On one thing, the recent report by Human Rights Watch dedicated to Israel is right: “a threshold has been crossed”. Yes, one limit has been crossed, or rather two, but it is Human Rights Watch itself that has exceeded them: on the one hand, its report goes beyond the limits of the caricature and the grotesque (which is inadmissible for an organization accredited to the UN), presenting a political and social reality through the distorting lens of pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamic and anti-Zionist ideology; on the other hand, the border that divides criticism of the work of the State of Israel from antisemitism as the result of an action, an analysis or an opinion has been crossed. Yes, this relationship has introduced a new level: it cleared that form of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hatred that I call functional antisemitism.

We know that these organizations, protected by the UN, have no problem attacking any government not aligned with the Palace, tarnishing it with hallucinating and often spurious accusations. But towards Israel there has always been, in that Palace and in its ideologies, a special aversion, which can be explained above all by the resistance that Israel opposes to the tendency to annihilate the nations that the UN has always supported and with the refusal Israel to accept the warnings (or rather: the diktats) to behave according to criteria that the UN considers politically correct.

Today, with an apparently isolated but in reality concerted action at the highest level, because it is connected with the orientation of the UN and, as we will see, with the action of the International Criminal Court, this questionable NGO puts Israel in the dock for racism and crimes against humanity (but with what credibility, then?, with what historical heritage, with what spiritual mission, with what political authority, with what popular mandate, with what ideological neutrality?), as if it were Amin Dada’s Uganda or the Central African Republic of Bokassa. Absurd, as in a piece by Beckett or Ionesco.

Yes, the measure is really full; the insults have exceeded all limits. And yet it would not be worth commenting on the HRW report, so much is it false due to bias of the accusations and even ridiculous due to the groundlessness of the analyzes, as Fiamma Nirenstein has incontrovertibly shown in an article in the italian newspaper Il Giornale of 28 April, if it were not for three dense reasons of strategic implications: the NGO Human Rights Watch is highly rated among the UN leaders; it receives funding from institutions, organizations and personalities of considerable depth and a certain political orientation, such as, but not by chance, George Soros; HRW’s anti-Israel theses have far-reaching repercussions, which can range from the consolidation of a defamatory vulgate and, unfortunately, also of a boycott front against Israel (understood as a state and as a people), to the encouragement of acts of sabotage and, hopefully not, also of terrorism by that galaxy of acronyms that make up the anti-Israeli hatred in the Middle East, to the unleashing of isolated but very violent aggressions against symbols and people of Judaism in Europe, up to the indirect support of those state powers, Iran in the front row, which explicitly aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. For these reasons, maximum attention must be paid to pages that would otherwise be classified as junk.

Lokesh Gupta, from Jaipur, India, wrote that if a baby elephant is tethered to a rope, it will never attempt to free itself from that bondage despite its growing strength to do so.  This is conditioning no different than what we see in our fellow humans.

***

I admit to my disappointment when I discovered a two-star review among the fives for my book, “Confronting the Deception,” with the only comment from Paul Wilson being that he considered it “hate speech.”  Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something, such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”  Had Wilson been more astute, he’d have understood that in my extensively referenced book, I am actually combating hate speech, namely, the animosity that is expressed toward our conservative values.  It is obvious that the accuser defines hate speech as any ideas or news he opposes, with the hope of encouraging others to act in collaborative censorship.  Elon Musk said, “They don’t ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate.”

I suspect Paul Wilson has been trained over the years to accept only what he learned from his respected sources (school, media), which, sadly, are reflective of Communism, Fascism, and Islam.  He will not read with an open mind or regard and discuss anything antithetical to his rooted comfort level, and he uses his freedom of speech to alert others to avoid and ban the speech they disapprove of.

What might he have found so offensive?  My disclosure of the Islamic ideology and historic imperialism by any means, including lies, forced conversions, invasion, and conquest by bloodshed; the massacre of 890 million people over 14 centuries; the way it continues to this day through Islamic relocation; and overcoming the native population with migration and their harsh Islamic law.  These are not opinions but facts that I thoroughly document and reference, and Wilson should be offended at the facts, not my readiness to expose them.