Jewish Ethics: The Enemy of Every Broken Philosophy ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, April 04, 2025

Jewish Ethics: The Enemy of Every Broken Philosophy

(This is the latest chapter in my series on a unified theory for antisemitism, and it is turning into so much more than that. I am truly excited about where this is going. )

___________________

Most of us don't actively think about our ethical framework. We absorb it by osmosis from our parents, our teachers, our friends, media and online. By the time we enter college, most of us have only a fuzzy idea of what seems to be right and wrong.

This needs to change.

We have identified a number of philosophies so far from the perspective of how they look at what used to be called "The Jewish Question." They have all come up short. Implicitly or explicitly, the frameworks we looked at so far - traditional Christian, Muslim, Marxist, progressive, social justice, white supremacism - all allow antisemitism to flourish without contradicting their tenets.

The idea that Jews must disappear, as a religion or as a people or as a nation, is inherently immoral. Any philosophy or framework that insists or allows such an idea is, by definition, an immoral philosophy.

Yet this is what many, if not most, students are exposed to when they enter university, or when they browse social media. Most do not have a well thought out competing framework that they can use to look critically at these philosophies. Who can be against supporting the oppressed or resisting injustice? Most high school students (or adults, for that matter) do not have the tools to realize when they are being manipulated, when moral sounding concepts are twisted into grotesque parodies of morality. Yet this is what they are being exposed to in most universities.

It is essential that everyone understands propaganda methods, how brainwashing and advertising work, how our emotions can be manipulated by a skilled writer or video producer. In addition, people need to be taught how to fact check what they are exposed to. These should not be esoteric skills - they should be taught as part of the curriculum, and if not, there should be online resources to show how lies can sound reasonable.

The challenge with dealing with popular yet immoral philosophies is much deeper. To even know if we are being manipulated by a false ethical framework, we need to have a decent knowledge both of the advantages of better philosophies and the flaws of the worse ones.

We've examined the major streams of antisemitism today. There are others but for our purposes, this covers the vast majority. Here is a summary:

Antisemitic Group	Ethical Facade	Accusation against Jews/Israel	What they fear/hate about Jews/Israel	Their goals for Jews/Israel
Christian Supersessionism	Love thy neighbor	Deicide; Usurpation	Disproving Scripture	Erase Judaism and convert Jews
Islamic Supersessionism	Mercy and justice	Treachery; Colonialism	Religious authenticity, shame at losing wars	Subjugate Jews and destroy Israel
Black Supersessionism	Racial justice	Collusion w/ White Power	Comparison with subjugated group that succeeded	Replace and demonize Jews
Social Justice Eliminationism	Equity and inclusion	Privilege/Racism	A real moral code	Erase Judaism and Jews as distinct
Palestinian Eliminationism	Self-determination	Colonialism/Occupation	Shame	Destroy Israel
Progressive Eliminationism	Universal equality	Nationalism/Xenophobia	Religion/faith, particularism	Erase Jewish particularism
Marxist Eliminationism	Class justice	Capitalism/Elitism	Disproves worker/bourgeois theory	Erase Jewish economic influence
Nazi Annihilationism	Racial purity/Blood and Soil	Racial Impurity	Morality	Exterminate Jews
Iranian Annihilationism	Divine order	Aggression/Genocide	Obstacle to regional dominance	Destroy Israel and marginalize Jews
Far-Right Eliminationism	National purity	Conspiracy/Control	Cultural subversion	Expel or neutralize Jews and Israel
UN/NGO Eliminationism	Human Rights	Genocide/Occupation	Successful nationalism	Delegitimize and dismantle Israel

You can argue with my very abbreviated summaries but you cannot argue that there are a lot of very disparate types of anti-Jewish hate out there. Their philosophies, accusations, fear and goals are all different, showing at a glance that there is no single cause or explanation for antisemitism. Too often we see ideas on fighting antisemitism that don't actually identify the different types and assume a one-size-fits-all solution based on false assumptions about the breadth of the problem ("More Holocaust education!")

Yet they also have some things in common. All of these philosophies include a passionate loathing for the perceived Jewish or Israeli enemy. In all of these cases, that loathing translates into a desire to eliminate the source of their discomfort. An argument can be made that all of them have an inferiority complex compared to the original Jewish source of traditional Western ethical values, which many of these groups are also adamantly opposed to.

The falsity of the philosophies we've discussed can be proven in a number of ways.

One is by showing that they are inconsistent, that they treat different ethical issues or interpret international law differently for Jews and for other people. A legitimate moral code does not change with the times or the circumstances.

For example, the progressives say that they oppose the State of Israel because they are against all nationalisms - but they support Palestinian nationalism (which is meant to destroy Israel.) They say they support freedom of expression, but advocate boycotting Israeli universities. They say they support indigenous rights, but Jews are indigenous to Israel and and regarded as colonialists.

Human Rights Watch said that militants moving among civilians in Yemen are guilty of using human shields, but when Hamas does the same thing they make up a new definition, saying that it is not human shielding unless they force the civilians to stay where they are. It is beyond belief that a human rights organization waters down the definition of human shields - which endangers Palestinian lives - because of their obsessive hate of Israel.

When the US invaded Iraq, Amnesty International defined "occupation" as only existing as long as troops are physically in the territory. When it comes to Gaza, it makes up a new international law that claims that controlling (most of!) the borders and airspace is enough to be considered occupation.

The UK branch of Black Lives Matter issued a statement against boycotts of Black-owned businesses, yet it openly allies with groups that boycott Israel. (As a reminder, even up to the 1970s Arab League members would boycott Western companies with Jews in upper management. There is a direct line from antisemitism to anti-Zionism, no matter how much the "anti-Zionists" insist otherwise.)

The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women has issued reports on Palestinian men beating their wives, but blamed the Israeli "occupation" as the major factor for this abuse. The net result is that the very organization meant to protect women's rights makes it more likely for spousal abuse to continue.

The very idea of "Queers for Palestine" is a joke that writes itself, given the extreme homophobia and anti-LGBTQ laws for Palestinians.

Many examples of human rights issues are not about only one side having human rights that are being violated by the other, but about two sets of competing human rights. Israelis have the human right not to be blown up, stabbed, raped, kidnapped and burned to death. When parties consistently interpret these cases of competing values against Israelis or Jews, it is not a principled stand. Sometimes the pretense of morality is used to mask immorality.

In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that banning kosher slaughter in certain Belgian provinces does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that the ban was "the protection of animal welfare as an element of 'public morals.'" The ruling makes it difficult for religious Jews to live in those areas. Yet in those same provinces, game hunting is allowed and restaurants serve, as delicacies, meat from animals that were shot or killed with a bow and arrow.

Sometimes these philosophies will even throw away their own tenets to partner with others who normally would be their bitter enemies for the sole purpose of attacking Jews and Israel.

White supremacists like David Duke have suddenly become advocates of the decidedly non-white Palestinians. In 2024 Duke endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein for president, citing her anti-war stance and criticism of Israel as aligning with his views. Neo-Nazi websites will liberally quote the most left-wing critics of Israel, and people derided as liars suddenly become authorities.

It sounds astounding, but the Nazis were proud of their moral codes. Nazi Germany was the first country to mandate medical students take courses in medical ethics. These "ethics" included sterilization, eugenics and euthanasia, not to mention teaching that Aryan lives are much more valuable than others. Equally sickening was that the Nazis enforced policies for the humane transport of cattle in cattle cars - but not for millions of Jews jammed into cattle cars en route to slavery or extermination.

We should not be surprised that if the genocide of Jews can be justified as a moral imperative, so can Hamas murdering, raping and kidnapping Jews. If your ethics code allows for Hamas depravity to be admired as "resistance,", it is not a moral code. It is truly frightening that framing a genocidal Islamist death cult as a "progressive force," as Judith Butler and Columbia University students claim, is becoming acceptable discourse - and tomorrow's leaders cannot see anything wrong with it.

We need the counter these depraved, immoral mindsets with something better. We need to not just play defense but offer a better alternative that can attract the next generation. We need to present a moral ethical code that is flexible, thorough, and can stand the test of time.

What can fit this bill?

The fact that all of these immoral philosophies are so opposed to Jewish ethics indicates that any moral ethical system must be compatible with core Jewish core ethical values.

When these hypocritical systems say that Jewish ethics is a mortal danger to themselves, believe it. To combat them, the world need more Jewish ethics, not less.

In the next chapter, we will look at what such an ethics code might look like. It won't surprise you much - because to a large extent, it is also the moral code of Western civilization.