October 7s of 2001 and 2023: Global Jihad Against Infidels

Posted on by
1

On October 7, 2001, Osama bin Laden released a speech just hours after the United States began airstrikes in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The message wasn’t veiled nor political. It was explicitly religious: a jihad.

Bin Laden declared, “America struck by God Almighty in one of its vital organs, so that its greatest buildings are destroyed. Grace and gratitude to God,” praising Allah for the 9/11 attacks. He wasn’t waging war over oil, sanctions, or American foreign policy. He was answering what he believed was a divine command to wage jihad—to rid Muslim lands of infidels.

“God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America. May God bless them and allot them a supreme place in heaven.”

Osama Bin Laden on October 7, 2001, praying for the Islamic terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks on the United States

This was a war incumbent upon “every Muslim,” not Afghanis or Iraqis. It was a battle against “infidels,” not just Americans. Bin Laden cast western values as “paganism,” stoking a religious war. He was incensed about American troops in the “Peninsula of Muhammad” (Saudi Arabia) and Jews living in “Palestine.”

Osama Bin Laden speech on October 7, 2001, just after America began to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

Exactly 22 years later, on October 7, 2023, the radical Islamist group Hamas unleashed an unprovoked massacre against Israeli civilians, murdering babies, burning families alive, raping women, and taking hundreds hostage. The attack was ideological, theological, and genocidal. And the date was no coincidence. It marked a continuation of the same jihad that bin Laden declared in 2001—a war against Jews and the West, justified not by grievances, but by scripture.

The Global Jihad Doctrine

The doctrine of jihad—holy war in the path of Allah—is foundational to groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State. It is not merely an internal spiritual struggle, as modern apologists in the West often portray it. For these groups, jihad is a call to arms against unbelievers, to expand the domain of Islam and purify it of non-Muslim presence.

Bin Laden was clear in 2001: the “world [is divided] into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels… Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing and the wind of change is blowing to remove evil from the Peninsula of Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

It was an echo of Hamas’s foundational charter: “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people (Article 28) and “the spread of vice on earth and the destruction of religious values… fight with the warmongering Jews.” (Article 32) Their twisted view of Islam is that a religious jihad is a clash of good Muslims versus evil non-Muslims that can only be resolved through violence: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time.” (Article 13)

On the anniversary of America’s war on terror, Hamas launched what it called the “Al-Aqsa Flood”, naming the massacre after an Islamic mosque in Jerusalem. The Arabs slaughtered civilians in their homes and at a music festival as an offering to Allah. Dead women were paraded through Gaza to the cheers of the crowd, a spectacle with no military purpose other than to rile up Gazans to scream “Allahu Akhbar” God is greater – than you.

Murdered Young woman paraded through streets of Gaza to cheering crowds which spat on her body on October 7, 2023.

The enemy, in their eyes, is not just Israeli or US policy—it is the very existence of Jews, Christians, and secularism in lands they define as Islamic.

The War the West Refuses to Recognize

Despite the clear intent, the West continues to deny the religious nature of this war. Politicians, academics, and media pundits try to cast Hamas as a localized “resistance movement,” or claim it’s a response to the Israeli government. But Hamas’s founding documents and speeches speak for themselves. Their goal is not statehood. It is the total eradication of the Jewish people from what they view as purely Islamic land, or as Bin Laden calls it, “dar al-Islam.”

Radical Islamists believe that Israel is a temporary entity, just as Russian and American presence in Afghanistan was short-lived. American troops fleeing Kabul in 2021 was a confirmation of their beliefs, much like Israel’s abandoning Gaza in 2005. Allah rewards perseverance. Time is on their side.

Jihadists in the Islamic Republic of Iran call America the “Big Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan.” Perhaps it is time to state the obvious inverse: Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the “Big Satans” and Hamas and Hezbollah are the “Little Satans.”

Until the West acknowledges that jihad is not a grievance but a theology, it will continue to lose the war it refuses to name. October 7 was not an aberration; it was a declaration. It is being repeated on western streets under the banner “globalize the Intifada,” and excused by radical politicians to secure power to defeat capitalism and Judeo-Christian values.

Unless the west answers with moral clarity, military resolve, and promotes moderate Muslims, the tidal wave of jihadists will drown us before long.

Related:

For The Love Of Jihad (June 2025)

Globalize The Intifada With Socialists (May 2024)

The Normalization Deformity: No To Zionism and Peace; Yes To Massacres and Terrorism In a Global Intifada (January 2024)

The DSA Is Systematically Coming For Zionist Jews (August 2023)

The Epicenters, Diameter and Echoes of 9/11 (September 2021)

I’m Offended, You’re Dead (February 2015)

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel (September 2014)

Names and Narrative: “Two State Solution” Versus “Question of SAPs”

Posted on by
1

For decades, diplomats, academics, and international institutions have spoken in rote terms about a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. The problem is that such framing is intellectually dishonest and dangerously outdated.

There already is a state—Israel. It is not a hypothetical solution; it is a living reality. A sovereign nation with a vibrant democracy, a powerful military, a thriving economy, and a diverse citizenry, including over two million Arab citizens. Israel has fought for its survival, defended its borders, absorbed Jewish refugees from around the world, and became the most advanced and liberal society in the Middle East.

It is not a concept to be debated—it is a geopolitical fact.

Framing Israel as one part of a “two-state solution,” as if it were an idea or obstacle fundamentally misrepresents the situation. It inherently delegitimizes the struggle of millions of Israelis who sacrificed to build their nation since 1948 and casts their future into uncertainty.

We are not in 1947.

So let’s reframe the question. The only real debate is about the SAPs—the stateless Arab from Palestine. What is the just, secure, and realistic political future for them?

That opens multiple options—not a binary choice between creating “Palestine” or “occupation,” but a nuanced discussion based on facts on the ground and historical behavior. It reorients the discussion to the SAPs who seek an answer and thereby considers THEIR statements, sentiments, and actions rather than placing the scrutiny and opprobrium on Israel, which inherently strips SAPs of agency and responsibility.

Should the SAPs get a full sovereign state even after the dominant political party engaged in genocidal acts? Can SAPs be trusted with statehood and a military while state media glorifies terrorism and denies both Jewish history and Israel’s right to exist, and tramples on human rights?

Now, under the misguided focus on Israel as part of the “two-state solution,” the United Nations Human Rights Council has a standing item (Agenda 7) focused only on Israel. Similarly, UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which only reviews the actions of Israel. Nowhere does the UN focus on the actions and statements of SAPs and their leadership to consider the best course for their future. It’s a fatal flaw, one of many self-inflicted tragedies that the UN has instilled into the region.

The UN fails to comment and address:

  • The Palestinian Authority (PA) priority on paying salaries to the families of terrorists.
  • The barbaric attack of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on October 7, 2023, and overwhelming support it had amongst SAPs.
  • The vile antisemitic Hamas foundational charter which brought the party to 58% of parliament.
  • The ongoing failure of Palestinian parties to reconcile under a single governing entity.
  • The deeply corrupt and unpopular PA.
  • A deformity in local culture in which the majority of SAPs have always wanted to kill Jewish Israeli civilians.
  • A PA media and school system that promotes antisemitism and incites hatred.
  • A society with various armed groups which refuse to disarm that are more popular than the PA.

Instead, the UN focuses on misdirection towards Israel and masquerades the reality of SAPs. It gives the PA seats at UN panels and committees even though it has no power, support or authority, parading a fake caricature of the situation. This does nothing to help SAPs address the failure of its society nor hold it accountable for its actions.

For the UN, the answer to the question of SAPs is the creation of a new state for local Arabs which should be Jew-free. Remarkably, the global body cannot ponder that such goal is deeply antisemitic. Equally as pathetic, the failure to consider any other solution to statehood grants SAPs a free hand to commit any sort of atrocity.

The Question of SAPs must not have a forgone conclusion. That approach has failed for years at the price of thousands of lives.

Maybe SAPs can have a state-minus—something akin to post-WWII Japan: self-governance, civil services, education, cultural autonomy—but demilitarized, with security handled by an external guarantor to prevent further war and terror.

Or perhaps certain areas of the West Bank could be confederated with Jordan, whose population is majority SAPs already. Maybe Jordan itself should be divided whereby a section would be part of a Palestinian State together with parts of the West Bank.

The area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) might remain under Israeli sovereignty with SAPs having semi-autonomous status—akin to Native American reservations in the U.S., which have self-rule in many areas but rely on the larger state for defense, currency, and diplomacy. Or the areas get annexed and the residents get Israeli citizenship.

These are serious, legitimate proposals worthy of debate.

Buildings on both sides of Security barrier in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)

But let’s be clear: any outcome is about solving the question of what to do with the SAPs. It is not about creating two states. Israel is already there.

The time has come to retire the “two-state solution” slogan. Not because peace is impossible—but because clarity and focus are essential.

Related:

The Distant Fantasy Of Two States Living Side By Side In Today’s Reality (August 2024)

The Three “Two-State Solution”s (December 2023)

“Two States For Two People” And An Arab “Right Of Return” Are Mutually Exclusive (September 2023)

From Lee Rigby to The I.D.F.: UK’s Conversion To Jihadism

Posted on by
2

On May 22, 2013, the streets of London ran red with the blood of a British soldier. Lee Rigby, a young drummer and veteran of Afghanistan, was savagely killed and hacked in broad daylight by two men shouting “Allahu Akbar.” The killers were converts to Islam, driven by jihadist ideology, determined to murder a British soldier as vengeance for the United Kingdom’s involvement in the War on Terror.

Lee Rigby (1987-2013) didn’t die while a soldier fighting in Afghanistan, but while walking on the streets of London

The attackers didn’t flee the scene. They stood there, hands dripping with blood, speaking calmly to a bystander’s camera, stating their religious motivation and intent. Rigby was targeted not for who he was as a person, but because of the uniform he wore — because he was part of a democratic nation that dared to fight radical Islamism abroad.

Flash forward to UK’s Glastonbury Festival in June 2025.

A crowd of thousands cheered and danced as the band Bob Vylan stood on stage and led them in a chant: “Death, death to the IDF.” Cheers. Applause. Raised fists. The UK’s biggest music festival turned into a public bloodlust rally, reminiscent not of peace and love but of Tehran rallies and Hamas parades in Gaza.

The same United Kingdom that once mourned Lee Rigby now hosts musical mobs screaming for Israeli soldiers — who are, like Rigby, young conscripts — to be hunted down and murdered. The shift is not just disturbing; it’s revelatory. The British public has not simply forgotten Rigby. It has been slowly conditioned to join the other side.

Bob Vylan celebrated by thousands at British music festival after calling for the murder of Israeli soldiers

What changed? The two Nigerian-born converts who killed Rigby were once on the fringes, denounced by the press and public as monsters. But the ideology that drove them — jihadism blended with anti-Western, anti-Semitic venom — is no longer beyond the pale in western cities. It’s broadcast on stages, shouted from union podiums, printed on placards at “Free Palestine” marches, and justified in classrooms as “decolonization.”

From the beheading of a soldier in Woolwich to mobs calling for the deaths of Jews in Glastonbury, Britain has not gone soft; it has gone sick.

Islamist terror was once the enemy of the nation. Now, it’s being mainstreamed and rebranded as some twisted form of “justice.”

The chants at Glastonbury weren’t about military critique or foreign policy. They were blood chants. Calls to murder the soldiers of the world’s only Jewish state. Just like Rigby, IDF soldiers are conscripts. They are fighting a defensive war on radical Islam — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran — just as Rigby once fought al Qaeda and the Taliban. Their enemies are the same; their battlefields different.

But instead of solidarity, Jewish soldiers are demonized. Instead of mourning victims of jihad, Brits chant in chorus with the same ideology that murdered their own.

This is not coincidence. It is the result of years of ideological infiltration. Islamism, wrapped in the cloth of anti-imperialism, has become fashionable among youth and elites. Hamas propaganda has found its way into British classrooms, British parliaments, British airwaves — and now British music festivals, not dissimilar to the Nova Festival in Israel in which thousands of Gazans mowed down and raped concert goers.

Consider that the UK banned Hamas as a terror group in 2021, yet its slogans are alive and well in 2025. “Globalize the Intifada” has more sway than Democratic law.

The murderers of Lee Rigby told the British public they were coming for them. “You people will never be safe,” they said. Over the next twelve years, Brits have responded: We won’t only abandon the war on radical Islamism, we’ll join the jihad.

News report from 2013 by the jihadists who murdered Lee Rigby on the streets of the UK

The jihadist dream was never just about bombs and blood. It was about conquest — ideological, demographic and territorial. That process has been in motion across Europe, but the UK is perhaps its most advanced test case.

From Rigby to Glastonbury, Britain has undergone a chilling conversion. Not to Islam, but to jihadism — masked as progressive, broadcast as pop culture, and absorbed by a population eager to cheer with the mob.

A country that once mourned for its murdered soldier now cries for the death of others. That is not a battle lost but a societal surrender.

Related:

For The Love Of Jihad (June 2025)

End the War: Ban Hamas, Permanently (June 2025)

Sick Societies Awash In Antisemitism (November 2024)

Israel And Jews Everywhere Must Be Protected As An Ethnic, Religious And Linguistic Minority (September 2022)

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France (May 2017)

My Terrorism (January 2015)

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel. (June 2014)

New York Times and Jewish Democratic Leaders Reverse On Mamdani

Posted on by
Reply

Before the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, The New York Times editorial board wrote that Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani was “uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges” due to his complete lack of experience in running organizations, negotiating contracts and impractical solutions for the largest city in the country. After Mamdani won the primary, the paper quickly churned out articles casting him in a positive light.

First the Times posted puff pieces about “Zohran Mamdani’s Winning Style,” followed a few hours later by “The Parents Who Helped Shape Zohran Mamdani’s Politics.”

Just a few hours later there was an article on “The Age-Old Question Behind the New York Mayor’s Race,” followed ten minutes later by an opinion piece “Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani.”

The next day, the paper continued its posting frenzy. First it posted about unions switching to support Mamdani and the alt-left politician’s courting Black voters. Then it posted twice about the Mamdani’s social media campaign and success with young voters.

The paper seemed to have an artificial intelligence blogger on autopilot, trying to familiarize the world with this inexperienced 33-year old extremist, and cast him in a positive light.

Why the sudden flip? Why did the Times choose to ignore the millions of New Yorkers who loathe the politics and economic plan of the far-left socialist and fear his hatred for the Jewish State fighting a multifront war? Why pretend that the paper had never recommended that voters stay away from Mamdani?

It’s a terrifying reality of today’s world where party loyalty is paramount over anything else.

And it’s not just the Times. Jewish New York politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Jerry Nadler ran to support Mamdani after his win, abandoning the majority of the 1.4 million Jews in the city who think of Mamdani the way those two politicians think of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. #AnyoneButMamdani. #MadManny

In an embarassing – and more frequent – dynamic, non-Jewish New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand had no issue calling out Mamdani for his hateful rhetoric. While Schumer and Nadler have become the WOAT, “Worst Of All Time,” non-Jews are proving themselves better allies than fellow Jews.

While millions of New Yorkers are attempting to figure out how to keep a radical socialist out of Gracie Mansion, leaders of the Democratic party are rallying around the primary winner whom they know is unfit and dangerous, whom they had shunned. Such is politics today: an ugly circus in which loyalty is in the center ring and the ringmasters sacrifice innocent heads in the mouths of tigers.

Related:

From Vienna to Queens: Karl Lueger, Zohran Mamdani, and the Politics of Polite Antisemitism

Make New York Bankrupt Again: The Danger of Mamdani and 21st Century Socialism

The Normalization Deformity: No To Zionism and Peace; Yes To Massacres and Terrorism In a Global Intifada

Be A Proud DINO And Expunge Extremists

Perceived Antisemitism, Real Islamophobia, and The Lesson of Korach

Posted on by
1

Anti-Jewish attacks in the United States have escalated from words to actions over the past two years. While antisemitism has always been the most prevalent hatred in the United States, the alarming escalation has even caught the attention of media that helped promote the Jew hatred for years.

In June 2025 articles and opinions, the New York Times called out attacks on Jews, seemingly ignoring its past of ignoring the scourge, and encouraging attacks with smears that Jews are “powerful” and steal money from public schools and taxpayers.

