In light of recent anti-Israel demonstrations, here is an excerpt of an article by Yaron Brook and me, published in the Indianapolis Star on July 24, 2002. It was written in response to the latest suicide-bombing—engineered by Hamas—of an Israeli school bus, which killed 19 and wounded dozens more. More fundamentally, it was written in response to the continuing insistence by America’s policymakers that we negotiate with the Palestinian leaders (such as Yasser Arafat) in order to achieve an “even-handed” solution. It is as timely now as it was then.

§ The Israelis and the Palestinians are not morally equal

Israel is the only free country in a region dominated by Arab monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships. It is only the citizens of Israel—Arabs and Jews alike—who enjoy the right to express their views, to criticize their government, to form political parties, to publish private newspapers, to hold free elections. When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is obscene for them to start claiming that Israel is violating the Palestinians’ rights. All Arab citizens who are genuinely concerned with individual rights should, as their very first action, seek to oust their own despotic rulers and adopt the type of free society that characterizes Israel.

§ Since its founding, Israel has been the victim

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has had to fight five wars—all in self-defense—against 22 hostile Arab dictatorships, and has been repeatedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists. Yasser Arafat is responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Israeli schoolchildren, the hijacking of airliners and the car-bombings and death-squad killings of thousands of Israeli, American, Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Today he ardently sponsors such terror groups as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al Aksa Brigade.

The land Israel is “occupying” was captured in a war initiated by its Arab neighbors. Like any victim of aggression, Israel has a moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attack. The Palestinians want to annihilate Israel, while Israel wants simply to be left alone. If there is a moral failing on Israel’s part, it consists of its reluctance to take stronger military measures. If it is right for America to bomb al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan—and it is—then it is equally justifiable for Israel to bomb the terrorist strongholds in the occupied territories.

§ Hatred of Israel, and of the United States, is hatred for Western values

Like America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the Arab-Israeli dispute is a conflict between opposing philosophies. On the one side are the forces of mysticism, medieval tribalism, dictatorship—and terror; on the other side are the forces of reason, individualism, capitalism—and civilization. Arafat and his sympathizers hate Israel for the same reason that Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers hate America, i.e., for embracing secular, Western values. No “peace process” is possible with such enemies.

This is not an ethnic battle between Jews and Arabs, but a moral battle between those who value the individual’s right to be free and those who don’t. Those Arabs who value individual freedom are enemies of the Arafat regime and deserve to be embraced by Israel; those Jews who do not value individual freedom deserve to be condemned by Israel.

§ Israelis have a right to govern the land

Only Israel has a moral right to establish a government in that area—on the grounds, not of some ethnic or religious heritage, but of a secular, rational principle. Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no “right” to establish a dictatorship. There can be no “self-determination” when the result is tyranny.

§ Palestinians are not “freedom fighters”

The Palestinians want a state, not to secure their freedom, but to perpetuate the dictatorial reign of Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. Arafat’s “police” brutally expropriate property and silence opposing viewpoints by shutting down radio and TV stations. They systematically arrest, torture and murder peaceful dissenters. To call the militant Palestinians “freedom fighters”—when they support the subjugation of their own people, when they deliberately murder children in the streets or gleefully praise such depravity—is a mind-numbing perversion.

§ A Palestinian state under Arafat would become a base for terrorism

A Palestinian state headed by Arafat would be a launching pad and a training ground for terrorist organizations targeting not only Israel, but the United States. Forcing Israelis to accept a Palestinian state under Arafat is like forcing Americans to accept a state the size of Mexico, 12 miles from New York City, ruled by Osama bin Laden. As long as the Palestinians sanction aggression, they should not be permitted their own state.

§ America, for its own benefit, must allow Israel to uphold the principle of self-defense

The growing demand for Israel to negotiate with Arafat comes from an unprincipled, range-of-the-moment mentality. Surrendering to extortion—which the “land-for-peace” catechism endorses—is profoundly immoral and impractical. In the 1938 version of “land for peace,” Nazi Germany was appeased by being allowed to take over Czechoslovakia as part of the Aryan people’s “homeland”; the result was to encourage Hitler to start a world war.

We should urge our government to recognize that there is only one means of achieving long-term Mideast peace: upholding the principle of a free society, which entails the endorsement of Israel’s sweeping retaliation against the scourge of terrorism.

When is a woke horror movie not quite as woke as we expect?

It starts with self-awareness.

“Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” wears its progressive heart on its bloody sleeve. Writer/director Jane Schoenbrun (“I Saw the TV Glow”) explores LGBTQ+ themes from start to finish.

They’re integral to the story, but Schoenbrun understands both modern Hollywood mores and slasher film tropes.

What emerges is playful and fresh, but it’s still lacking a core element essential to the genre in play.

Scares.

Kris (Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”) gets tapped to direct a remake of “Camp Miasma,” a 1980s slasher film that fueled a long-running franchise. The “Friday the 13th” parallels are impossible to miss and the extensive attempts to display its pop culture legacy impress.

She travels to a secluded town to interview Billy (Gillian Anderson) before production can begin. The actress starred in the first film in the franchise, skipped the sequels and became a hermit of sorts.

Kris hopes to pick her brain while fleshing out her take on the material. The studio craves an “elevated” horror update, code for addressing the saga’s “problematic” elements.

Of course. 

For Kris, it’s a chance to meet a reclusive star and dig deeper into “Camp Miasma” lore. And boy, is that a rich fount of material, and that’s before Billy opens her creative soul to Kris.

What if the film’s signature stalker, Little Death (Jack Haven), wasn’t just fiction? And could Billy become not just a nostalgic cameo in the new film but its leading lady?

There’s plenty to unpack throughout “Camp Miasma,” from its stylish visuals to the way Schoenbrun insists even a cheesy slasher film has cultural heft. It’s the latter that stands out the most, apart from the creep factor powering our introduction to Billy’s lair.

It’s easy to dismiss a blood-and-guts slasher series as popcorn fluff, but some find meaning in Final Girls and signature kills. Consider the legion of horror fans who stuff conventions, flood Facebook and worship at the altar of their favorite Scream Queens.

“Camp Miasma” has your back.

Other elements of the movie aren’t as stable. The Kris-Billy connection doesn’t quite gel, despite strong performances from both actresses. 

Einbinder is terrific in a role that could have been one-note in lesser hands.

Every franchise has its skeletons.

CAMP MIASMA is now streaming exclusively on MUBI. https://t.co/yS6GoqsZt3

— Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (@CampMiasmaFilm) October 15, 2026

And while the film celebrates an iconic film franchise, scares are in short supply. Little Death has none of the macabre menace of a Jason, Freddy or Art the Clown.

The cartoonish kills don’t help.

Sexuality runs throughout the film, from Kris’ queer love life to Little Death’s origin story. That horror is a conduit for carnal appetites is convincingly sketched out, but it doesn’t give the film’s third act the narrative push we need.

Instead, a calculated chaos descends on the story, failing to build on the intriguing story threads.

“Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” teases a profound take on horror, sex and the ties that bind the two. What emerges is a mash note to ’80s horror and the freeing nature of its sexual impulses.

HiT or Miss: 3 out of 5 stars
Genre: Horror/Meta satire 
Runtime: 1 hour, 52 minutes
Where to Watch: MUBI
Family Friendly? R (Sexual situations, adult language, gore, blood and mature themes)

The post ‘Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma’ – It’s Woke, But … appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

As if to echo political scientists warning Democrats not to read too much into Trump's election-day wipeout, the Washington Post considers a couple of nasty themes that always come up when Democrats win nationally: taxing "the rich" and preventing "the rich" from spending their own money in elections.

(See also: "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" by Ayn Rand, which, alas, continues to age like fine wine.)

The editorial's point of departure is California, where dueling ballot measures are polling in exactly the opposite way one might expect from the Republicans' drubbing last week:

And it still does not appear to have been enough to get California voters to approve a wealth tax. Proposition 40 is losing by about 10 points, with nearly two-thirds of the vote counted as of Friday. Proposition 42, a competing ballot measure that would prohibit new state wealth taxes and retroactive taxes, is on track to pass.

That is excellent news, and the piece analyzes both how hard it would be to make this folly federal law, as well as how bad it would be for American innovation.

But that's not all! as the infomercials always say. The piece also notes that the last Tuesday has provided an undeniable counterexample to the notion that "the rich" can buy elections, and so must therefore be prevented from spending their own money in the exercise of their inalienable right to freedom of speech:

When voters started to understand these realities, and the polling turned against the measure, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) cried foul, criticizing billionaires' spending for tainting the results. Did he really expect them to do nothing while he bragged about taking 5 percent of everything they own?

It isn't as though spending determines election results, as Tuesday's elections elsewhere proved. Elon Musk, the world's richest man on paper, spent more than anyone ever has in a single election cycle, backing Republicans who got slaughtered. If California voters were bothered by billionaires' activism, they could have told them to take a hike, just like Texas voters did to Musk.

Hats off to the editorial board of the Washington Post. While I wouldn't bet on Democrats heeding their wise words, it is good to hear them coming from somewhere.

An argument I saw, but can't place, noted that many of the new Democrats in Congress are moderates, meaning that the Dem-Socialists won't enjoy their recent outsized power as crucial members of a very thin majority. I wouldn't put the odds of a sane Democrat majority as very high, but perhaps they are nonzero.

That's certainly better than zero, particularly since it remains possible that the brain-dead ignoramuses of MAGA could continue controlling the GOP, despite this obvious-but-to them repudiation.

-- CAV