Middle East Press On: Bomb, Peace, Paradox, Bloodshed, Arab Deal: New Age Islam's Selection, 2 September 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
2 September 2025
Is The Tide Finally Turning Against Israel?
Can You Bomb Your Way To Peace? The Paradox Of Israel’s Syria Strategy
Peace Rejected: Israel, US Turn Down Arab Deal, Guarantee More Bloodshed
Netanyahu Is Israel’s Nixon And America Is Paying The Price
On The Necessity Of Expelling Israel From The UN General Assembly
What Drives Americans To Fight On The Frontlines Of Gaza’s War Crimes
-------
Is The Tide Finally Turning Against Israel?
Dr. Ramzy Baroud
September 01, 2025
Is it finally happening? Is the West turning against Israel? Or are we, whether motivated by hope or driven by despair, simply engaging in wishful thinking? The matter is not so simple.
In July, a significant number of countries and organizations signed the New York Declaration, a strong statement that followed a high-level meeting titled “Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.”
The conference and its bold conclusion warrant a deeper conversation. What matters for now, however, is the identity of the countries involved. Aside from states that have traditionally advocated for international justice and law in Palestine, many of the signatories were countries that had previously supported Israel regardless of context or circumstance.
These mostly Western countries included Australia, Canada and the UK. Some of these nations are also expected to formally recognize the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly this month.
Of course, one has no illusions about the hypocrisy of supporting peace in Palestine while still arming the Israeli war machine that is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. That notwithstanding, the political change is too significant to ignore.
In the cases of Ireland, Norway, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal, among others, one can explain the growing rift with Israel and the championing of Palestinian rights based on historical evidence. Most of these countries have historically teetered on the edge between the Western common denominator and a more humanistic approach to the Palestinian struggle. This shift began years prior to the start of the ongoing Israeli genocide.
But what is one to make of the positions of Australia and the Netherlands, two of the most adamantly pro-Israel governments anywhere?
In Australia’s case, media accounts argue that the friction began when the federal government denied an extremist Israeli lawmaker, Simcha Rothman, a visa for a speaking tour. Israel quickly retaliated by canceling the visas of three Australian diplomats in the Occupied Territories. This step was not a mere tit-for-tat response but the start of a virulent campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wage a diplomatic war against Australia.
“History will remember (Australian Prime Minister Anthony) Albanese for what he is: a weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jews,” Netanyahu said, again infusing the same logic of lies and manipulation tactics.
Israel’s anger was not directly related to Rothman’s visa. That was a mere opportunity for Netanyahu to respond to Australia’s signature on the New York Declaration, its pending decision to recognize Palestine and its growing criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Though Albanese did not engage Netanyahu directly, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke did. He answered the accusations of weakness by boldly arguing that “strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up.”
This statement is both true and self-indicting, not only for Australia but for other Western governments. For years, and numerous times during the Gaza genocide, Australian leaders have argued that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” Since blowing people up hardly qualifies as self-defense, it follows that Canberra knew all along that Israel’s conduct amounted to war crimes. So, why the sudden, though still unconvincing, shift in position?
The answer is directly related to the mass mobilizations in Australia. On a single Sunday in August, hundreds of thousands of Australians took to the streets in what organizers described as the largest pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the country’s history. Marches were held in more than 40 cities and towns, including a massive rally in Sydney that drew a crowd of up to 300,000 people and brought the Sydney Harbour Bridge to a standstill. These protests, which called for sanctions and an end to Australia’s arms trade with Israel, demonstrated the immense public pressure on the government.
In other words, it is the Australian people who have truly spoken, courageously standing up to Netanyahu and to their own government’s refusal to take any meaningful steps to hold Israel accountable. If anyone should be congratulated on their strength and resolve, it is the millions of Australians who relentlessly continue to rally for peace, justice and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Similarly, the political crisis in the Netherlands, starting with the resignation of Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp on Aug. 22, is indicative of the significant change in European politics toward Israel and Palestine.
“The Israeli government’s actions violate international treaties. A line must be drawn,” said Eddy van Hijum, the leader of the country’s New Social Contract party and deputy prime minister.
The “line” was indeed drawn, and quickly so, when Veldkamp resigned, ushering in mass resignations by other key ministers in the government. The idea of a major political crisis in the Netherlands sparked by Israeli war crimes in Palestine would have been unthinkable in the past.
The political shift in the Netherlands, much like in Australia, would not have happened without massive public mobilization around the Gaza genocide, which continues to grow worldwide. While pro-Palestine protests have occurred in the past, they have never achieved the critical mass needed to compel governments to act.
Though these governmental actions remain timid and reluctant, the momentum is undeniable. People power is proving more than capable of swaying some governments to impose sanctions and sever diplomatic ties with Israel, not only through pressure in the streets but also through pressure at the ballot box.
While the West has not yet fully turned against Israel, it may only be a matter of time. The precious blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza deserves for history to be finally altered. The children of Palestine deserve this global awakening of conscience.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2613755
-------
Can You Bomb Your Way To Peace? The Paradox Of Israel’s Syria Strategy
by Muhammad Shahzaib Hassan
September 1, 2025
On any given day, Israeli jets thunder over southern Syria, yet diplomats claim that quiet back-channel talks are underway in nearby capitals. Israel is pursuing a strange two-track strategy; striking with bombs to enforce deterrence, while simultaneously exploring diplomatic understandings on security. This paradox, negotiating peace under fire has deep roots but urgent new twists. Can “coercion plus cooperation” deliver genuine peace, or is it merely an illusion masked by rhetoric and force.
A history of halted wars
The starting point is a long-standing hostility. Israel and Syria have fought multiple wars (1948, 1967 and 1973) but never signed a peace treaty. Instead, they signed armistice and disengagement agreements. For example, after the 1973 October War they agreed in 1974 to a demilitarised zone, but even that agreement “is not a peace agreement” only “a step toward a just and durable peace”. The Golan Heights remained mostly under Israeli control. For nearly a half-century, this unresolved status meant that any tension could reignite war, and it often did in low-intensity form.
Negotiations under fire
Against this backdrop of mistrust, a quiet rapprochement has begun. The UAE, acting as an intermediary, helped open indirect talks between Israel and Syria starting in early 2024. These meetings, not officially acknowledged by either side focus on technical issues like border security and extrication of armed groups. President Ahmed Al-Sharaa of Syria acknowledged such “indirect negotiations,” saying they aim “to ease tensions”. The goal is to prevent any accident from spiraling out of control.
But at the same time, fighting has continued. Just recently, Israeli jets struck what was described as an arms convoy only 500 meters from the Syrian presidential palace. Israeli officials openly framed these strikes as warnings, particularly targeting Iran’s presence and allied militias. One analysis noted Israel told Syria it will not tolerate any Iranian-backed forces (or other armed groups) near its Golan border. Israel calls this policy “deterrence”, it bombs to signal seriousness, yet says it is still willing to negotiate with Damascus.
Syria’s response has been conciliatory in tone but firm in principle. Sharaa insisted Syria would uphold the 1974 disengagement line and pursue calm. He bluntly accused Israel of violating that agreement during Syria’s war, seizing parts of the demilitarised zone. Damascus has also tried to show that it poses no threat: it is detaining foreign militants on its soil and telling the US that it “will not allow Syria to become a source of threat to any party, including Israel”. Nevertheless, Syria’s leaders make clear that any real normalisation is impossible so long as the Golan remains occupied. Sharaa has said Syria’s priority is a return to the 1974 lines under international supervision.
Coercion and cooperation?
So what is Israel’s game? In practical terms, it appears to be a form of coercive diplomacy. Israel uses limited force (airstrikes, missile barrages) to enforce red lines, for example, it wants Syria fully cleared of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah, and allied militias. Simultaneously, Israeli officials signal willingness to bargain on other security issues, perhaps allowing Syria some breathing room if it expels those forces. This carrot-and-stick mix is reminiscent of Cold War brinkmanship: powers negotiated arms control agreements even as they showed military muscle.
The big question is whether this mixed strategy can ever produce stability. Realist theory suggests that deep adversarial conflicts often only pause, not end. Syria demands the return of the Golan; Israel fears any concessions that might empower Iran; the fundamental dispute (land and influence) remains unresolved. Pragmatists hope that at least a modus vivendi can emerge. Indeed, recent reports hint at modest progress: Syria has publicly indicated willingness to control certain groups in the south, and Israel may (so far only informally) ease off strikes in return. But every agreement is contingent and fragile, easily derailed by spoilers or mistrust.
One lesson from conflict resolution studies is that negotiations under fire are inherently tense. If an Israeli strike accidentally kills civilians, it could send negotiations crashing down. Likewise, if a militant group in Syria attacks Israel at the same time talks are happening, Israelis might suspend dialogue and resume bombing. The fragile equivalence of threats and talks means any misstep could unravel the whole process. So far, Israel’s mixed approach has kept a kind of uneasy peace: Syria has not fired back in force, and Israel’s strikes (though frequent) have stopped short of full invasion. It is a high-wire act.
Implications and theories
For US and UAE mediators, a successful deal might bolster regional stability; an Iran-free southern Syria, for example, could help isolate Tehran and reassure Israel simultaneously. But other interpretations exist. Constructivists would argue identities and narratives still block real trust: Syria will not abandon its historical claims to the Golan, and Israel will not tolerate an Iranian foothold. Liberals might point to the small cooperation here as a hopeful sign that even enemies can find technical agreements.
The handling of Syria might set precedents. If this quiet diplomacy works without formal agreements, it could encourage similar ad-hoc arrangements elsewhere. If it fails, it will reinforce the lesson that Middle Eastern peace requires deep political solutions, not just technical fixes under gunfire.
At the least, the paradox of Israel’s Syria strategy reminds us that peace isn’t always the absence of conflict. Sometimes states talk peace while fighting wars. For the reader, the striking takeaway is this; you cannot bomb genuine peace into existence. Without addressing core grievances (such as the status of the Golan), any arrangement reached under duress will be brittle. Israel’s “bomb them and talk” approach may buy time, but it is not a substitute for a durable resolution. The question it leaves us with is unsettling: can meaningful security ever emerge from such an uneasy truce, or will the next crisis simply explode this paradox once more?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250901-can-you-bomb-your-way-to-peace-the-paradox-of-israels-syria-strategy/
--------
Peace Rejected: Israel, US Turn Down Arab Deal, Guarantee More Bloodshed
By Nimrod Novik
September 2, 2025
By ignoring a dramatic Arab offer, Jerusalem and Washington sentenced Israelis and Gazans to continued bloodshed, while depriving Israel of a historic regional opportunity.
Twice over the past months, a powerful Arab coalition, mostly hostile to Hamas (which is outlawed by some), presented plans for a Hamas-free Gaza Strip.
First, in March, the Arab League embraced an Egyptian plan for Gaza rehabilitation and reconstruction, refuting US President Donald Trump’s claim that doing so requires massive deportation of the strip’s over two million residents.
More recently, a Saudi-French initiative, covering law and order as well as security, was endorsed by well over one hundred countries.
Following a thorough analysis of the two plans and ensuing conversations with some of their authors, members of Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS) reached three conclusions.
First, the governing principles of those plans meet Israeli security needs, offer a Hamas-free postwar Gaza, and pave the way for upgrading our national security via integration in a powerful regional coalition.
Second, that the plans are hardly perfect, and at least one major flaw must be addressed: the endorsement of the Palestinian “right of return.” As no plan involving an intent to flood Israel with refugees can be considered, the plans’ sponsors have acknowledged their blunder and undertook to correct it.
Third, Israeli government veto of any such plan has nothing to do with its merits – security or otherwise. It stems primarily from the dominance of a security-ignorant, ideology-driven messianic minority in the cabinet.
Consequently, it was concluded that there is value in providing the lead mediator – Trump – with a powerful security validator for an Israeli national-interests-based plan, in the form of CIS, Israel’s largest group of former IDF generals and colonels, as well as Mossad, Shin Bet, Israel Police, National Security Council, and foreign service equivalents.
Morning after plan
Subsequently, late last week, CIS sent a letter to Trump and his senior staff, recommending five governing principles for a Gaza “morning after” plan:
End of war and return of all hostages – living and deceased.
An urgent surge in humanitarian assistance.
Coordinated phasing out of the IDF with the phasing in of a Hamas-free, alternative governance administration, tasked with addressing civil management, law and order, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The alternative Gaza management is to comprise deployments – boots on the ground included – from Arab countries that have expressed willingness to shoulder that responsibility under the invitation of, and in coordination with, the Palestinian Authority.
All while preserving Israel’s inalienable right of self-defense.
We noted that by our and by reported IDF professional analyses, Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat, and the IDF has what it takes to deal with its residual terrorist capacity, remotely or otherwise, as has been the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon since the US-brokered ceasefire entered into force.
Once launched, we concluded, this plan can set the stage for the next phase of Trump’s historic Abraham Accords achievement. By normalizing Israel’s relations with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab and non-Arab Muslim states, Israel’s integration in a US-led powerful regional coalition is bound to contribute to the security, stability, and prosperity of all its members.
Rarely does a country face a situation characterized by these two: the choices are clear, and it is its call. That moment is here. Israel can persist with its current violent trajectory all the way to an open-ended bleeding occupation of Gaza, the continued “Gazafication” of the West Bank until it, too, explodes, regional and international isolation, and the loss of the pillars on which stands our strategic alliance with the US.
Yet, a powerful regional coalition stands ready to do much of the heavy lifting, once we choose the alternative. It is prepared to help extricate us from Gaza, coordinate with us its Hamas-free future, contribute to stabilizing the West Bank by helping reform the PA, and, finally, normalize relations and forge a joint coalition to stand up to Iran and its proxies while promoting regional stability and prosperity.
It is your call, says the coalition. All that stands in the way of this historic regional opportunity is your government’s refusal to end the war, remove the veto over PA involvement, and commit to an eventual negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A stark choice indeed. Or is it?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-865954
-------
Netanyahu Is Israel’s Nixon And America Is Paying The Price
By Ruby Chen
September 2, 2025
My son, Itay Chen, a US-Israeli citizen, has been held hostage by Hamas in Gaza for almost 700 days. Each day that passes without his release has been indescribable agony for our family. What makes it harder still is knowing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen to prolong this war instead of making a deal that could bring my son – and 49 other hostages – home.
For Americans, this may sound familiar. Fifty years ago, president Richard Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for two unnecessary years. He did it not for strategic reasons, but for politics. He wanted to look strong. He wanted to win a second term. The cost was more than 8,000 American lives, lost in the name of paranoia and political ambition.
Netanyahu is Israel’s Nixon. He has put politics ahead of people, survival ahead of strategy. His promise to “destroy Hamas” is as empty as Nixon’s “peace with honor.” Israel’s own generals acknowledge Hamas cannot be eliminated militarily in the near future. The IDF chief of staff reportedly said just this past week: “There is a deal on the table, and it should be taken now.”
Netanyahu is avoiding a deal
Netanyahu refuses to end the fighting without a Hamas white flag, save countless lives in Gaza, and bring relief to families like mine and to the entire nation of Israel: a deal for the release of all the hostages, a pause to the war, and the beginning of national rehabilitation after two years of trauma catalyzed by October 7.
And who’s footing the bill for this political intransigence? Just as in Vietnam, America is bankrolling a huge part of this war. Since October 7, US taxpayers have sent billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. Every extra day of this war drags the United States deeper into a regional conflict it neither wants nor can afford.
This is not in America’s interest. President Donald Trump has spoken of stability, normalization, and prosperity in the Middle East. The Gaza war achieves none of these. It damages the US reputation worldwide, strengthens Iran, blocks the possibility of historic normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and fuels anger toward America across the Muslim world.
The parallels between Netanyahu and Nixon
Nixon blamed the radical Left and the media for his failures. Netanyahu has adopted the same script, pointing fingers at Israel’s media, the hostage movement, Democrats in Washington, and anyone else who questions his judgment. The truth is simpler: he is a leader clinging desperately to power, prolonging a war to shield himself from accountability – and from the criminal trials awaiting him.
At least Nixon had Henry Kissinger, who helped end the 1973 Yom Kippur War and paved the way for peace with Egypt. Netanyahu’s top confidant is Ron Dermer – remembered in Washington as the official who helped funnel Qatari money to Hamas, money that fueled the October 7 attack. Where Kissinger built peace, Dermer built the Hamas war machine America is now paying to dismantle.
The parallels are striking, and the stakes for America are once again unbelievably high. Netanyahu’s refusal to prioritize a hostage deal keeps US citizens like my son in captivity. His endless war drains American resources, distracts from urgent global priorities such as Ukraine and Iran, and jeopardizes Trump’s legacy.
Nixon’s legacy is remembered with shame: a corrupt, paranoid leader who prolonged an unwinnable war, blamed others for his failures, and left office disgraced. Netanyahu is steering us toward the same fate – hated by most of his own people, distrusted by allies, remembered for being at the helm of his country during the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust, and since then, for sacrificing lives for his political survival.
America must not go down with him. President Trump has the power to change Bibi’s course. Americans should not write blank checks for Netanyahu’s political machinations. They should insist first on a deal that frees the hostages.
Mr. President, now is the time to keep your promise of freeing the hostages – as well as fulfilling your obligation to my family by bringing my son, a US citizen, back home. For me, this is not theory or history. My family has been shattered, waiting nearly two years for our dinner table to be whole again.
There are times when history offers leaders a mirror. Sometimes it reflects greatness. Sometimes it reveals tragedy and pettiness. In Benjamin Netanyahu’s case, the reflection is that of Nixon – a man who had the diplomatic acumen to achieve great things like he did with China, but whose self-serving protraction of a senseless war came at the cost of thousands of American lives, and who ultimately left office despised and disgraced. The question now is whether the American people will keep paying a similar price while Netanyahu clings to power.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-865970
------
On The Necessity Of Expelling Israel From The UN General Assembly
by Peter Rodgers
September 1, 2025
For decades, the United Nations has served as the most important institutional forum for settling inter-state disputes and safeguarding the two central pillars of the Charter: sovereign equality and the protection of civilians. When a member state systematically undermines these principles, the Charter itself prescribes a final remedy: expulsion, explicitly provided for under Article 6.
This argument is not a matter of momentary emotion but is grounded in a documented record of conduct that has targeted some of the Charter’s core norms: the protection of civilians in conflict, respect for territorial sovereignty, the prohibition of systematic discrimination, and the prohibitions on genocide and crimes against humanity. Following South Africa’s referral, the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures against Israel, affirming the need for urgent steps to prevent irreparable harm in Gaza.
At the same time, international criminal institutions have underscored that individual responsibility for grave crimes arising from military operations is a binding legal reality. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has indicated that arrest warrants have been sought in relation to the situation in Palestine, and pre-trial chambers have found reasonable grounds that senior Israeli officials may bear criminal responsibility for war crimes.
Beyond questions of individual accountability, extensive reports by human rights organizations and civil society groups demonstrate that governance patterns and operational policies may amount to “apartheid” and “persecution” under international law. This includes Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report, as well as findings by Israeli organizations such as B’Tselem, all based on evidence of systemic practices.
The Charter and the international order condemn violations of territorial sovereignty. In recent years, Israel’s cross-border strikes and operations in Syria, including raids and attacks repeatedly documented by Syrian officials and independent monitors, have repeatedly breached Syrian sovereignty, causing the deaths of both soldiers and civilians. While states may at times invoke self-defense, the repetition of operations outside Security Council authorization or a clear nexus to legitimate defense raises serious legal questions about their compatibility with Charter norms. The normative message is clear: a member that persistently treats the territory of other states as an operational arena is not fit to remain in an organization founded to protect sovereignty.
Another factor undermining Israel’s international standing is its long-standing policy of “nuclear ambiguity.” Widely recognized as possessing a nuclear arsenal, Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rejected independent inspections. This posture weakens the non-proliferation framework and fosters a culture of unaccountability inconsistent with UN membership.
Settlement expansion, systematic denial of building permits to Palestinians in key areas of the West Bank, and demolition of residential and agricultural structures have eroded Palestinian territorial sovereignty and undermined the possibility of statehood. Dozens of rural communities in “Area C” have been deprived of access to land, water, and construction permits, targeting Palestinians’ capacity to establish institutions and realize their territorial rights. UN and local reports have repeatedly documented that home demolitions, land confiscation, and restrictions on reconstruction form part of a broader pattern that blocks the emergence of viable Palestinian governance.
Meanwhile, settler violence against Palestinian civilians has sharply escalated: cases of assault and killing, arson of farmland, burning of vehicles and homes, and destruction of livelihoods have been recorded. Several major incidents of arson attacks have led to deaths, injuries, and loss of vital agricultural resources. Human rights organizations and local monitors report that these acts are often met with impunity, with effective investigations and prosecutions against settlers rarely undertaken, even where evidence exists. Documentation from B’Tselem, UN human rights monitors, and local data-driven mapping makes the scale of this violence unmistakably clear.
Practically, expulsion under Article 6 requires a Security Council recommendation, where a permanent member’s veto could block it. For this reason, the General Assembly must instead use alternative diplomatic levers: suspension of privileges in specialized agencies, restrictions on mandates and credentials, support for collective legal action, and mobilization of multilateral sanctions to make cost-free membership impossible. The goal is not retaliation but institutional integrity: membership must equate to adherence to Charter principles, not immunity from them.
The moral logic behind expulsion is twofold. First, the continuation of membership without consequence signals that Charter violations can be tolerated if backed by political protection, eroding the UN’s legitimacy. Second, the very question of expulsion forces states to choose between transactional interests and the preservation of institutional principles. A General Assembly that evades this choice effectively abandons the foundational promise it was created to uphold.
Expulsion would be a historic step. It would not by itself resolve the tragedy of the occupied territories, but it would serve as a necessary corrective, affirming that international norms are not optional and that systematic violations carry costs. The case of a state subject to ICJ provisional measures, under active ICC criminal scrutiny, accused of apartheid by reputable human rights organizations, and engaged in repeated cross-border operations is not mere political rhetoric; it is a legal, evidentiary, and institutional argument that the General Assembly can no longer ignore. In this present test of global conscience, the world can either honor its moral and legal duties or resign itself to irrelevance in the face of future violations.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250901-on-the-necessity-of-expelling-israel-from-the-un-general-assembly/
-------
What Drives Americans to Fight on the Frontlines of Gaza’s War Crimes
By Jamal Kanj
September 1, 2025
Serving in the military is the ultimate test of loyalty. When young Americans raise their right hand, they pledge to defend their nation, their Constitution, their people. Yet for many young Americans, that oath is NOT made to the United States military. Instead, they pack their bags, fly across the Atlantic, and enlist in a foreign army—the Israeli War Machine, aka, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
The numbers speak loudly. According to the Washington Post, 23,000 Jewish American citizens are currently serving in the Israeli military. By contrast, US Department of Defense data shows that in 2006, fewer than 4,000 American service members identified as Jewish. A later DoD report in January 2019 placed the figure at roughly 0.4 percent of active-duty personnel. Put simply, more Jewish Americans, both in numbers and percentage, serve under the misappropriated Star of David than under the Stars and Stripes.
Naturally, many new Americans maintain personal cultural and ancestral ties to their homelands—a land they actually come from, with real last names, not Hebraized East European family names. No ethnic group, however, has a lobby dedicated to serving the policy of a foreign country, like AIPAC. Mexican Americans celebrate Mexico’s victory on Cinco de Mayo, but do not promote enlisting in Mexico’s military. Irish Americans rejoice Saint Patrick’s Day, but had not lined up to join the Irish Republican Army. No ethnic American group raises nonprofit tax deductible funds for a foreign army, other than the Jewish billionaires, who bankroll “Friends of the IDF.”
Controlled by this foreign lobby, Congress not only tolerates the Israeli exception, rather it tries to reward it. Two Jewish Republican lawmakers; Guy Reschenthaler and Max Miller, have proposed legislation, H.R. 8445, to amend the American Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to include (Jewish) Americans serving in the Israeli army. If passed, the amendment would grant these “foreign” soldiers the same benefits reserved for Americans in uniform.
Let that sink in: Israeli (American) soldiers would have the same protections as American army soldiers. An Israeli who is starving babies and committing war crimes in Gaza, would be legally indistinguishable from an American Marine guarding Camp Pendleton in California.
When it comes to Israel, AIPAC, through the disproportionate Jewish representation in both Houses—three to five times higher than their share of the US adult population—exerts outsized clout. Combine this with the campaign finance power over elected officials, AIPAC can flex its muscles to institutionalize the Israeli exception. One could pose the question, if this is good for Israeli (American) soldiers, why not provide all Americans serving in foreign armies the same benefits? Maybe for a Muslim American soldier, if any, serving in Pakistan or Egypt. Such an idea would most likely cause a revolt in Washington. Accusations of dual loyalty, even treason, would dominate the headlines. If so, why not in the Israeli case?
One of those soldiers is David Meyers from California, who spent six years in the Israeli navy. He explained his decision to enlist in the Israeli military, citing “… an incredibly deep and long connection that I have to Israel.” Answering a question for reasons he chose a foreign army over his own, his answer was more telling: “The United States with its strength and size, perhaps, isn’t quite needing your abilities and your efforts.”
Since when did America’s strength become an excuse to abandon it for a foreign army? Regardless, Meyers’s statement suggests he does not have a deep or long connection to the country of his birth—or at least not one as deep as to a foreign country. America is strong only because its citizens choose to serve it, not ditch it in favor of a foreign uniform. To dismiss the US military as too mighty to need Jewish Americans isn’t about necessity, it’s about misplaced loyalty.
Many of the Americans serving in the Israeli army are called lone soldiers. They are the young Americans with New York or Texas accents; I’ve encountered at occupation checkpoints throughout Palestine. Their job is to humiliate Palestinians in the West Bank, and starve children in Gaza.
Some may frame their service as defending “the Jewish people.” When in fact, they are fueling Jewish hate in the West for being the face of the “Jewish-only” colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, or for imposing an apartheid occupation on behalf of a foreign political entity, whose leaders stand indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
With this in mind, these Americans are participating in what the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have described as war crimes—from the engineered starvation of babies in Gaza, to the subjugation of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. As the ICC continues to investigate Israeli crimes, one day, these “Americans” could face reality, not as heroes, but for their roles in the crimes against humanity. Ironically, Congress wants to make these potential war criminals equal to American servicemembers.
The numbers do not lie. Over-represented in elected offices, and underrepresented in the US military, Jewish Americans enlist in the Israeli army at more than five times the rate they serve in their own country’s forces. This begs the question: why are so many Jewish Americans more willing to die for a foreign country than for nations that gave them everything they have? That is not an anti-Jewish statement; it is a fact that would, and should, uniformly apply to any ethnic group.
If some Jewish Americans choose to devote their lives and loyalty to a foreign state, that is their business. However, it is an insult to every American in uniform when Congress considers equating American soldiers with those serving in a foreign army. Worse, by ignoring the moral and legal ramifications, US policymakers risk entangling America in war crimes committed by these “paper” American citizens, crimes that may one day be judged in The Hague, and for which today’s members of Congress should be held to account by their own constituents.
Tribal loyalty, often disguised as religious or nationalistic virtue, distorts judgment and blinds individuals to injustice, elevating kinship above truth, morality, and humanity. It is this tribal blindness that drives some Jewish Americans to join a foreign army and stain their souls with the blood of Gaza’s war crimes.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/what-drives-americans-to-fight-on-the-frontlines-of-gazas-war-crimes/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/bomb-peace-paradox-bloodshed-arab-deal/d/136688
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