Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, April 03, 2025

The UN’s War on Jewish Success

(This is a continuation of my "Unified Field Theory of Antisemitism" series.)

Jews have been accused of the worst crimes of each era: killing God, poisoning wells, controlling governments, staging world wars.

Today the accusations are just as ludicrous, but they are mounted faster than ever. Perhaps the most visible source of antisemitism today is the international community and non-governmental organizations.

Since the United Nations was created, the world has gone through phases of condemning highly publicized crimes - and sooner or later, Israel gets accused of the same crimes.

Colonialism changed from acceptable to criminal in the years after World War II. The Arab nations accused Israel of colonialism before Israel even existed. Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, the chairman of the Arab League, said to the Anglo American Commission in 1946, "The Zionist, the new Jew, wants to dominate and he pretends that he has got a particular civilizing mission with which he returns to a backward, degenerate race in order to put the elements of progress into an area which wants no progress. Well, that has been the pretension of every power that wanted to colonize and aimed at domination."

Racism became the new evil in the 1960s, with the civil rights era. By 1975, UN passed a resolution declaring Zionism a form of racism.

In the 1980s, states began sanctions against South Africa for its apartheid policies. The 2001 Durban conference, organized during the 1990s, accused Israel of apartheid

More recently, the number of accusations against Israel have turned into a tsunami: if white supremacism is bad, then Israel must be guilty of "Jewish supremacism." If genocide is the ultimate evil, then Israel must be guilty of that heinous crime.

It was not only UN resolutions that have been hijacked just to be used as ammunition against Israel. International law itself has been changed just for Israel and Israel alone. The Rome Statute changed language from the Geneva Conventions to apply specifically to Israeli settlements - and in doing so it elevated the status of Jews building homes on their ancestral homeland, the most anti-colonial act one can imagine, into a war crime.

The UN Commission on Human Rights became increasingly anti-Israel year after year. From the 1970s through 2002, fully one third of its country-specific resolutions were directed at Israel, while it ignored the worst violators of human rights. In 2002, during the height of the spree of terror attacks that was murdering hundreds of Israelis, it passed a resolution not to condemn Palestinian suicide bombers but to affirm the "legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation." The world's human rights body all but legitimized terror.

The UNCHR was disbanded in 2006, not because of its anti-Israel focus but because it consistently elected members of the worst human rights violators, including Sudan during its ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The two are related, though: when anti-Israel and pro-terror policies become normalized by international bodies, it never ends there.

The UNCHR's replacement, the United Nations Human Rights Council, is even worse. Beyond its massively disproportionate obsession with Israel in its resolutions, it also has a standing item on its agenda, item 7, dedicated to criticizing Israel. No other nation has such an item. Moreover, in 2021 the UNHRC established a permanent Commission of Inquiry (COI) against Israel that is the first and only such COI that has no time limit. Millions of dollars are spent every year by this commission alone.

The UN works closely with non governmental organizations. Human rights organizations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch share the UN's obsession with Israel, dedicating more and larger reports accusing Israel of more crimes than any other nation over time. Amnesty's report on mass murders, rapes and displacements of civilians in Darfur in 2016 was only slightly longer than their report condemning Airbnb for allowing listings of Jewish-owned homes in Judea and Samaria in 2019. Their priorities are immoral.

There is literally no aspect of human existence that is not weaponized against Israel. The Palestinians have signed international treaties that they admit they have no interest in upholding but their meetings are ideal places to attack Israel for its supposed violations of environmental rights, women's rights, children's rights, preserving the oceans. The world soccer federation FIFA is forced by their rules to debate Israel's membership endlessly at the behest of Israel's enemies.

Institutions like the UN and major NGOs promote a universalist vision of global norms that are meant to override and supersede traditional notions of national sovereignty. They say that they must to this to enforce minimal human rights standards, but the examples of major human rights violators that can force their own agendas on world bodies prove that politics trumps the honesty, fairness and equality they claim to be fighting for.

Their disproportionate focus on Israel reveal more than this, though. Once you look past their distortions and lies, it becomes clear that Israel is a shining success story of human rights and of liberal ideals. It is especially impressive given the constant war footing forced on the Jewish state. Israel's ability to maintain its security in the face of international laws that are applied to it alone; its ability to provide equal rights to its Arab minority, its heroic attempts to minimize civilian casualties among its enemies under the most difficult wartime circumstances any Western nation ever faced, shows that it isn't Israel's failings that cause such unbridled hate - but Israeli success.

The UN and NGOs have utterly failed to change the attitudes and activities of the worst human rights violators. The are not merely impotent in the face of the crimes against humanity - they tacitly accept them.

Meanwhile, a particularist Jewish state succeeds where even the most admired countries fail. This Jewish and Israeli success is a threat to their philosophy.

Nearly every nation in the Middle East declare themselves to be Arab and/or Muslim states without any concern from the UN and NGOs. They consider the Jewish state, however, to be a violation of their ideals. The reason isn't because of Israel's self-definition but because of Israel's success at building a society of equal rights for all its citizens - something that these self-declared moral arbiters cannot accept.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A Sunni member of the Lebanese parliament has said that he supports normalization with Israel under certain circumstances, causing his colleagues to scramble to dissociate themselves from him.

Baarini wrote on X:

Normalization cannot be resolved through outbidding and bravado. Yes to normalization if it protects us from aggression. Yes to normalization if it reclaims our land and ensures it is not occupied. Yes to normalization if it grants Lebanon the peace and prosperity we have lacked for years. Yes to normalization and no to obstinacy toward Arab paths, especially the one led by Saudi Arabia.

The statement appeared to be a response to Hezbollah's anti-normalization stance. Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad expressed on "Quds Day" last Friday the "commitment of the resistance to countering its policies and attempts to drag Lebanon towards normalization."

Baarini's statement caused a backlash from his fellow Sunni MPs.

