Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Why Bibi Deserves Our Unity in Israel's Darkest Hour (Judean Rose)

For some people, Bibi bashing is their favorite sport. Personally, I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else at the helm at this terrible, dark time for Israel and the Jewish people. When things went down with Iran, I felt relief that it was Bibi, and not Bennett, Lapid, or Gantz in charge.

I won’t deny it. There’s a lot to pin on Netanyahu. October 7 happened on his watch. And still, I believe he loves Israel and the Jewish people, and I think it’s eating him alive that October 7 happened under his leadership. So many deaths, so many atrocities—it weighs on him. You can see on in his face, in his eyes. He’s had multiple health issues since the war began: prostate surgery, urinary tract infection, food poisoning, dehydration. His skin hangs loose on his neck; his voice at the press conference with Marco Rubio was hoarse and weak. He looks beleaguered.

Am I asking you to pity him? In a sense, yes. Because pity here is another word for mercy. If Bibi is to lead us effectively, we need to get off his back. We need to stand behind him as one people.

Unity as a Jewish Imperative

Unity has always been a problem for the Jewish people. The Torah itself tells us that Israel only merited receiving the Torah when it “camped as one man with one heart” at Sinai (Exodus 19:2). Put simply, the unity of Israel (Achdut Yisrael) is not a luxury—but a condition for Jewish survival.

History shows that whenever we are fractured as a people, our enemies take advantage. The destruction of the Second Temple is remembered by our sages as the result of sinat chinam—baseless hatred among Jews. In our own time, the catastrophic October 7 massacre exposed how internal strife left us distracted and vulnerable.

Whether it’s bitter battles over judicial reform or a public letter from 80 so-called Orthodox rabbis accusing Israel of not doing enough for the Gazan people or against the settlers, division makes us weaker than the sum of our parts.

The reverse is also true. When Jews put aside differences and stand as one, we are far mightier than our numbers suggest. That is why it is so painful to see Jews curse their own prime minister in public, or parents of hostages scream at him on camera. It does not bring their children home. It only strengthens the enemy’s resolve, showing Hamas how valuable the hostages are. The cries against Bibi serve as fodder for the hatred of Jews already spreading unchecked around the globe.

Lawfare in Wartime

Instead of focusing fully on the war, Bibi is dragged into court four times a week. MK Moshe Saada calls this “utterly absurd,” a witch hunt that robs the prime minister of his most precious resource: time. Saada asks the judges to look at his children, fighting on the front lines for 350 days, and understand that this case must wait until the war is won.

I personally hate that Bibi is dragged into court four times a week. I don’t want him futzing around in court over bogus, politically motivated charges. I want him figuring out the best way to handle this war.

American commentator Mark Levin, after witnessing the trial in Tel Aviv, said it was “much worse” than he imagined—“ludicrous,” “unconscionable,” and unlike anything that would pass for justice in America. He saw what we all know: that this is lawfare meant to topple Netanyahu, even in the midst of a life-and-death war.

How can Israel fight on all fronts when we spend so much of our national energy undermining our leader?

A New Year’s Plea for Mercy and Silence

As my late mother (A”H) was wont to say, “Don’t wash your dirty linen in public.” It was good advice then, and it’s good advice now. Criticism has its place, but shouting it in the streets while our soldiers fight and our hostages languish helps no one. It weakens us all.

I love Israel. I love living here, every day. But I long for a deeper strain of patriotism in Israeli society: the instinct to defend the leader of your country reflexively in wartime, whether you voted for him or not. Bibi is not perfect. But he is ours. He is also one of us, literally. A Jew, a part of Am Yisrael, the nation of Israel.

This Rosh Hashanah, God willing, I’ll be right there in shul at sunrise, ready to ask Hashem to guide and fortify our prime minister in battle, and for the people to stand behind him. I will pray, hard, that we learn to put aside our differences and complaints—they only make us weak. Unity is the thing we need, the thing that makes us strong. It’s the thing that makes us unbeatable, unbreakable—and unstoppable as a force for good in the world.

With blessings for a sweet new year! Shana Tova. 🍎🍯

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

I've been impressed with the writings I have seen by Yehuda Teitelbaum on his Substack, so I asked him if he can contribute to EoZ. Here's his first post.

My last post discussed the role of cowardice in converting anti-Israel violence into something honorable. But even for those who claim they are against such violence, their own cowardice has the same effect in promoting and encouraging violence.

At the Vuelta a España, weeks of anti-Israel protests wrecked one of cycling’s premier races. Podiums were cancelled, stages disrupted, the finale in Madrid abandoned. The target was not the sport but one team: Israel–Premier Tech.

The response? Race organizer ASO (Amaury Sport Organisation) asked Israel to withdraw from the race. Rivals and officials whispered that for “safety reasons,” Israel should have pulled out. The protesters caused the danger, but the solution was to pressure Israel to disappear.

Once “safety” becomes the principle, every protest grants a veto.

The same logic is now being applied to Eurovision. Several European countries threaten to withdraw if Israel competes. Instead of punishing those countries, the European Broadcasting Union has quietly urged Israel to withdraw, or compete under a neutral flag - for safety, for unity, for calm.

This is not prudence. It is cowardice elevated into principle. Institutions no longer even pretend to stand up to intimidation. They defend their capitulation as the responsible choice. The result is a permanent veto for anyone willing to menace, disrupt, or boycott.

One definition of terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence to intimidate or coerce for political purposes. These threats of violence if Israel participates in international events are textbook terrorism. And the Europeans are more than willing to knuckle under the threats.

The irony is that giving in does not mollify the terrorists - it emboldens them. By asking Israel to withdraw events like this, even quietly and even for the noblest of excuses, the Europeans are guaranteeing that things will escalate until Israel is destroyed.

And even then, they will do the same to exclude "Zionists" - meaning Jews - from all events.

This is how antisemitism wins in Europe today. Not through persuasion or legitimacy, but through intimidation reframed as responsibility. Cowardice is dressed up as principle, and people will even fight to defend it.

But the goal isn't merely to exclude Israel but to destroy it, one step at a time.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From Italian school site ilsole24ore:

A score of pro-Pal students, affiliated to left-wing university collectives, interrupted a lecture at the political science department of the University of Pisa this morning. And in a few moments what was supposed to be little more than a demonstration action for Gaza became a physical assault on a lecturer who had tried to stop the demonstrators. 'They accuse me of being Zionist,' says Rino Casella, associate professor of comparative constitutional law, 'just because I have always said that I am not pro-Pal. 'None of the more than 200 students who were attending my lecture,' added the lecturer who filed a complaint, 'sympathised with these people and when one student tried to snatch the Palestinian flag from their hands the beating started, I shielded him but both the boy and I suffered kicks and punches. At the emergency room they gave a report of seven days'.

Solidarity with the lecturer was immediately expressed by Rector Riccardo Zucchi, who also vindicated "the goodness of the choices made in recent months by the University, which has decided to say no to any scientific research with military purposes, and expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people, victims of something that closely resembles ethnic cleansing: having said this, any form of violence is unacceptable and it is also violence to interrupt a lesson, even more so when it leads to physical aggression".

Note what happened here: the violent protesters' demands were validated by the victims.

It reflects a deeper pattern: violence against Israel and its supporters does not discredit the movement. Instead, it legitimizes it.

And it all started in the 1970s.

Palestinian Arab terrorists pioneered the use of hijackings and spectacular acts of violence to force themselves onto the world stage. Simultaneously, Arab states wielded the oil weapon, threatening embargoes against countries that appeared too sympathetic to Israel.

After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the oil embargo sent Western economies into crisis. Many governments shifted policy to appease Arab states. This was presented as support for “justice” and “self-determination,” but the underlying driver was fear of economic collapse.
Groups like the PFLP and Black September hijacked planes and kidnapped diplomats. Nations that accommodated the PLO could pretend they were embracing liberation movements, when in reality they were buying protection.
In 1974, Yasser Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly with a gun holster at his side. The PLO was not treated as a terrorist gang and pariah but as a legitimate political player. . Governments justified this as recognizing a national struggle, but the timing showed the leverage of terror and oil.

What began as fear-driven accommodation was converted into a moral narrative. The violence worked not only materially but discursively: it created the story of Palestinianism as a righteous cause that the world must endorse.

The dynamic is simple but powerful. Nobody wants to admit that they bend to violence out of fear.. Individuals and institutions prefer to present themselves as moral actors rather than cowards. So when intimidation works, it is re-framed as principle: We are not yielding because we’re afraid of being attacked. We are standing with the oppressed. This alibi transforms submission into virtue.

That is what happened in Pisa. A professor was beaten, yet still felt compelled to emphatically deny being a Zionist. The rector condemned violence, but paired that condemnation with a sweeping accusation against Israel.

The real message: we oppose the method, but not the ideology behind it.

The immediate effect of the violence was intimidation. The lasting effect was narrative capture. By condemning violence while embracing its underlying cause, the institution repeated the old pattern: fear masked as virtue.

The result is that anti-Zionism becomes ever more entrenched as moral common sense, while Zionism itself is treated as a stigma. Violence legitimizes the ideology rather than discrediting it.

In fact, the rector's comments highlighted a hypocrisy so common that it is unnoticed. Anti-Israel violence, even a classroom beating, does not delegitimize the movement. But Israel’s war against Hamas - fought under impossible conditions imposed by the world, with more concern over civilians than any army in history in remotely comparable circumstances - is reflexively assumed to be ethnic cleansing. Violence in the name of Palestine is treated as a regrettable tactic, while Israeli self-defense is treated as a crime.

The Pisa incident is not just about campus disorder. It is a reminder of how propaganda works: the threat of violence creates compliance, and compliance is then laundered into ethics. Even though Italian politicians are roundly condemning the incident, they are saying they are on the same side as the lawbreakers.

Until societies learn to name this mechanism honestly - to distinguish between genuine solidarity and fear dressed up as principle - the cycle will continue, and anti-Zionism will go on winning twice: first through intimidation, and then through the moral respectability that intimidation creates.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/16 Links Pt2: Louis Armstrong’s Star of David; Nearly 80 Percent Of Jewish College Students Hid Their Religious Identity; Poll: The MAGA Youth Are Still Pro-Israel

From Ian:

Louis Armstrong’s Star of David

He was one of the world’s greatest jazz musicians, and to this day is considered the most iconic trumpeter in history. Although he wasn’t Jewish, he wore a Star of David necklace around his neck for most of his life. The necklace was a tribute to the Jewish family who helped raise him, and even helped him purchase his very first instrument. This is the story of the legendary musician whose soul became entwined with that of the Karnofsky family, and the scandal that broke out when he visited Israel.

“If it wasn’t for the nice Jewish people, we would have starved many a time. I will love the Jewish people, all of my life.”
(Louis Armstrong, Louis Armstrong: In His Own Words: Selected Writings, p. 9)

The year is 1907. In the sweltering summer heat of New Orleans, a seven-year-old boy is pushing a cart loaded with coal and scrap down a dusty street. The work is grueling – cleaning bottles, hauling coal – and demands that the child raise his young voice, shouting to attract customers as he pushes the heavy cart forward. In the evening, instead of heading home, he sits down to eat dinner with the family who have employed him and even taken him in, unofficially – the Karnofskys, poor Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. After the meal, the mother, Tillie, picks up baby David in her arms and sings Russian Lullaby, with the boy joining in.

Like many Jews at the turn of the 20th century, the Karnofsky family had fled the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire (now Lithuania) and arrived in the United States penniless. They settled in one of New Orleans’ poorest neighborhoods, home mostly to African Americans. They opened a small business collecting and selling scrap throughout the city, and at night sold their haul from coal carts in the red-light district. To run the business, they bought two horses and wagons, and hired local children from poor families to work for them. (It wasn’t until 1936 that U.S. law prohibited the employment of children under 16.)

That young boy, who had no idea he would one day become one of the greatest jazz musicians of all time, was Louis Armstrong, or “Satchmo,” as he was fondly nicknamed. Years later, when he was already an international superstar, Armstrong received a gold Star of David pendant from his friends Abe and Francis Donen, who owned a jewelry shop in Los Angeles. To Armstrong, the pendant was a reminder of the time he spent with “my Jewish family,” as he called the Karnofskys, and of the poor boy he once was in New Orleans. He never took it off. That little boy, so in need of support and encouragement, found it in a poor Jewish immigrant family from Lithuania.

Louis Armstrong was born in August 1901 in New Orleans. His mother was a single parent who worked from morning to night to support him and his sister. At the age of seven, he began working for the Karnofsky family. That job altered the course of his life, making him a fixture in their home, and sparking a deep sense of kinship and love toward the Jewish People as a whole.

The work with the Karnofskys was not easy, as Armstrong would later recall. “The Karnofskys would start getting ready for work at five o’clock in the morning. And me, I was right there along with them,” he wrote. “I began to feel like I had a future and ‘It’s a Wonderful World‘ after all.

