Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, April 07, 2025

Jewish Political Ethics: A Blueprint for Righteous Nations

If you thought coming up with those eleven principles of universal personal ethics based on Jewish concepts last chapter was audacious, well, buckle your seatbelts. This chapter argues that Jewish tradition doesn’t just offer personal ethics—it provides a robust system for national conduct.

It is not enough to have a set of moral ideas for people. Jewish philosophy goes far beyond that. 3,500 years of history, including 2,000 years of rabbis arguing with each other about anything and everything, is going to cover more than how we should treat each other.

Jewish morality can, and does, have a lot to say about how nations are supposed to act, too.

Jewish ethics extends into the realms of statecraft, diplomacy, justice, and war. The wisdom embedded in Jewish political ethics provides a powerful guide to governance in a complex and morally fragile world.

Hugo Grotius is often called the "father of international law." He laid out the foundations for just war theory and global order in his 1625 work De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace). Grotius was deeply influenced by Jewish sources - particularly Maimonides, the Talmud, and earlier rabbinic commentaries on the Noachide laws.

Like Selden, Grotius believed in universal natural law, binding on all people and nations regardless of their religion or location. He cited rabbinic sources as evidence that such moral principles were truly universal. He particularly embraced the idea that international conduct must be governed by shared ethical principles, including:

The right of self-defense
The obligation to honor treaties
The sanctity of noncombatants
Proportionality in war
The preference for peace over conquest

There are the foundations of international law to this day - and it came from Grotius' study of Jewish wisdom.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing more than a century later in The Social Contract, secularized another core idea from the Jewish tradition: the covenant at Sinai. While Rousseau does not explicitly cite the Sinai revelation, the influence is clear: he refers to Moses as the ideal legislator, and evokes the Hebrew Scripture by saying, "Any man can carve tablets of stone or write laws on parchment. But only a true legislator can inscribe them on the hearts of the people."

Rousseau's "Social Contract" is the concept of a people voluntarily entering into a binding moral and legal covenant, as Israel did at Sinai. The Hebrew term for the United States is "Artzot HaBrit" - the Lands of the Covenant. The Covenant is the Constitution. (Significantly, the plural "Lands" nods to the idea of the United States as a federation of states, not a single monolithic land.)

Both Grotius and Rousseau, these two intellectual cornerstones of modern Western political theory, derive core aspects of their political ideas from Jewish sources.

We will present ten principles - rooted in Jewish jurisprudence and Scriptural ideas - that define a Jewish political ethic. These are not designed only for the Jewish nation, but to serve as a framework any nation could and should aspire to adopt. In a world where power often overwhelms principle, this model offers a moral compass.

Before we delve into the actual ideas, let's see what problems we are trying to solve in the current system of modern international law.

Where International Law Falls Short: A Jewish Ethical Analysis

Modern international law, as codified through institutions like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), aspires to establish global norms for peace, justice, and human rights. But noble intentions alone do not make a moral system. From a Jewish ethical standpoint, the current international system suffers from five critical weaknesses:

1. Lack of Moral Accountability

The Jewish model demands that laws be rooted in moral truth, and that judges be accountable to a higher ethical standard. But many international institutions confuse consensus with morality.

The UN General Assembly, composed of both democracies and brutal dictatorships, passes non-binding resolutions as if they reflect moral clarity.
The ICJ may render judgments based on political considerations, not objective justice.
Member states with horrific human rights records are routinely elected to “human rights” panels.

From Judaism's standpoint, a court that includes wicked judges is invalid. A law detached from truth is not law.

2. Biased Application of Law

Laws are only as good as their application. International law is riddled with inconsistent enforcement, especially regarding Israel.

“Occupation” is defined differently depending on who occupies whom (e.g., Gaza vs. Crimea).
Human shielding is condemned in Yemen but redefined in Gaza.
Targeted killings by Western powers are considered self-defense, but condemned when done by Israel.
Settlements are uniquely criminalized under a Rome Statute clause added solely to target Israel.

A court that treats one people differently from others violates the concept of mishpat echad lachem—“one law for all.” Selective law is no law at all.

3. Moral Equivalence and the Erasure of Priorities

Jewish ethics insists on moral triage—life before property, justice before process, dignity before consensus.

International law treats many violations with formal equivalence, leading to absurd outcomes:

Equating murder and torture with Jews building homes in disputed areas - all "war crimes" under the Rome Statute.
UN bodies condemning Israel more often than North Korea, Iran, or Syria—combined.
Giving equal weight at the UN to nations that protect minorities and those that jail, mutilate, or kill them.

Treating grave offenses and minor slights equally distorts the moral order.