“This is strictly a personal opinion that does not represent our bloc,” said Sajih Attieh, a member of the bloc. He emphasized that Baarini had not discussed his stance with his colleagues.

As a result, key Sunni figures washed their hands of their colleague’s comments. “Normalization should not be discussed until a just peace based on a two-state solution has been achieved,” Nabil Badr, a Sunni MP for Beirut, told L’Orient-Le Jour.

“I think Baarini worded it poorly. He should have said that he is in favor of the Beirut Arab initiative,” said another Sunni MP on condition of anonymity. “I think he expressed a personal position,” he added, stressing that the Sunni community is not in favor of this initiative at this stage, while being in favor of Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials continue to call for normalization with Lebanon.

"We want to normalize our relations with Lebanon," Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said after meeting in Paris with his French counterpart, Jean-Noël Barrot, at a press conference reported by the French daily Le Monde. He also announced the start of negotiations "on certain issues. "

"We have a team negotiating on ... border disputes," he added.

Saar also stated that his country wanted stability in Lebanon, but that it would not allow Hezbollah to "rearm."

Isn't it strange that the only country that consistently seeks peace since 1948 is the one that is constantly framed as the aggressor?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Muslim nations condemn Ben Gvir "storming Al Aqsa Mosque." Their incitement is the real violation of international law.

Turkey's Anadolu Agency reports:

Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir forced his way, along with illegal settlers, into the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex in occupied East Jerusalem on Wednesday, marking a new provocation amid the ongoing war on Gaza.

Arab News reported:

Saudi Arabia condemned the storming of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem on Wednesday by Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it strongly condemns “the storming of the Al-Aqsa Mosque by the Israeli national security minister under the protection of occupation police.”

Jordan's Foreign Ministry stated:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned, in the strongest terms, the storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by extremist Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir today, under the protection of the occupation police.
The Ministry's spokesperson, Ambassador Dr. Sufyan Al-Qudah, affirmed the Kingdom's absolute rejection and strong condemnation of the storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by an extremist Israeli minister, in a flagrant violation of international law and the obligations of Israel, the occupying power in occupied Jerusalem, and an attempt to impose temporal and spatial division. He stressed that Israel has no sovereignty over the occupied city of Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites.

Here's a photo of this "storming" the "mosque:"

This is strolling, not "storming." He entered no mosque.

There is nothing illegal about his visit. Israel's agreement with Jordan did not give the Jordanian Waqf control over the site. On the contrary, banning Jews from the Temple Mount and other areas of Jerusalem - the holiest site in Judaism, which Jordan did when it controlled the area - is the real violation of international law.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Jordan, says that

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Jordan, by strongly condemning the peaceful visit of any Jew to the most sacred spot in Judaism, is indeed inciting religious hatred, let alone discrimination.

I myself have had the privilege of "storming" the Temple Mount twice.

This is incitement. But it isn't the kind of incitement that anyone in the international community will ever say a word against.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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

Imagine a Jewish sage, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, locked in a 13th-century dungeon. The Holy Roman Emperor demands a ransom—a fortune the Jewish community is desperate to pay to redeem their captive sage. Rabbi Meir, meanwhile, will not permit his flock to pay his ransom.

Why? Because the Maharam of Rothenberg knew that this would set a precedent. Pay the ransom and Jewish leaders would always be targets for kidnapping.

Rabbi Meir endures seven years in captivity, then dies in prison. And still he is not free, not even in death. The corpse of the Maharam is held captive for a further 14 years; the final, lengthy indignity done to a true holy man. As distinct from his evil “Holy Roman” captor.

Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg’s refusal to be ransomed is the story of a selfless, godly man who sacrificed one person, himself, to protect his people long-term. In their desire to redeem their sage, the Jewish community was heedless of the wider implications for the Jewish nation, as a whole. What Rabbi Meir did was beautiful and selfless. He stepped up for his people.

Now it is 2025, and Hamas is playing the same cruel stunt pulled so long ago by King Rudolf I, holding as bargaining chips an estimated 20-24 live hostages and 35 hostage corpses. The hostage families whatever the status of their loved ones, yearn for closure. Some of the hostage families already know their loved ones are dead in Gaza. They ache to bury them. Others pray their loved ones still cling to life. The not knowing is a torment. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg would tell us not to blink—giving in only emboldens the enemy. But we blinked.

We blinked when we inked the Shalit deal. Then we set a precedent for now when we swapped over 1,000 murderers for Gilad Shalit, including Yahya Sinwar, the devious, truly evil mastermind of October 7.

It must be said: many of us were against the Shalit deal, despite the biased polls trumpeted by the biased MSM. We were way more than the measly 14% they cited. In fact, I knew very few people in favor of the Shalit deal. Why would anyone be in favor of releasing from prison a satanic monster like Ahlam al-Tamimi—someone who is gleeful to know that Jewish children died as a result of her evil machinations. Won’t she just want to do it some more? Now imagine her times one thousand.

Before we released Yahya Sinwar from prison, in that same Shalit deal, we saved his life on Israel’s dime. Fine Israeli surgeons removed his brain tumor in a world class hospital, and gave him another shot at destroying the Jewish people in a way the world would never forget. This should be a stark lesson for the Jews. Every terrorist we don’t shoot on sight, will try to do it again.

Happily, Sinwar can no longer be said to be living proof of this, because he is no longer among the living. The Jews finally did the right thing and ended him for good.

Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg did not die only because of a principle. He died to stop a vicious loop. Which is where we are right now. Hamas thrives on our concessions—just think! The Shalit deal gave them Sinwar. The Witkoff deal has already given them many Sinwars.

It must be faced. Israel has shown it will release terrorists, many of them, for a single hostage. Then it all becomes a game of how many terrorists they can get for 50 Jews, most of them dead. It’s true they prefer the live ones, but a live Jew will pay a lot for a dead Jew, too. And in fact, Israel has now released many, many terrorists from Israeli prisons—terrorists with a recidivism rate of 82%.

The Israeli dilemma, of course, is brutal: negotiate and maybe save some hostages and retrieve the bodies of the others, or fight to crush Hamas, and risk an endless round of October 7s.

If only we had someone with the Maharam’s wisdom today. Someone who could advise us what to do now that we’ve ~~effed~~ messed up and set the precedent. One that can only lead to great bloodshed. There can be no other outcome.

Each negotiation leads to a jackpot of thousands of terrorists. So why should Hamas let go the last of their bargaining chips, dead Jews and maybe two dozen live Jews. They are surely worth thousands of terrorists, many Sinwars let loose.

***
This must read from Elder speaks of a more contemporary rabbi’s take trading terrorists for hostages: The Lubavitcher Rebbe's view of hostage deals

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/02 Links Pt2: The Unreformable Palestinian Authority; Why the Abraham Accords still matter; Eli Lake: Orientalism: How one book fueled 50 years of campus unrest

From Ian:

The Unreformable Palestinian Authority

With Israel poised to start taking and holding territory inside the Gaza Strip, the question of how to administer postwar Gaza has become more pressing. The Biden administration had been pushing for handing it over to a “reformed” or “revitalized” Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA, however, seems fundamentally resistant to reform. For instance, last year, the PA made a written promise to the EU that it would revise the anti-Semitic and jihadist curriculum in its schools. (Similar promises were made by Yasir Arafat.) A recent study found a “complete absence of such reforms.” Elliott Abrams comments:

Donors to the PA’s educational programs should take a closer look at what they are supporting. PA schools are teaching another generation to hate Jews and Israelis and to become terrorists. And this is against the background of significant textbook reforms in numerous other Arab and Muslim countries.

Likewise, there were reports in February that the PA has taken steps to end its policy of rewarding those who commit acts of terror, and their families, with money and jobs. I was suspicious of the story at the time, and those suspicions have since been borne out:

In March, payments for February were made as usual. I am reminded of a Politico article headlined “U.S. says Palestinians are close to changing ‘pay for slay’ program.” That article was dated March 29, 2024.

The PA may have changed the agency that pays terrorists, or the bank account, but there is zero evidence that the evil practice has been stopped. So as with textbooks, the PA has given new and convincing evidence that it does not seek and will not undertake reform. Those who believe there is now, or soon will be, a “reformed Palestinian Authority” are kidding themselves. The PA today continues to teach and to reward hate and violence. There has been no change of heart.

Why the Abraham Accords still matter

As chair of Labour Friends of Israel, last week I became the first British MP to travel between Israel and the UAE – an unimaginable reality before the historic Abraham Accords in 2020.

My flight – one of 18-daily ones which now shuttle back and forth between the two countries – was chockful of young Israeli families off on holiday and businesspeople. What was so remarkable about the journey is how quickly it has become normal.

The truth is that despite the terrible war in Gaza, the Abraham Accords demonstrate how durable peace is when underpinned by shared values and a commitment to security and prosperity.

A principal goal of Hamas’ 7 October attacks was to scupper the burgeoning process of normalisation with Israel for other countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia. Iran and its terrorist proxies are bent on Israel’s destruction and the undermining of regional security for more moderate, pragmatic Arab states. Indeed, Israel’s further integration into the region will be key to maintaining security for Israel and those moderate Arab states alike.

In Abu Dhabi, I met with Dr Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, a member of the UAE Federal National Council, to discuss the UK’s continued support for the Abraham Accords and our driving ambition to see further normalisation of relations in the region.

That’s why Labour Friends of Israel is calling on the government to create a Special Envoy for the Abraham Accords at ambassador level. We also discussed the country’s laudable efforts to promote tolerance in the face of Islamist extremism – a destabilising ideology embodied and exported by the regime in Tehran.

David Collier: I exposed Hamas links in BBC Gaza film: 'When the media spread lies it has consequences'

The BBC was recently caught publishing a documentary that secretly relied upon, and paid, the family of a senior Hamas official.

In the public outrage that followed, BBC executives were forced to take the documentary offline.

The documentary, titled "Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone," allegedly cost over half a million dollars to make, and yet the Hamas ties to the production were exposed in less than twelve hours of the show airing.

Media bias against Israel is not new, but the demographic shift in Europe has resulted in toxic anti-western ideologies being given an increasingly loud voice in many state institutions. In the UK, we see this mostly manifest itself in academia, politics, and, of course, the media.

For decades, outlets such as the BBC have used Qatari state mouthpieces such as Al Jazeera as a recruiting pool. How many ex-Al Jazeera staffers do you need to employ before you begin to look like Al Jazeera yourself?

Which means anti-Israel bias in the media is rarely an accident, it is almost always a feature of a far bigger problem.

The unique aspect of the "BBC-gate" documentary saga was that it exposed BBC anti-Israel bias across the entire news-delivery supply chain. Once it left the hands of Hamas propaganda agents in Gaza, across the fixers and journalists, all the way to the BBC executives who rubbed their hands with glee and dreamed of global awards, the failure was complete, catastrophic and inexcusable. Not one part of the system did its job properly.

The BBC’s anti-Israel bias is now undeniable. There is just nowhere left for them to hide. The BBC’s engine room is full of obsessive activists dressed in PRESS gear, all trying to find new stories and new angles that will help shift public opinion further against the Jewish state. The BBC traffic all goes one way.

I am reliably informed that for every story pitched by BBC journalists in support of the only actual democracy in the region, at least 10 are intended to make people sympathize with a Gazan population that not only voted Hamas into power, but whose families man the forces of multiple Jihadist terrorist groups.

04/02 Links Pt1: Bernie Sanders’ War On Innocent Palestinians; Exploiting Hamas’s Weakness; Fired for fairness, promoted for prejudice – UN’s moral rot exposed once more

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: Here Is the Real Route to Freeing Palestinians

The real route to freeing Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank, must begin with the elimination of Hamas as a military force, something that, for now, only Israel has the power and the will to accomplish. Among other necessaries will be Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor separating Gaza from Egypt, to ensure that Hamas can’t resupply itself with weapons. Longer term, an Arab Mandate for Gaza, complete with a security force from moderate Arab states, may be the best solution for preventing the resurgence of Hamas and avoiding the need for a long-term Israeli reoccupation of most of the territory.

