RSS
Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem leads prayers during funeral of Hezbollah senior leader Ibrahim Aqil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Beirut, Lebanon, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
There were reasons for Israel to have accepted an American-authored “ceasefire” agreement with Hezbollah.
First, Iran is Israel’s chief security priority, not Hezbollah. In addition, Israel has been fighting the longest war of its modern existence, and its forces are being stretched. During that war, Hezbollah has been helping Hamas by diverting Israel’s military capability and attention; this ceasefire will allow Israel to put the focus of its deployment back on Gaza.
And not to be underestimated is the US “soft embargo” on weapons to Israel. There are rumors that the Biden administration has said that it will ensure deliveries on time if Israel agrees to the Lebanon plan. It would not be in Israel’s interest to further aggravate the outgoing administration.
There were also reasons for Israel to reject the current incarnation of a “ceasefire,” beginning with the way the signatories are positioned. Israel and the US have an agreement; the US and Lebanon have a separate one, although the language is the same; and there is an “authorized” non-Hezbollah representative as a third party.
The US tried the same fiction during the “Maritime Border Agreement” talks — separate US-Israel and US-Lebanon agreements, and a nod from Hezbollah. It failed when Hezbollah decided to break it.
Hezbollah had control not only of territory in the south, in which it had buried its arsenal, but also of the government in Beirut. Its control of territory is — happily — diminished, but it retains its place in Beirut. There is no assurance that Hezbollah will do other than what it chooses to do, and no assurance that the “Government of Lebanon” can operate independently.
According to the agreement, “both nations” — meaning Lebanon and Israel — retain their “inherent right of self-defense.” The kindest way to look at Lebanon is to say that it is occupied by Hezbollah, in which case, it has no ability to defend itself and requires rescue from its occupier. Neither the UN nor the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have that capability. Israel might, but only if the international community agrees that Hezbollah has to go. No such policy has been articulated.
Moving through the terms, they are precisely those of the failed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006. Reports say that both Israel and Lebanon simply “reaffirmed” their commitment to the resolution. Hezbollah, it seems, simply reaffirmed its commitment to a “ceasefire.” Under the terms of 1701, the LAF was charged with enforcing conditions including, “Any other armed groups will be disarmed, and unauthorized military facilities or weapons caches will be dismantled.”
The LAF failed to do this in 2006, and there is no reason to believe it will succeed in 2024. Although it has received millions of US dollars, the US has had no influence on the political leaning of LAF commanders and troops.
Next, Israel has 60 days in which to operate in southern Lebanon and then gradually withdraw to the Blue Line (the UN-demarcated Lebanon-Israel border). Hezbollah has been tunneling and accumulating weapons inside civilian infrastructure — houses, mosques, schools — for 28 years. What if the job isn’t done in 60 days?
Hezbollah can wait 60 days, regroup its commanders and forces in Beirut, and then plan for its future. There is no international penalty on Hezbollah for its terrorist behavior or its violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for abusing the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon.
An “Oversight Committee” will “oversee” compliance. That was, in fact, the job of UNIFIL — which not only failed, but operated in conjunction with Hezbollah to protect it and enhance its capabilities. Now the Oversight Committee will report violations of the new agreement to — wait for it — UNIFIL.
And finally, the US will facilitate indirect talks between Israel and Lebanon to finalize a “mutually agreed-upon land border.” This is obscurantism.
There is already a UN-demarcated land border between Israel and Lebanon, but there is also an unmentioned maritime border — encompassing vast natural gas reserves. This has been a separate but related bone of contention (see Maritime Border Agreement, above).
That covers the main points in the agreement, but what about the fundamental points that are NOT in the agreement?
There is no mention of eliminating, or even extracting a price from Hezbollah — an Iranian-funded proxy organization that has wrecked the once-prosperous nation of Lebanon, and threatens Israel as well as the broader region.
Speaking of the broader region, there is no mention of controlling the Iranian military supply lines that run through Syria and into Lebanon. Is that the responsibility of the LAF? UNIFIL?
The IDF, in conjunction with a deconfliction agreement with Russia, has worked to keep Iranian weapons out of Lebanon. Will that continue? Who says?
There is no mention of a peace agreement, or Lebanese recognition of the State of Israel, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967.
Without those, everything agreed to is temporary and lives at the convenience of organizations and countries uninterested in peace — but very much interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.
A ceasefire is not peace.
Survival is not victory.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Flemish Culture Minister Assembles Expert Committee to Help Tackle Claims of Nazi-Looted Art
Flemish Minister for Welfare and Culture Caroline Gennez pictured during a plenary session of the Flemish Parliament in Brussels, Wednesday 02 April 2025. Photo: BELGA via Reuters Connect
Caroline Gennez — the Flemish minister of welfare and poverty reduction, culture, and equal opportunities — is assembling a group of experts who will develop the framework for a permanent committee that will settle claims related to artwork stolen by Nazis from Jews during the Holocaust.
The six-person expert group will include specialists in law, history, and art history. It will be chaired by Bruno De Wever, a historian and emeritus professor of history specializing in World War II who is also the brother of Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever. The group will focus on establishing a permanent restitution commission to advise on claims.
The move marks the first official step by the Flemish government, which governs the northern region of Belgium, to tackle claims of Nazi-looted art from World War II. “Unlike other occupied countries such as the Netherlands or France, we have remained passive for too long,” Gennez said. “We have to catch up. Art that has been stolen or sold under duress must be returned to its rightful owners.”
The World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO), which addresses the restitution of Jewish property stolen during World War II, welcomed Gennez’s announcement. “This is a long-overdue and meaningful step toward justice for victims of the Holocaust and their families,” said WJRP President Gideon Taylor and WJRO COO Mark Weitzman in a joint statement on Sunday. “We commend Minister Gennez for her leadership and call on Belgium’s federal and regional governments to work together to ensure that looted cultural property is returned, and history is acknowledged. Justice delayed must not be justice denied.”
Roughly 66,000 Jews lived in Belgium before the Holocaust, but the Jewish community in the country now stands at around 29,000, with most Jews living in Brussels and Antwerp, according to the WJRO.
The post Flemish Culture Minister Assembles Expert Committee to Help Tackle Claims of Nazi-Looted Art first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard University Maintains Ties to Terror Proxy Groups, Report Alleges
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University has ties to anti-Zionist nongovernmental organizations and other entities acting as proxy organizations for terrorist groups that warrant scrutiny and reproach, according to a new “preliminary” report published by nonprofit watchdog NGO Monitor.
Titled, “Advocacy NGOs in Academic Frameworks: Harvard University Case Study,” the report presents copious evidence that Harvard’s academic centers, including Harvard Law School, have come under the influence of Al-Haq and Addameer — two groups identified by the Israeli government as agents and propaganda manufacturers for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an internationally designated terrorist organization. The NGOs, the report added, influence research and institutional culture, tilting the ideological balance of the campus toward anti-Zionism.
“The report demonstrates the major contribution from prominent advocacy NGOs to the atmosphere of propaganda and antisemitism at Harvard, particularly through frameworks claiming human rights agendas,” Professor Gerald Steinberg, who authored the report alongside Dr. Adi Schwartz, said in a statement. “The close cooperation between prominent NGOs and Harvard academic programs warrants urgent scrutiny. The blurred lines between scholarship and advocacy threaten academic integrity and risk further inflaming campus tensions.”
He added, “In this context, it is important to highlight the urgent need for transparency regarding funding for the NGOs and these Harvard academic frameworks.”
One academic center named in the report is the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights (FXB), which was until this year formally partnered with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. The center, it explains, farms its research from an interconnected network of anti-Zionist figures and nonprofits, such as Amnesty International. Moreover, it appears to focus less on improving health outcomes than on politics and Gaza, having devoted 40 percent of its public events to the topic.
FXB director Mary T. Bassett, is particularly problematic, the report alleges.
“A review of her publication record reflects the absence of any expertise on health issues in conflict zones, in general, or regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular,” Steinberg and Schwartz write. “She has consistently displayed an anti-Israeli ideological bias, which is distributed widely through the center’s website and the media. For example, a week after [Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of Israel], she published an ‘End-of-year message’ on the FXB website (since deleted), in which she wrote of ‘the potential genocide facing civilians in Gaza.’”
Another academic center, the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC), has cooperated in presenting research to a United Nations commission of inquiry that has been widely accused of antisemitic bias. Additionally, an instructor there once worked as a fellow for Amnesty International, a human rights organization that legal experts and Israeli officials have lambasted for pushing anti-Israel “propaganda” and “antisemitic blood libels.” The academics and clinicians there, stationed both to teach and mentor students, use the classroom to replicate their biases, accoding to NGO Monitor.
“The clinic prides itself on finding jobs for its alumni at a variety of NGOs around the globe,” the report says. “In this sense, the clinic acts as a training framework and ‘feeder’ for the NGRO ideological advocacy network.”
Steinberg and Schwartz’s research comes amid concerns that Harvard University has become a hub for antisemitism and illiberalism that is glossed with a veneer of progressive values.
“Harvard is an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institute, as are numerous others, with students being accepted from all over the World that want to rip our Country apart,” US President Donald Trump said last month, writing on Truth Social. “The place is a Liberal mess, allowing a certain group of crazed lunatics to enter and exit the classroom and spew fake ANGER and HATE [sic]. It is truly horrific. Now, since our filings began, they act like they are all ‘American Apple Pie.’ Harvard is a threat to democracy.”
In April, the university released a long anticipated report on campus antisemitism and along with it an apology from interim president Alan Garber which acknowledged that school officials failed in key ways to address the hatred to which Jewish students were subjected following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
The over 300-page document provides a complete account of antisemitic incidents which transpired on Harvard’s campus in recent years — from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee’s (PSC) endorsement of the Oct. 7 terrorist atrocities to an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Jews as murderers of people of color — and said that one source of the problem is the institution’s past refusal to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups.
“I am sorry for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community. The grave, extensive impact of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel and its aftermath had serious repercussions on campus,” Garber said in the statement that accompanied the report. “Harvard cannot — and will not — abide bigotry. We will continue to provide for the safety and security of all members of our community and safeguard their freedom from harassment. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the university is a place where ideas are welcomed, entertained, and contested in the spirt of seeking truth; where argument proceeds without sacrificing dignity; and where mutual respect is the norm.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard University Maintains Ties to Terror Proxy Groups, Report Alleges first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ritchie Torres Defends John Fetterman, Says Israel Support Cause of Attacks Over Senator’s Mental Health
US Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) gives an interview in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 18, 2024. Photo: Rod Lamkey / CNP/Sipa USA for NY Post via Reuters Connect
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) defended Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) amid an onslaught of attacks regarding the latter’s mental acuity, claiming that the mounting criticism against the US senator stems from his support for Israel.
“I know a hit piece when I see one. The only reason for the coordinated campaign against Senator John Fetterman is his unapologetic pro-Israel politics. Let’s call it what it is,” Torres posted on social media on Friday. “As someone who has struggled with depression my whole adult life, I can tell you that if you truly care about someone’s mental health, leaking hit pieces against them is a strange way of showing it.”
Fetterman, one of the most strident supporters of Israel in the US Congress, has been the subject of a series of articles which have called into question his mental stability. An article published in New York Magazine depicted the senator as moody, irrational, and conspiratorial. Additionally, the article took a series of swipes at Fetterman’s stance on Israel, suggesting that the senator’s vocal advocacy of the Jewish state stems from his supposedly deteriorating mental health. It also portrayed Fetterman as racially biased against Palestinians, claiming that in conversations he compared Gaza civilians to “a carton of sour milk.”
Another article published in Politico called Fetterman “increasingly alone,” noting that “few fellow Democrats have rushed to Fetterman’s defense” following the publication of the bombshell article in New York Magazine. The publication asserted that “private chatter about primary challenges” against Fetterman have started and that some Pennsylvania Democrats are suggesting he step down.
Though Fetterman campaigned as a progressive, he has surprisingly emerged as a staunch ally of Israel in the months following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks across southern Israel. Fetterman has repeatedly condemned anti-Israel voices within his own party in the US Congress, as well as elite universities for tolerating what he has characterized as antisemitic and anti-Israel hate speech on their campuses.
Fetterman’s staunch support of Israel has incensed progressives and sparked an exodus of staffers from his Senate office. Last year, 16 former campaign staffers penned a letter urging the senator to “join the right side of history” by supporting a “ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas. Several of his top communications staffers have fled to join anti-Israel operations such as the Working Families Party or the office of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.
Three Republican senators — Dave McCormick (D-PA), Tom Cotton (R-AK), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — publicly defended Fetterman, arguing that the Pennsylvania lawmaker has been subjected to unfair political hit-pieces.
“It’s time to put politics aside and stop these vicious, personal attacks against Senator Fetterman, his wife, and his health,” McCormick wrote. “While we have many differences, we are both committed to working together to achieve results for the people of Pennsylvania and make their lives better.”
“John Fetterman and I have our differences, but he’s a decent and genuine guy,” he added.
“The radical left is smearing him [Fetterman] with dishonest, vicious attacks because h’’s pro-Israel and they only want reliable anti-Israel politicians. Disgraceful,” Cotton posted on X/Twitter.
“The media ought to lay off Senator Fetterman,” Grassley added.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) also gave a vote of confidence to Fetterman, claiming the Pennsylvania lawmaker is “doing a good job, and he’s a good legislator.”
The post Ritchie Torres Defends John Fetterman, Says Israel Support Cause of Attacks Over Senator’s Mental Health first appeared on Algemeiner.com.