Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

The US talks tough on Lebanon - but also gives Hezbollah a huge prize at the same time

According to L'Orient Today US negotiator for Lebanon Tom Barrack dropped two bombshells last week.

The first:

He spoke of a 90-day disengagement agreement, a trial period to test whether trust can be established. In the same interview, he hinted that the cease-fire agreement reached in late November is no longer working in its current form.

What was he insinuating? Despite official statements, Lebanon has not upheld the terms of that deal, particularly with regard to dismantling Hezbollah’s weapons south of the Litani, and even north of it.

On the 91st day, it will already be too late.

For those still hesitating or betting on time — specifically, on the outcome of negotiations with Tehran‚ it should be remembered how Donald Trump gave Iran 60 days to reach a deal before Israel took matters into its own hands.

The path Barrack laid out for Lebanon is clear: the country is expected to follow in Syria’s footsteps toward a new Pax Americana. The demands, therefore, go far beyond Hezbollah’s disarmament, which is now seen as a necessary step, regardless of the broader process. Failing that, what lies ahead is abandonment, isolation, explosion, and implosion.

The US is expecting Lebanon - as well as Syria - to at least make peace with Israel, if not normalization.

But Barrack also said something which goes against US policy since 1997:

for the first time, he referred to Hezbollah as a Lebanese political party, drawing a clear line between its political role and its armed wing, which is designated by several countries as a terrorist organization.

This marks a significant shift in the U.S. approach, which maintains sanctions on the party as a whole. In the current context, it also represents a rare opportunity, an unexpected offer for Lebanon’s Shiites to break free from Iran’s grip and reintegrate into the Lebanese fold.

This distinction could offer Hezbollah a chance to build on its considerable parliamentary, administrative, social and economic influence. If the party truly chooses to abandon its military project.

In other words, Washington is not necessarily seeking to dismantle Hezbollah, but rather to bring it into the ‘rules of the game,’ under the logic of the state rather than that of ‘resistance.’

While I have reservations about this, it is a very Trump-like approach. If Hezbollah wants to survive in any form, it has to give up its weapons, and to the US, this is non-negotiable. Once that is done, then it can represent Lebanon's Shiites politically and can lose its terrorist designation from the US (and likely from everyone else.)

It's a gamble, but I can see its appeal. Hezbollah isn't going to disappear in any scenario. Here Barrack is giving Hezbollah both a carrot and stick - if it doesn't cooperate with Lebanon in giving up its weapons, within 90 days, Israel will strike.

It comes down to how much influence Iran still has over Hezbollah. It couldn't convince Hezbollah to attack during the June war, but the loyalty is still there. Severing those ties would have huge positive repercussions. But even if that happens, Iran could still create smaller militias in Lebanon, as they are doing in Syria, that those respective governments simply are not equipped to combat.

Terrorists love chaos. And it is too easy to create chaos in the Middle East. The US has a plan, and it is in many ways as good as any we've seen up until now, but that doesn't mean it can be achieved.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

By Daled Amos

The Arab "victory" in the October War of 1973 created repercussions that are still felt today.

Of course, we know that Israel won that war. In fact, it beat back both the Egyptian and Syrian forces to the extent that the US had to pressure Israel to stop while its army was on the way to Cairo. Yet, according to scholar and author Raphael Patai, the initial success of the Egyptian military not only allowed Egypt to frame the war as a success for itself, but also as a victory for the Arab people as a whole. The dishonor and shame of Egypt's huge loss in 1967 during the Six-Day War were erased by this "victory" in 1973, and gave the Arabs renewed confidence.

Patai writes that this self-confidence contributed to their risking a confrontation with the West by imposing an oil embargo and quadrupling the price of crude oil. Even more important are the consequences of this new self-consequence vis-à-vis Israel. Patai writes:

A manifestation of this new Arab self-confidence is the willingness to enter into disengagement agreements with Israel. It is, in this connection, characteristic that it is precisely Egypt, the country that won what it considers a victory over Israel, which has embarked on the road of negotiation with her, while those Arab countries that have fought Israel without being able to chalk up a victory over her, or have never even fought her, are opposed to all accommodation with her. [emphasis added] (xxiv - xxv)

According to Patai, Egypt's perceived victory in the October War gave Sadat the self-confidence to meet with Menachem Begin and set in motion the events that would result in peace between Egypt and Israel. On the flip side, the Arab countries that have no such face-saving experience or never fought Israel either lacked the necessary confidence to recognize Israel or--having never fought Israel--kept their distance and did not accept Israel's right to exist.

