Families and supporters react as they celebrate the release of Omer Wenkert, a hostage who was held in Gaza since the deadly October 7, 2023 attack, on the day of the release of six hostages from captivity in Gaza as part of a hostages-prisoners swap and a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, in Gedera, Israel February 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Rami Shlush

In negotiating the release of about 250 hostages, both living and dead, Israel has prioritized children, women, the aged, and the ill or injured. The prioritization was roughly in that order. Lowest on the list are younger men, and especially those without pre-existing medical conditions and who were not known to be injured on October 7, 2023.

Many people will assume that these are exactly the right priorities. However, there are good reasons for thinking that the matter is much more complicated. This is because every category of hostage is at greater relative risk of some serious harm. The challenge is to decide how to convert these different risk profiles into policy.

Among the reasons for prioritizing children, two main ones stick out. First, barring their captivity, they have the longest remaining life-expectancy, and thus more life-years can be saved by saving them. Second, they are among the least able to cope with captivity, which threatens them both in the moment but also their developmental needs.

There are also reasons for prioritizing women, and especially younger ones. They are arguably at greater risk of sexual assault. There have been reports of male hostages being subjected to such assault, and we still do not yet know the relative risk between the sexes.

While both sexes can be raped, younger females could also become pregnant as a result. The risks and horrors of enduring such a pregnancy and possible consequences are significant.

One reason for prioritizing the aged is that, like children, albeit in different ways, they are less able to cope with the physical assault of captivity conditions. However, there is also a reason to deprioritize older captives. Because their remaining life-expectancy is shorter, fewer life-years are saved.

Like the aged, the ill and injured can have added challenges in enduring and surviving captivity. The severity of the illness or injury affects the degree to which this is true.

These considerations are likely what informed the decisions about which hostages should be released first. However, we should not lose sight of the special risk profile of (younger) men, especially given that even some of the dead have been prioritized over them.

There is ample evidence that there are fewer psycho-social barriers to the infliction of (non-sexual) violence, including death, on males. Indeed, that is exactly why (young) men are so instinctually deprioritized in hostage releases. They may be at less risk in some ways but, as males, they are at more risk in other ways. This has already been acknowledged by one of the recently released young female soldiers, who said “We, the girls, suffered. But the boys and men suffered even more.” Further preliminary evidence is that, of the released hostages, the emaciated ones have been disproportionately male.

Sometimes the deprioritizing of younger males is thought to be justified by their being (combat) soldiers or at least of military age. Even when this is not a direct factor, it can be an indirect one. For example, it might be said that Hamas would be much less likely to release young males first. However, the fact that younger men are disproportionately combat soldiers, or seen to be so, it itself partly the result of a lesser valuing of male lives, and thus further evidence of the special risks faced by young men. Almost all the post-October 7 combat deaths have been male.

Weighing up the different risk profiles in decisions about whom to prioritize for release is an impossibly difficult and tragic choice. The matter is made even more complicated by other considerations, such as the expected timeline for the release of the final hostages.

The shorter the expected period between the initial releases and the final ones, the stronger the case for prioritizing those in more immediate danger. However, if the release of the final hostages is so far in the future that even the fittest young men are unlikely to survive, then the case for prioritizing the aged, for example, becomes weaker.

Obviously, any individual hostage’s risk profile is not determined only by their group characteristics. It can depend on which terror group is holding them, where they are held, whether the Israel Defense Forces is able to rescue them (without mistaking them for terrorists), and innumerable other circumstantial conditions and coincidences. Because these factors are even more unknown, there is less reason to consider them in developing a policy.

There has been some talk of the current policy favoring “humanitarian” cases. That is certainly a mischaracterization. Every hostage is a humanitarian case. (In the case of dead hostages, the main humanitarian considerations are their families’ interests in the return and proper burial of their remains.)

At the end of the first phase of the January-February 2025 hostage and prisoner release agreement, approimatly 27 living, and 32 dead, hostages remain in Gaza. They have been left until last. Some of the dead might not have survived precisely for that reason. For the others, we must hope that being left until last does not also mean that they will not last until they can be released.

David Benatar is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town and currently Visiting Professor at the Centre for Ethics at the University of Toronto.

The post Women, Children, the Aged, and the Injured First? Male Hostages Shouldn’t Be Forgotten first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A older model Waymo self-driving car on the road in Mountain View. Photo: Grendelkhan via Wikicommons.

Those of us residing in West Los Angeles have lived alongside Waymo “robotaxis” since early 2024. For those who don’t live in LA, Waymos are fully autonomous vehicles you can summon via an app, similar to Uber, and they’ll take you to your destination — without a human driver.

Truthfully, it’s pretty unnerving. These ghostly, self-driving vehicles, eerily smooth in their movements, glide through our streets, their cameras and spinning sensors bristling from every corner of the car, stopping at intersections with algorithmic precision. No driver, no hesitation — just cold, calculated efficiency.

Waymo is a project of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and it may very well represent the future of personal transportation — a world where AI, not humans, takes the wheel. In theory, this sounds like a good thing. Computers don’t text while driving, they don’t get distracted, they never drink, and they certainly don’t experience road rage.

But there’s a problem. While AI can follow traffic laws perfectly, what happens when the unexpected occurs? Just last week, I watched a Waymo car — caught in a traffic snarl on a narrow side street — struggle helplessly to execute a U-turn, boxed in by cars ahead and behind. And that was in a situation where no one was in danger.

Now imagine something far more critical — a child suddenly running out into the street. A human driver might instinctively make a moral calculation: swerve into a parked car to avoid the child or slam the brakes and risk being rear-ended. But can an AI ever be programmed to make a moral decision? Should a machine really be entrusted with life-or-death choices?

The Waymo experiment is just one facet of a much larger debate raging in the worlds of medicine, law, and military ethics — how much decision-making can we safely outsource to artificial intelligence? It’s not a theoretical question; it’s a real and urgent dilemma with implications unfolding in real-time.

From self-driving taxis to AI-powered sentencing algorithms in courtrooms to autonomous drones in war zones, we increasingly hand over critical decisions to machines. Proponents argue that AI is more objective, efficient, and immune to human error. It can process vast amounts of data without bias, fatigue, or hesitation, operating strictly within the guidelines it has been given. But critics warn that morality isn’t just about data—it’s also about judgment.

Take, for example, the development of AI-controlled weaponry. Militaries worldwide are exploring whether autonomous drones should be allowed to fire without human approval. But is it ethical for a machine to decide who lives and who dies? Isn’t that a step too far?

Or consider the healthcare industry, where AI is already used to determine which patients receive organ transplants or critical care resources. Should a machine — guided by cold, detached algorithms — have the power to decide who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t?

It goes without saying that these dilemmas are not new. History is filled with moments where technological advancements or rigid systems clashed with human judgment — and the consequences were dire.

One example is the Flash Crash of 2010, when automated stock trading algorithms suddenly triggered an inexplicable stock market plunge. The machines were fine — they followed their programmed logic flawlessly, executing trades at lightning speed. But the result was utter chaos. Prices crashed in minutes, wiping out billions. It was only once human traders had intervened that order was restored.

Or consider airplane autopilot systems — invaluable for modern aviation but potentially deadly when pilots rely on them too much. The 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was partly attributed to pilots who trusted the automated system even as it failed instead of taking manual control using human intuition.

Even in military history, the Cold War nearly ended in catastrophe in 1983 when a Soviet early-warning system falsely detected an incoming American nuclear attack. The system did exactly what it was programmed to do — it signaled that a nuclear response was required.

But one man, Soviet Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, chose to ignore the computer’s warning, relying on his gut instinct instead of blind faith in technology. He was right. The “attack” was a false alarm.

Had it not been for Petrov, a machine would have started World War III. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it can never fully replace human judgment.

Which brings us to one of the most fascinating decision-making tools in Jewish history — a concept embedded in Parshat Tetzaveh.

Amidst the detailed descriptions of the High Priest’s garments, we find one of the Torah’s most enigmatic artifacts: the Urim VeTummim. This mysterious tool, placed within the Choshen (breastplate) of the Kohen Gadol, was used to determine major national decisions.

When consulted, letters on the Choshen would illuminate in a divine display — but crucially, the High Priest had to interpret them. The Urim VeTummim wasn’t an oracle that dictated absolute answers; it required human wisdom to decipher and apply its message.

One striking case of misinterpretation occurred when the Israelites consulted it before waging war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 20). The response seemed to grant Divine approval for battle, yet they suffered two crushing defeats before finally emerging victorious.

Did they misunderstand the message? Did the Urim VeTummim signal approval for war but not guarantee success? Or was the answer contingent on factors they had failed to consider — such as whether they had adequately prepared? The failure suggests that Divine guidance still requires human judgment.

This detail is critical. Even when God Himself provided insight, it was never meant to override human decision-making. The Urim VeTummim was not a replacement for leadership; it was a tool to assist it.

In a sense, the Urim VeTummim is the closest thing in Jewish history to an AI-powered decision-making device — but it still required human intuition. This reality has profound implications for today’s world. AI can calculate risk, probability, and strategy, but it cannot weigh compassion, mercy, justice, or other human factors that can’t be reduced to algorithms.

The Urim VeTummim reminds us that even when Divine guidance is available, human judgment is irreplaceable. Which means that no matter how intelligent machines become, some decisions must always remain in human hands.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California. 

The post Judaism Teaches Us That AI Must Never Overtake Human Decision-making first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

David Schwimmer speaking at the Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 “Never Is Now” summit on antisemitism and hate in New York City. Photo: Screenshot

Actor David Schwimmer called on Tuesday for fellow Jewish members of the Hollywood entertainment industry to publicly speak out against antisemitism.

“My career has given me an incredible platform, a chance to talk about the issues that matter to me, and on a good day, a chance to be heard over the noise that drowns too many people out,” the former “Friends” star, 58, began by saying to the thousands of audience members at the Anti-Defamation League’s annual “Never Is Now” summit on antisemitism and hate that took place in New York City.

“I believe with that privilege comes a responsibility to use my voice in moments like this, at a time of danger, bigotry, and violence,” Schwimmer continued.

The “Madagascar” star acknowledged that “speaking out often comes at a cost,” and has resulted in him being “attacked and threatened” by strangers. He also said he has felt “abandoned by people I thought were friends and by organizations I thought were allies.”

“I get that speaking out is hard,” he added. “Plenty of people I respect, even some of my heroes in entertainment, music, and sports, have chosen to keep a low profile and sit this one out. Including some whose careers have been made by leaning into their Jewish identity and others who have won acclaim for playing Jews on screen.”

Schwimmer then noted that while some of his peers “are doing a lot behind the scenes, privately and in their own way, so many have chosen not to say anything publicly at all. And if I can say something directly to them: I really wish you would.” Schwimmer’s comments elicited applause and cheers from the audience.

He continued: “I wish you would stand up. I wish you would speak out, because your voice would be so meaningful to your fans who love you, to your community members who need you, to folks who can use just a little solidarity right now from people they respect and look up to. You don’t have to say anything political. No one’s asking you to solve the conflict in the Middle East. Just say that you stand with your Jewish friends, colleagues, and neighbors against hatred and discrimination. Say what’s happening on our college campuses and in our schools and to Jewish-owned businesses is totally unacceptable. Say anything, anything in solidarity with the Jewish community.”

The actor suggested that people begin sharing photos from their bar or bat mitzvahs. “We’ll start a trend of embarrassing haircuts and dental work,” he joked. A photo of Schwimmer at his bar mitzvah was then displayed on stage for the audience to see. He went on to again urge people who are in a position of “real or perceived leadership,” such as celebrities, “to risk a little personal comfort for the sake of the greater community.”

Last month, Schwimmer asked X owner Elon Musk to ban rapper Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) from the social media platform because of his antisemitic behavior, such as his decision to sell a shirt that features a Nazi swastika.

During his speech on Tuesday, Schwimmer also referenced the late Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who said, “The opposite of love is not hate; it’s indifference.”

“What is indifference?” asked Schwimmer. “It’s inaction. It’s silence. Sometimes in moments of danger, it could feel like our only option is to stay quiet, to avoid drawing attention to ourselves, to hide. But here’s the truth: Now is not the time to disappear. Now is the time to show up, to reach out, to connect with one another, to find strength in our community and to raise up our voices together. When we do that, we change minds, we challenge assumptions, and we remind other Jewish people that we are not alone.”

He also gave the audience at the ADL summit some words of encouragement. “I want to remind you that there are so many good people out there who have our backs,” he said. “Incredible allies that we can; we will get through this together. Our spirit is unbreakable. Our joy is irrepressible. Our story is impossible. We are kind, resilience, innovative, and generous and strong and — as you can tell from this speech — really funny.”

Shortly after his speech at the ADL “Never Is Now” summit, Israeli actress Gal Gadot took the stage to receive the organization’s international leadership award and to give the keynote address. She spoke about her pride in being Jewish and Israeli and urged others to express and reconnect with their Jewish identity.

“Isn’t it crazy that just saying that [I’m Jewish], just expressing such a simple fact about who I am, feels like a controversial statement? But sadly, this is where we’re at today,” she told the audience. “Every single Jew must lean in now, in whatever way we can. Speak up. Learn more about our history – we can always do that. Join a temple. Find your tribe, get connected. And as we support our own community, never stop reaching out to the world.”

The “Wonder Woman” star also said her grandfather, who was a Holocaust survivor, taught her about love, compassion, and tolerance, despite the horrors he suffered during World War II. She said one lesson she learned from her grandfather is that “you don’t win anything with anger and hate.”

Also at the ADL summit, sports legend Billie Jean King was given the changemaker award for her efforts to advance equality and push forward social change. She is also a founding member of the ADL’s Sports Leadership Council.

The “Never Is Now” summit was hosted this year by the activists and influencers Hen Mazzig and Montana Tucker and ran March 3-4. At the conference, Mazzig announced a new digital series titled “And They’re Jewish,” which will introduce the public to Jewish personalities around the world.

Listen to Schwimmer’s full speech in the video below.



The post David Schwimmer Urges Jewish Celebrities to Publicly Denounce Antisemitism: ‘I Wish You Would Speak Out’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.