Thursday, October 16, 2025

  • Thursday, October 16, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon


Michael Oren writes in The Free Press about how a group of real-estate moguls and builders managed to bring a local modicum of peace to the Middle East.  His answer is essentially dealmaking and personal relationships.

But the real story may be something deeper - and stranger. What Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Donald Trump stumbled into was not superior negotiation technique but a kind of accidental moral philosophy: an ethics of clarity that cut through half a century of false ideas about peace itself.

For decades, Western diplomacy treated “peace” as the supreme moral goal. The word sounded noble, but it concealed a category error. Peace is not a moral value—it is a moral byproduct. 

A value, by definition, must transform reality for the good: it must preserve life, restore dignity, expose evil, or advance justice. “Peace,” on its own, performs none of these functions. It merely describes the absence of visible conflict, even when injustice festers quietly beneath. That’s why peace processes designed around “peace” keep failing: they mistake stillness for healing and silence for harmony. 

The goal of genuine peace is to enable the higher moral work: protecting life, restraining evil, and cultivating human dignity. When peace becomes detached from those purposes, it becomes a kind of  idol: something to be pursued for its own sake, even at the cost of truth and justice.  Oslo ended up fetishizing the process, and ignoring the underlying moral reasons of why we want peace to begin with. These real-estate dealmakers, lacking the pretensions of philosophers or diplomats, simply ignored the idol and started building on firmer moral ground.

For decades, Western policy talked about the Middle East in the language of “rights”: the Palestinian rights of "return," "justice" and "dignity;" Israel’s right to security or even to exist altogether. The problem is that rights, when treated as absolute, collide. Everyone ends up righteous and immovable. The real estate moguls instinctively shifted the grammar from rights to obligations. Hamas must stop murdering and kidnapping and cannot profit from it. Qatar must stop funding terror. Israel must defend its citizens. The United States must stop enabling moral confusion. Each obligation could be tested in reality, whether fulfilled or violated.

This shift mirrors what I call the Obligation Principle: a moral claim is valid only if it binds the claimant to concrete responsibility. In that light, the Abraham Accords were less a diplomatic triumph than an ethical correction. Once obligations replaced abstractions, the fog cleared and progress followed.

Critics sneered that Trump spoke “the language of strength.” They missed that strength, properly ordered, is a moral language. In the Middle East, as in human life, evil rarely yields to polite conversation or diplomacy. Peace imposed by fear of justice is not perfect, but it is better than a false peace that is only a stage toward the next war. The builders’ willingness to back moral clarity with material power was not barbaric; it was coherent. They also used positive incentives to nudge the players towards the US position which supported this coherent vision. And coherence is the first test of moral truth.

The remarkable thing is that the “builder’s ethic” produced not chaos but alignment. Once the United States stopped rewarding contradiction - condemning terrorism in principle while rewarding it in practice - regional actors recalibrated. The same kings and presidents who had long mouthed anti-Zionist clichés suddenly saw advantage in stability. Reality, long suppressed by moral relativism, reasserted itself. Ethics turned out to be the shortest path to strategy.

This is the central lesson of the episode and the reason it matters beyond politics. Ethical clarity is not an ornament to policy; it is policy. A coherent moral framework functions like a blueprint: once you know which beams must bear weight, you can build anything upon them - whether cities, treaties, or even peace.

For too long Israel's enemies screamed about their dignity and how important it was, and they even use that word to justify murder and terror. The West has been cowed by this appeal to the legitimate value of dignity, and did not have the confidence to counter that Arab dignity is just one value among many that need to be balanced. It cannot override preservation of life, fairness, or the dignity of the other side. 

Real ethics is all about that balance, but without a moral core, concepts like dignity or justice can morph into evil. 

Whether Kushner and Witkoff understood this in ethical terms or they simply saw through the moral posturing as another negotiating position, they did not allow themselves to be bulldozed by false ethical concepts that have stymied Western diplomats for so long. 

It may seem absurd to describe Donald Trump as an ethical actor. But history is full of flawed vessels who perform correct operations. Ethics is not about personal saintliness; it is about whether one’s actions align with moral structure. Just as people with Aristotelian virtues like wisdom or courage can be immoral, people without those virtues can do the right thing.  In this case, they did. By accident or instinct, the builders behaved as if guided by a hierarchy of values long familiar to Jewish moral thought: life before peace, justice before diplomacy, truth before comfort. 

The diplomats built process; the builders built structure. One collapses under pressure; the other stands.

If peace required rejecting the false philosophy that had dominated foreign policy, perhaps moral clarity can do the same for our other failing institutions. The same logic that produced the Abraham Accords can produce trustworthy systems anywhere: don't assume all claims have equal moral value, name evil accurately, replace sentiment with structure, and require obligations before rights.

