There is a new virus that has been spreading all over the world. It is called Israel Derangement Syndrome. It is especially virulent at prestigious university campuses, newsrooms and left-wing political parties the world over. It consists of simply being unable to see any merit in the Israeli side in its present battle with Hamas, and also, to see any fault with the latter group of terrorists. As early as October 8, 2023, one day after one of the worst, most vicious attacks on civilians in all of history, those afflicted with IDS were blaming the victims.

Consider trying to show someone suffering from IDS the error of his ways. If you show him pictures, he'll claim they're fake; show him videos, he'll claim they are created by AI; show him testimonies, he'll say they are lies; show him documents, he'll claim they are fabricated; show him audio, he'll claim they are hoaxes; show him historical facts, he'll claim they never happened or are lies; show him the videos uploaded by Hamas assassins themselves, he'll claim that Israelis died of "friendly fire" anyway; show him that even if Israelis died as a result of "friendly fire", this was in the course of eliminating the Hamas invaders and as a consequence of Hamas genocidal invasion, he'll claim that in fact it was all a false flag because the border "could not have been easily overcome by Hamas" (paraphrase); show him that Hamas indeed prepared for the attack and launched its operation motivated by what they themselves say in their own Charter, he'll claim that the Charter changed; show him that the Charter really never changed, he'll claim that Hamas in fact was created by Israel; show him that Hamas was created by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and is funded by Qatar, Iran and Turkey, he'll claim that Hamas is the result of Israeli "occupation"; show him that the intent to destroy Israel preceded Israeli control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, he'll claim that it all began in 1948 with the ethnic cleansing of Arabs; show him that there was no ethnic cleansing of Arabs in 1948 and that the Arabs who left (most of them due to fear) or were displaced while the ongoing fighting during the War of Independence did so as a result of the war the Arab states themselves launched, he'll claim that Arabs were dispossessed before the creation of Israel and that created the animosity against Jews; show him that Jews were attacked by Arabs in the preceding decades even before the creation of the state of Israel, he'll claim again that this was due to dispossession; show him that Arabs sold land to Jews and Jews homesteaded a part of the land, he'll claim that Arabs owned most of the land anyway; show him that Arabs did not own most of the land, that a great part of that which was regarded as Arab land was considered "uncultivable" and hence unhomesteaded and illegitimately owned actually as government concessions, and that most of the land was really owned by the government (Ottoman or British), he'll claim that the Jews had no right to any land in any case and that the land was "Arab" anyway; etc. etc. etc.

In other words, it is impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. No evidence could be shown to those who are not willing to look at it in the first place. He already knows that Israel and Jews are to blame and that no good can come from Jews and no bad can come from Israel's enemies since Israel is the source of all evil.

The motto of those afflicted with IDS might well be, "Don't confuse me with the facts." Or, "No matter what has happened, Israel is in the wrong." Or, "No matter what are the facts, Israel is a colonist, racist, genocidal, western, evil country, unmatched by any other in all of human history."

How is a rational person to deal with someone under the influence of Israel Derangement Syndrome? One possibility: don't waste your time with such a person. Another is to keep on trying since this issue is so important, not only to Israel but to all civilized people. If Hamas can get away with its depredations, no civilized people are safe. Perhaps IDS can be overcome with patience and generosity despite the foregoing considerations.

We doubt it because IDS, as the Anti-Zionist mentality in general, is not motivated by reason but by hate. In any case, truth will eventually prevail.

The post Irrationally anti-Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Where are Jews physically more safe? In Israel or in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy? The answer that jumps out at most people, Jewish or not, is that the former answer is correct. Exhibit A in this regard is the fact that Germany was once upon a time, before the rise of Hitler, precisely a cosmopolitan liberal democracy (the Fuhrer took power not as the result of a coup, but on the basis of a free and fair election).

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

However, this thesis must confront a very powerful objection. That goes as follows:

"On the basis of pure empirical evidence, there are serious doubts about the argument that Jews can be safe only in a Jewish state, never in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy. On a per capita basis, which Jewish communities have had a higher rate of violent death since 1948: those in the US, Canada, UK, Western Europe, etc., or those in Israel? Any bets going forward?

"Nor can it seriously be maintained that for a few hours, in the immediate aftermath of the brutality of October 7, 2003, we saw with utmost clarity what it means to be Jewish without Israel, and especially without the Israel Defense Forces. Actually, we saw precisely what it means to be Jewish in Israel, and with the IDF having responsibility for Jewish safety. It was hardly comforting. Au contraire, there is a lot to be said for the safety of Jews not in Israel, but in the underappreciated cosmopolitan liberal democracies."

We must concede at the outset that we would lose our shirts if we took that specific bet. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but in the present case, the statistics do not lie. Despite the present outbreak of anti-Semitism seemingly worldwide, many fewer Jews have been murdered in places like the US, Canada, Britain, Japan, and  Australia in the last little while, either absolutely or relatively.

We would also lose the wager if we chose Jewish deaths in Israel vis a vis those in Germany right before Hitler came to power.

However, Israel is like an insurance policy for Jews. If things get too rough "in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy" like Germany was for a long time, we can at least potentially always access our bolt hole. It is thus very nice indeed to have one such, even perched in the midst of many enemies in the Middle East.

Speaking of wagers, we bet that the author of this objection lost many annual fees by purchasing fire insurance for his home. We assume that his house never actually burned down. But, still, it was nice to be insured, right?

If the claim was "that Jews can be safe ONLY in a Jewish state" for ALL times and places, we would obviously be wrong. But that is not at all the contention of the Jews who look to Israel for safety, despite recent statistics lending support to the cosmopolitan liberal democracy thesis.

Also, for many years, Israeli politicians have released thousands of Arab Palestinian criminals in return for a very few captive Jews. One of the present Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, is a case in point. Before this recent despicable attack on the part of these terrorists, the response to provocations of the IDF was far less harsh than justified. If they had been a bit tougher, ok, ok, a lot tougher, there would have been many fewer Jewish deaths in Israel.

Regarding protection against fires, continues the objection, "such insurance would have to take into account of correlated risks. Fire insurance is hard to obtain in Berkeley Hills, California and soon may be impossible, because if one house burns, they all will. In a hypothetical world in which the United States and Europe resemble Nazi Germany, they presumably would also withdraw all support from a Jewish state, and might even support its attackers. In that world, how safe would Jews be in Israel?"

Of course, not very safe. However, that is not the proper comparison. Rather, it should be phrased in this way: Given Nazification almost everywhere, would the Jews be safer with or without the existence of Israel? When put in such terms, the answer is obvious: with Israel, thank you very much. The IDF is reputed to be one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It could make a credible threat to all of these others all of them put together: Sure, they could conquer Israel. But if they do, it would not be that easy. Israel would fight back with everything it had.  Without the existence of this nation, no such threat could even come close to being made.

Further, it is not the case that Jews cannot live a decent and secure life in the liberal West (this is certainly so), but it is that Israel guarantees that they will not have to outsource their ultimate safety to these societies. As in the 1938 Evian conference, where Chaim Weizmann explained that the world was divided between countries where Jews could not live and those where Jews could not enter. Israel is not only a safe haven but also a concrete political entity which defends Jewish communities in the Diaspora as a matter of foreign policy. In this respect, both things are true: Liberal democracies are essential for Jewish communities existing in the Diaspora, and, also, Israel is essential for Jews to be respected as human beings with a right to exist at all, whether the former fail or not.

In other words, the relevant comparison is not between Jews living in Israel and Jews living in enlightened liberal societies, but between Jews living in Israel and Jews living in any kind of non-Jewish society. This is applicable to Venezuela, Ira,q, or Nazi Germany. In whatever world Israel doesn't exist, and liberal society fails (Nazy Germany), or cannot be restored (Venezuela,) or never existed (Iraq), Jews are ultimately doomed. So, it is not the case that Jews are just better off in a liberal society as such, but they are much better off in a liberal society with Israel existing as well.

Also, this objection is a bit tautological. This is so because, as long as we are talking about a liberal society, it is expected that Jews, as other minorities, will not be persecuted. But the countries mentioned were liberal democracies (for instance, in Western Europe) at the beginning of the 20th century and these fell. The Holocaust was the result (with Israel non-existent at the time). The tautology comes from the claim that these were precisely not liberal democracies. So, liberal democracies are better, and if these disappear, it was not liberal democracies that failed but society as such that did. Hence, liberal democracies would always be better positioned compared to the Jewish state as a less deadly scenario, on a per capita basis. But the entire point is: What happens when and if liberal democracies disappear? All things considered, the numbers would change. Take, for instance, what would happen if Islamists increased their influence in Europe. Jews are not safe there even now, so their position would become even more precarious then.

Regarding the IDF, there is no dispute. This is why Israel would not be able to serve its purpose if it becomes a binational state. Israel is the IDF. Israel is Jews having the capacity to defend themselves. The short period of 10 hours when the army failed is what shows what Israel's essence really is and why in its absence Jews are fundamentally doomed. The location (of Israel) is irrelevant, what is relevant is its position of power.

To put it differently (akin to a Biblical expression), weakness is an abomination. The purpose of Israel is to be the opposite: Jewish strength. Not to inflict damage on others, but to exercise that which cannot be exercised in the absence of a (functioning) army: self-defense.

It cannot be denied that enlightened liberal democracies are proper, rational, and fundamentally human political systems worth fighting for to guarantee human flourishing (Jewish and non-Jewish alike). However, this does not refute the fact that there is also a Jewish need for the existence of Israel. More so, because it is a liberal democracy itself. It performs both functions: it defends Jews and allows for human flourishing and respect for individual rights.

Consider the situation of Jews in 1938 in Germany.  Then, the entire world rejected u and condemned some 1/3 of our people to be slaughtered. As the Evian example shows, by then, the world was divided between countries where Jews could not live and countries where Jews could not enter. Would Israel have been a refuge if it were in existence at the time? Of course, as it was for the nearly half a million Jews who were in Palestine then. Many more could have been saved were it not for the British white papers thwarting immigration.

In other words, even in a Nazi world, Israel makes sense, as it is the ultimate line of defense for us. On the other hand, what could Jews expect outside of Israel in that scenario? Europe of 1939-1945.

Any possible or thinkable world seems to support the necessity of a Jewish State for the very survival of Jews.

Perhaps the critic sees this scenario as involving not primarily defending enlightened liberal democracies, but we can have our cake and eat it too: Both Israel and liberal democracies could and should be defended for the same reasons. Israel is a liberal democracy.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Where would Jews be safest? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the 1940s, philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel proposed the so-called "raven paradox." The hypothesis that "all ravens are black", or that if "something is a raven, then it is black," is the same as saying that "if something is not black, then it is not a raven." The paradox arises because if someone sees something that is not black, not only can he conclude that it is not a raven, but also reinforce the original hypothesis that all ravens are black. Hence, any observation of any non-black entity confirms the latter.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The anti-Zionist mental process shares the same structure. Hence, its fundamental proposition is: "Israel is the source of all evil." Hence, it is not only the case that when something good is done by Israel (for instance, helping during a natural disaster in Haiti) it in fact has nefarious intentions (such as stealing the organs of those affected by the disaster), but Israel cannot do good. Conversely, when evil appears anywhere in the world, it is only logical that Israel is behind it. Of course, this is nothing less than the same "Logic" that was once applied to the Jews and is now applied to the Jewish state. By the way, this is the same logical structure of conspiracy theories, whose proponents cannot help but see them everywhere.

As an example, see no further than the explosion outside of the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. Of course, mainstream media, reputed human rights NGOs, social media commentators, and protesters who follow the anti-Zionist logic had no choice but to preemptively conclude: Israel did it. Because how could it not? And thus, it was only logical that they take Hamas' word at face value. Obviously, they did not correct themselves once it was clear that Palestinian Islamic Jihad was responsible. If Israel was not behind it, then something must be wrong with reality.

This tautological mental mechanics not only explains the reasoning behind Hamas' original charter, blaming the Jews and Israel for every evil but also the massive parades we are seeing throughout the West. It also explains why "social justice warriors" are tearing down posters of those who have been kidnapped by Hamas and are now being held hostage in Gaza. They are not innocent; how could they be? If they are Israeli, if they were captured by Hamas which by definition can do no wrong, they deserve what they got.

Conversely, this perverse reasoning explains why Hamas assassins are being championed as "freedom fighters," although they could not care less about any freedom, either for Israelis or Palestinian Arabs. If they are killing, raping, torturing, burning Israelis, then they are doing the Lord's work by destroying evil in the world. Moreover, Palestinian Arabs have no agency, but Jews have all the blame, even when it is they who are murdered.

But it does not end there. This same fallacious reasoning is behind the entire logic of intersectionality, colonialism, and the "oppressor-oppressed" narrative. Any group in the world that is identified as oppressed is therefore connected to each and every other such oppressed group. Why? Because if the fundamental premise explaining the logic of how society works is that there is a group that oppresses all the rest, then it is only logical that whenever a group identified as oppressed appears, it is therefore an ally of all the other oppressed groups. Who is the oppressor? Well, in this case, Israel (or, for Hamas, Jews as such). This is why BLM says that "Black Liberation" is "Palestinian Liberation," or why there are "Queers for Palestine" (when the only LGBTQ+ people that Hamas approves of are the ones who are dead). Or why Greta Thunberg associates "Free Palestine" with "Climate Justice." It is always and ever the "Small Satan," Israel, or the "Big Satan," the US, that is at fault.

The other important implication of this type of reasoning is that it is immune to evidence. It does not matter that most Palestinian Arabs are under the civil and security control of either the PA in Judea and Samaria or Hamas in Gaza, Israel is an "occupier" that controls them. It is irrelevant that goods and people flowed in and out of Gaza before October 7, there still was a "blockade." It is of no importance that Israeli "settlements" in Gaza were forcibly dismantled by Israel itself in 2005, but that country is "stealing Palestinian land." If the Palestinian Arab population increases several times since 1948, Israel is "committing genocide" anyway. If 20% of Israel's population is Arab with full rights, Israel is still founded on "ethnic cleansing" and enforces an "Apartheid regime." If Israel defends itself, it is in fact the "aggressor." This is nothing less than a perverted version of Orwellian newspeak.

Conversely, Palestinian Arabs cannot commit any evil, ever. By their very nature as the "oppressed," they are entitled to rape, murder, burn alive, massacre, launch rockets, and all is forgiven, for they are fighting evil incarnate. This is what explains that human rights groups, the UN, or certain governments (or University presidents, for that matter), cannot simply condemn the horrors of October 7. They are all bewitched by this anti-Zionist mental mechanics.

This is also why feminists approve of the raping of women, democrats support totalitarians, atheists share parades with Islamists, human rights groups condone torture, LGBTQ+ members and their allies chant next to homophobes, and sophisticated Ivy League students "contextualize" mass murder.

This tautological mentality is also a form of pathological narcissism. The unfalsifiable nature of the anti-Zionist reasoning assures that any observation confirms its truth. This is why the self-righteous woke protestors at university campuses across America and rallies throughout the West are so sure that their support for genocidal theocrats is a form of the good. They cannot but see it everywhere. In reality, there is only death and destruction.

But this only begins with Israel and the Jews. It will not end there. To borrow a concept by Professor Gad Saad, this type of parasitic mind must be recognized and fought. This must be done before it is too late and this radical form of unreason ends up destroying everything, including those who in their narcissism and comfortable Western campus think they are freeing the oppressed, when in truth they are aiding and abetting the enemies of civilization.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The post The mental mechanics of anti-Zionism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many people thought that antisemitism was all but a thing of the past. Oh, well, yes, out there in the fever swamps of extremism, it still lurked; this could be acknowledged. The white supremacists of the right and the woke cultural Marxists of the left still basked in this evil. But, surely, among moderates, any such viewpoint is summarily dismissed. (Who says that the proper political spectrum is a straight line? Perhaps it is more of a circle, where the two supposedly opposite philosophies meet, albeit in some cases for different reasons.)

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

But this view was smashed not on October 7, 2023, a day of mourning in Israel. On the very next day, even before the IDF had begun to take any defensive reaction to this despicable savagery, so called mainstreamers had by then come to the conclusion that the mass murders, mass rapes, were all the fault of the victims. To demonstrate their hatred for Jews in general, and Israelis in particular, they began tearing down pictures of the some 250 hostages seized in Israel on that day of infamy.

No, no, antisemitism is not, only, a phenomenon of the political extremes. It lies just beneath the surface in the hearts and minds of all too many "moderates" in the "civilized" west, as well as all around the planet.

There is a very specific form of nihilism that accounts for this spectacle of Jew hatred. It is no coincidence that these Anti-Zionists are in the same line of thought of Noam Chomsky on foreign policy, where the fundamental axiom is that the US government is the source of all evil; it is the Big Satan for helping Israel, which is the Little Satan.

These people do not want to promote human flourishing or liberty. They want to see everything burn that is connected to Judaism. They don't oppose the state Israel for their love of peaceful human cooperation, but because they are full of hatred.

In this particular case, they simply don't care what would happen if Israel disappears. They don't care that the Middle East is full of theocratic totalitarian dictatorships. The only way for them to legitimize denouncing these regimes is if they could blame the US government (or Israel) by doing so. Otherwise, they just don't care. For these people, nobody seems to have agency but Americans, Israelis and the US government. Everyone else, including genocidal maniacs, are somehow determined to be as they are and therefore have no responsibility for anything they do. Hamas is innocent; Israel is guilty.

Moreover, they say they oppose war. In reality, they side with anyone who is willing to wage war against Israel. And if these countries are not involved, they simply don't care. A dictatorship is a war waged by a government against its people. That is what Iran does, or what Hamas does in Gaza. That, these people cannot see. But if Israel is not involved, somehow they don't care, or it's simply not a priority for them. Fundamentally, they hate.

And when evil is obviously on the side of Israel's enemies, such as with Hamas, they blame Israel anyway. How? They claim that "Israel created Hamas." This is a completely absurd statement, given that this Muslim Brotherhood organization was financed and supported by Iran, Qatar, Turkey and Hizballah. "But Israel allowed money to flow into Gaza from Qatar"? Yes, because the alternative would have been to do what Israel is doing now. Reluctantly tolerating Hamas because you have a bigger enemy (as the PLO in the 80's) or to allow for this terrorist organization to receive funding because the alternative is to wage total war against it (as Israel is doing now), does not equal "creating Hamas." Moreover, the cement and pipes were meant for peaceful purposes, not for tunnels and rocket launching pads. But they don't like that either. So, damn Israel if it tolerates Hamas, damn Israel if it fights Hamas.

Moreover, there is a relevant aspect of the phenomenon of Judeophobia or antisemitism that is often ignored. This is not a phenomenon of discrimination, but of demonization. The antisemite regards Jews as evil incarnate, so no explanation, no defense, makes sense to him. This is why all is permitted against the Jews and no defense is legitimate when undertaken by the Jews.

This is why the Anti-Zionist types, and the like, don't even want to deal with arguments in favor of Israel. They see Israel as fundamentally evil. Nor is this a phenomenon of supposed land theft, or the evils of the state of Israel. There were anti-Jewish pogroms committed by Arabs long before either of these came to allegedly pass. Hebron in 1929 anyone?

These are people full of hatred who criticize everything, not to build or to defend that which is the real expression of human flourishing in reality. Just read what these people say on every topic, do they cherish any achievement of real human beings on earth? Do they appreciate that Israel treats its Arab citizens far better than their counterparts are dealt with in Arab countries? No. Do they realize that there are gay parades in Israel, while homosexuals are tossed off roofs in Arab countries? Of course not. Do the feminist organizations in the west cry out against the mass rapes committed by Hamas? To ask this is to answer it.

Yes, there are claims that the Jews have taken over land properly owned by Palestinians. To deal with this fallacious viewpoint, would take an entire book. As it happens, we have written one that undermines that precise assertion: Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021. The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. With commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu. Springer Publishing Company; https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Oct. 7 shows that antisemitism is mainstream appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many people, the world over, are appalled by what is taking place in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombing of that territory. For example, states United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres "Amid Increasingly Dire Humanitarian Situation in Gaza, Hamas Attacks Cannot Justify Collective Punishment of Palestinian People." According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "Israel's attacks on Gaza refugee camp may amount to war crimes." Amnesty International maintains that there is "Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza." Not to be outdone, former US president Barack Obama said this: "Already, thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, many of them children. Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. The Israeli government's decision to cut off food, water, and electricity to a captive civilian population threatens not only to worsen a growing humanitarian crisis…" In the view Al-Jazeera: "From South Africa to Norway, the Middle East to Southeast Asia, calls for an end to the siege of Gaza are growing."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

It is uncivilized to inflict collateral damage upon innocent people after the losing side in a war has surrendered. And, indeed, there are many innocents now located in Gaza, contrary to the views of some commentators.

Did the US drop a third atom bomb on Japan after that government admitted defeat to the Allies? Of course not. The US was way too civilized to do any such thing. In a similar manner, there was a total cessation of damage inflicted upon Germany after that country capitulated to the Americans, British, French, and their allies.

So, why, then, does Israel continue its operations in Gaza, despite the consequences in this area?

It is simple. Hamas has not yet surrendered (and released all of its hostages, not merely a portion of them). Let us repeat that statement since it seems to have escaped notice of all those who complain about Israel's "disproportionate and improper punishment of the Gazans" mentioned above: Hamas has not yet surrendered! Please forgive us for stating this obvious and primordial fact that world opinion has not yet recognized one further time: Hamas has not yet surrendered!

What would a surrender imply? Well, after the Nazis yielded, there was the Nuremberg Trial. Several leading members of this organization were executed. What trials occurred in Japan following upon the surrender of that government in 1945? The Tokyo War Crimes Trials took place over the next few years. Again several of the defendants were put to death, and others imprisoned.

What would likely be the fate of the Hamas fighters upon their surrender to the IDF? It would not be difficult to discern that they would be imprisoned, as others of that genocidal organization have been before (or still are). What about their leaders? Although it could be conceivable that they be executed as soon as they are found given the savagery of October 7, it is unlikely they would be put to trial and sentenced to death later if they are first imprisoned. After all, Israel has imposed this penalty upon only one person: Adolf Eichmann.

But one thing is for sure. Immediately upon the surrender of Hamas, the bombing of Gaza would cease. There would be no more killing of innocents as collateral damage due to Hamas operating among them. Israeli hospitals would likely be open to all the wounded.

However, until Hamas cries uncle, it is entirely justified for the IDF to continue its war against that organization. The unnecessary deaths of the innocents lie entirely in the hands of Hamas. In other words, there is a simple detail that the world seems to ignore when it calls for the war to stop: Hamas has not yet surrendered!

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Hamas has a choice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The great moralist, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, instructs the rest of us on ethical considerations thusly: "If we owe a moral responsibility to Israeli children, then we owe the same moral responsibility to Palestinian children. Their lives have equal weight. If you care about human life only in Israel or only in Gaza, then you don't actually care about human life."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

There is so much wrong with this insight of his it is difficult to know where to begin. Let us start with the fact that on October 7, 2023, it was Hamas that murdered Israeli children, it was not the other way around. Indeed, the IDF never, ever, targeted Palestinian children, while the inverse cannot be said with a straight face. Yes, in defending itself, there were, it cannot be denied, children in Gaza who perished. But this was collateral damage necessitated by two things. One, Israel's requirement to defend itself lest a repeat of that dastardly day come once again, and is often repeated. And two, the fact that Hamas used its own children as shields.

There was a cartoon that illustrated this. It featured two baby carriages, one marked with a Jewish star, the other with the Palestinian flag and two military men with machine guns. From left to right we first see an Arab terrorist, then a Gazan baby, then an IDF soldier, and then, finally, to the far right, a Jewish baby carriage. The point is, the Arab terrorist was hiding behind the Palestinian child, firing at the Israeli soldier, who was protecting the Jewish baby behind him.

It is difficult, under these circumstances, unless you are a Kristofian moralist, to place the two innocent children, in the same ethical category. One is placed in danger by his own parent, the other is protected by his parent. There is no equality in this scenario, none whatsoever. Kristof sees equivalence where none exists.

Here is yet another gem from this New York Times ethicist: "I flinch when I hear the defense minister (of Israel) refer to Palestinians as animals. Hamas dehumanized Israelis, and we must not dehumanize innocent people in Gaza."

Here is the exact quote from Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "We are fighting against animals."

Of course, Mr. Gallant was correct, and Mr. Kristof viciously misquoted him. What would you call people who rape and then kill women in front of their children? Who behead babies in the presence of their parents? And then take pictures of these obscenities and brag about them? "Animals," if anything, is much too kind. Members of the animal kingdom to not engage in such despicable activities. Monsters, perhaps, is a more accurate description. The point is, Gallant was fighting not all Gazans; rather, only those who were guilty of such despicable, appalling, dreadful, vile crimes. Kristof, instead, made it appear as if Gallant was targeting all Gazans. Yes, unfortunately, when depraved villains use children as shields, in order to root them out there will inevitably be collateral damage to innocents. But this, unlike with Hamas, is no part of their intention.

Further, Kristof maintains that Israel must "respond to war crimes without committing war crimes." True enough. But that is precisely what the only civilized country in the Middle East is actually doing. Targeting women and children is a war crime. Reckless indifference to their death is a war crime. Using children as shields is a war crime. But leafleting innocents is not a war crime. Urging people to move south in Gaza, given that the main damage will be in the north, is not a war crime. Fighting these fiends, in self-defense, even given collateral damage, most certainly is not a war crime, Kristoff to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our moralist concludes on this note: "if your moral compass is attuned to the suffering of only one side, your compass is broken, and so is your humanity." We suggest that Kristof's moral compass is in need of serious repair.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post What anti-Israel critics get wrong about morality in war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel is now responding to the October 7, 2023 invasion of its country. There are calls, now, for a "proportional response" on its part against Hamas. The only democracy in the Middle East is now being widely accused of engaging in a "disproportionate" reaction.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

For example, one newspaper headline claims: "Turkey's Erdogan calls Israeli response to Hamas in Gaza a 'massacre.'" The Turkish prime minister continued: "Israel's 'disproportionate' attacks on Gaza could put it in global disrepute." According to Irish government minister Thomas Byrne "The attack initiated by Hamas on Saturday was 'absolutely wrong' and Israel is entitled to defend itself but the country's response needs to be proportionate…"

What would it mean if the IDF were to follow this advice to react in a "proportionate" manner? Check that, demands?

If it would mean anything at all, it would mean (in theory only of course) that the IDF go house to house and deliberately shoot Palestinian women and children. If you follow that logic, these soldiers would rape the former and torture the latter. A beheading of babies in front of their parents would not be at all amiss. Nor would they forego raping the women in front of their children.

Some Gazan families might be hiding in their homes. What to do upon such occasions? If you were to follow the twisted proportionality logic, then IDF forces would burn them to death either directly by fire or indirectly by smoke inhalation, asphyxiation.

If you follow that logic, then the Israeli military would also seize a few hundred hostages. As many helpless women, children, and the elderly would be their prime targets.

The biblical injunction about a "tooth for a tooth" seems to be the philosophy underlying this call for "proportionality." A steals a car from B. If the punishment is proportional in this sense, all B must do in return when he is caught is return it to A. But wait. There is something amiss in this scenario. If A is apprehended by the police, he is no worse off than before he committed this crime. He must only return B's vehicle to him, not give him one of his own. If not brought to the bar of justice, B keeps his booty. If he is arrested 50% of the time, the statistically expected value of his depredations is one half of whatever he seizes. This is nothing but a recipe to encourage theft. And it does not sound very "proportionate" at all.

At the very least, when captured A must be compelled not only to return one car, B's, but two of them; B's to be sure, but also one of equal value of his own. If he has no such possession, then the monetary value thereof. We thus arrive at "two teeth for a tooth."

If we employ this modification, then the Israelis would be entitled to repay not equally, as mentioned above, but twice over. All by the same twisted logic of "proportionality."

Let us return to A and B. If A, immediately after his theft turned himself into the police, apologized to B and returned his car to him, plus one of his own, that would settle the matter at least in terms of who owes what to whom. Then, two teeth for a tooth would be sufficient. However, if A successfully hides out for 5 years, brags about his theft to his cronies, gives candy to children to celebrate it, and it takes this amount of time for the police to detain him, and B's car has been driven into the ground by that time, who is to pay, as a matter of justice, for these additional expenses and injustices? Why, A, of course.

How does Hamas stack up on the basis of these considerations? Not too well. Have they apologized for their invasion? To ask this question is to answer it. The very opposite is the case. They have exulted in their past invasion and have promised more of the same. And not to mention the widespread destruction, murder, rape, torture and massive rocket launching. Have they returned their Jewish hostages? Only a few, out of some more than 200 hapless prisoners of theirs.

If those who speak of proportionality would follow the implications of their request to its logical conclusion, they would soon find out that it would have been better to stay silent. True proportionality in this context amounts to revenge on a horrendous scale. The Israelis are now entitled to quite a bit more than merely two teeth for a tooth, according to the principle of "proportionality".

But in reality, Israel should not and in fact does not seek revenge, nor should look for "proportionality" in the above sense. Only Justice. In other words, the only sense in which the term "proportionality" makes sense in this context is that a country should be entitled to respond in proportion to the threat it faces, to end it. The only proportional response is to end the threat which Hamas represents for Israel's citizens. Not to engage in the sort of mass murder that only monsters such as Hamas assassins could and did in fact commit.

What those who ask for proportionality are really demanding for is deliberate Israeli weakness and therefore suicide. Implicitly, it is a claim that Israeli lives are worth less than others, for being Israeli. There are no calls for proportionality to Hamas murderers.

What does justice demand, then? Destroying Hamas for good. That is the only commensurate response in proportion to its threat.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel's critics don't know what they are talking about appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Shall we now give "peace a chance" in Gaza? No, a thousand times no. Better make that fifteen-hundred times no, to be more in accord with the number of Israelis savagely murdered by Hamas. Sometimes, certainly, in this case, the cry from all decent civilized people should be, instead, "Let's give war a chance." On admittedly rare occasions, this is the best path to peace, indeed, the only path to peace.

Robert sees William in the street. They are total strangers. They have no history with each other. Whereupon Bob marches up to Bill and punches the latter in the nose. Bill's response, a totally natural one, is to want to kick the crap out of Bob. But as William raises his fist and is about to retaliate against Robert for this unwarranted and gratuitous attack, Robert pleads: "Let's give peace a chance."

If we can ignore the possibility that William should not have struck back against Robert (for instance, he should have allowed the police deal with this person guilty of assault and battery), there are two justifications for William to retaliate against Robert.

First, the deontological. Bob started up with Bill without any justification whatsoever. Justice supports, no, requires, that the latter visit upon the former at least payment in kind (abstracting from a jail sentence for the perpetrator). If William is a pacifist and refuses to kick Robert's teeth in, he is within his rights. However, in so doing, he will be reducing the amount of justice now existing on the planet.

Second, there is pragmatism. This, too, is on the side of the victim responding in kind to the criminal. If this does not occur, this bully will likely only escalate his initiatory violence in future.

Well, but what if Bob has been punching Bill every now and then for decades, attacking his house and family over and over again? Moreover, he continues to do so even when Bill demolished a part of his house and gave that piece of property to Bob so he can begin building something of his own but instead of "giving peace a chance", Bob decided not only to keep punching Bill but increasing the rate of its depredations? Bill, then, has no choice but to strike back.

There is no "police" presence in the Middle East. Some had hoped that the League of Nations would have performed this task. Others placed their trust in this regard in the United Nations. But the latter, not for the first time, has come down on the side of Robert, that is, Hamas. No, if Israel is to survive, it is necessary that the IDF smack down Hamas. If it fails to do so, or merely slaps Hamas on the wrist in another "lawn mowing" operation, the amount of justice prevailing on this third rock from the sun will have been radically reduced.

Should the IDF aim to kill Gazans who are now in effect held hostage by Hamas? Of course not. But this terror organization habitually uses these people as shields. They deliberately hide behind their own children. They place rocket launchers and weapon deposits in hospitals, mosques, schools, residential buildings, etc.

If the IDF were to hold their fire under such conditions, they will have in effect have committed suicide for the entire nation of Israel. If X is hiding behind Y, an innocent person, and X is shooting at Z, another guiltless individual, and the only way that Z could defend himself against X would be by shooting at him through the body of Y, Z would be justified in so doing. Otherwise, X, Hamas, will have gotten away with this cowardly practice.

What can we say to those do-gooding peaceniks who now demand a cease-fire; who call for "peace;" who now favor "negotiations"? They never ever demand that Hamas disarm; that Hamas cease building tunnels which enable assassins to commit atrocities on helpless Israeli women and children; that Hamas no longer send rockets eastward; that they return all Israeli hostages; that they surrender. Now, only now, when Israel is delivering to Hamas its rightful deserts are they demanding that the IDF cease and desist. Moreover, what is there to "negotiate"? How many Israelis is Hamas allowed to kill? Is Israel supposed to negotiate its right to live? To ask this question is to answer it.

No. The only present, proper, path to peace, to enduring peace, is, paradoxically, through war. This was the policy that the US pursued against Germany and Japan at the end of World War II and this is the policy that Israel should now pursue. Only through total victory in the present war can true peace be attained.

A pause in the fighting? Sure! As soon as all of the Israeli prisoners held by Hamas are released. Then and only then a three-day pause!

Block and Futerman are authors of The Classical Liberal Case for Israel (Springer, 2021, with commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu)

The post Let's give peace a chance in Gaza? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.