The people trying to save the world are the ones destroying it.
The louder the calls for "justice" become, the more injustice they create.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
For a generation raised on slogans about justice, equity, and saving the planet, the idea of “making the world a better place” has become a kind of moral currency. It signals virtue, empathy, and the belief that one’s moral outrage is synonymous with goodness.
But, increasingly, the people and movements who claim this mantle are not improving the world; they are destabilizing it. They are confusing emotion with ethics, activism with accomplishment, and slogans with solutions.
Take Greta Thunberg, once the face of global climate awareness. She inspired millions of young people to care about the planet — a cause rooted in science, responsibility, and collective stewardship.
But in the last two years, Thunberg has traded that mission for a new role: a loud, uncritical apologist for Hamas. She has marched with Palestinian flags, posted statements that omit Hamas entirely, and repeated anti-Israel propaganda indistinguishable from that of terrorist sympathizers.
Her transformation from environmental activist to ideological zealot is not an isolated case; it’s emblematic of a broader sickness infecting the activist class — a moral confusion that replaces principle with performance.
In the moral marketplace of likes and retweets, outrage has become currency. The goal isn’t progress; it’s performance. To belong to the “good” tribe, one must not think but signal — often by hating the “right” enemies. Thus, activism becomes a kind of narcissism: a way to feel righteous without having to be responsible.
For many, activism has replaced religion itself. Climate marches, “Free Palestine” rallies, DEI seminars — they all function like modern liturgies. But unlike traditional faiths that teach humility, repentance, and compassion, this new “religion” teaches arrogance, self-righteousness, and condemnation. Its commandment is not “love thy neighbor” but “cancel thy enemy.”
This moral inversion extends to Europe’s elites. Recently, 300 former European diplomats and officials wrote to EU leaders demanding a “far more decisive” stance against Israel — including suspending the bloc’s cooperation agreement with the Jewish state. In their moral arithmetic, Israel defending itself from a genocidal terrorist organization is somehow a greater evil than the terrorists’ atrocities.
Meanwhile, two major European universities proudly announced that they were cutting off research partnerships with Israeli universities “due to the war in Gaza.” Imagine the arrogance: punishing scholars, scientists, and doctors whose work saves lives, all in the name of “peace.” These are the same circles that claim to defend academic freedom, diversity, and dialogue. But apparently, those values are conditional on political conformity.
The same selective morality plays out across the Western world. The same people who call Israel an “apartheid state” fall silent when Iran executes gay teenagers, when China enslaves Uyghurs, or when women in Afghanistan are beaten for leaving home without a male guardian. Their empathy is geographically selective and politically convenient. It’s not about human rights; it’s about which humans serve the narrative.
The result is not moral clarity, but moral collapse. When every issue is filtered through the same ideological lens — oppressor versus oppressed, colonizer versus colonized — complexity dies. The activist doesn’t ask what’s true, only who’s guilty. That’s why Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is cast as the villain, and Hamas, a theocratic death cult, becomes the “resistance” and a “liberation movement.”
Even after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire was announced, the outrage did not subside; it only redirected. In Spain, tens of thousands of protesters flooded city centers, many waving Palestinian flags and chanting against Israel, as if peace itself were an act of aggression. The demonstrations turned violent in several places, leading to arrests as rioters clashed with police. The irony was lost on them: they were not protesting war, but protesting that Israel was no longer at war.
This is the pattern now: rage without reflection, fury without facts. The moral theater must go on, even when the curtain should have fallen. For these crowds, Israel’s existence is the provocation, and its restraint the offense. The “peace” they demand is not peace at all; it’s surrender.
At a World Cup qualifying match, Romanian football fans unfurled a massive banner that read, “Defend Nigerian Christians.” In one sentence, they did what so many governments, NGOs, and “human rights” organizations refuse to do: They acknowledged suffering without political calculation.
Why is the world silent about the genocide currently taking place in Nigeria? Because no Jews, no news. Because empathy has become selective. And because too many of the people who claim to be saving the world have built their moral identity on only one kind of victim, and only one kind of villain.
