Middle East Press on: Israel, War, Jordan, Allies, UNRWA, Hezbollah, Anti Semitic Pogrom And Lebanon: New Age Islam's Selection, 11 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
11 November 2024
How Israel’s War Risks Destroying Ties With Jordan And Regional Allies
Are Israel’s New Anti-UNRWA Laws Problematic To Implement?
Urgent Lessons From Kristallnacht’s History After Amsterdam’s Pogrom
Israel’s Strategy To Break The Hezbollah Cycle And Secure Peace In Lebanon
Inside Look At White House Reaction To Netanyahu's Firing Of Gallant On Election Night
Defying The Mullahs, Iranians Resist Anti-Semitic Doctrine
Pressure On Israel Crucial To Middle East Peace
-----
How Israel’s War Risks Destroying Ties With Jordan And Regional Allies
By Elie Podeh
November 11, 2024
Relations between countries naturally ebb and flow.
While high tides are often seen as a positive sign, low tides can strain these connections.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan, relations between the two appear to be nearing an unprecedented low – mirroring the current state of Israel’s ties with other countries in the region.
The bonds and shared interests linking Israel and Jordan are deeper than those Israel has with any other country with which it holds diplomatic relations.
Since its early days as Transjordan, the Hashemite Kingdom has been considered Israel’s “best of enemies.”
While Jordan participated in the 1948 and 1967 wars against Israel, its leaders maintained secret ties with Israeli counterparts throughout this period.
The existence of common enemies and Jordan’s reliance on Western allies (first Britain, later the United States) made Israel a valuable partner in preserving Hashemite rule.
King Hussein expressed gratitude to Israel for its support during Black September in 1970, when he was engaged in a struggle against the PLO.
In return, he warned Golda Meir of the impending war during their meeting at Glilot in September 1973.
Israel, in turn, could generally rely on the Jordanian army to secure the long-shared border, preventing terrorist incursions.
Over time, Jordan also developed additional strategic needs, such as water and gas, which Israel provides.
Before 1994, peace with Jordan had always been a possibility. However, unlike Egypt, Jordan lacked the strength to withstand opposition from the broader Arab world and the Palestinian population within its borders.
But Israel’s signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with the PLO provided Jordan with the legitimacy it needed to formalize its own peace treaty a year later.
After years of attempting to represent Palestinian interests, Jordan relinquished this role to the PLO, while retaining its special role in the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, according to the peace treaty.
How to proceed?
Since then, the failure to solve the Palestinian problem has presented the regime with a dilemma, of how to square its own interests, and those of the state, with the demands of its citizens.
The response has been to keep diplomatic relations with Israel on a low-profile while sustaining close, clandestine military, defense, and intelligence cooperation.
Thus, while public relations remain cool, covert ties have remained strong. A similar dynamic has unfolded with Egypt but with a significant difference: in Jordan, more than half the population is Palestinian.
Tensions on the Temple Mount and conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians have consistently strained relations between Israel and Jordan.
The Jordanian government has typically responded by recalling its ambassador and issuing strong condemnations of Israeli actions – measured responses that have not jeopardized the peace agreement itself.
However, as the current conflict endures, as Palestinians in Gaza face ongoing humanitarian hardships, and as Israel refrains from offering a political horizon, the voices in Jordan calling for more decisive actions against Israel are likely to grow louder and could increasingly impact Jordanian policymakers.
Jordan’s Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, exemplifies the duality of Jordan’s stance.
Throughout the conflict, he has issued strong condemnations of Israel’s actions, yet he has also emphasized that Jordan, along with the broader Arab world, seeks peace rather than war, advocating for a solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative.
DEVELOPMENTS with Jordan may be more pronounced, but a similar pattern is evident in Israel’s relations with Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.
Despite a shared interest in countering Tehran, all these states condemned Israel’s recent attack on Iran.
Although these countries maintain varying levels of relationship with Israel, even the UAE – despite continuing flights to Israel and maintaining moderate statements – has made it clear that it will not participate in “the day after” in Gaza unless progress is made toward establishing a Palestinian state.
This stance is also shared by Saudi Arabia, which has yet to normalize relations with Israel.
Taking peace with Arab states for granted
Under the Netanyahu government, Israel appears to take its relations with peace and normalization with Arab states for granted.
The longevity of peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt – 30 and 45 years, respectively – may create the impression that these relationships are immune to crises. However, this assumption should not be put to the test.
