Thursday, May 08, 2025

  • Thursday, May 08, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Israel Hayom reports:
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee conducted a historic tour of the ancient Shiloh archaeological site Wednesday morning....

This marks the first time in history that an American ambassador has held an official meeting in Judea and Samaria with the representative forum of Israeli authorities beyond the Green Line, which demarcates the area captured by Israel from Jordan during the Six-Day War. It is also the first time that an official US representative has made an official and public visit to a site that expresses the historical message of Jewish rights to the Judea and Samaria regions.

Huckabee began his tour by meeting with five red heifers being raised at the site, in accordance with the biblical commandment and in preparation for the future building of the Temple.
That last sentence was barely mentioned in English language sources - but it was major news in Arab sites.

Al Jazeera has an 18-paragraph article about Huckabee and the Red Heifers, with more halachic detail on the ritual of the cows than nearly all Hebrew sites. 








Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, May 07, 2025

From Ian:

Who Is the Real Mohsen Mahdawi?
Last year on Instagram, Mahdawi described a cousin, Maysara Masharqa, as a “fierce resistance fighter” and “dreamer of liberation” who was killed “after a clash with a traitor Zionist force.”

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a network of Palestinian armed groups, said that Masharqa was one of its “most prominent field commanders” in Jenin. The Israeli Defense Forces said Masharqa “took part in shooting attacks against Israeli communities” and was in a vehicle with Hamas’s leader in Jenin when they were killed by the Israeli military in August of 2024.

Israeli court records show that Masharqa also confessed in 2012 to throwing improvised explosive devices and Molotov cocktails at IDF soldiers “on a large number of occasions and from a short distance,” making pipe bombs, and conspiring to shoot and kill. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

“Justice is inevitable,” Mahdawi wrote in an Instagram post in January of this year when his uncle’s name appeared on a list of Palestinian prisoners expected to be released in a deal that also returned to Israel four female soldiers who were taken hostage during the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas.

The uncle, Yousef Mahdawi, was sentenced to life in prison for planning a 2003 suicide bomber attack in the Israeli city of Netanya that injured more than 60 people. Israeli court documents show that Yousef Mahdawi recruited the bomber and has received about 1.1 million shekels ($311,000) from the Palestinian Authority since his arrest as part of its “pay for slay” program for Palestinian prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Two of Mohsen Mahdawi’s other cousins died in a firefight with Israel in 2023. An Instagram post last October shows their faces and those of four more cousins and an uncle, all “born, raised, and killed in refugee camps” by “the Israeli Zi0nists [sic] violence in the West Bank,” he wrote.

Then there’s the question of what, exactly, Mahdawi has been doing since he arrived in the U.S. in 2014.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Mahdawi studied computer engineering at Birzeit University in Gaza from 2008 to 2014. He then worked at a bank in New Hampshire for about a year. Mahdawi was at Dartmouth College in 2016 and 2017, and “studied a handful of classes for one year,” his LinkedIn profile said.

But Dartmouth told The Free Press that its records “indicate that no one by that name is or has been enrolled as a Dartmouth student.”

Mahdawi then studied at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania for more than two years, but left in the spring of 2020 without finishing a degree, the college said. His LinkedIn profile said he started a “Middle Eastern student organization” and “a catalyst group to bring change and diversity into the student senate.”

In 2021, Mahdawi began at Columbia. By then he had logged more than 20 semesters as an undergraduate between his stints at Birzeit and Lehigh. After more than a decade in the U.S., he has said he hopes to graduate this month and start a master’s degree program in September in international and public affairs. Columbia declined to comment about Mahdawi.

After October 7, Mahdawi emerged as one of the leaders of the anti-Israel protests on Columbia’s campus. In November 2023, New York magazine described him as co-president of the Palestinian Students Union. A month later, 60 Minutes called Mahdawi a student on the “fight for a free Palestine and the fight against antisemitism.”
Seth Mandel: Dana Nessel, Rashida Tlaib, and a Very Dangerous Precedent
Meanwhile, as the case dragged on, Nessel was left to fend for herself and the “Jewish disqualification” argument persisted. The judge was even considering granting a hearing on it. That same judge, from Nessel’s perspective, had slow-walked the case nearly to a stall while the AG took steady fire from the left.

It was too much for Nessel. This week, she threw in the towel, dropped all the charges, and, according to court observers, surprised even the defendants with her actions.

“Despite months and months of court hearings, the Court has yet to make a determination on whether probable cause was demonstrated that the defendants committed these crimes, and if so, to bind the case over to circuit court for trial, which is the primary obligation of the district court for any felony offense. During this time, the case has become a lightning rod of contention,” Nessel said in a statement. She lamented that the “distractions and ongoing delays have created a circus-like atmosphere to these proceedings. While I stand by my charging decisions, and believe, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury would find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged, I no longer believe these cases to be a prudent use of my department’s resources.”

If that were all she had said, the statement would have been a run-of-the-mill copout from an official who was under a lot of pressure and who’d been abandoned by her party.

But it wasn’t. Nessel also mentioned a letter that the Jewish Community Relations Council, part of the local Jewish Federation, sent to the court. The JCRC letter criticized the call for Nessel’s recusal: “If it were successful, this would mark the first time a prosecutor would be disqualified from prosecuting a case based on perceived bias due to their religious faith. The notion that AG Nessel is biased against Muslims and Americans of Arab descent is unfounded and deeply offensive.”

The open letter was intended to be copied to the court’s public information office to make sure all parties at least knew the letter went out. But according to the JCRC, it might have accidentally been sent to an address for a court administrator instead. Such letters are turned into official court documents.

The difference is significant. Nessel blamed the letter’s “impropriety” at least in part for her decision to drop the charges: “now, we have learned that a public statement in support of my office from a local non-profit has been directly communicated to the Court. The impropriety of this action has led us to the difficult decision to drop these charges.”

This was an inexcusable attempt to throw the JCRC under the bus. The letter was in response to, not the impetus for, nearly a year of accusations of bias just because Nessel is Jewish. And even if the letter was sent to the wrong address and therefore became a court document, the mistake is easy to explain and would not strike any reasonable observer as disqualifying.

Finally, even if Nessel was right about the impropriety of the letter’s unintended destination, publicly denouncing and blaming the letter rather than taking responsibility for the decision is petty, harmful to the few people actually defending her from allegations of bias, and chilling to the many U.S. Jewish groups already inclined to sit on the sidelines of these battles.

Dropping the charges amid the looming prospect of a bias hearing will only reinforce the religious bigotry at the heart of the demonstrators’ cases. And it will incentivize members of Congress to continue to use Jewish officials’ religion against them in a public setting.

It’s one thing that Nessel couldn’t take the heat. But her larger sin was burning others in the Jewish community along the way.
Amnesty nominates far-left journalist who appeared to hail October 7 for People’s Choice Award
Amnesty International has nominated a journalist who appeared to hail the October 7, 2023 attacks for its People’s Choice Award.

Michael Walker, who works for far-left outlet Novara Media, made and then deleted a social media post on the day of the attacks, seemingly suggesting they were the act of “an occupied people”.

At 8.54 am on October 7, as the attacks were unfolding, Walker tweeted: “So guys, do we support the right of an occupied people to fight an occupier or not?”

Walker has also previously attracted controversy for his comments disputing the scale of antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

In one 2018 post, he wrote: “Many members are genuinely scared of talking about what’s going on.

"They can see many of the attacks on Corbyn are politically motivated, that many mainstream Jewish [organisations] have strong ties with Israel, and that part of this row is to suppress Palestinians and their advocates.”

He also said that Labour’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism was a “complete abdication of responsibility by Labour and represents us selling out the Palestinian cause”.

However, in his biography on Amnesty’s site, these controversies was not mentioned. Instead, it read: “Michael is a contributing editor at Novara Media and principal host of Novara Live. He has hosted current affairs shows at Novara Media for over eight years, and has overseen Novara Live to become the most watched online daily news show in the UK.

"He also regularly appears on mainstream outlets, including the BBC, Sky and Channel 5.”

