RSS
Despite Hostile Public, Egypt Won’t Destroy Israel Relations
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Photo: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office.
JNS.org – Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is confronting a complex array of challenges along the country’s northeastern border with Gaza.
With approximately 1.4 million Palestinians amassed in Rafah on the Gaza-Egypt border, el-Sisi is engaged in negotiations for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas and simultaneously attempting to keep diplomatic ties with Israel intact.
However, amid these diplomatic efforts, he faces domestic issues compounded by strong anti-Israel sentiment among the Egyptian public, who perceive him as being too closely aligned with the United States and Israel.
Speculation has arisen regarding the potential dissolution of Egypt’s 45-year peace treaty with Israel in the event of an Israel Defense Forces incursion into Rafah. Israel asserts that the city serves as a stronghold for the last four Hamas battalions, which must be eliminated in order to win the war.
However, according to Jacob Olidort, director of research at the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America, it is “unlikely” Egypt would end its peace treaty with Israel if the IDF enters Rafah.
“Although this appeared to be a real concern following el-Sisi’s remarks several weeks ago, the [Egyptian] foreign minister’s statements in recent days made it clear that Egypt’s cancellation of its peace treaty with Israel is highly unlikely,” he told JNS.
Speaking at a press conference in Slovenia on Feb. 12, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said, “There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, which has been in effect for the past 40 years and will continue to be,” according to Asharq Al-Awsat.
Egypt would adhere to the 1979 peace treaty as long as it remains reciprocal, he said, adding, “Therefore, I will rule out any comments that have been made on this matter.”
Olidort emphasized that canceling the treaty “would mean ending the deep cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli militaries in fighting Islamic State in the Sinai, as well as U.S. military assistance.”
Eran Lerman, vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, believes el-Sisi has greater worries and “will not compound his country’s woes unless he absolutely has to.”
In Lerman’s view, el-Sisi would not take the extraordinary step of cutting ties with Israel unless Israel expelled the Palestinians to Sinai or some other action, military or otherwise, that would lead to a massive breach of the fences.
According to Lerman, this is something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “committed to avoid.”
Haisam Hassanein, an adjunct fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS he doesn’t believe Israel and Egypt would get into a conflict or cancel the peace treaty because of Hamas.
However, he said, Egypt “worries about a spillover to its territory, which could liquidate the Palestinian issue or open the door for Hamas and jihadi operatives to infiltrate its border by posing as refugees.”
“Previous bloody clashes between Palestinian militias in their host nations, such as Lebanon and Jordan, don’t inspire confidence in Cairo,” he added. Moreover, “If they attack Israel from Sinai, it could strain Egypt-Israel relations,” he noted.
This concern over a spillover has reportedly prompted Egypt to begin building a containment area for Palestinian refugees in Northern Sinai on the Gaza border as a precaution.
In addition to Israel’s war against Hamas, Egypt is currently dealing with a multitude of other issues. As Lerman recently wrote, “the Egyptian pound is in free fall; investors and business leaders are leaving; essentials are in short supply; tourism is in decline; and now, attacks on Red Sea shipping have led to a plunge in Suez Canal income, and the failure of talks with Ethiopia on the filling of the Renaissance Dam has cast a shadow on Egypt’s vital water supply.”
In addition, a civil war is raging in neighboring Sudan and Libya remains unstable.
All this places Egypt in a precarious position, and the need to demonstrate it is siding with the Palestinians seemingly clashes with its need to cooperate with Israel.
Olidort noted however that Egyptian public opinion is important, as are the “optics of how the government appears in relation to Israel and its operation in Gaza.”
He said Egypt’s position with regard to the Palestinians in Gaza “has less to do with shouldering the economic burden of caring for them or the security burden of fighting Hamas—there is, rest assured, no love lost between the Sisi government and Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood—and a great deal to do with the public opinion pressure to not appear to side with either Israel or, militarily, with the United States.”
Egypt’s domestic challenges, and particularly its mounting economic woes, are very real, said Olidort. “But there is a clear recognition that compromising its regional reputation could make matters worse,” he added.
According to Olidort, the concerns of a spillover from Gaza as the IDF turns its focus on Rafah “are just as much about optics as about security; just as threatening, in the Egyptian view, as a porous border is the political blowback caused by a public narrative that Egypt is helping Israel push Palestinians from their land.”
At the same time, according to Lerman, Israel is “eager to preserve a highly valuable strategic relationship, even if the Egyptian public domain is still quite poisonous.”
As Israel moves forward with plans to invade Rafah and root out the Hamas terrorists there, including the group’s leader Yahya Sinwar, much of the international community and media have condemned Israel’s plans.
For instance, the South African government has gone as far as submitting an “urgent request” to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to consider whether Israel’s planned offensive in Rafah constitutes a “further imminent breach of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza.”
In a statement released on Friday, the ICJ declined to take additional measures.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron called on Israel to restrain itself in Rafah. “Many of the people in Rafah have already moved three, four or five times. It is not possible for them to move again,” he said on Tuesday. “That is why it is so important that the Israelis stop and think before going ahead with any operations in Rafah.”
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing back against these warnings, telling ABC News in an interview on Sunday: “Those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafah are basically saying lose the war.”
“Victory is within reach. We’re going to do it. We’re going to get the remaining Hamas terrorist battalions in Rafah, which is the last bastion, but we’re going to do it,” Netanyahu said.
Israel’s position has been that only military pressure will secure the hostages’ release.
The daring commando operation in Rafah earlier this week that saw the rescue of Israeli hostages Fernando Simon Marman and Norberto Louis Har from Rafah only strengthens this position.
Luckily for Israel, Hamas’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, el-Sisi’s sworn enemies, means he needs to support Israel in its fight to defeat Hamas.
“At the end of the day, Egypt has as much an interest in the defeat of rabid Islamism as we do,” said Lerman.
The post Despite Hostile Public, Egypt Won’t Destroy Israel Relations first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Palestinian Official Blames Israel for All Deaths in the October 7 Massacre
The bodies of people, some of them elderly, lie on a street after they were killed during a mass-infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Sderot, southern Israel, Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
The Palestinian Authority (PA) alternates between justifying Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 massacre and atrocities, and blaming Israel for them.
The latest to blame Israel is Fatah leader Jibril Rajoub who, speaking in English in South Africa, said:
The Israeli government is the only one responsible for what’s going on, for the suffering, whether for the Palestinians or some Israeli civilians who were killed on Oct. 7.
[Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub, Facebook page, Aug. 2, 2025]
His solution is for Israel to release all 15,000 Palestinian terrorist prisoners in exchange for the Israeli hostages kidnapped on Oct. 7.
Rajoub adds the horrific lie that the Palestinian prisoner “hostages,” who include many mass murderers, were “arrested by the Israelis without doing anything.”
He then adds one more horrific lie:
We don’t support killing kids, women, or kidnapping. For sure that this is not part of our policy or our doctrine.
As Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has documented, the PA “policy and doctrine” is in fact to murder women and children, to kidnap, and to glorify the killers.
The PA rewards all terrorists in prison, even mass murderers like Abdallah Barghouti — who is serving 67 life sentences for being involved in the murder of 68 men, women and children. The PA has named five schools after mass murderer Dalal Mughrabi, who led the murder of 12 children and 25 adults after kidnapping them by hijacking a bus.
The PA glorifies all suicide bombers who murdered women and children as “Martyrs,” meaning that they died for Allah. The PA fundamentally supports murdering women and children, and this is their policy.
Regarding kidnapping, Rajoub himself praised the Oct. 7 murders and rapes of women and children and the kidnapping of hundreds of hostages as “epic” and “heroic”:
Rajoub: “What happened on October 7 was an earthquake, an unprecedented incident, and a war of defense full of epics and acts of heroism that the Palestinian people has been waging for 75 years.” [emphasis added]
[Al-Anba, Kuwaiti news website, Nov. 26, 2023]
As PMW repeatedly stresses, the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist entity in every way – except international designation.
The following is a longer excerpt of the statement cited above:
Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub: “What happened on Oct. 7, [2023] was a reaction to the systematic Israeli crimes. Now, sure that we don’t support killing kids, women, kidnapping. For sure that this is not part of our policy or our doctrine. But he who is responsible for that is he who tried to sustain the occupation [i.e., Israel], he who continues his crimes and atrocities against the Palestinian people, and the Israeli government is the only responsible for what’s going on, for the suffering, whether for the Palestinians or some Israeli civilians who were killed on Oct. 7 …
I think that we have 15,000 hostages [sic., terrorist prisoners] arrested by the Israelis without doing anything …
The issue of the prisoners, whether it’s those who are in Hamas or in Israel, should be closed by releasing everybody for everybody.”
[Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub, Facebook page, Aug. 2, 2025]
The author is the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
The Torah Works Because It’s Perfectly Balanced
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
If you’ve ever had the urge to buy something new — a trinket, a bauble, a book, or any kind of decorative object — you’ve probably found yourself channeling the mantra of Japanese “organizing consultant” Marie Kondo: hold each item in your hand and ask if it “sparks joy.” If it doesn’t, the modern rule is simple — don’t buy it, and if you’ve got it: don’t keep it.
As the 21st century rolls on, this form of minimalism has become more than a trend – it’s become a movement. Entire YouTube channels are devoted to “decluttering,” and there’s a peculiar satisfaction in watching people toss out 27 coffee mugs they never use or transform a chaotic closet into a Zen-like display of perfectly folded shirts.
But this obsession with minimalism isn’t new. History is full of people who discovered that less is more. Take the Shakers — an eccentric 18th-century religious sect founded by “Mother” Ann Lee and her followers in England — so austere that they even broke away from the Quakers for being too worldly. They built an entire society based around radical simplicity.
To them, unnecessary ornamentation wasn’t just bad taste, it was spiritually hazardous. Their furniture was stripped-down and functional to the point of purity — elegant straight lines, no frills, nothing but purpose. Remarkably, more than two centuries later, Shaker chairs and tables still look modern, the kind of furniture pieces that wouldn’t look out of place in a sleek New York City loft.
There’s a story told about a Shaker community in New Hampshire: an uninitiated visitor was admiring the bare wooden meeting house and asked why it was so plain. The Shaker elder, almost incredulous, replied, “Because if God wanted it fancy, He’d have made it fancy.”
And it wasn’t just about buildings or furniture. The Shakers’ daily lives were a kind of spiritual decluttering. No decorative clothing. No frivolous conversation. One Shaker diary even records a “brother” being gently corrected for carving an extra flourish into a chair spindle. “Beauty,” the elder told him, “is obedience.” In other words, remove what is unnecessary, and holiness will emerge.
Fast forward to today, and that same principle has found its way to Hollywood — albeit, stripped of any religious context. Professional organizer Janelle Cohen, who has decluttered the homes of celebrities like Jordyn Woods and Jay Shetty, insists that true order isn’t about squeezing more in, but rather it’s about editing it all down until only the essentials remain.
She even has her A-list clients go through every single item seasonally, “editing” their closets so that what’s left is only what they actually use and love. “When Jordyn opens her closet,” Cohen says, “it excites her. It feels manageable.”
One of Cohen’s golden rules is what she calls “prime real estate.” The items you use and cherish most should always be within reach; everything else should either be pushed to the margins — or removed entirely. It’s not about austerity for its own sake. It’s about creating a space where what truly matters is visible, accessible, and central.
Contrast that with the opposite impulse: the baroque churches of 17th-century Europe, gilded to the point of sensory overload. Or Victorian drawing rooms so jammed with doilies and in-your-face taxidermy that you could barely find the furniture. Or today’s “feature-rich” software apps, so overloaded with functions that you practically need a tutorial just to locate the “save” button.
Human history, when you boil it down, is really a tug-of-war between the impulse to add and the discipline to take away. Which is why it’s striking that in Parashat Va’etchanan, Moshe delivers what might be the ultimate minimalist manifesto (Deut. 4:2): “Do not add to this thing, and do not subtract from it.”
We can understand why subtracting from the core aspects of Torah is a bad thing, but why would adding to it be wrong? Rashi offers a sharp answer: adding to the Torah doesn’t elevate it, he says, it distorts it. He gives the example of the Arba Minim on Sukkot.
If you decide that four species are good, so five must be better, you’ve not “enhanced” the mitzvah — you’ve corrupted it. What begins as extra piety becomes a counterfeit commandment.
The Ramban takes it further. He warns that human additions blur the boundaries of what God actually commanded. When people can no longer tell the difference between divine law and human invention, the authenticity of the Torah itself is weakened. In other words, spiritual “clutter” is just as dangerous as spiritual neglect.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains it beautifully. He says that “adding” is a kind of hidden arrogance: it implies that God’s blueprint is incomplete, that our personal tweaks are needed to perfect it. But, as Rav Hirsch reminds us, the Torah isn’t a rough draft — it’s a finished masterpiece.
Our job isn’t to rewrite the Torah, it’s to live it. Which is why Moshe warns against both subtraction and addition. One hollows out the Torah, the other smothers it under layers of well-meaning excess. Both, in the end, take us further away from the elegant, balanced simplicity of God’s design.
In the tech world, there’s a term called “feature creep.” It’s what happened to the web browser Netscape Navigator in the 1990s. Once the undisputed leader, Netscape kept piling on new features — “just one more” toolbar, “just one more” plug‑in — until it became too slow, too clunky, and practically unusable. Users abandoned Netscape in droves, competitors took over, and the once dominant browser was pushed to the margins… and eventually, into oblivion.
In the restaurant world, chefs dread what’s known as “menu bloat.” Gordon Ramsay has made a career out of exposing it on Kitchen Nightmares. Time and again, he walks into failing restaurants where the menu reads like a novel — dozens of dishes spanning every cuisine imaginable. “You can’t possibly cook all of this food well,” he tells them.
And he’s right. When one struggling Italian restaurant in New York slashed its sprawling menu down to a handful of core dishes, something remarkable happened: the food got better, the kitchen ran smoothly, and the customers came back. As Ramsay put it, “Stop trying to be everything — just be excellent at what matters.”
Moshe is making the same point in this week’s parsha. “Do not add to this thing” isn’t solely a legal warning — it’s also a spiritual safeguard. When we start piling on “extras,” we risk smothering the beauty and dulling the clarity of the Torah beneath well‑intentioned but distracting clutter.
Like Ramsay’s pared‑down menu, the Torah works because it’s perfectly balanced. Nothing is missing, and nothing needs “just one more” ingredient. Our job is not to improve the Torah, but to serve it up the way it was given — simple, precise, and flawless. Because ultimately, minimalism doesn’t mean less — it means no more and no less than what’s right.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
RSS
Maimed & Fingerless: The Associated Press Publishes a Sickening Shrine to Hezbollah
A man gestures the victory sign as he holds a Hezbollah flag, on the second day of the ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed group Hezbollah, in Tyre, southern Lebanon, Nov. 28, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Aziz Taher
There are moments in media criticism when the usual words — bias, omission, misleading framing — feel inadequate. Because this isn’t just about bias. It’s about a line crossed. It’s about a piece of so-called journalism so grotesque, so inverted in its moral compass, that it demands a different kind of response.
The Associated Press has published a photo essay titled “Portraits of survivors of Israel’s pager attack on Hezbollah last year.” It features carefully staged portraits and sorrowful quotes — not just from Hezbollah operatives themselves, but also from a few of their relatives.
Let’s not forget this is a US- and EU-designated terror organization, and the men were injured in a precision Israeli strike that neutralized dozens of Hezbollah fighters who were using encrypted pagers to coordinate attacks on Israeli civilians.
But the AP doesn’t frame them as terrorists. It casts them as victims. As tragic figures. As men whose disfigured hands deserve your sympathy.
It is repulsive propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.
We’re not going to walk you through what’s wrong with this piece. It’s too obvious. The entire thing is a distortion. Every image, every quote, every omission — from the total lack of context about Hezbollah’s crimes, including the fact that these very pagers were used to orchestrate lethal attacks on Israelis, to the aesthetic choices that frame mutilated killers in dramatic, reverent lighting — is an insult.
An insult to the thousands of Israelis murdered or maimed by Hezbollah. To the innocent Lebanese civilians crushed under its rule. And to the readers themselves, because how many millions around the world have been directly or indirectly torn apart by Islamist terrorism?
The Aestheticization of Terror
The portraits are the first clue. Each fighter, or relative of a fighter, is photographed against a pitch-black background, lit just enough to highlight scars, stumps, and furrowed brows. Their eyes are cast downward or off into the middle distance. They are composed. Thoughtful. Vulnerable.
There is no blood. No chaos. No evidence of what came before. Just the frozen dignity of men, women, and teenagers supposedly broken by war.
This is not journalism. It is image-crafting. And it works.
Now contrast that with how Israeli victims of Hezbollah are typically shown in Western media, if they’re shown at all. Blurry photos from attack scenes. Names barely mentioned. Faces rarely shown.
But the AP found the time, the resources, and the artistic vision to give Hezbollah fighters a studio-style shoot and a global platform. The goal was simple: to soften their image, obscure their crimes, and make you forget who they are — so you remember only how they look now.
.@AP looked at terrorists who helped murder Israelis and thought:
“Let’s interview their mothers.”
No mention of the victims. No mention of the terror.
Just tears for Hezbollah.
This is how you sanitize evil. pic.twitter.com/t1GbrxXbCR— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 6, 2025
The Inversion of Victim and Aggressor
One of the men featured, Mahdi Sheri, 23, a Hezbollah member, laments that he can no longer return to his former job on the front line. “Now,” the AP reports with near admiration, “Hezbollah is helping him find a new job.”
Other captions allude to trauma and paint a picture of resilience. Even the children of terrorists, AP notes, “now fear coming near their fathers.” As if the real tragedy isn’t the terror their fathers unleashed — but the fact that their children are afraid of their monstrous parents.
Not once does the AP mention what these men were doing before they were injured: actively working to kill Israelis.
These were not bystanders caught in crossfire. These were operatives of an Iranian-backed terror group, engaged in covert operations using encrypted pagers, the same technology Hezbollah has used for decades to coordinate rocket fire and ambushes targeting civilians.
But instead of reporting that fact, the AP chose to wrap them in tragedy and give them the space to monologue about their pain.
So allow us to do the job they wouldn’t.
The Real Victims: Murdered by Hezbollah
-
241 US Marines and 58 French paratroopers, serving in a multinational peacekeeping force, murdered in the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983.
-
114 people killed in the Israeli Embassy bombing (1992) and the AMIA Jewish Center bombing (1994) in Buenos Aires.
-
19 US Air Force personnel murdered in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
-
Eight Israeli soldiers murdered in a cross-border raid, with two others taken hostage and later killed — the attack that triggered the 2006 Lebanon War, during which 43 Israeli civilians and 121 IDF soldiers were killed by Hezbollah rocket fire.
-
Dozens of Israeli civilians and security personnel killed in Hezbollah attacks during the 2023–2024 Israel–Hezbollah conflict, launched after the October 7 Hamas massacre. Over 60,000 Israeli residents of the north were displaced.
-
In July 2024, a Hezbollah rocket struck a soccer field in Majdal Shams, killing at least 12 children.
This is not a full list.
The media finds its focus when photographing the wounded bodies of terrorists. But it falls silent when it comes to their victims.
Call It What It Is
This isn’t journalism. It’s image laundering — the glorification of terror, repackaged as human interest.
And it’s not new.
We’ve seen it before: when The New York Times ran glowing features on Hamas-linked “journalists,” when the BBC called Qassam Brigade commanders “fighters,” and when Reuters gave Islamic Jihad operatives a platform without ever asking why they fire rockets at Israeli kindergartens.
It’s the same playbook: Humanize the perpetrator. Aestheticize the violence. Erase the victims. Call it balance.
But this isn’t balance. It’s complicity.
The Associated Press didn’t just publish a photo essay. It published a shrine.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.