RSS
Why Russia Has Skewed Its Population Against Israel
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Photo: Kremlin.ru
Vladimir Putin’s second presidential term (2004–2008) was marked by Moscow’s obvious desire to regain its status as a global superpower, which had been lost by the Soviet Union as a result of its defeat in the Cold War. The point of official departure from the former policy of open partnership with Western countries and close cooperation with NATO was the so-called 2007 Munich Speech of the Russian President and the invasion of Georgia that followed in August 2008. Moscow’s global claims gained momentum sharply after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and received an even more refined doctrinal formulation after February 24, 2022.
A critical element of the Kremlin’s new doctrine, which represented a peculiar synthesis of neoconservatism and formally leftist Soviet ideology, was its anti-colonial aspect: the movement of the unprivileged countries of the Global South against the world economic and political dominance of the Global North, usually identified with the US-led bloc of “old” and “old-new” Western democracies.
From the point of view of the Russian leadership, such ideological constructs were to become the common denominator of the geopolitical, diplomatic and economic strategy of the international organizations that Moscow is building as a tool to confront the “collective West.” Notable among them is BRICS — an informal association of initially four non-Western states with rapidly growing economies, established in 2006 at the initiative of the Russian Federation, which has gradually expanded to nine member states, together accounting for 46% of the world’s population and 37% of global GDP.
Moscow’s bid for leadership in the global South also had an obvious Middle East dimension. Already at the beginning of the shift in Russia’s foreign policy, it was made clear there that Moscow was no longer willing to settle for the rather formal status of “co-sponsor of the Middle East peace process,” but intended to set the tone in the region. It is clear that with such an “anti-imperialist” vision, which, incidentally, is shared by ultra-leftist and radical-progressive circles in Western countries, the emergence of the subject of “Israeli colonialism” allegedly oppressing the “freedom-loving people of Palestine” in the official rhetoric of the Kremlin was a matter of time.
As a result, in late 2010s Russia’s initial practice of balancing and mediating between almost all actors involved in the Middle East conflict began to gradually change, and its final reformatting took place after October 7, 2023. This time Moscow almost openly supported Hamas as a satellite of Iran, Russia’s current closest partner in the Middle East.
Russia’s support for the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank, whose leaders from the very beginning of the Russian military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 have taken the side of Moscow, where they continue to repeat the long-exhausted formula about the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as the only way to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. (In this context, the results of voting by PA residents with Russian citizenship in the March 2024 Russian presidential election are quite revealing. More than 90% of those who took part in the elections in the PA voted for Vladimir Putin, while Vladislav Davankov was the leading candidate among the Russian citizens who voted in Israel).
The appearance of the PNA/PLO and Hamas delegations at the next BRICS summit in Kazan in late October 2024 as honorary observer guests in the “BRICS plus/outreach” format was in line with this policy. The head of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) made the most of the arena graciously provided by the organizers and the sympathetic attention of the federal and local Russian press to accuse Israel of “genocide” of Palestinian Arabs, “ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip,” and other alleged “violations of international law.” He concluded by demanding that BRICS member states impose sanctions against Israel and expressed hope that “Palestine will be accepted as a member of BRICS” in the near future.
In fact, it is not so much the bilateral relations with the virtual “Palestinian state” that are important for Russia itself, but rather more significant things for Moscow – its attempts to intercept the status of the main sponsor of the “Palestinian cause” from the West in order to gain geopolitical regional and global advocacy perspectives. Apparently, it is within the framework of such a strategy that the Soviet rhetoric about the alleged “pivotal nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for the entire situation in the Middle East” and its “key role in the major regional crises threatening the security and stability of the region” is being revitalized.
Russian society, which until recently was generally favorably disposed toward Israel, has embraced the revival of propaganda clichés that seemed to have been long gone: according to polls, the percentage of Russians sympathizing with the Palestinian Arabs today is many times higher than the percentage of those sympathizing with the Jewish state.
In fact, this was not a big surprise. Data collected over 26 years of sociological observations by the authoritative Moscow-based Levada Center showed that although the majority of Russians do not support either side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since 2011 there has been a gradual increase in the share of respondents whose sympathies are on the side of the Palestinian Arabs, while at the same time the number of respondents who support the Israelis has been decreasing. By October 2024, the level of support for Palestinian Arabs exceeded the level of support for Israelis by 4.5 times (28% and 6%, respectively), while 13 years ago the ratio was inverse.
However, also in 2011 there was an absolute maximum — more than 70% — of respondents who did not express sympathy for either side in the conflict. In October 2024, the share of such respondents in Russia amounted to 57% — almost identical (56%) to the share of Americans who chose the same answer option in a parallel survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. At the same time, while the share of those who found it difficult to answer was four times lower than among respondents in Russia, the share of Americans who supported Israel (31%) was five times higher than the share of Russians (6%), among whom the number of those who sympathized with the Palestinians was, on the contrary, 2.5 times higher than among those who sympathized with the Israelis (28% and 11%, respectively).
In light of these data, it is not surprising that the share of American respondents who believe that Israel is protecting its interests in the current conflict and its actions are justified is more than twice as high (32% and 14%) as the share of Russians who share this opinion. But among those who chose the statement “Israel has gone too far and its actions are not justified,” the split was the opposite: 59% of the Russians surveyed and 34% of the Americans thought so.
The fundamental question — What is going to be “the day after”? — eventually leads the debate to the problem of establishing a Palestinian state, which in the romantic period of the Norwegian Accords of 1993–1997 was considered by many to be the optimal solution to the Palestinian Arab problem and the trigger for ending the almost century-long Arab-Israeli confrontation and the Middle East conflict as a whole. While the idea of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to the Oslo model (“two states for two peoples”) has clearly exhausted itself long ago, this formula is still too entrenched in international political and diplomatic discourse to be abandoned without severe consequences for the strategies based on it, the careers built on it, and the diplomatic, political and economic resources invested in it. And it is in this capacity that it remains a notable geopolitical and geostrategic factor.
It seems that public sentiments in the two countries quite accurately reflect the local media agenda: rather diversified in the United States, and relatively homogeneous, with the dominance of pro-government media, in Russia. At first glance, the opinions of Americans and Russians are completely identical on this point: 49% of respondents in both the American and Russian samples were in favor of the creation of an independent Palestinian state. At the same time, the number of those who were against the creation of such a state in the United States (41%) was slightly less than those who were in favor, while in Russia this number was three times less (14%).
However, if for the United States and its allies this subject, in one way or another, mistakenly or not, is still seen as one of the ways to solve the problem, for Russia and its allies it is hardly more than an active propaganda resource and a tool of geopolitical confrontation with the “global West” and competition with China, Turkey and the Saudi bloc for influence in the Middle East.
Prof. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin lectures in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and is Academic Chairman of the Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies in Herzliya, Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Why Russia Has Skewed Its Population Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How Canadian Universities Are Allowing Jewish Students to Be Doxxed and Harassed
The Fine Arts Building of McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. Photo: DXR/Wikimedia Commons
With the rise of the digital age, an entirely new form of harassment and intimidation has emerged. Nameless accounts run by faceless adversaries comment on, post about, and attack others — their identities hidden behind a digital mask.
What’s worse than this anonymous harassment is the increasingly common practice of doxxing, where one’s personal information is released to the public in an effort to intimidate and silence them.
That’s the situation that pro-Israel Jewish Canadians have been facing for over a year — and it threatens free expression, academic integrity, and open discourse.
In the year and a half since October 7, 2023, this harassment has become a common practice on college campuses for students who dare to voice any support for Israel, or criticism of Palestinians or Hamas. My school, McGill University, is no different. Pro-Israel students, Hillel staff, and even McGill security guards have been followed, photographed, and videoed.
A prime example of this phenomenon is the Instagram account, “Shart-Up Nation,” which regularly targets pro-Israel activists and the McGill administration by sharing photos and videos of Jewish students and professionals, and asking followers to find information about them so that they may release it to their 800+ followers.
Their feed and stories are flooded with vicious photos of McGill’s pro-Israel community accompanied by horrible insults, stating that “all Zionists look like this to a certain degree” and comparing Jewish students to an unflattering emoji.
Memes are drenched in antisemitic sentiments — such as one regarding a former hostage’s nose job paralleling the trope of a Jew with a large hooked nose, one suggesting Jews are constantly surveilling people (suspiciously close to the sentiments put forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), or even another suggesting that Jews “want to swim in the blood of dead Palestinians,” echoing the age-old blood libel.
This past December, the group came across the Instagram page of another local pro-Israel organization, Allied Voices for Israel. The account manager captured screenshots of students’ faces on an educational trip to Israel, which focused on conversations between Israel and Palestinians “fighting for peace and coexistence.” The doxxers then located their LinkedIn profiles, and posted their academic and personal information along with their full names.
These actions extend far beyond violating privacy — they induce a fear to speak up and make opinions known in the pro-Israel community. It is clear that these actions are a thinly veiled threat — dare to engage in conversation about Israel, no matter if there is nuance, and your professional and personal life will be put at risk.
Despite the vicious posts about students — and the now illegal release of their private information — neither the Concordia nor McGill administration have identified the student perpetrator.
Unfortunately, hiding one’s identity while protesting, chanting some questionable (at best) statements, and performing illegal actions, is nothing new for the pro-Palestinian crowd at McGill.
On October 7th, 2024, students covering their faces with keffiyehs stormed McGill’s campus, pushing down protective barriers and covering school property with graffiti.
Protestors hiding under sunglasses or masks is a common sight on campus. Just recently, a group of masked individuals went so far as to smash over 20 windows in one of McGill’s largest buildings, leaving shards of glass and a terrified student body scattered around campus.
Their masking — and their unwillingness to be associated with their actions — is a tacit acknowledgment that they know what they are doing is wrong. If they were not undertaking destructive, illegal, and harmful actions, why take so much care to hide behind social media accounts and face coverings?
If they truly believe that they are fighting for a just cause and doing it in the correct way, there is no reason that they should feel the need to conceal their involvement or identity. Clearly, then, certain people recognize that their actions place them on the wrong side of history. They know that pushing down fences is not the proper way to instigate social change, that doxxing and humiliating fellow students online is a blatant violation of McGill’s Student Code of Conduct, and that chanting about restarting the “Final solution” while doing a Nazi salute is unacceptable.
If they were proud of their actions, they would not go through so much trouble to hide their identities.
The rise of anonymous harassment and doxxing in Montreal is not just a symptom of political division — it is a threat to the open discourse and academic integrity that is supposed to thrive on college campuses.
And this issue festers in the broader Montreal community as well. The police have yet to make any arrests following extreme acts of vandalism on McGill’s campus in early February; local newspapers misrepresent the facts of the conflict. The mayor of a prominent Jewish community in the city allegedly “tolerates illegal behavior by masked protestors.” McGill and Montreal must break out of this vicious cycle.
If universities fail to address these violations, then they are contributing to a culture where fear reigns supreme and productive dialogue is rendered not just impossible but dangerous. Our institution and our neighbors at Concordia University must take a stand — not just to protect those targeted in today’s world — but for the preservation of open and constructive discourse for generations to come.
Maris Brail is a student at McGill University, pursuing a Joint Honours degree in Jewish Studies and philosophy. As an active member of McGill’s Hillel and Students Supporting Israel executive boards, Maris is committed to fostering a space where Jewish life and advocacy can thrive. She is also a CAMERA on Campus Fellow, dedicated to promoting accurate and fair representations of Israel in academic and media discourse.
The post How Canadian Universities Are Allowing Jewish Students to Be Doxxed and Harassed first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Terror Ties Conveniently Ignored in Lawsuit Accusing British Citizens of Committing ‘War Crimes’ in Gaza
Israeli military jeeps maneuver in Gaza, amid a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, Feb. 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The Guardian and the BBC reported that 10 British citizens have been accused of committing war crimes in Gaza. The report in question covers the period from October 2023 to May 2024, and was submitted by three parties: renowned British barrister Michael Mansfield, the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and the British-based Public Interest Law Centre (PILC).
Michael Mansfield, nicknamed “Moneybags Mansfield” and dubbed a “Champagne socialist,” built his career on representing underdogs, earning a reputation as a people’s lawyer. That career also brought him substantial financial gain — an income reportedly around £300,000.
This striking contrast between the lawyer’s wealth and his radical rhetoric can raise some concerns regarding his own moral integrity and consistency. But it all pales once compared to the troubling background of the other co-filer of the report.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Its Ties to Terror
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), based in Gaza, is the second entity behind the complaint. According to extensive documentation by NGO Monitor, PCHR has longstanding ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — a terror organization designated as such by the EU, US, Canada, and Israel.
The PFLP’s long history includes suicide bombings, shootings, and assassinations. It also played a role in the brutal October 7 attack on Israeli civilians.
Despite all of it, the director of PCHR, has never distanced himself from the terror group. And why would he do it to his dear alma mater? Yes, you read it right. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights’s director was a member of PFLP. In a 2014 statement, years after assuming his leadership role, Sourani said:
I was in the ranks of the Popular Front, and there were comrades who taught us with their own hands. This organization has given us much more. We hope that the direction and the sense of belonging that were planted inside us will remain in our minds. We don’t apologize and don’t regret our past, we are proud that once we were members of this organization and we fought in its ranks. [emphasis added]
So, it comes as no surprise that PFLP members have attended events hosted by PCHR.
And it comes as even less of a surprise that neither The Guardian nor the BBC mentioned PCHR’s ties to terrorists.
British Military Perspective
We asked Colonel Richard Kemp, a retired British Army officer and veteran of operations in Afghanistan, to comment on the complaint by Michael Mansfield and PCHR. This is what Colonel Kemp, who was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire and the Queen’s Commendation for Bravery, offered to HonestReporting:
This is a despicable political action intended to reinforce anti-Israel smears and to intimidate Jews in the UK. It is a deliberate falsehood to state that the IDF has been carrying out systematic war crimes. The reality is that Israel does all it can to avoid civilian deaths while fighting in Gaza.
I very much doubt that the allegations against these ten individuals are linked to any specific allegations. It is more likely they are using the names of 10 British citizens who are lawful members of the IDF in the general context of false allegations.
If so, there is no possibility of this action leading to convictions in British courts. These lawyers will know this, and their actions are therefore intended as political warfare against Israel. They also want to harass British Jews and discourage them from joining the IDF, which they are lawfully entitled to join under both British and Israeli law.
The British legal system should reject these shameful applications. Britain and Israel are allies, and Britain benefits enormously from Israeli military and intelligence contributions. If these perverse legal proceedings are entertained by the Metropolitan Police or Crown Prosecution Service, that will be an indictment of the UK itself—and a further blow against our Jewish community, which has been under sustained attack and discrimination by the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas mobs since October 7, 2023.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Terror Ties Conveniently Ignored in Lawsuit Accusing British Citizens of Committing ‘War Crimes’ in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Palestinian Authority Continues to Cozy Up to China, Urges End to US Role in World Affairs
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is greeted by Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang during a July 2017 visit to Beijing. Photo: Reuters/Mark Schiefelbein
The Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to strategically align itself counter to American interests in the greater geopolitical arena.
Earlier this month, Mahmoud Abbas again rejected Taiwan’s independence as he “emphasized that the State of Palestine will continue to stand by its friend, the Peoples Republic of China, and to support the One China policy and the protection of China’s national interests” [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 27, 2025].
As opposed to the Western countries that fund the PA, Abbas has consistently stood firmly with China’s dream of conquering Taiwan, as he said last year:
The Palestinian Presidency underlined the significance of preserving China’s territorial integrity, including the status of Taiwan … [and] voiced its firm support for China’s right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, endorsing the reunification of the entire land of China, which includes Taiwan.
[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Jan. 13, 2024]
In a letter in January 2023, Abbas Zaki, a senior official in the PA’s ruling Fatah party, also wrote:
I express the stable and well-rooted position of Fatah in its support for the People’s Republic of China against Taiwan, which we consider an integral part of the united Chinese lands.
[Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, Facebook page, January 8, 2023]
On a greater level, the PA has frequently stressed the idea of a strategic partnership both between China and the PA and China and the Muslim world.
Abbas’ senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash says the PA wants to see the end of US world leadership, with the US being pushed aside for a “new multipolar world order” made up of “the Islamic world, Russia and China” to “realize justice.”
The official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida recently reported that Abbas also “praised the firm ties between the two states and the depth of the historical and continuous connection between Palestine and China, which has reached a level of strategic relations.”
This follows Al-Hayat‘s report in January 2025 following a meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and the Chinese envoy to the Middle East, when it wrote the following:
President Mahmoud Abbas … expressed his appreciation for China’s positions that support the Palestinian rights in the international forums — which expresses the depth of the historical ties between the two countries and the two friendly peoples. He also expressed his great appreciation for [Chinese] President Xi Jinping and his positions that are committed to tightening the friendly relations, which have strengthened thanks to strategic ties between Palestine and China.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 19, 2025]
In October 2024, the official PA news agency, WAFA, also reported about Abbas’ meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying the meeting “emphasized the significance of the strategic partnership between the state of Palestine and its friend, the People’s Republic of China (PRC)” [WAFA, official PA news agency, Oct. 23, 2024].
Similar statements have also been made by other senior PA officials, such as Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh, who said in November 2024:
China needs to continue to strengthen its strategic ties with the Arab states and move on to a stage in which it will take action to reshape the international system.
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 28, 2024]
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Palestinian Authority Continues to Cozy Up to China, Urges End to US Role in World Affairs first appeared on Algemeiner.com.