ClimateChangeFork

Last week’s blog summarized the many changes that the new Trump administration is pursuing, with a sharp focus on decreasing both taxes and the federal workforce. One aspect that seems trivial to many is the attention being given to changing names. This blog focuses on these changes, starting with the federal government and ending with my own hope for change:

Below is an AI summary (through Google) of proposed name changes by the Trump administration:

The Trump administration, through executive orders and proposals, has focused on renaming several entities and locations to emphasize a concept of “American Greatness” and to align with what it perceives as historical accuracy and national priorities.

Key examples of these renaming proposals include:

• Geographic features:
  • Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America: President Trump signed an executive order directing this name change, according to Congress.govand the Department of the Interior (.gov).
  • Denali to Mount McKinley: The administration also sought to restore the name Mount McKinley to the highest peak in North America, reverting from the Denali name recognized by the Obama administration.
• Naval vessels: The administration proposed changing the names of certain Navy ships, including those named after figures like Harvey Milk, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman, and César Chávez, to better reflect the commander-in-chief’s priorities, national history, and warrior ethos.
• Sports teams: President Trump has advocated for the Washington Commanders to change their name back to the Washington Redskins and for the Cleveland Guardians to revert to the Cleveland Indians.
• Kennedy Center Opera House:

House Republicans have proposed renaming the Kennedy Center’s Opera House after Melania Trump.

It’s important to note that some of these renaming efforts have generated controversy and legal challenges.

To add to the list, we can include:

• MAGA refers to regaining greatness based on cherry-picked pieces of the past, which sometimes involves going against the Constitution
• No renaming of climate change is needed because it “doesn’t exist”
• The administration wants to revert the names of military bases that were renamed in 2023 to remove references to the Confederacy

The reasons for the proposed name changes are not provided. In many cases they are not needed. The president of the US, with congressional support, has enough power at least to start discussions on the changes.

I have my own recent renaming wishes to account for: I am a new member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has only one unit that is primarily focused on future lessons from the Holocaust – The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide; I would prefer that they adjust the name to The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocides and Global Threats.

The rest of the blog will focus on the background of this wish:

My Holocaust experience had two stages: The first stage was my early childhood (0 – 6 years old) during WWII, during which I survived in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and was liberated by the American army on April 13, 1945, in a place near Farsleben, Germany. This background is the reason that I am often referred to as a “Holocaust survivor” and the American soldiers that liberated us on April 13^th are called “liberators.” I never liked the “survivor” name because I didn’t put any work into deserving it (my parents did!) but the American soldiers fully deserved their “title.” I have written repeatedly on this phase of my life in this blog, starting with my first post, 13 years ago. The second stage of my Holocaust experience started in 2007, when I received an email from Bergen-Belsen to have a look at Matt Rozell’s blog. I did, and immediately followed up by calling Matt and traveling with my wife to San Diego, to meet George Gross, one of the tank commanders with the 30^th Infantry Division of the American army that directly participated in our liberation. Gross happened to carry with him a low-cost camera to “immortalize” the event. I wrote about these events as well. The last blog that I wrote on this phase was on May 21, 2025, following my visit celebrating 80 years since the liberation. Less than two years ago, I retired from my teaching position and, appropriately, am now trying to figure out what to do.

During my university teaching I focused on global threats, with an emphasis on climate change. In my active academic work, I made sure to teach about current and future global threats in the context of past ones, with an emphasis on the Holocaust. My background gave me “license” to use the connection. I am a member of the last generation of Holocaust survivors; I would like to preserve this past-future connection in the best way I can.

I am trying to make productive contact with the Center for the Prevention of Genocide within the Holocaust Museum. Originally, I was trying to focus on writing and giving talks expanding upon the main context of Holocaust memory embedded in the iconic two words, “never again,” which connect the future (never) with the past (again). Because of my professional background, my focus was on climate change. For this purpose, I coined the term “self-inflicted genocide” to describe the prospect of unmitigated climate change, with its predicted consequences in the near future, which I defined as the end of the century (“now,” in my jargon). I was trying to integrate this within the charter of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide by expanding its efforts to include global threats caused by anthropogenic environmental changes that result in major deaths. However, the Israel-Hamas war seems to be politicizing the concept of genocide (see my blog June 4th blog, “Learning From a Five-year-old: Destruction Can Lead to Better Construction!“), which makes an obstacle for genocide prevention. The main goal of an institution such as the Holocaust Museum is preserving the memory of the Holocaust for future generations. The main output of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide is a list of countries in which genocide is an issue.

I summarized what I mean by future threats in a previous blog, “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?”(June 11, 2024). Below is the central paragraph of that blog:

Humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing). For the purpose of this blog, I will now change the word “hopefully” to probably.

One can add to the list other threats such as the 10 Fastest Dying Cities in the United States.

The addition of “Global Threats” to the name of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide might inspire a similar expansion in Holocaust Studies programs in educational institutes. This would likely achieve some of the objectives that are listed below:

1. Expansion of career paths for graduates. One example is Fiona Hill. For more examples you can ask your favorite AI.
2. Expansion of the prerequisites of teachers and researchers in these topics to include STEM graduates
3. Expansion of potential donations to such centers
4. Provide rationale for Holocaust studies to future generations

Similar to other renaming efforts, the future will tell if we succeed or fail! 

(Source: MSN: Cartoons: The Latest Editorial Cartoons From John Cole)

Before starting this blog, I thought that I needed to invent a new English word – “defederation,” to mean the destruction of a federal structure. A short search showed that it already exists:

1. To cease to be united in a federation.

I found John Cole’s cartoon the most appropriate way to mark the transition away from previous blogs that were focused on the “12-Day War” and Israel’s connection to the various wars in the Middle East that are still the center of attention for many of us. The nuclear threat just shifted focus away from that area and back to the Ukraine-Russia war when Russia threatened to drop nuclear weapons on Kyiv and Lviv (Russia warns of nuclear Armageddon after Trump’s latest Ukraine move).

Following the cartoon, I am shifting my attention back to the US to focus on the new (6 months or so) Trump administration’s attempts to hollow out the federal structure of our government. This includes gutting its federal work-force and removing the US from the pseudo-federal structure of the world that goes by the name of “globalization.” I use “defederation” for both efforts.

It seems that President Trump is shrinking the Executive branch of the federal government, except for the office of the presidency, and is making the other two branches (Legislative and Judiciary), obsolete! Some of his efforts seem designed to force the world to learn how to conduct their affairs without the United States’ participation. This makes the United States—and the rest of the world—poorer.

John Cole’s cartoon is insightful, especially the “date” or time period on the side of the Trump plane (the “24/7/365 war”) and the list of some of the things that the Trump administration is aiming to destroy. I would also add a “global future” cluster bomb to his collection, which would include smaller bombs for deportation, science, climate change, global DEI, epidemics, the American Constitution, the weaponization of tariffs, etc. Most of these apply to the US, some globally.

Many of these “bombs” are strongly connected; I will expand on these connections in future blogs. The “bombing” is not limited to within the US territories such that the damages might be reversed in the next election. It contains major global components that might outlive the present American administration. An important global trend, which mainly impacts developed countries, is the global decline in fertility—in many places, below replacement value. This trend started way before Trump took office the first time and most likely will outlast this administration. This trend also takes place in the US, but the US population is still increasing, mainly due to immigration. About 20% of the population in the US is foreign-born (including myself and some of my family). Many of the immigrants are here illegally, but willing to work hard in low-paying jobs that native-born Americans stay away from. Massive deportation of these immigrants is having major impacts on important segments of the American economy (agriculture, hospitality, etc.). The federated structure of the US is constitutionally mandated, including the separation of powers with the states. The specific responsibilities of the federated power are defense and foreign affairs. However, it also acts as glue between the states, making all of us responsible for each other’s well being, independent of the states that we reside in.

It is appropriate to compare efforts to shrink the federal government to a more common phenomenon of shrinking businesses, which, in many cases leads to closing businesses. I will use two examples: Intel and Amazon. Both are important members of the US tech industry, and show that even high-tech companies are not immune:

Intel

Intel is now axing thousands of technicians and engineers in sweeping US layoffs, cutting 4,000 positions in the US, 2,392 in Oregon, etc.:

Intel this month officially began to cut down its workforce in the U.S. and other countries, thus revealing actual numbers of positions to be cut. The Oregonian reports that the company will cut as many as 2,392 positions in Oregon and around 4,000 positions across its American operations, including Arizona, California, and Texas.

To put the 2,392 number into context, Intel is the largest employer in Oregon with around 20,000 of workers there. 2,392 is around 12% of the workforce, which is a lower end of layoff expectations, yet 2,400 is still a lot of people. The Oregon reduction rose sharply from an initial count of around 500 to a revised figure of 2,392, making it one of the largest layoffs in the state’s history. Intel began reducing staff earlier in the week but confirmed the larger number by Friday evening through a filing with Oregon state authorities.

Amazon

The removal of foreign workers is having a major impact:

They are among thousands of foreign workers across the country who have been swept up in a quiet purge, pushed out of jobs in places where their labor was in high demand and at times won high praise. While raids to nab undocumented workers in fields and Home Depot parking lots have grabbed attention, the job dismissals at the Amazon warehouse are part of the Trump administration’s effort to thin the ranks of immigrants who had legal authorization to work.

However, businesses usually shrink their workforce to increase their profitability, the ultimate yardstick for commercial success. If such a shrinkage doesn’t increase profitability and it continues to decline, there is a high probability the business will end up closing. The declared function of government is to provide services to its citizens. In democratic governments, failure to provide such agreed-upon services will lead to election losses and a change of government. The missed direct advantage of democracies, compared to autocratic governments, is that you can go through such a government change peacefully (see my November 12, 2024 blog mentioning Karl Popper and The Open Society and its Enemies). My next blog will focus on the direct advantages of federated democratic governments, over non-federated ones.

As I started to write this blog, I noticed an interesting “coincident.” Reading my morning paper (NYT), the world seems to be falling apart. At the same time, the US stock market seems to be having a “great time.” The articles that caught my attention are listed below:

Opinion | Europe Is Terrifyingly Hot, and Its Leaders Are Doing Worse Than Nothing – The New York Times

Opinion | ‘He’s Nuts, Your Trump.’ Canada Unites Against America. – The New York Times

Opinion | There’s Still Hope for PEPFAR – The New York Times​

Brothers in Arms: Macron, Merz and Starmer Plan for a Post-U.S. Future | The New York Times

All four strongly point out how the world is trying to adapt to times without the US, at least as long as “Make America Great Again” rules. It’s a great topic to pursue. Stay tuned.

(Source: reddit)

I am writing this blog as a continuation of last week’s blog, “The Power and Fear Motivating the Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons,” which focused on the 7 largest nuclear weapons holders. This blog will focus on North Korea and Israel—the two smallest holders—and the group of countries that comes under the definition of “threshold states.”

North Korea and Israel’s direct paths to nuclear weapons were shown in last week’s blog. Below, I am adding some background:

North Korea

To understand Korea’s drift toward nuclear weapons, we have to start with its split into two different countries (Korean conflict – Wikipedia):

The Korean conflict is an ongoing conflict based on the division of Korea between North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and South Korea (Republic of Korea), both of which claim to be the sole legitimate government of all of Korea. During the Cold War, North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist allies, while South Korea was backed by the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western allies.The division of Korea by the United States and the Soviet Union occurred in 1945 after the defeat of Japan ended Japanese rule of Korea, and both superpowers created separate governments in 1948. Tensions erupted into the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953. When the war ended, both countries were devastated, but the division remained. North and South Korea continued a military standoff, with periodic clashes. The conflict survived the end of the Cold War and is still ongoing. It is now considered one of the 10 frozen conflicts of the world and is considered one of the oldest, along with the Sino-Taiwanese conflict.

North Korea felt isolated; the support that it got from the communist world during the Cold War was far from enthusiastic. The relative success of South Korea in improving the lives of its citizens was overwhelming. North Korea’s autocratic government felt the need for nuclear weapons to protect it from attempts to overtake it by South Korea and its Western allies. Below is a short summary of the history of their acquisition of the weapon (North Korea and weapons of mass destruction – Wikipedia):

For a chronological guide, see Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program.North Korea showed an interest in developing nuclear weapons as early as the 1950s.^[11] The nuclear program can be traced back to about 1962, when North Korea committed itself to what it called “all-fortressization”, which was the beginning of the hyper-militarized North Korea of today.^[12] In 1963, North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. The Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. Later, China, after its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons.^[13]

As we will see shortly, South Korea is one of the “threshold states” and the movement of information between North and South Korea was not insurmountable.

Israel

A few additional selected paragraphs are given below from one of the AI sources mentioned in last week’s blog regarding Israel’s path to nuclear weapons (Nuclear weapons and Israel – Wikipedia):

Before Dimona, 1949–1956Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion was “nearly obsessed” with obtaining nuclear weapons to prevent the Holocaust from reoccurring. He stated, “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people.”^[37] Ben-Gurion decided to recruit Jewish scientists from abroad even before the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War that established Israel’s independence. He and others, such as head of the Weizmann Institute of Science and defense ministry scientist Ernst David Bergmann, believed and hoped that Jewish scientists such as Oppenheimer and Teller would help Israel.^[38]

Threshold States

In addition to the 9 countries that are known to have nuclear weapons, the top figure in last week’s blog showed countries that “want” nuclear weapons. These include South Africa, Iran, Germany, Poland, Japan, and South Korea. The top map of this blog includes under the category of “nuclear-threshold states” the following countries: South Africa, Australia, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and Canada. Well, I asked AI (through Google) to define “threshold states” and list them. This is what I got:

The countries generally recognized as having nuclear weapons are the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. “Threshold” countries are those that are believed to have the technical capacity to quickly develop nuclear weapons but have not yet done so. Here’s a breakdown:Nuclear Weapons States:United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Nuclear Threshold States (Examples):

• • • • Iran:Has a nuclear program and is considered by many to be a threshold state. 
      • Japan:Has advanced nuclear technology and the potential to develop weapons quickly. 
      • South Korea:A close ally of the US with a strong industrial base and potential nuclear capabilities. 
      • Canada:Has advanced nuclear technology and a history of nuclear research. 
      • Germany:A technologically advanced nation with nuclear power plants and expertise. 
      • Taiwan:A close US ally with concerns about China’s military buildup. 
      • South Africa:Once had nuclear weapons but dismantled its program. 
      • Brazil:Has the technical capability and resources to develop nuclear weapons.

It is important that the list calls these examples, meaning that they do not necessarily include all the relevant countries. However, the only country in the list that doesn’t show on either of the maps is Taiwan.

To put this discussion into context, President Trump just threatened that if Brazil does not stop the “witch hunt trial” of his friend and its ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro, he will impose a 50% tariff on the country (Trump threatens 50% tariffs on Brazil if it doesn’t stop the Bolsonaro ‘witch hunt’ trial | CNN Business). He has forgotten (or doesn’t know) that Brazil is listed on more than one source as a threshold state.

I was hoping that by now the Israel-Gaza war would have subsided, which for some time now has seemed imminent, especially after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington. This doesn’t look like it is happening. In the next blog, I will return to other global and local threats, starting with some of the impacts of the major changes the Trump administration is initiating.

The world’s nuclear-armed states are beefing up their atomic arsenals and walking out of arms control pacts, a think tank has said. A new arms race is emerging after decades of reductions in the stockpiles since the Cold War, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It comes amid escalating tensions between Israel, one of the world’s nuclear powers, and Iran. Israel said it bombed Iran over the past week to stop it from being able to produce nuclear weapons. Here, The i Paper takes a look at the countries with nuclear weapons and how dangerous they are.

Figure 1 – Global nuclear weapons (Source: MSN)

The timing of the acquisitions:

US (1945); Soviet Union (1949); UK (1952); France (1960); China (1964); India (1974); Pakistan (1998); North Korea (2006); Israel (estimated 1960s).

One interesting insight into the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) map shown above—especially looking at the timing—is the clearly paired relationship between many of these countries. This strongly suggests that fear is a dominant motive for acquiring nuclear weapons. Fear is often a binary power. The transparent pairs are the US and Russia, the UK and France, and India and Pakistan. The seeming exception to this motivation is the pairing of UK and France; here, fear seems like less of a catalyst than leading Europe’s alliance with the US in the fight against the Soviet Union (now Russia).

Two recent blogs that were posted during or immediately after the recent “12-day war” between Iran, Israel, and the US (none of the three declared this deadly “encounter” a war), mentioned two alleged Israeli doctrines that played important roles in triggering the events. One was the Begin Doctrine (June 18, 2025 blog), which states that Israel will destroy any effort to produce nuclear weapons by a country with a declared objective to destroy it as a “Jewish State.” Meanwhile, the “Samson Option” (July 2, 2025 blog), is an alleged Israeli army doctrine that will use nuclear weapons in case all other defense options appear to fail. Neither of these two “doctrines” has ever been stated as an official policy.

The results of the “12-day war,” in terms of Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, are still controversial. The latest “objective” assessment is given below:

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium “in a matter of months,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims the US set Tehran’s ambitions back by decades.

Iran’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons didn’t start with the present Ayatollah’s regime. The outline of the beginning of its efforts is summarized below by AI (through Google):

Iran’s nuclear weapons program, known as Project Amad, is believed to have begun in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This program aimed to develop and acquire weapons-grade nuclear material, test nuclear weapon components, and plan for the construction of a nuclear weapon. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions began earlier, with the establishment of a nuclear research program in the 1950s with US assistance, the transition to a weapons-focused program is what began in the late 90s/early 2000s.

As was mentioned above, it’s still too early to accurately predict the impacts of the “12-day war”—on Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, nuclear spread in the Middle East, and more broadly, globally. However, it’s not too early to try to analyze the timing and pathways to nuclear weapons by the nine countries shown in the FAS figure at the top of this blog that are known to have these weapons. I followed the two smallest countries in the figure through AI (Microsoft Copilot) and imposed an analysis based on the better-known history of the other seven countries. The basic assumption here is that aside from the US Manhattan Project, which required the development of the weapon from pure scientific theory (mostly dominated by German scientists), many of the other programs were able to build somewhat on those developments—largely through espionage. From there, the methods that Israel and North Korea used were “borrowed” from the knowledge of the bigger holders. The AI summary of the nuclear developments of Israel and North Korea is summarized below:

Israel and North Korea took very different paths to nuclear capability—one shrouded in secrecy, the other marked by defiance. Here’s a breakdown of how each country acquired nuclear weapons:

Israel: The Path of Secrecy and Strategic Ambiguity

Israel has never officially confirmed possessing nuclear weapons, but it’s widely believed to maintain a substantial arsenal. Its approach is known as “nuclear opacity.”

• Origins: Israel began exploring nuclear science shortly after its founding in 1948. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was deeply committed to developing a deterrent, partly shaped by the trauma of the Holocaust.
• French Collaboration: In the late 1950s, France secretly helped Israel build the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. This facility became the heart of Israel’s weapons program.

Plutonium Production: Israel is believed to have produced weapons-grade plutonium at Dimona, enabling it to build warheads without conducting public tests.

• Espionage and Covert Operations: Allegations persist that Israel may have acquired nuclear materials from abroad, including a suspected diversion of uranium from a U.S. facility in the 1960s.
• Estimated Arsenal: Experts estimate Israel has between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads, deployable via aircraft, submarines, and ballistic missiles.
• Policy: Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains a doctrine of preventive strikes, as seen in its attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria.

North Korea: The Path of Defiance and Isolation

North Korea’s nuclear journey has been marked by international confrontation and withdrawal from global treaties.

• Early Interest: North Korea began pursuing nuclear technology in the 1950s, initially with Soviet assistance for peaceful purposes.
• Yongbyon Complex: By the 1980s, North Korea had developed the Yongbyon nuclear facility, which became central to its weapons program.
• Withdrawal from NPT: In 2003, North Korea became the first country to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, citing U.S. threats.
• Nuclear Tests: It conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, followed by five more, including a thermonuclear test in 2017.

Fissile Material: North Korea produces plutonium and highly enriched uranium, with enough material for up to 90 warheads, though it’s believed to have assembled around 50.

• • • • • Delivery Systems: It has developed a range of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the U.S..
        • Current Status: Kim Jong Un continues to expand the arsenal, with new enrichment facilities and missile tests defying UN sanctions.

The five references that were used by the AI to produce this summary are given below:

Nuclear weapons and Israel – Wikipedia

Fact Sheet: Israel’s Nuclear Inventory – Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction – Wikipedia

North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and Missile Programs – Congressional Research Service 

Kim Jong Un Quietly Advances North Korea’s Nuclear Program – Newsweek

Five of the nine countries shown in Figure 1 possess veto powers in the decisions of the security council that guarantee their central role in world affairs. This was not always the case:

On October 25, 1971, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations Resolution 2758 (XXVI) which stated that the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government of China. The resolution replaced the ROC with the PRC as a permanent member of the Security Council in the United Nations.

ROC refers to the Republic of China, the official name of Taiwan, and PRC refers to the People’s Republic of China, or China “proper,” which until recently (2023) had the largest global population.

As can be seen in the timing above, the UN resolution to replace ROC with PRC in the UN security council came well after 1949, the year that the PRC won control of the Chinese government. The resolution came after China acquired atomic weapons in 1964. China had some problems in the 1960s but they were mostly internal. Nuclear weapons couldn’t solve any of them. China wanted international respect and power. With the 1971 UN resolution, they got both.

Anybody who saw the recent movie “Oppenheimer” learned important aspects of the history of nuclear weapons. The development of the first atomic bomb, and its only deadly use in war setting, took place by the US during WWII via the Manhattan Project. The direct motivation was fear that Germany was already pursuing such development.

Important aspects of that fear are summarized by AI (through Google):

The fear that Nazi Germany was actively pursuing an atomic bomb was a primary motivator for the Manhattan Project. Fueled by reports of German nuclear research and the escape of scientists from Europe, including Albert Einstein, who warned President Roosevelt, the US initiated the top-secret project to develop nuclear weapons before Germany could. This fear, coupled with the potential for such a devastating weapon, drove the unprecedented mobilization of scientific and industrial resources.

• German Nuclear Research:

In 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered nuclear fission, the process that could potentially be used to create an atomic bomb. This discovery, along with reports of ongoing German research, raised serious concerns in the United States.

• Einstein’s Warning:

In 1939, Albert Einstein, along with Leo Szilard, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt, urging him to take action and begin research into nuclear weapons before Germany could.

The aftermath of WWII put the power of the US and its allies (the West) in direct competition with the Soviet Union and its allies (the East). The rest of the world was still far behind. Once the US demonstrated the impact of the nuclear bomb with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, fear took over and the Soviet Union mobilized all its resources (mainly spying) to master the technology. They were able to explode the first one in 1949. The Soviet Union became Russia in the 1990s. As the figure shows, the US and Russia keep the balance of fear between them. Western Europe still largely relies on the US nuclear umbrella to protect them from Russia. However, since many Europeans did participate in the Manhattan project, UK and France decided to develop their own capabilities. They needed more power to keep the balance with the US.

Meanwhile, once China developed its nuclear weapons and got the power and respect that those confer, India followed suit:

India’s loss to China in a brief Himalayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression.^[32] By 1964 India was in a position to develop nuclear weapons.^[33] Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri opposed developing nuclear weapons but fell under intense political pressure, including elements within the ruling Indian National Congress. India was also unable to obtain security guarantees from either the United States or the Soviet Union. As a result, Shastri announced that India would pursue the capability of what it called “peaceful nuclear explosions” that could be weaponized in the future.^[26]

Three years before the first test of India’s nuclear bomb, East Pakistan split from West Pakistan to form the independent country of Bangladesh. India played a key role in the process. Below is a short AI (through Google) summary of the Indian involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War:

India played a crucial role in the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, providing military, diplomatic, and humanitarian support to the Bangladeshi independence movement. This support ultimately led to the defeat of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.

The tension between India and Pakistan continues, mainly focusing on the divided area of Kashmir and the treatment of the large Muslim minority in India (approaching 200 million or about 15% of the population). It took some time, but in 1998 Pakistan announced its own nuclear weapons, becoming the only Muslim-governed country shown in the figure to have such capability. Fear was the main motive. In the recent “12-day war,” Iranian voices could be heard saying that if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran, Pakistan would retaliate. Almost at the same time as this announcement took place, Pakistan recommended that President Trump be this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The last two countries that are shown in the figure to posses nuclear weapons are Israel and North Korea. What distinguishes them from the rest of the possessors is that while their fear was existential, it came from overwhelming hostile conventional powers rather than nuclear power. Next week’s blog will focus on their road to nuclear weapons and the extension of the “holders” map to “thresholders” map (see last week’s blog) that includes Iran.

Figure 1 – Map of nuclear reactors and weapons in the Middle East (Source: DiaNuke.org)

Last week’s blog ended with the following short paragraph:

A ceasefire was declared on the day before posting. Next week’s blog will focus on some of the war consequences and on the question of whether this constitutes the beginning of the first nuclear war following the bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The top figure in this blog is taken from an end-of-2017 article that shows the resurgence of nuclear power in the Middle East and asks if this resurgence is aimed at the development of nuclear weapons.

I asked AI (through Microsoft CoPilot) whether the recent Israeli-Iran war can be considered a nuclear war. Below is the answer that I got:

Despite the intense focus on nuclear facilities during the recent Israel-Iran conflict, it cannot be classified as a nuclear war—at least not in the traditional sense.

A nuclear war typically involves the use or detonation of nuclear weapons, which did not occur in this case. What did happen was a series of precision strikes by Israel and the U.S. on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These attacks were aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, not unleashing nuclear devastation.

Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes on Israeli cities, and while the conflict was destructive—with hundreds of casualties—it remained conventional in terms of weaponry. There was no reported nuclear fallout, and the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no increase in off-site radiation levels.

That said, some analysts are calling this a “threshold war”—a chilling new category where a nuclear-armed state (Israel) uses conventional force to prevent another state (Iran) from crossing the nuclear threshold. It’s a dangerous precedent, but still distinct from an actual nuclear exchange.

My following question was: Can I count with positive numbers only? This was the answer:

If you’re doing something like accounting, physics, or data science though, negative numbers are useful for showing things like loss, direction, or comparison. 

Israel’s nuclear capacity plays an important role in the balance of power of the Middle East. At the beginning of the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli situation didn’t look good. A story is still circulating that Golda Meir, in her meetings with Henry Kissinger, threatened to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Here is what AI (through Google) “thinks” about it:

While Golda Meir and Henry Kissinger had many meetings, sources suggest that discussions about Israel’s nuclear program and the use of nuclear weapons were primarily held in a highly secretive manner, particularly between Golda Meir and President Nixon, with Kissinger being involved in the policy review and implementation.

Here’s what the search results suggest about their involvement:

• • • • 1969 Nuclear Understanding: In a private meeting with Golda Meir in September 1969, President Nixon and Meir reportedly reached a “nuclear understanding” where Israel agreed to keep its nuclear weapons under wraps, and the U.S. would not press the issue or ask further questions about it. Kissinger was involved in developing the policy options for Nixon regarding Israel’s nuclear program and recommended discussing the issue with Meir.
      • Kissinger’s Memo to Nixon: A memo from Kissinger to Nixon in July 1969 outlines the U.S. goals regarding the Israeli nuclear program, which included preventing Israel from visibly introducing nuclear weapons and getting them to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Kissinger also notes that a secret Israeli nuclear arsenal is dangerous, but public knowledge of it is also dangerous due to potential international repercussions.
      • The Nixon-Meir Deal: A memo from Kissinger indicates that Nixon emphasized to Meir during their private discussion that the U.S.’s primary concern was that the Israelis make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program. This agreement was likely the basis for the U.S.’s continued silence on Israel’s nuclear program.

This AI summary is focused on 1969, during the Israeli War of Attrition, from 1967-1970, which almost immediately followed the Six Day War. The Yom Kippur War started on October 6, 1973.

About the threat of using nuclear weapons, AI (through Google) added the following:

There’s no confirmed evidence that Golda Meir ever directly threatened to use nuclear weapons. However, the concept of the “Samson Option,” a deterrence strategy involving massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a last resort, is associated with Israeli military doctrine and has been discussed in the context of Israel’s security concerns. While Meir’s government was involved in developing Israel’s nuclear capabilities, there’s no public record of her explicitly threatening to use them.

Figure 2 describes the global distribution of nuclear power plants. We can see that the sunny Middle East (grouped here with Africa) has way fewer nuclear power plants than anywhere else in the world. However, the Israel-Iran war is reminding all of us that in many countries nuclear power plants are a first step toward developing nuclear weapons.

Figure 2 – Distribution of nuclear power plants (Source: World Finance)

Table 1 shows where Iran and Israel stand in agreements and treaties regarding multilateral weapons of global mass destruction.

Table 1 – Major Multilateral Weapons of Mass Destruction Agreements and Treaties (Source: EUIdeas)

NPT – Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty

Wassenaar Arrangement – Multilateral export control regime focused on promoting transparency and responsibility in the international transfer of conventional and dual-use goods and technologies.

Future blogs will focus on the prospect that the Middle East might be the testing ground for a nuclear confrontation that not only aims to limit membership to the “nuclear club” but also experiments with actual use of the weapons.

Map of the region before and after the Six-Day War (Source: BBC)

*Note: there was a development in this matter after I wrote the post that you may know from recent news. I address it at the end of the blog.

The Israel-Iran war is entering its second week (see last week’s blog). Prospects are cloudy, not only because of the fog of war but also because of electronic contributions on both sides and the almost total inability to predict President Trump’s reactions. Even though, like many others, I have access to certain American, Israeli, and Arab (Al Jazeera) news sources, this does not improve my ability to predict future outcomes. Below is an AI summary (through Microsoft Copilot) of the latest efforts to de-escalate the conflict. There is a good chance that by the time you read this, it will be mostly obsolete:

Efforts to de-escalate the Israel-Iran conflict are underway on multiple diplomatic fronts, though the situation remains highly volatile:

• European Diplomacy: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently met with counterparts from the UK, France, Germany, and the EU in Geneva. These talks, which lasted twice as long as scheduled, aimed to explore a diplomatic resolution. Araghchi expressed Iran’s willingness to continue discussions, though he emphasized that Iran’s defense capabilities are non-negotiable.
• Gulf States’ Mediation: Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are actively engaging both Iran and the U.S. to prevent further escalation. Saudi and Emirati leaders have spoken directly with Iran’s President, and the UAE has also reached out to Russia, which has offered to mediate.
• United Nations Involvement: The UN Security Council convened following Israeli airstrikes on Iran, with widespread calls for de-escalation and diplomacy. The UN’s political affairs chief warned of the regional and global consequences if the conflict continues unchecked.
• S. Position: President Trump has set a two-week window to decide whether the U.S. will join Israel’s offensive. While he has floated the idea of a military strike, the U.S. has also offered Iran a deal allowing a civilian nuclear program under international oversight—an offer still on the table.

Despite these efforts, Iran has stated it will not negotiate while under attack, and Israel appears committed to continuing its military campaign. The diplomatic window is narrow, but not yet closed.

The central issue is the degree of American involvement in helping Israel to destroy critical Iranian nuclear facilities—specifically, the Fordo nuclear enrichment site—and the Iranian reactions to such involvement.

The Iranian Fordo nuclear enrichment site, which also serves as the storage site for the highly enriched uranium, is deep underground. According to publicly available information, Israel doesn’t have the weapons to destroy it. Only the US has such weapons and the means to use them.

The  June 13^th Israeli attack on Iran was triggered by applying the Begin Doctrine, which was described in last week’s blog. Essentially, it states that Israel will do everything it can to prevent its direct enemies from acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities. This implies a frightening future escalation that could involve Pakistan, which borders Iran and is the only Muslim country with known nuclear weapon capabilities. However, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities have always been considered in the context of its conflicts with India (also a nuclear weapon-possessing country). In May, Pakistan nominated President Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize based on his involvement in the two countries’ recent conflict, a move that pandered to his ego and was potentially meant to affect his approach to Israel and Iran.

As the previous examples show, one thing should be certain: the results of the Israel-Iran conflict will have a major impact on the Middle East and possibly on the rest of the world. When the future is unpredictable, we usually resort to the certainty of a relevant past. The most relevant past conflict between Israel and its strongest neighbor was the Six-Day War. The map at the top of this blog shows the direct consequence of that war on the Arab countries that surround Israel. The strongest impacts were on the Palestinian populations that resided in the territories that changed hands. One can find details of the background and the evolution of the war through the BBC link below the figure. Not surprisingly, it is a long article. A short paragraph in Wikipedia summarizes the most relevant aspects in terms of the Israeli policy at that time that initiated the Israeli attack on Egypt and Syria that started that war:

In the months prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967, tensions again became dangerously heightened: Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli [act of war]. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel^[37] and ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel.^[38][30]

I participated in that war, and I don’t care to cite my experiences here. Since this blog is focused on my personal experiences that are associated with major reality changes, I have written extensively about my Holocaust experiences. One experience, directly connected with the Six-Day War was never mentioned. June 13^th refocused my memory on that event.

Starting with my first blog (April 22, 2012), I described my background and its impacts on how I view the changing reality. Others have labeled me as a “Holocaust survivor” and I identify as one. Per definition, I am a member of the last generation that carries this label. However, there is another label that fits my background, of which I am not the last generation. In fact, I share that label with my son: “pre-war baby” defined (by AI through Google) in the following way:

A “pre-war baby” generally refers to a child born or conceived before a significant war, most commonly World War II. This term is also sometimes used more broadly to describe those born before a major historical conflict. In the context of World War II, “pre-war” often refers to the period before 1945.

My son was born in Israel 10 months before the start of the Six-Day War (June 5, 1967). At that time, my wife and I were doctoral students in Israel. During the war, I was in the army and my wife shifted her doctoral research to something that could be useful in the war effort (battery development). My mother well remembered her experiences in Warsaw, a few months after my birth and during the six years that followed, and decided to try to change the scenarios. She contacted a friend from Bergen-Belsen, who at the time lived in Switzerland, and asked her permission to send my son to them. The friend agreed. My mother got permission from my wife, and my son was soon on his way. My son was accepted by the Swiss family, which has its own rich history, as a “refugee.” In few days, when the results of the war became clearer, his label changed from “refugee” to “tourist.”

I will finish this blog with excerpts from a recent Time Magazine special report on the Middle East (A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes) that will help us understand some past developments and prepare us for future developments:

It might be difficult to discern through the black clouds billowing from bomb craters in Tehran, but Iran has spent most of the 21st century as the region’s rising power.

Until recently, things had really been going its way. In Iraq, the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, then departed, having turned Iran’s largest and most dangerous neighbor from an enemy to a vassal even before Tehran’s militias rescued Baghdad from ISIS, and then stayed. The forces Iran sent to Syria did double duty, rescuing the Assad regime while opening an arms pipeline to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia fighting beside them. Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah was the crown jewel in the “Axis of Resistance” that Iran had arrayed against Israel.

For the Islamic Republic of Iran, it still does. Removal of the Jewish state from “Islamic lands” is core to the ideology of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which casts Iran in the unlikely role of leader of the Muslim world. America is the Great Satan, but for Iran’s proxies in Baghdad, Lebanon, and Yemen, Israel is the target. So on the eve of Oct. 7, 2023, the leaders of Hamas, the only prominent Palestinian node in the axis, had reason to assume that after breaching Israeli defenses on the Gaza Strip and pouring into Israel by the thousands, they would not be fighting alone for long.

But the axis of resistance barely resisted at all. Hezbollah launched a few missiles a day toward Israel when the “Zionist entity” was most vulnerable. Iran’s leaders had scanned the battlefield, and, seeing an opponent backed not only by U.S. arms and intelligence, but also a nuclear arsenal, remembered why they were investing in one of their own: survival. In the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, creator of the theocratic system that governs Iran, “The preservation of the system is the highest priority.” Solidarity with the Palestinians was laudable, but there’s also such a thing as self-interest.

The fact is, most of the Arab world had made some accommodation or other with Israel. Egypt and Jordan, which share borders with Israel, signed peace treaties with it after suffering repeated military defeats at its hands. The Gulf states aligned with Israel in large part out of a shared enmity for Iran. As home to Islam’s dominant Sunni branch, the kingdoms know Iran not only as radical, but as the nominal leaders of the minority Shi‘ite branch, and thus a rival. Saudi Arabia, custodian of Islam’s holy sites, has its own claim to leadership of the world’s Muslims.

As autocratic states, the Gulf kingdoms were also eager clients for an Israeli tech sector that had grown out of its military. Surveillance, not least of millions of Palestinians under occupation (and obliged to use Israeli phone systems), generated startups like the spyware firm NSO Group, which soon found clients in the Arab regimes. One, the United Arab Emirates, was the first nation to cement diplomatic ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, the signal diplomatic achievement of the first Trump Administration. Three other Arab states followed, and the Saudis keep signaling their intention to do the same once the situation in Gaza permits.

A day before this blog was shipped to my editor, Sonya, a major, though not unexpected development took place: the US entered the war. The key development was that the US bombarded the Fordo nuclear site (mentioned above) with bombs that only the US possesses, and this bombardment constitutes the first test of this weapon in a combat situation. Below are two independent references to these developments:

Reuters: Trump says Iran’s key nuclear sites ‘obliterated’ by US airstrikes

NYT: Trump Claims Success After Bombing Key Iran Nuclear Sites

A ceasefire was declared on the day before posting. Next week’s blog will focus some of the war consequences and on the question of whether this constitutes the beginning of the first nuclear war following the bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Doomsday Clock (Source: BBC)

I finished last week’s blog with the following paragraph:

Next week’s blog will be the last attempt to connect the Holocaust experience to the present reality. It will focus on the practice in certain quarters of using the Holocaust as a shield to cover aspects of present realities.

On Thursday (June 13th), I had almost finished that blog. However, as often happens in blogs that aim to discuss changing environments, changes can take place unpredictably fast. For me such a change took place with the Israeli attack on Iran on Thursday evening (NY time). The main question that I—and most of humanity—have is, how will this war end?

The figure at the top, with the link below, is an attempt to predict a relative timeline for nuclear doomsday for humanity. A valid question to ask is: will this conflict accelerate the timeline? A short description from the same link outlines how the Doomsday Clock works:

The Doomsday Clock – which shows how symbolically close the world is to nuclear Armageddon – is to remain at 90 seconds to midnight.

Scientists have listed reasons for keeping its hands the closest they have ever been to “Doomsday” – but stopped short of nudging it further forward.

The threat of a new nuclear arms race, the Ukraine war and climate change concerns were all factors, they said.

The clock is set annually by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Since 2007, members have considered the impact of new man-made risks such as AI and climate change, as well as the greatest threat – nuclear war.

The last two years (2023-2024), the clock moved forward because of “War in Ukraine, Nuclear, bio, climate and AI concerns.” AI was added in 2024. How much the new Israel-Iran war can be defined as “defensive” if nuclear war is added, is unknown.

The Russian attack on Ukraine was added mainly because Russia is the only nuclear power in this war and Ukraine is doing relatively well and is being supported by most in the rich West. Russia regularly threatens to respond by starting a nuclear WWIII.

As I mentioned in previous blogs, I am a dual citizen of Israel and the US. I love Israel; I have family and friends there, but I don’t love the present government. I also don’t love the present American government. I am deeply worried. I, like most people, have no idea how the new war will end. The “official” reasoning that Israel gave for the attack was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It viewed nuclear weapons at the hands of the present Iranian government as an existential threat. It viewed diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons as failing.

By most accounts, Israel has nuclear weapons. It is not surprising that despite my dislike of both the Israeli and the American governments, I view nuclear war capabilities in the hands of the present Iranian regime as a much greater danger for instigating nuclear war than the threat posed by both the US and Israel.

Israel has a long-standing policy of taking preventive military action to stop its adversaries who have declared policies to destroy it from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This policy is referred to as the Begin Doctrine:

The Begin Doctrine is the common term for the Israeli government’s preventive strike, counter-proliferation policy regarding their potential enemies’ capability to possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons.

The roots of this doctrine can be tracked at least to Operation Damocles at the beginning of 1960s. Secret and diplomatic operations against the Iraqi nuclear program were started by the Yitzhak Rabin government in the mid-1970s.

The doctrine itself was enunciated by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in June 1981, following Israel’s attack on Iraq‘s nuclear reactor Osirak in Operation Opera. The doctrine remains a feature of Israeli security planning.^[1] The initial government statement on the incident stated: “On no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel. We shall defend the citizens of Israel in good time and with all the means at our disposal.”^[2]

Two days after the attack in a dramatic press conference in Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Begin took full responsibility for the operation, praised its execution as extraordinary, and justified it both on moral and legal grounds.

Other examples of the doctrine can be seen in the Israeli strikes on nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).

The Begin Doctrine was not, up to now, a major consideration in the setting of the Doomsday Clock. It remains to be seen if this will now change. The 1981 and the 2007 Israeli strike on Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors were targeted strikes. There were limited opportunities for the conflicts to expand further. The Israel-Iran war is different. A paragraph from an article on the issue is cited below (NYT; Much of Iran’s Nuclear Program Remains After Israel’s Strikes. At Least for Now.):

“Iran has produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine atom bombs — nine,” he said. (Other experts put the figure slightly higher, at 10, but the actual number would depend on how efficiently the Iranians prove to be at producing a warhead or a bomb.)

Mr. Netanyahu went on to discuss the danger he believed the stockpile’s existence posed: “In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponize this enriched uranium.” He argued that if Iran was not stopped, it “could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.” “It could be in a year,” he said, “it could be within a few months — it could be less than a year.”

It could have easily been yesterday. All of these estimates are based on intelligence. Good as the Israeli intelligence is, it is rarely certain. The head of the Israeli intelligence is now in the process of being replaced.

We will follow the developments and pray! 

Figure 1 – Protest in Israel calling for early elections (Source: The New York Times)

Last week’s blog was focused on the present weaponization of the term “genocide.” This blog will focus on the recent weaponization of antisemitism — specifically, the relationship of the opposition to the policies of revenge war that the government of Israel is conducting in Gaza in response to the October 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians.

Last week’s blog also detailed my sensitivity to these issues, so I strongly recommend reading last week’s blog before reading this one. The net result of the present atmosphere is that antisemitism now is a real threat and Jews everywhere are afraid:

Jews are Afraid Right Now!

By Sheila Katz

In one city, two are dead. In another, 12 were wounded. Two horrific attacks against the Jewish community in less than two weeks.

For over 600 days, since the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, the conditions in the United States for deadly antisemitic acts have grown. At rallies and on campuses, in coalition rooms and online spaces, slogans sometimes directly drawn from Hamas’s terrorist manifesto have been chanted and painted on placards, and shouted from stages and in the streets. “Globalize the intifada.” “By any means necessary.” “From the river to the sea.” “Zionists out.” These are not simply words; they can be interpreted as calls for violence.

The call was heeded on May 21 by a shooter who took the lives of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky outside a Jewish event in Washington. The call was heeded on Sunday, on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, by someone firebombing a peaceful Jewish march in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. Several older protesters, including at least one Holocaust survivor, were left critically injured. The victims were targeted because they were at Jewish events.

To many Jews, like myself, these attacks are terrifying, but not shocking. Antisemitism is surging. When antisemitic rhetoric is left unchecked, it costs lives and leaves others fighting for theirs.

I encountered antisemitism before October 7, 2023 and I wrote about my experiences (see the December 3, 2019 and February 11, 2020 blogs).  After October 7, 2023, and President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, antisemitism acquired much more complexity. This blog will focus on the Israeli connection to antisemitism. The American connection was well covered in Senator’s Schumer’s new book “Antisemitism in America: a Warning,” published this year by GCP Grand Central. I strongly recommend reading that book, irrespective of readers’ background.

The antisemitic mail that I received and described in the February 11, 2020 blog included Figure 2. I am also citing my response below:

Figure 2 – the antisemitic mail I received

Indeed, the writing at the bottom of the cartoon above talks about the suffering of the Palestinians. For me, however, the images sting much worse than the writing. They are based on old, anti-Semitic tropes and their message is clear: if the Nazis had finished their job and murdered all Jews, the Palestinian problem wouldn’t exist. That is anti-Semitism reduced to its essence.

Figure 2 was obviously triggered by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but the 2019 and 2020 blogs did not focus on that connection. This blog will.

Let me start with the definition of antisemitism. Unlike genocide, there is no specific crime of antisemitism. However, there is a widely accepted definition from the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance):

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The same publication specifies the connection between antisemitic behavior and anti-Israel behavior:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

What is IHRA? Here is how they describe themselves:

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries and 8 Observer Countries. Founded in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, we address issues related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma.

There is a strong tendency by many to want to free themselves from the boundaries of the IHRA definition. This is similar to the many voices that want to free themselves from the 1948 Genocide Prevention Convention’s definition of genocide and the original Lemkin definition that were described in earlier blogs. This relates to my perspective in the context of genocide: I view such efforts as a weaponization of the concept. Below is Wikipedia’s description of the weaponization of antisemitism:

The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, is sometimes called weaponization of antisemitism.^[1] Claims of weaponizing antisemitism have arisen in various contexts, including the Arab–Israeli conflict and debates over the concept of new antisemitism and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.^[2][3]

Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described as a form of smear tactic^[4] and likened to “playing the race card“,^[5] and when used against Jews has been said to take the form of labeling as “self-hating Jews“.^[6]

The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized, with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist discourse on the left.^[7]

One frightening example of this weaponization has been the Trump government’s attack on faculty and students who express objections to Israel’s almost indiscriminate attacks on Gaza in response to the October 7, 2023 massacre:

Denouncing Antisemitism, Trump Also Fans Its Flames
By Peter Baker

President Trump’s effort to punish Harvard over antisemitism is complicated by his extensive history of amplifying white supremacist figures and symbols.

In other words, it’s hard to believe that President Trump is actually concerned about antisemitism but it’s a powerful charge to level at an institution, and therefore a useful weapon for his administration.

As I mentioned in the last blog, I am a dual citizen of Israel and the US. I grew up in Israel, I got all my formal education there, and I have many family members and friends there. I have a WhatsApp group text with Israelis that I grew up with, all around my age (86). Before October 7^th, politics was a relatively small component of our conversations there. Not anymore. The discussion is focused on objections to the present government’s war policies; almost as a single voice, the group’s opinion can be summarized as follows: “Bring back the Israelis that were kidnapped during October 7^th—both the dead and those still alive. Stop the war now, if that is the price that needs to be paid.” Some in the group have pointed out that the 60,000 casualties that the revenge on Gaza has now claimed, all have names, just like the kidnapped Israelis that are constantly being named. There have also been many voices calling on the government to stop the war because of the price that it is currently taking on Israel (both economically and politically). I have not heard many voices calling to stop the war purely because of the toll it is taking on the Palestinians. The thinking of “it’s either us or them” is common, and fits in with the genocide exchanges that were described in last week blog.

Almost all the polls in Israel are unified in finding that if an election were called now, 60% would vote to throw the current government out of power. The photo at the top of this blog is an example of the intensity of these feelings. That is the main reason that the government is doing everything it can to avoid the need for early elections.

The majority of Israelis are now against their government. In some quarters they are called “self-hating” Jews. In other quarters, the attitude is labeled as “antisemitic.” There are also those who see this as patriotic.

Next week’s blog will be the last attempt to connect the Holocaust experience to the present reality. It will focus on the practice in certain quarters of using the Holocaust as a shield to cover aspects of present realities.

Last week, I promised to discuss issues such as the required “motive” in the context of the recognized legal definition of genocide: “Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” In addition, I promised to address the fact that the 1948 Genocide Convention didn’t exclude the possibility that the perpetrators of the genocide could be part of the afflicted group. I also said I’d discuss whether or not the judges determining if the action fits the judicial constraints of genocide must be part of the afflicted group.

However, Memorial Day and birthdays intervened. For some reason or other, many birthdays in our family, including mine, are concentrated at the end of May. We drove to a celebration in Connecticut, where my wife’s niece had a party to celebrate her husband and her five-year-old son John’s birthdays. For his birthday, John got a set of Picasso magnetic tiles, shown at the top of this blog. He was using the tiles to construct impressive structures in the middle of the family’s guest room. During our stay, there was heavy traffic in the room, which resulted in an unintentional kick to the structure and its complete destruction. The result was expected: John got seriously upset. His upset lasted for about five minutes, after which he started to rebuild the structure. This dynamic repeated itself two more times (including his own destructive kick, which made him just as upset). Each rebuilding looked to be better than the previous one. I was sitting there, watching and thinking, “is John trying to send the adults a constructive message about creative destruction??”

My thinking quickly shifted to the propriety of my increasing use of the expression “self-inflicted genocide,” which I coined much earlier (2008) than my first blog (April 22, 2012), where I tried to justify my use of the term.

As I mentioned in earlier blogs, I just came back from Europe. There, I attended the 80^th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the British Army and my own liberation, along with the with remnants of my family, by the 30^th Infantry Division of the American Army. The Holocaust has played an important role in my life, especially as a shield and a lens through which I attempt to understand the future global threats that I have outlined repeatedly in my writing and school lectures.

My initial focus was climate change but more recently, I have included other anthropogenic threats as part of this label. Throughout the blog, but particularly in early blogs, I included some reactions to the label, not all of them positive. However, over the last 600 days or so things have changed. Roughly 600 days ago (October 7, 2023) Hamas broke through the Gaza border with Israel and attacked many of the Israeli settlements,  killing 1,200 mostly civilian Israelis and kidnapping 250. There are 57 remaining hostages but nobody is sure how many of them are still alive. During the attack, the Israeli army was mostly dormant. The moment that the circumstances of the attack became clear, Israel attacked Gaza in a war that is still ongoing.

I am a dual citizen of the US and Israel. I arrived in Palestine (which was ruled British mandate at the time and became Israel in 1948) as a 6-year-old kid, a few months after my liberation. I got all my education in Israel, and I served in the Israeli army. My wife was Israeli with a similar background and my son was born in Israel. I came to the US as a postdoctoral fellow and stayed for professional and family reasons.

I don’t like what’s going on right now in Israel and I am not alone. Because of my background, until now I have not made any direct comments about the situation in Israel on this blog. However, watching John’s productive response to the repeated destruction of his creations made me think again about my frequent use of the term “genocide” to describe current global trends.

Some details about the sizes of the forces in this war might help: Hamas’ estimated numbers before October 7, 2023 were 30,000. Half of them have been killed since the October attack. There is no estimate of the new recruits. The estimated population of Gaza is more than 2 million. Palestinian deaths, estimated by the Gaza Health Ministry, come to 55,000.

The population of Israel is around 10,000,000, more than 20% of whom are Arabs. The estimated size of the Israeli army is 170,000, with 465,000 in reserve (currently on call). These numbers are misleading, however because Israel sits in the mostly-Arab-populated Middle East, in which several large Muslim countries support Hamas, whether directly (Iran – population of more than 90 million) or indirectly (Turkey – population of 85 million).  Israel is also in the middle of a strained relationship with Egypt, whose population is 115 million. It is a challenging neighborhood.

Support and condemnation of both sides have spread globally. As I mentioned in the May 21, 2025 blog, a small pro-Israeli group assembled outside the Bergen-Belsen gates during the memorial, mainly objecting to chants such as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” which anybody with a sense of Middle Eastern geography understands means replacing Israel with a Palestinian State. Last week’s blog continued my focus of exploring the legal definition of genocide based on the 1948 Genocide Convention. According to that definition, such a call is a call for genocide on Israeli Jews.

Many have also labeled the original October 7th attack a genocidal attack, which stopped at 1500 Israeli victims only because of the power imbalance between Hamas and Israel. On the other hand, Israel’s extensive use of bombing to kill individual Hamas members in a dense civilian population has almost completely destroyed the piece of land that 2 million Palestinians call home and caused immense civilian casualties. This has also been labeled a genocide by many serious international voices.

In my opinion, these accusations of genocide have been weaponized. To test the accusation, I asked Google AI about its understanding of “weaponized genocide”; this is what I got:

“Weaponized genocide” is a term that describes the deliberate use of strategies and tactics, beyond direct violence, with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. This can include the manipulation of resources, systems, and societal structures to inflict harm, create conditions of life that lead to a group’s physical destruction, or systematically prevent their survival and reproduction.

AI continues with examples of the concept. This is not how I thought about the term; the AI explanation fits more with the detailed legal description of genocide. I went further and asked AI to describe what it understands  “weaponized” to mean. Below is what I got:

“Weaponized” means to adapt something, whether an object, an idea, or even an aspect of oneself, for use as a weapon or to gain a powerful advantage. It can range from physically arming something, like rockets, to using something like a characteristic to manipulate others.

This is exactly what I had in mind, with genocide being the “object and idea.”

The recent weaponization of “sacred” concepts such as genocide now extends, through different players, to Jewish hate concepts such as Antisemitism. My next blog will try to expand on this.

Back to John:

I am interested in what would happen if we were to look at John’s construction improvements following the accidental destruction, and shift our view from personal to collective response.

Getting the topic into institutional learning and research might be even harder. Substituting genocide for destruction will not work; destruction is the prerogative of the military. Most military entities now include “defense” in their title. However, one of the first things that new recruits learn is that the best defense is a good offense. Since most countries have security-first budget priorities, it is not a surprise that security-funded research that is focused on destruction is common. Many of the most threatening global destruction trends started with academic research. These include nuclear threats, AI, and climate change. This issue will be further developed in future blogs.

Back from Connecticut to NYC: we got a beautiful, end-of-spring sky, good enough for posting, and settled back into our routines. One of the first things I did to entertain myself was to watch the new movie, “Mountainhead,” on HBO Max. The movie is about four technology billionaires meeting up at a mountain-top mansion that one of them owns. I am including spoilers about the plot, so if you plan to watch it, you can skip this part. The get together is supposed to be for fun but three of them are trying to coordinate a reaction to the global chaos that the other one triggered. That character is now offering a new AI system that can differentiate between real and fake, which—in principle—could fix the world. The other three see this AI system as a threat (to their pocketbooks) and decide the best solution is to kill the fourth guy. They try and fail.  AI was one of the trends that I included in earlier blogs about what might trigger a “self-inflicted genocide.” The guy directly responsible for the chaos is shown to have a small kid. Unlike John, he is too young to do much.

For reference, Elon Musk is known to have 14 children (with 4 different wives). The youngest, Romulus, is 5 months old; the oldest, Vivian Wilson, is 20 years old. In his recent departure from the Trump administration, he had a black eye after a challenging his 5-year-old to hit him. Good luck to all of us!

Last week’s blog focused on my recent return from a trip I took with my wife to Europe to memorialize 80 years since the British army’s liberation of Bergen-Belsen and the American army’s rescue of me and the remnants of my family near Farsleben. The events made me think harder about my efforts to address the present and future global dangers that I have long referred to using the term “self-inflicted genocide(s),” and to follow up on my last examination of the topic from March 25, 2025. That blog expanded the term from my usual focus of climate change to other global threats such as AI, nuclear war, epidemics, and the chance of an asteroid hitting Earth. This blog should be read as an extension of that earlier blog.

Before returning home to the US, we stopped for two days in London to meet some friends. These friends are international lawyers. The first question that they asked me, after I described what we did in Germany, was whether my efforts to address future global threats focused on addressing future genocides of Jews, following the often-repeated line of “never again,” or whether my focus was more general. The question reminded me of some of my Jewish friends’ earlier objections to my writing that expressed reservations about my use of the term genocide based on the argument that it might have the impact of devaluing the horrors of the Holocaust.

This and next week’s blogs will attempt to extend the March 25, 2025 blog to include a closer look at the legal definition of genocide and to examine whether it still fits the extended definition described in that blog.

The March 25^th blog mentions that the only accepted legal definition of genocide remains the one defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Definition:

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 

Key Elements:

• • Intent to Destroy: The most crucial element is the intent of the perpetrators to destroy the group, not just to harm or persecute individuals. 
  • Targeted Group: The victims are targeted because of their membership in a specific group, not because of their individual actions or characteristics. 
  • Acts of Destruction: These acts can include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The American Holocaust Museum cites that definition, but adds the following sentence:

“Although the term “genocide” is often used, its commission is rare when compared to other serious crimes that are not defined by an intent to destroy a targeted group, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes”

Recently, genocide accusations have increased significantly, focused on the following countries (Google AI):

1. Sudan:

• Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – The RSF denies these accusations.
• Janjaweed Militia: The RSF has historical ties to the Janjaweed militia, who were responsible for the genocide in Darfur in the early 2000s.

2. Israel:

• Accusations of Genocide in Gaza. Israel has rejected these accusations as baseless.

3. Myanmar:

• Rohingya Genocide:  The UN and other international organizations have called for accountability for these actions.

4. China:

• Uyghur Genocide:  China denies these accusations.

5. Azerbaijan:

• Nagorno-Karabakh:  Azerbaijan denies these accusations.

Important Note: These are accusations of genocide, and determining whether genocide has occurred is a complex legal and factual matter. Accusations are often based on preliminary information and evidence, and formal legal proceedings may be necessary to establish guilt or innocence.

The American Holocaust Museum, through its Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, gives an explanation and adds a few countries to that list (Country Case Studies – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).

The introduction to that list states that:

The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide focuses on threats of large-scale, group-targeted, identity-based persecution potentially rising to the level of genocide and/or related crimes against humanity. We work on select countries where these crimes are ongoing or at serious risk, prioritizing cases that are receiving insufficient policy attention. Below is a non-exhaustive list of cases on which the Center has worked.

The added countries include Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mali, Rwanda, South Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Israel and Azerbaijan from the AI list are missing from the Holocaust Museum’s list.

Accusations that were proven by courts of law to be Genocides (Google AI):

Three instances in history have been recognized as genocides under the 1948 Genocide Convention: the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre. Additionally, Israel has faced accusations of genocide against Palestinians, particularly in relation to its actions during the Gaza conflict. These accusations have been formally presented to the International Court of Justice by South Africa, who requested a provisional order for a cessation of military operations in Gaza.

While the Genocide Convention’s official designations are limited, the phenomenon of killing a certain group of people based on their race or ethnicity has been studied extensively. Figure 1 is from “Genocidal Massacres in the Spanish Conquest of the Americas: Xaragua, Cholula and Toxcatl,” in The Cambridge World History of Genocide.

[They carried out]…genocidal massacre[s] targeting a specific community because of its membership of a larger group: the primary objective of the European perpetrators was to provide an object lesson for the surviving members of that group.

Figure 1 – Genocidal massacres in the Spanish conquest of the Americas (Source: The Cambridge World History of Genocide)

The 1948 Genocide Convention didn’t exclude the possibility that the perpetrators of the genocide could be part of the afflicted group. Nor did it state that the judges determining whether the action fits the judicial constrains of genocide must be part of the afflicted group. This issue and the intrinsic difficulty of proving intent, which is an important constraint in the 1948 definition, will be discussed in next week’s blog.

The origin of the term that was described in the March 25, 2025 blog has its obvious roots in the Holocaust. Being a Holocaust survivor gives me “license” to try to extend and generalize the term to include recent global threats.

The March 25^th blog describes the origin of the word genocide:

The word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin and used in the 3^rd indictment of the Nuremberg Trials. The definition used in the trial was: “Extermination of racial and religious groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particular Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.”

As mentioned before, the issue of “motive” in the definition of genocide is complex and will be further discussed in next week’s blog. To prove it in terms of the Holocaust was no problem because the Nazis openly expressed their intention to kill all the Jews. Their wish to eradicate Jews was not unique; they expressed it in context with their wish to eradicate other groups such as Roma, Sinti, people with disabilities, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political opponents. Lemkin realized that and used the more general term “racial and religious groups.”

The legal definition is important because international—and sometimes national—court systems are often the last resorts to save many of us from such threats. This was discussed in terms of the present hostile governmental environment in the US and more generally in terms of the threats of climate change in the March 31, 2025 blog.