Jerusalem of Iron ๐ฎ๐ฑ ืขื ืืฉืจืื ืื on X - "Richard Greene: "In conversations I've had with young people about their deep hatred of Israel here in Europe I've come up with some startling conclusions.
1. There seems to be a strong consensus that Israel should NOT have attacked back after the October 7 attacks on them. There are two reasons for this:
a) No matter what, children do not deserve to die and if ANY response would kill innocent children, then it is immoral.
b) That attacking back only perpetuates a potentially endless cycle of war.
2. When I ask the obvious follow-up question, "Well, what SHOULD Israel/Netanyahu have done?" the overwhelming, and immediate, answers have been, "I don't know but, definitely, not what they did!"
3. Most do not know that Hamas continued, virtually every day, to attack Israel AFTER October 7, and fired over 30,000 rockets into CIVILIAN areas of Israel. And when they were informed the answer was, "It doesn't matter".
4. The concept of self-defense and fighting to stop FUTURE attacks seems to be impossible for them to grasp. They reflexively default to "Retaliation", and that retaliation by a stronger army is someone inherently unfair, especially if it kills innocent children.
5. The extremely limited pre-frontal cortex operations continue. When informed of the horrific, barbaric actions of Hamas, and even their extremist goals to destroy Israel, and Jews, the almost unanimous and instant response is "Not all Palestinians are Hamas". Or, "The children Israel is killing are not Hamas".
6. The valid statement that what Israel did was NOT a "Genocide" is seen as incredibly technical, semantic, legal and insensitive. And almost useless against the emotional and incessantly repeated claims to the contrary. And, yes, innocent children were killed by Israel so it must, to them, be something as horrible as "genocide", or perhaps even worse.
7. Reminding people about the horrific actions against Muslims, or Christians, in the streets of Iran, in Yemen, in Somalia and so many other places is useless. It truly seems that the funny phrase, "No Jews, No News" is actually a thing. And double standards seem to be an inexorable part of that.
8. There is virtually zero understanding about the dangerous, extremist agenda of Islamists and Jihadists. In fact, at a tennis tournament I spoke with someone who actually works at The UN in Geneva and asked her whether it was true that people in Europe are increasingly uncomfortable with the growing influence, and terrorism from Muslims. She scolded me for even suggesting that any group can be generalized and said, boldly, that there are far more incidents of Right Wing Terrorism in Europe than from Muslims. The facts are that Islamic violent acts account for 41% and Right Wing only 5% in Europe. (Shocking, I know, that someone from The UN could be so clueless : )
Botton line: Attempting to even plant seeds of a different perspective with young "Free Palestine"/"Israel is Evil" believers is about as effective as trying to reason with hard-core MAGA Trump supporters. It's a cult and the virtue signaling and protests . . . and seeing those on social media - over and over and over again - has reinforced all of the above positions, no matter how inane or insane, to a very high degree.
So, what to do?
1. Educate about the stated goals of Islamism and Jihadism Virtually no one understands that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of those following Islamic teachings dream of and work towards a "Global Caliphate" where EVERYONE is Muslim. And virtually no one knows that the destruction of Israel, and the killing of all "infidels" is the stated goal of many Islamic groups, especially the "Twelver Shia" sect which is headquartered in Iran.
2. Go on offense The Woke Left and Woke Right and most young people around the world are happy to go on offense against Israel . . . and do it with almost every sentence. It's even become cool to say vicious things about an entire country.
So, it is absolutely fair to no longer agree to be the punching bag for the world.
Here are some suggestions . . .
*"Why do you support Genocide?" Hamas and Hezbollah are actually committed, in writing, to the actual genocide of the Jewish people. *"Why do you support Gender Apartheid against women? You know that virtually every one of Israel's enemies - both entire countries and, of course, Hamas and Hezbollah, treat women VERY differently than men. Second, or even third class citizens or, as some Islamist Clerics say, like "cows".
*Why don't you support Free Speech?
*Why don't you support LGBTQ Rights?
*Why don't you support Democracy?
*Why don't you support Abortion Rights? (And did you know that Israel is the only place in the Middle East where women CAN get abortions legally . . . and that they even provide free abortions to Palestinian women who go there from Gaza?)
*Why is it so important to you that The Muslim Messiah, "The Mahdi" return to Earth to save the Muslim people? (Please do some research on Twelver Shia Islam. THIS is the motivation for Iran to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, The Houthies and other proxies to destroy Israel. Not kidding.
*Why didn't you protest against 40,000 INNOCENT Iranian protesters who were shot - point blank - in the streets of Iran FOR protesting? Do you hate young Iranian men and women?""
"White" people are not allowed to defend themselves
Relentlessly criticising Israel while refusing to say what they should have done is proof of their bias - like a teacher who always marks a student wrong while refusing to reveal what the right answer is
Maarten Boudry on X - "Political scientist Sven Biscop, a former colleague at @UGent , is an intelligent and erudite scholar who consistently offers nuanced analyses of geopolitics. He demonstrates that once again in this interview for @demorgen . That he nevertheless resorts to such nonsensical non sequiturs when answering the question about whether Israel has committed “genocide” in Gaza has, in my view, only one plausible explanation: the social cost of giving an honest answer has become too high. First, the displacement of a population does not constitute “genocide” under the UN Genocide Convention. Biscop knows this. Both legally and morally, forcibly relocating a group is fundamentally different from systematically exterminating it. Had the Nazis simply deported the Jews to Madagascar — a plan they once considered — instead of liquidating them on an industrial scale in killing squads and gas chambers, that would clearly not have constituted genocide. What about the charge of “ethnic cleansing” then — a weaker accusation than genocide, but still a grave crime? That too is demonstrably false in this context. Roughly 20% of Israel’s population within its internationally recognized borders consists of Palestinians (Arab Muslims). They enjoy civil rights, and there is no concrete plan to expel them from Israel. There are extremists in the Knesset and in Netanyahu’s cabinet who might wish otherwise, but their views have not translated into policy. Even in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians continue to live there. Many of them were allowed to return following the ceasefire. In what sense, then, does this amount to “ethnic cleansing”? In the West Bank, you can at least have a reasonable discussion about whether the violence of extremist settlers (and the tacit support or indifference from Israeli government officials) amounts to "ethnic cleansing". But "genocide"? One by one, I see intelligent colleagues — some even specialists in the Holocaust — endorsing the claim that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza. I will not repeat here why I consider that accusation both obscene and absurd; I have addressed it at length in @Quillette (note that no Dutch or Flemish newspaper was willing to publish that piece — perhaps because they realize it would provoke a storm of controversy): https://maartenboudry.substack.com/p/they-dont-be lieve-it-either Most striking is that some of them appear only half convinced themselves, as evidenced by the non sequiturs they advance. Why is that? Simple: everyone knows what happens today if you refuse to pay lip service to this claim — social ostracism, waves of hostility, calls for dismissal. The rector of Sven Biscop’s university has even stated that anyone questioning the genocide in Gaza crosses a “red line” that should not be crossed. In such a stifling and intimidating environment, serious debate becomes nearly impossible."
Academic freedom only exists so Marxist academics can push the left wing agenda
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib | Facebook - "Endless aid money for Gaza? In countless Washington conversations about Gaza’s reconstruction, one thing has become unmistakably clear: attitudes and institutional thinking have barely shifted since the horror of October 7 and the devastation that followed. Too many policymakers and aid veterans still frame Gaza’s future as a matter of restoring large aid flows — a technocratic problem of resource allocation — rather than confronting the deeper failure of the NGO, charity, aid, and development industries that entrenched Hamas’s rule for two decades and helped set the conditions for October 7. It is astonishing that many of the same personalities who profited from “developing” Gaza now expect to return as architects of its recovery. At a recent think‑tank event, I met one such figure — someone who oversaw vast reconstruction contracts and whose negligence enabled Hamas to divert enormous quantities of materials into its tunnel network. This individual casually remarked that “aid should be restored to pre‑war levels, and that should be enough,” revealing a mindset concerned only with reviving their personal fiefdom, not rebuilding Gaza. Under Hamas, every NGO operating in Gaza had to register first with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and then with Hamas in Gaza. Hamas demanded board lists, funders, staff names, and full financial transparency — and assigned an internal security officer to monitor each organization. International NGOs complied with these requirements, even as those same NGOs refused similar requests from the Israeli military after the ceasefire. Compliance with Hamas became the price of doing business. Meanwhile, the sheer volume of aid flowing into Gaza allowed Hamas to survive financial sanctions and maintain multiple revenue streams — from the PA, the UN, Qatar, Iran, local taxation, and the group’s own foreign donors. Add to this the sprawling ecosystem of international NGOs, and the outcome was predictable: no sustainable development, no equitable distribution of aid, no functioning institutions, and no pathway to peace. Instead, aid became a welfare system that trapped Gazans while enriching an industrial complex of NGOs, consultants, Hamas operatives, and a compromised civil society incapable of resisting Hamas’s diversion of billions toward tunnels, weapons, and preparations for October 7 — all in violation of humanitarian neutrality. Gaza’s reconstruction cannot rely on the same apparatuses, personnel, systems, or approaches that failed so catastrophically. Repeating them will simply allow Hamas to reconstitute itself and ensure that radicalization persists, while Gaza remains stuck without transformation, cultural renewal, economic revival, strategic reinvention, or a viable future in the region."
