RSS
The Gaza War Has No Good Solutions, and Israel Remains Perilously at Risk
A child walks at the site of an Israeli air strike on a house, as the conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas continues, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, October 27, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
Ten months after Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, it is possible to evaluate the achievements of the war’s two parties. Unlike the State of Israel, which officially declares its war aims, we can only estimate what Hamas’ war aims were before the October 7 attack.
Contrary to the opinions of several commentators who claimed that the goal of the war was to release Palestinian prisoners, it can be assumed that Hamas’ war goals were much broader and more ambitious, and some of them were even achieved.
In addition to the immediate goals of war, wars create wider circles of influence. War is like a stone that is thrown into a lake and creates ripples that reach areas far from the spot where the stone hit the water. The effect of war on events and processes is sometimes uncontrollable, not always predictable, and can last a long time. Sometimes the indirect effects are more significant than the goals defined by the combatants as their war aims. There are many examples: The United States overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but did not expect its victory to result in Iran’s taking advantage of the opportunity to become a regional power. Israel did not define a peace deal for Sinai as one of the goals of the Yom Kippur War, but that is what the war eventually led to. Israel succeeded in realizing its main war objective when it went into Lebanon in 1982, which was to remove the Arafat-led Fatah organization from Lebanon — but it did not take into account that that war would lead to the rise of the Shiite element in Lebanon led by Hezbollah.
In view of all this, the balance of achievements and failures of each side in the current war must be looked at with caution. Another difficulty in evaluation is the matter of quantifying achievements — that is, how to determine the “value” or strategic weight of each achievement compared to the failures or achievements of the other side. Without the ability to give such a value or weight it is difficult to make an overall assessment. Nevertheless, it is advisable to conduct an examination of the balance of achievements. Let’s start with Hamas and its allies — Iran and its proxies.
The achievements of Hamas and the resistance axis
Hamas managed to take advantage of the crisis in Israeli society in the months before the war to prepare and carry out a surprise attack that shocked and traumatized Israeli society to a degree comparable to the Yom Kippur War. Some believe that due to the massacre of civilians and the taking of the abductees, the trauma is even deeper.
As a result of the Hamas attack, the towns around the Gaza Strip were evacuated. Fear of a Hezbollah ground attack in the north led to the decision to evacuate the northern border towns as well, resulting in the total evacuation of about 200,000 people. A small number of residents of the south have been able to return and a slow reconstruction process has begun, but in the north, not only are the residents unable to return to their homes, but Hezbollah has spent the months of the war systematically destroying Israeli homes and property through precise shooting. It is difficult to exaggerate the magnitude of the achievement of the axis of resistance in forcing the evacuation of entire swaths of land and shrinking sovereign Israel, something that has not happened since the declaration of the state.
The fact that the army was caught by complete surprise resulted in many casualties on October 7. The hard fighting to occupy the Gaza Strip and destroy Hamas caused fewer casualties than estimated, but still, the number of casualties Israel has suffered is high. Since October 7, the IDF has lost the equivalent of an entire brigade in casualties and wounded, among them skilled special unit fighters and prominent field commanders.
The Hamas attack succeeded in mobilizing a broad and diverse international anti-Israel and indeed openly antisemitic front. The fight against Israel is being waged by states, NGOs, and international institutions such as the United Nations and the Human Rights Council. Huge demonstrations against Israel and supporting Hamas have been organized in major capitals throughout the free world.
Another campaign being waged against Israel is the legal campaign being conducted in the courts of international law, the ICC and the ICJ at The Hague, where lawsuits against Israel and its leaders are pending. These measures are damaging and have long-term consequences for Israel’s position. Another arm of this campaign is the mobilization of students in the United States and Europe for anti-Israel protests the likes of which have not been seen since the protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. At the same time, there is a strengthening of BDS organizations and a rising economic boycott of Israel by countries and companies. Various countries have banned military aid or even the transfer of aid as a stopover, as did Spain, which refused to allow an Indian ship loaded with military equipment destined for Israel to dock in its territory.
As an immediate result of the war and the many expenses that accompany it, Israel’s economy is facing difficult challenges. This was reflected by the leading rating agencies’ downward revision of Israel’s economic strength and growth forecast. The downgrade not only reflects the difficulties caused to Israel’s economy by the war but also makes it harder for Israel to raise cheap loans to finance war-created deficits.
The Hamas attack brought the Palestinian issue back to center stage. It is no longer possible to talk about progress toward a regional settlement without addressing the Palestinian issue, which means Israeli concessions. As part of the global support for the Palestinian cause, several countries have announced their recognition of a Palestinian state.
The Hamas attack mobilized several Iranian proxies to attack Israel. These attacks are primarily by Hezbollah on the northern border and by Yemen’s Houthis, who attack ships in the Red Sea and have fired missiles and anti-aircraft missiles at Eilat. Iraqi Shia militias also occasionally shoot at Israel. While it chose to conduct a limited campaign, Hezbollah has nevertheless caused a great deal of damage to Israel by exposing its weaknesses and inability to effectively stop Hezbollah fire.
The Houthi attacks on international shipping lanes in the Red Sea and the massive Iranian attack on Israel in response to the assassination of one of its senior officials in Syria drew relatively weak responses from the free world. This is worrying in and of itself and has consequences for the free world’s deterrence. This weakness of Israel’s allies reflects back on Israel.
The continuous attacks by Iran and its proxies on Israel expose a state of erosion of Israeli deterrence since October 7. Despite the success of the military operation in Gaza, Israel has not restored its regional deterrence.
Nine months after the attack, the internal divisions and struggles in Israeli society are reemerging around issues that create a fault line between supporters of the coalition and the government and the opposition and its various groups. To the previous issues of controversy has been added the issue of the hostages and the cessation of the war against continuation of the war and military pressure. These issues are being argued in an atmosphere of acute crisis of confidence among large contingents of citizens who do not believe the existing leadership is doing enough to free the hostages.
Hamas, even if greatly weakened and without its grip on parts of the Gaza Strip, remains the only ruler in the Strip. They are still in control, and they are holding dozens of hostages alive.
Israel’s main achievements
Despite a high price in casualties (albeit much lower than early estimates), Israel’s main achievement in the campaign is the destruction of Hamas’ military capabilities. Hamas as a significant military system no longer poses a threat to Israel. Israel took away its rocket capabilities and the ability to carry out a large ground raid across the border. The broader meaning is the termination of a central arm of the Iranian “ring of fire” plan around Israel. In the next confrontation against the “axis of resistance”, Israel will have one less front to be worried about and will be able to focus its efforts on the remaining theaters of operations.
Another important Israeli achievement that should not be underestimated is the breaking of the psychological barrier of the IDF commanders and the political echelon against a ground maneuver and the use of ground forces. At least since the Second Lebanon War in 2006, there has been a reluctance to use the maneuver as a decisive tool due to considerations of casualties and international pressure. As a result, Israel lost an important tool in its military arsenal and essentially gave up decisiveness, thus damaging Israeli deterrence. In this context, it is important to mention the role of the reserve forces and their return as a central force in the IDF, without which a major operation cannot be carried out.
The invasion of Gaza and accompanying destruction in the Strip created a severe trauma for Palestinian society that will undoubtedly reverberate in the Palestinian and regional consciousness for many years to come. The Palestinians as well as other parties in the region understand the price they may pay if they repeat a brutal attack and murder hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Israeli society has proven once again that it has healthy foundations and is committed to life. The widespread recruitment into the reserves, the return of many Israelis from abroad expressly to enlist, and the mobilization of civil organizations for the war effort once again proved the resilience and solidarity of Israeli society, which enable it to face difficult challenges.
The subject of the hostages is sensitive and painful. Many people see the half-empty glass – the dozens of hostages still being held alive in Gaza. But it should also be noted that about half the hostages, most of them women, children and the elderly, were released during the military operation at a relatively low price.
Another significant achievement is the coalition led by the United States and specifically by American Central Command to thwart the massive Iranian missile attack on Israel. Israel trained for several years and prepared with its partners for such a scenario, but until it is faced in reality, it is hard to know whether and how such a coalition would be activated on Israel’s side. Stopping the Iranian attack was a major success and proof of the existence of a coalition that knows how to function together on the operational level. In addition, Israel proved that its Arrow system is capable of intercepting dozens of ballistic missiles and that Israel is equipped with a unique global capability in this regard.
American backing, and the standing of the United States on Israel’s side, is a critical asset for Israeli national strength. However, the sending of aircraft carriers signaled Israeli weakness. Also, the uneven messages of the Americans over the past months, such as the pressure not to enter Rafah, the halting of arms shipments and other statements, did not add to and even weakened Israeli strength. The United States supports Israel, but with many reservations and limitations.
The Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia also participated in repelling the Iranian attack. This marked the peak of another Israeli achievement: the maintaining of the Abraham Accords and the potential for a settlement with Saudi Arabia, which is still on the table. The importance of this development should not be underestimated.
At the same time, Israel achieved another achievement: curbing the outbreak of additional arenas that Hamas hoped would be dragged into the conflict. Following the October 7 attack, Hamas hoped the West Bank as well as the Arab-Israeli sector would join the riots, as happened during Operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021. In fact, the opposite happened. For the most part, the Arab-Israeli public was shocked by the barbarity of the attack (in which quite a few Arabs were also murdered) and expressed solidarity and a shared fate with the Jewish public.
What’s next
Israel is in a continuous and difficult campaign, the end of which is hard to discern. The Israeli success story of projecting regional, military, economic, and political power suffered a severe blow on October 7. The “axis of resistance” recognizes this weakness and is looking for another opportunity to strike Israel and weaken it further. In the background is Iranian nuclearization, which adds another dramatic dimension to the regional conflict centered on Iran, Israel, and the Sunni-Shia struggle.
Israel is faced with a dilemma. It has two alternatives. The first is talks to end the war and withdraw from Gaza, as demanded by Hamas. In exchange for this and the release of all Palestinian prisoners, Hamas says it will release the hostages. Taking this option would make it possible to reach a settlement in the north, because Nasrallah has said he will stop Hezbollah from firing if there is a ceasefire in Gaza. Israel would be free to rehabilitate itself internally and improve its international position, and would also be able to prepare for the next campaign after a thorough learning of lessons and re-equipping. Israel would be able to resume the promotion of normalization with Saudi Arabia, which would open the door to a security and economic partnership and a regional alliance that would stop Iran and its proxies. Some believe the main purpose of the Hamas attack was to prevent just such an alliance, which would be a regional game-changer.
On the face of it, this alternative has many advantages. It is a tempting idea and many support it. But it has many risks. The withdrawal of the IDF from the Gaza Strip and the release of thousands of terrorists would in fact be an Israeli surrender and a relinquishment of most of the gains of the war. It would represent a tremendous victory for Hamas and the resistance front. It is not at all certain that Hamas would in fact release all the hostages it holds.
An Israeli withdrawal (including from the Philadephi axis) would mean a rapid restoration of Hamas’ military capabilities, with Iranian help. Israel, whose deterrence has been severely damaged, would find it difficult to gather legitimacy and support either domestically or internationally for a ground campaign aimed at destroying Hamas. It would be difficult to convince evacuated Israelis to return to their homes under Hezbollah’s umbrella. Israel may find itself losing in every direction.
In the second alternative, Israel continues to “mow the grass” in Gaza while putting pressure on Hamas and trying to reach a hostage deal. At the same time, Israel is building a governmental alternative to Hamas. Israel would be forced to reach a settlement in the north, and if this does not succeed, it would have no choice but to launch a limited attack to drive Hezbollah away from the border. This alternative is also full of risks and is far from simple. It has no clear end, and Israel could find itself in a regional war while it is immersed in a long-standing guerrilla war in Gaza. Its advantage would be the extinction of Hamas in Gaza and the guarantee of its non-return to power.
Both alternatives indicate that Israel will not return to the reality of October 6. It is facing difficult years of a prolonged existential struggle. To this end, it is imperative for Israel to be led by a leadership that enjoys the broad trust of the public.
One more thing to remember: History is full of unexpected turns and twists. The impact of events far from the Middle East, such as the selection of the next American president, can affect Israel’s ability to operate in Gaza and Lebanon and can greatly affect deterrence against Iran. Regarding Iran, a development that leads to regime change there could be a game-changing turn. A change in other areas of crisis in the world, such as around Taiwan and the South China Sea or continued Russian advances on the Ukraine front, could change the picture dramatically. In those cases, we are likely to see a shift in global attention toward those crisis centers and a tightening of ranks among the countries of the free world, and as a result, more significant support for Israel and its policies.
Prof. Eitan Shamir serves as the head of the BESA Center and as a faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. His latest book is The Art of Military Innovation: Lessons from the IDF, Harvard University Press, 2023 (with Edward Luttwak). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Gaza War Has No Good Solutions, and Israel Remains Perilously at Risk first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.