First, a private email sent by Glenn Greenwald, where he tells a Jewish recipient to “crawl out of your Sabbath hole” and watch Israeli cities being hit by Iranian missiles, followed by a link and the word “Enjoy.”

Second, his public follow up, where he frames himself as the victim of smears, denies wrongdoing, and then states plainly, “I think it’s good for the world that Israel is feeling retaliatory strikes for the wars they started.”

All the talk about innocent civilians, all the moral posturing, all the hours spent pretending this is about universal principles and human suffering, all of it collapses the second Israelis are the ones under fire. Then the mask slips, and what comes out is the truth. They never cared about innocent civilians in any consistent or serious way. They cared about using civilian suffering as a political weapon against Israel. That is a very different thing, and people should stop pretending otherwise.

Defenders of Israel spend an enormous amount of time explaining basic realities that should not need to be explained to honest people. We explain why casualty figures coming out of the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health cannot simply be treated as clean, neutral civilian death tolls, especially when Hamas has every incentive to inflate, manipulate, and obscure the distinction between civilians and combatants. We explain that Hamas embeds itself in civilian areas, stores weapons in homes, schools, and mosques, launches attacks from within populated neighborhoods, and then relies on the resulting images for propaganda. We explain that Hamas built an entire terror infrastructure under Gaza while leaving its own civilians exposed above ground, because civilian vulnerability is useful to them. We explain all of this for one reason. Because if Israel were deliberately targeting innocent civilians, that would be evil, and the truth would matter.

That is what makes comments like Glenn’s so revealing. He’s not arguing that civilian suffering is tragic wherever it occurs. He’s arguing that Israeli civilians being targeted by ballistic missiles is somehow morally satisfying because he has accepted the lie that they are collectively guilty. He wants the category of civilian to apply when it can be used against Israel, and he wants it to disappear when Israelis are the ones bleeding.

And once you see that, a lot of other things come into focus. It explains why so many of these people become extremely skeptical and forensic when Israeli actions are under discussion, but suddenly become emotionless and vindictive when Israelis are murdered. It explains why every dead Gazan child is treated as a moral indictment of the Jewish people, while dead Israeli children are treated as background noise, an unfortunate detail, or in many cases a justified consequence. It explains why they spend months lecturing the world about “dehumanization” and then casually speak about Israeli families as though they are legitimate instruments of collective punishment.

You can see this everywhere if you open your eyes. Look at Arabic media comment sections after missile strikes on Israeli neighborhoods. Look at the replies on X whenever Israeli homes are hit, whenever civilians are wounded, whenever parents are filmed carrying terrified children into bomb shelters. The joy is often open, the language is genocidal and the delight is unmistakable. And what is especially telling is how often Western activists, commentators, and supposed dissidents end up converging with that same moral logic, even when they dress it up in more respectable language. They may not all sound the same stylistically, but the underlying position is identical. Israeli suffering is deserved. Israeli fear is deserved. Israeli death is deserved.

That is why it is so grotesque to watch people like Glenn treated as serious moral voices. Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and other Grifters bring these people on as though they are offering insight, as though this is some brave heterodox critique of power, when what they are really doing is laundering malice through the language of antiwar concern. There is nothing profound about a person who can watch innocent Jews run to bomb shelters and decide that this is good for the world. There is nothing courageous about rationalizing missile attacks on civilian areas because the victims are Israeli. That is moral rot pure and simple and it would be recognized instantly as moral rot in any other context. The fact that it gets treated as thoughtful commentary here tells you a great deal about the standards Israel is subjected to and the standards Jews are expected to endure.

You will never find mainstream Israeli voices reacting to civilian deaths in Gaza with this kind of gleeful bloodlust. You will find arguments about military necessity. You will find people defending the war as forced, defensive, and tragically necessary. You will find people arguing that Hamas made this war inevitable and that Israel has a duty to destroy the terror infrastructure threatening its citizens. You will find anger, grief, and hard arguments about the realities of urban warfare. What you will never find in normal Israeli public discourse is some mainstream culture of ecstatic celebration over dead Arab children. That distinction matters because one side is arguing over how to fight an enemy embedded among civilians, and the other side keeps revealing that its real emotional investment lies in watching Jews suffer.

There is also something else here that should be said plainly. People who experience visible pleasure at the murder of innocent civilians are sick people. People who see footage of ballistic missiles slamming into residential areas and respond with satisfaction have something broken in them at a moral level. And when that response is specifically directed at Jews, when the victims are Israeli families and the reaction is joy, vindication, or smug approval, then the word antisemitism isn’t some overheated accusation. It’s an accurate description of what is in front of you.

The ugliest part is how many of these people still imagine themselves as the humane side. They think they are speaking for justice. They think they are standing with the oppressed. They think repeating the language of human rights cleanses them of what they are plainly endorsing. It does not. A person who cheers missile strikes on civilian neighborhoods because the civilians are Israeli has no moral high ground. A person who says this is “good for the world” has forfeited the right to be treated as some principled humanitarian critic. He is telling you, in his own words, that his compassion has boundaries, and those boundaries are drawn around Jews.

That is the reality people need to face. A great deal of what passes for concern over Gaza in elite and online discourse is not rooted in a consistent ethic of civilian protection. It is rooted in hostility toward Israel so deep that even the murder of Israeli children can be reframed as justice.

Share

It is a sick world where people who justify missiles falling on Israeli homes are presented as brave truth-tellers while Israelis defending their families are treated as moral monsters. It is a sick world where genocidal glee gets rebranded as solidarity with the underdog. And it is a sick world where people still expect Jews to sit quietly and accept lectures on humanity from people who can barely contain their excitement when Jewish children are in the blast zone.

I’ll just leave this here for posterity:

China runs a massive system of concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims and crushes religious freedom inside its borders.
Chinese temples abroad are not attacked.

The Islamic Regime in Iran funds militias and terrorist groups across the Middle East, from Hezbollah to the Houthis, destabilizing entire regions.
Mosques in America are not targeted because of it.

The Taliban run Afghanistan as a brutal Islamist theocracy that persecutes women, minorities, and anyone who resists their rule.
Afghan mosques abroad are not bombed.

Myanmar’s military carried out massacres against the Rohingya and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.
Buddhist temples overseas are not attacked.

There are wars, atrocities, repression, and mass violence all over the world, committed by governments and movements tied to every religion and ideology imaginable. Yet out of all of them, only one country and one people provoke a reaction so obsessive that someone would decide to drive an explosives-filled truck into a synagogue full of American Jewish preschoolers.

Think about how warped that logic is.

The victims are American children in Michigan, the justification being floated is something that happened in Lebanon, and the target chosen is a synagogue pre-school.

The distance between those things should make the entire argument instantly collapse but instead, the media rushes to fill in the gap.

Within hours the attacker’s grievances appear. His anger is explained and contextualized away. Photographs of his family circulate, as if the correct response to attempted mass murder is to conduct a psychological profile of the perpetrator.

Here’s an excerpt from the Detroit Free Press article on the terrorist:

Zaidieh described Ghazali as “my rock.”

“He was the best. The best neighbor. Always quiet, a hard worker. He was always pleasant. Everybody liked him,” she said.

“I’m not going to say ‘was.’ Is.”

And he always treated her well, she said. “Always. Always. Always.”

Employees at the popular shawarma stop, Hamido, down the street told the Free Press he worked there and was “so, so nice” but wouldn’t grant an interview.

We are also told his relatives were killed in Lebanon, as though that somehow transforms attempted mass murder into a tragic emotional reaction.

Even setting aside the fact that his relatives were themselves involved with Hezbollah, the entire premise of this argument is absurd.

Family members of those murdered on October 7th didn’t hunt down random Muslims around the globe. It’s hard to even imagine such a thing.

Everywhere else we understand the obvious moral boundary. You do not take out political anger on random civilians who have nothing to do with the events you are angry about.

Except when the civilians are Jews.

Then suddenly the connection becomes acceptable. Suddenly it is implied that Jewish institutions, Jewish communities, and Jewish children are legitimate stand-ins for the State of Israel.

At the very same time we are constantly lectured that Zionism and Judaism are completely separate, that Jews everywhere should reject any connection between the two. Someone should inform the terrorists because the message clearly isn’t getting through.

You cannot spend months insisting that Israel is uniquely evil, uniquely criminal, uniquely responsible for suffering in the world, and then act shocked when someone decides that attacking Jews anywhere is morally justified.

Ideas have consequences.

If blowing up a synagogue in Michigan because of Israel sounds insane, that’s because it is. It makes exactly as much sense as shooting up a mosque in Michigan because of what Hamas, Hezbollah, or ISIS have done.

No one would tolerate that logic for a second.

Yet when the target is Jews, we are asked to listen patiently while the murderer’s grievances are explained.

Strip away the excuses and the language of “context,” and what remains is very simple.

It’s not geopolitics, or grief, or moral confusion.

It’s hatred and violence directed at Jews, dressed up in political language so that people can pretend it is something else.

Share

Israel and the United States, to be clear, are fighting back. They are the ones carrying out the strikes against Iran.

But look at the rest of the list.

Most of these countries are currently sitting in a purely defensive posture while missiles and drones rain down across the region.

Why?

What exactly are they afraid of? Iran is already launching missiles across half the Middle East. It is difficult to imagine how the situation gets meaningfully worse for them than it already is.

So what is the hesitation?

Are they worried about being seen as collaborating with Israel or the United States? Are domestic politics tying their hands? Are their leaders simply hoping that if they keep their heads down someone else will solve the problem for them?

Every statement we hear sounds the same. Calls for restraint and warnings about escalation.

