On Sale Now! The Jewish Double Standard Rulebook: A Guide to Judging Jews and Israel

We know it's true, isn't it about time someone codified it and made a few bucks off it? Keep it in the spot where you used to have the Yellow Pages.

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters.

Please subscribe and receive at least two pieces/essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month and less than USD 4. I know everyone says Hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!”

But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.

For centuries, Jews and the Jewish state have been subjected to a unique form of moral calculus—one so intricate, contradictory, and resistant to reason that it defies the principles of fairness or logic. Since attempts to remove these double standards have failed spectacularly, codifying them into a formal “Jewish Double Standard Rulebook seems reasonable. (JDSRB) ™¹

It will be for sale in the lobby; no beverages on book tables.

Our government and so many in academia have already created one, but we are an advanced society, and we can’t rely on oral tradition; codifying it would release some tension and give us something to build on.

Anti-Semitism is like the cicadas: those insects that surface only every 17 years and make a huge commotion; their abdomens are tapped as if they were tiny drums with tiny insect drumsticks, all on the same beat.

‘We just want to hate the Jews, and we will never stop the music.”

The Cicadas, the anti-semites, were always there; we just didn’t see them. So let the cicadas pound their abdominal drums.

Rule 1: Jews Must Be Perfect, Others May Be Human

The first rule is simple: Jews must be held to moral standards so impossibly high that even angels would wince - while their critics are excused from basic decency.

If a Jewish soldier makes an error in a war, it is a war crime. If a Muslim leader orders the slaughter of entire villages, if Assad kills 4000 Palestinians, these are cultural nuances. Israel’s existence must be justified every day, while the existence of nations carved from bloodshed, like Pakistan, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, is treated as eternal and unquestionable.

As Christopher Hitchens observed,

“To be against the Jewish people and the Jewish state is not, as its defenders often insist, merely a form of irrational prejudice. It is, instead, a deeply felt desire to replace the painful reality of historical truth with a comfortable myth of innocence.”

Rule 2: Jews Can Conquer Nothing, Others May Conquer At Will

History’s conquerors are celebrated in textbooks, except when Jews are involved. Muslims expanded their empire across continents with swords and fire, leaving a wake of destruction and slaughter, but their conquest is remembered as a Golden Age. Only an academic could overlook 30-60 million dead.

Meanwhile, the formation of Israel is cast as an illegitimate act of colonialism—despite Jews returning to their ancestral homeland after millennia of exile.

The Ottoman Empire enslaved millions and taxed non-Muslims into oblivion, but this is chalked up to “economic policy.”

Jews reclaiming a land the size of Vancouver Island? Unforgivable imperialism.

Muslim states from Morocco to Indonesia are celebrated for “diversity,” even as minorities vanish under policies of oppression. Meanwhile, Israel, the only Jewish state, is the first ‘apartheid’ state to have their ‘persecuted’ minority represented in parliament.

George Orwell observed that people often prefer comforting lies over uncomfortable truths. In The Road to Wigan Pier, he noted that individuals “willingly buy into mistruths and myths about the reality of working-class life” and choose to believe convenient falsehoods rather than face difficult realities.

Yet liberty, it seems, must always bow to Muslim grievances. Indeed, so many refuse to challenge their grievances. They like the flow and cadence of their narrative; everyone likes a good martyr’s tale. If it were music, we would tap our feet and bob our heads as the melody slowly captured us.

Rule 3: Criticism of Jews is Bold. Criticism of Muslims is Islamophobia

This rule is foundational. It ensures that critics of Israel can congratulate themselves for their “bravery” in standing up to the “Zionist lobby” while quaking at the thought of mentioning human rights abuses in Islamic nations.

If you criticise Israel for defending itself against rocket attacks, you are a courageous activist. Jews are supposed to treat internal displacement and perpetual rocket attacks and their resulting forced retreats to shelters with the same equanimity as a Winnipeger who opens the door in the morning to see their car covered with a night’s snowfall.

If you criticise Hamas for launching those rockets from schools, you are an Islamophobe. Speak up against the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia, and you’re likely to be told, “It’s their culture”, or the new clever phrase to excuse anything, it’s “contextual.”

Criticise Israel for building a security wall, and you’re a hero of the oppressed.

Hitchens nailed this doublethink perfectly: “What is blasphemy against Islam if not a moral judgment against totalitarian belief?”

Rule 4: Victimhood is Inherited, But Only for Muslims

The Palestinian narrative holds that victimhood is transferable across generations, while the Jewish experience of genocide and exile has expired.

Stop going on about that Holocaust; you’re manipulating us, they say. What utter cruelty! With a worldwide population of only fifteen million, the Jewish population has barely returned to its 1930s Jewish population; every Jew feels the ripples of the Holocaust, in which six million were murdered, and 65% of the European Jewry was killed. No, we will not forget.

Arbeit Macht Frei was a lie; now we know the truth. The only freedom is found through strength.

Israel Machts Frei

Palestinians displaced in 1948 remain victims in perpetuity, while Jews returning to the same land after 2,000 years are oppressors.

The Nakba is an eternal wound, but the Farhud, in which Arab mobs slaughtered Iraqi Jews in 1941, is a forgotten footnote. Muslim empires drove Jews from the Middle East for centuries, yet no one suggests reparations. Meanwhile, the world continues to demand concessions from Israel to defend itself.

The Rulebook conveniently ignores that, as Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of their history.”

Rule 5: Jews Are Unforgivable because They Keep Winning

Victory is, apparently, only admirable when it does not involve Jews. The stunning success of Israel—a nation built in a desert, surrounded by enemies—is a crime in itself. The Rulebook dictates that Jews succeeding against impossible odds is an affront to global morality.

When Muslims are defeated in battle, it is a tragedy. When Jews prevail, it is Zionist aggression. Muslims may establish states atop the ruins of others, but the Jewish state’s mere existence is cast as an offence to history.

Rule 6: Criticism of Jews Is Free Speech; Criticism of Muslims Is Hate Speech

Finally, the Rulebook insists that criticism of Jews and Israel is always free speech, while any critique of Islam is hate speech.

Accusations that Israel is committing “genocide” are protected expressions of dissent, even as the population of Palestinians increases. Highlighting Hamas’s stated goal of exterminating Jews, however, is considered inflammatory and divisive.

As Mencken observed, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” Here, the urge to criticise Jews is often a false face for prejudice.

Here, the Muslim marketing department had such an easy task: invent a word, add a pathologising suffix, and you have “Islamophobia.”

You have a convenient word gag that you can paste on anyone’s face who dares speak reason against the besieged Muslim.

Islam is a custom-fit monotheism, delivered apparently by the angel Gabriel, a full angel who was not bright enough to pick a literate receiver; Islam is a religion that is equal parts an utterly unwarranted belief in its adherent’s innate superiority, an imperialistic justification for world conquest and a spiritual guide.

In Chapter Nine of his book, God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens discusses the origins of the Quran, titled “The Koran Is Borrowed from Both Jewish and Christian Myths.” He argues that the Quran incorporates elements from preexisting religious traditions, stating that Islam “builds upon its primitive Jewish and Christian predecessors, selecting a chunk here and a shard there.”

Rule 7: All other countries were founded in peace and love, and nobody ever felt treated unfairly.

(Indeed, when persons similar in spirit to “anti-Zionists” complain about the formation of a country 75 years ago, those countries routinely apologise, pack up and leave.)

George Orwell, in his classic Animal Farm, captured the essence of hypocrisy with a simple yet devastating line:

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Nowhere is this more evident than in how the world treats Israel. It is scrutinised under a unique moral microscope, subjected to a standard applied to no other nation. If one thing remains consistent across history, it is that hypocrisy, particularly in international relations, is the most abundant and renewable resource. Christopher Hitchens put it even more directly:

“The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law.”

The double standard applied to Israel’s creation is a prime example of this capricious law. The argument often levelled against Israel is that its formation was controversial, that people were displaced, that not everyone accepted its borders, and that its very existence remains contested. These points are presented as unique, as though no other country in the 20th century experienced similar or more severe challenges.

But let’s take a step back. If the world were truly consistent in its moral outrage over the formation of states, then surely the same level of scrutiny should be applied to other nations that emerged in the last century. Yet, no other country faces the relentless delegitimisation that Israel endures. This is what we call the Jew Standard—a set of rules that apply exclusively to the Jewish state and no other.

1. Pakistan (1947) – A Nation Born in Blood

Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947, the same year the United Nations voted to establish Israel. The partition of British India led to the displacement of 15 million people and the deaths of at least one million in violent communal riots. Hindus and Sikhs were driven out of what became Pakistan, and Muslims fled from India. This was the largest mass migration in human history, and yet, no global movements are calling for the dismantling of Pakistan, no UN resolutions questioning its legitimacy, and no annual university apartheid weeks demonising it.

If critics argue that Israel’s formation was illegitimate because it displaced Palestinians, why is Pakistan exempt from the same critique? The only difference is that one country is Jewish, and the other is Muslim.

2. Bangladesh (1971) – A Nation Forged in Genocide

In 1971, Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan, triggering a war that saw 300,000 to 3 million Bengalis killed, depending on estimates, and at least 200,000 women raped by Pakistani forces. Millions were displaced as refugees fled to India. Bangladesh was born in the shadow of one of the 20th century’s worst genocides.

Yet, unlike Israel, no one questions Bangladesh’s legitimacy. The UN does not have dedicated commissions investigating its formation, nor does the European Union call for special boycotts. The only difference? Bangladesh isn’t Jewish.

3. Algeria (1962) – Independence Through Ethnic Cleansing

Algeria won its independence from France after an eight-year war that killed at least 500,000 people and displaced millions. When the war ended, nearly 1 million French settlers (the Pieds-Noirs) were expelled, alongside thousands of Algerian Jews who had lived in North Africa for centuries. It was one of modern history's largest instances of forced population transfer.

But who calls Algeria an illegitimate state? Who demands a Palestinian-style “right of return” for French Algerians? Who accuses Algeria of apartheid for its treatment of Jews and French citizens? Nobody. The world moved on.

4. Cyprus (1974) – A Divided Nation Ignored

In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and ethnically cleansed 200,000 Greek Cypriots, establishing the self-declared “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which remains recognised by only one country—Turkey. The island remains divided, with UN peacekeepers patrolling the buffer zone between the north and south. Greek Cypriots still demand the right to return to their homes, but the world shrugs. The UN has passed zero resolutions calling for boycotts of Turkish-occupied Cyprus. No one holds conferences condemning the “apartheid” occupation of Northern Cyprus.

Yet, Israel—where Arabs serve in parliament, vote, and hold high positions—is labelled an apartheid state. The double standard is glaring.

5. South Sudan (2011) – The Newest Nation, Born in Fire

The most recent nation to gain independence, South Sudan, was formed in 2011 after decades of brutal civil war with Sudan. The war claimed over 2 million lives and displaced millions more. Even after independence, South Sudan has been plagued by internal violence, famine, and corruption.

Yet, despite its violent birth and ongoing struggles, no one questions South Sudan’s right to exist. The UN does not host endless resolutions condemning its policies. Human rights groups do not dedicate their entire existence to demonising its leadership.

The Special Standard for Israel

Why is Israel, a country whose formation was far less bloody than these examples, the only nation whose legitimacy is constantly questioned? Why is it the only country in the world that has to justify its right to exist continuously?

It’s that Jewish Double Standards Rule Book.

Orwell, ever perceptive about political hypocrisy, once wrote:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

One of those ideas is that Israel’s creation was uniquely controversial—unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Cyprus, or South Sudan. The absurdity is clear when considered in the context of the 20th century’s many new nations.

Yet, Israel remains the only country with a permanent refugee agency dedicated solely to Palestinians (UNRWA), while every other refugee crisis has been resolved. It is the only country targeted by international boycotts despite being a democracy that protects minority rights better than most of its neighbours.

It is the only country where students on Western campuses hold weekly protests against its existence while ignoring genuine human rights catastrophes worldwide.

Conclusion: The Jew Double Standard Rulebook™ is a thing.

If the formation of nations were truly held to a universal ethical standard, then Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Cyprus, and South Sudan would be just as controversial as Israel. But they are not. Only Israel is treated as a cosmic injustice that must be reversed.

Christopher Hitchens once wrote:

“You can’t be neutral about Israel. You are either indifferent to Jewish survival or you are against it.”

The world’s obsessive scrutiny of Israel has nothing to do with international law, morality, or justice. It has everything to do with who is building the nation. That is the Jew Standard—where Israel is judged by a set of rules that apply to no one else.

If you apply different rules to the Jewish state than to every other country, then it’s not about land, borders, or history.

It’s about the fact that it’s Jewish.

This Double Standard Rulebook is, of course, a satire of the glaring inconsistencies in how the world judges Jews and Israel.

These standards are not just hypocritical; they are actively destructive, erasing the horrors of history and blinding us to the realities of the present.

As Orwell warned, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

We must openly abandon or admit these double standards to advance as a global society. Either way, hypocrisy can no longer be ignored.

Until then, the Jewish Double Standards Rulebook™ will remain in force, a testament to the world’s inability—or unwillingness—to treat Jews and their state as equals.

1. There is no real book. It’s just satire. But don’t give me any ideas. But if you are feeling spendy, here you go.