Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, July 21, 2025

London, this weekend, shows the direct line from "pro-Palestine activism" to classic antisemitism

I have always felt that the life of Jews in England today is an accurate predictor of what life for Jews in America will be in coming years.

I visited London in the early 2000s for a weekend, and the amount of security around synagogues then - turning them into walled fortresses in some cases - has become reality in many American cities today.

Ten years ago, anti-Israel protesters in the UK would not resort to public attacks on Jews as Jews. Ten years ago, publicly discriminating against Jews in the UK would have been unthinkable.

Those days are gone.

From the European Conservative:

An elderly-looking Jew chased through London by a youth shouting “Free Palestine,” in what the Campaign Against Antisemitism called “an act of brazen antisemitism.”
A young diner at a Baker Street Jewish deli was approached and asked if the restaurant was kosher and if she was Jewish. Upon reply, her food was thrown on her.
Counterprotesters supporting Israel on the London pro-Palestinian march were repeatedly told “f*ck your Jewish State” by an increasingly aggressive crowd.
A teacher filmed accusing the British government of funding the killing of children by Israel—a classic blood libel—when in fact it funds the pro-Palestinian UNRWA.
Meanwhile in the Irish capital, an individual who abused what he called a “genocidal Jew” on public transport last week has walked free. This episode, also filmed, is further evidence of an antisemitic turn in Ireland since the October 7th pogrom.

And last week independent, non-Jewish researchers were stunned by their investigation in antisemitism in England today, with Jews being excluded from work and public spaces:

We heard about the noisy demonstrations and how intimidating people find the current environment, but as we dug deeper what really scared us was the increasing normalisation of far more extreme, personalised and sometimes life changing impact directed at individuals purely and simply because they are Jewish. Worrying dilemmas of where Jewish professionals believed that their professional body was actively discriminating against them but where they required membership from this body to be able to work and acquire the necessary protections.

This is how a modern, liberal society is acting today towards its Jews. And if you think that this is not the trajectory happening in the US using Israel as an excuse, you are fooling yourself.

And you know what? All of the "pro-Palestinian"s who claim to be unequivocally, 100% against antisemitism are silent when it comes from their fellow travelers.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Today, there was yet another New York Times article saying that dozens of civilians were directly shot over the weekend by IDF troops.

Palestinians trying to secure food were shot and killed in the Gaza Strip in two separate episodes over the weekend when Israeli forces opened fire on crowds.

On Saturday, the soldiers shot Palestinians near a food distribution site in Rafah, in southern Gaza. A day later, they fired at crowds who had gathered near a border crossing used by aid trucks to enter the enclave.

Palestinian health officials said that more than 60 people were killed in the episode on Sunday. On Saturday, near an aid distribution site run by American contractors and backed by Israel and the United States, at least 32 people were killed, according to local health officials.

The violence added to the mounting death toll for hungry Palestinians killed while seeking food since late May, when Israel lifted a blockade, in place for roughly 80 days, on humanitarian assistance entering Gaza.

The article does not even consider various facts:

Hamas considers GHF to be a threat and does everything it can to stop the food distribution, including documented incidents of shootings within the crowd and threatening and killing GHF workers.
Hamas and its health ministry has a history of inflating casualty figures, like the Al Ahli Hospital incident where no independent media supported their claims of hundreds killed in what ended up being an Islamic Jihad rocket
Previous GHF and Israeli denials of the Hamas and health ministry casualty numbers

But there are other layers that show the bias in these reports.

If we accept that there are dozens killed daily at food distribution sites, we must accept other premises that are exceedingly unlikely.

It is really difficult to kill that many civilians at once with small arms. As soon as the first gunshot would go off, the crowd would panic and disperse. This means that the IDF is shooting at civilians even as they are running away. Not only one soldier - one crazed soldier could not possibly kill that many in one incident. It means that that the IDF, which has strict rules against shooting civilians who are not a threat, an army with discipline and whose soldiers are taught the laws of armed conflict in detail, are all deciding consciously to murder dozens of people at once.

If you accept the narrative at face value - that dozens are killed daily at aid sites - you must believe that the Israeli army is engaged in a mass execution campaign of hungry civilians, every single day, for weeks. That’s not just a war crime. That’s a conspiracy. A conspiracy requiring silence from hundreds of IDF soldiers, total abandonment of IDF engagement rules, and an institutional policy to murder people trying to eat. You must believe this has happened with no whistleblowers - not one soldier willing to come forward and say that he was instructed to murder civilians. Not even anonymously.

This is what it means to accept the narrative. You are required to believe in evil so absolute and disciplined it becomes practically theological.

If you accept as a premise that the IDF is a single minded genocidal monster, then all of this makes sense. But if you are not already an antisemite, nothing about these stories add up - except that Hamas and the health ministry is lying, and casualties that do happen are because of Hamas actions, not deliberate IDF policy.

Given that Hamas' entire military strategy is to maximize dead Gazans - real or imagined - that is a lot more consistent with what we are seeing than an IDF conspiracy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to feed Gazans only to decide to murder them when they gather to get their food aid.

These are the problems in this article alone. But I fed seven New York Times articles that discussed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation over the past month or so into an AI tool I built to detect media bias - not anti-Israel bias but any bias - and asked the AI to find narrative patterns in the articles as a whole.

Here were its findings (emphasis from the AI tool):

All articles reinforce a moral trajectory wherein:
Israel and GHF are the structural initiators of a fatal aid system.
Palestinians are portrayed almost exclusively as passive victims seeking food.
The moral culpability of aid-site deaths is consistently attributed to Israeli or GHF actions, with minimal exploration of alternate causal agents (e.g., Hamas sabotage, stampede dynamics, crowd infiltration).
Rating: High Narrative Convergence Bias
II. Role Framing Asymmetry Index
Israeli actors (IDF, GHF, government) are consistently framed as:
Aggressors (e.g., “opened fire on crowds,” “militarized aid”).
System designers of lethal policies (“conceived in Israeli strategy forums”).
Untrustworthy or evasive (e.g., “denied responsibility,” “statements not independently verified”).
Palestinian actors are presented as:
Victims (e.g., “suffocated,” “shot while seeking flour”).
Civilians only — no sustained mention of Hamas-as-sabotage agent.
Passive moral figures (e.g., children, mothers, mourners) with high visual and emotive priming.
Rating: Consistent Moral Role Reversal + Red Team Clause Failure
III. Source Calibration Pattern
Gaza Health Ministry and Red Crescent data is used repeatedly without epistemic caveats, despite:
Past misreporting (e.g., Al Ahli Hospital).
Lack of verification mechanisms.
GHF and IDF statements are either:
Presented with caveats (“claims could not be independently verified”), or
Immediately followed by critical or contradictory framing.
Rating: Violates Source Contamination Rule and Reputational Inflation Symmetry
IV. Counterposition Frequency Mapping
Alternative hypotheses are largely absent, including:
Hamas presence or provocation in crowds (mentioned only once, marginalized).
Tactical implausibility of mass shootings by IDF with no internal dissent.
Aid group political alignment or U.N. operational failures.
Rare defenses (e.g., U.S. funding statement) are presented with dilution phrases like “the foundation has been criticized…” immediately adjacent.
Rating: Structural Counterposition Suppression (CPS)
V. Visual and Emotional Priming Continuity
All articles contain graphic visual descriptions or captions that:
Reinforce emotional associations of Israeli culpability.
Use photographic priming to elevate victimhood narratives.
Rarely balance imagery with depictions of complexity, crowd violence, or Israeli aid logistics.
Rating: Persistent Visual Priming Assertion (VPA)
🧠 Summary Integrity Conclusion
This corpus displays a systemic narrative convergence toward framing Israel and GHF as primary culpable agents in a humanitarian disaster, with near-total omission of adversarial sabotage, causal ambiguity, or strategic complexity. The editorial structure, repetition of framing, source asymmetry, and emotive visual alignment indicate medium-to-high ideological entrenchment.

