RSS
Israeli and US Interests on War and Ceasefires Do Not Align
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken disembarks from an aircraft as he arrives in Israel, as the push for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel continues, in Tel Aviv, March 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Despite claims to the contrary, a significant divergence between the security interests of Israel and the United States has developed in recent months.
President Joe Biden and his top aides have spent months relentlessly trying to bring Israel and Hamas to a long-term ceasefire via a hostage release agreement and to push for an “end to the war.” Despite the US’ official position, the motivation for this intense effort is broader than a desire to bring the hostages home. The US wants to bring Israel to a ceasefire because it views Gaza as the key to deescalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel. Washington wants to avert a war that could draw in Hezbollah’s sponsor, Iran, as that conflict could in turn draw the US itself into the fighting.
The White House administration therefore perceives Gaza as the key to regional de-escalation — but that view fails to address Israel’s need to ensure sustained freedom of operation in Gaza to prevent Hamas from regrouping. It also ignores Hezbollah’s massive military-terrorist infrastructure in southern Lebanon and 11-month assault on Israel as well as the alarmingly advanced Iranian nuclear program, which is intended by Tehran to provide a nuclear umbrella to protect the whole of the jihadist Iranian axis.
While the US has played a vital role in coordinating and taking part in defensive operations that have greatly benefited Israel, particularly during the April 14 Iranian missile and UAV attack on Israel, and has played an essential role in supplying Israel with war munitions, it has no desire to be drawn into sustained offensive operations against Iran. It is operating accordingly in line with this strategic agenda.
American efforts are therefore far from fully aligned with Israel’s interests, as they apply a “band-aid” approach that would leave festering threats in place. The ongoing threat from Lebanon would be allowed to continue, and an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza would all but guarantee a Hamas regrouping and a renewed Iranian-backed force build-up in Gaza.
It is perfectly legitimate for close allies to have divergent interests and to manage these disagreements, but some transparency regarding this situation would be beneficial.
For example, CNN reported on September 5, 2024, that a prospective hostage and ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas was 90% completed, citing senior US administration officials. These statements minimized the large gaps that remain between the two sides and the fact that Hamas continues to demand a full Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza.
(This essay will not go into the hostage deal proposals themselves, which warrant a separate analysis).
In the same report, a senior Biden administration official stated, “We still see this deal, this very complex but necessary arrangement, as really the most viable, perhaps the only viable option for saving the lives of the hostages, stopping the war, bringing immediate relief to Gazans, and also making sure we fully account for Israel’s security.”
On September 1, The Washington Post cited a US official as stating, “You can’t keep negotiating this. This process has to be called at some point.”
The US fears that a failure to reach a ceasefire in Gaza will tip the Lebanese arena into full-scale war, which in turn could activate Iran via missile and drone attacks. This series of events could draw the US into the conflict. US bases in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere are vulnerable to attack by Iran and its proxies, and a Middle Eastern war involving the US military is deemed by Washington to be a political negative (whether it is an election year or not).
This concern is likely a primary motivator for US policy in the region, and a significant reason behind American impatience over the stalled talks.
In a reflection of this motivation, American officials have released statements at almost every step of the war in Gaza designed to cast doubt on Israel’s ability to deal with Hamas, as well as Israel’s ability to militarily take on Hezbollah.
For example, US officials were quoted by CNN on June 20 as expressing “serious concerns” that in the event of a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah, the latter could overwhelm Israel’s air defenses in the north. “We assess that at least some Iron Dome batteries will be overwhelmed,” said a senior administration official.
This assessment is largely self-evident and not in serious dispute. There appears to be no purpose to its release to the public by American officials other than the overall goal of pressuring Israel into a Gaza ceasefire.
In May, the IDF announced that it had succeeded in evacuating around a million Palestinians from Rafah. This was despite a major American pressure campaign designed to avert the Rafah operation that included the withholding of American arms shipments to Israel (including 2,000-pound bombs, which affects Israel’s posture against Hezbollah).
On May 12, CNN reported that top American officials “offered stark warnings” against an Israeli invasion of Rafah, predicting that a major ground offensive in the southern Gaza city “would lead to widespread civilian casualties, spark a Hamas insurgency and create a power vacuum the terror group would later seek to fill.”
Going “headlong into Rafah” could have dire consequences, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned prior to the offensive. “Israel’s on the trajectory, potentially, to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left, or, if it leaves, a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy and probably refilled by Hamas,” Blinken told NBC at the time. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan also warned at the time that the Israeli operation would lead to “really significant civilian casualties” while still being unlikely to eliminate Hamas. President Biden issued similar warnings prior to the Rafah operation.
Yet the extreme consequences they warned about failed to materialize due to Israel’s ability to evacuate the Gazan population from Rafah. And in any case, how leaving Hamas intact in Rafah would have solved the concerns raised by the US remains unclear.
The goal behind all these statements appears to have been the same: to create pressure on Israel to enter into a ceasefire, even if that meant leaving Hamas in power in Gaza.
Washington is taking a similar approach to the northern front. On June 28, US defense officials were quoted by Middle East Eye as stating that an Israeli ground offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon could “further ignite Iran’s allies in the region and cement Tehran’s military cooperation with Russia.”
It is, however, possible to argue that the US’ own attempt to contain Iran has emboldened it and the IRGC’s region-wide terror-promoting elements, thereby also boosting Iran’s ally, Russia, which has become deeply dependent on Iranian firepower in its war against Ukraine.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the US has been involved in a series of failed efforts, led by mediator Amos Hochstein, involving talks with the formal Lebanese government (which holds no power whatsoever over Hezbollah). The goal is to create a diplomatic off-ramp for the northern conflict. Yet none of these efforts contain any clear proposed enforcement mechanism of UN Security Resolution 1701, which bans Hezbollah from being militarily active in southern Lebanon.
UN Security Resolution 1701 allegedly came into effect upon the conclusion of the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Yet Hezbollah spent the intervening 18 years turning some 200 southern Lebanese villages into Iranian-backed military-terror bases and building up a firepower arsenal larger than that of most NATO armies. It did this with no pushback from the UN whatsoever and no attempts to enforce the resolution.
For months, American officials have expressed alarm over prospects of full-scale war with Hezbollah and leaked assessments that cast doubt on Israel’s capabilities, similar to American assessments of IDF capabilities in Gaza.
As long ago as January 7, The Washington Post reported that “Israel’s talk of expanding war to Lebanon alarms [the] US.” The report contained references to “an American intelligence assessment” that found that it would be “difficult for Israel to succeed in a war against Hezbollah amid ongoing fighting in Gaza.” The target audience of those reports could well have been the Israeli public itself.
More recently, an American official was quoted by Israeli journalist Barak Ravid as saying that a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah could have “catastrophic and unforeseen consequences,” as Israel would need to shift growing numbers of military units from the Gaza front to the Lebanese border and Hezbollah would continue to bombard northern Israel and keep 60,000 Israelis internally displaced.
While an open discussion about the dangers of a full-scale war against Hezbollah and potentially Iran is welcome, there is little reason to continue to pretend that American and Israeli security interests in the Middle East are identical. The US long ago decided to seek de-escalation as its primary goal. Israelis should think twice before automatically accepting the claim that Washington’s regional agenda and public statements always promote Israel’s own critical security needs.
Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane’s Defense Weekly and JNS.org.A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israeli and US Interests on War and Ceasefires Do Not Align first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Lawmakers Slam Zohran Mamdani Over Pledge to Scrap IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
Two members of the US Congress on Wednesday slammed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani after he pledged to abandon a widely used definition of antisemitism if elected.
Reps. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a joint statement that Mamdani’s plan to scrap the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is “dangerous” and “shameful.” The IHRA definition — adopted by dozens of US states, dozens of countries, and hundreds of governing institutions, including the European Union and United Nations — has been a cornerstone of global efforts to monitor and combat antisemitic hate.
“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Lawler said in his own statement. Gottheimer echoed that concern, arguing that dismantling the definition “sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”
The backlash followed Mamdani’s comments last week to Bloomberg News in which he vowed, if elected, to reverse New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order in June adopting the IHRA standard. Mamdani, a democratic socialist and state assemblymember, argued that the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel and risks chilling free speech.
“I am someone who has supported and support BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel] and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said at the time.
The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
“Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic. And refusing to outright condemn the violent call to ‘globalize the intifada’ — offering only that you’d discourage its use — is indefensible,” Lawler and Gottheimer said in their joint statement, referring to Mamdani’s recent partial backtracking after his initial defense of the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.”
“There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” the lawmakers continued. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
In a statement, the Mamdani campaign confirmed that the candidate would not use the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which major civil rights groups have said is essential for fighting an epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping across the US.
“A Mamdani administration will approach antisemitism in line with the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism — a strategy that emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue,” Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec told the New York Post.
Lawler and Gottheimer’s pushback comes as Congress debates the Antisemitism Awareness Act, legislation that would codify IHRA’s definition into federal law. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have urged lawmakers to back the measure, warning that antisemitic incidents have surged nationwide over the past two years and having a clear definition will better enable law enforcement and others to combat it.
For Mamdani, the controversy over the IHRA definition adds a new flashpoint to a mayoral campaign already drawing national attention.
A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the BDS movement. He has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani especially came under fire during the summer when he initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.
RSS
Jewish Leaders in UK, Canada, Australia Urge Governments to Reconsider Palestinian State Recognition
Women hold up flags during a a pro-Palestinian rally in Hyde Park, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 15, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Lewis Jackson
Jewish umbrella organizations in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have jointly expressed “grave concerns” over their governments’ plans to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next week.
In a joint statement, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Canadian Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs urged their governments to reconsider their intention to recognize a “State of Palestine.”
This month, several Western countries — including France — are expected to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly, marking their latest effort to increase international pressure on Israel over the war in Gaza.
However, Jewish communities in these countries have strongly opposed the move, urging their governments to concentrate diplomatic efforts on securing the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas and dismantling the Palestinian terrorist group’s military and political power.
They also emphasized the need to ensure humanitarian aid reaches civilians in Gaza without being diverted for terrorist operations and that all parties comply with international law.
“We are gravely concerned that our governments’ announced intentions to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN this month are seen by Hamas as a reward for its violence and rejectionism towards Israel, and these announcements have therefore lessened rather than maximized pressure for the hostages’ release and for Hamas to disarm,” the joint statement read.
“Extremists have answered [Hamas’s] call for escalations in global violence by carrying out brutal assaults on Jews — citizens of each of our countries,”” it continued. “For the sake of a better future for Israelis, Palestinians, and the wider Middle East, it is an imperative to avoid serving this agenda.”
Supporters of the recognition argue that this move would actually undermine Hamas’s control, noting that the terrorist group has never supported a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and would likely oppose a Palestinian state since it would have no governing role.
However, Hamas has praised such plans to recognize a Palestinian state as “the fruits of Oct. 7,” citing the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as the reason for increasing Western support.
“The fruits of Oct. 7 are what caused the entire world to open its eyes to the Palestinian issue,” senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.
Israeli officials and opponents of such recognition argue that Hamad’s remarks show these countries are, essentially, rewarding acts of terrorism.
US President Donald Trump has strongly opposed the move, warning that it would hinder Gaza ceasefire negotiations and empower Hamas instead of advancing peace.
During a bilateral meeting on Thursday amid Trump’s state visit to the UK, he was asked about Britain’s plans to recognize a Palestinian state.
“I have a disagreement with the prime minister on that score, one of our few disagreements, actually,” Trump said, referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
For his part, Starmer said he and Trump were aligned on the shared goal of achieving peace in the region.
“We absolutely agree on the need for peace and a road map, because the situation in Gaza is intolerable,” the British leader said.
In their joint statement, Jewish communities in the UK, Canada, and Australia argued that their governments’ plans to recognize a Palestinian state without making Hamas’s disarmament and the release of hostages a precondition would set back, rather than advance, prospects for a genuine two-state peace.
“Our governments are in effect saying that the fulfilment of these requirements post-recognition will be taken on trust and left for some unspecified time in the future,” the statement read. “This is a posture that lacks credibility, borders on recklessness, and sets up Palestinian statehood for failure from the outset.”
“Let it never be forgotten that Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza initiated this war [and] they remain openly committed to the genocidal goal of destroying Israel as a state and expelling or eradicating its Jewish population,” it continued.
Western powers have been negotiating with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on conditions for Gaza governance after Hamas is removed from power, while the PA continues to pledge reforms — a strategy experts say is unlikely to succeed given its lack of credibility and ongoing support for terrorism against Israel.
Jewish leaders have argued that these governments appear to be accepting the PA’s promises of reform at face value, rather than waiting to see if its behavior truly changes.
The PA, which has long been riddled with accusations of corruption, has maintained for years a so-called “pay-for-slay” program, which rewards terrorists and their families for carrying out attacks against Israelis.
Under the policy, the Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund makes official payments to Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, the families of “martyrs”” killed in attacks on Israelis, and injured Palestinian terrorists. Reports estimate that approximately 8 percent of the PA’s budget is allocated to paying stipends to convicted terrorists and their families.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas had announced plans to reform this system earlier this year, but the PA has continued to issue payments.
The Palestinian Authority has been lying to the world for decades.
Once again, they are trying to whitewash the “Pay-for-Slay” policy of payments to terrorists and their families. Instead of paying the “Prisoners” and “Martyrs” through the old method, they are paying through a… https://t.co/IDlSEBqYDn
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) September 17, 2025
The PA has also avoided holding elections for nearly 20 years, largely due to Abbas’s limited support among Palestinians.
According to a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), if an agreement is reached to end the war in Gaza, only 40 percent of Palestinians “support the return of the PA to managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip,” while 56 percent oppose it.
RSS
‘Antisemitism Is Alive and Well’: Swastika Graffiti at Dartmouth College Shakes Jewish Community
Swastika graffitied outside of Jewish student’s dormitory at Dartmouth College. Photo: Screenshot/X.
An unknown person or group graffitied a swastika, the symbol of the Nazi Party, outside the dormitory of a Jewish student at Dartmouth College — at least the second such incident at an elite US college during the early weeks of fall semester.
“This act of bigotry and targeted harassment at a person’s home will not be tolerated on our campus,” Dartmouth president Sian Beilock said in a statement on Wednesday, noting that both the local police force and the college’s own security department are investigating the incident. “Antisemitism has no place at Dartmouth. Acts of bigotry — and all forms of hate — are deeply hurtful and stand in direct opposition to what each of us is working so hard to create at Dartmouth. This is not who we are.”
The graffitiing of a swastika as a method of intimidation and expression of hate on the campus came as a shock to Dartmouth’s Jewish community and stands out for being perpetrated only days before Jews across the US and the world observe Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.
“With Jewish high holidays around the corner, our community feels the impact of this crime even more profoundly,” Ruby Benjamin, a Jewish Dartmouth student and president of the campus Chabad, told The Dartmouth, the college’s official student newspaper. “In a time that should be marked with joy, we are forced to look hatred in the eye. While we are disgusted by yesterday’s events, we are not afraid. Today, as always, we stand together as a strong community.”
Another Jewish student and Hillel International affiliate, Jacob Markman told the paper, “This just shows that antisemitism is alive and well, and that it is something we need to take seriously and address.”
The incident came about a week after an unknown person graffitied antisemitic messages inside the Weinstein residence hall at New York University.
Dartmouth College, located in Hanover, New Hampshire, has seen this kind of incident before.
In April 2023, someone carved a swastika into dirt on The Green of Dartmouth College, a a five- acre, grassy common space at the center of the school’s campus. Three years earlier, in 2020, a former student, Carlos Wilcox, vandalized a public menorah on campus by shooting it with a pellet gun during the 2020 Hanukkah holiday. The 20-year-old Bronx, New York native also shot the windows of several college buildings, causing $1,500 in damage in total. Wilcox, who managed to dodge a hate crime charge and was charged with felony criminal mischief, was expelled from the college and banned from campus.
In April 2022, according to The Dartmouth, he reached an agreement with the prosecutors of Grafton County, where Dartmouth is located, under which the charges against him were dropped in exchange for his paying the college $2,ooo in damages, completing 100 hours of community service, and attending substance abuse counseling. Wilcox was also ordered to meet with Dartmouth Chabad Rabbi Moshe Leib Gray and other members of the campus community.
Throughout the process, he maintained his innocence, claiming that another student, Zachary Wang, shot the menorah and that he only purchased the pellet gun and witnessed the incident.
Dartmouth has also been the site of extreme anti-Zionist activity.
In May, a pro-Hamas group which calls itself the “New Deal Coalition” (NDC) commandeered the anteroom of the Parkhurst Hall administrative building but limited the demonstration to business hours, as its members went home when it was shuttered at 6 pm. Before leaving the building, however, the group contributed to injuries sustained by a member of Beilock’s staff and an officer of the school’s Department of Safety and Security officer, according to The Dartmouth.
During the unauthorized demonstration, the agitators shouted “free, free Palestine,” words shouted only recently by another anti-Israel activist who allegedly murdered two Israeli diplomats outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington DC.
The following day, the group at Dartmouth defended the behavior, arguing that it is a legitimate response to the college’s rejection of a proposal — inspired by the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement — to divest from armaments and aerospace manufacturers which sell to Israel and its recent announcement of a new think tank, the Davidson Institute for Global Security, which it claims is linked to the Jewish state.
“We took this escalated action — one deployed several times in Dartmouth’s history to protest against apartheid — because Dartmouth funded, US-backed Israel has been escalating its genocidal assault on Palestine,” the group wrote. “In an effort to ‘dialogue,’ a group of students, staff, and faculty, and alumni spent months drafting extensively researched 55-page divestment proposal … How did the college respond? They rejected divestment on every single criteria and, the day after, announced that they are reinvesting in colonial genocide with the launch of the Davidson Institute for Global Security.”
The statement concluded with an ambiguous threat.
“So long as you fund actively imperialistic violence, we will continue to hold you accountable,” it said. “There is only one solution! Intifada! Revolution!”
Amid these disturbances, the Dartmouth administration has declined to legitimate the claims of anti-Zionists who demand a boycott of Israel.
A week before the demonstration, Dartmouth College’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility (ACIR) unanimously rejected a proposal imploring the school to adopt the BDS movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
“By a vote of nine to zero, [ACIR] at Dartmouth College finds that the divestment proposal submitted by Dartmouth Divest for Palestine and dated Feb. 18, 2025, does not meet criteria, laid out in the Dartmouth Board of Trustees’ Statement on Investment and Social Responsibility and in ACIR’s charge, that must be satisfied for the proposal to undergo further review,” the committee said in a report explaining its decision. “ACIR recommends not to advance the proposal.”
A copy of the document reviewed by The Algemeiner shows that the committee evaluated the BDS proposal, submitted by the Dartmouth Divest for Palestine (DDP) group, based on five criteria regarding the college’s divestment history, capacity to address controversial issues through discourse and learning, and campus unity. It concluded that DDP “partially” met one of them by demonstrating that Dartmouth has divested from a country or industry in the past to establish its moral credibility on pressing cultural and geopolitical issues but noted that its analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lacks nuance, betraying the group’s “lack of engagement with counter arguments.”
ACIR added that DDP also does not account for the sheer divisiveness of BDS and its potential to “degrade” rather than facilitate “additional dialogue on campus.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.