The political and religious musings of a Right-leaning, libertarian, formerly Orthodox Jew who emphasizes rationalism, pragmatism, common sense, and free, open-minded thought.
Morocco is a country with such vibrant cities as Fez and Tangier, a diverse geography, a rich culture, a wealth of historic sites, and has been featured in such films as Casablanca and Game of Thrones. Guess what else Morocco has? High unemployment. According to the Moroccan government's Haut Commissariat du Plan, Moroccan unemployment is at 13.3 percent, which is slightly below the 30-year high (see below).
Youth unemployment is even worse, reaching a 25-year high (see below). Sadly, the problem is nothing new. NPR complained about high Moroccan youth unemployment in 2012. So what is causing this increase in unemployment? Sure, there was the COVID pandemic, but unemployment in Morocco is higher now than it was during the pandemic.
As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) illustrates in its Article IV Consultation report, Morocco has withstood five droughts in six years that have led to production shortfalls of 40 percent. This seems like it explains the problem: lower agricultural output. However, Morocco's agriculture sector contributes about 15 percent to Morocco's GDP. That is a higher percentage, especially considering that high-income countries only have 2 percent of their GDP in agriculture.
I bring this up because as economies develop and mature, they become less dependent on their agricultural sector. Similar to this recent article from the Institute for Research in Economic and Fiscal Issues (IREF), I argue that Morocco's dependency on agriculture is a larger symptom of government largesse getting in the way of true economic development.
Taxation. Morocco's corporate tax can reach as high as 35 percent. You can read my analyses on corporate tax here, here, and here as to why that rate is too high. The standard value-added tax (VAT) in Morocco is 20 percent, which is higher than the global VAT average of 15 percent. A high VAT is significant because it reduces disposable income and discourages spending. On top of that, the Moroccan tax system has a narrow tax base and is riddled with tax exemptions that make evasion and avoidance common (Moutii, 2025).
Government Spending. The good news is that Morocco is working on fiscal consolidation (IMF, p. 10). The bad news is that Morocco's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70.9 percent, which is about 30 percentage points higher than the recommended limit that should not be exceeded on the long-term for developing countries. Whether the Moroccan government can maintain fiscal discipline will determine how much this becomes a factor and avoids heading towards a fiscal cliff similar to that of the United States.
Labor Law Rigidity. The Legatum Institute details in its case study on Morocco that the Moroccan labor market is characterized by a lack of inclusion of women and youth, slow job growth, and low quality of jobs (also read this 2025 World Bank report on boosting the business environment in Morocco). This lack of labor market flexibility is brought on by a quickly growing minimum wage and high overtime costs, regulations that cause redundancies in businesses, rigidity on temporary contracts, and stringent barriers on terminating the employment of workers, all of which contribute to the high cost of labor. Additionally, a skills mismatch and lack of workforce development exacerbate the labor law rigidity (ibid., p. 50).
Corruption. According to Transparency International (TI), Morocco's corruption is worse than the global average. Even worse, its TI Corruption Perceptions Index score has declined since 2018. As I pointed out last year, corruption erodes economic growth. This is due to the fact that corruption impacts business confidence and hinders investment, as is illustrated by over 16,000 enterprises collapsing in Morocco last year.
Postscript. It is true that there were global challenges such as pandemic and drought. It is also true that Morocco's high unemployment rate is more structural in nature. Punitive corporate taxes, a high VAT rate, and rigid labor laws make it difficult to modernize and diversify the economy. A richness in culture, geography, or global visibility is not going to save Morocco. It is a policy paralysis that will keep employment rates stubbornly high until the Moroccan government removes the barriers to economic prosperity.
October 7, 2023, was a horrific day for Israel. A barrage of militant Hamas terrorists crossed into Israeli territory to carry out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. Not only was there murder, kidnapping, and torture, but Hamas terrorists also used sexual violence against Israeli women. If this attack had happened in any other country, I imagine that advocates against sexual violence would not have equivocated and would have spoken up right away against such atrocities. However, since the October 7 attack took place in Israel, the "international community" took a different approach.
In its press release on October 13, 2023, UN Women did not acknowledge the sexual assault of Israeli women and mostly talked about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is peculiar since Israeli Defense Forces did not have a physical presence between 2005 and October 23, 2023 when the IDF launched its full-scale incursion in Gaza. It took UN Women nearly two months to issue sort of any condemnation. When it did, UN Women could not help but partake in false equivalence. To its credit, the United Nations did eventually get around to admitting in 2024 that there are reasonable grounds that sexual violence took place in multiple places by Hamas on October 7.
Neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch (HRW) were much better in terms of being able to unequivocally condemn Hamas. HRW could not sufficiently condemn Hamas for its barbarism shortly after the attack, and did not even address Hamas' sexual violence. It took HRW until June 2024, or nine months later, to come out with a report acknowledging the sexual violence during the October 7 attacks. In contrast, HRW has swiftly condemned the sexual violence in Congo, in the DRC, and Sudan .
On October 13, 2023, Amnesty International could not clearly criticize what Hamas did without condemning Israel in a manner that was tantamount to victim-blaming. Amnesty International unequivocally and quickly reported on the rapes committed by Tigray fighters in Ethiopia and the gang rapes of Rohingya women in Myanmar without equivocating. In contrast, Amnesty's December 2023 report on what happened on October 7 only confirmed one rape, which as we will see shortly, is an understatement of what happened.
This brings us to the Dinah Project, which is an Israeli group founded to advocate for the victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) during the October 7 attacks. Last week, the Dinah Project released a report entitled A Quest for Justice: October 7 and Beyond. Not only does this report extensively document over 15 cases of CRSV committed by Hamas and provides a legal framework to hold Hamas accountable. It makes the argument that the acts of CRSV were not individual acts. Instead, the sexual violence was a deliberate, ideologically motivated, and systematic tactic central to Hamas' genocidal goals, something which I have brought up before.
This blatant one-sidedness is not new. In 1975, the United Nations passed a resolution falsely stating that Zionism is racism. Although the resolution was overturned in 1991, that animus remains to this day. It does not matter that there are actual human rights abuses taking place in the world. Israel is disproportionately vilified with such false accusations as apartheid, occupation, and settler colonialism. A few months ago, I had to refute Amnesty International's claim that Israel was committing genocide (see here, here, and here).
So why the tempered or delayed responses from human rights organizations? Why are there so many on the Left, the Far Left in particular, who ignore the mounting evidence of sexual violence against Israelis and are incapable of condemning the terrorist group Hamas? Why is Israel subject to such frequent, intense, and disproportionate condemnation while so many of these critics ignore real human rights abuses and oppression? Shortly after the October 7 attacks, I asked myself why the "progressive" Left would be on Hamas' side because it was perplexing to me (see here and here). After examination, I was able to get past why the "progressive" Left would not side with a minority group that has been persecuted for centuries.
With identity politics leading the way, the "progressive" Left can only see in terms of the oppressor and the oppressed in very black and white terms. For them, Israel is the oppressor. Acknowledging Hamas' usage as a weapon of war would have refuted the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy favored by many international actors. Moreover, the state of Israel is a repudiation of victimhood. Israel shows that a minority as oppressed as the Jews can overcome discrimination, stigma, and genocide to the point of creating a flourishing state. Leftist ideology loses credibility if minorities overcome adversity because it means we humans are not merely victims of circumstances.
In contrast, the Palestinian cause is the personification of victimhood, which is why the Far Left clings to it so dearly to the point where Hamas can do no wrong and Israeli victims' suffering does not release them of being supposed "oppressors." Pro-Palestinian individuals cannot view Hamas as anything but virtuous. To do otherwise would be admitting that their worldview is not only wrong, but morally depraved. Conversely, if the Far Left has excused the likes of Stalin and Mao Zedong killing millions, why would they have moral qualms with the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas?
Anti-capitalist sentiment could explain why the Far Left would defend Hamas rapists and not care about Israeli victims. Earlier this month, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) released a report entitledForever Occupation, Genocide, and Profit. This UNHRC report was incapable of acknowledging that Hamas started the current war, that they systematically carried out murder and sexual violence, or that there are still hostages. What did the report conclude? "The enduring ideological, political, and economic engine of racial capitalism has transformed the Israeli displacement-replacement economy occupation into an economy of genocide." Much like I argued in 2023, Jews and the state of Israel personify capitalism and all the evils that anti-capitalists see in capitalism.
Whether Israel is viewed as oppressor, capitalist, or rejector of victimhood that the Far Left loves all too much, this is how "human rights advocates" can reach such a level of moral distortion. What Israel represents to these people is so reprehensible that they can contort facts and their perception of current events to believe that rape is resistance. The #MeToo movement died shortly after the October 7, 2023, because of these double standards. Major human rights organizations have failed in their respective missions. It is this overall indifference towards the suffering of Israeli women that caused the Dinah Project to come into being.
We live in troubled times with anti-Semitism I previously thought was relegated to history books. Yet we are seeing and documenting horrid anti-Semitism in real time. We are seeing that sexual violence does not matter if the victim is Israeli or Jewish. We see that it has lamentably become acceptable to attack and murder Jews across the world in order to "globalize the intifada." As a survey from the Anti-Defamation League shows, it is how the United States has stooped low enough where 24 percent of Americans found that violence against Jews is "understandable."
Given the entrenched hatred for Israel and for Jews in multiple international organizations, I remain skeptical as to whether the victims of the October 7 attacks will receive the justice they deserve. Until the world can view Hamas as the Islamist, regressive, homophobic anti-Semites that they are, and until people can realize that it is the Palestinians who embody everything the anti-Zionists accuse Israel of, most people will continue to cling to the moral inversion in which it is "understandable" to attack Jews and where #MeToo does not apply to Jews or Israelis. Even so, I hope that the Dinah Project is a first step to pursue justice for those who suffered at the hands of Hamas terrorists and could also be used as a framework to legally punish anyone who commits sexual violence in conflict. There is no acceptable instance in which rape is resistance. As we move forward, let us not forget who stood up for victims of sexual violence and who stood on the side of genocidal rapists.
From salsa and salads to ketchup and tomato sauce, tomatoes are one of the most consumed produce items in the United States. While tomatoes serve multiple culinary purposes, the U.S. tomato market is being threatened. In April, the Trump administration withdrew from a suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico.
With the termination of this agreement, the U.S. Department of Commerce is implementing an antidumping duty of 20.91 percent on tomato imports from Mexico that is to take effect today: July 14, 2025. DOC claims that the agreement failed to protect U.S. tomato farmers from the "unfairly priced Mexican imports." An anti-dumping duty is a type of tariff that only comes into play when there is evidence of "dumping." Dumping is when foreign companies sell goods at prices lower than what they sell for in their home market or below the cost of production.
The U.S. government, in short, is unhappy that Mexico can and does sell tomatoes at a much lower price than U.S. farmers. As I have explained with tax policy and who pays their "fair share," it is amazing how much fairness is in the eye of the beholder. We will get into the fairness aspect in a moment. What is worth mentioning is that Mexico accounts for 90 percent of U.S. tomato imports and 61 percent of overall tomato consumption. Fruit imports account for 60 percent of the fruits consumed in the U.S., which is twice the share in comparison to what it was in the early 1980s.
What is even more undeniable is that these tariffs will increase the costs of tomatoes. Based on mainstream microeconomic theory, tariffs decrease the quantity of imports, thereby increasing prices. It is not mere economic theory. Trump's tariffs during his first term cost the average U.S. household $831 per year. Looking at the tomato market, it is no mystery why tomato prices will increase.
Mexico has a cost advantage due to lower labor costs, a longer growing season, and better climatic conditions for growing tomatoes. What the DOC does not want to recognize is that Mexico simply has a natural market relationship in which Mexican tomato farmers are better positioned to supply tomatoes than U.S. tomato farmers, especially in the winter. U.S. tomato farmers in Florida have had to plow their tomatoes because increased picking and packing costs render them unprofitable to pick. With Trump's onerous deportations on top of it, undocumented workers who would have otherwise picked the tomatoes are too scared to work, thereby increasing tomato costs further.
The think-tank American Action Forum (AAF) estimates that these tariffs will increase the cost of tomatoes by 8 cents a pound, or about a 7 percent increase. That estimate assumes that the only cost will be U.S. consumers paying for the cost increase because a spoiler for Trump: the vast majority of the cost of his tariffs is passed on to everyday Americans.
Due to consumer expectations and U.S. businesses wanting to avoid profit margin decay, the AAF's estimate in cost increase could increase to 15 cents, or an 11 percent increase in cost. Since Mexico accounts for 90 percent of U.S. tomato imports and 61 percent of overall tomato consumption, the United States will need to try to compensate for the shortfall in meeting demand.
In order to do so, the United States would need anywhere between 42,000 to 250,000 additional acres dedicated to tomato production. This is upwards of six times the size of Washington, DC. However, given that the United States does not have that advantage, odds are that there will be fewer tomatoes to eat. Not only that, this will mean less economic output. A study from Texas A&M (Ribera et al., 2025) shows that Mexican tomato imports to the United States create over $8 billion in economic impact, an impact that supports approximately 47,000 jobs in the United States (see below).
Whether it is with steel, automobiles, or movies, Trump still fails to realize that tariffs are a classic instance of "cut off your nose to spite your face." Interest groups demand tariffs and they often win because the concentrated benefits are more visible than the dispersed costs on millions of consumers.
Trump was quick to blame Biden during the presidential campaign about causing food inflation. Let there be no mistake: Biden's fiscal policy contributed to food inflation. In its supposed quest to pursue market "fairness," Trump is going to protect a few well-connected farmers. As a result, Trump will raise tomato prices for the everyday consumer while slashing economic output and destroying jobs. American consumers and Mexican farmers should not be punished simply because Mexican farmers are better at producing affordable tomatoes. Affordable tomatoes are now the latest casualty in Trump's trade war and tariff turmoil.
Some good news for Americans traveling by air: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced this Tuesday that the TSA no longer requires travelers to take off their shoes as part of TSA's security checkpoint process. While it is a relief there is one less protocol to follow at U.S. airports, this instance gets at the inanity of TSA's security protocols.
TSA was created in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Aviation and Transportation and Security Act was passed in November 2001 nationalizing passenger screening in the name of national security. Prior to 9/11, airline passenger screening was the responsibility of the airlines. Since private companies had years of experience whereas the U.S. government had no experience in airline passenger screening prior to 9/11, it remains unclear why the TSA thought it would have a better chance of thwarting terrorists.
Consider TSA's "shoes off" policy as Exhibit A of the TSA's dysfunction. Shortly after 9/11, Richard Reid, also known as the Shoe Bomber, traveled from Paris to Miami. He unsuccessfully tried to ignite 50 grams of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PNET) that was concealed in his shoes. Reid is serving life in prison, but his attempt inspired the TSA to take on the "shoes off" travel policy. If this policy were so vital to national security, you would think that the TSA would have implemented it right away, right? Not so much.
As late as August 2006, the TSA was still advising travelers that they did not need to remove shoes before entering a metal detector. It would not have taken five years to implement the policy if it were that urgent, much like it would not have taken two decades to have implemented the REAL ID Act if it a national ID were meant to enhance national security. Second, the TSA has never in its existence caught anyone with a hidden bomb in their shoe, thereby questioning the logic of such a policy. If that were not enough, there are very few instances in which other countries have this airport policy. By and large, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Israel, India, United Kingdom, and Mexico do not have this protocol in place.
If it were simply a matter of one stupid policy, I would be merely calling for reform on a specific TSA policy. However, "shoes off" is an example of overall TSA incompetency chasing a problem that by and large does not exist. Let us start with that second part first. Last year, the Cato Institute conducted a risk analysis of foreign-born terrorism on U.S. soil looking at terrorist attacks from 1975 to 2023, including 9/11. The probability of a person being killed in terrorist attack on U.S. soil committed by a foreign-born individual is about 1 in 4.5 million. To put that in context, a U.S. citizen is almost 4 times more likely to get struck by lightning than in a terrorist attack.
I seriously question how safe the TSA keeps passengers. In 2013, I called for the elimination of the TSA because its screening capabilities were so shoddy. In 2015, ABC News was able to conduct an investigation of how the DHS carried out undercover tests to test TSA's competence. It turns out that 95 percent of mock explosives or banned weapons smuggled by DHS during these simulations went unnoticed by the TSA.
A 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on these TSA simulations shows that the TSA has a long way to go. Repeat incidents plus a lack of reporting showing considerable improvement indicate the TSA remains inept at its screening process. Data on TSA screening failure rates has been kept classified since 2017, so we cannot get a current figure on TSA's incompetence. This should not be a surprise: the "solution" to dealing with poor screening practices is to curtail transparency and sweep the problem under the rug.
To be fair, we need to ask whether the cost is justifiable. It is a fair question given that the U.S. government spent $9.1 billion on TSA in fiscal year 2024. In 2023, I discussed the value of a statistical life, which is a common practice in cost-benefit analysis to determine the amount one is willing to pay to reduce the probability of a death. Governments have a higher VSL than actuarial practices. Even if you go with the higher amounts, it could not exceed much beyond $12 million.
The most generous independent estimate is $15 million, which is already beyond standard CBA. However, that $15 million figure assumes 100 percent effectiveness rate. Assuming that the 95 percent failure rate still holds, the estimate is closer to $667 million per life saved. Once adjusted for inflation, that estimate puts the cost at $912 million per life saved. This is public policy speak to say that the TSA is so inefficient that the exceptionally high costs do not justify any purported benefits by any reasonable CBA.
On top of that, there are other useless TSA practices. As security professional Bruce Schneier points out, liquid bans are arbitrary and unproven, full-body scanners are invasive and ineffective; and the SPOT behavioral screening program lacks evidence of effectiveness. And do not get me started on the TSA not following the science by forcing airplane passengers to wear face masks during the COVID pandemic.
The TSA is talented at feeling up and patting down airline passengers, confiscating items that do not need to be confiscated, and creating a bunch of national security theater, but is efficient at little else. It's American government at its finest because a government monopoly is incapable of properly trading off costs and benefits. The TSA has been far more invasive and costly than terrorism itself. The TSA belongs in a list of U.S. federal government agencies that should be eliminated, including the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). If we care about airport security, fiscal discipline, and national security, the TSA should be abolished and privatized so airplane passengers can go through metal detectors without dealing with the excessive security theater.
President Trump spent his Fourth of July signing into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation bill passed by the 119th Congress. OBBBA contains a number of policy priorities from Trump's second term, including removing the tax on overtime, funding Trump's deportations of undocumented workers, extending individual income tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and removing the tax on tips. Given its sheer size, I cannot cover everything in one entry. We will have to see if I cover various provisions in the future.
What I can say is that on the whole, the OBBBA is not looking good for the United States. The White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is optimistic. According to the CEA's analysis, the OBBBA is expected to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to 94 percent, reduce the deficit by $8.5 to $11.1 trillion over the next ten years, and increase the real GDP by between 4.6 percent to 4.9 percent over the next four years. But none of the policy wonks on any side of the political aisle share the White House's optimism.
While the Right-leaning Tax Foundation calculates that there will be modest GDP growth as a result of the OBBBA, Tax Foundation is anticipating an extra $3 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that OBBBA will increase the debt by $3.4 billion. The Wharton School, which is the premiere business school in the United States, assessed the OBBBA and found that it would increase deficits by $4.1 trillion, as well as the debt-to-GDP ratio increasing by 7.7 percent and decreasing the GDP by 0.3 percent over the next decade. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) found that OBBBA will increase the deficit by $4.1 trillion, accelerate Medicare and Social Security insolvency to 2032, and explode interest costs to $2 trillion a year.
For those of us who care about the deleterious effects of debt on everyday living, this "Big Beautiful Bill" is a big mess. Neither the expanded tax preferences nor the subsidies like the ones in OBBBA are going to do us any favors. We should all be concerned about deficits and economic growth, but that is not evident in the bill that the Republicans passed. Without considerable spending cuts to get the U.S. government's spending binge under control, OBBBA will be nothing but a big, bloated blunder in the United States' budgetary history.
In the OBBBA, the fines for the automobile fuel milage standards known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are set to $0. This makes CAFE standards compliance voluntary while indirectly nullifying the standards without explicitly repealing CAFE standards. CAFE standards were part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. These standards were created in response to the 1973-74 oil embargo in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. CAFE standards are currently set at 53.4 miles for passenger cars and 38.2 miles for light-duty trucks.
Over time, CAFE standards came to serve another purpose: reducing greenhouse gases (GHG). The idea behind CAFE standards is to incentivize cleaner and more efficient technologies, which were supposed to benefit consumers through lower fuel costs. So why am I happy CAFE standards will de facto no longerbe in effect? In short, because it is an inefficient law with unintended consequences.
CAFE standards will not help save the planet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that CAFE standards will reduce CO2 emissions by 605 million metric tons from 2026 to 2050. While that sounds like a lot of metric tons, the truth is that 605 million metric tons is the equivalent of six hours of global CO2 emissions in 2021. Given that there are 8,760 hours in a year, never mind a 25-year period, CAFE standards will do virtually nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.
CAFE standards have killed people. CAFE standards create an incentive to manufacture lighter vehicles because it is easier to achieve these standards with lighter vehicles. While lighter vehicles might be good for energy efficiency, they are less safe because the risk of vehicular death increases when a lighter vehicle collides with a truck or SUV, as opposed to a heavier vehicle in the same crash. For each 0.1 mile per gallon (MPG) increase in CAFE standards, there has been an increase of 150 deaths (Jacobsen, 2011). Other studies with more lenient standards have found that CAFE standards increase vehicle deaths (see Anderson and Auffhammer, 2013; National Academy of Sciences, 2002; Crandall and Graham, 1989). It would be an a fortiori assumption that stricter CAFE standards, combined with increased traffic, kill more people.
CAFE standards increase the price of new and used vehicles alike. As this study from the Mackinac Center shows, complying with CAFE standards entails a lighter vehicle weight, less acceleration, and technological upgrades, all of which are more expensive. A majority of those costs are passed on to the consumer, with an estimated cost of $24.1 billion of consumer costs in 2023 (Jacobsen, 2013).
We have to remember that CAFE standards do not apply to the individual vehicle, but rather an average across the entire fleet of a given manufacturer. Even so, the standards have become so high that they incentivize greater electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing than would otherwise exist. The average EV costs about $7,000 more than a traditional gas automobile, which means that CAFE standards are both incentivizing EV manufacturing and increasing automobile prices.
Not only that, used car owners are incentivized to hold onto their car longer, which constricts supply and drives up prices. In 2015 dollars, an increase of CAFE standards by 1 mile per gallon resulted a $164 increase in the average price of a large used car (Jacobson and van Benthem, 2015).
CAFE standards disproportionately harm the poor. 92 percent of U.S. households own a vehicle, which is to say that owning a vehicle is vital for the vast majority of Americans. This is significant since a car will cost a low-income household a higher percentage of household income than a high-income household. CAFE standards can very well make new vehicles out of reach for a low-income household, thereby driving them towards the used vehicle market and driving those prices up further. Additionally, energy efficiency standards are regressive because they require a high upfront cost. One study found that efficiency standards such as CAFE standards force low-income households to buy higher-cost vehicles, thereby being more regressive than an energy tax (Levinson, 2016).
Postscript. To recap, CAFE standards will do nothing of statistical significance to save the planet. All the while, CAFE standards kill people while driving up new and used automobile costs, especially for low-income households. These unintended consequences make the case even stronger for consumers to have the freedom to choose how to buy, drive, fuel, and insure their vehicles. Granted, the OBBBA's provision is not quite as good as simply repealing it because Democrats can always regain power and increase the fines for violating CAFE standards. But it is nice to have at least some reprieve from a regulations that is as much of environmental feel-good policy such as plastic bag bans, the Endangered Species Act, or the act of recycling plastic.
Last week, New York State Representative Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for the New York City mayoral election. In addition to being a Democrat, Mamdani is part of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is the U.S.' largest socialist organization and represents the Far Left in the U.S. Forget Mamdani's anti-Semitism for a moment. If you read his platform, he is a major proponent of the idea that the government should give the people things for free or should heavily subsidize them. He has advocated for many ill-conceived policies that I have previously criticized, whether it is rent control, fare-free buses, or raising the minimum wage to $30. Today, I would like to criticize another one of his ridiculous ideas: city-owned grocery stores.
Mamdani sees food prices as being out of control due to profit. He would like to "create a network of city-owned groceries focused on keeping prices low, not making profit." He believes that he can create savings by having the government pay for capital costs while waiving property taxes for these grocery stores. In a TikTok campaign video, Mamdani said that grocery stores should not operate on profit motive, but their mission would be "lower prices, not price gouging."
Other proponents have argued that government-run grocery stores could increase access to healthy food, especially in areas with food deserts. Their idea is to provide grocery stores to neighborhoods that seem "economically unfeasible." This is where wishful thinking collides into reality in a rather unpleasant way. Similar to when I critiqued Kamala Harris' price controls on groceries last year, Mamdani has a profound misunderstanding of how markets work generally and specifically how the grocery store market works.
How big of a problem are food costs? Yes, food prices have increased. We have pandemic-era expansionary monetary policy and fiscal policy to thank for that price increase. More to the point, as U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data shows, food at home as a percent of disposable income decreased from 12 percent in 1964 to 5 percent in 2024. In the 1940s, it was a quarter of disposable income. If food prices are not a primary strain on people's finances, this makes government-run grocery stores a less urgent policy issue.
The nature of the grocery market. The grocery store market is a highly fragmented market. Not only that, but Mamdani's premise about grocers' motives is wrong. If grocery stores were looking to gouge customers, they would make a lot more money. In spite of most people believing the contrary, the reality is that grocery stores operate with razor-thin profit margins, ranging from 1 to 3 percent.
The joy of profit motive. Private firms have something that a public-sector one lacks: profit motive. Maximizing profit means maximizing the difference between revenue and expenses. As this article from the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) reminds us, profit motive incentivizes lowering the cost of inputs (e.g., shopping carts, cash registers), innovation, scaling supply chains, and effectively meeting customer demands. This more often than not leads to lower prices and higher quality.
Perverse incentives. In contrast to profit motive, city-operated grocery stores create perverse political incentives, including price manipulation, product selection, staffing decisions, and remuneration for political gain. The risk for cronyism minimizes any likelihood that Mamdani's dream would come true.
Lack of business viability. Private grocery stores have enough trouble with profit margins. Again, city-run grocery stores do not have profit motive to optimize efficiency. They would struggle without relying on subsidies or government funding. That is not mere economic theory. The "best" success story I could find is one small government-owned store in the rural area of Erie, Kansas. This store has created a modest profit of 1.1 percent, required volunteers, and relied on donations. The supposed success story of Erie operated more like a co-op than it did an actual grocery store. However, on the whole, government-run grocery stores have not been viable, as has been the case in Baldwin, Florida and Little River, Kansas.
That does not even count the catastrophic government ownership of food with Venezuela, the former Soviet Union, or Maoist China and the Great Leap Forward, the latter of which caused the deaths of upwards of 55 million people. I understand that the United States is not the same as communist China, government-run grocery stores come with the same centralized control and bureaucracy, price fixing, and lack of profit motive that the aforementioned Communist countries faced. All the same, it should make us pause and question how much we want the government in charge of food distribution and sales.
Case studies in proxy markets. As we question whether or not New York City (or any municipality) should operate grocery stores, it would be helpful to look at proxy markets. Some in favor of Mamdani's proposal, such as the opinion editor at Washington Post, point to liquor control states where government handles the distribution and sale of all alcohol. That is a bad argument because government ownership of liquor sales resulted in higher prices (Siegel et al., 2014), which undermines Mamdani's fantasy that he can lower grocery prices. In addition, take a look at the New York City's very own Housing Authority, which is straddled with $78 billion with unmet capital needs. I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but a lack of profit motive results in wasteful spending from the government.
Postscript. It is amazing how socialism's loudest proponents are well-off, educated theorists who understand nothing of how the real world works. Government-run grocery stores face challenges stemming from a lack of profit motive, including inefficiencies and political manipulation. The private-sector grocery market is highly competitive with tiny profit margins. Because of those slim profit margins, government-run grocery stores would have to rely on considerable government funding, which would further drain taxpayers. Private businesses are better equipped to meet customer demands, lower prices, and innovate. Private firms have the advantage of "massive economies of scale, decades of market experience, and complex supply chains." What government-run grocery stores will do is increase prices and lower quality for the citizens that Mamdani is purporting to help.
Providing tax incentives to grocers and removing zoning laws are two policy alternatives I can come up with off the top of my head. Or in the case of New York City specifically, you can lower the high sales tax and minimum wage, both of which are costs passed on to the everyday grocery shopper. We can sit around and spitball ideas to make groceries more affordable, but I will conclude by unequivocally stating that the government has no business selling groceries.
About two weeks ago on June 13, Israel initiated a surprise attack on Iran known as Operation Rising Lion targeting top military officers and scientists, much like it did when Israel targeted Hezbollah operatives in September 2024. Iran fired missiles on Israel and there have been airstrikes since. These past few days have been an escalation of the animosity that has existed between Israel and Iran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Iran has financially backed Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Then there was the Iranian attacks on the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina, the latter of which was the largest terrorist attack in Argentinean history. On top of the proxy conflicts and historical tension, Iran has called for Israel's destruction multiple times over the past few decades.
Israel attacked Iran on June 13 because Israel reportedly wanted to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon that would annihilate Israel. This would make sense because the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report a day before Operation Rising Lion showing that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. President Trump initially said that he will help Israel "if needed." And help he did.
On June 22, the United States military carried out Operation Midnight Hammer to attack three nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The White House is claiming that Iranian nuclear capabilities have been obliterated. Although Trump announced a ceasefire the following day, it is neither clear whether there will be further attacks from Israel or Iran, nor is it clear whether Iran's nuclear capabilities are decimated. As of now, the ceasefire is holding, but it is too soon to tell. Similar to what I pondered three years ago with Ukraine, the question I ask now is whether the United States should have militarily gotten involved in Iran.
The answer depends in part on how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear facilities. Damage assessments are still preliminary. An initial assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said that it was only delayed by a few months. On the other hand, the CIA released a statement saying that it would take years for Iran to rebuild. If Iran's nuclear capabilities remain largely intact, it could risk greater regional tension and drag the United States in yet another war in the Middle East. If their capabilities truly were hindered, then this limited military intervention could have prevented World War III.
Whether the United States should have carried out Operation Midnight Hammer also depends on how the United States, Israel, and Iran will respond. If the United States gets further involved in terms of actual fighting, then it makes Trump look bad since Trump promised in his last presidential campaign that he would not start any new wars. To reiterate, Israel views Iran as an existential threat. While the IDF preliminarily finds that Iran's capabilities have been set back for years, Israel might escalate if it perceives that Iran has not been adequately incapacitated.
As for Iran, the Iranian government has already passed legislation to prohibit the IAEA from entering Iran. Iran does not have the capability to attack the United States directly. Iran tends to avoid conventional conflict and instead advances its regional operations through propaganda and proxy operations. As such, Tehran could attack the Strait of Hormuz, which could send oil prices soaring. Tehran could also attack U.S. military installations in the Middle East, much like Iran attempted on June 23 with Operation Glad Tidings of Victory when it unsuccessfully sent missiles to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Domestically, I understand that Iran is militarily weakened and economically pummeled. At the same time, that desperation could encourage the Ayatollah to tighten the screws on its citizens.
This is a roundabout way of saying that this conflict is very much developing and much is up in the air. Even if Iran has been hobbled, Iran remains a threat. I do not want another war in the Middle East, much like most Americans. Cato Institute calculated that if the war with Iran created displacement at the same rate as Syria, that would mean 23.4 million civilians, which would increase the worldwide refugee population by 76 percent. It would be a tragedy indeed. Ultimately, I hope that further conflict and bloodshed is avoided in the Middle East. Whether that ends up being the case is something that only time will tell.
Last week, the justices at the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made headlines with their most anticipated ruling of their 2024-25 term: United States v. Skrmetti. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that banning puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for adolescents dealing with gender dysphoria does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The Tennessee law (SB1) does not classify on sex because it bans the practice regardless of sex. This law was ruled to not have violated the 14th Amendment because it does not discriminate on such clear-cut examples as race, biological sex, religion, or sexual orientation. The only distinctions the Tennessee law makes are based on age and on medical use, neither of which are reviewed under heightened scrutiny. Tennessee is one of twenty-seven states that prevents such medical interventions for minors, which means that the bans are by and large upheld in other states, as well.
As I brought up a couple of months ago with a UK ruling on biological sex, the concept of gender identity is incoherent. It is claimed to based on objective truth, but it can be changed on one's subjective whim. Gender identity is supposed to be a societal construct, but somehow is simultaneously biological and internal. Gender identity is identified as independent of biological sex but is also identified in reference to biological sex. It is designated based on self-expression but also as a product of socialization. Human rights and legal protections cannot be based on something as unintelligible, muddled, and disjointed as gender identity. It would also undermine protecting same-sex attraction if we cannot define the material reality of biological sex, as it would undermine women's rights.
Coherence within the legal system is not the only reason I was happy to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of common sense. As a long-term Dutch study pointed out last year (Rawee et al., 2024), 78 percent of those dealing with gender non-contentedness overcame whatever dysphoria they were dealing with by the time they became adults without any interventions. An additional 19 percent had decreased gender non-contentedness. This means that vast majority of adolescents dealing with gender dysphoria do not need to go to the extremes of gender reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, or HRT.
Then there is the argument of "having a living daughter is better than having a dead son." This argument assumes that without these treatments, children dealing with gender dysphoria will resort to suicide. Forgetting what we covered in the previous paragraph about most adolescents with gender dysphoria overcoming it without intervention, there has only been one main study conducted to directly assess whether sex-change hormones reduce suicide rates among trans individuals (Ruuska et al., 2024). The study concluded that no such association exists, a finding that was also detailed in the Cass Review. The Cass Review, which is the most comprehensive research on the topic to date, also shows the evidence shows that these interventions do not manage gender-related stress long-term.
Arguing that banning these procedures will increase suicide is a tactic to silence dissent and obscure another issue, which is that these treatments cause considerable harm. As I documented last year, gender affirming "care" lacks the evidence base, not to mention that puberty blockers are shown to have multiple side effects, including decreased bone density, deteriorating mental health, and lower IQ. Keep in mind that it was such European nations as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland that were the trailblazers in providing these interventions a decade before it became trendy in the United States. These European countries have conducted systematic reviews and have concluded that the evidence is lacking. It is no coincidence that these nations recommend that these treatments are offered as a last resort and only offered in a clinical setting.
Because children do not have the maturity, understanding (mens rae), or capacity to fully make their own decisions, how society treats children's rights is different. There are a myriad of activities and decisions from which children are legally restricted that adults are not restricted, whether it is voting, owning property, entering into most contracts, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or working in hazardous occupations. Gender reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, or using puberty blockers should not be an exception, especially given everything I have highlighted above.
Although the Supreme Court was asking a constitutional question about the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court came with the correct ruling in terms of outcome. Gender-affirming "care" is not an evidence-based practice. There is evidence showing the harm that such practices cause, especially ones that life-altering and essentially irreversible. This lack of evidence base is also augmented by the fact that the vast majority of adolescents overcome their gender dysphoria, thereby making these treatments unnecessary for the vast majority of those dealing with gender dysphoria in the first place. Socially progressive European nations understand this reality. I hope that those in the United States who believe otherwise can actually follow the science instead of adherence to ideological compliance for its own sake.
Everyone needs to eat. If people do not eat food, they die. It is part of why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, is touted as playing a crucial role in fighting food insecurity across the United States. This is especially the case considering that SNAP benefits are second to unemployment insurance in terms of providing assistance during economic downturns. While it is purported as being this wonderful lifeline for struggling Americans, the reality is quite different.
I am not referring to obesity rates exacerbated by SNAP benefits (see my 2023 analysis here). When I was doing some research a couple of days ago on what to write about next, I came across a recently released report from the Mercatus Center entitled Reducing Waste and Fraud in SNAP. The most shocking finding of this report was that overpayment rates increased from 2 percent in 2012 to 10 percent in 2023. What this translates to is it costing U.S. taxpayers $10 billion in SNAP overpayments. It is smaller than the $31.1 billion in Medicaid improper payments I criticized last month, but it is still a jarring amount given the size of SNAP.
It is mind-blowing because in spite of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending more on improving retailer integrity and fighting trafficking in SNAP benefits, the overpayment rate continued to surge. Part of the reason for the surge is because USDA applied an improved methodology in 2017 and did not re-calculate the pre-2017 data. Then there are the matters of eligibility misreporting, Electronic Transfer Benefit (ETB) technical issues, and SNAP benefits trafficking, the latter of which account for about 40 percent of overpayments.
This September 2024 report from the General Accountability Office (GAO) gives a better sense of weak oversight. For example, the GAO recommended in 2018 to increase penalties for when a retailer exchanges recipients' SNAP benefits for cash instead of food. As of September 2024, the USDA did not implement that recommendation provided in a GAO 2018 report. In that same 2018 report, the GAO criticized USDA for not applying previous recommendations from 2016. The Mercatus Center came up with a few recommendations on how to deal with these overpayment rates:
Create an office of program integrity within the FNS.
Require the disclosure of payment errors of any size, instead of just those over $57.
Allow states to retain more of the funds that they recover when they detect fraud.
Permit states to dis-enroll retailers that are taking advantage of SNAP.
Encourage states to move over to SNAP EBT cards with chips.
Close loopholes that allow those with higher income and assets to collect SNAP benefits so that only genuinely needy households qualify.
I would also add some of the recommendations that I wrote about back in 2013, including separating SNAP benefits from agricultural subsidies, eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, and modify the gross income limit from 130 percent to 100 percent of the poverty line, and enacting spending caps for SNAP. Sadly enough, there has been such little reform made on SNAP that these recommendations are still by and large applicable about 12 years later. The fact that so little has been done this century to improve SNAP benefits is troublesome.
Aside from the fact that this costs millions in taxpayer dollars a year, why should we care? Misallocating resources vis-à-vis overpayments means fewer dollars actually going to those in need. Eroding public trust in the program can mean less support for SNAP, which can harm those who rely on those benefits. More to the point, if the government cannot manage a program such as SNAP with competence, it makes it more difficult to justify its existence. Yes, libertarian economist Frederich Hayek believed that there should be at least a minimal social safety net. At the same time, all the USDA's intransigence and recalcitrance show is that SNAP should be as small and minimal of a social safety net as possible.
There was a time when buying a home with a white-picket fence was a staple of the American Dream. The home was a symbol of stability, independence, and upward mobility. At least in the middle twentieth century, one could buy a modest home with a single income. That started changing in the 1970s when the coastal cities became less affordable and Americans started gravitating more towards such Sunbelt metropolitan areas as Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami.
Unfortunately, affording homes in these Sunbelt metropolitan areas is becoming more elusive with skyrocketing housing costs and housing stock decreased (see above). A new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper from leading economists at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania provides an answer (Glaeser and Gyourko, 2025). From the abstract of the paper:
If the U.S. housing stock had expanded at the same rate from 2000-2020 as it did from 1980-2000, there would be 15 million more housing units...New housing growth rates have decreased and converged across these and many other metros, and prices have risen most where new supply has fallen the most. A model illustrates that structural estimation of long-term supply elasticity is difficult because variables that make places more attractive are likely to change neighborhood composition, which itself is likely other influence permitting. Our framework also suggests that as barriers to building become more important and heterogeneous across place, the positive connection between building and home prices and the negative connection between building and density will both attenuate.
It is not a lack of land because Sunbelt metropolitan areas have plenty of land. What these economists found is that the major culprits for increasing housing costs in the Sunbelt area are zoning laws and other land-use regulations. This is basic supply and demand. When demand for housing increases, whether because of population growth, job opportunities, or migration, and supply does not grow at the same rate, prices are bound to increase.
To give you some examples of these regulations. Zoning laws restrict what can be built and where, which constricts supply. Height restrictions and density caps further constrain supply by limiting the number of people that can live on a given parcel of land. Lengthy permitting processes and environmental reviews create delays and uncertainty for builders, which also limit the number of houses built. When all these housing regulations are combined, they create an artificial scarcity of housing.
This both plays out in economic theory and in practice. This new NBER study is hardly the first study to come to this conclusion. Back in 2017, I illustrated how deregulating the housing market and removing these regulations would boost housing supply. Here is some other research since 2017 illustrating this point:
In April 2025, the Bush Center estimated in its counterfactual analysis that such pro-growth housing policies as lax zoning laws, reducing minimum lot sizes, and eliminating parking requirements for apartments implemented throughout the country would have lowered housing prices by $115,000 and monthly rent by $450 per month.
Another NBER paper shows how municipalities with stricter land-use regulations have particularly small and unproductive construction firms (D'Amico et al., 2024).
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) wrote a paper about light-touch density (LTD), which is a zoning strategy that incrementally allows for more diverse housing types within existing single-family zones. AEI researchers calculated that LTD could create an average of 930,000 additional housing units per annum over the next 30 to 40 years (Pinto and Peter, 2023).
The Institute for Transportation & Development Policy reports on how minimum parking requirements contribute to increased construction costs and limit housing availability.
A study from the Mercatus Center shows that build-to-rent housing bans further constricts housing supply (Furth, 2022).
The Bipartisan Policy Center released this explainer in 2022 illustrating how housing regulations impact housing supply.
Expensive housing in the United States is no longer an outlier on the east coast or in California. Housing has become less affordable because zoning laws and land-use regulations that have constricted housing supply, thereby increasing housing prices. The housing crisis in the United States is clearly a supply-side issue caused by government regulations. Whether local jurisdictions realize the damage of these regulations and reverse them remains to be seen. What we do know as long as they remain intact, Americans will continue to pay through the nose for housing.
Late last month, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Superintendent Maria Su publicized that the SFUSD was going to start using "equitable grading." You can read the SFUSD proposal for yourself, but SFUSD was looking to remove such traditional metrics as homework completion, class participation, and attendance in favor of summative assessments focused on "learning mastery," whatever that means. In addition, SFUSD proposed lowering the grading where an 80% was an A and a 41% a C. Popularized by author Joe Feldman, the purpose of "equitable grading" is to not have students be compliant automatons, but able to show critical thinking and deep understanding. Although San Francisco is an exceptionally Left-leaning city, the framework was yanked before it even began due to the political pressure.
For those of us who are not woke and attribute every disparity to racism and discrimination, it becomes clear as to why "equitable grading" is not a good idea. As the above implies, "equitable grading" incentivizes students to do the minimum required. To quote analysts over at the Fordham Institute, "Ability and behavior go hand in hand in determining success, which is probably why course grade point average has historically been such a powerful predictor of later success."
The analysts also pointed out how there is ample evidence to show that not grading homework or allowing for unlimited test retakes does not work (e.g., Tyner and Petrilli, 2018; Lichtman-Sadot, 2016; Barua and Vidal-Fernandez, 2014; Vidal-Fernandez, 2011). Another working paper shows that more lenient grading resulted in higher GPAs, but did not translate into better student achievement or attendance (Bowden et al., 2023). To quote the Fordham Institute again, "Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence that reforms making grading more lenient benefit students in the long run."
This idea hardly floors me. The fact that rewards and punishment are consequences of human behavior that shapes human action is an essential part of behavioral sciences. In 2018, I analyzed the high college dropout rate and illustrated how academic preparedness in high school was a strong predictor of whether a college student would drop out. After all, if you do not show the ability or motivation to show up and put in the effort as a child, there is a good chance that it will be difficult for you to do so as you get older. Deadlines are shown to accelerate a child's developmental process in their executive skills (Dawson, 2021) and "grades are shown as an effective means of motivating students (e.g., Gershenson et al., 2022; Gershenson, 2020; Docan, 2006; Figlio and Lucas, 2004; Betts and Grogger, 2003)." Watering down expectations to the point of reducing motivation and accountability harms the students that the "equity grading" was meant to help in the first place.
I bring this topic up because SFUSD is not the first major school district to try this inanity. Due to the COVID-era school closures and their deleterious effects on achievement levels and student attendance that still persist, other such school districts as San Diego and Montgomery County, Maryland. While I understand teachers and principals trying to find ways to rectify the situation, equitable grading is not the way to go about it, as previously illustrated. What is more is that grading is not the only facet of K-12 education that this equity nonsense has reared its ugly head.
I have criticized removing honors classes, the time when the state of Oregon suspended its basic skills requirement, and the insidious critical race theory that perpetuates racism. Knowledge and skills gained through education are a major predictor of one's wellbeing and quality of life as an adult. To allow for equity to come in and erode the quality of education in the United States is not only a threat to the individual students, but also the vitality of the United States to the point one could argue that equity is a national security threat. Moments like San Francisco's equity grading show us that woke influences are still with us. If we truly want to make education great again, we need to replace the mediocrity, laxness, and catering of feelings so prominent with the equity crowd by embracing academic rigor and valuing effort and good conduct once more. Otherwise, equity will continue to steamroll the U.S. education system.
October 7, 2023 was a horrific day for Israel. Hamas militants crossed into Israel to carry out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. They carried out unspeakable acts against humanity: rape, kidnapping 251 civilians, murdering over 1,200 civilians, torture, decapitation. In terms of per capita death rates, October 7 was the equivalent of September 11 about 15 times over. The bodies of the murdered were not even buried and yet the pro-Palestine "activists" were already out protesting against Israel. This first wave of post-October 7 Jew-hatred broke out before the Israeli Defense Forces even entered Gaza, which tells you how much the motives are about hating Israel and Jews. Since October 8, 2023, these protestors have been out in full force across the planet.
Fast-forward to May/June 2025. In a two-week timespan, there were two violent and unfortunate anti-Semitic attacks that made international news. The first was the murder of two Israeli embassy staff members outside of the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington D.C. The murderer was screaming "Free Palestine" as he was being arrested for this heinous act.
The second attack took place in Boulder, Colorado. There was a rally for the hostages who have been held captive in Gaza for over 600 days. The assailant threw Molotov cocktails at the participants. The savage seriously injured eight participants, including an 88-year Holocaust survivor. As he threw the Molotov cocktails, he was screaming "We need to end Zionists." These attacks got me thinking a lot about the rhetoric used by pro-Palestine protestors and how it influences anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in the Diaspora. Let us examine the most commonly used rhetoric.
"Globalize the Intifada". The word intifada comes from the Arabic انتفاضة, which is derived from the Arabic verb that means "to shake off" or "to get rid of." Within the political context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been two intifadas. The First Intifada was in the late 1980s to early 1990s, whereas the Second Intifada took place in the early 2000s. In both intifadas, there was political violence against Jews that resulted in over 1,000 Jewish deaths. Suicide bombing was commonly used during the Second Intifada. Since intifada against Israel has historically meant indiscriminate violence against Jews, does it surprise anyone that globalizing the intifada would translate into violence against Jews, Israelis, and pro-Israel institutions across the world?
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". It would behoove us to ask which river and which sea. Answer: the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. What country is between those two bodies of water? Israel. This is not a call for a two-state solution, but to extend the clout of this proto-state (if you can call it that) by eliminating the state of Israel. At a bare minimum, this translates into the ethnic cleansing of Jews. More likely, it is a call for the genocide of the Jewish people, especially after the pogrom of October 7 and the uptick of anti-Semitism afterwards. This phrase ends up being problematic in practice because it is ultimately not about a call for justice or equality; it crosses the line into bona fide anti-Semitism and the political extremism of eliminating the world's only Jewish nation-state.
"Resistance by any means necessary." This little beaut is commonly used by anti-Israel group Within Our Lifetime - United for Palestine (WOL). Hopefully, this one should not require that much explanation. Any means necessary means the ends justify the means. This includes multiple acts of violence, whether that is slaughtering children and the elderly, suicide bombings, shootings, and setting synagogues on fire. If you have any doubts about that, October 7 and the subsequent rise in anti-Semitism across the global should have settled that "any means necessary" literally means "any means."
False accusations of genocide and settler colonialism. Genocide and settler colonialism are evils in the world. The problem in this instance is that Israel is guilty of neither. When you are under the delusion that Israel is committing genocide (see my three-part refutation of the false genocide accusation here, here, and here), this sort of accusation fuels the flames of Jew hate. Why?
It does not matter that the Jews are indigenous to Israel (also known as Judea) or that Israel has legal rights to the land under international law, thereby refuting the "settler colonialism" argument. If your take is mistakenly that the "evil Jews" are the most heinous human rights violators out there (especially when you are ignoring actual violations of human rights), then you might be inspired to do something drastic about stopping these misperceived injustices, as was the case in the Washington DC and Boulder attacks.
Postscript
As I pointed out last October, anti-Semitism has been on the rise and at significantly higher rates than anti-Muslim crimes. Anti-Semitism has only gotten worse since the war between Israel and Hamas began in October 2023. Let there be no mistake. Words have power. When pro-Palestinian protestors chant "From the river to the sea" or "Globalize the intifada," what they are doing is endorse, glorify, and encourage the bloodshed of Jews and Israelis. It is the public celebration of mass murder.
What is jarring is that this rhetoric has become normalized and covered up with the excuse of "We're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist," a phenomenon I explored in 2016. It does not matter what your views about Israeli policy are. It is possible to criticize the Israeli government without calling for its eradication. Israeli citizens do so frequently. Far too many on the pro-Palestine side has gone beyond mere political disagreement about Israel's foreign policy and venturing into bona fide anti-Semitic territory. If we are to live in a free, democratic society, support for violence against Jews needs to be deemed as abhorrent and unacceptable. Anything less is letting the terrorists win.
Anti-Semitism across the world has become loud, brazen, unapologetic, and violent in a way that is giving me a taste of how Jews felt in 1930s Europe as the Nazi Party ascended to power. It is even worse when the "mainstream media" sanitizes the anti-Semitism in its reporting and parrots Hamas propaganda without doing a basic fact-check, which begs the question of how much the likes of BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times can be held accountable for spreading libel. It is even worse still because the pro-Palestine attempts to normalize violence against Jews as a form of being a freedom fighter or social justice warrior. What is scary about this framework is that it is working. The silent majority across the world has kept quiet as jihadism and anti-Semitism become palatable and trendy.
Yes, I am for the First Amendment right of peaceful protest, even that of pro-Palestinian protestors who I have come to view as the modern-day equivalent of Nazis. Where the present situation gets murky in practice is when the anti-Semitism of these chants are normalized and become weaponized as a justification to attack Jews. The line between acceptable free speech and incitement of violence has become blurred, which begs the question of what does a Jew who advocates for freedom of speech such as myself believe should be done.
I both value freedom of speech and believe that Jews should be able to live without having to constantly worry about violence being carried out against them simply for being Jewish. Granted, Jews have adapted to anti-Semitism over the centuries and are continuing to do so. At the same time, I have no easy answers in this muddled grey area. I am inclined to believe that charging those who commit illegal acts not covered under the First Amendment, such as violence, incitement of violence, threats, intimidation would be a good start, as would be dismantling radical groups calling for revolutionary violence. That way, violence can be targeted without degrading freedom of speech.
You might be reading this and think this only affects the Jews, so you should probably be fine. Why does this affect everyone? The Jews have historically been the canary in the coal mine. What is befalling the Jewish people will eventually reach other groups of people, especially those who have been oppressed or disenfranchised. Plus, this global intifada will not stop with the Jewish people. As I pointed out in my critique of "Islamophobia" earlier this year, Islam is the one religion on the planet whose mainstream followers seek to impose their religious taboos on everyone else. As we already see in Europe, this political violence will get worse if not confronted. Until this rhetoric is addressed and we can make political discourse civil once more, this sort of domestic violence will continue to be normalized and the pro-Palestine side will continue to wreak havoc on civil society.
