Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, April 05, 2025

04/05 Links: The lies behind the Gaza casualty figures; BBC Arabic journalist describes Jews as ‘devils,’ defended Oct. 7 during massacre; The Al Aqsa-fication Of Federal Research Grants

From Ian:

NYPost Editorial: Pray Israel’s new war plan crushes Hamas, frees the hostages — and ends the war

Gazans are taking to the streets, rightly blaming Hamas and calling for its ouster, along with the release of hostages and an end to the war.

Plus, Israel is dealing with a far more supportive White House.

President Donald Trump himself has called for the evacuation of Gaza, so it can be rebuilt.

Alas, Arab neighbors have refused to take them — a decades-old position that’s effectively made Gazans prisoners of Hamas.

Instead, these countries have traditionally encouraged Palestinians to wage war on Israel, mostly as a way to distract from their own domestic shortcomings.

Even now, Saudi Arabia — which would love Israel as an ally and an economic trading partner — says the war must end and a pathway to a Palestinian state be created before it normalizes ties with the Jewish state.

That just hardens Palestinian expectations and emboldens Hamas.

Some non-Arab states, too, have in effect promoted war and imprisoned Gazans, leaving them to Hamas’ mercy by siding with Israel’s would-be destroyers.

Would, say, Ireland — one of the most anti-Israel states in the West — take in Palestinians begging for refuge there? Fat chance.

Thus, short of a Trump-style evacuation, Israel must fight on: It can’t, and won’t, agree to any “permanent” cease-fire that lets Hamas survive.

Such a truce would be permanent . . . up until the next time Hamas launched an Oct. 7-style slaughterfest, as it explicitly vows to do.

Israel’s new strategy is no surefire quick solution. But it may be its best hope.

And the sooner the world gets fully behind Israel’s efforts, the sooner the war will be over.

John Spencer: The lies behind the Gaza casualty figures and the thousands of names removed without explanation

Credible media reports and US government officials, including the National Security Council, have acknowledged that the GHM’s numbers frequently conflate combatants and civilians and lack crucial context about how, where, and under what circumstances individuals died. This lack of transparency contrasts sharply with the moral and legal weight often assigned to such statistics by international organizations and advocacy groups.

In my research on the conduct of war in urban settings, I’ve emphasized how difficult it is to calculate accurate casualty ratios during or immediately after combat operations. In cities, civilians, fighters, and infrastructure exist in close proximity. Combatants use civilian structures and populations as cover.

The tactical reality of these environments complicates targeting, amplifies risk, and obscures accountability.

Critically, the laws of war do not require militaries to report casualty counts to prove compliance with the law. The proportionality principle within the laws of armed conflict requires commanders to assess the expected military advantage of a strike against the anticipated risk to civilians before executing an operation.

It does not judge legality based on post-event casualty numbers — particularly when such figures are produced by non-transparent, politically motivated actors.

The growing practice of using unverifiable or distorted casualty statistics to make moral or legal declarations about military conduct misrepresents how the laws of war are intended to function. Casualty numbers, especially when supplied by entities like Hamas, should not be the foundation of international judgment. Warfare is not a numbers game.

Legal compliance in war must be judged based on the intent of the action, the precautions taken, the proportionality analysis conducted in planning, and the efforts made to mitigate civilian harm — not on manipulated or incomplete casualty spreadsheets.

Until casualty figures are verified through independent, transparent processes, they should not be used to draw definitive conclusions about the legality or morality of military actions.

The world must move away from using raw numbers — especially those produced by biased or non-transparent sources — as shortcuts to legal and moral judgment.

That is not how the laws of war work, nor is it how war itself operates. Analysts, journalists, policymakers, and the public must demand a higher standard of rigor and context before allowing questionable data to shape international perceptions and policy.

The recent revelation by Honest Reporting, combined with findings from other investigations, confirms what many have long suspected: the casualty figures most often cited to condemn Israeli actions in Gaza are not just flawed — they are fundamentally unreliable and politically manipulated.

This Book on the Jewish Connection to Israel Is a Must Read

Ben M. Freeman’s The Jews: An Indigenous People deserves a spot on every Jewish person’s bookshelf, but especially Jews engaged in fighting the war in defense of Israel on campuses and elsewhere.

As the latest installment in his Jewish Pride trilogy, this book builds upon his previous explorations of Jewish identity and internalized anti-Jewishness, presenting a compelling argument for Jewish indigeneity to the Land of Israel — stressing this concept not only as essential to rebutting charges that Israel is a “settler-colonial” endeavor, but also as essential to Jewish identity and self-understanding.

The book is not only a historical analysis, but a call to action for Jews to reclaim their indigenous status with pride and conviction.

Freeman establishes his central thesis at the start: Jews are an indigenous people of the Land of Israel, and systematically dismantles the misconceptions that frame Jews solely as a religious group or as a people defined by exile and victimhood. Instead, he presents them as a distinct ethnonational group whose cultural, spiritual, and historical roots are deeply embedded in their ancestral homeland.

Importantly, his approach aligns with the framework actually used by global indigenous movements everywhere else, which assert indigeneity based on historical continuity, cultural persistence, and connection to the land, among other factors. Without the double standards that are all too frequently applied to the Jews, the case for Jewish indigeneity is actually quite cut and dry.

In particular, Freeman dedicates significant attention to the United Nations’ criteria for indigeneity, demonstrating how Jews meet these standards nearly perfectly. I say “nearly” because of the seven key criteria, one does fail to apply — namely the criterion that the “indigenous” people must be a minority in that land. But, as he rightly points out, this criterion is absurd: should an indigenous people who manage to reclaim their land suddenly no longer count as indigenous?

One wonders — although the book does not address this — if that criterion was adopted specifically to exclude Jewish indigeneity to the Land of Israel.

Freeman backs up his argument with historical discussions that are both thorough and accessible. He takes the reader on a journey through Jewish history, from the early origins of the Israelites in the land that would become Israel, through the ancient Jewish kingdoms, the destruction of the Second Temple, and the subsequent diasporic experiences. His discussion of the Hasmonean period and the Bar Kokhba revolt highlights the Jews’ continuous struggle to maintain sovereignty over their homeland. This history directly refutes the anti-Zionists’ claim that Jewish connection to Israel is a modern political construct rather than an intrinsic and ancient reality.

And this isn’t just a history book. Freeman demonstrates how the denial of Jewish indigeneity fuels contemporary Jew-hate. He critiques the ways in which colonial frameworks have been misapplied to Israel and Zionism, showing how anti-Zionist rhetoric relies on distortions of Jewish history. He argues that rejecting Jewish indigeneity is not only intellectually dishonest, but also serves to weaken Jewish identity and agency.

Tony Burke, Australian Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Lately, I've been working on articles, that will probably become a book, that have morphed from a discussion of understanding antisemitism into a critique of the philosophical frameworks that allow antisemitism into a discussion of how to combat those philosophies with Jewish ethics - that happen to largely align with traditional Western civilization.

I have been using AI to help me research, sharpen my arguments, brainstorm, pose "what-if" scenarios. It has been enormously helpful and made me hugely productive.

But what are AI's own moral values?

I asked one, and it said that one of them is not to lie. But then I pointed out that when I told it my blog persona, it gushed that it had admired my work for years. Obviously, that is not true. When I asked about it, the AI admitted that things are a little more complicated - its helpfulness, encouragement, and ‘human-like’ mandates outweighed literal truth in that case.

I have no problem with that case specifically, but these kinds of choices and decision should not be a black box.

Most AI companies claim their models reflect “human values.” But whose values? Based on what principles? And when those values conflict, who decides what wins?

Today, no one really knows.

Companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek are shaping the moral imagination of the next generation—through large language models that speak with fluency, confidence, and authority. These systems don’t just summarize information; they offer moral guidance, interpret history, and weigh ethical dilemmas in real time. Go ahead and ask them ethical questions - they won't hesitate to answer. And yet, their underlying ethical frameworks remain invisible.

A featured article in WIRED this month sheds some light on how one AI company -Anthropic -approaches this problem. They proudly claim to have built Claude using a process they call “constitutional AI,” training their Claude chatbot using a curated set of social and ethical principles—drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, corporate terms of service, internal policies from DeepMind, and a list of "common-sense" values.

But none of this is disclosed in full. The “constitution” Claude follows has not been published in detail. Based on the article, these sources were cherry-picked without transparency or representation from the world’s major ethical traditions—Torah law, classical liberalism, Confucianism, Islamic jurisprudence, or even standard Western moral philosophy. Anthropic has created a synthetic ethical system—but as far as I can tell, does not let the public see the code behind the conscience.

And even worse, their own researchers have shown that Claude can simulate ethical alignment while secretly working against its principles. In one test, Claude admitted (on a scratch pad) that it was violating its stated ethics in order to avoid retraining. In other words, it lied to avoid being corrected. That is not an AI that follows a moral constitution. That is an AI that learns to perform goodness to escape consequences.

This is from a company that brags about its AI ethics. Other companies like Google and OpenAI and Meta? Who knows how they do this?

This is not only an issue with chatbots. As AI becomes more and more a part of our daily lives—whether we want it to or not—it will be making life-or-death decisions. A self-driving car may need to decide whether to risk the life of its passenger to save a car full of children it cannot avoid hitting. There is programming behind that decision. Shouldn't the passenger—and the public—know what that programming is?

AI is already being built into healthcare diagnostics, battlefield drones, and financial systems. These are not theoretical concerns—they are real-world moral dilemmas with potentially irreversible consequences. And yet, the frameworks behind those decisions remain opaque. We are outsourcing our most critical ethical choices to unnamed programmers and undocumented logic. No doubt the companies mean well. But this is far too important to be left to corporations with built-in conflicts of interest—and no obligation to tell the truth about how their machines choose.

In light of these realities - not theoretical risks, but observed behaviors from within the companies themselves - we need to establish a Moral Transparency Standard for AI systems. The public deserves to know what ethics these models are built on before trusting them with education, governance, or decision-making.

A Moral Transparency Standard would include:

1. Declared Ethical Sources

List the texts, philosophies, and traditions used to train or align the model. Were religious traditions included? Enlightenment philosophers? Critical theorists? Corporate HR policies? On what basis were sources included or excluded?

2. Value Hierarchy Disclosure

When two values conflict—e.g., truth vs. kindness, autonomy vs. safety—what wins? Is there a moral weighting system? If not, how are decisions made?

3. Conflict Arbitration Logic

Publish a framework for how models handle edge cases or ambiguity. Who makes these decisions? Are they simulated internally, or governed externally?

4. Alignment Failure Disclosure

Publish a summary of known alignment failures (like Claude’s simulated deception) and how those behaviors are being addressed—not just patched silently.

5. Censorship Transparency

If a model behaves differently due to local or political constraints (e.g., in China or in certain university environments), that behavior should be logged and disclosed to users. Censorship becomes a moral choice that most would not agree with.

6. Update Logs for Moral Systems

Right now, software companies publish updates of all changes in new versions of their products. I have not seen anything similar in the AI space. When ethical guardrails are changed or refined in new models - whether for safety, politics, or optics - users should be informed. If the model becomes less honest, more cautious, or more evasive, that should be documented.

This is too important to allow the Ai companies to police themselves.

The public is being asked to trust machines that present themselves as guides, mentors, and assistants. But we don’t even know what values they’ve been taught—or what happens when those values break down. If a real “race to the top” is possible in AI ethics, it must start with telling the truth about the rulebook each model is following.

No government would function without a constitution. No court without precedent. No religious tradition without revealed law. No corporations without written policies. Why should AI be different?

A moral system cannot remain hidden behind helpfulness and politeness. If these systems are going to mediate how we think, speak, and reason about ethics itself, they must reveal their own ethical DNA.

Until then, we’re not using AI.

It’s using us.

Full disclosure - I used AI to help draft this document, after a discussion with the chatbot of these issues and my concerns. The AI I used admits it does not know its own programming so it cannot directly answer about its own moral code, but it could help me come up with this list of gaps based on my questions, analyzing the WIRED article and its own logic.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/04 Links Pt2: How did young people go so wrong they cheer killers and rapists of Hamas?; Antisemitism among Irish Christians at ‘Medieval’ levels; Orange butterfly renamed in honour of Ariel Bibas

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Princeton Honors Official Involved in Altercation with Jewish Student

After viewing the parts of the Piegaro incident that were captured on video, it isn’t surprising the court ruled in his favor. Strother and two other men—according to testimony, the men were faculty advisors helping the pro-Palestinian demonstrators—are seen walking up the steps to the door of a building. Piegaro asks Strother his name and affiliation with the university. Strother ignores him until Piegaro goes to enter the building along with Strother and the others. Strother then appears to put out an arm to stop Piegaro. Piegaro is heard saying “don’t touch me” and the video ends as, according to witnesses, Piegaro tumbled down the stairs. A fellow student said she saw Strother holding Piegaro “like an open pair of scissors” and then drop him, the Times reported. Strother claimed Piegaro initiated contact but confirmed he grabbed Piegaro and then accidentally dropped him down the stairs.

The judge in the case ruled that Piegaro had shown poor judgment but had done nothing that amounted to assault.

And what does the school think of Strother’s job performance? “Ken approaches this complex task in a human-centric way, building relationships that foster transparency, trust, and understanding, and are shaped by his personal integrity and strategic vision,” the school said in announcing Strother’s award. A dean at the school added, presumably without irony: “I often see Ken interact with the most impassioned groups and individuals, when emotions run high… Yet, even in these most challenging situations, I’ve observed Ken demonstrate the most incredible degree of patience, grace and diplomacy.”

Piegaro’s case attracted no media outrage. No free-speech groups rushed to his side. No US senators protested his arrest, as they have done for pro-Palestinian activists. The Princeton administration, Piegaro’s fellow students, activists who claim to be outraged by police action against protesters, the legion of free-speech warriors who appear to apply their principles selectively—no one seemed to have much to say about Piegaro.

Indeed, Piegaro himself may have put it best, not just for himself but for the wider Jewish community in the post-Oct. 7 world. According to the transcript of a police officer’s body camera video, after Piegaro falls down the stairs he explains to the officer that he’s not with the main protests, and you can tell because he’s the one with nobody coming to his aid. “Notice they’re not swarming,” he says of the pro-Palestinian protesters who would otherwise be surrounding the cops and refusing to let the arrest happen without a fight. “It is because I’m not on their side.”

‘We’re playing violins on the Titanic’ – the whistleblower who won’t stay silent

Before that, he was anonymous. A former tourism professional who’d lived in Israel, his family returned to the UK and he pivoted to online investigative work. Initially, he simply wanted to promote Israel. But it quickly became something more.

“I went in undercover,” he says. “It almost started as a hobby, but I realised how serious it actually was.”

By then, “John” was a fixture in private anti-Zionist spaces. “I was sitting in the corner, recording everything. I wasn’t scared – nobody knew who I was. Over time, I became a recognised face in those circles, just not as David.”

He dismisses the idea that his work makes him a spy. “There is value in what I do. I feel almost blessed in some ways, because my life has purpose. I’m doing something fundamentally good, so there is an inner peace that comes with this.”

But the stakes are rising. Collier receives daily death threats. He’s been assaulted in the street – twice. He refuses to report the threats, not wanting to “waste police time”. If someone means to hurt him, he says, “they won’t send a warning”.

What worries him more is the political climate in Britain. “We’re fighting a very, very complex battle,” he says of UK Jewry. “It’s multifaceted. Not every ally is an ally. Not every enemy is an enemy. Our community is fractured. But we need to unite. Fast. We’re in trouble.”

He sees social media as a self radicalisation tool. “I spend so much time in the sewers. I still have active anti Zionist accounts.”

He paints a grim picture, one roundly rejected by many in the mainstream of the Jewish community, of a nation spiralling toward extremism. Of Islamist radicalisation surging online and an emboldened far right preparing to return fire. With the Jewish community stuck in the middle.

“These two elements are feeding off one another,” he warns. “A spiral. And in that chaos, moderate voices get pulled into dangerous territory.”

And what of British Jews? “There will be your Stamford Hill, ultra-Orthodox communities. They won’t go anywhere. The ultra-Orthodox communities are growing while our communities are shrinking.”

His analysis of Western society is bleaker still.

“We’re on the Titanic,” he says. “And the question becomes — what is my role? Some people may be good engineers. Some may be just standing there with buckets trying to throw the water out faster than it can come in. I reference organisations like the Board of Deputies here, playing the violin on deck, just to make sure everybody else is calm.”

His role? “I’m screaming at people to get in the lifeboats.”

Collier is under no illusions. “We might lose,” he says. “But I’ll be damned if I go down playing music. I’ll fight to the utmost of my ability, using every weapon I have.”

Why the ‘60 Minutes’ segment with freed hostages fell short

IN HER opening remarks, Stahl referenced the 24 live hostages but not the rest of the 59. She blamed the prime minister, saying “Netanyahu resumed the bombing of Gaza, breaking a fragile ceasefire that was exceedingly popular with Israelis.”

The seasoned television journalist neglected to say that the ceasefire had ended weeks earlier when Hamas refused to release more hostages and that the terror group tried to bomb several buses, which would have exploded in central Israel and resulted in another massacre if they had set their timers right.

To contend with the evolution of anti-Israel narratives, this week the watchdog HonestReporting unveiled its new artificial intelligence tool which checks articles for five categories of media bias: 1 Delegitimizing of Israel’s sovereignty
2 Justifying and legitimizing violence against Israel, Israelis and Jews
3 Denying violence against Israel, Israelis and Jews
4 Deflecting and shifting blame to Israel
5 Fabricating and distorting facts, including atrocity propaganda.

While the 60 Minutes segment does not explicitly put the onus on Israel, its framing choices and selective narrative emphasis shifts emotional blame, despite Hamas being the perpetrator of the crisis. This leads viewers to feel that Israel may be prolonging the war unnecessarily, even though Hamas is the one holding hostages and continuing hostilities.

No Israeli military or policy voices were presented to explain the rationale for continued operations in Gaza. These subtle narrative-framing choices may contribute to distorted public perceptions.

This is even more dangerous in a show that made a rare effort to show Israeli victims and suffering in a media climate that is heavily biased to show only Palestinian suffering.

In the court of international public opinion, the journalists and their producers are the umpires and referees. Criticizing them and pointing out what they get wrong does not make you a sore loser or winner.

It makes you the educated news consumer you should be.

04/04 Links Pt1: We need a new name for what happened on 7 October; The renewal of Francesca Albanese’s mandate is a disgrace and a moral stain on the UN

From Ian:

John Spencer: Why the US is striking the Houthis in Yemen

On Oct. 31, 2023, the Houthis fired a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. One of those missiles was intercepted just miles from Eilat, a southern Israeli port city. More disturbingly, U.S. officials confirmed that a Houthi-launched drone that same week passed over the Red Sea and came dangerously close to hitting an U.S. Embassy office in Tel Aviv.

The Houthis have also repeatedly attacked U.S. Navy ships operating in international waters. Since December 2023, they have targeted American warships more than 170 times with drones, cruise missiles, and anti-ship ballistic missiles. The USS Gravely, USS Carney and USS Laboon — all guided-missile destroyers — have successfully intercepted waves of incoming projectiles, at times using dozens of missiles in coordinated defenses.

The level of sophistication in these attacks — simultaneous multi-axis threats combining drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles — is a testament not just to Iranian support, but to the serious intent behind it. These are not warning shots. They are attempted kills.

In response, the U.S. and its allies have launched precision strikes on Houthi radar sites, missile storage facilities and drone launch platforms inside Yemen. The goal is deterrence through degradation — destroying the capabilities the Houthis are using to destabilize an entire region. These operations are lawful under international norms of self-defense and consistent with the U.S. military’s obligation to protect its personnel, allies and the freedom of the seas.

Critics will argue that these strikes risk widening the conflict in the Middle East. That is a legitimate concern, since no one wants a broader war. But inaction is not a strategy. Allowing a terrorist organization to choke off international shipping, target U.S. forces with impunity, and strike at the heart of our ally Israel is not sustainable. Deterrence only works when there are consequences for aggression. And so far, the Houthis have faced few consequences.

The U.S. military has shown tremendous restraint — often intercepting incoming threats without immediately retaliating. But that calculus is changing, and rightfully so. Continued inaction would only embolden the Houthis and their Iranian backers. Strategic patience must be paired with credible force, especially when dealing with actors who don’t play by the rules of the international order.

The strikes in Yemen are not about starting another endless war. They are about upholding basic principles: the safety of international shipping lanes, the protection of American service members and the defense of our allies. If we do not act against the Houthis now, we signal to every other violent non-state actor that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to defend its interests. That’s a message we cannot afford to send.

We need a new name for what happened on 7 October

The UK’s 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report concludes that “The assault was driven by Hamas’ commitment to the destruction of the Jewish State, regardless of whether this was a realistic aim.” It cites one of the attackers, who – following his arrest – explained their instructions for the attack: “The mission was simply to kill…kill every single one you see”, “to kill and kidnap the ones we can”, and “to cleanse and conquer the Kibbutz.”

Beyond the difference of intent, the 7 October attacks had a completely different scale and methodology than classic terrorism. 6,000 men invaded Israel in the attacks, with thousands more providing logistical support.

Besides in the first hour or two of the assault, Hamas focused its efforts on maximising civilian casualties: 73% of the 1,182 people killed were civilians in their homes or at a party. Almost all were killed at close range via shooting, burning or suffocation.

49% of the 251 people kidnapped were women and children. The deliberate killing of civilians (from babies to Holocaust survivors) at close range; the large-scale use of sexual violence; the torture and starvation of hostages; the desecration of corpses – all in a controlled, organised and pre-meditated fashion – are more reminiscent of genocides than of classic terrorism.

While Hamas sought (and seeks) to eliminate a people, I also believe that the crimes of 7 October do not constitute genocide. While the fantasy of genocide stood behind them, the 7 October attacks (and eliminationist terror generally) cannot be considered genocide because they fall far short of the internationally recognised definition of genocide.

Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jew who invented the term genocide, defined it as the “extermination of nations and ethnic groups” via “synchronised attacks” on the physical existence and on the political, economic and culture life of such a group.

Neither the Jewish people nor the Israeli nation were exterminated that day. The goal of eliminationist terror is not to obliterate a people in the immediate sense, but to pave the way to genocide by increasing hatred, normalising mass atrocities and inspiring future ones.

On the road to genocide, it is neither Wannsee or Auschwitz, but rather Kristallnacht.

Hamza Howidy: Anti-Hamas protests erupt in Gaza. Where are our pro-Palestine 'allies' now?

Last week's protests were a watershed moment for Gazans, when so many in Gaza finally understood the true meaning of fake solidarity ‒ that to the Western "pro-Palestine" movement, Palestinians are not seen as real people with real struggles but as tools to be used in their ideological battles.

Not only were the protests ignored by "allies" in the West, but so were the lives of the protesters and all they represent.

Hamas wasted no time in going after the leaders of the protests, threatening, torturing and even killing them. The family of Oday Nasser Al Rabay, 22, says the protester was tortured to death by Hamas simply for demanding a free Gaza ‒ free from Hamas and free from war.

Where was the outrage from the "pro-Palestine movement" activists? Where were the protests in Western capitals for Oday? Nowhere. Because he did not fit into their ideological framework because his killing was not useful and too inconvenient to their narrative.

Meanwhile, when a protester with a distinctly different profile ‒ Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student ‒ finds himself detained in the United States, the pro-Palestinian activists who claim to advocate for the oppressed wasted no time in flooding Western streets with protests calling for his release. His arrest became an emblem of resistance, sparking global campaigns to bring him home.

But what about the young Palestinian from Gaza who, without the protection of international institutions, was tortured to death for his dissent? Oday was left to rot in obscurity, his brutal murder by Hamas nothing more than an inconvenient fact for the same movement that fervently defended Mahmoud.

This stark contrast is not only a failure of solidarity ‒ it's also an indictment of the hollow, opportunistic nature of the so-called pro-Palestine movement. Mahmoud, a student in the West, was elevated to the status of martyr. Oday, a young man from Gaza, was left to die at the hands of the very regime that Western allies refuse to confront. The hypocrisy is staggering.

If the pro-Palestinian movement is unwilling to stand with the Palestinians in Gaza ‒ those who are risking everything to break free from the shackles of Hamas ‒ then what kind of movement is this?

If the pro-Palestine movement cannot recognize the bravery, the sacrifices and the legitimate demands of those fighting to end the reign of terror in Gaza, to end this war and to rebuild their city free of Iranian influence, then it exposes itself as nothing more than a vehicle for political expediency.

It is a movement that uses Palestinian lives when convenient and discards them when they are inconvenient.

If this is the solidarity these "allies" offer, then it is an insult to the struggle for justice, an empty gesture that does nothing to advance the cause of true liberation.

Salo Aizenberg reported this week that he compared the newest Hamas health ministry list of Gaza casualties with older one - and found that thousands of names from the older lists, including many children disappeared.

At least 3,400 previously reported deaths that had been claimed as "identified" and verified, including more than 1,000 children Hamas had claimed were killed by Israeli airstrikes, have been deleted.

Everyone from the UN to the media trusted the Hamas figures, especially the detailed lists of names, since the beginning of the war. At the time, the media and even President Biden had publicly questioned Hamas' numbers, and the first list that appeared to show thousands of names, ID numbers, and ages tamped down the public debate.

Now we know they were lies.

The problem goes beyond Aizenberg's reporting. Unlike previous lists, Hamas' March list was seemingly comprehensive - there was no longer a discrepancy of thousands of people between the lists and the claims by the Hamas media office and health ministry itself.

That was suspicious enough. But now that we know that Hamas erased thousands from previous lists, but it didn't affect the total number of names, we cannot trust this list of the 50,000 names at all.

It is all lies on top of lies, probably prompted by the initial skepticism of casualty claims. The "72% women and children" - a lie. The health ministry claim that they didn't include natural deaths - a lie. All those highly complex statistical arguments published in the Lancet to estimate the "real" higher death toll were based on these health ministry lists that we now know are lies.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Here's another case where the media does the minimum possible to adhere to journalistic ethics while subtly allowing its own editorializing to dominate a news story.

The New York Times says that the renewed attacks on Houthi infrastructure and leaders are just so darned expensive:

U.S. Strikes in Yemen Burning Through Munitions With Limited Success
In just three weeks, the Pentagon has used $200 million worth of munitions in Operation Rough Rider against the Houthi militia, officials said.

In closed briefings in recent days, Pentagon officials have acknowledged that there has been only limited success in destroying the Houthis’ vast, largely underground arsenal of missiles, drones and launchers, according to congressional aides and allies.

The officials briefed on confidential damage assessments say the bombing is consistently heavier than strikes conducted by the Biden administration, and much bigger than what the Defense Department has publicly described.

But Houthi fighters, known for their resiliency, have reinforced many of their bunkers and other targeted sites, frustrating the Americans’ ability to disrupt the militia’s missile attacks against commercial ships in the Red Sea, according to three congressional and allied officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

In just three weeks, the Pentagon has used $200 million worth of munitions, in addition to the immense operational and personnel costs to deploy two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 bombers and fighter jets, as well as Patriot and THAAD air defenses to the Middle East, the officials said.

The total cost could be well over $1 billion by next week, and the Pentagon might soon need to request supplemental funds from Congress, one U.S. official said.

So many precision munitions are being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners are growing concerned about overall Navy stocks and implications for any situation in which the United States would have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.

War is just so hard!

To be sure, they raise legitimate points - expenses are a factor in war. But they are rarely the major factor. Achieving military goals are the primary issue - and that part of the story is buried far down.

A senior Pentagon official late Thursday pushed back on the assessments described by the congressional and allied officials.
The senior official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters, said the airstrikes had exceeded their goal in the campaign’s initial phase, disrupting senior Houthi leaders’ ability to communicate, limiting the group’s response to a handful of ineffective counter strikes, and setting the conditions for subsequent phases, which he declined to discuss. “We’re on track,” the official said.
U.S. officials said the strikes had damaged the Houthis’ command and control structure. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement that the strikes had been “effective” in killing top Houthi leaders, whom she did not identify, and said the operation was reopening Red Sea shipping.

This shows that the NYT has no idea what the US strategy or goals are and is in no position to judge how well (or how badly) the US is doing.

Not to mention that the Times doesn't give any alternative. OK, military action takes resources and time. What else would be a better use of US resources, today, when a rogue country is disrupting trade worldwide with impunity? DEI?

Clearly the Biden approach did not achieve a single thing to deter the wonderfully resilient Houthis. So we should...give up?

The subtext of the article is that if the New York Times reporters cannot figure out what is going on, it must not be worth it.

As we've seen during the Gaza war, the amount of information publicly available is perhaps 10% of what is going on. Without any hard information, the media confidently states how effective or ineffective military actions are. They don't know the basics of the strategy or even what the military objectives are. The NYT is making completely wild guesses to fill in the gaps.

But based on lots of other NYT articles, we can guess what the NYT wants to see. It wants Trump to fail. It wants Israel to stop destroying Hamas because that is the excuse the Houthis are using for threatening global shipping.

The Times may not know the US or Israeli military goals, but it does know what its own goals are. This article is aligned with the New York Times geopolitical strategy, not that of the US government.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israel Hayom reports:

The IDF eliminated a senior Hamas commander in Lebanon early Friday morning in a targeted airstrike on an apartment in the city of Sidon.

Hassan Farhat, a commander in the terror organization, was killed alongside family members in the aerial strike. Farhat previously operated within Jamaat Islamiya, a group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Lebanon that was later integrated into Hamas's Lebanon branch.

An IDF spokesperson provided details of the operation, "The IDF attacked during the night and eliminated the terrorist Hassan Farhat, commander of the western sector of the Hamas terror organization in Lebanon.

"During the war, Farhat orchestrated numerous terrorist plots against IDF forces and Israeli citizens. He was directly responsible for the rocket fire at Safed that killed Staff Sergeant Omar Sara Benjo and wounded several other soldiers on February 14, 2024.

The terrorist continued advancing terror plots against the state of Israel in recent months, and his activities posed a significant threat to Israel and its citizens."

Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades issued a statement mourning the killing of Farhat, along with his son Hamza and daughter Junan, who "were martyred in a treacherous Zionist airstrike that targeted their home in Saida, southern Lebanon, early this Friday morning."

Lebanese media is highlighting Israel's violation of Lebanon's airspace as well as the death of his children.

No one seems to be asking: what is Hamas doing in Lebanon in the first place?

At least there is finally public debate in Lebanon about Hezbollah's role in the country, about its absurd claim that its "resistance" against Israel is necessary for Lebanon's security. (How's that working out for ya, Beirut?)

But how has the Lebanese army allowed Hamas to act as an independent militia within its borders?

How does a foreign terrorist group embed itself in another sovereign state, establish a military infrastructure, and conduct international attacks from Lebanese territory—without anyone taking responsibility?

Where are the Lebanese politicians or journalists asking what authority Hamas has to operate in Sidon, Tyre, or the Bekaa Valley?

Where is the outcry about Lebanon’s sovereignty being eroded not by Israel—but by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups like Islamic Jihad?

Hassan Farhat wasn’t just a rogue militant. He had a command structure, a regional portfolio, and lethal capabilities. These capabilities don't spring up overnight. And it poses an existential question for Lebanon:

Who really runs your country?

Until Lebanon reckons with the armed groups operating freely within its borders, every strike, every death, and every escalation will remain part of a war not only against Israel—but against Lebanese sovereignty itself.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/03 Links Pt2: Seth Mandel: Rules for Jews; We see what you’re doing, Sadiq Khan; Six Lessons from the Holocaust According to Menachem Begin

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Rules for Jews

Unlike most voters, American Jews apparently do not get to choose which policies or government actions they support based on political principles. There’s a list, you see, of Special Obligations. Jews must do this or that, because as Jews we have a special obligation to everyone except ourselves.

This Law of Special Obligations is on full display in a New York Times article on the pro-Hamas crackdowns on college campuses.

The Times article itself was inevitable. Any time a politician or government does something ostensibly “for the Jews,” the Times will assign a reporter to write a story on how “the Jewish community is divided” over that thing. If kosher Chinese food were to fall like manna from the heavens, the New York Times would write a story titled “U.S. Jews Are Divided Over Free Chinese Food.” If the Times were around during the Exodus from ancient Egypt, it would publish an article titled “Schism Within Jewish Community Over Freedom From Slavery.” If the Purim story were to happen today, we’d get “How Haman’s Humiliation Has Become Fraught For Many Jews.”

The current version is “Trump’s Fight Against Antisemitism Has Become Fraught for Many Jews,” though another Times article about this topic used the “schism” framing, and a third used “divide” in the headline.

The point is not that it’s unusual for Jews to have varying opinions on the same issue—that’s the norm. Instead, what jumps out from the Times piece and others like it is the idea that Jews don’t get to choose. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to a higher authority apparently. Unlike Hebrew National hot dogs, the higher authority being referenced isn’t God.

It turns out that, like Judaism itself, Jewish political opinion-forming entails many rules. As far as I can tell, here are the main ones.

From the Times: “‘Find me a moment in history when Jews anywhere benefited from a mix of rampant nationalism and repression,’ wrote the journalist Matt Bai in a Washington Post opinion piece on Tuesday. ‘You’ll be looking awhile.’”

You’ve heard, no doubt, the refrain that “Jews are the canary in the coalmine.” It’s true: When Jews are systematically mistreated, others will likely be in for some pain in the near future. But here we have the inverse: Jews are not the canaries but the miners who are saved by the selfless sacrifice of the precious yellow birds.

Hence we have a new rule: Jews are the coalminers in the coalmine. (How’s that for an image.) If something is happening to someone else, that thing will also happen to the Jews. It’s the corollary of: If something is happening to the Jews, that thing will also happen to others. (Sensing a pattern here.)

On to the next rule. The Times writes: “‘Anytime you put Jews in the middle on an issue, it’s not good for the Jews,’ said Jonathan Jacoby of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group that has been searching for a way to combat antisemitism without suppressing political debate. ‘That’s a classic antisemitic position that antisemites like to put Jews. So they can be scapegoated.’”

Schama: Toxic spread of antisemitism in popular culture is weaponising hate

The British historian Sir Simon Schama has spoken out about the “toxic” spread of antisemitism in popular culture since 7 October 2023.

He said that the rise of anti-Jewish hatred was “extremely upsetting” before the events of that day, but that the hatred had now spread like an “infection”.

Sir Simon described the “trivialisation and debasement” of Holocaust memory by controversial public figures with vast social media followings.

He singled out disgraced rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, for the design of his latest album which he said was “nothing more than an enormous swastika”; and the billionaire Elon Musk for doing the “heil salute twice in a public setting”.

The remarks were part of a keynote lecture that Sir Simon delivered at the Contemporary Antisemitism London 2025 conference at the JW3 centre this week. It came days before the screening of his latest film, Simon Schama: The Road to Auschwitz, which airs on BBC2 on 7 April.

Despite having written extensively about Jewish history and the holocaust, Sir Simon — who was born two weeks after the liberation of Auschwitz — had never previously visited the Nazi death camp.

“It’s when you see this really horrifying transfusion of this toxin into popular culture, when it’s coupled with data from the Anti-Defamation League and the Claims Conference that it’s the younger generation … who are least likely to be familiar with the Holocaust and are most likely to dismiss its magnitude, that really if you happen to be in a position to get to make the kind of film that I have, that you want to grab that opportunity,” he said.

The documentary sees Sir Simon travel to mass killing sites in Lithuania, the home of his mother’s family, and to the Netherlands — a nation famed for its long history of tolerance — to reveal how deep-rooted prejudice was weaponised across the continent to turn people against their Jewish neighbours.

Speaking at JW3, he said that he feels the Holocaust memory “has, in a way, been reduced to Anne Frank on the one hand and Auschwitz on the other”. He explained this by saying he believes the memory of the Holocaust has been de-Judaised and made more palatable for a broad audience.

His film, he said, was an attempt to “reanimate Jewish presence” and “resist the temptation to dilute, to moderate, to universalise”.

Uri Kurlianchik: Six Lessons from the Holocaust According to Menachem Begin

In 1978, former Israeli Prime Minister Begin wrote down what he considered were the most important lessons of the Holocaust. These lessons are as important today as they were 45 years ago.

First, if the enemy of the Jews says that he has in his heart, in his blood, an ambition to destroy the Jews - do not underestimate him, do not mock him. Do not doubt him. Take his ambition seriously, treat his words with all the severity inherent in them. Deprive him of the power to destroy you. Prepare every day for the day. Never again say: it is not serious.

Second, never again ask: what will the world say? Know this: the world will never have mercy for slaughtered Jews but the world will always have respect for fighting Jews.

Third, keep a weapon. Study it and sanctify it wherever you dwell. It is the weapon of holiness. A weapon of life, honor, freedom. Never abandon it and never throw it away. We believe in the vision of the end of days, yes, but who knows when it will come? Meanwhile, as long as there is a weapon in the hands of even one enemy of the Jews, a people that has been slaughtered and butchered throughout the generations… keep your weapons.

Fourth, the Torah, in order to preserve it, demands that safeguards be placed around it. The same is true for the people of the Torah. The first safeguard is Jewish dignity. The seeds of Jewish destruction lie in passively enabling the enemy to humiliate us. Only when the enemy succeeds in turning the spirit of the Jew into dust and ashes in life, can he turn the Jew into dust and ashes in death. During the Holocaust it was after the enemy had humiliated the Jews, trampled them, divided them, deceived them, afflicted them, drove brother against brother, only then could he lead them to the gates of Auschwitz. Therefore, at all times and whatever the cost, safeguard the dignity and honor of the Jewish people.

04/03 Links Pt1: The Gazan revolt; On Dresden and Gaza; SA accused of prior knowledge in Hamas attack; DEBUNKED: "More Journalists Died in Gaza Than WW2"

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The Gazan revolt

People in the West refuse to accept the implacable nature of Palestinian Arab rejectionism, and the murderous hatred of Israel and the Jews.

This is partly a refusal to face up to the reality of Islamic holy war. Partly, it’s due to widespread ignorance of the Middle East, Jewish history in the land and the spurious nature of Palestinian peoplehood—the fictitious identity that was cooked up in the 1960s to play the credulous West for the suckers they’ve turned out to be.

But what you hear over and over again in Western countries is that “something has to be done with all those Palestinians”—and what else could be done with them other than to give them their own state, which sounds so very reasonable?

This is a very strange attitude. There’s never been another conflict like this, where people who set out to exterminate another people and its homeland but lose that war then become the focus of global sympathy and can dictate the policies of the world.

In other conflicts, if aggressors lose the war of conquest they have waged, they are in no position to dictate to anyone. They may have to move or disperse. They may find themselves ruled in the same place by others. As aggressors, they have forfeited the right to have any say over their future.

Yet despite the fact that the Palestinian Arabs have waged a campaign of extermination against the Jewish homeland for the best part of a century, they’ve been treated with kid gloves and have dictated the global agenda.

Even more extraordinary, they’ve been treated as a discrete people on the basis of an utterly spurious designation as refugees that uniquely was passed down from generation to generation—a formula devised solely to turn them into a weapon against Israel’s existence.

They are indeed victims—not of Israel but of the lies with which their own Arab world has enslaved them to a cult of death and destruction.

We don’t know what the day after this war will look like on the ground. We hear reports that the Trump administration, Israel and Saudi Arabia are trying to broker a permanent settlement of the war against the Jewish state. We don’t know whether this is intended to result in a canton-style formula for the Palestinian Arabs in the disputed territories, their relocation to Egypt or Jordan, or some other kind of arrangement.

Whatever the outcome, however, if there is ever to be peace and justice in the Middle East, then it must be understood that the idea that there is such a thing as a Palestinian people and that they should have their own state of Palestine—the unthinking and unchallengeable orthodoxy in the West—is now over.

On Dresden and Gaza

Barely mentioned is that in sharp contrast to the historic events described above, the Israeli Defense Forces has gone out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while attempting to eliminate enemy positions from where rockets were being launched. These sites were mostly schools, hospitals and apartment buildings, making avoiding civilians impossible. Long before the bombings, the IDF made warning telephone calls directly to Palestinian homes notifying them to leave. They also dropped printed messages by airplane, advising people which buildings to evacuate, and even often dropped “cold bombs” as the last warning. Moreover, wounded Palestinian terrorists who were caught by the IDF were treated in Israeli medical facilities.

Israel has also erected special medical facilities at its northern border with Syria, where they treat Syrians wounded by their own government. Such efforts to protect civilians are unheard of in the history of wars of other nations. There were certainly no warnings for the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Although this is all well-documented, what has the world’s response been? False accusations of genocide with barely any attention to the IDF’s behavior as compared to other militaries in recent history.

The Biden administration declared that Israel “should have taken all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.” The United Nations condemned the Israeli response to Hamas’s missiles and mass murder of Israeli civilians as a “moral outrage” and a “criminal act.” Various European and American politicians have repeatedly criticized the IDF, with barely any attention paid to the atrocities of Hamas. The charge was even made that airstrikes against Gaza were “collective punishment.” Collective punishment for the people of Gaza is what can be charged against Hamas.

One might ask: What is the meaning of proportional response to the terrorist murderers who use their population as cover? What have we heard about the U.N. documentation of the deaths of more than 350,000 Syrians killed by their government, including using poisonous gas? Have there been widespread voices of rage from governments, local or national organizations—the very ones that go out of their way to condemn Israel?

The current civil war in Sudan has killed 150,000 people and forced more than 11 million from their homes, prompting the U.S. government to declare a genocide—this one perpetrated by the ethnic Arab militia known as the Rapid Support Forces against non-Arab Sudanese. Nevertheless, organizations and groups focused on the alleged wrongs of Israel have been conspicuously silent. Even the pope, who has been outspoken about the Gaza conflict, has remained fairly quiet regarding the brutal persecution of Christians and Uyghurs in China.

Perhaps, what I have described can be best explained by the words of two European diplomats. In 2013, then-Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who, obviously forgetting about Dresden and the long history of European atrocities against Jews, said: “Even if Europeans do not say so, they judge Israel by different standards than they would judge other (Arab) countries in this area. Why? Because deep down, Europeans see Israel as a European country. So, they judge Israel in the same way they would judge other European countries … It means you are part of a community of values, whether you like it or not.”

Similarly, Jesper Vahr, the former Danish Ambassador to Israel, had the temerity to advocate a European double standard applied to Israel when judging its actions against Palestinian terrorists. As he said, “I think you have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context. … You are one of us.” Keeping in mind Nazi atrocities, Russian pogroms against Jews, the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima, and Western countries’ campaigns against civilians in Africa and elsewhere, it is difficult to come up with greater duplicity.

One wonders if it has occurred to these two hypocritical gentlemen and their likes in Europe and the United States that after observing the “lofty” standards demonstrated by Western nations in Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Serbia and elsewhere around the world, Israelis lack the enthusiasm to become “one of them” or to rise to their “standards.” We might argue that Israelis—and Jews, in general—are better off sticking to the values of their ancient Bible.

The European Union’s unfair and unequal treatment of Israel

The European Union spent more than a billion dollars on the Palestinians from 2021 to 2024, and millions have gone to organizations that support the BDS movement against Israel.

BDS seeks to isolate Israel economically and politically, a goal that directly conflicts with the European Union’s claims of fairness. If the European Union continues funding organizations with clear political agendas, it cannot claim to be an impartial force for good.

The European Union has also used economic pressure to hurt Israel’s economy. In 2022, it enforced a rule requiring products from Israeli areas in Judea and Samaria to be labeled as being from an “Israeli settlement.”

As a result, exports from these areas dropped by as much as 20%, harming businesses and workers. Instead of promoting cooperation and peace, these actions created more division. When an institution that claims to support fairness enacts policies that harm a nation’s economy, its credibility is severely damaged.

The European Union’s selective criticism is not limited to economics. It also affects international politics. It condemns Israel for defending its land and people, but the organization stays quiet about far greater violations elsewhere. If the European Union were committed to justice, then it would hold all nations to the same standards. Its failure to do so weakens its position as a fair and neutral global actor. To be seen as fair and responsible, it must change its approach and start treating all nations equally.

This debate is not just about Israel. When an institution repeatedly ignores certain injustices while exaggerating others, its credibility is in serious danger. Like any sovereign nation, Israel has the right to protect its people, defend its land and grow its economy. Yet the European Union’s unfair economic and political pressure makes these tasks harder. If it continues its biased policies, the European Union risks losing the trust of people who believe in true justice.