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
‘Demolishing Gaza’: How the New York Times Rewrites the Story on Instagram
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Since Hamas’ brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip, the terrorist organization has made it part of its modus operandi to embed itself in any civilian infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel has taken considerable steps to remove existing terrorist infrastructure in areas that fall under IDF control, all within the realms of the agreed terms.
Despite this, The New York Times would like to have its audience believe that Israel is systematically destroying the Gaza Strip, even after the signing of a ceasefire.
In “Israel Is Still Demolishing Gaza, Building by Building,” the Times highlights satellite imagery showing that thousands of structures have been demolished since the October 2025 ceasefire, presenting this as ongoing destruction despite the truce. The framing casts Israel as the all-encompassing villain, while Hamas is effectively granted a free pass.
Perhaps worse, when the New York Times transferred the article to its Instagram feed of nearly 20 million followers, the misleading narrative was blasted with even larger gaps in the story.
The Instagram version omits even the limited factual caveats included in the full article, leaving audiences with a one-sided story that excludes Hamas’ role, its terrorist infrastructure, and the realities driving Israeli operations. What remains is not comprehensive reporting, but a carefully curated narrative designed for maximum emotional impact and minimal accountability.
While the Times portrays the ceasefire as “respite” solely for Palestinian civilians after a “punishing” two-year war, nowhere do the journalists acknowledge that ceasefires are intended to apply to both sides.
More importantly, it was Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel — which was accompanied by rockets and the slaughter of innocent civilians — that began this war. In presenting the war as one against Gazan civilians rather than a campaign against a terrorist organization embedded within civilian areas, the New York Times empties the ceasefire of its reciprocal meaning.
Following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, it became increasingly clear the extent to which Hamas has embedded itself and its military infrastructure within civilian locations.
In fact, the very end of the article quotes a Gazan that blames Hamas for having “militarized civilian spaces.” Naturally, a quote blaming Hamas was omitted from the Instagram carousel and hid until the bottom of the article, ensuring the fewest eyes so as not to sway too far from the narrative of absolving Hamas of wrongdoing.
The New York Times is also acutely aware of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, having visited tunnels on a tour with the IDF during the war.
Still, when the IDF showed the Times classified maps displaying Hamas’ tunnel system — particularly in Shejaiya, within the Israeli-controlled area beyond the yellow line — the newspaper claimed it could not “independently verify” their accuracy. The context of Hamas’ vast tunnel network is missing from the Instagram post entirely.
What Instagram users are left with are two satellite images taken in two different locations in the Gaza Strip, both of which show IDF-controlled areas beyond the yellow line. While the photos are described ever so slightly more in depth in the article, the Instagram post hopes to use them as the concluding evidence that Israel is acting against the ceasefire to continue its ruthless destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, because they are beyond the yellow line, not only are there no civilians there, but Israel is within its full right under the ceasefire to remove any existing terrorist infrastructure.
The New York Times‘ Instagram post presents itself as a case study in media literacy — or, more accurately, its absence. Designed for audiences with short attention spans who are unlikely to click through to the full article, the post strips away essential context, leaving users without any meaningful understanding of why or how the IDF has continued military action against Hamas in the wake of the October 2025 ceasefire.
While the article itself omits critical facts, the Instagram post goes even further. By removing what little context remains, it actively misleads its audience, inviting millions of followers to fill in the gaps with assumptions rather than facts. This is not journalism adapted for social media. It is narrative curation that sacrifices accuracy for maximum impact.
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.
Uncategorized
Fatah Spokesman: Gaza Was ‘Paradise’ Before Oct. 7, and Massacre Wasn’t a Problem — Only Its Scale
Rockets are launched by Palestinian into Israel, amid Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, August 7, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas may argue among themselves over tactics, timing, and optics, they are united on the core issue — the legitimacy of terror.
In a single radio interview, the Fatah spokesman in the Gaza Strip — representing the ruling party of the PA, which is now positioning itself as a future governing authority in Gaza — revealed three truths that Palestinian leaders usually avoid stating so openly: that Gaza was not an unlivable hell before October 7, that the mass murder of Israelis is not rejected in principle, and that the internal Palestinian debate is about how much terror is useful, not whether terror is acceptable at all.
Fatah Spokesman in the Gaza Strip Mundhir Al-Hayek: ” … The Gaza Strip before Oct. 7 was a paradise. The situation was very good.
But Hamas exploited this and took over all the economic areas and collected taxes, and unfortunately, the result was moving towards the uncalculated October 7. We needed 10% of Oct. 7 to convey a message to the world that the Palestinian people is persecuted and oppressed, and it needs self-determination. But the political leadership [Hamas] failed.” [emphasis added]
[Radio Mawtini (Fatah radio station), Facebook page, Jan. 6, 2026]
Al-Hayek’s admission that “the Gaza Strip before October 7 was a paradise” and that “the situation was very good” directly contradicts two years of Palestinian claims that October 7 was launched in response to unbearable humanitarian conditions or Israeli “siege.”
According to a senior Fatah official speaking from Gaza itself, life there was not only tolerable, but “very good” until Hamas chose war.
Equally revealing is what Al-Hayek did not condemn.
“I’m not talking about the operation itself,” he emphasized, meaning the atrocities of October 7, but only about what followed. The massacre itself is not rejected. It is treated as a given.
As Palestinian Media Watch has documented consistently, the Palestinian Authority does not morally condemn terror overall, nor October 7 in particular.
Instead, it criticizes October 7 for being politically or tactically mishandled. For Al-Hayek, the failure was not the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, the kidnappings, or the mass atrocities, but that Hamas did not “rescue our people” afterward and failed to manage the consequences of the violence it initiated.
Perhaps the most instructive statement came when Al-Hayek argued that the massacre itself was excessive, not unjustified: “We needed 10% of October 7 to convey a message to the world.”
So, what does “10% of October 7” mean? Does it mean kidnapping 25 people instead of 251? Does it mean murdering 120 people instead of over 1,200? Does it mean raping fewer women or burning fewer families alive?
The answer exposes the PA/Fatah’s true ideology, which does not see terror as a moral question but a quantitative one. Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described October 7 as an attempt to achieve “important goals,” while his senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash called it “a legitimate thing.”
Al-Hayek’s remarks underscore the PA/Fatah view that terror is acceptable and is constrained only by political utility and cost.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Iran Summons Italian Ambassador Over Push for EU Clampdown on Revolutionary Guards, State Media Says
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The Iranian foreign ministry summoned Italy’s ambassador over efforts by Rome to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the European Union’s terrorist register, state media reported on Tuesday.
Iran‘s foreign ministry warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the Revolutionary Guards and called upon the Italian foreign minister to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran,” the media report said
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday that Italy will ask European Union partners this week to label the IRGC as a terrorist group.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.