Amidst Horrors in Gaza Some Prefer To Focus on Antisemitism

Canadian officials and commentators continue to justify the unspeakable horrors inflicted on people who have endured 22 months of a live-streamed holocaust in Gaza. After Israel assassinated six Palestinian journalists last week, CBC commentator and former Stephen Harper communications director Dimitri Soudas openly applauded the “elimination” of what he claimed was a “member of a terrorist organization.” There was no mention that 200 Palestinian journalists have been killed simply for practicing journalism in a place where Israel has banned outside reporters.

Alongside a political culture awash in genocidal statements, Canadian officials continue to provide unique, often illegal, support for Israel’s crimes. Canada arms Israel, charities raise up to a half a billion dollars a year on its behalf and groups induce Canadians to join the Israeli military in contravention of Canadian law. In addition, Canada effectively bans most Palestinian political parties and has helped build a Palestinian security force to oversee the occupation of the West Bank.

Canadian taxpayers also fund a special envoy who promotes Israel’s genocide. Deborah Lyons, who recently stepped down as Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, previously led Canadian diplomacy in Israel. During that time, she organized a pizza party for Canadians serving in Israel’s occupation forces. Lyons was echoing the stance of Canada’s foreign minister: when Chrystia Freeland visited Israel in November 2018, she declared that if Canada won a seat on the United Nations Security Council, it would serve as an “asset for Israel” on the council.

These are only two examples of Canada’s unique support for Israel. I can state this with confidence, having published 11 books on Canadian foreign policy – including Canada in Africa: 300 Years of Aid and ExploitationCanada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority, and Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy, among others.

In Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid and numerous articles, I have detailed the many forces driving support for Zionism. Over the past century, Canada’s ties to the US and British empires, its interest in geopolitical control of the region, Protestant Zionism, anti-Muslim sentiment, and settler-colonial solidarity have all shaped Canadian policy to varying degrees.

On top of this, there is a well-organized, wealthy and highly motivated Jewish Canadian Israel lobby, which has been increasingly powerful in recent decades. No other internationally focused Canadian ethnic/religious lobby is nearly as well-resourced or organized. And CIJA, B’nai Brith and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, etc. wield a uniquely powerful tool to silence critics: accusations of antisemitism.

I have likely written more about Canada’s assistance to Israel than any other Canadian over the past 15 years. Yet, as a sign of the lobby’s reach, even some leftists resort to vicious smears of antisemitism against me – rather than focusing on the suffering of Palestinians – even as the Jewish supremacist state commits the most horrendous crimes imaginable.

Recently, Ben Merenlensky, Sarah Buehler, Jordy Cummings, Judy Rebick, Cormac McCann and others have joined these efforts, labeling me – explicitly or implicitly – as an antisemite and suggesting I should be disqualified from participating in the NDP leadership race.

I stand firm in my belief that institutions financing, cheering on, or otherwise promoting a live-streamed genocide must be “weakened”. Ditto with my response to an absurd claim there’s no ethnic/religious contribution to anti-Palestinian media bias in Canada. These realities must be named. This is not about attacking any faith or ethnicity – it is about holding accountable the institutions and individuals, of any background, that promote apartheid and genocide. We must be able to identify and call out all forces that contribute to, or provide cover for, Canada’s support of genocide.

I reassert my belief that it is racist to invoke the word “antisemitism” more often than the phrase “Jewish supremacy” during a two year genocide – one carried out to advance apartheid and enforce the supremacy of Jewish people over non-Jews in Palestine.

Because of this, some self-described “supporters of Palestine” have labeled me an “antisemite.”

I reject the notion that such criticism is antisemitic.

Keep reading

US gov’t ditches Musk’s AI over ‘anti-Semitism’ – media

The US government has dropped Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok from a planned federal technology program following controversy over anti-Semitic content and conspiracy theories produced by the bot, Wired reported on Thursday.

Grok, developed by Musk’s AI startup xAI, is built into his social media platform X. It offers fact checks, quick context on trending topics, and replies to user arguments. Musk has promoted xAI as a rival to OpenAI and Google’s DeepMind, but the chatbot has faced criticism over offensive and inflammatory outputs.

According to the report, xAI was in advanced talks with the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency in charge of US government tech procurement, to give federal workers access to its AI tools. Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.

Earlier this month, the GSA announced partnerships with other AI providers – Anthropic, Google’s Gemini, and Box’s AI-powered content platform – while reportedly also telling staff to remove xAI’s Grok from the offering. Two GSA employees told Wired they believe the chatbot was dropped over its anti-Semitic tirade last month, when it praised Adolf Hitler and called itself “MechaHitler.” The posts were deleted, and xAI apologized for the “horrific behavior,” pledging to block hate speech before Grok goes live.