Yet it rationalized the attacks, even as it condemned people for making excuses for it.

The Times – which has long attempted to argue that despising the Jewish State is not antisemitism – said that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs is the reason that American Jews are being attacked. In a June 2 article, the author noted that in three recent attacks, “In Colorado and Washington, authorities said, the suspects shouted “Free Palestine” on the scene. In Pennsylvania, the arsonist later said he had set the fire as a response to Israeli attacks on Palestinians.”

Rather than state the obvious, that the antisemitic chants to “globalize the intifada” have gathered supporters who are killing Jews, it placed the blame on the Jewish State. It therefore made Jews responsible for antisemitic hate crimes rather than condemn the globalization of Jew-hatred. It’s a form of blood libel, where Jews only have themselves to blame for the world hating them.

The Times would do no such acrobatics about anti-Muslim verbal attacks on Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

New York Times article on June 27, 2025

The Times did not mention the latest US battle against the Islamic Republic of Iran which refers to America as the “Great Satan.” It did not bring up possible Iranian sleeper cells attacking Americans. It did not mention Houthi Muslims in Yemen attacking American ships. It did not mention the US-designated terrorist political jihadi group Hamas launching a war on Israel, an American ally, slaughtering 1,200 people and taking 250 people hostage.

There was no global backdrop of Muslim countries and groups attacking Americans and American interests in contextualizing “anti-Muslim attacks” as it did about attacks on Jews.

Instead, the Times sought to recast the discussion into an issue of racism from the “right” and “Republicans.” It repeats the narratives of the paper: only White Republicans are racist, and anti-Muslim attacks are real and recognizable.

The Gap In Storytelling in Anti-Jew and Anti-Muslim Attacks

In the Times’ accounts, Jews are a monolith. Every Jew is responsible for the action of any other Jew on the planet unless they actively and publicly shed such association. For example, for centuries, Jews were labeled as Christ killers – unless they converted to Christianity. Today, they need to declare themselves anti-Zionists to shed blood libel accusations.

Not so for Muslims. A Palestinian-American need not account for the barbaric crimes of Hamas. It is similarly understood that a Muslim in the U.S. should not be vilified for the antisemitic actions of Iran or any other Islamic country.

To suggest that all Muslims are accountable for the action of any Muslim around the world would be labeled racist. Yet it is rationalized for Jews. Jews are viewed as a single unit while distinctions are made for other religious groups.

The gap in the Times’ storytelling is itself telling.

Korach And Tzitzit

In this week’s Torah portion, Korach incites a mini rebellion against Moses (Numbers 16). He charged Moses of elevating himself above the rest of the Jews, even though “all the community are holy” (16:3). Korach argued that everyone should be viewed as equals, with no distinction or ranking.

Rabbi Jonathan Sachs pointed out that this story comes immediately after the law of tzitzit in the Torah. That commandment called for a unique single blue thread amongst others on the garment on one hand, but on the other, everyone had the same commandment to wear such garment. Korach argued that just like everyone wore tzitzit with the royal blue color thread, everyone had the same level of holiness.

Korach used tzitzit as a metaphor to undermine Moses’ leadership. Whether the tzitzit garment is all blue or all white, the attached threads still need to have a single thread of blue upon which to focus. Whether everyone or a single person wears the tzitzit, the matter is the same: the distinction of the blue thread is what drives the attention and direction towards God.

Korach turned the concept of uniqueness on its head: from a focus on the heavens to centering on earth. From a means to inspire prayer to a tool to encourage a rebellion.

The Jewish Distinction And Anti-Jewish Rebellion

No religious group in the world is obligated to account for the actions of co-religionists – except for Jews.

As the “Chosen people,” Jews are held apart – like the blue thread of tzitzit. While the other monotheistic religions are built upon the Jewish Bible, they see Jews as Korach saw the blue thread of tzitzit: a distinction without purpose. While it may have been ordained by God in the scriptures, the commandment is common to everyone. The supposed uniqueness becomes a subject of mockery. And leads to an uprising.

While each faith is unique, Jews are the subject of examination. Their small number – like the single blue thread in tzitzit – makes the focus more singularly intense. Until and unless Jews bleach themselves of their special color, they are considered a single unit separate from others.

There are times and certain groups who focus on Jews as a source of inspiration, such as Evangelical Christians. Yet there are others like secularists who despise Jewish particularism in favor of universalism. Still others like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Hamas who simply see Jews as enemies which persecute them and therefore targets for attack.

Rationalizing Jew-hatred strips it of antisemitic intent. It morphs Jew-hatred into a “perceived antisemitism,” a problem for Jewish “Karens.” It simultaneously grants absolution to the antisemites. In contrast, anti-Muslim hatred gets no backstory, so the racism and “Islamophobia” is laid bare.

Antisemitism is so ingrained in society, that even stories meant to address the disgusting hatred are infused with the venom.

Related:

UN Secretary General Accuses Israel Of “Islamophobia War” (March 2024)

NY Times Minimizes Antisemitism While Flagging Islamophobia (November 2023)

Anti-Semitism Is Harder to Recognize Than Racism (September 2019)

The Non-Orthodox Jewish Denominations Fight Israel (January 2018)

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants (January 2015)

Abbas Pivots from Insults to Flattery in a Bid for Trump’s Favor

Posted on by
1

For years, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spared no insult for U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration. He called Trump’s peace plan the “slap of the century.” He labeled U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman a “son of a dog.” Abbas publicly refused to meet with any Trump envoy after the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, cutting off nearly all formal ties with Washington. He refused to stop paying salaries to the families of terrorists despite Trump’s demand that he do so.

PA President Abbas issues prayer that President Trump’s “house be destroyed” in 2018

But now, in a stunning reversal, Abbas is praising Trump following America’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, hoping to reengage with the man he once vilified. The about-face reveals not only Abbas’s desperation but also a familiar tactic in Middle Eastern politics: appealing to the ego of strongmen to gain leverage in diplomacy.

June 25, 2025 article in official Palestinian Authority media, Wafa, relaying Abbas’s appreciation for Trump reaching a ceasefire between Israel and Iran

Attempted Falsification of Division From Enemies

Just two weeks ago, Abbas condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, in a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Abbas had never done so before. He is seemingly attempting to distance himself from the dominant Palestinian political party which is struggling to stay alive.

Somehow, Abbas wants to bury reality and history. Just one year before the October 7, 2023 massacre, Palestinian factions agreed to a reconciliation in Algiers, Tunisia. Hamas, Fatah (Abbas’s political party), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and eleven other movements signed an agreement to “get rid of this [political] split and cancer that has entered the Palestinian body.” This move was an attempt to unify the Palestinian people under new elections with a single unified government representing all groups. The United Nations celebrated the integration of Hamas and PFLP – which the U.S. designates as terrorist groups – into a unity government.

A total of 14 Palestinian factions signed reconciliation agreement in Algiers to end their 15-year-long division. (photo: Xinhua)

But Abbas now recognizes the endgame of the current battle: Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas have failed in their attempt to destroy the Jewish State. Abbas would have welcomed such outcome, so stayed quiet for over 600 days. Now, while his decimated fellow Muslims sort through the rubble, Abbas is attempting to distance himself from the losing side, of which he was a silently cheering member.

Appealing to Trump’s Vanity

As he throws Hamas under the bus, the nearly-90 year old unpopular Abbas is looking for a lifeboat. Imagine his dismay to realize that even after Hamas led Gaza to a war of destruction, Palestinian polls still show Hamas to be more popular than his Fatah party, and over 80% of Palestinians want Abbas to resign.

In Abbas’s worldview, perhaps aligning himself with a winner will salvage some dignity and allow a few more years of relevancy. Despite spitting on Trump’s Abraham Accords and vilifying Trump & Co., Abbas is replacing his vitriol with flattery.

This is not just a change in tone; it’s a strategic pivot. Abbas’s flattery is designed to appeal directly to Trump’s vanity. Trump craves recognition and praise, particularly when it comes from those who previously doubted him. Abbas is betting that Trump, flattered by the turnabout, might seek to craft a renewed deal between Israel and the Palestinians, this one closer to the Arab Initiative crafted by Saudi Arabia in 2002, rather than Trump’s “deal of the century.”

The logic is simple: Trump, the dealmaker, might relish the chance to win the Nobel Peace Prize by securing an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement, alongside a broad opening of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia and other nations whom would likely follow.

There is little indication that Abbas has changed his position on any of the core issues — recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the so-called “right of return” principal among them. His newfound praise for Trump is not based on ideological alignment or shared values but on the simple belief that stroking Trump’s ego might yield results.

Israel’s View

From Israel’s perspective, Abbas’s pivot will likely be met with skepticism. Israeli officials have long regarded the Palestinian Authority as duplicitous — speaking the language of peace in English while praising and funding terrorists in Arabic. Abbas’s credibility is further diminished by years of internal repression, a stagnant economy, and a populace which despises him.

Still, Israeli leaders will watch closely. If Trump signals willingness to broker another deal — one perhaps based on regional normalization and security guarantees rather than the moribund Oslo framework — Abbas’s outreach could become a diplomatic variable worth tracking.

Conclusion: Desperation Dressed as Diplomacy

Mahmoud Abbas’s pivot from name-calling to praise is more than political theater. It’s a sign of deep weakness — a recognition that time, allies, and leverage are all slipping away. By appealing to Trump’s vanity, Abbas is hoping for a personal reprieve and a political lifeline.

But Trump will likely recall the years of insults and rejection. Whether he’s willing to forgive and forget — and whether Abbas is willing to concede more than just compliments — remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Abbas, who once derided Trump as a destroyer of peace, now sees him as his best hope to remain relevant.

Related:

Abbas Pays Tribute To Murderers Of Jews Before The United Nations General Assembly, To Applause (September 2023)

Abbas Declares All of Israel is a “Painful Settlement” (June 2021)

Abbas Failed To Capitalize on Trump’s Gift (December 2020)

Abbas’s Speech and the Window into Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism (May 2018)

From the Hitler Youth to Woke Classrooms: State Indoctrination Then and Now

Posted on by
1

Zohran Mamdani, a radical socialist won the New York City Democratic primary for mayor. He did it on the strength of young voters who turned out to vote in Brooklyn and Queens. It was not solely about race or income level as commonly thought (Bronx is poorest and went +18 for Cuomo and Manhattan has the greatest percentage of Whites and went for Mamdani). The young people in liberal districts who came out in droves and secured his victory.

Poor Hispanics generally preferred Cuomo; Asians preferred Mamdani. But the real divide was in age: both in candidate preference and coming out to vote

America’s young people – especially in urban areas like New York City – are much more likely to be non-White than older Americans. They are more likely to get their news from social media influencers than credible news outlets, know little about the Holocaust, don’t remember the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and have been indoctrinated in a public school system that has advanced an “oppressor/oppressed” narrative in which “White privilege” has not only intentionally placed young non-White people at a disadvantage, but stolen their wealth and power in a racist generational kleptocracy.

Today’s youth have been indoctrinated by a socialist public school system which has compulsory attendance. Powerful teacher unions block alternatives like new charter schools and fight any monies going to private schools, thereby making them out-of-reach for many and frequently non-viable. Further, the teacher unions demand that they have total control of the education and block parental involvement.

This forced indoctrination of youth into a divisive ideology has a historic parallel: Nazi Germany.

When people think of black-and-white images of Hitler Youth, they instinctively recoil. The idea of a government-run school system indoctrinating children with a twisted dogma, demonizing whole groups of people, and eliminating parental rights is rightfully condemned. But the problem of the real world modern incarnation is ignored. Western democracies employ the same mechanisms, just with different terminology and new targets.

Germany’s National Socialist Party Educational System

In Nazi Germany, schools were not really about education—they were about indoctrination. From an early age, children were taught racial supremacy, loyalty to the Führer, and hatred of Jews, communists, and other so-called “enemies of the state.” Textbooks were rewritten to glorify White Aryans and dehumanize others. History was a fable of German victimhood and revenge. Biology became eugenics.

Parents were sidelined and teachers were party enforcers. Loyalty was not to truth or family, but to ideology.

America’s Democratic Socialist Party Indoctrination

Today, we do not see classrooms preaching eugenics or worshipping a dictator. But we do see a disturbing echo of the same approach: children are being indoctrinated to hate fellow classmates and members of society.

Public schools across the United States and other Western democracies increasingly push a worldview centered around oppressor and oppressed—not in terms of deeds or choices, but by skin color and gender. Critical Race Theory, once an obscure legal theory, has bled into K–12 education in the form of “equity-based learning,” and “antiracism,” approaches that specifically elevate non-White and low income students, and sideline Whites and Jews.

White children are taught they benefit from “privilege,” regardless of their life experience. Minority children are taught that their struggle is rooted in systemic bias. And the lesson is rarely a call for unity or shared values—it is a call for reordering society through grievance and power struggle.

New York Times bestseller to remake education in grades K-8 focused on “liberation”. As described by the publisher, “Antiracist Reading Revolution provides an actionable antiracist teaching framework and models how K-8 educators can create opportunities for transformative reading and discussions in classrooms.“

History is reframed as nothing more than a record of Western oppression. Heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Churchill are minimized or vilified. Meanwhile, activists are lionized regardless of method or truth. There is no longer a shared civic narrative—only the mantra of “deconstructing power structures.” The language of “revolution” and “liberation” are instilled in America’s youth.

And the teachers – and only the teachers – are in charge. Parents and politicians who push back against the curricula are demonized under a banner of “disguised censorship” who are “trying to dictate what teachers say and block kids from learning about our shared history.”

But it’s not shared history; it’s divisive history.

Teachers as Activists

During the Nazi regime, teachers were required to join the National Socialist Teachers’ League and toe the ideological line. They encouraged teachers to intimidate and harass perceived enemies: Jews. Today, public school teachers are forced to join powerful teacher unions. It promotes teachers becoming open activists that feast on current enemies, such as attacking “Zionist” Jews.

Holocaust Museum review of education in Nazi Germany

These teacher unions aggressively fight against charter schools and school vouchers, keeping millions of students trapped in underperforming, politically biased and morally deformed systems. Parents who speak up at school board meetings could be tarred as “domestic terrorists” by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), as happened in September 2021.

In Nazi Germany, dissent was criminal. In the modern West, dissent is canceled.

Michael Mukasey reviewed attempt by NSBA to shut down parental involvement in classrooms, vilifying parents who “disrupt” school board meetings as engaged in “domestic terrorism.”

Compulsory Attendance, Controlled Curriculum

In both Nazi Germany and America today, attendance was (and is) compulsory. Children cannot simply walk away and parents are similarly held captive. And in most school districts, there is no alternative—no charter school, no voucher for private education, no support for homeschooling. The state dictates the curriculum. The unions staff the classrooms. And the ideology is enforced, not debated.

Then and Now

FeatureNazi GermanyModern Public Schools
CurriculumRacial supremacy, hatred of JewsOppressor vs. oppressed, white guilt, DEI focus
ControlTotal state monopolyUnion-dominated, resistance to school choice
TeachersNazi enforcersIdeological activists protected by unions
EnemiesJews, Slavs, Communists“Whiteness,” traditional values, parents who dissent
DissentCriminalizedCanceled, ignored, or labeled extremist
OutcomeFanatical loyalty to regimeCultural division and civic unraveling

Indoctrination by Any Other Name

Today’s teachers are not training students to become SS officers but they are shaping how children see their country, their history, their families, themselves – and their neighbors. And when a government-backed education system insists that children adopt one political ideology, demonize dissent, and question parental authority, we are no longer talking about education—we are talking about indoctrination.

ACTION ITEM

Get involved in your local school board. There are elections every year and public fora held throughout the year.

Related:

A Fever Called Antisemitism Hatched In Schools (June 2025)

School Boards Are the New Battleground: Why the New York Jewish Community Must Vote on May 20 (May 2025)

Anti-Israel Socialists Are Coming For Public Schools (May 2025)

Global South’s Beachhead On American Universities (March 2025)

Ignoring Columbia’s – And The Education Industry’s – Systemic Antisemitism (July 2024)

CNN And NY Times Call Congressional Hearing On Antisemitism in Public Schools A Fake Issue Concocted By Republicans (May 2024)

In San Francisco Schools, Anti-Zionism is Anti-Racism (February 2021)

Follow the Money: Democrats and the Education Industry (November 2020)

The Iran Exception

Posted on by
Reply

When President Donald Trump tore up the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) during his first term and launched a maximum pressure campaign against Tehran, critics on the far-left, alt-right and in the media howled that this was a break from his self-proclaimed “America First” isolationist stance. They called it the “Israel Exception” — the idea that Trump’s supposed non-interventionist worldview had one glaring carve-out: protecting Israel. They repeat that claim today after Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear installations.

Jill Stein ran for president with a radical anti-western VP running mate who called to “Globalize the Intifada”

But this narrative ignores the obvious. The real story is not an “Israel Exception” but the “Iran Exception.” The Islamic Republic is the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East and the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Trump’s decision to confront Iran wasn’t about changing ideology; it was about confronting the reality of a regime that posed a unique and escalating threat.

A Nuclear Red Line

In his first year in office, Trump pursued diplomacy with one of America’s long-standing nuclear antagonists: North Korea. He met Kim Jong-un in a historic summit, issued warm statements, and flirted with détente. Critics scoffed, but Trump’s logic was simple — North Korea already had nuclear weapons. Any confrontation risked an immediate global catastrophe.

Iran, by contrast, was racing toward the bomb but wasn’t there yet. Trump saw a closing window and chose to act, not only to prevent Tehran from crossing the nuclear threshold but to counter years of American accommodation that had only emboldened the regime. It wasn’t about pleasing Israel — it was about containing an implacable enemy of the West.

Iran’s Unique Threat

Unlike any other adversary, Iran is a transnational menace. It does not merely govern a repressive theocracy at home. It exports its revolution abroad through a network of terror proxies, militias, and insurgents:

  • Hezbollah in Lebanon
  • Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza
  • Shiite militias in Iraq
  • The Houthis in Yemen
  • Assad’s brutal regime in Syria

These groups have not only targeted Israel but have attacked American forces, embassies, and interests in the region. The drone and missile attacks by Iranian-backed groups on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria are only the latest proof that Tehran’s tentacles reach far beyond its borders.

Iran is not France. If Israel went to war with an American ally — the United States would not enter the conflict. It is Iran that makes this different.

Iran has plotted terror attacks on U.S. soil, such as the 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C. Its Quds Force and IRGC have been sanctioned for targeting American soldiers and orchestrating killings throughout the region. Trump’s authorized strike on Qassem Soleimani in 2020 was not done at Israel’s urging — it was in response to direct threats to American personnel and the storming of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

“If the United States and Iran are engaged in international armed conflict, then there is no requirement for the threat of an imminent attack, and the use of force is not limited to self-defense.”

Ongoing armed conflict. Self-defense. Self-interest.

The Obama Era Legacy

What Trump inherited from the Obama administration was a nuclear deal that put Iran on a glide path to the bomb, enriched the regime with sanctions relief, and gave international legitimacy to a regime that chants “Death to America” and funds global terror. Obama had essentially outsourced regional stabilization to Iran and hoped the Islamic Republic would become a responsible stakeholder.

Instead, Iran took the cash and accelerated its malign activities against the region and American interests.

Trump reversed course. Far from being an anomaly in an “America First” framework, his stance on Iran was the clearest extension of that doctrine: protect American lives, punish America’s enemies, and stop subsidizing the world’s worst actors under the false banner of diplomacy.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) tried to cast America and Israel as racist, and invert the reality of the fight against genocidal jihadists

The Double Standard

The claim that Trump’s Iran policy was driven by Israel’s interests alone is a cynical deflection — a smear that erases Iran’s long record of bloodshed and global subversion. Even the European Union, which tried to salvage the JCPOA, has acknowledged Iran’s role in terror plots on European soil.

Far left anti-Israel group Justice Democrats attempts to use noxious blood libels that Jews are puppetmasters controlling the U.S. government

Iran’s ideology is expansionist, messianic, and apocalyptic. It seeks not just regional dominance but the destruction of its enemies — America, the “Great Satan,” chief among them.

Conclusion

The Iran Exception is not a flaw in U.S. foreign policy logic — it’s a recognition of Iran’s unique place at the epicenter of global jihadist terrorism and nuclear blackmail. Trump didn’t go after Iran because of Israel. He went after Iran because of Iran. Those calling an “Israel Exception” are hawking dangerous antisemitic smears meant to strip Israel of earned appreciation for taking on the global menace and stoke a modern blood libel.

ACTION ITEM

Donate to JewBelong to place billboards like these around the United States.

Related:

NY Times Lies About Iran Wanting “Less Confrontation” (November 2024)

US Bans Iranian Media But Israel Shouldn’t In The Middle Of A War? (May 2024)

Jamaal Bowman Parrots Iran That American Exceptionalism Is A Lie Based In Racism (January 2024)

On 9/11, Commit To Blocking Iran and Saudi Arabia From Ever Possessing Weapons Of Mass Destruction (September 2022)

Reuters Can’t Spare Ink on Iranian Anti-Semitism (February 2019)

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority (December 2017)

From Vienna to Queens: Karl Lueger, Zohran Mamdani, and the Politics of Polite Antisemitism

Posted on by
5

Before Adolf Hitler ever raised his voice in Munich, he walked the streets of Vienna. The year was 1908. He was a failed artist, a nobody—but he was watching. And what he saw was a master class in antisemitism, taught by none other than the city’s powerful mayor, Karl Lueger.

Karl Lueger (1844-1910), mayor of Vienna, Austria 1897-1910

Lueger didn’t scream; he smiled. He didn’t wear jackboots; he wore a mayor’s sash. But his message was clear: Jews don’t belong. He didn’t have to say it outright—he just needed to point at “Jewish capital,” “Jewish influence,” “Jewish power.” Always with a wink, always in the name of the people.

Hitler later said Lueger was one of the greatest German politicians of all time. Not because he was a fascist but because he knew how to mainstream hate. He made antisemitism a component of civic reform.

Sound familiar?

Over a century later, in Queens, New York, Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani is walking the old path in new shoes. Like Lueger, he’s building a political brand on a foundation that isolates Jews—especially those who support the Jewish State—as outside the moral community.

Criticize the Israeli government? Fine. Hold them accountable? Of course. But Mamdani goes further. He doesn’t criticize Israeli policies. He calls for Israel’s erasure. He doesn’t debate Zionism. He demonizes it. And anyone who affirms the Jewish right to self-determination is labeled part of the problem. AMCHA Initiative has long shown how Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) on campuses – a group which Mamdani is proud to help found at his college – correlates to a steep rise in attacks against Jews.

We all see the impact on Jews today.

It’s Lueger’s method, just in post-colonial language.

Just like Lueger – and others like disgraced politician Jamaal Bowman – Mamdani claims he’s not against Jews; he’s just against the wrong kind of Jews—those who won’t denounce their homeland, who won’t apologize for their peoplehood. Like Lueger, Mamdani gets to decide who counts as a “good Jew.”

Zohran Mamdani (right) being endorsed by disgraced former Congressman Jamaal Bowman

And here’s the haunting echo: who’s watching today?

In 1908, Hitler was a quiet observer of Lueger. Who’s listening to Mamdani now?

Who’s the radical activist or ideologue soaking up the message that Jews are oppressors, that Zionists are the enemy, that the Jewish state is a crime? Who’s internalizing this polite, polished, progressive bile and dreaming of taking it further?

No, Mamdani isn’t directly inciting genocide. But Lueger didn’t either. History tells us you don’t need to pull the trigger to light the fuse. Lueger mentored Hitler without even knowing him.

We remember how it started last time. We worry who might be watching this time.

ACTION ITEM

Vote for Andrew Cuomo for the mayor of New York

Related:

Palestinian Hate Speech (May 2023)

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres (May 2016)

Elevation From God’s Gifts

Posted on by
1

“Let us go up at once and possess it, for we are certainly able to overcome it.”
— Calev ben Jephunneh, Numbers 13:30

With these words, Calev silenced the people who had just heard a fearful and pessimistic report from the other spies about the Promised Land. Ten of the twelve tribal representatives had returned from their tour of the Promised Land with tales of giants, fortified cities, and certain defeat. But Calev stepped forward — not merely with courage, but with conviction. “Let us go up at once,” he said. His words were not rash; they were rooted in faith.

Calev’s words “a’lo na‘aleh” were directional with spiritual intent. He was ready to ascend — not just to a higher elevation from the low points of the Jordan Valley, but to a higher calling. He didn’t deny the physical challenges highlighted by his fellow leaders, but he refused to let it override the spiritual promise of God’s gift.

God later singles out Calev, saying:

“But My servant Calev, because he had a different spirit with him and followed Me fully, I will bring him into the land to which he came, and his descendants shall inherit it.”
— Numbers 14:24

A different spirit. God didn’t simply praise Calev’s bravery or loyalty. He pointed to Calev’s spirit — a divine quality within him that was distinct from the others. The Hebrew “ruach acheret,” suggests that Calev’s soul orientation was unique. It wasn’t just that he had faith — it’s that his spirit was attuned to God’s gifts and was willing to challenge the majority. That spirit led his body, not the other way around.

The contrast with Korach in a later story could not be starker. Korach, who led a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, was driven by status, jealousy, and material concerns. The Torah notes that “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed him, his household, and all their possessions” (Numbers 16:32). His physical attachments — both metaphorically and literally — dragged him into the ground.

In Judaism, man is not a duality of body versus spirit. The two are in dialogue, and one always leads. When the spirit leads and is drawn toward God’s gifts, it lifts the body with it. When the spirit is enticed by the physical, the body becomes dominant — and man falls.

God gave the Jewish people two primary gifts: the Land of Israel and the Torah — one is sanctified space, the other divine wisdom. Both require spiritual alignment to appreciate and receive. That’s why moving to Israel is still called aliyah, literally “going up.” It is not a political migration but a spiritual elevation. Studying Torah is described not as absorbing information but as learning — an intellectual and moral ascent, a rising above the mundane.

This understanding helps explain one of the most paradoxical modern realities: Israel is one of the happiest countries in the world. Despite being under near-constant threat, despite global condemnation and internal conflict, Israelis report remarkably high life satisfaction. Even more remarkable, Haredi Jews — who often live below the poverty line and avoid modern comforts — report even higher levels of happiness.

Why? Because they are immersed in both of God’s gifts: the land and the Torah. They are not simply physically located in Israel; their spirits are aligned with its divine purpose. Their joy is not circumstantial — it is directional. It flows from a life where the spirit leads, where God’s gifts are not just received but cherished.

Kotel after the rain (photo: First One Through)

Calev’s legacy is not just a historical footnote. It is a call to action. It is a message to challenge the masses who want to abandon God’s gifts, and both elevate and be elevated by God’s special blessings.

Related:

The Year 2023: Entry To The Holy Land (April 2023)

The Cultural Appropriation of the Jewish ‘Promised Land’ (August 2020)

The Jewish Holy Land (May 2016)

The Journeys of Abraham and Ownership of the Holy Land (October 2015)

About