RSS
Israel Cannot Afford to Be a Nation that Dwells Alone
US President Joe Biden is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 18, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
JNS.org – Oceans of pixels have already been consumed in examining the recent dustup between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Joe Biden. The spat was probably inevitable and there will no doubt be another one relatively soon, at which point the denunciations will begin again. But the controversy has raised a usually unspoken question: What if Israel decides to “go it alone” and begins to move away from its alliance with the United States?
Israel’s enemies in the U.S., of course, would like nothing better than to break up the friendship. With the exception of somehow rescuing Hamas, it is more or less the only thing they want.
Among Israel’s supporters, however, especially on the right, there is also a growing discontent with the alliance. This is based mainly on the belief that the U.S. is stopping Israel from “doing what it needs to do” to win its war with Hamas. Moreover, they think, this is hardly the first time it’s happened. Their watchword is “Let Israel win” and they believe the U.S. has never allowed Israel to win. Perhaps the key to victory, then, is to end Israel’s dependence on U.S. support. Without this leverage, it is believed, the U.S. can no longer deny Israel its victory.
Even to the neutral observer, moreover, there are disturbing indications as to the health of the alliance. In particular, the U.S. has begun to appear to be an increasingly unreliable ally. This is by no means limited to Israel. In many ways, the U.S. in general is showing signs of becoming a decadent and decaying empire.
The reasons behind this are largely domestic. It often seems as if the American people no longer want to foot the bill for hegemony.
Hegemony pays many dividends, but it is an expensive proposition. It demands heavy investment in hard and soft power, a willingness to engage in difficult moral compromises, the recognition that military action will at times be necessary and people will die as a result, and—most important for Israel—making long-term and reliable commitments to allies.
The U.S., one regrets to say, has not done a stellar job in this regard, at least under Democratic administrations. Barack Obama, for example, abandoned U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity, essentially making a Russian war of aggression inevitable. He also threw Israel and America’s Arab allies under the proverbial bus by cultivating the genocidal theocracy that rules Iran.
Under Biden, the situation has been somewhat better but nonetheless wildly inconsistent. America’s allies in Afghanistan were abandoned with horrendous global repercussions, but Biden has thus far stood by Ukraine and at least started out the current war very much in Israel’s corner. Still, confidence has been undermined, especially in the Middle East.
This is not a problem confined to the Democrats, however. The Republicans under Donald Trump’s leadership have strong isolationist tendencies, as shown by their obstruction of continuing aid to Ukraine.
It may well be that the U.S. is beating a slow and sporadic retreat from the world stage. If so, there are many who will rejoice. Paleoconservative isolationists have long wanted to retreat from the world. Radical progressives, especially in academia, see American hegemony as the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.
For America’s allies, however, this seeming retreat raises disturbing but essential questions.
In Israel, the issue is especially pressing, because like it or not, the foundation of Israel’s security is American military aid. It is true that Israel has its own capacities, but we should harbor no illusions that it can suddenly end its relationship with the U.S. and still maintain its military edge in quality or quantity. Israel may or may not want to “go it alone,” but in practical terms, it cannot do so.
Certainly, if the U.S. is indeed on the way out, Israel will have to make difficult long-term decisions. But a full U.S. retreat, even if it became official policy, would not be possible to realize in the short term. As such, Israel and its supporters’ efforts should be directed towards managing the retreat to Israel’s benefit rather than contemplating pipe dreams of bolting the alliance with the U.S. entirely.
This also involves making difficult decisions. Netanyahu, for example, must give up his visions of relying solely on the Republican Party for support. At the same time, liberal Israelis and pro-Israel Democrats should finally admit that while bashing Netanyahu may be pleasurable, it does not change the fact that the Democratic Party now has an active, violent and wholly unscrupulous antisemitic wing that will have to be confronted, neutralized and expelled.
Certainly, Israel should attempt to supply its own military needs as much as possible. It should seek to diversify its alliances. And it should prepare for the day when the U.S. will not be a hegemonic power, not because it is inevitable but because one should prepare for all possible scenarios. For the moment, however, fantasies about being “a people that dwells alone” get us nowhere. We are stuck with our friends, for better or for worse. And perhaps we should be grateful. At least they are not our enemies.
The post Israel Cannot Afford to Be a Nation that Dwells Alone first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx