Connect with us

Uncategorized

American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?

(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.

The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.

“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.

“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”

The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.

Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.

“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”

Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)

We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?

Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.

I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.

Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.

What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.

I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?

I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.

If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.

But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.

So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?

First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.

There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.

It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.

One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.

What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?

I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.

It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.

There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?

Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.

But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.

So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.

The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.

There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.

I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?

Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.

I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.

And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.

But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.

And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.

Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.

The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?

Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.

So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.


The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New York City Comptroller Affirms Commitment to Israel Bonds as Mamdani Under Fire Over Handling of Antisemitism

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, United States, April 15, 2026: More than 10,000 32BJ SEIU building service workers rally alongside New York City Comptroller Mark D. Levine, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, union leaders and elected officials ahead of a potential strike vote, as 34,000 workers push for stronger contract protections, healthcare benefits, and wage increases amid rising living costs in New York City. (Photo: Luiz Rampelotto/EuropaNewswire/Sipa USA)

New York City Comptroller Mark Levine speaking on April 15, 2026. Photo: Luiz Rampelotto/EuropaNewswire/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

New York City’s top financial official defended the city’s ongoing investment in Israel bonds as the administration of Mayor Zohran Mamdani faced growing criticism over its refusal to adopt a formal definition of antisemitism and continued hostile posture toward the Jewish state, paving the way for a showdown over how New York should address hate crimes and foreign investment policy.

Comptroller Mark Levine said on Wednesday that bonds issued by the Israeli government remained a safe, long-standing investment for city pension funds, insisting that financial decisions must be separated from political pressure. Levine pointed to the bonds’ decades-long record of repayment and argued his office’s responsibility was to maximize returns for retirees, not respond to shifting political campaigns.

“This is not political. It shouldn’t be political,” said Levine, a Democrat. “Israel bonds have never missed a payment in 70 years, ever, not once.”

The comptroller noted that the city has investments in other foreign countries but only faces protests for its association with Israel.

“And by the way, we’ve had no protesting about our investments in Saudi Arabia, our investments in Pakistan or China — only this one little, tiny sliver,” Levine said. 

His comments came as the Mamdani administration faced continued scrutiny over its approach to Israel and antisemitism policy. Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career, has urged Levine to end city investments in Israel bonds.

Mamdani has long been an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel on the international stage as the first step toward its elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

In New York City specifically, records show that Israel bonds, historically yielding approximately 5 percent annually, have outperformed many alternatives.

Meanwhile, Israeli firms pour billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs into the local economy, and business experts have warned that a push for divestment could lead Israeli-associated and Jewish-owned companies to leave.

A study released by the United States-Israel Business Alliance in October revealed that, based on 2024 data, 590 Israeli-founded companies directly created 27,471 jobs in New York City that year and indirectly created over 50,000 jobs when accounting for related factors, such as buying and shipping local products.

These firms generated $8.1 billion in total earnings, adding an estimated $12.4 billion in value to the city’s economy and $17.9 billion in total gross economic output.

As for the entire state, the report, titled the “2025 New York – Israel Economic Impact Report,” found that 648 Israeli-founded companies generated $8.6 billion in total earnings and $19.5 billion in gross economic output, contributing a striking $13.3 billion in added value to the economy. These businesses also directly created 28,524 jobs and a total of 57,145 when accounting for related factors.

From financial tech leaders like Fireblocks to cybersecurity powerhouse Wiz, Israeli entrepreneurs have become indispensable to the innovation ecosystem. The number of Israeli-founded “unicorns,” privately held companies with a valuation of at least $1 billion, operating in New York City has quadrupled since 2019, increasing from five to 20.

Beyond its finances, New York City will not use a codified definition of antisemitism in evaluating complaints or incidents, according to administration officials. Instead, the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, led by Phylisa Wisdom, will assess cases individually without relying on a fixed legal or policy definition.

“The first thing I’ll say is that across city government, there is not a definition codified for any form of hate at all,” Wisdom said on Wednesday while presiding over the City Council’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism

The decision marks a departure from previous city policy, which had incorporated the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The Mamdani administration revoked that standard when he entered office, arguing that rigid definitions can risk conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism and may complicate the handling of politically sensitive speech. 

IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations. Law enforcement also uses it as a tool for matters such as hate-crime investigations and sentencing.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.

Critics say the absence of a clear definition could weaken enforcement and create inconsistency in how incidents are classified. Some lawmakers have pointed to recent public exchanges in which officials were unable or unwilling to clearly articulate what constitutes antisemitism under the city’s current framework.

The debate has intensified against the backdrop of a broader surge in antisemitic hate crimes in New York City. Advocacy groups and elected officials have raised concerns that the policy shift could make it harder to respond effectively at a time of heightened tension and increased reported incidents.

The majority of all hate crimes in New York City over the first three months of this year have targeted Jews, according to data released by the New York Police Department (NYPD).

“Confirmed hate crimes increased nearly 12 percent this quarter citywide. We continue to see that the vast majority of our hate crimes are antisemitic in nature,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said earlier this month. “In fact, in the first quarter of 2026, more than half of all confirmed hate crimes, or 55 percent, were antisemitic, despite Jews only making up approximately 10 percent of the population of New York City.”

Mamdani took office on Jan. 1.

However, the surge in anti-Jewish hate crimes predated Mamdani.

Jews were targeted in the majority (54 percent) of all hate crimes perpetrated in New York City in 2024, according to data issued by the NYPD. A recent report released in December by the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism noted that figure rose to a staggering 62 percent in the first quarter of 2025, despite Jewish New Yorkers comprising a small minority of the city’s population.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Extended by Three Weeks, Trump Says

Smoke rises after an Israeli strike, amid escalating hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, as the US-Israeli conflict with Iran continues, in southern Lebanon, March 24, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said in a post on Truth Social the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by three weeks.

Trump posted on social media that he and several top officials in his administration met with Israeli and Lebanese representatives in the Oval Office.

“The Meeting went very well! The United States is going to work with Lebanon in order to help it protect itself from Hezbollah,” Trump said, referring to the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group which Israel was fighting before a temporary truce was reached earlier this month.

“The Ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by THREE WEEKS,” the president added. “I look forward in the near future to hosting the Prime Minister of Israel, [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun. It was a Great Honor to be a participant at this very Historic Meeting!”

The US-mediated ceasefire, which was set to expire on Sunday, has yielded a significant reduction in violence, but attacks have continued in southern Lebanon, where Israeli troops have seized a self-declared buffer zone.

Hezbollah says it has “the right to resist” occupying forces.

Wednesday marked Lebanon‘s deadliest day since the ceasefire took effect on April 16.

Hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel reignited on March 2, when the terrorist group opened fire in support of Tehran in the regional war. The ceasefire in Lebanon emerged separately from Washington’s efforts to resolve its conflict with Tehran, though Iran had called for Lebanon to be included in any broader truce.

Hezbollah said it carried out four operations in south Lebanon on Wednesday, saying they were a response to Israeli strikes.

Nearly 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel went on the offensive in response to Hezbollah’s March 2 attack, according to Lebanese authorities. Israeli officials say the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists.

Israel is occupying a belt of the south that extends 5 to 10 km (3 to 6 miles) into Lebanon, saying it aims to shield northern Israel from attacks by Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets during the war.

The Lebanese government has opened direct contacts with Israel despite strong objections from Hezbollah, which was established by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had said Beirut’s envoy to Thursday’s talks in Washington, Lebanese ambassador to the US Nada Moawad, would seek a ceasefire extension and a halt to demolitions being carried out by Israel in villages in the south.

A Lebanese official said Beirut wants a ceasefire extension as a prerequisite for talks to expand beyond the ambassadorial level to the next phase, in which Lebanon would push for an Israeli withdrawal, the return of Lebanese detained in Israel, and a delineation of the land border.

Israel says its objectives in the talks with Lebanon include securing the dismantlement of Hezbollah and creating conditions for a peace deal. Israel has sought to make common cause with the Lebanese government over Hezbollah, which Beirut has been seeking to disarm peacefully for the past year.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attend Thursday’s meeting along with Vice President JD Vance and the US ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon. Israel was represented by its ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter.

Rubio hosted the first meeting between Leiter and Moawad on April 14 – the highest-level contact between Lebanon and Israel in decades.

Washington has denied any link between its Lebanon mediation and diplomacy over the Iran war.

Hezbollah says the Lebanon ceasefire was the result of Iranian pressure rather than US mediation.

Aoun has cited goals including halting Israeli attacks on Lebanon and securing the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Extended by Three Weeks, Trump Says

Smoke rises after an Israeli strike, amid escalating hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, as the US-Israeli conflict with Iran continues, in southern Lebanon, March 24, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday said in a post on Truth Social the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by three weeks.

Trump posted on social media that he and several top officials in his administration met with Israeli and Lebanese representatives in the Oval Office.

“The Meeting went very well! The United States is going to work with Lebanon in order to help it protect itself from Hezbollah,” Trump said, referring to the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group which Israel was fighting before a temporary truce was reached earlier this month.

“The Ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by THREE WEEKS,” the president added. “I look forward in the near future to hosting the Prime Minister of Israel, [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun. It was a Great Honor to be a participant at this very Historic Meeting!”

The US-mediated ceasefire, which was set to expire on Sunday, has yielded a significant reduction in violence, but attacks have continued in southern Lebanon, where Israeli troops have seized a self-declared buffer zone.

Hezbollah says it has “the right to resist” occupying forces.

Wednesday marked Lebanon‘s deadliest day since the ceasefire took effect on April 16.

Hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel reignited on March 2, when the terrorist group opened fire in support of Tehran in the regional war. The ceasefire in Lebanon emerged separately from Washington’s efforts to resolve its conflict with Tehran, though Iran had called for Lebanon to be included in any broader truce.

Hezbollah said it carried out four operations in south Lebanon on Wednesday, saying they were a response to Israeli strikes.

Nearly 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel went on the offensive in response to Hezbollah’s March 2 attack, according to Lebanese authorities. Israeli officials say the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists.

Israel is occupying a belt of the south that extends 5 to 10 km (3 to 6 miles) into Lebanon, saying it aims to shield northern Israel from attacks by Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets during the war.

The Lebanese government has opened direct contacts with Israel despite strong objections from Hezbollah, which was established by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had said Beirut’s envoy to Thursday’s talks in Washington, Lebanese ambassador to the US Nada Moawad, would seek a ceasefire extension and a halt to demolitions being carried out by Israel in villages in the south.

A Lebanese official said Beirut wants a ceasefire extension as a prerequisite for talks to expand beyond the ambassadorial level to the next phase, in which Lebanon would push for an Israeli withdrawal, the return of Lebanese detained in Israel, and a delineation of the land border.

Israel says its objectives in the talks with Lebanon include securing the dismantlement of Hezbollah and creating conditions for a peace deal. Israel has sought to make common cause with the Lebanese government over Hezbollah, which Beirut has been seeking to disarm peacefully for the past year.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attend Thursday’s meeting along with Vice President JD Vance and the US ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon. Israel was represented by its ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter.

Rubio hosted the first meeting between Leiter and Moawad on April 14 – the highest-level contact between Lebanon and Israel in decades.

Washington has denied any link between its Lebanon mediation and diplomacy over the Iran war.

Hezbollah says the Lebanon ceasefire was the result of Iranian pressure rather than US mediation.

Aoun has cited goals including halting Israeli attacks on Lebanon and securing the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News