But even that won’t work if a broad majority of Palestinians isn’t willing to unshackle themselves from Hamas’s political and ideological grip. In that sense, it isn’t enough for Gazans to revolt against the group for being the prime instigator and perpetuator of the last 18 months of war and misery, a fact the Gazan protesters seem to understand far better than their mindless champions abroad.

What matters even more than overthrowing Hamas is overcoming the mentality of the so-called Resistance on which movements such as Hamas (but not only Hamas) were built. If the core Palestinian demand is not the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel but rather of one in place of Israel, then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is bound to continue.

For Palestinians, that will mean not only abandoning terrorism or guerrilla warfare but also the more insidious forms of seeking Israel’s destruction, such as the spurious call for a “right of return” for the descendants of Palestinian refugees — a right whose main purpose is to swamp Israel demographically so that it will no longer be able to maintain a Jewish majority.

As for Israelis, last week’s protests represent both a hope as well as a challenge. Hope: Ultimately, the protests suggest the possibility that, eventually, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians will never again allow themselves to be ruled by revanchist tyrants of any shade. Challenge: If and when that happens, there will be no plausible argument against a Palestinian state.

The sooner Hamas is defeated, the sooner the day might come.

Seth Mandel: Bernie Sanders’ War On Innocent Palestinians

Hamas is playing a familiar game here. The terror group will inflate casualty figures and go so far as to “name” and “identify” each one on the list, which will be reported immediately. Following the reports, Israel will be criticized for using excessive force and for endangering civilians. After that round of reporting has faded from the headlines, Hamas will edit the list, revising the total figure down and deleting thousands of fake entries so the permanent record appears more in line with the facts. The monthly numbers that media had been using become, at that point, irrelevant—but only in retrospect. No changes will be made to stories, no corrections appended, no apologies made.

Crucially, even after the adjustments, the March numbers aren’t accurate either. For one, Aizenberg notes, they include over 8,000 natural deaths, which is around 15 percent or so of the total—a huge chunk of the list.

Further, Hamas doesn’t distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. The deaths from war, Aizenberg wrote, are about 41,000 once the natural deaths are removed. Israel has reportedly killed about 20,000 Hamas fighters, which means nearly half of the war casualties have been Hamas combatants. Last, 72 percent of fatalities aged 13-55—the traditional age range of soldiers used by Hamas—were men.

Hamas’s list is thus inaccurate in the extreme but still quite useful, if you are willing to actually read the material. Sanders & Co. are trying to ban the transfer of offensive weapons to Israel just at the moment when Hamas has proved the unprecedented accuracy of Israel’s urban warfare.

Sanders can complain about the Israeli government all he wants—Israel has been acquitted of Sanders’s charges by the Palestinian government itself.

But let’s not stop there. To speak in progressive Democrats’ own language, the vibe has shifted. Gazans are out in the streets to oppose what Sanders would most like to do: enable Hamas to survive the war and keep charge of the enclave. Moreover, Gazan clans are striking back—very publicly—at Hamas in retaliation for its violent repression and mafia-like control tactics. Bernie speaks not for innocent Palestinians but for their tormentors.

According to videos on Telegram, tens of thousands of Palestinians are demonstrating against Hamas today in Beit Lahia. Another recent video out of Gaza shows injured Gazans, several of whom are children, exiting an ambulance and shouting that Hamas were hiding among them, causing them to be in the line of fire.

Bernie Sanders and his merry band of Hamas propagandists are behind the times. Hamas is so yesterday. Bernie isn’t speaking for Palestinians, he’s speaking over them—and further endangering their lives for his own political crusade.

Nicole Lampert: Gazans against Hamas are ignored by the West and betrayed by their leaders

Just a few days ago, back when it appeared that the demonstrations in Gaza might be our first proper signs of a rebellion against Hamas rule, I spoke to two men who had been marching.

They said they wanted what we all want; an end to the war. Peace. The chance to get on with their lives. Before October 7, one had been a student, the other a legal adviser. Now they were both displaced people sick of being moved from area to area to avoid the bombs, their lives on hold.

Speaking via Zoom on a call facilitated by the Centre for Peace Communications for members of the Israel-based Jerusalem Press Club, and using the pseudonyms “Kareem” and “Saeed”, these men had plenty to say about Hamas. About how Hamas had stolen all the aid meant for the people of Gaza. “I used to see the trucks coming in and so I have seen how much food, clothes and even furniture came into Gaza but I received nothing from day one,” said one. “It was all for sale even though it was labelled ‘not for sale’.”

They talked of their fury that the Qatar-funded television channel Al Jazeera was parroting Hamas talking points and giving its huge worldwide audience the impression that their demonstrations were either aimed at Israel or being orchestrated by it.

Their demands were that Hamas disarm and leave the Gaza Strip, recognising this is the only way this war will end. But they weren’t able to offer names of anyone they thought could lead Gaza in its place. They were equally scathing about Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority. For them Fatah are almost as bad as Hamas – the men cited how Hamas’s rivals still encourage hatred rather than peace towards Israel.

Mostly they described their desire to get out – leave – go to a place where there wasn’t an endless cycle of death and destruction because they had no faith that a different Palestinian leadership would change things. They wanted to come to Europe.

The American far-right's desire to destroy Jews

America has never had the same level of antisemitism as Europe and the Middle East. For the most part, America has really been the "goldeneh medina" for Jews. However, like everywhere else, there has always been an undercurrent of antisemitism. In 1654, New Amsterdam (later New York) governor Peter Stuyvesant wrote to Dutch West India Company that Jews should not be allowed in the New World: “The deceitful race, — such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ, — be not allowed to further infect and trouble this new colony,” referring to Jews as a “repugnant race” and “usurers." Jews did not receive full rights in many states until the 19th century.

