Middle East Press On: Academic Freedom, Jewish, Israeli, Jihadist: New Age Islam's Selection, 8 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
8 April 2025
Obama's Call for Academic Freedom Must Include Jewish and Israeli Voices
'Free Palestine'? Snow White Should Keep Her Poisoned Apples to Herself
Anti-Reason in Israel’s Defence Policy: Addressing The Jihadist Threat
Is Authenticity at Risk In Canada? The Struggle of Jewish Identity in Montreal
Beyond The Rhetoric: Assessing The IAEA Uranium Enrichment Claims About Iran
The Politics Behind Netanyahu’s Shin Bet Scandal
Netanyahu’s Jets or Ortagus’ Conditions
-----
Obama's Call for Academic Freedom Must Include Jewish and Israeli Voices
By Jpost Editorial
April 8, 2025
Former US president Barack Obama called on American universities to “stand up” against perceived threats to academic freedom posed by the Trump administration during a speech at Hamilton College last Thursday.
In his speech, he urged universities to ask themselves, “Are we, in fact, doing things right? Have we violated our own values, our own code? Have we violated the law in any way?”
He added, “We believe in freedom of speech, but do we stand up for it when someone says things that infuriate us, that are wrong or hurtful? Do we still believe in it?”
Former US president Barack Obama called on American universities to “stand up” against perceived threats to academic freedom posed by the Trump administration during a speech at Hamilton College last Thursday.
In his speech, he urged universities to ask themselves, “Are we, in fact, doing things right? Have we violated our own values, our own code? Have we violated the law in any way?”
He added, “We believe in freedom of speech, but do we stand up for it when someone says things that infuriate us, that are wrong or hurtful? Do we still believe in it?”
He seemed to be suggesting that the students’ freedom of speech was being impeded upon, saying, “The idea of canceling a speaker who comes to your campus, trying to shout them down and not letting them speak, even if I find their ideas obnoxious, well, not only is that not what universities should be about; that’s not what America should be about.
“You let them speak, and then you tell them why they’re wrong. That’s how you win the argument.”
The problem here is that this happens practically every day when a speaker is Jewish, Israeli, or has simply expressed Zionist sentiments in the past.
As mentioned, Obama was right; academic freedoms must be protected. That includes protecting the safety and security of Jewish and Israeli professors and students alike on campuses and their right to freedom of speech, which has been harmed so significantly in recent years, in particular since the onset of the most recent war.
Just look at the now-famous Shai Davidai, an assistant professor at Columbia University who, in October, was barred from the school after he posted videos of himself confronting university officials about anti-Israel protests on October 7, the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s attack.
Meanwhile, Prof. Joseph Massad, who teaches at the very same institution, has not only been kept on staff after saying that the October 7 massacre was “astounding,” “awesome,” and “incredible,” but he is also teaching a course on Zionism.
This same professor, for reference, wrote an oped in the Electronic Intifada mere days after the brutal attack on Israel’s South, saying, “Perhaps the major achievement of the resistance in the temporary takeover of these settler-colonies is the death blow to any confidence that Israeli colonists had in their military and its ability to protect them.”
He stays; Davidai goes. Whose academic freedoms have been impacted?
Protecting Jewish and Israeli voices
Limiting Israeli researchers, professors, students, and professionals – who have had great successes and undertook great pains to reach their respective levels of distinction – from participating in US academia due to violent outbursts not only harms them; it harms those very institutions.
This is not limited to the US; the issue is global. Just last week, a French geographer was forced to leave his lecture by 20 masked and hooded pro-Palestinian students who called him a “Zionist” and a “terrorist.”
Exactly as Obama had described, he was giving a lecture – one that did not even relate to the subject of the Middle East conflict – and protesters burst in, screaming, “Racists, Zionists, you’re the terrorists.”
Obama’s argument was for academic freedom, and yet the protesters are exactly those imposing on academic freedoms. The voices that were seemingly being defended were the very ones infringing on others’ rights.
So when does defense turn into offense? When does protecting the liberties of one infringe on the liberties of the other? In other words, where does one draw the line?
While there is room to argue against the latest strategy being employed – aggressive arrests throughout college campuses as well as strict budget cuts – there is no room to ignore the severe pains suffered by Jews and Israelis worldwide, in particular in the US, because of these aggressive – and, indeed, offensive – rioters!