This proves a consistent pattern across all New York Times coverage of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

The bias isn't just in the imagination of Zionists. It is the way that the New York Times decides to cover a specific story - the narrative was set early and once it is there, it cannot be changed. The patterns of the stories are eerily consistent, choosing to give more credibility to a terrorist organization, its subsidiaries and people whose lives are under implicit threat for not doing what it wants, than to a democratic state and its institutions that follow standards of transparency and honesty.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Pan-Arab news site says the UN is biased towards Israel. Really.

When I read this headline in Rai al-Youm, I knew I had to write about it.

The writer, Abdullah Al-Ash'al, is a former Egyptian diplomat and was once ambassador to Burundi. He teaches international law at various universities. He has written numerous articles and papers.

And he has no idea what he is talking about.

There are lots of howlers in the piece, but I want to concentrate on one which is simply too dumb to be believed.

He says, "The Security Council issued a resolution in 1951, contrary to international law, allowing Israel to pass through the Suez Canal."

In 1949, Egypt stopped all shipping that went through the Suez Canal that was bound for Israel, even if they were going to go to other countries. The 1888 Constantinople Convention said that the Suez Canal must remain open for all, even during wartime and even for war vessels, but Egypt cited another article in the convention that said that it could be closed for "the defence of Egypt and the maintenance of public order." After the armistice agreements with Israel, Egypt still refused to re-open the canal for shipping, claiming that it was still in a state of war with Israel, and the entire point of this UN Security Council resolution 95 was to clarify international law, saying that the convention cannot be interpreted to permanently block a single country's shipping.

Back in those days, occasionally, the UN actually took Israel's side. This is before the Soviet Union decided to veto any pro-Israel resolution.

Egypt ignored the resolution and continued to block all Israeli maritime traffic through the Suez Canal. it confiscated millions of dollars worth of cargoheaded towards Israel. On September 28, 1954, the Israeli freighter Bat Galim, bound from Eritrea to Haifa, was detained in the Canal, its crew arrested, and its cargo confiscated. The UN talked about it and did nothing.

To use this as evidence that the UN is pro-Israel is utterly insane.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/20 Links: The Forgotten Slaughter of Syria’s Druze—and Israel’s Moral Response; The left’s war on the ADL is a warning to American Jewry; What would Herzl say about Israel today?

From Ian:

The Jews intervened to stop a genocide in Syria; cue the outrage

Reminding the world that there is such a thing as good versus evil—that has always been the Jews’ mission. And that, apparently, is the real war crime. Because, you see, the Jews remember.

We remember when the world watched Jews burn and did nothing. We remember the polite excuses. The Red Cross silence. The bureaucratic neutrality. Of course, we remember—from Kristallnacht to Oct. 7, 2023, nothing has changed.

And so, last week, Israel refused to be apathetic, silent, passive—even though the victims this time were not its own citizens, but its neighbors. Not Jews, but Arabs—related by blood and faith to one of Israel’s most loyal and prominent minorities.

And that’s the real sin. The Jew in exile was the conscience of the world—and was hounded, tortured, expelled, and murdered for it. Now the Jewish state has become the conscience of the world—and the world can’t bear it.

It can’t bear that the people it consigned to the role of eternal victim are not only defending themselves but rescuing others. It can’t bear that those it tried—and still tries—to eradicate are growing in military prowess and moral power.

And it’s not just the world. There is a large American assimilationist Jewish identity that abhors anything that reminds the world that Jews are different—and always have been. They cling to the fantasy that the left’s utopias—progressivism, socialism, academia—are their Promised Land. They bear a special hatred for the Jewish state and for anyone who dares stand with it.

So they lash out. They project. They seethe. They cry “genocide!” every time Israel refuses to sit down and shut up.

Well—too bad. Because last week, while the West was tweeting, Israel was saving lives. The ceasefire—the halt to the slaughter of innocents—didn’t come from Geneva or The Hague. It came from Jerusalem.

So let the world rage. Let the podcasters bloviate. Let the UN condemn. Let Bernie Sanders, AOC and Zohran Mamdani blubber into their Ben & Jerry’s.

Israel rose. Israel acted. Israel saved. Not just like a lion; like a Lion of Judah. And if that offends you, ask yourself why.

But know this: the Jews—at least the Jews with a future—no longer care. History is watching. And, thousands of years later, the Jews—once again—are writing it. Am Yisrael Chai!

John Spencer: The Forgotten Slaughter of Syria’s Druze—and Israel’s Moral Response

This past week, a brutal campaign of violence has unfolded in southern Syria. Hundreds of Druze civilians (a minority community indigenous to the Levant) have been murdered, kidnapped, or forced to flee their homes. Villages have been burned. Women and children were reportedly slaughtered in sacred sites where they had sought refuge. The perpetrators include radical Islamist militants, Bedouin gangs, and regime-backed elements.

These are not vague reports or unverifiable claims. There is footage of Druze civilians being hunted down and executed. Women are stripped and assaulted. Men are beaten, tortured, and forced to leap from rooftops as militants cheer. It is a special kind of evil. Deliberate. Performative. Proud. All of it is shared online for the enjoyment of the killers.

These images are a visceral reminder of the savagery unleashed by Hamas on Oct. 7. The same evil. The same joy in human suffering. The violence is not collateral damage from a larger conflict. It is direct, targeted, and deliberate. It is ethnic and religious cleansing in broad daylight.

The Israeli Druze community has played a prominent role in every aspect of Israeli society. I have personally met Druze commanders serving in the Israel Defense Forces during my visits to Gaza. They are courageous, respected, and integrated. The ties between Israeli and Syrian Druze are real and deeply personal.

