Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 06, 2025

06/06 Links Pt2: The West turns against Israel; Liberals turn killers, racists, and haters into martyrs; In the Wake of War, a Wave of Conversions to Judaism in the IDF

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The West turns against Israel

This week, there have been three successive days of claims that the Israel Defense Forces have been “massacring” Gazans queuing for food provided by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the new aid distribution center operated by America and backed by Israel.

Those claims, which have been debunked by the available evidence, are effectively blood libels against Israel. It’s Hamas that has been killing Gazan civilians and trying to stop them from receiving this food aid, and Hamas operatives who have been killed by Israel as a result.

Hamas is desperate to stop Gazans from obtaining this newly organized aid because it has the capacity to destroy its power over the population. Accordingly, it’s been provoking gun battles with the IDF and then claiming these are massacres by Israel of those queuing for food.

This has been uncritically regurgitated by Western media outlets, which have been channeling such Hamas propaganda ever since the atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

As a result, countless people now believe that Israel is wantonly killing Gazan civilians, starving Gazan babies and even committing genocide. All these allegations are the opposite of the truth and defy reason itself.

The outcome is an atmosphere of hysteria and incitement in which the cause of “Free Palestine” and “End Zionists”—the slogans shouted by an Islamist who last Sunday tried to burn Jews alive when he firebombed a weekly march in Boulder, Colo., supporting the Israeli hostages—has led directly to murderous attacks against Jews in America.

We’ve never seen anything like this onslaught before. And this lunacy is now gripping various Western governments formerly considered to be Israel’s allies.

The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, shocked Germany’s Jewish community this week when he reversed the country’s previously near-sacred support for Israel by denouncing its actions in Gaza.

“What the Israeli army is now doing in the Gaza Strip,” he said, “I must honestly say, I no longer understand what the goal is.” The suffering inflicted on civilians, he said, was so severe that it “can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism.”

Why is it so difficult for Merz to understand that the goal remains to destroy Hamas and free the hostages? The Gazans themselves are blaming Hamas for causing their suffering by stealing their food and inflicting destruction on their homes by continuing the war. Why does Merz blame Israel instead? And why does he revoltingly imply that the Israelis’ real agenda is to cause civilian suffering?

This week, the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas.

Dorothy Shea, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told the council that America wouldn’t support any measure that failed to condemn Hamas and didn’t call for it to disarm and leave Gaza. The resolution, she said, would undermine diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire and would embolden Hamas.

When fact becomes fiction: How Israeli victims became aggressors as antisemitism rises

Last month saw the release, at a press conference held in Berlin, of the first annual report of “The J7 Large Communities’ Task Force against Antisemitism.”

Countries specifically referred to were Australia, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The report revealed that Australia recorded a 317% rise in antisemitic incidents in 2024. Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, stated, “This report presents the most comprehensive analysis.”

He went on to say, “When antisemitism is not met with sufficient force, it can escalate into violence.”

Canada reported that since Oct. 7, the Jewish community has faced an unprecedented wave of antisemitic attacks. “The challenges facing the Canadian Jewish community are immense,” said Noah Shack, interim president of Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The words of Canada’s and Australia’s representatives were reflected time and again by the other countries that formed part of this report.

What the report reveals is that antisemitism has reached an unacceptable level throughout the world. This in itself accentuates the vital necessity of having one Jewish state.

Back to the beginning: There are many Israelis, including the writer of this article, who believe it is time to negotiate an end to this war, enabling the hostages, both alive and dead, to return home.

In addition, it is looking increasingly promising that, should this war end, there are some neighboring countries that would contribute toward ensuring that Gaza is no longer run by the murderous Hamas.

In spite of the increasing challenges we Israelis are facing, we are a resilient people. Resilience is what was patently demonstrated by Israel’s Yuval Raphael at Eurovision 2025 when singing her song “New Day Will Rise.”

Raphael, who survived the Supernova massacre by hiding under dead bodies, delivered a powerful performance that led to an amazing victory for Israel, coming in second place and receiving the maximum 12 points from the public’s vote in Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Among these countries are those whose stance on Israel is totally negative. The public vote was in stark contrast to that of the official Jury vote, where Israel received only 60 points, tying with Ukraine for 14th place.

While currently we Jews, whether here or there, find little reason to rejoice, let us see Eurovision 2025 as a reflection of a reality that not “everyone” is against us. Raphael’s success made us smile, and it mirrors a resilience that marks what Israel and its people are about.

Am Yisrael chai.

24-country survey: Support for Israel strongest in Kenya and Nigeria, lowest in Turkey

International views of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are largely negative, especially on the political left and with the young, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

The Pew Research Center surveyed adults in 24 countries about their views of Israel and Netanyahu, and reported on how those views have changed over time.

In 20 of the countries, at least half of the respondents had a negative view of Israel, led by Turkey, with 93%, followed by Indonesia, 80%, Japan, 79%, the Netherlands, 78%, and Spain and Sweden, both at 75%.

The outliers were Kenya and Nigeria. In Kenya, 50% had a favorable view of Israel and 42% unfavorable, and in Nigeria, 59% were favorable and 32% unfavorable. Those countries, like Israel, have grappled with Islamic terrorism in recent years. The only other African country surveyed was South Africa, where 54% had a negative view.

In India, views were mixed, with 34% of respondents reporting a favorable view of Israel and 29% unfavorable.

In the US, 53% of respondents were opposed to Israel and 45% in favor.

The median for all countries surveyed was 62% unfavorable and 29% favorable. Some respondents did not know or refused to answer.

Younger people were more against Israel, especially in high-income countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, France and South Korea.

06/06 Links Pt1: What the Death of Four IDF Soldiers Reveals About Hamas’s Pre-Destruction of Gaza; Inside the IDF “Aid Massacre” That Never Happened

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: What the Death of Four IDF Soldiers Reveals About Hamas’s Pre-Destruction of Gaza

Is Israel’s war to topple Hamas in Gaza going unnecessarily slowly? That’s become the conventional wisdom. But the tragic deaths of four IDF soldiers in a booby-trapped building in Khan Younis challenge that assumption.

Chen Gross of a commando unit and Yoav Raver of an engineering unit were killed along with two other, as-yet-unnamed soldiers when they entered a building in Southern Gaza that was rigged with explosives, and the structure collapsed on the four of them.

After the announcement, IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin answered questions from the media. Unsurprisingly, he was asked whether it was truly necessary to put the soldiers in the kind of danger that resulted in the four deaths in Khan Younis. His response: “Sometimes there’s no choice but to investigate a tunnel route. To do this, without being harmed by an explosive, we carry out a variety of methods,” one of which is in-person inspection.

Perilous as this no doubt sounds (and is), one can easily imagine scenarios in which there really is no choice but for the soldiers to investigate a building themselves, with the gear they’ve got on them. With the large amount of cameras and remote triggers Hamas and other Gazan forces have left behind, sometimes standing around and waiting for backup or for a flyover of some sort really isn’t in the cards. Yet a prospective tunnel can’t be left unmolested either; just a week ago, IDF soldiers found a tunnel hundreds of meters long and with several exits. The troops reportedly “spotted a cell of operatives emerging from one of the shafts” and neutralized the militants. Point is, the terror tunnels aren’t hypothetical future threats; they are still active war zones whose presence puts every single soldier and civilian in the vicinity in grave danger.

The IDF isn’t doing this for fun, in other words. Its missions continue to have a clear and definable purpose and they carry inherent danger.

This also helps explain the level of physical destruction in Gaza. Rather than being indicative of some sort of pyromania on the part of the IDF, which is what the media would like you to believe, these structures must be destroyed. They cannot be lived in. They aren’t inhabitable—or even safe for people to live and work near. They are boobytrapped, rigged with explosives, and contain entrances (or exits) to tunnels from which a cell of armed terrorists will eventually emerge into daylight.

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour: There Is Actually No Solution

The Israeli and Palestinian actors remain crucial, of course, but they no longer exhaust the field. They are not the whole. In many ways, they are no longer even the main event. The conflict today exists not as a bounded dispute between two sides, but as a structural feature of a much larger system. Its persistence is not a mystery. It persists because it serves. It has become a site through which larger powers maneuver, posture, extract, legitimize, delay, and dominate. It is a feature of constant system reproduction.

Iran’s posture toward the conflict, for instance, is not reducible to ideological hostility toward Israel or support for Palestinian nationalism. Iran does not fund Hamas or Islamic Jihad out of solidarity or because Allah will pay them back in Paradise with fine concubines and gallons of halal wine. It does so because the Palestinian front offers Tehran a low-cost way to bleed Israel, destabilize the region, and harass the U.S. out of its dominant position; it uses the conflict as a mechanism to mobilize proxies, claim ideological legitimacy, etc. Qatar’s expansive media and soft power apparatus, likewise, uses the Palestinian cause to amplify its global posture, expand global media footprint, shape narratives, and leverage its role as a regional broker. Egypt treats Gaza as a pressure valve to be regulated, monetized, and instrumentalized in its relationship with Washington. Jordan and Lebanon, meanwhile, remain structurally dependent states, each fragile in its own ways—absorbing the conflict's demographic and political overflow while depending on it for foreign aid, regime legitimacy, and international attention.

None of this touches yet on the international sector: the array of UN bodies, Western NGOs, donor conferences, and legal forums that orbit the conflict like satellites. These institutions do not operate from outside the system; they are the system. Their logic is not resolution but management, not because of bad faith, but because the perpetuation of crisis sustains their budgets, their roles, their raison d’être. It is one of the most morally and professionally prestigious, well-endowed white collar economic activities for First and Third-world natives. Palestine functions here as a symbol of moral legitimacy and bureaucratic permanence, offering endless ground for reports, mandates, workshops, and concern and access to an inexhaustible pool of resources.

Nowhere is this structural depth more visible than in the domestic politics of the United States. Here, the conflict is not merely a foreign policy concern—it is a proxy for deeper ideological, identity, and factional struggles within both political parties. The Democratic Party is divided between institutional centrists and an increasingly vocal activist Left that uses Palestine as a symbolic theater for broader critiques of American power, race, and capitalism and as means to grab power from the traditional Democratic institution. The Republican Party, practically the MAGA movement, meanwhile, incorporates support for Israel as part of a broader civilizational narrative involving Western identity, national security, and anti-Woke ideology, yet they themselves are increasingly polarized against rising tides of isolationists, the anti-Israel right, and increasing antisemitism. The result is that U.S. policy on Israel-Palestine is no longer even primarily about the region—it is increasingly about America.

This is what sustains the conflict: not simply the impasse between two intolerant peoples, but the convergence of regional ambition, institutional interest, ideological theatre, and domestic maneuvering. To continue describing it as a bilateral dispute is to mistake the stage for the play. The question is not why the conflict remains unresolved. The real question is why we continue to pretend that resolution is its horizon.

Confessions of a Travel Ban Convert By Abe Greenwald

Commentary Newsletter sign up here. It is about our analysis, to the extent that we don’t really have any. As I noted in yesterday’s newsletter, 5.5 to 6 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. during the Biden presidency. More than 1.7 million of them are “gotaways” who have evaded border and immigration officials entirely. And some in the latter group are on the U.S. terrorism watchlist. One percent of 1.7 million is 17,000. The attacks of 9/11 were carried out by 19 hijackers.

Yesterday, Donald Trump put it this way: “The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas. We don’t want them.”

Unlike many in Trump’s orbit, I do want some of them—those who detest their thug regimes and love America as much as I do. But we don’t know who they are. And while I’m not xenophobic, I’m not xenophilic either. Immigration, under optimal circumstances, is a glorious windfall unique to the United States of America. But I’m not intoxicated by exotic cultures for the sake of exoticism. Under emergency circumstances, such as those that prevail today, migration flows from hostile lands is an unacceptable risk. We can be a little less welcoming for a few years.

I’m sorry to see it come to this, but I’m not sorry for supporting the vigilant restoration of Jewish safety and American national security. Israel didn’t want the war that Hamas brought it on October 7, and American Jews didn’t want the war that Hamas supporters brought them the next day. But we have to fight it, just the same.

What is it that pro-terrorist activists say when inciting anti-Semitic, anti-American violence? “Globalize the intifada.” Well, they’ve done just that with the aid of Muslim immigrants. The Trump administration has now globalized the response. And my guess is that it’s just the start.

Solomon Admits 'Futility Of Futilities' Punchier But Less Evocative Than 'Knesset Bloviation' (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Jerusalem, June 6 - The author of a profound, dark Biblical philosophical work admitted today that he made painful compromises in the composition of his signature work, chief among them a choice of wording that, while necessary to preserve readability and poetic rhythm, fails to convey the full force of uselessness that could have been carried instead by invoking people speechifying in Israel's parliament.

King Solomon, one of whose masterpieces includes the book of Ecclesiastes, with its famous refrain, "All is futility" - rendered in more archaic translations as "vanity" - lamented the necessity he felt in writing the book to sacrifice evocative depth for the sake of readability. Specifically, he pointed to the opening rhetorical salvo, havel havalim, "Futility of futilities," as an excellent, alliterative, memorable phrase that nevertheless falls short in evocative force compared to the imagery Solomon aimed to use, but "Knesset bloviations of Knesset bloviations" rolls off the tongue or quill with a distinct lack of smoothness.

"It's a shame," the king reflected. "All growth and creation in this world involve sacrifice and pain. You would know that if you studied my book, which extensively explores the phenomenon."

He then turned circumspect. "I should have expected things not to turn out perfect," he acknowledged. "Considering the focus of this book is an extended reflection on how nothing good ever lasts, and that even good things go unappreciated, so just relish the quotidian, precious little things if you want joy, however fleeting it may be, well - expecting a different outcome calls to mind someone foolish enough to keep electing corrupt narcissists to Knesset and then expressing disgust at the results."

The futility of politics gets no specific or deep treatment in Ecclesiastes, but Solomon's father David had his own documented encounter with politics complex enough for insanity to become relevant: when fleeing King Saul, David sought refuge in the Philistine city-state of Gath - when the Philistines had no affection for any Israelites, let alone the very man who had given them so much trouble in battle. David therefore drooled and wrote nonsense on the walls, prompting King Akhish to lambaste his men: "Do I lack lunatics that you bring this one to me as well?!"

"I couldn't be that explicitly sardonic in a hoity-toity philosophical work," he conceded. "Certainly not one that I composed with divine inspiration. A prophet chastising the people can get vicious and sarcastic. Not me. But I can point to a few legislators who could give the prophets a lesson or two on that kind of rhetoric."

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 persistent critiques of Jewish ethics by secular ethicists is that it is perceived as more of a rigid legal system than a true ethical system. Immanuel Kant said, "The Jewish faith was originally set up as a collection of merely statutory laws, with a political organization based on them; any moral items added to it then or later emphatically don’t belong to Judaism as such."

I've been exposing, through the lens of secularizing Jewish ethics, that the opposite is the case - Jewish ethics is far more moral, flexible, dynamic and relevant to the real world than any of the purely secular systems out there.

One of the tradition’s greatest features, however, is all but invisible to its critics: the concept of compromise. In Judaism, compromise is not a concession or weakness - it is a mitzvah, a central value, and a creative force.

There are thousands of volumes of Jewish legal codes, commentaries on the codes, and published legal rulings of the great rabbis over the centuries that refine and update the logic of halacha to accommodate new cases. But there is another aspect to what Jewish legal advisors - poskim - do, that are rarely written down.

Maimonides writes in Laws of the Sanhedrin, 22:4:

At the outset, it is a mitzvah to ask the litigants: "Do you desire a judgment or a compromise?" If they desire a compromise, a compromise is negotiated. Any court that continuously negotiates a compromise is praiseworthy. Concerning this approach, Zechariah 8:16 states: "Adjudicate a judgment of peace in your gates." Which judgment involves peace [they are normally contradictory concepts]? A compromise. Similarly, with regard to King David it is stated: "And David carried out justice and charity for his entire people." When does justice involve charity? When a compromise is made.

This is halacha - that judges, and rabbis, should seek compromise first before a final ruling. Compromises are meant to make the litigants feel that they are not losing, to avoid hard feelings, to increase the feeling of community and respect. It isn't like arbitration where the decision is imposed - if either side isn't happy with the compromise they can insist on full judgment.

These compromises aren’t codified, because they are tailored to the unique and specific circumstances of real people. They don't set legal precedent. They are customized to the individuals in their own times. Their power is found in the relationships they heal, not in the exacting logic of the decision.

An entire area of halacha - one that is considered praiseworthy and, according to many, superior to formal judgment itself - is all but unknown to the world, because it is human-centered, situational, and resistant to abstraction.

It is the spirit of compromise that makes Jewish ethics so powerful. Compromise is not a concession but a value. It is not a watering down of the law - it is the law.

To be sure, compromise had another practical benefit: the Jewish courts and rabbis during the Diaspora generally had no enforcement mechanisms, and a compromise was more likely to be followed by the litigants. If one side felt that they were being treated unfairly there was a risk that they would ignore the ruling and the result would be that a high legal bar could drive people away from the community itself.

Ethical systems also lack an enforcement mechanism. So why do so few consider the lived humanity of those being judged?

When parties are judged, who they are and their personal situations are not relevant. The rich and poor, powerful and weak, all get a chance to be judged equally.

When parties look for compromises, however, the rich side can decide to have mercy on the poorer side. Poskim can take into account how the compromise would affect the lives of each of the sides, or find creative compromises can give each side something that the other side has in abundance. Both parties can come out as winners, but only when the rabbi or judge works at finding win/win solutions that are far from strict judgment.

Secular ethics systems do not have the same positive attitude towards compromise.

Kantian ethics is famously uncompromising: principles must never be sacrificed, and compromise is a moral failing, not a virtue.

Utilitarianism accepts compromise only as a means to maximize abstract “good”—the feelings or dignity of the parties are irrelevant.

Rawlsian contractualism allows compromise to minimize unfairness, but not as a positive, creative value.

On the other hand, Jewish law says compromise is a mitzvah. That, in itself, sets Jewish ethics apart: it is a system where people are treated as real human beings, not as abstract, interchangeable objects. Human dignity is not just a value in Jewish ethics but also a value in the adjudication of Jewish ethics. The opposing parties themselves choose compromise or judgment, making them active participants in the process.

Far from being overly legalistic, Jewish ethics is the most human-centered moral system on the map.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

NYC "Dyke march" bans Zionists - because queer Muslims need a safe space to spout antisemitism

From The 19th:

Earlier this year, the Dyke March organizing committee announced that it was banning Zionists from participating in the event. Exactly what the ban means and how it should be interpreted has been hotly debated. Zionism can mean many things to different people, but in its most basic sense, it is a movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Israel.

Some have hailed the policy as a step toward providing a safer space for queer Muslims.

Of course. If you want queer Muslims to feel safe, don't say a word about Muslim bigotry against gays, about how gays are murdered in Muslim countries, about how some Muslim fathers kill their own daughters if their behavior is considered an affront to their "honor."

No, to make queer Muslims feel safe, ban "Zionists."

And how safe do queer Jews feel going to a parade where they are assumed to be guilty of "genocide" unless they prove otherwise? Oh, they are Jews, we don't have to worry about their feelings.

In fact, last year's parade theme was "Dykes Against Genocide." And, no, nobody made signs about Darfur.

So the parade will celebrate the flag that represents a nation that overwhelmingly supports murdering hundreds of Jewish civilians as "legitimate resistance" but will (probably) ban the flag that Muslims say makes them uncomfortable.

All this makes no sense if the goal is safety for all.

All of this makes perfect sense if antisemitism has become unofficial policy in "progressive" spaces.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From Egyptian newspaper Masrawy:

Al-Azhar University held its weekly meeting of the Prophet's Biography Forum yesterday, Wednesday, under the title: "Glimpses from the Prophet's Biography: The Battle of Banu Qurayza as a Model."

At the beginning of the forum, Dr. Hassan Al-Qasabi emphasized that the Battle of Banu Qurayzah is an important event in the history of Islam, which took place immediately after the Battle of the Confederates (the Trench). Whoever contemplates the events of the Battle of Banu Qurayzah will find that the characteristics that the Holy Quran wrote about the Jews, of treachery and method of dealing, have not changed to this day. Whoever contemplates the Holy Quran will discover that God informed His Prophet of the descriptions of the Jews of Medina while he was still in Mecca: “And We decreed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture, ‘You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a state of] great haughtiness.’” Just as this battle came to remove the danger that was threatening the security and stability of the Medina community from Banu Qurayzah, their inherent nature of treachery and betrayal constituted… A real danger, and these traits are not much different from what we see today, and they do not change in the Zionists, as they reflect the same traits in their dealings and positions.

Dr. Hassan Al-Qasabi urged the necessity of contemplating and studying the reasons behind the Battle of Banu Qurayzah, to draw lessons for confronting our enemies today, who are no different from Banu Qurayzah. The reasons for this battle came to confirm that the Muslims were never aggressors, as there was a covenant and pact between the Muslims and Banu Qurayzah that guaranteed peaceful coexistence and joint defense of Medina. However, Banu Qurayzah broke this covenant during the Battle of the Confederates (the Trench), and allied with Quraysh during their siege of the Muslims, which posed a serious threat to the Muslims from within, as they were planning to attack them from the rear while the Muslims were busy defending the Trench. Because of this blatant breach of the covenant and betrayal during a time of war, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) decided to besiege Banu Qurayzah immediately after the Battle of the Confederates ended. Medina did not enjoy stability until Banu Qurayzah left it.

Dr. Osama Mahdi explained that Jews continue to denigrate and slander Muslims in their books and hadiths, in a despicable attempt to distort their image. However, the truth is that this is a false claim aimed at diminishing the standing of Muslims, even as they themselves kill and slaughter innocent people and practice the most heinous forms of injustice known to humanity throughout its long history.

Incidentally, the Quranic narrative of the truce between the Jews and Mohammed that was broken by the Jews has no independent verification. Indeed, the entire battle has no other source than the Quran.

One modern scholar, Fred Donner, "concludes that this story of the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah may have been invented or embellished in order to explain a much later break between the Jewish and Muslim communities."

Other scholars bring evidence that Mohammed had good relationships with Jews throughout his lifetime and "the break between the Muslims and the Jews took place after his death, and would indicate that stories such as the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah were fabricated in order to 'back date' the break with the Jews to the prophet's own lifetime."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/05 Links Pt2: Jewish supporters of the Palestinian cause have been played; Why Are We So Mean To Jew-Baiting Ignoramuses?; Douglas Murray: Can civilisation survive?

