Connect with us
Seder Passover
Israel Bonds RRSP

RSS

Opinion: Toronto’s biggest sports arena officially changed its code of conduct because two Jewish fans didn’t understand the rules

RSS

Two days of anti-Israel protests shut down buildings at McGill University

Montreal police made at least one arrest as anti-Israel demonstrators mobilized at McGill University on March 28 and 29, impacting classes and occupying common areas. Crowds blocked access to three buildings targeting professors and programs perceived to be connected to Israel. The action on March 28 targeted large classes in the faculties of engineering, education […]

The post Two days of anti-Israel protests shut down buildings at McGill University appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Continue Reading

RSS

‘It Is in America’s Interest to See Hamas Crushed’: Experts on Why a Rafah Operation Is Necessary

Israeli soldiers operate at the Shajaiya district of Gaza city amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terror group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, Dec. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Yossi Zeliger

Israel must operate in Rafah, Hamas’ last stronghold, if it wishes to achieve its war objective of eliminating the threat posed by the Palestinian terrorist group, according to experts who spoke with The Algemeiner.

The United States has been pressuring Israel not to move forward with full-scale military action in the southern Gaza city, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated that “we are determined to do this.”

Max Abrahms, a tenured professor of international relations at Northeastern University and a consultant to US government agencies, told The Algemeiner that it is “imperative for the Israel Defense Forces to go into Rafah.”

There are a few reasons for this, he explained. One is that, because there are substantial numbers of Hamas terrorists and leaders in Rafah, an operation is the only way for Israel to achieve its war goals of destroying the Islamist group. “Obviously, Israel could take them out with air power alone,” he said, “but the civilian toll would be prohibitive. It is both more effective and humanitarian to deploy boots on the ground.”

Another reason is to re-establish deterrence: “Beyond Hamas,” Abrahms explained, “Israel is surrounded by tens of thousands of state-sponsored terrorists when you include those hiding out in Lebanon and the West Bank — not to mention Gaza. Winning the war against Hamas is critical for signaling to other non-state Israeli adversaries and their backers in Doha, Tehran, Ankara, and Sana’a the costs of attacking Jews.”

Since Hamas launched the current war in Gaza with its Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon has been firing rockets at northern Israel daily. Tensions have been escalating between both sides, fueling concerns that the conflict in Hamas-ruled Gaza could escalate into a regional conflict.

Meanwhile, Israel has arrested thousands of wanted terrorists in the West Bank since the start of the war, roughly half of whom are members of Hamas, according to the Israeli military.

And in Yemen, the Houthi rebels since Oct. 7 have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea and targeting Israel in what they say is a show of solidarity with the Palestinians.

In such a security environment, Israel’s war is not against just Hamas but Islamist terrorists more broadly, according to experts, who say defeating the former will help combat the latter.

“The same holds true for the broader global jihad. Hamas is on al Qaeda’s side,” Abrahms said. “Indeed, Operation Al Aqsa Flood [Hamas’ name for the terror group’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel] breathed new life into the global jihad. A win for Israel is a win for counter-terrorism around the world.”

He pointed out: “This is why it is in America’s interest to see Hamas crushed.”

Abrahms also linked an operation in Rafah to the release of the remaining hostages seized by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7. Even though “some commentators have suggested that negotiations [for the hostages] in lieu of military force are more effective for bargaining,” he acknowledged, “this perspective is deracinated from the international relations literature, which emphasizes in the bargaining literature that threats of force are an important part of bargaining processes.”

“The specter of full-scale defeat is the best motivator for Hamas to relinquish the hostages,” he argued.

Elliott Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former White House deputy national security adviser, agreed.

“In the end, if Hamas survives as a fighting force and government it wins the war,” he told The Algemeiner. “Israel is rightly unwilling to contemplate such an outcome. But there are four enlarged Hamas divisions in Rafah, and if they are not destroyed that is the real outcome of the whole conflict: a Hamas victory. This is why Israel must eventually go into Rafah.”

The primary objection to an Israeli operation is that it will make an already dire humanitarian situation worse. US President Joe Biden said he has “deep concern” over such a prospect. Over a million Gazans are currently in Rafah — a city that usually is home to just a few hundred thousand people. Getting access to food and medical care in Gaza has become extremely difficult, bordering on impossible in some cases.

Abrams acknowledged that the battle in Rafah “requires allowing Gazans to move away, whether to northern Gaza or other parts of southern Gaza.” He said if this does not happen, then “it will be impossible for Israel to fight effectively.”

It would also likely result in many civilian casualties.

Consequently, Abrams explained, “the discussions between the United States and Israel should focus on exactly this: how to provide other refuges for Gazans now in Rafah. This will likely require provision of tent cities and other new (perhaps prefab) housing, and food, at locations outside Rafah.”

Reports indicate Israel and the US are currently discussing how exactly to approach a Rafah operation.

Amid these discussions, and continued pressure on Israel by the US not to move forward with an operation, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and White House National Security Adviser John Bolton wrote this week: “The critical question is whether Biden agrees that Israel’s legitimate right of self-defense includes its clearly-stated objective of eliminating Hamas’ military and political capabilities.”

He advised that “this is not the time for the United States to show weakness, especially at the UN.”

Bolton explained why by pointing to a larger goal than just defeating Hamas, arguing, “Victory there could be a decisive turning point in the struggle against the ultimate aggressor: Iran.”

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are backed by Iran, which for years has provided the terrorist groups with arms, funding, and training. The Iranian regime also supports the Houthis, whose slogan is “death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory to Islam.”

The post ‘It Is in America’s Interest to See Hamas Crushed’: Experts on Why a Rafah Operation Is Necessary first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Why the New York Times Audience, and Its Editors, Find Peter Beinart so Appealing

Thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators from the Midwest gather in support of Palestinians and hold a rally and march through the Loop in Chicago on Oct. 21, 2023. Photo: Alexandra Buxbaum/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

Since the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the New York Times has relied on a journalism professor at the City University of New York, Peter Beinart, as its most prominent opinion page voice on the war.

Sure, the Times has highlighted other voices writing about the topic on its opinion pages, including Bret Stephens, Thomas Friedman, and Nicholas Kristof. But it’s Beinart whose work gets showcased with huge play on the front of the Sunday Opinion section, as it was on Sunday, Oct. 15, and as it was again this past Sunday, March 24.

Unfortunately for the Times and its readers, Beinart is an unreliable guide to the issue. He cherry-picks data and overstates his case. He piles up a mountain of misleading half-truths in the services of a giant lie, his false claim in his latest piece that Zionism and “liberalism” are irreconcilable.

To begin with, it’s not even accurate that “liberalism” has “for more than half a century … defined American Jewish identity,” as Beinart claims. In an article that occupies two broadsheet interior pages plus a graphic-only entire front cover of the Sunday opinion section, Beinart never defines what he means by “liberalism.” He nods at “movements for civil, women’s, labor, and gay rights,” but he doesn’t explain how backing the Hamas side of the war against Israel is consistent with liberalism, given Hamas’ subjugation of women, use of sexual assault, and killing of gay people. He doesn’t make clear if he means classical liberalism or liberalism-as-progressivism or something else. Nor does he really address any serious tensions, other than Zionism, between Judaism and liberalism-as-however-he-means-it. There might be some, as there are with Christianity, too.

Beinart devotes a lot of time to a sort of guilt by association and argument-by-endorsement. He links Israel with Elise Stefanik, Elon Musk, and Viktor Orban, and Israel’s critics with the United Automobile Workers, Human Rights Watch, and Ta-Nehesi Coates. Yet Beinart doesn’t mention that Israel has plenty of totally unsavory enemies on both the left and the right, and plenty of durable allies on the left, too—Ritchie Torres, John Fetterman,  Alma Hernandez, Brad Schneider, Steny Hoyer.

Beinart saying you can’t be liberal and support Israel is the mirror-image of former President Trump saying you can’t be pro-Israel and vote for Democrats; it’s an opinion, but Beinart hypes up his own wishful thinking as if he’s empirically describing a break that is actually underway: “the rupture,” “an ideological tremor,” “an earthquake.”

A substantial section of Beinart’s piece is devoted to the false accusation that pro-Israel Jews oppose free speech. Actually, as Dara Horn memorably explained, “the problem was not that Jewish students on American university campuses didn’t want free speech, or that they didn’t want to hear criticism of Israel. Instead, they didn’t want people vandalizing Jewish student organizations’ buildings, or breaking or urinating on the buildings’ windows. They didn’t want people tearing their mezuzahs down from their dorm-room doors. They didn’t want their college instructors spouting antisemitic lies and humiliating them in class. They didn’t want their posters defaced with Hitler caricatures … They didn’t want people punching them in the face, or beating them with a stick.”

To the extent that “speech” has anything to do with it, it’s more the stunning double standard between zero campus tolerance of speech that makes some groups uncomfortable and free-speech-absolutism for cheering on Jew-killing terrorist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It’s all not even a surprise: Beinart has been publicly bashing Israel in the pages of the New York Times since at least 2012, when, under the headline, “To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements,” he claimed, again falsely, “Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.” In 2020, Beinart declared in the Times, “I no longer believe in a Jewish state.”

Given the lack of intellectual rigor, given the inaccuracies, both small-scale and big-picture, given the sloppiness of the arguments, given the utter predictability, you have to wonder, why does the Times run so much of this stuff?

I have a couple of theories.

The first is personality driven. The upper ranks of Times opinion editing have gotten taken over by individuals — editorial director Allison Benedikt, Sunday opinion editor Max Strasser — who are generally in sympathy, substantively, with Beinart in terms of their hostility to Israel.

The second is customer driven. Some portion of the Times online readership — alienated graduate students and other young, college educated liberals, along with increasing numbers of non-Americans — are looking for someone to give them a pass to hate Israel, basically to excuse their antisemitism. Beinart serves that function.

One day a few weeks after Oct. 7, I showed up to observe one of the anti-Israel rallies at Harvard, and I was surprised to see it begin with some woman who identified herself as a Jew telling everyone in attendance to remember her, their “Jewish friend,” if they felt worried that anything they were doing during the rest of the event was antisemitic. For Times readers, Beinart is the equivalent of that person — a permission-giver. When Beinart asserts “there’s nothing antisemitic” about wanting to wipe Israel, as a Jewish state, off the map, the Times readers experience it as liberating.

Beinart writes that “for an American Jewish establishment that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, those anti-Zionist Jews are inconvenient.” But the Times‘ audience, and Beinart’s, isn’t the American Jewish establishment. That establishment is solidly behind Israel. The Times audience is Israel-haters. For them, the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is inconvenient, and the existence of Beinart offers a way to hate Israel while avoiding the guilt that might otherwise accompany discrimination against Jews.

Beinart pats the liberal Times readers on the back, reassuring them that not only is there no conflict between liberalism and hating Israel, it’s actually their responsibility as good liberals to hate Israel. That the Times can find a commercial audience for the enablement of Israel-hate doesn’t make the core message any less of a lie.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The post Why the New York Times Audience, and Its Editors, Find Peter Beinart so Appealing first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News