Category: Jerry’s Blog and Articles

IDF Arrests Senior Hamas Operatives at Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza Strip

During a December 28, 2024, raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Jabaliya, Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service) arrested over 240 suspected Hamas terrorists, including individuals involved in the October 7 massacre. Intelligence gathered prior to the operation revealed that hundreds of terrorists were using the hospital as a hiding spot, with senior Hamas operatives embedded within the facility.

IDF and Shin Bet investigators reported that Hamas was effectively running the hospital, with plans to escape during the raid disguised as medical personnel or patients. According to an IDF reservist directly involved, interrogations of captured terrorists consistently pointed to the hospital director, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyeh, as the orchestrator of Hamas activities at the site. “The hospital director was at the center of it all,” the reservist explained. “He walked around confidently, convinced he was untouchable.”

Dr. Abu Safiyeh, who other witnesses described as “strutting around like a peacock, like he was a protected bigshot” was ultimately arrested. IDF investigators confirmed he was not only aware of the terrorist activity but actively involved, serving as a senior Hamas operative.

Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Daniel Meron, stated that the raid on Kamal Adwan was triggered by “irrefutable evidence” that the facility was being used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. He emphasized that Israeli forces had taken “extraordinary measures to protect civilian life while acting on credible intelligence.”

Hamas Attempted to Escape Using Ambulances

The raid exposed Hamas’ strategy of using ambulances to smuggle operatives out of the hospital. Another IDF interrogator, recounted questioning a suspicious man posing as a wounded patient. His inconsistencies and a fake ID led to his identification as a senior Hamas commander.

“He thought he could fake his injury and escape in an ambulance,” the IDF interigator stated. “But his cast was clearly fresh, and his lies unraveled quickly.” During his interrogation, the commander, admitted that the hospital served as a Hamas base, and that his supposed injury had been staged by Dr. Abu Safiyeh.

Kamal Adwan Hospital – A Front for Hamas Operations

IDF intelligence found that Kamal Adwan Hospital, like other Gazan hospitals,  wasn’t operating as a standard civilian facility. Instead, it housed operational rooms, weapon storage, and intelligence hubs for Hamas. Patients were occasionally admitted to maintain the appearance of normalcy, but entire wings of the hospital were restricted to Hamas operatives.

Weapons, explosives, millitants and hostages have all passed through this hospital. Rockets have been fired from the hospital grounds. 

This pattern is not unique to Kamal Adwan Hospital. Hamas’ use of civilian infrastructure as cover for military operations has long been the norm across Gaza. Similar operations have been uncovered at other medical facilities, including Al-Shifa Hospital, Nasser Hospital, and Rantisi Children’s Hospital, all of which were used by Hamas to store weapons, coordinate attacks, and hide operatives.

To this day, the media, UN and others present these hospitals as humanitarian zones. They dispute any evidence the IDF provides. What is shown in pictures and IDF tours are denied by these same people and groups. But the evidence consistently reveals their exploitation by Hamas for military purposes.

As I have stated in previous blogs, the UN and others support terrorism as long as it is directed against Israel and Jews. If the casualy numbers were reversed there would be no uproar, as was the case on October 7, 2023 when these same people and groups justified that attack that resulted in the largest single day number of Jewish deaths since the Holocaust. 

UN Corruption and Hamas Collaboration

Reports have repeatedly surfaced implicating UN agencies in direct engagement and collaboration with Hamas. Documents seized during IDF operations revealed that UN staff had coordinated with Hamas leaders under the guise of delivering humanitarian aid.

In 2023, the IDF published evidence showing that United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) facilities were used to store rockets and weapons for Hamas, with some UN employees directly participating in logistical operations for the terror group. Aid meant for the Gazan population is jointly seized and provided to support Hamas militiants and the surplus is sold on the black market to civilians to help finance Hamas’s activities and provide bribes to UN officials. This aid is intended to be distributed to the Gazan population for free. As this aid continues to get confiscated, Israel is blamed for disrupting shipments. 

A former UNRWA official, now a whistleblower, stated that “Hamas essentially controls UN operations in Gaza. UN facilities are frequently used as command centers, and the UN leadership knows this but remains silent to avoid backlash and also accept bribes” This systemic corruption within the UN has allowed Hamas to exploit international aid while using UN facilities as shields against Israeli military operations.

To balance these reports, it is important to acknowledge that many UN officials continue to legitimately advocate for humanitarian aid and protection of civilians. However, the continued misuse of these facilities by Hamas undermines efforts to genuinely assist the population of Gaza.

Defining Genocide – Challenging False Accusations

Accusations of genocide against Israel have been repeatedly levied by Hamas sympathizers, many UN officials and the media at large. However, these claims misrepresent the legal definition of genocide. Genocide, as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention, refers to the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Israel’s actions in Gaza are targeted against Hamas militants and their infrastructure, not the civilian population.

Hamas, by contrast, openly calls for the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people, fitting the definition of genocide more accurately. The October 7 attack exemplifies this intent, with Hamas militants indiscriminately targeting and shooting civilians, committing rape and torture of women, executing entire families, and burning people alive in their homes. They took hundreds of hostages, killing many and mistreating the rest. Yet, international bodies frequently overlook these crimes while disproportionately condemning Israel. 

To date, Israel has adhered to international law when dealing with hospitals suspected of harboring Hamas militants. Israeli forces have provided advance warnings, facilitated evacuations, and supplied aid to ensure minimal harm to civilians. Alternative medical facilities were also arranged to ensure continuity of care until the hospitals could resume full operations. 

A Double Standard in Condemnation

Despite Israel’s efforts to mitigate civilian harm, the United Nations and others continue to amplify Hamas propaganda while solely condemning Israel. The silence regarding Hamas’ atrocities, including the October 7, 2023, attacks, reveals a concerning double standard. While Hamas committed horrific acts, shooting innocent people, rapes, dismemberment, burning victims alive and taking hundreds of hostages, many in the international community either downplay or deny the severity of these crimes.

The reluctance to acknowledge Hamas’ violations of international law or their systematic use of human shields perpetuates a dangerous narrative that undermines justice and accountability. While criticisms of Israeli actions should be heard, they must be weighed against the full context of Hamas’ exploitation of civilian infrastructure and its deliberate targeting of civilians. The focus on deligitimizing Israel and using the reality of a Jewish state to fuel hatred of Jews is just a modern phase of perpetuating the long and never ending history of hatred of Jews that goes back thousands of years.

Sources: Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, Harretz, National Post, John Spencer (Head of the Urban Warfare Department at the Modern War Institute, West Point)

As we enter 2025, I’ve been thinking about how much of our world is shaped by forces we don’t see – not by truth or shared experiences, but by lines of code written to keep us engaged.

Algorithms decide more than just the ads we see or the next song in our playlist. They quietly shape the world around us – from the headlines we read to the very words politicians say.

Every time you open your phone, the algorithm is already at work – deciding the first post you’ll see, the ad that pops up, and even the politician’s soundbite you’ll hear before you’ve had your morning coffee.

I started noticing it not just in the news I read, but in the way I felt after scrolling – tense, frustrated, and disconnected. Even the conversations I had with friends felt shaped by whatever headline the algorithm decided we should talk about that day.

Think about it:

• The News You See – Algorithms filter news based on what will keep you scrolling, not what will make you informed.
• Your Social Media Feed – Posts that trigger anger, fear, or outrage are promoted because they generate the most engagement.
• Entertainment Choices – The shows, movies, and songs that show up in your queue are curated to fit your preferences, keeping you predictable – and on the platform.
• Politics – Politicians shape their speeches for viral moments, carefully crafting them to fit what the algorithm rewards.
• Advertising, Relationships, and Jobs – Every online interaction is quietly nudged by invisible lines of code predicting what you’ll click, buy, and believe. Even who you are in the “eyes” of the alogorithm.

It’s easy to think politicians lead the conversation – but in reality, they’re following the algorithm.

Politicians aren’t just victims of the algorithm – they play to it. They’ve learned that fiery soundbites and controversy spread faster than policy discussions, so that’s what they give us.

But here’s the thing – 2025 doesn’t have to be another year we let algorithms continue to control us.

It can be the year we leave them behind.

Algorithms reflect what we react to. We determine that. An if we react differently, the code writers will change the code.

The reality is that we are the true code writers – if we choose to be.

I used to get caught up in it – the cycle of reacting, arguing, and feeling righteous online. But the more I stepped back, the more I realized I wasn’t changing minds, I was fueling the fire and just exhausting myself.

Every time you ignore a divisive post or choose not to share outrage, you take power back. One small shift at a time – that’s how we break the cycle.

Imagine if politicians realized that cooperation and bridge-building got them further than outrage and blame.
Imagine if algorithms prioritized truth, empathy, and progress because that’s what we demanded.

We have more power than we realize.

Imagine if, instead of arguing online, we sat down for lunch with someone we disagree with. Imagine if we listened more than we posted, called more than we texted, and shared ideas instead of attacks.

There’s no algorithm pushing anger over a cup of coffee with an old friend. No trending topics at a family dinner table. The quietness of those moments feels more real than anything we’ve read online.

The more we step away from the algorithm’s pull, the more we remind ourselves – and the world – that we are not as divided as the algorithm wants us to believe.

Imagine a world where the most viral content isn’t driven by anger, but by hope. Where politicians rise by building bridges, not burning them.

The cracks in this system are already showing. People are tired of the noise. More of us are stepping back, seeking connection over conflict.

2025 can be the year we rewrite the code.

Happy New Year!

Warmly,
Jerry

Written by Jerry Elman, December 22, 2024

MAGA is not about politics, it’s about conning workers about wealth.

Today, my blog shifts to an entirely different subject, the con game going on to create a wealth driven oligarchy in America, modeled after Russia, Hungary and other countries already leading the way.

Over the past four decades, the U.S. economy has undergone significant changes. Most of these changes have hurt the average worker. The middle class is declining at a rapid rate. At the current rate, most Americans will live below the poverty line in just a few more generations, while the wealth of the top 1% will eclipse the wealth of kings in the middle ages.

While productivity and corporate profits have soared, wages for working Americans have stagnated, wealth inequality has grown, and the middle class is shrinking to levels not seen since the 1800s. Despite this, millions of working-class Americans continue to support the very policies and politicians responsible for this economic disparity. This paradox is driven by misinformation, conservative media influence, and a deliberate effort to mask the true causes of economic hardship.