When Israel traded hostages for prisoners earlier this week, the international media rushed to frame the story as one of “shared suffering.” The Guardian ran a headline reading, “Locked up for 24 years, release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees sparks joy and sorrow.” The man in question, Saber Masalma, was not some victim of circumstance; he was serving a life sentence for placing explosive devices and conspiring to kill Israelis. Yet the article lingered on his “weight loss” and “emotional reunion,” as if imprisonment for terrorism were a tragedy rather than justice.
The BBC did the same, portraying Aida Abu Rob’s joy over her brother’s release after 20 years, without mentioning that Murad Abu al-Rub was convicted of helping orchestrate a suicide bombing that murdered four Israelis. Reuters even quoted another killer, Mohammad al-Khatib, celebrating his “steadfastness” after serving two decades for murdering three people — as though murder were an act of endurance. El País described the swap as a “corpse exchange.” The New York Times called it an “exchange of hostages.”
And then there was Nahid al-Aqra — profiled sympathetically as a disabled man returning to Gaza “after years of suffering.” Left unsaid: He lost his legs while trying to blow up Israelis, was saved by Israeli medics, and spent the rest of his life kept alive by the very nation he tried to destroy.
This is what moral inversion looks like. Much of the Western press weeps for terrorists while forgetting their victims. They humanize those who dehumanized others. They call them “prisoners,” not murderers; “fighters,” not butchers. The American Jewish Committee said it plainly: “The Palestinians held in Israeli jails made an active choice to commit a crime, while the only ‘crime’ committed by the Israelis and other foreign hostages was that they were Jewish or were in Israel.”
To equate hostage and prisoner, victim and perpetrator, is not journalism; it’s moral sabotage. It tells audiences that murder and self-defense occupy the same moral ground. It’s not just bad reporting. It’s a betrayal of truth itself.
In the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America — the Far-Left party tied to New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani — opposed the recent Gaza ceasefire agreement. Yes, opposed. Because for them, peace is not the point. The point is permanent struggle, a worldview that needs oppression to justify its existence. It’s the same ideological reflex that celebrates “resistance” even when it means terror, and condemns “colonialism” even when it means democracy.
In fact, Mamdani interviewed this week on Fox News and was asked verbatim: “Should Hamas give up their weapons?” His reply: “I believe that a future here in New York City is affordable for all.” The interviewer persisted: “You won’t say that Hamas should lay down their arms?” His reply: “I don’t have any opinions on the future of Hamas.” Translation: I won’t condemn Hamas. This is what moral cowardice looks like: a quasi-politician who can’t bring himself to criticize a terrorist group that burns babies alive. And this is who New York City wants to run its city? Good luck.
Then there’s the Red Cross. Its employees laid eyes on the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza for the very first time only on the day they were freed — after more than two years in captivity. Not once in 738 days did anyone from the organization visit them. Not a single inspection. Not a single letter. Not a single act of compassion. The same institutions that never tire of preaching about “human rights” fell completely silent while men, women, and children were starved, tortured, and buried alive beneath the earth.
No campus movements demanded accountability. No diplomats issued threats. No crowds filled the streets. Because the outrage machine only runs in one direction, and it never runs for Jews.
Meanwhile, Hamas — the very group that these activists claim to defend — has spent the renewed ceasefire this week not rebuilding Gaza, not feeding its people, but reasserting control through violence. They’ve killed hundreds of Palestinians in a crackdown on groups challenging their authority.
Suddenly, there are no marches in Western streets for “innocent Palestinians being killed.” No campus sit-ins. No outraged hashtags. They don’t exist, because outrage isn’t about truth; it’s about fashion. The “pro-Palestinian” movement doesn’t love Palestinians; it loves the distorted feeling of moral superiority that comes from hating Israel. If they can’t bludgeon Israel, they have nothing to say.
Even America’s largest teachers’ union, entrusted with educating millions of children, recently sent its three million members a map that completely erased Israel. The same educators who preach inclusion and tolerance to their students are now literally teaching them to erase an entire nation. When a teacher’s union erases Israel from the map, it’s not a cartographic error; it’s an ideological project. We are raising a generation that confuses feelings with facts, identity with morality, and politics with truth. The cost will not just be geopolitical; it will be civilizational.
Every generation has had its moral crusades — the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Red Guards of Mao’s China, the censors of McCarthy’s America. Each believed they were saving the world; each left destruction in their wake.
Today’s activist class is their digital heir, armed with hashtags instead of guillotines, but just as certain of their righteousness. What they lack is not passion; it’s wisdom. They chant for peace while cheering on those who murder civilians. They call for tolerance while silencing dissent. They speak of love and justice while defending hatred and terror.
The irony is painful. The self-proclaimed “world changers” are making the world angrier, more divided, and more ignorant. They are eroding the very moral foundations they claim to protect. The task before us is not to silence activism, but to rescue it, to remind people that truth matters more than tribe, and courage matters more than conformity.
The real work of making the world better is rarely loud or viral. It doesn’t fit neatly into a chant or a tweet. It happens in classrooms that teach critical thinking, in laboratories that save lives, in communities that build bridges instead of burning them. It happens when people choose truth over trend, integrity over ideology, and compassion over self-righteousness.
Believe it or not, it happens in Israel.
In a region consumed by rage, Israel builds. While its neighbors teach hatred, Israel teaches medicine, technology, and coexistence. It sends rescue teams to earthquake zones and hospitals to war-torn nations that wouldn’t even recognize its right to exist. It treats wounded Syrians, Gazans, and Ukrainians in its hospitals without asking their politics. It invents water purification systems for drought-stricken Africa, and solar technology that helps entire villages live sustainably. It turns desert into farmland and enemies into trade partners.
While others march for “justice,” Israel quietly practices it — imperfectly, yes, but relentlessly. Its scientists are curing diseases; its entrepreneurs are building the tools that empower the world. Its soldiers, vilified by wannabe activists, uphold a moral code stricter than any army on Earth. Its people — Jewish, Arab, Christian, Druze — live side by side, argue fiercely, and still go back to work the next morning building a society that values life over death.
If you want to see what real world-bettering looks like, look at the country everyone loves to hate. Look at a nation that thrives not because it shouts louder, but because it has real, enduring values: family values, community, collaboration, tolerance, diversity, creativity, entrepreneurism, chutzpah.
Israelis don’t just talk about progress; they create it. And that’s precisely why the self-proclaimed do-gooders despise it. If they can’t disparage Israel, they’re not interested. Because Israel exposes what they fear most: that goodness doesn’t come from slogans or protests, but from courage, conviction, and creation.
If we want to make the world better, we need fewer influencers and more thinkers. Fewer protestors and more problem-solvers. Fewer Greta’s who posture, and more quiet heroes who build. Because the people trying to make the world a better place are not making the world a better place; they’re making it unrecognizable.
Excellent summation of the utter insanity we are experiencing. The virulence is palpable and the number of nations who stand against Israel, staggering.
Bravo.
I wish we could even speak of " moral outrage " . We can't. It's not a moral quest by any definition.
It excludes the astronomical majority of the world, including the ubiquitous Israelis and Jews. It is essentially immoral.
Leaving aside the illness of Jew-hatred , the next sin that comes to mind is hypocrisy. The outside pretence clashing with the inside reality of human occult savagery, prejudice and hatred.
Third, there is emptiness. Religious, spiritual, even. Doug Murray calls " Palestinianism" a new religion. Vacuums are abhorred. Religion ,as " bonding" or " binding "( religio in Latin), for all its irrational flaws , grants meaning to humans forever looking for transcendence.
Lastly, we, parents are perhaps partially at fault . We let them " choose their path". Perhaps we could name it " permissiveness". To excess. We relinquished authority.
But what about the demented grown ups in those protests? That brings collective madness as an additional element. We are tribal, need acceptance, join and follow like sheep. And become mad as groups, time and time again.
So much to learn about collective psychology. Psychologists, after frying our brains with trivialities for decades, have let us down ,now that a new civilisational crisis threatens to erupt.
As an edit, I venture to add that a terrible subconscious spring for these deluded " moralistic " protesters is a form of surrender to their fear of an Islamic conquest. Their pre-Stockholm syndrome is appeasement to the Islamic cause. Hamas just happens to represent it in full.