The tragic farce of modern human rights discourse reached a grotesque milestone. According to the defenders of Palestinian “human rights,” Israel should not be allowed to defend itself—even when civilians are under direct rocket fire from foes eager to destroy the Jewish State.
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s so-called “Special Rapporteur on Palestine,” brazenly declared that Israel, as an “occupying power,” has no right to self-defense. In Albanese’s warped worldview, a Jew in Israel has no right to life.
Albanese claims that Israel cannot defend itself from Hamas, the popular and dominant Palestinian political party and ruling power in Gaza.
This is policy for many. When the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to fund Iron Dome, a purely defensive missile shield that intercepts rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, a coalition of radicals opposed it. Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Marjorie Taylor Greene— antisemitic-bedfellows —voted against the funding.
When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted for the funding, the backlash from anti-Israel radicals was immediate. Vandals defaced her headquarters. They threatened her life. “How dare she support saving Jewish lives?” was the clear message, sprayed in graffiti.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez office vandalized after voting to fund Israel’s missile defense system
At Rutgers University, Noura Erakat, a Palestinian professor decried Iron Dome, essentially arguing that protecting Israeli civilians is an act of war. The Democratic Socialists of America demanded that Israel be isolated while defending itself in a multifront war. And many echoed the ridiculous claim that it is unjust for Israelis to have bomb shelters when Gazans do not—ignoring that Hamas has built hundreds of kilometers of military tunnels, used exclusively to shield terrorists and smuggle weapons, while civilians are left to die on purpose, to feed propaganda.
The global double standard is grotesque: Israel must accept rocket fire, massacres, and kidnappings—and not respond. Not defend. If it does, it is called an aggressor hell-bent on genocide. No country on Earth is asked to withhold defending its citizens.
The latest iteration of perverse Palestinian “human rights” demands that Jews die quietly, with neither fight nor protest. Palestinian “dignity” demands that Arabs stand atop Jewish graves, personal and physical manifestations mirroring the Islamic mosques sitting atop the Jewish Temples. Just as the world believes Jews should be silent at their holiest site, Jews must die quietly in their holy land.
When “human rights” for a particular group demands the sacrifice of another, basic moral math needs to be applied. When the perversion infects United Nations and U.S. government officials calling to strip and bind Jews in the Middle East, the terrifying equation yields a final solution.
That has been the rallying cry of Hamas since its inception. It was not a metaphor or rhetorical flourish. It was a strategic doctrine and a religious creed. Victory would mean the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a devout Islamic state “from the river to the sea.” Martyrdom meant dying in pursuit of that cause — not just willingly, but eagerly.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas made its major play for victory. Thousands of militants and civilians from Gaza poured into Israel, raping, torturing, and slaughtering Jews in a pogrom of medieval barbarism. They hoped the spectacle would provoke a regional war — Hezbollah from the north, Iran from afar, Arab street uprisings across the Middle East. They imagined a domino collapse of the Jewish State.
It did not play out according to the preferred plan.
Hezbollah has been badly bruised. Iran has been humiliated. The IDF shattered Hamas leadership and destroyed its terror tunnels. The remaining Hamas fighters are mostly hiding — or dead or captured. Gaza’s infrastructure, above and below ground, is rubble.
Which leaves plan B: martyrdom.
Not just for themselves — many of whom will choose death over surrender — but for the people of Gaza whom they have indoctrinated for two decades. From kindergartens to mosques, from textbooks to television, they taught Palestinians that death for Allah is better than life without “liberation.” That there is nobility in dying while killing Jews.
Over 20,000 Hamas fighters are dead. There are almost twice that number of dead civilians. Entire neighborhoods in Gaza are leveled. Tunnels, schools, hospitals are gone.
That’s not failure for Hamas. That’s evidence that the campaign for martyrdom worked. Every dead Gazan is a stepping stone to paradise. Every civilian loss is a propaganda weapon. Hamas always calculated that if they couldn’t beat Israel in battle, they could win in death.
And it’s working.
Around the world, nations are blaming Israel for a “power vacuum” in Gaza — as if Hamas’s evil leadership was a success story over seventeen years. They demand “reconstruction” — as if Gaza was a victim of a natural disaster and not a self-inflicted holy war launched atop a powder keg. The idea that Gazans were brainwashed into seeking martyrdom is dismissed as Islamophobic. The western mind cannot comprehend that death is an accepted goal, not a consequence.
New York Times article blaming Israel for Hamas’s refusal to surrender
In the West, every death is a tragedy. But in Gaza under Hamas, it is currency. Suicide bombers once strapped explosives to their chests. Now, the entire Strip has been strapped into a suicide vest, and the detonator pressed.
This isn’t suicide-by-cop. It’s martyrdom-by-genocide — a warped campaign in which Hamas initiated all-out war against a vastly superior enemy, knowing full well the toll. And the more people die, the more it fuels the narrative they’ve crafted: that they are eternal victims, even while firing rockets from hospitals and launching ambushes from schools.
It is cruel. It is evil. And it is successful.
Because the more Gazans die, the more the world turns on Israel. The more Israel defends itself and fights to return its hostages, the more it is blamed for the destruction of Gaza. The West is so allergic to the idea of mass death as a chosen outcome that it must assign blame elsewhere.
So Hamas continues to fight, not to win, but to die. And in death, they declare success because the narrative of the Global South has been successfully instilled into consciousness of the Global North for the past decade. The insidious jihad has now reached peak toxicity.
“Victory or Martyrdom.”
A true defeat of Hamas – in which it gets neither victory nor martyrdom – would be for it to surrender. To hand over its weapons. To leave the Strip and be stripped of mention on any building, square or monument. To be vacated from government, military and textbooks.
That is precisely what Hamas is avoiding at all cost. It will not hand over the hostages and lay down its weapons. It will fight until every child in Gaza is dead rather than concede defeat. And the majority of Gazans continue to back that plan, even as recently as a May 2025 PCPSR poll.
The world refuses to admit the reality and prefers to blame Israel for the continued deaths rather than pressure Gazans to stand down. Without a Hamas concession, there is really no “day after.” The war will continue. Deaths will fill the pages of the next chapter.
Israel has denied Gazans the victory of victory and the world is enabling the victory of martyrdom.
All because the West cannot comprehend the mindset of psychopaths and remains blind to the mainstreamed antisemitism in their midst.
ACTION ITEM
Post on social media that the Gazan dead are not only victims of Hamas’s war but Hamas’s education. No such society is deserving of sovereignty.
There are two wars taking place in Gaza: one is a textbook definition of a genocidal war while the other is a reluctant war of ethnic cleansing.
While critics of the Jewish State hurl the term “genocide” as a weapon, a blood libel designed to strip Israel of its legitimacy, it is an inversion: it is Hamas and only Hamas that is engaged in a genocide.
Hamas’s 1988 foundational charter is not a vague political platform. It is an open call to murder Jews. Article 7 quotes an Islamic hadith that urges Muslims to kill Jews wherever they find them. Article 13 states that “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Peace is forbidden. Coexistence is a crime.
And the Palestinian people did not reject this vision; they embraced it. In 2005, they elected Mahmoud Abbas as president — a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. In 2006, they voted Hamas into power, giving the genocidal group 58% of the parliament. These were not fringe votes. These were popular, democratic choices made in full view of Hamas’s open ideology.
Then came October 7, 2023.
In the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas — the ruling government of Gaza — unleashed its long-promised war of annihilation. They murdered 1,200 people, from babies in cribs to elderly women in wheelchairs. They burned families alive, filmed their atrocities, and broadcast their bloodlust to the world. The Palestinian street erupted in celebration. Polls showed 75% of Palestinian Arabs supporting the massacre of Jews.
This was not a surprise. This was fulfillment. A generation raised on genocidal propaganda in schools, mosques, and television carried out what they had been taught. They were not rebelling against Hamas — they were Hamas. Thousands of Gazans participated in the October 7 slaughter.
Israel, faced with an existential threat, responded. It had tried the diplomatic route. It had withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. It had allowed billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to flow into the Strip. It had mostly tolerated rocket fire and bus bombings and flaming kites with modest responses. But after October 7, there was no possibility of a tepid response with a group with an increasing capacity to carry out its genocidal intent.
Israel launched a war of necessity — a war to end the Hamas threat once and for all. The goal was not genocide, but defense. Not extermination, but eradication of a terrorist force.
But the nature of this war is highly complex. Hamas does not engage Israel’s army on an open battlefield but underneath hospitals, mosques and homes. It warehouses missiles in schools and launches them from playgrounds. There is no ability to eliminate the terrorists without severe destruction to dual-use civilian-military infrastructure and significant collateral damage.
And that looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.
Gaza ruins
Ethnic cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic or religious group from a territory. And yes, it is possible that the outcome of Israel’s war will be a Gaza without many Palestinian Arabs. Gaza cannot be rebuilt atop terrorist tunnels and booby traps. The terrorist enclave that Gazans built since 2007 cannot remain nor be replicated.
It has long been a sign of instilled antisemitism that the United Nations has accused Israel of genocide, at least as far back as 2013, as a mask for Palestinian Arabs genocidal intentions. It is a classic form of the adage “the best defense is a good offense,” accusing Israel of the crimes of Palestinian Arabs, forcing Israel into a defensive posture, both militarily and politically.
But it is another level of tragic irony that in this defensive war, Israel is open to the accusation of ethnic cleansing.
No nation on earth has faced the choices Israel faces. No other country is expected to coexist with a neighbor whose elected leaders seek its annihilation. No one wants to see civilian suffering but Israel has tried every alternative — and the price has always been paid in Jewish blood.
The world is watching a premeditated war of genocide – which it enabled and encouraged through the United Nations’ statements and actions – be defeated by a small, determined country. The contours of that victory may appear to the casual viewer as ethnic cleansing, and will certainly be marketed as such by Israel haters, as a cruel collective punishment against civilians and so-called “refugees.”
The Global North will consider “ethnic cleansing” as the lesser charge relative to the smear of “genocide” long advanced by the Global South. Will the resulting actions encourage and enable the next genocidal war against the Jewish State remains to be seen.
Since the horrific attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, Jews around the world have recited Tehillim, Psalms. These were composed by King David as prayers to God which continue to be read by people around the world. People have recited them in WhatsApp groups on behalf of injured soldiers and civilians. They have said them in synagogues on behalf of the hostages.
King David Playing the Harp, ca. 1616 by Peter Paul Rubens
The WhatsApp groups tend to say all of the 150 psalms, with people volunteering to say one or a couple of chapters before another person steps in to read the next ones.
In synagogues, the congregations typically recite Psalm 121 and Psalm 130 which pray for salvation and redemption.
With the recent victories over Hezbollah in Lebanon, in Iran and soon over Hamas in Gaza, it is time for synagogues to recite songs of celebration during or at the end of services. Consider:
no exchange with passersby: “The blessing of the LORD be upon you.” “We bless you by the name of the LORD.”
And then recite sections of Psalm 118: 5-21, which are well known as they feature prominently during Jewish festivals in Hallel and the Passover Haggadah:
I praise You, for You have answered me, and have become my deliverance.
The Jewish people are securing great victories over genocidal antisemitic foes. The world should include Psalms of thanks alongside prayers for the hostages and injured.
In November 2023, the French Parliamentary Delegation for Intelligence (DPR) identified Russia, China, Turkey and Iran as the primary countries involved in “omnipresent and lasting threat[s]” of foreign interference in France and Europe. The committee pointed to “fake news is a weapon of war against the West,” and noted that China has about 250,000 agents on the ground.
The DPR report chastised French society for not doing more, noting “the first vulnerability is naivety, which stems from a lack of awareness of the danger. This concerns public decision-makers (elected representatives and senior civil servants) as well as businesses and academic circles…. These foreign powers are also taking advantage of a form of naivety and denial that has long prevailed in Europe.”
The threat is more than “fake news.” Russia was accused of paying three Serbian nationals of anti-Jewish vandalism in France last week. This is similar to the October 2023 situation of Russians accused of paying Moldovan nationals of antisemitic vandalism.
The French government has not been unaware. In January 2023, France forced Russian-owned media RT to shut down to curtail its negative influence on French society. In October 2020, President Emmanuel Macron announced plans to deport 231 foreigners who held radical Islamic beliefs, two days after a Russian-born Islamist beheaded a teacher in France. The country has continued the policy, expelling a Tunisian imam in February 2024 who had “backward, intolerant, and violent conception of Islam, likely to encourage behaviors contrary to the values of the Republic, discrimination against women, identity retreat, tensions with the Jewish community, and jihadist radicalization.”
Macron announced plans to fight radical Islamism after beheading of a teacher who showed a picture of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, a year after calling Islam a “religion in crisis.”
In May 2025, the French government declassified a report titled “The Muslim Brotherhood and Political Islam in France.” The 73-page document describes how the organization is destabilizing French society through schools, mosques and community centers. The group is funded by foreign governments and has an estimated 100,000 members in France (about 0.15% of the population).
The French government knows of the dangers of radical Islam outside of the country as well. Hamas, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, is a designated terrorist group by the European Union, and France stated in December 2023 that it would work with the EU to dry up the terrorist group’s funding. Yet France encourages “inter-Palestinian reconciliation” which would include Hamas in the Palestinian Authority government. France also backs UNRWA, the agency that seeks to move millions of Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) into Israel, despite them seeking the end of the Jewish State.
So despite France fighting the dangers of radical Islam and foreign influence inside France (which make up a miniscule percentage of the population), it seeks to use the June 2025 United Nations conference it will co-chair, to have several nations pressure Israel to embed radical jihadism inside the Jewish State.
According to Jewish Insider, French conservative intellectual Michel Gurfinkiel said that “the main point of the [French Muslim Brotherhood] report is not what it says about the Muslim Brotherhood. The real point is the conclusion that the French government should make efforts to bring French Muslims into the French fold, and that means … to recognize a state of Palestine. There is a kind of interplay here: the interior minister wanted to publish the report in order to give legitimacy to his own policy against Islamism in France. But it was published with the approval of President Macron … and obviously, the real goal of the president was to tell everybody, ‘I must recognize a State of Palestine because it is the only way for us to fight the Muslim Brotherhood.‘”
French President Emmanuel Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strained relationship over the Hamas war
Macron’s “France First” policy will attempt to sacrifice Israel to radical Islamism in an effort to buy a few years of peace with the small but growing Muslim Brotherhood in France. He may believe that such move will curtail attacks against the 450,000 Jews in the country as well, despite such maneuvers forcing Israel to continue to battle Hamas, yielding more global attacks against Jews.
There are constructive things that France can do with Saudi Arabia to fight foreign influence and radical jihadism, and it is not to recognize a Palestinian state:
France and Saudi Arabia should clearly state that they define all aspects of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorist organizations. It would be banned and a criminal offense for anyone to voice or express support or solidarity with those entities. Consequently, any Palestinian government that included Hamas would be isolated and not receive any funding or support. Both countries will encourage other countries to do the same.
The SAPs so-called “Right of Return” to homes where grandparents lived will only be settled via financial mechanisms, and no SAPs will have an “inalienable right” to move to Israel. Israel will be the sole party which decides who enters its borders, as every sovereign nation does.
These two steps lay the groundwork for SAPs to reorient their culture from the destruction of Israel towards building a new country. It would be the correct and consistent path for France to combat foreign influence and extremist Islamism, both in France and in Israel.
The United Nations Security Council is comprised of five permanent members (P5) and ten elected members (E10) who try to pass resolutions to promote global and regional peace and cooperation. It fails repeatedly regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict as it prioritizes protecting the political-terrorist group Hamas above all else.
On June 4, 2025, E10 put forward a draft resolution which “demand[ed] an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza; the immediate, dignified, and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups; and the immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into the territory.”
The acting US Representative Dorothy Shea vetoed the draft resolution saying “US opposition to this resolution should come as no surprise – it is unacceptable for what it does say, it is unacceptable for what it does not say, and it is unacceptable for the manner in which it has been advanced. The United States has been clear: we would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza.” She added “We cannot allow the Security Council to award Hamas’ intransigence. Hamas and other terrorists must have no future in Gaza. As Secretary [Marco] Rubio has said: ‘If an ember survives, it will spark again into a fire’.”
Knowing that the United States would use its veto right to reject the resolution, one is left with two conclusions: the rest of the Security Council wanted the US to veto the resolution, or they care more about protecting Hamas than civilians in Gaza.
Perhaps the fourteen UNSC countries want Israel to continue the war but want to placate their pro-Palestinian constituents, appearing to support Gazans while knowing that no relief would happen until Hamas is defeated. Maybe the countries want Israel and the United States to both look isolated – the “little Satan” and “Big Satan” as the Islamic Republic of Iran calls them – hoping to curry favor among the Global South, with 80% of the world’s population.
Either way, the world cannot really believe there is a genocide happening in Gaza, if the path to a ceasefire was simply adding two lines calling for Hamas to surrender.
In political and ideological debates, few words carry as much quiet weight as “counterproductive.” It is a term that cloaks deep moral issues in the language of strategy, substituting ethical clarity with tactical calculus.
Recent uses of the word by political figures and organizations—such as Cenk Uygur’s response to the murder of two Israeli diplomats in Washington, D.C., and J Street’s condemnation of the student takeover of Columbia University’s Butler Library—highlight the way moral outrage is increasingly filtered through the lens of utility.
Alt-left commentator Cenk Uygur comments about the murder of a young couple from Israel on the streets of Washington, DC by a man yelling “Free Palestine”
The Language of Outcomes
When Cenk Uygur called the murder of the diplomats “counterproductive” and “stupid,” he minimized his “obviously immoral” charge. He reframed the cold-blooded murder of two young Israelis at a Jewish event through a critique that the violence would “harm the Palestinian cause.” Similarly, J Street’s reaction to the Butler Library takeover focused not on the pain caused to students studying for finals but on the effectiveness of the mass action.
J Street commentary on violent takeover of Columbia University library during study week
Both statements imply a worldview where the ends can justify the means IF the means produce desired outcomes. Violence and disruptions aren’t inherently wrong, full stop; they’re wrong if they don’t work.
This mode of thinking belongs to a form of strategic utilitarianism—actions are weighed not on whether they are ethically sound, but whether they are instrumentally successful. Murder isn’t condemned for its cruelty or injustice, but for its inefficiency. Protest isn’t wrong because it defies norms, but because it alienates potential allies or invites political backlash as in: it “provide[s] the Trump Administration with ammunition…” and “it allows people to frame the whole peace movement as violent.”
The Profound Delusion
How is the October 7 massacre of 1,200 people and mass rape of women and butchering of babies a “peace movement?” a sane person would ask. How is the killing of a young couple in Washington – thousands of miles from Gaza – an issue of “framing” for the masses (read “potential allies”)?
The idea that victims’ deaths were simply “counterproductive” is chilling. It suggests they were not wronged, but miscalculated. Their humanity becomes a variable in someone else’s flawed strategy. The moral frame disappears; only the tactical one remains.
There is a profound gap between calculated language and moral reality. For the political commentators, everything is a chessboard; for the people on the ground, it is their lives.
Question If The Entire Movement Is Unjustified And Immoral
Uygur and J Street – different parts of the socialists-jihadi alliance – use of “counterproductive” is an attempt to separate the actions of the violent offenders in the United States from the Hamas-led war in Israel. It seeks to sanitize the Gazan war to “Free Palestine” as a noble goal, while the tactics of some people – including possibly the October 7 massacre itself – are flawed.
Lost on those absorbing this insidious narrative of “Free Palestine” is that the movement is immoral. The chants of an “ongoing Nakba” are not cries for peace but a desire of SAPs and their supporters to destroy Israel and ethnically cleanse the Jewish Promised Land of Jews, marketed under the banner of human rights. Yes, local Arabs deserve self-determination which can be achieved in multiple ways. No, they don’t have an “inalienable right” to their own country nor to move into houses where grandparents once lived.
The only way of achieving their stated desired goal of ending Israel is via violence, both there and here. The murder of two Israelis outside a Jewish event in America’s capital city isn’t “counterproductive” but an unspoken essential component of the global jihad. It is the definition of “by any means necessary.”
Conclusion
Language shapes how we see the world. When murder is called “counterproductive” – whether of two Israelis in Washington or 1,200 people in Israel – the victims’ moral worth is sidelined in favor of strategic impact. Worse, the soft wording obfuscates not only the evil of the immediate killings but that the entire “Free Palestine” mission is about the mass murder of Jews.
The issue isn’t optics. There is a reason the hordes are yelling “we are all Hamas,” “gas the Jews” and “Heil Hitler,” and it isn’t coexistence. The alt-left’s shielding of violent antisemites has made them complicit in both the violence against Jews and the ongoing trauma the Jewish community is enduring.
Anti-Zionism—the rejection of the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people—has existed since the dawn of modern Zionism. However, in 2025 it feels radically different from the 1975 United Nations incarnation. The rhetoric may sound similar, but the ideology, tactics, and alliances behind anti-Zionism have undergone a seismic shift. What once masqueraded as anti-colonial nationalism on the global stage has mutated into global terrorism fused with religious fanaticism. What was once a geopolitical power play of 6.4 billion people from the Global South has transformed into mob lynchings in the streets of Western capitals.
The 1975 Moment: Terrorism Wrapped in Nationalist Language
In 1975, while the United Nations was led by a former Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism—a resolution so grotesque and politically motivated that it was ultimately revoked in 1991 through the efforts of the United States. But that year also saw another dangerous precedent set: UNGA Resolution 3376 which declared that the Palestinian people have an “inalienable right” to statehood AND “to return to their homes and property.” This declaration, unprecedented in international law, granted Palestinian Arabs a right that is not afforded to any other specific ethnic group—no such resolution exists affirming an “inalienable” right to statehood for the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, or countless others seeking independence, and no refugees anywhere have a right to “return to homes.”
This special treatment of the Palestinian cause, even while terrorism was a central strategy of their campaign, reveals a deep double standard in international institutions. Groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), whose operatives hijacked planes and massacred Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, were welcomed at the UN with open arms. Their leaders were treated as statesmen rather than terrorists. The PLO’s largest faction, Fatah, founded by Yasser Arafat, waged a war not just on Israeli soldiers but on civilians worldwide—from airline terminals in Rome and Vienna to school buses and synagogues.
Yet, the PLO and other Palestinian factions successfully cloaked their violence in the language of anti-colonialism. They painted the Jewish State of Israel—a country with deep historical, religious, and legal claims to the land—as a European settler colony, despite the fact that Jews are indigenous to that specific land. In the bipolar Cold War world, the Palestinian cause was adopted by the Soviet bloc (which pretended it never had colonies despite the entire bloc being colonies) as a weapon against the West, and Israel became a convenient scapegoat for third-world grievances.
Today’s Anti-Zionism: From Nationalism to Jihad
The anti-Zionist movement in 2025 is no longer pretending to be about secular nationalism. Gone are the olive-drab uniforms and revolutionary manifestos of Arafat’s PLO. In their place are the colorful flags of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad—groups whose founding documents do not mention two states, borders, or peace but rather the annihilation of Israel, vile Jewish conspiracy plots, subjugation of Jews and the imposition of Islamic rule.
Palestinian Arabs wave Palestinian and Islamic terrorist group flags in front of the Dome of the Rock atop the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem, following the last Friday prayers of Ramadan, on April 29, 2022. (Photo by Ahmad GHARABLI / AFP)
This is not political “resistance”—it is Islamic terrorism, pure and simple. Hamas, recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, and much of the democratic world, deliberately targets civilians with rockets, suicide bombings, and, most recently, the atrocities of October 7, 2023. That day saw the cold-blooded murder of over 1,200 Israelis—men, women, children, and the elderly—in a coordinated attack that included rape, torture, and hostage-taking. It was not a liberation struggle but a heinous pogrom.
The shift from secular nationalism to radical Islamism has had profound consequences. Today’s anti-Zionist actors no longer make appeals to human rights, self-determination, or even statehood. Their aim is not a Palestinian state alongside Israel but a caliphate instead of it. Hamas’ charter explicitly rejects any peaceful resolution and defines the conflict in religious, not political, terms.
This ideological transformation aligns Palestinian terrorism with broader jihadist movements including al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban. Their ideological DNA is strikingly similar: the use of violence as a religious duty, hatred of Jews as a theological imperative, and contempt for the liberal values of democracy, pluralism, and gender equality.
The Reverse Flow: From Global South to Global North
In 1975, anti-Zionism was projected from the Global South outward, as newly independent states sought to reshape the international order. Israel was falsely cast as a proxy of colonialism. But today, the direction has reversed. Anti-Zionism now festers not only in Middle Eastern regimes and terror groups, but in the heart of the West including Paris, Berlin, London, and New York City.
Anti-Israel protests in front of Columbia University in New York City
This shift is in part the result of demographic and ideological changes in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Starting in 2010, the wave of uprisings which once promised liberal reform, instead ushered in chaos, civil war, and Islamist resurgence. Millions fled failed states and collapsing economies, many ending up in Europe and North America. While many migrants seek peace and prosperity in their new homes, a shrill cohort brought the radical ideologies of their home countries—including deep-seated antisemitism and hostility toward Israel.
The result is that anti-Zionist marches in Western cities increasingly showcase imported hatred. Protests ostensibly about Gaza often devolve into anti-Jewish rhetoric, violence, and the open glorification of terrorism. In some cases, demonstrators chant slogans borrowed directly from Hamas propaganda. Far too many on the political left—who once stood for secularism, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ protections—have aligned themselves with Islamist movements that stand for the exact opposite.
Anti-Israel protestors in front of New York City exhibit about those murdered at the Nova Music Festival in Israel on October 7, 2023
In 1975, college Marxists may have read the United Nations’ “Zionism is racism” resolution as simply a tool used by a group seeking national independence. In 2025, the kaffiyeh-clad protestors are shouting for an “intifada revolution” with the religious zeal of Hamas affinity groups. They have been baptized by the current conflict and converted to winner-take-all jihadists.
All Noisy on the Western Front
Palestinian terrorist groups cannot defeat the Israeli army on their own. To defeat Israel, local Arab leadership relies on two principal supporting actors: Islamist countries and groups on the military front, and stripping Israel’s defensive support from the west.
The Islamists countries of Iran and Turkey (both not Arab) and the jihadi groups of Hezbollah and the Houthis provide weaponry, training and funds to fight Israel militarily. Palestinian Arabs hoped for greater success in killing Jews, but appreciated those waging war on Israel.
Hamas continues to count on jihadists – old and new converts – in western cities to wage its bloody antisemitic war. Members of the Global South now residing in the Global North and their allies are an essential front to end support for the Jewish State. Actively removing defenses may appear to pass legal scrutiny by western laws compared to calling for violence, but the desired antisemitic goal is identical: the demise of half of global Jewry who live in their ancestral homeland.
Conclusion
Anti-Zionism in 2025 feels different than it did in 1975 because it IS different. Then, it was driven by secular radicals speaking the language of national liberation—even as they committed acts of terror. Today, it is led by Islamist extremists who openly seek genocide and global jihad. Then, it was framed as the Global South fighting colonialism. Today, it is the Global South bringing its biases into the heart of the Global North.
The “radical left” always carried the notion of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism but over the last fifty years, it has adopted new comrades and approaches. As the far-left is loathe to call out the antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-feminist zealot allies – lest they appear insensitive to different cultures – they have absorbed new philosophies. Such is the war of “by any means necessary,” a Jew-hunt which is becoming localized by the socialist-jihadi alliance.
Anti-Israel protestors march in the streets in front of Columbia University
The movie “All Quiet On The Western Front” was about the brutality of trench warfare in World War I, and the impact on soldiers’ mental and physical well-being. People use the phrase as an expression of things outwardly appearing normal and unchanging while huge terrifying tectonic shifts occur beneath the surface.
Whether a secular nationalist bursts into a synagogue shooting worshippers or a jihadi fanatic does so, makes little difference to the Jewish dead. However, progressives’ abandonment of their own fundamental tenets when it comes to Jews – and doing so proudly and publicly – is a five-bell alarm about crumbling democratic norms.
After a few months of not being able to conduct a poll of Arabs in Gaza and the “West Bank,” the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research released its latest findings on May 6, 2025. As summarized by PCPSR, “favorability of the October 7 attack, the belief that Hamas will win the war, and support for Hamas continue to decline, but the overwhelming majority is opposed to Hamas disarmament and does not believe that release of the hostages will bring an end to the war. Nonetheless, about half of Gazans support the anti-Hamas demonstrations and almost half want to leave the Gaza Strip if they could.”
Unpacking the May 2025 findings when the Hamas military is almost wiped out and the surviving members spend their time boobytrapping buildings and stealing food and aid from Gazans, Palestinians:
support the October 7 massacre;
do not want Hamas to disarm;
prefer the Hamas over Fatah
Figure 1 in the poll shows that support for the barbaric attack of October 7 has declined more in Gaza, from 71% in March 2024 to 37%, while support in the West Bank only declined from 71% to 59% over the same time. As of May 2025, half of all Palestinian Arabs still believe that the attack was “correct”, down from three-quarters right after the massacre.
The pollsters speculate that “most of the public continue to believe the attack and the following war have placed the Palestinian issue at the center of global attention. Unlike previous polls, today’s findings show that the majority of the public does not believe Hamas will win the current war. Still, a plurality of the public believes that Hamas will continue to control the Gaza Strip after the war.”
Despite virtually the entire command structure of Hamas being killed, 57% of Palestinian Arabs are satisfied with Hamas’s performance, with 67% believing as much in the West Bank, a much higher figure than the 39% in Gaza. For those who believe that Gazans are reluctant to express negative opinions about Hamas because of threats from the ruling party in Gaza, the high figure from the West Bank where Hamas holds no power tells a different story. Palestinians like Hamas.
Further, “when asked whether it supports or opposes the disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to stop the war on the Gaza Strip, an overwhelming majority (85% in the West Bank and 64% in the Gaza Strip) said it is opposed to that; only 18% support it.” Palestinian Arabs would rather fight until the last bullet, rather than end the war with a surrender.
Overall, the opinion of Gazans about Hamas has barely changed from before the war until today. In September 2023, Gazans supported Hamas over Fatah by 38% to 25%, compared to 37% to 25% in May 2025. West Bank Arabs have generally become more supportive of Hamas since 20 months ago, but the favorability has been declining, as shown in Figure 13 of the May poll. Third parties are becoming a bigger factor in Gaza.
Overall, “40% (compared to 43% seven months ago) believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people today while 19% (compared to 19% seven months ago) believe that Fatah led by president Abbas is the most deserving,” a two-to-one ratio, despite Hamas leading to the destruction of Gaza and becoming a shell organization.
While Gazan support for two states has remained relatively constant since before the war, West Bank support has increased from 30% in September 2023 to 45% today. Overall, 57% oppose a “two state solution.”
But the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) still think the best way to GET Israel to end the “occupation” is via war, albeit now less than half of the population (41%).
Some other notable findings in the poll:
“While the majority says it does not want to leave the Gaza Strip after the war ends, a large minority wants to do that. Similarly, about half of Gazans are willing to apply to Israel to help them emigrate to other countries via Israeli ports and airports”
Among “satisfaction with Arab/regional actors, the highest satisfaction rate went to Houthis in Yemen, as we found in our previous polls, today at 74% (84% in the West Bank and 61% in the Gaza Strip), followed by Qatar (45%), Hezbollah (43%), and Iran (31%).”
“Al Jazeera is the most watched TV station in Palestine”
Vast “majority (87%) said it [Hamas] did not commit such atrocities [on October 7], and only 9% said it did.”
What can account for these statistics? Nazi Germany ultimately surrendered after it was pummeled in the war, so why do the local Arabs still support the war and want Hamas to continue to fight on, much like the Houthis in Yemen where over 250,000 have died over the last decade of war?
An interesting question was added to this poll which may provide a clue. “A majority of 57% (70% in the West Bank and only 38% in the Gaza Strip) believes that the steadfastness of the residents of the Gaza Strip despite heavy human losses and massive destruction is due to their deep belief in God, fate and destiny while 25% (40% in the Gaza Strip and 15% in the West Bank) believe they have no other option, and 15% (22% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) believe it is due to their belief in their Palestinian national identity.” A majority of SAPs are holding on to the war because of religious conviction, not because of nationalist aspirations. It is a belief held more widely OUTSIDE of the Gaza Strip (70% to 15% in the West Bank) where people are not facing the consequences, then inside (38% to 40% in Gaza). It may also be that Gazans know better than West Bank Arabs that they committed vile sexual assaults and brutal torture of children and the elderly.
Such observation may add clarity as to why 9 out of 10 local Arabs do not believe Hamas committed the atrocities of October 7 despite the video and forensic evidence: because they believe that members of Hamas are deeply religious warriors. Perhaps the antidote would therefore be for the U.S. to pressure Qatar’s Al Jazeera to showcase the evidence.
The other takeaway from the poll is that Palestinian Arabs know that they cannot beat Israel militarily on their own. They need other actors joining the fighting (like the Houthis) and “global attention” to apply pressure on the small Jewish State.
While the world bemoans the destruction of Gaza, the local Arabs remain supportive of launching the war and for Hamas. Western empathy for radical jihadism may stop when the victims are no longer Jews, but at that point, it will be too late to stop the scourge.
ACTION ITEMS
Contact the White House to 1) get Qatar’s Al Jazeera to make clear that Hamas committed heinous crimes against humanity on October 7, including raping women and burning children alive; 2) insist that whichever entity assumes control of Gaza (if not Israel) must disarm Hamas; 3) facilitate Gazans leaving the strip to other countries; and 4) condemn the socialist-jihadi alliance attacking Israel and democratic values.
Nothing sounds so lofty as the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC), a global organization that should theoretically be at the vanguard of protecting civilians around the world. Alas, it made itself into a highly biased joke by having ten standing items during each session to cover broad matters, with an exception for a single region – Item 7 – being dedicated to the “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”
On April 5, 2024, amid the Gazan-initiated war on Israel, the UNHRC went to town on Israel, passing the outrageously biased Resolution 55/28 with a vote of 28 in favor, 6 opposed, and 13 abstentions. The Global South was joined in voting for the resolution by Belgium, Finland and Luxembourg from Europe. The chickens which abstained were: Albania, Benin, Cameron, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France, Georgia, India, Japan, Lithuania, Montenegro, Netherlands, and Romania.
The eight pages of vitriol went well beyond actions during the war. It went beyond settlements. It went beyond withholding taxes.
It implicitly backed Gazans’ genocidal war against Israel stating that the council “reaffirm[s] the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation in accordance with international law.” This statement labeled the State of Israel as a “colonial” power, stripping it of rights of defense and designating it a rightful target for attacks.
The antisemitic text even decried Jews living in their holiest and capital city of Jerusalem. It criticized Israel for archeological excavations near the Temple Mount.
Only in three spots (marked in light blue) in the long list condemning Israel was there any expression that Gazans were doing anything wrong. Each related to the immediate situation of war and none condemned the thousands of Gazans who initiated the war killing 1,200 people, raping women and abducting 251 people, nor the Gazan leaders who threatened to commit the barbaric attacks again and again.
In multiple locations (highlighted in orange), the UNHRC demanded that countries withhold supplying arms to Israel and not take any actions against groups around the world which support the Hamas-led war against Israel. It urged countries to not supply Israel with “dual use” items like jet fuel or facial recognition software which could have both civilian and military purposes.
The text is a sickening farce, especially considering the heading of the resolution which highlighted “the obligation to ensure accountability and justice.” The text of the resolution clearly showed the HRC’s belief that only Israel should be held accountable, while Gazans should be absolved of their actions under the UN’s ode for the Stateless Arabs of Palestine (SAPs)‘ “legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence.”
In April 2025, one year after this shameful resolution passed, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tried to pass two resolutions in the U.S. Senate to block America’s sale of arms to Israel. His introduction to the vote lambasted AIPAC as a nefarious organization, and then called the Israeli government “racist and extremist” engaged in a “barbaric war against the Palestinian people,” even though the Israeli military constantly warns civilians to move out of battlefields and has the lowest civilian-to-combatant death toll of any modern urban war.
Fourteen senators joined Sanders in voting to block the arms sale to Israel in the middle of the multi-front war, including Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Peter Welch (D-VT).
The fact that all fifteen senators voting against supplying Israel weapons during the war were Democrats should not be a surprise. According to a March 2025 Gallup poll, Republicans favor Israel over SAPs by 75% to 10%, while Democrats favor SAPs over Israelis by 59% to 21%. This is a continuation of a trend that started BEFORE Gazans’ October 7 atrocities, as highlighted in Gallups’ February 2023 poll.
It begs us to answer the framework of “the obligation to ensure accountability and justice” in general, even before applied to war. What is the baseline that the UNHRC and Democrats (HRC & D) see the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The HRC&D seemingly believe that Israel is a colonial power and SAPs have a legitimate fight for “liberation.” In such framework, even leaders of Hamas’ “political bureau” are regular “civilians entitled to protection,” (as stated by HRC). HRC&D prioritize imposing sanctions on Israeli Jewish “settlers” in the immediate aftermath of October 7 (as urged by Sen. Van Hollen in November 2023).
The HRC&D baseline for considering “accountability and justice” is that Arabs are justified in fighting Israel, while Israeli Jews are wrong for just living.
Anyone and everyone should be upset with the loss of so much civilian life in the war which started eighteen months ago. But the number of dead on each side obscures the fundamental issue in the conflict is the competing views that Israel is a legitimate sovereign state or a colonial outpost which should be combated by “any means necessary.”
Masked anti-Israel agitators at Columbia University call for the destruction of Israel
While the UN Human Rights Council and fifteen Democratic senators have not gone so far to endorse a genocide of Jews in Israel, they are actively seeking to shield Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups and their supporters which seek the destruction of Israel from proper measures of justice.
First One Through 