Pip: Good Strategy Rebellion — where the data architecture is sound and the opinions are, let’s say, load-bearing.

Mara: Today we’re looking at a post from Martyn Jones that goes somewhere most sites wouldn’t: a direct, named question about whether the author himself holds antisemitic views, and what the actual published record shows.

Pip: It’s a bold editorial choice, addressing your own controversy head-on in your own house.

Mara: Let’s get into it.

STRAIGHT TALK: Is Martyn Rhisiart Jones Antisemitic?

Pip: The question in the title is blunt, and the post doesn’t flinch from it — this is about how criticism of a state gets read as hatred of a people, and whether that reading holds up against the actual written record.

Mara: The post sets out the evidence directly. On the specific charge of antisemitism, it concludes: “his published work consistently identifies antisemitism as a ‘foul crime’ and a ‘hoax.'” That’s the finding the rest of the piece builds toward.

Pip: So the distinction being drawn is between attacking a government’s conduct and attacking a people — and the post argues those are genuinely different things, even when the rhetoric gets fierce.

Mara: Right. The post frames the controversy carefully: Jones labels actions in Gaza as “genocide” and “collective punishment,” and argues that the charge of antisemitism is being “weaponized” to silence legitimate political criticism of the state of Israel. That’s where the heat comes from.

Pip: Which is, to put it mildly, not a quiet position to hold on LinkedIn.

Mara: The post notes he has, in fact, had high-stakes arguments there with Israeli military reservists. But it also points to a 2026 piece titled “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – 2026,” where he describes the infamous forgery as “a pile of dreck… A total forgery. A hoax so clumsy it makes a three-euro bill look like the genuine article.” That’s not the language of someone lending the conspiracy credibility.

Pip: That’s someone taking a sledgehammer to it.

Mara: The post also surfaces a more unexpected layer — a piece on Wales and Zionism, exploring a historical, bardic connection between Welsh national identity and the idea of a Jewish homeland, framed as a “bitter unravelling” of that sympathy in light of current events. It adds texture to what could otherwise read as a simple opposition position.

Pip: So the record is: mock the conspiracies, critique the state, trace the history. The post’s conclusion is that the accusations stem from the intensity of his opposition to Zionism, not from animosity toward Jewish people.

Mara: That’s the distinction the piece rests on — and it lays out the evidence for the reader to weigh.

---

Pip: Hard questions, answered in public, with the receipts attached. That’s a particular kind of editorial courage.

Mara: Or at least a particular kind of editorial clarity. The ideas underneath — how criticism gets framed, who gets to name the line — those aren’t going anywhere.