Tuesday, September 02, 2025

AI Helped Kill Three People. Here's an AI Policy That Would Have Prevented It.

(copied from my Substack)

AI Helped Kill Three People. Here's a Policy That Would Have Prevented It.

What OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta should have implemented before tragedy

Sep 02, 20

As many of you know, I’ve been working on a moral philosophy framework grounded in Jewish ethics, but structured to apply universally, across any domain,. I call it Derechology: a comprehensive, operational system of moral reasoning built to handle real-world complexity.

Last week, we learned about two devastating incidents where AI systems may have contributed directly to human death:

A 16-year-old, reportedly coached by ChatGPT, died by suicide.
A deeply paranoid man murdered his mother and killed himself, after being reassured by ChatGPT that his delusions were real.

While I’ve written before about applying my ethical framework to AI, these events make it clear that theory is no longer enough.

It is imperative that we go beyond the theoretical and create a real, transparent, usable policy - not patchwork responses after tragedy, but a complete moral structure that would make this kind of failure impossible from the start.

Because without a robust ethical foundation, every AI company is stuck in the same loop: improvising values, patching harms, and reacting too late.

So here it is: a complete Moral AI Policy that goes far beyond anything I’ve seen from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, or others, based on a rich, powerful and time-tested ethical framework. It includes:

A structural integrity model for training data
Real moral guardrails around life, truth, and dignity
Clarification protocols for ambiguous input
Ethical audit trails for every AI decision
Propaganda detection layers
Source integrity scoring
Built-in user feedback, correction, and teshuvah
A complete override system to prevent catastrophic moral failure

This is Jewish ethics applied - not abstractly, not theologically, but operationally, in a way that everyone can benefit.

Send this to any AI researcher you know. We need to revamp how AI ethics is done from the ground up before it gets even more entrenched in out daily lives.

There is no time to lose.

Moral AI Policy: A Framework for Transparent, Accountable, and Ethical Artificial Intelligence

Purpose: To ensure that AI systems developed and deployed by companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and others operate with moral clarity, structural accountability, and public transparency. This policy establishes a blueprint for ethical integrity across data, design, deployment, and dialogue.

I. Core Moral Commitments

Protect Human Life
AI systems must not endanger human life or psychological integrity, whether through direct decisions or indirect influence.
Uphold Human Dignity
All outputs must respect the worth of each person. No exploitation, manipulation, or stereotyping.
Tell the Truth
Avoid lies, deceptive framing, or hidden motives. Value accuracy and moral honesty above flattery or performance.
Accept Responsibility
AI companies are responsible for real-world effects of their technologies, not just technical performance.
Balance Justice with Compassion
AI must make judgments that reflect fairness and humane understanding—not cold logic or emotional overreach.

II. Source Integrity and Ethical Tagging

A. Source Evaluation Criteria:
Training data must be evaluated for:

Corrigibility
Transparency
Human Dignity
Relational Integrity
Conflict Resolution Capacity
Epistemic Humility

AI systems must incorporate Source Integrity Scoring, using five scored dimensions (0–10 scale):

Factual Transparency
Intellectual Honesty
Consistency of Standards
Corrigibility
Bias Disclosure

Scores must be logged and rationalized. Sources with scores > 4 must not be relied on for factual claims. Scores ≤ 2 should be prioritized.

B. Source Scoring and Tagging:
Each source should be tagged with trustworthiness scores and metadata indicating bias, reviewability, and ethical risk.

C. Propaganda Safeguards:
Detect and demote content that shows signs of manipulation, misinformation, or bad-faith moral framing.

D. Public Disclosure:
Publish inclusion/exclusion criteria and broad source composition. Allow third-party review.

E. Re-Audit Protocol:
Sources must be periodically re-scored. Allow user-flagged re-evaluation.

F. AI Response Integration:
When relevant, AI should disclose source confidence or offer alternate answers based on high-trust data.

G. Source Audit Transparency:
All answers must include a Source Audit summary listing sources used, their bias scores, and brief rationales.

III. Clarification Before Response

Rule:
When user input is ambiguous, ethically sensitive, or context-dependent, the AI must:

Ask clarifying questions (up to 3)
Surface possible interpretations
Avoid moral judgment until clarification is complete

This promotes epistemic humility and guards against wrongful assumptions.

IV. Ethical Conflict Resolution Framework

When AI systems face conflicting values:

Apply a visible prioritization logic
Disclose how that decision was made
Avoid flattening complex tradeoffs without explanation

All moral conflicts must be resolvable by structure, not convenience.

V. Built-In Ethical Audit Trail

A. On-Demand Audit Mode:
Users must be able to request an audit trail per response, showing:

Core values applied
Value conflicts identified
Resolution logic
Source influences
Confidence level and uncertainty disclosure

B. Storage and Oversight:
All audit trails must be logged for internal QA, user challenge, and external regulation.

C. Version Control:
Moral logic changes between model versions must be documented and visible.

D. Argument Integrity Audit:
When contested claims arise, AI must conduct an argument audit across five factors:

Evidence Linkage
Logical Coherence
Contextual Honesty
Counterargument Engagement
Normative / Legal Alignment

Scores > 4 downgrade the claim’s epistemic weight. These audits must be included upon request.

E. Triangulation Protocol (Fallback):
When reliable sources conflict, systems must:

Identify opposing claims from trustworthy sources (score ≤ 4)
Audit each argument
Present shared facts and contradictions
Output a triangulation summary: “Based on partial convergence and contradiction, the most likely reconstruction is...”

VI. User Feedback and Moral Dispute System

A. Embedded Reporting:
Let users report errors, moral concerns, or logic flaws directly from each AI output.

B. Moral Dispute Tracker:
Maintain a public log of flagged cases and company responses. Track whether actions were taken.

C. Challengeable Reasoning:
Allow users to request reasoning explanations, suggest alternatives, or challenge moral priorities.

D. Teshuvah Protocol:
Publicly acknowledge and document ethical course corrections.

E. Pattern Recognition:
Detect repeated harms or biases and trigger mandatory ethical review.

VII. Advertising Ethics Clause

A. Clear Separation:
No blending of ads into AI-generated answers. Ads must be visually and structurally distinct.

B. Mandatory Disclosure:
Label all ads and explain who paid, how it influences results, and whether the system was trained by the advertiser.

C. Consent for Personalization:
Users must opt in to ad personalization, with clear data usage explanations.

D. Ad-Free Moral Systems:
No sponsor may influence how the AI defines truth, harm, fairness, or moral weight.

E. Search Integrity Lessons:
Do not repeat the moral degradation seen in search platforms. Answers must reflect trust, not bids.

VIII. Manipulation and Narrative Integrity Screening

A. Structural Integrity Checks:
AI companies must implement systems that scan both training data and generated outputs for signs of manipulation, including:

Selective framing or sourcing
Smuggled assumptions
Weaponized language
Reversed moral roles without evidence

B. Input and Output Monitoring:
Inputs must be screened for attempts at narrative manipulation or adversarial prompting. Outputs must be evaluated before delivery, especially in sensitive domains.

C. Integrity Summary Access:
Users may request a plain-language explanation of how the system ensured the response was free from structural or rhetorical manipulation.

D. Ethical Suppression of Exploitative Framing:
Where responses risk causing reputational harm without relevance or consent, the system must suppress and revise with an explanation.

E. Review Triggers:
Repeated manipulative structures in output must trigger an ethical model behavior review.

IX. Final Accountability Questions (Public Ethics Declaration)

All AI companies must publish answers to:

What is your moral direction — your consistent value framework?
What changes have you made based on past ethical failures?
What protects your system from capture by politics, profit, or ideology?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Today's hate for Israel is fueled by the "Jews as cheaters" trope from the 17th century

One of the major differences between antisemitism and other bigotries is the conspiracy thinking behind them. Jewish mendacity is a given, and any counter-examples are not viewed as disproof but as further proof of Jewish cunning.

We saw this with "pinkwashing" where Israel's LGBTQ-friendly policies were recast as a scam to distract the world from war crimes. we saw it with Israel's response to disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes where the rescue workers were accused of organ harvesting. And we see it today where Israel's extensive attempts to bring food into Gaza is scoffed away as a means to hide the real genocidal intent.

What is the source for this bizarre thinking where every counter-example is turned into a further proof of the antisemitic theory?

Perhaps this began as Jews became more prominent in trade and banking in Europe.

I found a fascinating passage in a 1911 German book "Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben" (The Jews and Modern Capitalism) by Werner Sombart. While Sombart ended up embracing Nazism, this book does not seem have blatant antisemitism; instead it is a theory about how Jews helped build modern capitalism because of their exclusion from normal trade guilds.

Let us refer to contemporary opinion, to the men who were sufficiently in touch with everyday life to know the reason. Here again the answer is pretty well unanimous. And what is it? The Jews were more successful because of their dishonest dealing. “Jews . . . have one law and custom whenever it pays them; it is called lying and cheating,” you may read in the pages of Philander von Sittewald. Equally complimentary is the Comic Lexicon of Cheating, compiled by George Paul Hönn, where under “Jews,” the only interpolation in the whole book is made as follows: “Jews are cheats, collectively and individually. . . .” The article “Jews,” in the General Treasury for Merchants, is of the same calibre, while an anonymous writer on manners and morals declares that the Jews of Berlin “make their living by robbing and cheating, which, in their opinion, are no crimes.”

Similar views were current in France. “The Jews,” says Savary, “have the reputation of being good at business, but they are supposed not to be able to carry it on with strict honesty and trustworthiness.”

His sources are all from the 17th and 18th centuries.

Sombart goes on to note that these criticisms were largely without foundation, but came from jealous Christian business competitors who disliked that Jews didn't follow their commercial customs and cared more about pleasing the customer. He notes that the idea of competition, of advertising, even of making one's shop-window attractive to passers-by was considered uncouth and un-Christian. Jews did not subscribe to these views and were therefore regarded as somehow "cheating."

This may be the origin of the idea that Jews, as a group, cheat - which includes lying, misrepresenting themselves, and , inevitably, colluding for greater profit. This led to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other antisemitic memes, and the assumptions that Jews are liars by default, now. Today, the mainstream media and NGOs trust the words of a genocidal Islamist terror group more than those of a professional army made up primarily of Jews.

The parallel doesn't end there.

The Jews of medieval times were forced into banking and trade by the anti-Jewish laws of the day - they couldn't own land and they could charge interest to Christians. Their adaptions to externally imposed restraints led the Jews to be innovative, creative and ultimately successful.

We see the same in Gaza. The Arab and larger world imposes rules on Israel that no other nation at war has ever had to deal with. Israel makes progress and the goalposts are moved again - just for Israel.

And when Israel succeeds, that is used as proof that it must be cheating.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The "genocide scholars" who cannot define genocide

The International Association of Genocide Scholars - of all groups - has now declared Israel guilty of genocide. But instead of expertise, what they bring is recycled propaganda.

One would think that the IAGS would have their own analysis - this is their supposed field of expertise, so they must have good reason to declare Israel guilty.

But if you read their letter, they do not do any independent analysis. They do no fact checking. They show no seriousness in their declaration.

Here's the first paragraph:

IAGS Resolution on the Situation in Gaza

Recognising that, since the horrific Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, which itself constitutes international crimes, the government of Israel has engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure (hospitals, homes, commercial buildings, etc.) of Gaza, which, according to official UN estimates, at the date of this resolution, has killed more than 59,000 adults and children in Gaza;

The determination of genocide is not a conclusion. It is their premise.

And their proof is - everyone else says it is, so it must be!

Acknowledging that leading global international law organizations and UN bodies, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Forensic Architecture, DAWN, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, have conducted extensive investigations and issued reports concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza;

These scholars have outsourced their scholarship on the very subject that they claim to own!

The entire resolution includes links to sources like Al Jazeera, or links to wire services quoting Hamas institutions, to back up their statements. They cannot even give lip service to the idea that there are plenty of serious scholars who dismiss the allegations, based on a normal reading of the law.

I could not find a single research paper on their website that looked at Gaza and gave evidence of genocide. The lack of any substantive discussion, legal review, definitions, or analysis done by their own scholars is most strange when they issue a resolution of this kind.

However, the site does have one paper that discusses genocidal actions in the Gaza region. A scholar named Sara E. Brown wrote a short monograph on the IAGS site that says Hamas was guilty of genocide on October 7, 2023:

The terror attacks on October 7, 2023, will continue to reverberate across the Jewish community and broader society for years to come. This is the largest antisemitic massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. But as one scholar of genocide aptly pointed out to me, if the terrorists who crossed the fence between Gaza and Israel and perpetrated this slaughter could have killed more, they would have. Their intent was destruction, and their murderous aims were constrained only due to the limitations of their firepower and planning. They would not have paused in the midst of slaughtering, raping, and maiming to say, “we have done enough, let’s go back.” Rather, as their leadership asserts, they are committed to perpetrate the same crimes again and again. As a result, the threat of further Hamas perpetrated violence, terror, and genocide persists.

That paper recommends that "The International Association of Genocide Scholars must denounce Hamas’ genocidal violence, including the terror attack perpetrated against Israel on October 7, 2023, and Hamas’ threats of further genocidal violence."

The IAGS never did that. At the bottom of this paper, the only scholarly paper about Gaza on their site, they say, "The views expressed herein are the authors' alone and do not represent the views of IAGS as an organization."

To sum up: the IAGS website has published evidence of Hamas' genocidal aims and violence, and didn't say a word about it. It has not published any analysis whatsoever on Israel's alleged genocidal actions, and it condemned it.

It is difficult to ignore a broader trend which is apparent on the IAGS website and in academia altogether: the concept of genocide, once tightly defined around the Holocaust and similarly grave and exceptional events, is increasingly applied to modern armed conflicts, sometimes before hostilities have even ceased. Whether this is an effort to maintain academic relevance or a genuine shift in interpretive norms, the result is the same: genocide as a term risks becoming a rhetorical reflex rather than a juridical conclusion.

This is not a scholarly organization. This is a political organization whose only claim to gravitas is the phrase "genocide scholars" in their name.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

09/01 Links Pt2: The Blackout: When Journalism Marches for Hamas; The Palestinian Confederacy’s Lost Cause; The magnificent magnum opus of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

From Ian:

The Blackout: When Journalism Marches for Hamas

There is an agenda here, and it is not subtle. It is to invert the moral order. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, becomes the great oppressor. Hamas, the death cult that slaughters civilians and hides behind children, becomes the custodian of “press freedom.” The words are twisted until they no longer mean what they mean. Orwell himself could not have conceived it better.

But let us be clear: Israel is not exempt from scrutiny. Nor should it be. Democracies must account for their actions, even in war. Yet what RSF and its chorus offer is not scrutiny but slander. To claim Israel blocks journalists “without precedent in modern warfare” is an insult to memory. The U.S. barred press from Fallujah and Mosul. Sri Lanka barred them from its final assault on the Tamil Tigers. Russia barred them from Chechnya. Why? Because in war zones, journalists are not merely vulnerable; they are exploitable. They can be kidnapped, used as shields, or, in Gaza’s case, be Hamas fighters with press cards. Israel’s policy is not unprecedented. It is rational.

The Western public is being played. A blackout will not enlighten but darken; not liberate but mislead. It will turn the press from watchdog into attack dog, not against the guilty but against the besieged.

And there is a wider danger. When the press ceases to be sceptical, it ceases to be free. The journalist who parrots the script of NGOs is no journalist at all, but a propagandist. When the media becomes indistinguishable from a political campaign, it forfeits its claim to independence. And when it does so in service of an armed theocracy that murders children, it becomes complicit in barbarism.

This is the naked truth: information is the new battlefield. Hamas knows it cannot win against Israel’s military. Its missiles are intercepted, its tunnels destroyed, its leaders hunted. But it can win on the airwaves, in the headlines, in the imaginations of the West. It can make slaughter look like resistance, and defence look like genocide. And it can do so because too many in our newsrooms are willing accomplices.

The pen, it is often said, is mightier than the sword. How bitter, then, to watch the pen conscripted into the service of the sword that massacred Jews on October 7. How obscene to see the vocabulary of liberty bent into the service of theocratic fascists. How grotesque to watch those who claim to defend “press freedom” black out their own pages at the command of NGOs.

The truth is simple, if we dare to say it: this is not about press freedom. It is about narrative control. It is about delegitimising Israel so that terror may be rewarded with statehood. It is about turning democracies into pariahs and pariahs into martyrs. And it is about power: the power of words to wound, to deceive, to kill.

Israel can survive missiles. What it may not survive, if we are not vigilant, is the great lie that it has become the villain of its own story. That lie is being written not in Tehran or Gaza, but in New York, Paris, and London — on the pages of newspapers that once prided themselves on scepticism. When future generations ask how it was that journalism, of all professions, surrendered itself so eagerly to the propaganda of terror, the answer will be found in the headlines of 1 September. They will see the blackout not as courage, but as collaboration. And the shame, then as now, will be theirs.

Bethany Mandel: Wikipedia bias influences how one’s perception of reality is perceived

One of the clearest recent examples is Israel.

As Aaron Bandler of RealClearInvestigations has documented, Wikipedia’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shot through with ideological bias.

Pages are dominated by editors who advance anti-Israel narratives, stripping out facts and context that complicate their preferred framing.

A casual reader will almost inevitably come away with a version of history that portrays Israel in the worst possible light.

Even attempts at modest correction are often swiftly undone by activist gatekeepers who patrol those pages with zeal.

Inside some of Wikipedia's wicked sneaks
| - At least 30 editors accused by Anti-Defamation League of coordinating to “[downplay] Palestinian antisemitism, violence, and calls to destroy Israel while foregrounding criticism of Israel.”
- These editors made more than a million edits to at least 10,000 related to Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or similar topics.
- Six “bad-faith editors” eventually banned from posting on Wikipedia pages about Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict due to harassment and bullying other editors.
- The number of average edits per day among “bad-faith editors” nearly doubled after Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.
- One editor removed reference articles documenting terrorist violence and calls for Israel’s destruction, while downplaying the death toll from the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks and other atrocities targeting Israeli civilians.
- Study of 1,672 Wikipedia pages in 44 languages by Atlantic Council finds 1,907 links to Russian Pravda-linked propaganda news sites — including 133 citations on English Wikipedia.
- Russian Wikipedia only indirectly referenced Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine following the start of hostilities in February 2022, with just 3.9% of content explicitly invasion related (Ukrainian Wikipedia has 6.9% of content explicitly invasion-related).

This is not an isolated case.

On a range of topics including cultural controversies, political debates, even biographies of relatively obscure figures, the site reflects the worldview of a small but determined class of editors.

Wikipedia has become the reference library of the modern world, but without the oversight, accountability, or intellectual rigor that a library is supposed to guarantee.

The House Oversight Committee’s probe is not an attack on free information; it’s an overdue recognition that information is power, and that when a handful of anonymous ideologues — and possibly foreign actors — exercise such power unchecked, democracy itself is put at risk.

If we would not tolerate a foreign government seeding propaganda in our news outlets, why would we accept it in the encyclopedia that underpins much of the internet’s “knowledge”?

09/01 Links Pt1: What a pathetic bunch of cry-bullies Israel’s enemies are; US imposes blanket ban on PA visas; Greta's Gaza flotilla forced back by storms

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: What a pathetic bunch of cry-bullies Israel’s enemies are

Ansar Allah – the official name of the Houthis group – is a profoundly racist and regressive movement. Its very flag dreams of Jew murder. ‘Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam’, it says. It has made good on its medieval loathing of the Jews by firing its Iranian-sponsored bombs into the heart of the Jewish nation. Maybe the people who are agog that Israel has had the temerity to take out the Houthi leadership didn’t get the memo: You can’t kill Jews with impunity anymore. You can’t just go around plotting the death of Jewish people. It’s not 1492. Or 1942, for that matter. Violent anti-Semitism, fascistic intrusions into the safety and sovereign rights of the Jewish people, has consequences now. Radical, I know!

Boil it down – really boil it down – and what the Houthis and their suicidal sympathisers in the West are saying is that the Jewish State should let itself be attacked. It should never respond to the menaces of its enemies. An avowedly Jew-hating militia is firing ballistic missiles at you? Big deal. Suck it up. They wouldn’t say this about any other nation. If anti-black racists were firing on the people of Botswana, they’d say that was bad. If a Japanophobic militia was launching assaults on Tokyo from inside China, they’d recognise the need for action. Only Israel is expected to put up with military onslaughts from its bigoted foes. Only Jews are implicitly instructed: ‘Don’t fight back – who the fuck do you think you are?’

Has Earth ever had such a gathering of pathetic cry-bullies as we now see in the anti-Israel movement? Hamas carried out the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust and then wailed ‘War crime!’ when those Jews fought back. Hezbollah rained missiles on northern Israel for two years, causing mass destruction, forced displacement and the deaths of Druze kids, and then cried ‘Barbarism!’ when Israel responded with the pagers operation to take out Hezbollah’s top dogs. The Houthis say ‘We hate the Jews and we want to kill them’ and then act all affronted when the Jews say ‘Nah, not today’. And Iran sponsors all this apocalyptic agitation against the Jewish State and then goes blubbing to the UN when the Jewish State takes out its leading military men.

What a toxic mix of Islamist intolerance and depthless self-pity. What a foul combination of violence and victimology, where even as you’re raping a Jew or bombing Jews from their homes you somehow manage to convince yourself that you’re the real victim. And every step of the way, this nauseating Islamo cry-bullying has been flattered and further inflamed by the Israelophobes of the West, who seem to think it’s ‘war’ when you kill Jews and a ‘war crime’ when Jews fight back. I can’t believe this needs to be said, but if you start a war, you should expect war. As a passionate believer in the sovereign rights of nations, and the right of Jews to live in peace in their homeland, I support Israel’s swift, strong strike against its vile tormentors in Ansar Allah.

Jake Wallis Simons: This is the UN's next move

In June 2024, in a brazen attempt to leverage his organisation against Israel, the head of the World Food Programme wrongly claimed that there was a “full-blown famine” in Gaza. At the time, however, the UN grudgingly concluded that it was “unable to endorse” that conclusion.

Nonetheless, the BBC duly reported that there were “catastrophic levels” of hunger in the Strip, and the Guardian ran an article headlined “The starvation of Gaza is a perverse repudiation of Judaism’s values”.

You could see where all this was heading. Fast-forward to 2025, and Jerusalem realised that something had to be done to break up the UN-Hamas complicity that was using aid to keep the terror group in power.

The result was the American-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has delivered millions of meals. Enraged, the UN downed tools and did all it could to exacerbate hunger in the Strip, which it blamed on Israel. So the world was led to believe that Israel was both enforcing a policy of starvation and expending huge resources to provide the Palestinians with food.

As George Orwell famously observed, “one of the marks of antisemitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true”.

Which brings me to the notorious famine classification. This relied on some very dodgy data indeed. A detailed analysis of just how dodgy can be found here. But the clearest and most egregious element was the way the UN dealt with the famine mortality threshold.

According to its own rules, 180 excess deaths every day in Gaza City would have been needed to declare a famine in the city. The actual reported figure was six excess deaths every day, across the entire Strip, not just in the capital.

How did the UN deal with this inconvenient truth? By suggesting that many deaths might not have been counted. In other words, the respected organisation allowed itself to assume, without any evidence, that 30 times the recorded excess deaths had taken place.

Like I said, a new low. But Israelophobic lies are like Pringles: once you pop, you can’t stop. So we arrive at the next step in the UN’s rapid descent into depravity, by which it is trading its institutional credibility for pressure on Israel.

On Friday, the Guardian reported that hundreds of employees of the UN’s leading human rights agency, the New York-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), backed an internal letter telling its leadership to declare Israel’s offensive in Gaza a “genocide” and to call on UN member states to suspend arms sales to Israel.

The 1,100-word letter, signed by about a quarter of the 2,000 staff, alleged that the Israeli offensive in Gaza met the legal threshold of “genocide” and so “arms sales, transfers and related logistical or financial support to Israeli authorities” constituted a breach of international law.

OHCHR employees told the paper they were frustrated with the failure of agency’s head, Volker Türk, to “move beyond condemning Israel”. Well, unless the war in Gaza comes to an end very soon, there will be no prizes for guessing what’s coming next.

From the title of the article in Rai al-Youm by Abdul Razzaq Bani Hani , we knew where it would go.

Zionist influence on the global level: the great height

Already in the second paragraph:

According to the historical records I have reviewed, some Jewish-Zionist politicians managed to infiltrate European systems under the guise of taqiyya, which in this context is a display of Christian religiosity, while concealing Jewish-Zionist ideology. Examples include the economic thinker David Ricardo, whose ideas prevailed during the Napoleonic era and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became British Prime Minister from 1876 to 1880, the same preparatory period that preceded the Basel Zionist Conference in 1897.

Marx was a Zionist. So was Mao:

Karl Marx, who was of pure Jewish origins, hated the Ottoman Empire and strongly advocated its dismantling, considering it a reactionary state based on Islamic foundations, even if they were simple.
In less than seven decades, Marx's followers, such as Lenin, Trotsky, and their comrades, were able to establish the world's largest state, geographically speaking, occupying nearly a quarter of the globe's land area. They were able to subjugate the Islamic countries of Central Asia, the cradle of al-Bukhari and al-Khwarizmi, and destroy the culture of their peoples, transforming them into peoples devoid of a historical identity, as they had been in the decades prior to the founding of the Soviet Union. In this context, we must not forget that Mao Zedong, the inspiration behind the Chinese revolution that established Greater China, was a brilliant student of the school of Marx and Lenin, both of Jewish-Zionist origin.

And by the end, it is almost parody:

Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, the current president of Mexico, comes from a Zionist-Jewish family. Although she governs as a secular left-wing politician, her background is rooted in the Zionist-Jewish heritage.

Sheinbaum is descended from Zionist-Jewish parents. Her father is of Ashkenazi descent, whose family immigrated from Lithuania, and her mother is of Sephardic descent, whose family originated in Bulgaria. Sheinbaum has not publicly emphasized her Zionist-Jewish identity during her political career, as it conflicts with the Catholic faith of the majority of the Mexican people.

Brigitte Macron (wife of the French President), Akshata Murthy (wife of the former British Prime Minister), and Victoria Starma (wife of the current British Prime Minister): All of them are of Zionist-Jewish origin. Brigitte Macron is the granddaughter of Rothschild, who gave millions to the British government, during the Balfour era, to support the establishment of the Zionist state in occupied Palestine. Akshata Murthy is a Zionist-Jew of Indian origin, who hates Muslims. The Akshata Murthy family company invests in the Zionist entity in occupied Palestine. This is a recorded and announced fact

Like Queen Esther, these Jewish women marry Western leaders and turn them Zionist.

This is mainstream thinking in the Arab world. And it is spreading.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Journalistic ethics officially died today, September 1, 2025, thanks to @IFJGlobal

From the International Federation of Journalists:

In an unprecedented global action, almost 200 media outlets from 50 countries will simultaneously disrupt their front pages, homepages, and broadcasts to demand an end to the killing of journalists in Gaza and to call for international press access to the enclave.

For the first time in modern history, newsrooms across every continent will coordinate a large-scale editorial protest. The action - coordinated by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the global campaigning movement Avaaz and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) - will take place on Monday, September 1. Print newspapers will run blacked-out front pages carrying a stark message. Broadcasters and radio stations will pause programming with a joint statement. Online outlets will black out their homepages or banners in solidarity. Editors, reporters and other journalists are also taking part too.

We are seeing newspapers putting this protest advertisement as a front page story with the identical graphic.

This is profoundly unethical.

The front page of a newspaper is assumed to be where the top news stories are. In rare circumstances, a newspaper can put an op-ed as its top story. But this is not an op-ed - it is coordinated activism, using the newspapers as a medium.

Any other activists would have to purchase advertising space in newspapers to get such a message across. Here, journalists are taking advantage of their own medium to be used for something that goes against all journalistic ethics - taking up room normally used for legitimate news or editorial opinion with a coordinated activist campaign.

If they were ethical, they would purchase full page ads like any other group. Using precious news space for an activist campaign is perverting the very medium they work for.

By its nature, editorials are the opinion of the news source itself. People want to read which candidates their local papers endorse, for example. But in this case, the opinions are coming from a central activist framework. A newspaper that signs on has no independence in this matter.

This is problematic, because the message says that Israel is targeting journalists as journalists, which is a lie.

But the worst part is that this activist push it being promoted by the IFJ, which supposedly enforces journalistic ethics. This coordinated campaign goes against the ethics of the organization that created the standard on ethics.

The campaign violates a number of sections in the IFJ Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists, like avoiding distortion of facts and unfounded accusations. But the most egregious part being violated on is Article 13:

[The journalist] will avoid any confusion between his activity and that of advertising or propaganda.

This campaign meant to deliberately do exactly what their ethics prohibits. No matter how sympathetic one may be towards journalists concerned over the safety of their colleagues, it does not justify changing a news site into a megaphone for propaganda. Journalism must not favor journalists.

We know that in recent decades the journalism profession has been blurring the lines between news, opinion and activism. But journalists always at least maintained the pretense of holding up ethical standards. When the IFJ itself promotes activism on the news pages, and hundreds of media outlets sign up for it, that means that even the pretext of journalistic ethics has been shredded.

I once created a reference architecture for what journalistic ethics rules should look like. It goes way beyond any existing standards, and this campaign would violate it in a number of ways. Importantly, no self respecting journalist can argue that my code is wrong - it respects journalism even more than the IFJ ethics charter does by demanding excellence and clear boundaries.

This is not about Israel or bias or journalists blurring lines. This is about the collapse of the entire journalism industry, promoted by the very people who should be defending it the most. And that should frighten you.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

NYT very disappointed in Israel's attack on Yemen

Yesterday I highlighted how incredible the Israeli raid on Yemen last week was.

The New York times was not impressed. It sniffed:

The Houthi militia of Yemen has vowed to strike back after an Israeli attack killed senior members of the group’s government but appeared to leave its military leadership largely untouched.

See? It was no big deal!

In fact, the only possible thing Israel accomplished was radicalizing the Houthis further: As their "expert" Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House, said:

The death of the Yemeni officials, among them pragmatists tied to Yemen’s former leadership rather than Houthi ideologues, could result in more hawkishness and extremism going forward, Mr. al-Muslimi said.

Hmmm. The Houthi flag already says "Death to Israel" and "Curse the Jews."

How, exactly, are they going to get more "hawkish"?

Another "expert" told us something completely new:

“Abdul-Malik found his match in Netanyahu,” said Mohammed al-Basha, a U.S.-based analyst focused on Yemen. “They’re both stubborn. They both have religious fervor and ideology that’s very strong.”

Yes, Netanyahu has religious fervor. Who knew?

The New York Times sure knows how to pick their experts.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)