Peace, properly understood, is not the goal of ethics: it is what ethics produces when values like life, justice, and truth are rightly aligned. The builders’ achievement, however imperfect, was to rediscover that order without ever naming it.

That’s the architecture of ethics, and, as it turns out, of peace.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

  • Wednesday, October 15, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon

"A chant that we've been workshopping in Oxford that maybe you guys want to join in? It goes "Gaza, Gaza, make us proud, put the Zios in the ground."

Yes, the most privileged of the world's youth at the most prestigious university on the planet huddled together to come up with a rhyming slogan to support Gaza terrorists murdering Jews. 

And in the end, it doesn't even rhyme.


I'm just trying to picture the scene of the workshop in Oxford.

Scene: The WorkshopMagdalen College JCR, late evening. Fairy lights flicker over armchairs and tea stains. Four students in ill-fitting keffiyehs huddle around a low table littered with gin glasses and scribbled notepads. SAMUEL WILLIAMS, floppy-haired and commanding, leads the circle. OLIVIA lounges elegantly, THEO sprawls like a lacrosse jock, ELIZA fidgets with her pen.SAMUEL: (adjusting his keffiyeh) Right, comrades. Rally tomorrow. We need a chant that rhymes with "proud" but stings like settler-colonial guilt. Punchy. Political. Not another bloody "river to the sea" —that's so last term.OLIVIA: (sipping gin, iPad glowing) Edge, Sam. Something that calls out the oppressors without triggering the dean's wine hour. "Zionists" is too wordy. "Zios"? Short, snappy. Like a slur with a syllabus.THEO: (scrolling TikTok, spilling IPA) Zios works, dudes. "Jews" is too grandma's attic—ADL nightmare. "Israelis"? Nah, sounds like a travel agency. Zios it is. Now the kill shot: "Kill the Zios"? Straight fire.ELIZA: (shivering theatrically) Kill? Too American Psycho. We're poets of resistance, not slashers. "Burn the Zios"? Evocative, but climate vibes are off—think wildfires in the West Bank.SAMUEL: (nodding, scribbling) Implication over incrimination, Eliza. Met's watching. "Genocide the Zios"? Fanon would approve—violence as history's midwife.OLIVIA: (rolling eyes) Heavy, Sam. Alienates the normies. Remember "Exterminate the Settlers"? Vice-chancellor called it a "lapse." I Ubered home from cocktails in tears.THEO: (snorting) Tears? Bro, go big or go home to Daddy's estate. "Bury the Zios"? Nah. Wait— "put the Zios in the ground." Earthy. Final. And it half-rhymes with proud if you slur like we're pissed at evensong.ELIZA: (clapping, giggling) Yes! Gaza Gaza, make us proud, put the Zios in the ground. Nursery rhyme for the apocalypse. Try it—rhythm's got that gritty incompleteness. Real resistance aesthetic.SAMUEL: (standing, keffiyeh fluttering) Brilliant. All in? Gaza! Gaza!ALL: (chanting, voices rising) Make us proud! Put the Zios in the ground! (Repeat twice, echoing off portraits.)THEO: (frowning mid-chant) Half-rhyme though. Ground-proud? Like a haiku on bath salts.OLIVIA: (snapping selfie) Perfection's propaganda poison, Theo. It's raw—like Rafah rubble. Post-rally, we're viral. Noble work.SAMUEL: (smirking at window reflection) Steadfast. To the spires—and the streets.Lights dim as they disperse into fog. Chant fades like a flawed echo.


It almost demands a response chant: "Oxford wankers waste their time/cannot even make it rhyme."



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

From Ian:

Eitan Fischberger: After 738 Days, it’s Finally October 8th
The trauma has been relentless. Yet we did not waver. How could we, when our hostages endured horrors we could hardly imagine? So we remained resolute, clinging to the sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, we would see them dance again. That hope and resilience makes us who we are.

That doesn’t mean we aren’t filled with righteous anger. For two long years, the international media told us our fight was futile. That if we only allowed Palestinians to declare a state, Hamas would kindly free the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts. That we should stop fighting evil and instead appease it. They were wrong.

And that doesn’t mean we aren’t worried. Amid our euphoria, we are already bracing for what may come next. Many of the 1,900 Palestinian detainees and security prisoners just released into Gaza and the West Bank have Israeli blood on their hands. They will harm us again if given the chance. Hamas, despite assurances from its patrons in Qatar that it seeks a “new chapter” with Israel, has already begun reconstituting its forces and blatantly violating the ceasefire by withholding the bodies of hostages they murdered, who were guaranteed would be released. As we speak, Hamas is executing Palestinians in Gaza en masse, and there is no clear mechanism to demilitarize them. We know this moment is a respite, not an end. We know we will again have to take up arms against those who seek our destruction.

To those abroad insisting this deal could have happened sooner: it could not have. Only Israel’s courageous campaign in Gaza, including the dismantling of Hamas’s military machine, the destruction of its tunnel empire, and the elimination of its leadership, created the leverage for this agreement. Only Trump’s diplomacy, combined with Israel’s battlefield victories, made it possible. Peace is not conjured by handshakes and lofty words on paper; it is compelled by strength.

This is not the end of our war for survival; it’s a brief breath between battles. Israelis understand that freedom and safety are not permanent conditions. They are achievements that must be won again and again.

But we won’t be thinking about that tonight.

Tonight, as we sit with our families around the dinner table, we marvel at what was just accomplished. We pray for the return of every last soldier, and for the souls whom we could not save in time.

Tonight, on the two-year anniversary of the massacre that shook our world and made us hold our breath — we’re finally dancing again.
Seth J. Frantzman: Why Donald Trump’s Diplomacy Appears to be Working
A key feature of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine is to approach US foreign ties through the prism of personal relationships with leaders abroad. In the lead-up to the Gaza peace deal proposal, which was announced on September 29, Trump met with Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the UNGA. This face-to-face meeting appears to have paved the way for the deal that took place in Egypt on October 8.

Several key tactics helped push the deal forward. Trump frequently announced progress before the two sides had fully agreed. He was also willing to appear to pressure Israel, demanding an end to bombing in Gaza, for instance. This appearance of being willing to pressure everyone involved has succeeded because the pressure is combined with win-win promises for all the countries.

The president thanked Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt on October 8 as the deal was concluded. Israel also feels it has secured most of what it wanted in Gaza. Trump has appealed directly to Israelis and spoken with freed hostages and families of hostages to show he is in tune with what the Israeli public wants.

There is a sense that the White House believes this deal can reset strategy in the Middle East. One part of this policy portrays Trump as helping Israel get out of a conflict that was increasingly unpopular around the world.

“Israel cannot fight the world,” Trump said in a phone call with Netanyahu. He also believes that this deal will pave the way for future progress on peace in the region, much like the Abraham Accords, which were secured during the first term between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also praised this “historic moment.”

The question now is whether a successful doctrine will emerge from these first steps in ending the Gaza war. First, all parties must uphold the ceasefire. There is also a question as to whether the peace plan moves to its second phase. Last January’s ceasefire never reached the next stage of its planned sequence.

If the deal can be finalized, then the White House might try to apply this model for success to Ukraine and other conflicts. In any case, the United States has long sought to focus on Asia and near-peer rivalries with countries such as Russia and China.

Beijing and Moscow aim to establish a new world order, one that challenges the US-led order that emerged after the Cold War. They have been working to achieve this goal diplomatically, militarily, and economically. That means that after success in the Middle East, Washington will find its credibility increasing in other areas. Trump has claimed to have helped end seven conflicts in his first year in office. The Gaza deal will be the largest test yet for his doctrine.
Meet the Liberators By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
The war between Israel and Hamas has ceased. That means Hamas can come out of hiding and start killing Gazans to reassert its grip on the population. It’s wasted no time doing so. While Israel rejoices in the return of its loved ones and the resumption of prewar life, here’s what’s going on in Gaza, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Clashes around a hospital in Gaza City on Sunday left dozens dead, according to the Hamas unit that conducted the raid and members of the family it was fighting. Videos that emerged Monday—verified by Storyful, which like The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp—show Hamas fighters dragging a number of men from the family into a public square in broad daylight, forcing them to kneel and executing them in front of a crowd of onlookers.

That’s just a snapshot of one incident among many. In Gaza, the absence of war doesn’t mean peace.

To the anti-Israel fanatics who marched through Western streets and campuses for two years, I say this: These are the men whose side you’ve been on. It is their cause you took up, not the cause of those they now murder. You echoed Hamas’s rallying cries for Jewish extermination. You dressed up like Hamas soldiers, waved their banners, legitimized their sadism, and sustained their spirit while they waited for the day when they could go back to openly killing their own.

Of course, many of the pro-Hamas activists understood perfectly well that they were supporting a murderous terrorist organization. How could they not, given that Hamas recorded their bloody rampage for the world to see? But for the protesters, the massacre of Jews was an expression of resistance, and that’s all that counted. Once Israel was defeated, so their thinking went, there would be no need for terrorism.

There is another, not insignificant, portion of the anti-Israel protesters who were even more out of touch with reality. I know this because they eagerly flaunted their ignorance online. These are people who rarely if ever thought about Hamas before their friends and classmates put on keffiyehs and headed down to the local tentifada. Such ignoramuses dismissed claims of Hamas brutality as Zionist propaganda. They were told, and accepted, that October 7 was an Israeli false-flag operation. Hamas, they genuinely believed, wanted Gazans to enjoy freedom.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive