RSS
The United Nations Is Against Peace
Delegates react to the results during the United Nations General Assembly vote on a draft resolution that would recognize the Palestinians as qualified to become a full UN member, in New York City, US, May 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.
Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.
The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.
In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.
The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”
The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.
Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.
Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.
The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.
Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.
At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.
The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:
On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.
The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.
The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.
The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.
After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.
Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.
The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.
The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.
Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.
RSS
The United Nations Is Against Peace
Delegates react to the results during the United Nations General Assembly vote on a draft resolution that would recognize the Palestinians as qualified to become a full UN member, in New York City, US, May 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.
Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.
The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.
In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.
The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”
The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.
Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.
Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.
The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.
Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.
At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.
The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:
On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.
The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.
The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.
The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.
After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.
Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.
The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.
The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.
Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.