RSS
The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz
English and Hebrew editions of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
“Gaza Is the Horror That Can’t Be Denied. But Israelis Will Try,“ writes Dahlia Scheindlin in a long piece in Haaretz, about the war that’s been going on in Gaza for over a year. Her point is pretty straightforward: Israelis always deny the atrocities they commit, no matter how strong the evidence — and they have been doing so from 1948 until today.
To prove her point, Scheindlin provides a series of cases from the last 76 years in which, she claims, both the State of Israel and Israelis were guilty of horrible crimes, but they refused to acknowledge their guilt, denied the obvious facts, and proclaimed their innocence.
But Scheindlin’s examples can be dismantled and falsified. Indeed, her hit piece against Israel serves as an excellent example of the propaganda war that’s been waged against Israel for decades. The goal of this war is to slander Israel and blame the Jewish State for the most terrible crimes — regardless of the facts.
Genocide and War Crimes in Gaza
Scheindlin starts with the worst accusation of all: genocide, and how both Palestinians and Israelis respond to this accusation:
And nothing inflames the debate more than the word “genocide.”
For Palestinians, genocide is a descriptive fact – anything else is a lie. For international courts, it is a legal convention, the International Court of Justice is deliberating South Africa’s charges, according to a high bar of evidence… For many Israelis, the word is an antisemitic plot and a lie.
Israel’s government already flatly denies lesser charges – war crimes, ethnic cleansing, a second Nakba…
In other words: for the Palestinians, genocide is being waged against them; for Israelis, the accusation is baseless; and the independent body of jurists — the International Court of Justice (ICJ — will decide who’s right. And in any case, even if there is no genocide, it’s clear that Israel is guilty of war crimes, which it also denies.
But the rejection of the claim that Israel commit systematic war crimes is not unique to Israel. In fact, it is consensus amongst non-Israeli military experts — high officers and scholars of war and military affairs from democratic countries who examined, studied and expressed their professional conclusion about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
And the experts’ conclusion is that Israel does not engage in deliberate and unnecessary killing of civilians, and that it abides by the laws of war.
Among these experts are John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, who said:
Israel has followed the laws of war, legal obligations, best practices in civilian harm mitigation and still found a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.
Sir John McColl, former Deputy Commander of NATO Forces: “I know Israel’s doing all it can to save civilians.”
Andrew Fox, lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst: “…all the actions they have taken since [Oct 7], are justified both morally and from a national security perspective.”
Geoffrey Corn, Chair of Military Law at Texas Tech Univ. & Lt Col US Army, and Lt. General George Smith: “Israel consistently implements its legal obligation to avoid, whenever feasibly, [civilian deaths].”
Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of the British troops in Afghanistan: “No army takes more precaution than the Israel Defense Forces in order to prevent civil casualties.”
Vincenzo Camporini, former head of the Italian armed forces, together with a group of retired generals from UK & US militaries: “[The] IDF has developed and implemented innovative procedures to mitigate the risk to civilians arising from attacks on valid military objectives.”
Others who support this view include Gen. Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a group of 7 US high ranking officers concluded in a special report that: Israel’s “[in] overall compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict.”
There is no parallel group of that level who accuses Israel of violating the laws of war, or in deliberate unnecessary mass murder of civilian population. This is not “Israeli denialism.” Rather, it is the consensus amongst the relevant professionals.
“The Nakba” — 1948
Then Scheindlin turns to Israel’s great “original sin”: the flight of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from what became Israel, during the 1948 War of Independence. Here too, Israel denied its guilt and concealed the truth:
Israel’s leadership classified the archives related to the Nakba during the War of Independence, while David Ben-Gurion painstakingly cultivated the idea that most Palestinians left at their leaders’ instruction… Archives were declassified, scholars pieced together terrible truths, and Israel reclassified the material.
What “terrible truths” were revealed with the declassification of the archives?
The historian Professor Benny Morris, the prominent researcher of those archives in the early 1980s, concluded his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem with these words:
The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians (p. 286).
About 20 years later, more archival materials were declassified, and they brought Morris to somewhat revise his findings:
Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm’s way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate.
In other words: the declassification of the archives revealed a reality of harsh war, and not unprecedented atrocities committed by Israel. In addition, even if most Arabs didn’t leave at the behest of their leaders, it was definitely true for many of them. This idea is not an invention of David Ben-Gurion, but a simple historical fact, which Dahlia Scheindlin happens to dislike.
The Tantura “Massacre” Affair
Scheindlin also mentions the story of the massacre that he IDF allegedly committed in the Arab village Tantura in 1948, according to the MA dissertation by Teddy Katz from 1998, which sparked an uproar:
Fellow academics unleashed smear campaigns and interviewees retracted their testimonies to Teddy Katz, whose master’s thesis chronicled a massacre by Israeli forces at Tantura in 1948 (that story is captured in an astonishing, eponymous film).
How many lies can be put in one sentence? First, there was no “smear campaign” by “fellow academics.” There were veteran, reputable historians who published their findings that there is no evidence of a massacre in Tantura, and that Teddy Katz’s thesis does not meet minimal academic standards.
Second of all, Katz’s interviewees did not “retract their testimonies.” They sued him, claiming that he distorted their testimonies unrecognizably, in order to support his pre-determined conclusion. And indeed, the trial revealed significant gaps between the recorded testimonies and how they have been quoted in the thesis, as well as other distortions and lies.
The Al-Dura Affair
Dahlia Scheindlin’s piece reaches the beginning of the first Intifada:
In recent years, denial efforts often focus on individual cases, picking apart tiny details to prove Israel’s innocence… Examples of these micro-denials include a cottage industry that emerged over years to prove that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was not killed by Israeli fire in 2000, during the second intifada
The phrase “cottage industry” refers to “a business or manufacturing activity carried on in a person’s home.” That is, Scheindlin insinuates that the claims that Israel didn’t kill Mohammed al-Dura are based on some conspiracy theorists who investigated the case privately.
This claim has no basis. An Israeli investigative commission determined that the case of al-Durrah’s death was unclear, and that at the end of the infamous video supposedly showing his demise, the boy is seen alive. Moreover, the barrage of bullets that struck the boy could not have been fired from an IDF position, according to an Israeli police forensic expert, who took part in investigating the case. Dr. Yehuda David, who claimed to have already treated bullet scars on al-Durrah in 1994, was acquitted in a libel suit filed against him in French court.
But even if Sheindlin claims that all the above investigations and conclusions are Israeli propaganda, two main points stand:
- The video clip showing al-Durrah’s death contains zero evidence that the IDF killed the boy.
- Even if we accept the unproven allegation that al-Durrah died by IDF fire, he was not intentionally murdered, but rather caught in the crossfire between Israelis and armed Palestinians.
Which raises the question: why is Mohammed al-Dura’s death discussed 24 years after the event? The reason? It serves as a major propaganda tool to incite terrorism and murder against Jews and Israelis. That’s why it became a symbol.
Scheindlin is blind to the fact that in her efforts to malign Israel she only exposes the nature of anti-Israeli propaganda.
The Explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital
Scheindlin uses another case of the Palestinian propaganda, which in contrast to the al-Dura case, failed to become a major source for anti-Israeli propaganda:
If a terrible incident is wrongly attributed to Israel – such as the explosions at the Al-Ahli hospital early in the war, most likely by misfired munitions from Palestinian militias – this is leveraged as proof that Israel is innocent in all other cases.
Reminder: In the hour following the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital on October 17 2023, Hamas authorities claimed that Israel bombed the hospital and the people in it. The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that 500 people were killed by the blast. Many major international media outlets accepted the Palestinian version as is, and delivered it to the world.
Only in the hours and days afterwards did evidence accumulate proving that it was a fabrication.
Media outlets and intelligence agencies around the world reached the conclusion: a failed Palestinian rocket hit the hospital’s parking lot, and the number of dead was lower by orders of magnitude than the initial claim.
Scheindlin doesn’t provide an example for someone who claims the Al-Ahli case proves that “Israel is innocent in all other cases.” But the case does showcase the motivation of the industry of lies to defame Israel at every opportunity, as well as the willingness of the international media to embrace every anti-Israeli lie, as long as that lie is not clearly exposed.
