A general view of Muscat, ahead of the awaited negotiations between US and Iran, Muscat, Oman, April 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

Iran has proposed meeting the European parties to a 2015 nuclear deal possibly in Rome this Friday if talks resume with the United States, four diplomats said on Monday, cautioning that there has yet to be a response from the Europeans to the idea.

Iran is looking to build on the momentum of nuclear negotiations with the United States that resumed in Oman on Saturday and after talks with Russia and China last week.

Omani officials have said a new round of US-Iran talks could be held on May 3 in Europe. No formal decision has been taken.

Iran‘s reach out to Britain, France, and Germany, known as the E3, suggests Tehran is keeping its options open, but also wants to assess where the Europeans stand on the possible re-imposition of UN sanctions before October, when a resolution ratifying the 2015 accord expires.

Two E3 diplomats and a Western diplomat said Iran had communicated after last Saturday’s talks with the United States a proposal to meet possibly in Rome on Friday.

Should that not be possible, the Iranians also suggested discussions in Tehran before that date, the diplomats said.

The second round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran took place in Rome with Iran saying serious differences remained.

An Iranian official confirmed the proposal, but said the E3 had not responded so far.

The European and Western diplomats said the E3 were assessing whether it was in their interest to meet Iran now or wait to see how talks with Washington developed, but ruled out a meeting in Tehran.

“It is important to remain on the same page with all parties to the 2015 deal. Therefore, meeting the E3 countries this week ahead of the next round of talks with Americans would be useful,” said the Iranian official.

UN SANCTIONS DEADLINE

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday he was ready to travel to Europe for talks, although he suggested that the ball was in Europe’s court after ties had soured between the two sides.

Since September, Tehran and the three European powers have met several times to discuss their ties and the nuclear issue.

The most recent meeting in March was held at the technical level, looking at the parameters of a future deal to secure a rollback of Iran‘s nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Trump, who abandoned the 2015 pact between Tehran and world powers during his first term in 2018, has threatened to attack Iran unless it reaches a new deal swiftly that would prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

The West suspects Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which it denies. The threat of renewed sanctions is intended to pressure Tehran into concessions, making detailed discussions on strategy between the Americans and Europeans vital, diplomats say.

Because the United States quit the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, it cannot initiate its mechanism for reimposing sanctions, called snapback, at the United Nations Security Council.

That makes the E3 the only participants in the deal who are capable of and interested in pursuing snapback.

When asked whether the proposal to meet Europeans was about snapback, the Iranian official indicated that was partly the aim.

“Talks with the US, particularly on the nuclear steps, are not moving fast and obviously we need more time, and Tehran is not much in favor of an interim deal, because of lack of trust to American side,” the official said.

“What if under an interim deal, we fulfil our step, and the other party does not. We need Europeans to understand that we want a new deal, and we are ready to take steps to limit our enrichment. But we need time.”

The British and German foreign ministries declined to comment specifically on whether Iran had proposed a meeting for later this week. France’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond for comment.

The post Iran Proposes Meeting With Europeans Before Next Talks With US, Diplomats Say first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

University Hall at Ohio State University. Photo: OZinOH/Flickr

While the Midwest is known for its “Midwest Nice” reputation, on college campuses, pro-Palestinian student groups in the region have used that hospitality to justify open support for terrorist groups and violence against Jews in the Middle East.

In doing so, these groups blur the line between activism and extremism, raising serious questions about their true agenda in our now vulnerable academic institutions.

Take, for example, the recent release of Agam Berger, an Israeli civilian who was held captive by Hamas for 482 days.

Instead of celebrating her survival and release, the group “United With Milwaukee Popular University for Palestine (UWM PUP)”  posted an image comparing her being embraced by other former hostages against a faceless, malnourished (assumed to be a Palestinian) man, with the caption: “Difference in treatment between Palestinian hostages held by the genocidal entity vs. Israeli hostages held in Gaza.”

What they’re saying is that Hamas treats the hostages they brutally kidnapped on Oct. 7 with dignity, while Israel abuses its prisoners.

This narrative not only ignores the fact that hostages held by Hamas endured torture, starvation, and sexual violence while the overwhelming majority of Palestinians incarcerated in Israel are treated by Western prison standards — but completely ignores that Palestinians are in Israeli jails because they have been convicted of crimes — often violent ones — while the hostages were illegally stolen by Hamas.

In fact, conditions in Israeli prisons are such that at least one Palestinian prisoner recently slated for release actually begged Israel to keep him rather than return to relative freedom under Hamas in Gaza.

By casting Hamas as more humane than a democratic state, these “pro-Palestinian” groups engage in a false moral equivalence that legitimizes terrorism and dehumanizes Israeli victims.

In St. Louis, a community group active but not affiliated with students on local campuses, Voices of Palestine Network, shared a video with  the caption: “Don’t let the killer become the victim.” They claimed to reveal the “truth” about the Israeli hostages’ lack of innocence, as if such context could justify the crimes against humanity committed on October 7 and afterwards.

Eastern Iowa Jewish Voices for Palestine and Ohio State University Jews for Justice in Palestine shared similar posts claiming that Western media have not covered Israel’s actions, which is just plain wrong. Even prestigious private schools are suffering from this kind of hateful bullying. Northwestern University was just defaced with antisemitic graffiti that included statements such as, “Death to Israel” and “Intifada now!”

Many students, faculty, and administrators may believe that this rhetoric — however inflammatory — is merely speech and not action.

But across the country, we’ve already seen how inflammatory expression can evolve into extremely toxic behavior — harassment, bullying, social exclusion, violent attacks, and fear — especially when targeting the minority of students who are visibly Jewish or openly pro-Israel.

When this kind of intimidation replaces discussion, students begin self-censoring to avoid backlash and the foundation of academic freedom erodes.

It is time for universities, student governments, and community leaders across the Midwest to draw a clear moral line between upholding free speech and implicit endorsements of bigoted threats against the Jewish and pro-Israel communities. Administrators must publicly condemn the glorification of terror and demand accountability from groups that harass and intimidate their peers.

Campus spaces are meant for students to wrestle with ideas. But how can that happen when a minority of bullies exploit that freedom to suppress the speech of others?

 The choice is simple. Speak out now or allow antisemitic and anti-American radicalization to take root under the guise of activism.

The post Midwest Campus Groups Use ‘Pro-Palestinian’ Label as a Way to Attack Jews and Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Car in New South Wales, Australia graffitied with antisemitic message. The word “F***” has been removed from this image. Photo: Screenshot

With just a few days to go before Australians head to the polls on May 3, the country’s Jewish community is reeling from a decision that has left many feeling betrayed, sidelined, and deeply concerned about the future.

In a move that has shocked — but not entirely surprised — us, the ruling center-left Labor Party has entered into preference deals with the far-left Greens party — effectively elevating them in key electorates across the country. In Australia’s unique preferential voting system, these deals play a critical role in determining who ultimately wins a seat, often tipping the balance in tight races.

And this year, this move has sent a very clear and troubling message to Australian Jews: our concerns are expendable.

To understand the magnitude of this, one needs to understand who the Greens are in the Australian context. This is not merely a progressive party focused on the environment. The Australian Greens have positioned themselves as one of the most strident anti-Israel voices in mainstream politics, openly accusing Israel of apartheid, calling for arms embargoes, and failing to condemn the Hamas atrocities of October 7. Their members have fueled division on campuses, marched under banners declaring “Resistance by Any Means,” and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with movements that seek to delegitimize the Jewish State.

Now, through Labor’s preference deals, they have been granted a possible path to greater power.

It’s a decision that is difficult to reconcile — especially given that the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, is himself Jewish, holds a very safe seat, and is the most senior Jewish member of the Australian Parliament. He is acutely aware of the deep concern and distress felt by the Jewish community in the wake of rising antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility.

And yet, despite his unique position of influence within the Labor Party, he and Labor have chosen to preference the Greens — an openly hostile and inflammatory party when it comes to Israel — over moderate candidates in key electorates.

This gut-wrenching move not only undermines the re-election chances of Josh Burns — one of only three other Jewish Labor MPs, and one of the caucus’ few consistent voices of support for Israel and opposition to antisemitism — but it sends a demoralizing message to the Jewish community: that even in this moment of fear, pain, and increasing isolation, political expediency trumps principle.

For many, this is not just disappointing — it feels like a betrayal.

What makes this moment even more precarious is the very real possibility of a hung parliament — a scenario in which no party secures a majority in the House of Representatives. If that happens, Labor will need to negotiate with minor parties and independents to remain in government.

That means deals not just with the Greens, but potentially with the so-called Teals — a group of climate-focused independents who campaigned on integrity and transparency but have increasingly aligned themselves with activist rhetoric and anti-Israel narratives, while remaining silent in the face of rising antisemitism, effectively enabling it through inaction and association.

While their positions may not be as extreme as the Greens, their silence has often been deafening — and their willingness to serve as kingmakers in a divided parliament raises significant questions for the Jewish community.

This political realignment comes at a time when antisemitism is on the rise in Australia. In the months since October 7, we have seen hate rear its head on our streets, in our universities, and across social media. Jewish students are being harassed. Hostile graffiti now stains our neighbourhoods. Community institutions are forced to bolster security, and families are afraid to publicly identify as Jewish.

The silence — or worse, strategic partnership — with those who embolden this environment is not just disheartening. It is dangerous.

We are told this is simply politics. That preference deals are just mechanics. But when those mechanics elevate those who have shown contempt for our community’s safety, values, and identity, then the message is clear: power matters more than principle.

This isn’t about party loyalty. The Jewish community in Australia is diverse in its political views. But what unites us is the growing fear that we are being pushed to the margins. That we are being treated as politically inconvenient. That we are alone.

For the international Jewish community, this should be a moment of solidarity and concern. Australia has long been a beacon of multicultural harmony — a place where Jewish life thrived openly and proudly. But the cracks are showing. And if a new government is formed with the Greens and Teals holding the balance of power, those cracks could widen quickly.

The next government will shape more than just policy. It will shape how safe Jewish Australians feel in their own country. It will shape whether antisemitism is confronted or excused. It will shape whether Jewish voices are listened to or left behind.

This election may be Australian, but its consequences are global. We ask our friends and allies abroad to stand with us, to raise awareness, and to understand that the fight against antisemitism is not confined to one nation — but is a global moral test.

Australia is at a crossroads. We hope it chooses the path of courage, principle, and solidarity.

Michael Gencher is Executive Director StandWithUs Australia, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.

The post The Labor Party Sends an Alarming Message to Australian Jews in Upcoming Election first appeared on Algemeiner.com.