Connect with us

Uncategorized

I’m a neuroscientist. Here’s why Ahmed al Ahmed’s bravery at Bondi Beach strains our narratives.

(JTA) — We tend to think of human behavior as deeply shaped by group lines. Again and again, research in social psychology and social neuroscience, along with everyday experience, shows how easily people come to see themselves as members of distinct groups, how quickly an “us” and a “them” emerge, and how rapidly loyalty on one side gives way to suspicion on the other, sometimes even when those divisions are thin or arbitrary.

As a fiction writer and a doctoral student in cognitive neuroscience who studies how narratives shape our perception of the world, I think often about how events like this strain the explanatory stories we rely on to make sense of why people act as they do. These patterns of group loyalty are familiar and empirically robust. People genuinely experience themselves through group identities.

And yet sometimes a single human action cuts across these categories, exposing the limits of the narratives we use to understand how people act in the world.

That is what we have experienced this week in the story of Ahmed al Ahmed, the Muslim fruit-seller who intervened, at great personal risk, to try to stop a deadly attack on Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney.

Al Ahmed’s action was not only an act of exceptional bravery, but a direct challenge to the worldview advanced by so many figures today. By knowingly risking his life to protect Jews outside his own group and identity, he crossed the very boundary that many insist cannot be crossed, revealing a simple truth: that human moral action cannot be reduced to rigid theories of group loyalty alone.

Perhaps one of the most prominent proponents of a growing online current that frames human life as fundamentally governed by group identity is the white supremacist livestreamer Nick Fuentes. He has repeatedly advanced antisemitic claims, arguing that Jews are incapable of full civic loyalty, that they put their own group first, and that Jewish Americans are ultimately more loyal to Jews as a group or to Israel than to the United States itself. He has said about Jews, “They have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country.” In Fuentes’ framing, human existence is a competition between groups, and moral loyalty is by definition exclusive. He is careful to insist that these claims are not antisemitic, presenting them instead as a hard-headed and honest description of human nature.

A similar logic appears in the rhetoric of Thomas Rousseau, the leader of the extremist group Patriot Front, who describes the United States as being locked in an inevitable racial struggle. Rousseau has framed this worldview in stark terms, declaring that white people are “being relentlessly erased on all sides, by the Jew, by non-whites who hate us,” a statement that casts social and political life as an existential battle between fixed identities.

But the worldview advanced by figures like Fuentes and Rousseau collapses when confronted with a single human act such as that of Ahmed Al Ahmed. If human life were truly governed only by intergroup competition and instinct, there would be no room for a person to knowingly risk his life for strangers from another group, let alone in the midst of mortal danger. Yet this is precisely what happened. Al Ahmed risked his life to protect members of a group to which he did not belong. This altruistic act directly contradicts the theories advanced by Fuentes and Rousseau and exposes them for what they truly are, not neutral descriptions of reality but ideological narratives imposed upon it. Beneath the edgy aesthetics, viral memes, and provocative social media packaging, these claims amount to recycled pseudo-intellectual arguments, longstanding tropes of racism and antisemitism that have circulated throughout history under different guises.

Understanding Al Ahmed’s act, however, requires moving beyond abstract theory to the explanations offered by those closest to the event. Two interpretations have emerged in media accounts of why he risked his life. One, expressed by his father, presents the act in simple and universal terms. His father said that “Ahmed was driven by his sentiment, conscience and humanity.” The other explanation, voiced by Lubaba Alhmidi AlKahil from within the Muslim and Syrian community after visiting Al Ahmed in the hospital, situates the act within a specific moral culture and identity. As she put it, this kind of response is “not strange for a Syrian individual,” coming from a community with strong bonds that has learned to refuse injustice. What is striking is that these two explanations can exist side by side without canceling one another, a possibility that figures like Nick Fuentes and those who share his worldview struggle to grasp because they are locked into a rigid, binary understanding of human motivation.

One might argue that Al Ahmed’s act was a rare exception in a world otherwise governed by group conflict and self-interest. But the reality is that every day, people risk their lives to protect others across lines of identity. Adam Cramer dove into the water to save a drowning girl. Lassana Bathily hid Jewish shoppers during the Hyper Cacher attack in Paris. Mamoudou Gassama saved a child he did not know. Wesley Autrey jumped onto subway tracks to rescue a stranger, and Henri d’Anselme confronted a knife attacker to protect children. Seen in this light, Ahmed Al Ahmed stands within a long human tradition that includes, even in more distant history, figures such as Raoul Wallenberg and Chiune Sugihara, who risked their lives to save others during the Holocaust.

Evolutionary research itself points in the same direction. Across species, altruistic behavior appears again and again, from dolphins that keep injured companions afloat so they can breathe, to rats that will free trapped cage mates. Far from an anomaly, altruism is a recurrent feature of social life, and our brains have a remarkable capacity for empathy and for understanding the experiences of others, far beyond the lines of group identity and social belonging. Fuentes and those like him may insist that people are loyal only to their own group, but reality erodes this impoverished and intellectually lazy theory on a daily basis.

Crucially, these acts do not testify only to universal altruism abstracted from identity. In many cases, they emerged from deeply held group identities and moral traditions. Cultural, religious, and national affiliations did not prevent these individuals from acting on behalf of others. They often supplied the very moral language and sense of responsibility that made such action possible. Universal concern and particular identity therefore do not stand in opposition. They coexist, with specific histories serving not as barriers to moral action but as sources from which it can arise.

That is precisely what figures like Nick Fuentes and those who share his worldview fail to account for. Their politics rests on a rigid vision of identity as a closed framework, one that leaves no room for moral action that crosses its prescribed boundaries. The horrific attack at Bondi Beach, and the courage of Ahmed Al Ahmed within it, remind us that moral action often arises neither from abandoning identity nor from clinging to it defensively, but from inhabiting it fully while remaining open to others.

In an age shaped by clickbait, algorithms and relentless simplification, such moral complexity is difficult to sustain. Political arguments reward camps and slogans. But the actual behavior of people like Ahmed Al Ahmed escapes the internet’s simplified categories and points instead toward a richer form of conduct, one that can be called, quite simply, humanity.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

The post I’m a neuroscientist. Here’s why Ahmed al Ahmed’s bravery at Bondi Beach strains our narratives. appeared first on The Forward.

Post Views: 21
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Amnesty International Finally Acknowledged Israeli Victims, and the Media Looked Away

Partygoers at the Supernova Psy-Trance Festival who filmed the events that unfolded on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Yes Studios

Two years. That is how long it took Amnesty International, one of the world’s supposedly leading human rights organizations, to formally acknowledge in a report that on October 7, 2023, Hamas committed horrific crimes against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

These are facts Jews did not need Amnesty to discover. The mass murder, sexual violence, hostage-taking, and brutality were documented in real time. The evidence existed. The testimonies existed. The crimes were undeniable and should have been reported immediately by any organization claiming to defend human rights.

Instead, Amnesty chose a different path. From the outset, it framed Israel as the primary aggressor while sidelining, minimizing, or delaying acknowledgment of the atrocities committed against Israelis.

Worse still, just one year after the massacre, Amnesty released a report accusing Israel of committing genocide. To reach that conclusion, the organization stretched and distorted the definition of genocide, while conspicuously avoiding any serious accounting of how many Hamas terrorists were killed in the fighting. The result was not rigorous human rights reporting, but a document shaped to fit a predetermined narrative.

For Amnesty International, evidence mattered less than preserving a false genocide narrative. When irrefutable proof of crimes against humanity committed on October 7 surfaced, the organization chose silence. The reason is obvious: acknowledging those crimes would have disrupted the carefully constructed narrative designed to strip Israel of international sympathy.

A report detailing Hamas’ crimes was originally scheduled for release in September 2025. Its publication was delayed after internal opposition within Amnesty International, with critics reportedly arguing that even a belated acknowledgment of Hamas’ atrocities might benefit Israel in the court of public opinion, particularly given its proximity to ongoing ceasefire negotiations.

Amnesty International presents itself as an impartial humanitarian organization committed to defending all victims of human rights abuses. Yet this episode reveals how internal politics were allowed to override that mandate. Israeli victims were acknowledged only when doing so could be carefully timed and controlled to avoid disrupting a preferred narrative. That selective moral calculus further erodes the organization’s already questionable credibility and claims of impartiality.

Even with the delay, the mere fact that a major human rights organization had finally documented the crimes committed against Israelis should have been newsworthy in its own right.

Instead, many of the same media outlets that rushed to amplify Amnesty’s deeply flawed genocide accusation against Israel have remained conspicuously silent about its report detailing the crimes against humanity Israelis suffered on October 7.

The contrast is difficult to ignore — and speaks volumes about which victims are deemed worthy of attention, and which are not.

Major outlets, including CNN, the BBC, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, remained silent on Amnesty International’s new report, despite immediately amplifying its genocide accusation just one year earlier.

Had the media outlets that so eagerly promoted Amnesty’s deeply flawed genocide report been committed to basic journalistic standards, they would have rigorously examined its distortions and misuse of the term genocide. At the very least, they would have also reported on Amnesty’s documentation of Israeli victims. Their refusal to do so tells a disturbing story: one in which editorial judgment determines not only which stories are told, but which victims are allowed to exist at all.

When human rights organizations and newsrooms decide whose suffering deserves recognition — and when that recognition is granted only if it is politically convenient — they do more than mishandle a single report. They corrode public trust, hollow out the principles they claim to defend, and turn the language of human rights into a tool of selective erasure.

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.

Post Views: 5
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The Missing Context: Media Distort the West Bank Terror Threat

Illustrative: Palestinians run during clashes with Israeli forces amid an Israeli military operation in Jenin, in the West Bank July 3, 2023. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta

Compared to the terror threats emanating from numerous fronts, including Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, the international media often downplays or dismisses the dangers Israel faces from the West Bank.

After the October 7 massacre, Hamas made no effort to hide its intentions to open a front in the West Bank, calling on Palestinians to take up arms against Israel.

In 2024, Israel faced over 18,000 incidents of terrorism, according to the National Public Diplomacy Directorate. The Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, thwarted 1,040 incidents in the West Bank and Jerusalem in 2024, with an additional 231 significant terror incidents reported.

In 2025, the threat persisted. In February 2025, a terrorist from the Nablus area of the West Bank triggered a series of explosions on buses in the Tel Aviv area. Fortunately, the explosives detonated when the buses were empty, causing no injuries.

In September, a deadly terror attack at the Ramot Junction in Jerusalem killed six innocent people and injured 21 others. The terrorists came from the West Bank.

On November 29, a terrorist hurled an iron rod at the windshield of a car on Route 5, a highway in the northern West Bank. Miraculously, no one was physically injured, but the incident underscores the threat targeting Israelis.

The security challenge is real and ongoing. It targets Israelis, no matter where in the country they are.

After the ceasefire went into effect in the Gaza Strip in October, analysts found that Hamas and other terrorist organizations began reorganizing their operations in the West Bank as a way to continue their so-called “resistance.”

For these reasons, on November 26, the IDF launched Operation Five Stones, a counterterrorism operation specifically aimed at countering threats in the northern West Bank.

Naturally, terrorist groups condemned the operation. That didn’t stop the AFP from reiterating the press releases from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Counter-terrorism efforts by the IDF have proven successful.

In the first nine months of 2025, 22 terrorism incidents were carried out by Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank, in comparison to 90 in 2024. With the launch of the new operation, the IDF is strategically operating in specific locations in the West Bank that have become hotspots tied to previous terror attacks, including Jenin, Tulkarm, Nur Shams, Tubas, and Tammun.

These cities and villages have become operational hubs for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Iranian-backed groups, producing everything from roadside bombs to shooting cells to coordinated plots targeting Israeli civilians across the country.

Me’ata, a Palestinian media center, claimed that in October 2025, there were 356 “popular resistance actions” in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, including 16 incidents of planting and detonating explosive devices, mainly in the Jenin and Tubas areas. One of those explosions in Tubas left two IDF soldiers injured.

Jenin is perhaps the media’s favorite West Bank location to cover, consistently referring to it as the “martyrs’ capital.” What most outlets leave out, however, is that the name reflects the city’s role as the origin for more than one-third of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada. The next time you read “martyrs’ capital,” know that the journalist is really referring to terrorism.

The IDF began intensively operating in Jenin in January 2025, following a terrorist attack carried out by terrorists from the Jenin area that left three Israelis dead.

During the current operation in Jenin, the IDF eliminated two terrorists claimed by Islamic Jihad. The shooting was documented on film, and an investigation into whether the officers took the correct action to mitigate harm to themselves has been launched, as is proper in a case where there are questions over whether individuals violated the IDF’s rules of engagement and code of conduct.

Several major outlets, including CNN, The Guardian, and The Washington Post, however, reported the incident without stating in the headline that the two individuals killed were not ordinary Palestinian civilians. but terrorists. This omission leaves readers with a distorted impression of the event and obscures the context of ongoing terrorist activity in Jenin.

Sky News went so far as to suggest the two were not terrorists at all.

The terrorist threat Israel faces from the West Bank is not theoretical or isolated, nor did it disappear after the October 7 terrorist attacks. Had the IDF not continuously acted to prevent further attacks, Israelis would be facing a far deadlier and more coordinated terrorism campaign today.

After October 7, Israel vowed never again to let the country or the Jewish people face such devastation and insecurity. A secure Israel after that massacre means dismantling terror networks before they can carry out mass-casualty attacks, not after. It means denying Hamas and Islamic Jihad the ability to embed in civilian areas, build explosives factories, or dispatch terrorists into Israeli cities. In a post-October 7 reality, counterterrorism is not optional. It is the prerequisite for any genuine stability, security, or peace.

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.

Post Views: 5
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Will Mamdani and His Support for Israel Boycotts Make New York Less Affordable?

New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

Mayor-elect Zohran Mandani’s vocal support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is an announcement to the world that New York City is no longer a place that values entrepreneurship, innovation, art, and research carried out and supported by Israeli companies, companies that engage with Israel, and people who study and teach at Israeli universities. 

A case in point is Mamdani’s early targeting of Cornell Tech in 2020 as a State Assemblyman. Mamdani apparently believes that he has been given a dual mandate by New Yorkers: to make New York City more affordable and to engage in economic warfare against the state of Israel.

These two objectives are fundamentally inconsistent. Israeli commerce, research, science, and art are deeply cemented into New York City. If Mamdani decides to take a wrecking ball to this ecosystem, he will make New York City less affordable, not more affordable. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists count on a government that will respect and defend property rights against bias and bigotry. They will factor the costs of the BDS movement into their business decisions.

In 2025, the Calcalist “Mind the Tech NY” conference was held for the ninth time in New York City. The conference focused on the “challenges facing the Israeli high-tech industry and the global tech sector.” Experts discussed the “potential synergy between artificial intelligence and human ingenuity.” Dr. Maya Sapir-Mir, the CEO and co-Founder of PoloPo, gave a session on “Revolutionizing Protein Production for the Food Industry.” PoloPo grows protein-rich potatoes at scale. It would be harmful to New York City in both the short and long term if Mamdani decided to discourage these events, which offer economic and social benefits that extend far beyond New York City.

On May 19, 2025, Mayor Eric Adams and the Israeli Minister of Economy and Industry Nir Barkat, signed a declaration of intent to establish the New York City-Israel Economic Council. The objective of the council is to: “facilitate business partnerships between New York City and Israeli companies; support Israeli businesses looking to establish a presence in New York City; promote collaboration in key technological sectors, including environmental innovation, life sciences, and artificial intelligence; and coordinate participation in major business and technology conferences.” If there was ever an anti-BDS move, this was it. Mamdani will likely disband the council. 

Another target of Mamdani in his BDS campaign is likely to be the overturning of Executive Order 52 (EO) signed by Mayor Adams in 2025. This EO requires all city agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Abandoning the IHRA definition of antisemitism is an attempt by Mamdani to drive a wedge between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. He is committed to redefine antisemitism so that he is free to advocate for the elimination of Israel as the Jewish state without being called antisemitic. 

Another target of Mamdani in his quest to promote the cause of BDS could be Executive Order number 60 — “Procurement and Investment Decisions Relating to Israel and Israeli Citizens,” signed by Mayor Adams on December 2, 2025. This executive order prevents city agencies from discriminating against Israeli companies in their procurement decisions. If Mamdani seeks to revoke Executive Order 60 or defund the New York City-Israel Economic Council, it may activate New York State Executive Order 157, which prohibits New York State from investing in any institution or company involved in BDS activities or encouraging such actions. This would require the State of New York to cease financing any New York City agencies which are complicit in the BDS campaign. But given that Governor Kathy Hochul is a Mamdani ally, this seems unlikely. 

The newly elected comptroller of New York City, Mark Levine, may be another barricade to Mamdani’s BDS aspirations. He has stated that he will not pursue the divestment of NYC pension funds from assets linked to the Israeli government and Israeli companies, and will reinvest NYC pension fund assets in Israeli Bonds. 

Mamdani knows quite well that the intent of the BDS movement is not a two-state solution, but rather a one state solution premised on the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Mamdani himself has stated he doesn’t think Israel should be a Jewish state. And he might use his new position to try to bring about that reality. 

Charles A. Stone is a Business Professor at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

Post Views: 5
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News