Rational government policies should consider the circumstances, limitations, and risks associated with their implementation.
Israel’s limited strike on Iran was influenced, if not compelled, by American pressure to avoid complicating matters for the US administration ahead of the elections.
Similarly, an Israeli government acting with strategic foresight must weigh not only its own interests and those of its closest ally, the United States, but also the interests of other regional countries with shared concerns.
In this context, two key issues arise.
In the short term, priorities include ending the conflict, securing the release of hostages, securing Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the northern border, and establishing an alternative governing structure in Gaza.
In the longer term, a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue is essential, ideally through the formation of a state-like entity.
Resolving the first set of challenges could improve relations with the Arab states; however, only addressing the second will elevate these relationships to new heights.
This may currently seem like a fantasy, but so did peace with Egypt and Jordan just a few decades ago.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828468
----
Are Israel’s New Anti-UNRWA Laws Problematic To Implement?
By Susan Hattis Rolef
November 11, 2024
Though the last five-and-a-half years, since the elections to the 21st Knesset in April 2019, have probably been among the most eventful, diversified, and unconventional in the 76 years of Israel’s existence, I suspect that most of us were overwhelmed by the rush of events of the last week or two.
These included, inter alia, the Knesset passing two laws concerning the future relations (or rather absence thereof) between Israel and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; the rather hasty and ill-timed firing of defense minister Yoav Gallant, to be replaced by the figurehead Israel Katz (the real defense minister is now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu); the staggering reelection of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States (to the delight or chagrin of different populations); and a pogrom against Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam by a Muslim mob, and their hasty airlift from Schiphol to Ben-Gurion Airport over the weekend (and what about the hostages?).
It is a lot to swallow and digest in such a brief time.
THE TWO anti-UNRWA laws were passed by the Knesset two weeks ago by 92 and 87 votes, respectively, which included most of the opposition votes as well.
UNRWA was founded in 1949, on the basis of General Assembly resolution 302 (IV), which gave the agency a mandate to provide humanitarian assistance and development for the Palestinian refugees of the 1948/49 war, while requiring it to operate neutrally.
In 1950, another resolution instructed the agency to “establish a reintegration fund that shall be utilized... for the permanent reestablishment of refugees and their removal from relief.”
In 1952, UNRWA was requested to continue to provide programs for healthcare, education, and general welfare. All of this was supported by both Israel and the Arab states.
In the years that followed, UNWRA established refugee camps in Jordan (including the West Bank), Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip (which was then held by Egypt).
Since neither the UN, nor any other international forum, tried to find a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue in general, and the Palestinian refugees in particular, UNRWA turned into an organization deeply involved in the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem, rather than in its resolution.
Until the 1967 Six Day War, Israel had no practical relations with UNRWA.
This changed after 1967, when the refugee camps on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli rule.
Israel signed an agreement with UNRWA that defined their relations.
Besides the problem of UNRWA contributing to the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee reality, two additional problems emerged.
The first was that UNRWA did not remain a neutral organization. Its foreign directors and employees (mainly Palestinians) naturally sympathize with their Palestinian clients and they developed an animosity toward Israel.
In their view, Israel created the problem in the first place.
In addition, corruption began to take root and spread throughout various UNRWA branches.
The situation turned into an unacceptable reality when it was revealed that many UNRWA employees were among the Hamas terrorists who participated in the atrocities in Israel on October 7, some even harboring hostages who were kidnapped and taken into the Gaza Strip.
Furthermore, Israel has discovered that UNRWA facilities and installations, including schools, are used by Hamas to house terrorists, administrative headquarters, armaments caches, etc.
Although the UN agency has acted to weed out Hamas terrorists from among its employees, it is unwilling or unable to throw out Hamas operatives from its facilities and installations.
THOUGH THE two laws passed last week were presented as private members’ bills, the initiative for their presentation undoubtedly had government support.
One law forbids any contact between Israeli officials and UNRWA; the other forbids UNRWA to function in any way within Israel’s sovereign territory.
Since neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip are recognized as part of the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, UNRWA can continue to operate in those territories.
However, since Israel annexed east Jerusalem and its environs, according to the Israeli government, UNRWA must end its activities there.
Therefore, within three months the Jerusalem municipality will have to provide all the services provided by UNRWA before the laws were passed, including educational services for around 900 pupils (most of them in the Shuafat refugee camp), and four health and social centers that focus on rehabilitation and employment activities.
Though the Gaza Strip is not part of the sovereign territory of Israel (to the great chagrin of at least two coalition parties) Israel does not hide the fact that it would like to oust UNRWA from its various activities in Gaza, such as the distribution of humanitarian aid provided by the international community there.
According to the Israeli government, much of this aid reaches Hamas, rather than needy Gazans, the majority of whom have been dislocated from their homes during the 13-month war.
However, even though the US administration and other international players have urged the Israeli government to establish an alternative administration to take over the running of the Gaza Strip after Hamas is finally defeated and ousted from power, no such alternative appears to have been created.
The Israeli government has resisted the involvement of the Palestinian Authority, or any other potential Palestinian body, in the administration of the Gaza Strip “the day after.”
Unless the government is planning to reestablish an Israeli administration in the Gaza Strip, with broader functions than those held by the Israeli administration that existed there until 2005, paralyzing the work of UNRWA will simply result in the total collapse of any sort of administration in Gaza.
Though the motives behind the new legislation are certainly understandable and justifiable, perhaps a little more thought should be given to the actual implementation of the two new laws.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828458
------
Urgent Lessons From Kristallnacht’s History After Amsterdam’s Pogrom
By Sabrina Soffer
November 11, 2024
Jews were rammed by cars, then beaten and kicked on city streets; others were chased and forced to jump into freezing rivers to escape.
Masked Arab gangs, armed with knives, stationed themselves at the exits of the football stadium where Maccabi Tel Aviv and the local Dutch team Ajax concluded a match, then proceeded to hunt Jews.
In hopes of protecting himself, one man cried, “I’m not Jewish,” before being punched in the face.
These were scenes from a pogrom in Amsterdam, a city once known as “Dutch Jerusalem,” this past week.
This night of terror struck two days before history remembers what happened 86 years ago on Kristallnacht – the night of broken glass – a marker in the sequence of events that led to the Holocaust. Pogroms, then the Holocaust, demolished Dutch Jerusalem – wiping out 75% of its populace–and annihilating vibrant Jewish communities across Europe.
This is not the first time when what seems like ancient history reverberates in modern times.
It would be remiss to commemorate the night of broken glass without reflecting on what led to such a catastrophe and how to ensure Jewish safety in its aftermath.
Events that resemble Kristallnacht have been commonplace since October 7, when Hamas’s terror attacks on Israel unleashed tsunamis of Jew-hatred around the world.
Incidents such as pro-Hamas mobs shouting a slew of antisemitic slurs outside Sydney’s Opera House in Australia or the stabbing of a Jewish woman in her home in Lyon, France, may already be fading from memory, drowned out by their frequency.
In the words of great historian Will Durant, the author of The Lessons of History, “We are choked with news and starved of history.”
The parallels between 20th-century Europe and today are striking – yet it is essential to recognize the key distinctions, despite the unsettling similarities, as they help us understand present-day threats and shape our responses to ensure Jewish safety and uphold a rules-based world order.
Notable differences include the existence of Israel – which dispatched planes to evacuate Israelis from Amsterdam – and a global sensitivity to antisemitism heightened by the Holocaust and October 7.
The most critical difference, from which we can derive actionable policy insights, is between state-sanctioned antisemitism and what former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has termed “the harsh reality of imported antisemitism” – referencing well-intentioned but destabilizing immigration policies that have allowed unchecked Middle Eastern migration into Europe.
Recognizing both similarities and differences between the present and the past can better drive policy decisions.
Many German Jews in the 1920s Weimar Republic were promised full emancipation and citizenship rights, akin to the protections granted to Jewish communities in other European countries like England and France.
Yet, despite these assurances, Jews in emancipated countries still faced significant discrimination.
The situation for German Jews in the Weimar Republic and across Europe worsened when racialized Jew-hatred became intellectualized and moralized within education and politics.
In the democratic Weimar Republic, antisemites found a platform to voice their gripes against Jews via national socialism.
In modern-day
Today in the free world, many antizionists are turning to “progressive” politics and far-left academia, which has established a vehicle for them to fuel outrage against the Jewish state.
WHILE ACADEMIA under the Nazi reign was controlled by the state, currently, curriculum remains largely independent.
In the United States, bodies of government like the Education and Workforce Committee have been working to expose Jew-hatred and hold its perpetrators and enablers accountable.
Yet, those university administrators, professors, policymakers, and observers who fail to recognize the threat or seek to perpetuate a pipeline of hate – whether through the flow of money or orchestrated indoctrination efforts – veil antisemitic, radicalized, and fabricated curriculum as ‘academic freedom’ and selectively enforce parameters of free speech.
For instance, the University of Pennsylvania allowed the Palestine Writes Festival, with historically antisemitic speakers like Roger Waters and Mohammed el-Kurd, to take place while suspending tenured law professor Amy Wax for making ‘offensive’ comments.
Many Western governments today uphold democratic and liberal values – far removed from the state-sanctioned antisemitism seen under Nazi rule.
The risks of radical Islamic terrorism
While Kristallnacht occurred under Hitler’s regime, the recent pogrom in Amsterdam unfolded under a government that is acutely aware of the risks posed by radical Islamic terrorism and has vowed to tighten immigration policies.
While in Nazi Germany, the police helped orchestrate the pogrom, in the Netherlands, the police were on notice but failed to act.
Public opinion, though influential, does not equate to state-sponsored antisemitism. However, the history that drove the transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany – which could not have been done without orchestrated political campaigns and indoctrination in the German education system – demonstrates how public sentiment can drive dangerous policies if left unchecked.
State-sanctioned, legalized antisemitism, and imported antisemitism are distinct, but their outcomes can be equally destructive.
Allowing extremist ideologies to infiltrate our societies – through education and media – poses a grave risk because states that promote terror against Jews and the free world are encouraging terror around the world.
We have already witnessed non-state actors like Hezbollah, a proxy of the Iranian regime, carry out attacks in the West like the thwarted terror plot on Jewish sites in Brazil.
Given these threats, it is crucial for government officials responsible for addressing antisemitism, immigration, and terrorism to collaborate nationally and internationally.
They must strengthen policies in response to the surge in antisemitism following the October 7 attacks, as both domestic extremists and foreign terrorist organizations orchestrate violence to advance their jihadist agenda.
Together, they should focus on identifying and addressing the root causes of Jewish hatred, consisting of the indoctrination of students with illiberal curriculums and censorship of opposing ideas.
The danger lies in the rise of radicalism, particularly the convergence of radical Islam and far-left “progressive” politics.
The danger of legitimizing pro-terror ideas with the rhetoric of ‘liberation’ inevitably leads to the demonization and violent persecution of Jews.
But the greatest danger of all is enabling extremism that harms Jews – imported via people, ideas, and money – and allowing it to persist.
Durant once remarked, “Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.”
We have entered an era of chaos, and while we may yearn for liberty, history teaches us that “when liberty becomes license [for chaos and using the law at one’s discretion], dictatorship is near.”
The rule of law, coupled with foresight and the commitment of governments to combat radical ideologies, terrorism, and antisemitism, has opened a window of opportunity to turn back the tide of a chaotic world.
Today, maintaining stable order is crucial to preserving liberty. The pogrom in Amsterdam should serve as a wake-up call and a mandate for action.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828455
-----
Israel’s Strategy To Break The Hezbollah Cycle And Secure Peace In Lebanon
By Gilad Ach
November 11, 2024
More than a month into the maneuver in Lebanon, it has become apparent that this conflict holds lessons we must urgently absorb.
Those who have participated in the ground operation are now united in their observations, which point to both unexpected realities and alarming insights that Israel cannot afford to ignore.
Significant enemy weakness: The enemy proved to be far less formidable than anticipated. In most villages, combat was minimal; any resistance that did arise was swiftly subdued.
Lateral, not deep, maneuvering: Our operational focus extended laterally across the sector, engaging every front line village without penetrating deeper into the second line of villages.
Villages as camouflaged military camps: The discovery of vast weapon caches, tunnel networks, and communication hubs within nearly every structure in Shia villages and towns, coupled with rocket launchers positioned toward Israel from multiple locations, made it clear: these are not mere villages but heavily fortified military outposts, shielded by a “supportive” civilian population.
Had this network been mobilized in full, Israeli casualties and captives could have been exponentially higher than previous conflicts.
Unusual wealth amid a poor nation: Although Lebanon as a whole faces economic hardship, the affluent homes, luxury vehicles, private pools, and general opulence observed among the Shia population in the south of Lebanon suggest a stark concentration of wealth.
UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army as instruments of Iranian influence: These two forces appear to be active players in Iran’s regional strategy.
They have undoubtedly observed the tunnels, anti-tank emplacements, its booby-trapped routes, long-range rocket shipments, explosive drones, and other armaments – but have chosen either silence or active cooperation.
Deep appreciation for Israel’s intelligence community: The achievements of Israel’s intelligence agencies, particularly the Mossad, are beyond words. Their targeted disruptions of Hezbollah’s communication networks and elimination of key figures threw Hezbollah into disarray, transforming a once brazen organization into one incapable of executing its own plans.
These efforts have been instrumental in neutralizing immediate threats, and the nation owes its gratitude to the individuals behind this critical work.
Only one way forward
THE OVERWHELMING consensus among fighters and commanders in the North points to a clear conclusion: The only path forward is breaking the cycle.
The lessons from this conflict point to an unavoidable truth: Israel cannot allow Hezbollah to regroup and fortify itself in Lebanon once more.
There is a justifiable fear of being mired in a “Lebanese quagmire,” but this risk pales in comparison to the peril of allowing Hezbollah to rebuild its infrastructure and resume its terror operations.
To prevent a repeat of past mistakes and secure our northern border for the future, Israel must pursue a strategy that breaks the cycle and denies Hezbollah the opportunity to reestablish itself.
Expanding the maneuver to the Litani River: Israel must secure the area up to the Litani, designating it as a demilitarized buffer zone, free of civilian populations, fortified by an additional security barrier.
This zone would prevent any potential for a ground invasion or massive rocket attacks on Israel.
A ceasefire on our terms: A ceasefire agreement with Lebanon should include the exile of Hezbollah’s political leadership and extradition of its long-range rocket operators to Israel.
Only through this measure can Israel dismantle Hezbollah’s political and military presence in Lebanon.
Empowering allies in Lebanon: Christian and Druze leaders in Lebanon should be invited to speak in the Israeli Knesset, demonstrating support for these communities.
Strengthening their influence in Lebanon’s government could offer a counterweight to Hezbollah and foster greater stability within Lebanon itself.
US-backed reforms to the Lebanese system: With American support, Israel should advocate for the abolition of Lebanon’s sectarian-based “National Pact,” which divides power along religious lines and has fueled decades of instability.
A truly democratic system could undermine Hezbollah’s control, enabling Lebanon to emerge as a stable and self-reliant nation free from Iranian influence.
These measures represent Israel’s best chance to prevent a return to the Lebanese quagmire that has haunted it through the First and Second Lebanon Wars.
Breaking free from the grip of Iran’s proxies in Lebanon is not only feasible but essential for lasting security on our northern border.
However, this can only be achieved if Israel’s leadership demonstrates the same courage and commitment in the corridors of power as our soldiers show on the battlefield.
With the right actions, we can bring stability to Lebanon and lasting peace to Israel’s North.
This moment calls for decisive steps and visionary leadership that will secure the legacy of those who defend Israel and guarantee the safety of generations to come.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828453
----
Inside Look At White House Reaction To Netanyahu's Firing Of Gallant On Election Night
By David Jablinowitz
November 11, 2024
On the night of the US election, November 5 into the early hours of November 6, there was more to be done than just follow the projections of which presidential candidate had won each state, and who was getting closer to enough electoral votes to become the next commander-in-chief.
There was also a country to run that night.
Even as the political drama was unfolding, US officials from the White House, State Department, and Pentagon were monitoring the usual array of diplomatic and security developments that affect the United States, including how soon an Iranian attack against Israel might take place.
There was also political drama not just in the US, but in Israel, as well, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired his defense minister Yoav Gallant on that same Tuesday when Americans were casting ballots to determine their own country’s future.
On the one hand, no one has to tell White House officials about the longstanding tensions between Netanyahu and Gallant.
The Biden administration itself has exploited the strained relationship between the Israeli prime minister and defense minister for at least the past year, as Israel has fought its war in Gaza.
The administration has constantly consulted closely with Israeli officials on the military maneuvers and strategies, but openly preferred to do so with Gallant and MK Benny Gantz, when he served as a war cabinet minister.
Netanyahu was often described in the administration as the “nemesis” in the Israeli landscape, even as the Jewish state was seen as fighting a “just war.”
Fired on election night
On the other hand, the news that Gallant had been fired – this time in fact as opposed to Netanyahu’s threat during the judicial reform protests in Israel before the war – prompted some US officials to throw up their hands in despair. One Biden aide drew a very colorful response.
In our conversation Tuesday evening, the aide first attempted to keep his cool.
Referring to ongoing Israel-US cooperation on matters relating to the Iranian regime, the hostages in Gaza, and the fighting in Lebanon, he said: “From the practical point of view, we can do this, no matter who your defense minister is, and we will.”
Then I sensed a crack in his voice, as he continued: “Call me emotional because I deal with these issues so much, and have been present during some very contentious conversations involving our two countries, but my immediate reaction when I heard the news that Netanyahu was firing Gallant was: WTF. Sorry for the language, but that was my gut reaction.”
For the record, he uttered those full words, but I’ve spared the reader by offering just the well-known acronym.
This is an aide who had earlier said that he intended to leave the White House on January 20, the date the next president is to be inaugurated, whether it would be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.
It’s easy to understand that serving as a presidential aide is draining and can easily lead to feelings of deep frustration.
AS IT BECAME clear last Wednesday morning that Trump would become the president-elect, the aide and I spoke again, this time, he seemed more reflective.
He had already been critical of Harris over comments she had made when she met with Netanyahu in Washington in July, and he expounded on it in this conversation last week.
“She didn’t go far enough in defending Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East,” he said as the election tallies were coming in making it clear that Harris would not be the next president.
“At times, she expressed the US policy as though what Israel represents as a democracy, which shares our values, and what goes on in Gaza were of moral equivalence. She didn’t sufficiently address the deeper issue that there is an ideology entrenched in Gaza to destroy Israel.”
As an aide, he is supposed to stay away from expressing political views, but then he reconsidered and said it was okay to quote him.
“She tried so hard to get the Arab and Muslim vote, but that didn’t go so well in Michigan, did it?” His reference was to the state, in general, and a couple of cities, in particular, where the percentage of the Arab population is said to be the highest in the United States, and where Harris wound up losing to Trump in this election.
Some weeks ago, the Biden aide revealed that “a number of European countries and some other allies” had refused to cooperate with the US in the early days of the war after the October 7 Hamas attack.
The American plan, he said, was to set up a unified front on the part of key players in the international community to impose various pressures on Hamas and Qatar in order to end the war, free the hostages, and force the Hamas leadership out of Gaza.
“The response was timid at best,” he recalled. He cited a few European countries that were either hesitant or refused to cooperate on the grounds that they would be “dragged into Netanyahu’s war, from which there would be no escape,” as the Biden aide quoted some European officials as saying. He refused to allow publication of how each government reacted.
Nevertheless, I followed up, based on his information, and was told by a few officials in those European countries that there was, in fact, a US proposal, but that the Americans were not able to present any “realistic plan,” in the words of a few officials.
MY CONVERSATION with the White House aide on this issue occurred about a month ago.
It was just before Yom Kippur, which gave him the peg to state emphatically: “These European officials have some atoning to do for not taking a more active role in trying to find a solution early on, and instead they now complain about the heavy death toll in Gaza.
“It is, in fact, tragic,” continued the Biden aide, “but if we could have acted as an international alliance at that point, the carnage would no longer be taking place, the hostages would be home, the war would be over, and perhaps these countries could be participating in an international conference to bring peace to Gaza.”
Yet, the reality is what it is. “We are now in the homestretch,” said the aide.
“People will call us a lame duck government, but we have to keep our eye on the ball, and we will. And heck, Donald Trump says that he can prevent wars.
“Well, he won the election. Good luck to him. Good luck to all of us.”
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828451
---
Defying The Mullahs, Iranians Resist Anti-Semitic Doctrine
By Shayan Samii/The Media Line, Shahram Kholdi/The Media Line
November 10, 2024
With the recent escalation in the Iran-Israel confrontation, including Israel’s October 25 strike on Iran’s air defence system and military infrastructure, analysts are divided over whether this will fuel nationalist anti-Israel sentiment in Iran.
We contend that for generations, Iranians have resisted the regime’s persistent efforts to instil anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred.
We call on the global community to help Iranians in eradicating the remaining antisemitic sentiments in Iranian society, both domestically and abroad.
For more than 45 years, the Islamic Republic has adhered to an ideology blending radical Shiite Islamism with antisemitic fanaticism, often masked as anti-imperialist anti-Zionism.
The regime has waged its war on Israel and the broader Jewish community through a growing network of armed, cultural, and religious state and quasi-state entities.
The armed manifestations of this campaign are vividly evident in the regime’s cultivated proxies across the region, now assembled as the so-called Axis of Resistance: The Lebanese Hezbollah, various armed Shiite factions in Syria and Iraq, and the Yemeni Houthis.
The regime’s campaign goes beyond armed conflict; mullahs claim to export their revolution “peacefully” and to merely defend against “the occupying Zionist regime.”
With a network spanning from Oceania to the Americas, the regime spreads antisemitic and anti-Zionist propaganda reminiscent of interwar European fascists, infiltrating Iran’s education system and broadcasting thousands of hours of anti-Zionist programming worldwide.
Multiple Objectives At Play
This extensive propaganda campaign has multiple objectives. Within Iran, the regime’s primary aim has been to indoctrinate each new generation, seeking to create an ideologically unified, self-policing, anti-Israel society.
In times of conflict, this serves as a source of loyal combatants for the Axis of Resistance against Israel. Regionally and internationally, the regime aims to amplify both latent and overt anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments in Arab and global public opinion.
Iran’s small but enduring Jewish community, with a lineage stretching back centuries, has weathered numerous political and cultural upheavals.
This history, deeply intertwined with Jewish culture, is recognized and respected by many Iranians.
Iranian Jews face restrictive policies that expose the hollowness of the regime’s claims of religious tolerance. Public prayers like Shema Yisrael are banned due to their mention of “Israel,” while Jewish citizens are pressured to denounce Zionism and the Jewish state.
These denials of basic rights are deliberate attacks on the identity and dignity of Iranian Jews. This helps explain why Iran’s once-thriving Jewish community of 100,000 has dwindled to barely 20,000.
Iranian media actively spreads disinformation, fueling conspiracy theories about Jewish control of world events and tainting public discourse with unfounded suspicions.
Indoctrinating children
From early schooling, Iranian children are exposed to the regime’s toxic narrative against Jews.
Textbooks, rather than educating, portray Jews as conspirators and enemies of Islam, sowing seeds of suspicion that deepen as students advance.
By high school, Iranian students are taught to view Israel as an illegitimate state, a global threat, and to see Zionism as a blight, implicating all Jews in alleged crimes against humanity.
State-run television and conservative media in Iran continue to spread anti-Semitic content, deny the Holocaust, blame “influential Jews” for global problems, and promote crude stereotypes to shape public opinion.
Despite the extensive anti-Semitic propaganda campaign, many Iranians hold attitudes toward Jews and Israel that differ widely from the regime’s doctrine.
Although the Islamic Republic maintains a narrative of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist vitriol, many Iranians, particularly those beyond state influence, hold very different, less hostile views.
A significant portion of Iranians, especially the younger generation, rejects this propaganda, driven by a desire for peace, coexistence, and stability.
An antisemetic, oppressive rule
For regime opponents, rejecting antisemitic rhetoric is part of a broader condemnation of its oppressive rule.
The image of Iranian university students and the public sidestepping Israeli flags painted on sidewalks symbolizes quiet defiance of the regime’s push to demonize Israel.
With these simple yet defiant gestures, Iranians convey disdain for symbols the regime tries to force underfoot.
Through these actions, Iranians courageously signal their resistance to regime propaganda, choosing dignity and respect over hate.
Recognizing the gap between government propaganda and the convictions of ordinary Iranians is essential.
A 2015 Anti-Defamation League study found that Iranian respondents held the lowest level of negative views toward Jews among surveyed Middle Eastern nations—56%—compared to 69% in Turkey and 93% in the Palestinian territories.
These numbers reveal a population capable of independent thought, often contradicting state doctrine.
Iranian skepticism toward state narratives strengthens this independent thought, as many question the motives behind propaganda and seek their own truths.
In 2015, some level of public tolerance for the regime still existed.
Since the November 2019 protests and the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising in 2022, Iranians appear to be taking their struggle to a new level, hinting at calls for regime change.
Given Iranians’ resistance to regime propaganda, especially during Israel’s recent precision strikes, now is the time for peace advocates to educate Iranians worldwide on Israel’s importance to the global Jewish community.
There is an urgent need to counter this antisemitic campaign through digital and traditional media, emphasizing the dangers of dehumanization and creating accessible, interactive materials for young Iranians and the Muslim world.
Shahin Modarres contributed to this article. Shayan Samii is a national security and international affairs analyst with teaching expertise on Middle Eastern matters and has served in a multitude of roles for various US government intelligence and foreign policy organizations.
Dr. Shahram Kholdi has been a lecturer of record in Middle East history and politics since 2009 and has acted as a Middle East specialist for various G7 countries for decades.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828424
---------
Pressure On Israel Crucial To Middle East Peace
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
November 10, 2024
A preelection campaign video released by Donald Trump’s team showed the former president at a Lebanese restaurant in Michigan. One person asked him about peace in the Middle East. Trump responded that peace would not be possible without a change of leadership in America. He added: “You have people in the Middle East who aren’t doing their job. You have people in the US who aren’t doing their job.”
One of the Trump campaign’s commitments, as highlighted to the Arab American community in Michigan, was to end the war in Gaza. He made a firm commitment, while his defeated Democratic rival Kamala Harris only promised to do her best. However, bringing peace to the Middle East will have to involve pressuring Israel, so will Trump do that?
The only president who has previously dared to confront the Israelis was George H.W. Bush. He confronted them on the issue of settlements and it did not go well for him. Bush was challenged by Congress, which is well funded by the pro-Israel lobby. Bush had a famous quote: “There are 1,000 lobbyists up on the Hill today lobbying Congress for loan guarantees for Israel and I’m one lonely little guy down here asking Congress to delay its consideration of loan guarantees for 120 days.” The “lonely little guy” lost the 1992 election despite the success of the Gulf War.
This defeat was a lesson for every president that came after him. Will Trump be different? It is hard to tell. However, Trump always talks about being the man who keeps his word. His slogan in his 2020 campaign was “promises made, promises kept.” He will begin his second and final term in January. He is also not committed to the Republican Party. He is an outsider. On the other hand, the Republican Party is committed to him being a Republican president. He has the Senate behind him and may well have the House of Representatives too. Hence, he has a window if he wants to take drastic action.
Trump was perhaps the most pro-Israel president in US history during his first term. He gave Israel everything it wanted. He recognized Jerusalem as its capital and moved the US Embassy there. While a resolution confirming this move was passed by Congress in 1995 with a five-year grace period, the move was repeatedly delayed by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Trump, however, did not care about upsetting anyone and the US Embassy moved to Jerusalem in 2018.
He also recognized the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory, even though, according to international law, it belongs to Syria. He turned a blind eye to the expansion of settlements. His secretary of state even refused to call the settlements illegal. Having said this, Trump is not ideological. Unlike Biden, who is a committed Zionist, Trump is committed to his own interests. So, his previous pro-Israel course will not necessarily be repeated.
Jared Kushner was the favorite son-in-law last time. Now, we hear about a new favorite — Michael Boulos, the husband of Trump’s other daughter, Tiffany. His father, Massad Boulos, helped Trump win Arab votes in Michigan during the recent campaign. According to an interview given to Israeli TV by Walid Phares, who is in the Trump court, he could not have won Michigan without Massad. The interviewer then asked Phares if Boulos might make Trump steer in a different direction. However, it might not be the new son-in-law that does so, but the realities on the ground.
Trump is a transactional person. In his first term, he wanted an achievement. The Palestinian issue seemed very complex. He thought he would bypass it and go directly to Arab-Israeli normalization by giving countries in the region the perks they needed to make such a concession. The US recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, for example.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s project is clear: it is one of ethnic cleansing. He is acting as if he already has carte blanche from Trump. On the same day Trump was elected, he fired his defense secretary and replaced him with an even more radical figure, Israel Katz. Katz has already suggested the “temporary evacuation” of Palestinians in the West Bank. The Knesset last week issued a law allowing Israel to deport anyone, including citizens, with any connection to terrorism. All this is a prelude to ethnic cleansing. Can there be peace when there is another wave of ethnic cleansing?
Trump may have a terrible track record when it comes to Palestine. He even used the word “Palestinian” as a slur during his debate with Biden. And he also said that Israel is “so tiny” during one speech and asked “is there any way of getting any more?” Yet there is nothing preventing him from changing course if he really is committed to peace. After all, this will be his second term, the term in which he will create his legacy. He has ties to Israel. However, Arab Gulf states also managed to build good relations with him. Will he now listen to them and work with them on building a sustainable peace? If this is the plan, he has to pressure Israel.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578786
------
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