Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

09/30 Links Pt2: The UN’s descent into Jew-hatred and irrelevance; Ships in Greta Thunberg's Flotilla 'Secretly Owned By Hamas,'; I Visited Gaza. The GHF Food Aid Surprised Me

From Ian:

Gil Troy: The UN’s descent into Jew-hatred and irrelevance

The history of the UN
Back in 1945, the Western world celebrated the UN’s founding. By defending “human rights,” the forum would avoid a third world war and another mass slaughter – especially against the Jews. Those high hopes help explain Americans’ deep disappointment when the UN betrayed America and democracy, not just the Jews.

Thirty years later, in 1975, America was reeling from the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam loss. Exploiting America’s weakness – and many developing countries’ fury over Vietnam – the Soviet Union hijacked the UN. Suddenly, it became the Third World dictators’ debating society. Tyrants used the kind of democratic rights their citizens never enjoyed to assert their anti-American power.

The Soviet Union allied with the Palestinians and the Arab countries to push General Assembly Resolution 3379, calling Zionism “racism.” Targeting one form of nationalism, Jewish nationalism, in this forum of nationalisms fused anti-Americanism with antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The Cuban representative told African delegates that “Zionism, capitalism, and American imperialism are all faces of the same monster.”

The PLO’s Farouk Kaddoumi praised the delegates for hearing the “voice of the victim,” a phrase capturing the new glorification of “the oppressed” defying the “oppressors.” Saudi Arabia’s UN ambassador, Jamil Baroody, derided the Jews’ penchant for “money changing.”

Many Americans gave up on the UN, reflecting their post-World War II protectiveness toward Jews and Israel. America’s UN ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, recognized this biased assault on Jewish nationalism meaning Zionism as targeting America by targeting its ally. Moynihan scoffed that this unfair attack on a “member nation” undermines “the integrity of that whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights.”

“The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences,” Moynihan thundered presciently on November 10. “Not only will people begin to say… that the United Nations is a place where lies are told but… it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today.”

Most Americans, from Left to Right, black and white, deemed the resolution antisemitic, “aimed more at Jews than at the concept of Zionism itself.” Support for Israel soared to a margin of eight to one.

In 1991, the UN repealed the resolution – but the big lie lingered.

Claims of anti-Israel bias
The Soviets and Palestinians built an institutional launchpad for 3379’s ideological assault. General Assembly Resolution 3376 established a Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

This bureaucratized the ongoing attempt to criminalize Israel. UN Watch statistics show, for example, that from 2015 through 2023, the General Assembly adopted 154 anti-Israel resolutions and only 71 – overall – against any other countries.

Today’s anti-Israel obsession is again exposing the UN’s structural and ideological failures. To claim “Israel committed genocide in Gaza,” the UN Independent International Commission on Inquiry diluted the meaning of “genocide” from “intentional,” systematic mass slaughter, to mean thousands caught in the crossfire of war. And having rewarded the PLO during its terror tear of the 1970s through the Olympics, airports, and synagogues, the UN now rewards Hamas’s barbarism.

In 1975 Moynihan lamented: “A great evil has been loosed upon the world.” A lifelong liberal, Moynihan believed that words matter, that international law requires consistency, and that totalitarian countries and terrorist groups holding democratic Israel to standards they violated mocked sacred terms like “human rights,” turning them into political battering rams.

Tragically, this General Assembly session vindicated Moynihan, further diminishing the UN’s already cratering credibility.

Should Israel fear UN resolutions?

The U.N. General Assembly voted this month to endorse a scheme that French Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont said “lays out a single roadmap to deliver the two-state solution.”

Why? Because many world leaders apparently want to punish Israeli voters for keeping Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader they preferred, and his coalition, in office.

But does the U.N. vote really matter at all? Keep in mind that this resolution will have no practical impact since the world body has no way to enforce it. The real purpose of the resolution is to intimidate Israel and its supporters to make more concessions, and not to eradicate Hamas, as has been an official war aim of the Israeli government ever since the terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Should we take this vote seriously? And should Netanyahu, who is himself a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations?

In a dismissive remark in March 1955, David Ben-Gurion, then Israel’s defense minister, employed the Hebrew acronym “Um” for the United Nations and added a pejorative, “Um-Shmum.” He used the Yiddish idiom to convey casual dismissal during a cabinet debate regarding his plan to take the Gaza Strip from Egypt in response to increasing cross-border terrorist attacks on Israel. He understood that the Jewish state had to act to safeguard its national security, regardless of whether that made the Jewish state unpopular at the United Nations.

That’s why in his time, Ben-Gurion took such steps as the construction of Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona; the capture and trial of top Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann (condemned by the U.N. Security Council in its Resolution 138 on June 1960, which targeted Israel for a violation of Argentina’s sovereignty by Israel for seizing Eichmann who Argentina had been harboring); and the imposition of strict security measures on Arabs within Israel’s borders.

Ben-Gurion also recognized the inherent moral weakness of the United Nations. Every country—no matter how oppressive or bellicose—has the same voting power in the U.N. General Assembly as an enlightened, peaceful and democratic state. One country, one vote.

I Visited Gaza. The Food Aid Surprised Me.

I recently returned from Gaza, where I witnessed the humanitarian catastrophe that has resulted from Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. The main provider of food assistance in Gaza today arguably is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an organization backed by the U.S. and Israel. GHF has faced harsh criticism for its work in Gaza. I arrived in Gaza a skeptic of GHF but left an advocate. Simply put, the common portrayal of this organization radically distorts reality.

I observed GHF's relief operations firsthand. While no textbook exists for a war zone such as Gaza, where terrorist combatants hide among civilians, I saw GHF using unconventional means to successfully deliver food to civilians on a staggering scale under nearly impossible circumstances. It wasn't perfect, but it was good.

Many of GHF's staff are former military personnel. They travel in armored vehicles, maintain security protocols and are provided needed access by the Israel Defense Forces. I see this as realistic. Relative to most other aid distributions around the world, GHF's job is especially dangerous, requiring tenacity and elaborate planning from people who know how to conduct themselves calmly in a volatile setting. I watched GHF teams, along with their Palestinian staffs, manage huge crowds with total professionalism.