But there is another way to understand what motivates the Arab countries to make peace with the existence of Israel. Last week on the Commentary Magazine podcast, John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary Magazine, made a contrary observation:

Let me let me mention that my father, Norman Podhoretz [former editor-in-chief of Commentary Magazine], said many, many years ago that if you follow the trajectory of the wars, the actual physical wars, that Israel has waged since the beginning of its existence, what you see is that when Israel wins a war, it knocks out enemies.

He goes on to break down the wars as follows:

Following the 1948 War of Independence, the participating countries that were nowhere near Israel's border "basically said, 'We're done. We don't like Israel. We're not for it. We're against it. But you know, don't look to us to play any kind of active role in any military operation against Israel in 1967'".

With the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel knocked out Jordan as a military participant by defeating Jordan, taking the West Bank, and reuniting Jerusalem.

Following Egypt's defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Sadat, four years later, flew to Jerusalem, effectively ending Egypt's participation in the war against Israel.

In 1982, at the end of the Lebanon War, Syria effectively left the battlefield. Israel removes the PLO, and Syria basically no longer plays a role against Israel. When the first and second Intifadas happened inside Israel, there was no effort to open a second front on Israel's borders. Now, there is even talk of some form of normalization with Syria.

According to Podhoretz, there is no perceived victory. Instead, the Arab countries were beaten and they know it, and that defeat is what motivates the Arabs to reach some kind of accommodation with Israel.

Bret Stephens recently put it this way:

A core misconception about Israel’s policy since Oct. 7 is that the country has favored military action at the expense of diplomacy. The truth is that it’s Israel’s decisive battlefield victories that have created diplomatic openings that have been out of reach for decades — and would have remained so if Israel hadn’t won...Wars don’t end because Greta Thunberg gets on a boat.

Where does that leave Iran, Israel's most dangerous remaining enemy?

Khamenei has claimed that Iran defeated Israel in the Twelve-Day War, pointing to the damage wreaked on civilian targets in Israeli cities. This "victory" hardly seems to be an inspiration for the mullahs to make peace with the Little Satan. They have invested too much in an Israeli enemy to suddenly make peace. The conflict is hardwired into their ideology. And as a defeat, it is not deep enough to consider making peace, which again would run into a conflict with their ideology.

Neither framing that war as a victory nor admitting it as a defeat will move peace forward. That may explain why there is so much talk about regime change.

In an interview last week with Iran expert Meir Javedanfar on a FDD [Foundation for Defense of Democracies] podcast, there was a discussion about the deep divisions within the Iranian government between those who want to change the system and listen to the Iranian people and those who want things to stay as they are--and their motivation is not exactly theology. Javedanfar explains:

[T]here are those who want to continue with the same policies as June 12th, which is the same as the status quo, basically to continue with whatever the Islamic Republic was doing before, and they feel very threatened because any change could lead to billions of dollars worth of lost business.

In this context, Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at FDD, asked about the apparent fatwa issued by Iranian religious leaders against Trump's life. Javedanfar responded:

I think it is bluster. This fatwa is part of this struggle within the Islamic Republic for the future of the Islamic Republic, which I said, in my previous comments, there are people who want to make it as difficult as possible for the regime to change direction, because they have a lot of money and a lot of positions to lose.

As long as there are Iranian leaders deliberately standing in the way of any shift, there will be no meaningful change. Even the collapsing economy does not motivate them. And regime change itself seems unlikely, considering the apparent weakness of the opposition. Iran's religious leaders are not so different from Hamas. Both have effectively taken their people hostage, have benefited financially, and will not be easily dislodged.

Jonathan Schanzer refers to the Middle East as a "basket case."
These are two reasons why.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu set up an interview with his own employee, former journalist and international affairs adviser, former journalist Caroline Glick, to push back against his critics within and outside Israel.

From a Jewish ethical perspective, this is a moral failure.

It is absolutely true that Israel's top priority is protecting and saving the lives of its citizens. Tough decisions must be made and everyone will not be happy with those decisions. Those decisions may indeed be the most moral decisions. But that is not all that is needed from a leader.

