Month: December 2025

Abraham’s Righteousness vs. Caiaphas’s Calculus: Divergent Ethics in Modern Conflicts

Standard

Relating to a coworker about how hard it is for me to transmit certain values absent a cultural context, with how deeply ingrained they are as part of my religious upbringing, in pondering this reality it becomes easy to understand why so many people—myself included, at times—assume their own moral framework is universal, something everyone else must naturally share.

This moment of realization tied to a broader observation about value systems and how wildly different various religious traditions really are despite sharing some of the same foundational texts—they are fundamentally and irrevocably different. And yet because the texts overlap, some people mistakenly treat those systems as essentially similar—or even interchangeable—overlooking the profound divergences in interpretation, emphasis, or lived practice that centuries of distinct cultural evolution in these systems of thought have produced.

I plan to make three stops: one in the frame of contemporary Western thought, the next from the time of Jesus, and lastly with the patriarch Abraham. And with each of these stops explore how shared origin can mask strikingly divergent ethical worlds, and why recognizing those differences matters more than ever in our interconnected age.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty and the Blackstone Ratio

Wrongful convictions happen. We often assume, since someone was charged, that they must be guilty of something. I mean, why else would they be wearing that orange jumpsuit? But this impulse goes contrary to reality where cops plant evidence, people lie, and prejudice plays a role in judgment. 

This was the case with Brian Banks—who had been accused of rape by a classmate who later, after his years in prison, confessed to fabricating the whole account. What a horrible predicament: your whole future blown up, a jury that only sees your guilt.

A jurist, Sir William Blackstone, understanding the imperfection of the justice system and that the ultimate goal of justice is to protect the innocent, proposed:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

This, the Blackstone ratio, is foundational to how things are at least supposed to work in the United States. Founding father Ben Franklin actually took the concept further by stating, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”  John Adams, while he defended the British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre, argued the following:

We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

This commitment to the innocent reflects a strong emphasis on individual rights. It also seems rooted in the story most defining of Western religion, and that is the story of Jesus—falsely accused and put to death for the sake of political expediency. This has become the defining narrative and a reason to reflect on our judgment rather than react. It is why many principled conservatives are always uncomfortable with those trials in the court of public opinion where the state parades a prosecuted person and people assume this is proof of an airtight case.

You look guilty just for being in a courtroom defending from an accusation.

Tyler Robinson currently stands accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Some have decided his guilt to the extent of forgiving him prior to his even standing trial or being given the chance to defend himself—as if there’s just no way that anyone other than him could be involved. That’s not justice; that’s denying him a presumption of innocence and might be enabling others to escape accountability for their involvement. It is better that he go free than chance a wrongful conviction—that is just Christian.

Caiaphas’s Expediency Math: Killing One to Save All

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum from the Christian West is the example of the high priest who claimed the murder of an innocent man was necessary to save Israel from destruction:

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

 (John 11:49-50 NIV)

This may very well be the origin point of trolley problem moral reasoning, where a hypothetical situation is proposed in which an intervention will cost fewer lives. If we just switch the track, this fictional trolley only kills one rather than multiple people. And it seems very reasonable. Isn’t it better when more people survive?

Caiaphas reasoned it was better to kill one Jesus to save Israel.  But it didn’t work out that way. The entire nation—along with their temple and sacrificial system—was forever destroyed in 70 AD. The high priest’s moral reasoning was compromised and wrong. It did not save Israel to kill one man and may well have been part of what eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who did not accept the way of Jesus continued, after his ministry ended, to kill his followers and resist their civil authorities. Had they taken one moment to reflect and reconsider their plan to kill their way to peace, they may have survived intact rather than be spread to the corners of the empire.

The problem with killing one—without a just cause, to secure the future—is that it usually doesn’t end there. Kill one and you’ll kill ten; if you kill ten, you’ll kill 100, until soon it is millions upon millions. We see this in the campaign against Gaza. Tens of thousands of children are slaughtered and this is being justified as a war against terror. The reality is that it may very well create the backlash that will make the Zionist project untenable as people see this notion of blood guilt and collective punishment as repulsive. This is not compatible with the Christian values of the West and will lead to our destruction if the escalation of war is not rejected.

The world is better when we don’t play God and use the expediency math. If you’re okay killing one innocent person, you’re now an enemy of all humanity. And if you are willing to kill one, then the second and third come much easier. Innocent life should always be protected—whether it is the life of Jesus, be it the “enemies'” children, or the  unborn. Pro-life means no excuses for the IDF that don’t equally apply to Hamas. If it is okay for the Zionist regime to kill scores of civilians as “collateral damage” for every militant killed—where even the Israelis admit the victims of their onslaught are 83% civilians—why mourn when it is just a handful in Bondi?

Schlanger, brandishing a rifle, was 100% affiliated with those killing civilians in Gaza.  By the IDF standard, he is equally guilty because of his proximity and sympathies.

The best protection of innocent people, like your own, is to oppose all killing of innocent people no matter the color of their skin or the clothes they wear. If the IDF can kill a journalist claiming they are “Hamas with a camera” or “Hamas-affiliated,” then why is it wrong for Eli Schlanger, who has materially aided a genocide, to be targeted along with his associates? We need to reject this math of expediency no matter who is using it, or we can’t be upset when what goes around finally comes around.

Abraham’s Plea for Mercy: Sparing the Many for the Few Righteous

Now we can go way back, to the book of Genesis, where the world’s most powerful monotheistic religions find their foundation, and this man of faith named Abraham. We join him prior to the destruction of Sodom and have this interesting exchange:

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?  Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.  For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”  Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”  The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 

(Genesis 18:17-23 NIV)

Abraham’s opening question, in the passage above, tells you a whole lot about his moral reasoning. But before that you basically have the old covenant explained in brief: The blessing that was being bestowed on Abraham had to do with “doing what is right and just” or not simply being a blood relative of him, which is something that Jesus and the Apostles explained over and over to those who saw their genetic tie to the patriarch as a sort of entitlement and did not act justly or mercifully as he did.

Continuing in the text, take time to contrast the expediency math of Caiaphas with the following:

What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?  Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”  Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”  When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

(Genesis 18:24-33 NIV)

Abraham, after expressing his concern for the innocent, offers an opening bid at fifty righteous. Will God spare the entire wicked city for just fifty? And the first thing that is obvious is his humility, pleading with “I am nothing but dust and ashes” and showing his attitude before God. Second is that his orientation is toward the sparing of innocent life even if it means the evil people of the city of Sodom escape deserved judgment. This is in line with Blackstone’s ratio and in total opposition to Caiaphas, who argued to sacrifice rather than to protect the righteous one. Eventually Abraham concedes, and it makes more sense just to evacuate those righteous—nevertheless the righteous are not destroyed with the wicked.

So why is this account in Genesis?

Why is God engaged in a negotiation with a mere man?

The answer is that this anecdote is here for a reason, and that is to be instructive. The author of Genesis isn’t just telling us that Abraham was righteous—they’re giving us instruction on how to be righteous. To have the same disposition as Abraham, that’s the way to be a child of Abraham, and the path of righteousness that leads to the blessings through God’s promise. Chosen means you believe and obey the Lord. You can’t claim to be children of God, or of Abraham, if you truly share nothing in common with them in terms of your behavior or spirit. Genesis is telling us what that looks like in practice.

Christian Orientation Towards Mercy and Humanity is Truly Abrahamic.

In traversing these three moments—from courtrooms shaped by Christian reflection on an innocent’s crucifixion, to the high priest’s fateful expediency that failed to save his nation, and back to Abraham’s humble plea for mercy amid judgment—we uncover a profound reality: The orientation of the Christian perspective, underpinning American rights, is directly the opposite of the ideological lineage of Caiaphas.

The commitment, in faith, to protecting that one innocent life in a crowd of evil is to be a son or daughter of Abraham.  Those who do the opposite, who are willing to sacrifice the innocent for sake of expediency, carry none of the character of Abraham and cannot be the heirs of anything promised to him.  They must first repent of their sin—then they can be blessed, with all nations, through the one singular seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16) which is Christ Jesus.

Going back to the start and those ethics ingrained in us through a religiously derived culture and our assumptions, those who have rejected Christ and are completely willing to kill innocent people to accomplish ends are also going to manifest the other evil traits of Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Those of us raised in an Anabaptist church got a strong dose of the Gospel according to Matthew and were taught that speech should be simple and truthful.  Let your yea be yes, and nay be nay is about truly honest conversation and credibility without relying on oaths.  We were told to have a peaceable spirit and merciful approach with all people—to be humble.  

This is an orientation that many of Christian faith may believe is universal.  Except it is not.  Ethno-supremacist pride is okay with those of certain ideologies, deception for sake of gaining an upper hand is looked at like a virtue, they look at their ability to trick you as proof they are superior, and sow the seeds of division covertly not to be caught—like this example:

In a covert operation during 2007–2008, Israeli Mossad agents impersonated CIA officers—using forged U.S. passports, American currency, and CIA credentials—to recruit members of the Pakistan-based Sunni militant group Jundallah for attacks inside Iran, including bombings and assassinations targeting Iranian officials and civilians, as part of a broader effort to destabilize Tehran’s regime amid nuclear tensions. The deception, conducted openly in places like London, aimed to frame the United States as the sponsor, exploiting Jundallah’s sectarian and separatist motives while providing plausible deniability for Israel; U.S. officials uncovered the ruse through internal investigations debunking earlier media reports of CIA involvement, leading to outrage in the Bush White House (with President Bush reportedly “going ballistic”), strained intelligence cooperation under Obama, and the eventual U.S. terrorist designation of Jundallah in 2010, though no public repercussions were imposed on Israel.

 (Overview above by Grok, read: False Flag)

Imagine having a friend who deliberately set you up for a fight against another person by telling them that you said something about them.  My son had a bully do this to him on the bus and this is exactly what so-called ‘greatest ally’ tried to do to the US.  For the Zionist regime, and Mossad, conducting the terror operation via a Pakistani proxy simply was not enough.  They wanted Iran to think the attacks originated with the US in order to provoke a reaction.  And this is how the world becomes a cesspool, all because the Iranians won’t stand idle while Palestinians are deprived of land and human rights.

Deviousness is not exclusive to the children of Caiaphas.  But there’s no stops for those willing to kill innocent people for the sake of expediency.  And a partnership with them is only going to undermine the foundation of our civilization.  The US and ‘Christian’ West have already lost their moral reputation for this unholy alliance.  We need to repent and return to holding evil men accountable and protecting the innocent or all will be lost—we can’t exempt some from a standard of normal decency without also damaging all of Christendom.

Jesus vs. the Narcissists: When Compassion For ‘Others’ is the Ultimate Offense

Standard

Q: How do you enrage a narcissist?

A: Tell them they’re not the most important person in the world.

There’s this mess of entitlement, of eternal victimhood, self-admiration and severe lack of empathy we call narcissism.  And it does seem to be everywhere, most especially in a situation where someone is able to escape normal pushback for their overinflated self-image and sense of importance.  But this is not something new or merely a product of modern life—it is as old as the Bible.

What Jesus confronted most severely in the religious elites of his day was a narcissistic attitude.  Indeed, he was not killed as threat to Rome.  The Roman authority, despite the facilitation of the mob, did not buy into their reasoning and declared him to be  innocent.  The real issue is that Jesus offended an ideological cult of ethno-supremacists, those who believed a book (or rather their own errant and self-serving interpretation of the text) made them a cut above all other people.  

They believed that they were God’s favorites and yet Jesus said even the rocks could accomplish the mission.  He did not need their permission to speak and insulted them at every turn.  How did he insult?  Well, mostly by reminding them that God loved all people and not just their own tribe.  In defiance of their narcissistic self-belief, he held up the good examples of Samaritans, Canaanites, Syrians and Romans—presenting the foreigner as a righteous contrast to them.  And they could not argue with him, he knew their Scripture better than they did, so they killed him.

Here’s six examples of where Jesus took on the ethno-nationalist pride and narcissism of religious peers: 

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

In response to a lawyer asking about who is our neighbor, Jesus tells a parable where a Samaritan (despised as ethnic outsiders by Jews) acts heroically with mercy, while a Jewish priest and Levite ignore a wounded man. This framing of an answer intentionally swerves off the beaten path to offend his ethno-supremacist audience by portraying their loathed ‘enemy’ favorably and implying that true neighborliness is something that transcends ethnic boundaries:

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. […] “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Imagine that, this smug religious expert, who thought he was self-justified, getting shown up rhetorically by the outsider.

2. The Faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13)

A Roman centurion (a Gentile military occupier) approaches Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus not only heals but praises the centurion’s faith as surpassing anything being found “in Israel,” and implicitly rebuking the Pharisees’ assumption of Jewish spiritual superiority. This favorable portrayal of this Gentile outsider was extremely offensive to these ethno-supremacists:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” […] When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

He’s stomping on their entitlement at the end, literally saying that they’ll be thrown out and then replaced by Gentiles in God’s kingdom!

3. The Faith of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28)

Jesus initially tests a Canaanite woman (a Gentile outsider) seeking healing for her daughter but he ultimately commends her persistent faith and grants the request. This interaction challenges Pharisaic purity laws and ethnocentrism by showing a non-Jew’s faith as exemplary, even using the language which highlights ethnic barriers only to overcome them:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

This passage illustrates the ethnic-supremacist attitudes of even the disciples of Jesus.  Whereas today, in the West, you can barely say people are different in ability without it being controversial, nobody cared that this woman was referred to as a dog in this audience.  But his actions of love and compassion spoke louder than his words and this woman’s lack of narcissism was a stark contrast to the prideful racist disciples  Her prayer was answered because she was humble.

4. The Healing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 17:11-19)

Jesus heals ten lepers, but only one—a Samaritan (an ethnic outsider)—returns to thank him. Jesus highlights this Samaritan’s faith, questioning where the other nine (presumably Jews) are, thus favoring the outsider and critiquing ingratitude among insiders:

As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” […] One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

The entitled can’t show gratitude.  Perhaps, as the self-declared chosen, the others who never came back felt they deserved this healing—that it was their birth right?  But Jesus was unimpressed by them and highlighted the foreigner who was thankful instead.

5. The Samaritan Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42)

Below Jesus initiates a conversation with a lowly Samaritan woman (an outcast on multiple fronts: Samaritan and female), he reveals himself as the Messiah, and leads to many Samaritans believing in him. This breaches ethnic and social barriers, totally offending Pharisaic norms of separation, as the Jews typically avoided Samaritans:

When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” […] The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) […]  Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.”  So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.

This was Jesus deliberately breaking down a barrier.  The Jews of this time weren’t just racist, but sexist as well, and would see this entire encounter as an egregious violation.  Here Jesus was humanizing the Samaritan enemy and—even more scandalously—he was talking directly to a woman!  While rebuking his own ethnic and religious tribe he hung out with the impure!

He’s practically as evil as Tucker Carlson…

6. Jesus’ Sermon in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30)

In his hometown synagogue, Jesus reads from Isaiah and then references the Old Testament prophets helping Gentiles (a widow in Sidon and Naaman the Syrian) instead of Israelites during times of need. This enrages the crowd, who try to kill him right there and then, as it directly challenges their ethno-supremacist expectations that God’s favor is exclusive to Jews:

“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.  Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”  All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.  They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.  But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

The passages all illustrate Jesus’ pattern of associating with and elevating of outsiders, which offended the Pharisees’ ethnocentric pride and their self-righteous “we’re chosen people” claims by his stubborn inclusion of sinners, tax collectors, and Gentiles.  

Had it not been for a miracle Jesus may be remembered as being thrown off a cliff for praising the foreigners in front of a Jewish audience.  He was hitting them directly in their Hindenburg sized egos.  They had the most severe case our own [excrement] don’t stink that’s possible.

Ms. Rachel is an ‘anti-Semite’ for loving all children?

 A Zionist organization, StopAntisemitism, has named Rachel Griffin Accurso, a very popular children’s content creator, a finalist for their “Antisemite of the Year” and for a very specific offense: Ms. Rachel dared to treat the suffering of Palestinian children as equal to that of Jewish people!  How dare she humanize the child of an enemy!  Those in this Zionist cult love themselves only and make a strict dichotomy between their own and the dogs.  The spirit that Jesus rebuked is maintained in this perverse tradition.

I didn’t know much about Ms. Rachel prior to the birth of my daughter, but she’s not a Hamas apologist or sympathizer and has expressed similar sentiments about Israeli and African children.  Only the arrogant Zio-bots used her concern as a cause for their vicious accusations and vile labels.  They can be the only victims and treating Gaza’s children with the same love as their own is a terrible offense in their supremacist eyes—only their suffering can matter.  

He didn’t say Hamas.  He said Palestinians.

Ms Rachel committed their most grievous sin of believing children are not terrorists because of where they are born and now—as another enemy—she must be destroyed.

That is the narcissistic attitude of Zionism.  You must choose between them and others, they cannot share your concern with those who are inferior beings.  It’s an insult, as if they have been made equal to a dog, which is what they think of us Gentiles.  Listen to what they say, they believe that they should be treated like gods—in the words of Jewish supremacist and the former chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia-Yosef:

“Goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said, according to the Jerusalem Post. “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.” 

Rabbi Ovadia-Yosef, in his own words

Treated as our lords.  That is the nature of Zionism.  It is about their narcissistic view that they deserve to be our masters and to do with us as they please—as they may an ox that plows their fields.  Which is what is so disturbing about an Israel-Firster, Ben Shapiro, proclaiming that retirement is stupid and that Americans should work until they drop.  Says a guy who sits around and talks as an occupation.  This, of course, does not represent all Jews or Israeli citizens, but it is written in the Talmud and lines up with the Likud party leadership of Israel.

Zionism does not represent all Jews.

Zionists don’t just want to rule over the current territory of Israel or the Holy Lands.  No, they want Jerusalem to be the hub of their Greater Israel and later one world government where their own version of a Messiah cleanses the world of all who defy them.  They rule because you’re too stupid to live free.

Judas wanted an Israel like this.  A worldly kingdom where he would be served.  Jesus, by sharp contrast, taught a kingdom not of this world—where the greatest would serve rather than be served.  He corrected heresy that made the blessing of Abraham only about a genetic inheritance rather than a matter of sharing the patriarch’s sincere and simple faith.  It was the very opposite of what they believed they were owed as the self-declared special people.  Jesus offended by telling them they weren’t special and calling the children of the Devil rather than of Abraham.  Ethnic supremacy and self-righteous pride is the basis of Zionism, Christianity heralds repentance as the foundation of true faith in God, as John the Baptist declared:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.  The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 

(Matthew 3:7-10 NIV)

Water is wet.  The sky is blue.  You can’t be a Christian and a Zionist too.  We must pick one or the other.  There is no union between light and darkness, no yoking of believer to unbeliever, we either believe what we’re told in the Gospel about a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 3:9) and who Jesus himself declared to be children of their father the Devil (John 8:44) or we deny that Christ is King.  It’s just astounding to see so many who either never read the New Testament or had eyes glazed over in those sections where Jesus rebuked those who thought their Jewish supremacy and genetic ties to Abraham would save them.

The unrepentant narcissist will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Pride was the sin of Satan who thought he could rival God and it is also the sin of those who rejected Jesus for his acceptance of all and not caring about their ethnic pedigree.  They hated him for exposing them as religious frauds.  And the campaign they waged against him was very similar to that being used currently to try to silence critics of Israel.  The role of a good Goy is to simply believe whatever they say and allow them to be the gods they believe they are—to kill or rape as they please.

Motte-and-bailey Fallacy and a Better Defense of Jewish People

Standard

The US House passed a resolution which decried a rise in anti-semitism and declared in the text that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”  Which is to say any criticism of this form of blood and soil nationalism can be misconstrued as a hatred of Jewish people.  If you think that the displacement of the indigenous people living in the West Bank by settlers coming from New Jersey is immoral and wrong?  Well, congratulations, because you are now an anti-Semite!

It’s an absolute absurdity. 

But it is also part of a general strategy of using Jewish people, as a whole, as a human shield for a supremacist ideology that many Jews entirely reject.  And, furthermore, this conflating Jewish identity with the Zionist state is contributing to a rise in actual anti-Jewish sentiment around the world.  It is very disturbing to see a vile ideology trying to avoid the rebuke that it most certainly deserves by wearing Jewish identity as a mask for what it truly is. 

Zionism is just blood and soil nationalism using ancient history as a cover story no different than those who called themselves the third Rome.

Zionism is not the same thing as Judiasm and thus taking an anti-Zionist position is not hatred of Jews.  Just like we can both be opposed to a political party and still not be unAmerican, we can oppose a Zionist state of Israel in favor of a country where all people of all faiths have the same rights—where indigenous people are not harassed or killed so settlers can steal their land.  It is okay to hate a regime of rape, theft, murder and collective punishment.  It is also okay to hold those accountable who perpetrate war crimes calling it defense.

What this conflating is is the Motte-and-bailey fallacy (also a strategy) where you pair a position that is defensible with one that is not.  In other words, you say something like “Israel has a right to defend itself,” which everyone will generally agree with, and then use this statement to defend the IDF knowingly bombing children in Gaza.  The two things are not the same.  Defense and killing babies are two vastly different things.  If a neighbor, from an apartment complex near me, assaulted me, and then I go burn down his whole building in response, nobody will accept that this is a defensive action—it is just murder.

This strategy of hiding Zionism behind the Jewish ethnicity and faith comes 100% at the expense of innocent Jews who have no connection to the modern state of Israel.  Merging Jewish identity with Zionism and Zionist atrocities only serves to feed anti-Jewish sentiment.  Decoupling the two words is separating a hostage from a hijacker and focuses our critique on the bad actors who falsely claim to speak for all Jews.  The best way to protect from riding anti-Jewish sentiment is to hold Zionists to account rather than allow them to hide behind Jewish suffering.

Four Ways To Fight Anti-Semitism:

1) Apply opposition to anti-semitism to all Semitic people.  The word Semite is derived from the language people use.  Specifically Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  The rights of all people, indigenous Muslim or Christian, as well as Jews, should be protected.  It is anti-semitic to argue Palestinian lives and the lives of Arab neighbors, are worth less than that of European settlers.  The Zionists have not only hijacked Judiasm and the land, but the word Semitic as well—we need the term to be returned to original use.

2) Make the Holy Lands a safe refuge for all good people again.  All Abrahamic religions have significant ties to the territory where a modern state of Israel is formed.  Christian and Muslim communities which existed for centuries are under threat by the invading settlers.  The first Christians were Semites—Jewish coverts—so why are we privileging only one religious group on a land home to Christians and other Semitic people?

3) Stop protecting the bad people simply on the basis of religious identity.  This applies just as much to any religion, but especially to a country that regularly shields evil people on the basis of their Jewish-ness and loyalty to the apartheid regime.

Jonathan Pollard, a US Citizen, who stole nuclear secrets and gave them to Israel (who, in turn, sold them to the Soviet Union), was a traitor to the degree that would be hanged for treason in times past.  But he got life in prison and was released after thirty years due to the lobbying pressure of the Israeli government.  He arrived in Israel, on the private jet of Sheldon Adelson (the late husband of the Trump mega-donor Miriam Adelson) to a hero’s welcome under “right to return.”  In fact, Pollard was greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after kissing tarmac in Tel Aviv.

There are also similar stories of corrupt men fleeing to Israel from Ukraine.  Pedophiles and rapists, of Jewish identity, are granted this same escape from justice by “right to return” and an Israeli policy of protecting all Jews regardless of if they are good or evil.  This undermines the trust in Jewish people worldwide.  It contributes to the othering of Jews and breeds resentment and contempt.  Sure, two separate standards may be okay for a racial supremacist, but it is totally unacceptable for those who reject all identity politics and tribalism.

I would stand shoulder to shoulder with a good person who happens to be a Jew, Muslim or any other religion over a person who claims to be a Christian and yet does not love their neighbors.  To me, those who confuse genetics with goodness or their own tribal identity with innocence are the problem.  A truly good person cares about genuinely good character—and not skin color or religious costume.  

Jews are safer when Zionists abusers are made accountable.  The world is a better place when nobody puts tribe over a commitment to justice for all people.  We don’t need the Holy Lands to be a haven for the world’s traitors, pedophiles and identity thieves.

3) Treat AIPAC as a foreign lobby and trim back the Zionist control over our political institutions.  If Congress were taking the same amount of money from supporters of any other country in the world that they did from AIPAC they would be in jail.  How is it not collusion?  However, you’re not going to hear about this scandal on CBS News, after it was bought by Zionist billionaires, with a new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss.  Nor will the truth be told on TikTok after it was scooped up by the same people—now moderated by a former IDF soldier searching for ‘antisemitic’ content which could be anything that tells the truth about Israel.  

Frankly, the US desperately needs a policy of de-Zionization after years of our Middle-East mayhem.  When we have US ambassadors to Israel, like Mike Huckabee, meeting with a man convicted of treason, and Presidents unable to act independently from a foreign regime—even when that foreign regime kills more children than it foes true combatants—drastic measures need to be taken.  We can’t simply vote this out.  When then the candidates for mayor of NYC show fealty to a foreign nation this goes beyond normal corruption.  There truly needs to be more prosecutions for actual treason.

A Better Jewish Defense Strategy 

The current Zionist strategy—the fusing Jewish identity with an apartheid regime, shielding war criminals and traitors behind the label “Jew,” and branding every critic an anti-Semite—has sadly produced the most dangerous environment for Jews in decades: surging street-level hatred, synagogue shootings, and a global resurgence of real anti-Jewish bigotry fueled by rage at Israel’s actions. The four steps above break that fuse.

When Judaism is decisively decoupled from Zionism, when “Semitic” again and protects Palestinians and Lebanese as fiercely as Israelis, when the Holy Land is a shared home rather than an ethnic fortress, and when Jewish criminals no longer enjoy impunity under “right of return” or AIPAC protection, the primary pretext for hating Jews evaporates. Jews become what most already are: Just ordinary citizens judged by their character, and not scapegoats for a supremacist project most never voted for.

Paradoxically, the safest future for Jewish people is not more tanks, walls, or lobbying billions—it is the complete dismantling of the ideological human shield that today places them in the line of fire.