Mosaic Magazine

“Gaza = Auschwitz”

Holocaust inversion—the claim that Israelis are the new Nazis and Palestinians the new Jews—has come to the American university campus.


Five years ago, during an earlier Israeli operation in Gaza, the British novelist Howard Jacobson explained why “call[ing] the Israelis Nazis and liken[ing] Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto” goes far beyond mere “criticism” of Israel:

Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust denial. . . . Instead of saying the Holocaust didn’t happen, the modern sophisticated denier accepts the event in all its terrible enormity, only to accuse the Jews of trying to profit from it, either in the form of moral blackmail or downright territorial theft. According to this thinking, the Jews have betrayed the Holocaust and become unworthy of it, the true heirs to their suffering being the Palestinians.

Experts call this Holocaust inversion. Based in the claim that Israel now behaves toward the Palestinians as Nazi Germany behaved toward the Jews, it originated in post-World War II Soviet propaganda, and from there spread to the Soviets’ Arab clients. It is now fully embedded in the Arab-Muslim world, where it grows and mutates in symbiosis with outright denial that the Holocaust occurred or a radical reduction of its genocidal scale, ferocity, and number of victims. Holocaust inversion has a graphic omnipresence in cartoons all over the Arab and Iranian press, where Israelis are regularly portrayed in Nazi regalia. Elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond, it has surfaced in the rhetoric of populist demagogues and the media. In Turkey’s new president and long-time prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it now has a champion in a head of state. In Europe, Holocaust inversion is busy spreading beyond its original locus of infection and finding a home among intellectuals and activists, especially on the Left.

Thankfully, the disease is still rather hard to find in America, where it festers in only a few dark places. Some of those places, regrettably, operate as institutions of higher learning, and in one of them—Columbia University—a number of professors, mainly instructors in Middle East studies, have distinguished themselves in the black art of defaming Israel as a Holocaust emulator. Only a decade ago, Columbia was compelled to investigate departmental instructors who had been accused of intimidating their students with extreme anti-Israel diatribes. Not only did the university absolve its professors, however, it even granted tenure to the one faculty member against whom its own investigators found a student’s claims to be “credible.” Encouraged by this green light, the extremists have been tunneling under Morningside Heights ever since, fortifying their positions and waiting for a signal to emerge firing.


The recent war in Gaza has supplied the signal. Columbia now boasts three American exponents of the process described by Jacobson as “habituation to a language of loathing.”

The first is Hamid Dabashi, the Hagop Kevorkian professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature. Almost exactly ten years ago, Dabashi sized up the security personnel working at Israel’s Ben-Gurion airport—a “fully fortified barrack,” he called it—in these words:

Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people, the way they talk, the way they walk, the way they handle objects, the way they greet each other, the way they look at the world. There is an endemic prevarication to this machinery, a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture.

Now, ten years later, Dabashi hasn’t lost his capacity for demonizing Jews. In an article entitled “Gaza: Poetry after Auschwitz,” Dabashi borrows a title and what he imagines is a license from the post-Holocaust theorist Theodor Adorno to make his key point:

What are Israelis? Who are Israelis? They are Israelis by virtue of what? By a shared and sustained murderous history—from Deir Yassin in 1948 to Gaza in 2014. . . . After Gaza, not a single living Israeli can utter the word “Auschwitz” without it sounding like “Gaza.” Auschwitz as a historical fact is now archival. Auschwitz as a metaphor is now Palestinian. From now on, every time any Israeli, every time any Jew, anywhere in the world, utters the word “Auschwitz,” or the word “Holocaust,” the world will hear “Gaza.”

Once again, there is the conflation of Israel with “murder”—and not just murder but, in a new step for Dabashi, a “sustained murderous history” that has finally achieved Holocaust-class status: in Gaza, he writes, Israel has created an Auschwitz. As a “historical fact,” the real Auschwitz—the one where 500 totally innocent Jews perished for every single innocent or guilty Palestinian killed in Israel’s recent operation—is now merely “archival.” Now, the world’s most infamous death camp has become a “metaphor” for a place where, as it just so happens, the population grows by almost three percent per year. Such is the abyss of ignorance, bigotry, and casual mendacity inhabited by Columbia’s chaired professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature.

Next up is Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history and the man who, having compiled the clearest record of classroom intimidation at the very time he was being considered for promotion to permanent faculty status, stood at the center of the last Columbia scandal. Then, in his struggle for academic survival, Massad had protested to the university’s investigating committee that the “lie . . . claiming that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany”—the essence of one student accusation—“is abhorrent. I have never made such a reprehensible equation.” In a moment that won’t be remembered as Columbia’s finest, President Lee Bollinger and his board, succumbing to the bullying of radical faculty members, granted him tenure.

By 2009, after another Gaza flare-up, Massad no longer had any need for dissimulation. The professor who had found “reprehensible” the equation of Israel with Nazi Germany published an article entitled “The Gaza Ghetto Uprising.” Illustrated by the famous image of a surrendering child in the Warsaw ghetto, the article invoked an alleged Israeli plan to “make Israel a purely Jewish state that is Palästinener-rein,” and characterized the Palestinian Authority—or, rather, “the Israeli-created Palestinian Collaborationist Authority”—as “the judenrat, the Nazi equivalent” in this scenario. Al Jazeera ran a pathetic response by an American Jewish critic of Israel who scolded the author for damaging the Palestinian cause.

Last year, Massad penned another effort, “The Last of the Semites,” carrying the equation back in time. It was, he, postulated, their “shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.” Massad ended the article by anointing the Palestinians as the true “heirs” of the pre-Holocaust Jewish struggle against anti-Semitism. So great was the revulsion caused by this piece of Holocaust inversion that its publisher, Al Jazeera, pulled it for a time. 

Massad views each Israeli-Palestinian crisis as an opportunity to extend the range of his “language of loathing.” The Nazi analogy no longer sufficing, he has now seized upon the latest conflict in Gaza to promote yet another loaded trope: Israel as the international Jew engaged in child sacrifice. In an piece devoted to the role of foreign volunteers in the Israeli military, Massad slips in a crucial phrase denouncing these “international Zionist Jewish brigades of baby-killers.”

There’s an irony here, and a tragic one. During Columbia’s investigation of the complaints against him, Massad was most vigorously defended by an unlikely student supporter, who once showed up on campus in a sandwich board inscribed “I served in the Israeli army. I love Massad.” The student, who insisted that “nobody calls me a baby-killer when I go to office hours,” later committed suicide, and is memorialized at Columbia through a summer travel scholarship for students in the Middle East program. With Massad’s own airing of the “baby-killer” canard, the professor has now betrayed the ghost of his most ardent Jewish defender.

And then there is Rashid Khalidi, holder of the Edward Said chair of modern Arab studies and a professor of a somewhat higher class. While Dabashi and Massad find it difficult to place their effusions in publications other than the death-to-Israel Electronic Intifada or the angry-Arab Al Jazeera and Ahram Weekly, Khalidi has entrée to the elite liberal New York press. He also knows enough not to try his editors’ patience with naked examples of Holocaust inversion. Yet here he was, in a piece for the New Yorker, creeping up to the edge. Decrying the “collective punishment” being meted out to Gaza, Khalidi introduces his telltale allusion: “The truth of ghettos . . . is that, eventually, the ghetto will fight back. It was true in Soweto and Belfast, and it is true in Gaza.”

Soweto and Belfast? Where’s Warsaw? It’s there, hovering in the background, as was pointed out by two political scientists examining the increasingly popular use of “the language of genocide and the Holocaust with reference to Gaza”:

An example of this trend [they write] is a growing use of the word “ghetto,” a term associated directly (but in no way exclusively) with the Holocaust to describe the Gaza Strip. . . . While [Rashid] Khalidi does not directly compare the Gaza violence to the Holocaust (he uses the examples of Belfast and Soweto), the image of a fighting ghetto is strongly associated with the Warsaw ghetto.

Indeed, a few days after his article appeared, Khalidi confirmed just which ghetto he meant by denouncing “the siege, the blockade, the starvation of these people” in Gaza. The Nazis did indeed starve the Warsaw ghetto, and famine killed thousands. But not a soul has died of starvation in Gaza, and if stunted growth in childhood is a measure of poor nutrition, Gaza’s rate is lower than that of any Arab state but Qatar. Philip Gourevitch, also writing in the New Yorker, characterized Khalidi’s ghetto-referencing piece as an instance of “magical thinking.” He was being charitable.


Beyond these three cases, another Columbia-related episode is worth noting. Probably the cleverest of the anti-Israel lot on Morningside Heights is Nadia Abu El-Haj, associate professor of anthropology at Barnard College. A few years back, she, too, won a bruising tenure battle. But in her case, the outcome was never in doubt because (unlike Massad) she trod lightly. “I’m not a public intellectual,” she said at the time. “I’m drawn to archives, to disciplines where the evidence sits for a while. I don’t court controversy.” This, despite the fact that her entire “academic” project is aimed at casting Zionism as the fabrication of a totally specious national identity. “Israel is a settler-nation,” she writes, “that is, a project of European colonial settlement that imagined and believed itself to be a project of national return.” Those deceiving Zionists—they even duped themselves into thinking they were going home!

Much too smart to indulge in Holocaust inversion, Abu El-Haj hit upon an alternative in a recent contribution to the London Review of Books:

The IDF’s tactics [in Gaza] recall the logic of the British and American firebombing of German and Japanese cities during World War II: target the civilian population. Make them pay an unbearable price. Then they will turn against their own regime. When Israel attacks hospitals in Gaza, when it wipes out extended families, when it mows down children running on a beach, it is engaged in a premeditated act.

No Auschwitz or Warsaw ghetto for Abu El-Haj. But Dresden and Tokyo—why not? So what if Israel, unlike the Allies in World War II, warns civilians of impending strikes and, again unlike the Allies, eschews area bombardment and incendiary bombs? So what if one night of bombing over Tokyo killed 50 times as many as Israel’s month-long campaign in Gaza?

When you see four boys dead on a Gaza beach, Abu El-Haj wants you to “recall,” with her, the 40,000 civilians killed in Hamburg. (Sorry, the actual figure was 42,000—but what’s another 2,000 here or there? Either way, the entire toll in Gaza fits into the margin of error of one firebombing in World War II.) Might the Israelis, in their targeting, ever commit something as human as a mistake, even a negligent one? No, they’re far too inhuman for that: when they kill, it’s always “premeditated.” “Nothing Unintentional” is the delicate title of Abu El-Haj’s article, which might as well have been called “Baby-Killers.”

There is such a thing as legitimate criticism of Israel, and there is such a thing as crossing the line into demonization and, to put it plainly, Jew-baiting. The analogies spewed by Columbia’s tenured professors are of the latter kind, and are obscene. Jew-baiting covers a wider range than anti-Semitism, and Holocaust inversion is its favorite technique. Jew-baiting is the demand that Israel and its supporters explain why Gaza isn’t like a Nazi extermination camp or a starved ghetto for the doomed, or why a targeted air campaign isn’t just like the incineration of Dresden. That it should be practiced so openly by tenured professors at New York’s Ivy League home is a scandal, and a warning.


Martin Kramer is president of Shalem College in Jerusalem. Among his graduate degrees is a Master of Arts in history (1976) from Columbia University.


  • #Gaza

    Martin, I do not have time to respond to every point made here. But in response to the last point, where you imply that the murder of the four children on the beach was a mistake and potentially negligence – that is unacceptable today. Pointing to the fact that Gaza hasn’t been carpet bombed ignores the technological advancement from the weaponry available in WW2 and the weaponry available today. Today’s weapons, which are supplied to Israel by the most technologically advanced military super-power (which I think means the US has a responsibility to ensure those weapons are used properly as well as the end-user). If you want to call using such advanced weaponry to murder four children on the beach an accident that is merely negligence, it should be considered the highest form of negligence capable of definition. Why has the operator of that weaponry not been relieved of their duty and never allowed to operate weaponry again, at the least, or criminally punished for the murder of four children, whether intentional or through gross negligence, at best? Leaving aside the incredulity of the argument that such an act could have been due to a mistake or some form of negligence, where is the demonstrable action plan to prevent further such mistakes?

    No one is robbing Jews of the sympathy and compassionate support they deserve in light of the Holocaust. However, people are drawing parallels and to deny that any such parallels can be drawn is just as extreme as calling this a full blown replica of the Holocaust. No one is arguing it is the same, but it sure does feel like there are similar in-sensitivities at play.

    • Jim S.

      Hamas was committing war crimes for years on and off and constantly for months before Operation Protective Edge by firing missiles at Israeli civilians. The fact that the missiles did not cause wholesale deaths is utterly irrelevant-Israelis have a right not to live in terror.
      In finally responding to protect its citizens, Israel did so in a way to avoid civilian casualties more than any other nation would have done under the circumstances.
      It is a documented fact that Hamas committed additional war crimes intentionally fired from civilian areas and from near schools, hospitals, mosques so as to use Gazans as human shields. Israel had the RIGHT to fire back at any Hamas launching area, including civilian areas. Because otherwise Hamas could keep firing away at Israel from civilian areas, etc and Israel could do nothing to protect its citizens. There is also strong evidence that UNWRA, which admitted to having missiles stored in at least three of its schools, was an accomplice to Hamas’ war crimes.
      Blame for Gazan civilian deaths rests with Hamas- an Semitic terrorist organization whose official charter calls for killing the Jews and the elimination of Israel.

      • #Gaza

        There is a logical fallacy in your argument, Jim S. You said “Because otherwise Hamas could keep firing away at Israel from civilian areas, etc and Israel could do nothing to protect its citizens.” That is not accurate. Israel could and has taken actions to protect its citizens that does not involve firing at any Hamas launching area – that action being implementing the Iron Dome defense system. Firing at every Hamas launching area is not the only course of action that can be taken to protect Israeli citizens.

        • nopeacenow

          Israel has the right to fire on Hamas’s launching sites for as long as Hamas is firing rockets at Israeli civilians. If Hamas wanted to stop the killing of Palestinian civilians they would have recognized and honored the ceasefires engineered by Egypt and agreed to by Israel. But a dead Palestinian, especially a child is good propaganda to be used against Israel as shown by #Gaza who feels Israel does not need to respond to the rocket attack by Hamas as Palestinian civilians will be killed. #Gaza feels that Israel should look out for Palestinians because Hamas wont.

        • Jim S.

          Iron Dome is not foolproof. Israel has no obligation to depend on it working every time. Israel would be abandoning its own citizens if it did not strike back at Hamas launch sites.
          I believe that the UN and much of the international community is at the very least indirectly responsible for the civilian Gazan deaths. Because much of the world refused to demand that Hamas cease committing its war crimes against Israelis AND Gazans. Even the best Obama would offer is that Hamas was extremely “irresponsible” for the way it put Gazans at risk.
          Much of the world bears responsibility for allowing Hamas to conclude that its war crimes pay.

        • Jeff

          There are many fallacies, logical and otherwise, in your ridiculous post. For example, rather than spending zillions of dollars constructing terror tunnels, Hamas could have used the money to build bomb shelters for its citizens. That way, instead of using the tunnels to hide in while using its citizens as shields, Hamas could have protected Gaza’s citizens, while itself facing the hazards of the war it initiated. So, even under your theory Hamas is to blame because it didn’t take action it could have to protect its citizens.
          But beyond that, you acknowledge that your position is that Hamas could endlessly rain rockets on Israel and Israel would be prohibited from returning fire, but would be required to endlessly take it and remain in a defensive crouch. What a ridiculous position that is!
          And its contrary to the rules of war. Any country or army has the right to return fire when fired upon. And if the perpetrator fires from a civilian area, the war crime is the perpetrator’s, not he who returns fire. Pursuant to article 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, even hospitals lose protected status when they are used to “commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.”

    • Benjamin Lukoff

      There are people arguing it is the same… there are people arguing it is worse. Fortunately those opinions are not mainstream. But they are being expressed. (And yes, I’d rather they be expressed than hidden… if people hold such views we should know about it.)

      • nopeacenow

        You know they are lies so what are you going to do about them? So you know who the anti-Semites are and how numerous they are. You didn’t know that before? No matter what Israel does is wrong. It seems they are the only country who are criticized for defending their citizens. Hamas starts the war in which they know their citizens will be killed and everyone wants to blame Israel. This is the third time this has happened. It’s deja-vu all over again. And the result is always the same. Nothing changes and within a year they will be back at it again.

    • Evan Thornley

      Whereas Hamas who just lined up and shot 23 of their own people as “collaborators with Israel” with no evidence or trial whatsoever is a paragon of virtue and not the slightest but like the gangster tyrants of old … Your hypocrisy and moral blindness knows no bounds. The tragic incident at the beach was, of course, another example of Israel trying to remove a rocket battery that sends deadly rockets into Israel – like the one that killed 4 yr old Daniel Tragerman – and yes a tragic mistake that in the few seconds available to respond before the perpetrator disappears into the safety of their tunnels (a luxury they won’t afford their own citizens), the boys on the beach were caught up in the exchange. Israel will, of course, investigate this tragedy and if someone has been negligent or worse act on it. Hamas’s only investigation will be to give a medal to whoever fired the rocket that killed Daniel

      • #Gaza

        There was a video of the incident and I didn’t see a rocket battery anywhere near those children. Nor did I see a rocket battery that somehow moved in the same direction and at the same speed as the children who were running from the explosions, yet the attack from IDF seemed to follow the children lock-step. Nor did I see the entrance to a tunnel (which, by the way, would have been incredibly difficult to build through sandy-beach geology). Where was this perpetrator who was running to safety? Where was this rocket battery? Where was the tunnel entrance?

        What hypocrisy or moral blindness have I shown? I have made no statements regarding Palestinian tactics. Is that just like, a go-to line that gets thrown in any comment towards someone who questions the military actions of Israel?

    • LEBELE

      What a naive view of how wars are fought. It is often 23-year-old Lt or a 19-year-old Enlisted soldier having to make a quick decision on fuzzy information. Errors of that sort occur in high-stress civilian jobs, only without lethal tools or outcome.

      Errors are common in war, including “friendly fire” killing of one’s own soldiers. The U.S. Army Air Corps accidentally killed our 3-star general McNair, commanding ground forces on Normandy. A Confederate sentry killed Stonewall Jackson, the most important tactical commander of their army.

      I’ve known a WWII veteran who 60 years after the war was still mentally berating himself with guilt over having killed a Japanese prisoner who reached inside his helmet to show a family photo to his captor — could have been grabbing a grenade. A close friend was a 24-year-old Lt leading a night patrol in a part of S. Viet Nam infested with NVA. His platoon successfully ambushed an enemy squad along a forest trail. Only when they went to collect documents off the dead, it was women heading home after dark. 40 years later, this tough Infantryman, Ranger, and later Special Forces officer still suffers PTSD over guilt for that single incident.

      While modern weapons are more precise in targeting, they are also more lethal than those of 40 years ago — precision does not mean the target selection in a fast-moving situation is always accurate.

      Before condemning the IDF for this tragic incident, please list all the wars in which even decent nations did not unintentionally kill innocents. It is one reason war is so terrible, even when morally necessary.

    • Beatrix17

      There is nothing invented by a human being that is so perfect that no mistake can be made in its use. Your statement that there is no possibility that Israel made an error is absolute nonsense espoused with the self assurance of an inexperienced adolescent. If there was any thought of an avoidable error having been made, what the hell makes you think that appropriate action wasn’t taken?

      You seem to imply that Israel should have taken Hamas’ bombardment and fighting back was a mistake. The only mistake made was Hamas with its dreams of grandeur being taken off guard and crippled so effectively by Israel’s might. Nothing Hamas planned came to pass and Qatar and Turkey have taken note.

      NATO and America haven’t won any of their Mideastern wars this century and they’ve incurred a much greater loss of life and property than Israel has in
      fighting back after she was attacked by Hamas. The only thing Hamas is winning is the shallow propaganda war and that won’t last. Neither will Hamas.

    • charliecrown

      You’re a fool. Maybe they used artillery? Maybe they simply misidentified the target?Maybe the person who fired was relieved?

      The funny (sad, pathetic) thing is you think that because weaponry has advanced (and it has) that civilians no longer are killed by even responsible armies?

      Are you aware the seller of those advanced weapons the Americans kill civilians too, even with precision weapons from drones. (Like killing an entire wedding party with no fighters at all in Pakistan)?

      Are you aware that in a place much smaller than Gaza, like Fallujah America itself killed 800 civilians and destroyed thousands of homes? Do you think that was intentional or gross negligence.

      The FACT is, war today is safer than ever when waged by “western” nations with modern weapons, but civilians die in every single war. Every single one, particularly in urban fighting.

      The other fact is the no military in the entire world, not one takes more precautions than the Israeli’s (Including ones not mandated by law and costly to their military effectiveness like warning people in areas before attacking)

      For some confirmation of this, read Col Richard Kemp former British commander of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. and here

      So yes, considering they are the BEST IN THE WORLD (or certainly in the top few) in terms of protecting civilians the comparison is obscene, insulting and bigoted.

  • Yechiel Gordon

    Just a couple of short things about this disgraceful piece.

    The author refers here to the Electronic Intifada here as a “death to Israel” publication. This brings to mind my experience hearing the publication’s founder, Ali Abunimah, speak at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government ‘One State’ conference a few years ago.

    Leaving out the story of how the university President tried to censor the event, I recall hearing Abunimah give a clear and reasonable presentation, calling for Israel and the PLO to behave in line with international law, end terror on both sides and live in peace. The first question asked him was, “Why do you stand there, spouting anti-Semitism?”

    Getting to the core of the issue: Israel has always targeted civilians.

    Regarding the IDF’s current tactics, all one has to do is look at what Israel actually does to realize its murderous and not benign intent. For background on the “most moral army in the world,” see: Yitzhak Shamir’s pre-State pro-Jewish terror article entitled simply “Terror;” for extended discussion see Ze’ev Schiff, Israel’s most respected military historian, and Israei Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur; for the current incarnation of Israel’s pro-terror strategy, see the Dahiyeh Doctrine, formulated by General Gadi Eizenkot in the wake of the successful destruction of a Beirut suburb, and still in force today.

    • sm5sandstorm

      From Martin Kramer: Yechiel Gordon, in your comment archive, I find the following statements by you: “If the Nuremberg laws were applied to Israel, every one of its Prime Ministers would be hung.” And this: “Prime Ministers of Israel have demonstrated no qualms about applying the methods of the Nazis.” Holocaust inversion. Enough said.

      • Yechiel Gordon

        Thank you for this clarification. We can see now what is meant by the technical term, “Holocaust Inversion.”

        Holocaust Inversion simply means applying the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others.

    • LEBELE

      Yizhak Shamir is long dead. His organization was an outlier that was crushed by David Ben Gurion and the Palmach/IDF. It is disgraceful to use those most extreme 1940s writings as evidence to generalize anything — that alone indicates bias on your part. It’s the equivalent of some European using Curtis LeMay’s 1968 statement on use of nukes as “typical” American thinking.

      • Yechiel Gordon

        You are correct that the majority of Pentagon planners did not support the use if nuclear weapons during the US invasions of Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. The preferred methods were burning down villages, napalm and phosphorous jelly, land ines that continue to maim children today, and chemical warfare via Agent Orange. The successful killing of 3 million Indochinese people was thus accomplished without recourse to nukes.

        In recent weeks I have heard members of my synagogue express on numerous occasions their preference for simply nuking Palestine. So, regarding LeMay, his spirit appears to be live and well, at least in these parts.

        As for Shamir, he and his organization wee apparently crushedby the Israeli government in a very funny way. Jewish terrorists were provided amnesty, the LEHI medal was created in their honor and each member if the triumvirate of great terrorists – Shamir, Begin and Sharon – became Prime Minister.

    • Jim S.

      Your statement that Israel has always targeted civilians is an absolute lie.

      • Yechiel Gordon

        Hi Jim,

        Please see the references I provided and the historical record to find ample confirmation of my comment. For minute by minute documentation of targeted killing of civilians by the most moral army in the world, see Public Committee against Torture report.

        Regarding Israel’s support for mass slaughter beyond Palestine, see The Israel Connection; Who Israel Arms and Why, by Israeli historian Binyamin Beit Hallahmi. For the story of the world’s first hijacking of a civilian airliner, see the proud memoirs of Moshe Sharett. The long record of Israel-supported terror is, of course, quite long. Highlights include the provision if training in SS-derived techniques to Iran’s internal SAVAK police, the provision of Galil assault rifles to death squads throughout Central America and the provision of logistical support enabling the South African Apartheid regime to automate apartheid by tracking civilians — or, in the Israeli-South African vernacular, “suspected terrorists.”

Adam and I

On Jews and Judaism

Adam and I: A Story
In Irving Kristol’s only published work of fiction, a guilt-ridden American Jewish GI confronts an aggressive young Holocaust survivor seeking help.
by Irving Kristol


On Jews and Judaism

Irving Kristol, Born Jewish
My late husband's political views are well-known. His Jewish ones, less so. But they’re at the root of everything.
by Gertrude Himmelfarb

The Situation in Europe

The Situation in Europe

Post-Liberal Europe and its Jewish Problem
Strong ideological currents are turning the continent into a very difficult place for Jewish survival.
by Natan Sharansky

Facebook Like Box


The Holocaust

A Tree Grows in Lublin
Remembering Jan Karski, the Pole who told FDR to his face about the Holocaust, and still wondered if he'd done enough.
By Joshua Muravchik

Freundel Wertheimer

Can Modern Orthodoxy Survive?

The Unresolved Dilemmas of Modern Orthodoxy
Everyone agrees that the movement needs to rethink and revamp. Very few agree on how.
By Jack Wertheimer


Tevye Betrayed

What’s Wrong with Fiddler on the Roof
Fifty years on, no work by or about Jews has won American hearts so thoroughly. So what's my problem?
By Ruth R. Wisse

Horn Surnames

What's In A Name

Jewish Surnames [Supposedly] Explained
“Dara, you’ll love this!” Actually, I don’t.
by Dara Horn


The Intellectual Scene

The Walter Benjamin Brigade
How an original but maddeningly opaque German Jewish intellectual became a thriving academic industry.
by Walter Laqueur


Conservative and Orthodox

The Crisis in Jewish Law Today
Orthodox rabbis need to stop worrying about 200-year-old battles with “Reformers” and allow Jewish law to develop organically, as it did in the past.
By David Golinkin



Abraham Isaac Kook Receives the Call
For a visionary rabbi in London, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 signified nothing less than the advent of the messianic era.
by Yehudah Mirsky


The Situation in Europe

You Only Live Twice
Vibrant Jewish communities were reborn in Europe after the Holocaust. Is there a future for them in the 21st century?
by Michel Gurfinkiel

Degenerate Art

The Art World

Degenerate Art and the Jewish Grandmother
The story of the family behind the Nazi-era art trove.
By Walter Laqueur


The September Essay

Intermarriage: Can Anything Be Done?
A half-century after the rate of intermarriage in the US began to skyrocket, the Jewish community appears to have resigned itself to the inevitable. But to declare defeat is preposterous.
by Jack Wertheimer

Aharon L

The Rabbinic World

Who Is Aharon Lichtenstein?
Introducing the extraordinary rabbi who next week will receive Israel’s highest honor.
By Elli Fischer


Yom Hashoah

Making Amends
A mysterious request leads the Canadian-born son of a Holocaust survivor back to the old country.
by Robert Eli Rubinstein