RSS
Media Legitimize Hamas as Peace Partner Despite October 7 Atrocities
An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
After Hamas terrorists rampaged through southern Israel in a spree of murder and rape on October 7, Israel declared war on a Nazi-like enemy. No one in their right mind has seen it as an opportunity for diplomatic negotiations, let alone peace, with the genocidal terrorist organization.
Yet as time goes by, a disturbing trend of treating Hamas as a legitimate partner has emerged in mainstream media coverage of the conflict.
The line of argument is two-fold: First, these people assert that what Hamas has done shows that the Palestinian issue cannot be ignored. Second, they misrepresent the true character of Hamas.
The conclusion, as seen in The Economist and Foreign Affairs magazines, is an implicit legitimization of evil.
The Economist, in a recent piece titled “Does Hamas want to keep fighting Israel or start talking peace?”, effectively validates what the terror group wanted to achieve on October 7:
When Hamas smashed across the Gaza border on October 7th, killing some 1,200 Israelis and abducting around 250 more, it thrust itself into the very centre of international attention. The issue of Palestinian statehood, which had been forgotten as Arab countries established diplomatic relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords, is once again seen as the key to stability across the region.
It then moves on to the second point: a misrepresentation of what Hamas stands for. By claiming that the terrorist group is divided between so-called “moderates” abroad and “extremists” in Gaza, it creates the absurd impression that peace with the right leadership may be possible:
… it also depends on high-stakes struggles within Hamas: between a radical wing in Gaza and more moderate elements in exile in Qatar and Lebanon; between those aligned closely with Iran and its “axis of resistance” and those wanting closer ties with Arab governments; and crucially over whether to implicitly recognize Israel or to keep fighting to exterminate it. Who wins these arguments will affect whether a peace deal based on a Palestinian state alongside Israel can ever materialize.
Based on that, what follows is a skewed attempt to portray the 1988 Hamas founding charter, a document that calls for the annihilation of Israel, as irrelevant. Why? Because in 2017 the “moderate” former Hamas chief Khaled Meshal pushed for the publication of a revised document that endorsed a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders.
Nowhere does The Economist mention that Meshal himself had made clear that the new document does not replace the original one. The Economist also ignores various expert views who claimed the new document was merely a rhetorical attempt by Hamas to widen its global appeal while continuing with its violent activity.
Instead, the magazine relies on “Hamas people” to give the impression that Yehya Sinwar, the mastermind behind the deadly October 7 attack on Israel and a convicted mass murderer, became “more extreme” after the 2017 document failed to lead to a political settlement with Israel:
Mr Sinwar had signed up to to the new charter, but became more extreme after it failed to lead to a political settlement with Israel, Hamas people say. The attack on October 7th marked the ascendancy of the extremists.
To avoid contradicting the entire premise of the article, The Economist concludes by infantilizing Hamas, saying it would have to stop being “a spoiler of peace” — an apologetic term masking the group’s own description as a glorifier of war.
Good vs. Evil
Similar patterns of whitewashing Hamas appear in a recent Foreign Affairs piece, whose headline calls to “Extend the Cease-Fire in Gaza — but Don’t Stop There.”
Like The Economist, it begins by claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian issue cannot be ignored now. But instead of seeing Israel’s goal of wiping out Hamas as a possible way forward, the writers deduce that the terrorist group (through intermediaries) should eventually be invited to the negotiating table:
… if an extended cease-fire holds, Washington should immediately convene the parties that met in February to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and issued the so-called Aqaba Communique: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the United States, and representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This time, however, Turkey and Qatar—U.S. security partners who maintain open channels to Iran and Hamas—should be invited, as well.
This explanation completely ignores Hamas’ intentions to destroy Israel, as expressed in its founding manifesto. Instead of labeling the terrorist group’s ideology as unacceptable or unrealistic, Foreign Affairs writers choose to describe Israel’s stated goal of “ending Hamas” as unrealistic:
If an extended cease-fire holds, it could pave the way for a resolution to the current war. Any agreement must end Israel’s blockade and functional imprisonment of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It must also deny Hamas the capability to launch attacks on Israel. The Israeli government’s stated goal of “ending Hamas” is understandable in light of the group’s October 7 atrocities, but it is unrealistic. Hamas will endure as a political movement as long as the denial of Palestinian rights endures.
While claiming that “it is hard to imagine that anything good could come of the last two months of horror and bloodshed,” the piece ends with a utopian call for “a sustained diplomatic process” toward “a secure and peaceful future” for both sides.
But the October 7 attack, in which Hamas terrorists slaughtered, mutilated and kidnapped innocent Israeli men, women, and children, should have obliterated any view that legitimizes the terrorist group as a political actor.
Why are respectable media outlets willfully blind to this fact, as well as to Hamas’ unwavering genocidal ideology? Why is wiping Hamas out — like the decision to wipe out the Nazis — not considered a preferable future solution?
The answer, at best, seems to be a misunderstanding of good and evil or, at worst, a tacit acceptance of the latter — especially when it’s targeted against Jews.
The post Media Legitimize Hamas as Peace Partner Despite October 7 Atrocities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Really?
JNS.org – If I asked you to name the most famous line in the Bible, what would you answer? While Shema Yisrael (“Hear O’Israel”) might get many votes, I imagine that the winning line would be “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Some religions refer to it as the Golden Rule, but all would agree that it is fundamental to any moral lifestyle. And it appears this week in our Torah reading, Kedoshim.
This is quite a tall order. Can we be expected to love other people as much as we love ourselves? Surely, this is an idealistic expectation. And yet, the Creator knows us better than we know ourselves. How can His Torah be so unrealistic?
The biblical commentaries offer a variety of explanations. Some, like Rambam (Maimonides), say that the focus should be on our behavior, rather than our feelings. We are expected to try our best or to treat others “as if” we genuinely love them.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in his classic text called the Tanya, argues that the actual feelings of love are, in fact, achievable provided that we focus on a person’s spirituality rather than how they present themselves physically. If we can put the soul over the body, we can do it.
Allow me to share the interpretation of the Ramban (Nachmanides), a 13th-century Torah scholar from Spain. His interpretation of the verses preceding love thy neighbor is classic and powerful, yet simple and straightforward.
“Do not hate your brother in your heart. You shall rebuke him, but do not bear a sin because of him” by embarrassing him in public. “Do not take revenge, and do not bear a grudge against your people. You shall love your fellow as yourself, I am God” (Leviticus 19:17-18).
What is the connection between these verses? Why is revenge and grudge-bearing in the same paragraph as love your fellow as yourself?
A careful reading shows that within these two verses are no less than six biblical commandments. But what is their sequence all about, and what is the connection between them?
The Ramban explains it beautifully, showing how the sequence of verses is deliberate and highlighting the Torah’s profound yet practical advice on how to maintain healthy relationships.
Someone wronged you? Don’t hate him in your heart. Speak to him. Don’t let it fester until it bursts, and makes you bitter and sick.
Instead, talk it out. Confront the person. Of course, do it respectfully. Don’t embarrass anyone in public, so that you don’t bear a sin because of them. But don’t let your hurt eat you up. Communicate!
If you approach the person who wronged you—not with hate in your heart but with respectful reproof—one of two things will happen. Either he or she will apologize and explain their perspective on the matter. Or that it was a misunderstanding and will get sorted out between you. Either way, you will feel happier and healthier.
Then you will not feel the need to take revenge or even to bear a grudge.
Here, says the Ramban, is the connection between these two verses. And if you follow this advice, only then will you be able to observe the commandment to Love Thy Neighbor. If you never tell him why you are upset, another may be completely unaware of his or her wrongdoing, and it will remain as a wound inside you and may never go away.
To sum up: Honest communication is the key to loving people.
Now, tell me the truth. Did you know that not taking revenge is a biblical commandment? In some cultures in Africa, revenge is a mitzvah! I’ve heard radio talk-show hosts invite listeners to share how they took “sweet revenge” on someone, as if it’s some kind of accomplishment.
Furthermore, did you know that bearing a grudge is forbidden by biblical law?
Here in South Africa, people refer to a grudge by its Yiddish name, a faribel. In other countries, people call it a broiges. Whatever the terminology, the Torah states explicitly: “Thou shalt not bear a grudge!” Do not keep a faribel, a broiges or resentment of any kind toward someone you believe wronged you. Talk to that person. Share your feelings honestly. If you do it respectfully and do not demean the other’s dignity, then it can be resolved. Only then will you be able to love your fellow as yourself.
May all our grudges and feelings of resentment toward others be dealt with honestly and respectfully. May all our grudges be resolved as soon as possible. Then we will all be in a much better position to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The post Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Really? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Nonsense’: Huckabee Shoots Down Report Trump to Endorse Palestinian Statehood
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee looks on during the day he visits the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem’s Old City, April 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
i24 News – US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Saturday dismissed as nonsensical the report that President Donald Trump would endorse Palestinian statehood during his tour to the Persian Gulf this week.
“This report is nonsense,” Huckabee harrumphed on his X account, blasting the Jerusalem Post as needing better sourced reporting. “Israel doesn’t have a better friend than the president of the United States.”
Trump is set to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The leader’s first trip overseas since he took office comes as Trump seeks the Gulf countries’ support in regional conflicts, including the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and curbing Iran’s advancing nuclear program.
However, reports citing administration insiders claimed that Trump has also set his sights on the ambitious goal of expanding the Abraham Accords. These agreements, initially signed in 2020, normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The accords are widely held to be among the most important achievements of the first Trump administration.
The post ‘Nonsense’: Huckabee Shoots Down Report Trump to Endorse Palestinian Statehood first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US to Put Military Option Back on Table If No Immediate Progress in Iran Talks
US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy-designate Steve Witkoff gives a speech at the inaugural parade inside Capital One Arena on the inauguration day of Trump’s second presidential term, in Washington, DC, Jan. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
i24 News – Unless significant progress is registered in Sunday’s round of nuclear talks with Iran, the US will consider putting the military option back on the table, sources close to US envoy Steve Witkoff told i24NEWS.
American and Iranian representatives voiced optimism after the previous talks that took place in Oman and Rome, saying there was a friendly atmosphere despite the two countries’ decades of enmity.
However the two sides are not believed to have thrashed out the all-important technical details, and basic questions remain.
The source has also underscored the significance of the administration’s choice of Michael Anton, the State Department’s policy planning director, as the lead representative in the nuclear talks’ technical phases.
Anton is “an Iran expert and someone who knows how to cut a deal with Iran,” the source said, saying that the choice reflected Trump’s desire to secure the deal.
The post US to Put Military Option Back on Table If No Immediate Progress in Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login