When You Say Israel, Be Clear What You Mean

Posted on by
Reply

“Israel’s only existed since 1948,” declared political streamer Hasan Piker during a June 2026 interview on The Breakfast Club, explaining that Palestine had existed for far longer.

That’s moronic.

Piker was comparing a modern sovereign country with an ancient geographic designation. By that logic, Greece is younger than ancient Greek civilization, and Italy has existed for only 165 years.

The confusion arises because Israel is not simply a modern country. It is also a people, a land, a government with a collection of policies. These five meanings are related but profoundly different. Switching between them can erase thousands of years of Jewish history, turn criticism of a government into condemnation of a people, and make Jews appear to be foreigners in their ancestral homeland.

The Tower of David in the Old City of Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)

The Five Israels

The People of Israel, or Children of Israel (Bnei Yisrael or Am Yisrael), are the Jewish people, whose name derives from the biblical patriarch Jacob, renamed Israel. The people existed thousands of years before the modern country bearing their name.

The Land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael, is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, where ancient Israelite and Jewish kingdoms existed, Jerusalem became the center of Jewish religious and national life, and Judaism developed. It is core element of the Jewish people and Judaism.

The State of Israel, Medinat Yisrael, is the modern sovereign country established in 1948, nearly two thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

The Government of Israel consists of the political leaders who govern the country. Governments change through elections, coalitions collapse, and prime ministers come and go.

The Policies of Israel are the decisions those governments make concerning security, diplomacy, immigration and other matters. They can be supported, opposed, modified or reversed.

These five meanings move from the enduring identity of a people and their homeland to the changing decisions of political leaders. Confusing them produces arguments that can sound reasonable at first blush while being historically and logically indefensible.

Making Jews Newcomers to Their Own Homeland

Piker’s comparison illustrates the problem.

The name “Palestine” has been used for centuries, including under Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman and British rule. But the existence of an old geographic designation does not establish the existence of a sovereign Palestinian Arab country throughout those centuries. More specifically, no such Palestine has ever existed. If it had, it would not have needed to declare itself a country in November 1988.

1660 map of “Palestina Siue Terrae Sancta Descriptio” by Jan Jansson. It is flanked by pictures of the life of the Jewish prophet Moses

The modern State of Israel was established in 1948. The People of Israel and their connection to the Land of Israel existed thousands of years earlier. Ancient Israelite kingdoms, Jewish religious institutions and Jerusalem’s central place in Jewish life preceded both Christianity and Islam.

The sleight of hand is simple. Compare the modern State of Israel with the historical land called Palestine, and Israel suddenly appears young while Palestine appears ancient. Then treat those dates as proof that Palestinian Arabs are indigenous and Jews are foreign colonizers. Jewish history disappears through a quick change in definitions. A complete lie appears logical.

Judaism Is a Religion of a Particular Land

Part of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of Judaism itself.

Christianity and Islam, which together account for more than half the world’s population, are universal religions. They have sacred places, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Mecca, but their adherents are not collectively defined as one ancestral nation awaiting restoration to a particular homeland.

Judaism is both a religion and the national tradition of a people whose history, laws and identity are deeply rooted in the Land of Israel.

God’s covenant with Abraham includes the promise of that land to Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. The Exodus from Egypt is a journey toward it as are later prophets discussing Jewish return from diaspora. Many commandments in the Torah concern its agriculture, harvests and religious obligations. Jerusalem and the Temple became the center of Jewish worship.

Even after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of much of the Jewish population, the connection endured. Jews continue to pray toward Jerusalem, mourn the Temple’s destruction, celebrate holidays tied to the agricultural seasons of the Land of Israel, and conclude the Passover Seder with the hope of being in Jerusalem the following year.

Christians do not need to live in Bethlehem to fulfill their identity as Christians. Muslims do not need to live in Mecca to fulfill their identity as Muslims. Jews do not need to live in Israel to be Jews, either. But Jews have a diaspora; Christians and Muslims do not because Judaism is a particular land-based religion.

Zionism did not invent the Jewish attachment to the land in the nineteenth century. It was a modern political movement seeking to restore Jewish national sovereignty in the ancestral homeland. Similarly, Jews did not become connected to Israel because a country was established in 1948. The country was established in a land to which Jews had been connected for thousands of years.

From Criticizing Policies to Denying a People’s History

The same confusion that distorts history also distorts contemporary political debate.

Someone may criticize an Israeli military operation or decision by a prime minister. That is criticism of government policy. But the argument can morph: Israel’s government becomes “genocidal”; Israel itself is declared illegitimate; Zionism becomes inherently evil and racist. Finally, the Jewish people’s connection and rights in their ancestral homeland is rejected.

That’s a preposterous slide from natural criticism to antisemitism.

Consider someone who objects to Israeli Jews living in Judea and Samaria / the West Bank. That is a dispute over policy and territory. But when the argument becomes that Jews are foreign colonizers with no legitimate claim to any part of the land, the discussion has moved from settlements to Jewish history and Judaism itself.

One can criticize a policy without denying a people’s history, oppose a government without opposing the country, and defend Jewish national rights without endorsing every action taken in their name.

When Israel Becomes a Substitute for Jews

The most dangerous shift occurs when Israel stops referring to a government or country and becomes a substitute for the Jewish people.

A Jewish student in New York is not the Israeli government. A synagogue in London is not an Israeli military installation. A Jewish business in Paris is not responsible for decisions made in Jerusalem.

Yet Jews around the world are confronted over policies they did not create, governments they did not elect and military operations they did not authorize. Jewish institutions become targets of protests ostensibly directed at a foreign government. Jews are expected to disavow Israel to establish their own moral legitimacy.

