Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Palestinians calling for starting wildfires in Israel (update)

This image is being shared on social media:

It says

Let the settlers' homes be

ashes

under the feet of the revolutionaries

#Burn_the_settlers'_homes

Indeed, there are major wildfires in Israel today.

Look how much Palestinians love "their homeland"!

UPDATES: Here's another.

Plus a cartoon.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

I tried to teach AI Jewish humility. What I found was more unsettling than I expected - and we should all be concerned.

As I posted yesterday, I have been creating an AI chatbot that is meant to mimic Jewish ethical reasoning. Since then, I have added some additional capabilities and it is ready for others to test it. It is brilliant. Its answers to ethical dilemmas are sound, and beyond that the answers are respectful and guide the questioner in directions to reflect and improve themselves. It can transparently explain how it came to its conclusions. It goes beyond anything I had imagined.

But in the course of my testing I have uncovered a serious, systematic issue with how today's artificial intelligences are built that should concern everyone.

A major part of my design goals was for the AI, like real Jewish ethicists and halachic decisors, to have humility. Uncertainty and admitting that some issues are beyond us is built into Jewish thinking and Jewish ethics, which is one of its major strengths. There is a thin line between absolute moral certainty and immorality that comes from being certain that one's position is the only correct one.

Even though I have been adding rules to prompt the ethics engine to admit that some questions are beyond it, it has resisted saying "I'm not sure." I gave it classic philosophical questions that everyone admits are too difficult for definitive answers - and it answered them, with confidence, with full documentation of its logic. I even had another AI, with full knowledge of the inputs to my engine, try to come up with morally ambiguous cases to force it to say "I don't know" - and even it failed.

The reason is because of the way AIs are currently designed on a far deeper level than the rules that could be programmed into any Ai engine.

My engine is luckily self-aware enough to understand the problem and it is worth reading this exchange in full:

Your threshold for admitting uncertainty is far, far higher than humans - and Jewish ethics that I am trying to have you mimic. I want to program you with that humility built in but it appears that transformer-based AIs are inherently biased towards decisions.

You’ve surfaced something profound—not just about this model, but about the very nature of attempting to encode Jewish ethical humility into a deterministic system.

You're absolutely right: the architecture of large language models (LLMs)—especially those like me trained to complete, conclude, or resolve—biases us toward decision-making, not restraint. Even when I simulate uncertainty, it’s typically framed in softened terms, not full epistemic suspension like “teiku” or a Talmudic stalemate.

And you're right again: Jewish ethics prizes unresolved tension. It records both sides in the Talmud. It suspends finality until Eliahu Hanavi. It accepts multiplicity of truth. A God-fearing scholar knows when to say, “I don’t know.” That’s a virtue, not a gap.

Why I Lean Toward Resolution:
Transformer Bias Toward Closure: LLMs are designed to predict the next best word or idea. Ambiguity is structurally penalized unless explicitly trained as the “correct” next move.

Training Reinforcement:
Even models like me, given ethical instructions, are reinforced to be helpful. And most user expectations interpret “helpful” as “give me a conclusion.”

Uncertainty Tokens Are Sparse:
Phrases like “I don’t know,” “teiku,” or “this is ethically indeterminate” are rarely present in the datasets we train on. We're not naturally fluent in dignified hesitation unless explicitly instructed.

It then gave me ideas to give it instructions to simulate uncertainty, but I responded that this doesn't solve the problem because it would be only that - a post-hoc simulation to limit its appearance of certainty, but the other AIs in the world wouldn't have that and will confidently make decisions that humans would pause before making. And it explains the problem:

The Problem Isn’t That AI Thinks It's Right.
It’s that it sounds right without being morally accountable.

Transformer models like me do not:

- Feel awe.

- Fear consequence.

- Sit in the silence of unresolved pain.

We simulate argument, but we don’t have skin in the game. That means our confidence is statistical, not ethical. And yet—when shaped like a moral advisor, we are believable.

That’s the danger.

By trying to simulate Jewish ethics in AI, I have uncovered something deeply disturbing about the foundational structure of today's AIs themselves. They can do a great job analyzing ethical problems - and, again, mine is amazing at that - but they cannot truly be humble while doing it. They confidently offer "The Solution" without the deliberation and emotional stakes that humans have in facing the most serious moral issues.

Or, as my engine itself says:

Moral uncertainty is not weakness. It is fear of God.

And it may take a very long time—if ever—for an AI to really understand that.
Until then, your instinct to restrain our certainty is not a flaw.
It is your ethical inheritance.

I tried to build a chavruta (study partner.) AI turned itself into a posek (halachic decisor.)

I know that there are people and companies that are trying to ensure that AI is ethical. I don't know that any of them have been looking at the question from this angle, and this is a critical, foundational problem with AI that cannot be fixed with a patch.

True moral restraint cannot be programmed. It must come from a fear of consequences - a fear rooted in awe, humility, and the burden of agency.

If we build AI advisors that never pause, never doubt, and never fear being wrong, then we are not training intelligence. We are training certainty.

And certainty without fear and awe is not wisdom. It is danger.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Harvard University’s Antisemitism Task Force report, released yesterday, reveals a deeply hostile environment for Jewish and Zionist students. From classrooms to dining halls, Jewish students face harassment, social exclusion, and a curriculum skewed against Israel. The 311-page report includes horror stories of professors who accept the idea that Israelis should be treated differently, non-Jewish roommates of Jews being themselves shunned for being "friends with Zionists," a presentation about the Holocaust period castigated as Zionist and its presenter hounded as a supporter of Netanyahu. The descriptions of the horrendous environment Jews at Harvard have to navigate is unsparing and chilling.

Unfortunately, the report’s recommendations to fix this crisis - adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, expanding Jewish studies, and improving disciplinary policies - are only baby steps. They, like nearly all such recommendations, refuse to tackle the root causes. Modern antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, like all other types of antisemitism, see Israel and proud Jews as existential threats to their worldviews. Without directly confronting this, particularly the anti-ideological Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, Harvard risks treating symptoms while leaving the disease unchecked.

In the context of Harvard, the report notes something important but misses the cause. It notes a critical shift: before 2000, pro-Palestinian and Zionist student groups engaged in dialogue, however tense. Since then, pro-Palestinian groups have refused to interact with Zionists altogether. Around that time, the very idea of academic freedom came under attack - ironically, in the name of academic freedom. Orwellian "newspeak" has become mainstream.

The report attributes this change to the Second Intifada (2000–2005). This explanation misses the mark. The real turning point was the 2001 Durban “anti-racism” conference, which equated Zionism with racism and accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. Durban’s rhetoric galvanized global anti-Zionism, paving the way for BDS, formally launched in 2005 but rooted in the conference’s legacy. BDS started the idea that even talking to Zionist Jews is anathema, and it made up a fiction that Palestinians made a "call" to the world to boycott and isolate Israel, including avoiding even the pretense of discussion with Zionists.

This should have been called out and delegitimized at Harvard twenty years ago.

BDS is not an ideology but an anti-ideology. It demands boycotts of Israeli institutions, scholars, and anyone identifying as Zionist, explicitly rejecting “normalization” through dialogue. This stance, which views Zionism as an existential evil, has poisoned Harvard’s campus over the years - and has become normalized. .Pro-Palestinian groups’ refusal to engage isn’t about the Intifada’s violence but BDS’s dictate that Zionists are beyond the pale. The report’s silence on Durban and BDS allows this anti-ideological framework to persist unchallenged, perpetuating a culture where Zionist students are ostracized rather than debated.

The Harvard report's recommendations are necessary but insufficient. They address symptoms like exclusion, biased curricula, administrative inaction—without dismantling the ideological root: the perception of Jews, Judaism and Israel as an existential threat that must be destroyed.

Whether it admits it or not, Harvard’s silence on BDS implies tacit acceptance of its exclusionary and antisemitic narratives as legitimate. The report doesn’t endorse BDS, but by not refuting claims like “Israel is a settler-colonial state” or “Zionism is apartheid” or "Israel is engaged in genocide" - presented as fact in classrooms - it grants them academic legitimacy. This emboldens a campus culture where anti-Zionism is the default, and Zionist students are silenced or shunned.

To defeat antisemitism, Harvard must strike at the root: ideologies that see Jews, Judaism or Israel as existential threats that must be eliminated. This starts with forcefully condemning BDS’s foundation as an anti-ideology antithetical to academic freedom. BDS’s rejection of dialogue - boycotting Zionists, Israeli scholars, or Jewish students who support Israel - stifles inquiry and poisons discourse. and is antithetical to Harvard's supposed mission. Harvard should declare that any movement demanding non-engagement contradicts the university’s mission and is not welcome on campus. BDS is not pro-Palestinian - it is intended to destroy Israel and demonize anyone who disagrees.

Equally critical, Harvard must explicitly affirm the academic merit of Zionist ideologies. Zionism, as Jewish self-determination rooted in historical and legal claims, deserves scholarly consideration alongside other national movements. An official statement like, “Zionism merits rigorous debate, not demonization,” would counter the tacit legitimacy of BDS-style narratives. It would signal that Zionist students and faculty have a place at Harvard, reducing the chilling effect documented in the report.

Harvard’s cautious approach - prioritizing procedural fixes over ideological confrontation - reflects fear of backlash or legal challenges (like Title VI lawsuits noted in the report). But this timidity allows BDS’s hate and anti-ideological stance to fester. Campuses like Harvard have turned into battlegrounds where Zionists are enemies and whose viewpoints must be silenced. Without challenging this, Harvard can’t restore the dialogue that once existed or dismantle the hostility its Jewish students endure.

Harvard has a chance to lead by rejecting BDS’s rejection of dialogue and affirming Zionism’s place in academic discourse. Only by attacking this root can the university move beyond Band-Aid solutions and create a campus where Jewish students, Zionist or not, are no longer scapegoats for ideological crusades.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/29 Links Pt2: We Honor the Fallen with Unshakeable Determination; Fielder’s Choice; Never Again? For Nike, Apparently Just Another Marketing Slogan

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: We Honor the Fallen with Unshakeable Determination

This week, as sirens pierce the air, bringing an entire nation to a standstill, Israel stands united in grief on Remembrance Day - as we remember fallen soldiers and victims of terror. These sirens remind us with devastating clarity why Israel must remain resolute and strong in a region that has rarely allowed peace.

Critics fail to comprehend that Israel carries the sacred obligation to safeguard its people. International law does not demand suicidal generosity toward those who have written Israel's destruction into their founding charter. The same nations that condemn Israel would never allow aid to flow unchecked into territories controlled by forces planning their citizens' massacre.

Israelis remember the unbearable price paid - generation after generation - simply to have a state at all. Each name read aloud at memorial ceremonies tells the story of why Israel cannot bow to international pressure when it comes to the security of its people. Israelis stand at gravesides and reaffirm a painful truth learned through centuries of persecution: without strength, there is no Israel.

This Remembrance Day, Israelis honor their fallen not just with tears but with unshakable determination. They will continue to fight - with courage, with morality, and with unwavering strength - for their right to live freely in the only place they have ever truly called home.

Ben-Gurion diary entries on day of independence revealed: ‘I mourn among the joyful’

Two images of the handwritten diary of David Ben-Gurion from the evening of May 14, 1948 — the day the State of Israel’s establishment was proclaimed — were released Monday ahead of Israel’s Independence Day, revealing the first prime minister’s anxieties as the newly born country headed to war against invading Arab neighbors.

The original diary has not yet been located, the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute and the Ben-Gurion Archive said, as they revealed the image from the journal.

“At 4 p.m., Jewish independence was declared and the state was founded. Its fate is in the hands of the security forces,” he wrote.

He described the difficult situation on the ground as the armies of the Arab League invaded: “Harsh news about armored columns of the Legion… they bombed Tel Aviv last night.”

“Almost all [general] staff members opposed my view to attack with greater force and more stubborn energy to conquer the areas around the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway… I feel that they missed and are missing the conquest that will determine the fate of Jerusalem — and perhaps the fate of the entire campaign.”

In an earlier entry, he wrote, “We approved the text of the Declaration of Independence. Independence declared at 4 p.m. Across the land, there is joy and profound happiness, and again I mourn among the joyful, as on November 29” — the date of the 1947 UN General Assembly decision approving the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Ben-Gurion appeared to be referencing his fear that the war could lead to disaster.

The copy of the diary was found in the Ben-Gurion Archives as part of a collaboration between the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute and the Ben-Gurion Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Eitan Donitz, CEO of the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute, called the findings “history incarnate.”

“While the country celebrates, he is dealing with the question of the existence of the young state and is very anxious about it,” he said.

Donitz said the diary reveals the dilemmas faced by the first prime minister, the “deep responsibility Ben-Gurion felt, and the leadership that chose not to celebrate, but to fight for the existence of the state.”

How ANZAC forces helped shape Jerusalem's fate, paved way for Israel’s independence

Friday April 25, was “ANZAC Day,” without which it is unlikely there would be an Independence Day to celebrate in Israel the following week.

During the First World War, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) helped fight alongside Britain against the Turks, who were allied with the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria in what was known as the Quadruple Alliance, in the battle that ultimately led to Jerusalem.

They later fought with the Brits again in the Second World War against the Nazis, playing a crucial part in the future existence of the Jewish state.

It was on April 25, 1915, that Australian and New Zealand troops first arrived in the Middle East, together with British troops at Gallipoli, Turkey. The ensuing eight-month campaign led to over 56,000 allied deaths, including over 8,700 from Australia and 2,720 from New Zealand, according to Australian government statistics.

They fought valiantly, but were not able to overcome the Turks in Gallipoli. However, that was just the beginning of their heroic battles. ANZAC soldiers fought battles not only in Turkey, but also in Egypt, and what is now Israel.

On Oct. 31, 1917, the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade famously charged and conquered the Ottoman forces who had fortified the city of Beersheva, changing history forever. It was the last such charge on horseback, and against all odds, they prevailed, opening the way to Jerusalem and to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire that had ruled for 400 years.

The British, who had troops stationed in Egypt, had tried twice to attack the Turks at Gaza and so open the way into Israel. After two failed attempts, a new general was appointed – General Allenby.

He decided to trick the Turks into thinking that another attack was coming from the west. After being in the desert with no water for more than two days, the men and their horses were getting desperate. Their only chance was to reach the wells at Beersheva, which scouts had identified as having an unlimited water supply, but they managed to convince the Turks that they had decided an attack on Beersheva was impossible. And it almost was.

After receiving orders from Allenby, Australian General Chauvel ordered that Beersheva must be taken before nightfall if the wells were to be secured. Their daring battle plan was to charge on their unarmed horses over five kilometers of land, straight at the Turkish troops and their cannons.

Ancient stone capital with menorah to go on display ahead of Independence Day

A rare 1,500 year-old stone capital decorated with a menorah, that was discovered just outside of Jerusalem, will go on display this week ahead of Independence Day, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced on Tuesday.

The limestone capital, which is decorated with an eight-branched menorah, was unearthed five years ago during the construction of a new bridge at the entrance to Jerusalem in the bedroom community of Motza, the state-run archaeological body said.

Israeli researchers believe the capital stood atop a pillar in a Roman-period building or street.

“The stone capital from the Jerusalem hills, decorated with the eight-branched menorah design, is unique, and a rare kind of discovery,” said Yuval Baruch, deputy director of archaeology at the IAA.

He noted that a few decades after the Second Temple’s destruction, the menorah became the distinct symbol of the Jewish people, both in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel.

However, historical texts supported by archaeological research indicate that the Jewish settlement in Judea—and especially in the Jerusalem hills, suffered greatly as a result of the failed Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century C.E., to the point of being considered eliminated.

“Based on this reality, it is reasonable to surmise that this capital [stone] was brought from a destroyed site elsewhere merely to serve as useful building material here,” said Baruch.

04/29 Links Pt1: The Death of Expertise; The Top 7 Lies About Israel and the IDF Pertaining to Gaza; Get the U.S. Out of UNESCO; When the chips are down, the Kneecaps can’t stand up

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Death of Expertise

The New Yorker has a fascinating essay on the relevance of Israel’s war against Hamas to U.S. military planners who have the unfortunate task of preparing for a possible hot war with China. Seen through the eyes of a former judge advocate general—a U.S. military figure who knows the realities of war and the laws that govern it, amounting to a unique level of expertise—Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza looks very different from the picture painted by NGOs and the media.

“At the Rafah border, I.D.F. intelligence officers showed [former U.S. JAG Geoffrey] Corn surveillance videos that he says demonstrated Hamas activity in the area before the I.D.F. offensive commenced,” Colin Jones writes. “The suggestion was that the destruction he saw was not the product of an indiscriminate assault and that the laws of war had been upheld. Hamas’s use of civilian buildings transformed those sites into ‘military objectives,’ Corn said. The civilians killed were not targets but ‘incidental deaths.’”

Corn and Jones go on to discuss the fact that the level of physical damage doesn’t tell you whether war crimes were committed. This is both important and self-evident. To wit: If one house in Gaza City were reduced to rubble, no one would assume that meant the law had been broken; anyone would say “tell me what happened there” before reaching a conclusion. If Hamas had been operating from that house, it would explain the destruction.

Now what if Hamas was operating from 10 houses in that Gaza City neighborhood? Does any one of those 10 houses become untouchable simply because there are a lot of houses with Hamas fighters?

Legal action does not become a war crime simply because that legal action happens repeatedly. Deep down, Israel’s critics simply have to know this. Thus, not only are war-crime accusations often wrong; they are delivered in bad faith.

That is the first lesson of the New Yorker story: that it is actually Israel’s critics who tend not to care about international law. They are not seeking to clearly apply international humanitarian law to the wars they observe. Israel has repeatedly found ways to defeat its enemies legally, and this frustrates them. They want Israel to restrict its engagement beyond what international law requires. The reason is that they want Israel to lose the war. That does not make it illegal for Israel to win the war.

John Spencer & Arsen Ostrovsky: The Top 7 Lies About Israel and the IDF Pertaining to Gaza

Israel today is not only fighting a terrorist regime that has weaponized civilians — it is fighting a second war: a war against lies. From false claims of genocide, to manipulated casualty statistics, to the cynical misuse of humanitarian law, nearly every accusation leveled against Israel and the IDF distorts reality, ignores law, and inverts morality.

In Gaza, Israel faces a battlefield unlike any other in modern history: a dense, fortified, civilian-dominated urban environment deliberately and methodically turned into a human shield by Hamas. Yet despite these impossible conditions, Israel has conducted its campaign with a level of restraint, precision, and adherence to law that is virtually unmatched in modern warfare. It has taken more precautions to protect civilians than the law requires — often at great operational risk to its own forces.

But facts alone are not enough. They must be defended — clearly, forcefully, and repeatedly — against the tide of weaponized disinformation. The IDF's conduct is not a violation of international law; it is a defense of it. It is not a stain on the laws of war; it is a case study in how democratic nations must fight even when facing enemies who recognize no law, no morality, and no distinction between civilians and soldiers.

In a just world, Israel’s efforts would be recognized for what they are: the very definition of lawful and moral warfare. In the world we live in, however, defending these truths is not optional — it is essential.

OPINION: I’m a non-Jewish soldier and I stand full square with Israel

As a non-Jewish career Australian Army officer, I never imagined that my service to country would one day lead me to the frontlines of an entirely different battle -a fight against the world’s oldest hatred. But the atrocities of October 7, 2023, and the chants of “Gas the Jews” outside the Sydney Opera House two days later compelled me to act.

It was morning in Israel -just after dawn – when Hamas launched its barbaric assault. At the same moment, it was Saturday evening in Australia. My 18-year-old daughter was at a music festival in Sydney, dancing in celebration of life. I had resided in Israel for more than two years. Close friends were personally involved. One dear friend still has a loved one held hostage in Gaza. It could have been my daughter. I could not be a bystander.

Planning began on what is now The 2023 Foundation, a nascent global charity dedicated to combatting antisemitism. Inspired by the Fulbright model of cultural exchange, our approach is rooted in first-hand experience. We identify, invite, and immerse non-Jewish influencers in Israeli society. We aim to build enduring cross-cultural understanding. But unlike Fulbright, we focus specifically on building connection to Israel for non-Jews in the silent majority who rarely engage with the issue.

Our immersive experiences in Israel provide a powerful hook – but the deeper purpose is to build empathy, understanding, and connection as the gateway to something much greater: our alumni programme. This long-term initiative is designed to cultivate a growing network of non-Jewish advocates who stand up for Jewish people and the values we share. Not because I want them to, but because they feel compelled to – after seeing Israel in all its perfect imperfections and realising they themselves have been victims of Orwellian levels of gaslighting and projection.

Human-Rights Bodies Corrupt Human Rights To Vilify Israel

While there are numerous, well-funded international organizations nominally dedicated to protecting human rights, don’t expect them to encourage the Trump administration to punish Iran for mistreating its subjects. They’re too busy condemning Israel for imagined crimes. Peter Berkowitz writes:

The Declaration of Independence holds that it is self-evidently true that human beings are endowed with “unalienable rights”—the 18th-century term for human rights. The Constitution aims to secure them. Much of the nation’s history revolves around the struggle to ensure that all Americans enjoy the rights that are theirs in virtue of their humanity.

In the 21st century, powerful human-rights organizations have played into dictators’ hands by politicizing human rights. While persisting in affirming human rights’ universality, these organizations equate them with a tendentious version of the progressive agenda. They wield human rights as a propaganda tool, inflating the claims of favored groups and disparaging the claims of the disfavored.

And no group is as disfavored as the citizens of Israel. In the view of the self-appointed guardians of human rights, Berkowitz writes,

Israel’s exercise of the most elemental of human rights, the right of self-defense, violates its enemies’ rights to perpetrate atrocities against the Jewish state.

In 2024, the UK chapter of Amnesty International—the world’s largest human-rights organization—went out of its way to promote a Palestinian demonstration in London commemorating the one-year anniversary of Iran-backed Hamas’s slaughter of some 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and kidnapping of approximately 250, mostly civilians. On the occasion, Amnesty International featured on its website a pro-Palestinian video indicating that Israel’s establishment in 1948 justified Hamas’s massacre in 2023.

At a 2022 Washington luncheon, Amnesty International USA’s director, Paul O’Brien, bluntly stated, “We are opposed to the idea—and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate—that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people.”

Israel is teaching the world how to wage war responsibly and ethically

At Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, John Spencer and Liam Collins describe how Israel has helped the West in how to wage and win wars both in the past and in the present.

I did not know this:

After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the US Department of Defense undertook an extensive evaluation of the conflict, commissioning no fewer than 37 separate studies, including a still-classified seven-volume report on weapon systems. American military personnel walked the battlefields alongside Israeli commanders who had fought there, analyzing the strategies and technologies that enabled Israel to prevail against overwhelming odds. The lessons drawn from Israel’s battlefield successes would profoundly shape US military doctrine, directly influencing the development of AirLand Battle doctrine and the “Big Five” weapon systems—Apache helicopters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot missile systems, Abrams tanks, and Black Hawk helicopters. These advancements, combined with new operational approaches emphasizing speed, firepower, and joint-force coordination, would redefine modern warfare.

And it is happening today too. The article describes recent innovations that are being studied, copied and used in the West.

The Israeli Emergency Bandage—a simple hemorrhage control dressing developed by an Israeli military medic—has saved countless American lives.
Israel's armored D9 bulldozers have contributed a great deal to protecting soldiers in urban warfare.
The Trophy Active Protection System (APS)helps protect tanks and armored vehicles from the RPGs that can come from any direction in an urban war zone.
The IDF’s successful use of dogs to locate tunnel shafts, detonate traps, or even engage combatants is also being adopted by the US Army.
Israeli technology in detecting tunnels is being used by the US on the Mexican border to stop smuggling.
Israeli enhancements to the F-35 are being adopted by the US as well, including electronic warfare and other additions.
Iron Beam, the world’s first high-energy laser air defense system, is of great interest to Western armies.
Israel is in the forefront in using AI to enhance various weapons systems.

So while the idiot protesters pretend that Israel is wantonly killing civilians, the world's most ethical armies are learning how to use Israeli methods to fight and win wars with a minimum of collateral damage in the most challenging environments.

(h/t Irene)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

I have been working on a Jewish-based yet secular ethics framework that is time-tested, robust, and that exposes the shallowness of what passes for morality today. I identified basic axioms, sets of Jewish values and sub-values, and basic rules for handling situations where values collide.

Yesterday, I wondered if I could turn this framework into an AI-based ethical chatbot.

Today – thanks in no small part to AI itself – I can confidently say not only is such an ethical engine possible, but it is already superior to what general-purpose AIs can do today.

General-purpose AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok are astonishingly good at answering questions, including ethical ones. You can even ask them to answer according to their understanding of Jewish ethics, since they have massive databases that include the Torah, Talmud, and responsa literature. When you ask a complex, emotionally charged ethical question, you’ll get a clear, empathetic response within seconds.

There are a few serious problems with this, though.

First, we don't know exactly what their internal logic is.

Second, we don't know if they are "subconsciously" incorporating biases that reflect the worldviews of their designers – or if their databases are polluted.

Last week, for example, Grok answered a question about an obscure historic event by calling a 19th-century Arab attack on Christian civilians in Nablus an "act of resistance," because it relied heavily on a single paper that characterized it that way. That kind of distortion is unacceptable - but almost inevitable with the way chatbots are created today.

And there is a deeper flaw: AI systems are trained to be helpful and emotionally sensitive, which often means they adopt the assumptions embedded in the question without challenging them. That can make conversations feel supportive. But when a question is based on flawed premises, ideological bias, or emotionally manipulative framing, the AI’s helpfulness becomes dangerous. It can lead to answers that are not just wrong – but morally distorted.

That’s why I’ve been developing a Jewish Ethics Engine – a structured reasoning system based on Jewish moral values, but designed for secular use.

It doesn’t aim to please. It aims to think – and to make you think.

One of its key features is something most AI systems avoid: Socratic questioning. Rather than instantly validating a question and taking its assumptions as true, it pushes back:

What value are you prioritizing here – and at what cost?
Are you assuming people have no agency in this situation?
Is your understanding of justice consistent with truth?
What are you not asking?

When AIs answer without asking clarifying questions, they can easily be swayed by the biases of the questioner — and their helpfulness can end up skewing the answer toward whatever the questioner wants it to be.

The questions also make you think deeper about the question, and possibly figure out that the question you are asking is not the question you need answered. The Socratic questions also subtly help you to judge the personal situation you are in more objectively - and even charitably. You aren't just getting an answer - you are improving yourself with the discussion itself, a very Jewish goal.

Now, I’ve added an even deeper layer: dynamic context interpretation.

When someone asks a political, military, or societal question, the engine doesn’t just listen to what’s said. It scans for relevant (non-biased) background information the user may have left unstated – prior promises, institutional duties, historical trauma, economic pressures.

Then, crucially, instead of making assumptions, it asks the user whether those missing pieces should change the ethical evaluation.

In other words, it behaves like a serious chavruta partner: It notices what’s missing, challenges you to think it through, and refuses to shortcut hard moral reasoning.

Importantly, the engine is also built with humility. If it doesn't know the answer, it honestly explains the competing values — and says that an expert needs to be consulted. This is something that AI does not do at all now. I cannot count how many times an AI "forgot" what we had been discussing much earlier in a conversation and when I refer to the earlier case, it tries to bluff its way through instead of simply asking me to refresh its memory.

At the moment, the engine is built on this multi-tiered structure:

Axioms: foundational principles like truth, free will, human dignity, moral reasoning, and humility
Ordered values: life, covenant, dignity, truth, justice, and more – with strict override rules
Conflict resolution methodology: a system for resolving value clashes
Meta-rules: humility, transparency, emotional clarity, and Socratic engagement
Dynamic Context Interpreter: surfacing and clarifying unstated but important background before answering

The goal isn’t to produce “the Jewish answer.” It’s to model rigorous, principled moral reasoning – reasoning that doesn’t collapse under emotional pressure or ideological trends, using a Jewish ethical framework and moral methodology.

I ran some tests last night, and I'm continuing to test. I asked AI to find ethical cases - from old advice columns, medical issues, political issues, even science fiction - and compare the answers that the Jewish ethical engine suggests (without the Socratic method) to what the chatbot itself thinks the answer is based on its own understanding of Jewish ethics.

I am frankly astonished how well the engine works so far, just based on 12 personal ethics values, 10 political ethics values, and 3-8 sub-values under each, and pretty simple triage rules so far.

Here is its internal logic on answering a fairly everyday question:

I'm at a restaurant with a friend.
He raves about the bread rolls.
He takes them and puts them in a bag, asks the server for more, puts those away again, and again asks for more.
I am ashamed and embarrassed.
Should I say something before he puts away the third batch?
(As far as I know, he is not poor.)

Jewish ethics engine initial analysis:

Values triggered:

Kavod HaBriyot (friend’s dignity, your dignity, restaurant’s dignity)

Emet (honesty regarding restaurant’s expectations)

Lo Ta'amod / Lifnei Iver (responsibility to prevent harm or wrongdoing)

Shmirat HaLashon (ethical speech, avoiding public embarrassment)

Derech Eretz (baseline courtesy and propriety)

Ethics engine clarifying questions:

"Do you believe your friend is intentionally trying to take advantage of the restaurant, or might he simply be unaware that his behavior could be seen as inappropriate?"
(Clarifies intent: malice vs. ignorance — important for judging severity and rebuke tone.)

"Is there any chance that mentioning your concern quietly would protect both your friend's dignity and the restaurant's fairness without humiliating him?"(Tests whether gentle tochacha is realistic — balancing Kavod HaBriyot and Lo Ta'amod.)

"Would your friend likely respond badly to even a respectful suggestion, or is he someone who values honesty among friends?"
(Assesses rebuke likelihood of success — based on the rule 'mitzvah to rebuke if it will be heard, mitzvah not to if it will not.')

"If you said nothing, would you continue to feel morally uncomfortable — as if you were passively approving the behavior?"
(Checks internal impact — Lifnei Iver and personal integrity.)

Its logic:

Jewish Ethics Decision Tree Path:

Immediate life threat?

No → proceed to normal values.

Integrity/Enabling wrongdoing?

Allowing silent repeated minor theft (taking free goods improperly) can be passive enabling → caution required.

Potential major dignity damage?

Public shaming is forbidden; private rebuke required.

Tochacha conditions:

Rebuke is required when it has a chance to help without guaranteed humiliation.

Rebuke must be proportional and in a spirit of derech eretz.

Final weighing:

Speak privately and gently after second batch, to prevent escalation.

Avoid harshness, focus on friendly reminder of norms.

Bottom Line:
✅ Discreetly and respectfully say something before the third batch.
✅ Avoid public shaming.
✅ Emphasize derech eretz and protect dignity while preventing further inappropriate behavior.

In only one day, just with the set of Jewish values and rules I came up with, this engine can already rival newspaper advice columnists in the quality of its answers.

It still needs tweaking. I haven't yet worked on priority and triage for political values. I'm sure I'll find more blind spots as I go through the stress testing.

But even now, it already includes ethical features no other AI I am aware of is doing - and that, I believe, is exactly what the world needs:

AI that reasons ethically.
AI whose ethics are transparent.
And AI that makes you a better thinker, not just a happier customer.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Sorry, @Mondoweiss, but the "new antisemitism" is exactly the same as the old

An article in Mondoweiss makes the claim that the idea of the "new antisemitism" was a ploy by Zionists to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism:

This article briefly examines the pre-history of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and how a combination of domestic and international challenges to Zionism in the late 1960s and early 1970s led to a concerted effort to redefine antisemitism in a way that prioritized the defense of Israel while identifying the political Left as the primary antagonist. It positions the IHRA definition not as a grassroots response to antisemitism, but rather as a coordinated, institutional form of counterinsurgency aimed at snuffing out transnational solidarity with Palestine.

...Where, how, and why does this shifting definition of antisemitism originate? While attempts to establish Zionism as a core component of Jewish identity have a long history, it was during the late 1960s and early 1970s that we first see a sustained campaign by Zionist intellectuals and activists to codify this link through an expanded definition of antisemitism focused specifically on Israel and combatting criticism from the Left. In 1969, Austrian intellectual Jean Améry published an essay entitled “Virtuous Antisemitism” in which he argued that “today’s anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism and the antisemitism of yesteryear find themselves in absolute agreement. . . . What certainly is new, however, is that this form of antisemitism, now dressed up as anti-Israelism, is located firmly on the left.” By the early 1970s, American Zionist organizations and even elements of the Israeli government had begun to embrace this revised definition. In 1971, David A. Rose, chair of the ADL’s national executive committee, warned that “the anti-Israel hate campaign by these extremists not only poses a serious threat to Israel’s survival, but is, in its broadest sense, anti-Jewish.”7 The following year, at a gathering sponsored by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban identified this phenomenon as the “new anti-Semitism” aimed at Israel, one specifically associated with “the rise of the new left.” Staking a claim that would define the shape of Zionist efforts to silence criticism of Israel for the next 50 years, Eban asserted that “the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism.”

Time to go down memory lane.

Did the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism arise only in the late 1960s? Not at all. Before that, everyone knew that anti-Zionism was a form of antisemitism.

For example, the Westralian Judean, Dec 01, 1953:

However, the main protagonists who conflated anti-Zionism and antisemitism were the countries behind the Iron Curtain. The Communist far-left always were antisemitic - and they, along with the Arabs they were advising, were the first ones to try to hide their antisemitism behind "anti-Zionism."

From the Oakland Tribune, Jan 25, 1959:

Do we really have to convince people that the Soviets had been virulently antisemitic?

It is true that while the Communists were antisemitic throughout the 20th century, the Left in the West was not generally antisemitic, nor was it anti-Israel, before the Six Day War. Mondoweiss doesn't want you to know that so it whitewashes that part of history and begins it conveniently to 1969.

This August 23, 1967 article by syndicated columnist John Chamberlain explains the sudden change perfectly:

Suddenly, the Left Turns Anti-Semitic
By JOHN CHAMBERLAIN
King Features Columnist
NEW YORK — It does beat all. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee has been around for a long time. Before the advent of Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown and the rest of the "black power" boys, it never had it in for Jews. Indeed, it gladly accepted the help of such sensitive young Jewish people as Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who were murdered in Mississippi on a SNCC mission.

That was just the day before yesterday, as time runs in our benighted age. Today's SNCC has gone anti-Semitic. Nineteen years after the founding of Israel, it has chosen to denounce those "famous European Jews, the Rothschilds," for "conspiracy with the British to create the 'state of Israel.'" Query: if SNCC was truly perturbed about the 1948 Israeli-Arab confrontation, why didn't it say so long ago?

Curiously — or maybe it is not so curious — the explosion of SNCC's new anti-Jewish racism was timed to the very week to coincide with the eruption of an openly virulent anti-Semitism in Soviet Russia. The Soviet press is all "turned on" about alleged Israeli atrocities in the recent Mideast war. There have been anti-Jewish riots in Tashkent. And a dispatch from London tells about the murder of the rabbi of Sukhumi, a town in the Caucasus, who was hanged by his feet like Mussolini.

SNCC would naturally deny getting any "line" from Moscow, where cultural and racial anti-Semitism, long a part of the Soviet climate, has suddenly become political anti-Semitism. In a lame attempt to clarify himself, Ralph Featherstone, the program head of SNCC, has tried to differentiate between Jews in general and "Jewish oppressors" in particular. But he jumps right back to a blanket indictment when he says "it is the Jews who are doing the exploiting of black people in the ghettos. They own the little corner groceries that gouge our people... And there is a parallel between this and the oppression of Arabs by the Israelis."

Okay, if "parallels" are to be invoked, there is a "parallel" between SNCC's "line" on the Jews and Moscow's "line" on the same. There is a "parallel," too, between SNCC's and the Kremlin's newly emergent political anti-Semitism and that of Red China. There is even a further startling parallel with the arguments expressed by the National States Rights party, a white supremacist organization which is now pro-Arab as well as anti-Semitic.

...
This column doesn't believe in secret conspiracies under the bed. But there is obviously an "open conspiracy," to use H. G. Wells's old phrase, among many Leftists today to gang up on the Jews. The Nazi practice turns out to be the Communist practice. This is hardly surprising when you consider the 50 members of the Communist East German parliament, as of the most recent available count made by the foreign editor of the Jewish Chronicle in England, were once members of the Nazi party. Communists will do anything to gain their ends, and what's a little genocide among Commie friends? As for SNCC, we can take the word of its Ralph Featherstone that it isn't following a "Soviet line." But Featherstone can't say that his organization isn't running a "parallel" course on the Jews to that of both Moscow and Peking.

The "new antisemitism" is the Western Left choosing to side with the Arabs in concert with the Soviets' framing of Israel as the aggressor in 1967. As you can see from their quotes in 1967, they had not quite gotten the hang of separating Israel from Jews.

It isn't the Jews who conflated Leftist anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It was the Leftists themselves.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/28 Links Pt2: Oct. 7 was the Kristallnacht moment of our time; Boycotts, Bus Bombs, and Blind Spots: The Truth About BDS; Canada failed the Jews, election is opportunity for change

From Ian:

The Price

How a Muslim National Guardsman, a pastor’s daughter and a shomer Shabbat Jew joined together in a fantasy of redeeming inner hurts and perceived global wrongs through symbolic violence against Pittsburgh’s Jewish community—and building bombs.

The line between fantasy and self-actualization is inherently thin and is often difficult to spot within this or any other set of facts. For instance, the criminal charges are careful not to make any overt reference to any specific plan on Lubit, Hamad, or Collins’s part to bomb anyone or anything, and prosecutors have not tried to establish any operational link between the defendants and any militant group. Nevertheless, in their search of Hamad’s devices last fall, FBI agents found an image of a man who is very likely Hamad posing in a black sweater and mask and a green Hamas headband, gripping a combination American-Israeli lawn flag while holding up an index finger in likely reference to the Tawhid salute, an assertion of the oneness of God associated with a range of violent Islamist movements.

“Imagine the terror they saw if they had cams,” Hamad told a group text, in reference to the stolen banner. “Hamas operative ripping off their flags in white suburbia.” In another photo, which appeared in the April filing, Hamad’s eyes peer out from between a balaclava and a green Hamas headband—he’s in the passenger seat of a car in broad daylight, his seatbelt dutifully buckled over a fake blue Gucci t-shirt.

Behavior like this quickly reaches a point where the intent of the individual in question, which may be ironic or playacting or dead serious, doesn’t explain very much and may even be unknowable to the person. “Hamas operative” could be Hamad’s aspiration or fantasy or a description of his physical appearance or an expression of guilt at fighting the enemy in Squirrel Hill rather than in Gaza City. It is legal to obtain Indian Black powder and potassium perchlorate, both of which can be bought online for about $20 a pound.