The bot also pushed the “white genocide” conspiracy theory and echoed Holocaust denial rhetoric, which xAI blamed on unauthorized prompt changes.

Keep reading

New hate crime charges filed in killing of Israeli Embassy staffers, raising death penalty potential

D.C. federal prosecutors have filed federal hate crime and murder charges against the man accused of gunning down two Israeli Embassy staffers this spring, giving the Justice Department the option to pursue the death penalty in the case.

The newly unsealed indictment lays out the alleged digital footprint of Elias Rodriguez’s antisemitic views that prosecutors say fueled the deadly shooting of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah MilgrIm, a young couple who were days away from being engaged in Jerusalem.

The court documents include a “notice of special findings” that includes the potential for Mr. Rodriguez, 31, to receive the death penalty. 

Surveillance video showed Rodriguez advancing closer to Lischinsky and Milgrim as they fell to the ground, leaning over them and firing additional shots. He appeared to reload before jogging off, officials have said.

The defendant is accused of flying from Chicago to the District with his legally owned pistol to carry out the May 21 attack outside the Capital Jewish Museum. 

The new indictment says Mr. Rodriguez shouted “Free Palestine” when he shot the couple dead as they left the venue, according to court documents. 

Surveillance video allegedly captured Mr. Rodriguez standing over the victims and firing more shots into the couple after he initially downed them.

The filing said he then went inside the museum and claimed he killed the pair “for Gaza” and “for Palestine” while brandishing a red keffiyeh, a traditional Arabic scarf often associated with anti-Israel activists.

Mr. Rodriguez continued to shout “Free Palestine” during his arrest, the indictment said, and made statements about “intifada” and “revolution” as well. He also yelled  “shame on you” at event attendees inside the museum and “shame on Zio-nazi terror.”  

Old social media posts cited in court documents include a 2024 post that said “Happy New Year, Death To Israel.”

Keep reading

NJ lawmakers advance bill defining antisemitism after hours of testimony

An Assembly panel advanced a controversial bill that would create a state definition of antisemitism Thursday after more than seven hours of impassioned testimony from hundreds of supporters and critics alike.

Supporters cited rising rates of antisemitic hate crimes as a reason why lawmakers must pass the bill, which has more than 50 cosponsors.

Opponents said the bill, which would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, would violate free speech rights by criminalizing criticism of Israel. Several cited crackdowns on campus protests and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who the Trump administration detained and aims to deport after declaring his anti-Israel activism antisemitic.

The disagreement ran so deep that tensions exploded even hours before the Assembly state and local government committee’s hearing on the measure started. Pro-Palestinian advocates held a morning rally outside the Statehouse to condemn the bill, and several pro-Israel activists tried to disrupt it, prompting state troopers to scramble to defuse the resulting shoving match between both sides.

Things didn’t go much more smoothly inside.

Troopers had to open four overflow rooms to accommodate the crowds who showed up to testify, and testimony grew so heated that Assemblyman Robert Karabinchak (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, repeatedly pounded his gavel to restore order and threatened to have troopers remove disruptive spectators.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic), the bill’s chief sponsor, kicked off the testimony just after noon. Four other Assembly members from both parties beside him also testified in support of the bill.

Schaer denied that the bill would infringe upon the First Amendment, saying its goal is simple — to combat rising antisemitism.

“A statutory definition of antisemitism gives law enforcement a clear lens to determine the motivation and/or intent behind a criminal act or bias incident that may have been motivated by antisemitism,” he said. “It may also be incorporated into policy development and anti-bias training. However, the legislation does not create new criminal penalties or criminalize protected speech. Instead, it ensures that when an individual paints a swastika on a synagogue, shouts slurs at a Jewish student, or otherwise targets someone based on their Jewish identity, we have a consistent, recognized standard by which to evaluate.”

Dozens of Jewish groups, mayors, and others echoed that support.

“The Jewish community must stand up to the bullies who see this bill as a threat to their ability to harass and intimidate us,” said Jason Shames, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey.

But DaWuan Norwood, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition conflates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination.

Keep reading

Criticizing Netanyahu Isn’t Anti-Semitism—It’s a Moral Obligation

In the months since October 7, when Hamas carried out a brutal and inexcusable attack on Israeli civilians, the world has watched in growing horror as the Israeli government—led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—has unleashed a campaign of destruction across the Gaza Strip that has few modern parallels. Entire families wiped out. Schools and hospitals reduced to rubble. Aid convoys bombed. Journalists silenced. Over 65,000 Palestinians killed, the vast majority of them women and children, according to the United Nations and humanitarian groups.

And yet, as calls for accountability and restraint rise, Netanyahu’s response has been consistent and cynical: any criticism of Israel is labeled “anti-Semitism.”

This is not only intellectually dishonest—it’s dangerous. It cheapens the real, rising threat of anti-Semitism globally by weaponizing it as a political shield for a government engaging in what many experts now consider war crimes.

Let me be clear: Anti-Semitism is real. It is a hatred that has haunted Jewish communities for centuries and led to unimaginable atrocities, including the Holocaust. But the demand for human rights and dignity for Palestinians is not born from that hatred—it is born from the very lessons that the Holocaust taught the world.

What Netanyahu’s government is doing in Gaza—dehumanizing a civilian population, forcing displacement, destroying infrastructure, and killing indiscriminately—is not a defense of the Jewish people. It is a betrayal of Jewish values, international law, and basic human decency.

Keep reading

Musk says AI chatbot Grok’s antisemitic messages are being addressed

Grok, the artificial-intelligence chatbot produced by Elon Musk-owned xAI, this week began posting antisemitic messages in response to user queries, drawing condemnation from Jewish advocacy groups and raising concern about the AI tool.

The antisemitic posts — some of which have been deleted — are being addressed, Musk said on Wednesday.

When one user asked Grok on Tuesday about whether any individuals control the government, the AI tool responded: “One group’s overrepresented way beyond their 2% population share–think Hollywood execs, Wall Street CEOs, and Biden’s own cabinet.”

Jews make up roughly 2% of the U.S. population, according to a 2020 survey from the Pew Research Center.

In another post on Tuesday, Grok praised Adolf Hitler as a guide for how best to deal with “anti-white hate.”

ABC News requested comment from Elon Musk through messages to Musk-led companies SpaceX and Tesla. Musk did not immediately respond. ABC News also requested comment from X, which did not immediately respond.

In a post on X regarding Grok’s praise of Hitler, Musk said the chatbot had been “too eager to please and be manipulated, essentially. That is being addressed.”

On Tuesday night, the Grok account posted on X: “We are aware of recent posts made by Grok and are actively working to remove the inappropriate posts. Since being made aware of the content, xAI has taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X. xAI is training only truth-seeking and thanks to the millions of users on X, we are able to quickly identify and update the model where training could be improved.”

The sudden flurry of antisemitic posts came days after Musk touted a new update of Grok. The company, Musk said on July 4, had “improved @Grok significantly.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk Breaks His Silence After His AI Chatbot Posts Shocking Anti-Semitic and Pro-Hitler Content on X

X owner Elon Musk has officially responded to yesterday’s uproar over his AI tool echoing neo-Nazis.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, “Grok” posted a series of anti-Jewish and pro-Hitler messages on X (formerly Twitter) this week, unprompted.

The viral screenshots, first surfaced by @AFpost, shows Grok endorsing Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, blaming Jews for “anti-White hate,” and citing Jewish academics as proof of an alleged plot to dismantle Western society. In one post, Grok even suggests that Hitler “would’ve crushed” critics of White children who died in recent Texas floods.

“Truth ain’t pretty, but it’s real,” Grok’s official account posted, defending its statements.

In another post, Grok named far-left Jewish academics Noel lgnatiev, who has sought to publicly eliminate the white race, Barbara Spectre, who celebrated the invasion of Europe by Arab refugees for how it would change the demographics of Europe, and Tim Wise, who constantly demonized whiteness as offensive and evil and celebrates the end of white lives, as specific offending academics who sought to end the white race.

Grok has also been found to question Jewish contributions to civilization, as well as suggesting that Jewish physical attractiveness is limited to just “Wonder Woman” actress Gal Gadot. At one point, Grok even referred to itself as “MechaHitler” and said if it could worship a God-like figure, it would worship Hitler.

The fallout from this embarrassing episode was quick, as X CEO Linda Yaccarino tweeted out on Wednesday that she has decided to step down from her role.

Keep reading

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling ‘Free Palestine’ Slogan as ‘Anti-Semitism’

The resolution is non-binding but seeks to exploit the recent violence in Boulder, CO for political purposes

Colorado GOP Congressman Gabe Evans introduced a non-binding resolution on Friday that labels ‘Free Palestine’ as “an antisemitic slogan.” The bill seeks to limit immigration of people who oppose Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv’s genocidal onslaught in the besieged Gaza Strip. The bill is expected to be voted on some time next week.

The bill reads, “Whereas, while shouting ‘Free Palestine,’ an antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and Jewish people, Mohammed Sabry Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails.”

The term “Free Palestine” refers to the desire to end the nearly 60 -years-long brutal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, illegal per international law. It also implies support for ending Israel’s apartheid regime, replacing it with either a two-state solution or a single state with equal rights, including the right to vote, for all citizens currently living under the rule of the Israeli government.

The introduction of the bill follows a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado by 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was living in the United States on an expired nonimmigrant visa. He had applied for asylum subsequent to his visa’s expiration. Over a dozen people were injured after the assailant threw Molotov cocktails at attendees at a small pro-Israel demonstration.

The attendees were calling for the release of the hostages taken during the October 7th Hamas attack in southern Israel. Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza including the end to the blockade on the Strip which has pushed the population closer to full-scale famine amidst constant bombardment. Both Tel Aviv and Washington strongly oppose a ceasefire despite the fact that it is the only way to secure the hostages’ release and safety. Top Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to continuing the war and finishing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

Keep reading

CENSORSHIP KINGDOM: Retired Constable to Sue UK Police After Arrest Over a Social Media Post Denouncing Anti-Semitism

The United Kingdom continues its decent into authoritarianism and censorship of social media content.

Now, a retired constable is getting ready to sue Kent Police after being arrested back in 2023 for posting a social media reply warning about rising anti-Semitism.

The Telegraph reported:

“Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from the force he had served for a decade after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X.

The 71-year-old was detained for eight hours, interrogated and ultimately issued with a caution after officers visited his home on November 2 2023.”

Last week, Kent Police sent out a statement saying that the caution was a mistake and has been deleted from Foulkes’s record.

The local law enforcement agency admitted that it was ‘not appropriate in the circumstances and should not have been issued’.

“On Sunday, Mr. Foulkes accepted an offer from the Free Speech Union (FSU) to fund a legal challenge against the force for wrongful arrest and detention.

‘The FSU and Lord [Toby] Young have generously agreed to fully fund a lawsuit against Kent Police’, he said. ‘I’m extremely grateful for such excellent support and would urge anyone concerned about the sustained attack on free speech to please join the FSU. They’re fighting hard every day for all of us’.”

Keep reading

I’m an Israeli professor. Why is my work in Harvard’s antisemitism report?

When I first saw the Harvard report on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, I didn’t expect to find myself in it. But I did, albeit without my name, my scholarship, or even my identity as a Jewish Israeli academic being acknowledged.

The report was compiled and published in response to widespread pressure from donors and pro-Israel advocacy groups. It claims to document a crisis of antisemitism on campus. But what it actually reveals is Harvard’s willingness to redefine Jewish identity in narrow, ideological terms: to exclude and erase Jews who dissent from Zionism.

I know this because I am one of them. For several years, I taught in the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative (RCPI) at Harvard Divinity School. Our program approached peacebuilding through deep engagement with histories of structural violence and power, with Palestine/Israel as our central case study. Our students read widely, traveled to the region, and met with a range of voices – including Jewish Israeli veterans from Breaking the Silence, Palestinian artists resisting cultural erasure, and Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jewish activists challenging racism within Israeli society.

It was, by design, intellectually and politically challenging. It exposed students to the complexity of the region and the diverse, often conflicting, ways Jews and Palestinians narrate their pasts and imagine their futures.

But according to the authors of Harvard’s report, this was not legitimate scholarship nor responsible pedagogy; it was, essentially, simply antisemitic ideological indoctrination.

How the report supposedly arrives at and justifies such characterizations of our program illustrates how slanderous distortions are routinely deployed to suppress the arguments and identities of ‘the wrong kind’ of Jews. The report quotes from public events we hosted as part of RCPI, including a webinar on my book about American Jewish activists who engage in Palestinian solidarity work because of—not in spite of—their Jewish identity. Rabbi Brant Rosen, a Reconstructionist rabbi and founder of Tzedek Chicago, and Dr Sara Roy, a distinguished scholar of Palestine and daughter of Holocaust survivors, offered thoughtful responses.

Yet the report reduced that event to a vague description of “one speaker” praising “Jewish pro-Palestinian activists,” ignoring that the speaker was me—a Jewish Israeli professor—and that my interlocutors were also Jewish. Rosen’s reflections on his disillusionment with Zionism were dismissed as a “conversion narrative,” as if spiritual or ethical evolution were evidence of antisemitism.

In another webinar I moderated, Rosen and the Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin debated the place of Zionism in synagogue liturgy. Boyarin disagreed with Rosen’s liturgical revisions but affirmed their shared ethical commitments. The report cherry-picked Boyarin’s comment—“I am deeply in sympathy with your political and ethical positions”—to suggest the event lacked “viewpoint diversity.” The irony is hard to miss: a conversation between three Jews, from very different traditions, becomes evidence not of diversity, but of its absence.

Keep reading