JNS.org – The final two months of the Biden administration may see diplomatic actions taken against Israel, although the White House has neither confirmed nor denied assessments on the issue.

One scenario could see the administration consider approving a United Nations Security Council resolution that would target Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, reminiscent of Resolution 2334 passed in 2016 during the Obama administration’s transition period.

A report by Israel Hayom on Tuesday cited an American source close to the Biden administration as stating that the United States intends to endorse such a resolution, adding that the proposed resolution aims to assert that Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, violates international law.

The source emphasized the parallels to Resolution 2334, which the Security Council approved during the transition period between the Obama and Trump administrations in December 2016. “Many of Obama’s advisers back then are also serving in Biden’s outgoing administration,” the report said, citing the source as stating, “I know that such a decision is brewing in the [U.S.] National Security Council.”

In response to inquiries, a senior Israeli official said Jerusalem currently has “no information” about an American intention to pass a resolution against Israel at the U.N., according to the report, which added, however, that “according to the assessment, eventually, such a decision will likely come.”

Adding to the concerns, Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israeli relations at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, discussed possible scenarios on Tuesday. Gilboa recalled the unusual step taken by President Barack Obama when he allowed the passage of Resolution 2334.

“Obama broke the tradition where an outgoing president doesn’t initiate significant new policies during the transition,” Gilboa told JNS. “He knew Trump’s position on settlements but still submitted the proposal to the Security Council.”

Gilboa added that “if Biden goes through with this, it’s essentially a repeat of Obama’s move. It might be aimed at negating [former Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo’s declaration in November 2019, which nullified Obama’s policy on settlements.”

The professor highlighted possible motivations behind such a move, it could be an attempt by Biden to leave a legacy opposing Trump’s stance on Judea and Samaria.

Gilboa questioned the rationale behind introducing a resolution now, adding, “If they do this, they’ll face severe criticism from Trump and the Republican-led Congress. It would be an unusual step during a transition period.”

Gilboa added that “this administration has previously imposed personal sanctions on individuals, including hilltop youths. They even considered sanctioning [Israeli Ministers Betzalel] Smotrich and [Itamar] Ben-Gvir. As such, I would not be surprised if they are considering such a step. If it goes ahead, it would appear to be some sort of punishment.”

Looking ahead, Gilboa suggested that Israel needs to engage in proactive diplomacy. “Israel should argue that such moves will only hinder any potential peace arrangements, like the Abraham Accords. It’s like putting a stoke in the wheel. If Biden proceeds with this, it will backfire.”

In such a scenario, he added, Israel would likely turn to the incoming Trump administration, which would issue an opposite declaration, similar to the declaration made by Pompeo in November 2019, who stated at the time a change in Washington’s policy on settlements. “Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace,” Pompeo said.

Certain arms transfers

Meanwhile, indications continue to surface of ongoing punitive measures that have been underway in the form of withholding or delaying weapons deliveries. The Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) released an update on Tuesday concerning U.S. military assistance to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. It notes that “eight platforms have either been slowed, suspended or left unanswered.

“Recent US decisions to withhold certain arms transfers to Israel, resume others, and the inconsistent reporting around those decisions highlight the challenges of accounting for vital resupplies to help Israel wage an unexpected, prolonged, multifront, munitions-intensive conflict,” JINSA reported.

JINSA has produced an infographic detailing US military assistance to Israel since Oct. 7, including withheld supplies. “The information presented is based on public reporting and JINSA discussions with officials knowledgeable of the arms transfers. Because arms deliveries are not publicly disclosed, it is difficult to assess exactly which supplies the United States agreed to send since October 7, versus sales that were contracted before that date and delivered afterward—nor is this list likely to be exhaustive, given backlogged and incomplete reporting of agreed arms transfers by the Pentagon,” it stated.

Under the “transfer reportedly slowed” category, the infographic mentioned Hellfire missiles and precision guided munitions, D9 armored bulldozers and tank ammunition.

At the same time, the US has provided at least $17.9 billion in support of Israeli military operations against Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023, mass murder attacks, according to research released last month by Brown University. This includes deliveries of artillery shells, air defense munitions, precision-guided munitions and heavy bombs.

On Nov. 17, Marc Dubowitz, chief executive of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of law at George Mason University in Virginia, stated in a joint op-ed in the New York Post, “Under pressure from Israel-bashing critics, including scores of congressional Democrats, a president who stood firmly behind Israel after the Oct. 7 massacre seems to have lost his moral compass. And just as President Barack Obama in his last months in office allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution slamming Israel, Biden may use sanctions to further turn the screws on the Jewish state in his lame-duck stretch.”

They highlighted that in 2022, the US Treasury Department “determined that the Foundation for Global Political Exchange, a U.S.-based nonprofit, would violate sanctions laws by inviting Hamas and Hezbollah to a conference it was planning in Beirut. Last week, however, the Biden administration did an about-face and gave the group a green light for the meeting.”

Dubowitz and Kontorovich added, “Yet at the same time, the Biden administration has created the first sanctions program” designed to target citizens of Israel.

In the broader context, the reported actions reflect internal pressures within the Democratic Party and the Biden administration’s attempts to navigate between progressive elements and traditional foreign policy stances. Gilboa observed, “Perhaps this is Biden’s way of appeasing the progressive wing after facing criticism for his support of Israel during the recent conflict.”

The post Will Biden Act Against Israel During the Lame-Duck Period? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – On several recent flights in the United States, I was rather surprised, and somewhat bemused, to see full-page ads in the airline magazines for a matchmaking service. In fact, there was more than one such service being advertised.

Who would believe that in the sophisticated 21st-century, old Yente—the matchmaker from “Fiddler on the Roof”—is being resurrected? “Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match, find me a find, catch me a catch.”

Oh, the ad was very slick and professional, but essentially, it was Yente all over again.

Frankly, I must admit to feeling gratified seeing that the old shidduch system is alive and well in modern, corporate America.

For decades, cultured Jews in the United States and elsewhere looked down upon the shidduch system still practiced in the religious community. It was considered archaic and outdated in the new age where everyone was marrying for love. It was beneath these moderns to rely on a shadchan, a “matchmaker,” to find one’s partner in life.

But when you think about it, how many people find their marriage partners completely on their own? Most are introduced by a friend, given a telephone number or invited to a party where the host’s express intention is to introduce a certain man and a woman to each other. It’s probably the exception where two people happen to meet on their own and go on to marry each other, unless they were high school sweethearts who kept up the relationship.

If a mutual friend who knows both parties thinks it’s a good match, it stands a far better chance of success than a random meeting at a bar, where one’s judgment is often blurred by the beer.

How many people have met their bashert online on the many dating services available today? I don’t know the number, but there are a great many who have. It may be online, but it’s basically a shidduch service.

I think there was always a misunderstanding of the shidduch system by people on the outside. Many thought that it was the parents choosing a match for their son or daughter, and the couple themselves had no choice in the matter. Not true! A matchmaker, shadchan, only makes a suggestion. If the couple agrees to meet, there is no coercion to marry. Millions of young religious men and women have gone on one or two dates and decided it’s not for them. End of story. Back to the drawing board until the right person comes up. How different is that from the dating sites or the socialite shadchan-like advertising in the airline magazine?

Even in the religious community, parents and mentors always advise young people that there must be chemistry between a couple before they should commit to marriage. When comparing his and her résumés and profiles the union may appear great on paper, but the human element must never be compromised. The couple themselves must feel attracted to one another. As a rule, rabbis or rebbetzins who are asked for advice by indecisive, tentative men and women will always ask if there is an attraction, a vibe, a good feeling between the parties.

There’s a lot to be said for the shidduch system, even with its inherent problems, which it does have. Still, the numbers don’t lie, and generations of happy, content, loving families speak for themselves.

Yes, in the observant community parents are usually involved in helping their children decide who to date. But that’s nothing to be ashamed of. Parental guidance can be very helpful. Too often, I’ve been asked to counsel families where a son or daughter wanted to marry someone the parents felt was inappropriate. I can confirm that in cases where the young person defied their parents’ objections to the union, the marriage usually didn’t last. Infatuation often gets in the way of logical reasoning. While it is their decision alone, young people would be well advised to listen very carefully to their parents’ opinions and loving advice.

This week’s Torah portion, Chaye Sarah, records the very first shidduch in the Bible. Abraham dispatches his trusted servant, Eliezer, to Abraham’s hometown with the singular mission of finding a wife for his son, Isaac. Eliezer meets young Rebecca at the well … and the rest is history. She is beautiful, exceptionally kind and generous, and she is from the same family as Abraham, his great-niece, in fact. The shidduch is made, and Isaac and Rebecca marry.

This match was clearly ordained by heaven, and there wasn’t much dating before it came to pass. But ever since Eliezer—the first shadchan in history—successfully concluded the deal, the shidduch system has served us well.

So whether it’s from an ad in a magazine, an online dating service or your local Yente, don’t be shy to look for your bashert through the agency of an intermediary. May all our single men and women who are looking in earnest find their own bashert ASAP.

The post The Very First ‘Shidduch’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Iran is preparing to “respond” to Israel, Ali Larijani, a senior adviser to the country’s supreme leader, said in an interview published by Iran’s Tasnim news agency on Sunday.

On Oct. 26, Israeli fighter jets carried out three waves of attacks on Iranian military targets, a few weeks after Iran fired a barrage of about 200 ballistic missiles against Israel. Iran has previously vowed to respond to Isarel’s attacks.

The post Iran Is Preparing to ‘Respond’ to Israel, Says Adviser to Supreme Leader first appeared on Algemeiner.com.