Other nominees include Walker’s Novara colleague Ash Sarkar, who has called Israel’s military operation in Gaza a “genocidal war”, and long-time Israel critic Owen Jones.
From Ian:

The Gaza Famine Myth
To help make sense of all this, I talked to Nicholas Haan, who designed the food-insecurity classification system that became the IPC. Haan serves as a volunteer on the FRC, was one of the authors of the report that rebuked the USAID analysis, and is the lead technical adviser in a UN effort to replicate the IPC in areas such as health, hygiene, and shelter.

Famine—like genocide, fascist, and dictator—is a word susceptible to rhetorical abuse that can dilute and even invert its meaning. “My goal was to take famine from being a rhetorical word and make it a technical term,” Haan told me. “When the IPC uses the word famine now, “we mean famine.”

IPC owes its success during the past two decades to the fact that it works. And because it works, nefarious governments and armed groups have tried to sabotage it. Reuters reported last year that when the ruling junta in Myanmar detained several food researchers, the IPC was forced to remove its reports about the country from the internet. In Yemen, Houthi forces hijacked the IPC process in 2023 to exaggerate food shortages and compel aid shipments that were then stolen by the Iranian-backed militia.

“Political actors, for their own reasons, will manipulate information. It’s a truism,” Haan told me. The best response, he said, is for the IPC to uphold its standards and the clarity of its messaging. “The most important, powerful, and necessary tool to achieve this is truth. When you give up truth, you’ve given up all moral standing to end suffering.” He wouldn’t comment on the famine declaration by Fakhri and the other UN officials.

Since the ceasefire in Gaza collapsed and Israel resumed its offensive, the UN’s undersecretary for humanitarian affairs has apologized to Gazans for being “unable to move the international community to prevent this injustice.” Over the weekend, the UN refused to accept a U.S.-Israeli plan to deliver aid directly to civilians. On Tuesday, a senior Hamas official accused Israel of waging a “hunger war.”

The famine storyline in Gaza is like the proverbial bell that cannot be unrung. In September, ProPublica inaccurately said, “The UN has declared a famine in parts of Gaza.” When I asked if the reporter who wrote the article had read the FRC’s reports from last summer, a ProPublica spokesperson said it stands by the reporting, citing statements by UN officials who aren’t part of the IPC process and an FRC follow-up report in November. But that report, like the others before it, warned of “a strong likelihood” of famine, not that famine had begun.

The New Yorker has published roughly 20 interviews that referred to famine or starvation in Gaza—and three that addressed the IPC system and the FRC’s authoritative role. In all that reporting, The New Yorker never mentioned the FRC’s rejection of USAID’s analysis or its no-famine verdict.

As Haan and his FRC colleagues wrote about USAID’s slippery numbers last year, “High uncertainty is compounded through several layers of assumptions.” So many unthinkable tragedies have occurred since Hamas’s massacre on October 7, 2023, but a famine in Gaza isn’t one of them.
How to solve the Iranian problem
If the United States and its allies are serious about preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, then one reality must be faced head-on: Dismantling the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is not enough. To secure a lasting peace and prevent Tehran from rearming, the regime itself must be removed. Only then can the threat be permanently neutralized, and only then can the Iranian people begin the long-overdue process of rebuilding their country.

America has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness at nation-building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan—countries that, while sharing some cultural and religious similarities with Iran, are far less complex civilizations. With its ancient history and uniquely sophisticated culture, Iran presents an even greater challenge. If U.S.-led reconstruction efforts failed elsewhere, why would they succeed in Iran?

The United States should abandon any notion of managing Iran’s internal recovery and instead focus on two achievable objectives: eradicating Iran’s nuclear program; and removing the fanatically anti-Western, anti-non-Muslim regime from power. Both goals are feasible and essential.

Destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities alone won’t stop the threat posed by the Islamic Regime. Steeped in regional strategies of endurance and deception, the regime would simply wait for the political tides to shift in Washington or Jerusalem. Then, under more favorable circumstances, it would restart its nuclear-weapons program, perhaps more clandestinely but no less determined. That’s why removing the regime is not a supplementary option but a prerequisite.

Some argue that removing the regime might unleash even more radical forces; evidence from inside Iran suggests otherwise. Time and again, when cracks in the regime’s power appear, Iranians pour into the streets in protest. These demonstrations are only crushed when the state reasserts its control through brutal force. The people cannot stand up to this machine on their own. But when the regime shows signs of weakness, the public responds with courage and hope.

So, what do the Iranian people want? All available signs indicate a desire to reintegrate into the international community; redirect resources from terrorism and repression to domestic development; and normalize relations, especially with the United States and Israel. These signals may not always be loud, but they are unmistakable to those who understand Iranian culture.
Police thwart Iranian plot to target London's Israeli embassy
The Israeli embassy in London was the target of an alleged Iranian terror plot, The Telegraph reported on Wednesday.

This report followed two separate operations in which eight individuals, seven of whom were of Iranian nationality, were arrested by UK Police on Saturday, in what Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described as "one of the biggest counterterror operations in recent years," The Telegraph added.

The Iranians were "hours from unleashing an attack" when they were arrested, the report adds.

One of the Iranian nationals arrested in the UK on suspicion of planning a terror attack has

close ties to the Iranian regime, The Telegraph reported on Tuesday, citing Iranian sources in the UK.

The suspect's family reportedly holds major businesses in the Islamic Republic, with the source saying he was “very well connected."

Detained under Section 27 of the National Security Act 2023
All the alleged terrorists were detained under Section 27 of the National Security Act 2023.

According to Arab media, the Iranian Foreign Minister denied reports of an attempt to attack the Israeli embassy in London.

The statement reads: "We categorically deny any involvement in reports of an alleged plot to attack the Israeli embassy in London."

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

In 1938, Eva G., a Jewish student at the University of Vienna, slipped her Star of David necklace beneath her collar before walking into a lecture hall. She was met with swastikas scrawled on the walls and whispers of “Juden raus.” Eighty-six years later, in 2024, a Jewish student at Columbia University pulls his hoodie over his kippah to walk past demonstrators chanting, “Go back to Poland."

Decades apart, these moments are uncanny in their resemblance—almost like a freeze frame. Eva is likely long dead and buried, but the fear she once felt—of being harassed, abused, and hated—remains a chilling reality for Jewish students today. Campuses, once assumed to be bastions of learning and tolerance, have become places where Jews are not safe, where they must hide, if not themselves, then their identity.

Since October 7, antisemitic incidents on U.S. college campuses have surged 477%. That number alone demands attention. But it’s the atmosphere—hateful chants and symbols in combination with administrative silence—that makes the past feel dangerously close. Where does all this hate for Jewish students lead?

During the rise of Nazism, German universities were among the first institutions to adopt antisemitic policies. At Heidelberg, Jewish students were boycotted in 1933. By 1935, lecture halls bore swastikas. By 1938, Jews were gone from campus altogether—expelled or worse. The violence didn’t begin in death camps; it began with students, professors, and rectors who either joined the mobs or stood silently by.

University of Heidelberg lecture hall adorned with swastikas.

A report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 1933 described one such incident:

“Two hundred Nazi students surrounded the Jewish students in the campus restaurant and, employing chairs, tables, and glassware as missiles, attacked the Jews. Five Jewish students sustained injuries... The Rector of Berlin University failed to intervene.”

“The use of the academic environment to foster extremist views and expression against Jews was essential to the Nazi success in reaching elements of society who could be impassioned, inspired, and ignited towards violent expression through the systematic logic applied in the hate against the Jews,” says Dr. Elana Yael Heideman, Holocaust historian and CEO of the Israel Forever Foundation. “When this began in the decade prior to the rise of Hitler's Third Reich, no one could have imagined that antisemitic riots against students on University campuses in Austria and Germany throughout the 1920s and 30s would have developed into a full-blown genocide of the Jews as the primary targets. Yes, there were indications, but none saw the proverbial writing on the wall. By the time the Nazi regime was in full force by 1935, the social acceptance of the hatred was steeped in the public mindset, thus enabling the subsequent bystanderism that enabled horrific persecutions, and murder by bullet or gas.”

Today, Jewish students in the United States are not being expelled by law. But they are being targeted by hate speech, swastikas, and chants like “intifada revolution,” shouted on elite campuses from Princeton to Tufts. At Cornell, Russell Rickford, an associate professor of history exclaimed to an excited student mob that he felt exhilarated by the October 7 massacre.

At Harvard and Stanford, Jewish students have been harassed, doxxed, or pushed to the margins of campus life. And too often, university leaders respond with moral equivocation or bureaucratic platitudes and do nothing to stanch the flow of hate.

Sometimes history echoes rather than repeats. Then and now, it is the failure of moral leadership that not only allows hate to fester, but gives it permission to thrive and grow. This is not the same as 1930s Europe—but the hate is exactly the same, and it is still every bit as dangerous. As Holocaust survivor David Schaecter, president of the Holocaust Survivors Foundation USA, testified before the U.S. Senate:

“I remember vividly when Slovakian classmates taunted Jewish kids like me, and what’s happening today looks and feels the same.”

When protests devolve into chants denying Jews’ right to exist, glorifying terrorism, or intimidating visibly Jewish students, the line has been crossed. It is not “free speech” to threaten Jewish people with annihilation and it never was.

The most haunting question of course isn’t about what’s happening now—but where this all could lead. In Germany, the radicalization of universities helped normalize Nazi ideology. Academic complicity didn’t just reflect fascism; it fed it. Professors trained bureaucrats and camp guards. Rectors joined the Nazi Party. University violence, once ignored, metastasized into something far worse.

This time things are different.

“As there is no current administration driving the antisemitism on campuses forward into increased violent fervor,” says Elana Heideman, “there is a tentative sense of security that it will not get worse than what is already taking place. That it will dissipate, as sanctions for their actions grow. However there is and should be a palpable hesitance to rest on such baseless confidence that the hate-fests and public demonization of Jews will cease or level out. Rather, we must accept that what will come will not look the same, or be structured the same as 100 years ago.

“Elie Wiesel himself once said, the next chapter will not look like cattle cars and gas chambers. What it will look like, no one can be sure. But indeed, Jews, Israelis, and our allies, will continue to be increasingly listed, targeted, threatened into apathetic compliance with whatever demands are made upon the Jew in order to save them/ourselves.”

The doxing is a particularly frightening and danger-laden phenomenon. “Many of these lists,” says Heideman, “have already been exposed, the Mapping Project for example which now doesn't even mask its intention and has publicly emerged as the Map of Liberation, in which Jewish homes, businesses, and Israel connected institutions are all identified. But even with the efforts put into uncovering these blatant efforts to coordinate this modern genocidal effort against Jews, the lists, the labels, the systematic social and media assaults on truth continue to grow in numbers and in power.”

Where is this going? We know where it led to in Berlin, Heidelberg, and Vienna. Could today’s doxing, protests, and antisemitic chants on campus spiral into Holocaust-like horrors?

Probably not. “The result,” says Heideman, “will be an increasing isolation of Jews everywhere. There will be increased infighting between groups of Jews, as we saw in the Holocaust and as we already see having grown especially since the October 7 massacre, trying to point the fingers of blame and dividing ourselves, which of course weakens us against this enemy which is not a single regime but rather an entire world of totalitarian minded individuals who have been convinced by the propaganda of Islamofascism and who have been enabled sufficiently to achieve dominance, and will only continue to do so as they join forces with the other extremist elements who share the Jew as the common enemy.

“What might the next phase look like?” asks Heideman. “We are already in it. There are more attacks then are reported, out of a desire to remain anonymous or to avoid the inevitable trouble it will bring if they have to chase down every Jew hater that slings their slurs, or shouts free Palestine.”

The Jews, meanwhile, will continue to do what they have always done, find ways to keep a low profile and stay safe. “More Jews will be seeking smaller intimate communities where they are able to find or create a safe space,” says Heideman. “There are those who will seek to emigrate, many attempting to choose somewhere other than our ancestral Homeland in Israel. There are those who will try to convert, religiously i.e., to Islam, politically or socially, as if any of these are a way to save oneself.”

But then there are the others, says Heideman, “Those whose identities will be awakened, whose souls will be empowered. There will continue to be an increase in Zionism as a collective dream, and Aliyah, as Israel will become once again the sole safe haven that was envisioned when our 2,000-year-old dream was fulfilled through political Zionism and the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty at the end of the British Mandate on May 14th, 1948, Declaration Day.

“What will become of the America that we know?” asks Heideman. “Or the campuses and public streets of any country or society that allows this harassment and public expression against Jews, Judaism, Jewish history, humanity and nationhood? Violence will continue, as will the silence.

“But if the Holocaust has taught us anything, we must hope that Jewish response will be different. The existence of a Jewish state, and the vibrant voice of pride and passion in this war for the survival of humanity, will determine what the pending catastrophe to befall the world will look like.”

Will the Trump administration’s financial pressure on Ivy League institutions make a difference? Or will the courts get in the way of these efforts in the name of free speech, leaving Jewish students to twist in the wind? It’s anyone’s guess, but if there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s this: what starts with words can end in atrocities. The time to act is not after tragedy, but now.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Wednesday, May 07, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon


Israel's decimation of Hezbollah in Lebanon has caused a huge change in Lebanese politics. Hezbollah has lost its stranglehold on Lebanese politics and its almost unlimited fear for the average Lebanese citizen. But the biggest effect of the Israel's military victory may have been a secondary effect: Hamas and Islamic Jihad are losing their own military control of Palestinian camps.

Up until now, the "refugee" camps in Lebanon have been no-go zones for Lebanese security forces. As a result, they have become mini-battlegrounds between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah. Fighting between the groups would erupt every few years but within the camps their armed forces had effective control.

Now, after Israel's victory, the Lebanese government has signaled that it wants its army to be the only armed force in Lebanon, especially south of the Litani River. Hezbollah is reluctantly going along but is bitterly opposing any full disarmament, and the Lebanese Armed Forces are skittish about enforcing this new reality against an unwilling Hezbollah that still probably outguns them.

But Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not Hezbollah, and the army can go after them. No one in Lebanon likes Hamas. 

Last Friday, new Lebanese President Joseph Aoun held his first meeting of the Higher Defense Council and disarming Palestinian armed groups was the top item on the agenda. It also discussed Hamas firing its own rockets towards Israel and efforts to stop those attacks which endanger Lebanese security. Apparently Hamas is hiding three of its members that Lebanon wants to arrest for a rocket firing in March, they are believed to be in the Ain al-Hilweh camp.

During the meeting, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam spoke of “the necessity of handing over illegal weapons and not allowing Hamas or any other actor to compromise security and national stability.” Aoun also said, “No attempt to make Lebanon a platform for destabilization will be tolerated.”

While the Lebanese army still does not enter the camps, it has recently seized Palestinian weapons outside the camps. 

The Lebanese people might be skittish about directly confronting Hezbollah, but they are not as concerned over disarming Hamas and the other Palestinian armed groups. The Lebanese government, for its part, sees disarming the Palestinian armed groups as a trial balloon to see how the same could eventually be done to Hezbollah.

Fatah, seeing which way the wind is blowing, is reportedly willing to disarm inside the camps.

There are also signals that Lebanon might be willing to increase Palestinian rights: allowing more access to education and jobs, and even allowing Palestinians to own their own houses with limitations. Any such move will face opposition from the Lebanese, especially Christians, wo are worried about the influence of the Palestinians and from some Palestinian self-proclaimed leaders themselves who are always concerned about anything that might effect the mythical "right of return" and who readily use Palestinians as pawns in their political power game. 

This disarmament will be a major topic of discussion during a planned visit by PA president Mahmoud Abbas later this month. 





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Guest post by Andrew Pessin

Protocols of the Elders of Anti-Zion

We’re all aware of the most influential antisemitic book in modern history, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Appearing in the early 1900s then adopted and disseminated by the A-Team of International Antisemites—Russia and the Soviet Union, the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and so on—this famous forgery purports to be the minutes of a secret meeting held by the “Elders of Zion” behind the scenes of the First Zionist Congress in 1897. Of course there are no such Elders and there was no such meeting, and large chunks of the text were directly plagiarized from an 1864 book sketching Machiavelli’s political philosophy, but those facts, though widely known from at least 1921 onward, didn’t stop the book from spreading around the world and directly inspiring Hitler’s genocidal Final Solution, Hamas’s jihadist Final Solution (they quote from the Protocols as if it were factual in their foundational charter), and the long, ongoing campaign of Russian-Soviet anti-Zionism. And what about this book inspires such deadly behavior? It’s that it reveals to the world the great conspiracy of the dastardly Jews plotting to control the world and subjugate or destroy all the non-Jews, explaining in detail exactly how they will do that (by controlling the banks, the media, governments, starting wars, etc.). When faced with that dastardly evil-doing, who wouldn’t respond by attempting to annihilate the threat?

Of course it’s all delusional nonsense, demonstrably false nonsense, which is why all rational, clear-headed, decent people recognize in the Protocols not the documentation of a conspiracy but what is pejoratively referred to as a conspiracy theory—one deliberately designed to justify and incentivize hate and violence against the Jews.  

The irony, of course, is that all the attention paid to the Protocols—believed by tens of millions, to this very day, to be factual—obscures the increasingly apparent fact that there actually does exist a global conspiracy, a literal conspiracy, an actual conspiracy, albeit in precisely the opposite direction. Sometimes working together, sometimes working in parallel, sometimes centrally directed, sometimes dispersed, sometimes secretly, sometimes very much in the open, collectively there is an enormous body of individuals, organizations, and governments who have all been working toward the same inglorious end for well over a century now. 

It’s not that the dastardly Jews are conspiring to subjugate or eliminate the peoples of the world. It’s that the peoples of the world (or at least enormously large constituents thereof) are actively conspiring to subjugate and (in all too many cases) to outright eliminate the Jews. 

Let’s examine their protocols.

1.
Though the underlying Jew-hatred goes back millenia, ground zero for this modern conspiracy is of course pre-Soviet Russia itself, whose rampant, pervasive, and often violent antisemitism produced the original conspiracy-theory Protocols in the first place, and in so doing launched the actual conspiracy against the Jews. We might call the mysterious unknown forgers of the Protocols the original Elders of Anti-Zion.

The degree to which the Protocols then influenced Hitler and the Nazis is well known. But Hannah Arendt suggests that the Protocols didn’t merely instill in them their genocidal hatred of the Jews for their alleged plot to subjugate the world, but in fact directly inspired them to launch their own plot to subjugate the world. She quotes Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels saying, “The nations that have been the first to see through the Jew and have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in the domination of the world,”  then adds her conclusion: “The delusion of an already existing Jewish world domination formed the basis for the illusion of future German world domination.” She continues: “This was what [head of the Nazi SS] Himmler had in mind when he stated that ‘we owe the art of government to the Jews,’ namely, to the Protocols which ‘the Führer [had] learned by heart’.” See the neat Nazi trick here: accuse the Jews of conspiring to world domination, which then justifies, in “self-defense,” your attempts both to destroy the Jews and to dominate the world yourself. The entire Nazi machinery, then, from its massive propaganda operations through its killing fields and camps, was one large conspiracy to subjugate and eliminate the Jews.
 
Nor may we overlook the central role played in this conspiracy by the scholars, the intellectuals, the professors, the ones producing the ideas and arguments that motivate the leaders and then become the propaganda that mobilizes the masses. Whether scholarship can ever be “purely objective” is a question for another time, but not relevant to the fact that “scholarship” can be intentionally weaponized to advance one’s political aims or, more modestly, can become corrupted by one’s ideological commitments. That’s a fancy way of remarking that Nazi “scholarship” was directly and deliberately involved in advancing the conspiracy against the Jews. Perhaps nothing better documents that fact than Max Weinreich’s 1946 book Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People. Among the many shocking things documented in this book is the establishment of numerous “scholarly institutes” across varied disciplines to study the “Jewish question,” i.e. to develop the “science” to justify, ultimately, the political program of mass extermination.  Suffice merely to quote Hannah Arendt, again, in her review of the book: “Dr. Weinreich's main thesis is that ‘German scholarship provided the ideas and techniques that led to and justified unparalleled slaughter,’” ideas which included, of course, the “race science” that justified the alleged Aryan supremacy and Jewish degeneracy that in turn justify the Holocaust. Arendt then goes on to say, “It is also true, and Dr. Weinreich is right to insist thereon, that Hitler showed one of his crucial insights into the nature of modern propaganda when he asked for ‘scientific’ arguments and refused to use the standard crack-pot ones of traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.” The scare quotes around the word “scientific” are the key: it’s easy for decent people to reject obvious crude raw hatred, but dress it up in “science” and it goes down far more easily. 

So what we have here, then, are the professors providing the intellectual ammunition in the conspiracy against the Jews. 

Collectively, a large new cohort here of the Elders of Anti-Zion.

2.
Nor was it only the Nazis (and large swaths of the German population), of course: most of the countries they captured were soon coopted, sometimes involuntarily but often enough willingly, to participate in the conspiracy. Once again, Weinreich documents numerous “scholarly institutes” set up in conquered and adjacent countries as their intellectuals moved to get in on the action against the Jews.

Nor did the conspiracy spread only to the countries captured by the Nazis. Famously the Palestinian religious and national leader, the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin collaborating with the Nazis. Photographs of him enjoying a visit with Hitler and visiting concentration camps with Himmler populate the internet, these scenes being breaks perhaps from his job, which included spreading Nazi ideology to the Arab and Muslim world through Arabic language propaganda and recruiting Muslims to participate in the Nazi military campaign. Though the long independent history of Islamic antisemitism prior to the twentieth century cannot be overlooked, neither can one overlook the explosive fuel added to that already burning fire when Nazi ideology was poured onto it. From this point onward much of the Arab and Muslim world was officially part of the now truly global conspiracy against the Jews launched by the Protocols. 

The Nazis, fortunately, did not endure, though they bequeathed many followers even to this day. But next taking the reins (or taking them back) were the Soviets, who, though opposed to much of the Nazi ideology and bitter enemies of the Nazis themselves, unfortunately shared the relevant ideology that they themselves had launched some decades earlier—and then literally shared it, around the globe.

3.
Here the work of Izabella Tabarovsky is essential. In a series of articles—including “Soviet Anti-Zionism and Contemporary Left Antisemitism” (2019), “The Cult of Antizionism” (2023), and “Zombie Anti-Zionism” (2024)—she meticulously documents the gargantuan ceaseless effort the Soviet Union made to attack the Jews particularly by delegitimizing the newly born State of Israel. Lest you think this was merely “anti-Zionism,” not “antisemitism,” the effort itself (she explains) was rooted in the Protocols, and some of the original Soviet propagandists were “admirers of Hitler and Nazism and used Mein Kampf as … a source of ‘information’ about Zionism” (2019). Indeed, as has been argued at length elsewhere, “anti-Zionism” derives for many directly from their antisemitism. If you start with the antisemitic delusion that the dastardly Jews are conspiring to subjugate the globe, then “anti-Zionism” follows immediately, both logically and psychologically: the State of Israel will just be for you the diabolical mechanism through which the Jews advance their diabolical scheme. Thus with the Soviets began another organized campaign, a veritable industry—a conspiracy—which in time produced “hundreds of anti-Zionist and anti-Israel books and thousands of articles,” published in the USSR, with “millions of copies entering circulation in the country” (2019).

But the campaign wasn’t restricted to the already vast-in-itself USSR. “Many were translated into foreign languages—English, French, German, Spanish, Arabic and numerous others,” in order to be disseminated all over the globe through the Soviet Union’s powerful state-owned media apparatus, “whose goal was to ‘spread the truth about the USSR in all the continents’” (2019). This “truth” was thereby spread in particular to the many Third World nations that were becoming “decolonized,” many of which were in the Soviet orbit. (For more on this, see Tabarovsky’s discussion of the enormous number of international conferences the Soviets organized to inculcate the ideology and advance the conspiracy to these many countries (2024).) 

And the translation into Arabic, in particular? The Soviet Union, closely allied with the Arab countries for many decades, widely propagated its conspiracy all over the Arab world as well. But in this case it involved quite a bit more than just the translation and dissemination of virulently antisemitic, anti-Zionist tracts, important as those were.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Communist official to defect from the Soviet bloc, offered some striking revelations in a 2003 Wall Street Journal article and subsequent interview. According to him, it was the infamous Soviet spy service, the KGB, that “dreamed up” the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), including hand-picking and training Yasser Arafat, its most important leader, a task in the service of which “the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat’s birth in Cairo, and replaced them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.” Through their training of Arafat they gave him “an ideology and an image … remold[ing] him as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a ‘personal hero’ for him--the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz … and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews.” The KGB continued to finance and to guide the PLO over many years in its violent campaign against the Jews—in addition, of course, to being the primarily military backer of the Arab countries engaged in their ongoing war on Israel. In a 2006 article, Pacepa states:

In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel ... As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me … We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel … According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.

Mission accomplished, one can only say. And naturally a key role in accomplishing that mission was played by everybody’s favorite antisemitic forgery:

In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my service … to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our ‘sphere of influence.’ Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for … Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my [service] had dispatched around 500 undercover agents to Islamic countries … [B]y 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world. In the mid-1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion …

And lest you think this Soviet-driven conspiracy against the Jews is somehow all in the past, consider current President of the Palestinian Authority (itself an outgrowth of the PLO), Mahmoud Abbas, currently serving the 20th year of his four-year term. In 2016 the New York Times reported that Abbas had served as a KGB spy in Damascus in the early 1980s. This was entirely plausible given that he had earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. degree in 1982 in Moscow, with a dissertation that both cast doubt on the Holocaust and, in one of an uncountable number of common anti-Zionist talking points, attempted to prove that Zionists were closely affiliated with the Nazis. If you are wondering where he got these antisemitic ideas, Tabarovsky describes the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, which awarded him his degree, as “the linchpin of Soviet ‘Zionology’” (2023), the latter word in square quotes to indicate that the enormous slew of “scholars” producing the onslaught of antisemitic anti-Zionist propaganda saw themselves as engaged in a “scientific” endeavor.  

Just as “Hitler’s professors” had produced antisemitic “science” then disseminated it wherever they conquered and into the Arab and Muslim world, so too the Soviet “scientists” (call them “Brezhnev’s professors”) did exactly the same—with the Soviets going even further to establish the PLO, “educate” and train its leaders, and finance and guide its virulent anti-Jewish activities (including terrorism) for decades. Needless to say, their quest to fuse the long history of intense Islamic antisemitism in those regions—itself perhaps characterizable as a centuries-long systematic effort (i.e., a conspiracy) to subjugate the Jews—with the more modern Protocols-conspiracy antisemitism was enormously successful, thus producing the intense Arab and Muslim Jew-hatred, with its concomitant desire to subjugate and eliminate the Jews, we see today.

Needless to say, too, with the Soviet campaign above the Elders of Anti-Zion grew in number dramatically.

Two items of particular note concerning the campaign. 

First, it was carefully and intentionally crafted. The goal was to delegitimize Zionism, the Jewish national endeavor, so deliberate efforts were made to link that endeavor to and identify it with Nazism (as Abbas did above), to identify it with all manner of terrible things (racism, fascism, imperialism, colonialism, militarism, etc.), and accuse it of assorted horrible crimes (such as genocide and later apartheid). In service to that end it clearly shared the relaxed attitude toward “truth” of the Protocols, meaning that “truth” was pretty much optional. Particular impetus to the effort was given by Israel’s stunning victory over the Soviet-backed Arabs in the 1967 Six-Day War, which promptly motivated the Soviets to shift their emphasis from the military war against the Jews and their national endeavor toward advancing the “cognitive war” instead. This they did as guided by their “scientists,” the “Zionologists,” by going all in with their newly created “Palestinian” identity led by their newly created PLO. The plan now became to reframe or reconceive the entire conflict in the region. Prior to 1967 much of the world understood it as a conflict between the Jews and the Arabs, the minority Jews struggling against the more powerful majority Arabs, the Jews a David v. the Arabs’ Goliath. But after 1967 the Soviets began stressing the same propaganda terms with which they had been framing their more general battle against the West. During much of the Cold War and the period of global decolonization they proclaimed themselves to be “anti-colonialists” supporting “national liberation movements” against the “imperialist” West, and so now the Middle East conflict was deliberately reframed as one in which the indigenous (newly invented) “Palestinian people” were fighting off the “imperialist-colonialism” of the invading Jews. Overnight the “Jewish-Arab” conflict became the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict, where the Israelis looked big and strong and the Palestinians puny and weak, thus instantly reversing the “David-Goliath” framing. Some go so far as to say that the very “Palestinian” identity was formed or crafted in this period precisely to play this role, with the Soviets, via their work with the PLO and Arafat, being the central agent.

The whole thing was a psy-op, in other words—an extremely successful one that, to this day (as we’ll see shortly), brings the political left across the globe into the global conspiracy against the Jews.

The second point is once again to emphasize the role of propaganda—in particular, as produced by the “intellectuals,” the “scientists,” the “professors”—in developing and advancing this conspiracy. In addition to the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies Tabarovsky also discusses the “KGB-supervised Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public” (2019), itself producing the literature then translated into other languages and distributed abroad by the Novosti Press Agency, “a news service and an important arm of Soviet foreign propaganda.” But now to get a more “vivid picture of Moscow’s approach to solving its Zionist problem” we can glimpse at just one example of the many that Tabarovsky (2019) examines, an article from 1969 or 1970 entitled “Anatomy of Israeli Aggression.” Written by Yevgeny Yevseyev, “one of the key ideologues of … Soviet anti-Zionism—the so-called Zionologists,” the article reports on yet another Soviet conference, the “Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples” occurring in Cairo in 1969. Protocols-style, the article frames Zionism as part of an imperialist global conspiracy against the national liberation movement and communism, affiliated with and a continuation of Nazism, and inevitably engaged in “genocide, racism, perfidy, duplicity, aggression, annexation,” and therefore, in essence, an enemy of most of the globe. The goal was thus to mobilize “world public opinion” by disseminating information about alleged “Israeli atrocities.” If all that sounds familiar it is because you are aware how the anti-Zionist progressive world approaches Israel to this very day, only it was all hatched quite deliberately over the past five decades. What we see in this article is literally a sketch of the playbook—the protocols—of the campaign to destroy the Jews and their national endeavor. And just as we saw with the Nazis, the campaign against the Jews would borrow many of the methods allegedly laid out by the Jews themselves in the fabricated Protocols—while being motivated by (falsely) accusing the Jews of being guilty of them! 

And lest you underestimate the true scale of this campaign against the Jews, note that this article was published in the “World Marxist Review—the English edition of the Prague-based Soviet theoretical journal Problems of Peace and Socialism. Published in 40 languages and distributed in 145 countries, the journal reached an estimated half million of the most committed leftists around the globe” (2019). 

Another way to think about the scale of this: at its peak the Soviet Union was more than 1000 times bigger than the State of Israel, with nearly 100 times its population in 1967 (a particularly salient year in the anti-Zionist conspiracy). If it were just the Soviet Union v. Israel it already would be an enormous Goliath against a tiny David. But it wasn’t just the Soviet Union—it was the Soviet Union, the entire Arab and Muslim worlds, and most of the Third World. We have nothing less than an actual mammoth global campaign to subjugate the Jews and destroy their national endeavor, all based on the fabricated (and delusional) allegation of that tiny population’s conspiracy to subjugate the behemoth instead. 

4.
And we haven’t even gotten to the Western leftists, the “progressives.” 

As Tabarovsky puts it, “It was at the Soviet-sponsored conferences that the Western left got to rub shoulders with its Third World revolutionary heroes. It was here that Moscow worked to inculcate its brand of conspiracist anti-Zionism by tying it to every progressive cause of the time” (2024).

Space limits prohibit looking at the “continuous flow of international events increasingly entrench[ing] the idea of Zionism as the enemy of all progressive causes across the Third World” (2024) that consumed the 1970s and 1980s. Nor can we look at the extensive similar data presented in Tabarovsky’s 2022 article, “Demonization Blueprints: Soviet Conspiracist Antizionism in Contemporary Left-Wing Discourse.” Instead we’ll jump ahead into the present to see that the conspiracy against the Jews—whose playbook was hatched in the Protocols, advanced by the Nazis, then launched across the globe by the Soviets—continues without skipping a beat to this very day, primarily under the umbrella of leftist “progressivism.” 

I’ll briefly examine several aspects of it, starting with some of its methods.

(1) “Idea-laundering”

This practice seems to me alarmingly prevalent in the leftist-dominated world of the humanities and social sciences, as well as in what we might call the “NGO-UN circular echo chamber,”  most of which is today quite ill-disposed toward the Jews and their national endeavor. Peter Boghossian, citing Bret Weinstein, uses the term “idea laundering” for it; the anonymous blogger (aptly) going by “Elder of Ziyon” has also written about it, for example here and here.  As Elder sums it up, it’s the process by which “academia pretty much makes things up while pretending that they are following some sort of scientific method”:

One person will make up a theory, and unlike scientific theories, it requires no proof or corroboration. It just needs to appeal to the target audience—of other people in social sciences. Then, that paper will become one of the sources for many other papers that take the unproven theory as fact, and then extend it into la-la land. The cycle repeats … People need to realize: Social science isn’t science. Citations aren’t proof. 

 Boghossian gives a similar sketch:

It’s analogous to money laundering. Here’s how it works: First, various academics have strong moral impulses about something … Second, academics who share these sentiments start a peer-reviewed periodical … They organize [it] like every other academic journal, with a board of directors, a codified submission process, special editions with guest editors, a pool of credentialed “experts” to vet submissions, and so on. The journal’s founders, allies and collaborators then publish articles in … their journal. Soon, other academics with similar beliefs submit papers, which are accepted or rejected. Ideas and moral impulses go in, knowledge comes out. Voilà!

Eventually, after activist scholars petition university libraries to carry the journal, making it financially viable for a large publisher like Taylor & Francis, [the journal] becomes established. Before long, there’s an extensive canon of academic work—ideas, prejudice, opinion and moral impulses—that has been laundered into “knowledge.”

Boghossian uses an example from “woke” scholarship, while Elder uses this example from anti-Zionist “scholarship”:

Someone makes up a concept like "settler colonialism" and within years it is a recognized field of study, where opinion is presented as fact and previous papers are treated as legitimate no matter how sloppy they are, as long as they agree with what the current author "feels" must be true. Ideas like "Israel is an apartheid state" or "Zionism is racism" or "violent resistance is legitimate" or "Israel engages in pinkwashing" are accepted as not only true, but proven, because of previous papers by Israel haters. Then the more adventurous academics try to extend this house of cards into new areas—if Zionism is racism, then maybe it is sexism, too! Can I define "Israeli apartheid" as a form of genocide?

It's hard not to think of the Nazi “scientists” and Soviet “Zionologists” doing exactly this in their “scientific” campaign against the Jews. 

But of course it’s not just academia. I mentioned the UN above, so for another timely example, consider the case of Francesca Albanese, the current (and eighth!) “UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine.” First, if the United Nations’ appointing a permanent Inquisitor charged with endlessly finding crimes of which to accuse Israel is not part of a global conspiracy against the Jews, it’s hard to imagine what would be. But more to the point, let’s examine how “idea laundering” has worked with respect to the allegation of “genocide,” quoting from Norman Goda’s recent paper, “The Genocide Libel”:

In July 2024 Francesca Albanese claimed on Twitter that the Israelis had killed not 37,000 people in Gaza, the already-inflated number from the Gaza Ministry of Health, but rather 186,000. The figure came from phantom arithmetic in a letter published in the British medical journal The Lancet, which claimed to predict the discovery of additional deaths at a four-to-one ratio. Albanese’s post was seen over 607,000 times. The 186,000 number was soon trumpeted by Aljazeera, The Guardian, The Nation, Middle East Eye, Democracy Now! and other such outlets. Inter Press Service (which covers the UN) called it a “staggering” estimate, which “has resurrected accusations of genocide,” as it had come from “one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed British medical journals.”

Never mind that the original letter was immediately widely denounced as non-credible by many with expertise in the matter; that didn’t stop it from being cited relentlessly in anti-Zionist circles and appearing in countless student anti-Israel resolutions. Never mind that the allegation appeared in a non-peer-reviewed “letter” to the journal; that didn’t stop others from sourcing it to the “prestigious peer-reviewed” journal. Nor has the fact that, during the current extended ceasefire (as of March 2025), its prediction of thousands of people “indirectly” killed or missing buried in the rubble has turned out to be wildly inaccurate, triggered any retractions either.  That number was literally made up, invented, dressed up in pseudoscientific reasoning, then echoed around the world to the point, where by December 2024, anti-Israel NGO Amnesty International is publishing a 300-page report subtitled “Israel’s Genocide Against the Palestinians in Gaza” citing that number. You can be sure that the UN and international legal bodies will not be far behind.  
 
In short: an accusation is alleged or invented, then papers are written all citing each other making the accusation which makes it all sound legitimate, and then these papers make their way into some NGO reports affirming the accusation by citing those papers, and then they make their way into UN reports by citing the NGO reports, and then they turn into international lawfare by being cited in accusations before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. These accusations then get cited as the basis for further articles making the allegations and in various boycott resolutions and so on. Ultimately the examples—all directly echoing the allegations in the Soviet orchestrated campaign, not coincidentally—include all the usual allegations such as Israel’s colonialism, apartheid, genocide, etc. 

It's all just literally following the playbook.

Such campaigns may not be centrally directed, the way the Soviet campaigns, proceeding by the same processes, may have been, but the effect is a same: an entire international network of “scholars” producing this “scholarship,” i.e. “laundering ideas” to make them seem “scholarly” or “scientific,” are de facto working together—in other words, a global conspiracy—to delegitimize the Jews and their national endeavor. 

(2) Big Lies, and “genocide”

Though all antisemites from right to left use the “Big Lie,” its use by leftist progressives, alleging to be the “community of the good” and committed to “justice”—which you might think involves a commitment to truth—is especially pernicious. The phrase, “the Big Lie,” derives from the Nazi propaganda playbook, referring to a strategy of telling lies so enormous and telling them repeatedly that large numbers of people come to believe them, not least because they think that no one would say such brazenly false things so they must be true. Andrew Pessin has dealt in detail elsewhere with a large set of the familiar “Big Lies” told against Israel: “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid,” etc.

But it’s worth a moment here to say something just about the particularly monstrous charge of “genocide.” In fact enormous swaths of the world have been attempting to find Jews guilty of desiring and/or attempting genocide from at least the Protocols onward, and particularly since the modern term “genocide” was coined by legal scholar Raphael Lemkin in 1944. Here let me merely refer you to Goda’s article again, “The Genocide Libel,” to take you through the literally relentless (and often astonishingly contorted) efforts to charge the Jews with genocide, from 1944 to this day. It would not be unfair to summarize these efforts as follows: “If the Jews do action x, then x constitutes ‘genocide,’” with x varying from allegation to allegation and in no cases involving anything resembling actual “genocide.” Needless to say, x also includes such actions as defending themselves from the genocidal attacks of their neighbors. Again, the whole thing reads like a playbook. In the minds of the conspirators the Jews have been found guilty of the heinous crime in advance; endless legal and rhetorical maneuvers are then employed to make the charge fit something the Jews have actually done. Given the international nature and scope of the campaign, not to mention its longevity, this is again a true global conspiracy against the Jews. 

(3) More lies, double standards, and weaponized omission

Next consider some other rhetorical techniques—like idea laundering—that are so omnipresent, or systemic, in the progressive anti-Zionist literature that it cannot be an accident. 

The most fundamental way to promulgate the evil of the Jews and their national enterprise is simply to erase all context from their actions, for example completely omit the various Arab actions to which Jewish actions are typically a response. Imagine you were describing a war but you completely left out one of the battling armies, in particular the army that actually started the war, and instead described only the other army, the responding army: it would sound like that latter army was just waltzing in to places, shooting indiscriminately and blowing everything up. So described, the actual aggressor is exculpated of all responsibility (they’re not even there!), and the side defending itself is transformed into the aggressor; indeed its actions suddenly look a lot like disproportionate and reckless killing, ethnic cleansing, genocide etc. Ilan Pappé, one of the most disreputable “scholars” of anti-Zionism of whom I’m aware, proceeds exactly this way in his 2006 book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. In his account the Israelis—the Jews—are shooting at everything in sight, and you’d essentially have no idea an actual two-way war was going on and there was a reason for the shooting—namely, that they were defending themselves from the invading armies that were shooting at them, that had, incidentally, started the war in the first place! 

