A Reckoning in Israel Amid US Repression: The Global Discourse on Gaza Shifts

• 
  

---

A Reckoning in Israel Amid US Repression: The Global Discourse on Gaza Shifts

 

Introduction

 

While the Trump administration escalates a retroactive campaign of punishment against those who protested Israel’s war in Gaza during 2023–2024—deporting students like Mahmoud Khalil and dismantling programs like Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)—an extraordinary reckoning unfolds inside Israel. A Haaretz poll revealing 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza underscores this shift, yet its truths are suppressed by pro-Israeli gate-keeping and hasbara, as will be explored in this post. Outside the US, Western governments, media, and even prominent Israeli figures are openly condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as war crimes, prompted by mounting evidence of systematic atrocities, using language that was rare until recently. The contrast between the US’s repressive actions and the global tide of accountability could not be starker.

 

Elite Dissenters: Whistleblowers and the Breaking of Silence in Israel

 

Olmert’s Bombshell: “We Are Committing War Crimes”

 

On May 22, 2025, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert published a searing op-ed in Haaretz’s Hebrew edition only, first revealed to English speakers in partial translated excerpts with commentary in a thread by NYU Professor Monica Marks on X. It appeared in Haaretz’s English edition four days later, behind a paywall. Olmert charged that Israel is “intentionally waging a war of annihilation: indiscriminate, unrestrained, brutal, and criminal killing of civilians,” driven by a “policy dictated by the government, knowingly, intentionally, and viciously, maliciously, recklessly.” “Yes, we are committing war crimes,” he wrote, implicating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “the head of the gang.”

 

Olmert detailed deliberate starvation: “We aimed at depriving Gaza’s residents of food, medicine, and minimal means of subsistence as part of a declared policy.” He condemned exterminationist rhetoric, noting Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan’s call to annihilate villages as a “declaration of genocide,” widespread and not isolated. He warned that these policies could lead Israel to be “rejected by the family of Western nations” and found guilty by the ICC, a stark contrast to Netanyahu’s dismissal of international accountability. Olmert’s remarks, rejecting the “gang of thugs” and far-right politicians, underscore the risk of Israel becoming a pariah state.

 

Yair Golan: “A Sane Country Does Not Make a Hobby of Killing Babies”

 

Days before Olmert’s op-ed, Yair Golan, former IDF general and leader of The Democrats party, broke political taboos with a scathing critique of Israel’s Gaza policies. In a May 20, 2025, interview with Kan public radio, Golan declared: “A rational nation does not engage in combat against civilians, does not kill infants as a pastime, nor aim to expel an entire population.” His provocative phrase—“killing babies as a hobby”—condemned the government’s extremist drift, drawing fierce backlash from the Israeli right, with Netanyahu labeling it “antisemitic blood libel” and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar calling it “unforgivable.” Golan initially stood firm, targeting policies driven by far-right ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, warning that Israel risks becoming a “pariah state” if it succumbs to this “vengeful, immoral” mindset, echoing Gideon Levy’s call to “sober up” from hatred.

 

Facing relentless criticism, Golan partially walked back his statement. In a May 24, 2025, Channel 12 Meet the Press interview, he clarified: “Of course Israel does not kill babies for a hobby. Israel has not commited war crimes in Gaza,” stating he meant to warn against extremist policies. He added, “I was speaking about the government, not the military,” citing Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric. On May 26, 2025, after a “constructive conversation” with Yair Lapid, Golan told reporters he won’t accept Netanyahu’s “poison machine”—the premier’s network of supporters attacking critics. This retreat, driven by hasbara’s pressure, underscores the Hebrew gate’s role in moderating dissent. Yet, Golan’s initial critique reflects a bold condemnation of the post-October 7 normalization of anti-Palestinian extremism.

 

Israeli Genocide Scholars Break Ranks

 

The reckoning extends to Israel’s intellectual class. Shael Ben-Ephraim, a genocide scholar and host of Israeli podcast, Israel Explained, publicly reversed his earlier skepticism in a May 1, 2025, Substack article and an interview with Owen Jones on his youtube channel "Owen Jones Talks." “I was wrong and Israel IS committing genocide,” he stated, citing whistleblower accounts from IDF insiders confirming deliberate policies of starvation, hospital bombings, and civilian targeting. Ben-Ephraim joins a growing list of Israeli and Jewish genocide scholars—such as Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Samuel Lederman, and William Schabas, among others—whose expertise in international law and genocide studies leads them to conclude that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide, as charged by South Africa in its ongoing ICJ case. Citing systematic atrocities, including starvation and civilian targeting, they can no longer defend Israel’s conduct.

 

The Hebrew Gate: Selective Transparency and Narrative Control

 

A key mechanism of Israeli gatekeeping is language. A Haaretz poll, conducted by an unnamed Penn State researcher in March 2025 and published in Hebrew (May 22, 2025), revealed 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, with 47% backing their annihilation. Historians Shay Hazkani and Tamir Sorek, analyzing it in Haaretz (Hebrew), argued it reflects decades of systemic radicalization. English coverage was limited to Middle East Eye. Similarly, Israeli human rights group, Breaking the Silence’s April 2025 report on IDF atrocities—based on soldiers’ testimonies—was largely confined to Hebrew media and advocacy circles, covered in the US only by Common Dreams, to my knowledge.

 

This “Hebrew gate” is selective. Olmert’s op-ed, blaming Netanyahu’s “gang of thugs” and a few “bad apples,” was delayed in English,and published with a Netanyahu-as-Pinocchio caricature reinforcing the “blame Bibi” narrative. The delay suggests hasbara found Olmert’s “bad government/good society” framing less threatening than the poll’s societal complicity.

 

Continuity, Post-Trauma, and Amplification: Understanding Radicalization

 

The debate over Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians is central:

• Continuity Thesis: Advanced by such figures as Shay Hazkani, Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, and Noam Chomsky, this view holds that anti-Palestinian attitudes are deeply rooted in decades of systemic factors—media, law, education, IDF culture—not merely recent trauma.
• Post-Trauma Thesis: Attributes radicalization to October 7, 2023. A 2016 Pew survey showing 45% supported Gaza expulsion disproves this, affirming continuity.
• Amplification Thesis: Recognizes that October 7 intensified anti-Palestinian attitudes, especially among moderates. Gideon Levy’s March 2024 Haaretz article urges the left to “reclaim its moral compass” post-October.

I reject the idea of a binary distinction between Continuity and Amplification perspectives. Anti-Palestinian sentiment is systemic and historically entrenched as continuity theorists state.It is also the case that October 7 normalized its intensity and public expression across political lines, as Levi, perhaps hyperbolically suggests.

 

The International Dimension: Lobbying, Hasbara, and the New Gatekeeping Machine

 

In the US and Europe, AIPAC, the ADL—under Jonathan Greenblatt, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism—and Christians United for Israel shape discourse through lobbying and media pressure. Since 2023, AIPAC spent over $100 million on US elections, while Trump’s 2025 orders deported activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rasha Alawieh.

 

Project Esther, exposed by The New York Times, escalates this. Launched by the Heritage Foundation, it unites Christian Zionists like the Joshua Network, Kushner’s Abraham Accords networks, and advocacy groups to crush pro-Palestinian activism. Branding critics, including Jewish Voice for Peace, as a “Hamas Support Network,” Esther uses surveillance and mass reporting to silence universities and activists, targeting Jewish and academic dissent. These tactics mirror Trump-era deportations of uncharged student and faculty protesters (e.g., Mahmoud Khalil and Brown University professor Rasha Alawieh).

This selective translation strategy illustrates how modern hasbara operates: voices advancing the continuity thesis (Hazkani, Finkelstein, Illan Pappe et al.) face greater suppression, while post-trauma or “bad government” narratives (Olmert) are eventually allowed. The dual system of domestic censorship and global hasbara suppresses critical voices, stifling truth as accountability grows.

 

The US Erosion: Repression Amid Accountability

 

The US under Trump doubles down on dissent. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia negotiator, and Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown professor and medical doctor, were deported despite legal challenges. Columbia lost $400 million in federal funds, and Harvard’s SEVP program was ruled illegal. The administration’s anti-“DEI” agenda entrenches this repression, despite global shifts.

 

Conclusion: The Walls of Denial Are Crumbling

 

As Israeli leaders, scholars, and whistleblowers speak out, and Western allies begin to wax more critical of the ongoing War in Gaza, Israel and the US find themselves increasingly isolated in their categorical rejection of allegations of war crimes. The US’s crackdown—deportations, arrests, defunding—contrasts with global accountability, eroding hasbara’s narrative control. As the Haaretz poll’s truths emerge, this reckoning demands accountability, judged in public conscience and courts.

 

Endnotes

 

1. Marks, Monica. X post, May 24, 2025, https://x.com/MonicaMarks/status/123456789.
2. Olmert, Ehud. “Opinion: We Are Committing War Crimes,” Haaretz (Hebrew), May 22, 2025; Haaretz (English), May 26, 2025,
   
3. DropSite News. “Translation of Olmert’s Op-Ed,” May 25, 2025,rt.
4. Ben-Ephraim, Shael. Interview on The Owen Jones Podcast, Owen Jones Talks, YouTube, May 2025, https://www.youtube.com/@OwenJonesTalks.
5. Ben-Ephraim, Shael. “I Used To Say Israel Was Not Committing A Genocide In Gaza. I Was Wrong. This Is Why,” The Grand Scheme, Substack, May 1, 2025.
6. Asem, Sondos. “Top genocide scholars unanimous that Israel is committing genocide,” Middle East Eye, May 17, 2025,
   
7. Rapaport, Nadav. “Nearly half of Israelis support army killing,” Middle East Eye, May 24, 2025, .
8. Breaking the Silence. “The Perimeter: IDF Atrocities,” April 2025, https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/perimeter-2025; covered by Common Dreams, April 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/BTS-2025.
9. Kulwin, Noah. “The Unbearable Ignorance of the ADL,” Jewish Currents, Dec. 2, 2022, 
10. Brownfeld, Allan C. “The ADL’s War on Free Speech,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2023,.
11. OpenSecrets. “AIPAC Spending,” 2024, 
12. Reuters. “US Deports Pro-Palestinian Activists,” Mar. 16, 2025,
    
13. The Guardian. “Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Harvard’s International Students,” May 23, 2025,
14. Baker, Katie J.M. “The Group Behind Project 2025,” The New York Times, May 18, 2025, 
15. Haaretz. “Penn State Poll: Jewish Israeli Attitudes,” May 22, 2025 (Hebrew),
16. Pew Research Center. “Israeli Attitudes Toward Palestinians,” 2016, 
17. Levy, Gideon. “Israeli Leftists: Shake Off the Shock,” Haaretz, Mar. 12, 2024, 
18. Sokol, Sam. “Golan, Lapid have ‘constructive conversation,’” The Times of Israel, May 26, 2025,
19. Jerusalem Post Staff. “‘Israel doesn’t kill babies for fun,’” The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2025,
20. “Opposition MK Says Israel Risks Pariah Status,” Haaretz, May 20, 2025, 

Note: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is cited in academic circles (e.g., Gordon, 2024), despite controversy.

Rethinking recent American conservatism

Over at reddit, a rebuttal to my comments about what American conservatism has been in recent decades caused a significant change of opinion. I had thought that conservatives were mostly pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-honest governance. I asserted this:

True conservatism stood for (1) small, efficient, honest, transparent government, (2) democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, and (3) a reasonable balance of power between the three legislative branches. Project 2025 is recent and so is the rise of deep corruption in government (kleptocracy) and the unitary executive theory, (autocracy or dictatorship). Until Trump came along in 2016, little to none of Project 2025 was mainstream conservatism. ....

 

True conservatives were and still are pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-rule of law, the opposite of what MAGA politics and policy is. True conservatives have mostly been RINO hunted out of power. They have been replaced by corrupt, authoritarian MAGA radicals.

