Middle East Press On: Huckabee, Evangelical, Iran, Nuclear Deal: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 May 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
14 May 2025
Mike Huckabee's Visit to Shiloh Marks New Era In Evangelical Ties To Israel
Harvard’s Antisemitism Report Sits On Three Lies
Antisemitism Spiking as Celebrities Turn Against Israel
Trump Must Choose Israeli Strike in Iran Over Weak Nuclear Deal
Trump’s Cuts and Israel's Costs: US Budget Cuts Endanger Israeli Social Sector
US-Israel Ties: Having Faith in God, As Well as in Our Friends
Gaza in The Himalayas: Modi’s Fantasy War and The Kashmir Proving Ground
Migration: Treating The Symptoms or Addressing the Root Causes?
Trump’s Bold Approach to Iran Nuclear Talks
-----
Mike Huckabee's Visit to Shiloh Marks New Era in Evangelical Ties to Israel
By Yisrael Medad
May 14, 2025
On January 14, 1947, Fraser Wilkins of the State Department’s Near East Division sent a secret memorandum to State Department officials. Wilkins was the desk officer for Palestinian affairs at the time, and he detailed seven “factors” upon which United States policy vis-a-vis the British Mandate entity was based.
Among them, he wrote: “continued uncertainty and uncertainty regarding the Palestine question... is distressing to Christians everywhere because the Christian interest... tends to become submerged in an Arab-Jewish controversy.”
Some 78 years later, the new US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, visited the Shiloh archaeological site (rediscovered by American Edward Robinson, the “father of Biblical geography” back in 1838), spoke personal words of spiritual meaning, and met with the leaders of the Yesha (Judea and Samaria Council), representing the over half a million Jews residing in the areas of the former Mandate not yet under full Israeli sovereignty. A new era, following on from the first Donald Trump presidential administration and the ambassadorship of David M. Friedman, is beginning.
US-Israel relationship
Despite cynical views concerning the intentions of Evangelical Christians on the one hand and antisemitic views of Zionist “control” over Washington on the other, the United States has for over 200 years been pro-Zionist, even in the face of State Department animus. This is the basis for the US-Israel relationship.
Writing to Mordechai Manuel Noah in 1819 regarding his proto-Zionist scheme at Niagara River’s Grand Island, president John Adams declared, “I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites... marching with them into Judea and making a conquest of that country and restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” John Quincy Adams, also writing to Noah, was adamant that he believed in the “rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation.”
Abraham Lincoln in 1863 met Canadian Christian Zionist Henry Wentworth Monk and expressed his identification with the hope that Jews be emancipated “by restoring them to their national home in Palestine.” Lincoln added that this was “a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.”
An official American diplomatic presence began in 1844 when a consulate opened inside Jerusalem’s Jaffa Gate. It relocated in 1912 to the city’s Agron Street, where, during 1966-1967, I frequently visited its library during my participation in the Zionist Youth Movement Leadership Institute. The early consuls-general included several pro-Zionists.
Warder Cresson, who, despite his appointment as the first American consul being rescinded after only eight days, managed to remain in Jerusalem during the years 1844-1848, said that “The day of the return of the Jews is at hand, and the glorification of the restored Jerusalem.” He later converted to Judaism.
An unfortunate incident occurred in 1858 as a result of an attack by Arabs. One man was murdered and two women were raped. Known as the “Outrage at Jaffa,” Arab thieves had set upon an American Christian family who had come to the Holy Land as part of the American Agricultural Mission. Mary Dickson, a rape victim, was John Steinbeck’s great aunt.
Woodrow Wilson fully agreed with Balfour Declaration
Much later, then-US president Woodrow Wilson overcame State Department opposition to Zionism. After meeting with Louis Brandeis and Stephen Wise in May and June 1917, Wilson expressed his full support for Britain’s “protectorate” rule over Palestine en route to its becoming the Jewish national home. On October 16, he gave his full agreement to the text of the proposed Balfour Declaration.
Another foundation of America’s pro-Zionist attitude was the American-British Convention signed with Great Britain on December 3, 1924. How important that treaty was can be gleaned from another State Department memorandum, this one by Mr. J. Rives Childs of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs and sent on March 8, 1939.
Childs reacted to a dispatch of November 25, 1938, from the United States consul general in Jerusalem regarding a conference of American Jews in the country, held to consider the protection of the rights and interests of American citizens in Mandate Palestine under that convention. The winds of a volte-face by England were whirling about, and they eventually produced the May 1939 White Paper in which England reneged on the idea of a Jewish national home.
Childs reported that at the conference, Nathan Kaplan, president of the American-Jewish Association in Palestine, declared: “The Americans in Palestine have a right to expect that the undertaking be honored in full and that the American Government take the appropriate steps in this direction.” Kaplan had immigrated to Mandate Palestine in 1927.
Immediately understanding the situation, Childs conveyed that American Jews residing in Palestine would be stressing that the convention permitted America the right “to withhold its assent to any change in the mandate which may impair the obligations assumed by Great Britain under the Balfour Declaration.”
Childs was of the opinion that “If the mandate is terminated, we have the right to be consulted with respect to the conditions under which the territory is subsequently to be administered.” That legal aspect came into play in 1946 when Jordan requested to become a member of the United Nations.
Dean Acheson, acting US secretary of state, sent a “secret, urgent” note to the president on July 11, 1946, following the suggestion by senator Francis Myers, at the urging of the Hebrew Committee for National Liberation, that the US should take no action recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state. Furthermore, the US representative at the UN should be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of the status of the Trans-Jordan area until the future status of Palestine as a whole would be determined.
After discussions at the 1947 Pentagon Conference, the US advised Great Britain that it was withholding recognition of Transjordan pending a decision on the Palestine question by the UN. Temporarily, until the Jewish national home came into being, Transjordan’s membership was stymied.
In 1950, Judea and Samaria were swallowed up by an illegal Arab occupation, only to return to Jewish administration in 1967. As a result, we have been able to witness US Ambassador Mike Huckabee come to Shiloh and meet with Jews who have returned to their homeland.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853776
-----
Harvard’s Antisemitism Report Sits On Three Lies
By Gil Troy
May 14, 2025
As a Crimson Key campus tour guide – back when I was proud of attending Harvard – I enjoyed deciphering the inscription on the John Harvard statue dominating Harvard Yard: “John Harvard, Founder, 1638.”
It’s “the Statue of the Three Lies”: there’s no actual portrait of him to know what he looked like; although he was the university’s founding donor, he is called its “founder,” even though there were several; and “1638” is the year he died, not the year Harvard was founded, which was two years earlier.
Similarly, Harvard’s antisemitism report sits on three lies. Its distortions illustrate how essential it is that universities tackle their educational failures and moral misfires by themselves for their own sakes, transcending the polarizing polemics surrounding US President Donald Trump.
Victimizers clumped with victims
First, a Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias paralleled the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias. Although not the Task Force’s fault, that’s United Nations-level false equivalence – clumping victimizers with victims.
Predictably, while uncovering some harassment of Muslims, Arabs, and anti-Zionist Jews – and none is acceptable – much of the report reads like a "Woke University" satire.
Pro-Palestinian students feel “unsafe” because Harvard won’t divest from Israel or because the university operated normally while Gaza was bombed. Ignoring the crimes of anti-Israel protesters, the report deems any pushback “retributive” for “participation in protests” and an assault on free speech “to save face and protect donor interests.”
One rampaging snowflake complains: “Do you think that someone whose family members were just bombed in Gaza has the mental capacity to submit a form?”
By contrast, the antisemitism task force details how Jews, Israelis, and even Israeli-Arabs “faced bias, suspicion, intimidation, alienation, shunning, contempt, and sometimes effective exclusion from various curricular and co-curricular parts of the university and its community – clear examples of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.”
The intimidation was – using woke-speak – systemic: widespread, mainstreamed, and harsh, coming from administrators, professors, students, departments, and programs.
Noting how anti-Zionist bullies claim they’re “just” criticizing Israel, the report proclaims: “It is disingenuous to use a mild word like “criticism” to describe raucous, aggressive, and inflammatory protest.”
Mysterious 'binary' remains undefined
The report offers a long, fascinating, but not-fully-relevant historical overview of Harvard’s Jew-hatred.
It is useful in tracking how relations between Zionists and Palestinians soured since 2005 as “a new politics of some pro-Palestinian organizing appear[ed] to view bridge-building activities as a form of betrayal, and a new generation of student activists” perceived “Israel as a symbol and vehicle of the evils of the United States and the rest of the Western world.”
That’s a delicate description of Palestinians’ belligerent “anti-normalization” BDS boycott strategy, demonizing Israel while cold-shouldering anyone who deals with Israelis, Zionists, or Jews – unless they’re the “good” Jews who bash Israel.
Then, alas, the task force failed. After detailing this deterioration and, predictably, adding some sharp what-about-ist elbows blaming Israeli politics, the report says “many Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard” found themselves “on the wrong side of a political binary that provided no room for the complexity of history or current politics.”
The report should have provided an equally detailed history of how this oppressed-oppressor “binary” overtook and corrupted Harvard – along with academia. That would have been pathbreaking. Instead, this mysterious “binary” remains undefined in 100,000 words.
By contrast, in January 2024, Harvard’s legendary dean, Harry Lewis, diagnosed the problem devastatingly in 865 words. His article “Reaping What We Have Taught,” published only in The Harvard Crimson, found words like “decolonize,” “oppression,” “liberation,” “social justice,” “white supremacy,” and “intersectionality” appearing in the course catalog over 100 times.
This crude experiment, Lewis sadly but courageously concluded, “supports the suspicion that the Harvard curriculum has become heavily slanted toward recent fashions of the progressive Left.” He added, using words far bolder than the Task Force, that “merchants of hate are repurposing these intellectual goods that universities are producing.”
Lewis showed how this old, ever-adaptable, historic parasite called “Jew-hatred” bonded with a new host – what some call “woke”– creating what I call my new book, The Academic Intifada.
Clearly, wary of offending too many colleagues, Task Force members detailed some of the implications of this toxic bonding, such as biased professors polemicizing in class, bullying students, and imposing one-sided curricula. But the report spinelessly sidestepped the cause.
You cannot solve a problem without diagnosing it clearly.
Report champions 'pluralism'
The final falsehood was ideological. The report champions “pluralism,” mentioning it 173 times. The authors offer Alaine Locke’s “vision of cultural pluralism” to save Harvard, endorsing his “insistence that diversity enriches the human experience and that cultural exchange can deepen our understanding of ourselves and others.”
