RSS
Netanyahu’s Reckoning?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a cabinet meeting at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem on June 5, 2024. Photo: Gil Cohen-Magen/Pool via REUTERS
JNS.org – As the war in Gaza appears to be winding down and another appears to be winding up on Israel’s northern border, Israeli politics is returning to something like its usual state: angry contention.
For many months, the political divisions that threatened to rip the country to pieces in the year before the Oct. 7 massacre were buried by war. The interregnum appears to be over. The street protests against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government have heated up again, with the issue of a hostage deal added to the usual grievances. Netanyahu’s rival, Benny Gantz, recently quit the War Cabinet and with it the government in a very public spat with the prime minister. A recent Kan News poll showed Netanyahu would lose his Knesset majority by a considerable margin in the next election.
There is, in the end, only one reason for this discord: Netanyahu himself. Those who hate the prime minister—and they are legion—are determined to topple him once again whether through elections or other means.
However, those who have already written Netanyahu’s political obituary should proceed with caution. He is beyond question the most talented and successful Israeli politician of his generation. He commands a fiercely loyal base that will never abandon him. If Israelis emerge from this war feeling like they won something like a victory, it is entirely possible that Netanyahu will survive.
Still, this raises the question of whether Netanyahu should survive. In the interests of full disclosure, I will reveal my bias: I think Netanyahu should have resigned on Oct. 8 for the sake of personal honor, if for no other reason. Certainly, in many other countries with parliamentary systems, Netanyahu and his government could never have survived such a colossal military and intelligence failure.
For example, in 1940, when Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies proved a disaster, his Conservative Party removed him and replaced him with Winston Churchill. There was never a chance that this would happen in Israel, as Netanyahu’s Likud Party has always been fiercely loyal to its leaders. Nonetheless, the issue of personal honor remains.
To resign for such reasons, however, would have demanded something Netanyahu often fiercely resists: Taking responsibility for his failures.
Regarding Oct. 7, Netanyahu is almost alone in his failure to do so. Most other Israeli leaders, including those like Naftali Bennett and others who were not in power when the attack occurred, have already taken their fair share of responsibility. Netanyahu has not.
It is fairly easy to envision Netanyahu’s line of defense, especially in the next elections. He will almost certainly say something like: The Israel Defense Forces and the security establishment boxed me into their failed strategy. The United States wouldn’t let me deal properly with Hamas. Primary responsibility for the disaster rests with the previous Bennett-Lapid government. I am being scapegoated by a biased media and the Biden administration wants to force me out. It’s not my fault.
I think this refusal is sincere. I admit that this is speculation, but I am convinced that Netanyahu genuinely believes that he bears little or no responsibility for the failures of Oct. 7. This is not so much a result of arrogance or narcissism. It is because of how Netanyahu views his opponents.
Much like Richard Nixon, Netanyahu is a brilliant man often undone by the fact that he defines himself entirely by his enemies. Certainly, he has his fair share, and the hatred he arouses in his opponents is often disproportionate and unfair. Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s fervent belief that he is an infinitely aggrieved and persecuted party goes beyond reality. There is an air of paranoia to his worldview.
This is, in some ways, tragic. Because if anything may ultimately undo Netanyahu, I think it will be his failure to take responsibility. Blaming everybody else and stoking up his base’s outrage may save him, but it will be a hollow and cheap victory. It will be, in many ways, very small.
One can defend Netanyahu’s actions, of course. One could say it would have been foolish for a prime minister to resign during Israel’s most serious war in decades. Netanyahu has proven to be a relatively effective war leader. He has stood up to American pressure when it mattered. He remains one of the most skilled political tacticians in the world, and a skilled tactician is what Israel needs right now.
Yet all of this elides the simple truth that if the ship sinks while the captain is asleep in his bunk, it’s still the captain’s fault. The buck has to stop somewhere. In Israel, like it or not, it stops with the prime minister. Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the buck results in a very strange paradox: If Netanyahu is responsible for nothing, then he is simultaneously saying that he is both a strong leader and a helpless figurehead at the mercy of forces that will not allow him even to save the country from disaster.
This may prove to be an effective defense but it is a risky one. It may prompt people to ask: “Since you can’t actually do anything as prime minister, what’s the point in having you as prime minister?”
Should they ask this question, it’s not clear where Israelis may turn. Another Likud figure could replace him as leader and thus as prime minister, but Netanyahu has proven very effective at neutralizing any potential rivals. Gantz currently appears to be leading Netanyahu in most polls. A former prime minister like Bennett could return to power. Israelis may seek out a leader even more right-wing than Netanyahu. Moreover, given that Bennett served as prime minister despite winning less than 10% of the vote, it is theoretically possible that anyone could replace Netanyahu.
One wonders, of course, if any replacement is preferable. For example, would Bennett or Gantz be willing to stand up to Washington when necessary? Would they be willing to defy the world’s opprobrium? Would they be willing to go the distance?
The answer may be “no” to all three. If so, Israel may be well served by retaining Netanyahu for the moment. Nonetheless, it is more or less certain that one thing Netanyahu is not willing to do is take responsibility. Whatever one thinks of him, this is a very serious character flaw, and a leader’s character does matter.
Character, moreover, is fate. Love him or hate him, Netanyahu is something very close to a great man, if only because of his extraordinary longevity. But if, out of his deep sense of grievance, he cannot bring himself to admit to his own failures, he will in some ways undo everything he hoped would be his legacy. This would be a profoundly tragic ending. Nonetheless, it is the ending that any leader who cannot acknowledge the reality of his own power deserves.
The post Netanyahu’s Reckoning? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza
Hamas terrorists carry grenade launchers at the funeral of Marwan Issa, a senior Hamas deputy military commander who was killed in an Israeli airstrike during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
The Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza has warned residents not to cooperate with the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, as the terror group seeks to reassert its grip on the enclave amid mounting international pressure to accept a US-brokered ceasefire.
“It is strictly forbidden to deal with, work for, or provide any form of assistance or cover to the American organization (GHF) or its local or foreign agents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday.
“Legal action will be taken against anyone proven to be involved in cooperation with this organization, including the imposition of the maximum penalties stipulated in the applicable national laws,” the statement warns.
The GHF released a statement in response to Hamas’ warnings, saying the organization has delivered millions of meals “safely and without interference.”
“This statement from the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry confirms what we’ve known all along: Hamas is losing control,” the GHF said.
The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.
The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.
Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.
Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.
According to their reports, the organization has delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.
Hamas’s latest threat comes amid growing international pressure to accept a US-backed ceasefire plan proposed by President Donald Trump, which sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions” to finalize a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel has not confirmed this claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump next week in Washington, DC — his third visit in less than six months — as they work to finalize the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.
“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.
Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.
“I am telling you — there will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a speech Wednesday.
For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages — fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.
While the terrorist group said it is “ready and serious” to reach a deal that would end the war, it has yet to accept this latest proposal.
In a statement, the group said it aims to reach an agreement that “guarantees an end to the aggression, the withdrawal [of Israeli forces], and urgent relief for our people in the Gaza Strip.”
According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war — though it remains unclear how many hostages would be freed.
For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas, while the terror group is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
The post Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest
Police block a street as pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to protest British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to proscribe the “Palestine Action” group in the coming weeks, in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy
British lawmakers voted Wednesday to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, following the group’s recent vandalizing of two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in protest of the government’s support for Israel.
Last month, members of the UK-based anti-Israel group Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, a county west of London, and vandalized two Voyager aircraft used for military transport and refueling — the latest in a series of destructive acts carried out by the organization.
Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.
Under British law, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has the authority to ban an organization if it is believed to commit, promote, or otherwise be involved in acts of terrorism.
Passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 385 to 26 in the lower chamber — the House of Commons — the measure is now set to be reviewed by the upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday.
If approved, the ban would take effect within days, making it a crime to belong to or support Palestine Action and placing the group on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Islamic State under UK law.
Palestine Action, which claims that Britain is an “active participant” in the Gaza conflict due to its military support for Israel, condemned the ban as “an unhinged reaction” and announced plans to challenge it in court — similar to the legal challenges currently being mounted by Hamas.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, belonging to a proscribed group is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison or a fine, while wearing clothing or displaying items supporting such a group can lead to up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the recent attack, in which two of its activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft and used crowbars to inflict additional damage.
According to the group, the red paint — also sprayed across the runway — was meant to symbolize “Palestinian bloodshed.” A Palestine Liberation Organization flag was also left at the scene.
On Thursday, local authorities arrested four members of the group, aged between 22 and 35, who were charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
Palestine Action said this latest attack was carried out as a protest against the planes’ role in supporting what the group called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
At the time of the attack, Cooper condemned the group’s actions, stating that their behavior had grown increasingly aggressive and resulted in millions of pounds in damages.
“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton … is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action,” Cooper said in a written statement.
“The UK’s defense enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk,” she continued.
The post UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.
The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.
“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.
GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.
“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”
The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”
The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.
The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”
The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.
The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.