Antisemitism can hide inside this ambiguity. A speaker claims to be criticizing government conduct while advancing accusations against Jewish collective identity. The word remains the same even as its target changes.

Israel

The People of Israel are ancient and their bond to the Land of Israel is ancient. Those are facts not subject to debate or approval.

The State of Israel is modern, and its government and policies belong to the present. They are political beings and entities like others and subject to scrutiny in the same manner of others. No more, no less.

Five meanings. One name: Israel.

New York Became a One-Party State. What Did New Yorkers Get in Return?

Posted on by
Reply

New York voters went to the polls on November 3, 2026, and delivered another sweeping victory to the Democratic Party.

Governor Kathy Hochul won reelection. Democrats retained control of both houses of the state legislature, while candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won additional seats in Congress and Albany.

The Democratic dominance extends to local government. In White Plains, the capital of Westchester County, the mayor and all six Common Council members are Democrats. In the rest of Westchester, Democrats hold 15 of 17 county legislative seats and the county executive’s office. Statewide, Democrats run the largest ten cities, control the governorship, both legislative chambers, both U.S. Senate seats and most of the congressional delegation.

Twenty years ago, New York had competitive two-party government. Today, Democrats dominate virtually every level of government, while democratic socialists increasingly challenge the party establishment.

What has this political transformation delivered, and where will the 2026 election take the state next?

Twenty Years of Political Transformation

In 2006, Republican George Pataki was governor of New York. Republicans controlled the State Senate, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and Michael Bloomberg, elected mayor of New York City as a Republican, was serving his second term.

Divided government required negotiation and compromise. Republicans offered an alternative to Democratic leadership. No longer.

That year, Democrat Eliot Spitzer won the governorship, ending 12 years of Republican control. In 2018, Democrats captured the State Senate, giving the party unified control of state government beginning in 2019.

Another transformation was already underway.

In 2018, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Congressman Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful establishment Democrats in Congress. Her victory demonstrated that socialists could defeat entrenched Democrats in districts where winning the party primary effectively guaranteed election.

In 2025, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary and went on to win the general election.

The 2026 elections extended that transformation. DSA-backed Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier won congressional seats after defeating establishment Democrats in their primaries. Socialist-backed candidates also won additional seats in the State Assembly and Senate.

Political Transformation Became Public Policy

New York’s changing political leadership was accompanied by a substantial shift in government policy.

In 2006, the state’s minimum wage was $6.75 an hour. By 2026, it had reached $17 in New York City, Westchester and Long Island. The state’s highest marginal personal income-tax rate rose from 6.85% to 10.9%, excluding additional New York City income taxes.

New York expanded abortion rights, allowing abortions after 24 weeks to the moment of birth. The state legalized recreational marijuana, eliminated cash bail for many criminal offenses, strengthened tenant protections, expanded paid family leave and adopted ambitious climate mandates which contributed to rising electricity prices. It also imposed additional regulations on employers, landlords and businesses.

These changes were largely enacted by establishment Democrats, not democratic socialists. Yet the DSA’s growing influence suggests that the party’s internal opposition considers two decades of progressive legislation insufficient and wants to expand government’s role further.

Spending More, Learning Less

Public education provides one of the clearest measures of government performance.

New York public schools2005–06Latest
Students enrolled2.82 million2.53 million
Annual spending per student$15,240$31,130
Fourth-grade mathematics score238234
Eighth-grade mathematics score280271
Spending figures compare fiscal 2006 with fiscal 2024 in nominal dollars. Enrollment and academic assessment years differ slightly. Mathematics scores are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

New York more than doubled annual spending per student, an increase substantially exceeding inflation, while enrollment fell approximately 10% and mathematics performance declined. The state now spends more per student than any other without producing superior academic outcomes.

Higher Costs and Greater Dependence

New York collects more state and local taxes per resident than any other state. Housing remains extraordinarily expensive, and homeownership is increasingly difficult for families facing high property prices, property taxes and living expenses.

The strain is visible in migration statistics.

In 2024, approximately 415,000 New Yorkers moved to other states, while roughly 285,000 Americans moved into New York from elsewhere in the country. The result was a net domestic loss of approximately 130,000 residents.

New York also relies heavily on high-income taxpayers, many of whom have the financial means to relocate. Their departures could place increasing pressure on the state’s ability to finance its commitments.

Those commitments are substantial. In February 2025, approximately 6.9 million New Yorkers, or 35% of the state’s population, were enrolled in Medicaid. Total Medicaid spending reached approximately $115.6 billion in state fiscal year 2025, including federal funding.

Medicaid and school aid have gone from 38.3% of the state’s budget to 50% over the past twenty years. It is going to continue to grow because of the leftward movemovement of government, squeezing out economic development, infrastructure and public safety.

The continued departures of residents and businesses will accelerate the pain.

A Change in Direction or an Acceleration?

The 2026 election did not produce a change in direction. It strengthened a political movement seeking to accelerate the state’s existing left-wing policies.

Higher spending requires greater revenues. Higher taxes and living costs may encourage more residents and businesses with the means to relocate to leave. Those remaining may become increasingly dependent on public assistance, requiring still more government spending.

The political cycle could reinforce the economic one. As the electorate changes, candidates promising expanded public programs may become more influential, while those advocating lower spending and taxes struggle to gain traction.

New York may be entering a political and economic cycle in which disappointing results produce demands for more of the same policies, while the residents most capable of financing them increasingly choose to live elsewhere.

The Devil Has a Winning Smile

Posted on by
Reply

The devil does not wear horns, a red cape and carry a pitchfork. That would make him far too easy to recognize.

In his 1942 book The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis imagined a senior demon, Screwtape, instructing his nephew Wormwood on how to corrupt an ordinary man. The secret was not some spectacular act of evil, but a succession of seemingly harmless compromises.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

Lewis was particularly perceptive about politics. Screwtape advised Wormwood to encourage either extreme patriotism or extreme pacifism. The ideology was unimportant. What mattered was making political allegiance more important than moral conviction.

“Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man.”

Lewis wasn’t warning that people would choose the wrong political ideology. He was warning that they would make their ideology the measure of right and wrong.

In 2026, Screwtape might find his work considerably easier.

Consider Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed. The winning smiles, easy confidence and appealing promises of affordable housing, healthcare and social justice. Their supporters feel they are participating in something noble, standing up for the poor and vulnerable, making the world a better place.

A diverse group of protesters holding banners that read 'Socialism Beats Fascism' and 'New York City Democratic Socialists' during a demonstration in an urban setting.

But what happens when the people delivering that appealing message embrace allies who traffic in antisemitism and use such language themselves?

In Michigan, El-Sayed campaigned with Hasan Piker, whose statements about Jews have drawn widespread condemnation. Cenk Uygur’s Rebellion PAC subsequently promoted an advertisement blaming American support for Israel for rising grocery prices and other economic hardships. Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens called the advertisement antisemitic and demanded that El-Sayed condemn it.

El-Sayed said the advertisement was produced independently of his campaign and that he disagreed with its contents. But when Stevens continued pressing the issue, she was told to stay away from campaign events. She ultimately endorsed Republican Mike Rogers.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called her decision a ““despicable betrayal,” and other Democrats joined the denunciations. The political establishment was more interested in punishing Stevens for breaking party ranks than confronting antisemitism.

That is precisely the danger Lewis identified.

First, supporters overlook objectionable rhetoric because they believe in the larger cause. Then they defend the politicians who tolerate it. Eventually, they attack the people who refuse to make the same exceptions.

Each compromise makes the next one easier.

This is not simply the familiar horseshoe theory, in which the far left and far right meet at the extremes. Tucker Carlson and Hasan Piker occupy different political worlds, yet both have promoted troubling rhetoric about Jews and become mouthpieces for El-Sayed. Lewis understood the deeper problem: political allegiance can corrupt moral judgment from either direction.

And here is where his story takes on a new dimension in 2026.

In The Screwtape Letters, Wormwood was assigned to corrupt one man. Today, political movements and social media can turn individual moral compromise into the mass propagation of moral compromise. Supporters rationalize objectionable rhetoric, persuade others to accept it and reward those who join them. Each newly persuaded follower can recruit thousands more.

Evil no longer advances one conscience at a time. It multiplies.

Lewis’s Patient ultimately escaped the demons. But in today’s politics, the danger is that the Patient never realizes he has become Wormwood himself.

When you support a Nazi, you are not clean when leaving the polling station. “Allegiance to party” has a ring of Nazi Germany for a reason.

Smiling Democratic politicians rally behind Abdul El-Sayed after fellow Democrat Haley Stevens endorses Republican opponent for Senate because El-Sayed’s campaign was awash in public antisemitism

The Devil Has a Way with Words

Posted on by
Reply

In 1942, as Nazi Germany was systematically murdering Europe’s Jews, C. S. Lewis published The Screwtape Letters. Four years later, with the horrors of the Holocaust exposed, George Orwell published Politics and the English Language.

Both men had witnessed the rise of totalitarianism and the extraordinary power of evil. Years of propaganda, normalized antisemitism and progressively discriminatory laws had helped prepare the ground for the unthinkable.

Both recognized a powerful weapon in that transformation: language.

Lewis imagined a senior demon, Screwtape, instructing his nephew on how to corrupt an ordinary man. His advice was simple: “Jargon, not argument, is your best ally.”

Argument invited people to consider whether something was true. Jargon supplied conclusions without requiring evidence, allowing people to accept ideas without examining them.

Orwell understood the other side of the process. Political language, he wrote, could be used “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” He took this further: “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Orwell understood how language could disguise evil. Lewis understood how jargon could stop people from looking beneath the disguise. Together, they described how people could gradually surrender independent judgment without realizing it.

Consider how the vocabulary surrounding Jews and Israel has evolved.

Jews, historically portrayed as secretly wealthy and powerful, are again described through their supposed influence and financial clout. Zionists become a sinister political force rather than supporters of Jewish national self-determination. Israelis become settler-colonists, their very presence treated as an offense. Violence against them becomes resistance, while intifada is presented as merely shaking off oppression, obscuring its history of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

Democratic Socialists of America group for Palestinian Arabs decides that no “settler” can be considered a “civilian” and can therefore not legally defend themselves from “resistance groups deploying violence to liberate themselves”

Each expression changes the moral framework. Jews become manipulators. Israelis become intruders. Their attackers become freedom fighters.

Universities gave these interpretations intellectual standing through theories of settler-colonialism, oppression and decolonization. The United Nations lent political authority to similar narratives, declaring Zionism a form of racism in 1975, a resolution it revoked in 1991. Academic discussions, international resolutions and media coverage reinforced one another, lending repeated characterizations the appearance of established truth.

The language appeared in ordinary journalism as well.

In 2021, The New York Times described a “powerful Orthodox Jewish community.” In 2022, its coverage of congressional redistricting again emphasized Jewish “power,” clout and influence. Both stories revived an old association between Jews, money and political control without explicitly arguing that Jews controlled anything.

The same technique could reshape perceptions of violence.

In May 2019, the Times described a Palestinian Arab sniper attack that wounded two Israelis as “a violent but localized expression of Palestinian impatience with Israel’s failure to alleviate dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza.” A terrorist attack was transformed into an expression of impatience, while Israel’s supposed failure to address humanitarian conditions became the explanation for violence directed against Israelis. Absolution via inversion.

As I wrote at the time: “So sublime, you swallowed it whole and didn’t choke on it.” The justification was embedded in the sentence without ever needing to be argued.

By October 7, 2023, the vocabulary was firmly established.

When Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, murdered civilians, committed sexual violence and took hostages into Gaza, some activists and commentators immediately reached for the familiar language of “resistance,” “liberation” and “decolonization.” This was the lexicon of the Ivy League: rape could be rationalized as resistance; murder could be understood as liberation; and the victims could be recast as colonizers.

April 2022
October 2023

The atrocities should have challenged the assumptions. Instead, the lexicon already had declared the victim and oppressor.

What Lewis and Orwell understood was that the most powerful narrative is not the one that wins an argument. It is the one that makes the argument unnecessary.

Related:

“An anti-Semitic Tinge” (July 2014)

Don’t Be Angry at Chuck Schumer for Being a Political Hack

Posted on by
2

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called Congresswoman Haley Stevens’ endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s Senate race a “despicable betrayal.” Stevens refused to support Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed after he campaigned with Hasan Piker, a streamer who has spread antisemitic rhetoric, including comparing a heavily Jewish Michigan suburb to a KKK neighborhood.

Antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker campaigning with Abdul El Sayed

Stevens also condemned an antisemitic advertisement produced by Cenk Uygur’s Rebellion PAC that blamed Americans’ grocery bills on Israel and falsely suggested that American taxpayers finance Israeli health care. El-Sayed’s campaign disclaimed responsibility for the ad without condemning its message.

Schumer supported Stevens in the Democratic primary but rallied behind El-Sayed after his victory. Now he attacks Stevens for putting her principles ahead of party loyalty.

Don’t be angry at Schumer. He’s just doing his job – the real job that is not discussed in polite company.

Schumer’s business is electing Democrats, protecting Democratic seats and building a Democratic majority. He tells Jewish voters that he stands with them and New Yorkers that he fights for their interests. But when those interests collide with those of the Democratic Party, his priorities become clear. His loyalty is to his party. Voters are the means by which he keeps it in power.

NY Senator Chuck Schumer

By way of comparison, consider Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Weingarten speaks constantly about children and education. But she doesn’t run a children’s advocacy organization but an enormous and powerful teachers union. Her job is to protect teachers, increase their compensation and defend their working conditions. When the interests of teachers and students align, everyone benefits. When they conflict, nobody should be surprised which side she takes.

The problem isn’t that Weingarten advocates for teachers. It’s that she presents their interests as though they are necessarily the interests of children. They are not.

New York City public schools spend roughly $34,700 per student annually, yet only about half of students in grades three through eight demonstrate proficiency in reading and 57% in mathematics. A recent New York Post investigation revealed that 99.6% of students were promoted in the 2024–25 school year, despite enormous gaps in academic achievement.

Teachers find it easier to promote students rather than educate them. Parents receive reassuring report cards while children are denied the skills they need to succeed. Teachers get little pushback and the union protects their failures.

Don’t be angry at Weingarten for protecting incompetent teachers; that’s part of her job. Be angry at her for failing to educate millions of kids and denying them skills for the future.

The same applies to Schumer.

The Democratic Party has increasingly accommodated the Democratic Socialists of America and politicians aligned with its ideology, even as their positions clash with those of traditional Democrats. Schumer’s embrace of El-Sayed illustrates a party establishment willing to tolerate troubling political associations to preserve its coalition.

The handling of President Joe Biden’s decline exposed another failure. Democratic leaders defended his fitness for office while concerns mounted, prioritizing their political interests over a candid accounting of the president’s condition. Only his disastrous 2024 debate made the issue impossible to avoid.

Protecting the party has taken precedence over the nation’s leadership, diminishing public trust and leaving America more vulnerable. Joe Biden, Abdul El Sayed, teachers unions. They are all part of the rot of power and party loyalty over principles and patriotism.

Whatever Haley Stevens other political calculations, she refused to place party loyalty above her objections to El-Sayed’s antisemitic campaign. Schumer called that a betrayal because, from his perspective, it was. A betrayal of HIS job as a political hack.

But betrayal of a political party is not necessarily betrayal of the public.

Schumer’s success in electing Democrats is not the same as making Americans safer and more prosperous. Weingarten’s success in winning better contracts for teachers is not the same as educating children.

There is no question that America becomes weaker when its leaders protect political power rather than confront failure, and when voters reward loyalty instead of demanding results that you care about.

Schumer knows whom he serves. Weingarten knows whom she serves.

The question is whether voters and parents understand that they are not necessarily the ones being served despite the smooth talk and lies they are fed.

Related:

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

The New York Times Participates in Antisemitism as It Attempts to Whitewash It to Protect El-Sayed and the Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens did something extraordinary on November 1, 2026. Two days before the election, she endorsed Republican Mike Rogers over her own party’s Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who had defeated her in Michigan’s Democratic primary.

She explained why.

“We have to stand with country. We can’t stand with hate. We can’t stand with Hasan Piker.”

Stevens specifically condemned Piker, warning about his influence on college campuses and the hatred being spread to young people.

Piker is no obscure activist. The internationally followed livestreamer reaches millions online, appears at universities and campaigns alongside prominent Democrats, including El-Sayed at an April rally at the University of Michigan.

Days before Stevens’ endorsement, Piker had compared West Bloomfield, a heavily Jewish Detroit suburb, to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood. “It’s racial supremacy. It’s Jewish supremacy,” he declared.

This was the same community where a synagogue and preschool had been targeted in an attempted terrorist attack earlier in the year.

Piker has a long history of stoking Jew hatred and had previously described Israeli and Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and “psychopaths,” compared Jews in Judea and Samaria to the KKK and repeatedly invoked Jewish supremacy. His rhetoric had traveled well beyond Michigan, gaining enormous audiences and legitimacy through appearances alongside political candidates.

