RSS
‘Palestinians Had Nothing to Lose’: What Does New York Times Op-Ed Say About Hamas?
A taxi passes by in front of The New York Times head office, Feb. 7, 2013. Photo: Reuters / Carlo Allegri / File.
Author Megan K. Stack’s latest op-ed in The New York Times is worse than a hatchet job — it is a malicious screed masquerading as insightful analysis.
In “The View Within Israel Turns Bleak,” the conclusions that Stack invites readers to arrive at are obvious from the first paragraph, in which she quotes right-wing Israeli journalist Yehuda Shlezinger angrily proclaiming there should be “more rivers of Gazans’ blood.”
The right-wing journalist, Stack contends, is not “fringe,” nor would “Israelis would be shocked by his bloody fantasies.”
Indeed, Stack argues that the views espoused by Shlezinger are further evidence that “Israel has hardened” — now it is a nation of people who, regardless of their political leanings, have a “thirst for revenge” on the Palestinians.
But Stack ignores the fact that extreme remarks like Shlezinger’s are consistently condemned by both Israeli politicians and the public, as demonstrated when a junior government minister was suspended for saying Israel could drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza.
Instead, she suggests that her simplistic assessment is supported by statistics: a four-month-old survey found that 94 percent of Jewish Israelis felt the force used in Gaza was appropriate or insufficient.
No country in the world is perfect. But @Megankstack‘s hit piece in @nytimes deliberately sets out to create a one-dimensional portrayal of Israel as an irredeemable society void of any positives whatsoever.
Here’s just some of what’s wrong. https://t.co/3Npp1h5egk pic.twitter.com/U0eK3AkagP
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 19, 2024
Unrepresentative Interviewees
But the problem with Stack’s piece is not merely the use of an out-of-date survey. (Along with no questions about if the amount of force is actually sufficient to defeat the Hamas terror group — nor the fact that Israel has taken steps more than any nation in history to protect Gaza’s civilians). Rather, the main problem with Stack’s piece is that every single person, source, or piece of evidence she uses to illustrate Israelis’ supposedly genocidal intentions toward Palestinians is wholly unrepresentative of Israeli society.
Stack, for example, quotes several people in the piece: Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy, Hassan Jabareen of the anti-Israel NGO Adalah, Diana Buttu, a former PLO legal advisor, and Daniel Levy, the president of the US/Middle East Project.
But how can Gideon Levy, who has repeatedly promoted the apartheid libel, or Daniel Levy, who has repeatedly downplayed Palestinian terrorism, be presented as impartial voices?
And how is it that Diana Buttu can be billed as a “Palestinian lawyer,” and quoted at length without Stack even mentioning that Buttu is also a former advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a proscribed terror group?
Likewise, why are the words of Hassan Jabareen, of the Adalah organization, which aligns itself with terrorist-linked Palestinian NGOs, presented as the unadulterated truth when he alleges that Arab Israelis “live in fear” because the “police left no doubt that we were enemies of the state”?
Naturally, Stack didn’t reference another survey — taken after the start of the October 7 war — which found that the percentage of Arab Israelis who feel a kinship with the State of Israel had risen to 70 percent — up from 48 percent before the Hamas attack.
Israelis at Fault for Palestinian Violence
On the few occasions where Stack acknowledges Palestinian violence, she still circuitously finds Israel at fault. She argues that while the so-called “apartheid wall” that is the West Bank barrier “helped keep West Bank suicide bombers from penetrating Israel,” it has also allegedly acted as a “psychological barrier” separating Israelis and Palestinians and “piled extra misery on ever-more-constrained Palestinian civilians.”
We can, therefore, only assume that Stack thinks Israeli civilians dying in terror attacks is a small price to pay to remove the psychological barrier she has observed.
Similarly, when Stack references the Second Intifada, it is to say that when Israelis emerged from these years of carnage — characterized by suicide attacks, stabbings, and bombings — they did so with a “jaundiced view of negotiations and, more broadly, Palestinians, who were derided as unable to make peace.”
It is this “logic,” she argues, that sabotaged the peace process — and not the launching of the Second Intifada itself. The inference is that Israel should have continued negotiating with then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat even as he incited attacks that murdered Israeli women, children, and men.
Stack also holds up the uneven death toll between Israelis and Palestinians to diminish the threat of Palestinian terrorism, arguing that since the construction of the Iron Dome, the “mathematics of death heavily favored Israel.” In Stack’s mind, even Israel’s defensive measures are a way to victimize Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Stack’s “evidence” that all Israelis are unrepentant racists and the country and apartheid state is supported by absurd pieces of “evidence,” including the fact that Arabs are ineligible for gun licenses, without noting that the majority of Israelis are also ineligible.
Israelis Driven by Hatred and Vengeance
The thrust of Stack’s entire argument could easily be distilled into a sentence: she believes Israelis are driven by hatred, a desire for vengeance, and a medieval-style thirst for blood.
Much of the piece is an exercise in how to omit facts to craft a particular narrative. For example, Stack claims the 460 Palestinians who have been killed in the West Bank since October 7 are proof of a “bloody campaign of terror” by soldiers and settlers, yet fails to note the proportion of those who were terrorists.
Any nuance and compassion are non-existent. She forgets or does not care that this is a nation of people still grieving the horrors of October 7, that hostages remain in Gaza, and that Israel has taken measures to avoid civilian casualties and minimize harm to civilians.
And that is why she concludes the piece with saying the October 7 massacre should have been a wake-up call for Israelis, who she claims had previously sealed themselves “off from Palestinians while subjecting them to daily humiliations and violence.”
Hamas on October 7, she suggests, acted like people with “nothing to lose,” apparently ignoring how the last seven months of the war in Gaza have demonstrated the exact opposite. Palestinians had a lot to lose, and Hamas didn’t care if they lost it.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post ‘Palestinians Had Nothing to Lose’: What Does New York Times Op-Ed Say About Hamas? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.