Wednesday, January 07, 2026


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

Back in November 2023 — only weeks after October 7 — Angelina Jolie accused Israel of bombing “a trapped population who have nowhere to flee.” She wrote: “Gaza has been an open-air prison for nearly two decades.”

Fast forward to January 2026. Jolie visits the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, ostensibly to check on injured Gazans and the flow of aid. And there she is: standing on the border with Gaza — in Egypt.

So here is the question that should be unavoidable now, even for celebrities who don’t do geography:

Did Jolie not know where she was standing?

Because there are two land borders with Gaza. One is with Israel. The other, with Egypt. If Gazans have “nowhere to flee,” it’s because of Egypt. Because Egypt has a border too — and refused to open it to the fleeing Gazan masses, most of whom are their cousins.

But Jolie does know where she is standing. She is standing on the border she ignored. She would have been well aware of it all along, because she served as a Special Envoy for UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. Surely she had at least a nodding acquaintance with borders and crossings.

Now, it is no longer possible for her to claim ignorance of this second border. Her inability to look at a map. Because she has stood at Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border. Jolie should apologize for demonizing Israel. That she has failed to do so, proves what we already know: Angelina Jolie is an antisemite. She hates Jews.

There is no other explanation — she hates us too much to even contemplate an apology to the Israeli people, even at the expense of her integrity.

And still, there is no apology on her lips. Not a peep. No: “I’m sorry. I know it wasn’t Israel trapping the people of Gaza. That Egypt could have let the fleeing Gazan refugees in and given them safe harbor, but refused. Israel deserves my humblest apologies.”

But of course, there will be no such apology. Humble or otherwise. There never is.

Two borders, one ignored.

Because acknowledging the other would make Egypt the guilty party, the bad guy. And they want the bad guy to be Israel. They want to make Israel the bad guy for not letting them in after October 7— they want to blame the Jews, and increase hatred against them. Then come the protests that turn into riots, the riots that morph into bodily assault, and finally spiral into murder. A Jewish museum affords that opportunity. As does the home of a Jewish governor and his family, set on fire at night while they were asleep. 

It's all the same. Two borders, one ignored — and finally erased. 

Even as one stands right there on the border with Gaza. Even as the Angelina Jolies of the world lose their integrity, one by one:

Two borders, one ignored.

It's a lie that betrays a deep and evil hatred of Jews.

The people who will never disappear. 

**
Please note that Jolie's father, Jon Voight, has been a staunch friend to Israel and the Jewish people. From Arutz 7:

Jolie’s criticism of Israel was met with a sharp response from her father, actor Jon Voight, who said his daughter “has no understanding of God's honor, God's truths" and added, “The Israeli army must protect thy soil, thy people. This is war. It's not going to be what the left thinks. It can't be ‘civil’ now. Israel was attacked by inhuman terror on innocent babies, mothers, fathers, [and] grandparents."



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Wednesday, January 07, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon
This was the cover of the Lebanese "Photographer" (or "Images") magazine, apparently from 1945,  with the flags of Arab states staked into the ground of British Mandate Palestine.


Notice what is missing: The Palestinian flag!

From the start, no one was interested in an independent Palestinian state. The entire point was always to destroy any chance for a Jewish state. 




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Wednesday, January 07, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon
We've already seen how Amnesty International has made up its own legal definition of "genocide" just to accuse Israel of the worst crime imaginable.

What about after the ceasefire?

Oh, Amnesty says, the "genocide" didn't end.

Budour Hassan, Amnesty International's researcher for Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territory, made a video posted by Amnesty-UK saying that Israel's "genocide" isn't over, because it is still imposing "impossible conditions of life," including denying medical aid and medical evacuations.

None of this is true. For example, UN OCHA reported two days before this video was published that "The January 2026 monthly general food assistance has begun with an adjusted ration size of two food parcels and two 25-kg bags of flour per family, covering 100 per cent of the minimum caloric requirement." 

Israel never blocked medical aid or evacuations - but Hamas did. 

Besides the lies, this is still a further expansion of the definition of genocide even beyond Amnesty's own previous made-up definition.  Yet, amazingly, Amnesty has gone even further.

On December 30, Amnesty's Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy & Campaigns, Erika Guevara Rosas, posted:
Israel’s decision to bar humanitarian organization, including @MSF, @NRC_Norway @CARE @Oxfam, from Gaza is not just an outrage, it is a deliberate escalation of its genocide against Palestinians

Blocking life-saving aid while civilians face starvation, disease, and bombardment despite the so called ceasefire is a blatant violation of international law and an assault on humanity itself. This is collective punishment on a catastrophic scale.
None of this is true. Israel gave 10 months for international NGOs to comply with new rules to ensure that all their employees are vetted for terrorist ties. The ones that complied are still in business; the ones that refused are the ones who can no longer work. The vast majority of aid comes from the ones that complied. 

Israel’s registration protocol for international organizations operating in Gaza is a standard transparency and security mechanism, designed to prevent the exploitation of humanitarian infrastructure by Hamas — whether knowingly or unknowingly. Over 20 international organizations have fully complied with this process and continue to deliver humanitarian assistance on a large scale. Israel has actively supported and facilitated their operations.

In contrast, MSF has declined to meet these requirements, refusing to submit required personnel documentation despite repeated outreach. This refusal is especially concerning in light of verified cases involving MSF-employed individuals linked to terrorist activity, as well as ongoing engagement with Hamas-controlled entities such as the Gaza Ministry of Health.

This pattern of conduct has also drawn criticism from within MSF’s own leadership ranks - with a former MSF president publicly accusing the organization of acting as an accomplice to Hamas. read more

And of the ones who didn't comply, like MSF, they seem to have good reason - because their employees were often terrorists themselves. 

One of the terrorists Israel killed,  Fadi Al-Wadiya, was a physical therapist for MSF and a prominent terrorist in Islamic Jihad, serving as an expert on rockets, electronics and chemistry.

 


So Hamas violates the ceasefire, Israel is only killing terrorists who are attacking, more aid is coming through then at any point since 2023, there are no restrictions on medical aid or evacuations or any other humanitarian needs - and Amnesty is calling this "a deliberate escalation of its genocide against Palestinians."

This is conscious use of lies by Amnesty to extend the existing genocide libel alive. The sad part is that the enormous resources Amnesty is putting behind this slander means that it does far less publicity on real human rights issues worldwide.

This is how antisemitism warps how people think.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Wednesday, January 07, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon



I came across this fascinating bit of history, an anti-Zionist song originally written in Yiddish in 1931 and translated to English and Russian.


 Here are the lyrics and their translations, because the Russian and Yiddish versions are more ironic:


 
Oy, ihr narishe tsionistn 
Mit ayer narishn seykhl
Ihr mag dokh geyn tsu dem arbeter
Un lernen bai im seykhl!
 
Ihr vilt undz forn keyn Yerushalaim!
Mir zaln dortn golodayen
Mir viln beser zain in Rusnland
Mir veln zikh bafrayen!
 
 
Oh, you foolish Zionists
With your foolish minds
You might as well go to the worker
And learn some sense from him!
 
You want to take us to Jerusalem!
We'll starve to death there
We'd rather stay in Russia
We'll liberate ourselves!
Oh you foolish little Zionists
With your utopian mentality
You'd better go down to the factory
And learn the worker's reality
 
You want to take us to Jerusalem
So we can die as a nation
We'd rather stay in the Diaspora
And fight for our liberation
 
 
 
Глупенькие сионисты
Вы такие утописты
Вы бы лучше шли в рабочие
Или в трубочисты
 
В Иерушалаим
Идти за вами не желаем
Мы в Рассее останемся -
Бороться с Николаем!
 
You little foolish Zionists
You're such utopians
You'd better go become workers
Or chimney sweeps
 
To Jerusalem
We don't want to follow you
We'll stay here in Russia—
To fight against Nikolai!
 

 Ah, wasn't life wonderful for the Jews under communism? 

Not to mention the irony of socialists calling Zionists "utopian."

The 1917  political poster on the top promised that Jewish culture would be preserved under communism. It promises "A democratic republic! Full civil rights for all! National autonomy for Jews!"

Their promises are the same ones we are hearing from the Democratic Socialists of America and New York's new mayor. And they are just as empty.

Yet anti-Zionist Jews romanticize the Bund as their model. Russia dissolved the Bund soon after the revolution, in 1921, yet these Jews still romanticize the very philosophy that destroyed them. 

If they were only idiots, OK. But they want to drag all other Jews down to their dangerous depths of stupidity.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Question of Jewish Armed Self-Defense
A full investigation into the Bondi Beach failure, he said, might tell us which of several potential solutions, including arming the CSG, should be implemented: “It’s one of the reasons why we need a royal commission, to get the information [and] to provide it to government, so that we can make the changes to keep the community safe.”

Minns’s wording here is important. He called for a “royal commission,” which is the highest-level state inquest that Australia can initiate, and the one with the most far-reaching powers to gather evidence.

The very same day that Minns made these comments, a group representing families of 11 Bondi Beach victims released an open letter asking for a royal commission. Such a commission would not just investigate the attack but the overarching issue of Australia’s approach to combating anti-Semitism.

“We demand answers and solutions,” the families wrote. “We need to know why clear warning signs were ignored, how antisemitic hatred and Islamic extremism were allowed to dangerously grow unchecked, and what changes must be made to protect all Australians going forward. Announcements made so far by the federal government in response to the Bondi massacre are not nearly enough.”

Hard to argue with any of that. Unless, of course, you are Anthony Albanese. The prime minister announced that the investigation will be limited to the Australian security agencies and what was known about the suspects in the shootings. Valuable in its own right, surely, but as the Guardian’s chief political correspondent—yes, even the Guardian appeared disappointed in Albanese’s refusal to examine the question of anti-Semitism—wrote: “such a narrow inquiry is not a substitute for a commonwealth royal commission, with the powers it has to compel evidence and, just as crucially, the national public spotlight it commands to ensure accountability.”

This is a very important point. It is not only that there is very good reason for a royal commission here, but also that the very fact of an extended “public spotlight” on the problem would make it much more difficult for Australia’s political establishment to ignore. There is transparency that comes with any inquest conducted publicly into the state and its failings. The process itself would be part—only a minor part, to be sure—of the solution.

Albanese is plainly interested in avoiding full accountability. That, in itself, should answer Chris Minns’s question about arming the main Jewish security group. There are murmurings that Albanese can still be pressured into a royal commission. If he cannot, and if the national government refuses to protect its Jewish citizens, then the next best thing would surely be to enable the Jewish community, in partnership with the regional state government, to at least attempt to protect itself.
Understanding and Defeating the Assault on Jewish Moral Self-Confidence
A false conception based on underestimating and downplaying the enemy's intentions is the natural temptation of a peaceful people. The Jews of Poland, the most peaceable population imaginable, could not have imagined that the Germans intended to wipe them out. Yet Jews do ultimately respond to reality.

When it became too obvious to deny that they were marked for extermination, two Jewish underground organizations formed in the Warsaw ghetto. When the Germans entered the ghetto in 1943 to begin rounding up the remaining Jews and sending them to their deaths, the two organizations fought in an uprising that lasted from April 19 until May 16, the first urban anti-German uprising in Europe. They fought like lions.

The present war against Israel resembles the Nazi one in its aims and methods, and makes us realize how much the fate of the Jews remains subject to the depravity of others. Jews expected coexistence with the people around them. Jews do not aspire to expand territorially through conquest or demographically by evangelizing. But the nations they lived among were constituted very differently.

Coexistence requires reciprocity which cannot be willed into being. Ascribed where it does not exist, it invites escalating aggression of which the Hamas attack of October 7 is but the most recent demonstration. Hamas entrapped Israelis into the war they had done everything to avoid by surrendering Gaza in 2005.

Israel's enemies are the same forces that threaten America. This creates a congruence of loyalties. We are not in the position of American Muslims who may feel torn between the priorities of Mecca and Washington. The Hebraic roots and deepest values of America and Israel are one and the same.

All of America should be behind us, and the best already are. It is now our task to help reorient the rest. To keep being Jews in the world means to overcome our disappointment in the failings of our enemies, the cowardice of some of our friends, and the difficulties of resistance. To mobilize is the best way to overcome despair.
What Jews keep getting wrong about defending themselves
The British Broadcasting Corporation recently asked British Jews whether Israel’s actions in Gaza were responsible for the terrorist attack in Bondi, Australia. The watchdog organization CAMERA rightly criticized this absurd line of questioning. How could random Jews in London possibly bear responsibility for the tactical decisions of a government thousands of miles away, let alone for the heinous actions of a terrorist in yet another country?

Yet in our rush to defend ourselves against this inappropriate premise, the Jewish community often misses a deeper truth that lies at the heart of our identity: Jews around the world are responsible for one another.

This is the paradox that modern media discourse consistently fails to grasp, and one we as Jews sometimes struggle to articulate ourselves. The BBC’s question was wrong because it implicitly blamed Jews for terrorism. But the underlying assumption—that Jews in the United Kingdom are connected to Jews in Israel and Australia, or anywhere else, for that matter—is fundamentally correct, according to our own tradition.

The Talmud teaches us Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh, “All of Israel are responsible for one another.” Jews don’t have the luxury of claiming we can simply wash our hands of each other’s welfare, even if we live in separate communities.

This doesn’t mean that British Jews are responsible for terrorist attacks or Israeli military strategy; it means that we’re called to care deeply about our fellow Jews everywhere, to feel their pain and share their struggles. The distinction matters, though it’s routinely lost in shallow social-media debates and cable-news soundbites.

This confusion extends to another common refrain heard from Jewish communities worldwide—that we just want to be left alone to live in peace and quiet. It’s a reasonable desire, even an understandable one. Yet history keeps proving it’s not an option available to us.

The book of Judges offers a haunting pattern: Whenever the text speaks of Jews living peacefully, “each person sitting under their fig tree or vine,” without unified purpose or centralized leadership, enemies inevitably rise up against us. Amalek first demonstrated this in the desert, attacking the newly freed Israelites not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were called to be.
From Ian:

Iran's Friends Are Vanishing: Why Maduro's Arrest Matters for Israel
The arrest of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro likely sent a shiver down spines in Tehran.

It also marks the dismantling of yet another supporting pillar in the global network Iran painstakingly constructed to finance, shield, and sustain its war against Israel.

Through Hizbullah, Venezuela became a critical offshore hub that generated cash, laundered funds, moved operatives, and enabled Iran to project power far from the Mideast.

Hizbullah functioned in Venezuela as a crime-terror enterprise intermeshed in the Venezuelan economy and protected by the government.

Hizbullah trafficked cocaine from Venezuela, transferred weapons, and helped the Islamic Republic evade U.S. sanctions.

Revenue generated in South America was sent to Lebanon, where it helped pay for Hizbullah's military buildup.

Venezuela's most prominent opposition figure, Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, was asked in a November Israel Hayom interview whether a post-Maduro Venezuela would restore relations with Israel.

Machado replied: "Certainly. Venezuela will be Israel's closest ally in Latin America."

Maduro's fall represents another incremental setback in Iran's global posture.
Jonathan Tobin: Venezuela, Trump and the end of the liberal world order
The simple and unavoidable truth is that the only way to defend those values, American interests, as well as the existence of Israel, is to go around or supersede multilateral institutions. Their preservation cannot be allowed to depend on the ideas of a now bygone era. The United States, as Ferguson has also accurately noted, is locked in a new Cold War; only this time, against China and its allies in Moscow, Tehran and Caracas. It should learn from the past, but it won’t win this conflict solely by working with the tools, like NATO, that were invented to cope with the challenges of the last one.

It’s only to be expected that the assertion of American power in South America or elsewhere, such as Iran—where Trump joined the Israeli campaign to destroy its nuclear program and which he has now also threatened should it violently suppress protests—will be opposed by ideologues who think international institutions are more important than national sovereignty. The point being is that if you don’t want rogue regimes to be allowed to export illegal drugs that kill Americans or to be used as bases by Iran or China, the only answer is for Washington to act. Waiting for a global organization to undertake operations that most of its members oppose or the assent of NATO allies is almost always going to lead, as it has on so many fronts, to inaction.

Some administrations, like that of Barack Obama, turned that dependence on multilateralism into something of a fetish. The result was, among other things, the catastrophe in Syria (where Obama walked back his 2013 “red line” threats) and the 2015 Iran deal that set Tehran on a course to have nuclear weapons, with which it could dominate the Middle East and threaten the rest of the world.

The argument that American unilateralism will encourage Beijing to attack Taiwan is nonsense. As Russia showed in Ukraine and Iran proved when it fomented its multifront war against Israel on the watch of a Biden administration that was similarly wedded to multilateral myths, it was U.S. weakness—not tough-minded Trumpian strength wielded unilaterally—that is likely to lead to more wars.

It may well be that Trump’s every utterance and act will continue to send liberals and leftists over the edge, no matter how sound or reasonable his policies (such as his success in halting illegal immigration) may be. It’s equally true that there are no guarantees that American intervention in Venezuela will work. Although by not committing to a full-scale invasion, Trump appears to be heeding his own criticisms of the George W. Bush administration’s blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The most important conclusion to be drawn from this latest instance of Trump’s freelancing while the global establishment clutches its pearls is that it is only by Washington’s willingness to act on its own that the threats to America, the West and the State of Israel can be effectively met. Far from the greatest peril being an erratic Trump let loose on the world stage, the president’s single-minded belief in defending American national interests is the best hope for fending off the machinations of enemies of the West. A mindless belief in the transcendent importance of the solutions that were believed necessary in 1945 to prevent another global war is not going to protect us in 2026 and the years to come.
Stephen Pollard: The loony left’s moral collapse over Maduro
Which brings us full circle back to the specific reason why we Jews should be focused on Maduro. Jason Kenney, the former Canadian defence and immigration minister in the Stephen Harper government – before Canada had a conniption fit and turned to Justin Trudeau – has written this week about how “one of the most fascinating briefings I received as a federal Immigration Minister was from a foreign intelligence agency about the connections between Venezuela and the Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah. And they showed me the receipts.”

It’s worth quoting at length: “I saw in detail how the Venezuelan regime imported raw cocaine from the FARC Marxist terror group in Colombia, and worked with the Al Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to ship it in ‘dark’ planes to Beirut, where it was then processed in Hezbollah facilities in the Bekaa Valley. The refined product was then shipped to Europe, and the proceeds used to finance Hezbollah operations, including weapons procurement.

“When I asked how a fundamentalist organisation could do this given that narcotics are haram, I was shown fatwas issued by Hezbollah imams indicating that as long as the drugs were sold to kaffirs, and the proceeds used to finance ‘the struggle,’ that it was religiously sanctioned. I was also shown details on how Hezbollah agents were using Canada to launder illicit funds by buying stolen cars with cash from criminals gangs, and then shipping them out of the Port of Montreal for resale in West Africa. All of this was possible because of extremely close coordination between the Iranian and Venezuelan regimes.

“…This was in 2008! All evidence suggests the cooperation between these two abhorrent regimes has only grown since then, with Iran providing Venezuela with arms, helping to sustain its dwindling oil industry, and to market its sanctioned crude. In return, Venezuela has acted as a kind of giant base of operations for Iran in the Western Hemisphere, including the IGRC and Hezbollah's ongoing involvement in drug trafficking and money laundering. And, of course, both regimes have been in lockstep diplomatically, including with their shared enthusiasm for their biggest ally: Putin's Russia.”

So yes, let’s have our debate about the application of international law. But for many of those protesting about the seizure of Maduro, international law is a fig leaf. Their real concern is the very fact that Maduro, who they revere has been deposed. And let’s not forget who Maduro is, what he has done, and who it is who thinks he is a role model.
Leading From the Front Again By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here. Joe Biden’s presidency picked up where Obama’s left off. Only this time, the American retreat from the global stage was turbocharged by a more radicalized Democratic Party that sought to appease a newly woke left. Biden pursued a fresh nuclear deal with Iran and wasted the possibility of expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. In August of 2021, he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. And the world, as many of us had predicted, finally spun out of control.

Russia invaded Ukraine with China’s blessing, and Hamas invaded Israel with Iran’s material and monetary support. The Biden administration’s responses to these crises were at turns somewhat helpful, overly cautious, and ultimately feckless. The U.S. had lost the will to shape events beyond (and on) its borders.

Until now. Although the second Trump administration talks ceaselessly about the folly of foreign intervention, the president has reestablished the U.S. as the prime mover of world events. He’s roused NATO to take on a larger role in defending member nations, even as he backed Israel in its multifront war, destroyed Iran’s main nuclear facility, drew up a plan for a postwar Middle East, and now decapitated the outlaw regime in Venezuela.

The administration can say whatever it wants about foreign adventurism, but the world police are back in business.

There’s a lot, of course, that we don’t know. Will Trump finally become as frustrated with Vladimir Putin as he became with Iran and Maduro? If so, will he be as forceful in ending Russia’s assault on Ukraine? What will become of Venezuela over the course of the year? What happens if and when Trump becomes convinced that Hamas simply won’t disarm? How will the Trump administration respond to what seems to be a slowly crumbling Iranian state? And, finally, what happens if—God forbid—China moves on Taiwan? No clue.

But here’s what we do know: The world has once again seen the American will to act. And everyone has been reminded of the U.S. military’s unparalleled ability to change facts on the ground. A year ago, America’s enemies had reason to believe the U.S. had become a paper tiger. Today, they wouldn’t dare make that miscalculation.
By Daled Amos

Rabbi Pesach Wolicki is Executive Director, Israel365.com, an Orthodox Jewish institution that fosters better relations between Jews and Christians. He is a regular guest on Steve Bannon’s War Room, providing commentary on U.S.-Israel relations, Middle East policy, and the biblical foundations of Zionism.

Anyone who still thought the conservative movement was unified and the place of the Jews inside the movement was secure was disabused of that notion at AmFest. What is your take on what is going on?

Rabbi Wolicki: Well, look, the American right has its antisemitic wing. Just as the American left has its antisemitic wing. I don't think anyone ever thought that the American right was unified, especially the MAGA movement, which is really the dominant and ascendant political force in American politics over the last decade. It is actually a loose coalition of different factions that agree on certain things. They agree on a kind of hatred of the left-wing establishment.

Rabbi Pesach Wolicki. Source: Screen Cap

But beyond that, there are many points of departure between these various factions. You have libertarians, traditional Catholics, evangelicals, and in terms of geopolitics, you have people who are more isolationist and more traditionally Republican -- all pulling in different directions within that movement. Now, in terms of attitudes about Israel and the Jewish people, there are definitely antisemites. Israel and the Jews have really become one issue.

“Israel and the Jews have really become one issue.”

According to the polling of the 50,000 participants at AmFest, 83% of them see Israel as a friend and ally of the United States. So the perception one gets of anti-Israel sentiment on the right is not exactly correct. I personally found that the people I interacted with were, by and large, very friendly. There was a lot of pro-Israel sentiment there.

That said, among the younger generation, let's say under the age of 25 or 30, what you find there is a perception that Israel has an outsized influence on American politics and foreign policy. There is a resentment of that, especially among the younger generations who feel shut out of the economic system and the opportunities for prosperity that their parents and grandparents' generation had. These are all legitimate gripes. They look at the money going overseas. I've made the argument about why it's all in the best interest of the United States. It just doesn't resonate because, as far as they're concerned, they don't want the US involved in these things.

They see the combination of the aid and the fact that they're fighting a cultural war against wokeness and the progressive forces in society that they feel, correctly, have destroyed traditional American life. And unfortunately, the vast majority of Jews in America identify with the progressive left. This younger generation is fighting these cultural wars, and the people on the other side are so often Jews.

Pick an issue, and the Jewish community is advocating for the progressive left, woke agenda. And if you put that together with the fact that Israel is "officially" the largest recipient of foreign aid--and it's a witch's brew that makes it easy for the antisemites in the influencer community on the right to capture a lot of young people. That said, they're not as successful as we would think from watching social media.

You mentioned Steve Bannon, who has been accused of antisemitism. But your organization, Israel 365, honored him this year as a "Warrior for Israel."

Rabbi Wolicki: We didn't honor him. We were honoring other people that evening. Steve Bannon spoke that evening. I think it was misrepresented in the media. He was the keynote speaker at an event where we honored a bunch of pro-Israel activists.

Other than the few months after the 12-day war with Iran, where he was very much opposed to American involvement, and his interpretation that Prime Minister Netanyahu had manipulated American politics and lied in order to drag America into a conflict—which he greatly resented—other than that, Steve Bannon has been an adamantly pro-Israel voice.


Steve Bannon. Source: Screen Cap


From October 7th until the Iran war, he actually stood out from the crowd in that part of MAGA as being extremely pro-Israel. Most Jews don't listen to his podcast, and they don't know, but when everyone else was buying into the genocide claims and all these things, Steve was not buying it. He was advocating for Israel to finish off Hamas and not to hold back. He's been a very pro-Israel voice.

There is an interesting story I heard from Steve, and corroborated with Ambassador David Friedman. When he was Trump's chief strategist and in charge of the plans for inauguration day during the transition, Steve was pushing that the very first thing the president would do, after taking the oath of office and giving the speech, would be to go straight to the Oval Office and sign an executive order recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the embassy there. He wanted that to be the opening act of Trump's presidency. The State Department people got wind of it, and they pressured President Trump to hold off.

Steve gets lumped in with the anti-Israel crowd because he's critical of Israel. He doesn't like Prime Minister Netanyahu, and that's fine. A good 40% of Israelis don't like Prime Minister Netanyahu either, but I don't know of anything antisemitic Steve has ever said. Steve is not an apologist for Qatar and the Islamists. He doesn't talk about Jewish conspiracies and things like that. This is not where he's coming from.

There are also broader issues. I believe that populist nationalism is a wonderful political ideology. Israel is basically a populist nationalist country, more and more so with every passing year. That's why Israel hasn't had a left-wing government in decades, and that's why the younger population in Israel is more religious and more politically conservative than its parents. I believe in a lot of the same political principles that Steve believes in, and he's also a big advocate for Judea and Samaria—he refuses to use the term "West Bank"; he only calls it Judea and Samaria. Steve is a very pro-Israel guy. You can be pro-Israel and also hate Bibi. So the perception that Steve Bannon is an antisemite is really coming from an ignorance of the man. He's a complicated person; he's not a Hasid. He's not a choir boy, but he's certainly not an antisemite. It's an absurd claim.

Ben Shapiro argued at AmFest for boundaries in the conservative movement. He said that not every voice belonged under the same tent. When it comes to antisemitism or being anti-Israel more generally, shouldn't there be boundaries in terms of who's inside and outside the tent?

Rabbi Wolicki: Ben Shapiro’s speech has been taken out of context by people on our side and people on the other side as well.

For example, he did not advocate for boundaries. If you listen to the speech, he never says anything about canceling a voice or not platforming someone. Instead of talking about canceling people, he talked about the responsibility of those who speak in public for a living, and he laid out 5 responsibilities that he believes they have to their audiences. He called out Candace Owens. He called out Tucker Carlson. He called out Megyn Kelly by name. He called them out for violating these principles of integrity to their audience. He never called for anyone to be deplatformed.

Ben Shapiro. Source: Screen Cap

It was interpreted by everyone as a call to deplatform people. Let's assume that Ben Shapiro did call for people to be deplatformed. Let's assume that we should have boundaries. Here's the problem, as I diagnose it—and I say this as someone who is intimately involved in this political movement, and I see it as my responsibility on behalf of Am Yisrael to be there. There is a difference between what is correct on principle and what is effective, and that's a difficult choice that we have to make. We're sometimes faced with a situation where what is correct on principle, because of the political environment and the playing field that we're in, will backfire. Now, one of the animating ideas of the America First / MAGA movement is a revulsion for anything that sounds like cancel culture. They don't believe in canceling any voice. I'm not saying this to defend them; I'm saying this to explain them.

“There is a difference between what is correct on principle and what is effective—and that’s a difficult choice we have to make.”

Charlie Kirk was a pro-Israel person. He used to have Candace Owens speak at his events before she really went off the rails. And when she started going off the rails with the antisemitic conspiracy stuff, there was a lot of pressure on Charlie to stop having Candace Owens speak at Turning Point USA events, and he did; he stopped having her speak. But from Charlie Kirk's perspective, everything should be allowed in the open marketplace of ideas. Personally, I think he took it too far, but he thought every voice should be heard. The answer is never to say that certain voices shouldn't speak because they say bad things; we should platform everybody and let the open marketplace of ideas do its job. This idea, which to a certain extent sounds noble in theory, is taken way too far in the MAGA movement because it's a backlash against what the left was doing, especially around the time of COVID, where there was active work by social media companies to silence voices.

In our current environment, if we stand up and say we have to have guardrails, that we can't have certain voices speak, that stand may very well be--and probably is--correct on principle. But the way it resonates, the way it triggers the younger part of the MAGA movement, is that it sounds like cancellation. Even if they don't necessarily agree with the voice being canceled, they don't want any part of silencing voices, because it triggers them as part of one of the major political points that the movement was founded on, which is an abhorrence for these limitations on freedom of speech and on the cancel culture that the left put into place. It's not normal conservatism, it has its own culture to it—within the MAGA movement, and we have to be very, very careful as Jews about advocating for the cancellation of voices, even if we are correct in principle.

We need to change the way we advocate and change what exactly we're advocating for. In the lead-up to America Fest in the months before Charlie Kirk was killed, we were talking about his planning to have Tucker Carlson speak. A number of us were upset about that, because we really felt he was going to spew more lies, and it was going to hurt, including Turning Point itself. But we never said "cancel him," because we knew that would not work with the way he thinks. What we were arguing for was to give equal time and equal prominence to people to make Israel's case. Now, I have to say the organizers of America Fest failed in that regard. There was no such speaker. They did not have any session at the conference that really laid out and defended Israel properly. I think they failed.

You have described the current anti-Israel atmosphere as an "organized operation." You have also mentioned that pro-Israel voices are "up against a machine we can't compete with." So what do we do?

Rabbi Wolicki: I think we need to make the Israel issue not about Israel. One of the fastest growing issues in America and in the West right now is the threat of jihadist Islam and what it's doing to Western culture. You see what's going on in Minnesota, with the Somali Muslim community, and you see the various Muslim terror attacks, and what happens in Australia.

What Israel and the pro-Israel community have failed to do effectively is frame our war as a war against these same forces. We need to do that because then, rather than trying to get people to be on our side of our conflict, we are instead framing our conflict in a way that we are on the same side as them in a conflict that they are concerned with.

How do you go about doing that? So there's a number of things that Israel can do differently. Charlie Kirk wrote a 7-page letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu back in April, laying out what he thought Israel should do to tell its story differently. One of the main things that Charlie pointed out is that we need more first-person voices from Israel—young people telling Israel's story, talking about their own lives on social media instead of having the IDF spokesman or Prime Minister Netanyahu being the spokespersons for Israel. We need more young, first-person voices.

In terms of fighting against the machine, the Qatari information machine, we need to keep plugging away. The Jewish people have always been outnumbered. We've always been outgunned; that's the case with this also. We have to hope that, eventually, the truth is going to win out. But I really believe that we need to look at the issues that are of concern to Americans—to young Americans, especially—and tether the Israel issue to the issues they are concerned about.

Let me give you some food for thought. If you look around the world at the political winds and the political changes that have been happening around the world over the last few years, one of the things that we're seeing is an ascendancy of right-wing populist nationalism, right-wing Christian populist nationalism in countries all over the world. To a large extent, this is a backlash to the left and to unfettered immigration—not only in America but everywhere—South America, Europe, and also a reaction to the destruction of Western civilization and the decline of the family.

All of these things have led to this right-wing upsurge among the younger generations in these many, many countries. So you see Victor Orban in power in Hungary, the ascendancy of Wilders' party in the Netherlands, the Vox party in Spain, Bolsonaro--the evangelical Christian leader--in Brazil, and Javier Milei in Argentina, and I can go on and on and on. There are many examples of this—of these populist nationalist, Christian conservatives, or even Le Pen's party in France and Tommy Robinson and his followers in England. As Jews, we have to not romanticize our relationships with people politically. The fact that the parents and grandparents of the people in the Le Pen party were antisemites doesn't mean that the people in that party today are antisemites.

Source: Screen Cap

Young Christian conservative nationalists in all of the places I've mentioned, the Christian conservative populist nationalists on the right everywhere in the world--except the United States--are almost entirely pro-Israel. If you Google pictures of pro-Bolsonaro anti-socialist protests in Brazil that have nothing to do with Israel and look at the crowd shots and zoom in, you will see that one of the things they bring to their demonstrations are Israeli flags. They wave Israeli flags at Brazilian anti-socialist demonstrations because they see Israel as representative of democracy, Judeo-Christian Western civilization, and conservatism. Israelis and Jews need more self-awareness about Israel—the way the rest of the world sees us. We're a very right-wing country, increasingly right-wing, with every year. We're an increasingly religious country—we're an ethnic nationalist, religious state. That's the way the rest of the world sees us, and they're all pro-Israel.

By contrast, the only populist nationalist, Christian conservatives in the world who are not overwhelmingly pro-Israel are in the United States of America. And I believe it's for the reasons I said before: the combination of a powerful, pervasive Jewish progressive left in America, which doesn't exist in these other countries, and the fact that the United States gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel, which is also not the case with these other countries. Add in that the Qataris and the other bad actors have no interest in investing billions of dollars to change the way young Argentinians or young Brazilians think—there's not as much skin in the game there—but changing the way young Americans think, that can pay off for them because America is so powerful.

So if you put all these things together, we have this poisonous mix that predisposes a lot of young Americans to not be pro-Israel because of the other associations. I think that we need to break all of that. Jews need to be very open about advocating for an end to USA aid to Israel. It's actually bad for Israel strategically.

“Jews need to be very open about advocating for an end to U.S. aid to Israel. It’s actually bad for Israel strategically.”

Israel has sold $10 billion of air defenses to Greece and Germany in the last month. We just signed a $35 billion natural gas deal with Egypt. We don't need $3.8 billion from the United States every year, with all the strings attached and all of the leverage it gives the US in our strategic decision-making. We need to openly advocate for an end to the aid. It's bad for Israel. The only reason there is aid is that every time America has wanted to force us to make a security concession, they would compensate us by giving aid. The aid to Israel began when Carter used it as an incentive to get Begin to pull out of the Sinai desert. Then Clinton ramped it up again at Camp David with Ehud Barak to get him to agree to make more concessions to Arafat. Every time the aid goes up, it's a concession, because Israel is willing to swallow some compromise on our national security and make us more beholden to the United States. It's actually bad for Israel. So we have to start being open about advocating against USA aid to Israel, and that will help us politically on the right in America as well.

And Jews have to be more open about the fact that we want nothing to do with these progressive left Jews, because that's who these young conservative Americans are—and I feel for them—they want to have good Christian lives. They want to live in a traditional country that isn't under attack by wokeness. And the Jews are constantly fighting against them. I think it's bad that they lump us all together and don't realize that orthodox Jews are with them. We should start saying openly, "We want nothing to do with the Jewish establishment. We want nothing to do with those people; they're destructive. They're our enemies." I think we should say it plainly, and I think that these are things that will help us win back those parts of the American right who have slid into anti-Israel and antisemitic ways of thinking.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Jewish Insider reports today that New York City Mayor Mamdani is expected to replace the existing head of the city's office to combat antisemitism, and the frontrunner is Phylisa Wisdom, part of Mamdani's team and the head of the progressive New York Jewish Agenda.

An incident from 2022 shows that she is profoundly unqualified for the job. 

In May 2022, Waleed Shahid, then communications director for Justice Democrats, reacted to a Jewish Insider tweet about pro-Israel political donations by joking: “Wait until you hear what happened next in next week’s ‘Goy Outsider.’”



Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, publicly called the tweet antisemitic.  His point was that antisemitic tropes appear across the political spectrum, including on the radical left, and that this language was inappropriate and insulting.

The response from parts of the progressive Jewish world was swift and furious. A letter signed by dozens of prominent progressive Jews accused Greenblatt of smearing Shahid and falsely equating a “lighthearted joke” with far-right violence (which he did not do.) Others insisted this was a distraction from “real antisemitism.”

That framing is precisely the problem. The offensiveness is not subtle, and it has nothing to do with intent.

The word goy is not a neutral synonym for “non-Jew.” In contemporary usage, Jews themselves often avoid it because it sounds dismissive or contemptuous, even when used casually. Many Jews, myself included, deliberately teach their children to say “non-Jewish person” instead.

When a non-Jew uses goy as a punchline, it almost always carries an implication: this is how Jews really talk about outsiders. That implication feeds directly into long-standing antisemitic tropes about Jewish insularity, insider language, and "Jewish supremacy." 

Combine this with a link to an article about Jewish influence in a political campaign, and the trope becomes significantly more dangerous.

If Shahid had said “Gentile Outsider” the joke would not have landed the same way. The choice of goy was the joke. And the joke works only by invoking a stereotype about how Jews supposedly think and speak among themselves. There is a reason the far Right uses the word "goy" so often and ironically refer to themselves that way. For a leftist figure to use the word in the exact same joking way that the neo-Nazis do is not "lighthearted."

You do not need violence, threats, or slurs for something to be antisemitic. Antisemitism has always relied heavily on insinuation, mockery, and claims to secret knowledge about Jews.

Dismissing it as merely a "Dad joke" is missing the point. Humor has always been one of antisemitism’s most effective delivery systems. 

Phylisa Wisdom does not seem to understand these basic facts about antisemitism. 

In response to criticism of the “Goy Outsider” tweet, Wisdom wrote: “This is not antisemitism from the left.” When challenged, she doubled down with a simple question: “What’s antisemitic about it?”

That question is disqualifying.

Someone charged with combating antisemitism should not need this explained. This is not an edge case or a novel controversy. It is a textbook example of how antisemitic tropes function in modern discourse, on both the right and the left.

If you cannot see why a non-Jew publicly using “goy” to comment on Jewish political dynamics is offensive, then you do not understand antisemitism beyond its most extreme, violent forms. And if that is your threshold, you are not qualified to define the problem, let alone fight it.

There is a deeper pattern here that should make Jews uneasy.

In progressive spaces, other minority groups are granted maximal sensitivity. Language that might reinforce stereotypes is scrutinized closely, regardless of intent. Impact matters more than tone.

Jews are treated differently.

Jews are expected to laugh off jokes about insider language, power, and tribalism. When they object, they are told they are oversensitive, divisive, or distracting from “real” problems. Antisemitism is redefined so narrowly that only physical violence counts, while the cultural and rhetorical groundwork that enables that violence is dismissed.

This asymmetry is now embedded in progressive norms - and this incident proved it.

Imagine the furious response from progressive Jews if someone responded to a show on BET saying “Wait until you see next week’s ‘Cracker Entertainment Television.’” There is no difference - but the Jews are expected to laugh when they are the victims of the joke.

This is about competence. If someone cannot recognize why the “Goy Outsider” joke is antisemitic, they do not understand how antisemitism actually works. And someone who does not understand that should not be entrusted with leading the fight against it in New York City.

Antisemitism does not begin with bullets. It begins with permission structures – permission to mock, to insinuate, and to minimize. If you respond to antisemitism by minimizing it, you are not fighting it. You are enabling it.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Tuesday, January 06, 2026
  • Elder of Ziyon
Critics of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, including Mayor Mamdani, claim that the definition chills free speech because it says some anti-Zionist speech is antisemitic. 

It is not true, as we've pointed out many times before and anyone who actually reads the definition can see for themselves.  But the lies have become so pervasive that even media that should know better parrots the false claim. The New York Times wrote on Sunday "One of the executive orders that Mr. Mamdani revoked had codified a contentious definition of antisemitism, proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that equated some criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people." No, it didn't; it equated demonization of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people. IHRA says explicitly that criticism of Israel similar to any other country is not antisemitic.

But the executive order that Mamdani canceled had an additional clause to protect freedom of speech:
This order is not intended to restrict speech or conduct that is protected under the First Amendment.  Antisemitic acts are criminal only when they are so defined by law, and this order does not establish civil or criminal liability for any acts. 
If it clearly says that any speech protected by the First Amendment is allowed, then what is the problem? If a teacher is called out for antisemitism for teaching that Zionism is a "racist endeavor," and that statement is not antisemitic, they should have an ironclad defense from this paragraph, right? 

And this is not the first time this has happened,. Donald Trump's own executive order from 2019 supporting the IHRA definition also had a similar clause:
[A]gencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.
That's two layers of lies from the anti-Israel crowd - of the IHRA definition and of the regulations and orders saying to use it as a guide.

If they felt that the examples in the IHRA quash legitimate speech, one would think they would be itching to test this in court and destroy IHRA altogether. But they don't. Instead, they lie about IHRA and the regulations invoking it - and they repeat the lies so incessantly that mainstream media (and AI, and Wikipedia...) believe them.

Because why argue facts when there is no downside to lying?






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive