Middle East Press On: Philanthropy Lithium Huckabee Gaza Israel: New Age Islam's Selection, 15 May 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
15 May 2025
Philanthropy, Technology Needed to Transform Israel's Mental Healthcare
Mike Huckabee Speaks Out On Iran, US Diplomacy, And His Israeli Vision
Reducing Lithium-Ion Battery Usage May Prevent Israel's Next Wildfire
Crossing Paths in Damascus: A Brewing Standoff Between Israel and Türkiye
In Defence of Boiler Room: Palestinian Solidarity in A Capitalist Cage
The Judiciaries in Israel and The United States Are Under Siege
Gaza’s Graveyard of Illusions: How Israel’s Narrative Collides with Military Failure
Netanyahu Has Become Israel’s Biggest Liability
-----
Philanthropy, Technology Needed to Transform Israel's Mental Healthcare
By Alina Shkolnikov Shvartsman, Gila Tolub
May 15, 2025
The potential of technology to transform mental healthcare is enormous, and still vastly underutilized. In Israel today, the need is urgent.
Tens of thousands of reservists and their families are grappling with trauma and mental health challenges. The civilian population is showing alarming signs of distress. Despite promising pilots, the gap between innovation and access remains wide. To close it, we need a new approach that leverages technology as a core part of Israel’s mental health recovery, not an add-on.
Recent data from PollyLabs and ICAR Collective show just how deep the need is. Among reservists’ families, 45% of reservists and 68% of spouses report significant mental distress, yet only 25% of spouses are receiving any emotional support, according to data published by the Reservist Wives’ Forum. Alarming behavioral changes are being reported in children, and systemic strain is affecting employment, education, and family stability.
Despite hundreds of millions in government and philanthropic funding flowing to the mental health ecosystem, there is still no scalable, tech-enabled infrastructure to support these families. New solutions exist but the ecosystem to deploy them at scale is missing.
Data from ICAR’s mental health tech landscape map highlights the opportunity: Israel now has more than 117 active start-ups focused on mental health, spanning self-care, managed care, workflow automation, and research innovations. However, 85% are still early-stage, and most face a fragmented, risk-averse funding environment that limits their ability to scale.
The opportunity is twofold: First, to accelerate recovery in Israel by scaling effective tech-based solutions.
Second, to establish Israel as a global hub for mental health innovation in a market that is growing rapidly worldwide. The global mental health market was valued at $410 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $573b. by 2033.
But mental health tech is not like other sectors where “move fast and break things” is acceptable. In this area, speed must be balanced with safety, quality, and care. Today’s funding and support ecosystems are not designed for that balance.
This has created a funding dead zone. These start-ups are often seen as too “for-profit” for traditional philanthropy. Yet they are also too risky or slow-growth for venture capital. As a result, many promising solutions stall before reaching real scale. Mental health start-ups received only 12% of total global venture capital healthcare investments.
Blended capital – a mix of grants, early catalytic investments, and other funding – is essential to bridge this gap. Philanthropy must step into a new role, not just writing checks, but actively shaping the ecosystem.
Philanthropy needs to become three things:
Risk mitigator: Acting as the first “investor”/paying client, especially in hospitals and NGOs, to help prove value and safety.
Educator: Investing in research to show what works and identifying systemic risks, as well as encouraging their own investment committees to participate.
Orchestrator: Convening the whole ecosystem, including start-ups, NGOs, hospitals, ministries, private investors, and global partners.
Jewish philanthropy has the reputation, networks, and financial tools to build the infrastructure needed. Blended and catalytic philanthropy is the next frontier of strategic giving, and it has been significantly underused in Israel’s recovery efforts so far.
Once philanthropy plays its role, Israel’s private sector must step in. Generalist venture funds and medical funds have a major opportunity: to seed the next wave of mental health innovation, not as charity, but as a strategic investment. Recent data shows that almost 60% of consumers are willing to pay out-of-pocket for digital health solutions, including mental health apps, particularly when they are easy to use and accessible.
This is a competitive vertical for Israel to lead globally. With local momentum, international investors will follow. Israel has proven repeatedly that when sectors are well-orchestrated, it doesn’t just participate in global trends, it sets them. Mental health tech can, and should, be the next area where Israel leads, not follows.
Promising models are already emerging
XRHealth is running a pilot providing VR headsets to 300 reservist households. The program has facilitated over 1,000 treatments, helping reservists and families manage trauma symptoms with validated progress tracking (PCL-5, GAD-7, PHQ-9). In a uniquely Israeli twist, some reservists even brought their VR headsets back to the front lines to manage stress in real-time.
Kai.ai offers scalable, AI-driven emotional support rooted in CBT and positive psychology. Partnering with Reichman and Ben-Gurion universities, Kai.ai is supporting reservists while enabling clinicians to prioritize critical cases, expanding resilience-building support across new populations.
Taliaz deploys AI triage systems to resilience centers, reducing mental health service waitlists by over 85%, and accelerating psychiatric care access from months to days. Its technology, Predictix Care, optimizes clinical intake, freeing up scarce therapist capacity and directing urgent cases to appropriate interventions.
Mental health start-ups that want to operate in Israel need to rethink how they approach their capital stack. Today, too many impact-driven start-ups view philanthropy mainly as a way to subsidize users – a stand-in for future payments from governments or HMOs, missing a larger opportunity.
Philanthropy should not just be seen as a payer, but rather as a strategic partner. Start-ups should work with philanthropic funders around areas like data collection beyond their own platforms, early-stage validation across diverse target markets to find the best market fit, and leveraging impact measurement for product growth.
This shift in mindset can also shape pricing strategies. Early grant funding should be used to secure long-term client commitments upfront, bring in big brand-name partners, and experiment aggressively with product and pricing models while risks are de-risked by blended capital.
Without strategic capital planning, even the most promising mental health tech solutions risk stalling. Israel has the talent, the urgency, and the creativity. Now it needs an ecosystem – and a mindset – ready to meet the moment.This isn’t just about start-ups or capital efficiency. It’s about responding to a national trauma that affects every family, school, and community. Scaling mental health innovation is a critical pillar of Israel’s resilience today, and for generations to come.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853934
-----
Mike Huckabee Speaks Out On Iran, US Diplomacy, And His Israeli Vision
By Harry Moskoff
May 15, 2025
You’ve heard it before, but that well-worn saying that Israel has never had a better ally in the White House than US President Donald Trump is true this time around as well. And that regarding new Ambassador Mike Huckabee, when it comes to representing the US in Israel, there has never been a more reliable friend.
I can say this both on a national and personal level, mostly due to Huckabee’s unapologetic pro-Israel sentiment that began over 50 years ago.
I was grateful when I learned that the ambassador granted Moskoff-Media (Israel) an interview at the US Embassy in Jerusalem. As the conversation progressed, I realized that Huckabee has the total support of the president, and that theoretically, Trump is always just a phone call away.
The following are excerpts of the interview, in which he addresses and clarifies a wide-range of recent issues.
Mike Huckabee: Right into the frying pan
HM: Thank you for your time, Ambassador Huckabee. It’s great to see you again. In this country, you need no introduction. You have been all over the news since you came here. You came right into the frying pan…
MH: It certainly has been all of that, and more.
HM: There’s no one I think who’s better fitted in terms of past history with the country. You are the 29th US ambassador to Israel. Here at the embassy, this will be our second interview; the first was about 10 years ago in New York City.
It seems we are constantly “two weeks away” from Iran weaponizing nuclear materials. Some people say two weeks; some people say two months. Knowing President Trump as well as you do, when do you think his patience is going to run out with these talks? We just had talks. Do you think it will last another half a year?
MH: I can’t imagine that the president would let those talks just continue indefinitely. If it becomes apparent that the Iranians have no serious intent on dismantling their nuclear program, the president has made it clear they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. And they can either… as he said last week, “They can either blow it up nicely or they can blow it up viciously.” I thought that was pretty clear. And I hope that they take him seriously.
HM: In my view, you definitely represent the epitome of “faith diplomacy.” What’s your personal vision for your ambassadorship here in Israel for the next four years?
MH: I would love to see the hostages all come home, every one of them. To see Hamas completely annihilated. The president has said repeatedly that they have no future in Gaza, they have no future in governing. I don’t see how they could have any future, because what they did on October 7 was not an act of war.
It was an act of the most vicious, uncivilized terror that we’ve seen. It’s even worse than terrorist acts when people are murdered by gunfire or by bombs, because there was an intent to inflict the highest level of pain and humiliation upon the victims.
The victims were targeted to be civilians. They were targeted to be vulnerable people, elderly people, pregnant women, babies. When you target people like that for the actions that they carried out, those are not acts of war. Those are acts of criminal, uncivilized, savage behaviour that can only be met with the desire to say: this can never be.
If you put it in biblical terms, it’s like going after the Amalekites in the Old Testament. And God says don’t let any of it last. It’s all got to go.
HM: That’s a good way to think of it. Real evil, evil personified.
Let’s move to The New York Times, which wrote that there are signs of division between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and then picked out one quote. You have had many good quotes lately about what has been happening, namely, that Trump didn’t really throw Israel under the bus with all these recent decisions he’s made, which seem on the surface to be contrary to Israel’s interests.
But the one quote The New York Times used for you was: Huckabee said that “the US isn’t required to get permission from Israel” – instead of all the other quotes.
MH: They didn’t even finish that statement! Because I said, “and Israel doesn’t need our permission.” That was the whole point: that we have two sovereign nations. The United States of America doesn’t have to play “mother-may-I,” but it’s not just with Israel. We don’t have to ask the UK, or Canada, or France, or any of our allies. We’ve got a lot of allies around the world. It’s not necessary. There’s nothing in our law that requires us to ask permission to act in our own best interests.
I quickly said it in the same sentence, and the Times, irresponsibly and recklessly left it out, that Israel doesn’t have to ask our permission. They’re a sovereign nation. Israel doesn’t have to ask the United States – “Hey, can we defend ourselves?” Can we go against our enemies? That’s not a requirement. There’s nothing in our longstanding, very thick relationship that would require the Israelis to get our permission. I said it as clearly as it could be said, but The New York Times, which I call the “New York Slimes” once again chose to distort and misrepresent a story. When you tell a half-truth as if it is the full truth, it becomes an untruth. That’s what they did. And I wish they would be accountable for their very unprofessional standards of journalism. But they probably won’t.
Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, Temple Mount
HM: What are your views about keeping Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem in general, and the Temple Mount in particular?
MH: I think what has been the practice – Israel has made accessibility something that they protect everyone, whether that person is Jewish, Muslim, or Christian. And there are clearly holy sites for all the three major religions, and for others as well. When people are critical of Israel about their management of the property, I always say, as a Christian I can go to any sites I want to. And the Israelis protect me and grant me that right and access.
Quite frankly, in the Palestinian Authority, there are places that I cannot go to easily. And it’s very much in complete disregard of the Oslo Accords, which was to grant access everywhere. The Israelis have kept that. Others have not.
I don’t know why there needs to be a particular change, as long as Israel has maintained the right of people to visit the Temple Mount, whether it’s to see al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock, or whether it’s for Christians to be able to go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, or other places in the Old City that they wish to go. And that accessibility has been guaranteed. Quite frankly, sometimes it almost appears the Israelis are more protective of the other religions getting their rights than they are of Jews.
HM: That’s true. If the reverse were the case, it would be different. You don’t see that. You don’t see the PA protecting Jewish property, especially in terms of biblical archaeology. The opposite is true!
Sovereignty must be appreciated, certainly from a biblical perspective, and even more so, politically. I hope you will also have an influence so that we stand strong always and don’t move from our position.
Again, I wanted to thank you very much for your time, Mr. Ambassador.
MH: Great to visit with you again. It has been a long time.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853916
----
Reducing Lithium-Ion Battery Usage May Prevent Israel's Next Wildfire
By Rebecca Barel
May 15, 2025
The recent fires, leading to a major environmental disaster, underscored the urgent need to protect our environment from ignition risks. With rising temperatures, any spark can escalate into a large-scale wildfire, making preventive measures more crucial than ever.
This raises a broader concern: Environmental protection. In our pursuit of progress and technology, we often overlook fundamental safety measures. While environmental startups and environmental, social, and governance requirements are steps in the right direction, adoption remains slow.
The lithium-ion battery challenge
Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly used in electric vehicles, logistics warehouses, and small electric vehicles like e-scooters. However, improper disposal of these batteries in standard waste bins poses severe safety hazards.In January alone, over 60 fire incidents were reported at the Hiriya Recycling Park, including two major fires that caused substantial damage.
The logistics and supply industries face similar challenges. In 2019, a devastating fire broke out at Ocado’s Andover warehouse due to an electrical fault in a robot’s battery charging unit. The fire lasted four days, completely destroying the facility, resulting in £100 million in losses and the dismissal of 370 employees.
A delayed emergency response, including a one-hour delay in alerting fire services and the deactivation of the sprinkler system, exacerbated the damage.
A World Bank report indicates that the production of minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel could increase by nearly 500% by 2050 to meet the growing demand for clean energy technologies.
Despite this surge, only about 5% of lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled, leading to severe environmental pollution and other ecological risks.
When lithium-ion battery components encounter other materials found in standard waste bins – such as acetone, cigarette remnants, and other types of waste – they may heat up and ignite, posing a serious fire hazard.
Innovative solutions are urgently needed to prevent the accumulation of damaged batteries in waste systems and reduce the risk of fires. Battery recycling presents a viable solution; however, the industry faces substantial challenges, mainly due to the complex chemical composition of lithium-ion batteries, which contain elements such as cobalt and nickel, making efficient separation difficult. The recycling process requires advanced technologies, making it costly and intricate.
Furthermore, the lack of global infrastructure means that many electric vehicle batteries are not properly recycled, resulting in an accumulation of hazardous waste. Non-uniform regulations across the world also create obstacles in establishing standardized recycling protocols. While Europe enforces strict regulations, other countries, including Israel, have yet to introduce comprehensive legislation.
Additionally, used batteries may spontaneously ignite if not handled correctly, further emphasizing the need for stringent disposal and recycling measures.
As we continue to innovate and advance technologically, it’s imperative to prioritize environmental safety and sustainability. Embracing sustainable technologies and being mindful of our ecological footprint can lead to a safer and healthier planet for future generations.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853921
----
Crossing Paths In Damascus: A Brewing Standoff Between Israel And Türkiye
By Ahmet Alioğlu
May 15, 2025
Recently, Israeli warplanes struck targets on the outskirts of the Syrian capital, an act Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed as a “surgical warning” against elements allegedly plotting attacks against the Druze minority in nearby Sahnaya. With bluntness, Netanyahu declared the strike an “unmistakable message” to Damascus and its allies: Israel would not stand idly by while threats to the Druze community, with whom it claims to share deep historical ties, fester on Syrian soil.
The response from Ankara was swift and scathing. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, never one to mince words, lambasted the strike as “yet another reckless provocation” by a regime he accused of exporting chaos across the region. “After reducing Gaza to rubble and playing with fire in Lebanon, Israel now seeks to turn Syria into its next playground.” He warned that the attack dangerously undermined the fragile political detente emerging under Syria’s new leadership, calling it a transparent bid to "sabotage the first shoots of stability."
Regional power play
Beneath the surface of these exchanges lies a far more consequential struggle. Israel’s strike serves as a litmus test, probing not just Syria’s defenses but Türkiye’s thresholds. For Erdoğan, the calculus is delicate: how to project strength without triggering an unwanted escalation, particularly as he prepares for high-stakes talks in Washington. Yet, the underlying warning is clear: Israel’s strikes in Syria are no longer just about Syria. They are becoming a referendum on whose influence will shape the region’s future and Türkiye has no intention of failing that test.
