Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, April 10, 2025

04/10 Links Pt1: Palestinian billionaire resigns from Harvard role after suit alleging he abetted Oct. 7; The insane campaign to decriminalise Hamas; Douglas Murray vs. Dave Smith

From Ian:

JCPA: Why Israel Should Embrace Its Role as a Regional Power

It is time to embrace a bold reality: Israel can, and should, begin to act not merely as a state defending its survival, but as a proactive regional power shaping the future of the Middle East. Israel's recent military performance has underscored its unmatched capabilities in the region. The decimation of Hizbullah's infrastructure, the crippling of Hamas's command structures in Gaza, and the calculated response to Iranian provocations, culminating in significant operational successes, all point to an overwhelming tactical edge.

Iran, long the most aggressive challenger for regional dominance, has found its proxies weakened, its economy strangled, and its influence diminishing amid internal unrest and international scrutiny. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria further dismantles Tehran's axis of influence.

Yet one existential threat remains unaddressed: Iran's nuclear program. Israel must lead a coalition - diplomatic or military - to either dismantle Iran's nuclear capability by agreement, by force, or both.

For Israel to lead regionally, strategic normalization with moderate Sunni states is essential. The Abraham Accords were just the beginning. Deepening relationships with nations like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, and even re-engaging Jordan and Egypt with renewed respect and incentives is vital.

Seth Mandel: Treat Syria’s Chemical Weapons Like the USSR’s Nukes

The Times notes that the number of such sites has been “a mystery” since Hayat Tahrir al-Sham led a rebel coalition that chased Bashar al-Assad out of Syria last year. In truth, it is still a mystery, but the OPCW’s number is certainly possible, and it is always better to err on the side of caution in such situations.

Meanwhile, the echoes of 1991 get louder. “Experts are cautiously optimistic about the government’s sincerity,” reports the Times. “The current government allowed a team from the watchdog to enter the country this year to begin work documenting the sites, according to people with knowledge of the trip.”

Yet the current chaos in Syria makes any such optimism foolish. As Cheney said back in 1991, even if the government was sincere in its efforts and quite competent in carrying out the weapons purge, a threat would almost certainly remain. Plus, the new Syrian government doesn’t quite have full control over all its territory—and there isn’t time to wait for it to consolidate its control.

Another parallel to 1991 is the fact that these loose chemical weapons are relics of a failing empire. Iran had stretched its influence all the way to the Mediterranean, and Assad was a satrap of Tehran. Israel’s military gains against two of Iran’s proxies—Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—combined with Assad’s overthrow caused the Iranian wave to recede for the time being.

The new Syrian government would like U.S. sanctions on it lifted, and it would also like Israel to give up its extended buffer zone sooner than later. None of that should be considered until there is a plan in place, preferably with U.S. and European involvement, to clean up every one of those chemical weapons sites.

Palestinian-American billionaire resigns from Harvard role after suit alleging he abetted Oct. 7

A Palestinian-American billionaire has resigned from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Dean’s Council after families of Oct. 7 victims filed a lawsuit against him, alleging that he had aided and abetted Hamas, the New York Post reported on Thursday.

Harvard confirmed to the Post that Masri resigned from the council, which according to the school’s website provides “financial support and practical advice” to “advance positive change at the local, state, national and international levels so people can live in societies that are more safe, free, just and sustainably prosperous.”

“The lawsuit raises serious allegations that should be vetted and addressed through the legal process,” a spokesperson for the school said.

More than 200 American family members of Oct. 7 victims filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, alleging that Masri and his companies knowingly worked with Hamas in developing business properties in Gaza that concealed and provided electricity to the terror group’s elaborate, militarized tunnel network.

The plaintiffs include Yechiel Leiter, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, whose son Moshe was killed in action in the Gaza Strip in November 2023, and the family of Omer Neutra, who died in Gaza on the day of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, after being taken hostage by Hamas, which continues to hold his body.

Masri was also reportedly a close advisor to Adam Boehler, a Trump administration special envoy who conducted unprecedented direct negotiations with Hamas in March, and provided Boehler with private jet travel to Qatar for the talks, per Israeli media reports.

The office of the Palestinian-American business mogul denied the allegations against him and his companies in a statement to JNS on Monday and said that he would seek their dismissal in court.

“Neither he nor those entities have ever engaged in unlawful activity or provided support for violence and militancy,” Masri’s office stated.

Palestinians See Tel Aviv Real Estate Prices, Drop 'Right Of Return' Demand (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Ramallah, April 10 - A central sticking point of the Arab-Israeli conflict may well disappear, observers say, because one side had realized the insurmountable financial hurdle its fulfillment would present: property values in Israel's commercial and financial capital have reached such heights that any aspiration of "reclaiming" it for the descendants of 1948 Arab refugees will prove beyond the means of even the wealthiest ones.

Reviews of Tel Aviv real estate prices have sent Palestinians reeling, witnesses report, as the data hit them with the sobering realization that they will never, even in another four generations, be able to afford to live there.

"The Right of Return is the Holy of Holies," declared Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "It's just that... well, it seems impractical, given the information now available to us. Tel Aviv is the most desirable land to seize from the Zionist usurper, of course. What we must also take into account, however, is the day after that seizure, what that means for a sustainable way to live..."

"What I'm saying is, never mind about that Right of Return," he continued. "Let's talk about our other demands."

Hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled British Mandate Palestine in late 1947 and early 1948 as Jews and Arabs fought for control of population centers and farmland. Governments of the surrounding Arab countries urged their brethren to move out of the way to enable a swift Arab victory over the poorly-equipped, outnumbered, besieged Jews of the territory, after which the Arab residents could loot their fill, and many complied. Several cases of Jewish fighters chasing out Arabs occurred in strategic areas where those villages controlled access to Jewish communities, but the vast majority of the 1947-48 Arab refugees never saw a Jewish fighter. Israel declared statehood in May 1948 and mounted a successful war of survival, holding on to significant territorial gains and preventing the Arab refugees from returning.

The international community has kept those refugees and their descendants in perpetuity in a state of stateless limbo, unlike all other refugee populations that are resettled in new countries within years of displacement - thus nurturing the hope of reversing the shameful defeat in 1948 at the hands of the lowly Jews. The promise of that return has long sat at the very core of Palestinian demands for any final-status agreement with Israel.

But one gander at real estate prices in Tel Aviv put the kibosh on that.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

More on Hamas blocking aid into Gaza

Hamas media is filled with articles about how desperate Gazans are for food, how that are forced to eat expired food.

Yet as I reported yesterday, Hamas is urging NGOs not to accept a food distribution system that Israel is proposing.

The COGAT X account gives a few, but not many details about the plan - and it shows the reason Hamas is so against it:

There are many international organizations and UN agencies operating in the Gaza Strip.

To assure organizations' operations stay neutral and impartial, it is essential to implement a structured monitoring and aid entry mechanism to prevent Hamas from seizing humanitarian supplies. The mechanism is designed to support aid organizations, enhance oversight and accountability, and ensure that assistance reaches the civilian population in need, rather than being diverted and stolen by Hamas.

In accordance, COGAT held meetings this week with UN agencies and international organizations operating in Gaza.

During the meetings, the mechanism was introduced, as well as the difference from the current method, along with the adoption of aid entry mechanisms and oversight. The exploitation of aid by Hamas was also discussed.

No wonder Hamas wants agencies to reject it - because it would lose its gravy train.

And isn't it interesting that COGAT shows the meetings but the media isn't reporting on this at all?

Even more interesting is that Israel has to pixelate the photos of the NGO members participating in a meeting to facilitate aid into Gaza? What are they afraid if?

Obviously, Hamas.

(h/t Irene)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said "a foolish consistency [is] the hobgoblin of little minds."

Is it?

Judaism takes a very different view. It demands consistency—not for its own sake, but because consistency is the foundation of integrity. The Talmud has lots of opinions and lots of arguments - each of them is respected. But it spends what appears to be an inordinate amount of time to ensure that a sage's opinion, and even the implications of that opinion, are consistent with the implications of his other opinions in wildly different contexts. A rabbi who rules one way in one context and the opposite in another, without reconciling the contradiction, loses credibility. The system allows for disagreement, even celebrates it, but only when it's intellectually and morally coherent.

Consistency, in this view, isn't rigidity. It's respect—for truth, for others, and for oneself.

In today’s world, much of political discourse is framed around Left and Right, liberal and conservative. Things are so polarized that positions that were once associated with one side can become anathema, and the other side that used to oppose that opinion now embraces it.

Are those categories truly opposites—or just competing instincts?

When you strip away the noise, here are the fundamental positions of each side:

Liberalism, in its pure form, it prioritizes individual freedom, progress, and equality. It believes human beings flourish when liberated from oppressive structures.
Conservatism values stability, tradition, and moral restraint. It sees inherited wisdom as a safeguard against chaos and hubris.

These aren't inherently opposed. In fact, Jewish thought reflects both instincts. The Torah emphasizes ideas like the obligation to give charity, welcoming the stranger, helping orphans and widows, that align with liberal ideals. At the same time, its respect for tradition, hierarchy, and moral order reflects conservative ones.

It’s not the values that are the problem - it’s the partisanship that makes people betray them.

And the reason for that is that there is an unspoken, real consistency among the Left and the Right, between Republicans and Democrats alike.

The principles don't matter. Power does.

The pursuit of political power has become the overriding goal—often at the expense of the very principles each side claims to hold dear. Liberals who once championed free speech now tolerate censorship in the name of "safety." Conservatives who once decried moral relativism now excuse the personal failings and immorality of their political heroes. Budget hawks forget about deficits once their party is in power. Anti-war activists go silent when their side controls the drones.

These are not mere hypocrisies. They point to a deeper truth: power has become the supreme value. And that, more than anything, explains the wild inconsistencies of modern politics. Today's partisanship ensures that most people don't speak out against these inconsistencies on their own side.

Judaism, by contrast, is highly suspicious of power. It does not glorify power—it limits it.

The Torah permits kingship reluctantly, and only under strict conditions. A king must not amass wealth, horses, or wives, and must carry a Torah scroll to remind him that he, too, is bound by the law.

Prophets do not flatter kings; they confront them. Nathan rebukes David. Elijah challenges Ahab.

The story of Korach is perhaps the best example of the Torah denigrating politicians who want power above all. Korach pretends to be a populist, he pretends to be righteous, he attracts followers in his challenge to Moses' authority. But it is clear that all he wants is political power and he is using the pretext of principles to reach his goal, His ending shows how Judaism feels about using political deception to obtain power.

Power is tolerated, not celebrated. Authority is legitimate only when restrained by law, tradition, and ethical accountability.

Judaism offers more than an ethical code—it offers a different framework for thinking about public life. It doesn’t ask whether an idea is liberal or conservative. It asks whether it is moral, just, consistent, and rooted in truth. As in the Talmud, where debate is sacred but inconsistency is disqualifying, this framework holds ideas - and people - to a higher standard.

Jewish ethics does not try to convert you. It doesn't demand that everyone agree. But it does demand that people apply the same standards to themselves as they do to their opponents.

This is why partisan politics are so corrosive: they encourage people to abandon principle for the sake of the team. But Jewish moral reasoning encourages something more difficult—and more enduring: consistency, integrity, and the humility to admit when your side is wrong.

In a world where so many are loyal to Left or Right, Judaism remains loyal to something deeper.

And that is where its enduring power lies - not in domination, but in moral clarity.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

For over 20 years, this blog has been an important place to go to learn the truth about Israel and the Arab world, to dismantle the lies and to promote the truth.

When I was organizing my first book, Protocols, I realized that the underlying blog theme was exposing and fighting antisemitism, and my posts about Israel haters and hypocrites were really a subset of that theme.

Lately, I embarked on what I believe is the first methodical analysis of antisemitism as a whole, by examining all the major, disparate streams of Jew-hatred and finding the commonalities between them. Once the common threads were identified within philosophies from the Right to the Left and in between, I realized that fighting antisemitism requires an entirely different mindset, one that is more expansive than the point solutions we normally see like more education, more interfaith meetings, more security.

This explains my blog's focus lately on Jewish ethics, to provide the world with an alternative to corrosive modern ideologies and a way to show the problems with those ideologies at their sources.

It is becoming an incredibly ambitious project, and one I cannot do on my own. But I think I am building a framework where the ideas can spread and take hold.

And what can be more important work than saving the Western world?

You can support me in this critical work. I'm spending many hours (and dollars) on this project, while I continue to tweet, post original analysis and media criticism, make cartoons and memes and everything else you have come to expect. Plus I published a second book of my best cartoons.

I also have a number of columnists and guest posters, like PreOccupied Territory, Varda Meyers Epstein, Forest Rain, Daled Amos, who all bring their own unique perspectives to the site. Not to mention Ian whose twice-daily linkdumps are a Herculean task.

So help me fight antisemitism and do a real tikkun olam.

You can help with donations through PayPal:

One time donation:

You can become a paid subscriber to my new Substack page.

You can buy me an iced tea.

If you prefer, you can become a patron with Patreon here.

You can buy my books.

You can also send me an Amazon gift card to my email elder@elderofziyon.com .

If you want to make a large donation but wish it to be tax-deductible, there are a couple of ways to do that. Contact me and we can see what can be done.

Thank you as always, and have a wonderful Passover!

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Nicolas Kristof writes in the New York Times:

In the face of this American Christian enthusiasm for crushing Palestinians while saying it is God’s will, I wondered what Palestinian Christians thought. So I visited Bethlehem and asked them.

I didn't quote the beginning of the article where he sarcastically attacks American Christians who support Israel as hypocrites. Let's focus on the main part of his article.

First of all, every single person Kristof spoke to is an anti-Israel activist. He did not speak to random Christians but professional haters. (And I mean "professional" literally. Every one of them makes money from their anti-Israel positions.)

“Do we feel betrayed?” mused Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran Palestinian pastor who is president of Dar Al-Kalima University and, like many Palestinian Christians, against annexation. “Yes, to some extent. Unfortunately, this is not new for us.”

Raheb wrote a book based on the lie that Israel is guilty of "settler colonialism." He does not accept that Jews have any historical, legal or moral rights in their ancient homeland.

He loves to promote the propaganda lie that Jesus was a "Palestinian" and not a Jew from Judea.

Moreover, Raheb is a leader behind the Palestinian Kairos document which uses supersessionist language, the antisemitic idea that the Christian church has replaced Jews as the Chosen People. (Even though most Lutheran churches have rejected Martin Luther's explicit antisemitism, the Palestinian churches do not seem to have done so in practice.) And he embraces the antisemitic Khazar theory, denying Jews are really Jews.

Fewer than 2 percent of West Bank Palestinians today are Christian, but they are an influential minority who endure the same land grabs and hardships as the majority Muslim population.

Funny how Kristof ignores the reason why there are so few Palestinian Christians left compared to 1948. As with the rest of the Middle East, it was Muslim hate for them that forced them out. Seems like a relevant point.

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian Christian writer and the author of the new book “State of Palestine NOW,” says that far-right American Christians have embarrassed the Christians who actually live in the holy land.

“When the Bible is used to justify land theft and war crimes against civilians, it puts the faithful in an awkward position,” he said.

Kuttab himself justifies terrorism against Israeli Jews, even in Tel Aviv. In 2016, after a shooting attack at a cafe that killed four people, he claimed that the attack was a natural reaction to Israel rejecting some forgotten French peace plan: "overdone live @cnn coverage of Tel aviv attack but not a single word on the CONTEXT of the situation, the israeli rejection of french plan?" And he followed up with another post that evoked "context" saying that the attack was Israel's fault.

So this Christian quoted as a moral authority by Kristof justifies war crimes against Jewish civilians. Awkward!

One group in the West Bank where biblical themes of love and justice do prevail is Tent of Nations, a Christian community that promotes nonviolence and declares, “We refuse to be enemies.” It operates on the farm of an old Palestinian Christian family, the Nassars, who have used their property to hold youth camps and advocate peace toward all.

That attitude has not been reciprocated.

Tent of Nations and Daoud Nassar are not exactly supportive of the themes of "love and justice" when it comes to Israeli Jews. Nassar, also a Lutheran, does not reach out to Israeli Jews; he doesn't condemn Hamas attacks like October 7 as far as I can find. His idea of "peace" is a Palestinian state that only has Jews living in fear like most Christians do under Muslim rule.

I am not trying to justify any crimes that may or may not have been done by Jewish settlers against these people. I trust the Israeli judicial system to determine who owns specific lands based on evidence and law, not emotion. But this op-ed goes out of its way to canonize these Palestinian Christians and their antisemitism while attacking American Christians who have shed theirs.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

04/09 Links Pt2: Lawsuit From Oct. 7 Victims, Could Cripple Al Jazeera; Israel blocked Labour MPs legally, No 10 admits; AMIA prosecutor requests arrest warrant for Khamenei

From Ian:

How a Lawsuit From Oct. 7 Victims, Including Bibas Family Uncle, Could Cripple Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera has long courted controversy for platforming terrorists across the Middle East, where it is banned from operating in Israel and some Arab countries for promoting extremist ideologies. But the Qatar-funded network's support for Hamas terrorists isn't just confined to the region, according to a new lawsuit from October 7 victims, which alleges for the first time that Al Jazeera's American arm directly supports the terror group's operations.

American victims of Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, terror spree sued Al Jazeera and its American affiliate—Al Jazeera International, a limited liability company registered in Delaware—in February. Among the plaintiffs is Maurice Shnaider, whose niece, Shiri Bibas, was kidnapped and killed along with her two small children, Ariel and Kfir.

The victims are petitioning the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to hold Al Jazeera's American enterprise liable for "providing substantial assistance" to Hamas and its militant ally, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), both of which are U.S.-designated terror outfits. The suit identifies at least a half-dozen Al Jazeera employees who double as Hamas and PIJ operatives and accuses the outlet of conspiring with these terror groups from the lead-up to October 7 until now.

While Al Jazeera is headquartered in Doha, Qatar, where senior Hamas members lived in luxury, it operates 70 bureaus worldwide, including one in Washington, D.C. Its hub in the nation's capital hosts more than 100 staffers, many of whom are credentialed to cover Congress. The outlet's presence on Capitol Hill has long driven concerns among GOP lawmakers, who have unsuccessfully tried for years to revoke its privileged status and force it to register as a foreign agent.

Since Hamas is not designated as a terrorist organization in Qatar, the October 7 victims are turning to the American court system, where they can seek financial penalties against Al Jazeera under the Anti-Terrorism Act. By naming Al Jazeera International as a defendant in the case, they are hoping to prove that the network's Washington, D.C., branch knowingly provided material support to Hamas and PIJ.

"There are far too many coincidences and connections between the Hamas terrorists who attacked innocent Israelis and the reporters from Al Jazeera who mysteriously were amongst the first to breach into the Jewish State from Gaza and accompany the murderers as they killed, maimed and raped innocent Jews," Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the lawyer handling the case, told the Washington Free Beacon. "We intend to prove that Al Jazeera is the communication arm of the Gaza terror groups."

If successful, Darshan-Leitner said, the suit "will financially devastate Al Jazeera and shut down its operations in the United States and beyond."

The suit points to evidence that the Al Jazeera channels accessible within D.C. promote terrorism. The network's UpFront program, for instance, has repeatedly aired "terrorist-related content" via Al Jazeera English and other channels owned by the company, most of which are accessible within the district, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, Al Jazeera "featured interviews with individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations and showcased Al Jazeera employees who are Hamas operatives," the lawsuit alleges.

AMIA prosecutor requests international arrest warrant for Khamenei

Sebastián Basso, the lead prosecutor in the AMIA bombing case, has requested a national and international arrest warrant against Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei due to his direct involvement in the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, according to Argentinian daily Clarín on Wednesday.

In 1994, the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish community center was bombed, killing 85 and wounding 300. Hezbollah is believed to be behind the attack, with Iranian backing and support.

According to Basso, Khamenei “led the decision to carry out a bomb attack in Buenos Aires in July 1994 and issued executive order (fatwa) 39 to carry it out.”

Basso requested of Argentinian Federal Judge Daniel Rafecas that Khamenei “be called to give a statement in relation to his involvement in the attack on the AMIA headquarters on July 18, 1994, along with the other Iranian suspects mentioned in this report.”

Khamenei “sponsored an armed organization that operates clandestinely outside of Lebanese territory and is linked to the Hezbollah movement, which for decades has carried out numerous attacks on the lives and property of people that must be clarified as terrorist acts, including the AMIA attack,” Basso stated.

Basso requested that Interpol be notified “for the purpose of executing the arrest.” He also ordered Argentina’s federal security forces to arrest Khamenei if he steps on Argentinian soil.

Clarín noted that this represents a shift from the position of previous prosecutors and intelligence agents, who saw Khamenei as having immunity due to his official role.

Western myths about Palestinians vs. what they say and do

Well-meaning liberal Americans sympathize with the Arab-Palestinian cause because of the group’s determined, decades-long struggle against Israel’s superior military might. Recently, that favoritism among Democrats for the first time shifted to a majority who support the Palestinians over Israel.

But if supporters of the Palestinians knew the whole truth, as the Palestinians tell it, they might reverse their sympathies. Indeed, when we listen to what the Palestinians say, and what they do, their underdog image is betrayed by belligerent goals, cruel methods and values anathema to Western civilization.

Understandably, liberals sympathize with the Palestinians out of “humanitarian” instincts. To them, the Palestinians are an oppressed group fighting bravely for their freedom. These defenders see Israel, the Palestinians’ foe, as having, for 78 years, tried to deny innocent people self-determination and their rightful share of a Middle East homeland.

But this sympathetic portrait of Arab-Palestinians is purely the product of Western projection—an imagined assignment to the Palestinians of motives, goals and values characteristic of a Western mindset. Western liberals are often shocked when they’re exposed to the portrait Palestinians paint of themselves—as Arabs and as Muslims—which embodies characteristics in direct contradiction to peace-loving Western values and aspirations.

Perhaps the most significant reason the Palestinians are still fighting is that Israel and its Western allies continue to offer what we think the Palestinians want—or should want—rather than what they actually do want. Westerners have steadfastly believed that Palestinians want a state and to live in peace with Israel, and that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from achieving this goal.

The problem turns out to be ours. Palestinians tell us what they want and pursue what they want, but we ignore their message. We prefer our enlightened translation. To gain insight into this contradiction, it helps to highlight exactly what the Palestinians tell us—and what they tell themselves—about their goals and values.

To get a handle on this disconnect, let’s compare Westerners’ two greatest myths about Palestinian goals and values with what Palestinians say and do regarding the major issues affecting peace in the Middle East.

04/09 Links Pt1: Israel’s second war of independence; Israel's High Court Shattered the False Gaza Narrative by the International Courts; Israeli Air Force jet crashes in Lebanon due to technical malfunction

From Ian:

Clifford May: Israel’s second war of independence

These developments are encouraging but, as Israelis are now more acutely aware than ever, there can be no higher priority than preventing the regime in Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“If Tehran gets a nuke,” one senior military officer told me, “all our other military achievements will be for nothing.”

Last year, Iran’s rulers attacked Israel directly on two occasions. In April, they launched more than 300 drones and missiles. Most were intercepted with minimal damage thanks to Israeli, U.S., and other defenses.

In October, they fired more than 200 missiles at Israeli targets. Again, combined air defense systems proved astonishingly effective.

Israel retaliated with a series of airstrikes that destroyed Iranian missile production facilities and air defense systems (many of the latter made in Russia).

That has left Tehran weaker than it’s been for decades. But because Moscow and Beijing, too, are believed to be helping the regime build back better, its window of vulnerability is likely to remain open for only about six months.

President Trump has now deployed at least six B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, an air base in the Indian Ocean. He is reminding Iran’s rulers—who continue to threaten to assassinate him—that he has the means to swiftly and effectively demolish their nuclear weapons facilities, including even those buried under mountains.

As a result, Iran’s rulers now say they’re ready for “indirect high-level talks.”

You can be sure they plan either to either drag out the palaver while making nuclear warheads that fit on intercontinental ballistic missiles, or fool Trump into accepting a deal as fatally flawed as was President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which was neither comprehensive nor a plan of action).

The only acceptable deal would require that Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure be completely and verifiably dismantled. “They can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said on Monday. “That’s all there is.”

If that result cannot be achieved diplomatically (and quickly), Trump should fulfill his promise to take military action to ensure that Iran’s Islamists do not become the fourth nuclear-armed member of an aggressive, ambitious and anti-American axis that also includes Chinese Communists, Russian neo-imperialists and the dynastic dictator in North Korea.

Alternatively, Trump could assist an Israeli effort to cripple Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. “Without proxies and nukes,” a senior Israeli official told the FDD group, “the Islamic Republic is an eighth-rate power.”

Should that transpire, Israel will have won its second war of independence. Extreme vigilance will be required to prevent a third.

Richard Kemp: The Israel-Hamas war grinds on. It’s time to try something different

Many countries have tried deradicalisation initiatives, with varying degrees of effectiveness, including the UK, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Algeria and Egypt. Singapore seems to have had the greatest success in their endeavours to rehabilitate Jemaah Islamyia terrorists.

Specially tailored programmes around the Muslim world, perhaps based on Singapore’s, would be the destination for thousands of Palestinian prisoners. Joined by their families, they could subsequently be released and resettled on satisfactory completion of the programme.

Yes, there would be outrage from human rights groups and practitioners of legal warfare against Israel. Many of the prisoners are likely to resist, as would Palestinian leaders whose priority is to perpetuate the conflict rather than secure a better life for the communities they have kept under their ruinous heel for so long.

It would also be a quandary for Western political leaders who have allowed themselves to be convinced over many years that the problem is Israel and not the radical Islamists who seek its destruction. Accepting the reality would be a bitter pill for these individuals to swallow. By falsely blaming Israel for this conflict and making zero demands on the actual aggressors, they have encouraged the Palestinians to keep up a fight they should not be fighting. Continuation of the present misguided approach will not only cause further bloodshed but also condemn the Palestinians to a never-ending existence of unresolvable limbo, poverty and deprivation.

There is only one viable way to break this malignant cycle and that is the reform of the Palestinian population, primarily by moderate clerics and younger, forward-looking leaders if such can be found. To show them that their vicious war against Israel can never be won while holding out the prospect that they can live prosperously, side by side with their Jewish neighbours if they can bring themselves to accept Israel’s existence. In other words, the opposite of the thinking of generations of peace processors whose untenable schemes have been constantly exploited by hard-line Palestinian leaders. The Abraham Accords sowed the seeds here, demonstrating to the Palestinians that their Arab brothers could live in harmony while dealing and trading with Israel. The extension of that initiative to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will give greater strength to this cause but it will not be enough on its own.

In addition, the malignant and all-pervasive anti-Israel education, propaganda and preaching, often subsidised by the West, has to be ended. Counter-intuitively perhaps, deradicalisation of Palestinian prisoners, who are among the most radicalised, could serve as the model for wider reform. They are literally a captive audience, and they have the most to gain by accepting reality and an understanding that their future can be brighter if they are willing to move away from hatred and violence.

With international support and cooperation from the Islamic world, such a project could become a reality rather than a utopian dream. Despite the predictable objections, giving deradicalisation a chance has to be better than just repeating what has been done before and hoping for different results.

John Spencer: Israel's High Court Just Shattered the False Gaza Narrative by the International Courts in The Hague

On March 27, 2025, Israel’s High Court of Justice, led by Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit,delivered a measured, fact-driven, and deeply legal judgment , reaffirming that Israel’s decision to halt aid to Gaza, following Hamas’s rejection of the U.S. proposal to continue the hostage-ceasefire negotiations, was fully compliant with international law.The ruling should send a powerful signal to international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have rushed to indict and accuse with politically charged narratives untethered from operational facts and legal substance.

The High Court found that Israel is not in violation of international humanitarian law in itsdecision to halt the facilitation of aid to Gaza and—critically—not an occupying power in the Strip. This rebuke, coming from Israel’s own top court—widely regarded as one of the most independent in the world—matters immensely. It is everything the ICC and ICJ have failed to be: rooted in evidence, guided by law, and aware of the real-world consequences of war against terrorist enemies who embed themselves within civilian populations.

This was no rubber stamp. Israel’s Supreme Court has a longstanding history of challenging its own government, particularly on national security policy. The idea that this court would serve as a political puppet is laughable to anyone familiar with Israel’s democratic and judicial culture.

What the High Court did was what international tribunals have refused to do: look at the facts. After reviewing extensive classified materials, multiple hearings, and actual data—not rhetoric—the Court ruled that Israel has met and continues to meet its obligations under both international and domestic law. It confirmed that Israel facilitates humanitarian aid to civilians, with no quantitative restrictions, and has taken extensive steps to coordinate with international aid groups—even amid a complex war against a terrorist army that systematically steals that same aid.

The Court also addressed allegations that Israel was using starvation as a method of warfare. Citing the entry of 25,000 aid trucks carrying over 57,000 tons of food since January 19—during the first phase of the hostage-ceasefire agreement—it found no violation of the prohibitions on starvation or collective punishment “not even remotely.” The Court emphasized that international law only obliges a state to facilitate the passage of humanitarian supplies when there is no reason to believe they are being diverted for hostile use. Given overwhelming evidence that Hamas has been systematically stealing aid and repurposing it for military operations, including hostage captivity, the Court concluded that Israel acted within the bounds of international law when it halted certain aid flows.

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar, despite being put on hold by the High Court, is a decision every Israeli should back to safeguard the rights of all Israeli citizens. Regavim, a nonprofit focused on countering illegal land seizures in Judea and Samaria and debunking myths like “settler violence,” supports Bar’s removal. This isn’t some partisan shake-up—it’s a necessary confrontation with an agency that, under Bar’s leadership, abandoned its mission to protect all Israelis. Rather than uphold security, the Shin Bet under Bar singled out Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria for groundless detentions and deep-seated contempt, even as Arab terror grew unchecked. A leaked recording from April 2025 has exposed this outrage, confirming that Bar’s departure is critical.

The “Shmucks” Revelation: Settlers as Scapegoats

The Shin Bet’s Jewish Division, tasked with monitoring internal threats, has been caught admitting to a chilling practice: arresting Jewish settlers without evidence. In a recording published by Kan News on April 6, 2025, the division head, identified as “A,” bragged to former Judea and Samaria police commander Avishai Mualem, “We arrest these jerks even without evidence for a few days. Put them in detention cells with mice.” The “jerks?” Jewish settlers, whom “A” elsewhere derided as “shmucks” unworthy of due process. This wasn’t a slip but a glimpse into a systemic bias that thrived under Bar’s leadership.

Israel Hayom’s report captures the outrage: the Prime Minister’s Office labeled it “a shocking revelation” and “a real danger to democracy,” demanding an investigation. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called out the “draconian Shin Bet powers against settlers” as “undemocratic, unequal, illegal, and unconstitutional.” The recording confirms what settlers and groups like Regavim have long claimed: the Shin Bet wasn’t combating terror—it was persecuting Jews in their ancestral homeland.

A Legacy of Contempt

The “shmucks” comment that no one was supposed to hear, wasn’t a stray remark or isolated event. Rather contempt for the Jews of Judea and Samaria—and the misplaced obsession with them—was a feature of Shin Bet policy under Bar by deliberate design. October 7 and its devastating aftermath stem, in large measure, from the rotten fruit of Bar’s tenure. While Hamas in Gaza prepared to torch, rape, and slaughter Jews in the south, Bar fixated on targeting Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria.

Regavim’s Meir Deutsch has charged the Shin Bet with “nurturing a false myth” of settler violence while “concealing the real data” on threats like Hamas. Their forthcoming report, "Settler Violence: Facts vs Narrative," will expose the UN’s inflated claims—thousands of alleged incidents shrinking to just a handful under scrutiny. When Regavim pressed for transparency, Bar’s agency stonewalled, shielding its failures and amplifying a libel that endangered Jews instead of safeguarding them.

Rachel Touitou Weighs In

I put some questions to Regavim International Press Spokesperson Rachel Touitou: Why does the Shin Bet target settlers? Is it a political issue? Abuse of power? Is this why Netanyahu is agitating for a change in leadership?

Touitou’s response underscores the need to clean house—to install new Shin Bet leadership—leadership that will uphold its original mandate of protecting all Israeli citizens. “From the data we analyzed in the report, there is a distinct and clear pattern that permeated the Shin Bet, reflecting a deeply engrained mindset or ‘conceptzia’ as we say in Hebrew,” said Touitou. “Rather than allocating resources and efforts toward addressing the tangible threat that culminated in the events of October 7th, the Shin Bet has been, and continues to be, focused on a marginal phenomenon/issue—namely, unfounded accusations of blood libel directed at Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. This focus has inadvertently provided material to the United Nations and certain extreme leftist organizations which subsequently leverage it to discredit Israel and advocate for sanctions against its citizens.

“To your question whether it is a political issue or not—I’ll answer with another question: why does the Shin Bet dedicate an entire department with huge resources called ‘the Jewish Department’ and never opened one—or thought to open one—called the ‘anarchists department?’ That would be a good question to ask their spokesperson.”

Touitou’s words cut to the core of the matter: Bar’s Shin Bet wasn’t distracted—it was obsessed with a fiction that fueled global attacks on Israel while ignoring the real enemies at the gate.

Ignoring the Real Enemy

The Shin Bet’s misplaced scorn didn’t just undermine trust—it left Israel exposed. While Bar’s agency hounded Jews in Judea and Samaria, the Gaza threat grew into the nightmare of October 7th. The Jewish Division’s head mocked IDF soldiers in the the Jewish heartland as “worthless” settlers, per Israel Hayom, showing an arrogance that dismissed Israel’s defenders. Bar backed this view, telling police commanders that “hilltop youth” outranked Arab rioters as a threat—a fantasy with deadly consequences.

The agency’s refusal to shield settlers from Arab terror, paired with its zeal to detain them without cause, tells a grim story. These Jews, rooted in their biblical heartland, weren’t overlooked—they were hunted by the entity meant to protect them. Bar turned the Shin Bet into a tool against its own people, not their foes.

A Dismissal Well-Earned—And a Passover Parallel

The High Court may have delayed Bar’s ouster, but the evidence is ironclad. The “shmucks” tape, Regavim’s data, and the Shin Bet’s record under Bar reveal a rot that demanded removal. This wasn’t about competence—it was about a hatred for settlers that corrupted an agency tasked with Israel’s survival. Smotrich’s demand to fire Bar and “A” isn’t overreach; but a call for justice.

As Regavim’s report nears release, the truth will be clear: Bar’s Shin Bet betrayed its mission. His dismissal isn’t a setback—it’s a chance to reclaim an agency meant to defend, not destroy, Israel’s citizens. With Passover starting April 11—just two days away—this feels apt. As we scour our homes of chametz, purging the leaven that corrupts, so must Israel’s government cleanse its ranks of rot. Bar’s exit, though stalled, is a step toward that renewal—a Pesach house-cleaning of the highest stakes. I stand with Regavim in hailing this purge, as all Israelis should.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Wikipedia describes the 2015 crime:

Hassan and Ahmed equipped themselves with knives. In Pisgat Ze'ev, they found Yosef Ben-Shalom, a 20-year-old male security guard who they chased after with their knives drawn, and stabbed. The guard fled, and they instead turned their attention to some nearby shops. Outside of a candy shop, they found Naor Shalev Ben-Ezra, a 13-year-old boy on a bicycle, who they stabbed. The boy sustained critical injuries. Another angle from the security camera footage shows Hassan running across a street.

Hassan was subsequently shot and killed, reportedly while advancing towards police with a knife in his hand.

Ahmad tried to escape the area, but was struck by a pursuing car and suffered serious head injuries.

The videos show two boys intent on stabbing any Jews they can find.

The case of Ahmed became cause celebre, with Amnesty and others calling for his release, alleging torture.

According to Palestinian media, Ahmed is due to be released very soon, less than ten years later.

He will be considered a hero.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Applying Jewish Ethics to Seinfeld and Star Trek

I like algorithms.

I once came up with a definition of antisemitism that I believe is superior to all others, because it allows one to look at any situation and decide, with very little room for bias, whether it is antisemitic or not. No "mights" or "mays" or "coulds" - just clarity.

As I wrote up with these Jewish ethical principles, I realized that they could do the same thing - become a method at create moral clarity for any situation.

Judaism offers an ancient tool for that clarity: a moral lens. Rooted in Torah, refined through centuries of rabbinic thought, and battle-tested in the survival of a people under constant pressure, Jewish ethics can offer an algorithmic approach to understanding the world. It is not simplistic, but it is consistent. It is not partisan, but it is principled.

This chapter introduces that idea: that a simplified but robust list of Jewish moral concepts can be used like an algorithm. When applied to anything — a news article, a song, a film, a political policy, a social media trend — it reveals whether the thing in question is in harmony with the values of truth, justice, responsibility, dignity, and holiness.

Let's try some examples from popular culture (at least, popular culture in my day.)

1. "Imagine" by John Lennon

"Imagine" is a global anthem of peace and idealism, "Imagine" encourages a world without countries, religion, or possessions — suggesting that these are the sources of conflict. It has been praised by politicians and celebrities and performed at places like the Olympics to symbolize universal harmony.

At first glance, "Imagine" feels aligned with the Jewish value of peace (shalom). But a closer look reveals a deep conflict with core Jewish moral principles. The song's vision of peace is achieved by erasing moral distinctions: no nations, no religions, no individual property. Judaism, by contrast, insists on the sacredness of difference — the idea that moral law is contextual, rooted in covenant, identity, and responsibility.

"Imagine" removes all moral obligations. No one owns anything, believes in anything, or dies for anything. There is no brit — no covenant, no rooted community, no justice, just a dreamy sameness. It denies the Jewish value of tzedek (justice), because it avoids the messy work of deciding what is right. It denies emet (truth), because it elevates fantasy over moral reality. In the end, it substitutes wishful thinking for ethical clarity.

Moreover, in this utopian world Lennon asks us to imagine, there is no growth. There is no opportunity to help others because others have exactly what you do. There are few if any incentives to better yourself. There is no reason to strive for excellence, because everyone is the same.

Judaism doesn't pretend people aren't different. Differences are what makes the world interesting. Differences are what helps us learn from each other.

The Jewish lens doesn’t reject peace — but it insists on a peace that is built, not "imagined." A peace that is rooted in shared obligation and justice. One that is created while acknowledging differences, not in the flattening of moral identity.

2. Groundhog Day

In this classic comedic film, a selfish man named Phil is forced to live the same day over and over again until he changes. What begins as a curse becomes a vehicle for personal transformation.

Unlike "Imagine," Groundhog Day is profoundly moral. It is, in essence, a film about teshuvah — repentance and return. The main character begins the film as a narcissist, using the time loop for selfish gain. Over time, through trial, failure, and reflection, he becomes kind, generous, and wise — not to escape the loop, but because he chooses a better self.

This is Judaism in action. No divine voice, no miracle ending — just the slow process of moral growth. The film elevates free will, self-improvement, and the sanctity of time. It shows that goodness is not a one-time choice, but a discipline of daily moral action. Once Phil realizes that he cannot escape, he does the only thing that can get rid of an eternity of self-loathing: he chooses to become the best version of himself. Over the course of the story, his opinion of the townspeople he hated in the beginning becomes a true love for every human being.

The Jewish lens applauds this: a narrative where character is forged not by rules imposed from above, but by inner transformation.

3. Seinfeld

This famed sitcom centered on the lives of four friends in New York, often described as "a show about nothing." The characters navigate life with wit, pettiness, and complete moral detachment.

At first glance, one might think Seinfeld is amoral if not immoral. The characters are selfish, self-absorbed and uncaring. The Seinfeld world is a world without ethics, where the only thing the characters excel at are neurosis, irony, and endless cleverness. There is no growth. No one learns. The final episode literally convicts the characters for standing by while someone else suffers. It's a comic inversion of lo ta’amod al dam re’echa — the obligation not to stand idly by.

Ironically, this is what makes Seinfeld a moral show — not in message, but in consequence.. The characters do not get rewarded for their selfishness. One can imagine them now, thirty years later, still alone, still without anything to live for.

From a Jewish ethical lens, Seinfeld is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when covenant is stripped away. There is no brit, no shared responsibility, no moral aspiration — only self-referential jokes. It is funny because it’s empty. And it's empty by design.

Judaism doesn’t idealize perfection, but it insists on movement — on moral direction. Seinfeld rejects that. In doing so, it accidentally proves Judaism’s point.

4. The Prime Directive (Star Trek)

A central tenet of Starfleet ethics in the Star Trek universe, the Prime Directive prohibits interference in the development of alien civilizations, even to prevent suffering or injustice. It reflects a secular moral relativism and caution against colonialism.

On the surface, the Prime Directive appears noble: it aims to respect other cultures and prevent coercion. But through the Jewish moral lens, it reflects a deep abdication of responsibility. Judaism insists that moral clarity is possible, even in cross-cultural situations. Tzedek tzedek tirdof — justice must be pursued — not avoided out of fear of moral imposition.

Interestingly, in the original Star Trek, Captain Kirk violated the Prime Directive multiple times for what he considered the greater good - to avoid unnecessary deaths and to help societies that were stuck in destructive patterns to break out of them and grow. In the sequels, sometimes Kirk's loose application of the directive was criticized. Jean-Luc Picard once said, "Your Captain Kirk was a remarkable man, but his actions were sometimes... questionable by our standards today."

Kirk did some reckless things, but his treatment of the Prime Directive was consistent with Jewish ethics.

The Prime Directive elevates inaction to virtue. But Judaism teaches that silence in the face of injustice is complicity. There is no Jewish version of non-intervention when faced with evil. Abraham argues with God over Sodom. Moses confronts Pharaoh. Jewish ethics demands that we act, not that we retreat.

The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was the deadliest episode of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. The world watched but didn't interfere. In just 100 days, nearly a million people were killed.

That's the Prime Directive in action.

The Prime Directive fears moral absolutism. But Judaism doesn’t offer absolutism — it offers covenantal responsibility. There’s a difference.

These are some very different examples of applying the Jewish ethical lens to popular culture, but the same methods can apply to literature, news articles, poetry, politicians' statements - literally everything. This moral lens, this algorithm, can be learned by anyone and applied to everything. It is a tool for clarity in a foggy world, and a shield against emotional manipulation, propaganda, and bias.

This algorithm has a bias as well — but it's a bias toward Jewish ethics and the moral tradition of Western civilization. That is not a weakness. It is a strength.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Judging brains by politics? That’s not science.

As my readers know, I have been on a "Jewish ethics" kick recently, writing essentially a chapter a day of a planned book on antisemitism and different ideologies. My theory is that making Jewish ethics part of our everyday thought process can help teach people not only how to fight antisemitic philosophies but also to help restore Western civilization from what it is becoming.

This exercise is reshaping my own thinking, as I increasingly view everything I read through this ethical lens. (My upcoming chapter/post uses this to analyze Seinfeld, Star Trek and other topics.)

So when I saw this interview in the New York Times with a brain scientist that claims that some people's brains might be wired to make them right-wing unthinking drones, I cannot resist pointing out that the problematic thought processes come from the NYT and the scientist, not the "conservatives."

So sharp are partisan divisions these days that it can seem as if people are experiencing entirely different realities. Maybe they actually are, according to Leor Zmigrod, a neuroscientist and political psychologist at Cambridge University. In a new book, “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” Dr. Zmigrod explores the emerging evidence that brain physiology and biology help explain not just why people are prone to ideology but how they perceive and share information.

What is ideology?

It’s a narrative about how the world works and how it should work. This potentially could be the social world or the natural world. But it’s not just a story: It has really rigid prescriptions for how we should think, how we should act, how we should interact with other people. An ideology condemns any deviation from its prescribed rules.

Any scientist knows that when you start with an incorrect premise, then everything that follows is likely to be wrong as well.

Judaism is an ideology. It is, as we have seen, far more flexible than progressive or Marxist or other Leftist ideologies. It is the counterexample that proves the premise wrong.

You write that rigid thinking can be tempting. Why is that?

Ideologies satisfy the need to try to understand the world, to explain it. And they satisfy our need for connection, for community, for just a sense that we belong to something.

There’s also a resource question. Exploring the world is really cognitively expensive, and just exploiting known patterns and rules can seem to be the most efficient strategy. Also, many people argue — and many ideologies will try to tell you — that adhering to rules is the only good way to live and to live morally.

I actually come at it from a different perspective: Ideologies numb our direct experience of the world. They narrow our capacity to adapt to the world, to understand evidence, to distinguish between credible evidence and not credible evidence. Ideologies are rarely, if ever, good.

OK, let's see who is dogmatic in their thinking.

Rigid thinkers tend to have lower levels of dopamine in their prefrontal cortex and higher levels of dopamine in their striatum, a key midbrain structure in our reward system that controls our rapid instincts. So our psychological vulnerabilities to rigid ideologies may be grounded in biological differences.

In fact, we find that people with different ideologies have differences in the physical structure and function of their brains. This is especially pronounced in brain networks responsible for reward, emotion processing, and monitoring when we make errors.

For instance, the size of our amygdala — the almond-shaped structure that governs the processing of emotions, especially negatively tinged emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, danger and threat — is linked to whether we hold more conservative ideologies that justify traditions and the status quo.

Some scientists have interpreted these findings as reflecting a natural affinity between the function of the amygdala and the function of conservative ideologies. Both revolve around vigilant reactions to threats and the fear of being overpowered.

But why is the amygdala larger in conservatives? Do people with a larger amygdala gravitate toward more conservative ideologies because their amygdala is already structured in a way that is more receptive to the negative emotions that conservatism elicits? Or can immersion in a certain ideology alter our emotional biochemistry in a way that leads to structural brain changes?

The ambiguity around these results reflects a chicken-and-egg problem: Do our brains determine our politics, or can ideologies change our brains?

Her research is based around differences in "conservative" and "liberal" brains. She makes an assumption that "traditions" are part of the problem. Her research appears to assume that liberals, however she defines them, are more flexible in their thinking than conservatives. Furthermore, she does not consider that there are leftist ideologies by her own definition that are just as rigid in their thinking as anyone on the Right.

Her assumptions are themselves flawed and show that she is the one with inherent biases and rigid thinking.

In Zmigrod’s telling, flexible thinking is good—and seemingly aligned with progressive values—while rigidity is associated with conservative ideology. The implication is clear: one side of the spectrum is more “evolved” neurologically. But anyone paying attention knows that rigidity, groupthink, and moral absolutism exist across the political spectrum.

You don’t need a neuroscience degree to recognize the ideological rigidity of, say, campus cancel culture or dogmatic anti-Israel activism. But somehow, those examples are invisible to this analysis—because the premise is already loaded.

Zmigrod makes an assumption that having "traditions" is evidence of rigidity. Where does that come from? Is brushing your teeth every morning evidence of an atrophied brain? Is choosing to stop at a red light ruining your ability to think?

A more subtle but critical point. Zmigrod says that ideology is a narrative about how the world works and how it should work. Isn't putting everyone in the cookie cutter category of "right " and "left" and then demonizing the "right" an ideology by her very definition?

My recent writings examine antisemitic ideologies, on the right, left, and seemingly places that don't fit either. From the Jewish perspective, differences between "right" and "left" are arbitrary. We've been around long enough to see how supposedly liberal positions can suddenly become conservative and vice versa. We've been persecuted by both sides. And there are good people on both sides, too.

Zmigrod, and the New York Times, look at the world through the ideological glasses that the defining feature of a person is whether they are on the Left or Right. That premise is wrong. When you study antisemitism, you can see that those who hate Jews come from all parts of the ideological spectrum - meaning that we are looking at the spectrum wrong. Since every normal person should agree that antisemitism is wrong, then any ideology or political position that accepts or encourages it is by definition an immoral philosophy. So that is a better lens to use when deciding who is moral and who is immoral.

The real divide seems to be between those who tend to extremes and those who can understand other viewpoints. The extremist Left is not morally superior to the extreme Right, and there are plenty of conservatives who think more clearly and objectively than much of the Left. Zmigrod's research would be valuable if she would ask the right questions to begin with.

The intellectuals in the West today have elevated political thinking so much that they cannot see past politics to the real differences between people.

It isn't whether people have ideologies. Everyone has ideologies, whether they admit it or not. It is whether their ideologies are rigid and extremist, whether they have blind spots, whether they demonize people because they have a different way of looking at the world.

Asking the wrong questions guarantees coming to the wrong conclusions. That is a problem for everyone - Right and Left. Leor Zmgrod calls herself a "political psychologist." Can she not see how her own self-definition can blind her to other ways of looking at the world - that she might be subject to the same rigid mindset that she accuses others of?

Being able to apply a different and time tested way of thinking, like the Jewish ethical lens, helps everyone see things flexibly and more accurately - no matter what their politics.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)