There is no way to revert, as the UN has suggested, to the distribution systems used for humanitarian aid in Gaza before the Oct. 7 slaughter. UNRWA is no longer allowed to operate in Gaza after Israel found that many of its staff were members of Hamas and/or participants in the Oct. 7 attack. GHF is putting food into the hands of hungry people and has distributed more than 167 million meals to date. The people of Gaza would be better served by the UN coordinating with GHF to expand the delivery of humanitarian assistance effectively.

Palestinian men, UNRWA workers using aid to sexually exploit Gazan women

Some of the women interviewed by AP described being propositioned multiple times by different aid workers.

A 37-year-old mother of four told AP that she was approached twice, once by the head of a shelter who offered her food and accommodation if she would “go together somewhere together." Understanding the request was sexual, she refused.

Another mother of four complained of an aid worker offering to only give her children nutritional supplements if she married him. After refusing and blocking him, the aid worker began harassing her with calls from different numbers and made vulgar comments.

“I felt completely humiliated,” she said. “I had to go and ask for help for my children. If I didn’t do it, who would?”

Five of the women who shared their stories with AP denied engaging in sexual interactions with the men, but local psychologists warned that many women had. Four local psychologists also told AP that dozens of women had told them of sexual exploitation and several had become pregnant as a result of the abuse.

AP's findings follow a June 2024 report by the Global Protection Cluster (GPC), a group of NGOs and UN agencies based in Geneva, alleging sexual abuse of vulnerable populations by aid workers in Gaza.

Alleged misconduct by aid workers included violence, exploitation and abuse, trafficking, and forced prostitution, GPC stated in its report. 'Prefer to keep the focus' on Israel “Israel’s siege on the Gaza Strip and the restrictions on humanitarian aid are what’s forcing women to resort to this,” said Amal Syam, director of the Women’s Affairs Center.

Israel and the United States have expanded efforts to see aid enter the Gaza Strip and bypass Hamas, as the terror group has repeatedly been accused of stealing resources as a means of wealth.

The US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has received notable pushback from groups like the United Nations, though, despite authorities regularly pointing to the UN’s own inadequacy in delivering aid to the Gaza Strip.

Israel has shared footage of UN aid piling up on the Gaza border, and the group has admitted to having trucks filled with resources robbed at gunpoint.

One volunteer, named only as Syam, who works for the Women’s Affairs Center, said that Palestinian women preferred to focus only on Israel. “Most of us prefer to keep the focus on the violence and violations committed by the Israeli occupation,” she said.

09/30 Links Pt1: Trump’s peace plan is the Western left’s worst nightmare; Douglas Murray: This Is A Turning Point For The Western World; Megyn Kelly’s Indefensible Flirtation With the Nihilist Right

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Seal the deal: How to cease the fire without chaos

Israelis have demanded a credible alternative to Hamas and have doubted the unreformed Palestinian Authority. This bridge does not restore Hamas rule, and it requires reforms before any transfer of power. It is a practical answer to the question that has stalled every serious conversation for a year.

After the live hostages return, the plan provides for an Israeli prisoner release and a remains exchange. Further, it offers an off-ramp option for fighters who choose life over jihad: “Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommissioning their weapons will be given amnesty.” Others “will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.”

Humanitarian relief and reconstruction are the stabilizers that make any ceasefire hold. The document promises that “full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip,” at levels “consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement,” prioritizing power, water, sewage, hospitals, bakeries, rubble removal, and open roads, with distribution “without interference from the two parties” through the UN, the Red Crescent, and other neutral institutions. The message is simple: Invest in everyday life so extremists lose their oxygen.

The plan calls for “a Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza,” including “a special economic zone” with “preferred tariff and access rates.” Jobs, predictable roles, and international capital, ergo, will not be delivered as charity.

Just as importantly, the text rejects demographic engineering: “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to will be free to do so and free to return.” That line will matter in Washington, in Arab capitals, and in Israeli living rooms. The goal is to move terrorism out and invite stability in.

Implementation is everything
Critics are not wrong in that implementation is everything. But this plan does more than most to anchor promises in mechanisms: A 72-hour hostage clock tied to Israel’s public acceptance of it, a frozen front while terms are met, an international body to enforce standards, and a depoliticized service structure until reforms have been completed.

Our interests are crystal clear: Bring the hostages home, end the war without restoring Hamas rule, prevent an Iranian proxy comeback, and align with partners ready to fund and monitor reconstruction under strict conditions. This document advances all four points. It is not perfect – no negotiated outcome will be. But it is coherent, enforceable, and morally urgent.

The region’s test now is courage. Palestinians deserve a Gaza that is, in the plan’s words, “a deradicalized, terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.” Israelis deserve quiet on their border and the return of their sons and daughters. Both are made possible here.

Say it plainly, in Jerusalem, Doha, and every capital that will underwrite and monitor the transition: Seal the deal.

Brendan O'Neill: Trump’s peace plan is the Western left’s worst nightmare

This strikes me as a realistic and positive deal. It would achieve the two things some of us have been crying out for: the release of the Jews so savagely stolen on 7 October and the removal from the picture of the army of anti-Semites that started this infernal war. It would also grant Gazans the right to create a better, freer state. So much for the libellous wails of our Israelophobic elites, who insisted in the absence of anything resembling evidence that Israel and Trump wanted to drive every Palestinian from Gaza. Now that, BBC, was ‘exotic overstatement’.

Benjamin Netanyahu accepts the deal. So that’s another untruth propagated by the anti-Israel mob that lies in tatters – namely that Bibi is hell-bent on continuing the war in order to save his own ass from corruption charges. Only one question remains: will Hamas accept? If it doesn’t, we’ll know beyond a sliver of doubt that it prizes its own twisted dreams of a Caliphate more highly than the lives of Palestinians. We will also know that the morality tale spun by our own cultural rulers, in which Israel is always the demon and Gaza always the victim, owes more to bigotry than reality. So this is a crunch moment, both for the medieval gunmen of Hamas and for the high-status opinion-havers of the West.

