Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Saudi newspaper says the world should discriminate against Jews

Al Bilad is the oldest Saudi newspaper, over 80 years old.

This week it had an op-ed that recommended that the world kick Jews out of any group.

"No Jews Allowed"
Khaled Abdul Rahman Al-Awadh

Amid the blatant crimes currently being committed by the Zionist enemy and the war of extermination and starvation it is perpetrating in Gaza, Zionists are living in complete isolation among the nations of the world, both East and West....

A clear example of this widespread rejection is what happened this week to two Jewish artists whose performances at the Edinburgh Festival 2025 in Scotland were canceled two weeks before the event. Perhaps the phrase "No Jews Allowed" is the best advice for any Western gathering or public festival, as public outrage against the Zionist entity grows day by day as its army continues its presence on Arab land.

What inspires hope in the existence of some humanity among certain Western peoples, such as in Scotland and Ireland, is the reason given by festival organizers for expelling these two Zionists: the actors had previously performed a "solidarity gesture" for the Zionist army. The two Zionist actors protested, claiming their performances were not political but merely addressed the theme of motherhood with a Jewish cultural flavor! Another performance in a different venue in Scotland was also canceled for the same reason, out of fear of public anger, which would not tolerate the presence of an actor who supports the Zionist entity on social media.

The claims of "anti-Semitism" that the ambassador once loudly proclaimed no longer serve to improve the image of this rejected entity. The media now faces clear facts: the Palestinians will not cease resisting this cancerous entity, sent by Europe to Arab land, despite having no connection to the land or the people who inhabit it.

No matter how much "anti-Zionists" insist they aren't antisemitic, everyone knows the truth. The justifications for modern antisemitism will soon reach any Jew who prays several times a day for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, any Jew who attends a synagogue with an Israeli flag, any Jew who ever visited Israel, any Jew who has relatives in Israel, any Jew who speaks out against Palestinian terrorism.

The hate is becoming normalized at astonishing speeds.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

You may have read about this last week:

Jewish comedians have had their Edinburgh Fringe shows cancelled because of staff “safety concerns”, it has been claimed.

Rachel Creeger and Philip Simon were booked to perform at the Whistlebinkies venue during the festival.
Ms Creeger was set to perform her show Ultimate Jewish Mother, while Mr Simon was due to host a Jew-O-Rama of Jewish comedic talents.

However, the acts claimed they were informed that their gigs would be cancelled after bar staff at the venue expressed fears of feeling “unsafe”.

The information and news since then is much worse.

First of all the "safety" concern was not the initial complaint. The original notice that they had been canceled was based on a lie:

‘They initially said that they believed we’d held a vigil for an IDF soldier, a fallen soldier, which is a thing that just hadn’t ever happened in either of our shows,’ [Creeger] said. ‘The shows are not political; we’re not political performers, and the IDF is not a relevant subject in either show.

Organisers ‘later withdrew [that allegation] and said they understood that that didn’t actually happen’, and previously told the Jewish comics that their bar was a ‘safe space’ for them.

‘So it came as something of a shock to suddenly be told last Friday that we were no longer welcome on the site.’

After that, the venue claimed that last year there was both anti-Israel and Zionist graffiti on site surrounding the shows, which they brought no proof for (and the Zionist graffiti seems suspect to me.)

Then, after Whistlebinkies canceled their show, a different venue canceled another of Philip Simon's planned performances - because of online posts supporting victims of October 7.

A Jewish comedian has been cancelled by an Edinburgh Fringe venue after attending a vigil for victims of the Oct 7 attacks.
Philip Simon was barred from the Banshee Labyrinth pub because of alleged “rhetoric and symbology” linked to Israel.
One reason cited by the venue for cancelling his show, Shall I Compere Thee in a Funny Way?, was his attendance at a vigil held for people killed in the 2023 Hamas terror attacks.
In a message to Simon, Banshee Labyrinth said: “Our management had a duty of care to our customers and staff members to review the political statements and opinions expressed by the performer.
“We feel it is inappropriate for us to provide a platform for performers whose views and actions align with the rhetoric and symbology of groups associated with humanitarian violations.”

And what were those offensive posts?

Banshee Labyrinth told The Telegraph that it arrived at its decision after scouring Simon’s social media pages.
It said: “We routinely screen bands and performers for affiliations to, and statements that advocate for, discriminatory groups.
The alleged concerns identified by Banshee Labyrinth include Simon sharing pictures from a vigil commemorating 100 days since the attack on Israel; a message on his X account saying that it was powerful to “stand strong against terror”; and a post warning that Oct 7 rape victims were being forgotten.
Several others messages that the venue objected to were variations on calls to “bring home the hostages”, while others made fun of Greta Thunberg’s short-lived effort to travel by flotilla to Gaza.

Opposing a murderous, rapist terror group and supporting its victims is politically incorrect in today's England.

There has been no shortage of controversial acts at Fringe that brought protests. In 2023, for example, a comedian whose views on transgender issues made the staff of a club uncomfortable and forced a cancellation - but then the club reversed its position, admitting the decision was "unfair and constituted unlawful discrimination " against the performer.

There were drag shows that brought protests and required extra security, but the performers were allowed to perform and were protected.

But in one way, the worst part of this story is in what didn't happen.

The festival has over 3,000 acts at over 250 venues. But there are hundreds of other bars and clubs in the area, many of which have back rooms or other spaces that could accommodate a performer, a sound system and a small audience.

While it is obvious that the Whistlebinkies and Banshee Labyrinth were making up reasons after the fact to justify their exclusion of proud Jewish comedians, no other venues have stepped up to make a statement against antisemitism and for free speech.

If a Black performer had been canceled for obviously racist reasons, no matter how late the date or how difficult the logistics, clubs would have fought for the privilege of hosting that comedian.

Let's face it. The crowd and venues at Edinburgh might swear up and down that they hate antisemitism and love free speech, but not one of them chose to act on those principles.

Not one.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The size and placement of NYT picture of "Gaza starving child" was virtually unprecedented

This was the (top part of) front page of the New York Times on July 25 featuring what appears to be a starving, emaciated Gaza child.

I just went through the front pages of the New York Times for the past 365 days. Not once has it positioned a photo in this extraordinary way.

Usually the NYT will feature a photo that is four columns wide, and that photo is always wider than it is tall (landscape). For example, here is the front page from yesterday, illustrating the mass shooting in Manhattan.

Once every couple of months it has a feature photo that is five columns wide, also in landscape orientation.

The largest photo of the past year was for Trump's inauguration, and this one was unusual in that it was in a portrait orientation, not landscape.

But I could not find a single example of a four column photo in portrait orientation on the right side of the page, where the top story headline normally is.

Also I could not find any other photos that featured a suffering child above the fold on the front page over the year. No starving children in Somalia or Sudan where hundreds die every day.

The editors made a decision that this single picture was perhaps the most important photo of the year, placing it where even casual reader would subconsciously recognize that this is a huge story.

Yesterday, the NYT published an editor's note about the child in that picture at the bottom of the online article:

Editors’ Note: July 29, 2025
This article has been updated to include information about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza suffering from severe malnutrition. After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems.

This photo, featured and highlighted in a way that is rarely seen in the newspaper, was misrepresented as if it is the way Gaza is. And now they add an "oops!" - not an apology, not a retraction, but a small note saying, "You know that huge photo that we shoved in your faces? Well, it had a slight problem. But no worries - our anti-Israel propaganda was fully successful. Mission accomplished. This note that practically no one will see lets us claim that we are responsible journalists."

Here's the editor's note in context of the entire online article - the small red box on the bottom.

The New York Times checked all the boxes of published journalistic ethics. Yet when you look at the entire story, you see that the entire episode from photo placement, to photo size, to lack of awareness that nearly all similar photos over the past year were of previously sick children, to the note that is not a correction and non-apology, is a far cry from ethical.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Sweden decides hanging effigies of Jews is not antisemitic

Recently, there was an anti-Israel demonstration in the Swedish city of Umeå that featured a display depicting hanged mannequins dressed in striped concentration camp uniforms, complete with yellow stars and prisoner numbers, behind a depiction of a Palestinian woman holding a baby.

The sign says "A genocide is a genocide is a genocide."

People complained that this was incitement and a hate crime. But on Tuesday, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office decided that it was perfectly fine.

"I interpret the message as meaning that the authors believe that what is happening in the Gaza Strip is a genocide just as much as the Holocaust was. The fact that one seems to compare the Holocaust with the conflict in the Gaza Strip does not, in my opinion, mean that one denies, excuses or obviously belittles the genocide of the Jews," said senior prosecutor Irene Falk.

Sweden was one of the original countries to adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which includes in its examples, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

If this isn't trivializing and inverting the Holocaust, nothing is.

In 2017, the Jewish Association in Umeå shut down following constant threats by neo-Nazis in that town.

Two years before that, the Jews of Umeå were not invited to a march marking Kristallnacht out of fear that pro-Palestinian demonstrators would attack them after the event was watered down into a general "anti-racism" march.

This is why my clear, easy to use definition of antisemitism is so important. It is not ambiguous: it describes exactly what antisemitism is and what it isn't.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

07/29 Links Pt2: Leaked email blows apart BBC’s impartiality claims over Gaza; Australia’s Jews have been abandoned; Regina Spektor: ‘You’re just yelling at a Jew’

From Ian:

Jonathan Sacerdoti: The leaked email that blows apart the BBC’s impartiality claims over Gaza

Most egregious is the email’s declaration that it is ‘indisputable’ that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza and therefore legally responsible for preventing hunger. This claim is presented without qualification, despite the fact that the status of Gaza under international law is disputed. Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, removing all settlers and military presence. It argues, with some legal backing, that it does not meet the criteria of occupation, since it neither governs Gaza nor maintains a permanent presence. Even under post-October 7 operations, Israel maintains that its actions constitute temporary military engagement, not sovereign control.

International legal opinion may be divided on this. The BBC’s own editorial guidelines insist that politically contested labels such as ‘occupation’ should be attributed and contextualised, not asserted. That rule has been disregarded. The internal memo presumes a singular legal reality, eliding complexity in favour of moral indictment.

The BBC memo mirrors the line taken by BBC presenters, including Nick Robinson, who recently interviewed the Israeli government spokesman David Mencer. It sounded like institutional ventriloquism, from the body which insists it won’t call Hamas terrorists, but has no room for debate over whether Gaza is ‘occupied’.

In asserting the infallibility of its chosen narrative, the BBC omits basic journalistic standards: to interrogate all sides, to distinguish between fact and allegation, and to treat political and legal claims with appropriate scrutiny. Instead, it has opted to police language internally, enforce ideological conformity, and condemn without due diligence.

When the Corporation insists that only one party bears responsibility, and instructs its reporters accordingly, it is no longer informing the public. It is persuading them.

Why is it our national broadcaster seems so desperate to attack the one non-Israeli body which is doing the most to undermine the Hamas stranglehold over Gaza and its people? The closer the GHF and Israeli army get to finally defeating the terrorists, the more shrill the BBC’s insistence that the Jewish state is deliberately starving children. They have trouble believing a self-declared Islamic jihadist dictatorship might have designed this level of suffering and torture, but none in believing the Jewish democratic state did so.

The BBC is publicly funded and legally obligated to remain impartial. This latest leaked email suggests it is failing in that duty. As ever, there is virtually no chance the organisation will admit, redress or be penalised for this failing. They never are.

Australia’s Jews have been abandoned – we’re through the looking glass now

From day one, communal leaders warn the state and federal governments that unless they crack down, the situation will deteriorate and end in violence.

Twenty-two months on, one synagogue has been burnt to the ground, a second narrowly escaped the same fate earlier this month on the same night an Israeli restaurant was trashed, cars have been torched, graffiti is rife, and, just last week, young Jewish school kids on a trip to the Melbourne Museum were harangued by far older students from a non-Jewish school, whose teachers reportedly shrugged off the incident. This weekend, meanwhile, the National Gallery of Victoria was forced into lockdown as protestors rallied outside, demonstrating against the support it receives from a philanthropic Jewish family.

And the response from our nation’s leaders? Furrowed brows and the same empty words over and over again. “There’s no place for antisemitism in Australia.”

Except there is. To such an extent that a) it’s in the news here virtually every week; b) it’s making international headlines; c) there’s a palpable sense of fear in the community, with members literally saying they feel they have no future in Australia; and d) possibly most shocking of all, friends and family in Israel, who are in the middle of wars on all fronts and constantly running to bomb shelters, are ringing us up to find out if we’re okay because they’ve heard how terrible things are Down Under.

We’re through the looking glass here, people.

I say the governments have failed to act. That’s not strictly true. The federal government did appoint an Antisemitism Envoy some months ago, who last week delivered a series of recommendations.

Is the government taking them up? Well, as one minister said, underlining where it’s all going wrong – they’d wait to receive a report from the Islamophobia Envoy before making any decisions. Yes, even though the two are quite distinct and even though the number of incidents targeting the Muslim community is a fraction of the number targeting the Jewish community, the government has sacrificed its moral compass on the altar of political expediency.

By failing to crack down on anti-Zionism—which attacks on synagogues and school kids clearly demonstrate is simply antisemitism through the backdoor—they have allowed antisemitism to fester.

For a country that prides itself on multiculturalism, there’s only one explanation: we’re through the looking glass here, people.

Khaled Abu Toameh: The Muslim Brotherhood: A Terrorist Organization That the US Must Designate as One

Recently, Jordan joined the list of countries that have banned the Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Austria. The move came after Jordanian authorities announced that they had arrested 16 people suspected of planning attacks aimed at "targeting national security, sowing chaos and sabotage."

The Muslim Brotherhood, in addition, has served as an inspiration for Islamist terror groups Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda. According to the Counter Extremism Project, a nonprofit international policy organization working to combat the growing threat exposed by extremist ideologies: "Before ascending to the highest positions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Osama bin Laden, and Ayman Zawahiri belonged to a common ideological precursor, the Muslim Brotherhood."

The Muslim Brotherhood has been able to fool many Westerners by pretending that most of its work is based on charity and humanitarian aid. The Muslim Brotherhood's Mujama al-Islami (Islamic Center) in the Gaza Strip started as a charity and was even licensed by Israel.

"Since the 1970s, the Muslim Brotherhood has been aggressively whitewashing its image. By doing charitable work, the Brotherhood pretends to be a humanitarian agency. The charitable work, however, is camouflage for the Brotherhood's real mission — undermining Western society, promoting Sharia law, and pursuing global domination.... The Brotherhood will use any tactic, including subversion and violence, to dismantle Western societies." — Pastor Michael Youssef, Daily Wire, June 24, 2025.

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization would give US law enforcement and intelligence agencies the legal tools they need to protect Americans. It would allow them to:
• Freeze financial assets used to fund radical networks;
• Block the travel of known Brotherhood operatives;
• Investigate and prosecute U.S.-based affiliates;
• Expose front groups that serve as recruitment pipelines;
• And cut off the flow of resources from foreign governments and donors.

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization is vital not only for the national security of the United States, but also for combating Islamist terrorism around the world. If America's Arab allies have reached the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous Islamist terror organization, there is no reason why the US and other Western countries should continue to pretend that it is all about charitable and humanitarian work.

07/29 Links Pt1: Starmer Wants to Create a New State to Punish an Existing State; One week later NYTs corrects blood libel photo; Hamas's Dream: Turning Palestinians Into a 'Nation of Martyrs'

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Keir Starmer Wants to Create a New State to Punish an Existing State

So Starmer and his merry band of Eurocrats chased Hamas away from the negotiating table and want to punish Israel for it. Since Starmer helped sabotage cease-fire talks, it sure looks like he just wants an excuse to recognize the “state of Palestine” in September, following France’s lead.

But unlike France, Starmer is making his framing of a Palestinian state explicit: He views it as bad for Israel and therefore only to be done if the Israelis really deserve to be punished.

Is that how we create nation-states? Is it merely an exercise in negative reinforcement? A sibling of mine has a dog that chews socks. Should I tell her to try recognizing Palestine, so the ’doodle knows she’s serious?

“Recognizing Palestine” has indeed become some sort of standing threat, which I assume bothers Palestinians greatly. We’ll give you self-government, but only if the Jews make us so angry we don’t know what else to do.

Does the reverse work as well? Will Sir Keir welcome Israeli annexation of the West Bank if the Palestinians bother him enough?

Generally speaking, true statesmanship treats the world as it is. “Recognizing” something that doesn’t exist is usually evidence of a high fever, not strategic foresight.

And that just goes to show how imaginary all this is to some of the world’s most important policymakers. It’s a game. It’s a prop bet. Emmanuel Macron double-dog-dared Keir Starmer to recognize Palestine, so off we go.

The conditions for statehood are met by the polity seeking to declare statehood. Starmer knows that in this particular case, those conditions haven’t been met—otherwise there would be a state already! Since the Palestinians have not met the conditions for statehood, Starmer understands that recognizing such statehood would simply create another problem. He doesn’t care because he thinks it’ll be Israel’s problem.

Recognizing Palestinian statehood isn’t technically a “bad idea,” because it isn’t an idea at all. It’s a visceral reflex. It’s what happens when a European head of government loses his temper.

If Gaza descends into misery, hunger, and anarchy, Starmer will make it a state. If things level out a bit, he’ll put it back in his pocket—no reason to reward stability. If you can think of a less serious approach to statecraft, please don’t say it out loud. I don’t want Keir Starmer to get any ideas.

Brendan O'Neill: Keir Starmer’s blackmailing of Israel is a depraved new low

The imperial arrogance is off the scale. Maybe Starmer thinks it’s the 1920s and there’s still a British Mandate for Palestine that lets London boss around the Jews and Arabs of the Middle East. To make such haughty demands of any ally at war would be bad enough – to make them of an ally that is fighting a brutal battle against an army of anti-Semites that hates the West as much as it does Jews is flat-out psychotic.

Like President Macron before him – who announced last week that France would recognise Palestine in September – Starmer has clearly not thought through his imperious actions. Where would this State of Palestine be? Who would govern it: the corrupt Palestinian Authority or the demented Jew-killers of Hamas? Starmer paid lip service to the need to disarm Hamas, but he cannot escape the sick fact that he is rewarding terrorism. That he is gifting the Palestinian territories with statehood less than two years after a neo-fascist army from those territories launched a barbarous assault on the Jews of southern Israel.

Hamas won’t hear Starmer’s criticism of its actions or his demand that it release the remaining hostages. It will only hear that killing Jews has benefits. It will only hear that its pogrom of 7 October 2023 – the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust – did more to bring about a Palestinian state than anything else over the past four decades. Starmer and Macron are truly playing with fire. They are witlessly signalling to Islamists that if you rape and murder Jews, you might just get a nation.

In fact, what Starmer has done is worse than what Macron did. Using the recognition of Palestine as a stick with which to beat Israel into submission, to force it to call off its war against Hamas, is geopolitics at its most cynical and cowardly. It will isolate the Jewish State and embolden Hamas. Hamas now knows that Israel is on the backfoot. That even its old friends are refusing to stand by it. ‘One more push and Israel will be fucked and Palestine will be a state’ – that’s what these Jew-killers will glean from Starmer’s depraved blackmailing of their enemy.

And why is he doing this? To appease his backbenchers. To try to stave off a rebellion by his MPs. To hush the Israelophobic left. He is sacrificing an ally at the altar of narrow self-interest. He is heaping pressure on the Jewish State as it fights for its life against an army of anti-Semites in order that he might enjoy an easier ride in parliament. These are Chamberlain levels of spinelessness. Starmer has just announced to the world that Britain is an unreliable ally. Even if you’re invaded by an army of racists and your people are held hostage, we will turn on you eventually. For shame, Sir Keir.

Europe's Embrace of a Phantom State Is Fueling Antisemitism

French President Emmanuel Macron is leading a diplomatic charge to recognize a Palestinian state, rallying the usual bloc of Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia. 34 former Italian ambassadors have urged Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to follow suit. This isn't diplomacy. It's performance politics - an ideologically driven campaign to punish Israel - pandering to a postmodern public square that sees Jewish sovereignty as an affront.

For years, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have rejected every reasonable peace offer. Neither faction has shown interest in democracy or coexistence. Yet their Western backers demand nothing in return - no condemnation of terror, no commitment to peace, no pretense of democratic reform. The goal is not statehood. It's to wound Israel.

Macron and his allies offer recognition not to help Palestinians build a viable future, but to appease anti-Israel sentiment disguised as virtue. They've normalized antisemitism and rebranded it as "human rights." The Italian ambassadors who demanded that Israel be punished for defending itself in Gaza are not champions of peace - they are enabling extremism.

They say the recognition of Palestine is an "urgent political priority." But there is no urgency for Palestinian reform. No questions asked about the aid stolen by Hamas. No mention of the hostages still held in Gaza. No call for condemning the Oct. 7 atrocities.

For centuries, moral and political philosophy has been entangled in the tension between rights and duties. On one side stand advocates of rights, insisting on inherent entitlements to life, liberty, speech, or property, which are often treated as inviolable and absolute. On the other, duty-based systems focus on obligations: what we owe to one another, to society, or to a higher moral ideal.

This conflict is not just academic. It plays out in political debates, legal systems, workplace policies, and personal decisions. Who wins when one person’s “right to speak” clashes with another’s “right to safety”? Are these claims equal? Is one more fundamental? Can either be limited?

Traditions across time have sought to resolve this problem. From Confucian role ethics to medieval natural law to modern personalist philosophy, many thinkers have emphasized that rights only make sense within a network of duties. But even so, contemporary discourse - especially in the West - tends to treat rights as freestanding absolutes. This often leads to moral gridlock, where no claim can yield without appearing to betray justice itself.

My own journey in developing the AskHillel ethical framework began with frustration toward this rights-based thinking. Rights often seemed like floating moral trump cards that are asserted without context, weighed without tradeoffs, and wielded without accountability. By contrast, obligations offered structure, relationships, and clarity. I began to favor a duty-first worldview, where moral coherence came not from what one could demand, but from what one was responsible for. I even wrote that rights themselves are a fiction.

And yet… something didn’t sit right.

Despite its flaws, the language of rights clearly served a vital function. It pointed to something deep in the human moral intuition: the need for protection, dignity, justice, and fairness. Rights language resonates with people for a reason. Could it be refined rather than discarded?

Then yesterday, as I was writing another article, it hit me:

Rights aren’t metaphysical absolutes. They’re values.

The word "rights" is famously ambiguous. It can refer to:

Legal guarantees (e.g. the right to vote),
Moral claims (e.g. a right to be treated with dignity),
Political slogans (e.g. "the right to choose" or "the right to bear arms"),
Or philosophical assumptions about personhood and freedom.

These usages often blur together. That’s one reason why rights-based arguments frequently collapse into shouting matches. People use the same words to mean very different things—and treat all versions as equally sacrosanct.

My reframing resolves this confusion. If all forms of “rights” are understood as expressions of values, then we are no longer debating abstractions. We’re dealing with real, nameable, ethically actionable priorities: the value of autonomy, the value of truth, the value of life, the value of dignity.

This reframing provides a common grammar. Whether we’re debating a legal right to protest, a moral right to privacy, or a political right to healthcare, we can now ask a more meaningful question:

What value is being asserted—and how should it be weighed against other values in this context?

AskHillel is a derech-based ethical reasoning framework that treats values as the basic building blocks of moral decision-making. Its architecture includes:

Tiered prioritization: Values are organized by ethical urgency. Life and truth typically sit at the top (Tier 1A), followed by foundational societal values (Tier 1B), and then amplifying or situational values (Tier 2).
Override logic: When values conflict, AskHillel applies structured override rules to resolve the tension. For example, the value of life can override the value of speech during times of imminent threat or incitement.
Contextual evaluation: All values are assessed relationally—meaning, the weight of a value depends on who is affected, the type of harm involved, and the proximity or immediacy of the moral claim.

By understanding rights as values within this system, we gain an elegant solution to longstanding moral dilemmas. There is no need to debate whether rights are “natural,” “granted,” “inalienable,” or “alienable.” They are simply values that must be weighed—just like all other values—using transparent principles and override logic.

This brings practical benefits:

1. From Stalemate to Moral Triage

Instead of clashing “rights” claims, like speech vs. safety, religion vs. equality, or privacy vs. justice, we can now evaluate which values are at stake, and apply a coherent process to resolve them. This enables principled ethical triage rather than ideological deadlock.

2. Clarifies Ambiguous Debates

Many public disputes rely on buzzwords like “freedom” or “justice,” which mean radically different things to different people. AskHillel’s value-based grammar disambiguates them. For example, one person’s “freedom” may prioritize autonomy, while another’s emphasizes social stability. By making the underlying values explicit, we create space for actual dialogue.

3. Transcends Legal Minimalism

Law may recognize rights, but law is often reactive and limited. “Rights” is treated like a concept that is protected by law and therefore moral. By translating rights into values, we enable deeper ethical reasoning. For instance, a company legally allowed to run offensive ads may still violate the value of public dignity or communal trust. AskHillel gives institutions a tool to think beyond compliance toward integrity.

4. Promotes Responsible Freedom

When rights are treated as values, they are no longer passive entitlements but active ethical priorities. The question shifts from “What am I allowed to do?” and "What is owed to me?" to “What am I responsible for, given the values at stake and who is affected?” This shift nurtures maturity and moral agency.

5. Enables Shared Moral Action

In a fragmented world, shared frameworks are rare. AskHillel offers a common foundation. When communities or institutions adopt the same grammar of values - even if they prioritize and rank them differently - they gain a mechanism for cooperation without coercion.

This reframing of rights as values does not weaken the moral force behind rights discourse—it strengthens it. It allows us to preserve what matters most in rights-based ethics (dignity, protection, autonomy) while discarding the absolutism that leads to gridlock, irresponsibility, or conflict.

Rights are powerful because they name things we care about. But their power becomes destructive when they are treated as untouchable or context-free. Once we recognize that rights are simply prioritized values, the conflict between rights and duties collapses. Duties flow naturally from the values we uphold. And values can be managed, weighed, and balanced—transparently, responsibly, and with moral clarity.

AskHillel doesn’t reject rights. It translates them.

And in doing so, it offers something rare: a path forward.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When Antisemitism Turns Its Sights on the Druze—And the Media Yawns (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week, Elder of Ziyon reported on a disturbing scene that unfolded in Berlin: Islamist Syrian protesters openly called for the rape and murder of Druze—right in front of Berlin’s Red City Hall.

Around 300–400 supporters of Syrian ruler Ahmed al-Sharaa (also known as al-Jolani) gathered in front of Berlin's Red City Hall on Saturday, July 19, 2025. They chanted slogans against Israel, Druze, and Alawites—including open calls for murder and rape.

The German group democ.—a coalition of journalists, academics, and media professionals—documented the protest in a video published on YouTube.

They noted that slogans included explicit calls for rape and murder.

This wasn’t a fringe rumor. It was covered in the mainstream German press.

Der Tagesspiegel quoted Berlin’s Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU), who condemned the rally unequivocally:

“Anyone who calls for murder and violence has no place in our city. I want these people to leave our country.”
— Der Tagesspiegel, July 24, 2025

The article also noted that demonstrators shouted antisemitic slogans like “Bring us the Israeli flag so we can burn it.” The spark for this display of hatred was the ongoing violence in Syria’s Suweida province, where Druze and Alawite minorities are being targeted by radical groups. According to democ., the calls for violence spread widely on social media.

Further reports revealed that in Düsseldorf, 50 Syrian and Turkish extremists attacked a Kurdish-Druze solidarity rally. Meanwhile, Focus Online provided context: Germany has taken in over 1.2 million Syrians since 2015—including unvetted members of jihadist and sectarian militias. The Berliner Zeitung pointed out a disturbing failure: police failed to bring the usual Arabic-language interpreters, allowing hate speech to go unchecked.

So where were the New York Times and the Washington Post on this story?

Nowhere. A search of their websites for the terms “Berlin” and “Druze” yields nothing. When I asked Grok AI about the coverage in the mainstream media, it responded:

“As of today, Monday, July 28, 2025, there is no direct coverage in major English-language mainstream media outlets (e.g., Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, AP News) of the specific anti-Druze protests by Syrians in Berlin on July 19, 2025.”

This is editorial bias by omission. When the Times claims “All The News That’s Fit To Print,” you have to wonder: fit by whose standards? Too often, their “What to Know” articles really mean “What We’ve Decided You Should Know.”

But this protest is not just another disturbing rally. It’s a case study in how antisemitism metastasizes—turning its venom toward any group perceived as aligned with Jews or Israel.

The organization CyberWell, which tracks antisemitic content across social media, has been sounding the alarm for months. In May—before the recent Suweida violence—they tweeted:

The Druze community is paying the price for their relationship with Israel — facing targeted hate online and offline, including violent attacks on communities in southern Syria. It's a clear example of how Jew-hatred can impact non-Jews who are perceived as allies. pic.twitter.com/XMTVptlAT6
— CyberWell (@CyberWell_org) May 19, 2025

On Monday, CyberWell released a full report titled Southern Syria’s Sectarian Violence: A Digital Reflection of Antisemitic Narratives Targeting the Druze.

They documented a massive spike in hate speech that blends antisemitic tropes with anti-Druze incitement, including 3 key categories:

I. “Greater Israel” Conspiracy Theory

Druze self-defense or humanitarian aid is twisted into “proof” of an Israeli plot.

Posts combining “Greater Israel” + “Druze” surged by 3,529% from July 13–20, peaking at 3,700 posts in a single day.

II. “Jewlani” Puppet Allegation

Al-Julani (al-Sharaa) is smeared as a “Jewish puppet”—with Druze as his collaborators.

The slur “Jewlani” appeared in 900 posts, reaching 40.7 million users. That’s a 5,500% increase over the prior six months.

III. “The Druze Deserve It”

Druze are accused of “betrayal” simply for holding Israeli citizenship, serving in the IDF, or not opposing Israel.

The Arabic slur “Zionist dogs” directed at Druze appeared over 300 times.
The hashtag “#إسرائيل_عملاء_الدروز” (“The Druze are Israeli spies”) had over 5,700 posts and 4.2 million reach.

CyberWell notes that under the IHRA definition of antisemitism, these narratives remain antisemitic even when targeting non-Jews—because they rely on classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

The anti-Druze protest in Berlin is not just a story about "sectarian" hate—it’s about how online antisemitism bleeds into real-world violence, targeting both Jews and those associated with them.

And yet, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other major English-language outlets are silent. They just couldn't be bothered.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

More European countries are moving towards or already recognizing "Palestine."

The irony is that these countries are pretending that this would be a boon to justice and are framing this recognition as promoting human rights. Yet we have thirty years of seeing how the Palestinians govern themselves post-Oslo, and human rights has been a disaster under their rule.

In the Human Rights and Rule of Law Index, Palestine scored 7.8 in 2022, significantly worse than the world average of 5.41 (higher scores are worse.)

Palestine is considered "Authoritarian" and ranks 112 out of 167 countries in The Economist Democracy Index.

The West Bank scores 22 out of 100 in the Freedom House scoring, and Gaza gets only a 2.

The story doesn't tend there, though.

The Wikipedia article Human Rights in Palestine, dedicated only to Palestinian Authority human rights violations, has not been meaningfully updated in years. For example, the it quotes the Freedom House report from 2002 and the Democracy Index from 2020. Most of the examples of human rights violations in the report are nearly 20 years old.

Not one of the tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors care enough about human rights under Palestinian rule to even update this page.

It isn't as if there are no current human rights issues under the Palestinian Authority - the entity that would presumably rule a united Palestine. Here is how the US State Department summarized human rights under the PA in 2023:

With respect to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank: arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the Palestinian Authority; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious high-level corruption; serious restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence; violence or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.

This is not just a few problems here and there. The entire government is corrupt and systematically violates the rights of its people in virtually every possible way.

This is what a Palestinian state would look like.

Amnesty, Oxfam and Human Rights Watch are virtually silent, issuing next to zero reports on these issues.

Human rights advocate Bassem Eid created the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group in 1996 specifically to shine a spotlight on human rights violations under the Palestinian Authority. The NGO was dissolved in 2011 because of lack of funding. He told an interviewer several years later, "If I want to establish an anti-Israel NGO, I promise you tomorrow I would get a half a million dollars from Sweden."

This is not an exaggeration. I once found an obscure, one-person NGO dedicated to criticizing Israel that gets tens of thousands of dollars from Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Bertha Foundation, medico international, CCFD-Terre Solidaire and the .Open Society Foundations.

Dozens of NGOs have hundreds of people employed to find or fabricate Israeli violations of human rights of Palestinians. - and literally no one is dedicated to exposing human rights violations of Palestinians by their own leaders.

Which means that the world - including the Western European countries that are cozying up to the Palestinian Authority - really isn't interested in Palestinian human rights. It just wants an excuse to rake the Jewish state over the coals, using Palestinians as convenient pawns to achieve that goal.

Palestinian Arabs want to live in Israel. Israeli Arabs do not want to be citizens in a state of Palestine (although they will buy vacation homes there.) That tells you everything you need to know about who cares more about human rights in the region.

The world simply doesn't give a damn about Palestinian human rights unless Jews can be blamed.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Professor Aaron Koller was appointed as Professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge, the first Jew to hold the position in its 485-year history.

He spoke to The Guardian last month:

“One of the challenges we’ve had, politically and educationally, is that the idea of Hebrew has been tied in with a particular nation state in the past 75 years. While that has some advantages – suddenly you have 10 million native speakers of the language – it also has educational disadvantages because people are thinking Hebrew is quite a political thing. Whereas no one thinks that about Latin, it’s easier to sell it as politics-free than Hebrew, which immediately makes people think: what am I doing with this country of Israel? Do I like it? Do I want to go there?

“But part of my role is to say: Hebrew has a massively and really fascinatingly long history, and has nothing to do with the nation state that happens to exist today in the 21st century. You can study medieval Hebrew and be enthralled by the poetry and the philosophy without coming across as taking a stand on a contested issue.”

On Sunday we will mark Tisha B'av, and recite Kinot - liturgical poems written in medieval times. And many of those are centered around the destruction and return of Jews to Zion.

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia has an entry on the entire class of poetry extolling Zion, starting with Psalms and going through the piyyutim of Tisha B'Av and onto what was then considered modern Zionism. It calls these poems "Zionides."

During the Middle Ages, Zionides from the pens of the greatest poets formed the chief comfort and consolation of the people. As early as the time of Ibn Gabirol (11th cent.) songs of Zion were incorporated in the liturgy, partly as lamentations for the Ninth of Ab and partly as tefillot and piyyuṭim. Among the songs of lamentation for Zion which are sung on the Ninth of Ab the following may be specially referred to: a song beginning with the words and giving a vivid description of the destruction of Zion; the well-known song which begins with the words , and in which Samaria and Jerusalem try to excel each other in the description of the misfortune which has fallen upon them; and, above all, the song with the refrain:

("Zion and her cities wail like a woman in childbirth, and like a virgin clothed in sackcloth for the man of her youthful choice").
The most important of Ibn Gabirol's Zionides are the poem beginning with the words:
("Send a prince to the condemned people which is scattered hither and thither").
Judah ha-Levi (1140) was the author of the Zionide beginning:
"Zion, wilt thou not send a greeting to thy captives, Who greet thee as the remnant of thy flocks? From West to East, from North to South, a greeting, From far and near, take thou on all sides. A greeting sends the captive of desire, who sheds his tears Like dew on Hermon; would they might fall on thy hills."

The encyclopedia entry goes on to say that the Zionides continued into the late 1800s with Zionist poems and songs, including Hatikvah.

These songs of Zion show a continuous and unbroken love by Jews of the Land of Israel and Zion. Maybe this makes students at Cambridge uncomfortable, but the connection is unmistakable - in fact, the medieval poetry of Zion is the best proof that Jews have always yearned to return to their land.

(h/t YMedad)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)