From Ian:

Jewish supporters of the Palestinian cause have been played

Terrible as it may seem, Jabotinsky’s doctrine of the Iron Wall, which stated that the Arabs would only come to accept Israel once it had proved it could not be defeated militarily, unfortunately has more than a ring of truth. The Abraham Accords, which have survived the current conflict, would appear to bear that out.

Arab governments are exasperated with Palestinian rejectionism but mindful of the support the cause still commands among the Street. They want Israel to get Hamas out of Gaza but are understandably unhappy at the daily cost in Gazan lives.

Israelis rightly fear that a premature end to the conflict just puts the whole process back on rinse and repeat. When it comes to Ukraine, the West has no problem agreeing with Zelensky that Russia will simply use a ceasefire to restock and regroup and come back again. Yet the West seems unable to comprehend Israel’s concerns about a ceasefire that enables Hamas to regroup and try again in a few years’ time. Then we will be back to Israel periodically “mowing the lawn” and still getting it in the neck.

It may be unrealistic, but what if this round of conflict might actually be the one opportunity to finally break free of the 100-year-old cycle of death and destruction that Israel and the Palestinians have never managed to escape?

Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian and want to take us all down with them. The scenes of dead and wounded coming out of Gaza are heartbreaking. I can understand completely why people simply want this madness to stop and why, to them, pressuring Israel seems like the quickest way to get it done.

But the clamour against Israel in the media and political circles in the West won’t change the calculus of Netanyahu’s government one jot. But what it will do is bolster Hamas’ conviction that they can hold out longer than either Israeli or Western public opinion. It will also prolong both the war and Palestinian suffering. We cannot allow ourselves to be mugs in that game.

Jonathan Tobin: Can Jews admit that Trump is right about woke antisemitism?

Calls for more efforts to harden Jewish targets to make them less vulnerable to antisemitic violence are all well and good. Still, more aid to help Jewish institutions afford the security that unfortunately they need isn’t enough.

The response to this crisis must involve a variety of common-sense measures.

That should include encouraging more American Jews to possess firearms and be trained in their safe use. Such a suggestion would likely horrify many liberal Jews, who see guns as inherently dangerous, if not immoral. However, if any gathering of Jews is now seen as fair game for violent harassment, if not domestic terrorism, it requires even those who are most reluctant to go down that path to realize that relying on the authorities to deter terrorism is unrealistic and self-defense is an unfortunate necessity.

A sane response to an epidemic of anti-Jewish violence also means an honest re-evaluation of the assumptions about American life that no longer make sense. And that involves supporting rather than opposing Trump’s campaign against the left in higher education, as well as taking action against the threat that unfettered and illegal immigration is increasingly posing for Jews today.

In a culture in which partisan politics plays the role that religion used to play in most people’s lives, it is second nature for liberal Jews and Democrats to oppose anything Trump does.

Yet no matter what you think about Trump, his flawed character or his stands on other issues, the policies he has proposed to deal with antisemitism in America are essential for the defense of the values that made this country a safe haven for Jews.

Only by rolling back the woke tide in the education system and establishing a zero-tolerance policy on foreign nationals engaging in advocacy for Jew-hatred and violence—both against Israel and here in the United States—can Jews be safe. If Trump fails, the real losers won’t be Republicans. It will be Jewish citizens who are acting, as they always do, as the canaries in the coal mine, indicating the imminent danger for the entire country if this leftist war on Western civilization succeeds. Should the so-called progressives continue indoctrinating a generation of young Americans who go on to run our government and media in “pro-Palestine” propaganda that fuels antisemitism, then the security of the Jews will not be the only value that will be sacrificed on the altar of woke ideology.

Why this Holocaust survivors son thanks President Trump

That’s where President Donald Trump enters my story. A man who, by all accounts, is chaotic, narcissistic, and divisive. But he did something no one else was willing to do: he stood at the gate and said, “Not here. Not now.”

And he didn’t do it quietly - he stormed in. He didn’t bring a fire extinguisher—he brought a tsunami. And it worked.

Now, I know some will respond: “But what about the deportations?” “What about his rhetoric?” “What about the impact on academic research?”

Here is my response.

If we could travel back in time to 1933—just as the Nazi movement began to take root—what arguments made then would you still defend now? What would be different in your argument? Would you defend the right of Nazi students to march in German universities? Would you insist on protecting the “academic freedom” of professors calling Jews parasites? Would we say it’s an “affront to liberty” to block early propaganda films from being shown to the youth?

If the answer today is “freedom of speech,” would it also have been in 1933 Berlin?

I ask because I know how this story ends. My parents taught me. And while I wasn’t there, I lived it through them.

So here’s my truth: President Donald Trump is not someone I admire in the conventional sense. But in this critical moment in history—when the smoke is rising again—he acted. He broke the rhythm of history and, in doing so, may have saved my children from reliving my grandparents’ fate.

If someone like him had stood at the gates of Europe in 1938, I might have grown up baking Challah with my grandmother, smelling the sweet smell during Kiddush on Friday night. But instead, I heard stories about my grandmother and many others being baked in ovens because of hatred and antisemitism.

I may be a bit twisted inside. I wrestle with the contradictions of Trump. But I also say it plainly and without apology.

Thank you, President Trump.

To those still arguing about the freedom to teach or march for hate—I respect your intellect. But I’ve lived too close to the edge of history’s knife to take comfort in philosophy alone.

We must recognize that some fires must be drowned and not reasoned with.

Some policies are shaped by history, while others become history shaped by policy. What side of the equation do you want to be on?

Why I’m ending my donations to US Jewish groups and seeking new leadership to protect US Jews

That kind of bold clarity has been missing from our own Jewish institutions.

