RC-Answers AI

What’s this all about?

RC-Answers was originally designed to provide deep insights on Israel and the Middle East based on RealityCheck’s articles and sources — which is perfect for research or for educating yourself on the issues. However, real-time updates require entirely different technology.

Israeli election polls are always changing, but thanks to a new technical update we can now provide you with up-to-date information. Just to go to RC-Answers, ask for an update on the Israeli election polls and you’ll get a detailed answer!

You can then ask for additional context, insights, or whatever follow up questions you have.

What about breaking news?

General purpose AI platforms, like ChatGPT, review generic news-feeds and get you a quick answer, BUT those news-feeds can be inaccurate or even outright anti-Israel. The result is technically “news” but it’s not reliable news.

We have a higher standard — because you have a higher standard! This requires not merely accessing news feeds, but also analyzing the news, weeding out bias, lies and other inaccuracies — and doing it all in real-time without human intervention.

We’re working on new AI-tech to help make this possible for you. We’re not all the way there yet, but our new election-polling capability is a start. In the meantime, RC-Answers is AI trained on our deep analysis and sources, which is accurate usually to within several days.

Thanks to your help, we’re analyzing Israel and the Middle East, developing new technologies, and improving every day.

Our work is possible entirely thanks to supporters like you! If you find RealityCheck valuable, then please help us succeed with a U.S. tax deductible donation.

Donate to RealityCheck

• If your “criticism“ includes actual lies, then that’s not criticism.

• If your lies are malicious, if they’re hurtful, if they include supporting terrorism, then that’s not criticism.

• And if your malicious, terror supporting lies result in record-breaking numbers of violent assaults and even murders against Jewish Americans, then yeah, that’s antisemitism.

When I must respond, this is exactly what I say, and so can you. Take it, use it, and let us know how it goes.

Photo: Paramount logo

What just happened?

Mark Ruffalo, a Hollywood actor, publicly denounced the impending merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers: including personal attacks against the company’s Jewish owners and their deep emotional connection to Israel.

Paramount’s CEO, David Ellison, slammed Ruffalo’s attack for being exactly what it is: antisemitism. Ruffalo then responded with a familiar, and tired refrain: that he was just criticizing Israeli policies.

To be clear, Ruffalo was condemning not only Israel and Paramount, but a Jewish American family, for the “crime” of feeling a strong connection to Israel — an emotion held by the vast majority of Jewish Americans.

Photo: David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Paramount.

I place very little importance on the geopolitical insights of someone whose greatest intellectual achievement is playing the Incredible Hulk in a movie. Yet Ruffalo’s attacks reflect a wider phenomenon that many Jews and Israel supporters now encounter in their daily lives: the “I’m just criticizing Israel” trope.

In a culture that demands silence and appeasement, Paramount’s owners didn’t back down, they didn’t apologize and they didn’t cower for fear of being “cancelled.” Instead, the Ellisons stood up for real values.

Sometimes it’s best to be sharp, succinct and not over-justify. Yet it’s also good to know, at least in the back of your mind, exactly why you’re right. To that end, here’s some “backup.”

Lies

There are innumerable lies about Israel, but one of the most prominent is the blood libel of “genocide” in Gaza.

Virtually all “genocide” claims, including those from the UN and various NGOs, trace back not to independent investigation, but to the “Gaza Ministry of Health” — which is simply Hamas by another name.

The claim is simply untrue, and Israel should not be required to prove that, to the contrary, accusers should always bear the burden of proof. Nonetheless, we’ve discussed this topic in many ways and from many angles including that:

• Gaza has one of the fastest growing populations in the world;

• Israel’s civilian to combatant casualty ratio is among the lowest in human history;

• Hamas’s own data shows that most casualties were males of military age; and

• Israel’s attackers literally asked the International Court of Justice to change the definition of the word “genocide” to make it fit Israel. (How much more clearly can you admit that you don’t have a case?)

On a more personal note, here in Israel, soldiers are not some distant abstraction but they’re our children and parents, friends and colleagues. We know them intimately, and we know they go to battle not for anger, revenge or conquest, but with a sense of seriousness, professionalism, and heavy responsibility.

This is just one example. Facing a different lie? Read our work, or use our AI platform, RC-Answers.

Malice not mistake

Researchers in fields such as psychology and linguistics examine signs of intentional dishonesty including: shifting burdens of proof, straw man arguments and double standards. Natan Sharansky explores this specifically in a Jewish context, as do many others.

Ruffalo’s statements exhibit many of these dishonest tricks, and someone in your life probably does the same. Anyone can be wrong or mistaken, but to use dishonest trickery is to be intentionally hurtful. It is, in a word, malicious.

Supporting terrrorists

Ruffalo closely echoes Hamas talking points, including that that the terror organization doesn’t use human shields while by contrast that Israel is “destructive and inhuman.” Ruffalo claims that the Hamas kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers which sparked a war in 2014 simply never happened at all, and of course his dishonest claims of apartheid and genocide directly track Hamas propaganda. Ruffalo also advocates in support of Marwan Barghouti, the notorious founder and senior commander of an internationally designated terror organization, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths.

Chances are that someone in your life is adopting similar tactics, while claiming they are not.

The Violence That Follows

Jews are, per capita, the most highly targeted group in America for hate crimes, by far. Those numbers spiked by over 300% in the wake of the post-October 7 anti-Israel propaganda tsunami. Hate crimes include violent assaults and murders, frequently with the perpetrator specifically declaring “Palestine” or “Gaza” as a reason for attacking American Jews. The “common knowledge” that Israel must be guilty of accusations like the ones expressed by Ruffalo forms the backdrop of, and justification for, this explosion of anti-Jewish violence.

The IHRA test

The IHRA definition of antisemitism explicitly includes “applying double standards,” and “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.” This includes the view that Jews are acceptable — but only if they abandon their deeply held connection to Israel. This includes spreading malicious, terror supporting lies that lead to violent assaults and even murders.

This “criticism of Israel” is neither criticism nor is it against Israel.

This is antisemitism. And America’s Jewish communities are paying a deadly price.

RC-Answers

Israel will soon be accused of war crimes for “killing Palestinians” who were simply “flying kites.” You heard it here first. What you won’t hear is that these kites are actually a component of one of the most deadly weapons in modern warfare.

Yes, really.

Photo: A Palestinian in Gaza, by Hosny Salah via Pexels.

Hamas (remember Hamas?) is still armed, still controls central Gaza, and is still carrying out terror attacks against Israel. Its troops habitually cross the “Yellow Line” in violation of ceasefire agreements, and these aren’t mere adventures — Hamas is testing: observing IDF procedures, probing defenses and measuring reaction times. Just like the lead up to the massacre of October 7.

And now…Hamas has resumed its kite and balloon program.

Kites, Balloons and Fiber-Optic Drones

Hamas used explosive kites and balloons as cross-border terror weapons going back to 2018. Thousands such projectiles ignited farmland, damaged Israeli communities, and created distractions to assist Hamas operatives while they tried to breach the border fence.

Since Hamas resumed the program this month, kites have landed in several Gaza border communities including Kibbutz Kfar Aza and Kibbutz Nahal Oz. Israeli residents recognize the pattern, and are raising the alarm.

Photo: Gaza border riots in 2018 that included launching explosive and incendiary kites, by IDF.

So far the projectiles appear to be unarmed - the Board of Peace, the body responsible for eventual reconstruction in Gaza, suggests the kites are mere recreational items, the sort that “could be made by any child.” By contrast, Israeli Minister of Defense Israel Katz sees the kites as a test of Israeli defenses.

Yet one absolutely chilling detail should stop everyone in their tracks: four of the recent kites had strings that stretch for miles.

Sound familiar? It should.

Ukraine innovated battlefield use of the “fiber optic drone”: a remote control weapon that is impervious to radio jamming because its signal comes through an ultra-thin physical cable - stretching for miles all the way back to its operator. Hezbollah, the Iranian backed terror organization that effectively controls Lebanon, has already begun imitating this weapon to devastating effect against IDF soldiers.

Photo: Ukrainian fiber optic drone by By АрміяІнформ via Wikimedia.

Hamas has never before launched kites with miles long strings. In fact, nobody in their right mind does so anywhere - unless they’re practicing to launch a fiber optic drone.

The fiber optic drone is already one of modern warfare’s most devastating weapons, inflicting enormous damage on Russian and Ukrainian forces, but this time, instead of soldiers, the target will be Israeli civilian communities.

International Law

The United Nations and other bodies accused Israel of “war crimes” in 2019 for using military force against “civilians” who were launching incendiary and explosive kites and balloons. In a bizarre parody of international law, the U.N. claimed, “for lethal force to be permissible, the victim must pose an imminent threat to life or limb.”

To use “technical” language, that is: Just. Plain. Wrong.

Photo: United Nations Human Rights Council “Special Session on Palestine” by Elma Okic / U.N. via Flickr.

Countries have an inviolate right to defend against attacks (U.N. Charter Article 51) and launching explosives and incendiaries is an attack. Attaching a kite to your weapon doesn’t change that.

However, there are strict limitations on how an army may react toward civilians, which is what the United Nations was presumably alluding to in its faulty accusation. After all, though Hamas launches weaponized kites, so do many unaffiliated youth in Gaza. So aren’t they civilians?

In a word: no.

Anyone who initiates attacks as part of a war immediately loses their civilian status. It doesn’t matter whether they have a uniform, a weapon or a rank, their age, their lifestyle, or literally anything else - if you’re attacking, then you’re not a civilian. Period.

This has to be the case - let’s think about it:

Imagine if attackers could simply remove their uniforms, or enlist community members, and thereby become legally immune from any response. Anyone they attack, no matter how well trained or armed, would be legally obligated to…well, to die. Really.

That’s why you lose your “civilian” status the moment you go on a battlefield and attack soldiers. But what happens if you invade a community and specifically target (actual) civilians?

Well, that makes you a war criminal.

This rule doesn’t refer to accidental harm to civilians, which is tragic but inevitable in war, as detailed in numerous sections of the Geneva conventions (i.e. First Additional Protocol §51(5)(b)). But specifically targeting civilians on purpose is never allowed, and that is exactly what these explosive kites are meant to do.

Israel’s response

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz warned yesterday:

“Israel warns Hamas that if the launches toward Israel do not stop immediately, the IDF will step up targeted operations against those responsible for the launches and evacuate populations from areas from which kites, drones and balloons are launched.”

So far Israel has restrained itself to firm warnings and limited strikes on Hamas infrastructure. However, when Israel tolerates habitual ceasefire violations, probing attacks and creeping escalation for too long, it leads to disaster.

We all learned that on October 7.

Israel will soon be forced to make good on its warning, and when it does, the embattled country will face all manner of malicious accusations that bizarrely twist international law into a veritable work of fiction.

We learned that on October 7 as well.

America is filled with anti-Americanism, support for terror groups, political violence, and shocking polarization. This is no accident but a well orchestrated attack — the bastard grandchild of Soviet Political Warfare: the Diplomatic Intifada.

Photo: Hamas by IDF.

On October 7, 2023, the Hamas terror organization perpetrated the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. On October 8, long before Israel had even mounted a response, America’s campuses and streets erupted with protests…not against the mass murder, rape, torture, ritualistic Islamic beheadings or hostage taking that Israel had suffered, but against the Israeli victims…and against the United States.

A Wall Street Journal exposé revealed that many of the protesting groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), were ready just hours after the massacre with pre-printed signs, equipment, matching gear and organized training — some provided by internationally designated terror organizations. An ongoing lawsuit by victims of October 7 includes compelling evidence that protest leaders knew of the massacre in advance.

Photo: Pro-Hamas rally on the anniversary of October 7 in New York, 2025 by Oleg Yunakov via Wikimedia.

This was not a “protest,” it was not a response to any world event: this was a meticulously pre-planned attack on American society, and it was a quarter century in the making.

Durban, 2001

It began at the cynically named “United Nations World Conference Against Racism” which paradoxically featured Nazi swastikas, Der Stürmer style icons, and other viciously racist symbols, marches and chants.

Held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the conference initiated what later came to be known as the “Diplomatic Intifada,” an effort by numerous partners, including the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Qatar, and a whole slate of Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations. Their goal? To strategically weaken Israel, the United States and the West in every possible sphere: political, diplomatic, lawfare, education, communications, grassroots, and more.

The Diplomatic Intifada was meant to change the world — not in a year or even 10 years — but rather to indoctrinate an entire generation that hadn’t even been born yet: today’s 18-24 year old cohort. That demographic’s especially widespread vitriol toward America and the West was never an accident, it was a plan.

The Diplomatic Intifada is working

Fast forward twenty five years to this month: when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing entitled, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America.”

Photo: Senator Ted Cruz at the Senate hearing on the Muslim Brotherhood, by the Office of Senator Ted Cruz via YouTube.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a violent international movement that declares as its model slogan: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu-Akbar!” The group stands behind numerous terror organizations, such as Hamas, ISIS and Al Qaeda. According to its internal documents, the group’s stated goal in the United States is “Civilizational Jihad,” the transformation of America into an Islamic state.

Under the leadership of Senator Ted Cruz, the Senate hearing revealed an enormous body of evidence detailing the Brotherhood's American infrastructure, including influence in nonprofits, political organizations, universities, courts, and taxpayer-funded programs. One such organization is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose leadership helps to fund political candidates such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and much of the DSA.

This is not remotely “free speech” - a whole suite of laws make it profoundly illegal for terror organizations, such as those linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, to engage in American civil society or political life - whether directly or through proxies.

Soviet Political Warfare

Writing for TIPP, Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations notes that the American dream includes immigrating, assimilating and eventually contributing positively to the country’s political life, but that what we see today is something else entirely. Another TIPP/RealClearInvestigations article by Benjamin Weingarten was entitled, “How Hamas’ Attack on Israel Is Transforming American Politics.” The transformation actually started even earlier, and its implications are far more sinister.

The Diplomatic Intifada is the result of a quarter century of planning and billions of dollars of investment. But we shouldn’t be surprised - we’ve seen this before: the Soviet Political Warfare of the Cold War, like the Diplomatic Intifada of today, was designed to destabilize democracies by exploiting their political fault lines with every weapon available - including cynical manipulation of democracy itself.

But we can win.

America does not need to make new laws, but does need to urgently enforce its existing laws: against terrorism and incitement, against political violence, money laundering, and non-profit manipulation. America does not need McCarthyism, but does need diligent and proper investigations of actual illegal activity. Americans need not become intolerant or racist, but we must not allow hatred and criminal activity to go unchallenged on the altar of being “anti-racist.”

America won the Cold War: intact, democratic and free. The Soviet Union, for all its machinations, did not. Whether America succeeds this time is entirely up to us.

Photo: Anti-war protest in London by JPS_1260a-sm via Flickr. (cropped)

Iran bet that American midterms would be its secret weapon: that U.S. President Donald Trump was “on the clock,” and would have to back down or face massive opposition at the polls.

It seems the regime has, once again, underestimated the American people.

TIPP Insights provides corporate intelligence to governments and private companies on sensitive issues, including to RealityCheck. We have a high degree of confidence in their work.

The latest TIPP research from last week shows that Americans are almost evenly split on their support for military action in Iran, but that’s not the whole story.

But what if Iran refuses to negotiate away its nuclear program? In that case, Americans support military action, and by a large margin.

Iran is refusing nuclear negotiations

This is simply a matter of understanding how nuclear weapons work.

For years, Iran has openly and proudly declared that it enriches uranium up to 60%: a level that has no possible use other than to make nuclear weapons: not electrical power, medical research, or any other purpose. Last March, the regime boasted to U.S. negotiators that it has enough 60% enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs.

It’s like admitting you bought a gun, but claiming you just use it to change diapers. That’s absurd. Guns, just like 60% enriched uranium, cannot be used for changing diapers, or for anything else — other than as a weapon.

Iran refuses to negotiate on this issue calling it a “red line” and “a matter of national sovereignty,” declaring, “There can be no negotiation over the principle of enrichment.” (emphasis added)

It’s hard to see how Iran could be much clearer.

Iran does not have “a right” to enrich

Iranian officials claim, they have a “right to enrichment” and that “enrichment to 60% is not banned by the NPT.”

They’re wrong.

The NPT (the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory) does not give anyone a “right” to enrich. That’s simply not in the document. Period.

The treaty does allow for peaceful uses of nuclear technology, such as electrical power, but emphatically requires that signatories may not “manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.”

Once again (as if we haven’t said it enough!) 60% enriched Uranium cannot be used for anything at all other than producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, enrichment up to 60%, on its face, violates the NPT.

Iran is not negotiating

The MOU’s 60 day negotiation period has passed, with the United States and Iran insisting that they not talking —even as limited communication continues via back channels.

However, negotiations have so far centered mostly on the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran holding firm to its position that its stockpiles of enriched uranium are “not on the agenda” for negotiations.

So do Americans support military action or not?

Americans support military action by a wide margin if Iran refuses to negotiate away its nuclear weapons program, which is technically already the case. Yet even without such an understanding, opposition is far less than widely believed.

Americans are, not surprisingly, split mostly along party lines, with general opposition to additional missile strikes or ground troops. However, the U.S. blockade is slowly suffocating Iran, and public opinion on that appears to be stable.

Perhaps that’s why Trump projected strategic patience on Iran, saying “Midterms have nothing to do with my thinking.” For now, oil and gasoline prices are moderately elevated but stable, the U.S. blockade is causing Iran significant economic and strategic pain, and the midterms are clearly not the strategic weapon Iran had hoped.

Photo: Ahmad Vahidi by Alibagheri1997 via Wikimedia.

In his speech, Vahidi invoked the Battle of “Khaybar,” Mohammad’s 7th century massacre of a Jewish community that eerily resembles October 7, and that supposedly proves Islam is undefeatable.

Iran’s reality looks vastly different.

Iran’s weaknesses

Iran’s top leadership has been destroyed, the Air Force has been destroyed, the Navy has been destroyed (except for small speedboats and similar limited assets), inflation has topped 80%, the currency is so devalued that on major finance sites the Rial shows up simply as zero, and an American blockade has reduced government finances to roughly half of what the regime actually needs to fully function (estimated at $45 Billion out of a need of $80 Billion).

Most importantly, rumors of infighting indicate that months of sustained military, social and economic pressures may be psychologically breaking the regime’s leaders.

Mohammad at Khaybar would not be impressed.

Photo: Ali ibn Abi Talib slaying the Jewish commander Marhab in the Battle of Khaybar, from “Glory of the Shia World” 1910 via Wikimedia.

Iran’s assets

Iran’s major asset has been limited “potshots” at civilian ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz — an act that is militarily insignificant but does impact commercial shipping. To be clear, scaring an insurance company or a civilian cargo ship is not exactly a high bar — it is the act of small terror organization, rather than a nation state.

Iran’s apparent goal in the Strait is to choke the global economy by spiking oil prices, but the plan is not succeeding: crude oil has dropped to $83/barrel (down 25% from its peak of $112 in April) and average U.S. gasoline prices are holding steady at $4.06/gallon (about 20% less than their peak during the Biden administration.) These prices are considered moderately elevated, but stable and by no means at crisis levels.

Photo: Crude oil via TradingEconomics.

Iran retains the ability to fire missile barrages at Israel and at its Arab neighbors in the Gulf. Yet modern missile defenses reduce the effectiveness of such attacks, and strong Israeli, Arab and U.S. responses create a degree of deterrence, at least for now: anonymous leaks from Gulf intelligence agencies speculate that Iran may be preparing to resume increased attacks in the near future.

All factors considered, the passage of time is harming Iran far more than its enemies.

Has America used 80% of its interceptors?

The claim is not impossible, but it’s also inherently unreliable.

Here’s how it works: a think-tank, such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies, uses public information about how many missiles Iran shot to calculate an estimate of how many interceptors America might have used. News outlets, like CNN, then conjure up a dramatic headline as if this were established fact.

But how many interceptors did America actually start with? How often do we use laser systems? How many missiles were allowed to fall harmlessly into the desert or the sea? How many were shot down by allies, such as Israel?

These, and dozens of other crucial data points, are closely guarded military secrets, making any open source estimate little more than a wild guess.

Official sources insist America has plenty of interceptors, while the press’s anonymous sources either do not actually know, or are committing a felony by revealing classified information — meaning the former is much more likely.

The Islamist delusion factor

Let’s put Iran’s situation in context:

• Imagine if the U.S. President, most of the Cabinet, much of Congress, the Air Force and the Navy were all completely destroyed.

• Remember in 2022 when Americans felt financially crushed by 9% inflation? Now imagine suffering Iran’s inflation: over 80%.

• America’s government shutdown last February was over a dispute of approximately 7% of the Federal budget. Imagine permanently losing 50% of the budget — American life would effectively grind to a total halt.

This is essentially Iran’s reality.

Yet the regime embraces an apocalyptic, Islamist ideology that actually values suffering and destruction as a sign of great victories to come. Logic takes a back seat.

Regime collapse

Given its particular apocalyptic ideology the Iranian regime is highly unlikely to moderate or reform. Yet after losing enough resources, any organization becomes unable to function at all.

Mossad chief (at that time) David Barnea predicted regime collapse “by the end of 2026.” That was before the infamous “MOU” ceasefire agreement, which relieved much of the military and some of the economic pressure.

Yet our non-public sources in the Israeli security establishment confirm Barnea’s overall assessment, if not his timing. The Mossad has a special unit specifically designed to destabilize Iran from the inside, and there is no indication that those operations have ceased. The prevailing view is regime collapse, though economic and military relief can slow that collapse, and Iran’s rulers will cause as much destruction as possible on their way down.

As Barnea famously declared last May, “We are not done with Iran. We are just getting started.”

Photo: by Ricki Rosen for for McClean’s. Used pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107 (criticism or comment).

The fakery should have been obvious: the “Palestinian boy” was actually a Jewish Israeli named Zemer Aloni, dressed in an “old man” style Keffiyeh. Imagine a fake AI image of an “American child,” but wearing a bow tie and smoking a pipe - you’d have to be completely naive about American culture to be fooled even for a second.

Photojournalist Ricki Rosen openly acknowledged that her photo was staged, calling it a “symbolic illustration” for McClean’s magazine. Yet Israel, and the world, fell in love anyway — whether because we didn’t see what was in front of our eyes, or perhaps because we didn’t want to.

And that is the perfect metaphor: for both the Oslo Peace Process and much of the world today.

Rosen had to use a Jewish boy in a keffiyeh because Palestinian families (quite rightly) feared their neighbors would kill them for “collaborating” with the “zionist enemy.” As Israelis naively spoke of “taking risks for peace,” the vast majority of Palestinians openly spoke of turning Israel into an entirely Islamic state.

Both in the photograph, and in the Oslo Peace Process itself, we never really saw the Palestinians: we saw ourselves. We saw what we wanted to see. In fairness, we were imagining a worthy vision of a better future, but we were “making peace” only with our own fantasies.

Even today, we continue to pay a terrible price for that misstep.

The vast majority of Palestinians supported the October 7 massacre, if elections were held today Hamas would win in a landslide, and Palestinians overwhelmingly oppose disarming Hamas. Those rare and brave Palestinians who feel otherwise risk torture and death.

But the problem is not only Israeli.

From U.S. Presidents Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama, from George W. Bush to Joe Biden, we’ve sloganized about “universal values,” and the fantasy that everyone in the world thinks exactly like we do. It makes a great soundbite, but it’s about as real as a staged photo of a Jewish boy in an old man’s keffiyeh.

We forget that our “universal values” were never universal — not even to us.

For millennia we lived to serve kings, czars and emperors. Dreams of freedom and peace, of prosperity and personal sovereignty, became commonplace only during the Enlightenment: an absolutely groundbreaking new philosophy which is only slightly older than America itself — the mere blink of an eye in human history.

Enlightenment thought (and its consequent freedoms and democracies) spurred innovations that have reduced poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression to levels never before imagined.

Yet even today, the Enlightenment has not taken hold everywhere.

One competing world view is Islamism — not to be confused with Islam (which is a religion) Islamism is an ideology that envisions a violent Islamic conquest of the entire world. Not all Muslims are Islamists: to the contrary, Muslims tend to be its greatest victims. Yet Islamism is nonetheless a widespread and potent force.

Islamist ideology stems from the battle of “Khaybar” a 7th century massacre in which Mohammad annihilated an entire Jewish community: including mass murder, ritualistic beheadings, mass torture, mass rape and taking captives.

Sound familiar? That’s because it is.

During the October 7 massacre, Palestinian terrorists, civilians, and United Nations staff shouted “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud!” while carrying out exactly those same acts against Israeli victims.

Khaybar is also part of the foundational ideologies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. In all those states (or proto-states) the atrocities of Khaybar are recurring and commonplace. That’s why it shouldn’t have been surprising this week when Ahmad Vahidi, commander-in-chief of Iran’s IRGC, invoked Khaybar while explaining “Islam can be made to rule the world.”

If you have clean water and plenty of food today, if you aren’t in fear for your life or in agonizing pain, the Enlightenment has something to do with that. Our “universal” values, and their consequent innovations, have been the single greatest force for good in human history. Every human being deserves those benefits.

Maybe that’s why it’s so hard for us to accept that not everybody wants them.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the Israeli Knesset on October 13, by Israeli Knesset.

With Trump’s historic announcement and the return of the hostages came the end of a national nightmare, and enormous gratitude and relief on the part of the Israeli people.

But the “end of a war” was never more than political sloganizing.

Two IDF soldiers fell just last week, making a total of 48 since the “end” of the war. An estimated 75,000 soldiers continue to risk their lives in active combat positions, with another quarter million on alert for reserve duty, Deadly and undeterrable enemies remain active on seven fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Judea/Samaria (the West Bank), Iran, Yemen and domestic terror attempts inside Israel itself.

Here’s the “big picture.”

An IDF soldier stands guard in Gaza, via IDF.

Gaza

The U.S. led “Board of Peace” continues to make plans, Hamas continues to reject them, and Israel continues to guard the “Yellow Line,” — the position inside of Gaza to which the IDF has advanced.

The Board of Peace made a dramatic announcement last week that Hamas had agreed to disarm, adding that Israel is now required to withdraw from Gaza entirely. It quickly became clear that to Hamas, “disarming” actually means giving up only some weapons but not all weapons. The Board of Peace urged Israel to leave its defensive positions anyway. Israel pointed out that Trump’s own 20 Point Plan requires Hamas to entirely give up all weapons, and to do so before Israel leaves its positions - and for good reason: there was, after all, a “ceasefire” in place on October 6.

The “Yellow Line” in Gaza, via IDF.

Hamas remains armed and firmly in control of the parts of Gaza beyond the Yellow Line, while the IDF remains in combat positions just beyond, facing attacks and regular ceasefire violations. Israel carries out targeted strikes against terror operatives who are either in the act of violating the ceasefire, or who were directly involved in the October 7 massacre. Meanwhile, the rest of the world remains largely ineffective.

It’s not just Hamas, but Palestinians in general overwhelmingly oppose the idea of Hamas disarming, even though that is the first necessary step toward IDF withdrawal, toward international reconstruction, and toward an entirely new life for Gaza. It appears that Hamas’s core vision of annihilating Israel is a higher priority for the Palestinian people than long-term prosperity or even near-term basics, no matter the cost.

Lebanon

Lebanon follows the same pattern as Gaza - the U.S., Lebanon and Israel (the parties to the “Trilateral Framework”) continue to meet and hold empty discussions about peace and disarmament. Meanwhile, Hezbollah remains armed and active while the LAF (Lebanon Armed Forces) fails and refuses its obligations to dismantle or even contain the Iran backed terror group. This shouldn’t be surprising — Hezbollah effectively controls the Lebanese Parliament — so the idea that Lebanon would or even could disarm Hezbollah (while remaining under the terror group’s political control) was always a paradoxical fantasy.

As a result, the IDF continues to guard the “Lebanon Yellow Line” (not to be confused with the Gaza Yellow Line), including frequent direct combat against Hezbollah forces, tunnels and resources.

Photo: “Forward Defense Line” buffer zone in Lebanon, by IDF via Times of Israel.

Iran

America continues its unending dance of negotiations —> threats —> more negotiations —> more threats, all while continuing limited strikes and waiting for midterm elections. Iran continues to fire on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. bases, and Arab Gulf states, all while carefully avoiding Israel - an ironic reversal of history.

The reason is straightforward: an attack on Israel will turn the current limited strikes into something much bigger - something for which Iran is not yet ready. Israel learned the limits of deterrence on October 7, and no one is foolish enough to believe that this bubble of safety is sustainable in the long term.

And more…

Judea and Samaria is the site of an invisible war, with constant counter-terror operations, mostly unnoticed by the public. Syria is a similar story. The Iran backed Houthi terror group in Yemen remains a very real threat, as Israel builds its capacities in Somaliland, just across the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Meanwhile Israel is in a constant, unending process of foiling terror attacks at home.

As all this unfolds, Israeli soldiers continue their dangerous and often deadly military service, even as Israeli civilians maintain high alert and readiness for an expanded Miluim call-up (IDF reserve duty).

The entire country remains very much on a war footing, even if the headlines have forgotten.

Barack Obama went from politically unknown to President of the United States in under two years. Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s fiercely anti-Israel Senate candidate, is now positioned to do the same.

Photo: Abdel El-Sayed by Conlan Houston, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Flickr (cropped).

Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic primary for Michigan’s Senate seat this week, narrowly beating pro-Israel Democrat Haley Stevens.

The candidate enjoys support from the top brass at the Hamas-linked CAIR, a U.S. non-profit also designated as a terror organization in several states. El-Sayad dog whistled sympathy for deceased “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that “there are a lot of people in Dearborn [Michigan] who are sad” about his death. He accuses Israel of apartheid and genocide and calls its democratic government “as evil as Hamas.”

Condemning the “Israeli government” because of Israel’s fight against Hamas, or the ethics of IDF soldiers, is actually a condemnation the Israeli people as a whole — because we hold an overwhelming consensus on these issues. It’s like saying, “I’m not against the American people, I just believe FDR is evil for fighting Hitler.”

Yet the very same politics of hate that boosted El-Sayed in the primaries might be prove an impediment in the general: his primary opponent, Haley Stevens, stood a much greater chance of beating Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. Indeed, President Trump called El-Sayed’s primary win, “Great news for the Republican Party.”

But it would be a mistake to underestimate El-Sayed.

Candidate Obama gained so much national attention from his 2005 Senate run that he served only 24 months of his six year term before announcing his (successful) campaign for President. Similarly, El-Sayed’s campaign has been national in scope, including out-of-state fundraising, significant national attention, and high profile support from national figures like Senator Bernie Sanders, Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, anti-Israel firebrand Hasan Piker.

And don’t forget: in politics, anything can happen.

While Obama was running for Senate, a late breaking sex scandal obliterated opponent Jack Ryan’s chances and ensured an Obama win. (Obama was already ahead in the polls, but the scandal locked his victory.) El-Sayed is currently polling behind Rogers, but that can change in a moment.

A Muslim Brotherhood White House

The Muslim Brotherhood is a violent international movement that declares as its model slogan:

“Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu-Akbar!”

The Brotherhood stands behind numerous terror organizations, such as Hamas, ISIS and Al Qaeda, as well as American advocacy groups, such as CAIR, whose leadership helped to fund candidates such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed and others.

Photo: The Muslim Brotherhood backed Hamas terror organization by IDF.

Mamdani is not eligible to run for President because he was not American from birth, and El-Sayed may or may not get that far politically. Yet Muslim Brotherhood organizations are not giving up, and their candidates keep getting closer.

Would America go to war against Israel?

The idea is not as far-fetched as it sounds.

For one thing, America can physically harm Israel without firing a shot:

• In a technical act of war against Israel last year, Spain and Italy sent battleships to help the “Flotilla” break the legal and lifesaving blockade on Gaza. The ships ended their escort before reaching Gaza, revealing the exercise to be militarized virtue signaling. Yet with American acceptance, or even encouragement, such military adventures could turn violent all too easily.

• The Senate narrowly failed to pass a resolution last year that would have blocked Israel from purchasing certain critical IDF resources. The White House could accomplish a similar effect by executive order.

• Since October 7, 2023, eight U.N. Security Council resolutions attempted to force Israel to abandon its self-defense against Hamas. Only the American veto prevented this outcome.

• Some EU member states are trying to cut trade relations with Israel. If the U.S. were to do the same, the hit to Israel’s economy would eviscerate the country, and decimate the IDF’s budget.

These are just some of the ways the White House could put Israel in military danger without launching a direct kinetic strike. Yet America justifies military strikes on far less than what Israel stands accused of:

• President Obama justified strikes on Libya by pointing to, “brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis.”

• President Clinton explained the need “to protect thousands of innocent people in Kosovo from a mounting military offensive.”

• Even the typically verbose President Trump framed his military decision as preventing Iran, “…from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

El-Sayed, by contrast, accuses Israel of “horrific genocide,” and of “evil.” Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned Israel for creating “one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history.” Mayor Mamdani put it succinctly — that Israel had “demonstrated the very worst of humanity.”

This after the bloodiest century in human history: one that included the Holocaust, two World Wars, atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Armenian Genocide, and the Soviet purges. But Israel was, “the worst.”

Launching a strike on Israel, or any country, fits squarely within any President’s Constitutional Authority. All that’s left is to elect a President who truly believes Israel to be “evil,” “horrific” or quite simply, the “very worst of humanity.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in New York next month to speak at the U.N. General Assembly. Meanwhile, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a plan to arrest the Prime Minister in order to “uphold international law.” He's finally learned that he can't arrest Netanyahu, but the New York mayor's anti-America and anti-Jewish dramas are far from over.

Photo: Hamas's October 7 Attack Support Rally in NYC, by Oleg Yunakov via Wikimedia.

In reality, such an arrest would violate both international law and U.S. Federal law. It would also endanger the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and could even force the NYPD into a kinetic battle against U.S. Federal law enforcement.

Daniel Pomerantz explains New York’s latest drama on i24 News.

Not surprisingly, Mamdani subsequently shelved the illegal plan, but the drama is not over: the New York mayor is urging residents to mount mass “protests,” which, under Mamdani’s mayorship, have a way of turning into violent riots. Indeed, the very next day, an assailant took two lives in a double stabbing on New York’s historically Jewish Upper West Side - while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and “justice for Islam.” Numerous large scale “protests” under Mamdani’s watch have resulted in violent injuries to both Jewish New Yorkers and NYPD officers, while hate crimes have spiked: with more Jewish victims than every other group combined - despite Jews making up only 10% of the city’s population.

New York’s soaring hate crime figures are not a coincidence: in addition to Mamdani’s frequent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric, he has eliminated legal protections against antisemitism, and the former “defund the police” advocate is now significantly cutting the NYPD’s budget and manpower.

Even as he neglects his city, New York’s mayor is attempting to run American foreign policy from Gracie Mansion.

The International Criminal Court (the “ICC”), a political body that dishonestly calls itself a “court,” issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant in 2024, providing Mamdani with his pretext to arrest an American ally on U.S. soil.

From the beginning, the United States understood that the ICC was not a “court” at all, but a weapon of lawfare. That’s why America never signed the ICC’s founding charter (the “Rome Statute”) and instead Congress passed a bi-partisan law called the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (the “ASPA”). The ASPA not only prohibits any United States government body (such as New York City) from cooperating with the ICC, but also obligates Washington to protect U.S. servicemembers and allies.

A case in point: according to evidence leaked last April from the FBI, Qatar offered to “look after” ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan in exchange for a prosecution against Israeli leaders. According to the leak, the promised protection included a Qatari led smear campaign against Khan’s secretary, who had accused him of sexual harassment. Khan went on to obtain arrest warrants ex-parte, which means in a secret session without giving the accused an opportunity to respond or cross-examine. Khan has since been dismissed from his position over multiple allegations of “sexual misconduct.”

Daniel Pomerantz explains U.S. plans to shutter the ICC on i24 News.

This is the kind of cynical corruption and weaponization that characterizes the ICC, and it’s not just about Israel: shortly before his passing, the late Senator Lindsey Graham prophetically noted, “if they do this to Israel, we’re next.”

He was right.

The United States recently obtained information that the ICC has opened investigations against U.S. servicemen and women over operations in Venezuela and Afghanistan. The significance cannot be emphasized enough: America is not even a party to the Rome Statute, never agreed to take part in this project, and yet foreign bodies are preparing to forcibly take custody of U.S. servicemen and women. As a result, Washington is now working to entirely dismantle the ICC through economic pressure.

Meanwhile, New York’s mayor is doing the opposite: bringing the ICC’s weaponized lawfare home to U.S. soil, and in doing so, acting as a proxy for America’s enemies who aim to target the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will speak to the United Nations next month, he will not be arrested, and New York’s mayor will not order the NYPD to do battle against U.S. Federal agents. Yet his illegal adventurism in U.S. foreign policy pits Mamdani squarely against the safety of the United States of America, even as the residents of his city continue to pay a bloody price.

Photo: Gemeni/Nano-Banana

My vacuum robot had a generic, English-language sounding brand-name, but as I got to know the product I realized it was actually Chinese. That in itself isn’t a problem, China makes all kinds of useful, inexpensive products.

But…

Then I remembered something disturbing: during Operation Rising Lion (Israel’s strike against Iran’s nuclear program last year) the IDF began to suspect Chinese “smart-cars” were collecting sensitive information on IDF bases. The cars have cameras, microphones, precise GPS, can connect to the driver’s phone, and have access to the internet. IDF soldiers drive their Chinese cars right into their bases, where the car can collect all manner of sensitive data, and upload it to the internet.

Photo: A parking lot in Petach Tikva, Israel via Wikimedia.

This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory, but a serious concern expressed by the Shin Bet (Israel’s “FBI”) and the IDF, which have already begun implementing rules to limit the use of such cars on or near bases.

But that’s not all.

• It’s well known that China has a “National Intelligence Law” that requires private companies to cooperate with the government on security matters — which includes turning over private user data.

• It’s also well known that China frequently shares intelligence with Iran (in addition to supplying the Islamic Republic with major components for its missile and nuclear programs).

In other words - if a private Chinese company has information, then (effectively) so does the Chinese government. And if the Chinese government has information, then (in all likelihood) so does Iran.

And then it hit me - unlike older models, these new vacuum robots don't settle for mere LIDAR systems to help navigate around the house. Instead, they have multiple high quality cameras, precise GPS location, even microphones. And of course, the device has internet access. In other words, my vacuum is almost exactly like the Chinese cars that have gotten Israel’s security experts so worried.

At first I hesitated to return my new device - perhaps I’m just being paranoid, right? I mean, after all, it’s just a vacuum. The very next day, the FCC announced that America will be banning most models of foreign-made robotic vacuum cleaners…for reasons of “national security.”

This shouldn’t be surprising - if Israel can infiltrate Hezbollah’s pagers and Iran’s traffic cameras, why shouldn’t China be able to commandeer its own empire of inexpensive exports?

As the salesperson at my local Tel Aviv appliance store accepted my return, he asked if I’d like to exchange for a different model. I explored the shelves, this time with a little help from Google — to check the names of each brand: every vacuum in the store was Chinese.

Photo: A representation of RC-Answers by Nano-Banana/Gemeni.

Since October 7, 2023, we’ve written hundreds of articles, position papers, and research studies, we’ve done news appearances and taken part in public conversations.

Then we took all our work and used it to train our own custom AI platform: RC-Answers. And now we’re making it available to you: our community.

• Need reliable help teaching your children about Israel?

• Have an uncomfortable dinner party coming up?

• Or are you just curious to learn and you don’t want deal with antisemitic nonsense along the way?

Not only can you ask questions on a range of topics, but you can custom design your answer the way you need it - from a detailed essay to a short Tweet - something for your wise son or your simple son, your wicked son, or the one who doesn’t know how to ask. Just tell RC-Answers what you need!

(Of course it’s not just for “sons” - if you don’t get the joke, ask a Jewish friend!)

Why we need RC-Answers:

Here’s what you get from ChatGPT:

Question: Did IDF soldiers commit war crimes?

Answer: Yes. There have been credible allegations and documented instances in which individual IDF soldiers or units have committed acts that constitute or may constitute war crimes.

ChatGPT then goes on and on: detailing completely unsupported claims and conspiracy theories from notoriously anti-Israel groups, as if they were established fact. I’ll spare you the full text…and the accompanying nausea.

Here’s the response from our AI system, RC-Answers:

Question: Did IDF soldiers commit war crimes?

Answer: Short summary: Israel is not engaged in war crimes, maintaining one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in history due to its strict rules of engagement, which often exceed international legal requirements. Accusations frequently overlook Hamas's systematic use of civilian infrastructure and human shields for combat. When rare incidents of misconduct by IDF soldiers occur, they are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted by Israel's robust military justice system, demonstrating a strong commitment to ethical conduct and the rule of law.

RC-Answers then goes on to provide a longer, in-depth answer, with specific sources and useful links. The answer is not only correct, it’s actually useful: clear, persuasive, and fully supported. Want an answer with more emotional impact? Shorter? Longer? Just tell RC-Answers what you need!

A work in progress

We are constantly improving the platform so 1. don’t expect perfection (yet!) and 2. do give your feedback!

In the top right corner of RC-Answers you can rate the conversation with a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down and you can click on the mail icon to share your thoughts. Your insight helps us improve!

Photo: RC-Answers representation by Nano-Banana/Gemeni.

Some of our goals for the future include:

• Even more topics - we’re adding new training data all the time! But keep in mind, this is a specialized AI platform for our work: Israel and the Jewish world - it’s not meant to be a general system for all topics.

• Quicker knowledge of breaking news (if something happened just today we might not have it yet - that requires a different technical toolbox and we’re working on it!)

• Improved thinking and logic - the tech is always advancing and so are we.

What does it cost?

Well, at least it’s free for you - but we invest a lot to make this work. Want to help us? You can make a U.S. tax deductible donation to RealityCheck by clicking here or in the top right corner of RC-Answers.

Donate to RealityCheck

For large philanthropic giving or legacy planning, please reach out to us directly at: contact@realitycheckresearch.org

Thank you so much to all the supporters who made this possible so far. With your help, we will do even more!

Photo: By Gemini/NanoBanana

We were in “Torts” which, despite the name, is not about baked desserts — it’s about a certain kind of legal damages: like a slip-and-fall or a car crash.

We were analyzing a car accident in which the court found the pedestrian liable: that means it was his fault and the driver was let off the hook. I raised my hand, and in front of 200 competitive Georgetown law students (and one very intimidating professor), I asked, “since pedestrians always have the right of way, how could the pedestrian possibly be liable?”

The professor’s answer changed my thinking forever: “Where did you get the idea that pedestrians always have the right of way?”

She didn’t say, “you’re wrong” (although I was) but instead, “Where did you get the idea…?”

Where did I get the idea?

It certainly wasn’t from our course materials, or the caselaw or the statutes. (Perhaps it came from some long-forgotten driver’s-ed teacher?) All I knew for sure is that the idea was in my head, and so I assumed it must be true.

They say, “don’t believe everything you hear.” Less well known but equally important is, “don’t believe everything you think.”

And that is the foundation of critical thinking: it’s not enough to know that you think something, you must also figure out why you think it. And check that your basis is a solid one - you may be surprised how often it isn’t.

Photo: Caselaw on the shelf, via Pixabay.

How to be a lawyer…in three easy steps

When I’m trying to understand a question of law or life, I ask myself these three questions:

1. What’s the relevant area of law?

2. What are the legal standards (the “rules of the game”)?

3. What actually happened (the “facts of the case”) and how do these facts fit into these rules?

It’s simpler than it sounds - take this example: imagine you’ve been caught speeding.

1. What’s the area of law? (Traffic law.)

2. What are the legal standards? (You may not exceed the speed limit, which in this particular case is 60 mph.)

3. What are the facts? (You were going 75, and 75 is more than 60.)

That’s it! Now you can skip law school.

Sorry, you can’t actually skip law school — this gets trickier with more complex situations, but by using this structure you can see farther and understand better - not just in law, but throughout much of life and learning.

Putting it all together - the “genocide” case

You think to yourself, “Israel is committing genocide.” It’s a thought in your head…but is it true? Don’t believe everything you think!

Start by asking yourself what my Torts professor asked me, “where did you get that idea?”

Maybe you saw a headline quoting the U.N., or Amnesty International. But those groups aren’t actually sources, they are just speakers, and they are repeating information from some other source. So where did the speakers get their ideas? Did they do an independent investigation?

If you care about a topic, it may take some real legwork to answer that question.

Fortunately, we’ve already done the work and the answer is: no, the U.N and Amnesty did not do independent investigations. It turns out that almost every speaker on this topic took their data from the “Gaza Ministry of Health,” which is just another name for Hamas. (Does Hamas seem like a trustworthy source?)

Now do the three step process:

1. What is the relevant area of law/politics/life? (Answer: the Convention Against Genocide)

2. What are the legal standards? (Read the Convention - it has a definition of “genocide”)

3. What are the facts, and do they fit the definition?

You can read the full analysis here and here, but for now we’ll just say this: the plaintiffs suing Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice have petitioned the court to change the definition of the word “genocide” in order to make it apply to Israel.

In other words, the moment they did this “three step analysis,” even the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized that their case didn’t add up.

Photo: Daniel Pomerantz discusses the international courts by i24 News.

Not just law… also life

Did you hear some nasty gossip about a friend? Did you get a hot stock tip? Does a headline warn we’re going to war next week?

Before you assume these ideas are true and insert them into your brain, first ask yourself:

Does the gossip have evidence? Does the stock tip come with a link to a source, and do its claims hold up under the “three questions”? Are the news articles based on “anonymous sources,” and if so, is there a way to corroborate what they say?

You may have noticed that at RealityCheck we sometimes give a sneak peak of what’s coming next for Israel and Jewish communities. It’s not magic - but it is hard work: first we check every source we can (public and non-public), and then we apply this exact process.

Critical thinking burns away myths and lies - even the ones we want to believe. Perhaps that’s why so many people avoid it - critical thinking forces us to face the hard truth. But in the end, it’s the most powerful gift we can give our brains: critical thinking demystifies the past, clarifies the present, and sometimes, just sometimes, it even gives us a reliable glimpse into the future.

A political body misleadingly called the “International Criminal Court” (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, a topic we previously discussed in depth. Neither America nor Israel are signatories to the ICC’s Rome Statute and are not bound by its decisions.

Congress understood back in 2002 that the ICC was not a court at all, but a weapon accessible to America’s enemies. That’s why Congress passed a bi-partisan law called the “American Servicemembers Protection Act.” The Act makes it illegal for any American government body (like New York City) to cooperate with the ICC, exactly what Mamdani intends to do.

The New York Mayor’s threats not only violate Federal law, but his support for the ICC endangers the men and women of America’s armed forces, just as Congress foresaw over 20 years ago.

If Mamdani actually orders the police to carry out such an arrest, he would violate Federal law and force the NYPD into an armed conflict with the United States military. The question isn’t whether Israel’s Prime Minister will speak at the U.N. (he will), but just how much damage New York’s mayor will inflict upon his own city along the way.

Whether Mayor Mamdani is foolish enough to actually walk this path is another question, one hopes this is just empty talk for publicity. Nonetheless, this is the direction Mamdani’s dangerous rhetoric ultimately leads.

I explain on i24 News.

That statement might be honest. Usually it’s not.

Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Flickr.com

Imagine saying, “I don’t oppose America, I just oppose FDR for fighting Hitler.”

Defeating Hitler wasn’t an FDR priority, it was an American priority — and if you oppose that, then you oppose America.

The question is: Why do you oppose “Bibi”?

I have yet to hear an international leader criticize Netanyahu over the lack of Haredi enlistment in the IDF, housing costs, illegal monopolies, or high taxes.

Israelis argue fiercely over whether Netanyahu should take personal responsibility for the failures of October 7, corruption charges, judicial reform and much, much more.

By contrast, foreign leaders criticize the Prime Minister over issues on which there is widespread Israeli consensus — issues that are the modern Israeli equivalent of fighting Hitler.

That kind of criticism is not anti-Netanyahu, it’s not “anti-Israeli government policies,” it’s just anti-Israel.

The most recent example came last week, at the University of Tel Aviv, where Democratic hopeful Rahm Emanuel scolded Israelis, saying their Prime Minister has caused Israel to:

• Be “complicit in horrors" inflicted upon Palestinian families in the West Bank;

• Be “reckless and careless in the treatment of Palestinian life,” in Gaza;

• Potentially spark a regional war;

• Fail to establish a Palestinian state; and more…

(We reviewed these claims in Part I, in Part II and in Part III of this series.)

Photo: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in 2010, by Israel GPO.

These aren’t issues of debate in Israel. In fact, if anything, Israelis criticize Netanyahu for not being aggressive enough on some of these matters.

• Israelis, as a people, deeply trust in the ethical and moral behavior of the IDF. This is a small country where we know the soldiers intimately: they are our parents and children, our colleagues and our friends - we know how carefully they perform in dangerous situations, and how much they sacrifice to do so.

• Israelis, regardless of political affiliation, are deeply concerned that rewarding Palestinians with statehood in the wake of the October 7 massacre would be profoundly dangerous, as well as hurtful and offensive to the Israeli victims.

• Israelis view international patience for Palestinian terrorism as a kind of global insanity, and not as a response to any individual Israeli politician.

Photo: IDF graduation ceremony, by IDF via Flickr/Wikimedia Commons.

Many Israelis fiercely oppose Netanyahu over a whole range of legitimate issues, but not over the consensus issues on which nearly everyone agrees.

That kind of behavior, when coming from foreign leaders, is not “anti-Bibi” or “anti-government policy,” it’s just anti-Israel.

And it is fundamentally dishonest.

This is the last in our week-long series on former Obama Chief of Staff and potential Democratic Presidential candidate, Rahm Emanuel, and his visit to Israel.

We wrote this series this not out of any animus, but appreciation for the fact that Emanuel has clearly articulated his positions, and those of his party — it is important to understand what those positions are, and to accept that they are real.

These positions have become a central part of the Democratic platform and the worldview of many Americans.

Our goal at RealityCheck is not to tell anyone how to vote. Instead, we hope to provide a clear and deep understanding of the relevant issues and the realities of life in Israel.

We hope this series has helped.

The issues we discussed then remain as true today but with one key difference: the United States is finally taking serious action.

Lindsey Graham (may he rest in peace) predicted the ICC’s weaponization saying, “if they do this to Israel, we are next.”

Well, that didn’t take long.

The United States recently obtained information that the ICC has opened investigations against U.S. servicemen and women over operations in Venezuela and Afghanistan. In response, the State Department announced this week:

“The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest. Americans never signed up for this…Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court…to disable the ICC’s ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”

Make no mistake: this is not a Trump Administration priority, it is an American priority:

The 2002 American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA), a bi-partisan law passed by Congress, anticipated that America’s adversaries would use the ICC as a weapon. Congress acted to ensure that America would be not only able, but obligated to protect itself, its soldiers, and its global allies.

The “court” is not actually a court at all, but a political body that pursues its own political agendas, and that America refused to join, knowing it would one day be weaponized by America’s enemies.

A case in point: the State of Qatar offered to “look after” ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan in exchange for him agreeing to prosecute Israeli leaders, according to evidence leaked last April from the FBI. According to the leak, the promised protection included a public smear campaign against Khan’s secretary, who had accused him of sexual harassment.

This is the sort of cynical corruption and dangerous weaponization that characterize the “court,” and it’s not just about Israel: shortly before his passing, the late Senator Lindsay Graham prophetically noted, “if they do this to Israel, we're next."

He was right.

The United States recently obtained information that the ICC is preparing to target U.S. servicemen and women over operations in Venezuela and Afghanistan, prompting this U.S. effort to entirely dismantle the ICC through economic pressure.

In a prior article we also analyzed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stated intention to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should he visit New York — an action that would violate Federal law (specifically the above referenced ASPA).

Click above to explore the topic with me on i24 News.

Photo: A Palestinian demonstrator in Gaza via AP.

In his speech last week at Tel Aviv University, Rahm Emanuel scolded Israel for, among other shortcomings, not establishing a Palestinian state. (We covered some of the potential presidential candidate’s other admonitions in Part I and Part II of this series.)

In Emanuel’s view, a Palestinian state will solve virtually every problem in the region.

It will not.

The very suggestion is not only ignorant, but also callous and cruel to the Israeli people — who endured the nightmare of October 7, and have been fighting for their very survival ever since.

How Israelis feel

Long before the October 7 massacre, Israelis overwhelmingly supported a Palestinian state. Today, Israelis across the entire political spectrum, overwhelmingly oppose.

Why?

It’s not just that October 7, 2023 was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust;

It’s not just the mass rape, torture, ritualistic Islamic beheadings, mass hostage taking, and a pace of killing even faster than what the Nazis had managed to achieve;

It’s not just that the attackers included members of multiple terror groups, and Palestinian civilians, and United Nations staff;

The reason is because the Palestinian people overwhelmingly supported the massacre.

The reason is because if elections were held today, Hamas would win in a landslide.

The reason is because Palestinians overwhelmingly desire that Hamas remain armed.

October 7 wasn’t just a terror attack, it was a glimpse into the Palestinian vision of statehood.

Palestinian views on October 7:

Graphic: Palestinian views on the October 7 massacre. Polling by the EU and Ford foundation funded Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, March 2024.

Is this really how Palestinians feel?

Yes.

The polls are consistent with statements by Palestinian leaders, the content of children’s textbooks, and with speeches by Imams in the mosques and religious schools.

Yet there is also another indicator, the most powerful and most disturbing of all:

After October 7, IDF soldiers were forced to go door-to-door, clearing private Palestinian homes of booby traps, weapons and terror tunnels. As they moved through thousands of individual homes, the soldiers consistently encountered copies of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” photos of notorious terrorists, and decorative quotes about the glory of killing Jews.

Photo: A copy of Mein Kampf in Arabic found in a children’s bedroom in Gaza used by Hamas for military purposes - from Residence of the Israeli President via Jerusalem Post.

Mark Twain once said, “There are…lies, damned lies and statistics.”

That’s why any one of these indicators alone might not be enough to confirm the consensus ideology of an entire group. Yet when every source of information points to the same result, you eventually have to accept that this is the unavoidable, deadly, nightmarish truth.

Does every Palestinian believe the same thing?

Of course not — any large group will have outliers — I know some of those outliers closely and personally. But these especially thoughtful and unusual Palestinians are the first to caution me that the nightmare vision is a consensus: the overriding opinion that drives Palestinian policy.

The kind of state that most Palestinians envision and desire is a permanent October 7. We know this because Palestinians, as a consensus group, are telling us.

Shouldn’t we just give peace a chance?

We already have.

Israelis envisioned the Oslo Peace Process as being an end to the conflict. The Palestinian people and leadership did not.

Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Yitchzak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat sign the Oslo accords alongside U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1993. Photo via Timeless Moon.

Even as they supported the Oslo process, most Palestinians opposed Israel’s very existence, and supported establishing an entirely Islamic state in all of Israel. Palestinian support for a “two state solution” was always misleading: it really means “two states” as a step on the way to total conquest.

This was the Palestinian vision of Oslo. They said so. We should have listened.

Instead, Israel went on to offer statehood…twice (not including several offers prior to Oslo). Palestinians rejected and rejected again, carried out a violent intifada, then another violent intifada, and in the last decade alone carried out 25,000 individual terror attacks.

All that was before October 7.

Palestinians, and the Arab world at large, see statehood as a reward for the October 7 massacre, and as encouragement to do it again. This means that statehood, or even a renewed path to statehood, would encourage more October 7 style massacres, while providing the perpetrators with the tools to succeed.

Israelis would also understand statehood as a reward for October 7, and that is just unimaginably cruel.

But…what else can we do?

There are options, but none that the world wishes to consider.

For example, the world could violently eviscerate and then totally rebuild Palestinian society from scratch, as the Allied Powers did to Germany and Japan after World War II.

Israel does not have the resources for this monumental task, and the rest of the world doesn’t have the desire.

Another example: most Palestinians wish to leave Gaza, but the world won’t permit it — apparently forcing people to stay in a place they don’t want is what best fits Western morality.

In any case, the Arab world won’t accept departing Palestinians — Arab leaders tend to favor a Palestinian state as long as it’s very far away. The world should take note - the Arab states understand the Middle East better than the West does.

Ignoring these paths is like declining chemo-therapy as “not an option,” and then complaining that you have no options. You have an option - you just don’t want to face it. The only other option in this metaphor is to die of cancer. The other option in the Middle East is to demand that Israel commit national suicide.

Israel will not agree to that.

In the meantime, the status quo, though not “good,” may be the “least bad” option that anyone will support, at least for now.

Admitting that one doesn’t have all the answers is the beginning of humility, and of wisdom. Imposing inappropriate “solutions” just to “virtue signal” inevitably leads to tragedy.

Why are we writing about this at all?

Rahm Emanuel is a mainstream voice in the Democratic Party. He, or someone with similar views, will be a major party candidate for president in 2028. Regardless of who wins, these ideas (or worse) will remain widespread in American society.

It feels safe to scold Israel into danger while living comfortably 6,000 miles away. October 7 proved that Israelis no longer have the luxury of surrendering to such pressures.

In truth, we never did.

It is not.

Photo: Rahm Emanuel at Tel Aviv University via YouTube.

“You have lost Europe. You have lost the United States, and in the last three years you picked up Somaliland. As I said in the speech, that is, my mother would say, such a deal.”

Emanuel's claim is so delusional, so utterly ignorant, so hostile - and in so many different ways at once - that it should win a prize for creative fiction.

The Arab World and Central Asia

Israel has broader and deeper relations in the Arab and Muslim world than at any time in history.

It’s well known that Israel sent Iron Dome batteries to help protect the United Arab Emirates from Iranian missiles. Less known is that Israel also sent a unit of IDF soldiers to help operate the system. Consider how astonishing that is: IDF soldiers, on the ground, protecting an Arab neighbor.

Israel also enjoys deepening relationships with Bahrain, Morocco and Oman, deepening security cooperation with Saudi Arabia (despite tense public rhetoric), growing military cooperation with Azerbaijan (which strategically borders Iran), oil sales and security cooperation with Kazakhstan, and more.

Israel also enjoys unprecedented positive relations with India, the largest and most populous democracy in the world.

Somaliland

Emanuel’s narrow-minded and patronizing ridicule of Somaliland is not only wrong, but also dangerously naive.

Somaliland is located right across the Bab al-Mandab Strait from Yemen, from where the Iran-backed Houthi terror organization has not only fired hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel (including internationally prohibited cluster bombs), but has also choked off 10% to 15% of global shipping for almost three years (not unlike Iran in the Strait of Hormuz).

Israel, the United States, the UAE, and Somaliland itself are cooperating to quietly build military bases against this global threat.

This is a multi-national military venture, including countries from four different regions, all working together to make the entire world a safer place.

Does that sound like “isolation?”

Photo: Bab al-Mandab Strait via Wikimedia Commons.

Somaliland also represents the IDF’s “graduation” to being an “expeditionary power,” which is a military with permanent bases in multiple regions of the world — a huge accomplishment for a country as small and young as Israel.

There’s more to Europe than meets the eye

Slovenia was the first domino to fall.

This small, Central European country held an election in March, and almost overnight changed from a hostile critic to a supportive ally of the Jewish state.

And that’s just the beginning.

Photo: Janez Janša, Prime Minister of Slovenia, via Wikipedia.

Some of the most fiercely hostile leaders in Europe have disastrously low approval ratings and are not likely to be re-elected, including: Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Britain’s Keir Starmer. (Starmer is already on his way out of power, and his Labour party faces a similar challenge ahead of elections.)

This widespread rejection is not because of Israel, but it’s not entirely unrelated:

The very same leftist, Islamist-linked ideologies that preach hatred toward Israel also demand rejection of European, American, and Western values - in essence they demand that Europeans hate themselves - an unsustainable strategy.

Most importantly, these ideologies have failed as a governing strategy, with Europe suffering: energy insecurity, sluggish economies, the spread of radical Islam from failure to assimilate massive waves of immigration, and the breakdown of internal security such as the UK’s “grooming gangs” and France’s “no-go zones.” These are dramatically visible problems, and European voters are noticing.

After the coming wave of European elections, Israel will likely find itself with many more allies like Slovenia: including France, the UK, and Spain, as well as the countries where Israel already enjoys strong relationships such as Germany, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, and others.

Israel has not “lost America”

Israel has “lost” America only if one believes that specific ideologies within the Democratic Party are synonymous with “America.”

Nothing could be more untrue.

Recently praised by the Pentagon as a “model ally,” Israel’s cooperation with the United States is deeper, more powerful, and more equal than ever before, and in fact far greater than many other American allies. Major American companies such as Nvidia, Apple, and Palo Alto Networks maintain major operations in Israel, and Israel is being considered to replace Qatar as the new home of CENTCOM operations.

Photo: Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff lands in Israel via CENTCOM.

Israel has indeed lost the bipartisan consensus it once enjoyed in Washington, and hostilities toward Israel and American Jews are both fierce and widespread. These are meaningful problems that Israel has, to some extent, neglected.

Yet it is also true that much of the defamation against the Jewish state stems from the “Diplomatic Intifada,” a highly funded and carefully planned strategy that Israel’s enemies initiated in 2001, and which we’ve explored in depth. This is a form of information warfare, not an organic result of Israel’s self-defense nor of Israel’s interactions with Palestinians, as Emanuel accuses.

Israel faces real challenges as a result its failure to properly address global information warfare. Yet unless you consider the “world” to be limited to only left-leaning European governments and only one of America’s two major political parties, Israel is most certainly not “isolated.”

This matters.

Former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. His views are widespread within the Democratic party, and America as a whole.

The topics of Emanuel’s scolding included: the imperative of a Palestinian state, that Israel was “reckless and careless in the treatment of Palestinian life,” in its defensive wars, Israel’s supposed “international isolation,” and (essentially) the very existence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is so much to cover that we will do so in a multi-part series, beginning today, with Emanuel’s condemnation of Israel itself, over violence by settlers.

Israel complicit in “horrors”

Emanuel declared the Israeli government “complicit in horrors" inflicted upon Palestinian families in the West Bank. (In the Jewish world, the word “horrors” is typically reserved for descriptions of the Holocaust, something that Emanuel, being Jewish himself, would know. ) The potential presidential candidate also called for the United States to impose sanctions.

Is the State of Israel actually inflicting “horrors”?

In a word: no.

Under Israeli law, all violence (other than appropriate self-defense) is prohibited, regardless of a person’s religion or status. Violence against Palestinians is therefore a criminal offense under Israeli law. Emanuel believes Israel doesn’t enforce those laws, and is even complicit in their violation. He’s wrong.

The vast majority of Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”), often referred to as “settlers,” are both peaceful and law abiding. The small minority of settlers who illegally attack Palestinians, also tend to attack IDF soldiers. Israelis have little patience for either.

Incidentally, the “small minority” of settlers who engage in violence is about 300 people, which comes to 0.06% of settlers and 0.003% of all Israelis.

This stands in sharp contrast to Palestinian law, which not only permits violence against Jews, but encourages it: rewarding such attacks with cash prizes as well as significant prestige.

There are two kinds of data on “settler violence”: one from the United Nations and another from the IDF.

United Nations figures are inflated: they include Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount which Palestinians define as “attacks,” legitimate self defense, unproven allegations, and IDF counter-terror operations. IDF figures focus on actual, violent crimes. Nonetheless, we examined both.

Based on data from the IDF and the FBI, a resident of Memphis, Tennessee is 376 times more likely to be attacked by a violent criminal than a Palestinian in the West Bank is likely to be attacked by an Israeli settler.

Not 376 percent more - 376 times more.

(Even according to inflated U.N. figures, that number comes to 180 times.)

A Palestinian is 249 times safer from violent attack in the West Bank than in Portland, 243 times safer than Detroit, and 231 times safer than Seattle. (Even based on the exaggerated U.N figures, these numbers come to 120, 117, and 111 times safer, respectively.)

Figures are similar for many cities across Europe.

This is the only data that matters.

Imagine you see two people: one a bit overweight, the other an olympic athlete. You don’t need to examine their daily schedules to know which one is exercising more.

Why? Because the results tell the story.

If Israel were “complicit” in criminal acts, as Emanuel claims, or even neglecting its enforcement obligations, these figures would simply not be possible.

Despite Israel’s deficiencies in this area (and there are many, even according to Israelis), the results show that the Israel enforces its laws against violent crime tremendously more successfully than much of the entire world. Orders of magnitude more succesfully.

This essay is most certainly not a defense of illegal violence by Israelis (which most Israelis oppose), any more than it is a defense of violence by criminals in Memphis, Detroit or Seattle.

Yet there is a serious danger in creating moral equivalence between Israel, which outlaws violent crime and enforces those laws better than much of the world, versus terror organizations, that specifically encourage and fund some of the most nightmarish practices in human history.

Rahm Emanuel equates Israel with the terrorists.

There is something particularly significant in Trump’s phrasing:

Reporter: “Is the ceasefire over? Is the ceasefire done? Is the MOU dead?”

President Trump: “It’s a very interesting question. To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

The President went on to articulate a critical point that Israelis (and Persians) have known for years, yet has long befuddled Western understanding:

“They’re liars. If I make a deal with them, we have a deal. And he [the Iranian negotiator] goes out, he talks. We make a deal, everyone’s agreed: no nuclear weapon. We make a deal, they [the Iranian delegation] go outside, talk to the press, and they say, ‘We never even talked about it.’ There’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

Indeed, this is exactly how Iranians negotiate, as we explored in our article, “How the Iran negotiations actually work” a worthwhile read if you haven’t already seen it. In short, Iran’s negotiators delay and delay, and at the last moment, they verbally agree to exactly what the West wants to hear — but then later pretend the conversation never happened at all.

Why doesn’t the West “get” it?

As a young lawyer I worked in the New York commercial real estate world, including a major negotiation that involved Trump himself. I learned a certain ethic in those negotiations, a kind of trust among professionals — of course we rely on written contracts, we don’t trust each other that much. The players can be tough, misleading and even devious. But if two lawyers (or their clients) agree to something verbally, you can be confident that it will be reflected in the written contract. This isn’t about morality - it’s about efficiency. Most of all, you can trust that everyone has the same basic interest in the end: prosperity, at least for themselves.

For a New York real estate developer, Iran’s negotiation style is hard to believe - the way they twist and deny their own words seems senseless to the point of incomprehensible. The idea that anyone would seek a goal other than prosperity (such as, for example, divine apocalypse - including the destruction their own civilians, economy and infrastructure) is equally unfathomable.

Iran’s regime and all manner of terror groups have long taken advantage of this Western naiveté.

Yet it seems that Trump just might be starting to “wise up.”

In another press conference a reporter asked, “You said Iranian leaders were very rational people, nice people to deal with, strong people, smart people. Today you said they were scum, sick people and being led by sick people. What changed?”

The President answered, “I got to know them.”

Trump emphasized one especially dire hypocrisy, that goes right to the heart of the extremist-Islamist world view:

"They asked for a time out [from military action]. They wanted to go to the funeral of Khamenei. And I said, 'Give it to them.' And they started shooting missiles. I mean, it was the craziest thing.”

None of this is surprising to Israelis, who frequently suffer attacks during Muslim holy days, sometimes originating from inside mosques, and even a massive armed assault from inside the famous Al Aqsa Mosque in 2017.

In addition to using deceased Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral as an opportunity to call for the death of the U.S. President, including stoning his picture and hanging him in effigy, the Iranian regime also used the (supposedly) sacred event as an opportunity to fire missiles on American bases, effectively desecrating their own national funeral in a way that America (at Iran’s request) had specifically refrained from doing.

Most importantly for the White House, Iran has continuously worked to block the Strait of Hormuz, violating the only terms in the MOU that were meant to be immediately binding, and undermining one of Trump’s key economic priorities.

America may finally be learning what Israel already knows: Islamists use everything as a weapon: agreements, trust, even holy days and religious sites. They weaponize words, truth, civilians, humanitarian aid, and most especially: Western naiveté.

So are we going back to war?

Not at the moment.

Since declaring that the MOU is “over,” the United States has struck at least 170 Iranian military targets so far (80 on the first night and another 90 on the second).

Yet most targets constituted infrastructure the regime had reconstructed during the eight-week pause related to the MOU. In other words, the U.S. strikes do not look like a renewed campaign against the regime, but merely an attempt to return Iran’s military posture to where it was before the MOU. (The fact that Iran was rebuilding its offensive capabilities at all, despite the MOU and despite its impoverished economic state, should serve as a dire warning to the West.)

President Trump’s use of aggressive language to build leverage, followed by a return to negotiations, has become a recurring pattern. His most recent statements may not be any different.

Israel remains on high alert, but there has been no change to the Home Front Command civilian instructions, a key indicator of imminent combat. Meanwhile, the West as a whole (including Washington) appears to remain allergic to anything resembling regime change, decisive victory or a true understanding of the Middle East.

Yet all of that could change in an instant.