Category: anti-semitism

More on antisemitism in Doctors Without Borders

July 7, 2026 • 9:30 am

In April the NGO Monitor organization posted a compendium of anti-Israel and antisemitic actions by Doctors without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF), and I also put up a post on the organization, hoping it would be my last on this Jew-hating “humanitarian” group.

Sadly, I have to add one more, for there is a new report, also by NGO Monitor, which adds compiled statements from former bigwigs and employees of MSF documenting the pervasive climate of antisemitism in the organization.  You can read the article by clicking on the link below, and here’s the introduction (bolding is NGO Monitor’s):

This report builds on NGO Monitor’s April 2026 publication, “NGO Malpractice: MSF (Doctors Without Borders) and the Gaza ‘Genocide’ Campaign,” which demonstrates that Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) messaging regarding Israel is anchored in false “testimonies’” and consistently violates the principles of neutrality and medical ethics.

The evidence presented in this report reveals a widespread organizational culture dominated by antisemitism that produced a highly disproportionate obsession with and singling-out of Israel, as well as direct and repeated support for Hamas. These aspects are reflected in the Gaza “genocide” campaign; in the demonstrably false “testimonies” of MSF staffers and volunteers, such as the case of Al Ahli hospital;1 in the systematic erasure of Israeli victims and hostages; and many other examples.

Drawing from publicly available, open-source evidence relating to current and former MSF employees and board members, this report documents MSF’s internal staff conversations and culture regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the personal experiences of Jewish staff members within the organization. We present direct quotations from employees’ media interviews and posts on MSF’s internal staff forum, spanning a wide spectrum of positions.

Based on these many testimonials by MSF insiders, it is clear that antisemitism and anti-Israel bias are widespread in MSF’s organizational culture and are expressed by both top officials and lower-level staff. These prejudices are reflected in the organization’s highly biased agenda and political campaigning on Israel.

A few examples, starting with those who were bigwigs in MSF (there are references to public statements):

Richard Rossin

Richard Rossin served as MSF’s Secretary-General in the 1970s and later co-founded Médecins du Monde (Doctors of the World). On July 13, 2024, Canada’s National Post published “‘Not the MSF I knew’: Doctors Without Borders accused of picking side[s] in Israel-Hamas war,” in which Rossin is quoted extensively:

  • Rossin: “I think [the ideological bias against Israel] was perceptible around the beginning of the 80’s. Antisemitism within MSF began under the cover of anti-Zionism.”. .
  • National Post: “Rossin recalled his experience in 2010 on a mission to Uganda when an MSF Holland contingent refused to interact with a fellow Israeli medical NGO team dispatched to help. Rossin remembered it as an episode of ‘one-way empathy,’ where prejudice had poisoned the MSF team’s ability to cooperate with Israel in their shared goal of helping civilians. He feels these same issues continue to plague MSF’s mission in Gaza today.”

Alain Destexhe

Alain Destexhe served as a doctor with MSF in the 1980s and as Secretary-General in the 1990s. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on MSF’s behalf in 1999.

In an October 2025 interview, Destexhe stated:

  • “It would have been impossible at the time when I was secretary-general of MSF to be as biased as MSF – Doctors Without Borders – is now in Gaza. We were defining ourselves as a neutral, impartial and humanitarian organization … I think now MSF in Gaza is really taking the side [of] Hamas and against Israel. Americans need to know that Doctors Without Borders is not anymore the organization that it was 15 or 20 years ago. It has become a biased, partial and militant organization.”
  • On MSF operations in Gaza: “The only thing that MSF can do is to say, ‘No, we don’t want to be part of this. We have to quit Gaza. And we don’t want to become accomplices with a terrorist organization like Hamas.’”
  • “MSF is lying, MSF is partial, MSF is biased and MSF are accomplices of Hamas.”

In December 2023, Destexhe published a 47-page report, “Doctors Without Borders: An Accomplice of Hamas?,” an analysis of MSF’s social media posts following Hamas’ atrocities of October 7, 2023. His report included the following:

  • “Since October 7, MSF, which is extremely active on X, has not made a single tweet denouncing the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Hamas on October 7, including the abduction of over 240 Israelis and others who have been held in Gaza as hostages, and the use of hospitals as barracks or human shields. MSF has constantly denounced Israel in virulent terms, but never the violations of humanitarian law committed by Hamas.

Michael Goldfarb

Michael Goldfarb was with MSF / Doctors without Borders US for more than 15 years, and was interviewed by The Jewish Chronicle of London in March 2026:

  • Goldfarb: “European colleagues freely told me, knowing I am Jewish, that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.” . . .
  • Goldfarb: “Nothing meaningful has been done to address antisemitism, to show solidarity with Jewish staff, or call out this hate. That creates a permissive environment in which it flourishes.”
  • Goldfarb: “My 15-plus years with MSF were among the most meaningful of my professional life. It does essential, life-saving work that few organisations can match, and the world would be worse without it. But an internal reckoning is long overdue. For an organisation that prides itself on self-reflection and course correction, it has yet to confront the antisemitism in its midst.”

Brian Sonberg

In March 2024, Bryon Sonberg resigned as Treasurer of MSF Canada’s Board of Directors. He was interviewed by the National Post article that also quotes Richard Rossin (above)

  • In his resignation letter and subsequent statements, Sonberg said “MSF’s response in the first months of the Israel-Hamas war undermined his confidence that MSF was living up to its charter principles of neutrality and impartiality,” and that MSF Canada’s claims to be “independent, neutral and impartial” were, in his assessment, “untrue.”
  • Sonberg: “When I asked about MSF’s silence about the October 7 Hamas attacks, I was told that MSF only comments on what it witnesses; as MSF did not witness the attacks or their effects, they could not comment on them.”

That is bogus.

Dr. Estrella Lasry

Lasry served as a tropical medicine advisor and consultant in the Medical Branch of MSF’s Geneva headquarters from approximately 2011 to approximately 2025, and was serving on its board on October 7, 2023.She  was interviewed for the same March 2026 London Jewish Chronicle article that quoted Goldfarb (above).

  • “I said our communication was biased and for an organisation that claims to be impartial, it was creating a biased, skewed, false narrative around what was actually going on. It was giving a very one-sided view … I was told I was part of the ‘Israeli propaganda machine’ in a meeting, and nobody flinched.”
  • “[Lasry] described what she saw as ‘the appalling lack of empathy in the organisation towards the victims in Israel’. She recalled one ‘explicit request’ from an MSF office in the Middle East ‘not to speak out on behalf of victims in Israel as it would victimise the perpetrators.’”  Lasry’s reaction: “For a humanitarian organisation, that was shocking.”

A footnote from the report in which MSF jumped the gun on the Al-Asra hospital attack, initially attributed by MSF and many others to Israel without any evidence. Within a day or so it turned out that the hospital “attack” was a rocket misfired by terrorists:

  1. On October 17, 2023, immediately after the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital, MSF’s official X account posted: “We are horrified by the recent Israeli bombing of Ahli Arab Hospital in #Gaza City, which was treating patients and hosting displaced Gazans. Hundreds of people have reportedly been killed. This is a massacre. It is absolutely unacceptable.” Subsequent investigations by the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Human Rights Watch and others concluded that the explosion resulted from a misfired rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not an Israeli strike. MSF neither corrected nor deleted its post. For detailed analysis of MSF’s role in media amplification of this disinformation, see CAMERA, “The Medicalization of Hamas Disinformation: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).”

That tweet remains up and should have been deleted in light of subsequent evidence. As far as I can see, MSF never walked back its accusations except to say this On October 27, 2023 I(bolding is mine:

  • 17 October 2023 – In Gaza City, a strike hit the parking lot of Al Ahli Arab hospital where an MSF doctor was operating, reportedly killing hundreds. In the days leading up to the incident, the hospital director had received warnings from Israel. MSF condemned this strike and initially attributed responsibility to Israel. However, even today it remains uncertain who bears responsibility for this act. An independent investigation is the only way to determine the responsibility for this attack.

And that’s all they wrote. . .

There are a lot more quotes, some from anonymous staffers, and the report ends with an “Analysis and Recommendations” section that includes this:

. . . Officials routinely dismissed the evidence of systemic antisemitism and requests to take action against the hatred that is part of the organizational culture. As Richard Rossin stated, “antisemitism within MSF began under the cover of anti-Zionism.” Highly discriminatory posts on the internal message board (the Souk) referred to Israel as a “76-year-old crime scene” and “a textbook example of violent, racist settler colonialism,” while promoting the “Gaza genocide” accusation that was central to the political war that accompanied the October 7 Hamas massacre.

These consistent “testimonies” – first-hand and independently verifiable evidence from MSF officials and employees – have been systematically ignored by the organization’s leadership, contradicting MSF’s claim to base its actions throughout the world on the testimonies of its staff and volunteers.

This shows how anti-Zionism is really a synonym for antisemitism: the obsession with Israel as the sole miscreant in this conflict with almost no mention of Hamas’s actions or of its kidnapping of hostages.

I was a bit worried about MSF a few years ago, but still, as I said in my last post on MSF, ” donated over $10,000 to the organization after Kelly Houle and I auctioned off a copy of Why Evolution is True that I got autographed by multiple scientists and celebrities, including two Nobel Laureates. Kelly had also beautifully illuminated and gilded the book, so it was quite the showpiece.”

In hindsight, that was a big mistake. Had I to do it over again, I’m sure we would have given the dosh to another charitable organization, perhaps one recommended by Peter Singer’s group. Most of the money I leave when I die is going to one of those groups, and MSF won’t get a red cent (although there will be no more cents).

At any rate, MSF will not only not get money from me, but I’ll call it out whenever the occasion demands. In light of what’s above, I would suggest that readers evaluate their own contributions to the Jew-hating organization.

Bill Maher’s new rule: “No Jews, no news”

May 17, 2026 • 11:00 am

Bill Maher continues his defense of Israel on the country’s birthday by pointing out the pervasive Israel-dissing of the mainstream media, adding that there is one thing that the American Left and Right agree on: Israel is the “monster country of all time” (he includes the NYT in this category). He also calls out Democrats, professors, influencers and young people for hating on the Jewish state.  Some of the quotes Maher gives will curl the soles of your shoes.  As he says, “Jew hatred isn’t just acceptable, now; it’s cool. Celebrities love it and make it trendy; it’s the new Che Guevara tee shirt.”

The guests on view are Dan Jones, a historian and author of Castles: A Fortified History, and David French, New York Times columnist and co-host of the podcast Advisory Opinions. I wonder what French thought of Maher’s slap at the NYT at 1:44.

This is more serious and less funny than his usual bits, but it’s a good one.

More criticism of Kristof’s allegations about Israel

May 15, 2026 • 9:30 am

By now the whole world–at least the world that reads the news–knows about Nicholas Kristof’s long NYT op-ed column accusing Israel of systemic, institutional sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners. For those who already hate Israel, his unsubstantiated allegations will serve only to reinforce their hatred and antisemitism. For those who are open-minded or sympathetic to Israel, well, they do have to admit that the allegations are unsubstantiated.  But, as the saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  Kristof is no dummy, and surely he knew that his claims would be snapped up by Israel haters and antisemites.

That is a good reason for Kristof to have verified all his sources and ensure that they had no history of bias (or at least the bias should have been made explicit)—something he did not do. This is in contrast to the Civil Commission on the October 7 Crimes Against Women and Children report, documenting Hamas’s sexual abuse during its invasion of Israel. The Commission has verification of all of its sources, including forensic evidence like photographs and bodies.

As most of Kristof’s critics have said, it is impossible to affirm that there was never any abuse of Palestinians by the IDF.  But if you make an accusation that the abuse was both widespread and systemic, you’d better be able to back it up with evidence. Unfortunately, the NYT sees no need for that. relying on Kristof’s two Pulitzer Prizes and his claim that he interviewed witnesses brought forth by groups or people who can hardly be said to be unbiased.  But yes, his claims should be investigated, but he would have to help the investigators by providing identities and documentation. I wouldn’t hold my breath until he does that.

In the meantime, it’s not hard to find criticisms online. I’ll just link to five new ones, showing an excerpt from each. I haven’t found people approving of Kristof’s claims, but then again I don’t read the kind of site that would do that. And those sites would have to independently try to verify Kristof’s claims, which nobody has done.

Amit Segal at It’s Noon in Israel: “Anatomy of a blood libel.“

In [Kristof’s] piece, published curiously as an op-ed rather than a news investigation, Kristof accuses the State of Israel, its prison system, the IDF, and the Shin Bet of systemic rape of Palestinian prisoners—primarily men, but also women. These are serious accusations, and it is certainly possible, if not inevitable, that abuse, even sexual, occurs within the prison system, as it does in almost every prison system worldwide. Whenever there is real evidence of such acts, it must be properly investigated and the guilty punished. However, for accusations to be taken seriously, they must be backed by actual evidence. In this regard, Kristof’s column is an absolute failure.

The column falls short of almost any journalistic standard, according to [Hebrew University professor Danny] Orbach. He points out that the reporter relies on only 14 unverified and uncorroborated testimonies, lacking details that would allow for investigation, verification, or refutation, to claim that systemic sexual abuse is widespread throughout the Israeli prison system. For comparison, in 2020, approximately 16,000 complaints of sexual assault and harassment by guards against prisoners were recorded in the United States, with only a tiny fraction proven to be based on real incidents. Of Kristof’s witnesses, only two identify themselves by name or provide details that could help locate the case. One of them, Sami al-Sai, is presented by Kristof as a “journalist.” In reality, he is a Hamas propagandist who cheered the mass murders of October 7—hardly a reliable source. At the very least, Kristof owed his readers a disclosure regarding who this man is. Prominent journalists have already pointed out that the two identified witnesses provided Kristof with “reheated noodles”—versions that changed and became “more sophisticated” over time, adding new gruesome details every time they spoke to a different reporter.

If it ended there, one could dismiss Kristof’s article as merely a negligent op-ed, but Orbach stresses that from here, things deteriorate. He explains that a large portion of the anonymous testimonies come from Euro-Med Monitor, which Kristof presents as a “human rights monitor.” In reality, this is a Hamas front organization whose chairman, Ramy Abdu, cheered October 7 and spread debunked lies and conspiracy theories—such as massacres at Shifa Hospital, organ harvesting, or the claim that humanitarian aid contained only burial shrouds—claims not taken seriously even by most anti-Israel journalists during the war. Unsurprisingly, Kristof mentions nothing to his readers about this organization’s reputation. Furthermore, another “source” Kristof cited in a video interview as a “man in the know” is actually an Israeli Hamas supporter and delusional conspiracist who was dismissed from the university where he worked due to sexual offenses. A “man in the know,” indeed.

The interviewees, of course, were not found or selected by chance. This raises the question: who was Kristof’s “fixer”? Reporters who do not know the language almost always rely on local fixers, and Kristof claims he found the interviewees through “human rights organizations,” which Orbach suggests points to a pre-planned direction by Euro-Med or its ilk. In the Palestinian arena, there is a documented pattern of witness coaching and bias, a phenomenon rarely caught but exposed during the “Jenin Massacre” libel that never was in 2002.

. . . . So, what do we have here? A “respected war correspondent,” winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, accusing a state of systematic rape based on 14 testimonies—12 of them anonymous, two public but highly problematic—with zero disclosure regarding the witnesses or the biases of the organizations providing the information. Unlike the Civil Commission’s report on October 7, Orbach emphasizes that Kristof made no real attempt to cross-reference the testimonies, used no forensic evidence, and did not attempt to interview Israelis who served in prisons or civilian doctors. The only senior Israeli he did interview, Ehud Olmert, apparently never said what was attributed to him.

This is not Kristof’s first time. In the early 2000s, Kristof championed a Cambodian anti-prostitution activist, calling her a “hero” in column after column. When it turned out she was a fraud who staged the scenes that brought her fame, Kristof admitted the mistake and the paper apologized. His current column shows that his tendency to believe anyone who seems “just” to him, without critical source analysis, remains intact. He has learned nothing, Orbach concludes.

Douglas Murray at The New York Post: “Why would the NY Times make such horrific claims about Israel. The reasons are several-fold.”

Nicholas Kristof raped my dog. At least that is what I have heard, from an anonymous source. A source who is intensely hostile to the New York Times columnist. And that’s good enough for me. Now I come to think of it, my pet pug has had a strange look on his face lately.

As it happens, the rumor that I have just attempted to spread is far less lurid and fanciful than the one that the New York Times chose to spread around the world this week.

In a piece which has already been widely debunked, Kristof claimed that Israeli prison guards routinely use rape as a method of torture on Palestinian prisoners. The piece portrayed Israeli prison guards and soldiers as rapists, sadists and akin to Nazi prison camp guards. Perhaps even worse.

. . . So here we get to the true question. Why would anyone make such a claim? And why would a purportedly serious newspaper publish it?

The reasons are several-fold. The first is that the New York Times story landed just a day before an anticipated report into Hamas’ use of sexual violence on October 7, 2023.

Many of us did not need further evidence of the crimes of that day. But the release of the commission of inquiry sets out in remorseless detail the “systematic, widespread” use of rape by Hamas on that day and the way in which sexual violence was “integral” to their attack.

It lays out the calculated way in which Hamas terrorists raped men and women on the day of the attack and raped Israeli hostages — men and women — while they were held in captivity in Gaza.

The findings include descriptions from footage, first-hand, eyewitness accounts and from mortuary photographs of the way in which Hamas members gang-raped women while killing them, and even raped their victims after killing them. It is impossible to think of crimes worse than those which Hamas committed on that day.

Yuki Zeman at Quillette: “Nicholas Kristof and the pornography of accusation.”

. . . Allegations involving sexual violation by animals do not enter political discourse as neutral facts. They belong to an old repertoire of dehumanising horror. They turn the accused into something beyond cruel: a corrupter of species, a handler of filth, a director of bestial desecration, and a violator of the most basic taboos around moral and sexual hygiene. Is the claim true, false, exaggerated, mistranslated, or planted? Kristof does not know nearly enough to employ the claim in the way that he does. He treats it as a detail within a larger moral picture. A responsible and competent editor would have stopped reading right there and demanded to know what, exactly, has been established.

. . .None of this excuses abuse. The Sde Teiman case, involving alleged abuse of a Palestinian prisoner by Israeli reservists, deserved investigation so that truth could be separated from rumour and accusation. Where Israeli guards, soldiers, interrogators, or settlers have committed acts of sexual violence, they should be exposed, investigated, tried, and punished. Any attempt by Israeli politicians or mobs to shield abusers deserves condemnation. A society at war must still guard its own standards.

But it must also guard the truth. Taking rape and abuse seriously does not require us to accept propaganda dressed up as sexual horror. Nor does it require us to pretend that anonymous testimony, activist reports, and humanitarian vocabulary automatically produce truth. The harder task is to investigate abuse without surrendering judgment. A serious press should be able to do this. It should also be able to honour Israeli victims without handing their suffering to those who spent months demeaning it.

A columnist like Nicholas Kristof may even believe he is writing in defence of Palestinian victims. But when his essay relies on the same information ecology that sought to excuse, minimise, and invert the atrocities of 7 October, it risks becoming something else: a mouthpiece for those who defended the events of that day, or who needed its victims to disappear beneath a more useful accusation. This is what divides moral inquiry from propaganda.

Sherwin Pomerantz at the Times of Israel: “Nicholas Kristof’s illogical overreaching anti-Israel rant in the NYT.“

there does appear to be some level of sexual violence that goes on in Israeli prisons and, similar to the rest of the world, often the perpetrators are not held accountable. The fact that this goes on in prisons worldwide does not, of course, make it acceptable practice and Israel has taken a strong policy position against such activity.

But Kristof often relies on sources that themselves have been found to be unreliable. In a series of posts on X, the pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting challenged Kristof’s journalism, noting that the most explosive accounts in his op-ed came from unnamed sources, while the stories of those named had grown “steadily more lurid over time, with dramatic new details added years later.”

For example, one of Kristof’s sources, Sami al-Sai, had taken to social media on October 8, 2023, to praise the Hamas onslaught one day after it occurred, and eulogized the leader of a West Bank terror cell as “our martyred prince.”

HonestReporting also noted that, about a year ago, Sai spoke to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem about his alleged assault, and did not mention several specific, graphic details that he provided to Kristof, including being sodomized with a carrot, having his genitals grabbed by a female guard, and discovering “other people’s vomit, blood, and broken teeth” in his skin.

It also pointed out that Issa Amro, who told Kristof in 2024 that he had been assaulted on the day of the Hamas attack, had earlier told The Washington Post that he had been “threatened with sexual assault” on that day, not that he had been assaulted.

None of this, of course, excuses illegal activity of prison guards or, here in Israel, members of the IDF. Nor does it give a pass to a government that drops the charges against the accused, as it did in the Sde Teman case, simply because of community pressure.

This kind of activity is certainly not in keeping with the values of a county such as ours, which promises in its Declaration of Independence: The State of Israel “will be based on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture; it will safeguard the holy places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the charter of the United Nations.”

. . . Finally, Kristof engages in illogical overreach when he states: “Yet our American tax dollars subsidize the Israeli security establishment, so this is sexual violence in which the United States is complicit.”

Truth be told, the $3.8 billion of annual US military aid to Israel is used to purchase armaments from US defense manufacturers and, of course, has nothing to do with the prison system or its faults. A weapon used by an IDF soldier in Gaza cannot be linked to prison abuses. Actually, it is the weapons used against us on October 7th and afterwards, paid for by the Iranians and Qataris, that are more logically linked to the alleged abuses in Kristof’s piece.

The commonality of these stories is that they admit the possibility of sexual abuse of prisoners, but argue that, given the fact that interrogations are recorded and photographed, and Israel’s history of prosecuting those who violate its law, the likelihood of widespread and systemic abuse known to the authorities is low. The articles argue that Kristof’s sources are biased and that some of their stories have changed over the years. And they say that the dog-rape story is not credible.

What should happen now? Well, Israel should conduct an investigation of the allegations.  And so should the NYT, making Kristof reveal his sources and check them itself.  The former will happen; the latter won’t.

If anybody else had done this rather than Kristof, they would be fired by the NYT. Remember that editorial-page editor James Bennet was forced to resign in 2020 after a social-media outcry following the publication of an op-ed by Republican senator Tom Cotton. Cotton’s argument, that U.S. troops might be used to quell riots following the death of George Floyd, was at least worthy of discussion, but the editor who approved it became the victim of “progressive” ire.

Kristof won’t be fired, though his careless accusations were far worse than the argument made by Cotton.  But at least some of the shine is off Kristof’s Pulitzers, and the sentient world now knows him to be a crappy journalist, willing to tar an entire country on the basis of unverified claims.

A reader reports on London’s March Against Antisemitism

May 11, 2026 • 9:30 am

Reader Jeremy “Jez” Grove went to Saturday’s Rally Against Antisemitism in London (he’s not Jewish, but a friend of the Jews), and sent me a nice report, along with photographs. Although all of us know that England is full of antisemitism these days, what with Jews getting stabbed and having their ambulances and schools set on fire or vandalized, I myself know little about the complex world of British politics, encompassing multiple parties. I was thus able to learn some things about the major parties and their attitude towards Jews.

I’ve indented Jez’s commentary, and the photos are his.

I’m on my way home from the rally against anti-Semitism, which was held outside the gates of Downing Street. Unsurprisingly, our prime minister didn’t manage to make the short walk to address the crowd and stand up against the rampant Jew hatred in the UK. (Instead, the Labour Party was represented by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden, whose empty platitudes were barely audible over the shouts of “Where’s Keir?” and general booing.)

By contrast, Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative  Party, was met with rapturous applause and gave a barnstorming speech. I’d never vote Conservative, but Kemi has been outstanding on this issue and the fight for women’s rights.

Here’s part of Badenoch’s speech (you can see the full seven-minute version here):

The Liberal Democrats also sent their party leader, Ed Davey. He made the right sounds, but the response from the crowd was pretty lukewarm. That’s probably a reflection of his irrelevancy in British politics and his party’s invisibility on the issue. He’s best known for his ridiculous attention-grabbing stunts – the only surprise was that he didn’t arrive on the stage on a skateboard! (I’m barely joking, btw.)

The Reform UK party (generally seen as right of the Conservatives, but who just won big victories in Labour Party heartlands in our elections on Thursday) sent their deputy leader.

To no-one’s surprise, there was no representative from the (hugely anti-Semitic) Green Party, despite the boasts from their party leader, Zack Polanski, that he’s the only Jewish leader of a British political party.

It’s worth mentioning that there was a decent number of Iranian and Kurdish supporters of Israel present, who got the hearty applause that they deserved.

When I told Jez that it was ironic that the best speech of the day came from a Tory, he answered, “I guess the Tories aren’t much further to the right than your Dems. Maybe they’re even to the left of them – most Tories wouldn’t dare openly saying that they want to dismantle our (socialised) NHS. .”

More:

I’ve attached a photo of the October Declaration flag.
It was good to be amongst so many like-minded people standing up against anti-Semitism. Hopefully, the full event will be available to watch at some point soon.

Here’s the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s report on today’s rally. It contains a list of the speakers and some extracts from their speeches

Here are some of my (not very good) photos:

The airport-style security arches (I don’t believe that these have been required for pro-Palestine marches – because there has been no security threat posed to them): Note that the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) felt it necessary to be present behind the London Metropolitan Police’s own barrier:

The  view looking from Trafalgar Square towards the stage outside Downing Street. One of the speakers claimed that the crowd was 20,000 strong. That seemed high to me, but given the security arrangements may have been a more accurate figure than is usual for protests of this type:

The view looking from Downing Street towards Trafalgar Square . This photo was taken before everyone had arrived:

Support from the Iranians. The group were applauded as they left at the end of the event chanting “Long live Iran! Long live Israel”. They were also thanked for their presence from the stage as were those flying Kurdish flags:

Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition (leader of the Conservative Party). Her speech is here:  [JAC: it’s above along with a link to her full speech]:

The pale blue flags are held by non-Jews who signed the October Declaration in support of Jews following the 7th October atrocities:

A guy holding a “This Mensch is with You” sign:

More:

I can’t remember who today’s speaker was who said he’d recently met the prime minister. And the PM audibly gasped when he was told that one synogogue alone was spending £20,000 a month on security. And the PM assured him that the “full weight of the law” would be used against those who had tried to burn down another synagogue. The speaker told him, “The 17-year-old suspect has just been released on bail and the only condition is that he doesn’t enter any synogogue”. The prime minister gasped again. But he didn’t have the guts to show up today. And nor did the deputy prime minister, or the chancellor, or any of the big names from the government’s cabinet. Instead, the Labour Party sent Pat McFadden (Secretary of State for the department of Work and Pensions). Only a political geek (guilty as charged) would know who he is. (My politically engaged wife recognised his name but couldn’t name his post.)

Shame on Labour – but even more shame on the anti-Semitic Green Party of England and Wales, who had two electoral candidates arrested for horrendous social media posts. [From the Guardian link below, the posts came from Saiqa Ali, a Lambeth Green candidate for Streatham St Leonard’s ward, and Sabine Mairey, who was standing in Lambeth’s Clapham Town.]

And according to the BBC, arrests were made of people trying to get knives into the rally.

When I asked Jez what those odious Green Party social media posts said, he responded:

The Guardian (!) reported (I can’t seem to do indented quotes, but what follows is all from The Guardian article archived here.

‘Ali’s Instagram account is set to private but screenshots indicated she had posted an image of an armed man wearing a headband of the banned Islamist group Hamas along with the slogan: “Resistance is freedom”.

Another screenshot indicated that Mairey had shared a post which included the text: “Ramming a synagogue isn’t antisemitism. It’s revenge.” ‘

Anti-Jewish violence in the UK, politics, and the BBC

April 30, 2026 • 9:00 am

The degree of anti-Jewish violence in the UK has escalated since October, 2023, and has been especially noticeable in the last six months. Here are the antisemitic incidents that Grok describes, including the stabbing yesterday.

  • 23 March 2026 – Golders Green arson: Four ambulances belonging to the Jewish volunteer medical charity Hatzola Northwest were deliberately set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green (a major Jewish neighbourhood in north London). Police treated it as a suspected antisemitic hate crime; multiple arrests followed.
  • Mid-April 2026 – Series of attempted arsons on Jewish sites in north London:
    • 15 April: A brick and two bottles (believed to contain petrol) were thrown at Finchley Reform Synagogue.
    • Around 17–18 April: Suspected arson attacks targeted a building in Hendon previously used by a Jewish charity and Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow (where a teenage boy reportedly smashed a window and threw a lit bottle inside).
    • Late April (reported around 27 April): A suspected arson attack on a Jewish memorial wall in Golders Green.

    Counter-terrorism police linked some of these to possible paid criminal actors (with speculation of Iran-related motives in some reporting) and made multiple arrests across the incidents.

  • 29 April 2026 – Golders Green stabbing (ongoing investigation as of 30 April): Two Jewish men (aged 34 and 76) were stabbed in the street in Golders Green shortly after 11 a.m. Police declared it a terrorist incident, stating the suspect (a 45-year-old man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) appeared to be “hunting for anyone visibly Jewish.” Both victims were hospitalized in stable condition. The suspect also allegedly turned the knife on officers.

This was combined with persistent accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, Those accusations againt Labpir seem to have eroded under PM Keir Starmer, whose wife and family are Jewish and the kids are being raised Jewish though Starmer himself is an atheist. Yet, as the Free Press article asserts (see below), Starmer is “failing Britain’s Jews” through inaction against incidents like the ones above. First, an archived article from the Torygraph (click to read), showing journalist Suzanne Moore (not Jewish) fed up with the violence:

A few paragraphs:

I am completely broken over the stabbing of two Jewish people in Golders Green.

I should have said “the stabbing of two of our own”. I am not Jewish, but these are our people in our streets, in the city in which I live. Today’s attack is utterly shaming and enraging, and the latest in a line of appalling anti-Semitic crimes. At this point, I just don’t want to hear any more excuses about why this is happening to this tiny minority.

I don’t want to hear more about Palestine, Zionism, Netanyahu, colonialism, “mental health” or “diversity”. Where have these endless, spiralling discussions got us? We are dancing on the head of a pin about whether anti-Semitism is a form of racism, when it so obviously is.

We are now at the point where ambulances are firebombed, and the leader of the Green Party has the gall to ask whether the problem faced by the Jewish community is simply a “perception” of being unsafe. When random Jews are subject to attack, no one asks their position on the Jewish state before spilling their blood, do they? Or where they stand on Gaza?

Where I live in Hackney, east London, Hasidic Jews and Muslims live alongside each other. Many of the local Haredi schools resemble fortresses with 24-hour security. No other community is living like this. Churches and mosques do not need armed guards, and if they did, we would see this situation for what it is – a national emergency.

In the past few years, long before October 7, waves of open anti-Semitism have crashed over us. Labour twisted itself up over it, and those they expelled went straight to the Greens.

Killing Jews in their place of worship in Manchester was shocking enough, but just like the dreadful massacre in Bondi Beach, no one was really that surprised. Jews don’t stab themselves, do they? Yet there is this disgusting underlying sentiment that somehow they have always had it coming. Jews are always held somehow responsible for the murderous violence against them.

She has a point.  Jews are not stabbing Palestinians, driving their cars into crowds of Arabs, or burning mosques.  She calls for action, as does Jonathan Sacerdoti below, who gives a number of suggestions.  And nobody asks the people who are attacked what their views are on Zionism or Netanyahu. This alone shows that it’s not Zionism or the current Israeli PM that’s prompting the violence: the target is Jews, pure and simple. As Moore says, “We need to protect each other, or we’re done for.”

The Green Party of England and Wales—it would be called “progressive Left” in the U.S.—has been accused by many, including at least two of my non-Jewish British friends (as well as by Suzanna Moore above) as being a refuge for British antisemites. One of the accused, Zack Polanski, has been leader of the Green Party for nearly a year, and happens to be Jewish, but Brendan O’Neill at the Spectator (not Jewish) calls out Polanski for weaselspeak. (Click below to read.)

 

Again, a few paragraphs:

Hey, Jews – have you ever considered the possibility that you’re making a fuss over nothing? That a few petrol bombs through the windows of your synagogues is not really a big deal? That your feelings of fear after two Jews were slain in Manchester on Yom Kippur and Jewish property was incinerated in Golders Green and Jews were spat at for wearing a Star of David pendant in public might be a tad overblown?

That’s what I heard when Zack Polanski wondered out loud this week if Britain’s Jews are experiencing ‘actual unsafety’ or just a ‘perception of unsafety’. It is one of the most tone-deaf, pitiless sentences I have heard a politician utter. The Jews of London were terrorised all last week. There were attempted firebombings at numerous synagogues. And here is the leader of the Green Party asking if Jews, the poor dears, merely feel unsafe. Callous doesn’t cover it.

It was an Israeli journalist who asked Polanski about the recent wave of Jewphobic violence. To be fair, Polanski, who is himself Jewish, did express concern about ‘the rise in anti-Semitic attacks’. But it felt perfunctory. He swiftly moved on to ‘the conversation’ he thinks we should be having. ‘There is a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety’, he said. He generously acknowledged that ‘neither are acceptable’. But there it was, out in the open, that slippery left instinct to minimise Jewish pain.

There is no other way to interpret his Kafkaesque formulation: ‘perception of unsafety’. That turgid piece of academese, which will doubtless go down a storm with the keffiyeh-wearing PhDs who swell the ranks of the Green party, seems expressly designed to downplay Jewish fear. Are you really at risk from the fire and the fists of the Jew-haters in our midst, or are you just imagining it? That was the toxic essence of Polanski’s unfeeling remarks.

. . . This isn’t all in Jews’ heads. They aren’t dumbly falling for a fear narrative. Their safety really has been compromised by the post-7 October frenzy of Jew hate. Imagine if petrol bombs were being thrown at mosques and Muslims had been murdered on Eid by a knife-wielding lowlife. Do you think Polanski would be holding forth on whether Muslims really are unsafe or are merely suffering from a ‘perception of unsafety’? Every single one of us knows he would not.

I am not keen on the word “Jewphobic” (it’s not a phobia; the word “antisemitism” will do nicely), but what’s going on in the UK is not simply a “perception of unsafety”. It is unsafety!  Look at the incidents above, all of which happened in the last two months. And is being stabbed simply a “perception” of being pierced with a knife?

Finally, to Labour PM Starmer himself. Today’s Free Press has an article critical of the inaction of Labour; the author is Alex Hearn, a co-director of Labour Against Antisemitism.

The “J’accuse” paragraphs:

Within hours of the stabbing, Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, called the attack “deeply concerning.” He said we must be “absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offenses.” I have been a Labour Party supporter for decades and I have to say plainly: The prime minister’s platitudes are not enough. They have not been enough for some time.

This is the latest in a huge surge of antisemitic attacks in London in recent months. Only last week, a viral video circulated of an Orthodox Jewish man harassed in the street and called a baby killer. Weeks before, ambulances belonging to a Jewish charity were set on fire. Each time, the prime minister says “Antisemitism has no place in the UK,” or some similar platitude.

But a man is judged by his deeds, and unfortunately, Keir Starmer is failing British Jews. On his watch, Jews are struggling to recognize the tolerant country we once knew. As everyday racism has been accommodated and tolerated, we’re long past expecting action.

On Wednesday, Britain’s chief rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, said that “words of condemnation are no longer sufficient.” He called for “meaningful action.” The Israeli foreign ministry was even more blunt: “The UK government can no longer claim this is under control.” The Israelis are right, and they are saying what most Jews in Britain now know to be true.

Consider what British Jews have seen happen in their country in the last three years. Ever since October 7, they have watched streets close in central London, week after week, for marches characterized by racism and hate. Each time, the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state is chanted as a moral demand.

They have watched sitting members of Parliament attend those marches, where being “visibly Jewish” is deemed a provocation. They have watched as smashed windows of Jewish businesses are waved away in the pages of The Guardian as “small acts of petty symbolism.” They have seen an Israeli soccer team’s fans banned from Birmingham over concocted charges of hooliganism. They have watched students at Britain’s finest universities abuse Jewish professors and students, helping to create a culture where one in five British students said they would not house share with a Jew. They have watched parliamentary candidates campaign on Gaza, celebrating October 7. They have watched synagogues implement airport-style security, and their children required to undergo security briefings for kindergarten.

And they have watched a Labour government respond with the language of management, and with total inaction. “Concern.” “Determination.” “Resolve.” The vocabulary of bland press releases and the hope the news cycle will move on before anyone asks what, exactly, is being done to prevent the next attack.

But in the five years since Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party and in the nearly two years since he has been prime minister, the problem has only gotten worse. Instead of just the Labour Party needing cleaning up, the entire country does. The prime minister has not summoned the heads of the universities where Jewish students have been spat at and chased. He has not used his office to name the Islamist ideology that has driven a series of recent terror plots. He has not demanded the proscription of organizations whose leaders openly celebrated October 7. He has not designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s version of the SS, as a terror group in the UK. And he cannot stop his own MPs from joining the hate rallies.

The last paragraph has a number of suggestions that Starmer could heed to lessen the antisemitism—or at least the acts that pervasive antisemitism has prompted. (I use “pervasive” antisemitism deliberately, as that’s exactly what seems to be true of the UK.) To me, some of the suggestions abrogate American-style free speech, but Britain has no First Amendment. That said, the leadership needs to cultivate a climate of tolerance, and stop having the law demonize Islamophobia but go soft on antisemitism.

Finally, this seven-minute BBC Berkshire video featuring Jonathan Sacerdoti (a pro-Jewish brodacaster) has caused a kerfuffle on social media. People object to the interviewer speaking over Sacerdoti, who ticks off a list of antisemitic incidents and criticizes Starmer for inaction. Finally, the interviewer actually mutes Sacerdoti’s microphone when he criticizes the Green Party.  The man is quite eloquent, and offers tangible suggestions to erode public antisemitism, but either the broadcaster wanted to end the segment for political reasons or simply was in a rush to wrap things up. You be the judge. But muting the microphone is not the way to go. (In my view, the interviewer is pushing back not only on what Sacerdoti “characterizes” which is not a characterization but a description of reality, and also lauds the BBC’s evenhandedness, though most people recognize that the Beeb has been anti=Israel since October 7.)

As for stopping antisemitism, well, Sacerdoti’s suggestions will make public acts of antisemitism less frequent, but will it eliminate  the sentiments behind them? And why is this stuff now fulminating in the UK?

Doctors Without Borders again accused of antisemitism

April 12, 2026 • 10:15 am

For a long time the otherwise admirable organization Doctors Without Borders (also known as “MSF” for its French name Médecins Sans Frontières) has been accused of antisemitism.  The accusations have been credible enough to make me curb my donations to the group.  I still regret having donated over $10,000 to the organization after Kelly Houle and I auctioned off a copy of Why Evolution is True that I got autographed by multiple scientists and celebrities, including two Nobel Laureates. Kelly had also beautifully illuminated and gilded the book, so it was quite the showpiece.  I don’t know where that money went after we sent it to MSF, but the organization won’t be getting any more dosh from me. That’s a pity, as otherwise they’d be in my will and lined up to get a lot more money: in the six figures.  Well, such is the result of Jew hating.

Since the book auction, which occurred well before the Israel/Hamas war, more evidence has come out about MSF’s antisemitism. First, Israel expelled the organization from Gaza this year because it wouldn’t provide the names of its staff and operations in Gaza so they could be checked for membership in Hamas or terrorist activities. Second, as documented in the Jewish Chronicle article below, the organization has repeatedly accused Israel of “genocide” while condemning Hamas only once (for the October 7 attack). The genocide canard, as Maarten Boudry shows in his article “They don’t believe it either,” is without merit; there’s no evidence that Israel has been on a campaign to wipe out Palestinians.  And since MSF’s accusations of genocide are public, you can’t say that Israel or Jews are making them up. (You can see one on MSF’s own site.)

Since any support for terrorism or ideological tilting towards Gaza and against Israel violates MSF’s own policy of political neutrality, there’s even less justification for its accusations. I’ve called out the organization before (see my posts here and here), and this will be the third and probably last time. Click below to read the Jewish Chronicle piece.

A few excerpts (indented):

. . . interviews and internal material reviewed by the JC suggest that the organisation’s principle of témoignage, or “bearing witness”, has taken on a political character in relation to Israel.

MSF public statements started using the term “genocide” to describe the Gaza war in November 2024.

One former employee described “pushback” when it was first adopted, citing concerns about the lack of “legal rigour” behind the claim.

MSF leaders have for years made such similar statements about the Jewish state. In January 2025, shortly before becoming international president of MSF, Javid Abdelmoneim reposted a message on X claiming that Israel had “transformed Jewish symbols into symbols of genocide” and was “the greatest threat to Judaism & the Jewish people on planet earth”.

In another repost, Abdelmoneim – who has endorsed a full boycott of the Jewish state – shared a message describing Israel as “a colony of settlers that continue to ethnically cleanse the native Palestinian population”.

Michael Goldfarb spent more than 15 years at MSF US. He claimed anti-Israel sentiment was at times “tolerated” by those at the top.

He said: “European colleagues freely told me, knowing I am Jewish, that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.”

He recalled one colleague expressing outrage at being mistaken for Israeli while abroad.

At a restaurant with MSF colleagues in northern Italy, in a town’s former Jewish quarter, one colleague told Goldfarb: “There better not be Israeli flags here.”

He said: “Nothing meaningful has been done to address antisemitism, to show solidarity with Jewish staff, or call out this hate. That creates a permissive environment in which it flourishes.”

And there’s this:

On October 17, 2023, after an explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, MSF’s international account posted that it was “horrified by the recent Israeli bombing… This is a massacre”. The blast was later attributed to a misfired Palestinian rocket. The MSF post remains online.

In November 2023, as Israeli forces said they would target Hamas operatives allegedly using Al-Shifa Hospital, MSF staff were present at the facility. The organisation said it had “seen no evidence” that Hamas was using the hospital as a military base. Months later, US intelligence confirmed Hamas had used parts of the complex for storing weapons and holding hostages.

This one is particularly telling, as everybody now knows that the rocket that exploded in the Al-Ahli parking lot was fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not Israel. But MSF won’t take down its false accusation. I’ve put its tweet below

Of course MSF says that the “genocide” canard is justified, but read Boudry’s article to see the “genocidal statements” that supposedly support the canard. They were few, were directed at Hamas. and have not been translated into action. Futher, Hamas, despite its agreement for the cease-fire, has not disarmed and is still in charge in southern Gaza, and it’s still stealing and diverting humanitarian aid to Gaza. Hamas must be not only disarmed but dissolved.

The [MSF] spokesperson went on: “Like many others, we were horrified by Hamas’ massacre in Israel on October 7, and we are horrified by Israel’s response. While providing extensive humanitarian assistance in Gaza we have witnessed mass killings, indiscriminate attacks, repeated failures to protect civilians, immense destruction by Israeli forces, the near-total dismantling of the healthcare system, and the weaponisation and restriction of lifesaving aid. Israeli officials have made multiple, well-documented dehumanising statements calling for the annihilation or forced transfer of the population.

“The only reasonable conclusion is that the intention is to erase the Palestinian people from Gaza. For this reason, we believe a genocide is taking place.

So MSF won’t get dime one from me.  However, if you do want to donate to the civilians of Gaza through NGOs that have not been banned by Israel, and have a decent reputation, here’s what Grok suggests. I’ve added links:

ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid): A U.S.-based, non-political, non-religious organization providing food parcels, hygiene kits, medical care, and livelihoods support directly in Gaza (with recent distributions in 2026, often partnering with WFP). It holds 4-star Charity Navigator ratings and GuideStar Platinum Seal for transparency and impact.

 

PCRF (Palestine Children’s Relief Fund): U.S.-based nonprofit specializing in pediatric medical care, surgeries, mental health, and emergency aid (food, supplies) for children in Gaza. It has earned consistent 4-star Charity Navigator ratings (one of the highest for accountability) and focuses on long-term recovery without political affiliations.

DIRECT RELIEF. Delivers medical supplies, kits, and grants to health facilities in Gaza via partners. It is internationally respected with 4-star ratings and focuses purely on health aid in crises.
I haven’t checked all those organizations myself, so follow the instructions below before you give.

Tips for donating effectively:

  • Visit the organizations’ official websites and designate funds for “Gaza” or “Palestine emergency” where possible.
  • Check current Charity Navigator, CharityWatch, or GuideStar ratings for the latest financial transparency data (most listed above score highly).
  • Aid delivery remains extremely challenging due to access issues, but these groups have documented recent distributions and work within approved coordination mechanisms.

A Guardian hit piece on a London bakery connected to Israel and its “aggression” against a nearby Palestinian restaurant

March 21, 2026 • 10:50 am

There’s been some kerfuffle about a Guardian article describing the arrival in London of a new branch of a bakery connected to Israel. And it looks pretty much like the article was, to its author Jonathan Liew, a metaphor for the war in Gaza, with the piece (because it’s the Guardian, of course) seeing the bakery as an evil Israeli colonizer of a block already harboring a Palestinian “supper club”. The outcry about this cockeyed metaphor was so loud that the Guardian decided the article needed to be changed and given a public correction.

First some background from Grok on for Gail’s bakery:

Gail’s Bakery (a UK chain with around 200 branches) has historical founding ties to Israel and indirect links through its current majority owner, which have sparked boycotts and vandalism by pro-Palestine activists. There are no direct operations, stores, or suppliers in Israel, nor any confirmed company donations to the Israeli government or military.

  • The business began in the 1990s as a wholesale bakery called The Bread Factory, founded by Yael “Gail” Mejia, an Israeli businesswoman (who moved to London in 1978). It supplied artisanal bread to London restaurants.
  • In 2003, American investor Tom Molnar (from Florida) and Israeli investor Ran Avidan (from Tel Aviv) bought half the business. The first retail Gail’s store opened in 2005 on Hampstead High Street, named after Mejia. Early team members included other Israeli bakers (e.g., creative head baker Roy Levy).
  • Mejia was bought out in 2011; Avidan sold his stake later. Neither remains involved. The company has proudly referenced its “Jewish roots” and heritage in interviews and branding

Notice that Jews are not vandalizing Palestinian restaurants, but nobody ever points that out.

Click below to see the original article, now archived:

 

Below are the quotes that caused the problem. First, the background. One branch of the chain of Gail’s bakery moved near a long-established Palestinian restaurant. (Guardian quotes are indented):

The cafe itself has existed since the 1980s, proudly blazons its Palestinian heritage, and has long attracted a small but loyal clientele. In recent years, however, a number of predators have appeared on its doorstep. Costa Coffee arrived a decade ago. Starbucks and Greggs followed soon after. Then, a few weeks ago, on the site of the former corner shop two doors down, came a new branch of the upmarket bakery, Gail’s.

Gail’s has long been feted as a purveyor of luxury baked goods and is an unmistakable barometer of local affluence. In recent years, however, as the brand has expanded to almost 200 shops across the UK, its presence has become increasingly contested. Critics accuse it of accelerating gentrification and squeezing out smaller outlets. Campaigners point out that its parent company, Bain Capital, invests heavily in military technology, including Israeli security companies. 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 metres away from a small independent Palestinian cafe feels quietly symbolic, an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.

The night before it was due to open, Gail’s was daubed with red paint. Less than a week later, all its windows were smashed in. Slogans reading “reject corporate Zionism” and “fuck Bain Capital” were written on its walls. To date, no arrests have been made. A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews has described it as “part of a wider trend to try to drive Jews out of wider civil society” (Gail’s was founded by an Israeli baker in the 1990s). The local branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign made it clear it had no involvement. It should scarcely require saying that Mahmoud, a mild-mannered man in his 60s, had nothing to do with it. “We compete with them legally,” he says. Mahmoud believes rivals seek to dominate the local trade, “but our cappuccino is £2.95 and theirs is £4.50. That’s how we compete.”

Here are the two the troublesome quotes. The first one is. to me, unbelievable, and by that I mean the part in bold:

Gail’s has long been feted as a purveyor of luxury baked goods and is an unmistakable barometer of local affluence. In recent years, however, as the brand has expanded to almost 200 shops across the UK, its presence has become increasingly contested. Critics accuse it of accelerating gentrification and squeezing out smaller outlets. Campaigners point out that its parent company, Bain Capital, invests heavily in military technology, including Israeli security companies. 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 metres away from a small independent Palestinian cafe feels quietly symbolic, an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.

Only someone with an anti-Israel agenda could describe the proximity of the bakery to the Palestinian cafe as “an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.” The bakery is a COLONIZER!

And the next part seems to imply that because Palestinians are voiceless and weak, the attack on the Jewish bakery was justifiable simply because there’s nothing else supporters of Palestine can do to express their views:

Does any of this move the dial in the occupied territories even one iota? Almost certainly not. But perhaps this is simply the nature of an increasingly disenfranchised age. Palestinian activism has arguably never been less capable of exerting a meaningful influence on global events, and so is increasingly defined by small acts of petty symbolism. A smashed window. A provocative sticker. You can’t lay a glove on the US-Israeli military-industrial complex, and you can’t get your local council to boycott Israeli goods, and you couldn’t stand with Palestine Action and the protest march on Sunday has been banned by the Metropolitan police. So some people then direct their ire at the bakery with distant links to Israeli security funding.

Here is a tweet with the full caption here; the video features an angry journalist (see below):

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗧𝗘 𝗔 𝗛𝗜𝗧 𝗣𝗜𝗘𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗡 𝗔 𝗕𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗥𝗬

Not a war. Not a weapons manufacturer. Not a government contractor. A bakery that sells croissants and lattes.

The Guardian published a piece treating the existence of a GAIL’s Bakery near a Palestinian café as — and this is a direct quote from the article — 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘺-𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. The entire case against GAIL’s? Its parent company has worked with Israeli companies. That’s the chain of guilt. That’s the smoking gun.

Julia Hartley-Brewer — who actually worked at the Guardian and knows exactly how that newsroom operates — didn’t mince words. She called the piece 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰 and the author a horrific human being. She’s right on both counts.

Notice what the Guardian finds worth writing about and what it doesn’t. A bakery opening near a Palestinian café? Front of the comment section. Iran executing tens of thousands of young protesters in the streets? Silence. Hamas executing Palestinians in Gaza? Nothing to say. Israeli-linked croissants twenty metres from a falafel shop? 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Hartley-Brewer nailed the real name for this ideology: it’s not anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is a political position about a state.

This is a bakery. There’s no Zionism in a sourdough loaf. What’s left when you strip the political cover away is just Jew-hating — targeting businesses because of who owns them, who funded them, who they might be connected to six degrees away. The British public apparently agrees. Israeli-owned restaurants in London that were targeted by protestors now can’t get a table. GAIL’s will probably see the same bump.

Buy the brownie. Order the latte. Do it on principle.

And the original tweet with the video in which Julia Hartley-Brewer gets upset. I gatber that Hartley-Brewer, who isn’t Jewish, has no Jewish background, and is an atheist, is a well-established journalist in England and hosts an eponymous show on TalkTV and TalkRadio

After some outcry, the Guardian “corrected” the article in both its corrections section and now at the bottom of the article. But the inflammatory title and “heavy-handed high street aggression” remain.

The correction:

Corrections and clarifications:

Gail’s bakery vandalism

 An opinion piece (In my corner of London, food has become an act of defiance, 14 March, Journal, p4) included a comment contrasting pro-Palestinian activism capable of influencing global events with “small acts of petty symbolism”. This was not intended to minimise the described vandalism of a local Gail’s bakery but rather to suggest the misdirected futility of such acts; the reference has been removed from the online version to avoid misunderstanding. Also the piece referred to the arrival of Gail’s close to a small Palestinian cafe as feeling like “an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression”; to clarify, this meant to refer to concerns about its impact, as with other large chains mentioned, on independent outlets. This has been amended online.

Misdirected futility of antisemitic vandalism? My tuchas! And if the reference to Gail’s wasn’t supposted to conjure up a metaphor for the war, why is the Guardian now saying that the “heavy handed high-street agression” was only about large chains outcompeting independent businesses. Does the Guardian expect anybody with two neurons to rub together to believe these are just “clarifications”. All they’ve done is repositioned the “high street aggression bit” and removed the “petty symbolism” bit.

Here’s the current bowdlerized article, which isn’t very bowdlerized.

This whole business may seem to be a tempest in a teapot, but if it’s bad enough for the Guardian to correct because of implied antisemitism, it’s pretty bad. And this kind of anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish rhetoric is getting so common that it’s becoming normalized, so it pays to be aware of it.