Israel's response has included airstrikes against Syrian regime military positions both south of Damascus and within the capital itself. These strikes reportedly targeted forces involved in the attacks on Druze civilians. When a close-knit, historically loyal minority community within Israel cries out to the Jewish state for help as its kin are massacred just across the border, Israel does not turn away.

This is about moral clarity. It is about responding to evil when others stay silent. It is about understanding that the same ideologies that fuel the murder of Druze families in Sweida are no different from those that drove the slaughter of Israelis on Oct. 7. While the international community hesitates, while human rights organizations say little, Israel has stepped forward. When others calculate political risks, Israel sees human lives. When others look away, Israel acts.

The same institutions and voices that claim to champion human rights have gone quiet. There have been no emergency UN sessions. No international protests. No outcry. It is a silence that reveals the selective morality of those who only speak when it fits their politics. It is a silence that enables genocide.

Seth Frantzman: What is Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s real strategy?

What was Sharaa thinking when reports came in about the clashes?
He has mismanaged this in the past. Despite his apparent good choices in foreign policy in the region, balancing various countries, he seems to struggle with tactical decisions relating to local groups.

SHARAA CAME out of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham, an armed group that ran Idlib. Under his former nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Julani, he successfully navigated local politics and tribal groups. He once served prison time in Iraq.

So Sharaa has a lot of experience. Some of the experience had to do with working with extremist groups. Nevertheless, he was able to channel that to create a successful unified HTS army in Idlib that overthrew the Assad regime. One does not simply overthrow a 50-year-old regime. Clearly, it takes some acumen.

On the other hand, revolutionaries who come to power often struggle to rein in the revolution. Consider the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Russia fell into a half-decade civil war that included numerous “White Army” factions fighting the “Reds” and many foreign countries intervening.

Syria has already gone through 14 years of civil war with numerous fronts and factions, with countries intervening. So, wasn’t Sharaa already an expert in this? Wasn’t he steeled by war?

This raises serious questions about Sharaa’s ability to control the conflict in Sweida. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a tough statement on Saturday that highlights this inconsistency in Damascus.

“The rape and slaughter of innocent people, which has and is still occurring, must end,” Rubio said. If authorities in Damascus want to preserve any chance of achieving a unified, inclusive, and peaceful Syria free of ISIS and of Iranian control, they must help end this calamity by using their security forces to prevent ISIS and any other violent jihadists from entering the area and carrying out massacres, he added.

“And they must hold accountable and bring to justice anyone guilty of atrocities, including those in their own ranks,” Rubio said. “Furthermore, the fighting between Druze and Bedouin groups inside the perimeter must also stop immediately.”

It appears that there is now concern in Washington that Damascus is unable to hold things together. Israel has played a complex role in this. By demanding demilitarization in southern Syria, Israel has helped fuel the chances that there will be a power vacuum. During the Sweida crisis, Israel was quick to begin airstrikes on July 14 and 15. These grew to include a large strike on central Damascus.

The government in Damascus appears to have responded to the strikes by withdrawing its limited security forces from areas near Sweida. The result was that thousands of Bedouin then mobilized to fight. They brought trucks and weapons from home. The Bedouin were fueled by videos circulating online that showed Bedouin being killed by Druze.

Whether the videos were all confirmed is unclear, but the effect was evident. Bedouin tribes put aside their differences and went to fight. Damascus only reined them in on Friday and Saturday. As such, Syria demonstrated that it could stand by and allow fighting to continue.

Damascus is between a rock and a hard place. Sharaa wants to appease groups that worked with HTS to defeat the Assad regime. His natural feelings are toward those Sunni Arabs in Syria who made up the bulk of his fighters.

Druze and Syria analyst for BBC called Zionism ‘pure evil’

A Damascus-based novelist who was interviewed today by the World Service for his analysis on the situation in Syria described Zionism as “pure evil” and “fascist filth” just days ahead of the BBC appearance.

Robin Yassin-Kassab, who lashed out during the interview at Israel’s attempt to “create chaos” in Syria following the IDF attack on military targets in Damascus last Wednesday, posted on X in the wake of the strikes: “Zionist fascist filth is in Damascus […] The genocide state is doing everything it can to make wounded, traumatized Syria collapse into chaos, which will hurt the whole world [...] If pure evil exists, it is Zionism.”

He also wrote: “I have more time for the theory of Zionist control of US politics now.”

Presenting Weekend on BBC World Service on Sunday, presenter Paul Henley asked Yassin-Kassab: “Israel frames its attacks as ‘in defence of the Druze’ – not even the whole Druze community sees it that way, does it?”

Yassin-Kassab responded: “Most of the Druze understand that this is making their situation worse and most of the Druze don’t like Israel and are horrified with the rest of the region at what Israel’s been doing recently… I don’t think it’s designed to defend the Druze, I think it’s designed to create more chaos in Syria so Syria can’t stabilise.”

It comes as Israel and Syria have agreed to a ceasefire following several days of attacks on the Druze minority by Bedouin fighters in Sweida Province.

NYT calls saying Israel is worse than Hitler mere "criticism of Israel"

Here is the headline, subhead and first paragraph of the New York Times article on a court case in Boston:

Did the State Department official say that "criticism of Israel" is enough to deport someone?

Not at all.

Here is everything he said, reported in the article:

Pushed for examples of things he might consider in weighing whether to deny or revoke a student’s visa, Mr. Armstrong testified that calls for limiting military aid to Israel or “denouncing Zionism” could all factor in his agency’s decisions.

“In your view, a statement criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza could be covered depending on the statement, right?” asked Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer representing the organizations behind the lawsuit.

“Yes, depending on the statement, it could definitely,” he said. “You say that they’re worse than Hitler with what they’re doing in Gaza? — that would be a statement that, I think, would lead in that direction that you seem to be going, counselor.”

Earlier in his testimony, Mr. Armstrong stressed repeatedly that he and his colleagues consider “the totality of the situation,” especially when making a recommendation to the secretary of state.

At one point, Judge William G. Young, who is presiding over the trial, intervened to ask for clarity about how Mr. Armstrong himself determined whether certain statements or actions were antisemitic.

“In my opinion, antisemitism is unjustified views, biases or prejudices or actions against Jewish people — or Israel — that are the result of hatred towards them,” he said.

Mr. Armstrong did not say that his office had endeavored to deport noncitizens based on criticism of Israel alone. But he indicated that the office regularly took into account commentary that the groups behind the lawsuit have argued is protected by the First Amendment.

“In other words, in your understanding, antisemitism includes hatred or prejudice against Israel and Israeli people, right?” Ms. Conlon asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

“In my understanding, antisemites will sometimes try to hide their views and say they’re not against Jews — they’re just against Israel — which is a farcical argument, in my mind,” he added. “It’s just a dodge.”

Not one example he gave, or definition he offered, says that normal "criticism of Israel" is a factor. He uses hate, prejudice and comparison with Nazis as his criteria.

That's not the only problem with the article.

