-known detachments, and a Palestinian clan. The Arrow Unit has received scant attention from the Western press. But it is key to Hamas’s maintaining its hold on Gaza.

Hamas’s Ministry of Interior formed the Arrow Unit in late 2024. According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the group was “ostensibly created to act as law enforcement” but, since it began operating, has instead “carried out public beatings, shootings and executions of Palestinians who are deemed to be criminals or colluding with Israel.”

According to Joe Truzman, a senior analyst with the FDD, the Arrow Unit’s membership is drawn from multiple sources in Gaza, including police officers, operatives belonging to the Ministry of Interior’s security branches, fighters belonging to terrorist factions, and civilian volunteers. Maj. Gen. Mahmoud Salah, a former Hamas police chief, reportedly played a central role in the unit’s formation before he was killed in an Israeli strike in early 2025.

The unit has largely flown under the radar, overlooked by major press outlets and the policymakers they influence. Truzman and the FDD are among a mere handful of experts and organizations that have profiled the group.

There is evidence of unit hierarchy and organization. Like Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, the group typically operates in civilian attire, enabling members to blend in and escape detection. And while no official figures on manpower exist, “the unit’s operational tempo and its ability to publicize activities online point to a force of at least several dozen, potentially reaching into the low hundreds,” of members, Truzman said.

The purpose of the Arrow Unit is clear: to instill fear in Palestinians in Gaza. Fear, after all, is an essential tool for all autocrats, and Hamas is no exception.

The Nazis Played the Victim Too (Guest Post)

(This is from a guest poster who wants to remain anonymous.)

Much like Gaza of today, in the 1930s and 40s Nazi Germany invaded its neighbors with the intention of taking them over and taking their land for its own. Nazi Germany, also like Gaza, believed that the land of its neighbors was its by birthright and that Germany was a victim of Jewish machinations and Germans were oppressed by Jewish victimizers. Just like Gaza of today, the neighbors of Nazi Germany did not want to be taken over by Nazi Germany and thus fought back against Nazi Germany. And, just like Gaza of today, Nazi Germany then claimed to be a victim of genocide at the hands of the countries it itself attacked and complained about attacks targeted against women and children. Goebbels, Hitler's infamous propagandist, made arguments identical to the ones made today in defense of Hamas and Gaza

Goebbels’s Call for Retribution (June 5, 1943) - "They are waging war against the morale of our nation; they are killing civilians, old people, women and children, and are barely trying any longer to cover their infamous bloody terror with a cloak of humanity...We present-day Germans are not the kind of people who seek indulgence from an enemy who is out to destroy us. Every English comment today which considers the bombing of German women, old people and children an entirely humane or even Christian method of conquering the German nation will one day be a welcome argument in our reply to these villainies."

Goebbels, The Battle of Berlin - "The intent of the Anglo-American war leadership is doubtless to proletarianize large parts of the German people through air terror, making them ripe for lying and hypocritical divisive propaganda. It is almost a bloody irony that at the same time he drops unimaginable quantities of explosive and incendiary bombs on densely populated residential sections of our large cities, he also rains down thick stacks of hypocritical leaflets. He apparently believes that our men and women who have lost everything through this cowardly and wholly unmilitary method of warfare will sit down in the glow of their burning homes and perhaps by the corpses of their innocent children to read these worthless leaflets, letting themselves be told what they should think about the war by of all people the corrupt British plutocracy....As the sky over Berlin begins to turn bloody in the nights of heavy enemy terror attacks, we all think with pain and bitterness of the huge amount of pain and sorrow again descending on thousands of our fellow citizens"

Goebbels, New Years Eve, 1943 - "The enemy has committed every conceivable crime against humanity, culture, and civilization. They are, in fact, so spiritually corrupt as to boast about it in public. They plunder honest and decent nations to fill the pockets of their own money barons. They let millions go hungry and hundreds of thousands starve to reduce them to political inactivity. They murder huge numbers of women and children, hoping through their unbelievable barbarism to weaken the will and destroy the confidence of their husbands and fathers. They bomb and burn more than two millennia of Europe’s cultural treasures.

Goebbels, Youth and the War - "Since our enemy is waging war even against children, children also must play their part. During the World War, the English blockade was particularly directed against German women and German children, and had a major role in the fact that at the critical hour we no longer had the strength to resist the English and French threat."

Goebbels - In the Front Ranks - "I accuse the enemy of conducting brutal air terror for no other reason than to torture a defenseless civilian population, to inflict sorrow, horrors, pain, and death upon them as a way of forcing them to betray their nation. Such an attempt will never succeed. These cowardly deeds will only bring eternal shame on the nations whose governments carry on such contemptible and insidious warfare against women, old people, and children.... The enemy knows that he is doing only limited damage to our armaments and war industries. That is not his goal. His goal is to torture defenseless civilians, to bring death to their homes and dwellings, and to attempt to break German morale. It is his last attempt to salvage his otherwise hopeless military strategy. Numerous murdered women, old people, and children testify against the Anglo-American plutocrats. They join me in accusing a military policy that mocks all standards of human decency. Countless destroyed schools, hospitals, churches, and cultural monuments join me raising their hands from amidst the ruins to condemn a military strategy that commits such crimes."

Goebbels - In the Front Ranks - " The Anglo-American military leadership differs only in that they not only make no distinctions between men, women, and children, but do not even wish to."

Goebbels - Morale as a Decisive Factor in War - "These actions are consistent with the nature of Anglo-American plutocrats. During the First World War, they attempted to demoralize the German people by a ruthless starvation campaign against defenseless women and children. Today they are attempting the same thing by air terror against the German homeland. I do not deny that enemy air attacks have cost us much property and blood and cause difficulties of every manner. The enemy knows that as well as we do, since they went through something similar in the summer and fall of 1940, though the German Luftwaffe then attacked only military and industrial targets, but the enemy’s attacks today are directed almost exclusively against the civilian population, and thereby our morale"

Just like Gaza, they attempted to rewrite history to make themselves the victim of attack, rather than being the attackers themselves, and said that they're simply fighting to defend themselves.

Hitler: Memorial Address, March 1941 "When England and France declared this war, England immediately began a fight against civil life. To the blockade of the World War, that war against women and children, it added this time air and fire war against peaceful villages and cities."

Goebbels - Resistance at Any Price - "If he succeeds, Germany will become a cemetery. Our people will starve and perish, aside from the millions who will be deported to Siberia as slave labor. In such a situation, any means is justified.

Goebbels - The Jews Are Guilty! - " If we lose it [the war], these harmless-looking Jewish chaps would suddenly become raging wolves. They would attack our women and children to carry out revenge."

Goebbels, New Years Eve, 1943 "I speak of an air offensive, which is a very polite and restrained circumlocution for a completely unsoldierly way of fighting that has no historical parallel in its coarseness and brutality. Through the centuries, it will remain the second great shame of the English and the Americans. During the First World War they tried starvation against women and children. Now they are using phosphorus to beat down a fine and decent nation that demands nothing more than a decent and free life...."

That's correct, Goebbels claimed Nazi Germany was "a fine and decent nation that demands nothing more than a decent and free life." Indistinguishable from the Gazan propagandists claiming Hamas' goal is "freedom."

And yes, they even invoked international law and demanded to be protected under it.

Goebbels - Resistance at Any Price - "Where does international law allow for the tens of thousands of German women tortured and raped in the East, or the tens of thousands of German children who have been murdered in a cowardly and terrible way, or the many who have fallen victim to barbaric enemy bombing terror? All normal ideas of warfare have long since been discarded by the enemy."

Goebbels, New Years Eve, 1943 - "They let millions go hungry and hundreds of thousands starve to reduce them to political inactivity. They murder huge numbers of women and children, hoping through their unbelievable barbarism to weaken the will and destroy the confidence of their husbands and fathers. They bomb and burn more than two millennia of Europe’s cultural treasures. What other crimes could they commit to earn the disgust, the hatred, and the deep contempt of the entire world? Who has the right to speak of war crimes and historical justice, the enemy or we?"

This rhetoric is indistinguishable from the rhetoric deployed by supporters of Gaza. They're operating from the exact same playbook, shifting the conversation from a just war against an aggressor guilty of horrible crimes against humanity to an indiscriminate killing of innocent women and children for no reason. All the actions that led to the current situation completely forgotten. The only thing that's surprising is how little the rhetoric has changed, you would think the talking points would have been updated in 70 years. The term genocide didn't exist until 1944 to describe the crimes of those very Nazis whining about their people's suffering, otherwise I have no doubt they would be using that too to describe the actions of the Allies. Imagine how effective this propaganda might have been if the Nazis had smartphones and access to the Internet, although they faked plenty of videos using the technology they had.

Concern for Gazan civilians, when it's genuine, is of course valid, but it's clear that the pro-Gaza crowd is far more interested in using Gazan suffering to whitewash Hamas and shift the narrative, just as Goebbels attempted to do. It didn't work for him, though, and I for one don't think it will work for them.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Even the most dovish Palestinian politician is a complete antisemitic, anti-American idiot

The EU and UN seem to think that Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party are the best leaders for a potential Palestinian state they so desperately desire. This is despite his history of Holocaust denial and inversion, financial and ideological support for terror and history of antisemitism.

But surely there are more promising Palestinian politicians? People like, say, Mustafa Barghouti?

Barghouti is a Palestinian physician, activist, and politician who has been a prominent figure in Palestinian public life for decades. He is the founder and president of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party advocating for a non-violent, democratic, and independent Palestinian state. Barghouti has been a vocal critic not only of Israel but also of internal Palestinian corruption, and he has run for the Palestinian Authority presidency, getting 20% of the vote in 2005 elections putting him in second place behind Abbas.

Sounds like a dream leader, doesn't he?

Yet here is what he tweeted last week:

Both Israel and Al Qaeda destroy tall buildings, so they are both the same!

Which means he is comparing the World Trade Center with Hamas infrastructure, which is anti-American. He is comparing Israeli actions against Hamas with Al-Qaeda, which is antisemitic.

But he is also comparing a deliberate attack designed to murder tens of thousands of civilians with Israeli actions which only destroy buildings after everyone inside is warned and has evacuated. Israel's attack on Hamas infrastructure is supremely moral, while Al Qaeda is the ultimate example of immorality.

And this Palestinian intellectual, physician and advocate of non-violence cannot distinguish between the two.

He claims to be anti-Hamas terror but he is also against attacking Hamas.

He strongly supports the "right to return" - meaning that not only does he want a Palestinian state but also an Israel that would have a majority of Arab citizens, meaning his "two state solution" is for two Arab states, not a Jewish and Arab state side by side. Meaning he opposes Jewish self determination.

This is the best that Palestinian society can come up with: an antisemitic, anti-American, immoral and incredibly stupid person.

Forget Abbas of Hamas - what kind of a nation would "Palestine" be if led by people like Barghouti, the shining example of moderation and intellect?

Barghouti isn't the hope of a future Arab Palestine, He is a perfect example of why such a state would be a failure by any sane metric.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Top Khamenei aide condemns conference of European rabbis in Azerbaijan. Yeah, that's pure antisemitism.

You know how Iran insists it is only anti-Zionist, not antisemitic?

The Conference of European Rabbis will hold their 70th anniversary conference in Baku, Azerbaijan:

Iran's Supreme Leader's senior aide denounced this meeting of rabbis in a Shiite majority country:

Senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader warned on Saturday that Azerbaijan would damage the image of Shiites if it proceeds with plans to host a major rabbinical meeting.

Ali Akbar Velayati said he hoped reports of the event were false, describing it as “anti-Islamic and against the dignity of Shiites.”

Tehran Times says he added, “This is the first time that such a transgression has been carried out by the government of Azerbaijan, and it is an anti-Islamic measure and an affront to the global standing of Shia Muslims,” he declared.

He wrote on social media that the people of Azerbaijan have been Muslim for nearly 1,200 years, stressing that they will not approve of actions that run against their faith and traditions.

It is not a conference of Israelis. It is not a conference of Zionists (although probably every attendee will be a Zionist.) It is a conference of rabbis.

And this is by itself prima facie evidence that the Islamic Republic is antisemitic.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/13 Links: Amichai Chikli: Where there is faith, there is freedom; Qatar’s Double-Sided Diplomacy Crumbles in Israeli Airstrike

From Ian:

Amichai Chikli: Where there is faith, there is freedom

That same value—freedom—stands at the foundation of American identity as well. The Declaration of Independence opens with words about natural rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness … .”

Both the people of Israel and America know well that where there is no faith, there is no freedom; where there is no Divine presence, there can be no moral order. As America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, expressed when they embraced the immortal words of the Protestant theologian John Ponet: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

From here flows the profound bond between Israel and the United States. It is not merely an alliance of interests, but a partnership of essence. Israel and the United States are nations of liberty, standing as spiritual twins against the forces of tyranny, darkness and enslavement: in ancient times against the yoke of Pharaoh’s Egypt and the yoke of monarchical despotism, and in our own time against regimes of terror, fundamentalism and oppression.

Charlie Kirk was a man of faith who embodied the value of freedom. He breathed it and radiated it in every word and every deed. He understood that liberty is not an empty slogan but the very foundation of human existence—the precondition for any free and just society.

He naturally embodied the profound and unbreakable bond between Israel and the United States. He knew that freedom is the shared value at the heart of the connection between the ancient nation of liberty and the new nation of liberty.

At the very moment he shot—while seeking to advance those values through dialogue and persuasion—he was wearing a white shirt with a single word inscribed on it: freedom. That word was his testament and his call to action.

Now it is up to us to carry on the struggle and to stand together, Jews and Christians, Americans and Israelis, to ensure that liberty will triumph over the sword of Islamist fanaticism and over neo-Marxist tyranny disguised in a liberal mask.

Jonathan Tobin: Violence is the natural next step of academic intolerance

Just as the impact on Jews is but a sidebar to the threat that DEI and other toxic left-wing ideologies pose to America as a whole, so, too, is intolerance for supporters of Israel and Zionism, merely a warning that anyone who dissents from the prevailing orthodoxies on campuses is also in danger.

As Americans learned in the 1960s, when intolerant radicals found themselves stymied by their failure to convince the majority of people to agree with their ideas, some inevitably resorted to violence. The Weather Underground might have represented only a fraction of those who protested against the Vietnam War more than half a century ago. These days, however, the political culture, coupled with the internet and social media, all work to mainstream extremist thoughts in ways unimaginable in previous generations. The disturbing online reactions to Kirk’s death, similar to the December 2024 assassination of an executive of the United Health Care insurance company and attempts on Trump’s life, illustrate how this normalizes toleration and even support for violence.

In the bifurcated political culture of 2025, we already know that most Americans have stopped listening, watching or reading views with which they disagree. That leads some to conclude that anyone they don’t like is Hitler—someone who should be silenced, if not jailed or subjected to violence. That’s more than a threat to politicians and activists. It can also put a target on the back of anyone who seeks to express their views about the subjects that Kirk spoke about in the public square.

Put into perspective, that makes it clear that his killing isn’t just one more sign that vocal advocacy can be a dangerous profession. It’s also a warning that society is heading toward a reality in which all those who speak up for any cause that falls out of favor with the chattering classes, like that of Israel and opposition to antisemitism, can no longer think of themselves as safe from violence.

That makes the cause of free speech that Charlie Kirk championed, as well as the need to stop demonizing our political foes, not merely a matter of civility in public discourse. It’s a matter of life and death for American democracy.

The murder of Charlie Kirk and what it means for democracy

I spent years in homeland security and law enforcement, working to prevent violence and protect communities here at home. I saw firsthand how fragile order can be during the Boston Marathon bombing, when I witnessed the explosions and then helped manage the response and recovery when civic celebration on Patriots’ Day in Massachusetts was turned into carnage.

That experience showed me what I have seen again and again in my career as a police officer, prosecutor and homeland security and emergency management leader; the difference between chaos and civilization is not wealth or culture, but whether disputes are resolved by civil discourse and law rather than by force.

Law is the invisible contract that lets ordinary people speak freely, raise families and live without fear. Strip it away, and the violent abuse the peaceful, the strong prey upon the weak, the loud silence the thoughtful and society reverts to philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s description: nasty, brutish and short.

But violence does not appear from nowhere. It is prepared. It is justified. It is excused. First come the slanders, the delegitimization, the endless distortions that make hatred seem respectable. Then come the firebombs and bullets.

That is why I believe that CAMERA’s work is not ancillary to democracy but central to its defense. At CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, we fight every day on the battlefield of words, exposing the lies that make violence thinkable, holding media accountable when bias and propaganda pave the way for bloodshed.

Kirk, who valued CAMERA, put his energy into argument and dialogue. On campuses and in public forums, he made his case openly and invited others to push back. In doing so, he served as a reminder that the democratic spirit is not about agreement but about the willingness to contend with one another through free speech. His murder is an assault on that spirit, and on the idea that free societies resolve their differences through debate instead of violence.

This is not a partisan matter. It is a civic one. Republics do not collapse because people argue too much. They collapse when people decide that silencing is easier than debating.

The violence against Jews was the canary in the coal mine. The murder of Kirk and the killings of Thompson and the legislators in Minnesota show the collapse spreading outward. These are harrowing injustices. They are also warnings. Our task now is to recommit to the habits of civilization: Law instead of force, debate instead of violence, truth instead of distortion.

Everything we cherish depends on whether we can.

Charlie Kirk’s murder and America’s moral rot

The list goes on, but the pattern is the same. First, an ideology that demonizes and dehumanizes one’s opponents; second, a perpetrator gripped by mental illness; and third, a public response that is not firm and united, but hesitant, sometimes even approving. Each equivocation signals to others that political murder is somehow acceptable.

It would be dangerous and negligent to ignore the rise in left-wing violence in America. Too many in the mainstream progressive culture not only embrace hateful ideologies but also tacitly approve of violent actions. Walk through the anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-Trump protests happening across the country, and you will see it plainly. At the same time, we must acknowledge that violence is not the exclusive domain of the left. The deeper crisis is that an entire generation is coming of age shaped by poisonous currents that cut across the political spectrum.

For years, many insisted that there was a wall between “online” and “real life,” as if what happened on social media stayed there. That wall has crumbled. Social media is not separate from real life; it is shaping minds, fueling hatred and making violence feel justified. It has given the world innovation and connectivity, but is being weaponized to spread lies, stoke hatred and brainwash its users.

What next? We can complain, or we can make a change. We must do better.

May Kirk’s memory be a blessing. May we honor his legacy by fostering respectful and substantive discussions with those we disagree with—because that is the only way to build a healthier society.

09/12 Links Pt2: 700 Days Since Oct. 7: Resilience Amid Conflict, From Gideon to Gaza; Israel Derangement Syndrome; The tyranny of the crybully

From Ian:

700 Days Since Oct. 7: Resilience Amid Conflict, From Gideon to Gaza

Three thousand years ago, 300 resourceful Israelite soldiers under the leadership of Gideon defeated 100,000 Midianites. Celebrated for bravery, strategy, and integrity, the legendary victory is also a story of large-scale violence that raises questions about proportionality, accountability and the limits of even divinely guided action.

Rigid ideology can cloud judgment, and miraculous triumphs can breed overconfidence or misread moral authority. Courage alone is not enough; wisdom, restraint, and discernment are essential. Military and political leaders alike must weigh consequences carefully, balancing the survival of their people with the legitimacy of their actions.

Israel’s now nearly two-year war with Hamas is a stark reminder of these lessons.

Civilians huddle under a relentless rain of rockets, including cluster munitions aimed at Jewish communities. Homes, schools, and hospitals tremble under constant threat. Recent attacks, like the murder of six Israelis at a Jerusalem bus stop, underscore that every citizen lives in danger while national leaders confront impossible choices. These are not abstract calculations — they are matters of life and death, of protecting communities while upholding the ethical framework that gives Israel’s actions moral and legal weight.

Fighting terror while preserving legitimacy demands deliberate, disciplined action: measured responses, protection of civilians, and principled leadership. Every strike, blockade, or intervention carries consequences that ripple beyond the battlefield. Just as Israel’s political and military leaders must navigate these realities, leaders in the Diaspora must resist judgments that oversimplify the complexity on the ground.

Policy and public rhetoric must balance urgency with restraint, ensuring that responses remain ethical even in a volatile reality. Understanding this complexity is not weakness — it is the foundation of enduring strength.