The original Ku Klux Klan, founded after the Civil War, was primarily fixated on was on suppressing Black political and social advancement, particularly in the South during Reconstruction. Their hatred was deeply rooted in white supremacy and the desire to maintain the racial and social hierarchy of the antebellum South. There were very few Jews in the South at the time and they were not the primary targets of the group.

Towards the end of the 19th century, massive amounts of European Jews came to take refuge in America. Stereotypes of Jews as shifty, dishonest cheaters were a constant theme in newspapers. Popular jokes of the day accused Jewish shopkeepers of engaging in insurance fraud like burning down their own businesses. Yet there was similar bigotry against all immigrants.

The KKK was relaunched in 1915. While it was still primarily a white supremacist group, this time it was also heavily influenced by nativism, Protestant fundamentalism, pseudo-scientific racial theories and the newly popular Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This KKK saw itself as promoting a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant America, while Jews were seen as scheming internationalists undermining Christian values. A popular 1928 pro-KKK book by Alma Bridwell White, "Heroes of the Fiery Cross," includes accusations of the Jews wanting to dominate the world, of poor Protestant girls working for Jewish rapists in clothing factories and movie studios. A plan by the New York branch of the Klan in 1921 endeavored to force all Jews to leave the country: "The Jew patronizes only the Jew unless it is impossible to do so. Therefore, we, the only real Americans (Klansmen) must, by the same methods, protect ourselves and practice by actual application the teachings of klannishness. With the policy faithfully adhered to, it will not be long before the Jew will be forced out of business by our practice of his own business methods, for when the time comes when klansmen trade only with klansmen, then the days of the Jews success in business will be numbered and the invisible emplre can drive them from the shores of our own America.

Over time, the KKK as well as other white supremacists became more and more obsessed with Jews to the point that they now spend more time on antisemitic arguments than on racial issues. They feel that Jews' influence is the major factor endangering the white Christian America they want; their previous anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic focus have faded to the background. By the 1950s, neo-Nazi concepts became popular: George Lincoln Rockwell founded the American Nazi Party in 1959.

The Institute for Historical Review was a pseudo-scholarly organization created in 1978 that questioned the Holocaust in the name of historical research. Its leader, Willis Carto, was a well-known white supremacist in the 1950s but he pivoted to heading the IHR, which was linked to various hate groups and even hosted a leading Palestinian politician, Issa Nakhleh, in one of their conferences. The IHR even created an academic style journal to give its noxious lies credibility.

The IHR may have been the first far-Right group to recognize the power of the Internet. In the 1990s it spammed dozens of Usenet newsgroups (bulletin boards on many topics) with its claims that there were no gas chambers, Anne Frank's diary was a hoax, and Jews were not systematically killed. As people argued with them the IHR modified their arguments to avoid the most egregious lies and double down on the more obscure, difficult to debunk theories.

Since then, the Internet has become a major recruiting tool for the antisemites of the Right. Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer spreads his bile online in a snarky manner to be able to claim that he is only joking. The only thing that united the abhorrent "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville in 2017 was the speakers' antisemitism. Most recently, in the wake of the October 7 Gaza war, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories have been spreading among more mainstream "America First"-style influencers. White supremacists like David Duke have embraced the "anti-Zionist" narrative in their broadcasts and books.

More outspoken white supremacists are even more explicit in their desire to murder Jews. James Wickstrom, a Christian Identity minister, said he wants to see Jews beaten to death with chairs and "throw 'em in the wood chipper! And from the wood chipper let the remains go into a big incinerary [sic] truck, which is right behind the wood chipper, and give them the holocaust they rightly deserve!"

The heavy reliance on spreading hate online adds a disturbing dimension to modern antisemitism. Alt-Right groups like the ‘Goyim Defense League’ (using GoyimTV to livestream antisemitic content) and far-Left groups like ‘Within Our Lifetime’ (organizing protests via online flyers to shut down Grand Central Terminal) can coordinate remotely, often evading watchdogs like the SPLC and ADL. Literature and posters can be distributed electronically and printed on personal printers, and they share tactics to provoke Jews—such as GDL’s spreading of antisemitic literature on people's lawns or WOL’s ‘Long live the Intifada!’ chants—while avoiding prosecution under free speech laws.

The styles and the media and the arguments of the Right morph to whatever is most palatable to the target audience. There is little consistent ideology or positions among the American far-Right outside of simple hate of Jews - Jews are greedy capitalists and scheming communists, they are spreaders of immorality yet impose their own morality on others, a clannish people who don't integrate into America and clever schemers who infiltrate and control American institutions, atheistic and religious fanatics. The Holocaust never happened but the Jews deserved it.

The only consistency is that Jews are a mortal threat to their vision of a white, Christian America that must be ethnically cleansed and removed.

As we have seen, this is a common theme across all modern antisemites, no matter what their political preferences.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

By Daled Amos

The right to free speech is both recognized and protected.

Since October 7, pro-Hamas protesters have been accusing universities, the police, and even the government of deliberately violating their free speech. However, emphasizing that speech rights are not absolute only illustrates the growing need to more clearly define the boundary between the right to protest and the right to be protected from the protesters.

When the ACLU brought a suit against the city of Pittsburgh during a 2009 G-20 Conference, it claimed:

Pittsburgh officials deliberately adopted a strategy to harass, intimidate, discourage, and ultimately prevent Three Rivers Climate Convergence and the Seeds of Peace Collective from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to free speech and assembly.

But now, in light of pro-Hamas protests, we are seeing the pendulum swing in the other direction in search of a balance that protects others from being harassed, intimidated, and discouraged from expressing their Jewish identity.

One step in that direction came in January 2024, when Jewish students at Harvard University filed a federal lawsuit claiming Harvard has "become a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment" by failing to enforce Harvard's own rules against students who violate them -- rules designed to protect Jewish students. Instead, according to lawyer Marc Kasowitn, Jewish students have been "intimidated, harassed and in some instances physically assaulted because they're Jewish."

A further impetus for the protection of Jewish students' rights came last month when a jury found Greenpeace liable for civil conspiracy, defamation, and trespass with a verdict of $667 million in damages. The New York Post article notes the parallels:

There are similarities between the anti-pipeline protests near North Dakota’s Standing Rock Indian Reservation and other mass actions, including Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the anti-Israel demonstrations that erupted around the United States after the Oct. 7 attacks.

These are “hybrid protests,” in which masses of peaceful demonstrators are joined by smaller groups of trained agitators who tip the events toward violence.

The verdict also exposes how NGOs funnel money and material support to those who join the protests with the intent to harass and violate other people's rights.

Now, in a new tactic in the fight against pro-Hamas protesters, families of the victims of the Hamas October 7 massacre are bringing a lawsuit against the anti-Israel groups themselves. Groups such as Columbia University Apartheid Divest and Within Our Lifetime and leaders like Mahmoud Khalil are being sued. According to the suit:

“Their self-described acts in furtherance of their goals to assist Hamas have included terrorizing and assaulting Jewish students, unlawfully taking over and damaging public and university property on Columbia’s campus, and physically assaulting Columbia University employees.”

screencap

The suit does more than claim that the protests exceed mere free speech. The families claim that these anti-Israel groups and leaders are coordinating with Hamas, a foreign terrorist group:

“Associational Defendants are not independent advocates; they are expert propagandists and recruiters for international foreign terrorist organizations and nation-state proxies operating in plain sight in New York City.”

The bottom line is that these groups did not just intimidate, harass, and perform acts of violence. They violated America’s Antiterrorism Act.

The families also accuse the groups of aiding and abetting the terrorist organization and having prior knowledge of the attack:

After months of dormancy, Columbia SJP allegedly reactivated its Instagram account "three minutes before Hamas began its attack on October 7," announcing a meeting and stating that supporters should "stay tuned."

Eighty-three SJP chapters, including Columbia, signed and disseminated a statement in support of Hamas at midnight at the end of the day of the attack, leading the suit to insinuate that the content must have been drafted, reviewed, and signed by dozens of organizations "before and/or during the events of October 7 themselves."

This lawsuit mirrors one by the Jewish National Fund in 2019, when it sued the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, accusing them of supporting terrorism and acting as a front for Hamas. The JNF was rebuffed at every turn:

The plaintiffs made these claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which allows any U.S. national suffering injury due to an act of international terrorism to sue in federal court. Those considered to have knowingly provided “substantial assistance” to a terrorist organization can be found guilty of providing “material support” to terrorism.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s rejection, the lawsuit was dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2021, noting that the plaintiff’s arguments were “to say the least, not persuasive.” In 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, stating that JNF’s attempt to establish liability “fails at every turn,” calling the allegations against USCPR “nothing more than guilt by association.”

The evidence being brought in this new case may make all the difference.

This fight against protests claiming free speech protections goes beyond college campuses. The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed a lawsuit last April for blockading the main entrance into Chicago's O’Hare International Airport, tying up traffic for hours and trapping innocent travelers in their cars. Among the defendants are Jewish Voice for Peace, The Tides Center, and the National Students for Justice, who "provided monetary or logistical support."

The case defends the rights of citizens unlawfully impeded by anti-Israel, pro-Gaza groups engaging in illegal acts of obstruction rather than peaceful protest. HLLI’s legal team seeks damages and a court injunction to prevent future disruptions like this.

A counterpoint to this is the case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. in 1966, when the group launched a boycott of white merchants to promote equality and racial justice. While the protest relied on nonviolent picketing, the protest caused financial damage to the businesses. The businesses went to court in 1969. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld that the NAACP could be held responsible and held the boycott to be unlawful "since the NAACP agreed to use force, violence, and 'threats' to carryout the boycott."

However, the US Supreme Court unanimously held (8-0; Justice Thurgood Marshall did not take part) that the NAACP could not be held responsible because the violence or threats of violence could not be tied directly to the financial losses.

Similarly, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the US Supreme Court limited the punishment of inflammatory speech only where it is intended to “incit[e] or produc[e] imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such aelction.” However, in that same case featuring the NAACP, an activist who said, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck,” was found not to have gone beyond protected speech.

Of course, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits an institution receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race, color, and national origin, could add another dimension to the current cases. National origin includes shared Jewish ancestry.

At the very least, the various cases might finally get the media to correctly point out that there is more to the defense of Jewish students on campus than just free speech.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The New York Times provides us with a textbook case of media bias while technically staying within the bounds of journalistic ethics.

The actions taken in recent weeks against these foreign students and academics, many of them highly accomplished in their fields, have raised questions about why federal authorities are singling them out, and what role outside groups like Canary Mission are playing in identifying targets for deportation.

The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has said that it does not rely on lists from Canary Mission, and some of the students who’ve been targeted by federal agents do not appear on any of the lists.

Yet some of them do. And immigration lawyers and experts point to coincidences that suggest to them that the information circulated by Canary Mission and another pro-Israel group, Betar, may be providing road maps for ICE enforcement actions.

... Canary Mission, asked if it had shared information on potential deportation targets with federal authorities, said that it had not. “Our investigations of anti-U.S. and antisemitic extremists are all publicly available on our website,” the group said in a statement.

To summarize: There is zero evidence that the US government uses Canary Mission as a resource. The government flatly denies it. Canary Mission denies providing any information to the government. But some biased "experts" "suggest" that it "may" be happening - and that's all the evidence the New York Times needs.

Jonathan Wallace, a lawyer representing one of the seven “deportable” people posted on Canary Mission’s “Uncovering Foreign Nationals” web page, called the group a “predator in the ecosystem that we’re living in right now.” Critics say the lists amount to doxxing, the publishing of private information about someone with malicious intent.

According to documents filed in a lawsuit against Columbia, Dr. Abdou was doxxed by Canary Mission.

Canary Mission's website, along with its mission and methodology, is public. It never publishes private information on the people it writes about. Every piece of information on the site about these individuals is public - their own writings, their own LinkedIn profiles, photos of them in public protests. The Canary Mission site is extraordinarily careful to document everything it says.

The NYT doesn't fact check the "doxxing" lie, even though it easily could. Because better to quote biased "experts" and a lawsuit that does not need to be truthful than to do actual reporting.

In 2018, the Middle East Studies Association, an academic group, published a report, “Exposing Canary Mission,” that compared the group’s tactics to the Red Scare of the 1950s, when the government targeted those purportedly engaged in Communist subversion. The report also accused the organization of “misinformation, omissions, quotations taken out of context and allegations based on guilt by association.”

Again, the New York Times reporters can check whether this is true themselves. They can look through the site and find on their own examples of misinformation or quotes out of context. But instead of doing journalism, it chooses instead to quote a rabidly anti-Israel group that supports boycotting Israel as an unbiased "academic group." They can link to the Ethics section of Canary Mission and let readers decide for themselves whether the site is doing anything unethical.

But they don't. And they won't.

Then the newspaper of record adds more innuendo:

Details about Canary Mission’s leadership, origins and funding are murky, with a few exceptions.
The group has not sought tax-exempt status in the United States, meaning that, unlike most American nonprofit organizations, it does not file disclosure statements about its leadership and budget with the federal government. It also does not list a physical address.

Unlike anti-Israel organizations that claim tax exempt status and spread hate on the American taxpayers' dime, Canary Mission does not seek tax benefits. The NYT suggests that there is something wrong with the organization that does not rip off Americans, that does everything legally and above-board, whose methods and veracity can be independently checked and verified.

Canary Mission cares far more about the truth and ethics than the New York Times does.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

YNet reported yesterday:

Israeli authorities said Tuesday they thwarted a major terrorist attack being planned against Israeli targets abroad, in what they described as one of the most serious plots in recent years.

The IDF and Shin Bet security agency confirmed that the overnight airstrike in Beirut's Dahieh district, a Hezbollah stronghold, targeted and killed Hassan Ali Mahmoud Bdeir, a senior operative in Hezbollah’s Unit 3900 and the Iranian Quds Force.

According to Israeli intelligence, Bdeir played a central role in a joint terror network involving both Hezbollah and Hamas operatives—a rare instance of cooperation between the Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups. The network was reportedly planning an imminent large-scale attack abroad, which officials said could have killed hundreds of Israelis had it been carried out.

According to French news agency AFP, Bdeir served as deputy to Hezbollah’s chief coordinator for Palestinian affairs. Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar published a photograph of Bdeir aboard a plane with former Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the senior Iraqi militia leader who was killed alongside Soleimani in a U.S. airstrike in 2020.

Shin Bet and IDF officials said the operation prevented a potentially catastrophic attack and marked a significant blow to the collaboration between Hezbollah and Hamas beyond Israel’s borders. Israeli authorities noted that Hamas’ overseas network operates from countries including Turkey and is attempting to expand into parts of Europe.

Everything we know so far makes this sound like this would have been Iran's "Operation True Promise 3," their pledge to hit back at Israel in a massive way in retaliation for last October's Israeli air strikes in Iran.

Iran doesn't have the capability to strike Israel directly without sparking a major war, which they don't want. It would always rely on proxies and plausible deniability for its attacks to dissuade Israel from attacking it directly. Just the time it would take to investigate a terror attack on foreign soil would add doubt and pressure on Israel not to respond, and it also complicates the legality of a direct military response to Iran under international law.

All the articles say that the planned attack would have killed hundreds of Israelis, not Jews. That would be consistent with Iran's goal of targeting Israel and not appearing antisemitic. It seems likely that it would have been against a tourist spot popular with secular Israelis on the upcoming Passover holiday, not a kosher for Passover specific program. Iran would probably have also chosen a non-Western target to avoid upsetting (and killing) Westerners which would result in, at the least, major diplomatic and economic fallout, if not military. Greece or even Sharm el-Sheikh would have too many risks.

My guess is that the planned attack would have been in Asian spots popular with Israelis, some of which have Israeli-owned guest houses. This attack seems likely to have been planned for a place like , Bangkok’s Khao San, Koh Samui or India's Goa, some of which are so popular that they have Hebrew signs around the hotels. Vietnam has been becoming an increasingly popular destination as well.

It is not as if Iran and Hezbollah haven't done this sort of thing before. In 2012, Hezbollah bombed a tourist bus with dozens of Israelis in Burgas, Bulgaria, killing six.

Thank God for Israeli intelligence and the IDF protecting Jews worldwide.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/01 Links Pt2: How U.S. Academics Became Apostles of Folktales and Superstition; Blind Spot - A documentary on campus antisemitism

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: How U.S. Academics Became Apostles of Folktales and Superstition

The contrast between protests in Gaza and protests ostensibly for Gaza is startling. In Gaza, Palestinians are out in the streets calling for freedom from Hamas rule despite the knowledge that they are risking their lives to do so. Indeed, just this weekend Hamas abducted a protester, tortured him to death, and left his body on his family’s doorstep as a grotesque warning to others. On U.S. campuses, meanwhile, protesters are out in the streets to oppose restrictions on their pro-Hamas demonstrations.

It’s all part of an overall trend in which Palestinians in the territories and “pro-Palestinian” activists in the West are moving in two different intellectual directions. Westerners are unambiguously moving backwards.

A book that should be required reading on the Arab-Israeli conflict at every American university is Self-Criticism After the Defeat, by Sadik al-Azm, a groundbreaking 1968 critique from within the Arab world. Azm, a Syrian intellectual, wrote this superb dissent from what he saw as Arab leaders’ denialism after the Six-Day War in 1967. The war, he felt, exposed how the rest of the world was leaving the Arab world behind, and Arab leaders responded by pretending the war was not a defeat but a mere setback in the inevitable triumph over the Zionist project.

The version of the book in circulation today includes a forward by the late Lebanese-American intellectual and academic Fouad Ajami and three response-essays by other Arab writers, including the foundational Palestinian novelist turned PFLP terror recruit Ghassan Kanafani. Ajami’s essay is on the stultifying atmosphere in Arab thought that was disrupted by Azm’s gust of fresh air.

Rereading Ajami today, however, from an American perspective is jarring: It sounds like he’s talking not about pan-Arab groupthink from the 1950s and 1960s but the elite U.S. university in 2025.

Part of the problem, Ajami writes, was that the echo chamber of the “Arab street” left the publics ill-prepared for Israel’s victory because they didn’t expect it or plan for it: “No one had told ordinary Arabs that Israel was there to stay, that she had won the struggle for statehood on her own, that the verdict of the 1948 war could not be reversed.”

Today’s college students and activists, the bright minds of the future, are that Arab street. Magical thinking, faith in their own cause, and self-righteousness have cloistered them, and instead of expanding their horizons their professors only locked them in further, sealing them off from reality. There is something almost anti-modern about it, as if they don’t have access to sources on the outside.

Seth Mandel: A Cautionary Tale for Defenders of Campus Hamasniks

Taal’s sympathies for Hamas aren’t in question. His response to the Oct. 7, 2023 massacres and sexual violence carried out by Hamas against innocent Israelis was to tweet “Glory to the resistance!” alongside a Palestinian flag. He also wrote “Today has shown us what is possible when you are organized.” The pogrom appears to have made him very happy.

Because Taal reveled in the attention from his Hamasnik activism, and because he had already proved himself a good candidate for deportation, there wasn’t much doubt he’d be held responsible for his actions by the Trump administration. And so his visa was revoked, again, finally.

This is where Taal’s behavior gets uniquely obnoxious. He sued the Trump administration to undo the anti-Semitism executive order and to stop his deportation. He did so after his visa was revoked. The judge in Taal’s initial hearing was perplexed. “Any future harm alleged in their affidavits appears to be speculative and even moot because of the revocation of Taal’s visa,” the judge said.

Contrary to some reporting, he was not punished for suing the Trump administration; he sued the Trump administration in a partially successful attempt to fool reporters and activists into misleading the public.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Taal announced yesterday that he was self-deporting.

Taal’s statement is self-pitying and remarkably dishonest, even for Taal. He lied about the entire affair and whined about having to listen “ad nauseum” to the safety concerns of “Zionist students.” He signed off with “long live the student intifada.”

There is no moral defense of Taal or his actions or what he was asking the courts to do. And those who instinctively jumped to his defense ought to engage in some self-reflection.

Melanie Phillips: How others view the once-"sceptr'd isle"

Israel’s national carrier El Al has produced a remarkable promotional video. The central conceit is two young Israeli men, Hanan and his friend, who are tourists in London. There are shots of a London taxi, a London bus and London landmarks. You can watch it here.

In the taxi, the driver asks them “Where are you from?” The young men, startled, look at each other and hesitate. Hanan sings: “What do I answer him? I don’t know…” Then the other says, with a knowing smile, “Greece!”

Hanan (in real life Israeli singer, songwriter and composer Hanan Ben Ari) continues to sing: “How is it the same story every taxi ride…?”— in Japan they say they’re from France, in some unidentifiable Muslim country, from Italy, in India from Sweden — “…am yisroel chai (the people of Israel live) but meanwhile…” and as they walk in a London park he gesticulates to his friend to conceal his T-shirt, which sports a star of David and the Hebrew word for Israel, by zipping up his sweatshirt which displays the legend “I love London.”

As they walk, Hanan continues: “We blend in with the local culture; how am I a guest everywhere I go?” In Starbucks the barista calls out the name written on his coffee cup: “Yohan!” “Yohan?” inquires his friend. “Yes — adding an international twist” replies Hanan sardonically.

“With tricks we make it comfortable,” he sings as they join a crowd of English football fans watching a match on a big screen. His friend tells him sternly: “We are from Spain— you, keep silent!” But then everyone erupts over a goal and Hanan screams “Yaish!” (Yessss!!!) “What did I tell you?!!” scolds his friend in alarm. It’s a tense and threatening moment — but then a guy delightedly says in accented English: “Are you from Israel?” and on hearing the affirmative, shouts “Yalla balagan!” (“on with the chaos!”) as they cheer.

Then comes the bit that made me well up. The video cuts to the two of them embarking on an El Al plane to the accompaniment of an exuberant and heartfelt song: “Oh Lord, oh Lord, feeling at home like in Israel, here you finally can”, as they are greeted emotionally by the crew, and children run around in the plane receiving goodies from smiling flight attendants (ok, a bit of poetic licence here); and then Hanan takes off his woolly hat to reveal the kipah he has been concealing all the time he was in London as he continues: to sing: “Oh thank God, just being ourselves, without apologising — without apologising!” And he is asked sweetly to pipe down by a young woman with a baby — who addresses him for the first time by his real name.

How sad is this, as a promotional video by an airline company — an airline company!! — about the delights of London as a holiday destination? For it’s all too accurate and true. Such is the level of Israel-hatred and antisemitism that many British Jews do indeed avoid doing or saying anything that links them to Israel.

While most of the time there will be no nasty experiences — and for sure, there are many decent Brits who have no horrible feelings about Israel — too many Jews in Britain now feel the need to be always on their guard against unpleasantness, vitriol or worse. Because the abuse, intimidation and defamation occur regularly, as does the implicit and sometimes explicit expectation that as a Jew you must apologise for what you are and denounce Israel and your own people. It’s a process of venomous delegitimisation and dehumanisation based on lies, a potentially murderous process directed at the Jewish people alone, and it can and does happen across British society to ambush the unwary Jew.