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-849268
---
'Free Palestine'? Snow White Should Keep Her Poisoned Apples To Herself
By Anat Vidor
April 8, 2025
The Seven Dwarfs are in shock: Even Snow White has joined the trend. Her cry of “Free Palestine” is not a call for peace, but for war and the murder of Jews. This pairing of words, masquerading as an enlightened and legitimate call for freedom is actually an antisemitic battle cry for the killing Jews, as was “Itbach al-Yahud” (“Slaughter the Jews”), which was first shouted over 100 years ago, on April 4, 1920 by Arabs rampaging through Jerusalem’s Old City Jewish Quarter.
Snow White is played by the actress Rachel Zegler in the Disney classic’s remake, currently in cinemas. The 23-year-old American feels knowledgeable enough and confident in her positions to release absolute political messages from her black-and-white world. She tends to sign her posts with “Free Palestine,” and the PLO flag: the banner of modern global antisemitism.
Palestinian history
The PLO organization and its flag appeared in 1964, with the goal of “liberating Palestine” from the Jews who had settled in the Land of Israel, formerly British mandate Palestine. The Six Day War that followed three years later, aimed at destroying Israel, struck at Arab aspirations, but also gave the haters of Jews an excellent justification for their activities, calling the Israeli victory an “occupation.”
Since then, Palestinians have been offered and rejected, time after time, full peace under the concept of “two states,” with Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and Arab recognition of the Jews’ right to exist in their territory. In the absence of any agreement to peace from the Palestinian side, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and immediately a terrorist state was established there, united behind its national goal – “liberating” the rest of the land.
Zegler joins this “liberation.” Those using this term don’t mean a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state but a Palestinian state instead of a Jewish state.
If that were not the case, it would be logical that supporters of “liberating Palestine” would disassociate themselves from Hamas, which by its own actions proves that coexistence, even with two states with a border between them, is absurd. However, the opposite is true. Supporters of “liberating Palestine” are automatically also supporters of Hamas. Essentially, the “liberation” they aspire to is one of blood, akin to the massacre of October 7.
“Freeing Palestine” is not a call for peace and security for two peoples; it is active support for the Arabs’ campaign of extermination against Jews. The ultimate goal is – and every Gazan would confirm this – a barbaric and bestial massacre of all Jews, compared to which the Holocaust would appear polite and civilized.
Snow White is a beautiful story brought to us by magical Hollywood. The heroine is as pure as snow and good-hearted. The contradictory reality, however, has an actress portraying Snow White whose heart is as black as that of the Wicked Stepmother who seek to do harm. Snow White and has thrown in her lot with the quintessence of evil, encouraging monsters and terror.
We would like to believe that life is like Walt Disney film, where villains can suddenly disappear and good people live happily ever after. But we know the reality in the Middle East a bit better.
Therefore, Snow White, keep your poisoned apple to yourself. Palestine will not be liberated; a new Holocaust will not happen!
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-849205
-----
Anti-Reason in Israel’s Defence Policy: Addressing The Jihadist Threat
By Louis René Beres
April 8, 2025
In matters of national security, anti-reason can be as determinative as reason. For Israel, though its most conspicuous sources of power remain military hardware and leadership, these factors should never be considered in isolation.
Because jihadist adversaries may regard “martyrdom” as the most plainly rewarding objective, their highest aspirational forms of power may not be military. For them, as any promise of “power over death” is necessarily based on the “mystery” of what happens afterward, considerations of anti-reason would warrant especially serious attention.
There are many pertinent nuances. By definition, any promise of immortality must be drawn from religious faith, not science. For assorted Islamist aggressors and terrorists, siding with anti-reason has remained unhidden and celebrated. Nonetheless, “whisperings of the irrational” have never figured importantly as a factor in Israeli diplomacy or deterrence.
In the Middle East, core survival imperatives are unambiguous. Israel’s jihadist enemies draw palpable incentive and purpose from an ostentatiously primal loathing of reason. If at some point this unpredictable incentive should be joined with weapons of mass destruction, including radiological and EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) weapons, Israel could have to face a convulsively bitter storm of anti-reason.
For Israel to adequately safeguard its national survival options, more detailed and subtle understandings of national security will be needed. Prima facie, any future triumphs of anti-reason by Israel’s enemies could enlarge mutually-reinforcing perils from Iran, Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, and the Houthis, among others. These enemy threats would be accomplished via war, terrorism and/or genocide. Ironically, the expected human costs could prove “unacceptable” on all sides.
Israel needs new tactics
On such matters of world-historical urgency, Israeli scholars and policy-makers should think creatively beyond the intuitive parameters of weapons, strategy, and tactics. Plausibly, their guiding question ought to be expressed as follows: How can Israel best convince Iran and its relevant proxies that the faith-based murder of “unbelievers” could never offer perpetrators “power over death?”
Because Iranian surrogates regard war, terror, and genocide against Israel as ennobling expressions of faith, they will need to be reminded by Israel that such “sacrificial” thinking is destined to fail. Still, rendering such reminders sufficiently persuasive could prove excruciatingly difficult for devotees of anti-reason.
What about tangible policy imperatives? What should Israel do as it finds itself confronted with religion-driven enemies who are captivated by seductive “whisperings” and who seek immortality by way of “martyrdom?” Three sequential and logically prior questions should come immediately to mind:
• What sort of “religious faith” can ecstatically encourage the rape, torture and murder of criminally abducted hostages? • Can any decent and thinking human being wittingly accept that such lascivious “crimes against humanity” are intended to ensure Palestinian statehood?• Were the October 7, 2023, Hamas rapes of Israeli children, male and female, a rational and reason-based political tactic to gain Palestinian “liberation?”
There is a simple and incontestable answer to all these questions.In law – all law – “rights can never stem from wrongs”: Ex injuria jus non oritur. Also significant is that Islamist crimes are not just mala prohibita (“evil as prohibited”) but also mala in se (“evil in themselves”).
For Israel’s Islamist enemies, irrationality does not signify weakness. Though it is a primitive faith, jihadism is still capable of inflicting advanced human harm. To prevent such harms, Israel’s decision makers ought never to forget that the true object of Islamist terror-sacrifice is never “The Israeli.” It is always “The Jew.” This difference couldn’t possibly be more important.
Israel should focus on newest jihadists
On derivative particulars, Israel’s most immediate policy concern should center on the newest (post-Syrian collapse) jihadists. Here and elsewhere, dynamics of anti-reason will continue to hold a conspicuous pride of place in Islamist policies.
In his Will Therapy & Truth and Reality (1936), psychologist Otto Rank explained these dynamics at a general and timeless level: “The death fear of the ego is lessened by the killing, the Sacrifice, of the Other. Through the death of the Other, one buys oneself free from the penalty of being killed.”
There are variously coinciding matters of law and justice. Under authoritative jurisprudence, jihadist perpetrators must be distinguished from their counter-terrorist adversaries by considerations of mens rea or “criminal intent.” Though Israel correctly regards the harm it is forced to inflict upon non-combatant populations as unavoidable costs of counter-terrorism – costs mandated by lawless Palestinian tactics of “human shields” or “perfidy” – Iran and its sub-state proxies target Israeli civilians with demonstrated criminal intent.
Israel coexists with other states in an international “state of nature.” Despite being subject to wholly irrational promises, Islamist states and their proxies accept the proposition that “sacrificing” specific “others” (most plainly, Jews) offers “medicine” against their own deaths. Above all, this dreadful presumption reflects a grim and growing “triumph” of adversarial anti-reason.
For the foreseeable future, such triumph, though intolerable, will become more and more probable. For Iran and its obeisant proxies, attempts to avoid personal death by killing certain designated “others” (“unbelievers” and “apostates”) will remain futile, but consequential. The legacy of Westphalia, the 1648 treaty creating modern international law, codifies reason and rejects anti-reason. But almost no one pays any attention.
Anti-reason early writings
There is background. Scholars and policy-makers can discover potentially murderous endorsements of anti-reason in the writings of Hegel, Fichte, von Treitschke, and assorted other classical thinkers. There have also been voices of a very different sort. For Friedrich Nietzsche, the state is “the coldest of all cold monsters.” He remarks prophetically in Thus spoke Zarathustra that it is “for the superfluous that the state was invented.”
The 19th-century philosopher could have been writing about present-day Iran or its ally, North Korea. Regarding Pyongyang, an already nuclear North Korea could at some time come to the aid of a still pre-nuclear Iran. Years back, lest Israeli analysts forget, it was North Korea that built a nuclear reactor for another Iranian ally: Syria. This reactor was subsequently destroyed by Israel’s September 2007 “Operation Orchard” – an operation of “anticipatory self-defense” under authoritative international law.
Iran, as foremost state mentor to jihadist forces, represents the juridical incarnation of anti-reason. A state of Palestine would add tangible power to these already-dissembling forces. Considered together as “synergistic” – as an interaction in which the “whole” is greater than the sum of its “parts” – Iran-Palestine could at some time present Israel with an irremediable existential hazard.
To deal successfully with primal jihadist foes, enemies that seek “power over death,” Israel’s only prudential strategy should be based on deeper understandings of enemy anti-reason. Though Israel should never itself submit to such understandings, its own reason-based posture on national security ought never to be projected on its adversaries. Iran and its proxies are apt to act rationally in most military decision-making processes, but even a rare or occasional embrace of anti-reason could prove intolerable and fatal.
For Israel, “whisperings of the irrational” should never be underestimated.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-849211
----
Is Authenticity At Risk In Canada? The Struggle Of Jewish Identity In Montreal
By Eden Kojdan
April 8, 2025
Imagine pausing every time someone asks, “Where are you from?” Imagine wondering whether honesty could cost you friendships or your sense of belonging.
I’m a 23-year-old woman who grew up in Montreal. This city has always felt like home – open, creative, and accepting. Recently, something changed.
In my everyday life, interactions quickly turn awkward when people discover I was born in Israel, a birthplace I didn’t choose but suddenly felt pressured to hide. Once people know I’m Israeli, conversations end abruptly, friendships become strained, and communities I used to feel at home in start to exclude me.
Since last summer, spaces I once loved frequenting, like queer venues, punk bars, and community gatherings, have increasingly harbored anti-Israel sentiments. There’s now an unspoken assumption that standing with Palestinians means rejecting Israelis like me.
Jewish identity after October 7
Everything escalated after October 7, 2023. A tragic event thousands of miles away somehow reshaped my life here. Visiting family in Israel in June 2024 made me the target of suspicion. Friends started talking about Israelis and Jews in ways beyond cruelty, as if merely connecting with my family and heritage made me the scapegoat for their grievances.
Before, my identity comfortably combined being Jewish, queer, alternative, and a Montrealer. Now, those identities feel like they’re at odds. Queer spaces seem uncomfortable with my Israeli background, and Jewish spaces don’t always welcome my queer identity. Wherever I go, I’m left suppressing parts of who I am.
In these moments, I’ve wondered if either of the communities I hold close to my heart have imagined how it feels to be on the receiving end of this sort of denial and rejection.
Growing up, and until recently, I always felt my skin buzzing at this time of year. The school year was coming to a close, spring was followed by scorching hot, sticky Montreal summer.
As I got older, Montreal summers became the pinnacle of Montreal living. I waited all year for evening rides on the metro, lazy afternoons lounging in Parc La Fontaine, and spontaneous nights exploring music festivals downtown.
But in June 2024, I had a pit in my stomach. I knew things would be different – I didn’t know it would be the polar opposite of what I once knew. In Montreal summers, in queer spaces, in alternative bars, I once had a safe space. But nothing remains.
Antisemitism is at a boiling point here, yet few outside the Jewish community speak up. Non-Jews who champion the rights of other marginalized groups often hesitate when the subject is antisemitism, fearful of being judged by their social justice comrades. My community faces growing isolation exactly when we need solidarity the most.
It’s like 1938 all over again, when the world looked away, ignoring the red flags until their indifference became a death sentence for us.
Every day, I confront an impossible choice: hide my Israeli roots and deny that part of myself, or risk alienation and exclusion simply by being honest. Sometimes, I consider moving to Israel – an active war zone at the moment – just to escape the suffocating isolation I feel in my hometown.
So, I ask my fellow Montrealers: What would you do in my shoes? Would you choose silence and bow your head, or would you speak up and risk rejection and possible violence?
Montreal is vibrant because of its diversity, a diversity that has always prominently included Jewish communities. Generations of Jewish Montrealers helped build its neighborhoods, fuel its economy, and make its culture as rich as it is today.
My identities – Jewish, Israeli, queer, alternative – are not separate from this city’s identity; they help define it, piece by piece. I refuse to diminish myself for others’ comfort because to do that would diminish Montreal itself.
We all love this city deeply. But is this truly the Montreal we want, a city where authenticity is a risk? Or can we commit to being a place where every person’s story, no matter how complex, is heard and valued?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-849196
------
Beyond The Rhetoric: Assessing The IAEA Uranium Enrichment Claims About Iran
By Syed Raza Abbas
April 7, 2025
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sounded the alarm about Iran’s nuclear programme; again. Tehran is reportedly just a week away from enriching uranium to 90 per cent, the threshold for weapons-grade material. With Iran ramping up its production from seven kilograms of uranium per month to over 30 kilograms, the trajectory is clear: Tehran is accelerating its nuclear ambitions at an unprecedented pace.
Iran is now the only non-nuclear state to have enriched uranium to such a level, and yet its cooperation with the IAEA has been increasingly shaky. In June 2022, Iran removed critical surveillance equipment from key nuclear sites, including monitors from its Natanz enrichment facility. Without full transparency, the IAEA’s ability to verify Iran’s capabilities is compromised severely. But here’s the real question: What if Iran has already crossed the line? What if the IAEA’s warnings are already outdated, and Tehran has secretly built a nuclear weapon?
Western powers and the IAEA continue to express their concerns surrounding Iran’s uranium enrichment levels and it being closer to building a bomb. The question surrounding Iran’s possession of nuclear weapon capability remains a relevant part of the global debate. The IAEA claims that Iran has been accelerating its uranium to 60 per cent purity, moving closer to the 90 per cent required for nuclear weapons. According to Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, Iran initially produced approximately seven kilograms of enriched uranium per month. However, that has increased to over 30 kgs, signalling an evident increase.
While referring to Iran’s uranium enrichment activity, Grossi stated that Iran is “pushing the gas pedal.” The West stands by the argument that no country has increased the levels of enriched uranium to such an extent without developing the weapon, and believes that such high levels are not necessarily required for a civilian programme. Iran, however, is standing its ground as it continues to reject the claims made by the UN nuclear watchdog and the West in general while stressing that its nuclear programme is indeed entirely peaceful and it does not intend to develop weapons.
Tehran was also pressed by the IAEA to allow inspections immediately, which Iran agreed to as it remains firm on its stance that its nuclear programme is peaceful. The IAEA and Western countries adopted a resolution in November denouncing the lack of Iranian cooperation with the agency. In response, Iran announced that it intends to activate “new and advanced” centrifuges. As this resolution faced criticism by Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Atomic Energy Organisation, Iran’s nuclear head Mohammad Eslami ordered the launch of three centrifuges. According to the 6 December report of the IAEA, it was confirmed that at Fordow, Iran had begun the operation of two extra cascades of IR-6 centrifuges intending to produce 5 per cent U-235.
Very importantly, the IAEA made a statement that the stockpile of Iran’s enriched uranium has grown to 275kg, equating to roughly one nuclear weapon’s worth each month. Similarly, in its latest report, the IAEA, referring to Iran as the sole country not possessing nuclear weapon capability producing such material, stated that Iran’s increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium is of “serious concern.”
However, it has also been brought to the world’s attention that the IAEA cannot confirm Iran’s specific actions due to the authorities’ removal of IAEA surveillance equipment. Earlier in 2022, the surveillance equipment of the IAEA was dismantled from certain facilities by Iran in a standoff with the West. In 2023, a small portion of this equipment was reinstalled, as noted by the IAEA. As such, it indicates that the agency’s ability to monitor Iran’s actions remains limited and raises concerns about complete transparency.
The unilateral withdrawal of the United States in 2018 from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, coupled with Iranian noncompliance to the safeguard agreements with the IAEA, makes the situation even more concerning. The IAEA has limited scope to monitor Iranian nuclear facilities, and that depends on the cooperation and will of Iran over how much it allows the agency to do. The most pertinent question arises: if Iran is that close to building a bomb, according to the IAEA, Western media and think tanks, isn’t it possible that Iran has become a latent nuclear power but is not testing weapons yet to avoid violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
The IAEA yardstick for building a nuclear bomb is having approximately 42kg of U235 or highly enriched uranium (HEU). The current stockpile of Iranian HEU is 275 kg, and according to that estimate, Iran can build 6.5 nuclear weapons. The rate at which Iran is producing HEU, it could build one nuclear weapon per month. Some nuclear experts argue that it would take anywhere between six months to a year for Iran to build a single nuclear device. While some analysts suggest that those estimates are based on rudimentary or older nuclear weapon technology.
Beyond obtaining fissile materials, developing a nuclear warhead involves several critical steps. This includes converting uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into metal and then shaping and machining it to form the bomb’s core. Additionally, various non-nuclear components must be prepared before assembling the warhead. These include the weapon’s design, a neutron initiator, a detonation wave focusing system, high explosives, detonators, and an arming, fusing and firing system. The experience of other nuclear-armed states indicates that these non-nuclear components can be developed alongside nuclear fuel production, meaning that they do not require extra time. Iran’s early weapons designs were similar to major design features of China’s first atomic bomb (coded as device 596 and exploded in 1964) and its first missile warhead (coded as warhead 548 and tested in 1966).
China completed its first batch of weapons-grade HEU in January 1964, just months before conducting its first nuclear test. All non-nuclear components required for the first two bombs were already prepared. At that point, the teams waited for sufficient HEU. Once available, scientists and engineers took one to two weeks to convert UF6 gas into metal and purify it, followed by two to three weeks for metal melting and pit casting. The final bomb core, consisting of two hemispheres, was then fabricated within hours on the morning of 1 May, 1964. China built its first nuclear bomb some 60 years ago when it lacked advanced equipment and nuclear tech. China also built its first nuclear device in peacetime, while Iran is currently in a state of de-facto war with Israel, and it’s almost a race against time for Tehran to build a bomb or get its nuclear facilities destroyed by Israel.
Iran’s nuclear archives seized by Israeli intelligence in 2018 revealed Iran’s “Amad Plan”, code-named for the crash nuclear weapon programme operated from 1999 to 2003. According to this plan, Iran had to build five 10-kiloton (KTN) nuclear bombs along with four deliverable warheads for the Shahab-3 ballistic missile and one warhead for testing underground. An analysis of Iran’s seized nuclear archive concluded that by the end of the Amad Plan in 2003, Iran had made significant advancements in nearly all aspects of nuclear weapon development. This included progress in weapon design, neutron initiator development, detonation wave focusing, cold testing, casting and machining, and the integration of warheads with re-entry vehicles.
The IAEA calls for renewed talks with Iran that should be taken seriously by the European powers and the US, who were part of the previous nuclear deal with Iran. The agency’s Grossi also warned Israel about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that it would be “very, very serious indeed” in terms of Tehran’s retaliation and the potential spread of radiation.
According to available data and the past experience of nuclear powers, it is safe to assume that Iran has become a de facto nuclear power by now, and the United States is likely aware of this fact. Israeli calculations about the Iranian nuclear programme are hawkish, and its leaders want to take out Iranian nuclear facilities militarily, but the US is not interested in this misadventure. Washington knows that such an escalation would be a precursor to a regional war. The nuclear weapons programme gives Iran a diplomatic cushion to leverage its bargaining position in any future talks with the US or a possible renewal of the Iranian nuclear deal.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250407-beyond-the-rhetoric-assessing-the-iaea-uranium-enrichment-claims-about-iran/
-------
The Politics Behind Netanyahu’s Shin Bet Scandal
Dr. Ramzy Baroud
April 07, 2025
Within the space of 24 hours last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominated Eli Sharvit as the new chief of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, only to quickly retract the nomination.
This episode highlights the lack of coherence in Netanyahu’s leadership, reinforcing the perception that decisions at the highest levels of government are made impulsively and without a clear plan.
It also serves as further proof that Netanyahu is easily manipulated — not just by his right-wing extremist allies in the coalition, but also by external forces, foreign governments and, as reported by Israeli media, even his wife Sara.
This chaotic decision-making process helps explain the deep lack of trust Israelis have in their leadership. Recent public opinion polls show that a significant percentage of Israelis lack faith in their government and are calling for new elections or Netanyahu’s resignation.
This distrust has been attributed to Netanyahu’s failure to prevent the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and his inability to win the war-turned-genocide in Gaza.
But the issue goes beyond these failures. Israelis have lost confidence in Netanyahu because they do not see him as a leader acting in the national interest. He has become so entrenched in power that he is willing to incite civil strife in Israel just to maintain his position.
As a result, it should come as no surprise that Netanyahu is also willing to sacrifice the lives of more than 15,000 children in Gaza, along with tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to buy himself more time in office.
However, the Shin Bet scandal is the clearest example to date of Netanyahu’s corruption and poor judgment.
Israeli politics is notoriously unstable and coalitions rarely last long. In that context, Netanyahu’s fractious government could be seen as a reflection of Israel’s history of political instability.
The ongoing conflict between the government and the military, while unusual, can also be understood as part of a growing trend in which the Israeli right seeks to control all institutions — including the military, which has historically been seen as separate from politics.
The events of Oct. 7 and the failed war that has followed — both of which are now the subject of critical investigations — have shattered the fragile balance that allowed Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition to hold power without provoking mass dissent.
Israeli public pressure has proven to be a key factor in this balancing act. For example, a public outcry forced Netanyahu to restore former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to his position in April 2023.
However, 18 months of war in Gaza, Lebanon and now Syria have given Netanyahu the leverage to use the state of emergency as a tool to crush opposition, stifle dissent and ignore calls for the war to end and for a final agreement to be reached.
He has now turned the war into a platform for pursuing an internal political agenda that he had failed to implement in the years leading up to Oct. 7. But Shin Bet is another matter entirely.
Founded by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, in 1949, Shin Bet has long been the cornerstone of Israel’s internal security.
While the agency’s primary mission involves countering terrorism, gathering intelligence and providing security for Israeli officials, its role carries much greater significance for the stability of the state.
One of Shin Bet’s objectives is to prevent espionage and internal subversion. Given the intelligence failures exposed by the events of Oct. 7, any significant restructuring of such a critical agency could be disastrous for Israel.
Though the head of Shin Bet reports directly to the prime minister, it has always been understood that the position should remain above political infighting. Netanyahu’s move to fire Ronen Bar last week, therefore, sent shockwaves through Israeli society, even more so than his decisions to oust former army chief of staff Herzi Halevi or Gallant.
Netanyahu’s actions have violated a long-standing taboo, further exacerbating Israel’s already unprecedented internal crisis.
Former Shin Bet chief Nadav Argaman has even threatened to reveal secret information, signaling that the agency is prepared to engage in this internal power struggle, which some fear could escalate into a civil war.
But the cancellation of Sharvit’s nomination to fill Bar’s position is perhaps the most revealing aspect of this crisis. It underscores Netanyahu’s erratic decision-making and empowers his opponents, who are eager to bring him down. As Israel’s opposition leader Yair Lapid has put it, Netanyahu has become “an existential threat to Israel.”
Some analysts have suggested that Netanyahu’s reversal was due to US pressure, especially since Sharvit had written an article criticizing US President Donald Trump.
While some see this as evidence that Netanyahu’s agenda is largely dictated by the US, such conclusions are oversimplified. Although Washington wields significant influence, Netanyahu’s decisions are shaped by a complex array of factors.
Netanyahu is keen on presenting the withdrawal of Sharvit’s nomination not as a sign of political subservience, but rather as a strategic concession or overture to Trump. His aim is to maintain full US support for his war agenda in Gaza and across the Middle East.
Ultimately, this perpetual war strategy is not driven by any coherent political ideology. Netanyahu’s singular focus remains on maintaining his political coalition and ensuring his political survival — nothing more, nothing less.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2596189
----
Netanyahu’s Jets Or Ortagus’ Conditions
Ghassan Charbel
April 07, 2025
When US Deputy Special Envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus was born on July 10, 1982, the scene was as follows: Gen. Ariel Sharon’s tanks were surrounding Beirut from all sides and his jets were bombing the capital without mercy. The general of the city at the time was Yasser Arafat, who was championing the Palestinian cause. Arafat sought to fight on for another six months before taking a decision over what to do next, recalled Hani Al-Hassan, who was in the battle.
Back then, Lebanese Prime Minister Shafik Al-Wazzan would contact King Fahd, who would in turn contact Ronald Reagan to secure a drop of water or a spark of electricity to the first Arab capital that Israel ever besieged. Hezbollah had not been born yet, but it would be formed through an Iranian initiative and Syria’s help in wake of the barbaric Israeli invasion.
Back then, Hafez Assad was in power in Syria. The image is different now. His heir, Bashar, is living in “humanitarian” asylum in Russia and Ahmed Al-Sharaa is the new ruler in Syria.
Back then, Beirut realized it had to make a difficult and painful choice: either suffer at the hands of Sharon’s jets or take the advice of the American envoy of Lebanese origin, Philip Habib. The game was obvious. Whenever the city showed resistance, the jets would strike again to discipline it and force it to agree to the US envoy’s conditions.
Initially, the situation was compared to Stalingrad and Hanoi, but the siege and breaking of the balance of power left Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization no choice but to flee by ship. And so, the Palestinian cause sailed toward a new exile.
The world has changed immensely since Ortagus’ birth. The Soviet Union collapsed and the world came under the rule of the sole global power: the US. Osama bin Laden launched his attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad and Iranian influence flooded the region. Some two decades later, Hafez Assad’s statues were toppled in Damascus and the leaders of Hamas, including Yahya Sinwar, who launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, were assassinated, along with Hassan Nasrallah and several of his Hezbollah colleagues.
When Ortagus arrived in Beirut last week, the “general” of the White House, Donald Trump, had just launched a trade war whose results cannot be predicted by the greatest of experts, a terrified Europe was criticizing America’s betrayal of its allies and China was assessing the extent of the challenge ahead. Meanwhile, small countries were preparing for rising prices of goods, poverty and great unrest.
While Vladimir Putin was rejoicing at his victory in Ukraine, with American blessings, US jets were bombing Houthi rocket caches and tunnels in retaliation for their attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis were deluded into believing that the Americans would simply leave the marine waterways under the control of the factions and their Iranian arsenal.
And at a time when Iran could not save its proxies, Tehran had to reply to Trump’s letter. This is not just about agreeing to dismantle Iran’s nuclear dream, it goes beyond that to abandoning the idea of becoming a major country in the region that boasts about holding the keys to war and peace in four countries. Trump threatened Iran with “very bad things” if it did not surrender the management of the region and its sorrows to the Americans because it has no right to them in its delusion of being a “major country in the region.”
When Ortagus arrived in Beirut, Benjamin Netanyahu’s forces were continuing to tear Gaza apart. No people since the Second World War have suffered as much as the Gazans and more is still to come. Evacuation orders keep coming and Hamas is holding on to the remaining hostages, while Netanyahu turns the whole of Gaza into a hostage that is drowning in blood, rubble and despair. The number of Palestinians who will be released in swaps is far less than the number of graves Netanyahu has dug for the people of Gaza.
Israel is drawing a security belt by fire in Gaza, the same way it did when it decimated Lebanese border villages. It is demanding a similar security belt inside Syrian territories and does not hesitate to warn Turkiye against deepening its influence in Syria.
Joseph Aoun, Nawaf Salam and Nabih Berri have very difficult tasks ahead of them. They know what it means for the war to erupt again in Gaza despite the ceasefire and mediations. They also know the extent of the free rein that Trump has given Netanyahu. They are aware that, this time, the situation demands more than just applying weak bandages to inflamed wounds. They know what it means when Israel warns that it will no longer allow what it perceives as danger to lurk by its borders. The American-Israeli demand is clear: disarming factions, not just persuading them to agree to a ceasefire. They know that waiting is not the best advice and that dangers lie ahead.
The Lebanese are preoccupied with the American visitor. They dig up her history to learn more about where she has worked before. A commentator, spokeswoman and analyst. They know that the conclusions the beautiful visitor will draw will impact the situation in Lebanon. The country cannot withstand the possibility of a return to war. Hezbollah cannot go to war, especially after seeing the developments unfold in Yemen and Syria. Israel and the US are pressuring to take Gaza out of the military aspect of the conflict with Israel. They are also pressuring to take Lebanon and Syria out of it as well.
Aoun, Salam and Berri are aware of the severity of the situation and the major imbalance in the balance of power. They know that this is a phase of painful choices in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They recall that, when Ortagus was born, they had to choose between Sharon’s jets and Habib’s conditions. They know that today they need to choose between Netanyahu’s jets and Ortagus’ conditions. They know that wrong choices have led to catastrophes in the past. Israel today is more barbaric than ever and they will naturally wait and see what Trump has to say to Netanyahu when they meet.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2596179
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/academic-freedom-jewish-israeli-jihadist/d/135085
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism