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
Anti-Israel Rioters Attack Israeli Cruise Ship, Prevent Tourists From Disembarking in Greece
Greek riot police clash with pro-Palestinian protesters near the port of Rhodes during a demonstration targeting an Israeli cruise ship. Photo: Screenshot
Anti-Israel rioters on the Greek island of Crete have attacked an Israeli cruise ship, preventing tourists from disembarking in the latest incident targeting Israeli visitors in Greece.
The MS Crown Iris — operated by Israeli cruise line Mano Maritime — was targeted once again by pro-Palestinian activists this week.
On Thursday, Israeli tourists were physically assaulted and temporarily blocked from disembarking in Crete by about 25 protesters gathered at the island’s main port to demonstrate against the war in Gaza.
The rioters, waving Palestinian flags and holding banners falsely accusing Israel of genocide, clashed violently with police who were trying to secure a safe passage for the Israeli tourists.
As Israeli tourists tried to disembark, they were attacked by the demonstrators, who threw rocks and metal bars, forcing many to retreat back onto the ship.
After those who first tried to leave the ship were physically assaulted, police advised everyone to return onboard, as protesters appeared to be blocking all exits from the port.
The port then closed its gates, and all passengers returned to the ship while authorities worked to regain control of the situation.
Greek riot police intervened, using pepper spray to disperse the crowd and detaining four protesters, but some passengers were still injured during the incident.
This latest attack marks the third incident in a month in which anti-Israel protesters have targeted Israeli tourists and attempted to boycott the Mano Maritime cruise line.
Greece’s Minister of Citizen Protection, Michalis Chrysochoidis, condemned these targeted attacks, vowing that anyone who tries to prevent a foreign national from legally entering the country will “face prosecution, arrest, and then criminal proceedings under the anti-racism law.”
Las month, approximately 1,600 Israeli passengers expecting a peaceful stop on their cruise were unable to disembark from a ship docked on the island of Syros after a pro-Palestinian protest erupted at the port, raising safety concerns.
Around 300 demonstrators had gathered at the dock to protest against the war in Gaza, while Syros Port Authority police guarded the area and intervened to prevent violence until the ship departed.
Amid the large anti-Israel protest, the cruise company chose to divert the ship to Limassol, Cyprus.
In videos circulating on social media, protesters were seen waving Palestinian flags and holding banners with slogans such as “Stop the Genocide” and “No AC [Air Conditioning] in Hell,” while chanting antisemitic slogans.
In a similar incident, pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with Greek riot police on the island of Rhodes as they attempted to block a Mano Maritime cruise ship from docking at the island’s main port.
More than 600 passengers were set to disembark when tensions escalated and brief clashes broke out as authorities worked to control the protest.
According to videos circulating on social media, riot police can be seen confronting a group of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the dock, who shouted slogans such as “Freedom for Palestine.”
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have surged to alarming levels across Europe.
These incidents appear to be the latest in an increasing wave of anti-Jewish hate crimes that Greece and other countries have experienced in recent months.
On Friday, a group of Israeli tourists from London were thrown out of a Greek taverna and called “baby killers” after a dispute with the pro-Palestinian restaurant owner.
Last month in Athens, a group of pro-Palestinian activists vandalized an Israeli restaurant, shouting antisemitic slurs and spray-painting graffiti with slogans such as “No Zionist is safe here.”
The attackers also posted a sign on one of the restaurant’s windows that read, “All IDF soldiers are war criminals — we don’t want you here,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
In June, an Israeli tourist was attacked by a group of anti-Israel activists after they overheard him using Google Maps in Hebrew while navigating through Athens.
When the attackers realized the victim was speaking Hebrew, they began physically assaulting him while shouting antisemitic slurs.
RSS
‘Nothing Less’: Trump Presses for $500 Million Settlement With Harvard University
US President Donald Trump gestures during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Aug. 26, 2025. Photo: Jonathan Ernst via Reuters Connect
US President Donald Trump has said that Harvard University must pay a minimum $500 million penalty as part of a settlement to restore $3 billion in federal contracts and research grants his administration impounded from the school’s coffers earlier this year.
Trump insisted on “nothing less” in remarks to Education Secretary Linda McMahon during a cabinet meeting held on Tuesday. “They’ve been very bad. Don’t negotiate,” he added.
The comments came just two and a half months after McMahon, representing the Trump administration, hinted at the possibility of reaching a deal with Harvard and unfreezing the federal funds. Speaking to Bloomberg, the education secretary said that Harvard was “making progress” and “already put in place some of the things that we have talked about in our negotiations with Columbia” University, which included some wish-list reforms for which conservatives have spent decades advocating.
At the time, Harvard had filed suit against the administration, seeking a summary judgement which ruled that the funds confiscation was arbitrary and skipped key steps the government must take before taking such an action. The New York Times reported that Harvard expressed interest in paying $500 million to settle the matter, and university officials had begun dismantling initiatives and making other changes to reverse an impression that the institution is doctrinally far left and anti-Zionist.
In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Harvard Crimson, even suggested that Harvard is willing to found a “new conservative research institute.”
However, Harvard university’s president, Alan Garber, deluged by inquiries from Harvard faculty outraged at the prospect of settling with the Trump administration, later proclaimed that the Times had reported fake news and that he intended to continue on fighting the government in court.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Harvard Crimson reported, noting that the Times had defended the veracity of its report. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
The conflicting headlines highlighted the competing objectives Garber is being forced to choose between — rescuing Harvard from a perilous fiscal situation or placating its left-leaning faculty, 94 percent of whom donated to Democratic candidates in 2024, as reported by the Crimson.
In July, a Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed that 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration and 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering DEI programs. Additionally, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking institutional recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
At the same time, Harvard will see annual budget shortfalls of $1 billion if the if the Trump confiscations remain in effect, according to the Wall Street Journal, a loss the university is offsetting by enacting “contingency preparations” predicated on amassing $1 billion in debt with help from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Analysts have told The Algemeiner that Harvard’s immense wealth, powered by a $53 billion endowment valued higher than the gross domestic product of countries such the Kingdom of Bahrain and Bolivia, can sustain its borrowing in the short term but not in perpetuity.
“If Harvard is willing to mortgage its real estate or use it as collateral, it can borrow money for a very long time,” National Association of Scholars president Peter Wood told The Algemeiner in April. “But it could destroy itself that way.”
On Friday, Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East expert and president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), said Harvard should make a deal, arguing that would be in the interest of both the school and the country.
“Universities have begun to rapidly adapt to the new realities. One change being made by universities is increased hiring of Title VI coordinators to handle civil rights complaints,” he said. “Beyond the cosmetic, the US desperately needs to reevaluate what a university is and what it is for. Five decades of universities striving for relevance has had the effect of politicizing the humanities and social sciences.”
He continued, “As faculties have become politically monolithic, students interested in exploring traditions and themselves have been alienated, causing a feedback loop of shrinking disciplines and intensifying politics.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, and Others Join Gaza Film as Executive Producers Before Venice Premiere
Brad Pitt attends the “F1: The Movie” European premiere in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska
Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, and other high-profile figures in the Hollywood film industry have joined the Gaza-based drama “The Voice of Hind Rajab” as executive producers ahead of its world premiere at the 82nd Venice International Film Festival, Deadline reported.
“The Zone of Interest” director Jonathan Glazer is also joining the film as an executive producer as well as “Roma” director Alfonso Cuaron. Meanwhile, Dede Garner and Jeremy Kleiner from Pitt’s production company Plan B. Britain’s Film4 and the Saudi Arabian state-owned MBC Studio are also supporting the film, according to Deadline.
Written and directed by Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania, “The Voice of Hind Rajab” focuses on the real-life death of six-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, who was trapped in a car that had allegedly come under fire by Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip in January 2024 and later found dead. Israel claimed its military troops were not in the area at the time. The movie is based on real audio recordings of Rajab’s calls to Red Cresent volunteers, who tried to keep her on the line and get an ambulance to help her. Her death sparked global outrage including at Columbia University, where anti-Israel students broke into the academic building Hamilton Hall and symbolically renamed it as Hind’s Hall in April 2024.
“The Voice of Hind Rajab” will premiere at the Venice Film Festival on Sept. 3 before making its North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival.
“I cannot accept a world where a child calls for help and no one comes,” Ben Hania said in a released statement. “That pain, that failure, belongs to all of us. This story is not just about Gaza. It speaks to a universal grief. And I believe that fiction (especially when it draws from verified, painful, real events) is cinema’s most powerful tool. More powerful than the noise of breaking news or the forgetfulness of scrolling. Cinema can preserve a memory … May Hind Rajab’s voice be heard.”
Ben Hania’s film “Four Daughters” was nominated for an Oscar last year and her previous project, “The Man Who Sold His Skin,” was selected as the Tunisian entry for best international feature film at the Academy Awards in 2021.
The 82nd Venice Film Festival opened on Wednesday, almost six weeks to the second anniversary of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7 2023, that resulted in the murder of 1,200 people while 251 were taken as hostages back to Gaza. The festival ends Sept. 6.
Hundreds of Italian and international artists signed an open letter calling on the Venice Film Festival to condemn what they claim is Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Israel has adamantly denied the charge, noting it’s targeting a terrorist group in Gaza that tries to embed itself among the civilian population to create more casualties.