RSS
Why Does This UK Paper Keep Printing Blood Libels Against Jews and Israel?
A person walks past pictures of hostages kidnapped during the deadly Oct. 7 attack by Hamas from Gaza, projected on a screen, in Tel Aviv, Israel, May 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Marko Djurica
For the third time since the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre, The Guardian has published an op-ed evoking the antisemitic comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany.
The first piece employing the comparison was written by Swedish Jewish academic Raz Segal. It appeared in The Guardian only two weeks after the barbaric attack by the bloodthirsty pogromists, and was titled “Israel must stop weaponising the Holocaust” (emphasis added, and see our post here). The second such comparison, written by US writer John Oakes, was published last month (see our post here).
The latest such antisemitic libel approved by Guardian editors was written by an Israeli-born Jewish professor at Brown University named Omer Bartov (“As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel,” Aug. 13).
Though editors no doubt thought they were checkmating the Jewish community by publishing two pieces by Jews hurling the Nazi analogy, the cynical exploitation of such “Jews Against Themselves” by non-Jews trying to popularize anti-Jewish lies dates at least as far back as medieval Europe.
During that time period, such Jewish defamers were often converts who Christianity, those who renounced their faith and became “Jewish informers.”
Today, they are more likely to be activists and academics who, rather than denouncing their identity, actually fancy themselves better Jews. Whereas, in the 13th century, such Jews were likely motivated by the desire to escape persecution, today’s variant are often merely trying to ensure social and professional acceptance within their coveted political or intellectual circles.
To get a sense of the flimsiness of the case Bartov makes in the Guardian, he cites, as his first “example” of Israel’s putatively genocidal Nazi tendencies, the anti-terror policies of then Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin during the First Intifada.
It was under Rabin’s leadership, he opines, that the IDF began “heading down a … slippery path” akin to “the indoctrination of the armed forces of Nazi Germany.” Tellingly, he sees no evidence of racist indoctrination of Palestinians in, for instance, the five year campaign of violence largely targeting civilians in the early 2000s known as the Second Intifada — a traumatic period in Israel’s history that he omits entirely from his nearly 7,500 word piece.
Bartov also cites grossly misleading quotes by Israeli leaders to allege genocidal intentions.
For instance, he omitted that on October 9, 2023, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was referring to the Hamas terrorists who had, two days prior, committed the antisemitic massacres as “human animals” — not, as Bartov would have readers believe, all Gazans. Similarly, the Guardian columnist recycled the disproven framing of comments by the country’s prime minister citing the Biblical reference to Amalek.
Conversely, Bartov sees no such genocidal or Nazi pattern of behavior by Hamas — not in the annihilationist antisemitism codified in their founding charter, not in the savage ethnic cleansing of Jews they carried out on Oct. 7th, and not even in statements made by Hamas leaders promising to repeat the October massacre again and again.
More evidence that the writer was engaged in a pre-determined conclusion in search of evidence is found in the fact that nowhere in his op-ed does he mention — or try to challenge — experts who have argued that the IDF has taken more measures to avoid Palestinian civilian deaths than any army in history, and that the civilian to combatant casualty ratio is among the best of any army engaged in similar urban combat. That ratio is also far, far better than the international average of civilian to combats deaths during conflicts.
The Israeli army’s accomplishment is even more impressive when you consider the challenge posed by Hamas’ human shield policy (their exploitation of civilians and civilian infrastructure for terror activities).
Those, like Bartov, who frame the total number of (Hamas-claimed) deaths in Gaza as evidence of genocide are engaged in an intellectually and historically unserious assertion, as a recent op-ed by six former US Federal prosecutors of perpetrators of Nazi genocide argued:
Genocide is a crime based on intent, not one that is based specifically on numbers. If it were based on numbers, then the World War II Allies would have perpetrated genocide in Germany, where their forces killed 300,000 to 400,000 civilians in air operations alone, even apart from loss of life that occurred during ground offensives. No serious observer would contend that the Allies committed genocide against Germans during World War II.
German fatalities instead occurred as a result of the Allied waging of a manifestly defensive war to bring an end to aggression, war crimes, and genocide perpetrated by Germany. And those German civilian fatalities continued to mount until Nazi Germany at last surrendered — just as Hamas can and should do, at once, to end the war and the associated suffering in Gaza and Israel.
Israel too is waging a defensive war against ongoing aggression, war crimes and genocide, but it is taking far greater steps to protect civilian lives than Allied forces did.
Bartov’s myopic focus on Israel contrasts with his lack of intellectual or moral curiosity about the decisions and motivations of those who carried out the worst and most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, what one journalist who watched the unedited 40 minute film of Hamas’ atrocities described as “pure, predatory sadism”:
“The videos show pure, predatory sadism; no effort to spare those who pose no threat; and an eagerness to kill nearly matched by eagerness to disfigure the bodies of the [Jewish] victims. In several clips, the Hamas killers fire shots into the heads of people who are already dead. They count corpses, taking their time, and then shoot them again. Some of the clips I had not previously seen simply show the victims in a state of terror as they wait to be murdered…”.
It also illustrates what Balas Berkovitz described as the anti-Israel left’s campaign to turn October 7th into a “non-event,” citing the impact of an anti-Zionists’ “ideological edifice” that forces adherents to “dismiss real-world evidence that … challenge their established interpretations.” Instead of engaging in soul-searching, or reactions along the lines of “this is not how we imagined Palestinian resistance,” activists, and outlets like The Guardian, have only doubled down on their hatred of the Jewish State.
Further, the Guardian’s Nazi libel is more than just a morally reprehensible inversion of reality and a “dismissal of real-world evidence.” It also constitutes another example of their editors publishing content that, particularly in light of an unprecedented surge in antisemitism in the UK, serves to incite more hatred against British Jews, granting a permission structure for antisemites by effectively casting British Zionists as not just grossly misguided, but as accomplices to evil.
We’ve argued that The Guardian’s coverage since the Oct. 7 massacre has been effectively pro-Hamas. To that we’ll add that it’s also been antisemitic, in effect if not intent.
Adam Levick serves as co-editor of CAMERA UK — an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Why Does This UK Paper Keep Printing Blood Libels Against Jews and Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.