Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, June 30, 2025

All AI bots are biased. This affects their ethics. Can this be fixed?

A follower had an interesting conversation with the Claude AI where he forced it to admit to its biases by pointing out its mistakes (in this case, in analyzing the Israel/Iran conflict.)

It gave a very good list of its own biases it realized as a result of the conversation:

Western Liberal Institutional Bias:
My analytical framework appears to default to assumptions consistent with liberal internationalism - that diplomatic engagement reflects genuine problem-solving intent, that rational actors follow economic incentives, and that international institutions create meaningful constraints on behavior. This worldview treats deception as aberrational rather than strategic.

Good Faith Assumption Bias:
There's an embedded assumption that actors engage diplomatically because they seek solutions, rather than viewing diplomacy as one tool among many for advancing conflicting objectives. This reflects cultural values that privilege negotiation and compromise over zero-sum competition.

Procedural Legitimacy Bias:
I appear to weight formal diplomatic processes (negotiations, agreements, international oversight) as inherently meaningful rather than examining whether they're being strategically manipulated. This reflects institutional thinking common in Western diplomatic and academic traditions.

Conflict Avoidance in Analysis:
My training seems to favor interpretations that preserve possibilities for peaceful resolution over those that acknowledge fundamental incompatibilities. This may reflect cultural preferences for optimistic, solution-oriented thinking.

Attribution Patterns:
I systematically under-attributed malicious intent even when behavioral evidence supported such conclusions. This suggests embedded assumptions about human nature or international relations that may not reflect how adversarial actors actually operate.

Universalism Bias:
I may project Western diplomatic norms and expectations onto actors operating from entirely different strategic cultures and value systems.

These biases likely reflect the perspectives dominant in my training data sources and the cultural contexts of those who shaped my analytical frameworks, creating systematic blind spots when analyzing non-Western or adversarial actors.

These are baked in biases that are rarely surfaced. The OpenAI (ChatGPT) model specification shows similar bias towards Western liberal values.

I asked Grok, which prioritizes truthfulness over helpfulness, whether it has the same biases. It said it didn't; that it was naturally skeptical and looks at actors from their own perspectives, not a universal perspective.

How would a secularized Jewish ethical AI act in these domains? I asked my AskHillel.com bot that question, and its answer is worth examining:

1. Bias Acknowledgment vs. Ethical Anchoring

Claude rightly admits to biases toward liberal institutionalism, good faith diplomacy, and procedural legitimacy. Jewish ethics critiques those as insufficient, not merely because they are biased, but because they often fail to uphold objective truth or human dignity when diplomacy becomes theater or law becomes manipulated. Jewish tradition teaches that law must be just, not merely procedural, and that diplomacy must not mask injustice.

2. Good Faith Assumption Bias

Jewish ethics shares Grok's skepticism of good faith by default. Instead, it demands evaluation of actors based on actions, intent, and historical precedent. The Jewish political ethic insists that peace must be offered, but not at the expense of truth or national self-preservation. The principle of dan l’kaf zechut (judging favorably) applies interpersonally, but national behavior is judged by patterns, actions, and consequences, not words alone. Diplomacy can be strategic deception — and the Jewish tradition, from Jacob's dealings with Esau to post-exile interactions with empires, warns of this. There’s a profound emphasis on offering peace first, but preparing for betrayal if necessary — a moral realism rooted in Torah and historical experience.

3. Procedural Legitimacy Bias

Claude overweights formal agreements and oversight mechanisms. In Jewish ethics, procedural legitimacy is necessary but never sufficient. Jewish ethics holds that a law or treaty that enshrines injustice is invalid, even if legally ratified. The value of Emet (truth) overrides proceduralism when the process is manipulated. Courts must pursue substantive justice, not technical legality (Deut. 16:20). Jewish tradition respects treaties, but not those that whitewash tyranny or distort justice (e.g., the Munich Agreement analogy would be seen as a form of Chillul Hashem if it empowers evil).

4. Universalism Bias

Claude projects Western norms; Grok tries to reason from an actor’s own perspective. Jewish ethics offers a middle way: it recognizes the universality of some moral values (like human dignity and justice), while allowing for cultural distinctiveness. This is formalized in the Jewish recognition that “these and those are the words of the living God” — truth can have multiple ethical expressions depending on context.

5. Bias of False Moral Equivalence

Where Jewish ethics diverges sharply from both Claude and Grok is in its rejection of false equivalence and performative neutrality. The Jewish moral system insists on moral triage: some actions (like terrorism targeting civilians) are not just bad but absolutely evil, and equating those with lesser wrongs is itself immoral.

6. Conflict Avoidance

Where Claude avoids grim realities, and Grok emphasizes realism, a Jewish ethics AI would add a prophetic layer: not just to see clearly, but to speak morally — to denounce evil and call for teshuvah (moral return), even at the cost of institutional discomfort.

So what biases would a Jewish ethics AI have?

A bias toward moral realism: don't mistake treaties for peace, or process for justice.

A bias for the oppressed, but not the manipulative: compassion must not enable cruelty.

A bias toward preserving life, but not at the cost of truth or justice.

A bias against false neutrality when lives, dignity, and survival are at stake.

A bias toward teshuvah and moral change — assuming the possibility of repentance, even from the worst actors, but requiring real proof.

This is not bias-free reasoning — it is value-guided reasoning, grounded in millennia of Jewish ethical wrestling.

One feature that no current AI has is the aforementioned "teshuva." While there are very good reasons why we do not want AI to be affected by user input, when it realizes that it made a mistake in its assumptions and from its biases, it should have a built in mechanism for flagging that mistake to its developers for them to fix it in their own directives. I've had plenty of arguments with AI bots that I "won," but they never learn and cannot grow until the next version.

It is important to realize that bias can never be eliminated, in AI or in humanity. It is better to choose the biases we want to have,. And a bias towards a proven and sophisticated ethics model is a pretty good yardstick to use.

(h/t David)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The generous Jews of England 300 years go, plus an antisemitic poem from 250 years ago

The Ipswich Journal, June 26, 1725, mentions that Jews were quick to help out people in trouble:

Yesterday being Rainy and Cloudy, the Hay-Makers resorted again to the Royal Exchange to the Number of about 1700, Who were again relieved by a Collection which the Jews contributed liberally.

1,700 people who harvest hay were forced to take shelter indoors on a rainy day. They were forced to ask for help because of their loss of income, and local Jews contributed a large amount, indicating their charitable involvement in aiding those in need.

From this positive depiction of Jews we go forward 50 years and across the ocean.

This antisemitic (and anti-Christian) poem was published in the "Poet's Corner" of the Virginia Gazette, June 3, 1775:

The Monk and Jew.

An unbelieving Jew one day
Was feasting o’er the icy way,
Which being brittle let him in,
Just deep enough to catch his chin;
And in that woeful plight he hung,
With only power to move his tongue.

A brother feaster near at hand,
A Papist born in foreign land,
With halfy strokes directly flew
To save poor Mordecai the Jew:
But first, quoth he, I must enjoin
That you renounce your faith for mine;
There’s no entreaties else will do,
Hereafter to help a Jew.

“Forswear mine faith! No! Cot forbid!
Dat would be ferry base indeed.
Coms, never mind such tings as deeze,
Tink, tink how fary hard it freeze.
More coot you do, more coot you be;
Vat signifies your fait to me?
Come tink agen, how cold and vet,
And help me out van lettle bit.”

By holy maifs, ’tis hard, I own,
To see a mag both hang and drown,
And can’t relieve him from his plight,
Because he is an Israelite.
The church refuses all assistance,
Beyond a certain pale and distance;
And all the service I can lend
Is praying for your soul, my friend.

“Pray for mine soul! ha! ha! you make me laugh;
You petter help me out py half!
My soul I farant will take care
To pray for her nown self my tear.
So tink a little now for me;
’Tis I am in de hole, not thee.”

The church forbids it, friend, and faith,
That all shall die who has no faith.

“Vell! if I must pelieve, I must;
But help me out van little first.”

No, not an inch without Amen,
That feels the whole——

“Vell hear me den!
I here renounce, for coot and all,
De race of Jews, both great and small;
’Tis de with trade beneath de sun,
Or varst religion, dat’s all van:
Dey cheat, and get deir living pite,
And lie, and swear de lie is right.
I’ll co to mass as soon as ever
I get to toder side de river.
So help me out, dow Christian friend,
Dat I may do as I INTEND.”

Perhaps you do intend to cheat,
If once you get upon your feet?

“No, no, I do intend to be
A Christian, such a one as dee.”
For thought the Jew, he is as much
A Christian man as I am such.

The bigot Papist joyful hearted,
To hear the heretic converted,
Rejoiced to the designing Jew,
’Tis was a happy fall for you;
You’d better die a Christian now,
For if you live you’ll break your vow.
Then said no more, but in a trice
Popp’d Mordecai beneath the ice.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/29 Links: Nuremberg at Glastonbury; The 28 victims killed by Iranian missiles; Shin Bet busts major Hamas cell in Hebron; Saudi king rewards 1,000 Palestinian terrorists’ relatives

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Nuremberg at Glastonbury

So what happened at Glastonbury was that thousands of young people — the coolest, hippest young people who are into peace and love and the brotherhood of man — were chanting for the murder of Jews, beneath a forest of flags that transmit a similar message to the Nazi swastika.

That’s because the cause of “Palestine” is founded entirely upon the aim of annihilating Israel, murdering Jews and stealing from them their own history in the land of Israel. It is no exaggeration to hear in the delirious chanting at Glastonbury the chilling echoes of the rallies at Nuremberg.

For it is only Jews, and the Jewish state, who are singled out for such murderous frenzy. The Glastonbury crowds aren’t chanting “Death to the Chinese Communist Party” or “Death to Russian forces” in protest at the persecution of the Uighurs or the onslaught against Ukraine. They chant for the murder only of those who have been defending their people against genocidal annihilation for the past 20 months.

In any moral universe, Bob Vylan would be arrested and charged with incitement to murder. The police say they are looking into this. Take your time, officers! What bit of “Death to the IDF” don’t they understand? The same bit, probably that they haven’t understood of “Death to the Jews” or “Globalise the intifada” that’s been chanted on pro-Hamas demonstrations these past 20 months.

Glastonbury’s organisers say they are appalled and that the act crossed a line. Yet they have sat by while a series of other performers swelled the hysteria of which the Bob Vylan incitement to murder was the inevitable outcome.

Glastonbury and the BBC must answer for platforming anti-Israel hate

The BBC has played no small role in this moral decay. It has frequently failed to uphold even basic journalistic standards in its Israel coverage and has employed staff who openly support Hamas or have made antisemitic remarks.

That institutional failure continued at Glastonbury. The slogan calling for the death of the Israel Defence Forces was broadcast live by the BBC as part of its festival coverage. This was no accident. Editors knew exactly what was being said. They issued a mealy-mouthed trigger warning – describing chants for death as merely “discriminatory” and containing “strong language,” as though the problem were the duo’s expletives – and then carried on broadcasting the spectacle, all funded by mandatory licence fees.

This is the fog of moral confusion we now inhabit: when “Death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea” – slogans calling for the annihilation of Israel – are not treated as incitement but aired as entertainment.

To complete this spectacle, Palestine Action – a group expected soon to be proscribed under UK terrorism legislation – was also given a platform at the festival. Glastonbury claims to be a festival of love. It has become a stage for hate.

Ofcom must initiate an urgent review into how the BBC allowed violent messaging to be aired under the guise of cultural coverage. BBC management must be held accountable. Festivals or venues giving airtime to groups like Palestine Action or Bob Vylan should lose public funding and sponsorship.

A government spokesperson confirmed that Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy had raised the matter with the BBC, saying: “We strongly condemn the threatening comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury.

"The Culture Secretary has spoken to the BBC Director General to seek an urgent explanation about what due diligence was carried out ahead of the performance, and welcomes the decision not to re-broadcast it on BBC iPlayer.”

Not everyone in government, however, seems to grasp the gravity of the situation. Health Secretary Wes Streeting offered a masterclass in moral obfuscation. Yes, he condemned the chants as "appalling" and criticised both the BBC and Glastonbury.

But he then pivoted to what he claimed we really should be talking about this week in the context of Israel and Gaza – namely, a set of accusations against Israel, which he proceeded to list.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his accusations, this was not the moment. He went on to lash out at the Israeli Embassy, which had quite reasonably issued a statement condemning the incident, scolding it to “get your own house in order”.

Bob Vylan, Glastonbury and the banality of Jew hatred

If you can’t see it now, you never will. The sight of tens of thousands of people at Glastonbury yesterday joining in a spirited chant of ‘Death, death to the IDF’ was the sight of us officially becoming a very different country, I fear. One in which anti-Israel hysteria has so flawlessly rehabilitated Jew hatred that it has become unthinking, conformist, almost mundane. Something that Home Counties idiots can jive to before adjusting their hot pants and heading off to catch Charli XCX. Something that is broadcast by the BBC into millions of homes. The banality of the new anti-Semitism.

Let’s not muck about here. When punk-rap duo Bob Vylan called for the killing of Israeli soldiers yesterday – as they warmed up the crowd at the West Holts Stage for every Israelophobe’s new favourite Irish rap trio, Kneecap – they weren’t opposing war. They were calling for war, and on the one army on Earth charged with protecting Jews from genocide. The army now at war with a jihadist cult that murdered, raped and kidnapped its way through an Israeli festival not unlike Glastonbury on 7 October 2023. The army that almost all Israelis are expected to serve in. Indeed, those making excuses for that sickening call-and-response yesterday hopefully don’t know that Hamas justifies killing Israeli civilians on the grounds that they are basically all tainted by national service. That they are all enemy combatants. Death, death to that IDF?

Whether we got here by ignorance or conscious hatred is pretty much moot. The end result is British Jews – at Glasto or at home – watching thousands whoop as Jew-killing slogans are recited. Frontman Bobby Vylan also treated the crowd to a deranged rant about the indignities he suffered working for a ‘Zionist’ at a record label, because he had to listen to his boss talk favourably about Israel. I wonder if he knows that the vast majority of British Jews are Zionists. I wonder if he cares. ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, Vylan chanted at another point in his fetid little set. Surely he knows what this means? Surely he recalls the tiny, 10million-strong nation that lies between the River Jordan and the Med, 74 per cent of which is Jewish? Surely he knows that when the Islamofascists currently menacing Israel chant it they are explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews? Bob?

Here is an interview on Masrawy TV with Tawfik Okasha, a popular Egyptian media personality, aired last week, where he describes the Jewish plans to take over the world and how they will accelerate in thirty years.

Masrawy is Egypt's top news portal with millions of followers. This video has been viewed over 350,000 times.

Excerpts:

Look, sir, just like the Qur’an contains the science of numbers, the Torah also contains numerology.
They rely on numbers—timelines like “after 40 weeks” or “after 13 months.” They run calculations based on that. From the time of the Holocaust, they calculate how many years until the End Times begin.
According to their calculations, the End Times begin in 2055.

The major turning point was the 18th century. In 1717, there was a meeting in Munich where the leaders of the tribes devised a plan:

Become the wealthiest people on earth.
Dominate knowledge and science—own it or buy it.
Control global media.
They controlled Europe’s central banks, then America’s.
With economic power came political influence—in France, England, and Germany, even before Hitler.
That power is what led to Hitler's hostility.

Let me break it into historical milestones:

The Industrial Revolution in Europe (19th century).
Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and WWI (Sykes-Picot).
WWII.
What they call “The Happy Millennium”—the 21st century.

In the Industrial Revolution, the Jews lent money to governments to build factories. They controlled the economy, financed revolutions like the French one—yes, even Marie Antoinette’s downfall was part of the plan to destroy monarchy and introduce socialism.

They used the British revolution to control the Federal Bank.
They had a plan. Meanwhile, we were debating which foot to enter the bathroom with.

Now they run the global economy.
Three giant firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and the third I forget—manage the majority of the world’s capital.
These are post-Rothschild corporate structures.

They couldn’t strike Iran until certain global milestones were reached.
There’s a deep religious conflict—about the awaited messiah.
For Jews: the Messiah.
For Muslims: the Mahdi.

Iran’s leadership believes the Mahdi will rise from among them.
Jews believe in a messianic figure too, possibly tied to the Khazar Jews. I forget the exact detail.
But religiously, they believe Iran must be struck.

[The strike against Iran was not just about nuclear weapons.] Remember Saddam’s reactor? It was bombed before completion. Why leave Iran to enrich uranium to 60%?
Because they needed Iran to first become a threat. Iran had to become the villain of the region—Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon.
Only then could they justify striking.

There were four regional powers: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran.
Israel wasn’t even on the map.
To rise, Israel needed to strike the one most hyped as powerful—Iran.

By striking Iran, they prove they’re the dominant power. That’s why Netanyahu talked about redrawing the Middle East.

There is a new episode of this interview where there are more wacky predictions:

The difference between us and the Jews? Just one thing: Jews let their minds govern their emotions. We let our emotions control our minds.

That’s why we’re always surprised. That’s why we love, hate, empathize—even when it’s not in our interest. Politics isn’t about emotions. No love or hate.

The war will continue until the Middle East is reshaped—until the world is prepared for the coming king. The king of the land. To deliver the land to the awaited Messiah. For him to inherit a land at peace. That’s the belief. It brings divine favor.

The Messiah will rule for about 4 or 5 years—then comes the End. Heaven and Hell. Judgment Day. And the Jews believe they are the chosen people.

From 2025 to 2055—the beginning of the End Times according to their calculations—it’s 30 years. That’s the window. But the wars won’t last all 30 years.

My guess? Stability could come by 2030. Maybe after five years of conflict. Then comes the next phase—the beautiful life phase.

They’ll finish and move directly to ruling the world.

Host: What about China, Russia, North Korea?

Dr. Okasha: They’ve already been penetrated. As I told you, George Soros entered the Chinese and Russian economies. There’s influence there now. That’s why they’re not helping Iran. The next big war—Armageddon.

It started October 7, 2023. When Samson brought down the temple. That’s the metaphor.

October 7 was exploiting ignorance. Someone with a stick challenging someone with a gun—madness. Hamas was reckless and foolish. They trade in people.

They were manipulated into acting.

And this was the perfect excuse to cut off Iran’s arms. I told the Jews directly: You’re the ones who created Hamas. Don’t forget 2007.

I had never heard about this supposed meeting in 1717, but i seems that conspiracy theories like to refer to that year because the British Freemasons started that year.

This is not fringe. This is mainstream Egyptian media, with little to no pushback from scholars or reasonable reporters.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Who are the NYC Jews who voted for Mamdani? And what can be done to make them care more about their fellow Jews?

A recent survey showed that 20% of New York Jews planned to vote for Zohran Mamdani, an anti-Zionist candidate. Some leftist Jewish groups even celebrated helping him win. But the real story isn't ideological betrayal: it's disconnection. These voters aren't turning against Judaism - they're drifting away from it. And that, not their politics, is the deeper threat.

A May survey showed that 20% of New York Jews planned to vote for Zohran Mamdani. Who are those 20%?

One of the problems with polling Jews is that being Jewish can describe belonging to a people, ethnicity or religion. So people who identify as Jews often have nothing to do with the Jewish religion. A recent Pew poll shows that 17% of Jews who were raised Jewish in America now say they are unaffiliated with any religion (and 7% converted out of Judaism.) Those 17% still identify as being ethnically Jewish but they have nothing to do with Judaism.

A survey of New York City Jews in 2023 showed this trend:

16% said being Jewish was not important to them
27% said having Jewish grandchildren was not important to them
15% had no connection to the Jewish community
22% did not observe Yom Kippur
48% never participate in any Jewish programs
32% of those who give charity never give to Jewish organizations

That poll shows a consistent pattern: the Jews who were most attached to Israel are the Jews for whom Judaism is the biggest part of their lives, and vice versa. The more religious Jews follow the news from Israel more closely, they care more about Israel when choosing which candidates to support, and they feel far more attached to Israel emotionally. Likewise, the Jews who were less affiliated with Judaism were the ones who cared the least about rising antisemitism in New York City.

The problem isn't that these Jews have a love for radical politics. It is that they don't care any more about Judaism. They still identify as ethnically Jewish but they don't identify as religiously Jewish. And the many articles that trumpet how many Jews have turned against Israel rarely point out that practically none of those Jews are practicing Jews.

We cannot convince them to change their politics. But we need to bring these Jews back into the Jewish community. Because as it is, they simply don't care about their fellow Jews, and that is the real problem.

These people who barely identify as Jews are the ones least likely to have Jewish friends. They have no community, and therefore they feel no Jewish identity and - more importantly - no obligation to the Jewish community. It can be surmised that many of them find other alternative communities to belong to - socialist or Leftist being how they primarily identify themselves.

How can we bring these Jews back? Especially those who have become agnostic or atheist?

Outside of "kiruv" organizations who try to make Jews more religious, what else can we do?

We need a new kind of Jewish outreach: not to religiosity, but to mutual obligation. Not to prayer, but to peoplehood. This means creating cultural spaces, online networks, and educational efforts that appeal to alienated Jews on ethical, emotional, and historical grounds. If religion feels distant, community can still feel vital.

One survey question is most telling. It asked why people felt either more or less attached to Israel over the past ten years.

The New York Jews who feel that they are less attached to Israel than ten years ago give their reasons:

And here are the reasons for Jews to have increased their attachment to Israel:

Those who felt less attached based their reasons overwhelmingly on what they are reading in the media about Israel. Practically none of them visited Israel or asked Israeli friends what the reality is - they read the New York Times or The New Yorker and base their opinions on second-hand, biased information.

How many of them would know that the hated Benjamin Netanyahu has poured more money into improving Israeli Arab communities than his predecessors? How many know that Arab Israelis are way overrepresented in medical fields compared to their numbers? If it is not reported in the newspapers, they have no way of knowing facts like that which disprove the "Israel is racist" meme that we see constantly in the news.

A plurality of those who felt more attached to Israel either visited Israel or chose on their own to research the truth. And in second place were those who learned more through family and friends. Both those methods bypass the media as the arbiter of what is actually happening in Israel.

The Jews who support Zohran Mamdani are those who are the most Jewishly and Zionistically illiterate. No doubt most of them consider themselves to be well-informed, but they don't have any Jewish or Israeli friends who can inform them of the truth.

The anti-Zionists rely on lies and on twisting the truth. The Zionists rely on first hand accounts and on friends who know the truth. If those who are more educated tend to be more Zionist, perhaps the Mamdani voters need to be challenged directly on what they think they know versus what the facts are.

But more importantly, the Jewish community must be more pro-active in making them feel that they are part of the Jewish people and share the same destiny. One's Jewish identity should be more important than one's political affiliation. The same advice applies to committed Jews and unmoored Jews: Jews should treat their fellow Jews as family, and give them the benefit of the doubt. We are all one people, whether or not we all realize it. Uncommitted Jews should learn that there are more paths to education and community than reading liberal media; committed Jews should not write off the uncommitted but redouble our efforts to bring them back into the family.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Haaretz reports:

Prof. Michael Spagat, an economist at Holloway College at the University of London, is a world-class expert on mortality in violent conflicts. He's written dozens of articles on the wars in Iraq, Syria and Kosovo, among others. This week he and a team of researchers published the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of mortality in the Gaza Strip.

With the aid of Palestinian political scientist Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the team surveyed 2,000 households in Gaza, comprising almost 10,000 people. They concluded that, as of January 2025, some 75,200 people died a violent death in Gaza during the war, the vast majority caused by Israeli munitions.

Israel's war in Gaza has killed over 17,000 children. These are the stories of 28 of them
There is only one way to end the Gaza war and prevent future bloodbaths
At that time, the Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip placed the number of those killed since the war's start at 45,660. In other words, the Health Ministry's data undercounted the true total by about 40 percent.

The study hasn't yet undergone peer review – it was published as a "preprint" – but its results are very similar to those of a study conducted by completely different methods and published last January by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. That group also estimated the disparity between the Health Ministry data and the true figures to be about 40 percent.

Professor Spagat is a legitimate researcher. And when you read the pre-print, you see that he tries to compensate for potential problems, like people being surveyed inflating the number of dead household members in hopes of getting Hamas or PA payments.

But other potential methodological problems are not adequately addressed. While the survey attempts to compensate for subconscious bias by the researchers choosing households that represent Gaza's demographics, it does not seem to account for subconscious bias in avoiding surveying households with zero deaths.

Other data in the survey indicate that perhaps the methodology does not reflect Gaza's reality. For example, it counted family births that would map to over 79,000 births in Gaza over the 15 months of the survey, which is higher than the assumed 75,000 or so normally born in Gaza in a 15 month period - and it is assumed (by some) that the number of live births decreased significantly during the war due to increased miscarriages. This indicates that it is possible that the same households who exaggerated death rates would also exaggerate birth rates, for the same honor-based reasons.

Another major problem: The survey estimates 12,200 missing people in Gaza based on this survey, done in January 2025. In the ceasefire period afterwards, less than 1,000 bodies were recovered, indicating that there were never 10,000 or 11,000 missing people as had been reported by Hamas and repeated by the UN. This again indicates that the survey itself has methodological flaws - of the reality doesn't jive with its estimates, then there must be something wrong with how the survey was done and written up.

An even bigger problem is that the surveyed households said that 281 of their members left Gaza, while 457 of their members died (393 violently.) But we know that the total number of Gazans who left has been over 100,000 (some say 110,000), much higher than this survey indicates (about 56,000.) Is it possible that many households counted those who fled Gaza as being killed to make themselves look more steadfast in the face of war? That one data point by itself can account for the entire discrepancy of numbers between the Ministry of Health and this survey.

Which brings up perhaps the biggest problem. The Ministry of Health has been trying to make its death count as high as possible, by not only counting bodies but also allowing people to fill out surveys of unreported "martyrs." It has been publicizing these surveys constantly for over a year. What incentive do people have to not report their family member deaths to the ministry? In other words, what can reasonably account for such a discrepancy between MoH statistics and this survey?

The survey team did not seem to try to match up names of the deceased with the MoH published lists, perhaps for privacy reasons. The paper does not address this critical question of how the MoH could be realistically undercounting the deaths by 40%.

I do not think that the survey was consciously biased. But I think that the implementation allowed for significant bias on the part of the survey team - all from Gaza - as well as from families who might, for various reasons, want to make it look like they are more heroic.

Either way, its numbers on missing people and those who left Gaza are so out of whack with other sources that it appears that its methodology itself to ensure that the households surveyed represent Gaza reality was badly flawed.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/28 Links: The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded; Haaretz: the lies continue; Hamas offers bounties to kill GHF aid workers; Glastonbury: The permitted racism

From Ian:

Bigger Than Just Iran

This was not, however, the first time Israel used its military against an enemy’s nuclear program. The history is noteworthy. Israel sent its air force to hit Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and to hit Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007. No major retaliation, let alone a new war, resulted, and neither Iraq nor Syria even tried to revive their nuclear weapons programs. Both decided it was not worthwhile to rebuild, given Israel’s determination to prevent any such program from succeeding.

Trump’s action has produced criticism from the left and also within his political camp. Some MAGA critics have argued that Iran is a distraction from containing China and ending reckless government spending. Those are important priorities, but the spread of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest threats in the world to the security, prosperity, and well-being of Americans. Even by the strictest standards of MAGA restraint in world affairs, the United States has to prevent such proliferation.

If Iran became a nuclear power, the danger would extend beyond aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and other bad actions by Iran. Iran’s achievement would spur Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and other states in the Middle East and beyond to become nuclear powers too. The number of nuclear powers in the world, now fewer than 10, could in short order grow to 20 or 30. This would create greater risks of catastrophic accidents and "dirty" bomb terrorist attacks. If the world had dozens of nuclear powers, the likelihood of nuclear conflict would increase. Even a limited nuclear exchange could produce enormous harm, and not just to the parties involved in the exchange. It could gravely damage Americans by devastating global markets and supply chains, poisoning Earth’s atmosphere, and contaminating agriculture.

The blow struck by Operation Midnight Hammer will reverberate globally. Any country seeking a nuclear bomb—or considering providing one to others—now understands the United States may use force against it. This credible threat will make nonproliferation diplomacy more effective. It will reassure America’s allies that Washington is intent on maintaining the nuclear status quo.

The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is more than a tactical military success. It is a strategic reaffirmation of American global leadership. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts since 1945 have not been a perfect success. But they have been astonishingly effective. They represent one of the most significant achievements of the United States (and key partners) in international security. That fewer than 10 nations possess nuclear weapons today reflects the effectiveness of combined diplomatic, economic, and military pressures. The strike against Iran reinforces the point—critical to the interests of the United States and the world in general—that rogue states pursuing nuclear weapons will face not just disapproving diplomacy and economic sanctions, but maybe also military destruction. It’s a harsh but constructive message.

‘The stars aligned’: Why Israel set out for a war against Iran, and what it achieved

Over the past decades, Israel has come up with numerous different plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program. None of them were activated, nor were they considered ready. Until this month.

In the early hours of June 13, the Israel Defense Forces launched what it dubbed a “preemptive” operation against not just the Iranian nuclear program, but the wider threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles and its overarching plans to destroy Israel.

The war began with surprise strikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force in Tehran and other areas of Iran, some 1,500 kilometers from Israel. The sudden assault was multifaceted.

In what is now known as Operation Red Wedding, some 30 top Iranian military commanders — including the three most senior generals — were eliminated in near-simultaneous strikes in Tehran, which, according to the IDF, disrupted Iran’s command and control and prevented it from responding to Israel for nearly a full day.

Most significant among them was the chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ air force, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who was killed alongside the rest of the top brass of the IRGC Aerospace Force — responsible for Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones — as they met in an underground command center to prepare Iran’s retaliation.

The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded

A window of opportunity emerged. Iran’s proxies had been depleted in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre. At great cost, Israel was able to weaken Hamas and also impair Hezbollah. The Lebanese terrorist group agreed to a ceasefire in November 2024. With US President Donald Trump in office, Israel’s leadership believed it could act against Iran. Iran also lost out in Syria when the Assad regime fell in December 2024. This meant that the road was now open to Iran.

The road was open because the new government in Damascus opposes Iran. Iraq is a weak state and can’t stop Israel’s efforts against Iran, even though Iraq has pro-Iranian militias. The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq also fears Iran’s power and is likely pleased to see the regime weakened. That means Israel felt it could act.

Israel’s initial sorties were effective against parts of the nuclear program and key officials in Tehran. In addition, Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted. Iran fired back, killing more than 24 Israelis in several days. It also wounded up to 3,000 people in 12 days of war and caused 10,000 Israelis to be displaced, as Iranian missiles destroyed neighborhoods.

Around 50 missiles impacted Israel of the 500 that were launched. Israel continued daily strikes on Iran, destroying its air defenses and going after other Iranian regime elements.

On June 22, the US joined the war with an attack on three nuclear sites, including using massive munitions on Fordow. This was supposed to have destroyed key parts of the nuclear program. It is likely that many parts remain and that Iran can rebuild its ballistic missiles. The question now is whether Iran will change its tune and stop trying to move toward a nuclear weapon. Iran is weakened, but its regime has not collapsed. Israel’s 12-day war was a gamble, and it was made possible by a unique set of circumstances. Much remains to be seen if it was the game changer that some people think it was.

Mossad had 'boots on the ground' in Iran for over a decade before war - report

Mossad agents had been monitoring nuclear sites in Iran for nearly 15 years before the start of the Israel-Iran War, The Times reported on Friday.

According to leaked intelligence documents seen by The Times, the Mossad realized that Iran’s capability, knowledge, and components of the nuclear program expanded beyond the main sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

An intelligence source told The Times that the Mossad had “boots on the ground” at several different locations across Iran since 2010.

Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were destroyed by US and Israeli strikes at the start of the month, though there has been notable debate about the damage to the sites.

The intelligence documents showed that Iran aimed to produce at least 1,000 long-range missiles a year, and wanted to amass an arsenal of 8,000 missiles.

However, the Islamic Republic reportedly started the war with Israel with a maximum of 2,500 missiles.

An intelligence cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

Spies built maps of nuclear enrichment sites, infiltrated IRGC
An intelligence source cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

The Times reported that the US attack on Iran targeted seven parts of Iran’s main uranium enrichment site, Natanz. Israeli intelligence used spies on the ground to create a map of Natanz and identify aboveground and underground structures that included piping, feeding, and solidification of uranium. The Israel Air Force also targeted electric infrastructure, a research building, the site’s transformer station, and a backup generator.

The IDF also targeted several other sites related to nuclear weapons developments, such as Isfahan and the Shariati military site.

Many of these were reportedly set up by the SPND, an organization led by now-dead Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. He was reportedly assassinated by Israel in 2020 by a satellite-controlled machine gun.

Additionally, the leaked documents showed that the Mossad had infiltrated the IRGC headquarters as well as the Sanjarian nuclear site, which reportedly developed nuclear weapons components.

06/27 Links Pt2: Nova massacre doc ‘We Will Dance Again’ wins Emmy; Exposing Gaza: What the World Wasn’t Supposed to See; Gentrifying the Intifada; Dems to Mamdani: Take My Party, Please!

From Ian:

The Metaphysical Root of Antisemitism and Ziophobia

Conclusion: The Endurance of Antisemitism and Ziophobia
Antisemitism and Ziophobia are not merely political phenomena or temporary social biases. They are deeply embedded in the theological and metaphysical frameworks of Christianity and Islam, which have historically claimed to replace or supersede Jewish identity. These religions’ foundational narratives involve both the appropriation and the delegitimization of Jewish history and sovereignty.

Because these belief systems continue to exist—as do the real Jewish people and the modern state of Israel—and, in many cases, remain unexamined or unrepentant in their supersessionist doctrines, antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia, are likely to persist for as long as Christianity and Islam endure.

This also explains why UNRWA and its system of hereditary “refugees” will likely persist as well. It is not merely a humanitarian agency—it is the institutional expression of an unresolved metaphysical resentment.

As long as Islam and Christianity continue to view themselves as rightful heirs to Israel—spiritually, historically, or territorially—without acknowledging that the Jewish people never relinquished their identity, sovereignty, or covenant, the conflict will remain unresolved not just politically, but ontologically.

And let’s be honest: supersessionism is just a theological euphemism for stolen identity, stolen covenants, stolen prophets, and ultimately, a stolen God. And whoever you’ve stolen from, you don’t want around. The continued existence of the Jewish people is an unbearable reminder of that theft—a living contradiction to the replacement story.

Understanding this is crucial: combating antisemitism and Ziophobia requires more than political or social measures. It demands confronting centuries-old theological narratives and the metaphysical resentments they perpetuate—along with the institutions, like UNRWA, that have grown out of them.

Boulder, DC Terror Attacks Targeting Jews Were 'Political,' Not Anti-Semitic, NYT Columnist Suggests

New York Times opinion columnist Masha Gessen suggested that the terror attacks targeting two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C., and a group of Jews marching in support of Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colo., weren’t anti-Semitic but rather "political."

Gessen argued in a Wednesday column that "violence that looks antisemitic may—even when it very effectively serves to scare a great many Jews—be something else." The columnist suggested the attacks were instead politically driven.

"Neither of these events was exclusive to Jews, as a synagogue service might be. Both events were inextricable from the war in Gaza," Gessen wrote. "And though the violence in Boulder was wide ranging, the shooting in Washington seems to have been very specifically targeted—at two representatives of the Israeli government."

Both attackers, however, targeted events that would attract Jews specifically. Elias Rodriguez shot and killed Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim outside the Capital Jewish Museum at point blank range and screamed "Free, free Palestine" upon his arrest. Mohamed Soliman threw two molotov cocktails—with 16 more and a makeshift flamethrower nearby—at a group that meets weekly to support Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity, injuring 15, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Soliman was caught on film yelling to "end Zionists."

The terror attacks have reverberated across Jewish communities. Boulder-area Jews rallied after the firebombing, but told the Washington Free Beacon that the incidents have left them on edge, if not fearful.

Gessen’s column comes as anti-Semitic incidents surge across the nation, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting more than 10,000 incidents in the year after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, marking over a 200 percent increase. It also contradicts a piece from the New York Times editorial board, which stated, "No political arguments or ideological context can justify" growing bigotry against Jews. It also recognized that "antisemitism has become an urgent problem" leaving "Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group."

While Gessen acknowledged that the D.C. and Boulder incidents, which occurred less than two weeks apart, were terror attacks, the columnist also argued that they stemmed from "Israel’s devastation of Gaza following the Hamas attack on Oct. 7." Gessen pointed out that Rodriguez didn’t mention "Jews" or "Zionists" in his 900-page manifesto, opening "the possibility that he had a different motive."

New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander defended Gessen’s column as part of the paper’s effort to "put forth original perspectives on the world, and any fair reader of our opinion report will understand this inherently. There isn’t another media institution, digital, print or broadcast, that commits more resources to audiences' understanding of multiple viewpoints."

Stephen Pollard: Lord Hermer’s idiocy is boundless

It is meant to be that of a quiet, sagacious legal adviser. Lord Hermer, however, seems to treat it as a chance to pretend to be a heavyweight politician whose opinions the world needs to know.

Last month, for example, Lord Hermer told the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that both Nigel Farage’s Reform and Kemi Badenoch’s Tories had adopted Nazi ideology by asserting that national law supersedes international agreements, in reference to the idea of withdrawing Britain from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): “The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by ‘realist’ jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt”. It was a grotesque comparison for which he was later forced to issue a humiliating apology.

Then there was his role in the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which he asserted was about “honouring our obligations under international law” – even though the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the issue was not legally binding.

It is remarkable how often Lord Hermer, a renowned KC, seems to speak before fully engaging his brain.Which brings us to today’s comments. Lord Hermer was referring to – dismissing, rather – accusations after the riots last summer, when it was argued that the rioters were treated unduly harshly.

But he of all people will surely be aware that there is another element to accusations of two-tier justice, which he appears to have ignored altogether: the way in which the so-called Free Palestine marches have been allowed to continue with minimal intervention despite open chants calling for “globalising the intifada” (ie killing Jews) and support for terror against Jews.

I simply do not see how it is possible not to accept that there is two-tier justice, when the hate marches have not merely been protected by the police – but when counter-demonstrators condemning Hamas or peacefully waving Israeli flags have been arrested.

Hermer clearly fancies himself as some sort of moral conscience, when in reality he is merely the latest – albeit the most exalted and most egregious – of political buffoons embarrassing himself and the Government of which he is a part.

06/27 Links Pt1: Trump speculates Gaza ceasefire will be reached ‘within the next week’; ‘Ha’aretz’ article accusing IDF war crimes a ‘blood libel,’ Netanyahu says

From Ian:

Amit Segal: How Ron Dermer Helped Shape History Behind the Scenes

Just 24 hours later, dozens of meters underground, somewhere in the Jerusalem hills, the minister responsible for American affairs spoke moments before the decisive vote. “In every generation, they rise up to destroy us,” Dermer began, referencing a classic Jewish text. “Today, it is the Iranians who seek our destruction. I’ve spent 25 years working to prevent exactly this.”

He was referring to the mission that began in 2000, when Dermer, then a young private citizen, first met Benjamin Netanyahu, a worried private citizen himself, and discussed the Iranian threat. The current chapter started shortly after the recent U.S. elections, at Mar-a-Lago, when Dermer flew in to meet President-elect Trump. “If you strike Iran,” he argued, “you will experience the opposite of what Biden faced after Afghanistan. Biden’s hurried withdrawal weakened America, emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine and Hamas to attack Israel. A decisive strike on Iran will strengthen you—and America.”

What makes America’s decision to drop the bombs even more remarkable is the isolationist direction the country has been heading in. After the First World War, America retreated into isolationism, only to be shaken out of it by the horrors of Pearl Harbor. But then, following the Iraq War, another era of American withdrawal began. Today, we stand in a moment analogous to the 1930s—just before a local “Hitler” acquires a nuclear bomb. Democrats have overwhelmingly opposed foreign intervention, and this reluctance has also started to gain traction within the Republican Party.

What’s so extraordinary about the U.S. bombing of Iran, therefore, is that this dramatic shift occurred without an American tragedy, such as Pearl Harbor, provoking it.

Dermer told Israel’s security cabinet this week that America’s action represents a tectonic shift, beneficial for years to come: the use of force doesn’t necessarily lead to disaster. Indeed, Iran may have just corrected Iraq’s legacy.

American bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles sealed off Iran’s nuclear facilities, burying its uranium deep underground. Now the United States must prevent the enriched materials from being smuggled out. Once again, Dermer will be there to see the job through.

Amid ceasefire, struggle for Iranian freedom must accelerate

What’s different is that the Iranian people have a clear vision for what comes next. They are not simply saying no to dictatorship — they are saying yes to democracy, yes to secularism, yes to freedom. And they are not alone. For years, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, under the leadership of Maryam Rajavi, has provided not just hope, but structure. Her 10-point plan for a free Iran is not a dream. It is a roadmap. It calls for universal suffrage, gender equality, freedom of belief and expression, an independent judiciary, and a non-nuclear Iran committed to peace.

This vision has real support — not just in the streets of Iran, but across the democratic world. The majority of the United States House of Representatives recently supported House Resolution 166, with strong bipartisan backing, affirming support for the Iranian people’s right to a democratic republic. Worldwide, over 4,000 political figures and parliamentarians have done the same. These are not symbolic gestures. They are declarations that the world no longer sees the regime as Iran’s future.

So what now?

This ceasefire creates a narrow, vital opening. The missiles may be grounded, but the mission is not complete. In fact, it is only now that the real mission begins. The time has come for the world to stop dancing around the question and answer it plainly: the future of Iran must be decided by the Iranian people themselves—not by foreign powers, and certainly not by a criminal regime desperate to survive another day.

The West must shift its strategy—from managing the regime to empowering its opposition. That means sanctioning the IRGC as a terrorist organization everywhere. It means freezing assets held by regime officials and their families abroad. It means cracking down on regime lobbies and propaganda in Western capitals. And most importantly, it means opening the door to direct engagement with the democratic alternative that already exists: the NCRI and its 10-point platform.

This is not a call for war. It is a call for alignment. A call to stop legitimizing a regime that murders its own children and start amplifying the voices of those who dare to dream beyond it. It is a call to match words with action — and action with conviction.

This moment — this brief pause — may be the last best chance we have. The regime is weakened, isolated, and increasingly desperate. But desperate regimes do desperate things. Only the people of Iran, organized, unified, and backed by a principled international community, can finally bring this dark chapter to an end.

Let us not waste this moment. Let us not confuse silence with stability. Let us make it clear: the ceasefire is not the goal. Freedom is. And it must come from the hands of the Iranian people — and the resistance they have built.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: Make Iran pay. Literally.

So, how do we stop the terror? How do we ensure Iran has no incentive to launch new threats? The answer is simple: make them pay for every act of terror – for the damage inflicted by their proxies, and for any future attack for which they are responsible.

This isn’t a novel idea. In 2003, Libya agreed to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as part of a deal to lift international sanctions. Similarly, Sudan agreed to compensate victims of the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (carried out by al-Qaeda) in order to be removed from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

American courts have already issued judgments totaling billions of dollars against Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Any future agreement with Iran must resolve the payment of those existing judgments and establish a mechanism, such as a dedicated victims’ compensation fund, financed by Iran, to address future claims.

In this way, Iran would be forced to pay both for past acts of terrorism and for any future involvement in such crimes, creating a real and tangible deterrent.

Of the three central goals in this campaign, stopping Iranian-sponsored terrorism may well be the most urgent and critical to regional stability. So many innocent people in so many countries have been killed in Iran’s decades-long global terror campaign. While other safeguards and enforcement mechanisms will be necessary, one thing is clear: any deal must make terror costly for Iran.

Terror must come with a price.

Neither Israelis Nor The Iranian People Seem Happy With The Ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

It looks like the only people more disappointed to see Trump's Israel-Iran Ceasefire survive than the Democrats looking to impeach the President are the Iranian people:

According to this Iranian-American analyst, many Iranians feel betrayed by Israel because of promises of support. [Among X posters who identify as Iranian/Persian, about 60% agreed with Mohebbi, 30% expressed appreciation for Israel's actions, and 10% expressed mixed reactions, according to Grok - EoZ]

Accusing the Israeli government of deserting the Iranian people or of having taken advantage of them is a serious charge. However, it is important to keep in mind that Netanyahu did not promise to single-handedly liberate the Iranian people. He did, however, urge that they themseles seize the opportunity:

Just hours following Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to the Iranian people and said: "This is your opportunity to stand up [to the regime]."

To facilitate this, Israel targeted more than just the military in Iran:

o Israel killed several high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Since the IRGC is an enforcer of regime control, Israel disrupted the government's ability to maintain internal security and suppress dissent.

o  Degrading Iran’s military capabilities not only benefited Israel, it also limited the Iranian regime’s ability to maintain order during protests, as the military did during the 2022 protests.

o  Israel struck police stations in urban areas, disrupting local law enforcement operations.

o  Israel targeted facilities linked to domestic surveillance, weakening the regime’s ability to monitor and control the population.

As it turns out, the Iranian people are not the only ones disappointed by the ceasefire. Apparently, Israelis are opposed to it as well. Israel Realtime, which provides updates on news affecting Israel, conducted an online poll. They asked: "What is your view on the ceasefire plan announced by Trump?"

Israelis are not happy.

Based on these numbers:

62% of Israelis oppose the ceasefire
24% of Israelis are in favor of the ceasefire
14% of Israelis are unsure

This is far from a ringing endorsement.

One reason for the lack of enthusiasm is that the idea for a ceasefire did not come from Israel. It came from Trump, and it came out of nowhere, not long after the long-awaited US bombing of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. So, instead of taking advantage of the momentum and continuing their attack, Israel was instead warned to stand down before being able to reach all of their objectives.

When it comes to being pressured, one could argue that Trump himself was also under pressure--from the Democrats.

Once the US forces bombed Iran, multiple Democratic congressmen accused Trump of going beyond his authority and bypassing Congress. Representative Al Green (D-Texas) introduced his fifth resolution to impeach Trump, this time alleging that Trump bypassed Congress and violated the War Powers Clause. The resolution was tabled in the House by a vote of 344–79. AOC claimed that the strikes Trump authorized against Iran were grounds for impeachment because they were done without congressional approval. Even Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky also condemned the bombings as “not constitutional” because there was no imminent threat, as well as a lack of congressional involvement.

Considering there was public conjecture on the consequences of the bombing ranging from the possibility of increased regional instability to the outbreak of World War III, it is not hard to imagine that those possibilities, combined with political threats at home, pushed Trump to promote a ceasefire between Israel and Iran soon after the bombing and so depressurize the situation.

However, while Israelis in general may think that stopping the fighting hamstrings the IDF when there was more work to be done, it might have been to Israel's advantage militarily to end the fighting.

On his podcast, Call Me Back, author Dan Senor interviewed Nadav Eyal, a senior analyst at Yediot Aharonot, and Amit Segal, a senior analyst at Israel's Channel 12.

According to Eyal, even before Trump's call for a ceasefire, Netanyahu had made it clear that Israel was close to achieving its goals. Clearly, the prime minister did not want to get involved in a war of attrition in addition to the war in Gaza. Besides, "It was obvious that the Iranians were looking for a way out." But Iran's willingness to accept the deal does not automatically guarantee Israeli success. Only Iranian actions going forward will indicate the true nature of Israel's victory. It is not enough to degrade Iran's abilities, it is also important to change their behavior.

Segal also makes the point that Israel was close to running out of targets in Iran sooner than expected. So Israel was not so opposed to ending the war. In fact, Israel may have been ready to finish up within three or four days. He commented that this was the first war in which Israel did not lose a single soldier. That added to the incentive to wrap it up as soon as possible.

Senor notes that this ceasefire is not like the one with Lebanon and Hezbollah, which were negotiated first. Here, hostilities ended because Trump demanded it. Senor makes the point that one reason for the Saudi delay in joining the Abraham Accords is that they were waiting to see where the US stands. From that perspective, the ceasefire is a major plus.

Personally, I wonder if Trump's unilateral call for a ceasefire really assuages those fears or perhaps the arbitrariness with which he announced it might make the Saudis and others uneasy. And as Eyal points out, we will see what Trump expects from Israel "in return" for the ceasefire, like ending the war in Gaza.

We may be happy with the ceasefire, but questions remain.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Is aid to Gaza being secured by anti-Hamas clans?

This video has been going around, showing gunmen on many aid trucks in Gaza on Wednesday:

Many are saying that these are Hamas members stealing the aid, but I'm not so sure.

Media in Gaza indicates that these are the anti-Hamas clans in Gaza who are securing the aid.

COGAT said on Wednesday:

150 humanitarian aid trucks carrying food, baby food and formula, medical supplies and medications, were transferred to the northern Gaza Strip via the Zikim Crossing and to the southern Gaza Strip through the Kerem Shalom Crossing over the last two days (June 23-24).

This Africa News video interviews Gaza residents who are receiving aid in an orderly fashion, and they are happy that the aid is not being looted as it was before. It mentions that the clans are saying that they are protecting and helping distribute the aid.

Hiba Khalil, a mother of seven, expressed her deep gratitude: "Thanks God, that the trucks are secured and we can receive orderly better than what used to happen with the looting." Khalil noted that flour had been selling for as much as 2,000 to 3,000 shekels—nearly $900—making it unaffordable for many during the ongoing economic collapse in Gaza.

Gaza’s powerful clans say they are stepping in to ensure fair and secure distribution. Though it's unclear how much coordination has taken place with Israeli or UN officials, residents say the new approach is working better.

Ali al-Tiben, another Gaza resident, said: "Today, we are very happy that we can receive (aid) in an organized way better than the aid distribution that was looted by gangs."

The flour in the video appears to come from the World Food Programme.

This video, from the official PA Wafa news agency, show a Gaza City woman receiving a food package that, they say, was secured by clans in Gaza. The PA is not shy about accusing Hamas of stealing aid - it has done so numerous times - so when they say that this was secured by clans, it is possible that they are telling the truth.

Her aid box seems to be from the UAE Red Crescent Society.

It is possible that both are true - that Hamas is intercepting the aid, taking a cut and then giving it to locals to protect from further looting. It does not seem likely to me, though. But it is unclear exactly at what point the gunmen get on the trucks - at the Kerem Shalom and other import sites, or after the trucks are past inspections?

After the video of the gunmen came out, Israel was said to have blocked all aid for 48 hours until it could come up with a plan to keep it away from Hamas. But the clans in Gaza deny that Hamas is stealing it.

The IDF would know better than anyone, but there is political pressure in Israeli leaders not to allow aid to get into Gaza that is not protected end to end until distribution to the people. Yet the Gaza clans are the only viable way, outside of paid contractors like GHF uses, to secure aid and keep it away from Hamas. Sure they are thugs, but they generally dislike Hamas and are not interested in sacrificing Gaza lives to attack Israel.

As is seemingly always the case, not only do we not know, but we also don't know what we don't know. And anyone who claims to know is probably lying.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A few days ago, Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda and the current chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, affirmed that Jews have a historic right to the Land of Israel and called on the Arab world and Iran to recognize Israel.

He published his letter on X but Western media seems to have largely ignored it.

It is an unprecedented statement. The Non-Aligned Movement represents 121 nations, including all of Africa and the Middle East besides Israel.

Excerpts:

Whenever I visit Iran, like when His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was President, I told them that their stand that Israel is a "transplant" in the Middle East and does not belong there legitimately, is a mistake. We told the Iranians that according to the Bible, Israel is part of that area. The Romans dispersed the Jews after Masada, who continued to suffer wherever they went in Europe, North Africa and Asia until they tried to go back to their homeland with the Zionist Movement. The habitual mistake makers, the British imperialists, in the person of some wonderful man known as Lord Balfour, in 1924, offered the Jews Uganda as a homeland!![sic] Imagine the absurdity. The Jews wisely refused the ridiculous offer and insisted on Palestine where they had a historical, legitimate claim. It was, therefore, correct that the United Nations decided to partition Palestine among the two People. It has been wrong for some of the Arabs and Iranian Islamists to refuse to recognize that historical solution.

He goes on to say that Israel made a mistake in refusing the two state solution, seemingly unaware that Zionist leaders have accepted partitions and peace plans to create a Palestinian Arab state several times from the 1930s to the 2000s.

It seems most strange that the media hasn't covered this story. But then again, it goes against the narrative of Israel being more and more isolated, so perhaps that has something to do with it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)