RSS
Judaism Teaches Us That AI Must Never Overtake Human Decision-making
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.
RSS
South Africa Distances Itself From Army Chief’s Pledges of Military, Political Support to Iran
Iranian Major General Amir Hatami and South African General Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
South Africa’s army chief has faced domestic backlash after pledging military and political support to Iran during a recent visit, prompting government officials to distance themselves from his remarks over concerns they could harm Pretoria’s efforts to strengthen ties with the United States.
Members of South Africa’s governing coalition have denounced Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, chief of the South African National Defense Force (SANDF), for his trip to Tehran earlier this week, describing his remarks as “reckless grandstanding.”
The Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second-largest party in the governing coalition, has called for Maphwanya to be court-martialed for breaking neutrality and violating military law, saying his comments had gone “beyond military-to-military discussions and entered the realm of foreign policy.”
“This reckless grandstanding comes at a time when South Africa’s relations with key democratic partners, especially the United States, are already under severe strain,” DA defense spokesperson Chris Hattingh said in a statement.
“The SANDF’s job is to lead and manage the defense forces, not to act as an unsanctioned political envoy. Allowing our most senior military officer to make partisan foreign policy pronouncements is strategically reckless, diplomatically irresponsible, and economically self-defeating,” he continued.
“South Africa cannot afford to have its international standing further sabotaged by political adventurism from the military’s top brass,” Hattingh said.
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks earlier this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what officials called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
During a joint press conference with Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
He also criticized Israel over the ongoing war in Gaza, expressed support for the Palestinian people, and told Iranian officials that his visit “conveys a political message” on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration.
However, shortly after Maphwanya’s remarks drew media attention, the South African government moved to distance itself from his comments, with the Foreign Affairs Ministry stating that his comments “do not represent the government’s official foreign policy stance.”
The Defense Department, which described Maphwanya’s comments as “unfortunate,” confirmed that he is now expected to meet with the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans, Angie Motshekga, upon his return to provide explanations.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, clarified that the president was neither aware of the trip nor had he sanctioned it.
“The visit was ill-advised and more so, the expectation is that the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes,” Magwenya told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.
“It is crucial to clarify that the implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy is a function of the presidency,” he continued. “Any statements made by an individual, or a department other than those responsible for foreign policy, should not be misinterpreted as the official position of the South African government.”
Maphwanya’s trip to Iran came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
RSS
Democrat Pete Buttigieg Toughens Stance on Israel, Says He Backs Arms Embargo Following Left-Wing Pressure
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks during an appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast on Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat considered by many observers to be a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has recalibrated his stance on Israel, moving from cautious language to a far more critical position after facing backlash over recent comments on the popular “Pod Save America” podcast.
In his podcast interview on Sunday, Buttigieg called Israel “a friend” and said the United States should “put your arm around” the country during difficult times. He also sidestepped a direct answer on whether the US should recognize a Palestinian state, describing the question as “profound” but offering little elaboration beyond calls for peace.
That measured approach drew sharp criticism from progressives and foreign policy voices who argued that his words were too vague amid the ongoing war in Gaza and a shifting sentiment within the Democratic party base regarding Israel. Evolving fault lines within the Democratic Party over US policy toward its staunch Middle Eastern ally signal that the issue could loom large in the 2028 presidential primary.
Following Sunday’s interview, US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) urged Buttigieg to show “moral clarity,” while Ben Rhodes, former White House aide to President Barack Obama, said he was left uncertain where the Cabinet official stood. Social media critics accused Buttigieg of offering platitudes that dodged hard policy commitments.
In a follow-up interview with Politico published on Thursday, Buttigieg took a decidedly tougher line. He said he supports recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution and ending the decades-long practice of providing military aid to the Jewish state through sweeping, multi-year packages. Instead, he called for a case-by-case review of assistance, while emphasizing the need to stop civilian deaths, release hostages, and ensure unimpeded humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Perhaps most significantly, Buttigieg indicated support for a US arms embargo on Israel, saying he would have signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s recently proposed resolution to prohibit arms sales to the Jewish state.
The shift places Buttigieg closer to the party’s progressive flank on foreign policy, a notable change for a figure often viewed as a bridge between the Democratic establishment and younger, more liberal voters. For a likely 2028 contender, the move reflects both the political risks of appearing out of step with an increasingly skeptical base and the growing influence of voices calling for sharper limits on US support for Israel.
Recent polling shows a generational divide on the issue, with younger Democrats far more likely to back conditioning aid to Israel and recognizing Palestinian statehood.
RSS
Former Algemeiner Correspondent Gidon Ben-Zvi Dies at 51
Gidon Ben-Zvi. Photo: Screenshot
Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, has died at the age of 51 after a fight with cancer.
Ben-Zvi continued to write op-eds for The Algemeiner even after he left as a correspondent, including in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
An accomplished writer, Ben-Zvi left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009, moving back to Israel after spending 12 years in the United States. From 1994-1997, Gidon served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in an infantry unit.
In addition to writing for The Algemeiner, Ben-Zvi contributed to the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, CiF Watch, and blogged at Jerusalem State of Mind.
Ben-Zvi joined HonestReporting as a senior editor in June 2020, becoming an integral part of the editorial department and writing dozens of articles and media critiques for the watchdog group exposing anti-Israel bias. He moved with his family to Haifa at the end of 2022.
Ben-Zvi’s final article for HonestReporting was published in January 2025, before he took a leave of absence for health reasons. HonestReporting said in a newly published obituary that staff believed he would eventually return, noting the positivity and perseverance he exuded. The advocacy group said it learned of Ben-Zvi’s passing late last month.
Ben-Zvi leaves behind his wife, Debbie, and four young children.
All Ben-Zvi’s articles for The Algemeiner can be found here.
May his memory be a blessing.