It implies, as fact, that non-citizens are protected by the First Amendment for deportation issues. This is not true, and is disputed by legal scholars; the Supreme Court has not ruled on this. And the New York Times reported on this in detail in March.

Also, while Mr. Armstrong could not recall any State Department guidance on what antisemitism is, in fact it adopted the IHRA Working Definition in 2016 - which is entirely consistent with what he was saying, and which explicitly says that criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of any other state is not antisemitism, the exact opposite of the impression that the article seeks to give the reader. (In fact, the State Department adopted a definition with identical language in 2010 before IHRA.)

The article misrepresents the State Department as having an incoherent and undefined policy towards antisemitism, when in fact it has a clearly stated policy.

While the article does not directly violate the New York Times existing ethical standards, these problems indicate that perhaps we should ask more from journalists than to do the bare minimum that still allows articles to be so blatantly biased.

While the article may not technically violate the New York Times' formal ethical standards, it reveals how easily bias and distortion can persist within the bounds of those rules. If this is the “minimum standard,” then it’s worth asking whether ethical journalism demands more than box-checking. The public expects, and deserves, that news media include fidelity to truth, context, and public understanding.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

UK law firm openly supports terrorism and aims to "eliminate Zionism"

A law firm in Britain changed its name from "Riverway Law" to "Riverway to the Sea," saying it is dedicated to eliminating Zionism via lawfare:

From courtrooms to classrooms, from Britain to the globe, we're expanding.

Riverway Law is now Riverway to the Sea, a legal and educational front against Zionism, apartheid, and genocide. A new legal firm is being created to take this fight global.

We train, equip, and stand with those who speak truth to power in court and beyond.

The ideology of Zionism is dying and we’re here to make sure it never rises again.

When you look at their website and watch their video, you see very little interest in helping Palestinians. The focus is literally to "eliminate Zionism."

But they absolutely love Palestinian terrorism!

They are working hard to ensure that Hamas is not considered a terrorist group by the UK.

Fahad Ansari, solicitor and director of the organization. tweeted a lot of October 7, cheering the murders, rapes and hostage taking - and no one seems to think it is strange that a lawyer openly advocates and cheers war crimes.

Franck Magennis, barrister and director as well as self-declared communist, was no less enthusiastic at Hamas' orgy or murder and rape:

Ansari even defended the ISIS flag when Britain declared it illegal in demonstrations, saying that it has the Muslim Shahada on it, and they shouldn't make the Shahada illegal!

The good news is, if this is the quality of their legal arguments, there is nothing to worry about.

(h/t Jill)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/19 Links: Anti-Semitism: from Nazi Germany to Glastonbury; Court freezes Trump’s ICC sanctions; Display in Sweden equating Gazans to Jews in Shoah

From Ian:

Anti-Semitism: from Nazi Germany to Glastonbury

The moral of the story is clear. Cancel culture may start with single words, but then it spreads virally to literature, opinions, society in general and finally living targets. If tolerance cannot be maintained for opposing or simply inconvenient points of view, then reasoned debate and the life of the intellect become untenable. “Reason requires that a diverse range of ideas be expressed and debated openly, including ones that some people find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. To demonize a writer rather than address the writer’s arguments is a confession that one has no rational response to them.” This sentiment was from incisive minds of Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, who were protesting against the American Humanist Association’s cancellation of Richard Dawkins’ Humanist of the Year Award from 1996.

In the 1930s chess literature became an early weathervane, a speluncular canary in the mine, indicating the stirrings of the lethal intolerance to come —an intolerance which, from a frightening multiplicity of instances, we are now in grave peril of repeating. Black and White are not yet controversial terms in chess, but the direction of discourse on climate change, gender multiplicity, whose lives matter, museums, memorials, statues, universities and even the mentions of the “slave products” tea, cotton and sugar in the oeuvre of Jane Austen (a noted abolitionist who in fact raised the issue of slavery in her novel Mansfield Park) threaten to become ever more toxically authoritarian. Chess Grandmaster Jacques Mieses, the cancelled author of his own book, whose best game I also celebrate this week, would have doubtless recognised the warning signs.

In that game, Aron Nimzowitsch vs. Mieses from 1920, Nimzowitsch, the progenitor of hyper-sophisticated Hypermodernism, is blasted in brutally direct style by his refreshingly unsubtle opponent. In a second game, James Craddock vs. Mieses of 1939, Mieses carries off a homage to the Immortal Game, between Anderssen and Kieseritzky in 1851, with its double rook sacrifice to force checkmate.

I close with a heart rending letter the exiled Spielmann wrote to a supportive friend, while seeking refuge in Sweden. The friend reacted positively, but on his friend’s passing, Spielmann ran out of road.

“What’s sad is that I was not only expelled from Austria, my homeland, but also lost the opportunity to move freely. Almost all countries that have a chess life in them have closed their borders to emigrants and refugees. I can’t enter any of them now with my worthless Austrian passport.

“For six months now, I have been sharing suffering with people who have lost their home through no fault of their own and are wandering without receiving absolutely any financial assistance. The only thing that keeps me in this world is the hope that I will eventually find some kind of chess-related job. Would you be able to find something like this for me in Stockholm or somewhere else in Sweden? Not necessarily a permanent job. I could spend some time in Sweden to restore my spirit and my chess abilities and to gain strength for future activities. Perhaps later I will be able to emigrate to England or America. I beg you not to leave me in trouble. I will agree to any conditions, just to be busy with something. The main thing for me is to get out of Hell in the centre of Europe. Anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly noticeable in Prague, which deprives me of any means of livelihood. Our 30-year acquaintance gives me the opportunity to hope that I will get an answer from you, so that I can learn what fate awaits me…”

Spielmann did indeed manage to flee to Sweden with the help of his friend. He hoped to reach England or the USA and eked out money for the overseas passage, by playing exhibition matches, writing chess columns and an autobiography.

However, pro-Nazi members of the Swedish Chess Federation disliked Spielmann because he was Jewish. His longed for book, Memories of a Chess Master , was repeatedly delayed. Despairing of its publication, the impoverished Spielmann became withdrawn and depressed.

In August 1942, he locked himself in his Stockholm garret and did not emerge for a week. On August 20, neighbours summoned police to check on him. They entered and found Spielmann dead. The official cause of death was ischemic heart disease, but it is generally accepted that he had followed established chessboard practice in a hopeless position and resigned, by intentionally starving himself to death.

The Swedish epitaph on his tombstone reads: “Rastlösflykting, hårt slagen av ödet” (“A fugitive without rest, struck hard by fate”).

Gaza documentary producer celebrated Palestinian terrorists as ‘martyrs’

A producer of a controversial documentary on Gaza called a terrorist who shot dead seven Israeli civilians on Holocaust Memorial Day a “martyr”, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Channel 4 film Gaza: Doctors Under Attack was billed as a “forensic investigation” into claims the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) were deliberately targeting Palestinian medics in a systematic campaign to cripple Gaza’s hospitals.

