RSS
Despite Difficult Choices, Defeating Hamas Is the Only Path Towards Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Israelis and hostage families watch a screening of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he addresses Congress on a visit to the US, amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, at the so-called “Hostages Square,” in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ricardo Moraes
Last weekend was a very tragic one for Israelis and Jews, as the IDF discovered the bodies of six hostages executed by Hamas in order to prevent them from being rescued and returned home.
The murder of the hostages triggered demonstrations against the Israeli government, which were further aggravated by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech delivered a day after the murders where he reaffirmed the need to control the Philadelphi Corridor. The Corridor is a strip of land approximately 8.5 miles long between Gaza and Egypt, which has been used to smuggle weapons, personnel, and equipment to Hamas for years.
Protestors argue that the cabinet’s decision and Netanyahu’s speech undermined the chances of reaching a deal to bring the hostages home.
The protests, President Joe Biden’s comments questioning Netanyahu’s intentions, and the arms embargo imposed by the UK on Israel, have all contributed to strengthening Hamas’ position in the negotiations.
A recent Hamas document quoted by the German newspaper Bild reveals Hamas’ negotiating strategy. The terror group seeks to exert psychological pressure on the families of the prisoners to build public pressure on the Israeli government. The Hamas document does not mention the Philadelphi Corridor or the humanitarian needs of Gazans.
It appears, unsurprisingly, that Hamas is less concerned about ending the war and more interested in creating chaos in Israel and isolating the Jewish State in the international arena. Likewise, it seeks to survive as the ruling party in Gaza and continue to threaten the security of Israelis.
Hamas seeks to make the Israeli public agree to any terms in exchange for the hostages — and cast Israel as the villain for blocking a “ceasefire.”
And Hamas’ strategy is working.
Across the free world, Hamas’ role in the war is barely acknowledged — in fact, it is non-existent. Hamas is demanding a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and seeks to return to the situation prior to October 7.
No wonder US National Security communications aide John Kirby recently held the terror group responsible for the stagnation in the negotiation.
Yet, despite Netanyahu’s controversial speech, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer said in an interview to Bloomberg that Israel may agree to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor in the second phase of a deal, meaning after partial Israeli withdrawal from certain areas in Gaza.
But that’s not a possibility without looking at Egypt’s role. Egypt has enabled Hamas to smuggle weapons to Gaza either by looking the other way, or because of their own internal corruption. Egyptians have refused to provide Israel any assurances that they will not allow such border trafficking of people or weapons (including the hostages).
It is not clear how much pressure the United States has applied on Egypt to fully secure the border, and if the Egyptian government has given any credible assurances.
Most recently, the Egyptian Armed Forces chief of staff visited the Egyptian-Gaza border in an attempt to send the message that Egypt is indeed in control of the border.
However, to trust Egypt after all these years of border chaos and anarchy will be hard.
Some voices in the Israeli security establishment even argue that Israel needs to focus on a hostage deal and then come back to the Philadelphi Corridor or resume the war if necessary. Netanyahu seems to think that if an agreement is signed, it will be impossible to return to Gaza to complete the mission of destroying Hamas — both logistically and because of international pressure.
But even if Hamas’ firepower is destroyed, there is one piece that is conspicuously missing: who will rule Gaza after Hamas?
Answering this question is the key to securing a more promising future for Israelis and Palestinians. But the current reality offers no clear path.
The massive flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza has strengthened Hamas. Hamas seizes the humanitarian aid and uses it as leverage to recruit fighters.
That’s why former Israeli National Security advisor Giora Eiland, along with other generals, published the so-called “Generals Plan.”
The plan proposes to cut humanitarian aid and move the 300,000 Gazans currently residing in Northern Gaza to the Strip’s south. The IDF will then impose a siege on northern Gaza. The terrorists who refuse to evacuate will remain in this territory without humanitarian aid thus leaving them with the choice to surrender or die of hunger. Humanitarian aid will continue in the rest of the Gaza Strip.
If necessary, General Eiland pointed out, “we can replicate the siege of Northern Gaza to other areas in the Gaza Strip.”
The plan sounds creative and, in the best-case scenario, Hamas may release some hostages, but as Eiland himself pointed out, nothing would threaten Hamas more than an alternative Palestinian government in Gaza.
But even this path looks difficult. According to Israeli analyst Ehud Yaari, Hamas would agree to form a technocratic government with other Palestinian partners. That government would attend civil matters while Hamas would remain in charge of security (meaning it would rebuild their terrorist infrastructure).
Hamas has also demanded the removal of Fatah’s control over the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Some key current and former Fatah leaders such as Mohammed Dahlan, a former Security Chief in Gaza who is critical of Hamas, believe that the post Gaza government must include Hamas. Hamas seems to have lobbied Palestinians from all persuasions to include them in a future Gazan government.
Yet, former Palestinian foreign minister Nasser Al Qudwa was not intimidated by such Hamas’ power. He, along with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, drew a up a proposal for a permanent peace. The plan, presented in late August, attempts to revive an old Olmert idea of creating a demilitarized Palestinian state with a policing system, a multi nation trusteeship of Old Jerusalem, plus an Arab peacekeeping force in Gaza after the war ends.
The two former leaders suggest creating a Palestinian technocratic governing council in Gaza linked to the Palestinian Authority, stating that after two years, the West Bank and Gaza should conduct elections. But it’s not clear whether this proposal rules out allowing Hamas to run in the elections.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected the possibility of returning Abbas and the PA to Gaza, arguing they indoctrinate their children to hate and kill Jews, and pay the families of terrorists.
The PA is indeed weak, and has difficulties exerting control over the West Bank, let alone Gaza. However, it is precisely Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fath and the Palestinian Authority, who has conditioned Hamas’ participation to its acceptance of the Oslo Accords.
So, it appears there is no other option but to strengthen Fatah, which is the most moderate faction. On the other hand, the Biden administration’s insistence on quickly moving towards a two-state solution will not work.
The Palestinian leadership rejected the two-state solution at Camp David (2000), at Taba (2001), and later in 2008 precisely because Fatah was under the threat of the dissident groups. There is no reason why it will succeed now, except if Hamas is removed.
Therefore, the Israeli government and its American allies must continue to do everything possible to eradicate Hamas. It’s the only way peace can come to the region.
Luis Fleischman, Ph.D is a professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, the author of The Middle East Riddle: A Study of the Middle East Peace Process and Israeli-Arab Relations in Changing Times, and a member of the Academic Engagement Network.
The post Despite Difficult Choices, Defeating Hamas Is the Only Path Towards Israeli-Palestinian Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Valid For All Countries Except Israel’

US passport. Photo: Pixabay.
JNS.org – There’s an unwritten rule among governments in many Muslim countries—when things go wrong at home, turn on the State of Israel.
Bangladesh, one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in Asia, provides the latest example of this tactic. Last week, the authorities in Dhaka announced that they were reintroducing what is essentially a disclaimer on the passports issued to its citizens: “Valid for all countries except Israel.” That shameful inscription was abandoned in 2021 by the government of recently ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, although it was never followed up with diplomatic outreach to Israel, much less recognition of the Jewish state’s right to a peaceful and sovereign existence.
The rationale for the move in 2021 was that Bangladeshi passports had to be brought up to date with international standards. However, the war in the Gaza Strip triggered by the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, has apparently canceled out that imperative.
“For many years, our passports carried the ‘except Israel’ clause. But the previous government suddenly removed it,” Brig. Gen. Mohammad Nurus Salam, passports director at the Department of Immigration, told the Arab News. Somewhat disingenuously, he added: “We were used to seeing ‘except Israel’ written in our passports. I don’t know why they took it out. If you talk to people across the country, you’ll see they want that line back in their passports. There was no need to remove it.”
It’s been 25 years since I was in Bangladesh, where I spent several months as a BBC consultant assisting with the launch of the country’s first private TV news station. One of the aspects that struck me profoundly—in contrast to Salam’s claim that the people want their passports to preclude travel to Israel—was the lack of hostility towards Israel among the many Bangladeshis I met and worked with, and I have no reason to believe that this attitude has fundamentally shifted. Most Bangladeshis are consumed by their own country’s vast problems, and the distant Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not impinge in any way on the resolution of those.
When I told people that I was Jewish, had family in Israel and had spent a great deal of time there, the most common response was curiosity. For the great majority, I was the first Jew they had ever met, and they eagerly quizzed me about the Jewish religion, often noting the overlaps with Islamic practices, such as circumcision and the prohibition on consuming pork.
“What is Israel like? What are the people like?” was a conversation I engaged in on more than one occasion. I remember with great affection a journalist called Salman, a devout Muslim who invited me to his home for an iftar meal during Ramadan. Salman was convinced that there were still a couple of Jews living in Bangladesh, and he combed Dhaka trying to find them so that he could introduce me (he never succeeded because there were no Jews there, but I appreciated his efforts.) I also remember members of the Hindu community, who compose about 8% of the population, drawing positive comparisons between Bangladesh’s Indian-backed 1971 War of Independence against Muslim Pakistan and Israel’s own War of Independence in 1947-48.
To understand why Bangladesh has taken this regressive decision requires a hard look at its domestic politics. In August of last year, the government of Sheikh Hasina—the daughter of independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the dominant political figure over the past 30 years—was overthrown following a wave of protest against its well-documented corruption, discriminatory practices and judicial interference. Her downfall was accompanied by a surge of sectarian violence against Hindu homes, businesses and temples, with more than 2,000 incidents recorded over a two-week period. In the eyes of many, Hindus were associated with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League Party, and the violence against them suggested that Islamist positions were making headway in a country that flew the banner of secular nationalism in its bid to win freedom from Pakistani rule.
The passport decision can be viewed in a similar light: Bangladesh asserting its identity as a Muslim country standing in solidarity with the Palestinians, the Islamic world’s pre-eminent cause, at the same time as breaking with the legacy of Sheikh Hasina’s rule. Yet that stance will not alleviate the fiscal misery of Bangladeshi citizens, with more than one in four people living below the poverty line. Nor will it address the chronic infrastructure problems that plague the country’s foreign trade, or tackle the bureaucracy and red tape that crushes entrepreneurship and innovation.
In short, supporting the Palestinians brings no material benefits for ordinary Bangladeshis, who would doubtless gain from a genuine relationship with Israel that would introduce, among many other advantages, more efficient water technology to counter the presence of arsenic and the lack of sanitation that often renders Bangladesh’s large reserves of water unusable and undrinkable.
Even so, ideology and Muslim identity may not be the only explanations for the Bangladeshi decision. It can also be seen as a gesture towards Qatar, the wealthiest country in the Islamic world, which has artfully cultivated trade and diplomatic ties with a slew of less developed countries, Bangladesh included. Last year, Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, paid a two-day state to Bangladesh that showcased Doha’s contributions in the form of bilateral trade worth $3 billion as well as millions of dollars in Qatari grants for school and higher education. Such largesse on the part of the Qataris is a critical means of ensuring that governments in Bangladesh and other Muslim nations stay away from the Abraham Accords countries that have made a peace of sorts with Israel.
Bangladesh is not, of course, the only country to prevent its citizens from traveling to Israel or denying entry to Israeli passport holders. A few days after the Bangladeshi decision, the Maldives—another Muslim country that enjoys close relations with Qatar—announced that Israelis would no longer be permitted to visit. None of these bans is likely to be lifted as long as Israel is at war with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Iran’s regional proxies and the Iranian regime itself.
The ripple effects of that war—antisemitic violence in Western countries, cold-shouldering of Israel by countries without a direct stake in the conflict—will continue to be felt. None of that changes the plain fact that this remains a war that Israel must win.
The post ‘Valid For All Countries Except Israel’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US, Iran Set for Second Round of Nuclear Talks as Iranian FM Warns Against ‘Unrealistic Demands’

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a deal could be reached during Saturday’s second round of nuclear negotiations in Rome if the United States does not make “unrealistic demands.”
In a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, Araghchi said that Washington showed “partial seriousness” during the first round of nuclear talks in Oman last week.
The Iranian top diplomat traveled to Moscow on Thursday to deliver a letter from Iran’s so-called Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, briefing Russian President Vladimir Putin on the ongoing nuclear talks with the White House.
“Their willingness to enter serious negotiations that address the nuclear issue only, without entering into other issues, can lead us towards constructive negotiations,” Araghchi said during the joint press conference in Moscow on Friday.
“As I have said before, if unreasonable, unrealistic and impractical demands are not made, an agreement is possible,” he continued.
Tehran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, despite Washington’s threats of military actions, additional sanctions, and tariffs if an agreement is not reached to curb the country’s nuclear activities.
On Tuesday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff said that any deal with Iran must require the complete dismantling of its “nuclear enrichment and weaponization program” — reversing his earlier comments, in which he indicated that the White House would allow Tehran to enrich uranium to a 3.67 percent threshold for a “civil nuclear program.”
During the press conference, Araghchi also announced he would attend Saturday’s talks in Rome, explaining that negotiations with the US are being held indirectly due to recent threats and US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran — which aims to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“Indirect negotiations are not something weird and an agreement is within reach through this method,” Araghchi said.
He also indicated that Iran expects Russia to play a role in any potential agreement with Washington, noting that the two countries have held frequent and close consultations on Tehran’s nuclear program in the past.
“We hope Russia will play a role in a possible deal,” Araghchi said during the press conference.
As an increasingly close ally of Iran, Moscow could play a crucial role in Tehran’s nuclear negotiations with the West, leveraging its position as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and a signatory to a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal that imposed limits on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.
Since then, even though Tehran has denied wanting to develop a nuclear weapon, the UN’s nuclear watchdog – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – has warned that Iran has “dramatically” accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level and enough to build six nuclear bombs.
During the press conference on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that “Russia is ready to facilitate the negotiation process between Iran and the US regarding Tehran’s nuclear program.”
Moscow has previously said that any military strike against Iran would be “illegal and unacceptable.”
Russia’s diplomatic role in the ongoing negotiations could also be important, as the country has recently solidified its growing partnership with the Iranian regime.
On Wednesday, Russia’s upper house of parliament ratified a 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Iran, strengthening military ties between the two countries.
Despite Tehran’s claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes rather than weapon development, Western states have said there is no “credible civilian justification” for the country’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
The post US, Iran Set for Second Round of Nuclear Talks as Iranian FM Warns Against ‘Unrealistic Demands’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Reps. Dan Goldman and Chris Smith Issue Statement Condemning Shapiro Arson Attack As ‘Textbook Antisemitism’

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) holds a rally in support of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democratic presidential election campaign in Ambler, Pennsylvania, US, July 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Smith (D-NJ) issued a statement condemning the recent arson attack against Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) as a form of “textbook antisemitism.”
“Governor Shapiro is the Governor of Pennsylvania and has nothing to do with Israel’s foreign policy, yet he was targeted as an American Jew by a radicalized extremist who blames the Governor for Israel’s actions. That is textbook antisemitism,” the statement read.
Shapiro’s residence, the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, was set ablaze on Sunday morning, hours after the governor hosted a gathering to celebrate the first night of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Shapiro said that he, his wife, and his children were awakened by state troopers knocking on their door at 2 am. The governor and his family immediately evacuated the premises and were unscathed.
Goldman and Smith added that the arson attack against Shapiro serves as “a bitter reminder that persecution of Jews continues.” The duo claimed that they “strongly condemn this antisemitic violence” and called on the suspect to “be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”
Pennsylvania State Police said that the suspect, Cody Balmer set fire to Shapiro’s residence over the alleged ongoing “injustices to the people of Palestine” and Shapiro’s Jewish faith.
According to an arrest warrant, Balmer called 911 prior to the attack and told emergency operators that he “will not take part in [Shapiro’s] plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people,” and demanded that the governor “stop having my friends killed.”
The suspect continued, telling operators, “Our people have been put through too much by that monster.”
Balmer later revealed to police that he planned to beat Shapiro with a sledgehammer if he encountered him after gaining access into his residence, according to authorities.
He was subsequently charged with eight crimes by authorities, including serious felonies such as attempted homicide, terrorism, and arson. The suspect faces potentially 100 years in jail. He has been denied bail.
Shapiro, a practicing Jew, has positioned himself as a staunch supporter of Israel. In the days following Hamas’s brutal slaughter of roughly 1,200 people across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Shapiro issued statements condemning the Palestinian terrorist group and gave a speech at a local synagogue. The governor also ordered the US and Pennsylvania Commonwealth flags to fly at half-mast outside the state capitol to honor the victims.
Shapiro’s strident support of the Jewish state in the wake of Oct. 7 also incensed many pro-Palestinian activists, resulting in the governor being dubbed “Genocide Josh” by far-left demonstrators.
US Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) chimed in on the arson attack Thursday, urging the Justice Department to launch a federal investigation, claiming that the incident could be motivated by antisemitism.
Schumer argued that the arson attack targeting Shapiro, who is Jewish, left the Pennsylvania governor’s family in “anguish” and warned that it could serve as an example of “rising antisemitic violence” within the United States. He stressed that a federal investigation and hate crime charges may be necessary to uphold the “fundamental values of religious freedom and public safety.”
Thus far, Shapiro has refused to blame the attack on antisemitism, despite the suspect’s alleged comments repudiating the governor over his support for Israel. The governor has stressed the importance of allowing prosecutors to determine whether the attack constitutes a hate crime.
The post Reps. Dan Goldman and Chris Smith Issue Statement Condemning Shapiro Arson Attack As ‘Textbook Antisemitism’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.