RSS
David and Goliath Reconsidered
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
In our ever-expanding world of technology and innovation, a relentless battle persists between the Goliaths of the tech industry and their David-like rivals, each determined to carve out their niche in this lucrative marketplace. The competition is always cutthroat and ruthless, with both sides intent on outsmarting one another to gain an advantage.
But here’s the crux: while the Goliaths aim to obliterate the Davids, the Davids seek merely to survive and flourish. This is why Goliaths often insist that they are, in fact, Davids, even when the evidence suggests they are poised to obliterate their challengers and cast them into oblivion.
In the ancient biblical story from the Book of Samuel (1 Sam. 17), the Philistine giant Goliath’s death at the hands of David did not rid Israel of the Philistines. Contrary to being weakened, the Philistines remained a formidable force in the region.
Goliath’s fall did not spell the end for the Philistines; they continued to be a significant enemy to the Israelites for centuries. David’s victory was a moment of triumph, but the Philistine threat lingered, a persistent barbed thorn in Israel’s side.
So it is in the technology world. Google, with its vast empire of data and digital dominance, stands out as the quintessential Goliath. Yet, in its confrontations with various technological Davids, Google portrays itself as the disadvantaged David, vulnerable to the hostilities of competitors.
To some extent, they are right, not because their dominance is at risk, but because their refusal to allow smaller operators room to maneuver generates tactical disadvantages for Google. After all, if Google is aiming to destroy you, what have you got to lose by going all in?
British-Canadian journalist and author, Malcolm Gladwell, once noted that “Giants are not what we think they are – the same qualities that appear to give them strength are often the sources of great weakness.”
A prime example of this dynamic is the prolonged conflict between Google and Qwant, a privacy-focused European search engine that champions user privacy. This battle, seemingly lopsided, highlights the paradox. Qwant is perceived as ethical and agile, and is unburdened by bureaucratic layers, which initially positioned Google, the search engine behemoth, as the underdog in the fight, struggling against a tide of privacy-conscious Davids. However, this perception was a carefully crafted illusion by Google’s PR machinery.
And this dynamic of the perceived underdog versus the ostensible giant is not exclusive to the digital realm. A similar paradox is evident on the global stage, most notably in the enduring conflict between Israel and those who wish to see it destroyed.
Israel is a true David – a tiny country smaller than the state of New Jersey, founded in 1948 by indigenous Jews whose one common denominator was abject poverty, along with traumatized Holocaust survivors and immigrant refugees who had been summarily expelled from countries in the Middles East and North Africa.
Since its inception Israel has been surrounded and hounded by relentless adversaries, both local and international, with the vast majority of countries taking endless glee in condemning Israel at the United Nations, making Israel the most vilified country at the UN – exponentially more than North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, China, and Myanmar, whose human rights abuses are all off the charts.
And yet, Israel is invariably cast in the role of Goliath by its enemies – seemingly because it is determined to win the battles against those who proudly proclaim that they wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. And while David may win the day, the evil Goliath Israel-haters remain in place, ready to pounce anytime they sense a vulnerability or opening.
Just as Google’s dominance in the tech sphere belies the vulnerabilities it claims in facing upstarts like Qwant, so too does the depiction of Israel as an overpowering Goliath mask its inherent David-like challenges. Despite its technological advancements and military capabilities, Israel remains susceptible to being overrun and overwhelmed, which is why Israel is constantly seeking peace and security in a region that is marked by volatility and hostility.
Israel’s achievements in innovation, defense, and democracy are evidence of its resilience and determination to thrive against the odds, much like the smaller tech companies striving for a foothold in markets dominated by giants. But in the end, Israel is a plucky survivor living on the edge – a David with a meager sling rather than a mighty Goliath with every possible advantage.
The international narrative sympathizes with the Palestinian cause, framing it as a struggle of a persecuted David pitted against the Israeli Goliath. But truthfully, this oversimplified narrative ignores the complex reality of widespread support for the Palestinian position from numerous countries and international bodies, effectively reversing the roles in the battle of hearts and minds. The situation is further complicated by the tactics employed, where the perception of power does not always align with the reality of geopolitical dynamics and the historical context of the region.
In the final analysis, whether it is in the sphere of technology or international relations, the true nature of Davids and Goliaths is often obscured by narratives that oversimplify complex subtleties. The story of Israel is one of defying the odds, leveraging ingenuity and resilience in the face of challenges that belie size or capabilities.
During the darkest days of World War II, Winston Churchill, the indomitable British Prime Minister, traveled to Ottawa, Canada, to address its Parliament. It was December 30, 1941, a time when the outcome of the war was far from certain, and Britain stood defiantly against the Axis powers, almost entirely alone.
In his speech, Churchill referenced a dismissive remark made by French generals in the early days of the war, suggesting that Britain would have its “neck wrung like a chicken” within three weeks of fighting alone against the Nazis.
Churchill’s response to this prediction was both defiant and humorous – smiling, he told the Canadian lawmakers: “Some chicken! Some neck!” His retort not only mocked the underestimation of Britain’s resilience, but also rallied diminished spirits by highlighting Britain’s unexpected strength and tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds. Britain may be a David, but no Goliath was going to take them down.
The Haftarah for Parashat Ki Tisa focuses on the Jewish prophet Elijah, and his determination to disprove the power and existence of the false gods, Baal and Asherah. It is a David and Goliath story. Elijah faces down the overwhelming might of the prophets of Baal, who were backed by the formidable King Ahab.
This narrative, set on the dramatic stage of Mount Carmel, sees Elijah undeterred by the numerical and political dominance of his adversaries, challenging them to a divine test. And despite the odds stacked against him, Elijah’s unwavering belief in the power of God becomes his sling and stone against the Goliath-like force of his opponents. The subsequent miraculous fire from heaven, consuming Elijah’s water-drenched offering, unequivocally demonstrates the supremacy of God, echoing the triumph of faith and divine justice over might and numbers.
So too Israel, in its ongoing struggle amidst the international currents favoring the Palestinian cause, reflects the enduring spirit of Elijah. Facing a world that unquestioningly supports the Palestinians, even after the horrors of October 7th and the overwhelming evidence of the monstrous use of tunnels and human shields by Hamas, Israel’s situation mirrors Elijah’s solitary stand against the prophets of Baal – relying not on might, but on the justice of its cause and a profound faith in divine guidance.
Israel’s journey, much like Elijah’s, highlights the strength found in conviction and the pursuit of peace, and the profound impact of standing for what is just and true, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable opposition.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post David and Goliath Reconsidered first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears
Mattias Karlsson, Sweden Democrats politicians, addresses party members after election in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 9, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Ints Kalnins
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats apologized on Thursday for the party’s past Nazi links and antisemitism, part of efforts to present a more moderate, mainstream image to voters ahead of a national election next year.
The Sweden Democrats were presenting the results of a specially commissioned study that found Nazi and antisemitic views to have been common at party functions and in its printed materials in the 1980s and 1990s.
“That there have been clear expressions of antisemitism and support for National Socialist ideas in my party’s history I think is disgusting and reprehensible,” Mattias Karlsson, a member of parliament often described as the party’s chief ideologist, told a news conference.
“I would like to reiterate the party’s apology, above all to Swedish citizens of Jewish descent who may have felt a strong sense of insecurity and fear for good reasons.”
The commissioning of the study sought to acknowledge and break with a past that has long hindered its cooperation with Sweden‘s mainstream political parties. The Sweden Democrats hope to join a future coalition government after the 2026 election.
The party first entered parliament in 2010 and currently supports Sweden‘s governing right-wing coalition government but has no members in the cabinet.
Tony Gustafsson, the historian hired by the party to write the book, said the party had emerged in the 1980s out of neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations and that it had continued to cooperate with them into the 1990s.
“The collaboration seems to have involved using these groups to help distribute election materials,” Gustafsson said, adding there were strong indications that one such group, the “White Aryan Resistance,” had served as security guards at party gatherings.
Gustafsson said there had been a clear connection to Nazism until 1995, the year that current party leader Jimmie Akesson joined the Sweden Democrats, but that the Sweden Democrats had begun distancing itself from such links thereafter.
The post Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a televised message, after the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 26, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran would respond to any future US attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel.
Khamenei, 86, claimed victory after 12 days of war, culminating in an Iranian attack on the largest US base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. No casualties were reported in the Iranian attack, which was coordinated with both US and Qatari authorities beforehand in an apparent effort to show a symbolic display of force without triggering retaliation.
“The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,” Khamenei said.
As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.
In his pre-recorded remarks, aired on state television, Khamenei promised that Iran would not surrender despite US President Donald Trump’s calls.
“The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won’t be satisfied with anything less than surrender… such an event will never happen,” Khamenei said.
“The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centers in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made,” he added.
Trump said “sure” on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment program.
Tehran has for decades denied accusations by Western leaders that it is seeking nuclear arms.
NO GAIN
Khamenei said the US “gained no achievement” after it attacked Iranian nuclear sites, but that it entered the war to “save” Israel after some of Tehran’s missiles broke through Israel’s multi-layered defense system.
“The US directly entered the war as it felt that if it did not get involved, the Zionist regime [Israel] would be fully destroyed. It entered the war to save it,” he said.
“The US attacked our nuclear facilities, but couldn’t do any important deed … The US president did abnormal showmanship and needed to do so,” he added.
Trump said over the weekend that the US deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had “obliterated” Iran‘s nuclear program. Officials and experts are still probing the extent of the damage.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared “a historic victory” on Tuesday, after the fragile ceasefire took effect, saying Israel had achieved its goal of removing Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat.
Shortly after Khamenei’s speech, Netanyahu posted a message with a picture of himself and Trump holding hands with the message: “We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies.”
The post Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Warnings from Washington and Dresden: The Danger of Zohran Mamdani
Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate, speaks on Primary Day at a campaign news conference at Astoria Park in Queens, New York, United States, on June 24, 2025. Photo: Kyle Mazza vis Reuters Connect.
In September 1882, a coalition of political parties gathered in Dresden, Germany, for the Congress for the Safeguarding of Non-Jewish Interests. It marked a turning point in the convergence of traditional anti-Jewish sentiment with the emerging ideology of antisemitism.
Traditionally, anti-Jewishness was merely an attitude or prejudice. But antisemitism emerged as a political platform, arguing that Jews had undue influence following their European emancipation. Before long, figures in the antisemitic movement made their case explicit: “Antisemit [sic] means an opponent of the Jews.”
This historical convergence proves the fallacy of today’s “antisemitism is not anti-Zionism” assertion. Debates surrounding the terminology are immaterial; the repercussions of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment have already been witnessed in Boulder, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.
In Washington, D.C., two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered by an Islamist-inspired socialist radical. This wasn’t an isolated incident of extremism — it marked the end of a pipeline of hate that has normalized calls for the destruction of Israel and targeting Jews as a collective.
Under Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser’s leadership, the Nation’s capital has become a testing ground for what Democratic Socialist mayoral candidate Zoharn Mamdani advocates for in New York City.
Mamdani contends that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. He started the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Bowdoin College, publicly supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, defends the claim “globalize the intifada,” and declared that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York. Mamdani’s inner circle includes Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Linda Sarsour.
Mamdani refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and seeks to “hold Israel accountable.” His dangerous positions and stance echoes the approach of those 1882 conference participants who sought to deny collective Jewry equal legal rights within their nations because of their perceived detrimental influence.
Mayor Bowser does not match up to Mamdani’s advocacy in this regard. Nevertheless, she has proven deliberately negligent to the aggressive anti-Israel activity in her city. Bowser has systematically refused to send police to discipline anti-Israel lawbreakers. Her administration has actively emboldened anti-Israel disruptors by instructing law enforcement not to act against increasingly aggressive demonstrations.
The impact of her negligence was evident in the assault of Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld by anti-Israel actors while he prayed outside the Israeli embassy. It was also felt by George Washington University community members who faced weeks-long hostility at the unlawful Gaza encampment that originated at the campus and spread to D.C. streets. Only the night before she was slated to testify before the Congressional Oversight Committee, did Bowser finally send the Metropolitan Police Department to dismantle the encampment.
Mayor Bowser created a climate where anti-Jewish hostility and harassment were ripe for violence. Given the pre-existing intensity of antisemitism in New York, Mamdani’s endorsement of anti-Israel activity could produce a far more dangerous city landscape. The path from “globalize the intifada” chants to murders of Israeli embassy staffers illustrates what Mamdani’s supporters mean when they call for “resistance by any means necessary.”
Under Mamdani, New York would not merely follow the footsteps of what happened in D.C., but would surpass it. Where Bowser has shown deliberate negligence, Mamdani promises active encouragement of the very activity that seeded the murders in Washington. The consequences of transforming simple anti-Jewish attitudes into legal action or inaction are dire.
Mamdani’s defamatory comments about Israel are troubling — but so too is his radical platform, which appeals to voters drawn to a so-called “new” kind of politics. In reality, this politics is anything but new; it recycles decades-old socialist ideas that younger generations find novel and alluring only because they have not lived through their destructive consequences.
This kind of extremist politicking is a tactic of unification and mobilization. Mamdani’s socialism plays on anti-Enlightenment liberalism and disestablishmentarianism that was evident in late 19th-century Europe. Such ideologies lent, and continue to lend, anti-Jewish sentiments a broader appeal.
When progressive rhetoric masks age-old prejudices, and when calls for “justice” echo the very language used to promote systematic exclusion, we must recognize the pattern: The Dresden conference participants in 1882 believed they were defending their nations and values. They cloaked their agenda in the language of virtue, human rights, and protectionism.
The murders in Washington mark our contemporary Dresden moment — a dire warning of where political tolerance for hateful anti-Israel rhetoric leads. New York City, the city of dreams, deserves leadership that enforces the law to restore order. That governance must be committed to reducing hate, chaos, and crime. Americans cannot afford to let the spirit of 1882 find a home in 2025. While the voices of Democratic primary voters were heard on Tuesday night, the ultimate choice is up to New Yorkers in November.
Sabrina Soffer recently graduated from George Washington University and works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).
The post Warnings from Washington and Dresden: The Danger of Zohran Mamdani first appeared on Algemeiner.com.