RSS
When Our allies Are Hamas Allies
The Muslim Brotherhood axis: a poster in Gaza shows Qatar’s rulers alongside the leaders of Hamas and Turkey. Photo: Twitter.
JNS.org – During the middle of December, New Yorkers were treated to the sight of brash maroon and white beams splashed across the Manhattan skyline when the Empire State Building was lit up in the colors of the Qatari flag in honor of the Gulf emirate’s national day.
Qatar owns 10% of the iconic skyscraper as a result of a $622 million investment made by its sovereign wealth fund in 2016. Qatar also owns lucrative real estate elsewhere in the city, including the Park Lane and St. Regis hotels, and retail outlets along Fifth Avenue that house such names as Victoria’s Secret and Ralph Lauren—a purchasing strategy that the Qataris have utilized in other world cities as well, including Paris and London, enabling one of the world’s smallest countries to become one of the most influential.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s message of greeting to Qatar on its national day neatly illustrated this status. “I want to express my gratitude for Qatar’s key role as a mediator in efforts to secure the release of unjustly detained Americans in Iran in September, and hostages held by Hamas in Gaza,” he stated. “These efforts reflect a shared US and Qatari commitment to promote security and stability in the Middle East and beyond.”
So much, of course, was left unsaid, particularly regarding Qatar’s role as a principal financier and supporter of the rapists and murderers in Gaza known as Hamas. The unvarnished truth here is that Qatar’s colossal wealth—on display every day in office buildings, university campuses, private hospitals and myriad other locations in Western cities—effectively gives the ruling Al Thani clan a pass on precisely those matters of “security and stability” that Blinken talked about.
The issue of Qatar gets to the heart of the policy dilemma facing Western nations in the Middle East, in that the emirate effectively plays both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Qatar is a key American ally in terms of both hard power, hosting the US Central Command (CENTCOM), and soft power, as at least six US universities operate their own campuses there. Yet at the same time that Doha is cultivating these relationships, it is backing a terrorist group that is sworn to Israel’s elimination and sending a signal to other Arab countries that it will not be compromised by their peace agreements with Israel. Unlike its neighbors the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, Qatar elected not to join the Abraham Accords signed with the Israelis in 2020, while right now, Saudi Arabia looks like a better candidate for the next peace deal.
This isn’t a problem we face in dealing with our more straightforward adversaries. For example, delicate diplomacy isn’t really necessary with Iran or Russia—two more states that actively back Hamas—since we don’t have any major economic or cultural ties with these countries now that robust sanctions are in place. Back in October, Blinken declared on “Face the Nation” that war with Iran was “not at all what we’re looking for, not at all what we want, but we’ll be prepared, if that’s what they choose to do.” One can’t imagine the secretary being so glib about Qatar, even though, like the Iranian regime, its rulers also openly support Hamas and run their state in accordance with Islamic imperatives rather than democratic consent.
Arguably a similar principle applies in the case of Turkey, whose president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has outdone even the Iranians when it comes to bloodthirsty rhetoric targeting Israel. Since the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7, Turkey has become one of the most hostile countries on earth for Jews and Israelis. Last month, there was a grimly amusing scene in the Turkish parliament when an Islamist MP, Hasan Bitmez, abruptly collapsed and died at the podium while delivering a viciously antisemitic rant. The following day, Bitmez received what looked like a state funeral, his coffin draped with the Turkish and Palestinian flags as a military honor guard gave a salute in front of hundreds of dignitaries. The spectacle communicated the unmistakable message that securing the defeat of Israel is now part of Turkey’s raison d’état, just as preserving the existence of the Jewish state has been part of post-war Germany’s.
During the last week, the Turkish press has been filled with lurid yet vague reports concerning the arrest of an alleged Israeli spy ring. Key details of the arrests are missing — we don’t know the names or nationalities of those in custody, nor the exact charges they are facing — but that hasn’t prevented Erdoğan from waxing enthusiastically about his country’s resolve. “We are aware that plots of some circles were derailed thanks to our country’s stand against crises in our region, particularly against massacres in Gaza,” Erdoğan told a gathering of Turkish intelligence officials last week. “These espionage activities show how disturbed they are. Israel is confounded by how we rounded up those suspects. But wait, this is just a first step. You will recognize what Turkey is capable of soon.”
That last line might just be grandstanding or it might be a threat worth taking seriously. The hatred of Israel and Jews being stoked by Erdoğan’s regime—some Turkish stores have even posted signs in their doorways forbidding entry to Jews—is so intense that you are forced to believe that anything is possible. Certainly, that is the mindset that Western policymakers should carry.
The point is this: Israel is an ally of the West and securing Israel’s continued existence is a declared aim of Western policy. But our countries are allied with states like Qatar and Turkey, both of whom are pledged to fatally weakening Israel. The question therefore arises as to whether we challenge or mollify them.
Disappointingly, our leaders are doing more mollifying than they are challenging. If you were to ask Blinken why this is, his answer would probably be along the same lines as the answer he gave to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell when she asked him about post-war reconstruction plans in Gaza. “There’s something that’s very powerful, and that’s changed in the last few years in the region, and this is why I think—despite the incredible challenge of this moment, despite the horrific suffering that we’re seeing—there actually is an opportunity that we haven’t seen in the past,” Blinken remarked. “And the change is this: All of these countries now want a region that’s more integrated. They want a region that includes Israel. They’re prepared to do things, to make commitments, to give assurances for Israel’s security. But that also has to include the Palestinian piece.”
In other words, the final outcome of the present conflict should be a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side, enjoying good political and commercial relations with their neighbors. But Israel cannot be asked to sign up to such a vision as long as US allies in the region—most clearly, Qatar and Turkey—cozy up to Hamas and laud it as a legitimate “resistance” organization. Both those countries need to be told by Washington that the price of inclusion in any peace process is throwing Hamas under the bus because Hamas isn’t going to be part of any post-war settlement. With a regional conflagration still very much a possibility, the time to deliver that message is very much now.
The post When Our allies Are Hamas Allies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.