They’re betting on the wrong Locke. Alain Locke (1885-1954), class of 1907 and the first African American Rhodes Scholar, was correct in embracing an openness essential to learning. But this report neglects the real ideology that made Harvard Harvard and America America: the liberalism of John Locke (1632-1704), among others.
Liberalism wanted to “preserve and enlarge freedom” by protecting individual rights. Building on that leap forward, pluralism functions more as a foreign policy, urging even more openness to groups and cultures.
Liberalism remains the defining, most successful, democratic, and academic vision. Ultimately, it unleashed professors seeking truth – or truths. “Cultural pluralism,” the later, alumnus Locke admitted, “presupposed cultural relativism.”
Both Lockes rhyme more than they clash. But liberal universities traditionally kept politics out of the classroom to pursue truth. Today’s pluralistic palaces are so open they’re morally confused – although genuine pluralists would at least resist woke orthodoxy.
As a Harvard tour guide, I finished the standard three-lie riff by pointing to Harvard’s motto, “Veritas,” emblazoned on the statue. “That makes it the statue of four lies,” I insisted. “Veritas means ‘truth’ and you can’t have truth amid three other lies.”
Alas, truth today is not only missing from Harvard’s statue, but from the university named for him.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853774
----
Antisemitism Spiking As Celebrities Turn Against Israel
By Hayim Leiter
May 14, 2025
“Do they like us?”
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, this has been a constant refrain in our home. Our children, ranging in age from eight to 14, are constantly concerned if the actors and musicians they love feel animosity for Israel.
Most of the time, their inquiries feel like the reopening of old wounds. I wish that those so vocal in Hollywood would keep their opinions to themselves and stick to what they know best. But the cacophony of voices opposed to the Jewish people seems unending.
Celebrities turn against Israel
One of the loudest and most disturbing voices throughout the Israel-Gaza conflict has been John Cusack. If his constant, baseless critiques of Israel and the IDF weren’t enough, one of the popular actor’s most recent social media posts caused quite the stir.
The image was a sketch of a grandfather and granddaughter reading on the couch. The young girl asks, “Why are so many people dying in Gaza?” The older man responds, “Shhhh! That’s antisemitic.”
The levels of ignorance it takes to think that this meme is accurate are staggering. But Cusack has already shown his hand, denying the rape of women on October 7. It’s not surprising he holds nothing but contempt for the Jewish State and the Jewish people. But I’m still mourning the fact that I’ll never show my children Say Anything. I just wish Cusack hadn’t expressed this judgment as a personal philosophy.
This past week was also plagued by antisemitism in the town where I was born. One of the local sports bars in Philadelphia had a sign circulating in the establishment that said, “F*** the Jews.” The bar’s owner, Dave Portnoy, took to social media to express his disgust and contempt for all who were involved. He claimed he would fire those of his staff who allowed such a sign to appear and that he wanted to out the author as well.
Mo Khan, who penned the sign, was a student at Temple University; in response to his actions, the college suspended him. It’s amazing that so many other schools have been unable to take such decisive action.
As for Portnoy, he has expressed his hope to educate the others involved by organizing a trip to Auschwitz.
Khan, who is already feeling the consequences of his actions, decided to double down on his hate of the Jewish people. He appeared on The Stew Peters Show, hosted by a known antisemite and Holocaust denier, and blamed us for his fate. The Temple student, much like John Cusack, sees no reason to tailor any of his language.
But the most disturbing aspect of this incident is that Khan will most likely find plenty of online support for his despicable opinions.
As if it wasn’t enough to be attacked from what feels like all sides, there are even those who’ve attempted to defect from the Jewish ranks. Ben Cohen, the co-owner of Ben and Jerry’s in America, appeared on The Tucker Carlson Show, divulging that he “loves Jesus.” Knowing his politics, this admittance does not come as a shock. He is one of the most vocal of the self-hating Jews.
Cohen and his partner attempted to halt all sales of their ice cream in Judea and Samaria just a few years ago. The distributor of Ben and Jerry’s in Israel fought the owners in a protracted legal battle, asserting that the American counterparts were actually hurting the Palestinians they claimed to protect. The company in Israel employs a good deal of Arab workers. If the institution had been forced to close its doors, those workers would have been out of jobs.
In the end, the Israeli subsidiary was able to continue selling the products and employing whom they wished.
But Cohen has taken his self-loathing to an all-time low. He should be ashamed of his behavior. What’s most shocking is the depths of his ignorance. When it comes to Jewish law, no one can renounce their Judaism – not even converts. Rav Joseph Soloveitchik famously ruled this way some years back.
If people like John Cusack and Mo Khan could have their way with the Jewish people, they would naturally eventually come for Cohen, too. Running and hiding from our enemies does nothing to improve the situation. It only puts a target on all of our backs. The solution to those who wish our demise is Jewish strength, and I, for one, will never back down.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853763
-----
Trump Must Choose Israeli Strike in Iran Over Weak Nuclear Deal
By Raphael Benlevi
May 14, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s stated Iran policy is the demand that the Islamic Republic completely dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, leaving it with no capacity to enrich uranium, a demand echoed by his top national security advisers and lead negotiator. This is a perfectly reasonable position – indeed, it was once the international consensus, enshrined in United Nations Security Council resolutions.
However, it is highly unlikely that such an outcome can be achieved through negotiations alone. While Iran has historically come to the table under credible threat of force, it is unrealistic to expect that the regime will surrender its nuclear facilities outright.
The only type of deal Iran might accept would essentially resemble the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with all of its inherent flaws: the retention of enrichment capabilities, sunset clauses, weak inspection regimes, exclusion of ballistic missile and proxy warfare provisions, and broad sanctions relief.
Such a deal may offer short-term benefits – chief among them a temporary reduction in Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, delaying its breakout time and easing immediate tensions.
Many hope it would allow the US to pivot more decisively toward East Asia. But the result of a JCPOA-redux would be the opposite. It would guarantee long-term US entanglement in the Middle East.
A deal of this nature would not resolve the fundamental threat posed by the Islamic Republic. On the contrary, it would strengthen Tehran by trading a temporary pause in its weapons development for economic relief and the opportunity to rebuild its regional proxy network and missile capabilities.
Within a few years, Iran could resume its nuclear ambitions – this time with a bolstered ballistic arsenal and possibly intercontinental capabilities, posing a direct threat to the United States.
A minimalist deal would not enable a genuine US disengagement from the Middle East because it would fail to address Iran’s ability to fund and coordinate proxy warfare against Arab monarchies and Israel. The result would be a repeat of the post-JCPOA landscape: a region increasingly dominated by Iran, culminating in open conflict with Israel and appeasement from neighboring states. In time, the US would be forced to return with greater force and expense.
The act of signing such a deal would itself undermine Trump’s credibility and foreign policy goals. After having withdrawn from the JCPOA and denouncing it as a disastrous agreement, signing a similar deal would discredit his reputation and grant retroactive legitimacy to the approach of former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The prospect of using force in the Middle East justifiably carries a negative connotation for many within the Trump administration. But no one is proposing a US invasion or occupation of Tehran. Quite the opposite.
By supporting Israel’s resolve to confront existential threats on its own, Trump can showcase the strategic logic of his alternative to the Obama-Biden model – one in which capable regional allies take the lead, with American backing reinforcing their actions.
Three concerns of deal
Opponents of this approach raise three key concerns: potential Iranian retaliation against US forces; the risk of broader escalation involving external powers; and disruptions to global oil supplies. While these risks are real, they have been greatly exaggerated.
First, Iranian retaliation: The Islamic Republic is currently in one of its weakest positions in years – economically crippled, internally unstable, and militarily diminished. Its proxies are depleted and its air defenses degraded. If Iran were to target US forces in response to an Israeli attack, it would invite devastating American retaliation – likely a regime-ending scenario.Tehran knows this.
More plausibly, it would target Israel, which is prepared to defend itself. A clear and credible warning from Trump that any attack on US forces would result in severe consequences could deter such actions entirely.
Second, the specter of great power involvement: While Russia and China have grown closer to Iran, neither is likely to risk a direct confrontation with the US to defend it. Public condemnation aside, they would likely remain on the sidelines.
Third, the economic impact. If Israeli strikes are limited to nuclear infrastructure, energy flows from the Persian Gulf may remain unaffected. Even if Iran retaliates in a way that causes supply disruptions, this may cause a short-term price spike, but the US would not suffer significantly – and could even benefit as an oil exporter.
By contrast, China remains highly vulnerable to disruptions in Middle Eastern oil. Roughly 15% of its imported crude oil comes from Iran alone. A sudden loss of access would strain its limited strategic reserves and force a scramble for alternatives. Economic pressure on China may, in fact, align with US interests in the current geopolitical climate, where Washington no longer views Chinese prosperity as beneficial.
The costs of a strike are real. But the potential benefits are far greater. A successful strike on Iran’s enrichment facilities would directly accomplish what diplomacy has not: eliminating Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.
Yes, Iran could theoretically rebuild, but after investing decades and vast resources only to see its program destroyed, doing so would be politically and economically fraught – especially with the demonstrated willingness of Israel to act.
Such action would also reinforce Trump’s credibility. Trump would be seen as a leader who set clear red lines, gave diplomacy a chance, and then acted decisively when those efforts failed. This would send a powerful message, not only to Tehran but to adversaries and allies around the world. Whether around Taiwan, Eastern Europe, or Greenland, American resolve would carry newfound weight.
Allowing Israel to carry out such a strike is not the opening of another “forever war” in the Middle East, which Trump rightly seeks to avoid, but a necessary and limited act that would serve US interests much more than the chimera of a new deal.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853778
---
Trump’s Cuts And Israel's Costs: Us Budget Cuts Endanger Israeli Social Sector
By Yaron Neudorfer
May 14, 2025
As Israel grapples with complex security and economic challenges, a new and silent threat is emerging from an unexpected source.
This consists of budget cuts by the Trump administration targeting social sectors and civil society organizations in the United States, alongside discussions about changes to tax-deductible donations.
These cuts, which have received almost no attention in Israeli public discourse, could have significant consequences for Israel’s social sector. Naturally, public and media attention are focused on the war and ongoing political-security scandals. However, this silent threat poses a real danger to Israeli civil society organizations.
In recent months, major American philanthropic foundations have been forced to reconsider their giving strategies. American non-profits are facing not only an unstable economic environment that may shrink donors’ pockets but also local crises, such as the wildfires in Los Angeles and drastic cuts in government support.
As a result, philanthropic foundations are increasingly expected to fill these growing gaps. The emerging outcome is a troubling trend: the redirection of donations away from Israeli civil society organizations back to the US.
Israeli reliance on US philanthropy
Many Israeli organizations working in social fields, welfare, education, health, and employment, traditionally rely on American philanthropic support, which is estimated to account for about 75% of all international donations coming to Israel.
