RSS
LA Times Op-Ed Gaslights Israelis & Jews on Intifada Violence
The aftermath of the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem on Aug. 9, 2001, that killed 15 people, including two Americans, and wounded around 130 others. Photo: Flash90.
In a recent opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab takes umbrage with New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s assertion that public calls for an intifada are akin to calls for the genocide of the Jewish people.
In making his case, Kuttab’s article is riddled with historical revisionism, factual inaccuracies, and misleading statements, all in an effort to whitewash the violent nature of the two Palestinian intifadas and to lay the onus for continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians solely at the feet of the Jewish state.
“Civil Disobedience & Protest”: The First Intifada
In defending the use of the term “intifada” (literally “shaking off”), Kuttab asserts that the term is a Palestinian “demand for freedom from occupation,” and that its sole focus is on ending Israeli control over the post-1967 territories.
Following this favorable presentation of the term “intifada,” Kuttab then initiates his whitewashing of reality, beginning with the First Intifada.
For anyone unfamiliar with Israeli and Palestinian history, the First Intifada would appear from Daoud Kuttab’s description to have been a righteous struggle for civil rights, similar to those that took place in the southern United States or South Africa.
This is not mere hyperbole, as he actually writes, “Initially, the intifada included the methods of resistance practiced by Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.”
This complimentary portrayal of the First Intifada is further reinforced by a later description of it as “six years of civil disobedience and protest.”
While it is true that the First Intifada included acts of non-violence, it is disingenuous for Kuttab to present those six years as an idealistic struggle for peace and freedom.
From the start, the First Intifada was also defined by Palestinian violence against Israeli soldiers and civilians.
It is estimated that during the first four years, there were “more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives” directed against Israelis.
In fact, for an “uprising” supposedly directed against “the occupation, not Israel,” more Israeli civilians were killed during the First Intifada than members of the Israeli security forces. Of these Israeli civilians, more were killed within pre-1967 Israel than were killed in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem.
Between the Two Intifadas: The Oslo Years
Following his rosy assessment of the First Intifada, Daoud Kuttab then turns his attention to the Oslo era, the seven years between the signing of the Oslo Accords by Yitzhak Rabin’s Israeli government and Yasser Arafat’s PLO, and the eruption of the Second Intifada.
To hear Kuttab tell it, Israel and the Palestinians were on a clear course for rapprochement and friendly relations between two states until a right-wing Israeli extremist assassinated Rabin in 1995, leading to Benjamin Netanyahu’s first government, which “multiplied illegal settlements” in the West Bank.
Ultimately, all blame is laid at Israel’s feet for the demise of the Oslo Accords.
However, this brief history of the Oslo era is overly simplistic and misleading in several ways.
First, it does not take into account the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombings, shootings, firebombs, and stabbings, which was aimed at derailing the Oslo peace process and inflicting severe damage against both Israeli security forces and civilians.
Second, contrary to Kuttab’s assertion, there was no mass proliferation of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza under the first Netanyahu government. In fact, as part of the Oslo process, there was a freeze on the establishment of new Israeli communities in these areas. This led to the development of outposts, small communities that are established without government approval.
Third, during his first tenure as prime minister, Netanyahu continued to engage in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), culminating in the signing of the Wye River Memorandum. Under this agreement, Israel ceded more territory to the control of the PA and agreed to release a large number of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for counter-terrorism efforts on the part of the PA.
Lastly, no mention is made of the 2000 Camp David summit, where Arafat walked away from negotiations with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and ultimately began planning the Second Intifada.
Shootings, Suicide Bombings & Stabbings: The Second Intifada
Unlike his portrayal of the First Intifada, Kuttab does not go into great detail about the Second Intifada.
However, what he does write about the Second Intifada is just as deceptive and misleading.
Kuttab states that in 2000:
Israeli prime minister candidate Ariel Sharon staged a deliberately provocative campaign visit to Al Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinian protests that followed were violently and fatally put down, and so began the second intifada, a recognition that negotiation and nonviolence had failed to end the occupation and create an independent Palestinian state.
In just one paragraph, Kuttab misleads his readers into believing several factual inaccuracies, including:
That Ariel Sharon visited the Al Aqsa Mosque. In fact, he never entered the mosque but walked around the Temple Mount complex, the holiest site in Judaism.
That the Palestinian response to Sharon’s visit was “protests” that were “violently and fatally put down.” In fact, the immediate response to the visit included the stoning of Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall and gun battles between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen.
That the Second Intifada was a grassroots response to the Sharon visit and subsequent Israeli violence. In fact, even Palestinian sources agree that it was planned ahead of time by the Palestinian leadership. Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was just a convenient justification for the Palestinian leadership to put its plan into effect.
The reason why Kuttab’s description of the Second Intifada might be so sparse is that for many people, it is defined by a spate of suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, stonings, and other attacks against both Israeli civilians and security forces.
Furthermore, many of these attacks were directed against restaurants, nightclubs, and Jewish religious gatherings in cities in pre-1967 Israel, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Netanya.
Thus, the Second Intifada belies Kuttab’s rosy image of an intifada as a righteous venture whose “target is not Jews but Israel’s illegal occupation.”
Daoud Kuttab is not the only person to recently gaslight Jews and Israelis about what an “intifada” is.
Both MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan and talking head Peter Beinart have recently claimed that calls for an intifada are not inherently violent and that an intifada is a legitimate form of “uprising” against Israel.
Imagine being a professor and not understanding the definition of the word ‘explicitly’.
You can believe that ‘intifada’ chants are calls for violence – they aren’t btw! – but what you can’t do is claim they are ‘explicit’ calls for violence when, *by definition*, they are not. https://t.co/0XiijMfOGD
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 12, 2023
While there can be a discussion about whether a call to “globalize the intifada” is a call for the genocide of Jews (as was recently claimed in the US Congress) or whether the term “intifada” has other linguistic connotations, it is the height of gaslighting to try to argue that when calling for an “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the word connotes anything other than the indiscriminate violence against Israeli civilians which plagued the First and Second Intifadas.
The post LA Times Op-Ed Gaslights Israelis & Jews on Intifada Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.