It's also worth a look at another entirely representative example. In a 2023 article, Shany Mor dissects the work of the UN Human Rights Council’s “Commission of Inquiry,” established in 2021 again (like “Special Rapporteur” Albanese) to find Israel guilty of any and every possible crime they can imagine and make stick. A whole book could be written just about this commission as yet another tentacle of the global conspiracy against the Jews—literally just one of dozens of different ways the UN establishes structures that will find the Jews and their national enterprise guilty. 

But we’ll be brief. 

The Commission operates under two mandates. The first is to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Not only will it naturally focus only on Israel and utterly ignore any such violations by the Palestinians, but, as Mor notes, in its work 

“Laws” are created for the Israeli context which apply to Israel alone. Gaza is occupied territory somehow, despite there being no Israeli soldiers or civilians in the territory since 2005. Palestine is a “state” though no legal definition of statehood could possibly apply to either the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or the Hamas regime in Gaza … The Green Line separating Israeli and Jordanian forces at the end of the 1948 war is treated as an international boundary (though not with Jordan) despite the fact the UN-brokered armistice agreement explicitly stipulates that it is no such thing. Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, which even the UN’s own Palmer commission found is perfectly legal in the laws of war, is repeatedly referred to as a form of “collective punishment.”

That illustrates two additional widespread anti-Zionist techniques: inventing things (smaller lies, perhaps) and applying double standards. But here let’s focus on the second mandate, which is to identify “underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability, and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity.” All the blame will of course be placed on Israel and none on the Arabs or Palestinians, not least because everything the latter ever do will be entirely ignored. As Mor puts it, there are unstated “ground rules” for the discussion:

The Arab war against the Jewish state will not be mentioned, nor will the comprehensive Arab ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. There may be some anodyne mentions of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, always coupled with references to Israeli military action, but there will be no assessment of the larger cause for which that violence was undertaken. And there will definitely be no mention of repeated peace offers including an independent Palestinian Arab state that were violently rejected because they involved a full reconciliation with the existence of a Jewish state next door.

Once you are aware of this technique in particular—the omission of the Palestinians and Arabs, the disappearance of all agency and accountability on their behalf, the invisibility of Israeli efforts to find peace—you will find it nearly everywhere in the anti-Zionist literature. I’m not alleging central planning, here, but it is undeniably systemic, and it does mean that the global campaign against Israel, like the Commission of Inquiry itself, is not in fact (as Mor puts it) an “inquiry” but an “inquisition”: it is a show trial with its conclusion established in advance, invoking numerous ubiquitous tricks, including the omission of the Palestinians and Arabs, to guarantee arrival at the predetermined conclusion. 

A systemic campaign against the Jews.

(4) Progressive ideology

We turn from some common techniques of the progressive left to the ideology itself. 

Consider the conception of the Jew that they have been developing under a number of names for their ideology: Critical Race Theory, DEI, Social Justice, Wokeness, etc. (for simplicity we’ll just call it all “progressivism”). As Pamela Paresky notes in her 2021 essay, “Critical Race Theory and the Hyper-White Jew,” “CRT relies on narratives of greed, appropriation, unmerited privileged, and hidden power—themes strikingly reminiscent of familiar anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.” Their official primary target is “Whiteness,” including White Supremacy, White Privilege, etc. But next thing you know Jews are accused of passing for White and acquiring or exploiting that supremacy and privilege, notwithstanding the fact that actual White Supremacists revile the Jews for not being White and in the case of the Nazis actually genocided them for that. Similarly, the fact that Jews are, on average, “successful,” ends up working against them on the progressive worldview. Never mind that many Jews are not particularly successful; never mind that Jews had to overcome enormous prejudice to earn what success they have earned in the US and the West in general. Rather than see the fact that Jews are “disproportionately” represented in various fields as a reflection of that success, of literally overcoming oppression, that disproportion instead is labeled “inequity,” which, through the progressive lens, is interpreted as a matter of unearned privilege, of the Jews operating as an oppressor class that in fact has kept more marginalized people down. (Never mind that Jews have also disproportionately dedicated themselves to helping marginalized people!) In effect, on their view, Jews are colluding with White Supremacy in order to obtain and perpetuate their higher status, much to the detriment of the various marginalized identity groups (women, persons of color, LGBTQ, the disabled, etc); Jews, in other words, are responsible for oppressing nearly everybody. The more “successful” Jews are, the more evil they turn out to be. The Protocols couldn’t describe it any better. (Never mind, too, Jews’ impressive record of “giving back” when they are successful, contributing to society in all sorts of ways, philanthropy, standing up for others’ rights, etc.) 

Paresky doesn’t specifically address the Israel aspect, beyond observing that the cognitive warriors of the progressive left “use the latent antisemitic themes of CRT to propagate a false narrative about Israel.” But the application of this ideology to what I prefer to call the “Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim-Iran Conflict” (or IPJAMIC, because it’s at least as complicated as that acronym and in fact far more) is quite straightforward. Notwithstanding the utter divorce from actual facts, Israelis are seen as White Supremacist oppressors of the Palestinians, who are seen as marginalized oppressed people of color. Because group identity entirely trumps individual identity, it amounts, roughly, to asserting that every single Israeli is a White Supremacist (even the dark-skinned ones) oppressing every single Palestinian, who are all persons of color (even the fair-skinned ones). With that group identity trumping individual, and with the (false) narrative that the Jews have been engaging in an ethnic-cleansing, genocidal, subjugation campaign against the Palestinians, then every single Palestinian (even ones who might in fact be doing quite well in life) is justified in “resisting” every single Israeli (even ones who might in fact be doing quite poorly). With that group identity reigning supreme no Israeli can ever be a victim, and no Palestinian can ever be an aggressor or perpetrator—even when Palestinians invade Israel, torture, rape, dismember, behead, and massacre nearly 1200 mostly Jewish civilians and snatch another 250 away as hostages. That’s not a barbaric mass terrorist atrocity on the progressive worldview, but a national liberation movement of the oppressed against their oppressors. 

Never mind again the utter disconnect from factual reality in this narrative, and the fact that Zionism was and is a national liberation movement of an oppressed people par excellence that these very people should be celebrating. On the progressive worldview that now dominates campuses and so many of our meaning-making institutions (the academy, the media, the law, the corporate world, entertainment, etc.), Jews are not only White Supremacists colluding with other White Supremacists to oppress the non-White, but in fact even worse: since Jews are, on average, more “successful” than the norm, Jews are actually “uber-White” or “hyper-White,” the Whitest of the White—the worst of the worst, the most evil, conspiring to subjugate the globe. 

There is ultimately, literally, no difference between the progressive worldview and that of the Protocols’: they both allege that the Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to subjugate the globe and eliminate other races and they use that as a basis to marginalize Jews and attack their national endeavor. In the real world, to the contrary, it is the progressive worldview that weaponizes this delusional conception, invented and propagated by its “scholars,” to perpetrate its own actually global conspiracy to subjugate and eliminate the Jews.

(5) “Systemic oppression”

Let’s examine one more key aspect of the progressive worldview. As Shaul Kelner explains in his 2024 essay, “Turning Critical Theory on Its Head,” that worldview is deeply influenced by the “Frankfurt School” of analysis also known as “critical theory,” which aimed to analyze the “structures of domination” built into society and ultimately resist or revise them. Critical theory is in fact the direct source for the very idea of “structural” or “systemic” oppression so widely alleged by the left. Indeed Kelner refers to this concept as now “standard fare” in graduate programs and academic journals. 

Now no one familiar with Jewish history, both in the Christian West and in the Islamic world, could fail to apply the categories of “systemic oppression” to that beleaguered population. Both Christianity and Islam believed theirs was the right to rule, and even while they battled it out with each other they both subscribed to “supersessionist theologies vis-à-vis Judaism,” taking it for granted that Jews were, and were supposed to be, subordinate. Jews surely “should not wield power over Muslims and Christians,” and enormous legal, political, and social structures were established to enforce that. That is literally “systemic” and “structural” oppression staring us in the face. 