The entire story unfolds from a singular, unshakable conviction: Israel cannot stomach the rise of any neighbouring government that truly reflects the will and desires of its nation. To the Israeli establishment, such a prospect is not merely unsettling but an existential peril. The logic is as stark as it is revealing.
While Arab states may be coaxed into normalization, the overwhelming majority of the people across the region remain unyielding in their rejection of Israel’s legitimacy or endorsement as a part and parcel of the region. The searing horrors and dreadful images coming out of Gaza have etched an indelible divide, rendering hollow any facade of genuine acceptance between Israel and the broader Arab and Muslim world.
Syria, ever the linchpin in this volatile calculus, finds itself caught in the crosshairs. Despite assurances from Damascus’ new leadership, pledges to Washington that Syria will neither serve as a staging ground for regional provocations nor permit foreign actors, Palestinian, Lebanese or Iranian, to exploit its soil for destabilization, Israel remains obstinate. Stability in Syria, it seems, is an outcome Tel Aviv refuses to countenance.
Rather than engaging in diplomacy, Israel has entrenched its military dominion within Syrian borders, seizing land, exacting a bloody toll on civilians and raining down airstrikes with impunity, even at the heart of the capital. It has audaciously dictated terms, demanding Syrian forces retreat from their own sovereign territory south of Damascus.
And what banner does it fly to mask its aggression? The protection of the Druze, a community cynically wielded as both shield and spear, a convenient pretext to cloak intervention in the garb of humanitarian concern. It is a familiar stratagem: exploiting sectarian fissures to fracture solidarity, all while perpetuating the very chaos it claims to oppose.
Ankara’s red line
At the heart of Türkiye’s Syria policy lies an unwavering principle: it will not stand idly by as external forces tip the scales toward chaos. Through deft regional diplomacy and close coordination with Washington, Ankara has made its position unmistakable; its military operations in northern Syria are not acts of aggression but defensive measures. Their aim? To dismantle the influence of separatist terrorist militants and to thwart any bid to carve out an autonomous zone along its southern frontier.
Yet this very objective places Ankara on a collision course with Israel, whose strategic calculus appears increasingly rooted in one overriding goal: preventing the resurgence of a strong, sovereign country. Thus, Israel’s maneuvers, from airstrikes to territorial encroachments and annexation, suggest a preference for a fractured Syria, one where perpetual instability serves as a buffer against cohesive opposition.
Beneath the surface of Israel’s bombardment campaigns lies a layered strategy, one that extends beyond mere saber-rattling at Damascus. The timing and targets of these strikes raise a provocative question: are they also calibrated to checkmate Türkiye?
As far back as 2021, Israeli security assessments began casting Türkiye as a potential adversary, a sentiment later enshrined in the 2025 Nagel Committee report. The document, unveiled amid the ongoing Syrian conflict, explicitly urged Israel to brace for possible military friction with Türkiye in the coming years. Tel Aviv’s overt backing of the YPG/Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a group Ankara views as an existential threat, further fans the flames. Add to this Israel’s escalating rhetoric framing Türkiye as a security liability and the subtext becomes clear: this is as much about containment as it is about coercion.
Enter Trump: Sanctions and signals
In a move that caught allies and adversaries off guard, U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled his intent to lift U.S. economic sanctions on Syria – a decision sending shockwaves through the Middle East and triggering immediate alarm in Tel Aviv. For Israel, the sanctions have long been a critical lever, starving Damascus of reconstruction funds and foreign capital. Their sudden dismantling – especially under a president who has repeatedly defied diplomatic norms – threatens to upend Israel’s containment strategy and reshape the region’s power dynamics.
For Türkiye, however, the shift presents a strategic opening. Ankara sees a sanctions reprieve as a chance to stabilize Syria – a priority now central to its border security and efforts to repatriate Syrian refugees. Yet this very prospect risks inflaming tensions with Israel, whose escalating military strikes appear designed to sabotage any such outcome, setting the stage for a dangerous new confrontation.
Türkiye’s threshold
At the core of Türkiye’s Syria policy remains an unyielding principle: external actors must not be permitted to drag Syria back into fragmentation and disorder. Ankara’s military presence in northern Syria is not a projection of imperial ambition, but a defensive necessity – aimed at preempting the rise of destabilizing autonomous zones along its southern border and curbing the influence of armed separatist factions.
Ankara’s skepticism persists – even as the PKK has announced its dissolution, a potential breakthrough for regional diplomacy. Turkish officials still regard the SDF as an enduring menace, inextricably tied to the PKK’s militant network. And Israel’s unwavering support for the SDF only fuels the fire, hardening Ankara’s belief that Tel Aviv is manipulating proxy alliances to steer Syria’s trajectory – directly undermining Türkiye’s security agenda.
Add to this Israel’s escalating rhetoric, which increasingly frames Türkiye as an emerging regional antagonist and a clearer strategy comes into focus: a campaign of strategic containment, draped in the language of counterterrorism, even as realities on the ground evolve. The disconnect is stark – and the risks of confrontation grow.
