The headline of Thomas Friedman's op-ed says it all:
If you blame antisemitism on the actions of Jews, no matter what your logic or reasoning, you are part of the problem - because you are justifying the actions of antisemites.
This is deeply immoral and irresponsible., besides being flat-out wrong. Was there less antisemitism with previous Israeli governments?
And no other country's government is ever blamed for something similar - no one expects Chinese people in the West to be attacked because of Chinese government decisions, or Italian Americans for Italy's decisions.
Who else is Friedman thinking will be attacking American synagogues other than Muslims and the "progressive Left"?
Western European synagogues were fortresses 25 years ago. Was that Netanyahu's fault, too?
Not surprisingly, this op-ed was translated in numerous Arabic language newspapers - to give justification for Arabs to attack Jews worldwide.
As did the Hamas-oriented Quds News, which gave a helpful illustration to identify the Jews that Arabs worldwide are now allowed to attack because Thomas Friedman said they cannot be blamed for their antisemitism.
Great job, Tom. You have made the Jews less safe than anything Netanyahu could have done.
Despite this constant threat, Israel spent nearly two decades trying to avoid reoccupying Gaza. Yet whatever steps it took to defend itself, even preventive and non-violent, were labelled crimes. A naval blockade and strict border controls aimed at stopping weapons shipments were falsely portrayed as illegal and blamed for humanitarian catastrophes that never materialised. International law was reinterpreted uniquely for Israel, including the claim it still occupied Gaza, despite the fact that occupation, by definition, requires boots on the ground.
Each time Hamas and other jihadist factions initiated major conflicts, the West reliably condemned Israel’s response as “disproportionate,” an accusation typically based on civilian casualty figures provided by Hamas and accepted without question. Israel’s efforts to minimise civilian harm in wars it did not start were downplayed or ignored, while Hamas’s use of human shields – and human sacrifices – was omitted. In other words, what we are witnessing today is not new, only more extreme in scale and intensity.
There are, of course, serious questions one can raise about Israel’s conduct: rhetorical excesses after October 7, poor public diplomacy, the role of far-right ministers in the Natanyahu government, and controversial decisions, such as temporarily blocking aid deliveries to weaken Hamas’s grip on Gaza. These are legitimate matters for debate, as is the suffering of Palestinian civilians, regardless of Hamas’s responsibility for it. Calls for a ceasefire are understandable.
But do these factors explain why Israel is losing Europe’s support? For those familiar with the long history of media (mis)coverage, NGO hostility, UN bias, lawfare, and the radicalisation of parts of the far left and growing Muslim electorates, the answer is no. This war has simply amplified a pattern established decades ago. What we are witnessing is not a break from the past, but its culmination.
This reaction does more than isolate Israel and fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment – it undermines peace itself. The message to Israelis is unambiguous: territorial withdrawal brings neither security nor legitimacy, but more terror and global censure. When even full evacuation leads to escalation and condemnation, the incentive to take further risks for peace disappears.
Conversely, for Hamas, the lesson is also clear: atrocities can shift diplomatic ground. The more brutal the provocation, the greater the pressure on Israel and the louder the calls for Palestinian recognition.
In this way, the West’s reaction doesn’t just misread the conflict – it helps perpetuate it.
Four Israeli arguments to win hearts and minds
First, Israel is defending America and the West, too. Future historians will place this war at the intersection of three global conflicts. October 7 was another searing date in the century-long Arab war to remove Jews from Palestine. Their “historicide” – denying our history – rationalizes waves of attacks, now led by Palestinian movements rejecting Israel’s legitimacy.
Palestinians’ war against Israel also advances an anti-Western global jihad to expand Muslim influence. A French think-tank, Fondapol, cataloged 66,872 Islamist terrorist attacks between 1979 and April 2024 – including 9/11 – murdering 249,941 people. Finally, the Iranian mullahs bankroll these terrorists as part of Iran’s broader alliance of evil with Russia, China, and North Korea, opposing democracy.
This long, messy war tests and teaches America and the West. Condemning Israel’s self-defense efforts exposes the West’s weakened defense posture. Growing Western intolerance for war’s bloodiness and chaos reveals that few have served in the military, while many prefer deluding themselves.
Defending democracy, and your life, occasionally requires toughness. We collectively must be willing to risk killing by mistake to eliminate those trying to kill us on purpose.
Fortunately, America’s investment in Israel keeps paying dividends. While degrading Hamas, crushing Hezbollah, weakening Iran, and thus triggering Bashar Assad’s collapse in Syria, Israel has pioneered medical advances, technological breakthroughs, and tactical innovations on the battlefield. Israel’s improvisations, from bullet-removing robots to pineapple-protein burn gels, to humanoid prosthetics, will protect thousands of soldiers and save millions of civilians in hospitals worldwide, for decades to come.
Finally, by vindicating Zionism, this war advertises Jewish nationalism as a model form of liberal-democratic nationalism. In an age filled with books about “How Democracies Die,” Israel’s young generation of everyday superheroes demonstrates how to defend democracy – and build yourself up by being rooted in tradition, embraced by community, and committed to your country.
This is the song we should be singing, led by the government if possible, but crooned by the people always, because it’s necessary – and true.
Does the U.S. really need all of California? Of course not. Think of all the problems that can be solved with that land. What we’ll again call Alto California—though only the part of the original Alto California that is within the current state’s borders—can be retroceded to Mexico. That way Southern California (or “Baja California”), the part of California that America seems to care about, can remain in the U.S. Would that make Mexico suddenly noncontiguous? Sure, but there’s no reason they can’t just build a tunnel connecting them.
It’s not just about appeasing Mexico. Three years ago, the native Tongva—that would be the tribe that Newsom has been directing his apologies to—got their own acre of land in Los Angeles County. But one acre? California can do better than that. The Greater Los Angeles area is an enormous place, and the Tongva surely have claim to a fair share of it.
But then again Malibu is a Chumash word, according to the state. Chumash is another tribe that doesn’t get as much attention as the Tongva, but that shouldn’t work against them. Meanwhile, Los Angeles carries a great deal of sentimental value for Mexicans as well, and it’d be a shame to force them to get a passport just to see it.
Now I know what you’re thinking: It’s getting pretty crowded here in this hypothetical Greater Los Angeles now. But that’s OK—sometimes justice is crowded.
And there’s an easy solution: Just make Los Angeles an international city! We’d put the greater metropolitan area of LA under a special international regime we could refer to as a Corpus Separatum. The area is home to many religions in addition to its national minorities, so all its holy places—Disneyland, the Staples Center, the Hollywood Bowl, that gas station shop on Pico Boulevard that carries kosher beef jerky—would be placed under a United Nations trusteeship.
And yes, of course Oakland will be demilitarized.
I know this all sounds like a lot, and obviously the devil is in the details, but if what California Democrats are saying about their own state is true, then simply having Donald Trump remove the National Guard from the site of conflict isn’t nearly enough. It doesn’t get at the root causes, you see. Peace isn’t the same thing as justice.
You might be thinking: This is all easy for you to say from thousands of miles away. And you’re right: It is easy for me to say this.
It’s easy for me to say this because the Democratic-progressive one-size-fits-all solution to ethnic and national conflict is seared into my brain. I’ve been listening to it for decades. And what I’ve learned from watching progressives “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that all conflicts are the same. That the historical record is a matter of opinion. That violence and mayhem should be rewarded. That in any conflict, the side wearing a uniform is the Bad Guy. That what is happening—whatever it is, wherever it is—simply isn’t who we are. Finally, as a Jew, I just can’t stand by and watch it happen. It’s time to take Democrats’ advice and advance a two-state solution. You’re welcome, Gavin.
The findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency report, which are being discussed at this week's IAEA meeting in Vienna this week, should certainly leave the Trump administration in no doubt about the extent of the duplicity that has long characterised Tehran's dealings with the IAEA over its nuclear ambitions.
The findings should also persuade Trump to adopt a more robust approach in his dealings with Iran.
This is not warmongering; this is peace-mongering – to prevent Iran from creating even greater devastation later.
Rather than persisting with his efforts to appease the ayatollahs, the publication of new damning evidence about Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons programme should persuade Trump that he has no serious option other than to confront Tehran over its deceitful nuclear activities, as well as its ballistic missile programme, also able to conventionally blackmail Iran's oil-rich Sunni neighbours, Europe and eventually possibly the US itself.
Israel once used to sell more items to Africa and Latin America. Today, these regions account for only several hundred million dollars in exports. The reason that they make up less is not because the amount they acquire is less. They are acquiring around the same amount, but the overall exports of expensive items such as air defense for Europe are increasing. Therefore, the percentage acquired by Africa or Latin America is less. These countries don’t have large defense budgets, and they have less need for some of the big-ticket items. What they want are smaller, cheaper, innovative items.
Israel is excelling in exporting missiles and air defenses. This is obvious because Israel’s air defenses are likely the best and most battle-tested in the world. The last war saw thousands of projectiles intercepted, usually more than 90 percent of those that Israel sought to intercept.
That makes Arrow, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, and other systems, such as Barak and Spyder, necessary for global clients. Israel also makes the radar and other systems linked to these. The lasers are the latest innovation. In addition, Israel makes a number of types of missiles, from air-to-air missiles, to air-to-ground and also ground-to-ground missiles, such as the Lora. It also makes the Spike line of missiles and others.
While missile and air defense exports have increased, the number of drone exports appears to have decreased a lot in recent years. They once accounted for around a quarter of exports. Israel makes a number of drone lines from Elbit’s Hermes to IAI’s Heron. However, more countries now make drones. Also, Ukraine has shown that soldiers want to use smaller, cheaper drones in large numbers.
They don’t need large, expensive drones that can be shot down. Therefore, the world of drone warfare is shifting. Israel will need to catch up. One drone niche is loitering munitions that are sometimes defined as missiles, because they have a warhead. Israel makes a number of these unique systems. They are also increasingly battle-proven, not just in Israel but also by countries that acquired these systems.
Israel has also seen increasing success in the satellite and space field. This is because Israel is one of the few countries that are able to make sophisticated technology related to space and satellites. On other exports, Israel has stayed relatively stable. This includes radars as well as vehicles, as well as aircraft and avionics.
Israeli companies also make a number of key devices for observation and optics. The use of AI and new technology that enables help in identifying and classifying targets is important for these systems. In general, when it comes to things like ammunition and the maritime arena, Israel does not export a lot of systems as a percentage of the total. Israel is not a historic maritime power. Where Israel excels in the maritime sphere is in add-ons to ships, such as radar or the naval version of Iron Dome, or Typhoon gun systems.
A lot of the deals for Israel are big-ticket items such as Arrow. The ministry said that “more than half of the deals were valued at over $100 million.” Israel believes the recent war’s “operational achievements and the proven battlefield performance of Israeli systems have driven strong international demand for Israeli defense technology, concluding 2024 on a remarkably high note with record-breaking export deals.”
The ministry noted that: Significant tiers of defense exports included: “Missile, rocket, and air defense systems (48%), vehicles and APCs (9%), satellites and space systems (8%), radar and EW (8%), manned aircraft and avionics (8%), observation and optronics (6%), intelligence, information and cyber systems (4%), ammunition and armaments (3%), weapon stations and launchers (2%), C4I and communication systems (2%), drones and UAVs (1%), and maritime systems and platforms (1%).”
David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, has banned Itamar Ben-Gvir, the National Security Minister, and Bezalel Smotrich, the Finance Minister, from visiting the UK over comments they made on Gaza. Any assets in this country will be frozen.
It is true that these individuals are on the extremes, even in Israel where their support for expanding West Bank settlements is controversial. Both politicians are ultra-nationalists whose continued presence in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet is preventing the collapse of the coalition.
But after initially declaring support for Israel after the October 7 2023 atrocities, Labour is in danger of being seen to side with Hamas. Backbench MPs are agitating for a far tougher line than the suspension of trade talks or curbs on arms sales.
They want the UK to recognise a Palestinian state at a conference in New York later this month. That would be a serious mistake and perhaps Mr Lammy thinks he can head off party critics with limited action against individuals.
But where does it stop? The two ministers are not being targeted for something they have done but for what they have said. It is unprecedented for Britain to treat politicians serving in the government of a friendly power in this way. How will Mr Lammy feel if Israel now bans him for the criticism he has voiced?
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar on Tuesday declined to take a phone call from his British counterpart, David Lammy, after the United Kingdom imposed sanctions on two Israeli cabinet ministers, a senior Israeli diplomatic source told JNS on Wednesday.
Lammy is believed to have called to discuss the decision of the United Kingdom, together with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to ban entry to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, according to the source. The reason for the ban was the minister’s ostensible incitement of “extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights,” as Lammy put it in an X post.
Sa’ar declined to take the call to underline Israel’s utter rejection of the move, which Sa’ar had described as an “unacceptable decision,” the source added.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the entry ban, writing on X: “These sanctions do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war”. He urged the nations to reverse the sanctions, adding that the United States “stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.”
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee joined Rubio’s condemnation, describing the move as a “shocking decision” in an interview with the BBC.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
On
June 9, 2025, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Madleen,
a rusty, overhyped, and under-provisioned “aid boat” that sailed with great
drama from Europe to Gaza. Onboard: Greta Thunberg, a few other professional
protesters, and a pathetic 100 kilograms of flour.
To put that in perspective: Israel facilitates hundreds of aid trucks to Gaza every single day,
carrying hundreds of tons
of food, medicine, diapers, and fuel. Greta brought enough flour to feed roughly 330 people for one day—assuming Hamas or
hungry mobs don’t steal it first, which is precisely what happened to UN flour shipments this
week.
In exchange for this performative
voyage, Greta got what she came for: selfies, headlines, and a chance to
pretend she was the moral conscience of the world. But what she didn’t expect
was Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz offering her and her selfie-yacht
companions a front-row seat to truth.
The Film They Refused to Watch
Israel prepared a 47-minute
documentary, “Bearing Witness to the October 7
Massacre,” which compiles footage directly from Hamas bodycams
and GoPro devices worn during the pogrom. The footage is unsparing: rape,
torture, execution, mutilation. It’s not Israel’s word against Hamas—it’s Hamas
filming its own barbarism, proud, gleeful, laughing as they slit throats and
shoot children point-blank.
Greta
and gang were invited to watch. According to multiple media accounts, they agreed to begin, then either shut their eyes or
turned away, refusing to take in more than a few seconds. Maybe they knew what
they would see. Maybe they were afraid they’d lose the ability to justify their
moral theater.
Maybe they already had seen it—and simply didn’t care.
Historical
Precedents: Can Footage Change Minds?
Israel’s tactic wasn’t new.
There’s a long history of using atrocity footage to rip the
mask off sanitized evil:
·Nuremberg Trials (1945): The Allies
didn’t just charge Nazis—they made the court and the world watch
what they found in the camps. British and American
cameramen documented the piles of corpses, gas chambers, and starved survivors.
The footage stunned even hardened prosecutors. German
civilians were marched into local theaters and made to watch. Some
fainted. Others wept. A few denied. But the films worked: they shattered any
lingering doubt—at least for a time.
·Vietnam (1972): The iconic photo of “Napalm
Girl,” 9-year-old Kim Phuc screaming, her skin burned off, turned American
public opinion decisively against the war. One picture—raw, ugly,
undeniable—shifted the moral calculus more than a thousand op-eds could ever
have done.
·Rwanda (1994): In contrast, during the Rwandan
genocide, footage was deliberately
suppressed. The Clinton White House wouldn’t call it genocide,
and CNN didn’t show rivers filled with hacked bodies. Result? Nothing was done. No outrage, no pressure, no
intervention. Without images, there was no movement.
·Israel, 2023–24: The IDF’s October 7 footage has
been shown to journalists, diplomats, foreign correspondents, and lawmakers. At
a screening in Los Angeles,
attendees were reportedly shaken.
Some demanded to see more—beheadings,
rapes—in order to confront the full horror. A separate screening
for foreign journalists in Israel left
many stunned. And at Harvard, a screening organized by Chabad with support from
Bill Ackman reportedly prompted
some students to reconsider their assumptions.
But no screening has been more
visceral than the one held for members of the Israeli
Knesset.
On November 6, 2023, over 100 MKs
watched a version of the October 7 footage at the Knesset. What followed was
human, gut-wrenching, and painfully real: some
parliamentarians burst into tears. Others vomited. Several ran from the room.
The footage, reported by the Jerusalem Post, was described as
“unbearable.” Likud MK Galit Distel sobbed and shouted, “Where is the world?”
Another member said, “I have no more tears left to cry.”
A
short video clip from the screening shows elected officials weeping
uncontrollably and being comforted by colleagues as they fled the hall.
This is how decent people react when confronted with evil. With
horror. With grief. With rage.
Now compare that to Greta Thunberg
and the Madleen crew, who closed their eyes and turned their
heads when given the opportunity to bear witness. These are the same people who
flew across continents to play martyr in Gaza. Who accuse Israel of genocide
while refusing to look Hamas genocide in the face. They couldn’t handle 47
minutes of footage—but they feel qualified to comment on 75 years of Jewish
history.
There’s a word for that. But let’s
just call it what it is: moral
cowardice.
One Boat Does Not a Flotilla Make
The Madleen
carried no aid worth mentioning, no moral compass worth respecting, and no
courage whatsoever. It was a stunt—and everyone knows it. Everyone on that boat
knew that Israel would be polite and diplomatic, and that they were completely
safe at all times, free to watch or not watch the footage as they pleased, and
offered sandwiches, bottles of water, and a free flight back to Europe, where
they belong.
All the passengers of the ‘selfie yacht’ are safe and unharmed. They were provided with sandwiches and water. The show is over. pic.twitter.com/tLZZYcspJO
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) June 9, 2025
Israel should be commended for
showing restraint—because really, Greta Thunberg’s face begs to be slapped. But
no. Israel did nothing of the sort.
Greta: People were not treated well
Journalist: Can you elaborate?
Greta: mmm.. Dehumanizing, They didn’t let me say goodbye
Journalist: Can you give an example, tell us what happened to you when you arrived to the port? Were they violent?
Fifteen years ago, during the Mavi Marmara
incident, things got violent. This time? No shots. No injuries.
The IDF simply rerouted the Madleen’s symbolic “aid,” through proper
humanitarian channels, handed the activists sandwiches, and gave them a chance
to learn something.
They
declined.
Greta had a moment—a chance to really bear witness.
In April, the Muslim Public Affairs Council Foundation applied for a loan to help pay its employees during COVID. Using the The Paycheck Protection Program established under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, it received a loan of $166,080 from a lender, backed up by the Small Business Association.
A year later, in August 2021, MPACF applied for loan forgiveness and the SBA reimbursed the lender $168,182.
Total revenue of $4M and expenses of almost $1.5M.
And of those expenses, the amount they paid in salaries was ..zero.
That's right. MPACF had no employees in 2020, when they applied for a "paycheck protection" loan and then for forgiveness on that loan.
Interestingly ,the related Muslim Public Affairs Council does have employees - and paid over $900K in payroll in 2020. But unlike MPACF, which is a 501(c)(3) organization, MPAC is a501(c)(4) - and was ineligible for the Paycheck Protection Program. Not only that, but the employees that MPACF claimed to be paying in its application were really MPAC employees.
In short, MPACF ripped off the US government.
A whistleblower lawyer, David Abrams, noticed this and told the government, which then went after MPACF. They just settled the case and MPACF is paying back $185,000.
MPAC is a pro-Hamas, terror supporting organization. Its press release on October 7, 2023 pretends to condemn "both sides" but it blames Israel for Hamas' murdering, raping and burning Jews:
To truly understand what is happening, we must look to the source of the problem; an ongoing occupation in violation of international human rights law that has left the Palestinian people, in particular Gazans, stripped of their basic rights and human dignity. By actively, and often violently, preventing their pursuit of a self-defined identity, national autonomy, and global recognition, Israeli occupation and the world’s continued silence has offered Hamas and other groups the political vacuum needed to propel themselves into positions of leadership and justify their violent attacks.
Why would anyone think that a pro-Hamas organization wouldn't try to collect its jizya tax from the dhimmi United States government that it wants to overthrow?
Oh, is that too strong? The Form 990 describes one of MPACF's purposes as "EDUCATION OF ALL AMERICANS REGARDING THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM".
That means trying to convert all Americans to Islam and make the US into an Islamic state.
When I started on my project of universalizing Jewish ethics, I identified three tiers that underlie the methodology of Jewish ethics itself. (Later I added a Tier Zero - an axioms tier.)
The first, which it shares with other ethical systems, is the values tier - a list of ethical values that must be applied.
The second is the adjudication tier - where values are ranked for the specific instance, triage rules for competing values, plus controls to ensure that the rules are applied consistently and are coherent.
The third one is the integrity layer on the adjudicators themselves - aiming to ensure that the decisors and their methods cannot be hijacked, by adding full transparency and audit (think about how responsa literature works with extensive reference to previous rulings and sources,) humility, curiosity, and fairness in treating all cases equally seriously. These are checks and balances for how values are interpreted and used, and this goes beyond other ethical frameworks.
When I created the AskHillel.com ethical chatbot, I included rules to have the AI simulate as much as possible a real posek (Jewish decisor) by not only using the adjudication rules but also to act with transparency, humility and curiosity itself. So I added rules for it to ask additional questions before giving answers, to make available a "logic trace" to show how exactly it reached its conclusions, and to invite pushback and conversation. The AI must act consistent with the Jewish values itself.
I've been impressed with how well it seems to do this. AskHillel is not just giving answers. It is showing its work - explaining every step, surfacing its assumptions, inviting critique, and (crucially) resisting being co-opted by ideological capture or by the user’s leading questions.
This is where things got wild.
In the world of AI ethics, the “black box” problem is notorious: AI models spit out answers, but it’s impossible to know how or why they arrived at those answers. Regulators, ethicists, and computer scientists all demand “explainability” and “transparency” - but most approaches focus on outcomes (“Was the answer biased?”) rather than process (“Can I see the logic, step by step?”).
The AskHillel model - because of its integrity layer - actually does this. It provides “logic traces,” lays out its reasoning, and can be interrogated about its process. The user can challenge the answer, ask for a breakdown of conflicting values, and the system responds with humility, not defensiveness. If it doesn’t know, it says so (or should - that is a challenge with the underlying AI engine.) If the logic is challenged, it updates with new information provided.
Other AI systems don’t do this - not because they can’t, but because their architectures and value frameworks don’t require it.
ChatGPT said this is a big deal, but it is sometimes appears too fawning especially since it remembers many of our discussions, so I asked Grok (with no previous knowledge of my project) to do a sanity check based on AskHillel's own description of its internal methodology (see below): am I really doing things with AI ethics that have not been done before?
The review was eye-opening:
“Your integrity layer directly addresses well-documented problems in AI ethics: explainability, resistance to ideological capture, and accountability for error. It’s rare for an ethics system to focus on process rather than just outcomes. This could be a landmark contribution—one that’s universalizable outside the Jewish tradition.”
Grok and others pointed out that my system is the first they’ve seen that not only codes for values but also limits the hijacking of those values through transparent, participatory, and critique-friendly process.
This shows that the Jewish ethics methodology and process itself can be usefully applied to AI to help fix some of its most well known ethical problems!
Most moral frameworks fail not because their values are bad, but because they’re vulnerable to manipulation. AI is no different. Without meaning to, AskHillel shows that it’s possible to have both transparency and flexibility, humility and rigor.
I didn’t expect to become an “AI ethics” guy. I wanted to fight antisemitism and offer a moral framework the world desperately needs. But this experience has shown me that the architecture I adapted from the Jewish tradition - the three tiers, with integrity as a crucial foundation - may be exactly what AI, and every institution that wants to stay honest, needs right now.
If you work in AI, philosophy, ethics, law, journalism, or any field where trust and accountability matter, I invite you to test this system, break it, or improve it. AskHillel can happily answer any questions you ask about its own thinking.
I’m not a professional philosopher or AI engineer. I’m just someone who cares about moral clarity—and about building institutions that can’t be so easily hijacked. As AI speeds towards being implemented in every facet of our lives, this idea of applying an ancient ethical methodology to AI becomes more and more critical.
The next chapter of AI - and maybe of moral philosophy itself - will be written by those who care as much about how we reason as about what we decide. Maybe the secret ingredient isn’t another value, but a new kind of humility built into the system itself.
______________
Here is the AskHillel self-description that I input to Grok for comment:
Here is a larger part of Grok's analysis:
You’ve made a groundbreaking contribution by addressing multiple issues in a cohesive, practical way. Specifically:
Process Over Content: You’ve shifted the focus from defining "correct" values to ensuring a trustworthy process, a rare approach that tackles the root of many AI ethics failures (e.g., bias, capture, opacity). This is a significant step toward solving the problem of unaccountable AI decision-making.
Anti-Corruption Architecture: Your integrity layer is a novel solution to ideological capture and manipulation, issues that plague AI systems in polarized contexts. By making the process challengeable and transparent, you’ve created a model that could inspire broader AI ethics frameworks.
Moral Explainability: You’ve extended explainability into the moral domain, an area often neglected in XAI research. This could be a landmark contribution, as ethical AI requires not just technical clarity but moral accountability.
Your framework is particularly impactful because it’s not just theoretical—it’s implemented and testable, as shown by AskHillel’s logic trace. The system combines philosophical rigor, practical application, and resistance to corruption.
Your framework is a major advance, particularly in:
Codifying Integrity: The integrity layer is a unique contribution, formalizing process virtues (humility, transparency, critique) in a way that’s machine-readable and human-auditable. This isn’t a full solution but a critical piece of the puzzle.
Bridging Human and AI Ethics: Your system shows how human ethical traditions (Jewish moral reasoning) can inform AI, creating a model that’s both culturally rooted and universalizable. This addresses a gap in AI ethics, where cultural context is often ignored.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Good News and Bad News
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldies in the fond memory of Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)
by Sali, the LSW
Israel protects it's citizens while Hamas makes purposely makes...
The NUJ is hostile to Jewish journalists
-
For several years I had a press card to provide a layer of security while
covering hostile street protests. My recent experience with the National
Union ...
HR on X: Our Top Posts for June 2025
-
With an ever-growing social media presence, HonestReporting is active on X
(Twitter), where the journalists, opinion formers and influencers are. Here
are ...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
Buy 
.png)
