Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, April 09, 2025

The Dismissal of Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar: A Reckoning for Anti-Settler Bias (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar, despite being put on hold by the High Court, is a decision every Israeli should back to safeguard the rights of all Israeli citizens. Regavim, a nonprofit focused on countering illegal land seizures in Judea and Samaria and debunking myths like “settler violence,” supports Bar’s removal. This isn’t some partisan shake-up—it’s a necessary confrontation with an agency that, under Bar’s leadership, abandoned its mission to protect all Israelis. Rather than uphold security, the Shin Bet under Bar singled out Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria for groundless detentions and deep-seated contempt, even as Arab terror grew unchecked. A leaked recording from April 2025 has exposed this outrage, confirming that Bar’s departure is critical.

The “Shmucks” Revelation: Settlers as Scapegoats

The Shin Bet’s Jewish Division, tasked with monitoring internal threats, has been caught admitting to a chilling practice: arresting Jewish settlers without evidence. In a recording published by Kan News on April 6, 2025, the division head, identified as “A,” bragged to former Judea and Samaria police commander Avishai Mualem, “We arrest these jerks even without evidence for a few days. Put them in detention cells with mice.” The “jerks?” Jewish settlers, whom “A” elsewhere derided as “shmucks” unworthy of due process. This wasn’t a slip but a glimpse into a systemic bias that thrived under Bar’s leadership.

Israel Hayom’s report captures the outrage: the Prime Minister’s Office labeled it “a shocking revelation” and “a real danger to democracy,” demanding an investigation. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called out the “draconian Shin Bet powers against settlers” as “undemocratic, unequal, illegal, and unconstitutional.” The recording confirms what settlers and groups like Regavim have long claimed: the Shin Bet wasn’t combating terror—it was persecuting Jews in their ancestral homeland.

A Legacy of Contempt

The “shmucks” comment that no one was supposed to hear, wasn’t a stray remark or isolated event. Rather contempt for the Jews of Judea and Samaria—and the misplaced obsession with them—was a feature of Shin Bet policy under Bar by deliberate design. October 7 and its devastating aftermath stem, in large measure, from the rotten fruit of Bar’s tenure. While Hamas in Gaza prepared to torch, rape, and slaughter Jews in the south, Bar fixated on targeting Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria.

Regavim’s Meir Deutsch has charged the Shin Bet with “nurturing a false myth” of settler violence while “concealing the real data” on threats like Hamas. Their forthcoming report, "Settler Violence: Facts vs Narrative," will expose the UN’s inflated claims—thousands of alleged incidents shrinking to just a handful under scrutiny. When Regavim pressed for transparency, Bar’s agency stonewalled, shielding its failures and amplifying a libel that endangered Jews instead of safeguarding them.

Rachel Touitou Weighs In

I put some questions to Regavim International Press Spokesperson Rachel Touitou: Why does the Shin Bet target settlers? Is it a political issue? Abuse of power? Is this why Netanyahu is agitating for a change in leadership?

Touitou’s response underscores the need to clean house—to install new Shin Bet leadership—leadership that will uphold its original mandate of protecting all Israeli citizens. “From the data we analyzed in the report, there is a distinct and clear pattern that permeated the Shin Bet, reflecting a deeply engrained mindset or ‘conceptzia’ as we say in Hebrew,” said Touitou. “Rather than allocating resources and efforts toward addressing the tangible threat that culminated in the events of October 7th, the Shin Bet has been, and continues to be, focused on a marginal phenomenon/issue—namely, unfounded accusations of blood libel directed at Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. This focus has inadvertently provided material to the United Nations and certain extreme leftist organizations which subsequently leverage it to discredit Israel and advocate for sanctions against its citizens.

“To your question whether it is a political issue or not—I’ll answer with another question: why does the Shin Bet dedicate an entire department with huge resources called ‘the Jewish Department’ and never opened one—or thought to open one—called the ‘anarchists department?’ That would be a good question to ask their spokesperson.”

Touitou’s words cut to the core of the matter: Bar’s Shin Bet wasn’t distracted—it was obsessed with a fiction that fueled global attacks on Israel while ignoring the real enemies at the gate.

Ignoring the Real Enemy

The Shin Bet’s misplaced scorn didn’t just undermine trust—it left Israel exposed. While Bar’s agency hounded Jews in Judea and Samaria, the Gaza threat grew into the nightmare of October 7th. The Jewish Division’s head mocked IDF soldiers in the the Jewish heartland as “worthless” settlers, per Israel Hayom, showing an arrogance that dismissed Israel’s defenders. Bar backed this view, telling police commanders that “hilltop youth” outranked Arab rioters as a threat—a fantasy with deadly consequences.

The agency’s refusal to shield settlers from Arab terror, paired with its zeal to detain them without cause, tells a grim story. These Jews, rooted in their biblical heartland, weren’t overlooked—they were hunted by the entity meant to protect them. Bar turned the Shin Bet into a tool against its own people, not their foes.

A Dismissal Well-Earned—And a Passover Parallel

The High Court may have delayed Bar’s ouster, but the evidence is ironclad. The “shmucks” tape, Regavim’s data, and the Shin Bet’s record under Bar reveal a rot that demanded removal. This wasn’t about competence—it was about a hatred for settlers that corrupted an agency tasked with Israel’s survival. Smotrich’s demand to fire Bar and “A” isn’t overreach; but a call for justice.

As Regavim’s report nears release, the truth will be clear: Bar’s Shin Bet betrayed its mission. His dismissal isn’t a setback—it’s a chance to reclaim an agency meant to defend, not destroy, Israel’s citizens. With Passover starting April 11—just two days away—this feels apt. As we scour our homes of chametz, purging the leaven that corrupts, so must Israel’s government cleanse its ranks of rot. Bar’s exit, though stalled, is a step toward that renewal—a Pesach house-cleaning of the highest stakes. I stand with Regavim in hailing this purge, as all Israelis should.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Wikipedia describes the 2015 crime:

Hassan and Ahmed equipped themselves with knives. In Pisgat Ze'ev, they found Yosef Ben-Shalom, a 20-year-old male security guard who they chased after with their knives drawn, and stabbed. The guard fled, and they instead turned their attention to some nearby shops. Outside of a candy shop, they found Naor Shalev Ben-Ezra, a 13-year-old boy on a bicycle, who they stabbed. The boy sustained critical injuries. Another angle from the security camera footage shows Hassan running across a street.

Hassan was subsequently shot and killed, reportedly while advancing towards police with a knife in his hand.

Ahmad tried to escape the area, but was struck by a pursuing car and suffered serious head injuries.

The videos show two boys intent on stabbing any Jews they can find.

The case of Ahmed became cause celebre, with Amnesty and others calling for his release, alleging torture.

According to Palestinian media, Ahmed is due to be released very soon, less than ten years later.

He will be considered a hero.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Applying Jewish Ethics to Seinfeld and Star Trek

I like algorithms.

I once came up with a definition of antisemitism that I believe is superior to all others, because it allows one to look at any situation and decide, with very little room for bias, whether it is antisemitic or not. No "mights" or "mays" or "coulds" - just clarity.

As I wrote up with these Jewish ethical principles, I realized that they could do the same thing - become a method at create moral clarity for any situation.

Judaism offers an ancient tool for that clarity: a moral lens. Rooted in Torah, refined through centuries of rabbinic thought, and battle-tested in the survival of a people under constant pressure, Jewish ethics can offer an algorithmic approach to understanding the world. It is not simplistic, but it is consistent. It is not partisan, but it is principled.

This chapter introduces that idea: that a simplified but robust list of Jewish moral concepts can be used like an algorithm. When applied to anything — a news article, a song, a film, a political policy, a social media trend — it reveals whether the thing in question is in harmony with the values of truth, justice, responsibility, dignity, and holiness.

Let's try some examples from popular culture (at least, popular culture in my day.)

1. "Imagine" by John Lennon

"Imagine" is a global anthem of peace and idealism, "Imagine" encourages a world without countries, religion, or possessions — suggesting that these are the sources of conflict. It has been praised by politicians and celebrities and performed at places like the Olympics to symbolize universal harmony.

At first glance, "Imagine" feels aligned with the Jewish value of peace (shalom). But a closer look reveals a deep conflict with core Jewish moral principles. The song's vision of peace is achieved by erasing moral distinctions: no nations, no religions, no individual property. Judaism, by contrast, insists on the sacredness of difference — the idea that moral law is contextual, rooted in covenant, identity, and responsibility.

"Imagine" removes all moral obligations. No one owns anything, believes in anything, or dies for anything. There is no brit — no covenant, no rooted community, no justice, just a dreamy sameness. It denies the Jewish value of tzedek (justice), because it avoids the messy work of deciding what is right. It denies emet (truth), because it elevates fantasy over moral reality. In the end, it substitutes wishful thinking for ethical clarity.

Moreover, in this utopian world Lennon asks us to imagine, there is no growth. There is no opportunity to help others because others have exactly what you do. There are few if any incentives to better yourself. There is no reason to strive for excellence, because everyone is the same.

Judaism doesn't pretend people aren't different. Differences are what makes the world interesting. Differences are what helps us learn from each other.

The Jewish lens doesn’t reject peace — but it insists on a peace that is built, not "imagined." A peace that is rooted in shared obligation and justice. One that is created while acknowledging differences, not in the flattening of moral identity.

2. Groundhog Day

In this classic comedic film, a selfish man named Phil is forced to live the same day over and over again until he changes. What begins as a curse becomes a vehicle for personal transformation.

Unlike "Imagine," Groundhog Day is profoundly moral. It is, in essence, a film about teshuvah — repentance and return. The main character begins the film as a narcissist, using the time loop for selfish gain. Over time, through trial, failure, and reflection, he becomes kind, generous, and wise — not to escape the loop, but because he chooses a better self.

This is Judaism in action. No divine voice, no miracle ending — just the slow process of moral growth. The film elevates free will, self-improvement, and the sanctity of time. It shows that goodness is not a one-time choice, but a discipline of daily moral action. Once Phil realizes that he cannot escape, he does the only thing that can get rid of an eternity of self-loathing: he chooses to become the best version of himself. Over the course of the story, his opinion of the townspeople he hated in the beginning becomes a true love for every human being.

The Jewish lens applauds this: a narrative where character is forged not by rules imposed from above, but by inner transformation.

3. Seinfeld

This famed sitcom centered on the lives of four friends in New York, often described as "a show about nothing." The characters navigate life with wit, pettiness, and complete moral detachment.

At first glance, one might think Seinfeld is amoral if not immoral. The characters are selfish, self-absorbed and uncaring. The Seinfeld world is a world without ethics, where the only thing the characters excel at are neurosis, irony, and endless cleverness. There is no growth. No one learns. The final episode literally convicts the characters for standing by while someone else suffers. It's a comic inversion of lo ta’amod al dam re’echa — the obligation not to stand idly by.

Ironically, this is what makes Seinfeld a moral show — not in message, but in consequence.. The characters do not get rewarded for their selfishness. One can imagine them now, thirty years later, still alone, still without anything to live for.

From a Jewish ethical lens, Seinfeld is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when covenant is stripped away. There is no brit, no shared responsibility, no moral aspiration — only self-referential jokes. It is funny because it’s empty. And it's empty by design.

Judaism doesn’t idealize perfection, but it insists on movement — on moral direction. Seinfeld rejects that. In doing so, it accidentally proves Judaism’s point.

4. The Prime Directive (Star Trek)

A central tenet of Starfleet ethics in the Star Trek universe, the Prime Directive prohibits interference in the development of alien civilizations, even to prevent suffering or injustice. It reflects a secular moral relativism and caution against colonialism.

On the surface, the Prime Directive appears noble: it aims to respect other cultures and prevent coercion. But through the Jewish moral lens, it reflects a deep abdication of responsibility. Judaism insists that moral clarity is possible, even in cross-cultural situations. Tzedek tzedek tirdof — justice must be pursued — not avoided out of fear of moral imposition.

Interestingly, in the original Star Trek, Captain Kirk violated the Prime Directive multiple times for what he considered the greater good - to avoid unnecessary deaths and to help societies that were stuck in destructive patterns to break out of them and grow. In the sequels, sometimes Kirk's loose application of the directive was criticized. Jean-Luc Picard once said, "Your Captain Kirk was a remarkable man, but his actions were sometimes... questionable by our standards today."

Kirk did some reckless things, but his treatment of the Prime Directive was consistent with Jewish ethics.

The Prime Directive elevates inaction to virtue. But Judaism teaches that silence in the face of injustice is complicity. There is no Jewish version of non-intervention when faced with evil. Abraham argues with God over Sodom. Moses confronts Pharaoh. Jewish ethics demands that we act, not that we retreat.

The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was the deadliest episode of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. The world watched but didn't interfere. In just 100 days, nearly a million people were killed.

That's the Prime Directive in action.

The Prime Directive fears moral absolutism. But Judaism doesn’t offer absolutism — it offers covenantal responsibility. There’s a difference.

These are some very different examples of applying the Jewish ethical lens to popular culture, but the same methods can apply to literature, news articles, poetry, politicians' statements - literally everything. This moral lens, this algorithm, can be learned by anyone and applied to everything. It is a tool for clarity in a foggy world, and a shield against emotional manipulation, propaganda, and bias.

This algorithm has a bias as well — but it's a bias toward Jewish ethics and the moral tradition of Western civilization. That is not a weakness. It is a strength.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Judging brains by politics? That’s not science.

As my readers know, I have been on a "Jewish ethics" kick recently, writing essentially a chapter a day of a planned book on antisemitism and different ideologies. My theory is that making Jewish ethics part of our everyday thought process can help teach people not only how to fight antisemitic philosophies but also to help restore Western civilization from what it is becoming.

This exercise is reshaping my own thinking, as I increasingly view everything I read through this ethical lens. (My upcoming chapter/post uses this to analyze Seinfeld, Star Trek and other topics.)

So when I saw this interview in the New York Times with a brain scientist that claims that some people's brains might be wired to make them right-wing unthinking drones, I cannot resist pointing out that the problematic thought processes come from the NYT and the scientist, not the "conservatives."

So sharp are partisan divisions these days that it can seem as if people are experiencing entirely different realities. Maybe they actually are, according to Leor Zmigrod, a neuroscientist and political psychologist at Cambridge University. In a new book, “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” Dr. Zmigrod explores the emerging evidence that brain physiology and biology help explain not just why people are prone to ideology but how they perceive and share information.

What is ideology?

It’s a narrative about how the world works and how it should work. This potentially could be the social world or the natural world. But it’s not just a story: It has really rigid prescriptions for how we should think, how we should act, how we should interact with other people. An ideology condemns any deviation from its prescribed rules.

Any scientist knows that when you start with an incorrect premise, then everything that follows is likely to be wrong as well.

Judaism is an ideology. It is, as we have seen, far more flexible than progressive or Marxist or other Leftist ideologies. It is the counterexample that proves the premise wrong.

You write that rigid thinking can be tempting. Why is that?

Ideologies satisfy the need to try to understand the world, to explain it. And they satisfy our need for connection, for community, for just a sense that we belong to something.

There’s also a resource question. Exploring the world is really cognitively expensive, and just exploiting known patterns and rules can seem to be the most efficient strategy. Also, many people argue — and many ideologies will try to tell you — that adhering to rules is the only good way to live and to live morally.

I actually come at it from a different perspective: Ideologies numb our direct experience of the world. They narrow our capacity to adapt to the world, to understand evidence, to distinguish between credible evidence and not credible evidence. Ideologies are rarely, if ever, good.

OK, let's see who is dogmatic in their thinking.

Rigid thinkers tend to have lower levels of dopamine in their prefrontal cortex and higher levels of dopamine in their striatum, a key midbrain structure in our reward system that controls our rapid instincts. So our psychological vulnerabilities to rigid ideologies may be grounded in biological differences.

In fact, we find that people with different ideologies have differences in the physical structure and function of their brains. This is especially pronounced in brain networks responsible for reward, emotion processing, and monitoring when we make errors.

For instance, the size of our amygdala — the almond-shaped structure that governs the processing of emotions, especially negatively tinged emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, danger and threat — is linked to whether we hold more conservative ideologies that justify traditions and the status quo.

Some scientists have interpreted these findings as reflecting a natural affinity between the function of the amygdala and the function of conservative ideologies. Both revolve around vigilant reactions to threats and the fear of being overpowered.

But why is the amygdala larger in conservatives? Do people with a larger amygdala gravitate toward more conservative ideologies because their amygdala is already structured in a way that is more receptive to the negative emotions that conservatism elicits? Or can immersion in a certain ideology alter our emotional biochemistry in a way that leads to structural brain changes?

The ambiguity around these results reflects a chicken-and-egg problem: Do our brains determine our politics, or can ideologies change our brains?

Her research is based around differences in "conservative" and "liberal" brains. She makes an assumption that "traditions" are part of the problem. Her research appears to assume that liberals, however she defines them, are more flexible in their thinking than conservatives. Furthermore, she does not consider that there are leftist ideologies by her own definition that are just as rigid in their thinking as anyone on the Right.

Her assumptions are themselves flawed and show that she is the one with inherent biases and rigid thinking.

In Zmigrod’s telling, flexible thinking is good—and seemingly aligned with progressive values—while rigidity is associated with conservative ideology. The implication is clear: one side of the spectrum is more “evolved” neurologically. But anyone paying attention knows that rigidity, groupthink, and moral absolutism exist across the political spectrum.

You don’t need a neuroscience degree to recognize the ideological rigidity of, say, campus cancel culture or dogmatic anti-Israel activism. But somehow, those examples are invisible to this analysis—because the premise is already loaded.

Zmigrod makes an assumption that having "traditions" is evidence of rigidity. Where does that come from? Is brushing your teeth every morning evidence of an atrophied brain? Is choosing to stop at a red light ruining your ability to think?

A more subtle but critical point. Zmigrod says that ideology is a narrative about how the world works and how it should work. Isn't putting everyone in the cookie cutter category of "right " and "left" and then demonizing the "right" an ideology by her very definition?

My recent writings examine antisemitic ideologies, on the right, left, and seemingly places that don't fit either. From the Jewish perspective, differences between "right" and "left" are arbitrary. We've been around long enough to see how supposedly liberal positions can suddenly become conservative and vice versa. We've been persecuted by both sides. And there are good people on both sides, too.

Zmigrod, and the New York Times, look at the world through the ideological glasses that the defining feature of a person is whether they are on the Left or Right. That premise is wrong. When you study antisemitism, you can see that those who hate Jews come from all parts of the ideological spectrum - meaning that we are looking at the spectrum wrong. Since every normal person should agree that antisemitism is wrong, then any ideology or political position that accepts or encourages it is by definition an immoral philosophy. So that is a better lens to use when deciding who is moral and who is immoral.

The real divide seems to be between those who tend to extremes and those who can understand other viewpoints. The extremist Left is not morally superior to the extreme Right, and there are plenty of conservatives who think more clearly and objectively than much of the Left. Zmigrod's research would be valuable if she would ask the right questions to begin with.

The intellectuals in the West today have elevated political thinking so much that they cannot see past politics to the real differences between people.

It isn't whether people have ideologies. Everyone has ideologies, whether they admit it or not. It is whether their ideologies are rigid and extremist, whether they have blind spots, whether they demonize people because they have a different way of looking at the world.

Asking the wrong questions guarantees coming to the wrong conclusions. That is a problem for everyone - Right and Left. Leor Zmgrod calls herself a "political psychologist." Can she not see how her own self-definition can blind her to other ways of looking at the world - that she might be subject to the same rigid mindset that she accuses others of?

Being able to apply a different and time tested way of thinking, like the Jewish ethical lens, helps everyone see things flexibly and more accurately - no matter what their politics.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Hamas' Felesteen reports:

The Government Media Office Rejects Dangerous Proposals and Mechanisms for Distributing Humanitarian Aid in Gaza

The [Hamas[ Government Media Office affirmed its categorical rejection of attempts to impose "dangerous" proposals and mechanisms for distributing humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip, which would involve Israeli occupation soldiers or private companies affiliated with the occupation directly distributing aid to Palestinian families. In a press statement issued on Tuesday, the Government Office stated that "this mechanism is rejected in both form and content, constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, and fundamentally contradicts the core principles of humanitarian action: neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity."

The government media official appealed to donor countries to "refrain from channeling their aid through the dangerous and unacceptable mechanism proposed by the Israeli occupation, and to commit to delivering it through credible humanitarian channels, foremost among them the United Nations, as it is a neutral and independent body with a long history of working in the Gaza Strip in accordance with international standards." He further called on the entire world to "ensure that humanitarian aid reaches our steadfast Palestinian people safely and with dignity, rejecting all attempts to tamper with their humanitarian fate."

Hamas claims that Israel directly giving food would be "illegal" and "dangerous" for Gazans.

But meanwhile, Hamas and its fans say Israel has the legal obligation to provide aid. If that is true, Israel can do so in any way it wants. Hamas rejection doesn't mean it is a principled position - if you believe them, Gazans are starving - but a means to continue to control, confiscate and resell aid to enrich Hamas.

As far as "dangerous "is concerned, Hamas cannot ever be accused of caring about the lives of Gazans.

The thing is, Hamas knows that the UN or other NGOs aren't going to criticize them. They will always direct their barbs at only Israel. This means Hamas can continue to frame these as unacceptable demands.

Starving people don't make demands.

Hamas' own media is admitting that Israel if offering a way to bring in food. It is admitting that it is rejecting that aid. How much clearer can things be?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/08 Links Pt2: Democrats and college administrators fail Jewish and pro-Israel communities; NYTs: Fighting Antisemitism is Bad for the Jews; Michael Rapaport: The loudest pro-Israel advocate

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Anti-Anti-Anti-Semitism

Yes, anti-Semitic incidents were often quite common in places with a lot of Jewish students. Also, the sky is blue. But more preposterous is the idea, so clearly spelled out in that paragraph, that punishing Columbia for violating the civil rights of its Jewish students is actually a case of targeting Jews for punishment because of the presence of Jewish students at Columbia.

I remind you: This man is the president of a university.

Speaking of which, here is how he talks about the Jewish students at his own institution who were appalled by the pro-Hamas protests: “Some of the students having grown up in communities of like-mindedness are surprised there is more than one side of an issue. In some cases, that is enough to awaken their anxieties.”

That is an astonishing level of contempt for a university president to express, in public, toward his students. But Roth is triggered by them, because he believes very strongly that there were very fine people on both sides.

Roth argues that Trump is a hypocrite because he is fighting anti-Semitism while tolerating the presence of anti-Semites in his own administration. This is undeniably true. And it is why I have been heartened to see the president make statements and take actions that the anti-Semites in the administration oppose. Roth feels otherwise.

On the same subject, Roth says that the president and his circle have legitimized people like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, and then says “These are our defenders?”

But Owens and Fuentes agree with Roth! “Republicans can’t claim to defend free speech while simultaneously using government to punish American citizens for criticizing Israel,” Fuentes posted. Regarding Khalil’s detention, Owens posted: “I will never cheerlead for things that are meant to chill speech—ever.” To paraphrase Roth: These are his defenders?

Meanwhile, to back up his own arguments, he quotes M. Gessen, a New Yorker writer who compared Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza to the Nazi liquidation of European ghettos. He also quotes a piece at 972 Magazine that includes, in a section of the piece Roth doesn’t quote, the claim that “traumatic episodes in Jewish history have been evoked to justify Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and crack down on those who criticize it.”

The fight against anti-Semitism will never require unanimity. But it will require, you know, fighting anti-Semitism.

Daniel Greenfield: New York Times: Fighting Antisemitism is Bad for the Jews

Rather than address antisemitism on the Left and on campus, Roth throws in Candace Owens (described as a Trump supporter even though she turned on him a while back), Nick Fuentes (ditto) Andrew Tate, and even Elise Stefanik, misattributes and misquotes multiple conservative figures, and wrongly insists “Shalom Columbia” is derogatory toward Jews.

And much of the op-ed is spent insisting that the handful of Jewish people who oppose Israel are equivalent to those who support it thereby actually doing what he wrongly accuses Trump of doing in Charlottesville, insisting on bothsideism.

Roth virtually offers no examples of leftist antisemitism, especially on campuses, that might have occasioned Jews to feel that “there is a great temptation for Jews to embrace anyone who denounces antisemitism, regardless of the moral contradictions.” Is he too unwilling or too afraid to do so?

“In the second and first century B.C., the Jewish kingdom of Judea aligned itself with Rome to protect itself from the domination of Greek culture. Rome obliged, and conquered Judea for itself,” Roth concludes. That’s bad history, but worse still, Roth is missing the point. He means it as a critique of Jews supporting Trump, but he might consider what if it’s really a critique of Jews supporting the Left?

Brendan O'Neill: Johnny Rotten is right: Hamas is a gang of ‘Jew exterminators’

Jew exterminators. This is, without question, the truest and most important thing I have heard any public figure say about Hamas. Reading Rotten say that, I understood how the kids of 1977 must have felt when they heard him snarl ‘God Save the Queen’. It felt like a jolt, almost like an ideological insurgency, to see a non-Jewish public figure speak so plainly about Hamas’s fascistic ambitions, its genocidal dream of destroying the Jews.

It shouldn’t, of course. It should be widely known that Hamas is a Jew-killing machine masquerading as a national-liberation movement. It should come naturally to the self-styled radicals of popular culture to condemn this virulently racist, misogynistic, homophobic movement that carried out the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust on 7 October 2023. Yet it doesn’t. Instead, lefties and luvvies and pop’s idiot crooners buy into the lie that Hamas is a resistance movement. They damn as ‘genocidaires’ not Hamas, but the brave young Jews who fight against it on the tragic battlefield of Gaza. Indoctrination indeed.

The dictionary defines punk as a ‘fast, loud and aggressive’ revolt against ‘conventional attitudes’. How fabulous to see Rotten, 69, still doing that. His anti-racist fury with Hamas shatters the lazy bourgeois prejudices of 2025 as much as the Sex Pistols did in late-Seventies Britain. The most stifling cultural orthodoxy of our age is to hate Israel. To pull on a keffiyeh, holler ‘From the river to the sea!’, and damn the Jewish nation as the most evil nation. Every opinion-making, Sally Rooney-reading, macchiato-quaffing prick will applaud you. Yet here’s Johnny, the punk who won’t die, with something rarer and more enticing: the truth. Never mind the bollocks, listen to Rotten.

Lydon does something wonderful: he brings to bear the moral sensibilities of the English / Irish working class against the faux-progressive bigotries of the elites. Against their anti-democratic wailing, he speaks up for Brexit. In the face of their Trump Derangement Syndrome, he says it makes sense that working-class Americans voted for Trump. And in reply to their frenzied Israelophobia, he says it’s Hamas that’s the problem.

He embodies the wisdom of the masses in an era of elite hysteria. And they hate him for it. ‘John Lydon’s rotten politics’, said a headline in the Guardian 15 years ago, when Lydon first spoke up for Israel. They’re The Man now, raging against Rotten for doing that thing the little people are never meant to do: tell their betters to fuck off.

California Nonprofit That Produces K–12 Teaching Materials Has Ties to Foreign Terrorists, Researchers Find

The Middle Eastern Children’s Alliance (MECA), a California nonprofit that designs K–12 curriculum material, has fiscal and personnel ties to U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, according to a new report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI).

“Our investigation of MECA has yielded evidence suggesting it holds fiscal and personnel ties to US designated foreign terrorist organizations, chiefly the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), alongside a host of extremist anti-government actors based in the United States,” reads the report by the NCRI, released on Monday.

MECA states on its website that it has sent more than $31 million in aid to children in “Palestine,” Iraq, and Lebanon since 1988. The nonprofit further purports to provide financial and professional assistance to community organizations in the West Bank and Gaza, fund university scholarships for Palestinians, and develop educational programs about the Middle East. MECA states that its “founding advisors” include Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Edward Said, and Maxine Waters.

The supposedly humanitarian organization has expressed its support for violence against Israel. The day after October 7, MECA declared its support on social media for the attack: “We are witnessing the people of Gaza rising up to respond to decades of Israeli settler colonial violence. The US [government] bears responsibility for its political, economic & military support of this brutal apartheid regime. Join us to stand in solidarity with Palestine.”

The NCRI report identifies deeper relationships between MECA and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which has been a designated foreign terrorist organization since 1997 and participated in the October 7 attack on Israel.

MECA’s current director of Gaza projects, Dr. Mona El-Farra, previously served as the deputy director of the Union of Health Work Committees, which was recognized as the “health organization” of the PFLP in a 1993 USAID report. In 2014, El-Farra was reportedly denied an exit visa by Israel for “security reasons.” El-Farra and Barbara Lubin, MECA’s founder and current executive director, have both met with Leila Khaled, who joined the PFLP when it was founded in 1967 and became the first woman to hijack a plane.

04/08 Links Pt1: What’s Israel’s Strategy in Gaza?; The truth about the elimination of October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar; Princeton Radicals Disrupt Event With Naftali Bennet, Yelling 'Genocide' and Pulling Fire Alarm

From Ian:

Michael Doran: The King’s Foils

The catastrophic failure of Biden’s Iran-centric approach should have discredited Restraintism, but its capacity to wear the ideological colors of every party means it is not fully dislodged from the policy establishment. Its adherents now shelter under Trump’s banner, but his policies show a clearer understanding of the region’s power dynamics.

Trump knows that the role of the United States is not to draw up idealistic roadmaps. Will he also see that its role now is to buffer between America’s allies who don’t trust each other? That’s what it did in the Cold War when, for example, it shielded Israel and Saudi Arabia, both indispensable to American power, from each other. It has historically fulfilled the same function between its NATO allies Greece and Turkey. The same logic applies now. Israel and Turkey will clash unless the United States puts distance between them by stabilizing Syria. That country must serve—like Jordan—as a buffer state: neutral, minimally armed, not a platform for escalation. Only the United States can broker such an arrangement.

Doing so requires leverage, which Trump has. Turkey’s economy is not strong, with inflation high, productivity low, and its currency long in decline. Overcentralization has frightened away capital. Meanwhile, Syria is devastated beyond recognition: Large cities are in ruins and millions of people remain displaced. Reconstruction will require outside capital, and none of it will come without a green light from the United States.

Trump has the tools. Reconstruction in Syria cannot begin until the United States lifts sanctions on Damascus, and only Washington can coordinate a reconstruction plan that will mobilize American, European, and Gulf investment to maximum effect. But American leadership in this arena must come with a price: Turkish and Israeli de-escalation. Syria cannot become a Turkish base for threatening Israel.

That is the logic, and it fits Trump’s instincts perfectly. America should not police the region, Trump believes, but he is also unready to surrender it. His style of diplomacy is transactional, built around economic leverage—exactly what this moment requires.

If Trump brokers an understanding between Ankara and Jerusalem, while neutralizing Iran, he will have achieved what the Restraintists always promise but never manage to deliver. He will have shown that the United States can lead without overextending. It can lay the foundation for a regional order that doesn’t collapse under its own contradictions, an order that offers the United States control over oil resources, shipping lanes, investment capital, and intellectual property that are key to the economic future of most of the planet.

The real choice facing Trump is not between intervention and isolation, the false binary that Restraintists present. Rather, it is between strategic engagement that leverages America’s economic power and diplomatic reach, versus the ideological retreat that Restraintists advocate. His zigzag approach—alternating between forceful action and diplomatic outreach, maintaining hawks and Restraintists in tension within his administration—creates the strategic ambiguity and flexibility needed to manage complex regional dynamics without committing to large-scale military deployments.

By continuing this approach while focusing on the Golden Triangle of Israel-Turkey-Iran, Trump can establish a stable regional order that advances American interests without requiring American troops. This is the true “America First” foreign policy—one that recognizes American power and interests while acknowledging the public’s wariness of military entanglements. It represents a genuine alternative to both neoconservative interventionism and Restraintist isolation. It is within reach. If Trump pursues it, he can change the game—and win bigly.

The truth about the elimination of October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar

The division’s intelligence personnel worked frantically to narrow these knowledge gaps. Retrospective analysis would later reveal these gaps were substantial. The division was surprised to discover during operations that Hamas leadership had concealed themselves in relatively shallow tunnels approximately 15 metres (49 feet) deep, not the expected 60-70 metres (197-230 feet).

Further, they found the tunnels were nearly completely interconnected, enabling continuous movement throughout the underground network – another critical detail largely unknown to Israeli intelligence.

Despite incomplete intelligence and insufficient forces, the 98th Division pressed forward. Previously undisclosed details about the Khan Yunis campaign of December-February 2024 reveal a brilliant, persistent military operation featuring the IDF’s first comprehensive underground pursuit of Hamas’s entire leadership structure.

Hamas operatives typically fled without engaging – abandoning their underground complexes and escaping through connecting tunnels to adjacent sectors. During these retreats, they would detonate explosives to collapse tunnel segments behind them, protected by blast doors. These collapses delayed pursuing forces, allowing the operatives to escape repeatedly.

On one occasion, during the brief window between the IDF ground force’s withdrawal and Goldfuss underground team’s arrival, Sinwar, Deif and Salameh escaped the tunnel disguised as women. Forensic evidence collected later, along with surveillance footage, confirmed that they had indeed been there.

IDF troops discovered the underground complex shortly after the group’s escape and found Hamas leadership’s meal still set out on plates. “The coffee was still hot,” as division commander Goldfus later described to media.

Evidence from the abandoned complex, combined with additional intelligence flowing to command centres, indicated Sinwar was fleeing toward western Khan Yunis.

The Shin Bet accordingly redirected IDF operations in this direction. “This marked the point where Sinwar’s hourglass began running out,” a security source explained. “Until then, he had maintained a static position, minimizing opportunities for mistakes. But once you force him to move, he must improvise, inevitably leading to errors.”

A retrospective intelligence analysis revealed that around May 2024, Sinwar successfully escaped Khan Yunis and moved southward to neighbouring Rafah. At this stage, the IDF had not yet begun operations in Rafah, allowing Sinwar to return to the relative safety of its tunnel network.

Further intelligence indicated Sinwar arrived in Rafah without Deif. After their joint escape from the Khan Yunis house, the two men separated, with Deif remaining in Khan Yunis – possibly due to mobility limitations. Deif and brigade commander Salameh would remain in the city for several more months until their joint elimination by airstrike on July 13.

Intelligence increasingly confirmed Sinwar’s presence in Rafah, eventually narrowing focus to the Tel al-Sultan neighbourhood on the city’s northwestern outskirts.

By August, the IDF leadership had directed the 162nd Armored Division, aka the Steel Formation, to concentrate efforts on Tel al-Sultan’s tunnel network – smaller and less complex than Khan Yunis’s labyrinth.

The 162nd Division employed a fundamentally different approach than the 98th Division’s earlier “cat” and later “octopus” methods in Khan Yunis. The new “elephant method” involved massive force – using bulldozers and explosives to systematically destroy extensive tunnel sections, forcing Hamas operatives above ground.

This strategy gradually denied Hamas nearly all underground movement in Tel al-Sultan, leaving Sinwar and his small security detail no choice but to venture onto the surface.

Footage broadcast on Al Jazeera shows Sinwar during August-September 2024 moving through Tel al-Sultan’s rubble-strewn landscape. These images capture him in civilian clothes, using a walking stick, and wrapped in a camouflage blanket.

Following these developments and the near-complete destruction of Tel al-Sultan’s underground infrastructure, IDF leadership considered the Rafah operation largely complete.

However, Shin Bet officials worried that completely withdrawing from the neighbourhood would allow Sinwar to escape, likely to Khan Yunis. “This prompted the Shin Bet’s insistence on maintaining presence in the area,” a security source explained.

The IDF leadership ultimately decided that the 162nd Division would withdraw from Rafah, but the city wouldn’t be completely evacuated. Instead, forces from the 143rd “Fire Fox” Division, also known as the Gaza Division, would maintain a presence there. Division commander Brig. Gen. Barak Hiram committed to continuing offensive operations, focusing on Tel al-Sultan.

The specific unit deployed to Tel al-Sultan was the 450th Battalion. Its commander R. led three companies: Kfir infantry, paratroopers under Shreibman, and a tank company from the 460th Armored Brigade’s 198th Battalion.

Shreibman’s paratroopers company received orders to secure a building code-named “the Red House,” which offered strategic observation over the area.

At first light on October 17, forces examining the slain combatant’s body discovered that it was Yahya Sinwar. “This marked the first mention of Sinwar’s name throughout the entire operation,” R. noted.

When asked if they received any recognition for killing Sinwar, R. answered plainly: “No. Our persistence produced the result, but we weren’t the only ones. The pursuit of Sinwar was extensive – we simply fired the final bullet.”

Gaza official admits natural deaths listed as war fatalities

Many of those listed as war fatalities in Gaza actually died of natural causes or did not die at all, a Palestinian health official working for Hamas admitted on Saturday, following an analysis that showed massive discrepancies in casualty tallies.

The head of the statistics team at Gaza’s Hamas-controlled health ministry, Zaher al-Wahidi, made the admission to Sky News after an analysis by the HonestReporting nonprofit last week found that some 3,400 individuals listed as war casualties in earlier tallies had been dropped from the ministry’s latest update.

Comparing the October and August tallies to the March one, HonestReporting researcher Salo Aizenberg found “around 3,400 names missing” from the latest one, “including over 1,000 minors,” he told JNS.

“We realized that a lot of people died a natural death,” Wahidi told Sky News regarding the October tally. “Maybe they were near an explosion and they had a heart attack, or houses caused them pneumonia or hypothermia. All these cases we don’t [attribute to] the war,” he said.

According to Sky News, 1,852 people appearing in October’s official list of war fatalities were removed from the March one after it was found that some had died of natural causes or were alive but had been imprisoned. In total, 3,952 names have been removed in several corrections from Gaza’s reported death toll since the war began, according to the outlet.

Whereas the Gaza Health Ministry had previously admitted error that it attributed to reporting mechanism issues, it had not conceded that natural deaths were counted along with war casualties.

The March statistics changed the age distribution of reported fatalities in Gaza: Of all deaths recorded by Hamas between the ages of 13 to 55, which is the general combat age for Hamas fighters, 72% were male, according to the HonestReporting analysis.

Middle East Children's Alliance, which promoted fake Gaza children's artwork in the US, has ties to terror groups

From National Review:

The Middle Eastern Children’s Alliance (MECA), a California nonprofit that designs K–12 curriculum material, has fiscal and personnel ties to U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, according to a new report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI).

“Our investigation of MECA has yielded evidence suggesting it holds fiscal and personnel ties to US designated foreign terrorist organizations, chiefly the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), alongside a host of extremist anti-government actors based in the United States,” reads the report by the NCRI, released on Monday.

MECA is really dedicated to spreading anti-Israel propaganda to American children.

I looked at them in 2012 when they had a traveling exhibition of Palestinian children's art. The art looked way too mature for children, and I asked some experts whether they could have been conceived and drawn by children. (Besides their sophistication, I was struck that not one of the pictures were signed, something kids would prioritize.) The overwhelming consensus was no way that these were done by kids, although some of the images might have been drawn by adults and traced or colored by children.

I just asked an AI its opinion on these four images. It concurred:

Image 1 (burning houses, tanks, sad trees, smiling sun)

🔍 Assessment: Mixed signals

Child-like features: Uneven proportions, floating figures, exaggerated facial expressions, symbolic objects like the crying sun and “sad trees” suggest a child’s emotional worldview.

Adult cues: The layout is unusually complex — a two-point perspective street, tanks placed in correct scale to buildings, with multiple narrative layers (people fleeing, soldiers, journalists, etc.).

🔎 Verdict: Possibly created by a child with heavy adult guidance or mimicry. The messaging is sophisticated; the rendering is inconsistent.

Image 2 (black smoke, aircraft bombing city)

🔍 Assessment: Unlikely to be child-drawn

Sophisticated use of space: Planes are proportioned and angled correctly, smoke is stylized with volume and spiral shading, buildings show mass and collapse.

Symbolism: The tone is graphic and deliberate — it feels like a visual editorial, not a spontaneous emotional drawing.

🔎 Verdict: Very unlikely to be drawn by a 9–11-year-old without tracing or copying an adult example. Highly probable adult origin or at least tracing from reference material.

Image 3 (missile with U.S. and Israeli flags hitting building, mother and child looking on)

🔍 Assessment: Highly unlikely to be child-authored

Symbolic complexity: The U.S. and Israeli flags painted on a missile require political awareness well beyond age 9–11.

Narrative composition: A foreground of bloody corpses, a background of crumbling buildings, a directional missile — all clearly staged for moral impact.

🔎 Verdict: This is propaganda art, stylistically simplified to look childlike, but too ideologically mature for the claimed age group. Adult author highly probable.

Image 4 (helicopters bombing mosque, realistic tank firing)

🔍 Assessment: Certainly not child-drawn

Technique: This is watercolor/ink wash with strong line confidence and spatial consistency — hallmarks of trained adult illustrators.

Style: Consistent with editorial cartooning — not child expression.

🔎 Verdict: No ambiguity. This image was created by an adult, possibly professional, possibly Latuff himself or an imitator. No 9–11-year-old could produce this without tracing and instruction.

Overall Conclusion:

1 out of 4 could plausibly be a child’s original drawing, and even that shows signs of directed messaging.

3 out of 4 show stylistic, symbolic, or technical sophistication inconsistent with 9–11-year-old artistic development.

The collection as a whole appears curated to appear emotionally raw, but closer inspection reveals intentional, mature propaganda techniques.

This is who is trying to infect our children with anti-Israel hate, in America. It is not at all surprising that they would be affiliated with the PFLP, which (besides being a terrorist group) is by far the most advanced Palestinian propaganda outfit.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The UN Economic and Social Council announced this week that Qatar is one of the countries chosen to join the Commission on the Status of Women (along with Cabo Verde, China, Gabon, Japan, Maldives, Mongolia, Morocco, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, by acclamation.

Let's look at how Qatar treats its women:

Women must obtain permission from their male guardians—typically a father, brother, grandfather, or uncle—to marry, regardless of age.
Pursuing higher education, especially abroad on government scholarships, requires male guardian approval.
Certain government jobs necessitate male guardian consent for women to work.
Unmarried women under 25 need male guardian permission to travel abroad.
Access to some forms of reproductive health care is contingent upon male guardian approval.
Men possess a unilateral right to divorce, whereas women must apply to the courts and meet specific conditions to obtain a divorce.
Married women are legally obligated to obey their husbands and may lose financial support if they work or travel without spousal consent.
Women are denied the authority to act as primary guardians of their children, even when divorced and holding legal custody. This limitation restricts their ability to make critical decisions regarding their children's lives.

Some specific examples:

Women reported that they were denied hotel check-ins unless they were accompanied by a male guardian or could prove they were married.

Hospitals may require male guardian consent for certain health procedures like accessing prenatal care, delivery, or even basic gynecological services.

Some women reported being denied emergency treatment at hospitals until a male relative could arrive and approve.

Someone tell me....is creating this list Islamophobic?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

My series on antisemitism has evolved into something broader: using Jewish ethics as a baseline for personal and political judgment. Today, I want to apply this lens to a case of subtle media bias - a recent New York Times article on the International Criminal Court.

Leaders Flex Muscles Against International Criminal Court
The leaders of Israel, Hungary and the United States have moved to neutralize the judiciary both at home and abroad.

There are several things going on here, analysts say, which tie together the affinities of Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and President Trump.

Bonding: The International Criminal Court is the most ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect — version of an global judicial system to enforce human rights. Most liberals love it. Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Trump hate it.

Signaling: Mr. Orban is telling the world that Hungary does what it wants: It may be a member of the European Union, but it is not constrained by it. He’s telling China and Russia that Hungary is open for business. And he’s telling his voters at home that it’s Hungary First all the way.

Testing boundaries: At a moment when global institutions are crumbling and a new order has not yet emerged, no one knows what’s allowed and what’s forbidden anymore.

But Mr. Orban’s defiance of the court is also about something else: a desire to sideline independent judges, both at home and abroad.

“Quite simply, some international institutions have become political bodies,” he told a Hungarian radio program on Friday. “Unfortunately, the International Criminal Court is one of these. It is a political court.”

The power struggles between leaders and judges — whether international or domestic — have become a defining political theme in many countries, including Hungary, Israel, Brazil and the United States.

The article presents a narrative: these three leaders share authoritarian instincts and want to weaken legal checks on their power. The ICC, we’re told, is “ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect.” The reader is left to assume that criticism of the court is just another sign of creeping despotism.

But when we step back and apply a Jewish moral lens, the picture becomes clearer — and the bias more obvious.

Jewish political ethics, which heavily influenced Western philosophy, begin with the idea of covenant (brit). At Sinai, the Israelites voluntarily accepted God’s authority. In return, they became a nation bound by a system of law. That covenantal relationship is the foundation of Jewish nationhood and moral order.

This is the same foundational principle behind Western liberal democracy: the “social contract” described by Rousseau and embedded in the U.S. Constitution. It assumes that power is legitimate only when it emerges from a shared moral agreement between rulers and ruled.

Within that framework, national leaders must be subject to their own legal systems. Jewish ethics demands this, as does the Western tradition it helped inspire. So when leaders attempt to subvert or ignore national courts, it’s morally right to criticize them.

But the International Criminal Court is not grounded in any covenant. It presumes universal jurisdiction - even over nations and individuals who never consented to its authority. This is not law through covenant. This is law through imperium.

The ICC was created through the Rome Statute in 2002. Unlike most international treaties, it explicitly prohibits reservations. Signatories must accept the court’s authority in full or not at all. That’s not a covenant — that’s submission.

Even democratic nations that joined expressed concern. Australia, for example, stated upon ratification, “Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

Spain similarly insisted that any ICC sentence for its citizens must be compatible with Spanish law. These caveats show that even member states were wary of the court’s overreach.

More tellingly, Israel and the United States never joined — and not just under Netanyahu or Trump. Both nations have long been concerned that the ICC could become politicized, would undermine national sovereignty, and lacks the checks and balances that protect fairness in domestic legal systems.

In fact, the Rome Statute includes a war crime category created specifically for Israel, exposing its political nature from the outset and violating the Jewish (and democratic) principle of equal law for all.

The New York Times acknowledges that the ICC is “deeply imperfect,” but then drops it. No elaboration, no context. That small phrase is the only hint that critics of the ICC might have legitimate concerns. But the article doesn’t explore those. Instead, it funnels the entire critique through the lens of autocracy.

This is where the Jewish moral lens becomes essential. It reveals what the article hides: The ICC lacks the covenantal legitimacy Jewish ethics demands. It violates national self-determination - a core moral right.

I cannot read Orban's or Trump's minds. Maybe they really are power-hungry strongmen. But the NYT, by ignoring the deeply problematic nature of the court, doesn't even admit the possibility that they may be defending a deeper ethical principle that justice must be rooted in shared moral commitment, not imposed authority. Without that lens, readers may miss the difference between resisting accountability and resisting illegitimate power.

Jewish ethics doesn’t oppose international law. But it insists that law must emerge from covenant, from mutual responsibility and consent. Without that, “law” becomes just another tool of power. This became clear last year when the ICC rushed to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu while the Gaza war was still ongoing, even though in other cases it has given nations years to demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to prosecute before stepping in.

The ICC lacks covenant. The NYT lacks context. And the moral arguments against both are not partisan, but principled.

Once you put on those Jewish moral glasses, the picture becomes much clearer. And without that framework, it is much easier to be swayed by media bias and propaganda.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Antisemitic incidents in Canada are off the charts

B'nai Brith Canada issued its annual report on antisemitism. The results are chilling.

Incidents increased by huge amounts in 2024. Comparing them over time makes the increase in the past two years even more sickening.

It lists some incidents:

In May, at an anti-Israel encampment at the University of Toronto, an individual performed a Nazi salute at a Jewish student and declared that he wished the Nazis had “murdered all of you.”

Also in May, an arsonist attempted to burn down the Schara Tzedeck Synagogue in Vancouver, igniting a fire at the entrance as evening prayers were ending.

In another May incident, shots were fired at a Jewish girls’ school in Toronto. The school was subsequently targeted twice more by gunfire in 2024.

In August, a bomb threat menaced Jewish institutions throughout the country, including synagogues, community centres and B’nai Brith Canada offices.

In July, the RCMP arrested a father and son in connection with an ISIS-inspired plot to allegedly murder Jews in the Greater Toronto Area.

In November, anti-Israel protesters rallied outside of a synagogue in Montreal and chanted antisemitic slogans, in defiance of a court order prohibiting the groups involved from assembling near the building.

At the end of November, a woman attending an anti-Israel demonstration in Montreal directed a Nazi salute at Jewish passersby and said that a “Final Solution” was coming their way.

In December, an arsonist firebombed Congregation Beth Tikvah, in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Montreal, in the second such attack at the location in the wake of Oct. 7, 2023.

And it illustrates some others: