Author: Jerry Elman

Written by: Jerry Elman, October 29, 2024

In 2014, rockets were found stored in UNRWA schools. This was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling pattern that shows how UNRWA has become entangled in the very conflict it was meant to ease. Established to provide humanitarian assistance, UNRWA’s role has shifted dramatically. Instead of alleviating suffering, it has become part of a political agenda that perpetuates the Palestinian refugee crisis and fuels the conflict itself.

Since its founding in 1949, UNRWA has entrenched the refugee crisis and fostered a culture of dependency rather than empowerment. At the heart of this issue lies one of the most destructive and misunderstood policies: the right of return—the notion that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have the right to return to their homes in what is now Israel. This policy was never about justice for refugees; it was about ensuring the destruction of Israel if war failed to achieve that goal.

“The right of return is not a promise of peace; it is a weapon designed to finish what war could not—the destruction of Israel by demographic means. It is a deliberate political tool used to accomplish what military defeat could not. UNRWA’s mission, rather than healing wounds, has become a force that deepens them, trapping generations of Palestinians in a cycle of dependency and false hope.” — Jerry Elman

The Right of Return: A Weapon Disguised as a Promise

The right of return has been a central pillar of UNRWA’s mission since its creation, and its implications are staggering. Unlike other refugee situations, where status ends after resettlement, integration, or citizenship, UNRWA has extended this status to the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees. It doesn’t matter if these descendants were born elsewhere, hold foreign citizenship, or have never set foot in their ancestors’ homes—UNRWA insists that they are still “refugees” with the right to return to Israel.

This extension ensures that the number of Palestinian refugees grows indefinitely. No other refugee group in the world is treated this way. This policy is not about helping displaced people; it’s about keeping the refugee crisis alive as a political tool. Instead of prioritizing the humanitarian needs of Palestinians, UNRWA has focused on preserving their refugee status indefinitely, trapping generations in a state of hopelessness.

The right of return was never a humanitarian gesture—it was a political weapon designed to undermine Israel’s existence. When the Arab states failed to defeat Israel militarily in 1948, the right of return became the next strategy. Allowing millions of Palestinians to flood into Israel would effectively turn the Jewish state into a Palestinian Arab-majority nation, erasing Israel as we know it. This was a deliberate plan nurtured by UNRWA to achieve through demographics what war could not.

But the right of return is not the only way UNRWA has failed Palestinians. Its role in Gaza, especially during conflicts, shows just how deeply its operations have contributed to violence and the death of innocent Palestinians rather than peace.

UNRWA’s Role in Conflict: From 2014 to Today

In the 2014 Gaza War, Israel discovered that Hamas was using UNRWA schools and facilities to store rockets and launch attacks. Tunnels used by Hamas for smuggling weapons and infiltrating Israel were found running beneath UNRWA buildings, raising serious concerns about the agency’s infrastructure being compromised.

UNRWA publicly condemned these actions but claimed it had no knowledge of the weapons or tunnels. However, repeated occurrences confirm tacit complicity in Hamas’ operations. By allowing its facilities to be used for military purposes, UNRWA became part of the conflict instead of a neutral humanitarian aid provider.

In the current Israel/Hama war, the pattern continues. Recent reports again confirm that Hamas is partnering with UNRWA to shield its military operations, using civilian sites as cover for launching attacks. This not only endangers Palestinian civilians but implicates UNRWA in the ongoing violence and as a terrorist organization itself.

UNRWA Employees and the October 7th Attack

The October 7th attack on Israel, a brutal and coordinated assault by Hamas militants, uncovered yet another disturbing aspect of UNRWA’s operations. It was revealed that UNRWA employees were directly involved in this horrific attack, including the rape, torture, and murder of innocent Israelis. These employees, instead of serving the humanitarian mission they were entrusted with, directly participated in acts of terror against Israeli civilians.

The attack, which claimed the lives of innocent civilians and left many more wounded, involved individuals who had exploited their positions within UNRWA to facilitate terror. This not only deepens concerns about the agency’s ties to Hamas but also raises serious questions about the extent of extremist infiltration within UNRWA’s ranks.

The involvement of UNRWA employees in the attack highlights the agency’s inability—or unwillingness—to vet its staff correctly. For years, accusations have circulated about UNRWA harboring extremists within its workforce, but this attack represents a devastating confirmation of those fears. The agency, meant to provide relief and education, instead became complicit in one of the most violent attacks on Israel in recent history.

UNRWA’s Role in Confiscating Aid and Supporting Hamas via the Black Market

Beyond direct conflict involvement, UNRWA has been aiding Hamas indirectly through the black market. Humanitarian aid intended for refugees has been confiscated or redirected by Hamas, with UNRWA assisting or turning a blind eye. Supplies meant for refugee camps or schools end up in the hands of Hamas militants, either sold on the black market or repurposed for military use. This aid is supposed to be provided free to the Palestinian people, not sold to them via the black market to raise money for Hamas’s military operations. Much of the aid allowed during the current war disappears once it passes through the Gazan border. The world accuses Israel of not allowing the aid in. The reality is that aid is allowed into Gaza. It is then confiscated and diverted to Hamas with the assistance of UNRWA. This is a combination of corruption and terrorism on the part of UNRWA.

This exploitation diverts crucial resources from those who genuinely need them and strengthens Hamas’ control over the region. UNRWA’s role in enabling such activities makes it complicit in perpetuating violence, hunger, illness, and terrorism.

UNRWA’s Responsibility for Civilian Deaths

UNRWA is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Palestinians by setting up civilian and humanitarian facilities for Hamas to fight their war. Rockets are fired from schools, hospitals, humanitarian aid warehouses, and even food convoys, forcing Israel to retaliate and take out those positions. The resulting deaths of innocent civilians are not Israel’s fault—it is Hamas’ and UNRWA’s fault. They deliberately place civilians in harm’s way, weaponizing their own population.

Taking it further, Hamas and UNRWA know that Israel will retaliate and already have the media on-site to record the Israeli retaliation that they themselves set up. This is a calculated strategy designed to manipulate international perception and vilify Israel for defending itself against terrorists using civilian shields.

Israel’s Ban on UNRWA

Recognizing these issues, Israel yesterday banned UNRWA from operating within its borders. This bold move highlights Israel’s concerns about the agency’s role in perpetuating conflict and radicalizing Palestinian youth. UNRWA’s operations are seen not as a solution to the conflict but as a threat to Israel’s security. This ban is part of a broader effort to address the deep-rooted problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—issues that UNRWA’s continued presence only worsens.

The Corruption Within UNRWA: Mismanagement and Extremism

In addition to these operational failures, UNRWA has been plagued by corruption. A 2019 internal investigation revealed widespread nepotism, power abuse, and misuse of donor funds within its leadership. Billions of dollars meant to alleviate refugee suffering have been squandered while Palestinian refugees remain trapped in despair.

UNRWA has also allowed extremist elements within its ranks, particularly in Gaza, where Hamas exerts control. Time and again, reports surface of UNRWA employees with ties to Hamas or of its schools, hospitals, and humanitarian facilities being used for militant activities. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader pattern of complicity that has destroyed the agency’s credibility.

The Path Forward: Ending the Cycle of Conflict

Whether by promoting the unrealistic right of return, allowing aid to fuel Hamas’ terror network, or fostering corruption, UNRWA has actively deepened the conflict. These interconnected failures keep both Israelis and Palestinians locked in a cycle of violence.

If there is ever to be a solution, it requires dismantling the structures that perpetuate conflict. UNRWA’s role in maintaining the refugee crisis and enabling militancy must end. Palestinian refugees deserve the chance to build new lives where they currently live—not to be held hostage by impossible political dreams. The right of return must be seen for what it truly is—a weapon aimed at Israel, not a path to peace.

By transferring responsibility for Palestinian refugees to the UNHCR, the world can offer true resettlement, integration, and new futures for the Palestinian people. The international community must recognize that UNRWA is not the solution—it is a significant part of the problem. We can move toward a future where peace is possible only by acknowledging and acting on this.

Written by Jerry Elman, October 17, 2024

The United Nations was meant to be a beacon of hope. It was built from the ashes of war, an institution designed to prevent horrors like genocide and global conflict. But when I look at its actions today—particularly in its dealings with Israel—I can’t help but wonder: has the UN, in some ways, become a terrorist organization itself, actively working against Israel’s survival?

This question isn’t merely provocative. The pattern of behavior, the complicity, the aid siphoned to terror groups, and the absolute lack of accountability beg us to reconsider what the UN has become in relation to Israel. It feels like the UN, in its handling of Israel and the terror groups that attack it, has crossed a line, moving from a supposed impartial peacekeeper to an institution that enables, shields, and strengthens those who seek Israel’s destruction.

UNRWA: Facilitating Terrorism, Not Refugees

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), originally created to aid Palestinian refugees, has instead morphed into an organization that actively supports terror groups like Hamas. It’s hard to see UNRWA as anything other than a facilitator for terrorism when, time and again, its facilities are used to store weapons, hide militants, and launch attacks against Israeli civilians. The very schools and clinics that are supposed to serve Palestinians have been transformed into military outposts—launchpads for terror.

Imagine the bitter irony: buildings funded by international donors, intended to shelter the displaced and treat the wounded, are instead filled with rocket launchers and tunnels leading into Israel. UNRWA, which should be working to resolve the refugee crisis, has become part of the machinery of war.

Even worse is the direct involvement of UNRWA personnel in supporting Hamas’s terror campaign. Some employees celebrated the October 7, 2023, massacre on social media. Others actively helped Hamas in its planning and logistics. This isn’t accidental or incidental—it’s structural. When an agency like UNRWA repeatedly allows its resources to be used for violence, it’s no longer just an aid organization; it’s complicit in terrorism.

The October 7 Hamas Attack: UN Involvement and Complicity

The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, one of the bloodiest and most brutal in recent history, brought all of this to light. Over 1,200 Israeli civilians were slaughtered in their homes, while others were kidnapped and taken into Gaza. The evidence of UN complicity surfaced almost immediately as the world watched in horror.

UNRWA facilities, which were supposed to be neutral humanitarian spaces, were used as staging grounds for the attacks. Tunnels that Hamas used to infiltrate Israeli territory were found running underneath UN buildings. Even more damning were the ties between high-level Hamas leaders, like Yahya Sinwar, and individuals working within UNRWA. Sinwar, the mastermind of the attack, had long maintained connections with UNRWA personnel who actively facilitated Hamas’s operations.

Sinwar’s death today in an Israeli operation brought this to the forefront. Identification documents found at the scene confirmed deep ties between UNRWA and Hamas. These weren’t isolated incidents; they were part of a pattern that has gone unchecked for years. The UN, through agencies like UNRWA, has been aiding and abetting Hamas—an internationally recognized terrorist organization—by providing cover, resources, and even personnel.

Hezbollah and the UN: Allowing Terror to Thrive

The UN’s complicity doesn’t end with Hamas. In southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has built an entire war machine under the watchful eye of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). UNIFIL was supposed to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and militarizing the region, but instead, it has done the exact opposite. Hezbollah has turned southern Lebanon into a fortress, with tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli cities, all while UNIFIL stands by, doing nothing.

The so-called “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon, which was supposed to be kept free of weapons and militants, has become fully militarized. Villages are filled with rockets, tunnels are dug under homes, and weapons caches are hidden in schools. The entire area has been transformed into a forward operating base for Hezbollah, and UNIFIL has done nothing to stop it.

It seems as if UNIFIL is enabling Hezbollah’s activities. Whether through incompetence, corruption, or complicity, UNIFIL has allowed Hezbollah to flourish, turning a blind eye to the group’s activities, while Israel bears the brunt of the threat. Hezbollah’s growing power and influence in Lebanon, particularly along the Israeli border, are not just failures of the UN—they’re signs of its active complicity in the ongoing war against Israel.

The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon: Fighting Back Against UN-Enabled Terror

Israel has been forced to take matters into its own hands. With Hezbollah’s military buildup in southern Lebanon posing an existential threat, Israel launched an invasion to root out the terror group. This wasn’t a choice Israel made lightly—it was a necessity. Over 10,000 Israeli residents have had to leave their homes near the border with Lebanon because of the rockets being fired daily. This is the equivalent of an invasion when a nation has to vacate its territory because of these hostilities.

The entire region, under UN supervision, had been transformed into a heavily armed Hezbollah stronghold. UNIFIL, the very force meant to keep the peace, had allowed Hezbollah to embed itself into every facet of life in southern Lebanon. Schools, homes, and hospitals were being used to store weapons and build tunnels, all aimed at one target: Israel.

As Israeli forces moved in to dismantle this network, it became clear just how deeply the UN had failed. The buffer zone, which was supposed to be a demilitarized area, was anything but. Hezbollah had turned it into a war zone, with UNIFIL acting as little more than passive observers. The UN’s failure wasn’t just about incompetence but a betrayal of its mission. And as Israel fights to dismantle Hezbollah’s war machine, the Lebanese people pay the price for the UN’s complicity, trapped between terror and war.

UNRWA and Hezbollah: Turning Aid into Warfare

It’s not just in Lebanon and Gaza where the UN’s role becomes murky—it’s also in how aid, meant to alleviate suffering, has been turned into fuel for war. UNRWA and other UN agencies pour billions of dollars into Gaza and southern Lebanon, but much of this aid never reaches those it’s meant to help. Instead, it ends up in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah, financing their military campaigns.

Concrete meant for rebuilding homes is used to build tunnels. Food and medicine are diverted to the black market, the profits funneled back into terrorist operations. The very aid meant to uplift and support the Palestinian and Lebanese people has been weaponized against Israel.

What does it say about an organization when the resources it provides are used to fuel terror? At what point does the UN, through its agencies, cease to be a humanitarian body and become a supplier of warfare?

The UN’s Anti-Israel Agenda: A Terrorist Campaign Disguised as Diplomacy?

The UN’s bias against Israel is nothing new, but when viewed through the lens of its actions—or inactions—it becomes something far more sinister. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country, including some of the world’s worst human rights violators. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China all pale in comparison to the sheer volume of condemnation Israel receives from the UN.

And yet, while Israel is condemned for defending itself against terrorism, the UN turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups. The UN’s agenda, it seems, is not about peace—it’s about undermining Israel at every turn, even if it means supporting those who commit acts of terror against it.

Agenda Item 7 of the UNHRC, which permanently singles out Israel for criticism, is a stark example of this. No other country faces such relentless scrutiny, and no other country is consistently portrayed as the aggressor, even when defending itself from unprovoked attacks. This isn’t just bias—it’s a systematic effort to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.

Conclusion: Is the UN a Terrorist Organization?

The evidence is overwhelming. From Gaza to Lebanon, from Hamas to Hezbollah, the UN has not just failed in its mission—it has actively enabled the forces that seek Israel’s destruction. Its agencies provide cover, resources, and legitimacy to terror groups. Its peacekeeping forces turn a blind eye to violations, and its diplomatic bodies work tirelessly to undermine Israel at every turn.

So, is the UN a terrorist organization? When an institution repeatedly sides with terror groups, facilitates their operations, and condemns the very state fighting for its survival, it’s hard not to ask the question. The UN may not strap on a suicide vest or fire a rocket, but through its actions—or lack thereof—it has become complicit in the very terror it was meant to prevent.

Until the UN reforms, until it holds itself accountable for its role in aiding and abetting terror, it will remain, in essence, an organization fighting against Israel, not for peace. And that, by any definition, is terror.

Written by Jerry Elman, October 13, 2024

Western media ignores it. Western culture can not comprehend it. Progressives play into it. The concept of death is more important than life. It’s at the very heart of the Israel/Palestinian Conflict.

The most chilling aspect of the martyrdom culture in Palestinian society is how death, rather than being mourned, is celebrated. In stark contrast to Western values that prioritize life above all else, martyrdom in the Palestinian context is viewed as the ultimate honor, especially in communities influenced by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mothers of martyrs, in particular, are expected to express joy and pride at the death of their children rather than grief. They are often seen on television, holding up the photographs of their fallen sons and daughters, not with tears but with the language of celebration and sacrifice, publicly expressing their gratitude that their children have died for the cause.

This social expectation is not accidental—it is deliberately cultivated by the same forces that promote the martyrdom narrative. The families of martyrs are lionized, given a place of special honor in their communities, and their children are held up as heroes who have ascended to a higher status in both religious and nationalistic terms. The Palestinian Authority even plays a significant role in this process, paying generous stipends to the families of martyrs—sometimes more than it pays civil servants. This financial incentive is a powerful force, especially in a society struggling under occupation and economic instability, where martyrdom becomes not only a pathway to honor but also to financial security for one’s family.

This cultural celebration of death is fundamentally at odds with Western ideals, where life is seen as the most sacred value. In the West, the death of a child in violent conflict is universally regarded as a tragedy, evoking deep mourning and public outcry. Yet, for many Palestinians, martyrdom is presented not as a loss but as a gain, a religious and nationalist triumph that transcends the sorrow of the individual family. This glorification is reinforced through state-sponsored media, religious rhetoric, and public ceremonies, making martyrdom an key element of Palestinian resistance, especially in the face of Israel’s military superiority.

The Cultural Divide: Life vs. Death

This celebration of death starkly contrasts how Western cultures approach conflict and loss. In Western societies, life is valued above all else. Governments, institutions, and families are built around the preservation of life, with military and political strategies often focused on minimizing casualties. The Western mind, shaped by centuries of philosophical and religious traditions that place life at the center of moral considerations, struggles to understand how any culture could value death over life.

This disconnect leads to a profound misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Western media and progressive circles. In Western narratives, Palestinians who die in the conflict are seen as victims—casualties of an asymmetric struggle against a more powerful Israel. Israel, with its advanced military and technological capabilities, is cast as the oppressor, and those who die in conflict, mainly civilians, are viewed as innocents caught in the crossfire. The idea that some Palestinians might actively seek out martyrdom or that their families might celebrate their death is so foreign to the Western mind that it is often dismissed as propaganda or incomprehensible behavior.

Yet, this is precisely the crux of the conflict: a culture that glorifies death facing off against a nation that prioritizes survival. Israel’s right to defend itself is complicated by the fact that it faces an enemy for whom death is not merely an unfortunate outcome but an ideal to be pursued. How does a nation like Israel, which exists in a region where survival is a constant battle, contend with an ideology that views the death of its own people as a victory?

Israel’s Struggle to Defeat a Culture of Martyrdom

For Israel, the challenge of confronting this martyrdom culture is one of the most difficult facets of the conflict. Military might alone cannot defeat an enemy whose strategy is built around celebrating death. Every Israeli airstrike, every ground operation that results in the death of a Palestinian civilian, even when that civilian is being used as a human shield by Hamas, is framed as a victory for the martyrdom narrative. The images of destruction and loss are used to rally international condemnation against Israel further, and the dead are enshrined as martyrs in the Palestinian cause.

The West sees Israel’s military superiority as evidence of its power and control in the conflict. Still, in the eyes of many Palestinians, it is the cause of their suffering—a suffering they believe can only be redeemed through the blood of martyrs. This is the heart of the psychological battle Israel faces. No matter how carefully targeted its military responses may be, no matter how justified its defense against terrorism, every Palestinian death plays into the hands of those who glorify martyrdom.

Western calls for proportionality, ceasefires, and peace negotiations often fail to account for this cultural dynamic. For as long as death is seen as a triumph in Palestinian society, any attempt to negotiate a lasting peace will be undermined. Israel, a nation born out of the ashes of the Holocaust, where survival is not only a right but a necessity, cannot allow itself to be painted as the oppressor without defending itself. Yet, in this tragic cycle, Israel’s very acts of defense are turned against it, leaving it in a constant position of international scrutiny and moral questioning.

The Question: How Does Israel Defeat This Culture?

The big question that looms over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is how a nation like Israel can defeat a culture that celebrates death. The answer, unfortunately, is neither simple nor straightforward. Military action alone cannot dismantle a cultural narrative carefully constructed over decades. Efforts to root out terrorist groups like Hamas are met with fierce resistance, not just because of political and military realities but because Hamas thrives on martyrdom as both a religious and tactical tool.

One possible approach lies in addressing the root causes that make martyrdom so appealing in Palestinian society. Economic despair, political disenfranchisement, and a lack of future prospects all contribute to a situation where young Palestinians see death as more valuable than life. For Israel and the international community, addressing these underlying issues could help to undermine the power of the martyrdom narrative. If Palestinian society can be offered viable alternatives—opportunities for prosperity, education, and self-determination that do not hinge on conflict—then perhaps the culture of death could begin to fade.

Moreover, the Palestinian leadership must be held accountable by both its people and the international community. As long as the Palestinian Authority and groups like Hamas continue to glorify martyrdom, reward it financially, and use it as a political tool, peace will remain elusive. The international community, particularly those in the West, must move beyond superficial narratives of victimhood and oppression to truly understand the internal dynamics driving the conflict. Only through a deeper engagement with the cultural forces at play can any meaningful progress be made.

In conclusion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just a battle over land, borders, and politics; it is also a battle over cultural values. Israel, a nation that values life and survival, is pitted against an ideology that glorifies death. Until this fundamental cultural divide is bridged, no amount of military action, ceasefire agreements, or peace negotiations will be able to bring about a lasting resolution. For Israel to defeat this culture, it will require not only military strength but also a concerted effort to dismantle the ideology of martyrdom that holds Palestinian society in its grip. Only when the celebration of life is restored on both sides can peace have a chance to flourish.

Written By: Jerry Elman, October 7, 2024

October 7, 2023, wasn’t just another day of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—it marked the death of the two-state solution. For those, including me, who believed two peoples who don’t like each other could share this tiny piece of land in peace, it was the day when those hopes were shattered once and for all. It was the culmination of nearly a century of betrayal and broken promises, where war had become the only path forward.

Now, a year later, with war still engulfing the region, this reality must be embraced. We cannot keep chasing a path that has proven impossible to achieve. That is the truth we must face on October 7, 2024.

The seeds of this tragedy were planted during the British Mandate. After World War I, Britain promised a homeland to both Jews and Palestinian Arabs. But instead of dividing the land as promised, they carved it up, giving Transjordan to the Hashemites and leaving behind only a tiny, divided piece for both peoples to fight over. The Palestinian Arabs were denied their promised state, and the Jews were left to fend for themselves.

The remaining land was too small and fragmented to support two viable nations, and Britain knew it. They intentionally created a situation where only one side could succeed, hoping the Palestinian Arabs and Arab League would prevail and the Jews would once again be exiled. This was no accident—it was a calculated act of betrayal.

Since then, every attempt at peace has been haunted by this legacy, as the land will always be too small to be shared. Wars will continue because the only way for one side to win is for the other side to be defeated. This two-state solution was never viable because the British division made it impossible and they then walked away.

For nearly 80 years, the world has chased solutions built on this broken foundation, but October 7, 2023, made it clear that those hopes were always an illusion. The legacy of British rule ensured that peace would always be a zero-sum game.

October 7th, 2023, was more than a political failure—it was a humanitarian catastrophe. Families were destroyed, futures were stolen, and communities were left shattered. Though Britain lit the match, the people of the region continue to suffer. As we remember October 7, 2023, we must also remember the hostages still kept captive, their families living in uncertainty and anguish. Their plight remains part of the ongoing human cost of this conflict.

Yet, even in the face of this tragedy, the path to peace isn’t gone. It lies in returning to the original vision before Britain’s betrayal. The path to peace today is the same as in 1921 when two states could have been created without bloodshed or the destruction of either side.