Even more troubling: any system that gives equal legal weight and legitimacy to all nations—including those that systematically violate human rights, suppress dissent, and commit atrocities—cannot claim to be a moral system at all. Morality cannot be constructed from the votes or political pressure of the immoral. Justice cannot emerge from the unjust.

4. Rigidity and Lack of Reform Mechanisms

International law is notoriously rigid, slow, and politically paralyzed. When its rules are outdated or flawed, they cannot be revised easily—especially when dictatorships hold the majority.

The Jewish system, by contrast, includes:

Prophetic critique
Halachic debate
Flexibility in light of new realities

Law must grow with truth, or it fossilizes into injustice.

5. Erasure of National Sovereignty and Moral Diversity

Modern international law, under the guise of universality, often erases legitimate national identity and cultural differences.

Sovereign nations are pressured to adopt global norms, even when those norms conflict with local ethics or religious obligations.
Supranational courts override national judgments, even in democracies.
“Human rights” language is used to enforce so-called "progressive" values with no room for principled disagreement.

From a Jewish perspective, "These and those are the words of the living God.” There is more than one valid way to live ethically. Jewish political ethics expects that each nation that uses its ethical framework will come up with different priorities and conclusions, and inevitably come into conflict with other nations. The framework allows for disagreements and encourages negotiations and bilateral treaties as the preferred method of solving problems.

In a world where institutions are losing trust and law is bent by politics, the Jewish political ethic offers a better alternative.

Here are the ten principles that do a good job defining Jewish political ethics on a national level.

National Preservation and Self-Defense A nation has a sacred obligation to protect its people, land, and identity. The Talmudic principle of milchemet mitzvah—a mandatory war of self-defense—recognizes that preserving life and sovereignty is a national duty. While war is not glorified, pacifism in the face of existential threat is seen as immoral. This principle affirms the legitimacy of defensive deterrence, including economic protection and border security. A just state must seek peace first, but prepare to defend itself when necessary.
Justice and Just Courts The Torah mandates a system of impartial courts. Bribery, favoritism, and systemic corruption are condemned. Justice is not merely procedural but substantive: it must lead to truth and protect the vulnerable. Jewish law also recognizes the legitimacy of non-Jewish legal systems if they are just, and setting up such systems is one of the Noachide laws. No society can endure without trust in fair and transparent justice.
Moral Leadership and Prophetic Responsibility. Political power is a moral burden, not a privilege. Kings in the Torah are commanded to write a personal Sefer Torah and read it daily to avoid arrogance. Leaders must be subject to law and moral scrutiny. The prophets of Israel modeled a culture where truth-tellers were not silenced but honored. This principle affirms that a healthy society must foster internal critique—through press freedom, civic engagement, and public ethics. Leadership must be accountable not only to law, but to conscience.
Covenantal Consent Jewish political legitimacy begins with covenant, not conquest. At Sinai, the people accepted the law voluntarily. The idea that people consent to be governed lies at the heart of legitimate sovereignty. Most modern constitutions derive legitimacy from force, tradition, or revolution, not voluntary moral acceptance. Any regime that rules by fear or fiat contradicts this foundational principle. Consent must be informed, renewed, and grounded in shared ethical purpose.
Sanctity of Human Life As we've seen, life is the highest value in Jewish law—pikuach nefesh overrides almost all commandments. A state must protect its citizens’ lives not only from external enemies, but from citizen criminals and internal neglect: poverty, injustice, poor health care, and avoidable violence. The murder of innocents and avoidable deaths are a desecration. Many other ethical systems prioritize national honor or religious purity over life; this is not moral. National policy must be rooted in a culture of life.
Ethical Sovereignty Judaism affirms national sovereignty but limits it morally. Nations do not have unbounded power. National policy must reflect compassion, justice, and restraint. A nation may control its borders, defend its interests, and protect its culture—but not at the cost of cruelty, exploitation, or injustice.
Compassionate Treatment of Strangers and Minorities “You shall not oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt” appears over 30 times in the Torah. A Jewish political ethic mandates minority protection—not as a gesture, but as a core duty. This includes religious minorities, migrants, and ethnic outsiders. It does not mean undermining national identity, but ensuring dignity, fairness, and inclusion under law.
Peace as a Goal, Not a Dogma The Torah commands: “When you approach a city to wage war, offer it peace first.” Peace is the ideal but not an absolute. Appeasement is not peace. Moral peace requires mutual respect and justice. Peace that enables tyranny is betrayal. A Jewish vision of peace is active and righteous—not naive surrender.
Moral Warfare and Limits of Force Even in war, Jewish law mandates boundaries: sparing civilians, offering surrender, avoiding unnecessary destruction. Total war is forbidden. A just war is one fought reluctantly, ethically, and for a righteous cause. Modern implications include military codes of conduct, civilian safeguards, and proportionality in force.
Environmental Stewardship and Bal Tashchit The Torah commands, “Do not destroy trees by swinging an axe against them…” , a law taught even in the context of war. From this emerges the broader principle of Bal Tashchit, the prohibition against wanton destruction.. It mandates conservation of natural resources, responsible land use, and sustainable development. Judaism regards the Earth as a divine trust: humanity are its stewards, not its owners. A righteous nation must not pillage its forests, pollute its rivers, or degrade creation for short-term gain. This ethic challenges modern states to balance growth with preservation, consumption with responsibility, and power with humility before the natural world.

As with the personal moral codes, the actual application of these principles are as important as the principles themselves. Situations come up often where two principles indicate different courses of action. There needs to be a methodology to prioritize one over the other, and that methodology must be consistent.

Also, Jewish principles do not tend to be empty, feel-good ideas. Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all preach that violence is an absolute last resort, if at all. Yet nations that have these faiths as state sponsored religions maintain active, trained armed forces.

In Christian-majority Europe, several countries maintain state churches or official Christian identities in their constitutions. Their military manuals do not say "turn the other cheek." Hindu and Buddhist nations also field professional militaries, complete with air forces, intelligence agencies, and nuclear or cyber warfare capabilities. No military manual in these countries instructs soldiers to surrender when attacked. No army teaches its fighters to love the enemy into repentance. In practice, these nations accept the necessity of force, even if their religious or philosophical foundations refuse to articulate a clear moral framework for it.

Judaism does not share this doublethink. It confronts the problem of violence directly, with laws for war, peace, proportionality, restraint, and justice. The Torah does not glorify violence—but it recognizes that when innocent life is under threat, failure to act is itself a moral crime. Because Judaism values life, it sometimes requires force to defend it. There is no pretense—only responsibility.

If you ask who was the most admired man of the 20th century, many if not most would say Mahatma Gandhi. Yet Gandhi, more than once, said that Jews should allow the Nazis to slaughter them, in the vain expectation that world horror would somehow shame the Nazis into stopping their genocide. Pardon my language, but screw you, Gandhi. His ethical universe may not admit the existence of true evil, but Jewish experience does - the paradigm is Amalek. When faced with pure evil, the proper and ethical response is to obliterate it, not feed it more bodies. Extremist ideologies lead to immoral results, even when the extremism appears to be for the most praiseworthy principles.

Political morality is a rich topic, with infinite variations and questions. That is exactly what makes it a perfect object for Jewish ethics. This framework is mature, tested and flexible.

Jewish political ethics offers more than ancient wisdom—it provides a living model for moral governance. In a time when trust in global institutions falters, Jewish sources offer an ethic that values life, honors sovereignty, protects minorities, welcomes debate, and balances justice with compassion.

This is not utopia. It is hard, real, moral politics. And it may be the best chance the world has to restore order without losing its soul.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun called Palestinian armed struggle an ‘inalienable right’ in 2024, it was a gift to pseudo-scholars like Richard Falk, who’ve spent years twisting international law to bless terrorism.

From Countercurrents:

On February 22, 2024, China’s Ambassador to The Hague, Zhang Jun, uttered the unexpected.

“Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right,” the Chinese Ambassador said, insisting that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts”.
...
Zhang’s remarks were situated entirely within international law. Thus, we couldn’t miss the opportunity to discuss the topic in a recent interview we conducted with Professor Richard Falk, a leading scholar in international law and former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine.

“Yes, I think that’s a correct understanding of international law—one that the West, by and large, doesn’t want to hear about,” Falk said in response to the February 24 comments by Zhang.

Falk elaborated: “The right of resistance was affirmed during the decolonization process in the 1980s and 1990s, and this included the right to armed resistance. However, this resistance is subject to compliance with international laws of war.”

This takes us to the events of October 7, 2023, the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation inside what is known as the Gaza Envelope region in southern Israel.

“To the extent that there is real evidence of atrocities accompanying the October 7 attack, those would constitute violations, but the attack itself is something that, in context, appears entirely justifiable and long overdue,” Falk said.

Falk appears to be accepting the Hamas narrative that 10/7 was a purely military operation consistent with international law, that any civilian harm was peripheral and probably not done by Hamas itself but by overeager Gaza civilians. He is trying to distinguish between the supposed military goals of Hamas which he says are perfectly legal and "long overdue" with the atrocities we've all seen (although the full Counterpunch article says they are lies, too.)

To reach this position, Falk has to go through a lot of contortions of facts and of international law. And even if you accept all of his pretzel logic, it still falls apart.

