RSS
Winners and Losers in the Middle East: The Story So Far
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq, April 22, 2024. Photo: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS
JNS.org – After more than a year of bloody conflict in the Middle East sparked by the Hamas pogrom in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, it’s becoming clearer as to which of the multiple parties involved have registered net gains and which net losses.
Let’s start with the Palestinians. The enduring achievement of the Hamas rapists and murderers has been to thrust the Palestinian question back into the heart of the world’s consciousness. For at least 10 years prior, the civil war in Syria, the war against ISIS, the failure of the “Arab Spring” to introduce stable and lasting democracy in the region, and the normalization treaties between Israel and a cluster of highly conservative Arab monarchies displaced the Palestinians from their jealously guarded position as the region’s overarching, unresolved question.
Oct. 7 changed all that by turning the Palestinian issue into a domestic concern in a range of countries—a status that typically eludes the myriad other conflicts around the world. “Palestine” has been an issue in elections in Ireland, France, the United Kingdom and, of course, the United States. It has been an issue for law enforcement, as police departments in cities around the world have struggled to deal with mass demonstrations and campus encampments, too often resulting in police officers looking the other way as screaming mobs have openly supported terror organizations, recycled the crudest antisemitic tropes, engaged in vandalism and assault, and disrupted sporting and cultural events. And, let’s face it, the war in Gaza has given the lives of millions of restive, poorly informed people a sense of meaning and purpose as they face down the Zionist war machine they believe is at the root of the Palestinians’ travails—and therefore at the root of theirs as well.
Yet actual Palestinians, particularly Palestinians in Gaza, might question whether any of these outcomes were worth a year of bombardment that has wrecked their coastal enclave and placed them at the mercy of outside states when it comes to reconstruction and post-war governance. Hamas has been decimated, and it remains unclear who will rule Gaza going forward and how they will do so. The price of the aforementioned political victories for the Palestinians has been military disaster and long-term uncertainty.
For Israel, that effect has essentially been reversed. Militarily, thanks to the discipline and courage of the Israel Defense Forces, the Jewish state is in a much more commanding position than it was before Oct. 7 on both the Gaza and Lebanon fronts (meaning, its southern and northern borders). As well as delivering powerful blows against Hamas, Israel has fundamentally weakened Iran’s other proxy, Hezbollah, to the point that it cannot muster fighters to defend the tottering regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, as it did a decade ago.
Yet in political and diplomatic terms, the past 14 months have seen Israel’s global position significantly undermined by repeated accusations of “genocide.” Its prime minister and former defense minister cannot travel to much of the rest of the world, including most of the European Union, for fear that they will be arrested under the warrants issued last month by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. From literary festivals to soccer matches, Israelis are feeling the kind of opprobrium once reserved for apartheid South Africa, albeit with much deadlier violence involved. Relatedly, Jewish communities in the Diaspora are experiencing a wave of antisemitic intimidation unseen since the 1930s. The imminent arrival of a new administration in the White House may, as many hopefully expect, shift these fortunes, especially when it comes to the crucial issues of the plight of the remaining hostages in Gaza and the return of thousands of Israelis displaced from their homes in the north by Hezbollah’s attacks. Nothing, however, is guaranteed.
Dealing with the Iranian regime, whose machinations lie at the core of this conflict, will be a major focus of the next Trump administration’s foreign policy. Yet even before Donald Trump enters the Oval Office (again), Iran is already looking damaged and weaker now when compared with Oct. 7. While its missile attacks on Israel failed to dent either the IDF or the Israeli population’s resolve, Jerusalem’s responses have badly frayed Iran’s air defenses and highlighted the vulnerability of its nuclear program. As well as seeing its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies degraded, Iran is now watching as the Assad regime in Syria clings to survival. Iran still retains its proxies in Iraq and Yemen, but these, too, may also find themselves in the firing line with a new administration in Washington. “Although today’s Iran is confident that it can fight to defend itself, it wants peace,” wrote its former foreign minister in a frankly ludicrous article for Foreign Affairs. That sounds suspiciously like a plea to the regime’s adversaries to hold off because the reality is that the regime cannot defend itself from Israel—not to mention the Iranian people, growing swaths of whom truly loathe the Islamic Republic and are determined to get rid of it.
For two states in the region, the outlook is unfortunately rosier. One is Turkey, whose membership of the NATO Alliance remains undisturbed despite the increasingly unhinged attacks on Israel leveled by its autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and its open support of Hamas. Ironically, Israel’s punishing of Hezbollah has helped Erdoğan in Syria, where Turkey is backing anti-Assad forces in the north of the country, though don’t expect him to acknowledge that.
Secondly, there is Qatar, an emirate grounded in Sharia law, where a little more than 10% of the population enjoy full citizenship while the vast majority—mainly migrant workers toiling in slave-like conditions—live under a form of real apartheid. The Biden administration’s faith that Qatar—a financial and diplomatic backer of Hamas whose capital hosted the terror organization’s leaders—could act as an honest broker in negotiations to release the hostages was spectacularly misplaced, with more than a year dragging by since the one-and-only prisoner exchange that compelled Israel to release Palestinians convicted of terrorism and violence. Despite this dismal failure and its two-faced stance on terrorism, Qatar’s ruling family continues to be feted by international leaders, most recently in London, where the British Royal Family dutifully trooped to The Mall for a parade welcoming the visiting emir. For the foreseeable future, Qatar’s astonishing wealth, coupled with its financial hold over many of the world’s capitals, is a guarantee of immunity from criticism, let alone actual sanctions.
For Turkey and Qatar, then, net gains. For Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese proxies, net losses. For Israel, the jury is out. The first year of Trump’s term in office will doubtless tell us more.
The post Winners and Losers in the Middle East: The Story So Far first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Senator Peter Welch Slams White House for Lifting Arms Restrictions on Israel
US Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT). Photo: Reuters
US Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) slammed the Trump administration this week for lifting restrictions on arms transfers to Israel, insisting that the Jewish state be forced to broker a “peace” with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
“America shouldn’t give Israel 2,000-pound bombs to drop on one of the most densely populated areas in the world. We should help bring the remaining hostages home, surge aid for civilians in need, and create a lasting peace,” Welch posted on X/Twitter on Tuesday.
Welch’s post came in response to reports that the White House directed the Pentagon to approve shipments of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, reversing a partial arms blockade implemented by the former Biden administration. The Biden administration placed restrictions on the heavy-duty artillery to Israel last May, citing concerns over excessive civilian casualties and frustration over Jerusalem’s decision to pursue military operations in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
“We released them. We released them today. And they’ll have them. They paid for them and they’ve been waiting for them for a long time. They’ve been in storage,” US President Donald Trump said to reporters on Jan. 25, referring to the bombs meant for Israel.
Last November, Welch joined a chorus of left-wing progressives in calling for the Biden administration to place an arms embargo on Israel, arguing that the Jewish state has violated “international humanitarian law” during its war against Hamas.
“The Leahy Law and other US laws are clear: All countries are held to the same standard, and all countries that receive US security assistance must follow international humanitarian law,” Welch said in a statement. “Israel is no different.”
Earlier this month, Welch said he was “so, so relieved” that Israel and Hamas had reached a ceasefire agreement, and called for a “surging of humanitarian assistance” into Gaza.
John Spencer, the chair of urban warfare studies at West Point’s Modern Warfare Institute, has stated that imposing an arms embargo on Israel would strengthen Hamas and prolong the war in Gaza. Spencer pointed out that heavy munitions, such as 2,000-pound bombs, are capable of penetrating the earth and collapsing underground tunnels, which Hamas has built and utilized to hide hostages, plan attacks, and use civilians as human shields. Therefore, Spencer argued, a ban on arms transfers to Israel would lead Hamas to build more tunnels underneath the besieged enclave.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas, which rules Gaza, has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.
Another challenge for Israel has been Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
The post US Senator Peter Welch Slams White House for Lifting Arms Restrictions on Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peter Beinart Bends Truth in New York Times Essay Accusing American Jews of Idolatry
Peter Beinart, a prominent anti-Israel writer, being interviewed in January 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Israel has no right to exist, New York Times “contributing opinion writer” Peter Beinart writes in a new opinion article accusing “mainstream American Jewish life” of being idolatrous.
The article appears under a general-purpose headline: “States Don’t Have a Right to Exist. People Do.” Yet after a bit of throat-clearing and hypothetical speculation about Scotland, Britain, Iran, and China, Beinart gets down to making his case for eliminating Israel, or, as he delicately puts it, “rethinking the character of the state” by replacing Israel with something else.
The one country that Beinart is really determined to rethink just happens to be the only one with a Jewish majority. The URL or web address that the Times team gives the article also exposes the game, “https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/opinion/israel-state-jewish.html.”
This isn’t some sort of abstract political theory philosophy project — it’s an effort by Beinart, platformed by the New York Times, to wipe the Jewish state off the map. At this point, it’s predictable and tired. Beinart had already announced in the New York Times back in 2020, “I no longer believe in a Jewish state,” part of what earned him the status of the New York Times‘ most favorite Jew.
So what, if anything, is new in this latest Beinart screed? Beinart has a new book to publicize, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. It is issued by publisher Knopf, whose parent company, Bertelsmann AG, collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and subsequently covered it up.
As is often the case with hatred of Israel, Beinart’s article is marred by factual errors. He claims that “roughly half the people under Israeli control are Palestinian.” That’s simply false; Israel’s population is about 9.8 million, of which about 7.2 million, or 73 percent, are Jewish, according to Israel’s central bureau of statistics. Beinart’s math depends on defining people in Palestinian Authority-controlled Ramallah and Jenin, or in Hamas-controlled Gaza, as being “under Israeli control,” which is not accurate.
Beinart also falsely claims, “Even the minority of Palestinians under Israeli control who hold Israeli citizenship — sometimes called ‘Israeli Arabs’ — lack legal equality.” Just because a group suffers from discrimination or has lower achievement doesn’t mean it lacks legal equality. Israel’s Declaration of Independence states, “It will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture.” Israel’s Supreme Court has enforced that promise of equality. Israeli Arabs have the right to vote and serve in the Parliament. An Israeli Arab politician, Mansour Abbas, even recently served as a minister in an Israeli government.
Beinart also complains that “this form of idolatry — worship of the state — seems to suffuse mainstream American Jewish life.” That’s not true. Yes, most mainstream American Jews — unlike Beinart and, apparently, his New York Times editors — care deeply about Israel and oppose the enemies that hope to eradicate it. Yet the comparison to idolatry is inaccurate. It’s also inconsistent with Beinart’s previous claims. Already in his 2012 book The Crisis of Zionism, or even before that in his 2010 article “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment” Beinart was predicting that American Jews would abandon Israel as it became, he claimed, more illiberal and right wing and undemocratic. Now, more than a decade later, he’s accusing American Jews not of abandoning Israel but of worshiping it. At least with his reference to “mainstream Jewish life” Beinart is defining himself clearly outside that. Given that, one wonders why the New York Times has chosen to rely so heavily for analysis of American Jewry and Israel on such an extremist, fringe figure.
I offered a couple of theories last year, including that “some portion of the Times online readership — alienated graduate students and other young, college educated liberals, along with increasing numbers of non-Americans — are looking for someone to give them a pass to hate Israel, basically to excuse their antisemitism. Beinart serves that function.”
In that regard, a Times colleague of Beinart’s offers some useful analysis. In a 2012 review for Tablet of a Beinart book, Bret Stephens, then still at the Wall Street Journal, paraphrased Leon Wieseltier’s observation “that characterizing antisemitic acts as a response to something Jews did doesn’t explain antisemitism. It reproduces it.”
From Beinart’s latest New York Times piece: “When you deny people basic rights, you subject them to tremendous violence. And, sooner or later, that violence endangers everyone. In 1956, a 3-year-old named Ziyad al-Nakhalah saw Israeli soldiers murder his father in the Gazan city of Khan Younis. Almost 70 years later, he heads Hamas’s smaller but equally militant rival, Islamic Jihad … The failure to protect the lives of Palestinians in Gaza ultimately endangers Jews. In this war, Israel has already killed more than one hundred times as many Palestinians in Gaza as it did in the massacre that took the life of Mr. al-Nakhalah’s father. How many 3-year-olds will still be seeking revenge seven decades from now?”
It’s amazing that Beinart blames “Israeli soldiers” for the “murder” of Ziyad al-Nakhalah’s father in 1956 in Khan Younis. In 1956, Egypt, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, controlled Gaza. A Jerusalem Post article describes it more accurately: “Nakhalah’s father, Rushdi, was killed during the joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. The Gaza Strip back then was under Egyptian control.”
The New York Times itself provides useful historical context: A dispatch from Gaza on Nov. 2, 1956 reported that “at the roadside weary Israeli soldiers sat beside their weapons waiting for vehicles to remove them to points in the Gaza Strip where diehard commandos were offering resistance … Talking through interpreters to correspondents, residents of the Strip in the outskirts of Gaza said life as stateless displaced persons under the Egyptian government in the last eight years had not been happy. Although they had been allowed to vote in Egyptian elections this year, they said they had had none of the rights that had been given Egyptians on the other side of the Suez Canal zone.”
Another Times dispatch from Gaza, on Nov. 6, 1956, reported, “Israeli army units were cleaning out the last pockets of fedayeen (commando) squads … All along the road were wrecked and burned out Egyptian military vehicles and mobile weapons … Israeli troops expressed surprise at the joyous welcome they had received from Palestinian Arabs who had spent eight years under Egyptian control. There was no fear shown by the people, who seemed thankful that the Israelis had taken over the territory.”
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post Peter Beinart Bends Truth in New York Times Essay Accusing American Jews of Idolatry first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How the Auschwitz Commandant’s Infamous Home Has Been Turned Into a Center Against Antisemitism
British teens placed pictures of Israeli hostages seized by Hamas on the train tracks leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the notorious Nazi death camp. Photo: JRoots
It was the most jarring moment of last year’s Academy Awards: as Jonathan Glazer accepted the Oscar for “The Zone of Interest,” a harrowing film set in the shadow of Auschwitz, instead of using his speech to honor the victims of the Holocaust, he made a political statement that many saw as an astonishing trivialization of the very subject his film had purported to explore.
Rather than acknowledging the unfathomable suffering of the Jews murdered at Auschwitz in particular, and the dangers of pathological antisemitism in general, Glazer chose to equate the Holocaust with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, implicitly drawing a moral equivalence between Nazis and the Jewish state.
The setting made it all the more disturbing — delivered amidst the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, Glazer’s so-called virtue-signaling call for universal resistance to “dehumanization” felt less like a plea for moral clarity and more like a cynical weaponization of the Holocaust to delegitimize Jewish self-defense and undermine the fight against the malignant evil of antisemitism.
“The Zone of Interest” is a film about the chilling banality of evil, loosely based on the novel of the same name, centering on Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss and his family as they go about their daily lives in a picturesque home just beyond the camp’s walls.
The film’s unsettling premise lies in its depiction of the Höss family’s mundane existence — gardening, swimming, and dining — while the machinery of genocide operates just out of sight. It is a study in complicity, yet it deliberately omits the suffering of Jewish victims, leaving their fate largely unseen and unheard.
And yet, somehow, Glazer’s acceptance speech managed to be even more disturbing than this conscious erasure. Instead of honoring those who perished, he co-opted the memory of the Holocaust to push a political agenda against Israel, without once mentioning the horrific evil perpetrated against Jews — fellow Jews! — on Oct. 7, 2023. Not a word about the deliberate murder, torture, and rape of 1,200 Jews, whose only sin was being Jewish in the land of their heritage, Israel.
While Hollywood — even, sadly, some within Jewish Hollywood — may be lost in its own navel-gazing world of self-righteousness, many Jews and Gentiles across the United States and beyond have been utterly shocked by the alarming resurgence of antisemitism in the 16 months since the Oct. 7 massacre.
Enter Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, who founded the Counter Extremism Project (CEP) in 2014. Recognizing the urgent need to push back against the normalization of Jew-hatred, he enlisted my good friend Elliott Broidy and fellow philanthropist Dr. Thomas Kaplan. Together they purchased Rudolf Höss’s former home in Oświęcim, just outside the Auschwitz compound, the very setting of “The Zone of Interest” — and created the Auschwitz Research Center on Hate, Extremism, and Radicalization (ARCHER) at House 88, whose goal is not just to remember the victims of the Holocaust but also to find the best ways to combat the spread of antisemitism and advocate for them.
Instead of allowing the Auschwitz commandant’s house to remain a grotesque relic of history, they are turning it into a global center dedicated to combating antisemitism and extremism, ensuring that the lessons of the past are neither distorted nor forgotten — by Hollywood directors or by anyone else.
This week, Elliott was in Poland for the 80th anniversary commemoration of Auschwitz’s liberation. As part of the events, Höss’s house at 88 Legionów Street was opened to visiting dignitaries for the first time since the Holocaust.
Just steps from the site where 1.1 million Jews, along with 20,000 Roma and tens of thousands of Polish and Russian political prisoners, were murdered, this house was once home to the man who orchestrated that industrial-scale slaughter: Rudolf Höss. But for nearly eight decades, the Polish family that occupied it since 1945 refused to let anyone inside, despite its profound historical significance.
And the macabre site is just the tip of the spear. A major fundraising campaign has been launched to support ARCHER at House 88’s mission to transform the Höss home into a global center for research, education, and advocacy against extremism and antisemitism. With comprehensive programming designed for college students and educational tools set to be used worldwide, the initiative aims to confront hate where it festers most.
This week, Ambassador Wallace emphasized the center’s crucial role as a global hub for combating hate, while former US Senator Norm Coleman called the project a direct and urgent challenge to antisemitism and extremism.
I spoke to Elliott while he was in Poland. “Rudolf Höss’s house stood untouched for decades, a silent witness to history’s darkest crimes,” he told me. “We refused to let it remain a relic of evil. House 88 will be transformed into a center for fighting antisemitism, extremism, and hate. The lesson of House 88 is so disturbing: a neighbor can be fanatically antisemitic, and the result is the death of millions of Jews — or 1,200 innocent Israelis on the border of Gaza.”
His words carry the weight of history and urgency. This project isn’t only about preserving the past — it’s about ensuring the world understands where unchecked hate leads, and giving future generations the tools to resist it.
One of ARCHER at House 88’s board members is another good friend of mine, George Schaeffer. “I’m a child of Holocaust survivors,” he told me, “and I know how important it is for us to never forget what antisemitism can lead to. The more we know about the past — the horrors of the past — the more we can correct the future, and change the future.”
George’s commitment to this project is deeply personal. “What we are constructing next to Auschwitz is an important way of teaching what the real dangers are,” he added. “The commandant and his family lived next door to Auschwitz as if it was normal — we need to make sure that it’s never normal to allow antisemitism to flourish, especially if it is on our own doorstep.”
In synagogues across the Jewish world, we are currently reading the Torah portions that recall the slavery and persecution of the Jews in ancient Egypt. One of the primary directives of Jewish tradition is incorporating the Hebrew phrase Zecher Li’yetziat Mitzrayim — a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt — into our prayers and blessings. But this is not just an exercise in historical memory — it is a directive for vigilance.
A just society can only thrive and survive if persecution and hatred are identified, combated, and rooted out. We must never be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking the danger has passed. Antisemitism may have begun more than three millennia ago in Egypt, but it has reared its ugly head in every era and every location since.
And now, as we face yet another alarming resurgence, ARCHER at House 88 stands as a powerful new initiative to ensure that this latest iteration of Jew-hatred is confronted and defeated — just as Pharaoh was in Egypt, just as Hitler and Höss were in their time, and just as every other vicious antisemite throughout history has ultimately been overcome.
The post How the Auschwitz Commandant’s Infamous Home Has Been Turned Into a Center Against Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.