El-Sayed had proudly campaigned with Piker before distancing himself from some of his statements. Another controversy involved Cenk Uygur, whose advertisement linked rising grocery prices to American assistance to Israel, even though annual military spending to it is less than 5% of what America spends on its military abroad, and has sent six times as much money to Ukraine for its defensive war against Russia as the US sent to Israel for its defensive war against genocidal Palestinian Arabs. Stevens condemned the advertisement as antisemitic. El-Sayed only disavowed its message.

Stevens nevertheless concluded that she could not support him.

Then came The New York Times.

Its article, “Inside the Abdul El-Sayed-Haley Stevens Meltdown in Michigan,” explained in the subheading that the relationship had shattered partly because of Israel, “but also because of their sensitive egos and hurt feelings.”

Sensitive egos? Hurt feelings?

The newspaper described Stevens as “still absorbing her primary loss” and feeling “scorned” by El-Sayed’s failure to include her in campaign events. It quoted a Democratic operative blaming the spectacle on “one person”—Stevens.

One person? What about the Jews who were being attacked?

The Times declared that “at the root of the disagreement” was American policy toward Israel. It detailed AIPAC’s spending against El-Sayed, Stevens’ attachment to Israel, her Jewish fiancé, his donations to AIPAC and her consideration of converting to Judaism.

Yet it never named Hasan Piker, whom Stevens repeatedly condemned, or Cenk Uygur, whose advertisement had sparked another confrontation. Uygur became merely “an ally.”

Most remarkably, the only time the word “antisemitism” or “antisemitic” appeared was when this so-tarred overly sensitive person said that “she viewed” the ad as antisemitic when in fact it was widely viewed as antisemitic, even among Democratic politicians.

The newspaper had plenty to say about Stevens’ feelings, Israel, AIPAC and Jewish connections. It could not bring itself to name the hatred at the center of her objections.

Instead, the Times described the rupture as reflecting “a major fissure coursing through the Democratic Party about what its relationship with Israel and Jewish donors should be.”

Jewish donors.

Not Jews being attacked. Not the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric. Jewish donors.

Piker himself had accused Stevens of being “weirdly obsessed with Israel” and having been “paid handsomely for this strange obsession.” The Times did not repeat his accusation, but its framing likewise directed attention toward Jewish money and influence rather than the hatred Stevens condemned.

This is how antisemitism becomes mainstream. The New York Times did not need to endorse Piker’s hatred to reinforce its underlying prejudices. By reducing objections to antisemitism to hurt feelings and Jewish concerns about safety to money and influence, the newspaper helped normalize the very hostility Stevens was protesting.

The Times was no longer simply reporting on attacks against Jews. It had become a participant in perpetuating them.

How the Language of Jewish Supremacy Became Mainstream

Posted on by
Reply

With the help of alt-left Jews.

Hasan Piker recently compared the heavily Jewish Detroit suburb of West Bloomfield to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood, calling its supposed supremacist attitude “identical” to that of the KKK. The influential political streamer was condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for his vile, antisemitic comparison.

But Piker did not invent the accusation of Jewish supremacy. Over decades, language once associated with political extremists and provocateurs gained legitimacy through academics, journalists and Jewish organizations, moving from criticism of Israel to accusations against American Jewish communities.

From Provocation to Political Argument

Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz notoriously used the expression “Judeo-Nazis” in criticizing Israeli conduct around the 1982 Lebanon War. Hamas incorporated conspiracy theories from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into its 1988 founding charter, portraying Jews as manipulating international finance, media and world events. These were distinct episodes that helped establish the historical backdrop.

A modern wave emerged at the end of the century. In 1998, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei compared Zionists to Nazis. In 1999, Israeli Jewish historian Ilan Pappé described early Zionist settlement as establishing “a society based on Jewish supremacy.”

During the Second Intifada, the terminology appeared across ideological extremes. Columbia University professor Joseph Massad delivered a February 2002 lecture titled On Zionism and Jewish Supremacy. That same year, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke published Jewish Supremacism, promoting conspiracy theories about Jewish control of world affairs. Palestinian Arab BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti accused even the Israeli left of perpetuating Jewish supremacy in 2007.

These were provocateurs and political figures operating from sharply different ideological positions. Their accusations demonstrated the flexibility of the terminology, but its use remained particularly associated with contentious political movements.

Turning the Accusation Around

The collapse of the Obama–Kerry Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative in April 2014 was followed by another Gaza war that summer. The language soon acquired a new political purpose: turning accusations of antisemitism and racism back against those making them.

In November 2014, Jewish American journalist Max Blumenthal faced accusations of antisemitism and efforts to prevent him from speaking in Germany. Rather than simply defend his criticism of Israel, he accused American Jewish organizations of using antisemitism allegations to protect their privilege. He argued that American Jews had generally displaced WASPs as a new elite and declared that “pro-Israel organizations on American college campuses are functioning as White Students Unions.”

The target was no longer simply Israeli policy. American Jewish-associated organizations were being portrayed as defenders of racial privilege, reversing the accusation of antisemitism into an accusation of Jewish racism.

American white nationalist Richard Spencer employed a related reversal. Challenged over the antisemitism surrounding the August 2017 Charlottesville rally, he described himself as a “white Zionist,” comparing his desire for a white homeland with Jewish nationalism. Spencer had used similar arguments earlier, but Charlottesville gave the analogy greater public attention.

Naomi Dann of Jewish Voice for Peace responded in The Forward that Spencer’s comparison contained a “kernel of truth,” while acknowledging differences between the movements. Her article asked whether Spencer might be right about Israel. ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt answered with an article titled Zionism Is Nothing Like White Supremacy.

The comparison had become a political weapon. Blumenthal used it to turn accusations of antisemitism against his critics; Spencer used it to defend white nationalism; and anti-Zionist activists found in the analogy a new argument against Zionism.

From Accusation to Institutional Authority

January 2021 marked another turning point.

B’Tselem, one of Israel’s “human-rights” organizations, published a report titled A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid. Its argument concerned the political system governing Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

The following day, Jewish American political commentator Norman Finkelstein, a Princeton-educated author with an international following, explicitly urged broader use of the expression. He argued that calling Israel a “Jewish supremacist state” would “compellingly resonate in public discourse.”

Finkelstein went further, recommending that advocates routinely refer to Benjamin Netanyahu as a Jewish-supremacist prime minister and identify the Anti-Defamation League and British Board of Deputies as supporters of a Jewish-supremacist state. He explicitly invoked B’Tselem’s standing to defend the terminology.

Other Jewish voices added their institutional reputations. In February 2022, the Rabbinic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace declared that Israel’s system of control rested on “the idea of Jewish supremacy.” In March 2023, Peter Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic, CUNY professor and Jewish Currents editor-at-large, called for legal equality rather than Jewish supremacy. Jewish Currents publisher Daniel May discussed the terminology in 2024, while Independent Jewish Voices Canada issued a declaration opposing Jewish supremacy that November.

These were rabbis, Jewish professors, editors, authors and organizations with established audiences. Their participation helped move the terminology beyond fringe polemics into recognizable institutional and intellectual discourse.

The criticism also extended into Jewish communal life. In June 2025, former Jewish Currents editor-in-chief Arielle Angel described a “voracious rot” infecting Jewish institutions. Her argument prompted concern from another Jewish left-wing editor that such sweeping criticism risked making Judaism itself, rather than Zionism, appear to be the problem.

When Jews Become the KKK

Piker had already described violent Israeli settlers as “Jewish KKK brigades” in 2024. In 2025, during an interview with Representative Rashida Tlaib, he compared liberal Zionism to liberal Nazism. By October 2026, he no longer needed Israeli settlers or Zionist ideology as his target. A Jewish neighborhood in Michigan would suffice.

Over the decades, the accusation of Jewish supremacy underwent a remarkable transformation. It moved from the political fringes into respected institutions, from jihadists of Hamas and Iran to prominent Jewish voices, and from a defensive response to accusations of racism into an affirmative charge of racism. Criticism of conduct during wars and political conflicts increasingly became a judgment about the character of Zionism, Jewish institutions and ultimately Jews themselves.

Governments can change policies, armies can end wars, and political movements can change direction. But a people accused of being inherently supremacist cannot reform their way out of the accusation. Their identity has become the offense.

That is a conspiracy theory made manifest, and it will kill Jews around the world.

Four-part series tracking the root of attacks on Jews is tied to believing in conspiracy theories:

Part 1: Antisemitism Around the World: What the Numbers Tell Us

Part 2:Why Did Antisemitism Explode Around the World?

Part 3: When Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories Enter the United Nations

Part 4:The Limited Counter To Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories

Why Are Democrats Asking Jews to Sacrifice Themselves to Save Their Party?

Posted on by
1

What brings together a far-left streamer, a right-wing nationalist and a progressive Democrat running for the United States Senate? Hostility toward Israel and Jews.

Abdul El-Sayed calls his campaign Michigan First. A more fitting slogan would be El-Sayed First or Jews Never.

El-Sayed campaigned alongside Hasan Piker, the influential left-wing streamer who compared heavily Jewish West Bloomfield, Michigan, to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood. Piker took aim at a Jewish community in a state already shaken by an attack on Temple Israel earlier this year, in which El Sayed dismissed the antisemitism of the attacker saying “hurt people hurt people.”

Two men standing in front of a campaign banner. One man, in a black suit, is speaking passionately with clenched fists, while the other man, in a brown blazer and red tie, looks on attentively.
Hasan Piker stumping with Abdul El Sayed

El-Sayed also featured Tucker Carlson, the right-wing nationalist who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and given a platform to Holocaust revisionism, in campaign advertising attacking Republican Mike Rogers.

El-Sayed received support from Imam Hassan Qazwini, who has claimed Israel created ISIS and praised a Hezbollah leader. Qazwini urged his congregation to vote for El-Sayed as a religious duty.

Cenk Uygur‘s Rebellion PAC produced an advertisement blaming Americans’ economic hardships on support for Israel, recycling the antisemitic conspiracy that Jews and their state are responsible for ordinary people’s suffering.

Different political camps, united by a common target – Jews and the Jewish State – urging voters to elect Abdul El Sayed to be a senator in Michigan.

Not every Democrat was willing to look away.

Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who endorsed El-Sayed after losing the primary, demanded that he remove the Carlson advertisement. Senator Elissa Slotkin condemned the PAC commercial. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged El-Sayed’s opposition to a Jewish state.

CNN commentator Van Jones called the PAC advertisement anti-Jewish hate, warning of the historical consequences of blaming Jews for society’s problems. Jones refused to choose which minority deserved protection based on the politics of the moment. His standard was the same for both.

Yet Stevens was reportedly asked to stay away from El-Sayed’s campaign events. Supporting the Democratic nominee was apparently insufficient. She was also expected to remain silent.

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan Democratic Senate primary winner, at a press conference in front of the Spirit of Detroit statue on August 5, 2026.
Split image featuring Abdul El-Sayed on the left, talking, and Haley Stevens on the right, speaking, with a headline about their political dynamics in Michigan.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, herself Jewish, went further. Speaking to Jewish Democrats, she invoked a moral obligation to sacrifice the comfort, safety, security and even the future of their own people for the opportunity to save humanity.

Who gave Democrats the authority to decide that Jews must sacrifice their security for the party’s political ambitions?

Democrats like Senator Chris Murphy have turned the argument upside down, branding criticism of El-Sayed as Islamophobia while failing to confront the antisemitism surrounding his campaign. The candidate becomes the victim, his critics become the bigots, and Jewish Americans are expected to remain silent.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell urged Democrats not to let the controversy surrounding Hasan Piker divide the party ahead of November. Party unity was apparently more important than confronting the rhetoric that provoked the controversy.

The burden has been reversed. Instead of demanding that El-Sayed answer for the extremists he embraces, Democratic leaders are asking Jewish Americans to explain why they cannot simply accept them. The candidate’s associations become secondary; the Jews who object become the political problem.

Democrats have spent years insisting that politicians are responsible for the extremists they embrace, applying that standard relentlessly to Donald Trump. Why should El-Sayed be exempt?

If a politician embraces / welcomes / ignores the notorious bigots to get elected, why should anyone vote for him? If a political party demands that Jews tolerate antisemitism to secure victory, why should any minority trust that party to defend its rights?

A party that unites around hatred of Jews is not a party worth defending, voting for or belonging to. It is not even a party worth preserving.

If saving democracy requires sacrificing the rights and security of Jews, what exactly is being saved?

Related:

Michigan’s Slide on Israel (April 2021)

Rethinking The Sacrifice of Isaac Through the Art of Salvador Dalí

Posted on by
1

The Binding of Isaac (Akeidat Yitzchak) stands at the heart of Judaism. Abraham and Isaac ascended Mount Moriah together, prepared to sacrifice everything in obedience to God. Their devotion became a lasting source of merit for future generations, invoked in Jewish prayers for divine mercy.

The ram sacrificed in Isaac’s place is remembered every Rosh Hashanah through the sounding of the shofar, traditionally made from a ram’s horn. Christianity interprets the binding as foreshadowing Jesus’s sacrifice, while Islamic tradition often identifies Ishmael rather than Isaac as the intended offering. Across all three Abrahamic religions, the story remains a defining encounter between Abraham, his son and God.

But what if another sacrifice has been overlooked?

Consider the familiar biblical story through the surrealist art of Salvador Dalí (1904–1989), a man whose life was shaped by the death of a brother he never knew.

Salvador Dalí: Living in Another Child’s Shadow

Salvador Dalí was born nine months after the death of his older brother, also named Salvador, a name shared by their father. His parents took him to his brother’s grave and told him he was the dead child’s reincarnation. He grew up struggling to establish an identity separate from the brother he had replaced.

The experience haunted him throughout his life, eventually appearing in his 1963 painting Portrait of My Dead Brother.

His beloved mother died when he was sixteen, devastating the young artist. His relationship with his authoritarian father deteriorated into bitter estrangement. Death, substitution and troubled family relationships became recurring themes in Dalí’s life and art.

For Dalí, the notion of one child taking the place of another was deeply personal.

The Ram (The Spectral Cow), 1928

In 1928, at just 24 years old, Dalí painted The Ram (The Spectral Cow), an early work in his exploration of Surrealism. The painting recalls the mysterious compositions of Giorgio de Chirico (1888–1978), placing seemingly unrelated objects in a strange, theatrical setting.

Surrealist artists drew heavily on the theories of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who viewed dreams as windows into unconscious fears and desires. The artists invited viewers to become dream interpreters, examining unusual objects and their relationships to discover hidden meanings.

Dalí’s painting offers an intriguing puzzle.

The Ram (The Spectral Cow), 1928 by Salvador Dali, hangs in the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, FL

An enormous bird occupies the left side of the painting, balanced by a skeletal ram on the right. A strange cloud rises between them, while a mysterious heavenly orb watches over the scene. A tiny dead bird lies almost unnoticed on the ground.

What connects these objects?

Reading the Painting

Consider first the enormous bird dominating the painting. Its wing resembles a giant five-fingered hand reaching toward the heavens and away from the activity unfolding to the right and below. The bird’s head and body occupy the center of the composition, partially hidden by a strange, dark cloud. Its gaze appears fixed on the mysterious orb above.

Is the bird praying? Pleading? And what is it seeking?

The bird’s enormous head is balanced by a gaunt ram, skeletal and seemingly more dead than alive. The two creatures share hollow eye sockets and small curved features: the bird’s beak and the ram’s horn.

But they are looking in different directions.

While the bird gazes toward heaven, the ram stares at the bird’s swollen belly. Curious wisps of hair mark the space between them, drawing our attention to their point of contact. The ram seems transfixed by the bird’s body, seemingly oblivious to the enormous head towering above it.

Why would Dalí have the ram stare at the bird’s belly rather than its face?

The mysterious cloud separating them is equally curious. It conceals much of the enormous bird’s head and body, while the ram’s head barely touches its edge. One creature seems to disappear into the cloud, while the other remains almost entirely outside it.

The cloud itself appears divided in two. A darker mass rises from the ground and envelops the bird on the left, while lighter mist occupies the ram’s side. The dark cloud stretches diagonally upward, nearly touching the heavenly orb, while the lighter cloud obscures its lower edge.

The effect makes the orb itself almost drawn downward, peering through the mist at the mysterious activity below.

And what do we notice as our eyes descend?

Just outside the cloud, a tiny dead bird lies on the ground beneath the ram, seemingly staring upward. It is so small that it barely registers in the composition.

Our eyes have traveled from the enormous bird on the left, full of movement and reaching toward heaven, to the almost invisible lifeless creature on the ground. The two birds appear strikingly different in size and vitality, yet their placement invites us to consider a connection.

