RSS
Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State
The logo of the US Central Intelligence Agency is shown in the lobby of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia March 3, 2005. REUTERS/Jason Reed
“Teddy Roosevelt’s great-great-great grandson is an anti-Israel protester at Princeton,” blared a New York Post headline on May 4, 2024.
The Post reported that Quentin Colon Roosevelt, an 18-year-old freshman, and descendant of the 25th President, is an anti-Israel activist at the Ivy League university. But far from being hip and new, Quentin’s brand of anti-Zionism is old hat — he is merely continuing a long family tradition of anti-Israel activism.
There is an abundance of literature on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s views on Jews and Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor had made antisemitic remarks. In a private conversation in 1938, then-President Roosevelt suggested that by dominating the economy in Poland, Jews were themselves fueling antisemitism. And in a 1941 Cabinet meeting, FDR remarked that there were too many Jewish Federal employees in Oregon. In his final days, FDR promised Saudi leader Abdul Aziz Ibn al Saud that he would oppose the creation of Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.
FDR is the president who led the United States to victory against Adolf Hitler. He also employed Jews in high-ranking positions in his government. But he is also the president whose administration failed to save more Jews fleeing Nazism, and who refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to Auschwitz and other death camps where millions of Jews met a ghastly end. Accordingly, it makes sense that his beliefs regarding Jews have been the subject of books and belated study.
Less examined, however, is the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt clan, and their beliefs regarding Zionism. In part, this is easily explained by the unique place that FDR holds in American history. He is the only president to serve four terms, and presided over both the Great Depression, World War II, and arguably the beginning of the Cold War. His branch of the family, the Hyde Park Roosevelts, were Democrats and remained active in public life for decades after his 1945 death.
At first glance, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts were more of a turn of the 19th century affair. They were Republicans, and their scion was Teddy Roosevelt, a war hero turned governor of New York state who, thanks to an assassin’s bullet, found himself as the nation’s leader in 1901.
The famously ebullient Roosevelt helped redefine the country’s idea of a president, and served as an inspiration for his cousin Franklin. But Teddy largely presided over an era of peace and tranquility, not war and upheaval.
Teddy was a philosemite. He was the first occupant of the Oval Office to appoint a Jewish American to the Cabinet. He championed the rights of Jews, both at home and abroad, and was harshly critical of the numerous pogroms that unfolded in czarist Russia.
As Seth Rogovoy has noted, Roosevelt’s “special relationship with Jews was forged during his time serving as police commissioner in New York City, a post he assumed in 1904.” When an antisemitic German preacher named Hermann Ahlwardt gave speeches in the city, Roosevelt assigned a contingent of Jewish police officers to guard the man.
Roosevelt was also a Zionist. In 1918, shortly after the Balfour Declaration, he wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” He told Lioubomir Michailovitch, the Serbian Minister to the United States, that “there can be no peace worth having … unless the Jews [are] given control of Palestine.” Six months later Roosevelt died in his sleep.
Not all his descendants would share his belief in Jewish self-determination, however.
Two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandchildren, Kermit and Archie, served their country in the CIA during the early years of the Cold War. Both were keenly interested in Middle East affairs, and were fluent in Arabic. Both were well read and highly educated, authoring books and filing dispatches for newspapers like the Saturday Evening Post, among others.
They were also prominent anti-Zionists.
Kermit Roosevelt, known as “Kim,” played a key role in anti-Zionist efforts in the United States and abroad. He was not, by the standards of his time, an antisemite. But he was ardently opposed to the creation of Israel.
As Hugh Wilford observed in his 2013 book America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East: “the anti-Zionism of the overt Cold War foreign policy establishment is well known” but “less widely appreciated is the opposition to Jewish statehood of the individuals responsible for setting up the United States’ covert apparatus in the Middle East.”
This began with the OSS, the CIA’s precursor. And it included men like Stephen Penrose, a former American University of Beirut instructor, and Kim Roosevelt’s boss during his wartime service in the OSS.
“Documents among Penrose’s personal papers reveal him engaged in a variety of anti-Zionist activities at the same time that he was commencing his official duties with the OSS,” Wilford notes.
Like many of his fellow Arabists, Penrose was the son of American missionaries who, failing to convert the native population to Christianity, sought to foster Arab nationalism instead. Penrose described himself as a “chief cook” who was “brewing” opposition to Zionism. He became one of Kim Roosevelt’s mentors.
In a January 1948 Middle East Journal article entitled, “Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics,” Kim called the 1947 UN vote in favor of a Jewish state an “instructive and disturbing story.”
Roosevelt believed that the US media was unduly supportive of the creation of Israel, and claimed that almost all Americans “with diplomatic, educational, missionary, or business experience in the Middle East” opposed Zionism.
Kim’s pamphlet was reprinted by the Institute for Arab American Affairs, a New York-based group whose board he sat on. He also began working with the Arab League’s Washington, D.C., office and “turned elsewhere for allies in the anti-Zionist struggle, starting with the Protestant missionaries, educators, and aid workers.”
This nascent group soon received financial support from the American oil industry, which maintained close links to Kim’s OSS/CIA colleague, William Eddy.
As Wilford noted, the Arabian consortium ARAMCO “launched a public relations campaign intended to bring American opinion around to the Arab point of view.”
In addition to missionaries and big oil, Kim gained another important ally in the form of Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan. Berger served as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist group that, among other things, opposed the creation of a Jewish army during World War II at the height of the Holocaust. Berger and Roosevelt became drinking buddies and close collaborators on their joint effort against the Jewish State.
Kim eventually became “organizing secretary” for a group called The Committee for Justice and Peace. The committee’s original chair, Virginia Gildersleeve, was both a longtime friend of the Roosevelts of Oyster Bay and the dean of New York City’s Barnard College, which today is part of Columbia.
Gildersleeve was “also a high-profile anti-Zionist” who “became involved with the Arab cause through her association with the Arabist philanthropist Charles Crane and the historian of Arab nationalism George Antonius.”
Crane, a wealthy and notorious antisemite, had lobbied against the creation of a Jewish state since the beginning of the 20th century, even advising then-President Woodrow Wilson against supporting the Balfour Declaration.
By 1950, the Committee had managed to recruit famed journalist Dorothy Thompson to their cause. Thompson was reportedly the basis for actress Katharine Hepburn’s character in the 1942 movie Woman of the Year. A convert to anti-Zionism, Thompson’s extensive network of reporters and celebrities proved crucial to Kim and Berger’s efforts to rally opposition to the Jewish State. In a 1951 letter to Barnard College’s Gildersleeve, Thompson wrote: “I am seriously concerned about the position of the Jews in the United States.” People, she claimed, “are beginning to ask themselves the question: who is really running America?”
Another ally emerged that year: the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA began funding the Committee, as well as its successor, the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME). Beginning in June 1950, Kim’s correspondence with Berger began making veiled references to the ACJ head taking on “official work” in Washington. This, Wilford believes, is a reference to working with the CIA. Indeed, the well-connected Kim and Archie Roosevelt had known top CIA officials like Allan Dulles since childhood.
With support from figures like Eddy, AFME also began encouraging Muslim-Christian alliances — ostensibly to counter Soviet influence, but also to attack the Jewish state. This led to some awkward alliances, including with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
Husseini had ordered the murders of rival Palestinians, incited violence against Jews since the 1920s, and had led forces, equipped with Nazi-supplied arms, to destroy Israel at its rebirth in 1948. Now, along with the Secretary General of the Arab League, and Saudi King Ibn Saud, he was meeting with Eddy to discuss a “moral alliance” between Christians and Muslims to defeat communism. Kim himself knew Husseini, having interviewed him for the Saturday Evening Post after World War II.
AFME lobbied for the appointment of anti-Zionist diplomats and in favor of Eisenhower administration efforts to withhold aid from Israel. And both Berger and Thompson pushed for favorable coverage of the new Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar, who would wage war on the Jewish state for nearly two decades. Initially, they were successful, with TIME magazine writing that Nasser had the “lithe grace of a big, handsome, all-American quarterback.” Of course, there was nothing “all-American” about Nasser, who would become a Soviet stooge.
AFME officials like Garland Evans Hopkins would draw rebukes after claiming that Jews were bringing violence against themselves — a staple of antisemitism. Hopkins claimed that Zionists “could produce a wave of antisemitism in this country” if they continued acting against “America’s best interests in the Middle East.”
AFME itself would eventually lose influence, particularly after its boosting of figures like Nasser was revealed as foolhardy. Berger would go on to advise Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) in his efforts to get pro-Israel Americans to register as foreign agents.
In 1967, as Arab forces gathered to annihilate Israel, Berger blamed the Jewish State, accusing it of “aggression” and its supporters of “hysteria.” Top ACJ officials resigned in protest. That same year, Ramparts magazine exposed CIA support, financial and otherwise, of AFME.
Kim and Archie Roosevelt, however, would continue their careers as high-ranking CIA officers before eventually starting a consulting business and making use of their extensive Middle East contacts.
For some college protesters, attacking Israel — and American support for Israel — might seem new and trendy. Yet, both the CIA and big oil were precisely doing that, decades ago, forming alliances with anti-American dictators, antisemitic war criminals, the press, Protestant groups, academics, university administrators, and fringe Jewish groups claiming to represent “what’s best” for American Jewry.
As William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
The post Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Canadians who moved to Israel celebrate the ongoing hostage releases—amid caution that the deal remains fragile
Thursday saw the release of eight more hostages, including five Thai nationals, and three Israeli citizens who were held for 482 days: Gadi Mozes, 80, Arbel Yehoud, 29, and 20-year-old Agam Berger, who was one of seven soldiers kidnapped by terrorists from the Nahal Oz military post on Oct. 7, 2023.
Berger’s name resonated around the Jewish world thanks to images of her life, like a video of her playing violin in her bedroom. Stories abound of the young woman’s adherence to a life of service and faith, who was reported to frequently engage in prayer in captivity and showing defiance to her captors when asked to perform chores on Shabbat, while comforting her fellow captives by braiding their hair.
Agam Berger’s cousin Ashley Waxman Bakshi is an Israeli-Canadian online influencer who has been a vocal advocate for the hostages. She slammed the Canadian government last March over the motion to halt arms sales to Israel and resume funding for UNRWA.
“We’re obviously overjoyed,” she told The CJN from Israel just hours after Berger’s release. “It’s just hard to believe when you want something so bad, that it actually happened.”
Like many, she was appalled at the staged display by Hamas during the release, and had a message for Canadians who “still don’t get it. If everyday Canadian citizens can’t see the difference between the Gazan mob surrounding the hostages and the absolute farce of this terrorist organization dressing up Agam in a fake IDF uniform, when she was kidnapped in pyjamas, and parade her by herself in front of a crowd as some sort of victory while all of Gaza around them is completely destroyed; if they can’t see the difference between good and evil, then there’s some serious moral work that needs to be done in our country.”
While elated that her cousin is home, Waxman Bakshi warned about the fragility of the entire process, not only negotiations but actual timing and procedure involved. She noted that just a few days ago she intervened to put the brakes on a viralsocial media campaign to have all girls braid their hair for today.
“While these kind of things sound like they help and make people feel good, they actually endanger the hostages and the deal if it gets back to the terrorists holding her that what she did may have been a signal of life. We don’t want to endanger her by giving her increased value to the terrorists keeping her.”
That’s an important distinction she says, between listening to family members and just wanting to do good. “That’s what we mean when we say everything is so fragile, we can’t breathe until they’re home. We don’t want anything to draw attention.”
***
Zina Rakhamilova, a Tel Aviv resident raised in Toronto, has spent a lot of time in Hostage Square with the hostage families. The digital marketer—who specializes in Israeli non-governmental organizations and political causes—agrees that everyone “must try to be as discreet as possible not to endanger their status.”
Hours before the Thursday morning release, the mood she said, “like always is very mixed, because on the one hand we’re very excited that Agam and Arbel are on their way home,” but added people were very worried about Gadi Mozes’ status, given confusion over unofficial, unsubstantiated claims about who was alive and who was not.
“It’s definitely part of Hamas’ psychological campaign of terror” she told The CJN, “because we know they’re supposed to release the living hostages first.” It’s important to note says Rakhamilova, that this comes “not even days after back-to-back terror attacks in Tel Aviv, so beyond the emotional torture all of this is taking on everybody, just being outside feels harrowing. We’re continually on edge; we have to watch our backs and we’re doing the best we can.”
As a Canadian she said, “the truth is I’m more concerned for friends and family in Canada than my own status here in Tel Aviv, watching how antisemitism has grown in Canada since Oct. 7, with kosher restaurants and schools and synagogues targeted and attacked.” She lauded Justin Trudeau’s recent statement “that Hamas can no longer rule Gaza, but really, it’s under his leadership that antisemitism has become so bad that people feel so comfortable doing Nazi salutes openly in the streets of Montreal. I’m a lot more worried for the well-being of Jewish Canadians than my own safety or status here.”
As for the mood surrounding the hostage release, she said “people need to understand we do really feel like one united family here, and until anything is made public by the government, prime minister’s office or IDF, saying anything or discussing details is just unethical, and everyone feels that way. We will not go into any details until we know anything for sure.”
After meeting with relatives of Shiri and Yarden Bibas—who were kidnapped on Oct. 7 along with their two young sons, Kfir and Ariel—she said “we’re really worried about them and we don’t know what their status is, but we don’t want to be willing negative things. The family themselves have said they have not lost hope and so our obligation and that of the people outside the family, is to follow their lead and be there for them whatever that is.
“Personally, it’s awful, so many of us feel sick to our stomachs, constantly on high stress, high alert and knowing about the release of known terrorists.”
Ariel Bibas turns five today in Hamas captivity.
I took this video outside the Bibas home on day 265, it is now day 304.
Why isn’t the world freaking out over these children being held by terrorists? Bring them home NOW! pic.twitter.com/HMolDz37VJ
— Zina Rakhamilova (@itsmezina__) August 5, 2024
While personally supportive of the deal, Rakhamilova said she understands “how devastating a price” Israel is paying. “There are people we know who are going to be personally affected by the terrorists being released.” The murderer of Hillel Fuld’s brother, Ari, and the bombers responsible for the deadly 2002 attack on Hebrew University are also scheduled to be released.
“These are hard emotions, but you still see what’s really beautiful: So many people being directly affected, that they’re so happy that the hostages are coming home.
“The lesson is we need to be as kind as possible to one another during all this.”
***
Thai nationals Thenna Pongsak, Sathian Suwannakham, Sriaoun Watchara, Seathao Bannawat, and Rumnao Surasak also kidnapped on Oct. 7, 2023, were released as well, following a week of uncertainty that threatened to derail the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage release plan.
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group who holding Arbel Yehoud did not release her last Saturday along with four female military observers, as originally agreed. Israel was prepared to block access to Northern Gaza, also part of the original plan, until her release was arranged.
She is a teacher who snatched from Kibbutz Nir Oz where her family has lived for generations. The only presumed but unverified evidence of her being alive came in the form of a video released by Palestinian Islamic Jihad earlier this month.
Gadi Mozes, also of Nir Oz, was also released on Thursday. His partner Efrat Katz was killed during a battle between IDF gunships and Hamas fighters, her daughter and two grandchildren were kidnapped and released in the first hostage deal.
Last Saturday, four other female IDF observers—Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Daniella Gilboa and Naama Levy—were the second group of hostages to be released in the plan, following the release of Emily Damari, Romi Gonen and Doron Steinbrecher a week earlier.
The post Canadians who moved to Israel celebrate the ongoing hostage releases—amid caution that the deal remains fragile appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
The Gaza-Auschwitz Comparison Is a Moral Failure
British teens placed pictures of Israeli hostages seized by Hamas on the train tracks leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the notorious Nazi death camp. Photo: JRoots
The banner proclaiming “Palestine: the victory of the oppressed people over Nazi Zionism,” was prominently displayed behind Hamas terrorists as they forced hostage Naama Levy — whose pants were bloodied at the time of her capture — to smile in an army uniform. The goal of this image is clear: to “Nazify” Israel, whitewash Hamas’ crimes, and invert the roles of victims and oppressors. This is the essence of the Iran-backed terror group’s propaganda.
This is not merely an act of cruelty and humiliation; it is a calculated political message, designed to invert historical roles: Israel as the modern-day Third Reich, and Zionism as its ideology.
But Hamas is not alone in spreading this message. It is part of a long-standing antisemitic propaganda campaign that has gained renewed traction far beyond Gaza.
On American college campuses, in activist circles, and across social media, this rhetoric finds eager amplifiers: “Israelis are Nazis,” “Israel is genocide,” “Hamas is resistance.” Pseudo-human rights organizations, pseudo-anti-racists, and pseudo-feminists echo these slogans. At the same time, these voices remain disturbingly silent about the mass rapes, murders, and kidnappings carried out by Hamas on October 7. Their hypocrisy speaks volumes about their supposed commitment to justice and human rights.
These comparisons are not simply misguided or exaggerated; they have a double-edged effect. On one hand, they trivialize the Nazi atrocities by equating them with a contemporary conflict, tragic as it may be, that differs fundamentally in purpose and scope. On the other, they invert historical roles, casting Jews — victims of an unparalleled genocide — as today’s oppressors. This shift doesn’t necessarily deny the Holocaust outright, but distorts its meaning, drains it of its uniqueness, and repurposes it as a malleable ideological tool. The result is an assault on memory itself — on its ability to prevent the resurgence of hatred and, most urgently, the rising antisemitism witnessed since October 7, 2023.
The accusations of genocide directed at Israel are not new. They trace back to Yasser Arafat and Soviet propaganda in the 1970s, gaining momentum with each flare-up in Gaza. These claims rely on a deliberate distortion of historical facts. The Holocaust was a systematic and industrialized campaign of extermination, carried out in secrecy to annihilate an entire people. Gaza, despite its immense suffering and devastation, is the scene of a conflict between a terrorist group and a sovereign military — not an extermination effort. Comparing Gaza to Auschwitz distorts history and reduces the Holocaust to a vague, manipulable idea, undermining its status as a universal moral anchor.
This confusion does more than undermine the past; it undermines the present. The legal mechanisms designed to prevent genocide lose their potency when misused in this way. Raphaël Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide,” emphasized its specificity: the deliberate, systematic destruction of a group. By conflating the horrors of asymmetrical warfare with organized genocide, we blur the critical distinction between war and extermination. This misapplication of language is not just a semantic issue; it is a moral failure.
The issue doesn’t end with hashtags or protest slogans. It reaches the highest levels of political discourse. In 2014, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused Israel of “surpassing the Nazis in its barbarity” during Operation Protective Edge. In 2022, Mahmoud Abbas claimed Israel had committed “fifty holocausts,” and made these remarks in Berlin — the very city where the Holocaust was meticulously planned.
These statements are more than rhetorical flourishes; they trivialize the Holocaust and weaponize its memory against Israel — and, by extension, against Jews worldwide.
Why this fixation? Part of the answer lies in a broader effort to reshape the moral foundations of the postwar order. For decades, the Holocaust served as a cornerstone of postwar ethics, justifying the establishment of Israel and supporting universal human rights. Yet some now seek to replace this foundation with a new paradigm: decolonization. In this narrative, Israel is no longer the homeland of a persecuted people but the final vestige of colonialism. This reframing severs the historical connection between the Holocaust and Zionism, presenting Israel not as a resolution to Jewish history, but as a historical anomaly to be rectified.
Replacing the memory of the Holocaust with that of other struggles — even legitimate ones — poses a grave threat and betrays the spirit of “Never again,” which was meant as a universal call for vigilance, not as a pretext for contemporary hostility toward Jews. The danger of succumbing to this propaganda is not just the betrayal of historical memory, but its devastating real-world impact. The rise of antisemitism under the guise of political activism threatens the safety of Jewish communities worldwide, and chips away at the universal principles of justice and human rights.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the last 80 years, it is that antisemitism remains rife, though it now takes new forms. The latest version today hides behind the rhetoric of human rights and anti-colonialism. Israel is not the only target; Jews across the globe are under attack. Unless we confront this reality with clarity and determination, we risk allowing history to repeat itself.
Simone Rodan-Benzaquen is the Director of AJC Europe.
The post The Gaza-Auschwitz Comparison Is a Moral Failure first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Behind the Mask of ‘Pro-Peace’ Groups in Israel
A general view shows the port in Haifa, Israel, July 24, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Rula Daood and Alon-Lee Green, the Israeli national directors of the Standing Together movement, were included in the Time 100 Next list for 2024 due to their extensive pacifist activities, such as the national campaign “The North Demands Peace – Deal Now.” As part of this campaign, the organization’s activists hung billboards in northern Israel with the statement “The North Demands Peace” in Arabic and Hebrew. Ironically, or perhaps tragically, one of the billboards placed at the Maxim intersection in Haifa was near a site damaged by a Hezbollah rocket last October. This area also witnessed the horrific terror suicide bombing at Maxim restaurant, co-owned by Arabs and Jews, in 2003, which killed 21 Jews and Arabs and injured 51 others.
The push for a diplomatic solution with Hezbollah for a ceasefire at any cost, without restrictions or the possibility of Israeli action for violations, indicates a lack of security awareness among Standing Together activists. Last November, northern residents, local authorities, and community forums expressed firm opposition to the proposed ceasefire agreement with Lebanon, fearing future violations by Hezbollah and the potential for a terrible massacre. This fear was reinforced when an IDF spokesman revealed Hezbollah’s plans to conquer the Galilee. Although the ceasefire was eventually signed, Hezbollah violated it within five days.
Besides calling for a ceasefire in the north, Standing Together does not address the circumstances that led to the Sword of Iron war. While they importantly call for the return of hostages to Israel, they mislead the public by claiming that “the government and media in Israel are ignoring war crimes in Gaza and claiming everything is fine.” They assert that Israel is waging a war of extermination in Gaza and that “we must not get used to killing and starving innocent Palestinians in Gaza, hundreds of rocket launches daily, or abandoning cities in the north and south.”
At a demonstration, one of the national directors held signs showing Israeli and Palestinian death tolls since the war’s beginning, citing 44,249 Palestinian deaths without specifying how many were Hamas terrorists. This figure, from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, is unsupported. According to UN data from last May, a third of those killed in Gaza were women and children. A University of Pennsylvania expert’s study suggests the ratio of killed militants to civilians is around 1:1, according to the UN’s assessment. The ratio in urban combat zones around the world is 1:9, meaning nine civilians killed for every combatant killed — and that Israel is doing far more than any other military to avoid and reduce civilian deaths.
Regarding claims of starvation in Gaza, COGAT has facilitated the entry of over a million tons of aid on 57,545 trucks since the war began. From January to July 2024, the average daily food consumption in Gaza was about 3,004 calories per person, compared to 3,540 in Europe and North America, and 2,600 in African countries. Standing Together fails to blame Hamas for systematically stealing humanitarian aid from the residents of Gaza.
Originally supported by a German organization that backs the BDS movement and opposes the IHRA‘s working definition of antisemitism, Standing Together now promotes efforts embraced by the international delegitimization campaigns against Israel. They claim the destruction of Jabalia was for revenge and ethnic cleansing, ignoring the IDF’s continued discovery of weapons and terrorists since the military campaign renewed there on October 5, 2024.
The widespread recognition of organizations like Standing Together in Israel and internationally is concerning. While supposedly promoting coexistence and peace, they spread disinformation that could lead to sanctions harming both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank. Their focus on blaming Israel while neglecting to name Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran as the real culprits blurs the line between victim and attacker, undermining their legitimacy as a coexistence organization.
Tom Yohay is the manager of CAMERA on Campus Israel.
The post Behind the Mask of ‘Pro-Peace’ Groups in Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login