RSS
Why Does the World Hate Israel, and Not Hamas?
Hamas terrorists kidnapping Israeli women at the Nahal Oz base near the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Screenshot
As the smoke cleared last Saturday and the echoes of gunfire faded, four Israeli hostages stumbled into the blinding light of freedom, dramatically rescued from the clutches of Hamas and their local Gaza collaborators. The Israeli military carried out the mission after weeks of meticulous planning, using cutting-edge intelligence and state-of-the-art technology. The result was a triumph: three hostages in one location and one in another, rescued simultaneously, in the type of operation that every Israeli has desperately yearned for since October 7th.
The world watched, breathless, as a nation celebrated the euphoric victory of life over terror. Yet, in the shadow of this victory, an unsettling chorus of condemnation has arisen. Headlines screamed of a “massacre” of non-combatants who died during the rescue raid. There were even voices demanding to know why Israel had not given any advance warning to civilians in Gaza before saving the hostages. In this high-stakes moral battleground — where the sanctity of life is weighed against the brutal calculus of war — Israel, once again, stands accused.
Contemporary “just war” theory is dominated by two main perspectives: traditionalist and revisionist. Traditionalists, also known as legalists, align themselves with established international law and the recognized norms governing armed conflict. They believe that only states have legitimate authority to engage in war, and that war is acceptable for three main reasons: national defense, defense of other states, or to prevent atrocities that shock the moral conscience of humanity. Civilians must never be targeted intentionally, and combatants are allowed to engage one another, provided that civilian harm is not excessive.
Revisionists, on the other hand, challenge these foundations. They question the moral legitimacy of states and the justification for national defense. According to revisionists, combatants fighting for unjust causes — namely, any army fighting on behalf of a sovereign state — cannot morally justify their actions and should cease fighting. Revisionists are the ultimate useful idiots for terrorist organizations and rogue states, who respect no laws and selfishly render violence while always claiming to be victims. If those they have in their crosshairs were to be held back by revisionist ideals, they would not just be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, but two.
Revisionists fail to acknowledge the real-world complexities faced by nations like Israel — and the hostage rescue is a perfect case in point. Critics argue that Israel’s operation was morally flawed because it failed to consider the potential for collateral damage.
But this perspective ignores the stark reality of the hostages’ lives constantly at risk — and with dozens of hostages already dead at the hands of Hamas, every hour of their incarceration was another step toward their death. If the useful idiots had their way, each hostage, if released by Hamas in a deal, would result in the release of a large number of terrorist prisoners in exchange, opening up the potential for yet more violence against Israel down the road. Think how many lives have been saved by the rescue of these four hostages.
The revisionist ivory-tower stance is rooted in a theoretical purity that is utterly detached from the brutal pressures of real-life conflict. In the midst of war, decisions are seldom black and white. These neo-Marxist pacifists dismiss the legitimacy of national defense — an ideal which may suit them in their blinkered perspective, but it fails to grapple with the dire consequences of inaction.
For Israel, the choice is stark: act decisively to save innocent lives or risk brutal violence against their citizens now and in the future. To criticize harm caused by Israel to enemy civilians without considering the context is self-serving virtue signaling, and offers little practical guidance for states forced to navigate the treacherous waters of modern conflict.
Rav Shaul Yisraeli (1909-1995), one of 20th-century Israel’s most prominent rabbinic leaders and an esteemed authority in Jewish law, discusses the concept of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) in his seminal work Amud HaYemini. This concept encompasses the defense of Israel and its people. A milchemet mitzvah is not only permissible but necessary, says Rav Yisraeli, even if it entails significant risks to the lives of non-combatants and involves difficult military decisions. And according to Rav Yisraeli, “war with any nation threatening Israel is a milchemet mitzvah.”
The ongoing conflict with Hamas, and particularly the rescue of hostages, undoubtedly constitutes a milchemet mitzvah, as it represents an existential struggle for Israel’s survival that is being keenly observed by all of Israel’s adversaries. This is why the cost of kidnapping Israelis must be high to deter such atrocities in the future. The misfortune of civilian deaths, as in any just war, is the tragic consequence of such a mission, undertaken to prevent far worse outcomes in the future.
In a perfect world, Hamas would not have kidnapped any Israelis, and having done so, would not have embedded them in the heart of a residential neighborhood. But we don’t live in a perfect world, where swords can be beaten into plowshares, and dealing with heartless enemies is unnecessary. This is the real world, where rescuing innocent civilian hostages from the clutches of evil terrorists is an inescapable reality.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of the media and international actors who criticize Israel is glaring. They refuse to acknowledge that the hostages were all innocent civilians held by Hamas collaborators in residential neighborhoods, where the likelihood of an Israeli rescue raid was, thus high making civilian casualties inevitable.
Which country wouldn’t want to rescue their citizens? Had these hostages been handed back months ago, this entire war might have long been over. Instead, Israel is blamed for fulfilling its obligation to protect its citizens and doing everything possible to save them from terrorist murderers and rapists. The criticism of Israel not only ignores the realities of the conflict but also unfairly vilifies a nation for its honorable commitment to the safety and security of its people.
Rather than hauling Israel over the coals, isn’t it time for the media and international organizations to start hounding Hamas and their lackeys for generating suffering on a scale for Palestinians not seen since 1948? That’s not on Israel. It’s on Hamas. And until Hamas is gone, the suffering will continue — and likely get worse.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Why Does the World Hate Israel, and Not Hamas? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire
Explosions send smoke into the air in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, July 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The spokesperson for Hamas’s armed wing said on Friday that while the Palestinian terrorist group favors reaching an interim truce in the Gaza war, if such an agreement is not reached in current negotiations it could revert to insisting on a full package deal to end the conflict.
Hamas has previously offered to release all the hostages held in Gaza and conclude a permanent ceasefire agreement, and Israel has refused, Abu Ubaida added in a televised speech.
Arab mediators Qatar and Egypt, backed by the United States, have hosted more than 10 days of talks on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce in the war.
Israeli officials were not immediately available for comment on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on a call he had with Pope Leo on Friday that Israel‘s efforts to secure a hostage release deal and 60-day ceasefire “have so far not been reciprocated by Hamas.”
As part of the potential deal, 10 hostages held in Gaza would be returned along with the bodies of 18 others, spread out over 60 days. In exchange, Israel would release a number of detained Palestinians.
“If the enemy remains obstinate and evades this round as it has done every time before, we cannot guarantee a return to partial deals or the proposal of the 10 captives,” said Abu Ubaida.
Disputes remain over maps of Israeli army withdrawals, aid delivery mechanisms into Gaza, and guarantees that any eventual truce would lead to ending the war, said two Hamas officials who spoke to Reuters on Friday.
The officials said the talks have not reached a breakthrough on the issues under discussion.
Hamas says any agreement must lead to ending the war, while Netanyahu says the war will only end once Hamas is disarmed and its leaders expelled from Gaza.
Almost 1,650 Israelis and foreign nationals have been killed as a result of the conflict, including 1,200 killed in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel, according to Israeli tallies. Over 250 hostages were kidnapped during Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught.
Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
The post Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel
People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas
Iran on Friday marked the 31st anniversary of the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires by slamming Argentina for what it called “baseless” accusations over Tehran’s alleged role in the terrorist attack and accusing Israel of politicizing the atrocity to influence the investigation and judicial process.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the anniversary of Argentina’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
“While completely rejecting the accusations against Iranian citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns attempts by certain Argentine factions to pressure the judiciary into issuing baseless charges and politically motivated rulings,” the statement read.
“Reaffirming that the charges against its citizens are unfounded, the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on restoring their reputation and calls for an end to this staged legal proceeding,” it continued.
Last month, a federal judge in Argentina ordered the trial in absentia of 10 Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the attack in Buenos Aires.
The ten suspects set to stand trial include former Iranian and Lebanese ministers and diplomats, all of whom are subject to international arrest warrants issued by Argentina for their alleged roles in the terrorist attack.
In its statement on Friday, Iran also accused Israel of influencing the investigation to advance a political campaign against the Islamist regime in Tehran, claiming the case has been used to serve Israeli interests and hinder efforts to uncover the truth.
“From the outset, elements and entities linked to the Zionist regime [Israel] exploited this suspicious explosion, pushing the investigation down a false and misleading path, among whose consequences was to disrupt the long‑standing relations between the people of Iran and Argentina,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said.
“Clear, undeniable evidence now shows the Zionist regime and its affiliates exerting influence on the Argentine judiciary to frame Iranian nationals,” the statement continued.
In April, lead prosecutor Sebastián Basso — who took over the case after the 2015 murder of his predecessor, Alberto Nisman — requested that federal Judge Daniel Rafecas issue national and international arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his alleged involvement in the attack.
Since 2006, Argentine authorities have sought the arrest of eight Iranians — including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who died in 2017 — yet more than three decades after the deadly bombing, all suspects remain still at large.
In a post on X, the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations (DAIA), the country’s Jewish umbrella organization, released a statement commemorating the 31st anniversary of the bombing.
“It was a brutal attack on Argentina, its democracy, and its rule of law,” the group said. “At DAIA, we continue to demand truth and justice — because impunity is painful, and memory is a commitment to both the present and the future.”
31 años del atentado a la AMIA – DAIA. 31 años sin justicia.
El 18 de julio de 1994, un atentado terrorista dejó 85 personas muertas y más de 300 heridas. Fue un ataque brutal contra la Argentina, su democracia y su Estado de derecho.
Desde la DAIA, seguimos exigiendo verdad y… pic.twitter.com/kV2ReGNTIk
— DAIA (@DAIAArgentina) July 18, 2025
Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah terrorist group carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.
Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terrorist attack has been plagued by allegations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, cover-ups, and annulled trials.
In 2006, former prosecutor Nisman formally charged Iran for orchestrating the attack and Hezbollah for carrying it out.
Nine years later, he accused former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — currently under house arrest on corruption charges — of attempting to cover up the crime and block efforts to extradite the suspects behind the AMIA atrocity in return for Iranian oil.
Nisman was killed later that year, and to this day, both his case and murder remain unresolved and under ongoing investigation.
The alleged cover-up was reportedly formalized through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 between Kirchner’s government and Iranian authorities, with the stated goal of cooperating to investigate the AMIA bombing.
The post Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns
Murad Adailah, the head of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, attends an interview with Reuters in Amman, Jordan, Sept. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jehad Shelbak
The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world’s oldest and most influential Islamist movements, has been implicated in a wide-ranging network of illegal financial activities in Jordan and abroad, according to a new investigative report.
Investigations conducted by Jordanian authorities — along with evidence gathered from seized materials — revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood raised tens of millions of Jordanian dinars through various illegal activities, the Jordan news agency (Petra) reported this week.
With operations intensifying over the past eight years, the report showed that the group’s complex financial network was funded through various sources, including illegal donations, profits from investments in Jordan and abroad, and monthly fees paid by members inside and outside the country.
The report also indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken advantage of the war in Gaza to raise donations illegally.
Out of all donations meant for Gaza, the group provided no information on where the funds came from, how much was collected, or how they were distributed, and failed to work with any international or relief organizations to manage the transfers properly.
Rather, the investigations revealed that the Islamist network used illicit financial mechanisms to transfer funds abroad.
According to Jordanian authorities, the group gathered more than JD 30 million (around $42 million) over recent years.
With funds transferred to several Arab, regional, and foreign countries, part of the money was allegedly used to finance domestic political campaigns in 2024, as well as illegal activities and cells.
In April, Jordan outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s most vocal opposition group, and confiscated its assets after members of the Islamist movement were found to be linked to a sabotage plot.
The movement’s political arm in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, became the largest political grouping in parliament after elections last September, although most seats are still held by supporters of the government.
Opponents of the group, which is banned in most Arab countries, label it a terrorist organization. However, the movement claims it renounced violence decades ago and now promotes its Islamist agenda through peaceful means.
The post Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns first appeared on Algemeiner.com.