One of the myths about contemporary anti-Semitism is that there is a clear line dividing it from obsessive hatred of Israel; another is that it is not uncommon for today’s anti-Semites to support the Jewish state. But C.R. Rublin’s systematic study of anti-Israel Facebook groups shows a very different picture. Examining groups with such names as “Boycott Israel,” “BDS First,” and “Stand with Palestine”—with memberships ranging from 2,000 to 60,000—over the past three years, Rublin finds regular and frequent contributors who are self-identified neo-Nazis or white supremacists posting the most blatant and obscene anti-Semitic material:

The anti-Jewish incitement in these posts includes support for Nazi ideology, expressions of racial hatred, demonization of Jews (and specifically American Jews), conspiracy theories regarding Jewish plans to take control of the world and destroy Western moral values, and calls to action against Jews. . . . It is noteworthy that these posters are also generally against vaccinations, believe in various other conspiracy theories—primarily concerning 9/11 and “chemtrails”—and also deny the Holocaust. . . . [These] members of BDS and pro-Palestinian groups frequently demonize Jews, drawing on historical Christian anti-Semitic myths, Nazi-era propaganda, and more. . . .

On February 12, 2019, Rob Canery, [for instance], commented on a post in the “Boycott Israel . . . Support BDS” with regard to President Trump’s criticism of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her remarks about AIPAC: “He bows to the hebes!” In a comment on another post on the same topic, he wrote of Trump: “Joo puppet!” In the same group, he commented on a February 4, 2019 post about the Israel’s prime minister’s spouse Sara Netanyahu: “Inferior, ugly race!” . . .

Many neo-Nazi and white-supremacist members of BDS and pro-Palestinian groups express sympathy for and affinity with Nazi Germany and Hitler. . . . They see the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of Israelis as similar to the plight of the Germans at the hands of the Jews prior to World War II. The Jews, they claim, instigated World War II and the Germans fought a defensive war against the Jews, while the Palestinians are defending themselves against Israel. [Moreover], Holocaust denial is an accepted truth among virtually all members of these groups; they frequently use the term “Holohoax.” . . .

It is common for users in pro-Palestinian groups to compare Israel and Zionist behavior with the Nazi regime and Holocaust; many times neo-Nazi and white-supremacist members offended by this comparison will come to the defense of the Nazi regime. Several of these group members claim German ancestry, and their personal pages reference this heritage and feature photos of visits to Germany. . . .

Notably, administrators of these Facebook groups have not banned the users.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.