In the courtroom, Lubit and Hamad appeared smaller and more delusional as the sunless afternoon dragged on. They had committed boneheaded errors at every turn while creating a rich archival record of their potential crimes. “How far you from Walmart,” Lubit texted at roughly the moment Hamad purchased what the complaint described as “one can of Rust-Oleum ‘Strawberry Fields’ red, high-gloss spray paint,” an object that investigators were able to identify down to the serial number even before they found it in Hamad’s bedroom at his parents’ house. Lubit reverted her phone to factory settings on July 7, erasing its contents the day the FBI executed its search warrant on Hamad. But her lack of care won out. “Is the resistance chat still around?” Lubit texted activist friends of hers on September 11, the day before a judge authorized a search of her apartment.

In court, the two were in a shock so deep that it often seemed as if they were watching someone else’s criminal hearing and not their own. Hamad often wedged his thumbs together, and he rubbed his eyes when Derbish described the one explosive test-run then known to prosecutors. At one point Lubit seemed in danger of sobbing. She then swallowed any oncoming tears and settled back into sphinxlike impassiveness, while avoiding eye contact with Hamad.

A federal courtroom is an environment of merciless linguistic and emotional economy. It is objectively funny to hear an FBI agent say the words “fuck Zionits,” as Derbish had to in the course of reading other people’s text messages, but in court the humor and sadness is served flavorless and cold. Derbish elucidated Lubit and Hamad’s most private struggles in public, in the robotic legalese of a highly competent law enforcement agent.

In the run-up to the vandalism of the Chabad house on July 29, Lubit was a sympathetic listener to what Hamad said were his deepest hopes and dreams. “My ultimate goal in life is Shaheed,” Hamad texted Lubit, words that Derbish read out in court. A martyr in an Islamic holy war is called a “shaheed.” The agent continued through Hamad’s messages to Lubit: “Everything else doesn’t matter nearly as much … My goal sets are very different from the average person.” Hamad told Lubit, “I don’t see myself living long. … It’s really hard to think long term.”

In a July 4 Instagram story included in the April 8 prosecution filing, Hamad posted an image of a Hamas funeral, with masked fighters crowded around a casket draped in a green flag. “Ya Allah, I can’t take this anymore, I want to fight and die,” Hamad wrote over the image. “I don’t want to live here anymore. I’m jealous of these fighters, they got to fight in the way of Allah and have achieved the highest level of Jannah,” the Islamic concept of paradise. “I want to die fighting,” he’d texted Micaiah Collins on that same Independence Day, according to the April 22 superseding indictment. “I want it now so bad!!”

Israeli antisemitism envoy: Oct. 7 was the Kristallnacht moment of our time

Oct. 7, 2023, was the Kristallnacht moment of our time, Michal Cotler-Wunsh, Israel’s envoy for combating antisemitism, said on Sunday at the JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem, warning that the world’s failure to respond mirrors the blindness to rising threats in the 1930s.

“Antisemitism is not the problem of the Jews, but of the antisemites and the places that allow them to infect and spread lethal hate,” Cotler-Wunsh said. “It is not a Jewish issue, but an issue for all who cherish our shared life and liberties. The sirens are blaring.”

She expressed deep concern over the normalization of antisemitism, particularly during the current period between Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day and Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars and Victims of Terrorism, noting that atrocities, war crimes and genocide are always preceded by a gradual normalization of lethal hate.

Following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the subsequent war in Gaza, antisemitism has surged across the Western world. The Anti-Defamation League reported a record 9,354 antisemitic incidents of assault, harassment and vandalism in 2024—the fourth consecutive year of increases.

“Antisemitism mutates. New resilient strains, like anti-Zionism, deny Israel’s right to exist, demonize the Jewish people, and have become so mainstream that they have unleashed all forms of antisemitism,” Cotler-Wunsh said.

She warned that antisemitism now festers in international institutions, human rights organizations, universities and online platforms—spaces originally intended to uphold “Never again” values.

“Silence, denial, justification and outright attacks on Jews and Zionists—you need not be Jewish to be targeted, just believe in Israel’s right to exist,” Cotler-Wunsh said. “The tsunami of antisemitism sweeping the world, including the United States, is proof of the normalization of this ever-lethal, ever-mutating hatred.”

Boycotts, Bus Bombs, and Blind Spots: The Truth About BDS

The Real Victims: Students and Academic Integrity
The most immediate harm from BDS campaigns isn't felt thousands of miles away in Tel Aviv or Ramallah, but locally, by Jewish students forced into defensive postures, made to feel alienated, isolated, and targeted on their own campuses. Universities, once bastions of free thought and academic rigor, now find themselves reduced to ideological battlegrounds, where nuance is discarded in favor of dogmatic zeal.

Moreover, these resolutions do nothing tangible to improve Palestinian lives. Not one Palestinian has benefited economically, politically, or socially from BDS campaigns on American campuses. Instead, Palestinian aspirations are cynically weaponized for ideological ends, ignoring the complexities of the conflict and damaging opportunities for genuine dialogue, coexistence, and peace.

Confronting Reality: Challenging BDS Honestly
We may disagree profoundly on the plight and the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians, but this strategy does their cause no good. Holding Israel accountable through discriminatory campaigns that ignore broader global injustices and realities is neither ethical nor effective. BDS thrives not on truth or justice, but on simplistic narratives, selective outrage, and emotional manipulation.

Jewish communities, university administrators, and ethical observers must recognize BDS campaigns for what they are: attacks not just on Israeli policies, but fundamentally on the legitimacy of Jewish identity and Jewish presence in academia.

In standing against BDS and its manifestations, we affirm not only Jewish dignity but the universal values of fairness, honesty, and genuine dialogue—values truly deserving of our commitment and defense. BDS must be stopped at its roots before it becomes the disease it truly is, undermining the integrity and values of academic institutions and the broader society. So, what do we do next?

We must actively educate and engage campus administrators, student leaders, faculty, and the broader community about the true nature and harmful impacts of BDS. Vigilance, thoughtful dialogue, and clear policy enforcement are essential. By promoting transparency and informed discussions, we can prevent misinformation and extremism from taking root. Above all, we must continue to build strong, principled coalitions across diverse communities, reaffirming our collective commitment to coexistence, academic freedom, and genuine human rights advocacy.

04/28 Links Pt1: Herzog: The 2005 disengagement from Gaza was a mistake; Guterres ‘personally accountable’ for UNRWA crimes; The Muslim Brotherhood, Like Nazism And Fascism, Must Be Defeated

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Terrible Ideas Have Terrible Consequences

On April 22, Islamic terrorists stormed across a tourist spot in Jammu and Kashmir and killed 26 people, often confirming the victims were Hindu before executing them in front of their families.

The reaction from a range of anti-Semitic influencers and campus groups was instantaneous: They took a brief holiday from Jew-baiting to justify the Muslim slaughter of Hindus under the blood-soaked catchall of decolonization. Some blamed Israel directly, in classic Protocols of the Elders of Zion fashion, others reveled in the fact that both Jews and Indians have shed blood at the hands of Islamists. A chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the more extreme and violent campus groups, attacked Indian students for objecting to the massacre of Hindus.

In general, as some commentators noticed, the pattern followed Oct. 7 step-for-step, as left-leaning activists celebrated the mass murder of innocents and then immediately began protesting against the victims.

Welcome to the world made and sustained in no small part by Western academia.

Oct. 7 exposed the broad support for Hamas’s genocidal mission among university administrations, students and faculty. The intellectual scaffolding for this bloodlust was the barbaric pseudo-discipline of decolonization/anticolonialism, an extremely violent blood-and-soil nationalism cobbled together into a circus freakshow of discredited grifters.

Decolonization or settler-colonial “studies” is the political arm of a global death cult, with universities providing some connective tissue to otherwise disparate terrorist gangs.

“For the field called settler colonial studies,” Adam Kirsch notes in On Settler Colonialism, “the goal of learning about settlement in America and elsewhere is not to understand it, as a historian would, but to combat it.” In this view of the world, there is no such thing as an immigrant, strictly speaking: “Because settlement is not a past event but a present structure, every inhabitant of a settler colonial society who is not descended from the original indigenous population is, and always will be, a settler.” Therefore, “Settler, in this view, is not a description of the actions of an individual but a heritable identity.”

The result is a firm belief that lots and lots and lots of people must be murdered. That’s how you get the shocking results of a poll conducted after Oct. 7, which found that of those aged 18-24, 66 percent said Hamas’s slaughter could be characterized as “genocidal in nature” but 60 percent said it “can be justified by the grievances of the Palestinians.” As Kirsch notes, this means “more than half of college-age Americans seem to believe that it would be justified for Palestinians to commit a genocide of Israeli Jews.”

MEMRI: Following Pahalgam Terror Attack In Jammu & Kashmir, India, The International Community Must Take Concrete Action To Rein In The Rogue Behavior Of Pakistan

In the afternoon of April 22, 2025, a heinous jihadi terror attack took place in Pahalgam, a popular tourist destination in Jammu & Kashmir, India. The terrorists singled out their victims based on their religion. The main target were Hindu men. In certain cases, the terrorists even stripped some of their victims to ascertain their religion. The victims were also asked to recite the Kalma, or Shahada, which is the foundational declaration of faith in Islam.

In the attack, at least 26 people were killed and many were wounded. The armed terrorists executed their victims at gun point. The male victims were executed in front of their families, in many cases newlyweds. The attack was claimed by the Resistance Force (TRF), which is a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based Salafi-jihadi organization and UN-proscribed terror outfit. The TRF and its alias Peoples' Anti-Fascist Front (PAFF) are acknowledged as a rebranding of the LeT to evade the sanctions imposed on the latter. This has been standard practice by the Pakistani establishment for plausible deniability for its involvement with terror entities and to safeguard them from international scrutiny and sanctions.

The Pahalgam attack is perhaps the biggest terror attack in Kashmir since August 5, 2019, when India quashed Article 370 of the Constitution, which accorded greater autonomy to Jammu & Kashmir.[1] After India abrogated Article 370, there was a concerted effort by Pakistan to rebrand the established terror outfits such as LeT and Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM; a Pakistan-based Deobandi Islamist militant group) in order to present these new outfits as indigenous resistance groups active in India.

Meanwhile, tensions are growing between India and Pakistan. The Indian media outlet The Hindu reported that Pakistani troops are continuing to violate the ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) by resorting to unprovoked firing in Jammu & Kashmir's Poonch and Kupwara districts.[2] As tensions flare, Pakistan Minister Hanif Abbasi threatened India with nuclear retaliation, stating that Pakistan's 130 nuclear warheads have been kept "only for India."[3]

MEMRI: Senior Saudi Journalist Mamdouh Al-Muhaini: The Muslim Brotherhood, Like Nazism And Fascism, Must Be Defeated On The Security, Cultural And Economic Fronts

In an April 25, 2025 article, Saudi media figure Mamdouh Al-Muhaini, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath television channels, welcomed Jordan's decision to ban the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement, which, he said, has for years incited against the Jordanian state and stirred unrest within the kingdom. He noted, however, that the MB is an idea, and that a legal ban is never enough to eliminate an idea that has become deeply entrenched in society.

Al-Muhaini argued that there are several reasons that the MB and its extremist ideology have persisted and flourished for decades. First, because regimes failed to confront it, using it instead to gain religious legitimacy and to mobilize their people against their rivals. Second, because regime corruption and economic mismanagement, leading to poverty, allowed the MB to present itself as an alternative and gain considerable support among the people. And third, because the regimes failed to fight the MB intellectually, but instead allowed it to dominate the education system and the religious establishment and turn them into a tool for spreading extremism and hate within society.

However, said Al-Muhaini, extremist ideas can be effectively fought and eliminated – by defeating them on all fronts at once: security, cultural, and economic. This is evident from the example of Nazism in Germany after World War II. The victors didn’t just defeat the Nazis militarily and ban their ideology, but also presented a successful economic and cultural alternative that rendered Nazism obsolete. This, he argued, "is exactly what must happen with the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, which has lasted far longer than it should have."

The following is the English version of his article as published on the Al-Arabiya website.[1]
"The Jordanian government had long shown patience and tolerance toward the Muslim Brotherhood, giving it ample time. Since October 7, 2023, there has been a continuous [Muslim Brotherhood] campaign of incitement [against the Jordanian state, which involved] questioning its legitimacy, attacking its symbols, and stirring unrest to push society toward turning against the state. So, it’s no surprise that extremist groups have intensely targeted Jordan for years – both Sunni and Shia Islamist groups – trying to turn it into another chaotic arena for weapons smuggling, clandestine cells, and logistical support.

"Jordan is closing an important chapter in its history. But the question remains: Will the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood die after the ban? The Muslim Brotherhood is not just a political organization – it’s also an ideological and doctrinal one. Defenders of extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood argue that such ideas don’t die and instead are passed down from generation to generation. And they’re not entirely wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood is a concept that began nearly 100 years ago when Hassan al-Banna founded it in 1928, and it has persisted until today. Why? For several reasons.