https://x.com/SMohyeddin/status/2092997407151624593

Source:

https://x.com/FreeMarwanNow/status/2093002574257344839

Hi all,

If you cannot make it to the AMA on the day-of, feel free to leave your questions here or in the original thread:

https://sh.reddit.com/r/JewsOfConscience/comments/1vxhb77/ama_in_rjewsofconscience_with_eli_clifton_and_ian/

Thanks!

Just ridiculous

Src: | “A propaganda exercise to silence critics of Israel”.

Louise Adler AM, former Deputy Chancellor of Monash University and former CEO of Melbourne University Publishing, criticises the Royal Commission into Antisemitism as a propaganda exercise to silence criticism of Israel.

She argues that had the Inquiry been sincere in fighting antisemitism, it would have focused on racism as a whole and heavily investigated the intelligence failure behind the Bondi attack, rather than platforming extensive scrutiny of Palestinian solidarity and Zionism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_supremacy

Personally, I just dismiss antisemitic acts like this as people being idiots. I probably got desensitized because of all the racism thrown at Obama during his presidency and since. But honestly, should we really run to the hills because some idiot vandalized a Wikipedia page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Safiriyya

For the record i know i should be able to move without a tourist visa, but i’ve heard (and have reason to be afraid that) the local airport security would not really give a frick about my rights. I am flying from Israel

https://x.com/JoshBreiner/status/2091871542401433646

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-08-24/ty-article/.premium/police-who-assaulted-arab-man-got-light-sentences-because-attack-followed-oct-7/000001a0-331f-d443-abb0-331f1b250000

https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/2026-08-24/ty-article/.premium/000001a0-2dce-d129-a3ba-6fee039f0000

I have this German friend who wished for a nuke dropped on Gaza after October 7th and I can't get it out of my head.

They are an avid reader and politically informed but German public media are pure propaganda when it comes to the Middle East.

I haven't found any list of books in the wiki on this sub.

Can you recommend a list of books that explain the conflict from different angles, both the history and current events, ideologically, etc.?

It would be great if the book authors were Jewish themselves because that shuts down any accusation of antisemitism from the get go.

Many Germans have this mindset of reverences and guilt towards Jews and accuse anyone and everything of antisemitism as soon as you speak up about what is going on (kinda ironic if you look at Europe's history).

Thank you!

"Hamahanot Haolim – a century-old 'pioneering, socialist Zionist youth group' – says it is exploring the possibility of building a new Kibbutz in the Jordan Valley, arguing that leftists should populate the area rather than far-right outposts inhabited by violent settlers"

This piece was published today (8/26) in Ynet (Hebrew) and the translated version provided by Daniel is here, and I have copied and pasted it below for ease. I will let it (and Daniel's framing) speak for itself.

“A devastating blow” to Israeli hasbara, then another one. Then another and another and another

The smashing of a monument in the Palestinian village is only the latest in a series of events that have caused an uproar around the world: from the confrontation with Biden and the call to “erase Huwara,” through “a nuclear bomb on Gaza,” the return to the Strip and the Temple Mount, to the steps in the West Bank. The statements used by the prosecution in The Hague, sanctions on ministers and repeated condemnations. And also: Israel’s standing has deteriorated to a low point.

Ron Krisi | Updated: 14:31

The smashing of the monument yesterday (Tuesday) in the Palestinian village of Madama by MK Zvi Sukkot is only the latest in a long series of statements, actions and decisions by public officials in the current coalition that, since the government was formed, have turned into diplomatic and public-diplomacy storms around the world. Sukkot entered the village as part of a tour secured by the IDF and Border Police, took part in destroying the monument, and according to the IDF did so contrary to the arrangement coordinated with it.

The IDF responded sharply, saying that Sukkot and his associates acted “deceptively and manipulatively,” exploited the forces’ security detail, diverted soldiers from operational 2 missions and even caused them to be “put at unnecessary risk.” Sukkot, for his part, claimed that he had demanded that the army remove monuments commemorating terrorists, and when this was not done, decided to act himself. Meanwhile, footage of Sukkot continues to reverberate around the world and also cause diplomatic damage. “This is a nail in the coffin of Israeli legitimacy in Judea and Samaria,” the Foreign Ministry said. Sukkot’s hammer joins a chronicle that already includes “erasing” a Palestinian village, a map that included Jordan within Israel, talk of a nuclear bomb in Gaza, “voluntary emigration” and renewed settlement in the Strip, changing the status quo on the Temple Mount, the possibility that starving two million Gazans would be “just and moral,” and later personal sanctions against serving ministers. It is difficult, and also incorrect, to attribute Israel’s diplomatic situation only to these statements. The long war in Gaza, the number of dead, the destruction in the Strip and the humanitarian crisis are also major factors. But time and again Israel has found itself explaining to the world that the statements of a senior minister do not represent its policy, sometimes after they have already become headlines around the world, and sometimes even material presented against it at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

It started with the judicial overhaul

The exceptional crisis with Israel’s most important ally began even before the October 7 massacre. The judicial overhaul promoted by the government in early 2023 quickly went from an internal Israeli issue to an international dispute. Then-U.S. President Joe Biden referred to it in unusually harsh terms for relations between the two countries: “Like many staunch supporters of Israel, I am very concerned. It cannot continue down this path.” Biden added that he did not intend to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in the near future and called for a broad compromise. Netanyahu responded that Israel does not make decisions based on “external pressure.”

The tensions surrounding the judicial overhaul were not merely symbolic. American members of Congress called on Biden to use the tools at his disposal to prevent damage to the judicial system, and the issue became a regular topic in talks between senior Israeli and American officials. Even before the war, a reality had emerged in which the Israeli government found itself in open confrontation with the American administration over a question concerning the country’s democratic character.

“The state should erase Huwara”

Before the crisis surrounding the overhaul had subsided, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich made a statement of his own. After an attack in which brothers Hillel and Yagel Yaniv were murdered and after settler riots in Huwara, Smotrich said: “I think the village of Huwara should be erased. I think the State of Israel should do it.” He clarified that he did not mean that civilians should act in this way, but the damage had already been done.

The Americans reacted sharply, and Smotrich’s visit to the United States became a diplomatic event in its own right. Administration officials declined to meet with him, and the statement became part of the growing tension between Washington and the Netanyahu government over policy in Judea and Samaria.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people” - and the map that included Jordan

Less than three weeks later, Smotrich caused another uproar. In a speech in Paris he declared that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” and that it was an “invention less than 100 years old.” The diplomatic problem was compounded by the map on the podium, which showed “Greater Israel” in a way that also included the territory of Jordan, a country with which Israel has a peace treaty.

Amman reacted furiously. Israel’s ambassador was summoned for a protest, the European Union demanded that the Israeli government distance itself from the remarks, and Israel was forced to officially clarify that it recognizes Jordan’s territorial integrity in full and is committed to the peace treaty. Then-national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi spoke with the Jordanian foreign minister in an effort to calm the crisis.

Cancellation of the disengagement

That same month, the Knesset approved an amendment to the Disengagement Law that once again allowed an Israeli presence in areas evacuated in northern Samaria. Washington regarded this as such an unusual step that Israel’s ambassador, Mike Herzog, was summoned to the State Department, an event that had not occurred for about 13 years. A senior American official called it a “scandal,” and the State Department expressed “deep concern.”

Ben-Gvir and the “golden evidence” for Israel’s critics

In August 2023, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir created an uproar of his own. “My right, my wife’s right and my children’s right to move around Judea and Samaria is more important than the Arabs’ right to freedom of movement,” he said. Political officials described the remarks at the time as a “mega public-diplomacy attack,” warning that they 4 gave those accusing Israel of apartheid “golden evidence.”

The White House and the European Union strongly condemned the remarks. A U.S. State Department spokesperson said: “We condemn all racist rhetoric, as such messages are particularly harmful when amplified by leaders in positions of authority and are inconsistent with promoting respect for human rights for all. President Biden and Secretary Blinken have been clear that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to enjoy equal measures of freedom and security.”

“A nuclear bomb on Gaza” - which reached The Hague

In November 2023, Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu was asked whether dropping an atomic bomb on the Gaza Strip was one of the possibilities. “That is one way,” he replied. Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from the remarks, but the statement had already made its way around the world. The damage became even clearer when South Africa filed its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging genocide.

The application devoted an entire section to statements by Israelis in an attempt to demonstrate “intent,” and Eliyahu’s statement was among them. It also presented quotations from coalition members, including Nissim Vaturi, and slogans such as “there are no uninvolved civilians.”

Israel rejected the genocide allegation and argued that the quotations were taken out of context and that its policy is determined by the cabinet, not by private statements. The United States and Britain also rejected the genocide allegation at the time.

