Uncategorized
If You Oppose Terrorism in the West But Not in Israel, You Don’t Oppose Terrorism
An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Soon after the unfortunately named Jihad Al-Shamie’s terror attack on a Manchester synagogue, his father, Faraj Al-Shamie, issued a statement on behalf of the family. The statement distanced the family from Jihad’s jihadi actions, saying that they strongly condemn the “heinous act, which targeted peaceful, innocent civilians.”
That is as it should be. However, it was soon revealed that while Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel was still in progress, Faraj al-Shamie, a trauma surgeon, had praised those undertaking the attack. He had described them as “God’s men on earth.”
That calls into question the sincerity of his attempt to distance his family from his son’s terrorist attack. After all, the vast majority of those killed on October 7 were also “peaceful, innocent civilians.”
Why would somebody condemn his own son’s terror in England, while praising the larger scale terror inflicted by Hamas and other militants in Israel? There are two broad possible explanations.
One explanation is that while he is not actually opposed to acts of terror in the United Kingdom, he has a personal interest in suggesting otherwise.
Being seen to endorse domestic terror, especially if one is an immigrant and a minority in one’s country of adoption, can invite unwanted opprobrium. There are self-interested reasons to avoid this.
The other explanation is that he is opposed to heinous acts against peaceful, innocent civilians only when those civilians are not in Israel. Being in Israel, however, does not make civilians less peaceful or innocent. Nor will it help to suggest that civilians in “settler colonial states” cease to be innocent civilians. First, Jews are indigenous to Israel. Second, under the “settler, colonial” framework, all residents of the US — other than those descended from native Americans — would have no claim against violent terrorism by the indigenous peoples.
Thus, anybody willing to justify the indiscriminate terror against civilians in Israel demonstrates that they are not actually opposed to terrorism.
In this way, somebody’s opinion about terrorism in Israel is the litmus test of how genuine their opposition to terrorism is. If you are not opposed to killing Jews in a synagogue in Jerusalem (or a music festival in the Negev desert, or kibbutzim adjacent to Gaza), then you have no principled reason to oppose killing Jews in a synagogue in Manchester, or office workers in the World Trade Center, or passengers in a flight over Lockerbie.
We should employ this litmus test more often. We should ask anybody purporting to oppose anti-Jewish and other terrorism in Western countries whether they are similarly opposed to terror in Israel. If they are not willing to state such opposition, they will thereby demonstrate just how phony their opposition to domestic terrorism is.
It is quite possible, of course, that many of those justifying terrorism in Israel would be willing to justify it in other Western countries too. Many of them, even in the US, for example, are happy to call for “death to America.”
Nevertheless, it would be helpful to encourage them, as individuals, to acknowledge this explicitly — rather than hide behind slogans like “globalize the intifada,” which other people, including those seeking public office, attempt to sanitize by introducing ambiguities that are not actually there.
This approach asks us not to restrict their speech (beyond cases of incitement to imminent violence), but rather to encourage them to speak their minds more fully. This is how we can make it clearer to a broader swath of the population exactly what values many of those “social justice” activists actually hold.
Now, it might be said that just as opponents of terror in the West must also oppose terror in Israel, so those who oppose terror both in the West and in Israel should oppose the violence used by Israel and Israelis.
There certainly are cases where this is true. Those opposed to the violent targeting of Palestinians in America, as we all should be, ought also to be opposed to Baruch Goldstein’s murderous rampage, or the terror that a fringe group of the Israeli right visits upon Palestinians in the West Bank. However, that is compatible with recognizing that there is a moral difference between Hamas’ October 7 attack and Israel’s response to it, which sought to prevent another such attack from ever happening again.
British police responded forcefully to Jihad Al-Shamie’s attack, by shooting him, which is exactly what they should have done under the circumstances. That is true even if it turns out that the police should have taken more care not to harm those Jews within the synagogue, two of whom the police accidentally shot. Whether there was any police culpability is a matter for detailed forensic investigation.
