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
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.