Connect with us

RSS

HBO and John Oliver’s Disgraceful Comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany in West Bank Analysis

John Oliver during the July 28, 2024, episode of his HBO show “Last Week Tonight.” Photo: Screenshot

What do you get when you mix a late-night comedy news show with complex political topics like the West Bank, Israeli settlements, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The answer is, the litany of context-free assertions, mischaracterizations, and outright falsehoods that define the 30-minute profile of the West Bank on this past week’s episode of Last Week Tonight.

Instead of approaching the topic with sensitivity and nuance, British-American comedian John Oliver presented the topic to his audience through a black-and-white lens that pits the aggressive and wicked Jewish State against the innocent Palestinian victims.

In particular, Oliver’s misleading and superficial analysis rested on a litany of oversimplifications and context-free assertions, an almost complete disregard for the role of Palestinian terrorism in the ongoing conflict, and the use of morally-charged terminology meant to unequivocally tarnish Israel’s reputation in the eyes of his audience.

The Missing Context: What Oliver Left Out

Throughout his story on the West Bank, Oliver presented his audience with a simplistic overview of the topic, robbing them of the much-needed context and nuance to truly understand the subject.

Some examples of John Oliver’s misrepresentation of the facts include:

The complete disregard for the Jewish history of the region, including the fact that prior to 1948, there were Jewish communities and Jewish-owned properties in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. While condemning the Jewish presence in certain areas, John Oliver never presents his audience with the complex history that complicates his simplistic narrative.
The claim that Israel incentivizes its citizens to live in the West Bank, even using a lottery to subsidize housing there. Contrary to the way that it is presented, this lottery is not a special tool for sole use in the West Bank, but also exists for subsidized housing in pre-1967 Israel.
The claim that there is a two-tier justice system in the West Bank, one for Israeli Jews and one for Palestinians. Since Israel has not annexed the West Bank, it would be illegal to apply Israeli civil law to Palestinians. As well, all Israeli citizens (including Arabs) are subject to Israeli civil law in the West Bank, not just Jews.
The claim that the Israeli military court system (which applies to West Bank Palestinians) has a 99% conviction rate. As noted in an analysis by CAMERA, this statistic is based on one year (2010) and is likely due to the fact that military prosecutors have a high threshold for which cases to bring and, thus, only bring forward cases they are highly confident will lead to a conviction.
Oliver presents Hebron as being home to 200,000 Palestinians and “700 hardline Israeli settlers who have chosen to live literally above them,” implying some sort of ethnic supremacy. This presentation of Hebron ignores the city’s importance to the Jewish people, disregards the fact that the majority of the city falls under Palestinian Authority control (where Jews are forbidden to live), and dismisses the fact that, topographically-speaking, not all Jews in Hebron live above the Palestinians.

The Missing Puzzle Piece: Palestinian Terrorism

While John Oliver chose to focus his West Bank profile on Israel’s perceived sins, one thing the comedian almost completely left out is the role that Palestinian terrorism has played in the region over the past century.

For example, Oliver decries both the separation barrier and West Bank checkpoints as “physical obstacles placed in the path of Palestinians’ everyday life.”

However, while presenting these as examples of Israeli cruelty, John Oliver fails to inform his audience that Israel was forced to install the separation barrier and checkpoints after years of Palestinian terrorist attacks (including suicide bombings) in pre-1967 Israel that originated in the West Bank.

And when Oliver does mention Palestinian terrorism, he is almost dismissive of its importance and effect on both the Israeli psyche and the tumultuousness of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When discussing what he believes caused the Oslo Accords to break down, Oliver does mention “Palestinian militant attacks” but sandwiches it between settlement expansion and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, clearly placing the greater onus for the collapse of the peace talks on Israel while only paying lip service to the role of Palestinian terrorism.

Similarly, Oliver belittles the settler fear of Palestinian terrorism by comparing the number of Israelis killed in the West Bank over the past 16 years (150) and Palestinians killed (1,522). Clearly, for Oliver, Israel is a much greater threat than Palestinian violence.

However, to reach this conclusion, Oliver has to ignore the fact that these statistics don’t include the wave of Palestinian terrorism known as the Second Intifada (which ended in 2005), that Palestinian attacks are indiscriminate while the majority of Palestinians killed by Israel were either terrorists or engaged in violence, and that the number of Israeli deaths does not correlate with the daily threat of Palestinian terrorism.

For example, in June 2024, 57 terror attacks in the West Bank were foiled by Israeli security forces, while there were almost 400 instances of terrorism (the majority of which were in the West Bank), including shooting, rock throwing, pipe bombing, and firebombing.

Oliver’s “Moral” Case Against Israel

One of the most egregious aspects of this entire piece is Oliver’s use of morally-charged terminology to tarnish his large audience’s view of the Jewish State.

Early on in this segment, Oliver describes the founding of the State of Israel following the Holocaust and then quickly refers to the “Nakba” as the Palestinians’ “own collective trauma,” drawing a direct comparison between a genocide and the result of a war that was not initiated by Israel.

This diminishment of the gravity of the Holocaust is further made clear near the end of the piece when Oliver makes the grotesque implication that Israel is acting like the Nazis, saying:

A phrase that gets brought up a lot with regard to Israel is ‘never again,’ an anti-genocide slogan often invoked in memory of the Holocaust. And it’s always been open to two interpretations: There’s the one that means this must never again happen to the Jewish people and the one that means this must never happen again to any people anywhere. And in the West Bank, as in Gaza right now, it’s pretty clear which one the Israeli government has favored.

Only a complete perversion of morality could produce such a statement.

And yet, morality is what Oliver continually relies on to portray his view as the just one and those that disagree as immoral.

Oliver refers to the building of settlements as “immoral” and suggests the adoption of extreme steps against Israel by the United States as a moral step in the right direction, including conditioning military aid to the Jewish State and allowing anti-Israel resolutions to pass at the United Nations Security Council.

Oliver ends this piece by saying that the United States should “have the moral backbone that’s been shown by Ben & [expletive] Jerry’s,” a reference to the ice cream company’s decision to not allow its wares to be sold in the West Bank. (In an ironic twist, this decision was harmful for local Palestinians who worked for the Israeli ice cream company.)

I was very disappointed to see John Oliver use Holocaust inversion against the Jewish state. It’s one of the most harmful and hurtful forms of antisemitism.

It’s still so surreal that this is happening.

— Eli Klein (@TheEliKlein) July 30, 2024

The West Bank and Israeli settlements are complex and sensitive topics that deserve to be treated carefully and with nuance on the part of the presenter. While Israel is not above reproach, solely focusing on the perceived sins of the Jewish state is not conducive to fully understanding the reality in this contested part of the world.

Instead of acting responsibly, Oliver spent his half hour presentation on the subject spreading ignorance and misinformation, all in an effort to besmirch the Jewish state and inflame passions that are already at toxic levels.

Those who look to John Oliver and his alternative news show for information about current events deserve better.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post HBO and John Oliver’s Disgraceful Comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany in West Bank Analysis first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll

Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.

Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).

“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”

Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.

“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”

She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”

The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.

According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”

On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.

The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.

Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.

“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.

Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.

“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.

The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.

“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”

Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.

Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.

While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.

This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.

“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.

“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”

Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.

In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.

Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.

However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.

Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”

The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide

Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.

Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”

WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.

The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.

“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.

“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”

Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.

“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”

In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.

In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.

The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.

“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”

In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”

The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News