Nieświęty sojusz marksizmu i radykalnego islamizmu

Paul Finlayson / tłumaczenie: ChatGPT i Andrzej KOraszewski

Osobliwe zjawisko „nigdy bym ich razem nie połączył” — jak Liberace i Torquemada, albo Freud i burka — mamy teraz do czynienia z groteską tak ostrą, że Orwell wyplułby whisky do najbliższej popielniczki i przeładowałby pióro: mowa o nienaturalnym, bluźnierczym sojuszu marksizmu i radykalnego islamizmu.

To nie jest koalicja — to czołowe zderzenie dwóch ideologicznych pijaków, pędzących w przeciwnych kierunkach tą samą jednokierunkową ulicą, dzieląc się piersiówką z napisem „Śmierć Zachodowi”.

Wyobraźcie sobie, jeśli zdołacie to znieść, ślub z przymusu między Che Guevarą a ajatollahem, udzielany przez zapłakanego biurokratę z ONZ, mruczącego uznania dla rdzennych ludów w dwunastu językach.

To nie małżeństwo niebios — to związek zawarty przy płonącym śmietniku za zapleczem katedry filozofii moralnej.

Z jednej strony pokłon przed „niebiańskim tatusiem” prawa plemiennego z VII wieku. Z drugiej — ukłon wobec widmowej postaci zwanej „Historią”, według Dziejowego Dialektyka, drugiego duchowego ojca.

Marksista marzy o zniesieniu wszystkich bogów; islamista o panowaniu w imię jednego, z mieczem w jednej dłoni i świętą księgą w drugiej. Bóg jednego to Allah, bóg drugiego to wściekły przypis w Kapitale.

A jednak maszerują razem, ramię w ramię, jak weganin i taksydermista otwierający restaurację fusion.

Wyobraźcie sobie to widowisko: trockista w kefiji, z pasją wykładający o queerowej intersekcjonalności, ignorując drobny fakt, że jego ideologiczny towarzysz uważa homoseksualizm za przestępstwo karane śmiercią. Mówiąc o brzydkich ideologicznych dzieciach — gdyby idee mogły się rodzić z trzema głowami, jednym rozdwojonym rogiem i bez kręgosłupa, ten sojusz kwalifikowałby się do renty z tytułu niepełnosprawności.

To jakby Freud i talibowie wspólnie napisali Radość z rodzicielstwa, albo Richard Dawkins wstąpił do klasztoru, bo spodobały mu się śpiewy. Ich jedyna prawdziwa więź? Wspólna nienawiść do liberalnej demokracji, racjonalizmu Oświecenia i tego irytującego żydowskiego państwa, które uparcie prosperuje mimo ich wysiłków.

Gardzą Zachodem — marksiści, bo jest zbyt bogaty; islamiści, bo zbyt wolny. Palą książki, palą flagi, a czasem — ludzi. Ich hasła protestacyjne różnią się czcionką, ale rymują się. A kiedy nie maszerują razem, tweetują hasztagi z tego samego cyfrowego rzygowiska.

Ten taniec ma nazwę: Sojusz Czerwono-Zielony. Ale nie schlebiajmy mu. To nie ruch — to seans spirytystyczny. Upiorne przywoływanie nieudanych utopii i brązowozłotych teokracji, prowadzone przez akademików i aktywistów, którzy dawno już porzucili prawdę na rzecz estetyki oporu i pogardy dla etyki rozumu.

Spójrzcie na fakty. Ludowy Front Wyzwolenia Palestyny — marksistowski, ateistyczny, antykapitalistyczny — współpracuje ramię w ramię z Hamasem, który uważa, że kobiety powinny być zasłonięte, geje kamienowani, a Żydzi martwi. To nie kompromis ideologiczny; to kultystyczna orgia w płonącej bibliotece.

W Wielkiej Brytanii, nieistniejąca już Partia Respect połączyła Partię Socjalistycznych Robotników i Muzułmańskie Stowarzyszenie Wielkiej Brytanii w ideologiczną hybrydę tak szokującą, że sprawiła, iż zabalsamowane ciało Lenina poruszyło się w szklanej trumnie.

W USA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization i Partia Socjalizmu i Wyzwolenia regularnie kokietują islamistyczne fronty jak American Muslims for Palestine i Students for Justice in Palestine, raz jeszcze udowadniając, że jeśli nienawidzisz odpowiednich ludzi, twoje sprzeczności zostaną wybaczone.

Ale te małżeństwa zawsze kończą się ogniem. Zapytajcie Partię Tudeh, która pomogła wynieść ajatollaha do władzy w 1979 roku, by zostać „nagrodzona” czystkami, więzieniami i publicznymi egzekucjami. Ups. Zła randka z Tindera, towarzysze. W Afganistanie było podobnie: marksistowscy reformatorzy próbowali edukować dziewczęta, tylko po to, by zostali zmieceni przez dżihadystów uzbrojonych w broń z USA i boskie przekonanie.

Więc dlaczego wciąż to robią? Dlaczego zachodnia lewica wciąż nadstawia karku pod teokratyczny miecz? Bo współcześni marksiści nie interesują się już robotnikami, klasą czy warunkami materialnymi. Interesują się estetyką. Klimatem. Poczuciem winy po kolonializmie i erotycznym dreszczem z tożsamości ofiary. Dla nich hidżab to teraz szyk wyzwolenia, a Hamas to Che z Koranem.

Ten sam uposażony eunuch moralny, który mdleje na dźwięk chrześcijańskiej modlitwy na apelu szkolnym, będzie bronił kamienowania jako „formy ekspresji kulturowej”. Student Gender Studies i dżihadysta mogą nie mieć nic wspólnego — poza nienawiścią do Ameryki. A dla tej ekipy to wystarczy.

To nie tylko filozoficznie puste — to śmiertelnie głupie. Jedna ideologia buduje gułagi, druga kalifaty. Jedna zakazuje świąt Bożego Narodzenia, druga zakazuje twarzy kobiet. Żadna nie toleruje sprzeciwu — obie marzą o czystkach i wspaniałej przyszłości utopionej we krwi. I bądźmy szczerzy: kiedy wspólny wróg zniknie, marksista zakaże islamu, a islamista powiesi marksistę na dźwigu.

Oni nie współistnieją. Są razem zwinięci w kłębek jak węże w worku, każdy czeka na moment, by zaatakować. To nie małżeństwo. To sojusz wściekłych bestii z dopasowanymi transparentami.

Więc jak ten teatrzyk wciąż trwa? Dzięki cudowi dobrowolnego złudzenia. Marksista udaje, że szariat nie jest barbarzyński. Islamista udaje, że ateista nie jest potępiony. Jeden i drugi udaje, że chodzi o zasadę. Nie chodzi. To teatr. A każdy zły spektakl kończy się tak samo — gwałtownie, tragicznym aktem finałowym i pustą widownią.

Zapytaj marksistę: Jak solidaryzowanie się z tymi, którzy zrzucają gejów z dachów, mieści się w twojej progresywnej utopii?

Zapytaj islamistę: Jak wspólne przemawianie z kimś, kto uważa twojego Boga za halucynację, przybliża cię do boskiej sprawiedliwości?

Będą kluczyć. Zawsze to robią. Tchórzostwo często przebiera się za niuans.

Nie mylmy tej farsy z ruchem. Nie utożsamiajmy wspólnej urazy ze wspólnymi ideałami. Nie udawajmy, że dwie ideologie o przeciwstawnych celach i równie brutalnych środkach mogą pokojowo współistnieć.

Ich sojusz to nie opór. To pakt samobójczy.

A kiedy w końcu się rozpadnie — jak każda nieprawda — nie żałujcie. Nie zapalajcie świeczek. Nie tweetujcie nekrologów w barokowej nowomowie. Śmiejcie się. Klaszczcie. A potem pogrzebcie ich. Głęboko. Pod rozumem. Pod szyderstwem. Pod miażdżącym ciężarem ich własnej sprzeczności.

I nie, nie przyjdę na pogrzeb. Mam whisky do wypicia i książki do przeczytania. Oświecenie, w końcu, nadal potrzebuje obrony.

Link do oryginału: https://www.freedomtoffend.com/p/the-unholy-alliance-of-marxism-and

Freedom to Offend, 7 czerwca 2025

Paul Finlayson kanadyjski nauczyciel akademicki, wykładowca marketingu na University of Guelph-Humber, od listopada 2023 roku zawieszony w związku z zarzutem uporczywego dementowania kłamstw o Izraelu. Nie jest Żydem, gdyby ktoś pytał..

Qatar’s Arab-Islamic Summit: Hypocrites and Cowards

Khaled Abu Toameh

• Israel’s airstrike in Doha was directed against Hamas leaders, not Qatar. There is no reason why the leaders of a terrorist organization, responsible for murdering thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, should feel safe anywhere.
• The war could have ended long ago had Hamas agreed to release the hostages, whom it should not have seized in the first place, lay down its weapons, and relinquish control over the Gaza Strip.
• Such a celebration could not have taken place without the approval of Qatar’s rulers. Qatar’s media especially Al-Jazeera, to this day, have been enthusiastically praising Hamas’s attacks, as well.
• Qatar is not – and has never pretended to be – a democracy that respects and protects free speech and public freedoms. If Qatar’s rulers were unhappy with the actions and presence of Hamas’s leaders in their country, they would have stopped them or deported them long ago. The country’s rulers, the Al Thani family… have placed Al-Jazeera at their disposal to spread their threatening and radical Islamist ideology. Much of it is based on eliminating Israel through Jihad.
• Notably, several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt decided in 2017 to cut their diplomatic relations with Qatar because it supports terrorism and extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. These countries issued a list of 13 demands, one of which, most prominently, was shutting down Al-Jazeera.
• Qatar is reportedly working to create a second Arab Spring to topple Egypt’s government once again.
• Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, the network [Al-Jazeera] has banned any criticism of Hamas.
• In December 2024, even the Palestinian Authority, after accusing Al-Jazeera of broadcasting misleading reports and stoking divisions among the Palestinians, decided to ban Al-Jazeera in the West Bank.
• By failing to denounce Hamas and call on it to lay down its weapons and cede control of the Gaza Strip, the Arab and Islamic leaders actually sent a message to the terror group that it is right to continue its Jihad against Israel.
• It would have been more helpful had the Arab and Islamic leaders once again issued an appeal to Qatar to stop supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
• The reason Arab and Islamic leaders did not condemn Hamas is because they are afraid that Qatar will use Al-Jazeera to incite violence and terrorism against their regimes.
• Some of these leaders, in addition, including the United States, seem to be afraid of alienating a wealthy country such as Qatar.

Israel’s airstrike in Doha was directed against Hamas leaders, not Qatar. There is no reason why the leaders of a terrorist organization, responsible for murdering thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, should feel safe anywhere. Pictured: Smoke billows after an Israeli airstrike on a Hamas leadership meeting in Qatar’s capital, Doha, on September 9, 2025. (Photo by Jacqueline Penney/AFPTV/AFP via Getty Images)

Leaders of several Arab and Islamic countries held an emergency summit in Doha on September 15 to discuss Israel’s “aggression” against Qatar. The reference was to the recent Israeli attack on senior Hamas leaders in Qatar. The summit was held at the request of Qatar, the only Gulf state that has long been providing shelter and financial and political aid to the leaders of Hamas, the Iran-backed terror group that carried out the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The assault resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and the wounding of thousands. Another 251 Israelis and foreigners were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip, where 48 – dead and alive – remain in Hamas’s captivity.

Israel’s airstrike in Doha was directed against Hamas leaders, not Qatar. There is no reason why the leaders of a terrorist organization, responsible for murdering thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, should feel safe anywhere. By choosing to harbor the Hamas leaders, Qatar should have known that the day would come when Israel would settle the score with those involved – directly and indirectly – in the October 7 massacre.

It was the October 7 attack that sparked the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. The war has brought death and destruction to the entire Gaza Strip. The war could have ended long ago had Hamas agreed to release the hostages, whom it should not have seized in the first place, lay down its weapons, and relinquish control over the Gaza Strip.

The Arab and Islamic heads of state, however, made no reference to the October 7 attack or Hamas’s responsibility for triggering the war. They also did not see fit to call out Qatar for hosting Hamas’s leaders for many years or for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood organization, whose calls for jihad (holy war) the emirate has been broadcasting for years through its Al-Jazeera television empire.

On the day of the October 7 atrocities, the leaders of Hamas, who are comfortably based in Qatar, were filmed watching the coverage of the terrorist group’s invasion of southern Israel on Al-Jazeera. The Hamas leaders praised the attack on Israel as a “victory” and performed the “Prostration of Gratitude.” Such a celebration could not have taken place without the approval of Qatar’s rulers. Qatar’s media especially Al-Jazeera, to this day, have been enthusiastically praising Hamas’s attacks, as well (here, here, here and here ).

Qatar is not – and has never pretended to be – a democracy that respects and protects free speech and public freedoms. If Qatar’s rulers were unhappy with the actions and presence of Hamas’s leaders in their country, they would have stopped them or deported them long ago. Qatar, however, has long considered Hamas a legitimate player in the Palestinian arena. The country’s rulers, the Al Thani family, have allowed the leaders and spokesmen of Hamas to lead luxurious lives in Doha and have placed Al-Jazeera at their disposal to spread their threatening and radical Islamist ideology. Much of it is based on eliminating Israel through Jihad. Were it not for Qatar’s financial and political backing, Hamas would not have been able to stay in power in the Gaza Strip for the past two decades.

Notably, several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt decided in 2017 to cut their diplomatic relations with Qatar because it supports terrorism and extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. These countries issued a list of 13 demands, one of which, most prominently, was shutting down Al-Jazeera. The crisis ended in 2021 when Qatar and the Arab countries reached an agreement mediated by the US and Kuwait.

Despite the agreement, Qatar has continued its policy of supporting Hamas and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as having single-handedly promoted the failed “Arab Spring” to topple Egypt’s government.

Qatar is reportedly working to create a second Arab Spring to topple Egypt’s government once again.

For many Arabs in the Middle East, Al-Jazeera is the unofficial mouthpiece of Hamas. Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, the network has banned any criticism of Hamas.

In December 2024, even the Palestinian Authority, after accusing Al-Jazeera of broadcasting misleading reports and stoking divisions among the Palestinians, decided to ban Al-Jazeera in the West Bank.

Unsurprisingly, the final communiqué issued by the Arab-Islamic summit in Qatar condemned Israel for its “flagrant violations of international law and international legitimacy” and expressed full solidarity with Qatar. The summit also called for imposing sanctions on Israel by suspending the supply, transfer, or transit of weapons, ammunition, and military materiel.

By failing to denounce Hamas and call on it to lay down its weapons and cede control of the Gaza Strip, the Arab and Islamic leaders actually sent a message to the terror group that it is right to continue its Jihad against Israel. More importantly, their failure to hold Hamas responsible for launching the war exempts the terror group from its responsibility for the death and destruction in the Gaza Strip after October 7.

It would have been more helpful had the Arab and Islamic leaders once again issued an appeal to Qatar to stop supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It would have been beneficial to both Palestinians and Israelis if these leaders had called on Hamas to release all the hostages and end its rule over the Gaza Strip. A demand such as that would have spared the lives of many Palestinians.

These Arab and Islamic leaders, many of whom despise Hamas, could have at least urged Qatar finally to expel the heads of the terror group.

The Arab and Islamic leaders’ summit did exactly nothing to help end the war in the Gaza Strip. Condemning Israel while ignoring Hamas’s atrocities is of no help in bringing the war to an end. Because of Qatar’s failure to pressure the Hamas leaders to release the hostages, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip will continue to suffer.

The reason Arab and Islamic leaders did not condemn Hamas is because they are afraid that Qatar will use Al-Jazeera to incite violence and terrorism against their regimes.

Some of these leaders, in addition, including the United States, seem to be afraid of alienating a wealthy country such as Qatar.

The Arab and Islamic leaders have again shown their true colors: hypocrites and cowards.

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Rosh Hashanah 2025: The World Won’t Defend Us, So We Must Lead

Yuval David

Jewish Americans and supporters of Israel gather at the National Mall in Washington, DC on Nov. 14, 2023 for the “March for Israel” rally. Photo: Dion J. Pierre/The Algemeiner

The world is not coming to save us. The world is not defending us. Lies about Jews and Israel dominate headlines, classrooms, social media, and government halls. Antisemites broadcast hatred openly. Too many movements that claim to fight oppression look the other way. Too many who say “justice” abandon Jews in our hour of need.

If we sit quietly, we fail our ancestors, betray our children, and erase our future. The shofar is sounding. And it is demanding action.

We are 0.2% of humanity — fewer than 16 million Jews on a planet of 8 billion. Tiny in number. Vast in responsibility. History proves that one Jewish voice can change the course of the world. One Jewish community can spark revolutions of morality. One Jewish action can protect life and defend truth. We are small, but we are unstoppable.

I have spent my life standing up for Jews in spaces where many said, “this is not your fight.” I have represented our people in civil rights, social justice, and human rights movements, and I have built bridges with Christians, Hindus, Druze, Jains, and Zoroastrians. From the arts, entertainment, and media spaces, to the LGBT, progressive, and Woke movements — to a diverse array of political and social movements on the right and the left — I have fought to ensure Jewish voices are heard where morality is debated and where the oppressed gather.

And I have also witnessed so much betrayal: many civil rights, social justice, and human rights organizations have turned their backs on Jews, normalized antisemitism, and excused attacks on us in the name of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist ideology.

Betrayal is not new — but it must not define us. It must define our response.

I don’t fight back. I fight forward. I act on purpose and with purpose. Every day, in government, in broadcast and print media, in workshops and speaking engagements, in interfaith initiatives, social media, and online, I work to motivate, educate, inform, inspire, and activate Jews and allies.

And the truth is simple: action begets action. Silence feeds the lies. Complacency fuels hatred.

But this is not my fight alone. There are many of us taking action. And, yet, I still see too many staying quiet. If I preach to the choir, I also help develop other preachers, and I also sing solo outside of the choir. Our echo-chamber is flimsy, so I work to empower and strengthen it, and also exist outside of it. 

Join me.

Join me politically — raise your voice, advocate for policies that protect Jews and Israel, confront antisemitism at every level, and hold leaders accountable.

Join me socially — create, build, and strengthen Jewish and cross-cultural initiatives that stand for truth and justice.

Join me digitally — counter propaganda, amplify Jewish voices, challenge lies, and flood social platforms with fact and presence.

Join me in real life — speak in your communities, schools, workplaces, campuses, and houses of worship. Make your Jewish identity and advocacy unavoidable.

We are a small people — but we are fierce. We are resilient, determined, and unbreakable. We fight forward, not backward. We thrive where others would bow. We lead where others hesitate. Am Israel Chai is not a slogan. It is a charge.

The shofar is blasting. The world will not wait. It will not defend us. It is up to us.

On Rosh Hashanah, let this call awaken your courage. Let it ignite action. Let it remind you: Jews do not survive by shrinking. Jews survive — and Jews thrive — because we rise, speak, organize, and act. Not tomorrow. Not when it is convenient. Now.

The future of our people is not in the hands of strangers, institutions, or those passing by. It is in ours.

Act now. Lead. Fight forward. Make Jewish presence and advocacy impossible to ignore — in politics, society, and everywhere our people’s truth is at stake.

Yuval David is an Emmy Award–winning journalist, filmmaker, and actor. An internationally recognized advocate for Jewish and LGBT rights, he is a strategic advisor to diplomatic missions and NGOs, and a contributor to global news outlets in broadcast and print news. He focuses on combating antisemitism, extremism, and promoting democratic values and human dignity. Learn more at YuvalDavid.com, instagram.com/Yuval_David_, x.com/yuvaldavid, youtube.com/yuvaldavid, and across social media.

Eleonora Roosevelt prezentująca Deklarację Praw Człowieka

ONZ – toksyczna jubilatka

Andrzej Koraszewski

Jeszcze w Jałcie ustalono, że potrzebna jest organizacja kontrolująca świat i że w tej organizacji Związek Radziecki ma mieć trzy głosy, a nie jeden. Tak więc na początek wśród państw założycieli był ZSRR, a osobno radziecka republika Ukraina i radziecka republika Białoruś. Dalej było już z górki. Uzgodniona w Jałcie strefa wpływów ZSRR oznaczała utworzenie krajów socjalistycznych, które w ONZ głosowały jednolicie. Należało jeszcze uzbroić ruchy narodowo-wyzwoleńcze, wzmocnić ruchy antyamerykańskie i droga do pełnej dominacji w tej wspaniałej organizacji była otwarta.

Nie, nie wszystko szło jak z płatka. Zachód długo opierał się przeciwko przyjęciu do ONZ Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej. Jednak przy obsadzie ważnych stanowisk, a przede wszystkim fotela Sekretarza Generalnego ONZ, blok radziecki radził sobie coraz lepiej.

Oficjalnie ONZ została powołana do życia 24 października 1945 roku. Jej głównym celem miało być zapobieganie konfliktom zbrojnym oraz walka o prawa człowieka. Nic dziwnego, że po osiemdziesięciu latach organizacja chwali się, że zapobiegła niezliczonym wojnom, a jej siły pokojowe dokonały cudów. Nie ma listy tych wojen, którym ONZ zapobiegła, a dokonania sił pokojowych wzbudzają pusty śmiech, ujawniając astronomiczne koszty, skrajny brak woli użycia siły i (nierzadko) współpracę z agresorami (plus korupcję i przestępczość żołnierzy tych sił).

Zapytałem młodego politologa o nazwisko Kurta Waldheima – nigdy nie spotkał tego nazwiska (albo przeoczył je w trakcie nauki). Ktokolwiek interesuje się historią ONZ, powinien na to nazwisko zwrócić szczególną uwagę. Związek Radziecki niesłychanie silnie forsował jego wybór na stanowisko Sekretarza Generalnego ONZ w 1971 roku. Czy i ile KGB wiedziało o jego nazistowskiej przeszłości? CIA wiedziała, że ten austriacki prawnik był oficerem Wehrmachtu, ale wszystko wskazuje na to, że dokładniejszych badań przed jego wyborem nie przeprowadzono. Trudno o taką lekkomyślność podejrzewać KGB. Jak dotąd nie znaleziono dokumentów potwierdzających, że strona radziecka miała pełną wiedzę o nazistowskiej przeszłości tego polityka, ale intensywne zabiegi, żeby właśnie ten człowiek został Sekretarzem Generalnym ONZ, wskazują, że albo mogli go szantażować, albo i bez szantażu robił właśnie to, co chcieli. ZSRR zablokował znacznie bardziej neutralną kandydaturę fińskiego kandydata Maxa Jakobsona. Wielki skandal w związku z nazistowską przeszłością Waldheima wybuchł dopiero po zakończeniu jego pracy w ONZ. W 1986 roku amerykański prawnik Eli Rosenbaum ujawnił całą prawdę w książce Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Kurt Waldheim Investigation and Cover-Up („Zdrada: nieopowiedziana historia śledztwa i zatuszowania sprawy Kurta Waldheima”). Wielu zastanawiało się nad pytaniem, czy sami Austriacy znali prawdę. Tego z pewnością też nie wiemy, wiemy jednak, że mimo jej ujawnienia Waldheim wygrał wybory prezydenckie w swoim kraju.

Nie sama przeszłość Kurta Waldheima jest tu jednak najbardziej istotna, a sposób sprawowania przez niego funkcji Sekretarza Generalnego ONZ.

Kiedy zakładano ONZ, liczba państw członkowskich wynosiła niewiele ponad 50. Kiedy Waldheim został Sekretarzem Generalnym, było już 132 państwa członkowskie, z czego większość była klientami ZSRR. Były to dyktatury, kraje notorycznie łamiące prawa człowieka i pod przewodem ZSRR wykorzystujące tę organizację do tuszowania swojej przestępczej działalności. Nic dziwnego, że to za czasów sprawowania najwyższej funkcji przez Waldheima podjęto w 1975 roku rezolucję zrównującą syjonizm z rasizmem. Rezolucja została zaproponowana przez Ugandę Idi Amina, ale dziś wiemy, że za sznurki pociągał ówczesny szef KGB Jurij Andropow. Rozkład głosów podczas głosowania nad tą rezolucją pokazywał wyraźnie rozkład sił w ONZ (72 głosy za, 35 przeciw i 32 wstrzymujące się).

Od początku lat siedemdziesiątych ubiegłego wieku Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych jest demokratycznym stowarzyszeniem państw funkcjonujących w dramatycznej sprzeczności z Kartą ONZ.

Co prawda, po upadku ZSRR tamtą rezolucję uznano za haniebną i w grudniu 1991 roku anulowano, jednak sama organizacja nie tylko nie zmieniła swojego charakteru, ale jej degeneracja postępowała nadal, nasilając się w obecnym stuleciu. Chorobliwa koncentracja uwagi na Izraelu osiągnęła poziom histerii podczas konferencji w Durbanie w 2001 roku. Była widoczna, kiedy ONZ poczuła się w roku 2006 zmuszona do zastąpienia Komisji Praw Człowieka ONZ Radą Praw Człowieka ONZ, co okazało się wyłącznie zabiegiem dekoracyjnym, gdyż przy tym składzie państw członkowskich ta nowa Rada mogła być tylko jeszcze bardziej antysemicka niż Komisja.

Antyizraelskie działania ONZ przyjęły formę wręcz kabaretową. Nie może być inaczej, gdyż w przeciwnym przypadku należałoby zająć się notorycznym naruszaniem praw człowieka przez decydującą w ONZ większość. W tej sytuacji wszystkie ważne stanowiska w ONZ obsadzane są przez ludzi zdecydowanych odwracać wzrok od faktycznych zbrodni i nastawionych na nieustanne polowanie na Żydów.

W osiemdziesiąt lat po założeniu ONZ organizacja ta zajmuje się niemal wyłącznie Izraelem, lwia większość domaga się natychmiastowego zawieszenia broni w Gazie i uratowania Hamasu. Karta ONZ straciła jakiekolwiek znaczenie, a Andropow śmieje się zza grobu.

Sytuacja jest tak tragiczna, że prezydent Trump dał do zrozumienia, że USA może się z tej organizacji wycofać. Oczywiście taka możliwość nie istnieje, ponieważ Rada Bezpieczeństwa ONZ jest organem, który stanowi prawo międzynarodowe, więc w sytuacji, w której Francja i Wielka Brytania nie mają żadnego kręgosłupa moralnego, cała inicjatywa pozostałaby w rękach Rosji i Chin. (Alternatywą jest radykalne zmniejszenie finansowania, ponieważ obecnie to głównie USA finansuje tę z gruntu antyamerykańską instytucję.)

Po osiemdziesięciu latach ONZ jest dokładnym przeciwieństwem tego, co zamierzali pomysłodawcy tego projektu.

Antisemites are trying to hijack Charlie Kirk’s legacy

Jonathan S. Tobin

Attendees pray during the public memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., on Sept. 21, 2025. Photo by Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images.

It turns out that Charlie Kirk was one of those seminal figures in our culture and politics whose impact will be greater in death than in life. In the two weeks since his assassination at Utah Valley University, the magnitude of the reaction to his passing likely surprised many of his political opponents as well as some of his admirers.

The enormous outpouring of emotion on the political right in response to his shocking murder was matched only by the vitriol hurled at his memory coming from some on the left.

That, in turn, fueled a backlash on the left that has cost some people, such as Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah, their jobs. It also put a hold on ABC late-night comedy show host Jimmy Kimmel, who was taken off the air for a week. These two individuals, along with many others, were guilty not only of insensitivity but of using their prominent perches to spread misinformation about Kirk and the assassination. Their fate and the way others who posted their contempt for Kirk on social media have been singled out for opprobrium has created a second backlash—this time coming from the left, complaining about the way that the wave of grief for Kirk has called into question the free speech rights of his opponents.

Tolerance for antisemitism

Even as the battle for Kirk’s legacy has become the centerpiece of a renewed and even more bitter edition of the same culture war that has been dividing right and left in the last decade, one aspect of this controversy seems to be exacerbating another ongoing crisis. The debate about what Kirk thought and who killed him—and why—has also become a new inflection point in the surge of antisemitism that has been spreading across the United States since the Hamas-led Palestinian attacks on Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson pivoted immediately after the murder to claim that Kirk, a steadfast friend and defender of Israel, was souring on the Jewish state, as well as on the brink of joining him and other antisemites in their opposition to the war on Hamas. As other extremists on the internet were floating conspiracy theories about Israel being behind Kirk’s murder, the even more extreme Jew-hater Candace Owens has been spreading claims that prominent Jews were seeking to “blackmail” the activist over his alleged anti-Israel tendencies.

Carlson, who has become increasingly open about his hatred for Israel and the Jews—platforming anyone who will attack both it and Holocaust denial—was given a prominent speaking slot, alongside Kirk’s widow, Erika, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other members of the administration at the massive memorial service for Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. That he was there at all, let alone using his time to vaguely invoke deicide charges against Jews, was disturbing. But it also spoke volumes about the troubling fact that Carlson has managed to maintain his status as a legitimate conservative thought leader, as well as the way tolerance for his antisemitism may become part of the complicated legacy of Kirk’s free-speech absolutism.

The furor over ABC’s suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show has been a remarkable, yet illuminating, example of the hypocritical nature of most discussions about free speech.

Kimmel was guilty of a gobsmacking example of misinformation when he declared during an opening monologue on Sept. 15 that Kirk’s killer was a fellow MAGA conservative activist. By then, it was already clear that the assassin was someone on the political left who was likely influenced by Kirk’s opposition to gender ideology, in addition to the activist’s criticism of the transgender movement’s political and social impact on society.

That appalling comment sparked anger from a broad range of Americans and threats from affiliates to drop the Kimmel show from their ABC stations. ABC acted quickly to shut his show down rather than be forced to defend Kimmel and lose revenue when local stations refused to air it.

Comments from Trump and Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, in which they seemed to be demanding that Kimmel be fired, led some to the not entirely unreasonable conclusion that what was happening was the result of government pressure to censor views the administration opposed.

Kimmel’s fate was an example of what happens when an entertainer creates a political mess that his employers want no part of. But thanks to Trump and Carr, he instead became, along with fellow late-night comedy show host Stephen Colbert, whose show was canceled by CBS due to chronically bad ratings and epic financial losses, a martyr to free speech.

Late-night politics

This is as absurd as it is hypocritical.

For the last decade or more, all of the broadcast networks’ late-night comedy shows have hewed to a consistently partisan line in which the genre’s former nonpartisan approach to humor was replaced by rigid adherence to liberal ideology. For years, all of them—even the less political NBC show hosted by Jimmy Fallon, who was shamed and forced to subsequently apologize for having hosted Trump and giving him the usual softball treatment accorded Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign—have become daily in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party.

The result is that they have become consistently unfunny, coupled with declining viewership ratings. As a result, these shows have become dead weight to the networks, something that has been amply illustrated by the fact that the conservative alternative to them—the “Gutfeld!” show on the Fox News Channel—has been consistently beating all of them, despite having a potentially smaller audience since it is a cable rather than broadcast network.

That doesn’t excuse efforts by the administration to intimidate its critics. But you don’t have to be a Republican or a fan of Greg Gutfeld’s brand of humor to recognize that the rationale for ABC, NBC and CBS to drop the left-wing ideology and get back into the comedy business hasn’t much to do with anything Trump might say. Instead, it is a function of the fact that they are all businesses that are supposedly interested in appealing to all Americans, rather than just the less than 50% of them who vote for the Democrats and/or hate Trump or Charlie Kirk.

More than that, the same people who are whining about the fate of Kimmel or even Colbert had no sympathy when politics derailed the careers of entertainers who ran afoul of left-wing sensibilities.

In 2018, comedian Roseanne Barr—a onetime ardent leftist who had migrated to what seemed at times to be the political right—was fired from the successful reboot of her eponymous situation comedy for a tweet in which she attacked Obama administration figure Valerie Jarrett, a key figure behind its appeasement of Iran, with what many considered to be racist imagery.

In 2021, former mixed martial arts athlete turned actress Gina Carano was fired from the “Star Wars” series where she had starred because she questioned the 2020 presidential election results, and then compared the Biden administration and internet moguls’ silencing of conservative voices to Nazi persecutions of the Jews.

In both cases, nobody currently screaming about the end of free speech was defending the right of Barr or Carano to say controversial, insensitive or even deeply offensive things without losing their livelihoods. Instead, the liberal late-night comedy show hosts, as well as liberal opinion, joined the gang tackle of these figures and thought it entirely appropriate that they should be canceled, shunned and run out of the public square.

This time, it’s certain conservatives who are playing the “free speech for me but not for thee” card.

In death, Kirk’s appeal seems to have transcended the world of conservative activism in which he played a key role in the right’s pushback against woke ideology and helped re-elect Trump in 2024. His murder has focused a broad swath of the public on the admirable example he offered the country of someone who was equally committed to conservative ideas, while also being deeply religious and dedicated to promoting dialogue across the partisan divide. The fact that he was shot and killed while engaging in open political dialogue underneath his trademark “Prove Me Wrong” sign has only burnished his memory in the minds of more than just those who supported his Turning Point USA group.

Hijacking a legacy

That’s why the attempt on the part of Israel-haters to hijack his legacy is so troubling and has the potential to legitimize antisemitic tropes into mainstream conservative thinking.

Carlson clearly understands the stakes involved in controlling how the public thinks about Kirk.

Kirk was the embodiment of the pendulum of public opinion that is swinging back to an embrace of traditional values, faith and belief in Western civilization from the excesses of the woke leftism that seemed to have an unshakable grip on society after the Black Lives Matter summer of 2020.

His distaste for the cancel culture of the left was heartfelt and popular. Yet opposition to the silencing of traditional conservatives and others who dissented from leftist orthodoxies about race, Trump, illegal immigration, gender ideology and abortion ought not to obligate one to support the platforming of every opinion.

For Carlson, Owens and their acolytes, their embrace of anti-Israel and antisemitic tropes in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks caused them to align themselves in sympathy with the red-green alliance of leftists and Islamists who seek to target Jews on campuses. The way extremists on the left and right come together on antisemitism is nothing new. But it put them in the uncomfortable position of conservatives opposing the Trump administration’s pro-Israel foreign policy, as well as its laudable campaign to rid college campuses of the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion that is the engine of 21st-century Jew-hatred.

That is why it’s so important for them to tie Kirk to their campaign to legitimize the mainstreaming of post-Oct. 7 antisemitism.

Should we believe the claims made in a Carlson podcast—in which Carlson assembled a lineup of antisemitic figures like “Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams, Greek Orthodox priest Father Josiah Trenham, left-wing commentator Cenk Uygur and podcaster Megyn Kelly, a recent convert to Israel-bashing—the week after the assassination about Kirk undergoing a change of heart about Israel or that he hated Netanyahu?

There’s no reason to trust anything that he or his cronies say about Israel, especially their claims of pro-Israel donors trying to bribe or blackmail Kirk to back Israel and distance himself from Carlson. As legal columnist and podcaster Josh Hammer—a stalwart defender of Israel—has said, he was on the phone with Kirk discussing their mutual support for the Jewish state the night before the assassination on Sept. 10.

We do know that Carlson benefited from Kirk’s instinctive opposition to deplatforming anyone. Although he disagreed with Carlson’s stands on Israel and Holocaust denial, Kirk still gave him the opportunity to speak at his influential TPUSA conferences.

Most on the right understand that their support for Israel and its just war against Hamas in Gaza is inextricably linked to their backing for traditional values, Western civilization and faith. Aligning themselves with the leftists and Islamists who hate the Jews is antithetical to those beliefs.

By allowing Carlson to keep his foot in the door, Turning Point USA is giving credence to pro-Hamas talking points about “genocide” and antisemitic tropes about the Jews using money to manipulate American foreign policy.

Opposing letting these ideas be considered debatable, rather than despicable notions that should be confined to the fever swamps of the far right and left, is not a matter of banning free speech. It’s just common sense. Conservatives should not be willing to treat such toxic ideas as legitimate any more than they should accept woke myths about race, intersectionality or settler-colonialism that they know to be both false and damaging to American society.

Yet that is the position that Carlson is claiming is now both mainstream conservatism and part of a Kirk legacy that should be defended.

Planting a seed of Jew-hatred

His presence on the podium at the Kirk memorial in Arizona, alongside administration leaders, was appalling in and of itself. But the fact that he used that bully pulpit to invoke the ideas that guys who eat hummus (aka Jews) plotted Jesus’s death the way the contemporary left plotted to silence Charlie planted an insidious seed of Jew-hatred in an otherwise moving tribute to the activist’s life and work.

It isn’t cancel culture to seek to rid the public square of this kind of hate any more than it is wrong to seek to reclaim academia for Western values by expelling woke DEI commissars and mobs of pro-Hamas hate-mongers. Doing so is a defense of the values of the American republic that Charlie Kirk believed in and for which he gave his life.

Defending the antisemitism of Carlson and Owens—and all of their friends and allies on the far right and the far left that agree with them—is not consistent with Kirk’s lifework. Nor is it necessarily a natural corollary to his efforts to end the silencing of conservatives in mainstream culture and society.

Anyone who cares about honoring the 31-year-old husband, father and activist—and his beliefs—should be outraged at the way Tucker Carlson is trying to hijack his legacy. If he succeeds, it will be more than a boost for pro-Hamas thugs and antisemites on both the left and the right. It will also set back any hopes that the efforts to win back America for Kirk’s conservative faith will ultimately succeed.

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.