Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, June 28, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Ian:

The Metaphysical Root of Antisemitism and Ziophobia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Pollard: Lord Hermer’s idiocy is boundless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Ian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amid ceasefire, struggle for Iranian freedom must accelerate

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

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

So what now?

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

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

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

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

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

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: Make Iran pay. Literally.

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

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

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

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

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

Terror must come with a price.

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

By Daled Amos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israelis are not happy.

Based on these numbers:

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

This is far from a ringing endorsement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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

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

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

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

COGAT said on Wednesday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/26 Links Pt2: The new populism of the Judeocidal left; The Colonization of the American Mind; Alice Wairimu-Nderitu and the high price of honesty; CODEPINK or CODERED?

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The new populism of the Judeocidal left

Now America is facing a similar nightmare in the shape of Zohran Mamdani, whose victory over former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic Party primary this week puts him in pole position to become mayor of New York. This spells a potential catastrophe for the iconic citadel of American cultural and financial power, and a security disaster for the city’s Jewish community, the largest outside Israel.

Mamdani is an extreme leftist who four years ago tweeted: “Queer liberation means defund the police.” In his campaign, he ran on taxing the rich, government-run grocery stores, free bus travel and a freeze on rent. Such policies are unworkable but offer New Yorkers what many want to hear—a program of left-wing, anti-capitalist populism.

He also has a deep hatred of Israel. He supports a boycott of the Jewish state; he has refused to condemn the Hamas-led atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023; and he has sanitized the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which is a call to murder Jews around the world.

As a result of all this, and his charismatic and telegenic personality, he’s become an overnight rock star.

The kind of people who drape themselves in the keffiyeh and mindlessly parrot Hamas propaganda about Israel’s supposed “genocide,” young, college-educated progressives and the vacuous narcissists who people the entertainment industry are going wild for him.

The support by such people for such a man is bizarre. Mamdani isn’t just a Muslim. He is a practicing member of the Islamic Shia Twelver sect, which holds that an apocalypse will bring down to earth the Shia messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

The most prominent member of this sect is Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the genocidal fanatic whose defining slogan is “Death to America!”

Given Mamdani’s affiliation to such an uncompromising jihadi sect, one does wonder about his pledge to create an “office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs” at City Hall.

Whatever the theological legerdemain behind such contradictions, Mamdani represents the alliance between reactionary Islamism and left-wing progressivism that we have seen on the streets of Western cities. This has produced the surreal spectacle of liberals marching alongside Islamists who, should circumstances be different, would remove these liberals’ progressive heads from their shoulders.

As with Britain’s Labour Party, Mamdani represents the deeply disturbing future of progressive politics in Britain and America—a movement that has Zionism, capitalism and the West in its sights under the banner of human rights, humanitarianism and anti-racism.

While its followers demonize and dehumanize the Jewish targets of extermination, they are, astoundingly, moralizing as conscience an agenda for exterminating the Jews.

The Colonization of the American Mind

A few days before Israel began Operation Rising Lion, Facebook blocked my account. I cannot thank Mark Zuckerberg enough for that mitzvah. Instead of having to watch neo-Hellenistic Jews do anything possible to hide their Judaism and vapid “Instaporners” do everything possible to steal the spotlight, I got to witness an endless array of Iranian dissidents thanking Israel on X.

They post Persian graffiti blessing Israel, the horrific history of the 46-year-old Islamic Republic, as well as what little protests they are able to engage in. And they remain as stunned as the rest of us at the protests both here and in Europe — in favor of the sociopathic, homophobic, misogynistic regime that is stifling not just their freedom but the lives of their families.

Qatar, China, Russia and Iran have been unquestionably successful at one thing: the colonization of the American mind. Through antisemitic professors, “ethnic studies,” infiltration of leftist media (Shalom, Washington Post), and an intense disinformation campaign on social media, leftists have been fed a steady stream of lies and propaganda to the point that the protesters are ardently embracing a regime that kills women for showing their hair in public, hangs gays and considers child rape sacred.

In 2018, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff published “The Coddling of the American Mind.” They discussed how a culture of “safetyism” interferes with social, emotional and intellectual development. In retrospect, that seems to have been Stage I of what’s now called the red-green alliance.

Stage II is a complete colonization — OK, obliteration — of brain cells. Disinformation so steeped in anti-facts it makes the Soviets look like amateurs. All of which led to a cognitive dissonance so septic some protesters simultaneously hold up posters celebrating both gay pride and the mullahs who would hang them.

It also led to a mass conformity during precisely the period when most healthy teens and 20somethings rebel. There is only one word for this level of mass conformity: cult.

But for the moral inversion to be complete — for young women in the West to support the most evil patriarchy that has ever reigned — something else had to happen: a complete soullessness. Morality begins in our souls. If you choke off the soul — through a negation of spirituality, creativity, nature — you can easily be convinced to do anything and feel nothing. Thus, the increasing political violence here and in Europe.

The future of the Palestinian movement

The Palestinian movement is at a crossroads. Fatah and its foremost rival for power, Hamas, are both weakened, the former by internal divisions and unpopularity and the latter by the Israeli military. Palestinian politics are entering a transitional phase, and Palestinian political institutions are dead or decaying. The aftershocks will be felt in the Middle East and beyond.

Mahmoud Abbas turns 90 this year. Abbas is the president of the Palestinian Authority, the United States-backed entity that rules over the majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The PA was birthed by the 1990s Oslo peace process, which created a lot of process but, in the end, very little peace. Indeed, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis has documented, terrorist attacks have increased in the post-Oslo period.

The PA was established in 1994 as a result of the Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization Declaration of Principles. In exchange for Western backing and support, the Authority, then headed by PLO head Yasser Arafat, promised to renounce terrorism and to resolve outstanding problems with Israel in bilateral negotiations. Palestinians got the opportunity to have limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. But three-plus decades after its creation, the verdict is in: The PA is a failure.

The Authority never kept its promises to renounce terrorism and accept Israel. From its inception, the PA has paid tax-deductible salaries to those who murder and maim Jews, or people it believes are Jewish, such as Taylor Force, an American and U.S. Military Academy graduate who was killed in 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist. The PA’s media and educational arms praise terrorist attacks and celebrate murderers, even planting trees and bestowing awards in their honor.

Since the PA’s creation, Palestinian leaders have rejected numerous proposals for something that has never existed: a sovereign Palestinian Arab state. Arafat refused U.S. and Israeli proposals in 2000 at Camp David and in 2001 at Taba. In 2008, Abbas rejected an offer that would have given the Palestinians 93.7% of the West Bank, with Israeli territory to make up 5.8% and a corridor to Gaza for the other .5%. Abbas not only rejected the plan, but he also refused to make a counteroffer. Similarly, in 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration sought to present plans for restarting negotiations, with the 2008 offer as a starting point. Yet again, the PA refused to sit down and negotiate — a feat it would repeat when the first Trump administration sought to engage in talks.

The reasons for the refusals are simple: No Palestinian leader has ever accepted Israel’s right to exist. Going back more than eight decades, all have, without exception, rejected offers for statehood if it meant living in peace next to a Jewish state. The PA’s maps depict all of Israel as “Palestine.” Even Arafat’s pretensions during Oslo were a lie.

The PLO never amended its charter calling for Israel’s destruction. And in a May 10, 1994, speech in South Africa and in another one on Aug. 21, 1995, at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Arafat compared his decision to participate in the Oslo process to deceptions that the Prophet Muhammad engaged in against rival tribes. Its purpose was for Arafat and the PLO — severely weakened by the fall of the Soviet Union, its chief sponsor — to rebuild, consolidate, and then resume working toward Israel’s destruction. As he stated in a 1996 speech in Stockholm: “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. … We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”

Importantly, the PA was not meant to give Palestinian Arabs a state, as then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear. Rather, it was, to use a phrase popular at the time, a “chance for peace.” But more than three decades after the PA’s establishment, peace seems more distant than ever.

06/26 Links Pt1: Trump and Netanyahu's 2-state vision: Gaza war's end, Abraham Accords expansion; The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

From Ian:

The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

The main lessons from this week are that countries that build the bomb risk getting bombed themselves.

Pursuing nuclear arms is not a path to security, but to insecurity.

By striking Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night, President Trump did not just deal a blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also established an important new precedent.

By demonstrating that the U.S. is willing to use military force to stop the spread of the bomb, he made it much less likely that any other country will follow Iran's path and build an illegal nuclear program.

Until last week, the U.S. had never launched military strikes on the nuclear facilities of a country with which it was not at war. By bombing Iran, the U.S. has reset expectations.

If the U.S. had simply stood by and watched Iran cross the nuclear threshold, future American threats would have been perceived as a mere bluff that can safely be ignored.

Iran spent four decades and an estimated $500 billion on its nuclear program, only to have its nuclear facilities reduced to rubble. What other leader in their right mind will want to sign up for that deal?

This new reality will strengthen global nonproliferation efforts and make the world a safer place.

Richard Kemp: Arab nations should be grateful to Israel for destroying the Iranian hydra

Only those who don’t understand Middle East politics will take seriously reports that some Arab leaders and diplomats are concerned about Israel’s recent pre-emptive action against Iran. This mostly amounts to posturing for the benefit of their own populations. Many of their people are vehemently against Israel, for religious reasons but also to a large extent due to their governments’ own anti-Israel indoctrination from previous times.

It is a similar position to the one Western European governments find themselves in. Keir Starmer’s false criticisms and actions against Israel, such as arms suspension and sanctions, are surely due not to genuine concerns about Israel but the need to bolster support among Labour’s electorate, much of which is vehemently anti-Israel.

Arab leaders are well aware of the dangers they face from Iran. The ayatollahs are most vocal against Israel but they hate the Sunni Arab states just as much, if not more. This is more than mere rhetoric. Iran’s proxies have attacked the UAE and Saudi Arabia in recent years and Iran itself attacked US bases in Iraq and a few days ago in Qatar. Meanwhile Iran has for years been working to subvert Jordan and use it as a base of attack against Israel.

An Iranian nuclear capability threatened Arab countries as well as Israel. For years Israel has been understood to possess a nuclear capability. The Arabs knew that presented no threat to them. Only as the Iranian nuclear programme gained momentum did several countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, begin to seriously investigate acquiring their own nuclear capability.

With the exception of Iran itself and Syria, Israel has not attacked any country in the region and the Arabs know it will not. All of its offensive operations, in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, have been only against Iranian proxies that have attacked Israel.

Tony Badran: Iran’s Flying Monkeys

So what changed? As the past few weeks have demonstrated, the key variable—the difference between a U.S.-protected nuclear Iran that dominates the region, and the geopolitical picture we have today, with Iran cut down to size—is leadership. Any misalignment on either side, in the United States or Israel, could well have prevented the current outcome.

Had the Obama team’s campaign to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded at any point between 2021 and 2024, it seems unlikely that Netanyahu’s American-approved replacement would have been able to successfully navigate the post-Oct. 7 landscape and destroy Iran’s regional project. Likewise, had Trump lost the 2024 election or, worse still, had he not turned his head at that precise moment in Butler, Pennsylvania, the likelihood of American support for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program drops to zero. Remove the great men of history, and everything defaults back to the Obama structural settings on the Democratic and also some of the Republican side of the aisle.

Even now, you can see it in some of the comms environment in Washington, after the U.S. strikes on Iran, where we’re hearing things from both Democrats and Republicans about the need for a “long-term settlement” with Iran, to be accompanied, no doubt, by endless new rounds of negotiations. Over what, exactly? A new and improved JCPOA, after having destroyed all their centrifuges and facilities? Why? Who cares?

President Trump put it best. When asked if he’s interested in restarting negotiations with Iran, the president was dismissive: “I’m not. … The way I look at it, they fought. The war is done. I could get a statement that they’re not going to go nuclear … but they’re not going to be doing it anyway. … I’ve asked [Secretary of State] Marco [Rubio], ‘You want to draw up a little agreement for them to sign?’ … I don’t think it’s necessary.”

The president is being praised for using military force while eschewing long-term commitments and entanglements. The corollary of that policy is, properly, for America to walk away after the strikes yet threaten to bomb again should the need arise. Everything else, whether it’s a new “deal” or the hope of “integration” for a “moderate” Iran, is static from the Obama signal.

Why the D.C. establishment, left and right, feels such an intense attachment to Iran defies any rational cost-benefit analysis related to the national interest. It therefore can only be explained by extrinsic factors that are probably best explained by a shrink who specializes in subjects like “white guilt” or “the burdens of empire”—which means I am obliged to take a pass. I can only observe that this attachment is a powerful one that must therefore signify something important to those who continue to feel its attraction, even when the United States and Iran are at war.

Fundamentally, D.C. is a pro-Iran town, where factions on the left and right have shown a core investment in ensuring that Iran has the means and the opportunity to go nuclear as part of their political programs at home. Why? Again, I can only speculate, as it so clearly defies basic calculations of the national interest. Perhaps they see Iran, as Obama did, as a useful tool in factional wars against domestic political rivals.

Luckily for the rest of us, the behavior of D.C. sewer dwellers matters far less now, thanks to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The illusion that the D.C. establishment has maintained, hand in hand with Iran, for decades, has been shattered. The proxy armies that formed Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” are no more. We can even pinpoint the moment when Israel pulled the curtain aside: Sept. 27, 2024, the day it killed Nasrallah, whose Iranian masters turned out to be part of the same illusion that he was.

Now that the Ayatollah’s monkeys have scattered, whatever remains or does not remain of Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t much matter, even while anonymous sources in Washington do their best to put cards back into the regime’s hand by claiming that Fordow wasn’t “fully” destroyed and other such irrelevancies. The spell is broken, and the regime’s regional alignment, which was at the heart of both its threat to its neighbors and its strategy of deterrence, has been shattered beyond any hope of easy repair. Now it’s time for Washington and regional leaders alike to deal with reality.

Hezbollah Money Woes Continues As Internal Needs Cut Exports Of Copium (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Beirut, June 26 - The Islamist Shiite militia that once exercised effective control of Lebanon on behalf of its masters in Tehran continue to suffer financial woes, observers reported today, as not only have infusions of cash and equipment from Iran almost disappeared in the last year, but the organization's own revenue-generating enterprise of trafficking in the drug copium has suffered as well, given the group's desperation for a substance that will help them stay committed amidst absolute Israeli dominance of the battle space and the shattering of any illusions that they can even remain relevant in postwar Lebanon, let alone give Israel anything more than a pathetic fight.

Hezbollah's drug-selling operations have, until recently, provided significant funding tor the group's operations and "social services" to loyalists in Lebanon, as well as its violent activities targeting both Israel and Lebanese dissenters. But with the rapid collapse of Iran's proxies and the decimation of its own military and nuclear capabilities by Israel and the United States, Hezbollah - once Iran's most powerful proxy and the most serious threat to Israel until the laughably one-sided Israeli victory against them last year - must now use its own supply of copium instead of exporting it. The unavailability of copium for export deprives Hezbollah of critical revenue to fund its other existential "resistance" functions.

Hezbollah members and supporters have consumed copium in large quantities since "Operation Grim Beeper" last year when Israel detonated the group's pagers, which had been bought specifically to bypass advanced Israeli espionage tech - except that the company that sold the devices was an Israeli front. The resulting carnage crippled Hezbollah's senior and mid-level chains of command and rendered them unable to carry out any significant operations except for launching rockets at Israeli towns - and resulting eventually in a humiliating ceasefire agreement that demanded Hezbollah withdraw its forces away from regions bordering Israel. In the meantime, Israel repeatedly decapitated the organization's leadership in airstrikes and precise intelligence showcasing how thoroughly the Jewish State had penetrated it.

Hezbollah's collapse led in turn to the fall of Syrian dictator Basher Assad, another Iran client, whose successor has cracked down on Iranian supply to Hezbollah, further weakening the Shiite militia. During the most recent Iran-Israel war, Hezbollah refused an order by Tehran to attack Israel, fearing its own complete destruction. These and other disastrous developments for the Axis of Resistance - including the smashing of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip - have sent domestic demand for copium skyrocketing and leaving none for export.

Hezbollah supporters on US college campuses assured a reporter it was all part of a plan to lull Israel into complacency and destroy it, which would work this time, unlike the other thirteen times it failed.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

One of the topics that have been debated in both moral and legal theory is the concept of determinacy - the idea that every legal and ethical question has a single, correct answer.

This concept has evolved over the centuries. The tension between determinacy and indeterminacy in ethics traces back to ancient philosophy. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics recognized that ethical principles cannot achieve the precision of mathematics, introducing the concept of practical wisdom (phronesis) to navigate particular circumstances.

However, in medieval times, more thinkers started gravitating towards determinacy. Islamic law codes were written to make the law more deterministic, and this influenced Jewish and Christian theologians to do the same. Thomas Aquinas attempted to systematize moral theology through natural law theory but he still acknowledged that context matters and strict determinacy was not possible.

The secular philosophers of the Enlightenment period, possibly influenced by Newtonian science, attempted to make all moral and legal frameworks deterministic. In moral philosophy, this took the form of utilitarianism, deontology, and contract theory, each offering an elegant, rule-based approach to moral clarity. In legal theory, major thinkers started to insist that justice demands one right answer. Whether grounded in moral intuition or legal positivism, both domains converged on a singular ideal: if the system is just, it must be determinate.

Jewish law and ethics never accepted this idea.

On the surface, it appears that Jewish law is supremely deterministic - as mentioned, there are elaborate legal codes to help define and determine the law - the halachic system was always anti-deterministic. A fascinating section of the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:2) says that Rabbi Yannai taught that had the Torah been given in a fixed and conclusive form (chatuchah), “it could not have endured.” When Moses asked God for a definitive halachic ruling, God instead invoked the verse “after the majority you shall bend,” indicating that human deliberation - not divine finality - would guide Jewish legal interpretation. (Note that "bend" indicates flexibility.) He said that the Torah could be expounded in “49 faces of impurity and 49 faces of purity,” allowing it to remain relevant and dynamic.

There is always interpretation. Minority opinions are written down. Concepts like lifnim meshurat hadin (beyond the letter of the law), kavod habriyot (human dignity) and hora'at shaah (the rare overriding of the law in exceptional circumstances) shows that even within the halachic system, sometimes the determinate rules must be bent.

I would argue Jewish ethics is the dividing line between halachic determinacy and indeterminacy. When strict halachic determinacy would bring about an undesirable result, then the more flexible ethical concepts can enter, within the halachic system, to shade or bend halacha in a moral direction. Jewish ethics ensures that legal order remains aligned with dignity, compassion, and responsibility.

Modern ethical and legal theorists have started to recognize what Jewish law and ethics has known for two thousand years - the world is not black and white and neither deterministic or indeterministic methodologies can work on their own. Halacha's dual-layer system of deterministic law that incorporates flexible ethics offers what modern secular frameworks still struggle to construct: a method for balancing rule and context, principle and person

There is a joke about a Jewish man who spent his entire life looking for halachic loopholes to do the absolute minimum while adhering to halacha. When he passed away, he was ushered into heaven, where he was shown his new home: a bare room with nothing but a desk, a bed and a lamp. He asked incredulously, "This is heaven?" And the answer was "According to some opinions."

Strict halacha sets the floor of what is allowed, Jewish ethics raises the ceiling of what you should strive to do and who you should be.

What makes this all the more stunning is that Judaism had this flexible-deterministic system in place for millennia, yet it was systematically ignored or dismissed by much of the Western legal and moral canon. Christian thinkers in the medieval period often engaged Jewish philosophy, especially Maimonides, but largely bypassed the halachic system’s practical genius. Where canon law systematized conflict, and Enlightenment ethics pursued determinacy, Jewish law embraced pluralism with discipline.

This omission was not merely an intellectual oversight. Antisemitic tropes, portraying Jewish law as rigid, outdated, or excessively legalistic, likely contributed to the marginalization of halacha as a viable moral or legal framework. Had the West engaged seriously with halachic thinking, it might have developed more nuanced models for handling ambiguity, moral conflict, and principled exception.

In this Jewish ethics project I have been developing, by consciously separating Jewish ethics from halacha, I have unconsciously surfaced the brilliance of both. And this is why I believe that this is the first secular ethical framework that proves that faith is not necessary to be a moral person, the key goal of secular philosophy for centuries.

My AskHillel AI bot allows us to finally recognize this moral architecture on its own terms. It does not seek to undermine halacha’s authority, but to show that alongside its structure lies an ethical system equally ancient, equally rigorous, and deeply humane. When separated, we can fully appreciate the design, the balance, and the wisdom Jewish ethical tradition has carried all along.

If the Enlightenment philosophers had engaged the Jewish halachic and ethical system on its own terms rather than sidelining it, the world might look a lot different today.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

I've been reporting about how aid workers in Gaza have been sexually abusing women, extorting sexual favors out of them in exchange for food or other aid. The UN even called that sexual abuse by aid workers could become an "epidemic." (And this pre-dates October 7.)

The UN reports on these but buries them inside much larger reports. I have seen press releases on such abuse in other countries, but in Gaza, this news must be made as inaccessible as possible.

The latest report from the UN warns that sexual abuse increases when access to food is limited. And, sure enough, buried within the report is the indication that aid workers are among the abusers, couched in language to make this seem as innocuous as possible. It says, at aid distribution points, "Aid workers, guards, or community leaders may exploit power asymmetries, demanding sex in exchange for food or access to other aid supplies."

It isn't a headline. It is practically a footnote.

This isn't the only problem with the report. It doesn't blame Palestinian men for abusing their wives and daughters. No, it is food insecurity that is the problem, and Palestinian men as just acting naturally. Look how this section is worded:

GBV [Gender-Based Violence] as a Consequence of Household-Level Food Scarcity

When households face chronic food shortages:

Tensions and conflict within the home increase, often escalating into intimate partner violence (IPV), particularly when men feel their provider role is threatened.

Women are blamed for unmet expectations of feeding children and managing household needs—despite having limited control over food access.

Economic stress reduces household resilience and may lead to coercive coping strategies, such as exchanging sex for food or money ("survival sex") and pushing young girls into marriage to reduce family size with the purpose of reducing pressure on the head of the family.

In some cases, food deprivation itself is used as a tool of control. For example, abusive partners or family members may deliberately deny women or girls access to food as a form of punishment.

Notice how it uses the passive voice to describe outrageous behavior. In reality, GBV isn't a consequence of food scarcity - it is exacerbated by it. A society that respects women would never resort to these kinds of activities no matter how bad things are - on the contrary, the men would be actively protecting their women. If it is true that obtaining aid is dangerous for women, why aren't the husbands getting the aid themselves?

The underlying theme of all UN reports that talk about gender based violence in Gaza is that the perpetrators are hardly ever to blame. It is a cultural thing.

But if Israel can somehow be blamed for Palestinian men abusing their wives and children, then the UN and media are all over it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

An Arabic-language tweet by @bararit saying that there was never a Palestinian state is roiling the Arab world

Idit Bar, a researcher on the Arab world, made a video that mentions the well-known facts that there was never an independent Palestinian state - no flag, no leader, no passports, no currency.

But she did it in Arabic. And this is upsetting a lot of people.

They tell you since you were young that the Jews stole our land, the Jews occupied Palestine, okay let me understand just how can land be stolen from someone who didn’t even have a state.. A Palestinian state? In what year? Give me just one year, who was its president? What was the name of the currency? What was the color of the passport? No, it’s just a slogan they invented in the sixties like a clothing brand but without the clothes, like the funkoush from Adel Emam’s movie..

These are the harsh facts. Palestine? Palestine was a temporary British administrative name, not a country, not Arab, and not an independent entity. There were always Jews there, from the time of the Romans, through the Turkish colonization, up until the British. Despite the restrictions, the expulsion, and the massacres, the Jews continued to exist, not as guests of the indigenous population. You want the truth, or its cousin?

Let me shock you, the Zionists tried to avoid war and agreed to the partition plan in 1947, and the Arabs refused and sent five armies to wipe out the new state, and Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha promised to exterminate the Jews of Palestine, and what happened? Whoever is crying 'Nakba' today forgets who started the war. As the saying goes: 'He who opens the door to the wind has no one to blame but himself.' In short, we did not steal the land, we returned to our land. If this hurts you, then the fault lies not with history, but with the big lie that you believed.

Egyptian businessman Naguib Sawiris called on prominent Arab historians to respond to this video, saying, “I hope that distinguished Arab historians will prepare a documented response that does not contradict any facts, if it is fair, because this point of view, although it contains some facts, also neglects and avoids historical facts.” He added: “I myself saw a currency bearing the name Palestine and a travel document bearing the name Palestine.”

Of course, the currency and passport he saw was British and included Hebrew.

Sawiris' response is having a boomerang effect - it has given Bar's video far more views than it would have had otherwise.

The video has half a million views so far, and Arabs are distraught - but cannot find arguments against it, instead posting photos of British Mandate currency, or talking about how the name Palestine is older (of course it is - but that is not a nation) or that Palestinian Arab nationalism pre-dates 1948 (yes, by merely a few decades, but only in response to Zionism, not as a true independence movement.)

CNN Arabic is reporting on this, as well as major Egyptian media.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)