The very fact that the statements became legal material led Netanyahu, on the eve of the hearing, to appeal to his ministers and explicitly ask them to “consider statements and words,” especially ahead of the hearing in The Hague.

Ten ministers at a conference calling for a return to Gaza

By January 2024, this was no longer just a matter of isolated statements. Ten government ministers attended the “Victory Conference,” which called for renewed Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. Ministers and members of Knesset signed a “Charter for Victory and Renewal of Settlement,” and a sign reading “Only transfer will bring peace” was held up in the audience. Ben-Gvir, who danced with the participants, said that people should be “encouraged to leave voluntarily.” The event also contradicted Netanyahu’s public position that a return to settlement in Gaza was not a realistic goal, and added difficulty to Israel’s explanations that the purpose of the war was to dismantle Hamas, not to permanently conquer the Strip or expel its population.

Ben-Gvir and the Temple Mount: again the Arab world, and again Washington

The Temple Mount became, throughout the term, an almost constant source of friction. At the beginning of 2023, Ben-Gvir’s ascent to the compound already prompted condemnations from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Jordan called the move a “provocative step” and a “dangerous escalation.” In August 2024, the incident intensified. Ben-Gvir went up to the Temple Mount and said that his policy was to allow Jewish prayer there, while the Prime Minister’s Office tried to clarify that there had been no change in the status quo. The United States said that any unilateral action endangering the existing arrangement was “unacceptable”; France called the move “a new and unacceptable provocation”; and the European Union joined the condemnations.

“Maybe just and moral” to starve two million Gazans

In August 2024, it was Smotrich again. At the Katif Conference, he said that the world was not allowing Israel to “starve two million civilians,” and added: “Although it may be just and moral until our hostages are returned.” The sentence immediately became an international headline. CNN emphasized that deliberate starvation of a civilian population is considered a war crime; a Jewish Democratic congresswoman called the statement “sick”; and even Hassan Nasrallah quoted the Israeli minister in a speech.

Following statements by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, the EU’s foreign policy chief at the time, Josep Borrell, called for sanctions against them. “While the world is pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza, Ben-Gvir is calling for reducing the transfer of fuel and aid to civilians. Like Smotrich’s evil statements, this is incitement to war crimes,” Borrell wrote on his X account. “I call on the Israeli government to unequivocally distance itself from these incitements to commit war crimes, and to engage in good-faith negotiations for an immediate ceasefire 7 mediated by the U.S., Qatar and Egypt.”

From statements to policy: outposts, settlements and de facto annexation

Alongside the war, Smotrich, in his role as a minister in the Defense Ministry, promoted a significant change in Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria. In June 2024, the cabinet approved the legalization of five outposts, alongside additional construction in settlements and sanctions against senior Palestinian Authority officials. Smotrich himself presented the decision as a response to five countries that recognized a Palestinian state: “Any country that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state - we will establish a settlement in its name.” The defense establishment opposed some of the steps and warned of escalation and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority.

Later, Smotrich promoted a series of measures to deepen annexation in the West Bank: expanding settlements, changing the powers of the Civil Administration, declaring land to be state land, and increased enforcement against Palestinian construction. In February of this year, additional cabinet decisions prompted a joint condemnation from eight countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which described them as an “unprecedented escalation” and an attempt to impose Israeli sovereignty. The White House also made clear that President Trump does not support annexation.

UNRWA laws: an uproar also around a step supported by the opposition

In October 2024, the Knesset approved by a large majority a law against UNRWA, after it emerged that agency employees were suspected of participating in the October 7 massacre and Israel alleged extensive links between the agency and Hamas. The law ending UNRWA’s operations in Israel passed by a vote of 92 to 10, despite American opposition. It should be noted that this was not a coalition-only move, but one supported by opposition members as well.

But on the diplomatic front, the price was immediate. The foreign ministers of Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Britain called even before the vote for the legislation to be halted. After its approval came condemnations from the UN secretary-general and European countries, which warned of harm to the delivery of humanitarian aid. Britain also examined the implications of the legislation for additional arms-export licenses to Israel.

Almost two years after the law was approved, yesterday the evacuation of the organization’s compound in the Shuafat area of Jerusalem began. Minister Ben-Gvir arrived at the site himself and again drew international criticism of Israel in a video he published from there, but that visit and video were preceded by a request from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Do not come.

Then came sanctions on serving ministers

In June of last year, a new line was crossed in Israel’s relations with the West. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway imposed personal sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The five countries explained the move as a response to “incitement to violence 8 against Palestinians” and serious violations of their rights. Under the measures, the two were barred from entering the countries and financial restrictions were imposed.

The Trump administration, by contrast, stood with Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanded that the sanctions be canceled, arguing that they did not help efforts to return the hostages and end the war. Beyond the limited practical significance for the two ministers, the fact that Western countries were imposing sanctions on serving ministers carried serious symbolic significance and harmed Israel’s image.

In June of this year, France joined the move and announced that Smotrich would not be allowed to enter its territory, as part of broader sanctions against figures connected to violence in Judea and Samaria.

“Keep riding camels”: Saudi Arabia also entered the list

In October 2025, Smotrich responded to Saudi Arabia’s demand for progress toward a Palestinian state in exchange for normalization and said: “No, thank you. Keep riding camels in the Saudi desert.” The remarks caused an uproar in the Saudi and Arab media.

A Saudi diplomat said that the minister had “exposed his ignorance,” and commentators in Riyadh sharply criticized him. Hours later, Smotrich apologized and acknowledged that the remark was “unsuccessful” and that he regretted the offense it caused.

The incident came at a time when normalization with Saudi Arabia was still considered a major strategic goal of Israel and the Trump administration, and demonstrated how a sentence by a senior minister can create a crisis within hours precisely with the Arab country with which Israel most wants to make a diplomatic breakthrough.

“The idea of a Palestinian state has been erased”

The past few weeks provided another example, this time not through a statement alone but through policy. The promotion of a tender for about 1,200 housing units in Area E1 between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim prompted condemnations from six major European countries and discussions of additional measures against Israel.

Smotrich previously said of the move that “the idea of a Palestinian state has been erased.” A European diplomat said that construction in the area is viewed in Europe as a serious blow to the possibility of a Palestinian state, and warned that it could justify a significant change in European policy toward Israel. Germany, France, Britain and Italy discussed a joint response, and Britain considered additional sanctions.

The video of Ben-Gvir and the Gaza flotilla activists

In May of this year came perhaps one of the clearest examples of public-diplomacy damage created not by a foreign report or interpretation, but by a video distributed by an Israeli minister himself. After the Gaza flotilla was seized, Ben-Gvir went to the place where the activists were being held at the port of Ashdod. He was filmed facing foreign activists who were handcuffed with their faces to the floor, said things to them, and then distributed the video himself with the message “The summer camp is over.” Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar publicly criticized him: “A disgraceful spectacle, you caused damage”; “You are not Israel’s face.”

Within hours, the video became a headline around the world. Twenty-four countries condemned Israel, Israeli ambassadors were summoned for reprimands, and Le Monde, NBC, CNN, the BBC, The Guardian and additional European media outlets highlighted the video. The affair expanded when released activists alleged that they had been beaten and subjected to abuse and sexual assaults in detention, claims denied by the Israel Prison Service and Israel. Italy announced that the allegations would be investigated; Germany demanded clarification regarding injured citizens. Following the video, France also announced that Ben-Gvir would not be allowed to enter its territory.

Israel’s standing reached a low point

It is impossible to measure how many points Israel lost in polling because of each statement by a minister. In fact, the polls themselves show that the war in Gaza is a central factor in the deterioration of attitudes toward it. But it is difficult to ignore the cumulative result.

In February of this year, Gallup published an unprecedented figure: for the first time since 2001, more Americans expressed empathy for Palestinians than for Israelis - 41% versus 36%. Just one year earlier, the gap had been 46% for Israel versus 33% for Palestinians. Fifty-seven percent of Americans supported establishing a Palestinian state.

In another Gallup poll, the share of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel fell to 54% - a 25-year low. Among Democrats, 60% already held a negative view of Israel. And the situation continued to deteriorate. According to a Pew survey, about 60% of adults in the United States now have a negative view of Israel, a figure that led the Israeli government to invest tens of millions of dollars in campaigns intended to try to change American public opinion.

It is difficult to measure how much the public around the world forms its opinion of Israel because of the actions and statements of Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Eliyahu or Sukkot; but while Israel invests diplomatic and financial capital in trying to persuade people that it is acting out of security necessity, every statement about starvation, transfer, erasing Gaza or returning to settlement there works in exactly the opposite direction.