Uncategorized
Republicans nix two-state solution language in resolution marking Israel’s 75th birthday
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to congratulate Israel on its 75th birthday and to wish it well in making peace with other countries.
But the encouragement of peace deals did not extend to the Palestinians, in a breach with the language typical of U.S. lawmakers’ past Israeli Independence Day resolutions — and, insiders say, a departure from the language originally drafted for this one.
Democrats pressed for the inclusion of the Palestinians in a resolution focused on peace-making between Israel and its Arab neighbors, but Republicans rejected the language.
The behind-the-scenes struggle to even mention the Palestinians reflects how far apart the parties have drifted on Israel issues, with the Republicans joining Israel’s hard-right government in refusing to countenance Palestinian statehood.
It also undercuts a bid to show bipartisan comity on Israel issues, as the top House Republican, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and top Democrat, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are visiting the country to mark its 75th anniversary.
“We worked diligently with Foreign Affairs Committee Republican staff to find a way to maintain precedent and maintain two- state language when honoring Israel’s birthday which has been done for decades,” said a Democratic senior staffer who remained anonymous to speak candidly. “Unfortunately Republican leadership could not accept two-state language and we were forced to move ahead with a ‘happy birthday.’”
The resolution passed Tuesday, the eve of Israel’s Independence Day, 401-19, with all but 18 Democrats voting for the resolution. It “encourages the expansion and strengthening of the Abraham Accords to urge other nations to normalize relations with Israel and ensure that existing agreements reap tangible security and economic benefits for the citizens of those countries and all peoples in the region.”
But in an unusual and bitter caveat after the vote, leading Jewish Democrats joined a statement denouncing the GOP for cutting out the Palestinians.
“Unlike previous resolutions honoring Israel’s birthday and achievements, this resolution, principally drafted by Republicans, broke the longstanding bipartisan tradition of acknowledging the importance of achieving a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians,” said the statement issued after the House approved the resolution. “We remain resolute in our aspiration to help Israel find peace with all its neighbors, including and particularly the Palestinians.”
Signing the statement were Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and eight top Jewish Democrats: Jerry Nadler of New York, Dean Phillips of Minnesota, Kathy Manning of North Carolina, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, and Jan Schakowsky and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Phillips, Manning, Wasserman Schultz and Schneider are all known for their willingness to take on fellow Democrats they feel are too critical of Israel and for crossing party lines to promote Israel. Manning and Schneider were the Democratic lead sponsors of the resolution. It is highly unusual for the authors of a resolution to complain afterwards that it has been altered. (The Republican lead sponsors were Michael McCaul of Texas, the Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, and Ann Wagner of Missouri.)
An insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, described for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the evolution of the resolution. Early this year, pro-Israel groups approached Democrats and Republicans to draft a bipartisan resolution marking Israel’s 75th birthday.
Lawmakers from both sides saw that as a no-brainer, despite recent turmoil in Israel. Massive protests against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed radical changes to the courts system have filled the streets for weeks, and Israeli-Palestinian violence has intensified.
Staffers, working in a bipartisan fashion, resurrected the language from a resolution in 2018 marking Israel’s 70th anniversary, sponsored that year by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican. Staffers from both parties thought the Foxx resolution was a good template.
That resolution included what was by then boilerplate language, supporting “a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution with the democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized, democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.”
There was a minor wrinkle: Republicans no longer want purely commemorative resolutions.
At the outset of this congressional session, Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana banned any resolution that “expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of, an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team or government program; or acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes.” He allowed exceptions for resolutions that call “on others (such as a foreign government) to take a particular action.”
So the staffers agreed to frame the 75th anniversary resolution around a topic everyone likes, the Abraham Accords, the 2020 normalization deals between Israel and four Arab states. The Trump administration brokered the deals, and in a rare example of continuity, the Biden administration is committed to expanding them.