Donald Trump is not the creater of this economic inequity, the conservative movement and Ronald Reagan were. Trump is the master marketer of it. He is “selling lots of bridges” to make the wealthy more wealthy. He knows exactly what he is doing. His appearance of craziness and chaos is deliberate. People are totally misreading the influence and spell the MAGA movement is under. Social and cultural issues and politics are deliberately being used as a tool to mask the real focus – economics and the transition to an American Oligrachy. The Republican conservative movement is focused on this economic transformation which is happening without notice while the mainstream media does not have a clue and the public are being conned into fighting cultural and political wars. The right wing commentators fuel the fire of masking the real intent of where things are heading. Tucker Carlson as just one example talks Russia and Putin for a reason. Russia today has the richest oligarches in the world and the US is rapidly catching up. Many Republicans in Congress talk up Putin and Hungary for a reason. Those two countries have a proven path for the wealthiest 1% to control everything. And the US in in that same game.

The Impact of the 2017 Tax Cuts

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 promised to stimulate economic growth and benefit workers, but the reality has been starkly different. The tax cuts disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthiest Americans while contributing the largest increase in history to the national deficit. While corporate tax rates were slashed from 35% to 21%, companies funneled much of their tax savings into stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and shareholder dividends, rather than wage increases, expansion or job creation. It was all used for profits. Tax incentives use to focus on business expansion and jobs, not stock buybacks and executive pay. That tax system built the American middle class. Today that tax system which America used since the early 1900’s is labeled as “extreme or radical socialism” as part of the con. Equal opportunity for all is today labeled as a very bad thing. Only privaleged people deserve opportunity and fairness. Think about the real meaning of all the culture war stuff going on. It’s not about politics or core beliefs, it’s about money!

Back to tax cuts, some of the largest corporations that benefited from the 2017 TCJA while avoiding taxes include Amazon, Netflix, and General Electric. In 2018, Amazon reported over $11 billion in profits but paid zero federal income tax, largely due to tax credits, loopholes, and deductions. Netflix similarly avoided taxes despite recording record profits. General Electric, long known for its aggressive tax avoidance strategies, reported negative tax rates some years, meaning they received refunds despite earning billions.

In 2018 alone, U.S. corporations spent a record $806 billion on stock buybacks, with CEO compensation rising by 18%. Meanwhile, job creation and wage growth lagged behind expectations. The tax cuts accelerated wealth accumulation at the top, further widening the gap between the wealthy and the working class. The resulting deficit has been used as an excuse to cut funding for critical social programs, disproportionately harming middle- and low-income Americans.

Falling Wages and Rising Poverty

One of the most underreported aspects of the American economic system is the stagnation and decline of real wages for hourly workers. Over the past four decades, productivity has steadily increased, yet wages have not kept pace. According to the Economic Policy Institute, worker productivity grew by 61.8% between 1979 and 2020, while hourly compensation rose by just 17.5%. This discrepancy highlights how the benefits of economic growth have been concentrated at the top, leaving average workers behind.

As poverty rises and the middle class shrinks, crime rates and corruption inevitably increase. In nations where the middle class is not the dominant economic force, people often resort to illegal activities or corruption to make ends meet. The U.S., which once had a thriving middle class that drove economic stability and reduced crime, risks returning to such conditions as wealth inequality grows. Historical data shows that periods of economic hardship and extreme inequality in the U.S. have correlated with higher crime rates and social unrest. A shrinking middle class creates an economic vacuum, where individuals are left with fewer legitimate opportunities to achieve financial security, fostering environments conducive to theft, fraud, and black-market activities.

Since the rise of Reaganomics in the 1980s, wealth accumulation has overwhelmingly favored the top 1%, while real wages for average workers have stagnated. From 1980 to 2022, the top 1% saw their wealth grow by over 240%, while the bottom 50% experienced a mere 20% increase in real income. The economic policies of deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and weakened labor protections under Reaganomics have contributed to this imbalance, creating a lasting legacy of wealth inequality.

In 1980, the federal minimum wage was $3.10 per hour, equivalent to approximately $11.80 in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation. In stark contrast, the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 has not kept up with the rising cost of living, leaving millions of workers earning less in real terms than their counterparts did over four decades ago.

So yes people are pissed and have a legitimate reason to be pissed. The problem lies in that they don’t understand who screwed them and how they got screwed. The Republican right wing media and propaganda machine has them convinced the Republican conservative movement and MAGA are their savior when it is really a trojan horse!

Entitlements and the Wealth Divide

Republicans know how to label things with simple terms, even if the label is deceiving. One example is what they call “entitlements.” They make it sound like entitlements are something not earned and the essence of socialism. Examples are Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and today even healthcare is being labeled an entitlement. The reality is that these are paid for and earned programs totally funded primarily by payroll taxes and deductions paid by working Americans. The wealthy, whose income largely derives from investments rather than wages, contribute far less proportionately to these programs. In fact, there are wage caps so they pay very little compared to their real earnings. This creates a system where the benefits of these programs flow to those who actively contribute, while the wealthiest benefit from policies that shield them from contributing at similar levels. The real entitlement is to the wealthy, not the hourly worker or the middle class.

Another common misconception, (actually a blatant lie), is that these “entitlement” programs are funded directly by the federal budget. Again, workers and employers fund them and the money goes into trust funds managed by the Federal government. However, the government borrows all the funds meant for future payouts from these surpluses to offset deficits elsewhere, like tax cuts, treating them like an interest-free loan from the nation’s workers. This borrowing creates the illusion of overspending on these programs because the borrowed money has to be paid back. The obligation to pay these loans back is taken from funds from the general budget, thereby making it appear these are government-funded programs. What they are really doing is dipping into money raised by regular taxes to pay back these trust funds. And so they get away with saying programs already funded with money that was in the bank are being paid by the loan payments in the regular budget. This narrative diverts attention from the tax cuts for the wealthy as the primary cause of today’s deficits. These deficits generate the need to borrow the trust fund money and pay it back. This is the real end game. They want to stop paying the loans back and steal the money so they can cut taxes further. Meanwhile, the top 1% will accumulate far more wealth.

If everyone paid their fair share of taxes, there would be plenty of money to fund the government without large deficits. The need to borrow trust fund money would go away.

Media Influence and the Political Con

A significant driver of this economic imbalance is the misinformation perpetuated by conservative media. The focus of outlets like FOX News is to mislead people into believing that the policies designed to help them — such as labor protections, higher minimum wages, and progressive tax reforms — are the source of their economic struggles. This narrative serves to protect and expand the wealth of the oligarch class under the guise of populism.

The very foundation of the MAGA movement is to con average people into believing and supporting the growth of economic injustice, unknowingly hurting themselves in the process. The political and culture war debates are deliberately crafted to distract from these economic realities that harm working-class Americans. For figures like Rupert Murdoch, the goal of FOX News is not to inform the public but to secure policies that grow the wealth of the elite while convincing viewers that these policies are in their best interest.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has been largely incompetent and ineffective in countering this messaging. Their failure to clearly articulate how conservative and MAGA economic policies harm the working class leaves many Americans believing and acting on propaganda that ultimately works against their interests.

Conclusion

The U.S. tax system, once a tool for building the middle class and promoting economic mobility, now disproportionately benefits the wealthiest individuals and corporations. As tax cuts continue to funnel wealth upwards and wages stagnate for average workers, the gap between the rich and the poor widens, driving economic instability and social unrest. Without significant reform that prioritizes equitable taxation and reinvestment in working families, the erosion of the middle class will persist, risking the long-term health of the nation’s economy and society.

The path forward must involve holding corporations and billionaires accountable, restoring fairness to the tax code, and ensuring that prosperity is shared across all economic classes. Addressing media manipulation and ensuring that economic policies are framed accurately will be crucial in reversing these trends and rebuilding a more just and equitable society.

As I previously wrote last week, the events of October 7, 2023, marked a profound and harrowing turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With the brutal Hamas-led attack on Israel, targeting civilians in an unprecedented display of violence, the conflict entered a new and irrevocable phase. The subsequent chain reaction of events—Israel’s decisive military response, the widespread international condemnation of Hamas, and the growing disillusionment with Palestinian leadership—has forever altered the landscape of this decades-long struggle.

For decades, the Palestinian people have been at the mercy of their own misguided leadership, and their own choices. The world’s patience with the narrative of perpetual victimhood and blame has run out. The decisions made by their leaders, the path of destruction they chose over coexistence, and the opportunities they squandered have culminated in an outcome they could neither foresee nor control.

Their dream of eradicating Israel has collapsed, and now they must face the consequences of those decisions. With the world moving on and the dynamics of the region shifting, the path forward will no longer be dictated by Palestinian aspirations but by the realities imposed by their own history of actions and the global community’s fatigue with unending conflict.

Wars and Missed Opportunities

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been punctuated by wars, uprisings, and violent clashes, each further entrenching hostility and deepening divisions.

1947-1949 Arab-Israeli War (The War of Independence)

The rejection of the UN Partition Plan in 1947 set the tone for Palestinian and Arab strategies for decades. While the Jewish leadership accepted the plan, Palestinian Arabs, backed by neighboring Arab states, rejected it outright and launched a war to prevent the establishment of Israel. The war ended in a decisive Israeli victory, with the establishment of the State of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs. Known as the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” this defeat was the first of many stemming from Palestinian rejectionism.

1956 Suez Crisis

The war was an attempt by Egypt to challenge Israel’s existence and assert Arab dominance in the region. The conflict involved Israel, Egypt, Britain, and France, with Israel launching a swift military campaign to counter cross-border attacks and secure vital shipping routes after Eqypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Egypt suffered a decisive defeat, with Israeli forces capturing the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip. However, international pressure, led by the United States and the Soviet Union, forced all parties to withdraw to their original borders.

1967 Six-Day War

Long before this war, Eqypt had annexed Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. They deliberately chose not to create a Palestinian state in those territories, telling the Palestinians they would destroy Israel instead. In June 1967 Palestinians aligned with Arab armies in yet another attempt to destroy Israel. This war ended in a stunning Israeli victory, with Israel capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. These defeats further diminished Palestinian aspirations and left them entirely dependent on other Arab nations.

