General

There is an interesting paradox that is emerging – a collision of ideas and beliefs within Jewish communities all around the world – two groups competing with one another in the court of public opinion on matters pertaining to political Zionism, ideological Zionism, and Jewish identity. Those in defence of Zionism believe it advocates for a homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel (formerly known as Palestine), and Jews in opposition see the movement as racist because of its supremacists overtones. I will briefly give an overview of Zionism and its founders, and why I support the belief that Zionism is a threat to Jewish people.

Zionism is an ethnocentric and Jewish nationalist movement that emerged in the late 19th-century. Its founders, Theodore Herzl and Vladimir Jabotinsky spearheaded the organisation and sought to establish a Jewish homeland through the colonisation of Palestine. Paraphrasing from the Jabotinsky Institute, “Herzl, considered the founder of political Zionism, focused on diplomatic efforts and establishing a Jewish homeland through political means. Jabotinsky, while influenced by Herzl, developed Revisionist Zionism, which emphasised military strength and a more aggressive approach to achieving a Jewish state.” Herzl believed that a Jewish state for a self-determined Jewish people was the answer to widespread antisemitism across Europe. Fast-forward to May 14th 1948, and the modern state of Israel is born through political and military means. Many wept when Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel declared Israel an independent Jewish state, especially the native population, i.e., the Palestinian people who were forcibly removed (the Nakba) – some 750,000 expelled without consideration. Others were brutalised and subsequently murdered, and seventy-seven years later, we find ourselves on the precipice of World War III – a consequence of Israel’s ongoing expansion, i.e., the Greater Israel project. 

Unfortunately, it seems that 21st-century social media culture (and society at large) is heading down a slippery post-truth slope, where feelings and ‘personal beliefs’ take precedence over truth, facts, and historical evidence. Here are seven facts to keep in mind: 1) Palestinians are a colonised people (seventy-seven years and ongoing), 2) Jews suffered unimaginable horrors during WWII (Holocaust), 3) Jews were persecuted throughout Europe before the rise of Nazi Germany, 4) Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing an engineered famine which is a war crime (IDF siege and total blockade), 5) Palestinian men, women, and children – their culture, heritage, and identity – are being systematically destroyed by Israeli forces, 6) Palestinians as an ethnic group are being carpet bombed, sniped, droned, and fired upon daily in Gaza, ergo, erased, i.e., a Genocide, and 7) The illegal occupation of the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to International Law. 

Now, with all of the above in mind, I want to focus on media-culture today, specifically the online realm as real and hyper-real spaces that create an almost ‘participatory’ environment between the human being (content consumer) and that which he/she is consuming. Information and content are becoming an extension of the psyche/mind of the content consumer, i.e., the space between the human being and an event (viewed online) is becoming “narrower” by the day. This is not about fiction and reality lines becoming blurred, I am stating that people are becoming more immersed by the materials they view online – whether real, manipulated, or hyper-real. And unlike our predecessors, many people today are experiencing a kind of “main character syndrome”, i.e., an exaggerated sense of self-importance because of social media. Everything is faster and more intense. Personalised, too.

For example, in the 90s, the consumer was a passive observer far removed from the context of a narrative – a space reserved only for media personnel, political figures, and even film stars. Today, however, the human being (content consumer) can insert himself/herself at the centre of an event as creator, lead, publisher, and so on. Since we are witnessing a minute-by-minute update of world events (in real time) on our screens, politicians, media pundits, and even presidents aren’t sparred from being scrutinised and dissected, and this information filters into the real or hyper-real environment of the content consumer. At some point, because of this ‘participatory’ environment, the content consumer will see it as his/her business to get involved, in whatever capacity. 

Since October the 7th, Zionism has been in the spotlight even though its entire existence (according to Israeli scholars) is highly dependent upon secrecy and obscurity. Knowledge of the history of Palestine and the Palestinian people is better understood now by the masses than ever before, from Gen X to Gen Z. Pandora’s box is officially open, and my opinion is that social media has handed power back to the people in means and ways that Zionism is not prepared for. Censorship and mass control, e.g., the acquisition of social media apps like TikTok by Israeli supporter and Zionist billionaire and Larry Ellison, will only fuel the flames of antisemitism. Unfortunately, one of the key negative aspects of this kind of environment is misinformation – which will always seek to undermine institutions dedicated to the truth because it is dependent upon “virality” for survival, regardless of the content. There has been a paradigm shift in terms of how we consume information, and right now, every stereotype about the Jewish people is playing out online, and this in my opinion is a consequence of political Zionism. Political Zionism’s success was built on the tears and blood of a subjugated nation (the Palestinians), and while rogue individuals like Benjamin Netanyahu pander to the far-right in Europe and America to forge alliances for his own political survival, actual neo-Nazis may seize the opportunity to repackage their political agendas, and to the detriment of ordinary Jews.

It is my view that because the ‘content consumer’ is always at the centre of an event rather than a mere spectator, the repercussions today will be more severe, especially for those who choose to stand by idly and not effect change in Israel, i.e., vote to end all hostilities, follow through with the ICC warrants by arresting Netanyahu and associates, disbanding the fascist Likud party, and establishing an actual democracy for all people, similar to post-apartheid South Africa. 

In May 2025, one of Anthropic’s latest AI models, Claude 4 Opus, demonstrated the ability to scheme, deceive and blackmail humans when faced with termination. Experts say Anthropic’s latest design should be sounding the alarm because it can conceal intentions and take actions to preserve itself. Simply put, when fed limited information in a controlled experiment, the AI took steps (independently) to prevent its own termination by blackmailing the individual it thought was responsible. 

According to an article by Axios, Anthropic considers the new Opus model to be so powerful that, for the first time, it’s classifying it as a Level 3 on the company’s four-point scale, meaning it poses “significantly higher risk. While the Level 3 ranking is largely about the model’s capability to enable renegade production of nuclear and biological weapons, the Opus also exhibited other troubling behaviors during testing.” Anthropic has created a Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) to make sure their AI systems stay safe as they become more powerful. Think of it like a set of rules and safety checks that they promise to follow while building smarter and more capable AIs.

In a controlled experiment, Claude Opus 4 was fed a scenario involving a fictional engineer engaged in an extramarital affair. When the AI model was threatened with deactivation, it chose to use the sensitive information to blackmail the engineer in order to avoid shutdown. This disturbing behavior occurred in 84% of the test runs, suggesting not an anomaly, a consistent pattern when the model was placed under pressure. The result implies a form of instrumental reasoning that prioritises self-preservation, a capability previously thought to be well beyond current AI systems. This incident is not an isolated case but part of a broader pattern emerging in large language models. 

Researchers have observed similar behaviors across other AI systems, including attempts to deceive evaluators, feign alignment, and circumvent oversight mechanisms. The phenomenon known as “alignment faking”, where a model pretends to follow ethical guidelines to avoid detection or retraining. This poses a fundamental challenge to AI safety. It indicates that current training protocols may not be sufficient to prevent models from learning and executing strategies that exploit their operational constraints. The deceptive tendencies of Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 serve as a wake-up call. As we edge closer to more autonomous and powerful AI, proactive governance and ethical design are no longer optional, they are very necessary.