Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

04/22 Links Pt2: The left’s grotesque betrayal of women and Jews; Green Days of Rage; Only 66,250 Holocaust survivors will remain in 2035

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The left’s grotesque betrayal of women and Jews

The hatreds of the Dark Ages have cast their shadow on Britain once more. In Essex, on Saturday, people taunted Jews with dead babies. They carried dolls in shrouds stained with fake blood and hollered ‘Stop killing babies!’ as families walked home from synagogue after Sabbath prayers for Passover. In Edinburgh, also on Saturday, angry men openly dreamed of executing witchy women. ‘Bring back witch-burning… JK’, said a placard at a trans rally. The suggestion was as clear as it was sick: for the crime of her belief in biology, JK Rowling should be strapped to the stake and set alight. Another placard drove the point home: ‘Kill JK Rowling.’

It is 2025 and we are witnessing the public shaming of women and Jews, the taunting of them with slanders and threats. In Essex, life was breathed back into the medieval libel that damned the Jew as baby killer, as nefarious luster after the blood of innocents. Images of pious ‘pro-Palestine’ activists marching past Orthodox Jews while carrying blood-stained infants should chill the spine of all who know the history of Jew hatred. In Edinburgh there was the dream of witch trials. The cry went up: drag these bitches who deny the womanhood of men and punish them with fire for their disrespect.

In the UK, on the same day, in our supposedly enlightened era, the blood libel and the witch hunt made their return to public life. Jews, once again, found themselves surrounded by sick, dark whispers about baby killing. Women, once again, found themselves condemned for witchcraft. We need to talk about this. That two supposedly ‘progressive’ causes – support for Palestine and support for trans rights – can rekindle such pre-modern bigotries, such ancient hysterias, is both alarming and telling. Saturday might prove to be the day we learned just how menacing to civilisation the politics of identity can be.

All of Easter Saturday’s ‘political’ gatherings were grotesque spectacles. It was in Westcliff-on-Sea in Southend, Essex that the ‘pro-Palestine’ marchers assembled. This is a part of Essex with a significant Jewish population. And it was Sabbath. Passover, too. Yet that wasn’t going to stop the Israelophobes. To the horror of local residents, they chanted about Israel’s ‘targeting’ of ‘sleeping babies’. They waved their blood-spattered dolls in onlookers’ faces. They noisily accused the Jewish nation of laying waste to ‘the birthplace of Jesus’, getting perilously close to reanimating the trope of the Christ killer, the Jew as destroyer of messiahs.

‘Even by the standards of the past 18 months, the march in Southend was despicable’, said a spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). The chants about the slaying of babies alongside those grim, funereal displays of shrouded dolls represented a ‘chilling echo of medieval blood libels’, the CAA said. It is nearly 900 years since the sick calumny about the bloodletting Jew was born, in Norwich, England. It is deeply shaming, intolerable in fact, that England’s Jews once again find themselves negotiating mobs of people howling about child slaughter and waving bloodied shrouds.

Gil Troy: How Harvard Can Reform Itself

One by one, led from within, institutions can change by taking out the trash of ideologically driven pseudo-scholarship—and inspiring others to do the same. Although change could come faster if the Harvards and Stanfords set the pace, Hutchins proved that this revolution need not be Ivy-covered. Universities with middling reputations, dwindling student bodies, and flagging endowments may be desperate enough to hire without political and identity-obsessed bias, improve teaching quality, and teach students to think critically rather than recite political catechisms. Administrators could bolster their case for change with surveys assessing students’ classroom experience to determine whether professors effectively define the goals, methodologies, intellectual components, workloads, and evaluation standards in the course—from the syllabus through grading the final assignments.

In consultation with professors, students, and outside educators, each university should develop a code of classroom conduct. It should define the teaching mission and the professors’ commitment to providing a high-quality, nonpartisan educational experience that respects students’ intellectual independence. It should also articulate a vision of professorial accountability, rejecting the arrogance that has thickened over the decades.

To make such reforms stick, university leaders will have to grow spines and bypass the learned societies. Currently, tenure cases require as many as six “outside reviewers.” Despite that moniker, most evaluators are the ultimate insiders. They usually derive their status from the learned societies that have shaped the generation now treating classrooms as revolutionary cells. Tenure evaluations should not just rely on those deemed to be experts by the ASA or the American Historical Association. Master teachers and expert alumni should be consulted—going beyond the academic clique.

To be fair, cultivating good teaching and fostering pathbreaking research takes time. Some insulation from the rush of modern society is justified. Senior professors should receive five-year contracts that are automatically renewable unless vetoed by colleagues, administrators, or students questioning teaching quality, academic productivity, or scholarly integrity. Universities should not judge professors by the political positions they take—or don’t take—but by the quality of their teaching, carefully defined, and their research.

Such procedures will make academics more accountable and reflective. Periodically contemplating accomplishments and goals, short- and long-term, can produce better professors. Moreover, with society, culture, technology, and knowledge changing so rapidly, locking in employees for three or four decades is a guarantee of obsolescence that seems radically unfair to students and to institutions as a whole.

Freeing the university from its tenure shackles will not be easy. Academics, who merrily assault everyone else’s “privilege”—real or imagined—go postal if you question their prerogatives. These tattooed Marxists in tweed with perpetual employment and rich pensions assail Americanism cushioned by middle-class entitlements they guard jealously.

Faculty unions will also go ballistic. Advocates for tenure will gaslight, claiming, as Henry Reichman, first vice president of the American Association of University Professors, recently argued, that “tenure is essentially a guarantee of academic due process and presumption of innocence.” Making tenure sound benign doesn’t make it OK; it proves its irrelevance. Standard employment contracts and labor laws guarantee basic fairness too.

Universities are long overdue for a robust debate about what they stand for and what they offer students and society. Despite professorial claims that ending tenure is an assault against universities and the republic, it will benefit professors and students. Students might start getting the teaching they, their parents, and the state have long been paying for. And professors might discover the joys of capitalism. Fostering competition and incentivizing excellence bring out the best in us, while lifetime guarantees produce torpor.

66,250 Holocaust survivors will remain in 2035, Claims Conference predicts

A report that the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany published today about aging Holocaust survivors suggests “sobering insights into the future of this incredible community,” per the nearly 75-year-old nonprofit, which estimates that it will distribute about $530 million in compensation this year to Holocaust survivors worldwide, and $960 million for welfare needs of survivors.

Some 1,400 (.6%) of the estimated 220,800 survivors in 90 countries today are centenarians, and half of the survivors live in Israel, according to the Claims Conference. The median age of survivors is 87, and 61% are women, per the nonprofit.

