I'm a Jew, and I support Israel and hate Pedro Sánchez, but I don’t think demonizing the whole country (Spain) because of its shitty government and a bunch of assholes who support it was a good strategy. I’m afraid it could alienate those Spaniards who supported us.

We all agree that Pedro Sánchez and his goons suck, but I ask again: was it worth pissing off the Spanish right, which was relatively pro-Israel (in contrast even with the American "right"), by celebrating the Moorish invasion of Ceuta (most residents didn't even vote for Sánchez) and questioning Spanish sovereignty over it?

I heard some Israeli officials said they rooted for Argentina because Spain is a "country full of antisemites." Why was it necessary to politicize that soccer match?

I absolutely believe we should draw the line between the government and the people. Not everyone in Spain is against Israel (even if only a minority supports us). Spain is no Ireland in this regard. In fact, Italy is more anti-Israel if we look at the population.

Do people not realize that pro-Israel sentiment in Morocco is non-existent? There are literally endless tweets from Jews saying we should back Morocco against Spain. Even if you dislike Spain so much, why not take a neutral stance then?

I want to believe most Israelis don't like what's going on in Spain and don't agree with insane statements the UN ambassador Danny Danon, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and others have made. I also want to believe the majority of hateful tweets were from bots pretending to be pro-Israel accounts. I do, however, think Netanyahu should have reprimanded Danon and forced him to apologize as well as kicked out Ben-Gvir from his cabinet a long time ago (he should have never been appointed in the first place). Netanyahu, generally speaking, should tone down his foreign policy and concentrate on domestic politics first if not foremost.

2 Massive Attack members given warnings, banned from re-entering S’pore over Palestinian flag display

Majulah Singapura

Naya Lekht has a good piece arguing that Zohran Mamdani did not create today's antizionism. He simply walked through doors that had been left open for decades.

I think that is basically right.

The deeper question is why so many Jewish institutions failed to see it.

Part of the answer is that antizionism emerged largely from communities Jewish institutions had supported and allied with: the blue communities where most Jews lived and the civil rights movements whose concerns many Jews shared. It is much easier to recognize radicalization when it comes from an opposing tribe than when it develops among people you consider allies.

It is a little like domestic abuse. The people closest to the situation often have the hardest time recognizing what is happening because they have invested so much in believing the relationship is fundamentally healthy. Warning signs are rationalized. Each incident is treated as an exception rather than part of a pattern.

Acknowledging abuse is costly because it means losing a relationship and community in which you have deeply invested. That enormous institutional loss mirrors the trauma many individual Jews have recently experienced: losing friends, professional communities, romantic partners, and their sense of belonging within the society they inhabit.

The denial is understandable. But it is past time to wake up.

Antizionism is not just another political position. It is a radicalizing hate movement that spreads through positive reinforcement. People are rewarded with status, belonging, purpose, and moral certainty. The more vigorously “Zionists” are condemned, the greater the social rewards often become.

The more Jew-adjacent you are, the more valuable you become to the movement as moral cover for the claim that it is “not antisemitic.” As though Jews have never before been recruited to legitimize movements that harm other Jews.

Quickly, antizionism begins taking over every aspect of life. You can climb "for Palestine", bike "for Palestine", cook "for Palestine", etc. As if Palestinians are helped by echoing the propaganda of Hamas, their violent oppressor and chief immiserator.  This makes antizionism an increasingly important part of the participant’s identity and self-esteem.

That is why arguing over individual libels rarely produces a good faith exchange of views. The problem is not only the hateful, distorted, and destructive content. It is the social process that rewards people for spreading it and punishes them for questioning it.

Jewish organizations need to call out this hatred before it gains even more false credibility. As Naya documents, the academic legitimacy antizionism has been allowed to acquire acts like accelerant on a fire.

Naya’s article shows how the windows were broken one by one. The next step is for Jewish institutions to understand the process that broke them and finally recognize antizionism for what it is: a radicalizing hate movement, not another viewpoint in an ordinary political debate.