Wednesday, December 10, 2025

  • Wednesday, December 10, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
The BDS Movement published a statement from the  Palestinian Sociological and Anthropological Association insisting that the  Israeli Sociological Society remain suspended by the International Sociological Association.

The statement says idiotic things like "We study and document a society that survived the attempted genocide of 1948." (According to Benny Morris, there were more Jews killed in the war than Palestinian Arabs.) 

But I wanted to find out more about this Palestinian Sociological and Anthropological Association. How many members does it have? What are its bylaws? How much does membership cost? Who is its president?

They do not have a working webpage. 

They have an X account - 5 posts between 2018 and 2020, none since, only 2 followers.

They have a Facebook page - a few dozen posts but nothing at all since 2020.

No posts at all on their LinkedIn. 2 posts on their Instagram, the last one also in 2020.

The PSAA has been dormant by any definition. And it may have never existed in any real sense, although an archive of its 2018 webpage shows a couple of dozen members worldwide. 

Which means that this academic association, like many Palestinian NGOs, is effectively the equivalent of the person in the basement who manages to portray himself as important. BDS is trumpeting this non-entity as if it means something.

"Palestine" likes to jloin international groups and forums to make itself look like a real state - but in the end, all it does it use that position as a platform to denigrate Israel. It was never interested in water conservation or climate or women's rights or any of the many other groups it joins. But it always tries to hijack the conversation to try to marginalize Israel.

And that is what we are seeing with this PSAA - a non-existent group that exists foe the sole purpose of issuing anti-Israel statements. 



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2025

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Rise of Lifestyle Anti-Zionism
Zionism is at its core a simple belief in Jewish rights in Israel. Much of the time when pro-Palestinian activists in the West use the word Zionist, they mean “Jew.” But when they attack “Zionism” as a concept, they are making a political and ideological statement about coexistence. Anti-Zionists believe that rights are zero-sum, that Arabs in the historical Land of Israel cannot be free unless the Jews there are unfree.

Similarly, they believe that the safety and security of Palestinians must come at the expense of the safety and security of Jews. Outside of Israel, this includes Zionists—people who support or advocate for equal rights for Jews in their homeland. Anti-Zionism has become a totalizing worldview, an ideology of far greater expanse and application than Zionism itself ever was.

Anti-Zionism is an all-encompassing ideology now. It requires no association with the land of Zion. Anti-Zionism, like ISIS’s infamous “jihad in place” strategy, is about hating Jews and punishing their supporters wherever you happen to be. Think global, act local.

This is why we are seeing the founding of explicitly anti-Zionist political parties in Western Europe, of all places. And it’s why anti-Zionism has swallowed anti-colonialism as a discipline on campus. It’s why we’re even seeing the advent of anti-Zionist coffee shops. Opposition to equal rights for Jews is becoming a lifestyle for a growing number of Westerners. Now there is really no limit to what you can blame on the Jews.
Anti-Israel Celebrities Accept Major Saudi Payday To Attend Jeddah Film Festival
Some of Hollywood’s most ardent anti-Israel activists are flocking to Saudi Arabia this week for a government-sponsored film festival—and the kingdom is compensating them well for their time.

The Red Sea International Film Festival, which has been held annually in Jeddah since 2021 under the authority of the Saudi Ministry of Culture, has drawn a star-studded guest list including actors like Riz Ahmed, Juliette Binoche, Michael Caine, Kirsten Dunst, and Idris Elba—all of whom have accused Israel of committing atrocities in response to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack and none of whom have spoken about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

The festival has been known to pay large sums to celebrity guests. Filmmaker Spike Lee received between $2.5 million and $3 million for presiding over the festival’s jury last year, Puck reported, though it is unclear how much this year’s jury president, Oscar-winning director Sean Baker, has received. A source familiar with the festival confirmed Saudi Arabia has compensated actors and filmmakers for attending, and NBC reported that "many [attendees are] set to receive checks." The festival said in a statement to NBC that it will "on occasion engage with talent on a contractual basis for work we ask them to do at the festival which includes labs, in conversations, mentorship sessions with emerging regional talent." Though representatives for the festival did not disclose the names of actors and filmmakers it is paying, Ahmed is a member of the jury, Dunst participated in a conversation on Thursday, and Elba will do so on Wednesday.

The film festival—and appearances from actors who frequently condemn Israel—comes after a group of U.S. comedians faced scrutiny for performing at the Riyadh Comedy Festival in September in the face of Saudi Arabia’s policing of speech and widespread human rights abuses. Comedian Shane Gillis, who turned down a "significant" payout, said he declined the offer because most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"I’m not doing it," he said. "Then they doubled the bag. It was a significant bag. But I’d already said no. I took a principled stand. You don’t 9/11 your friends."

Dave Chappelle, meanwhile, used his performance at the festival to bash the United States—after signing a gag order shielding Saudi royals from criticism—because it was "easier to talk here than it is in America."
The Annual ‘Jesus Was a Palestinian’ Christmas Lie Is Back — and It’s Antisemitic
Each December, as holiday decorations go up and familiar music fills the air, another relatively new holiday ritual returns with equal predictability — social media fills with declarations that “Jesus was a Palestinian,” often joined by the equally fictional assertion that he was a “Palestinian refugee.”

These claims appear every Christmas season as reliably as ornaments and carols, as though the propagandists believe that repeating the lies might someday transform fiction into fact.

But this isn’t just a harmless anachronism — like depicting Moses checking Google Maps while wandering in the Sinai. It is part of a longstanding effort to erase Jews from their own history, an effort that has resurfaced in recent years precisely because it is politically useful.

The Truth Has Never Been in Dispute
Jesus lived and died as a Jew from Judea. He was born into a Jewish family, observed Jewish law, taught in synagogues, quoted Jewish scripture, and was addressed as “Rabbi” by his followers. Christian scripture traces his lineage directly to the kings of Judah.

No credible historian debates this. There is not a single academic school, anywhere, that regards Jesus as anything other than a Jew living in the Jewish homeland.

Denying the Jewishness of Jesus is not a new mistake. It is part of a familiar form of appropriation — including supersessionism (replacement theology) — that has targeted Jews for centuries.

The Colonialist Name Activists Pretend Was Ancient
The assertion that Jesus was “Palestinian” collapses instantly under the simplest timeline. During the first century CE, the land was known as Judea, Samaria, the Galilee, or the Land of Israel. At that time, there was no place or nation called “Palestine,” no “Palestinians,” and no political or cultural identity by that name. No person during Jesus’s lifetime ever referred to himself as a “Palestinian.” Claiming otherwise is like insisting that a Pilgrim stepping off the Mayflower in 1620 called himself an “American.”

Notably, the first political or national entity in history to use the word “Palestine” emerged nearly 2,000 years after Jesus, in 1920, when the British Empire established the “British Mandate for Palestine.”

And the Roman Empire only introduced the geographic term “Syria Palaestina” in 135 CE — a century after Jesus’ death — to punish Jews for the Bar Kokhba revolt and to try to break their connection to their own land.

Today, anti-Israel activists echo that Roman attempt at erasure and call it solidarity.


Dave Rich: We will fight tooth and nail for a better way of thinking
“What is anti-Zionism for, exactly?” The question was posed by Dr Dave Rich in his trenchant Robert Fine Memorial lecture to supporters of the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism.

And Rich, director of policy at the Community Security Trust, in a complex and detailed analysis of the thinking behind present-day anti-Zionism and antisemitism, had a simple and chilling answer.

“If we strip away the political sloganeering and academic ambiguities, it is a plot to kill a nation. That’s it. Anti-Zionism is a campaign, across decades and continents, to kill the nation of Israel, erase its name and its national identity from history, and replace it with something non-Jewish…Anti-Zionism is utterly unique, and fundamentally anti-democratic.”

In his searing lecture, Rich broke down the levers of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, using references ranging from the Star Wars Death Star to even more prosaic examples of everyday Jewish hatred. His audience laughed and shivered at much the same time.

He cited Loose Women’s Nadia Sawalha, who “took to social media to defend Louis Theroux, after his interview with Bobby Vylan, from what she called the ‘group of people’ who ‘live by their pound of flesh rule…So many of us are sick and tired of being bullied…the threat that has hung over our heads for years and years that we may be antisemitic — you’ve worn it out.” Rich commented: “There’s a brashness, a daring sense of freedom in finally saying what needs to be said about the Jews”.
Dave Rich: The Robert Fine Memorial Lecture: where are we now? (text)

From Ian:

Netanyahu: "We're Not Going to Create a State that Will Be Committed to Our Destruction"
At a joint press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "The purpose of a Palestinian state is to destroy the one and only Jewish state. They already had a state in Gaza, a defective state, and it was used to try to destroy the one and only Jewish state. We believe there's a path to advance a broader peace with the Arab states and a path also to establish a workable peace with our Palestinian neighbors. But we're not going to create a state that will be committed to our destruction at our doorstep."

"We are obviously going to take care of our security. The one thing that we will always insist upon is that the sovereign power of security from the Jordan River, which is right here, to the Mediterranean Sea, which is right there, will always be in Israel's hands. And that means that Israel will control its destiny, continue to protect its security."
Hamas not committed to peace plan or disarming, Israeli foreign minister says
Israel’s foreign minister warned that Hamas is not committed to the US-backed peace deal, which calls for the terror group to cede its weapons, warning that the Jewish state would enforce the condition no matter what.

Speaking with The Post on Monday, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar slammed Hamas’ latest insistence that it would neither give up its arms nor cede power to an international board unless its demands for Palestinian statehood were met.

“We will give a fair chance to see whether we can get Hamas to disarm and Gaza de-militarization in the context of the plan,” Sa’ar said about the ongoing negotiations. “If not, we will have to do it ourselves.”

Sa’ar’s statement echoes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly warned that war in Gaza could be reignited if Hamas fails to comply with the terms of the cease-fire deal.

Hamas’ leadership has recently claimed that it would give up power to Palestinian technocrats, as laid out in President Trump’s peace deal — but the terror group has fully rejected the formation of a Board of Peace set to rule Gaza in the interim.

“So I believe that if you read the statement that was given publicly this weekend, it doesn’t demonstrate that [you are] really committed to the peace plan and what it requires from them in the next stage,” Sa’ar explained.

The foreign minister also expressed distrust in Hamas’s willingness to cede power as it has effectively regained control of the 43% of the Gaza Strip not occupied by the Israeli military.
Seth Frantzman: Gaza ceasefire's Catch-22: Hamas delays disarmament as it calls for IDF withdrawal
Hamas is trying to slow-play the Gaza ceasefire deal so that it can eke out as much wiggle room as possible and remain in charge of the Gaza Strip. “We accept the deployment of UN forces as a separation force, tasked with monitoring the borders and ensuring compliance with the ceasefire in Gaza,” Hamas official Khalil Al-Hayya said recently.

The goal of Hamas now is to perpetuate a Catch-22 in the Strip, whereby it says it will only disarm if the IDF withdraws, knowing full well that the IDF won’t withdraw until the terror group disarms. As such, Hamas creates a situation in which it always has an excuse to do nothing. It assumes time is on its side. Hamas knows that Israel doesn’t want to return to fighting.

There is one hostage that must be returned. There is no major pressure in Israel or any incentive to go back to war.

Hamas also knows that Israeli officials don’t want the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza. As such, Hamas knows that the power vacuum in the Strip will also lead to de facto Hamas control.

For almost two decades, Hamas has relied on the assumption that Israeli officials prefer to have Hamas in Gaza in place of the PA, in order to divide the Strip from the West Bank. It thus benefits from this situation. Disarmament is also an amorphous term. Hamas assumes it can quietly find a way out of this obligation.

What is the regional media saying? Arab News noted last week that “Hamas said Saturday it was ready to hand over its weapons in the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian authority governing the territory on the condition that the Israeli army’s occupation ends.”

As noted above, Hayya said, “Our weapons are linked to the existence of the occupation and the aggression… If the occupation ends, these weapons will be placed under the authority of the state.”

Hamas also said: “We accept the deployment of UN forces as a separation force, tasked with monitoring the borders and ensuring compliance with the ceasefire in Gaza.”

I've mentioned Hussein Aboubakr Mansour before - a brilliant thinker who shows more knowledge of theology and philosophy in a single article than I can ever hope to learn in my lifetime. 

I was most interested in his latest essay where he attempts to analyze antisemitism, which is of course a topic I have thought deeply about over the years. 

Mansour's Substack article  "Thou Art The Man," explores the theological roots of antisemitism by analyzing Jewish and Christian scriptural approaches to Jewish self-criticism.  He correctly realizes that the sheer amount of criticism of Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures is unparalleled in any other culture, and correctly notes how other Abrahamic religions use those very criticisms as the launching pads for their own criticism of Jews. Yet, Mansour shows, the Hebrew Scripture self-criticism is not coming from the outside but from within, in his language it is not horizontal from outsiders but vertical from God. He then quotes the story of the prophet Nathan rebuking King David for his sin by giving him a parable, and David's realization that he is the guilty party when Nathan tells him "Thou art the Man" whom you just said should be put to death. This caused David to accept the criticism and admit his sin. 

Mansour says that the New Testament, written by Jews, continues in this prophetic tradition and criticizes Jews from within, the vertical criticism. He claims that this was the original context of the New Testament's stories criticizing the Jews and their leaders at the time. Mansour references Martin Luther to argue that Christianity ultimately declared the “Thou art the man” moment impossible for mortal man without grace - it is a standard too high for fallen humanity. At this point, the inward-turning blade of prophetic critique is turned outward. The Jew, who had once stood as the moral subject of the Bible, becomes its object, and eventually, its scapegoat.

Thus, for Mansour, the descent into antisemitism is not a Christian betrayal of Jewish tradition, but a failure to sustain its deepest moral requirement: the willingness to judge oneself by one’s own sacred texts.

Here is where I disagree, and the disagreement has far reaching implications. 

I do not see the New Testament criticism of Jews and Judaism to be an internal self-criticism. There were many Jewish sects at the time and they all disagreed with each other about fundamental principles. This was not inward facing criticism but criticism of the Other, no matter that everyone was Jewish. As far as I know, nothing in the New Testament positions the sinning Jews as "us." There is always an intermediary, an outsider as a foil or critic. And this is key.

The entire point of the withering self-criticism in the Hebrew Scriptures is to elicit repentance, teshuva. David's realization that he was "the man" was a paradigm of teshuva - the shattering realization of one's own shortcomings and the promise to change oneself into a better person. This teshuva ontology is the key to understanding the entire Prophets. Even the idol worshippers of Tarshish can engage in teshuva, much to the consternation of Jonah who fears the Jews will look bad by comparison. 

This is the major split between the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures. In Christianity, teshuva is too hard - or impossible - to achieve. One needs help from God, grace, to get closer to Him. Man is too weak. This idea is anathema to Judaism, which admits it is difficult but achievable for all; it is the work of a lifetime. 

Christianity's antisemitism doesn't come from Biblical criticism of Jews. It comes from the realization that Jews continued to exist and perform what was supposed to be impossible according to Christian philosophy. And, as my thesis throughout my journey researching antisemitism says, antisemitism is the eliminationist impulse that comes when philosophies - religious or secular - cannot accommodate the existence of Jews. 

Luther said Jewish style repentance is impossible. Yet Jews exist and refuse to convert to a system that is supposed to replace teshuva with grace. Therefore, their very existence is a refutation of his very philosophy - and as a result, they must be eliminated as a religious group. Luther cannot admit he is wrong - that would be, to him, the literally impossible teshuva. 

Mansour identifies that the Christian tradition saw “Thou art the man” as unsustainable. But he doesn’t ask why. The answer is that Christianity rejected the concept that human beings could take full moral responsibility. They didn’t want that responsibility.

The rejection of teshuva is not just theological. It’s psychological. It’s existential. Grace was not just a gift -  it was a release from obligation. Everyone understands that real teshuva, real repentance, is hard. Admitting it is possible makes it obviously preferable, which collapses the philosophy that replaces it. 

This rupture is compounded by another move: Christianity’s universalization of the covenant. What was once a sacred path for a small, specific people becomes a message for the entire world. And that universalization requires the Jews to step aside.

But Judaism never claimed to be for everyone. The Torah’s demands are absurdly high, and intentionally so. They were meant for a particular people, bound in covenantal responsibility. Christianity flattens this into a one-size-fits-all framework, and then offers grace as the mechanism by which the burden is lifted.

But in doing so, it severs the relationship between effort and meaning. It transforms responsibility into guilt, and guilt into helplessness.

And the Jews? They remain, because they refuse to outsource moral responsibility.

And this is not limited to Christianity. Every system that promises moral closure, whether religious, secular, Marxist, or nationalist, will eventually find the Jew unbearable. Because Jewish thinking is not a moral conclusion. Jewish thinking is a moral process that does not let people off the hook.

Mansour’s insight  -  that antisemitism emerges from the breakdown of inward critique  - is powerful, but it is incomplete. Teshuva is the missing piece, the glue that holds the Jewish texts together, the layer of responsibility that so many want to run away from. Without teshuva, prophetic critique is nonsensical, or an excuse for projection against Jews.  

Modern antisemitism isn't a secularization of Christianity's misreading of the New Testament - it is a secularization of Christianity's rejection of Jews because they simply do not fit their philosophy. 

UPDATE: Mansour gave a thoughtful response to me on Substack. 





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Tuesday, December 09, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon

Something troubling is unfolding inside the conservative movement. For the first time in decades, a loud faction of younger “America First” activists has turned not just skeptical of Israel, but openly hostile toward it, complete with parallel antisemitic messaging.

And what stands out most is how familiar their language sounds. It is not the language of traditional conservatism or even of principled nationalism. It is the rhetoric of the academic Left, the campus radicals, the DEI bureaucrats, and the post-colonial theorists who spent years constructing a vocabulary of oppression designed to delegitimize the West.

That vocabulary has now been adopted wholesale by the anti-Israel Right. They declare, as fact, that Israel is committing “genocide” and “apartheid,” that Palestinians are “victims” in a zero-sum morality play, and that the Jewish state is inherently illegitimate. None of these claims are true – and none of them are conservative ideas. They are all imported lies from the progressive movement.

None of this happened organically. It did not emerge from a sober rethinking of American strategic interests or from serious foreign-policy debate. This shift was engineered, amplified, and fed into their social-media feeds by the very forces they believe they are resisting.

The truth is uncomfortable but undeniable: today’s young conservatives are being played.

They are repeating the same progressive narratives they claim to despise, while believing themselves to be bravely rebelling against the establishment. They are being manipulated by foreign influence campaigns, shaped by malign online ecosystems, and nudged along by grifters who understand that antisemitism is the quickest path to viral engagement. And they are doing it without realizing that the ideas they treat as edgy and “based” were born in the faculty lounge and refined in the activist Left long before they ever reached a conservative timeline.

The key concepts driving this new pseudo-conservatism were hatched by the socialists they think they are fighting. These ideas were designed to attack the foundations of Western civilization. They are the language of Marxist revolutionaries, not patriotic Americans. Advocating the violent overthrow of the United States – which the quickly mainstreaming far-Right increasingly suggests – is Che Guevara, not George Washington.

The Network Contagion Research Institute recently published a report showing that Nick Fuentes’ “popularity” was not organic at all, but an algorithm-driven foreign operation. The wave of engagement for his posts – tens of thousands of “supporters” amplifying his content within minutes – came not from fans but from bot farms in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. This is what made him appear influential. The media, always hungry for a sensational character, treated him as a major thinker in the movement and thus helped sustain the illusion.

Countries that seek to undermine the United States know exactly where to target their influence campaigns. Whether the fingerprints belong to China, Iran, or Russia is secondary – the point is that this is foreign manipulation masquerading as “America First.” These actors are using modern tools to convince young conservatives to turn against America’s closest democratic ally, to question the value of alliances themselves, and to reintroduce antisemitism into the bloodstream of the Right.

And the supposedly tech-savvy young conservatives are being played by the same forces that progressives have been aligned with for decades.

Foreign adversaries understand what some young Americans do not: nothing fragments a superpower more effectively than turning its factions against both each other and their allies. This is not America First – it is Divide America.

The new Right is repeating progressive talking points with only a slight tilt. “We shouldn’t spend our money on foreign causes, but instead on (insert trendy program here.)” It is an overly simplistic framing that appeals to people who have no idea how geopolitics works or how America engages with the world to strengthen its own interests. America First does not mean America Alone. It means America works with its like-minded allies to keep the world from sliding into the kind of chaos that will eventually engulf America as well. Israel is on the front line of that struggle – not a drain on American resources.

What young conservatives almost never hear is that supporting Israel is not a betrayal of America First principles – it is the fulfillment of them. Israel strengthens America’s global position by sharing intelligence that protects U.S. soldiers, by innovating technologies that safeguard American lives, by providing battlefield data that improves American defense systems, by stopping cyberattacks that would otherwise hit U.S. infrastructure, and by stabilizing a region that would eventually require a massive American military footprint. Israel is not a burden. It is a strategic asset. Funding Israel is not “throwing money away,” but one of the highest-yield security investments the United States has ever made.

And let us be clear: American soldiers are not dying for Israel. Israeli soldiers are dying for the same ideals Americans have fought for – liberty, democracy, human dignity, and resistance to tyranny. They are fighting the same Islamist threat that struck the United States on 9/11.

Abandoning Israel would not put America first. It would hand victories to Iran, Russia, and China.

The tragedy is that none of this is being explained to the young Right. The institutions that once articulated the conservative case for Israel have grown weak, been captured, or stopped speaking to younger audiences altogether. Into that silence step opportunists like Fuentes, who understand the algorithms far better than they understand geopolitics. Antisemitism spreads quickly, rewards engagement, and offers the illusion of bravery and transgression. It fills the vacuum left by the collapse of conservative intellectual confidence.

For generations, American conservatism stood for moral clarity, for alliances with democratic partners, for resistance to tyranny, for reverence for Scripture, and for the defense of the West. There is nothing conservative about cheering terrorists or adopting the frameworks of the progressive Left. There is nothing nationalist about amplifying propaganda placed into American social media by foreign adversaries. There is nothing patriotic about helping hostile regimes undermine America’s alliances and erode its civilizational identity.

If someone does not say this plainly, the damage will last a generation.

The young Right believes it is fighting the system – but it is being manipulated by a much more sophisticated system that sees them as puppets. They believe they are rejecting progressive lies, but they are mindlessly repeating them. They believe they are saving America, but they are undermining the alliances and values that make America strong. And whether they know it or not, they are allowing a new wave of antisemitism to masquerade as patriotism.

This is the moment for clarity, courage, and truth. The future of the conservative movement – and America’s strategic stability – depends on whether this generation learns the difference between real morality and the socialist version they are subconsciously adopting.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Tuesday, December 09, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Dwight Lyman Moody was by far the most popular evangelical preacher of the 19th century, traveling the nation and regularly speaking to tens of thousands of people. He is  considered the Billy Graham of his day.

He founded the Moody Bible Institute in 1889 in Chicago, which is one of the most influential evangelical training institutions in America. It is known to fight antisemitism, and Moody himself was said to have pro-Jewish viewpoints.

But I'm wondering if there is a little revisionist history here.

150 years ago, Moody gave a talk in Philadelphia. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer's description of his evening service to thousands on December 29, 1875:
EVENING SERVICE.
The tabernacle last night was about half filled, the stormy weather having a very perceptible influence upon the congregation. The audience was again largely composed of ladies, who seem to brave the miserable atmosphere much better than the men to attend the ministrations of the evangelists. Mr. Sankey did not sing a single solo before Mr. Moody began on his text, which was something unusual, and after the congregation had sung the 107th hymn the revivalist took a text from the 5th verse of the 53d chapter of Isaiah, or about the death of the Son of God.
He said he wanted to tell of the sufferings of Christ, His physical sufferings, and then speak of the scenes on the battle-fields during the rebellion. The preacher then began to depict the scenes of suffering through which the Saviour passed while upon the earth. The word-painting of Christ before Pilate was so vivid and eloquent as to draw tears from the eyes of many persons in the congregation. He severely condemned the Jews for their crucifixion of Christ, and said that not long ago a thousand Jews met in Paris, and one of the orators exclaimed, "We have the honor of killing the Christian's God."
This infamous language was wildly applauded by the assembled Jews. "It was hellish," cried Mr. Moody, "that in the afternoon of the nineteenth century such a scene should have occurred. But what are the Jews to-day," he said, "a people without a kingdom, without a leader, without a home, wanderers up and down the earth."
The sermon was one of remarkable power, and its effect was seen in the increased attendance in the inquiry rooms. After the congregation had sung the 91st hymn, "There is a fountain filled with blood," the benediction and dismissal followed.
This incident caused a stir, with Jews writing to newspapers to complain about the obvious lie. Here is an example in the New York Tribune the very next day:


Another letter to the New York Sun also criticized Moody and was republished in other newspapers:


I don't see immediately any other stories of Moody disparaging Jews in his many revivals, but it is difficult to believe that he was philosemitic while saying a statement like this. Perhaps his namesake institute has managed to whitewash his reputation, or maybe no one really remembered this incident. 







Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Monday, December 08, 2025

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Unapologetic American Jewry Is the Future
So what’s the dog that didn’t bark? That would be the legion of personalities connected to the UJA who ignored the haters and celebrated the gala and refused to consider a groveling apology in the days after the event. No apology was necessary or even appropriate, of course. But it is crucial that the organized Jewish community recognizes this.

Meanwhile Isaac Herzog, Israel’s president and a scion of the Labor left, was in New York last night and delivered an equally unapologetic speech to Yeshiva University.

In New York City, Herzog said, “We see the rise of a new mayor-elect who makes no effort to conceal his contempt for the Jewish democratic state of Israel, the only nation state of the Jewish people.”

Notice the word “Jewish” twice in that one sentence. The attempts by anti-Zionist groups to shame Jews into severing their history and heritage from their modern identity must fail.

Herzog slammed Mamdani’s justification for an anti-Semitic mob that descended on a Manhattan synagogue that was hosting an event about making aliyah. The incoming mayor had suggested the shul was facilitating the violation of international law by talking to prospective emigrants to a sovereign state. Herzog pulled no punches:

“Delegitimizing the Jewish people’s right to their ancient homeland and their age-old dream of Jerusalem legitimizes violence and undermines freedom of religion. This is both anti-Jewish and anti-American.”

