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
2 men found guilty in UK of plotting Islamic State-inspired antisemitic terror attack
Two men inspired by Islamic state ideology were convicted on Tuesday in Manchester, England, of plotting what prosecutors said could have been one of the deadliest antisemitic attacks in British history.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, were both found guilty of preparing terrorist acts between December 2023 and May 2024. Saadaoui’s brother, Bilel Saadaoui, 36, was found guilty of failing to disclose information about an act of terrorism.
Prosecutors told jurors that Saadaoui and Hussein had “embraced the views” of the Islamic State and had a “visceral dislike” of Jewish people.
By the time of his arrest in May 2024, following an undercover operation, Saadaoui had arranged the purchase and delivery of two assault rifles, an automatic pistol and almost 200 rounds of ammunition for the attack. The pair had planned to infiltrate a march against antisemitism in the Manchester city center before unleashing their attack.
“Walid Saadaoui and Amar Hussein intended to target members of the Jewish community in an evil act born out of hate and intolerance,” said Assistant Chief Constable Robert Potts, who is in charge of Counter-Terrorism Policing in northwest England, in a statement. “If they had been successful then what followed would have been devastating and potentially one of the deadliest terrorist attacks to ever take place on UK soil.”
The convictions come as threats associated with the Islamic State appear to be on the rise. Earlier this month, two men who authorities said were motivated by “Islamic State ideology” killed 15 people after opening fire on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney.
In October on Yom Kippur, another man who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State carried out an attack on a Manchester synagogue during which two people were killed.
Last week, three Toronto men, including one with alleged links to ISIS, were arrested for allegedly attempting kidnappings targeting Jews and women.
Ken McCallum, the head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5, said in October that MI5 and British police had “disrupted 19 late-stage attack plots” since 2020.
“Al Qaeda and Islamic State are once again becoming more ambitious, taking advantage of instability overseas to gain firmer footholds,” said McCallum. “They are both personally encouraging and indirectly inciting would-be attackers in the West.”
Following the convictions Tuesday, the Anti-Defamation League called for “vigilance” from governments and local law enforcement.
“While some plots are thankfully thwarted, others are not, including the recent terror attack in Bondi Beach,” the ADL wrote in a post on X. “The threat of antisemitic terrorism is real and ongoing and vigilance by governments and law enforcement agencies is crucial to keep Jewish individuals and institutions safe globally.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 2 men found guilty in UK of plotting Islamic State-inspired antisemitic terror attack appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Self-appointed chief rabbi of Saudi Arabia says he was denied entry at border
The self-appointed chief rabbi of Saudi Arabia, Rabbi Jacob Herzog, said he had been denied entry to the Gulf nation.
“With profound regret, I announce that I was barred from entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia upon arrival, despite holding a valid entry visa, and despite having spent a significant portion of the past years living and serving in this blessed Kingdom,” Herzog wrote Monday in a post on X.
While the country has no official Jewish community, Herzog has in recent years marketed himself as an emissary for the country’s small population of Jewish visitors and residents, a role that has put him at odds with a community accustomed to flying under the radar of the conservative state.
“This incident has left me — against my will — distant from the Jewish community that I serve with love within the Kingdom, a community that has lived under the spirit of peace and goodwill embodied by the Saudi royal system and the great Saudi people,” continued Herzog.
While Saudi Arabia typically does not allow Israeli passport holders entry to the country, the New York-born Herzog’s dual citizenship in the United States and Israel appears to have earned him leniency in his travels between his home base in Jerusalem and the kingdom.
Herzog’s rejection comes as relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel have been strained in recent months amid the fragile ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.
While President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for the country to enter a normalization agreement with Israel, Saudi leaders have remained steadfast that a path for Palestinian statehood is a key condition for entering any agreement.
“Saudi Arabia is not considering a normalization deal with Israel. Should Israel become a normal country with normal acceptance of international law, then Saudi Arabia will consider normalization,” Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, told the The Times of Israel on Sunday.
Herzog said that he did not receive any explanation for the decision from authorities at the airport or the country’s Ministry of Interior, but claimed he was “convinced that this measure did not emanate from the Royal Court or from the Saudi government itself.”
“Despite my complete trust in the integrity of Saudi institutions and the sound intentions of its leadership, I cannot ignore the possibility of the existence of dark forces seeking to obstruct the path of reform, openness, and tolerance that the Kingdom is pursuing with determination,” said Herzog.
The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Interior did not respond to requests for comment from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Herzog’s rejection.
While Herzog markets kosher foods at Saudi grocery stores and offers his services as a mohel on his website, Saudi Arabia legally forbids practicing religions other than Islam in public.
In March 2024, a U.S. government delegation on international religious freedom ended a visit in Saudi Arabia early after a rabbi on the trip was asked to remove his kippah while in public.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Self-appointed chief rabbi of Saudi Arabia says he was denied entry at border appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Coast Guard again retracts policy that would downgrade swastika as hate symbol, clearing path for new leader’s confirmation
After renewed objections from Jewish groups, the U.S. Coast Guard again removed language referencing a proposed policy that would have stopped classifying swastikas as hate symbols.
The retraction late Thursday, the second such reversal of the Coast Guard’s swastika policy, was enough to prompt Jewish Sen. Jacky Rosen to drop the hold she had placed on Admiral Kevin Lunday’s nomination to permanently lead the organization.
“While I continue to have reservations about the process by which this happened and the confusion created by leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to see that the policy now directly refers to stronger language against swastikas and nooses,” Rosen wrote on the social network X. A Democrat from Nevada, Rosen had placed the hold together with non-Jewish Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran.
Lunday was swiftly confirmed by voice vote late that evening, prior to the Senate’s adjournment for the holiday season.
Rosen wrote of Lunday, “I appreciate his lifetime of service to our country and look forward to working with him to continue to strengthen anti-harassment policy at the Coast Guard.”
The Coast Guard upset and confused many Jewish groups by issuing and then reversing statements about whether swastikas and nooses would still be considered hate symbols or downgraded to “potentially divisive.”
After The Washington Post reported in November that the downgrade was happening, the Coast Guard denied the reports and Lunday — then the acting head — reassured Jewish leaders the policy would not go through. He issued an explicit directive on the subject.
Yet last week the Post reported that the Coast Guard had gone ahead and made the change in its updated harassment manuals, triggering fierce backlash at a moment when other actions by President Donald Trump’s second administration have raised concerns about antisemitic sentiment.
Jewish leaders, including the heads of the Union for Reform Judaism’s advocacy center and Jewish War Veterans, questioned how such a policy could have gone through despite Lunday’s directive. Some told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that Lunday should not lead the Coast Guard if he was truly unaware of the policy change.
Yet Rosen appeared to feel differently after Lunday took additional steps Thursday. According to The Washington Post, Lunday issued a new directive to say the revisions involving swastikas and nooses had been “completely removed” from the policy manual. A copy of the manual itself now obscures the language with a large black bar.
In her statement lifting the hold on Lunday, Rosen added that, because she was still not satisfied with how the swastika issue was handled, she would be placing a hold on a different nomination: Sean Plankey, who had sought to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a component of the Department of Homeland Security.
“I will keep that hold in place until we see that this new policy works to protect our men and women in uniform from racist and antisemitic harassment,” Rosen wrote. Homeland Security also oversees the Coast Guard.
Plankey was not confirmed before the Senate adjourned, and his nomination would have to be renewed by Trump in the new year.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Coast Guard again retracts policy that would downgrade swastika as hate symbol, clearing path for new leader’s confirmation appeared first on The Forward.