Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Should the US Send Money to Israel? A Transcript of Hate. (Judean Rose)

JD has a weird thing going on with his dog Tucker Carlson/Youube

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

I started out writing something totally different, tonight. Something about the dangers of a Vance presidency considering his arrogant comments at TPUSA. The things the vice president said bear out my belief that JD Vance is not just an isolationist, but a hater as well. In fact, the isolationism may only be cover for his true feelings about Jews. Who knows? But according to JD Vance, I am definitely allowed to say these things. As an American.

As I looked at all that wealth of information relating to hate among conservatives, I happened on a debate between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan about whether Israel qualifies as an "ally." I was appalled and nauseated by both men.

I created a transcript of their debate when I couldn't find a good one online. I am sharing it here for the benefit of those, who like me, prefer text, having no patience with video. I read fast, and would far rather read a transcript then space out as two arrogant men pontificate. Perhaps some of my readers share my preference for text.

But first a few (okay, so not a few) prefatory comments.

I called it right when I was taken aback by Vance’s reaction to a motion to declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria coming before the Knesset just as Vance’s plane was arriving at Lod Airport. When asked by a reporter how the vice president felt about that, he said that it was weird and insulting.

Not long after that, there was a bit of a ruckus on X when it was discovered that JD's assistant is Buckley Carlson, none other than the son of Tucker Carlson. This, we are made to believe, is perfectly normal. Besides, said Vance, we have no right to judge the son according to the father. He was disgusted by any suggestions to the contrary.

Sloan Rachmuth is a "journalist" who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn't like the views of his father.

Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it's a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a… https://t.co/bjFVuM2yBI
— JD Vance (@JDVance) November 16, 2025

But while we aren't free to say what we think, Vance is. Tucker is his friend. It's okay to listen to his hate speech and conspiracy theories. Which makes me wonder if Vance thinks that, in theory, it would be okay to laugh at the victims of Bondi Beach or to listen to someone laugh at that, as if that were a totally normal thing to do. Nothing worthy of remark. Because freedom.

This would, after all, be the perfect application of Tucker Carlson’s "principles" as outlined by Carlson and Piers Morgan, in their February 2025 debate.

Just now at TPUSA, we had an opportunity to see how people are lining up. We heard things like, “We can have a conversation about that.”

What does it mean to JD Vance, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, to have a "conversation?" It means they are permitted to hate Israel and the Jews—and that it is their right as Americans to express that hate openly—even in hearing of little children, if they wish.

Commenting on the the coming out of Megyn Kelly at TPUSA, my Facebook friend Moshe Z. Matitya said, "The overnight transmogrification of the big RW influencers feels like something straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

"The first tweet from Megyn Kelly below is from 2 months ago; the second one is from two days ago."

Moshe shared two screenshots of Kelly's X posts.

To JD Vance and his associates, perhaps, this is the essence of what it means to be free. The right to express hateful views and also to remain friends with those who express them. In theory, this would make it okay to say that a little Australian girl deserved to die. And then lie about it.

Because that would be their right. As Americans. The supreme application of freedom in the good old USA.

***

TRANSCRIPT: Piers Morgan on The Tucker Carlson Show
February 8, 2025 · 12:51 a.m.

Piers Morgan: Why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars?
Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t.

Piers Morgan: You don’t support Israel being supported by America?
Tucker Carlson: Well, I… support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation.

Piers Morgan: But do you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms?
Tucker Carlson: To the extent that it helps the United States, I’m for it, of course. I think what we need is—

Piers Morgan: So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away. It just depends which country.
Tucker Carlson: No. I, I—

Piers Morgan: Your principle, it doesn’t really apply in Israel.
Tucker Carlson: I’ll articulate it for the third time, just to be totally clear. I believe the United States, like every country, should, to the extent that it can, act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interests. We can debate what those interests are.

Piers Morgan: But that doesn’t apply in Israel.
Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what you mean.

Piers Morgan: America is supporting Israel because it’s an ally.
Tucker Carlson: I don’t even know what those words mean. I’m just saying my principle is—

Piers Morgan: I mean, but isn’t it—they’re an ally, right? I mean, they both know what—
Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what that means to be an ally. I mean, we have no—

Piers Morgan: It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it’s its ally.
Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally.

Piers Morgan: So it gives it billions of dollars’ worth.
Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally, okay?

Piers Morgan: Well, it fundamentally does.
Tucker Carlson: I have no greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say, “I want to do this,” I assess whether it’s good for them or not. If I don’t think it is, I don’t support it.

Piers Morgan: Right.
Tucker Carlson: Because they’re my true allies. They’re my children.

Piers Morgan: But why would you support America getting involved in Israel?
Tucker Carlson: Just because a country that’s your ally says, “I want to do this,” does not mean axiomatically you support it. Maybe it’s not good for you or me.

Piers Morgan: So do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars?
Tucker Carlson: It depends. If you can make—

Piers Morgan: What’s in America’s interest?
Tucker Carlson: It depends in all cases. It’s not just about Israel.

Piers Morgan: But do you support what’s happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don’t see the difference between that and what’s happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There’s no direct involvement with America. There’s no mainland involvement with America. And yet you think it’s right that America supports Israel. Put words in your mouth. But you don’t think it’s right—
Tucker Carlson: I don’t think those are the words that came out of my mouth.

Piers Morgan: You don’t think it’s right America supports Ukraine when Russia invades it?
Tucker Carlson: I have a simple solution. Let me explain what I think, and then that way we’ll get—

Piers Morgan: Am I wrong?
Tucker Carlson: We’ll get right to what I think.

Piers Morgan: Am I wrong?
Tucker Carlson: I actually tuned out midway through. I’m not exactly sure what you said.

Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right.
Tucker Carlson: I did, I did, I did, I did.

Piers Morgan: Just because I’m right. You can’t tune out.
Tucker Carlson: I didn’t follow everything you said.

Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right.
Tucker Carlson: No, it was more a lecture about what I think, and then I’m like, “Wait, I know what I think. I think I’m the world’s expert on what I’m thinking. I think I’m the uncontested premier of my own head.”

Piers Morgan: That is true.
Tucker Carlson: So, I’m going to unload its contents on you right now.

Piers Morgan: Explain what is America’s national interest in Israel?
Tucker Carlson: I’ll define the parameters as well, because I’m happier with that, okay? I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. (laughing) Like we don’t always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. Like, we think it’s good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy. Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it’s not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That’s the basic idea in democracy. Okay? And there’s certainly—you could make a case that whatever we’re giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we’re doing it, is good for the United States. I think you just have to make that case.

Piers Morgan: Why is it good for the United States?
Tucker Carlson: Well, you could make that case.

Piers Morgan: But why is it?
Tucker Carlson: I’m not convinced.

Piers Morgan: What is the case?
Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t know. You’d have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don’t you tell me?

Piers Morgan: For what?
Tucker Carlson: For U.S. aid to Israel in the current conflict.

Piers Morgan: Actually, I haven’t expressed a view about that at all. I’m just curious about your… the difference in your—
Tucker Carlson: You’re not an Israel hater, are you? Why do you hate Israel?

Piers Morgan: Not at all. Not at all.
Tucker Carlson: Why are you attacking Israel? I don’t know why. What problem do you have with Israel, Piers?

Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel.
Tucker Carlson: The press likes this. They secretly hate Israel.

Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel whatsoever.
Tucker Carlson: It feels like you do. Is Netanyahu a dictator?

Piers Morgan: Actually, I don’t like Netanyahu. I think you should—
Tucker Carlson: You hate Israel.

Piers Morgan: I think you should go. Let me, just, I’m going to ask you one more time—
Tucker Carlson: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Piers Morgan: Hang on. Hang on.
Tucker Carlson: Now we’re getting into… I’m not comfortable with this.

Tucker Carlson: Here’s my question. Should I be platforming you? That’s my question. You just said you don’t like Netanyahu.
Piers Morgan: I’m trying to work out whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.

Tucker Carlson: All right, I’m going to need a second.

Piers Morgan: One more time, just quietly for the people at the back. You don’t like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there’s no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes.
Tucker Carlson: Well, there’s a negative national interest.

Piers Morgan: Okay.
Tucker Carlson: I found one.

Piers Morgan: So I get that.
Tucker Carlson: We’re losing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency because of this war.

Piers Morgan: All right. Fine.
Tucker Carlson: There’s no greater national interest.

Piers Morgan: Your position is America first. There’s no interest for America. Shouldn’t be doing it. Every country should act for this. It’s a problem between Ukraine and Russia. Okay, that’s fine. A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can’t understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. There’s no direct—
Tucker Carlson: If I’ve been a great advocate for the war in Gaza, I missed that part of the conversation.

Piers Morgan: Well, you support America supporting Israel.
Tucker Carlson: No.

Piers Morgan: You don’t support America supporting Ukraine.
Tucker Carlson: No. I don’t support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve the United States.

Piers Morgan: Okay.
Tucker Carlson: That’s the point of our government: to serve the people who live there, called citizens. That’s what democracy is. There’s no other reason. So, if I’m in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I’m making money to do it, then I’m by definition illegitimate. That’s not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it. That’s not democracy. So I just believe in our system, and our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is their own people’s interests. And I would apply that to Israel. I’d apply it to Ukraine. I think there have certainly been times where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. You know, it’s an alliance. Just like we have an alliance with our country?

Piers Morgan: They are allies then.
Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what ally means.

Piers Morgan: It’s short for alliance.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, you’re right. It is.

Piers Morgan: Yes!
Tucker Carlson: It’s so funny. I never knew that.

Piers Morgan: I’ve got you.
Tucker Carlson: You got me.

Piers Morgan: You’ve literally just—
Tucker Carlson: When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king.

Piers Morgan: Boom.
Tucker Carlson: You’re blowing my mind, Piers Morgan.

***

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A few days ago, Kan News in Israel reported from the Icon Mall, a luxury mall in Ramallah that opened earlier this year, noting that while it is only 15 minutes from Jerusalem, Israeli Jews are not allowed to shop there - and it has brand names not available in Israel like Sephora.

This stry caused an uproar from Palestinian journalists for the mall allowing the hated Israelis inside. The crime, of course, is "normalization."

The mall put out a lengthy statement explaining how they did not give permission for the segment

We are part of the heritage and fabric of this great Palestinian people, and we cannot abandon our values and principles for any reason.

All workers, employees, shop owners, and mall owners who form the work family in this Palestinian landmark—which we are proud to have achieved—are children of this people and from its cities, villages, and camps. Among them are dozens of released prisoners and families of martyrs and the wounded. No one can accept being part of a false and misleading Israeli narrative.

In the end, if the clear goals of these journalistic entities—which work to whitewash the face of the loathsome occupation—aim to split the Palestinian ranks, turn society against itself, and stir up public opinion against one of the largest Palestinian projects in recent years (which was visited by 4 million Palestinians in its first year), then we call on all the children of our people to thwart this opportunity, deal with the event as it is, and protect the acquired rights of dozens of investors, thousands of employees, and suppliers.

I haven't heard anything about "freedom of the press" from the usual suspects who get upset when Israel limits journalists in a war zone but Palestinians can explicitly bar Israeli journalists from reporting from Ramallah.

(h/t Ahron S.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Tucker Carlson: Jews Have No Connection To Judaism Nor Israel (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

I recently came across an excerpt of an interview that podcaster Theo Von did with Tucker Carlson. Oddly enough, the theme of the interview is revealed at the very end of the clip:

Theo Von: Oh, I think it's brave to be able to speak up; sometimes if you're right or wrong, it's brave to try.

Tucker Carlson: It's our obligation to try. I was quiet for 30 years. I shouldn't have been I didn't want to fight but I shouldn't have been

Theo Von: People say like you get information wrong, but if information is given out that's wrong, then how do you expect someone to know accurate information?

You would be hard-pressed to find a more heartfelt defense of spreading misinformation. The implicit argument is that error is excusable so long as it is delivered with confidence and moral self-regard. That is precisely the license Carlson gives himself as he proceeds to traffic in fake history, scientific illiteracy, and anti-Israel propaganda, all wrapped in a tone of faux humility.

Carlson advances his own peculiar version of supersessionism. Rather than claiming Christianity replaces Judaism, he suggests something even more radical: that Judaism itself no longer exists, and that modern Jews have no meaningful connection to the Jews of antiquity or to the land of Israel. In a neat rhetorical trick, Carlson simply denies Jewish continuity altogether:

Theo Von: But because this Israel is not the Israel from the Bible, right? This is…

Tucker Carlson: I've tried to have this conversation. If it is, tell me how? What are you even talking about? And I'm not a theologian. I'm a freaking Episcopalian like I admit I know nothing but I do read the Bible every day, so I just don't see what you're talking about.

So you tell me what you're talking about. This is the Israel we read about. This is the inheritance of Abraham.

Theo Von: No way!

Tucker Carlson: How is it genetically the same? Are the people who live there now related to the people we read about in the Old Testament? If they are, we have DNA test. Tell me how that works? Oh, those are banned.

Okay. So then you tell me it's the same religion. How is it the same religion? There's no temple like, what are you even talking about? By the way, maybe there's a good answer that I just don't understand.

On at least one point, Carlson is refreshingly honest: he does not understand. Unfortunately, ignorance does not stop him from lecturing millions of listeners as though he does. His insistence that he “reads the Bible every day” is beside the point. This is not a theological question; it is a matter of history, archaeology, and population genetics—fields in which Carlson appears to have invested no effort at all.

Carlson reaches for a conspiracy theory. He claims that DNA testing is “banned” in Israel to hide the supposed lack of Jewish continuity. This is simply false. Snopes debunked the claim last year, noting that it is part of a broader attempt to accuse Israel of concealing evidence that undermines Jewish ancestral ties. More recently, an article in the Israel Institute of New Zealand was published, No, DNA Tests Are Not “Illegal in Israel': Debunking a Libel While Acknowledging the Real Policy Debate:

Few modern anti-Israel talking points are as bizarre — or as revealing — as the persistent claim that “DNA tests are illegal in Israel.” As with many libels, the accusation begins with a thin thread of truth, wraps it in distortion, and emerges as another conspiracy theory designed to delegitimise Jewish identity and the State of Israel.

The truth is that such tests are not banned--they are regulated, nor is Israel the only country that does this. The fact that such tests exist—and are widely studied—fatally undermines Carlson’s argument. He also betrays a basic ignorance of Jewish diversity. Sweeping claims about “the Jews” ignore well-documented distinctions among Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Mizrahi populations, all of which have been extensively studied.

According to a 2001 report on the website of the National Library of Medicine

although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture of males

The LA Times reported in 2010 on a study of Ashkenazic Jewish ancestry:

The study shows that there is "clearly a shared genetic common ancestry among geographically diverse populations consistent with oral tradition and culture …and that traces back to the Middle East," said geneticist Sarah A. Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "Jews have assimilated to some extent, but they clearly retain their common ancestry."

Carlson’s final move—arguing that the destruction of the Temple somehow severed Judaism from its own past—is just as foolish. Judaism did not end in 70 CE. It adapted, as living civilizations do. Jewish law, liturgy, language, and communal identity evolved organically from Second Temple Judaism, preserving continuity across catastrophe and exile. To suggest otherwise is not scholarship; it is historical vandalism.

But Carlson is not trying to educate. As with his claim that Benjamin Netanyahu called him a Nazi or that American taxpayers somehow “pay Netanyahu’s salary,” the goal is provocation, not accuracy. He gives his audience what it wants: grievance dressed up as insight, ignorance masquerading as courage.

Tucker Carlson’s performance is not merely uninformed—it is reckless. By presenting his lack of knowledge as a form of bravery, he invites his audience to confuse curiosity with certainty and skepticism with denial. Jews, Judaism, and Israel are not abstractions to be waved away with rhetorical questions and conspiratorial shrugs. They are among the most thoroughly documented continuities in human history. Carlson’s failure to grasp that is not a moral stand. It is a choice—and one that trades truth for applause.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Weeks after the Hamas October 7 attacks, the US, along with dozens of allies, put out a strong statement condemning antisemitism. The U.S. State Department’s office of the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism asked Australia to sign on, but Canberra refused.

The signatories, many of them envoys on Jew-hatred, added that they “will do everything in our power to see that hatred against Jews is rebuked and that Jewish life flourishes in peace” and that “antisemitism and all forms of hate are incredibly harmful and unacceptable.”

There was nothing controversial in the statement's recommendations:

We call on governments to assess the needs and provide the necessary security assistance that Jewish communities require at this time of crisis.
We urge police and law enforcement to be vigilant of threats against Jews and to be aware that Jewish people around the world should not be held responsible for the words and actions of the Israeli or any other government, as illustrated by the non-legally binding International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism.
We denounce antisemitic acts taking place on some campuses and urge university administrators to condemn them and ensure that their Jewish students, like all other students, have the safety and support needed in these difficult times, to enjoy their right to education.
We urge civil society – including sports federations, religious communities, the cultural sector and academic circles – not to stand by or stay silent, but rather use their influence to effectively counter antisemitism and promote public acts of solidarity.
We are distressed about the online upsurge of antisemitic messages, disinformation, hate speech, and terrorist content, which instigate real world hate crimes and threaten the very social cohesion that binds our democratic societies together. We decry the social media platforms that amplify and multiply this content and call on them to act in line with the law and their own terms of service.
History has taught us that at times like these, we must speak up and cannot be indifferent.

JNS reported that a former State Department official said Australia’s decision to sit out was glaring. “It was a huge sign that even though the United States pushed them to sign onto this statement—it’s not like we are committing them to anything,” the former official said. “They refused. It’s like the top country that should be on there is not on there.”

That was under the Biden administration. The Trump administration has also tried to get Australia to prioritize the fight against antisemitism, and it has dragged its feet. This can be seen by parsing the very short readout of a meeting between Secretary of State Rubio and Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong in August:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke today with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong to discuss issues in the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, along with global efforts to combat antisemitism. The Secretary also underscored the importance of the U.S.-Australia alliance for upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific.

That is a very unusual detail for such a short statement, and it reflects US concern over Australia's reticence on doing anything concrete to fight Jew-hatred, even after the number of antisemitic incidents skyrocketed there after October 7.

The JNS article also details a huge amount of effort necessary for the US to pressure Australia to even appoint an envoy to combat antisemitism altogether. Australia's excuse was that if they were to do that they also needed an Islamophobia envoy and the Muslim community hadn't agreed on one. Yes, this was the bizarre reason given.

Bondi did not happen in a vacuum. The current government has been setting the stage for years.

(h/t Jill)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

L'Orient Today reports:

The Lebanese Army and Defense Minister Michel Menassa staunchly defended the troops on Tuesday and denied any connection to Hezbollah, after the Israeli army accused one of the three victims of the Israeli strike on a car in the Saida region of being both a soldier and a member of the party.

The Israeli allegations, which claimed that Ali Abdallah, one of the three men killed on Monday, was both a soldier and a Hezbollah fighter, are “false,” a source within the army told L’Orient-Le Jour in the morning.

So why was he in the same car as Hezbollah terrorists?

“It is possible that the men accompanying the soldier were relatives or friends from his village,” clarified an army source.

Ah. Yes. That's it. Certainly. The soldier just hung out with terrorists, but it was all innocent.

From Alma Research:

Yesterday (22 December), in an airstrike on a vehicle near the village of Qnaitra, three Hezbollah operatives were eliminated. One of them, Ali Abdullah, was a Hezbollah operative who served concurrently in the Intelligence unit of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

Abdullah had previously also served in the LAF’s anti-tank battalion—a unit responsible for training army battalions and special brigades in the use of various weapons systems. Its personnel undergo combat training courses that include raids, live fire, and the establishment of checkpoints. In his most recent role, as noted, he served in the LAF Intelligence unit. He was therefore an individual with significant military training and access to sensitive information and infrastructure.

The two other eliminated operatives were Mustafa Mohammad Balout, an operative in Hezbollah’s air defense array in the Sidon sector, and Hassan Hamdan. The publication of photos and a video showing the two together with Ali Abdullah singing a song in praise of Nasrallah points to a close personal relationship among the three.

This case is not exceptional. Hezbollah employs numerous officers and soldiers within the LAF — most of them from the Shiite community—who assist the organization directly or indirectly. Their affiliation with Hezbollah stems from a combination of ideological, sectarian, familial, and sometimes social motivations (such as originating from the same village). These soldiers serve as enablers for Hezbollah and its operations in southern Lebanon against Israel.

Hezbollah operates systematically to recruit officers from within the LAF. It can then exploit them to gain access to military infrastructure and assets, coordinate activities, and even operate under the cover of LAF patrols.

This is the sort of information that Western media simply never reports. The Lebanese Army needs to clean up not only Hezbollah, but its own ranks. And that is not realistically going to happen any time soon while they deny that some of their people are Hezbollah.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

12/23 Links Pt2: How the ICC Invented a Non-Existent State to Persecute Israel; When the Blood Libel Came to America; UN yearly spends $100 million target Israel

From Ian:

On October 7, Approximately 46% of those reached were killed, kidnapped, or injured.

Public discussion of October 7 almost always begins with an immediate and rehearsed response: “But Gaza.” The implication is that comparing it settles moral and analytical questions — that a higher death toll retroactively shrinks the meaning of what came before it. It is a comparison that quietly neutralizes the event before it is examined: “1,200 Israelis killed versus tens of thousands of Palestinians dead in Gaza.” Framed this way, the attack is made to appear numerically small, even marginal, especially when set against the war that followed.

The number sounds small only when the denominator is inflated to include millions of people who were never attacked. It sounds small only when a one-day mass assault is compared to casualties accumulated over months of war, stripped of context, intent, and time scale. And it sounds small only when the participation of multiple armed groups and civilians who crossed the border to loot, burn, abduct, and kill is quietly erased.

But Palestinian terror groups did not attack Israel as an abstract whole. They invaded Israel, were eventually stopped, and were only able to attack the places they physically reached. Any serious attempt to understand the scale of October 7 has to measure it against the population that was actually exposed to the violence — not against an entire country that was never breached.

October 7 was not limited by restraint. It was limited by geography — by fences, distance, and time. Where attackers succeeded in entering civilian spaces, the result was devastating and systematic.

In one morning, Hamas and accompanying other Palestinian terror groups and civilian attackers:

Killed or abducted roughly 1 in 10 of the people they physically reached

And when the injured are included, destroyed the lives of nearly half of everyone they reached — through killing, kidnapping, or injury.

In some communities, such as Nir Oz, the impact was far more extreme, with close to one in four residents killed or taken hostage, before the injured are even counted.

This was not collateral damage.
This was not urban warfare.
It was population-level annihilation wherever access existed, limited only by geography and time.

When the Blood Libel Came to America

In recent weeks, notable figures on the right have tried to either mainstream anti-Semitism or look away. Many conservatives and Christians find themselves put to the test, no longer able to ignore the problem metastasizing before them. Nearly a century ago, in a small upstate New York factory town, Americans faced a similar test—and passed. That story is worth revisiting today.

On Saturday, September 22, 1928, four-year-old Barbara Griffiths disappeared in Massena, New York, a rural factory town along the St. Lawrence River, which divides America and Canada. Frantic search parties of police, firefighters, and townspeople scoured the woods, fields, and streets, peering through storefront windows looking for Barbara.

As day gave way to night, fear gave way to speculation and scapegoating when one Massena resident told law enforcement that Jews were rumored to kidnap and ritually sacrifice children in the region that the resident had immigrated from. The blood libel, an ancient pagan and Christian pretext for violence against Jews, had come to America.

The blood libel, the charge that Jews kidnap, kill, and eat non-Jews, was first documented in the first century. The charge of ritual cannibalism was also made against early Christians. The blood libel resurfaced in the Middle Ages and has since been used as a pretext for Jewish persecution. The week Barbara disappeared, a New York Times headline noted “Anti-Jewish Agitation” in Europe over “Ritual Murder Rumors.”

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Iran’s has a ceaseless obsession with Israel

Iran’s conduct strips away any illusion about priorities. Even amid water shortages, electricity failures and economic contraction, the regime has channelled vast resources into instruments of attack. Mohammad Javad Zarif’s recent acknowledgement on Al Jazeera that roughly $500 billion was spent on the nuclear programme was striking precisely because it carried no regret. The expenditure was framed as ideological defiance. The moral judgement, drawn by others, contrasts that figure with empty reservoirs and decaying infrastructure. The choice was deliberate.

In Tehran’s Palestine Square, a digital clock counts down to the envisioned destruction of the State of Israel. The symbol is grotesque, yet clarifying. While Israel has invested relentlessly in shelters, early warning systems and civilian resilience, Iran has provided its population with little protection from the wars it seeks. Iranian friends of mine abroad speak quietly of families without shelters, without warning systems, without any sense of personal safety.

Israel harbours no reciprocal obsession. During the war, it possessed the capacity to push further, to pursue regime change directly. It chose restraint. Its focus remains survival and protection rather than ideological conquest. Even under fire, its economy functioned. Its society absorbed shock without collapse. That resilience frustrates Tehran, which speaks openly of breaking morale and dismantling prosperity. The effort has failed, so far.

The wider world should observe this regime with the same clarity Israel is forced to apply. Iran’s leadership is so consumed by the project of destroying Israel that it accepts, even embraces, the sacrifice of its own people as collateral. Chronic water shortages, failing infrastructure, economic exhaustion and the absence of basic civilian protection are not unintended consequences but tolerated costs. The clock in Palestine Square, counting down to 2040, makes this plain. It is not a threat of imminence but a declaration of endurance, a statement that the campaign is generational rather than tactical.

That obsession does not stop at Israel’s borders. Across Europe, including in the United Kingdom, Iranian regime institutions, networks and operatives continue to function openly or semi-openly, engaged in intimidation, subversion and preparation. From European capitals to Latin America, including Venezuela, the Islamic Republic has built a lattice of influence dedicated to disruption, coercion and violence abroad. Israel stands on the front line of this project, but it is not its final destination.

The clock continues to tick. One can only hope that the regime which built its future around such a promise is gone long before it reaches zero.

12/23 Links Pt1: Deport the Hate Preachers. Now.; Trio convicted in UK for terror plot to kill hundreds of Jews; The warrior Jews who terrified Rome

From Ian:

Tony Abbott: Deport the Hate Preachers. Now.

For years, the leftist mindset has seen Jews as possessors of “white privilege” and Israel as an exemplar of “settler colonialism” and therefore as “oppressors” – hence the absurdity of “Queers for Palestine” and the insistence, even from ministers in the Albanese government, that October 7 should be seen “in context”.

What else can explain the government’s increasingly harsh denunciations of Israel, its alacrity in issuing visas to largely unvetted people from Gaza, its secret repatriation of “ISIS brides”, and its recognition of Palestine in a massive concession to the “river to the sea” protesters?

The basic problem with the Albanese government is the leftist instincts that constantly distort its moral lens.

Hence the government’s inability to have an envoy against anti-Semitism without also appointing one against an almost non-existent Islamophobia; the PM’s apparent greater comfort in Beijing than in Washington; and the government’s inability to open its mouth without acknowledging “country”, or the neurotic flying of three flags as some kind of atonement for the original settlement of Australia.

Maybe the Bondi massacre will turn out to have been a “road to Damascus” moment, with Anthony Albanese and his ministers henceforth ruthless and relentless in monitoring hate preachers and closing them down if they utter so much as a word from the Koran urging the killing of Jews; in comprehensively vetting visa applicants to ensure that their beliefs and their social media history really are consistent with the democratic instincts Australians should be able to rely on; and in forever putting behind them any ambivalence about our country and its symbols, such as the flag, Australia Day and Anzac Day.

Never again, let’s hope, will we get from this government vacuous slogans about “our diversity is our strength”, as if there’s something embarrassing about our Anglo-Celtic core culture and our fundamental Judaeo-Christian ethos.

Yet the PM’s inability to apologise for the government’s failures, and inability to say definitely Islamist hate slogans will be as banned as nazi salutes, does not augur well.

Australia’s immigration program need not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, but it should discriminate on the basis of values if we are to last as a free and fair society.

As the citizenship pledge goes, all of us must be absolutely committed “to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey”.

It’s a modern version of Ruth’s biblical declaration that “your people will be my people and your God my God”. People who can’t say it, mean it, and live it, should not be here.

Did the Iranian Regime Play a Role in Australia's Hanukkah Massacre?

Hours before the Bondi Beach attack, Ahmad Ghadiri Abyaneh - the son of Mohammad-Hassan Ghadiri Abyaneh, a former Iranian ambassador to Australia - posted a cryptic message on X condemning Jewish Hanukkah celebrations as a "satanic ritual."

His post framed Jewish religious observance as a threat requiring "societal defense," citing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's doctrine of "mobilized civil resistance" against perceived enemies of Islam.

This echoed the Iranian regime's systematic use of religious language to legitimize violence against Jewish and Western targets.

The cumulative evidence surrounding the Bondi Beach massacre strongly suggests a conducive environment shaped by Iranian ideology.

The attack should be understood as part of a global campaign of intimidation linked to state-sponsored extremist doctrine.

From JTA:

A Pennsylvania elementary school principal is facing termination by his school district after he accidentally recorded himself making antisemitic remarks in a voicemail to a Jewish parent.

Philip Leddy, the principal of the Lower Gwynedd Elementary School in Montgomery County, confirmed to the Wissahickon School District that he had made the antisemitic remarks heard on the voicemail message Friday morning after he believed he had disconnected the call , according to an email sent to the district’s parents.

In the recording, Leddy made a reference to “Jew camp,” and told another staff member at the school that the parent has “Jew money” and claimed that “they control the banks,” according to the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. Later, when asked whether the parent was a lawyer, Leddy responded, “the odds are probably good.”

Garden variety antisemitism, straight out of the Protocols. Pennsylvania? Probably a right-wing lunatic, right?

Um, no:

Leddy was hired as the principal for the Lower Gwynedd Elementary School in 2023 after previously serving as committee chair of the district’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, according to a since-deleted profile for him on the school’s website.

It is time to retire the fiction that anti-racism programs reduce antisemitism. The truth is the opposite: when you falsely divide the world into oppressor and oppressed, the Jews are slotted into the place that gives people permission to hate them.

The anti-Zionism of the Left is not separate from antisemitism - it is the only way their antisemitism can be expressed in public. But as Philip Leddy shows, progressive bigotry against Jews is independent of Israel. It is just felt and spoken when it is believed that no one is listening.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Manufactured Crisis: How Falsifiability Can Save American Politics from Its Extremes

In the 1930s, the United States faced a real, system-level crisis. The Great Depression produced mass unemployment, widespread poverty, and genuine fear that the existing order could no longer provide stability or dignity. When people lose trust in a system because it has visibly failed them, they naturally search for alternatives. Often, those alternatives are extreme.

At the time, the most radical options gaining traction were Communist and fascist movements. Both promised certainty, moral clarity, and decisive action. Given what was known then, and how desperate circumstances were, many Americans found elements of those arguments disturbingly plausible. The language these movements used was not obviously monstrous. It sounded moral, patriotic, humanitarian, and urgent.

Only in hindsight is the danger unmistakable.

Today, we are seeing similar extremes gain traction within both major political parties. On the left, radical movements frame politics almost entirely through appeals to social justice, power hierarchies, and moral urgency. On the right, radical movements frame politics through appeals to nationalism, civilizational decline, and suspicion of institutions. The emotional structure of the arguments is familiar.

But there is a decisive difference between the 1930s and today: we are not living through a depression-scale crisis.

America today has serious problems, but they are not existential. There is no mass starvation. There is no systemic unemployment. Elections are held. Courts function. The stock market has controls to minimize the risk of a catastrophic crash. Deposits at banks are insured. Information is widely available. By nearly every objective measure, Americans are as prosperous, safe, and empowered as any population in history. That does not mean the system is perfect or just. But the system is functioning fairly well.

So why are the extremes growing?

Because this time, the crisis is not the cause. It is the product.

Modern extremism depends on manufacturing a sense of catastrophe in order to justify radical solutions. Ordinary political disagreement is reframed as civilizational collapse. Institutional friction is labeled oppression. Incremental reform is dismissed as complicity. Everything is urgent. Everything is existential. And everything demands suspension of normal constraints.

America is not uniquely terrible - on the contrary, it remains, today, the greatest country on Earth. But extreme ideologies cannot survive without the perception of imminent disaster. So they use their platforms to convince the American people that things are on the verge of collapse and they are the only solution.

This is fundamentally anti-American,.

The American system is built on a civic covenant. It assumes equal opportunity under the law, no religious establishment, the dignity of work, and the belief that individuals can improve their lives through effort within a shared framework. This vision was never perfect, and it was partly aspirational. But it was true enough to encourage responsibility, honesty, innovation, and unity across differences.

The extremes reject this American covenant.

On the far right, liberty is hollowed out into loyalty, institutions are treated as legitimate only when aligned, and minorities or dissenters are framed as threats. On the far left, justice is transformed into moral absolutism, disagreement becomes harm, and power is justified by outcomes rather than consent. In different ways, both sides abandon the American idea that legitimacy flows from process, pluralism, and correction over time. The idea of "We the People" does not exist on the extremes - on both sides, the people are pawns to be endlessly manipulated with propaganda and scare tactics.

The choice is not right vs. left. It is whether America will be governed by reality or by falsehood.

Historically, extremist ideologies succeed not because they are persuasive on the merits, but because they share a common structural flaw: They are unfalsifiable. This means that no amount of evidence can disprove the ideologies - every shred of evidence is twisted into proof. Think about how climate change was used to explain both extreme heat and extreme cold: facts were twisted to fit the ideology, not the other way around. And the same applies to QAnon style conspiracy theories; no actual events can ever disprove the theory.

When an ideology cannot be meaningfully tested, corrected, or challenged from within, it ceases to be a political philosophy and becomes a closed system. Evidence against it is reinterpreted as proof of conspiracy. Dissent becomes betrayal. Institutions are delegitimized rather than improved. At that point, persuasion is replaced by enforcement.

This is where my Derechology falsification audit becomes useful. This identifies load bearing assumptions of the ideologies; if they are false the ideologies themselves are false.

On the far-Left, the load bearing assumption is that everyone is either oppressor or oppressed. For some it is boss/worker, for others it is white people/people of color, and for yet others it is colonizer/colonized. This binary is never true and without that assumption the entire edifice collapses.

On the far-Right, the load bearing assumptions is that America was meant to be a Christian country, or that the only workable moral system is Christianity. Neither of those are true.

In both cases, the ideology becomes immune to correction. That is the danger.

Every major political party faces the same dilemma: how to remain inclusive without being captured by extremists. The usual approaches fail. Either the tent is so wide that it admits corrosive ideas, or boundaries are enforced arbitrarily and politically.

The falsification audit offers a third option.

Political winds shift - the definition of conservatism or liberalism has changed over the decades. A Reagan Republican is not the same as a Bush Republican or a Trump Republican. I strongly disagree that America should abandon Israel, but the opinion itself (if it is based on legitimate assumptions) does not fail this audit for the Right, at least in theory.

Here are some rules that can be offered for both parties to reject opinions that are based on falsehoods.

If an opinion cannot be challenged without moral condemnation, cannot be disproven by evidence, treats disagreement as illegitimate and requires a permanent crisis to justify itself, then that opinion is not to be considered. This allows and encourages debate among the valid positions within a party. It allows good faith debates between the Right and the Left.

Foreign adversaries understand how damaging extreme partisanship is. They do not need to persuade Americans of alternative ideologies. They only need to amplify crisis narratives, erode trust in correction mechanisms, and reward the loudest extremes. That strategy works only when internal guardrails fail.

The solution is not moderation for its own sake, which cannot be clearly defined. It is epistemic discipline.

Ideas that cannot be tested cannot build. Movements that reject correction cannot endure. And political parties that cannot distinguish legitimate opinion from propaganda will eventually collapse under their own contradictions. The particular ideologies are not nearly as important as the structure behind them - can they adapt to reality, are they corrigible, can they be defended on their own merits.

The future of America is at stake.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The interesting history of the word "Jewry"

I saw this in the 1775 edition of The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language by John ash:

Jewry: The country of the Jews, a place where Jews are permitted to reside.

That is certainly not what the word means today.

It turns out that in the word "Jewry" originally was a synonym for Judea. The King James Bible translates Daniel 5:13: "Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?"

This 1683 edition of Josephus shows this clearly:

Later on, it became the name of Jewish quarters or ghettoes of European cities. London had an "Old Jewry" section where Jews had lived before their expulsion.

By the late 19th century, the word started changing meanings again towards today's usage. This is described in "Jewish Ideals And Other Essays" by Joseph Jacobs, 1896:

The name Jewry may perhaps legitimately detain us a moment. It is a French collective term, and reminds us that the London "Jewry" is a daughter of the Rouen "Juifverie." It is sometimes spelt Giwerie, Latinised variously as "Judearia" and "Judaismus," whence we find a Cambridge parish "in the Judeism," and a purely English collective is sometimes used, "Juhede." It does not necessarily imply a place at all, but merely a community of persons who were all responsible for each, as the Jews actually were under old English law.

Even an innocuous sounding word as "Jewry" reminds us of centuries of persecution and "othering" of Jews, who were forced to live in separate parts of towns.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

12/22 Links Pt2: Lion-Eater of Judah; Inventing a Nonexistent Famine Should Be a Credibility Killer; Cheers for Ben Shapiro; Vance’s Friends Without Benefits; The Problem Is Mamdani

From Ian:

Lion-Eater of Judah

“Never since the days of Judas Maccabaeus had such sights and sounds been seen and heard in a military camp,” wrote Colonel John Patterson in his 1916 memoir With the Zionists in Gallipoli. If Judas had visited this “great camp with the tents of the Children of Israel,” Patterson went on:
He would have heard the Hebrew tongue spoken on all sides, and seen a host of Sons of Judah drilling to the same words of command he used to those gallant soldiers who fought the Romans: he would have heard the plaintive soul-stirring music of the Maccabean hymn chanted by the men as they marched through the camps. Although it was only a mule corps, yet it was (potentially) a fighting unit and of this the men were all very proud.

As Natan Slifkin recounts in his recently published The Lions of Zion, the Irish-born British soldier was, like the Maccabees he so admired, a fighter of both animals and men. More importantly, as commander of the Zion Mule Corps in World War I and later the 38th battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, which came to be known as the Jewish Legion, he, like those hearty Hasmoneans, helped revive the Jewish national project.

Patterson’s early-career adventures earned him not one but four Hollywood adaptations. In 1898, he killed two man-eating lions that had been chomping their way through a railway construction project in British East Africa. As he would recall years later:
I have never experienced anything more nerve-shaking than to hear the deep roars of these dreadful monsters growing nearer and nearer, and to know that some one or other of us was doomed to be their victim before morning dawned. . . . Shouts would then pass from camp to camp “Beware, brothers, the devil is coming,” but the warning cries would prove of no avail; and sooner or later agonizing shrieks would break the silence, and another man would be missing from roll call next morning.

Hollywood couldn’t resist. Bwana Devil, a 1952 United Artists production, was the first color film made in 3D. Four decades later, in the late 90’s, there was the Man-eaters of Tsavo, a documentary based on Patterson’s memoir by the same name. In a fictionalized version released around the same time, Val Kilmer played the adventurer in Paramount’s Ghost and the Darkness. More recently, the Yellowstone prequel series 1923 featured a character, Spencer Dutton, inspired by the courageous colonel.

Seth Mandel: Inventing a Nonexistent Famine Should Be a Credibility Killer

It’s obviously great news that there was no famine in Gaza. It is terrible news that the organizations responsible for informing the world of such conditions knew the whole time that there was no famine and manipulated data in order to spread false accusations against Israel. The “famine” narrative materially affected the war by convincing supposed members of the democratic alliance to withhold supplies from Israel and force Israel to resupply Hamas, thereby prolonging the war and costing additional Israeli and Palestinian lives. The wider “child killer” narrative, meanwhile, has been part of a global campaign of ever-escalating violence against Jews around the world.

If the objectively false “Israel is deliberately starving babies” narrative never takes hold, the war ends sooner and the Global Intifada is starved of some of its oxygen. It’s a no-brainer, then, that anyone who contributed to the spread of that narrative should be considered outside the bounds of respectable opinion. They can be free to post deranged material to social media just like anybody else, but they should be given no legitimacy by governments and academics and the media.

That last one might be too much to hope for, of course. The Associated Press “report” on the IPC’s acknowledgement of improved conditions in Gaza begins this way: “The spread of famine has been averted in the Gaza Strip, but the situation remains critical with the entire Palestinian territory still facing starvation, the world’s leading authority on food crises said Friday.”

Let’s just be clear: “famine has been averted” is thankfully true of most places in the world today. And if famine was averted, why the passive phrasing? Doesn’t that mean someone was getting food to Gazans even while their own government was hoarding it from them? And wouldn’t that someone be… the State of Israel?

Yes, it would. So here’s what happened: Hamas tried to bring a famine upon the people of Gaza, and Israel (at great risk) made sure to deliver enough food and supplies to stop that from happening even while Gaza’s armed forces remained at war with Israel. In their disappointment that there was no famine, Hamas’s allies in the NGO world pretended there was famine anyway, so that they could also lie about Israel’s efforts to supply Gaza. And a major global news wire rewarded them by telling readers they are the “world’s leading authority on food crises” despite the fact that the lesson of the article is that the IPC cannot be trusted.

The very least politicians can do is ensure that untrustworthy sources have no role in policymaking ever again.

National Review Editorial: Cheers for Ben Shapiro

Well, that will leave a mark.

Ben Shapiro did the conservative movement a service last week by giving two speeches that were deliberate acts of provocation.

First, at the Heritage Foundation, he argued that a political movement, like a nation, needs borders. He illustrated the point with reference to the Heritage Foundation mission statement, which supports free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

He then compared those principles with the beliefs of Tucker Carlson, with whom Heritage President Kevin Roberts has been in ideological sympathy, up to and including initially defending Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes (before backpedaling). Shapiro persuasively argued that by Heritage’s own standards Carlson — who expresses routine contempt for markets, who launders Russian propaganda, who sees the advantages of sharia law, and who gives sympathetic interviews to white nationalists, Churchill-hating World War II revisionists, and proud misogynists accused of rape — is no longer a conservative.

We assume that Roberts won’t be inviting Shapiro back any time soon, but his talk was received warmly by the audience at the Heritage Foundation.

A couple of days later, Shapiro spoke at TPUSA’s AmFest conference. He addressed the rank pandering to audience, widespread conspiracy-theorizing, and cowardly unwillingness to call out lunacy on the right that has infected the right-wing influencer space. Here, Shapiro focused on the absolutely cracked theories promoted by Candace Owens about the Charlie Kirk assassination; these rancid, obsessive musings, which would set off alarms bells for any psychiatrist if spouted by a patient, have significantly shaped the debate on the right about Kirk’s assassination.

Daniel B. Shapiro: Democrats Sound Like They’re in Doha

The end of the U.S.-Israel security partnership would have three immediate effects. First, it would make Israel appear vulnerable, leading Iran and its allies to accelerate their efforts, already under way, to rearm and prepare for another, perhaps decisive, war. Far from advancing the cause of peace, such a move would likely intensify the region’s conflicts.

Second, it would undermine bipartisan efforts to build an integrated coalition of U.S. partners—Israel and moderate Arab states—that assist one another and allow the United States to play a supporting, but not always leading, role in maintaining regional stability. Arab states are deepening their relationship with Israel in large part because they believe that it will bring them closer to the United States. When we are seen as a less reliable partner for our closest regional ally, they will draw obvious conclusions. Cutting off Israel would thus lead to a less stable, more conflict-ridden region. And it would actually set back Palestinian aspirations by undermining the Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that might advance them.

Third, the end of security assistance to Israel would soon mean the same for Jordan and Egypt, whose assistance programs derive from their peace treaties with Israel. Jordan’s stability could be placed at immediate risk, with spillover dangers in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the West Bank. Egypt would not stop arming itself; it would simply buy weapons from Russia and China. Gulf states, boxed out from purchasing U.S. equipment by ongoing U.S. legal requirements to sustain Israel’s qualitative military edge, would do the same. There is no better or faster way to open the door to our competitors’ planting their flag in a strategic and volatile region than by cutting off Israel.

The net result of these trends will be a dramatic decline in U.S. influence in the Middle East. For those embracing the impulse to look inward, that may seem fine. Early in the cycle of isolationism, as in the 1930s or after the Cold War, it always does. But eventually, a shock or crisis—World War II, 9/11, or one that we can’t yet name but that will surely come—will draw us back into the region, but under far worse conditions and at a much higher cost.

Sustaining a functional relationship with Israel, with all of its flaws, is manifestly more beneficial to U.S. interests than the alternative. And we need to keep perspective. Netanyahu will not govern forever. The Israeli public has moved rightward, but there are reasonable leaders from the center right and the center left to cultivate. A Palestinian state will not be on the agenda in the Israeli election campaign of 2026, but as the war recedes, there will be various ways to engage the Israeli public—an imperative that Israel’s critics utterly ignore but that is crucial for obtaining the outcomes we want in a democracy—to incentivize them to vote in a more moderate direction. Bidding them good riddance and telling them that they are on their own would do the opposite. Ignoring the responsibility of other actors—such as Palestinian Authority leaders who must embrace reform and demonstrate the capacity to govern and defeat extremists—would do the same.

If Israel wants to see Democrats pursue engagement, then it must help. Expressing conceptual openness to Palestinian statehood as part of a regionally integrated framework—even if it takes longer than Palestinians might hope and assumes a form that looks different from previous efforts—will be important. Keeping extremists out of the Israeli government, and cracking down on extremist violence, is crucial. And recognizing that legitimate security operations must include maximum efforts to protect civilians is essential. Although Israel Defense Forces commanders were always clear that their intent was to target Hamas, not civilians, their tolerance of civilian casualties in pursuit of legitimate military targets was far too high. An intense military-to-military dialogue could help persuade them to adjust that calculation. As in any war, specific charges that soldiers committed war crimes must be investigated and adjudicated in a credible military-justice system—something the United States military has done, albeit imperfectly.

Democrats, and all Americans, face a choice in upcoming elections. We can make the moral, political, and strategic error of trying to wash our hands of a relationship with a democratic partner under stress that has made many mistakes as it has fought to defend itself. Or we can commit to working with that partner and its current, flawed leadership while we wait for new leaders to emerge. We can choose to sustain crucial aspects of a relationship that serves our moral and strategic interests, while insisting on changes that conform with U.S. values. The latter course is clearly the better choice.