US Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing at the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, May 21, 2024. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

During Thursday’s confirmation hearing for the position of US ambassador to Ireland, Dublin’s long-standing skepticism towards Israel became a central point of discussion.

Edward Walsh, the Trump Administration’s pick to serve as the liaison between America and the Ireland, fielded comments from federal lawmakers over the Emerald Isle’s intense criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. 

“This is going to be a tough needle to thread when you got a close ally making a horrible mistake,” Jim Risch, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said about Ireland’s treatment of Israel, “But you have got to thread that needle and I hope you will convey the message that they are very much out of step with the United States as far as the relationship with those countries.”

Risch lamented Ireland’s decision to officially recognize a Palestinian state, calling the declaration “a heartbreaking mistake with zero recognition of what Hamas did on October 7.”

“I hope you will ensure that our friends in Ireland will understand that America strongly supports Israel,” Risch added. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) lambasted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for being “engaged in a campaign against our Israeli allies.” 

In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.

US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.

“These warrants are utterly illegitimate,” claimed Cruz, who added that the ICC’s warrant requests against Israeli leaders is “setting a precedent to go after countries who are not members of the Court, which exposes American soldiers and officials.”

“Ireland has filed a motion to directly boost the ICC campaign,” said Cruz.

Walsh agreed that Ireland’s lack of support for Israel represents a “big issue and a big concern.”

“We’re an ally of Israel so it’s a difficult conversation and I’d be glad to relay president Trump’s message over to them at any time,” 

In January, Ireland filed a motion to join South Africa’s bid to the ICC accusing Israel of “genocide.” Israel responded by closing their embassy in Ireland and issuing a statement blasting Dublin for backing “the politicized proceedings being conducted at the ICC against Israel and its leaders.”

Ireland’s relationship with Israel has sharply deteriorated following the events of October 7, when Hamas launched a deadly massacre on the Jewish state, slaughtering roughly 1200 individuals and kidnapping 250 others. While Ireland swiftly condemned the Hamas attacks, its government has since voiced mounting criticism of Israel’s conduct in the conflict, particularly in regard to the high civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In response, Israeli officials have accused Ireland of bias and undermining Israel’s right to self-defense, further souring diplomatic ties. The deepening rift reflects long-standing tensions over Middle East policy and positions Ireland as one of the most outspoken critics of Israel within the European Union.

The post US Lawmakers Grill Ireland Ambassador Nominee on Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US President Trump speaks to the media at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect

As the US continues to negotiate a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration has drawn praise from political adversaries and criticism from traditional allies over a perceived reversion to the basic framework of the now-defunct 2015 nuclear accord, which US President Donald Trump has lambasted as a dangerous agreement.

Members of the former Obama administration have expressed cautious optimism that the approach of Trump and his team to the current nuclear talks might mirror the steps they took to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal which placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of major international sanctions. Trump withdrew the US from the accord during his first presidential term in 2018, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers and hawkish foreign policy analysts have increasingly raised skepticism about the Trump administration’s approach to the Iranian nuclear program, suggesting that the White House has been receiving bad advice.

Such critics have argued that the White House may have relaxed its hardline stance against Iranian uranium enrichment, potentially allowing Iran’s Islamist regime to continue enriching uranium “civilian purposes.” Tehran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable. Iranian officials have also refused to include their ballistic missile program, which would allow Iran to continue improving its weapons delivery capabilities, in negotiations with Washington. 

The 2015 deal, which the Obama administration negotiated with Iran and other world powers, allowed Iran to enrich significant quantities of uranium to low levels of purity and stockpile them. It did not directly address the regime’s ballistic missile program but included an eight-year restriction on Iranian nuclear-capable ballistic missile activities.

Allies of Trump had argued such terms of the deal were insufficient, as they would allow the regime to maintain a large-scale nuclear program and wait for certain restrictions to expire before ramping up their activity. Supporters of the deal countered that the accord kept Iran further away from being able to break out toward a bomb quickly and gave international inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear sites.

