The post VDH on how you can tell when “anti-Zionism” is Jew-hatred appeared first on The New Neo.

The story:

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won’t be attending the city’s annual Israel Day Parade on Sunday, a break from decades-long tradition, despite attending other events celebrating the city’s diverse cultural landscape.

Since 1964, every mayor in the city has attended the Jewish celebration, which comes amid record levels of antisemitism …

Which his election has aided and abetted.

More:

Mamdani indicated that he would not attend as a matter of political principle. …

Despite his stance against Israel, the mayor has participated in other celebrations, including this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration, during which he compared the historic plight of the Irish to the “genocide” in Palestine amid Israel’s war with Hamas.

That’s a very popular stance in Ireland itself – the Orwellian confusion/inversion about who’s really seeking genocide, and about who really is the “colonizer.” It’s classic stuff which has caught on tremendously in recent years, as decades of propaganda launched by the USSR (see this), decades of academic indoctrination, recent increases in Muslim immigration to Western countries, constant lies in the MSM, and post-10/7 internet anti-Semitic smears have all combined to create a perfect storm. This has allowed someone like Mamdani to be elected the mayor of New York in the first place.

Israel-haters claim they’re not anti-Semitic, only anti-Israel. “Can’t we even criticize Israel?” they ask disingenuously, because of course they can. Israelis criticize Israel. But when “criticism” is over-the-top Orwellian lies and reversals of the truth, and when similar logic is applied to no other nation on earth – then anti-Israel sentiment is actually Jew-hatred. Mamdani normalizes it, but why would that be surprising, because it originated on the left in Soviet Russia.

In this 2024 post I quoted this article, and that quote bears repeating now:

The claim that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians is among the longest-running lies told about Israel. “Genocide Israeli style”; “Zionist-engineered genocide”; “the ‘final solution’ of the Palestinian question”—these may look like snippets from some recent campus proclamation, but they are not. They appeared in a Soviet pamphlet titled “Zionists Count on Terror.” Published in 1984 by Novosti, a Soviet foreign propaganda arm masquerading as a news agency, this pocket-sized brochure was meant to promote the Soviet view of Israel and Zionism to English-language audiences.

You can read more of the history in this post. Suffice to say the lessons the Soviets taught have been well-learned, and are now rampant among younger Americans and even with some who supposedly used to be on the right (Tucker, I’m talking about you).

Meanwhile, from yesterday:

Jewish New Yorkers, beware.

The same rabid anti-Israel activists who have harassed Jews at synagogues in recent weeks in violent protests, flown the flag of Hamas and Hezbollah and stomped on the Israeli flag are returning to the streets tonight at Time Square in midtown Manhattan to rage-bait Israelis and Jews attending a “Jerusalem Real Estate Expo” at Times Square.

The protest underscores how anti-Israel activist groups are continuing to escalate their pressure campaigns against pro-Israel and Jewish events across the city, despite mounting criticisms of antisemitism. Earlier this week, Jewish and Muslim leaders led a protest at Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s residence at Gracie Mansion, asking that he address the growing antisemitism in the city.

Note that at least some Muslims are against the anti-Jewish anti-Israel harassment. I assume those Muslims will be targeted as well.

More:

Community leaders say these protests put more pressure on Mamdani who joined anti-Israel protests many times before he ran for the mayor’s office. In college, he was a founding member of his school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which also seeks “the return” of Palestinians to modern-day Israel and a one-state solution that claims modern-day Israel for Palestinians, essentially destroying the state of Israel.

Exactly.

And in Brooklyn, there’s trouble in yuppie enclave Park Slope [emphasis mine]:

Israeli-made products were ripped from the shelves of the lefty Park Slope Food Coop just hours after being banned in a historic vote — prompting scores of Jewish shoppers to threaten to quit the member-run market in revolt.

Tuesday’s boycott vote — which drew over 7,000 members and passed with an overwhelming 67% in favor — went into effect immediately, with the Israeli products vanishing from the shelves by Wednesday morning. …

The nasty food fight — over about 10 goods like hummus, herbs, matzo and peanut puffs — drew condemnation from even the most liberal residents in the leafy Brooklyn enclave. …

Coop member Ramon Maislen told The Post that an informal survey prior to the vote suggested up to 1,000 members would leave if the ban passed. The market has about 15,000 members total. …

The controversy has been brewing at the Union Street coop for years, with BDS supporters claiming Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and demanding all products from the country be barred.

Sound familiar? It should.

And this ploy should feel familiar, too [emphasis mine]:

And Tuesday’s vote meeting only compounded the controversy, as it was immediately preceded by a successful vote to lower the threshold required to ban coop products from 75% in favor to 51%.

Without that threshold vote, the ban would not have passed — leaving Jewish members feeling cheated, a feeling which was also reinforced by the alleged lack of public discussion ahead of the final vote.

You may think this is a tempest in a teapot. But it’s not. It’s part of the death of a thousand cuts, proceeding apace in many countries.

The post Mamdani won’t deign to attend the Israel parade in New York: the origin and spread of the “genocide” charge appeared first on The New Neo.

But the question originates with this news about Galindo, running for Congress is Texas’ 35th District, and the current Democrat frontrunner although she faces a runnoff:

Controversy-tarred congressional candidate Maureen Galindo this week pledged to transform a site south of San Antonio now used by the Trump administration to detain migrants into an internment camp for “American Zionists.”

“She’ll turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking,” Galindo wrote in an Instagram post over the weekend, referring to herself in the third person. “It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists.”

As you might expect, Galindo accuses her opponent in the runoff, Johnny Garcia, “of participating in a human trafficking conspiracy orchestrated by billionaire zionist Jews. She also pledged during a Texas Public Radio interview to put Garcia on trial for treason.”

Well, of course she has. In addition, she claims – another common defense of those promoting this sort of approach – that she’s not an antisemite, and she doesn’t hate Jews, just is against “Zionists.” Funny thing, that’s a group which happens to include a great many Jews (and others) who support the only country in the world that is the historical and ancestral (and Biblical) Jewish homeland, a tiny tiny country that was formed legally by UN partition of former colonial possessions and has had to fight for its existence every step of the way against vicious enemies that would obliterate it.

Maureen Galindo received 29.2% of the Democrat votes in her primary, to Garcia’s 27%. Two other candidates received 20% or more, so the race was split four ways relatively evenly. Nevertheless, that Galindo is the frontrunner is very disturbing. Whether you care about Israel or not, her “solution” is astoundingly alarming.

Galindo is so exceedingly extreme that even Democrats have condemned her – for now, when the district still has other viable Democrat candidates that could be the nominee. Democrat leadership would prefer that one of her Democrat opponents wins, because otherwise not only might Galindo lose the election to the Republican, but she would become the poster child for Democrat Jew-hatred. But I wonder if, in the event that she wins the runoff and becomes the Democrat nominee, whether they will rally behind her as they have with the abominable Platner.

I think I know the answer.

NOTE: It’s not easy to find a lot of background on Galindo, but I did locate this:

Maureen Galindo, 38, is a marriage and family therapist who has a master’s in community psychology from Concordia University in Portland, Ore. She’s also a housing advocate who fought the razing of her old downtown apartment complex to build a baseball stadium, and ran unsuccessfully for City Council in 2025.

I’ve also read elsewhere that she’s a sex therapist. At any rate, she’s young (as expected), but her degree – “community psychology” – is in a field with which I’m unfamiliar, although I do know a lot about degrees in the general area of psychology and specifically marriage and family therapy. Turns out that, curiously enough, “community psychology” doesn’t seem to be a clinical degree so I don’t see how it would ordinarily qualify a person to be a therapist, and it’s basically a leftist thing (no surprise there either), a sort of glorified community organizer:

Community psychology goes beyond an individual focus and integrates social, cultural, economic, political, environmental, and international influences to promote positive change, health, and empowerment at individual and systemic levels.

Depending on one’s training, experiences, and preferences, community psychologists can work as educators, professors, program directors, consultants, policy developers, evaluators, and researchers in community organizations, universities, or government agencies to promote mental health and community well-being. …

We seek to expand “helping” beyond traditional psychotherapy to promote wellness.

We engage in action-oriented research to develop, implement, and evaluate programs.

We base our work on a scientific foundation to better understand the multiple influences of the social environment on health and wellness

We build collaborative relationships with community members, groups, and organizations to solve social problems.

We consult with and provide tools to organizations to build capacity to address social problems such as exploitation and victimization.

We analyze government, civic life, and workplace settings in order to understand and improve fair and diverse participation.

We fight oppression, work to reduce social inequalities, and work with marginalized people toward their empowerment.

.

This article also adds a bit of background to Galindo’s views on Israel and Jews. Although it’s written by someone who is not especially happy with Israel, it nevertheless recognizes how far Galindo goes towards Jew-hating. She seems to be somewhat in the Candace Owens mode:

Galindo often gestures toward a conspiracy theory, common in the Nation of Islam, that the people who identify as Jews today are not the Jews of the Bible but impostors. In response to two questions I emailed her, she pointed me to Revelation 3:9: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.” In Congress, she said, she would write legislation decreeing “that any support of Zionism is antisemitic, since it’s the Zionists literally killing the Semites of the Middle East.”

Tucker Carlson also leans towards that notion. It’s the reason he suggested, in the course of his Huckabee interview, that the Jews of Israel should be DNA-tested to see if they’re actually descended from Abraham. I wonder where he intends to get Abraham’s DNA for comparison.

The post Can we call Democrat Maureen Galindo a Nazi yet? appeared first on The New Neo.

All it takes to be an antisemite these days is to question why we give Israel so much money.

Of course that’s not all it takes. In fact, it’s a question I’ve asked, too: why so much aid? But when I researched it, I found that the answer made perfect sense.

Before I give the answer, I’ll mention Keith’s second comment today on the subject, after various people responded negatively:

How to prove a point without really trying. Israel firsters are in the room. And your wrong ,we should not give any money to any country. If Israel can have free education and health care, they can pay their own way. ,,flame away

Now, if Keith had led with “we should not give any money to any country,” that would have been a different point and a different argument or discussion. That discussion could be on the purpose of foreign aid, whether it fulfills its purpose, and the merits and/or flaws of the financially isolationist approach (does this include no bases anywhere outside the US, for example?). But that would be switching the argument and is quite different from focusing on US aid to Israel. Plus, of course, one can favor foreign aid for Israel without being an “Israel Firster”: one can believe, for example, that giving aid to Israel is extremely helpful to the US itself.

Any discussion of actual dollar amounts without background about how the aid is given and what is done with it is to leave out almost everything important. So let’s fill in those blanks.

First, a very short summary version:

Next, a longer version. Some excerpts:

Israel is America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. The two nations are bound together not only by interests, but also by the deeply held values they share.

Israel provides a cost-effective alternative to stationing American troops in the region. …

Israel is a major economic and technological ally. Many American companies including Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Intel operate major research facilities in Israel, and Israel creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in America through trade, investment, and other cooperation. U.S. aid helps Israel defend itself so it can remain a valuable contributor to the American economy.

By 2028, Israel must spend 100% of American aid money on American defense contractors. This spending supports well over 20,000 jobs according to recent estimates.

Israel is talking about phasing out US military aid, so perhaps that 2028 benchmark won’t be reached and the amount of aid will be minuscule or zero. But Israel already gives back a great deal of its aid anyway. Here’s how it works:

In the 2000s, as Israel became more economically self-sufficient, economic aid has dropped off to zero in recent years. Military assistance, meanwhile, has steadily risen to levels of typically over $4 billion annually over the past year.

Most U.S. security assistance to Israel falls under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program.

Israel is a recipient of U.S. FMF, which functions as a grant that a foreign country then must use to purchase weapons and other military platforms manufactured in the United States. …

While Israel uses FMF to make most arms purchases from the U.S., it often buys additional defense articles using its own funds. As of April 2025 Israel had over 750 active FMS cases, valued at $39.2 billion. …

The United States has recognized Israel as a major non-NATO ally since 1987, and bilateral defense cooperation also includes an array of strategic agreements, joint research and development programs, intelligence sharing, and frequent combined training exercises. …

The emphasis on maintaining Israel’s QME [Qualitative Military Edge] is an acknowledgment that—notwithstanding its impressive military and technological capabilities—Israel has several strategic disadvantages vis-à-vis its adversaries, including its limited size and manpower.

Israel does more than give back its aid for the purpose of buying US armaments – which means the money flows back to the US – and it does more than fight US enemies in the Middle East (terrorist entities controlled by Iran, for the most part). Israel also develops weapons and shares these gains with the US:

From tank protection systems to artificial intelligence-powered warfare solutions, Israeli defense firms and research institutions have consistently delivered cutting-edge innovations that have found their way into the American military. Many of these technologies were born out of Israel’s unique security challenges and its need for rapid innovation in urban and asymmetric warfare. The US military has adopted many of Israel’s systems and integrated them into combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and various counterterrorism operations worldwide.

While Israeli innovations have shaped military doctrine and force structures, they have also had a direct impact on individual warfighters, as seen in battlefield medical advancements. The Emergency Bandage—a simple yet highly effective hemorrhage control dressing developed by an Israeli military medic—has saved countless American lives. First introduced in the 1990s, the bandage features a built-in pressure applicator that allows soldiers to treat severe wounds with one hand. …

The Israeli military’s adaptation of the D9 bulldozer into a heavily armored combat bulldozer offered a battlefield-tested model that directly influenced American operations in Iraq. …

Israeli advancements in force protection have dramatically increased the survivability of armored platforms in combat. The Trophy Active Protection System (APS) is one of the most significant Israeli contributions to armored warfare. …

Recognizing the increasing threat of modern anti-tank weapons, the US Army integrated the Trophy APS onto M1 Abrams main battle tanks beginning in 2018. …

Furthermore, as unmanned aerial threats evolve, the Trophy APS is now being adapted to counter drone-based attacks. …

Having faced IED threats for years from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations, Israel’s counter-IED capability far exceeded that of the United States. Israel shared these technologies with the United States, providing it with vehicle-mounted microwave devices called Dragon Spike and Dragon Spike II to test in Iraq and Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. These devices were not a silver bullet to the IED problem, but they did help jump-start the United States’ counter-IED efforts.

I’ve already quoted a lot from that site, so I’ll stop here because I believe I’ve made my point. But there’s plenty more at the link and I suggest you take a look. Suffice to say that I don’t think there’s a country on earth that helps the US more, militarily. I don’t think any other country is even close.

[ADDENDUM: And by the way, since Keith’s comments were originally on the Massie thread, I thought this would be a good place for a link to a post from Ace today on the topic of Massie’s “principles.”]

The post US aid to Israel appeared first on The New Neo.

As I thought, he says the lawsuit won’t work in the US. One reason is that an entity like Israel can’t sue under US law; it has to be a person who was harmed. Plus, the standard is very high in the US when suing a newspaper for defamation, due to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (ironic, isn’t it, that the case involved the Times?).

Nevertheless, Dershowitz makes the point that Israel could sue in other countries that make it easier to win against media outlets, such as in Britain.

Dershowitz also points out that the NY Times’ printing of these particular allegations – which already had been floating around online for ages – gives the stories a kind of gravitas they didn’t have before, and could convince credulous readers who were neutral on the Israel question to turn against Israel because they trust that the Times wouldn’t print mere online rumors or mere Palestinian propaganda. Those who follow the Times more closely know that of course the paper would do that – and already has, many times. But lots of people aren’t that tuned in to these topics and can be persuaded by the Times’ high reputation of old.

Dershowitz also points out that the article was careful not just to be published as opinion – which doesn’t really protect it legally, although that’s the goal – but to not name any of the persons being accused of these crimes. Naming a person falsely would give that person a viable causer of action in the United States.

Plus, Dershowitz says that journalists are the most unethical group of people he’s ever dealt with; I can well believe it.

This National Review article describes what the advantages would be of a defamation lawsuit in Israel, even if the defamation case would basically go nowhere if brought in the US:

Which brings us to the real mechanism: 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

Once an Israeli proceeding is in reasonable contemplation, an interested person can apply in the Southern District of New York (where the New York Times is headquartered) to compel evidence production from a U.S. entity for use in foreign litigation. A properly framed § 1782 application does not ask the court to adjudicate the case; it simply asks the court to order the Times to produce the factual basis for one published allegation.

The subpoena categories write themselves: documents identifying the source and evidentiary basis for the dog allegation; fact-checking notes and editorial review records; communications with cited human rights organizations about this specific claim; internal discussions of reliability or corroboration. The Times will obviously raise reporter’s privilege. That is expected. But the answer here is a measured response: Nobody is asking for every source on every story. The request is for the factual foundation for one allegation the Times has publicly called corroborated and extensively fact-checked and “deeply reported.” Either show the corroboration or explain why you cannot. Both answers are informative.

None of this is a technical defamation case, but the critics declaring the claim dead on arrival are focusing on the colloquial use of the word “defamation” expressed in a spokesperson’s tweet and missing the tree for the forest. The real question is whether there exists a narrow, disciplined legal theory that forces the Times to produce the evidentiary basis for one of the most inflammatory factual allegations it has ever published. And there is.

Of course, many many more people have paid attention to the Kristof piece (many of whom might believe it) than would pay attention to any legal findings delegitimizing it. The Times and Kristof are well aware of that. They want their lies to get all the way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on.

The post Israel’s defamation lawsuit against the <i>NY Times</i> for publishing the Kristof piece appeared first on The New Neo.

The post How “journalism” works these days appeared first on The New Neo.

Some excerpts:

The libel [Kristof] dutifully repeated in “The Paper of Record” was a hundred years old when he printed it. The Palestinian propaganda has not changed in a century. The Western press, which once exposed it, now promotes it.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man Palestinian historians call the father of their national movement, distributed the original handbills in the summer of 1929. The text called on Arab men to rise against the Jews, an enemy who had “violated the honor of Islam and raped the women and murdered widows and babies.” The leaflets had been printed in advance.

No Jewish man had raped any Arab woman. That didn’t matter.

He paired the rape libel with a second weapon. His crowds at the Nebi Musa riots of 1920 had chanted “Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs.” Dogs in Islamic law are najis, ritually impure, the same religious category as pigs and bodily fluids. Calling a Jew a dog made a religious statement about defilement. Twin demonizations, both concocted and distributed with the specific intent of inciting violence against the Jews.

The author goes on to describe the Hebron massacre that resulted, in which Palestinians (not called that back then, of course) committed barbaric crimes against Jews that have a great deal of resonance with what occurred on 10/7, nearly 100 years later. There are resonances with other historic events in the area, too.

I strongly suggest you read the whole thing; it can’t be summarized. It’s an extraordinary history.

The post 100 years of rape inversion appeared first on The New Neo.

But I find that simply won’t work. It’s too emblematic of so many things that are deeply and destructively wrong. Thus, this post.

First, some background:

In the months following the October 7 attack, antisemitism shed its inhibitions.

What distinguishes this moment is the collapse of stigma. Expressions that would have ended careers a decade ago now generate applause, clicks, and campaign donations. Language that would trigger immediate condemnation if directed at other minorities is routinely excused, contextualized, or ignored when directed at Jews. Hostility that once hid at the margins has migrated inward—into campuses, political platforms, cultural institutions, and digital ecosystems. The result is an old hatred on steroids—newly unmoored from consequence.

This normalization is not diffuse, but has taken shape through two distinct but mutually reinforcing channels. The progressive left frames Israel as fundamentally illegitimate, a country of inherent injustice. That creates an atmosphere in which hostility toward Israel is cast as an ethical obligation. And for many on the left—and their Muslim activist allies—the distinction between Jews and Israelis frequently collapses.

On parts of the populist right, antisemitism has reemerged through the architecture of conspiracy theory. Jews are cast not as oppressors, but as puppet masters—orchestrators of migration, finance, media narratives, and foreign entanglements. The vocabulary differs from that on the left, but the structural function is identical: Jews are assigned exceptional and malign agency.

What differentiates left and right is not just their emphases, but also the fact that leftist leaders join in and leaders on the right condemn the Jew-hatred. It remains a fringe thing on the right – and many of those involved in it are not even on the right anymore, if in fact they ever really were.

Also from the Posner article:

Holocaust inversion—labeling Israelis as Nazis or Gaza as Auschwitz—has appeared with increasing frequency at demonstrations and across digital platforms.

That inversion – the turning of something upside down or into its opposite – is the Hallmark of modern-day Jew-hatred masquerading at times as anti-Israel sentiment and at other times ripping off the mask. And this inversion is what we have in the Nicholas Kristof article alleging that Israelis systematically rape prisoners, including (and perhaps especially?) with dogs that are trained to rape humans.

Let’s start out by saying that the latter is not even possible (not that Kristof or the NY Times care; the goal is getting the story out there):

Kristof continues to cite medical journal articles he claims prove dogs raping humans is possible. There’s one problem. …

Those medical journal articles talk about the opposite issue … that is, humans practicing bestiality on dogs, not the other way around.

And here is an excerpt from the abstract of one of those articles:

This report delineates a case of anal injury in a 12-year-old boy who gave a detailed history of bestial behavior with a male bulldog. The child described how he had seen this behavior modeled on the internet and subsequently initiated contact with his own dog, causing the dog to penetrate him anally. This type of juvenile bestial behavior with injury has only been reported once previously in the medical literature. … Spontaneous sexual assault of a human by a canine has never been described in the human or veterinary medical literature, nor is such a thing likely.

Dogs cannot be trained to do this – and yet the charges against Israel have a lengthy history:

Grok: Dog handling and canine behavior experts (along with military K9 analysts) have explicitly stated that training dogs to perform sexual assault/rape on human command is not possible in any operational or standardized way.
The Palestinian allegations you’re referring…

— Aaron Poris (@a_poris) May 11, 2026

Grok: Dog handling and canine behavior experts (along with military K9 analysts) have explicitly stated that training dogs to perform sexual assault/rape on human command is not possible in any operational or standardized way.

… [C]laims of IDF or prison guards in facilities like Sde Teiman or Ofer using trained police/military dogs to rape or sodomize detainees—originated primarily from anonymous testimonies collected by groups such as Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (often described by critics as Hamas-linked), the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and amplified by CAIR, Middle East Eye, and some UN summaries.01823 These accounts describe dogs being “let loose” or commanded to mount and penetrate restrained prisoners, sometimes with details like a handler saying a name like “Messi.”

However, these specific “dog rape on command” claims have been widely labeled as baseless propaganda or recycled antisemitic blood libels by fact-checkers and Israeli advocates. They rely on hearsay with zero corroborating evidence: no names, dates, videos, forensic records, or named witnesses—unlike documented cases of muzzled dogs being used for intimidation, biting, or general attacks on detainees (which appear in BBC reporting and human rights monitors).

Multiple sources directly addressing canine training confirm the core point you raise: there is no known training framework anywhere in the world for conditioning dogs to perform directed sexual acts (mounting and penetration) on command in a controllable, repeatable, operational setting. This is not how K9 programs work—IDF’s Oketz unit or any police/military dog units train for detection, tracking, apprehension, or attack bites, not sexual behavior. Sexual mounting in dogs is driven by instinct (arousal, dominance), not precise obedience like “attack” or “sit.” It cannot be standardized, deployed reliably, or switched on/off without massive ethical, legal, and practical barriers.

This impossibility aligns with basic canine biology and professional dog handling: you can train dogs to aggress or intimidate, but engineering them into tools for targeted rape defies how animal behavior is conditioned. Claims of this nature echo historical fabrications and lack any precedent in real military or law-enforcement dog programs.

Neither Kristof nor the Times cares to do the most basic fact-checking of the claim, which of course is “too good to fact-check.”

The Kristof article is Orwellian. The Times should be deeply deeply ashamed of publishing it. But in the current climate, it could get a Pulitzer to go with Kristof’s two previous ones.

The article is an excellent example of the Islamic terrorist’s propaganda modus operandi, and in particular the favorite Palestinian ploy of accusing your enemy of what you yourselves do – not rape with dogs, of course, but rape, humiliation, degradation, and torture of enemies. Kristof’s article is a bunch of propagandist rumor dressed up as news (but placed, interestingly enough, on the “Opinion” page, probably for legal reasons), but it came out one day before a report on Hamas’ 10/7 atrocities – which were exhaustively documented by Hamas’ selfie videos and the testimony of survivors. The evidence is night and day, although the allegations in both pieces are horrific and disgusting, because torture and rape are horrific and disgusting. But the content of the Hamas report is one of the most horrific and disgusting things ever (and I don’t say that lightly), and has the extra-horrific element of being true.

But “horrific and disgusting” really doesn’t even begin to cover it. I don’t think any words do. You can read the report here, or you can read summaries here and here – if you can stomach it.

How can people champion those who perpetrated these vile offenses and videoed themselves in the act? By denying the atrocities or by excusing them or by reveling in them. Those three responses are quite different from each other, but they have the same effect in the end.

I have read a great deal of Holocaust literature in my lifetime. Some of the descriptions of what happened back then are so awful I wish I’d never read them. The same is true of this, about which I have only read summaries but those are bad enough. The deeds are demonic, depraved, sadistic, limited only by the human imagination (which at times seems unlimited).

Many Holocaust survivors have reported that their tormentors often told them two things while they were in the camps. The first was that the victims would never get to tell their tales, because they would all be killed and the Nazis would successfully destroy the evidence. That didn’t happen, although the Nazi perpetrators tried to make it happen. But the Gazans of 10/7 weren’t interested in hiding the evidence; they broadcast it. They knew from previous experience that the some would deny despite this evidence, and some would goulishly delight in it and be inspired. This makes them arguably worse than Nazis.

This is a fascinating report based on intelligence captured from Hamas. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but here’s a relevant excerpt:

To light that internal powder keg, Sinwar needed a spark. This necessity explains one of October 7’s most gruesome aspects. Sinwar was convinced that capturing and broadcasting “explosive images” right at the start of the offensive would “trigger a surge of euphoria, frenzy, and momentum” among Palestinians and Arab Israelis. The goal was to spur a violent mass uprising while simultaneously paralyzing the Israeli public with terror. That is why Hamas terrorists wore body cameras and gleefully livestreamed their own atrocities.

I think they also must have believed that the West would not object – that either terror or excuses and justification (or denial) would be the West’s reaction. They almost certainly knew that the West had been primed, saturated for decades with Pallywood propaganda and taught by pro-Palestinian professors, with the cooperation of “journalists” – such as Kristof.

The other thing the Nazis told their victims was that, even if any of them did somehow manage to survive, the world would never believe them. When Eisenhower made and then released films of what the Allies found when they liberated the camps, and when he made some of the locals come and see the dead, he was aware of the risk of non-belief and he wanted to document at least some of the atrocities for future generations. And yet there are plenty of Holocaust deniers today, as well as Holocaust celebrators.

The post The Kristof article, plus the report on Hamas’ 10/7 atrocities appeared first on The New Neo.

Not me, not yet, although I find the ads incredibly annoying.

For some reason, for about a year I’ve been getting an ad for some sort of face makeup (I turn it off after the usual five seconds, so I don’t even know what it’s advertising, even after all this time), featuring a woman with the most droning grating annoying voice ever. But those ads are nowhere near as infuriating as what I’ve come to call the counter-message ads. At present, they seem to solely involve Israel and Jews – or rather, with countering the message of videos made by pro-Israel or pro-Jewish sources.

For example, if I happen to watch a video by some Jewish or Israeli organization which offers news of the Gaza War or the Iran War from Israel’s point of view, the ads invariably are pro-Gaza and pro-Hamas. If I happen to watch a video that has to do with Jewish thought or religion, invariably it is accompanied by ad after ad from proselytizing Christian organizations explicitly dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity.

These counter-ads are presently solely on Israeli or Jewish videos, but it hasn’t always been that way. I distinctly recall, during the 2024 election campaign, that nearly every pro-Trump video or podcast I would watch (or really anything on the right) would be paired with an ad for Kamala Harris. The opposite may have been true (pro-Kamala podcasts paired with Trump ads), but I wasn’t watching a whole lot of podcasts on the left, so I don’t know.

So, who makes these ad-placement decisions? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the people making the videos. Is it YouTube? Is it the advertisers? Do advertisers pay extra for counter-placement of their ads?

The post YouTube ad placement appeared first on The New Neo.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as an innocuous Muslim civil rights group—a reputation it reinforces with litigation and claims of anti-Muslim bigotry. But the group finds itself under increasing scrutiny for alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, Hamas. Last November, Texas Governor Greg Abbott designated CAIR a terrorist organization. The following month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed suit, citing CAIR’s being listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism financing case.

But as other states move to sideline CAIR, California is embracing this alleged terror front. CAIR-CA, the organization’s largest statewide affiliate, is flush with taxpayer cash. In the last five years, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has rubberstamped at least $41 million in funding to the group. The vast majority of that money, it turns out, comes from the federal government. These federal dollars are flowing into CAIR-CA’s coffers even after it was the target of a recent Department of Justice investigation.

The article goes on to describe the evidence that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front. I’ve read about it before and find the argument quite compelling. I remember first hearing about CAIR after 9/11, raising the “Islamophobia” charge in order to somehow turn the whole thing into a defense of Muslims in the US.

More:

“You can’t look at what CAIR is doing today in isolation,” Burns said. “The government established the fact [during the trial] that a conspiracy existed among these organizations, including CAIR, to support Hamas, and that acts were taken in furtherance of that conspiracy. . . . CAIR’s role was to operate an entity out of Washington, D.C. that would serve to defend the interests of the rest of the network—against scrutiny from the media, against scrutiny from law enforcement. . . . In my opinion, the executive director, Nihad Awad, and other components of CAIR that were a part of this original infrastructure, are still operating CAIR in furtherance of an agenda to support Hamas.” …

One would think that CAIR’s ties to an Islamist terror group would make government agencies pause before providing it with public funds. But under Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s state government has seemingly never met a “marginalized group” it did not want to shower with other people’s money. CAIR-CA is rolling in tax dollars.

NOTE: I seem to be writing a lot about California today.

The post Gavin Newsom gave taxpayer money to CAIR appeared first on The New Neo.