In addition to the two-state boilerplate language, a draft resolution circulated that mentioned bringing in the Palestinians to the Abraham Accords. That was not seen as problematic, since it was an explicit aim of the accords as envisioned by former President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner.
But after about a month, the Republican leadership came back, according to this account, with a clear instruction: Don’t mention the Palestinians, at all — even though centrist pro-Israel groups, chief among them the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, were lobbying for the two-state language to remain in the resolution. (AIPAC declined to comment.)
The Jewish organization most consistently influential during the Trump presidency was the Zionist Organization of America, which rejects two states, and top conservative pro-Israel influencers in 2016 persuaded the party to remove two states from its platform.
The resolution, which also upholds defense assistance to Israel and bilateral U.S.-Israel cooperation in defense and civilian spheres, mentions every peace and normalization agreement Israel has signed — with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco — except for the 1993 Oslo agreements with the Palestinians.
The top Democratic staffer said that of course the party wanted to wish Israel well — but that those well-wishes were wrapped into concerns that it remain a Jewish and democratic state.
“We were happy to say happy birthday on the floor and we will continue to advocate for peace for Israelis and Palestinians,” the staffer said.
McCarthy’s office did not respond to requests for comment. McCaul’s office in its response did not address questions about why the two-state outcome or the Palestinians did not appear in the final version.
“The United States and Israel have stood together as partners since Israel’s founding 75 years ago to overcome shared challenges and global threats,” McCaul said in a statement to JTA. “Together, we’ve achieved major milestones, such as the signing of the historic Abraham Accords. I look forward to continuing the longstanding tradition of friendship and partnership between our two countries.”
AIPAC praised the resolution. “The resolution recognizes that a strong and secure Israel is a vital pillar of America’s national security policy in the Middle East,” it said in a statement.
Liberal Jewish Middle East policy groups decried the omission of the Palestinians. “The decision to strip support for the Two-State Solution from the text requires that we ask exactly what ‘shared values’ is Kevin McCarthy referring to?” said Americans for Peace Now. “And more importantly, it begs the question, what future solution to the conflict do House Republicans support?”
J Street said it would lobby the Senate, where Democrats are in the majority, “to introduce a resolution that takes a different approach, consistent with the bipartisan commitment to a two-state solution that ensures a peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
—
The post Republicans nix two-state solution language in resolution marking Israel’s 75th birthday appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
US Justice Dept. to Seek Death Penalty for Man Accused of Murdering 2 Israeli Embassy Staffers
Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim who were shot and killed as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum, pose for a picture at an unknown location, in this handout image released by Embassy of Israel to the US on May 22, 2025. Photo: Embassy of Israel to the USA via X/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – The Justice Department will seek the death penalty for the man accused of murdering two staff members of the Israeli Embassy in Washington outside a Jewish museum, prosecutors said in a court filing Friday.
Elias Rodriguez faces federal hate crime and murder charges in the killings of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, the couple he shot execution-style as they left an event at the museum last May. Rodriguez shouted “Free Palestine” during the shooting and later told police, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.”
The indictment includes a hate crime resulting in death and notice of special findings, which allows prosecutors to pursue the death penalty.
“My message to anyone who seeks to commit political violence in this district — D.C. is not the place. You will be held accountable and you will face the full wrath of the law,” Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said on Friday.
Prosecutors described the killing as calculated and planned, saying Rodriguez flew to the Washington region from Chicago ahead of the event at the Capital Jewish Museum with a handgun in his checked luggage.
Rodriguez went inside the museum after murdering his victims and said, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed,” according to court documents. He also told interrogators of his that he admired Aaron Bushnell, an active-duty Air Force member who set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in February 2024, describing Bushnell as “courageous” and a “martyr.”
Uncategorized
Israel Kills Hamas Armed Wing Leader Haddad in Gaza Strike
People carry a body identified by mourners as Hamas’ military wing commander Izz al-Din al-Haddad, who was killed in an Israeli strike on Friday, during a funeral, in Gaza City, May 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas
An Israeli airstrike on Gaza killed the chief of Hamas’ military wing, the most senior official from the Palestinian terrorist group killed by Israel since an October US-backed ceasefire agreement that was meant to halt fighting.
The Israeli military said on Saturday that Izz al-Din al-Haddad was killed in what it described as a precise strike on Gaza City on Friday. Israel has repeatedly carried out strikes on Gaza since the ceasefire started.
Hamas confirmed in a later statement that Haddad, who was born in 1970, was killed along with his wife and daughter. It described him as a central figure in directing combat operations and accused Israel of trying to achieve politically through killings what it had failed to achieve militarily.
At Al Aqsa Martyrs Mosque in central Gaza, a joint funeral was held on Saturday for Haddad, his wife and their 19-year-old daughter.
CASUALTIES MOUNT DESPITE CEASEFIRE
In a joint statement with his defense minister on Friday, announcing the military had targeted Haddad, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Haddad was an architect of the October 7, 2023 attacks that precipitated Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Haddad, who became the group’s military chief in Gaza after Israel’s killing of Mohammad Sinwar in May 2025, “was responsible for the murder, abduction, and harm inflicted on thousands of Israeli civilians (and) soldiers,” they said.
Nicknamed “the Ghost,” Haddad had survived multiple assassination attempts by Israel, according to Hamas sources. Israel’s military says that he was one of Hamas’ longest-serving commanders, rising through the ranks from the group’s early establishment in the 1980s to hold several senior positions.
Israel and Hamas remain deadlocked in indirect talks to advance US President Donald Trump’s post-war plan for Gaza that is meant to end more than two years of fighting.
Israel has stepped up attacks in Gaza in the weeks since halting its joint bombing with the U.S. in Iran, redirecting its fire back on the devastated Palestinian territory where the military says Hamas fighters are tightening their grip.
Uncategorized
Piers Morgan is what’s wrong with media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and I can’t stop watching him
Piers Morgan’s online debate about Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times op-ed containing allegations of Israeli dog rape was loud, chaotic and unenlightening — and I couldn’t stop watching it.
That’s a problem. Morgan’s format is a trap. On his YouTube talk show, Piers Morgan Uncensored, he pits people holding intransigent, often extreme positions against each other, goads them to yell at one another across Zoom, and positions himself as the voice of reason in the middle. It’s hateporn — addictive, and not reflective of reality.
And yet Piers Morgan Uncensored and many similar YouTube- and social-media based news programs are where people increasingly get their information and engage with controversial issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
These programs rack up views by persuading viewers there is no middle ground, no moderate position, no alternative to conflict. And their strategy is working.
The Kristof episode, which racked up 340,000 views in a day, is titled, “Torture Does NOT Work!” — all Morgan show names have one word in all caps and end in an exclamation point.
It begins with people shouting. “You are not a journalist!” Ana Kasparian, a commentator on another YouTube show, shouts at podcaster and online anchor Emily Schrader — before Morgan comes on to introduce the segment.
He quickly recaps the lurid details from Kristof’s New York Times oped, “The Silence That meets the Rape of Palestinians,” and a newly issued nearly-300 page Israeli report on Hamas sexual violence.
“As far as I’m concerned, the only cause is basic human decency,” Morgan says in his cool British accent, “If your first instinct about either report is to look for ways to smear them, you might have run out of that yourself.”
Yet the six deeply partisan guests spend the next 45 minutes smearing the reports, and each other.
Morgan’s introductory call for human decency is not a plea, it’s a ploy. He plays the mature voice of reason standing between the extremist pro-Israelis and the pro-Palestinians — not to persuade them to come to a moderate position, but rather to exploit the most virulent voices in order to generate clicks, while still claiming the cover of journalism. This approach causes real harm by giving extremists a megaphone, and a degree of exposure that all but guarantees that people actually trying to build a better future go unheard.
A recipe for drama
Morgan repeats this formula over and again. In an episode entitled, “Netanyahu CONNED Trump!” Dave Smith, a sidekick to Joe Rogan, accuses Israel of dragging the United States into the Iran war. In “I’m SICK of it!” commentator Megyn Kelly launches into a similar attack on Israel.
Morgan has had long interviews with white supremacist and proud antisemite Nick Fuentes (“What a crock of S***!”). In “STAND for Dead Soldiers!” Morgan hosted four Israelis at the extreme ends of the political spectrum and watched them fight when one refused to stand as a siren sounded to honor Israel’s fallen soldiers.
Not extreme or dramatic enough? How about the time Morgan hosted Crackhead Barney, a Black pro-Palestinian street activist, to explain why she harasses celebrities to get them to say, “Free Palestine.”
“I’m truly shocked/disgusted that @piersmorgan would have this nutjob & clearly unwell person to go on his show and even remotely try to talk about Palestine or the war,” wrote the Gazan-born activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib.
Alkhatib is a moderate Palestinian who works for a peaceful solution to the conflict. He has, unsurprisingly, not been on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Instead, Morgan’s choice of guests is calculated for maximum friction, a function of an attention economy that monetizes the time people like me spend watching the fights.
From ‘Animal House’ to Piers Morgan
Luring viewers this way isn’t exactly new. President Ronald Reagan called The McLaughlin Group, a current affairs program that ran on public television for 34 years beginning in 1982, “the political equivalent of Animal House”— more drunken frat house than graduate seminar. McLaughlin begat Crossfire, a CNN political debate program hosted by a younger Tucker Carlson that Jon Stewart once compared to pro-wrestling.
In 2025, Morgan, who came up in British tabloids before a long stint at CNN, moved away from traditional broadcast TV and went all in on social media and his YouTube channel.
His success on that platform is part of a larger shift in media from major institutions to independent personalities, and from actual news — the dutiful and expensive process of finding out and relaying what’s actually happening in the world — to opinion that spins itself as reporting, which is far cheaper and more entertaining.
That shift has come as audiences have moved from loyalty to long established institutions to following enterprising, independent personalities. The podcaster Joe Rogan has 20.9 million subscribers; Carlson has 5.6 million; Morgan’s show has 4.42 million subscribers and over 1.36 billion total views.
In other words, Morgan is not some guy some people watch now. He is what people will be watching in the future.
A bias toward extremes
That prospect should alarm us. Morgan’s shows rarely feature people working toward compromise or reconciliation. A Piers Morgan Uncensored discussion spotlighting the many civil society groups in Israel working toward coexistence? A show where he sits down with Arab and Jewish Israelis who share a vision for a common future? A segment that highlights the actual, albeit rare, instances of cooperation?
Pipe dreams. All that is also happening in Israel and the West Bank — but Piers Morgan Uncensored effectively censors it.
Compare that to Jon Stewart, who on The Daily Show last month conducted a long interview with the Palestinian and Israeli co-authors of The Future Is Peace, a book that calls for moving beyond violence and stalemate to a shared future. Same approach — a streaming interview on a hot-button topic, with an eye toward entertainment — but radically different editorial choices.
That episode garnered a mere 400,000 views. Morgan’s comparative millions of eyeballs may, in his mind, justify his guttersweeping approach to international conflict. And in his defense — and mine, for watching — it’s never boring. He can be a thoughtful and provocative interviewer, and his not-ready-for-primetime, self-created show allows him, when he so chooses, to platform voices that more mainstream venues overlook, like former Israeli Speaker of the Knesset and longtime peace activist Avrum Burg.
Alas, he stuck the erudite former statesman with a diehard evangelical and a firebreathing American Jewish conservative pundit. That episode is called, “A SHAME on Judaism!”
Whatever this is, it’s not journalism. But it is the future.
The post Piers Morgan is what’s wrong with media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and I can’t stop watching him appeared first on The Forward.