The current framework being advanced by the Trump administration “suggests that the Americans have, at least for now, abandoned several of the fundamental demands that were emphasized before negotiations began,” the Israeli outlet Israel Hayom wrote.

Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump’s top diplomat from 2018 to 2021, questioned the utility of attempting to broker a nuclear deal with Iran “while it is at its weakest strategic point in decades” in a recent article for the Free Press. He appeared to be referring to Israel’s military activities in recent months decimating Iran’s air defenses and proxy forces — particularly Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — in the Middle East. Pompeo argued that conservatives who “coddle” Iran in hopes of avoiding war are only ensuring that Tehran eventually acquires a nuclear weapon. 

The White House has also received criticism from fellow Republicans in Congress. In a comment posted on X/Twitter, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, lamented, “Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the president terrible advice.” Urging the White House to reverse course, Cruz added that Trump “is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she works as deputy director of the think tank’s Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, also warned against any deal allowing Iran to retain its uranium enrichment capabilities.

“Only the full, verified, and permanent dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment, weaponization, and missile-delivery programs constitutes a sound deal with Iran,” she told The Algemeiner. “Leaving enriched uranium, associated facilities, centrifuges, and infrastructure in the country means Tehran can renege on a deal and ramp its nuclear threat up at any time. Iran’s breakout time would also be considerably shorter today given its stock of thousands of fast-enriching advanced centrifuges.”

Stricker continued, “The regime’s goal is to wait out the Trump administration, delay sanctions pressure, and avoid a military strike. The administration should make clear that dismantlement is the only possible deal that allows the regime to avoid major consequences.”

David Bedein, director of the Jerusalem-based Center for Near East Policy Research, blasted the Trump administration for supposedly keeping the details of the negotiations a “mystery” and potentially compromising Israel’s long-term interests in the region.

The Trump administration’s allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium would be “an absolute violation of Israel’s interests,” he told The Algemeiner.

Bedein also claimed that the intentions of Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, are “dangerously unclear,” noting his ties to Qatar, which has long maintained close cooperation with Iran and supported terrorist groups such as Hamas.

In 2023, the Qatar Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, purchased one of Witkoff’s New York properties for nearly $623 million. Witkoff further raised eyebrows earlier this year when he praised Qatar as a partner of the US and a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

Witkoff drew backlash last month when, during a Fox News interview, he suggested that Iran would be allowed to pursue a nuclear program for so-called civilian purposes, saying that Iran “does not need to enrich past 3.67 percent.” The next day, Witkoff backtracked on these remarks, writing on X/Twitter that Tehran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that Iran has to “walk away” from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development and it should allow nuclear inspectors access to military facilities.

Despite pursuing diplomacy, Trump has said he is committed to ensuring Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and has threatened additional sanctions, tariffs, and military action if Iran does not agree to a deal to curb its nuclear activity.

Harsh US sanctions levied on Iran during Trump’s first term crippled the Iranian economy and led its foreign exchange reserves to plummet. Trump and his Republican supporters in the US Congress criticized the former Biden administration for renewing billions of dollars in US sanctions waivers, which had the effect of unlocking frozen funds and allowing the country to access previously inaccessible hard currency. Critics argue that Iran likely used these funds to provide resources for Hamas and Hezbollah to wage new terrorist campaigns against the Jewish state, including the brutal Oct. 7 massacres throughout southern Israel perpetrated by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists.

Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to close to weapons grade at its Fordow site dug into a mountain.

The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”

However, former key players within the Obama administration have praised the similarities between Trump’s efforts and the JCPOA. 

Ilan Goldberg, a national security advisor in the Pentagon and State Department during the Obama administration, praised the Trump administration for doing the “right thing” by revisiting key components of the now-scrapped JCPOA during their negotiations with Iran. 

“It’s hard not to take a jab at Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal in the first place, because I think if we get to a deal, it’ll probably be something pretty similar,” Goldberg told Jewish Insider. 

Phil Gordon, a national security advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region during the Obama administration, said that the Trump team will learn that they are likely to “have to accept some of the same imperfections that the Obama team did.”

Israel has been among the most vocal proponents of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that that the US should pursue a “Libyan option” to eliminate the possibility of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon by overseeing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and the dismantling of equipment.

The post Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Iran Prompt Concern Among Republicans, Applause From Ex-Obama Officials first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) members occupying an administrative building at Barnard College on Feb. 26, 2025. Photo: Screenshot

At universities like Columbia and Harvard, students are facing suspensions, arrests, and academic consequences following recent protests related to the war in Gaza. Some argue that this is an attack on free speech and student activism.

But the reality is different. Students are not being punished for supporting Palestinian rights. They are facing consequences because too many of these protests have crossed a critical line: openly supporting Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the October 7 massacre in Israel.

In America, free speech protects the right to criticize governments, advocate for Palestinian self-determination, and demand a ceasefire. These are legitimate and important political positions. They deserve protection.

However, there is a sharp distinction between peaceful advocacy and the glorification of violence. Many recent campus protests have included slogans like “Glory to the martyrs,” calls for “resistance by any means,” and imagery celebrating Hamas. That is not free speech in the traditional sense. It becomes a form of incitement — especially when Jewish students are threatened, harassed, or made to feel unsafe.

This is not a minor semantic issue. Words, symbols, and slogans matter. When demonstrators glorify violence, they create an environment that feels unsafe, particularly for students who belong to communities that have been targets of that violence. Universities have a responsibility to intervene when speech escalates into intimidation and fear.

There’s a reason why so many Jewish students report fearing for their safety. At Columbia, some were advised by university officials to evacuate dorms. Across several campuses, Jewish students have been harassed with slurs, physically blocked from buildings, and made to feel that they are personally responsible for an international conflict simply because of their identity.

Protesting is a right. Intimidating classmates and celebrating terror is not.

When universities respond to these actions — through arrests, suspensions, or disciplinary processes — they are not punishing a political viewpoint. They are enforcing long-standing rules about safety, campus operations, and harassment. Occupying academic buildings without permission, refusing lawful orders, and promoting violence violate university policies — no matter the cause.

This is about action, not opinion. Students are not facing discipline for holding unpopular views. They are facing discipline because of the way they have chosen to express those views: by violating campus rules, disrupting learning environments, and in some cases, advocating for violence against others.

No one is asking for the suppression of Palestinian voices. Students absolutely have the right to criticize Israeli policies, call for humanitarian aid, and advocate for a two-state solution. What they don’t have the right to do is glorify terrorist groups that target civilians.

It’s important to remember that Hamas is responsible for the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Elevating Hamas as a symbol of “resistance” erases the reality of the atrocities committed — including the mass murder of civilians, sexual violence, and hostage-taking. It sends a chilling message to Jewish students: your suffering doesn’t matter.

Moreover, supporting Hamas is not a matter of personal interpretation. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States government. Universities have a legal and moral obligation not to allow campus spaces to become platforms for the support of such groups.

Universities are obligated to protect all students, including Jewish students, from violence and intimidation. The moment political advocacy slips into supporting terrorism and hatred, consequences are not only appropriate — they are necessary.

If universities allow their campuses to become safe havens for the glorification of terror, they betray their core missions: to foster open inquiry, to safeguard every student, and to promote respectful dialogue — not to enable extremism. Support for Palestinian rights must not become a cover for glorifying terrorism. If we are serious about free speech, justice, and equality, then we must also be serious about drawing a clear moral line against violence.

Defending campuses as places of safety, dialogue, and learning for all students is not censorship. It’s a defense of the very democratic values these institutions are meant to uphold.

Dr. Daniel Beaudoin is a senior lecturer in political science and crisis management at Tel Aviv University, and the executive director of the European International Society for Military Ethics.

The post Universities Aren’t Cracking Down on ‘Anti-Israel’ Views; They Are Cracking Down on Supporting Terrorism and Harassing Students first appeared on Algemeiner.com.