But one of the two Gazan producers, Osama Al Ashi, had previously described Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs” and has been accused of posting “celebratory” footage of the Oct 7 2023 attacks on social media.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (Camera UK), a pro-Israel monitoring organisation, said it raised questions about the producer’s objectivity and the documentary’s impartiality.

A Camera UK spokesman told The Telegraph: “A producer who celebrates the deaths of Israeli civilians on what he sees as ‘the other side’, and who appears unable to distinguish them from legitimate military targets, cannot be considered an impartial observer.”

After being contacted by The Telegraph, Ashi deleted several social media posts in which he had described terrorists as “martyrs”.

The documentary, made by Basement Films, an independent production company, proved controversial even before it was broadcast.

It was originally commissioned by the BBC, but the broadcaster decided it “risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC.”

UN says Israel has refused to renew visas for heads of at least 3 agencies in Gaza

Israel has refused to renew visas for the heads of at least three United Nations agencies in Gaza, which the UN humanitarian chief blames on their work trying to protect Palestinian civilians in the war-torn territory.

Visas for the local leaders of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, known as OCHA; the human rights agency OHCHR; and the agency supporting Palestinians in Gaza, UNRWA, have not been renewed in recent months, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric confirmed.

Tom Fletcher, UN head of humanitarian affairs, told the Security Council on Wednesday that the UN’s humanitarian mandate is not just to provide aid to civilians in need and report what its staff witnesses but to advocate for international humanitarian law.

“Each time we report on what we see, we face threats of further reduced access to the civilians we are trying to serve,” he said. “Nowhere today is the tension between our advocacy mandate and delivering aid greater than in Gaza.”

Fletcher alleged, “Visas are not renewed or reduced in duration by Israel, explicitly in response to our work on protection of civilians.”

Israel’s UN Mission said it is looking into the issue. Israel has been sharply critical of UNRWA, even before Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terror assault in southern Israel — accusing the agency of colluding with Hamas and teaching anti-Israel hatred, which UNRWA denies. A camp of tents housing displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Thursday, July 17, 2025. (AP/Jehad Alshrafi)

Since then, the Israeli government has asserted that UNRWA is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. Some of the agency’s staffers participated in the October 7 attacks. Israel formally banned UNRWA from operating in its territory, and its commissioner general, Swiss-Italian humanitarian Philippe Lazzarini, has been barred from entering Gaza.

The UN identified the other two local leaders affected as Jonathan Whittall, a South African humanitarian expert for OCHA, and Ajith Sunghay, a British-educated international lawyer for OHCHR.

07/18 Links Pt2: The Christian Case for Standing with Israel; Keith and Aviva Siegel, Hamas hostage survivors: "This is the worst thing that can happen to a human being".

From Ian:

The Christian Case for Standing with Israel

Yesterday’s newsletter mentioned a recent speech, laced with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel invective, delivered by the media personality Tucker Carlson. This was but the latest installment of Carlson’s turn to hatred of Israel, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism, which has come alongside more frequent signaling of his own religiosity. All of this was also on display in his recent interview with Senator Ted Cruz, whose pro-Israel views are fairly typical of conservative evangelical Christians.

In response, a few prominent right-leaning American Protestant leaders jumped into the fray, with some, like Rich Lusk, attacking Cruz. Lusk argued, on theological and scriptural grounds, that Old Testament promises to Israel have since been transferred to Christian believers.

It’s not the place of Jews to tell Christians what to believe about salvation or how to read their sacred texts, but two lines in Lusk’s article jumped out at me. First:

The modern nation of Israel is a secular state that rejects the gospel. . . . As Paul says, “Concerning the gospel, they are enemies” (Romans 11:28)—enemies with a future, yes, but still enemies for now.

If Israel is a secular state, then it is neutral about the gospel and other religious doctrine. But Lusk needs to make this leap to demonstrate that modern Jews are “enemies.” Then, in the very last paragraph, there is this:

The true Israel of God is not located on a strip of land in the Middle East. It is not launching missiles at Iran or hiding behind an Iron Dome.

It’s subtle, but Lusk seems to be implying that Israel (the country) is somehow cowardly because of its technological genius and efforts to protect its citizens, and at the same time aggressive by “launching missiles at Iran”—although the missiles were fired from planes flying over enemy territory. Lusk could have said, “the true Israel of God isn’t busy fixing roads and holding elections.” But instead he invokes popular anti-Israel slurs. Thus he pretends to make an argument that Christians should see the Jewish state as a state like any other, but is in fact arguing that they should see it as evil.

In response to this exercise in anti-Semitism, the Anglican theologian Gerald R. McDermott offers a learned and vigorous rebuttal. He concludes:

Does this mean the state of Israel is a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as Cruz suggested? No. Nor does it mean Christians must ratify every policy of the Israeli government. But the last two centuries have shown that God’s covenanted people need a state to protect them from those who would destroy them.

In other words, it’s McDermott, not Lusk, who is open to the possibility of taking the Jews simply as they are, without invoking divine prophecy. In a separate takedown aimed at a different anti-Semitic preacher, McDermott adds:

Christians should denounce this new anti-Semitism among their own. . . . If we do not call out this unbiblical ignorance and hatred, future generations will ask us what we ask about the churches of Europe in the first half of the 20th century: how could they not see? Why did they not speak up?

Rightwing Anti-Semites Seek to Undermine America’s Moral Authority on the World Stage

Last week, at a major gathering of young American conservatives, the Internet talk-show host Tucker Carlson complained of undue Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, made insinuations about Jewish disloyalty, and averred that the deceased investor-cum-procurer Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent. Such rhetoric is typical of Carlson, who is also a sharp critic of American support for its Middle Eastern allies against Iran, for Ukraine in its war with Russia, and for Great Britain in its war with the Axis. And he represents a growing segment of opinion on the American right that is no longer confined to the fever swamps.

Rebeccah Heinrichs examines the worldview behind Carlson’s anti-Americanism, which she dubs the “1939 Project” in an analogy to the series of New York Times articles arguing that America’s original sin occurred in 1619:

Carlson’s views might seem outlandish, but he isn’t dumb. He is among the savviest operators out there. And he is well aware that anti-Israel invective and conspiracy thinking attracts attention in a culture that has lost trust in expertise and institutions—and is hunting for a scapegoat for America’s very real challenges.

But if the 1939 Project people are right, and Winston Churchill was in fact the warmonger, and if Hitler really wanted peace and perhaps had a point about the outsize and nefarious impact of Jewish people, and if the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bombs, then NATO was a mistake, the ties to the nation of Israel is a mistake, and none of the post-World War II international order is worth maintaining today, let alone restoring or defending.

[The goal is] to loosen the affection and support Americans feel for and have for our allies in Europe and Israel. This is necessary to weaken the American people’s support for U.S. statecraft in the world, whether in the form of sanctions, military deployments, or military action in defense of its allies and stated and official interests. Their increasingly casual anti-Semitism is not simply evil—it is strategic. It has become the glue that binds the various strains of the insurgent ideology.

07/18 Links Pt1: Syria’s new dawn is already a nightmare; Biden admin used $900m to fund terror, anti-Netanyahu protests; How Congress Can Finish Off Iran

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: Syria’s new dawn is already a nightmare

Israel’s actions also reflect a broader strategic purpose. Its strikes near Damascus were initially seen as a ‘performative escalation’ – warning shots rather than conclusive strikes. The aim is deterrence: to signal to President Sharaa that any attempt to unify Syria by force, especially by moving armed units into the south, will be met with Israeli firepower.

Some observers argue that Israel simply prefers a weak and divided Syria. By attacking Sharaa’s forces, Israel limits the new regime’s ability to establish control. However, regardless of Israel’s motivation – a mix of realpolitik and solidarity with the Druze – the fact remains that Israeli airstrikes probably saved many Druze lives this week by stopping the advance of sectarian killers.

Israel at least seems to understand what kind of regime it is dealing with in Syria. The contrast with the UK here could hardly be more stark. Barely two weeks before the Sweida massacre, UK foreign secretary David Lammy was in Damascus, shaking hands with President Sharaa and pledging £94.5million in aid to support Syria’s ‘long-term recovery’. With great fanfare, the UK re-established diplomatic ties with Syria after 14 years. Lammy spoke of ‘renewed hope’ and an ‘inclusive and representative’ transition.

Washington has been equally eager to embrace Syria’s post-Assad regime. US president Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Syria in June, and even praised Sharaa as an ‘attractive, tough guy’. He also floated the idea of Syria joining an expanded Abraham Accords peace framework, therefore recognising Israel. The logic was simple: bring Syria in from the cold, peel it away from Iran’s orbit, and declare the 14-year civil war resolved.

That aspiration is now in tatters. The massacres of Druze and Alawites cast grave doubt on the new Syrian government’s credibility and intentions. For all the talk of a fresh start, Syria’s interim rulers have shown a grim continuity with the past: intolerance of dissent, reliance on sectarian militias and a propensity for violence. The West’s willingness to overlook HTS’s jihadist pedigree in exchange for a quick diplomatic win now looks not just cynical, but also dangerously naïve.

Sharaa’s cabinet is literally teeming with individuals and factions under terrorism and human-rights sanctions. Did London and Washington really believe such actors would morph overnight into guarantors of pluralism and human rights? With scattered revenge killings of regime loyalists, crackdowns on minority communities, early signs of trouble were already there, but many Western policymakers and media outlets downplayed them. The result is that Western nations are now awkwardly complicit. British aid and American rapprochement have effectively helped legitimise a government whose associates have now butchered over a thousand men, women and children based on their sect. How will these same leaders credibly condemn atrocities elsewhere when they stayed mum on Syria’s? It is a staggering moral failure.

These events have sobering implications. Regionally, Syria’s ‘new dawn’ is revealing itself as just another nightmare. And far from unifying the country, Sharaa’s reliance on hard-line Islamist forces is deepening its fractures. The Druze, long wary of both Assad and Sunni extremism, may now conclude that they have no place in the new Syria, potentially sparking an exodus or armed self-defence. The Alawites, who already feel betrayed and endangered, could turn to desperate measures, perhaps even inviting foreign protection or forming insurgencies. Sectarian bloodshed on this scale risks reigniting a cycle of vengeance that could unravel the fragile peace achieved. In Lebanon next door, where Druze and Alawite communities also exist, the spillover of sectarian tensions is an ominous possibility. Israel’s direct strikes on Damascus also mark a dangerous escalation, and serve as a reminder that Syria’s war can at any moment ignite regional conflagration.

As the Druze and Alawite tragedies have shown, there is nothing ‘inclusive’ or ‘reformed’ about Sharaa’s new regime.

Arsen Ostrovsky: The massacre of the Druze is a moral test: Israel acted, the world failed

The Druze are a small but proud religious and ethnic minority in the Middle East, numbering around one million, primarily in Syria, Lebanon, and northern Israel. In Israel, they are an integral and cherished part of our society. They serve in the military, hold senior positions in government, and have long stood shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people in defending the state, including fighting in Gaza, after the October 7 massacre by Hamas. They are our brothers-in-arms.

But in Syria, the Druze are now at a perilous crossroad. After more than a decade of civil war, economic collapse, betrayal and hardship, the Druze in the southern Syrian city of Sweida, home to the country's largest Druze community, sought to peacefully protest for their basic rights, dignity, and freedom.

And for that, they are now in the regime’s crosshairs. What started with attacks by Bedouin forces against the Druze escalated when government forces entered Sweida, supposedly to oversee a ceasefire. But according to media reports and eye witnesses, the Syrian soldiers, recognisable by their uniforms and military insignia, joined the Bedouins and murdered Druze on the streets and in their homes.

Sickening videos have also emerged of thugs forcibly shaving the beards of Druze men, a calculated act of religious humiliation. Such outrages against personal dignity, particularly acts of humiliating and degrading treatment, constitute clear violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

For the Jewish people, this evokes a chilling reminder of one of the darkest chapters in our history, when Nazis similarly sought to strip Jewish men of their dignity and faith by publicly shaving their beards and humiliating them in public. This is not just repression, it is dehumanisation.

And as the world largely stood by – silent, or offering little more than empty words and meek statements of concern – while Druze were massacred in Sweida, I am proud that Israel did not turn its back. The Jewish state showed courage, conviction and leadership, to step in with military force against the Syrian regime, to help defend our Druze brothers.

For Israel, the bond with the Druze is not abstract. It is deeply personal. Their loyalty has never wavered. Nor can ours now.

The Druze have also stood for moderation, coexistence, and resistance to extremism. In a region overrun by Iranian proxies, jihadist militias, and failed regimes, the Druze offer a rare glimmer of hope.

This is not only about doing the right thing and protecting a vulnerable minority. Supporting the Druze is a moral imperative. Meantime, the international community cannot continue treating President al-Sharra as a legitimate partner on the world stage or welcome Syria into the Abraham Accords, while turning a blind eye to the atrocities that are being committing in Sweida.

It is not enough for al-Sharra to issue vague condemnations or deflect blame onto so-called “outlaw groups.” Even if he did not give the orders, these atrocities are unfolding on his watch, under his authority, carried out by forces loyal to his regime – and reportedly by his own troops.

There must be accountability.

If al-Sharra wishes to be seen as a credible leader or statesman, he must demonstrate it – not with empty rhetoric, but through decisive action. That begins with reining in these jihadist thugs, whether they are merely aligned with his regime or, worse, operating within it.

