Uncategorized
So, there was a swastika at my Airbnb
A few weekends ago I went upstate for a wedding, and briefly lived like a Victorian gentleman with a problematic taste in interior design.
Staying in a historic mansion (h/t Airbnb) in Newburgh, New York, I felt transported into a game of Clue, minus the murder. Was it me in the study with a sandwich? The parlor had a marble bust redolent of antiquity. From my top floor room there were panoramic views of the Hudson hills bursting with fall foliage. And then there was, at the corner of the landing … well, as I told my girlfriend, it’s more of a visual.
“Please do not be alarmed, but there are sauvastikas (more commonly known as swastikas) inlaid in the corners of the floors dating back to 1866, before Hitler was born,” the extensive house instructions said.
I wasn’t alarmed, more amused. (For context, the guests were almost entirely Asian with a couple of Ashkenazi Jews — and a miniature poodle.)
Of course I knew the Eastern origins of the motif. And I noted, as did our hosts, that these swastikas faced the opposite direction of the hooked cross favored by the Third Reich. The owners were right to say in their literature that the symbol “was stolen.”
Nazis really do ruin everything.
The architect, Frederick Withers, could only really be faulted for orientalism, which at the time wasn’t a dirty word. In any case, this was a landmark building registered with the historical society, and as such the swastikas couldn’t be altered. (“On a positive note,” our hosts added, “the original Tiffany stained glass window is well preserved up in the dining room.”)
At the wedding, I made the possible faux pas of mentioning the floors to friends of ours, one of whom grew up in India. It had just been Diwali, and he said kids draw swastikas everywhere during the festival.
“You’re taking it back,” I joked.
On the contrary, he said, they never really let it get taken away. Indians still use the swastika to signify peace and prosperity — its original meaning.
Maybe there’s a lesson there. Not really about ancient Indian symbols, but about what we feel comfortable letting Nazis get away with.
It’s long been a pet peeve of mine that so much of Jewish culture is boiled down to a period of about 12 years in a history that stretches back millennia. That public figures caught saying something antisemitic are immediately dispatched to the nearest Holocaust museum, rather than a Shabbat dinner or a museum of Jewish art.
When people online get defensive about their views on the Jews, they often mention how moved they were by Anne Frank’s diary, as if that was the answer key for understanding our peoplehood, and not just assigned reading. (In most schools in the U.S., the only time students hear anything about Jews is in a unit on the Holocaust.)
Members of the tribe are far from immune to this phenomenon. To be an educated, secular Jew, for many, is to have endured a screening of Schindler’s List — or, if you’re more ambitious, the more than 9 hours of Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. You don’t see the Talmud in every Jewish home (granted, it takes up a lot of shelf space), but you can probably find a copy of William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Jewish identity has been shaped by our persecution — and remembrance is an important Jewish imperative — but as I’m far from the first to point out, when we take history and memory culture to extremes, we end up ceding our own narrative to those who wanted to erase us.
As scholar Miriam Udel put it in her recent book, “The Holocaust is, in a profound sense, not a Jewish story.” This stopped me when I first read it, but the more I considered it, the more I saw her point. The way the Shoah is typically related, it’s not a story where Jews have a great deal of agency. Jews weren’t passive. Tales of resistance abound — and should be emphasized — but it’s still primarily a story in which something was done to the Jews, and for reasons the Jews had no real control over.
Indians don’t let Nazis have a monopoly on the swastika — why should Jews allow them to define Jewishness?
I am not advocating for the return of parquet-inlaid swastikas in Western homes, whatever their direction. I’m not even for a revival of the Hitler mustache that Michael Jordan once attempted to resuscitate in a Hanes undershirt commercial. But I do think there’s a wisdom in not permitting our enemies to distort our much older tradition.
In Yiddish, we say “mir veln zey iberlebn,” we will outlive them — them being Nazis, antisemites and the various Hamans that rise up in every generation. While today that seems aspirational, we must remember we were here first, and there’s far more to Jewish life than death.
The post So, there was a swastika at my Airbnb appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The Guardian Clarifies ‘Misunderstanding’ About ‘Antisemitic’ Opinion Piece Targeting Israeli-Founded Bakery
April 4, 2025, London, England, United Kingdom: Exterior view of a Gail’s bakery in Covent Garden. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The Guardian edited an opinion piece on Tuesday about a popular Israeli-founded bakery in the United Kingdom after the column was widely criticized for claiming that the store’s location near a Palestinian bakery was an “an act of heavy-handed high street aggression.”
The opinion piece was originally published on Saturday and mentioned Gail’s Bakery, which was founded by British-Israeli baker Gail Mejia in the 1990s and turned into a café chain with the help of Israeli entrepreneur Ran Avidan.
Gail’s now has almost 200 locations across the UK, and neither Mejia nor Avidan are still involved in the business. Gail’s largest shareholder is the American venture capital firm Bain Capital, which invests in Israeli defense and cybersecurity companies. The firm signed an open letter in support of Israel after Hamas’s invasion of the Jewish state on Oct. 7, 2023, but Gail’s has repeatedly stated that it has no ties to any foreign entity or government outside of the UK.
A newly opened branch of Gail’s in London’s Archway area had its windows smashed twice within a week of opening, and the store was vandalized with graffiti that read “Free Gaza,” “reject corporate Zionism,” and “Boycott Gail’s Funds Israeli Tech.”” An anti-Israel demonstration also took place at the same Gail’s location, according to reports. No arrests have been made for the vandalisms.
The Guardian opinion piece originally published on Saturday by the publication’s columnist Jonathan Liew is titled, “A corner of north London where food has become a battleground in the Israel-Gaza war.” It claimed Gail’s “very presence” in the Archway neighborhood near a Palestinian cafe called Cafe Metro was “symbolic” of “heavy-handed high-street aggression.” The accusation was made in a paragraph that said Bain Capital “invests heavily” in Israeli security companies.
“Campaigners point out that its parent company, Bain Capital, invests heavily in military technology, including Israeli security companies,” the piece previously read. “And so even though Gail’s describes itself as ‘a British business with no specific connections to any country or government outside the UK’, its very presence 20 meters away from a small independent Palestinian café feels quietly symbolic, an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.”
On Tuesday, the claim about Gail’s “heavy-handed high street aggression” was moved in the article and now follows accusations about the bakery “accelerating gentrification and squeezing out smaller outlets.” The article also now says that Gail’s is acting just “like the multinationals that landed before it.” The mention about Bain Capital and Gail’s having “no specific connections to any country or government outside of the UK” has been moved to its own paragraph.
Liew also wrote that Cafe Metro was “a marker of the Palestinian identity that Israel’s bombs and snipers are so intent on erasing” and described Gail’s as a “predator” in the neighborhood. Those references have not been edited or removed from the article.
Jonathan Liew’s opinion piece for The Guardian before it was edited. Photo: Screenshot
Jonathan Liew’s opinion piece for The Guardian after edits were made on March 17. Photo: Screenshot
A note from the editor, posted at the end of the article, explained that the reference to Gail’s new location in London mimicking “an act of heavy-handed high street aggression” has been “repositioned to clarify it meant to refer to the described fears about the chain’s impact on small traders.” The note also tried to clarify the notion among critics that the article mitigated the recent acts of vandalism targeting Gail’s.
“A comment contrasting activism that is capable of influencing global events with ‘small acts of petty symbolism,’ which was not intended to minimize local vandalism but rather to suggest its misdirected futility, has been removed to avoid misunderstanding,” it said. Editors also removed from the article its introduction, which read: “A smashed window here, a provocative sticker there. In an age when protest feels increasingly meaningless, it’s no wonder that acts of petty symbolism are on the rise.”
Before the changes were made, the article had been accused of perpetuating antisemitism and was heavily criticized by Jewish groups, pro-Israel activists, politicians, radio hosts, Gail Bakery’s chief executive Tom Molnar, and journalists, including Jewish staff members at The Guardian. Gail’s supporters claimed the article inappropriately targeted the bakery chain because it happened to open a branch in close proximity to a Palestinian cafe.
The article has also been accused of attempting to justify the vandalism it has faced recently.
The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism said the piece was “encouraging anti-Israeli sentiment among its readers,” while the UK’s Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch called the article “antisemitic,” “utterly ridiculous,” and “appalling.” The media-monitoring organization CAMERA UK said the column was “downplaying the campaign of intimidation against a Jewish-linked business while presenting activists in a sympathetic light.”
Alex Gandler, the spokesperson for Israel’s Embassy in the UK, said the piece was “an astonishing exercise in bigotry disguised as moral commentary.”
“Beneath its surface lies a familiar and ugly trope: the re-packaging of antisemitic prejudice in fashionable political language … the insinuation that Jewish success or presence represents some form of encroachment by powerful ‘global’ forces,” he added. “For a newspaper that presents itself as a guardian of liberal values, publishing such rhetoric is deeply disappointing. Opinion pages should encourage debate and scrutiny. They should not revive centuries-old stereotypes under the guise of social commentary. This piece should never have been written, and it certainly should never have been published.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said: “It is not acceptable to relate to the opening of a bakery as an act of ‘aggression’ … Most people will find this article, seeped in tropes and innuendos, as deeply insidious, and will want to know why The Guardian thinks an op-ed seemingly justifying tensions between communities has a place on its pages.”
A pro-Israel protest was also held outside The Guardian headquarters in London on Wednesday in response to the offensive opinion piece.
The edits to the article were insufficient for many observers, including Camera UK. “So, it was all just a silly ‘misunderstanding,’” it posted on X. “No apology. Nothing to see here. And, certainly, NO antisemitism.”
“That is not how you correct this travesty of an ‘opinion,” Gandler wrote on X. “Correction in hindsight, after this failure should be a complete withdrawal, not a rewriting of history.”
Tom Molnar, the bakery chain’s chief executive, responded to the article on Monday.
“We live in a democracy that welcomes different opinions, but we will not accept hate and intimidation in our bakeries,” he said, as reported by The Times. “We are a neighborhood bakery that is on a mission to feed more people, better. We are firm believers that a healthy high street is a diverse one made up of many different businesses, from many different backgrounds, each playing its part. We want to serve the best possible food to our communities, and the vandalism we experienced in Archway serves as a distraction from doing just that.”
Uncategorized
WikiLeaks: From Classified Database to an Anti-Israel Propaganda Platform
WikiLeaks Julian Assange in an interview with Fox News. Photo: Screenshot.
Founded in 2006 as a platform for leaked documents exposing war, espionage, and corruption, WikiLeaks built its reputation on radical transparency.
Despite the controversy surrounding its publication of classified material, the organization gained global recognition, winning numerous awards and becoming best known for releasing documents related to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Today, its X account tells a very different story.
With more than 5.6 million followers, WikiLeaks has increasingly become a hub for anti-Israel conspiracy theories — content that bears little resemblance to its original mission of publishing classified material.
Rather than exposing new information, the account now appears to construct narratives about Israel and the Jewish people using documents that are neither classified nor newly revealed, amplified through carefully timed posts.
The pattern is clear. Two months into Israel’s war with Hamas, WikiLeaks resurfaced a document it first published in 2010 claiming that an “Israeli intelligence chief encouraged Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip” — a framing that shifts blame for the conflict onto Israel.
Since the start of 2026, the account has posted 15 times (excluding replies). Of those, 11 focused entirely on Israel or the Jewish people.
Its most recent example is particularly telling. WikiLeaks “leaked” a document dated July 21, 1947, written by US President Harry S. Truman, which includes derogatory remarks about Jews.
What the account failed to mention is that the document was made public in 2003 and is therefore not a leak. Nor did it provide the broader historical context, including Truman’s decision to recognize the State of Israel immediately after its founding.
Instead, the post highlights a willingness to promote inflammatory material to an audience primed to accept it. In doing so, WikiLeaks helps sustain an online echo chamber where misleading anti-Israel narratives circulate with little scrutiny.
This dynamic is amplified by high-profile activists such as Shaun King and Susan Abulhawa, who readily repeat and disseminate such claims to large audiences, transforming misleading posts into widely shared talking points.
The trend is not new. In October 2025, WikiLeaks helped spread the false claim that pro-Israel influencers were being paid $7,000 per post to “increase global influence.” Yet the documents cited provided no evidence for such payments or any breakdown of how funds were allocated.
WikiLeaks’ fixation on Israel is not limited to its social media output. Its founder, Julian Assange, has his own record of anti-Israel activism, raising further questions about the organization’s impartiality.
In 2012, Assange launched The Julian Assange Show, produced by the Russian state-controlled network RT. His first guest was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, whom Assange allowed to portray Israel as an “illegal state” while framing media coverage as a “war” against Hezbollah.
Assange’s activism has also been taken to the streets. More recently, in August 2025, Assange was seen leading a pro-Palestinian protest in Sydney that featured flags of terrorist organizations and imagery of their leaders.
If WikiLeaks was founded to expose censored information in the public interest, its current trajectory raises serious questions about its purpose. Rather than prioritizing transparency, the organization now appears increasingly focused on amplifying anti-Israel narratives detached from its original mission.
With a platform reaching millions – and bolstered by influential amplifiers – misleading claims are circulated and legitimized with little scrutiny. What emerges is not a commitment to truth, but an ecosystem in which information is selectively curated to reinforce an anti-Israel worldview.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Argentine Jewish Community Commemorates Deadly Israeli Embassy Bombing as Justice Remains Elusive, 34 Years Later
A display of posters at the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighting the plight of hostages seized by Hamas. Photo: Reuters/Añeli Pablo
Argentina’s Jewish community on Tuesday marked the 34th anniversary of the devastating bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, a brutal attack that still casts a long shadow of unresolved grief and unanswered questions.
On March 17, 1992, a truck bomb exploded outside the embassy, ripping through the building and killing 29 people while injuring more than 240 others in one of Argentina’s deadliest terror attacks.
The blast was widely attributed to operatives linked to the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah with support from Tehran, though no one has ever been brought to justice for the tragedy.
A 34 años del atentado contra la Embajada de Israel en Buenos Aires, recordamos a las 29 víctimas asesinadas el 17 de marzo de 1992 y rendimos homenaje a todos los afectados por este brutal acto terrorista.
Esclarecer este ataque sigue siendo un deber irrenunciable de nuestra… pic.twitter.com/OXTUuTiL8w
— Casa Rosada (@CasaRosada) March 17, 2026
Just two years later, the country was shaken by another horrific attack when a bomb destroyed the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center, killing 85 people and injuring over 300 others.
More than three decades on, those responsible for either atrocity have yet to be brought to justice, leaving survivors and families still searching for accountability.
On Tuesday, the Israeli Embassy in Argentina hosted a remembrance ceremony where officials, including Argentine President Javier Milei, gathered to mark the anniversary, pay respects to the victims, and call for justice that has long been delayed.
“There can be no truce against terrorism. Iran despises life and seeks to destroy freedom,” Milei said during a speech at the ceremony.
“Argentina is Israel’s ally, and we are bound by the same values,” he continued.
The Argentine leader also reaffirmed his steadfast support for the United States and Israel in the ongoing war with Iran, describing it as a critical turning point and highlighting his dedication to international cooperation.
The Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations (DAIA), the country’s Jewish umbrella organization, also paid respect to the victims while emphasizing the community’s enduring strength and unity.
“Memory is not just remembrance: it is a collective responsibility to build a society without impunity, where terrorism has no place,” DAIA wrote in a post on X.
A 34 años del atentado perpetrado contra la Embajada de Israel en Argentina, acompañamos un nuevo acto de memoria, recogimiento y compromiso.
Recordamos a las víctimas, abrazamos a sus familias y renovamos el pedido de justicia, que sigue siendo una deuda pendiente.
La memoria… pic.twitter.com/NhZZrUT71c
— DAIA (@DAIAArgentina) March 17, 2026
In 2024, Argentina’s second-highest court ruled that the 1994 attack in Buenos Aires was “organized, planned, financed, and executed under the direction of the authorities of the Islamic State of Iran, within the framework of Islamic Jihad.”
Argentine authorities concluded that the terror attack was carried out by Hezbollah terrorists acting on what they described as “a political and strategic design” orchestrated by Iran.
The court additionally ruled that Iran was also responsible for the truck bombing of the Israeli embassy.
Argentine investigators concluded that the 1992 bombing was likely carried out in retaliation for then-President Carlos Menem’s cancellation of three agreements with Iran involving nuclear equipment and technology.
Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Hezbollah carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.
Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and has refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
Earlier this month, the lead prosecutor in the case requested the indictment of 10 Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of involvement in the deadly attack.
Among those named was Ahmad Vahidi, who was recently appointed the new head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an Iranian military force and internationally designated terrorist organization.
He replaced Mohammad Pakpour, who was killed during the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which has resulted in the death of several high-ranking officials.
In 1994, Vahidi commanded the IRGC’s Quds Force, which is responsible for managing Iran’s proxies and terrorist operations abroad.
Despite Interpol issuing red notices for their arrest, neither Iran nor Lebanon has handed over any suspects, allowing them to remain beyond the reach of Argentine authorities.
For the first time, Argentina has now ordered that suspects be tried in absentia following a legal change in March that removed the requirement for defendants to be physically present in court.