That sense of possibility wasn’t just thanks to the job and the wages. The Karnofskys became a kind of adoptive family. They nurtured his love of music, and perhaps more importantly, gave him the belief that he could become a musician.

They also helped him acquire his first instrument. One day, while riding through the French Quarter with Morris Karnofsky, the father, Louis spotted an old, rusty cornet in a shop window. It cost five dollars, a huge sum for a poor kid in New Orleans at the time. For Louis, it seemed like an impossible dream. But Morris saw the spark in his eyes and encouraged him to buy it. He gave Louis a two-dollar advance on his wages to help him get started. Over the following weeks, Louis saved fifty cents each week until he had enough to make the purchase. . “The little cornet was real dirty and had turned real black. Morris cleaned my little cornet with some brass polish and poured some insurance oil all through it, which sterilized the inside. He requested me to play a tune on it. Although I could not play a good tune Morris applauded me just the same, which made me feel very good.” Armstrong later recalled.

HBO Max adds ‘One Day in October’ to its roster for Nova Festival massacre anniversary

A dramatised portrayal of the October 7 attacks previously broadcast in Israel and the UK will be brought to US audiences next month after a major streaming service acquired the rights to the series.

HBO Max has exclusively acquired the rights to One Day In October, a four-part series that details the horrors of the Nova Festival massacre, and is scheduled to add the it to its roster on the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks.

The drama was released in Israel last year and and it aired in the UK on Channel 4 on the first anniversary of the attacks.

The series is based on real-life accounts from survivors of the atrocities and was filmed on location in Israel.

It chronicles seven interwoven narratives, with each episode revealing the “human cost and resilience born out of chaos”, according to the producers.

The cast includes Israeli actors Swell Ariel Or and Noa Kedar.

"The series portrays the victims’ and survivors’ experiences of that day and is brought to life by a distinguished cast and acclaimed creative team,” they added.

Noga Erez to perform in Coachella Festival amid boycott calls and pro-Palestinian performers

Popular Israeli electronic singer and producer Noga Erez is slated to perform at the high-profile Coachella Festival next April in California. Erez appears on the poster for the festival, released on Tuesday, performing on the second day of the festival, alongside headliners Justin Bieber and other artists, including The Strokes and Alex G.

This year’s Coachella features a number of performers who stated anti-Israel views, most prominently Irish group Kneecaps, which projected messages on a screen including “F*** Israel,” “Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people,” and “The U.S. government arms and funds Israel despite their war crimes.”

Erez is well-known outside of Israel and has performed with American star Pink during a tour of the southern US. Her third album, The Vandalist, was released in September 2024, postponed almost a year because of the events of October 7.

Late last year, Erez said in an Instagram post that she was being boycotted internationally because she’s Israeli. In the video post, she said that scheduled festival and concert dates abroad have been abruptly canceled.

“I really wish it was just one case, but the list kind of keeps growing,” Erez said. “It’s not for anything that I said, it’s simply because I was born where I was born. I believe that boycotting artists will not bring a solution. I believe that banning songs, movies, plays, books, etc., is not going to fix the world’s problems.”

09/16 Links Pt1: Israel condemns ‘distorted and false’ UN Commission accusation of genocide; Why Trump Let Netanyahu Strike Hamas in Doha

From Ian:

Michael Doran: Why Trump Let Netanyahu Strike Hamas in Doha

If Trump and Netanyahu are better coordinated than they let on, what was the point of the attack in Doha? There were five major strategic goals, the first of which was to convince Hamas that only the Trump plan holds any prospect of ending the Gaza conflict.

On September 7, Trump announced a Gaza peace proposal, claiming Israel’s acceptance, which demands Hamas release the remaining 48 hostages (about 20 of whom are presumed to be alive), disarm, and cede power in exchange for a ceasefire, a prisoner swap, and U.S.-led reconstruction. Hamas rejected the plan, viewing it as surrender, and sought amendments for a permanent Israeli withdrawal and retention of political dominance in Gaza. The Israelis perceive significant differences between Hamas in Gaza and Hamas in Doha. Gaza’s leaders—second- and third-tier figures elevated by the deaths of their commanders—show greater readiness for compromise than Doha’s leaders, some of whom are close to Iran.

Israel’s attack aimed to eliminate this intransigent wing. Reports indicate senior Hamas leaders like al-Hayya and Khaled Meshaal survived, with al-Hayya reportedly stepping out to pray just before the strike. Five lower-level Hamas members, including al-Hayya’s son and one Qatari security official, were reportedly killed.

The second goal was to fulfill an Israeli promise. “Every member of Hamas is a dead man,” Netanyahu said after October 7, 2023. International calls for a ceasefire—from French president Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister Keir Starmer, or Senator Bernie Sanders—pressure Netanyahu to renege on that commitment. But destroying Hamas aligns with the Netanyahu Doctrine: no monsters on Israel’s borders. Before October 7, Israel allowed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to grow, believing deterrence and diplomacy could manage them. That assumption no longer holds.

Netanyahu’s goal of eradicating Hamas enjoys stronger backing from Trump than many realize. Together with former British prime minister Tony Blair, Trump and Israel are working on a plan for an interim governing body, supported by regional powers under U.S. oversight, allowing Israel to withdraw militarily while preventing Hamas’s return. Israeli security services would retain “overarching rights,” including buffer zones along Gaza’s borders. Trump and Netanyahu hope to implement this plan soon, possibly within months.

An offensive to take Gaza City, the essential prelude to the plan, is already underway. Netanyahu intends to divide Gaza into two sectors: one governed by Hamas and one by the interim authority. Once a non-Hamas sector exists, Israel expects Gazans to flee the Hamas-run sector for safer conditions. If Hamas accepts the Trump plan, the offensive would be unnecessary. The failure to kill Doha’s leaders does not derail the plan, and Israel’s resolve may yet convince Hamas leaders and Gazans that Hamas has no future.

The third goal was to signal to Iran that there is no return to business as usual. Since the 12-day war, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained defiant, rejecting accommodation with Trump, who demands zero uranium enrichment. Khamenei claims a “decisive victory” over Israel and the U.S., dismisses U.S. strikes as ineffective, warns of “irreparable damage” if pressure continues, and pursues indirect European negotiations to divide the West.

Netanyahu’s goal of eradicating Hamas enjoys stronger backing from Trump than many realize.

The fourth goal, as many analysts have noted, was to convince Qatar, host and funder of Hamas’s political leadership, to change its behavior. But this goal, expressed openly by Netanyahu, conceals a broader strategic concern: signaling resolve to Turkey.

A key Hamas supporter, Turkey seeks to expand its military presence in Syria. On September 8, Israel reportedly struck a warehouse in Homs, Syria, destroying Turkish-made missiles and air defense equipment. The Doha strike followed the next day, demonstrating Israel’s ability to hit targets anywhere, even in a U.S.-allied state like Qatar.

However, like Israel, Turkey is among the elite U.S. allies with the will and capacity to act independently. Trump has developed a new model of alliance management, treating Israel not as a client but as America’s right arm against Iran and its proxies. The results are evident: Washington and Jerusalem have dealt blows to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran’s nuclear program.

Hamas Thought Qatar Was Safe. Israel Proved Otherwise.
But a superpower must also manage friends, especially those who dislike each other. The Trump-Netanyahu routine may serve against Iran, but Turkey is another matter. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brings his own ambitions and leverage, and neither Washington nor Jerusalem can simply cow him. What is needed is not more pressure but deft diplomacy—above all, a strategy that turns Syria into a buffer between America’s two most capable allies. Without such a buffer, the rivalry between Jerusalem and Ankara could slide into open conflict, undoing Trump’s successes. To paraphrase Robert Frost, good buffers make good neighbors.

In sum, the Doha strike was not just about killing al-Hayya, changing Hamas’s calculus, or reorienting Qatar. It was about shaping a new regional order. Trump and Netanyahu are rewriting the rules of alliance politics in the Middle East: Israel as America’s sword arm, Turkey as its restless partner, Iran as the common enemy. The good cop-bad cop routine has bruised Iran badly, but shaping a durable order will require sustained diplomacy as well as force. Nixon and Kissinger showed that even in moments of strength, power had to be joined to diplomacy. If Trump wants his new model of alliance politics to endure, he would do well to follow their example.

Israel to UN Security Council: Where Was Your Indignation on October 7 When Our Sovereignty Was Breached?

After Israel's targeted strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar, the UN Security Council convened an "emergency session" on Sep. 11 to unanimously condemn the Israeli action.

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon challenged the Council's selective outrage:

"Where was your indignation on October 7, when our sovereignty was breached and Israeli civilians were butchered by Hamas? What have we heard from this Council since then? Silence, silence."

"When bin Laden was eliminated in Pakistan, the world did not ask why a terrorist was targeted on foreign soil - but why he was sheltered there in the first place. There was no immunity for bin Laden, and there can be no immunity for Hamas."

The Post-October 7 Security Strategy Driving Israeli Actions

Hamas's brutal attack on Oct. 7, 2023 - which left 1,200 dead and hundreds more held captive - made clear to Israel's leaders and citizens alike that the country must change its approach to national security to ensure its survival. Oct. 7 demonstrated that it is impossible to contain groups such as Hamas or to accept their existence along Israel's borders without compromising the country's safety.

In the subsequent two years, Israeli decision-makers have discarded old security paradigms in favor of new strategies. Israel had generally sought to limit its actions to the minimum necessary to remove immediate threats and restore quiet. Today, however, Israel is no longer content with weakening, rather than defeating, its adversaries. Instead, Israeli leaders are much more willing to employ the country's military strength to proactively shape a new order that protects its national interests.

Israel's targeted killings of senior leaders in Iran, Lebanon, Qatar, and elsewhere show that Israel no longer adheres to redlines that its neighbors believed it would never cross. Israel will not grant immunity to any leaders of hostile groups, no matter their political title or location, if Israel believes they are involved in terrorist activity. Israel is willing to establish war goals that are far more ambitious than the ones it has pursued in the past, even if achieving those goals is costly and requires sustained or multifront military action.

Israel must avoid security concessions based on visions of peace that overlook the hatred of Israel and extremist views that have taken root among the Palestinians and other Arab populations. As soon as Israel suggests a compromise for peace, countries hostile to Israel see it as evidence that the country will buckle under pressure.

There is only one way to truly end the conflict in Gaza: removing Hamas as the dominant force and demilitarizing the territory by ridding it of weapons in the hands of hostile actors; killing, capturing, or exiling the vast majority of enemy commanders and fighters; and dismantling any infrastructure that allows Hamas to manufacture weapons or maintain its rule. By embracing a strategy that prioritizes real security concerns over wishful diplomacy and proactive intervention over reactive restraint, Israel is making itself stronger, not weaker. It can thrive only if its borders are secure, existential challenges on its periphery are removed, and its regional partnerships grow deeper.

Egyptian newspaper El Aosboa describes Secretary of State Marco Rubio's visit to the Western Wall in apocalyptic terms:

Dr. Ahmed Fouad Anwar, an expert on Israeli affairs and a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, said, "The truth is that what happened today is a provocation to the feelings of Arabs and Muslims....."

He added in exclusive statements to Al-Usbu': "This action by the US Secretary of State and Netanyahu is a clear provocation, and is reminiscent of the events of 1929, when Muslims were provoked by encroachment on the Western Wall, an integral part of the Noble Sanctuary."

Dr. Ahmed Fouad Anwar explained: "I remember that there is a segment of religious Jews who believe that visiting the Buraq Wall is not permissible because it is occupied by Zionists. Therefore, visiting the Haram is also prohibited, as are the courtyards or areas of the Haram."

He continued, "I refer here to the Shaw Commission, which examined the 1929 events surrounding the Western Wall. The area was very narrow, and surrounded on all sides by homes of Moroccan Muslims. Attempts were made to install benches, benches, partitions, and barriers, which undermined the sacred religious character of the Noble Sanctuary. This was the spark that ignited the violent events surrounding these measures."

Dr. Ahmed Fouad Anwar stated, "I believe that this provocation could have dire consequences, especially since within Israel, and among religious Jews in particular, there is a large segment of them who view this as a violation of Jewish law and unacceptable, while a small number of religious Zionists view such violations as acceptable and even desirable."

This is not the first time that an academic confuses wishful thinking for analysis. But his knowledge here is remarkably shallow - what Jews object to Rubio visiting the Kotel on religious grounds?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

In today’s New York Times, Navi Pillay, chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Gaza, announced what she calls a stark truth: Israel is committing genocide.

When we look closely at the evidence her Commission cites, and compare it to independent assessments like the BESA Center’s September 2025 study Debunking the Genocide Allegations, a more troubling picture emerges—not of Israel’s intent, but of the Commission’s method.

Starvation as a Weapon—or a Narrative?

Pillay claims that Israel has “used starvation as a weapon of war,” pointing to trucks of aid blocked at the border and shortages of infant formula. The Commission’s report went further, calling denial of baby milk “powerful evidence” of genocidal intent. Yet the footnotes don’t show an Israeli ban on formula. They cite UNICEF on malnutrition and a doctor who said unsafe water made formula impossible to prepare. These are tragic effects, but they are not proof of deliberate denial.