Meanwhile the Islamic regime is taking a massive beating.

If the goal were truly to de-escalate the situation, the fastest way to achieve that would be to remove the regime that is launching missiles across the region in the first place.

Instead many of these governments appear perfectly content to sit back while Israel and the United States do the fighting for them.

In a sense this is not surprising. For decades most Gulf states structured their security around a very simple assumption. If a major regional war ever broke out, the United States would ultimately step in. Their militaries were built around that reality. They purchased enormous amounts of equipment, but the real strategic backbone of the system was the American security umbrella.

What we are seeing now is a version of the classic free rider problem. When a real conflict emerges, regional actors prefer that someone else absorb the escalation risk.

At the moment that someone else is Israel.

Israel’s situation is different. Israel cannot sit comfortably in a purely defensive posture because it has almost no strategic depth. It cannot simply absorb missile fire for months and hope the problem goes away. Its military doctrine has always been built around moving quickly from defense to offense and eliminating the source of the threat.

When ballistic missiles start flying, Israel does not have the luxury of waiting.

Many of the other countries on that list do.

There is also a political dimension that is impossible to ignore. Several of these governments quietly cooperate with Israel on security matters, especially when it comes to Iran. But their domestic populations remain deeply hostile to the idea of openly aligning with Israel. That creates a strange balancing act. Privately they may welcome Israel weakening Iran. Publicly they need to pretend they have nothing to do with it.

So they issue statements about de-escalation and hope nobody asks too many questions.

But there is a cost to this posture.

The Middle East is a region where governments spend enormous sums on their militaries. Fighter jets, missile defenses, expanding arsenals. Leaders puff out their chests and speak constantly about strength and deterrence.

Deterrence, however, is not just about owning weapons. It is about demonstrating that you are willing to use them.

A country can buy the most advanced fighter jets in the world, but if it never responds when its territory is attacked, people begin to draw conclusions.

And the conclusion many observers are drawing right now is that when push comes to shove, Israel appears to be the only country in the region willing to move from defense to offense and actually eliminate the threat.

That is not a flattering comparison for anyone else.

There is also a broader irony here. For most of the past seventy-five years many of the states now under Iranian missile threat were openly hostile to Israel. Yet today Israel is effectively acting as a frontline security actor for much of the region against Iran.

If you had told people in 1975 or even 1995 that Israel might one day be defending the broader region against a common enemy, they would have laughed.

History has a strange sense of humor.

Iran itself may also have miscalculated. For decades the Islamic Republic relied on proxies and gradual escalation. Militias, missile shipments, shadow warfare. The assumption seemed to be that its adversaries would always avoid direct confrontation.

Iran has now provoked a situation in which Israel and the United States are directly striking its military infrastructure, and that represents a serious failure of their strategy.

And if Israel continues to be the only regional power willing to take the offensive against Iran, something else may happen over time. The quiet alignment between Israel and several Gulf states could become more and more entrenched.

Not because of ideology but because of necessity.

I hope President Trump is taking note. Many of these same governments spent the last few years playing footsie with the Islamic regime, convincing themselves that accommodation would keep them out of trouble.

It did not.

It was a disastrous policy, and the consequences are now impossible to ignore.

Share

Iran: “Death to Israel! Death to America!”

Israel: …

Iran: “Also we’re building nuclear weapons.”

Israel: “You can’t do that. We’re going to stop you.”

Iran: “If you hit us, we’ll attack American military bases.”

Israel: “Okay, America, just so you know, they’re threatening to hit you if we act.”

America: “Wait, so if Israel defends itself, Iran attacks us?”

Iran: “Yes.”

America: “So we get attacked either way because you decided that?”

Iran: “Correct.”

America: “Then we’re not waiting around to get hit.”

*America and Israel attack Iran.

Iran and Co: “How dare you escalate! This is a violation of international law!”

---

We need to understand something simple here.

When Iran says “If Israel strikes us, we will attack American bases,” then the responsibility for those attacks belongs to Iran. Not to Israel or the United States.

Iranian officials openly warned that if their country is attacked they would target U.S. bases across the region, and during the current conflict Iran has in fact launched hundreds of missiles and drones at American positions in Gulf states along with other regional targets.

The argument some commentators are making is that the United States should simply accept that threat and restrain Israel. In other words, Iran gets to announce that it will attack American forces if Israel defends itself, and the correct response from Washington is supposed to be submission.

That is blackmail.

Accepting that logic would mean allowing hostile regimes to dictate American foreign policy simply by threatening violence. If a government can say “If you or your ally act, we will attack your soldiers,” and the United States must therefore stand down, then deterrence is gone and intimidation becomes the organizing principle of international relations.

Imagine the same logic applied elsewhere. If North Korea announced that it would attack American bases unless South Korea surrendered, would anyone argue that the correct response is to pressure Seoul into submission? Would we blame South Korea for “provoking” Pyongyang if North Korea followed through on its threat? Of course not. The responsibility would obviously lie with the regime making the threat.

Iran’s leadership made a deliberate choice to tie American targets to Israel’s actions. That was not forced on them. It was a strategic decision designed to deter Israel by threatening the United States. If those attacks happen, they will happen because Iran chose to make them happen.

The same voices who constantly insist that American foreign policy is somehow “controlled by Israel” suddenly lose interest when an actual regime openly tries to dictate U.S. policy through threats and intimidation. When Tehran says it will attack American forces if Israel acts, the response from those commentators is not outrage at Iran. Instead they begin lecturing Israel about why it should stand down.

Notice how selective the concern about foreign influence becomes.

Reports have indicated that Saudi Arabia was also privately urging the United States to strike Iran. Governments lobby Washington all the time. They advocate for policies that serve their interests. But that never becomes a grand scandal or proof that American policy is controlled by Riyadh.

Because that is not the story certain commentators want to tell.

For people like Tucker Carlson, the only country whose influence ever seems to matter is Israel. Every decision is filtered through that lens. If the United States takes action that Israel also supports, it becomes evidence of Israeli manipulation. Meanwhile every other country lobbying Washington, threatening Washington, or attempting to shape American policy simply disappears from the narrative.

I have no idea why Tucker is doing this, although it is difficult to ignore the financial ecosystem that rewards this kind of provocation. In the end the motive is less important than the result.

The result is that millions of Americans are being given a distorted picture of reality, one in which the regime openly threatening American soldiers fades into the background while Israel is framed as the real problem.

The American people deserve better than that.

Share

They deserve to know who is making threats, who is carrying them out, and who is responsible for the consequences. Only then can they decide for themselves what their country should do.

A small number of recycled clips from Jerusalem showing isolated individuals, some of whom appear mentally unstable, attempting to spit at Christian clergy on public streets, behavior that involves no injuries or deaths and is widely condemned across Israeli society, with no connection to state policy or law.

Here’s the evidence Tucker deliberately ignores so he can keep selling you the lie that Islamic countries and Islamist movements are safe places for Christians:

December 24–25, 2023, Plateau State, Nigeria.

Islamist militias carried out coordinated Christmas Eve attacks on more than a dozen Christian villages, killing at least 140 Christians, burning homes and churches, and hunting fleeing civilians in surrounding fields.

April 2024, Bokkos area, Plateau State, Nigeria.

Armed Islamist groups attacked Christian farming communities in a series of raids, killing more than 50 Christians and destroying churches and homes.

June 2024, Benue State, Nigeria.

Gunmen attacked a predominantly Christian community near a Catholic parish, killing at least 25 Christians in targeted violence against villagers identified as Christian.

July 27, 2025, Komanda, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Islamic State affiliated militants stormed a church during a Catholic mass and murdered at least 38 Christians inside the building, with additional worshippers wounded.

June 2024, Beni region, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Islamist militants attacked Christian villages during nighttime raids, killing more than 40 Christians and burning homes and churches in targeted assaults.

February 25, 2024, Essakane village, Burkina Faso.

Gunmen attacked a Catholic church during Sunday worship, killing at least 15 Christians attending mass.

August 2024, central-northern Burkina Faso.

Islamist militants carried out large-scale attacks on Christian communities, killing hundreds of civilians, including Christians gathered near places of worship, with jihadist groups later claiming responsibility.

August 16, 2023, Jaranwala, Punjab, Pakistan.

Following blasphemy accusations against Christians, a Muslim mob attacked Christian neighborhoods, burning more than 20 churches and dozens of Christian homes, forcing entire Christian communities to flee.

May 25, 2024, Punjab, Pakistan.

A Christian settlement was attacked after renewed blasphemy allegations, with homes torched and Christians beaten and displaced while police struggled to contain the mob.

2017–2024, Egypt.

Islamist groups carried out multiple bombings and shootings targeting Coptic Christian churches during Palm Sunday, Christmas, and Easter services, killing dozens of Christians during worship.

2014–2017, Syria.

ISIS systematically destroyed ancient Christian towns including Maaloula and Qaryatayn, executing Christians, demolishing churches, and forcibly displacing entire Christian populations that have largely not returned.

2014–2018, Iraq.

ISIS carried out a campaign of ethnic and religious cleansing against Christians in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains, issuing ultimatums of conversion, payment of jizya, or death, executing clergy, seizing churches, and reducing Iraq’s Christian population by more than 80 percent.

2023–2025, Iran.

Christian converts were arrested, imprisoned, and sentenced to years in prison for practicing Christianity, with house churches raided and pastors prosecuted under national security laws explicitly for their faith.

2021–present, Afghanistan.

Under Taliban rule, Christianity is punishable by death, forcing all Christians underground and eliminating any possibility of open Christian worship or community life.

Ongoing, Somalia.

