RSS
Israel Complied with UN Resolutions; Peace Never Came
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks at the UN headquarters in New York City, US, before a meeting about the conflict in Gaza, Nov. 6, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
With demands that Israel leave Gaza’s Philadelphi Corridor and limit its operations in the West Bank, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on the Jewish State “to comply with its relevant obligations,” adding that “only an end to the occupation… will bring an end to the violence.”
Yet since 1993, Israel has complied with all its obligations.
Israel repeatedly conceded territory, but the only result was more terrorism and more attacks on its citizens — a fact that seems to have escaped the UN chief.
A decade after withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula and dismantling settlements — which bought Israel durable peace with Egypt — the Jewish State tried, in 1993, to repeat the exercise with Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Throughout the 1990s, however, Arafat upheld the Oslo Agreement only to force further concessions on Israel — all the while, plotting terrorism against it, and trying to destroy modern-day Israel.
Whenever Jerusalem balked, Arafat let Hamas’ violence obstruct peace, until he wrecked the whole process in 2000 by launching the Second Intifada.
Because negotiating peace with Arafat, Syria and Lebanon all failed, Israel opted to unilaterally concede territory, even without prior agreement.
In May 2000, Israel left Lebanon. In June of that year, the UN certified that Israel had met the requirements of Resolution 425, and expressed hope that this implementation “would be seen by all people of the region, especially Syrians, Palestinians and Israelis, as well as Lebanese, as an encouragement to quickly move ahead in negotiating peace treaties.”
But not so fast. Hezbollah thrashed the UN.
“We [liberated the land] not because of the UN that failed, over 22 years, in implementing Resolution 425,” said Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, in May 2000. Nasrallah called on the Palestinians to forget about the UN and its resolutions, and instead emulate his model.
“You can reclaim your land … and force the Zionist invaders to return from where they came from,” Nasrallah said. “The choice is yours and the model is before your eyes — serious resistance.”
Quiet on the Lebanese border with Israel did not last long. In July 2006, Hezbollah launched a major cross-border attack. A 33-day war ensued, and ended with Resolution 1701, which forced the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the 1978 UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to do what Israel had requested in 2000 but never did: Deploy south of the River Litani to enforce UNSC 1701, including disbanding Hezbollah.
Yet with the LAF’s complicity and UNIFIL’s toothlessness, Hezbollah redeployed and rearmed all the way to the Lebanese border with Israel. Like Resolution 425 and Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Resolution1701 did not make northern Israel safe.
Starting in 2022, Hezbollah intensified its harassment, this time demanding that Israel agree to allow Lebanon to explore the maritime border’s seabed for gas. In October, the Biden administration gave itself a pat on the back for helping reach “a historic” maritime border demarcation that would “advance security, stability, and prosperity for the region,” and that demonstrated “the transformative power of American diplomacy.”
A year later, on October 8, 2023, Hezbollah launched its war on Israel in support of Hamas, which had just murdered 1,200 people in southern Israel the day before. American diplomacy was not so transformative after all.
“Today, hope is greater than ever before that the liberation of Palestine, from the sea to the river,” will happen, Nasrallah said months before his October 8 war on Israel.
This time Nasrallah did not present his “armed resistance” as a model to the Palestinians, but declared his militia as a partner in the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” that was fighting to “liberate Palestine,” a clear violation of Resolution 1701 and the Lebanese constitution.
In 2000, Israel did not foresee Nasrallah transforming his militia from defensive to offensive. Perhaps that was why, in 2005, Israel replicated its unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon by conceding Palestinian territories, even without prior agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Mahmud Abbas.
Israel dismantled settlements, pulled out 10,000 Israelis, and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip entirely and the northern part of the West Bank, around Jenin and Tulkarem.
Withdrawal was expected to boost the popularity of the PA, but its corruption and incompetence cost it the legislative election that Hamas won in 2006. By June 2007, Hamas had violently ejected the PA from Gaza. Palestinians now had two governments.
In the West Bank, under PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the economy grew and security improved. Fayyad’s competence, however, deprived Abbas and his cronies of their public money spoils.
In 2013, Abbas ejected Fayyad, causing a backslide in the economy and security. Hamas started recruiting in Jenin, from where the terrorist group organized attacks — such as shootings, ramming cars, and knifings — against Israelis. The Israeli military was forced to operate in the West Bank, thus compounding Palestinian misery. When Abbas visited Jenin in July 2023, Palestinians chased him away.
Since October 2023, Israel has had to go into most of Gaza and intensified its incursions into the West Bank. Israel has also had to fight against Hezbollah to restore normalcy to its north.
Thirty-one years after Israel started experimenting with coordinated withdrawals with Palestinian leaders, 24 years after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon, 19 years after it left Gaza and Jenin, and only one year after Jerusalem signed on to a US-sponsored maritime border demarcation deal with Beirut, none of the deals or unilateral withdrawals brought Israel peace.
For its concessions, Israel got a Hamas massacre of 1,200 of its citizens on October 7, the biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. Then, on October 8, Israel found itself facing Hezbollah attacks that have depopulated its north.
And despite all of this, UN Secretary-General Guterres believes the end of Palestinian and Lebanese violence against Israel will only result from more Israeli withdrawals, as if three decades of Israeli concessions have not proven the futility of compromising — and that Jews, Israelis, and foreign citizens will die as a result.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD). Follow him on X @hahussain.
The post Israel Complied with UN Resolutions; Peace Never Came first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Actor Wallace Shawn Calls Israel ‘Demonically Evil,’ in ‘Some Ways Worse’ Than Nazis for Gaza War
Actor Wallace Shawn speaks about Israel to Jewish groups gathered at Columbus Circle on the first night of Hanukkah during an action dubbed “Hanukkah for Ceasefire” on Dec. 7, 2023 in New York City. Photo: Photo by Michael Nigro/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Jewish actor Wallace Shawn, who is most famous for his roles in “Clueless,” the “Toy Story” franchise, and “The Princess Bride,” compared Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war to the war crimes committed by Nazis against Jews during World War II.
The New York-born actor and playwright, 81, said during an appearance on the podcast “The Katie Halper Show” on Monday that Israel is “doing evil just as great as what the Nazis did.”
“The Israelis invaded someone else’s territory. They took people’s homes and they did many of the things that the Nazis did to the Jews,” he claimed while speaking to Halper, a Jewish comedian and author. “And now they’re really doing it. You can’t be more evil than what they’re doing.”
“And in some ways it’s worse, because they kind of boast about it,” Shawn added. “Hitler had the decency to try to keep it secret. For some reason, Hitler didn’t want people to know he was doing these things to the Jews. The Israelis are almost proud of it, and it’s demonically evil. You can’t be more evil. And anybody who doesn’t recognize that it’s evil, I can’t properly communicate with that person. That might be temporary insanity.”
The “Young Sheldon” star has been a longtime critic of Israel and its military actions in Gaza during the war against Hamas terrorists controlling the enclave who orchestrated the deadly terrorist attack across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. After the massacre, he signed a letter from Artists4Ceasefire calling on former US President Joe Biden to push for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas to end the war.
Shawn has repeatedly criticized US support for the Jewish state during the Israel-Hamas war. He accused Israel of “brutal occupation,” and of “massacring innocent people” and inflicting “deliberate cruelties” on Palestinians in Gaza. He has participated in rallies and events organized by the anti-Israel groups If Not Now and Jewish Voice for Peace, and is also a member of JVP’s advisory board.
During his appearance on Halper’s podcast, Shawn also accused Israel of “starving people, preventing children from getting medicine on purpose, and bombing hospitals” in Gaza. “If you don’t see that it’s evil to do those things to other human beings, then you’re in a different universe for me,” he argued
He additionally said, “I can imagine that some Israelis who are today in support of what their country is doing in Gaza or in the West Bank, even some of them might in 10 years wake up and say, ‘Why did I justify that?’ … Of course, [Israelis] must consciously or unconsciously know that every single day they are making the hatred increase. And the hatred level is something we can’t imagine.”
The post Jewish Actor Wallace Shawn Calls Israel ‘Demonically Evil,’ in ‘Some Ways Worse’ Than Nazis for Gaza War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Denies US-Israel Plan to Strike Iran, Calls for ‘Nuclear Peace Agreement’ While Reviving ‘Maximum Pressure’
US President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room at the White House in Washington, US, Feb. 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday denied that the United States and Israel are planning to carry out a military strike on Iran, saying he instead wants to reach a “nuclear peace agreement” with Tehran as Iranian officials suggested differences over the Islamist regime’s nuclear program could be resolved.
“I want Iran to be a great and successful Country, but one that cannot have a Nuclear Weapon. Reports that the United States, working in conjunction with Israel, is going to blow Iran into smithereens, ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
It was unclear to which reports Trump was referring. In recent weeks, many analysts have raised questions over whether Trump would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which both Washington and Jerusalem fear are meant to ultimately develop nuclear weapons.
“I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper,” he continued. “We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!”
Trump’s social media post came one day after he signed a presidential memorandum restoring his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that includes efforts to drive its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As he signed the memo, Trump expressed a willingness to talk to the Iranian leader but added Tehran was “too close” to a nuclear weapon and “cannot” have one.
Later on Tuesday, Trump said that he would “love” to make a deal with Iran to improve bilateral relations — but added that the regime should not develop a nuclear bomb.
“I say this to Iran, who’s listening very intently, ‘I would love to be able to make a great deal. A deal where you can get on with your lives,’” Trump told reporters in Washington, DC. “They cannot have one thing. They cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if I think that they will have a nuclear weapon … I think that’s going to be very unfortunate for them.”
Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported in December that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level, at its Fordow site dug into a mountain.
The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
During his first term in the White House from 2017-2021, Trump pulled out of a 2015 agreement negotiated between Iran, the US under the Obama administration, and several world powers which placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions. The Trump administration also reimposed harsh sanctions on Iran, with the goal of imposing “maximum pressure” on the Islamist regime in Tehran, which US intelligence agencies have long considered the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday that the reimposition of a policy of heavy pressure against Iran will end in “failure” as it did during Trump’s first presidential term.
“I believe that maximum pressure is a failed experiment and trying it again will turn into another failure,” Araghchi told reporters.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed that point in a televised ceremony, downplaying the impact of sanctions on Iran.
“America threatens new sanctions, but Iran is a powerful and resource-rich country that can navigate challenges by managing its resources,” Pezeshkian said.
Meanwhile, Araghchi again claimed that Tehran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.
“If the main concern is that Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons, this is achievable and not a complicated issue,” he added. “Iran’s position is clear: it is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Supreme Leader’s fatwa has already clarified our stance [against weapons of mass destruction].”
Iran’s nuclear agency chief Mohammad Eslami similarly insisted that his country remains committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying, “Iran does not have, and will not have, a nuclear weapons program.”
However, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading coalition of Iranian dissident groups, revealed recently that the regime has covertly accelerated activities to construct nuclear weapons, including by ramping up efforts to construct nuclear warheads for solid-fuel missiles at two sites.
While it’s unclear whether Trump will be able to renegotiate a new nuclear deal, Iranian officials have expressed a willingness to engage in diplomacy.
“The clerical establishment’s will is to give diplomacy with Trump another chance, but Tehran is deeply concerned about Israel’s sabotage,” a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Wednesday. The official added that Iran wanted the US to “rein in Israel if Washington is seeking a deal” with the Islamic Republic.
