RSS
The Myopia of the Bibi-ists
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a ceremony marking Memorial Day for fallen soldiers of Israel’s wars and victims of attacks, at Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl military cemetery, May 13, 2024. Photo: Gil Cohen-Magen/Pool via REUTERS
Benjamin Netanyahu was probably Israel’s best finance minister and public spokesman (second maybe to the more erudite Abba Eban). However, despite efforts by his supporters — “Bibi-ists” — to craft a flattering narrative around the man they call “King Bibi,” recent events have tarnished his legacy.
The turning point was the Oct. 7 massacre that happened on his watch. Since that horrible day, Netanyahu has sounded like Sgt. Schultz, the hapless German guard in a fictional POW camp in the sitcom Hogan’s Heroes.
In the show, the American prisoners always conducted a covert campaign against the Germans under his nose, leading to his frequent retort, “I see nothing, I hear nothing, and I say NOTHING!!!”
While the leaders of Israel’s defense and intelligence agencies have accepted responsibility for the failure to protect Israel, Netanyahu, who fancies himself as “Mr. Security” and the world’s authority on terrorism, has avoided accountability. He has turned Harry Truman’s famous dictum, “The buck stops here,” on its head. For Netanyahu, the shekel stops anywhere but here.
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for an investigation into the failures on and before Oct. 7. Netanyahu said that couldn’t be done while the war continued, meaning he could delay it for months or perhaps years. Gallant insisted the inquiry couldn’t wait.
Netanyahu also got into a fight with IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, after Netanyahu blamed the military for the lack of progress in hostage negotiations. He said the IDF wasn’t applying enough pressure on Hamas.
A furious Halevi said, “These words are serious. I demand that the prime minister apologize.”
Reportedly, Netanyahu did not respond.
Netanyahu subsequently pulled a Sgt. Schultz in a meeting with bereaved families of observation soldiers murdered on Oct. 7. Fifteen were killed and six taken hostage. The prime minister claimed he did not know the soldiers had reported seeing indications that Hamas was planning an attack, or that the women responsible for the surveillance at the border were unarmed, or that no one from the government or Knesset had come to visit them.
“All this information — it’s astonishing to me that I’m hearing this,” was Netanyahu’s reaction.
Netanyahu promised to defeat Hamas and bring all the hostages home. After nearly nine months, neither has happened. Meanwhile, the IDF spokesperson admitted Israel cannot defeat Hamas, and his military advisers have echoed American insistence that Israel must formulate a strategy for postwar Gaza to avoid chaos, but he won’t hear of it.
The Bibi-ists would prefer to ignore how we got to this point.
A brief reflection reveals a troubling pattern: From his divisive rhetoric after the Oslo Accords to his tenure marked by corruption indictments and coalition compromises with extremists, Netanyahu’s leadership has polarized Israeli society and alienated global allies.
In 1995, Netanyahu demonized Yitzhak Rabin. Many on the left still blame his incitement for Rabin’s assassination, which the right laughs off. Now Netanyahu and the Bibi-ists claim the provocation of the left is endangering the prime minister.
Netanyahu attacked Rabin for reluctantly shaking Yasser Arafat’s hand and signing the Oslo Accords. After being elected, Netanyahu shook Arafat’s hand and agreed to further withdrawals from Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu also agreed to a division of Hebron, the holiest city in the territories. He continues to rail against Oslo, but has not withdrawn Israel from the agreements. The Bibi-ists are silent on the subject.
Before Oct. 7, Netanyahu fractured Israeli society by refusing to resign after being indicted for a variety of corruption charges and agreeing to bring racist extremists into his coalition to keep power. He further alienated much of the country and Jews abroad with his efforts to reform the judiciary to weaken its power and strengthen his own.
Even some of Netanyahu’s harshest critics give him credit for keeping Israel out of a war before Oct. 7. That policy of restraint, however, emboldened Israel’s enemies, whom he erroneously believed were deterred.
Hamas was severely weakened by Operation Cast Lead, initiated by Ehud Olmert in 2008, but it regained strength during Netanyahu’s tenure. Mistakenly believing Hamas could be appeased through economic incentives, he agreed to Qatar bringing Hamas suitcases of cash that enabled the terrorists to build the “metro” of tunnels in Gaza and expand their rocket arsenal.
The failure to prevent the Hamas massacre will force Israel to station troops in Gaza for an indefinite period after Ariel Sharon relieved Israel of the burden with the 2005 disengagement.
Not only did Hamas grow stronger under Netanyahu’s nose, but so too did Hezbollah, which vastly expanded and improved its missile inventory, and now can threaten most of Israel. The failure to deter Hezbollah forced 60,000 Israelis to leave their homes, and northern Israel is now uninhabitable.
Netanyahu is the first prime minister in Israel’s history to cede sovereign state land to an enemy. Whether he takes decisive action against Hezbollah to allow the residents to return is an open question. Doing so will likely require a bloody war that will wreak more havoc on the Israeli economy, cause widespread death and destruction on both sides, and further isolate Israel internationally once Lebanese civilian casualties mount.
Netanyahu has spoken incessantly about the existential threat posed by Iran, but has failed to stop its march toward building a nuclear weapon. The radical Islamic regime is closer today to having an atomic bomb than when he first became prime minister.
Iran has also succeeded in building an Axis of Resistance — proxies surrounding Israel — with Hezbollah, Iraq, and Syria in the north, Hamas in the south and a growing presence in the West Bank, and the Houthis in Yemen. Rather than make Israel more secure, Netanyahu made it less so.
Netanyahu justly took credit for improving Israel’s standing worldwide, most notably by signing the Abraham Accords. Since Oct. 7, however, Israel’s image has reached a historical nadir. His contentious relationship with key allies, especially the United States, has strained critical partnerships at a time when unified support is most needed.
Netanyahu picked a public fight with the United States over the delivery of weapons, but no one is asking why private American citizens and the Friends of the IDF must raise millions to provide equipment for the IDF. The prime minister failed to ensure that Israeli soldiers had everything they needed to defend the country.
Bibi-ists want to deflect blame onto ideological opponents. The problem with the blame-the-left argument is that the last “leftist” prime minister was Shimon Peres nearly 30 years ago. Who has been the prime minister in most of the years since then?
Calls for new leadership resonate widely among the Israeli public, frustrated by Netanyahu’s persistence in clinging to power. The Bibi-ists argue an election can’t be held during the war because it would be a distraction Israel can’t afford. Still, England held an election in 1945, two months before World War II ended, and without an election, Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as prime minister after the war began. Franklin Roosevelt won his fourth term during the final stages of the war.
With more than 100 Israelis still held hostage by Hamas, growing threats from Iran and its proxies, Israel’s isolation worsening, and Netanyahu’s looming criminal trials, the question is whether Netanyahu can restore the luster to his reputation and live up to the mythology created by the Bibi-ists.
The post The Myopia of the Bibi-ists 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.