RSS
Why Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism
23-year-old German-Israeli Shani Louk, who was murdered by Hamas on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Instagram)
The late Elie Wiesel recounted a stirring Hasidic legend to illustrate the insidious and ever-mutating scourge of antisemitism. The evocative story unfolds in a dimly lit inn late one night, where two revered Hasidic masters, Rebbe Elimelekh of Lizhensk, and his brother, Reb Zushya of Anipoli, are both immersed in their Torah studies, their faces illuminated by flickering candlelight as they delve into the sacred texts.
This tranquil scene is shattered when a group of drunken antisemites burst in. Their raucous laughter and uncouth conversation suddenly goes quiet as they spot the two rabbis studying quietly in the corner. Without warning, they unleash their fury on the hapless Reb Zushya, who is subjected to a vicious and relentless beating.
The attack is unexpected and brutal, but Reb Zushya endures it in stoic silence, until he eventually collapses unconscious on the floor, and the assailants momentarily go off to find another drink, their craving for violence temporarily satiated.
In these few fleeting moments of respite, Rebbe Elimelekh, moved by a profound sense of empathy and brotherly love, gently shifts his brother to where he had been sitting at the table and positions himself in Reb Zushya’s place on the floor, so that he will bear the burden of suffering on his brother’s behalf when the antisemites return.
But his act of self-sacrifice goes unnoticed by the returning drunkards. In their alcohol-fueled daze, they fail to recognize the switch, and once again direct their cruelty towards Reb Zushya — who is now seated at the table — thinking that he is the other rabbi, and inflicting yet further pain on the innocent sage.
Wiesel, with his unique brand of irony and insight, observes that this tale is emblematic of the broader narrative of Jewish history, serving as a potent metaphor for the relentless and often irrational nature of antisemitism. The story poignantly underscores the futility faced by Jews as they attempt to evade persecution, revealing how, despite efforts to change and adapt in order to protect themselves, they have historically been confronted with persistent hostility and violence in whatever guise they have chosen.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this story over the past few weeks, in particular because one of the most prominent aspirations behind the establishment of a Jewish state was to forge a sanctuary that could offer security and protection from persecution, not just in Israel but for Jews all over the world.
The idea was that a new reality — namely, a country Jews could call their own after 2000 years of dispersion — would precipitate a change in Jewish fortunes. A strong, independent Israel would place the Jewish people on an equal footing with other peoples, fostering a sense of global parity and, ideally, mitigating the scourge of antisemitism. “Never Again!” became the slogan associated with a strong and secure Israel firmly within the family of nations.
But, as it turned out, even though Reb Zushya moved from his spot on the floor to a seat at the table, he still got beaten up. Rather than this monumental change for Jews being the game-changer that neutralized antisemitism, Israel’s existence and actions have been leveraged by those who are drunk with antisemitism as the new justification for their prejudice, and for unleashing more violence against Jews — now called Zionists.
In fact, a critical aspect that is often overlooked in the discourse surrounding Israel and antisemitism is the conflation of the Israeli state’s actions with Jews. I don’t recall, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine last year, that Russians living in the West, along with descendants of Russian immigrants, were targeted by protesters sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause, and nor do I recall Russian Orthodox churches being daubed with swastikas — despite the frequent reports of horrific scenes of death and destruction in Ukraine.
And yet Jews are targeted, vilified, attacked, intimidated, ostracized, threatened with death, and accused of being murderers — British Jews in London, Australian Jews in Sydney, American Jews in New York, and French Jews in Paris — all because Israel is engaged in a war with Hamas in Gaza (after the war was initiated by Hamas attacking Israel).
The facts speak for themselves: criticism of Israel’s policies and military strategy has quickly morphed into undisguised antisemitic rhetoric that employs age-old stereotypes and conspiracy theories, and which calls for Israel’s existence to be undone.
And again, I don’t hear any calls for Russia to be undone as a country, or Syria, or Myanmar, or Zimbabwe, or Sudan — and the list goes on and on — even after tough images emerge from each of these countries, or countries of their foes, because of actions they have taken. Only Israel suffers the indignity of being called illegitimate. This means that the line between political critique and ugly bigotry has become dangerously blurred.
The argument that “Anti-Zionism is Not Antisemitism” is a cornerstone mantra of many anti-Israel groups, who insist that all criticism of Israeli policies and Zionist ideology is entirely separate from antisemitic sentiments.
But surely this distinction is undermined when we witness a marked increase in antisemitic incidents following the October 7 massacre. It all suggests that anti-Zionism either contributes to, or indeed serves as a pretext for, antisemitic attitudes and actions, challenging the clear-cut separation that anti-Israel groups claim to uphold.
Then there is the shocking lack of reaction by progressive groups to allegations of violence against Israeli women by Hamas on October 7, compared to their vocal support for victims of sexual violence during the #MeToo moment. Where was the outrage for Israeli women? And how can that lack of outrage be explained as not being antisemitic? The answer is: it can’t.
And who can fail to be struck by the inconsistency among academics and progressives, always eager to recognize and address microaggressions and prevent subtle forms of discrimination — a diligence that conveniently lapsed when it came to overt aggression and discrimination against Jews after October 7, particularly but not exclusively in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is this not blatant antisemitism? The answer is: yes, it is.
The humanitarian outcry over the treatment of children in conflict zones, such as the concern for migrant children at the US border, and the regular reminders regarding Palestinian children killed and injured by the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, contrasts sharply with the complete lack of interest in Israeli children murdered by Hamas on October 7, and in the kidnapped children held by Hamas in dank underground tunnels with almost no food and water. Are Jewish children less important than non-Jewish children? It would appear so.
This week it was revealed that UNICEF — whose role it is to look after all children in need, wherever they are around the world — has no fund in place for Israeli children affected by the Hamas attacks. This, despite the fact that so many have been orphaned, and thousands are displaced and severely traumatized.
No less striking is the irreconcilable contradictions in the narratives propagated by those who condemn Israel. On the one hand, the October 7 massacre never happened say Hamas spokesmen and their Western supporters, while on the other hand, Hamas leaders promise that October 7 massacres against Israelis (and Jews) will be repeated again many times in the future.
Hamas spokesmen and their Western supporters claim that nobody was beheaded on October 7, but then we see videos taken by Hamas operatives showing them beheading people.
We are told that all the victims on October 7 were killed by IDF “friendly fire”– but the videos clearly show Hamas terrorists shooting Israeli victims dead. And so it goes on. Lie after lie. Inconsistency after inconsistency. It is so incredibly infuriating, and it never seems to end.
A remarkable Midrash on Parshat Vayigash reflects on the moment when Joseph reveals himself to his brothers. This Midrash draws a profound lesson about judgment and rebuke from the dramatic Biblical scene, declaring “Woe to us from the day of judgment, woe to us from the day of rebuke,” after noting that when Joseph revealed his true identity, his brothers are struck with fear and were unable to respond. If such was the reaction to Joseph’s revelation, says the Midrash, how much more intense will be the ultimate Divine rebuke, when every individual is confronted with the truth of their actions?
The celebrated mussar giant, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Chasman, explores a puzzling question arising out of this Midrash: What exactly was the rebuke that Joseph gave his brothers? On the surface, Joseph appears to comfort and reassure his brothers, not rebuke them.
Rabbi Chasman explains that the very act of Joseph revealing himself and saying “I am Joseph” was itself a profound and terrifying rebuke. It forced the brothers to come face to face with the error of their ways over the past 22 years, from their initial irrational jealousy of Joseph, to the sale into slavery, to the pain they caused their father — and all because they had fallen into the trap of unjustified bias, which resulted in them embracing a false narrative and perpetuating self-serving lies. In that moment of Joseph’s revelation, their misjudgments and mistakes were laid bare, as they realized that their actions had not been driven by righteousness, but by hatred and prejudice.
In Rabbi Chasman’s reading, the Midrash reveals an eternal truth — that hatred hiding behind feigned righteous virtue will ultimately be exposed for what it is: hatred, pure and simple. Just as Joseph’s brothers were eventually forced to confront the reality of their own bigotry when Joseph told them who he was, so too, in the fullness of time, all Jew-hating bigots who claim to oppose Israel for humanitarian reasons will be confronted with the harsh truths of their warped beliefs and their immoral actions.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Why Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Druze Religious Elders From Syria Make Historic Visit to Israel

People gather on the day Israeli Druze leader Sheik Mowafaq Tarif and around 100 Syrian Druze religious elders, in the first Druze delegation from Syria just after 1973 war, visit the Nabi Shuayb Shrine, a holy place for the Druze community, in northern Israel, March 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
A delegation of Druze religious elders from Syria crossed into Israel on Friday for the first such visit in more than 50 years, underscoring Israel‘s backing for the community amid growing tensions with the new government in Damascus.
Around 100 Druze sheikhs from villages on the slope of Mount Hermon in Syria, overlooked by the Golan Heights, are due to visit shrines including sites held to be the tomb of prophet Shuayb, west of Tiberias, in the Lower Galilee.
After entering the Golan Heights, cheered by Druze in traditional black clothes and white and red head dress, some waving the white, blue, yellow, red, and green flag of the Druze, they traveled by bus to the town of Julis in Israel to meet Mowafaq Tarif, spiritual leader of the group in Israel.
“Feeling proud and honored to visit here. We are one family and brothers,” said Nazeh Rakab, from Hadar in Syria, as he watched the welcome ceremony in Julis, where hundreds gathered to greet the delegation waving Druze flags, with some firing into the air from the rooftops in celebration.
The Druze, an Arab minority who practice a religion originally derived from Islam, live in an area straddling Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and the Golan Heights, connected across the borders by a web of kinship ties.
In Israel, many serve in the military and police, including during the war in Gaza, and some have reached high rank.
Friday’s visit is intended to be a purely religious occasion, but its political significance was underscored by Israeli airstrikes on what Israel described as command centers of the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad movement in Damascus a day earlier.
Israeli ministers have expressed deep misgivings about the new government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, describing his Hayat Tahrir al-Sham movement as a jihadist group. The group was formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda but later renounced the connection.
On Thursday, Israel, which has been urging support for the Druze following the overthrow of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in December, sent truckloads of aid including oil, flour, salt, and sugar, most to the southern province of Suwayda.
Earlier this week, Defense Minister Israel Katz said Syrian Druze would be allowed to enter and work in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 war, and Israel has also said it would protect Druze in Syria if needed.
The post Druze Religious Elders From Syria Make Historic Visit to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Rejects Hamas Offer to Free Israeli-American Hostage as ‘Psychological Warfare’

A Torah and a photograph of Edan Alexander, the American-Israeli and Israel Defense Forces soldier taken hostage during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, sit in his home during a family interview with Reuters in Tenafly, New Jersey, US, Dec. 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephani Spindel
The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas said on Friday it had agreed to free an American–Israeli dual national if Israel begins the next phase of ceasefire talks towards a permanent end to the war, an offer Israel dismissed as “psychological warfare.”
Hamas said it had made the offer to release New Jersey native Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old soldier in the Israeli army, after receiving a proposal from mediators for negotiations on the second phase of a ceasefire deal, which has halted major fighting since Jan. 19 but has been in limbo for two weeks.
The group said its exiled Gaza chief, Khalil Al-Hayya, was due to arrive in Cairo later on Friday for further ceasefire talks with Egyptian mediators.
Since a temporary first phase of the ceasefire expired on March 2, Israel has rejected opening the second phase of talks, which would require it to negotiate over a permanent end to the war, the main demand of Hamas.
Israel says it wants to extend the ceasefire’s temporary first phase, a proposal backed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Hamas says it will resume freeing hostages only under the second phase.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu’s office called the offer to release Alexander “manipulation and psychological warfare.”
“While Israel has accepted the Witkoff proposal, Hamas stands by its refusal and has not budged a millimeter,” his office added. It said he would convene with his cabinet on Saturday night to discuss the hostage situation and decide on the next steps.
Israel has imposed a total blockade of Gaza since the first phase of the ceasefire expired without an agreement to begin the second phase on March 2.
Witkoff told reporters at the White House early in March that gaining the release of Alexander was a “top priority.” US hostage negotiator Adam Boehler met with Hamas leaders in recent days to seek Alexander’s release.
Two Hamas officials told Reuters their agreement to release Alexander and the four bodies was conditional on beginning the talks on the second phase of the ceasefire, opening crossings, and lifting the Israeli blockade.
“We are working with mediators for the agreement to succeed and to compel the occupation to conclude all phases of the agreement,” Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua, the Hamas spokesperson, told Reuters.
“Hamas‘ approval to release Edan Alexander aims to push towards the conclusion of the phases of the agreement,” said Qanoua.
The United States, Qatar, and Egypt have been trying to bridge the differences between the Islamic terrorist group and Israel to restart negotiations in order to release remaining hostages held in Gaza and lift the blockade.
The war began when Hamas carried out a cross-border invasion into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and capturing 251 hostages.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
The post Israel Rejects Hamas Offer to Free Israeli-American Hostage as ‘Psychological Warfare’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Israel Should Annex the West Bank

A boy walks home in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Kida, Aug. 31, 2010. Photo: REUTERS/Nir Elias
To annex or not to annex. That is the question. Should Israel annex Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank? Many Israelis would say yes. After all, Judea and Samaria comprise the very core of the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland, plus it is vital for maintaining Israel’s security. Others, however, caution against it. And they have their reasons. The trouble is those reasons don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Those opposed to annexing Judea and Samaria say, for example, that there will be too much backlash from the international community, which will lead to a wide range of consequences for Israel. But of course, a lot of people said all hell would break loose when the US, under the first Trump administration, decided to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Those people were obviously wrong. Israel suffered no major pushback from the international community. Similarly, the sky will not fall if the Jewish state declares sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
People opposed to annexing Judea and Samaria also argue that annexing the territory would severely harm Israel’s Jewish character because it would involve absorbing 3 million Palestinians. Admittedly, I naively believed this to be true at one time. But in fact, this argument doesn’t hold water.
For one thing, there aren’t 3 million Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. In fact, this figure is highly suspect because it comes from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). The Palestinians have always had an interest in inflating their population numbers to build a case against Israel annexing Judea and Samaria.
Indeed, the PCBS includes in its population count some 500,000 Palestinian residents who are overseas. It also includes hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are residents of Jerusalem and those married to Israeli Arabs, both of whom are included in Israel’s population figures. The truth is that the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria is closer to 1.85 million.
Moreover, if Israel was to annex Judea and Samaria, it would be under no obligation to give citizenship to every single one of the territory’s Palestinian inhabitants. But this would be practicing apartheid, right? Wrong. Many countries restrict eligibility for citizenship based on ethnicity, religion, etc. This is especially the case in the Arab world, where Palestinians in particular are excluded from citizenship in all but one country: Jordan, which, it should be noted, specifically bars Jews from becoming citizens.
In fact, in some Arab countries, acquiring citizenship is so restricted that the majority of residents are not citizens at all. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has a population of about 12.5 million, but just 11.5 percent are Emirati citizens. In Qatar, out of a population of just over 3 million, only 10.5 percent are citizens. And in Kuwait, with a population of approximately 4.9 million, expatriates outnumber citizens by 2 to 1. No one accuses these countries of being apartheid states, nor should they accuse Israel of practicing apartheid if it chooses not to bestow citizenship on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.
Israel can also choose not to annex the whole of Judea and Samaria. In fact, many proponents of annexation have said that Israel should just annex Area C, which is under complete Israeli control per the Oslo Accords. Area C, which contains all the communities that Israel has built in Judea and Samaria, has a Jewish majority. About 500,000 Jews live in Area C, compared to approximately 300,000 Palestinians. Thus, if Israel wanted to, it could bestow citizenship on the Palestinians of Area C with minimal impact on the country’s Jewish majority as a whole.
Another popular argument against annexation is that it would prevent a two-state solution. This argument is moot because the two-state solution is dead. It died on Oct. 7, 2023, when thousands of Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded Israel from Gaza, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages — while perpetrating widespread rape and torture in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Besides, the main impediment to the two-state solution has never been the threat of annexation, but rather the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the existence of a Jewish state. This is why the Palestinians have refused every offer of statehood dating all the way back to the 1947 UN partition plan.
Since the two-state solution has finally died, it’s time we bury it — by annexing all or part of Judea and Samaria and bringing it under Jewish sovereignty for the first time in two millennia.
The author is a freelance writer in Toronto, Canada.
The post Why Israel Should Annex the West Bank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login