Northern Gaza
Finally, Scheindlin moves to discuss the IDF’s activity in the Northern Gaza Strip in recent weeks:
Israel is still starving, bombing and expelling the population of northern Gaza. Many suspect it is implementing the “General’s Plan,” which seeks to empty northern Gaza of Palestinians…
She also describes the proceedings in Israeli court regarding the paucity of humanitarian supplies entering northern Gaza. She writes about the call of Israeli settler leaders and coalition members to establish settlements there. The conclusion is clear: Israel is slaughtering, starving, and expelling hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to build settlements in their stead.
Meanwhile, this is the version of the IDF regarding the operation in Northern Gaza Strip (as far as Scheindlin is concerned, this is merely typical Israeli “denialism”):
The Israel Defense Forces said Sunday that troops had encircled Jabaliya amid a new ground operation targeting efforts by Hamas to reestablish itself in northern Gaza. […]
Amid the expanded operation, the IDF announced on Sunday that it was preparing to evacuate civilians from the entire north of Gaza and would increase the size of the Israeli-designated humanitarian zone in the southern Strip.
The zone, where the vast majority of the Gazan population currently reside, is where most humanitarian aid is being delivered. There are also field hospitals there.
The military also said it was opening up two evacuation routes for Palestinians — along the Salah a-Din road and the coastal road.
The evacuation order’s purpose, according to the IDF, is to minimize the damage to the Palestinian population, while fighting Hamas and preventing the terror organization from tightening its hold in the region.
Which version should we believe — the IDF’s or Dahlia Scheindlin’s?
Well, it’s easy to believe Sceindlin if we ignore the military reality on the ground and Hamas’ modus operandi. And Hamas’ reality on the ground, as explained by a recent document by the Washington Institute, is that Hamas is maintaining “shadow governance” wherever the IDF hasn’t cleared completely of the terror organization’s presence:
Hamas has employed various methods to demonstrate a presence on the ground, provide essential emergency services to the people, and—most important—prevent any other potential players from stepping into its shoes.
These methods include, among others, taking over the humanitarian aid and its distribution to the population; establishment of terror command centers and ammo depots well inside the civilian population; and violently preventing civilians from leaving to the humanitarian zones, including by shooting those who dare evacuate.
These are the conditions that Hamas created, which require evacuating the civilians, in order to fulfill the two goals: to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza, and to minimize civilian casualties.
Regarding the expansion of humanitarian zones, Scheindlin writes:
The IDF says it has expanded the humanitarian zones for Gazans, but Tania Hary, executive director of Gisha, an Israeli NGO working on human rights in Gaza and the lead petitioner, rejects that term: “There is nothing actually humanitarian about the humanitarian zone … there’s not enough aid or shelter for people there, and airstrikes still take place in the zone
And again, it’s very easy to portray Israel as a monster, as long as we ignore Hamas’ existence and the ways it chooses to operate throughout Gaza, even a year after it chose to start a war. And so Scheindlin hides from her readers the systematic theft of humanitarian supplies by Hamas; Hamas officials who hide in the humanitarian zones; the firing of rockets from those zones; and the use of humanitarian zones to establish command centers, weapon workshops, ammunition storages, and bases to launch attacks against Israeli forces.
Conclusion
It’s very easy to incriminate the Jewish State and portray her in a monstrous light, when you believe any lie that her enemies tell about her, and dismiss any evidence that exonerates Israel as worthless “denialism.” That how Dahlia Scheindlin dismisses the professional assessments of military experts regarding Israel’s conduct of war; what historians say about the 1948 war; the real meaning of the al-Dura and Al-Ahli hospital affairs; and what’s going on in the Northern Gaza Strip and the humanitarian zones.
Dahlia Scheindlin wanted to write an indictment against the Israelis’ propensity to reject and deny their crimes. But ironically, the manifest that she wrote is a good example of the way Israel’s haters would blame the Jewish State for anything, disregarding inconvenient facts.
Shlomi Ben Meir is a contributor to CAMERA, where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
In Gaza, Hamas Is Medea
Displaced Palestinians, fleeing northern Gaza due to an Israeli military operation, move southward after Israeli forces ordered residents of Gaza City to evacuate to the south, in the central Gaza Strip September 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
In Greek mythology, Medea does the unthinkable. Pursued by her father, Aeetes, and his fleet, she turns on the person closest to her — her own brother, Absyrtus. She drives a sword into his side, then tears apart a body “made of her own flesh.” She places his head and hands in sight of her father’s ship; the rest she scatters across the shore. Aeetes, shattered by grief, must stop to gather the remains while Medea escapes.
The Romanian writer Vintila Horia, in his novel God Was Born in Exile, lingers on this moment. Medea, he writes, was “a plaything of the gods, who drive men to commit these hateful acts so that they can then punish them more effectively.”
Myths survive because they illuminate universal human behaviors. They are metaphors dressed as stories — allegories of devices we see repeated again and again. And in this case, the echoes are uncomfortably clear.
Today, Palestinian leaders, whether from Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or the PFLP, play Medea’s role. They sacrifice their own people for survival, for wealth, for ideology. Absyrtus is the Palestinian people themselves: torn apart, scattered, turned into propaganda fragments. And the West becomes Aeetes, chasing after the wreckage, desperate to collect the consequences, always behind.
The “gods” are not divine. They are the powers who exploit Palestinians as pawns: Syria, Iran, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others. Wrapped in the cloak of a politicized Palestinian identity that seems to grant immunity, leaders and patrons have stolen aid, enriched themselves, and justified repression: homophobia, misogyny, fanaticism, antisemitism, corruption, and endless violence. The cloak also serves to extract concessions abroad — political, diplomatic, and economic.
Meanwhile, Aeetes, the West, pursues the trail. Responsibilities, negotiations, and concessions pile up. Security and rights recede. Appeasement, apologies, and money flow in, offered up as if tolerance alone could undo the crime.
Medea, in this story, is embodied by the Palestinian leaders and their minions. They are directly responsible for the theft, for the indoctrination, and for the tactic Khaled Meshal himself described: sacrificing their own people to wound, however briefly, the image of the Jewish State. Each “martyrdom,” each “jihad,” is sold as a step toward eliminating Israel.
Absyrtus is the people — trapped in a machinery of violence, indoctrination, victimization, and offering, for which UNRWA bears immense responsibility. Reduced to faces on campaign posters, to slogans shouted in Paris, Madrid, or American universities, their deaths are paraded before the world as bait. The West does not insist that Hamas be removed from power — so that the war will end; hospitals, schools, and mosques won’t be turned into fighting locations; and Palestinian civilians won’t be used by their government as human shields. Instead, the West, like Aeetes, dutifully chases after the violent repercussions of Hamas’ tactics, convinced that appeasement, tolerance, and aid can somehow reassemble what their leaders have destroyed.
This ritual has a lineage. From the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hassan al-Banna, down to Hamas today, the line runs long and unbroken. Death and hostage releases become theater, staged to desensitize their own people and foreign spectators alike.
Above all, Palestinians are sacrificed for a radical Islamist project of religious totalitarianism that seeks to advance westward, unopposed and unquestioned. This is what Hamas represents, and that is the true tragedy: not simply that people die, but that their deaths are wielded as weapons, as theater, and as excuses for hatred.
So long as the West keeps gathering the carnage that has been left behind, it will remain trapped in the tragedy. The only way out is to name the crime and hold the true Medeas to account.
Marcelo Wio is a Senior Analyst at CAMERA’s Spanish Department.
RSS
Exposed: AP Freelancer in Gaza Praised Palestinian Terrorist Who Killed 37 Jews
Students at the Dalal Mughrabi Elementary Mixed School, which was built with funds from the Belgian government. (Photo: Facebook)
If the Associated Press (AP), one of the world’s largest news agencies, had done its due diligence before hiring Palestinian photojournalist Ismael Abu Dayyah, it would have seen him praising terrorists and posting anti-Israel content online.
Instead, Abu Dayyah was employed to report on the war in Gaza for the AP in 2024, and the agency still sells his images.
His social media activity, however, casts a shadow over his objectivity and the AP’s hiring practices, which comes at a time when global media outlets are promoting an ongoing campaign on behalf of Gazan journalists.
Abu Dayyah used the social media platform X to glorify Palestinian terrorist Dalal al Mughrabi, who was responsible for the deadliest attack against Israeli Jews before the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.
Abu Dayyah also praised the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — a proscribed terror group responsible for dozens of attacks against Israelis over the decades, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks, shootings, and in 2014, the barbaric murder of five Jewish worshippers in a synagogue in Jerusalem. He also celebrated its member Laila Khaled, who hijacked an airplane en route to Tel Aviv in 1969.
Abu Dayyah also posted content showing his profile picture on a map of Israel with a caption calling for the liberation of Jerusalem. Other posts by him called Hamas hostages “prisoners,” and labeled the establishment of a Jewish state as “Zionist Colonialism.”
Praise for Terrorists
In a post from March 2021, Abu Dayyah wrote:
And “Dalal Mughrabi” remains the bride of Palestine who chose resistance as her path and the homeland as her beloved, the legend who surpassed all military ranks. – Anniversary of martyrdom 11_March_1978.
Dalal Al Mughrabi was a Fatah terrorist responsible for the horrific 1978 massacre of 37 Jews, among them 12 children, in what was the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history — until Hamas’ October 7 massacre.
Al Mughrabi led the “Coastal Road Massacre,” as it became known, when she and a group of terrorists infiltrated Israel from Lebanon, hijacked a passenger bus, and detonated it with explosives near Tel Aviv.
But for the AP’s Abu Dayyah, she is an icon. And he has been consistent in celebrating the anniversary of her “heroic” death not only in 2021, but also in previous years.
In 2022, Abu Dayyah also posted praise for Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled and the PFLP:
Leila Khaled, who is still a PFLP member and regularly calls for violence against Israel, took part in the 1969 hijacking of a TWA flight from Rome to Tel Aviv. A year later, she was part of a two-person team that attempted to hijack an El Al flight from Amsterdam to New York City.
By celebrating her “achievements” online, Abu Dayyah actively promoted and supported terrorism. He also included hashtags delegitimizing a Jewish presence in Israel, such as “Jerusalem is Arab” and “our land wants freedom.”
Abu Dayyah has a documented history of praising, supporting, and promoting violent terrorism, and should therefore have no place in any Western media outlets, where his photos — that only show destruction and casualties in Gaza but not terrorists — promote Hamas’ narrative and serve as an outlet for his bias.
Anti-Israeli Bias
How can Abu Dayyah be expected to cover the Israel-Palestinian conflict professionally and objectively if he is also posting images that express his deep anti-Israeli bias?
In 2021, for example, as Hamas launched rockets at Israel from Gaza, he posted a picture of himself covering Israel’s map, and called for the liberation of Jerusalem.
Another propaganda post Abu Dayyah published that week showed a masked Palestinian youth protecting Jerusalem’s al Aqsa compound — located on Judaism’s holiest site — from Israeli soldiers.
And last February, Al Dayyah called Israeli hostages who were held and tortured by Hamas “prisoners” — a bias so deeply ingrained that it unsurprisingly aligns with his view that the establishment of the Jewish state was “Zionist colonialism.”
Media Hypocrisy
The AP cannot feign ignorance. HonestReporting had already exposed numerous Gaza journalists for their anti-Israel bias, at best, or Hamas membership, at worst, by the time the AP hired Abu Dayyah in 2024.
At the outset of the Israel-Hamas war, we even exposed the antisemitic social media history of the agency’s Gaza correspondent — which led to his dismissal.
So why did the AP not bother checking Abu Dayyah’s background before he was hired? Do AP bosses not believe in due diligence — which should be a given in any respectable organization?
And what do the AP and other media outlets have to say about Abu Dayyah in light of their loud campaign on behalf of Gaza journalists — many of whom share his views or work side by side with Hamas?
“When will AP acknowledge a consistent and serious problem with too many of Gaza’s media workers?” said HonestReporting’s editorial director, Simon Plosker. “Ismael Abu Dayyah didn’t even attempt to hide his extremism from his employers, and it’s clear they didn’t even bother looking. Instead of launching campaigns that ignore journalists’ links to or sympathies for Hamas, it’s high time the media addressed the elephant in the room. Neither AP nor any credible Western media should employ Abu Dayyah again, and we call on AP to publicly state that the news agency will sever ties with him.”
If a global news organization has no problem relying on biased journalists who praise the murderers of Jews, it cannot simultaneously decry their “professional” plight.
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
French Dishonor in New York: A Palestinian State as a Reward for Oct. 7
French President Emmanuel Macron is seen at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Photo: Reuters/Martial Trezzini
In late September 1938, faced with yet one more territorial demand from Adolf Hitler and gripped with fear at the prospect of another European war just after the end of the Great War, British and French leaders decided to meet with Hitler in Munich,
Although wary of Hitler and his repeated threats, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Edouard Daladier, Prime Minister of France, chose to agree to Hitler’s demand to integrate part of newly-formed Czechoslovakia — known as the Sudetenland — into his Third Reich. The Czechs had no choice but to agree to the partition, which was being imposed on them by outsiders.
Chamberlain seemed persuaded that by giving in to Hitler’s demands and having the Nazi Chancellor sign a treaty whereby he announced that he had no further territorial demands, he had brought the risk of war to an end. He would even announce that this capitulation meant, as he put it, “Peace in our time.”
Daladier had no such illusion. Although he agreed to the treaty with Hitler, he was profoundly ashamed of the concessions he and Chamberlain had made. In fact, he was so ashamed of his behavior at Munich, that he was afraid to return to Paris. As his plane prepared to land at Le Bourget just outside of Paris, Daladier could see a very large crowd waiting for him. Fearful that the crowd might cause him harm in light of the Munich agreement, he ordered the pilot to circle the airfield and defer landing. Finally, he had no choice but to land, and he prepared to face the crowd’s hostility.
To his amazement, as he exited his plane, he was greeted by shouts of approval. He could barely believe his eyes and ears. He had feared being attacked and, instead, he was being acclaimed. His reaction was to mutter, “Ah, the fools [using a profanity]. If they only understood.” Daladier, the seasoned politician and intelligent student of history, knew very well that signing a treaty with a murderous thug like Hitler was an exercise in futility, or worse.
The experience of Prime Minister Daladier is well worth remembering as we witness the humiliating groveling of French President Emmanuel Macron in New York, as Macron — seemingly seeking to pacify a segment of France’s population — announces France’s recognition of a non-existent Palestinian State. That Macron has chosen to do this in the wake of the brutal massacre perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7, a massacre committed in the name of and with the seeming approval of many Palestinians, as well as at a time when Israeli hostages remain imprisoned in the tunnels of Gaza, is truly galling.
If Macron believes that by recognizing a Palestinian state at this time he is promoting peace in the Middle East, he needs to reread the history of the Munich conference.
Just as it was obvious that Hitler was lying when he promised that, if he was given the Sudetenland he would not have any further territorial demands, so Palestinian leaders are obviously lying as they suggest that recognition of a Palestinian state might bring an end to their desire to destroy Israel.
It is very likely that, having recognized Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, Macron will be given a hero’s welcome in Paris. But that welcome will be a hollow welcome. Just as Daladier was cheered on his return from Munich, Macron will be cheered by fools. The motley crew of fools will be made up of unassimilated immigrants, radical leftists, and indoctrinated students.
Sadly, Macron, the brilliant and articulate young man who seemed so promising when he first assumed office — quite unlike Daladier, the experienced and cynical politician — may not even be able to appreciate the error of his ways. In spite of his intelligence, Macron appears unable to understand that recognition of a Palestinian state now can only appear as a reward to Hamas for the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
That is especially the case since Hamas terrorists continue their intransigence in holding hostages and refusing to lay down their arms, in spite of their evident military defeat. Macron, through his appeasement of terrorists, will simply have prolonged the agony of the very people of the region he purports to be helping and he will have made ultimate peace in the Middle East even more elusive.
Just as Chamberlain’s and Daladier’s negotiation with Hitler merely postponed the inevitable and assuredly encouraged Hitler to believe that intransigence could work, Macron’s false encouragement to the Palestinians will certainly prompt yet more violence and cost yet more lives. It will make France seem naïve and cynical.
Instead of adding luster to the history of France, Macron will have added another disappointing chapter to the roller coaster ride that is French history. In this case, as in 1938, there are plenty of fools, but potentially the greatest fool of them all may be the shameless and feckless French president himself.
Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of a national law firm. He is the author of Lobbying for Equality, Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights during the French Revolution, published by HUC Press.