Türkiye’s long game
Ankara’s restraint is not born of submission but strategic patience. A direct clash with Israel, especially on Tel Aviv’s terms, would risk derailing Türkiye’s delicate balancing act with Washington, where Erdoğan’s impending White House visit looms large. The stakes could not be higher: sanctions relief, U.S. recalibration of its YPG/SDF partnership and a potential reshaping of America’s military footprint in Syria all hang in the balance.
For now, Türkiye’s playbook favors diplomatic leverage over battlefield escalation. By embedding its relations deeper into Syria’s fabric, fortifying bases, entrenching alliances and rendering any Israeli strike a potential flashpoint, Ankara aims to erode Tel Aviv’s room for unilateral action.
Türkiye may well pursue indirect bargains with Israel, using Washington as an intermediary. Trump’s recent remarks, hinting at U.S. mediation to avert a Türkiye-Israel crisis, underscore this plausible pathway. But make no mistake: while Ankara may tread carefully, it will not cede ground. Syria’s future and Türkiye’s foothold within it remain a prize too strategic to surrender. Patience, not provocation, is Ankara’s winning move in this high-stakes chessboard.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/crossing-paths-in-damascus-a-brewing-standoff-between-israel-and-turkiye
----
In Defence Of Boiler Room: Palestinian Solidarity In A Capitalist Cage
By Maryam Khalifa
May 14, 2025
Boiler Room (BR) has been a recent feature in pro-Palestinian discourse, as the global DJ brand was recently bought by Superstruct Entertainment, a company with ties to Israel. A brand once beloved for its pro-Palestinian action has seen the pendulum swing to disgust, with calls to boycott. This anger, while understandable, is misplaced.
Boiler Room championed Palestinian solidarity long before it became a globally discussed topic following 7 October 2023, and continues to stand by its beliefs in a recently published statement. The public’s anger relates more towards late-stage capitalism dynamics, which allow a company to be bought or sold, while having no say in the process itself. Rather than the Palestinian movement turning against Boiler Room, it is important to stand alongside them, as comrades against the global Israeli lobby which they continue to condemn, even when running the risk of penalisation from Superstruct. Capitalism today reflects the worst of familial dynamics: we can’t choose our parents or their opinions, but have the freedom to define our own views, and BR has consistently chosen to stand with Palestine.
To grasp the complexity behind Boiler Room and the discourse surrounding them currently, it is important to understand the brand’s history. As a global electronic DJ company, their mission has successfully championed uplifting grassroot DJs in the music scene onto a public platform. Since its genesis, BR has dedicated numerous missions to the Palestine cause, from fundraisers to sets in Palestine itself.
The most notable work was a documentary made in 2018, when BR connected with artists in Ramallah, which led them to defy the illegal Separation Wall and enter the West Bank. The work is inspiring, not least for its unique insight into the region through a techno/electronic lens, but for its honest depiction of how music cannot be separated from the political oppression Palestinians face. Boiler Room has also consistently stood behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and continues to host events to fundraise for Palestine.
The series of events with Boiler Room which led to the current uproar began in January, when their previous parent company DICE sold the company to Superstruct. DICE’s acquisition of BR in September 2021 also included a removal of all prior investors – they owned 100 per cent of the company. This is what eventually led to Superstruct, the second largest festival company in the world, being able to acquire 100 per cent of the company. The contention with BR’s new owners is a result of Superstruct being backed by KKR, a private equity firm that holds ties to numerous companies with links to the Israeli military.
Some of these investments include Axel Springer, a German media company which has been reported to have advertised illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, as well as the real estate software company Guesty, an Israeli software for property management that has reportedly aided the renting of properties on occupied Palestinian land. KKR’s complicity in Israeli investment means Superstruct is also culpable.
My contention is not with KKR or Superstruct’s complicity, but rather with the public’s anger towards Boiler Room. In a responsive statement, Boiler Room (BR) reinforced their proven track record of supporting the Palestinian movement. On 25 March, BR released a statement on Instagram, reaffirming their “unapologetically pro-Palestine” stance, acknowledging Superstruct’s ties to Israel and stressing how they “categorically do not align with our values.”
“[Our] commitment to editorial independence and Palestine has never wavered. No investor, past or present, has ever influenced our output, this will never change… We will always remain unapologetically pro-Palestine. We continue to adhere to BDS and PACBI guidelines regarding artist programming and brand partnerships and engage with Palestinian artists and organisers to formalise our internal policies in line with this commitment. We uphold international law and human rights for all, regardless of identity.”
This action from Boiler Room resulted in its praise by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Publishing a statement on the BDS boycott’s website, both the BDS and PACBI have commended BR’s effort to distance itself from Superstruct and have urged other music event companies to follow BR’s example.
However, even these statements have received backlash for their vague direction, as neither BDS nor PACBI condoned the boycotting of Boiler Room, with many finding the advice to “distance” vague compared to usually clear commentary of boycotting. The adverse reaction even BDS and PACBI have received is telling – when some of the greatest organisations for Palestinian resistance are under fire, one would question the people behind the guns. Boiler Room and BDS/PACBI have similarities in this experience – they are all companies that are loyal to the Palestinian cause and yet face criticism for recognising and experiencing the complexity of neo-liberal economics. The anger should never be directed towards champions of Palestinian solidarity, but always the perpetrators which compromise an organisation’s moral standing.
Boiler Room’s recent acquisition by a parent company with ties to Israeli interests has understandably ignited concern within pro-Palestinian circles. However, the rush to condemn BR overlooks both its longstanding record of solidarity and its continued vocal opposition to Israeli occupation. The outrage misplaces blame — targeting a platform that has risked alienation and commercial fallout to stand by its principles. In a world where capitalism often strips agency from companies and individuals alike, BR’s unwavering commitment to Palestine deserves recognition, not rebuke. Rather than severing ties, supporters of the Palestinian cause should recognise Boiler Room as an ally navigating a compromised system while refusing to compromise its values.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250514-in-defence-of-boiler-room-palestinian-solidarity-in-a-capitalist-cage/
------
The Judiciaries in Israel and The United States Are Under Siege
By Daniel Goldman
May 15, 2025
In recent years, the United States and Israel have witnessed eerily similar patterns in how certain segments of the political Right respond when judicial appointees deemed conservative show independence from political expectations.
The cases of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the US and Justice Noam Sohlberg in Israel illustrate a troubling dynamic: the expectation from some political quarters that judicial philosophy should translate to political loyalty. This, at a time when there are calls for the impeachment of judges in the US who rule against Trump’s executive orders; and in Israel, with the justice minister boycotting the president of the Supreme Court, refusing to recognize his appointment.
While traditional conservatives value judicial restraint and the rule of law, accepting unfavorable rulings as the price of constitutional governance, today’s right-wing populists merely cloak authoritarian impulses in conservative rhetoric.
A dangerous coalition has formed: Genuine judicial conservatives lend intellectual credibility to populist movements that ultimately aim to dismantle the very separation of powers that conservatism historically defended. By the time traditional conservatives recognize this distinction, the institutional damage may already be irreversible.
When Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, conservatives celebrated her devout Catholicism and originalist judicial philosophy. Similarly, in Israel, Sohlberg, a religious Zionist who lives in a Judean settlement, was welcomed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 2012 as a reliably conservative voice with support across the right wing of Israeli politics.
Yet both judges have occasionally disappointed their political patrons by ruling against expected ideological lines. Barrett recently joined liberal justices in rejecting attempts to halt funding for USAID, prompting vicious attacks from right-wing commentators.
In a particularly absurd moment, some critics labeled her a “DEI hire” – a bizarrely ironic characterization for a white, deeply Catholic woman with strong academic credentials. This slur is normally used to attack progressive institutions and the promotion of minority appointments under the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion – the claim being that color or race are more important than competence or qualifications.
The double irony is that Barrett joined other justices in the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in US colleges, a landmark hearing against DEI. This politically motivated slur reveals how quickly the cloak of principles is abandoned when rulings don’t align with partisan expectations.
Sohlberg has faced similar treatment in Israel, most notably only weeks ago, after joining a unanimous Israeli Supreme Court decision against the government in the high-profile case involving the dismissal of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar.
The backlash was so severe that there were public calls for Justice Minister Yariv Levin to boycott Sohlberg’s swearing-in ceremony as vice president of the Supreme Court, an (almost) unprecedented attack on judicial norms and institutional respect.
The reaction from hardline elements in both countries has been swift and severe. Some in Israel’s ruling coalition, particularly Justice Minister Levin, have suggested that Sohlberg cannot be considered truly “conservative” because he ruled against government interests. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation, of what judicial conservatism means.
In the American context, we see similar dynamics at play. Members of the Trump administration have called for the impeachment of judges who rule against executive orders. Trump himself has targeted leading law firms representing challengers to administration policies.
The Financial Times’s chief foreign affairs commentator, Gideon Rachman, does not mince words in describing the response of the US legal profession: “Like respectable members of the professional classes, unexpectedly threatened by the mob, Trump’s targets paid up quickly in the hope that all the unpleasantness would swiftly go away.”
The beating heart of civil society is made up of independent lawyers and judges. Without them, there is little to constrain the power of the executive branch.
This pattern exposes a dangerous conflation: confusing judicial conservatism with political loyalty. True judicial conservatives – whether they embrace originalism, textualism, or judicial restraint – aim to interpret law according to established legal principles, not partisan preferences. Sometimes this leads to outcomes that disappoint their political allies.
A growing trend: Judicial independence at risk worldwide
The US and Israel are not alone in this politicization. In 2017, there was a concerted attack on the senior British judiciary after a high-profile ruling on Brexit. The popular press and certain politicians launched a series of ad hominem attacks on the presiding judges, alleging without basis that the politics of the judges, and not their interpretation of the law, determined their decision. The then-justice minister did not defend the judges, leading the judges to feel exposed in a media arena they were wholly unequipped to navigate.
In countries with weaker democratic roots (Turkey, Hungary, and Poland), undermining the judiciary is predictable. When it happens in democratic stalwarts, like the UK and US, then the world takes note. When it happens in the only Jewish country, we need to take note.
What we’re witnessing is not legitimate disappointment with judicial philosophy but rather frustration that judges aren’t acting as rubber stamps for executive power. This represents a fundamental threat to judicial independence and the separation of powers that undergirds democratic governance.
The judiciary functions as democracy’s failsafe – the branch that ensures governmental power remains within constitutional boundaries regardless of which party holds power. When political figures demand loyalty rather than principle from judges, they reveal authoritarian tendencies that should alarm citizens across the political spectrum.
A diverse judiciary reflecting various interpretive philosophies strengthens our legal systems. But demanding political fealty from judges, whether in Washington or Jerusalem, undermines the very foundations of representative democracy.
The attacks on Barrett and Sohlberg signal something profoundly concerning: certain political factions don’t want conservative judges; they want compliant ones. They have stopped believing in the separation of powers and are seeking increasingly unlimited power.
In preserving or even reforming our democratic institutions, we must recognize and resist this distinction before independent courts become merely another partisan battleground.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853909
-----
Gaza’s Graveyard of Illusions: How Israel’s Narrative Collides With Military Failure
May 14, 2025
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a skilled salesperson, though the product he peddles is deeply flawed. His current challenge is to convince himself, his people, the region and the world that – despite significant setbacks – he is winning the strategic war against his adversaries.
Former Israeli national security officials, while employing different terminology, essentially convey the same conclusion. They describe Netanyahu as a “master tactician” but “not a master strategist”, as reported by CNN. In an article detailing one of Netanyahu’s grandiose, yet hollow, pronouncements of aspiring to control the Middle East, CNN’s headline declared that “The Endgame is unclear as ever.”
Netanyahu and his extremist allies are acting in defiance of reality. They either believe, or wish to believe, that the endgame is perfectly clear.
According to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Israel is operating under a grand military strategy, one that will culminate in “Syria being dismantled, Hezbollah being severely defeated, Iran being stripped of its nuclear threat, Gaza being cleansed of Hamas, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans being displaced to other countries.”
Smotrich’s extensive list, communicated at the end of April, concluded with Israel emerging “stronger and more prosperous.” This wish list aligns closely with a similar list presented by Netanyahu in March.
However, Netanyahu, desperate for immediate political capital, chose to boast about purported achievements rather than future goals. He claimed to have already brought his enemies to their knees and “destroyed the remnants of the Syrian army.”
This latter claim refers to Israel’s unilateral actions against Syria last December, a nation embroiled in internal strife and not actively engaged in war with Israel. In essence, Israel fabricated a major war front in the absence of actual conflict and declared itself the decisive victor.
Rarely do Israeli leaders publicly articulate their nation’s true intentions with such stark language. They often frame war, colonial expansion and even genocide using terminology palatable to Western mainstream media and public: Israeli aggressions are portrayed as self-defence and the construction of illegal settlements as self-preservation.
However, the political discourse emanating from Israel lately strikes a different tone. One might argue that Israel, ostracised by much of the world and led by individuals facing criminal charges, no longer feels compelled to conceal its genuine aims. This is incorrect, however, as Israel is now more than ever desperate to provide any rationale, however feeble, to justify its extermination of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Indeed, were Israel not concerned about accountability, it would not dedicate significant time and resources to defending itself in the world’s highest legal and criminal courts, nor would it issue travel warnings to its soldiers or conceal their identities for fear of prosecution.
Israel’s inflated political rhetoric and its pronouncements of imaginary achievements are a form of hype aimed at preserving its image as a powerful regional player capable of not only influencing political outcomes but fundamentally shaping the entire Middle East.
The irony of this hype is that Israel has been attempting – and failing at an unprecedented cost – to conquer Gaza, a devastated, tiny territory with a starving population still reeling from the impact of the ongoing Israeli genocide. Even venturing a few hundred metres into Rafah or Khan Yunis continues to result in deaths and injuries within the Israeli army, which is struggling to amass the necessary numbers for large-scale offensives within the Strip.
One must, however, distinguish between Israel’s intentions and its failure to realise them. Indeed, dominating the Middle East has been the formula driving Israel’s actions for decades. In fact, there is an official document that details Israel’s regional ambitions: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”
This document was prepared in 1996 by Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative intellectual and a close associate of Netanyahu, for the so-called Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. It aimed to guide Israel toward a more assertive policy that rejects the “comprehensive peace” notion, advocating for destabilising the region and “rolling back” threats, specifically those emanating from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, among others.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 presented a golden opportunity for some of these goals to be achieved, though the ultimate outcome fell short of the overall objectives.
Humiliated by the failures of his army and intelligence throughout the Gaza war, and facing immense pressure from a deeply discontented public, Netanyahu knows that his legacy, which he had hoped would be remembered as the greatest among all Israeli leaders, will instead be marred by controversy and disgrace.
Thus, Netanyahu is re-engaging in Perle’s old strategy, though under entirely different circumstances. To “secure the realm” would imply that Israel is indeed in control, possesses incomparable military strength, and that its adversaries are willing to accept their diminished role in this Netanyahu-crafted Middle East.
But even a skilled salesman, or “great tactician”, cannot market genocide as a victory, nor can a disreputable and dysfunctional army secure a strategic triumph.
Israel has clearly failed to secure any genuine or lasting victory, and the obvious solution is for Israel to be reined in and held accountable for its crimes in Gaza and throughout Palestine. The Middle East would then be poised for true stability, peace and even prosperity, free from Israeli scheming and the relentless pursuit of more war fronts and illusory victories.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250514-gazas-graveyard-of-illusions-how-israels-narrative-collides-with-military-failure/
----
Netanyahu Has Become Israel’s Biggest Liability
Osama Al-Sharif
May 14, 2025
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu is going through a bad week, and things could get even worse. Ever since his March decision to pull out of the ceasefire deal with Hamas, which was brokered jointly by the US, Qatar and Egypt, by demanding a change in its conditions, he believed that he was once more calling the shots over Israel’s unrelenting war on Gaza. Never mind that he had gone against a majority of Israelis, including the families of the captives, in shelving the hostage exchange deal, but he also believed he had a blank check.
He miscalculated when he ordered a tight blockade, now in its third month, which cut off all means of survival for more than 2 million hapless Palestinians. By doing so, he lost any remaining sympathy for his war on Gaza. Even worse, he added another charge to a long list of accusations against Israel before international courts and human rights organizations.
Everyone in Israel knows that this second and more vicious chapter of the war has nothing to do with releasing the remaining Israeli captives. On the contrary, the reoccupation of northern Gaza and the destruction of Rafah in the south has almost guaranteed that none of the hostages will return alive. And, despite the hellish bombardment of shelters, tents, civil service salvaging equipment and medical facilities — resulting in thousands of fatalities — Hamas has not been forced to surrender, nor is it ready to free, without conditions, any more of the captives.
This is Netanyahu’s war, whose real aim is to prolong the life of his government and, in the process, his own political career.
But while Netanyahu pushed on, despite rising domestic opposition, something unexpected happened: the US reached a deal with Hamas to free the last surviving American hostage, Edan Alexander. On Monday, Hamas handed Alexander, who is also an Israeli citizen, to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in turn delivered him to his waiting family in Israel.
President Donald Trump took credit for this breakthrough, as he should. In Israel, there was rage against the government. The opposition described the event as a blow to Netanyahu. Israel could have retrieved all its hostages from Hamas in return for an end to the war. Netanyahu would not have it.
And then questions were asked. Was there a secret deal with the US, as Hamas claimed, that would derail Netanyahu’s war ambitions? Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, was in Israel to meet with Netanyahu and top aides as Alexander returned home. He reportedly criticized the prime minister for pointlessly extending the war and hindering a hostage deal.
On Tuesday, Witkoff met Israeli protesters, including the families of the hostages, to underscore his position — and presumably that of the White House. His visit to Israel came days after reports suggested that Trump had decided to sever direct contact with Netanyahu as the president believed he was manipulating him.
A few weeks ago, Trump told reporters that he had asked Netanyahu “to be good” to the people of Gaza and to allow humanitarian aid to get through to the beleaguered Strip. Instead, Netanyahu doubled down, suggesting that starving 2 million Palestinians would force Hamas to cave in.
When the Americans proposed hiring private contractors to distribute aid, bypassing UNRWA, the World Food Programme, UNICEF and other aid agencies, the UN rejected the proposal outright. Israel, on the other hand, showed no interest in reopening the gates to hundreds of waiting trucks on the Egyptian border. Under such dire circumstances, the UN warned that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are on the verge of starvation. Tens of thousands of children and pregnant mothers are malnourished.
Israel’s induced famine in Gaza is a blemish on all humanity. One man stands behind this most gruesome crime: Netanyahu. To make things worse, his far-right government had endorsed a plan, codenamed “Gideon’s Chariots,” to conquer and occupy all of Gaza, using at least 60,000 soldiers, and drive all the population into the desolate Rafah governorate along the Egyptian border.
Such an operation, if executed, would condemn tens of thousands of Gazans to death and facilitate the forced displacement of those who survive. Such a permanent occupation would vacate Gaza completely, deliver the transfer of millions and threaten the national security of Egypt.
But there is another option — all it needs is America’s blessing and support. Arab leaders have already adopted a plan for Gaza that would allow for a nonpartisan administrative body to run the Strip, pave the way for reconstruction, introduce mechanisms that would guarantee Israel’s security, and prevent displacement.
Witkoff, who has become Trump’s most trusted emissary, knows that Netanyahu no longer has the trust of the Israeli public. He also knows that it is Netanyahu who has ruined every chance of reaching a deal that would deliver all Israeli captives, while denying any role for Hamas in administering Gaza in the future.
Aside from salvaging his career and avoiding jail time for corruption, Netanyahu wants to switch to a fast track on annexing the West Bank and killing any chance of a Palestinian state. He believes Trump will back him on this.
However, Trump wants to be a peacemaker, as his speech in Riyadh on Tuesday underlined. It is time the US recognized that, without a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian problem, the region will always be susceptible to instability. To undercut radical forces on both sides, voices of reason must prevail. Netanyahu’s vision for the future of the region, as underlined by his genocidal war in Gaza, will never bring long-lasting stability to the Middle East. It is time for Trump to propose another vision that refutes that of Netanyahu.
Israeli politicians now believe that Netanyahu is on his last rope. His push for a perpetual war on Gaza has polarized Israeli society and turned the country into a global pariah state. His latest ploy of using starvation against millions of people has become Israel’s Achilles’ heel.
Netanyahu’s time as an Israeli leader is running out. He has betrayed the trust of the families of the hostages and the families of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Gaza. More importantly, he has isolated Israel in the international community and created a wave of popular support for the Palestinians and their cause.
For things to move forward, his leadership must end. Killing more Palestinians will not deliver Israel out of the conundrum it now finds itself in.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2600701
------
URl: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/philanthropy-lithium-huckabee-gaza-israel/d/135536
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