Few revolutions have shouted louder about equality — or practiced it more selectively — than the French Revolution. As Alexis de Tocqueville later observed in his study of that turbulent era, “The French nation is prepared to tolerate … those practices and principles that flatter its desire for equality, while they are in fact the tools of despotism.”

In 1789, the streets of Paris rang with the cries of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité! It sounded like the dawn of a new moral age, born out of years of indulgent corruption and indifference by the French king and his aristocratic associates. 

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was hailed by its revolutionary authors as humanity’s most perfect charter of freedom. Except — as soon became painfully clear — the word “man” in the title meant quite literally only men; women were barred from becoming citizens.

To be clear, this didn’t land well. Thousands of women, including the fearsome fishmarket Poissards, all fiercely loyal to the Revolution, had marched to Versailles from Paris in October 1789, demanding bread and justice. As they gathered outside, they presented a petition calling for full equality. The newly formed National Assembly simply ignored it.

A few brave voices did try to challenge the exclusion of women. The philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet and the feminist pioneer Etta Palm d’Aelders appealed to the National Assembly to grant women the same civil and political rights as men. 

Condorcet put it bluntly: “He who votes against the rights of another — whatever that person’s religion, color, or sex — has henceforth repudiated his own.” But for all its lofty rhetoric, the Revolution had its limits. Their pleas were dismissed, and the march for “equality” rolled on without half the population.

Then, in 1791, Olympe de Gouges, the scandalous playwright and flamboyant pamphleteer, decided to expose the absurdity of the Revolution’s double standard. She published the satirically pointed Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen, a transparent rewrite of the men-only manifesto. 

“Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights,” she declared. With biting sarcasm, she observed that women could be guillotined for opinions they weren’t even allowed to express: “If woman has the right to mount the scaffold, she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum.” 

Her audacity sealed her fate. Two years later, the Revolution that had promised equality sent her to the guillotine.

The man behind this extraordinary hypocrisy was Maximilien Robespierre, known to all — without a trace of irony — as “The Incorruptible.” He had begun as a fierce opponent of capital punishment, denouncing it as inhumane and unworthy of a civilized nation. 

But as the Revolution gathered pace, Robespierre enthusiastically embraced the guillotine. First, the king and queen were executed, then anyone deemed a “traitor to the Revolution” — many of them his former allies. The erstwhile champion of virtue became its most zealous executioner, reduced to a despotic murderer. 

His “Reign of Terror” descended into the “Great Terror” until, inevitably, Robespierre himself was dragged to the very guillotine he had glorified. The Revolution he had championed finally devoured its own moral prophet.

Every age has its Robespierres — people who loudly preach justice and identify threats, while in reality serving only themselves. The faces have changed, but the pattern remains. Today, they come dressed for television and curated for social media, but they are the same moral frauds who, in every generation, manufacture enemies and thrive on paranoia. 

Tucker Carlson thunders about freedom but gushes over autocrats and neo-Nazis. Candace Owens rails against victimhood even as she builds a brand based on grievance. Nick Davis claims to defend the oppressed although he finds every excuse for his favored oppressors. 

At the other end of the spectrum, Zohran Mamdani and AOC deliver moral lectures while refusing to condemn the chant “Globalize the Intifada,” while Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker livestream moral outrage for millions, though their moral clarity seems to blur significantly whenever the topic is Hamas.

This week, it hit me just how differently morality is projected in the narratives of the Torah compared to the modern moral code shaped by the ideals of the French Revolution. At the beginning of Parshat Chayei Sarah, Abraham mourns Sarah, his equal partner in every way. 

The passage opens with an unusually phrased verse (Gen. 23:1): “And the life of Sarah was one hundred years, and twenty years, and seven years — these were the years of Sarah’s life.” Rashi observes that the repetitive phrasing means all of Sarah’s years were equally good — not because her life was easy, but because her faith, integrity, and moral strength remained constant.

More importantly, Abraham’s reaction to her death — and the Torah’s deliberate framing of her life — make it clear that Sarah was not some kind of footnote to Abraham’s mission. She was his full partner, his equal in every respect. 

The Midrash teaches that the beautiful hymn Eishet Chayil — the “Woman of Valor” (Prov. 31:10–31) — was originally composed by Abraham as a eulogy for Sarah. One line captures her essence perfectly: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” Sarah was no passive companion; she was a voice of insight, a moral compass, and a spiritual equal. 

Together, Abraham and Sarah launched a true revolution — the most revolutionary idea in human history: that God exists, and that all human beings are created equal b’tzelem Elokim, in the image of God. Long before France even dreamed of equality, Abraham and Sarah lived it.

The contrast with Ephron the Hittite — the antihero of Chayei Sarah — could not be more striking. When Abraham asks to buy a burial plot for Sarah, Ephron’s reply sounds magnanimous: he insists Abraham take the land for free. But once the crowd disperses, his true colors emerge. “What is four hundred shekels between friends?” he says with faux humility — while shamelessly gouging Abraham. 

Ephron’s civility and generosity are pure theater. Beneath the polished manners lies greed and hypocrisy. Like Robespierre’s “virtue,” Ephron’s altruism was all performance. When the mask came off, what lay beneath was ugly.

Abraham and Sarah’s model could not be more different. Their virtue was real. They lived their principles. Their tent was open to all, and their respect for each other sincere. It was Sarah’s wisdom, in fact, that shaped the destiny of their family. 

God tells Abraham, “Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice” (Gen. 21:12). In that single line, God affirmed what the French Revolution never could — that true justice rests not on dominance, but on moral partnership.

And when Abraham eulogized Sarah, he didn’t speak of liberty, equality, or fraternity. He spoke of kindness, faith, and valor — qualities that endure long after slogans fade. Robespierre’s Revolution ended in blood and betrayal. Abraham and Sarah’s Revolution endures in blessing. So much for the “Rights of Man.” 

The real Revolution didn’t begin in Paris in 1789, but in Hebron three millennia earlier — when a man and a woman stood together as equals before God.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California. 

Just one day before Mahmoud Abbas was scheduled to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron, Palestinian Authority (PA) television chose to broadcast an interview with a Tunisian saying that the war against Israel must continue “until it will be expelled from Palestine and not a single Israeli will remain in Palestine.” [emphasis added]

Tunisian activist Karim Tabbal: “We support Palestine being united in all its parts. We oppose Israeli colonialism until it will be expelled from Palestine and not a single Israeli will remain in Palestine.”

[Official PA TV News, Nov. 10, 2025]

The French president should be aware of Mahmoud Abbas’ true ideology and goals, as Abbas tells his own people.

Abbas routinely tells Macron that he wants “to live side-by-side in peace and security with Israel,” but the PA internal narrative is clear about destroying Israel.

The destruction of Israel is so central to the PA’s ideology that it constitutes the focus of how the PA educates its children, as Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) exposed in its report, Teaching Terror To Tots. PMW’s report shows how crucial this goal is to the PA and how the PA rewrites history to justify the destruction of Israel.

Here are a few examples from the PA/Fatah’s Waed magazine, for children ages 6-15, in which Israelis are repeatedly presented as a foreign invader destined to be destroyed [emphasis added]:

“The Canaanite Arabs settled the land of Palestine … Palestine underwent dozens of invasions … Babylonians, the Persians, the Samaritans, the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Pharaohs, and the Hebrews … One hundred years ago the British invaded it. Their invasion was the most dangerous, because they deliberately arrived to give our land to the Jews. .. In the end, Palestine fell under the Zionist occupation, which continues today … The occupation will cease to exist just as what was before it ceased to exist… All of the invaders were defeated, and Palestine returned to be free and Arab.”

“Palestine is destined for full liberation … from the yoke of Zionist colonialism.”

“Palestine will be liberated and purified from the occupation’s [i.e., Israel’s] defilement.”

“The Zionist invaders will go to the garbage can of history.”

“The liberation of Palestine will only be achieved through armed struggle.”

“At the end of the period of French colonialism … they all fled to France and left Algeria to the Arabs and Algerians. Algeria’s experience assures that the Jewish settlers in Palestine will disappear in the end.”

Last week, PMW released a video compilation of PA/Fatah leaders preaching to groups of children and adults about how Israel is destined to disappear and that Palestine instead will be free from the river to the sea.

Here are several more examples from just the past two weeks of the PA’s indoctrination of children that Israel will be erased, that history will “restored to how it should have been,” and that “Palestine – all of Palestine” will be liberated.

Fatah Shabiba Student Movement Secretary-General Hassan Faraj: “We have come here to reemphasize that the [Fatah] Shabiba [Student Movement] remains loyal to the alliance, and is carrying the flag until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, Allah willing.”

[Official PA TV News, Oct. 29, 2025]

PA Ministry of Culture employee Maryam Muammar: “Jafra, O tribe members. Bird of love whose voice is pleasant, sing to the blue skies, Palestine is my land. [The bird] will say: Jerusalem is free, it is forbidden to the enemies, [as are] Haifa, Jaffa, Acre (i.e., all Israeli cities), and the West Bank”

[Official PA TV, Palestine This Morning, Oct. 28, 2025]

The picture shows a girl holding a poster featuring two images of former British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour.

Text on image on left: “The Balfour Promise, the promise that changed the history of the Middle East, and we will restore history to be how it should have been (i.e., without Israel).”

[Tulkarem Directorate of Education, Facebook page, Nov. 5, 2025]

The PA’s efforts to manifest a future without the existence of Israel does not just stop with children. It also preaches this to international groups that it perceives as allies, such as the Spanish General Union of Workers:

The picture shows representatives of the Spanish General Union of Workers receiving an honorary plaque featuring the PA map of “Palestine” that presents all of Israel together with the PA areas as “Palestine.”

[PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs, Facebook page, Nov. 3, 2025]

The French leader should have looked beyond Abbas’ diplomatic smiles and empty talk of peace. Abbas’ Palestinian Authority continues to indoctrinate its children, glorify violence, and deny Israel’s right to exist.

The message broadcast on official PA TV — that every Israeli must be “expelled from Palestine” — is not an isolated one. Rather, it is the consistent and official message of Abbas’ PA.

Until the PA ends its campaign to erase Israel and teach hatred to the next generation, every meeting and promise of “peace” remains nothing more than a calculated deception.

The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.

Another day, another lie when it comes to Israel on social media. This includes fabricating the history of the Jewish State.

While most anti-Israel inventions don’t gain traction and get lost in the cacophony of fringe voices that thrive in the dark corners of the Internet, others rise above the fray and take on a life of their own.

One of the latest historical falsehoods to take off online is the claim that, following the Holocaust, the Palestinians welcomed Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide (with some even claiming that they were welcomed into their private homes), and it was these same survivors who later turned around and expelled them from their homes.

Even the most novice student of Israeli history could tell you that this claim is a laughable distortion of the past, so absurd as to not even warrant a response.

However, despite its blatant untruthfulness, this narrative has gained steam online, with one X (formerly Twitter) account’s telling of it reaching over two million views.

A history professor (!!) at Austin Community College, also shared this fiction on his Instagram page, reaching over 57,000 likes (the second most-liked post on his Instagram).

Jews arriving in Palestine from Europe as refugees in 1947.

Shortly after getting off the boat, they began killing and robbing the homes of the Palestinians who welcomed them with open arms.