As we reflect on October 7, 2023, a year later, we must mourn the lost lives and recognize that our demands must change. The time has come for the international community to act differently. We must turn to the original solution and make the plans of 1921 a reality by carving out land from Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to create a viable Palestinian Arab state—one that does not demand the destruction of the Jewish state or that the Palestinian Arabs accept they will never have their promised state.

This path to peace should have been followed from the start. We must say that the dream of peace has not died but has been reborn. Peace, without war, is possible. We need the courage to make it real.

I may be the only person on the planet to formally take this stand and say: let’s stop the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. We’ve played that game for over 100 years—it’s time to try something new.

Britain should be held accountable for this legacy they left the region and the world with. They should take the lead in fixing this mess once and for all.

Written By Jerry Elman, October 1, 2024

Introduction:

The right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants remains one of the most complex and politically charged aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike any other refugee group, Palestinian refugees maintain a unique status that is passed down through generations, regardless of where they were born or currently reside. Millions of descendants who have never set foot in either Palestine or Israel continue to be entitled to refugee status and the right of return. This approach, unprecedented in modern refugee history, serves as a political tool aimed at challenging Israel’s sovereignty and demographic stability. Everything in this article has been researched and fact-checked while writing the manuscript for the book Betrayed Promises: Britain’s Role in Making Israel the World’s Scapegoat.

The right of return is not a humanitarian issue. From the beginning, it was weaponized as a means to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state through demographic change if future wars did not achieve that.

This chapter explores the historical origins of the right of return, the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in perpetuating this status, and how it contrasts with how other global refugee crises—especially following World War II—were resolved. Additionally, the chapter highlights the overlooked plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were resettled without a right of return, underscoring the double standards applied to Palestinian refugees.

1. The Origins and Expansion of the Palestinian Right of Return

The right of return for Palestinians was established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, during which approximately 700,000–750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. These refugees sought shelter in neighboring Arab countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Unlike other refugee populations, the Palestinian refugees were not resettled or integrated into these host countries. Instead, they were kept in a state of temporary refugee status, with the promise that they would one day return to their homes within Israel.

Expansion of Refugee Status Across Generations

Unlike any other refugee crisis, the Palestinian refugee issue has been uniquely prolonged by UNRWA’s policy of extending refugee status to all descendants of the original displaced persons. Today, over 5 million Palestinians are considered refugees, even though the majority of them were born in other countries or territories and have never stepped foot in Palestine or Israel. This extension of refugee status has no parallel in international refugee law and represents a departure from all global norms that focus on resettlement and integration.

For example, descendants of World War II refugees, such as Holocaust survivors or ethnic Germans displaced from Eastern Europe, were not granted inherited refugee status. The international response to those crises focused on resettling and integrating displaced populations, allowing them to rebuild their lives. In contrast, UNRWA’s policies have ensured that the Palestinian refugee population continues to grow, keeping the issue alive and unresolved for decades.

2. UNRWA’s Role in Perpetuating Refugee Status and Permanent Camps

The Creation and Mission of UNRWA

Established in 1949, UNRWA is unique in the world of refugee aid. While the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all other global refugee populations, focusing on resettlement and finding permanent solutions, UNRWA’s mission has been to provide services and maintain the status of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Rather than aiming for long-term solutions such as integration into host countries, UNRWA has preserved the refugee status of millions of Palestinians across generations.

Transformation of Refugee Camps into Permanent Settlements

Over time, many Palestinian refugee camps have transformed into permanent towns and cities, with fully functioning infrastructure, homes, and businesses. Despite this urbanization, these areas continue to be classified as “refugee camps,” and their residents still hold refugee status. For instance, the cities of Jenin, Nablus, and certain areas of Gaza are considered refugee camps, even though they have developed into full-fledged urban centers. This perpetuation of refugee status, even in urbanized areas, has created a permanent state of limbo for the residents and keeps the political conflict alive.

An Unprecedented Situation in Refugee History

The situation of Palestinian refugees stands in stark contrast to how other global refugee crises have been addressed. After World War II, tens of millions of people, including Holocaust survivors, ethnic Germans, Poles, Greeks, and Turks, were displaced. In nearly all these cases, the international focus was on resettlement and integration into new countries. By the early 1950s, refugee camps from the World War II era had been dismantled, and displaced persons were absorbed into host societies. No remaining refugee camps from that period exist today, and the descendants of displaced persons did not inherit refugee status.

UNRWA’s policy of maintaining Palestinian refugee camps for nearly 80 years is unprecedented and ensures that the issue remains unresolved. Unlike World War II refugees, who were encouraged to rebuild their lives, Palestinian refugees are kept in a perpetual state of dependency, with the hope that they will one day return to their homes in Israel—a prospect that Israel cannot accept.

Using the Right of Return as a Political Weapon

The Palestinian right of return has evolved into a political tool rather than a humanitarian demand. The insistence that millions of Palestinians and their descendants be allowed to return to Israel is viewed by Israel as an existential threat. The demographic implications of such a return would fundamentally alter Israel’s Jewish majority, leading to its dissolution as a Jewish state. Arab leaders and Palestinian factions have long understood that the right of return, if realized, could achieve through demographics what Arab armies failed to accomplish through the war in 1948—the dismantling of the Jewish state.

For Israel, the right of return is not a legitimate human rights issue. Again, it is a strategic demand to undermine the country’s existence. Accepting the right of return would lead to a demographic shift that would threaten Israel’s Jewish character and political stability, effectively ending Israel as it is known today. That is the exact intent of the right of return.

The Role of Jew-Hatred in Sustaining the Right of Return

The demand for the right of return has been fueled by Jew-hatred in the Arab world. The refusal of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies is rooted in a desire to keep the refugee issue alive as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders have consistently framed the right of return not as a solution to a humanitarian crisis but as part of the broader struggle to reverse the creation of Israel. Jew-hate rhetoric often accompanies this demand, portraying Israel as an illegitimate colonial entity that must be dismantled. The irony is that all Middle Eastern nations are colonial entities created by Britain. Israel is the only one of these colonial nations to fight a war of independence, just like the Americans did against the British. Israel won that war.

The Double Standards in International Refugee Law

Comparison to World War II Refugees and Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

The handling of Palestinian refugees stands in stark contrast to how other refugee crises, particularly those following World War II, have been resolved. Millions of people were displaced during and after the war, including Holocaust survivors and ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe. In these cases, there was no insistence on a right of return. Instead, the focus was on resettling refugees in new countries, helping them rebuild their lives, and ensuring that refugee camps were dismantled as quickly as possible.

Jewish refugees from Arab countries present another example of how the international community has handled displaced populations differently. In the years following Israel’s creation, over 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries, losing their homes, businesses, and property. These Jewish refugees were absorbed primarily by Israel and other countries, with no expectation of a right of return to their former homes in places like Iraq, Egypt, or Yemen. Despite the scale of this displacement, the plight of Jewish refugees has largely been ignored by the international community, which has focused almost exclusively on the Palestinian issue.

The Role of UNRWA in Perpetuating Double Standards

UNRWA’s handling of Palestinian refugees further highlights the double standards applied to this issue. While the UNHCR focuses on resettling and integrating displaced populations, UNRWA has allowed the Palestinian refugee population to grow across generations without offering long-term solutions. This approach has kept the refugee issue alive as a political weapon against Israel, in stark contrast to the treatment of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and other post-World War II refugee populations, who were resettled and integrated into new societies.

5. The Impact of the Right of Return on Peace Negotiations

The right of return has been one of the most significant obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinian leaders have consistently refused to compromise on this demand, knowing that Israel views it as a threat to its existence. As long as the right of return remains a core demand, the prospects for achieving a lasting peace agreement are slim. Israel cannot accept a solution that would result in its demographic and political destruction, and the international community’s failure to address the unrealistic nature of the right of return has prolonged the conflict.

6. Britain Created the Palestinian Refugees, not Israel.

As Britain withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the newly formed State of Israel was immediately attacked by neighboring Arab countries. Israel fought a defensive war for survival. During the Arab-Israeli War, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. The exact causes of the mass exodus are still a subject of debate. Still, the consequences were clear: a refugee crisis was born, with Palestinians dispersed across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. However, this crisis was no different than any previous refugee crisis in history and was relatively small compared to World Wars I and II refugees.

Britain’s Complicity in the Exodus

Although Britain had relinquished its mandate, its earlier policies and failures were crucial in creating the conditions that led to the Palestinian Arab exodus. By the time Israel declared independence, Britain had failed to establish a functioning framework for cohabitation between Jews and Arabs, leaving a power vacuum that contributed to the chaos. Britain knew war would break out and set the expectations that the Arab nations attacking would defeat and end the existence of Israel as a state.

Britain’s Role in UN Resolution 194 Creating the Right of Return

The Arab demand for the right of return at the end of the war stems directly from this refugee crisis born out of the 1948 war. Britain and the UN gave the Arab states a weaponized refugee issue to perpetuate the conflict with Israel. The right of return became a tool for keeping the conflict alive and prevented a humanitarian solution.

UN Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, is the first-ever formal international acknowledgment of a right of return, stating that Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes have a right to do so. Britain played a major part in drafting the resolution, deliberately making the language ambiguous to allow UNRWA lots of room for interpretation. UNRWA used the loose language to add the requirement that all descendants of these original refugees also have an inherited right of return, no matter where they live or were born.

Israel rejected the call for the right of return due to security concerns and the demographic threat it posed to the Jewish state, along with its lack of any precedent in international law.

Conclusion: A Path Toward Resolution

The right of return for Palestinian refugees, as UNRWA and Palestinian leaders have framed it, is not a legitimate humanitarian issue but a political tool aimed at challenging Israel’s existence. The perpetuation of refugee status across generations, the maintenance of so-called refugee camps for nearly 80 years, and the use of the right of return as a political weapon all point to a broader agenda that prioritizes conflict over resolution.

In contrast, other refugee crises—such as those following World War II—were resolved through resettlement and integration. Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into new societies without insisting on a right of return. The international community must recognize the double standards applied to Palestinian refugees and shift its focus toward realistic solutions that emphasize resettlement, compensation, and integration. For a lasting peace to be achieved, the right of return must be reframed as part of a broader compromise in line with all precedents in international law, not this one exception. Peace is impossible with a demand that threatens Israel’s existence. The international community must move away from the political weaponization of the right of return and focus on precedent-driven humanitarian solutions that promote stability and reconciliation.

Written By Jerry Elman, September 26, 2024

In my current book project, Misplaced Blame: How Britain’s Failures Made Israel the Scapegoat, I explore the historical and geopolitical realities that have transformed the two-state solution from a hopeful vision into an impossible fantasy.

For years, I believed in the promise of two independent states for Israelis and Palestinians, particularly within the borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, after studying the history, political fragmentation, and violent events of October 7th, 2023, I have come to see this vision as impractical and dangerous. The version of the two-state solution focused on these borders is an illusion, ensuring not peace but further conflict and instability.

At the same time, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, as was originally promised by the British. However, I believe this state must be formed by returning to the original boundaries of Mandate Palestine, not through the never-ending attempt to divide the impossible within the current borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

The Palestinian Arabs were betrayed when Britain separated Transjordan from Mandate Palestine and gave it to the Arabian Hashemites. Transjordan was supposed to be the new Palestinian Arab state, with the Jewish state covering all the land west of the Jordan River. What the British created instead was a state where a Palestinian Arab majority is ruled by an Arabian Hashemite minority, who had never lived in that land until the British gave it to them.

Later, the British hoped that an Arab military defeat of Israel during the War of Independence would deliver a Palestinian Arab state at the expense of the Jews. The British banned Jews from having arms, while Arabs had no restrictions. Jews smuggled arms in.

When Israel decisively defeated the invading Arab armies, Britain shifted its support to UN Resolution 194, which included the right of return for Palestinian refugees and all their future descendants, no matter where they were born or lived. The aim was to eventually flood Israel with returning refugees and descendants, turning the Jewish state into a Palestinian Arab state by creating an Arab majority.

This historical manipulation by Britain set the stage for a conflict that continues to this day and will never end until the international community embraces a completely new approach. That approach must start with acknowledging Britain’s false promises and working toward a just solution that corrects the injustice of those broken promises.

Britain’s Scapegoating of Israel and the Unique Scrutiny of the Jewish State

Britain has successfully made Israel the scapegoat for the failure to create a Palestinian Arab state. Israel did not promise such a state—the British did. Israel did not take away the land promised for a Palestinian Arab state—Britain did. It is not Israel’s responsibility to create such a state, especially within the land that was initially promised to the Jews and defended in multiple wars.

Britain has effectively positioned Israel as the scapegoat for the lack of a Palestinian Arab state, deflecting blame from their own role in creating this mess. Since 1948, when Israel fought and won its independence in a hard-fought war that Britain helped incite, the world has unfairly blamed Israel for the ongoing conflict.

The question must be asked: Would the world be behaving this way if Israel were not a Jewish state? History and precedent suggest that is precisely what is going on. No other state in the world is subjected to the same constant war, existential threats, and endless questioning of its legitimacy. There is no parallel where another country, established through legitimate international processes, is asked to repeatedly justify its right to exist. Jews must conclude that this is merely another form of expressing hatred toward Jews—this time directed at their one and only state.

The world also ignores the Palestinian Arab refugee camps that still exist in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The UN treats these people as forever refugees. Why are they not allowed to become citizens and live normal lives, despite so many generations being born in these countries? Yet, Israel is also blamed for these camps that exist in other countries.

The world ignores the civil war in Syria where real genocide is being committed. It ignores Hezbollah when they fire hundreds of missiles towards Israel.  The world only responds when Israel fights back. The world says Iran is a threat to world peace but does nothing other than sanctions as long as Iran’s focus is on destroying Israel and leaves everyone else alone for the time being. As long as all the nuclear missiles they are developing are aimed at Israel and nobody else.  

Israel did not assume control of the West Bank and Gaza out of choice. They assumed control out of an unwanted war in which Arab states once again tried to destroy the State of Israel, and once again lost a war. Under the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel offered to return Gaza along with the Sinai; Egypt refused to take Gaza back. Under the peace treaty with Jordan, Israel offered to return the West Bank; Jordan did not want it back.

Every attempt to negotiate establishing a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza is rejected unless it also includes terms that would lead to the elimination of the State of Israel. And Israel is blamed for refusing to agree to their own destruction.

The Need for a New Approach

It is time for the world to wake up. The two-state solution as envisioned within the current borders is not only unworkable—it is a dangerous fantasy. A new approach is necessary, one that acknowledges past betrayals and seeks a just solution that addresses those wrongs.

Defining the Two-State Solution: A Fantasy Within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza

The modern two-state solution envisions two sovereign states—one for Israelis and one for Palestinians—within the borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. This proposal is largely based on the pre-1967 borders, with minor land swaps to accommodate Israeli settlements.

However, this vision is an impractical fantasy. The West Bank and Gaza are geographically disconnected and politically divided, with the West Bank governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. These two territories cannot form a unified, functional state. Additionally, the West Bank is fragmented by Israeli settlements, security zones, and military checkpoints, making the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible.

From Israel’s perspective, a Palestinian state in the West Bank would create an indefensible border. The narrowest point of Israel is just nine miles wide, leaving it vulnerable to attacks from the highlands of the West Bank, which overlook much of central Israel. The idea that two secure, peaceful states could coexist within these boundaries is a dangerous illusion that ignores the region’s realities.

The Original Two-State Solution: Britain’s Unilateral Decision and the Violation of the League of Nations Mandate

The roots of the impossible-to-achieve two-state solution lie in the British Mandate period, but Britain’s actions drastically altered the original intention. In 1920, the League of Nations defined Mandate Palestine, which included the land on both sides of the Jordan River, with the intent of establishing a Jewish homeland, as outlined in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This territory was meant to provide for both Jewish and Palestinian Arab national aspirations. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs were the indigenous populations of this territory.

However, in 1921, Britain unilaterally decided to carve out Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) from Mandate Palestine, reducing the land available for both Jewish and Arab states by 77%. This action forever made a two-state solution impossible to achieve. The territory has been and remains impossible to split into two viable nations and yet the international community keeps trying.

This British decision was made without the involvement of the League of Nations and without consulting the local population. Britain took this action to appease the Hashemites, who had been promised territory after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was only after this unilateral action that the League of Nations rubber-stamped Britain’s decision, retroactively amending the mandate in 1922 to exclude Transjordan from the provisions concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

The Hashemites: British Manipulation, French Deals, and the Loss of Syria

Britain’s decision to carve out Transjordan from Mandate Palestine in 1921 was part of a broader effort to compensate the Hashemite family, who were not indigenous to the area. The Hashemites, originally from the Hejaz region (now part of Saudi Arabia), trace their lineage to the Prophet Muhammad and were considered one of the most prestigious Arab families. During World War I, the Hashemites allied with Britain in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, with the understanding that they would gain control over large parts of the Arab world, including Greater Syria, as a reward for their efforts. However, Britain’s promises to the Hashemites were undercut by a secret deal with France.

In 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a clandestine arrangement that divided the Middle East into spheres of influence between the two powers. Under this agreement, France was given control over Syria and Lebanon, while Britain retained control over Iraq, and Mandate Palestine, and other territory. This secret deal was made without informing the Hashemites, who had expected control over Greater Syria as part of their post-war reward.

After World War I, in 1920, Emir Faisal, the son of Hashemite leader Sharif Hussein, briefly ruled as King of Syria. Britain allowed this never telling him the French were about to kick him out. French forces, in line with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, invaded Syria and deposed Faisal, marking the end of his rule. This British betrayal left the Hashemites without their promised control of Syria, further eroding their trust in the colonial powers.

In an effort to placate the Hashemites and maintain British influence in the region, Britain made two key moves. First, in 1921, Britain installed Faisal’s brother Abdullah as the ruler of Transjordan, which had been carved out of the original Mandate Palestine territory. Abdullah’s rule over Transjordan was established not because of any historical or cultural ties to the region but solely by British decree. The Hashemites were now foreign rulers in a territory they had no indigenous connection to, a pattern that would repeat elsewhere.

Simultaneously, Britain installed Faisal as King of Iraq, another territory where the Hashemites had no indigenous roots. Iraq, like Transjordan, was created by the British in an arbitrary manner, combining three former Ottoman provinces—Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra—each with distinct religious and ethnic groups, including Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds. These provinces had little in common and were forced together into one country for the sake of Britain’s colonial interests. Faisal was made king to maintain British control and as an additional step to compensate the Hashemites for their loss of Syria. Like in Transjordan, the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was created without regard to the complex ethnic and cultural landscape of the region.

This manipulation of borders and rulers by Britain and France, driven by colonial interests and strategic calculations, set the stage for decades of instability not only between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs but the entire region. Britain created arbitrary countries that disregarded the Middle East’s historical, cultural, and demographic realities. This created permanent havoc in the region that had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans.

The Hashemites Lose the Hejaz (1924) – A Further British Betrayal

In 1924, the Hashemite family suffered another blow when they were ousted from their ancestral homeland in the Hejaz (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) by the rival Al Saud family. The British had shifted their support from the Hashemites to the Saudis, who were consolidating power over the Arabian Peninsula, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Although Britain had earlier promised the Hejaz to the Hashemites, they ultimately backed Ibn Saud for his growing influence and stability in the region. The British decision was based on the control of the vast oil reserves in Arabia.

This defeat left the Hashemites again humiliated and displaced. Their loss of the Hejaz forced them to consolidate their power in Transjordan and Iraq, the territories Britain had given them to compensate for their earlier losses. The Hashemites’ expulsion from the Hejaz solidified Abdullah’s rule in Transjordan and Faisal’s in Iraq, making these British-created territories central to the Hashemite dynasty’s future.

Britain’s Creation of “Fake” Countries: Disrupting Religious, Ethnic, and Cultural Norms

The creation of Transjordan was part of a broader pattern of British and French manipulation of the Middle East, where they drew arbitrary borders to serve their colonial interests, creating “fake” countries that disrupted the region’s religious, ethnic, and cultural norms. These artificial borders ignored the complex demographics of the region, leading to long-term instability and conflict.

• Iraq: Britain created Iraq by combining three former Ottoman provinces—Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra—each with distinct religious and ethnic groups, including Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other minorities. By forcing these groups into a single country under Hashemite rule, Britain laid the groundwork for decades of sectarian strife, which continue to destabilize Iraq today.
• Saudi Arabia: The creation of Saudi Arabia was marked by Britain’s alliance with the Al Saud family, who established control over much of the Arabian Peninsula, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The Al Saud family’s rise to power came with British support and at the expense of the Hashemites, who had traditionally been the custodians of the holy sites. This rivalry between the Saudis and the Hashemites continues to shape regional politics.
• Syria and Lebanon: After World War I, France created Syria and Lebanon from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Lebanon was designed with an artificial Christian majority to reflect France’s ties to the Maronite Christian community, further complicating Lebanon’s political landscape and contributing to future civil strife. Syria was similarly divided along sectarian lines, with Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, and Kurds all living in a politically unstable framework.
• Iran and Yemen: Although Iran was not directly created by British influence, Britain heavily interfered in the country’s internal affairs throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. By controlling oil concessions and meddling in Iran’s political structure, Britain contributed to the destabilization of the country. On the other hand, Yemen saw British interference through establishing the British Aden Protectorate in the south, which ultimately disrupted Yemeni tribal and political structures, contributing to future instability.
• Afghanistan: Although technically never colonized, Afghanistan was deeply influenced by British imperialism during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Britain fought three Anglo-Afghan wars to prevent Russian influence in the region, imposing border changes and policies that disrupted Afghanistan’s tribal and political landscape. The artificial Durand Line, drawn by Britain in 1893, continues to be a source of tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan, as it divides Pashtun tribal areas across national borders. The British interference in Afghanistan weakened its internal governance and set the stage for decades of conflict, and terrorism which continue to this day with the Taliban now in control.

These borders, drawn without regard for the region’s intricate religious and ethnic makeup, created unstable countries where rival groups were forced into artificial political and competing religious entities. The long-term consequences of these colonial decisions are still felt today, with ongoing conflicts, civil wars, and instability across the Middle East. This is all much bigger than just the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Israel’s War of Independence: The Exception Among Britain’s “Fake” Countries

Unlike many of the countries that Britain created through arbitrary borders, Israel fought a war to secure its existence and maintain its promised territory. While other newly formed nations in the Middle East were handed over to foreign rulers, such as the Hashemites in Transjordan and Iraq, or established without a fight, Israel had to fight for its survival.

In 1948, Israel declared its independence after the United Nations partitioned Palestine, and it immediately faced a war of survival. Britain, expecting the surrounding Arab nations to defeat the nascent Jewish state easily, kept the Jews largely unarmed, hoping for an Arab victory. However, despite being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, Jewish forces managed to smuggle in arms and won the War of Independence. In doing so, they secured the territory that had been promised to them, unlike other countries in the region that were created through colonial machinations.

Today’s Realities

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority

Hamas’s control of Gaza presents another insurmountable challenge. While the Palestinian Authority (PA) is the nominal governing body of the West Bank, Hamas and the PA are politically and ideologically opposed. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel and has shown no interest in a peaceful resolution that includes Israel’s existence. As long as Hamas holds power in Gaza, any two-state solution is doomed.

A two-state solution would require both Palestinian territories to be united under a single, cooperative government willing to negotiate in good faith with Israel. The deep divisions between Hamas and the PA make this impossible. Any Palestinian state that includes Gaza would inherently pose a threat to Israel as long as Hamas remains in power, and there is no realistic path to disarm Hamas or remove it from power at present.

The Issue of Jerusalem

Jerusalem is another major stumbling block. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their capital, and it is home to some of the most important religious sites in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The idea of dividing Jerusalem into two capitals, or placing it under international control, has been floated in the past but is politically and religiously untenable for both sides.

From Israel’s perspective, Jerusalem must remain undivided and under its control to protect access to Jewish holy sites. Meanwhile, Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The emotional and religious significance of the city makes compromise nearly impossible. Any attempt to divide or share Jerusalem would likely lead to further violence and conflict, rather than a peaceful resolution.

The Refugee Issue and the Right of Return: No Historical Precedent

One of the most contentious aspects of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the demand for the “right of return” by millions of Palestinians, descendants of those who fled or were expelled during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. They seek the right to return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel, a demand that holds no historical precedent in international law. No other displaced group has ever been granted such a sweeping right, which, if implemented, would lead to the demographic destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

Historically, population displacement has occurred repeatedly during conflicts, yet no similar “right of return” has been extended to any other refugee group. After World War II, millions of Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe and forced to resettle in Germany. They were never granted the right to return to their former homes in countries like Poland or Czechoslovakia. Similarly, the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 displaced millions of Hindus and Muslims, but neither side has ever been afforded the “right of return.”

Even more relevant to the Middle East is the case of the Jews who were expelled or fled from Arab countries in the years following Israel’s establishment in 1948. Over 850,000 Jews were forced to leave countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, where many had lived for centuries, often under precarious conditions. They lost their homes, businesses, and property, yet no UN resolutions called for their right of return. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, while Arab countries, with few exceptions, refused to resettle the Palestinian refugees, using them as political pawns instead. This hypocrisy remains glaringly absent from the global conversation about justice for displaced peoples in the region.

UN Bias and Setting a Dangerous Precedent

The UN’s intent in passing this resolution was to reverse the establishment of the Jewish state by creating a Palestinian majority within Israel. By pushing for the return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the UN aimed to shift the demographic balance, ultimately undermining Israel’s status as a Jewish state. What this really does is create a one-state solution with Palestinian Arabs taking control of Israel as their state, reducing Jews to a minority. This effort, rather than fostering peace, seeks to erase Israel’s Jewish character under the guise of addressing the refugee crisis, a move that disregards the rights of Jewish refugees and ignores the historical context of their displacement from Arab lands. The fact that the Palestinian refugee issue remains the only instance in which the UN has maintained a dedicated agency—UNRWA—exclusively for Palestinians, perpetuating their refugee status for generations, speaks to a broader bias within the international community.

The existence of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) has, in fact, worked to institutionalize the refugee status of Palestinians, in contrast to the global norm. While the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is responsible for resettling refugees worldwide, helping them build new lives in other countries, UNRWA has kept Palestinians in a perpetual state of refugeehood. This has helped fuel the unrealistic expectation that the continually growing millions of descendants of the original refugees will someday return to Israel.

Moreover, the UN’s biased approach has set a dangerous precedent in international diplomacy. By applying the right of return only to Palestinian Arabs, the UN has created an expectation that this group is entitled to something no other refugee population has ever been granted. The Jewish refugees from Arab lands, who lost far more property and were similarly displaced, have no comparable right. Holocaust survivors have no similar right. This selective application of justice is not only unjust. It perpetuates the conflict by maintaining the illusion that a mass return of Palestinians is viable. At the same time, it would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state which no Israeli government will allow. It guarantees conflict and war will continue indefinitely.

Conclusion: A One-Sided Narrative, The Impossibility of the Two-State Solution, and the Only Viable Path Forward

The demand for the right of return, which lacks historical precedent and has been applied only to Palestinians, is one of the primary reasons a two-state solution within the current boundaries is impossible. The Palestinian Arabs refuse to compromise on this very issue. Arafat walked away from an agreement in 2000 where he got everything he wanted, but one thing, the right of return. He rejected that offer with no counteroffer and started the 2^nd Intifada (rebellion and terrorism). Peace initiatives have been dead ever since. And if they start again they will fail again because this limited territory is impossible to divide and be fair to anybody.

The political divisions between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, the impossibility of a compromise over Jerusalem, and the lack of a single cohesive Palestinian government capable of negotiating in good faith make the current concept of a two-state within current boundaries a totally unworkable solution.

The events of October 7th, 2023, which saw Hamas launch a devastating attack on Israel, resulting in the current war along with Iran’s meddling through their proxy, Hezbollah, shattered any remaining hope for the fantasy of a peaceful two-state solution within the boundaries of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. It is clear that peace cannot emerge from this fragmented and hostile environment.

Given these realities, I believe the only viable solution is for the UN and the international community to return to the original mandate maps and carve out an independent Palestinian state from Syrian and Jordanian territory. This would correct the mistakes of the past, when Britain and France arbitrarily divided the region to serve their imperial interests, leaving Palestinian Arabs without their promised state.

Again I cannot emphasize it enough, Israel is not responsible for the lack of a Palestinian state—Britain and the broader international community are. The Palestinian Arabs deserve justice and the state they were promised, but not at the expense of Israel.

By shifting the focus to creating a Palestinian state out of territory that was originally meant for Palestinian Arab governance under the British Mandate, we can achieve a more just and sustainable solution. Only by acknowledging and addressing the errors of history can the international community move beyond the failed two-state paradigm and work towards a future that provides security for both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs

After initially trying to avoid writing another book, I focused on research, blogging, speaking, and making presentations. Through this work, I discovered that most Jews and non-Jews alike do not truly understand the facts and history of the Israel/Palestinian Arab conflict. I realized that I, too, lacked knowledge of much of this history.

My recent presentations have been aimed at non-Jewish audiences, focusing on the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, with many people expressing how valuable it was to learn things they had never heard before. Several groups have invited me back for further discussions. Through these experiences, I’ve learned that most mainstream non-Jews are not inherently anti-Israel or anti-Jewish; they simply know only what their upbringing and the media have taught them. They are eager for more information, yet unfortunately, mainstream Jewish organizations are often unable or unwilling to invest the necessary time and effort to provide it.

As just one person, I’ve realized that while each group I engage with often leaves with a changed perspective, speaking alone to small audiences will only achieve so much.

I hadn’t intended to write a book, but I realized that I had already pieced together the entire history and narrative in my blogs, articles, and other writings. So, I began experimenting with combining these elements and have now completed a very rough draft of an integrated manuscript. There is still much work to do to create a high-quality book, and I am debating whether to pursue this further. For now, I’ve decided to continue refining the manuscript and see where it leads.

Here is a glimpse of what may eventually become a book, starting with a fully edited introduction. I welcome your comments and feedback.

Title: Misplaced Blame: How Britain’s Failures Made Israel the Scapegoat

The Untold Story of Britain’s Missteps, which denied Palestinian Arabs their promised state.

Written by: Jerry M. Elman
Publisher: Waterview Books

Introduction: Unraveling a Complex Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most enduring and contentious disputes in modern history. Marked by deep historical grievances, profound human suffering, and complex geopolitical dynamics, it has seemed intractable to generations of diplomats, leaders, and ordinary people. Yet, to truly understand this conflict—and the wider struggles that shape the Middle East—one must look beyond the headlines and the rhetoric to explore the deeper forces that have brought us to this point.

This book, Misplaced Blame: How Britain’s Failures Made Israel the Scapegoat, represents a new chapter in my ongoing exploration of Jewish history, a journey that began with my previous work, Miracles Through Hell. In that book, I captured the story of my parents’ survival during the Holocaust and my personal journey as a second-generation survivor. It was an intensely personal project rooted in the trauma and resilience of my family. Still, it also opened my eyes to the broader history of Jew-hatred—a hatred that did not begin or end with the Holocaust but is part of an unbroken chain stretching back to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

The Evolving Nature of Jew Hatred

Historically, Jew-hatred began as religious prejudice. For centuries, Jews were persecuted for their beliefs, viewed as outsiders who refused to conform to the dominant Christian or Islamic norms, facing pogroms, expulsions, and forced conversions across Europe and the Middle East. In the late 19th century, this religious-based hatred evolved into something more insidious: racial prejudice. Jews were no longer just seen as religious ‘others’ but were portrayed as a distinct and inferior race, subject to pseudoscientific theories that justified exclusion and violence, culminating in the genocidal fury of the Holocaust.

But Jew-hatred did not end with the Holocaust; it simply shifted once more. Today, it has taken on a new form, driven by the false narrative that Israel is a colonial power and that Jews are oppressors of human rights and Palestinian self-determination. This narrative is a direct result of British colonial actions and policies during the early 20th century. The British, in their efforts to manage conflicting promises and maintain control over their imperial interests, created a volatile mix of broken promises, arbitrary borders, and unresolved grievances.

The British Legacy: A Modern Chapter in Jew-Hatred

The widely held belief that Israel is to blame for the absence of a Palestinian Arab state ignores the reality that it was Britain, not Israel, that promised a state to the Palestinian Arabs and then reneged on that promise. Britain left both Jews and Palestinian Arabs with a small, contested piece of land that was virtually impossible to divide into two viable independent states. This failure set the stage for decades of conflict, and the narrative that emerged—one that frames Israel as a colonial aggressor—is a direct result of Britain’s actions and the chaos they left behind.

By removing Transjordan from the territory initially promised to be divided between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Britain effectively eliminated the land that could have supported a large, viable independent state for the Palestinian Arabs. This decision, driven by British strategic and political interests, fundamentally altered the region’s territorial dynamics, creating an environment where the remaining land was insufficient to satisfy the national aspirations of both Jews and Arabs.

Today’s narrative, which depicts Israel as a colonial oppressor, distorts this history. It shifts the blame for the British betrayal and broken promises onto Israel, falsely portraying the Jewish state as the main obstacle to Palestinian self-determination. This shift is not just a misunderstanding of history—it is a deliberate manipulation that perpetuates the cycle of Jew-hatred. The narrative that Israel is a colonial power belongs not to the Jewish people, but to the British, who created the conditions for conflict and then walked away, leaving Jews and Arabs to grapple with the consequences.

Revisiting Historical Boundaries and Narratives: A Path Toward Understanding

As I delved deeper into the history of this conflict, I began to see it as another chapter in the long story of Jew-hatred. It became clear to me that to understand the present, we must revisit the historical boundaries established by colonial powers and the narratives that have shaped our understanding of this conflict. We must recognize that these arbitrary boundaries were created without regard for the ethnic, religious, and cultural dynamics of the region, setting the stage for decades of conflict and misunderstanding.

This book highlights these historical missteps and critically examines how the narratives surrounding the conflict have been manipulated over time. It argues for reframing these narratives to promote empathy, understanding, and inclusive dialogue, recognizing the legitimate grievances and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. By re-examining the 1921 maps and understanding the impact of these colonial legacies, we can begin to see the roots of many contemporary conflicts in a new light.

The Roles of Key Regional and International Actors

No understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the broader Middle East, would be complete without examining the roles of key regional and international actors, such as Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah. These actors have pursued their own strategic interests, often exacerbating local conflicts and adding layers of complexity to an already volatile situation. By analyzing their motivations, alliances, and actions, this book sheds light on how external forces continue to shape the region’s dynamics.

Reframing the Future: Toward a New Vision for Peace

This journey has also made me realize that this conflict is about more than territory or political power; it is about human beings on both sides who wake up every morning wanting food, safety, family, and a better future. Somehow, these basic human needs get lost in the battles and politics of religion, colonization, and power. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs have paid, and continue to pay, a heavy price for British decisions made over a century ago.

At its core, this book is about reimagining what peace could look like in a region where the very concept often seems elusive. It is about acknowledging the mistakes of the past, understanding the complexities of the present, and envisioning a future where narratives of division give way to those of coexistence and cooperation. Reframing the narrative involves more than words; it requires actions that foster empathy, promote inclusive dialogue, and build bridges between communities. It means recognizing that there is no military solution to this conflict—only a political one based on mutual recognition, respect, and compromise.

A Call for Renewed Commitment to Peace

Ultimately, this book calls for a renewed commitment to peace—one that recognizes the shared humanity of all parties involved. It urges us to move beyond blame and focus on building a future where Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews, Sunnis and Shiites, can live in dignity, security, and mutual respect.

The journey toward peace will be challenging, with setbacks along the way. But by learning from the past, reimagining the present, and committing to a future of peace, there is hope that the Middle East can finally move beyond conflict and embrace a new era of reconciliation and cooperation.

In this way, we can begin to dismantle the legacy of Jew-hatred and build a world where all people, regardless of faith or nationality, can live in peace and dignity. This book is not just a historical inquiry; it is a personal mission born out of my family’s story of survival and my own journey as a second-generation Holocaust survivor. It challenges us to confront the misconceptions and distortions that continue to shape the conflict and to understand the real roots of today’s narratives—narratives that began with British colonialism and continue to impact the lives of millions in the region.

Multiple injustices to Jews and Arabs dating back one hundred years must be addressed to make things right for all involved. The same status quo approaches remain doomed to failure.

Written by Jerry Elman, September 3, 2024

---

The events of October 7th, 2023, marked a tragic and pivotal moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a coordinated surprise attack by Hamas resulting in over 1,400 Israeli deaths, the abduction of many hostages, and a full-scale military response from Israel. At the center of this unfolding drama are two leaders: Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Both men, driven by ruthless ambition and self-focused strategies, have significantly contributed to the path leading to this catastrophic escalation and continue to shape its aftermath.

Yahya Sinwar: The Ruthless Strategist of Hamas

Yahya Sinwar, often referred to as the “Butcher of Khan Younis,” is known for his brutal tactics and unwavering commitment to the destruction of Israel. As the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sinwar has a reputation for being a hardliner, both within Hamas and in his dealings with Israel.

Sinwar’s Rise to Power

Sinwar’s rise in Hamas began with his involvement in founding the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, and his orchestration of violent attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. Imprisoned by Israel in 1988 for his role in the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers, Sinwar was released in the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, returning to Gaza as a hero among Palestinians.

His return marked a turning point in Hamas’s internal politics. Sinwar quickly moved up the ranks, positioning himself as a strongman within the organization, favoring a militant stance over political compromise. He has consistently rejected any peace negotiations with Israel and has been a vocal advocate for armed resistance and the use of violence to achieve Hamas’s goals.

The Architect of the October 7th Attack

As the mastermind behind the October 7th attack, Sinwar orchestrated one of the deadliest assaults on Israel in recent history and the most Jews killed in one day since the Holocaust. His strategy was clear: to inflict maximum civilian casualties and to capture hostages as leverage against Israel. The attack was designed not just to strike at Israel but to demonstrate Hamas’s capability, resilience, and willingness to escalate the conflict.

Multiple factors drove Sinwar’s decision to launch such a devastating attack:

1. Demonstrating Power and Control: Sinwar aimed to reassert his authority within Hamas and among Palestinians, presenting himself as the true leader of the resistance against Israel.
2. Provoking a Response: Sinwar calculated that a dramatic escalation would provoke a severe Israeli military response, which he could use to rally international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, casting Hamas as a defender against Israeli aggression.
3. Weakening Internal Rivals: By positioning Hamas as the primary force of resistance, Sinwar sought to undermine the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, whom some Palestinians view as ineffective against Israel.
4. Weaponizing Gazan Suffering: Sinwar’s indifference to the suffering of Gazans is a deliberate strategy. By ensuring that Gazans bear a heavy burden, Sinwar aims to garner international sympathy, increase pressure on Israel, and maintain his leadership by portraying himself as an uncompromising defender of Palestinian rights. This tactic uses the suffering of his own people to achieve ideological aims, regardless of humanitarian cost.
5. Interfering with Humanitarian Aid: Hamas has also been reported to hijack or interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Despite international efforts to provide food, medical supplies, and fuel to civilians, Hamas often diverts these resources for its own purposes, including military operations and maintaining its governance infrastructure. This diversion of aid exacerbates the suffering of the Gazan population, while Hamas prioritizes its fighters and political loyalists over the needs of the broader civilian community.

Benjamin Netanyahu: The Political Survivor Focused on Personal Gain

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister, is known for navigating complex political landscapes and outmaneuvering rivals. However, his leadership—focused on personal and political gains rather than a coherent national strategy—has come under intense scrutiny following the October 7th attack.

Netanyahu Caught Off Guard Ahead of the October 7th Attack

Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence were caught off guard by the scale and coordination of the October 7th attack. Several factors contributed to this intelligence failure:

1. Overconfidence in Israel’s Security Measures: Netanyahu and his government relied heavily on technological surveillance, border fortifications, and intelligence gathering to contain threats from Gaza. This reliance created a false sense of security and led to complacency regarding the capabilities of Hamas.
2. Underestimation of Hamas’s Intentions: Netanyahu’s administration had underestimated the determination and capabilities of Hamas under Sinwar’s leadership. Despite periodic skirmishes and exchanges of fire, Israeli intelligence did not anticipate that Hamas would launch a large-scale attack involving ground, air, and sea operations.
3. Focus on Other Political Priorities: Netanyahu was preoccupied with domestic political concerns, including judicial reforms, corruption charges, and maintaining his political base. This distracted his government from fully addressing or preparing for escalating threats from Gaza.
4. Disregard for Warnings and Intelligence Signals: There were indications that Hamas was preparing for a significant escalation, but these warnings were either ignored or downplayed by Netanyahu’s government. Israeli intelligence did not adequately interpret or act upon the signs of an impending attack, leaving the country vulnerable to Hamas’s surprise assault.

Netanyahu’s Calculated, Self-Focused Strategy

Netanyahu pursued a strategy to manage, rather than eliminate, Hamas, seeing it as a counterbalance to the more moderate Palestinian Authority. By allowing Qatari funds to flow into Gaza and avoiding efforts to promote Palestinian reconciliation, Netanyahu effectively ensured that Hamas would remain a powerful and distinct entity, separate from the PA. This approach helped avoid a unified Palestinian front, which could have posed a more formidable challenge in negotiations or resistance.

However, this strategy was primarily driven by Netanyahu’s political interests:

1. No Clear Strategic Plan: Netanyahu’s approach lacked a coherent long-term strategy for dealing with Hamas. His actions seemed aimed at maintaining political power and avoiding domestic challenges rather than focusing on security policy.
2. Empowering Hamas to Undermine the PA: By weakening the PA, Netanyahu could present himself domestically as tough on Palestinian negotiations while indirectly strengthening Hamas, allowing him to deflect calls for a two-state solution.
3. Underestimating Hamas’s Threat: Netanyahu assumed Hamas could be contained through periodic military actions, leading to complacency and inadequate responses to the threat posed by the group.
4. Heavy-Handed Tactics for Political Gain: Netanyahu’s aggressive military approach—using destructive weapons like 2,000-pound bombs in densely populated areas of Gaza—was intended to show strength and maintain political support. However, this led to a humanitarian crisis, strained international relations, and increased global condemnation.

Netanyahu’s Blunders in War Execution

Netanyahu’s execution of the war in Gaza has been marked by significant mistakes that have hindered Israel’s stated goals of defeating Hamas:

1. Lack of Clear Military Objectives: Netanyahu has been criticized for not clearly articulating the goals of the military operation in Gaza, causing confusion within the Israeli military and the public.
2. Prolonging the Conflict: Critics argue that Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict to maintain his political power and avoid domestic controversies like corruption trials and public discontent over judicial reforms.
3. Ineffective Military Tactics: Despite heavy firepower, Netanyahu’s strategy has not significantly degraded Hamas’s capabilities. Hamas has shown resilience, quickly rebuilding its infrastructure and continuing attacks.
4. Failure to Cut Off Supply Lines: Netanyahu’s strategy has focused more on physical infrastructure than on cutting off Hamas’s supply lines and funding sources, allowing Hamas to replenish its arsenal quickly.
5. Overreliance on Heavy Weaponry: The use of heavy bombs and other destructive tactics has caused significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, drawing sharp international criticism and eroding diplomatic support.
6. Ignoring Humanitarian Considerations: Failing to balance military objectives with humanitarian concerns has contributed to a severe crisis in Gaza, giving Hamas propaganda material and undermining Israel’s broader strategic goals.

Hamas Likely to Survive the Conflict Relatively Intact

Despite Israel’s intense military campaign, Hamas is likely to survive the conflict relatively intact. The group’s ability to quickly rebuild its infrastructure, maintain control over Gaza, and continue to rally support by positioning itself as a defender against Israeli aggression suggests it will endure, even if weakened.

• Hamas’s Resilience: Hamas has repeatedly recovered from Israeli military offensives, rebuilt networks, and continued operations. Its deep entrenchment in Gaza, access to funding, and tactics make it difficult to eliminate.
• Gazan Population Pays the Price: As in previous conflicts, Gazan civilians suffer the most. The destruction and lack of aid lead to widespread suffering, while Hamas leadership remains intact and potentially gains support due to perceived resistance. Sinwar’s use of Gazan suffering as a tool for international propaganda remains a key part of his strategy.

Sinwar’s Responsibility for Hostage Murders

The recent execution of six hostages by Hamas is a stark illustration of Sinwar’s brutality. He ordered the capture and execution of Israeli civilians, using them as bargaining chips in a high-stakes game of psychological warfare against Israel. This act reinforces Sinwar’s ruthless image as a leader willing to sacrifice lives to further Hamas’s goals.

Many Israelis, however, feel that Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas represented a lost opportunity to secure the hostages’ release and potentially save their lives. Critics argue that his focus on a purely military response, rather than exploring diplomatic options, may have limited the chances of a peaceful resolution to the hostage situation.

Warnings from President Biden

President Joe Biden has repeatedly warned Netanyahu about the potential consequences of his strategies:

1. Calls for Restraint: Biden urged Netanyahu to exercise restraint and avoid actions that would cause significant civilian casualties, which could undermine international support for Israel.
2. Warning Against Escalation: Biden cautioned against escalating the conflict further, warning it could destabilize the region and draw in other actors, such as Hezbollah or Iran.
3. Humanitarian Concerns: Biden expressed concern over the growing humanitarian crisis, warning that continued bombardment could worsen the situation.
4. Encouraging Diplomacy: Biden pushed Netanyahu to consider diplomatic options, warning that Israel’s long-term security depends on a viable political solution.
5. Rebuilding International Support: Biden emphasized the need for Israel to rebuild international cooperation, strained by Netanyahu’s tactics.

October 7th and Beyond: Two Leaders, One Catastrophe

The paths of Sinwar and Netanyahu converged violently on October 7th, resulting in unprecedented bloodshed and a renewed cycle of conflict. Both leaders, driven by ambition and self-focused strategies, set the stage for this tragic escalation.

Sinwar’s Calculated Brutality

Sinwar’s decision to launch a brutal attack on Israeli civilians was a clear statement of his willingness to escalate the conflict to achieve his goals, regardless of the human cost.

Netanyahu’s Strategy Focused on Personal Survival

Netanyahu’s approach to managing Hamas through containment rather than eradication backfired dramatically. The October 7th attack exposed his strategy’s flaws, highlighting his lack of a broader strategic vision and his reactive and heavy-handed tactics.

A Dangerous Path Forward

The October 7th attack and the subsequent war underscore the perilous dynamics between two leaders who have placed their political survival and ambitions above the pursuit of peace and stability. As the conflict drags on, the region remains on a precarious edge, with no clear signs of an Israeli victory or a shift toward a peaceful resolution.

Written by Jerry Elman, September 1, 2024

---

The recent brutal execution of six innocent hostages by Hamas and the lack of global outrage is not just another grim episode in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war; it is a potent reminder of the brutality at the heart of Hamas’s ideology and their control of the propaganda narrative. This brutal murder and lack of international outrage underscores the urgent need for Jewish organizations to shift their focus and take control of the narrative surrounding the conflict. For too long, groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other major Jewish organizations have played defense, failing to mount an offensive strategy to counter Hamas’s propaganda effectively. This must become their number one priority. Without a rapid change in tactics, the military struggle on the ground will always lose out to the information war.

Hamas’s Ideology: A Doctrine of Death and Martyrdom

To understand Hamas’s actions, we must first comprehend its ideological framework, which glorifies martyrdom and death over life. Founded in 1987 as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s guiding principles are enshrined in its 1988 charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state on all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This goal is not simply political; it is deeply ideological and infused with Jew hate.

Central to Hamas’s doctrine is the concept of martyrdom. In Hamas’s view, dying in battle against Jews is the highest honor, and martyrdom is glorified as a religious duty. The organization promotes a culture where death is valued over life, particularly in the context of its struggle against Israel. Hamas leaders have openly stated their willingness to sacrifice millions of Palestinians if necessary to achieve their aims. This ideology drives the organization to use its people as human shields, embed military operations within civilian areas, and exploit every civilian casualty as a tool for propaganda.

Hamas’s actions consistently demonstrate this disregard for human life. It celebrates dead martyrs over living people, making clear that its intent is not to protect its people but to sacrifice them in pursuit of its broader, ideological goals. The recent executions of hostages are just one example of how Hamas uses human lives as pawns in its war against Jews and Israel.

The Strategic Use of Brutality and Propaganda

Hamas’s brutality is not just a means of waging war but also a critical component of its propaganda strategy. The group is exceptionally adept at using violence to control the narrative. By committing acts of terror, such as suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and the killing of hostages, Hamas provokes responses from Israel that can be framed as “disproportionate” or “oppressive,” regardless of the context. Civilian casualties resulting from these conflicts are then exploited to generate international sympathy and support.

Hamas’s propaganda is highly effective for several reasons:

1. Emotional Appeal and Simplified Narratives: Hamas uses powerful emotional narratives to frame the conflict, portraying itself as the underdog against a mighty Israeli state. Images of Palestinian suffering — often caused by Hamas’s tactics of embedding fighters within civilian areas — evoke empathy and outrage worldwide.
2. Social Media Mastery: Hamas leverages social media platforms to spread its message quickly, creating viral content that reinforces its narrative of victimhood and resistance. This digital strategy allows Hamas to influence global audiences, often outpacing Israel’s official responses.
3. Exploiting Western Biases and Guilt: Hamas taps into existing biases and grievances in Western societies, framing itself as a movement against “colonial” oppression. This alignment with broader global movements against racism and injustice allows Hamas to gain sympathy and support, even as it perpetuates violence and Jew hate.

The Failure of Jewish Organizations to Prioritize Offensive Narrative Control

Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, Jewish Federations, and others, have historically focused on combating Jew hate through education, legal action, and advocacy. However, in the face of Hamas’s sophisticated propaganda machine, these efforts have failed. Instead of actively setting the narrative, these organizations frequently find themselves in a reactive position, countering accusations and clarifying misunderstandings rather than shaping the discourse themselves.

These organizations have not prioritized the broader strategy of combating Hamas’s specific propaganda campaigns. They have not effectively utilized digital platforms to disseminate a clear, consistent message about Hamas’s brutality and its true nature as a terrorist organization that sacrifices its own people to achieve its goals. This defensive posture has allowed Hamas to control the narrative, painting itself as a legitimate resistance movement rather than the violent, ideologically driven group it is.

The Need for a New Strategy: Offensive Narrative Control

To counter Hamas’s propaganda effectively, Jewish organizations must recognize that this is a war — an information war — and they must treat it as such. This must become their number one priority. The power to shape public opinion, influence international policy, and build alliances depends on who controls the narrative. A new, offensive approach is needed:

1. Focus on Simplified, Compelling Messaging: Craft simple, compelling messages that directly confront the lies and distortions spread by Hamas. These messages should highlight Hamas’s brutality — not only against Jews but also against Palestinians — and expose the group’s use of human shields, its exploitation of civilian casualties, and its cynical use of martyrdom.
2. Leverage Digital Platforms More Effectively: Create viral content, harness the power of influencers, and engage directly with younger audiences who consume information primarily online. Use videos, graphics, and emotionally resonant storytelling to convey the real impact of Hamas’s actions and counter misinformation in real time.
3. Coordinate a Unified Response: Greater coordination and collaboration among Jewish organizations are essential. By pooling resources, sharing information, and adopting a unified strategy, these organizations can present a stronger, more cohesive front that amplifies their message.
4. Proactively Highlight Hamas’s Human Rights Abuses: Work with international human rights groups to document and publicize Hamas’s abuses against Palestinians. Shifting the focus to Hamas’s oppression of its people can disrupt the false narrative that Hamas is a legitimate representative of Palestinian rights.
5. Engage with Global Allies and Influencers: Build alliances with non-Jewish groups, international bodies, and influencers sympathetic to the cause of peace and human rights. Engaging with diverse audiences can help broaden the base of support and challenge Hamas’s propaganda more effectively.

Moving Toward a Future of Peace and Justice

Jewish organizations must recognize that their traditional, defensive approach has failed. They must adapt to the current realities of information warfare, where the battle is fought not just on the ground but in the media, on social networks, and in the hearts and minds of people worldwide. Without a quick change in tactics, the military war will always lose out to the information war.

A new approach is needed — one that is bold, proactive, and unafraid to challenge the lies and distortions that Hamas spreads. Only by exposing the real face of Hamas — its brutality, its disregard for human life, and its cynical manipulation of the world’s emotions — can we hope to break the cycle of violence and hate and move toward a future where peace and justice can prevail.

To achieve this, Jewish organizations must focus their resources on taking control of the narrative offensively, not defensively. By doing so, they can shift the discourse, challenge the falsehoods, and illuminate the true nature of the enemy they face. This is not just a tactical adjustment but a moral imperative — to stand up for truth, justice, and the sanctity of human life, against those who would seek to destroy it.

Conclusion

The battle against Hamas is not only fought with tanks, missiles, troops, bullets, and bombs. It must be fought just as hard with words, images, and ideas. Hamas knows that very well and that is their focus.

To win this war and bring eventual peace, Jewish organizations must make controlling the narrative their top priority. It is time to stop reacting and start leading, to stop defending and start attacking the lies and hatred that Hamas spreads. This is a war for the truth, and it is a war we must win.

By taking an offensive stance in the information war, Jewish organizations can help build a future where peace and justice are not just aspirations but realities. The time to act is now. Or we will continue the endless cycles of inconclusive wars after this war ends with another stalemate and another rebuilding of Hamas.

Written by Jerry Elman, August 20, 2024

After much thought and wordplay, I’ve coined the term “MAGAgelicals” to describe the fusion of MAGA (Make America Great Again) political ideology with Evangelical Christian Nationalist beliefs. This term encapsulates the blend of fervent nationalism and extreme Christian religious conservatism, forming a cultlike following that intertwines political and religious rhetoric to shape their worldview.

Although I initially believed I may have invented the term, I later discovered that others have also coined it online. So, while I can’t claim sole credit, I proudly join a select few in embracing it!

In today’s polarized political climate, language has become a crucial tool for the MAGAgelical movement to frame debates, rally supporters, and demonize opponents. These groups use specific buzzwords and labels to simplify complex issues and manipulate emotions, creating a language uniquely theirs. Thus, I now refer to them as “MAGAgelicals”—both as a group and as a language understood only within their circles.

Furthermore, I believe the Republican Party should consider renaming itself the MAGAgelical Party. This would allow the remaining real Republicans to distance themselves from this party of single-person worship and avoid being labeled RINO (Republican in Name Only).

MAGAgelicals focus on division and hate as a strategy to unify and mobilize their base by creating a clear “us versus them” narrative. This approach draws on historical political tactics, notably those used by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, who emphasized fear-based messaging, repetition, and selective framing to manipulate public opinion. By invoking fear, anger, and moral superiority, MAGAgelicals simplify complex issues, galvanize support, and suppress alternative viewpoints, thereby maintaining control and reinforcing loyalty among their followers.

Speaking MAGAgelical – Breaking their secret code!

1. Radical Left

• Intended Interpretation: This statement portrays all progressive or liberal ideas as extreme, dangerous, and a threat to traditional values.

2. Socialists

• Intended Interpretation: Labels those advocating for healthcare reform, economic equality, or other social policies as proponents of government control and wealth redistribution, implying opposition to free-market capitalism.

3. Cultural Marxists

• Intended Interpretation: Implies that those who advocate for social justice and identity politics are part of a sinister conspiracy to undermine traditional cultural values and institutions.

4. Enemies of the People

• Intended Interpretation: Labels media, political opponents, or dissenting voices as active threats to the nation’s well-being and security, suggesting they are working against the interests of the public.

5. Globalist Elitists

• Intended Interpretation: Suggests that those who support international cooperation or global governance are betraying national sovereignty and prioritizing the interests of a global elite over those of ordinary citizens. This term is often a dog whistle for antisemitic conspiracy theories, implying that Jewish people are part of a secretive global cabal.

6. Fake News

• Intended Interpretation: Used to discredit media outlets or journalists who report negatively on the movement or its leaders, implying that these sources are spreading misinformation or lies.

7. Baby Killers

• Intended Interpretation: Aims to demonize those who support reproductive rights, particularly abortion, by equating their stance with the murder of innocent children.

8. Groomers

• Intended Interpretation: Paints LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies as predatory, implying they are trying to corrupt or exploit children.

9. Hate Our Country

• Intended Interpretation: Used to marginalize and silence critics of the United States by framing their critiques as unpatriotic or anti-American.

10. Traitors

• Intended Interpretation: Implies that political opponents or those who dissent from the movement’s views are betraying their country, often used to discredit individuals on issues of national security or foreign policy.

11. Swamp Creatures

• Intended Interpretation: Refers to long-standing members of the political establishment, particularly those seen as corrupt or self-serving, suggesting they are part of a deeply entrenched and morally compromised system.

12. Leftist Mob

• Intended Interpretation: Labels groups of liberals or progressives, especially in protests, as unruly, violent, and intolerant of conservative viewpoints.

13. Hollywood Elite

• Intended Interpretation: Used to criticize celebrities and entertainment industry figures who support liberal causes, implying they are out of touch with ordinary Americans and use their influence to push a liberal agenda. This term can also carry antisemitic undertones, as it often targets prominent Jewish individuals in the entertainment industry.

14. PC Police

• Intended Interpretation: Refers to those who advocate for political correctness, suggesting they stifle free speech and enforce conformity to liberal standards of language and behavior.

15. Big Tech Censorship

• Intended Interpretation: Implies that social media companies and tech giants are deliberately suppressing conservative voices and viewpoints, often to protect or promote a liberal agenda.

16. America Last

• Intended Interpretation: Suggests that Democrats or liberals prioritize global or foreign interests over American sovereignty and well-being.

17. Crisis Actors

• Intended Interpretation: A conspiracy theory term used to discredit individuals involved in traumatic events (like mass shootings) by claiming they are hired actors being used by liberals to advance political agendas, particularly around gun control.

18. Woke

• Intended Interpretation: Critically describes those who are socially aware and advocate for social justice issues, often implying that they are overly politically correct or focused on identity politics.

19. Cancel Culture

• Intended Interpretation: Criticizes the practice of holding people or organizations accountable for offensive actions or statements, implying that liberals or progressives are excessively punitive and intolerant of differing opinions.

20. Defund the Police

• Intended Interpretation: Suggests that Democrats or liberals want to abolish or significantly reduce police forces, often mischaracterizing the broader movement for police reform as anti-law enforcement.

21. Snowflakes

• Intended Interpretation: Labels liberals or Democrats as overly sensitive or easily offended, unable to handle opposing viewpoints or criticism.

22. Cucks

• Intended Interpretation: A derogatory term short for “cuckolds,” used to insult conservatives who are seen as too accommodating or weak, especially in their dealings with liberals or Democrats.

23. SJWs (Social Justice Warriors)

• Intended Interpretation: Mocks liberals who are perceived as overly zealous in advocating for social justice issues, often implying that they are virtue signaling rather than genuinely concerned.

24. Blue State Tyranny

• Intended Interpretation: Describes Democratic-led states where strict regulations, especially around issues like COVID-19, are portrayed as authoritarian or oppressive.

25. RINO (Republican In Name Only)

• Intended Interpretation: Used to label Republicans who are perceived as not being sufficiently conservative or loyal to the MAGA movement, implying they are only superficially aligned with the Republican Party.

26. Soros-funded

• Intended Interpretation: A term often used to suggest that liberal causes or politicians are being secretly funded by George Soros, a Jewish billionaire and philanthropist. This label often carries antisemitic undertones, insinuating that Jewish money is behind a global conspiracy to control politics and undermine conservative values.

27. War on Christmas

• Intended Interpretation: Used to claim that liberals and secularists are trying to erase Christian traditions and values from public life. This term often targets those who advocate for inclusive language or policies that respect religious diversity.

28. Thugs

• Intended Interpretation: A racially charged term used to describe Black individuals, particularly in the context of protests or criminal activity, implying they are violent or criminal without acknowledging the broader social or systemic issues at play.

29. Welfare Queens

• Intended Interpretation: A derogatory term used to describe women, often Black women, who are perceived as exploiting social welfare programs. The term reinforces stereotypes about race, gender, and poverty.

30. Angry Black Woman

• Intended Interpretation: A racist and sexist stereotype used to discredit Black women who are assertive or outspoken, implying that their emotions are irrational or threatening.

31. Feminazis

• Intended Interpretation: A derogatory term combining “feminist” and “Nazi,” used to criticize feminists as being extreme, irrational, or authoritarian in their advocacy for women’s rights.

32. Illegal Aliens

• Intended Interpretation: A dehumanizing term used to describe undocumented immigrants, often used to stoke fear and anger by implying that immigrants are inherently criminal or threatening.

33. Anchor Babies

• Intended Interpretation: A derogatory term used to describe children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, implying that their birthright citizenship is a tactic used to exploit U.S. immigration laws.

34. Radical Islam

• Intended Interpretation: Used to describe all Muslims or Islamic practices as extreme or violent, often conflating terrorism with the entire Muslim community.

35. Invasion

• Intended Interpretation: A term used to describe immigration, particularly from Latin America, as a hostile takeover of the United States, intended to evoke fear of cultural or demographic change.

36. Antifa

• Intended Interpretation: Used to label and demonize all left-leaning activists as violent anarchists, often mischaracterizing peaceful protests as extremist activities.

37. Sharia Law

• Intended Interpretation: A term used to stoke fear of Muslims by suggesting that they intend to impose Islamic law in the United States, often used to justify Islamophobic policies or rhetoric.

38. White Genocide

• Intended Interpretation: A racist conspiracy theory suggesting that immigration, multiculturalism, and declining birth rates among white people are part of a deliberate plan to eradicate the white race.

39. Name-Calling

• Intended Interpretation: Involves using derogatory or insulting nicknames for political opponents, intended to belittle, mock, or delegitimize them. Examples include terms like “Crooked Hillary” or “Sleepy Joe.”

40. Deliberately Mispronouncing Names

• Intended Interpretation: A tactic used to mock or show disrespect toward political opponents by intentionally mispronouncing their names, suggesting that they are unworthy of basic respect or that they don’t belong.

Weaponizing Military Service with Buzzwords

Military service is often weaponized in political messaging by MAGA and Evangelical groups to manipulate public perception and gain political leverage.

Disparaging Opponents:

• “Fake War Hero”: Used to question the authenticity of an opponent’s military accomplishments, suggesting they are undeserving of recognition.
• “Traitor”: Implies that despite their service, the opponent’s actions or beliefs betray the nation, often tying them to perceived anti-American or globalist agendas.
• “Part of the Swamp”: Accuses them of being corrupted by Washington’s political establishment, undermining their service as tainted by association with perceived elite or bureaucratic interests.
• “Deserter”: Implies someone abandoned their duty or country, even if they retired honorably, to cast doubt on their loyalty.“
• Retired too soon”: Suggests that someone left the military prematurely, questioning their commitment or implying they avoided more difficult service.
• “Dishonorable”: Used to falsely suggest misconduct or failure, even if the individual served with distinction.
• “Not a real soldier”: Denigrates those who may not have served in combat, undermining their contributions.

Elevating Allies:

• “Patriot”: Emphasizes that the ally’s military service is a testament to their love for country, using their service as proof of their commitment to American values.
• “True Hero”: Highlights the ally’s bravery and sacrifices, often casting them as exemplary models of American strength and virtue.
• “Defender of Freedom”: Frames their service as essential to the protection of American freedoms, often linking their military past to their current political stances as guardians of traditional values.
• “Warrior”: Emphasizes the individual’s strength, bravery, and readiness to fight for the country.
• “Servant Leader”: Highlights a veteran’s ongoing commitment to public service and leadership, both in and out of uniform.
• “Defender of the Constitution”: Frames their service as a direct protection of the nation’s founding principles.
• “Battle-Tested”: Suggests that their experience in the military has prepared them to handle political or leadership challenges effectively.
• “Veteran Advocate”: Acknowledges their dedication to supporting fellow veterans, underscoring their continued commitment to military communities.

Strategic Use:

By employing this dual approach for military service, the MAGA and Evangelical movements can both undermine the credibility of their political opponents and bolster the image of their allies. This strategy allows them to dominate the narrative, casting themselves as the rightful defenders of America while portraying their adversaries as either fraudulent or compromised. This manipulation of military service in messaging capitalizes on the deep respect and reverence for the military within American culture, turning it into a potent tool for political gain.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump frequently uses phrases like “they say,” “someone said,” “everybody knows,” and similar vague expressions to communicate with hate groups and his broader base. These phrases serve several purposes:

1. Ambiguity: They allow him to make provocative statements without direct accountability, as they are framed as hearsay or common knowledge.
2. Dog Whistles: By being non-specific, these phrases signal support to extremist groups without explicitly endorsing them.
3. Deflection: These phrases create a layer of separation between Trump and the inflammatory ideas, allowing him to distance himself if necessary.

This communication style enables Trump to engage with and energize his base, including hate groups, while maintaining plausible deniability.

Fox News

Fox News plays a significant role in amplifying and promoting the labels used by MAGAgelicals. Here’s how:

1. Repetition and Reinforcement: Fox News consistently repeats terms like “Radical Left,” “Fake News,” and “Woke,” ingraining these labels in viewers’ minds.
2. Selective Framing: The network frames news stories to support these labels, emphasizing aspects that fit their narrative.
3. Host Commentary and Opinion Shows: Prime-time hosts like Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham use derogatory terms, name-calling, and conspiracy theories to describe Democrats and liberals, reflecting and reinforcing the MAGAgelical movement’s language.
4. Echo Chamber Effect: Fox News creates an echo chamber that strengthens in-group versus out-group mentality, making alternative viewpoints difficult to consider.
5. Influencing Political Discourse: Fox News’s widespread reach ensures that the labels it promotes influence broader political discourse, including other media outlets and political campaigns.

Evangelical Leaders

1. Moral Framing: Evangelical leaders often frame political issues as moral imperatives, labeling opponents as evil or sinful. This moral framing aligns with the labels used by the MAGA movement, such as “Baby Killers” for those supporting reproductive rights or “Traitors” for those perceived as opposing Christian values.
2. Pulpit and Media Influence: Many Evangelical leaders have significant platforms, whether through church pulpits, television programs, or social media. They use these platforms to repeat and reinforce the labels, often tying them to biblical principles or Christian values.
3. Mobilizing Congregations: By promoting these labels, Evangelical leaders can mobilize their congregations to political action, framing voting and activism as a way to defend Christian values against the perceived threats posed by the “Radical Left” or “Globalist Elitists.”
4. Echoing Conservative Media: Evangelical leaders often echo the language and labels used by conservative media like Fox News, creating a unified message that resonates across both religious and political spheres.
5. Linking Faith and Patriotism: Evangelical leaders frequently link faith with patriotism, using labels like “America Last” to suggest that opponents are not only against Christian values but also against the nation itself. This linkage helps to reinforce the “us versus them” mentality.

Why Democrats and Liberals Struggle to Counter These Labels

Despite the potency of these labels, Democrats and liberals struggle to counter them effectively. There are several reasons for this:

1. Complex Messaging: Democrats and liberals tend to focus on nuanced and complex policy explanations, which can be harder to communicate and less emotionally resonant than the simple, charged language used by the MAGAgelical movement.
2. Reactive Rather Than Proactive: Often, Democrats and liberals respond to the labels defensively rather than setting the narrative. This reactive stance can reinforce the original framing rather than effectively challenge it.
3. Fragmented Media Presence: While conservative voices have a dominant, unified platform in outlets like Fox News, liberal voices are more fragmented across various media channels, diluting the impact of their counter-messaging.
4. Reluctance to Use Similar Tactics: Many Democrats and liberals are reluctant to engage in the same kind of inflammatory rhetoric, preferring to focus on facts and reasoned debate. While this can be admirable, it may be less effective in the current media landscape, where emotional appeals and ten-second messages often win out.
5. Underestimating the Power of Emotional Appeal: Liberal messaging often underestimates the power of emotional appeal and identity politics, which are central to the MAGAgelical movement’s success. Without tapping into the same emotional and cultural issues, liberal responses can appear disconnected or unconvincing.

Why Democrats and Liberals Must Learn MAGAgelical

To effectively counter these labels, Democrats and liberals must learn and embrace the MAGAgelical language and tactics.

1. Enhancing Messaging: Simplifying and emotionally charging their communication to connect better with a broader audience.
2. Taking Control of the Narrative: Proactively framing issues and using positive, unifying labels.
3. Strengthening Media Presence: Creating a more cohesive and impactful liberal media strategy.
4. Appealing to Core Values: Grounding their rhetoric in shared values like fairness and justice.
5. Swiftly Countering Disinformation: Developing rapid response strategies to address misleading narratives.
6. Direct Community Engagement: Building strong relationships with targeted communities to ensure relevant and effective messaging.

Potential Countering Buzz Words

These are examples of terms Democrats and liberals should embrace as their language:

1. Inclusive Leadership: Emphasize diversity and representation in decision-making.
2. Unity in Diversity: Celebrate strength from embracing different cultures and perspectives.
3. Justice for All: Highlight commitment to fairness and equality.
4. Human Dignity: Advocate for respect and compassion for all individuals.
5. Empowered Communities: Focus on giving communities the tools to thrive.
6. Community First: Prioritize local engagement and collective well-being.
7. Progressive Innovation: Highlight forward-thinking policies and solutions.
8. Smart Growth: Advocate for sustainable development that benefits everyone.
9. Economic Fairness: Support equity and opportunity for all.
10. Tax Fairness: Ensure a fair tax system where everyone, especially the wealthy, pays their proportionate share to support public services and reduce inequality.
11. Love Who You Want: Uphold the freedom to love whomever you choose, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, as a fundamental human right.
12. Bodily Autonomy: Defend the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies, including reproductive rights and healthcare choices.
13. Constitutional Democracy: Protect and uphold the principles of democracy and the Constitution, ensuring that government remains accountable, transparent, and representative of the people’s will.

By mastering these techniques and language, Democrats and liberals can more effectively challenge the rhetoric of MAGAgelicals and resonate with a much wider audience.

Conclusion

Fox News and Evangelical leaders are key players in promoting and reinforcing the divisive labels used by the MAGAgelical movement—a fusion of MAGA and Evangelical Christian nationalist ideologies. These labels have effectively shaped public perception, posing an almost insurmountable challenge for Democrats and liberals.

However, by adopting strategies focused on their own clear messaging, proactive framing, emotional appeal, and community engagement, Democrats and liberals can better counter MAGAgelical rhetoric. This approach offers a path toward more constructive, inclusive discourse and a stronger response to divisive tactics.

I am pleased to see the Harris/Walz campaign has already been taking this approach. And masses of people are connecting with this shift in approach.