Seit 2010 lebe ich in Cork. „Either you love it or you hate it, there’s nothing in between.“ Bei mir war es mit Cork Liebe auf den ersten Blick. Viel ist in den Jahren passiert und manchmal war es nicht ganz leicht, aber ich habe es nie bereut. Auf diesem Blog schreibe ich über Cork, Irland, über Gutes und weniger Gutes. Da mich Politik immer interessiert hat und ich auch involviert war, ist mein Blick kritisch und manchmal weniger kritisch und ich hoffe mein Blog hilft dem Einen oder Anderen uns (Iren) besser zu verstehen. Was mir auch am Herzen liegt ist die Klischees die Einige haben zu entkräften.
„Sinn Féin’s Rabbi“:Chief Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog spoke fluent Irish, opposed the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty (Partition), and hid IRA fighters in his home.
The 1930s Rescue:The restrictive refugee policies of the 1930s came from anti-Semitic bureaucrats in the Department of Justice (e.g., Charles Bewley), not the republican movement. It was Éamon de Valera himself who personally overruled his department to rescue Jewish orphans.
Vetting Standards: In war zones where official registries are destroyed or controlled by non-state actors (like Hamas), issuing unvetted visas creates severe security and legal liability for the State.
Political Hypocrisy: Opposition parties demanding wholesale visa waivers would be the first to accuse the Government of a „security failure“ if an unvetted individual committed an offense in Ireland.
Myth:„International scholarships don’t affect Irish students or taxpayers.“
Fact: While tuition may be covered by university funds, infrastructure, housing, and public services are finite resources funded by the Irish taxpayer.
Key Evidence:
The Student Housing Crisis: Thousands of Irish students are forced to defer college or commute hours daily because student accommodation is overstretched or repurposed.
The SUSI Gap: Working-class and middle-class Irish families just above the SUSI grant threshold struggle with massive living costs. Prioritizing fully-funded packages for non-citizens while domestic students are priced out creates justifiable public resentment.
Section 4: Theological Paternalism (Debunking „Real Jews are Anti-Zionist“)
Myth:„Zionism contradicts the Torah and Christian values.“
Fact: Non-Jews lecturing Jewish people on how to interpret their own scriptures or identity is paternalistic and anti-Semitic.
Key Evidence:
Liturgical Roots: The connection to Zion and Jerusalem is not a 19th-century European invention; it has been the core of Jewish prayer (Shemoneh Esrei, Seder: „Next year in Jerusalem“) for over 3,000 years.
Demographic Reality: Data (e.g., Pew Research) consistently shows that over 80% of global Jewry considers connection to Israel an essential part of their identity.
A socio-political analysis of the chronic tension between Irish ethics-driven politics and functional governance.
he new Falcon 6X jet PICTURE: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
The news reads like administrative satire, yet it lays bare the fundamental dilemma of modern statecraft: Ireland is acquiring a new government jet—a Cessna Citation Longitude costing approximately €53 million—while deliberately foregoing its primary all-weather landing system. The reason? The certified manufacturer of the required avionics sensor is the Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems. Fearing political backlash and eager to signal moral posture regarding the Middle East, the state settled for an aircraft that remains grounded whenever dense fog rolls over Dublin or Baldonnel.
This incident is not an isolated procurement hiccup. It serves as a textbook case study for a structural ailment in Irish foreign and security policy: the systematic prioritization of symbolic politics over functional governance.
1. The Symbolism of Moral Abstinence
Historically, Irish foreign policy relies on a deeply ingrained self-image: Ireland views itself on the international stage as an unblemished actor—free of a colonial legacy, committed to international law, and highly sensitive to issues of global justice.
Moral Consistency as State Reason: Rejecting components of Israeli origin satisfies a broad political and societal expectation. Within this discourse, avoiding commercial ties with the military-industrial complex of specific nations is framed as a prerequisite for political integrity.
Symbol Trumps Purpose: This primacy of moral posturing ensures that the process of procurement is judged through ethical filters, rather than evaluating the outcome against operational metrics—such as system reliability during critical medical evacuations or diplomatic transport.
2. The Functional Erosion of State Infrastructure
Contrasting this moral framework is the physical reality of executive duties. Ireland’s defense and logistical infrastructure—ranging from maritime surveillance and airspace monitoring to the Ministerial Air Transport Service (MATS)—has suffered from decades of neglect rooted in political detachment.
Functional Self-Amputation: When a €53 million state asset cannot land during low visibility because a standard feature was stripped for political optics, moral signaling turns into functional self-amputation.
The Misunderstanding of Neutrality: Paradoxically, military neutrality under international law requires a particularly capable and self-reliant defense and transport infrastructure, given the absence of automatic NATO alliance guarantees. Irish practice, however, frequently mistakes neutrality for technical and operational absenteeism.
3. Collision with Global Supply Chains
Furthermore, this case exposes the naivety of moralizing politics when interacting with global markets. The notion that a state can isolate „ethically pure“ supply chains within defense and aerospace technology fails to withstand reality.
Monopolistic Structures in Aerospace: Highly specialized subsystems—whether night-vision technology, advanced avionics, or enhanced vision sensors—are dominated worldwide by a handful of specialized conglomerates. Excluding key market players on ethical grounds immediately runs into hard limits of availability.
Pragmatism vs. Moral Posturing: Any sovereign purchasing on the global market faces a choice: accept the realities of integrated defense supply chains, or accept direct operational handicaps to preserve an unblemished moral profile.
Conclusion
The absurdity of an incomplete government jet highlights the core flaw of a compromised political discourse: confusing moral posturing with state readiness. When symbolic gestures consistently override practical utility, the result is a policy framework that retains its moral high ground—while its government jet remains stuck on the tarmac in the fog.
Eine soziopolitische Analyse zur chronischen Spannung zwischen irischer Gesinnungsethik und staatlicher Funktionsfähigkeit.
Stein des Anstoß, das neue Flugzeug für 53 Mio Euro Quelle: The new Falcon 6X jet PICTURE: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
Die Nachricht klingt wie eine Realsatire aus der Verwaltung, legt aber in Wahrheit das fundamentale Dilemma moderner Regierungspolitik offen: Irland beschafft für rund 53 Millionen Euro ein neues Regierungsflugzeug vom Typ Cessna Citation Longitude – verzichtet jedoch bewusst auf das primär vorgesehene Allwetter-Landesystem. Der Grund? Der zertifizierte Hersteller der Sensorik ist der israelische Rüstungskonzern Elbit Systems. Aus Sorge vor politischem Gegenwind und um moralische Haltung im Nahost-Konflikt zu demonstrieren, nimmt man ein Flugzeug in Kauf, das bei dichtem Nebel über Dublin oder Baldonnel am Boden bleiben muss.
Dieser Fall ist kein isoliertes Beschaffungsproblem. Er wirkt wie eine Brennglas-Metapher für das strukturelle Dilemma der irischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Die systematische Überordnung von Symbolpolitik über die pragmatische Handlungsfähigkeit des Staates.
1. Die Symbolik der moralischen Abstinenz
Die irische Außenpolitik basiert historisch auf einem tief verankerten Selbstverständnis: Irland versteht sich im internationalen Gefüge als unbelasteter Akteur – ohne kolonialistisches Erbe, dem Völkerrecht verpflichtet und mit hoher gesellschaftlicher Sensibilität für globale Gerechtigkeitsfragen.
Moralische Konsistenz als Staatsräson: Der Verzicht auf Komponenten israelischer Herkunft bedient eine breite politische und gesellschaftliche Erwartungshaltung. In diesem Diskurs gilt das konsequente Vermeiden von Geschäften mit dem militärisch-industriellen Komplex bestimmter Staaten als Grundbedingung politischer Glaubwürdigkeit.
Das Symbol schlägt den Zweck: Das Primat der Gesinnung führt dazu, dass der Prozess der Beschaffung nach ethischen Filterkriterien bewertet wird, statt das Ergebnis an rein operationalen Kriterien – etwa der Zuverlässigkeit bei Rettungs- und Regierungseinsätzen – zu messen.
2. Die funktionale Erosion staatlicher Infrastruktur
Dem gegenüber steht die physische Realität exekutiver Staatsaufgaben. Die militärische und logistische Infrastruktur Irlands – von der Seeüberwachung über die Luftraumverteidigung bis hin zum Ministerial Air Transport Service (MATS) – leidet seit Jahrzehnten unter einer durch politische Abstinenz begründeten Unterfinanzierung.
Funktionale Selbstamputation: Wenn ein staatliches Arbeitsgerät für 53 Millionen Euro bei schlechter Sicht nicht landen kann, weil das zur Vollausstattung gehörende System aus politischen Erwägungen gestrichen wurde, wandelt sich die moralische Geste in funktionale Selbstamputation.
Das Missverständnis der Neutralität: Völkerrechtliche Neutralität erfordert paradoxerweise eine besonders funktionstüchtige, eigenständige Verteidigungs- und Transportinfrastruktur, da man nicht automatisch auf Bündnisressourcen der NATO zurückgreifen kann. Die irische Praxis verwechselt Neutralität jedoch häufig mit technischer und defensiver Abwesenheit.
3. Der Konflikt mit der globalen Lieferkette
Der Fall offenbart zudem die Naivität moderner Haltungspolitik gegenüber globalen Märkten. Die Vorstellung, man könne im Bereich der Verteidigungs- und Luftfahrttechnologie „ethisch reine“ Lieferketten isolieren, hält der Realität nicht stand.
Monopolstrukturen im Rüstungssektor: Hochspezialisierte Subsysteme – ob Nachtsichttechnik, Avionik oder Sensorik – werden weltweit von wenigen spezialisierten Konzernen beherrscht. Wer Akteure aus ethischen Gründen ausschließt, stößt in der Hochtechnologie augenblicklich an harte Verfügbarkeitsgrenzen.
Pragmatismus vs. Gesinnung: Ein Staat, der am globalen Markt einkauft, muss sich entscheiden: Akzeptiert er die Realität integrierter Lieferketten, oder nimmt er direkte Einschränkungen seiner staatlichen Infrastruktur in Kauf, um ein unverändertes Moralprofil zu pflegen?
Fazit
Die Posse um das unvollständige Regierungsflugzeug verdeutlicht das Kernproblem einer verengten Debattenkultur: Die Verwechslung von Symbolpolitik mit staatlicher Vorsorge. Wer die moralische Pose konsequent über die funktionale Handlungsfähigkeit stellt, erhält am Ende eine Politik, die zwar ethische Haltung bewahrt – deren Regierungsjet bei Nebel jedoch am Boden bleiben muss.
The Zionists secured their so-called “Jewish State”. But they still needed to manufacture a Jewish majority. And so they conducted the Nakba, forcing around 750,000 Gentiles to flee. This provoked a backlash, the Jewish Nakba – the displacement of around 850,000 Arab Jews, many of whom were left with no choice but to move to Israel. The Mossad LeAliyah Bet and the Jewish Agency did what they could to encourage this migration – cajoling Jews into moving to the so-called “Jewish State” – downgrading Holocaust survivors to the status of “human material”, and preventing them from seeking refuge in other lands. Their objective was chilling: To “liquidate” the Jewish Diaspora.
CHAPTER FIVE
The Arab Jews were treated with derision from the moment they arrived in Israel – sprayed with a toxic chemical, and thrown into overcrowded, unsanitary camps. Some remained in those places, which evolved into slums, while others were made to live in dangerous locales – acting as human shields. Tens-of-thousands of their children were subjected to hazardous doses of X-ray radiation. And almost all the adults were made to do hard labour – farming the worst soil, or working in one-factory towns – receiving lower wages […]“
Part 4: The Exploitation of the Mizrahim – How Joss Sheldon hijacks the history of Oriental Jews for his hate campaign
Anyone who thought that Joss Sheldon had already reached the lowest depths of rhetorical integrity in the first chapters of his work will be proven wrong in Chapters 4 and 5. Here, he ventures into one of the most complex and painful topics in Israeli social history: the flight, expulsion and subsequent integration of the Mizrahim (Jews from the Middle East and North Africa).
What, in the hands of historically reputable authors, constitutes a nuanced analysis of the causes of flight, state failure, paternalism and painful integration crises, degenerates in Sheldon’s work into a single anti-Semitic circular argument: The victims are to blame, the persecutors are exonerated, and the Zionist state is declared the diabolical mastermind behind their own suffering.
Let us dissect Sheldon’s method by examining his central claims.
1. The exoneration of the persecuting states
Sheldon describes the expulsion of around 850,000 Jews from the Arab states in a single, offhand sentence:
“This provoked a backlash, the Jewish Nakba – the displacement of around 850,000 Arab Jews […]”
With this phrasing, Sheldon pulls off a breathtaking reversal of perpetrator and victim:
Exonerating the dictatorships: The Arab regimes – from Iraq and Egypt to Libya and Syria – are completely absolved of responsibility for state-organised pogroms, expropriations, the revocation of citizenship and executions. The expulsion of the Jews is rewritten as an ‘understandable human reaction’ (backlash) to the events of 1948.
The erasure of chronology: Sheldon deliberately ignores the fact that state and societal anti-Semitism in many of these countries did not suddenly appear out of the blue in 1948. The bloody pogrom in Baghdad (Farhud) took place in 1941 – fuelled by Nazi German propaganda and the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini, years before the founding of the State of Israel.
Collective responsibility as a principle: By portraying the expulsion of Jewish civilians from Iraq, Yemen or Egypt as a ‘logical consequence’, Sheldon adopts precisely the logic of the anti-Semitic persecutors: anyone who is Jewish is personally responsible for everything that happens in Palestine.
2. Rescue as a conspiracy: The fairy tale of the ‘liquidation of the Diaspora’
To prevent the mass emigration of the Mizrahim from appearing as a rescue from imminent persecution, Sheldon must fabricate a conspiracy. He claims that the Jewish Agency and the Mossad LeAliyah Bet forced the Jews out of their home countries in order to ‘liquidate’ the Diaspora.
3. DDT, tent camps and rationing: the logic of emergency management versus the racial myth
Chapter 5 reads like a catalogue of horrors. Sheldon lists DDT spraying, squalid camps (Ma’abarot) and forced labour to paint a picture in which Ashkenazi Jews kept their Oriental co-religionists as slaves and subjected them to biological harassment.
This is where Sheldon’s most venomous technique comes to the fore: he takes real historical hardships and strips them completely of their context.
The miracle of logistics: Israel, which had only just been founded and had been impoverished by the War of Independence, doubled its population within a few years. There was no infrastructure, no housing and hardly any food (the era of Tzena rationing).
4. The Exploitation of Trauma: Ringworm and the Yemeni Children
Sheldon’s argument becomes particularly repugnant where he misuses real, tragic chapters of Israeli history for his hate-mongering:
Radiation treatment for ringworm (Ringworm Affair):Sheldon mutters about “dangerous doses of radiation” for tens of thousands of Mizrahi children. What happened? Ringworm (Tinea capitis) was a highly contagious fungal infection. From the 1920s through to the 1950s, X-ray radiation was considered the only effective treatment in the USA, France, Canada and Israel. The fact that this led to cancer in some patients decades later was a dramatic long-term medical consequence – and not intentional. Sheldon turns a global medical error into a Zionist crime.
Joss Sheldon is not concerned with the Mizrahim. He has no interest in their culture, their history of suffering or their integration into Israeli society. For him, the Mizrahim are merely pawns in an anti-Semitic game.
He misappropriates the very real wounds and debates within Israeli society in order to morally delegitimise the Jewish state’s right to exist. By excusing the expulsion from the Arab world and portraying the rescue to Israel as a crime, he carries out the final distortion: The persecutors are exonerated, and the place of refuge is declared a prison.
Anyone who engages in such historical falsification is not practising journalism or history. They are engaging in classic propaganda. And that is precisely why we will not let him get away with it.
Part 5: The Myth of the ‘Bought’ President – How Joss Sheldon Distorts the Founding of Israel and the Truman Era
CHAPTER SIX
Israel was well-established. It had a Jewish majority. But it was surrounded by hostile forces. It needed international support. And it got it from the USA – from President Truman (who believed
„Jews were “very selfish”), and Richard Nixon (who called us “obnoxious”). That special relationship has been worth hundreds-of-billions of dollars. But it was built on malign foundations: President Reagan admitted that he only supported Israel for “strategic” reasons. President Biden only backed the Zionist State because it helped “to protect America’s interests in the region”. Those schmucks were treating Israeli Jews as though they were nothing more than political pawns, expecting them to kill and be killed in the service of American “interests”. That’s seriously antisemitic.“
Auszug aus: Sheldon, Joss. „The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS.“ Apple Books. Dieses Material ist möglicherweise urheberrechtlich geschützt.
Having rewritten the expulsion of the Oriental Jews as a Zionist conspiracy in the previous chapters, Joss Sheldon turns his attention to the international stage in Chapter 6. His central question is: How did the young State of Israel manage to secure the geopolitical support of the superpower, the USA?
Sheldon’s answer is as simplistic as it is classically anti-Semitic: through manipulation, financial pressure and a corrupting lobby.
To support this thesis, he once again resorts to his tried-and-tested method: he takes historical quotations from Harry S. Truman out of context, glosses over the dramatic power struggles within the US administration, and transforms one of the most complex diplomatic decisions of the 20th century into a cheap conspiracy narrative.
Let us dismantle Sheldon’s nonsense in the light of the historical facts.
1. The Truman quote and the art of cherry-picking
Sheldon opens his chapter on the USA with a deliberate provocation:
“And it got it from the USA – from President Truman (who believed Jews were ‘very selfish’) […]”
Sheldon’s quotation trick: Here, Sheldon quotes a private entry from Truman’s diary dated 21 July 1947. He pretends that this half-sentence was the quintessence of Truman’s attitude towards the Jewish people and the key to his foreign policy.
The historical context: Truman was a man from the American South, whose language was often shaped by the prejudices of his time. However, in the same diary and in numerous letters, he simultaneously expressed deep horror at the Holocaust and was profoundly outraged by the indifference of the European powers towards the survivors in the DP camps.
The distortion: Sheldon does not use the quote to analyse Truman’s complex, often contradictory personality, but to make an anti-Semitic point: Even Truman didn’t like them, but they forced him to.
To give you an overview what exactly happend:
The dilemma between words and deeds
A clear contradiction: Historians emphasise the stark contrast between Truman’s private frustration and his political legacy. Despite these harsh words, Truman officially recognised the State of Israel in 1948, just eleven minutes after its establishment.
Pragmatism over emotion: Scholars often interpret the entry as evidence that Truman was able to set aside personal grievances when it came to geopolitical decisions and humanitarian aid.
Contextualising anti-Semitism
A product of his time and background: Many biographers (such as Alonzo Hamby) attribute the remarks to Truman’s rural upbringing in Missouri. Such prejudices were widespread in mid-20th-century America amongst his social class.
Political pressure: The entry was written at the height of the conflict over Jewish refugees following the Holocaust. Historians see the text as an outlet for an overburdened president who was under immense pressure from lobby groups and political advisers.
Psychological relief (letting off steam)
The diary as an outlet: Truman’s biographers point out that he often used his diary to vent unfiltered anger and frustration at political opponents, allies and ethnic groups. The entries often reflect a momentary emotional reaction rather than a lasting philosophical conviction.
2. The myth of the all-powerful ‘Zionist lobby’
According to Sheldon’s logic, there was only one reason why the US de facto recognised the State of Israel in 1948 within 11 minutes of its declaration of independence: pressure from Zionist donors and voters.
In doing so, Sheldon is playing straight into the classic anti-Semitic stereotype of Jewish power behind the scenes, which controls US presidents like puppets.
What the White House and State Department files (1947–1948) actually reveal:
Marshall argued that recognition would jeopardise relations with the Arab oil-producing states and draw the Soviet Union into the region.
In a legendary meeting on 12 May 1948, Marshall even threatened Truman that he would vote against him in the next election should he recognise Israel.
Truman’s actual motives: Truman decided to recognise Israel for two main reasons:
Humanitarian conviction: Truman was deeply shaken by the plight of the 250,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors who were stranded in European DP camps because neither Britain nor the US was willing to take them in. He saw the Jewish state as the only practical solution to this catastrophe.
Reality under international law: Truman recognised that the UN General Assembly had laid the legal foundation with Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) on 29 November 1947, and that the British Mandate had irrevocably ended on 14 May 1948.
The facts: Had the Zionist lobby been as all-powerful as Sheldon suggests, it would not have had to fight for every millimetre of ground against the united front of the US State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence services.
3. The omission of geopolitical dynamics (the Cold War)
In his account, Sheldon completely overlooks the fact that by 1948 the Cold War was already in full swing.
The role of the Soviet Union: It was not only Truman who recognised Israel – the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was the first major power to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948. Stalin hoped that the socialist-leaning Yishuv would drive a wedge into British influence in the Middle East. Furthermore, the weapons crucial to Israel’s survival in the War of Independence came from Czechoslovakia – with Moscow’s express permission.
Sheldon’s blind spot: Because the fact that the Soviet Union provided massive support for Israel’s founding does not fit at all into Sheldon’s narrative of the ‘US imperialist conspiracy’, this central historical fact is simply glossed over in his book.
Conclusion: Reducing history to prejudice
Joss Sheldon’s Chapter 6 is a textbook example of how ideologues write history. Complex geopolitical decisions, the struggle over the post-war order, humanitarian crises and the diplomatic power struggle at the onset of the Cold War are reduced to a single anti-Semitic formula: money, puppet-masters and manipulation.
By narrowing Truman’s historic decision down to the influence of alleged Zionist puppet-masters, Sheldon not only undermines US diplomacy but also once again peddles the oldest narrative of anti-Semites: that world politics is steered from the shadows by Jewish powers.
Why Joss Sheldon’s „The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS“ is Propaganda, Not History
Across this five-part series on De Republica, we have systematically cross-examined the claims, citations, and historical narratives presented in Joss Sheldon’s The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS against primary diplomatic sources, legal statutes, and archival records.
What presents itself as a provocative historical re-examination is, in reality, a classic exercise in ideological revisionism. Sheldon does not offer new historical insights; he recycles age-old antisemitic tropes, repackaging them for a modern audience under the guise of „anti-Zionist critique.“
The Three Pillars of Sheldon’s Deception
Our analysis reveals that Sheldon’s entire book relies on three core manipulative techniques:
1. The „Citation Roundabout“
Sheldon overwhelms the casual reader with hundreds of footnotes to simulate scholarly rigor. However, an audit of these citations reveals a closed ideological ecosystem:
He rarely, if ever, consults primary sources (such as the 1950/51 Iraqi Denaturalization Acts, British Foreign Office files, or UN resolutions).
Instead, he quotes secondary and tertiary sources that quote each other in an infinite loop of distorted claims, relying on selective clipping and out-of-context quotes.
2. Victim-Perpetrator Reversal
Throughout the text, actual historical aggressors are systematically absolved of responsibility, while the victims and rescuers are recast as the primary villains:
The Victims: Mizrahi refugees and Holocaust survivors are denied agency; their escape to Israel is framed not as a desperate flight for survival, but as a sinister plot orchestrated by Zionist agents to „liquidate the Diaspora.“
3. Weaponizing Real History & Medical Errors
Sheldon takes genuine, painful episodes of Israeli domestic history—such as the harsh conditions of the Ma’abarot(transit camps), the Ringworm Affair (Tinea capitis radiation treatments), and the Yemenite Children Affair—and strips them of all historical context:
Joss Sheldon’s book does not fight hate—it breeds it. By trivializing the atrocities committed against Middle Eastern Jewish communities, whitewashing authoritarian regimes, and attributing all regional conflict to a singular, demonized entity, he engages in textbook historical distortion.
History requires nuance, archival honesty, and an unwavering commitment to primary evidence. The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS offers none of these. It stands as a cautionary example of how easily historical trauma can be weaponized when readers fail to check the footnotes.
Editor’s Note (De Republica): This concludes our critical series dissecting historical revisionism in contemporary literature. All primary sources, diplomatic cables (FO 371), and legal statutes referenced in this series are archived and accessible via our reference section.
Jews left the Country
The Myth of the „Insider“: Deconstructing a Fabricated Identity
Throughout his writings and promotional material, Joss Sheldon repeatedly relies on a singular argument to claim authority over Jewish history and culture: his own alleged background. He claims to have grown up in an unspecified London suburb and attended a Cheder (traditional Jewish elementary school), presenting this as proof of his unchallengeable expertise.
However, a basic examination of his biographical claims and the socio-cultural landscape of London’s Jewish community causes this narrative to collapse:
The Linguistic and Cultural Blind Spots: As demonstrated throughout his books, Sheldon repeatedly stumbles over fundamental concepts of Jewish tradition, religious terminology, and cultural nuance (such as misinterpreting basic Yiddish/Hebrew expressions like Goy or displaying zero familiarity with basic liturgical and educational structures). Someone who actually underwent traditional Cheder education would not exhibit such elementary gaps in baseline knowledge.
The Onomastic Reality: While surnames can change through assimilation or immigration, „Sheldon“ is an English toponymic surname of Anglo-Saxon origin. While Jewish immigrants in the UK occasionally anglicized their names, Hasidic or traditional Orthodox families—the very communities that maintain rigorous Cheder schooling—strictly preserved their traditional surnames and cultural heritage.
The Function of the „As-A-Jew“ Shield
Why does this matter? Because in contemporary political discourse, this tactic is known as identity shielding:
Authority by Assertion: Instead of earning credibility through rigorous archival research or peer-reviewed scholarship, the author claims inherent authority based on a vague personal identity.
Pre-emptive Immunization: By framing himself as a Jewish insider „exposing the truth,“ he attempts to insulate himself against accusations of antisemitism. Anyone who criticizes his historical errors or revisionist claims is immediately accused of attacking a „whistleblower.“
Ultimately, whether his biographical claims are a complete fabrication or an exercise in extreme self-stylization, the outcome remains the same: An unverified identity does not validate verified historical falsehoods.
In a previous post, I reviewed a pseudoscientific pamphlet by a certain Joss Sheldon. Sheldon, who claims to be Jewish himself but demonstrates right from the introduction that he doesn’t possess the slightest inkling of actual Jewish history or tradition, unleashes a textbook display of conspiratorial antisemitism. He gleefully rips quotes by historical figures out of context and garnishes them with standard antisemitic tropes. If this book were just being handed out for free to a few internet contrarians, one could ignore it. However, he is self-publishing this work on global platforms like Amazon and Kobo. And this brings us to the core issue: the sheer ignorance spreading through the comment sections is staggering. One reviewer even demands that this book be urgently added to high school curriculums—because, of course, antisemitism doesn’t exist. Sheldon’s book acts as an accelerant, functioning entirely on the premise of „Everything you always wanted to know about Zionists, but were afraid to ask.“
Sheldon paints Zionism as the root of all global evil and openly daydreams on X (formerly Twitter) about Israel being wiped off the map. He is likely already looking forward to his book being translated into Arabic. But let’s look back at the Amazon reviews. The dynamics within these comment sections reveal a disturbing, three-step system of manipulation that preys on an audience devoid of foundational knowledge:
1️⃣ The Illusion of Rigor („Footnote-Formatting“): Many readers leave 5-star reviews because they believe the book is „meticulously researched“ due to the sheer volume of historical quotes. What they fail to grasp is that they completely lack the tools of source criticism (Quellenkritik). They are blinded by the mere appearance of academic seriousness. When a charlatan rips historical quotes (from Herzl to Jabotinsky) entirely out of their temporal context and tosses them into a blender with statements from actual antisemites or Christian fundamentalists, an untrained eye won’t notice the deception. Where no historical foundation exists, any lie can take root.
Tell me about my oppression then.
Tell me about the ghetto I live in.
I'd be more oppressed if I lived in Israel. That place denies Jews our right to self-determination.
2️⃣ The „Politeness Rating“ of Intellectual Cowardice: The allegedly moderate voices are even more absurd. Reviewers write things like: „I don’t personally agree with the author’s views and I don’t know much about Jewish history, but I’m giving it 4 stars because he put a lot of effort into this difficult topic and it made me think.“ This is intellectual laziness masquerading as tolerance. You do not award stars for „effort“ to a commercially driven piece of historical revisionism and victim-blaming.
3️⃣ Confirmation Bias on Steroids: The most frightening aspect is that a large portion of this audience has no desire to think critically. They approach the book with a deep-seated, emotional prejudice against Zionism. They aren’t looking for historical truth—they are merely looking for ammunition to validate their pre-existing biases. When someone comes along and provides a pseudo-scientific veneer for their animosity, they cheer.
The Verdict: Books like this, and the uncritical masses celebrating them, pose a genuine danger. They infect historically illiterate people with a deep, pseudo-intellectual antisemitism, which these readers then proudly parade around as an „expanded horizon.“ If we lose the ability to dissect texts, verify contexts, and distinguish raw polemic from serious scholarship, we hand the field over to demagogues and charlatans without a fight. Media literacy begins when you stop believing everything just because it fits your worldview.
To promote his book, Sheldon is not ashamed to proudly display his ignorance to the public. Let’s look at the real context behind the historical quotes he weaponizes:
The self proclaimed Genius himself – source Wikipedia
1. Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau: The Critique of Assimilation
Herzl and Nordau wrote at a time when the formal emancipation of Jews in Europe (particularly in Germany and Austria-Hungary) had functionally failed. Despite legal equality, they faced brutal societal antisemitism—culminating in the Dreyfus Affair in France, which famously convinced Herzl that a Jewish state was necessary.
The Context: Herzl and Nordau were not criticizing „Jews“ as an ethnicity; they were criticizing the psychological state of forced assimilation. They looked with contempt upon wealthy, assimilated Jews who bent over backward, ignored rampant antisemitism, bribed blackmailing journalists, and kept their heads down just to appease a hostile majority.
Nordau’s Concept of the „Muscle Jew“: Nordau intended the exact opposite of what Sheldon implies. He diagnosed an „inner crippling“ and psychological insecurity caused by centuries of ghettoization and persecution. His answer was a call to create a self-confident, resilient, and proud „Muscle Jew“ (Muskeljude) who would no longer hide or feel ashamed of his identity.
2. Leon Pinsker: „Auto-Emancipation“ (1882)
Pinsker’s seminal text Auto-Emancipation! was written under the immediate, horrific impression of the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire starting in 1881.
The Context: When Pinsker describes the Jewish people as a „ghostlike apparition of a living corpse“ or as „the stranger par excellence,“ this is not antisemitism. It is a brutal, clinical sociological analysis of the Jewish plight in the Diaspora.
The Message: Pinsker argued that the nations of Europe would never truly accept Jews as equals because Jews lacked the traditional attributes of a nation—namely, their own land and a unified organization. To antisemites, stateless Jews were an uncanny, spectral phenomenon. Pinsker’s conclusion was not self-hatred, but a rallying cry: „We must help ourselves! We must establish our own territory to end this unnatural existence as eternal strangers.“
3. Aharon David Gordon: The Philosophy of Labor
Gordon was a Jewish mystic and the intellectual pioneer of early Zionist agrarian socialism—the movement that eventually gave rise to the Kibbutzim.
The Context: When Gordon uses the word „parasitic,“ he is employing a common term from 19th-century socialist theory (even the European labor movement routinely labeled the bourgeoisie as „parasites“). He was criticizing the fact that centuries of European bans on professions had severed Jews from a direct connection to nature and physical labor (like agriculture), forcing them primarily into commerce and finance.
The Message: Gordon wanted to „heal“ the Jewish people by returning them to the soil. His philosophy was the „sanctity of labor.“ He wanted Jews to build their own roots, grow their own food, and create a culture out of their own labor, rather than merely adapting to the trends of host nations. It was a call for existential renewal.
The Anatomy of the Distortion
Joss Sheldon uses these quotes to suggest: „Look, they thought exactly like the antisemites!“ This is akin to accusing a doctor who delivers a life-threatening cancer diagnosis of „hating the patient“ because their description of the disease is graphic and grim. Herzl, Nordau, Pinsker, and Gordon exposed the psychological and social scars left by centuries of European persecution. They did so not to degrade Jews, but to hold up a mirror and say: „Stand up, stop begging, stop subverting your identity—become a free, self-determined people in your own land.“
An audience that views Zionism as a carbon copy of the KKK or Nazism will naturally swallow Sheldon’s framing because they cannot intellectually differentiate between a painful therapeutic diagnosis and an existential intent to destroy.
Breaking Down the „Masterclass“ of Deception
When read sequentially and without context, the rest of the quotes Sheldon stitches together look like a cohesive manifest of horror. However, he is mixing entirely different categories of statements to deceive his audience:
Category 1: Radical Self-Critique (Ze’ev Jabotinsky): Much like Herzl, Jabotinsky deliberately used the Yiddish term „Yid“ to describe the traumatized, fearful ghetto-Jew of Eastern Europe who cowers from antisemitism. Jabotinsky’s life’s work was building Jewish self-defense units (the Betar youth). He wanted to end defenselessness. He described the grim reality of persecution to ignite a will for self-assertion. It was not contempt for his people, but contempt for their subjugation.
Category 2: Colonial Arrogance and Intra-Jewish Prejudice (Balfour, Ben-Gurion, Gelblum): Arthur Balfour was a British imperialist; his support for the Balfour Declaration was rooted in geopolitics and a patrician desire to export the „Jewish problem“ from Europe. It had nothing to do with Zionist ideology. Meanwhile, Ben-Gurion and Aryeh Gelblum reflect the Eurocentric (Ashkenazi) prejudices of early Israel’s elite toward Mizrahi and Yemenite immigrants in the 1940s and 50s. This intra-Jewish cultural friction is a real, heavily scrutinized dark spot in Israeli social history—but Sheldon distorts it into „Zionist Jew-hatred.“
Category 3: Exploitative Alliances and Extremist Theology (Heydrich, Hagee, Kirk): This is Sheldon’s most sinister trick—guilt by association. In 1935, the Nazi regime used tactical, temporary alignment (like the Haavara Agreement) to pressure Jews into emigrating. Implying that Zionists were in „complete agreement“ with the architects of the Holocaust is a vile distortion; Zionists were desperately trying to salvage Jewish lives and assets. Modern figures like John Hagee or Charlie Kirk are American Evangelical Christians operating on a fundamentalist end-time theology (Dispensationalism). They back Israel because their own dogma dictates that a Jewish return triggers the Apocalypse. It is an inherently anti-Jewish theology, yet Sheldon blames Zionism for the antisemitism of American televangelists.
Category 4: Internal Cultural Wars (Weisz, Gutman, Betar, Sharansky, Lieberman): Here, Sheldon weaponizes heated, internal Israeli political debates. When TV host Galit Gutman rails against the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox), she is voicing secular anger over military exemptions and state subsidies—it is a domestic civic dispute, not „Jew-hatred.“ When Sharansky speaks of „Un-Jews,“ he is engaged in a fierce ideological battle against Jewish anti-Zionists who align with Israel’s adversaries. Every nation and religion has these intense internal schisms.
Joss Sheldon is running the exact same playbook that conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or David Icke have used for decades: take the internal contradictions, the historic traumas, and the complex political conflicts of a deeply persecuted, fragmented people, and slap a grand, paranoid label on it: „See? They hate themselves.“
He blends the imperial calculations of Balfour, the propaganda of Heydrich, the apocalyptic mania of John Hagee, and domestic Israeli budget battles into one demonic caricature. That his audience devours it is the direct result of a modern tragedy: due to a systemic failure of historical education, these readers can no longer tell the difference between a perpetrator (Heydrich), an opportunistic end-time preacher (Hagee), a secular Israeli in a culture war (Gutman), and a desperate 19th-century Jewish intellectual trying to save his people (Jabotinsky).
Actually, when I hear that name, I think of the hero of my childhood, Donald Duck, and not a narcissistic, megalomaniacal egomaniac.
Even your first term in office was a nightmare and showed that you have absolutely no understanding of how geopolitics works. No wonder that your greatest ‘strengths’ before that were your bankruptcies and that you had to sell off the family silver to save your reputation.
Whilst during your first term in office you still had serious advisers who protected not you, but the world from you, you have now surrounded yourself with a bunch of Muppets. They may not understand how politics works either, but they are loyally devoted to you. Your lapdog is let off the leash whenever you want to give the impression of being a level-headed statesman. That then gives you the chance to backtrack and parade your lapdog as a completely moronic redneck, whilst assuring the world that, deep down, it was all just a bit of fun and that none of it was meant seriously.
You’re ploughing through your second term like a wrecking ball, and it doesn’t bother you that whatever you touch is reduced to tatters. You don’t understand that you’re supposed to trust your partners; you throw them under the bus just to stroke your pathetic ego. Whether in Afghanistan, where you betrayed the Afghans – they probably showed you cartoons in the White House so you’d have some idea of what Afghanistan is like. Belittling a head of state who, along with his country, is fighting for sheer survival. You couldn’t care less; on the contrary, like a protection racketeer, you try to sweet-talk him into paying protection money and force him to hand his country over to the aggressor, if you please. For a commission in your favour, of course. You make grandiose promises of freedom to the people of Iran, then throw them under the bus, because you don’t give a shit about human rights; you don’t even know what they are and believe that rights apply only to you.
You lead your partners, like Netanyahu, by the nose through the circus ring, and your usual game is to leave them out in the cold in the end. And if they’re unlucky, you threaten them. All your drivel about Jews is pure PR; deep down, you couldn’t care less about the fate of the Jews and you’re just using Israel as a cynical bargaining chip and a PR backdrop for your evangelical electorate. So you throw Israel a few crumbs, give the Israeli government a slap on the wrist whenever you feel they might be taking money from your petty cash, and watch with satisfaction as others, thanks to your idiocy, have to fight for their survival.
Yet you’re nothing more than a windbag – albeit one with a nuclear briefcase in your hand. You store classified documents in the loo at Mar-a-Lago, and your justifications for why you have them sound like those of a state-certified lunatic. And the worst part is, people have to take you seriously because you’re completely unpredictable.
Your tariff policy proves this: when you look at your tariff board, which you slide up and down every minute like a Wall Street broker, whether you’re harming the American people is of just as little interest to you as a rock flying through the air on Mars; as far as you’re concerned, the United States consists of the Donald Trump family and Trump Tower – nothing else. If you were in dire straits, you’d sell your own family to the highest bidder, regardless of the consequences. The main thing is that your property remains untouched.
And this is precisely where the truly alarming question arises for your voters: how can people in the year 2026 still fall for such a crude charlatan? How can a supposedly enlightened electorate follow a man who is smashing the constitution and the institutions of the world’s oldest democracy to smithereens like a cheap wrecking ball?
Anyone who wants to understand you need not read political analyses, but should instead take a look at the classics of mass manipulation. Over 130 years ago, in his ‘The Psychology of the Masses’, Gustave Le Bon described how the masses never thirst for truth, but love illusion above all else. Whoever is able to supply them with the most outrageous illusions will easily become their master. You are living proof of this theory. You employ precisely the methods that Edward Bernays, in his ‘Propaganda’, defined as the deliberate and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses.
Your voters believe they are voting for the freedom and greatness of America, whilst in reality they are merely extras in a gigantic PR show staged by Bernays’ heirs for a deeply disturbed ego. No rational person would trust a snake-oil salesman who betrays partners, throws allies under the bus and jeopardises global security for a personal commission. They are voting for their own downfall, as long as the spectacle is loud enough.
Als ich noch in Deutschland einen Blog betrieb, gehörte ich einem Netzwerk Pro-Amerikanischer und Pro-Israelischer Blogger an. “De oppresso Liber” war mein Motto, wir haben über den Nahen und Mittleren Osten geschrieben, Dinge, die in deutschen Medien verbreitet wurden gerade gerückt und über die Situation berichtet. Antisemitismus und Antiisrael Hass, getarnt als Israelkritik, war schon damals sehr hoch und wie Heute wurden schon damals von Völkermord und Apartheid geredet.
Man startete die Initiative “Eine Tasse Blut für die Bundeskanzlerin,” die wie Wolfgang Pohrt 1982 in einem Essay schrieb, “dass der mustergültig geplante und exekutierte Massenmord an den Juden viele Deutsche offensichtlich innerlich dazu verpflichte, »Israel mit Lob und Tadel moralisch beizustehen, damit das Opfer nicht rückfällig werde«, sprich, Deutsche müssen stets achtsam sein, dass Israel nicht selbst zum »Täter« werde.” Diese Leute konnten es nicht ertragen, dass die Juden sich nicht mehr wie die Schafe zur Schlachtbank führen ließen oder wie Broder in der Jüdischen Allgemeinen schrieb, “Es stimmt, Israel ist heute mehr Täter als Opfer. Das ist auch gut und richtig so, nachdem es die Juden fast 2000 Jahre lang mit der Rolle der ewigen Opfer versucht und dabei nur schlechte Erfahrungen gemacht haben. Täter haben meistens eine längere Lebenserwartung als Opfer und es macht mehr Spaß, Täter als Opfer zu sein.”
Wir haben uns zwar bei einem Bloggertreffen über diese Leute lustig gemacht, die Hartnäckig dieser Leute allerdings unterschätzt, das ging soweit, dass ich einen Rechtsanwalt beauftragen musste, weil einer dieser Antisemiten meinen Klarnamen und meine Adresse rausbekam und vor meinem Haus, in dem ich wohnte, plötzlich auffallend viele Araber auftauchten. Ich habe dann, um es ihnen einfacher zu machen, meine Israel-Fahne in’s Fenster gehängt, damit sie nicht lange suchen mussten. Funfact: Die Antifa verewigte sich auf dem Nachbargebäude. Es herrschte dann Ruhe, bis ein neuer Akteur die Bühne betrat, ein mit sich selbst unzufriedener Rentner aus Brandenburg, der es sich zur Aufgabe machte, einem nach dem anderen nachzujagen.
Alan Posener bezeichnete ihn als veritablen Antisemiten, der es nicht ertragen kann, wenn Juden nicht kuschen und sich stattdessen wehren. Mit der Akribie eines Trüffelschweins setzte er alles daran soviel wie möglich über uns herauszufinden und stellte seine eigenen Verschwörungstheorien auf und behauptete, dass Henryk M. Broder sämtliche Artikel auf der Achse des Guten selber schreiben würde. Wie ein Blockwart legte er über uns Dossiers an und glaubte, dass alle unter Pseudonym bloggen würden. Einen Blogger hatte er dabei besonders im Visier und es verging kaum ein Tag an dem dieser Mensch sich mit Emails und in Kommentaren versuchte Gehör zu verschaffen und die Leute zu zermürben. Sein Pseudointellektuelles Gehabe bekam schnell Risse und er ließ die Maske des Biedermannes fallen und beschimpfte die Leute im Jargon eines Gassenjungen. Man zog ihm den Stecker und da er das nicht ertragen konnte, denn Antisemiten sehen sich grundsätzlich im Recht, bloggte er selbst und versuchte sich über die Leute lustig zu machen. Vor allem hatte er keine Ahnung von deutschem Recht und zeigte, sollten sich die Macher der Blogs über ihn lustig machen, wegen Beleidigung an. Irgendwann wurde es ruhig um ihn.
Hier hat es ein paar Jahre gedauert, bis eine Lightversion sich auf meinen Blog verirrt hat. Auffällig ist, dass er nur an Content über den Nahen Osten interessiert ist und akribisch, wie diese Leute sind, mit einer Honigsüßen Freundlichkeit kommentierte. Anfänglich fand ich ihn putzig, er schrieb von Wissenschaft und Völkerrecht, ohne auf den Content einzugehen. Ich habe ihn ein paar Mal aufgefordert, meine Sicht der Dinge zu widerlegen, aber Fehlanzeige. In einem pseudointellektuellen Geschwafel klammerte er sich an seine Worthülsen, und weigerte sich im Prinzip die Fakten vor Ort anzuerkennen, weil diese Leute an Fakten gar nicht interessiert sind. Sie stören sich an der Tatsache, dass es jemand wagt, den Nahen Osten zu analysieren. Für sie sind die Palästinenser grundsätzlich die Opfer. In rassistischer und postkolonialer Vorstellung sprechen sie diesen Leuten ab, dass sie für ihre Taten selbst verantwortlich sind.
Irgendwann reichte es mir, wer außer sich in einer Wohlfühl Blase moralisch erhaben zu fühlen, ansonsten nichts zur Diskussion beizutragen hat, kickt sich irgendwann selbst in’s Aus. Zumal der Mann auch kein wie auch immer gearteter Akademiker, sondern ein Maschinenzeichner war, der glaubte, er müsse jetzt die intellektuelle Weltbühne betreten. Als er anfing meinen Content zu klauen und ihn auf seinem Blog verwurstete, weil er es nicht ertragen konnte, dass man ihm die Tür weist, reichte es mir und ich wies ihn daraufhin sowohl meinen Content auf seinem Blog zu löschen, und mich nicht mehr zu belästigen. Diese Leute können es nicht ertragen, wenn man ihnen die Aufmerksamkeit entzieht, also hinterließ er einen Kommentar, weil diese Leute so von sich überzeugt sind und glauben, sie hätten ein Recht anderen vorzuschreiben, wie sie zu denken haben.
Fazit: Wer nicht in der Lage ist aufzuzeigen wo ich Fehler gemacht habe, der sollte nicht kommentieren. Ich mag Feedback, aber ich mag nicht wenn man vermeintlich glaubt, mich von oben herab mit Worthülsen angreifen zu können. Die Kommentare werden sofort gelöscht, mir reicht es.
Wenn mich jemand fragen würde, ob der Nahostkonflikt gelöst werden könnte, würde ich das verneinen. Der Nahostkonflikt ist komplexer und vielschichtiger, als sich das die Leute im Westen vorstellen. Geht man zurück in die Mandatszeit, dann hat die Mandatsmacht Großbritannien die Grundlagen für den heutigen Konflikt gelegt – nicht weil man den Zionismus oder die Juden bevorzugt hätte, sondern weil man versucht hat, die Araber nicht zu verärgern, und ihnen gegenüber eine Appeasement-Politik an den Tag legte.
Die Gegend war immer von Juden bewohnt. Es gab zu allen Zeiten eine Rückwanderung der Juden in die Levante; eine große fand statt während der Reconquista, als Juden von der iberischen Halbinsel nicht nur in nordafrikanische Länder, Europa (Irland) und andere islamische Länder flohen, sondern auch in die Levante. In Jerusalem war die Mehrheit stets jüdisch. Das Land unter den Osmanen an sich war eine trostlose Wüsten- und Sumpflandschaft, kaum bewirtschaftet, mit trostlosen Weilern durchzogen. Man lebte von der Tierzucht, betrieb hier und da etwas Landwirtschaft durch die aus Ägypten stammenden Fellachen und die Beduinen, die mit ihren Herden durch das Land zogen. Die Osmanen hatten auch nicht die besondere Absicht, das zu ändern – wozu auch. Jerusalem war das Zentrum, aber nicht wichtig genug, als dass man, wie im frühen Mittelalter, Jerusalem zu einem religiösen Zentrum ausgebaut hätte. Unter dem Umayyaden-Kalifen Al-Walid I. wurde die Al-Aqsa-Moschee zwischen 706 und 715 fertiggestellt. Sein Vorgänger, Abū l-Walīd ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān, hatte den ersten Bau 692 abgeschlossen. Der Grund, warum Jerusalem zur Pilgerstätte wurde, war jedoch nicht religiös begründet, sondern hatte profane, weltliche und machtpolitische Gründe. ʿAbdallāh ibn az-Zubair war zu der Zeit Gegenkalif und herrschte über Mekka; er bekämpfte nicht nur die Umayyaden, er hatte mit den Pilgerreisen nach Mekka ein einträgliches Geschäft. Der Orientalist Ignaz Goldziher schrieb dazu in seinen Muhammedanische Studien (1889–1890) unter Berufung auf arabische Historiker Folgendes: „Als der ummejjadische Chalife ‚Abdalmalik aus Besorgnis darüber, dass sein in Mekka herrschender Rivale ʿAbdallāh b. Zubejr die nach den heiligen Stätten im Ḥigāz pilgernden Syrer zwingen könnte, ihm den Huldigungseid zu leisten, die Wallfahrt nach Mekka hintanhalten wollte, da griff er zu dem Auskunftsmittel der Lehre vom stellvertretenden Hagg zur Kubbat al-sachra in Jerusalem.” Und Werner Caskel ergänzte später, dass die ersten Umayyadenkalifen bestrebt gewesen seien, in Syrien-Palästina ein religiös-geistiges Zentrum zu errichten. Diese Forschungshypothesen scheinen die nunmehr im Druck vorliegenden Werke islamischer Lokalhistoriker über die Vorzüge Jerusalems in mancher Hinsicht zu bestätigen; der Felsen, unter dem Flüsse des Paradieses fließen, ist der Ort, der dem Himmel am nächsten liegt. Abd al-Malik hatte damit die Möglichkeit geschaffen, Pilgerreisen nach Jerusalem anzubieten, indem er Jerusalem zur heiligen Stätte erklärte, obwohl die Stadt im Koran nicht erwähnt wird und es reine Auslegungssache ist, wie man die Suren interpretiert.
Die akademische Propaganda: Das Haschemitische „White Paper“ unter der Lupe Niemand im Westen fragt sich je, warum Verträge mit Ägypten und Jordanien möglich waren, aber nicht mit Arafat und Abbas. Es geht nämlich nicht um Grenzen; es geht schlicht und ergreifend um die Ummah und die Juden. Die Palästinenser haben keine historisch gewachsene Geschichte, die einen exklusiven Anspruch auf das Gebiet rechtfertigen würde. Die Mehrheit von ihnen kam genauso in das Land wie die Juden. Es gab islamische, christliche und jüdische Bewohner des Landstriches, andere kamen hinzu. Juden und Christen waren die einzigen, die schon zu Zeiten der Römer und Byzantiner dort lebten – die Juden noch länger. Viele sind im Zuge der islamischen Eroberung konvertiert. Im Laufe der Jahrhunderte kamen und gingen viele, besonders in der Zeit der Osmanen, für die Palästina nur ein Verwaltungsbezirk war, der nicht mal einen eigenen Namen hatte (der Norden wurde von Damaskus verwaltet, der Süden von Eilat). Die ersten jüdischen Einwanderer um 1880 fanden dort keine Früchte oder blühende Landschaften vor. Das Land was von Moskitos verseucht, fruchtbare Felder mussten dem Sumpf abgetrotzt und die Wüste sprichwörtlich urbar gemacht werden. Dass heute dennoch eine fixe Idee einer „5.000-jährigen arabischen Kontinuität“ existiert, liegt an Papieren wie dem des Königlichen Aal Al-Bayt-Instituts für islamisches Gedankengut. Dieses „White Paper“ strotzt vor Revisionismus, um die jüdische Identität der Region akademisch auszulöschen.
Das linguistische Paradoxon: Die Erfindung der „Bronzezeit-Araber“ Das Papier behauptet, dass die Kanaaniter und Jebusiter eigentlich Araber gewesen seien („Consequently, Jerusalem was always an Arab city“). ● Die wissenschaftliche Realität: Das ist ein anachronistischer Humbug. Die Kanaaniter und Jebusiter waren nordwestsemitische Völker der Bronzezeit. Die Araber hingegen tauchen als historisch greifbare Gruppe (als südsemitische Stammeskonföderation) das allererste Mal im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in neuassyrischen Inschriften auf (Schlacht von Qarqar, 853 v. Chr., Erwähnung von „Gindibu der Araber“). Kanaaniter der Spätbronzezeit (ca. 1400 v. Chr.) zu „Arabern“ zu erklären, ist historisch so seriös, wie die Kelten zu „Franzosen der Grande Armée“ zu machen. Es gab damals schlichtweg noch keine arabische Ethnogenese im Raum Palästina.
Das Eigentor mit der Amarna-Korrespondenz Das Dokument zitiert die Briefe des Königs Abdi-Heba von Jerusalem aus dem 14. Jahrhundert v. Chr. als Beweis für die „arabische“ Urheberschaft. ● Die wissenschaftliche Realität: Abdi-Heba ist ein bekannter kanaanitischer Herrscher, dessen Name ein unmissverständliches theofores (göttertragendes) Element enthält: Abdi-Heba bedeutet „Diener der Heba“. Heba (oder Hepat) war eine hurritische Muttergöttin. Der König von Jerusalem war also sprachlich und religiös mit den Hurritern und Kanaanitern verknüpft – Kulturen, die mit der altarabischen Halbinsel absolut nichts zu tun hatten.
Das theologische Zirkelschluss-Verfahren Das Papier nutzt die hebräische Bibel (Altes Testament) als historische Quelle, um zu beweisen, dass die Jebusiter zuerst da waren (Buch der Richter, Josua 15,63). Im selben Atemzug unterschlägt das Dokument jedoch komplett das Kernnarrativ derselben Bücher: dass nämlich genau dieser Gott das Land den Nachkommen Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs versprochen hat. Man pickt sich Verse heraus, die den kanaanitischen Ursprung beschreiben (den in Israel niemand bestreitet – die Bibel selbst nennt Jerusalem vor David explizit „Jebus“), nutzt sie für das eigene politische Narrativ, erklärt die Bibel aber ansonsten für gefälscht, sobald es um die jüdische Präsenz geht. Zudem bezeugt das zitierte Josua-Buch („die Jebusiter wohnen mit den Söhnen Judas in Jerusalem bis zum heutigen Tag“) eine jüdische Kontinuität in der Stadt ab ca. 1000 v. Chr., was die jordanische These von der „exklusiv arabischen Stadt“ mitten im eigenen Zitat widerlegt.
Das manipulative Zitat aus Hesekiel 16:3 Das Papier zitiert Gott, der zu Jerusalem spricht: „Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite“. Daraus folgert das Papier: „Consequently, Jerusalem was always an Arab city“. ● Die literarische Realität: In Hesekiel 16 handelt es sich um eine prophetische Schmährede und Metapher. Gott wirft den Bewohnern Jerusalems vor, dass sie sich durch ihren Götzendienst genau so benehmen wie die heidnischen Kanaaniter und Amoriter vor ihnen. Es ist eine moralische Rüge, keine genealogische Geburtsurkunde. Und selbst in dieser Metapher taucht das Wort „Araber“ mit keinem einzigen Buchstaben auf.
Die biologische Kontinitäts-Lüge („Stamm Kanaan“) Der Text behauptet, die heutigen palästinensischen Araber seien direkte Nachkommen der Kanaaniter und führt den Familiennamen „Kanaan“ als Beweis an. ● Die wissenschaftliche Realität: Das ist reine Volksetymologie. Die Arabisierung der Levante geschah erst im Zuge der islamisch-arabischen Expansion im 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Schlacht am Jarmuk, 636 n. Chr.). Die heutigen arabischen Familien der Region sind ein historisches Mosaik aus den damaligen arabischen Eroberern, Einwanderungswellen aus Ägypten, Syrien und dem Hedschas sowie Teilen der lokalen, aramäisch sprechenden Bevölkerung, die sprachlich assimiliert wurde. Einen modernen Familiennamen als genetischen Beweis für eine 5.000-jährige Abstammung anzuführen, is so, als würde man behaupten, jeder Deutsche mit dem Nachnamen „Preuß“ sei ein direkter, unvermischter Nachfahre der baltischen Ureinwohner vor der Ankunft des Deutschen Ordens.
Das Heraklius-Framing und das Jahr 638 n. Chr. Das Papier betont, dass der byzantinische Kaiser Heraklius im Jahr 630 n. Chr. alle Juden vertrieben hatte. Die Muslime hätten 638 n. Chr. somit ein „judenreines“ Jerusalem vorgefunden und den Juden gar nichts weggenommen. ● Die historische Realität: Warum verschweigt das Papier, warum Heraklius die Juden vertrieb? Weil die jüdische Bevölkerung der Levante sich im Jahr 614 n. Chr. mit den einfallenden Persern verbündet hatte, um das brutale, antisemitische Joch der Byzantiner abzuschütteln – in der Hoffnung, endlich wieder Autonomie in Jerusalem zu erlangen. Das Papier feiert also die Früchte einer christlich-byzantinischen ethnischen Säuberung an den Juden, um den darauf folgenden islamischen Anspruch als „unschuldig“ zu deklarieren.
Fazit: Die akademische Enteignung
Dieses White Paper zeigt die nackte Panik des arabisch-haschemitischen Apparates vor der realen Archäologie. Weil man die Monumente im Boden – von den Münzen aus der Zeit des Ersten Tempels über die Siegelsysteme der jüdischen Könige (wie Hiskia) bis hin zu den Inschriften der Makkabäer – nicht wegdiskutieren kann, baut man eine absurde „Wir waren vor euch da“-Erzählung auf. Es ist die akademische Fortsetzung dessen, was Jordanien zwischen 1948 und 1967 mit Dynamit an den Synagogen der Altstadt vorgenommen hat: Das physische und historische Ausradieren des jüdischen Erbes. Und genau deshalb ist dieser Konflikt rational nicht zu lösen: Man kann keinen Kompromiss mit einer Ideologie schließen, die deine schiere historische Existenzberechtigung leugnet.
Dismantling the Unverified Narratives of Activist Journalism
The accounts shared by authors like Joss Sheldon on their blogs represent a familiar phenomenon: travel writing masquerading as objective journalism, only to deliver a pre-packaged ideological narrative. Sheldon does not set out to critique complex geopolitical realities; instead, he seeks to validate a deeply one-sided worldview, effectively preaching to the converted. His willingness to swallow unverified anecdotes whole—simply because they support the „apartheid“ label—is a textbook example of severe confirmation bias.
Consider his retelling of an encounter in the Jalazone refugee camp:
“This eloquent young man spent two years in an Israeli prison without even knowing why he had been arrested.”
To the uninitiated reader, this paints a picture of a dystopian, lawless system where the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) arbitrarily abduct Palestinian minors simply on a whim. Sheldon completely omits the rigorous procedural framework of Israeli military law: every planned arrest requires multi-layered administrative approval, a judicial warrant, and a mandatory appearance before a military judge within 24 to 48 hours. Even under administrative detention, automatic judicial reviews are legally mandated every six months. The romanticized claim that an articulate student could languish in a cell for two years without a single inkling as to why is exposed as a logistical and legal impossibility. It relies entirely on a „Trust me, bro“ methodology.
To double down on his narrative, Sheldon attempts to shield his anecdotal claims behind institutional authority, quoting a report by Defence for Children International – Palestine (DCI-P) regarding the alleged systemic mistreatment of „Palestinian Child Prisoners.“ However, when confronted with the actual legal statutes and operational realities, this seemingly damning evidence collapses like a house of cards.
The report Sheldon heavily relies upon states categorically that Palestinian children are “treated as adults from the age of 16, in contrast to the situation under Israeli domestic law.”
The Reality: This claim is demonstrably false and vastly outdated. As early as 2011, the IDF enacted Military Order 1676, which officially raised the age of majority in the West Bank’s military justice system from 16 to 18.
Palestinian youths are legally recognized as minors, granting them specific protections, separate juvenile courtrooms, and specialized judges, mirroring provisions within Israeli domestic law. Peddling a discarded, decade-old statute reveals that the author is merely copy-pasting archaic grievances without performing basic fact-checking.
The text asserts that interrogations are systematically unrecorded, leaving minors helpless against forced confessions written in Hebrew—a language they cannot comprehend.
The Reality: This narrative directly violates Military Order 1745, which mandates the strict audiovisual (video and audio) recording of police interrogations involving minors in the West Bank. These lückenlos recordings become a permanent part of the official case file.
Furthermore, strict legal precedents require all interrogations to be conducted in the suspect’s native language (Arabic), and any statement presented for a signature must be fully translated or drafted in Arabic. Because defense attorneys routinely review these video tapes to throw out non-compliant evidence, no professional investigator would risk sabotaging a high-stakes security case by forcing a suspect to blindly sign a Hebrew document.
Sheldon reaches his emotional climax by shocking his audience with the claim that children face a “maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment under Israeli Military Ordinance 378” for throwing stones.
The Reality: This is an egregious manipulation of statutory maximums. A 20-year sentence does exist in the criminal code (identically to civilian criminal law in western democracies), but it is legally reserved for cases demonstrating explicitly lethal intent—such as dropping boulders or launching heavy stones onto highways to cause high-speed civilian vehicle crashes and mass casualties.
For standard stone-throwing during riots or demonstrations, the actual sentencing matrix for minors typically involves a few months of detention, fines, or suspended sentences. Presenting a lethal-intent felony maximum as the baseline punishment for throwing a pebble is pure distortion.
4. Denying the Operational Logic of Nighttime Arrests
Finally, the report laments the terrifying nature of early-morning arrests carried out by heavily armed soldiers in family homes.
The Reality: The author completely ignores the tactical why. If Israeli authorities attempted to execute a standard arrest warrant in a highly volatile, weaponized environment like the Jalazone camp during broad daylight, it would instantly trigger mass riots, armed skirmishes, and inevitable casualties on both sides.
Conducting operations under the cover of night leverages the element of surprise, allowing the IDF to apprehend the target cleanly and withdraw swiftly without escalating into bloodshed. Paradoxically, the very tactic criticized as harassment is engineered to preserve civilian lives.
Joss Sheldon’s blog entries do not constitute investigative journalism; they are an exercise in selective compilation. By regurgitating unverified, outdated mouth-to-mouth narratives from politically motivated NGOs while completely blinding himself to the highly regulated, documented legal framework on the ground, he constructs a fictional reality. His writing serves only to flatter the prejudices of an audience that prefers a comforting, binary fable of absolute villains and unblemished victims over the gritty, complex realities of counter-terrorism and security infrastructure.
We continue our journey through the alternative reality of Joss Sheldon. Having established his historical and demographic blindness at the airport, Sheldon now moves inland, deeper into the West Bank, where his inner „Mauer im Kopf“ (the wall in his own mind) completely takes over.
Let’s look at how he frames the essential security infrastructure of a state under siege:
“The Wall is, if nothing else, a reminder to the Palestinians that the Zionists are in charge. It is not the only reminder they face on a daily basis. Checkpoints are everywhere, and though most are not operational or even efficient (I am sure any real ‚terrorist‘ could easily find a way around most checkpoints), their mere existence serves to remind the population that they can be stopped, searched, delayed, arrested or harassed at any time. And the locals are harassed at checkpoints. In the most extreme cases, they are forced to sit for hours in the sun. Some Palestinians have been stripped naked at checkpoints; others have suffered miscarriages.”
He must surely have reacted in this way on his return journey to Jerusalem
1. The Obligation of a State vs. Human Shields
Notice how Sheldon’s own mental barrier forces him to see a concrete monolith even where there is only a technological wire security fence. Despite his obsessive demonization of Israel, he still fundamentally fails to grasp why a border barrier or a checkpoint exists in the first place.
He does not understand—or refuses to accept—that a sovereign state has a legal and moral obligation to protect its citizens from slaughter. This stands in stark, brutal contrast to the terrorist regime in Gaza. Since 2007, Hamas has constructed a multi-billion-dollar, vast network of underground tunnels. Yet, they explicitly deny their own civilian population access to these tunnels for safety, choosing instead to weaponize them as human shields and cannon fodder while their leadership lives in luxury abroad. For Israel, security infrastructure saves lives; for the Islamist terrorists, civilian vulnerability is a PR strategy.
2. The Oslo Accords and the Pre-Schengen Reality
Furthermore, Sheldon’s narrative suffers from a total lack of legal context. He writes as if these checkpoints appeared out of a vacuum of pure malice. He completely glosses over the fact that Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords—agreements explicitly approved and signed by Yasser Arafat. Under these treaties, the West Bank was legally divided into Areas A, B, and C to manage security and administration during a transitional phase. Where you have agreed-upon administrative zones and international borders, you have checkpoints.
Before the Schengen Agreement dismantled border posts within the European Union, anyone traveling between European nations had to present their passport, wait in lines, and occasionally face a full vehicle search. It was a normal, daily reality of state sovereignty.
Sheldon currently resides in India. I highly doubt he has ever attempted to cross the land borders into Pakistan or Bangladesh with the expectation of a casual, barrier-free stroll. Yet, because the state in question is Israel, he seriously expects a nation surrounded by hostile actors to throw open its gates, abandon its treaty-defined security posts, and welcome potential terrorists with open arms.
When exceptional abuses or tragedies do occur at these flashpoints, Sheldon acts as if they are state-mandated policy. He completely ignores that Israel is an open society; you can read about these controversies, investigations, and subsequent public outcries in any daily Israeli newspaper, debated fiercely by a population that actively protests for civil liberties.
3. Tales from the „Paulanergarten“
But the highlight of his reportage comes when he introduces his ultimate crown witness—a classic trope of Western NGO tourism:
“I meet a development worker in Ramallah who has to pass through a checkpoint every day to get to her work in Jerusalem. Although her car has diplomatic stickers, she is always stopped and asked for her ID because her car has white Palestinian number plates. She has to watch as Israeli cars (with yellow number plates) race past her.”
And here they are: the classic German “Geschichten aus dem Paulanergarten”—the tall tales told over a pint of beer where the narrative matters far more than the facts.
Let’s unpack this „diplomatic“ drama. If this development worker were driving a legitimate, registered diplomatic vehicle, it would possess official diplomatic plates recognized by international protocol—plates that ensure specific transit privileges. If she is driving a vehicle with white Palestinian plates, she is driving a standard, locally registered civilian vehicle. Adding a few custom „NGO stickers“ to your bumper does not grant you sovereign immunity at a high-security military checkpoint.
The yellow plates she watches „race past“ belong to vehicles registered in Israel—driven by Israeli citizens (both Jewish and Arab) who have already passed through the state’s domestic security screening and are operating within their own domestic traffic grid. This isn’t racial segregation; it’s basic, standard traffic management based on vehicle registration and security clearance. To frame an identity check on a non-registered vehicle at an international zone boundary as a human rights violation is the height of Western expat entitlement.
4. The Myth of Total Blockade vs. The Reality of the IDF Data
Sheldon continues to pack his travel diary with increasingly dramatic horror stories, designed to satisfy the worst confirmation biases of his Western readership:
“The checkpoints don’t just delay people. Those in the centre of Hebron stop ambulances and animals too. As a result, locals often miss out on vital medical care, and they can no longer use their donkeys to get their goods to market… Some Palestinians have been stripped naked at checkpoints; others have suffered miscarriages.”
Sheldon and his readers desperately want these stories to be true. To them, any hearsay serves as absolute proof of an „unjust state.“ But let’s introduce some actual investigative journalism and clear up the facts regarding the checkpoint system.
According to data from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the narrative of a completely paralyzed West Bank is a myth. For years, Palestinian civilians have been able to travel all the way from Jenin in the north to Bethlehem in the south without encountering a single permanent military checkpoint.
The numbers tell a story of drastic reduction, rather than escalating oppression:
In July 2008, the number of permanent checkpoints stood at 40.
By May 2013 and leading into February 2014, the IDF had systematically dismantled these posts, reducing the number of permanent checkpoints down to just 13.
The remaining checkpoints are not even continuously manned; their operation depends entirely on the immediate, fluid security threat. While international observers correctly note that temporary physical barriers, road gates, and earth mounds still exist to manage security around the main barrier, the reduction of fixed checkpoints was a massive, documented goodwill gesture aimed at improving Palestinian daily life while balancing the strategic objective of preventing terrorism.
5. Weaponizing Ambulances: Why Security is Rigid
Sheldon weeps over the fact that ambulances are stopped and inspected in Hebron. He presents this as arbitrary cruelty, entirely omitting why these rigid measures became a military necessity.
The Red Cross and Red Crescent protocols demand that medical transport remain neutral. Yet, Palestinian terror organizations repeatedly shattered this neutrality by using ambulances as logistical vehicles for mass murder:
In March 2002, Israeli forces discovered a massive explosive device hidden inside an official Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) ambulance. The Red Crescent itself was forced to express shock and launch an internal investigation into how its life-saving vehicles were being weaponized.
In January 2004, near the village of Jit, a routine check on an empty PRCS ambulance led to security detentions. On the exact same day, another ambulance transporting a diabetic patient to Tulkarm had to be stopped; it was permitted to proceed to the hospital only after security forces identified and arrested a terror suspect hiding as the patient’s „companion.“
When a society uses pregnant women and medical vehicles to smuggle suicide vests and operatives, the neighboring state has a catastrophic security problem. Inspecting an ambulance isn’t „apartheid“—it is basic counter-terrorism.
6. Rule of Law vs. Unverified Propaganda
Finally, Sheldon plays his ultimate emotional card: the tragic claim of miscarriages and abuse at checkpoints. He treats these claims as systemic, state-sanctioned policy.
Let us look at how a real country with the rule of law actually handles misconduct, compared to the unverified numbers of a highly politicized ministry:
When individual Israeli soldiers violate standard operating procedures or cross ethical lines, they face court-martials and imprisonment. For example, in 2008, an Israeli soldier commanding a checkpoint outside Nablus refused passage to a Palestinian woman in active labor. The woman was forced to give birth at the checkpoint, and tragically, the infant was stillborn. The response of the Israeli state? The soldier was immediately stripped of his command, discharged from the military, and sentenced to two weeks in military prison.
Now let’s compare this accountability to the claims Sheldon blindly parrots. The Palestinian Ministry of Health claimed that between 2000 and 2006, at least 68 women gave birth at checkpoints, alleging 35 miscarriages. These figures remain entirely unconfirmed, published by an authority with a massive vested interest in psychological warfare.
Yet, even if we look at the tragedies that did occur, the ultimate moral culpability lies with the terrorists who turned civilian transit points into combat zones. If you wage a war of suicide bombings, you create a reality where a soldier must check every vehicle—and the resulting delays are the tragic, direct consequence of that terror strategy, not the malicious intent of the state defending itself.
7. The Entitled „International Tourist“ and Pre-Schengen Realities
As Sheldon’s diary draws to a close, his deeply ingrained Western privilege and sheer arrogance erupt to the surface:
“As an international tourist, I am not subjected to the harassment that most Palestinians face at checkpoints. I am only hindered three times: A soldier boards my bus and demands my ID as I am on my way back to East Jerusalem. On the way to Hebron, I am questioned and searched.”
What is most insufferable about characters like Sheldon is the breathtaking condescension with which they travel the globe—a modern reincarnation of the colonial Herrenmenschenmentalität (master-race mentality). He feels compelled to explicitly emphasize his status as an „international tourist,“ as if his Western passport should automatically exempt him from the basic administrative realities of a conflict zone.
Had he bothered to do even a shred of preliminary research, he would have known that everyone crossing from the West Bank back into Israeli sovereign territory is subject to identity verification and security screening. A border guard is not going to look at him and say, „Ah, everything is clear, Habibi, I see you are an Englishman—no need to check you, have a wonderful journey.“ To frame standard border control on a public transit route as being „hindered“ reveals the staggering entitlement of a vacationer who expects the rest of the world to function as his personal, barrier-free amusement park.
Sheldon’s interpretation of One Thousand and One Nights upon seeing a female soldier
8. The Erotic Phantasms of a Wannabe Adventurer
But the true comedic climax of his entire travelogue occurs when he returns to Israel via the Jordanian border at Eilat, leading to a scene that reads like the fever dream of a frustrated, self-absorbed novelist:
“After a week in Jordan, I return to Israel via the border at Eilat. I face a pretty young soldier. She is petite, with freckles on her chubby cheeks. Her hair gleams and her eyes sparkle. ‘You’ve been to Israel before,’ she says. ‘Where were you?’… I feel I have no choice but to tell the truth. ‘The West Bank and Jerusalem,’ I say. There is a pause. And then the interrogation begins: ‘Which cities did you visit? Why did you go there? What did you do? Who did you stay with? Why aren’t you here with your parents? Why on earth do you want to spend time with the Arabs?’ The soldier’s tone is not aggressive. She clearly leads the conversation, but there is a hint of curiosity in her voice. If we were in a bar, I’d say she was flirting.”
Welcome to the ultimate wet dream of a blocked adventurer. In the 19th century, European orientalists traveled to exotic lands dreaming of being seduced by dark-eyed beauties in a harem. In 2015, Joss Sheldon undergoes a standard, highly synchronized security screening at an international border and genuinely convinces himself that the uniform-clad intelligence officer is hitting on him.
The absolute absurdity of this self-delusion is staggering. It never even crosses his narrow mind that these highly specific questions—investigating his itinerary, his contacts, and his motivations—are asked with mathematical precision for a singular purpose: state security. The border official is evaluating his body language, checking his consistency, and assessing whether an unpredictable Western ideological tourist poses a security risk or has been compromised.
Yet, Sheldon’s inflated ego instantly transforms a routine counter-terrorism screening into a romantic bar-room encounter.
9. The Selective Silence of the Authoritarian Tour
What makes this sequence even more telling is Sheldon’s selective memory. He mentions he just spent an entire week in Jordan. Did he cross the kingdom without a single checkpoint? Was he not subjected to the notoriously rigorous questioning of Jordan’s General Intelligence Directorate (GID)?
We can only speculate. Perhaps he got lucky, or perhaps the Jordanian border officials instantly identified him as an eccentric Western simpleton and waved him through as a harmless curiosity. Or perhaps he was subjected to a grueling, highly invasive interrogation by Arab authorities—but chose not to dedicate a single syllable to it in his blog. After all, a thoroughly intense interrogation by Jordanian or Egyptian security forces doesn’t fit the rigid ideological script of his anti-Zionist crusade. If you cannot blame a Jew for the scrutiny, the experience loses all literary and financial market value for Sheldon.
To Be Continued…
Sheldon stands at a legal border post created by the Oslo Accords and diagnoses a human tragedy because an NGO worker had to show her ID, a soldier checked his bus, and a female border guard refused to drop into his lap. The absurdity of his journey deepens as he lays bare his true intentions.
Because as we will see in Part 2, this isn’t about the welfare of the Palestinian people at all. If it were, his „investigative“ passion wouldn’t stop exactly where the Israeli border ends…
“If you go on a journey, you’ll have something to talk about,” my parents always used to say. And they were right. Though I doubt they anticipated the likes of Joss Sheldon—a self-proclaimed universal genius who, according to his alternative internet bios, „identifies as Jewish.“ Well, I identify as a unicorn without actually being one. In the real world, you either are Jewish or you are not.
But in certain Western salon-anarchist circles, wrapping yourself in a proxy Jewish identity has become quite trendy. Why? Because it serves as the ultimate professional alibi to profit from anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred while claiming moral immunity. Anti-Zionism sells, and Sheldon apparently discovered this lucrative niche around 2015, if not before.
For his book Occupied, he embedded himself „undercover“ in Israel. And once you find yourself in the „eye of the dragon,“ why not milk the experience? If you beg long enough online, portraying Israel as the root of all evil keeps the crowdfunding going—especially when your books aren’t exactly fueling a Hemingway-level legacy.
After reading his travelogue sermon, I picked out a few key passages that completely expose his bias. He is not an objective observer; he is a man with a rigid agenda: to paint Israel in the worst possible light, by any means necessary.
1. The Chomsky Fig Leaf
“The world-renowned scholar and American Jew Noam Chomsky was interviewed by Democracy Now back in 2014 about Israeli ‘apartheid’. He replied as follows:”
Chomsky’s trivialisation of the Killing Fields in Cambodia
What strikes me time and again about these characters is their obsession with weaponizing identity. If Chomsky had been raised in the Voodoo tradition, Sheldon wouldn’t feel the need to mention it. But Chomsky’s heritage is vital here; it serves as Sheldon’s structural shield. It doesn’t matter that Chomsky has spouted enough geopolitical garbage over the decades to fill a library—including his unhinged, mathematically impossible claim that Israel has killed 2 to 3 million Palestinians since 2023. For Sheldon, he is the convenient crown witness.
2. Paranoia at Ben Gurion Airport
“If apartheid isn’t immediately obvious the moment you step into Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, it is certainly the soldiers who uphold it… They question me as I pass through customs. And I am even surrounded by them whilst waiting to board a bus to Jerusalem.”
Good grief, Joss. If the dog hadn’t stopped to defecate, he’d have caught the rabbit. He seriously claims to diagnose „apartheid“ because armed soldiers are patrolling an airport. What did he expect—the Salvation Army handing out cookies?
The man writes as if he hasn’t set foot in an international hub since 9/11. Walk through Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Brussels, or Heathrow, and you will encounter heavily armed police units dressed in tactical gear carrying Heckler & Koch MP5s. Israel protects its airport—a historical target for international terrorism—just like any other wehrhafte Demokratie. And yes, they questioned you. Anyone standing in a high-security zone looking visibly paranoid, sweating, and actively searching for a fictional „Jews Only“ sign is going to invite a security interview.
3. The Romanticized „Zoo“ and Demographic Blindness
“A soldier sits on a bench, holding his rifle in his lap and stroking it like a mother strokes her baby… An elderly Arab couple keeps their distance… Passengers who look Jewish… walk past us… I feel like I’m making a fool of myself standing here like a statue…”
Here, Sheldon’s diary devolves into a sort of bizarre, voyeuristic prose. He watches a soldier touch a weapon and constructs a psychological drama. He sees an elderly couple keeping their distance—a universal human reaction to armed security at a terminal—and diagnoses systemic oppression.
More tellingly, he claims to instantly differentiate „Jewish-looking“ from „Arab-looking“ passengers. I always wonder how these Western hipsters possess this magical ethno-racial radar. The Nazis literally had to use calipers and phänotypic charts to satisfy their delusions, yet Sheldon does it at a glance while standing „like a statue“ at a bus station.
He completely ignores the demographic reality: Mizrahi Jews—those descended from families ethnically cleansed from Arab and Islamic lands like Yemen, Iraq, and Morocco—make up between 48% and 65% of Israel’s Jewish population. They share the exact same Middle Eastern phänotype. Sheldon is looking at a diverse society through a binary Western lens of „white colonizers,“ completely blind to the fact that he cannot visually tell who is who.
4. The Apartheid Bus Ride
“I board a bus that is fine by most standards, but nowhere near as nice as the intercity coach I travelled on earlier, and set off for the West Bank.”
Ah, yes. Just like South Africa! The regional commuter bus isn’t as luxurious as the long-distance express coach, so it must be racism.
Sheldon treats infrastructure differences as human rights violations. He completely omits the Oslo Accords. The regional transport, infrastructure, and local administration within Areas A and B are the direct responsibility of the Palästinensische Autonomiebehörde (PA) and private Arab transport companies. If the bus is older, it is a reflection of local management, not a Zionist conspiracy. In South Africa, the segregation was codified by law; in Israeli buses, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Drusen sit side-by-side every single day.
The notion held by people such as Joss Sheldon that Israel is a Zionist apartheid and occupying regime
5. The Magic of the Security Barrier
“As I look out of the bus window, the Apartheid Wall comes into view… My heart sinks, but the bus carries on.”
Finally, the grand finale. The cinematic backdrop arrives, and Sheldon gets to play Indiana Jones. The „Wall“—which is actually over 90% a technological wire security fence and only a concrete structure in specific high-risk urban areas—didn’t drop from the sky out of pure malice.
Sheldon conveniently suffers from historical amnesia regarding the Second Intifada. Let us remind him of the empiric reality behind that barrier: During the 1,558 days of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Israelis faced 20,406 terrorist attacks, including 138 suicide bombings and over 13,000 shooting incidents. 1,036 Israelis were murdered, 715 of them innocent civilians blown to pieces in buses, cafes, and shopping malls. The barrier was built to protect human lives, and it cut suicide bombings by over 90%. Furthermore, Israel’s Supreme Court has repeatedly ordered the military to reroute sections of the fence to accommodate Palestinian humanitarian appeals. Would a true „apartheid state“ allow its supreme judiciary to check its own military to protect the agricultural land of non-citizens?
Sheldon should visit Rafah between Egypt and Gaza, or look at the heavily funded EU border barriers in Ceuta and Melilla keeping African migrants out. But those don’t trigger an eleven-part blog series, because no Israelis are involved.
6. The Deep Racism of Post-Colonial Kitsch
“An olive grove nestles against the Wall, full of rampant cacti… A pile of rubbish is burning… Children are chasing chickens… This wall paralyses the economy… All the Palestinians can do is paint.”
This is where the kitsch turns into something much more sinister. Sheldon’s imagery borders on the classic colonial trope of the „noble savage“—archaic, child-like figures chasing chickens in the smoke, whose only agency is painting cute slogans like „Make hummus instead of walls“ on concrete. It reads like Ephraim Kishon’s caricature in Salach Shabati: „Always laughing, always singing, must be mad.“ Or Martha Gellhorn’s 1960s refugee camp dispatches, noting how baufällige huts were described by local leaders as golden marble palaces to Western visitors.
The deep irony is that Sheldon’s post-colonial worldview is inherently racist. By reducing the Palestinians to helpless victims who „can only paint,“ he denies them all political maturity and agency. He completely glosses over the billions in foreign aid poured into the West Bank over decades—far exceeding the Marshall Plan per capita. He ignores the universities, the corporations, and the modern metropolis of Ramallah developed with Western funds. He refuses to hold the PA accountable for its legendary corruption, nepotism, and its „Pay for Slay“ terror-funding system.
In Sheldon’s dogmatic universe, a society can never be broken because its leaders are kleptocrats, religious fanatics, or state-certified autocrats; it can only be broken because the West or the Zionists exist.
To Be Continued…
How utterly fraudulent his entire investigative journey truly is becomes clear when we look at what—and who—he purposefully left out. Because, as we will explore in Part 2, Sheldon doesn’t actually care about the Palestinian people at all. If he did, his research would have taken him to Lebanon or Syria to document the actual, legally codified apartheid and violence Palestinians face under Arab regimes. But those tragedies hold zero market value for him.
After all, a Palestinian life is only worth documenting if a Zionist can be blamed for it.
Boycotts against Israel are nothing new; they are probably as old as Jewish history itself. It is reasonable to assume that, when the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria rebelled against the Roman occupation, laws were enacted in Rome to boycott goods from that region. Perhaps Romans stood outside the market stalls with hand-painted signs bearing the words “Noli ab Iudaeo emere” to deter citizens from buying dates from the Middle East or wine from Mount Carmel. A special tax was levied, and when all that came to nothing, the Temple was summarily destroyed and most of the inhabitants expelled.
Flavius Josephus wrote nothing about the boycott in his Bellum Iudaicum, but who knows, perhaps it fell victim to the editorial process.
In any case, the boycott of Israel has been back in vogue in political circles for more than a decade now. Whether it concerns goods, culture or science – no stone is left unturned in the quest to bring this small Jewish country – surrounded by states that have been trying in vain since Israel’s founding to destroy the country and drive out its inhabitants – to its economic knees. When BDS was founded, hordes of ‘critics of Israel’, armed with stickers and magnifying glasses, poured out to track down every single item, however small, bearing the words ‘Made in Israel’ in supermarkets and warehouses. As soon as they descended into hysteria, they plastered the products with boycott stickers and gathered outside the shops to to revive the spirit of 1933: “Germans, defend yourselves! Don’t buy from Jews!” – Deutsche wehrt Euch!! Kauft nicht bei Juden!!“
State-sanctioned idiots like Roger Waters exploited their borderline mental inadequacy to consistently and relentlessly demonise Israel and also to harass their fellow artists. Waters even popped out of Bob Dylan’s bedside drawer like a jack-in-the-box and screamed: “YOU MUST NOT PERFORM IN ISRAEL, YOU ZIONIST!!!” For days on end, they scoured the internet and snooped on companies and their founders right down to their underwear to prove any links to the Levant. The founder of Marks & Spencer was Jewish, they sell goods from Israel, so they send their troops out on the hunt.
I can still clearly remember trying to engage these people in conversation outside M&S in Cork in 2010, and realising they believe they are on a divine mission; they tried to ignore me when I asked if they couldn’t care less about Palestinian workers, but I got no answer because they didn’t have one.
And despite numerous instructional videos from Israel on how to boycott the country properly, these people are still swarming the internet in droves, spreading their mantra like a broken record. How I wished that these brave fighters for imaginary human rights would make good on their threats and finally hand in their computers, laptops, smartphones and other tech for recycling.
That would bring incredible peace and tranquillity; to be able to gather, they would have to send messengers to the remotest corners of a country. As they shun modern cars – a technology developed in Israel – they would have to travel on foot or by bicycle from the remotest corners of a country to its capital cities.
Our left-wingers in Ireland, who concern themselves exclusively with Palestine as if it were a new county, whilst thousands of Irish people live on the streets and Sinn Féin, Ireland’s richest party with the largest property portfolio, refuses to open its properties to the homeless, are trying to force the government to cancel a football match between Ireland and Israel, whilst viewing a friendly match between our team and Qatar as a sign of friendship between nations.
That human rights are being trampled underfoot in Qatar is a fact; the main thing is that you can sit in the stadium and protest loudly against Israel. On top of that, people get terribly upset when our Taoiseach asks the opposition in the Dáil whether, should the Irish government decide on a boycott, they would send people like Mary Lou McDonald – SF – Richard Boyd Barrett – PbP – and the other crackpots, and explain to the laid-off workers why their unemployment is now necessary and that they intend to look after the people in future; after all, Ireland is dependent on Israel. It is not just Intel with its massive manufacturing hub here; TEVA, with two sites, is one of the country’s largest employers.
I would therefore very much welcome it if the EU countries and and their aggressively ignorant citizens, who want to boycott Israel, would finally and once and for all consistently enforce this and do away with all their technology for good. At the very latest when the infrastructure has collapsed, they will realise that their idiotic boycott is a classic own goal.
I happened to come across the ‘author’ Joss Sheldon, who, according to his own description, „is ‘a nomad, an unmoored free thinker and a postmodern radical. Born in 1982, he grew up in one of the anonymous suburbs that wrap themselves around the beating heart of London. Then he escaped! With a degree from the London School of Economics, Sheldon sold falafel at music festivals, worked as a ski bum and failed to turn the English Midlands into an oasis of rugby league. Then, in 2013, he set off for McLeod Ganj, an Indian village home to thousands of angry monkeys, hundreds of Tibetan refugees and the Dalai Lama himself. There, Sheldon wrote his debut novel, *Involution & Evolution*. With several positive reviews under his belt, Sheldon was gripped by a writing frenzy. He travelled to Palestine and Kurdistan, where he researched his second novel, “Occupied”, a dystopian masterpiece unlike anything you’ve ever read before. But it was with his third novel, “The Little Voice”, that Sheldon really hit the jackpot; it topped the charts on both sides of the Atlantic and garnered widespread critical acclaim. In 2017, he returned with “Money Power Love”, a love story that explores the rise of the British Empire and how bankers, with their power to create money out of thin air, shaped the world we live in today. Now Sheldon is back with what is arguably his best novel to date, “INDIVIDUTOPIA”. Fans of the novel 1984 will love this dystopian classic, set in a world where corporations have destroyed society and nobody speaks to one another. This is a human story, full of hope, and an adventure in which our heroine does everything she can to escape…“
The self proclaimed Genius himself – source Wikipedia
Now, his books turn out to be anything but a success story, if you look at the reviews and disregard the 5-star ratings; that is the crux of the matter with self-proclaimed authors whose manuscripts no publisher would touch with a barge pole, yet who themselves believe their literary work is comparable to George Orwell’s and think self-publishing will do the trick.
His literary output churns out anything that can somehow make money. Practically a bungler with boundless delusions of grandeur. He has overreached himself, in my view at least, with his book “The Zionists Who Hate the Jews.” To this end, he claims to be Jewish himself, garnishing it with a few Jewish shmontses—he claims to have attended a cheder, for instance.
Millions of anti-Semitic books have now been published across the globe; some are sloppily researched, but they do have one thing in common: they try to be objective, even though you can tell from the imprint alone that an anti-Semite was at work here. Sheldon takes a different approach. He adopts a Jewish identity, claims to have attended a cheder, and demonstrates in his lexicon that it was a complete waste of time.
Anyone who can’t even define correctly what ‘Goy’ means – namely ‘people’, and that ‘Goy Kadosh’ is the term for the people of Israel – could easily have learnt that from the Torah, which is also read in the cheder; they may have seen a few lads outside the cheder, but weren’t actually there. But never mind, if it’s usually ‘sex sells’, then since 7 October ‘anti-Zionism’ sells in large Amounts. There’s something for everyone who blames Israel for all the evil in the world, and since Joss Sheldon admits on Twitter that he would love to see Israel destroyed and wiped off the map, people are already helping out rhetorically by concocting the greatest conspiracy theory since the invention of the tea bag: namely, the alleged anti-Semitism of Zionism.
How to make Money after October the 7th? Blame the Jews or the Zionists nobody asks about facts. Remember blaming the Jews sells.
Manipulative quote mining instead of historical analysis
So let’s start with the glossary:
Anyone who has received a sound Jewish education, or who has even begun to engage seriously with the subject, will immediately see that this glossary does not serve to enlighten, but is an ideological propaganda template that relies on half-truths and deliberate misdefinitions.
If one looks at how he defines terms here, his own claims come back to haunt him:
His definition: “Goy (singular) / Goyim (plural): Anyone who isn’t Jewish. (Offensive).”
Why this exposes his cheder lie: As we have already established using the real New London Synagogue Cheder, children there learn the basics of the Torah. Anyone who opens the Torah in its original form learns first and foremost that God himself refers to the Jewish people as Goy Kadosh (holy people). A Jewish child is taught there that the Hebrew word simply means ‘people’.
By mechanically classifying the word as “(offensive)” and translating it bluntly as “non-Jew”, Sheldon adopts, word for word, the anti-Semitic interpretation of the term from the darkest corners of the internet. In doing so, he proves that he never learnt the word from Jewish tradition, but rather from the perspective of an outsider seeking to stoke resentment.
2. The invention of “Arab Jews”
His definition: “Arab Jews: Jewish people of North African and Middle Eastern descent.”
The historical and cultural reality: The term “Arab Jews” is a modern, primarily anti-Israeli and postcolonial neologism that has been – and continues to be – vehemently rejected almost without exception by those it refers to: the Mizrahim (Oriental Jews) or Sephardic Jews.
Jews from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco or Egypt have, despite the surrounding Arabic language, never regarded themselves as Arabs, but rather as a distinct, indigenous ethnic-religious community in the Middle East that lived for centuries under dhimmi status (second-class citizens under Islamic rule). Sheldon deliberately uses this term to atomise Jewish identity and force it into modern ethnic categories that are completely at odds with the reality of the Middle East.
3. The manipulative framing: “Jewish Nakba” and the JNF
“Jewish Nakba”: Here he attempts to linguistically link the expulsion of around 850,000 Jews from the Arab states after 1948 to the Arabic term Nakba (catastrophe). The insidious calculation behind this: he undoubtedly intends to argue later in the book that Zionism is to blame for this fate, because it ‘provoked’ the Arab states. Here, too, the responsibility of the Arab regimes that carried out the pogroms (such as the Farhud he mentions) and expropriations is relativised.
“JNF (…) acquired Palestinian land”: The definition of the JNF (Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael) is typical clickbait activism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the JNF legally purchased marshland and desert land—often at grossly inflated prices—from mostly Ottoman landowners (effendis) in order to reclaim it. Sheldon uses the modern, politically charged term “Palestinian land” to suggest a scenario of colonial injustice, where in fact there was a legal, private-law property market in the Ottoman Empire at the time.
His introduction is the cherry on top:
1. The ‘us versus them’ framing and the victim role
Right from the very first sentence, Sheldon draws on the classic vocabulary of conspiracy myths: “We’ve been gaslit for far too long.” (We have been manipulated/deceived for far too long).
He portrays himself and a supposed, silent or censored Jewish minority as the ultimate victims of a colossal, global deception (“ignored, censored, slurred, discredited and forgotten”).
This ploy serves to immediately give the reader the feeling that they are gaining access to forbidden, suppressed secret knowledge. This is the same psychological template found in almost every classic conspiracy narrative – from flat-earth theories right through to the Protocols.
2. The use of trite cultural clichés
Particularly indicative of his artificially constructed identity is the phrase: “So butter yourself a bagel, make yourself comfortable…”.
This is exactly the sort of “Jewish shmontses”, it comes across as a cheap, cinematic caricature of Jewish culture, which he sprinkles in here to give the whole thing a superficial, almost cosy veneer of authenticity before unloading the hate-filled content. Someone who has deeply internalised a culture does not use such clichés as an invitation to a pamphlet on the annihilation of human lives.
3. The total accumulation of monstrosities
Sheldon is already firing off the heaviest verbal projectiles here in the foreword, without having provided even a shred of evidence:
Zionists have “made a pact with the greatest Jew-haters on the planet”.
They have “prayed for a divine Armageddon that would claim millions of Jewish lives”.
They are said to have “provoked the ethnic cleansing of several Jewish communities”.
They are said to have “used Jews as human shields”.
By simply throwing these wildly escalated claims out there, he attempts to establish the moral judgement in the reader’s mind before they even begin reading the chapters. This is not about historical deduction, but about emotional prejudgement.
4. The shameless announcement: “A journey of shame”
When he writes that the reader should prepare for a “journey of shame”, he openly admits what the book’s actual aim is: it is not about historical insight, about understanding the hardships, powerlessness or geopolitical constraints of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is about the deliberate belittling, humiliation and delegitimisation of a national movement and the State of Israel.
CHAPTER TWO
Having discovered what these Zionists believed, we’ll take a look at what they did: We’ll see how Herzl traipsed around Europe, courting leaders such as Kaiser Wilhelm (who believed Jews “want stamping out”), and Vyacheslav von Plehve (who was responsible for the pogroms in Imperial Russia). We’ll see how his protégés went cap in hand to Lord Balfour (who agreed with several “anti-Semitic postulates”), and Winston Churchill (who described Jews as “extraordinary personalities from the underworld”). Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, put a positive spin on the Nazis’ persecution of Jews – saying: “The harsher the affliction, the greater the strength of Zionism”. And Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, dismissed the Nazis’ victims – saying those who will be “destroyed will be destroyed”. Zionists in the Yishuv traded with Nazi Germany, breaking the international boycott of that malevolent regime. Zionists in the West campaigned against missions which could’ve saved Jews from obliteration. Others censored information about the Shoah, which could’ve been used to save hundreds-of-thousands of Jewish lives […]“ The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS
This is essentially a summary of the entire conspiracy theory agenda that Sheldon intends to spell out in the following chapters. In this transition from Chapter One to Chapter Two, he once again distils his method of total historical decontextualisation and exaggerated polemic into a malicious ‘indictment’.When one considers how he reinterprets the diplomatic efforts of the Zionist leadership in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the fundamental historical distortion is glaringly obvious:
1. The absurd argument of “courting” anti-Semites
Sheldon accuses Herzl of having travelled through Europe to negotiate with anti-Semites such as Kaiser Wilhelm II or the Russian Minister of the Interior, Vyacheslav von Plehve.
The historical reality: This was not a display of sympathy, but the painful, realpolitik diplomacy of absolute powerlessness. When one represents a stateless people persecuted worldwide and is desperately seeking ways to escape persecution and pogroms, one must negotiate with those who held power in Europe at the time.
Herzl met Plehve immediately after the terrible pogrom in Kishinev (1903). His intention was not to ‘curry favour’ with this man, but to pragmatically persuade him to facilitate Jewish emigration from the repressive Tsarist Empire, both legally and logistically. Sheldon twists this desperate diplomatic emergency measure into moral complicity.
2. The continued distortion of Ben-Gurion and Weizmann
Here, Sheldon repeats his extremely distorted claims about Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann once again, in order to anchor them deep in the reader’s memory:
The Weizmann quote (“destroyed will be destroyed”) is presented here in such an abbreviated form as to suggest he had dismissed the victims of the Nazis with a shrug. In fact, Weizmann’s contemporary remarks during the Second World War reflect sheer, traumatic horror at the systematic extermination, against which the Yishuv had virtually no military recourse due to its geopolitical isolation and restrictive British policies.
3. The Silencing of Jewish Self-Assertion
By claiming that the Zionists demanded “disobedience to Jewish scripture”, Sheldon plays into the age-old, internal Jewish (and often externally exploited) theological dispute between traditionalists and secular national movements. Zionism was an emancipatory, primarily secular movement that sought to transform the fate of the Jews from passive expectation of the Messiah into their own active political agency. Sheldon reinterprets this act of modern self-assertion as a malicious sin.
Since the rest of this pamphlet isn’t any better, I’d still like to highlight a few points that back up my argument: ignorance meets delusions of grandeur in the most negative sense. On Twitter, he labels anyone who contradicts his crude logic with facts as an anti-Semite. Sheldon has no idea about the texts; he has never read them. As I have Herzl’s edition here and have read it, I know that if one looks into Zionism, one sees what Zionism was: a movement to save the Jews. Anyone who has read and understood Herzl’s The Jewish State knows what the situation of European Jews was like between 1800 and 1900. The pogroms against Jews in Eastern Europe, the trial of Alfred Dreyfus, which Herzl had reported on and from which he concluded that no matter how hard the Jews tried to be accepted, marrying non-Jewish women and converting to Christianity in droves, they would never be accepted as equals. A lesson that thousands of half-Jews had to learn the hard way under the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935. Sheldon brushes this aside in his diabolical intent to portray Zionism as the ultimate evil, through his cherry-picking and deliberate falsification of quotations and lies. People who hate Jews will eagerly snap up the book, as it caters to all the motives of religiously motivated and ‘openly eliminatory anti-Semitism’ involving pogroms and the extermination of Jews.
„THE ZIONISTS WHO FACILITATED THE SHOAH
The Zionists who censored news of the Holocaust were complicit in the murders of millions of Jews. Their actions were so nefarious, they deserve a section of their own.
But they weren’t the only Zionists who were implicated in the Shoah.
Chajka Klinger was a member of the Jewish Fighting Organization, a group that resisted the Nazis in Poland. She was scathing of the entire Zionist leadership, calling them “tools of suppression”:
“Jewish communities were headed by members of the Zionist movement… (They) began assisting the Nazis to collect gold and furniture from Jewish homes… (After that), they had no choice but to go on to help them prepare lists of Jews for (the) labour camps… One bright day, we will need to try these people. It must be said clearly and publicly that many Zionists betrayed (us)”. (Porat, 2019).
So, who were these people who’d been “assisting the Nazis” – pillaging Jewish homes, and rounding up their Jewish peers?
Collectively, they were known as the Judenräte – the “Jewish Councils”.
They weren’t exclusively Zionist, and most Zionists had no connection with them whatsoever. But a few of their leaders were “members of “
The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS
Their actions were so nefarious, they deserve a section of their own.
But they weren’t the only Zionists who were implicated in the Shoah.
Chajka Klinger was a member of the Jewish Fighting Organization, a group that resisted the Nazis in Poland. She was scathing of the entire Zionist leadership, calling them “tools of suppression”:
“Jewish communities were headed by members of the Zionist movement… (They) began assisting the Nazis to collect gold and furniture from Jewish homes… (After that), they had no choice but to go on to help them prepare lists of Jews for (the) labour camps… One bright day, we will need to try these people. It must be said clearly and publicly that many Zionists betrayed (us)”. (Porat, 2019).
So, who were these people who’d been “assisting the Nazis” – pillaging Jewish homes, and rounding up their Jewish peers?
Collectively, they were known as the Judenräte – the “Jewish Councils”.
They weren’t exclusively Zionist, and most Zionists had no connection with them whatsoever. But a few of their leaders were “members of the Zionist movement”, as Klinger explained. And these deserve a mention…
Let’s begin with the Sosnowiec Judenrat, which was led by Moses Merin – a […]“
The ZIONISTS who HATE JEWS
Here, Sheldon crosses the line from mere sloppy sourcing into active, malicious Shoah trivialisation and the reversal of perpetrator and victim.
The phenomenon of the Jewish Councils and the traumatic debates within the Jewish ghetto resistance movements are among the most painful and complex chapters in the entire history of humanity. Sheldon takes this incomprehensible tragedy, strips it of any context of absolute terror, total powerlessness and psychological torture at the hands of the SS, and exploits it for the cheapest anti-Israeli propaganda.
If one deconstructs this passage, one sees the sheer malice of his method:
1. The deliberate misinterpretation of Chaika Klinger’s despair
Sheldon quotes Chaika Klinger, a real, courageous resistance fighter in the HaShomer HaTzair (a left-wing Zionist youth movement!) and a member of the Jewish Combat Organisation (ZOB) in Będzin and Sosnowiec. He uses her diaries (Porat, 2019 – referring to the biography by Dina Porat)to construct a Zionist complicity in the Shoah.
The historical reality: The conflict in the ghettos (particularly in Sosnowiec/Będzin under the brutal rule of Moniek (Moses) Merin) was a conflict of generations and strategies, not an ideological conflict between Zionism and non-Zionism. From 1942/43 onwards, the young resistance fighters (almost all of whom came from Zionistyouth organisations!) realised that the strategy of the older Jewish Councils (“salvation through work”, i.e. cooperation in the hope that the Germans would spare productive workers) had failed and was leading to extermination. They called for armed resistance.
Klinger condemned those officials who had been active in Zionist organisations before the war and now sat on the Jewish Council, because she regarded their policy of accommodation as a betrayal of the Jewish people and of the very ideals of Zionism.
Sheldon’s distortion: Sheldon turns this on its head. He fails to mention that Chaika Klinger herself was a fervent Zionist and that the armed resistance in the ghetto was largely carried out by Zionists (such as Mordechai Anielewicz in the Warsaw Ghetto). He presents it as though Zionism had been the cause of the Jewish Councils’ behaviour.
2. The decontextualisation of the “Jewish Councils”
The Jewish Councils were not voluntary associations or ‘alliances’. They were forcibly installed by the German occupying power under threat of immediate death.
The SS forced these councils to carry out the occupiers’ orders – from the distribution of food in the ghetto to the collection of levies and the horrific compilation of deportation lists. The Nazis’ strategy was one of perfidious cruelty: they sought to corrupt Jewish self-government, psychologically divide the victims, and delegate the administrative dirty work of extermination to the hostages themselves.
Figures such as Moses Merin in Sosnowiec or Chaim Rumkowski in Łódź operated in an absolutely hopeless extreme situation. Many of them mistakenly believed until the very end that by sacrificing parts of the population (e.g. the elderly and the sick), they could save the rest of the community until the Red Army arrived. They all failed and, almost without exception, were themselves gassed by the Nazis in Auschwitz in the end.
3. The moral crime of Sheldon’s narrative
When Sheldon writes: “The Zionists who censored news of the Holocaust were complicit in the murders of millions of Jews”, he is engaging in the dirtiest business of Holocaust denial and relativisation.
He shifts the historical blame and agency:
It is not the Nazis, who built the gas chambers, starved the ghettos and systematically exterminated the entire European Jewish population, who are the focus of his accusation here – but the Jewish victims themselves, who, in a state of total isolation, deception by German propaganda and sheer fear of death, attempted to negotiate the survival of individual lives.
To claim that a Jewish movement “facilitated” the Shoah is the absolute height of secondary anti-Semitism.
Conclusion: This is not the work of a historian, but of an apologist for the Third Reich. If Joseph Goebbels were still alive, he would be moved to tears by Joss Sheldon. “The Zionists Who Hate Jews” serves as a modern blueprint for “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, drawing seamlessly on the very same antisemitic clichés that have circulated in Europe for centuries and ultimately made the Holocaust possible.
As Theodor W. Adorno famously stated in a 1962 lecture: “Antisemitism is not an opinion, but an affect; it cannot therefore be combated with arguments, but only with authority or violence.” What Sheldon has produced is nothing more than a modern iteration of what Adorno and Max Horkheimer coined in “Dialectic of Enlightenment” as “The Rumour about the Jews” (Das Gerücht über die Juden). It is a closed system of projection, devoid of historical truth, designed for a single purpose: the moral and physical elimination of the Jewish collective.
Der Antisemitismus oder wie Adorno schrieb, „das Gerücht über die Juden“ ist ein Gerücht, dass sich seit über 2000 Jahren hartnäckig hält und stets mit der Zeit gegangen und mutiert ist. Waren es im Mittelalter noch Brunnenvergiftung und die Pest, so ist man heute bei Genozid, Apartheid und ethnischer Vertreibung angekommen. Israel wird zwar genannt, um den Antisemitismus, der dahinter steckt entweder als Antizionismus oder Israelkritik zu framen, aber die Botschaft dahinter ist sets die Gleiche. Der Jude als das ulitamitive Böse.
Jüdische Flüchtlinge nach einem Pogrom in Russland, nach ihrer Ankunft in Liverpool 1882
Stets hat der Antisemit seine jüdischen Kronzeugen bei der Hand die ihm ein moralisches Alibi verschaffen, damit der Antisemit sagen kann, „wie kann ich ein Antisemit sein, wenn selbst der Jude sagt wie schlimm Israel, der Zionismus, andere Juden sind.“ Man unterstellt Juden seien Kolonialisten, nur weil sie wieder in dem Gebiet leben, in dem sie seit tausenden von Jahren gelebt haben. Juden sollen nach Möglichkeit rechtlos und heimatlos sein, Juden die über die Jahrhunderte versucht haben sich zu assimilien, betrachtete man als Ungeziefer, als Zecken, die die Wirtsvölker aussaugen, um sich dann auf das nächste Wirtsvolk zu stürzen. Das Juden Jahrhunderte am selben Fleck lebten und nicht großartig wanderten, geschenkt. Die Literatur ist voll von den Juden, den Schacherjuden, die selbst der ärmsten Magd noch den letzten Taler aus der Geldbörse stahlen.
Und selbst wenn Juden normale Menschen sind wie jeder andere auch, so strickt der Antisemit eine Geschichte, die den Juden übermenschlich erscheinen läßt. Es gibt große und kleine Juden, es gibt dicke und dünne Juden, es gibt dumme und schlaue Juden, es gibt Mörder und Diebe unter den Juden, kriminelle und Arschlöcher. Stets sucht der Antisemit dahinter die Überlegenheit der Juden zu sehen, „seht Ihr, wie kriminell die Juden sind? Die waren schlimmer als die Mafia!“ Setzt man das in Relationen, dann sind jüdische Tatverdächtige ein Fliegenschiss in der Kriminalstatistik aber nicht für diejenigen, die glauben den Durchblick zu haben.
Man dachte mit dem Ende der NS-Herrschaft sei der Virus ausgemerzt, keine Nazis, keine Antisemiten. Der Virus allerdings war davon gänzlich unbeeindruckt. Nachdem die Mapai sich dazu entschlossen hatte statt einen sozialistischen Kurs einzuschlagen, auf Westkurs zu gehen, änderte Stalin seine Ansichten über die Juden und schrieb eine Anleitung, von der Heute noch reger Gebrauch gemacht wird, dem Antizionismus. Plötzlich war der Jude Zionist, punkt. Und alle Zionisten waren für Stalin „Wurzellose Kosmopoliten – безродный космополит besrodny kosmopolit“
Der Schauprozess um Rudolf Slánskÿ und die damit verbundene ethnische Säuberung der Juden in der ČSSR – Foto Brigdeman
Merkmale des Antizionismus in der Spätphase Stalins waren:
Verbindung von Antizionismus und Antisemitismus: Der antizionistische Kampf wurde genutzt, um jüdische Kultur, Institutionen und Individuen in der Sowjetunion zu verfolgen, ohne dies offen als Antisemitismus zu bezeichnen.
Kampagne gegen „wurzellose Kosmopoliten“: Ab 1948/49 wurden jüdische Intellektuelle, Schriftsteller und Künstler als „wurzellose Kosmopoliten“ (russisch: besrodny kosmopolit) denunziert, was als Chiffre für Juden diente, die angeblich dem Westen oder Israel loyaler gegenüberstanden als der Sowjetunion.
„Ärzteverschwörung“: Den Höhepunkt erreichte diese Politik mit der sogenannten Ärzteverschwörung, einer fiktiven Verschwörung jüdischer Ärzte, die angeblich sowjetische Führer ermorden wollten.
Zionismus als imperialistisches Werkzeug: Die Ideologie bezeichnete den Zionismus als Handlanger des US-amerikanischen Imperialismus.
Außenpolitische Wende: Während die UdSSR 1947/48 die Gründung Israels noch diplomatisch unterstützt hatte, betrachtete Stalin den Staat nach 1948 als „trojanisches Pferd“ der USA im Nahen Osten.
Jüdisches Gemeindehaus Berlin – Bild: BACW/ML
Dieser Antizionismus, die Mutation des Virus, hält sich bis Heute in den Köpfen derjenigen, die sich als Linke sehen. Wie tief der Hass ging, zeigte sich schon früh als die Tupamaros West-Berlin im 1969 im Jüdischen Gemeindehaus Berlin – an der Stelle wo die Synagoge in Berlin stand – einen Sprengsatz platziert, und so eingestellt hatten, dass er während einer Gedenkveranstaltung explodieren sollte. Verwickelt darin waren Yassir Arafat, ein Agent des Verfassungsschutzes und die Staatssicherheit der DDR. Grund war der Sechstagekrieg, aber die Motivation war eher der Hass auf Juden, was hatten die Juden, die nach dem Holocaust zurückkehrten, mit dem Krieg im Nahen Osten zu schaffen? Als eine Spezialeinheit der israelischen Streitkräfte 1976 in Entebbe die verbliebenen Geiseln befreite, da explodierte der sozialistische Block vor Wut. Der hatte aber nichts dagegen als zwei der Geiselnehmer, die Deutschen, Wilfried Böse und Brigitte Kuhlmann wie an der Auschwitz Rampe selektiert.
Der Fakt, dass eine der Geiseln, Dora Bloch, aus dem Krankenhaus entführt wurde, in das man sie vorher gebracht hatte, und von den Schergen Idi Amins ermordet wurde, war dem Block hingegen keine Meldung wert.
Die Juden als Völkermörder
Kurz nach dem 07. Oktober 2023 waren sie wieder da, die Vorwürfe Israel würde einen Völkermord begehen. Die 1200 Israelis und Ausländer, die sich in Israel aufhielten und Opfer der Massaker wurden, die wurden entweder geleugnet oder kleingeredet. Der Fakt, dass sich die Terroristen und begleitende Zivilisten dabei filmten und diese Filme in’s Netz stellten wird von den sogenannten „Palästina-Unterstützern“ eisern geleugnet. Selbst, dass unabhängige Quellen die Informationen bestätigt haben gilt nicht als Beweis. Man beruft sich dann stattdessen auf die Hannibal-Direktive und behauptet die IDF habe selbst die Massaker angerichtet. Eine der schlimmsten Galleonsfiguren ist dabei die UN-Berichterstatterin Francesca Albanese, sie und ihr Mann sind glühende Antisemiten und werden wahrscheinlich multiple Orgasmen erlitten haben, als die ersten Meldungen über den 7. Oktober eintrafen. Die Frau lügt, dass sich die Balken biegen und behauptet bis Heute, dass nie Massenvergewaltigungen stattgefunden haben.
Alsi ich noch in Deutschland lebte betrieb ich einen Blog mit Schwerpunkt Naher Osten. Der Vorwurf des Völkermordes ist also nicht neu, denn am 14, Januar 2009 veröffentlichte ich unter Pseudonym „Völkermord im Gaza?“ eine Statistik die zeigt wie lausig Israel ist wenn es um Völkermord geht. In den Kommentaren taucht auch ein Exemplar der Typen auf, für die natürlich Israel am Antisemitismus in der Welt verantwortlich ist, ganz einfach weil es existiert und sich zur Wehr setzt. Diesen Leuten wäre es lieber wenn sich die Juden endlich ausrotten lassen, Léon Ploiakov zitierte Hitler (nach Rauschning), „Vom Hass zum Genozid“mit der Aussage, dass man sich die Juden hätte erfinden müssen, wenn es sie nicht gäbe. Er sah den Antisemitismus als integralen Bestandteil der Nazi-Ideologie, der ein „Gegenreich“ brauchte.
„d.h.krumm
Niemand wirft Israel vor, die Bewohner des Gazastreifens physisch zu vernichten. Fragt sich nur, ob nicht die Vernichtung der gesamten Infrastruktur eines Landes, die Zerstörung von Schulen, Krankenhäusern, öffentlichen Einrichtungen und die gezielte Tötung einzelner Individuen , die Vorenthaltung von Nahrung, Medikamenten, des täglichen Lebensbedarfes, Verhinderung und Erschwerung des Wiederaufbaus usw. eine physische und kulturelle Beeinträchtigung darstellt, die in Richtung Vertreibung – und wer weiß – letzten Endes Völkermord geht. An den Juden wird doch seit zweitausend Jahren Völkermord in diesem Sinne verübt! Auch nach 1945! Will das jemand bestreiten? Der Antisemitismus breitet sich zurzeit wie eine Seuche in allen Völkern aus – auch unterschwellig in Deutschland und in anderen europäischen Ländern. Der Antisemitismus wird durch das Fehlverhalten Iraels gegenüber den Palästinensern genährt.„
Der Antisemit und der Antizionist brauchen Israel nicht, um ihre Abneigung auszuleben. Beide interessiert nicht ob Juden zu Israel stehen oder gegen Israel sind, allein die Tatsache, dass es Juden gibt ist für sie entscheidend. Die Palästinenser sind nur das moralische Sahnehäubchenhinter dem man seine Abneigung gegen Juden tarnen kann. 2014 wurde behauptet es finde ein Genozid statt, und schon in den Jahrzehnten davor war man fest davon überzeugt, dass ein Genozid an der Bevölkerung in der Westbank und Gaza durchgeführt wird. In seinem 1982 erschienenen Essay veröffentlichte Wolfgang Pohrt einen Aufruf der Grünen Landtagsfraktion – Aus einer Petition der niedersächsischen Grünen, in der Ministerpräsident Albrecht gebeten wird, „alle Möglichkeiten auszuschöpfen, die geeignet sind, einen Stillstand der israelischen Aktionen zu bewirken“:
„Wir sind der Meinung, dass wir Deutschen eine besondere Verantwortung haben, wenn es darum geht, Praktiken einer Ausrottungspolitik verhindern zu helfen.“
Damit war schon damals klar, dass man, um es mit Hendryk M. Broder zu sagen, „Auschwitz als Bewährungsanstalt zu sehen, auf dass der Jude nicht rückfällig wird.“ Nur haben sie das ihren Bewährungshelfern nicht gedankt, dabei hat der NS-Staat dich nichts unversucht gelassen sich der Juden zu entledigen, aber selbst das Ausland wollte sie nicht haben, siehe die St. Louis und selbst die britischen Behörden veröffentlichten 1939 das Weisbuch, um die europäischen Juden von der Flucht in’s britische Mandatsgebiet abzuhalten. Und nachdem Masagaskar vom Tisch war, ja was hätten die Nationalsozialisten denn machen sollen? Da waren die Vernichtungslager doch noch das Humanste, und trotzem wollen die nicht verschwinden.
Dieses Denken ist auch der feste Bestandteil der Palästina-Solidarität, man mißbraucht Menschen damit niemand sagen kann man sei ein Antisemit oder Judenhasser, nein das ist man nicht, man hat nur ein paar Kleine Probleme die man mit einem kleinen Genozid an den Juden lösen könnte und feuert die Hamas an, sich stärker in’s Zeug zu legen.
Es ist auch völlig egal wer in Israel regiert, Netanyahu mag zwar ein Idiot sein, er ist Inititator noch trägt die Verantwortung für den wachsenden Antisemitismus in der Welt, er ist nur ein Sündenbock. Von 1948 bis 1976 regierte die Mapai in Israel, mir ist nicht bekannt, dass Böse und Kuhlmann gesagt hätten, „ach Genossen, wißt Ihr denn nicht? Die Genossinen und Genossen der Mapai sind doch unsere Kameraden!“ Stadessen haben sie präzise, wie ein Schweizer Uhrwerk und Dr. Mengele, die Passagiere selektiert. Trotzdem wurde Israel aller möglichen Verbrechen bezichtigt, selbst der Vorwurf der Apartheid stand damals schon im Raum und Legionen von Antizionisten sind sich nicht zu blöd, selbst Herzls Bar Mitzvah Urkunde zu fälschen, nur um belegen zu können, dass Zionisten die wahren Antisemiten sind.
Nützliche Idioten stechen in See
Und wer wirklich glaubt, dass die Gaza Sumud eine Flotte zur Befreiuung Gazas ist, der sollte mal den Schnuller wechseln. Es geht hier nicht um irgendwelche Hilfsgüter die man ebensogut auf der Post aufgeben kann, des geringen Inhalts wegen, sondern es geht darum Israel zur Kapitulation zu zwingen, damit diese Hobbyaktivisten Seite an Seite mit Hamas und Fatah bis nach Jerusalem gehen können, wo sie danach in Massenerschießungen ausgerottet werden, weil sie ihren Zweck als nützliche Idioten mehr als erfüllt haben, während man die Queers for Palestine irgendwo vom Dach wirft, man will ja keine Munition verschwenden.
Der Unterschied zwischen den modernen und den alten Judenhasser ist, dass die modernen die Palästinenser mißbrauchen, während die alten offen davon gesprochen haben was sie mit den Juden planen und nie einen Hehl daraus gemacht haben. Sie haben lediglich den Antisemitismus in Europa dazu benutzt, schneller an ihr Ziel zu kommen. Und heute sind die, die mit den Nazis kollaboriert haben und nach dem Krieg eigentlich Widerstandskämpfer waren. Heute sind sie wieder ganz vorne dabei wenn es darum geht, den Juden den Schutz zu entziehen.
Und die antizionistischen Juden?
„Die zionistische Invasion ist eine bösartige Invasion. Sie schreckt nicht davor zurück, alle Mittel einzusetzen und alle bösartigen und verachtenswerten Methoden anzuwenden, um ihr Ziel zu erreichen. Bei ihren Infiltrations- und Spionageoperationen stützt sie sich in hohem Maße auf die von ihr ins Leben gerufenen Geheimorganisationen, wie die Freimaurer, die Rotary- und Lions-Clubs sowie andere Sabotagegruppen. All diese Organisationen, ob geheim oder offen, arbeiten im Interesse des Zionismus und gemäß dessen Anweisungen. Sie zielen darauf ab, Gesellschaften zu untergraben, Werte zu zerstören, das Gewissen zu korrumpieren, den Charakter zu verderben und den Islam zu vernichten. Sie steckt hinter dem Drogenhandel und dem Alkoholismus in all seinen Formen, um ihre Kontrolle und Expansion zu erleichtern.“ Charta der Hamas Artikel 28. Fassung von 1988
Weder die Hamas noch die Islamisten des Daesh, zum Beispiel, machen einen Hehl daraus was passiert wenn sie Israel vernichtet haben. Ihr Ziel ist es ein weltweites Kalifat zu errichten, was für die Juden, die sich als Antizionisten bezeichen, bedeuten würde, dass sie Ziel des Vernichtungswillen sind.Yisroel Dovid Weiss, der Sprecher der Neurei Karta würde, genauso wie seine Buddies den Dhimi-Status erhalten und Yziya zahlen dürfen. Er würde sehr schnell merken, dass Juden, egal ob sie den Staat Israel ablehnten, wie das Leben in einem Ghetto ist, ohne Rechte, die ihm erlauben würden Kritik zu üben. Auch die Satmarer Juden könnten bis Matthäi am Letzten warten, dass der Messias sie in’s gelobte Land führt, das würde nämlich nicht mehr existieren, sollten die ganzen Judenhasser die Oberhand behalten.
Kein Land würde ihnen Schutz bieten und den jüdischen Staat würde es nicht mehr geben. Finkelstein hätte die Gelegenheit das am eigenen Leib zu spüren was seine Eltern in Rumänien erlebten. Vielleicht kann er noch publizieren aber nur was die Zensur durchwinkt. Und Chomsky kann von Morgens bis Abends darüber referieren, dass der Staat Israel angeblich über 3 Millionen Palästinenser getötet hat, er würde ein müdes Lächeln bekommen. Der Verband nationaldeutscher Juden sollte eigentlich jedem der glaubt, wenn man nur Antizionistisch genug ist, dann würde man dem Vernichtungswillen nicht zum Opfer fallen, ein warnendes Beispiel sein. Max Nauman, der Gründer des Verbandes, war strammer Antizionist und Gegener der osteuropäischen Juden, wie alle Mitglieder seines Verbandes. Sie waren den Deutschnationlaen näher als den Liberalen oder Sozialdemokraten in der Weimarer Republik.
Später, so ab 1928, näherten sie sich der NSDAP, das nahm schon karikaturhafte Züge an, besonders als man ein Büchlein veröffentlichte, in dem man den Antisemitismus in Deutschland als böswillige Unterstellung bezeichnete. Naumann kam in’s KZ und starb 1939 an den Folgen. Viele folgten seinem Schicksal oder emigrierten in’s Ausland. Theodor Lessing definierte den jüdischen Selbsthass folgendermaßen –
Psychologischer Mechanismus: Lessing sah den „Selbsthass“ nicht als spezifisch jüdisches Phänomen, sondern als psychologische Reaktion einer Minderheit, die sich den Werten und Vorurteilen der dominanten Mehrheitsgesellschaft unterwirft.
Entfremdung und Assimilation: Die innere Zerrissenheit resultierte für Lessing aus der Assimilation. Die Betroffenen versuchten verzweifelt, den antisemitischen Stereotypen der Umwelt durch Selbstverleugnung und Überidentifikation mit der „arischen“ Kultur zu entkommen.
Flucht vor der eigenen Identität: Anstatt das eigene Erbe als Bereicherung anzunehmen, wurde das Judentum als Makel empfunden, was zu Projektionen und Hass auf die eigene Gruppe führte.
Die Geschichte hat gezeigt, dass Juden nicht mal sicher waren wenn sie konvertierten, sie waren stets dem Wohlwollen derer unterworfen in dessen Mitte sie lebten. Jedes Ereignis das einen Sündenbock benötigte, lieferte die heimischen Juden dem Mob aus. Zwar schützen Herrscher sie, aber nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkt an dem die Herrscher entschieden, dass es besser wäre ein paar Juden zu opfern als einen Aufstand gegen die Regierung zu dulden.
Wer also denkt mit Israelkritik Freunde zu gewinnen, der unterschätzt die Dynamik die im Antisemitismus liegt, dem ist Israel scheißegal solange es die Juden gibt, und sind die erstmal weg finden sich die nächsten Gruppen, die NSDAP hat ja die Marschrichtung mit Sinti und Roma praktisch vorgegeben.
Seit 2010 lebe ich in Irland und am Anfang dachte ich, ich lebe in einem Land mit einer Pressefreiheit, einem Land wo die Medien zwar staatlich sind oder in privater Hand aber fei und unabhängig berichten können. Seit dem 7. Oktober 2023 bin ich mir da nicht mehr so sicher.
Unser Rundfunk heißt Raidió Teilifís Éireann oder kurz und knapp RTÉ. Der versorgt uns mit allem was wir wissen und nicht wissen müssen. Er hat ein reichhaltiges Programm und mit TG4 einen Partnersender für das Nischenprogramm in irischer Sprache. Als ich damals ein Hurling Match auf TG4 verfolgte, dachte ich erst ich hätte einen niederländischen Kanal eingestellt, bis ich feststellte, dass ich einen irischsprachigen Sender schaute.
Geht es um Israel ist scheinbar alles erlaubt
Eigentlich kann man sich nicht beklagen, bis auf die Tatsache, dass das Fernsehen bei uns über Postgebühren bezahlt wird. Man geht entweder in’s AnPost Office oder auf die Webseite, bezahlt seine Lizenz und gut ist. Eine Zeitlang gingen Inspektoren von Haus zu Haus, klopften oder schauten ob sie eine Antenne auf dem Dach fanden und hinterließen ein Schreiben, meist gleich mit Strafandrohung. Nun, wir haben keinen Fernseher, nie einen gehabt und den, den wir haben nutzen wir nicht für öffentliches Fernsehen, sondern für Filme und ich sehe nicht ein, warum ich dafür zahlen soll wenn wir nicht mal einen Anschluß haben, was AnPost wohl egal ist…uns auch. Im Moment bauen wir eh noch am Haus und das wird noch dauern bis wir uns über gemeinsame Fernsehabende Gedanken machen.
Aber zuück zu RTÉ. Wie ich eingangs schrieb habe ich, was die Berichterstattung in diesem Land betrifft, eher den Eindruck, dass wir in einer Autokratie leben. Wenn RTÉ über den Nahen Osten berichtet dann weiß man wer der Schurke und wer das Opfer ist. Schuld ist immer der Jude und wenn er es nicht ist, dann sucht man sich jemanden der in die Kamera blickt und mit traurigem Gesicht verkündet was die Juden jetzt wieder angestellt haben. Denkt man, dass wäre bei der Presse anders, dann sieht man sich getäuscht. Es ist höchst selten, dass die Irish Times oder der Independent ausgewogen berichten wenn man doch in Israel die Mutter aller Konflikte sieht. Und man scheint irgendein Gentlemenagreement zu haben mit den Politikern in diesem Land. Vier Artikel über Politiker frei, die sich von der Seele reden können wie scheiße sie Israel finden, zwei Artikel über die Schattenwirtschaft der Regierung und dafür ein Artikel frei, damit der Journalist die Parteien durch den Dreck ziehen kann. Das sind dann die Artikel weswegen ich damals die Times abonniert habe, denn sie scheuen sich dann auch nicht vor Gericht zu ziehen.
Der Ton ist schärfer geworden und wie eingangs erwähnt, seit 2023 findet in den irischen Medien eine einseitige Berichterstattung statt wenn es um Israel geht. War 2010 und die Mavi Marmara noch kurze Einspielungen wert, so ist mittlerweile jeder Stein, der in der Westbank oder im Gaza von einem Hausdach fällt einen mehrminütigen Beitrag wert. Israelische Gäste in den Sendungen von RTÉ werden wie in einem Schautribunal vorgeführt und der hochnotpeinlichen Befragung unterzogen, Fakten spielen dabei keine Rolle. Und so ist es kein Wunder, dass sich unser Sender verhält als wäre Irland Kuba und würde in der Karibik und nicht in Europa liegen. Im Moment hat man sich gegen die deutschen Behörden in Stellung gebracht. Nicht nur wurde der Fall einer Pro-Palästinensichen Aktivistin, die die deutsche Polizei als Nazis bezeichnete und sich ihrer Verhaftung widersetzte, rauf und runter durch die Medien gehetzt, und natürlich bekam sie auch Sendezeit auf RTÉ, wo sie sich als unschuldiges Opfer darstellen konnte, dass von der Gestapo, pardon von der Berliner Polizei, verhaftet wurde.
Die deutsche Botschaft in Dublin mutiert mittlerweile zu einer Pilgerstätte für all die Pro-Palästina Aktivisten die glauben, dass für sie die Gesetze nicht gelten, besonders wenn es um die Bundesrepublik Deutschland geht, wo auch schon mal unser Taoiseach interveniert oder die Oppsitionsparteien wie Sinn Féin, People before Profit oder Independent 4 Change von den deutschen Behörden fordern Iren, die von der deutschen Polizei festgenommen wurden, sofort auf freien Fuß zu setzen, denn Gewalt gegen Juden ist in ihren Augen kein Straftatbestand sondern Notwehr. Und so ist es kein Wunder, dass der Vater des verhafteten Daniel Tatlow‑Devally, Connor Devally auf RTÉ Redezeit bekam. Und natürlich durfte auch der selbsernannte Journalist Hanno Hauenstein in dem Gespräch nicht fehlen und seinen Unmut über die deutschen Behörden äußern.
Connor Devally, selbst Rechtsanwalt hier in Irland, führte auch einen Protestzug vor die deutsche Botschaft in Dublin und warf der deutschen Justiz vor sie würde Recht beugen. Er sprach davon, dass die Bundesregierung einen blinden Flick habe weil es ja „nur“ um Israel geht und offenbarte ein seltsames Rechtsverständnis für einen Anwalt. So behauptet er, „Man hat angefangen, es als 129er-Aktion zu bezeichnen, was so wäre, als würde man hier das Gesetz gegen Staatsverbrechen gegen einen ein Haufen Jugendlicher, die in eine Tierarztpraxis oder so etwas eindringen. Äh, das ist einfach völlig übertrieben.“ Nein, das ist es nicht, hätte er sich mit dem Paragraphen beschäftigt, seine Frau ist ja Deutsche, und hätte er sich über den Hintergrund der Gruppe schlau gemacht ist der Paragraph geschaffen worden, um die Bildung einer Vereinigung zu verfolgen, die zu dem Zweck gegründet wurde Straftaten auszuüben. Es geht hier also nicht um ein paar Jugendliche die sich organisieren, um den Krämer an der Ecke zu überfallen. Die 5 haben einen Sachschaden in Höhe von über einer Millionen Euro verursacht, einige der Gruppe sind geflohen denn es ist offensichtlich, dass außer den fünf weitere Personen daran beteiligt waren und das Objekt ausgespäht haben und ein 32 Jahre alter Mann sollte sich den Konsequenzen bewußt sein und nicht damit argumentieren, dass die Aktion deswegen gerechtfertigt gewesen sei weil Elbit Systems ein israelischer Rüstungskonzern ist.
Die Gruppe, der Ulm5, angehört ist die Palestine Action, in Großbritannien gegründet wurde sie bis zur Aufhebung durch den obersten Gerichtshof als Terrororganisation geführt. Es geht diesen Leuten nicht um Israel sondern es geht ihnen darum, dass Israel endlich von der Landkarte verschwindet. Wer also nicht weiß was die Shoah war, der sollte einfach den Mund halten. Es ist völlig egal ob Elbit israelisch ist, als damals jüdische Altenheime in Deutschland Ziel von Anschlägen linker Gruppen wurden, da war die Argumentation die Gleiche. Und Mr. Devally sollte sich überlegen wie er darauf reagiert wenn Aktivisten in ein Regierungsgebäude in Dublin einbrechen, um Akten zu vernichten, die Hinweise über IRA Aktivitäten im Land beinhalten. Würde er das auch als Kinderstreich bezeichnen oder ist er schon so ideologisch verstrahlt, dass es für ihn Ordnung ist wenn Juden wieder das Ziel sind. Übrigens hat sich die Bundesrepublik die Mühe gemacht die NS-Zeit aufzuarbeiten, es gibt zwar noch Dinge zu tun, aber man hat gelernt, dass das nie wieder stattfindet. Und was den angeblichen Genozid betrifft. Seit 1948 wird Israel regelmäßig vorgeworfen einen Genozid und ethnische Säuberung zu begehen, Israel muss also sehr lausig gewesen sein wenn sich die Bevölkerung rasend vermehrt, auch das ICJ hat keinen Genozid festgestellt, als Anwalt sollte er sich vielleicht mal mit der vorläufigen Entscheidung befassen. Die besagt, dass die Palästinser das Recht haben von einem Völkermord verschont zu bleiben, nicht dass es einen gibt.
Es wäre für Connor Devally gut sich vielleicht mal mit der jüdischen Geschichte dieses Landes auseinanderzusetzen. Mit Sinn Féins Rabbi, mit dem Organisator von Michael Collins, Robert Briscoe, oder dem Revival der gälischen Sprache und den Verbindungen zwischen den Zionisten und irischen Republikanern.
De Republica 