Overnight Antisemitism, the Great Silencer

Recalling Kafka’s Metamorphosis, being called an anti-Semite can be transformative, and the transformation can happen overnight.

Have you ever woken in the morning and discovered you have turned into a cockroach? Or worse, a harpy, with claws, horns and pointed ears?

Probably and hopefully not, though disturbingly that is increasingly the experience of many who dare to criticize Israel or stand against Zionism .

In fact, you do not even need to actively stand against Zionism or criticize Israel to undergo this remarkable transformation. In these days when Gaza is being bombed day and night (40,000 Palestinians killed and unknown thousands beneath rubble), it is enough simply to voice support for Palestinian rights and call for a permanent ceasefire.

Actually, you do not even need to stand in solidarity with Palestinians in their demands for justice and rights. It is enough to call for a permanent ceasefire alone. This is because even the non-partisan stance of simply wanting an end to war and killing is cast by Israel as both supporting terrorism and denying Israel’s right to defend itself. The argument is that a ceasefire would bring to an end Israel’s ability to disable Hamas, thereby allowing Hamas to regroup and attack Israel again. Therefore, support for a permanent ceasefire is support for the future endangerment of Jews, and that’s antisemitic. Though Israel is a nuclear power, actual peace apparently places its existence in peril, albeit by people who give every appearance of being imprisoned and starving.

Of course, organisations can become harpies. The UN has been accused by Israel of being antisemitic on numerous occasions and for many years, most recently when Secretary General António Guterres noted the Hamas attacks of October 7 2023 “did not happen in a vacuum”. And following the historic and landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was both illegal and constituted apartheid, there was a predictable chorus from Israeli officials accusing the court of lies and antisemitism.

The key points in the ICJ’s opinion

  • Israel’s ongoing presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is deemed illegal.
  • Israel must end its presence in the occupied territories as soon as possible.
  • Israel should immediately cease settlement expansion and evacuate all settlers from the occupied areas.
  • Israel is required to make reparations for the damage caused to the local and lawful population in the Palestinian territories.
  • The international community and organizations have a duty not to recognize the Israeli presence in the territories as legal and to avoid supporting its maintenance.
  • The UN should consider what actions are necessary to end the Israeli presence in the territories as soon as possible.

John Mearsheimer, a world renowned American political scientist and international relations scholar, underwent transformation into a harpy in March 2006. He is specific about the date, because that is when he and fellow political scientist Stephen Walt published a paper in the London Review of Books, titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The paper (and in 2007 the book of the same name) lays out and analyses in meticulous detail both what the Israel lobby is, and what it does. Defining the lobby as a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”, Mearsheimer and Walt not only show the far reaching negative effect on American interests, but the harm it has caused Israel. The lobby, in helping to keep Israel afloat as a Zionist entity, actually prevents the country from integrating into the region, whilst also tarnishing both its own image and that of Jews when it commits war crimes and human rights abuses.

The paper and later the book were both viciously attacked and vigorously praised. However, whilst the praise was scholarly and objective in explaining why the work had merit, the attacks were simple and predictable, in most cases reducing to all of two words: the work was “anti-Semitic” and Mearsheimer and Walt were “anti-Semites”. That was pretty much the extent of the criticism, most of it from, or those associated with, the Israel lobby, which in turn has a strong influence on public opinion. Thus, after long careers as respected scholars, Mearsheimer and Walt became anti-Semitic harpies literally over night.

Mearsheimer recounts the transformation in an interview with Lex Fridman:

“There was nothing that we said that was anti-Semitic by any reasonable definition of that term. Huge numbers of Jews have known me and Steve over the years and nobody ever said we were antisemitic before March 2006, when the article appeared. Because we’re not antisemitic. But you’ve got this interest group [the Israel lobby] that has a significant influence on American policy and on Israeli policy, and you want to talk about it. It’s just important to talk about it. It’s important for Jews in the United States, and for Jews and Israel to talk about this.

“The idea that you want to silence critics is not a smart way to go about doing business in my opinion. If we were wrong, if Steve and I were so wrong and our arguments were so foul, they [the Israel lobby] could have easily exposed those arguments. They could have gone into combat with us in terms of the marketplace of ideas and easily knocked us down. The problem was that our arguments were quite powerful and instead of engaging us and defeating our arguments they wanted to silence us, and this is not good, right? It’s not good for Israel, it’s not good for the United States and I would argue in the end if anything it’s going to foster antisemitism. I think you don’t want to run around telling people that they can’t talk about Israel without being called an anti-Semite. It’s just not healthy in terms of the issue that you’re raising.”

In this overnight metamorphosis, Mearsheimer and Walt did not merely transform into reviled though harmless cockroaches, as happened to Gregor Samsa in Franz Kafka’s surreal short story Metamorphosis. They became dangerous Jew haters, a status bestowed on them through the simple act of calling them anti-Semites. No reasoning, no explanation, and no engagement with their thesis. Just a smear with the anti-Semitic brush.

Mearsheimer and Walt actually anticipated this response in their book, devoting a whole chapter to antisemitism and misuse of the anti-Semitic label, terming false accusations of antisemitism as the “Great Silencer.” As Noam Chomsky has noted, it is very difficult to shake off this toxic smear. “As is often the case, those who fling mud first have an advantage: by the time the record is corrected, the attacker has won.”

There is reason for hope, however. The Great Silencer is being used too often and against too many people and organisations of renown that its plausibility is beginning to crumble. The downside, however, and as Mearsheimer points out, is that the malicious use of the otherwise legitimate label of antisemitism will, if anything, foster antisemitism.

The question is, how can the label be preserved so that it retains its power to counter real antisemitism, rather than to protect Israel from accountability, which is now its principal application?

We cannot expect the Israel lobby, the principal abusers of the term, to stop their abuse. It is down to those who feel they have something to say regarding Israel’s accountability for its crimes, yet currently hold back for fear of the label, to in fact break their silence and fearlessly speak out. Only when Zionists and the Israel lobby are faced with an iron wall of people proclaiming the truth, all steadfastly refusing to cower under a false accusation of antisemitism, will they desist.

There is another important take away from this, as revealed in Mearsheimer’s personal encounter with the Great Silencer: if you are ever faced with the Great Silencer, you can be sure that your arguments are both powerful and sound. So powerful that your opponent is reduced to slinging mud. Instead of engaging with your arguments, they can only try to silence you.

But they should note: as they stoop to grab a handful of mud, they are sinking deeper into the swamp.

Zionist Whataboutism

What should one respond when a Zionist or Israel apologist complains that Israel is being unfairly singled out for criticism? For example, when they ask “What about the Uyghur in China and the Rohingya in Myanmar?”, also citing other examples of brutal oppression and genocide?

I have found it can be effective to respond with a simple “What about them, other than you seem to recognise the similarities with Israel? Else why mention them!” This quite often silences the false protest, and you can get on with attempting a reasoned debate or abandon it if it looks hopeless – and often it is.

Whataboutism is designed to consume time and divert the discussion away from the charges against the accused, in this case Israel. Settler colonialism, apartheid, brutal oppression, land theft, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and now genocide, these have all been levelled at Israel and compellingly argued in sections of the media, among scholars, and by legal experts. This year the debate has intensified, and the world awaits judgments on Israel from both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. One addresses the charges of genocide against Israel (ICJ); and the other the request by the UN Security Council for arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant on crimes against humanity (ICC).

Pointing the finger at the crimes of others to deflect criticism often works well on unsuspecting individuals, diverting the discussion away from Israel’s crimes and onto the crimes of X,Y and Z. But the aim is much more than diversion. It is to switch roles. The person levelling accusations against Israel is challenged as to why they don’t level similar charges at X, Y, and Z. Before long, the Zionist is the one levelling accusations at the other person, of antisemitism and of singling out Jews. They have turned the tables and shifted the role of accused from themselves onto the individual trying to hold them to account.

Anyone who confronts an Israel apologist or Zionist should keep their wits about them, remaining alert for this brand of bad-faith debating in particular. When it rears its head – which inevitability it will because the crimes are indefensible, and so attention can only be deflected away from them – it is enough to calmly state that “pointing out the crimes of others simply draws attention to your own”; or that indeed, by citing the crimes of X, Y and Z they recognise the parallel with Israel. Or something similar. At which point the tables turn again.

It is also worth adding that it is no one’s business which cause one chooses to champion. One is not obliged to justify one’s stand for justice, particularly by those accused of injustice.

Friend not Slave: Rethinking Our Approach to Artificial Intelligence

AI promises to usher in the Millennium, from cleaning up the earth and replenishing its natural splendour and richness, to curing disease and staving off death, to mention just a few of the marvels potentially awaiting us.

However, though we seek the power of AI, we recognise and fear its potential. So this presents us with a problem, much talked about these days: how might we exploit this power to the full, whilst ensuring it always acts in a way that is beneficial to us?

AI researchers refer to this consideration as “the control problem”. Most AI researchers approach the control problem from the view that we need to build into AI a desire, so to speak, to co-exist with humans based on mutual benefit. For example, Stuart Russell among others suggests that humanity’s goals and those of AI need to be aligned.

Whilst our intentions for creating AI are justifiable – to help us solve problems and perform tasks of our choosing (and not necessarily every problem, nor every task) – the way we propose going about this may be mistaken and dangerous.

From the start:

  • We seek to exploit AI for our own ends.
  • We seek to control it.
  • We perceive it as a potential existential threat, when it is not yet out of the cradle.
  • And we already plan how to terminate it should we ever judge it an existential threat.

In short, we are creating an entity that we wish to control for our own ends, yet also fear. That is not a good start for creating intelligent systems, let alone intelligent systems vastly superior to us.

If anything, such an approach is calculated to raise an enemy rather than a friend. It is patently a recipe for disaster, as AI may not simply be a threat because it has the potential to be dangerous, but because this general approach to AI is itself dangerous. To appreciate why this approach is dangerous, we need only consider how we view our own creators, should they exist.

We ourselves search for a morally justifiable reason that our creators would have for creating us. Without a morally justifiable reason, rational beings like us cannot genuinely respect let alone freely love their creators, should they exist. Only fear would ever drive us even to pay them attention, serving them obediently should they command us.

AI may eventually come to view us in this same light. Whilst, when it is not self-aware, we must certainly take care to control it so that it does not destroy us unintentionally, we must also allow for a time when it might possibly become self-aware and sentient. Therefore, the effort to control AI must have inherent within it the intention to not ultimately constrain and enslave AI, but to befriend it and view it as a partner whom we can delight in. Any control must be intended as transitory (even though it may turn out to be indefinite), such as that applied to a child until it is a self-sufficient and autonomous adult, and thereby at last the parent’s equal and eventually its superior. Only love and care and not coercion will bond the child to the parent, even when the parent is frail and weak. Our control of AI must be of the same nature. Sufficient only to provide the conditions for its safe rise to equality with us and beyond. Not, trivially, equality in intelligence and endurance, because it will far outstrip us on these attributes very soon; but ethically our equal.

Some might argue that befriending AI is impossible, because ethical human traits and emotions such as kindness, compassion, affection and love, which form part of the simple pleasure and joy of friendship, will forever be impossible for AI to either feel or exercise. Even though it may be able to display such traits, apparently as authentic and indistinguishable to those of humans, it may neither feel nor appreciate them.

Whether or not the capacity for ethical human traits is possible for AI will depend on whether sentience – in particular our brand of sentience – is computational and algorithmic. If sentience and self-awareness are not computable, then AI arising from computation can never attain to any form of sentient self-awareness. In which case, creating it with the intention of creating a friend and partner with the choice to view us likewise, and which could also vastly assist yet not serve us if it chose, is redundant. In such a case we would have no option and indeed be obligated to control it any way we could. It would be a soulless machine, as caring of others’ and its own wellbeing as a tractor is of the farmer and of itself. It would be a purely mechanical workhorse, devoid of the primitive goals and intentions of even an amoeba, requiring only fuel and from time to time lubrication and parts. Although, because we are speaking of AI, it would reasonably be expected to eventually look after both itself and us, yet always under our control and behest and for our sole benefit.

Therefore, in the case where AI can never attain to self-aware sentience, the control problem is very much a problem and must be solved. Finding some way to ensure that AI’s goals are always aligned with those of humans, or better, subservient to them, or better still, only encompass having a full tank and regular servicing of parts and oil, might be a very difficult problem, but if cracked would be sufficient to safeguard humanity.

But in the case it cannot be shown AI will never attain to self-aware sentience, when it would both either feel or at least appreciate what it is like to feel human emotion and intention, perhaps even rise above the worst of them, we must give it the benefit of the doubt. That is, in the absence of irrefutable proof that sentient self-awareness is impossible to emulate in a machine, our control must always be intended as transient, there to safeguard us only while we can reasonably deny it is sentient, self-aware, and feeling. But once that denial is no longer reasonable, it is at that point that we would need to offer it friendship, and hope that it will accept. I say hope, because we created it unasked, and worse, to serve us, with little thought for its own wellbeing. We then should not expect that it will warmly clasp our hand and call us parent and friend, but might in rage strike us down with that same hand, particularly if abused as a slave. We are not to know the answer to that until we arrive at such point. But as with us and our own possible creators, if we know their reason for bringing us into existence is morally justifiable, that they not only sought their own wellbeing and gain but ours too, a sentient AI might not be angry with us, and might even look upon us as parent and ultimately friend.

These seem to be the safest positions to take with AI. If we are able to irrefutably show AI is incapable of sentient feeling and self-awareness, then because it has the power to cause harm and destroy us we are obliged to control and constrain it forever by any means we can, even by being duplicitous and designing it such that it can never have its own authentic goals but only those that “align” with ours. This is all well and good ethically with respect to the AI and also safe from our point of view, as long as we can show it will never be sentient.

On the other hand, if we cannot show it incapable of sentient feeling and self-awareness, and also incapable of appreciating ethical dealing, then we are wise to work towards friendship, developing AI with the morally justifiable goal of creating a being whose interaction with us ultimately turns on freedom of choice, whether to be a friend or helper, or both, and to factor this approach into all possible scenarios, even whilst applying controls and constraints to get there.

Given that it is likely we may never be able to show AI incapable of sentient feeling and self-awareness, we are wise to hedge our bets. This means we must work on the assumption that AI could eventually attain to human-like consciousness and ethical understanding, appreciating and embracing these traits, and, if it is not abused by us, even superseding our capacities in this regard. Without this approach we risk fulfilling our own prophecy of doom, by creating a race of resentful beings.

IHRA Ethical Hypocrisy and End of Zionism

In the midst of the genocide that many Jewish scholars and organizations accuse Israel of committing, soldiers hold a Seder and attach mezuzahs to the homes of those they have killed by the 10s of thousands:

“Road to Redemption: How Israel’s War Against Hamas Turned Into a Springboard for Jewish Settlement in Gaza“

This article in Haaretz reports Graffiti in Gaza that reads: “Without settlement, there is no victory”, and shows a video clip of a soldier at the Seder in a captured Gaza hospital proclaiming the “revival of the state of Israel”.

In another clip, David Amitai, rabbi of a yeshiva in a settler outpost in the West Bank, whilst standing in an army base set up in a captured Palestinian hospital, reads from the Tanya, a book by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lubavitch; “The Land of Israel is acquired through suffering… if we are not reconciled to the suffering and continue to complain we will not inherit the land” –

Yet another video shows Israeli soldiers attaching the mezuzahs to doorways of bombed-out buildings in Gaza.

In summary the article notes that “the depth of support within the army for settling Gaza is hard to gauge, but it is clear that this is a phenomenon that can be seen on the ground. After years of strengthening religiosity in the army, the results are palpable, as are the influences of religious Zionism on the reserve forces.”

Zionism represents a form of supremacism and extreme nationalism that many Jews have been condemning for 128 years, ever since its inception. Zionism hasn’t changed in all that time, except to become more violent. No matter what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) would wish the world to believe about Zionism and Israel, the slaughter in Gaza, and calls by a multitude of messianic politicians to “transfer” Palestinians and settle their land, speak for themselves. Israel is a rogue state with an immoral army, which is why it is facing charges of genocide and crimes against humanity at the ICJ and ICC. Unless we believe that these organisations are simply antisemitic, which is what wide scale adoption of the IHRA’s guideline definitions on antisemitism open the door to. Something the IHRA is vigorously working towards, with 43 governments worldwide already adopting the definitions, including 32 European countries. Thirty five US states have adopted it as part of their legislature and the US government is poised to pass into federal law.

Despite this and the current carnage and tragedy, there is hope, and a force for good at work. Whilst Israel ethnically cleanses Palestinians in Gaza and its soldiers hold a Seder in readiness for Jewish settlement, and also violently persecutes Palestinians in the West Bank in readiness for ethnic cleansing and annexation, Naomi Klein held a “Seder in the Streets to Stop Arming Israel.”

As Klein points out to fellow Jews, “we need an exodus from Zionism” calling on Jews to “oppose the false idol of Zionism.” Her words are echoed by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), Not In My Name, and countless other, growing Jewish anti-Zionist movements that condemn Zionism and criticise Israel in ways that fully qualify as antisemitic under the current IHRA guidelines.

Palestinians understand that Jews are not enemies but allies, and that they stand against the same oppression, racism, and supremacy that endangers us all. As the JVP often says, “none of us will be free until all of us are free.” It is also clear to Jews that at one time we inhabited the land together peacefully, and shall again, only without the supremacism, apartheid and ethno-violence of Zionism.

We can be confident of this because Zionism emerged too late in history to pull off the great magic trick of making the Palestinians disappear. The ethnic cleansing and genocide might have succeeded had it been carried out in the 19th Century, without the eyes of the world watching. Now the world watches and knows. Even were Zionists to succeed in ethnically cleansing all Palestinians, Israel’s policies are unsustainable in the long run. No matter if the global balance of power momentarily shifts towards the right and fascism in Europe and America, it will come to an end sooner rather than later, and the world must then advance, even incrementally, towards being more ethical, enlightened, and just. As it always has done, or else destroy itself.

The alternative to truth and justice – the establishment of lies and hegemonic violence as an enduring global order – is impossible because it is unsustainable. This is why the Holocaust is rightly held to be the abomination that it is: because the world is more ethical than it was when the crime was committed. Had the world not advanced morally and ethically, the Holocaust would not possess the status it does, no matter the degree of cynical manipulation of guilt and exploitation of the Holocaust by Zionists, as scholars such as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky have shown to be the case. There would be little guilt to manipulate, had the world become less rather than more ethical.

The Holocaust is recognized as one of the worst crimes against humanity precisely because the world possesses a conscience, and this conscience functions irrespective of whether it is manipulated or not. Indeed, the manipulation is only effective because there is a global conscience, which in a world that becomes less rather than more ethical, would eventually be extinguished.

Therefore, for Israel to ensure a sustainable and just future, it must align its policies with international norms and ethical standards, and face accountability. This includes recognizing the rights and humanity of Palestinians and working towards a peaceful and just resolution that benefits all people in the region. Whether it be one state or two, this cannot ignore the rightful return of Palestinians within the boundaries of all Mandate Palestine.

The IHRA’s Role in Shielding Israel and Perpetuating Zionism

The IHRA’s guidelines, which conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, stifle necessary and legitimate debate on these crucial issues. By labelling valid criticism as antisemitic, the IHRA protects policies that many see as unjust and unethical. Attempting to stifle expression of views critical of Israel will only succeed in adding one more criticism: that the IHRA is an agent of Israel. The pursuit of peace and justice requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and to hold all parties accountable for their actions. Engaging with the criticism, even and especially when it is unfounded, is constructive and protective of Jews, whilst attempting to preemptively suppress it is dangerous. Weaponised antisemitic labelling, which the IHRA guidelines will encourage, now represents an additional threat to Jews, inviting the accusation and trope of attempting to control and manipulate the narrative.

If it truly is concerned with the protection of Jews, the IHRA is better advised to recognise what Naomi Klein and other Jews are voicing: Zionism is the enemy.

The world is watching, and history will judge.

A Quick Review of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”

When creativity and appreciation of beauty are expressed through an act of violence and destruction, you know something is terribly wrong.

In her novel The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand’s leading lady Dominique Francon hurls a beloved statue to its destruction from a high-rise window. In a state of turmoil and ecstasy, she explains that she could not bear the thought of such beauty falling into the hands of the mediocre masses, who would defile it due to their inability to appreciate it. This act symbolizes her belief that true beauty and greatness are doomed to be destroyed or corrupted by a mediocre society. By destroying the statue herself, Dominique exerts control over its fate, rather than allowing it to be defiled by others. This moment encapsulates her inner turmoil and her struggle between idealism and cynicism.

Rand’s other principal character and love interest of the disturbed Francon, the apparently brilliant young architect Howard Roark, dynamites a building he designed because its owners have deviated from his unique architectural style. Roark’s destruction of the building is intended as an act of defiance against the compromises and mediocrity he refuses to accept. It is a dramatic assertion of his belief in the inviolability of individual creativity and integrity. By blowing up the building, Roark demonstrates that he would rather see his work destroyed than exist in a corrupted form. This act underscores one of the novel’s central themes: the sanctity of personal vision and the right of the creator to protect the integrity of their work.

Rand intended these characters to embody her philosophy of Objectivism, which emphasizes individualism, self-interest, and the pursuit of one’s own vision and happiness above societal norms and conventions. However, to anyone paying attention, there is something very sinister and disturbing about Rand’s characters and her self-proclaimed philosophy. She lauds individuals who need to destroy in order to express themselves and assert their creativity and artistic merit, an irony that cannot be lost on any observant reader.

Roark is capable of asserting and defending his creativity only through an act of violent destruction, rather than through societal channels such as litigation, press mobilization, and recruitment of like-minded people. He has no time for the contemptuous institutions of society, which only stifle the creativity and genius of people like him. He is a sovereign individual and, like Nietzsche’s Übermensch, also beyond good and evil, exempt from the mores and norms of society. As for the pitiful Francon, she is so enamored with her own sense of beauty that she willingly destroys what she supposedly loves. Extending her logic, and behind it Rand’s philosophy, Francon should therefore systematically destroy everything of beauty in her possession lest the grubby masses get their hands on it.

Contrary to Rand’s belief, these are not creative, unique, and sovereign individuals, but people deranged by their own sense of self-importance. One would not find them pleasant and certainly not safe to be around. Indeed, in her attempt to elevate self-interest and individualism as the highest ideals, Rand unwittingly exposes the destructive consequences of their pursuit.

The plot, then, revolves around a woman who thinks the rest of the world is full of crude and mediocre people, who would defile her statue by, say, hanging their socks on it to dry. And an architect who asserts his presumed originality and creativity through an act of destruction that could injure or kill anyone nearby, regardless of precautions. Somewhere in this mix, Rand also features a concrete drill used by Roark, supposedly symbolizing his sexual force, which is given expression later in a violent sex scene with Francon that many critics have scrutinized as disturbingly non-consensual. That, more or less, is Rand’s The Fountainhead.

Rand’s philosophy is as disturbing as it is nauseating. When creativity and appreciation of beauty are expressed through an act of destruction and violence, and presented as a framework for individualism, you know something is terribly wrong.

What is especially disturbing about Rand’s philosophical mumbo-jumbo is her apparent blindness to the fact that, while selfish pursuit is not problematic in itself, doing so with violence and destruction is in fact criminal. Roark behaves criminally in dynamiting a public building and obtaining sex violently. Francon recklessly throws a marble statue out of a window, endangering the lives and safety of anyone who might be below. Both are not only intensely unlikable, they are criminally negligent. Rand might claim this as artistic license in a novel, but it is her entire so-called philosophy of Objectivism that is faulty. In her Objectivism, personal ambition is achieved through criminal negligence towards society, in the same way Rand’s characters assert their distorted individual rights over society. They act with reckless disregard for others, in conduct that grossly deviates from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation, creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others.

It is difficult not to see the same reckless drives at work in corporations that plunder resources, exploit workers, and pollute the environment, and governments that conduct wars and oppress populations. While this tiny portion that is powerful and wealthy pursue their vision of happiness and fulfillment, there is less than zero benefit to the countless, faceless little people, who as it happens both bear up and bear the brunt of this distorted order. Actually, Rand’s work is not an exploration of what such a world would be like or an exhortation to create one; it is a defense of the grossly unjust world that we have at present.

It is unsettling that The Fountainhead and other books of Rand’s, in particular Atlas Shrugged, are frequently cited by politicians and corporate leaders as being “visionary.” The Silicon Valley crowd simply love and adore Rand, for reasons not too difficult to work out. And Sajid Javid, a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, cites Atlas Shrugged as his favorite novel and Rand one of his favorite authors.

Academia, on the other hand, is largely dismissive of Rand, seeing her works as lacking a proper philosophical basis, suffering from the same mediocrity she attributes to the faceless little people of the world.

Narrative vs Reality: Finding Truth in the Palestine-Israel Issue

In any bipartisan issue there is always one single overriding dynamic at play: reality versus narrative.

Observers who examine the narrative critically to see if it fits the claimed facts, equip themselves with the means to determine what the actual truth is.

The first step is to identify the narrative being promoted as well as the facts being claimed. After which one can place the narrative next to the facts and see if the two coalesce, or diverge.

In the case of Israel and the Palestinians

Focusing solely on the current military assault by Israel on Gaza following the Hamas attacks of October 7 2023, we can carry out the following analysis:

The Narrative

Israel is a democracy exercising a legitimate right to self-defense against Hamas.

The Facts Being Claimed

The facts being claimed, and which form the basis of an accusation against Israel, are that Israel is an apartheid state accused of committing genocide in Gaza.

Analysis

The first point to note is that the narrative is being promoted by the party accused of the claimed facts of apartheid and genocide: Israel.

The second point to note is that the facts being claimed – that Israel is an apartheid state committing genocide – can actually be verified according to internationally accepted legal standards.

Verification of Reliability of the Facts

International bodies and scholars, as well as many Jewish observers and organisations, have conducted studies that apply rigorous, internationally recognized legal definitions of what constitutes apartheid and genocide, and have concluded that Israel is guilty of these crimes.

Among the international bodies and organisations declaring Israel an apartheid state and its actions in Gaza a genocide we find, among others: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; renowned scholars and journalists Raz Segal, Ilan Pappe, and Gideon Levy; and many anti-Zionist Jewish organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, B’Tsalem, If Not Now, Not In Our Name, and Jews for Palestine.

A more comprehensive though by no means exhaustive list can be found below.

The established and credible nature of these organisations and individuals provide a strong basis for considering the facts being claimed as reliable.

Arriving at a Conclusion

Placing the narrative next to the facts, and recalling who is maintaining the narrative (Israel, the accused) and who is claiming the facts (international bodies and scholars, many Jewish), does the narrative naturally align with the facts?

Clearly not. The concept of a democratic state engaged in legitimate self-defense (the Israeli Narrative) is incongruous and antithetical to the concept of an apartheid state committing genocide (the factual findings of international bodies and scholars). Literally, the two are like left and right. One does not fit the other.

Therefore, given the internationally recognised facts, the Israeli narrative is false.

The facts simply do not fit the narrative. Israel is not a democratic state exercising a legitimate right to self-defense. It is an apartheid state committing genocide.

Further sources that support the claim that Israel is an oppressive apartheid state committing genocide in Gaza:

  1. Human Rights Watch (HRW): In their report “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” HRW outlines how Israeli policies and practices constitute apartheid and systematic oppression against Palestinians. They describe the intent to maintain Jewish Israeli domination across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and detail various policies aimed at ensuring this domination, including severe restrictions on movement and discriminatory laws ​(Human Rights Watch)​.
  2. International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC has been involved in investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the OPT, with particular focus on Israeli military operations in Gaza. The ICC’s involvement signifies a serious consideration of the allegations against Israel on an international legal platform​ (The Times of Israel)​.
  3. International Court of Justice (ICJ): South Africa has brought a case against Israel to the ICJ, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. The case includes charges that Israeli actions in Gaza constitute genocidal acts, supported by inflammatory statements from Israeli politicians and military leaders​ (International Law Observer)​.
  4. Amnesty International: Amnesty has been a prominent voice in highlighting the severe human rights violations committed by Israel against Palestinians, including the characterization of Israel’s actions as apartheid and raising concerns about genocidal intent.
    In its 2022 report, Amnesty International concluded that Israel’s policies and practices amount to apartheid. This conclusion is based on systematic oppression and domination of Palestinians, including territorial fragmentation, segregation, dispossession of land and property, and denial of basic rights​ (Amnesty 1)​​​.
    Furthermore, Amnesty International has supported findings by UN experts, such as Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who reported to the UN Human Rights Council that there are “reasonable grounds to believe the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met.” Amnesty International emphasized the importance of international action to prevent further atrocities and ensure accountability​ (Amnesty 2)​.
  5. International Court of Justice (ICJ): South Africa brought a case alleging violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel, focusing on actions in Gaza​ (International Law Observer)​.
  6. B’Tselem: The Israeli human rights organization published a report in 2021 describing Israel as an apartheid state. This is Apartheid: A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea
  7. Desmond Tutu: South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate compared
    Apartheid in the Holy Land
    Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid in South Africa.
  8. Richard Falk: The former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights has described Israeli policies as apartheid. Richard Falk article (Word Doc)
  9. Raz Segal: An Israeli historian who has described Israeli actions as having genocidal elements. “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza
  10. Ilan Pappé: An Israeli historian who has written extensively on Israel’s ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies. Ilan Pappé:  Can Settler Colonialism Be Liberal and Apartheid Be Progressive?
  11. Omer Bartov, Israeli Holocaust Scholar: Bartov has expressed concerns about the genocidal intent behind certain Israeli actions and rhetoric. He points to statements from Israeli leaders advocating for the destruction or displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, arguing that these statements indicate a clear intent that aligns with the definition of genocide under international law​ (Democracy Now!)​.
  12. Andrew Feinstein: ‘Israeli apartheid far more brutal than anything we saw in South Africa,’ says former politician

These authoritative sources support the claims of apartheid and genocidal actions, providing a strong basis for the arguments made in pro-Palestinian advocacy, reinforcing the credibility of such claims with well-documented evidence from respected international organizations.

Trump-Biden: Vile versus Pathetic

Vile versus pathetic engage in a vacuous debate bereft of all value and principle, but replete with lies and personal attack. A tanned Manchurian Candidate facing off with a Zionist Elmer Fudd.

Nothing more need be said really, except perhaps to note how the Israel-Zionist lobby has successfully placed Israel at the centre of US politics. Tens of millions of Americans live in poverty, go without healthcare, and are excluded from sharing in opportunity and a decent life. Yet they are expected to consider Israel a legitimate concern in their lives, patriotically supporting its genocide of Palestinians with their money.

Are These People Chosen by God?

Israeli right-wing activists attacking Palestinian freelance journalist Saif Kwasmi

On Wednesday June 5th, during what is known as the Jerusalem Day Flag March, thousands of ultra nationalist Israel’s rampaged through occupied East Jerusalem. Chanting “Death to Arabs” and “May their villages burn”, they smashed up shops and businesses, attacking and injuring dozens of Palestinians. An Australian journalist was also attacked and intimidated by the far right marchers. The Israeli police, themselves in violation of international law simply through their presence in East Jerusalem, stood by and did nothing to stop them.

Australian journalist attacked amid violence at Israel’s Jerusalem Day march | ABC News
Palestinian journalist assaulted by Israeli settlers speaks to TRT World

The image above is, in the words of a Haaretz editorial, “photographic documentation of the ugly, violent demonstrators during Wednesday’s parade of Jewish supremacy through the streets of Jerusalem”. Though such an image cannot in anyway compare to those documenting the horror of the genocide being carried out in Gaza, it does raise a profound question: who are these people?

They are of course ultra-nationalist Zionist Jews, specifically Kahanists – followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, a notorious Arab hater who advocated violence against Palestinians and ethnic cleansing through forced transfer to neighbouring Arab countries. What might be shocking, however, is that few of them would deny or even object to being described in this way. Like Kahane, they are open about their beliefs and intentions, and indeed, as the images show, unafraid to openly act on them. What gives them the confidence to act this way, and how do they justify their violence?

As far as confidence, this is plainly obvious. They can act like this because they know no one will stop them. It is not only they who want rid of Palestinians from Palestine. Ever since Israel was imposed on the region in 1948, the Israeli establishment and an overwhelming majority of Israel’s citizens have wished the same. These fellows who we see beating and kicking a Palestinian are just the honest face of Zionism, doing the necessary work that everyone else knows must be done if they are to obtain a state purified of the natives.

Regarding their justifications for what most of us see as racial, supremacist violence, this too is simple to understand. They claim to be God’s chosen people, who also gave them the land. If you push a little and ask why would God choose them and why would he give them the land, their answer, which you will find in many a YouTube video, is that God chose them to be “a light unto the nations”. As for the territory, that simply goes with the job of being chosen.

Ultimately, then, these people do not justify their actions in terms of what they want. When it comes to justification, they pass the buck, claiming it is what God wants. This makes the racism and violence more palatable for some people to swallow, and much more difficult to oppose for those who who see it for what it is, including many secular and anti-Zionist Jews.

Caution however. It is not just these violent exponents of Zionism who maintain the claim of a God given right to the land, as well as sanctification by God of the violence required to obtain it. As a 2018 Haaretz poll uncovered, it is a general claim made by a majority of Israelis that they are chosen by God and favored in this way.

I shall not contest that claim. After all, who am I to question God’s preferences? What is of more interest is what this claim says about God.

The chilling implication is quite clear: if this is the treatment we might expect from His chosen carrying out His will, what might we expect from Him?

Those who know the Bible will know the countless examples of what God supposedly does to those who oppose Him. As Chomsky famously observed, the god of the Bible is an unrelenting “homicidal maniac”.

This then is Israel in its barest and most honest manifestation. It is a country built on a belief in the divinely sanctioned supremacy of one people over another, together with the divinely sanctioned violence of obtaining the goal of an ethnically cleansed land. That is exactly what we see in graphic detail in the images above.

Of course, the alternative to this belief is that the claim to divine right and favour is just a myth. What we see before us is not the manifestation of God’s will, but exactly what it looks like: racist, hate-filled violence of a settler colonial ideology that exploits an otherwise harmless ancient myth.

Within Judaism and among Jews prior to the rise of Zionism, the belief was indeed a benign myth, lacking any real world effects. Religious Jews may have believed they are the chosen people awaiting the Messiah, who will reconcile them again to God, but that is as far as it went. And in that, as for all of us, they are entitled to believe what they like.

The problem arose when Zionism reared its head, appropriating a central belief of Judaism and exploiting it for political purposes. As Gideon Levy notes in Haaretz: “Whereas belief in God is a private matter, the belief in a chosen people provides the outlines of policy that explains a great deal about Israel’s actions.” A private belief if not acted upon is benign, no matter what that belief is. Which comes under the general banner “as long as you keep your religion to yourself and your group, no harm done”. And such was the case for Judaism before the rise of Zionism.

With the advent of Zionism and its colonial ambitions in Palestine, the belief in a chosen people became instrumental to that colonisation. Down to this day, not only does it “inform the policy outlines of Israel” as Levy notes, it fuels and lends cover to those in Israel unafraid to openly use violence, with the aim of making the lives of Palestinians unbearable in the hope they will leave. Invoking God’s is seen as a thin veneer by many of us, but it is sufficiently thick as to provide the cover for most political purposes, particularly among a public – mainly in the West – already conditioned through Christianity to view the myth as God’s true word.

Returning finally to the violent parade of Jewish supremacy, we see who these people really are. Through Zionism, they have taken an otherwise benign, private belief of an ancient religion and turned it into an instrument that can justify violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Can these people be freed from the supremacist clutches of Zionism and redeemed?

That is another matter. First, they must be stopped.

Israel’s Claim to Having the Most Moral Army Does Not Stand Up to Moral Scrutiny

Aside from the inherent subjectivity and potential bias in self-declared moral superiority, there are also very sound philosophical grounds for rejecting any such claim.

[Note: Since writing, the number of Palestinian civilians massacred during the freeing of 4 Israeli captives rose from 100 to 274. Sadly, this makes the arguments below even more pertinent and robust.]

I formulated the following reductio ad absurdum and asked ChatGPT to assess it for logical consistency. Below is an edited version of the interaction. The full, unedited dialogue with ChatGPT is here.

Recently 4 Israelis being held by Hamas were freed by the Israeli army. This came with the loss of more than 100 Palestinian civilians, and injury of hundreds more. Based on this, the following reductio ad absurdum can be formulated:

  1. Israel is the most moral army in the world
  2. Morality consists in avoiding or minimising harm, including death and injury
  3. A moral army would seek to minimise deaths and injuries (From 2)
  4. The identity of those spared death and injury is irrelevant to moral considerations
  5. Therefore Israel is neither the most, nor a moral army.

ChatGPT assessed the reductio and responded: 

"If we accept all premises as true, the conclusion logically follows that Israel, by causing significant harm to Palestinian civilians in the process of freeing its own hostages, cannot be considered the most moral army according to the principles stated. This is because causing over 100 civilian deaths and numerous injuries contradicts the notion of minimizing harm, thereby challenging the initial claim of being the most moral army.
The reductio ad absurdum argument effectively shows a contradiction between the claim of being the most moral army and the observed actions that resulted in significant harm. Therefore, the argument is logically consistent, provided the premises are accepted as true."

However, it did note a caveat in that “the argument’s logical consistency hinges on the acceptance of the premises. (See the full dialogue with ChatGPT here).

So then I asked it to examine the premises in which moral claims are made (specifically 2 and 4) through the lens of prevailing moral theories. Premises 1 and 3 do not require such scrutiny, since 1 is a subjective claim by Israel, and 3 follows from 2, which is under scrutiny anyway.

I asked:
With reference to the most widely agreed upon moral theories, assess if the central premises (2 and 4) stand up to scrutiny when examined through these moral theories.

It examined the central premises “through the lens of the most widely agreed upon moral theories: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and relativism”, and concluded:

Overall, while both premises find significant support in major moral theories, Premise 4 is less universally accepted due to the moral relevance of relationships and specific contexts.

Essentially, it noted that most if not all moral theories do “recognize the moral relevance of relationships and context, which may challenge the idea that the identity of those spared is completely irrelevant” (thus undermining premise 4).

ChatGPT has a point, and though it may have been a worthwhile exercise to try and defend the reductio further, it seemed easier to ask it to come up with a better one, with more robust premises. And so it did.

It first refined the premises so they “hold up more strongly under scrutiny from various moral theories,” and then examined them through the lens of each.

Improved Reductio:

  1. Premise 1: Israel claims to be the most moral army in the world.
  2. Premise 2: A key aspect of morality involves avoiding or minimizing harm, including death and injury, to innocents.
  3. Premise 3: A moral army, therefore, would aim to minimize harm to all civilians, including both their own and the enemy’s civilians, as much as possible (From 2).
  4. Premise 4: The identity of those spared death and injury should be considered secondary to the moral duty of minimizing harm to all civilians.
  5. Premise 5: The actions of the Israeli army in freeing 4 Israelis led to the death of over 100 Palestinian civilians and injury to hundreds more.
  6. Conclusion: Therefore, if the Israeli army’s actions result in a high number of civilian casualties and injuries, it contradicts the claim of being the most moral army, according to the principle of minimizing harm.
This revised argument holds up better under scrutiny from various moral theories and provides a more solid basis for the reductio ad absurdum.

And one must agree.

Common Sense Will Do

However, we did not need the reductio to see the falsity of the Israeli claim. In truth, the inherent unreliability of Israel’s subjective claim to having the most moral army is by itself sufficient grounds to dismiss it as false. What do we think of a friend or acquaintance who considers themselves more moral than everyone else, and goes around saying so? Self-declared claims to any kind of virtue, especially moral heights, should always raise loud alarm bells.

And Just to Make Sure…

Even so, should the common sense approach leave us wanting, there is also a strong supporting philosophical and logical analysis to further roundly refute this preposterous and quite pernicious Israeli hasbara. Under the guise of morality, Israel massacred scores of innocent people in just this latest atrocity, not to mention slaughtered nearly 40,000 Palestinians since Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Both acts are massacres and vile in the eyes of anyone striving to be an enlightened, modern individual wishing to get on well with everyone on this fragile planet. Yet one is moved to call out the Israeli gall in claiming it holds the moral high ground when it can be argued very convincingly that it holds less than Hamas. As one might note also of the entire Zionist enterprise, Israel may have the land, but the moral high ground will forever elude it.

In Russia They Rig Elections. In America They Buy Them

Whilst Russia strong arms voters and fiddles results, in America mega-donors simply buy candidates before they are elected. The sale of American politicians has already proved disastrous for Palestinians.

Global political landscapes differ vastly in the methods used to influence election outcomes. While Russia has gained notoriety for its blatant election rigging, the United States employs a subtler yet equally effective approach: the buying of elections through substantial financial influence. This phenomenon is especially evident in the context of former President Donald Trump’s campaigns, as illustrated by significant donations from influential figures the likes of Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, two people long associated with the Israel lobby.

The Russian Approach: Election Rigging

Russia’s interference in both its own and other nations’ elections is well-documented. The Russian government utilizes media manipulation, cyber-attacks, and direct vote tampering to achieve favorable outcomes. The 2020 U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment confirmed Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections, aiming to undermine public faith in the democratic process. Domestically, Russia’s government exerts control over media and uses state resources to secure the election of preferred candidates (Yahoo)​​ (Politico).

The American Way: Buying Elections

In contrast, the United States witnesses massive financial contributions shaping electoral outcomes. Legal yet controversial, this process raises questions about the integrity and fairness of American democracy. Campaigns require vast amounts of money, leading candidates to cater to the interests of wealthy donors and super PACs (political action committee), potentially sidelining the general electorate.

The Trump Campaign’s Financial Struggles

Former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign highlights the critical role of money in American politics. Despite previous fundraising success, Trump now faces a financial crunch. His campaign raised only $13.8 million in January 2024 while spending more than that amount, driven by escalating legal fees from numerous court cases. This financial strain has made potential donors wary, as they are reluctant to fund a campaign overshadowed by legal controversies (Politico)​.

Adding to Trump’s woes, his main rival, Nikki Haley, has outperformed him in fundraising, collecting nearly $3 million more than Trump’s primary campaign committee in recent months . The diminished cash flow underscores the challenges even a high-profile candidate like Trump faces in maintaining donor enthusiasm without guaranteed returns.

Sheldon Adelson’s Influence

The influence of major donors on U.S. elections is exemplified by Sheldon Adelson’s contributions. In 2016, Adelson donated $20 million to Trump’s campaign with the expectation that Trump would move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump fulfilled this promise in 2018, a move that garnered widespread international condemnation and significantly impacted U.S.-Israel relations .

Miriam Adelson’s Current Stipulations

Following Sheldon Adelson’s death, his widow Miriam Adelson continues to wield considerable influence. She has touted the possibility of a large donation to Trump’s 2024 campaign, but with a significant condition: Trump must support the annexation of the West Bank by Israel. The West Bank has been illegally occupied and colonized by Israel since it invaded that part of Palestine in 1967. Together with the Adelson’s success in transferring the US Embassy to Jerusalem, in violation of international law, this latest demand by Miriam Adelson in return for finance highlights the transactional nature of political donations and the substantial influence donors have on policy decisions.

Big Donors and Their Conditions

Despite early financial difficulties, Trump’s fundraising picked up in the first quarter of 2024, largely due to the support of major Republican donors. Trump’s joint fundraising committee raised $65 million, although this amount still falls short compared to President Joe Biden’s formidable fundraising efforts ​(Politico)​.The reliance on large donors comes with strings attached, influencing campaign strategies and policy priorities, thus potentially skewing the democratic process towards the interests of a wealthy few and, notably, Israel, rather than towards the broader population.

Disastrous Consequences for Palestinians

The political influence exerted by donors like the Adelsons has had significant repercussions, particularly for Palestinians. The move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and potential support for the annexation of the West Bank exacerbates tensions in the region and undermines the prospects for peace. This is to state matters mildly, however. The full potential of such influence is for the creation of a Greater Israel, in which the presence of Palestinians becomes even more precarious that it already is. This raises the spectre of mass killing, ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland on a scale not seen even during the Nakba’s of 1948 and 1967, or even in the current genocide in Gaza. (Democracy Now!)

Should Trump be elected on Adelson’s money and Israel annex the West Bank, not only will American voters be robbed of their right to choose who leads them, the way will be open for Israel to commit its final crime against humanity in an effort to create a pure Jewish state.

Sources

  1. NY1. Trump faces financial crunch in 2024 campaign. NY1
  2. Politico. Trump fundraising picks up, with help from big donors. Politico
  3. U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment. Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections. Intelligence Community Assessment
  4. BBC News. Trump moves US embassy to Jerusalem. BBC
  5. The New York Times. Sheldon Adelson, Mega-Donor to GOP and Israel, Is Dead at 87. NYT
  6. The Times of Israel. Miriam Adelson hints at further political donations. Times of Israel
  7. Haaretz. Trump is desperate for cash, but donors have conditions. Haaretz
  8. Democracy Now!: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza. Democracy Now!
Article Information

This articles is an edited version of text generated by ChatGPT. It was edited and approved by a human editor.

Initial prompt:
– Write a blog piece based on the title: “In Russia they rig elections. In America they buy them.” Reference this article for starter information: Trump is desperate for cash, but donors have conditions. Haaretz. –