For @haaretzcom, I wrote about how the settlement enterprise's apologists are on the wrong side of history. haaretz.com/opinion/2026-09-…

This is a corrosive genre of conflict commentary that presents the other side’s failings as proof of its immorality or radicalization, but will surely situate its own side’s failings with grace, perspective, & historical context. One is essentialized, the other is contextualized.

One man’s hubris can be responsible for such needless loss, destruction, and new generational traumas—for multiple peoples, including his own. That is Netanyahu’s legacy. That is what his obituary will read.

He must’ve missed California Post’s memo that Nithya’s going to turn LA into a “socialist hellhole.”

When you say “coordinating,” you create the impression that they’re in cahoots and working off a shared Google Doc to match messaging. Netanyahu and J Street agree on the need to end aid, though for different reasons.

J Street is “currently coordinating messaging with Netanyahu”? That’s some elite comedy.

The old talking point: “If these countries care so much about Gaza, let them pay for it.” *Countries commit money to reconstruction* New talking point: “Britain has a Gaza first government.” The goalposts will always move, but the through line is dehumanization.

Some on the left put their own credibility on the line to defend Albanese—even portraying her as the victim of smear campaigns—because of an ideological aversion to “capitulate” to anything they view as a right-wing influence operation. That ends up normalizing antisemitism.

Look at this and ask: don’t you want better for Israel? Is all the sacrifice worth this embarrassment? As a dignified people, shouldn’t we fight for something better?

I’m proud that Jews are an introspective people, guided by the commandment to repair the world and ourselves. We know repair is needed. As much as Khalil's call is universal, speaking to an audience of Jews on our most sacred day about repentance feels invasive and over-stepping.

The people who know a country best are often those who’ve been treated the worst by it, yet still refuse to give up fighting for it.

Disappointing to see the official account lend its stamp to a criminal regime that has served as an architect of regional instability and a setback for the Palestinian cause.

It might be futile to hope they’ll step up, but the question every Jewish institution in America should be asking isn’t, “How do we improve Israel’s image?” It should be, “How do we confront the reality that’s destroying it?”

This racism is brought to you by every institution & influencer who silenced every critic, mobilized against all guardrails, sold nostalgia, & presented every irrelevant anti-Zionist as the existential threat. They aren’t worthy inheritors of a rich tradition. They’re accomplices

Israel’s most uncompromising defenders will quibble over semantics or psychoanalyze and concoct elaborate theories as to why a foreign leader criticizes Israel because it’s the path of least resistance that spares them from confronting the actual substance of their criticism.

The Houthis’ antisemitism is so blatant that it takes up real estate on their official flag (“curse upon the Jews”). It’s a clear-cut instance of a group not even trying to hide behind “criticism of Israel” or using Zionists as a dogwhistle.

The list of world leaders taking turns criticizing Israel from the UN podium should unsettle everyone who cares about the country. The UN has always been critical of Israel, but this is unique. Public opinion on Palestine is not waiting for us to manage our denial and discomfort.

The way he’s been treated like he himself has blood on his hands is genuinely unfair.

Knowing this to be true, many in the pro-Israel camp will sadly still continue with business as usual or waste money on gimmicks and cosmetic changes. For an image that has been lost for a generation, all roads to true repair run through peace and the establishment of Palestine.

This stunt captures the lack of self-awareness defining much of hasbara. As Fleur films herself sipping wine from a settlement in an act of protest, many Palestinians face unreliable access to water. In an attempt to generate sympathy, you’ve created a let them eat cake moment.

Historically, civil rights groups, including Jewish organizations, understood that campaigns to silence offensive speakers often backfired. They created martyrs and drew more attention to the very ideas the groups sought to suppress. Black civil rights groups, in particular, learned this lesson after their efforts to ban The Birth of a Nation turned the film’s director, D. W. Griffith, into a free speech martyr, prompted accusations of hypocrisy, and proved a box-office boon for the film. As legal historian Samantha Barbas observes, civil rights groups soon came to believe that the better response to hateful speech was to “quarantine” the speaker—to avoid giving him attention and instead offer the “silent treatment.” American Jewish Committee executive Solomon Fineberg, who formulated the policy, explained: “It is better to treat a hate-filled vendor of racial and religious malice as an insignificant rat who does not deserve public attention, rather than as a powerful personage of great importance and prestige.” The theory was simple: The silent treatment deprived bigoted speakers of the attention they craved. “NO MORE FREE PUBLICITY,” the AJC declared in its 1943 booklet What to Do When the Rabble-Rouser Comes to Town. “If [the rabble rouser] wants to advertise, make him pay for it with his own dough.” The practice was often paired with a public education campaign known as “immunization.”