Middle East Press On: Mamdani, Mayoral Election, Torah, Ankara, Gaza: New Age Islam's Selection, 8 November 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
8 November 2025
What Mamdani's Victory In The NYC Mayoral Election Means For Israel
A UN Mandate Is The Only Path To Real Peace In Gaza
Egypt And Jordan: The Overlooked Partners In Post-War Gaza
Gaza’s Ceasefire At A Crossroads: The Challenge Of Stabilization And Peace
Israel Should Let Journalists Into Gaza, And This Is Why
The Torah Between Abraham And Herzl: Israel’s Call To Moral Leadership
US Punishes Colombia’s President Petro For Defending Gaza, Says Expert
UN Security Council Approach Offers Hope For Gaza
Ankara Fixes Its Gaze On Iraq’s High-Stakes Elections
‘His Heart Beat For Palestine’ – Moroccan Rights Activist Sion Assidon Dies
------
What Mamdani's Victory In The NYC Mayoral Election Means For Israel
By Shirly Pinto-Kadosh
November 7, 2025
The victory of anti-Israel candidate Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral election is far more than a local political choice. It is a statement from a significant portion of New Yorkers, in stark contrast to the election of US President Donald Trump, who is widely admired in Israel.
Mamdani, a 34-year-old Muslim immigrant from Uganda and a democratic socialist, represents the complete opposite of Trump. His win feels like a deliberate slap in the face to everything Trump symbolizes and, indirectly, to Israel as well.
Think about it: If his political trajectory continues to rise, Mamdani may become a dominant figure in American politics for years to come, and no one can predict how far that influence will reach.
Mamdani was backed by approximately 40% of Jewish voters
Mamdani proudly touts support from segments of the Jewish community. About 40% of Jewish voters reportedly backed him, while the Israeli community in New York expresses deep concern about his worldview and potential future impact. He claims he “loves Jews” but not Israelis and certainly not Israel as a Jewish state. In his view, Israel should become a “state of all its citizens,” a sanitized phrase that challenges the Jewish right to self-determination and undermines the very essence of Zionism.
Will we see more pro-Palestinian demonstrations, more hostility toward Israelis and Jews, and more legitimacy granted to antisemitism disguised as “political criticism?”
I am convinced that this is not just another political cycle. We are entering a new and troubling era, one in which Israel’s legitimacy and the security of Jewish communities around the world are being put to the test.
We cannot afford to be complacent. We must stand united, raise our voices loud and clear, defend ourselves and our future as a people, protect our safety worldwide, and safeguard our undeniable right to a national homeland. If we don’t protect ourselves, who will?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-873026
------
A UN Mandate Is The Only Path To Real Peace In Gaza
Hani Hazaimeh
November 07, 2025
The idea of deploying an international stabilization force in Gaza under the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has sparked cautious optimism. After months of relentless destruction, a multinational presence of mainly Arab and Muslim nations could offer the war-ravaged enclave its first genuine chance at stability. Yet, for such an ambitious plan to succeed, the force must be anchored in legitimacy, protected by law and guided by impartial authority — which means it must operate under a UN mandate. Anything less would risk transforming the mission into a political tool rather than a peacekeeping effort.
A UN mandate is not a formality; it is the moral and legal backbone of any credible international operation. It would ensure the force acts transparently, remains accountable to international law and prioritizes the security and well-being of civilians over political agendas. Without that legitimacy, the deployment would quickly lose the trust of the Palestinian people and the broader international community.
A UN-backed framework could define clear objectives — restoring order, supporting vetted Palestinian police, securing Gaza’s borders and facilitating humanitarian aid. These steps are essential not only for peace but also for rebuilding institutions capable of sustaining governance and dignity. The Palestinian Authority must be at the center of this process. Any effort that sidelines it risks deepening the internal divisions that have long hindered Palestinian unity. The goal must be to restore Palestinian governance, not to replace it.
To ensure the mission’s credibility, the participating Arab and Muslim nations should operate under a neutral command structure supervised by the UN. A joint operations center would prevent unilateral decision-making, while independent monitoring mechanisms must be established to track progress and report violations directly to the UN Security Council. Without these safeguards, the force could quickly become entangled in regional rivalries or external manipulation.
But beyond the logistics lies a more complex obstacle: Israel’s track record of resistance to international oversight. History shows that Israel has often been skeptical, if not openly hostile, toward peacekeeping forces operating in areas under its control or influence. The repeated targeting of UN facilities and personnel during past conflicts raises legitimate fears that Tel Aviv might seek to limit the mission’s scope or obstruct its operations. Israel could, for example, attempt to confine the force’s role to border monitoring while avoiding issues such as freedom of movement, reconstruction and civilian protection. Such restrictions would reduce the mission to a buffer that serves Israel’s security objectives rather than offering a genuine path to Palestinian self-determination.
Equally concerning is the possibility that Israel will maintain its blockade over Gaza’s airspace, borders and sea access. No international force, no matter how capable, can foster peace in a territory that remains under siege. Lifting the blockade is not a concession; it is a prerequisite for recovery and long-term stability. Gaza’s reconstruction must go hand in hand with freedom of movement, economic revival and the reestablishment of normal life.
The deployment of an international force must therefore be part of a broader political vision — one that unites Gaza and the West Bank under a single Palestinian administration, reopens the path toward statehood and ends the cycle of violence and isolation. Arab states participating in the mission can serve as guarantors of this process, ensuring that it remains rooted in justice and regional legitimacy rather than in the narrow calculus of geopolitics.
For the people of Gaza, peace cannot be delivered through speeches or summits; it must be built on the ground, one act of security, justice and reconstruction at a time. A UN-mandated force, backed by Arab and international partners, could provide that foundation — if the world has the courage to give it the mandate, the resources and the political will it needs.
This is not merely about stabilizing Gaza. It is about proving that the international community can still act collectively, credibly and compassionately in the face of human catastrophe. The alternative is another failed experiment — another promise made to Palestinians that ends up buried under the rubble of distrust.
If the world truly wants Gaza to rise from the ashes, the path is clear: empower an international force with a UN mandate, shield it from political manipulation and make it the first step toward a just and lasting peace.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2621725
------
Egypt And Jordan: The Overlooked Partners In Post-war Gaza
By Mark Lavie/The Media Line
November 8, 2025
We’ve been hearing experts talk about Turkey, Qatar, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian Authority, and even an international force for rebuilding and ruling Gaza. There’s plenty of analysis about the benefits, but mostly the dangers, of any of those parties taking a leading role in postwar Gaza.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
Those experts are missing the obvious- Israel’s peace neighbors and partners, Egypt and Jordan. It makes me wonder if they have ever visited this corner of the Middle East.
In contrast, I’m writing as a journalist who has covered the region on the ground for five decades, and, notably, I’ve had extensive reporting experience in Egypt and Jordan. I even lived and worked in Egypt for two years during the Arab Spring.
So, where are Egypt and Jordan in all these Gaza scenarios? They are Israel’s natural allies in the struggle against Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. But analysts either ignore them, or worse, mislead with conclusions like these:
Egypt must open its borders and let in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Gaza.
Jordan must … well, fill in the blank with any number of untenable demands, from absorbing Gazans to openly supporting Israel in all its actions.
Let’s take Jordan first, because it’s easier. Any formula that begins with “Jordan’s King Abdullah II must…” is misguided or misinformed. It’s a conceptual thing. Over here on the stronger side of the fence, we have this idea that King Abdullah can do whatever he wants. After all, he’s a KING. So there’s no reason why he shouldn’t be out front leading the Arab world in support for Israel. Why else should Israel have a peace treaty with Jordan?
In fact, Jordan is a small, poor country, mostly desert, ruled by a segment of its society, the Hashemites. King Abdullah faces economic and political challenges that are almost incomprehensible. It’s an accomplishment for him to stay afloat at all. For example, at the height of the recent civil war in neighboring Syria, Jordan was hosting about a million refugees with only limited support from the outside. Many have been repatriated in the meantime, but the economic burden remains.
More significant is the challenge of the Palestinians and their increasing radicalization. The majority of Jordan’s population is Palestinian. Exact numbers are impossible to get because, for obvious reasons, Jordan’s rulers don’t want to admit how dire their demographic situation is. Best estimates, probably on the low side, are 60%.
Jordan’s parliament is already heavily Islamist, with the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. And there, by the way, is the answer to the “Jordan is Palestine” argument, the view that the king should be overthrown and the Palestinians should take over, making Jordan the “Palestinian state” and leaving the West Bank for Israel. That would mean a full-blown Muslim Brotherhood state, with sovereignty, common borders, and radical allies, right next to Israel. That’s what King Abdullah is holding the line against.
Abdullah has none of his father’s magnetic qualities. It is unrealistic to ask Abdullah to do more than he already is—maintaining quiet security coordination with Israel. The time may come when Jordan can take an active role in reviving Gaza, but it won’t be a leader. It can’t be a leader.
El-Sisi has imprisoned many thousands of Muslim Brotherhood activists, setting off the predictable wails from human rights groups in the West. Letting them out, however, would destabilize his regime.
Now add to that the effect of opening the border and letting in a few hundred thousand Gazans, who have been living under the influence of their branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, for a generation. That would certainly endanger the secular regime of el-Sisi.
Acknowledging that Palestinians are not popular in the Arab world
This is the place to acknowledge that, despite decades of lip service to the “Palestinian cause,” Palestinians are not popular in the Arab world. That’s no surprise, considering that Palestinians have come down on the wrong side of history time and again- supporting Nazi Germany, Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida, the Islamic State, and now Iran.
It gets personal. Working for a leading news agency in Cairo, I met all kinds of people. There were two Palestinian news photographers on the staff. I knew them from the Jerusalem bureau, basically nice fellows and good photographers. But I was the only one in the bureau who would talk to them. The Egyptians ignored them.
The net effect of the demands on Egypt and Jordan to help solve the Gaza problem by opening their borders could well be the establishment of two sovereign, Palestinian-dominated Muslim Brotherhood states right next to Israel. Such a development would make Israelis pine for the good old days when all they had to deal with was Gaza and Hamas.
What, then, can Jordan and Egypt do? Plenty.
They were the first two Arab nations to sign peace treaties with Israel decades ago. Both have extensive areas of cooperation with Israel that neither side feels it should publicize. Both are threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and Iranian extremism on the other. So is Israel. So a partnership is only natural.
Their involvement could take many different forms. For example, Egypt and Jordan have well-trained militaries with American weapons. Their roles could develop over time.
Meanwhile, Israel would be well advised to take the interests of Egypt and Jordan into account when dealing with Gaza, even if it means lip service to the two-state solution that the Palestinians themselves have rejected time and again, and that neither Jordan nor Egypt actually wants.
And we “experts” would all be well advised to tone down our demands, recommendations, and criticism of Israel’s closest peace partners.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-873123
-------
Gaza’s Ceasefire At A Crossroads: The Challenge Of Stabilization And Peace
By Hiba Qasas, Bert Koenders, Lt Gen Cj (Kees) Matthijssen
November 7, 2025
Gaza today sits between a fragile ceasefire and the terrifying prospect of a return to all-out war. After two years of devastation, the gunfire is quieter, but nothing is truly stable.
A narrow diplomatic opening has appeared – just wide enough to imagine a different future, tight enough to close with a single miscalculation. Whether Israelis, Palestinians, and their international partners can pass through this eye of the needle will depend on how the coming stabilization effort is conceived and led.
Thanks to United States President Donald Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan and the Franco-Saudi New York Declaration, tentative first steps have been made away from full-scale war in Gaza. Yet three weeks into the ceasefire, Israel accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire, and has continued launching recurrent attacks on the strip.
Accompanying Palestinians and Israelis through this very narrow opening towards a longer-term peace requires intensive international support, including a carefully designed stabilization mission.
The first step will be putting in place the right mandate. The mission must meet a range of needs: provide security, oversee disarmament, protect civilians, unlock humanitarian access, assist in restoring basic services, help establish Palestinian governance, and bring a political horizon into view. To achieve all this, a military-heavy force designed purely to suppress violence won’t suffice. The mission must combine political, civilian protection, relief, service delivery, and security elements under clear leadership.
To remain effective, the mandate should be focused enough to avoid ‘mission creep’, and enjoy the backing of sponsors who will keep the mission on track (with constant pressure on the parties to stay engaged). Vigilant and benign external accompaniment of peace processes and transition arrangements has been vital in ending conflicts from Timor Leste and Northern Ireland to Colombia.
In Gaza, the critical sponsors with leverage over Israel and Hamas are the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar – but a broader United Nations Security Council Resolution would add important legal and political credibility to the enterprise.
Clear diagnoses of the drivers of instability is needed
Stabilization ultimately leads nowhere if no political horizon is in view. As past experience tells us, a good stabilization strategy begins with clear diagnosis of the drivers of instability, and embodies a practical, achievable plan to tackle these in a way that moves the situation towards a widely accepted political settlement. Despite a peace agreement in Mali, the absence of such a strategy and limited national commitment to conflict resolution and reconciliation made stabilization support a thankless task.
In Afghanistan, stabilization could have succeeded if there had been a consistent, long-term strategy, including a path for all regions and parties to peacefully re-enter the political settlement in the years after 2001. Such experiences are why seasoned peacekeepers today recognize the ‘primacy of politics’ as critical for mission success.
In Gaza’s case, the key players all require political reassurance to stop the ceasefire unraveling. Palestinians and their regional friends need to know that stabilization is inseparable from a political drive to end the conflict for good. To answer these concerns, Palestinians should lead the transitional administration; Gaza and the West Bank need to be reunified; the path to reaching a Palestinian state, with inclusive, accountable, and effective governance, must be clarified. It is unrealistic to think Palestinian resistance will transform into peaceful coexistence on any other basis; nor will essential partners Egypt and Saudi Arabia back a stabilization process that lacks a political horizon.
For Israel, this same political path must lead to full recognition, security guarantees, and normalized relations with Saudi Arabia and other regional powers. More urgently still, the main fear of Israelis is that Hamas will not disarm – urgent attention is needed to manage this critical concern, which could easily derail the peace effort. This is also essential for Palestine: until Hamas renounces power and arms, Palestinians will not be widely recognized as partners for peace.
To disarm Hamas, establish security, defuse crises, and protect civilians, the stabilization mission will require credible capabilities, including Quick Reaction Forces. However, any attempt at forcibly disarming Hamas will be a disaster. No troop contributor will sign up for an extension of Israel’s existing counter-terror war.
In Colombia, an amnesty and reintegration incentives were rolled out for FARC fighters well before the 2016 peace agreement, and the peace deal enabled those who reject violence to participate in society and politics going forward.
Hamas must give up power and weapons in Gaza – but it must be shown an exit it can walk through: an agreed process for surrendering arms leading to safe amnesty for those who did not commit crimes against humanity, and the chance to reintegrate into a civilian life worth living. Upon disarmament, monitoring mechanisms will be needed, for example, to track ceasefire compliance, human rights, illicit finance, and arms flows.
Palestinian ownership is vital – not only to ensure that Hamas leaves the stage – but also because stabilization will quickly unravel if it is perceived as a new occupation. Iraq’s experience with ‘deBa’athification’, which shut huge numbers of capable citizens out of their jobs, driving them into the arms of a gathering insurgency, offers a sobering lesson. If stabilization fails to offer local people ownership and agency, failure looms.
An international stabilization mission in Gaza must be presented as a necessity
An international stabilization mission in Gaza must be presented as a temporary necessity, with benchmarks leading to an exit strategy, and an early-as-possible handover to the Palestinian Authority. The PA does need to reform, via inclusive dialogue and elections, but it can only attain governing competency and establish legitimacy if it is trusted and resourced to govern and deliver services, without unreasonable obstacles in its way.
Public support is critical for mission success. The needs in Gaza are massive and must be met with urgency if the public is to accept the stability on offer. The public will not buy into peace and reject calls to violent rebellion, unless stabilization offers them safety, justice, improved services and jobs, and opens political channels for tackling grievances and pursuing inclusive governance reform. To meet these needs, civilian, humanitarian and political players within and beyond the mission need to be in the lead, with military stabilizers playing a supporting, collaborative role.
A core, urgent deliverable for the public is a sense of safety. To achieve this, community policing capabilities will be just as important as the military capacities that oversee disarmament and tackle flare-ups. In Northern Ireland, it was the focus on community policing – centering on trust, consent, and respect for human rights – that mollified a core grievance among Catholics, and enabled confidence in the peace process to grow. Countries with strong community police and rights-based criminal justice systems should ensure the Gaza mission has these capabilities at its core.
To win over the public, the mission must be set up to communicate effectively. In Iraq, General Petraeus made communication central to a strategy that brought violence down by 90% from 2006-2008. His approach was to be ‘first with the truth’ – communicating clearly and proactively to all relevant stakeholders and the public what the Coalition was and was not trying to do to make the situation better. The Gaza mission will need a similar approach.
A Gaza stabilization mission will also find it hard to succeed unless two further options are now firmly rejected: first is the inclusion of a separate counter-terror track in parallel to the mission. Afghanistan and other experiences have clearly shown that aggressive security operations divorced from the wider stabilization structure could undermine the wider effort. Second, private military companies must not be able to use lethal force in Gaza, as this would inject unaccountable violence into the mix in an incredibly delicate situation.
In settings such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Colombia, Northern Ireland, and Timor Leste, international support has helped end wars and support transitions to peace. All these experiences should underpin a careful and urgent search for the support Gaza now needs to pass through the eye of the needle.
Gaza’s fate now hinges on whether this support is shaped around three simple commitments: real security and recognition for Israelis, a credible path to statehood and accountable governance for Palestinians, and an international mission disciplined by the primacy of politics rather than the illusion of force alone. If leaders use this eye-of-the-needle moment to lock in those commitments, Gaza can move beyond perpetual crisis. If they do not, this narrow opening will close, and the next war will not be for lack of warning but for lack of will.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-873109
-------
Israel Should Let Journalists Into Gaza, And This Is Why
By Gil Hoffman
November 7, 2025
At a rare press conference for foreign media on August 10, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he had ordered the IDF to allow journalists to enter the Gaza Strip independently, for the first time since 2014.
But more than 80 days later, the head of the IDF’s foreign press division has yet to receive such an order from the prime minister.
The subject has come up at nearly every briefing delivered by Netanyahu’s spokeswoman, Shosh Bedrosian.“You want us to report on the happenings inside Gaza, but you don’t allow us, as independent journalists, to go inside Gaza,” a PBS reporter said. “In press conferences, you say we are allowed in, but then the IDF blocks our entrance at the checkpoint. When will we have unrestricted access despite the risks inside?”
Bedrosian has either avoided the questions or ignored the word “independent,” saying that journalists can visit Gaza while embedded with the IDF.
The administration’s stalling has legal limits, however.
A risky but necessary move
The Foreign Press Association complained to Israel’s High Court of Justice that the ban on media access “violates fundamental democratic rights” and that the government had already been given too many extensions. The court agreed, and on October 23 it ruled that the government had 30 days to update its position on whether to allow journalists into Gaza independently.
Five days later, Bedrosian finally revealed that the policy will change and journalists will be allowed into the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza “soon.”
Lifting the ban is a risky move for Israel, which implemented it for both security and political reasons. Embedding select reporters with the IDF allowed Israel to keep them safe in a dense urban environment, where terrorists can and do attack without warning.
Coverage of Israel has been dogged by bias and inaccuracy for decades. Why, the thinking goes, should the government reward the media with access that will doubtlessly result in more negative coverage?
Ultimately, though, it’s past time for Israel to acknowledge that its policy of exclusion has been ineffective.
Blocked access gives Gazan 'journalists' control of the narrative
Blocking access to Gaza has meant that reporting fell to “journalists” like Abdallah Aljamal, the Gaza correspondent for The Palestine Chronicle, whom the IDF killed while rescuing three Israeli hostages he was holding in his home.
He was no outlier.
While the Associated Press and CNN fired Oct. 7 infiltrator Hassan Eslaiah, who was photographed being kissed by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, after an HonestReporting investigation revealed his terror ties, The New York Times rehired Gazan stringer Soliman Hijjy on October 8, 2023, despite being aware that his Arabic social media posts praised Adolf Hitler.
Just three weeks ago, ABC News interviewed Gaza Civil Spokesman Mahmoud Bassal, an active Hamas operative, as “an emergency responder searching for missing Gazan civilians.” It apparently did not cross the interviewers’ minds to do the most basic due diligence a journalist can – a background check on those being interviewed.
Had they done a check, they would have found that Bassal was an active member of the Zeitoun Battalion of the Izz-ad Din-al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, directly involved in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks.
Gazan stringers have fed top media outlets incorrect and biased information throughout the war, while biased organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists blamed Israel for the deaths of active terrorists who may have moonlighted as reporters but were killed while doing their day job.
It is true that, according to the CPJ, nearly 200 journalists and media workers have been killed during the ongoing Israel-Hamas War. However, an analysis of these names shows that at least 40% of those killed had an affiliation with terror groups (including working for terror-run media organizations) and that several had participated in active combat against Israel.
With the embedding of Hamas forces in civilian areas, it is tragic but inevitable that civilians, including journalists, will be killed during military activities. This is not, however, evidence of intentional targeting of journalists.
Aside from using local stringers as proxies, Hamas has done everything it can to take advantage of the journalism vacuum. Propaganda chief Abu Obeida employed 1,500 content creators who served in every Hamas battalion and brigade, outfitting them with GoPro cameras, camera protection kits and batteries, and a team of video editors to cut propaganda videos. He crafted every hostage video and release ceremony to maximize their impact.
International journalists need to reckon with truth on the ground
The result has been massive damage to Israel’s reputation, which might have been avoided if the war against Hamas had been covered firsthand by professional journalists – whatever their agendas – and not by stringers whose lives depend on promoting Hamas narratives.
Officials involved in Israeli public diplomacy have expressed concern that images of devastation emerging from Gaza will reignite negative reporting about Israel and protests throughout the United States and major cities across the globe. But the ban hasn’t stopped such reporting and protests from proliferating during the war, so how could lifting it make things any worse?
If anything, it could force journalists entering Gaza for the first time to reckon with some uncomfortable contradictions.
Why is Hamas interrogating alleged “collaborators” in hospitals if all of Gaza’s hospitals have been destroyed, and
Hamas is not using hospitals as its headquarters?
How did 27,000 high school students take matriculation exams if the schools of Gaza were destroyed?
Why are Gaza’s markets fully stocked with food mere weeks after a famine was declared?
It’s time for Netanyahu to recognize that controlling the media narrative is impossible, and that the hard questions that come with open press access are preferable to the easy wrong answers that come with restriction.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-872852
------
The Torah Between Abraham And Herzl: Israel’s Call To Moral Leadership
By Zehavit Gross
November 7, 2025
Some people are born into routine, and others are born to break it. These are the dreamers who rise, pack their lives, and walk toward a future not yet created. They walk because within them burns an idea greater than themselves, a belief that a better world can come into being.
Thus began the journey of Abraham, our patriarch, and likewise the journey of Theodor Herzl. Both heard an inner voice calling to them “Lech lecha,” to leave the familiar and step into a broad future of moral renewal. Both turned dreams into life’s work, shaping our collective identity and message to humanity.
The Torah portions Lech Lecha, Vayera, and Hayei Sarah form a trilogy of leadership, from vision to continuity. Abraham and Herzl lived in different worlds but shared a mission: to build a moral society in the Promised Land.
‘From your land,’ moral responsibility
In Lech Lecha, Abraham leaves his land, idols, and comfort for a higher calling. In Vayera, he pleads for Sodom, seeking to save even the wicked – a profound act of moral responsibility.
Herzl, in Altneuland, envisioned a state founded not on power but on social justice, equality, and compassion.Both knew that a nation’s greatness lies in its moral compass, not its might.
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook described Herzl as Mashiah ben Yosef, the one who brings material-moral redemption, igniting the spark of national-moral revival that would mature into spiritual renewal.
Today, as Israel faces moral trials and deep division, we, too, must leave our “land,” step out of cynicism and fear, and choose compassion, responsibility, and faith in the human spirit. True national vision must always be moral.
The axis of identity, ‘from your homeland’
When Abraham left his homeland, he was commanded to become “the father of many nations,” a shift from the particular to the universal, from one tribe to all humanity.
His open tent in the desert became a timeless symbol of hospitality. Jewish identity, Abraham teaches, is defined not only by belief but by moral conduct, by how we welcome and care for others.
Herzl saw the Jewish state as a moral beacon, modeling justice and ethical governance. Rabbi Kook interpreted Zionism as a sacred movement, a revelation of the nation’s inner soul.
The message is clear: Jewish identity cannot thrive in isolation. It must radiate outward, offering a moral example. “And through you,” God tells Abraham, “shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”
In our time, this means an Israeli identity that is inclusive and compassionate, one that embraces difference as part of the Abrahamic vision.
‘From your father’s house,’ from hierarchy to covenant
Leaving his father’s house marked a break from inherited authority and the birth of a new leadership paradigm, grounded not in control but in covenant and example.
Abraham’s leadership came from faith and courage, not royal power. He led by dialogue and moral conviction. Herzl, too, was a “leader of an idea,” whose authority stemmed from vision and moral persuasion, not domination. Rabbi Kook saw Herzl as a prophet of the nation’s soul, a man whose leadership drew on spiritual strength, not political control.
Both modeled leadership that transcends ego, invites shared responsibility, and turns vision into reality.Today, we must recover this covenantal model – leadership that unites rather than divides, listens rather than commands, and draws legitimacy from moral clarity.
Axis of time and continuity of vision
In Hayei Sarah, the Torah records: “And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, old and full of years; and he was gathered unto his people” (Genesis 25:8).
Abraham’s death was not an end but a beginning. He left behind not merely descendants but a moral legacy – a covenantal movement shaping humanity’s conscience.
Herzl, too, died before seeing his vision realized, yet his dream endured. Both remind us that true leadership plants seeds whose fruit may ripen generations later. Vision transcends mortality; the moral project continues beyond the individual.
‘The land I will show you,’ call of our generation
Abraham and Herzl, each in his world, taught that the journey to the land is a journey into the unseen future, one rooted in faith, morality, and hope. Their legacies converge into one message: build a society where justice precedes power, compassion tempers strength, and human dignity is sacred.
Rabbi Kook believed Israel’s national revival must be a moral and spiritual awakening, that redemption is not only territorial but ethical. The divine call “Lech lecha” is eternal, summoning each generation to rise from despair and believe the future can be remade.
After October 7, when Israel’s heart is wounded and its social fabric torn, the call of “Lech lecha” sounds with renewed urgency. We are summoned to a new moral, identity, and leadership journey – from hatred to responsibility, from fragmentation to covenant, from despair to hope.
Abraham and Herzl both showed that vision is born from rupture. Crisis, though painful, is the womb of renewal. From grief can grow compassion; from pain, a deeper covenant. Our generation’s “Lech lecha” is a call to rebuild, to turn tragedy into moral strength, fear into courage, and polarization into shared responsibility.
The challenge of our time is not only to survive but to dream again – to dream, like Abraham and like Herzl, of a society whose justice is greater than its vengeance, whose compassion is stronger than its fear, and whose faith in humanity endures.
This is the land the Lord has shown us, not a land of borders alone, but a land of hearts; a land where vision and morality walk together toward a future of repair, hope, and peace.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-873002
------
US Punishes Colombia’s President Petro For Defending Gaza, Says Expert
by Eman Abusidu
November 7, 2025
The United States government, under President Donald Trump, has imposed sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of failing to curb drug trafficking. The US Treasury Department announced the sanctions on October 24, 2025, under Executive Order 14059, which targets individuals linked to narcotics operations. The order freezes any US-based assets belonging to Petro and prohibits American citizens and companies from engaging in financial transactions with him or his administration.
According to the Treasury statement, Petro’s government “has tolerated the expansion of criminal organisations” and “failed to cooperate with international anti-narcotics efforts.”
The Colombian leader has rejected the allegations, calling them politically motivated and a punishment for his outspoken support of Gaza and Palestine. In a televised address, President Gustavo Petro described the US sanctions as “a smokescreen to hide a political decision,” accusing Washington of using drug-trafficking claims as a convenient pretext to punish Colombia for taking an independent stance on global issues, particularly his defense of Gaza and the Palestinian people. However, Washington has not commented on Petro’s accusations related to the issue.
“They claim it’s about drugs, but everyone knows the truth, this is because I stood with Gaza,” Petro declared during his speech. “They can sanction me, but they can’t silence Colombia’s conscience.”
Following the president’s remarks, the Colombian presidency released an official statement calling the sanctions “an act of political pressure.” The government reiterated that Colombia would not compromise its principles on human rights or adjust its foreign policy “to satisfy Washington.” According to the statement, Bogotá remains committed to pursuing an independent international agenda grounded in justice, sovereignty, and solidarity with oppressed peoples worldwide.
The Colombian expert on Middle East affairs, Victor de Currea-Lugo, emphasised that “Gaza is a point that has divided humanity among those who are with the occupier and those who are with the occupied.” According to him, “President Petro has only marked a voice, but, if they allow me, has become the main voice.” In the Arab world and across many Muslim communities, Petro’s popularity has grown because of his strong stance against the United States’ position on Gaza.
De Currea-Lugo pointed out that “the popularity of Petro, in the Arab world and in other Muslim countries, shows the importance of his speech against the United States,” and even in “the streets of New York, his voice becomes more important and more influential.”
De Currea-Lugo also argued that the US response to Petro’s defense of Gaza has been punitive, reflecting a pattern of political retaliation. As he explained, “they cannot accuse them of defending the bombarded, then they accuse them of drug trafficking.” He sees this as a broader strategy to discredit and silence leaders from the Global South who challenge dominant narratives about the conflict. For Petro, this means his moral and political defence of Gaza is being weaponised against him, exposing what De Currea-Lugo calls “the hypocrisy of the international community” when faced with those who refuse to align with Western geopolitical interests.
Furthermore, the expert insisted that “Gaza has shown the failure of the international system.” He noted that the crisis “starts with the dynamics of the United Nations, which has never acted,” and that it also reveals “the incapacity of the academy that is in its glass tower giving lessons to the world, and of the media, which clearly showed its propaganda side and not its journalistic one.”
According to De Currea-Lugo, these failures demonstrate not only the need to “re-establish the entire United Nations” but also to confront “the problem of multilateralism and the disrespect for international law. Gaza has not created these injustices, but rather has evidenced dynamics that have been happening for decades.”
President Gustavo Petro has emerged as one of the most outspoken defenders of Palestine in Latin America, making the issue a defining element of his foreign policy. During his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, Petro delivered one of his most forceful statements yet, declaring: “Humanity must stop the genocide in Gaza. Silence makes us complicit.”
The president’s solidarity with Gaza predates that speech. In 2024, his administration made a historic move by cutting diplomatic ties with Israel after renewed military attacks on the enclave. Colombia also began sending humanitarian aid shipments to support civilians trapped under siege, emphasizing the country’s commitment to a rights-based approach in foreign policy.
Petro has consistently argued that Latin America “cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people,” framing his position as a moral obligation rather than a geopolitical calculation.
International observers note that the United States rarely sanctions sitting democratic leaders, suggesting that this case is as political as it is legal. According to The Colombian expert on Middle East affairs, Victor de Currea-Lugo, it is unusual for the United States to impose sanctions on its allies, but Colombia is moving further away from traditional alignment by pursuing a multilateral foreign policy.
By opening markets to other regions and taking independent stances on global conflicts, Colombia has diverged from U.S. positions on issues such as Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan. De Currea-Lugo observed, “Empires don’t have friends, only allies. Well, I would say they don’t have allies, only vassals. And the problem is that President Petro and Colombia refuse to behave like vassals.”
He further argued that “the sanctions could be seen as legally questionable. Unlike past cases under the Clinton administration, which relied on proven evidence of drug trafficking, the current action violates the presumption of innocence, due process, and feels more like political retaliation than an economic measure.” According to De Currea-Lugo, if any Colombian president has actively fought against drug trafficking, it is President Petro, supported by official figures showing the significant amounts of narcotics seized by law enforcement during his administration.
De Currea-Lugo also stated that the Trump administration’s approach is particularly “erratic and arbitrary,” affecting even some of its closest allies in the region. However, leaders like Claudia in Mexico, Lula in Brazil, Boric in Chile, and Petro in Colombia represent voices of dignity and multilateralism, challenging the vertical, controlling policies historically imposed by the United States. He emphasised that this is not a shift in Latin America as a whole, but rather a reflection of certain governments asserting independence in foreign and economic policy.
Analysts in Bogotá argue that the move reflects a deepening rift between Washington and Latin American governments pursuing independent foreign policies and could freeze joint programs on counter-narcotics, security cooperation, and trade.
The Petro administration is considering appeals through the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the United Nations Human Rights Council, citing evidence of geopolitical double standards, in which support for Gaza carries diplomatic consequences.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251107-us-punishes-colombias-president-petro-for-defending-gaza-says-expert/
------
UN Security Council Approach Offers Hope For Gaza
Daoud Kuttab
November 07, 2025
Leaders of a number of key regional countries who met with US President Donald Trump before his announcement of the 20-point ceasefire plan have expressed reservations about the temporary international security force needed to ensure compliance with agreement.
Jordan, the country with the longest border with Israel and Palestine, appears reluctant to send any security force to Gaza at all, and has publicly called for a clear mandate on the plan from the UN Security Council.
For Palestinians, the UN is a much more welcoming venue. Palestinians have been asking that Israel end its occupation since 1967. Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, have often called for a UN or international force. Abbas has even said that the force can also include NATO member states. But the discussion then was to replace the Israeli occupiers in both the West Bank and Gaza.
When Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN, met Riyad Mansour, Palestine’s permanent observer to the UN, the encounter represented a reversal from the Israeli and American position negating the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.
Apparently, in coordination with the Israeli government, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio took the extreme decision to ban an invited Palestinian delegation headed by Abbas from attending the opening session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
While Washington has decided to use the UN as an arena to convince countries to join the international force in Gaza, it is clear that the words in the draft resolution appear to have been written in Tel Aviv’s Kirya, the Israeli equivalent of the Pentagon. It seems that the “stabilization force” that is supposed to ensure compliance with the truce could easily get into a shooting match with Palestinian fighters instead of recording ceasefire violations.
What appeared in the first draft submitted by the Trump administration is worrying in many other ways. Not only does it lack any reference to previous international resolutions and fails to give a clear role to the Ramallah-based government, it also gives the US and Israel the right to decide what constitutes acceptable reform by the Palestinian Authority.
The overwhelming majority of members of the Security Council have already recognized the state of Palestine along its 1967 borders, and that includes Gaza in addition to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Social media has been calling the draft resolution a new colonialism, adding that Trump and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu will be the rulers of Gaza.
Oraib Rantawi, director of Al Quds Center for Political Studies, took a different direction. He appealed to all the countries that recognized Palestine, and specifically the Arab and Islamic countries that had given the US president a green light for his 20-point plan. At a meeting in Istanbul, Arab and Islamic states asked to participate in a stabilization force affirmed that no such step could be taken without an explicit mandate from the Security Council. Rantawi reiterated that those countries “are demanding a clear and fundamental role for both the Security Council and the Palestinian Authority from the outset, ensuring that the “Peace Council’ serves as a monitoring and oversight body, not a colonial trusteeship that perpetuates the separation between the West Bank and Gaza and obstructs the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Rantawi said that those countries bear the responsibility of ensuring that the stabilization force is not used against the Palestinian people. Disarmament must be achieved through "negotiation and agreement, within the framework of organizing weapons under a single Palestinian leadership, a single authority, and a unified national decision,” he argued.
It is too early to tell whether an agreed text will be found that nine members of the council will agree to and that none of the five permanent members will veto.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2621774
------
Ankara Fixes Its Gaze On Iraq’s High-Stakes Elections
Dr. Sinem Cengiz
November 07, 2025
Iraq is set to hold parliamentary elections next Tuesday. Ahead of this high-stakes vote, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan paid a visit to Iraq and met with the president and senior officials. During his visit, Ankara and Baghdad signed a water cooperation deal aimed at resolving long-standing water management issues between the two neighbors.
Turkiye and Iraq have built positive momentum in their relations during Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani’s tenure, anchored in a series of high-level visits and a flurry of agreements. Al-Sudani visited Ankara in May to reciprocate President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Baghdad last year, which was his first since 2011. These visits turned a page in their relationship and resulted in about 40 agreements on diverse areas of cooperation.
During Al-Sudani’s time as prime minister, Turkish-Iraqi relations have transformed from a security-oriented perspective dominated by issues of border security, Turkiye’s conflict with Kurdish militants and water resource management to a multidimensional relationship that integrates economic and developmental aspects. This approach has also transformed the Turkish narrative toward Iraq from a problematic neighbor that should be contained to a key actor that should be placed at the center of its foreign policy strategy.
Besides the momentum in relations, the regional dynamics — such as the Gaza war, Iran’s weakening influence and the emergence of a Gulf-based regional order — have also helped Turkiye and Iraq to further strengthen their ties. For Ankara, Iraq is now a neighbor that shares common security threats and mutual economic interests. Turkiye also aims to further integrate a stable Iraq into the Gulf-centered regional order that is focused on transregional connectivity, economic integration and stability.
A key example of this effort is the signing of the four-party agreement between Turkiye, Iraq, Qatar and the UAE to cooperate on the Development Road project. Turkiye’s reconciliation with the Gulf states has also played a key role in the trilateral Turkish-Iraqi-Gulf cooperation plans.
After years of turbulence in their relations, Ankara and Baghdad have also found common ground on security issues. Last year, they signed a memorandum of understanding on military, security and counterterrorism cooperation. This agreement not only strengthened Turkiye’s security presence in Iraq but also carried the approval of the Baghdad government, which had long been critical of Ankara’s counterterrorism operations on its soil. Within this context, Turkiye last week extended its military mandate in Iraq, as well as in Syria, for an additional three years.
Ankara wants to be part of Iraq’s emerging security architecture by providing military training and arms sales, which is likely to happen, as the two countries also signed a defense industry cooperation pact in May that included the transfer of Turkish defense technology. Turkish National Intelligence Organization chief Ibrahim Kalin also met Al-Sudani in July to enhance intelligence-sharing and border stability. And Turkiye has included Iraq in a security framework it has established with Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to combat Daesh in the region.
Even though Iraq appears to be rising from the ashes, phoenix-like, after a period of decline, it still faces several threats to its security and stability as it heads toward election day. It continues to face major challenges from Daesh and drug trafficking and seeks greater cooperation from regional states to address these threats. One of Iraq’s other immediate problems is water scarcity. It depends on Turkiye and Iran for nearly 75 percent of its freshwater through the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Water-sharing disputes have long strained relations between Ankara and Baghdad, blocking any sort of political and economic cooperation between them.
But Turkiye has now signed a landmark agreement with Iraq on water cooperation that will be implemented through a permanent consultation group to coordinate future water-sharing decisions. Baghdad described it as a “first-of-its-kind partnership on water management” between the two neighbors.
In Iraq, news of the deal offers Al-Sudani a political boost amid rising public and political frustration over severe water shortages. On the Turkish side, it is a beneficial deal that will allow Turkish companies to secure contracts to rehabilitate the water infrastructure in Iraq.
Many interpreted the timing of the deal as Ankara’s use of water diplomacy to maintain its influence over Iraqi decision-makers ahead of the country’s elections, positioning itself as part of the solution to Iraq’s worsening water crisis and boosting support for the Al-Sudani government, or any new government that might emerge. In any case, Ankara is seeking to maintain friendly relations with whoever governs Iraq.
Meanwhile, Turkiye is rethinking its reliance on Russian oil due to the impact of US, EU and UK efforts to clamp down on Russian oil sales. Ankara is now seeking to distance itself from Moscow in energy trade and replace it with alternative partners, such as Iraq. It has been reported that one of the largest Turkish refineries, SOCAR Turkiye Aegean Refinery, owned by Azeri company SOCAR, has recently bought four cargoes of crude from Iraq and other non-Russian producers.
Ankara now hopes that the Iraqi elections will produce a smooth outcome without fundamentally altering Iraq’s foreign policy toward Turkiye. It is unlikely there will be a major shift in Iraq’s approach to Turkiye, given the close cooperation between the two countries on security, water, oil and economic projects. Any incoming government is expected to continue these partnerships, as Iraq’s challenges are best addressed through collaboration rather than isolation.
For now, Ankara is waiting to see a newly elected Iraqi government take office and maintain the dynamics of business as usual.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2621759
-------
‘His Heart Beat for Palestine’ – Moroccan Rights Activist Sion Assidon Dies
November 7, 2025
A Moroccan human rights activist lauded as a tireless defender of the Palestinian cause through his involvement in the Moroccan Front in Support of Palestine, opposition to normalization with Israel and one of the founders of the BDS movement in his country, has died.
In a statement mourning his death, the BDS movement said that in the early hours of Friday, Sion Assidon “succumbed to severe wounds he had sustained due to an apparently deliberate attack a few months ago by assailants who remain anonymous and may well be connected to the authoritarian regime in Morocco.”
“His life was a bridge between worlds – Amazigh, Arab and Jewish, a Moroccan and a universal freedom fighter, all bound together by the unyielding belief that liberation and the struggle to end all oppressions know no borders,” the statement added.
Who was Assidon?
Sion Assidon was born on May 6, 1948, in the city of Agadir in the south of Morocco, to an Amazigh Jewish family, according to reports. His parents were from the city of Asfi, and he had two sisters and a brother.
On February 29, 1960, an earthquake hit Agadir, forcing his family to move to the city of Casablanca.
Assidon was involved in the scouting movement as a child, and during one of his summer trips to the southeast of Morocco in 1964, he witnessed the deportation of the Jewish Moroccans to Palestine.
Zionist propaganda did not succeed in persuading his family to emigrate to Israel, according to an Al Jazeera Arabic report, with Assidon considering himself lucky that his father rejected the idea.
Education
Assidon attended an elementary school in Agadir called “Bosque” after its French director, after which he attended Yosef Bin Tashfin High School. In Casablanca, he continued his studies at the French secondary school Lioti, which welcomed him as one of the victims of the earthquake. There, he majored in Mathematics.
Following the completion of his higher education in 1956, he moved to France, where he studied mathematics at the University of Paris.
It was a time of important international events, including the Vietnam War, when student movements were growing in a number of countries around the world, such as China, America and Europe.
Assidon participated in the May 1968 uprising alongside a French revolutionary group, which contributed to his intellectual and political formation, the Al Jazeera Arabic report stated.
He returned to Morocco at the end of 1968 and decided to continue his studies at the Faculty of Science at Mohammed V University in Rabat. At the same time, he worked as a mathematics professor to cover his family’s expenses.
Detained for Many Years
Assidon was arrested in February 1972 and spent 12 years in prison. He was held at the secret detention center, Dar al-Maqri, where he was denied any contact with the outside world and subjected to severe torture that caused serious long-term injuries to his hand and ear.
He was charged with planning to overthrow the government and commit acts of violence, a charge he vehemently denied. He asserted that the reason for his arrest was the publication of a newspaper he was involved in called “Soot al-Kadah”, which contained only opinion articles.
In December 1972, he went on a 32-day hunger strike with a group of political prisoners who would be tried in the summer of 1973, to demand his rights as a political prisoner. These included reading newspapers and magazines, listening to the radio, and the right to study.
At the end of August 1973, the Criminal Chamber in Casablanca issued verdicts against 80 defendants, ranging from life imprisonment to acquittal. Assidon was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
During his detention in the central prison in Kenitra, he was put under surveillance again in 1975 and subjected to torture, and kept in solitary confinement for an entire year.
In October 1979, Assidon tried to escape with other detainees from the Ibn Sina Hospital in Rabat, and succeeded. After only four days, he was arrested and returned to prison.
During his incarceration, he completed his studies and obtained a bachelor’s degree in Mathematics, as well as another degree in Economics.
General Amnesty
Assidon received support from national and international legal associations to demand his release, and his family in France established a committee to demand his release, along with lawyers.
In August 1984, he was freed after spending more than 12 years in prison, as part of a general amnesty issued by the late King Hassan II on the occasion of the anniversary of the King and the People’s Revolution, commemorated on August 20.
This amnesty was issued for about 50 political prisoners, including those belonging to various groups of the left, such as the organizations “Forward” and “March 23”.
Assidon was deprived of his passport for eight years after his release.
He always participated in demonstrations supporting the Palestinian cause.
Rejection of Zionism
Assidon separated the Jewish religion from Zionism as a political organization – a position that reflects his critical thinking towards Zionism as a colonial movement and a manifestation of discrimination and occupation, Al Jazeera Arabic reported.
In 1982, from inside the Quneitra prison, Assidon sent a letter to the then Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, along with the left-wing militant Abraham Sarfati, a Moroccan Jew who is one of the prominent founders of the Moroccan left.
He confirmed in the letter their willingness to join the Palestinian resistance through the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Rabat.
Assidon remained protective of his principles, which he echoed in left-wing thought, opposing racial discrimination in all its forms and whatever its source, including the ban on wearing the hijab in France.
He also did not hide his opposition to everything that the Western media promotes towards the Palestinians and the Arabs in general.
Assidon refused to describe anyone who wants to liberate his country as a terrorist, therefore considering the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) a part of the Palestinian revolution and resistance, given that it is doing its duty to liberate its homeland.
Moroccan Left
Assidon lived through the French student revolution in 1968 when he was a student there, the report stated. This experience was among the reasons that influenced his thinking with regard to the culture of human rights, democracy, equality, anti-racism, the fight against corruption and the rent economy.
One of his opinions was that “anti-Semitism is above all a form of hatred of Jews, especially in the European region, and is related to the point of view of the Catholic Church,” according to Al Jazeera Arabic.
He was one of the most prominent fighters of the Moroccan Marxist left, which considers the Palestinian issue an integral part of its struggle.
He is one of the founders of the New Left in Morocco, and co-founded the “March 23” organization in 1970, an organization that aimed to spread revolutionary thought and believed in the need for government to be in the hands of the people.
Normalization with Israel
Assidon became involved in the fight against bribery and corruption through the “Transparency of Morocco” organization, of which he was one of the founders and its first general secretary. It is a non-governmental organization that adopts the principles of Transparency International, founded in 1996.
He chose the mass struggle against normalization with Israel, and very early became involved in the international movement to boycott Israel, Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). Founded in 2005, the movement calls for an end to all forms of normalization with Israel, and for the boycott of the companies that support it.
Assidon believed that this movement achieved positive results through the boycott of Israel.
“It is my hope that the Palestinian people will regain their rights, and that Palestine will return to a land of peace once again, in which all Palestinians live, including the refugees who were forced to leave their homeland,” he reportedly said.
Assidon died on Friday. According to Al-Jazeera, his health had deteriorated after he entered a coma for three months due to a lung infection.
The BDS movement said in its statement that Assidon “has fiercely opposed” Morocco’s military and security alliance “with the genocidal Israeli state and with the Zionist movement, which he fought with passion.”
“Even after years behind bars, his heart beat for Palestine, for the oppressed, for the dignity of humanity itself,” the statement added.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/his-heart-beat-for-palestine-moroccan-rights-activist-sion-assidon-dies/
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/mamdani-mayoral-election-torah-ankara-gaza/d/137564
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