Al-Shabaab executes Christians on discovery, with Christianity treated as a capital crime under Islamist rule.

February 2015, Libya.

ISIS released video footage of the execution of 21 Coptic Christian men, murdered explicitly for being Christian.

2023–2024, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique.

ISIS-linked militants carried out beheadings and attacks on Christian civilians and burned churches during raids on Christian communities.

2023–2024, Sudan.

Churches were burned and Christian communities targeted during violence involving Islamist-aligned forces, with Christians attacked because of their religious identity.

November 2023, Tehran, Iran.

Iranian courts sentenced multiple Christian converts to prison terms ranging from five to ten years for attending house churches, citing “acting against national security” and “propaganda against the Islamic Republic.”

December 2024, Rasht, Iran.

Iranian authorities shut down multiple house churches and arrested Christian converts during coordinated raids, confiscating Bibles and sentencing pastors to prison.

2022–2024, Pakistan.

Pakistani courts upheld death sentences and life imprisonment for Christians accused under blasphemy laws, including cases where evidence consisted solely of accusations by Muslim neighbors.

2023, Egypt.

Egyptian authorities arrested and detained Christian converts from Islam for “disturbing public order,” holding them without charge and pressuring families to force recantations.

2024, Saudi Arabia.

Saudi authorities detained foreign Christian workers for holding private prayer meetings in their homes, interrogated them, confiscated religious materials, and deported several participants.

2023–2024, Qatar.

Qatari authorities detained Christian expatriates for unauthorized worship gatherings outside the state-approved religious complex and threatened deportation for repeat offenses.

2022–2024, Turkey.

Turkish authorities denied residency renewals and deported Protestant pastors and Christian workers after labeling their religious activity a “threat to national security.”

You tell me which threat is real.

Subscribe now

CNN has just published a detailed, months-long investigation documenting ethnically targeted mass killings carried out by Sudan’s army and its allied militias. The reporting describes civilians being executed, bodies dumped into canals, and mass graves concealed until satellite imagery revealed wrapped corpses surfacing as the water receded. Investigators traced responsibility back to senior levels of command.

The scale is absolutely staggering. More than 150,000 civilians are believed to have been killed. Nearly 12 million people have been displaced. Entire regions are facing famine. Non-Arab communities have been targeted at checkpoints, driven from their villages, and in some cases wiped out entirely. Women interviewed by investigators described watching their children executed. Weeks later, bodies were still being carried downstream by the canals. A UN investigator quoted by CNN described the campaign as a “targeted extermination of people.”

If concern for civilian life were really the driving force behind today’s activism, Sudan would be impossible to ignore. Yet there are no campus encampments demanding action, no mass ceasefire marches, no viral influencer monologues, and no celebrities posting flags or slogans.

The usual explanation is that Israel is different because the United States supports it militarily, and that protests are really about American complicity rather than the tragedy itself. I don’t buy it. If mass killing only matters when it can be blamed on your own country, that is a deeply self-centered way of engaging with human suffering.

These same voices regularly insist that silence is complicity and that there is always something one must do, even when the odds of success are low. That principle is suddenly abandoned when Sudan comes up.

No one genuinely believes that protesting Israel under a Trump administration is likely to change Israeli policy. People protest anyway because they believe public expression itself has moral value. That logic does not disappear because the victims are Sudanese, yet it is treated as if it does.

There is also a tendency to pretend that the United States is simply powerless in Sudan, which is not true. This is not an argument for American troops on the ground, and it is reasonable to oppose that idea. But the United States is the most powerful military and diplomatic actor on the planet. If it wanted to exert serious pressure, coordinate large-scale evacuations, isolate leadership, enforce consequences, or push negotiations using the full weight of its influence, it could. Even short of military action, there are many tools available.

The reality is not that nothing can be done. It is that no one wants to do anything. Sudan does not offer the emotional payoff or political symbolism that Israel does. It does not fit neatly into Western ideological narratives, and it does not allow people to perform virtue without cost.

Sudan has everything people claim to care about: ethnic cleansing, mass graves, famine, millions of refugees, and overwhelming evidence documented by satellite imagery, whistleblowers, and international investigators. Even CNN could not soften what it found.

And still, there is silence.

Share

That silence says far more than the slogans ever did. Your outrage is not humanitarian. It is selective, ideological, and narrowly focused on one country, while far worse atrocities are treated as background noise.

You don’t care about Palestine.
You care only about the tragedy you can blame on the Jews.

Subscribe now

I am heartbroken. Deeply, painfully heartbroken. For the families whose lives were shattered in a single moment. For the children who will never have a chance to grow up. For the elderly who should have been allowed to live out their final years in peace. For the young and the old, the men and the women, murdered in cold blood while attending a Jewish celebration centered on light, continuity, and hope.

There is something especially cruel about that. About Jews gathering to celebrate survival, identity, and resilience, only to be met with bullets. About a people whose history is defined by persecution being attacked again while doing something as ordinary and human as coming together as a community.

I am heartbroken for those who lost parents, siblings, spouses, and friends. For the people whose lives will forever be divided into before and after. For the empty seats at Shabbat tables. For the phone calls that will never come. For the birthdays and weddings and holidays that will now carry absence instead of joy.

I am heartbroken for the survivors, who will carry this trauma for the rest of their lives. Long after the media moves on. Long after politicians stop issuing statements. Trauma like that does not fade. It lingers in the body, in sleep, in memory, in the constant scanning of the world for danger. That is now part of their reality.

And I am heartbroken for the Australian Jewish community, which has now lost whatever fragile sense of safety it still had. This attack came after years of smaller attacks, escalating threats, firebombed synagogues, crowds chanting to gas the Jews, open calls for intifada in Western streets, and a government that responded with indifference and delay. This was not unforeseeable. It was tolerated until it became undeniable.

And I am furious.

I am furious watching political leaders who did nothing while Jewish institutions were attacked now release meaningless platitudes about condemning hatred and spreading light. Words that cost nothing and arrive only after Jewish blood has already been spilled.

I am furious watching figures who spent years legitimizing hatred toward Jews suddenly posture as opponents of hate. Posting bland statements about tolerance while refusing to acknowledge the role they played in creating an atmosphere where Jews are demonized, isolated, and dehumanized. They cannot acknowledge it because to do so would require confronting the consequences of their own actions.

They would have to admit that Israel is not an abstraction or a political inconvenience, but a necessity. That Jews need a sovereign state capable of defending Jewish lives because history has made it abundantly clear that no one else will reliably do so. They cannot accept that truth because it exposes the moral emptiness of their worldview.

What truly terrifies them is the knowledge that their words do not push Jews away from Israel. They push Jews toward it. Every chant, every excuse, every rationalization makes the case for Jewish self determination more compelling. And that terrifies them more than anything.

Most of all, I am angry because this feels so familiar.

It feels like a pattern we have lived through before. As though every time a Jewish holiday arrives, we brace ourselves. As though celebration is never allowed to exist without mourning trailing close behind. It feels like we are being dragged backward into a chapter of history we were meant to study, not relive.

An era of massacres and miracles. Of darkness and survival. I grew up learning these stories. Pogroms, expulsions, blood libels, ghettos. I never wanted to experience these patterns in real time. I never wanted to feel my body react the way generations before me did. And yet here we are.

The physical sensation is unmistakable. The pit in your stomach. The tightness in your chest. The dread as you scroll and realize how bad it is. As names and faces and videos emerge and the scale of the tragedy becomes clear.

I recently saw a Jewish comedian mocking American Jews who say “this is the worst it’s ever been.” And on an intellectual level, I agree. Jewish history contains horrors far beyond what we are living through now. But it's unquestionable that we are moving closer to those realities, not farther away.

Attacks on Jews are increasing, not decreasing. Jew-hatred is being normalized, rationalized, and intellectualized in ways that should alarm anyone paying attention. And most Jews feel it. That sense that something ominous is building. Not only because of violence itself, but because of the reaction to it.

Because of the apathy. The minimization. The silence. The way Jewish suffering is treated as inconvenient or politically awkward. It feels like nobody actually cares. And the moment Jews try to articulate that, we are accused of demanding special treatment, of centering ourselves, of exploiting tragedy.

There is no winning with people who hate Jews. There never has been. It is not about behavior or policy or morality. It is about identity. If you are Jewish, your actions will be interpreted through a lens of suspicion and hostility. If you defend yourself, you are accused of aggression. If you remain silent, your silence is taken as guilt. The outcome is completely predetermined.

This will not end on its own.

Hatred does not burn itself out. Propaganda does not dismantle itself. The vast ideological machines that normalize Jew-hatred and excuse violence must be confronted directly. And Western societies must finally reckon with immigration policies that import mass antisemitism while refusing to address it out of fear, cowardice, or political convenience.

And for those in the West who think this has nothing to do with them, it does. What you are watching is not an isolated act of hatred but the consequence of years of indulgence toward ideologies that glorify violence, and treat civilian life as expendable. When open calls for bloodshed are excused as “context,” when mobs chanting for death are waved away as political expression, when authorities choose appeasement over enforcement, the lesson learned is simple. It works. The target may change, but the method will not. Societies that cannot defend their most basic norms, safety, rule of law, moral clarity, will eventually discover that the fire they refused to confront will not stay contained. And if this fight is not fought now, many in the West are going to wish they had an Israel to turn to.

I spend hours every day fighting this on my small Twitter account. Most days I am exhausted. Some days it feels futile. The scale is overwhelming, the lies are endless, and the indifference is crushing.

And yet I cannot stop.

G-d promised that there would always be those who seek to tear us down and destroy us. That truth has been borne out across millennia.

But G-d also commanded us to choose life. To defend ourselves and to act. Jewish survival has never been passive. It has always been a choice, made again and again under impossible circumstances.

So that is what I will continue to do.

To speak. To document. To fight lies with truth. To refuse to internalize shame that does not belong to us. To insist that Jewish life has value, whether or not the world feels comfortable acknowledging it.

May the light of Chanukah shine through this darkness. May the memories of the kedoshim who were murdered al kiddush Hashem be a blessing. And may Moshiach come speedily in our days. 💔

Their entire narrative depends on the idea that Jews receive special treatment from the American state. They tell their audience that “you’re not allowed” to criticize Jews and that the political establishment will punish anyone who tries. It’s the foundation of their entire worldview. A formal Senate resolution aimed at a single internet personality fits that worldview perfectly. It hands them an official document they can hold up and say: we told you this is how the system works. A “relatively” marginal figure suddenly gets to present himself as someone powerful enough to provoke the United States Senate. For someone like Fuentes, that is oxygen.

The second problem is Schumer’s selective outrage. He wants to appear forceful when the target is someone completely outside his coalition, someone who poses no risk to his political standing. Meanwhile, people inside his own party use their influential platforms to spread rhetoric legitimizing and justifying the massacre of Jews. Rashida Tlaib has spent years spreading Jew-hatred. She elevates slogans that were designed to justify attacks on civilians and call for the destruction of the Jewish State. She has even attended events run by literal terrorists. Rashida is a sitting members of Congress with real institutional power.

Schumer never announces resolutions about them. He never names them. He never steps forward to draw a line. He chooses silence because addressing this problem would force him to confront a faction of his own party that is large enough to cause political damage. Avoiding that conflict is easier than taking responsibility for it.

Which leads to the real motive behind this announcement. This is not a plan to confront antisemitism. It is a way for Schumer to signal that he is “taking action” without touching the areas where action would actually matter. He gets to appear as a defender of Jewish safety to donors, organizations, and the press. He can claim leadership and the moral high ground while avoiding any internal fight that could cost him political capital. And because Fuentes is an easy villain with no institutional backing, the whole thing carries no danger for Schumer.

The result is a gesture that sounds forceful but functions as political insulation. Fuentes and Tucker will exploit it immediately. Tlaib and her allies will continue operating without consequence. And Jewish communities will be left with the same threats as before, except now wrapped in another layer of political theater.

And in the middle of all this posturing he creates a trap for anyone who voices legitimate concerns about the resolution. If a Republican objects on the grounds that this is political theater or that it hands extremists ammunition, Schumer can frame that objection as sympathy for Fuentes. He can collapse every criticism into the same category and declare it suspect. People who raise the very concerns I’m laying out here risk being lumped together with those who actually agree with Fuentes and Tucker. That blurring of motives is politically useful for Schumer because it makes him look like the sole adult in the room while delegitimizing anyone who doesn’t join his symbolic gesture.

He also gives cover to the small number of Republicans who might actually agree with Tucker and Fuentes. They now have the option to oppose the resolution quietly while claiming they are doing so for procedural or constitutional reasons, not because they share the worldview of the person being condemned. The resolution helps everyone play their tired political games.

A leader who genuinely cared about Jewish safety would start with the people who have power, influence, and the ability to shape public opinion. Instead Schumer chose a symbolic announcement that rewards the extremists he claims to oppose and avoids the ones he doesn’t want to confront.

Share

All of this lets him appear decisive while escaping the responsibilities that real leadership would demand. The resolution costs him nothing and helps him manage optics. Jewish safety is not the beneficiary of this move. Schumer’s political position is.

It’s time the Jewish people had some new representation in this country.

This resolution will disappear into the congressional archives. The damage it does will linger much longer.

Many of the same people who once built their reputations on supposed moral clarity have grown quiet. The voices that once claimed to prize honesty and truth-telling now hide behind pathetic slogans and procedural excuses.

Free speech has become a shield, rather than a principle. Nobody is calling for government censorship or bans. What people are asking for is accountability, a willingness to draw moral boundaries. When someone with a massive audience begins repeating blatant lies or platforms extremists with no pushback, others in the movement should be able to say, “this is wrong”. In no way is that “censorship”. That is what any serious movement must do if it wants to survive.

The endless appeals to free speech are not really about liberty. They are about fear. It is easier to pretend that every criticism is an attack on freedom than to admit that you are too afraid to confront a friend or colleague. Saying that you defend open debate has become a way of avoiding it.

But evasion has a cost. If every criticism is labeled cancel culture, then nothing can be criticized. If every attempt to set a moral standard is labeled policing, then there are no standards left. And when there are no standards, the loudest and most reckless people set the tone. They do not do this because they have earned authority, but because everyone else chooses to stay silent.

The results are already visible. Ideas that once belonged on the fringes are becoming familiar. People repeat these phrases barely understanding what they mean, and repetition makes them normal.

Ben Shapiro should not be fighting this alone. Because he is Jewish, his arguments are dismissed before they are heard. If he speaks too strongly about Israel, he is accused of bias. If he restrains himself, he is accused of weakness. He knows this and continues anyway, but the responsibility cannot rest only with him. When hatred begins to grow inside your own house, it is the duty of everyone inside to confront it.

There are people working to reshape the right into something smaller and angrier. They understand that resentment is a powerful organizing tool. The oldest form of resentment in politics is to blame the Jews. You can take the same ancient story and wrap it in modern populist language about global elites, banks, and media power, and suddenly it feels new again. But it is the same story that has destroyed societies for centuries.

Allowing this to spread will weaken the Conservative movement in every way. It will drive out Jewish conservatives, serious Christians, and anyone unwilling to be associated with hatred. It will push away donors and allies. It will trade thoughtful leadership for online personalities who thrive on outrage. In time, the movement will not be freer or stronger. It will simply be hollow.

A serious political movement cannot survive without boundaries. It must be able to say what it will not tolerate. When people are too afraid to say no to extremism inside their own ranks, they surrender the meaning of their cause.

Silence always feels easier in the short term. It avoids conflict and preserves relationships. But silence is not neutral. Every time you refuse to speak, you teach your audience that there is nothing worth defending. Eventually the people you refused to confront will define what conservatism means, and by then, it will be too late to take it back.

What is at stake now is not a debate over free speech or internal loyalty. It is whether the conservative movement still knows the difference between defending ideas and surrendering them.

While filming one of his “One Bite” pizza reviews in Starkville, Mississippi, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy was interrupted by a 20 year old Mississippi State University student who shouted “F*** the Jews” and threw coins toward him. The encounter was caught on video and went viral. Police reviewed the footage, issued a warrant, and charged the student with disturbing the peace, a standard public order misdemeanor.

Dave Portnoy didn’t ask for anyone to be arrested. He didn’t call the cops or file a complaint. The police saw a man shouting “F*** the Jews” in public and decided on their own that it crossed the line for public order. That’s it. That’s the story.

Every time something like this happens and someone faces even the smallest consequence, the same crowd loses its mind. The aftermath of this incident hit certain corners of the internet and immediately devolved into a frenzy of hate toward Dave Portnoy and American Jews. The narrative shifted almost instantly from a guy screaming antisemitic slurs in public to an avalanche of posts accusing Jews of controlling the police, running the country, and silencing criticism. Within hours, it wasn’t about what happened in Mississippi anymore. It was about how Jews are supposedly untouchable, how “free speech” is dead, and how this arrest somehow proves that Jews have special power in America. It’s the same recycled playbook every time. Take a vile act of open antisemitism, figure out how to flip the story, and turn the victim into the villain.

Disturbing the peace is one of the oldest public safety laws in America. It exists to stop situations that can spiral into violence. Police use it when someone’s public behavior is disruptive or threatening, even if it doesn’t rise to a felony. It covers yelling threats, provoking fights, or creating a scene that makes bystanders fear escalation. The point is to stop trouble before it turns into something worse.

And yes, it is up to police discretion. If an officer thinks someone’s behavior could lead to a fight or real harm, they can act. That is how the law is written. If you have a problem with that, argue with the statute, not with the fact that it was applied when the target happened to be Jewish.

The same accounts now screaming that only Jews are protected know perfectly well this isn’t unique. The same thing happens all the time with other groups, and nobody screams about conspiracies.

In August, a woman in Minnesota was charged with disorderly conduct for yelling racial slurs at an eight year old Black boy on a playground. Nobody claimed the Black community controls law enforcement. She even raised more than eight hundred thousand dollars after appealing for help online.

In July, two teenagers in Massachusetts were charged with disorderly conduct for screaming anti LGBTQ slurs at people in Provincetown. No one said the gays run the courts.

In August, a man in Connecticut was charged with breach of peace after shouting anti Muslim insults outside an Islamic center. Nobody accused Muslim control of the justice system.

But the second it happens to a Jew, the same corners of the internet light up about Jewish power. It is not outrage about the law. It is outrage that a Jew got the same protection anyone else would.

That is the double standard. Everyone agrees hate speech crosses the line when it is directed at anyone else. But when it is aimed at Jews, suddenly we are “too sensitive” and “controlling the narrative”.

Last week someone broke into a Jewish school in Brooklyn and drew swastikas all over the walls the night Zohran Mamdani won his election. Antisemites could not admit it was a hate crime because then they would have to take responsibility for the climate they have so meticulously created. So they claimed the vandal was Jewish and that it was a false flag.

That is their strategy. First they say antisemitic attacks don’t exist. Then when they’re caught on camera they say it’s free speech. And then if the police act, they scream Jewish control. It does not matter what the facts are. They will twist every outcome into a reason to hate Jews more.

If you are reading this, speak up. You do not want to live in a world where people like that get to control the narrative.

What they are really angry about is that, for once, a Jew didn’t just take it.

Two nineteen-year-olds from Montclair, New Jersey, were just arrested for plotting an ISIS-inspired terror attack. One is the son of a Queens College professor. The other is the son of a senior official at the United Nations.

They weren’t poor or desperate. They grew up in million-dollar homes in one of the most desirable suburbs in the country. They attended one of the best public schools in New Jersey, played sports, had access to elite universities, and were surrounded by comfort, stability, and opportunity.

And yet, with all of that, they decided that joining ISIS and murdering innocent people was a noble cause. That should terrify every American.

Because this is not the story of kids who were radicalized in refugee camps or raised in war zones. This is the story of kids who were raised in our own neighborhoods, whose parents were part of the same professional class that dominates the institutions shaping our culture. Their families were educated, worldly, and privileged.

So how does a young man who grows up surrounded by comfort and security end up pledging allegiance to ISIS?

The answer lies in what America has allowed itself to become.

For years, our schools, media, and political institutions have fed a worldview built on resentment. They teach young people that Western civilization is built on oppression, that success is a sign of privilege, that victimhood is moral superiority, and that violence can be justified if it is committed in the name of “resistance.”

This same mindset is what drives elite college students to rip down posters of kidnapped Israelis and chant for intifada in the streets. It is what makes school presidents equivocate about calls for genocide. It is what makes journalists write about the murder of Israeli civilians as an “uprising.”

Once a society loses moral clarity, this is the result.

And when the mayor-elect of the largest city in America refuses again and again to condemn terrorism, that confusion becomes permission. It tells young people that there are no moral absolutes. It tells them that everything can be excused if you frame it as “struggle”.

For a long time, Americans believed we were immune to this kind of radicalization. We assumed that wealth, education, and stability would protect us. But comfort does not protect a society that stops believing in itself. It makes it weaker.

The next generation of ISIS will not come from the deserts of Syria or Iraq. It will come from within our borders, from children who were never taught gratitude, who inherited freedom but were told to hate it, who grew up in privilege but believe they live under oppression.

The people encouraging this won’t be in training camps. They’ll be in classrooms, media offices, and political circles.

America needs to wake up. Stories like this are are symptoms of a deep sickness. If you do not fight for your country and for your children, no one else will.

Share

Societies collapse when comfort turns into apathy and when apathy turns into self-destruction.

It is up to us now. America will not survive if we keep waiting for someone else to protect it.

Not outrage or even shock. Just that dull, sinking sense that the people you thought shared your basic sense of decency don’t actually see you at all.

After watching Zohran Mamdani win, it’s hard to put that feeling into words. It’s not the extremists who bother me. Their hatred is loud, crude, and easy to recognize. What’s harder to accept is the quiet betrayal from the people around us. The people on the subway, in the office, at the grocery store. The people who smile politely, talk about tolerance, post about kindness, and still walked into a voting booth and chose someone who excuses violence against Jews.

That kind of betrayal cuts differently.

Because it tells you something uncomfortable about where you live. It tells you that antisemitism doesn’t always look like what we were taught to expect. It doesn’t always come with torches. Sometimes it wears a progressive label and speaks in the language of empathy. Sometimes it cloaks itself in “justice” and “freedom.” And sometimes it votes for a man who refuses to condemn a terrorist group that slaughtered Jewish families in their homes.

That’s the part people don’t understand. The betrayal isn’t some abstract thing. It’s personal. It’s looking around at your city, at the people you’ve worked alongside, volunteered with, trusted, and realizing that when it came down to something as basic as condemning terrorism, they couldn’t bring themselves to care.

And maybe that’s what hurts most. Not that they hate us, but that we simply don’t register.

Jews have always been the easiest group to overlook. We don’t fit neatly into their moral frameworks. We are both too safe and too threatened, too privileged and too persecuted, too familiar and too foreign. So people convince themselves that antisemitism is someone else’s problem, somewhere else. And when confronted with it in their own backyard, they look away. They rationalize it. They call it “complex.”

That’s what betrayal looks like in the modern age.

Over a million people voted for Mamdani. Over a million people heard him refuse to call on Hamas to disarm and decided it didn’t matter. Over a million people looked past his rhetoric, his alliances, and his record and said he represents us. They should be ashamed to look their Jewish neighbors, friends, and coworkers in the eye. Because they voted to normalize a worldview that treats Jewish safety as negotiable.

It would be easy to blame all of this on ideology alone, but there’s something deeper going on. America is struggling. People are drowning in rent, debt, and uncertainty. They are desperate for someone to tell them they’ve been wronged and that someone else is to blame. In that desperation, people stop thinking clearly. They mistake emotion for morality. They reach for simple answers, for villains to hate, for movements that promise fairness without effort.

That’s what Mamdani offers, not solutions but moral anesthesia. He tells people that their frustration is righteous, that their anger is justice, and that their failures are someone else’s fault. It’s intoxicating. It makes people feel noble without requiring them to take responsibility.

But when anger becomes identity, empathy dies. And when empathy dies, betrayal begins.

That’s what this election revealed. A political shift, but also a moral one. A city that once prided itself on toughness and decency now seems willing to excuse hate as long as it’s packaged in the right words. The betrayal is of the city’s own conscience.

Still, there’s something steady beneath the sadness. Jews have survived worse than indifference. We know what it means to stay standing when others falter. We know that loyalty and truth aren’t measured by popularity or polls.

So yes, this hurts. It should. But it also clarifies things. It reminds us who we are, and what kind of world we’re still trying to build.

The betrayal is theirs to bear. The strength to keep going is ours.

Not just for the Heritage Foundation, but for the entire American conservative movement.

For decades, Heritage represented the intellectual spine of the right. It was built by men and women who believed in faith, freedom, and the moral clarity that came with knowing the difference between good and evil.

It was the home of Reagan conservatives, of Cold War hawks, of those who understood that America’s strength came not from isolation but from the alliances and principles that made Western civilization worth defending in the first place.

That Heritage now finds itself defending Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, a man who has praised Hitler, denied the Holocaust, and mocked Jewish suffering, is a symptom of a moral rot spreading through the American right.

Kevin Roberts says, “Christ first, then America always.” He frames this as courage, as standing up to “the globalist class.” But listen closely to what he’s actually saying. It's not faith or patriotism. It's the language of power cloaked in religion and stripped of any guardrails.

It is also deeply dishonest.

Nobody is trying to “cancel Christians” for criticizing Israel. Nobody has ever said that disagreeing with Israeli policy makes someone an antisemite, any more than disagreeing with President Trump makes you less of a patriot.

The issue is when you charitably host and defend literal Jew-haters, people who call Jews “vermin” and say the Holocaust didn’t happen, and then pretend that doing so is a defense of free speech.

Roberts says Heritage “won’t cancel our own people.” But that phrase, “our own people,” is doing a lot of work here. Because who exactly does that include now? Are neo-Nazis now “our people”? Is Nick Fuentes, a man who preaches venomous hate against Jews, women, and Black Americans, now under the Heritage tent?

The conservative movement once knew how to draw lines. William F. Buckley exiled the John Birch Society from the mainstream right when it crossed into conspiracy and antisemitism. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire because he understood that evil is not relative. It must be named and it must be confronted.

Now, men like Kevin Roberts call evil a “debate partner.”

He claims “we challenge those ideas in debate.” Debate what, exactly? Whether Jews are subhuman? Whether the Holocaust happened? Whether women belong in the kitchen? Whether slavery was good for the South?

No serious moral movement treats those questions as intellectual exercises. They are disqualifying.

What makes this moment so dangerous is the inversion of moral hierarchy. People like Roberts now talk about “America First,” but their version of America First is really America Last. It’s the same ideological poison that has corrupted the far right across the world. A nihilistic nationalism that loves the idea of America but hates what actually made it great.

Heritage was supposed to stand for something higher. It was supposed to be where ideas were tested against truth, not where truth was sacrificed for loyalty.

The old conservative movement believed that Western civilization had moral foundations, Judeo-Christian ones, that bound it to justice, decency, and moral clarity. The new movement believes in nothing but itself.

Roberts says he’s defending Tucker Carlson because “the left is the real enemy.” But what he’s doing, and what Carlson and Fuentes are doing, is far more corrosive to conservatism than anything the left could accomplish. The left cannot destroy the moral integrity of the American right. Only the right can do that.

And that is exactly what is happening.

When the leader of Heritage cannot bring himself to say that Nick Fuentes’ ideology is evil, when he cannot look his audience in the eye and say that Jews are not the problem, then something fundamental has broken.

If this is what “America First” has become, then the American conservative movement has entered its own exile.

Because any movement that cannot tell the difference between faith and fanaticism, between patriotism and paranoia, between freedom and hate, is a movement that no longer knows what it is defending.

And if that’s the future of Heritage, it’s not cancel culture that will destroy it.

It is itself.

When you looked at Gaza, none of that existed. There were no pictures of groups of skeletal children sitting in rubble, no photos of neighborhoods reduced to wandering ghosts. What we saw instead were markets filled with produce, bakeries still open, and restaurants crowded late into the night. Countless videos came out of Gaza, not from Israeli sources or foreign reporters, but from Gazans themselves, showing normal commerce and daily life continuing amid the war. That did not mean life was easy. It was not. War creates chaos. Distribution networks break down. Prices rise. People go hungry. But that is not famine.

Famine is the collapse of an entire social fabric. It is starvation so deep that the weak simply disappear. It is the unraveling of families and the death of entire communities. It cannot be hidden or managed. When famine takes hold, the evidence becomes overwhelming and impossible to ignore. Gaza never looked like that, and the difference matters because words matter. When the word “famine” is used, it is not just describing a humanitarian crisis, it is triggering a political and legal framework. It transforms a tragic situation into an accusation of criminal intent.

The story itself was not new. Gaza had supposedly been starving since 2005. Each year the same claims returned under different slogans, siege, starvation, food insecurity, blockade. The language always shifted, but the accusation remained the same. In 2018, Oxfam declared that a million Gazans could not feed their families. Others echoed it without evidence, repeating it because it was convenient and effective.

Meanwhile, Israel became the only country in modern history to send food into the territory of an enemy it was fighting. Millions of pounds of supplies crossed the border even as rockets were launched at the crossing points. Over two million tons of humanitarian aid entered Gaza during the war, more than enough to feed its civilian population. Yet the United Nations still declared famine, because once you call it that, the entire framework shifts. A famine allows the narrative to move from a battlefield to a courtroom. It turns a war for survival into a moral trial. It lets international organizations accuse Israel of crimes rather than confront Hamas for creating the conditions of war in the first place.

That was always the purpose. The famine story was never meant to describe reality. Hamas understood that it could not win militarily. Its only chance was to win through narrative. Every image of destruction, every hungry child, every collapsed building could be repurposed into a weapon. And the international community played along. NGOs repeated the talking points as fact, journalists published them without verification, and politicians echoed them in speeches. The repetition was the point. Once said often enough, the lie began to sound like truth.

Inside Gaza, food was never truly the issue. Control was. Hamas controlled everything, the aid distribution, the warehouses, the access to supplies. Loyalists received food first. Fighters and their families were fed before anyone else. Ordinary people were kept desperate because desperation creates sympathy. The goal was to sustain the crisis long enough to turn public opinion against Israel.

And the world helped make that possible. The United Nations continued to fund UNRWA, an agency that has long since abandoned the idea of resettlement or reconciliation and instead exists to preserve refugee status indefinitely. Western governments poured billions into a system that guarantees permanent dependency. Human rights organizations repeated Hamas propaganda almost word for word, dressing it up as analysis. Major media outlets presented Hamas press releases as verified reporting. Western politicians followed along because it was easier than facing their own role in enabling a movement built on hate.

If the same claims had been made about Yemen or Sudan, the world would have demanded evidence. They would have sent photographers and researchers. But when it came to Gaza, the absence of evidence was treated as proof. The more the claim unraveled, the louder it was repeated. The famine narrative was never intended to help the people of Gaza. It was designed to weaponize their suffering against Israel.

Now that the war has seemingly ended, the truth is difficult to ignore. Gaza endured hardship and hunger. Lives were lost. But there was no famine. What there was, was manipulation, by Hamas, by NGOs, by journalists who knew better, and by international bodies that long ago abandoned integrity for politics. Yet the damage is done. The famine that never existed will live on in the archives of the United Nations, in the speeches of activists, and in the history books of the future.

Share

That is how propaganda becomes history. The lie survives because it is useful, and the truth fades because it is inconvenient. The famine in Gaza was never real, but it achieved what it was meant to achieve. It turned the defense of a nation into a moral indictment, and it ensured that even in victory, Israel would stand accused.

One of the more malicious narratives circulating after Charlie Kirk’s murder is that “Jewish donors” or “pro-Israel backers” pressured him to drop Tucker Carlson, and that this was somehow sinister. The implication is that Charlie was betrayed or controlled, and that those who supported him financially were secretly pulling strings.

All of this can be made to sound nefarious, but a quick look at the facts and it’s obvious why their narrative is ridiculous. Donors support organizations because they believe in the mission. When an organization begins to platform liars, conspiracy theorists, or people who openly indulge in antisemitic tropes, those donors are perfectly within their rights to withdraw support. That is not nefarious. That is normal. It happens across every cause, every party, and every movement. Pretending otherwise is a deliberate distortion.

Imagine you donate to an organization dedicated to fighting racism, and then that organization begins giving a platform to people spreading racist conspiracies about your family. Would you continue writing checks? Of course not. You would call the director, explain that this betrays the mission, and make clear that your support cannot continue under those conditions. That isn’t a "threat". It is ensuring that your money goes to places that align with your values.

It seems like this is what happened with Charlie. Some of his supporters asked him to reconsider giving airtime to Tucker Carlson, a man who has spent the past year obsessively targeting Israel, repeating falsehood after falsehood, and never retracting even when caught red-handed. Tucker has made a career out of accusing others of disloyalty to America for caring about foreign policy, yet he has devoted show after show to Israel, in ways that are objectively false, factually wrong, and morally reckless. At this point, there is no question that Tucker is not being honest with his viewers.

For Jews, Israel is not just another foreign country. It is the only state in the world that exists to protect Jewish survival. History has shown again and again that when Jews are threatened, the world stands aside. From the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the Holocaust itself, the pattern is unmistakable. Jews cannot depend on anyone else for their safety. That is why Israel matters to us in a way that is not comparable to any other issue. It is about the most basic instinct of survival. So yes, Jews and pro-Israel supporters are deeply invested in how Israel is spoken about in public life. And it's not some dark conspiracy. It is the most understandable reaction in the world to two thousand years of abandonment and persecution.

I don't even care whether someone is “loyal” to Israel. I don’t even know what that means, and the only people who use that word are antisemites. What I care about is truth and intellectual honesty. What I care about is calling out grifting and manipulation when I see it.

This is why what Tucker and Candace are doing now is so toxic. They have not gone so far as to openly accuse Israel of killing Charlie, but they heavily imply it. They leave the dots scattered on the table, knowing their audience will connect them. Their shows are filled with claims that Charlie was “turning on Israel,” that he was growing disillusioned, that there is more to the story than the government will say. They will not say the words themselves, but their friend Ian Carroll already has, and they are content to let his accusation hang in the air while pretending their own hands are clean.

This is how propaganda works. It is never just the open lie. It is the suggestion, the wink, the claim that “we aren’t getting the full story.” It is the tactic of dropping enough breadcrumbs so that the audience does the dirty work themselves. And when the lie takes root, Tucker and Candace can shrug and insist that they never actually said it. It is complete and total cowardice.

When someone spends their days ranting about Jews, Israel, or “Zionist control” with no coherence, that is no longer in the realm of healthy disagreement. That is what happens when conspiracy becomes pathology. To call pro-Israel donors “nefarious” for refusing to bankroll such behavior is absurd.

And yet, Tucker and Candace’s defenders want you to see something dark in all of this. They frame it as shadowy influence, “the lobby,” secret pressure. It is the same script antisemites have been running for generations. If Jews act in public life, it must be conspiracy. If Jews withdraw support, it must be coercion. If Jews object to lies, it must be censorship. The fact that anyone repeats this tired line today shows how little has changed.

The reality is far simpler. Donors are accountable to their values. Charlie was accountable to his choices. And Tucker and Candace are accountable for their words. None of that is sinister. The only sinister thing here is the way some have rushed to exploit a man’s death to launder old antisemitic tropes under the guise of “truth-telling.”

If you really believe Tucker’s endless fixation on Israel is organic, ask yourself why he ignores every other foreign policy issue, why he never admits error, and why he refuses to criticize states openly hostile to America. If you really think Candace is a fearless dissenter, ask yourself why she cannot provide evidence for any of her claims. But most of all, if you really think pro-Israel supporters of Charlie Kirk had no right to push back against that circus, then you have lost touch with the basic rules of civic life.

Calling out lies is not censorship. Refusing to bankroll hatred is not a conspiracy. It is the most ordinary thing in the world.

In short, it’s exactly what you’d expect from The Guardian.

1. The “Israel is not Jewish” Canard

Solomon’s central thesis is that “Jews and Israel are not the same,” and that equating Israel with the Jewish people is “propaganda.” What he ignores is that this “propaganda” happens to be codified international law. The 1947 UN partition resolution explicitly described the creation of a “Jewish state” alongside an Arab one. Israel’s Declaration of Independence makes the same point. One of Israel’s Basic Laws codifies it. This is not an invention of Zionists in the 2020s. It is the foundation of Israel’s existence.

Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland is no more “propaganda” than Irish sovereignty in Ireland. Denying that link is an attack on the core of Jewish peoplehood.

2. The Jewish People as a Nation

What Solomon also refuses to acknowledge is that the connection between Jews and Israel is not an abstract theory or a political slogan. It is a lived reality that stretches across centuries. For two thousand years, scattered Jewish communities — in Yemen, Poland, Morocco, Iraq, Spain, and beyond — recited the same prayers hoping for a return to Zion (Israel). They fasted on the same day to mourn the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. They ended every Passover Seder and Yom Kippur service with the words “Next year in Jerusalem.”

This is not the language of a mere religion. It is the language of a people bound to a land. Nations can be exiled, conquered, and dispersed, but they remain nations. No one would say that Armenians ceased to be a people after their genocide, or that Kurds are not a people because they lack a state. Yet somehow, Jews, who maintained their identity without sovereignty longer than any other nation in history, are told by critics like Solomon that they are not really a people at all.

This denial is a deliberate attempt to strip Jews of their nationhood so that their state can be delegitimized as a colonial fraud. But history, faith, and culture all testify otherwise. The Jewish people are a nation, and Israel is our homeland.

3. The Fabricated “Genocide”

Solomon leans on Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports as if they are gospel. He calls their declarations “evidence,” but evidence is not repetition. Evidence is mass graves, organized extermination, the targeting of a people for destruction. Israel, by every measure, has done the opposite: facilitating aid deliveries, warning civilians to evacuate, providing medical supplies even while Hamas hoards them.

The famine narrative itself is also baseless. There are no images of famine in Gaza like there are from Yemen or Sudan. Israel has allowed over two million tons of food and supplies into Gaza since October 7. To call that “genocide” is to rob the word of meaning and to spit in the face of real genocide victims, including six million Jews.

4. Blaming Jews for Antisemitism

Perhaps the most grotesque line in the essay is Solomon’s claim that Israel is “the world’s most powerful cause of antisemitism.” This is the blood libel updated for 2025. In the Middle Ages, Jews were blamed for plagues. In the 20th century, they were blamed for capitalism and communism simultaneously. Today, they are blamed for antisemitism itself.

The reality is simple. Antisemites hate Jews whether or not Israel exists. Pogroms swept Eastern Europe long before Israel’s founding. The Dreyfus Affair happened in France when Palestine was still under Ottoman rule. The Holocaust murdered two-thirds of Europe’s Jews before Israel declared independence. To claim that Jewish survival in Israel is the cause of Jew-hatred is historical illiteracy of the highest order.

But here is the most important point Solomon erases. No other people on earth are treated this way. Russians are not beaten in the street because of the Kremlin’s crimes. Chinese students are not attacked on campuses because of Beijing’s policies. It is only Jews who face violence for the actions of a state thousands of miles away. And for what? Solomon himself proves the absurdity of his thesis. He is Jewish, and he opposes Israel. Yet if a mob sees him walking down the street with a kippah, they will not stop to ask about his politics. They will not care what his opinion is of Gaza or the IDF. The average Jew has no role in shaping Israeli policy. They do not vote in Israeli elections. They do not serve in the Israeli army. Many have never even set foot in Israel. And yet, around the world, they are targeted, harassed, and attacked as if they are personally responsible.

To blame Israel for that hatred is sick. It is the old antisemitic logic in a new costume. Jews are guilty no matter what they do, and when they are attacked it is their own fault.

And Solomon’s own words expose just how far he is willing to go. In November 2023 he tweeted that “Hamas didn’t attack Israelis because they are Jewish”, a claim that defies both Hamas’s charter and its own rhetoric. Days earlier, he described the “underlying cause” of October 7 not as Hamas’s genocidal ideology but as Israeli “apartheid.” A week later, he wrote that “Hamas is a terrorist organization; so is the Israeli government.” These tweets represent a larger worldview. Absolve Hamas, blame Israel, and somehow find a way to shift responsibility onto Jews themselves.

5. The Lazy Apartheid Comparison

Solomon also rolls out the tired South Africa analogy, pretending that BDS is just a new version of anti-apartheid activism.

Apartheid South Africa denied Black citizens the right to vote. Israeli Arabs vote, serve in the Knesset, sit on the Supreme Court, and hold ministerial positions. BDS and the apartheid smear are solely about branding Jews as uniquely illegitimate, uniquely evil, and uniquely undeserving of statehood.

6. A Twisted Morality

The most revealing section comes at the end, where Solomon approvingly cites Peter Beinart’s claim that Israel values Jewish life infinitely and Palestinian life cheaply. One look at this war would tell you opposite. Hamas values Jewish death infinitely and Palestinian life not at all. Hamas embeds its fighters in schools, hospitals, and mosques. Hamas uses its own people as human shields. Hamas murdered 1,200 civilians on October 7 in the most sadistic ways imaginable, and would have killed tens of thousands more if the IDF had not stopped them.

Yet Solomon never mentions Hamas once in his article. Not once. His moral outrage is reserved entirely for Jews.

The IDF has sacrificed hundreds of soldiers in a ground war that was not militarily necessary. Israel’s air superiority over Gaza is so overwhelming that it could have fought this war entirely from the skies. The only reason Israeli soldiers went in on the ground was to protect civilians in Gaza from greater harm. And yet Israel receives no credit for that sacrifice.

7. What This Really Is

This is not journalism or even honest opinion. This is the laundering of antisemitic conspiracy theories through the language of human rights. It is the same trick we have seen for decades. Erase Jewish history, distort Jewish identity, accuse Jews of causing their own persecution, and then call anyone who objects a propagandist.

Every era finds a new vocabulary for the same old hatred. In the Middle Ages it was religion, branding Jews as Christ-killers. In the 19th century it was race, painting Jews as parasites on European society. In the 20th it was politics, accusing Jews of being both capitalist exploiters and communist subversives. Today it is human rights language, weaponized to strip Jews of their legitimacy as a nation.

The Guardian publishes this under the guise of “progressive” values, but there is nothing progressive about telling Jews that they have no right to a state, that their existence is a crime, and that they are to blame for the hatred directed at them. That is as regressive and dangerous as it gets.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

Norman Solomon accuses Israel of “hijacking” Judaism. In truth, he is hijacking Judaism himself. He exploits Jewish memory, Jewish pain, and Jewish ethics as weapons against Jewish survival. He claims to separate Israel from the Jewish people, but in reality, he denies both the Jewish right to self-determination and the Jewish right to safety.

What makes this essay so poisonous is not just the lies it spreads but the way it cloaks them in moral superiority. It is not moral. It is not superior. It is the same old antisemitism, repackaged for a new audience.

If it was not clear after the attempted assassination of President Trump, or after the cold-blooded murder of a healthcare CEO, it should be clear now. A significant portion of the country has been radicalized beyond belief. Not everyone will pick up a gun, but when enough people are conditioned to see violence as acceptable, it only takes a few to bring a democracy to its knees.

Charlie Kirk built his career on free speech and debate. He was not a man who thrived on hiding in safe spaces or screaming slogans. He walked straight into hostile territory and made the case for his ideas. He let his opponents speak and then responded. He faced hecklers, interruptions, jeers, and he answered them with arguments. He believed that persuasion mattered, that talking across divides was still possible in America. That a man like that could become a target for assassination tells us how far we have drifted from even the minimum standards of a free society.

Political violence does not appear out of nowhere. It grows in a culture where opponents are described as monsters, where dehumanization is normalized, where victory is defined not by winning an argument but by silencing an adversary. Slogans like “resistance” and “by any means necessary” have been repeated so often that violence is no longer shocking. It has become a kind of background noise. When the other side is described as Nazis, fascists, terrorists, or demons, there is no room left for argument. Once you accept that framing, why wouldn’t someone act on it?

History gives us plenty of warnings. America in the late 1960s and 70s was scarred by political assassinations and bombings. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, George Wallace, and dozens of others were shot. Groups like the Weather Underground carried out attacks in the name of justice. The country was not better for it. It was more divided, more suspicious, and more brutalized. Even earlier, the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley changed the trajectory of American politics for decades. When violence enters the political bloodstream, it poisons everything. It never stays contained.

What is most alarming today is the way violence is rationalized and even celebrated. The shooting of a public figure is no longer met with universal condemnation. Online, it is greeted with jokes and applause. Politicians issue carefully hedged statements, condemning violence in principle while avoiding any serious reflection on how their own rhetoric fuels it. New York City is about to elect a mayor who embodies all of these toxic ideas. This is what decay looks like. Not just the act of violence itself, but the culture that refuses to name its causes.

If this continues, the consequences will not be limited to public figures. Ordinary citizens will begin to believe that speaking their mind is dangerous. They will self-censor. They will retreat from civic life. The result will not be peace but silence, and silence in a democracy is fatal. When people fear that words might cost them their safety, the only voices left will be the most reckless, the most extreme, the most willing to risk everything.

Charlie’s shooting is more than an attack on one man. It is an attack on the belief that persuasion can still work, that Americans can argue instead of kill. If that belief dies, democracy dies with it.

There is still a choice. America can decide that this is the line, that political violence will be met with the full weight of the law, no matter who commits it. Leaders can say plainly that they will not tolerate it, not from their allies, not from their enemies. Citizens can decide to stop rewarding those who dehumanize and start listening to those who argue in good faith.

If we fail to do that, the spiral will tighten. The next assassination attempt will come sooner. The applause online will grow louder. Fear will replace trust. And the country will slip further into a place where bullets, not ballots, decide who has the right to speak.

Today should not only be remembered as the day Charlie Kirk was shot. It should be remembered as the day America was forced to confront whether it still believes in free speech, debate, and the right to disagree without fear of death. If we cannot recover that belief, we will lose the republic that depends on it.

Share

Subscribe now

For years, New York’s political class has made a show of standing with Jews. They have walked in our parades, posed for photos in our synagogues, issued statements after antisemitic attacks, and spoken passionately in defense of Israel’s right to exist. That record was built carefully because it played well politically. But now, with a mayoral race turning toward a candidate who has made numerous antisemitic statements and is strongly tied to organizations that relentlessly single out the Jewish state as the world’s foremost human rights violator, those same politicians are abandoning their past positions almost overnight.

Some have gone further than quiet retreat. A number of city and state officials are openly endorsing Mamdani. These are not people moved by ideology or principle. They are opportunists. They see a candidate who looks like a winner and want their name attached to him early, even if it means endorsing someone who aligns with movements that fundamentally reject Jewish sovereignty. They believe the cost of betraying their Jewish constituents is outweighed by the potential political payoff.

Others are taking a slower path toward the same destination. They are not endorsing him, but they are gradually softening their stance on Israel and shifting toward rhetoric that mirrors the activist left. Andrew Cuomo once signed executive orders aimed at countering the boycott movement. Today he speaks in more careful and qualified terms that dilute his past positions.

These adjustments are calculated political decisions by elected officials who know the record and know the stakes. They understand that Mamdani’s politics leave no room for the Jewish state. They understand that his alliances with certain organizations are not a minor detail but the core of his political identity. And they nevertheless choose popularity over principle.