If Hamas rejects the deal, as well it might, then the entire moral edifice of ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ thinking will collapse. We will know it is Hamas that wants war, not Israel. We will know this so-called genocide is the accomplishment of Islamist barbarism, not Israeli evil. We will know that Palestinians are suffering because they are ruled by religious extremists who long ago prioritised their anti-Semitic bloodlust over the good governance of Gaza. Every single anti-Israel march and thinkpiece that comes now, in the wake of this unveiled plan, will be a sham. It will be a lie. It will falsely blame the Jewish nation for a calamity of Hamas’s making, and everyone will know.

Courtesy of Trump’s plan, Hamas has run out of road, and so have our cultural elites. They’re uneasy about this deal because, to speak frankly, they will miss this war from whose horrors they have stitched together a thin sense of moral purpose in confusing times. And if Hamas accepts the deal? Well, then they’ll have to admit that Trump – the New Hitler, the populist loon, the bad man that haunts their dreams – did infinitely more to ‘Save Gaza’ than their Israelophobic caterwauling ever did. It’s lose-lose for Israel’s haters.

I want this deal to work because I want the hostages home, I want the war to end, I want Israel to be secure and I want Gazans to have peace. If you can’t say likewise, maybe you’re not actually on ‘the right side of history’?

Andrew C. McCarthy: Trump's Gaza Plan Misses the Only Point that Matters

There is no deal with sharia-supremacist Islam. Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is conducting a jihad to destroy Israel - not to reach a more favorable arrangement with Israel - based on sharia-supremacist principles, which are 14 centuries old and steeped in Jew-hatred that goes back to Muhammad's wars of conquest. While Hamas has been hollowed out by Israel's combat operations, the problem in the region is sharia supremacism, not Hamas; if what is today called Hamas disappeared tomorrow, a new jihadist entity would rise quickly to take its place, and the objective would not change.

The premise of the president's plan is that Hamas will stop being Hamas, and that will end the jihadist threat. What basis is there to believe that? During the second intifada, when Hamas was firmly established, there were around 150 suicide attacks. The jihadists who carried them out were celebrated and their families paid bonuses - and that includes being celebrated by the Palestinian Authority. Like the jihadists who carried out the October 7 atrocities, the suicide attackers were not looking for a better deal with Israel. They were looking to eradicate Israel.

The proposal assumes that the culture and population that produced these people are now going to lay down their arms and commit to peaceful coexistence or, in the alternative, voluntarily leave the territory that their fundamentalist tenets - as mediated by the region's most influential scholars - tell them is Allah's land over which they are obliged to wage jihad until Israel is no more.

What has happened in the last two years to make anyone think that's a possibility? We now have European nations and Canada claiming to recognize "Palestine" (its lack of borders or a real government notwithstanding). Why would Hamas and its sharia-supremacist support network surrender now when they have reason to believe the barbaric October 7 attack, far from turning them into pariahs, has advanced their cause?

There isn't always an ideal solution available just because we'd like there to be one. There is no deal with people who will be satisfied with nothing less than one's annihilation. The fact that there may be many rational Palestinians who would be willing to live in peace does not mean they are anywhere close to being able to force their will against the region's dominant, entrenched sharia-supremacist adherents.

Unless and until Israel's mortal enemies (and ours) are conclusively defeated, any peace negotiations are just a strategic pause that allows the jihadists to regroup and rearm.

From Sada News:

Prime Minister Mohamed Mustafa affirmed the government's readiness to assume its full national responsibilities, whether in immediate relief or recovery and reconstruction efforts in Gaza, or in continuing the comprehensive national reforms that began some time ago.

People do not realize how dysfunctional the Palestinian government it. I've been looking at their webpages for years - many are years out of date or useless propaganda, with very little to actually help citizens.

So after this announcement I went to the official webpage of the Palestinian Authority cabinet.

The page is down, and from what I can tell from the Internet Archive, it hasn't been up since May.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Have you ever noticed that the modern antisemites prioritize active commitment to their cause - attending rallies, signing pledges, sending money? This isn’t accidental. It’s part of a strategy that takes advantage of human nature: people who publicly commit to a cause almost never change their minds.

Psychologists have shown this for decades. Once you’ve stood up in public, raised your hand, or posted your pledge online, the cost of reversing yourself skyrockets. You’re not just admitting you were wrong - you’re admitting it to your peers, your community, and even your opponents. Most people won’t do it. In fact, the research shows something worse: when people who are publicly committed are confronted with facts, they often become more committed. They interpret the correction as an attack, and doubling down feels safer than walking away.

This isn’t about truth - it’s about psychology. And the haters are way ahead of us.

If you look closely, every method used by modern anti-Israel and antisemitic activists is not primarily about spreading information, but about creating loyalty. It’s about binding people to the cause through visible, repeated, identity-shaping actions. Here are just some examples:

Pledges and petitions. Whether online or in person, a signature is cheap in content but expensive in psychology. Signing marks you as “one of us,” and very few people later rip up their signature.
Demonstrations. Marches and rallies are not informational seminars. They’re loyalty rituals. The shouting, the costumes, the banners - every element is designed to make participants feel they’ve crossed a line and joined a movement they can’t easily leave.
Artist boycotts. When a singer or actor signs a pledge not to work with Israelis, the point isn’t Israeli ticket sales. It’s about forcing a public position. Once an artist signs, reversing course would mean being branded a traitor by the very crowd that cheered them. The psychological cost for admitting they are wrong is immense, and no amount of facts can change their position.
Responding to social media posts. Activists demand that followers comment “Free Palestine” or flood hashtags. The information value is zero; the psychological value is immense. Each post is a miniature loyalty oath.
Chanting slogans. Chanting “From the river to the sea” isn’t about debate. It’s about rhythm, synchronization, and collective reinforcement. Psychologists know that synchronized movement and sound bond people more powerfully than arguments ever could.
Joining groups and clubs. Campus “Students for Justice in Palestine” or "Jewish Voice for Peace" chapters are less about education than about belonging. Once your social circle comes from a group, leaving the cause means leaving your friends. That’s not information - it’s entanglement.
Fundraising. Even a five-dollar donation changes the way the brain processes commitment. You paid into the cause - now you’re invested. To admit the cause is wrong is to admit you wasted your money.

None of this is new. Cults, radical movements, even advertising executives have known for decades that commitment creates belief, not the other way around. Modern antisemitic movements have mastered this playbook.

Jews tend to believe that truth is the ultimate defense. Blame the Talmud - arguments are how we are wired. We arm ourselves with fact sheets, timelines, and historical evidence. And yes, truth matters. But against those who have already signed, marched, donated, and staked their identity, truth is nearly useless.

This explains why fact sheets rarely work. You can prove that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, or that casualty numbers are manipulated by Hamas, or that Jewish history in the land goes back millennia. If the audience has already marched, pledged, donated, and shouted, your facts don’t just bounce off - they often harden the opposition.

To them, rejecting your facts isn’t just an intellectual choice - it’s a way to protect their self-perception, their pride, and their social standing. That’s why they often double down.

So what can we do?

We can copy the haters' methods, by creating spaces and groups. But let's face it - that might work for Jews but there is not much incentive for non-Jews to join Zionist groups. The issue is much bigger than Zionism, which is why the haters will link anti-Zionism with the environment, racism or other social justice issues. Even though true social justice would support Zionism as an indigenous rights movement, the larger causes have already been largely hijacked.

More effective is to expose the manipulation before people get sucked in. Point out the methods. Ask: Why do they want you to sign a pledge before you even know the details? Why do they want you to chant instead of debate? Nobody likes to feel they’re being used. We are manipulated all the time, by the media, by advertisers, by our political leaders. Teaching people how these manipulations work and how to recognize when we are being played is an essential skill for this century, and most people have no idea they are being played.

Another important method is to reframe the debate around shared values. Show how the methods betray the very principles activists claim to uphold. If they say they stand for dignity, why are they teaching people to chant genocidal slogans? If they say they stand for justice, why are they coercing artists and companies into political loyalty tests? If they care about free speech, why do they drown out any Israeli speakers on campus?

This becomes more important when the haters use the language of morality to push immoral aims. If you can claim that October 7 was moral, you can claim that anything is moral and the word loses all meaning. We need a new moral framework that applies values consistently. Without that, ‘morality’ itself becomes just another tool for manipulation.

We’ve all been fighting antisemitism wrong - including me. We’ve treated it as a battle of facts when our opponents have treated it as a battle of psychology. They know that commitment creates belief. We’ve relied on the truth, while they’ve relied on human nature.

If we want to win, we need to stop assuming the truth will defend itself. We need to inoculate people against manipulation. We need to fight where the battle is actually being waged: not in fact sheets, but in the deeper battlefield of commitment, belonging, and identity..

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Independence seeking Kurds/Tamils/Uyghurs/Baloch/Pashtuns/Tibetans don't have the Palestinian advantage: they don't murder Jews as policy

Here are a partial list of distinct peoples, most of whom have their own languages and who seek independence.

People	Language	Context	Approximate Ethnogenesis
Kurds	Kurdish languages	One of the largest stateless nations (estimated 30-46 million people); seeking independence or autonomy across Kurdistan in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, with partial autonomy achieved in Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava.	2000 BCE
Tamils	Tamil language	Seeking independence or greater regional autonomy in Tamil Nadu (India) or as part of a sovereign Dravida Nadu; also demanding secession in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam).	500 BCE
Uyghurs	Uyghur language	Seeking independence from China in East Turkestan (Xinjiang), with limited current autonomy and involvement in irredentist movements.	8th century CE
Baloch	Balochi language	Seeking an independent sovereign state separate from Pakistan and Iran amid the ongoing Balochistan conflict.	1000 CE
Pashtuns (in Pakistan)	Pashto language	Seeking an independent state through Pashtun nationalism in Pashtunistan, separate from Pakistan.	500 BCE
Tibetans	Tibetan language	Seeking independence from China in Tibet, with a government-in-exile and ongoing autonomy movements (though not listed explicitly in the extraction, commonly associated; cross-referenced from prior Asia list).	3000 BCE
Sikhs	Punjabi, Dogri, Kashmiri languages	Seeking independence from India through the Khalistan movement in Punjab.	15th century CE
Oromo	Oromo language	Seeking autonomy or independence in Oromia, involved in conflicts in Ethiopia and Kenya.	16th century CE
Igbo	Igbo, English languages	Seeking sovereignty in Nigeria through movements like the Indigenous People of Biafra, following a failed secession attempt in the 1960s.	1000 CE
Yoruba	Yoruba language	Seeking recognition and autonomy in Yorubaland across Nigeria, Benin, Togo, and Ghana via groups like the Oodua Peoples Congress.	1000 CE
Assamese	Assamese language	Seeking greater autonomy or secession from India in Assam through separatist movements.	13th century CE
Catalans	Catalan, Occitan languages	Seeking independence from Spain in the Catalan Countries, with active nationalism and referendums.	9th century CE
Occitans	Occitan, French, Italian, Spanish languages	Seeking self-determination or secession from France in Occitania, spanning France, Monaco, Italy, and Spain.	8th century CE
Maya	Mayan languages	Seeking autonomy or independence in Mesoamerica through movements like the Zapatista Army, across Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador.	2000 BCE
Romani	Romani language	A non-territorial nation seeking recognition and a proposed homeland (Romanistan), dispersed worldwide but mostly in Eastern Europe and the Americas.	1000 CE
Québécois	French language	Seeking independence from Canada in Quebec through the sovereignty movement.	17th century CE
Hazaras	Hazaragi dialect of Persian	Seeking recognition and autonomy in Hazaristan, Afghanistan, amid persecution.	13th century CE
Zulu	Zulu language	Seeking greater autonomy in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, with a traditional king and presence in neighboring countries.	18th century CE
Kongo	Kongo, Lingala, Portuguese, French languages	Seeking recognition in the former Kingdom of Kongo region across the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, and Angola.	14th century CE

Not one of them have achieved statehood recognized by any other nation.

Compare with the Palestinians, who do not have their own distinct language or culture separate from other Levantine Arabs, who can only claim to have become a people in the 20th century - and who are recognized by most of the world as having their own state.

What makes them special?

Nothing - except they decided to attack Jews.

The PLO went from being perceived as a terror group to a legitimate political group in only a couple of years. Their terror attacks in the 1960s and 1970s, together with the Arab oil boycott after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, got them prestige and legitimacy - Yasir Arafat addressed the UN in 1974 and gained observer status then while it still explicitly embraced terror as a tactic.

In a sense, Hamas borrowed the PLO playbook. Terror attacks against Jews gained the PLO a seat at the UN within only a couple of years; and Hamas terror attacks against Jews gained the PLO-run Palestinian Authority the legitimacy of statehood in about the same timeframe.

Killing Jews is a proven way to gain legitimacy. These other groups may be real people with their own distinct cultures that have been around before Islam itself, but they just don't have that advantage.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/29 Links Pt2: The Gaza flotilla: the Woke Man’s Burden; Charlie Kirk wrote of his ‘deep love’ for Israel in letter to Netanyahu; Daniel Loeb: If Israel was a share, I’d buy

From Ian:

Cotler-Wunsh resigns as antisemitism envoy citing lack of gov't strategy to combat hate

Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism Michal Cotler-Wunsh resigned from her volunteer position on Monday in response to the failures of the government to develop a strategy to combat rising global antisemitism and to engage with the issue and her office, according to a press release by the former Knesset member.

Cotler-Wunsh said that a few weeks ago, she had received a government proposal for “continued engagement” that didn’t reflect the challenges of antisemitism, recognize the imperative of the role, or implement a national strategy against antisemitism as part of the state’s foreign and security policy.

While Israel was engaged in an existential war, what the ex-envoy described as the eighth front of antisemitism was being waged “without a comprehensive strategy or authority that enables and equips to fight in the manner necessary.”

This included the recognition of the role of the antisemitism special envoy around the world and in Israel, said Cotler-Wunsh, who claimed to have repeatedly asked the Foreign Ministry to institutionalize the role. She claimed to have submitted several drafts for the establishment of infrastructure, including cross-ministerial and organizational collaborations.

Recommendations ignored
Cotler-Wunsh said that these recommendations, and others more broadly on the matter of antisemitism, were ignored as she unsuccessfully attempted to meet to update and engage with officials in the government, Knesset, ministries, and other institutions.

A few weeks after the outbreak of the war, the Foreign Ministry’s deputy director-general allegedly informed Cotler-Wunsh that the originally agreed-upon arrangement and budget for her office was being cut and was no longer approved. Without a budget, the volunteer envoy’s efforts abroad were initiated by inviting parties as the sponsors of the projects.

The Jewish TikTok Plot By Abe Greenwald

Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
Anti-Semitism has a fascinating ability to commandeer the entirety of one’s thought process. When Jew-hating takes hold of you, not only does the Jew become the cause of all your problems; his evil handiwork can be seen in the most banal circumstance.

This makes anti-Semitism a merciless condition, as the Jew-hater can never give up the hunt for evidence of Jewish malfeasance. Anti-Semitism is the comprehensive, round-the-clock work of decoding reality to fit a fantastical script.

Take what happened online over the weekend. On Friday, after addressing the UN General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu met with some American social-media influencers and journalists in New York City and was asked about the very online, anti-Israel far right. Here’s the essence of his response:

They’re not any different from the woke left, I mean, they’re insane…. We have to secure that part of the base of our support in the United States that is being challenged systematically. A lot of this [anti-Israel propaganda] is done with money. Money of NGOs, vast money of governments…. We have to fight back. How do we fight back? Our influencers.… We’re going to have to use the tools of battle. The weapons change over time. You can’t fight today with swords. That doesn’t work very well. And you can’t fight with cavalry. That doesn’t work very well.… But we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefields in which we’re engaged. And the most important ones are on social media. And the most important purchase that is going on right now is? TikTok. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it’s consequential.

If your mind hasn’t been hijacked by anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Bibi stated nothing more than the obvious: Anti-Israel social media has an outsize effect on public discussion owing to the monetary investments of foreign organizations and governments. Several independent investigations have revealed as much. And among the many anti-Western propaganda elements of TikTok’s algorithm is the promotion of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content. So, yes, Netanyahu expressed “hope” that TikTok gets sold to Americans.

But if the Jew-hating parasite has taken hold of your faculties, you see all sorts of nefarious activity in Bibi’s comments. “Imagine any other national leader speaking to Americans like this,” posted one X user with more than a quarter-million followers. “Oh, you can't actually. Because no other nation thinks they have a right to dictate what we say or how we feel.” This anti-Israel zombie believes “I hope” means “I dictate.”

Khaled Abu Toameh: Thanks to the West's 'Useful Idiots,' Iran's Terror Proxies Celebrate Recognition of 'Palestinian State' by Moving Jihad to West Bank

The groups and their patrons in Tehran do not care if Palestinians in the West Bank are killed and displaced as a result of their terrorism. Iran's mullahs and their Palestinian proxies have only one thing in mind: murdering Jews and eliminating Israel.

Those Western countries [France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, among others]... have chosen to ignore that the PA is unwilling to confront the terror groups in the West Bank.

In the eyes of the Iranian regime, Hamas and PIJ, these moves could not have taken place were it not for the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.

"Why are the countries recognizing a Palestinian state today? Before October 7, did any country dare recognize a Palestinian state? The fruits of October 7 are what caused the entire world to open its eyes...." — Ghazi Hamad, senior Hamas official, to Qatar's Al-Jazeera, August 2, 2025.

Even if the war in the Gaza Strip ends, Qatar, Iran, Hamas and PIJ will never give up the fight to destroy Israel and replace it with a radical Islamist state. The attempt to transform the West Bank into a second base for jihad highlights that ending the war in the Gaza Strip will not end the dream of wiping Israel off the map.

09/29 Links Pt1: Is the war against Hamas worth it? ; Trump, Netanyahu unveil 20-point plan to end war in Gaza, release hostages within 72 hours

From Ian:

Is the war against Hamas worth it?

Israel understands that the battle with Hamas is not just ideological. It is also a religious war that is not susceptible to a negotiated accommodation. Those who say otherwise are, sadly, kidding themselves.

As the Allies did in ending World War II with Germany and Japan, Israel recognizes that it must dismember and replace the extant Gazan leadership – Hamas – with a political and religious leadership, which, while not loving us, nevertheless harbors no genocidal fantasies toward us.

It is all too tempting to say that in the name of releasing the remaining hostages, Israel should lay down its arms and agree to stop fighting, for months or even indefinitely. It is tempting but also self-destructive. It will ensure that those tunnels are cleaned out, those weapons are somehow replenished, and a new generation of genocidal leaders is allowed to emerge.

We will not only dishonor the sacrifice of our incredible soldiers, but we will also be setting the groundwork for a reprise of the October 7, 2023, nightmare.

This war is akin to a war of independence because it begs the question of what we are going to do in the name of being a sovereign, independent state.

Those who condemn us stand guilty of not putting themselves into our shoes. We cannot afford to do the same. We cannot afford to ignore the reality of what we are facing. In that sense, we are showing the world, whether they like it or not, what a sovereign state is willing to do to project and protect itself.

We did not ask for this war. We did not ask for genocidal neighbors, masters of brutality on an unprecedented scale. Still, nations usually do not get to pick their neighbors. They are required to play the geopolitical hand that they are dealt.

Our war with Hamas is a nightmare, but not to take on that challenge would lead to a far greater nightmare.

Seth Frantzman: How the Second Intifada built the walls that failed on October 7

The Second Intifada was a break with the past. It was much bloodier than the First Intifada. It led to the creation of the separation fence. It also led to almost complete separation from Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Second Intifada buried any chance at coexistence. The lesson was that separation was the only option. The walls and fences grew, and Israel left Gaza in 2005.

As we all know, Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. Palestinian elections didn’t produce democracy and peace. Instead, they led to cementing the aging Fatah leadership in power.

These bureaucrats, who looked like late Soviet henchmen, promised the Palestinians nothing more than corruption and failure. Hamas promised war.

As such, what we all got from 2005 at the end of the Second Intifada until the October 7 massacre was a status quo. Israel managed the conflict by “mowing the grass” via raids in the West Bank and flare-ups in Gaza.

Israel became arrogant and complacent sitting behind walls defended by Iron Dome interceptors and hi-tech.

Like the French in 1940, or the Americans before the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, or Custer wandering into the Little Bighorn, Israel assumed all was fine.

The October 7 massacre closed the door on the end of the Second Intifada. The lesson of Defense Shield was that tanks and muscle could end the insurgency.

But all that was forgotten – replaced with hi-tech and arrogance.

Then, with more than 1,000 dead and 250 taken hostage – with Jews carted off like it was the Kishinev pogrom, or massacre, in the 1880s in what is today Moldova – Israel went back into Gaza.

One thing can be said about the Second Intifada: No matter how much Israel suffered, it never became as weak as it was on October 7, 2023. The resulting war in Gaza, which has spread mass destruction, looks different than Defensive Shield largely because of the reaction.

Unlike the Second Intifada, Israel let its enemies on all fronts become far too strong after 2005.

Many of the paradigms gifted to Israel by its leaders in the 1990s and early 2000s have now been tossed out. Today, Israel is grasping for a new doctrine.

We are now in the Ten Days of Repentance, when Jews prepare for Yom Kippur through self-examination, apology, repair, and teshuvah - repentance that is meant not only to change what we do, but who we are.

As I have been working on my project to rework Jewish thinking as a secular philosophy, I am struck by how Jewish concepts can be meaningful even outside a faith-based framework. It is a testament to the brilliance of Jewish philosophy that the concepts are truly universal.

Teshuvah is a perfect example.

Teshuvah helps shine a light on something philosophy has struggled with for centuries: the debate over free will and determinism.

The question is usually framed this way: are our choices truly free, or are they determined by forces outside our control?

Determinists argue that our brains are machines. Genetics, environment, trauma, and biases dictate what we do. Psychology supports this view: Jonathan Haidt shows how moral “taste buds” of intuition drive most decisions; Daniel Kahneman uncovers the predictable biases that shape our judgments.
Defenders of free will insist there is a spark of autonomy. We could have chosen otherwise, and because of that we remain morally responsible.
Compatibilists redefine free will as simply the absence of coercion: you are free if no one is forcing you. But that leaves us prisoners of our desires themselves, which are just as binding as chains are.

All these positions feel incomplete. If determinism rules, then responsibility dissolves. If absolute freedom rules, then why do habits and conditioning weigh so heavily on us? And if free will simply means that we choose even if we are conditioned to do so, then that just sidesteps the problem.

Judaism reframes the problem through teshuvah.

Teshuvah is not a feeling of regret or a private moment of resolve. It is a structured set of obligations: to repair relationships, to return what was taken, to apologize to those harmed, to pray, to give, to act differently.

What matters most is not what you feel inside but what you do. Even a reluctant act of kindness is still kindness. Even a forced apology opens the door to reconciliation. Deeds matter, and over time they reshape the heart and your entire personality.

Modern science now affirms what Judaism long taught.

Neuroplasticity shows that repeated actions rewire the brain.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy proves that changing behavior alters thoughts and emotions.
Self-perception theory reveals that we learn who we are by watching what we do.

We do not have to wait for our feelings to change before acting differently. We can choose actions that override our default desires - and in time, those actions carve new patterns of desire itself.

But how do we know which actions to choose? Here Judaism adds another layer. Freedom is not arbitrary choice; it is choice guided by obligation.

Obligations to others demand that we repair harm. Obligations to ourselves call us to honesty and growth. These obligations provide the structure that allows action to be more than whim: they point us toward responsibility. And the obligations themselves are directly derived from universal values.

This is where existing philosophy often falters. Compatibilism reduces freedom to acting according to one’s desires, but that leaves us prisoners of those very desires. Libertarian free will emphasizes freedom but does not deal with obligations or the values that give freedom its moral weight.

Teshuvah offers a better answer: responsibility lies in our capacity to act against our inertia and to realign our derech, our path and trajectory. We are not accountable for having biases, but for whether we let them dictate us. Our freedom is measured in deeds that change the course of our lives.

We know intuitively that this is true. In a loose sense, people make changes to their derachim, their paths, all the time. People quit smoking and alcohol, people choose to exercise. This is a type of teshuvah, a choice to go against our ingrained desires and better ourselves by forcing new actions, and then the new actions become habit - a new derech.

Changing a derech isn't easy. It requires determination and a willingness to change. And above all, it requires one to take on new obligations - real actions, not just a change in one's mindset. Recognizing that you need to be healthy is meaningless without actually changing habits, and recognizing that you need to be kinder to your neighbors is equally meaningless if you don't change your actions towards them.

Teshuvah does not pretend away determinism, nor does it deny the weight of choice. It shows how transformation actually happens: through obligations that guide us, and through actions that, when repeated, become who we are.

That is why Judaism insists that Yom Kippur can make us new. Not because we escape the past, and not because we float free of cause and effect, but because we take responsibility through action.

Teshuvah is freedom in practice — the freedom to become a different person who actively chooses a different path.

That is why teshuvah is not only a religious command but a universal gift. It shows that freedom is not an illusion, nor a mystery, but a practice: of taking responsibility, fulfilling obligations, and becoming new.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The word controversial looks like a neutral descriptor. It simply tells readers that people disagree. But when you look closely at how The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post have used it over the past year in stories about Israel and the Palestinians, the pattern is anything but neutral.

Israeli government actions - settlement expansions, judicial reforms, buffer zones in Gaza, Netanyahu’s leadership - are routinely described as controversial. By contrast, Palestinian positions such as the recognition of a Palestinian state, or even Hamas’s governance in Gaza or positioning military assets in civilian areas, are almost never given that label.

This matters, because controversial when used as a default term isn’t just a description. It carries an implicit judgment: that something is outside the bounds of normal behavior, that it deserves suspicion or moral doubt. And when the word is applied almost exclusively to one side of a conflict, it tells readers who is presumed to be the violator and who is presumed to be the victim.

Labeling something controversial allows journalists to suggest that Israel is breaking rules without proving which rules or explaining why they apply. It’s a shortcut that plants suspicion in the reader’s mind without doing the hard work of evidence and argument.

The double standard is easy to see by reversing the roles. If the recognition of a Palestinian state were routinely described as controversial, many of these outlets would denounce it as delegitimizing. Yet Israeli actions - even when they follow domestic democratic processes - are freely stamped with the label. The result is consistent: one side is weighed down by suspicion, while the other is rhetorically sheltered.

There are two exceptions that prove the rule.

One is for references to the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which is sometimes called controversial. Yet in those cases the term is attributed to critics rather than the journalist’s own framing.

A second exception comes from civil liberties groups. The New York Civil Liberties Union was quoted as saying, "City and campus officials should take great care to distinguish between controversial speech, which helps students and society develop, and actual threats." In the case of anti-Israel statements, "controversial" is reframed as admirable - a standard that is never applied to, say, campus speech that supports Israeli actions in Gaza or settlement policy.

All of this shows how much weight a single word can carry. Controversial doesn’t just describe disagreement: it assigns moral suspicion. And when that suspicion is aimed overwhelmingly at Israel while its opponents either escape the label or, in some cases, even benefit from it, the press cannot honestly call itself impartial. This isn’t balance. It’s framing, and it quietly shapes public opinion far more than most headlines ever will.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

No, it didn't start on October 7. Arabs murdered many Jews in 1834, too.

From The Hampshire Advertiser, Nov 29, 1834:

PALESTINE.—The following extract of a letter received by a gentleman of Plymouth, from a near relative, who has been some time travelling in the East, contains information of considerable interest...

Jerusalem, July 16, 1834.....

...As I made continual excursions among the Arabs, and they conversed with me without reserve, I discovered that they were very discontented with the Pacha's Government, particularly with his taking their young men for soldiers. They informed me that a widely extended conspiracy was on the point of breaking forth into rebellion, and that I should do well to quit Palestine. I accordingly made preparations for my departure; but, in spite of all my diligence, I was too late. No sooner did the Pacha depart for Jaffa, than the revolution commenced. The garrison of Hezek and Solth were cut to pieces, and the Arabs from Samaria and Hebron marched on Jerusalem. .... They entered at midnight, and the soldiers, after a gallant defence, were obliged to retire to the castle. All the Christians fled to the different convents, and thus saved their lives. For five or six days the city was given up to plunder, and never did I witness such a heart-rending spectacle. The Jews who had no place of safety to which they could retire, suffered very much; their houses were so pillaged, that they had not a bed to lie upon; many were murdered, their wives and daughters violated, &c.; in fine, barbarities were committed too shocking to relate.

Arabs revolting against the Pasha decided to murder Jews and rape Jewish girls in Jerusalem, Safed, and Hebron - because they were there.

And when the Pasha's troops came to restore order, some of them decided to join in on the fun of attacking Jews as well, especially in Hebron.

The Jews were not involved in the politics and weren't aligned with either side. But when the opportunity arose for Arabs of either side to attack them with impunity, that is exactly what they did - usually open robbery, but sometimes rape and murder.

So, yes, history didn't start on October 7, 2023. The 1834 incidents occurred before Zionism, during a time period when Muslims today swear Jews lived in peace amongst them.

The word antisemitism had not yet been coined in 1834, but the Arabs of Palestine hated the Jews even then. And they didn't even pretend to have had any reason for their hate.

When you understand that, you understand that October 7 had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Jews. Arabs today use Zionism to excuse murder, but history shows the the murders predate any possible excuse.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A Zionist lawfare watchdog called The Zionist Advocacy Center (TZAC) has gotten the United States Campaign for Palestinian Rights to pay back the money that it fraudulently received from the US government - plus penalties.

In 2021, the USCPR applied for and received over $150,000 in "payroll protection" (PPP.) But, no surprise, the BDS group misrepresented itself to receive the funds. PPP is only meant for small businesses and some non-profits, but not political lobbying groups, and the entire purpose of USCPR is political lobbying against Israel.

USPCR will have to pay approximately $350,000 to settle the case.

TZAC has previously gotten other anti-Israel groups to return their PPP funds plus penalties.

Americans for Peace Now (APN) agreed to pay $261,890 in September 2024 to resolve allegations that it improperly obtained a $130,945 PPP loan.

Middle East Institute (MEI): settled allegations and agreed to pay $718,558 in June 2024 to resolve allegations related to a $359,279 Second Draw PPP loan.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) agreed to pay over $677,000 in January 2025 to resolve allegations related to a PPP loan.

The pattern seems more than coincidental. Anti-Israel groups seem to have shared information on how they could rip off the hated US government and pad their balance sheets.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/28 Links: Jews don’t owe a hostile world any apologies; Abba Eban was wrong about the Palestinians; Can ‘The New York Times’ repent for lies spread about Israel?

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Jews don’t owe a hostile world any apologies

Opposing a Palestinian state isn’t, as Netanyahu correctly observed, a marginal point of view in Israel. It’s part of a consensus that stretches from the moderate left to the right. That is because the overwhelming majority of Israelis know that what happened on Oct. 7 was the result of there being a Palestinian state, which is what Gaza was on Oct. 6, rather than the absence of one.

What Netanyahu was doing in Turtle Bay this week was telling us that Jews who fight successfully for their lives owe the world no apologies for choosing life.

That’s a difficult lesson for Diaspora Jews. Many aren’t accustomed to being victims of Jew-hatred or positively viewing Jewish identity other than as something rooted in universalist values. However, if they hope for their prosperous communities to resist efforts to break and isolate them, then channeling the spirit of defiance that Netanyahu modeled is the only path forward.

A spirit of blind partisanship has become commonplace in Israel and America—one that has caused many on the left to denounce Netanyahu or think that a surrender to Hamas would be terrible, but worth it if it brought him down. What they should be doing at this moment is uniting behind Netanyahu’s insistence on the end of Hamas, as well as ensuring that never again should the Palestinians, their enablers and their allies be put in a position to endanger Israelis.

Friends of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are doing just that. But as opinion polls and the tenor of public discourse about the Middle East indicate, many Americans have been influenced by a biased media, leftist ideology and traditional tropes of antisemitism being spread by the likes of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and the even more hateful political commentator Candace Owens.

We don’t know what will happen next in Gaza or whether the Trump administration can resolve the cognitive dissonance that defines its current policies, backing Israel’s quest for Hamas’s destruction while also letting the funders of Islamist terror that rule Qatar lead it around by the nose.

We do know that Israel cannot allow itself to be pressured into letting Hamas win the war it started on Oct. 7. The only way to ensure that won’t happen is if Netanyahu remains defiant, even if it means standing alone. And no matter how much it may cost individuals who dissent from mainstream culture and opinion, at this moment, those who care about Israel and Jewish survival must stand with him.

Benny Gantz: What the World Gets Wrong about Israel

Some in the West have misinterpreted Israel's actions in prosecuting its war against Hamas. For Israelis, Oct. 7, 2023, was not another round in a yearslong conflict. It was a strategic rupture - and a reminder of what may happen when terror on our doorstep is underestimated.

Israel's core security interests are not partisan property. They are anchored by a national consensus that is rooted in the hard realities of our region. Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus. Any path forward for broader Palestinian civil autonomy must first incorporate a proven long-term track record of accountable governance, comprehensive de-radicalization reforms, and a successful crackdown on terrorist elements targeting Israelis.

The truth is that international recognition of Palestinian statehood under current conditions is a rejection of Israel's bipartisan security consensus. The PA has failed to thwart terrorism originating in its territory against Israel. It has incited violence and glorified terrorism in school textbooks, and waged unilateral campaigns to isolate and delegitimize Israel in international forums. At the UN, in international courts, through boycott movements, it has sought to bypass reform, accountability and dialogue - and dismiss Israel's security concerns altogether.

A declaration passed last year by 99 of 120 members of the Knesset in a democracy proclaimed that "Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state," and that "such action following Oct. 7 would be an unprecedented rewarding of terror and prevent any future peace arrangement."

Stephen Daisley: UK Prime Minister's Palestine Doesn't Exist

In recognizing a state of Palestine, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is attempting to summon a tide which flows counter to history and human nature. Men like Starmer flatter themselves that they can, with the flick of a remote pen, will a nation-state into being like modern heirs to Arthur Balfour.

This reflects the common misconception that the Balfour Declaration created the State of Israel, when that communique merely expressed British favor for the Zionist project in Palestine/Eretz Yisrael. Israel was (re)founded by the efforts of Jews, not the sympathies of the British Foreign Office.

Neither Starmer nor any other Western leader can recognize a Palestinian state because no such entity exists and there is no prospect of one in the near future. Across Palestinian politics, in culture, among intellectuals and activists, on the streets and in the mosques, the dominant cause is anti-Zionism.

Palestinian liberationism is a misnomer because, except for a narrow segment of liberal opinion, Palestinian society does not wish to be free from Israel, it wishes to be free of Israel. Theirs is a counter-nationalism, a common identity forged in reaction to and rejection of another people's identity.

Starmer doesn't want a Palestinian state, he wants his notion of a Palestinian state, a liberal market economy with free elections and the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbors. But you can't press release Western liberal democracy into the Middle East.

The lessons the Palestinians and others will take are that the West is so weak and decadent that it will reward mass murder with diplomatic prizes. That provoking Israel into war will quickly turn the West's stomachs and thereafter their policies. That governments in Europe and the Anglosphere are compelled by mass immigration to treat foreign policy as a domestic issue.