First of all, even the fuzzy justifications for "resistance" do not allow a militia to cross a border and invade another country under international law. The UN Charter (Article 2(4)) bans the use of force against a state’s territorial integrity, and self-defense (Article 51) is a state’s prerogative, not a militia’s. Even Additional Protocol I, Falk’s major source, limits resistance to the occupier’s forces within occupied territory, not a militia’s invasion across sovereign borders

The invasion was illegal, period - unless you claim that all of Israel is illegitimate and every inch of Israeli land is "occupied." Hamas believes this, Falk might, but if he says that out loud, he knows he loses what little claim to legitimacy he still has.

Secondly, it is stretching facts to the point of absurdity to claim that Hamas didn't systematically attack the Nova Music Festival or the civilian kibbutzim.

Thirdly, and most damningly, even if you accept every Hamas lie as truth, and every Israeli truth as a lie, which Falk apparently does, Hamas happily admits that their primary military aim was to take hostages (dead or alive) and swap them for terrorists in Israeli prison. Taking hostages - even if they are soldiers - is a war crime.

No matter how far one stretches the facts, Richard Falk is praising war crimes.

Using Falk's appalling quasi-legal reasoning, 9/11 is more legally justified than 10/7.

After all, the Pentagon is a military target. Al Qaeda justified attacking the World Trade Center as an important economic target that contributes to the American economy and therefore to the US military. This makes the WTC a "more" legitimate target than Kibbutz Be'eri or the Nova festival.

The US had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden had consistently framed as an occupation. In both cases, a non-state actor suffering under an oppressive occupation by colonial enemies claims it has the right to strike inside their enemy's territory as long as they can justify the attack in military terms and civilians are not framed as the primary target.

But in the case of 9/11, US troops were physically in Saudi Arabia, while no Israeli troops were physically in Gaza, meaning that Bin Laden's claim of "occupation" was stronger than Hamas'.

Moreover, in 9/11, there was no hostage taking as a goal - and you cannot spin hostage taking as anything but illegal.

Some other Falkian defender of Al Qaeda can claim that Bin Laden's objectives were more purely aligned with legitimate resistance than Hamas'. After all, the deaths of the people on the airplanes were also peripheral to the military goals, right?

Here is a case study in how international law is twisted, day after day, by supposed "experts."

The current Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese, is no less guilty of using selective and tendentious readings of international law to justify terrorism and delegitimatize Israel than Falk is.

(h/t JW)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

It happens every year before Passover. A couple of Temple Mount groups say they want to offer a korban Pesach sacrifice on the site, Arab media freaks out, it never happens, then the Islamists congratulate themselves on how they managed to stop it with their solidarity.

Qudspress reports:

The so-called "Temple Groups" called on settlers to begin attempts to slaughter Passover sacrifices in and around Al-Aqsa Mosque today, Sunday (April 6), days before the start of the holiday.

The so-called Hebrew Passover holiday officially begins on the 13th of this month and continues for a full week, during which settlers continue their attempts to bring in and offer animal sacrifices into Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Passover sacrifice is a ritual that Jewish groups have not yet performed, but they aspire to perform it within the walls of Al-Aqsa Mosque every year, due to its symbolic significance in reviving the alleged "Temple."

(As an aside, if you say "so-called Passover" you are antisemitic.)

Hamas joined the party to make itself sound important. It said the Palestinian people will never allow their mosque to be "desecrated" by the Jews. The terror group urged the Palestinian people to "mobilize and maintain a strong presence in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque" to thwart the evil plans and prevent any attempt to bring in offerings or perform Talmudic rituals.

The Israeli guards will never allow anyone to bring a goat. They don't allow Jews to bring prayer books! But I guess that the annual ritual of whipping up anger at Jews generates hits and "likes" and followers.

It is a minor, annual version of "Al Aqsa is in danger!" Trying to unify the Arab world by being merely anti-Zionist no longer works, but saying that the Jews plan to attack Al Aqsa still has the ability to reliably make the Arab world angry, no matter how many times the same gambit is used.

This will be front page news in Palestinian and some other Arab media this week.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/06 Links: Hamas demanded $500m from Iran for destruction of Israel; John Lydon: 'Hamas are basically just Jew exterminators, that’s their only real purpose'

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: It is now far past time to stop paying attention to the lies of Hamas

A year ago, I wrote about "the devastating proof that Hamas is faking its death figures." Last week, it emerged that Hamas had quietly dropped 3,400 "identified" deaths from its casualty figures, including 1,080 children. These deaths never happened, but they had been verified by the UN and parroted by gullible - or ideologically blinkered - media.

Further analysis of the data showed that among those old enough to be fighting for Hamas, 72% of the dead were male, a testament to the care and precision of the IDF on a battlefield often crowded with human shields.

Moreover, Hamas had unscrupulously included natural deaths in the list of supposed victims of the IDF, including infant mortality rates of around 780 each year. This amounted to 8,300 fatalities that any reporter acting in good faith would remove from the total.

If we take into account Israel's figures that 20,000 of the dead were combatants, that means about one civilian is killed for every fighter. This is a humanitarian feat that has never been equaled by any other army, in spite of the fact that Hamas herds its own people into the firing line. That is the true story of this war. But 98% of news reports repeat numbers provided by Hamas.

Every human life is sacred and it is macabre to talk about the grim arithmetic of death. But those on my side of the argument have no choice but to respond in such terms to the obsession with casualty numbers that has characterized coverage of this war. Do you have any idea how many civilians were killed when we destroyed Islamic State, or waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq? No? That tells you something.

Charles Not In Charge

REVIEW: 'Antisemitism in America: A Warning' by Chuck Schumer
Chuck Schumer can't catch a break. Not long after being sworn in as the first Jewish leader of the U.S. Senate, the Democratic Party came down with a bad case of anti-Semitism. It inspired him to write a book, Antisemitism in America: A Warning, in which he recounts how John F. Kennedy's assassination really dampened the vibe at his bar mitzvah the following day. The ceremony went ahead as planned, unlike Schumer's tour to promote his new book, which was postponed due to threats of protest from anti-Semites and other Democrats fuming about his refusal to pick a pointless fight with Donald Trump. That's just as well, though, because the senator's warning about anti-Semitism appears to lack a viable constituency.

Emily Tamkin is a perfect example. She's a Jewish foreign affairs reporter at the Washington Post and a former Schumer intern (back in 2009, so not some Gen Z weirdo). If she won't endorse Schumer's warning about the rise of anti-Semitism in America, including the violently expressed sympathy from liberal activists for Hamas terrorists after Oct. 7, who will? Alas, Tamkin was not a fan. "Reading it ... made me realize that I didn't want a warning on antisemitism," she writes in her review for the Post. "I wanted the highest-elected Jewish official in American history to meet a moment that has already arrived."

Among other things, Tamkin faults Schumer for failing to embrace a more intersectional approach to anti-Semitism, a criticism he foresees in the book by lamenting the liberal Jews who are reluctant to discuss anti-Semitism without also addressing "Islamophobia or racism or competing narratives in the Middle East." The Senate leader's condemnation of anti-Semitism on the left is unfair, Tamkin argues, not least because he refuses to condone the Hamas sympathizers who accuse Israel of committing "genocide" in Gaza. She devotes three whole paragraphs (of her book review) to complaining about Donald Trump. All told, it's a pretty good summary of why Schumer's warning to his liberal allies—"Be careful. Do not let passion overwhelm your better instincts."—is unlikely to prevail.

That's a shame, because Schumer makes an earnest and compelling argument, drawn from personal experience and family history, about the unique perniciousness of anti-Semitism, as well as the existential importance of Israel as a "place you can go where you can be safe and be Jewish." He documents how several factors that exist today, such as social unrest and the democratization of media, have consistently fueled a rise in anti-Semitism at various points throughout history. Your humble (and gentile) reviewer found these portions of the book enlightening and persuasive. It's even charming at times, as when Schumer recounts his first visit to Israel and the pride he felt upon seeing a "Jewish garbageman." Nevertheless, when the personal anecdotes give way to politics, Schumer writes like a career politician who has held public office since age 25—afraid to offend anyone, and pleasing no one in the process. The pages are littered with euphemisms and languid caveats, endless variations of the "to be sure..." paragraph in an ultimately futile effort to assuage his critics.

Schumer recalls how his own staff urged him not to speak out about anti-Semitism after Oct. 7, when Hamas terrorists committed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, and the campuses of elite universities were overrun by supporters of this "justified" act of anticolonial "resistance." Speaking out was "politically risky," they warned. Schumer agrees, but doesn't really explain why. If he's correct that anti-Semitism on the left is confined to the "radical fringe," then what's the big deal? He barely mentions the avowed Hamas sympathizers currently representing his own party in Congress. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) he commends for allegedly regretting her anti-Semitic outbursts. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) he omits entirely.

Hamas demanded $500m from Iran for destruction of Israel

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz revealed, for the first time, communications between Tehran and slain Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif and Yahya Sinwar.

“This is definitive proof of Iran‘s support for Hamas’s plan to destroy Israel and for the October 7, [2023], massacre,” Katz said. “Deif and Sinwar demanded $500 million from the Quds Force commander to support the annihilation of Israel and the fight against the U.S.—and they got it.”

Katz visited the IDF’s Intelligence and Technological Systems Unit (AMASHT) on Saturday and received a briefing from unit commanders on its intelligence and operational activities.

“I’m here today visiting the AMASHT unit—a special unit established during the Swords of Iron war and composed of reservists with extensive civilian-sector expertise, who developed national-level capabilities that did not yet exist,” he said.

He added that this intelligence capability holds critical material physically collected from deep inside enemy territory, including Hamas archives, Hezbollah documents and other sensitive intelligence sources.

“Today I am presenting, for the first time, a transcript of conversations found in the tunnels of senior Hamas officials in Gaza, which proves a direct connection between Iran and Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif, as part of Iran’s support for Hamas’s plan to destroy Israel. The document shows they requested $500 million from the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force to help destroy the State of Israel,” Katz said.

Christians in Israel feel safer than Jews in America

In the past couple of years, there has been a spate of articles in the media painting a grim picture on Christians in Israel, making it sound like most of them are experiencing discrimination and attacks like being spit upon by Jews.

A new survey of Israel's Christians shows that in at least some ways, Christians in Israel are more comfortable than Jews - in America.

The Rossing Center asked Christians in Israel whether they felt comfortable wearing visible religious symbols in public. 58.5% said they did, 20.5% said they didn't.

A similar question by the American Jewish Committee of Jews in America found that 39% of Jews felt safe in American displaying such symbols, and 42% said they were unsafe.

The Rossing Center reported that the vast majority, 88.3%, of Christians in Israel reported no experiences of harassment due to their Christian identity.

The AJC found that In all, 33% of American Jews say they were a target of an antisemitic incident whether a physical attack, a remark in person, antisemitic vandalism or messaging, antisemitic remark or post online or through social media, or any other form of antisemitism—in the previous 12 months.

Once again, the media makes up a story by inflating the importance of a few reprehensible incidents, they back them up by finding antisemitic Christian leaders to say that things are horrendous, and they widely publish the story. Yet surveys show that Christians in Israel are not under attack and most of them feel perfectly safe among Jews. When you compare this with the US Jewish minority, knowing that most Jews are safe in the US, you can see that the stories were sensationalist and did not reflect the relative importance of the issue.

Obviously if 11% of Christians in Israel have been harassed, that is something that has to be addressed, but it is a pretty low number for any minority in any country - US included.

(h/t Irene)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

We mentioned an irony of how so many antisemites project their own ambitions of world domination onto Jews. Jews don't want to control the world. (It sounds exhausting!) Judaism is one of the few religions that do not recruit more members.

But Jews do want to influence the world. God in Isaiah calls Israel "a light unto nations" and that is part of the Jewish ethos. Not to force anyone to do anything, but to make them want to do the right thing.

The traditional way that Jews have viewed the obligations of the non-Jewish world is through the Seven Noachide Laws, principles derived and described in the Talmud. They include prohibitions against idolatry, murder, theft, sexual immorality, blasphemy, and cruelty to animals, while mandating setting up a justice system.

Earlier, we briefly mentioned John Selden, the brilliant 17th century English jurist, who saw the Noachide Laws as the basis of natural law - universal moral truths accessible through reason. In De Jure Naturali (1640), Selden used them to create a legal framework, applying them to property rights, personal safety, and governance. His ideas influenced John Locke, further shaping English common law principles.

In America, James Madison - shaped by the ideas of Selden and Locke - led the writing of the Constitution. In the Bill of Rights, Madison embedded Selden’s natural law principles - justice, duties to others - in protections like the First Amendment (freedom of religion, speech) and Fifth Amendment (due process), ensuring government upholds universal moral duties. Madison echoed Locke in believing that there are pre-existing, universal and divine moral laws. Madison understood that inevitably, different factions that disagree will arise ("The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man") but a well functioning republic can ensure that none of them can dominate the others. A Talmudic analogy would be Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, two schools that debated fiercely but were both seen as legitimate expressions of truth. The system endured because it upheld both universal ethics and cultural diversity.

It is not only the Noachide laws that influenced Western political thought. The Torah itself did as well. Montesquieu derived the idea of separation of powers (a separate judicial, executive and legislative branch) from Deuteronomy, which describes a hierarchical court system along with a "Supreme Court" for difficult cases, separate from the powers of the King. Madison refers to Montesquieu in his writings on separation of powers.

From the perspective of Selden and Montesquieu, these Jewish concepts are interpreted from a legal perspective based on universal moral truths. I believe that we need to expand on what these moral concepts are, beyond but underpinning the Noachide laws, based on Jewish writings. These concepts should be publicized to the world as an object of serious study, comparison, debate and (hopefully) adoption.

I am not a rabbi. I am not a philosopher. I am not a celebrated thinker. What I am proposing - enumerating a list of universal moral concepts based on Jewish sources - is about as audacious as can be imagined, and I have no qualifications to do this. But debate is a cherished Jewish concept, too. If this starts a discussion, then this is already a success.

Here are the concepts as I see them:

Pikuach Nefesh – The supreme value of human life

Tzelem Elokim / Kavod HaBriyot – Every person is made in the image of God and deserves dignity

Emet – There is such a thing as objective truth

Din/Rachamim (Imitatio Dei) – Emulate God in balancing justice and mercy

Lifnei Iver – Act with integrity; do not enable wrongdoing

Lo Ta’amod / Kol Yisrael Areivim – Personal responsibility to prevent harm

Tzedakah / Chesed – Justice and kindness are two sides of the same coin

Lashon Hara – Use speech ethically and responsibly

Derech Eretz – Civility, manners, and everyday respect

Anavah / Teshuvah – Humility and the ability to change

Mishpacha –Centrality of family

Here are some details on these 11 concepts.

Pikuach Nefesh – The supreme value of human life

Preserving life overrides nearly every other imperative. Human life is of infinite value, the ultimate moral priority. One might think that this is obvious, but it gets tricky when balanced against other human life - after all, self defense to save your life is also a Jewish concept. War is not prohibited, some of them are mandatory. Saving a hostage's life now when there is a statistical near-certainty that released prisoners will kill more people later - these are difficult moral calculations, and even this most basic of ideals is not straightforward in practice. Applying this principle in a one-sided fashion is not moral; it is devaluing other lives while pretending to care about some. Life’s value requires tough, honest decisions, not selective compassion, ensuring a world where every life is weighed with care.

Tzelem Elokim / Kavod HaBriyot – Every person is made in the image of God and deserves dignity

Tzelem Elokim, literally "the image of God," is the source of universal equal rights. It rejects all dehumanization, whether racism or the current popular trend of demonizing white cissexual males. Critically, it does not just say that everyone deserves respect - it says that everyone has the potential of being truly great. It goes against the tendency of assigning people to categories and treating them all as less than valuable. This principle offers a universal ethic: by seeing the divine in everyone, we can build a world where respect isn’t contingent on ideology or color or ability, but inherent in our creation.

Emet – There is such a thing as objective truth

Truth is associated with God Himself, which makes it immutable. While Judaism has many texts and sayings about truth, nowhere does it accept the fashionable modern notion that everyone has their own truth or that "narratives" are equivalent to the truth. Much of rabbinic philosophy is dedicated to uncovering the truth. Those who claim that truth is relative, that facts don't matter, that everyone is entitled to their own truth, that manifestly falsehoods should be respected as much as the truth is, have lost not only their morality but their very reality. It is impossible to build a moral world when you cannot agree on basic facts.

Din/Rachamim (Imitatio Dei) – Emulate God in Balancing Justice and Mercy

Rabbis through the centuries have gone through the Torah to identify when God exhibits the attribute of justice and when He acts with mercy. Balancing justice and mercy is a divine art we’re asked to emulate. This isn't referring only to judgments in court - we judge people we meet every day. That judgement must be tempered with mercy, because as we are told, the world could not exist if God would insist on justice without compassion. A similar concept is "dan l'chsaf zechut" - give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Teachers, parents, friends - all must balance the two, because mercy without justice is just as bad as justice without mercy. It’s a path to relationships where people feel both valued and accountable.

Lifnei Iver – Act with Integrity; Do Not Enable Wrongdoing

"Do not place a stumbling block before a blind person" - this rule extends to all aspects of our lives. Some societies prioritize avoiding shame, while Western societies care more about avoiding guilt. The difference is when someone does something negative that no one else knows about. Shame societies don't see any ethical problem with that as long as they are not caught; guilt societies say that one must do the right thing even when no one else knows. Integrity is about doing what’s right, even when no one’s watching, and ensuring our actions don’t lead others into harm. Acting honorably is its own reward, but when enough people do it, all society benefits.

Lo Ta’amod / Kol Yisrael Areivim – Personal responsibility

A lot of people today talk about rights, but not so many speak about responsibilities. Our primary responsibility is to those closest to us. We must raise children to be moral citizens, and to support our loved ones. But we also have responsibilities to our friends, so workers, neighbors, and larger communities. Lo ta'amod is specifically about preventing harm to others, stepping in when we see someone in danger - whether the danger is physical, emotional, or moral. When we take responsibility seriously, we create a network of support. It’s a practical ethic that builds a world where no one feels alone, where we’re all looking out for each other, starting with those nearest and rippling out. By living this way, we ensure that care is real, not just a gesture, fostering communities where everyone feels protected and valued.

Tzedakah / Chesed – Justice and kindness are two sides of the same coin

Tzedakah is loosely translated as charity, but it is framed as an obligation more than a choice. The Hebrew word is cognate to the words for justice and righteousness. This is more than the responsibility in Lo Ta'amod - we cannot turn our backs on those in need. Helping people who desperately need it is not to be left to others; if we have the ability to help, we must do so. Chesed is acts of kindness, like visiting the sick, volunteering, and all aspects of burial.

Lashon Hara – Use speech ethically and responsibly

Judaism places huge emphasis on the power and responsibility of speech. Speech is how God created the world. Within halacha, the rules about what one is or is not allowed to say (or even gesture, or make a face) about another person take up entire volumes. The truth of the words is not a defense. These rules apply even more so to social media, where one's negative words can be spread instantly and irretrievably. Gossip destroys lives.

This is perhaps the biggest difference between Jewish ethics and Western culture. There is a tension between the prohibition of lashon hora and freedom of speech, but they aren't contradictory: just because something can be said doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Build people up, don't tear them down.

Derech Eretz – Civility, manners, and everyday respect

A popular phrase is "Derech Eretz precedes the Torah," and many commentators take this literally. Having respect and manners was considered important even outside the Jewish legal framework. Derech eretz is going above and beyond the specific legal obligations, like going out of your way to thank the bus driver or grocery bagger, greeting everyone with a smile, listening respectfully to people who may themselves not be speaking respectfully, separating the messenger from the message.

Anavah / Teshuvah – Humility and the ability to change

It is said that a 18th century Chasidic master always kept two notes, one in each pocket. One said, "For my sake the world was created.” On the other he wrote the Biblical phrase “I am but dust and ashes.”

Humility does not mean demeaning oneself or disrespecting yourself. It means knowing and understanding your place in society and in the world. When there is no one else who will do what needs to be done, step up and do it yourself. There is always someone smarter, stronger, faster, more skilled than you are; use your skills in the best way possible but don't act like a braggart.

Teshuvah is repentance, a key part of Judaism. Admit your mistakes, seek forgiveness and try to ensure you do better next time. Like all of these moral ideas, this is all easier said than done. But people respect those who own up to mistakes a lot more than the ones who try to cover them up.

Mishpacha –Centrality of family

Your primary obligation is to your family. Family is where you learn love, values, responsibility and support. Parents can give no better gift to their children than to provide them with a loving family that is always there for them; children must learn to honor their parents and grandparents. Family is the cornerstone of a strong society. It is no coincidence that Marxism is against family, nor is it a coincidence that cults try to separate individuals from their families. Malign movements want to take people away from the values they grew up with,

You might be surprised that "Shalom - Peace" is not on this list. This is because the list is meant to be practical, not abstract or open to abuse by misinterpretation. But, as Proverbs says, "Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are to peace." If people would strive to embody these ideas, peace is the outcome. (Similarly, in classical Judaism, the concept of "tikkun olam" is that the world is repaired by living these values.)

Beyond these essential moral values, Judaism provides a framework that can be used to help navigate when these values collide. As we mentioned, Judaism doesn't shy away from difficult questions - it wrestles with them. The answer for one may be different than for another. It is the opposite of dogmatic.

Most of the other moral systems we examined are self-righteous, simplistic, and/or extremist. The Jewish moral code is meant for self-improvement, it embraces complexity and tries to find the middle path.

Wouldn't you rather live in a world of personal responsibility, respect and kindness instead of one steeped in self-righteousness, privilege and fetishizing victimhood?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Middle East Eye reports:

Several prominent Muslim scholars have issued a rare religious decree or "fatwa", calling on all Muslims and Muslim-majority countries to wage "jihad" against Israel after 17 months of devastating war against Palestinians residing in the besieged enclave.

Ali al-Qaradaghi, the secretary general of the International Union Of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), an organisation previously led by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called on all Muslim countries on Friday “to intervene immediately militarily, economically and politically to stop this genocide and comprehensive destruction, in accordance with their mandate”.

Qaradaghi is one of the region’s most respected religious authorities and his decrees carry significant weight among the world’s 1.7bn Sunni Muslims.

Qaradawi, it may be recalled, said that suicide bombing was an Islamic obligation and refused to be seen on the same stage as any Jews. The IUMS is hardly an arbiter of what is morally acceptable. (And their fatwas are anything but "rare.")

More interesting was the reaction from a prominent Salafi cleric in Egypt:

The head of the Salafi Call (Nour Party) in Egypt , Sheikh Yasser Borhamy, sparked widespread controversy by attacking the International Union of Muslim Scholars after it issued a fatwa urging support for the people of Gaza in the face of the brutal Israeli aggression.

Borhamy said in a video on Saturday that the fatwa issued by the IUMS regarding the necessity of Islamic countries to support the Palestinians militarily is wrong and unrealistic.

Borhamy held the people of Gaza and its resistance responsible for the ongoing massacres, saying that they decided to enter the war unilaterally and not in consultation with other Muslims, with the alleged exception of Iran.

This is the first time I've ever heard that the concept of FAFO applied in Islamic jurisprudence.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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)