03/28 Links Pt2: The Double Standard in the Human-Rights World; Erin Molan: I saw the truth, so I couldn’t stay silent on antisemitism

From Ian:

The Double Standard in the Human-Rights World

In November 2023, the Israeli army announced plans to root out Hamas operatives that it said were hiding in Al-Shifa Hospital, a major medical facility in Gaza City. A large contingent of Doctors Without Borders staff worked there, and its leaders took offense at the Israeli claim. The president of its Australian chapter, Katrina Penney, told a newspaper that she had “seen no evidence that the hospital buildings or the compounds are being used by Hamas as a military base.”

I asked two Doctors Without Borders employees who had worked in East Jerusalem and Gaza about such claims. These staffers frowned. The presence of Hamas gunmen in that hospital and in others was an open secret. “You knew Hamas was there; I went to meetings where this was made very clear,” the staffer, who asked for anonymity out of a desire to continue to work in the human-rights field, told me. “Doors were hidden. There were units you did not get into, that had armed guards at the door.”

Laws of war require soldiers to act with great care when fighting around hospitals, and none of this testimony would justify Israeli brutality. Likewise, however, humanitarian groups such as Doctors Without Borders claim to observe the principle of bearing witness to abuses—an obligation that includes challenging armed groups such as Hamas that risk civilian lives by using hospitals as bases and hiding spots.

Months after that Israeli operation at Al-Shifa, Hamas’s subterfuge was exposed—as was the willful ignorance of Doctors Without Borders. A New York Times investigation strongly suggested that Hamas used Al-Shifa for cover and to store weapons. U.S. spy agencies went further, saying that Hamas used Al-Shifa as a command center and that it held hostages there. That would be a war crime.

Last June, Doctors Without Borders accused Israel of killing one of its staff physiotherapists, Fadi Al-Wadiya, as he biked to work. Organization officials portrayed this as a war crime, an innocent family man slaughtered. An official statement said, “There is no justification for this; it is unacceptable.”

Doctors Without Borders posted a photo of Al-Wadiya’s fractured bicycle. Word circulated that he had been a fighter with Islamic Jihad, a radical group that allied with Hamas on October 7. The organization vigorously denied this. Then the Israeli army released photos of Al-Wadiya, who it said was a rocket specialist, wearing an Islamic Jihad uniform. Doctors Without Borders ultimately conceded that it was “deeply concerned by these allegations” and said it would “never knowingly employ” a fighter.

A staffer involved in hiring for Doctors Without Borders spoke of great organizational pressure to expand hiring in Gaza. “We were told not to check backgrounds,” this employee told me, adding that one office in Gaza had two known Hamas militants. “Our Arab staff was greatly concerned because to be in the same room with operatives put all at risk.”

This staffer paused. “Look, I’m truly not defending Israel; there is a lot in its actions to criticize,” this person said, adding that Doctors Without Borders had been “blindly pro-Palestinian to an extent that was destructive. And if you were Jewish and questioned it, you were just waved off.”

Amid the terrible losses and savage fighting that have marked the war in Gaza, human-rights groups have demonstrated far greater urgency in documenting and denouncing Israel’s conduct than that of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In December, Amnesty International released its much anticipated and publicized report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Amnesty, however, has yet to complete a long-promised report examining the Hamas-driven murder and rape of Israeli civilians on October 7. O’Brien said the staff is hard at work on this. “The documentation has been extraordinarily difficult,” he told me. “Investigating sexual violence in an ethical and sensitive manner can take many months.”

Amnesty has moved with far more dispatch to stamp out dissent within its ranks. Amnesty’s Israeli chapter is known for feisty independence, taking on Netanyahu’s government and at times its own international parent group. The Israeli branch has maintained that, although it was not downplaying “the many horrific atrocities made by Israel in Gaza, which, according to the information we have, seems, on the surface, to have crossed the threshold of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing,” it viewed Amnesty’s accusation of genocide as poorly reasoned. The genocide claim, the chapter argued, seemed designed to “support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience.” The Israeli branch, frustrated with the broader organization’s silence on such questions, also began what it called a “pro-human campaign” to condemn both what it saw as anti-Semitism in some worldwide protests and the Islamophobia inside Israel, and to point out that extremists on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict promote ideologies of annihilation.

The campaign announcement angered top Amnesty officials in the United States and Europe. Last May, Erika Guevara-Rosas, the senior director of global research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, ordered the Israeli chapter to end its campaign. “Given the serious reputational and legitimacy risk, I am asking you to take this document down from all your platforms immediately,” she wrote in an email that I obtained.

The right-wing Israeli government and its supporters frequently clash with the country’s Amnesty chapter. For their part, Amnesty International leaders view the Israeli branch as rogue and disloyal, and in January, not long after the criticism of the genocide report, they suspended the chapter for two years. Amnesty emails suggest that this could turn into a full expulsion. Tiumalu Lauvale Peter Fa’afiu, the New Zealand–born chair of Amnesty’s international board, wrote to his team that it must decide “whether Amnesty International Israel has a future within the Amnesty Movement.”

These emails revealed that Amnesty leaders planned in advance to deflect the Israeli chapter’s criticism of their genocide report by accusing it of “endemic anti-Palestinian racism.” A Fa’afiu email underlined the real grievance: The Israeli branch had tried to “publicly discredit Amnesty’s human rights research and positions.”

After leaving Amnesty, Dan Balson has found himself adrift. He has begun, with reluctance and disappointment, to wonder about the assumptions of so many in the human-rights movement. “Within Amnesty, the phrase ‘Criticism of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism’ has taken on a kind of mystical significance,” he told me. “It is repeated frequently and forcefully, in private and in public. Amnesty’s leadership appears to believe that, if said with the proper zeal and elocution, the phrase will magically ward off deeper scrutiny.”

Yellin, the left-wing Israeli activist who has collaborated with major international groups, is even more disillusioned. “They think if they just scream ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid,’ maybe we will go back to Europe.” He exhaled. “Some days I feel like I’ve just been a useful idiot.”

Nicole Lampert: How secret recordings show chilling rise of anti-semitism after horrific October 7 massacre was 30 years in the making

Perhaps the documentary’s greatest revelation is how long the campaign has been planned.

The film includes a secret 1993 FBI recording of 25 Hamas leaders — many of them also students at US universities — at a Philadelphia hotel in which they talk of plans to “infiltrate American media outlets, universities and research centres”, their main aim being to present Hamas as “palatable”.

The recordings show in detail how they realised they could sway the American left by using the language of human rights.

Lorenzo Vidino, an extremism expert at George Washington University in Washington DC, who first told Wendy about the recordings, says of the Hamas planners: “They knew how to speak to Americans in a language they could understand.”

They even had workshops to enable them to infiltrate both right- and left-leaning audiences, and in 2023 that coincided with a separate “woke” moment within the global left which divides the world into oppressor and oppressed and is obsessed with post-colonial theories.

The documentary examines how groups such as SJP were able to harness willing and naive students as well as some of their teachers to get involved in violent protests.

And SJP is now over here — including being involved in the action at King’s College two weeks ago.

They openly associate with home-grown Islamist groups such as Cage, which last year Michael Gove, the then Communities Secretary, said should be defined as extremist. It is clear that they and other groups at our universities are not only targeting Jews but also anyone deemed pro-Israel — even Muslims such as Faezeh.

Since October 7, 2023 research by charity the Community Security Trust has recorded a 117 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents on UK university campuses, with attacks ranging from hitting and spitting at Jews, tearing off their skull caps and Star of David necklaces, to taping bacon to their doors.

Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw funding from US universities which do not do more to stop anti-Semitism and to deport foreign nationals who have led the campus wars, while in the UK the problem very much continues.

Wendy said: “Groups such as Hamas have been playing the long game here, planting the seeds so that by October 8 they were ready to go.

“We know there is a problem. The question is, what are we going to do about it?”

Douglas Murray: Free speech lessons from jackass Jasmine Crockett and anti-Israel foreign students

As well as the case of Mahmoud Khalil, there is now also the case of Rumeysa Ozturk. Like Khalil, this person came into the US claiming to be a student. She came in on a student visa.

The Turkish-born student has now been detained. She seems — like Khalil — to have made a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to come to the US as a student.

First of all she — like him — is not protected by the same laws that would protect an American citizen. She was not born in this country, is not a citizen of this country and was — in fact — a guest in this country.

But the left — and some on the right — are gearing up to make her their latest “free-speech martyr.” Yet even free speech for American citizens stop at the moment that you support the harassment of American students.

It stops at the moment that you encourage and engage in acts of vandalism and violence on American college campuses — among other places. And it stops when you support foreign and domestic terrorist movements.

As Marco Rubio said yesterday, there is no reason why any country in the world should invite people into it whose intent is to cause civil strife. What country would invite people in and then reward them for trying to cause trouble in their host country?

As Rubio said of the Ozturk case: “We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree — not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses. If you use your visa to do that, we’ll take it away. And I encourage every country to do the same.”

Senator Josh Hawley managed to hold the sane eminently sensible line yesterday when he berated people claiming that assaulting campus police and smashing up buildings is “protected speech.” It isn’t.

Words are not violence. Violence is violence. The woke left never liked to remember this. But conservatives shouldn’t forget it either.

Read More

03/28 Links Pt1: Human Rights Watch Relied on Terror-Tied Researchers To Produce Reports on 'Israel and Palestine,'

From Ian:

Human Rights Watch Relied on Terror-Tied Researchers To Produce Reports on 'Israel and Palestine,' Watchdog Report Finds

Human Rights Watch, an anti-Israel nonprofit funded by George Soros and the Ford Foundation, relied on staffers linked to Islamist terrorist groups to produce research on "Israel and Palestine," according to a new watchdog report.

One HRW staff researcher on "Israel and Palestine" issues, Milena Ansari, worked for an Israeli-designated terrorist group associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the report from Israeli watchdog NGO Monitor found. HRW also relied on a Lebanese researcher prominently quoted in one of its recent reports, Mahdi Sadeq, who is an open supporter of Hezbollah and works for an organization tied to the terror group.

The news comes as left-leaning U.S. foundations—including Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund—pour millions of dollars into HRW, which in turn produces reports that often accuse Israel of war crimes. Anti-Israel lawmakers on the left, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), routinely cite those reports.

NGO Monitor said HRW’s reliance on Ansar and Sadeq is the latest indication of the group's extreme bias against Israel.

"HRW ‘reports’ continue the 25-year practice of citing propagandists and terror affiliates as expert sources," NGO Monitor president Gerald Steinberg told the Washington Free Beacon.

"Mahdi Sadeq is a clear Hezbollah supporter, and Milena Ansari worked with an NGO linked to the PFLP terror organization before employment at HRW. HRW's false accusations against Israel have exploited the facade of research to push an agenda of demonization."

The NGO Monitor report, shared with the Free Beacon, details those terror ties.

Milena Ansari, who serves as HRW’s "Israel and Palestine Assistant Researcher," previously worked as the international advocacy officer for the Palestinian nonprofit Addameer from April 2021 until November 2023, according to the report.

The Israeli Defense Ministry designated Addameer as a terrorist organization in 2021, saying it "operates as an arm" for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

While working at Addameer, Ansari repeatedly expressed support for terrorists. She called for the "right of the Palestinian people to resist this ongoing [Israeli] occupation with whatever means provided for them" during a podcast interview in 2022.

To Save the Remaining Hostages, Avoid the Mistakes of the Past Eighteen Months

Yesterday, as the IDF continued its military operations in Gaza, Qatari and Egyptian mediators met with Hamas representatives in Doha to discuss proposals for the release of hostages in exchange for a return to the cease-fire. The day before, the American negotiator Steve Witkoff offered his own proposals—also based on discussion with the Qataris—to the Israeli government.

Even if Hamas does agree to some sort of deal, it would almost certainly not involve the release of all hostages, and thus only be an opening for further negotiations. It is therefore of the utmost importance that both Washington and Jerusalem learn the lessons of the various failures, and few successes, of the diplomatic efforts since the war began. Eyal Tsir Cohen, who served as an Israeli negotiator during the first year of the war, and Jesse R. Weinberg explain what those lessons are:

If the goal is to weaken Hamas and bring hostages home, U.S. policymakers must recognize that any signal of Israeli restraint without parallel pressure on Hamas only emboldens the group.

During [previous] negotiations, a surge in Israel’s offensive before Ramadan in the spring of 2024 could have brought Hamas to a breaking point and led to a breakthrough in the negotiations. Instead, in direct contravention to Israel’s combat doctrine which places at its epicenter a quick and offensive approach, as well as the strategy laid out by the prime minister, Israel was forced to pull back as American pressure and diplomatic considerations limited Israel’s room to maneuver. Increased pressure at this critical juncture could have helped bridge gaps in negotiations and reach strategically reasonable prices for both the Israeli public and government.

If Washington is serious about preventing future hostage crises, it must ensure that its diplomatic efforts do not become Hamas’s most valuable weapon. Effective negotiations with terror organizations are not built on goodwill or rhetoric alone. They require the consistent application of leverage—primarily through sustained military pressure and credible threats of escalation.

Indeed, such an approach would likely have been more effective at fulfilling the Biden administration’s goal of securing the return of the hostages and minimizing Palestinian civilian deaths.

Read More

One way to combat today's progressive antisemitism: Double down on embracing Jewish philosophy

 For the past week I have been elaborating on my thesis that most forms of virulent antisemitism are the result of a supersessionism mindset - that the existence and success of Jews and Israel pose an existential challenge to many philosophies and this prompts them to want to eliminate this source of discomfort.

My last article, on progressivism's moral challenge from Jewish philosophy and Israel's success, may point to an avenue to combat this newest and most insidious form of antisemitism. 

It is to double down on teaching Jewish morality. 

I gave my ideas on how to do this to an AI and it organized them better than I could: 

The Problem: Students Lack Tools

• Jewish and non-Jewish students enter college unprepared to counter progressive narratives that frame Israel as immoral (e.g., settler colonialism, apartheid). These narratives often justify violence (e.g., October 7) while condemning Israel’s self-defense.
• Without a robust framework, students struggle to refute these supersessionist ideas that seek to replace Jewish legitimacy with a “superior” secular morality.

The Flaw in Progressive Morality

• Progressive morality, influenced by thinkers like Bertrand Russell, assumes good faith in adapting morals to new situations. But progressives subvert this, as seen in their shifting stance on Israel (two states to one state, peace to violence).
• This moral relativism thrives in academia, leaving students defenseless against supersessionist narratives.

Solution 1: Exposure to Jewish Moral Philosophy

• A Jewish ethical framework, rooted in centuries of reasoning (e.g., Talmudic debate), balances universal principles (human rights) with particularist duties (a state’s obligation to its citizens).
• Example: Your [meaning, EoZ's] ability to critique Russell’s assumptions using Jewish philosophy shows how this framework exposes progressive contradictions (e.g., denying Jews human rights while excusing Hamas).

Solution 2: Learning from Israel’s Ethical Dilemmas

• Israel’s real-world challenges offer a practical education in Jewish ethics, showing how to navigate complex moral issues that progressives oversimplify.
• Example 1: Combating Hamas’s Tactics: Hamas hides under civilians in tunnels, wanting civilian deaths for propaganda. Israel’s IDF faces the dilemma of minimizing civilian casualties while neutralizing threats—a balance progressives ignore when they label Israel’s actions “genocide.” Studying this shows students how Jewish ethics prioritizes life while fulfilling a state’s duty to protect its people.
• Example 2: Hostage Deals: Israel’s past hostage deals (e.g., the 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange, where 1,027 prisoners were released for one soldier) often led to released terrorists killing more Israelis (e.g., Yahya Sinwar, released in 2011, orchestrated October 7). This dilemma—freeing hostages without paying too high a price—requires weighing immediate lives against future risks, a nuance progressives dismiss when they demand unilateral concessions.
• These cases teach students how Jewish ethics grapple with real stakes, countering progressive narratives that paint Israel as inherently immoral.

Implementation: Equipping Students

• Pre-college programs, campus workshops, or online resources should teach Jewish moral philosophy alongside Israel’s ethical challenges.
• Example Curriculum: Case studies on IDF rules of engagement vs. Hamas’s human shields, or the Shalit deal’s aftermath, paired with Jewish ethical principles (e.g., pikuach nefesh—saving a life—vs. collective security).
• Non-Jewish students can benefit too, countering the supersessionist “muscle memory” in Western culture by learning a moral framework that doesn’t seek to replace Jewish legitimacy.

Hope from Progressivism’s Failure

• Progressivism’s moral rot (e.g., justifying October 7 while condemning Israel) shows its framework is fragile. Students armed with Jewish philosophy and Israel’s ethical lessons can exploit these cracks, as you did with Russell.
• By grounding morality in a religious-based system applied to real-world challenges, students can resist supersessionist narratives across all forms—Christian, Muslim, progressive, HR, etc.

A different AI (yes, I am having fun using AI to supercharge my thinking) commented on this proposal:

This is a sophisticated approach to addressing the deeper philosophical challenge. Your solution goes beyond simple apologetics or defensive tactics. By proposing an educational strategy that exposes the philosophical limitations of progressive moral reasoning through the lens of Jewish ethical thought, you're attacking the problem at its conceptual root.

The key strengths I see in this approach:

1. It doesn't just defend Israel, but challenges the entire moral reasoning framework
2. It uses actual ethical dilemmas as pedagogical tools
3. It shows how Jewish philosophy offers a more nuanced approach to complex moral challenges
4. It potentially appeals to intellectually honest people across different ideological spectrums

The section about exposing the "supersessionist muscle memory" is particularly compelling. You're essentially proposing a method to help people recognize the unconscious cultural assumptions that drive antisemitic thinking.

The curriculum suggestion - using real-world case studies paired with philosophical principles - is especially strong. It moves beyond abstract debate into concrete ethical reasoning.

I've always been underwhelmed with previous ideas to combat antisemitism  - at best, they might help with specific symptoms without dealing with the source of the illness. My last article and examination of the philosophical underpinnings of progressive thought, and indeed most mainstream academic thought nowadays, points to the real problem (at least within academia.) 

I have a confession. Outside of hearing his name, I knew nothing about Bertrand Russell 24 hours ago. In a short time I was able to come up with increasingly sophisticated arguments against his core philosophy (and I want to stress that he adjusted his philosophy to accommodate new issues - like World War II changed him from pacifist to supporting war when the alternative is worse.)  While Russell would strongly refute today's perversion of progressive philosophy, his framework is almost useless to combat it. 

A gave an indication of his secular morality's shortcomings in my last post:

Bertrand Russell would look at Gaza and weigh the human rights of Israelis against the human rights of Palestinians. Israel does this in Gaza too, while adding an additional moral imperative and social contract that a nation is obligated to defend its own people above all others. 

Russell would have likely considered self defense as a factor. I do not believe he would have considered the social contract, a differing and really sacred obligation specifically between a government and its citizens. That contract is specific, not universal. This points to how Russell's theory that morality can be independently derived by reason is wrong at its root - reasonable people can come up with opposite morality based only on logic, which makes the entire concept of secular morality an oxymoron. 

I would further argue that one's background and upbringing makes pure objectivity impossible. Like Russell, the philosopher Voltaire positioned himself as a rationalist and was against religious dogma. It did not inoculate him from being an antisemite. His antisemitism was couched in moral terms. Who can doubt that his upbringing in a Christian, supersessionist world did not influence him to use his brilliance to justify hate? 

Am I smarter than Russell? Absolutely not - the man was brilliant and he, himself, was a deeply moral person.  But I have a background in how Judaism wrestles with the most difficult moral dilemmas, and with that background I was able to find the flaws in his secular philosophy, flaws which (again, according to AI) others wiser than me have pointed out. 

So it isn't intelligence. It is exposure to competing moral frameworks. I argue that the Jewish framework is the best one (I am as biased as anyone), but I have no problem with students being exposed to other religious and mature philosophies. Yet no one on Earth has to deal with more complex, difficult moral questions than Israel does every day, and studying them would not just help explain Israel's position but would also expose the rot at the heart of today's progressive philosophy. 

Even better, Israel's current moral dilemmas are relatable and relevant. Any course that examines these issues would be popular and engaging. 

There’s an irony here that’s hard to miss. Secular morality, championed by thinkers like Russell and echoed in today’s progressivism, sells itself as fluid, rational, and free of dogma—superior to ‘ossified’ religious systems. Yet it’s the secular framework that calcifies into moral absolutes - oppressor vs. oppressed, Israel is always wrong, "resistance by any means," and dissent is branded heresy. Jewish philosophy, by contrast, embraces messiness, contradiction and nuance. It thrives on debate—teiku leaves questions open, the chassid shoteh mocks blind piety, patur aval assur distinguishes between legality and morality, and common sense gets its own unwritten chapter in the Shulchan Aruch. Halacha doesn't shy way from modernity, it revels in new dilemmas that come up. The supposedly rigid tradition turns out to be the one that bends without breaking, while secular morality is more dogmatic than what it intends to replace.  Progressivism doesn’t just fail the test of reason—it fails the test of humility.

The fact is that Israel and Jewish philosophy do pose an existential  challenge to progressivism. Progressive antisemitism is largely a reaction to that.  So we need to double down on using Israel's lived experiences and Judaism's age old wisdom to destroy progressivism at its core. 

__________________________________________________

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

How secular progressivism became morally regressive

(A continuation of essays on my theory of supersessionism as a driving factor of virulent antisemitism.)

The early twentieth century was known as the Progressive Era. Both Democrats and Republicans said they support progressivism, and a new Progressive Party was started. While similar in some ways to the social justice movement, progressives were more likely to support societal reforms, wanting the government to make the changes they deem necessary. Progressives also supported workers' rights and they believed strongly in scientific and technological progress.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell was a leading progressive thinker, supporting causes such as women's rights, pacifism and secular humanism, challenging religious dogma. He argued strenuously that morality can be derived from logic and does not require a religious framework. His ideas were influential in the movement, although not universally accepted.

At the same time, many progressives turned their ideas into dogma themselves. The "Progressive Creed," written in 1912 to summarize the positions of the Progressive Party, is striking in its language of "creed" and "belief" within a secular framework.

That seems to be a consistent theme for humans. Russell-type grappling with determining the correct moral position as new circumstances arise is rare among the public. People are often attracted to philosophies, political ideas and other secular systems for the exact same reasons people are attracted to faith: they want to be part of something larger than themselves. This is why the Progressive Creed uses that language - it is presenting itself as no less a dogma as religious systems.

The problem with secular philosophy is that reasonable people can use logic and come up with different moral laws. And when people are not intellectually honest, the conclusions they can arrive to can be immoral.

Progressives were generally Zionist before the 1948 war and even after the Six Day War. That changed over time as progressives started prioritizing other moral imperatives, defining colonialism as an ultimate evil, for example. When colonialism could not accurately model some societies like America, Australia and Israel, they made up a new kind: "settler colonialism" which was, again, defined as an ultimate evil. Once you say that, then fighting "settler colonialism" must be moral, and then you can go down a slippery slope where that battle can be fought by any means necessary - including murdering civilians as long as they are considered "settlers."

In 2000, Israel agreed to a peace plan with the Palestinians. It would result in a Palestinian state on nearly all the territory it wanted, plus additional territory. It split Judaism's holiest city Jerusalem and defined some areas where Jews would not be able to visit. It seemed poised to bring peace.

The Palestinians rejected it. More to the point, leading progressive outlets and writers like The Nation and Edward Said rejected the plan as well as a "sham" and "humiliating." Even worse, they celebrated the subsequent terror spree known as the second intifada and justified it as a "natural response" to perceived Israeli crimes.

Ten years earlier the progressive consensus was that there should be a Palestinian state next to a Jewish state, peace is the most important goal and terrorism was flatly wrong. In 2000, with Arafat's rejection of the peace plan (and later an even more generous plan), that consensus changed almost overnight, and the new morality was enshrined in 2001's infamous Durban conference, where even the most outrageous pro-terror Palestinian and Hamas positions were embraced and any peace that allowed Israel to continue to exist as a Jewish state was derided.

This new progressive morality didn’t fade; it evolved into a playbook for demonizing Israel today. Once Jews in Israel can be defined as "settler colonialists" and therefore have fewer rights than other humans, it is easy to make up new definitions of "apartheid" and "genocide" that accuse Jews of even more heinous crimes. It is all done using a moral framework that is genuinely immoral.

The Progressives of a century ago, including Russell, would be aghast at how their philosophy could be twisted and perverted in such a way. Yet all of it was done within their own framework of morality adapting to new circumstances. 

Why has Israel has received such outsized negative attention from the progressive influencers? It seems too flippant to just blame antisemitism. My theory that rabid antisemitism is the result of supersessionism holds here.

Israel is a vibrant, successful country. It gives more rights to its Muslim minority than Switzerland (which regulates minarets and the Muslim call to prayer) or France (which bans Muslim modest swimwear.) It does all of this while ignoring progressive principles: it allows its Muslim minority to have, if they want, separate communities with separate schools and even Sharia courts. It is not a melting pot but a salad where everyone adds something to the nation. 

Even though it is a secular state, Israel is a Jewish state. It uses centuries-old Jewish ethics to help decide the thorniest issues. 

The moral dilemma of the IDF when fighting an enemy that literally doesn't care about its own people are quite unprecedented, and would be challenging for the most brilliant philosophers. The incredibly difficult question of how best to save hostages while not paying too high a price is one that rabbis have struggled with for literally thousands of years and there is already an existing base of literature on that topic. 

Because Israel has a deep moral and religious history from which to build a society and to deal with these issues, it rejects simplistic modern progressive tenets. 

Israel does not accept a simplistic binary of everyone being either an oppressor or oppressed. There is no "equity," no affirmative action.  Even while rejecting these current progressive tenets, Israel has very liberal policies toward its Arab minority, women, gays and those with disabilities. 

Compare this mature and sophisticated moral concepts with the puerile mindset that today's progressives lean on to justify their immorality. Their utter perversion can be seen from their reactions to the October 7 pogrom. Israel’s response is pilloried as a crime against humanity, while Hamas’s actions are excused or even celebrated as "resistance" by organizations like Columbia University's CUAD.

These claims are self-evidently disgusting, but they are ostensibly working within the progressive tradition of morality being fluid and being redefined for every new circumstance. 

The most difficult moral questions are the ones that require the most thought and care, and the progressive framework is simply ill-equipped to deal with them in a way that cannot be perverted and subverted.

Bertrand Russell would look at Gaza and weigh the human rights of Israelis against the human rights of Palestinians. Israel does this in Gaza too, while adding an additional moral imperative and social contract that a nation is obligated to defend its own people above all others. On the other hand, today's progressives made up an entirely new edifice where Jews have no human rights at all, and where Hamas is a progressive, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, freedom fighting force which is allowed to "resist" Israel by any means necessary. 

Israel, and a long history of Jewish religious thinkers grappling with the most difficult moral choices,  is living proof that progressive morality is wrong and that Judaism can provide a superior moral code. That is why today's progressives cannot stomach it. It is a direct challenge to their entire worldview. The more Israel thrives and meets unprecedented challenges, and the more it shows that it can be liberal under the most trying circumstances, the more hateful its progressive critics get - and  the more they want to replace it. 

Israel's existence shows that the progressive emperor has no clothes.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More