This theoretical illegitimacy of Jewish power meant that, when Jews were able to succeed, something was deeply wrong, something was illegitimate: the Jews must be cheating, operating out of greed, controlling the banks, dual loyalty, not playing by the rules, in a word, engaged in a conspiracy to subjugate their legitimate masters. When the Protocols arrived in the early 20th century, and later in the Muslim world, it therefore found soil well fertilized by centuries of each religious tradition to receive its conspiracy-theory antisemitism.

Why is all this relevant? Because, by their own worldview, by their own alleged values, progressives should recoil from the historical reality above and side with the Jews, who are the absolute paradigm of historical victims of the very systemic oppression they claim they are devoted to overthrowing. Progressives should therefore throw themselves whole-heartedly behind Zionism, which, as the national liberation movement of these oppressed people, is itself quite literally the “critical theory” they adore as it would be applied to the Jews.

Instead, Kelner points out, we see very nearly the opposite. “Before our eyes,” he notes, 

Columbia University deans responsible for creating inclusive communities text each other to mock Jewish students’ concerns about discrimination. Advocates of speech codes discover the virtues of free speech specifically for Arabic words and English phrases that get shouted even louder after Jewish students say they hear them as code for killing Jews. And when universities do try to discipline students who have harassed Jewish classmates, occupied buildings, and vandalized property, members of the faculty contest the penalties and call for amnesty.

Instead, in other words, the progressives are nearly universally committed to anti-Zionism. The conclusion is inescapable, says Kelner: that these phenomena are so widespread, on so many campuses, particularly since the October 7 massacre, indicates that they are not disconnected. “In my discipline [sociology],” he writes, “if researchers were to notice the same discriminatory patterns on so many different campuses and at so many different levels within each university system, their starting premise would be that the problem is systemic.”

So not only have Jews confronted a long history of systemic oppression, then, but in the progressive worldview now reigning dominant over many campuses, throughout the academy, and through many of our meaning-making institutions, that systemic oppression continues. As Kelner puts it, “Those parts of the academy that have most embraced critical theory have failed to critique the ways in which their own discourse participates in historically rooted, socially entrenched power dynamics that subordinate and marginalize Jews.” Interestingly, and not at all coincidentally, this ongoing systemic oppression of the Jews is based on exactly the same allegations that trace their way back through the Soviet antisemitic anti-Zionist campaign, back to the Nazis, and ultimately back to the Protocols. It is necessary to systemically oppress the Jews because the Jews themselves, in their nefarious behavior, are guilty of attempting to systemically oppress others.

The Protocols are alive and well, then, on our progressive campuses and in the progressive infosphere—and continue to justify the ongoing systemic oppression of the Jews.

(6) There simply is not space here to defend it, so I’ll just state it: The long-running campaign to boycott the Jews—dating back to the early 20th century, continuing through the Nazis and the Arab world but for the past two decades manifesting itself most prominently in the largely leftist-driven international “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement, is yet another manifestation of the conspiracy.

There is also not space here to discuss the enormous role of the United Nations in the conspiracy, other than to suggest that, when the Elders of Anti-Zion get together for their annual strategy meeting, it would most likely occur in one of the back rooms—nay, they are so numerous now it would likely occur in the General Assembly Hall—of the United Nations. 

(7) Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism

There were Hitler’s professors, there were Brezhnev’s professors, and we close with Hamas’s professors.

We now return eerily full circle. As Tabarovsky puts it in 2023’s “The Cult of ‘Antizionism’”—published just three weeks before the October 7 massacre—“A group of anti-Israel academics and BDS activists have taken a new step toward rebuilding the long-forgotten Soviet discipline of ‘scientific antizionism’ on American campuses. The ‘founding collective’ of 10 has established an Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism (ICSZ), which aims ‘to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish Studies’ and ‘to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism.’” Indeed, the professors are back—not that they ever left.

There is so much that is objectionable about this Institute that a separate article (in addition to Tabarovsky’s detailed critique) would be required to deal with it. Let me just note here that, beneath the guise of a “respectable” academic enterprise, and no doubt protected under the umbrella of “academic freedom”—which as Kelner notes seems readily invoked when people are saying terrible things about Jews, but readily restricted whenever something is alleged to be “hate speech” or a “microaggression” against any other minority—the ICSZ will be a propaganda machine churning out “research” saying exactly the same things about, making the very same allegations (conspiratorial globe domination, colonialism, genocide, etc.) toward the Jews, as the Nazi “scholars” and Soviet Zionologists said and did decades earlier. This “research” will not only influence generations of students going through their classes but also flood the academy, serve as the citational basis for further “research,” then make its inevitable way into NGO reports, the UN, and international lawfare. It also trickles downward, as they prepare curricula for secondary and primary schools. The ICSZ has already had its first conference, has already produced a journal and podcasts, is already flooding social media with its wares. It is literally unfolding its “idea laundering,” per above, in real time.

And they don’t even hide it. Its website identifies the “points of unity” that they expect every member of their organization, and indeed every attendee at their conferences, to share, including that “Zionism is a settler colonial racial project.” Just like that, a basic fact, like the Earth is round or 2+3=5. Affirming that fact is the price of admission to their society, exactly the opposite strategy from any serious scholarly endeavor that aims at the “truth,” because the truth cannot be known in advance. Another “point of unity” is the proposition that “academic research is not politically or morally neutral.” Lots could be debated there, but they make it clear what they mean: “The Institute’s research aims to interrogate and intervene in racism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and the appropriation of liberatory rhetoric by repressive political forces, among other harms.” In other words, they are not doing scholarly research but engaged in political activism. Like the “critical theory” that is their forebear, like Marx who is one of their ideological ancestors, their point is not to interpret the world but to change it. What they seek to change is the existence of the Jewish national endeavor, and with it the security and welfare of the Jewish people. Their scholarship, aimed at the end, will end up working “by any means necessary” to obtain that end—including fabrication, double standards, essential omissions etc. We’ve seen it all before, we have been seeing it since the Protocols first launched, and we are seeing it all again, in real time.

This is not scholarship—it is propaganda, designed to be disseminated through all the meaning-making institutions, and bring about the end of the Jewish national project and, with it, ultimately, the end of the Jewish people. 

Like the Nazis, like the Soviets, the Western progressive movement has now aligned seamlessly with the long history of Islamic antisemitism in a large-scale, overall coordinated campaign, to subjugate and ultimately eliminate the Jews.

Needless to say, Hamas’s October 7 massacre for them is not a terrorist atrocity but an inspiration—and their scholarship will be filled with all the many theoretical ways of justifying it.

And there are so many of these people—they are all over the academy. Not only has the ICSZ formed, already produced conferences, workshops, and a journal, but in February 2025 Brown University academics held a conference on “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions” which turned out to be, of course, an anti-Zionist hatefest where numerous speakers said many antisemitic things and where they already announced next year’s conference on a similar theme; Columbia had a similar conference called “Zionism and Its Critics” scheduled for March 2025; in April 2025 Princeton is hosting a two-day hatefest called “The Anti-Zionist Idea: History, Theory, and Practice” which is billed as a follow-up to a University of Toronto conference of the same name this past November 2024; and Connecticut College has, as of April 2025, enjoyed a now thirteen-lecture (and counting!) Hate Series, because twelve lectures repeatedly alleging that Israel is evil, evil, evil (and therefore so are the Jews who support Israel) were apparently not enough to make their point. (Incidentally, as if on cue: many of the lectures openly found ways not merely of justifying the October 7 massacre but really praising it.)


Hamas’s professors indeed.

5.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion generated a cornucopia of conspiracy theory goodness, delusionally alleging a Jewish conspiracy to subjugate the globe and eliminate many of its peoples. That in turn led to mass violence, including genocide, against the Jews. Meanwhile for much of the past century, and reaching an absolute fever pitch in the past several decades, and boiling over into a literally violent frenzy in the past eighteen months, the Elders of Anti-Zion have been propagating an actual conspiracy to subjugate, and ultimately eliminate, the Jews.

These are their protocols. 

----
Andrew Pessin is author, most recently, of the new 2-volume book, Israel Breathes, World Condemns, documenting and analyzing how and why college campuses came to the point where they cheerfully celebrated the October 7 Hamas massacre: Vol 1, “The Trajectory,” Vol 2, “The Aftermath.” For more information about him and his work, visit www.andrewpessin.com.





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