RSS
Our Own Worst Enemies
PA President Mahmoud Abbas gestures during a meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank August 18, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman/Pool
JNS.org – It’s bad enough that we have real enemies who are attacking Israel; the last thing we need is “friends” who, perhaps with the best of intentions, are undermining Israel’s case in the United States. One example is an organization I have never heard of, the A-Mark Foundation, which erroneously believes “clear, concise and unbiased information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to find.” Maybe, if you don’t bother to look. My publication, Myths and Facts, has only been around for 60-odd years (originally published by the founder of AIPAC), and the legacy Jewish organizations have produced plenty of material. My first impulse was to think, “Let a thousand flowers bloom,” but then I saw that the material is based on the work of UCLA professor Dov Waxman, a frequent critic of mainstream American Jewry and one of the signers of an anti-Israel screed published before Oct. 7 (another was Harvard University professor Derek Penslar, who Harvard naturally put on its antisemitism task force).
If the material A-Mark published, based on Waxman’s book, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know, is any indication of his scholarship, students at UCLA are in trouble, as are any readers of the A-Mark answers to the “10 Common Questions About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Waxman exemplifies the worst of woke academia, where facts don’t matter as much as narratives, and their truthfulness or speciousness is irrelevant because everyone’s narrative is their truth. He says both sides dismiss the others’ narratives as myths. He doesn’t acknowledge that facts can be distinguished from myths. It’s a flypaper version of history where there are two sides, and it doesn’t matter which side the fly lands on.
The first paragraph in the “unbiased” answer to question one on what the conflict is about is misleading and inaccurate, reducing it to the two peoples fighting over one piece of land cliché. The religious dimension of the conflict is ignored completely; that is, the Islamic rejection of a Jewish presence on “Muslim land” from the days of the Mufti to Hamas today.
He dates Palestinian nationalism to the mid-19th century, which is untrue. People at that time identified themselves by clans and religion. In the 1920s, the Palestinians began to talk about wanting to be part of Greater Syria, not an independent state. The Jews wanted to return to their homeland and were willing to share it. Unhappily, they accepted the reduction of the size of the Jewish homeland.
Starting in 1937—and as recently as 2008—the Palestinians were offered opportunities for statehood nine times and rejected every one. The Palestinians’ disinterest in independence during the 19-year Jordanian/Egyptian occupation is not mentioned.
It is simply taken for granted that the Palestinians should get a state just because they want one. The Kurds and Basques have a greater claim to independence. Why are only Palestinians entitled to one?
Waxman gives equal weight to the Jewish and Palestinian claims to indigeneity. He acknowledges evidence of Jewish roots in the land dating to antiquity while Palestinians didn’t arrive until after the Muslim conquest, but then contradicts this inconvenient fact by claiming that “it is impossible to definitively know who was here first.” He then asserts a blatant falsehood, suggesting that Jews believe they descend from the Canaanites, and further insinuates that there is validity to the baseless Palestinian claim to be related to them.
The explanation of Zionism is facile and misleading, calling it “a diverse set of beliefs.” No, Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people are a nation entitled to self-determination in their homeland, which is Israel. There are different “flavors” of Zionism debating how this should be achieved and what the state should look like, but not the objective.
The Arabs believe the Zionists are colonialists, but Waxman shows they are the antithesis. He acknowledges that the Arabs are wrong but says their view “is completely understandable in the context of that time.” We are no longer in that time, however, so when Israel’s detractors say it now, it is simply a lie.
His version of how the Palestinians became refugees in the first place is mostly wrong, starting with the exaggerated number of 700,000.
Ephraim Karsh’s research has shown the number was no more than 609,000, and United Nations and CIA estimates were roughly half that. Waxman repeats the Arab canards about the Palestinians being expelled as part of a campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” but acknowledges most Palestinians “probably” were not expelled. The facts are well-documented that Palestinians were forced to leave in a handful of instances, and not for “ethnic cleansing” but to protect Israeli soldiers from being attacked from the rear. The Arab narrative further dissolves if you know thousands of Palestinians left before the war began, that Israel encouraged Arabs to stay, and 250,000 remained to become full citizens.
Most Palestinians left because they didn’t want to be caught in the crossfire of the war. He cites historian Benny Morris to discredit the idea that many Palestinians fled because their leaders encouraged them to make way for the invading armies and promised they’d be allowed to return to their homes—and those of the Jews. Morris, however, said that “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages” and that “there can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations.”
There is plenty of documentation about the leaders’ role if Waxman bothered to look.
The discussion about the fate of the refugees is also inaccurate. Refusing to allow enemies who left their homes to return is not a violation of international law. Other refugee populations were resettled, but it was the Arab states that prevented the Palestinians from becoming citizens in their countries. Israel offered to allow some refugees to return in exchange for a peace agreement; the Arabs rejected the idea.
Waxman cites U.N. Resolution 194 as granting Palestinians a “right to return”; however, that is a selective reading of the resolution, which conditioned their return on a willingness to live at peace with their neighbors and called for their resettlement. Also omitted is the fact that the Arab states voted against the resolution because it was adopted when they still believed that they would drive the Jews into the sea. Like all General Assembly resolutions, 194 is not legally binding.
He also incorrectly states that Israeli leaders have not accepted any compromises regarding the Old City; former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered them. Omitted is the Palestinians’ rejection of those proposals.
On the borders of a future state, Waxman has accepted Palestinian propaganda that Palestinians have abandoned their claim to the majority of the land they believe should be theirs and are being asked to take only 22% of Palestine. It is Israel that is only 22% of historic Palestine, and if Israel withdrew from the disputed territories, it would possess only about 18%. Today, some 73% of Palestinians live in “Palestine.”
The evidence that the Palestinians have not abandoned their goal of destroying Israel and claiming the land from the river to the sea is clear from Palestinian Authority maps. Furthermore, Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of the territories it captured in 1967, including all of Gaza and 40% of the West Bank. It is not obligated to return any more land. Waxman also accepts that the territories are “occupied” when they are disputed. Israel cannot occupy land that was part of Israel but never a sovereign Palestinian state. Moreover, an occupier is a nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers. One that gains territory while defending itself, like Israel, is not in the same category.
In another distortion of historical fact, Waxman says Netanyahu doesn’t want to negotiate. That is true during the war, but he was willing and did in the past. It is true that Netanyahu opposed Oslo, but he didn’t repudiate it and agreed to further withdrawals in negotiations with PLO head Yasser Arafat.
Waxman refers to current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas as “a staunch advocate of the peace process” even though he has refused to negotiate since 2008, to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or to stop incentivizing terrorism. He falsely equates religious Zionists and Islamists. Extremist Jews are a minority, with no say in policy towards the Palestinians and no charter calling for the murder of their neighbors. The Palestinian public elected Islamists, who took over the Gaza Strip, and immediately started acting on their desire to destroy Israel and kill Jews.
If you wonder why there is so much hostility towards Jews and Israel on campus, look no further than the professors who teach already ignorant students that facts don’t matter, only narratives. By disseminating misinformation about history, they hinder genuine understanding of the conflict. Worse still, they push a false equivalence between the positions of Israelis and Palestinians, distorting reality and perpetuating animosity.
The post Our Own Worst Enemies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.