A significant reduction in this support could severely harm their activities and threaten their organizational survival. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the current Israeli government is already implementing across-the-board budget cuts, including reductions in funding for social sectors.
The social sector in Israel, and globally, plays a critical role in bridging social and economic gaps that governments cannot address. In the absence of a sufficient social safety net, these organizations provide essential services to vulnerable populations, promote equal opportunities, and strengthen the resilience of civil society.
If this trend continues, we are likely to witness alarming developments in the coming months, such as the closure of small and medium-sized civil society organizations, cuts to essential services for vulnerable populations, and the marginalization of innovative social initiatives. The consequences will be felt most acutely in Israel’s social and geographic periphery, where the need for support is greatest.
A coordinated national response is urgently required on three levels. First, the government must develop a more diversified support policy for social sector organizations and strengthen local funding sources.
Second, the business community must assume greater responsibility in supporting civil society, whether through direct donations or strategic partnerships.
Third, and most critically, civil society organizations themselves must work to diversify their funding sources and develop sustainable economic models that reduce their dependency on external donations.
Perhaps this current challenge will catalyze the creation of new, more sustainable models for social action in Israel.
Swift and decisive action
Israeli civil society organizations must act immediately and proactively reach out to their American funding foundations to secure the transfer of earmarked funds before these foundations decide to redirect resources back to domestic US organizations.
Swift and decisive action in the immediate term could help ensure the continued vital operations of these organizations in Israel, at least during this critical transition period.
While Israeli public attention is focused on immediate security and political challenges, it is crucial not to ignore the silent, developing threat to civil society.
We must ensure that the social safety net provided by these organizations remains strong for the resilience and future of Israeli society as a whole.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853771
---
US-Israel Ties: Having Faith In God, As Well As In Our Friends
By Steven Burg
May 14, 2025
In recent days, many within our community have expressed deep concern following the announcement of plans for US President Donald Trump’s Middle East trip, which would bypass Israel. Instead, the president is visiting only Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. This development, coupled with reports of direct US-Hamas negotiations and potential Saudi nuclear technology agreements, has stirred anxieties among Israeli and American Jews alike.
Trump’s nuclear talks with Iran and direct hostage negotiations with Hamas, without Israel’s knowledge, have stoked anxieties in a country long accustomed to being consulted by successive US administrations on regional affairs.
Many are asking whether this is the same president recently touted as perhaps the most pro-Israel in history? In Israel today, the soaring anxieties mark a sharp reversal from November, when many celebrated Trump’s election. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed it as “history’s greatest comeback.”
Ministers in his far Right cabinet saw opportunities for expansionism and immediately called for the annexation of the West Bank.
Crossroads of faith and realpolitik
As Jews, and especially in the case of observant ones, we find ourselves at a crossroads of faith and realpolitik. While these developments deserve our attention, they also demand our perspective.
First, it’s important to acknowledge the complexity of international relations. As former national security advisor Michael Waltz’s departure showed, the administration appears committed to cooling regional tensions. “Trump is adamant: He wants people to put the guns down,” one adviser noted.
This desire for de-escalation, while creating uncertainty, also opens pathways to potential stability.
One Israeli official praised Trump for providing heavy munitions to the Israeli military and noted that while the Biden administration frequently pressured Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, Trump made no such requests during the first few months of his term.
Those facts warrant our recognition and faith in the United States, Israel’s long-time friend and ally, even as we process other developments.
The Hamas release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander following direct talks with US officials should be viewed through multiple lenses. While Israel’s role in such negotiations appears to have been completely overlooked, the return of a hostage represents a tangible humanitarian victory.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee pushed back on assertions that the administration was overlooking Israeli concerns, stating that “The United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel” to reach certain agreements. This straightforwardness may be unsettling, but it also reflects the reality of sovereign nations pursuing their interests while maintaining crucial alliances.
So many Jews, especially Israelis, are deeply worried right now. Worried about America’s response to the horrors of Hamas, the current war, and the plight of the hostages. Worried about growing global antisemitism. Worried that even leaders we have trusted may not stand by us in the way we hope.
Reason to hope
Is there a reason to worry? Maybe. Is there a reason for hope? Absolutely.
Above all, especially those of us who call ourselves observant, spiritual Jews, we must remember: The Almighty runs the world.
We say that quickly, but do we live it? Real faith isn’t automatic. It’s something we work for. Sweat for. Especially now, on a national level, with so much at stake.
Throughout our history, the Jewish people have faced moments of uncertainty in our relationships with world powers. Yet we have endured, not merely through diplomatic acumen, but through an unshakable connection to something far greater.
We must act. Lobby. Protect. And fight for the security of the Jewish people. But even as we do, we must also double down and triple down on our faith, our prayers, our connection with our father in heaven.
In practical terms, this means maintaining open channels with the administration while respecting its approach to regional diplomacy. It means recognizing that America’s support for Israel remains fundamental, even if it becomes hard to see in specific policies as they evolve.
The Almighty loves us more than we can comprehend. He will never abandon us. That understanding will calm our fears and steady our hearts.
The US-Israel relationship has weathered many storms over the past eight decades. Both nations understand their strategic interests align on fundamental issues, even when tactical approaches differ. Our advocacy must continue with wisdom and patience, recognizing the complexities that are at play.
It’s not always easy to be a Jew, but it’s the greatest gift in the world.
While we thank and treasure our allies, we know this: Our fate is in God’s hands and it always will be.
May the Almighty continue to bless His children with peace and strength.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853764
----
Gaza In The Himalayas: Modi’s Fantasy War And The Kashmir Proving Ground
May 13, 2025
Over the past week, the world did not witness counterterrorism—it witnessed bloodlust masquerading as statecraft. On April 22, a deadly attack in Pahalgam claimed the lives of 26 Hindu tourists in Indian-occupied Kashmir. No group claimed responsibility, no investigation followed, no evidence was released. But New Delhi, undeterred by the absence of facts, scripted its own narrative. In this state-sponsored spectacle, truth is neither sought nor necessary. The only thing that matters is momentum—toward escalation, toward conflict, toward the mythic idea of national purification through violence.
By May 7, Indian fighter jets had crossed the Line of Control under the banner of “Operation Sindoor,” bombing alleged militant sites deep inside Pakistan. The name itself—sindoor, a sacred vermillion powder used to mark Hindu matrimonial commitment—was no accident. This was not just military action; it was political pageantry steeped in religious symbolism. A performative fusion of saffron nationalism and aerial dominance. Not retaliation, but ritual. Not strategy, but spectacle. This wasn’t national defense—it was saffron-stained theater.
The logic of the operation was not security—it was seduction. The electorate was the audience. Fighter jets were campaign tools. The dead were conscripted into a choreography of majoritarian vengeance. A mosque in Bahawalpur was among the targets. A child was among the victims. But the global reaction was not outrage—it was apathy, a shrug that grows more grotesque with every new violation. Because in today’s geopolitical theater, whose blood matters—and whose doesn’t—is determined less by atrocity than by allegiance.
War as Political Pornography
We live in an age where war is not waged—it is curated. Every bomb is edited for maximum social media virality. Every strike comes with a hashtag. Every corpse must pass through a filter—are they mournable? Are they “strategic”? When the tourists were murdered in Pahalgam, New Delhi did not pursue justice; it pursued optics. There was no judicial inquiry, no forensic follow-up. There was only improvisation—war as spectacle, atrocity as algorithm.
The mosque strike in Bahawalpur was no aberration. It was a message. It was Modi reading from Netanyahu’s bloodstained script. In Israel, the systematic extermination of Palestinians is marketed as self-defense. In India, the destruction of Kashmiri lives is peddled as counterterrorism. In both, civilian suffering is either denied or deemed necessary. Resistance is criminalized, and mourning is rendered subversive. This is not merely military doctrine—it is ideological theater.
From Tel Aviv with Malice: The Zionist Template
What unfolded in Kashmir is not an isolated Indian enterprise. It is a colonial rerun. It is the adaptation of Zionism’s most brutal chapter for Hindutva’s present ambition. Netanyahu’s ongoing genocide in Gaza—flattening hospitals, schools, refugee camps—is a grotesque performance of impunity. Modi has watched and learned.
The parallels are not accidental; they are methodical. Netanyahu’s doctrine of permanent war, his use of artificial intelligence for targeted assassinations, his manipulation of Western guilt and evangelical fervor—these have not only been admired in New Delhi but are being actively replicated. India now imports Israeli surveillance software, drones, and even battlefield ethics. It exports, in turn, a homegrown brand of majoritarian supremacy and digital authoritarianism.
Netanyahu cloaks his violence in the language of Jewish survival, while Modi sanctifies his in Hindu victimhood. Both rely on imagined past traumas to justify present atrocities. Both rule through fear, both manufacture enemies, and both weaponize religion not as a private faith but as a public threat. Zionism and Hindutva do not merely share tactics—they share a cosmology: a belief that supremacy is sacred, and conquest is redemption.
From Occupation to Incineration
What Gaza is enduring, Kashmir has long known. But now, occupation has morphed into something even more menacing—incineration. When Article 370 was abrogated in 2019, it wasn’t an act of governance—it was a coup wrapped in constitutional sophistry. Since then, Indian-occupied Kashmir has become a laboratory of collective punishment: mass detentions, communication blackouts, and extrajudicial killings. Every protest is sedition, every Kashmiri is a suspect.
This is not mere repression—it is infrastructural annihilation. Israeli drones hover over both Khan Younis and Kupwara. Facial recognition software developed in Tel Aviv is deployed in Srinagar. AI-driven profiling, biometric tracking, and predictive policing—once tested on Palestinians—are now part of the Indian security arsenal in Kashmir. This is not just military coordination; it is the globalization of impunity. Genocide is being franchised.
And make no mistake: this is genocide. It is not always announced with gas chambers or mass graves. Sometimes it arrives via bureaucracy and silence, through economic strangulation and algorithmic invisibility. A people erased not only from geography, but from memory.
Normalization of Atrocity
Both Netanyahu and Modi understand that in the 21st century, atrocity does not need to be hidden—it only needs to be reframed. The victims must be discredited, their suffering recoded. Muslims in Gaza are “Hamas sympathizers.” Kashmiris are “terror-adjacent.” Once the label sticks, so does the justification. One drone strike becomes a strategy. Ten become a doctrine.
The West, long complicit in Israel’s impunity, now finds in India a profitable partner. Israel massacres civilians with American weapons. India does the same with Israeli tech. Meanwhile, the language of human rights is defanged, reduced to vague appeals to “restraint” and “dialogue.” In Washington, London, and Paris, trade deals matter more than war crimes. The result? War criminals pose as visionaries. Ethnic cleansers lecture the world on democracy. And media conglomerates turn bloodshed into breaking news, stripped of history, ethics, or consequence.