Iranian officials, including top leaders, routinely declare their intention to destroy Israel. In recent months, however, the Israeli military has decimated two of Iran’s top terrorist proxies in the Middle East — Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — and greatly compromised Iran’s air defenses in a military operation last year. Analysts have speculated that Iran’s current vulnerable position would make now an ideal time to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The post Trump Denies US-Israel Plan to Strike Iran, Calls for ‘Nuclear Peace Agreement’ While Reviving ‘Maximum Pressure’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Oberlin College Course Uses Antisemitism as Sword and Shield
A memorial erected at Oberlin college by Oberlin Students for a Free Palestine. Photo: Oberlin Students for a Free Palestine / Facebook.
A description of a course beginning this week at Oberlin College, my alma mater, reads: “Popular conceptions of the relationship between Jews and power tend either to adopt (in the case of sympathetic accounts) a view of Jews as perennial victims or (in the case of hostile/antisemitic accounts) a view of Jews as overly or preternaturally powerful. This course attempts to complicate that bipolar framework by exploring a more diverse range of encounters between Jews and power from antiquity to the present.”
There’s nothing problematic about a take-down of the view that Jews are “overly or preternaturally powerful,” a trope popularized by the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The problem is with the other half of the course, which purports to “complicate” the “sympathetic account” of Jews “as perennial victims.”
It’s sadly become a generally accepted fact that antisemitism in the US has been making troubling inroads on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. On the right, antisemites are, at least, open, honest, unabashed — or even, at times — proud. This type of antisemitism is easy to spot and to diagnose.
The antisemitism encroaching from the left is more clever. It hides in plain sight, disguising itself frequently as pro-Palestinian or human rights activism. Other times, left-wing antisemitism poses virtuously as opposition to the antisemites of the right.
For example, the film Israelism complains, “American Jewish organizations have spent the last decade pouring millions of dollars into smearing and marginalizing human rights advocates … trying to brand Palestinian protest as antisemitic when there were neo-Nazis trying to kill us in our synagogues!” according to a review from StandWithUs. (Notably, the film was screened at Oberlin in November 2023, just a month and a half after the October 7 attack in which 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas.)
This attempt to promote the left-wing brand of antisemitism, even while using a critique of a different form of antisemitism as a shield, is what we see in the course.
The assertion that Jews, or those who “sympathize” with Jews, claim perennial victimhood in order to further malevolent ends forms the basis of a great deal of antisemitism; the “victimhood” canard is a straw man set up to demonize Jews. (For one example, see here.) Yet that is the very same assertion that is being made in the course description itself.
The Oberlin administration claims the course is designed to oppose antisemitism. That is partially correct, but it also serves to operate as a smokescreen. To understand this requires an acknowledgement that antisemitism can take different forms, and that antisemites of different stripes can at times come together (as when David Duke called Ilhan Omar “the most important Member of the US Congress”), and can at other times operate in opposition to each other, depending on what best suits their needs.
The pretense of opposing antisemitism, but only opposing antisemitism from the right, can serve to bolster the credentials of those who themselves promulgate a different flavor of antisemitism.
Even as the course, according to its description, knocks down one antisemitic trope, it promotes a different one: that Jews fallaciously claim victimhood for political gain.
Since the time when Oberlin made news because of a professor who, among other things, blamed Israel for the September 11 attack on the US, the new Oberlin administration, led by President Carmen Twillie Ambar, seemed to have made strides in combating antisemitism.
With a few of worst actors having departed the campus under various circumstances, President Ambar issued a decent statement regarding the October 7 attack on Israel, and recently blocked a terror-supporting speaker that a student group had attempted to bring to the campus. In the Spring of 2024, when antisemitic campus protests rocked the country, the protests at Oberlin were, in comparison, mild, and Oberlin stayed out of the news. But now, the Oberlin administration’s vision seems once again to be occluded when it comes to left-wing antisemitism, and this latest course offering threatens to bring the school back to an earlier era.
Karen Bekker is the Assistant Director in the Media Response Team at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.
The post Oberlin College Course Uses Antisemitism as Sword and Shield first appeared on Algemeiner.com.