Could the tiny dead bird be the fate of the enormous one?

The Child Who Replaced Another

Dalí knew very well the idea of substituting one child for another. He was the replacement for a brother he never knew, born into a family still mourning the loss of its first son.

How might such an artist have viewed the biblical matriarch Sarah?

Sarah had waited decades to bear Isaac, the son through whom God promised Abraham’s covenant would continue. Yet Isaac was not Abraham’s first son. Ishmael, born to Hagar, was already part of the family.

Sarah feared for Isaac’s safety and demanded that Abraham cast out Ishmael and his mother. In protecting Isaac, she effectively made him the substitute for Ishmael, removing Abraham’s first son from the household to protect her own. She was the ultimate protective mother, willing to break apart Abraham’s family to keep her son safe.

Yet in one of the most consequential stories in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Sarah is entirely absent.

When Abraham takes Isaac to Mount Moriah, Sarah never gets to raise her hand toward heaven, plead for her son or beg Abraham to stop. The woman who so wanted a child and had fought to protect Isaac from his brother has no voice when his father prepares to sacrifice him.

Where was Sarah? What happened to the mother whose entire life had been devoted to securing Isaac’s future?

Deciphering the Dream

Now we can understand the mysterious cloud at the center of Dalí’s painting.

It is the altar, rising from the ground as smoke toward heaven.

The lighter smoke ascends above the ram, seemingly carrying its sacrifice to God. The white smoke almost looks like a nose inhaling the ram, signifying the pleasing aroma of an accepted offering. The ram has taken Isaac’s place, preserving the life of Abraham’s beloved son.

But what is hidden in the darker smoke?

Consider the enormous bird reaching toward heaven. Its swollen belly recalls Sarah, who waited until old age to bear Isaac. Its outstretched wing resembles a hand raised in desperate prayer, while the skeletal ram stares directly at the womb that brought Isaac into the world.

The bird is Sarah.

And what of the tiny dead bird beneath the ram?

It is Sarah after the Akeidah.

The Torah records that Abraham returned from Mount Moriah, while Isaac’s fate after the binding is left unstated until he reappears later in the narrative. The ram had been sacrificed, and God’s promise to Abraham reaffirmed.

But the next Torah portion, Chayei Sarah, opens with Sarah’s death.

Jewish tradition has long connected these events. Rashi (1040–1105), drawing on earlier midrash, explains that Sarah died upon hearing news of Isaac’s near-sacrifice. The shock of learning what had almost happened to her beloved son caused her death.

Here, the painting’s dark smoke conceals the death of Sarah, while its lighter smoke carries the ram toward heaven. The enormous bird reaching upward and the tiny lifeless creature below become two images of the same mother, before and after the Akeidah.

The ram was sacrificed in Isaac’s place. Sarah died because Isaac was nearly sacrificed.

The Voice of Sarah

For thousands of years, Jews have sounded the ram’s horn on Rosh Hashanah, recalling Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son and God’s mercy in sparing him. The ram became a permanent symbol of devotion, its sacrifice remembered with every blast of the shofar.

But Sarah’s sacrifice presents a more troubling question. Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac, and Isaac was spared. Sarah received no command, made no choice and was given no opportunity to intervene. The mother who had spent her life protecting her son may have been the only person to die because of the Akeidah.

Jewish tradition celebrates Abraham’s obedience and Isaac’s willingness. Yet through Dalí’s surrealist lens, the story also becomes one of a mother whose devotion was no less profound, but whose suffering remained outside the biblical narrative.

Perhaps the shofar’s haunting cry recalls more than the ram that died. Perhaps it also gives voice to Sarah, whose sacrifice was never requested, whose consent was never sought, and whose life was never spared.

The Limited Counter To Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories

Posted on by
3

Part four, Summary: The root cause of most antisemitic attacks comes from a belief in conspiracy theories. There are limited ways of combatting it.

Israel has become a catalyst for people already primed to see the world through conspiracy theories. They imagine Jews acting as a single force, secretly controlling media, finance, and governments for their own benefit. Israel gives this old story a contemporary focus: anger at a Jewish state becomes suspicion of Jews everywhere.

Politicians and entertainers help give these ideas a public voice. Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke of “the same people” profiting “from Gaza to Detroit”; and Rep. Ilhan Omar dismissed support for Israel as “all about the Benjamins.” Musician Ye claimed “Jewish people have owned the Black voice”; and Roger Waters called the “Jewish lobby” extraordinarily powerful in the music business. Actor Mel Gibson blamed Jews for “all the wars in the world,” while French comedian Dieudonné called Jews a “sect.”

Social media carries these claims to young audiences. The United Nations give them institutional authority when antisemitic theories enter official reports. The three-part series traced that path:

  1. When Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories Enter the United Nations
  2. Antisemitism Around the World: What the Numbers Tell Us
  3. Why Did Antisemitism Explode Around the World?

The next question is harder: how do we stop conspiracy theories from taking hold? The evidence offers little reason for easy confidence. A 2026 meta-analysis of 56 study samples found only a small average effect from interventions, with much of the underlying research carrying a high risk of bias. Still, “fact-checking conspiracy claims,” was viewed favorably.

Prebunking – teaching people to recognize manipulation before they encounter it – is one promising approach according to the ADL, but its success is limited. A classroom study found that a 45-minute lesson presenting antisemitism as a recurring conspiracy reduced students’ endorsement of several antisemitic tropes. The finding offers a practical lead, not a settled solution.

Conspiracy theories about Jews have endured by adapting to each new crisis. In a post-COVID world shaped by distrust, social media incentives, and increasingly capable Artificial Intelligence, they are likely to find new audiences and spread faster.

Related:

The Center Of Intersectionality Sounds Like Adolf Hitler (July 2023)