This is not just moral collapse—it is market logic. Murder, when properly branded, is good for business.
Escalation, Then Retaliation
But this time, Pakistan did not simply absorb the blow. On May 8, Islamabad launched precise counter-strikes against Indian military installations in Rajouri and Samba. This was not rhetorical posturing—it was calculated signaling. A warning that any further adventurism would have consequences. It was battlefield diplomacy conducted at supersonic speed.
And now, South Asia teeters on the precipice. Two nuclear states locked in a game of brinkmanship, each led by ideologues intoxicated with messianic visions. One misfire, one miscalculation, and the subcontinent could be reduced to ash. This is not alarmism—it is arithmetic. The region is combustible. The leadership is combustible. And the world, as ever, is distracted.
What Modi and Netanyahu are playing with is not just the fate of their enemies—it is the fate of everyone.
Hasbara Meets Hindutva: Propaganda on Steroids
Israel calls it hasbara—the state’s machinery of spin, euphemism, and denial. India has gone further. Under Modi, truth itself has been criminalized. Journalism is treason. Fact-checking is incitement. Dissent is anti-national. What began as a media campaign has metastasized into a surveillance state.
In Modi’s India, myth is law, and law is mythology. Anchors don’t report—they chant. Historians don’t interpret—they are hunted. Universities are not spaces for learning—they are mines for loyalty. Hindutva is not a conservative ideology—it is a supremacist theology. It imagines a Hindu state purified of difference: Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and dissenters are rendered pollutants.
The Hindutva project, like Zionism, demands not merely submission but erasure. It seeks not just dominance but homogeneity. And in both India and Israel, the state is no longer an institution—it is an altar.
When Mourning Is Resistance
In Gaza, children are buried under collapsed concrete while Netanyahu tours military bases, grinning for cameras. In Bahawalpur, a child dies in a mosque, and India’s television anchors hail a “surgical success.” In Kashmir, families mourn sons labeled as terrorists before their bodies are even recovered. This is not accidental. This is policy. Civilians are not collateral—they are targets. Mourning itself becomes resistance, a subversive act against a state that demands silence.
This is not war. It is ethnic cleansing with hashtags. It is the ritualized killing of an unwanted population, legitimized by religion, sanitized by media, and subsidized by global powers. To call it anything less is to collude in the crime.
This Is Not a Drill
What is unfolding in Gaza and Kashmir is not a deviation from the international order—it is its logical extension. Modi is not merely watching Netanyahu—he is studying him, emulating him, and refining his playbook. Netanyahu is not merely killing Palestinians—he is mentoring a global generation of despots. This is not an alliance. It is an ideology: high-tech fascism with sacred symbols and smart bombs.
And just when the world appeared poised to plunge into the abyss, a ceasefire was declared on May 10. Both India and Pakistan agreed to halt further escalation. Enter Donald Trump, the self-anointed peacemaker, who promptly claimed credit for “bringing calm to the subcontinent.” That the fate of two nuclear nations could become fodder for a washed-up demagogue’s victory lap is not just absurd—it is obscene.
But let us not be fooled. The ceasefire is not peace. It is a pause. The fires still smolder in Gaza. The surveillance towers still hum in Kashmir. And the ideology that fuels this machinery of death continues to metastasize.
The Stage Is Burning
History will not be kind to those who watched and did nothing. To the diplomats who issued empty statements, to the media houses that parroted lies, to the citizens who turned away because the bodies were not white enough, not close enough, not human enough.
This is a call to all who claim to care about justice: The hour is late. The victims are not symbols—they are sons, daughters, families, futures. Gaza and Kashmir are not battlefields—they are crime scenes. And unless we resist—vocally, unapologetically, collectively—we are not bystanders. We are accomplices.
The next act may unfold in Karachi, Srinagar, or Rafah. But the stakes are already planetary. The question is no longer whether we will act—but whether we will have the moral courage to interrupt the machinery of annihilation before it consumes us all.
Because this is not the end of the play.
This is the moment the audience decides whether to stand up—
Or to burn with the stage.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250513-gaza-in-the-himalayas-modis-fantasy-war-and-the-kashmir-proving-ground/
-----
Migration: Treating The Symptoms Or Addressing The Root Causes?
By Adnan Hmidan
May 13, 2025
Amid heated debates over immigration in Britain and across the West, media headlines are dominated by plans to curb migrant flows, tighten asylum laws and deport those seeking protection. Yet this intense focus on the “branches” of the issue overlooks its deeper roots — namely, the enduring impact of Western policies, both colonial and contemporary, in destabilising large parts of the Global South.
If even a fraction of the vast resources currently invested in border fortifications, surveillance and anti-immigration public relations campaigns were redirected towards addressing the structural causes of forced migration — ranging from military interventions and support for coups to suffocating economic sanctions — we might witness outcomes that are far more sustainable and humane.
Let us begin by considering recent history. Over the past few decades, Britain, the United States and their allies have played key roles in toppling elected governments – as in Egypt in 2013 – supporting authoritarian regimes, as was common in Latin America during the Cold War, or launching direct military interventions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which, according to the UNHCR, resulted in more than one million refugees.
Economic sanctions, often justified as tools for punishing “regimes”, have overwhelmingly harmed ordinary people. Studies have shown that sanctions imposed on Syria, Iran and Afghanistan, for instance, have decimated health and education systems, triggered runaway inflation and forced families to seek survival abroad by any means available.
Colonial legacies cannot be overlooked either. Many of today’s migrants originate from countries that were once colonies. In Britain’s case, tens of thousands of workers from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean were brought over — sometimes under duress — to work in ports and factories, especially in the post-World War II period. These movements were not always the result of free choice but part of an imperial economic order designed to serve the centre at the expense of the periphery.
Now, the descendants of those very migrants are bearing the brunt of rising racism, as political parties compete to offer ever “tougher” policies on immigration — even from regions wrecked by wars and conflicts in which the West has played a central role. Legal avenues for asylum are increasingly shut, pushing many into perilous sea crossings and fuelling smuggling networks and exploitation.
According to the Refugee Council, those granted asylum in the UK represent just one per cent of the global refugee population. Yet public discourse often frames the situation as though the country is being overwhelmed.
The real solution lies in acknowledging that migration is not a crime, but rather a consequence of complex global dynamics — many of which stem from our own foreign and economic policies. It is time for politicians and decision-makers in Britain and the West to adopt a more just and pragmatic approach: supporting sustainable development, ending destabilising interventions, lifting sanctions that suffocate populations, and opening safe, legal pathways for migration.
Otherwise, the strategy of targeting migrants while ignoring the root causes will only deepen humanitarian crises and fuel the rise of populism and racism — undermining the very democratic values the West claims to uphold.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250513-migration-treating-the-symptoms-or-addressing-the-root-causes/
------
Trump’s Bold Approach To Iran Nuclear Talks
Dalia Al-Aqidi
May 13, 2025
In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed between Iran and major world powers, including the US, with the aim of limiting Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. When President Donald Trump walked away from the deal in 2018, many critics warned it could increase tensions, isolate the US and accelerate Iran’s path to a bomb.
But now, in his second presidential term, Trump is pursuing something much more ambitious than a return to the status quo. He is not seeking a revised version of the JCPOA, he is demanding that Tehran dismantle its nuclear program entirely.
This is not a return to diplomacy as usual. It is a maximalist approach, one that leaves no room for compromise on key nuclear issues and calls for the complete removal of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium domestically. In doing so, Trump is signaling that any deal must not only delay Iran’s path to a weapon but eliminate it altogether. This new stance marks a sharp contrast from Barack Obama’s deal, which was built on restrictions, monitoring and phased trust-building.
The JCPOA allowed Tehran to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, while imposing strict limits on uranium enrichment, stockpile size and centrifuge use. It also created a robust inspections regime led by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The deal’s sunset clauses were its fatal flaw, since they allowed Iran to expand its nuclear capabilities after a decade or so. Furthermore, the agreement did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its regional aggression through terror proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
By contrast, Trump’s new position is uncompromising. In recent remarks, he confirmed that the only acceptable outcome is “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program: no enrichment, no centrifuges, no domestic capabilities. The Trump administration is reportedly offering Tehran the chance to purchase enriched uranium from external sources, possibly even from the US, as part of a plan to eliminate the infrastructure that allows it to pursue a bomb in secret.
This demand goes far beyond the JCPOA. In fact, it is more ambitious than any prior US negotiating position with Tehran. It suggests not just containment but complete rollback. It is the nuclear equivalent of regime change, only through facilities and capability, not leadership.
The White House is also extending its demands to other areas: Iran’s ballistic missile program, its terror financing networks, its proxy operations across the Middle East and its human rights abuses at home. It is, in essence, seeking a grand bargain in which Iran not only gives up its nuclear future but also abandons its revolutionary ideology.
Naturally, Tehran has rejected these demands, both publicly and privately. Iranian leaders have made clear that they view enrichment as a national right and that dismantling their facilities would mean surrendering to foreign pressure.
In addition to its challenging demands, the Trump team is also using indirect diplomacy. Talks have reportedly taken place in neutral locations like Oman and Rome, where American and Iranian negotiators have passed messages through intermediaries. Washington has made clear that sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization are on the table, but only if Tehran agrees to irreversible steps.
The negotiations are delicate and opinions within Trump’s own circle are divided. Former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz favored a hard-line position, while other advisers, like Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, are exploring pathways to achieve results without military escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has taken a firm stance, insisting that any deal must be comprehensive and enforceable.
Meanwhile, international partners are watching closely. European leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have expressed skepticism over whether Trump’s terms are realistic. They agree that the JCPOA was imperfect but many still believe diplomacy must include give and take.
Still, Trump’s strategy has its logic. The old deal bought time; it did not solve the problem. Tehran was still enriching uranium. It was still building missiles. It was still funding terrorism. The president’s view is that half measures only give Iran space to regroup and resume its dangerous behavior. By contrast, demanding total dismantlement ensures that Iran will have no path, short-term or long-term, to a nuclear bomb.
A deal based on strength, not compromise, is more likely to prevent war and Tehran always responds to pressure, not appeasement.
Ultimately, this is about more than enrichment levels and centrifuge models. It is about a better and safer Middle East, which we all want to see.
Whether you like him or not, Trump has made his choice, a bold and clever one. He walked away from a deal that he believed was weak and is now demanding one that could change the game entirely.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2600571
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/huckabee-evangelical-iran-nuclear-deal/d/135527
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