History offers repeated warnings of what happens when moral clarity fades or collective punishment replaces justice. Pogroms, massacres, and decades of conflict show that indiscriminate retaliation only fuels cycles of violence and suffering. When Israel defends itself, civilians in Gaza may be harmed; yet failing to defend Israel allows terror to traumatize communities. Facing this dilemma, leaders must act decisively while resisting the impulse to scapegoat. Precision and discipline are essential to maintain legitimacy both internationally and within Israel’s own conscience.

Andrew Fox: Israel Derangement Syndrome

What we are seeing is not “criticism of Israel”. It is a new, globalised antisemitism.

When Israeli athletes are shunned, when Jewish students are harassed on campus, when faeces are smeared on London synagogues, when kosher restaurants are vandalised in Paris, Berlin, New York — it is not about Gaza. It is about Jews.

BDS was always about this. Its founders admitted openly that their goal was not two states but the erasure of Israel altogether. Now, through lawfare, media manipulation, and social media swarming, they have normalised antisemitism as progressive chic.

This is why the language of “genocide” is so dangerous. It is not simply inaccurate; it is incitement. It primes populations to view Israel (and by extension Jews everywhere) as perpetrators of the greatest crime imaginable. That narrative does not just delegitimise Israel; it endangers Jewish communities worldwide.

The only thing being genocided in this conflict is the truth itself.

The fact that Israel did not initiate this war. Hamas did, with the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. The fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties in a conflict that Hamas deliberately embeds within civilian populations. The fact that the international system, from The Hague to the UN, has been weaponised to persecute one state, and one state only, because it is Jewish.

Israel is not perfect. No state at war is. However, to pretend that it is guilty of genocide while Hamas openly proclaims its genocidal intent is to invert reality itself. This inversion is the sickness of our age. It is Israel Derangement Syndrome, and it is spreading fast.

Some might say: so what if Europeans complain about Eurovision? So what if campus radicals shout about genocide? Israel remains strong, armed, and resilient.

My reply is that history shows us to take such disturbances seriously. Demonisation always comes before violence. Look at the USA, where political violence is becoming normalised. Lies always lead to persecution, and when Israel loses bipartisan support in the United States, when antisemitism becomes mainstreamed in global institutions, when Jewish life is once again made fragile in Europe and America, the consequences will not be minor.

This is not about Gaza. It is about the future of the Jewish people.

We are living through the largest propaganda assault in modern history. Hamas’s 7th October massacre was designed not only to kill Israelis but to unleash a narrative war that would isolate Israel, fracture its alliances, and inflame antisemitism worldwide. It has succeeded far beyond Hamas’s wildest dreams.

The danger extends beyond Israel. It threatens the very integrity of truth. If lies can be weaponised to label the most targeted, scrutinised, and restrained military campaign in modern warfare as “genocide,” then words mean nothing, facts mean nothing, and law itself becomes a pogrom.

That is the world Hamas wants. That is the world antisemitism demands. Unless the sickness of Israel Derangement Syndrome is confronted head-on, that is the world we will all be forced to live in.

The tyranny of the crybully

We’ve heard much talk of flags this year, but the emergence and proliferation of this particular icon is perhaps the most significant. This was brought home by its over-abundance at Glastonbury festival this summer, where the meaning of the Palestinian flag became palpable: it now serves to demonstrate that you support victims against oppressors, the weak against the strong, good against evil. That’s why the assembled multitudes saw nothing wrong with chanting Jew-killing slogans, such as ‘Death, death to the IDF’. They were on the side of the angels against the perpetrators of ‘genocide’. The Palestinian flag is now the global symbol of the victim.

Victimhood is much sought-after for good reasons. Nothing can gainsay the righteous fury of the victim who suffers – the victim who has right on his side and whose every response and deed can therefore be permitted. The victim feels wronged by an unjust and cruel world and we must feel his pain. Those who question the motives of the victim can be angrily dismissed as cruel, heartless or accomplices of the oppressors themselves.

Nothing can satiate the thirst for vengeance the victim gleefully seeks. Armed with self-righteousness, the victim can behave as he pleases, harassing and threatening others while protesting it is he who is under attack. The victimhood activist today is personified in the figure of the crybully – a term coined by Julie Burchill.

It’s a seductive mindset and unbeatable formula, which is why we’ve seen it in all its gruesomeness in recent years. The dubious #MeToo movement of the past decade was allowed to gain traction because no one dared oppose or doubt the claimants seeking recompense against their transgressors. The belligerent self-righteousness of the Black Lives Matter movement was of a similar ilk and was indulged for the same reasons. Radical trans activists, as Graham Linehan knows only too well, made great political advances by portraying themselves as persecuted martyrs who just wanted to ‘be nice’ and stop kids from killing themselves.

And it’s going on right now in Britain in its most egregious and cunning form, with attempts to define and encode ‘Islamophobia’, a term that seeks to shield any criticism of Islam or Muslims by ringfencing each under the category ‘persecuted and oppressed’.

The identitarian right also drinks deep from this well of self-pity and resentment.

None of this is particularly new. Much of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche centred on the self-righteousness of the persecuted and the psychology of resentment. Writing in 1888 of the desire for ‘justice’ (that is, vengeance) then preached by many Christians and socialists, he concluded: ‘What is common to both, and unworthy in both, is that someone has to be to blame for the fact that one suffers – in short, that the sufferer prescribes for himself the honey of revenge as a medicine for his suffering… this thirst for revenge as a thirst for pleasure.’

09/12 Links Pt1: From Munich to Tehran to Doha: Israel’s unbroken doctrine of justice; Je Suis Charlie

From Ian:

From Munich to Tehran to Doha: Israel’s unbroken doctrine of justice

Critics call these killings vengeance. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. Israel’s targeted operations are not revenge; they are justice, deterrence and self-preservation.

Justice, because the blood of murdered Jews cannot be brushed aside with a U.N. resolution or a “peace process” that drags on indefinitely. Deterrence, because future terrorists must learn that planning atrocities against Jews means that they will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder. And self-preservation, because allowing terror leaders to live freely and plot the next massacre is to invite repetition of Oct. 7.

The world often prefers Israel to “move on.” After Munich, the International Olympic Committee didn’t even pause the Games for long. Today, the international community demands ceasefires and concessions, as if Hamas were a legitimate negotiating partner rather than the butchers of men, women, children and babies. In both eras, Israel answered with action, not platitudes.

It is also worth remembering who these terror leaders are. The Munich plotters were not impoverished freedom fighters; they were operatives of a well-funded, politically connected terror machine. Likewise, those Hamas leaders who reside in Tehran and Doha are not struggling refugees; they live in opulence while ordinary Gazans languish under their misrule. Their deaths do not deprive their people of leadership; they liberate them from tyrants who profit from endless war.

The principle behind Israel’s campaign is both ancient and modern. The Bible teaches, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?” Israel has taken that imperative into its national security doctrine. The long arm of justice, whether carried out by Mossad agents in the 1970s or Israeli operatives today, tells the world that Jewish lives are not cheap, Jewish dignity is not expendable, and Jewish sovereignty has meaning.

When the Munich terrorists struck in 1972, they aimed to humiliate Israel on the world stage. Instead, they birthed a doctrine of deterrence that outlived them all. When Hamas struck on Oct. 7, they sought to terrorize Israelis into paralysis. Instead, they reawakened Israel’s determination to ensure that Jewish blood is never spilled without consequence.

From Munich to Tehran, from 1972 to today, Israel has demonstrated that the Jewish people will not rely on others to secure justice. If the international community cannot—or will not—prevent the murder of Jews, then Israel will act alone. That is not vengeance. It is the meaning of sovereignty.

The names change—Munich, Black September, Hamas, Tehran, Doha—but the principle remains constant: If you slaughter Jews, your day of reckoning will come.

NYPost Editorial: Hamas in Qatar was fair game — and Israel’s strike there can hasten an end to the Gaza war

Israel took a big step toward ending the war in Gaza with Tuesday’s strike on Hamas leadership in Qatar.

It wasn’t immediately clear if any top terror bosses met their maker, but the strike left no doubt for any who survived: Israel is coming for them.

If the hostages in Gaza aren’t returned and Hamas fighters don’t disarm, the terror kingpins’ days are numbered. No matter where they hide.

Early reports suggested Israel took out a leader or three, but Hamas denied any were among five people it said died.

Either way, the attack had huge value: Hamas’ chiefs thought they had safe refuge in Qatar — far from the fighting and squalor in Gaza.

They lived lives of luxury in five-star hotels, reportedly sitting on an $11 billion stash, even as Gaza civilians suffered.

They could turn down cease-fire deals with no fear of personal consequences, especially since Qatar is a US ally.

Now any who survived must know that fear.

“The days when the heads of terror enjoyed immunity anywhere are over,” warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Hear, hear.

Family of Raphael Lemkin, who coined term ‘genocide,’ fights to have his name removed from ‘anti-Israel’ institute

Raphael Lemkin served as a columnist for the Zionist World journal. He decried the forsaking of Hebrew as a “sin we have committed against our linguistic patrimony.” And Lemkin declared in 1927 that the “task of the Jewish people is … [to become] a permanent national majority in its own national home.”

And yet despite Lemkin’s Zionist bona fides, 10 days after the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, on Oct. 17, 2023, the institute named for the Polish-born Jewish lawyer accused the State of Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against Palestinians — the very term that Lemkin coined in 1943 and helped draft into law with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Though it initially said that the Hamas atrocities had “genocidal dimensions,” the organization has since walked back this designation, referring to the massacres as an “unprecedented military operation” and denouncing those who say that Israel’s war against Hamas is a justified response to the Oct. 7 attacks.

Now, members of Lemkin’s family, with assistance from the European Jewish Association, are trying to get the Pennsylvania-based Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention to stop using his name, calling it deceptive and disparaging.

“The Lemkin Institute, through its very name, as well as its marketing and other materials, represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology. In reality, the Lemkin Institute’s policies, positions, activities and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system,” the EJA legal team wrote in a letter to Gov. Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations.

“The Lemkin Institute is not authorized by Raphael Lemkin’s family, his estate, or any custodian of his legacy to rely upon his name for any purpose. The European Jewish Association and Mr. Lemkin’s family are outraged by the Lemkin Institute’s use of Mr. Lemkin’s name, especially in the context of the Lemkin Institute’s anti-Israel agenda,” the attorneys wrote.

Ansa reports:

The Italian section of the Global Sumud Flotilla on Friday defended its decision to expel La Stampa journalist Francesca Del Vecchio before it sets off to join boats from other nations seeking to break the Israeli blockade and take aid to Gaza.

Del Vecchio said she was kicked off simply for trying to do her job, arguing the move was "a defeat for me, and not just a personal one"

But Maria Elena Delia, the spokeswoman for the flotilla's Italian section, said that, while flotilla had "utmost respect" for press freedom, Del Vecchio's ejection was justified.

The reason they gave was that "in the first few days, we had asked for the location where the boats were located and where we were training not to be revealed" but she mentioned it anyway.

In other words, they said what could and could not be reported. Just like Hamas does.

After her expulsion, Del Vecchio describes how the flotilla imposed draconian and absurd rules on the journalists, but some were more privileged than others:

I arrive in Catania, the starting point of the Italian expedition and the training for participants. In my story, I begin with the "manual" they sent us and focus on the theme of "non-violence." Upon arrival at the training site, everyone is asked to hand over their cell phones," the journalist writes. "In the following days, they will also be asked to submit to a body search. Security reasons, they say. The course, however, won't start for another hour and a half, and I ask if it's possible to stay outside and come back after work. The answer is no."

Then the course begins, and "there are other journalists (not part of the crew) inside, complete with cameras and video cameras. At the end of the session—which includes a simulated boarding and arrest—I ask if there are any objections to reporting on it. I'm told no, as long as I don't go into details. That's acceptable. It's the first day's report, with a few vague references to the context. I'll leave out—because it wouldn't have added anything—that the organizers caught an activist with a McDonald's bag and asked witnesses to delete any videos. In hindsight, however, it seems indicative of the general climate."

As the hours pass, Del Vecchio senses that "the distrust is palpable. No one wants or can speak, no one can approach the boats, not even accompanied. The only thing that can be reported are the requirements for living together on board." She asks to attend a night shift of the fleet's surveillance, "with the promise to write about it only after departure, once the safety concerns have passed." The response? "After a half-hearted yes, we go into hiding: no one responds anymore."

Then she's removed from the group chat. She asks why. "A member of the board, Simone, calls me. He tells me the decision to fire me for revealing sensitive information that could have undermined the security of the mission. I'm incredulous. I get a chance to discuss it again in person with Maria Elena Delia the next day," Del Vecchio writes. "I explain the demands of my profession. I acknowledge the need for caution, but I also insist that we must find a compromise. We agree that, from that moment on, there will be more dialogue. I think the crisis is over, and I'm off to my first exercise at sea."

At this point, the journalist recounts being chased by two activists, along with a member of the management team. They tell her, "We can't trust you. You're a dangerous journalist; you told the world where our course is being held. You're dangerous. Your newspaper showers us with shit every day." Her passport is returned to her, "confiscated, as if it were a police force," and they "literally kick her out of the port, informing me I couldn't take the bus back with the others."

It sounds a lot like the rules given in the campus encampments. It also sounds a lot like Hamas, only allowing stories they approve to be sent out.

But when Israel places restrictions on journalists for their own safety, there are petitions and journalist unions who roundly complain about freedom of the press.

No journalists are publicly slamming the flotilla organizers for their censorship, as far as I can tell.

As usual, when people make false claims about Israel, they are projecting what they would do if they had the chance.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Fox News reports:

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld compared the "Free Palestine" movement to the Ku Klux Klan during a surprise appearance Tuesday at Duke University, saying both groups "don’t like Jews."

The "Seinfeld" creator attended a campus event for Omer Shem Tov, an Israeli hostage abducted by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks and held captive for 505 days. Seinfeld gave a brief introduction to Shem Tov before ridiculing anti-Israel activists, joking that at least the KKK was "honest" about their hatred for Jews.

"Free Palestine is, to me, just — you’re free to say you don’t like Jews. Just say you don’t like Jews," Seinfeld said.

"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."

People are predictably freaking out, but Seinfeld is right.

"Free Palestine" is not a call for a two state solution. It is a call for Jews to either be ethically cleansed from the Middle East, or for them to become official second class citizens in a Muslim majority state where they can reap the benefits of anti-Jewish laws they enjoyed under Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and other regimes.

So yes, it is absolutely as antisemitic as the Ku Klux Klan. Instead of freeing America from non-whites, they want to free "Palestine" from Jews. And even the most charitable viewpoint - that the "Free Palestine" crowd is not genocidal but just want Jews to be second class citizens - mirrors what most KKK members want as well, a society where "Whites" are the leaders and people of color are on the lower rungs.

Anti-Israel activists have always cloaked their desire to rid Israel of Jews in the language of human or historic rights. They used to pretend that their demand for the "right to return" was principled, when it was always a means to make Jews a minority. They still pretend that "Palestine" was a historic political entity, when it was just the Roman name for the Holy Land, and it was used that way to the middle of the 20th century. They hate to be reminded that there was no Palestinian Arab national identity before a hundred years ago.

The KKK, similarly, pretend that their hate is meant to protect their "rights" and their historic heritage as supremacist European Aryans.

There is really no difference.

Palestinian nationalism, from its very beginnings through today, has always been a response to Zionism rather than something that anyone is actually working towards. Every time Palestinians were offered a state, they turned it down - because it always still allowed a Jewish state to exist.

So, yes, "Free Palestine" is window dressing for calling to eliminate Jewish rights in the region. And Seinfeld, who has been on the receiving end of antisemitic abuse for his refusal to join the woke "Free Palestine:" crowd, recognizes that fact.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Australia's "special envoy to combat islamophobia" has handed down his long-awaited report, containing more than 50 recommendations, to the government.

The National Response to Islamophobia: A Strategic Framework for Inclusion, Safety and Prosperity is being promoted as an official antidote to rising anti-Muslim hate. It is published by a government office (OSECI), and hosted on a .gov.au site. But many of its claims overstate or misframe the evidence.

In the Foreword, cricketer Usman Khawaja insists that “for far too long Islamophobia has been overlooked … we are now seeing anti-Muslim incidents at record highs.” He also argues that “an antisemitic attack against a person of the Jewish faith is no different from an Islamophobic attack on a person of Islamic faith. Yet, particularly by the media and some politicians, these two crimes get covered very differently, with one far outweighing the other in terms of exposure and outrage” (report, p.3). These are serious charges, but no evidence is given.

The report leans on snapshots of opinion: that “50% of Australians self-identified as being anti-Muslim in a 10-year study published in 2011,” and that in 2023 “only a quarter of Australians hold a positive view about Muslims,” with “more than 1 in 3 Australians (34%) express[ing] negative attitudes towards Muslims” in 2024 (report, p.16). Yet long-term surveys by the Scanlon Institute show anti-Muslim prejudice has actually declined substantially since its peak. The report presents only the bleakest numbers, omitting the broader trajectory of improvement.

On media coverage, Khawaja claims Islamophobia is ignored while antisemitism dominates headlines. But this is not borne out. When incidents spiked after October 7, Australian media reported on both. ABC News covered a surge in “death threats, physical assaults, verbal abuse, road rage, arson” against Jews and Muslims. SBS News reported women having hijabs pulled off and Jewish businesses vandalized. The Guardian documented 221 antisemitic and 133 Islamophobic incidents in just one month. Coverage clearly existed for both communities.

The actual victimization data also cut against the Foreword’s framing. Between October 2023 and September 2024, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry recorded 65 physical assaults against Jews, while the Islamophobia Register Australia documented about 28 physical assaults against Muslims in a larger timeframe starting in January 2023. Given that Australia has over 800,000 Muslims but fewer than 100,000 Jews, a Jew is far more likely on a per-capita basis to be physically attacked for who they are. Minimizing that is unconscionable. (General antisemitic incidents also far outnumber total reported anti-Muslim incidents.)

The report also imports contested international narratives. It highlights accusations of “genocide” in Gaza, quoting critics like Raz Segal who called Gaza a "textbook case of genocide" on October 12, 2023 - within a week of October 7. No alternative legal opinions are mentioned, nor any recognition of the debate about whether the term applies. In a domestic report on Australian Islamophobia, this is an extraordinary and politicized inclusion, mentioned repeatedly.

Perhaps most striking: the report never defines Islamophobia. There is no working definition. Without clarity, anything from physical assault to criticism of Islamist politics can be swept under the same label. This vagueness is not an oversight; it is strategic. It allows maximum elasticity in branding criticism as bigotry.

The conflation is made explicit when the report references advocacy materials like APAN’s Anti-Palestinian Racism Report, which treats opposition to Hamas and pro-Israel slogans as racism. By citing this, the envoy’s report blurs political critique with racial prejudice — a dangerous move in a free democracy.

The lack of a definition, or even to call for a definition, makes the Recommendations section problematic. The recommendations raise three broader risks.

First, they call for Islamophobia to be treated with “equivalent urgency to other discriminatory practices, and [given] the same rights, protections, and legal recourse”. Without a working definition, this could stretch to criminalizing legitimate political speech, including criticism of Hamas or Islamist ideology.

Second, the framework demands whole-of-government adoption. The envoy urges National Cabinet to formally place the recommendations on its agenda, and lists nearly every major department — Prime Minister & Cabinet, Home Affairs, Attorney-General’s, Education, Health, DFAT, Social Services, even the Australian Sports Commission.. That scope would effectively embed an undefined, politically elastic category into the machinery of government at all levels.

Third, it proposes an oversight task force chaired by the Secretary of Prime Minister & Cabinet, with senior officials from multiple agencies and the Special Envoy given a permanent seat.. That structure ensures ongoing influence by the envoy’s office without parliamentary scrutiny, and without clear metrics for accountability.

Taken together, the lack of definition, the breadth of the mandate, and the institutional entrenchment make the Recommendations section less a policy framework than a mechanism for enforcing a politicized agenda under official cover.

The exact (false) criticism leveled at the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism of conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism is being allowed and even encouraged by the authors of this report that highlight political speech as Islamophobic or adjacent to bigotry.

This is not an NGO pamphlet. It is authored by a government envoy, published by the Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, and sits on an official .gov.au domain. It calls for multiple departments and Parliament itself to adopt its recommendations. Yet its methods — celebrity testimonial, selective statistics, omission of counter-evidence, politicized framings — are closer to propaganda than policy analysis.

A sober policy framework would define its terms, present trends honestly, weigh competing evidence, and avoid importing Middle East narratives into Australian cohesion debates. This report does the opposite. Its authority should not go unquestioned.

(h/t Jill)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)