RSS
JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Is a Glass Half-Full
Former President Donald Trump has selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2024 election. Much has been written about Senator Vance’s foreign policy positions — the “good” and the “bad;” however, as Hamlet said, “there is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
To reduce the complexity inherent in foreign policy decisions to a binary choice between good or bad tends to be intellectually lazy and politically expedient. Further, it is almost always more reflective of the judge rather than the judged.
For instance, Senator Vance has been highly critical of US support for Ukraine’s war against Russia. In fact, he said, “I don’t care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” Whether that was said with shock value in mind, or he really doesn’t care that Ukraine could fall to Putin is up for debate. But, are we to believe that such a statement accurately or fairly encapsulates what he thinks about Ukraine’s war with Russia?
Rhetoric aside, his foreign policy positions are likely to propel expanding Israel-Europe relations in a steeper direction.
Vance is a notably proud supporter of Israel, and his public statements about Israel are the antithesis of those he makes about Ukraine. He called Israel, “one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world” and “[t]he idea that there is ever going to be an American foreign policy that doesn’t care a lot about that slice of the world is preposterous because of who Americans are.” Vance is also on record fully supporting Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza until Hamas is dismantled and no longer presents a military threat.
So, what are we to make of Vance? He does not seem to fit squarely in the isolationist camp. His positions have been informed by his military experience fighting in Iraq, and he understands foreign policy to the extent that he lived the consequences of previous US foreign policy decisions. Even on Ukraine, he’s not completely isolationist.
Vance falls in an ascending category of foreign policy thinkers, called conservative realists, a term coined by Elbridge Colby, himself a highly regarded “conservative realist.” In fact, conservative realism helps explain the essential nature of the developing triad between Israel, Europe, and the US, and Vance articulates this quite well.
At the February Munich Conference, Vance said, “[w]e need Europe to play a bigger share of the security role, and that’s not because we don’t care about Europe … it’s because we have to recognize that we live in a world of scarcity,” insinuating that Europe can no longer hold onto “the idea of the American superpower that can do everything all at once.”
In other words, his position on Ukraine could be a function of his belief that Europe must take more responsibility for protecting itself from external threats, because the United States no longer possesses the financial, military, operational, or political resources to allocate towards Europe’s security.
On the other hand, Vance views Israel differently than Ukraine, and considers the US-Israel alliance as the model for a US-Europe alliance. He sums it up by saying, “[w]e have to sort of ask ourselves, what do we want out of our Israeli allies? And more importantly, what do we want out of all of our allies writ large? Do we want clients who depend on us, who can’t do anything without us? Or do we want real allies who can actually advance their interests on their own with America playing a leadership role?”
According to Vance, Israel is relatively self-sufficient, unlike present Europe, where most countries have failed to meet their obligatory 2% of GDP threshold for defense spending. While Europe, writ large, is barely spending enough on its defensive capabilities, Israel is advancing new technologies like the Iron Beam, a laser defensive system that, according to Vance, is “a very important national security objective, and of the United States of America.”
He hasn’t commented on whether he believes that Israel should keep receiving the same level of funding it does from the United States, or if he believes Israel should spend more of its own money on its defenses. However, past may be prologue: Vance criticized the Biden administration for withholding precision munitions to Israel, and Israel already spends more than 7% of GDP on defense spending.
Moreover, the annual $3.8B in military funding the US provides Israel is a pittance compared to the $175B in funding provided to Ukraine in just two years (although this aid includes more than military aid). Additionally, the US did approve another $8.7 billion to Israel from a supplemental act in April 2024.
If we are to read between the lines, Vance considers the Return on Investment from Israel to be significantly more than from Ukraine and would seem inclined to support continued aid to Israel.
Vance is a glass half-full. In other words, while there are aspects of conservative realism that may be concerning, those concerns must be weighed against the potential benefits. Long-term, the benefits to Europe and Israel are likely to be significant.
Europe will be forced to pursue opportunities to enhance their defense, security, and technological capabilities if these countries hope to withstand threats coming from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — the “Quartet of Death,” as the British refer to them. This pivot clearly augurs for increased Israel-Europe alignment.
In fact, 21 European countries have joined the European Sky Shield Initiative, a coalition to create a pan European air defense system, all of which is dependent on the inclusion of Israeli technology. Germany has the Arrow 3. Finland acquired David’s Sling, and the Baltic States want to acquire Iron Dome, and these steps are in addition to the robust defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, and other forms of technological advancements taking place between Israel and Europe.
What’s more, as a proponent of the Abraham Accords, Vance’s promotion of them would strengthen the relationships between Europe and Abraham Accords’ countries, thereby offering Europe potential friend-shoring advantages it presently does not possess.
There are still almost four months to go before the US presidential elections, so how this plays out no one knows. However, current trends indicate we will likely see European leaders maneuvering their countries into positions that benefit Israel and the Israel-Europe relationship sooner than later.
David F. Siegel is the President of ELNET-US. With offices across Europe and Israel, ELNET has emerged as the most influential and impactful pro-Israel advocacy organization in Europe.
The post JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Is a Glass Half-Full first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 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 school 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.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.