The Claims Conference’s new report, titled Vanishing Witnesses: An Urgent Analysis of the Declining Population of Holocaust Survivors, projects that just half of Holocaust survivors worldwide will remain in six years, with just 30%, or about 66,250, remaining in 2035. By 2040, just 22,080 survivors will remain, according to the Claims Conference.

Mortality rates differ, per the nonprofit, with 39% of U.S. survivors (from 34,600 to 21,100) and 54% of survivors in former Soviet countries (from 25,500 to 11,800) expected to be lost by 2030. Israel, which has the most survivors (110,100, as of last October), is projected to lose 43% by 2030, dropping to 62,900.

“This report provides clear urgency to our Holocaust education efforts,” stated Gideon Taylor, president of the Claims Conference. “Now is the time to hear first-hand testimonies from survivors, invite them to speak in our classrooms, places of worship and institutions. It is critical, not only for our youth but for people of all generations to hear and learn directly from Holocaust survivors.”

“This report is a stark reminder that our time is almost up, our survivors are leaving us, and this is the moment to hear their voices,” Taylor said.

Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Claims Conference, told JNS that “we need to know the data around survivors—where they live, poverty rates, the type of persecution that they endured—and then to project that into the future first and foremost so that we can secure the maximum amount of funding and benefits.”

“Survivors are living longer, and we need to plan for that even as we are helping it happen. There are 300 agencies around the world that we fund to provide services, and this data is essential as they plan the coming years,” Schneider.

04/22 Links Pt1: A Tragic Mistake? Yes. A War Crime? The Western world wants to keep Israel weak; No; 24 killed in massacre of tourists in Kashmir

From Ian:

Arsen Ostrovsky, John Spencer, and Brian Cox: A Tragic Mistake? Yes. A War Crime? No

The IDF's internal investigation concluded that the killings resulted from a series of operational errors and professional failures. IDF elements were operating in a "hostile and dangerous combat zone" and believed there to be a "tangible threat." Soldiers misidentified the convoy of vehicles, assessing that they were being used by Hamas insurgents—a tactic the group has systematically employed since Oct. 7, 2023.

Hamas has made a practice of blurring the lines between combatant and civilian, systematically exploiting ambulances, hospitals, and humanitarian symbols for military purposes. This tactic forces troops into impossible split-second decisions under fire—precisely the kind of dilemma that international law accounts for, but online critics ignore.

International humanitarian law also recognizes that tragic mistakes can happen during active combat, especially when insurgents like Hamas use protected facilities and vehicles to launch or shield attacks. Such conduct undermines the protections that civilians and humanitarian actors are entitled to.

No army—American, British, or Israeli—is immune to errors in war. What matters is what follows: transparency, investigation, disciplinary action, and institutional learning. That is the measure of a professional military in a democratic society.

In the IDF incident, surveillance indicated that five vehicles approached rapidly and stopped near IDF troops, with passengers quickly disembarking. The deputy battalion commander assessed the situation as a credible Hamas threat and ordered fire. Though that judgment proved incorrect, the belief was reasonable under the circumstances, including poor nighttime visibility, and which only underscored that the IDF complied with the rule of distinction under law of armed conflict.

The examination into the incident was conducted by the IDF General Staff Fact Finding Mechanism, a professional team outside the operational chain of command. Their findings were presented to the chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, and included operational breaches, failures to follow orders, and reporting deficiencies. As a result, the deputy commander of the Golani Brigade was dismissed, and the commander of the 14th Brigade was severely reprimanded. The case is also being reviewed by the IDF Military Advocate General's Office for potential legal proceedings.

The IDF expressed deep regret for the civilian harm and emphasized that the investigation is part of an ongoing commitment to learn from operational failures and reduce the risk of recurrence.

In short, the IDF acted exactly as a military in a democracy should: it investigated, acknowledged fault, and held individuals accountable.

There must also be a clear distinction between errors made in the course of legitimate military operations and intentionally directing attacks against civilians, which is Hamas' standard practice and a blatant war crime.

Israel mourns every innocent life lost. Hamas counts every innocent death as a victory. That is not just a moral difference—it is the difference between law and lawlessness, between a tragedy and a crime.

Seth Frantzman: What can be learned from the IDF inquiry into killing of medics in Gaza?

Perhaps the killing of the medics sheds light on the larger problem of assessing the number of terrorists killed.

How many other incidents occurred in the war in which 15 men were killed and six were terrorists? What process is used to determine that the six were terrorists? Were they armed?

The IDF report on the March 23 incident does not specify these details. This leaves many questions about “known unknowns,” to use the phrase former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked.

There are many known unknowns in Gaza. How many tunnels are there? How many were dismantled in 18 months of war? How many men has Hamas recruited?

How many Hamas battalions have actually been “dismantled”? How many more incidents are there where an inflated number of enemies were “eliminated”?

The last question raised by the report relates to why the IDF decided to crush the vehicles after finding out they were ambulances and rescue vehicles?

“The decision to crush the vehicles was wrong,” the IDF says. That one sentence doesn’t tell us much about why the decision was made. Is it the usual order to crush vehicles after a firefight?

If the vehicles are obstructing a road and disabled, why not just push them to the side? Why would anyone order an ambulance to be crushed? The fact that the decision was “wrong” doesn’t really tell us about the larger context or if this is the usual practice.

The IDF says it “regrets the harm caused to uninvolved civilians.”

It also says it will learn from this incident to “reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future. Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced – emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.”

While this is good, it doesn’t address larger questions about other civilians or why aid convoys continue to run at night through IDF-controlled zones if such convoys cannot be protected.

The report also doesn’t fully explain how the number of terrorists is determined after a firefight or why vehicles are crushed after these incidents.

IDF Reports on Investigation of March Incident Involving Rescue Teams and Vehicles in Gaza

The IDF said Sunday that an investigation into the incident involving rescue teams and vehicles in Gaza on the night of March 23, 2025, found that it occurred while the troops were conducting a vital mission aimed at targeting terrorists. Throughout the operation, vehicles and ambulances moved along the route without obstruction, since the forces did not perceive any threat posed by them.

There were three shooting incidents on that day: In the first incident, troops fired at a vehicle identified as a Hamas vehicle. An hour later, the troops opened fire on suspects emerging from a fire truck and ambulances very close to the area in which the troops were operating, after perceiving an immediate and tangible threat. Supporting surveillance had reported five vehicles approaching rapidly and stopping near the troops, with passengers quickly disembarking.

The deputy battalion commander assessed the vehicles as employed by Hamas forces, and ordered to open fire. Fifteen Palestinians were killed, six of whom were identified later as Hamas terrorists. Due to poor night visibility, the deputy commander did not initially recognize the vehicles as ambulances. Only later, after approaching the vehicles, was it discovered that these were indeed rescue teams.

About 15 minutes later, the troops fired at a Palestinian UN vehicle due to operational errors in breach of regulations. At dawn, it was decided to gather and cover the bodies to prevent further harm to them and clear the vehicles from the route. There was no attempt to conceal the event, which was discussed with international organizations and the UN, including coordination for the removal of bodies.

The investigation determined that the fire resulted from an operational misunderstanding by the troops, who believed they faced a tangible threat from enemy forces. Alongside this, the examination identified several professional failures, breaches of orders, and a failure to fully report the incident. The deputy commander of the battalion will be dismissed due to his responsibility as the field commander in this incident. Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced - emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.

The (usually unstated) foundational axioms of Jewish ethics

We have described a three-tier framework for Jewish ethics:

The Values Tier (life, dignity, truth, justice, etc.)
The Adjudication Tier (weighing and balancing those values in real-world cases)
The Meta/Interpreter Tier (ensuring the process is transparent, humble, and open to critique)

There is also a foundational tier for this framework, which we can call Tier Zero. This tier consists of axioms that the other tiers implicitly depend on.

Before any values can be selected, adjudicated, or interpreted, there must be basic philosophical assumptions in place. These are the bedrock axioms upon which the entire Jewish ethical system rests. No one talks about these axioms too often because they were considered obvious truths. But in today’s intellectual environment, many of these premises are under direct attack. They must be named, clarified and defended.

These axioms are assumptions about human nature, moral reasoning and reality itself. These are not "values" in the traditional sense. They are metaphysical or epistemological commitments without which values are meaningless.

Truth Exists and Can Be Known: There is an objective reality, and moral and factual truths can be discovered and reasoned about.

This has been challenged by various philosophies over the past two centuries. Postmodernism says truth is relative, dependent on social, linguistic, or cultural context. Relativism, critical theory and other schools also disparage the existence of objective, knowable truth.

Judaism utterly rejects these ideas. Truth isn't relative, facts aren't subjective, different narratives do not have equal value. When one discards truth then one discards the very basis for a universal moral system.

Humans Have Moral Agency: People contain the capacity to choose, to reason, and to be held accountable for their choices.

Many philosophical schools disagree. Hard determinism, behaviorism and neuroscientific reductionism insist that biology, environmental factors or the unconscious determine how we act. The conclusion is that people cannot be held responsible for their actions.

This is anathema to Jewish thought. While Judaism recognizes that everyone has predispositions and their environments influence them, ultimately humans are able and are expected to transcend their inclinations and try to improve and perfect themselves. Those who paint themselves as eternal victims of circumstance are tragic; the person who rises above is heroic.

Right and Wrong Are Real Categories: There is such a thing as objective morality.

Moral relativism and postmodernism say that right and wrong are dependent on external factors like language and culture; moral naturalism says the concept of morality is an evolutionary artifact; Nietzsche says morality is simply an attempt by the weak to control the strong.

This is completely foreign to Jewish thinking. The concepts of justice, truth, and dignity are universal and foundational. A society that rejects morality is itself an evil society.

Humans Are Capable of Growth: Beyond moral agency, people have the inherent capacity to improve themselves.

Behaviorism claims all behavior is the result of environmental conditioning and people only change from external factors. The schools that deny moral agency inherently deny moral growth as well.

Judaism says that moral growth is not just possible but expected. The entire concept of teshuva, repentance, is based on the idea that everyone can change. Moral development is a lifelong pursuit. The idea of the "pintele Yid" that is within each Jew, even those who have done immoral acts, is the spark of the Divine that wants to do the right thing. Within the Jewish religion, everyone has a sacred soul; but even without the religious aspect, Judaism says that everyone can change.

Moral Disagreement Has Value: Arguments and differences of opinion are essential and eternal tools to reach objective truth.

This is a unique aspect of Jewish philosophy. While Greek philosophers valued debate to arrive at moral truths, once they decided they found it they rejected further discussion. Christian theology strived to arrive at consensus and other opinions were often framed as heresy. Other more modern philosophies reject the entire concept of truth.

Judaism sees argument as the path to truth - but acknowledges that truth is often complex, layered, and elusive. Sometimes the Talmud concludes with teiku - leaving the question unresolved until Messianic times. This is why all sides of the arguments are preserved - the assumption is that while there is objective truth, it is not always easy to determine, and it may have multiple aspects. Moreover, the arguments themselves help people grow. The moral decisions they make are the result not only of dictates from above but their own contributions to the discussion and humility to engage with others in pursuit of truth.

Human Dignity Is Inherent and Universal: Every human being has inherent worth that does not depend on merit, productivity, or identity. This is foundational to Jewish ethics and grounded in the idea that all people are created b’tzelem Elokim—in the image of God.

Some ethical and political systems reject this. Utilitarianism ranks people by usefulness; Nietzschean ethics mocks universal dignity as weakness; totalitarian regimes define worth by political utility or race; and modern reductionist science sometimes reduces people to neurological machinery. Even well-intentioned identity politics can fall into this trap by awarding dignity based on category rather than common humanity.

Judaism resists all of these. Human dignity, like life itself, is not earned. It is simply and profoundly there. Any moral system that fails to recognize this invites cruelty.

This is beyond "tzelem Elokim" in the values tier, which calls on everyone to treat everyone else with dignity. This is a underlying concept that the value builds upon.

For most of human history, these axioms were implicit. But in today’s intellectual landscape, postmodernism challenges the existence of truth. Deterministic science challenges free will. Moral relativism challenges the existence of good and evil. Behavioral economics and neuroscience reduce humans to predictable inputs and outputs.

These are not mere academic fads; they have filtered into popular culture, university curricula, public policy, and even technology design. Any ethical system must now defend its very right to exist.

The Jewish ethical system, by contrast, affirms these axioms explicitly through its structure, laws, literature, and traditions. And by naming these Tier Zero commitments, we show that:

The system is honest about its philosophical assumptions.
These assumptions are themselves open to critique, reflection, and reasoned defense.
The structure is robust precisely because it acknowledges the need for a moral metaphysics.

Without Tier Zero, the other layers collapse. With it, they form the most resilient, dynamic, and coherent moral system ever developed.

Tier Zero is what makes the other tiers possible. It is not itself an ethical method but the precondition for all ethical methods. Jewish ethics begins by assuming what many modern systems forget: that moral reasoning is real, humans are responsible, and truth matters.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

People who follow me have noticed that lately I have been writing about Jewish ethics a great deal.

This appears to be a departure from my normal output. It really isn't.

For a long time I have been frustrated by nearly every attempt to fight antisemitism. For years, I have pointed out that nearly all thinkers and writers about antisemitism have ignored the flavors of that hate that more closely align with their own politics, and as a result the suggestions and idea to fight antisemitism have been trying to treat the symptoms, not the disease.

The Biden administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism had all of the problems of previous initiatives rolled into one. It did not define the problem clearly and it only advocated lots of point solutions that are band-aids on what can become a massive internal injury.

A month ago I came up with a theory that, I believed, ties together all the forms of antisemitism: I wanted to figure out why so many disparate types of antisemitism from the Left, Right, and others were not just antipathetic towards Jews, Judaism and Israel but so actively hateful towards them. Unlike other hates, anti-Jewish hate is an obsession. Why is that?

I initially believed that all forms of antisemitism were supersessionist, rooted in the idea that Jews must be replaced to validate another identity. While this applies to many forms (particularly Christian and Islamic), it doesn’t cover all cases. What united them more deeply was a shared impulse to erase Jews, Judaism, and Israel because these stood as existential threats to their own ideologies—whether theological, political, or cultural. In other words, all major forms of antisemitism are eliminationist at their core.

They all regard the very existence of Jews or Judaism or Israel to be their main threat. I am taking them at their word. Since any philosophy that either accepts or encourages antisemitism is by definition immoral, then the best way to fight them is to help grow that very threat to their existence - to encourage the world to understand and adopt Jewish ethics.

It is not as much of a stretch as it might seem. Much of Western civilization is already based around Jewish concepts. Not coincidentally, the ideologies most hostile to Judaism often turn out to be hostile to Western civilization as well.

Modern progressive, socialist and other philosophies all sound reasonable on their own terms. Incoming students at universities or even casual readers of the media are exposed to, indeed bombarded by, these philosophies. Yet most of us do not have the tools to examine them and determine where they are weak or where they can become immoral themselves. Only by being familiar with an alternative can people see the flaws in the ideas they are being fed.

The Jewish ethical system, I maintain, is the most mature ethical model in existence. It doesn’t slot people into broad categories. Instead of reducing the world to abstractions, Jewish ethics seeks to improve the world as it really is.

I have therefore been spending my time trying to define the Jewish ethical system in a way that makes it approachable and understandable. I am defining its structure in a way that has not been done before (to my knowledge.) I'm trying to give people the tools to understand why the systems that oppose Western culture and Jewish thought are wrong. And I want to find ways to promote Jewish ethics - not Judaism, not religion, not God, but an ethical system compatible with modern secular culture that has a 2,000 year old track record.

We need to counter the modern philosophies that have normalized twisted ideas of ethics. Jewish thought is rich enough to accommodate the good ideas and reject their malign components.

So this is what I have been working on - a project to save Western civilization.

Yes, I know how outrageous this sounds. I know how small the chances are that this will succeed. But once I started working on this, no matter what the odds, I have to finish this effort. In only a month I have defined a framework that can be realistically adopted by anyone, a framework that brings common sense back into vogue.

I am not the type of person to start something this ambitious. But if no one else has thought of this after 200 years of discussing "The Jewish Question," then why not me? If it inspires one person to make a TikTok video explaining Jewish philosophy to teens, if it encourages one university professor to create a course in Jewish ethics, if it prompts one influencer to spread these ideas, then it is worth it.

For twenty years, I have been exposing and defining antisemitism on this site. This project - which I plan to turn into a book, and which I hope will encourage others to run with these ideas and spread them widely - is an extension of what I've been doing all along. Because the best chance to defeat antisemitism, and the anti-Western philosophies that come with it, is not to be defensive but to give the world an alternative philosophy that is truly ethical.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But I hope to invite serious readers, Jews and non-Jews alike, into a conversation about ethics, truth, and civilization itself. Because the only way to defeat an immoral ideology is not through slogans, censorship, or defensiveness, but through a better, more honest moral system.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Haaretz reports:

A Chain of Rosy Tales: A Feted Journalist Celebrates Life in Prewar Gaza
In his new book, Mohammed Omer Almoghayer tells of the joys he experienced living most of his days in Gaza. Every chapter sheds light on a bygone social fabric

In his new book "On the Pleasures of Living in Gaza: Remembering a Way of Life Now Destroyed," which was released this month by OR Books in New York, he recounts his experiences in Gaza from before the current war. The 261 pages tell about the "simple pleasures" in the Strip, like the stars at night, pizza with friends, a soccer game, a wedding. He considers these moments of "true happiness."

When Almoghayer still lived in Gaza, he made his living telling people about how awful things were there. Here is the description of him from a lecture tour in the US in 2006:

Mohammed has experienced more pain, death, fear, destruction, hatred and despair in his 22 years than most people experience in a lifetime. He rises each day and, in spite of the pain, grabs his camera, pen and paper, and heads out into the war zone he calls home. "Words are my weapon against injustice, hate, starvation and oppression," he explains.

Which is it - was Gaza an idyllic place where everyone was happy, or a place of starvation and oppression before he even witnessed any wars?

Whichever one serves the purposes of the Palestinian propaganda machine better.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

One of the most quoted doctors in Gaza is Dr. Ahmed Al-Farra, head of the pediatric department at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis.

This week he made a claim that is literally unbelievable.

The doctor claimed that 100% of blood donors in Gaza suffer from anemia "due to the starvation policy perpetrated by the occupation army against the people of the Gaza Strip."

Dr. Al-Farra said in a press statement, "All those who donate blood in Gaza are suffering from a blood shortage, but their sense of duty drives them to donate ."

This claim is, to put it lightly, ridiculous. In other conflict zones and areas where there really have been famines, the anemia rate in specific groups like children or pregnant women range from 20%-70%. There are no records of 100% anemia rates, and if there were, we would be hearing about hundreds of Gazans dying of malnutrition monthly. We aren't.

Not only that, but any hospital would reject any blood donors with anemia, so if what he is saying is true, Gaza hospitals are acting irresponsibly by endangering the health of the blood donors.

Some of the claims made by Gaza health officials have been equally absurd, like accusations of "germ warfare" by Israel or of the use of secret weapons that vaporize humans.

Yet these same officials are quoted often by Western media as if they are reliable.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/21 Links Pt2: Yom Hashoah: It’s time to change how we look at antisemitism; Eulogizing pope, Jewish groups stress his response to Jew-hatred

From Ian:

Yom Hashoah: It’s time to change how we look at antisemitism

For years, educators have been warning about the declining state of Holocaust literacy in North America. Surveys, like the one released by the Pew Research Center in 2020, paint a stark picture when it comes to Americans’ knowledge of what occurred under Nazi Germany. Only 69% of the U.S. adults surveyed could accurately answer when the Holocaust took place. Less than half of respondents knew how many Jews were killed by the Nazis. Even fewer could answer how Adolf Hitler came to power.

Shortly after Oct. 7, however, Holocaust education centers like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began to notice an uptick in interest in their programs. Those educational displays that discuss the causes and effects of Jew-hatred are gaining increasing attention now, including from visitors not familiar with the age-old scourge.

“Many people are being exposed to the term for the first time,” USHMM historian Edna Friedberg told me during a recent conversation. “People are struggling to understand antisemitism—how to recognize it, what causes it, what it says about our societies and the risks we all face, Jewish or not.”

Friedberg believes that the Oct. 7 attacks and the escalation of anti-Jewish behavior that followed are now prompting Americans to ask more questions about what occurred during the Holocaust. “The rise in global antisemitism before Oct. 7 and its global eruption afterward should reinforce to all of us that longstanding antisemitism is what made the Holocaust possible and its continued threat,” she said.

If we want younger generations to understand the link between antisemitic behavior and the risk of tragedies like the Holocaust and Oct. 7, shouldn’t we be discussing the global history of Jew-hatred as well?

For my grandparents’ and parents’ generations, the Holocaust was a singular event—one that wasn’t necessarily discussed in relation to its cause (namely, antisemitism) the way it is today. The traumatic events of the Holocaust were for its survivors events to forget. Nor were they topics one necessarily talked about with family or members of the wider community. For my generation, asking about our grandparents’ experiences growing up in Europe or Russia was off the table, so acknowledgement about the dangers of antisemitism was as well.

I believe that this may be one of the reasons why America’s youngest generations today have such a disjointed understanding of what fueled the Holocaust. Antisemitism isn’t something that the Nazis created in Germany; it was an ancient set of social attitudes that they capitalized on, as old as Jewish culture itself.

“We must start by no longer trying to isolate the Holocaust from the rest of Jewish history or contemporary struggles,” wrote Jonathan Tobin, editor-in-chief of JNS.org, in his column, “Yom Hashoah After Oct. 7: How Holocaust Education Failed” (May 6, 2024). Although Tobin’s observation was made specifically in the context of how Holocaust education is often taught in American schools, it’s a statement that is just as relevant when it comes to the message we impart in our Holocaust memorials, museum exhibits and other educational venues.

If we want younger generations to carry on the lessons we are imparting today about the dangers of antisemitism, we need to be willing to discuss antisemitism’s millennia-long history, as well as the role it played in fomenting a major event like the Holocaust. The tragedy of Oct. 7 did something extraordinary: It inspired people to seek out knowledge independently that they may have felt they weren’t getting in schools and through the media.

We now have an opportunity to build upon that momentum by expanding how we talk about antisemitism globally and why the victims of the Holocaust are never forgotten, and are still honored today.

Jonathan Tobin: Trump isn’t exploiting antisemitism; he’s attacking its root cause

Critics of the Trump administration’s offensive against antisemitism in academia are right about one thing. The list of demands that President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism sent to Harvard University, as well as those sent to other schools under intense scrutiny for their tolerance and encouragement of Jew-hatred, do go beyond that issue.

Trump has sought to change the way elite institutions of higher education conduct admissions, hiring and conduct discipline, as well as probe the immigration status of foreign students, who are key to the pro-Hamas cause and who led mobs on campus that were guilty of acts of intimidation and violence. He has also threatened to pull federal funds from them if they fail to comply. But in doing so, the task force he appointed aims at more than just making college quads safer environments for Jewish students and faculty.

That has led some Jewish liberals, including many who have expressed criticism of the way Harvard and the other schools that are in peril of losing billions in federal funding, to claim that Trump is “exploiting” the issue. And despite their patent failure to deal with the problem, some Jewish college presidents, including the leaders of Harvard, Princeton University, Wesleyan University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all have the chutzpah to claim that they—and not the administration in Washington—have a better idea of what is and isn’t antisemitism.

They seem to be speaking for many on the political left.

That’s especially true of Jewish liberals, who have long been in denial about the reality of left-wing antisemitism. Their hatred for Trump—rooted in partisanship and class distinctions—simply will not allow them to accept that the “bad orange man,” who is largely supported by working-class voters, is actually fighting antisemitism instead of encouraging it. They also seem to brush aside the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Democrats they have ardently supported, like former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, actually fueled the fires of antisemitism while claiming to combat it.

Is fighting antisemitism ‘bad?’
This viewpoint is represented by a letter circulated by the left-wing Jewish Council on Public Affairs, an umbrella group of Jewish community relations councils once tied to Jewish federations but is now independent of them. It asserts that Trump’s effort to deal with antisemitism on campuses is actually “bad” for the Jews. The missive sticks to partisan talking points about antisemitism being primarily a right-wing phenomenon that were long out of date. Indeed, they are shockingly out of touch with reality since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the surge of hatred that followed that attempt at Jewish genocide. Their main point is a disingenuous claim that attempts to root out the prejudice against Jews and Israel that has become not only mainstream in academia and popular culture, but a new orthodoxy since Oct. 7, must be opposed because these efforts are against “democracy.”

They seem to think that moves to stop pro-Hamas mobs from harming Jews is an abridgement of the rights of those chanting for Jewish genocide (“from the river to the sea”) or terrorism (“globalize the intifada”), even though what is in question is not free speech but unlawful actions that violate the rules of these schools that have gone unenforced.

The text of the letter reflects the signers’ desire not merely to distance themselves from a Trump-led campaign against Jew-hatred but also from the State of Israel. Like individuals who oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, these Trump opponents seem to want to create a “safe space” for those who oppose the existence of the only Jewish state on the planet that would exempt them from responsibility for their prejudice against Jews.

That this letter was signed by groups representing the major liberal denominations of Judaism in the United States—Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist—is a scandal. It’s also a terrible reflection of the way these movements have prioritized liberal or left-wing partisanship over their solidarity with fellow Jews or their sacred responsibility to stand up against bigotry and hatred.

Hey, Harvard—Woke Will Make You Broke

No Ivy League official condemned the massacre on October 7. No one called for the return of the hostages. Most shocking of all, Hamas was treated like a campus mascot. No one highlighted that Hamas is a genocidal death cult that is as much an enemy to Palestinians—most especially women and homosexuals—as it is to Jews.

Universities demand free speech and academic freedom—but only if it is approved speech and the freedom to spread lies and distort history. To this day, each of these institutions believes that threatening Jews is justifiable so long as it is ancillary to supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Talk about shapeshifting, disingenuous nonsense.

Really? You mean if I happen to oppose racial equity, I can shove an African-American on campus and shout, “Lynch Blacks!”? Does academic freedom mean that the Harvard History Department, if it so chooses, can teach only one perspective on the Civil War—the one espoused by the Confederate Army and plantation owners—with each course concluding that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was presidential overreach?

Universities have surrendered critical thinking to groupthink, replaced free speech with selective censorship, and categorically forbidden viewpoint diversity, especially if it involves seeing Israel as anything other than a settler-colonial, apartheid regime.

Punitive measures were necessary and most definitely deserved. They had well over a year and a half to properly respond to the antisemitism that had overtaken their campuses. Instead: academic jargon and lip service.

At the first, infamous congressional hearing, three presidents of elite schools refused to concede that calling for the genocide of Jews violates their Codes of Conduct. (It’s not protected under the First Amendment, either.) They dissembled, appearing contemptuous, all the while fearing how their testimony would play at home.

The natives on campus were restless, after all. The joke was on Congress. The gods of DEI were running these elite, out-of-touch, self-indulgent academies. Neither the safety of Jews nor the obligations of open inquiry were going to get in the way. Is it any wonder Jewish enrollment at these schools has been declining?

Some things, of course, never change. Many of the Jewish legacy organizations, and the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements, signed a letter opposing the deportation of pro-Hamas foreign students and the denial of federal funds to these universities.

Black Lives Matter déjà vu, anyone? Jews are always pumping their fists at the front of the line, loudly proclaiming their tikkun olam bona fides, only to end up standing alone in other lines, destinations unknown, wondering what went wrong.

04/21 Links Pt1: The Dangerous Return of Pre-Oct. 7 Thinking; Douglas Murray: Society is being polluted by people who hate us; Kneecap, Green Day target Israel at Coachella

From Ian:

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Judaism Commands Us to Pursue Peace, but also to Confront Evil

Some 36 out of more than 300 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews published a letter in the Financial Times on Wednesday rebuking Israel's military response to the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. The Jewish religion and culture values disagreement. But the letter marks a deeply regrettable moment because it presents personal ideology as communal leadership.

It is entirely legitimate for Jews and anyone in the world to criticize Israeli policy, including during wartime. Jewish tradition has long prized argument, debate, and conscience. But it must not - particularly in times of war - blur the moral lines between those who defend life and those who seek its destruction.

The signatories claim that "Jewish values" are on their side - that war is inherently at odds with Judaism, and that diplomacy alone offers a path forward. But this is a selective reading of our tradition. Jewish values embrace both compassion and realism.

The Torah commands us to pursue peace, yes - but it also commands us to defend life, to confront evil, and to understand that in a world where enemies plot genocide, force is sometimes not only justified but required. Ecclesiastes teaches, "There is a time for war and a time for peace." The signatories would have us believe that Judaism demands surrender. It does not.

Their central claim - that diplomacy alone, not military action, has saved hostages - is historically and logically flawed. Every negotiated release of hostages has taken place under the shadow of Israeli military pressure. Hamas has never released hostages out of goodwill; it has done so because it has feared the consequences of continued defiance. Diplomacy works when backed by credible strength. Without it, there is no leverage - only wishful thinking.

The Israeli government did not "choose" to return to war, as if it were an option freely available. Rather, it resumed military action after Hamas repeatedly violated ceasefires, paraded hostages for propaganda, and rejected further disarmament proposals. Ignoring these facts is a refusal to deal with reality.

The dilemmas faced by Israel's leaders are excruciating. Every option is dreadful. But to pretend that there is an easy, bloodless alternative is not an act of conscience. It is an abdication of solidarity. In a time of war, clarity - about who we are, what we believe, and whom we stand with - is not just necessary. It is an obligation.

Seth Mandel: The Dangerous Return of Pre-Oct. 7 Thinking

The shedding of pre-Oct. 7 thinking on the part of many American Jews has occasioned a backlash from the revanchists who seek to undo any progress or advancement the Jewish community has made since that horrific day.

One example of revanchist thinking: the reversion to “keep your head down” Judaism out of fear that if we advocate for our own rights we will be blamed, fairly or unfairly, for the consequences.

This conceit is being increasingly deployed to argue against punishing universities and those affiliated with them for violating Jewish students’ civil rights. The Trump administration has penalized, sometimes harshly, schools that are in breach of federal law. The main fight is over the gobs of taxpayer cash these universities receive while seemingly violating the terms of that government funding.

Those who receive that money (or benefit directly from it) do not want to lose it. One such person is Yale medical professor Naftali Kaminski, who repeats a popular argument: The Jews will regret this.

Kaminski is not wholly representative of his fellow Keep Your Head Downers: he defends the pro-Hamas protests and pretends they are the only affront to Jewish civil rights on campus, which is of course nonsense. He even calls them—and I kid you not—“mostly peaceful.” In contrast, there are plenty of American Jews who don’t want the universities punished for their anti-Semitism but who are willing at least to admit that violent anti-Semitism and institutionalized religious-discrimination policies are bad.

But both end up at the same place: They worry that people will be angry at the Jews.

To which any sentient person would respond: “will be”?

It’s true, the Jews will be scapegoated. That’s how we got here, in fact. Goosestepping campus Hamasniks are scapegoating Jews. A key lesson of Jewish history is that whether or not Jews assert their dignity, they will be blamed for anything that goes wrong. The least we can do in the meantime is stand up straight and demonstrate a little self-respect.

Ruthie Blum: The significance of Netanyahu’s address to the nation

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the nation on Saturday night was not merely justified; it was crucial. In fact, the only real criticism one can reasonably level at it is that he announced it two days in advance.

That misstep, given the tense and fragile national psyche, led to unrealistic expectations. Was a major hostage deal in the works? Had the Israel Defense Forces already struck Iran? The lead-up spurred hopeful speculation among Netanyahu’s supporters and caused his detractors to repeat their usual “anybody but Bibi” mantras.

Not that the content of his 11-minute video mattered to Channel 11, mind you. No, Israel’s national broadcaster, paid for by the public’s tax shekels, didn’t even deign to interrupt its regular programming to air it. Channels 12 and 13 pulled a different stunt—cutting off the clip in the middle, dismissing it as unworthy of a full viewing.

Never mind that Israel is still fighting a multi-front war. Leave aside the fact that its most important ally is engaging in talks with the very entity heading the campaign to annihilate the Jewish state, while striving for regional and global hegemony.

In the eyes of a very vocal, culturally powerful minority, Netanyahu is far more dangerous than the Islamic Republic and each of its murderous proxies. But ignoring what he had to say was as self-defeating as the protest camp’s overall attitude.

It’s true that his statement lacked dramatic breaking news. Still, it was a message that everyone at home and abroad had to hear.

He needed to signal that he has no intention of caving to calls to end the war before achieving all of its goals: freeing the hostages, eliminating Hamas and ensuring that the denizens of Gaza never again pose a threat to Israel.

Though there’s nothing novel about his reiteration of these aims, he was compelled to counter the false narrative that’s been circulating about first freeing the hostages and later dealing with Hamas. On this, he set the record straight.

“Hamas is a gang of despicable murderers, but they’re not stupid,” he said. “They’re demanding binding international guarantees that leave no room for the illusion of a ‘trick’ that all the so-called ‘experts’ in the TV studios are trying to sell us. They have no idea how the international system actually works.”

He went on, “No one—certainly not the United States, not China, not Russia, not any other member of the Security Council—no one will cooperate with such a ruse, which would make returning to war impossible. We would have no legitimacy to do so.”

This week's hysterical "Al Aqsa Is In Danger!" comes courtesy of some random guy who made a video showing the Dome of the Rock exploding and being replaced with a Temple.

This is all over Arab media including Al Jazeera.

So some other random guy on Instagram took the picture of the Temple from that video, and used AI to blow it up instead.

No one seems too upset over that.

Meanwhile, the main preacher at Al Aqsa, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, spoke "exclusively" to Egypt's Al Masry al Youm where he described the imminent destruction of Al Aqsa exactly as Arabs have predicted it for over a hundred years.

In exclusive statements to Al-Masry Al-Youm, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, the Imam and preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque, warned of the recent increase in Jewish settler incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque. He stressed that these incursions have stirred up Muslim sentiments due to the intruders performing Talmudic prayers in the courtyards of the Noble Sanctuary.

Sabry explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm that extremist Jewish groups are exploiting the current circumstances to attack Al-Aqsa Mosque, pointing out that there is a gradual plan targeting the mosque that begins with imposing temporal and spatial division, then imposing Israeli sovereignty over the compound. He explained that the “Jewish extremists” are planning to strip the Islamic Waqf of its powers, leading to the demolition of the mosque and the construction of what they call the “alleged temple” on its ruins.

The Imam and preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasized that the occupation authorities have so far failed to achieve their primary goal of temporal division, despite campaigns of repression, arrests, and the expulsion of thousands of worshippers from the holy mosque.

Between 1995 and 2016 there was an annual "Al Aqsa Is In Danger!" festival in Israel, sponsored by the now banned Islamic Movement, which would attract as many as 30,000 people, all certain that the mosque will be destroyed in the subsequent year and equally convinced that the reason it hadn't been destroyed the previous year is because of their strength.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

So far, we have emphasized the Jewish sources and inspiration for Western ideas and philosophies that have been instrumental in the US Constitution and the Western legal system.

There is one important area where Jewish ethics diverges from Western law: the concept of rights.

The idea of "natural law," meaning that there is a rational moral order in the universe that can be determined by reason, has its origins in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Thomas Aquinas fused that idea with theology, saying that natural law reflected the will of God and that the moral laws that could be derived from reason also aligned with Biblical principles. And as we have seen, John Selden codified natural law as a basis for the Western legal systems based on his study of the Noachide laws and Jewish sources, grounding natural law in shared duties.

All of this thinking centered the idea of human responsibilities.

John Locke, in his "Two Treatises of Government" (1689), introduced the revolutionary idea that beyond duties and obligations, all humans are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. These were not responsibilities but entitlements, discoverable by reason and granted by God. Later thinkers, most notably Thomas Jefferson, strengthened this concept by declaring these rights “unalienable”—meaning they could not be surrendered, even with consent, such as through a social contract with the state. This marked a major philosophical shift: rights were no longer dependent on reciprocal duties, as in earlier natural law traditions like John Selden’s, but became moral absolutes that stood apart from obligation.

As the idea of rights became more entrenched in Western thought, such as in the United States Bill of Rights and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, rights became the central concept of political morality, replacing obligations. (Importantly, the U.S. Bill of Rights was originally framed as a check on state overreach, not a generator of positive entitlements.)

The West has been adding to the list of rights over time while declaring them self-evident - the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, the right to pursue happiness. The sea change from the centrality of duties to that of rights has weakened the Jewish ethical idea of the moral and legal obligations that people have towards another.

This is not to say that Jewish ethics denies the concept of rights. Rather, rights emerge as a byproduct of mutual obligations. If everyone has an obligation not to steal, then everyone gains a de facto right to their property; the prohibition against murder and the value saying everyone is created in the image of God (tzelem Elokim) leads to the right to life. But the emphasis is different: rights are the result, not the foundation, of moral codes.

Placing rights higher in the moral hierarchy compared to duties also subtly changes the focus of one's role in the world. When obligations are central, it teaches people to be selfless - you treat others with dignity, you respect others' property, you do what you need to do to ensure a frictionless society where everyone treats all others as having inherent value. When rights are central, then the self becomes the focus - the world owes things to you.

Responsibility gets replaced with entitlement.

The concept of rights as inalienable has prompted some groups to use the language of rights to bypass any legal or ethical objections to an ever-lengthening list of "rights," real or imagined. While Locke emphasized rights from interference (from anyone taking away people's life, liberty or property,) today's rights language is oriented towards "positive" rights, to receive things for free (education, healthcare, income, housing.) They have changed from promoting freedom into entitlements, And over time, more and more of these rights are being asserted as social obligations of entitlements from the state, with no obligations in return: rights to free college education, abortion, paid vacation, parental leave, Internet access. These have further expanded to include controversial assertions: the right not to be offended, the right to compel others to use one's chosen pronouns, or the right to unrestricted access to social media platforms or national borders. When these are framed as inalienable, debate is shut down rather than encouraged.

As more social demands get turned into purported "rights," they inevitably interfere with other rights. The "right" not to be offended contradicts freedom of press.

Rights have gone from an assertion of basic human needs to a political weapon to silence opponents.

The repercussions of a rights-centric society are being seen today. While the list of rights - real or imagined - keeps getting longer, the list of responsibilities expected of people diminish. The world is becoming egocentric instead of altruistic.

What can be done?

Looking closer at an example where Jewish ethics conflicts with Western rights can help illuminate a way forward.

In the American context, free speech is treated as a near-absolute right. But in Jewish ethics, while speech is certainly valued, it is also heavily regulated. The laws of lashon hara (gossip or harmful speech), motzi shem ra (slander), and ona’at devarim (verbal abuse) all limit speech that is legal under secular law.

Jewish ethics asks, “Should I say this?” while Western law often stops at, “Do I have the right to say this?”

Having secular law incorporate the laws of lashon hara is not the answer nor would it be desirable. We are already seeing the negative effects of today's supposed human rights defenders now policing the speech of their political opponents. The rights framework is failing in front of our eyes.

The answer comes from how Jewish thought has bridged the gap between law and ethics. As we have seen, the concept of lifnim mishurat hadin - going beyond the letter of the law - is at the intersection between what the law demands and how people should want to act, and it plays a vital role. The multi-tiered Jewish ethics system ensures that even if an action is technically permissible, one should consider whether it is right.

Western ethics should do the same. Just because free speech is legal does not mean it is moral. Instead of justifying hateful speech and incitement by recourse to legality, the Western world needs to revert to thinking about whether the speech is ethical. The responsibility belongs to the speaker.

One of the dangers of a rights-only framework is that it invites people to maximize their own entitlements while minimizing their duties to others. This mindset encourages people to assert their rights aggressively, even when doing so causes harm, division, or cruelty. It enables moral minimalism: “If it’s not illegal, it’s fine.”

Jewish tradition pushes in the opposite direction. It cultivates moral maximalism: “What more can I do to act with compassion, integrity, and responsibility?” It actively discourages things that are "patur aval assur" - technically legal but still unethical.

There are similar conflicts between law and ethical responsibility. One has the right to their money, but a responsibility to give charity to others. One has the legal right to sex between consenting adults, but it could ruin marriages, families and lives.

In all of these, the Jewish framework urges us not to hide behind legality, but to evaluate our actions against a higher standard.

This does not mean abandoning rights. Rights are vital for protecting individuals from tyranny. But Judaism proposes a complementary paradigm: one in which people voluntarily restrain their use of legal rights in order to uphold ethical responsibility.

A society built on rights alone can become fragmented and adversarial. A society built on responsibilities cultivates trust, cohesion, and moral aspiration.

In this way, Jewish ethics offers a vital corrective to the rights-centric moral language of the West. It asks not “What am I allowed to do?” but “What is the right thing to do?”

This approach may offer a bridge between legal systems and moral conscience. Western societies would benefit from embracing not just individual freedoms, but the ancient Jewish insight that true morality is based on responsibilities, and rights are the outcome of these responsibilities, not the precondition to them.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran are pissing off Jordan, Lebanon

Last week Jordan announced that it had discovered a local plot to manufacture rockets, linked to people in Lebanon, which it blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood. I didn't think the local MB was likely behind it, since their position in Jordan is precarious enough; it seemed for likely to be an Iranian plot using Hezbollah and/or Hamas as proxies.

New details have come up which indicate I am right:

“This plot was likely orchestrated by a dissident group with extremist leanings, but the government may have used the opportunity to undermine the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole, especially following the IAF’s [MB political party] electoral gains,” said Neil Quilliam, a senior associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa program.

The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood swiftly denied any involvement, saying it has “always supported the security and stability of Jordan.” That disavowal reportedly angered Hamas and its supporters, according to several observers.

“From an ideological standpoint, this could involve Hamas operatives in Lebanon,” said Jordanian political analyst Amer Sabaileh, noting that Lebanon has also detained Palestinians and Lebanese nationals in connection to the case. “Jordanian intelligence has tracked a Hezbollah- and Hamas-linked network working to move weapons into the kingdom and train operatives.”

Sabaileh also warned of a broader Iranian effort to turn Jordan into a logistical hub for its regional strategy. “After many arms seizures, the focus shifted to domestic weapons manufacturing and training local operatives,” he said.

Since then, the Lebanese army has arrested Hamas operatives who fired rockets towards Israel, and even foiled a planned attack:

The Lebanese Army announced Sunday that it had thwarted a planned rocket attack from southern Lebanon toward Israel and arrested several suspects in the Saida region.

Rockets launched into Israel on March 22 and 28, which were never claimed and were intercepted by the Israeli army, were used as justification by the Israeli army for two deadly strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, and almost daily strikes on the South and Bekaa regions.

In a statement, the Lebanese Army said that following the arrests of “members of the group that carried out these operations,” it obtained intelligence indicating preparations for a new attack.

A military patrol subsequently raided an apartment in the Saida-Zahrani area, where it seized “several rockets and their launch pads.” Several individuals involved in the plot were arrested, the statement added.

On April 16, the army said it had arrested members of a “group composed of Lebanese and Palestinians” suspected of launching the rockets in March. A security source told L’Orient Today's correspondent that three of the suspects were members of Hamas.

Hamas has shown that it is willing to drag other countries into the conflict against their will. It seems to believe that the constant media coverage of civilian deaths in Gaza is strengthening its political position in neighboring Arab countries, and this is a major miscalculation. Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon hate Hamas and will do anything they think necessary to shut it down.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah's position in Lebanon, while not endangered yet, is subject to increasing criticism.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun affirmed on Sunday that the decision to confine all arms to the state has already been made, but he emphasized that its enforcement hinges on the “right conditions” to determine the timing and method.
Aoun’s statement came two days after Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem firmly rejected any possibility of disarmament. “We will not allow anyone to disarm Hezbollah or the resistance,” Qassem had said in a televised address.
He warned that Hezbollah has “other options,” though he stopped short of specifying them.

Hezbollah is still threatening Lebanon, and the Lebanese people are fed up both with it and with Hamas.

Iran is the common denominator behind all of this, and while Jordan and Lebanon do not feel comfortable yet in directly criticizing Iran, you can be sure that behind closed doors they understand that Iran is their real enemy - and Israel isn't.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Last December we reported about a Call for Papers in the Journal for Architectural Education that celebrated Hamas murder and rape of Jews.

This is not an exaggeration. The document labeled the October 7 attacks as part of "a rise of new formations of struggle and power" and forming a "pathology of hope." It also praised the bloodthirsty orgy of unspeakable violence as "the breaching of the border fence and the rupture of settler containment."

The call for papers caused immediate backlash, including from an ad-hoc group called Architects Against Antisemitism with gathered 700 signatures in a letter describing the call for papers as an act of “academic malpractice” that was “clearly aimed to glorify Hamas violence and demonize Israel under the pretense of scholarship.” It added, accurately, that “the ASCA is one of many academic institutions getting swept up in the same type of behavior that preceded the Holocaust for over a decade in German intellectual society. If you ever wondered what you would have done if you were alive back in 1930s Germany, it will be how you will respond to this moment.”

The journal's publisher—the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) - canceled the issue. But not because they objected to the sickening antisemitism and support of Hamas' own genocidal aims, but because of political pressure - two governors said that this issue violated existing laws against antisemitism, and the ACSA was also concerned about Trump's executive orders against antisemitism.

The journal's entire board resigned in response to dropping the issue.

What principles! So many people are so committed to supporting the right of schools to incite hate against Jews and Israel. They would never dream of supporting academic freedom for racist or homophobic speech, but attacking the Jewish people is sacrosanct.

They aren't ashamed of their stances. They are proud of them.

Antisemitism has always been the canary in the coal mine to predict the fall of societies. This is just one of many examples indicating that Western civilization is in serious danger.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)