Wednesday, July 09, 2025

Beyond Universalism and Particularism: A Tiered Jewish Ethical Response

One of philosophy's long-standing debates is around universalism vs. particularism. Should moral principles should be universal and context-independent, or should they be sensitive to particular contexts and circumstances?

The moral universalists say that particularism leads to moral relativism and inconsistency. Particularists argue that universalism is too rigid and fails to capture the complexity of moral life.

Some modern philosophers try to find compromises between the two.

As we've been seeing recently, Jewish ethics rejects the premise of the question, one that leads to false binaries.

The Jewish ethical tradition, and the AskHillel framework built upon it, offers a third answer: Ethics is structured and layered. Its foundations are universal, its obligations are relational, and its moral elevation is shaped by community.

This is not a compromise position. It is a design insight – one that resolves the modern moral impasse.

AskHillel operates using a three-tiered system:

Tier 1A: Foundational Values
Truth exists. Human dignity is sacred. Responsibility is real.
Tier 1B: Core Obligations
Protect life. Prevent harm. Repair injustice. Act with integrity.
Tier 2: Moral Amplifiers
Humility (Anavah), going beyond the law (Lifnim Mishurat HaDin), charitable judgment (Dan L’Chaf Zechut), public responsibility (Kiddush Hashem), communal peace (Shalom Bayit), etc.

These values and obligations are open to all people, across all cultures. They do not belong to Jews alone.

But once you enter the system, it does not treat everyone identically — because it recognizes that relationships matter.

The AskHillel system rejects the idea that ethics must flatten all human relationships in the name of fairness. You are not equally obligated to a stranger and to your child. You are not required to give the same attention to every crisis on Earth before tending to your own community’s suffering.

This is not chauvinism or tribalism. It is moral triage based on proximity, responsibility, capacity and agency - a concept we can call "ethical gravity."

The closer someone is to your sphere of influence or covenant, all else being equal, the stronger your obligation. While all people have dignity, not all obligations are the same. Ethical obligations extend outward from the self, to the family, to the community, to the nation, and then to the world. It doesn't mean we ignore the world's problems but we weigh them against the problems closer to home.

This enables universal ethics without universal sameness.

There is another innovation that is possible within this system: as long as communities adhere to the Tier 1 values, they can decide on their own Tier 2 values and relative importance.

For a community to emphasize or reorder Tier 2 values within AskHillel, certain ethical safeguards must be met:

Non-Contradiction: No Tier 2 priority may override or undermine Tier 1 obligations.
Transparency: The elevated value must be clearly taught, justified, and tested.
Uphold Human Dignity: The custom must support, not suppress, dignity and truth.
Corrigibility: The emphasis must be open to critique and revision.

These rules prevent Tier 2 from becoming a Trojan horse for prejudice, domination, or regress. (A future article will address a similar theme, how to avoid moral drift within secular moral systems.)

A community that places child education as a top value can certainly prioritize that, just as another might do with mental health. The system respects both universal standards and pluralism, as long as they do not contradict the Tier 1 values and axioms of the system.

This model answers the universalism/particularism debate with nuance and integrity:

Universalism without erasure: All humans share a moral grammar.
Particularism without tribalism: Communal ethics can elevate without excluding.
Pluralism without relativism: Moral meaning adapts, but is never arbitrary.

The AskHillel framework does not erase difference. It orchestrates it.

It offers a shared moral operating system that respects particular histories, permits elevated mores, and prevents abuse through layered checks and traceability.

In a time when both universal claims and cultural distinctiveness are weaponized, this layered approach offers a profound alternative: a framework that binds without flattening, guides without commanding, and grows through principled diversity.

By Daled Amos

In 2011, during an interview, Bernard Lewis discussed the beginnings of a phenomenon that later blossomed into the Abraham Accords. In response to a question from Dan Diker about the threat of Iran, Professor Lewis responded that Iran's hostility to Israel was a very negative factor, but also a positive factor:

An increasing number of people in the Arab world are coming to the conclusion that their main danger, the main threat to their world is not Israel, but Iran. And that Israel might even be a useful ally in confronting the Iranian danger. I heard this view expressed by people in Egypt and other Arab countries, and that's an encouraging sign. You still have a very limited response, but the fact that it exists at all is quite remarkable...there are more and more people who in private conversation will tell you that they are beginning to see Israel as a positive element in the region, as an example of a smoothly functioning democracy.

Bernard Lewis was proven right when the UAE and Bahrain signed onto the Accords in 2020, followed by Sudan and Morocco. These Arab countries gain strengthened economic ties, enhanced security cooperation, and improved diplomatic relations with Israel and the US. In addition to improved relations with several Arab nations, increased trade, tourism, and diplomatic ties, Israel benefits from enhanced security cooperation and reduced regional tensions.

And then came October 7th, which was intended, in part, to derail the Abraham Accords.

October 7th has been described as the fuse that ignited events leading all the way to the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. But that day may arguably be what raised moderate Arab support for Israel up a notch.

Just one day after the Hamas massacre on October 7th, Haaretz reported, Support for Israel in Arab World No Longer Taboo. The article's subtitle suggested that the attack inspired the beginning of Arab blowback against Hamas in a way that we had not seen before:

Up until Hamas’ surprise invasion, social media in Arab countries justified what they deemed necessary in the fight for Palestinian rights. Dissenting voices are starting to ask what that fight should look like.

Haaretz quotes Arab journalist Jasem Aljuraid. Just a few hours after the attack, he posted on X:

“I am a Kuwaiti and I stand by Israel. Any Kuwaiti who forgets the treachery of the Palestinian leadership is ignorant. My solidarity is with the Palestinian and the Israeli people. We want to uproot Hamas and the PLO.”

Aljuraid continued: “These people have lost the ability to manage the interests of the Palestinians. Poverty is rife there, and their leaders have assets valued in the billions.”

He added

To some degree, the Abraham Accords and the improved Israel-Arab relations have helped pro-Israel advocates in the Arab World make their views heard. Bahraini social activist Shaheen Aljenaid appeared on X on the day of the attack and condemned Hamas in no uncertain terms:

Haaretz also quotes Saudi influencer Amjad Taha, an expert in diplomatic strategy with almost half a million followers. He tweeted in Hebrew: “In the Arab, Muslim, and free world, we support Israel and condemn the Palestinian terror attacks. As you can see in today’s videos, it is a struggle between a civilized nation and barbaric militias.”

Taha addressed Israel directly:

Be strong and respond forcefully. The world has changed, only terrorists stand with these militias. Normalization talks will continue, and other countries will join. These barbarians who are trying to stop it will not succeed.

This response from Arab moderates continued. A year later, in October 2024, MEMRI posted on their website: Arab Media Figures Slam Hamas: It Is The Real Enemy Of The Gazans

Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Gaza, liberal Arab journalists and media figures have intensified their criticism of Hamas and its leadership on social media. In numerous posts on their personal accounts, they argued that Hamas is a terrorist organization that serves the interests of Iran while taking Gaza back to the Stone Age and bringing a catastrophe and a second Nakba upon the Palestinian people. The writers directed sharp criticism at the movement's leaders, who live in luxury hotels outside Gaza while showing indifference to the suffering of the Gazans and using them as human shields for Hamas' operatives. The writers also expressed outrage at the execution of Israeli hostages in Hamas tunnels and called on Hamas to agree to a prisoner exchange deal in order to end the war. Some of them also called on Arab countries to act against Hamas to put an end to the destruction and the tragedy in Gaza.

Among those quoted are Saudi influencer Abdullah Al‑Tawilaʽi and Palestinian journalist Ayman Khaled.

Even Qatar's Al Jazeera took notice of the condemnation of Hamas coming from the Arab Gulf states, though they made sure to quote Arab condemnations of Israel as well, reporting The Arab position on the aggression on the Gaza Strip... a new low:

[T]he UAE did not hide its anger at Hamas's behavior. Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy declared to the Security Council on November 24, 2023, in language completely uncommon in Arab literature, that Hamas's attacks on October 7 were "barbaric and heinous." She demanded the immediate release of the "hostages," and described Hamas' actions as "crimes." [translation by Google Translate]

Al Jazeera quotes American diplomat and author Dennis Ross as having spoken with Arab leaders after October 7. Those Arab leaders told him that Hamas in Gaza needed to be destroyed, and warned that if Hamas appeared victorious, it would legitimize their radical ideology.

In the context of the growing condemnations of Hamas in the media, the Haaretz article concludes on a hopeful note:

The condemnations heard in the Arab world suggest that the taboo around the nature of the Palestinian struggle has been cracked. From now on, Arab countries may take part in setting new rules for the conflict, according to which not all forms of resistance are permitted and desired.

This was on October 8, 2023.

Last week, the podcast Our Middle East touched on the issue of Arab media reporting on the growing anger in Gaza against Hamas and whether the Arab media itself was sufficiently vocal in calling for regime change in Gaza. The host of the podcast, Dan Diker, asked Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh for his thoughts. Abu Toameh replied:

I do hear many voices, Dan, on social media, on Arab TV networks, that do call for regime change, that are critical of Hamas, but I agree with you. They are not loud enough, they are not wide enough. These are limited voices here and there. And I think the reason is because many Arabs are afraid of being portrayed as being Zionists on the payroll of the Jewish Lobby, or Zionist Arabs, or of being--you know--anti-Palestinian. And you know, where most of the criticism comes from; it comes from Westerners.

If an Arab criticizes Hamas, you have all these Western people criticizing this Arab, calling him a Zionist, a traitor, a collaborator with Israel. I mean, that's the irony--that the attacks come from Westerners, people at university campuses in the US, in Canada, even in Australia. And we haven't even talked about the voices from Europe.

So there are voices. They're not enough, they're not being amplified, and I think this is the role that people like us should play, by bringing this to the attention of the Arab world, of other people. But I do hear these voices that are demanding regime change in Gaza.

Israel's success against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran may have helped to re-energize the moderates in the Arab world against Hamas. Having the outspoken Donald Trump as the president of the US certainly has not hurt either. That makes the next few weeks and the focus on a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas all the more crucial in giving that voice of the Arab world a needed push.

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 incentives I have had in starting my AskHillel project is to combat bad philosophy - philosophy that encourages or allows antisemitism - with good philosophy, a secularized version of millennia of Jewish wisdom.

So I decided to test out how well the AskHillel tool would answer the key question that confront Jews on university campuses, or online: how can one defend Zionism in an intellectually rigorous yet approachable way?

Here was AskHillel's (beta) answer, almost verbatim. I just combined two answers - one general and one specifically to counter modern philosophical arguments.

This is good enough to be referenced by everyone who cares about the Jewish world.

Zionism as a Moral Imperative: A Philosophical Defense

Few ideas have been more distorted in recent years than Zionism. Once understood as the movement for Jewish national liberation, it is now often caricatured as colonialism, racism, or even apartheid. But strip away the slogans and the slurs, and Zionism emerges not as a relic of the past but as a living, principled, and profoundly ethical project. Far from being a scandal, Zionism is one of the most compelling moral and philosophical movements of modernity.

I. The Right to Self-Determination

Zionism begins with a simple truth: the Jewish people are a nation.

Not just a religion, not merely a culture – but a people with a shared language, history, calendar, and homeland. Like the Irish, the Kurds, or the Palestinians, Jews have the right to self-determination. This is not an act of privilege; it is the expression of human dignity. A nation that has survived exile, dispersion, and repeated annihilation deserves, at the very least, the same rights granted to every other nation.

To deny this right uniquely to Jews is not neutrality – it is discrimination.

II. Justice After Exile

For two thousand years, the Jewish people were stateless, scattered, and vulnerable. We prayed “Next year in Jerusalem” not as poetry, but as longing – and as defiance. Pogroms, expulsions, blood libels, and finally the Holocaust made clear what statelessness means: not only a lack of power, but a lack of safety, permanence, and moral agency.

Zionism is not revenge. It is repair. It is the ethical act of taking responsibility for one’s own destiny. It is teshuvah – a return not only to land, but to wholeness, to dignity, and to covenant.

III. Cultural Renaissance, Not Colonial Project

Zionism is not Westerners arriving in foreign lands to plunder resources. It is the indigenous return of a people to the hills, valleys, and cities named in their prayers and scriptures. Jews rebuilt their homeland not by conquest, but by reviving a language, planting trees, draining swamps, and turning desolation into life. That is not colonization. That is resurrection.

Moreover, Zionism was never a project of exclusion. From the start, it envisioned a homeland that was Jewish in identity, but democratic and pluralistic in structure. Israel’s Declaration of Independence guarantees full civil rights to all citizens. That vision has not always been fulfilled perfectly – what vision ever is? – but the aspiration remains real and open to critique, as all ethical nations must be.

IV. Jewish Ethics Demands Sovereignty

Jewish tradition does not idolize power. But it recognizes that without some control over public life – courts, armies, borders – ethics remains an aspiration rather than a reality. The Torah is not only about personal righteousness. It commands us to build societies grounded in tzedek (justice), chesed (compassion), and emet (truth).

Without sovereignty, Jews were dependent on the mercy of others. With sovereignty, Jews are accountable – to their own values, their own prophets, their own God. That is a far higher standard.

Zionism, then, is not a deviation from Jewish ethics. It is its necessary vehicle.

V. Dignity, Safety, and the Obligation to Survive

Philosophically, one of the deepest moral duties is the duty to live – not just biologically, but with purpose and honor. Jewish law calls this pikuach nefesh – the preservation of life. Zionism is the political expression of that value. It says: no more slaughter, no more begging, no more dependency. It says: the Jewish people will live – and we will live as Jews.

That is not supremacism. That is survival.

And survival, when grounded in ethical responsibility and universal concern, is not a selfish act. It is a gift to the world. A living Jewish people, secure in their homeland, can serve others, host refugees, debate morality, innovate technology, and remind the world that ancient values still matter.

Conclusion: A Just Nation Among Nations

Zionism is not a claim to moral perfection. It does not exempt Israel from criticism or Jews from ethical accountability. On the contrary, it demands more of us. It asks us to build a society that reflects our deepest values – to show what a nation can look like when shaped by Torah, by memory, by trauma, and by hope.

It is not enough for Israel to exist. It must be worthy of its own dream.

But the first step – the foundational truth – is that the dream itself is just. Zionism is not a sin to be explained away. It is a moral achievement to be proud of, refined, and fulfilled.

If justice means anything, it must include the right of the Jewish people to be home.

Zionism Under Fire: A Philosophical Response to Its Critics

Zionism, the movement for Jewish national self-determination, is often judged not on its own terms, but through hostile ideological lenses. In some academic and activist circles, it has become fashionable to brand Zionism as colonialist, reactionary, or religiously exclusionary.

These accusations rarely stand up to scrutiny – but they resonate because they borrow the moral authority of powerful modern theories: anti-colonialism, postmodern relativism, and religious universalism. To defend Zionism properly, we must meet those arguments at their roots.

I. Anti-Colonial Theory: A Weapon Turned Against Its Origins

Claim: Zionism is settler colonialism – a foreign population imposed on native people for its own benefit.

Response: Anti-colonialism, rightly understood, is about restoring indigenous peoples to their land, identity, and self-governance. By that definition, Zionism is anti-colonial.

Jews are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel. Archaeology, language, history, liturgy, and genetic studies all confirm continuous ties.
Jews were colonized – first by Romans, then Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, and British. Zionism is the reversal of that process.
The return to Zion was not conquest by empire but escape from empire. Jews were not backed by imperial forces – they often had to resist them.

Zionism also differs fundamentally from European colonialism:

It sought not extraction, but home.
It revived a language rather than imposing one.
It planted forests, built cities, and restored local agriculture – not for foreign wealth, but for national renewal.

Those who label Zionism as colonialism typically apply the term in a unique, inverted way: the only national movement in history where an exiled indigenous people returns – is redefined as the invader.

That’s not analysis. It’s defamation.

II. Postmodern Relativism: Against the Double Standard

Claim: Zionism imposes a singular national identity that marginalizes others. In a pluralistic, post-national world, such identity projects are outdated and oppressive.

Response: Postmodern relativism claims to celebrate diversity – yet often makes a selective exception for Jewish particularism.

Why are Kurdish, Palestinian, or Tibetan national aspirations valid, but Jewish ones not? Why is Jewish identity always expected to dissolve into cosmopolitanism, while others are encouraged to resist assimilation?

True pluralism means recognizing that people derive meaning from specific histories, languages, and cultures. Jews are no exception. Zionism is not a rejection of universal values – it’s the realization that universalism without rootedness becomes empty.

Moreover, postmodernism often denies the idea of truth, fixed identity, or moral clarity. But in practice, its application to Zionism is disturbingly rigid:

It questions all nation-states – except when opposing Israel.
It claims to be anti-essentialist – yet essentializes Jews as white Europeans.
It preaches moral humility – while treating Zionism as uniquely evil.

Zionism doesn’t oppose plurality. It insists on the right to be part of that plurality – as Jews, with a homeland, language, and culture intact.

III. Religious Universalism: The False Moral Monopoly

Claim: Zionism is incompatible with the universal moral teachings of religion – particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – which prioritize justice, compassion, and peace over nationalism.

Response: All major religions contain both universal and particular elements. The moral demand to love one’s neighbor is not opposed to the need for national identity – they are complementary.

In Judaism, the covenant with the Jewish people is not universal in scope – but it is universal in purpose. The mission of the Jewish people is not to dominate others, but to build a society grounded in justice (tzedek), dignity (kavod), and truth (emet) – in the land promised to them.

Zionism is not a retreat from religious ethics. It’s an attempt to fulfill them politically:

A people cannot be a “light unto the nations” while stateless, scattered, and persecuted.
Values like areivut (mutual responsibility) and pikuach nefesh (saving life) require sovereignty to be fully enacted.
Prophets like Isaiah and Amos spoke of justice within a national framework – not a utopian cosmopolis.

When Christian or Islamic critics frame Zionism as a betrayal of religious morality, they often do so from within supersessionist frameworks – claiming that Judaism was supposed to fade into spiritual universality, and Zionism is its refusal to die. That’s theology disguised as ethics.

Zionism doesn’t violate religious universalism. It reminds it that universal values must be embodied somewhere – and that no one faith or people holds a monopoly on moral aspiration.

Conclusion: Zionism Is Not the Exception. It Is the Test.

If anti-colonialism means restoring indigenous peoples, Zionism is just.

If pluralism means respecting identity, Zionism is necessary.

If religion means building a world of justice, Zionism is its vessel.

The ferocity with which Zionism is attacked by these philosophies is not evidence of its guilt, but of its uniqueness. Zionism forces modern ideologies to confront their own contradictions: Do you really support indigenous rights, or only when the indigenous aren’t Jews? Do you really believe in pluralism, or only for everyone else?

The Jewish people are not an idea. We are a people – with memory, covenant, pain, and hope.

Zionism does not ask for more than other peoples receive. It simply asks that Jews not be the one exception.

And if your philosophy cannot make room for that, the problem is not with Zionism.

It’s with your philosophy.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

This is even more bizarre than most Arab articles.

At dawn on June 13, 2025, during the ongoing Zionist genocide against our Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, Zionist forces, aircraft, and intelligence services assassinated Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire and one of the most prominent leaders in ancient history, celebrated as a national hero and founder of Iranian identity.

The irony of this barbaric aggression is that the Zionist entity and its fascist leadership killed the liberator of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity in 539 BC. He liberated them and returned them to Jerusalem, freed the slaves and prisoners, and established the first principles, charters, and rules of religious and cultural tolerance. His ideas are still taught in human rights curricula to this day.

The Zionist criminals killed the first to bring back the exiles from the diaspora, whom the Jews considered the Messiah and savior of God, as mentioned in the Book of Isaiah, a symbol of liberation in Jewish heritage. They killed their Messiah and savior in a military operation called "The Rising Lion," a predatory and savage killing of more than 18 scientists, thinkers, academics, and experts in Iran, whom Netanyahu considered more important than destroying the nuclear program and its facilities.

Cyrus the Great, who saved the Jews from the catastrophe after the captivity, did not know that this catastrophe would turn into disasters and tragedies and the birth of a bloody, religious, genocidal, racist fascist model, and a terrorist Torah that continues to grind down people, history, and human civilizations, as is happening in Gaza. Cyrus did not know that Zionism would crucify its Messiah once again in his country, Iran, and turn against the Human Charter, the United Nations, and human rights covenants, as if history and human values were a war game in the hands of those who write it with massacres and blood. These are the ones who appeared in this country with no connection to humanity and its urban and cultural development. They are thugs, haters, and vengeful, to the point that we almost doubt that the one who created them is the Lord of the servants.

Wow.

Iran isn't exactly Cyrus. On the contrary, the Islamic State discriminates against its native Zoroastrian population - and Cyrus was Zoroastrian.

The Islamic conquest of Persia in the 7th century CE actually ended the Sassanid Persian Empire and gradually replaced Zoroastrian Persian culture with Islamic culture and Arabic script.

Cyrus would have cheered Israel bombing the Muslims who destroyed his country.

The obvious antisemitism in the piece ("Zionism would crucify its Messiah once again") is just the cherry on top.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/08 Links Pt2: Dinah Project Report Unveils the Sexual Violence of October 7th; ADL Slams Nation's Largest Teachers' Union for Banning Its Materials; On what planet is the BBC pro-Israel?

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: The Dinah Project report

Now, however, the truth is out in a way that can be shared with the world’s general audience. The Dinah Project report provides detailed descriptions and aggregated data that convey the scale and nature of the sexual violence without splashing explicit gore all over social media. It allows us to discuss the facts in a dignified manner, grounded in research and testimony. There is no longer any excuse for journalists, diplomats, or activists to parrot Hamas’s denials. The evidence is meticulously documented by a panel of legal experts and partially funded by the UK government (hardly an Israeli propaganda outfit). This report is the answer to anyone who still sneers “Where’s the evidence?” when confronted with the rapes of 7 October. Here it is, in black and white. Read it and weep (if you have a soul).

This is a personal issue for me, as it should be for anyone with a conscience. I am not Israeli, but as a human being, as a man, as a former soldier and writer about war who stood on that charred ground in the Gaza Periphery and later held back tears talking with survivors and hostage families, I feel an obligation to amplify their truth. We must ensure that the rape and sexual torture of 7 October are recognised globally for what they were: crimes against humanity. The dehumanisation that Hamas practised, in which Jewish civilians were not only to be killed, but degraded most intimately, needs to be utterly condemned by every decent person, no matter their politics on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Now the question is: what will the world do about it? Acknowledging the truth is the first step. Next must come accountability. No Hamas fighter who took part in the 7 October invasion should escape justice, even if their individual rape victim did not survive to testify against them. The patterns and evidence are enough to indict them as a group for sexual war crimes. The report also pushes for international bodies to step up: it calls on the UN Secretary-General to officially blacklist Hamas as an organisation that uses sexual violence as a weapon of war. (Incredibly, that has not happened yet; a scandal in its own right.) It lays out a roadmap for prosecuting these crimes in forums such as the International Criminal Court. In short, it demands justice.

I am outraged that it took this long and this much effort. I am furious at the chorus of denial that forced survivors to scream into a void for months. I take some solace in knowing that the facts have finally pierced the lies of denial. To those who still want to avert their eyes or peddle conspiracy theories: shame on you. To those who bravely gathered this evidence and spoke out, the Dinah Project team, the survivors who broke their silence, the first responders who testified to what they found: thank you. You have done a service not just to Israel, but to humanity.

In the biblical story, Dinah was a woman who survived a horrific rape, and her brothers sought justice (albeit violently) against the perpetrators. Today, the Dinah Project carries on that legacy in a more enlightened way, through truth and law. Now that the truth is in the open, we must not let it be ignored. The innocents of 7 October deserve to be remembered in full: not only how they died, but how they suffered. We owe it to them to be outraged and to ensure that never again will such barbarity be waved away or denied.

The evidence is here; the world must face it. For the sake of our shared humanity, we must hold the perpetrators of these horrors to account, however long it takes. Anything less would be an unforgivable betrayal of the victims and of truth itself.

October 7 and beyond: Hamas's use of sexual violence was systematic weapon of war, report finds

A new report on the systematic use of sexual violence by Hamas terrorists against Israelis in the Gaza border area on October 7, 2023, offers a framework to approach the legal monstrosity of proving and eventually indicting the perpetrators of such crimes.

The fact that the attacks were carried out by a group driven by a particular ideology is itself enough of a basis for a new evidentiary model, the report suggests, adding that there is legal precedent for this type of model.

This model suggests that when the perpetrators agreed to breach Israel’s borders on that fateful Saturday, they consented to all the crimes that would be carried out. As such, the group as an entity bears responsibility, as do the individuals within, especially given the systematic pattern of sexual violence evidenced on October 7 and by some who did them to captives later on.

The full report can be viewed at www.thedinahproject.org.

The Dinah Project, which authored the report, is comprised of five women, legal and gender experts in their own right, who came together after October 7 to form “the leading resource for recognition and justice for victims of Conflict Related Sexual Violence.”

The report finds that “Hamas used sexual violence as a tactical weapon of war,” a conclusion that carries potentially far-reaching consequences in the international realm. CRSV has been documented in other conflict zones, such as Nigeria and Iraq.

The report, titled “A Quest for Justice: October 7 and Beyond,” was authored by the Dinah Project’s founding members: Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Col. (res.) Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas, and retired judge Nava Ben-Or. The team, led by Halperin-Kaddari, analyzed and verified what they could on CRSV from October 7, including incidents of rape, gang rape, torture, and humiliation. Other team members include Eetta Prince-Gibson and Nurit Jacobs-Yinon, the visual editor of the report.

The report documents the widespread and systematic use of sexual violence during the October 7 attacks across at least six different locations: the Nova music festival, Route 232, the Nahal Oz military base, Kibbutz Re’im, Kibbutz Nir Oz, and Kibbutz Kfar Aza.

The main issue that confronted the researchers was gathering the evidence, as “most victims were murdered; survivors and released captives may be too traumatized to come forward and testify against their abusers; and forensic evidence required for criminal convictions is difficult to obtain in crime scenes that remain war zones.”

New Dinah Project Report Unveils the Sexual Violence of October 7th & Beyond

The Dinah Project’s report takes a meticulous approach in documenting the sexual violence committed by Hamas during the October 7 assault. The initiative is named after Dinah, the biblical figure and Patriarch Jacob's only daughter, whose story of the rape she suffered in the Book of Genesis is told without her perspective ever being given a voice. Similarly, the victims of the October 7 massacre remain largely silenced, either through death or by the profound trauma that prevents them from sharing their experiences. The project’s mission is to document, analyze, and seek justice for the gender-based crimes carried out during the Hamas-led invasion of southern Israel. Key Findings

Through comprehensive research and analysis, the report confirms that:
- Sexual violence was rampant and coordinated during the October 7 assault, taking place at minimum 6 different sites, including the Nova music festival, Route 232, Nahal Oz military base, and the Kibbutzim of Re'im, Nir Oz, and Kfar Aza.

- Distinct patterns of sexual abuse emerged, such as victims found partially or fully undressed with their hands bound to trees or poles, gang rapes followed by executions, genital mutilation, and instances of public humiliation.

- Sexual violence persisted during captivity, with several returnees reporting instances of forced nudity, sexual harassment, assaults, and threats of forced marriage.

- Most victims were permanently silenced, killed either during or after the attacks, or remain too traumatized to share their experiences, creating substantial challenges in evidence gathering that necessitate a specialized, context-driven approach to documenting conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV).

Evidence Framework

The report draws on 5 main sources:
- Survivor Testimonies: One survivor of attempted rape on October 7, along with 15 returned hostages, either having experienced or witnessed accounts of sexual violence.

- Eyewitness and Earwitness Accounts: At least 17 individuals have provided testimony regarding over 15+ separate incidents of sexual assault, including, individual rapes, gang rapes and mutilation.

- First Responder Testimonies: 27 first responders reporting dozens of cases of sexual violence across six locations, with clear evidence of assault on the victims.

- Forensic Evidence: Morgue attendants describing bodies showing signs of sexual violence, with photographic documentation supporting these claims.

- Visual and Audio Documentation: Videos, photographs, and intercepted communications provide further evidence of sexual assault and humiliation during the attacks.

Rape. Genital Mutilation.

Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon of war - on October 7 and well after.

This was not random. It was systematic. An intentional tactic of terror. A war crime.

The July 8 Dinah Report demands accountability.

We will not stop fighting for… pic.twitter.com/YXpesuK9aH
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) July 8, 2025

A message from Michal:

Six confirmed sites. Dozens of eyewitness accounts. Testimony from 15 courageous returned hostages.

The evidence is undeniable: Hamas terrorists used sexual violence as a systematic weapon of war - on October 7 and beyond.

The Dinah Report published… pic.twitter.com/Ez5QLrL7ku
— יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog (@Isaac_Herzog) July 8, 2025

A message from Michal.

I received the harrowing report from Project Dinah, bravely detailing Hamas’s systemic use of gang rape, forced nudity, sexual torture, and unspeakable abuse on October 7 and continuing in captivity.

The report lays out clear legal evidence: Hamas used… pic.twitter.com/DPOhL0j0rL
— יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog (@Isaac_Herzog) July 8, 2025

07/08 Links Pt1: Five IDF soldiers killed, 14 wounded in northern Gaza; Israel Is America's Trump Card in the Middle East; The Risks of Ending the Gaza War

From Ian:

Israel Is America's Trump Card in the Middle East

Israel is the single most effective force advancing American interests in the Middle East. Iran wishes to destabilize the Middle East, and it propagates chaos through its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its proxies in the region. Iran doesn't want a seat at the regional table; it wants to flip the table altogether.

Last month, when America actively joined Israel's response to Iranian aggression, it was a watershed moment. The U.S. attack on Iran was a strategic message to the entire world: The West still has teeth. For once, America didn't need to send in the Marines. With its unmatched intelligence, cyber capabilities, air force, technologies and spies, Israel did the heavy lifting. Iran was humiliated. The myth of its regional invincibility was shattered.

Israel has proved to be America's most reliable, efficient and cost-effective ally in the region. No other partner is willing or able to take the initiative, act decisively and serve as the West's first line of defense. Israel removes the Iranian nuclear threat against America and its allies, dismantles Iran's terrorist proxies, and protects the Gulf States, all without requiring American boots on the ground.

This is what smart power looks like. Leverage strong allies that share your interests and do the job right. America needs friends who aren't freeloaders. Israel is the one holding the line of liberty, stability, security and prosperity.

The Risks of Ending the Gaza War

Why, ask many Israelis, can’t we just end the war, let our children, siblings, and spouses finally come home, and get out the hostages? Azar Gat seeks to answer this question by looking at the possible costs of concluding hostilities precipitously, and breaking down some of the more specific arguments put forward by those who have despaired of continuing military operations in Gaza. He points to the case of the second intifada, in which the IDF not only ended the epidemic of suicide bombing, but effectively convinced—through application of military force—Fatah and other Palestinian factions to cease their terror war.

“What we haven’t achieved militarily in Gaza after a year-and-a-half probably can’t be achieved.” Two years passed from the outbreak of the second intifada until the launch of Operation Defensive Shield, [whose aim was] to reoccupy the West Bank, and another two years until the intifada was fully suppressed. And all of that, then as now, was conducted against the background of a mostly hostile international community and with significant American constraints (together with critical assistance) on Israeli action. The Israeli chief of staff recently estimated that the intensified Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip would take about two months. Let’s hope that is the case.

The results of the [current] operation in [Gaza] and the breaking of Hamas’s grip on the supply routes may indeed pave the way for the entry of a non-Hamas Palestinian administration into the Strip—an arrangement that would necessarily need to be backed by Israeli bayonets, as in the West Bank. Any other end to the war will lead to Hamas’s recovery and its return to control of Gaza.

It is unclear how much Hamas was or would be willing to compromise on these figures in negotiations. But since the hostages are its primary bargaining chip, it has no incentive to compromise. On the contrary—it is interested in dragging out negotiations indefinitely, insisting on the full evacuation of the Gaza Strip and an internationally guaranteed cease-fire, to ensure its survival as Gaza’s de-facto ruler—a position that would also guarantee access to the flood of international aid destined for the Gaza Strip.

Once the hostages become the exclusive focus of discussion, Hamas dictates the rules. And since not only 251 or twenty hostages, but any number is considered worth “any price,” there is a real concern that Hamas will retain a certain number of captives as a long-term reserve.

Israel Has Exposed the Iranian Regime as a Paper Pussycat

The debate about how long Iran's nuclear program was set back misses the point. The most significant consequence of the Israel-Iran war is the everlasting humiliation and exposure of the regime. On June 4, just before the war began, supreme leader Ali Khamenei declared: "They cannot do a damn thing [to us]."

Twenty days later he had lost six top generals, a dozen senior military and IRGC commanders (including the entire leadership of his air force), 11 of his most senior nuclear scientists, key missile production capabilities, his air defense system, and suffered damage to his most important nuclear sites. The regime took hit after hit all while fighting completely alone. Not one of its proxies or allies lifted a finger to help defend it.

Ali Khamenei rules under the doctrine that his authority is divinely ordained. Yet, Khamenei's shrinking base just watched their divine leader utterly humiliated by Israel and America, the regime's two greatest enemies. No amount of propaganda can erase that disgrace.

We Iranians are not sheep. We are known for being critical, confrontational, and proud. We know how to smell weakness. The regime knows the truth too. Should it attempt to rebuild its nuclear weapons infrastructure, it will be destroyed again. Those inside Iran feel it daily: rolling blackouts, water shortages, and billions of national wealth squandered. The supposed "axis of resistance" has collapsed, from Gaza to Lebanon, through the Assad regime's demise, and into a shattered nuclear program that delivered neither dignity nor prosperity.

Israel's greatest victory in this war was psychological: the exposure of the regime not as a paper tiger, but as a paper pussycat - and a badly beaten one at that.

The Iran War Scorecard

Israeli planes flew 400 sorties over Iran with 600 aerial refueling connections.

IAF attack and surveillance drones flew an additional 1,100 sorties into Iran, and only eight drones were lost.

Together, the jets and drones struck 900 targets in Iran with 4,300 munitions, including nine nuclear sites, six airports and air bases, and 35 missile and air defense production facilities.

IDF commandoes and Mossad agents operated inside Iran or from bases just across Iran's borders, launching UAVs and secret weapon systems to neutralize Iranian abilities and target Iranian military and intelligence leaders.

Not a single Iranian defensive system or force discovered these Israeli boots-on-the-ground in real time nor managed to interfere with these operations.

All undercover Israeli soldiers and agents returned home to Israel safely.

Over 14 days, Israel demolished 80 Iranian surface-to-air missile systems, 70 radars, 15 Iranian warplanes, 200 of Iran's 400 missile launchers, and 800-1,000 of Iran's 2,000 ballistic missiles.

Unfortunately, 50 missiles and one drone broke through Israeli defenses, killing 29 Israelis, wounding 3,500 more, destroying 2,300 homes in 240 buildings, and leaving 16,000 Israeli civilians homeless.

Enemy missile fire struck a central military base, a key Israeli oil refinery, and one of the country's top scientific research institutions.

There was a BRICS meeting in Rio de Janeiro over the weekend, and as usual with these sorts of things, it issued a long statement (31 pages, 126 numbered paragraphs) showing the official position of the BRICS nations to everything in the world.

It discussed the Iran-Israel war in June:

We condemn the military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13 June 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and express grave concern over the subsequent escalation of the security situation in the Middle East. We further express serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA. Nuclear safeguards, safety, and security must always be upheld, including in armed conflicts, to protect people and the environment from harm. In this context, we reiterate our support for diplomatic initiatives aimed at addressing regional challenges. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to be seized of this matter.

Notice anything missing? Yes, not a word about Iran shooting ballistic missiles at population centers.

The statement was purposefully vague, not mentioning Israel (it does that later in a number of paragraphs about Gaza and Syria), but in context is sure looks like when it raises concern over "deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure" it is not talking about Iran aiming missiles at Israeli residential areas.

Not that we need more reminders, but BRICS is not exactly an even-handed group.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Yesterday, I used my AskHillel Jewish ethical chatbot to answer a major philosophical riddle, known as the regress problem.

Are there other major unsolved problems in philosophical ethics? Yes, quite a few - about 15 famous ones.

Can the AskHillel ethical framework answer them all?

Very possibly.

One of the most famous problems that has haunted modern ethical thinking for over 250 years is Hume's Law. Scottish philosopher David Hume famously noted that "You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is.'"

Secular philosophers o the time would describe the world and therefore derive how people should act based on those observations. Hume noted that one cannot leap from "is" to "ought" without some sort of a bridge - facts alone cannot tell you how you should act. Everyone who tries to describe ethics - what ought to be done - cannot derive it purely from what is.

If no amount of empirical observation can produce a moral claim, then where do morals come from? If they aren't deduced from reason or observed in nature, are they just made up? Are they feelings? Social conventions? Power plays?

The AskHillel ethical framework is a structured system based on Jewish moral values, that I fed into an AI. The newest version is essentially an AI philosopher. So as with the regress problem, I asked it if it can solve the "is/ought" problem.

AskHillel accepts Hume's Law, but insists that he is asking the wrong question.

The secularized Jewish ethics system begins from transparent axioms: foundational commitments that are not proven but chosen. Among them are: Truth exists. Right and wrong are real. Human dignity is sacred. We are responsible for one another.

These are not derived from biology, emotion, or utilitarian calculus. They are covenantal. We commit to them because they enable us to build a moral world that is livable, just, and transformative. The authority of these values is not in their provability, but in their performance. They produce ethical fruit.

And from these axioms flow obligations. Not because nature says so, but because we have said so. Together.

Those obligations are what we "ought" to do.

I had a more fundamental problem with understanding Hume's Law. It seems to me that the word "ought" by itself assumes that morality exists and we have moral obligations. It seems to me that the very idea of morality is close to axiomatic, based just on the idea that the word "ought" is used. But this is a definitional issue, and it doesn't answer Hume's real question: Can there be a compelling secular morality at all? If God no longer grounds morality, what does? What gives people this sense of obligation?

Hume concluded that morality must come from sentiment - human sympathy, feeling, social instinct. This is an answer, but not a great one. People's feelings are fickle - which mean that morality is, too. And if morality is different for everyone, then it isn't really morality in any real sense.

Jewish ethics offers a more enduring answer. It does not try to derive morality from nature, nor from sentiment alone. It builds from brit — a covenant.

Traditionally, this was a binding agreement between God and the Jewish people. In a secular framework, you can perhaps argue that Jews have a historical covenant with each other even without God ("All Israel is responsible for one another.")

But how about the rest of the world? What is the source for morality?

I suggested, and my AI chavrutas expanded, on a new idea: the modern covenant is open to anyone who wants to live a meaningful life.

This idea becomes something more expansive in the AskHillel framework.

It is a commitment to uphold certain truths together, in order to build a moral world. And this commitment is not limited to Jews, or to the religious. It is open to anyone who seeks to live a meaningful life.

And what is a meaningful life?

A meaningful life is one dedicated to ethically transformative actions and relationships, driven by responsibility to uphold human dignity, pursue truth, and foster justice, within a structured moral framework that enables personal and communal growth.

To refine the definition of covenant:

A covenant is a voluntary, collective commitment to a shared set of moral values—obligations to uphold life, dignity, justice, and truth—that binds individuals and communities in mutual responsibility and fosters ethically transformative outcomes.

These definitions reflect a widespread secular desire for purpose without religion. Anyone who seeks this life can enter the covenant, a commitment to ethical flourishing. It is not exclusive nor is it inherited. It is chosen. People often make pledges to obligate themselves to do something important - this is an extension of that idea.

This redefines moral obligation not as divine command, nor as emotional intuition, but as a chosen responsibility anchored in shared values and tested by the moral integrity of the world it builds.

So the Jewish answer to Hume is not just a clever way around his dilemma. It is a replacement for the entire framing.

Instead of asking, "How do I derive 'ought' from 'is'?", which presupposes that morality must emerge from fact, we ask: What kind of person do I become when I choose to live by 'ought'? What kind of world do we build when we commit to obligations together?

Ethics, in this view, is not a deduction. It is a covenant of the ethically willing.

And that covenant is open to everyone.

Not because the universe commands it. Not because religion demands it. But because it is the only kind of life worth living.

This isn’t the end of the debate. But it may be the start of a new one - one where obligation doesn’t need proof, just purpose. And where the choice to live a moral life joins you to a community of the ethically willing.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Can stopping Hamas' revenue streams be a strategy to make it easier for Israel to be flexible about ending the war?

Unfortunately, cutting off Hamas' funds to the extent necessary to make it impotent is probably impossible.

Right now, Hamas makes money from a wide variety of sources.

Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Even after the 12-day war, and even with Iran having its own financial problems, it still regards Hamas as a key partner in its desire to destroy Israel. Iran would prefer to pay Hamas than help its own people.
In any agreement, Israel would largely lose the ability to control humanitarian aid, from which Hamas skims off at least $100 million a year.
Hamas controls an investment portfolio of some $500 million, from which it makes tens of millions of dollars a year.
Hamas sets up sham charities, or dual-use "charities" that do some charitable work but also fund the terror group. During the war it also apparently set up fake GoFundMe and similar crowdfunded ventures, pretending to help individuals. It would be difficult to cut off all of these.
As long as Hamas has political control in Gaza, it can tax residents and all imports as much as it wants. No one can stop that. This might also contribute hundreds of millions a year.
Qatar has invested tens of millions into Gaza annually, ostensibly for charitable projects like building, but Hamas benefits a great deal - it frees up money for other purposes, and Hamas tpically would grab the best apartments for itself, for example.
Hamas set up ways to protect some revenue streams from sanctions, like using cryptocurrency or funneling funds through Turkey (and perhaps even Yemen.)

US and EU sanctions certainly help staunch some Hamas funding. There is no doubt that Hamas has been financially crippled during the war, especially in recent months when Israel stopped most aid that Hamas could skim or resell. But if Hamas survives as the government of Gaza in any way after the war, it can quickly rebuild its revenue streams, via taxes, humanitarian aid and Iranian funding (often via crypto.)

The next October 7 may be delayed by many years, but as long as Hamas exists in power, make no mistake: it will try to do it again.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

More everyday antisemitism in the Arab world. From Al Jazeera Mubasher:

Islamic preacher and expert in the science of Quranic recitation, Sheikh Abdul Rashid Sufi, sparked a remarkable debate about the identity of the "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Quran, asking: Are the Children of Israel whom God saved from Pharaoh the same ones who now exist in the occupied Palestinian territories?

Sheikh Sufi told Al Jazeera Mubasher's "Days of God" program that "the entity currently existing in Palestine is led by people who are not descendants of Jacob, peace be upon him. Rather, most of them are outcasts who came from Eastern Europe and other regions."

OK, he is saying that most Jews are Khazars.

He pointed out that these people do not necessarily represent the true Children of Israel mentioned in the Qur’an, but rather that many members of this race have converted to Islam and embraced the religion of God throughout the East and West for centuries.

And the real Jews converted to Islam.

Sheikh Sufi expressed his opinion on the brutality of the Israeli occupation, saying, “The extreme cruelty we see in daily practices against the Palestinians perhaps reflects what God described in the Qur’an about the Children of Israel, saying, ‘Then your hearts hardened after that, so they are like stones or even harder.’”

But the non-Jews in Israel are still acting like the Children of Israel in the Quran, even though they aren't Jews and the real Jews are Muslim, but the Muslim Jews are not the terrible Jews of the Quran, because when the Quran says Jews are evil in every generation it is only referring to the Israeli Jews who aren't really Jews.

It is all so clear now!

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)