The Anglo-Jewish novelist Howard Jacobson has written of the archetype of the “Ashamed Jew,” who loves nothing more than to declare “As a Jew, I am ashamed by the deeds of my fellow Jews.” Most often, the source of that shame is the real or imagined behavior of Israel. A German journalist named Fabian Wolff, who often writes about his experiences “as a Jew,” has spent the better part of his career playing the role of Ashamed Jew. But it has recently come to light that he is not, in fact, a Jew. Zeev Avrahami writes:

After his former partner revealed that he is not Jewish, Wolff published a lengthy article in the magazine Die Zeit this week, in which he exposed the truth about his religious identity and quickly placed the blame on his mother. The perplexed German left rushed to blame Jewish institutions for revealing the truth in their statements.

[Wollf] supports absolving Muslim anti-Semitism of blame, . . . in addition to being an enthusiastic supporter of boycott movements against Israel, such as BDS. . . . Germany, like other countries, loves Jews such as Wolff. Jewish individuals who point accusing fingers at Israel for the current situation in the Middle East, including acts of violence and ethnic cleansing, receive support.

Wolff’s Jewish identity was his ticket to the liberal left. . . . Wolff, who is also a teacher by trade, strongly attacked other Jews, claiming that they were blindly pro-Israel, extreme right-wingers, or racists. He used his fabricated Jewish identity to bash fellow Jews.

 In a recent article, the New York Times Magazine asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu “prolonged the war in Gaza to stay in power.” Niranjan Shankar takes the argument apart piece by piece, showing that for all its careful research, it fails to back up its basic claims. For instance: the article implies that Netanyahu pulled out of a three-point cease-fire proposal supported by the Biden administration in the spring of last year:

First of all, it’s crucial to note that Biden’s supposed “three-point plan” announced in May 2024 was originally an Israeli proposal. Of course, there was some back-and-forth and disagreement over how the Biden administration presented this initially, as Biden failed to emphasize that according to the three-point framework, a permanent cease-fire was conditional on Hamas releasing all of the hostages and stepping down. Regardless, the piece fails to mention that it was Hamas in June 2024 that rejected this framework!

It wasn’t until July 2024 that Hamas made its major concession—dropping its demand that Israel commit up front to a full end to the war, as opposed to doing so at a later stage of cease-fire/negotiations. Even then, U.S. negotiators admitted that both sides were still far from agreeing on a deal.

Even when the Times raises more credible criticisms of Israel—like the IDF’s decision to employ raids rather than holding territory in the first stage of the war—they are offered in what seems like bad faith:

[W]ould the New York Times prefer that Israel instead started with a massive ground campaign with a “clear-hold-build” strategy from the get-go? Of course, if Israel had done this, there would have been endless criticism, especially under the Biden admin. But when Israel instead tried the “raid-and-clear” strategy, it gets blamed for deliberately dragging the war on.