Izraelskie lotnictwo (Źródło: Wikipedia)

Tylko żydowska niepodległość gwarantuje przetrwanie narodu żydowskiego

Dr Alex Grobman

Naród żydowski posiada niezbywalne prawo do życia w pokoju i bezpieczeństwie w swojej ojczystej ziemi. Nie jest to jedynie przedmiot współczesnego sporu politycznego; jest to nieustający egzystencjalny test. Przez tysiąclecia historia Żydów była historią rozproszenia, pozostawiając naród pozbawiony własnego państwa, strukturalnie narażony na zagrożenia i zależny od tego, co Edmund Burke określił mianem zmiennej „życzliwości narodów”.

Rewolucja syjonistyczna całkowicie odwróciła ten paradygmat, wychodząc z założenia, że prawdziwego bezpieczeństwa nie można powierzyć innym. Rzeczywiste bezpieczeństwo wymaga autonomii – fizycznej, militarnej i dyplomatycznej zdolności narodu do obrony samego siebie.

Dziś, gdy Izrael mierzy się z nieustannymi wyzwaniami wobec swojej legitymacji, filozoficzne uzasadnienie jego istnienia nadal opiera się na dwóch filarach: moralnym imperatywie suwerennej samodzielności oraz bezprecedensowej historycznej trwałości, która wymyka się konwencjonalnym wzorcom dziejów cywilizacji.

Suwerenne bezpieczeństwo kontra historyczna podatność na zagrożenia

Codzienne wyzwania zagrażające pokojowi i bezpieczeństwu Żydów w ich ojczystej ziemi uwidaczniają podstawowe napięcie między suwerennym bezpieczeństwem a historyczną podatnością na zagrożenia.

Jak zauważył Edmund Burke w 1782 roku, społeczności pozbawione własnego państwa nie dysponowały wojskowymi, dyplomatycznymi ani prawnymi mechanizmami samoobrony, z których korzystają suwerenne państwa. Były zatem całkowicie uzależnione od zmiennej życzliwości społeczeństw, wśród których żyły.

David Ben-Gurion, pierwszy premier Izraela, argumentował, że prawdziwe bezpieczeństwo wymaga, aby naród sam zapewniał sobie fizyczną ochronę. Podkreślał, że nawet w pozornie bezpiecznych warunkach diaspory mniejszości nie cieszą się autentycznym bezpieczeństwem, ponieważ polegają na ochronie zapewnianej przez innych.

Wtórowała mu zmarła profesor prawa Ruth Gavison, specjalistka w dziedzinie praw człowieka z Uniwersytetu Hebrajskiego, ostrzegając, że rezygnacja z własnego państwa skazałaby naród żydowski na ponowne funkcjonowanie jako mniejszość rozproszona na całym świecie, narażając go na odrodzenie antysemityzmu, prześladowań oraz ostatecznie asymilację – los, który określiła mianem narodowego samobójstwa.

Odpowiedź na współczesnych krytyków

Potrzeba niepodległości stanowi odpowiedź na współczesne zarzuty, zgodnie z którymi istnienie Izraela lub jego polityka zwiększają zagrożenie dla społeczności żydowskich na świecie. Gavison odpowiadała na te argumenty, podkreślając, że nawet w obliczu realnych zagrożeń obywatele Izraela nie są uzależnieni od dobrej woli zagranicznych władców. Ponadto, choć współczesne spory polityczne są faktem, antysemityzm istniał na długo przed powstaniem państwa Izrael, które dziś służy zarówno jako fizyczne schronienie, jak i dyplomatyczna tarcza dla Żydów na całym świecie.

Poza samym przetrwaniem fizycznym suwerenność umożliwia wyjątkową jakość życia, tworząc jedyne środowisko, w którym judaizm może być realizowany we wszystkich wymiarach egzystencji, również w sferze sprawowania władzy. Powstaje w ten sposób odrębna przestrzeń publiczna, w której normy społeczne i kulturowe naturalnie wzmacniają, zamiast osłabiać, żydowską tożsamość, odwracając presję asymilacyjną obecną w innych częściach świata.

Wbrew konwencjonalnym prawom historii

Ostatecznie przetrwanie i odrodzenie narodu żydowskiego przedstawiane są jako zjawiska wymykające się zwykłym prawom historii. Myśliciele tacy jak Jaakow Herzog twierdzili, że wyjątkowa droga narodu żydowskiego stawia go poza standardowymi prawami dziejów, dając mu niezaprzeczalny związek z własną ziemią, zakorzeniony zarówno w wierze, jak i historii. Yoram Hazony argumentował, że historyczna ciągłość narodu podczas wieków wygnania była podtrzymywana nie zwykłą troską o biologiczne przetrwanie, lecz wspólnym oddaniem transcendentnemu historycznemu powołaniu i tożsamości.

Hazony utrzymywał, że to właśnie gotowość do ryzykowania życia dla tego ideału, a nie koncentracja na samym przetrwaniu, zapewniła ciągłość narodu.

Ben-Gurion również podkreślał bezprecedensowy charakter narodu, który mimo dwóch tysięcy lat rozproszenia i prześladowań nie porzucił dążenia do powrotu i odzyskania niepodległości. W konsekwencji, pomimo współczesnej międzynarodowej krytyki i podważania jego legitymacji, przetrwanie państwa nie jest przedstawiane jako zależne od zewnętrznego konsensusu, lecz od jego przyrodzonego prawa do tej ziemi oraz niezależnej zdolności do jej obrony.

David Ben-Gurion o suwerennym bezpieczeństwie

W swoim przełomowym zeznaniu z 1946 roku przed Anglo-Amerykańską Komisją Śledczą David Ben-Gurion, pełniący wówczas funkcję przewodniczącego Komitetu Wykonawczego Agencji Żydowskiej, wyjaśnił, że państwo żydowskie jest w istocie równoznaczne z „żydowskim bezpieczeństwem”. Zauważył, że nawet w krajach, gdzie Żyd może wydawać się bezpieczny, w rzeczywistości nie odczuwa pełnego bezpieczeństwa, ponieważ zapewnia je ktoś inny, a nie on sam. Powstanie Państwa Izrael dało narodowi żydowskiemu możliwość samodzielnego zapewnienia i zagwarantowania własnego bezpieczeństwa, przechodząc od zależności od zewnętrznych obrońców do samowystarczalnej obrony.

Ben-Gurion podkreślał również niezwykłość dziejów narodu żydowskiego, wskazując, że nie zna innego narodu, który po dwóch tysiącach lat wygnania, rozproszenia, nienawiści i prześladowań nie zniknął z kart historii, nie popadł w rozpacz ani nie uległ całkowitej asymilacji. Przeciwnie – nieustająca tęsknota za powrotem i wiara w odkupienie doprowadziły do bezprecedensowego odrodzenia narodowej niepodległości.

Gavison o przetrwaniu i kulturze

Profesor Ruth Gavison stanowczo wzmacniała pogląd, że istnienie Izraela jest niezbędnym warunkiem bezpieczeństwa jego żydowskich obywateli oraz trwania cywilizacji żydowskiej, ostrzegając, że rezygnacja z własnego państwa oznaczałaby katastrofalny powrót do statusu mniejszości rozrzuconej na całym świecie. Odpowiadając krytykom polityki Izraela, przedstawiła cztery zasadnicze argumenty: po pierwsze, bezpieczeństwo Izraelczyków nie zależy od dobrej woli społeczeństw, wśród których żyją; po drugie, antysemityzm istniał na długo przed powstaniem współczesnego państwa, a Izrael stanowi kluczowe schronienie i oparcie dyplomatyczne; po trzecie, syjonizm zapewnia wysoką jakość życia żydowskiego, umożliwiając realizację judaizmu we wszystkich wymiarach egzystencji, również w polityce; po czwarte, Izrael jest jedyną przestrzenią publiczną, w której presja kulturowa sprzyja zachowaniu tożsamości, zamiast prowadzić do asymilacji.

Gavison uznała, że utworzenie Izraela było w pełni uzasadnione w chwili jego powstania i pozostaje uzasadnione także dziś, ponieważ porzucenie państwowości oznaczałoby powrót do nieustannego strachu przed prześladowaniami i ludobójstwem, czyniąc rezygnację z własnego państwa równoznaczną z narodowym samobójstwem.

W odpowiedzi na silną presję zewnętrzną i międzynarodową krytykę premier Izraela Benjamin Netanjahu stanowczo przenosi podstawę legitymacji państwa z zagranicznej akceptacji i negocjacji dyplomatycznych na inne fundamenty. Jak stwierdził: „Nasze istnienie nie zależy od gotowości Palestyńczyków do zawarcia z nami pokoju. Nasze istnienie jest zabezpieczone przez nasze prawo do życia na tej ziemi oraz naszą zdolność do obrony tego prawa.” W tym ujęciu przetrwanie państwa opiera się wyłącznie na jego historycznym prawie do ojczystej ziemi oraz na autonomicznej, suwerennej zdolności militarnej do obrony tego prawa przed każdym zagrożeniem.

Uwagi końcowe: trwały imperatyw autonomii

Ostatecznie współczesne państwo Izrael jest czymś znacznie więcej niż geopolityczną odpowiedzią na tragedię czy eksperymentem w zakresie państwowości. Stanowi urzeczywistnienie egzystencjalnej konieczności. Od osiemnastowiecznej obrony społeczności pozbawionych państwa przez Edmunda Burke’a po ostrzeżenia Davida Ben-Guriona i Ruth Gavison, zasadniczy wniosek pozostaje ten sam: naród, który polega na „życzliwości innych” w kwestii własnego fizycznego bezpieczeństwa, żyje na pożyczonym czasie. Odrzucając powrót do strukturalnej podatności wynikającej ze statusu mniejszości, państwo żydowskie zabezpiecza nie tylko fizyczne życie swoich obywateli, ale także przyszłość cywilizacji żydowskiej i zachodniej.

W epoce, w której legitymacja Izraela jest nieustannie poddawana ocenie, o jego przetrwaniu nie będzie decydował zmieniający się międzynarodowy konsensus ani zagraniczna aprobata. W miarę jak historia toczy się dalej, istnienie Izraela pozostaje trwale zakorzenione w jego niezbywalnym prawie do ojczystej ziemi oraz w jego niezależnej, suwerennej zdolności do obrony tego prawa.

Dr Alex Grobman jest starszym rezydentem naukowym w John C. Danforth Society, członkiem Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East oraz członkiem rady doradczej National Christian Leadership Conference of Israel (NCLCI). Uzyskał tytuły magistra i doktora współczesnej historii Żydów na Uniwersytecie Hebrajskim w Jerozolimie.

Link do oryginału: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/430113?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Israel National News, 14 lipca 2026

Israeli Team Wins 5 Medals, Including Gold, at International Physics Olympiad in Colombia

Shiryn Ghermezian

The Israeli delegation at the 56th International Physics Olympiad. Photo: Facebook/Israel’s Ministry of Education

Israel’s national physics team has won a gold medal and four silver medals at the 56th International Physics Olympiad in Bucaramanga, Colombia, according to Israel’s Ministry of Education.

Every member of the Israeli delegation earned a medal at the competition, which ran from July 4-12, 2026. The gold went to the team’s youngest member, 10th grader Ruth Kozlowski, who was competing in the Olympiad for the first time. Silver medals went to Noam Fleisig and Ahaya Kellner, both high school seniors, along with Eitan Rothman and Elad Agmon.

The team trained at the Jusidman Science Center for Youth at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, under academic director Prof. Oleg Kryczevsky and head coach Pavel Radziwilovsky.

A total of 381 students from 87 countries competed in this year’s Olympiad, one of the world’s most prestigious physics competitions for secondary school students. Contestants were tested across a range of areas, including thermodynamics, optics, particle physics and nuclear physics.

The result continues a strong recent run for Israeli competitors: at the 2025 Olympiad, held in France, the national team also brought home one gold and four silver medals. First staged in Warsaw in 1967, the International Physics Olympiad was hosted by Israel in 2019.

Lawyers Accuse ‘Love Island’ Producers Of Ignoring Concerns About Contestant’s Anti-Israel Instagram Posts

Shiryn Ghermezian

Jasmine Gaziza Müller. Photo: YouTube screenshot

Producers of the British reality television show “Love Island” have come under fire for not taking action against a contestant who has uploaded more than 60 Instagram posts against Israel’s existence and legitimacy as well as the country’s supporters.

UK Lawyers For Israel, which is an association of lawyers who support the Jewish country, said on Thursday the broadcaster ITV has not addressed their concerns and request to conduct an urgent review of Jasmine Gaziza Müller’s participation on the dating show because of her social media posts. “Love Island” is being broadcast on ITV2 and Müller is currently “coupled up” on the show with 21-year-old electrician Kavan Murphy.

UKLFI originally wrote to ITV chief executive Dame Carolyn McCall on Sunday after reviewing dozens of screenshots from Müller’s Instagram account. ITV passed the complaint on to Lifted Entertainment, which produces “Love Island.” Lifted Entertainment then responded to UKLFI on Wednesday, acknowledging concerns expressed by the association but also saying it believed the show complied with all legal and regulatory regulations, including Ofcom Broadcasting Codes.

“Ms Müller’s views, while strong and subject to debate, represent her personal exercise of freedom of speech and have been expressed independently of the program,” the producers wrote to UKLFI in their letter, which has been shared with The Algemeiner. “Both Lifted Entertainment and ITV do not and would never accept or condone any form of discrimination or racism,” they added. “Our contributors are monitored 24 hours a day and all conversations are recorded. We are confident that there is no indication of any kind of risk to the welfare, wellbeing and dignity of the participants in the program.”

Müller is a 27-year-old from Dubai who lives in London. She has shared messages online that deny Israel’s legitimacy, claim Israel should not exist and is a “s—t country,” and express hostility towards Israel supporters. The hateful messages were posted or reshared on Instagram between approximately May 2021 and February 2024, according to UKLFI. She has 496,000 followers on the platform.

Müller, who runs a fashion label called Mahila Intimates with her sister, posted one graphic that stated: “Educate the younger generation. Tell them it’s [sic] called Palestine not Israel.” Other posts described Israel as a “colonial project” and “the entity” that is “UNLAWFUL in EVERYTHING that it does.” One photograph showed a sign that said: “No way am I spending eternity in hell with the pro-Israelers!!!” Another image shows a fighter beside a map in which Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are all presented as Palestine, with Israel erased.

In their original letter to ITV, which was shared with The Algemeiner, UKLFI said it was not objecting to advocacy for Palestinian rights or criticism of Israeli policies. Rather, the association was concerned with material shared by Muller that denies Israel’s existence and calls for its erasure, with would result in the displacement or subjugation of millions of Jews, and targets its supporters with hostility, including many British Jews.

UKLFI asked ITV to treat the matter primarily as a participant-welfare issue. It said if any contestant were Jewish, Israeli or pro-Israel, the risk to their welfare and dignity would be “obvious and foreseeable.” It added that ITV’s promotion of a contestant associated with such hateful social media posts risks normalizing such material and causing distress to Jewish and Israeli viewers.

“UKLFI has asked ITV to confirm whether the material was identified during background checks, carry out an urgent welfare-led risk assessment, consider whether Ms Müller’s continued participation is appropriate and review its vetting procedures,” the letter said.

“This is not about preventing legitimate advocacy for Palestinians or criticism of an Israeli government. It concerns posts that erase Israel altogether and express hostility towards people simply because they support it,” noted a UKLFI spokesperson. “ITV must urgently assess the implications for other contestants and for its young viewers.”

In its response, Lifted Entertainment said in part: “We do not believe that ITV, the program and its official channels have ‘amplified’ or ‘rewarded’ the personal views of Ms Müller that you have referred to.” However, in a follow-up letter to ITV and Lifted Entertainment on Thursday, UKLFI said it does “not accept” their claim, and accused the broadcaster and producer of failing to address their principal concerns.

“Participation in one of the country’s most prominent reality programs inevitably increased a contestant’s public profile, social media following and influence. Our concern was that this amplification occurred without any apparent public acknowledgement or meaningful assessment of the material retained on her account,” UKLFI wrote.

The association of lawyers said their complaint was primarily about the show’s decision “to select and promote a contest at whose publicly available social media material included hostility towards ‘pro-Israelers,’ denial or erasure of Israel’s existence, and imagery presenting the whole territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine.”

“It is insufficient to treat all the material as no more than a controversial political viewpoint,” said UKLFI. They asked ITV to again address their specific concerns, including those about the broadcaster’s vetting process, welfare assessment of contestants and their response to Muller’s social media posts. UKLFI said they would like a “full response from ITV’s Compliance Department” and not just “a general statement from the program’s production company.”

Jonathan S. Tobin

Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, on July 4, 2026. Credit: Office of the New York City Mayor.

It didn’t take a statement from President Donald Trump to ensure that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani isn’t going to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he arrives in Manhattan for the annual U.N. General Assembly meetings in September.

Like all world leaders, Netanyahu is protected by the terms of the treaty by which the United States secured the placement of the world body in New York City in the years after the Second World War. Moreover, the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, whose corrupt former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, indicted the Israeli leader on false charges of having “intentionally and knowingly deprived” Gaza’s population of food, water, fuel and medicine in 2024. Khan resigned under fire because of a different issue entirely: accusations of sexual misconduct.

An empty threat

The Trump administration has rightly sought to dismantle the court, whose activities are a travesty of justice and motivated solely by political prejudice against the West, and especially Israel. The ICC’s influence may have made it impossible for Netanyahu to travel to most places in the world. However, it has no jurisdiction in the United States, and federal authorities would prevent Mamdani from interfering with the prime minister’s ability to visit New York or anywhere else in the country.

Mamdani is smart enough to know this. Why then, did he tell The New York Times that he had asked city lawyers to see if he had the authority to honor his campaign pledge to arrest the prime minister, whom he has smeared as a “war criminal”?

The answer isn’t any mystery. To those who support the Democratic Socialist mayor, Israel is the epitome of international evil. They truly believe that the actions the Jewish state took to defend itself against the Palestinian Arab terrorists who launched a war on Oct. 7, 2023, with the largest mass slaughter since the Holocaust were not merely wrong or excessive. They believe that Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And no amount of reporting, historical knowledge or the actual meaning of the word will convince them otherwise.

The ‘genocide’ myth

Wars are raging around the globe that have caused far greater civilian casualties than the one fought against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip, who were responsible for the orgy of murder, rape, burnings, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction that happened on Oct. 7.

But that doesn’t matter. Nor do the reasoned arguments of military experts who have repeatedly stated that Israel’s war against Hamas was conducted in a manner that was more moral and produced fewer casualties than against any foe in an urban environment—let alone one that deliberately, as Hamas did, hid behind non-combatants and sought to endanger as many of their compatriots as possible. Moreover, even the United Nations and The New York Times have finally admitted that it was Hamas that was blocking the distribution of food and other supplies to civilians in Gaza even though both spent most of the war denying it.

If you believe the existence of one Jewish state on the planet is not only illegitimate but that the key to solving all of the world’s problems is bound up in its destruction, then you are ready to believe any charge against it, no matter how false or outrageous. The toxic ideologies that enable such bizarre notions are also responsible for the surge in worldwide antisemitism, not least in New York City, where Mamdani has been forced to acknowledge that Jews are being targeted for hate crimes on his watch out of all proportion to their percentage of the population. And that is a far greater problem than a mayor who thinks that pleasing his base obligates him to make empty threats about arresting Israel’s head of government.

The embrace of critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism by the American education system and so much of popular culture has materially altered public discourse not merely about race, but about antisemitism and Israel. The belief that Israel and Jews are “white” oppressors, and that Palestinians are oppressed “people of color” who are their perennial victims, is contrary to the facts about both peoples. Jews are the most oppressed people of the last two millennia, and the majority of Israelis are people of color by the definitions of the American left since they trace their origins to North Africa and the Middle East.

The perpetuation of the conflict is the function of the fact that any outcome other than Israel’s destruction and the genocide of the Jews living there is an injustice the Palestinians cannot abide.

Once you buy into those myths, it’s easy to believe the blood libels about Jews committing genocide, whose downfall could liberate all of humankind. And if you swallow that, it’s easy to understand why a Democratic Party under the sway of Mamdani’s fellow left-wingers has accepted the hostility to Israel that has, alongside opposition to enforcing immigration laws, become the organizing principle of American politics.

Social-media algorithms versus facts

The real problem behind Mamdani’s latest publicity stunt isn’t merely a function of unjustified anger at Israelis and Jews. As an essay by historian Niall Ferguson and AI researcher John-Clark Levin in The Free Press argues, the same factors are responsible for the growth of Holocaust denial and what they call “The Death of History.”

Ferguson and Levin believe what we are witnessing in our public discourse, both on the left and the far-right, is a “comeback” of the same sort of genocidal hatred for Jews that led to the Shoah in the mid-20th century. Ferguson has spent a lifetime writing histories and producing documentaries warning that accepting these vile ideas leads to tragedy. But he has come to believe that his work—and that of other historians—is increasingly looking like it was all in vain because it is being overridden by social-media algorithms designed to spread hate. While in the past, thought leaders like conservative writer William F. Buckley were able to banish believers in these ideas from the political mainstream, now such efforts are failing.

Instead of denying the Holocaust, political commentators and podcasters on the far-right like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes “mock and celebrate it.” That amuses right-wing youth, who get their knowledge of the world from social-media feeds. Those on the left then “cleverly blend it with anti-Zionism and anti-capitalism.”

Ferguson and Levin point out that “as it is young voters who are most susceptible to these trends, the implications for the future of American politics are chilling.” It explains a lot about Mamdani’s appeal. It also shows how he can flip the narrative about the conflict between Israel and its genocidal foes. That is what is behind the accusations against Netanyahu and the widespread belief that it is Israel that is committing “genocide.”

AI images that feed rage

The lies that Mamdani—and those who echo his smears in outlets like the Times—tell about Israel are easily refuted by those who array the facts about the conflict against them in the same manner serious historians can answer Holocaust deniers. Still, the problem is that this only works against arguments that at least pretend to be reasoned.

But the algorithms that spread the new big antisemitic lies aren’t pretending to be rational. They are a function of manipulated images and rage about alleged crimes that are difficult to refute online. As Ferguson and Levin note, “The algorithms reflect our own vices back to us—and magnify them. As long as we indulge our wrathful impulses, we’ll see more rage bait that stokes them. As long as we give in to our short attention spans, our news feeds will carpet-bomb our brains with dopamine. As long as we guzzle flattering lies, the truth will be muscled off our screens by propaganda.”

That’s a sobering thought that puts the failures of pro-Israel voices to effectively counter the “genocide” blood libels in perspective.

With respect to Holocaust denial, historians now feel as if they are helpless to combat the fallout of so many lies.

“In the face of an avalanche of AI-powered anti-history, the real historians are powerless. We thought we could prevail in a fair fight about what really happened in the past. We naively believed that, if we went to the right archives, and read the right documents, and summarized them with the right footnotes, and published our scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles, then the Holocaust deniers would be driven from the field. What fools we were,” Ferguson and Levin conclude.

Can virtue defeat hate?

The same problem applies to the debate about Israel. Similar rage-based distortions about the actions of the Jewish state and those of its genocidal foes—combined with a biased media whose journalists have been indoctrinated in leftist ideologies about “white” oppressors—have materially altered public opinion. If a plurality of Americans now tell pollsters that they believe Israel has committed “genocide,” it’s not because of anything Netanyahu has said or done. It’s because we live in a time when fast-paced technology has the power to persuade people to accept patently false assertions with much greater ease than the manner in which the Nazis employed print, film and radio nearly a century ago.

Answering this isn’t going to be enabled with attempts to ban hate speech. It will, among other things, require the clever use of social media and technology. But as Ferguson and Levin assert, there is more to it than that. “We must recover a shared sense of moral responsibility not to contribute to the conditions that let a Fuentes thrive,” they say. “It’s a lesson that dates back to Cleon in ancient Athens. Ultimately, as Plato and Aristotle discovered, the only bulwark against demagogues is a people virtuous enough to resist their lure.”

A leering young mayor peddling blood libels against Jews like Mamdani doesn’t seem to fear such a turnaround. Indeed, in an age where virtue seems conspicuously absent in our politics and culture, optimism about the future can be difficult to maintain.

Still, giving up isn’t an option. And the rise of current advocates for antisemitism, the hatred of Jews and Israel, like the mayor, isn’t unprecedented in history. They have been defeated before by decent people who are ready to heed fact-based journalism in the same way they have sometimes heeded the lessons of real, rather than AI-distorted, history.

What is required is not just better use of AI and social media by the forces of truth but an appeal to higher virtues by a new generation of journalists, artists and faith leaders that will undermine the appeal of social media-driven hate. It’s a tall task, but there is no alternative available but to begin that fight.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Boy George Pulls Out of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ London Production After Backlash From Pro-Israel Song

Shiryn Ghermezian

Boy George live at the 80s Live Party 2026 at the Volksparkstadion in Hamburg, July 18, 2026. Photo: IMAGO/Future Image via Reuters Connect

Boy George has pulled out of the “Jesus Christ Superstar” production at the London Palladium after facing backlash for his new pro-Israel song “We Will Dance Again,” the singer’s manager announced on Thursday on social media.

Paul Kemsley said a statement that “after careful consideration,” he decided the Culture Club singer, 65, would no longer appear in the in the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. “The decision has been made with the utmost respect for the producers, the creative team and the entire company,” he wrote. “We are grateful for the professionalism and understanding they have shown throughout and sincerely wish everyone involved every success with the production.”

“George has never been afraid to stand by his personal convictions, and I have always respected him for that. Equally, I believe it is my responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of my artist while also showing respect to others,” Kemsley added. “In this instance, I felt it was right to step aside, allowing the production to remain the focus, while ensuring everyone involved can move forward with mutual respect and goodwill.”

Kemsley also apologized to fans who purchased tickets for “Jesus Christ Superstar” and hoped to see Boy George in the production. The singer was set to star as King Herod from Aug. 3-15 as part of the show’s rotating cast, taking over from Richard Armitage. The latter will now continue to perform in the show. Boy George was meant to share the role of Herod with Armitage, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Simon Russell Beale, Layton Williams and Julian Clary.

Earlier this week, Boy George released a pro-Israel song on social media with a Hebrew title that translates to “We Will Dance Again.” On the track, he sings: “You say genocide, I say war / When you’re attacked, that’s what the army’s for / Does it get ugly? You bet it does / When I know you wanna kill every last one of us.” In the chorus he sings: “We will dance again / And there will be no war / But if you’re ever confused / I stand with the Jews / I don’t feel brave, I just need to behave like a human.”

Boy George has received backlash from many for expressing strong support for Israel in the song. He responded to the criticism in multiple social media posts. “It doesn’t matter what I think or you think,” he wrote on X. “When will you realise you’re doing NOTHING! It’s a fucking joke. I am even falling out with Jewish friends. The madness knows no bounds.”

“So many people are calling me and saying I should pipe down and let it blow over and while they mean well I’m afraid it’s not an option,” he added in a separate post on X on Friday. He said he was most shocked about the criticism he has received from members of the LGBTQ+ community.

“But I am smart enough to realize that what you are cannot disguise who you are,” he explained. “When I say ‘they want to kill every last one of us’ I am also talking about us queers not just the Jewish community. When will you wake up? Regardless of which side you take, I am disgusted by anyone who posts hatred against anyone but refuses to show their face. If you have something powerful to say then you should have the guts to show the world who you are but most, if not all of you, are unwilling to show your faces and the only reason is self interest.”