Well said. Mamdani, let’s remember, is still vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which would be a truly lawless act. Herzog and Netanyahu were once political rivals, but that could not possibly matter less at the moment. Herzog’s message to American Jewry was to be steadfast, unapologetic, and to be able to recognize those who seek its harm. That message is, thankfully, catching on.
Who You Gonna Call?
Amit Segal is having a moment. A longtime TV reporter for Israel’s Channel 12 and print journalist for Yediot Ahronot, the country’s most widely circulated newspaper, Segal burst into the English-speaking spotlight courtesy of multiple post–October 7 appearances on Dan Senor’s Call Me Back podcast, numerous op-eds in the Free Press, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere, and a popular Substack aimed at a foreign audience. He presents a cogent, witty, and likeable center-right perspective, often in friendly contrast to center-left sparring partners like Yediot’s Nadav Eyal, and he comes across as a happy warrior, a smiling avatar of mainstream, security-minded Israelis.

His latest book follows this blueprint, cheerfully but critically examining the history of leadership (and, at times, lack thereof) in the Israeli prime ministerial class. A Call at 4 AM is about some of the consequential choices of Israel’s premiers during the country’s eight-decade-long existence. “My aim,” Segal writes, “is to describe the political decisions that they made,” like the ones that helped create Israel’s byzantine electoral system under the guidance of its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. In seating the 120 members of their Knesset, Israelis elect by party, not geography, a method used by Slovakia and the Netherlands and no other land on earth. And so, in Israel, Segal contends, “the movement is more important than the man; the party more important than the individual.”

Segal calculates that Israel, in its first 72 years, wasted more than 11 years on elections and coalition negotiations. The opportunity costs are no less steep. Had the 1969 elections been held on a regional basis, Ben-Gurion’s party would have won an astounding 103 seats. In 2020, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party would have secured 92 mandates. Equally striking is “the massive gulf between public opinion on matters of religion and state,” the result of the perpetual horse-trading created by Ben-Gurion.

Still, security questions dominate Israeli politics and have for half a century. The question that means the most to voters is this: “When the red telephone rings at 4:00 a.m., who should answer?” That notion, which provided Segal with his title, arguably originated with an actual 4:00 a.m. call on October 6, 1973, when Prime Minister Golda Meir belatedly came to realize a war was brewing. Her failure to act resulted in military and political disaster.

The prime beneficiary of Golda’s disaster was Menachem Begin, the long-suffering leader of Israel’s national camp, who overcame decades of electoral failure and finally secured the premiership in 1977. He cobbled together disparate center-right parties and appealed to the neglected Sephardi community, skillfully navigating what Segal calls the “multiple identities” possessed by all Israelis. Begin recognized that “internal contradictions do not always impede the creation of victorious political alliances; sometimes they are even a hallmark of them.”
David Collier: The Vermont Hate Crime Fantasy Sweeping the Nation
Who in the world wishes for a hate crime in their community? Apparently, Vermont elected officials do.

With no hate crime charge, no law enforcement or judicial finding of deliberate targeting, and no evidence establishing motive, Vermont U.S Senators Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, and Representative Becca Balint used the two-year anniversary of the tragic shooting of three Palestinian students to tell Vermonters a divisive fiction – a story crafted to satisfy sectarian political appetites rather than to reflect the truth.

It is not a new pattern. In another era, during the Dreyfus Affair, French elites clung to a narrative too emotionally gratifying to question. The parallel is not the substance of the case but the psychology: when a story feels right, it becomes a story that must be true, no matter what the evidence says. The Shootings and the Race to Interpretation

On November 25, 2023, three college students were shot on a residential street in Burlington, VT – the largest city in America’s second-smallest state. The three, Hisham Awartani (Brown University), Kinnan Abdalhamid (Haverford College) and Tahseen Ali Ahmad (Trinity College) were visiting during their Thanksgiving breaks.

Two are U.S citizens and one a legal resident. All three are of Palestinian heritage. Two of the victims were wearing keffiyeh (the headdress associated with Arab Palestinian nationalism since it was adopted during the Arab Revolt in the 1930s). All three were wounded; Awartani was the worst-injured – according to his family, a bullet lodged in his spine left him paralyzed from the chest down.

Local CBS affiliate WCAX-TV was the first to report that the victims of this tragic shooting were Palestinian – a detail initially unsupported and unattributed, but later confirmed by police.

The anti-Israel movement weaponised the tragedy instantly. Neighbours targeted local Jews online, joking that their whereabouts at the time of the shooting should be investigated.
From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Israel must refuse phase two of Trump’s Gaza plan until Hamas is fully disarmed
The problems, of course, are that Hamas is refusing to disarm, the PA has indeed not reformed from its path (particularly its pay-for-slay policy of financing the families of terrorists), and, as pointed out last week, Hamas is still holding onto the body of slain policeman Ran Gvili.

Trump is banking on all of the parties being on board, including the immediate surrounding countries, the states making up the ISF, and, of course, Israel.

The pressure on Israel is already beginning to mount. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani agreed that there really is no ceasefire in Gaza, and put the onus on Israel.

“A ceasefire cannot be completed unless there is a full withdrawal of the Israeli forces; [until] there is stability back in Gaza, people can go in and out, which is not the case today,” he said on Saturday at the Doha Forum.

Saudi minister Manal Radwan said at the same forum that it’s not the PA but Israel that needs reform.

“We have an Israeli government that opposes the two-state solution. We have an Israeli government that has officials continuously inciting against Palestinians, against Arabs, and against Muslims,” said Radwan. “We don’t see that we have a partner for peace, not even a partner for a sustainable ceasefire. So that is the actual and important reform that we are hoping to see.”

The question now is whether Trump will stick to the 20-point plan and insist on the disarmament of Hamas, or if he will join the ISF partners, like Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who told the forum that disarming Hamas only needs to take place once there is a governance body set up in Gaza.

That’s why Israel must be more vigilant than ever and demand that Hamas be disarmed at the outset of Phase 2 of the ceasefire. The pressure from the Arab partners on the deal is one thing, but with Trump intent on seeing his deal work, he’s likely to join in the pressure on Israel to compromise.

That’s something we cannot do. Others may see the rebuilding of Gaza and the “peace” trophy in the Middle East as the most urgent items on the agenda. For Israel, however, the safeguarding of its borders and removing the Hamas threat, once and for all, is the overarching goal.

Regardless of the pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must defy his closest ally in Washington and insist that the second phase commences with Hamas disarming and no longer posing a threat to Israel.
Gaza Fatality Analysis: The Truth Behind the 70,000 Number
Conclusion
This analysis points to a grounded estimate of 61,125 war-related deaths due to IDF action: approximately 25,000 combatants and 36,125 civilians (plus the 4,000 deaths caused by Hamas and internal actors). Civilian casualties are tragic, and the large number of minors killed cannot be dismissed; however, they overwhelmingly result from Hamas’s human-shield strategy, in which military assets are deliberately embedded where civilians are present, and in which civilian deaths are viewed by Hamas leadership as beneficial to its aims.

A civilian-to-combatant ratio of 1.45 to 1 is remarkably low by the standards of modern urban warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it demonstrates that the IDF conducted a highly targeted campaign against Hamas under extraordinarily difficult conditions. Claims that large numbers of civilian deaths remain unreported do not withstand scrutiny: families had over two years to report fatalities, even without a body, and numerous “rubble” deaths are already known to have been added through the MoH’s notification process.

The evidence shows that Hamas’s headline fatality toll is a distortion. The true picture is of a war in which Israel inflicted massive losses on Hamas’ fighters while carrying out one of the most targeted urban campaigns in modern military history.
More People Died in 1 Month in One City in Sudan Than in Entire Gaza War
So what’s different in the coverage?
1. The media reports on it, but doesn’t make it the lead, doesn’t push the story constantly and treats it as something happening ‘over there’ the way it does most foreign wars. This is very different than the coverage of Israel where even the most minor confrontation, like clashes between Jewish farmers and Muslim/leftist activists in which no one is hurt, somehow become major stories.
2. The reporting doesn’t directly clarify the players in a way that’s easily understandable. That’s opposed to the media’s constant denunciations of Israel. Who is the RSF? Most people don’t know or care. Tell them that the RSF is really an Arab Islamic militia known as the ‘Janjaweed’ and that it’s backed by Muslim countries and they might have more clarity. Which is why the media tends to bury that part. Especially the Muslim racism.
3. Leftist activist groups haven’t taken up the cause, so there are no protests, little in the way of social media posts, little conversation. Whatever conversation there isn’t amplified by the media in the same vicious cycle that saw Gaza take over everything in 2024.

Neither Muslims nor the Left are especially interested in discussing the topic. Some genuine human rights activists care, but they’re not going to get any traction.

And that’s why real Islamic genocides get ignored, whether in Sudan or Nigeria, while any self-defense against Islam, such as by Israel, America or India, are falsely labeled as genocide by the actual Muslim genociders.

We know why this happens. And we can see it happening again. It’s not about the genocide, it’s about the propaganda.
  • Monday, December 08, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon

As I continue refining the Derechology framework, I keep uncovering deeper layers of the Jewish mindset that shaped it. One of them is that Jewish thinking has always been keenly aware that there are others who will want to actively attack it, and it built in safeguards to minimize the threats - not just of physical but also of spiritual and intellectual extinction.

Most of the moral philosophies we study today, whether in university ethics courses or in public debate, were built in times of relative comfort. Greek philosophy took shape in the stability of Athenian academies. Christian theology was forged and systematized under imperial protection. Enlightenment ethics emerged from coffee houses and salons among elites who only had contact with other elites.  

They all had their insights on philosophy, but they all shared one assumption: that society was more or less stable, that truth could be discussed in good faith, and that moral reasoning happened between equals.

Judaism never had this luxury.

Jewish moral thought was not forged in peace. It was given to a people who suffered under slavery, refined in exile, preserved under threat, and tested in nearly every form of institutional, rhetorical, and physical hostility imaginable. From Egypt to Babylon, from Rome to Inquisition, from Crusades to Cossacks to concentration camps, Jewish communities were almost never the dominant voice in their societies, and they knew that their values could be misunderstood, misrepresented, or used against them. Jewish ethics and philosophy is not simply about being good. It’s about surviving in a world that often punishes goodness, distorts truth, and rewards those who shout the loudest.

In that sense, Judaism is not merely a moral tradition. It is a moral survival system. That’s what makes it so urgently relevant right now.

Today, we are all minorities. There is no nation, religion or ethnic group that predominate the world. We now all face what Jews always faced: misrepresentation, precarity, and the moral burden of visibility. No one has the luxury any more of assuming that their ideas and ideals are universal, and no values can be taken for granted anymore as if they are universally accepted. We have been moving - slowly, and now suddenly - into the very conditions Judaism was built to endure. 

Trust is breaking down. Institutions are faltering. Truth itself is under attack, not by one dictator or ideology, but by the very structure of our media and digital ecosystems.  Media platforms incentivize distortion. Deceptive persuasion and propaganda techniques are the norm, not the exception. And the people tasked with navigating this new information ecosystem, whether journalists, teachers, politicians, parents, are increasingly defenseless.

Judaism is not.

One of the most profound instincts baked into Jewish ethics as a direct result of always being in the minority is the awareness that your actions, especially in public, carry weight far beyond yourself. This is the concept of Chilul Hashem - the desecration of God’s name - which is centered on public moral responsibility. When you are visibly associated with a people or a moral system, your actions reflect on your entire people and that entire system. 

For Jews in exile, this was a survival issue. If a merchant cheated, it wasn’t just a scandal - it could invite a pogrom. If a rabbi spoke recklessly, it could damage the credibility of Torah itself. One person’s pride could cost many lives. So Jewish tradition insisted: behave in a way that sanctifies, not desecrates. This is not an exercise in public relations but of survival itself.  In a world that increasingly misinterprets and weaponizes every visible act, this is not just a Jewish value. It’s a necessary ethic for our time.

The legal system was designed with sabotage in mind. The category of eidim zomemim - false collaborating witnesses - didn’t just punish liars. It punished coordinated attempts to weaponize testimony itself, conspiracies to attack the innocent. The Torah requires an unusually high standard of proof for convicting such conspirators, demanding that their lie be exposed by placing them in a location where they could not have witnessed the event. This careful design shows that Jewish law didn’t assume good faith by default. It assumed that truth could be targeted, manipulated, and used as a tool of oppression, and it responded by building defensive layers that could detect, expose, and deter systemic falsehood.

Even timekeeping had to defend itself. The Jewish calendar depends on accurate witnesses announcing the appearance of the new moon, and in ancient times, a decentralized system of signal fires on mountaintops transmitted the news rapidly across the land. But when sectarian groups began lighting false fires to confuse the public, the rabbis shut the system down. They replaced it with a slower, verifiable system using messengers and testimony. In doing so, they sacrificed speed for integrity. The episode reveals a core instinct of Jewish thinking: when truth is under attack, the system must adapt to avoid collapse. It’s better to be slow and trustworthy than fast and compromised.

Closely linked to this is the Jewish suspicion, almost an allergy, toward charismatic leadership. In hostile environments, false messiahs are dangerous. Judaism has had its share: populists who rise up, who promise certainty, triumph, clarity, glory. Every one of them made things worse. So over centuries, the tradition developed an anti-charisma bias. Real leaders were not the ones who sought honor, but those imbued with humility. And as the Talmud teaches, “Whoever runs from honor, honor pursues them.”

Jewish leadership is designed not to dazzle, but to serve. Moses, the greatest leader of them all, described himself as "slow of speech" and is described as a stutterer. David wept publicly and repented. The Jewish scriptures are filled with stories of leaders who fall short. The rabbinic leaders during exile earned their authority through restraint, responsibility, and a willingness to be correct themselves when wrong. 

In Jewish political thinking, leadership is never supposed to be about self-expression. It’s about shlichut, mission. Leaders are not picked because they want to be followed. They are chosen because a task needs doing, and they have the tools to do it. The moment it becomes about status or honor, it becomes dangerous. This is not only about the  importance of humility, but it is itself a defense mechanism. Ego corrodes clarity, and in high-stakes, adversarial environments, clarity is essential to know what must be done.

This defensive posture is part of a larger pattern in Jewish ethics. It distributes wisdom rather than centralizes it. The Talmud is not a chain of command but a network of dialogue - structured disagreement, recursive correction, and preserved pluralism. No single voice owns the truth. No single authority can crash the system. That decentralized architecture is what allowed Jewish moral thinking to survive the loss of prophets, the fall of the Temple, the fragmentation of communities across continents. When empires fell, the Jews kept learning. When rulers banned Jewish books, the oral tradition remained. This was resilience through redundancy and security through humility.

Judaism also built in a theory of moral repair. Teshuvah is not just forgiveness: it is the formal recognition that systems break, that people fail, that priorities drift. And that these facts are not exceptions: they’re expected. So the tradition doesn’t collapse when humans or institutions fall short. It rebuilds and adapts. Jewish thinking doesn’t seek moral perfection. It seeks derech—a consistent direction, a return path. And that makes it one of the only traditions whose moral identity is not in being flawless, but in being corrigible.

Humility in Judaism isn’t just an emotional attitude or a simple value among many. It’s epistemic scaffolding. Humility allows for mistakes, protects against demagogues, and creates room for slow wisdom. It prevents ethics from turning into ideology, and ideology from hardening into violence.

Of course, Judaism is not purely defensive. It rewards morality, clarity, and community, all of which actively preserve the system and allows flexibility and pluralism that can bend but not break under pressure. 

All of this matters because we are already in  a world that resembles the one Jews always lived in - a world where truth can be twisted, systems can turn, and mobs can form from a single careless word. Acting with integrity in public may cost you. No one can afford to assume their good intentions will be fairly interpreted. In this world, we don’t just need ethics. We need and entire ethical infrastructure - structures built to handle pressure, ambiguity, distortion, betrayal. 

Judaism built them. It had to.

Western moral philosophy assumed good faith. Jewish moral philosophy prepared for its absence.

And so a system that may have once seemed parochial, ancient, and irrelevant is now beginning to look like a prototype for us all. we all need to adopt the lessons from a system designed for survival under siege.  And what allowed Jews to survive may now be what helps civilization itself to endure.  We are all living in a world Judaism was built to endure. And the wisdom that allowed Jews to survive may now be what helps civilization endure.

In the end, Judaism wasn’t optimized for dominance. It was optimized for dignity under fire. And in an age of accelerating chaos, that may be the most precious form of moral wisdom we have.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Monday, December 08, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Here are some recent news stories about antisemitism that you may have missed, all from the Canadian site TheJ.ca:

Football Match Abandoned After Antisemitic Abuse Targeted Jewish Team In England
London — A Southern League football match between the London Lions and Hitchin Town FC was abandoned after Hitchin players allegedly hurled antisemitic slurs at the largely Jewish London Lions team. According to club representatives and multiple eyewitness accounts, the abuse continued even after the referee intervened, forcing the official to stop the match.

Witnesses say Hitchin players directed insults, including “big-nosed c***s” at their opponents. Match officials temporarily halted play, but after the abuse continued, the referee abandoned the game.

According to those present, the referee confronted players on the pitch after hearing repeated slurs. Even with warnings issued, the verbal abuse continued. At that point, the official followed Football Association protocols for racist and discriminatory incidents and brought the match to an end.

Mezuzahs Torn From Doors In Toronto Seniors’ Building, Prompting Outrage And Fear Among Jewish Residents:
Jewish seniors living in a Toronto Seniors Housing Corporation building at 6250 Bathurst Street discovered that all of the mezuzahs affixed to their apartment doors had been torn off, in what city officials and Jewish community organizations are calling a targeted act of antisemitism. Toronto police have launched an investigation, and community advocates say the incident reflects a worsening climate for Jewish residents across the city.

On Elpeleg, a prominent Jewish activist in Norway, has asserted that a majority of Norwegian Jews are now considering leaving the country, citing a sharp uptick in antisemitism and failures by political leaders and state media to curb the growing hostility. The claim, which will be aired in a televised debate on TV10, reflects deep concern within Norway’s small Jewish community over their safety and future in the country.
A “Christmas in Palestine” display at Fletcher’s Meadow High School in Brampton is prompting concern from parents and community members, who say the exhibit erases the Jewish connection to the land where Jesus was born and presents historically inaccurate claims about the region’s name during the first century.

The display, titled Christmas in Palestine, includes posters referencing “Palestine” at the time of Jesus, Arabic signage, cultural descriptions, and material framed as historical context. One section asks, “What was Palestine called when Jesus was born?” and claims that the term “Palestine” was already in use during the period of Bethlehem and Nazareth.

Historians, however, state clearly that this is incorrect.

Things keep getting worse. And there is nothing at all on the horizon that Jews can look forward to that might turn the tide. 




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Sunday, December 07, 2025

  • Sunday, December 07, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon


Marjorie Taylor Greene is a poster child for how today's politicians no longer care about antisemitism, not even for lip service.

When she was considered a card-carrying MAGA member she gave her theory on Rothschild space beams causing California wildfires to clear way for a high speed rail project. 

To their credit, the House GOP  at the time voted to remove her from committees for her crazy conspiracy theories. Many, however, defended her. And now antisemitism is no longer considered a negative for politicians on the Right.

But the interesting thing is that now that she has emerged as a critic of Donald Trump, the Left is suddenly enamored of her. She was praised on The View, by Jimmy Kimmel, The Guardian and even some Democratic members of Congress.


But has she stopped her antisemitism? No, she's doubling down. In a  60 Minutes interview Sunday night, she told Lesley Stahl that voting against antisemitism was “an exercise” that “they force on Congress.”

Hmmm, who could "they" be?

The interview then went even more off the rails. When Stahl asked her whether she didn;'t feel that there was value in standing up in the "face of a growing problem, ” Greene replied, "“We don’t have to get on our knees and say it over and over again—” 

“Get on our knees?” Stahl asked, surprised.

“Yes, we do not have to get on our knees,” Greene reiterated.

Then when Stahl said most members of Congress disagree with her, she associated the antisemitism bill with AIPAC: “Well, most members of Congress take donations from AIPAC, and I don’t,” Greene said.

So MJT proves yet again that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin. 

But now that she is being celebrated for calling Gaza a "genocide," will any Democrats condemn her for her naked antisemitism on national TV?

We'll see. But if her previous antisemitic statements didn't give the progressives pause in embracing her positions on Israel, there is no reason to think that they will consider this interview problematic at all.

Today, partisanship wins over principle just about every time. An antisemitic politician can count on support from their own party. 

And in such an environment, Jews are the ones who get victimized first. 



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 


From Ian:

David Collier: The Seven Days that Shatter the ‘Nakba’ Myth
In anti-Israel circles, the dominant narrative of the Palestinian ‘Nakba’ rests on a single, almost unchallenged assumption: That a passive and defenceless Arab population was suddenly overwhelmed by violent Jewish militias determined to expel them and seize their land. From this foundational myth flow all the modern accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide, repeated by governments, activists, and even the UN. This is the central pillar upon which the entire pro-Palestinian movement is built

Take this recent post from the UN Palestine account which ties all the different strands together:

But that story collapses the moment you look at what actually happened. Not decades later, not in later stages of the war, but in the very first seven days after the UN partition vote.

Using mostly Arab newspapers of the time, the record is unmistakable: within hours of the UN decision, Arab political factions, militias, and regional actors launched a campaign of violence and mobilisation aimed at preventing the creation of a Jewish state. The civil war that followed – and the refugee crisis it produced – emerged from this aggressive, openly-declared Arab rejectionism, not from a premeditated Jewish plan.

What follows is a look through that history, reconstructed day by day from contemporary Arab and Jewish press.

Day one – November 30 1947
Arab media reacts to partition with mobilisation and incitement.

The morning after the UN vote, neither Ad-Difa nor Al-Wahda reported the partition as a political event. Instead, both papers erupted with outrage and calls for Arab mobilisation across the region. The pages were saturated with threats, anti-Jewish invective, and demands for an ‘Islamic Front’ to rise.

Ad-Difa’s lead built explicitly toward violent resistance. Al-Wahda’s headline declared: “O Arabs, the West has chosen your enemies. Will you remain stunned, or will you prepare?”

There is no ambiguity here. Arab media was calling on the Arab people inside the Mandate area and across the region to mobilise.

Day two – 1 December 1947
Violence erupts across the country. The Palestine Post reported seven Jews murdered in multiple attacks on 30 November.

Arab newspapers themselves documented the killings. Look at Ad-Difa’s own front page on the same date. Ad-Difa was a staunchly Pan-Arab media outlet that was aligned with the Husayni, ‘Holy War’ factions in the mandate area. It eventually promoted open support for the Nazis. At the time, the paper was run by Ibrahim al-Shanti.

Its headline read: “23 Jews killed and wounded in 8 separate incidents in Haifa, Jaffa, Beit Ve-Gan, Sarona, and Jerusalem.”

The article described bus ambushes around Jerusalem, attacks in Lod, Tulkarm, Haifa and Jaffa, and other assaults on Jewish civilians.

The war had begun – and it had begun with Arab-initiated violence.
The scholars fueling the current wave of antisemitism
Former US President Bill Clinton understood this when then-Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat declared that Jerusalem had never been Jewish. Clinton threatened to walk out of the room at the Camp David Summit in July 2000 if Arafat continued uttering such false claims. He recognized the statement for what it was—the purest form of antisemitism.

What Clinton grasped instinctively, these intellectuals refuse to see: that the Jewish people and Israel are inseparable. To delegitimize Israel is to delegitimize Jews. That is why antisemites applaud efforts to weaken IHRA; it leaves them free to proclaim Israel a crime and Zionism a pathology.

Delrio’s initiative represents moral courage at a time when it is desperately needed. The Jewish scholars who oppose him, intentionally or not, provide cover for those who seek to dissolve the line between criticism and hatred, between debate and incitement.

These Jews do not understand that the Jewish people and Israel are the same. The stances expressed by King, Clinton and now Delrio are more Jewish than theirs.

History is watching. And today, as in the past, the refusal to name antisemitism is its most reliable accomplice.
Our Man in Amman
Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown that was invented by the British and then funded by the Americans. Constantly lies the head of state who claims to protect the Palestinians while cooperating with the Mossad. Abdullah II is the fourth king of Jordan, the state that Winston Churchill lopped off the Palestine Mandate in 1921 with, he said, "the stroke of the pen one Sunday afternoon in Cairo." The plan, as proposed by Lawrence of Arabia in 1918, was to install the three sons of Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, as the Hashemite emirs, Britain's proxies in the states it was carving out of Ottoman territory. Abdullah is the last Hashemite standing. He has a pronounced facial tic.

In 1951, the first Jordanian emir, Abdullah I, was shot to death at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque by a Palestinian terrorist. His son Talal lasted a year before being deposed on grounds of mental illness. But Talal's son Hussein saved his family. He saved Jordan too, notably by massacring Palestinians when they tried to overthrow him in 1970, then cutting them loose when the Palestinians in the West Bank rebelled against Israeli control in 1988. Abdullah II inherited the poisoned chalice after his father's death in 1999.

The Most American King, by the journalist Aaron Magid, is the first biography of Abdullah, who will probably still be king by the time your copy arrives. Deeply researched with plenty of interviews, it is both a groundbreaking primer on our man in Amman and a study in timeless imperial politics. Take away the helicopters and Swiss bank accounts, and the Hashemites' relationship to the United States is no different from that of the ancient Moabite and Edomite satraps to their Hittite, Assyrian, or Neo-Babylonian emperors.

The British invented Jordan, but the Americans took over after the Suez Crisis of 1956. Abdullah's mother was the daughter of a British military adviser; she may have met Hussein on the set of Lawrence of Arabia, where she was a typist and he was catching up on some family history. Abdullah was educated at an English boarding school, Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts for high school, and then Sandhurst for officer training, despite not being a British subject. He then read international relations at the University of Oxford despite, a contemporary tells Magid, having shown no academic aptitude at Deerfield beyond being the "incredibly ripped" captain of the wrestling team. Favorite food: cheeseburger. Language he had trouble learning: Arabic.

Abdullah returned to Jordan in 1983, for the first time in 15 years, short vacations aside, and joined an armored brigade. As Magid reports, he put away much "vodka and beer," wore cowboy boots when he listened to country music, and was never seen praying. He built up an extensive collection of Luger pistols, because you never know. In 1987, when he was studying at Georgetown, he impressed his Israeli tutor with a paper arguing that the Israelis had been right to pursue Palestinian terrorists across the Jordan River and into his father's territory in 1968. In 1993, Abdullah married Rania al-Yassin, a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian whose family had been expelled from Kuwait in 1991 by Saddam Hussein. They honeymooned in the United States, obviously.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive