On October 10, The Guardian published a video interview with Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor as part of its ‘Radical Thinking’ series. The pair discussed their new book, End Times Fascism, a socio-political commentary on what they perceive to be a new far-right apocalyptic alliance of “end time fascists.”
These so-called new age “supremacist” survivalists, according to Klein and Taylor, are far from impregnable. They have no vision of a shared future, and all they offer is a remix of a bygone past: the nihilistic, sadistic pleasures of domination.
In the case of Israel, the interview devolves into conspiratorial territory, trading in genocide libels and age-old antisemitic canards, as it posits Israel as the paradigmatic example of an “ethnonationalist end-timer,” a nation-state that, in their view, is turning Gaza into a purified bunker of mass deportation, border fortification and resource-stockpiling, bunkered against a dehumanised “Other.”
If ‘Radical Thinking’ is merely a new mantle draped over an old hatred, then one must admit the thinking is not radical at all; it is simply anti-Israel and anti-Jewish animus, repackaged with The Guardian’s editorial seal of approval.
From the outset, Klein invokes her Jewish identity to frame her virulent Jewish opposition to the existence of the State of Israel [09:20]:
As someone who has been involved in the Jewish wing of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, I am very involved in Jewish Voice for Peace, which organised protests recently, when Netanyahu was speaking at the UN, and was part of getting a bunch of very high-profile people arrested. They do not like JVP.
Whilst it is politically expedient for Klein to publicly endorse Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), thereby subsuming her antizionist views within an established organisation, this cannot confer a legitimacy that her marginal, unrepresentative position does not afford her.
As CAMERA UK has previously identified, it is a common tactic amongst self-described antizionist Jews to invoke their Jewish credentials to legitimise their opposition to Israel. Yet it belies a simple truth: 90 per cent of British and American Jews support Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish and democratic state, while 89 per cent of British and 72 per cent of American Jews consider antizionism as a form of antisemitism.
For groups such as the JVP, the International Jewish Antizionist Network (IJAN) and the Orthodox sect Neturei Karta, Jewish identity is not consonant with Israel but is affirmed by opposition. In so doing, they acquiesce in the image which their enemies seek to project of them, often by allying themselves with those who incite harm against Jews, be it terrorists or antisemites more generally.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for instance, found that the JVP has willingly partnered with organisations that deny Israel’s right to exist, supports the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign and has repeatedly co-sponsored anti-Israel demonstrations, declining to condemn them or withdraw its support, even when they featured signs and chants equating Israel with Nazi Germany or expressing support for Hamas. In further examples, NGO Monitor found that JVP had previously hosted Rasmea Odeh, a convicted Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) member, at its 2017 National Membership Meeting; mounted signs at Yale University featuring PFLP member Leila Khaled; and called for the “death to Israel” on social media.
Later, Klein’s commentary takes a conspiratorial turn, invoking “Jewish fascists” and a nefarious “project” that she neither qualifies nor defines [10:19-11:41]:
Right now, I am most materially worried about Jewish fascists. At the Guardian, you have seen this with NAZA, right? I mean, there is a special kind of hatred reserved for Jews who are considered to have betrayed the project. These people get more dangerous, the more threatened they feel. This is what I mean when I say it is a threat response. These moments where the resistance is rising can be some of the most dangerous moments. There is, however, an understanding that because of anti-Palestinian racism, Jewish voices get more of a say. We are seeing that right now with NAZA, we are seeing the anger at Ed Miliband, and the sort of losing of mind. And the fact that he [Ed Miliband] is Jewish and he is the one talking about Jewish terrorists and sanctioning the West Bank, triggers a particular kind of rage from the religious right. And I actually think there is a confluence of the fact that these are Israeli filmmakers who are exposing war crimes to the world, and that it is a Jewish foreign secretary, and that it is a Jewish group that led those protests in New York calling for Netanyahu’s arrest. I mean, we are serious. These are war crimes, we want accountability for genocide, and they are scared.
Here, Klein uses the nebulous, catch-all term “Jewish fascists” without clarifying to whom she refers. Does the mean the State of Israel in its entirety? The Israeli government? Settlers in the West Bank? Anyone who identifies as Zionist? Anyone who is opposed to antizionism? Nor does “the project” have an antecedent. She never says what it is or who is pursuing it, leaving it to read as an overarching scheme that Jews can either advance or betray.
Klein also claims that Jewish voices are privileged on account of anti-Palestinian racism. But where and whose voices, exactly? Palestinian voices, if anything, receive a larger share of representation. A 2024 report by Trevor Asserson found that, in the BBC’s English-language output, Palestinian interviewees outnumbered Israeli ones (29 per cent versus 23 per cent). In BBC Arabic, the gap was more than 2:1 (35 per cent versus 15 per cent). Palestinians were also overwhelmingly presented as civilians (92 per cent), while Israelis were more often framed through official or military spokespeople.
Recent British and American coverage this month also shows how historical and October 7th revisionism has foregrounded Palestinian civilian suffering. When, on the third anniversary of the second deadliest day since the Holocaust, Jews are not even granted sovereignty over their own remembrance and antizionist Jewish voices are lauded above theirs, whose voices are really privileged?
It is equally misleading to suggest that the only pushback to the NAZA film, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and JVP protests is anger from “Jewish fascists” towards antizionist Jews over an undefined “project.” The pushback itself stems from compounded fears that these actions will incite a broader pattern of hostility towards Jews. That fear is widespread: 96 per cent of British and 78 per cent of American Jews feel less safe compared to before October 2023. Nor is this merely a matter of perception. In the UK, antisemitic incidents recorded in the first half of 2026 alone have increased by 21 per cent compared the same six-month period in 2025. In the US, the ADL found that 2025 was the third-highest year for antisemitic incidents since it began recording in 1979, and well above the pre-October 2023 levels.
The producers of NAZA, Ed Miliband and JVP, though themselves Jewish, evidently do not represent most Jews. If NAZA espouses the genocide libel and disappears Hamas from the narrative and if JVP presents a minority of antizionist Jews as the default Jewish opinion, must one conclude that “Jewish fascists” simply means anyone who supports Israel?
Klein then deploys the well-worn genocide libel [30:56-31:25]:
If there were a rupture, it is not Trump’s election, like a moral rupture. It was Gaza and the genocide. A lot of people stayed quiet. A lot of people chose not to rock the boat, chose their jobs, and the path of least resistance in the face of that. That prepared the ground for a lot of silence. That was a moral rupture, it was a moral tear and is in the moral universe. And once you rationalise a genocide that you are seeing live-streamed, you can rationalise a whole hell of a lot.
Klein and Taylor advance a proposition without recognising their own hypocrisy. They, like so many others, have already rationalised a genocide. On Oct.7, 2023, Hamas used body-worn cameras to live-stream the mass murder, rape, burning alive, and mutilation of Jews on their affiliated Telegram channels. Yet Klein and Taylor try to account for the evil committed against Jews through reference to the evil (as they see it) that Jews do to others. Neither mentions Hamas. In fact, The Guardian’s Aditya Chakrabortty never poses the question, and Israel’s military response is simply delegitimised as a “moral rupture” or a “moral tear.”
Hamas’ subsequent media campaign has shifted from offense to victimisation, in which its narratives have emphasised the attribution of blame to Jewish victims with the aim of manipulating international public opinion to garner support. Klein has similarly, as CAMERA UK previously identified, abused the memory of October 7th, recasting Jewish victims as the ‘new’ Nazis and Palestinians as the ‘new’ Jews wherein the Holocaust is presented as a moral lesson for, or even a moral indictment of Jews.
Later, Klein suggests that “end time fascists” are “terrified” by the structures of accountability [43:10-44:23]:
There is an obsessive hatred for the United Nations.
I think that is why they sanctioned Francesa Albanese and then went after the ICC judges with severe economic sanctions.
Claiming that Israel is “terrified” of what the UN might expose is simplistic. It ignores the UN’s inability or unwillingness to acknowledge its complicity in ignoring or abetting Hamas. In 2025, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem explicitly stated that no independent investigation had found that rape occurred on October 7th, despite the findings of senior UN official Pamila Patten, whose March 2024 report found reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence and rape had occurred.
In May, the Civil Commission on October 7 released its comprehensive, independent 298-page report on Hamas’ weaponisation sexual brutalisation and rape, including newly conceptualised forms such as kinocide. The following month, Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy, founder and chair of the Civil Commission on October 7 and former hostage Ilana Gritzewsky condemned the UN Human Rights Council for its recurring refusal to acknowledge such acts [see also: here].
The same month, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Dr Alice Edwards claimed that colleagues led by Francesa Albanese had bullied other UN human rights experts into refraining from signing a January 2024 joint letter documenting atrocities and sexual violence [see also: here and here]. On multiple occasions, Albanese has also characterised the mass rape of Israelis as “fabrications”, bemoaned the media’s focus, asked “what’s the need to talk about mass rapes? There’s no need,” and dismissed the Dinah Project.
Further, the UN initially dismissed Israel’s claims that members of UNWRA’s staff (United Nations World Refugee Agency) participated in the October 7th attacks. As it transpired, at least 15 per cent (over 450) of UNWRA’s senior educators in Gaza across 60 UNWRA institutions, were identified as members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Nine UNWRA employees, plus two more in February, were also confirmed to have participated in the terrorist attacks on Oct.7, 2023. Given that 12 per cent (1,462) of the 12,521 UNWRA employees – at a minimum- in the Gaza Strip are members of Hamas or other designated terrorist organisations, why did the same “structures of accountability” initially dismiss claims that were already statistically probable?
This month, UN Watch revealed that Albanese had received over $2.5 million in external financial support, including $600,000 from undisclosed sources and pro-Hamas groups, among them the Qatari-owned and Hamas-linked Al Jazeera.
When the very “structures of accountability” are themselves complicit in ignoring or abetting the terrorist groups who commit a genocide against Jews, is it not an all-too-easy exogenous deflection to frame Israel as “terrified” of what the UN might expose, when the UN itself is guilty of failing to expose or document that genocide?
If The Guardian is willing to platform Klein and Taylor without challenge, both of whom advance the belief in which global elites are united in the defence of an “Israeli ethnostate,” erase Hamas from the narrative entirely when deploying genocide libels, and posit antizionist Jews as the default Jewish opinion while defaming dissenters as “Jewish fascists,” at what point does the outlet cease to do its own “radical thinking” and instead become a platform undergirded by deep-seated antisemitic and conspiratorial claims?