RSS
Denying Jewish Sovereignty of Israel is Antisemitic
A general view shows the plaza of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, amid the coronavirus pandemic, May 6, 2020. Photo: Reuters / Ronen Zvulun.
JNS.org – In just a few weeks, the Jewish people will celebrate Chanukah, commemorating the end of the Greek occupation of Jerusalem and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty to Jerusalem. The Maccabees lit a menorah, and as we know, though there was only enough oil for one night, the menorah stayed lit for seven more nights nights.
That menorah was located on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, below which stands the Western Wall. Those who claim that Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism or claim that the Jewish people are not the indigenous people of Israel epitomize antisemitic rejection of documented Jewish history in Israel and the Jewish celebration of Chanukah.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization, which decades later would become the Palestinian Authority, was formed in 1964—three years before Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War and the start of the so-called Israeli “occupation” of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Article 24 of the PLO’s original “National Covenant” states: “This organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberation, organizational, political and financial fields.”
In other words, the PLO, at its inception, gave up any claims to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and Egypt controlled Gaza. All the PLO cared about was destroying the small Jewish State of Israel in its 1949 borders.
The Jewish people’s claim to Israel is based upon the fact that God gave the land to the Jews, as the Torah makes clear when God spoke to Abraham and told him to travel to Israel, and again when God told Moses and the Jewish people after leaving Egyptian slavery to journey to Israel. A famous biblical commentator, the Chizkuni, wrote hundreds of years ago that Noah owned the world at the end of the flood, and he gave the land of Israel to his son Shem, who then gave it to his descendant, the forefather of the Jewish people, Abraham. Another famous commentator, the Maharal of Prague, said that the seven nations in the land when the Jews left Egypt were all invaders and had no right to the land of Israel. The Bible even records the purchases of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by King David, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Machpela in Hebron by Abraham and Joseph’s Tomb by Jacob in Shechem (modern-day Nablus).
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism makes it clear that those who oppose the existence of Israel are antisemitic. King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel more than 3,000 years ago, and the two Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount, the last one having been destroyed by the Romans 2,000 years ago.
The Jews never gave up their rights to Israel. Even under Ottoman Turkish rule, when there was limited ability for Jews to return to their homeland, a 1906 Baedeker travel guide listed the population of Jerusalem as consisting of 40,000 Jews, 13,000 Christians and 7,000 Muslims. The international community agreed to the Jewish right to the Land of Israel and a right of return for Jews to Israel at San Remo in 1920, in a unanimous League of Nations Resolution in 1922 and in the Anglo-American Treaty that was ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Calvin Coolidge in 1925. Article 80 in the U.N. Charter affirmed the binding nature of the League of Nations decisions.
Palestinian Arab rioting in Hebron in 1929 massacred 67 Jews, and the subsequent massacres of more than 500 Jews between 1936 and 1938 led to the British White Paper, which restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arab immigration. A bipartisan majority of 15 members of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time declared in a public letter that the British White Paper violated the Anglo-American Treaty. It also meant that the Jews of Europe had no place to go to escape Hitler. The result was six million Jewish deaths.
The Holocaust had nothing to do with the establishment of the State of Israel, if anything, there was greater world support for Israel before the Holocaust, when U.S. presidents Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover were all counted among those who supported the establishment of a Jewish state. The United Nations reiterated their support for a Jewish state in U.N. Resolution 181 in November 1947, and the Arab world rejected a two-state solution of an Arab state alongside a Jewish state. Israel only came into existence in a fight for its survival without a single ally, as President Harry Truman would not provide arms to Israel, and only Czechoslovakia sold arms to Israel. The Jewish state had to smuggle arms from America. President Lyndon Johnson would not even assist Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and only supplied Israel with military arms after Israel was successful in the war.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the former head of the Israeli Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon, recently stated that if they had grown up as Palestinian Arabs they would have become terrorists. We actually know someone who grew up as a Palestinian Arab terrorist and who came to the belief that this was wrong—Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader, Sheikh Hassan Yousef. Mosab Hassan Yousef is an eloquent defender of the Jewish right to Israel. He has shown that it does not matter what kind of family someone grows up in when there is a clear objective case of right and wrong. It is difficult to grow up among evil people as he has done and change one’s ways, yet he has done so. Barak and Ayalon, however, still fail to see the objective Jewish right to Israel.
May we incorporate in our Chanukah celebrations the acknowledgment of the miracle of the restoration, after 2,000 years, of Jewish sovereignty once again over Jerusalem.
The post Denying Jewish Sovereignty of Israel is Antisemitic 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.