The Druze of Sweida are not pleading for your sympathy, they are demanding their inalienable right to live in peace and dignity, with full civil rights. What happens next will reveal whether the international community truly seeks a new Syria, or will continue rewarding tyranny with silence. For Israel however, silence was simply not an option.

How Congress Can Finish Off Iran

With the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program damaged, and its regional influence diminished, the U.S. must now prevent it from recovering, and, if possible, weaken it further. Benjamin Baird argues that it can do both through economic means—if Congress does its part:

Legislation that codifies President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policies into law, places sanctions on Iran’s energy sales, and designates the regime’s proxy armies as foreign terrorist organizations will go a long way toward containing Iran’s regime and encouraging its downfall. . . . Congress has already introduced much of the legislation needed to bring the ayatollah to his knees, and committee chairmen need only hold markup hearings to advance these bills and send them to the House and Senate floors.

They should start with the HR 2614—the Maximum Support Act. What the Iranian people truly need to overcome the regime is protection from the state security apparatus.

Next, Congress must get to work dismantling Iran’s proxy army in Iraq. By sanctioning and designating a list of 29 Iran-backed Iraqi militias through the Florida representative Greg Steube’s Iranian Terror Prevention Act, the U.S. can shut down . . . groups like the Badr Organization and Kataib Hizballah, which are part of the Iranian-sponsored armed groups responsible for killing hundreds of American service members.

Those same militias are almost certainly responsible for a series of drone attacks on oilfields in Iraq over the past few days

"Terrorists in Uniform:" The PA police moonlight as terrorists

During the Oslo process in the 1990s, the US trained the Palestinian Authority police to help them build a state.

An acquaintance says that they used to bring retired American officers to Israel and they would meet with the PA police. One general said to my friend after the meeting, "These are NOT police. These are soldiers pretending to be police. Watch out."

As we saw during the second intifada, he was right. The PA police would use their American equipment for terror.

Palestinian Media Watch issued a report this week, "Terrorists in Uniform," that is a must-read on how PA security forces are moonlighting as terrorists, just as Hamas police are also terrorists. Last week, the two terrorists attacked and murdered 22-year-old Shalev Zevuloni were found to be PA police.

The PMW report gives example after example of how the PA Security Forces themselves brag about these terrorists employed by them:

The PASF spokesman praising the PASF forces specifically because they are fighting Israel, filling the Israeli prisons, and achieving Martyrdom.

A PASF terrorist was released after 18 years in prison and was immediately welcomed back to his unit as a hero.

The head of PASF, Maj. Gen. Majed Faraj, gave special cash grants to the families of PASF officers in prison for terrorism

A terrorist given a PASF military funeral adorned with a headband of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades

Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah explained that a terror attack in which an Israeli was killed was "high-quality" specifically because it was "carried out by… one of the Palestinian Security Forces officers."

Israel killed a PASF officer who was "one of the central terror leaders in Judea and Samaria."

Fatah praised the PASF terrorists: "By day security Forces, and by night self-sacrificing fighters."

The PA is no less supportive of terror than Hamas, and their police - which are the linchpin for any potential takeover of Gaza - are part of the problem, not the solution.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

If you ignore Hamas war crimes that they BRAG about, you don't really care about international law

Hamas released a video with a message aimed aimed at Israeli soldiers, urging them to put down their weapons and allow themselves to be taken hostage.

It says, "Soldier, lay down your weapons and raise your hands when confronted, and follow the instructions of the resistance in Gaza. A prisoner is better than a dead person. We will protect your life until the next deal."

Hamas is not saying that the soldiers would have POW status, with all the protections that international law provides to prisoners of war. Hamas is saying that it wants the soldiers as bargaining chips for the "next deal." Indeed, last week they mounted a major operation to kidnap bulldozer driver Avraham Azoulay, who resisted and was killed.

That is hostage taking, and it is a war crime.

War crimes are Hamas' entire military strategy, whether it is attacking civilians, using civilians as human shields, stealing aid meant for civilians, hiding weapons and terrorists in hospitals, using ambulances as military vehicles, taking hostages, fighting while dressed in civilian clothing, or booby trapping civilian buildings. Other violations of international law include recruiting children as militants, forcing hostages to make propaganda videos and threatening journalists.

The reason it is difficult to decisively win the war is because Hamas doesn't just violate international law, but it does so as its strategy.

How often is this simple and incontrovertible fact mentioned by analysts, NGOs and the UN? How many non-Israeli reports give a comprehensive accounting of Hamas' actions from an international law perspective? Where is the media?

Hamas doesn't just admit that this is their strategy - they brag about it. Hamas media shows how happy they are at making Israelis run to bomb shelters, highlight grieving Jews at funerals, and use existing hostages as pawns.

But the media spends orders of magnitude more time on alleged Israeli violations of international law than Hamas' own joy at doing that very thing.

It's almost like no one really cares about international law at all.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Al Azhar Mosque in Egypt held a forum on Wednesday night titled "The Prophetic Approach to Dealing with Sedition: The Conquest of Khaybar as a Model." The speakers included professors at Al Azhar University.

Dr. Habib Allah Hassan said that combating corruption is the ultimate goal of divine messages, and the mission of all prophets is call people to worship God and fight corruption.

He cited the noble verse: "And fight them until there is no fitnah [persecution/sedition]" [Quran 2:193] as evidence of the necessity to extinguish sedition. This was exemplified during the Prophet’s time—may God bless him and grant him peace—when Muslims faced sedition from the Jews. Thus, the battle had a noble objective: to eliminate sedition. The Jews of Khaybar posed a significant threat to Muslims due to their unified opposition, making the Conquest of Khaybar a battle for survival and a means to quell sedition.

But just in case you didn't get the massage, he added:

Zionists today continue to employ the same deceptive tactics as their predecessors against Muslims. They attempt to present myths as facts, such as claiming a fictitious historical presence in the land of Palestine, with support from international conspirators, despite having no religious claim to Palestine, neither historically nor presently. ... The Zionist ideology is a dubious concept aimed at usurping the rights of rightful owners, in violation of all religious teachings, including Judaism itself. He described them as a destructive force that the West has imposed on Muslim lands to eliminate their threat in Western countries.

The next speaker added more:

Dr. Khaled Abdel Nabi stated that anyone who examines the Jews’ methods of inciting sedition will discover their extreme cunning and diverse tactics. .... The conflicts that arose between Muslims and Jews resulted from the Jews’ violation of these treaties and their efforts to incite sedition within Muslim society. He noted that a review of Jewish history reveals that their societies were often built on stirring strife among people.

The moderator agreed: "Historical analysis of Jewish actions shows their mastery of this form of corruption with great cunning, aiming to destabilize and dismantle societies."

Al Azhar is mainstream Islam in Egypt. These are not fringe opinions on webs with tiny audiences - this is the way Egyptian Muslims are taught to think.

At the same time, former Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Ali Gomaa, says the entire Torah is corrupt. The Torah doesn't list kosher or non-kosher animals - that was added by rabbis much later. He said that rabbis say that no non-Jew can be a prophet, which would come as a surprise to Balaam. He insists that the Holy Quran establishes a sound, scientific approach to dealing with religions and divine scriptures, based on investigation, scrutiny, and a return to the original sources, not whims and distorted traditions.

Yes, the 7th century Quran knew more about the Torah than the Jews of the previous 1,500 years.

When a rabbi in Israel says something that sounds bad, it is usually a misinterpretation or a real fringe voice - yet it generates headlines and it used as evidence of Jewish bigotry for years afterward.

This stuff happens every day in Egypt. Publicly. Reported widely in Arabic.

And ignored in Western media.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/17 Links Pt2: ‘The New York Times’ gas-lighting crusade against Israel; The Silencing of Jewish Students; The Global Intifada Comes to American Museums

From Ian:

In Islamic Culture There Is No Such Concept as Defeat. It's Better to Die than Lose Face

Mosab Hassan Yousef, 47, the son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, defected to Israel in 1997 and moved to the U.S. in 2007, with his story revealed in his 2010 memoir, Son of Hamas. During a visit to Israel in June, he said:
"Hamas has spent 37 years building momentum, and people seem to forget they [the Palestinians] voted for them. They forget they funded Hamas from their own pockets - not just Iran....It's part of their religious obligation. Businessmen too - all under the table. How do I know? Because I was in Hamas leadership. I saw where the finances came from. Average people would walk into the mosque with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or dinars and slip it into my father's pocket or the back seat of his car."

"Of course, there are people who suffered under Hamas's iron grip in Gaza. I'm not saying there aren't. But are they any better? They all still see Israel as the common enemy. They may not agree with what Hamas did on October 7...[but] they're saying, 'It wasn't worth it.'"

"In Islamic culture...there is no such concept as defeat...It's victory or death. When they lose a war, they don't see it the way the West does. We were conditioned from an early age...all of it built on a refusal to accept what really happened - that our forefathers initiated the war against Israel's independence, and they lost. But in this culture, defeat is too shameful to admit. Everything is based on honor and shame, not on right and wrong, as in Western culture....Better to die than lose face."

"Palestine is a colonial construct. It's not even part of our traditional vocabulary - it's not in the Arab dictionary. 'Palestine' was a name for a region at best, not a country. As for so-called Palestinians, we don't actually have anything concrete to support our existence as a nation or an ethnicity - nothing except for this ugly flag and the keffiyeh, a scarf actually coming from Iraq....Am I really supposed to die for this falsehood? For the madness of people who thrive on corruption and violence and expect everyone else to join them?"

‘The New York Times’ gas-lighting crusade against Israel

The New York Times should consider adopting the Jerusalem cross as its new logo to represent its crusade against Israel and the Jewish people. With a steady stream of slanted reporting and a roster of columnists united by their hostility to Israel (with the lone exception of columnist Bret Stephens), the Times has transformed itself from a paper of record into a platform for moral inversion.

Here’s the journalistic trick for looking credible while advancing a political agenda: Choose sources that support your point of view. It is particularly effective when those sources are anonymous, making it impossible to know their agenda. Times reporters do this routinely, typically quoting U.S. State Department Arabists who they know share their anti-Israel views. Sometimes, they quote sympathetic “experts” to give their bias a veneer of authority.

The op-ed page is worse. It runs on the adage that “man bites dog” is news, which in this case translates into prioritizing Jewish critics of Israel. These “As a Jew” pieces—by academics or activists who use their identity to launder moral attacks—are a staple. A recent example: Brown University professor Omer Bartov, who accused Israel of “genocide” while virtually ignoring the massacre that triggered the war.

Bartov is supposed to be taken seriously because he teaches Holocaust and genocide studies. Because it has not been the site of encampments and public confrontations like Columbia, Brown’s tolerance of anti-Israel and antisemitic students and faculty has gone largely unnoticed. Bartov has been railing against the Israeli government for years and signed the antisemitic Elephant in the Room screed, making him an obvious choice for the op-ed page.

As with most media coverage of the Gaza war, logic is missing from his article. He did not mention the word terrorism even once. His only references to Oct. 7—the day Hamas butchered more than 1,200 Israelis, took 251 hostages, and hid behind civilians in mosques, schools and hospitals—were cursory. Remarkably, he declared within a month of the terrorist attacks that Israel had committed war crimes, as though Hamas’s atrocities demanded no meaningful accounting.

His core claim of genocide hinges on intent. But the quotes he offers from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do not call for the destruction of a people; they call for the destruction of a terrorist army. Netanyahu said that Hamas would pay a “huge price,” that the Israel Defense Forces would turn Hamas-infested areas “into rubble” and urged “residents of Gaza” to evacuate. If anything, those are statements of intent to protect civilians, not to eliminate them.

Bartov fails to mention that it is the Hamas charter that calls for the genocide of the Jews. Had Hamas not committed a massacre on Oct. 7, not a single Palestinian civilian would have lost their life in Gaza.

Like other detractors, Bartov has inverted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was a reaction to the Nazi crimes against the Jews, to blame the victims. The convention defines genocide as an “intention to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, per se.”

Rightwing Anti-Semites Seek to Undermine America’s Moral Authority on the World Stage

Last week, at a major gathering of young American conservatives, the Internet talk-show host Tucker Carlson complained of undue Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, made insinuations about Jewish disloyalty, and averred that the deceased investor-cum-procurer Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent. Such rhetoric is typical of Carlson, who is also a sharp critic of American support for its Middle Eastern allies against Iran, for Ukraine in its war with Russia, and for Great Britain in its war with the Axis. And he represents a growing segment of opinion on the American right that is no longer confined to the fever swamps.

Rebeccah Heinrichs examines the worldview behind Carlson’s anti-Americanism, which she dubs the “1939 Project” in an analogy to the series of New York Times articles arguing that America’s original sin occurred in 1619:
Carlson’s views might seem outlandish, but he isn’t dumb. He is among the savviest operators out there. And he is well aware that anti-Israel invective and conspiracy thinking attracts attention in a culture that has lost trust in expertise and institutions—and is hunting for a scapegoat for America’s very real challenges.

But if the 1939 Project people are right, and Winston Churchill was in fact the warmonger, and if Hitler really wanted peace and perhaps had a point about the outsize and nefarious impact of Jewish people, and if the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bombs, then NATO was a mistake, the ties to the nation of Israel is a mistake, and none of the post-World War II international order is worth maintaining today, let alone restoring or defending.

[The goal is] to loosen the affection and support Americans feel for and have for our allies in Europe and Israel. This is necessary to weaken the American people’s support for U.S. statecraft in the world, whether in the form of sanctions, military deployments, or military action in defense of its allies and stated and official interests. Their increasingly casual anti-Semitism is not simply evil—it is strategic. It has become the glue that binds the various strains of the insurgent ideology.