RSS
Top Democrats Make Unprecedented Statements Against Israel, Signaling Party Shift
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) chats with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in the House of Representatives ahead of US President Joe Biden’s third State of the Union address in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, March 7, 2024. Photo: Shawn Thew/Pool via REUTERS
A growing number of prominent, mainstream US Democrats have made recent statements calling to condition Washington’s military aid to Israel and even suggesting the Jewish state is committing genocide, indicating a potentially larger shift within the party against one of America’s closest allies.
Prior to the Hamas terrorist group’s massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza, members of a small group of vocal, young, far-left progressives were the only members of Congress consistently calling for conditions on aid to Israel and accusing it of egregious crimes.
Over the past few weeks, however, many more mainstream figures have joined the choir as Israel’s war on Hamas reached its six-month mark.
Last week, while speaking at the Islamic Center of Boston, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was asked if she believed Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, the neighboring enclave ruled by Hamas. She responded, “If you want to do it as an application of law, I believe that they’ll [the International Court of Justice will] find that it is genocide, and they have ample evidence to do so.”
The senator added, “For me, it is far more important to say what Israel is doing is wrong.”
Warren appeared to somewhat walk back her response after it went viral. Her office said in a statement that she was commenting “on the ongoing legal process at the International Court of Justice, not sharing her views on whether genocide is occurring in Gaza.”
The statement referred to ongoing efforts to argue before the International Court of Justice at The Hague that Israel’s defensive war against Hamas in Gaza constituted a “genocide.” South Africa failed in its bid earlier this year to make such a case.
Israel launched its military campaign following Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion, saying its objectives were to free the hostages seized by the terrorists and to incapacitate Hamas, which murdered over 1,200 people and committed mass atrocities during the onslaught, to the point that it could no longer pose a serious threat to the Israeli people.
Nonetheless, US President Joe Biden last week called for an “immediate ceasefire” and threatened to pull back support for Israel due to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Biden’s warning came after his administration abstained from a UN Security Council resolution that de-linked a ceasefire from the release of hostages — Israel has said any truce must include the freeing of those still held captive.
This week, Biden suggested in an interview that he supports a unilateral Israeli 6-8-week ceasefire, seemingly implying it should be done even if it would leave all the hostages in Gaza. The White House had to clarify that was not what he actually meant, and that he was reiterating support for both the hostages and ceasefire negotiations.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said in an interview with The Algemeiner that he felt “the president has been fundamentally supportive of Israel,” but also noted he worried that “a number of the statements that have been made have gone too far and undermine Israel” in its war.
Biden expressed strong support for Israel in the weeks following the Oct. 7 massacre and his administration has sent significant amounts of munitions to the Israeli military since the start of the war. According to Torres, however, the messaging from Biden and many other Democrats in recent weeks could benefit Hamas.
“Hamas knows that it cannot defeat Israel militarily. It can only defeat Israel diplomatically and geopolitically,” he explained. “And when you have members of Congress falsely accuse Israel of genocide, or targeting civilians, or assassinating aid workers, or using starvation as a weapon of war, or indiscriminate bombing … you are playing into the hands of Hamas.”
Last week, more than 30 House Democrats, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), sent a letter to Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken reading, “We strongly urge you to reconsider your recent decision to authorize the transfer of a new arms package to Israel, and to withhold this and any future offensive arms transfers until a full investigation into the airstrike [which accidentally killed World Central Kitchen aid workers] is completed.”
The letter continued: “We also urge you to withhold these transfers if Israel fails to sufficiently mitigate harm to innocent civilians in Gaza, including aid workers, and if it fails to facilitate — or arbitrarily denies or restricts — the transport and delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza.”
Since Biden’s warning last week, Israel increased what were already significant amounts of aid entering Gaza.
Following the letter, Pelosi tried to clarify her stance in an interview on MSNBC, saying she was “not a fan of having conditions on aid to Israel.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Tuesday that he would not approve a large arms transfer to Israel until he has more information about how the Jewish state would use the weapons.
“I’m waiting for assurances,” Meeks told CNN. “I want to make sure that I know the types of weapons and what the weapons would be utilized for.”
In a separate interview on CNN, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) — a top Biden ally and longtime supporter of Israel — said “I think we’re at that point” when asked about conditioning aid to Israel.
“If Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister, were to order the [Israel Defense Force] into Rafah at scale, if they were to drop 1,000-pound bombs and send in a battalion to go after Hamas and make no provision for civilians or for humanitarian aid, then I would vote to condition aid to Israel,” he said.
Rafah is Hamas’s last stronghold in Gaza. The United States has been pressuring Israel not to move forward with a full-scale military operation in the southern Gazan city, where Israel says the Palestinian terrorist group still has four battalions. Israeli officials have said they must operate in Rafah but are discussing with US counterparts how best to target Hamas there.
The recent flurry of criticisms of Israel came after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is Jewish, told the Senate last month that Netanyahu’s government “no longer fits the needs of Israel” — a striking comment against a democratic ally at a time of war.
Amid heightened criticism from key Democrats and rising tensions between Washington and Jerusalem, some observers are warning that support for the Jewish state must remain bipartisan.
“Keeping support for Israel bipartisan is critical,” the group Democratic Majority for Israel told The Algemeiner. “History tells us there will be times when both of the two parties are in charge, and we need two pro-Israel parties. Right now, most Democratic leaders are pro-Israel, and we need to work very hard to ensure it remains that way.”
Torres concurred, noting that “there is no US-Israel relationship without bipartisanship.”
When asked about what appears to be an increasingly mainstream shift among Democrats against Israel, Torres argued that conditioning aid among Democrats is still a “minority position.”
However, he added that the increasingly frequent statements pressuring Israel to implement a ceasefire — when it has previously agreed to parameters for one and Hamas has rejected every deal over the past few months — could have the effect of helping the terrorist group in its war effort.
“International pressure is the only hope that Hamas has for achieving victory in the war,” Torres said.
The post Top Democrats Make Unprecedented Statements Against Israel, Signaling Party Shift first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks

Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli strike on a tent camp sheltering displaced people, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Israeli military said on Sunday it had begun “extensive ground operations” in northern and southern Gaza, stepping up a new campaign in the enclave.
Israel made its announcement after sources on both sides said there had been no progress in a new round of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Qatar.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the latest Doha talks included discussions on a truce and hostage deal as well as a proposal to end the war in return for the exile of Hamas militants and the demilitarization of the enclave – terms Hamas has previously rejected.
The substance of the statement was in line with previous declarations from Israel, but the timing, as negotiators meet, offered some prospect of flexibility in Israel’s position. A senior Israeli official said there had been no progress in the talks so far.
Israel’s military said it conducted a preliminary wave of strikes on more than 670 Hamas targets in Gaza over the past week to support its ground operation, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots.”
It said it killed dozens of Hamas fighters. Palestinian health authorities say hundreds of people have been killed including many women and children.
Asked about the Doha talks, a Hamas official told Reuters: “Israel’s position remains unchanged, they want to release the prisoners (hostages) without a commitment to end the war.”
He reiterated that Hamas was proposing releasing all Israeli hostages in return for an end to the war, the pull-out of Israeli troops, an end to a blockade on aid for Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
Israel’s declared goal in Gaza is the elimination of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas, which attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and seizing about 250 hostages.
The Israeli military campaign has devastated the enclave, pushing nearly all residents from their homes and killing more than 53,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.
The post Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’

Pope Leo XIV waves to the faithful from the popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass in Saint Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Alessandro Garofalo
Pope Leo XIV formally began his reign on Sunday by reaching out to conservatives who felt orphaned under his predecessor, calling for unity, vowing to preserve the Catholic Church’s heritage and not rule like “an autocrat.”
After a first ride in the popemobile through an estimated crowd of up to 200,000 in St. Peter’s Square and surrounding streets, Leo was officially installed as the 267th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church at an outdoor Mass.
Well-wishers waved US and Peruvian flags, with people from both countries claiming him as the first pope from their nations. Born in Chicago, the 69-year-old pontiff spent many years as a missionary in Peru and also has Peruvian citizenship.
Robert Prevost, a relative unknown on the world stage who only became a cardinal two years ago, was elected pope on May 8 after a short conclave of cardinals that lasted barely 24 hours.
He succeeded Francis, an Argentine, who died on April 21 after leading the Church for 12 often turbulent years during which he battled with traditionalists and championed the poor and marginalized.
In his sermon, read in fluent Italian, Leo said that as leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, he would continue Francis’ legacy on social issues such as combating poverty and protecting the environment.
He vowed to face up to “the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world” and, in a nod to conservatives, he promised to preserve “the rich heritage of the Christian faith,” repeatedly calling for unity.
Crowds chanted “Viva il Papa” (Long Live the Pope) and “Papa Leone,” his name in Italian, as he waved from the open-topped popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass, which was attended by dozens of world leaders.
US Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who clashed with Francis over the White House’s hardline immigration policies, led a US delegation alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic.
Vance briefly shook hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the start of the ceremony. The two men last met in February in the White House, when they clashed fiercely in front of the world’s media.
Zelensky and Leo were to have a private meeting later on Sunday, while Vance was expected to see the pope on Monday.
In a brief appeal at the end of the Mass, Leo addressed several global conflicts. He said Ukraine was being “martyred,” a phrase often used by Francis, and called for a “just and lasting peace” there.
He also mentioned the humanitarian situation in Gaza, saying people in the Palestinian enclave were being “reduced to starvation.”
Among those in the crowds on Sunday were many pilgrims from the US and Peru.
Dominic Venditti, from Seattle, said he was “extremely excited” by the new pope. “I like how emotional and kind he is,” he said. “I love his background.”
APPEAL FOR UNITY
Since becoming pope, Leo has already signaled some key priorities for his papacy, including a warning about the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and the importance of bringing peace to the world and to the Church itself.
Francis’ papacy left a divided Church, with conservatives accusing him of sowing confusion, particularly with his extemporaneous remarks on issues of sexual morality such as same-sex unions.
Saying he was taking up his mission “with fear and trembling,” Leo used the words “unity” or “united” seven times on Sunday and the word “harmony” four times.
“It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda or by means of power. Instead, it is always and only a question of loving, as Jesus did,” he said, in apparent reference to a war of words between Catholics who define themselves as conservative or progressive.
Conservatives also accused Francis of ruling in a heavy-handed way and lamented that he belittled their concerns and did not consult widely before making decisions.
Referring to St. Peter, the 1st century Christian apostle from whom popes derive their authority, Leo said: “Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him. On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters, and to walk alongside them.”
Many world leaders attended the ceremony, including the presidents of Israel, Peru and Nigeria, the prime ministers of Italy, Canada and Australia, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
European royals also took their place in the VIP seats near the main altar, including Spanish King Felipe and Queen Letizia.
Leo shook many of their hands at the end of the ceremony, and hugged his brother Louis, who had traveled from Florida.
As part of the ceremony, Leo received two symbolic items: a liturgical vestment known as a pallium, a sash of lambswool representing his role as a shepherd, and the “fisherman’s ring,” recalling St. Peter, who was a fisherman.
The ceremonial gold signet ring is specially cast for each new pope and can be used by Leo to seal documents, although this purpose has fallen out of use in modern times.
It shows St. Peter holding the keys to Heaven and will be broken after his death or resignation.
The post Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
JNS.org – A smattering of Arabic words has entered the English language in recent years, the direct result of more than a century of conflict between the Zionist movement and Arab regimes determined to prevent the Jews from exercising self-determination in their historic homeland.
These words include fedayeen, which refers to the armed Palestinian factions; intifada, which denotes successive violent Palestinian uprisings against Israel; and naksa, which pertains to the defeat sustained by the Arab armies in their failed bid to destroy Israel during the June 1967 war.
At the top of this list, however, is nakba, the word in Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe.” The emergence of the Palestinian refugee question following Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence is now widely described as “The Nakba,” and the term has become a stick wielded by anti-Zionists to beat Israel and, increasingly, Jews outside.
Last Thursday, a date which the U.N. General Assembly has named for an annual “Nakba Day,” workers at a cluster of Jewish-owned businesses in the English city of Manchester arrived at the building housing their offices to find that it had been badly vandalized overnight. The front of the building, located in a neighborhood with a significant Jewish community, was splattered with red paint. An external wall displayed the crudely painted words “Happy Nakba Day.”
The culprits were a group called Palestine Action, a pro-Hamas collective of activists whose sole mission is to intimidate the Jewish community in the United Kingdom in much the same way as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists did back in the 1930s. Its equivalents in the United States are groups like Within Our Lifetime and Students for Justice in Palestine, who have shown themselves equally enthused when it comes to intimidating Jewish communities by conducting loud, sometimes violent, demonstrations outside synagogues and other communal facilities, all too frequently showering Jews with the kind of abuse that was once the preserve of neo-Nazis. These thugs, cosplaying with keffiyehs instead of swastika armbands, can reasonably be described as the neo-neo-Nazis.
The overarching point here is that ideological constructs like nakba play a key role in enabling the intimidation they practice. It allows them to diminish the historic victimhood of the Jews, born of centuries of stateless disempowerment, with dimwitted formulas equating the nakba with the Nazi Holocaust. It also enables them to camouflage hate speech and hate crimes as human-rights advocacy—a key reason why law enforcement, in the United States as well as in Canada, Australia and most of Europe, has been found sorely wanting when it comes to dealing with the surge of antisemitism globally.
Part of the response needs to be legislative. That means clamping down on both sides of the Atlantic on groups that glorify designated terrorist organizations by preventing them from fundraising; policing their access to social media; and restricting their demonstrations to static events in a specific location with a predetermined limit on attendees, rather than a march that anyone can join, along with an outright ban on any such events in the environs of Jewish community buildings.
These are not independent civil society organizations, as they pretend to be, but rather extensions of terrorist organizations like Hamas and—in the case of Samidoun, another group describing itself as a “solidarity” organization—the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we cannot ban them outright, we need to contain them much more effectively. We can start by framing the issue as a national security challenge and worry less about their “freedom of speech.”
But this is also a fight that takes us into the realm of ideas and arguments. We need to stop thinking about the nakba as a Palestinian narrative of pain deserving of empathy by exposing it for what it is—another tool in the arsenal of groups whose goal is to bring about the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
When it was originally introduced in the late 1940s, the word nakba had nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinian refugees or their dubious claim to be the uninterrupted, indigenous inhabitants of a land seized by dispossessing foreign colonists. Popularized by the late Syrian writer Constantine Zureik in a 1948 book titled The Meaning of Disaster, the nakba described therein was, as the Israeli scholar Shany Mor has crisply pointed out, simply “the failure of the Arabs to defeat the Jews.”
Zureik was agonized by this defeat, calling it “one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been inflicted throughout their long history.” His story is fundamentally a story of national humiliation and wounded pride. Yet there is absolutely no reason why Jews should be remotely troubled by the neurosis it projects. Their defeat was our victory and our liberation, and we should unreservedly rejoice in that fact.
The only aspect of the nakba that we should worry about is the impact it has on us as a community, as well as on the status of Israel as a sovereign member of the international society of states. As Mizrahi Jews know well (my own family among them), the nakba assembled in Zureik’s imagination really was a “catastrophe”— for us. Resoundingly defeated on the battlefield by the superior courage and tactical nous of the nascent Israeli Defense Forces, the Arabs compensated by turning on the defenseless Jews in their midst. From Libya to Iraq, ancient and established Jewish communities were the victims of a cowardly, spiteful policy of expropriation, mob violence and expulsion.
The inheritors of that policy are the various groups that compose the Palestinian solidarity movement today. Apoplectic at the realization that they have been unable to dislodge the “Zionists”—and knowing now that the main consequence of the Oct. 7, 2023 pogrom in Israel has been the destruction of Gaza—they, too, have turned on the Jews in their midst.
They have done so with one major advantage that the original neo-Nazis never had: sympathy and endorsement from academics, celebrities, politicians and even the United Nations. Indeed, the world body hosted a two-day seminar on “Ending the Nakba” at its New York headquarters at the same time that pro-Hamas fanatics were causing havoc just a few blocks downtown. Even so, we should take heart at the knowledge that nakba is not so much a symbol of resistance as it is defeat. Just as the rejectionists and eliminationists have lost previous wars through a combination of political stupidity, diplomatic ineptitude and military flimsiness, so, too, can they lose this one.
The post The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login