The blow-back I got was sobering and convincing. I changed my mind. Here's the rebuttal with a minor fact check correction and a clarity edit:  

small, efficient, honest, transparent government,

Conservatives have never wanted these. You’re confusing conservative rhetoric with conservative policy. Ask for a hard definition of what “small government” means sometime. It’s a nonsensical term that is just a stand-in for “only the parts of the government I personally like”, and every single conservative has a different view of what is and isn’t a legitimate part of “small government”. 

Conservatives certainly do not support efficient, honest, or transparent government. They constantly go after and try to limit or remove transparency and reporting requirements, they actively support and expand dishonest vectors for corruption (ex. Weakening campaign finance laws, making legislative records secret, etc).

 democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, 

Conservatives have long been actively opposed to civil rights, and believe civil rights are o key for majority groups. They don’t support the rule of law—only the rule of the wealthy. That has long culminated in anti-democracy viewpoints. How long have they spent protecting the anti-democratic electoral college, again? How many conservatives over the years have insisted, incorrectly, that we are a “republic, not a democracy!”

 a reasonable balance of power between the three legislative branches.

Whole shoveling power in the hands of unelected judges and into the barely-elected hands of the President. Their only function in Congress appears to be obstruction and slashing taxes for rich people, and it has been such for 30+ years now. 

 Project 2025 is recent

But its ideas are very old, and things conservative stalwarts have been working to bring about since at least the 1980s. The same Heritage Foundation that put out Project 2025 has been publishing the “mandate for leadership” series it came out in, since 1981. 

P2025 is just American Conservatism with everything else removed. It’s exactly what they have long wanted, with the civility removed and without any perceived need to share power with liberals. 

 little to none of Project 2025 was mainstream conservatism.

Oh really?

 The elimination of independent oversight

Bush was fine removing IGs and limiting their power. 

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/senators-protest-presidential-signing-statement-on-inspector-general-reform-act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/04/03/inspectors-general-ousted-at-2-agencies/67a86a9c-ccac-45db-aefc-d1e464b1336a/

https://time.com/archive/6935574/federal-watchdogs-under-fire/

H. W. Bush tried to remove all IGs when he became president, but Congress blocked it. 

Reagan was also very keen to remove inspectors general, and to limit their oversight. He famously fired 15 of them on his first day in office.

 politicization of civil service 

So, Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers was not politicization of the civil service? 

Republican presidents have long been fighting g this war to recreate the spoils system. Reagan wanted it, but couldn’t get it. W Bush wanted it but couldn’t get it either.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2005/03/bush-and-the-bureaucracy-a-crusade-for-control/18859/

Trump is just a lot more brazen about it, but it’s part of the same conservative strategy. Trump’s just the end game of it.

 judicial capture through ideological vetting

I can’t even. You cannot be serious about this. Conservatives basically invented judicial vetting. Attire through ideological vetting. What do you think the federalist society is? Why is it nearly impossible to be nominated as a judge by a Republican if one isn’t a member? 

 massive upward wealth redistribution

Conservatives have been loud and proud about this since Reagan.

 integration of specific Christian nationalist theocratic doctrines into government policy collectively constitute what democracy scholars characterize as a transition toward authoritarian governance structures.

Which have been key cornerstones of conservative politics since the 1970s and the moral majority. 

 True conservatives 

What are the Trumpists? They are distilled conservatism, with everything else removed. A return to the know-nothing party. 

That casts conservatism in a very different light, or at least the politics and goals of elite conservatives[1]. At least for elite conservatives, the recent past looks a lot more like djt, MAGA and Project 2025 today than I had thought. I still think the modern rank and file, then and now, is and was grossly deceived. Reagan and HW Bush both chafed at restrictions on their power, and congress pushed back. Now, congress no longer pushes back.

Q: Is it reasonable to believe that in recent decades, e.g., since Reagan, American conservatism as practiced by political, business and religious elites (1) was dominated by authoritarianism and kleptocracy goals, and (2) that ideology is mostly the same as what MAGA elites and djt stand for today?

Footnote:

1. I had Pxy fact check some of those assertions. It is true that Reagan, HW Bush and Trump all tried to fire or fired some or all Inspector Generals (IGs). IGs are the people responsible for rooting out and stopping waste, fraud and abuse in federal agencies. Their firings make risk-free corruption, fraud and theft much easier. Some other fact checking and analysis:

Conclusion
The assertions are largely reasonable but require nuance:

1. Upward redistribution is a documented outcome of conservative fiscal policies since Reagan, though not universally celebrated by all conservatives. Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28% and corporate taxes from 50% to near zero, accelerating wealth concentration. By 2023, the top 1% held $79 trillion more wealth than they would have under pre-1975 growth patterns 1 11 12.

2. Christian nationalism has been a cornerstone of GOP strategy since the 1970s, with authoritarian implications validated by scholars 6 16.

3. Trumpism represents a redefined conservatism centered on populist nationalism, but fractures persist between MAGA loyalists and traditional conservatives 17 21.

4. Know-Nothing comparisons oversimplify historical context but capture nativist and anti-pluralist tendencies in Trump-era GOP rhetoric 9 24.

5. Structural shifts—not mere ideology—explain these trends: tax policy favoring capital over labor 1, fusion of religious and political identities 20, and institutional GOP capitulation to Trump’s persona 25.

A critique of MAGA’s originalism legal theory

CONTEXT

In 1935, the USSC’s Humphrey’s Executor decision affirmed congress’s power to limit presidential removal of officials in independent executive branch agencies to specific causes like inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. There now are 13 such agencies. This protected those agencies from political interference, ensuring they could operate without fear of being weaponized by presidents for partisan or corrupt aims. Today, this precedent faces existential threat from “originalism,” a legal theory weaponized by far-right authoritarians to concentrate unchecked executive power in the presidency. The case is now pending with the USSC in Trump v. Wilcox. It will most likely be decided in May or June of 2026. The USSC will most likely severely limit or completely eliminate the Humphrey’s Executor limit on presidential power. That would be a catastrophe for democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. 

Critique of originalism

Originalism, now a core authoritarian legal dogma, arose in the 1930s and the concept was significantly refined in the 1970s and 1980s. The term originalism was coined in the 1980s. The legal theory claims that the Constitution’s “original public meaning” grants presidents absolute authority over executive functions, including firing officials at will, with or without cause. Proponents argue Humphrey’s Executor violates Article II’s Vesting Clause by fragmenting executive accountability. They cite the “Decision of 1789”—a congressional debate they falsely claim settled presidential removal power. In reality, the First Congress never reached consensus. Only 9 of 54 House members endorsed unlimited removal power; most supported congressional checks or compromise. The Founders deliberately used ambiguous language to avoid rigid doctrines, prioritizing practical governance.

Historical evidence further undermines originalist claims. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 77 endorsed Senate involvement in removals, contradicting the myth of an all-powerful presidency. In 1790, George Washington signed the Sinking Fund Commission Act, creating officials with fixed terms and removal protections to manage Revolutionary War debt. That is a clear Founding-era precedent for independent agencies directly contrary to MAGA’s claims. Early laws also shielded Treasury officials from arbitrary dismissal, reflecting the Founders’ nuanced approach to balancing power.

Mainstream legal scholars dismiss originalism’s hostility to Humphrey’s Executor as ideologically driven, not historically grounded. Critics note originalists cherry-pick evidence, misquote texts, and ignore contradictions, such as Hamilton’s support for checks on presidential power. Historians like Jonathan Gienapp argue originalists project modern authoritarian ideals onto the past, fabricating a “unitary executive” theory alien to 18th-century governance.

The stakes are profound. MAGA-aligned originalists seek to overturn Humphrey’s Executor to enable presidents to purge independent agencies, replacing nonpartisan expertise with loyalists. This would erode democratic safeguards, allowing politicization of institutions meant to serve the public interest ranging from the Federal Reserve to election protection agencies to consumer and worker protections. Such efforts align with a broader agenda to centralize power, favoring corruption and entrenching minority rule.

Originalism’s flawed reasoning and selective history cannot mask its true aim: dismantling constraints on executive authority to enable authoritarianism. By distorting the past, it threatens the delicate balance of power that has safeguarded American democracy for nearly a century. Defending Humphrey’s Executor is not just a legal battle. It is a fight to preserve democratic governance rooted in accountability, not unaccountable autocracy and kleptocracy.