On aid flows, the Commission’s baseline is 500 trucks a day. BESA shows this is misleading: prewar, only about 73 of those trucks carried food, and that number was based on working days. By early 2025, food inflows often matched or exceeded that baseline. UNRWA eventually corrected its own earlier “collapse” claims. Pillay does not mention these corrections.

But the UN report also engages in false claims that it launders through footnotes. It admits that some food is stolen in Gaza (in fact virtually all food aid is stolen), but then claims that Israel is still heavily restricting aid:

By 22 June 2025, OCHA reported that nearly 9,000 metric tonnes of wheat flour were brought into Gaza since 19 May, most of it was taken by people in need of aid en-route, and in some cases by armed elements, before reaching its final destinations. (430) Since then, humanitarian aid has been extremely restricted by Israeli authorities and requests for humanitarian access have been repeatedly denied.(431)

Footnote 431 is an IPC report that says:

Humanitarian aid remains extremely restricted due to requests for humanitarian access being repeatedly denied and frequent security incidents.(6)

In turn, that footnote 6 refers to an OCHA report from July 23 - which does not say at all that Israel is denying aid.

Its July 16 report is the most specific: "Between 9 and 15 July, out of 66 attempts to coordinate planned aid movements across the Gaza Strip, nearly 17 per cent were denied by Israeli authorities. "

A 17% denial rate is not evidence of an Israeli policy to deny aid. It means that specific requests would be in danger from IDF activities, and most of them are approved. Framing this as "repeated denials" is knowingly deceptive. The truth is the opposite from how the UNHRC portrays it. Moreover, even when other UN agencies do give Israel's reasons for denials of some shipments, the UNHRC report treats all of those collectively as proof of a policy to starve Gazans and assume Israel's explanations are all lies.

Safe Zones, Hamas, and Civilian Harm

The op-ed treats Israel’s evacuation orders and designated safe zones as a sham, citing civilians killed even there. But data show fatalities in these areas were a small fraction—around 2 to 3.5 percent—of the total. That doesn’t make them safe in absolute terms, but it suggests they were safer than surrounding areas.

What Pillay does not acknowledge is evidence that Hamas itself operated inside or alongside some of these zones, exploiting them as cover. That matters legally: if militants were using evacuation corridors, civilian deaths there may point less to genocidal design than to Hamas’s tactics combined with the fog of war.

Intent: Words vs. Deeds

Pillay rests much of the Commission’s case for genocidal intent on rhetoric. Gallant’s “human animals” remark, Herzog’s statement that the “entire nation” was responsible, Netanyahu’s reference to Amalek—all of these are cited as direct evidence of dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy a people.

But the Commission discounts Israel’s actions that cut against this narrative. Warnings issued, corridors opened, and aid allowed through are reinterpreted as sinister: proof of knowledge rather than mitigation, a façade rather than an attempt to minimize harm. This asymmetry is striking: harsh words are taken literally, while deeds that contradict the genocide charge are explained away as window dressing.

In other words, the only Israeli statements or actions that are considered evidence are the ones that fit with the report's pre-determined conclusions.

The Problem of “Only Reasonable Inference”

In her op-ed, Pillay insists that genocide is not just one inference but the only reasonable one. Yet that is exactly what is in dispute. BESA shows how famine projections failed to materialize, how UNRWA itself corrected undercounts, how safe zones did save lives at scale, and how infant formula shortages are not the same as a deliberate ban. These facts show that alternatives to the genocide narrative - legitimate military objectives, Hamas’s embedding, and real mistakes of war reinterpreted as policy - remain very much on the table.

When genocide is declared the only explanation, despite contested evidence, the "law" becomes advocacy.

Conclusion: A Higher Standard

Navi Pillay’s experience as a judge in Rwanda gives her words moral weight. But invoking Rwanda is not a substitute for evidence that meets the same standard. In Rwanda, génocidaires were convicted on proof of intent beyond reasonable doubt. In Gaza, the UN Commission uses a lower bar—“reasonable grounds”—and then extrapolates the gravest charge from sources that are themselves disputed, corrected or falsified.

That does not mean Gaza’s suffering is imagined. It does mean the genocide finding, as presented, is not the impartial legal conclusion it is claimed to be. It is a narrative, built on selective sourcing and asymmetrical treatment of evidence.

Worse, the report is guilty of what it accuses Israel of: it claims that Israeli actions that contradict the genocide narrative are public relations moves and not real, but in reality its own cherry picking of evidence are the PR to reach its own foregone conclusion.

In the end, the report reads less like a balanced forensic audit and more like a prosecutorial brief. That matters. Because if genocide is to remain a legal concept rather than a political weapon, its proof must rest on evidence weighed fairly, not selectively. Otherwise, the law itself risks being seen as advocacy in disguise.

Respected Middle East academic journal @mideastcritique has been taken over by pro-Iran propagandists @WeAreTandF

Middle East Critique, which has until now been a respected academic journal, just published "Zionist Defeat in Iran: The Triumph of National Identity over Aggression", by Reza Bagheri of the University of Tehran.

Here is the abstract:

On June 13, 2025, the Zionist regime launched a multifaceted attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, resulting in 610 deaths, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians. The aggressors, backed by US support, aimed to incite internal rebellion, expecting 80% of Iranians to rise against their government, as seen in Libya and Syria. However, the Iranian people overwhelmingly rejected calls for rebellion by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Trump, demonstrating national unity and support for the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This article examines the Iranian response during the 12-day conflict, categorizing it into active participation, empathetic cooperation, and patient alignment. It analyzes two key factors behind this response: recognition of the imperialist nature of the US and Zionist regime, fueled by their actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, and Iran’s deep-rooted patriotism and nationalism, historically tied to its civilizational identity. Despite internal critiques, Iranians prioritized defending their homeland, thwarting foreign plans for regime change and partition. The study underscores the resilience of Iranian national identity and its role in countering external aggression.

How could Middle East Critique publish this? It doesn't even use the word "Israel" but "Zionist regime." It exactly mirrors what the Iranian regime said after the war.

This is a peer-reviewed journal!

From everything I can tell, it has been ideologically captured by pro-Iran researchers. Check out this roundtable in the most recent issue:

The abstract of the first article on Nasrallah begins by falsely claiming the US was involved in the bombing that killed him. and then discusses "the impact of his martyrdom" - a very strange word choice for an academic journal. (So is "Sayyed," an Islamic honorific title.)

On September 27, 2024, the US and Israel detonated 80 tons of American Mark-II multi-ton bunker-buster bombs over the southern Beirut suburb neighborhood of Haret Hreik, assassinating Hezbollah chief, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Few contemporary Arab leaders had the political impact and leverage that Nasrallah had, having been the central focus of US and Israeli counterinsurgency for decades. At the same time, he was also a critical figure to the consolidation of the regional Resistance Axis, and an icon for both Islamic resistance and anti-imperialist liberation globally. This essay aims to reflect on the legacy of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the martyred leader of the Lebanese resistance organization, Hezbollah, by analyzing the trajectory of his political formation and ideology, as well as the spiritual and material elements of his activity and successes. While delving into the impacts of his lifelong struggle and leadership, this work also briefly touches upon the impact of his martyrdom, while providing a dialectical – both material and spiritual – assessment of his legacy.

Again, this reads like a Hezbollah press release and includes language that should never be used uncritically in academia.

The journal is published by Taylor and Francis, well known for its many academic journals. This does not make the company look good at all.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/15 Links Pt2: Howard Jacobson: The Unremitting Responsibility; 21 US state AGs back Oct. 7 victims lawsuit by against anti-Israel activists

From Ian:

Howard Jacobson: The Unremitting Responsibility

In June 2006, a young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was captured by Palestinian militants and abducted to the Gaza Strip. Five years later, he was returned to Israel in exchange for the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Among the released was Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of the October 7 massacre. But that’s an irony for another time. As is the question of what new atrocities might follow from the more recent exchange of prisoners for hostages. Yahya Sinwar is said to have read nothing but Jewish books in the time he was incarcerated. If the massacre is anything to go by, his studies were more the scholasticism of opportunism and contempt than a labor of love. By the time Sinwar was released, there was said to be no weakness in the Jewish psyche in which he wasn’t versed, not least the willingness of Jews to pay any price to get their own people returned.

How to describe that weakness, if weakness it is, has exercised the minds of commentators on both sides of the conflict. Jews have been immemorially accused of driving hard bargains. So why are we such soft touches when it comes to swapping prisoners for hostages? Do we love our own to the point of recklessness? Or is this to misdescribe what is in reality spiritual arrogance? Do we compute the value of Jewish life on a different scale from the one we use to compute the value of the lives of non-Jews?

Shortly after the release of Shalit in 2011, the late Deborah Orr, a well-regarded journalist for The Guardian, put the following gloss on the swap of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli soldier:
The deal is widely viewed as a victory for Hamas. . . . Conversely, it is being seen by some as a sign of weakness in Israel’s rightwing prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

All this, I fear, is simply an indication of how inured the world has become to the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. “Obscene” that we should think so contemptibly of Israelis? Or “obscene” of Israelis to think so contemptibly of Palestinians?

As her argument proceeded, it became clear that Orr meant the latter. Of the Palestinians, she said, “There is something abject in their eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe — that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.”

There is nothing new about upending Jewishness to make its sanctity show as self-importance and its virtues show as vices, but this version of topsy-turvydom is especially odious. At a stroke, the exorbitant price that militants had set for the release of a hostage they had held for five years, with little word of his well-being, was reconfigured as Israel’s gesture of contempt, the final proof of its disdain for non-Jewish lives. For this preposterous scenario to have even a shred of plausibility, the infantilized Palestinians must be painted as having no role in the framing of the deal beyond an eager and abject acceptance of its terms, and the Jews must be returned to the desert of Deuteronomy where God called them His treasured possession. Holy in their own eyes as a consequence, Jews became the model of moral heinousness for ever after.

I knew Deborah Orr. I worked with her briefly at The Independent before the sirens of The Guardian whistled her over. Her piece was a mystery to me because while it bore all the marks of classic antisemitism with a screw loose, she had never, in the time I’d known her, shown any predisposition to antisemitic views beyond a bit of de rigueur anti-Zionism. In fairness to her and The Guardian, the piece from which I’ve quoted came with a later footnote and apology acknowledging that the use of the word chosen was “inconsistent with Guardian guidelines.” But the apology felt grudging, and the piece was not withdrawn.

Views similar to Orr’s have since resurfaced as the negotiations for the return of the October 7 hostages have stuttered along. Yet again, on talk radio and the like, Israel’s acceptance of Hamas’s bloated terms is adduced as proof that it considers itself a chosen people and holds the lives of others in contempt. If this fantasy won’t go away (somehow despite The Guardian’s footnote), it can only be because retaining it is too useful in justifying Jew-hate. Who, after all, can ever love a person who believes he is better than you because God told him so?

21 US state AGs back lawsuit filed by Oct. 7 victims against NYC anti-Israel activists

The attorneys general of 21 US states last week backed a lawsuit that October 7 victims filed against leading anti-Israel protesters in New York, in a significant show of support.

The lawsuit, filed in March in the federal Southern District of New York court, accused the activists of acting as “Hamas’ propaganda arm” in New York City and its Columbia University campus, in violation of federal anti-terrorism laws.

Immediately after the October 7 invasion, Hamas called for support from the “resistance abroad” and released a manifesto titled “Our Narrative.” The defendants followed those directives to aid the terrorist group, the lawsuit claimed.

The Columbia activists also shared statements supporting designated terror groups on the Telegram messaging app, such as tributes to the late Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar, distributed Hamas material on campus, and celebrated the October 7 attack on its anniversary, the lawsuit said.

The attorneys general, echoing the complaint in the lawsuit, accused the activists of spreading terrorist propaganda, citing, for example, a “Day of Resistance Toolkit” that some of the activists shared on October 8, 2023.

The toolkit, published by National Students for Justice in Palestine, included instructions for activists, talking points for defending the Hamas attack, orders to organize “Day of Resistance” protests, and stated that activists were part of a “unity intifada” that was fighting Israel from Gaza.

“All Palestinian factions in Gaza appear to be participating under unified command,” the toolkit said. “We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.”

The attorneys general argued that the statements and protests amounted to material support for Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group, in violation of the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, and that it was in their states’ broader interest to oppose terrorism.

Board of Deputies launches comprehensive 7 October resource

The Board of Deputies has launched a new comprehensive online platform designed to enable people to fully understand the scope of the tragedy of 7 October, with the aim of “countering the misinformation and disinformation” and to make it clear that “we’re not just talking about numbers, we’re talking about lives.”

The Remembering 7th October: Resource i includes testimonies and interviews from survivors, hostages, and eyewitnesses, as well as accounts of the heroes who acted with courage and compassion on that day. Multimedia content is also present – including graphic material which is clearly signposted.

Describing the new resource, Phil Rosenberg, President of the Board, said: “Our community has been clear – we must not let the victims or the truth of that day fade from memory. This resource stands as evidence, as testimony, and as a teaching tool. It is for now and for the future.”

Adam Ma’anit, Communications Manager at the Board, lost two family members on 7 October. His 18 year-old cousin, Maayan Idan, was murdered by Hamas on 7 October, dying in her father’s arms. Her father, Tzachi, was then marched into captivity by Hamas, where he was subsequently killed – his remains were handed over by the terrorist organisation in February.

Speaking to Jewish News, Adam said that a lot of people had come to the Board, “and told us that they think that the one of the biggest problems they have is that it’s really difficult to know where to go to find certain bits of information about 7 October…there’s no central place where it’s all being kept.” He paid tribute to the incredible work done by some organisations, including the Hostages and Missing Families Forum and the October 7th Mapping Project, but said that “we wanted one resource that can be a starting point for people to really find all of the necessary information that they need or they’re looking for; one that is very much focused on the victims and the hostages and the families and also the heroes.”

The resource includes documents which map the massacre in full, a number of documentaries focused on the tragedy, interviews with released hostages and videos of hostage family members. It also includes videos of those who survived the Nova festival massacre, and a special section, as Adam mentions, on the heroes of 7 October; people who did everything they could to save others – often sacrificing their own lives in the process. Jake Marlowe, for example, was one of the British victims of 7 October – he was working as security at the Nova festival.

09/15 Links Pt1: Elliott Abrams on Why There Will Never Be a Palestinian State; Rubio: No Gazan future if Hamas ‘barbaric animals’ remain; The bourgeois death cult of Bob Vylan

From Ian:

Elliott Abrams on Why There Will Never Be Palestinian State

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a friend of the Washington Free Beacon. He has served in senior foreign policy roles in three Republican administrations focusing on the Middle East, Latin America, and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Through it all, he has been a relentless advocate for American interests and a proud and unyielding Zionist.

Earlier this month, he published an essay in Mosaic magazine headlined, "There Never Will Be a Palestinian State. So What’s Next?" We wanted to ask him a few questions about it, and recommend you read the whole thing.

The upshot of your piece is that the Palestinian leadership doesn’t actually want a state. You’ve worked on Middle East diplomacy for a long time. When did you come to this conclusion?

After they rejected [former Israeli prime minister Ehud] Olmert’s 2008 offer. I hated his offer, which would have abandoned Jerusalem, and thought it would never get cabinet or Knesset approval. But even that offer was rejected by the Palestinians.

What took you so long?

I never dealt with [former Palestinian Authority president Yasser] Arafat, but I thought things might work out much better when he was dead. He died in late 2004, and nothing changed, so I drew conclusions.

You say you came to the conclusion there would never be a Palestinian state in 2008. But you wrote this piece in 2025, 17 years later. Why the delay?

I have been saying it; that article was not the first time. I told the Obama transition team in late 2008 that [current PA president Mahmoud] Abbas would never, never say yes to anything. But I admit I’ve been clearer as the years have gone by. That’s because the sickness in Palestinian society has I think become clearer and clearer.

You say Palestinian leaders don’t want a state. What’s the strongest evidence for your view?

Partition into two states is an old idea, going back to the British a century ago and then the UN resolution in 1947. Though it would have created a tiny Israel, the Zionists accepted it; they desperately wanted a state. The Palestinians have always said no—after World War I, after World War II, then to Clinton and Bush and Obama. Instead they have always chosen war and terrorism. Their goal has been destroying Israel, not building a state of their own.

French president Emmanuel Macron, British prime minister Keir Starmer, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese, and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney recently recognized a Palestinian state. You argue that this never would have happened absent the October 7 attacks. Why?

The October 7th attacks aroused a kind of blood lust in many Muslim populations and among many left-wing groups. They have cheered Hamas on, and they call Israel’s war against Hamas "genocide." These politicians—Macron, Carney, Starmer, and Albanese—are catering to domestic audiences, giving them the rhetoric they want. This recognition of a Palestinian state that does not exist is pure theater, and does not help one single Palestinian. It comes in reaction to this unbelievably brutal attack on Israel, and assault on Israel for defending itself.

Recognizing a Palestinian state: The consequences of doing it before peace

Unprecedented Arab League move
Recognizing a Palestinian state under these conditions is not only premature, it is perilous. To their credit, some European and Arab leaders have called on Hamas to give up power and lay down its arms, and urged reforms to the PA. In the case of the Arab League, this was an unprecedented and welcome change in rhetoric.

However, actions speak louder than words.

According to two veteran Palestinian negotiators, “the Palestinians’ readiness to take the negotiating path to its logical conclusions was restrained by a perception that they were winning the moral and psychological high ground. The paradoxical effect was to make it harder to progress toward an agreement with Israel because it seemed that other influential parties might do the job.”

The international community should not reward Palestinian leaders for rejecting peace deals, massacring Israelis, promoting hate, stealing international aid, and doing nothing to prepare their people for coexistence with Israel.

If they can do all that damage and still have the UK, France, and others recognize their state, what incentive will they have to change course, let alone make peace?

It is no surprise that Hamas celebrated and claimed credit. The choice to advance such recognition on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, a sacred moment of reflection and renewal for the Jewish people, adds insult to injury.

European leaders have said that their moves are a response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and violence in the West Bank, aimed at pressuring the Israeli government and giving the Palestinian people hope for the future amid their suffering. Israel is subject to criticism and accountability like any democracy. That includes from within, as Israelis struggle with impossible dilemmas in the aftermath of October 7.

The key is ending Hamas
Yet the key to a better future for Palestinians, where they can govern themselves and build thriving communities alongside Israel, is ending Hamas’ reign of terror and, at a minimum, dramatically reforming the PA. No matter what statements they make, Western leaders are unwilling and unable to remove Hamas from power in Gaza.

As long as they remain in control, recognizing Palestinian statehood will strengthen the very extremists who are obstructing peace. In practice, this will not help Israelis or Palestinians, and may make a terrible situation even worse.

As rabbis, we approach this moment with both moral urgency and deep historical awareness. To recognize a Palestinian state with Hamas still entrenched in Gaza – and with the PA promoting violence through its “pay-for-slay” program – is to turn a blind eye to truth and to justice. It would be to sanctify corruption, to reward terror, and to abandon the very principles of peace that the world claims to uphold.

Our tradition teaches us to “Choose life,” to affirm paths that protect the innocent and cultivate dignity for all.

Premature recognition of a Palestinian state does the opposite: It empowers those who glorify death.

We call on the nations of the world to show moral clarity, to reject political expediency, and to stand instead with integrity, truth, and the possibility of genuine peace.

Australia's Fantasy of Social Cohesion

As early as 1974, the Islamist agenda to dominate Western nations was disclosed by Algeria's Houari Boumedienne in his speech to the United Nations: "One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

Australia's decision to recognize a fictitious Palestinian state, along with France, Britain and Canada, totally contravenes the current requirements of international law for nations.

The Australian government apparently believes that Islamophobia adversely affects social cohesion. What it has yet to comprehend is that the concept of Islamophobia is a two-edged sword, sometimes employed to suppress genuine criticism of some of the tenets of Islam, but also to neutralize any criticism of the religion before it can even begin.

"Hamas is not just at war with Israel. It is at war with Jews, Christians, and the very foundations of civilization itself.... This is not politics, this is a religious war. Its purpose is to replace Judaism and Christianity with radical Islam. If the world does not understand this, everyone will pay the price."— Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef.

"The hardest decision any leader has to make is to thwart a danger before it fully materializes." — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Europe's weak leaders have failed in this regard, resulting in a catastrophic social crisis for their nations. The question is whether or not Australia will follow a similar course of submission, a recipe for losing the West.

I saw a very interesting essay at the "Inheritance of a Thousand Generations" Substack:

I am writing to you under the shadow of brick and limestone-clad buildings on the campus of Columbia University where I am presently examining archival documents from a demonstration on this campus nearly six decades earlier. A few weeks after King’s assassination, students at this university launched a protest of unprecedented size and impact. Protesters occupied five university buildings and kidnapped Columbia’s dean, Henry Coleman in his own office for 36 hours. The occupation lasted for eight days until, finally, the NYPD forcibly removed the protesters. More than 700 people were arrested, and 100 sustained injuries.

This protest was organized in part by Mark Rudd, then chairman of the Columbia chapter of a radical student organization, Students for a Democratic Society, (SDS). Initially, SDS was committed to nonviolence, but in 1967 began embracing the slogan “from protest to resistance”. While the organization itself was becoming more radical, a few, specific individuals within it, including Rudd, were beginning to embrace revolutionary extremism. By the end of 1968, this coalition, known as the Weathermen, took control of the national SDS office, co-opting the entire organization. By the end of the decade, the Weathermen had turned to domestic terrorism and when they were forced to go on the lamb, became known as the Weather Underground.

Over the decade that Weather Underground was active, they took credit for bombing the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department, the California Attorney General’s office, the Harvard Center for International Affairs, and 20 other sites.

...
By 1968, a small cadre within [SDS] had become convinced that injustice in America was so intolerable, that it can only be resisted by force. Their objective was to shock regular people out of their apathy, see the world as they did, and join in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the government and institute what they believed to be real democracy. Part of this they accomplished. This extremist sect within a radical organization managed to convince hundreds of normal students to join them in their occupation of Columbia University. These students were not aware of the extremist ideology animating the organizers; what they were animated by was the moral aegis of resisting racism and an unjust war.

My moral philosophy project is based on the idea that bad philosophies are what animate radical movements like this. Indeed, SDS embraced revolutionary theory to justify their actions. At the time it was founded, universities had not started teaching those theories, although they routinely do so today. But the original student organizers used philosophy to underpin their beliefs:. They denied universal truth (relativism,), redefined tolerance as repression (Marcuse), romanticized violence as cleansing (Fanon, Mao, Che) and absolutized moral purity and urgency (apocalyptic Marxism).

In fact, radical movements can start without a guiding philosophy - like Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street - but without leaders applying a philosophical framework to their ideas, they tend to sputter out in short order. In those to cases the philosophies (like critical theory) were introduced after the fact and that is why elements of those movements endure.

Other protest movements, like Los Angeles riots in the 1990s, burn hot but fade away quickly.

In SDS' case, pamphlets and underground newspapers fueled the ideas for years among student activists, and even though many of those who joined weren't conversant in the theories behind the violence, the leaders were and used the ideas that they are anti-war or other simplistic ideas to attract larger numbers.

The same philosophies that fueled Columbia ’68 - relativism, Marcuse’s ‘repressive tolerance,’ Fanon’s valorization of violence - are now taught formally in universities and echoed in slogans like ‘speech is violence.'

Philosophy is what turns grievance into ideology, ideology into permission structures, and permission structures into durable action. It is an essential component of the political violence we are seeing today. Mark Rudd, mentioned above as an SDS leader, sees no difference between his 1960s activism and the anti-Israel protests on campus today.

The problem is that these philosophies are not moral. They justify violence, binary thinking and brainwashing. They disregard truth and paint their perceived enemies in absolute terms of evil ("fascist," "genocidal.")

But how can one judge a philosophy as moral? What makes Zionism moral and decolonial theory immoral?

Stay tuned. I have been building a non-partisan political and moral philosophy audit to determine the answer to exactly this question. So far, it works quite well.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Haaretz reported last week:

Palestinians from Gaza being treated in Jordanian hospitals said they have been told they will be sent back to Gaza, sparking alarm and fear among families who now face a forced return to Gaza's collapsing healthcare system, as Israel intensifies its strikes on Gaza City and pushes residents south.
At least eight families, including some with children facing chronic and life-threatening illnesses, were reportedly notified that they must return to Gaza despite expecting to complete their medical treatments in Jordan.
A mother standing beside her two young daughters appealed directly to King Abdullah II of Jordan in a video on X: "We came here for my daughter's treatment. She has cancer, she still has a brain tumor, and we are not done with her therapy."

While most commenters to this video are sympathetic and upset at Jordan, others support Jordan's decision.

You were cursing Jordan and the king, you shameless woman... Shame on you, you fallen woman... You deserve nothing but slaps on your face... Go help her in the hospitals in the West Bank.

Yet even those who are upset at Jordan were silent when Jordan and Egypt (and the Palestinian Authority) decided early in the war that they would not allow any Gazans to take refuge. Tens of thousands of civilians could have been saved - but the critics of Jordan now shared the logic that it is more important for Gazans to stay with "sumud," steadfastness, than to save their lives.

So the rich Gazans fled to Egypt in the first nine months of the war by paying exorbitant fees, the poor were left behind, and the Arab world didn't give a damn.

It is truly Orwellian when Palestinians are told to die from outsiders who swear that they are "pro-Palestinian."

There is no such thing as pro-Palestinian. It is just an empty phrase for "anti-Israel."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)