RSS
Since Oct. 7, antisemitism has exploded online in China. Here’s why.
TAIPEI, Taiwan (JTA) — Growing up as a Bukharian Jew in China, Uriah was always told by his parents to hide his Jewishness in public and to try to assimilate into the greater Chinese population.
Uriah — who asked to be identified only by his Hebrew name to ensure the safety of his family — said that when he began publicly talking about his Jewish identity, people told him that he would “never be one of us [Han Chinese].”
But Uriah had never felt physically or personally threatened until the aftermath of Oct. 7, when Hamas killed over 1,400 Israelis in an incursion, sparking a war with Israel that has killed thousands in Gaza.
Online, he saw people taunting the parents of Noa Argamani, the half-Chinese Israeli-born captive who was seen being kidnapped by Hamas in a viral video. People cursed her Chinese-born mother for asking China for help.
Then friends and acquaintances started taunting Uriah and his family members, sending them antisemitic social media posts and messages saying Argamani was rightfully captured by Hamas fighters, he said.
“Is China even going to be a safe place for, say, Jewish businessmen who are known to be Jewish? Will there be hostility verbally, or even physically? In the past, my answer was no, but now I’m not sure,” he said.
After Oct. 7, China’s internet — from message boards to video platforms to social media — suddenly flooded with viciously anti-Israel and antisemitic comments. Pointing to Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, people have said things ranging from support for Hitler and Nazi Germany to the idea that oppressed Jews have become oppressive Nazis.
Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust classic “Schindler’s List,” which has been widely loved in China, was review-bombed so heavily on the video platform Bilibili that its rating declined from 9.7 to 4.3. “Where is the Palestinian Schindler?” read one highly-rated comment.
Commenting became so intense that Israeli and German embassy accounts on Weibo, China’s popular microblogging platform, began filtering responses to some posts.
“We believe in the power of free speech and rational debate… But all this is not without limitations: invective that is degrading to human dignity will be deleted,” the German embassy wrote. “We also want to make it clear that those who deliberately combine the Israeli flag with Nazi symbols in their profile pictures are either ignorant idiots or shameless bastards! Such accounts will be permanently blocked by us.”
It’s not just a phenomenon on social media. State media, such as the Chinese Communist Party-backed national news broadcaster CCTV, claimed that “Jews represent just 3% of the American population but control 70% of its wealth … these factors can be used to exert incomparable influence on politics.” The CCTV video has since been removed, but the hashtag “Jews represent just 3% of the American population but control 70% of its wealth” became a “hot topic” on Weibo, and that unfounded statistic has appeared numerous times in other social media posts seeking to pin the responsibility for the current war against Hamas on a global Jewish conspiracy.
How “philosemitism” can turn into antisemitism
Judaism is not one of China’s five recognized religions, meaning the identity of Chinese Jews like Uriah or the historic community in Kaifeng is not recognized as legitimate. But Jews — who in China are closely associated with the West, especially America — have long been revered in China, where centuries-old stereotypes are common — such as the conspiracy theory that Jews have control over American institutions from Wall Street and the media.
It’s not just about money and power: the Chinese have historically looked to Jews as a sort of mirror of themselves, a down-and-out nation that survived extreme adversity and rose to a position of power and prominence against the odds.
These stereotypes are portrayed in a positive light and are often referred to as “philosemitic.” Jews here have talked about getting everything from free taxi rides to compliments about their intelligence. Bookstores carry self-help books about how to be more like the “successful” Jews. Chinese philosemitic sentiment has been embraced by both Israeli and Chinese governments throughout the development of diplomatic relations, scholars have noted.
But the line between philo- and antisemitism can be thin. Unlike in the West, where antisemitism is a centuries-old, deeply ingrained tradition, Jewish conspiracy theories are a relatively new phenomenon in China. Even “positive” racial stereotypes have the potential to turn negative, especially in the context of heightened anti-Western sentiment in China in recent decades, says Mary J. Ainslie of the University of Nottingham at Ningbo.
As influencer Lu Kewen described in a viral 8,000-word WeChat post in 2021: “The image of Jews in China was once that of saints preparing to save the common people: firm, holy, intelligent, rich and kindhearted while full of trauma.” Though after learning more about the history of “various countries,” Lu wrote, “Jewish names kept coming up … after classifying them and analyzing their behaviors, my impression of Jews slowly changed.” His screed included passages copied and pasted from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
The free propagation of Jewish conspiracy theories despite China’s powerful censorship machine indicates an endorsement by the party-state, which has been hurling blame at the United States for the war in Israel through its state media.
“There is a notice here that stereotyping of Jewish people, particularly negative stereotyping of Jewish people, is actually quite a force online. And because conspiratorial discourses are encouraged by the state and are often actually connected to the state, this is something that [authorities are] not willing to perhaps challenge,” Ainslie said.
At a press conference last week, in response to a question on reports of antisemitism on Chinese social media, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin reiterated China’s stance on the conflict — which calls for a two-state solution — adding that “China’s laws unequivocally prohibit disseminating information on extremism, ethnic hatred, discrimination and violence via the internet.”
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, June 14, 2023. China has sought to play a larger role in Middle East peace negotiations. (Palestinian Presidency/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
China-Israel ties are at a low
China has cultivated a strong economic relationship with Israel since establishing ties in 1992, often referencing the “1,000-year” friendship between the Chinese and Jewish people and the thousands of Jewish refugees who found refuge in Shanghai during World War II. China today remains Israel’s second-largest trading partner behind the United States.
In June, in a sign of warming ties, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told U.S. politicians that he planned to visit Beijing in the near future. He felt compelled to issue a statement emphasizing that “the US will always be Israel’s most vital ally and irreplaceable ally.” (That visit now seems unlikely.)
But China has historically also had a close relationship with Palestinian leaders dating back to the Mao era. The country has shown that it additionally wants to play a bigger role in the Middle East peace process in recent years.
Since Oct. 7, China has not specifically condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel or labeled it as terrorism, leading to deep disappointment and frustration from Israel. Unlike many Western nations, China does not categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization.
On Thursday, Israel’s representative to Taiwan called China’s hesitance to condemn Hamas’ attack “very disturbing.” China has also released little information about the stabbing of an Israeli diplomat’s spouse in Beijing, though police said the attacker was a foreigner.
Instead, China has repeatedly called for restraint on both sides and for a two-state solution to be reached with the help of the United Nations. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has also said Israel had gone “beyond self-defense.”
China has additionally courted support in the Arab League, to the extent that several countries in it have begun rejecting international concerns about human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum said the Chinese government “may be committing genocide” in the region, where the Uyghurs have reportedly been subject to mass imprisonment and forced labor.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in June that China’s actions in Xinjiang are aimed at combating terrorism and have “nothing to do with human rights” abuses.
Plenty of Chinese still support Jews and Israel
Viral social media posts do not necessarily determine the public opinion of the average Chinese, and the topic of antisemitism in China remains understudied. Condemnations of antisemitism in response to the recent phenomenon in China’s cyberspace do exist — many users have condemned Hamas’ terrorism and questioned their government’s response to the conflict.
Pro-Israel sentiment exists, too. Israel has also long been a subject of admiration in China for its rich culture and strong educational and tech sectors that many entrepreneurs have tried to buy into or replicate.
Many Chinese express their support for the Jewish state on the Israeli embassy in China’s Weibo posts. “Support Israel! Annihilate the terrorist organization!” one recent comment reads.
In a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Ping Zhang, a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University, said his attempts to explain to Israeli friends that “‘there are still many Chinese who support Israel’ basically received little response.”
“The goodwill caused by 1,000 Chinese voices friendly to Israel is not worth the damage caused by one antisemitic statement,” he wrote. “Simply put, the foundation of the good relationship built between the two sides over the past three decades has been shattered.”
—
The post Since Oct. 7, antisemitism has exploded online in China. Here’s why. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attends a press conference with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (not pictured) in Berlin, Germany, June 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Christian Mang
Israel is interested in establishing formal diplomatic relations with long-standing adversaries Syria and Lebanon, but the status of the Golan Heights is non-negotiable, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Monday.
Israeli leaders argue that with its rival Iran weakened by this month’s 12-day war, other countries in the region have an opportunity to forge ties with Israel.
The Middle East has been upended by nearly two years of war in Gaza, during which Israel also carried out airstrikes and ground operations in Lebanon targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah, and by the overthrow of former Syrian leader and Iran ally Bashar al-Assad.
In 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco became the first Arab states to establish ties with Israel since Jordan in 1994 and Egypt in 1979. The normalization agreements with Israel were deeply unpopular in the Arab world.
“We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors, to the circle of peace and normalization, while safeguarding Israel‘s essential and security interests,” Saar said at a press conference in Jerusalem.
“The Golan will remain part of the State of Israel,” he said.
Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing the territory from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. While much of the international community regards the Golan as occupied Syrian land, US President Donald Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over it during his first term in office.
Following Assad’s ousting, Israeli forces moved further into Syrian territory.
A senior Syrian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria would never give up the Golan Heights, describing it as an integral part of Syrian territory.
The official also said that normalization efforts with Israel must be part of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and not carried out through a separate track.
A spokesperson for Syria‘s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The 2002 initiative proposed Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from territories including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza. It also called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Throughout the war in Gaza, regional power Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that establishing ties with Israel was conditional on the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Israel‘s Saar said it was “not constructive” for other states to condition normalization on Palestinian statehood.
“Our view is that a Palestinian state will threaten the security of the State of Israel,” he said.
In May, Reuters reported that Israel and Syria‘s new Islamist rulers had established direct contact and held face-to-face meetings aimed at de-escalating tensions and preventing renewed conflict along their shared border.
The same month, US President Donald Trump announced the US would lift sanctions on Syria and met Syria‘s new president, urging him to normalize ties with Israel.
The post Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom
The House of Representatives Building and the East Portico of the US Capitol. Photo: Flickr.
Inside a small toy store in Kiev, my grandmother scanned the faces of 10 identical teddy bears. They all looked back at her with the same blank stare — their beckoning beaded eyes giving the illusion of a choice. Sighing, she picked the very last one on the shelf, wishing there were other options, and bought it for my mother. This sense of having no other choice was a familiar feeling rooted in her day-to-day life, along with the lives of the rest of my family in the Soviet Union.
My grandfather, a student with perfect grades and the hopes of becoming an electrical engineer, had to settle for a lesser school in a small town because the top universities that specialized in engineering rejected him for being Jewish.
My grandparents realized that the life they wanted to live — and the one they wanted their children to have — could not exist in the Soviet Union, so they decided to immigrate to America. Flying across the Atlantic Ocean with her family, my mother tightly clutched the teddy bear my grandmother had given her for her birthday. She gazed out the window of the airplane as it touched down in the land of new beginnings.
Starting this new life towards the end of her high school years, my mother started applying to American universities. There were so many options to choose from, yet there were still so many obstacles to overcome. My mother had to learn English from scratch, and competed with students who grew up in the American education system in order to get one of the limited spots in top colleges. As a result of her hard work and perseverance, she got into and attended a prestigious university, which served as a foundation for building her new life. This would never have been possible if she had stayed in the Soviet Union, as her social status would have always served as a barrier for this kind of opportunity.
My mother, my father, and I now live in a comfortable home in the suburbs of New Jersey. In my bedroom sits the very same teddy bear that made the journey to the United States with my mother. Next to it sit a stuffed frog, a jaguar, and so many other stuffed animals that it would be enough to make an entire zoo. A Hebrew song plays in the background while I sit on my bed and scroll through a list of potential colleges on my computer.
The juxtaposition of how little choice my family had in the Soviet Union — and the seemingly endless amount of possibilities I now have in America — is a perfect example of what the Founding Fathers fought for when they described the “unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Thanks to both the work of America’s founding generations, and my family’s, I now live in a country where opportunities seem limitless, and where the choice is all mine to make.
I am very grateful, and I’m very excited for the future.
Mariella Favel is a high school student in Northern NJ. She is passionate about advocacy and exploring her family’s Russian-speaking Jewish identity.
The post Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The US Attack on Iran Was Legal
A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Natanz County, Iran, June 22, 2025. Photo: Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS
After June 21, when the US bombed critical nuclear sites in Iran, some members of Congress called the mission illegal. It appears the hostilities have ended for now. But the legality of “Operation Midnight Hammer” is still debated.
The question boils down to three issues: Was the US entitled under international law to enter the war? Did President Trump have authority under US law to order the use of military force? And did the undertaking comply with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirement to protect nuclear facilities?
When a US ally is subject to an armed attack or “imminent” armed attack, the US may lawfully assist the ally’s defense. The authority for the intervention is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which guarantees “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.” The multinational military incursions in Kuwait in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001 were considered valid acts of collective self-defense.
Israel suffered two forms of Iranian armed attack. Iran orchestrated armed attacks on Israelis for decades through terrorist proxy groups based in territories surrounding Israel. And Iran directly attacked Israel with two waves of missiles and drones in 2024. Meanwhile, Iran posed an imminent threat of attack because it was becoming a nuclear threshold state while obsessively threatening to annihilate Israel.
Iran observers are unsure how close the regime came to nuclear weaponization. The bomb-making task requires highly enriched uranium, a triggering device, and a delivery vehicle such as a ballistic missile. On April 17, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned that Iran had all the weaponizing “puzzle pieces” and was “not far” from putting them together.
Two months later the IAEA reported that Iran had illegally stockpiled over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough to make several nuclear bombs. Estimates on the remaining time needed to complete the lethal puzzle ranged from months to a year.
Some critics of the American-Israeli collective self-defense welcomed the erasure of Iran’s nuclear facilities but insisted President Trump lacked authority to order the operation without a Congressional declaration of war under Article I of the Constitution. The executive and legislative branches of the US government have long debated the Constitutional power to declare war, and the courts have never resolved the standoff.
A 2016 Department of Justice report formalized the executive branch position on the Constitutional dispute. It defines “war” for the purposes of Article I as a prolonged and substantial military engagement. If there’s no war, there’s no need for a declaration of war. For example, the DOJ opined that a two-week air campaign involving 2,300 combat missions, and an air campaign involving over 600 missiles and precision-guided munitions, did not amount to wars.
Under the DOJ framework, the June 21 assault on Iran’s nuclear program was certainly not a war. The counterproliferation scheme involved just 75 precision guided weapons in a one-day surgical strike. Seven US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers in a “package” of 125 aircraft dropped less than 20 bombs on two nuclear sites, and a US submarine fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at a third nuclear site. The pilots spent only two and a half hours in Iranian airspace.
Members of Congress who raised the Constitutional challenge also claim that the president violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR). Under the WPR, the president may commit armed forces to “hostilities” only if there is a Congressional “declaration of war,” a “specific statutory authorization,” or a “national emergency” created by an attack on the US or its armed forces. Once the military action starts, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours and must stop the action within 60 days unless Congress gives its approval.
Presidents of both parties have repeatedly ignored the three WPR prerequisites to the use of military force. Congressional acquiescence was treated as consent. In the tacit understanding, a president may initiate armed force if it is more surgical than “war” as defined by the DOJ framework and it serves “important national interests.” Consistent with that policy, President Trump described the June 21 action as “a precision strike” that served “vital United States interests.” The vital US interest was the same one emphasized by every US president since 2003, when the IAEA first disclosed Iran’s clandestine plan to develop nuclear weapons. President Trump said the violently anti-Western regime must never acquire a nuclear bomb.
Assuming the US raid in Iran was validly authorized, the only remaining question is whether it was validly implemented. IAEA standards prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities “devoted to peaceful purposes.” Director General Grossi stressed this point in his June 13 Statement on the Situation in Iran, while calling for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict.
Significantly, the Statement did not say Iran’s nuclear facilities were peaceful. Nor did it accuse Israel of violating any IAEA rule. The military nature of Iran’s nuclear facilities made them legally targetable for attack.
It is not legally clear when a US president may wield military might. But based on the written law and past US practice, Operation Midnight Hammer was a valid use of force.
Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, U.S. Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously he worked as a telecommunications lawyer in both the public and private sectors.
The post The US Attack on Iran Was Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.