RSS
Why Does the World Hate Israel, and Not Hamas?
Hamas terrorists kidnapping Israeli women at the Nahal Oz base near the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Screenshot
As the smoke cleared last Saturday and the echoes of gunfire faded, four Israeli hostages stumbled into the blinding light of freedom, dramatically rescued from the clutches of Hamas and their local Gaza collaborators. The Israeli military carried out the mission after weeks of meticulous planning, using cutting-edge intelligence and state-of-the-art technology. The result was a triumph: three hostages in one location and one in another, rescued simultaneously, in the type of operation that every Israeli has desperately yearned for since October 7th.
The world watched, breathless, as a nation celebrated the euphoric victory of life over terror. Yet, in the shadow of this victory, an unsettling chorus of condemnation has arisen. Headlines screamed of a “massacre” of non-combatants who died during the rescue raid. There were even voices demanding to know why Israel had not given any advance warning to civilians in Gaza before saving the hostages. In this high-stakes moral battleground — where the sanctity of life is weighed against the brutal calculus of war — Israel, once again, stands accused.
Contemporary “just war” theory is dominated by two main perspectives: traditionalist and revisionist. Traditionalists, also known as legalists, align themselves with established international law and the recognized norms governing armed conflict. They believe that only states have legitimate authority to engage in war, and that war is acceptable for three main reasons: national defense, defense of other states, or to prevent atrocities that shock the moral conscience of humanity. Civilians must never be targeted intentionally, and combatants are allowed to engage one another, provided that civilian harm is not excessive.
Revisionists, on the other hand, challenge these foundations. They question the moral legitimacy of states and the justification for national defense. According to revisionists, combatants fighting for unjust causes — namely, any army fighting on behalf of a sovereign state — cannot morally justify their actions and should cease fighting. Revisionists are the ultimate useful idiots for terrorist organizations and rogue states, who respect no laws and selfishly render violence while always claiming to be victims. If those they have in their crosshairs were to be held back by revisionist ideals, they would not just be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, but two.
Revisionists fail to acknowledge the real-world complexities faced by nations like Israel — and the hostage rescue is a perfect case in point. Critics argue that Israel’s operation was morally flawed because it failed to consider the potential for collateral damage.
But this perspective ignores the stark reality of the hostages’ lives constantly at risk — and with dozens of hostages already dead at the hands of Hamas, every hour of their incarceration was another step toward their death. If the useful idiots had their way, each hostage, if released by Hamas in a deal, would result in the release of a large number of terrorist prisoners in exchange, opening up the potential for yet more violence against Israel down the road. Think how many lives have been saved by the rescue of these four hostages.
The revisionist ivory-tower stance is rooted in a theoretical purity that is utterly detached from the brutal pressures of real-life conflict. In the midst of war, decisions are seldom black and white. These neo-Marxist pacifists dismiss the legitimacy of national defense — an ideal which may suit them in their blinkered perspective, but it fails to grapple with the dire consequences of inaction.
For Israel, the choice is stark: act decisively to save innocent lives or risk brutal violence against their citizens now and in the future. To criticize harm caused by Israel to enemy civilians without considering the context is self-serving virtue signaling, and offers little practical guidance for states forced to navigate the treacherous waters of modern conflict.
Rav Shaul Yisraeli (1909-1995), one of 20th-century Israel’s most prominent rabbinic leaders and an esteemed authority in Jewish law, discusses the concept of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) in his seminal work Amud HaYemini. This concept encompasses the defense of Israel and its people. A milchemet mitzvah is not only permissible but necessary, says Rav Yisraeli, even if it entails significant risks to the lives of non-combatants and involves difficult military decisions. And according to Rav Yisraeli, “war with any nation threatening Israel is a milchemet mitzvah.”
The ongoing conflict with Hamas, and particularly the rescue of hostages, undoubtedly constitutes a milchemet mitzvah, as it represents an existential struggle for Israel’s survival that is being keenly observed by all of Israel’s adversaries. This is why the cost of kidnapping Israelis must be high to deter such atrocities in the future. The misfortune of civilian deaths, as in any just war, is the tragic consequence of such a mission, undertaken to prevent far worse outcomes in the future.
In a perfect world, Hamas would not have kidnapped any Israelis, and having done so, would not have embedded them in the heart of a residential neighborhood. But we don’t live in a perfect world, where swords can be beaten into plowshares, and dealing with heartless enemies is unnecessary. This is the real world, where rescuing innocent civilian hostages from the clutches of evil terrorists is an inescapable reality.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of the media and international actors who criticize Israel is glaring. They refuse to acknowledge that the hostages were all innocent civilians held by Hamas collaborators in residential neighborhoods, where the likelihood of an Israeli rescue raid was, thus high making civilian casualties inevitable.
Which country wouldn’t want to rescue their citizens? Had these hostages been handed back months ago, this entire war might have long been over. Instead, Israel is blamed for fulfilling its obligation to protect its citizens and doing everything possible to save them from terrorist murderers and rapists. The criticism of Israel not only ignores the realities of the conflict but also unfairly vilifies a nation for its honorable commitment to the safety and security of its people.
Rather than hauling Israel over the coals, isn’t it time for the media and international organizations to start hounding Hamas and their lackeys for generating suffering on a scale for Palestinians not seen since 1948? That’s not on Israel. It’s on Hamas. And until Hamas is gone, the suffering will continue — and likely get worse.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Why Does the World Hate Israel, and Not Hamas? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.