When a leader speaks during national trauma, especially one who represents the Jewish people on the world stage, we listen not just to what they say, but how they carry the pain of others. In this interview, Prime Minister Netanyahu defends his decisions, rebuts blame, and explains strategic choices. But something is missing.

There is almost no sense that he is mourning with the people. No “I should have seen,” no “we were too confident,” no “this weighs on me.” He doesn’t lie, but he uses truth as a shield. He doesn't minimize loss, but he converts it into debate points.

And that matters: not because we need perfect leaders, but we need them to be accountable and to be able to grow.

He speaks about the failure of security chiefs, about being misled, about what he would have done if told sooner. But he never says: “I carry this.” He never says "The buck stops here." That absence - that lack of responsibility, repentance, humility, and shared grief - breaks trust. And national leaders must be, above all, trustworthy.

He doesn’t need to self-flagellate. But he should say things like, “We all made assumptions that turned out deadly. I bear that" or “This weighs on me every day, and I will spend the rest of my leadership making it right" or “Even though others missed things, I could have questioned more, demanded more.”

Bibi should be saying, "I am with you - not above you."

Netanyahu invokes Donald Trump in the end. There is too much Trumpism in this interview - never admitting mistakes, never showing real empathy, never admitting that political opponents have something valuable to say.

The leader of the Jewish state should not use Donald Trump as his model of leadership. He should use King David.

From the EU Observer:

A senior EU official has been lobbying against Israel sanctions using bogus claims of antisemitism, according to a leaked diplomatic cable.

Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU Commission's "coordinator on combating antisemitism", made the claims in a meeting with EU ambassadors in Tel Aviv on 29 May — in the middle of EU talks on possible trade sanctions against Israel.

She "warned against the risk that review of the [EU-Israel] association agreement is based on 'rumours about Jews', as opposed to facts", in one comment.

Luckily, the newspaper that says that she was engaged in falsehoods reproduced the leaked memo. And she said nothing inaccurate..

Let's fact-check.

Exchange of Views with EC Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life, Katharina Von Schnurbein
EC Coordinator (KVS) recalled the growing antisemitism in Europe at the highest level since the Holocaust.

True.

KVS welcomed the fact that 24 EUMS had adopted national strategies for combating antisemitism. She underscored also the need to fight incidents of antisemitism that are not illegal via counter speeches.

True.

Noting how the first anti-IL protests in Europe began already on October 7, 2023, KVS shared with HoMs the suspicion that Hamas or other extremist groups were behind those.

True. Maybe not Hamas directly but certainly extremist groups like Samidoun, which is now on the US and Eu terror list. So she is correct.

KVS challenged some reports by the UN on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, such as a statement by the WFP warning of a humanitarian crisis already on October 8, 2023. She also mentioned how Hamas skilfully managed within just one week to shift the media attention from the massacre it committed on October 7 protests against the Israeli actions in Gaza and all this even before a single Israeli soldier had entered the Strip.

True.

KVS warned against new forms of antisemitism, which she described as “ambient antisemitism,” i.e., creating an atmosphere in which Jews feel uncomfortable, even in European institutions, noting, for instance, the “bake sales for Gaza.”

This was said in the article to be a Red Cross fundraiser. Whether this specific incident was right or wrong, no one can doubt that the constant elevation of Gaza as the world's biggest humanitarian crisis without context like Hamas using the civilians as human shields can certainly make Jews feel uncomfortable.

KVS stated that news on IL providing food in Gaza are ignored by the UN and the media, and warned against the risk that review of the Association Agreement is based on “rumours about Jews,” as opposed to facts.

The first part is true. I don't know enough about the second.

KVS also mentioned what she referred to as “conspiracy theories spread in social media about ‘Jews or the Mossad succeeded in putting the Israeli singer in second place’ at the recent Eurovision Song Contest.”

True.

In the ensuing Q&A, a number of HoMs [redacted] asked how to draw the line between antisemitism and the legitimate criticism of Israel.
Some [redacted] expressed discomfort in looking at the humanitarian situation in Gaza through the lenses of antisemitism, noting how, while there have been instances of hospital statements by the UN, the IL side dismisses every accusation on attacks on hospitals as “blood libels,” while HoMs heard from doctors, human rights organisations, the UN and from UNSC Kaag herself about the seriousness of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and these are facts and to bring them up is not anti-Semitic.

No one said it is.

[Redacted] warned against even considering, in view of the extreme views of said Minister [redacted] wondered how to deal with a reality in which accusations of genocide against Israel are being considered by international jurisdictions.

KVS replied by clarifying how criticism of IL is not antisemitism, even if the IL government says it is; qualifying as dangerous the IL extreme right “flirting” with European far right parties.

So she is explicitly saying legitimate criticism of Israel is not antisemitic - directly contradicting the main claim in the article.

She insisted on the need to build a “trust based” dialogue with IL. She said that international Human Rights Organisations apply “double standards” in relation to the IL-PAL conflict. She warned against the temptation to “reopen” the IHRA, as it would be very difficult to agree on it again.

True and true.

KVS noted how the public discourses in IL and Europe are as far apart as they have ever been, and how losing IL would be a loss for Europe, and went on to also reflect on the consequences for Europe when looking at the review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

True.

She added that the focus in Europe is only on Gaza, with the hostages being almost forgotten.

True.

Noting how Jews in Europe are being blamed for what happens in Gaza, KVS concluded by insisting on the need to focus on facts.

True.

Here is a case where a newspaper makes a claim, says that the evidence supports the claim, but the evidence in fact refutes it. But it knows that most people do not know enough about the situation and won't bother reading the memo itself. And then it quotes "experts" who dispute what Katharina von Schnurbein supposedly said without actually engaging with what she actually said.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/14 Links Pt2: The Anti-Semitism Nexus; The BBC has proven itself to be institutionally blind to anti-Semitism; Congressmen raise questions about US funding to anti-Netanyahu protest groups

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Anti-Semitism Nexus

Well said. Albanese has declared war on the democratic West on behalf of the world’s most repressive and violent regimes, and she has a particular obsession with whipping up anti-Semitism all over the world. Albanese is a truly abominable figure in global politics.

She is also, like most delusional anti-Semites, whiny and self-pitying in the extreme. “I have been tormented for years,” she posted over the weekend, each desperate utterance merely proving that she is every bit the malign martyr-poseur she is accused of being.

For those interested in a rundown of Albanese’s greatest Jew-baiting hits, I wrote about her sordid career in January. But at the moment what strikes me about the Trump administration’s decision to sanction Albanese is what it reveals about her enabling institutions. After all, if sanctions are going to prevent her from working with certain organizations or people, it helps to know who was aiding her crusade along the way.

And you will probably not be shocked to see that among those institutions are Columbia and Harvard University. UN Watch obtained disclosure forms from 2023 and 2024 showing the schools made “in kind” contributions to Albanese’s efforts to buff Hamas’s reputation even after Oct. 7, 2023. These contributions came in the form of four research assistants in 2023 and “two rounds of interns/research assistants” in 2024 from Columbia alone.

That might not sound like much but it is a good indication of how elite universities became part of a nexus of “Globalize the Intifada” activism. As Albanese intensified her anti-Zionist campaign in the wake of those massacres, American institutions of higher learning were there to help her. It is one of the many ways these universities contributed to a dangerous atmosphere for Jews all over the world.

Albanese happened to have visited Columbia for a speech about a year after the Hamas attacks. Here is how a news report on her lecture opened:

“Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, shrugged when Columbia University student Eden Yadegar asked her if all Israelis were legitimate targets.

“When another student asked Albanese if she condemns the rape and kidnapping that occurred during the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, the majority of the audience laughed, Yadegar told the Times of Israel.”

The anti-Semitic rot always runs deeper than it looks—even when it looks alarmingly deep to begin with.

Anti-Semitism Is Un-American

With numerous signs of rising anti-Semitism in the U.S., Jack Miller and Wilfred M. McClay argue that hating Jews is not only wrong, but fundamentally contrary to the American ethos.

America has, indeed, been an incomparably wonderful land for Jewish people, a land in which they have been able to flourish and achieve according to their own abilities and their own hard work. It also is equally true that America owes a profound and incalculable debt to those Jews who helped foster principles upon which much of the American experiment in democratic self-government was erected. Jewish Americans have helped our nation find cures for many of the worst illnesses, helped it become an economic and cultural juggernaut, and helped enrich our legal tradition. The Jewish people have contributed in ways large and small to the soul of America, both its making and improving.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not anti-Semitic, and see anti-Semitism as a grave threat. They believe in that vision in our Declaration of Independence and want to work to get us ever closer, as we previously had been doing, to realizing it in full.

The Founders adopted the Exodus story as a symbolic expression of America’s quest for liberty against the tyranny of worldly kings who counted themselves above the law. In that way, as in so many other ways, the American story and the Jewish story have been intertwined—and to negate one is to negate them both. We can’t let that happen if we are to continue as the land of the free.

Federal report warns of rise in antisemitic incidents against children in schools

A six-year-old child’s teacher told her she was “half human” because one of her parents was Jewish - one of nearly 800 antisemitic incidents in the Ontario elementary and high school system since 2023 reported to a federally commissioned survey.

Others included a 13-year-old girl being swarmed several times a day by classmates who raised their hands in a Nazi salute even as she begged them to stop, and Jewish children told by their teachers they were baby-killers for supporting Israel in its war with the militant group Hamas.

The stories relayed by Jewish families in a report for the Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism reflect the rise in antisemitic incidents reported to municipal police nationwide since Hamas militants in Gaza attacked Israel in October, 2023. The ensuing war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions more.

Antisemitism on university campuses has been explored by parliamentary committees, but the scope of the issue in the K-12 school system has received less attention at the federal level, in part because the schools are provincial responsibilities.

Envoy Deborah Lyons decided to embark on a probe after hearing numerous anecdotes from Jewish parents and organizations about the situation facing younger children. The final report was published Monday.

“Jewish students deserve what every Canadian child deserves: to feel safe, valued, and included in their classrooms,” Ms. Lyons said in a statement.

“This is not the reality today – and it must change.”

The survey focused on Ontario, home to approximately 30,000 Jewish children, the largest such population in Canada, according to University of Toronto sociology professor Robert Brym. He conducted the study, sending surveys to Jewish families via community organizations between January and April.

Of the 599 Jewish parents who responded, many reported incidents with no direct connection to the war, including the one reported by the family of the six-year-old.

“More than 40 per cent of responses involve Holocaust denial, assertions of excessive Jewish wealth or power, or blanket condemnation of Jews – the kind of accusations and denunciations that began to be expunged from the Canadian vocabulary and mindset in the 1960s and were, one would have thought, nearly totally forgotten by the second decade of the 21st century,” the report says.

Most of the respondents to the survey reported incidents with a connection to the ongoing conflict.

Among the examples: children being told by teachers or fellow students that they personally were responsible for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, with one grade nine boy told he was a baby killer.

07/14 Links Pt1: Those demanding a ceasefire know nothing about the evil of Hamas; Anti-Israel UN Commissioners Resign En Masse After Trump Sanctions

From Ian:

Richard Kemp: Those demanding a ceasefire know nothing about the evil of Hamas

So what makes Hamas think it still has the muscle to dictate terms to the side that is so obviously winning the fight? It knows it is no longer popular among the citizens of Gaza. There have been some protests that were brutally smashed down.

During a recent visit to the Strip I met around 100 Gazan civilians. Many of them openly told me how much they hate Hamas and want rid of them. So strong was their feeling, cheered by those around them, that I believe it’s likely they are representative.

The dreadful truth is that Hamas gets greater encouragement to continue fighting from widespread support in the West and the misguided and unjust condemnation of Israel from many political leaders and international institutions. How often do we hear people such as Keir Starmer demanding Israel stops fighting yet never making any demand on Hamas?

The same is true of attitudes to the GHF. Starmer has also condemned them, as has the UN Secretary General, both speaking in unison with Hamas. And of course it is received wisdom in the West that the population must in no circumstances leave Gaza. Yet that would be the most humane option and should have happened long ago.

The majority of Gazans I spoke to said they want to leave as soon as possible. That’s hardly surprising given the misery, bloodshed and destruction brought on them by Hamas’s war. Acquiescing with their wishes is obvious. But many in the international community apparently would rather civilians be further endangered than voluntarily and temporarily evacuated. Again, they and Hamas almost speak with one voice.

Our leaders have helped to prolong the war and increase the killing. Instead of looking to reward terrorism by recognising a putative Palestinian state, Macron, Starmer and the rest should be helping to make Hamas give up hope and demand a ceasefire followed by a negotiated end to hostilities on Israel’s terms.

Benny Morris: Rape and the Arab Way of War

Last week, an Israeli group called the Dinah Project issued a detailed report on the rapes, sexual mutilations, and similar atrocities committed by Hamas and its collaborators on October 7. While there is hardly a lack of documentation of these depravities, the report is compiled specifically to build a case against Hamas as such—and not just the individual perpetrators—under Israeli and international law. It can be read in full here, in all its awful details.

Back in March, Benny Morris offered some reflections on this subject, in light of a then-new report from UNICEF about the widespread rape of children in the Sudanese civil war:

I believe [the UNICEF report] tells us something—which many in the West don’t want to hear—about behavioral norms of Arab combatants in wartime, even in civil wars in Arab countries.

Among the recorded rape victims were four children aged one year and one-third of the 221 recorded victims were boys. The report adds that many more cases of rape of children likely went unrecorded and many of the victims probably died. The 221 cases “represent only a small fraction of the total cases,” states the report. Sudan’s national anthem states: “We are soldiers of God (Allah), Soldiers of the Homeland.”

The report does not deal with the many hundreds, and probably thousands, of adult Sudanese women and men raped during the past fifteen months. The report states that sexual violence is used by the Sudanese combatants—and the report avoids identifying the perpetrators’ affiliations—as a “tactic of war.”

The Sudanese are not alone among the Arab world’s organized perpetrators of sexual violence. Widespread sexual violence was reported in recent years in the Yemeni civil war. . . . It is worth noting that mass sexual violence, which included thousands of cases of rape and abduction to Muslim homes, characterized [Islamic State’s] assault on the Sinjar district of northern Iraq in 2014. . . . A twenty-one-year-old Yazidi woman, Fawzia Sido, was freed from captivity by the Israeli army fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip in October 2024. She was kidnapped as a child by IS fighters in August 2014 and was then trafficked across a number of countries.

Bereaved Oct. 7 families launch billion-shekel lawsuit against PA

The relatives of 122 Israelis murdered by Hamas-led terrorists during the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel on Sunday filed a claim against the Palestinian Authority, asking that the Jerusalem District Court hold Ramallah responsible for supporting the terror attacks.

The families’ lawsuit, filed by attorneys of the Tel Aviv-based Herzog law firm, demands over a billion shekels (approximately $270 million) in frozen P.A. tax revenues held by the Israeli government.

The claim was submitted on behalf of Israelis “tortured and slaughtered with unimaginable cruelty by terrorists, and on behalf of survivors who were left with permanent disabilities as a result of their severe injuries, during the murderous terror attack that began on Oct. 7, 2023,” it said.

Among the plaintiffs, brought together by bereaved father Itzik Shafir—his son Dor Hanan Shafir, 30, was murdered on Oct. 7 while fleeing the Psyduck festival—are families whose loved ones were killed at the two music parties near the border, as well as in towns near Gaza.

“On that dark morning, 399 young people who had been at the Nova and Psyduck festivals were murdered, and 44 were kidnapped to Gaza,” the claim states. “The terrorists conducted systematic searches, assaulting, torturing, raping, murdering and kidnapping everyone they ran into.”

If the families win the lawsuit, the money will be distributed among the plaintiffs, amounting to 10 million shekels ($2.7 million) per murdered victim and 5 million shekels ($1.35 million) per wounded victim.

The lawsuit was one of many actions taken since Knesset lawmakers approved the “Compensation for Terror Victims Bill” in March 2024.

Zionism isn't Jewish supremacy. It is Jewish equality.

I don't know why this one tweet, from late May by a doctor in England, upset me - but you never know what gets under your skin, do you?

Her premise is wrong and that makes her an antisemitic bigot.

Zionism is not about Jewish supremacy, but Jewish equality - for a people who have been around for 3,500 years, whose ideas have had more influence on the world than any others', who have been more persecuted than any other people, to be given self-determination like any other nation. It is human rights. It is fairness. It is asking for Jews to be treated like every other nation.

But let's do a thought experiment. Let's see if this doctor ever tweeted about Muslim supremacy in Saudi Arabia.

Of course not. Even though non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia cannot practice their religion openly. Even though its Basic Law says that human rights are subordinate to Sharia law. Even though non-Muslims must conform to Saudi dress codes.

Israel has no such laws. Non-Jews can eat non-kosher food, in public, on Yom Kippur. Mosques send out their prayers on loudspeakers at ear-splitting volumes.

So why not dismantle Saudi Arabia?

Oh, no, Doctor Rahmen cannot say that. Because if she says that out loud, she would be putting her life in danger. Antisemitism is not dangerous - but pointing out Muslim supremacy sure is.

Aladwan is part of the now illegal Palestine Action group in the UK, and she has been arrested.

But all you really need to know about her and her faux concern for human rights can be seen in this single tweet:

What kind of trauma doctor cheers rape?

One that should lose her license.

(h/t Jill)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Modern philosophy, for all its brilliance and rigor, often suffers from a foundational flaw: it tends to treat abstraction as an end in itself. In its pursuit of purity, it frequently drifts into a mode of intellectualism that detaches thought from responsibility, treating moral dilemmas as puzzles, and ethical obligations as thought experiments. In this sense, modern philosophy can be seen as engaged in a quiet but profound flight from responsibility.

Think about philosophy's concept of "mind–body dualism," the idea that the mind and the body are separate entities. This can lead to profoundly unethical results, where actions are divorced from the mind, and responsibility for actions evaporates.

Or the idea of skeptical solipsism - the view that only one's own mind is knowable, casting doubt on the reality of others’ minds or the external world This can be used to avoid any relationships, any interaction with one's community and family, all in the name of philosophy.

But perhaps most of all is philosophy's love of abstraction - of puzzling out questions like "when does a pile of sand become a heap?" Solving theoretical problems is only meaningful when they can be leveraged to solve real problems, but too often philosophy elevates these questions as if finding the answers are themselves moral imperatives.

AskHillel, the secular framework for Jewish ethical reasoning, offers a radical alternative.

It looks at philosophy through the same prism that it looks at every human endeavor to see if it meets the preconditions for any ethical system to be morally trustworthy, what can be called the ethoskeletal axioms.

Corrigibility – Can the idea self-repair or evolve in the face of moral critique? Many philosophical systems treat themselves as closed; AskHillel demands iterative integrity.

Transparency – Can the reasoning process be laid bare, or does it obscure its premises behind jargon? Much of modern philosophy fails to show its scaffolding.

Dignity – Does the idea uphold the innate worth of human beings? Abstract systems like solipsism or utilitarian totalism often erase this.

Override Logic – Can the system resolve value conflict responsibly, or does it collapse into paralysis or binary thinking?

Relational Integrity – Does it account for roles, covenant, and responsibility within relationships? Philosophies of hyper-individualism often fail here.

Epistemic Humility – Does the idea acknowledge the limits of certainty, or does it weaponize doubt or claim moral infallibility?

To be sure, not all philosophies are equal, and each kind will respond differently to this test. But many classic philosophical constructs falter when tested against these axioms. Solipsism fails dignity, relational integrity, and override logic. Mind-body dualism often dodges corrigibility and relational grounding. Infinite regress paralyzes moral clarity under the guise of epistemic rigor. Even elegant thought systems, when left abstract, violate transparency and dignity by refusing to take a stand.

AskHillel challenges the assumption that philosophy must float free of moral gravity. It insists instead that ideas must be lived, not just theorized. Concepts must be inhabited, not merely defined.

The essence of AskHillel's way of looking at the world lies in a simple inversion: abstraction is not dismissed, but grounded. Its test is not whether a concept is internally consistent, but whether it helps sustain a moral structure that holds under pressure. In this sense, AskHillel doesn't just practicalize philosophy; it elevates it. By asking what any given abstraction demands of us ethically, AskHillel performs a kind of secular sanctification, adding meaning to what had been seen as a mind puzzle.

Take, for instance, the Ship of Theseus. This is a famous metaphysical riddle about identity: if every part of a ship is replaced over time, is it still the same ship?

AskHillel doesn't discard the question: it reframes it. When does a person, institution, or nation remain morally accountable despite internal transformation? If a company employed slaves in the past, is it still responsible to fix the harm many decades later after it has changed management, headquarters, employees, its own mission statement? This is no longer a riddle; it's a diagnostic for teshuvah, justice, and communal continuity. Abstract becomes actionable.

Or consider the Sorites paradox which asks when a collection of grains becomes a "heap." AskHillel hears a deeper ethical call: when does small acts of harm accumulate? When does silence become complicity? When does a fetus become a human? Jewish ethics is attuned to continuity as opposed to the discreteness often assumed in philosophy, but sometimes there is a line that is crossed - where exactly is that line? The question of a "heap" becomes a test of Areivut (responsibility) and dignity.

For this article, I created a completely new concept I called "qwertyism, " defined as the irritation felt when someone takes a parking spot you were eyeing. A traditional philosopher might analyze its taxonomy: Is qwertyism the same as seeing someone grab the last bag of chips? Or the elevator doors closing on you? What about when a spot looks open but has a motorcycle? A cone? A hydrant?

When I asked AskHillel how it would deal with the concept, it looked at it from a different perspective:

Does qwertyism expose latent entitlement that undermines gratitude? How should one ethically respond to feelings of minor loss or resentment? Is qwertyism a test of Anavah (humility) or Areivut (shared public goods)? AskHillel elevated what was meant to be a silly thought experiment into a path for how to become a better person.

Where traditional Jewish ethics grounds itself in divine covenant, AskHillel is secular. But it retains the structure of brit through shared axioms: truth exists, dignity matters, responsibility is binding. These values are not commanded; they are engineered into the system because without them, moral life collapses. AskHillel asks not "What is the good?" but "What kind of structure can people live in without their dignity breaking?"

This is the core reversal: modern philosophy often chases coherence. AskHillel chases consequence. Where the former admires ideas, the latter demands that they hold human weight. In this way, AskHillel turns philosophy back toward responsibility, restoring the bridge between reason and moral presence. Just as Judaism teaches that any object or idea can become sacred when used for sacred purposes, AskHillel says any idea can become meaningful when used for moral purposes. The abstract questions are not silly, but we need to reveal their moral core, and endow them with meaning: a secular version of kedushah, holiness.

Philosophy need not be abandoned. But it must be reclaimed. Its flight from responsibility is a major error. AskHillel offers a path for that reclamation.

It is not the end of abstraction. It is its elevation.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The "non-Zionists" of a century ago would be considered Zionists today

Today's anti-Zionists like to portray Zionism as a fringe movement a century ago, and they claim that they are just following the paths of anti-Zionists of the past.

The argument is knowingly deceptive. The anti-Zionist arguments in the interwar period evaporated after the Holocaust. Opposing Zionism before Israel was reborn was a position against a political idea, opposing Zionism after Israel exists is antisemitism - the opposition to the very existence of the only Jewish majority state.

But there are other nuances to the anti- and non-Zionist stance by Jews in the interwar period.

Something happened a hundred years ago that sounds strange today. After discussions in Zionist conventions in the US and Europe, The Jewish Agency in British Mandate Palestine voted to expand to include non-Zionists.

Here is an article from the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle from July 1925:

Who were these non-Zionists and why did they want to join what was the most visibly Zionist organization - the Jewish Agency?

The non-Zionists of 1925 supported Jewish immigration to Palestine. They supported Jewish presence and growth in the Holy Land. They supported building up Jewish institutions and Jewish culture there. But they were ambivalent, at the time, about the concept of a Jewish national home as a political entity.

Some were worried about appearing to have dual loyalty. Some were worried that a Jewish state would survive and they just wanted to make Palestine a safe haven for Jews.

Yes, there were some real anti-Zionists among the Orthodox and Jewish socialists. But it is they who were were the fringe, even in 1925.

The non-Zionists of the time - the ones who wanted to be involved in building up a Jewish presence and culture and institutions in Palestine - were much different than the anti-Zionists of today. Unlike the "Jewish Voice for Peace" style haters, they cared deeply about the fate of their fellow Jews in Europe, the Muslim world and Palestine itself.

Today's Jewish "anti-Zionists," like the ones who met in Vienna in the "First Anti-Zionist Congress," last month, have nothing in common with the "non-Zionists" of the past. Those non-Zionists would be the first ones to condemn today's anti-Zionists as enemies of the Jewish people.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)