Similarly, albeit at a larger scale, one could find fault with some of the ways that Israel has undertaken its response, without drawing a moral equivalence with the Hamas attack. The October 7 attack is manifestly wicked. That Israel responded militarily is the opposite. It had both a right and a duty to protect its citizens from further such attacks. Criticism of the details of that response is a matter for close forensic investigation. However, such an investigation cannot be replaced by memetic metastasizing of the “genocide” accusation.
David Benatar is Emeritus Professor Philosophy at the University of Cape Town. His most recent book is Very Practical Ethics (Oxford, 2024)
Uncategorized
Amsterdam’s New Warning to Europe on Antisemitism
Anti-Israel protesters clash with police outside Amsterdam’s Concertgebouw, breaking through barricades and setting off smoke bombs during a demonstration against a performance by the IDF’s chief cantor. Photo: Screenshot
Amsterdam likes to present itself as a city of tolerance. It celebrates diversity, prides itself on openness, and often reminds the world of its history as a refuge for those seeking freedom. Yet something deeply troubling happened in Amsterdam last week that should concern not only the Netherlands, but all of Europe:
A municipal debate about antisemitism had to be held at a secret location because of security concerns.
Pause for a moment and consider what that means. In a democratic European capital, a discussion about protecting a Jewish minority could not take place openly for fear of threats and intimidation. If that does not signal a serious problem, what does?
That’s in addition to the bombing of a Jewish school, and another attack that just occurred.
During the meeting, a 15-year old Jewish boy addressed the room. His testimony cut through political rhetoric and statistics with the clarity only a young voice can bring. Since the October 7, 2023, massacre in Israel, he said, life for Jewish students in Amsterdam has changed dramatically. Many of his friends have already left the city. They no longer see a future there.
Imagine hearing those words in 2026 in one of Europe’s most celebrated liberal cities. A teenager speaking calmly about the disappearance of his community.
Amsterdam alderman Melanie van der Horst was visibly moved and struggled to hold back tears. The emotional moment showed that some political leaders understand the gravity of what is happening. Yet empathy alone will not solve the problem.
Another participant in the debate raised a painful but necessary question: How must it feel for Jewish residents to walk daily through public spaces where demonstrations take place in which their country and their people are shouted down? Pro-Palestinian protests have become a constant presence in parts of the city. Political protest is a democratic right, but when rhetoric turns into open hostility toward Jews, society has crossed a dangerous line.
One proposal during the debate illustrated the level of frustration. A politician suggested sending undercover police officers into the streets wearing a kippah in order to identify those who harass Jews. Critics called the idea controversial. But the fact that such a measure is even being discussed reveals how serious the situation has become.
The problem extends beyond the streets. Jewish organizations in the Netherlands increasingly report difficulties renting venues for events. Cultural gatherings and lectures sometimes struggle to find halls willing to host them. It rarely makes headlines, but this quiet exclusion sends a clear message: you are welcome in theory, but not visibly.
History has taught Europe where that kind of atmosphere can lead. Antisemitism rarely begins with violence. It begins with discomfort, social pressure, and the slow normalization of hostility toward Jewish identity.
Meanwhile, another factor fuels the problem. Much of the European media landscape presents Israel through a lens that reduces a complex reality to a simple narrative of aggressor and victim. When context disappears and facts are replaced by slogans, public perception shifts. The hostility directed at Israel easily spills over into hostility toward Jews living thousands of kilometers away.
That is why factual education and responsible journalism matter so much. Civil society organizations that work to counter misinformation often struggle to be heard. Yet without a commitment to truth, public debate becomes an echo chamber for activism rather than a search for understanding.
There is also a question for Jewish communities themselves. When fear grows, the instinct to become less visible is understandable. But invisibility comes at a cost. If intimidation forces people to hide their identity, those spreading hatred learn that their tactics work.
The lesson of Jewish history is painfully clear. Silence has never protected Jewish communities.
Strength does not mean confrontation. It means refusing to surrender identity and dignity to intimidation. It means raising a generation that is proud rather than afraid. It means understanding that resilience is sometimes the only answer to those who seek to erase a people’s presence.
The young boy in Amsterdam asked a simple question without even intending to pose a challenge to Europe: will the Jewish community still exist here in the future?
That question should echo far beyond the walls of the municipal chamber where he spoke. Because if a Jewish teenager in Amsterdam already doubts his future in the city, then Europe is facing not just a Jewish problem.
It is facing a moral test of its own values.
Uncategorized
Billy Crystal Leads Tribute at Oscars for His Late Best Friend, Jewish Filmmaker Rob Reiner
Billy Crystal speaks about Rob Reiner during the Oscars show at the 98th Academy Awards in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, March 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Blake
Billy Crystal delivered an emotional tribute to his late best friend and legendary actor-turned-director Rob Reiner at the 98th Academy Awards on Sunday night, and was joined on stage by several of Reiner’s other Hollywood friends and stars of his iconic films.
While eulogizing Reiner at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, Crystal, 78, spoke about his longtime friend as a “master storyteller” and mentioned his long list of memorable projects. The longtime collaborators first met in 1975, when Crystal was cast as Reiner’s best friend in an episode of “All In The Family.”
“My friends, Rob’s movies will last for lifetimes, because they were about what makes us laugh and cry, and what we aspire to be far better in his eyes: far kinder, far funnier, and far more human,” Crystal said. He then talked about Reiner’s marriage to the late Michele Singer Reiner, who was killed alongside her husband on Dec. 14. Crystal called the two “unstoppable” together and said the couple’s loss is “immeasurable.”
“A gifted photographer, she not only produced films with Rob, but it was her energy that had them working tirelessly to fight social injustice in the country that they both loved,” he added. “Rob and Michele Reiner became the driving force in the landmark decision for marriage equality across the United States.”
“To the millions who have enjoyed his films all these years, I want you to know, here and around the world, how many times Rob told me that it meant everything to him, that his work meant something to you — and for us who had the privilege of working with and knowing him and loving him,” Crystal continued.
After the “When Harry Met Sally” star concluded his speech — by saying “Buddy, what fun we had storming the castle” — over a dozen actors who worked alongside the director on films joined Crystal on stage and stood silently together. They included Meg Ryan, Michael McKean, Jerry O’Connell, Mandy Patinkin, Kathy Bates, Annette Bening, John Cusack, Demi Moore, Kiefer Sutherland, Daphne Zuniga, Christopher Guest, Wil Wheaton, Fred Savage, Cary Elwes, Carol Kane, and Kevin Pollak. They had worked with the late filmmaker on movies that included “When Harry Met Sally,” “The Princess Bride,” “This Is Spinal Tap,” “Misery,” “A Few Good Men,” and “Stand by Me.”
Sunday night’s tribute came three months after the director died at the age of 78 on Dec. 14.
Crystal was introduced to the stage by Conan O’Brien, who was hosting the Oscars on Sunday night but was also one of the last people to see the Reiners alive. The couple was found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home hours after they attended a holiday party at O’Brien’s house on Dec. 13. Two sources who attended the party said they witnessed a loud verbal exchange between the Reiners and their middle son, 32-year-old Nick Reiner. He was arrested the following night and charged with murdering his parents.
The younger Reiner is charged with two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances, including the use of a knife. He pleaded not guilty and has remained in custody without bail since his arrest. Reiner is next due in court on April 29 and could face life in prison without parole, or the death penalty, if convicted.
Uncategorized
Israel Says It Has Plans for At Least 3 Weeks of War as Airstrikes Pound Iran
Emergency personnel work at the site of a strike on a residential building, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 16, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Israel said on Monday it had detailed plans for at least three more weeks of war as it pounded sites across Iran overnight, while Iranian drone attacks temporarily shut Dubai airport and hit a key oil facility in the United Arab Emirates.
The US-Israeli war on Iran is now entering its third week with no clear end in sight, largely shutting the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flow, pushing up energy prices and raising fears of a spike in global inflation.
US President Donald Trump on Sunday called for a coalition of nations to help reopen the strait and said the US-led NATO defense alliance faced a “very bad” future if its members failed to help.
But while allies voiced support for diplomatic efforts to reopen the route, they were cautious about joining any military action.
ISRAEL STILL HAS ‘THOUSANDS’ OF TARGETS IN IRAN
Israeli military spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani told reporters there were detailed operational plans for the war with Iran for the next three weeks, and other plans extending further ahead.
Israel has said it wants to weaken Iran‘s capacity to threaten it, striking ballistic missile infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and the security apparatus, and that it still has thousands of targets to hit.
“We want to make sure that they are as weak as possible, this regime, and that we degrade all their capabilities, all parts and all wings of their security establishment,” Shoshani said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi for his part said Tehran had not asked for a ceasefire or exchanged messages with the US, according to Iran‘s semi-official Student News Network.
In a post on X, Araqchi also said that some “neighboring states” that host US forces and permit attacks on Iran were also actively encouraging the killing of Iranians.
“Stances should be promptly clarified,” he said.
He said 200 children were among the hundreds of Iranian civilians killed in US or Israeli bombings.
Fars News Agency reported that several civilians had been killed in a strike near Tehran’s Martyrs’ Square, without giving figures.
ISRAEL CLAIMS STRIKES ON IRAN‘S SPACE PROGRAM
The Israeli military said on Monday it was carrying out air strikes on Tehran, Shiraz, and Tabriz.
It said its Air Force had also struck sites linked to Iran’s space program, including destroying a research facility in Tehran involved in developing a satellite launched in 2024.
One Tehran resident told Reuters that there had been no internet overnight and Iranians felt isolated from the world.
“People are being killed,” Shahnaz, 62, said via WhatsApp. “Just days before Nowruz (Iranian New Year, on March 20), but people are not in the mood to celebrate. When will this end?”
Asked if she supported the Islamic Republic, Shahnaz said: “No, I don’t. How can I? They killed my granddaughter in [January’s] protests. We want this regime to go. We want this misery to end.”
In Israel, air raid sirens warned of Iranian missiles. Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards said Tehran had launched attacks on areas In Tel Aviv, the US al-Dhafra air base in Abu Dhabi, the US naval base in Bahrain, and Bahrain’s Sheikh Issa air base.
Furthermore, oil loading operations at the UAE port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman were suspended following an Iranian drone strike.
Fujairah is a key exit point for the UAE’s Murban crude – a volume equivalent to roughly 1% of global demand.
Flights at Dubai International Airport, one of the world’s busiest, were suspended for several hours after a drone strike on a nearby fuel storage facility sent plumes of black smoke into the sky. Saudi Arabia intercepted 34 drones in its eastern region in one hour, state media said. No injuries were reported in either incident.
Later on, Reuters reporters also heard booms in the Qatari capital, Doha.
OIL SLIPS ON BESSENT SHIPPING COMMENTS
Despite the turbulence, oil prices, which had been above $100 a barrel, fell sharply and stocks rallied after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC the US was “fine” to let some Iranian fuel vessels sail through the strait, and believed Indian and Chinese tankers had also passed through.
Ship-tracking data showed a Pakistan-bound oil tanker had passed through the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, indicating that some countries are able to negotiate safe passage for their vessels.
On Sunday, Trump had demanded that countries relying heavily on oil from the Gulf should help protect the strait, and said he hoped China, France, Japan, South Korea, Britain, and others would participate.
However, many – including Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan, and Australia – said they would not send warships.
Israel continued to strike Lebanon and Gaza, attacking Iran-backed Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas terrorists. The Israeli military said its troops had begun limited ground operations against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon.