RSS
Amid Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel Persecution, We Can Find Hope in Our History
I have always tried to live my life by the Hanlon’s Razor rule: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This pithy observation, attributed to Professor Robert J. Hanlon of Thompson Rivers University, is a modern, tongue-in-cheek derivative of its more famous predecessor, Occam’s Razor. The latter, a philosophical rule proposed by 14th-century English monk William of Ockham, states: “If an event has two possible explanations, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct.”
The problem is that this week, I find myself caught between the two. The seemingly stupid decision by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to propose arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes, alongside Yihya Sinwar and two other Hamas leaders, is far too malicious to be adequately explained by stupidity.
While the simplest assumption should be that someone representing international law is solely interested in upholding justice, this decision by Karim Asad Ahmad Khan KC to tarnish the reputation of the leader of a democratic country — a country with a robust judiciary that has previously convicted both a prime minister and a president — suggests motivations other than justice. It certainly demands more than a blind assumption that Khan is fair-minded.
Is it simply a coincidence that just last week, Khan faced strong criticism at a UN Security Council meeting from Libya for not issuing arrest warrants for those responsible for alleged “massacres” in the Gaza Strip?
Denouncing Khan for his inaction, Libyan envoy Taher M. El-Sonni said, “The world wants you to discover those involved in the mass graves, mass crimes against children, the genocide, the ethnic cleansing perpetrated in the ‘holocaust’ of the 21st century, the Gaza holocaust.”
Just to be clear: Libya is a country where war crimes are perpetrated often, and where tens of thousands have died in the endless and brutal civil war that has raged since 2011. Yet now this country has become the impetus for an international legal body to issue spurious, unfounded accusations against Israel?
Does it make any sense that criticism from a country mired in its own atrocities has seemingly pressured the ICC prosecutor into targeting a democratic nation with a strong judiciary that is in the middle of a defensive war against self-declared genocidal terrorists?
And then, in an interview with Piers Morgan a day after the ICC prosecutor announced the arrest warrants, the ever-urbane President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, revealed that on the very day that Khan made his announcement, ICC representatives had been slated to arrive in Israel — with Israel’s ready agreement, despite not being part of the 1998 Rome Statute which binds countries to the ICC. But just hours before Khan publicized the warrants, Israel was informed that the ICC delegation wasn’t coming to Israel.
“It shocked all of us, because we act in good faith,” Herzog told Morgan. “We are willing to have a dialogue with any international body that is relevant, honest, and can have a dialogue.” But it would appear that Khan and the ICC fail on all three counts.
In early December, Khan issued a statement at the conclusion of his visit to the scenes of devastation in southern Israel and meetings with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. His opening sentence should have forewarned the world of his political position, and of where he was headed with his investigations: “I have just concluded my first visit to Israel and the State of Palestine.” [emphasis added]
Surely Khan knows that there is no “State of Palestine”? For him to use an official statement as the platform to promote a nonexistent entity, particularly during a conflict initiated by terrorists seeking exactly such concessions, was unconscionable.
So, notwithstanding Khan’s declaration that his visit had been “to ensure that the protection of the law is felt by all,” his sneaky inclusion of politically loaded terminology in the opening words of his statement said it all.
What is particularly galling is that Khan had been invited to Israel by family members and friends of Israeli citizens who were either killed or taken hostage by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups on October 7th.
In his statement, Khan said that in both Kibbutz Beeri and Kibbutz Kfar Azza, as well as at the site of the Nova Music Festival in Re’im, he “witnessed scenes of calculated cruelty” and that it was clear that the terrorists who perpetrated these atrocities were guilty of “some of the most serious international crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, crimes which the ICC was established to address.”
Khan continued: “In my meeting with the families of the victims of these attacks, my message was clear: we stand ready to work in partnership with them as part of our ongoing work to hold those responsible to account.”
But with his decision to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant, Khan has betrayed those families, along with the memory of every victim who died or was kidnapped at the sites he visited.
In the Haftarah for Parshat Behar, the prophet Jeremiah is confined within King Zedekiah’s royal compound, prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people. Yet, even amidst these dire circumstances, God reveals to Jeremiah that his cousin Hanamel will offer him ancestral land, and instructs him to purchase it. Jeremiah follows God’s directive, transferring money and documenting the purchase in the presence of witnesses — even as he continues to predict doom and gloom.
Jeremiah’s transaction is laden with symbolism. Through Jeremiah, God proclaims that “houses and fields and vineyards shall be purchased again in this land” (Jer. 32:15) — a message of hope and redemption even as prevailing circumstances seemed dire. Despite the hardship, the Jewish people were assured that their land is and will remain theirs, and that no enemy could ever sever the irrevocable bond between the Jews and Eretz Yisrael.
Today, in the face of bias from prosecutor Khan and the ICC, and the relentless efforts of those who wish to undo any Jewish connection to Israel “from the River to the Sea,” we find strength in our proud heritage and in the powerful prophecies of Hebrew Scripture. Just as Jeremiah’s purchase symbolized hope amidst despair, so too does our presence in Israel as a Jewish sovereign state after two millennia of bitter exile represent a fulfillment of ancient prophecies and the unbreakable bond with our land.
Despite the challenges and the malign intentions of detractors and haters, our future — both short term and long term — is firmly rooted in the country of our heritage. In the darkest of times, the promise remains: “Houses and fields and vineyards shall be purchased again in this land.”
Kfar Aza, Beeri, Re’im, and Sderot — as well as the many empty towns on the northern border that have been evacuated to avoid Hezbollah rockets raining down from Lebanon — will flourish again soon, fully free of the terrorist threat that has caused and is causing so much suffering.
The Jewish story is one of resilience and unyielding hope, and it is this unwavering faith that will continue to guide us through the pain of unfounded accusations and unforgivable attacks, towards a future where our connection to our ancestral homeland remains unbroken and triumphant. This is not just hope; it is reality.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Amid Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel Persecution, We Can Find Hope in Our History first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives
FILE PHOTO: Boulder attack suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman poses for a jail booking photograph after his arrest in Boulder, Colorado, U.S. June 2, 2025. Photo: Boulder Police Department/Handout via REUTERS
A suspect in an attack on a pro-Israeli rally in Colorado that injured eight people was being held on Monday on an array of charges, including assault and the use of explosives, in lieu of a $10-million bail, according to Boulder County records.
The posted list of felony charges against suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, in the attack on Sunday also includes charges of murder in the first degree, although police in the city of Boulder have said on social media that no victims died in the attack. Authorities could not be reached immediately to clarify.
Witnesses reported the suspect used a makeshift flamethrower and threw an incendiary device into the crowd. He was heard to yell “Free Palestine” during the attack, according to the FBI, in what the agency called a “targeted terror attack.”
Four women and four men between 52 and 88 years of age were transported to hospitals after the attack, Boulder Police said.
The attack took place on the Pearl Street Mall, a popular pedestrian shopping district near the University of Colorado, during an event organized by Run for Their Lives, an organization devoted to drawing attention to the hostages seized in the aftermath of Hamas’ 2023 attack on Israel.
Rabbi Yisroel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told CBS Colorado that the 88-year-old victim was a Holocaust refugee who fled Europe.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Soliman had entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023. He filed for asylum in September 2022. “The suspect, Mohamed Soliman, is illegally in our country,” the spokesperson said.
The FBI raided and searched Soliman’s home in El Paso County, Colorado, the agency said on social media. “As this is an ongoing investigation, no additional information is available at this time.”
The attack in Boulder was the latest act of violence aimed at Jewish Americans linked to outrage over Israel’s escalating military offensive in Gaza. It followed the fatal shooting of two Israel Embassy aides that took place outside Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum last month.
Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said after the shooting there was a question of how far security perimeters outside Jewish institutions should extend.
Boulder Police said they would hold a press conference later on Monday to discuss details of the Colorado attack.
The Denver office of the FBI, which is handling the case, did not immediately respond to emails or phone calls seeking clarification on the homicide charges or other details in the case.
Officials from the Boulder County Jail, Boulder Police and Boulder County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to inquiries.
The post Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says
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. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iran is poised to reject a US proposal to end a decades-old nuclear dispute, an Iranian diplomat said on Monday, dismissing it as a “non-starter” that fails to address Tehran’s interests or soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment.
“Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,” the senior diplomat, who is close to Iran’s negotiating team, told Reuters.
The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was on a short visit to Tehran and has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington.
After five rounds of discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, several obstacles remain.
Among them are Iran’s rejection of a US demand that it commit to scrapping uranium enrichment and its refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium – possible raw material for nuclear bombs.
Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
“In this proposal, the US stance on enrichment on Iranian soil remains unchanged, and there is no clear explanation regarding the lifting of sanctions,” said the diplomat, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Araqchi said Tehran would formally respond to the proposal soon.
Tehran demands the immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy. But the US says nuclear-related sanctions should be removed in phases.
Dozens of institutions vital to Iran’s economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have been blacklisted since 2018 for, according to Washington, “supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.”
Trump’s revival of “maximum pressure” against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has included tightening sanctions and threatening to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.
During his first term in 2018, Trump ditched Tehran’s 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact’s limits.
Under the deal, Iran had until 2018 curbed its sensitive nuclear work in return for relief from US, EU and U.N. economic sanctions.
The diplomat said the assessment of “Iran’s nuclear negotiations committee,” under the supervision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was that the US proposal was “completely one-sided” and could not serve Tehran’s interests.
Therefore, the diplomat said, Tehran considers this proposal a “non-starter” and believes it unilaterally attempts to impose a “bad deal” on Iran through excessive demands.
NUCLEAR STANDOFF RAISES MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS
The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. Iran’s clerical establishment, for its part, wants to be rid of the devastating sanctions.
Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord.
Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran could pause uranium enrichment if the US released frozen Iranian funds and recognized Tehran’s right to refine uranium for civilian use under a “political deal” that could lead to a broader nuclear accord.
Iran’s arch-foe Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and says it would never allow Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons.
Araqchi, in a joint news conference with his Egyptian counterpart in Cairo, said: “I do not think Israel will commit such a mistake as to attack Iran.”
Tehran’s regional influence has meanwhile been diminished by military setbacks suffered by its forces and those of its allies in the Shi’ite-dominated “Axis of Resistance,” which include Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi militias.
In April, Saudi Arabia’s defence minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian officials to take Trump’s offer of a new deal seriously as a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.
The post Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, May 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq/Pool
The dramatic fall of the Assad regime in Syria has undeniably reshaped the Middle East, yet the emerging power dynamics, particularly the alignment between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, warrant profound scrutiny from those committed to American and Israeli security. While superficially presented as a united front against Iranian influence, this new Sunni axis carries a dangerous undercurrent of Islamism and regional ambition that could ultimately undermine, rather than serve, the long-term interests of Washington and Jerusalem.
For too long, Syria under Bashar al-Assad served as a critical conduit for Iran’s destabilizing agenda, facilitating arms transfers to Hezbollah and projecting Tehran’s power across the Levant. The removal of this linchpin is, on the surface, a strategic victory. However, the nature of the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa — a figure Israeli officials continue to view with deep suspicion due to his past as a former Al-Qaeda-linked commander — raises immediate red flags. This is not merely a change of guard; it is a shift that introduces a new set of complex challenges, particularly given Turkey’s historical support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization deemed a terror group by Saudi Arabia and many other regional states.
Israel’s strategic calculus in Syria has always been clear: to degrade Iran’s military presence, prevent Hezbollah from acquiring advanced weaponry, and maintain operational freedom in Syrian airspace. Crucially, Israel has historically thought it best to have a decentralized, weak, and fragmented Syria, with reports that it has actively worked against the resurgence of a robust central authority. This preference stems from a pragmatic understanding that a strong, unified Syria, especially one under the tutelage of an ambitious regional power like Turkey, could pose much more of a threat than the Assad regime ever did. Indeed, Israeli defense officials privately express concern at Turkey’s assertive moves, accusing Ankara of attempting to transform post-war Syria into a Turkish protectorate under Islamist tutelage. This concern is not unfounded; Turkey’s ambitious, arguably expansionist, objectives — and its perceived undue dominance in Arab lands — are viewed by Israel as warily as Iran’s previous influence.
The notion that an “Ottoman Crescent” is now replacing the “Shiite Crescent” should not be celebrated as a net positive. While it may diminish Iranian power, it introduces a new form of regional hegemony, one driven by an ideology that has historically been antithetical to Western values and stability. The European Union’s recent imposition of sanctions on Turkish-backed Syrian army commanders for human rights abuses, including arbitrary killings and torture, further underscores the problematic nature of some elements within this new Syrian landscape. The fact that al-Sharaa has allowed such individuals to operate with impunity and even promoted them to high-ranking positions should give Washington pause.
From an American perspective, while the Trump administration has pragmatically engaged with the new Syrian government, lifting sanctions and urging normalization with Israel, this engagement must be tempered with extreme caution. The core American interests in the Middle East — counterterrorism, containment of Iran, and regional stability — are not served by empowering Islamist-leaning factions or by enabling a regional power, like Turkey, whose actions have sometimes undermined the broader fight against ISIS. Washington must demand that Damascus demonstrate a genuine commitment to taking over the counter-ISIS mission and managing detention facilities, and unequivocally insist that Turkey cease actions that risk an ISIS resurgence.
The argument that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, despite their own complex internal dynamics, are simply pragmatic actors countering Iran overlooks the ideological underpinnings that concern many conservatives. Turkey’s ruling party, rooted in political Islam, and its historical ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, present a fundamental challenge to the vision of a stable, secular, and pro-Western Middle East. While Saudi Arabia has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, its alignment with Turkey in Syria, and its own internal human rights record, means that this “new front” is far from a clean solution.
The Saudi-Turkey alignment in Syria is a double-edged sword. While it may indeed serve to counter Iran’s immediate regional ambitions, it simultaneously risks empowering actors whose long-term objectives and ideological leanings are deeply problematic for American, Israeli, and Western interests. Washington and Jerusalem must approach this new dynamic with extreme vigilance, prioritizing the containment of all forms of radicalism — whether Shiite or Sunni — and ensuring that any strategic gains against Iran do not inadvertently pave the way for a new, equally dangerous, Islamist crescent to rise in the heart of the Levant.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
The post The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login