Connect with us
Israel Bonds RRSP


John Oliver on Danger That Hamas Will Repeat Oct. 7 Massacre: Oh Well!

John Oliver in the Nov. 12 episode of his HBO show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” Photo: Screenshot

On November 13, John Oliver demonstrated why the comedy-as-news business has jumped the shark.

On his HBO program, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the host ranted for about half an hour about the current war in Israel and Gaza. But his understanding of events, as well as his analysis of the war itself, is as tenuous as that of a grade schooler.

Oliver did not even mention the many times that the Palestinians have been offered independence and rejected it, instead trying to blame now-Prime Minister Netanyahu for the failure of the Oslo peace process. Nor did Oliver mention the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, where Israeli troops — and also Israeli civilians who were living in Gaza — were removed, in some cases forcibly, by their own government, and the Palestinians of Gaza were left with a greenhouse agricultural business, a beautiful coastline for tourism, and the opportunity to chart their own course for the future.

In the context of the Last Week segment, this was an omission that is either shockingly dishonest or shows a shocking ignorance.

The culmination of Oliver’s diatribe, towards the end at about 28 minutes into the segment, was a call for a ceasefire, including the following:

There are those like Mideast peace expert Harvey Levin who will say, and not wrongly, that there are real dangers to a ceasefire, that Hamas might regroup once the bombing stops. Although that’s arguably gonna be a danger whenever it stops. So why not stop right now?

Oliver, of course, was mocking Harvey Levin, the founder and executive producer of celebrity-gossip site TMZ. But perhaps Oliver should do some introspection. Levin is certainly no less qualified on this topic than Oliver himself, as his many inaccurate remarks detailed below attest.

More to the point, these superficially peace-loving words hide a deep, deep callousness toward Jewish life. Because both in this passage and earlier, when mentioning Ghazi Hamad, Oliver acknowledges that, if given the chance, Hamas will attack again, and then basically says, “oh well!”

Israelis must simply live with the danger of adults and children being killed, raped, tortured, dismembered, or taken hostage en masse. Too bad for the Jews, he implies, but there’s simply nothing to be done.

Notwithstanding a few individuals with fringe views that Oliver elevates, Israeli officials from across the political spectrum have made clear that the goal of the war is to destroy Hamas so that a repeat of the October 7 massacre will not, in fact, be a danger in the future.

But Oliver prefers that Israel stop now and leave Hamas — who, as even Oliver admits, represses the people of Gaza as well — in place.

Oliver’s correct assertion that there is a distinction between Hamas and the people of Gaza, as well as his long but facile explanation of the lack of control Gaza civilians have over their government, both miss the point, which is simply this: In the wake of the October 7 massacre, Israelis can no longer be expected to live with Hamas on their border.

Unless the people of Gaza turn over Hamas members to the IDF and stop allowing themselves to be used as human shields, Israel has a right to remove Hamas by any means necessary.

That this is an unspeakable tragedy for the people of Gaza is undoubtedly true. Those who are truly concerned should be calling on Hamas to end the bloodshed by immediately surrendering. Instead, Oliver effectively is calling on Israel — the party that was attacked — to do so.

Oliver’s many other inaccuracies, distortions and material omissions about the conflict include:

Using Hamas casualty figures without caveat.
Asserting that settlements “are widely understood to be against international law,” when in fact there is no consensus on the matter, and in any event, law is not decided by what is “widely understood.”
He claimed that, “in response [to the October 7 attack], Israel has launched what’s now become a month-long siege of Gaza, cutting off nearly all water, food, electricity, and fuel to the territory.” But just two weeks before his segment, The New York Times admitted that Hamas had food, water and fuel stockpiled.
He said, “I’m not going to get into the thousands of years of generational trauma informing the response to this, including the Holocaust, and the Nakba, or mass violent displacement of Palestinians, during and after Israel’s founding.” Of course there was no mass violent displacement of Palestinians at Israel’s founding. While some Palestinians may have been expelled, most fled from a war that Arab nations started along with their Palestinian Arab allies. His comments also puts the Holocaust on equal footing with an event of the Palestinian Arabs’ own making.
While Oliver mentioned some of Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad’s comments, he omitted the worst part. He said, “This senior Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, recently doubled down on the massacre of October 7 by saying, ‘We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice, and three times.’” But Hamad was even more specific, also saying, “the Al-Aqsa Flood [i.e., the October 7 attack] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
Oliver further claimed that, “even if all Palestinians in Gaza did support Hamas, which they do not, the relentless bombings of civilians there would still be abhorrent. Collective punishment is a war crime.” But collective punishment is not what is happening. The term “collective punishment” is specifically defined. A bombing campaign targeted towards fighters that, however tragically, civilians are caught up in, does not constitute “collective punishment.” If it did, all war would be a “war crime” and the term would become meaningless.
Oliver says that “this country has emphatically picked a side. In recent years, we’ve given Israel $3.8 billion a year in military aid.” But the US has also given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians, some of it allegedly in violation of the Taylor Force Act.
Oliver repeated the canard that Gaza is an “open-air prison.” This claim totally ignores the fact that, as mentioned above, Israel completely evacuated Gaza in 2005, and there was no blockade at that time. Moreover, social media posts since the start of the Israeli military campaign decrying the destruction of previously-beautiful Gaza have inadvertently given the lie to this claim.
Oliver has much to say about the conditions of extreme poverty in which many of the people of Gaza live, but nothing to say about the billionaires who manage Hamas from luxury hotels while living in Qatar. He also has ample time to show his audience the tragic suffering of the Gazan children who have been displaced by the war, but not one minute for Israeli children whose parents or other relatives have been killed or taken hostage, or who have themselves been displaced from the kibbutzim in the south.
Oliver doesn’t seem to understand cause and effect, saying, “Hamas branded itself as the party of resistance to Israel and undermined the peace process with a long series of attacks and suicide bombings, and as prospects for peace collapsed, Hamas seems to be vindicated in its messaging and you can see the philosophy continuing through to today.” But it is the long series of attacks and suicide bombings that have caused the prospects for peace to collapse. Calling this self-fulfilling prophecy a “vindication” of Hamas borders on the absurd.

Oliver has demonstrated the perils of his former boss Jon Stewart’s slogan: “where more people get their news than probably should.” Watching his ignorant rant leaves viewers less informed about the conflict than they were before.

Karen Bekker is the Assistant Director of CAMERA’s Media Response Team. Prior to joining CAMERA, she practiced law for nine years as a commercial litigator. A version of this article previously appeared on the CAMERA website.

The post John Oliver on Danger That Hamas Will Repeat Oct. 7 Massacre: Oh Well! first appeared on

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


We Need a Ceasefire Based on Reality, Not Fantasy

A supporter of Hamas demonstrates outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Photo: Reuters/Piroschka van de Wouw

The prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have issued a joint statement calling on Israel not to enter Rafah, saying the “military operation would be devastating.” Instead, they are pushing for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire.” In doing so, they have joined many other international voices calling for Israel to stop its defensive actions against Hamas, arguing that Israel “must listen to the international community.”

While their statement does eventually call for Hamas to “lay down its arms and release all hostages immediately,” this part only appears in the fifth paragraph, making Israel the focus of opprobrium and criticism.

This statement — and the similar calls for a ceasefire made by so many over the past few weeks — betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in Israel, and blames Israel for the actions it is taking to defend its people from murder and mass destruction.

This war only came about because Hamas broke the “ceasefire” that existed on October 6, when it launched a genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 that included rape, mutilation, torture, and the murder of 1,200 men, women, and children as well as kidnapping more than 240 people.

Every single death that has occurred since that day in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas’ actions.

Yet, despite the abundance of evidence, including interviews with Hamas officials, testimonies of survivors, and video of the atrocities taken by the terrorists themselves, much of the world still quite inexplicably fails to understand and accept the true nature of Hamas and its intentions.

The very idea that a genocidal terror organization can sit down with a democratic, free country and negotiate some kind of lasting truce — leading to a peaceful outcome — is so preposterous and ludicrous that it defies common sense.

There is zero-chance that Hamas will listen to Western governments and lay down its arms permanently. And there is zero-chance that Hamas will free all the hostages, unless faced with overwhelming coercion.

Hamas’ very existence is predicated on the condition that Israel and its Jewish residents must be annihilated, as stated clearly in its founding document. Hamas’ fundamentalist and extremist ideology doesn’t allow for long-term compromise, and those who think it does are kidding themselves.

Yet those who call for ceasefires ignore this reality, effectively placing the onus on Israel alone to halt its activities and initiate an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in order to save lives — knowing that Hamas will never do the same.

Israel is implored to “listen” to the international community. Yet that same international community refuses to listen to Hamas itself, which has shown quite unequivocally through its human shield strategy, and genocidal actions against Israel, that it does not care about saving civilian lives.

Israel does indeed want a ceasefire, but one that is based on the reality of the threat it faces, not the fantasy of those whose “virtuous” calls for peace actually invite and encourage more conflict and death — both in Israel and in Gaza.

It is shameful and morally repugnant that Israel is expected to stop defending its citizens and abandon its hostages, allowing Hamas to survive to commit genocidal acts again and again, as it has promised it will do.

The world can be extremely generous with Jewish lives. But Israel cannot.

For Israel, every civilian death is a tragedy, but for Hamas, every civilian death is a strategy. The world cannot be allowed to ignore the fact Hamas has turned Gaza into the largest terror state in history, where so many buildings, schools, and hospitals are terror structures designed to wage war on Israel. What the world refuses to acknowledge is that a structure of terrorism has been embedded into all aspects of Gazan society and infrastructure. And Hamas did this right under the nose of the international community, which continued to pump money into the terror enclave through corrupt United Nations organizations and others.

Israel is on the front-lines of the global battle for peaceful coexistence, human rights, and the sanctity of life. Just as the Nazis and ISIS had to be destroyed, so too must Hamas. The future of Israel — and the free world — depends on it.

Justin Amler is a Policy Analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).

The post We Need a Ceasefire Based on Reality, Not Fantasy first appeared on

Continue Reading


ACLU Threatens Lawsuit Against Columbia University

Anti-Israel students protest at Columbia University in New York City. Photo: Reuters/Jeenah Moon

The New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a far-left nonprofit, is threatening to sue Columbia University unless the school nullifies disciplinary sanctions which temporarily suspended anti-Zionist groups that staged unauthorized demonstrations on campus.

“The referenced ‘unauthorized event’ was a peaceful demonstration and temporary art installation advocating for the end of Israel’s current military campaign in the Gaza strip,” the group wrote in a letter to Columbia University president Minouche Shafik. “Columbia’s actions suggest impermissible and pretextual motives for sanctioning the student groups.”

The ACLU also accused the university, which is being sued for allegedly standing by while pro-Hamas students beat up Jews and screamed antisemitic slogans, of perpetuating “already pervasive dangerous stereotypes about Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims” and other minority groups.

“These student groups were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia University ignore their own longstanding, existing rules and abruptly suspended the organizations,” ACLU executive director Donna Lieberman said in a press release issued on Friday. “That’s retaliatory, it’s targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutes of higher learning should be defending.”

Columbia University suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) in Nov., explaining in a statement that the groups had “repeatedly violated university policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event Thursday afternoon that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” Both SJP and JVP have been instrumental in organizing disruptive anti-Israel protests on Columbia’s campus since Hamas invaded Israel on Oct. 7 and killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

“Lifting the suspension will be contingent on the two groups demonstrating a commitment to compliance with university policies and engaging in consultations at a group leadership level with university officials,” a campus official said at the time, adding that the groups will be ineligible to hold events on campus or receive university funding for the duration of the punishment.

Even after being disciplined, however, SJP members continued their activities in front groups — such as Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a non-campus affiliated group that supports the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement — staging more protests in flagrant violation of the terms of its suspension.

ACLU’s portrayal of pro-Hamas students as peaceful and artistic victims of racism is in tension with how Jewish Columbia students have described their behavior and the university’s response to it.

“F— the Jews,” “Death to Jews,” “Jews will not defeat us,” and “From water to water, Palestine will be Arab,” they have chanted on campus grounds since Oct. 7, violating the school’s code of conduct, a lawsuit filed against Columbia University by last week says. In other incidents, they beat up five Jewish students in Columbia’s Butler Library and attacked another with a stick, lacerating his head and breaking his finger.

Anti-Jewish violence and hatred became so common, the lawsuit alleged, that Columbia told Jewish students that campus security could no longer guarantee their safety.

SJP insisted in Friday’s press release that its members are the victims and suggested that those claiming to be advocates of social justice are beyond reproach.

“Columbia University likes to showcase itself to the world as a champion of student protest, equality, justice, and free speech — but the university’s actions in the lead up to our suspension, and its targeted punishment of our student groups, showed that it is all a farce,” SJP member Safiya O’Brien said. “As students of conscience, we know injustice when we see it. The university’s priorities are not with its student body — certainly not with its Palestinian students and the overwhelming number of those that advocate for them.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post ACLU Threatens Lawsuit Against Columbia University first appeared on

Continue Reading


Low Expectations Ahead of Palestinian ‘Unity’ Talks in Moscow Convened by Russian Regime

Posters on a wall in Tel Aviv highlighting the plight of Israeli hostages seized by Hamas. Photo: Reuters/Dylan Martinez

Representatives of Palestinian factions are traveling to Moscow this week for talks aimed at forging a greater degree of unity, but analysts remained skeptical that the Russian initiative is likely to register progress.

The talks, which are scheduled to begin on Wednesday, will bring together officials of the Islamist terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) with representatives of PLO factions including Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). Announcing the talks last week, Russian deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov told pro-regime media outlets that “all Palestinian representatives who are located in different countries, in particular in Syria and Lebanon, other countries in the region,” would be invited to the Moscow parley, emphasizing at the same time that Russia’s rulers continue to regard the PLO — the main power in the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) — as “the sole legal representative of the Palestinian people.”

Several regional policy analysts argued that expectations from the talks should be necessarily limited, especially as Russia has failed in past efforts to bring rival Palestinian factions closer together.

“Russia does not have any road map for the Palestinian file, especially for the Gaza Strip as it would be necessary to have mediation functions and maintain good contacts with both Israel and the paramilitary wing of Hamas in Gaza,” Ruslan Suleymanov — an independent Middle East expert based in Baku, Azerbaijan — told the German broadcaster DW on Monday.

Suleymanov said that the talks were primarily an opportunity for Russian President Vladimir Putin to showcase Russia’s geopolitical clout amid its ongoing invasion of Ukraine and with elections — which Putin is expected to win easily — on the calendar in March.

“It’s really just dialogue for dialogue’s sake,” Suleymanov remarked.

Hugh Lovatt — senior policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Program at the European Council on Foreign Relations — offered a similar perspective.

“This Russian summit is a way to show that Russia has the diplomatic capacity to play a hands-on role in supporting Palestinian national unity,” he told DW. However, previous reconciliation talks that were hosted in Moscow, Algiers and Cairo have “also not succeeded in brokering a lasting reconciliation deal between the rivals,” he said.

A potential obstacle to the talks emerged on Monday with the resignation of the PA’s Prime Minister, Muhammad Shtayyeh, who had enthusiastically backed the Moscow talks in a speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. The PA has been under increasing pressure from the US to form a more representative government that would be in a position to manage the Gaza Strip once hostilities end.

“The decision to resign came in light of the unprecedented escalation in the West Bank and Jerusalem and the war, genocide and starvation in the Gaza Strip,” Shtayyeh told PA President Mahmoud Abbas in a formal letter.

“I see that the next stage and its challenges require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the new reality in Gaza and the need for a Palestinian-Palestinian consensus based on Palestinian unity and the extension of unity of authority over the land of Palestine,” he added.

A Hamas spokesman told the Saudi channel Al Arabiya on Sunday that the terrorist group wants to form “an impartial national government based on the consensus of the Palestinian factions,” adding that the talks in Moscow would focus only on “a certain period and clear tasks.”

Separately, Hamas politburo member Muhammad Nazzal told the pro-Hamas website Middle East Monitor that the Moscow meeting was necessary because there had been “no official communication” with the PA on the subject of post-war planning.

Nazal claimed in the same interview that Hamas remained a powerful force in the Gaza Strip, where it continues to hold hostage more than 100 of the 240 people seized during its pogrom in southern Israel on Oct. 7. “Rumours of Rafah in the south of being the last stronghold of Hamas are false; the resistance exists across the entire Gaza Strip,” Nazzal said. “Moreover, the movement is fighting a fierce political negotiating battle, no less than the battle it is waging on the ground.”

The post Low Expectations Ahead of Palestinian ‘Unity’ Talks in Moscow Convened by Russian Regime first appeared on

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News