Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 13, 2025

06/13 Links Pt1: Zionism Has Been Vindicated; A surgical strike against Islamist tyranny; Israeli woman killed in Iranian missile strike

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: Zionism Has Been Vindicated

Twenty-four years ago, Iran’s president, the Ayatollah Rafsanjani—a supposed “moderate”—spoke these words only months after September 11 made the world aware of the mass-murdering nature of the Islamist threat to the West: “If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world.” In other words, damage might be done outside Israel if there were to be a nuclear exchange, but that would be worth it, because Israel would cease to exist.

In 2005, Rafsanjani was succeeded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who began to make even more explicit what Rafsanjani had implied: “Thanks to people’s wishes and God’s will, the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards….The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon.” For decades, Iranian mullahs and leaders had chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” but this was something different. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were real and the purpose of going nuclear was millenarian and apocalyptic and aimed at the Jews.

In the days, weeks, months, and years to come, we will learn some, if not all, of what Israel determined it needed to do to slow down, halt, and destroy Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions. The nature of the operation, or operations, is likely to dwarf any such military/intelligence effort ever before seen on this earth. And it happened because it had to happen. Because Israel is real. Because Israel is a nation of 9 million and was not going to allow itself to be destroyed.

More important, the execution of this plan followed Israel’s greatest military and intelligence failure—the failure to keep track of Hamas’s evildoing, under the assumption that Israel had had Hamas contained and without the ability to strike catastrophically. Perhaps we can surmise that Israel’s desire to believe it had neutralized the Hamas threat using missile and rocket defenses had something to do with the depth of focus and the amount of energy its leaders were expending to watch and plan and develop weaponry and countermeasures against Iran. Perhaps they just didn’t have (as we say these days) enough “bandwidth” for both.

But the catastrophe of October 7 also revealed just how determined Iran was to put its plan to destroy Israel into action, and thereby triggered Israel’s own ultimate countermeasures—the war in Gaza, the destruction of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the elimination of Iran’s air defenses, and now the determination to rid the world of Iran’s nuclear sites, its ambitions for nuclearization, and perhaps even the destruction of the Iranian regime.

One stands mute at the audacity of the planning and the magnificence (thus far) of the execution. And one wonders, yet again, if what is happening here is once more a sign not just of Israel finding its own salvation in Jewish self-rule–but of God’s providence.

Melanie Phillips: The nightmare scenario arrives

The final chapter in the Iran nuclear crisis may now be upon us.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that there were “plenty of indications” that Iran was actively moving toward a nuclear weapon.

There have been numerous reports that Israel is preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear sites in the coming days. Washington has withdrawn non-essential staff from its Baghdad embassy and has approved a voluntary evacuation from U.S. embassies and locations throughout the region.

The expectation of imminent attack may or may not be premature. We may be watching another episode of brinkmanship as yet another negotiating ploy.

What does seem certain is that Iran has now reached the nightmare point that has been feared for so long—that it is about to assemble a nuclear weapon.

Israel can’t tolerate that. If President Donald Trump decides that the United States won’t join an attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, then Israel is preparing to go it alone, even though that would restrict it to damaging the nuclear sites rather than totally destroying them.

Since the Hamas-led atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the West has refused to acknowledge that Israel has been subjected to a seven-front war of extermination waged by Iran and its proxies.

This denial goes back decades. Even though the Iranian regime declared war against America and the West from the moment it came to power in 1979, political and media discussion of the Iranian issue has remained wholly inadequate and infested by disinformation spread by the regime through all-too gullible policy elites.

The fact that Iran insists that it won’t abandon its right to uranium enrichment, or that the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog has now declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years, will probably make precious little difference to such people.

This is because the narrative upon which the West is fixated holds that Israel is the driver of events in the Middle East, and that its war against the Palestinian Arabs is the principal cause of instability and violence in the region.

Why Israeli Strikes on Iran Make America Safer

Noah Rothman provides a worthwhile reminder of why a nuclear Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the United States:
For one, Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism on earth. It exports terrorists and arms throughout the region and beyond, and there are no guarantees that it won’t play a similarly reckless game with nuclear material. At minimum, the terrorist elements in Iran’s orbit would be emboldened by Iran’s new nuclear might. Their numbers would surely grow, as would their willingness to court risk.

Iran maintains the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region. It can certainly deliver a warhead to targets inside the Middle East, and it’s fast-tracking the development of space-launch vehicles that can threaten the U.S. mainland. Even if Tehran were a rational actor that could be reliably deterred, an acknowledged Iranian bomb would kick-start a race toward nuclear proliferation in the region. The Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and others would probably be compelled to seek their own nuclear deterrents, leading to an infinitely more complex security environment.

In the meantime, Iran would be able to blackmail the West, allowing it occasionally to choke off the trade and energy exports that transit the Persian Gulf and to engage in far more reckless acts of international terrorism.

As for the possible consequences, Rothman observes:
Iranian retaliation might be measured with the understanding that if it’s not properly calibrated, the U.S. and Israel could begin taking out Iranian command-and-control targets next. If the symbols of the regime begin crumbling, the oppressed Iranian people might find the courage to finish the job. If there’s anything the mullahs fear more than the U.S. military, it’s their own citizens.

Examining how PressTV twists the truth shows how mainstream journalists do the same

Here's a fun exercise. Find the lies in this PressTV report:

Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Bagheri and commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Hossein Salami have been martyred in Israeli aggression that also targeted scientists and civilians.

Videos circulating on social media show widespread destruction in residential areas of Tehran and other regions, the result of what has been described as indiscriminate Israeli aggression.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a statement, condemned the aggression and vowed Iran's severe retaliation against the Tel Aviv regime.

“In the early hours of today, the Zionist regime once again revealed its evil and bloodstained hand by committing a crime on our beloved soil, further exposing its malicious nature through attacks on residential areas. The regime must now await a harsh punishment,” read the statement.

There aren't any in the article itself, except for the word "martyred."

The scientists working on a nuclear weapon probably were technically civilians. The article doesn't say the attacks were indiscriminate - just that they were described that way. And the Khamenei quote is accurate, even if he is lying - but the article quotes him.

There was no violation of journalistic standards while giving an altogether false impression.

Similarly, this headline: "Israeli ‘barbaric’ aggression against Iran draws global condemnation."

The article quotes a Turkish official as calling it "barbaric" and the condemnations were around the world.

This shows how Iranian journalists can lie while adhering to journalistic standards. But it also shows how supposedly Western media can do the same thing.

Quote people selectively. Frame facts selectively. Couch the reporter's opinion as an "expert" opinion. Omit any facts that contradict the thesis. Make implications without directly making accusations.

It is obvious when it is done by PressTV. But the exact same thing is done by the New York Times using the same methods. (Although the NYT will pretend to quote the Israeli side, but bury it way down in the story and then have a friendly anti-Israel voice counter it immediately.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The responses from the international community to Israel's brilliant and audacious attack on Iran's nuclear program are predictable.

The French Foreign Minister said, "We call on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could compromise regional stability."

Keir Starmer, UK PM, said, "Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy."

The Australian Foreign Minister said, "This risks further destabilising a region that is already volatile. We call on all parties to refrain from actions and rhetoric that will further exacerbate tensions."

New Zealand's Prime Minister said, "It's a really unwelcome development in the Middle East. The risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action, and risk associated with that."

Japan's Foreign Minister said, "The government strongly condemns this action, which escalates the situation."

Plus the unanimous Arab condemnations of Israel.

The only people who are authorized to speak on behalf of a nation are diplomats. Diplomats are trained to always prioritize diplomacy and to only support purely defensive military action against a current or imminent threat.

Diplomacy is ill equipped to deal with a nation that is weaponizing diplomacy itself as a cover to create a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Iran's threat to Israel and the world is something that diplomacy simply cannot and never can fix. It can delay it at best. But without an inspections regime that violates Iranian sovereignty, with unlimited inspections in every inch of the regime, which no nation would ever tolerate, diplomacy and negotiations can never avert the threat.

Few can seriously doubt that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, plus an advanced ballistic missile program which can deliver the bombs to Israel and potentially much of Europe.

Everyone agrees that this is unacceptable. But diplomats are hardwired to seek to avoid military action.

Moreover, they cannot recognize long term catastrophic military threats as triggering the need for a military response before they actualize - and it is too late. Their knee-jerk response is that a state has the right to defend itself after it is attacked, which is cold comfort to a nation attacked by a nuclear bomb.

Diplomacy is not the only lens through which to view the world. But it is usually the only one that generally gets a public platform, by the very nature of international politics.

Most national leaders understand this. This is why they have their own armies and their own intelligence agencies - as alternatives and adjuncts to diplomacy and its limitations. The fact that diplomacy is only one leg of the stool of keeping the international order stable is rarely mentioned in public.

There can be little doubt that the heads of the world's militaries and intelligence agencies are celebrating Israel's astonishing attack this morning. But they can only hint at this in public - because a nation needs a consistent position on the world stage, and that position is written by diplomats.

Israel, as the intended target of an Iranian nuclear bomb, cannot and must not depend on diplomacy to protect itself - especially diplomacy from third parties who do not have as much skin in the game.

No nations wanted Iran to have a nuclear bomb. But most don't have the tools to stop it, because diplomacy cannot and they would never deploy their militaries to defend Israel.

As a result, Israel plays a unique role on the world stage: the designated bad guy. It is often the only nation that will do what is necessary and is willing to withstand international condemnation. This allows other nations to publicly condemn Israel while privately breathe a sigh of relief - which was their reaction when Israel destroyed Iraq's and Syria's own clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and when Israel decapitated Hezbollah and paved the path for the Syrian regime to fall.

But Israel pays a heavy price for this thankless role. The constant diplomatic criticism has real world effects that spill into the economic and other fields. But if Israel wouldn't do it, and nations like the US wouldn't show that diplomacy without a credible military threat is meaningless, the world would now be facing not only Iranian nukes but also Iraqi, Syrian and Libyan nukes under extremist regimes.

Israel is literally saving the world, in public, and the way the world is set up means that it will remain a thankless and risky job.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Developing Picture As Israel Preemptively Attacks Iran (Daled Amos)

It is Thursday night, and Israel has attacked Iran.Joe Truzman, FDD senior research analyst, posted on X:

The goal of the operation is to neutralize the nuclear threat from Iran to the degree that such a thing is possible. But in order to accomplish this, more than just the infrastructure is being targeted. Already, Iran has announced the names of various military leaders killed in Israel's initial attack.

Iran had crossed the line from the theoretical to a genuine threat:

Intelligence assessments showed the regime had enriched enough uranium to produce approximately 15 nuclear warheads and was actively conducting tests. The pace, the scope, and the intent had changed. What had once been described in abstract terms—potential, capability, intent—had now become operational reality.

This is only the beginning. There is more to come. But already there are hints--or hopes--for what may be coming.

Israel's goal is not to bring down the Iranian regime and free its people, but some have already expressed that hope.

(read the whole thing)

An Iranian Jew and advocate for the restoration of the Iranian monarchy posted

And there may be some basis to that:

On the other hand, there will be backlash on the streets in support of Iran, just as we saw after the massacre on October 7th.

Already, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has come out condemning Israel:

Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.

Similarly, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a member of the Armed Services Committee, criticized Israel.

Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence. These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians, but the stability of the entire Middle East.

It is only a matter of time before the more radical members of the Democratic Party follow suit and claim that Israel is the one creating tensions in the region.

We will have to wait to see what Trump's response will be and if he will take a position similar to Biden, helping Israel shoot down the rockets Iran will continue to fire in retaliation.

It is too early to say whether Israel has actually accomplished against Iran a strike comparable to what it did against Hezbollah, taking them out of the picture to a large degree, or comparable to Syria, where Israel weakened Assad to the point that he could be overthrown.

In the meantime, not the entire Arab world will be supporting Israel:

The focus should be on neutralizing Iran, not on a further redrawing of the Middle East.
/>

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Iranian English language media trying to use Gaza playbook: "Israel attacked civilians!"

Iran's PressTV tweeted this:

Notice how they are trying to accuse Israel of attacking a "residential building," implying civilians, because that slander has been so successful against Israel in Gaza.

Of course, the "residential building" is almost certainly one that housed Iranian Revolutionary Guard members - or perhaps Iran's nuclear scientists. So it was a valid military target.

It is pretty clear that Israel is not sending planes 1,500 kilometers to attack civilians.

Would it be too much to ask that people seeing Israel being careful to only bomb legitimate military targets in Iran to realize that they do the same in Gaza? That targeting civilians anywhere would not further Israel's military strategy and in fact would weaken it?

And that terrorists have every incentive to lie about it?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/12 Links Pt2: Federal judge: Trump can’t deport Mahmoud Khalil; Will BBC Verify apologise for spreading disinformation?; Why privileged Israelophobes can’t handle Azealia Banks

From Ian:

Gerald Steinberg: From Durban to Geneva: How the global human rights industry turned on Israel

When Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were founded in 1961 and 1978 respectively – both by Jews and Zionists – they quickly earned reputations as principled defenders of universal human rights. Yet over time, both organisations have drifted from their original mission of confronting the world’s most brutal regimes. Today, they are increasingly politicised, with a marked and obsessive hostility towards Israel.

The hostile takeover became clearly visible in August 2001, when the NGO Forum of the UN’s Conference on Racism brought 5,000 activists from self-proclaimed human rights groups to Durban, South Africa. The orchestrated assemblage declared Israel to be guilty of apartheid, genocide, colonialism, among similar propaganda labels.

This was the beginning of NGO-led lawfare, boycott campaigns and other forms of demonisation based on exploiting the principles and frameworks of human rights. Twenty-two years later, immediately after the October 7 atrocities, the world-wide propaganda attacks (“the 8th front” of the war) highlighted the same slogans in much more virulent form, feeding blood libels, antisemitic violence and intimidation.

The failure of the Israeli government, including the IDF, as well as the leaders of major Jewish organisations, to recognise and prioritise systematic responses to NGO warfare allowed this danger to fester and expand. The malign political influence of groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and their numerous allies increased continuously. But the IDF and various ministries paid little attention to their propaganda reports, parroted in headline articles by prominent journalists around the world, which labelled every response to mass terror as a “war crime”.

In 2009, the Goldstone report (the UN “Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict”) accused Israel of “possible crimes against humanity”, with recommendations for possible action by the newly created International Criminal Court. Amnesty International wrote the list of alleged war crimes, and the majority of the more than 500 citations of “evidence” in the final document were sourced to 50 anti-Israel NGOs. Months later, after Judge Richard Goldstone met with critics (including myself), he acknowledged that his document was deeply biased and inaccurate, but the damage was done.

The threat of international legal action against soldiers got the attention of the IDF, government lawyers and other officials, but the responses were ad hoc. The counter-strategy consisted of claims that the IDF was “the world’s most moral army”, that Israel investigated all allegations of violations, as well as numerous learned legal briefs arguing that the ICC and other international frameworks lacked jurisdiction.

This approach had little to no impact on the lawfare and propaganda campaigns that singled out Israel for demonisation. On the contrary, the advocacy NGOs and their allies in the media, UN, and university campuses (particularly under the headings of human rights and international law programmes) amplified the highly disproportionate attacks, and their influence increased with every round of the Gaza conflict.

Why privileged Israelophobes can’t handle Azealia Banks

We live in an age of grotesque double standards and cloying fakery from celebs. The overwhelming majority seem to think that their job is not to entertain us, but to strike fashionable poses and shove hypocrisies down our throats.

And then there’s Azealia Banks. She is, as the kids say, a real one.

The 34-year-old rapper from Harlem has been controversial for quite some time, sounding off on social media on a variety of topics. But last week she outdid herself by bluntly standing up for Israel at a time when pretty much all of the luvvie class has gone the other way.

‘I’m a Zionist’, she posted last Wednesday. Unsurprisingly, this unleashed a torrent of largely hostile commentary. Many young, privileged Westerners now unthinkingly loathe Israel. For them, a black rapper’s refusal to toe the ‘progressive’ line just doesn’t make sense.

It’s been particularly difficult for woke, finger-snapping white girls. They’re normally only too eager to shout ‘yaaas queen!’ when a black woman speaks. But on this occasion, they’re struggling, as Banks has not stuck to the script.

It should be said that, at points, Banks’s Israel commentary has veered off into dodgier, identitarian territory. ‘BITCH DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FUCKING BLACK CHILDREN HAVE BEEN MURDERED AT THE HANDS OF ARABS?’, she tweeted last week. Then there was this: ‘I do not support the expansion of genocide of any more peoples of the world at the hands of Arab Muslims.’ Banks, it seems, was referring to the the centuries-long Arab slave trade, which involved the enslavement of millions of Africans right up until the 20th century.

No wonder Banks got progressives’ knickers in a twist. We know that blaming anyone other than the bad white / Jewish man for slavery and genocide is enough to trigger a mass-casualty event at Columbia University.

We live in an age where female celebrity takes mainly two forms: Meghan Markle’s grandiose self-delusion and manufactured virtue, or hectoring harpies with pronouns in their bios. But here comes Banks to shred her opponents openly, and with the most inventive use of swear words I have ever heard. And I grew up in Brooklyn!

06/12 Links Pt1: Israel launches preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites, military targets; U.N. Fudges the Data on West Bank Violence

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Pick a Side

Again, there are two sides here: The U.S. is on one, and an Iranian proxy waging a hot war against America is on the other. There is no way to describe those who pressured BCG and who engaged in a massive media campaign to discredit GHF other than saying they are objectively pro-Hamas.

Though in fairness to the anti-American side of the conflict, the terror coalition is led by Hamas, but there are other groups involved. One of them is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, an extremely popular terror group among the American left and especially on college campuses. I have written about their seeming ubiquity and their long history of violence against innocents a fair amount over the course of the current conflict because the PFLP continues to set up front groups, forcing the U.S. government to play Whack-a-Mole to stop Americans from funding them.

One such group is Addameer, which the U.S. just sanctioned as a cutout for the PFLP. In response, the UN’s high-profile Mideast rapporteur and virulent anti-Semite Francesca Albanese declared her “full solidarity” with the PFLP-linked organization.

The PFLP has been involved in the post-Oct. 7 terror war against Israeli civilians, has pledged its fealty to Hamas in that war, and has participated in the kidnapping of innocents including, reportedly, the young Bibas children who were subsequently and brutally executed by Palestinians. Just so we’re clear on who and what Francesca Albanese lends her “full solidarity” to.

Again, there are only two sides in this war. The UN has repeatedly chosen to side with Hamas (and the PFLP). Employees of American firms are pressuring their bosses to do the same. All the while, actual Palestinian civilians are murdered in the streets by Hamas but fed by U.S.- and Israel-backed humanitarian coordinators. You can’t be on the side of the UN and Hamas and also be on the side of Gazan civilians and American hostages. So pick one.

Col. Richard Kemp: 'GHF is a turning point in the war, critical in removing Hamas'

Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British military forces in Afghanistan, spoke to Israel National News - Arutz Sheva about the work of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and its impact on the course of the war in Gaza.

"The establishment of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a turning point in the war," Col. Kemp stated. "It is a critical step towards eliminating Hamas from control in Gaza. Their most important means of controlling the population was dominating supply of aid, which was enabled by UNWRA and other humanitarian agencies who could not prevent supplies from being seized by Hamas. Aid was also a vital money-making machine for Hamas which has lost pretty much all other sources of funding to recruit and pay its terrorists. Hamas would take freely supplied aid and sell it to the civilian population at a heavy premium."

"So far, the GHF has delivered a remarkable 19 million meals, including nearly 2.6 million today alone. Some Gazans have commented that this is the first free aid they have received since the war began," he stated. He further noted that the GHF constitutes a "unique and innovative project. It is specifically tailored to deal with the unparalleled challenges that Gaza."

Last night, Hamas terrorists attacked a bus carrying GHF workers, killing eight Gazans who participated in the organization's humanitarian aid efforts. Col. Kemp believes that Hamas decided to attack aid workers because effective humanitarian aid undermines its rule in Gaza. "The effectiveness already of the GHF is demonstrated by Hamas’s threats and attacks against civilians seeking to make use of the system. We also recently saw Hamas murder eight local civilians working for the GHF, and wound and kidnap others. Hamas killing Gaza civilians is nothing new but this is a mark of their desperation. They know just how much the GHF system undermines their control in Gaza. We have seen some limited uprisings against Hamas in recent weeks and there is likely to be more of that as much of the population realises that the terrorists no longer have this stranglehold over them."

Andrew Fox: Aid in Gaza: What is Israel’s New Approach to Humanitarian Aid?

Does this contractor-led aid model have a legal and moral basis? A supportive analysis can indeed find justification, rooted in the same IHL principles discussed earlier. Legally, nothing in the Geneva Conventions mandates that the UN or any specific entity oversee humanitarian relief; what matters is that aid be delivered impartially and effectively to civilians. An occupying power has the right to supervise and control relief efforts for legitimate security reasons, such as searching shipments for weapons or preventing aid from being diverted to enemy fighters.

Israel can argue that excluding UN agencies is a non-arbitrary decision driven by concrete security concerns, namely Hamas’ demonstrated attempts to exploit UN aid. If Hamas has a history of commandeering relief goods, then requiring a new distribution mechanism that excludes Hamas could be seen as a “valid, non-arbitrary reason” to replace the old UNRWA-led system.

The Israeli-US contractor plan rests on the imperative of protecting humanitarian aid from abuse. This considers not only the quantity of aid but also its distribution. By directly provisioning families under close monitoring, Israel aims to cut out the “middleman,” Hamas. In Somalia, only the deployment of US military escorts and later UN peacekeepers ensured that aid could bypass the warlords’ stranglehold. Likewise, in Gaza, a more muscular and controlled delivery system could be seen as the only realistic way to guarantee that food is not weaponised.

UNRWA and others have struggled to prevent corruption or militant interference in Gaza’s aid over the years. From that perspective, it is morally defensible to seek an alternative if the established system is being manipulated. The new model’s emphasis on “rigorous audits” and the involvement of experienced logisticians, including a former World Food Programme director as an advisor, is intended to lend credibility to the assurance that aid will reach its intended recipients.

At the same time, humanitarian organisations warn that “aid operations must remain neutral, independent, and civilian in nature,” and that “treating humanitarian relief as a militarised mission” violates those principles. The new Gaza aid scheme blurs the line between humanitarian and military spheres. Private security firms and Israeli forces securing aid stations directly link relief to one belligerent’s control. This raises legitimate concerns under the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence. Civilians may perceive aid distribution as an arm of Israeli policy, potentially eroding trust and putting beneficiaries at risk of retribution.

International law does not itself ban an aid mechanism operated by a belligerent, provided that assistance is offered “without any adverse distinction” and not as a reward or coercive tool. Critics are concerned that the contractor model might prioritise aid for civilians who comply with Israeli directives, leaving others out. To genuinely meet IHL’s requirement for impartial aid, Israel and the US must demonstrate that all civilians in need across all of Gaza will receive assistance. If currently only half the population is covered, the plan must urgently expand or risk breaching the principle of impartiality.

So far, the UN has outright refused to participate in the new scheme, with the Secretary-General’s team stating that the proposed model “violates humanitarian principles” and UN agencies will not lend it legitimacy. The lack of established humanitarian actors poses a vulnerability to the plan’s credibility.

Israel’s contractor-driven aid model in Gaza represents a bold recalibration of humanitarian operations in conflict. It challenges the orthodox notion that only UN agencies can deliver aid, positing that when those structures fail, a controlled alternative may be warranted. A conditional, security-conscious aid delivery can save lives without empowering Hamas. Legally, Israel walks a fine line: it must demonstrate that this new mechanism better upholds its obligations to care for Gaza’s civilians under IHL.

Supporting this model does not require a blind endorsement of every aspect; rather, it calls for a nuanced perspective that, in extreme cases, may allow imperfect solutions to outperform dysfunctional ones. The moral litmus test will be whether Gaza’s civilians are better off and more secure in their access to food and medicine under the new scheme.

US College Campus Rioters Frustrated That LA Rioters Getting All The Attention (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

New York, June 12 - Student, faculty, and outside agitator activists at Columbia and Harvard Universities, among others, expressed concerns today that their look-at-me provocations ostensibly on behalf of Palestine have suffered as the media have focused on West Coast unrest related to enforcement of immigration laws.

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine and allied groups voiced their frustration over the last several days that the momentum of media attention has shifted away from them and thus away from any future they might have as prominent influencers, because riots in Los Angeles by activists opposed to the removal of people who illegally entered or remain in the US have captured the vast majority of that attention.

SJP Columbia Chapter president Anne Tissemit acknowledged the complexity of challenging the trend. "We've allied ourselves with all the organizations and activists making all that noise in LA," he conceded. "It's imprudent and career suicide to say or do anything to suggest that's not where the resources should be going right now. Like, read the burning room. That's why it's so frustrating. Our future as speakers, commentators, podcasters, whatever, that's all going down the drain because we can't put ourselves at center stage while claiming it's all about Palestine if center stage is on the other side of the country."

University of Pennsylvania Jewish Voice for Peace activist Hassan Abdul Razek elaborated. "Palestine long ago ceased to be a cause on its own merits," he explained. "Palestinians themselves are probably the only ones who are actually fighting in any way for 'Palestine.' Every other supporter of the cause is either using it as a virtue-signaling fig leaf for other ambitions - the Ayatollahs come to mind - or trying to harness their pet cause to Palestine, which they think will pull it along. But they fundamentally misunderstand that you can't ally yourself with 'Palestine' and emerge without it taking you over and destroying your efforts, somehow not advancing the cause of Palestine an iota either."

"Our problem now is that other people are enjoying better results and notoriety by waving Palestinian flags than we are," he continued. "It's doubly disappointing because we campus activists had the focus on us for so long. We must have gotten complacent. That's always the way it is with Palestine activism. We pro-Palestinians put airplane-hijacking on the map, but then others make it more deadly and more dramatic. Suicide bombings were our thing, our trademark, until it started being an everyday thing in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Looks like we'll have to perpetrate some atrocity right here to get the attention back," he reasoned.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When I started this project of secularizing and universalizing Jewish ethics, I thought that all I needed to do is omit anything that was dependent on God and specific mitzvot, and stick with just ethical behavior.

For the most part, I was right. The system I built works for all people, everywhere.

But as I've been veering from defining the framework into musing how such a system could be adopted by non-Jews, I came up with some challenges: some parts of Jewish ethics work well because of particular attributes of the Jewish people specifically.

I have mentioned a few of these, and suggested how secular people might be able to substitute the Jewish attributes with their own. So for example, the Jewish prohibition of chilul Hashem - desecrating God's Name, by acting in a way that reflects badly on all Jews - could be somewhat generalized for any minority group, many professions and other categories like nationalities. I also said that since so much of Jewish ethics assumes that everyone is a member of a tight-knit community, secular people can create their own meaningful communities to have that same sense of unity and solidarity that make it easier to take responsibility for your fellow.

But how many of these attributes that make it more difficult to port Jewish ethics to a secular context are there?

More than I thought.

I asked an AI to generate a list.

Pillar	Core Jewish Form	Secular Challenge
1. God as Moral Anchor	Infinite reference point for ethics	What anchors ultimate values?
2. Covenantal Community	Inherited mutual obligation	Can secular communities bond this thickly?
3. Mitzvah	Sacred, commanded duty	How to make ethics feel obligatory without divine command?
4. Halachic Discipline	Ethics practiced daily	Can habits replace law?
5. Teshuvah	Eternal soul enables moral return	What underwrites deep moral change?
6. Sacred Time	Calendar and memory encode values	Can “moral time” exist without holidays?
7. Sacred Disagreement	Dissent is holy, not merely tolerated	Can pluralism avoid relativism?
8. Pikuach Nefesh	Life overrides nearly all else	What’s strong enough to trump all values?
9. Tzniut / Anavah	Humility and restraint	Can this thrive in a culture of performance?
10. Din / Rachamim	Law and mercy must coexist	How to balance this without faith?
11. Redemption	History bends toward moral meaning	Can secular systems sustain moral hope?
12. Tzelem Elokim	Absolute dignity for every person	Can dignity survive without soul?
13. Safek / Teiku	Uncertainty is protected	How to build reverent ambiguity into secular systems?
14. Embodied Ethics	Physical life is morally infused	Can ethics guide bodily practice without theology?
15. Intergenerational Duty	Past and future are moral actors	Can individualist cultures embed legacy?
16. Symbolic Ethics	Actions carry layered meaning	Can secular rituals be ethically saturated?
17. Chillul/Kiddush Hashem	Behavior reflects on collective identity	Can moral visibility work without covenantal belonging?

No other secular system, as far as I can tell, even reaches the stage of asking “how can this be realistically implemented?” Most remain philosophical thought experiments - not lived and tested systems. Even without these challenges, the secularized Jewish ethics model is ahead in maturity, testability, traceability, scalability, and practical usability.

But my goal isn’t to design something for an ivory tower. I want to create a system that could genuinely change and improve the world, even if that might never happen in my lifetime.

Secular ethics originally arose during the Enlightenment as an attempt to build a moral system independent of God or religion, one grounded in pure reason. Ironically, every Jewish ethical principle in this framework is logical and does not, on its own, require belief. Yet the structure and guardrails of religious community make it much easier for people to live by these values.

That’s not an attack on freedom.
Self-help books routinely encourage us to set constraints and rituals for any goal, whether it is fitness, learning, or personal growth. Setting aside time for exercise, for music practice, or for family meals doesn’t limit our freedom; it enables us to achieve what matters. The same is true for moral growth.

After all, we already have secular rituals: Thanksgiving turkey, Independence Day fireworks, watching the Super Bowl or World Cup with friends, class reunions, block parties. Who can object to creating new ones imbued with meaning?

Secular people (and everyone else) can voluntarily create habits, rituals, and structures to strengthen their own ethical lives:

Make a habit of giving charity weekly, even a token amount.
Set aside regular time to study ethical writings, say, works by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
Create an annual day of reflection to review mistakes and plan for growth.
Join or form a community devoted to kindness and mutual aid, like visiting the sick, volunteering, or supporting neighbors.
Prioritize family rituals - shared meals, screen-free evenings, family game nights.

It may be true that morality doesn’t require faith. But like any skill, moral character doesn’t appear by magic. It takes hard work - and, in a secular world without built-in rituals or community, perhaps even harder work than in a traditional setting.

But the rewards are spectacular, here and now.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

According to the UN, I - an American - am a "violent Jewish settler"

"Settler violence" is in the news again.

The UK and others have sanctioned two Israeli ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, for "inciting violence" by settlers, citing UN statistics on violent incidents in the West Bank.

What is considered "settler violence," according to the UN?

The Israeli NGO Regavim issued a report last April that examined a UN database of 6,285 incidents of alleged violence against Palestinians that reportedly occurred between January 2016 and the end of April 2023.

It included every single time Jews were allowed to visit the Temple Mount - 1,361 "incidents."

Temple Mount, March 6, 2019 (screenshot from Mrs. Elder)

Well, my wife and I ascended to the Temple Mount in March 2019. We got a personal tour from Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute. We even prayed there.

According to the UN, my wife and I - Americans - are violent Jewish West Bank settlers, and we are statistics in the UN database that "prove" how violent Jewish "settlers" are. And the same methodology is used by the UK, today, to support their contention that Jewish settler violence is a huge problem now.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the Regavim report today:

Poring over the U.N.’s list of 6,285 violent incidents by settlers from January 2016 through April 2023, Regavim noticed something: “The UN database includes thousands of clearly non-violent incidents in its count of violent events.”
Every visit by Jews to the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, which is administered and venerated by Muslims too, is counted as settler violence. So are class trips to archaeological sites, traffic accidents, state infrastructure work and trespassing by hikers. Other incidents are in Jerusalem, which isn’t a settlement.
None of this is what “settler violence” summons to mind. Filtering out the thousands of such cases leaves 833 alleged incidents of nationalist violence resulting in bodily harm—a definition the U.N. claims to apply—over the 7½-year period.
But those don’t hold up either. The Orwellian U.N. counts Palestinians harmed in the process of committing terrorist attacks as victims of settler violence. In about half the 833 cases, the U.N. also records the victim’s “involvement in clashes,” leaving it unclear who started it. In 117 of the cases, the U.N. says Israeli security forces, not settlers, are to blame.
Meanwhile, Israel’s Shin Bet records 6,068 serious attacks by Palestinians (shootings, stabbings, suicide bombings, etc.) against Israeli civilians over only two years, 2020-22. Including some “less serious” attacks more than triples the number. Violence by Israeli settler radicals in remote outposts is a real problem. Yet the liberal picture of the West Bank—wanton violence by Israeli civilians against peaceful Palestinians—is an inversion of the daily reality.

At the very least, 94% of the "violent settler incidents" are fictional. Instead of three a day, there were at most one a week. Which is far fewer than the number of Palestinian violent incidents in the same areas, which include Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs. Here is the Shin Bet report from July 2023 (the last English report they published):

This isn't one violent incident a week. This is ten incidents every day!

And this is the problem we have seen for decades. The media, the UN and NGOs can easily make any party look bad by choosing their own definitions, their own framing, their own context, and also what to omit from their reporting. So while there are dozens of wars happening now, tens of millions of refugees, and real starvation with thousands dying, the media and UN and even Israel's "allies" twist the data to make it appear to casual consumers of news that there is only one conflict (OK, two, if you include Ukraine), only one set of victims, only one set of displaced persons and only one (wholly fake) "famine" in the world.

And an examination of even the most extreme of statements by Ben Gvir and Smotrich indicate that while they support tough action against Palestinian terrorists, they do not incite violence from Jewish settlers, at least not directly. In 2023, Ben Gvir told settlers directly, "We must not take the law into our own hands. The one who needs to deal with terrorism and deter it is the Israeli government and not the citizens." And even at the very same time that Smotrich said his widely condemned statement that the village of Huwara should be wiped out - a statement he later apologized for - he said “We shouldn’t be dragged into anarchy in which civilians take the law into their own hands.”

They want swift and uncompromising action against terror by the state. This is not incitement for settlers to rampage through Arab villages, as the UK and others are saying by accusing them of. The truth is the opposite of the reporting, and calls for the state to be aggressive against terrorists is not inconsistent with what Western leaders say all the time. (To be sure, they support settlers and try to find valid reasons for settler violence that does occur. That is a far cry from incitement to terror, and their reactions to real unprovoked settler violence proves this.)

The "settler violence" meme is an excuse by Great Britain and others to appear "even handed" to their large numbers of Muslim residents, who protest daily, in a vain attempt to placate them. It is in their political interest to inflate the problem of Jewish settler violence way beyond the truth and to suppress any reports of Palestinian violence that do not result in deaths.

How do I know? Because they consider me a "violent Jewish settler."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Thomas Friedman encouraging antisemites to attack Jews

The headline of Thomas Friedman's op-ed says it all:

If you blame antisemitism on the actions of Jews, no matter what your logic or reasoning, you are part of the problem - because you are justifying the actions of antisemites.

This is deeply immoral and irresponsible., besides being flat-out wrong. Was there less antisemitism with previous Israeli governments?

And no other country's government is ever blamed for something similar - no one expects Chinese people in the West to be attacked because of Chinese government decisions, or Italian Americans for Italy's decisions.

Who else is Friedman thinking will be attacking American synagogues other than Muslims and the "progressive Left"?

Western European synagogues were fortresses 25 years ago. Was that Netanyahu's fault, too?

Not surprisingly, this op-ed was translated in numerous Arabic language newspapers - to give justification for Arabs to attack Jews worldwide.

Pan Arab outlets ran with this: Arabi21, Asharq al Awsat,

Oman Daily gives Friedman a byline.

Morocco's Lakome made it the top story. on their front page.

Jordan's Sawalief and Egypt's Akhar el Youm also featured the article.

As did the Hamas-oriented Quds News, which gave a helpful illustration to identify the Jews that Arabs worldwide are now allowed to attack because Thomas Friedman said they cannot be blamed for their antisemitism.

Great job, Tom. You have made the Jews less safe than anything Netanyahu could have done.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/11 Links Pt2: The media’s war on Israel: The lies, the bias, and the real story; A Two-State Solution to California’s Woes; Douglas Murray shames Greta for not facing reality of October 7

From Ian:

Israel’s isolation is not a new phenomenon – it follows an old pattern

Despite this constant threat, Israel spent nearly two decades trying to avoid reoccupying Gaza. Yet whatever steps it took to defend itself, even preventive and non-violent, were labelled crimes. A naval blockade and strict border controls aimed at stopping weapons shipments were falsely portrayed as illegal and blamed for humanitarian catastrophes that never materialised. International law was reinterpreted uniquely for Israel, including the claim it still occupied Gaza, despite the fact that occupation, by definition, requires boots on the ground.

Each time Hamas and other jihadist factions initiated major conflicts, the West reliably condemned Israel’s response as “disproportionate,” an accusation typically based on civilian casualty figures provided by Hamas and accepted without question. Israel’s efforts to minimise civilian harm in wars it did not start were downplayed or ignored, while Hamas’s use of human shields – and human sacrifices – was omitted. In other words, what we are witnessing today is not new, only more extreme in scale and intensity.

There are, of course, serious questions one can raise about Israel’s conduct: rhetorical excesses after October 7, poor public diplomacy, the role of far-right ministers in the Natanyahu government, and controversial decisions, such as temporarily blocking aid deliveries to weaken Hamas’s grip on Gaza. These are legitimate matters for debate, as is the suffering of Palestinian civilians, regardless of Hamas’s responsibility for it. Calls for a ceasefire are understandable.

But do these factors explain why Israel is losing Europe’s support? For those familiar with the long history of media (mis)coverage, NGO hostility, UN bias, lawfare, and the radicalisation of parts of the far left and growing Muslim electorates, the answer is no. This war has simply amplified a pattern established decades ago. What we are witnessing is not a break from the past, but its culmination.

This reaction does more than isolate Israel and fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment – it undermines peace itself. The message to Israelis is unambiguous: territorial withdrawal brings neither security nor legitimacy, but more terror and global censure. When even full evacuation leads to escalation and condemnation, the incentive to take further risks for peace disappears.

Conversely, for Hamas, the lesson is also clear: atrocities can shift diplomatic ground. The more brutal the provocation, the greater the pressure on Israel and the louder the calls for Palestinian recognition.

In this way, the West’s reaction doesn’t just misread the conflict – it helps perpetuate it.

Gil Troy: The media’s war on Israel: The lies, the bias, and the real story

Four Israeli arguments to win hearts and minds
First, Israel is defending America and the West, too. Future historians will place this war at the intersection of three global conflicts. October 7 was another searing date in the century-long Arab war to remove Jews from Palestine. Their “historicide” – denying our history – rationalizes waves of attacks, now led by Palestinian movements rejecting Israel’s legitimacy.

Palestinians’ war against Israel also advances an anti-Western global jihad to expand Muslim influence. A French think-tank, Fondapol, cataloged 66,872 Islamist terrorist attacks between 1979 and April 2024 – including 9/11 – murdering 249,941 people. Finally, the Iranian mullahs bankroll these terrorists as part of Iran’s broader alliance of evil with Russia, China, and North Korea, opposing democracy.

This long, messy war tests and teaches America and the West. Condemning Israel’s self-defense efforts exposes the West’s weakened defense posture. Growing Western intolerance for war’s bloodiness and chaos reveals that few have served in the military, while many prefer deluding themselves.

Defending democracy, and your life, occasionally requires toughness. We collectively must be willing to risk killing by mistake to eliminate those trying to kill us on purpose.

Fortunately, America’s investment in Israel keeps paying dividends. While degrading Hamas, crushing Hezbollah, weakening Iran, and thus triggering Bashar Assad’s collapse in Syria, Israel has pioneered medical advances, technological breakthroughs, and tactical innovations on the battlefield. Israel’s improvisations, from bullet-removing robots to pineapple-protein burn gels, to humanoid prosthetics, will protect thousands of soldiers and save millions of civilians in hospitals worldwide, for decades to come.

Finally, by vindicating Zionism, this war advertises Jewish nationalism as a model form of liberal-democratic nationalism. In an age filled with books about “How Democracies Die,” Israel’s young generation of everyday superheroes demonstrates how to defend democracy – and build yourself up by being rooted in tradition, embraced by community, and committed to your country.

This is the song we should be singing, led by the government if possible, but crooned by the people always, because it’s necessary – and true.

Seth Mandel: Road Map for Peace: A Two-State Solution to California’s Woes

Does the U.S. really need all of California? Of course not. Think of all the problems that can be solved with that land. What we’ll again call Alto California—though only the part of the original Alto California that is within the current state’s borders—can be retroceded to Mexico. That way Southern California (or “Baja California”), the part of California that America seems to care about, can remain in the U.S. Would that make Mexico suddenly noncontiguous? Sure, but there’s no reason they can’t just build a tunnel connecting them.

It’s not just about appeasing Mexico. Three years ago, the native Tongva—that would be the tribe that Newsom has been directing his apologies to—got their own acre of land in Los Angeles County. But one acre? California can do better than that. The Greater Los Angeles area is an enormous place, and the Tongva surely have claim to a fair share of it.

But then again Malibu is a Chumash word, according to the state. Chumash is another tribe that doesn’t get as much attention as the Tongva, but that shouldn’t work against them. Meanwhile, Los Angeles carries a great deal of sentimental value for Mexicans as well, and it’d be a shame to force them to get a passport just to see it.

Now I know what you’re thinking: It’s getting pretty crowded here in this hypothetical Greater Los Angeles now. But that’s OK—sometimes justice is crowded.

And there’s an easy solution: Just make Los Angeles an international city! We’d put the greater metropolitan area of LA under a special international regime we could refer to as a Corpus Separatum. The area is home to many religions in addition to its national minorities, so all its holy places—Disneyland, the Staples Center, the Hollywood Bowl, that gas station shop on Pico Boulevard that carries kosher beef jerky—would be placed under a United Nations trusteeship.

And yes, of course Oakland will be demilitarized.

I know this all sounds like a lot, and obviously the devil is in the details, but if what California Democrats are saying about their own state is true, then simply having Donald Trump remove the National Guard from the site of conflict isn’t nearly enough. It doesn’t get at the root causes, you see. Peace isn’t the same thing as justice.

You might be thinking: This is all easy for you to say from thousands of miles away. And you’re right: It is easy for me to say this.

It’s easy for me to say this because the Democratic-progressive one-size-fits-all solution to ethnic and national conflict is seared into my brain. I’ve been listening to it for decades. And what I’ve learned from watching progressives “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that all conflicts are the same. That the historical record is a matter of opinion. That violence and mayhem should be rewarded. That in any conflict, the side wearing a uniform is the Bad Guy. That what is happening—whatever it is, wherever it is—simply isn’t who we are. Finally, as a Jew, I just can’t stand by and watch it happen. It’s time to take Democrats’ advice and advance a two-state solution. You’re welcome, Gavin.