Now they believe they are indigenous to the land. pic.twitter.com/N1NExKKszs

— Censored Humans (@CensoredHumans) October 23, 2025

So, before this anti-Israel lie becomes accepted history in certain circles, let’s break down why it’s baseless and ridiculous:

First things first: Between 1945 and 1948, there was no independent Palestinian government that could welcome Jewish refugees, even if they wanted to. The immigration policy was set by the administration of the British Mandate of Palestine, and this policy was hardly welcoming to the thousands of refugees who wished to reach the shores of the Land of Israel.

A few months before the start of the Second World War, the British government issued the 1939 White Paper, which set a severe limit on Jewish immigration to the British Mandate: 75,000 Jews over the next 5 years. After that, any Jewish immigration would be subject to the will of the land’s Arab population. For the masses of Jews who would soon be seeking refuge from the claws of the Nazi regime, this policy effectively served as a death sentence.

The White Paper was a response to three years of violence during the Great Arab Revolt (1936-1939). The Revolt, which saw Arab attacks on both Jews and the British in Mandatory Palestine, was partially due to a rise in Jewish immigration to the land over the past few years. Instead of welcoming those who were fleeing Nazi Germany and Eastern Europe, the leadership of the Arab population of the British Mandate resorted to violence to halt the flow of Jewish immigrants.

Despite the 1939 white paper, illegal Jewish immigration persisted and continued to increase during WW2.
After 1945, Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine was still illegal – but persisted anyway via smuggling networks. pic.twitter.com/72XAeqWntF

— Tal Hagin (@talhagin) December 6, 2023

If some will respond, “Sure, that was before the Holocaust. After the destruction of European Jewry, the Palestinians opened their arms to Jewish refugees,” this is simply not true.

Even after the Nazi regime was defeated and the mass slaughter of Jews was put to an end, the British continued their policy of barring most Jewish immigration. With so many Jewish displaced persons wanting to immigrate to the Land of Israel, there was a rise in coordinated attempts to break the British maritime blockade with ships full of refugees (the most famous of which was Exodus 1947). Roughly 50,000 Jewish refugees from the ruins of Europe were intercepted by the British and largely interned in detention camps on Cyprus.

It was not only the British seeking to stop Jewish immigration to the British Mandate after the Holocaust. In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry noted that the Arab leadership was opposed to any Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine and that their main issue with the 1939 White Paper was that it didn’t go far enough in blocking Jewish immigration.

As paragraph 9 of Chapter VI states:

The White Paper of 1939, and the drastic limitation of Jewish immigration and of land sales to Jews which followed, met the Arab view only in part. The Arabs would have gone much further.
The demands voiced by their leaders are for immediate independence, for the final cessation of Jewish immigration and for the prohibition of all land sales by Arabs to Jews.

This attitude is not surprising as the Committee’s report noted that many of Palestine’s Arabs still aligned themselves with the exiled Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had served as a guest and ally of Hitler during the Second World War.

Thus, it is clear that, contrary to the false narrative being promoted online, the Palestinians did not welcome Jewish refugees with open arms after the Holocaust. Rather, they fought against any Jewish immigration to the British Mandate.

Although we have now debunked the key premise of this false narrative of welcoming Palestinians and duplicitous Jews, we should also briefly take a look at its second part: That Palestinians who welcomed Jewish refugees (into the country or even into their own homes) were later expelled by them from their homes.

First, it should be clear that there is no historical evidence for any large-scale phenomenon of Jewish refugees living in Palestinian homes.

Second, there was no mass expulsion of Palestinians by Jews or Israelis.

During the months prior to the establishment of the State of Israel and during the Israeli War of Independence, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes. However, the vast majority of these Palestinians fled ahead of the advancing Arab armies or to escape the warzone. It was only in a minority of situations that Israeli forces expelled Palestinians from their homes, usually due to their being in militarily sensitive areas.

Thus, it is clear that from start to finish, this narrative is nonsense and has no basis in reality. Unfortunately, this has not stopped it from gaining popularity among people who are ignorant of Israeli history or simply hostile to the Jewish State online.

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.