1970 Black September (Jordan)

Palestinian factions, operating as a state within a state in Jordan, challenged King Hussein’s regime, leading to a brutal civil war. The Palestinian expulsion from Jordan resulted in thousands of deaths and permanently alienated the Jordanian monarchy. Black September became a symbol of Palestinian overreach and their inability to secure lasting alliances.

1982 Lebanon War

After being expelled from Jordan, the PLO established a base in Lebanon, using it as a launchpad for attacks on Israel. This culminated in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which targeted PLO strongholds. The war deepened Lebanon’s internal conflicts and paved the way for Hezbollah’s rise, leaving Palestinians further marginalized.

2000-2005 Second Intifada

The Second Intifada began after Arafat walked away from the Oslo Peace talks. This uprising created an escalation of violence, including suicide bombings and attacks on Israeli civilians. The result was over 1,000 Israeli deaths and more than 3,000 Palestinian deaths. Beyond the human toll, it destroyed the infrastructure of trust created during the Oslo negotiations and shattered any remaining hopes for peace.

Gaza Wars (2008-2021)

Over the past two decades, Gaza has seen multiple wars (2008, 2012, 2014, and 2021, ) between Israel and Hamas. Each conflict involved relentless rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and devastating retaliatory strikes on Gaza, further entrenching cycles of violence and leaving Gaza in ruins.

Palestinian Terrorism and International Reach

Palestinian terrorism has not been confined to the Middle East. The world has witnessed shocking acts of violence, including:

1972 Munich Olympics Massacre: The murder of 11 Israeli athletes by Black September brought Palestinian terrorism to global attention.

1976 Entebbe Hijacking: Palestinian terrorists, alongside German militants, hijacked an Air France plane, holding Israeli passengers hostage. Israel’s daring rescue ended the crisis but underscored the global reach of Palestinian terror.

1985 Achille Lauro Hijacking: The murder of an elderly American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer, exemplified the anti-Semitic core of Palestinian violence.

2004 Sinai Bombings: Palestinian-affiliated groups targeted Israeli tourists in Egypt, leaving dozens dead and destabilizing the region further.

Rejection of Peace: The Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords in the 1990s represented the most significant opportunity for Palestinian statehood. They offered autonomy in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, the establishment of a Palestinian Authority, and a framework for resolving issues like refugees and Jerusalem. Yet, Yasser Arafat rejected the deal without offering a counterproposal. Instead, he returned to Ramallah and launched the Second Intifada, signaling a rejection of peace and a return to conflict.

A Growing Divide: Progressives and the Narrative of Oppression

While global patience with the Palestinian narrative has run out, progressives in the West continue to champion their cause. Viewing the world through the lens of oppressors versus oppressed, progressives label Israel an apartheid state, committing genocide. Yet, they ignore the core of Palestinian ideology, which calls for Israel’s destruction.

The slogan “From the River to the Sea” encapsulates the goal of eradicating Israel. For Palestinians, this means pushing Jews into the sea and death—a vision of ethnic cleansing. Ironically, progressives frame this as justice, not genocide, exposing the hypocrisy and bias that dominate anti-Israel, and Jewish hatred rhetoric.

The Turning Point: October 7, 2023 and Its Fallout

The Hamas attack on October 7 was intended to deliver a decisive blow to Israel, to demonstrate strength, and to rally Palestinian support. Instead, it exposed the depth of moral and strategic failure within Palestinian leadership. The attack, which left Israeli civilians massacred and abducted, shocked the world. It also laid bare the futility of a vision centered on destruction rather than creation.

Israel’s swift and overwhelming response was not just a defense of its people but a signal that it would no longer tolerate existential threats. For decades, Israel endured rockets, terror tunnels, and incitement, choosing restraint to minimize civilian harm. But the events of October 7 erased that calculus. What followed was not just a military campaign but a fundamental shift in Israel’s approach to the Palestinian question.

Israel declared the end of its tolerance for terror as a political strategy. Gaza, once a hub of conflict and resistance, was dismantled as a base for Hamas and its ideology. The world, watching the brutality of Hamas exposed on global screens, could no longer rationalize or justify its actions. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause shifted, and the narrative of victimhood unraveled.

Decisions and Consequences

For nearly a century, the Palestinian leadership made decisions that undermined their people’s future. From rejecting the 1947 UN Partition Plan to decades of corruption, internal division, a refusal to engage in meaningful peace talks, and the rejection of the Oslo Peace Proposal in 2000, every opportunity for statehood was squandered. The focus remained not on building a nation but on destroying Israel.

Even as their leaders amassed wealth, built power structures, and aligned with forces intent on perpetuating conflict, the Palestinian people were left in refugee camps, denied the chance to build better lives.

Terror and killing may scare people for the short term, but it never prevails. It certainly never leads to building a nation. The destruction of others always ends in self-destruction. The Palestinian leadership’s obsession with eliminating Israel ultimately destroyed their ability to create a viable state. Their decisions to prioritize resistance over reconciliation, conflict over compromise, and hatred over hope have left them with no one to blame but themselves.

The consequences of these decisions have reverberated far beyond the borders of Palestine. The Munich Olympics Massaccre in 1972. In Jordan, in the 1970’s, Palestinian actions led to a bloody civil war and Black September, permanently alienating the Jordanian monarchy.

In Lebanon, Palestinian factions in the 1980’s created a civil war that continues to destabilize the country today. Their actions contributed to the rise of extremism in Egypt and, most recently, to the destruction of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime in Syria.

Even their primary supporter, Iran, has been reduced to an isolated state, its influence now limited to its own borders. It is highly probable that the next part of the October 7^th chain reaction will be the destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. The Palestinians, through their leadership’s choices, have not only failed to achieve their goals but have left nothing but destruction and instability in their wake.

The world has had enough. There is no one left the Palestinians can continue to blame. They accomplished all this on their own.

The Abraham Accords As the New Focus

With Donald Trump retuning to the presedency, the regional priority will be on expanding the Abraham Accords with a focus on fostering unprecedented cooperation between Israel and most Arab nations. These agreements highlight the potential for economic, cultural, and security partnerships that transcend the historic enmity of the past.

Simultaneously, the Iranian regime’s destabilizing influence in the region, through its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear capabilities, remains a pressing threat. The shared goal of countering Iranian aggression will bring Israel and its new allies closer together, presenting a united front for regional stability and progress. This new era of diplomacy represents an opportunity to redefine the Middle East’s future, rooted in collaboration and mutual security.

A Future Beyond the Conflict

And when all is said and done, this path, though forced upon the Palestinians, is ultimately in the best interests of the Palestinian people. A nation can only be built through leadership and the hard work of nation-building. Institutions and governing processes do not emerge from terrorism, rockets, and tunnels, nor from keeping their own people suffering in the name of destroying others.

The Palestinians have proven time and again that they will never choose nation-building as a path forward. If the status quo were allowed to remain, it would inevitably lead to a stalemate cease fire, rearming, rebuilding tunnels and planning the next destructive event against Israel, perpetuating the instability of the Middle East. At the same time daily life of the Palestinian people would be dismal. The world has now made a collective decision: peace will be forced upon the Palestinian people, not as a punishment but as a necessity.

Refugee camps will disappear in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel. Palestinians will be integrated into neighboring countries, given opportunities to live in peace and prosperity. For the first time in decades, their focus will shift to the future instead of being mired in the grievances of the past. This new reality will not align with the dream of statehood as envisioned by Palestinian leaders, but it offers a better future than the endless cycle of conflict and suffering.

Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, 2023, marked a devastating escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The unprecedented brutality of the assault, involving mass killings, kidnappings, and the deliberate targeting of civilians, sparked a fierce Israeli response and set off a chain of events that have reshaped the Middle East. The attack not only obliterated the prospect of Palestinian statehood but also led to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, weakened Iran’s regional influence, destabilized Iraq, and shifted the future of both Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the credibility of the United Nations as a mediator in the Middle East has been permanently damaged, with its agencies accused of perpetuating corruption and bias against Jews. These developments signify the dawn of a new era in the Middle East, with old structures collapsing under the weight of their failures.

The Death of a Palestinian State

Hamas’ actions obliterated any remaining viability for a Palestinian state, shattering global support and exposing the deep flaws in Palestinian leadership.

Global Outrage

The barbarity of Hamas’ attack shocked even the most sympathetic international observers. Western nations that had previously advocated for a two-state solution condemned Hamas unequivocally, while Arab states that had normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords distanced themselves from Hamas. Governments and organizations once vocal in their support for Palestinian statehood began to emphasize Israel’s right to self-defense over calls for negotiations.

Hardline Israeli Policy

The attack unified Israeli society around a hardline approach to security and territorial integrity. The Israeli government, backed by rare political consensus, adopted policies aimed at dismantling Hamas entirely and consolidating Israeli control over strategic areas. Discussions of annexation gained traction, particularly in the context of the West Bank, where Israeli settlements have expanded significantly.

Internal Palestinian Divisions

The rift between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) widened irreparably. Hamas’ actions undermined the PA’s already weak credibility, leaving no unified Palestinian leadership capable of representing the people or negotiating on their behalf. The lack of a coherent strategy or leadership further discredited the Palestinian cause on the global stage.

End of the Right of Return

The international community, long frustrated by the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to compromise on the “right of return,” has shifted toward resettling Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab states. This shift aligns with global norms for refugee integration and abandons the unique framework maintained by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has perpetuated statelessness and dependency for decades.

Potential Annexation of Gaza and the West Bank

U.S. Support Under Trump

The incoming Trump administration is likely to endorse Israeli annexation policies, including discussions of both Gaza and the West Bank. This aligns with Trump’s previous pro-Israel policies, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and U.S. support for annexation efforts.

Trump’s backing would provide Israel with diplomatic cover for such moves but could also heighten regional tensions. At the same time the major players in the region are tired and fed up with the Palestinian focus on violence and war with no focus on nation building.

Regional stability is now the priority and the Palestinian cause is a primary source of destabilization and Iran’s influence. Hamas’s actions helped achieve a new sense of stabilization, not seen since the Ottoman Empire, by destroying both the Palestinian cause and Iranian influence. The regional Arab powers will jump on the opportunity this situation now offers.

Challenges of Annexation

1. Demographic Concerns: Annexing Gaza and parts of the West Bank would bring millions of Palestinians under Israeli control, creating significant demographic and political challenges. Managing such a large, hostile population would require extensive resources and could destabilize Israel’s internal politics.
2. Security Issues: Gaza and the West Bank have long been focal points of militant activity. Annexation would likely provoke continued resistance, requiring permanent Israeli military oversight.
3. International Opposition: Annexation would face condemnation from the European Union, United Nations, and many Arab states, which view it as a violation of international law and a further obstacle to peace.
4. Economic Costs: Reconstruction and integration of annexed territories would require billions of dollars, with limited international support if annexation occurs unilaterally.

Opportunities of Annexation

1. Strategic Control: Annexation would allow Israel to fully control its borders, reducing the threat of weapons smuggling and militant incursions.
2. End to Ambiguity: Israel could establish definitive territorial boundaries, reducing disputes over contested areas and securing its future as a Jewish state.
3. Potential Regional Backing: With strong support from a Trump-led U.S. administration and tacit approval from some Arab states prioritizing stability, Israel could frame annexation as part of a broader security strategy for the region.

The Collapse of the Iranian Axis

Iran’s strategy of using proxies to expand its influence suffered a critical blow in the wake of Hamas’ attack and Assad’s collapse. Tehran’s carefully constructed network—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and militias in Iraq and Syria—is now significantly weakened.

Hezbollah’s Challenges

Hezbollah, Iran’s most prominent proxy, faces logistical challenges after the loss of Syria as a supply hub. Israeli strikes on Hezbollah positions and supply lines have degraded the group’s capabilities, leaving it isolated and vulnerable.

Weakened Iraqi Militias

In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias are experiencing greater isolation. The fall of Assad and shifting regional alliances have reduced their operational reach. Additionally, growing opposition within Iraq to Iranian influence has further eroded their position. Iraqi leaders have increasingly sought to assert sovereignty and reduce Tehran’s control, reflecting a broader trend of diminishing Iranian influence in the country. Meanwhile, ongoing domestic unrest fueled by Iranian-backed factions has created new vulnerabilities for Tehran in Iraq.

Regional Realignment

The Abraham Accords and other regional agreements have gained renewed momentum as Arab states prioritize economic partnerships and stability over ideological opposition to Israel. This has further isolated Iran and its proxies.

The Fall of Assad

On December 7, 2024, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime fell as rebel forces seized Damascus. This marked the culmination of years of civil war, economic collapse, and international isolation, all exacerbated by the destabilization following Hamas’ attack.

Disruption of Iranian Support

Assad’s regime relied on Iranian financial and military backing, which was severely disrupted by Israel’s intensified strikes on Iranian assets in Syria. These strikes crippled Tehran’s ability to sustain Assad’s forces, leaving him vulnerable to opposition offensives.

International Isolation

Assad’s alliance with Iran and his tacit support for Hamas further alienated him from the Arab world. Countries that had begun normalizing relations with Syria reversed course, unwilling to risk association with a regime tied to Tehran’s destabilizing influence.

The Reckoning for the United Nations

The events following October 7 have exposed the deep corruption and biases within the United Nations, particularly its agencies involved in the Palestinian refugee crisis.

UNRWA’s Role and Collapse

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has faced growing criticism for perpetuating dependency rather than resolving the refugee crisis. Its collaboration with Hamas, including the use of UN facilities for storing and firing weapons and spreading anti-Israel propaganda, has discredited it as a neutral actor. These revelations have led to repeated calls for its dissolution.

UN Credibility Crisis

The UN’s failed, (looked the other way) to address broader regional crises, such as the Syrian civil war and the massive death toll and refuggee crisis associated with this war. At the same time the UN prioritized support for Hamas. The result is severe damage to its credibility. Many now view the UN as biased and incapable of serving as a neutral mediator in the Middle East and beyond. The UN is today a corrupt and broken organization having achieved nothing to stop global conflicts in decades.

The combined effects of Hamas’ attack, the death of Palestinian statehood, Assad’s fall, and the collapse of the Iranian axis have reshaped the Middle East:

• Israel’s Strategic Gains: Israel is poised to consolidate territorial control and strengthen alliances with Arab states.
• Iran’s Waning Influence: Tehran’s regional strategy is crumbling as its proxies lose support and capabilities, particularly in Iraq and Syria.
• A Pragmatic Approach to Palestinian Refugees: The international community is shifting toward resettlement and integration as a solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis, the exact opposite of what the UN has promoted for almost 80 years.
• UN Marginalization: The UN’s bias and failures have relegated it to a diminished role in the region and eroded its credibility globally.
• Trump Presidency: For all of Trump’s shortcomings, his view towards the United Nations has been spot on. The UN will face defunding and it’s role will be further diminished under a Trump administration.

The Expansion of the Abraham Accords

The aftermath of Hamas’ attack has accelerated the expansion of the Abraham Accords, which began in 2020 with the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

Renewed Momentum

The violence unleashed by Hamas highlighted the shared security concerns between Israel and Sunni Arab states, particularly regarding Iranian-backed proxies. The attack underscored the importance of cooperation in countering threats posed by extremist groups and their sponsors. This has created a renewed sense of urgency to deepen existing agreements and bring new states into the fold.

Key Developments

1. Saudi Arabia’s Role: Talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which had been progressing before the attack, have gained new momentum. Riyadh, recognizing the strategic benefits of closer ties with Israel, has signaled its willingness to move toward normalization, especially as its relationship with Iran remains fragile despite recent détente efforts.
2. Oman and Qatar: These Gulf nations, historically hesitant to normalize relations with Israel, are reevaluating their positions. The shared threat of Iranian influence and the need for economic partnerships have made normalization more attractive.
3. Africa’s Growing Participation: Following Sudan’s normalization, other African nations with historical ties to Israel, such as Niger and Chad, are exploring formal agreements. These moves reflect Israel’s growing role as a regional economic and security partner.
4. Economic and Technological Cooperation: The expansion of the Abraham Accords has emphasized joint ventures in technology, agriculture, energy, and defense. New agreements have been proposed to develop shared water resources, enhance trade networks, and create collaborative technology hubs.

Impact on the Palestinian Issue

The expansion of the Abraham Accords further sidelines the Palestinian leadership, which has historically opposed normalization with Israel. Arab states are increasingly prioritizing economic growth and regional stability over the Palestinian cause. While lip service is still paid to the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the practical focus has shifted toward fostering peace and cooperation with Israel.

The Future is Promising

These developments mark the end of an era defined by entrenched conflicts and the beginning of a pragmatic reordering of the Middle East. While challenges remain, the region is moving toward stability and alliances that reflect the realities of a post-Hamas era.

Written by: Jerry Elman, December 3, 2024

The words “apartheid” and “genocide” are loaded with historical weight, evoking memories of South Africa’s brutal racial regime, the Holocaust, and countless other atrocities. To see these terms applied to Israel—a nation repeatedly seeking peace—is profoundly troubling. As a second-generation Holocaust survivor, I feel a personal responsibility to confront these accusations with truth, empathy, and historical clarity.

My family’s story is one of survival in the face of genuine genocide. They endured systematic extermination simply for being Jews. That history shapes how I view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today, a struggle rooted in competing national aspirations and marred by decades of violence and failed leadership. Comparing it to apartheid or genocide not only distorts reality but also trivializes real atrocities, distracting us from the shared humanity of all involved.

What Defines Apartheid?

Apartheid, as defined under international law, refers to a system of institutionalized racial segregation and oppression designed to maintain the dominance of one racial group over another. This definition is rooted in South Africa’s apartheid regime, which enforced laws and policies to disenfranchise Black South Africans.

Key Characteristics of Apartheid

Racial Classification: South Africa classified citizens into racial groups, dictating every aspect of life, including housing, education, and employment, based solely on race.

Systematic Disenfranchisement: Black South Africans were denied voting rights, barred from political participation, and forcibly removed to “homelands” to strip them of citizenship.

Segregation in Public Spaces: Laws mandated separate facilities for different races, with Black South Africans confined to inferior schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods.

Exploitation: The apartheid system relied on Black labor while denying Black workers fair wages, benefits, or upward mobility.

Why Israel Does Not Meet the Definition

Equal Rights for Arab Citizens: Arab citizens of Israel vote, serve in government, and share public spaces with Jewish Israelis. These realities contradict the core elements of apartheid.

Military Occupation, Not Racial Domination: The West Bank’s status as an occupied territory under military administration is a result of conflict, not a racial ideology.

Temporary Measures: Israel has repeatedly sought peace agreements to end the occupation. Apartheid South Africa, by contrast, entrenched segregation as a permanent system.

The Difference Between Citizens and Occupied Territories

A significant flaw in the “apartheid” accusation lies in conflating the situation of Palestinians in Israeli-controlled territories with the rights of Arab citizens of Israel. These two groups live under vastly different systems, shaped by the complexities of ongoing conflict and territorial disputes.

Arab Citizens of Israel: Equal Rights Under Israeli Law

Full Legal Rights: Arab citizens make up roughly 20% of Israel’s population. They vote, hold office, and enjoy access to the same public services as Jewish citizens. Examples of integration include Arab judges serving on Israel’s Supreme Court, Arab lawmakers in the Knesset, and Arab-Israeli participation in the nation’s healthcare, academic, and business sectors.

Challenges, Not Apartheid: Socioeconomic disparities between Arab and Jewish citizens, while real, are not the result of systemic racial domination. These challenges are acknowledged by the Israeli government, which has allocated billions of shekels in funding to address gaps in education, housing, and economic development in Arab communities.

Religious and Cultural Freedom: Arab citizens in Israel freely practice Islam, Christianity, and other religions. They operate mosques, churches, and schools, demonstrating the protection of minority rights.

Integration in Society: Arab citizens live and work alongside Jewish Israelis in mixed neighborhoods, universities, and workplaces. Shared public spaces such as hospitals highlight a society striving for inclusion.

The West Bank: A Complex Military Occupation

Historical Context: The West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967 during the Six-Day War, a defensive conflict in which Israel faced existential threats from its neighbors. The territory remains disputed due to unresolved peace negotiations.

Military Rule vs. Citizenship: Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and do not live under Israeli civil law. Instead, they are governed under a military administration, a system shaped by security concerns and the lack of a final peace agreement. This is distinct from the legal equality afforded to Arab citizens within Israel’s recognized borders.

Security Concerns: The presence of Israeli military forces in the West Bank stems from ongoing security threats, including terrorism and violent attacks against Israelis. The separation barrier, often criticized as a symbol of division, has significantly reduced suicide bombings and saved countless lives on both sides.

Palestinian Authority Governance: The Palestinian Authority (PA) administers most of the West Bank’s population under the terms of the Oslo Accords. While the PA has autonomy over areas like healthcare and education, its corruption and inefficiency have contributed to widespread discontent among Palestinians.

Gaza: A Separate Reality

Israel’s Withdrawal: Israel unilaterally withdrew all military forces and settlers from Gaza in 2005. The territory is now governed by Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization.

Blockade and Security Measures: The Israeli-Egyptian blockade, often criticized as collective punishment, is a direct response to Hamas’s ongoing attacks on Israeli civilians. The blockade is intended to prevent weapons smuggling while allowing humanitarian aid and essential goods.

Hamas’s Role: Gaza’s suffering is exacerbated by Hamas’s focus on military buildup rather than governance. Funds meant for schools, hospitals, and infrastructure are instead used for rocket production and terror tunnels.

Israel’s Key Differences from Apartheid

Temporary Military Rule: Unlike apartheid South Africa, where racial segregation was institutionalized and permanent, military rule in the West Bank is a temporary measure tied to the unresolved status of the territory.

Peace Offers Rejected: Israel has made repeated peace offers, including proposals that would have created a Palestinian state in nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza. These offers have been rejected by the Palestinian leadership, prolonging the occupation.

Shared Public Spaces: Within Israel’s recognized borders, Jews and Arabs share public spaces, work together, and study side by side—realities that are incompatible with the definition of apartheid.

The Difference Between War and Genocide

A fundamental flaw in the accusation that Israel is committing genocide lies in the misunderstanding—or deliberate distortion—of what genocide truly means. War and genocide are fundamentally different in intent, execution, and outcomes.

Genocide: Defined by Intent to Destroy

Deliberate Eradication: Genocide involves the intentional and systematic destruction of a national, racial, ethnic, or religious group. Examples include the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Armenian Genocide.

Clear Markers of Genocide: Hallmarks of genocide include mass killings, forced sterilizations, cultural erasure, and policies aimed at reducing or eliminating the targeted population.

War: Driven by Defense or Political Conflict

Military Objectives: War involves armed conflict between states or groups, often to defend territory, resolve disputes, or counter aggression. Civilian casualties, while tragic, are an unintended consequence of war, not its purpose.

Rules of Engagement: In war, combatants are bound by international laws such as the Geneva Conventions, which aim to limit civilian harm. Violations of these laws may constitute war crimes, but they are distinct from genocide.

Israel’s Actions in Context

Defensive Operations: Israel’s military actions are defensive, aimed at neutralizing threats posed by terrorist groups like Hamas, which fire rockets at civilian areas and carry out attacks on Israeli citizens.

Efforts to Minimize Civilian Harm: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) employ advanced tactics to minimize civilian casualties, including precision strikes, evacuation warnings, and humanitarian aid corridors. These measures demonstrate the absence of genocidal intent.

Population Growth Contradicts Genocide Claims: The Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank has grown significantly, contradicting the claim that Israel seeks their eradication.

If Israel Is Guilty, Every Country Defending Itself Would Be Too

Defending Against Aggression: If Israel’s military responses to attacks from Hamas are labeled genocide, then every country that defends itself after being attacked—whether the U.S. after 9/11 or Ukraine against Russian aggression—would also be guilty of genocide.

A Dangerous Precedent: Such a precedent would make it impossible for nations to protect their citizens without risking accusations of genocide by eroding the legitimacy of self-defense and trivializing real genocides, such as those in Rwanda or Darfur.

Comparison to Other Conflicts: In Afghanistan, U.S.-led NATO forces conducted military operations against the Taliban, resulting in civilian casualties. These actions were not labeled genocide because they intended to eliminate a terrorist threat, not an ethnic or religious group. The same logic applies to Israel.

Real Genocides: A Grim Historical Reality

The term “genocide” should be reserved for atrocities where the intent to eradicate a group is clear. Misusing it to describe Israel’s defensive actions diminishes the suffering of real victims and undermines efforts to hold actual perpetrators accountable.

Historical Examples

The Holocaust (1941–1945): Six million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis in an industrialized campaign of mass extermination, alongside millions of Roma, disabled individuals, and others.

The Armenian Genocide (1915–1917): The Ottoman Empire killed 1.5 million Armenians through mass executions, forced death marches, and starvation, aiming to erase their presence entirely.

Cambodian Genocide (1975–1979): The Khmer Rouge killed nearly 1.7 million people—about a quarter of Cambodia’s population—targeting intellectuals, ethnic minorities, and political enemies.

Rwandan Genocide (1994): Over 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in just 100 days by Hutu extremists, with clear intent to destroy the Tutsi population.

Ongoing Genocides

Yazidis in Iraq (2014): ISIS murdered Yazidi men and enslaved women and destroyed villages in an attempt to eradicate their culture and religion.

Uyghurs in China (Ongoing): Reports indicate mass detentions, forced sterilizations, and cultural erasure targeting Uyghur Muslims in what many experts consider a genocide.

Why Israel Does Not Fit the Definition

No Intent to Destroy: Israel targets terrorist groups, not Palestinians as a people. Civilian casualties are an unintended consequence of war, not evidence of a genocidal campaign to eradicate the entire Palestinian people.

Population Growth: The Palestinian population has grown significantly, contradicting claims of genocidal intent.

Humanitarian Efforts: Despite the ongoing conflict, Israel provides humanitarian aid, including electricity, medical care, and water to Gaza.

Why Prime Minister Netanyahu Is Not Guilty of War Crimes

As allegations of war crimes have emerged against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s crucial to examine these claims with a clear understanding of the facts, the laws governing such accusations, and the broader context of Israel’s security situation. I am not a fan or supporter of Netanyahu, but the recent attempts to hold him personally responsible for alleged war crimes cross the line and represent a dangerous precedent for international justice.

War Crimes Require Deliberate, Systematic Targeting of Civilians

Under the Geneva Conventions, war crimes are defined as deliberate acts of violence aimed at civilian populations, including mass killings, torture, and other forms of indiscriminate attacks. In Netanyahu’s case, Israel’s military operations in Gaza have, at worst, resulted in tragic civilian war casualties. Still, these are the unfortunate consequences of targeting military infrastructures such as Hamas’ rocket launchers, tunnels, and military command centers.

Israel’s military employs precision strikes and warns civilians through phone calls and leaflets to evacuate areas before attacks. These efforts to minimize civilian casualties contrast with the actions of groups like Hamas, which deliberately use human shields by embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas.

Israel’s operations intend to protect its citizens from rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism emanating from Gaza, not to destroy or target Palestinian civilians, as the charge of war crimes would require.

Israel’s Right to Self-Defense Is Protected Under International Law

The United Nations Charter and Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions provide a clear right for any nation to defend itself from aggression. Israel faces constant existential threats from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations, which target civilian populations with rockets and engage in acts of terrorism.

Self-defense is an internationally recognized right, and Israel is constantly under threat from attacks launched by Hamas and other factions from Gaza. To accuse Israel, and by extension Netanyahu, of war crimes for defending its citizens undermines this fundamental right.

Suppose Israel is guilty of war crimes for defending itself. In that case, every country responding to attacks, including the U.S. after 9/11 or Ukraine against Russian aggression, would also be guilty—a precedent that defies logic and fairness.

Hamas’ Role in Civilian Casualties

A central factor in civilian casualties in Gaza is the deliberate strategy used by Hamas to operate within civilian areas. Hamas embeds its military infrastructure—such as rocket launchers, weapons caches, and command centers—within homes, schools, hospitals, and places of worship, knowing that Israeli strikes will result in casualties.

Hamas’s war crimes include the deliberate use of human shields, a violation of international law. Blaming Netanyahu for the consequences of Hamas’s tactics ignores the reality of asymmetrical warfare.

Political Bias in the Accusations

The ongoing pursuit of Netanyahu by international courts has raised concerns about selective justice and bias against Israel. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has often been criticized for its inconsistent approach to investigating alleged war crimes, disproportionately targeting democratic nations like Israel while overlooking authoritarian regimes.

The ICC’s focus on Israel, while ignoring human rights violations in places like Syria, Myanmar, or China, suggests a political agenda rather than a commitment to impartial justice.

Israel, as a democratic state with a transparent legal system, already conducts internal investigations into military actions. Unlike authoritarian regimes, Israel holds itself accountable.

Palestinian Leadership: Perpetuating the Conflict

Hamas: Prioritizing War Over Governance

Glorification of Violence: Hamas promotes a culture of resistance that glorifies violence. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its propaganda indoctrinates young Palestinians with hatred.

Diverting Resources: Billions of dollars in international aid have been redirected to Hamas’s military objectives, leaving Gaza’s civilians without adequate housing, healthcare, or education.

Using Civilians as Shields: By embedding military infrastructure in schools, hospitals, and residential areas, Hamas endangers its own population while attempting to provoke international condemnation of Israel.

The Palestinian Authority: Corruption and Stagnation

Failure to Build Institutions: Despite having significant autonomy in the West Bank, the PA has failed to establish functioning institutions. Corruption, nepotism, and mismanagement have left Palestinians disillusioned.

Rejection of Peace Proposals: The PA has repeatedly rejected peace offers that could have established a Palestinian state. Instead, it prioritizes international campaigns to delegitimize Israel.

Authoritarian Rule: The PA suppresses dissent, arresting activists, journalists, and political opponents. This lack of democratic governance undermines the Palestinian cause.

College Campuses: Political Propaganda and Jew-Hate

Misinformation about occupied territories and military rule fuels the “apartheid” narrative on college campuses, where criticism of Israel often crosses into outright hatred of Jews.

Hypocrisy in Activism

Exclusion of Jewish Students: Jewish students are frequently harassed or excluded from events, not based on their views but on their identity. This exclusion mirrors the very practices activists claim to oppose.

Misinformation About Occupation: Activists often misrepresent the nature of military rule in the West Bank, conflating it with the rights of Arab citizens in Israel. This oversimplification ignores the complexity of unresolved territorial disputes and security challenges.

Selective Outrage: Activists on campuses rarely address the systemic discrimination faced by Palestinians in Arab countries or the role of Hamas and the PA in perpetuating Palestinian suffering. The focus on Israel alone reveals a political agenda, not a commitment to human rights.

Singling Out Jews: Discrimination, Hate, and Hypocrisy

The targeting of Jews on college campuses and in broader society, often under the guise of political activism, is a blatant act of discrimination and hypocrisy. While framed as criticism of Israel, these actions frequently cross into hatred of Jews, unjustly holding Jews collectively responsible for the policies of a foreign government.

Examples of Singling Out Jews

College Campuses:

Exclusion from Student Organizations: Some student groups, such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), openly ban Jewish students who express any support for Israel from participating in events or holding leadership positions.

Protests Targeting Jewish Spaces: Demonstrations outside Hillel buildings or Jewish fraternity houses single out Jewish students, creating an intimidating environment regardless of their political beliefs.

Harassment and Threats: Jewish students report incidents of being called “Zionist oppressors” or “baby killers,” regardless of their individual views on Israel.

Workplaces and Public Spaces

Corporate Boycotts and Litmus Tests: Employees have been pressured to denounce Israel or sign statements supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, creating a hostile environment for Jewish individuals.

Social Media Campaigns: Public figures and ordinary citizens have been harassed online simply for expressing Jewish pride or ties to Israel, with calls to “cancel” them over perceived political stances.

Public Rallies and Protests: Protesters often chant slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a phrase that implicitly calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. These chants frequently occur in settings where Jewish attendees feel targeted and unsafe.

Why This Is Discriminatory and Hypocritical – Holding Jews to a Double Standard

Unique Blame for a National Conflict: No other ethnic or religious group is collectively held responsible for the actions of a foreign government. For example, no one blames all Muslims for the policies of Saudi Arabia or all Chinese people for China’s treatment of Uyghurs. Singling out Jews in this way is a clear double standard.

Selective Activism: Activists often ignore human rights abuses by other nations, such as China, Iran, or Russia, while disproportionately focusing on Israel. This selective outrage highlights a bias against the world’s only Jewish state and, by extension, the Jewish people.

Intimidating Jewish Identity

Erasing Nuance: Jews who oppose Israeli policies or have no connection to Israel are still targeted, conflating Jewish identity with Zionism. This strips Jewish students of their individuality and forces them into defensive positions.

Undermining Free Expression: Jewish students and professionals often feel silenced afraid to express their views or cultural pride due to the fear of being ostracized or harassed.

Acts of Hate Masquerading as Activism

Promoting Hostility, Not Solutions: Rather than fostering dialogue, these actions create division and hostility. They reinforce stereotypes about Jews wielding disproportionate power or being inherently oppressive—classic antisemitic tropes.

Fueling a Toxic Environment: The targeting of Jewish individuals leads to feelings of isolation and vulnerability. The targeting of Jews on college campuses is incredibly harmful. College should be a place where all students feel included and safe.

Discrimination as a Tactic

Targeting all Jews by labeling them as supporters of apartheid and genocide is not only discriminatory but also a profoundly unjust tactic. This approach weaponizes identity and imposes collective blame—a tactic historically associated with genocide itself. Singling out an entire group for the actions of a nation-state reflects a politically hypocritical agenda, primarily when such protests advocate for violence or the death of Jews.

Chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which are often heard at these demonstrations, further expose this hypocrisy. The phrase, dating back to 1948, is widely understood among Palestinians as a call to push Jews into the sea and bring about their collective death—a statement of genocide in its intent and implications. By employing such rhetoric while claiming to stand for human rights, these protesters reveal not a genuine commitment to justice but a dangerous embrace of the very tactics they claim to oppose. True advocacy for human rights must reject all forms of prejudice, collective blame, and incitement to violence, no matter the cause.

Hypocrisy in the Name of Human Rights

Claiming to Fight Oppression While Oppressing Others: Activists who claim to fight for equality and human rights often employ tactics of exclusion, harassment, and intimidation against Jews. These actions contradict the principles they purport to uphold.

Ignoring Real Oppressors: Many of these activists remain silent on the systemic discrimination Palestinians face in Arab countries or human rights abuses in authoritarian regimes. This selective focus undermines their credibility and reveals their bias.

Fostering Division Instead of Understanding: Instead of addressing complex issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with nuance, these activists reduce it to a simplistic narrative that casts all Jews as oppressors. This polarizes discussions and alienates potential allies for peace.

The Broader Implications

Hatred of Jews Normalized: Singling out Jews contributes to the normalization of Jew-Hate, making it more acceptable in public discourse and leading to a rise in hate crimes against Jewish communities.

Diminishing Legitimate Criticism: By framing hate as criticism of Israel, these actions dilute legitimate debates about Israeli policies and prevent constructive discussions from taking place.

A Threat to All Minorities: Tolerating the targeting of Jews sets a dangerous precedent for other minority groups. If such behavior is accepted, it opens the door to similar acts of discrimination against others.

A Path Forward: Solutions for Peace

Recognizing the Complexity: Acknowledging the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinians in occupied territories is essential for informed dialogue.

Supporting Peace Initiatives: Efforts to bypass corrupt leadership and empower moderate Palestinian voices are critical to achieving a two-state solution.

Promoting Honest Education: Universities must counter misinformation with programs encouraging critical thinking and providing nuanced perspectives on the conflict.

Grassroots Collaboration: Joint Israeli-Palestinian initiatives in education, technology, and infrastructure can build trust and lay the groundwork for peace.

Conclusion: Rejecting Labels, Building Hope

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, shaped by history, security concerns, and competing national aspirations. Simplistic accusations of apartheid and genocide distort this reality and hinder the search for solutions.

The differences between Israeli citizens and Palestinians in occupied territories reflect the unresolved nature of the conflict, not a system of racial domination. Criticism of Israel must acknowledge these complexities to be fair, constructive, and conducive to peace.

Singling out Jews on campuses and elsewhere is not activism—it is discrimination. These acts perpetuate hate, hypocrisy, and double standards, undermining efforts to achieve peace and mutual understanding. To create an environment where all voices are valued, we must reject these tactics and foster genuine dialogue based on mutual respect and empathy.

As someone shaped by the Holocaust, I believe in the power of truth and dialog. Rejecting false narratives is essential for justice. Only honesty, empathy, and mutual respect can pave the way for coexistence and a resolution to this conflict.

University campuses, often lauded as bastions of free thought and inclusive dialogue, are increasingly becoming hotbeds for acts expressing hatred of Jews disguised as political activism. Recent events, particularly the intensification of the Israel-Hamas conflict, have amplified tensions and exposed the vulnerabilities of Jewish students and faculty. In my hometown of Rochester, NY, The University of Rochester provides a stark example of how institutions struggle—or fail outright—to address these concerns, leaving Jewish students and faculty fearful and disillusioned.

However, the University of Rochester is not an isolated situation. What is happening here reflects a broader pattern seen across Ivy League and other major universities. From Harvard to Columbia, Yale to Stanford, Jewish hate incidents have surged under the guise of pro-Palestinian activism. Posters, chants, and protests have blurred the line between criticizing Israeli policies and demonizing Jews. Only Cornell University has taken decisive, appropriate action to protect its Jewish students and staff, standing apart as a rare example of leadership in addressing acts of Jew hate directly.

---

The Climate at the University of Rochester

The University of Rochester has seen an alarming rise in pro-Palestinian activism on campus, which has often blurred the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and outright hatred of Jews. The environment escalated recently when posters appeared all over the campus that went beyond rhetoric, targeting Jewish faculty directly. These posters included the faces and personal information of Jewish faculty members, labeling them as direct supporters of “genocide” and linking them personally to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The Administration’s Response

Despite the palpable fear among Jewish students, the University of Rochester’s administration, led by President Sarah Mangelsdorf, has been conspicuously silent or vague in its responses to all incidents. Official statements have condemned “all forms of hate” but failed to address the Jew hate nature of many incidents specifically. Remember, “Black lives matter,” versus “All lives matter?” People view these kinds of statements as a safe copout, a way to avoid their true feelings of bias. No one can be labeled a hater if they say “all lives matter” and then behave in ways where only “some lives really matter.” Most of us know this is pure BS and hypocrisy.

The administration’s response to the posters only added to the frustration and fear felt by Jewish students and faculty. Instead of addressing the content of the posters—which targeted individuals based on their Jewish identity—the university treated the incident primarily as a case of vandalism. Their concern focused on the adhesive used to affix the posters, which damaged campus surfaces, rather than the hateful and intimidating messages the posters conveyed. The perpetrators were identified and arrested for vandalism. This was the university’s way of saying the issue was addressed without addressing the real issue.

This bureaucratic response minimized the gravity of the situation, signaling to the Jewish community that their safety and dignity were secondary to property damage. Many Jewish students did not want to these see arrests, they wanted their fear and safety addressed as Jews. It’s still ok to express acts of hatred of Jews; just don’t damage anything in the process!

President Mangelsdorf, like most other university presidents facing the same issues, has opted to issue statements behind closed doors, refusing to address these issues in any public forum. This reluctance to engage openly exacerbates the fear and isolation felt by Jewish students and faculty. By avoiding public acknowledgment of the problem, the administration signals that these concerns are not a priority, leaving the affected community to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile environment.

Jewish faculty members reported receiving threats and hate mail following the distribution of the posters. Despite these clear repercussions, the administration refrained from labeling the incident as antisemitism. Instead, they issued yet another generic statement condemning “all forms of hate.” What was said is they condemn all forms of hate except for one group, Jews. Previously, a group of Jewish students were caught taking down pro-Palestinian posters on campus. They were disciplined even with the undamaged wall surfaces when they did this.

---

A Broader Trend Across Universities

The University of Rochester’s failure to address antisemitism mirrors the response—or lack thereof—at other institutions. Across the United States, Ivy League and major universities have seen a rise in pro-Palestinian protests that often spill over into outright hate speech and intimidation against Jewish students and faculty.

At Columbia University, Jewish students reported feeling unsafe as pro-Palestinian protests included chants glorifying Hamas and justifying the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. At Harvard, over 30 student organizations signed a statement blaming Israel entirely for the conflict, along with announcing a ban on Jewish students participating in these campus organizations. This sparked widespread criticism but no significant intervention from the administration. At Stanford, Jewish students found swastikas and antisemitic messages scrawled across dormitory walls following campus protests.

Cornell: A Case Study in Leadership

Among the chaos, Cornell University has emerged as a rare exception. After credible threats against Jewish students surfaced, Cornell’s administration took immediate and decisive action, increasing security, openly condemning antisemitism, suspending the students involved, and offering support services to affected students and faculty. Cornell has also taken action to prevent outside perpetrators from organizing on campus. This response contrasts starkly with other universities’ vague, noncommittal statements, setting a standard for how institutions should handle such crises.

---

The Role of External Influence

Coordinated and Funded by External Organizations

One of the most troubling aspects of the pro-Palestinian activism seen on campuses, including the University of Rochester, is that much of it is neither spontaneous nor student-driven. These protests and actions are often funded, coordinated, and directed by national and international organizations without direct ties to the universities. Back in October 2023, when the first protests and sit-ins started, most nationwide used the same green LL Bean tents provided by a central source. These were not spontaneous, organic protests and sit-ins.

Groups with significant financial backing and ideological agendas use campuses as battlegrounds to amplify their messages. These organizations supply protest materials, coordinate messaging, and even organize the logistics of events, leaving little room for genuine grassroots student activism.

Free speech, as protected and valued in academic institutions, is meant to reflect the voices of the community it serves. When external organizations manipulate campus activities, providing resources and direction outside the university, it is no longer free speech. It is now propaganda and manipulation. Universities, however, have failed to recognize or address this critical distinction, allowing such groups to exploit their campuses under the guise of activism.

Wealthy Arab Donors

The reluctance of universities to confront acts of Jew-hatred is often tied to financial incentives. Wealthy donors from Arab nations frequently fund programs and research centers at American universities, creating implicit expectations that institutions avoid criticism of pro-Palestinian activism or acknowledgment of acts of Jew-hatred. At Harvard and other Ivy League schools, the loss of hundreds of millions in donations from their major American Jewish and non-Jewish donors was of no concern because the Arab donations far outnumbered what was lost. Like our politics, the most prominent donors drive our higher education system.

Iran’s Influence

Groups with ties to Iran, an enemy of the US, have also been linked to pro-Palestinian activism on campuses, promoting events and narratives that glorify resistance movements and downplay violence against civilians. This indirect influence through third parties creates additional pressure on universities to remain silent or neutral.

---

The Fear of Jewish Students and Faculty

Jewish students at the University of Rochester report feeling unsafe, isolated, and unsupported. Many refrain from wearing outward symbols of their identity, such as kippahs or Star of David necklaces, to avoid harassment. Faculty members, too, have expressed fear for their safety, particularly those whose faces were plastered on the posters.

One faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous, shared their experience: “When I saw my face on that poster, labeled as complicit in genocide, I felt vulnerable in a way I never have before. The university’s response made it clear they wouldn’t protect me. It’s terrifying.”

---

The Impact of Inaction

Fear and Isolation

Jewish students and faculty report heightened anxiety and fear of harassment, leading many to withdraw from campus life or hide their identity.

Erosion of Trust

The administration’s reluctance to address hatred of Jews has led Jewish students and faculty to distrust university leadership, feeling that their concerns are being ignored or dismissed.

Normalization of Hate

By failing to confront the acts that express Jew hatred directly, universities risk normalizing hate speech and creating environments where Jewish students and faculty feel unwelcome and unsafe.

The Danger of Neutrality

In their attempt to avoid controversy, university leaders often claim neutrality. However, by refusing to take a clear stand against hatred of Jews, they effectively take sides—legitimizing the actions of pro-Palestinian activists while alienating Jewish students and faculty. Avoiding controversy may temporarily comfort decision-makers, but it worsens the actual situation, legitimizing hate and emboldening bullies.

---

What Needs to Change?

1. Direct Acknowledgment
   • University leaders must explicitly condemn acts of Jew-hatred and recognize when anti-Israel rhetoric crosses into hate speech.
2. Balanced Policies
   • Policies must protect free speech while ensuring that harassment and hate speech are not tolerated. Universities must distinguish between legitimate campus dialogue and manipulative activities orchestrated by external groups.
3. Education and Awareness
   • Administrators, faculty, and students need training to recognize and address modern antisemitism.
4. Support Systems
   • Universities should establish robust support systems for Jewish students and faculty, including safe spaces, mental health resources, and channels for reporting incidents.
5. Accountability
   • Universities must hold individuals and groups accountable for actions that create a hostile environment, regardless of the political context.

---

Conclusion: Silence Is Not Neutrality

By refusing to confront acts of Jew-hatred on their campuses, universities like the University of Rochester are not maintaining neutrality—they are taking a side. Their silence emboldens those who spread hate and leaves Jewish students and faculty feeling abandoned and unsafe. Avoiding controversy may provide temporary comfort to decision-makers, but it legitimizes hate, empowers bullies, and alienates the very community members universities are meant to protect.

Authentic leadership requires courage to protect all students and faculty, confront hate in all its forms, and uphold the values of inclusivity and respect that universities claim to champion. Anything less is a failure of both leadership and moral responsibility.

Introduction: The Road Not Taken

For decades, and as I more recently wrote my upcoming book, Promised and Betrayed: How Britain’s Failures Made Israel the Scapegoat, I held onto the hope that a bold solution could revive the dream of a Palestinian state—a solution rooted in the original British Mandate maps, offering Palestinians land from Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It felt like a fair and achievable way to rewrite history and fulfill long-broken promises.

But now, as I write this chapter, reflecting on the events of October 7, 2023, the reelection of Donald Trump, and the decades of missed opportunities, I must admit that this vision no longer feels viable. While President Biden would have continued to try to create a Palestinian state, it is pretty much a given President Trump won’t. Add to that the international community is fatigued by terrorism and endless conflict and will not take the risks required for such a two-state solution.

Arab states have moved on, focused on their stability and modernization, while Palestinians remain trapped under leadership that prioritizes resistance over resolution. Iran, exploiting this instability, has turned the Palestinian cause into a weapon for its geopolitical ambitions against the West and other Arab nations.

Tragically, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly chosen the path of self-destruction, squandering opportunities for peace and prosperity. The most likely future is not one of reconciliation or coexistence but of displacement—like so many before them, Palestinians may find themselves resettled elsewhere, their chance for statehood extinguished by their own decisions.

Arafat and the 2000 Camp David Summit: A Turning Point

The most pivotal moment in the collapse of Palestinian statehood was Yasser Arafat’s rejection of the peace offer at the 2000 Camp David Summit. Hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton, the summit was an extraordinary opportunity to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered:

• A Palestinian state in Gaza and 94% of the West Bank.
• Shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, with Palestinians gaining control over the Temple Mount.
• Compensation for Palestinian refugees, though not the full “right of return.”

It was the most generous offer the Palestinians had ever received. But Arafat walked away. He didn’t negotiate or present a counteroffer—he rejected it outright, stunning both Clinton and Barak. Clinton later described Arafat as having “missed a golden opportunity.”

This rejection was soon followed by Arafat’s tacit approval of the Second Intifada, a wave of violence that shattered the hope created by the Oslo Accords and further eroded Israeli trust. Suicide bombings and attacks on civilians hardened public opinion against future concessions. Arafat’s decision at Camp David not only derailed the peace process but also set a tone for Palestinian leadership: resistance over reconciliation.

Al-Husseini’s Legacy: A History of Rejection

The destructive path of Palestinian leadership did not begin with Arafat or Hamas. It can be traced back to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, whose radicalism shaped the Palestinian cause in the early 20th century:

Collaboration with the Nazis: During World War II, al-Husseini allied with Adolf Hitler, believing the Nazis would help prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. His actions discredited the Palestinian cause and alienated potential allies.

Rejection of Compromise: Al-Husseini refused to accept any Jewish presence in Palestine. He rejected the 1937 Peel Commission’s partition plan and the 1947 UN Partition Plan, prioritizing confrontation over compromise.

Al-Husseini’s legacy set a precedent for future Palestinian leaders: ideological purity and resistance over pragmatic solutions.

Trump’s Reelection and Its Implications

Donald Trump’s reelection in November 2024 solidified a new geopolitical reality in the Middle East. His pro-Israel policies during his first term, including recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and support for the Abraham Accords, already signaled a shift away from the two-state solution. In his second term, these trends are accelerating:

Support for Annexation: Trump is likely to approve Israel’s annexation of large parts of the West Bank, effectively ending the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Bolstering Israeli Confidence: His unwavering support has emboldened Israeli leadership to consolidate its control over contested territories.

Diminished Palestinian Leverage: With normalization agreements expanding, the Palestinian cause is increasingly isolated on the global stage.

October 7, 2023: The Day the Door Closed

Hamas’s attack on October 7 was unprecedented in its brutality, leaving over 1,400 Israelis dead and hundreds taken hostage. Israel’s response was swift and devastating, targeting Hamas’s infrastructure in Gaza.

Hamas’s Intransigence: Even after the attack, Hamas refused to release hostages or negotiate for Gaza’s survival. Instead, it doubled down on its rhetoric of martyrdom and destruction, prioritizing its war against Israel over the well-being of its people.

This intransigence reflects a cultural tragedy: in Palestinian society, martyrdom is glorified over peace. Peace with Israel would destroy the opportunity for martyrdom—a concept ingrained in their culture. Until this mindset changes, the suffering of Palestinians will remain self-inflicted as much as externally imposed.

The Role of Iran: A Proxy War

Iran has long used Palestinians and Hezbollah as proxies to wage war against Israel and destabilize the region. By funding groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Iran ties Palestinian aspirations to its broader geopolitical strategy:

Destabilizing the Region: Iran uses these proxies to undermine Israel and Arab nations aligned with the West.

Isolating Palestinians: Iran’s involvement has alienated many Arab states, pushing them toward normalization with Israel.

Iran’s influence has reduced the Palestinian cause to a geopolitical tool, further diminishing its chances for genuine progress.

The Death of the Two-State Solution

The events since October 7, 2023, coupled with decades of missed opportunities, have destroyed the viability of a two-state solution.

Annexation and Displacement: With Trump’s support, Israel will likely annex much of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians with fragmented enclaves.

A Stateless Future: Like other displaced populations in history, Palestinians may face resettlement in neighboring nations.

Time and again, the Palestinian leadership has chosen resistance over resolution, leaving them without allies, without land, and without a future.

A Sealed Fate

I once believed in the possibility of rewriting history and finding a way for Palestinians and Israelis to coexist. However, the reelection of Donald Trump on October 7th and the events of past years have shattered that hope. The international community, fatigued by violence and rejectionism, has shifted its focus to stability and security.

The British were the first to deny the Palestinian Arabs their promised state, carving up the land and reneging on commitments. Yet the Palestinians compounded this betrayal by denying themselves their state. They rejected opportunities for peace, failed to build a nation, and instead focused on the destruction of Israel.

This is how I see things today: the Palestinians have spent decades chasing destruction instead of creation, and the world will no longer tolerate it. Their future, if there is to be one, will require a complete reimagining—not of borders but of identity and purpose. Without this transformation, the Palestinian cause will remain a cautionary tale—a testament to the devastating cost of missed opportunities and self-inflicted wounds.

Introduction

President Joe Biden’s response to the October 7 attack on Israel was unlike that of any previous U.S. president. As Israel faced an unprecedented assault by Hamas, Biden offered firm support but broke with the long-standing tradition of forcing an immediate ceasefire. For the first time, a U.S. president allowed Israel the space to pursue its military objectives fully, while still encouraging restraint and the protection of civilians—a nuanced balance that carried substantial political costs, especially as the presidential election approached. Biden’s decision played a significant role in the election outcome, ultimately leading to a narrow victory for Donald Trump.

An Unprecedented Stance on Israeli Defense

Historically, U.S. presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama have forced Israel to accept early ceasefires, prioritizing regional stability over Israel’s full military objectives. Biden, however, diverged sharply from this precedent, understanding that Israel needed an opportunity to dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all. By not forcing a premature ceasefire, he departed from the U.S. tradition of ensuring stability at the expense of Israel’s security needs.

Biden saw his stance as an ethical approach to warfare, one where Israel could defend itself while minimizing civilian harm—a challenging line to walk. However, this stance also reflected his commitment to a fair balance between unwavering support for Israel and broader humanitarian principles.

Political Pressures and Conflicting Voices

Biden’s unwavering support faced significant domestic backlash, especially from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Progressive leaders labeled Israel as the aggressor, downplaying the severity of the October 7 attack and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Biden struggled to counter these voices, leaving an opening for Republicans to associate the Democratic Party with these progressive anti-Israel sentiments. This label placed Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in a difficult position, as the entire party was successfully labeled as supporting the progressive stance. This created a rift with Jewish voters traditionally aligned with Democrats.

Harris attempted to bridge this divide by advocating a nuanced approach—supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while gently pushing for a ceasefire without demanding one outright. Her goal was to retain progressive support while respecting Biden’s stance. Yet, her efforts to distinguish herself were largely ineffective, as Republicans painted the entire Democratic Party with the progressive brush. Arab Americans and progressives felt Biden’s approach was too favorable to Israel, while conservatives and many Jewish Americans criticized him for calling for any restraint.

Navigating Conflicts Over Military Support

Biden’s administration faced significant challenges in balancing military support for Israel with calls for restraint. While Biden approved almost all essential assistance, including missile defense technologies, he restricted access to certain heavy munitions, notably the 2000-lb bomb, to minimize civilian casualties in densely populated areas. This bomb is highly destructive, capable of leveling entire city blocks, with shrapnel traveling miles and posing a serious risk to civilians beyond the immediate blast zone. I fully agree with Biden’s position on restricting the use of such a powerful weapon. In practice, Israel already had hundreds of these bombs in their inventory, so Biden’s restriction was largely symbolic. Yet, this single restriction was quickly misconstrued as a full-scale arms embargo, and that narrative gained traction.

Biden’s attempt to ensure a measured military response was seen by some as withholding vital arms and not fully supporting Israel, creating friction with both sides. Progressives condemned his support for Israel, conservatives and Jews criticized his calls for restraint, and Arab Americans remained critical of his backing of Israel altogether.

For Biden, it would have been politically expedient to force an early ceasefire, appeasing critics across the board long before the election. Instead, he upheld Israel’s right to neutralize threats, understanding the political fallout this decision could bring. By staying the course, Biden faced criticism from all sides.

The 2024 Election Fallout

The election results ultimately underscored the impact of Biden’s stance on Israel. Many progressive voters abstained from voting, unable to align with Biden’s approach to the conflict. Disillusioned by what they perceived as the Democratic Party’s broader alignment with the progressive position, a significant number of Jewish voters shifted toward the Republican ticket. Meanwhile, Arab Americans also turned away from the Democrats, prioritizing Biden’s support for Israel as a defining issue, and dismissing Trump’s previous anti-Muslim positions.

Despite Harris’s efforts to clarify the Democratic position, her campaign was unable to shake the association with progressive views on Israel, which Republicans had effectively tied to the Biden administration. This proved to be a deciding factor in Trump’s victory, who would likely adopt a more unconditionally supportive stance toward Israel, sidelining efforts at restraint or diplomacy moving forward.

Biden’s Lasting Legacy on U.S.-Israel Relations

With Donald Trump assuming the presidency, the future of U.S.-Israel relations will likely shift. Trump’s administration is expected to offer unqualified support for Israel’s security efforts, likely without the restraint that Biden had advocated. This could again recalibrate regional dynamics and affect the balance between security and humanitarian considerations.

Biden’s refusal to enforce a premature ceasefire highlighted a political gamble that will shape U.S.-Israel relations and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. While Biden’s approach represented a departure from previous administrations, the electoral outcome underscores the political risks associated with prioritizing long-term stability over short-term political gain. His decision may serve as both a testament to the importance of strategic allyship and a reminder of the domestic political costs of navigating complex international conflicts.

Taking a break from working on my upcoming book, I’ve been reflecting on tomorrow’s elections and what feels most at stake. While I worry deeply about the state of democracy, the rule of law, and other values we once took for granted, one issue ties all of this together: how we view the rights of women.

Women’s rights are not merely one issue among many; they are the foundation that upholds democracy, the rule of law, and justice. When all is said and done, I believe we have no true democracy, no rule of law, and no genuine justice without prioritizing the rights, dignity, and autonomy of women in America. This focus defines our true stance on everything else and reveals our commitment to justice, compassion, and equality.

Those who seek to take away women’s rights also aim to take away the rights of others, and it is a direct attack on the foundational principles of democracy, freedom, and dignity that bind us all. That is why I believe there is no democracy, no rule of law, no enduring rights for anyone, without equality for all women.

Jewish values offer a meaningful framework for guiding our actions, especially as voters. As we cast our ballots, these principles remind us that how we view and treat women is a statement of who we are and what we genuinely stand for. In today’s times, I believe the best barometer of the values men uphold is directly related to our views and actions toward women.

To deny rights and dignity to women while expecting them for ourselves is a direct contradiction of Jewish values. I have always believed that men must be part of the solution—not part of the problem or, worse, silent. When men stay silent, we become complicit in undermining not only women’s rights but our shared principles of justice and equality.

Even here in New York, where we may not face the same immediate threats to women’s rights as those in states like Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma, we still have work to do to ensure women’s rights are fully protected. Silence and standing on the sidelines cannot be an option—especially for men. Jewish values remind us that justice is universal and indivisible, calling us to advocate not only for the rights of those close to us but also for those across the nation facing unjust restrictions on their autonomy, healthcare, and safety.

1. Pursuing Justice and Equality (Tzedek v’Shivyon) – Jewish tradition emphasizes justice for all, calling on us to support the fair treatment of every individual. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof (“Justice, justice shall you pursue”) reminds us that justice is universal. Voting for policies that ensure fairness, dignity, and opportunity for everyone—particularly for women—is a way to uphold this value. Supporting gender equality and women’s rights reflects a commitment to creating a just society where every person’s rights and dignity are protected equally.
2. Human Dignity and Autonomy (Kavod HaBriyot) – Jewish teachings call us to honor the dignity of each person. Upholding women’s rights, including reproductive rights, workplace equality, and freedom from harassment, is essential to preserving this dignity. When men support policies that allow women autonomy over their own bodies and lives, we align with our duty to uplift each person’s inherent worth. Silence on these issues allows injustice to persist, contradicting our responsibility to defend dignity for all.
3. Protection of Health and Life (Pikuach Nefesh) – The principle of pikuach nefesh prioritizes the protection of life and well-being. This value calls us to support policies that ensure women’s access to vital health services, including reproductive healthcare and maternal health. Men’s voices in this conversation are critical, as our collective advocacy for women’s health reflects our commitment to preserving life and promoting well-being.
4. Repairing the World for Future Generations (Tikkun Olam) – The concept of tikkun olam, or “repairing the world,” urges us to build a society that is supportive, inclusive, and equitable for all. Men’s role in advocating for women’s rights—from equal pay to family support policies—strengthens our communities and helps create a fairer, safer world for the next generation. Our values are evident when we actively champion policies that foster opportunity and justice for all people.
5. Compassion and Kindness (Chesed v’Rachamim) – Jewish values remind us to act with compassion and kindness. Voting for policies that uplift and protect women’s rights—addressing issues like gender-based violence, discrimination, and maternal health—is a commitment to a compassionate society. True kindness means actively standing up for the dignity, rights, and well-being of others, not remaining silent.

By voting in alignment with these values, we contribute to a society rooted in justice, dignity, health, and compassion. Supporting leaders and policies that uplift women’s rights is not only a fulfillment of Jewish values but also a testament to who we are as individuals. Men’s voices are essential in shaping a society that truly reflects a commitment to equality and respect for all, and I believe that our views and actions toward women are the most revealing indicator of the values we uphold.

Supporting leaders and policies that safeguard women’s rights not only upholds our values but also stands as a powerful expression of solidarity with those who continue to face oppression and restriction across the country. For, in truth, an attack on women’s rights is an attack on everyone’s rights—and on the very ideals of freedom and dignity that form the foundation of our society. Without equality for all women, there can be no true democracy, no rule of law, and no secure rights for anyone.

As we cast our votes tomorrow, let us remember that the way we treat women’s rights reflects the health of our society as a whole. Voting for equality and dignity is voting for a just and secure future for everyone.