Maarten Boudry on X - "You know what’s striking? Almost no one even bothers anymore to address the substance of the accusation that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza. Every time I post about this, the reactions fall into two categories:
➡️“This is semantic hair-splitting and nitpicking. Who cares what you call it? Why are you so obsessed with that word?” So ๐’๐ฎ obsessed with the word? For over two years, everyone and their dog has been forced to ritually utter the g-word: newspapers, politicians, academics, NGOs. No other denunciation of Israel’s war would satisfy the activists. And now, all of a sudden, it’s “just semantics”? We’re talking about the “crime of crimes” here, a separate category of evil coined after the greatest atrocity of the modern era. This attitude reveals an astonishing flippancy that we would never tolerate in any other context (“The West committed genocide in Mosul and Raqqa!” / “Churchill committed genocide in Dresden!”).
➡️ “Here’s a list of organizations that say it is a genocide. Checkmate.” This is pure argument from authority — and a weak one at that. NGOs are unelected, self-appointed cliques increasingly infected by ideology, not scientific bodies with rigorous quality standards. Besides, that near-unanimity is precisely my point: every NGO and academic department has been pressured for more than two years to publish its own sham report concluding “genocide,” regurgitating the same laundry list of fabricated or distorted quotes supposedly proving “intent,” and copying each other’s shoddy arguments. It’s the worst kind of citation ring.
But something has shifted. The remarkable unwillingness of these people to actually defend their case betrays its weakness (https://maartenboudry.substack.com/p/they-dont-be lieve-it-either ). Deep down, they realize this whole thing is nonsense from start to finish. When the dust settles, this canard will go down in history as one of the greatest lies of our time. No other form of “fake news” has enjoyed such enthusiastic support from cultural and academic elites. Many colleagues and friends have deeply disappointed me here, because they either failed to speak out against this lie or caved under pressure and uttered the g-word themselves (I won’t mention names — there are too many anyway). I hesitated to use the term at first, but I think Steven Pinker (@sapinker ) is right: this is the modern version of the “blood libel,” the medieval fable that Jews used the blood of Christian children in the preparation of matzah for Passover."
CG Idit Shamir ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ on X - "๐จ๐ฆ - In a display of moral clarity one has come to expect from the finest academies, Professor Ardi Imseis of Queen’s University informed the Canadian Parliament that Hamas, a group officially recognized as a terrorist entity by Canada itself, is merely a “non-state armed group” engaged in “resistance” against an “occupying force,” striking only “legitimate military objectives.” Since 2005, no Israeli troops or civilians remained in Gaza until after the October 7, 2023 massacre. Burning babies alive in their cribs, gang-raping women at a peace festival, and machine-gunning families in their homes on October 7th must, one supposes, count as the very apex of legitimate resistance in the refined atmosphere of Queen’s Law. How bracing to witness such intellectual honesty."
EDITORIAL: Forget Gaza, Mr. Carney. Worry about our streets | Toronto Sun - "It has become shockingly apparent that this country has become institutionally antisemitic. Since Oct. 7, 2023, it’s commonplace for Jewish businesses, retail stores and institutions to be attacked and shot up. Rarely is anyone held to account. Pro-Hamas mobs routinely take over our streets. Only occasionally does any one of our cowardly leaders — our mayors, our MPs, our prime minister — raise their head above the flak to denounce it. When they do, it’s lip service. Nothing changes. This week, the group Montreal4Palestine took to the streets of that city, displaying effigies of Israeli and U.S. politicians, as well as Jews, being hanged alongside a Canadian flag... these events occurred in Canada. In 2026. In broad daylight and in front of numerous witnesses. Yet, what are Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand fretting about? Not Jews living peaceable lives in Canada. No, they’re irate over the treatment of Canadian activists who set out in a flotilla to insert themselves into the Gaza war."
We're still told that left wingers don't hate their countries. Time to obsess over how the January 6th protesters erected a scaffold for Mike Pence. You're only allowed to threaten the left's enemies, which is good, and if you criticise that you hate freedom of speech
Meme - "Exactly. This is about Jew-hating, not care for the dead.
Exclusive: Chief heart surgeon at Jewish General Hospital quits province amid rising antisemitism in Montreal - " The chief of cardiac surgery at the Jewish General Hospital has tendered his resignation and plans to move to Atlanta in September, citing rising antisemitism in Montreal and worsening problems with the province’s health-care system, The Gazette can reveal. Dr. Emmanuel Moss, who has worked at the Jewish General for the past 10 years, has already informed his patients and his synagogue of his imminent move to the United States. Moss’s departure makes him the second high-profile Montreal Jew — after Concordia University professor Gad Saad — to decide this spring to quit the city amid a sharp increase in documented antisemitic incidents in the past three years."
Mor Edge Insight on X - "Remember the European Hospital in Khan Younis last May? Israel struck a targeted site there, and the world lost its mind. Palestinians denied any tunnel existed underneath. The UN and European governments rushed to condemn Israel for attacking a “hospital.” Outrage, headlines, accusations of war crimes… the usual script. Then June came. The IDF took international media into the very same location and showed them the tunnel… a full Hamas command center, right under the emergency room. Weapons, rooms, infrastructure. And yes, that’s where they found and confirmed the body of Mohammed Sinwar, Hamas’s top military commander and brother of Yahya Sinwar. The strike that killed one of the architects of October 7 was surgically precise, and entirely justified. Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, hospitals and other medical facilities lose their protected status when they are used for military purposes, such as command centers, weapon storage, or troop movements. By deliberately turning the European Hospital into a Hamas base, the terrorists themselves stripped it of any legal protection. Not a single apology from the UN or the European governments that rushed to condemn Israel. Not one admission they were wrong. They simply moved on to the next round of accusations. This is the pattern. Hamas hides its terror infrastructure under civilian sites, uses hospitals as shields, and the international community reliably attacks the defender for responding, only to be proven wrong again and again and again when the evidence emerges. How many times does this have to happen before the world stops falling for it?"
Oxford Union president said Hamas would be ‘lauded as heroes’ - "The Oxford Union president said Hamas would be “lauded as heroes” and claimed that their actions were “proportional”. Arwa Elrayess also suggested it was “quite rich” for people to “act shocked” by the October 7 atrocities, given the harsh treatment of Palestinians by Israel, according to leaked messages... It is the latest scandal to engulf the union, coming just months after its previous president was ousted following comments he made that appeared to celebrate the shooting of Charlie Kirk, the Right-wing US influencer... Challenged by a fellow student in the group, who said: “I’m amazed that you are essentially describing Hamas’s actions as ‘proportional’”, Ms Elrayess responded: “I am, actually. In fact, some would argue it’s less than proportional. “Have you seen what Israel has put Palestinians through for decades???”... the Oxford Union’s ball, organised by Ms Elrayess, partnered with the Palestinian Forum in Britain, a British organisation that “seeks to raise the profile of Palestine’s culture, its concerns and its community”. The group has long been associated with Zaher Birawi, who has been described as a “Hamas operative” and a “serious national security risk” to the UK... Ms Elrayess is Palestinian, and has spoken about how her family had to flee from Gaza to Syria in the 1960s before they were able to return following the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian ambassador to the UK has praised her for being the “first Palestinian elected president of the Oxford Union in its 202-year history” and for “championing open debate on human rights, justice, and equality”."
Oxford student subjected to anti-Semitic smear campaign in Union election - "he travelled to Israel with around two dozen other Oxbridge students as part of a trip organised by the Pinsker Centre think tank. Over nine days, the group met Israelis and Palestinians to better understand the Gaza conflict. The Telegraph reported on the trip earlier this year after one of the party, Bradley Smart, 21, a Cambridge University student, faced death threats from fellow students upon his return to campus. In Mr Ashworth’s case, he had deliberately not posted about the trip on social media, but another student was less cautious and posted a picture which showed him in the background. Upon his return to Oxford, he was told by friends that news of his visit was spreading around the university. A few days later, the Cherwell student newspaper mentioned his trip in an editorial, in which he was referred to by the nickname “John Minor” – a play on John Major, the former prime minister. At the time, Mr Ashworth was standing to become the secretary of the union, one of its most senior positions and viewed as a stepping stone to the presidency. Memes and posts about him started to appear on two Facebook groups for union politics called “union memes for power hungry teens” and “union memes for power hungry teens in exile”. Around 10 posts were made over the course of two weeks on the pages, which have around 600 followers between them. One of them edited a picture of him onto a screenshot from the website Track AIPAC – a website that tracks Israel lobby spending in US politics – to suggest he was being funded by Israel. This post received a laughing emoji from Mr Abaraonye, who was forced out of the union last October after it emerged he had shared messages celebrating the death of Kirk. Another post, which depicted Mr Ashworth posing with soldiers in the Israel Defence Forces, said: “Ben Netanyahu Trashworth doesn’t want people to see these photos of him smiling and posing with the genoicidal (sic) Israeli armed forces!” A comment beneath said: “We have an IOF sympathiser hugging soldiers in Israel whilst Gaza is being bombed to filth and he wants us to vote him in as officer and trust him with a Union position. Shame on you.” It also accused him of “openly sharing your complicity and support in genocide and occupation”. Mr Ashworth said: “I quickly found out how widespread anti-Semitic sentiment was in Oxford. Nigh immediately, student members of the Oxford Union began to weaponise my visit to Israel in order to destroy my reputation. “Though I am not Jewish, Union members deployed anti-Semitic tropes in their attacks on me.” Mr Ashworth had been running for election as part of an electoral pact of fellow students, but was dropped from this amid the barrage of abuse."
Recognition of Palestine risks undermining the legal order Australia claims to defend | The Spectator Australia - "The central legal problem is straightforward: what exactly is Australia proposing to recognise? No coherent answer has yet been provided. Indeed, the intellectual and pragmatic behemoth that is Senator Claire Chandler, showed the active farce of what the Australian Labor Party is recognising through their inability to answer the most basic questions pertaining to this matter. The borders of the proposed state remain undefined. Would the state include Gaza? The so-called West Bank (actually Judea and Samaria)? East Jerusalem? Areas under Israeli security control? Territories presently governed by Hamas? International law traditionally requires some degree of territorial certainty before statehood can be meaningfully recognised. This is where the Montevideo Convention becomes critically important. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States remains the most widely cited articulation of the criteria for statehood under customary international law... These requirements are not mere technicalities. They exist because statehood is among the most consequential statuses in international law. Recognition confers legitimacy, diplomatic standing, treaty capacity, and sovereign protections. If states can simply be recognised absent the Montevideo criteria, statehood ceases to be a legal concept and instead becomes an ideological or political reward; a dangerous precedent. The difficulties become immediately apparent when the Palestinian situation is examined against the Montevideo framework. First, there is no clearly defined territory. Gaza along with Judea and Samaria are politically and administratively fragmented. Borders remain disputed. Governance arrangements differ radically between regions. Sovereign authority is contested. Indeed, Palestinian political organisations themselves disagree over territorial claims and constitutional arrangements. Secondly, the criterion of effective government is deeply problematic. Gaza has long been controlled by Hamas, an organisation designated as terrorist by Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Hamas and its supporters did not merely engage in armed conflict against Israel on October 7, 2023. It carried out mass murder, hostage-taking, torture, and sexual violence against civilians. Rewarding the broader Palestinian national movement with recognition shortly after such atrocities risks creating a dangerous precedent in international affairs: namely, that political violence can accelerate diplomatic gains. Judea and Samaria presents different but equally serious problems. The Palestinian Authority does not exercise full sovereign control over the territory it claims. Its powers remain heavily constrained by the (arguably problematic) Oslo Accords, particularly the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II). Those agreements explicitly divided administrative and security authority and restricted the Palestinian Authority’s independent sovereign functions, including aspects of foreign relations. This matters because statehood requires more than symbolic administration. It requires genuine sovereign governmental capacity. Thirdly, the capacity to enter into international relations independently remains legally uncertain. A government whose authority is fractured between rival factions, dependent on external actors, and constrained by prior agreements cannot easily satisfy the Montevideo requirement of independent international capacity... Article 80 of the United Nations Charter preserved certain rights arising under League of Nations mandates. The British Mandate for Palestine recognised the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land and supported the establishment of a Jewish national home. Whatever one’s political position on modern Israeli policy, it is historically and legally inaccurate to portray Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria as recent colonial inventions. Importantly, this article recognise the Jewish people’s rights to Israel, including Judea and Samaria. A succinct interjection pertaining to history is warranted here. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem, Hebron, Judea and Samaria predates Islam, Christianity, and indeed most modern nation states... Historical context also matters when discussing Palestinian identity itself. Prior to the rise of the Egyptian Yasser Arafat and the modern Palestine Liberation Organisation, the term ‘Palestinian’ was used as a regional or geographic description rather than a distinct national identity. Indeed, even many contemporary Arabs state that ‘Palestinian’ are not an ethnic group... Under Arafat and through expert guidance by the Soviet KGB, however, Palestinian identity increasingly transformed into a revolutionary nationalist project rooted in antisemitic ideology broadly, and centred largely upon opposition to Israel and Zionism (which is simply that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel and have the right to self-determination). Critics argue that aspects of this movement incorporated explicitly antisemitic rhetoric... Modern international discourse frequently ignores the Jewish indigenous connection. Yet instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognise the significance of ancestral and historical ties to land. International law cannot selectively invoke indigeneity for some groups while dismissing it for Jews. This would in fact be an example of the very definition of antisemitism... the author has been twice assaulted by ‘pro-Palestinian’ thugs in Brisbane, denied service in a business in front of staff for being ‘visibly Jewish’, and was removed from their very successful academic role at one university after speaking out against the October 7 atrocities (specifically those of pertaining to sexual violence)... unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood should reasonably be interpreted by Australians as rewarding the worst types of terror imaginable. The rule of law depends upon consistency. International law loses legitimacy if legal standards are selectively abandoned for political convenience, especially if they are perpetually targeting Jews, just as the UN currently does... A durable peace between Israelis and ‘Palestinians’ will almost certainly require compromise, negotiation, and eventual coexistence. But genuine peace cannot emerge from diplomatic gestures that ignore unresolved questions of sovereignty, governance, terrorism and legality. Not to mention, us Jews have tried all of this before, in good faith."
Israel/Gaza. Saudi/Houthis
Total people killed ~37,000 (just as of 2021) ~377,000
Dead civilians ~16,000 (just as of 2018) ~85,000
People displaced ~2M maximum (just as of 2020) ~4M minimum
Canada sold weapons to side with the upper hand Yes, Yes
Value of Canadian military exports in 2023 ~$31M ~$905M
Jews can be blamed Yes, No
Widespread protests Yes, No"
"I'm reading 100,000 children starved to deaths in the Saudi/Houthi war. I think your dead civilian number are on the low side."
From "
Time to crack down on the "far right" to keep Jews safe. Montreal needs to do more to combat Islamophobia, because no one is safe until everyone is safe, and the same "white nationalists" going after Jews hate Muslims too
Weird. We're told that no one supports terrorists
You're not allowed to find out for yourself and meet real people. You must accept what terrorist supporters claim, or you're a bad person and funded by the Israel lobby
The clearest and simplest explanation of why anti-Zionism (which is not just criticism of Israel) is anti-Semitism is that it denies Jews the self determination that it so aggressively asserts for Arabs (and other non-"white" "minorities")