When synagogues are attacked and Jewish students are hunted on campuses, Jewish groups call for more education and interfaith events.

Clearly, it ain’t working.

Instead of issuing statements and obsessing over right-wing social-media posts, Jewish organizations need to step up their game:
Provide more aggressive legal support and protection for Jewish students and faculty facing harassment.
Expose and blacklist corporate and academic enablers of antisemitic speech and violence.
Prioritize Jewish safety above partisan narratives.
Publicly shame political leaders on either side who excuse or enable Jew-hatred and downplay or excuse violence.
Launch high-profile campaigns to defeat antisemitic officials at the voting booth.

Thankfully, Jews are getting some key support, even beyond Trump.

Elected officials such as Florida Reps. Randy Fine (R), Jared Moskowitz (D) and Byron Donalds (R) and New York Reps. Ritchie Torres (D) and Elise Stefanik (R) have been standing tall.

We must support leaders like these at every level: school boards, city councils and state legislatures.

And we need an organizational structure to get it all done.

This new movement must be multi-generational but led by young adults — unapologetic Jewish leaders who speak boldly and act decisively.

The old guard that does little beyond begging for respect and protection from our enemies must be replaced.

Enough is enough. We cannot raise our children in a country where their Jewish identity is a liability.

We cannot fund organizations too cautious, political and sclerotic to defend us.

We cannot ignore the warning signs history has taught us to see.

To my fellow Jews who feel abandoned: You are not alone.

We are millions strong.

But now we must organize, speak with one voice and demand more.

A new Jewish movement is coming.

It will be unflinching, unapologetic and finally willing to do what others have failed to do: protect our people.

What do you think? Post a comment.

I, for one, am ready to stand up.

And I know I’m not alone.

06/05 Links Pt1: Israel returns bodies of two hostages from Gaza; “Not This” Isn’t Strategy—It’s Surrender to Hamas’s Propaganda War; How the Media Manufactured a ‘Genocide’

From Ian:

Prof. Efraim Inbar: Illusions of "The Day After"

The ability of Israel - or even global superpowers - to politically engineer states in the Middle East is extremely limited. Israel's war in Gaza may succeed in eliminating most of Hamas's military capabilities and expelling its leadership from Gaza - as it did with the PLO in Lebanon in 1982 - but Israeli military power cannot temper the deep-rooted hostility of the Palestinian national movement toward Zionism.

The religious fervor of the Islamist Hamas has instilled in the hearts of young Gazans a desire to take revenge on their hated enemies. Without a reformed Palestinian education system, terrorism against Israel will persist wherever there are Palestinians.

Many Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government. This has also been the fate of the two Palestinian entities: the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas-controlled Gaza.

In the PA, various armed groups pursue their own agenda. And even in Gaza, Islamic Jihad and armed clans exist alongside Hamas. There is no reason to assume that "the day after" in Gaza will be much different or that the territory will be demilitarized. Only sustained Israeli military activity can enforce demilitarization.

John Spencer: “Not This” Isn’t Strategy—It’s Surrender to Hamas’s Propaganda War

“Not this” has become the lazy refrain of those too uninformed—or too afraid—to confront the actual nature of modern war. It’s the moral shrug of commentators unwilling to grapple with facts, history, or the operational realities of Gaza. “Not this” doesn’t reflect legal analysis, strategic insight, or lived combat experience. It’s a performance. A rejection of responsibility dressed up as moral clarity.

Piers Morgan is just the latest public figure to offer this empty diagnosis. He recently declared that “Israel’s current strategy is failing.” But what does that mean? Failing by what metric? Based on whose objectives?

Wars are not judged by feelings. They are judged by facts—by the political and military objectives of each side and the extent to which they are achieved. On those terms, it is Hamas—not Israel—that is failing catastrophically.

Hamas began this war with three supporting objectives:
1. Survive the war and be celebrated as the terror group that conducted the October 7 massacre and endured Israel’s response.
2. Maintain military capability to continue its stated mission: destroy Israel and kill Jews worldwide.
3. Retain governing power over Gaza, subjugating Palestinians while siphoning billions in international aid to support objective #2.

Hamas is failing on all three counts. It has lost the ability to fight as an organized military force. Its five brigades, 24 battalions, and 30,000–40,000 trained fighters—armed with over 20,000 rockets and extensive control of terrain—have been decimated. Fewer than three original commanders from Hamas’s military or political leadership in Gaza remain. From top leaders like Yahya Sinwar, Mohammad Deif, and Marwan Issa, to nearly every brigade and battalion commander, the senior command structure has been eliminated. That level of leadership, experience, and ideological fanaticism cannot be replaced. What remains is a fragmented guerrilla force made up mostly of radicalized youths, with little training, no real command structure, and declining access to weapons. The average Hamas replacement fighter is now in their teens.

Hamas has also lost political ground. Gazans are increasingly protesting and speaking out against them. Their control over food distribution—once a key lever of power—has been eroded by U.S.-Israeli humanitarian mechanisms, including the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which bypass Hamas entirely. Their senior military and political leaders are being systematically eliminated. The group’s grip on the population is slipping.

By contrast, Israel’s goals are clear:
1. Return the hostages.
2. Destroy Hamas as a military force and governing body.
3. Ensure that no force in Gaza can ever again threaten Israeli citizens.

From ARTNews:

Staffers from the British Museum have criticized its decision to allow the Israeli embassy in London to organize a party on its premises celebrating the 77th anniversary of the founding of Israel, The Art Newspaper reported Monday.

Several staff members who did not want to be named told TAN that they were “furious” over the event, and have circulated an internal petition directed at the museum’s director, Nicholas Cullinan and the board of trustees. The petition, now signed by 250 pepole, demands that the museum end relations with Israeli cultural institutions.

Corporations and groups rent out facilities at the British Museum all the time. But somehow Israel acting like anyone else is considered beyond the pale.

Of course this is antisemitism.

Look at this justification they came up with:

According to TAN, the signatories of the petition indicated that they are worried that percieved support for Israel could damage the work of curators if foreign institutions decide not to partner with the museum. Other staff have argued that hosting the event violated the museum’s code of impartiality.

The first excuse says that since other people in the world might be bigoted against Jews, the museum must pre-emptively must go along with their bigotry.

The second excuse argues that treating Israel exactly like everyone else is a violation of impartiality.

Seriously, these are the arguments given by educated, cultured people to justify their modern form of Jew-hate.

(h/t MG)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Previously, I described the major difference between Jewish ethics and Western political concepts of liberty. In the West, the concept of "rights" has become the prism through which we view political morality. This is a 17th century invention; beforehand ethical systems, including Judaism, looked at obligations and not rights - rights are a secondary result of everyone doing their duties.

It may sound sacrilegious to say so, but the modern emphasis on rights has had a negative effect on humanity. Today, people are no longer asking how they can help make the world a better place - what their obligations are - but rather, “What does the world owe me? What are my rights?” And the list of “rights” being claimed as natural has grown to almost absurd extremes. Instead of life, liberty, and property, as John Locke described, now we see demands for rights to free college, abortion, paid vacation, parental leave, Internet access - even the “right not to be offended.”

But it doesn’t take much thought to realize that every right implicitly places responsibility on someone else to provide or protect that right. We have gone from a society of givers to one of demanders.

Jewish ethics is based on the idea of covenant—the agreement between God and the Jewish people, each with responsibilities toward the other. There are very few “rights” in Jewish philosophy. The phrase “all Jews have a portion in the World to Come” is the closest I can think of, and even that is contingent on fulfilling one’s side of the covenant.

Covenant means responsibility.

More recently, I floated the idea of using community as a means to extend this covenantal concept to the secular world. People who belong to communities have an unwritten contract to help everyone else out, to pitch in when needed. When a neighborhood has a natural disaster, everyone helps; whether by offering food or shelter or clothing or equipment.

Community is a necessary component of morality.

Necessary, yes, but not sufficient.

For generations, moral philosophers have searched for a universal code: a framework that could reconcile individual virtue with social justice, particular loyalties with global responsibility, and the needs of today with the obligations to tomorrow. Jewish ethics already has this built in for Jews , with the emphasis on responsibility towards the rest of the Jewish people. The concept of brit, of a covenant, is much more flexible and scalable to make the secular Jewish ethical system I am proposing to be universal.

It turns out that the concept of covenant is scalable. Jewish ethics does not see morality as a flat plane of universal rules. Instead, it is organized as nested spheres of responsibility, each with its own tools, priorities, and forms of moral agency - but all governed by a unified set of core values.

Starting with the individual, Judaism teaches teshuva (repentance) - a difficult and personal journey involving recognizing faults, admitting them, and crucially, making a promise to improve. This is a covenant with oneself. We all experience this in daily life: to lose weight, get healthy, or break a bad habit, we don’t invoke “rights.” We make promises to ourselves, and we try to keep them.

At the personal level, this is the promise you make to yourself: to live by your own highest values, to pursue teshuvah (growth), and to hold yourself accountable.

At the communal level, as we have seen, brit binds families, synagogues, and neighborhoods to mutual responsibility and moral vigilance (areivut).
At the national level, brit grounds the loyalty of citizens and leaders - not just to the state, but to the ideal of just governance and collective purpose.
At the global level, brit is the missing logic behind lasting cooperation: real alliances, not mere treaties - explicit, values-based pledges to uphold humanity’s shared responsibilities, often seen as treaties and conventions.

Layer	Actor	Ethical Tools	Global Impact
Personal	Individual	Middot (Virtues), Teshuvah (repentance), Core Values	Trustworthiness, moral clarity, role model
Communal	Family, School, Synagogue, Local	Areivut (responsibility,) Chesed (kindness), Shalom Bayit (intrafamily peace), Derech Eretz (respect.)	Resilience, ethical micro-networks
National	Governments, Corporations, Courts	Political Ethics Matrix, Ethical Sovereignty, Brit	Justice, public trust, national destiny
Global	Alliances, NGOs, Faith Networks	Bal Tashchit (not wasting resources), Kavod HaBriyot (respect for all people(, Brit (International)	Climate, AI, migration, pandemics, war

At every scale, brit - covenantal logic - is what binds actors into genuine communities of trust and obligation.

Rights are not unalienable. They are earned by being a responsible citizen of one's family, community and country.

When rights are divorced from responsibility, they devolve into endless, conflicting entitlements, each demanding priority. A society built on responsibilities, on the other hand, creates an ecosystem of trust, humility, and practical universality.

Modern challenges are not local or simple. Climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics, migration, economic injustice - none of these can be solved by personal virtue alone, or by well-meaning protest. They require action and trust at the scale of nations and global alliances.

When we are guided by obligations rather than rights, we will want leaders who are guided by the same sense of purpose and responsibility. Without brit, all that remains is transactional agreement, subject to collapse the moment self-interest shifts. With brit, there is a logic of loyalty and shared destiny that can sustain sacrifice, compromise, and aspiration from within us to the entire world.

A core Jewish principle is: Ethical responsibility grows with moral capacity. The more power an individual or group holds, the greater their obligation to others:

Actor	Unique Obligation
Parent	Shalom Bayit, Mishpacha (peace, family)
Local leader	Tzedek (justice), Areivut (mutual responsibility)
National leader	Din (law), Pikuach Nefesh (life), Brit (protection)
CEO/NGO head	Lifnei Iver (preventing harm), Kavod HaBriyot
Global actors	Brit (covenantal pledges), Bal Tashchit (do no harm)

This isn’t abstract. It means global justice is the sum of all actors keeping their covenants at every scale. Local groups can become national and international groups, and when they get larger they can offer ways to help at a national and international level.

Demanding rights makes people selfish. Demanding covenant makes people better.

Jewish ethics has both personal and political values, but they are interdependent - and they flow in both directions.

Self-improvement leads to demands for institutional accountability, but national laws should also help promote personal ethics. Public servants should exhibit and model humility. Emet, truth, should be the value behind policy and journalism. Corporations must work not to deceive just as people do. Public apologies can model how one should own up to their own interpersonal slights. Saving human lives and promoting human dignity are the most important values for individuals, communities, corporations, governments and international agencies.

Human nature being what it is, one may wonder: what incentive do politicians have to act in a responsible, covenantal way in a secular world? What can stop them from prioritizing partisan politics and personal aggrandizement over the needs of their constituents?

Again, Jewish tradition provides a potential answer.

Politicians, and anyone in a public position of power (journalists, CEOs, NGO leaders) should be encouraged to have a personal, public "Yom Kippur" - we can call it "Covenant Day" On this day, once a year, they should write down or speak in their own words everything they believe they did wrong during the previous year in their official capacities, and what they plan to do in order to improve themselves in the coming year. The message cannot be one of self-congratulation - only confession, regret and asking forgiveness from the people they serve as well as a pledge with specific steps to do better. (This is not a place to confess personal sins.)

This way, the public can see whether they are being honest about their faults, and serious about the future. Because next year the public, the press, and political opponents will have a clear record by which to measure whether the leader lived up to their promises - or failed to follow through. This moves the standard of evaluation from rumor and innuendo to a documented, honest reckoning.

Those who refuse to participate, or who issue only vague or boastful statements, will be judged accordingly - by voters, the media, and history. The absence of confession will itself become a confession of arrogance or avoidance

After the confession, they should renew their oath of office, again publicly, to impress the importance of their covenantal responsibilities to their people, as well as to themselves.

This makes the covenant itself an integral part of their missions, one that they cannot as easily escape. Over time, the most trusted leaders will be those who model humility, candor, and genuine self-correction. Covenant Day, by design, creates positive competition for who can be most honest, not who can cover up best. People naturally forgive those who give heartfelt apologies and distrust those who try to shift responsibility. Any politician who chooses not to engage in this ceremony will automatically be put at a disadvantage. Moreover, the ceremonial part reiterates to both the politician and the people the importance of covenant.

This ceremony mirrors Yom Kippur - admitting mistakes, regretting sin, vowing to improve, and culminating in a public expression of unity and covenant.

We all can take part in building a covenantal world, as long as we know what is appropriate at our level and ensure everyone does their part.

Don’t moralize when organizing is needed: Personal virtue matters, but only policy, law, and shared pledges can meet systemic challenges.
Don’t despair at the scale of problems: Right action at every level, from self to city to global, sustains the whole.
Don’t universalize prematurely: Covenantal community precedes universal obligation; belonging is the foundation of trust.
Forge brit as moral diplomacy: Ethical alliances, rooted in mutual, explicit commitment, are stronger than treaties or markets.

From self, to community, to covenantal nations - ethics scales when responsibility does.

The great promise of Jewish ethics is not that it offers a few interesting rules or rituals, but that it contains the architecture - the universal grammar - for building societies of trust, humility, resilience, and hope. Covenant, rightly understood, is not just for Jews. It is a scalable, practical, and profound solution to the failures of both rights-only liberalism and coercive utopianism.

A world of covenants is a world where rights, dignity, and purpose are generated and protected, not by force or luck but by shared commitment. This is the ethical revolution the 21st century needs.
And it starts not with an abstract ideal, but with a promise.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Gaza is receiving roughly the same amount of food every day as it did in 2022

Last week, as the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was ramping up, a UN representative denounced it, saying that the amount of food coming into Gaza was "less than a drop in the ocean" of what was needed.

Which means it was worse than the "drop in the ocean" that UN official said on May 19.

And much, much worse than a "drop in the bucket."

So let's look at some facts.

The UN routinely cites 500-600 trucks a day into Gaza before the war as a baseline. But most of those trucks were carrying construction materials and other non-food items.

In August 2023, a record number of trucks entered Gaza - over 12,000. Gaza was receiving more items than at any time since Hamas took over the territory. Hamas decided to attack Israel when things were the best they had ever been since at least 2005. See the UN chart for yourself:

In that August, according to the UN, 22% of the imports were food items. That comes out to 86 trucks a day of food.

At that time, about 75% of Gaza's food came from imports and about 25% from local farms and fishing. That would mean that Gaza, in August 2023, was surviving quite well with the equivalent of 114 truckloads of food a day.

According to COGAT, today, 88 truckloads of food entered Gaza. On Tuesday the number was 157. Last week the average was about 82 trucks a day.

So while the average over the past couple of weeks is not quite as high as it was in August 2023, it is about the same as it was in 2022, when the number was about 86 trucks of food a day (8870*29% of trucks with food/30 day months). Adding 33% for domestic food production, it would be the equivalent of about 115 trucks a day that Gazans consumed the year before the war.

Note that the number of food trucks were roughly equivalent in August 2023 and the entire 2022, meaning that about 86 trucks a day of imports is what Gaza needs, plus making up the shortfall from losing domestic food production.

Of course, before the war, Gaza had well stocked supermarkets and restaurants, so while the amount entering Gaza is a little less than consumption was before the war, we are not quite comparing apples to apples.

If Gaza is getting 75% of the food it used to consume before the war, nobody is starving and the "drop in the ocean" meme is a blatant lie.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)