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
Israel Accused of ‘Shattering’ Gaza Ceasefire — By the Same Media That Admitted It Already Expired
Palestinian terrorists and members of the Red Cross gather near vehicles on the day Hamas hands over deceased hostages Oded Lifschitz, Shiri Bibas, and her two children Kfir and Ariel Bibas, seized during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, to the Red Cross, as part of a ceasefire and hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
On Monday, the Israel Defense Forces resumed military operations against Hamas in Gaza, striking targets across the Strip and ordering the evacuation of civilians from at-risk areas.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the US had been consulted on Israel’s plans, stating: “As President Trump has made clear — Hamas, the Houthis, Iran, all those who seek to terrorize not just Israel but also the United States, will see a price to pay. All hell will break loose,” she told Fox News.
Her remarks confirmed what negotiators in Washington and Jerusalem had already stated: efforts to extend the previous ceasefire deal — agreed upon in January and expired on March 1 — had failed, as Hamas refused to accept the terms.
President Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, had earlier reiterated that Hamas’ disarmament was a prerequisite for any long-term ceasefire: “A starter is Hamas demilitarizing, not rearming—leaving all their arms on the ground and leaving Gaza. We need a deadline for the second phase. The way the hostages are being held is unacceptable.”
Let’s be clear about what’s happening. Israel did not break the ceasefire; it ended two weeks ago.
Hamas tried to manipulate the news cycle by publicly accepting a hostage exchange offer that was NEVER on the table.
Hamas has months of food in storage but won’t release it…
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) March 18, 2025
A Permanent Ceasefire That Never Was
The ceasefire agreed to in January was never a permanent arrangement. It was a phased ceasefire, with an initial stage that included hostage-prisoner exchanges, humanitarian aid to Gaza, and a provision for further negotiations — negotiations that were supposed to begin 16 days into the first phase but never materialized.
Critically, the second phase — which neither Hamas nor Israel agreed to — was where the possibility of a permanent ceasefire would have been discussed. It never happened.
The media seemed to understand this just two weeks ago.
On March 3, the BBC reported: “Since 1 March, when stage one expired, the ceasefire has been in limbo. Stage two has not begun, and both sides are digging their heels in.”
Wire services — Reuters, the Associated Press, and AFP — reported on March 2 that Israel was blocking aid “after first phase of ceasefire deal expire[d].”
CNN, NBC News, and Sky News also acknowledged that the ceasefire had expired.
Yet, remarkably, these same outlets are now accusing Israel of violating a supposed permanent ceasefire by launching strikes in Gaza.
Sky News announced in its Monday night headline: “Explosive end to Gaza ceasefire as bodies pile up in their hundreds following Israeli strikes.” [Nothing “explosive” about an outcome that had been repeatedly forewarned.]
Politico, using AP copy, similarly framed Israel’s operation as a massacre, asserting that airstrikes had killed “at least 200” in what it called “the heaviest assault in the territory since a ceasefire took effect in January.”
Notably, the report omitted any attribution for the rapidly reported casualty figures — numbers that, as always, originated from Hamas.
Meanwhile, The Guardian saw fit to print Turkey’s absurd claim that Israel had committed a “massacre” — a striking choice, given that the same Turkish government has spent the past week supporting Syrian army forces massacring thousands of Alawites in Syria.
The Turkish-backed Syrian National Army has massacred over a thousand people, mainly Alawite civilians, in the past week.
Yet Turkey has the gall to accuse Israel of a “massacre.”
But @guardian amplifies anyone who buys into its anti-Israel narrative, no matter the hypocrisy. pic.twitter.com/74buXOyNDZ
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) March 18, 2025
CNN declared that the ceasefire had been “shatter[ed] as Israel pounds Gaza with wave of deadly strikes,” opening with Hamas’ accusation that Israel had “overturn[ed] the nearly two-month-long ceasefire agreement” and was “putting the captives in Gaza at risk of an unknown fate.”
NBC News reported that “more than 400 Palestinians” were killed after “Hamas said Israel had violated the ceasefire agreement.” The outlet also included Hamas’ claim that Israel was “exposing the prisoners in Gaza to an unknown fate” in its bullet point summary of events — yes, “prisoners” in this case refers to the Israeli hostages who were abducted on October 7.
Here are the salient points:
- The first stage of the graduated ceasefire agreement expired on March 1.
- Hamas repeatedly refused to agree to an extension or any of the prerequisites for a second stage.
- Two weeks ago, the international media seemed fully aware of these facts.
So what changed?
Certainly not the facts. But the media’s narrative? That did.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Israel Accused of ‘Shattering’ Gaza Ceasefire — By the Same Media That Admitted It Already Expired first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Media Reports Hamas Propaganda, and Hamas Still Implicitly Threatens Them
A Palestinian Hamas terrorist shakes hands with a child as they stand guard as people gather on the day of the handover of Israeli hostages, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
Western media outlets simply ignores that everything that comes out of Gaza is pre-approved by Hamas, and anyone who breaks their rules is threatened.
All of the information that the media is reporting from Gaza this week is what Hamas wants them to say. The only source for the death toll counts and the allegation that most of the dead are women and children come from Hamas and no one else.
One Telegram message from the Al Qassam Brigades makes this explicit.
Although Israeli airstrikes targeted some Hamas leaders, the terror group warned journalists not to report on their names until they get permission:
Urgent Directive and Warning:
We call on activists and media professionals to stop circulating the names of individuals involved in the attacks carried out by the occupation in the Gaza Strip, and to adhere to the statements issued by official authorities.
When a group that wears ski masks and carries weapons gives a directive, it is a threat, not a suggestion.
The main reason that the media doesn’t report on Hamas’ complete control of the media is exactly because it is a threat, not a suggestion. They do not want to appear cowardly or to admit that they are following Hamas rules, so they simply do not report on things like this.
That means that the truth is withheld from readers, and that false information is provided as fact — as a means to damage Israel and advance Hamas’ agenda.
The post The Media Reports Hamas Propaganda, and Hamas Still Implicitly Threatens Them first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Moderate’ Palestinian Authority Tells Its People That Jews Poison the Water
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 79th United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York, US, Sept. 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has once again used medieval blood libels of Jews, saying that Jews poison the wells. Such libels are meant to justify hatred and terror against Jews, just as they did in Europe in the Middle Ages.
After Israeli police helped return a flock of sheep stolen from Israelis by Palestinians, a PA official said the following on television:
Advisor to Head of The Committee to Resist Settlements and the Wall Ayed Morrar: “There was an attack on the village of Ras Al-Auja, and they [settlers] took all the livestock they could find, between 800-1,500. Some claim that a total of 1,500 animals were stolen … Moreover, they poisoned the water to kill the Palestinians’ livestock.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Palestine This Morning, March 9, 2025]
Ayed Morrar has a history of antisemitism. Just three months ago, he spread the libel that Jews are only in the Land of Israel because it is good for them financially and they would do anything for money.
Official PA television regularly features officials and reporters repeating the well-poisoning libel, such as when a columnist said that Israel was “liable to poison the water” and a reporter said that Jewish rabbis “permit poisoning water wells.”
This recurring libel is patently false because both Israelis and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria drink water from the same Mountain Aquifer.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is PMW’s Founder and Director. A version of this article originally appeared at PMW.
The post ‘Moderate’ Palestinian Authority Tells Its People That Jews Poison the Water first appeared on Algemeiner.com.