RSS
Could Israeli Disunity Lead to More Hamas Executions?
Illustrative: Israeli protesters chant in front of a burning fire at a demonstration against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his nationalist coalition government’s plan for judicial overhaul, in Tel Aviv, Israel, March 27, 2023. REUTERS/Itai Ron
The bodies of six Israeli and American hostages held by Hamas were retrieved from a 65 foot deep tunnel in the Rafah area of Gaza and returned to Israel on Saturday. They are Ori Danino, Alex Lobanov, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Almog Sarusi, Eden Yerushalmi, and Carmel Gat.
In previous cases where the IDF returned bodies, the victims had typically been deceased for some time, some even as far back as October 7. This weekend was different: Israel has confirmed that Hamas had executed all six of these hostages in recent days by means of a gunshot to the head.
This is deeply heartbreaking to the Israeli people and all people of conscience. For months, we’ve known these names and seen these hostages on posters in every corner of every city and town. We are all struck to the core as if we knew each hostage personally — as if they were our family.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to one of the hostage’s families, a rarity for him, and in a separate statement asserted that “Anyone who murders hostages does not want a deal,” while adding that he is shocked to the depths of his soul, and that the blood of the hostages is on Hamas’ hands.
At the same time, a number of parents of the hostages as well as Israeli leaders and civilians are fiercely blaming the Israeli government in general, and Netanyahu in particular, for failing to bring our loved ones home sooner. Hundreds of thousands protested on Sunday evening in locations throughout the country with a particular focus on blaming the government and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Most of Israel’s unionized workers have gone on a symbolic one day strike beginning Monday morning.
It is almost impossible to fully comprehend the grief and anger of the families who have lost loved ones after 11 months of emotional torture. But it is also critical at this tragic moment that we perform a reality check.
The anti-government position held by many Israelis presumes that there was some kind of deal on the table that would have brought all the hostages home safely, if only “Bibi” and his government would have simply accepted it. This is, in fact, not the case: there is not, and there never has been, any such offer.
At no point following last November’s temporary ceasefire has Hamas accepted a proposal that would return anything more than a small portion of the hostages at any given time. For example the “three stage” deal proposed by the United States last February (which Hamas in any case rejected) would have brought home only a small number of hostages in the first stage. As Hamas habitually violates ceasefire agreements, Israeli experts widely believe that multi-stage deals will most likely not proceed to completion, leaving large numbers of hostages in captivity indefinitely.
Having rejected the American proposal last February, Hamas went on to reject a version of its own three-stage proposal in March. Just two weeks ago, the United States announced that Israel had accepted America’s latest so-called “Bridging Proposal,” and that the world was now waiting on Hamas, which subsequently rejected the deal and then boycotted further negotiations in Cairo. This is only the latest of dozens of Hamas rejections.
A common refrain by a large, vocal minority of Israelis has been that Israel’s top priority must be the return of the hostages, and not dismantling Hamas. This logic is based on two flawed assumptions: that there is a deal on the table that would bring back all the hostages (there is not) and that the IDF can simply return to fighting in Gaza at any time in the future, even if doing so means violating the terms of a binding agreement.
Yet Hamas is quite sophisticated with respect to this issue: throughout the ceasefire talks, a key Hamas demand has been not only that the terror organization remain in power in Gaza, but also that international guarantees be put in place to tie the IDF’s hands against further military action.
Numerous UN resolutions and international court actions, as well as delays and even “soft embargoes” of needed military supplies by the US and other allies, send a clear message to Israel: that re-entering Gaza in violation of an agreement would be difficult or even impossible.
This pressure also sends a message to Hamas: that given time, Israel’s allies might not stand firm, thus encouraging Hamas to harden its bargaining position and play for additional time.
Given the above realities, one can still hold a reasonable, and even passionate disagreement as to what price Israel should pay to return the hostages alive, whether Hamas should be removed from power, or how far the IDF should go to secure Gaza against future attacks.
Yet to accuse the Israeli government or its leadership of murder, does not make logical sense. One might have placed some portion of the responsibility on the Israeli government if there was a deal on the table that Israel should have, or even could have, accepted. Yet the painful truth is that there was never any such option available.
The decision to murder six Israeli hostages was made completely by Hamas: not by Israel, its leaders or its people. The question now is whether Hamas will see these murders as a strategic win that bears repeating, or as a colossal blunder to be avoided in the future.
If Hamas sees that executing hostages increases pressure on Israel, both internally and externally, then the terror organization might conclude that doing so provides a strategic advantage.
Hamas might even conclude that such executions can bring the terror group closer to its immediate goal of retaining power in Gaza, as well as its long term goal of mounting further October 7 style massacres.
Despite being one of the most prominent voices pressuring Israel to make a ceasefire deal, Vice President Kamala Harris said in her statement yesterday that Hamas must be “eliminated” and cannot be allowed to remain in power in Gaza; but that is what Hamas has been insisting on, and has long been a significant sticking point in negotiations.
Many Israelis agree: the current protests are, at their core, an expression of deep emotional connections, and a symbol of how Israeli families feel one another’s pain. Yet actual opinions in Israel are more nuanced: even though Israelis nearly unanimously support a deal that would end the war and return the hostages, only 49% would support a deal that involves the IDF leaving the critical Philadelphi corridor which gives Hamas access to Egypt, with 32% opposed, and 19% uncertain.
It is impossible to know how any of us might feel if our own family members were held captive in Gaza: we might be willing to sacrifice anything and everything to bring them home. Yet there are other families in Israel as well, including parents who are concerned for the safety of their children in a possible future massacre, should Israel make the wrong decisions at this critical time.
The deaths of Ori, Alex, Hersh, Almog, Eden, and Carmel are beyond heartbreaking, and today Israelis feel that pain as if it were personal to each and every one of us; but nine million more Israelis will face future kidnappings or Oct.7-like massacres if Hamas is not properly deterred and prevented from committing such atrocities.
Today Israelis are expressing pain and anger toward those we trusted to protect us. Yet we are also aware of a fundamental truth: that Hamas murdered civilians in cold blood, while international negotiations were ongoing to save them — and that’s a message the world needs to hear.
Netanyahu and his government are fair subject for criticism — to do so is the imperative of any free democracy. But even the most passionate disagreements demand a basis in factual reality: the supposed deal for which some Israelis advocate never actually existed. In truth, Israel’s current reality is as impossible as it is heartbreaking.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Could Israeli Disunity Lead to More Hamas Executions? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.