RSS
Vladimir Putin Has Threatened to Use Nuclear Weapons; What Would This Mean for Israel?
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un visit the Vostochny Сosmodrome in the far eastern Amur region, Russia, Sept. 13, 2023. Photo: Sputnik/Mikhail Metzel/Kremlin via REUTERS
Soon, Israel will need to make critical decisions on launching preemptive strikes against Iran. Such non-nuclear defensive actions — expressions of anticipatory self-defense” under international law — would take calculated account of certain pro-Iran interventions. The point of such more-or-less plausible enemy state interventions would be to (1) deter Israel from making good on its residual preemption options; or (2) engage Israel in direct warfare if Jerusalem should choose to proceed with these options.
What would be the specific country sources of such pro-Iran interventions? Most reasonably, the states acting on behalf of Iran would be Russia and/or North Korea. If Russia were to act as Iran’s witting nuclear surrogate (because Iran would still be “pre-nuclear”), direct escalatory moves involving Moscow and Washington could ensue. There are no foreseeable circumstances under which direct Israeli moves against Russia would be rational or cost-effective.
Prima facie, all relevant analyses would be speculative. In strict scientific terms, nothing meaningful could be said concerning the authentic probabilities of unique events. This is because science-based estimations of probability must always depend on the determinable frequency of pertinent past events. Where there are no such events to draw upon, estimations must be less than scientific.
All potentially relevant scenarios involving Israel, Iran, Russia, and/or the United States would be unprecedented (sui generis). At the same time, both Israel and its American ally will need to fashion “best possible” estimations based on applicable elements of deductive reasoning. More particularly, useful Israeli assessments will need to focus on presumed escalation differences between Vladimir Putin’s “firebreak theory” and that of incoming US president Donald Trump.
Will Trump’s nuclear posture threshold remain unchanged from current doctrine; that is, will it continue to affirm the primacy of any escalation to nuclear engagement? Or will this escalation threshold more closely resemble the Russian theory that “small” nuclear weapons (i.e., tactical or theater ordnance) do not necessarily signal intent to initiate a full-blown nuclear war?
American and Russian nuclear escalation doctrines have always been asymmetrical; the implications of continuing such crucial difference could “spill-over” to Israel-Iran nuclear war calculations for the Middle East. Though counter-intuitive, a nuclear war could take place even while Iran remained pre-nuclear. And this risk has recently been heightened by Vladimir Putin’s nuclear policy “upgrades.”
With the United States in mind, the Russian president declared significant “enhancements” to his country’s nuclear doctrine. There are now additional reasons to worry about nuclear war stemming from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Most worrisome is that (1) Moscow would react more forcefully against the United States and/or Ukraine because of President Joe Biden’s widened gamut of missile-firing authority to Volodymyr Zelensky; (2) Vladimir Putin’s reaction would include prompt Russian enlargements of theater nuclear forces; and (3) these Russian enlargements would lower Russia’s tangible threshold of nuclear weapons use.
Such lowering would apply at both doctrinal and operational levels. Although nothing theoretic could be determined about competitive risk-taking in extremis, probabilities concerning Moscow and Washington would still need to be estimated. This includes examining derivative warfare scenarios between Israel and Iran, deductive narratives in which Jerusalem would rely on US nuclear deterrence to protect against Russian-backed North Korean forces. In the parlance of traditional nuclear strategy, this would signify Israeli reliance on “extended nuclear deterrence.” North Korea is a nuclear Iranian ally with a documented history of actual warfighting against Israel.
Facing an intellectual problem
Nuclear war avoidance should always be approached by pertinent national leaders as a preeminently intellectual problem.
What happens next? How might these developments impact Israel? What should be expected from “Trump II?” Most specifically, how would the answers impact Israel’s precarious war with Iran?
During “Trump I,” major US national security problems were framed by an unprepared American president in needlessly rancorous terms. Today, armed with greater regard for applicable intellectual factors, American planners and policy-makers should look more systematically at what might lie ahead. What will happen next in Vladimir Putin’s determinedly cruel war against Ukraine? How can the United States best prepare for nuclear war avoidance? Playing Putin’s “nuclear firebreak” game, should Washington seek to persuade Moscow of America’s willingness to “go nuclear” according to Russian-defined policy thresholds, or should the United States proceed “asymmetrically” with its own preferred firebreak? How would Washington’s decision affect Israel’s national security?
In facing off against each other, even under optimal assumptions of mutual rationality, American and Russian presidents would have to concern themselves with all possible miscalculations, errors in information, unauthorized uses of strategic weapons, mechanical or computer malfunctions and assorted nuances of cyber-defense/cyber-war.
A still pre-nuclear Iran would still have access to radiation dispersal weapons and to conventional rockets for use against Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. An Israeli nuclear war with a not-yet-nuclear Iran could arise if already- nuclear North Korea, a close ally of Iran, were willing to act as Tehran’s military surrogate against Israel. Such willingness, in turn, would be impacted by the presumed expectations of Russia and/or China.
Figuring all this out represents a survival-determining challenge for Jerusalem.
Pretended irrationality as nuclear strategy
Going forward, a joint US-Israel obligation will be to assess whether a nuanced posture of “pretended irrationality” could enhance nuclear deterrence posture. On several earlier occasions, it should be recalled, then US President Donald Trump openly praised the untested premises of such a posture. But was such presidential praise warranted on intellectual grounds?
In reply, US and Israeli enemies continue to include both state and sub-state foes, whether considered singly or in multiple forms of possible collaboration. Such forms could be “hybridized” in different ways between state and sub-state adversaries.
In principle, this could represent a potentially clever strategy to “get a jump” on the United States or Israel in any still-expected or already-ongoing competition for “escalation dominance.”
Nuclear weapons as instruments of war prevention, not punishment
A US president or Israeli prime minister should always bear in mind that any national nuclear posture ought to remain focused on war prevention rather than punishment. In all identifiable circumstances, using a portion of its available nuclear forces for vengeance rather than deterrence would miss the most essential point: that is, to fully optimize national security obligations.
Any American or Israeli nuclear weapons use based on narrowly corrosive notions of revenge, even if only as a residual or default option, would be glaringly irrational. Among other things, this would be a good time for both US and Israeli nuclear crisis planners to re-read Clausewitz regarding primacy of the “political object.” Absent such an object, there could be no meaningful standard of escalation rationality.
There remains one penultimate but critical observation. It is improbable, but not inconceivable, that certain of America’s and Israel’s principal enemies would sometime be neither rational nor irrational, but mad. While irrational decision-makers could already pose special problems for nuclear deterrence — by definition, because these decision-makers would not value collective survival more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences — they might still be rendered susceptible to alternate forms of dissuasion.
Resembling rational leaderships, these decision-makers could still maintain a fixed, determinable, and “transitive” hierarchy of preferences. This means, at least in principle, that “merely” irrational enemies could sometimes be successfully deterred.
International law
From the standpoint of international law, it is always necessary to distinguish preemptive attacks from “preventive ones.” Preemption is a military strategy of striking first in the expectation that the only foreseeable alternative is to be struck first oneself. A preemptive attack is launched by a state that believes enemy forces are about to attack. A preventive attack, on the other hand, is not launched out of any concern about “imminent” hostilities, but rather for fear of some longer-term deterioration in prevailing military balance.
In a preemptive attack, the length of time by which the enemy’s action is anticipated is presumptively very short; in a preventive strike, the anticipated interval is considerably longer. A related problem here for the United States and Israel is not only the practical difficulty of accurately determining “imminence,” but also that delaying a defensive strike until imminence was more precisely ascertainable could prove existential. A resort to “anticipatory self-defense” could be nuclear or non-nuclear and could be directed at either a nuclear or non-nuclear adversary. Plainly, any such resort involving nuclear weapons on one or several sides would prove catastrophic.
America and Israel are not automatically made safer by having only rational adversaries. Even fully rational enemy leaderships could commit serious errors in calculation that would lead them toward nuclear confrontation and/or a nuclear/biological war. There are also certain related command and control issues that could impel a perfectly rational adversary or combination of rational adversaries (both state and sub-state) to embark upon variously risky nuclear behaviors. It follows that even the most pleasingly “optimistic” assessments of enemy leadership decision-making could not reliably preclude catastrophic outcomes.
For the United States and Israel, issues of calibrated nuclear deterrence remain fundamentally intellectual challenges, issues requiring meticulous analytic preparation rather than any particular leadership “attitude.” Such planning ought never become just another contest of “mind over matter” — that is, just a vainly overvalued inventory of comparative weaponry or identifiable “order of battle.” war.
In both Ukraine and portions of the Middle East, the historical conditions of nature bequeathed at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) could soon come to resemble the primordial barbarism of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Long before Golding, Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth-century English philosopher, warned insightfully in Leviathan (Chapter XIII) that in any such circumstances of human disorder there must exist “continual fear, and danger of violent death….”
Perceptions of credibility
If Putin should sometime prove willing to cross the conventional-tactical nuclear firebreak on the assumption that such a move would not invite any reciprocal cycle of nuclear escalation with the United States, the American president could face an overwhelmingly tragic choice: total capitulation or nuclear war. Though it would be best for the United States to avoid ever having to reach such a fateful decisional moment, there could still be no guarantees of “mutual assured prudence” between Washington and Moscow. It follows that growing perils of asymmetrical nuclear doctrine should be countered incrementally and intellectually.
Looking ahead at “Cold War II,” American and Israeli security will hinge on fostering vital “perceptions of credibility,” Regarding Russia’s changing nuclear doctrine, only dedicated analytic minds could ever distance Planet Earth from World War III. Taken together with Russia’s war against Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s strategic doctrine blurs essential conceptual lines between conventional and nuclear conflict and creates existential hazards for both the United States and Israel. The solely rational response from Washington and Jerusalem should be to understand these unsustainable hazards and to plan appropriately for their most efficient minimization or removal.
For the United States and Israel, the threat posed by asymmetrical nuclear firebreaks could impact the likelihood of both deliberate and inadvertent nuclear war.
These are daunting intellectual issues. Sorting out the most urgent ones, Israel could soon find itself confronting North Korean military assets that threaten on behalf of a pre-nuclear Iran. Whether or not these proxy weapons and forces were under the overall direction of Moscow, asymmetries in nuclear escalation doctrine between Russia and the United States would be material to pertinent event outcomes. Left unanticipated or unmodified, they could sometime prove determinative.
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books, monographs, and scholarly articles dealing with military nuclear strategy. In Israel, he was Chair of Project Daniel. Over recent years, he has published on nuclear warfare issues in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; The Atlantic; Israel Defense; Jewish Website; The New York Times; Israel National News; The Jerusalem Post; The Hill and other sites. A different version of this article appeared in JewishWebsight.
The post Vladimir Putin Has Threatened to Use Nuclear Weapons; What Would This Mean for Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Rejects Nuclear Talks With US as Trump Admin Ramps Up ‘Maximum Pressure’ Campaign
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 25, 2025. Photo: Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout via REUTERS
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday rejected the possibility of nuclear talks with the United States, which imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry as part of the Trump administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran.
“There will be no possibility of direct talks between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as the maximum pressure is applied in this way,” Araghchi said during a joint press conference with his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.
“We will not negotiate under pressure, threat, or sanctions,” he added.
The top Iranian official’s remarks came a day after the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, targeting over 30 brokers, tanker operators, and shipping companies involved in transporting and selling Iranian petroleum.
The new oil sanctions were the latest to be imposed since US President Donald Trump reinstated his “maximum pressure” policy toward Tehran, aiming to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Earlier this month, however, Trump also expressed a willingness to talk to Iran’s leaders, stating his desire to reach a “nuclear peace agreement” to improve bilateral relations with Tehran while insisting that the Iranian regime must not develop a nuclear weapon.
Iran’s so-called “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected the idea of negotiating with Washington, calling such a move “unwise” and “dishonorable.”
Tuesday’s high-level meeting between Russian and Iranian officials took place in Tehran to discuss bilateral relations, regional developments, and the 2015 nuclear deal with major world powers that placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
“On the nuclear issue, we will move forward with the cooperation and coordination of our friends in Russia and China,” Araghchi said during the press conference.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the views of both Russian and Iranian officials were in alignment regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
“Positions were aligned on the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [the official name for the 2015 nuclear deal] on the Iranian nuclear program,” it said.
Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level.
At the time, the UK, France, and Germany said in a statement that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Tehran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
As Russia also faces increasing sanctions from the West over its war in Ukraine, Moscow and Tehran have deepened their cooperation. Ukraine and its allies have accused Iran of supplying weapons to Russia, allegations Tehran has denied.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian signed a 20-year “comprehensive strategic partnership treaty” reinforcing their economic and military cooperation.
The bilateral cooperation between Tehran and Moscow comes at a time when Iran’s influence in the Middle East is waning, with the fall of long-time Iranian ally Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Israel’s military successes against two of Iran’s terrorist proxies: Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
After the collapse of Assad’s regime, which was driven by an offensive led by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, a former al-Qaeda affiliate, both Russia and Iran suffered a major setback in Syria despite years of investment in supporting their longtime ally during the civil war.
“Iran wants peace, stability, preservation of territorial integrity and unity, and the progress of Syria based on the will of the people,” Araghchi said on Tuesday, referring to Damascus’s new government.
During the press conference, Lavrov also referred to Syria’s new regime, saying, “We will do our utmost to ensure that the situation calms down and does not pose a threat either to the Syrian people … or to the people of neighboring states.”
The post Iran Rejects Nuclear Talks With US as Trump Admin Ramps Up ‘Maximum Pressure’ Campaign first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Professor Threatened by Students for Justice in Palestine at George Washington University
Illustrative: Pro-Hamas students rally at the encampment for Gaza set up at George Washington University, Washington, DC, April 25, 2035. Photo: Allison Bailey via Reuters Connect
The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at George Washington University on Monday issued an ominous warning to a professor who created a proposal to resettle residents of Gaza outside of the Palestinian enclave and remake it into a hub for tourism and economic dynamism, a policy rolled out by US President Donald Trump earlier this month.
“This notice is to inform you that you are hereby evicted from the premises of the George Washington University,” SJP wrote in a missive it taped to the office door of international affairs professor Joseph Pelzman, who first shared the resettlement plan with Trump’s presidential campaign in July 2024, according to an account of events he described to the podcast “America, Baby!” the following month.
“The reason for the eviction is: your active role in incepting the genocide and planned ethnic cleansing of Gaza,” SJP’s message continued. “Your disgusting plan for the complete destruction and foreign occupation of Gaza and the colonial ‘re-education’ of Palestinians.”
Denouncing Pelzman as the “architect of genocide,” SJP added, “Pelzman’s tenure is only one pernicious symptom of the bloodthirsty Zionism permeating our campus … The proprietors of this eviction notice demand your immediate removal.”
On Tuesday, Pelzman told The Algemeiner in a statement that the university’s police department and its president, Ellen Granberg, have been notified of the letter. He also shared background on his controversial proposal, which was outlined in a paper titled “An Economic Plan for Rebuilding Gaza,” a work published by the Center of Excellence for the Economic Study of the Middle East and North Africa (CEESMENA).
“The flyer, titled ‘Notice of Eviction,’ falsely accuses me of genocide, racism, and other inflammatory claims,” Pelzman said. “While it does not contain an explicit, direct threat, the language used is highly aggressive and appears to incite collective action against me.”
He added, “The SJP complaint refers to a paper that I recently published in an academic journal. Nothing in my formal economics paper suggests anything remotely resembling the SJP complaint. They accuse me of writing the Trump plan. The reality is that my paper was sent to the Trump people in July. It was not written for him, nor was it requested by him. Clearly, these people did not read the paper.”
Pelzman had said during an interview in August that his paper, which was later published in the Global World Journal and put online in October, “went to the Trump people because they were the ones who initially had an interest in it — not the Biden people. I was asked [by Trump’s team] to think outside the box on what do we do after [the Gaza war], as nobody was really talking about it.”
Responding to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment on SJP’s conduct, spokeswoman Julia Garbitt said the university is taking the situation “very seriously” and deplores “any acts that deface university property or threaten any members of our community.” Garbitt also noted that an investigation to identify the culprits, whom she said will be subject to “all applicable local laws and university polices,” is underway.
She continued, “We also want to stress that faculty members are entitled to academic freedom in their teaching and research, even when it is controversial. We also want to be clear that scholarly work produced by faculty does not reflect a university position. These commitments are the hallmark of an academic community that respects differing points of view.”
SJP’s threat to Pelzman, an accomplished academic who has focused heavily on the Middle East region, comes as the group serves probation for breaking a slew of school rules during the 2023-2024 academic year — a term which saw it heap abuse on school officials, visitors to campus representing former US President Joe Biden’s administration, and African Americans.
The university suspended the group over its behavior in Feb. 2024 but is now active again. Recently, SJP announced that it will hold a “teach-in” to commemorate the First Intifada, an outbreak of Palestinian terrorism which began in Dec. 1987 and, lasting for nearly six years, claimed the lives of scores of Israelis.
The group’s targeting of Pelzman came after Trump earlier this month proposed an amalgam of Pelzman’s concepts and his own, which notably involved the US occupying Gaza in perpetuity to oversee its reconstruction and recovery from the Israel-Hamas war prompted by Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. As part of the proposal, Trump suggested relocating Gazans in countries such as Jordan and Egypt, which rejected the plan for being unworkable.
“The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Trump said on Feb. 5 during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site — level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings — level it out, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.”
Pelzman explained his own thinking on the topic in August, noting that the Biden administration was not interested in his counsel.
“You have to destroy the whole place, you have to start from scratch,” he said. “And then you have an economy which actually has three sectors. You have tourism potential, you have agriculture potential, and then you have — because a lot of them are smart — high tech … This is a triangular sector model, but its implementation requires the area to be completely vacated so that the destroyed concrete can be recycled — ensuring that nothing remains of the vertical construction extending deep underground.”
Trump recently somewhat retreated from the idea, saying he would not impose the plan but instead recommend it. Nonetheless, the controversial and seismic proposed policy change has set off a maelstrom of anti-Zionist sentiment at George Washington University.
In Monday’s letter to Pelzman, SJP implied that it is prepared to harm the professor over his role in advancing Trump’s plan for Gaza.
“If you choose to remain on the premises, and if GWU continues to harbor your malignant presence on this campus, every sector of this community will be mobilized against you,” the group said. “The students of GWU will hold you and this university accountable for your crimes.”
Speaking to The Algemeiner on Tuesday, George Washington University senior Sabrina Soffer said SJP’s note to Pelzman violates norms which protect the unfettered exchange of ideas in higher education and constitutes harassment.
“They are targeting Professor Pelzman for doing his job — producing creative scholarship in a field of academia that is littered with mines that explode with the slightest sense of movement or touch,” Soffer said. “SJP’s slandering him as a ‘bloodthirsty Zionist” and threatening to ‘mobilize’ against him amounts not only to a violation of our discrimination policy but also a brazen act of intimidation which discourages academic freedom and the discovery of new knowledge.”
She continued, “The university must enhance their disciplinary policies and hold SJP accountable for its actions by once again suspending its permission to operate on campus.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Jewish Professor Threatened by Students for Justice in Palestine at George Washington University first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Watch: Washington Post Columnist Karen Attiah Confronted Over Pro-Hamas Social Media Posts, Called a ‘Terrorist’
Karen Attiah of the Washington Post. Photo: YouTube screenshot
An event celebrating anti-Israel writer Peter Beinart’s new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, went off the rails on Monday night after a woman confronted the moderator, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah, for her social media posts made in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
On Monday night, a packed room of attendees huddled inside the Politics & Prose bookstore in northwest Washington, DC to listen to the duo chat about Beinart’s book, which details his thoughts about the ongoing war in Gaza and its impact on the American Jewish community. During the question-and-answer session following the discussion, Nyah Molineaux, an employee of the DC Department of Health, repudiated Attiah for liking a social media post which minimized Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities in Israel.
“I want to ask you a question,” Molineaux said. “How do you correspond or reconcile your Christianity when on October the 7th you [liked a retweet] that said, ‘What do you think decolonization meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers.’ You liked that retweet!” Molineaux yelled.
On Oct. 7, 2023, immediately following the slaughter of 1,200 people in southern Israel and abduction of 251 hostages, Attiah incited outrage after sharing a series of posts seemingly justifying the terrorist attacks. She reposted a tweet that stated, “Settlers are not the victims here and never will be.” On Oct. 8, the journalist also posted tweets defending the utility of “armed struggle” against oppression.
I just got out of the Peter Beinart/Karen Attiah anti-Israel book event in DC. A woman confronted Attiah for retweeting a post supporting the Oct. 7 attacks. Attiah said she does not regret it and blamed racism for the backlash, though the woman screaming at her was also black pic.twitter.com/MjkeS0dv5v
— Corey Walker (@CoreyWriting) February 25, 2025
The scene quickly descended into chaos as Attiah tried and failed to interject.
“I can answer your question,” Attiah said.
“No, no, no. I will explain to you what happened, so we can be very clear,” Molineaux continued, before referencing the systematic sexual violence perpetrated against Israeli women and girls by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists during their Oct. 7 rampage.
“Rape happened,” Molineaux said. “How do you reconcile that with rape? How the hell do you reconcile that with a woman being raped? She was Shani Louk. Her body was taken apart. Is rape OK with you?”
“OK, that’s enough,” Attiah retorted, trying to deescalate the scene.
“No, rape is OK with you, you damn jihadi. It is OK with you to rape a Jewish woman,” Molineaux added.
A visibly uncomfortable Attiah requested the employees of the bookstore mute Molineaux’s microphone. An employee from the bookstore intervened and requested that the irate Molineaux leave the venue.
While being escorted out, Molineaux called Attiah a “terrorist” and a “coward” and said she deserves “every goddamn thing that happens to you.”
“You’re a jihadi, and you’re a f—king terrorist. That’s who the f—k you are. The state of Israel will stand, and if you want to f—king play around and play like Bin Laden, you will be treated as such,” Molineaux added.
Following the explosive confrontation, Attiah clarified that she has “no apologies” for her anti-Israel commentary following the Oct. 7 massacre and suggested that her critics harbor anti-black racial bias.
Attiah said she hoped the incident would serve as “an example of how violent the social media discourse is” regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “particularly if you are black.”
The Washington Post columnist did not mention that Molineaux was also black.
Beinart, the featured guest, silently grinned while sitting next to Attiah.
Earlier in the evening, Beinart, one of the most prominent critics of Israel in the West, suggested that the Jewish state might be committing a “genocide” in Gaza as revenge for the Oct. 7 slaughters. Although he clarified that he does not support the mass murder of Israelis that occurred, Beinart suggested that the Jewish state’s alleged record of anti-Palestinian oppression incited it.
The left-wing intellectual also asserted, without evidence, that the recognized death toll in Gaza is “far too low,” and that Israel has caused a famine in the war-torn enclave. He also unfavorably compared the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa, arguing that Israelis speak about Palestinians comparably to how Afrikaners spoke about black people.
On Tuesday, Beinart appeared to attack The Algemeiner on social media for covering the event and posting video from it, falsely accusing the publication without evidence of following the extremist movement of Kahanism.
At my book event last night, a Kahanite publication tried to create the impression that I justify Oct 7, even though I condemn it at length in my book. What they left out of their video is me condemning Oct 7 in that very exchange, as I have literally thousands of times.
— Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) February 25, 2025
As for Attiah, over the past 16 months she has launched an unrelenting barrage of criticism opposing Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Attiah criticized 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris for adopting what she described as a pro-Israel stance during her campaign. The journalist also accused Israel of implementing “permanent occupation and apartheid” against the Palestinians and stated that it is “justified, moral, and necessary to be outraged at Israel’s behavior.”
Although Molineaux told The Algemeiner she is not Jewish, she said she felt inspired to defend Israel because she has Jewish first cousins. Molineaux also defended calling Attiah a “jihadist,” arguing that the Washington Post columnist has displayed hypocrisy by sympathizing with Hamas while simultaneously condemning extremist movements within Africa.
“As a Black woman it is abhorrent to me she is saying she is against Boko Haram in Nigeria but for Hamas in Israel. A jihadist is a jihadist,” Molineaux said.
The post Watch: Washington Post Columnist Karen Attiah Confronted Over Pro-Hamas Social Media Posts, Called a ‘Terrorist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.