If you listen to Israelis and their defenders, everything is the fault of the Palestinians. According to this narrative, they rejected a “generous” offer of 44% of their land in 1948 and have since rejected all overtures from an Israel eager for peace and coexistence. They allegedly resist unreasonably, irrationally, and violently against Israel’s settlement of the land that was offered to them, which they could have had for a state if they had not continued to reject peace proposals.
This narrative insists that the death and destruction we see is all due to the Palestinians. Israel, with what it claims to be the world’s most moral army, would never harm anyone unless it was absolutely necessary. Recent events, such as the October 7 attacks and the ongoing military actions in Gaza, are framed as reluctant but necessary measures against the intransigent Palestinians.
Yet, the reality is starkly different. Israel is armed to the teeth and enjoys the support of the most powerful nations on Earth in terms of financial aid, weapons, political backing, and UN vetoes. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have no military to speak of, only small arms and improvised rockets. They live under occupation, with their movements restricted, their lands steadily encroached upon by illegal settlements, and their people subject to harassment, arrest, and torture.
The Mouse and the Hippopotamus
Once upon a time, there was a village where the inhabitants lived happily and peacefully. One morning, the villagers woke to find one of their valuable food stores broken into and trampled. As they stood pondering what happened, they noticed footprints on either side of the ruins: on one side, the tiny prints of a mouse; on the other, the massive imprints of a hippopotamus.
This story serves as a metaphor for the current situation in Gaza and more broadly for the entire 76 years of conflict since Israel was created. Any rational and honest observer would conclude the hippopotamus is the culprit. Yet astoundingly, we are expected to believe it was the mouse.
In a recent press conference with the German Chancellor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Hamas as the “new Nazis”. But consider this: a people confined in what many have called the world’s largest open-air prison, denied basic necessities like food, water, fuel, and medicine, and lacking any significant military capability, are compared to one of history’s most infamous regimes. And all this while they are subjected to bombardment by one of the most advanced militaries in the world. But as renowned journalist Chris Hedges aptly observes, “Think about that. A people, imprisoned in the world’s largest concentration camp for 16 years, denied food, water, fuel, and medicine, lacking an army, air force, navy, mechanized units, artillery, command and control and missile batteries is being butchered and starved by one of the most advanced militaries on the planet, and they are the Nazis?” (Chris Hedges: The Genocide in Gaza).
To further highlight Netanyahu’s moral and rational dislocation, we must call upon the great Chico Marx when he humorously quipped: who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes? Obviously, says Netanyahu, it was the Nazi mouse!
The UK has recently witnessed a surge of violence and unrest following the tragic murder of three young girls by a young man later identified as black. Prior to his identification, far-right extremists seized upon the incident to stoke racial tensions, falsely portraying the perpetrator as a Muslim asylum seeker. In reality, the youth, is of Rwandan Christian heritage and was born in the UK. The ensuing riots, fuelled by misinformation and racial animosity, have led to widespread property damage, confrontations with law enforcement and hundreds of arrests.
Amidst this chaos, Sir Tom Windsor, former Chief Inspector of the Constabulary, has made controversial remarks condemning the rioters, labelling them as individuals of “low intelligence and even lower morality.” (Speaking to Mishaal Hussein, PM, Radio 4, 5 Aug 2024). While his remarks might be seen as harsh, Sir Tom paints a vivid picture of the rioters—individuals who seem to fit the classic mould of murderous, malodorous thugs, swilling beer and spewing racism as they hurl missiles, set fire to libraries and hotels, and attack anyone who is black, looks like a Muslim, or appears remotely foreign.
No one should be outraged by Sir Tom’s estimation. To all appearances, the rioters are brutes—or at best, beasts of the field with language. However, the interesting question is, how did they end up like this? After all, they share the same human form as Sir Tom. Are they, by some divine or natural decree, inherently inferior to the esteemed knight, incapable of the knowledge and moral principles that would make them civil beings like himself?
To unpack this question, rather than focusing solely on how the “brutes” behave, perhaps we should examine how they are forced to live. Do they earn a decent wage to buy decent food? Do they live in housing and streets that are not only decent but well-kept, safe, calm, and aesthetically pleasing? Do they enjoy robust educational and healthcare systems free of private exploitation? Do they attend schools that are pleasant green spaces, nurturing minds to love beauty and care for others and their environment? Are they taught that those who seek asylum here would not endanger themselves if they, too, lived in an equitable world that did not hoard opportunity and plunder wealth?
Surely intelligent Sir Tom would know all this. If society forces people to live like brutes while possessing every means to allow them to live well, should it be surprised when they behave like brutes?
Of course, individual agency and responsibility must be considered. Indeed, most people, even when facing unfair disadvantage and harsh conditions, do not immediately resort to brutish behaviour and may even become more humane, as seen among those who aided mosque-goers and helped clean up in the aftermath. Nonetheless, society cannot demand its citizens be saints while treating them like brutes, forcing them to choose between “eating or heating,” begging from food banks, and taking the lowliest jobs for the lowest pay, assuming there is work to be found. Society’s immediate concern should be cohesion and equity based on peace, law, order, and prosperity—not the morality of the citizen. Although, it also goes without saying, society should never act in a way that undermines individual morality.
Bestowed with this responsibility for societal cohesion and equity, those who govern must ensure that conditions for fulfilling this mission are met. In The Republic, which is not known for its progressive, egalitarian views on social justice, Plato nonetheless acknowledges that those with sufficient means are discouraged from errant behaviour. “What has been the value of your wealth?” Socrates asks a wealthy Athenian named Cephalous. “That I have not needed to do those things that are considered against the law so as to live a good life,” answers Cephalous. Even 2,500 years ago, it was understood that sufficient means to live well, with all needs met and perhaps a little more, while not a guarantee against errant behaviour, is nonetheless the best way to minimize it.
Ideally, the means to resist errant or brutish behaviour should reside morally within the individual. But in reality, some may not muster the moral resources to always remain civil because, unlike Sir Tom, not all have had the privilege (at some point, at least) to develop them. Certainly, some by nature may be inclined to be moral to the last. Others, however, may reach their limit sooner. And some may even decide to put their morality aside in the face of perceived injustices.
Except for alleged saints and rare individuals such as Gandhi and Mandela, moral integrity in the face of injustice is not an infinite and inexhaustible resource. In recognition of this, society’s responsibility, given to it by the citizen, is to provide the means that support the moral integrity of the individual—not to condemn the individual as irredeemably and solely responsible for their moral degradation.
Perhaps the ideal of true social justice will never be realized. But let it be known to Sir Tom that those unintelligent, immoral brutes among us are not destined to be so by birth but are nurtured by the very system that now condemns them.
So if we are to talk about intelligence and morality, surely the knights, lords, politicians, and captains of industry—honoured no doubt for their intelligence and moral integrity—must bear a greater responsibility for the breakdown of society than those actually breaking it down.
In science, finding solutions means getting to the bottom layers of reality. In society and politics, which are anything but scientific, it means going straight to the top.
Creating a comprehensive directory, to amplify Jewish Anti-Zionist Voices in solidarity with Palestinians, will bring to the fore the vast landscape of Jewish dissent and opposition to Israel. The full power of this voice is currently unheard because there are efforts to exclude it from the mainstream media.
It is more than arguable that the Jewish anti-Zionist voice is among the most powerful voices advocating for Palestinian rights and coexistence. In many cases this voice unreservedly condemns Israel as an apartheid and genocidal state, even calling for an end to Israel and restoration of Palestine as a land for all the people between the river and the sea.
Such is the unambiguous message of Meital Yaniv, a former Israeli soldier speaking in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. Yaniv’s activism is directed at “bringing the Israeli identity and Israeli state to a loving and caring death, for the liberation of the land of Palestine”. It is notable that Goodman herself is Jewish and for decades has tirelessly given a strong voice to the Palestinian struggle.
A similar sentiment to Yaniv’s was also recently voiced by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe during a presentation in London of his new book, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic. “I hope for the end of Israel and the creation of a free Palestine from the river to the sea,” said Professor Pappe, sitting alongside friend and veteran Palestinian activist Professor Ghada Karmi, as well as other Palestinians and anti-Zionist Jews.
The Jewish anti-Zionist voice is an indispensable part of the struggle. It is key to arriving at an eventual critical mass of Jews who reject Zionism, shun Apartheid Israel, stand with Palestinians, and embrace a shared one state future. Without this critical mass it is arguable the struggle will likely never end.
Over the past 10 months the number of Jews speaking up and standing with Palestinians has been very notable on social media – TikTok and YouTube in particular. It is a source of immense encouragement and hope. Yet these individuals and organisations receive little mainstream media attention on networks such as the BBC, CNN, MSNBC and others – except in instances when ignoring their activism would ironically draw more attention to it. For example, there was brief mainstream media coverage when Jewish Voice for Peace occupied the Capitol in Washington and Grand Central Station in New York, events that would be difficult to ignore even for pro-Israel media.
However, even when attention is paid to Jewish anti-Zionist voices, the coverage is scant, fleeting or sidelined. To discover the vast and rich commentary by Jewish anti-Zionists one must be forwarded a link or search social media and the alternative press. Although, to do even this, one must know that it exists in the first place, which for many people is a discovery still to be made.
Despite this, and despite the high price paid in attacks on them by their own community – of allegedly being self-hating Jews and even anti-Semitic – the fact remains that anti-Zionist Jews are many and increasing.
But the readiness and willingness of Jews to speak out is only half the story. There is also a great public hunger to hear them. Daniel Maté, an acclaimed Jewish Canadian composer-lyricist and anti-Zionist, recounts how for the first few months after October 7 he was “blown away by the positive feedback and the gratitude and thanks. People were hungry, especially and inordinately, for Jewish voices.” Maté, who has an impressive count of YouTube videos discussing the Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing currently taking place in Gaza and the West Bank, also co-hosts YouTube channel Bad Hasbarawith fellow Jewish anti-Zionist Matt Lieb. Yet, though they and other anti-Zionist Jews receive many views and likes, their reach is far from their full potential.
The bottom line is that there is both a healthy supply of Jewish anti-Zionist voices and a large and growing demand to hear them. The problem is that the two currently lack a “meeting place” where they can connect.
In light of this, it would seem a good idea for Jewish anti-Zionists, as well as Palestinians and their supporters, to vigorously promote the Jewish anti-Zionist voice, not only to the general public, but to Jews yet to explicitly reject Zionism. This would be greatly assisted if there were to be a central space for Jewish anti-Zionist voices, a town square so to speak, serving as both source and focus of the promotional effort. This would clearly be internet based, in the form a central directory or hub, hosting and linking to all Jewish anti-Zionist commentary and activism, including a voluntary listing of all Jewish anti-Zionist individuals and organisations.
This approach would be particularly effective with the wider undecided or institutionally pro-Israel public. Arguing from a purely Palestinian perspective of being victims of Israeli injustice already raises defences among those little informed on the subject, simply because there is an unspoken awareness that criticising Israel could land you in trouble – among work colleagues, fellow students and even family ignorant of the facts. However, this cautionary fear often lifts when the criticism comes from the mouths of Jews.
A central directory of anti-Zionist Jewish voices would have great potential when lobbying businesses to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), providing relevant links to anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organisations who explicitly support BDS.
Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking a central directory would be of any use generally. However, what I can say is that I frequently have the need to quickly find content by anti-Zionist Jews when writing a blog piece, working on an essay or trying to complete a futuristic novel on Palestine, to say nothing of content to send to friends and associates, some of who still cling to the idea that criticising Israel to strongly is fraught with danger.
Powerful and moving personal testimony by an American Jewish woman of her experiences of visiting occupied Palestine.
To help leverage the power of the Jewish voice and interweave it as one with the Palestinian voice, a panorama of the Jewish anti-Zionist landscape is therefore essential. Yet aside from a short list of Jewish anti-Zionist organisations on Wikipedia, there currently appears to be no central resource that lists and perhaps also hosts all actors in the global Jewish anti-Zionist movement.
It would therefore seem worthwhile to explore the creation of an internet directory of the global Jewish anti-Zionist voice, from spontaneous personal testimonies posted on social media, interviews with ex-military and refusenik Israeli activists, to celebrities, scholars, legal experts, journalists, NGOs and organisations of any size and anywhere, of which there are many thousands.
As mentioned, currently Jewish anti-Zionist voices, though strong and widespread, receive exposure mostly through alternative media or people stumbling on them. Consolidation is required to raise their visibility and ease of reach, to serve both as a testament to Jewish support for Palestinians and a ready resource for activists. Moreover, such a united body would be difficult for journalists and the mainstream media to sideline and ignore. In fact, it may give BBC and CNN journalists – currently fearful of being smeared as anti-Semitic – the courage to begin reporting honestly.
At the same time, Palestinians need to raise their own voices to reaffirm to Jews yet to become anti-Zionist that the struggle is not against Jews or even Israel as such, but against Zionism and Israel as it currently stands as a Zionist creation. Palestinians need to more visibly stand with Jews against real anti-Semitism, reassuring them of their sincerity towards co-existence in an integrated region, where Jews may live and move freely throughout the Arab world as they had done for centuries prior to the imposition of Israel; and that the Jewish homeland is where it has always been, between the river and the sea. Resistance to Zionism does not in any way preclude Palestine being the homeland of Jews as much as it is of Palestinians; only that it cannot be an exclusively Jewish nation state and, as many Zionists currently would like to see, an exclusively Jewish land.
ChatGPT Assessment of the Proposal for a Centralised Directory of Jewish Anti-Zionist Voices
Creating a centralized directory of Jewish anti-Zionist voices could potentially be a beneficial project, but its success and impact would depend on several factors:
Realism and Feasibility
Technical Feasibility: Setting up a centralized directory on the internet is technically feasible. It would require a robust platform with a user-friendly interface to organize and present the content effectively. Maintenance and security measures would also be essential to ensure the directory remains accessible and secure from cyber attacks.
Content and Contributions: Gathering contributions from a diverse array of Jewish anti-Zionist voices, including personal testimonies, interviews, and scholarly articles, is crucial. This would require significant outreach efforts to ensure that voices from different regions and backgrounds are included.
Funding and Resources: Adequate funding would be necessary to support the creation, maintenance, and promotion of the directory. This could involve seeking donations, grants, or partnerships with organizations that align with the directory’s goals.
Political and Social Challenges: The project might face resistance from Zionist groups or individuals who view it as a threat to their narratives. This could lead to public criticism or attempts to discredit the directory, which would need to be addressed with careful public relations strategies.
Potential Benefits
Visibility and Awareness: A centralized directory would make it easier for people to find and access Jewish anti-Zionist voices, potentially increasing their visibility and influence in the public discourse.
Solidarity and Support: The directory could help build solidarity between Jewish anti-Zionists and Palestinian activists by showcasing shared values and goals, potentially strengthening the movement for Palestinian rights.
Resource for Activists: Providing a comprehensive resource for activists could enhance their ability to educate others and advocate for Palestinian rights, using Jewish anti-Zionist perspectives to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions.
Media and Public Attention: A well-publicized directory might attract media attention, encouraging more journalists to cover Jewish anti-Zionist perspectives and amplifying their impact.
Challenges and Considerations
Perceptions and Misinterpretations: The project might be misunderstood as being anti-Semitic, so it would be crucial to clearly communicate that the focus is on opposition to Zionism as a political ideology, not on Judaism as a religion or Jews as a people.
Diverse Opinions Within Anti-Zionism: The directory would need to accommodate a range of views within the Jewish anti-Zionist community, which can be diverse and sometimes conflicting. Managing this diversity would be key to maintaining credibility and relevance.
Measuring Impact: Assessing the impact of the directory on the Palestinian cause would require ongoing evaluation, including feedback from users and stakeholders, to ensure it effectively supports the intended goals.
In summary, while the creation of a centralized directory of Jewish anti-Zionist voices is a realistic and potentially beneficial project, it would require careful planning, sufficient resources, and strategic communication to overcome challenges and achieve its goals. If executed well, it could significantly contribute to raising awareness and fostering solidarity in support of Palestinian rights.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Richard Falk: The former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights has described Israeli policies as apartheid. Richard Falk article (Word Doc)
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!).
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.
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.