Uncategorized
Fighting an Empire Isn’t Terrorism — But Intentionally Targeting and Murdering Civilians Is
The aftermath of the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem on Aug. 9, 2001, that killed 15 people, including two Americans, and wounded around 130 others. Photo: Flash90.
A few days ago, I watched Haviv Rettig Gur respond on Instagram to a question I’ve been asked more times than I can count: “Didn’t the Jews use terrorism to drive out the British?”
Every pro-Israel advocate — and likely every proud Jew — has faced this question, usually delivered with a smirk. That little “gotcha” glint that implies moral equivalence: Your state was born out of terror, how dare you complain about buses being blown up and babies being murdered.
But the moral chasm between the Jewish fight against the British and Palestinian terrorism is not a matter of opinion or spin. It is moral and historical fact. The refusal to recognize that difference says far more about the questioner’s bias or ignorance than about Israel and how it gained independence.
Imperial Subjects and Stateless Refugees
When the British Empire seized control of the region called Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917, Jewish leaders saw them not as occupiers but as potential partners in restoring Jewish sovereignty. The Balfour Declaration had promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in part of what was then called Palestine — the historical Land of Israel — and the San Remo Conference of 1920 enshrined that promise in binding international law.
But within a few short years, Britain retreated from its commitments. London carved away three-quarters of the land that was meant for the Mandate to create a new Arab-only country called Transjordan, appointed the radical Haj Amin al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — a man who would later collaborate with the Nazis — and, in 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust, issued its infamous White Paper, sealing the gates of the remaining quarter of Mandatory Palestine to Jewish immigration.
At the very moment Jews in Europe were facing extermination, Britain blocked their only escape route. The United States had already closed its doors; Canada, Argentina, Australia, and nearly every other nation followed suit. As Hitler’s armies advanced, Jews had nowhere to go.
Fighting an Empire With Nowhere to Go
By 1945, roughly 250,000 Jewish survivors remained trapped on German soil, living in displaced-person camps — many in former concentration camps. The world by then largely knew about the horror of the Holocaust and still left them stateless. Only in May 1948, when Israel declared independence, did those camps finally begin to empty.
People often say the Jews “kicked the British out.” The truth is more complex. Britain’s empire was already collapsing; the loss of India made Palestine an even more expensive burden. But the Jewish undergrounds — particularly the Irgun and Lehi — hastened Britain’s withdrawal.
Their campaign was fierce but targeted. They targeted railways, communications, and military installations — not civilians. Their message was simple: Go home.
The King David Hotel bombing in 1946 — endlessly cited by Israel’s detractors — was aimed at the British military and intelligence headquarters for all of Palestine and Transjordan. Civilians tragically died, including Jews and Arabs, but the target was military. Crucially, the Irgun phoned in a warning to evacuate. The British ignored it.
Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun, was devastated by the civilian deaths. That reaction matters. It shows the moral line the Jewish fighters recognized — a line no Palestinian faction, from the PLO to Hamas, has ever cared to draw.
The Lesson the Palestinians Haven’t Learned
Imagine if Palestinians had followed that same model — if their fight had been confined to soldiers and military targets. Instead, since the 1950s, Palestinian terrorism has centered on murdering civilians as a deliberate strategy: to terrorize, to try and make Jewish life unbearable, and to drive Jews from their homeland.
From the Ma’ale Akrabim massacre in 1954 to the airline hijackings of the 1970s, from suicide bombings in the 1990s to the atrocities of October 7, the goal has remained constant — not self-determination but the mass murder of civilians to break a people’s will.
During the Second Intifada, 140+ suicide bombings ripped through Israeli buses, cafés, and markets. These attacks weren’t meant to change borders; they were meant to destroy coexistence itself.
The Moral Core — and the Fatal Misreading
As Haviv Rettig Gur observed, the Jews who fought the British never sought Britain’s destruction; they sought Israel’s rebirth. That distinction — between fighting for freedom and fighting for annihilation — is the essential moral divide.
It’s why Israel built a democracy while Gaza’s rulers built a cult of death. It’s why Jewish leaders accepted the 1937 and 1947 partition plans, choosing half a loaf over endless war, while the Mandate’s Arab leaders — led by the Mufti who sided with Hitler — rejected both.
When the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, and Hamas gained control of territory, they didn’t try to build a state; they built repression, corruption, and terror infrastructure. Jewish leaders, by contrast, used the small strip of land they held after the War of Independence in 1948 to build a thriving democracy.
The Zionist militias before 1948 understood something Palestinian leaders never have: the British were foreign rulers who could leave. The Jews are indigenous and will not. Israelis are not “colonizers” in any part of the historic Land of Israel. They are a people who reclaimed sovereignty and self-determination in their ancestral home.
Any Palestinian leadership that continues to see Jews as the British in 1939 — as temporary outsiders to be expelled — guarantees only endless conflict. Israel’s founders fought not merely for survival, but to restore moral agency and national self-respect after 2,000 years of exile and persecution – in both Arab and European controlled lands. That is the revolution Palestinians have never attempted — the decision to undertake nation-building instead of defining it by someone else’s destruction.
The Moral Ledger of History
Today, when many Western academics and activists equate Jewish efforts to end British imperial rule with Hamas’ slaughter of civilians, they expose their own moral illiteracy. They flatten history until those who targeted soldiers are equated with those who butcher children in pizza parlors and buses.
But history keeps receipts.
One side sought life. The other glorified destruction.
That is the difference between a revolt and terrorism — and it’s a difference the world ignores at its peril.
For peace ever to be possible, Israelis must have real reasons to believe Palestinians no longer see them as the British of 1939 — but as a permanent, indigenous people who are not going anywhere.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish history and serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
Putin and Trump Do Not Support European-Ukrainian Temporary Ceasefire Idea, the Kremlin Says
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
The Kremlin said on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump do not support a European-Ukrainian push for a temporary ceasefire ahead of a settlement, and that Moscow thinks Kyiv needs to make a decision on Donbas.
Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said that a call between Putin and Trump lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes and took place at the request of Trump ahead of Trump’s meeting in Miami with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
“The main thing is that the presidents of Russia and the United States hold similar views that the option of a temporary ceasefire proposed by the Ukrainians and the Europeans under the pretext of preparing for a referendum or under other pretexts only leads to a prolongation of the conflict and is fraught with renewed hostilities,” Ushakov said.
Ushakov said that for hostilities to end, Kyiv needed to make a “bold decision” in line with Russian-US discussions on Donbas.
“Given the current situation on the fronts, it would make sense for the Ukrainian regime to make this decision regarding Donbas.”
Russia, which controls 90 percent of Donbas, wants Ukraine to withdraw its forces from the 10 percent of the area that Kyiv’s forces still control. Overall, Russia controls about a fifth of Ukraine.
Trump has repeatedly promised to end the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and his envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have been negotiating with Russia, Ukraine and European powers.
Ukraine and its European allies are worried that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated Ukraine after Russian forces took 12-17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of Ukraine per day in 2025.
“Donald Trump listened attentively to Russian assessments of the real prospects for reaching an agreement,” Ushakov said.
“Trump persistently pursued the idea that it was really necessary to end the war as soon as possible, and spoke about the impressive prospects for economic cooperation between the United States and Russia and Ukraine that were opening up,” Ushakov said.
Uncategorized
Zelensky to Meet Trump in Florida for Talks on Ukraine Peace Plan
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 17, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump will meet in Florida on Sunday to forge a plan to end the war in Ukraine, but face differences over major issues, including territory, as Russian air raids pile pressure on Kyiv.
Russia hit the capital and other parts of Ukraine with hundreds of missiles and drones on Saturday, knocking out power and heat in parts of the capital. On Saturday, during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Nova Scotia, Zelensky called it Russia’s response to the US-brokered peace efforts.
Zelensky has told journalists that he plans to discuss the fate of eastern Ukraine’s contested Donbas region during the meeting at Trump’s Florida residence, as well as the future of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and other topics.
The Ukrainian president and his delegation arrived in Florida late on Saturday, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya said on X.
RUSSIA CLAIMS MORE BATTLEFIELD ADVANCES
Moscow has repeatedly insisted that Ukraine yield all of the Donbas, even areas still under Kyiv’s control, and Russian officials have objected to other parts of the latest proposal, sparking doubts about whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would accept whatever Sunday’s talks might produce.
Putin said on Saturday Moscow would continue waging its war if Kyiv did not seek a quick peace. Russia has steadily advanced on the battlefield in recent months, claiming control over several more settlements on Sunday.
The Ukrainian president told Axios on Friday he hopes to soften a US proposal for Ukrainian forces to withdraw completely from the Donbas. Failing that, Zelensky said the entire 20-point plan, the result of weeks of negotiations, should be put to a referendum.
A recent poll suggests that Ukrainian voters may reject the plan.
Zelensky’s in-person meeting with Trump, scheduled for 1 p.m. (1800 GMT), follows weeks of diplomatic efforts. European allies, while at times cut out of the loop, have stepped up efforts to sketch out the contours of a post-war security guarantee for Kyiv that the United States would support.
On Sunday, ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelensky said he held a detailed phone call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Trump and Zelensky were also expected to hold a phone call with European leaders during their Florida meeting, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian president said on Sunday.
STICKING POINTS OVER TERRITORY
Kyiv and Washington have agreed on many issues, and Zelensky said on Friday that the 20-point plan was 90% finished. But the issue of what territory, if any, will be ceded to Russia remains unresolved.
While Moscow insists on getting all of the Donbas, Kyiv wants the map frozen at current battle lines.
The United States, seeking a compromise, has proposed a free economic zone if Ukraine leaves the area, although it remains unclear how that zone would function in practical terms.
It has also proposed shared control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, where power line repairs have begun after another local ceasefire brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency said on Sunday.
Zelensky, whose past meetings with Trump have not always gone smoothly, worries along with his European allies that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated nation, after Russian forces took 12 to 17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of its territory per day in 2025.
Russia controls all of Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, and since its invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago has taken control of about 12 percent of its territory, including about 90 percent of Donbas, 75 percent of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and slivers of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions, according to Russian estimates.
Putin said on December 19 that a peace deal should be based on conditions he set out in 2024: Ukraine withdrawing from all of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and Kyiv officially renouncing its aim to join NATO.
Ukrainian officials and European leaders view the war as an imperial-style land grab by Moscow and have warned that if Russia gets its way with Ukraine, it will one day attack NATO members.
The 20-point plan was spun off from a Russian-led 28-point plan, which emerged from talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, and which became public in November.
Subsequent talks between Ukrainian officials and U.S. negotiators have produced the more Kyiv-friendly 20-point plan.
Uncategorized
Central African Republic Votes, Russia Ally Touadera Seeks Third Term
People wait to cast their vote at a polling station during the presidential election in Bangui, Central African Republic, December 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/ Leger Serge Kokpakpa
Central African Republic President Faustin-Archange Touadera is seeking a third term on Sunday as the chronically unstable country holds national elections, touting security gains made with the help of Russian mercenaries and Rwandan soldiers.
The 68-year-old mathematician oversaw a constitutional referendum in 2023 that scrapped the presidential term limit, drawing an outcry from his critics who accused him of seeking to rule for life.
A Touadera victory – the expected outcome – would likely further the interests of Russia, which has traded security assistance for access to resources including gold and diamonds. Touadera is also offering access to the country’s lithium and uranium reserves to anyone interested.
Polling stations opened on time at 6 a.m. (0500 GMT) in the capital, Bangui, a Reuters witness said. They were due to close at 6 p.m. (1700 GMT), with provisional results expected by January 5. Nearly 2.4 million people were registered to vote.
Casting her ballot in Bangui, shopkeeper Beatrice Mokonzapa said women had “suffered greatly” during Central African Republic’s years of conflict but that the situation had improved.
“We have security today. I hope it continues. And for that, President Touadera is best placed to guarantee our security,” she said.
SIX OPPONENTS CHALLENGE TOUADERA
The opposition field of six candidates is led by two former prime ministers, Anicet-Georges Dologuele and Henri-Marie Dondra, both of whom survived attempts by Touadera’s supporters to have them disqualified for allegedly holding foreign citizenship.
Though both men remain on the ballot, Touadera is still seen as the favorite given his control over state institutions and superior financial resources, analysts say.
In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Dondra said the playing field was “unbalanced” and that he had been unable to travel as widely as Touadera to campaign. He nevertheless predicted he would have a strong showing.
The challenges to the candidacies of Dologuele and Dondra “aligned with an apparent pattern of administrative manoeuvring that has disproportionately impeded opposition politicians while favouring the ruling United Hearts Party,” Human Rights Watch said last month.
Voting in the capital early on Sunday, teacher Albert Komifea said he wanted a change, without specifying who he had backed.
“They did everything they could to prevent the opposition from campaigning effectively, in order to reduce their chances,” he said. “But the ballot box will confirm that change is now.”
RUSSIA AND RWANDA REINFORCE TOUADERA
In 2018, CAR became the first country in West and Central Africa to bring in Russia’s Wagner mercenaries, a step since also taken by Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Two years later, Rwanda deployed troops to shore up Touadera’s government as rebel groups threatened the capital and tried to disrupt the 2020 elections, ultimately preventing voting at 800 polling stations across the country, or 14% of the total.
The country is more secure now after Touadera signed several peace deals with rebel groups this year.
But those gains remain fragile: Rebels have not fully disarmed, reintegration is incomplete, and incursions by combatants from neighboring Sudan fuel insecurity in the east.
Beyond the presidential contest, the elections on Sunday cover legislative, regional and municipal positions.
If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, a presidential runoff will take place on February 15, while legislative runoffs will take place on April 5.
Pangea-Risk, a consultancy, wrote in a note to clients that the risk of unrest after the election was high as opponents were likely to challenge Touadera’s expected victory.
A smooth voting process could reinforce Touadera’s claim that stability is returning, which was buttressed last year with the U.N. Security Council’s lifting of an arms embargo and the lifting of a separate embargo on diamond exports.
In November, the U.N. Security Council extended the mandate of its peacekeeping mission. The US opposed the decision, calling for a shorter extension and a handover of security to Bangui.