Lifting The Veil On A Hidden War: Rise Together And Stand Firm! |
We’re confronting something more sinister than organic pro-Palestinian anger
Jews are facing a surge of hatred and violence stretching from Liège to London and as far as San Jose, California. But what they confront is more sinister than a spontaneous outpouring of pro-Palestinian anger. Beneath the surface, it’s a coalescence of anti-Western subversion around Jew-hatred by multiple foreign interests. Some incidents that have alarmed Jewish communities—such as the torching of Jewish ambulances in London and graffiti campaigns in Paris—are the work of state-sponsored provocateurs. Efforts to inflame anger into calls for the murder of Jews worldwide are not isolated—they are part of a darker and broader effort to corrode and destabilize Western society. What links them together is that they leverage the Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which aims to build a global caliphate by expanding political and religious control in the West. In a world where the West has yet to develop a coherent strategy to check the Brotherhood and Islamist ideology, we Jews need to stare down a future of “normal” antisemitism and refuse to surrender their birthright.
Islamists are attacking the West by employing an inside-to-outside offset strategy. Their primary weapon is a multifaceted chimera of internal subversion that adapts its form and function to ingrain itself in Western society. They further the cause of Islamism (Political Islam) by exploiting structural vulnerabilities in the scaffolding supporting Western democracy. Their efforts are amplified by Russia and China, who have allied Islamist narratives and sentiment to advance their own campaigns to weaken Western societies. They boost their efforts by moving extraordinarily large sums of money into the US to fund a highly centralized influence pipeline. The West inexplicably fails to grasp the threat, and instead maintains a blinkered focus on physical terrorism and immigration screening, not ideological infiltration.
Ideological subversion is a process designed to break a society from within by paralysing and replacing its core fabric. In its goal state, writes Yuri Bezmenov, a former agent for a propaganda and ideological subversion front for the KGB, Novosti Press Agency, and the KBG:
[T]he target population no longer recognizes what interests it should defend, nor how to defend them. Individuals become unable to distinguish truth from propaganda, and even when confronted with factual evidence, their reactions are shaped by pre-programmed ideological responses.[1]
(This sheds light on the “Queers for Palestine” slogan brandished at anti-Israel rallies, in willful blindness to the gay and bi men hanged from Iranian cranes to slowly suffocate to death before the public.)
For Political Islam (which shares some overlap with Iran’s Shi’a theocracy), subversion is a strategy of necessity to further its “notorious agenda of establishing a caliphate throughout the world by actualizing the agenda of Islamic conquest in the “non-Muslim” nation,” with Jews and Israel as principal targets of its hatred.[2] Its primary tactic harnesses an ostensibly religious missionary activity, Da’wah (“an invitation to faith”), which allows them to operate in plain sight, led by cells pretending to be innocent groups of preachers. This project extends ”a strategic ‘invitation’ that builds loyalty, spreads ideology, and fuels terrorist networks across the world.”[3] Its global system of recruitment and control is advanced by charities, schools, and media who spread radical ideas and expand its reach–often with the help of allied local political parties, NGOs and think-tanks. Under the cover of religious activity, Islamist groups have enjoyed not only official protection but also sponsorship from government agencies “duped into regarding them as representatives of ‘moderate Muslims’ simply because they do not engage in violence.”[4] Ayaan Hirsi Ali warns that:
Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within—the abuse of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom.
In a Red-Green alliance, Islamist-aligned networks deliver votes needed by the radical left. “In return, the left provides political cover, amplifies grievance narratives, and treats any internal criticism of the arrangement as racism.”[5] This enables the Islamist Greens to offer different faces to each constituency and collect votes from both.
In support of their own efforts to destabilize the West, Russia and China have latched onto Islamist subversion. Russian, for example, uses antisemitic rhetoric as it seeks to deepen divisions within Western societies and shift attention away from the war in Ukraine. It uses updated Soviet-era “active measures” (aktivnye meropriyatiya) to amplify confusion and create tensions aimed to fragment Western societies and undermine trust in democratic institutions. In Paris, these “measures” include stenciling hundreds of Stars of David on Paris walls; painting red hands on the Shoah Memorial; and, in May 2025, spraying green paint on the walls of synagogues, a Jewish restaurant and the Shoah Memorial. Nine months later, pigs heads, some marked with the name “Macron”, were dumped outside mosques in Paris and its suburbs.
China–which sees Iran as a pillar of its regional security architecture, sitting atop the world’s most consequential energy corridor–has also seized upon Islamists propaganda to expand its soft power by weakening U.S. influence and discrediting the West. Marxist multi-millionaire Neville Roy Singham, a former American tech mogul living in Shanghai who identifies ideologically with the Chinese Communist Party, along with his wife and co-founder of Code Pink (a leader of U.S.-based anti-Israel BDS campaigns), Jodie Evans, funds a network of nonprofits, media outlets, and social media platforms. Singham-donnee organizations–which include the People’s Forum, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (a communist political party in the US), the ANSWER Coalition, and Code Pink–effectively co-opted domestic US activism and mobilized protesters and media to push and amplify anti-American and pro-CCP talking points following the Hamas October 7 attacks. These organizations form an integrated and orchestrated system, with each performing distinct, specialized roles:
•Mobilization and direct action •Training and coordination •Media and narrative amplification; and, •Financial and legal shielding.
According to US Senators, following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, Singham-funded groups disrupted Senate proceedings and participated in violent, antisemitic demonstrations across multiple U.S. cities. Singham’s network also overlaps with organizations linked to US-designated terrorist groups. For example, the People’s Forum–which paid one of the lead organizers of pro-Palestine rallies in New York, David (Sung Mo) Chung, $75,000 to protest–is accused by the IRS both for “advocating in support of a US-designated foreign terror organization, Hamas,” and advocating “for the overthrow of the US Government.” The Singham network also amplified anti-Israel activism through pro-CCP media outlets like BreakThrough News.
The gleam of Islamist success is plainly visible. It’s the silence, shrug, or “hinted-at ‘what do you expect?’” in response to acts of Islamist extremist censorship, from the Rushdie stabbing to the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the beheading of French schoolteacher Samuel Paty. It’s the institutional surrender of the “civic space” to Islamist norms and the adoption of Islamist framing inverting justice to punish pro-Western or pro-Jewish speech and excuse aggressors. It’s the shifting of the political centre and its ideological capture by the systemic adoption of the attackers’ worldview. It challenges civic cohesion, institutional integrity, and social trust. (In the UK, after Labor benefitted from Islamist voters in the 2024 general election, Prime Minister Keir Starmer dropped longstanding policy and, in September 2025, recognized a “State of Palestine”.)
The lesson of October 7 is that violence is a result of failing to counter the subversive education and indoctrination of Political Islam. Once violence appears, the ability to respond is handicapped by failures of foresight and prior inaction. According to Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a commentator on Islamist extremism, terrorism, and South Asian geopolitics, the West deceives itself by failing to recognize the danger of Islamist extremism until it “announces itself through violence.” The true threat is the incrementalist strategy whereby states become Islamic without ever formally declaring themselves so. By means of “algorithmic dawah”:
A young listener in London can absorb the same ideological framing as one in Lahore or Dhaka – creating a borderless Islamist consciousness. What is particularly alarming is how extremist ideas are often introduced indirectly – through discussions on identity, injustice, masculinity, modesty, or victimhood – before escalating toward political absolutism.
The caliphate today does not need territory first. It needs followers who think in caliphate terms. Dawah supplies that cognitive architecture.[6]
The West, however, persists in drawing a false and intellectually dishonest distinction between “non-violent Islamism” and terrorism. But, says Choudhury,
Non-violent Islamism supplies the narratives, legitimacy, and human capital upon which violent movements depend. Dawah is not an alternative to jihad. It is its precondition.[7]
If the West fails to recognize and counter this ideological attack infrastructure, it will defend the physical perimeter while losing the civic space within. This is aptly illustrated by the aftermath of October 7, which closed Columbia University, Cal Poly Humboldt, and the University of Amsterdam, and drove protests on campuses in 45 US states. The Hamas massacre did not create a movement; it activated a system that had been built, funded, and maintained for exactly this purpose.
At the heart of Political Islam is the Moslem Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is an organizing network within modern Islamism and an intellectual pipeline that nourishes global caliphate ambitions. It is banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, the UAE, and a host of other countries. In the West, however, the Brotherhood shrouds itself in secrecy and operates from within a decentralized structure that enables it to operate freely within democratic frameworks. In most of Western Europe and North America, Muslim Brotherhood–linked groups operate legally (often under other names), though under varying levels of scrutiny and pressure. Notably, in the US, the Brotherhood as a whole is not banned, despite periodic attempts to designate it a terrorist organization. A reason for this is that, until very recently, U.S. law and politics made it hard to treat the entire Muslim Brotherhood as a single terrorist entity. Brotherhood‑inspired organizations, therefore, can operate legally in the US as charities, advocacy groups, or religious institutions unless individually tied to terrorism financing. In November 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to set in motion a bottom-up process to consider specific Brotherhood chapters for designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. In January 2026, the US imposed terrorist designations on the Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Designating only a few Muslim Brotherhood “chapters” as terrorist organizations invites exploitation and legal arbitrage across jurisdictions. It does nothing to curb associated Russian and Chinese amplification. It allows policymakers to say “we’ve taken care of the Brotherhood”, while the non‑violent infrastructure that carries its Islamist project continues almost untouched. The broader Brotherhood ecosystem—e.g., front NGOs, student groups, and lobbying arms—is able to present itself as “mainstream civil society” or “moderate Islamists”, which can give them access, grants, and influence that help them entrench socially because “they’re not on the list.”
In the EU, where the Moslem Brotherhood is more entrenched, Austria stands alone as the only country to formally outlaw the Brotherhood and criminalize its public symbols, while others are escalating monitoring, restrictions, and parliamentary pressure.) Most EU governments view the Brotherhood as a legally grey, politically sensitive movement rather than a clearly defined terrorist organization. They worry that banning the Moslem Brotherhood as a whole could set a precedent for banning non‑violent Islamist parties or NGOs, raising human‑rights and free‑association objections and inviting legal challenges.
If Western courts and political traditions make an outright ban unrealistic, Washington and the EU should “effectively ban” the Brotherhood by starving it of money, denying it prestige platforms, and exposing its ideology in order to limit its practical power. Steps to take would include tightening charity, foreign‑agent, and transparency laws so that front organizations are obliged to disclose foreign funding, ultimate beneficiaries, and ideological affiliations. Investment should also be made to help recognize and expose subversive foreign‑influence projects posing as “non‑violent Islamism”. About twenty years ago, Alain Chouet, former head of France’s counterintelligence service (DGSE), recognized:
The true danger is in the expansion of the Brotherhood, an increase in its audience. The wolf knows how to disguise itself as a sheep.[8]
If Political Islam cannot be countered from the top down, the West faces not a sudden “Islamization,” but something far more insidious: a long, grinding erosion of liberal norms as Islamist actors learn to bend Western institutions to their project rather than openly overthrow them. Experience in Europe already shows that non‑violent Islamists can build dense “parallel societies”—schools, mosques, welfare networks—where loyalty is to the movement’s religious project rather than to the nation‑state. Security services warn that this deepens segregation, weakens integration, and creates fertile ground where more openly jihadist actors can recruit, even if the Brotherhood itself claims to oppose violence locally.
In the absence of a universal and concerted approach to check Muslim Brotherhood–driven Islamism, for Jews the near-term prospects are grim. The Brotherhood’s ideology, from Hassan al‑Banna to Sayyid Qutb and Hamas, casts Jews as a religiously-mandated enemy, turning every local Jew into a target. Without much more, Jews face a grinding normalization of antisemitism in politics, media, and the street. This corrosive attrition leads some Jews to consider whether open Jewish life—including support for Israel—is no longer safe where they live.
The Muslim Brotherhood once openly cheered on Hitler’s Nazis and borrowed their Jew‑hatred and anti‑Western rage—and while they’re not gassing Jews today, they are relentlessly gaslighting us. As the West struggles to counter political Islam, Jews cannot afford to shrink back. Jews must hold the line and build resilience in Jewish daily life, harden security, and promote our own narrative frame: We are an ancient, indigenous, moral people with a rightful homeland and an equal claim to safety and self‑definition wherever we live. We will not let others turn our story into a test we must pass to be tolerated.
Quoted in, S. Gvineria, Ideological Subversion and the Strategic Logic of Influence, Geopolitics (July 8, 2025), https://politicsgeo.com/ideological-subversion-and-the-strategic-logic-of-influence-2/
S. Choudhury, Dawah as Strategy: How Islamist Movements reshape Societies without Seizing Power, Usanas Found. (Jan 15, 2026), https://usanasfoundation.com/dawah-as-strategy-how-islamist-movements-reshape-societies-without-seizing-power
H. Hirsi Ali, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It, Hoover Inst. Press (March 21, 2017), https://www.hoover.org/research/challenge-dawa-political-islam-ideology-and-movement-and-how-counter-it
S. Choudhury, op. cit.
Quoted in, L. Vidino, The Role of Non-Violent Islamists in Europe, CTC Sentinel, Vol. 3, Iss. 11 (November 2010), https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-role-of-non-violent-islamists-in-europe/