RSS
The pro-Israel case for a negotiated end to the war in Gaza
(JTA) — First thing every morning, I open Israeli news sites, dreading what I will see: more soldiers killed in action, more hostages confirmed dead, more Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza. More drones and missiles flying at Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen. More bereaved and terrified children and families. A darker and dimmer future for Israel and the entire region.
After Hamas’s atrocities of Oct. 7, it was clear that some kind of military response was both necessary and justified. No country could be expected to do otherwise in the face of a terror attack that including murdering, raping, and kidnapping hundreds of civilians — all of which are war crimes. Like so many others, I was horrified by those who argued that such depraved brutality must be excused and rationalized in the context of occupation and the siege of Gaza.
But as Israel’s massive bombardment and shelling of Gaza continues through a third month, with its devastating toll on Palestinian civilians, it’s time for those of us who consider ourselves supporters of Israel, who have loved ones in Israel, and who are committed to Israel’s long-term security to call for a negotiated end to the war.
Within the pro-Israel community, the very word “ceasefire” has become toxic because it has been seized upon by some who do not have Israel’s best interests at heart. Already on Oct. 7 and soon after, and even before Israel’s retaliatory attacks, there were some who launched protests of Israel, and who even celebrated Hamas’s cruel attacks. In that context, calls for ceasefire have amounted to a one-sided call for Israeli pacifism or surrender.
And while many calls for ceasefire are driven by a genuine desire to end the deaths of civilians, and some have included a call to return hostages, too many have been accompanied by false charges of genocide, a claim under international law that carries a high burden of proof of intent, or by justifying or even denying Hamas’s murders, rapes and kidnapping. Some of these protests have included antisemitic language, including demands that Israeli Jews leave Israel, denials of Jewish connection to the land, and calls to “globalize the intifada,” which many Jews understandably take to mean terrorist attacks on buses and other civilian targets, including Jewish institutions outside of Israel. Protesters have taken out anger at Israel on Jewish institutions, including through vandalism and even shootings directed at synagogues.
But I want to make a pro-Israel case for a negotiated end to the war. In Israel, some of those most affected by Hamas’s atrocities have been the loudest voices calling for a return to negotiations. This past Saturday night, families of the remaining hostages, along with Israelis who have been freed from captivity and thousands of their supporters, protested at the Kiryah, IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv. Their demand was clear: As Noam Peri, whose father Haim Peri, remains in captivity, told the crowd, “We only receive dead bodies. We want you to stop the fight and start negotiations.”
I was in Israel during the initial ceasefire, which resulted in the return of more than 100 hostages. One night, I found myself in Hostage Square in Tel Aviv at the very moment when that evening’s group of redeemed hostages landed in Israel. I felt both relief and joy at seeing the faces of women and children flash on the giant screen, with the words “I have returned home,” as well as the pain of the families whose loved ones remained in Gaza.
That night in Tel Aviv, I watched multiple members of one family holding signs with the face of a young man. Days later, he was confirmed murdered in captivity. And last week, three escaped hostages were mistakenly gunned down by Israeli soldiers in Gaza. As the families and those who have returned from captivity continue to emphasize, the remaining hostages do not have much time left.
Pidyon Shvuyim, the redemption of captives, is one of the most important mitzvahs in Judaism, and one that, unfortunately, has had to be practiced over and over throughout Jewish history. While there is some concern over redeeming captives at too great a price, key figures such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the longtime Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel, have argued that immediate danger to the lives of hostages overrules the possibility of future danger from the release of prisoners.
People hold a sign replicating the message painted by three hostages who were killed by Israeli troops, during a protest calling for the government to find a solution to have the hostages released, outside the Military Defense Headquarters in Tel Aviv, Dec. 19, 2023. (Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90)
Those of us who care about the long-term flourishing of Israel must ask whether those conducting this war have a strategy and whether the price of victory — whatever “victory” may mean — will be too high. As military analyst Amos Harel wrote this week, “Like in Lebanon in 1982, this consensus [in support of the war] rests on two conditions that gradually waned over time: a clear purpose for the war and the understanding that victory is attainable. The risk in Gaza will grow, too, when doubts begin to emerge about whether those conditions can be fulfilled.” Just as the United States learned in Afghanistan, a war might be justified, but it is very difficult to conduct justly, or wisely, especially when driven by strong emotions of shame, humiliation, rage, and revenge. It can end with extremists still in power — and even strengthened.
As the Biden administration has made clear, a negotiated ceasefire, would include the return of hostages, an end to Israeli attacks in Gaza and to missile attacks on Israel, and ultimately would lead to an international plan for a new government in Gaza. This does not necessarily preclude future targeted raids aimed at specific military capabilities if necessary. But it would bring to an end the current war, which has already killed, injured and displaced far too many Israelis and Palestinians.
Perhaps this war can be “won,” in the sense that Hamas’s top leaders may eventually be killed, but can the IDF really root out every last fighter and every last rifle and rocket in every last tunnel? And if so, at what cost?
Would it be a victory to bring about the deaths of tens of thousands more Palestinian civilians, whether from bombs, disease, starvation or exposure? To sacrifice even more Israeli soldiers on what Israeli poet Natan Alterman called “the silver platter” for a war that is increasingly unlikely to bring greater security to Israel?
Wounded Israeli soldiers were among the thousands who attended the funeral of Tomer Grinberg, an Israeli officer killed the previous day, at the Mt. Herzl cemetery in Jerusalem, Dec. 13, 2023. (Eliyahu Freedman)
Would it be a victory to create a new generation of young Palestinians who believe they have nothing to lose, and who become the next generation of Hamas? Would it be a victory to spark a regional war that could inflame the entire world?
Would it be a victory to sacrifice Israel’s relations with the United States, which has increasingly made clear its position that Israel must end the intense phase of the war soon? Would it be a victory to turn Israel into a pariah state?
Those who call themselves pro-Israel need to get serious about which Israel they support. Is it this extremist government, driven by the settler agenda, with a bleak future, forever living by the sword? Or is it a democratic Israel, living within internationally-recognized borders, as a full member of the international community? The long-term security of Israel – ”victory” in its truest and deepest sense – will come about only through an Israel with stable borders alongside a Palestinian state and with normalized relations with neighboring Arab and Muslim countries.
In a legal opinion supporting the 1982 peace treaty with Egypt, Rabbi David Chaim HaLevy, then the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Tel Aviv, riffed on the verse, “May God grant strength to God’s people; may God bless God’s people with peace,” by saying, “Just as for a generation, we carried out wars with strength and might, God will bless us now that we will also know how to make peace. Because it’s very possible that it’s easier to fight than to achieve true peace.”
Given the polarization of the moment, and our deep wounds, it may be hard for those of us who care about Israel and Israelis, and who are committed to the long-term flourishing of the state, to call for a negotiated end to the war. But doing so might well be the most pro-Israel, and the most Jewish, position that one can take.
—
The post The pro-Israel case for a negotiated end to the war in Gaza appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
As Gaza War Continues, Hamas Calls for Global Protests While Israel Marks Breakthroughs in Medical Innovation
A pro-Hamas march in London, United Kingdom, Feb. 17, 2024. Photo: Chrissa Giannakoudi via Reuters Connect
As the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas calls for global protests amid stalled Gaza ceasefire talks, Israel has broken new ground despite the ongoing conflict, achieving a major medical breakthrough in synthetic human kidney development.
The contrast illustrates a stark contrast between the priorities of Hamas, an international designated terrorist group that has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades, and Israel, the lone democracy in the Middle East that has long been a leader in tech and medical innovation.
On Wednesday, Hamas urged worldwide protests in support of Palestinians, calling on the international community “to denounce Israel’s genocidal war and starvation policy in Gaza.”
“We call for continuing and escalating the popular pressure in all cities and squares on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday … through rallies, demonstrations and sit-ins outside the embassies of the Israeli regime and its allies, particularly in the US,” the statement read.
The Palestinian terrorist group also called to expose what it described as “the terrorism of the Zio-Nazi occupation against defenseless civilians.”
Hamas’s latest move against Israel comes amid stalled indirect negotiations over a proposed 60-day ceasefire and hostage release deal, which collapsed last month after the group vowed it would not disarm unless an independent Palestinian state is established — rejecting a key Israeli demand to end the war in Gaza.
In its statement, Hamas demanded the opening of all border crossings to allow immediate aid into the war-torn enclave and urged a global condemnation of “the international community’s inaction on the Israeli crimes.”
Amid mounting international pressure to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Israel announced new measures to facilitate the delivery of aid, including temporary pauses in fighting in certain areas and the creation of protected routes for aid convoys.
Israeli officials have previously accused Hamas of diverting aid for terrorist activities and selling supplies at inflated prices to civilians, while also blaming the United Nations and other foreign organizations for enabling this diversion.
Hamas’s statement also emphasized that the “global resistance movement must continue until Israeli aggression on Gaza ends and the siege on the coastal strip is lifted.”
Meanwhile, as Israel faces escalating hostilities and the heavy toll of war, the Jewish state continues to push the boundaries of innovation and resilience, achieving new medical breakthroughs while confronting ongoing challenges.
In a major medical breakthrough, scientists at Sheba Medical Center and Tel Aviv University have successfully grown a synthetic 3D miniature human kidney in a lab using specialized stem cells derived from kidney tissue — one of the most promising advances in regenerative medicine.
Dr. Dror Harats, chairman of Sheba’s Research Authority, described this achievement as a reflection of Israel’s leading role in global medical innovation.
“Despite growing efforts to isolate Israel from international science, breakthroughs like this prove our impact is both lasting and essential,” he said.
In a landmark study, a team from Sheba’s Safra Children’s Hospital and Tel Aviv University’s Sagol Center for Regenerative Medicine created synthetic kidney organs that matured and remained stable for 34 weeks — the longest-lasting and most refined kidney organoids developed to date.
Nearly a decade ago, the research team became the first to successfully isolate human kidney tissue stem cells — the cells responsible for the organ’s development and growth.
Previous attempts to grow kidneys in a lab using general-purpose stem cells were short-lived, typically lasting only a few weeks and often producing unwanted cell types that compromised research accuracy.
However, this Israeli research team used stem cells taken directly from kidney tissue — cells that naturally develop into kidney parts — allowing them to create a much purer and more stable model with key features found in real kidneys.
This medical breakthrough could have far-reaching implications, redefining the current understanding of kidney diseases and advancing the development of innovative treatments.
Researchers believe the model could help assess how medications impact fetal kidneys during pregnancy and move science closer to repairing or replacing damaged kidney tissue with lab-grown cells.
The discovery came days after researchers from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and international partners discovered a way to boost the immune system’s cancer-fighting ability by reprogramming how T cells, which are white blood cells critical to the immune system, produce energy.
The researchers explained in a study published in the peer-reviewed Nature Communications that disabling a protein known as Ant2 in T cells greatly enhances their effectiveness against tumors.
“By disabling Ant2, we triggered a complete shift in how T cells produce and use energy,” Prof. Michael Berger of Hebrew University’s Faculty of Medicine, who co-led the study with doctorate student Omri Yosef, told the Tazpit Press Service. “This reprogramming made them significantly better at recognizing and killing cancer cells.”
RSS
Netherlands to Push EU to Suspend Israel Trade Deal but Won’t Recognize Palestinian State ‘At This Time’
Netherlands Foreign Affairs Minister Caspar Veldkamp addresses a press conference, in New Delhi on April 1, 2025. Photo: ANI Photo/Sanjay Sharma via Reuters Connect
The Netherlands is spearheading efforts to suspend the European Union-Israel trade agreement amid rising EU criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while simultaneously refusing to recognize a Palestinian state, contrasting with other member states as international pressure mounts.
On Thursday, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp announced that the Netherlands will push the EU to suspend the trade component of the EU-Israel Association Agreement — a pact governing the EU’s political and economic ties with the Jewish state.
This latest anti-Israel initiative follows a recent EU-commissioned report accusing Israel of committing “indiscriminate attacks … starvation … torture … [and] apartheid” against Palestinians in Gaza during its military campaign against Hamas, an internationally designated terrorist group.
Following calls from a majority of EU member states for a formal investigation, this report built on Belgium’s recent decision to review Israel’s compliance with the trade agreement, a process initiated by the Netherlands and led by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas.
According to the report, “there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations” under the 25-year-old EU-Israel Association Agreement.
While the document acknowledges the reality of violence by Hamas, it states that this issue lies outside its scope — failing to address the Palestinian terrorist group’s role in sparking the current war with its bloody rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israeli officials have slammed the report as factually incorrect and morally flawed, noting that Hamas embeds its military infrastructure within civilian targets and Israel’s army takes extensive precautions to try and avoid civilian casualties.
In a Dutch parliamentary debate on Gaza on Thursday, Veldkamp also announced that the government would not recognize a Palestinian state for now — a position that stands in sharp contrast to the recent moves by several other EU member states to extend recognition.
“The Netherlands is not planning to recognize a Palestinian state at this time,” the Dutch diplomat said.
“This war has ceased to be a just war and is now leading to the erosion of Israel’s own security and identity,” he continued.
This latest decision goes against the position of several EU member states, including France, which has committed to recognizing Palestinian statehood in September.
The United Kingdom has likewise indicated it will do so unless Israel acts to ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and agrees to a ceasefire.
For its part, Germany said it was not planning to recognize a Palestinian state in the short term, and Italy argued that recognition must occur simultaneously with the recognition of Israel by the new entity.
Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia all recognized a Palestinian state last year.
Israel has been facing growing pressure from several EU member states seeking to undermine its defensive campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
On Thursday, European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera strongly condemned Israel’s actions in the war-torn enclave, describing the situation as a “grave violation of human dignity.”
“What we are seeing is a concrete population being targeted, killed and condemned to starve to death,” Ribera told Politico. “If it is not genocide, it looks very much like the definition used to express its meaning.”
Until now, the European Commission has refrained from accusing Israel of genocide, but Ribera’s comments mark one of the strongest European condemnations since the outbreak of the war in Gaza.
She also called on the EU to take decisive action by considering the suspension of its trade agreement with Israel and the implementation of sanctions, while emphasizing that such measures would require unanimous approval from all member states.
RSS
Graduate Student Unions Promoting Antisemitism, Reform Group Says
Students listen to a speech at a protest encampment at Stanford University in Stanford, California US, on April 26, 2024. Photo: Carlos Barria via Reuters Connect.
Higher-education-based unions controlled by United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) are rife with antisemitism and anti-Zionist discrimination, according to a new letter imploring the US Congress’s House Committee on Education and the Workforce to address the matter.
“Tracing its roots to communism in the 1930s, the UE is a radical, pro-Hamas labor union that has a long history of antisemitism,” the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), one of the US’s leading labor reform groups, wrote on July 30 in a message obtained by The Algemeiner. “The UE openly supports the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which is designed to cripple and destroy Israel economically. Today, the UE furthers its antisemitic agenda by unionizing graduate students on college campuses and using its exclusive representation powers to create a hostile environment for Jewish students. The hostile environment includes demanding compulsory dues to fund the UE’s abhorrent activities.”
NRTW went on to describe a litany of alleged injustices to which UE members subject Jewish student-employees in the US’s most prestigious institutions of higher education, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to Cornell University. At MIT, the letter said, “union officers” aided a riotous group which illegally occupied a section of campus with a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” participating in the demonstration and even denying access to campus buildings. UE members at Stanford University, meanwhile, allegedly denied religious accommodations to Jewish students who requested exemption from union dues over that branch’s supporting the BDS movement. And Cornell University UE was accused of denying religious exemptions in several cases as well and followed up the rejection with an intrusive “questionnaire” which probed Jewish students for “legally-irrelevant information.”
The situation requires federal oversight and intervention, NRTW said, including Congress’s possibly clarifying that student-employees are not traditional employees and are therefore afforded protections under sections of the Civil Rights Act which apply to the campus.
“These continuing patterns of antisemitism are illegal, immoral, and must be stopped,” the letter continued. “We encourage you to do all that is in your power to investigate and help bring an end to the UE and its affiliates’ nonstop harassment and intimidation of Jewish students … The Trump administration can also use tools available to it under Title VI and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against colleges who work with unions to create a hostile environment for Jewish students.”
July’s letter is not the first time NRTW has publicized alleged antisemitic abuse in unions representing higher education employees.
In 2024, it represented a group of six City University of New York (CUNY) professors, five of whom are Jewish, who sued to be “freed” from CUNY’s Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY) over its passing a resolution during Israel’s May 2021 war with Hamas which declared solidarity with Palestinians and accused the Jewish state of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and crimes against humanity. The group contested New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which it said chained the professors to the union’s “bargaining unit” and denied their right to freedom of speech and association by forcing them to be represented in negotiations by an organization they claim holds antisemitic views.
That same year, NRTW prevailed in a discrimination suit filed to exempt another cohort of Jewish MIT students from paying dues to the Graduate Student Union (GSU). The students had attempted to resist financially supporting GSU’s anti-Zionism, but the union bosses attempted to coerce their compliance, telling them that “no principles, teachings, or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees” to the union.
“All Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason,” NRTW said at the time.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.