Jewish leadership in New York has failed in a different but equally serious way. The major organizations that exist to protect the community’s interests seem to have been caught flat-footed. They did not produce or rally behind a candidate with the ability to compete. They failed to create a coordinated plan to keep long-standing political allies from switching sides. They could not convince Cuomo or Adams to sit out the race. Perhaps they assumed Mamdani could not win. If so, that assumption was reckless.

New York City is home to the second largest Jewish population in the world. The idea that such a consequential election could tilt so heavily toward a candidate who is openly aligned with the anti-Israel movement without any sustained, public counter-effort from Jewish leadership is almost unthinkable. It is also proof that our influence is far smaller than critics claim, and that the will to use what influence exists is weaker than we want to believe.

This is about far more than one election. Mamdani’s rise would normalize hostility toward Israel at the very top of city politics. It would give legitimacy to activists who believe that supporting Palestinian rights requires the erasure of Jewish ones. It would embolden anyone in New York who wants to import the slogans and tactics of global anti-Israel campaigns into local politics. And it would send a message to the next generation that such a platform is not only acceptable but potentially a winning strategy.

I think about my grandparents often in this context. They fled Eastern Europe to escape leaders who built their careers on targeting Jews and turning public resentment into political capital. They lived under regimes that claimed moral purpose while destroying Jewish life. They could never have imagined that in New York City, in the twenty-first century, a candidate whose politics carry echoes of the same hostility could be embraced by the political mainstream. What makes it worse is that this is not happening through violence or coercion. It is happening because everyday New Yorkers, many of whom support him out of a misguided sense of virtue, are willing to vote for someone like Mamdani.

The Mamdani Effect is a test, and so far the results are ugly. It shows how quickly politicians will discard their commitments when the political incentives change. It shows how easily antisemitism can be repackaged as a human rights cause. It shows how fragile our alliances really are, and how unprepared many of our own leaders are to confront a challenge of this scale. The mayoral race is a warning. If this is how quickly the support collapses in New York, the place with one of the largest Jewish populations in the world, what happens in places where our numbers are far smaller and our influence even more limited?

If this moment does not shock the Jewish community into rethinking how it organizes and protects itself politically, then we will see this pattern repeat again and again. And each time, the betrayals will come faster, and the consequences more severe.

Share

First, consider the anti-Israel influencers.

They are in full panic over The Free Press because it occasionally publishes stories that treat Israel with fairness. And on this point, they are not wrong. The reason The Free Press appears “pro-Israel” is not because it operates as propaganda, but because virtually every other major outlet covers Israel with suspicion, hostility, and contempt. The mainstream press runs Hamas casualty figures as though they were verified fact, it frames Israel as the aggressor, and it downplays or outright ignores Hamas atrocities. In such a climate, even the smallest gesture of balance such as quoting an Israeli statement, reporting evidence of Hamas tunnels beneath hospitals, or acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defense is immediately branded “Zionist propaganda.” This is how distorted the discourse has become. These activists insist the entire media establishment is controlled by Jews. Their grievance with The Free Press is not that it lies, but that it refuses to lie in unison with everyone else.

Now look at CBS. Reports say staffers are “apoplectic” over Weiss’s possible appointment, with some even threatening to resign.

You would think Hamas itself had been invited to the editorial board. Instead, it is Bari Weiss, whose supposed crime is overseeing a newsroom that sometimes treats Israel with fairness. If CBS really were the “Zionist propaganda machine” these critics claim it to be, why would its own journalists be in open revolt over Weiss? The fact that they are proves the opposite. It exposes how entrenched the hostility toward Israel already is inside elite newsrooms, and how intolerant they are of even a hint of dissent from that narrative.

Bret Stephens put it clearly over twenty years ago: “Moral clarity is a term that doesn't get much traction these days, least of all among journalists, who prefer ‘objectivity’ and ‘balance.’ Yet good journalism is more than about separating fact from opinion and being fair. Good journalism is about fine analysis and making distinctions, and this applies as much to moral distinctions as to any others. Because too many reporters today refuse to make moral distinctions, we are left with a journalism whose narrative and analytical failings have become ever more glaring.”

That is the real story. The loudest voices rage that the media is too “pro-Israel,” while CBS staffers panic at the possibility of one editor who might not reflexively toe the anti-Israel line. Taken together, the picture is unmistakable. The press is not sympathetic to Israel. If anything, it is so steeped in anti-Israel bias that the mere appearance of fairness is treated as heresy.

Share

The Question Nobody Asks

Why does the West refuse to ask the people of Gaza what they want? More specifically, why does nobody ask them if they want to leave?

The reason is simple. In the eyes of the Western left, Palestinians are no longer real people with agency. They are props. Symbols of oppression. Vessels for outrage. They exist so privileged activists can posture as defenders of “justice” without ever doing anything that would actually help. They exist so politicians can score points for “empathy” without offering solutions.

Whether Gazans want to keep living under Hamas or whether they want to leave and rebuild their lives somewhere else, none of it matters. Their “allies” don’t care. If they did, they would advocate for real choices instead of screaming “ethnic cleansing” at the mere suggestion of relocation.

The Refugee Double Standard

This is not how refugees are treated anywhere else. Syrians fled their war and found refuge across the globe. Ukrainians fled Russia’s invasion and were welcomed in Europe. Sudanese fled massacres and were resettled in safety. Nobody accused them of betraying their homeland. Nobody called their escape “genocide.”

But Palestinians are the exception. They are expected to remain trapped forever in rubble and poverty because their suffering has become sacred to activists who rely on it.

Why Their Suffering Must Be Preserved

If Palestinians are allowed to leave, the entire narrative collapses. The idea of a “prison camp” or “open-air genocide” falls apart once you admit Palestinians could be freed from Hamas’ grip. The whole script of “apartheid” and “occupation” crumbles if Gazans are seen not as hostages of Israel, but as hostages of Hamas.

That is why the question is never asked. What if Gazans want to leave? What if they don’t want to live under Hamas, in bombed-out neighborhoods with no future? What if they want the same chance every other refugee gets to escape and rebuild?

Western activists and politicians cannot allow that thought. Their entire outrage machine depends on Gazans staying put, miserable and broken.

Hypocrisy in Action

So the same people who call Gaza a “mass grave” also insist its people must never leave. The same activists who call it a “prison” demand the prisoners stay locked inside. And they ignore the role of Arab states, which could easily accept Palestinians but refuse to do so.

Meanwhile, the people of Gaza are denied even the dignity of choice.

Responsibility and Reality

None of this excuses Palestinian responsibility. Many voted for Hamas. Even more celebrated October 7. According to recent polling, a surprisingly large number don’t even want this war to end. But it is still hypocrisy of the highest order to deny them the same escape routes offered to every other war-torn population.

Gazans are not being offered death marches. They are being denied exits. Their so-called defenders would rather keep them caged than see them live free, because without their misery the entire political project collapses.

And let’s not forget why Gaza looks like rubble in the first place. None of this destruction would exist if Hamas hadn’t launched a massacre and embedded itself inside hospitals, schools, and homes. Every death, every collapsed building, every ruined street is the direct consequence of Hamas’ war.

The Younger Generation

It is true that many in Gaza hate Jews. I have no illusions about that. But hatred doesn’t mean they want to keep living under Hamas.

A recent Gallup poll showed that over half of Gazans would consider leaving, at least temporarily.

Before October 7, many young Gazans were TikTokers, YouTubers, and online creators. They saw the world outside and know what they’re missing. They are not as invested in their grandparents’ endless cycle of revenge. Many recognize, even if quietly, that 80 years of “resistance” have led nowhere.

Whether they hate Jews is irrelevant to the question of whether they should be allowed to leave. Nobody is asking for them to be resettled in the West. There are plenty of other countries where they could go if Arab states would allow it.

A Jewish Contrast

History makes the contrast clear. For thousands of years, Jews were expelled from country after country. Spain, Poland, Iraq, Egypt. Hundreds of times entire Jewish communities were uprooted. And never once did Jews abandon their own. From exile to exile, Jews welcomed their fellow refugees. Life itself was always more valuable than land or property.

Now look at the Arab world. Palestinians are barred from citizenship, blocked from professions, and treated as permanent refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and beyond. Even when they escape Gaza, Arab countries slam the door.

The difference could not be starker. Jews build homes for their own. Arab leaders keep Palestinians in chains.

The Accusation of “Ethnic Cleansing”

And yet Israel is the one accused of “ethnic cleansing.” By UN definition, every Palestinian in Gaza is already a “refugee.” How can you be ethnically cleansed from a refugee camp? At worst, relocation means moving from one camp to another.

So their defenders pivot again and call Gaza an “ancestral homeland.” But if that’s true, why does UNRWA exist? Why the “right of return”? Return to where? If Gaza is home, then what exactly are they returning to?

The Truth No One Will Say

The truth is Arab leaders don’t care about Palestinians. They never have. Their misery is intentional. It is policy.

Billions flow into UNRWA to keep the cycle alive. Arab governments strip Palestinians of rights and citizenship, yet the world blames Israel. The only country in the region where Palestinians have full rights is Israel itself.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Jews have shown the world what it means to care for their own. Arab leaders have shown the world how to exploit their own for generations.

The Reality

The so-called “ethnic cleansing” isn’t happening in Gaza. It is happening in every Arab city where Palestinians are barred from living normal lives.

It is time to stop pretending this is Israel’s fault. And it is time to admit what the West refuses to. If they truly cared about the people in Gaza they would give them the same rights as any other refugee to choose life over death, freedom over rubble, and a future over perpetual misery.

Share