Uncategorized
How the Media’s Antisemitism Machine Helped Take Down Josh Shapiro
We’ve been here before, and now Israel and the Jews are at the center of the US presidential election race.
Until Vice President Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate on Tuesday, mainstream and social media outlets focused attention on Jewish Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who was considered a front runner.
The New York Times “Draws Fresh Scrutiny” to Take Down a Proud Jew
Despite Shapiro’s capabilities, his effectiveness as a politician, and his policies on issues that matter to the American people, the media, including The New York Times, chose to focus on him as a pro-Israel Jew who has been outspoken on antisemitism on college campuses.
Is this really such a devastating a problem for American voters who are focused on the constantly rising prices of basic necessities?
It apparently doesn’t matter that this Statista poll shows foreign policy as second-to-last on the list of top voter issues:
Or likewise, that this ABC News/IPSOS poll shows that the Israel-Hamas war is the lowest priority of all issues among US voters.
All that matters, according to the Times, is that Shapiro has “been one of the Democratic Party’s staunchest defenders of Israel at a moment when the party is splintered over the war in Gaza” and that he considers himself “a Zionist.”
The Times tried to damn him by revealing on Saturday that he volunteered “in the Israeli army” when he was 20-years-old, when he actually just did some volunteer projects on an IDF base.
An op-ed Shapiro wrote for his college newspaper, written after his experience volunteering in Israel, was initially resurfaced by the Philadephia Inquirer. At the time, he wrote that he didn’t believe Palestinians were capable of peace because they are “too battle-minded.”
This is a view that 30 years later, created a rumble across the media, despite his attempt to take it back. Shapiro has been viewed as a centrist in the Democratic Party, and has been very outspoken about his support for a two-state solution.
Social media dictates the news agenda
Shapiro’s five-month stint doing volunteer service projects, including on an IDF base more than 30 years ago, spread across social media and the Twitterverse (or rather X-Universe). Of course, it was twisted into him “serving in a foreign military.”
Wikipedia is trying very hard to cover up that Josh Shapiro voluntarily served in a foreign military pic.twitter.com/l7A4rDrQCL
— ib (@Indian_Bronson) August 3, 2024
Josh Shapiro is likely to be our next vice president
Josh Shapiro volunteered for the IDF but not the US military
Many of these dual-citizens have more loyalty to Isreal than America pic.twitter.com/tXwrEA7R89
— Jake Shields (@jakeshieldsajj) August 3, 2024
Then, the media latched onto this antisemitic agenda, making it a central issue. The question of whether it was a good idea for Shapiro, a Jewish politician, to be up for one of the highest ranking US political positions has been an issue of debate on television broadcasts. Is this appropriate, they asked? Especially since he is pro-Israel? Is America ready for a Jewish and pro-Israel vice president?
As reports leaked of Harris’ official pick of Walz, celebrations kicked off for a Zionist losing out:
Yeah!!! A sigh of relief that Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP. He has a great record as governor. And it sends an important message that she did not chose Josh Shapiro.
Some of Walz policies as governor:
He cut child poverty by 1/3!!! universal school… pic.twitter.com/leBjDDvzk6
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) August 6, 2024
Across the country, an inherent anti-Israel narrative has taken hold since October 7, and even those well-meaning, Jewish allies filled with concern have been duped into dividing Americans even more with this conversation.
.@RepAuchincloss: “Those in the overly online left who are attacking Josh Shapiro’s pro-Israel positions in a different way than they are attacking non-Jewish veep contenders’ positions, they’re just telling on themselves. There’s a strong undercurrent of antisemitism to that.” pic.twitter.com/tI1S2satLk
— CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt (@CNNThisMorning) August 5, 2024
While there were CNN interviews on its news broadcasts like the one above — where anchors and analysts alike were quick to condemn this narrative and discuss its antisemitic nature — this goes beyond what would be acceptable or politically correct to discuss for any other group. The fact that Shapiro was singled out among a list of alternative options for Harris who have virtually the same stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US aid to Israel and Gaza is antisemitic.
If Americans care about inflation, the economy and immigration most out of anything, why would they vote based off of whether or not he is a Jew?
HonestReporting’s executive director Gil Hoffman brings us back to the source.
Did this @nytimes article that exaggerated Josh Shapiro’s connection to Israel lead to him not being picked at @KamalaHarris‘s running mate? You decide. https://t.co/WSTgNsYU7G
— Gil Hoffman (@Gil_Hoffman) August 6, 2024
An important point, and one that will most likely not be addressed in mainstream media.
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.
The post How the Media’s Antisemitism Machine Helped Take Down Josh Shapiro first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Stop Platforming Bigotry and Hate: We Can’t Build Bridges with Destructionists
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Photo: Mike Jourdan/Flickr.
A society that cannot distinguish between a critic and a destructionist is a society in the process of dismantling itself.
For decades, the leaders of Western institutions — universities, legacy media, and political think tanks — have operated on the Liberal Consensus Model. This model assumes that every stakeholder, no matter how radical, ultimately wants a seat at the table to negotiate a better version of the status quo.
But we are currently witnessing the total collapse of this assumption. Institutions are mistaking a siege for a negotiation.
The “Destructionist” does not want a seat at the table; they want to use the wood for kindling. When an institution offers a “bridge” to someone whose starting premise is the dismantling of liberal democracy or the erasure of a people, they aren’t practicing “inclusion.” They are providing a tactical ramp for an assault.
This is not a “Left” or “Right” problem; it is a vulnerability of the center. Across the political spectrum, we see the same mechanics of “laundering” at work — where moderate leaders trade their institutional credibility for access to a radical’s megaphone.
On the left, we see the normalization of figures like Hasan Piker. When the “Pod Save America” crew or politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) treat Piker as a “bold youth voice,” they are signaling that his destructionist starting points — such as supporting the eradication of Zionism — are within the bounds of a reasonable democratic coalition.
They frame it as “outreach,” failing to realize that they are importing eliminationist rhetoric into the heart of the mainstream.
On the right, the rot is equally visible in the laundering of Tucker Carlson. When Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, or politicians like Vice President JD Vance defend Carlson even as he platforms Holocaust revisionists and Nazi apologists, they are breaking a decades-old covenant. By framing Carlson’s descent into conspiratorial bigotry as “challenging the establishment,” they are laundering a brand of hatred that was rightly ostracized from the movement generations ago.
In both cases, these “bridge-builders” suffer from a form of institutional narcissism: the belief that their own empathy or political utility is powerful enough to transcend a destructionist ideology. They believe they can negotiate a floor plan with an arsonist who has already lit the match.
It is common to lump these figures in with Joe Rogan, but the distinction is critical for understanding where our accountability must lie.
Rogan is a private citizen having a public conversation. While he causes undeniable material harm by uncritically platforming bigoted views –and we should absolutely pressure him to do better — he is fundamentally only representing himself.
Conversely, we must hold the Ezra Kleins, the Jon Favreaus, and the Heritage Foundations to a far higher standard because they represent institutions. When a gatekeeper stops guarding the gate on behalf of an institution, the gate ceases to exist. Rogan is a symptom of a culture that finds fire interesting; these institutional leaders are the architects who were supposed to be building the firewalls. Their failure is not just an error in judgment; it is professional malpractice.
The solution is not state-censorship, but a renewal of communal self-respect. We must re-learn the lesson of how we defeated the KKK: we didn’t “win the debate” at a shared seminar; we made the white hood socially disqualifying.
The path forward requires a two-fold strategy:
1. Enforce “Social Jail”
We must return to a model of principled ostracization. If your starting point is the destruction of a people or the subversion of the democratic covenant, you belong in “social jail.” This is not “cancel culture” — which often offers no path back — but a boundary. Social jail allows for repair. When an individual renounces the destructionist framework and demonstrably accounts for the harm they’ve advocated through public renunciation and restorative action, the door can be reopened. But until then, the line must be held.
2. Critical Friction vs. Laundering
Journalists and pundits must stop acting as facilitators. If they choose to engage with these figures, the “friendly engagement” model must be replaced with hostile exposure. You can interview an arsonist about why he likes fire, but you don’t hire him as a fire safety consultant.
The standard defense for this laundering is the phrase: “I don’t agree with everything he says.”
In the context of eliminationist bigotry, this is not a defense; it is a confession of moral cowardice — or at best, professional dereliction. To be a journalist or a civic leader is to have the courage to name the “tripwire.” If you platform a bigot, you have a professional obligation to state, explicitly, which of their hateful taboos you oppose. If you refuse to name the bigotry — if you treat it as a mere “difference of opinion” — you are not conducting an interview; you are providing a sanitation service.
We have spent years building bridges with people who are committed to destroying them. We have watched as they used those bridges to infiltrate our schools, our media, and our political parties.
It is time to stop being the architects of our own demise. If we cannot say “No” to those who wish to see our foundations destroyed, our “Yes” to progress and our democratic system will eventually mean nothing at all. We must stop exhausting our moral vocabulary on minor transgressions so that we have the collective clarity required to name the destructionists for what they are.
It is time to stop building the bridge and start holding the line.
Uncategorized
78 Years Later, the Palestinian Authority Still Dreams of Israel’s Demise
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon, May 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
As Israel celebrates the 78th anniversary of its Independence, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its government-run media continue to promote the ideology that Israel has no right to exist and is a temporary “occupation” that will soon vanish.
Here are some examples that Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has documented recently:
PA Jerusalem District Spokesman Ma’arouf Al-Rifai: “Ever since Allah created this land, we have continued to live here and defend it, we are the spearhead on defending these holy sites.
The occupation [i.e., Israel] is ultimately destined to disappear.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Individuals, Jan. 31, 2026]
Palestinian National Council member Dr. Shafiq Al-Talouli: “This state [i.e., Israel] is revealing the true face of the occupation that has stolen Palestine since 1948, and which relies on the same ideology of carrying out forced expulsion, and which strives through the use of force, committing massacres, starvation, and the like to remove the Palestinian people from its land.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, Nov. 6, 2025]
Official PA TV programs, interviews, and documentaries repeat the ideology that Israel’s existence is temporary:
Official PA TV Israeli affairs “expert” Nizar Nazzal: “Palestine is the compass, and here the empires crashed down. Whether it was the Mongols, the Crusaders, or others. Therefore, these empires [i.e., Israe] too, here on the land of Palestine, will crash down.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, Jan. 20, 2026]
The PA tells its people that Israelis, deep down, agree that Israel is doomed:
Official PA TV narrator: “Even in the depths of the Israeli public, there is an understanding that their presence here is temporary. The dual citizenship of the soldiers and settlers is not just a coincidence but rather an escape plan ready to be executed if the balance of powers changes.”
Jurist Sufian Siyam: “The Israeli knows in his subconscious mind that his existence on this land is temporary. …In 2006, there was an Israeli soldier named Gilad Shalit. We were surprised to discover later that Gilad Shalit has French citizenship … Israeli soldier Edan Alexander [a hostage captured and released during Hamas’ Oct. 7 war] has American citizenship. Why do the Israeli soldiers and Israeli civilians insist on having another citizenship besides Israeli citizenship? Because deep in his heart, his grandfather before him and his son after him knew that his existence on this land is temporary.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Time Without Ceasefire, Jan. 28, 2026]
Whether from PA officials or its state media, the message to Palestinians remains constant: Israel has no right to exist, Israel is temporary, Palestinians are permanent, and time will erase the Jewish State.
At the same time, the PA continues to demand Western governments fund this culture of hate and rejectionism while choosing to look the other way.
The author is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
PA Libel: Jewish Scripture Says Non-Jews Are ‘Pigs in the Form of Humans to Serve the Jews’
Palestinians shout slogans at the compound that houses Al-Aqsa Mosque, known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, following clashes with Israeli security forces in Jerusalem’s Old City April 15, 2022. REUTERS/Ammar Awad
In addition to its eliminationist rhetoric, the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s brainwashing of its people is ongoing and effective.
Palestinian Media Watch regularly documents that ordinary Palestinians echo the antisemitic and Nazi-like statements by PA leaders and officials. The PA portrays Jews as being “arrogant by nature,” and planning to “subjugate the entire world.” Palestinian citizens adopt and repeat these teachings.
Accordingly, anti-Israeli activists spread the libel that the Jewish Talmud teaches that non-Jews are “pigs in the form of humans [created] to serve the Jews”:
Anti-Israeli activist in the Jordan Valley Ayman Ghraib: “The colonialism began in the [Jewish] religious schools where the colonialists [i.e., Jews] were educated to hate the Arabs and Palestinians and everything that is not Jewish.
We have obtained booklets that contain an exact quote from the Talmudic text — that non-Jews are pigs that God created in the form of humans to serve the Jews … In their religious books it is written that Allah created this [olive] tree for the Jews … and if they cannot enjoy its fruits, they should burn it.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Crops, April 6, 2026]
The Talmud contains no such statement about non-Jews being pigs.
Even as Palestinians falsely accuse Jews of dehumanizing non-Jews, the PA itself portrays Jews as sub-human.
In the words of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’ advisor, Jews are “grazing herds of humanoids … apes and pigs.” Recently, a Palestinian in Lebanon expressed a similar view, saying Jews are “pigs and donkeys”:
Lebanese singer and actor Abd Asqoul: “The enemy [Israel] is very stupid. He does not understand that it is impossible, regardless of what will be, there is something that lives inside us [Palestinians] … But this pig is not just a pig, he is a donkey who does not understand.
He thought my identity is a few papers and flour, and it escaped him that I am from the seed of heroes. .. My identity is land and rock and the sand of the beaches with shells and the blue color in their waters, from Rosh Hanikra [i.e., on Israel’s northern border] to proud Umm Al-Rashrash [i.e., Eilat, Israel’s southern border].” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, The Creativity of the Refugee Camp, Jan. 20, 2026]
The Palestinian Authority’s antisemitism also portrays Jews as the “enemy of humanity.” A Palestinian academic and former PA deputy minister stressed this recently, specifying that Jews are not only the “enemy” of Palestinians, but of all “humanity”:
Bethlehem University political science lecturer and former PA Deputy Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Sa’id Yaqin: “Jerusalem … is also the strongest symbol in this conflict, which is being waged with this enemy [i.e., Israel]. This is the enemy of humanity and not of the Palestinian people.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, March 14, 2026]
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.