One of the issues causing grave concern for the future of the GOP is the troubling rise of antisemitism within certain sectors of its constituency.

Antisemitism is often referred to as the world's "oldest hatred," a term used to describe hostility, discrimination, and prejudice against the Jewish people. This form of hatred is characterized by its persistence through history, adapting to different eras from ancient times through to the present day.

Pernicious and persistent

Persecution of the Jews/Israelites dates back to ancient times—from Pharaoh and the Romans -extending through the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions to the murderous pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, reaching a horrific climax across much of Europe during the Nazi era, with strong pro-Nazi sentiment pervading most of the Arab world. Indeed, one of the starkest instances of this was the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler during the war and engaged in mobilizing support and resources of SS units in the Balkans. Throughout the post-WW-II years, the longstanding Jewish communities across the Middle East suffered harsh persecution (including lethal pogroms) in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq's infamous Farhud.

In the following decades, antisemitism generally fell into disrepute in much of the West—mainly due to the traumatic memories of the Holocaust, being repressed rather than eradicated. Thus, it still simmered just below the surface, occasionally erupting in attacks on synagogues and Jewish community centers across the US and elsewhere. Of course, in the USSR, large-scale suppression of Jews prevailed up until the early 1990s. Moreover, the enmity towards the fledgling Jewish state, founded in 1948, generated more anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist enmity, spurring ongoing efforts to destroy the UN-approved state, even enlisting Nazi scientists to help realize that goal.

Old ware in new wrapping?

But lately, there has been a new and disturbing surge in antisemitism, which seems to be conferring an aura of respectability on the hatred of Jews. Its roots are both perverse and paradoxical—emerging in the immediate wake of Jews suffering the most appalling atrocity since the Holocaust, with over 1200 murdered and massacred in a single day. However, instead of eliciting a wave of sympathy and identification with the victim of such unprovoked savagery, massive displays of support for the Islamist terrorist organization spread across North America and Western Europe. Thus, American University historian Pamela Nadell warns that we could be "witnessing  the 'high tide' of American antisemitism"  and cautions that "the explosion of vitriol post-October 7th is built on decades of rhetoric targeting Jews as settlers, colonialists, and racists—and is at the heart of conspiracy theories since the first century."

Arguably, most surprisingly, the specter of antisemitism has begun to stir in the sectors of the American Right and the Republican Party, which, up until recently, has generally been staunchly pro-Israel. One of the most prominent advocates of this noxious creed is the popular media figure Tucker Carlson, has been widely accused of creating a rift in the GOP and criticized for promoting antisemitic ideas. This controversy intensified after he interviewed openly antisemitic and white nationalist activist Nick Fuentes, a far-right figure known for Holocaust denial and admiration for Hitler, without challenging his core antisemitic views. Carlson berated Israel's allies, accusing "Christian Zionists" of suffering from a "brain virus" while stridently criticizing U.S. support for Israel. (For a stunning display of Carlson's ignorance, invective, and duplicity—see here.)

Understandably, this has created a significant schism within conservative circles.

The Carlson-Caucuses nexus

One of the more surprising sources for Carlson's toxic tirade has its origins in the distant Caucasus nation of Armenia and its influential diaspora organization in America, the American National Committee of Armenians (ANCA).

Thus, ANCA posted an incendiary interview in which Carlson's interlocutor (to his feigned shock)made the outrageous claim that "Israel sold weapons to Azerbaijan to carry out the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh." After all, it is absurd to accuse Israel of animosity towards Christians, as it is perhaps the only Middle East population in which the Christian population has grown (fivefold since 1950), whereas across the Muslim countries, it has declined steeply. Moreover, Armenia is hardly beyond reproach in the complex history of Nagorno-Karabakh, being complicit in the massacre and expulsion of Azerbaijanis from the region in the early 1990s (see, for example, here).

Moreover, in early 2024, an affiliate of ANCA, aligning itself with South Africa's scandalous ICJ action against Israel, called for it to halt its military action in Gaza in a transparent effort to preserve Hamas and ensure its survival—a transparently hostile act against the Jewish state.

Additional fodder for Calson's venom was supplied by Alexander Galitsky, ANCA's Policy Director, who made the ludicrous assertion that somehow Baku's victory in Nagorno Karabakh heralded Israel's military response in Gaza, tweeting that it "was a template for Gaza. Bomb, blockade, starve & render the region uninhabitable…The world's silent complicity in Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing of Artsakh [Nagono-Karabakh] was all the permission Israel needed to do the same to Gaza."

Ludicrous and libelous

This is an allegation so ridiculous that it defies belief. After all, even the poorly informed observer would know that, if anything, Gaza and Nagorno-Karabakh are diametric opposites. Indeed, in 2005, Israel had unilaterally transferred the entire Gaza Strip, without any quid pro quo, to Arab control, only to have it serve as a base for launching repeated attacks against its civilian population, a process which culminated in the brutal October 23 assaults that, proportionately, dwarfed the 9/11 attacks by a factor of 15. As I showed elsewhere, Israel's response was, comparatively, far more restrained than that of other leading Western democracies that suffered lesser assaults. So contrary to the drivel propagated by ANCA's Galitsky, that Israel took its cue from Azerbaijan's military action, the IDF's aim was to eradicate the murderous Islamist organization, while taking unprecedented precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Indeed, the civilian toll in Gaza was in fact exacerbated by two factors: The use of "civilian shields" by Hamas and Egypt's cynical refusal to allow Gazans to flee the fighting, as in virtually every other conflict around the globe.

Galitsky proceeded to unleash a further libelous harangue on Israel, echoing Carlson's earlier anti-Christian smear, misrepresenting an accidental shelling of a church in Gaza, claiming that the "heinous attack on Gaza's only Catholic Church wasn't a 'mistake'. Israel has routinely targeted Christians during its genocide in Gaza."

Curiously, neither ANCA nor Carlson seems to remember—certainly, never mentions—the systematic destruction of all the synagogues, burnt to the ground in Gaza when Israel handed over the Strip to the Palestinians.

Misplaced concern

Indeed, their supposed concern for Christians seems gravely misplaced, given their slaughter at the hands of Muslims in Nigeria, and their displacement from Bethlehem (once a Christian-majority city, now almost devoid of Christian presence under Palestinian rule). One can only assume that both ANCA and Calson must have missed a report in the Guardian headlined "Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas," reporting that any "festive celebrations and displays of crucifixes have become taboo."

ANCA's (via Galitsky) anti-Jewish animus is so pervasive that it extends beyond its feigned concern for Gaza's Christians, whose dire fate under Hamas never seemed to bother them until they could concoct some link to Israel. Indeed, according to the University of Notre Dame, the dwindling number of Gazan Christians was the result of the community being  "squeezed by the policies of Hamas" and its "insidious Islamization process.", declaring: "Christians in Gaza today are targeted on the basis of their religious faith."

Now, ANCA has joined in a wild accusation concerning a real estate dispute with a development company, over an agreement which the Patriarch of the Armenian Church in Jerusalem engaged in—presenting it as a case of "ethnic cleansing," and accusing Jews and the Israeli government of allegedly preparing "another future genocide." Thus, with unfettered and unfounded hyperbole, Galitsky tweeted: "Even outside Gaza, Israel threatens the Holy Land's Christian presence – seen in its ongoing assault on Jerusalem's Armenian Quarter."

Indeed, when it comes to defiling the Jews and their nation-state, no antisemitic slur is too low for the new Woke-Right and their ANCA partners in hate to stoop to. However, they would do well to recall, that over the millennia, the Jews have always prevailed over the purveyors of the world's oldest hate. Always.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Strange bedfellows in hate, from Carlson to the Caucasus appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

No room for rational debate

Indeed, in a recent Opinion piece, I warned that Israel was poised on a perilous slide into civil war. I wrote: "An irreconcilable rift is beginning to open up between rival segments of Israeli society, which no amount of unilateral goodwill can amicably bridge. The rupture is not one that can be bridged by rational reasoning or argument."

This mirrors my dour assessment in a previous piece I published, over two years ago, with the protests against the proposed judicial reforms raging through the streets of Israel: I asserted that  "the ongoing dispute, allegedly about a substantive difference of opinion is nothing but a façade, a stage prop in a visceral fight for control of the reins of power, in which there is no place for any rational debate."

In the interests of methodological rigor, I stipulated the tectonic fault lines, threatening to split the nation's societal fabric asunder, centered on the animosity toward Benjamin Netanyahu and the frustration that his obstinate hold on power engendered in his political adversaries, foiling their multiple endeavors to unseat him. Thus, although Israeli politics has always been characterized by fractious rivalries, the traditional Left-Right divisions have shifted slightly and been replaced by those between virulent anti-Netanyahu zealots and those who are not.

A shifting schism?

Note that while this in some measure coincides with the old Left-Right divisions, it differs somewhat from them in significant ways. Firstly, the anti-Netanyahu faction includes several factions that fall into the "Right" wing categories, such as those led by Avigdor Liberman, Naftali Bennett, and, at the time, Gideon Sa'ar. Secondly, the opposing faction includes not only explicitly pro-Netanyahu supporters but also anyone who is not overtly anti-Netanyahu, who are also classed by his obsessive antagonists as being among his supporters.

However, because of accepted semantic convention, I retained the use of "Left" to denote the anti-Netanyahu bloc, and of "Right" when referring to the opposing bloc.

With this methodological/semantic clarification in mind, we return to the current turmoil in Israel.  For what emerges unmistakably from recent events surrounding the conduct of the senior echelons of the distinctly "Left"-leaning legal establishment in both the judiciary and prosecution, as well as in several investigative arms in the police.

Lamentably, they have shown themselves – either directly or indirectly – willing to imperil the country's most vital interests, undermine its national security, jeopardize its economic wellbeing, risk the safety of its citizens, and sacrifice its most sacred values.

Having seemingly despaired of the possibility of defeating him at the polls, his adversaries have turned – more clumsily than not – to weaponising the legal system as a means of realizing their political goals.

When the prosecution strengthens the defense

Nothing illustrates this dire state of affairs more vividly than the farcical trial against Netanyahu currently underway, in which the defense's case is strengthened every time a prosecution witness takes the stand. Indeed, with its "flagship" accusation of corruption crumbling before the public's very eyes, with the judges – hardly ardent Bibi-philes – warning the prosecutors (before a single defense witness took the stand) that they had failed to make their case. However, despite the judges' specific recommendation that the bribery charges be dropped, the prosecution declined to do so.

Shorn of any tangible chance of securing a conviction for bribery, prosecution was left with two flimsy and somewhat ephemeral charges of "breach of trust", which numerous prominent American figures – including President Donald Trump and renowned jurist Alan Dershowitz – called to be dismissed.

Indeed, as proceedings progressed, the case appeared increasingly far-fetched and indictments ever-more maliciously concocted. Thus, earlier this month, dramatic new evidence, indicating prosecutorial malfeasance, emerged when a senior investigator in the Netanyahu case, Chief Superintendent Tzachi Havkin, informed the court that he would only testify truthfully about what transpired during the probe if the court granted him immunity from self-incrimination. Following the court's decision to grant his request – despite the prosecution's evident reluctance and even explicit prior attempt to prevent it – he laid out a litany of excesses and abuses by the police in its probe against the PM.

"Political prosecution on steroids…"

Indeed, the murky picture that emerged was so troubling that it prompted one prominent M.K. to describe the proceedings against Netanyahu as "malevolent political persecution on steroids."

Despite all the emerging evidence of blatant misconduct, the all-consuming animus in the legal establishment continued to manifest itself unabated in its prejudicial and unequal application of the law to suspects and defendants, depending on their perceived political affiliation – with those associated with Netanyahu receiving excessively harsh treatment (notably in connection with the far-fetched "Qatargate" allegations), while those associated with opposition to him were treated with far-reaching leniency and compassionate kid gloves.

This institutional bias carried itself to the recent events surrounding and allegations of IDF abuse of Hamas prisoners at the Sde Teiman facility, where perpetrators of the October 7^th massacre were incarcerated. The prosecution's proceedings against the IDF guards were accompanied by the release [i.e., leak] of a clearly "doctored" video, reportedly taken prior (!) to the arrival of the purported victim at the facility.

The phony video was seized on by Israel's detractors around the world as proof-positive of the Jewish state's inhumane treatment of Gazans in its custody – with nary a mention of the heinous deeds they had committed and of which they openly boasted. Indeed, the video generated a staggering 100 million views worldwide, resulting in dire diplomatic damage to Israel and its standing in the world, as well as increasing the international antisemitic sentiment, further endangering already harassed Jewish communities across the globe.

Hurried and hysterical responses

As the outcry escalated, appalling facts began to emerge. Thus, with Israel fighting a multi-front war, and increasingly beleaguered and isolated internationally, it turned out that it was none other than the head of IDF legal corps ( the Magistrate Advocate General or MAG), who was behind the media leak of the purportedly offensive video – along with several of her immediate subordinates, who were either involved in/aware of the affair.

It is difficult to diagnose the motivation behind these patently perverse actions other than the desire of the anti-Netanyahu establishment (including upper echelons in the military, the media, and legal elites) to discredit his conduct of the war, which the adversarial Biden administration sought to end. For this, they were willing to pay any price, including sullying Israel's name, risking its soldiers and the welfare of its then-held hostages, so long as they could harness their efforts to tarnish Netanyahu and his coalition.

However, as the flaws and the falsehoods that riddled the official account of the Sde Teiman began to surface, its architects were compelled into hurried and hysterical responses in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks. The result was an unbecoming process of submitting false affidavits to the Supreme Court,  concealing – even destroying – evidence, and finally – almost inconceivably – deporting the alleged victim back to Gaza, raising speculation that this was done to prevent him from testifying and exposing the part that the IDF legal apparatus played in this sordid affair.

Remorseless and obsessive malevolence

Indeed, the Sde Teiman affair has turned the legal establishment into a pathetic caricature of its former self – along with its media sycophants. Thus, as the cracks in the official narrative began to emerge, so did cracks in the ranks.  As the pressure mounted to expose the truth, the façade started to collapse. The first major element to buckle was MAG Tomer-Yerushalmi, now in detention, after two suicide attempts, and several efforts to dispose of/destroy evidence.

As the erosion of public trust accelerated – catalyzed by her blatantly biased and ill-conceived legal opinions – the flames began to lick the heels of Tomer-Yerushalmi's superior, the woefully incompetent and patently partisan Attorney-General, Gali Baharav-Miara, recently barred from any involvement in the investigation of the Sde Teiman affair.

Accordingly, with the Left's remorseless and obsessive malevolence laid increasingly bare, the Right must recalibrate both its overall political conduct and its specific responses to Left-wing skullduggery. For as the Left's electoral base contracts, so its malice increases – even channeling it against their own when some might have the temerity to admit the errors of their way (like the vicious response of the Left-wing media to the recent court decision to bar the Attorney-General from taking any part in the Sde Teiman affair probe because of blatant conflict of interest– for example, see here.)

Time to "fight fire with fire"

Accordingly, for the Right, the time has come to "fight fire with fire". It is time to drop the assumption that the political divide in Israel is one of opinion, which can be bridged by rational argument and compromise. It is a visceral struggle for power, where few, if any, holds are barred. The niceties of political debate must be discarded.  It is time for a cataclysmic purge of the "plumbing" of the state.

It must mobilize its public and harness its anger to drive from their positions of (largely unelected power) those who prioritize partisan affiliation and personal animus over common-sense identification with the national interest.

This is the only effective way to fight the Left's once-vaunted "lords of land", now poised to morph into forlorn lemmings on their downward spiral to oblivion. It is time to nudge them over the brink.

The post INTO THE FRAY: From lords to lemmings – Israel's legal "elites on the brink appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Lehrer is part of a high-ranking delegation from the North Rhine-Westphalia state parliament currently in Israel, advocating for a Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial site to be located in North Rhine-Westphalia. The delegation includes, among others, State Parliament President André Kuper (CDU), Antisemitism Commissioner Sylvia Löhrmann (Greens), and the President of the Westphalian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Adelheid Ruck-Schröder.

After a lengthy visit to Yad Vashem, the group attended the Reformation service at the Redeemer's Church in Jerusalem's Old City. Lehrer was explicitly welcomed at the beginning of the service in his capacity as Vice President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

Bishop speaks of "two years of genocide"

In his sermon, delivered in Arabic and for which translations were offered, Bishop Azar spoke of a "genocide" against the Palestinians:

"But what does reformation look like after two years of genocide? (…) When the international community ignores Palestinian suffering, that is a call for reformation. (…) When the dominate global narrative dehumanizes the Palestinians and ignores the Palestinian Christians' existence, that is a call for reformation."

Azar also criticized Israeli checkpoints in Judea and Samaria and spoke about "falsely imprisoned people". He did not mention the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, the fate of the Israeli hostages, or recent reports of Gaza civilians killed by Hamas.

Abraham Lehrer is the vice-president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the umbrella organization for Jewish communities in Germany. His mother is a survivor of the Auschwitz camp.

"The translation said in English 'genocide,' in German 'genocide' – when I read that, I couldn't stay," Lehrer said to German news outlets.

In the middle of the sermon, Abraham Lehrer stood up, left the service immediately, and took a taxi back to his hotel. He did not attend the subsequent reception hosted by the congregation. The other members of the North-Rhine-Westphalia delegation stayed until the end of the service and left the reception early.

Prayer for the release of "all prisoners" in Israeli prisons

In another part of the service, prayers were offered in French for the release of "all prisoners in Israeli prisons." A worshipper who spoke after the event with the leader of this prayer reported that he did not deny that this included imprisoned Hamas terrorists.

Bishop Ibrahim Azar leads the Evangelical Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, which was founded in the 19th century by German missionaries and still receives substantial financial support from Germany. He is known for constant accusations against Israel. In July, for example, he publicly accused the Israeli government of using starvation as a "weapon of ethnic cleansing" against Palestinians.

Azar is also considered to be one of the leaders of the EAPPI program, which sends international anti-Israel activists to Judea and Samaria, where confrontations with Israeli soldiers regularly occur.

"This is not true morality"

Danny Orbach, a military historian and an associate professor at the History and Asian Studies Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, states about the claims of Azar:

"This is not true morality. This is perverse morality that incentivizes the likes of Hamas to hide even more behind civilians, using them as human shields, thus amplifying the destructive effects of wars and the plight of victims in the future.

The situation in Gaza is as far away from genocide as possible. In all known cases of genocide, the perpetrating side tried to kill as many civilians as possible, in order to destroy the group as a whole or in a substantial part.

In Gaza, by contrast, even the necessary conditions of maximizing deliberate killing of civilians are not met. Nor does indifference. In fact, the IDF sacrificed an important military advantage in order to spare civilians and minimize their killing.

In addition, analysis of bombing patterns shows that in the first, more deadly two months of the war, Israel spent an incredible amount of ammunition in order to conduct a very large number of small, focused attacks against targets embedded in an urban environment. Had it wanted to kill large numbers of civilians, one bomb could kill several hundred in dense areas, and Israel had all the incentives to spare ammunition, being faced with several fronts and possible embargoes. Yet it chose to expend scarce resources in order to minimize the death of uninvolved civilians, bringing the ratio of bombs per casualty in the first two months of the war to something less than one bomb. This is certainly not the mark of indiscriminate bombings.

Also, careful casualty analysis of Gaza Health Ministry Data (suspicious due to affiliations with Hamas, and yet), shows that fighting-age men are numerous among the war casualties in a way that widely overrepresents their share in the general population.

Finally, none of the above should make us ignore the enormous human toll in Gaza, the widespread destruction, and the immense suffering of the population. All wars are hell, and from all wars one could broadcast an endless stream of horror pictures of hellish human suffering. Certainly in urban wars, and certainly in wars where an enemy like Hamas is deliberately using civilians as human shields, building 1000 km of tunnels below almost every civilian structure, and is systematically using hospitals, schools, mosques, and kindergartens for military purposes.

And yet, though Hamas used the safer areas (humanitarian zones) for military purposes, hiding its leaders there and shooting hundreds of rockets towards Israeli civilians, according to our statistical analysis, the humanitarian zones were safer for Gaza civilians almost sixfold than other areas of the Gaza Strip. That is, Israel made a lot of effort to spare civilians even though Hamas abused the humanitarian zones."

Furthermore, Professor Orbach notices, "I do not think it is legitimate to spread vile Hamas propaganda, which is just false and amounts to blood libel, in front of a delegation going mainly to Yad Vashem."

Bishop Ibrahim Azar's daughter, Sally Azar, also an employee of the Protestant Church, recently came under criticism as well. At the German Protestant Church Assembly in Hanover, she led a workshop on "Palestine", during which, according to reports, a map was shown on which Israeli cities were listed only with their Arabic names; Tel Aviv was completely missing. Furthermore, on the day of the Hamas attack, October 7, 2023, she posted the sentence "Gaza just broke out of prison " on Instagram – many interpreted this as an endorsement of the attack.

The post German Jewish official exits Jerusalem church service over anti-Israel propaganda appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Covering the years 2026 to 2030, the 15th Five-Year Plan period will be a decisive phase for China's modernization drive. The external environment will remain complex and challenging, but China will stay focused on managing its own affairs well and continue to create new miracles of rapid economic growth and long-term social stability. The major targets for economic and social development during this period are sevenfold:

1. significant achievements in high-quality development;
2. substantial improvements in scientific and technological self-reliance and strength;
3. fresh breakthroughs in further deepening reform comprehensively;
4. notable cultural and ethical progress across society;
5. further improvements in quality of life;
6. major new strides in advancing the Beautiful China Initiative;
7. and further advances in strengthening the national security shield.

Building on this, we will work hard for a further five years to see that by the year 2035 China's economic strength, scientific and technological capabilities, national defense capabilities, composite national strength, and international influence will all be markedly stronger, that its per capita GDP will be on a par with that of a mid-level developed country, that its people will live better and happier lives, and that socialist modernization will be basically realized.

This plenary session served as a new mobilization and strategic deployment for advancing Chinese modernization. The Recommendations laid out policy directions and key tasks across areas including industrial development, scientific and technological innovation, domestic market , economic systems, opening up, rural revitalization, regional development, cultural progress, livelihood improvement, green transition, security and national defense.

I wish to emphasize that China remains committed to its fundamental national policy of opening up and to building an open world economy through concrete action. The Recommendations made important arrangements on promoting high-standard opening up and creating new horizons for mutually beneficial cooperation. It calls for steadily expanding opening up at the institutional level, safeguarding the multilateral trading system, promoting broader international economic flows, advancing reform and development through greater openness, and sharing opportunities and achieving common development with the rest of the world. In the next five years, we will continue to take the initiative to open China wider, promote the innovative development of trade, create greater space for two-way investment cooperation, and pursue high-quality Belt and Road cooperation. China's door to opening up will not be closed; it will only open wider.

Since 1953, China has formulated long-term plans for national economic and social development, with each plan covering a five-year period. These plans serve as blueprints for the country's long-term development, setting goals and visions for major national projects and economic growth. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, over the past seven decades and more, we have been working from generation to generation on the same blueprint to make it a reality. We have no intention to challenge or supplant anyone. Our focus has always been on managing China's own affairs well, improving ourselves, and sharing development opportunities with all countries across the world. And that is an important secret to our success.

Looking back on the 14th Five-Year Plan period, China's development has been truly remarkable and extraordinary. Facing a complex international landscape and tough domestic reform, development, and stability tasks, China has effectively addressed major risks and challenges and achieved new leaps in economic strength, scientific and technological capability, and overall national power. China's economy has maintained a sound growth momentum, with GDP exceeding 110 trillion, 120 trillion, and 130 trillion yuan in successive years and expected to reach about 140 trillion yuan this year. Its contribution to global growth has remained around 30 percent, and it has led the world in manufacturing output for 15 consecutive years.

China's economy is moving toward innovation. Ranking 10th in the Global Innovation Index, it has the world's largest pool of R&D personnel, and is one of the fastest-rising innovation economies. China continues to build a higher-standard open economy, sharing development opportunities with the world. It has established 22 pilot free trade zones and signed 23 free trade agreements with 30 countries and regions, while removing all restrictions on foreign investment in manufacturing. The Hainan Free Trade Port will complete its customs closure by the end of this year. Moreover, China has signed Belt and Road cooperation documents with over 150 countries and 30 international organizations.

Chinese modernization is an ambitious and arduous endeavor. Its grand blueprint requires grasping the essentials while attending to details, combining strategic vision with meticulous execution. Whatever changes may unfold in the world, China will continue to contribute stability and certainty to a turbulent world through steady efforts. An open and developing China stands ready to share opportunities and pursue common development with all countries—including Israel. We look forward to enhancing mutual understanding and deepening innovation cooperation between China and Israel, leveraging China's high-quality development and Israel's strengths in innovation to advance practical cooperation and bilateral relations, and together move toward a community with a shared future for humanity.

Xiao Junzheng is the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of The People's Republic of China to the State of Israel.

The post A New Journey under the 15th Five-Year Plan A New Chapter of China's Development appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It is time for the United States to lead a global process of repentance and repair by defunding the UN all-together and replacing it with a series of professional bodies free of fecund hostility to Jews/Israelis and liberated from radical anti-American ideologies.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations back in 1975, ripped into the infamous resolution, recognizing it was an attempt to demean America by demeaning its ally. He repudiated what he would later call the "Big Red Lie" as an assault on democracy and decency. And he warned that this libel would enter the international bloodstream.

Alas, he was right. With its perverse Soviet-orchestrated distortions of language, history, and reality, Resolution 3379 "reeked of the totalitarian mind, stank of the totalitarian state" – as Prof. Gil Troy reminds us in an important article this week in Commentary Magazine.

Troy: "With the bully's instinctive genius, the haters understood what would hurt Israel's reputation most – and what the world would swallow easily. They showed how to foist broadly-agreed-upon aversions – to racism, to genocide – onto the Jews."

"Totalitarian anti-Zionism helped Western elites cast Palestinians as noble, oppressed, disenfranchised people of color and Israelis as ignoble, oppressive, racist whites. It helped progressives ignore the Palestinian national movement's violence, Islamism, sexism, and homophobia. The Red-Green alliance united leftists with Islamists, and Moynihan's 'Big Red Lie' became the 'Big Red-Green Lie' that refuses to die."

Ben Cohen and David May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington detailed this week the extraordinary resources devoted by the UN to the demonization of Israel.

This begins with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which drives the Israel-as-colonialist and Israel-as-an-apartheid-state narratives (over $3 million per year over 50 years).

It continues with the UN Palestine Committee and the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People; the Division for Palestinian Rights; the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has been shown to be a close collaborator of Hamas; the UNHCR (High Commissioner for Refugees) special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices.
Even more absurd are UNHRC (Human Rights Council) Agenda Item 7, which requires the body to scrutinize Israel's human rights record at every meeting it convenes (Israel is the only country subject to this treatment); the UN Register of Damages (since 2007 to assist Palestinians in collecting on claims of damages allegedly incurred by the construction of Israel's security barrier in the West Bank); and so many other virulently hostile bodies.
Then there are the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister, Yoav Galant (on the basis of malevolent falsehoods and serial abuses of its own processes); and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which has falsely accused Israel of illegally occupying the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.

Grotesque accusations against Israel of genocide, apartheid, and crimes against humanity bounce around the UN, the ICJ, the ICC and non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. They feed these claims into each other's reports and then repeat and recycle them to create an infernal echo chamber of Israel demonization.

US Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Rick Scott (R-FL) and Reps. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Chip Roy (R-TX) introduced the DEFUND Act, which would initiate the United States' withdrawal from the United Nations, citing in part the U.N.'s actions toward Israel.

But the UN offense is not just about Israel. As researchers Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Edwin Black, and Claudia Rosett have shown the U.S. government provides more than $20 billion to the UN and related international organizations and multilateral entities – that are pugnaciously anti-American and radically woke too.

The Trump administration started in the right direction by ending US funding for UNRWA. The complete dismantling of UNRWA is the next challenge. Its $1.5 billion budget can much better be spent on real refugee settlement and peacemaking, perhaps through the new US-led stabilization administration for Gaza.

Trump also should reopen the 1947 agreement locating UN headquarters, tax free, in NY. And yes, defunding of the UN all-together may be warranted, at least for a while – as prophylactic treatment.

Personally, I don't really believe that the UN can be reformed. It operates with no real accountability, no functional moral compass, and no mechanism for acquiring any such vital features. It has developed a tyrant-friendly, diplomatically immune, and collectively irresponsible DNA.

Worse still, as Melanie Phillipps has written, it is an "unstoppable geyser of moral and intellectual corruption. It teaches the West that lies about Israel are truths and truths are lies, and it has turned what the West tells itself is morality and conscience into an agenda of evil."

It has ensured that the West can no longer distinguish more generally between victim and oppressor, reality and propaganda, right and wrong. Treating the UN and the 'international law' it has promoted as the moral arbiters of global order is not just a sick joke. It has made the world sick, too.

Although everybody knows that the UN is broken, it's pretty much taboo to call for its shutdown. The usual defense of the UN is that "it may be imperfect," but "it's all we've got" – a refrain that tends to be accompanied by prescriptions for reforms that either won't stick or won't work at all.

The counter argument is this: Is the UN really the best we can do? Do we have to settle for a system that elects Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran to lead human rights councils, women's rights agencies, and cultural bodies? If the UN is "all we've got," and it can cavalierly disregard slaughters in Syria and Sudan while outrageously branding Israel a war criminal enterprise, then it is way past time to come up with something else!

Therefore, it is time to create alternatives to the UN, like a "Covenant of Democratic Nations," an UN-successor entity limited to nations governed by democratic principles. This body could nullify crazy acts and nasty resolutions – such as UNESCO's denial of Jewish Jerusalem. The Covenant also would seek to create a long-overdue new body of reformed and updated international law.

Claudia Rosett's book What To Do About the UN demurs from this. She feels that the ideal of "world peace" led by democracies is an overreach. It is too driven by ideals that won't translate easily into action. (Just how will democracy be defined for membership purposes?).

Her guiding principle for replacing the UN is competition, the establishment of professional agencies with no grandiose moral pretensions. Competition is what takes down monopolies, and the UN is the biggest monopoly of them all.

It is a mammoth helped along by immunities, privileges and lavish government contributions, and it is backed by legions of special interest NGOs around the globe that lobby for more.

As a result, Rosett writes, the UN has become like the failed collectivist experiments of the 20th century; those huge old Soviet state enterprises and gargantuan Chinese communist industries. It was and is very hard to shutter these behemoths since they are tied into every aspect of a dysfunctional economy plus their employees' lives. They are a terrible drain.

You fix this by creating competition. So, Rosett proposes the establishment of several coalitions that are not so much pegged to ideals, but rather are mission-driven by countries with specific shared interests – like NATO during the Cold War.

As for the residual usefulness of some type of global "talking shop" in which even Iran can bluster and Russia can dissimulate – well, if at all, this should be a forum for exchange of views only; for blowing-off steam. Rosett: "It should be a General Assembly minus the votes and minus agencies with multi-billion-dollar budgets. It is not a joke to suggest that it would be better to be housed in a gymnasium somewhere in Iowa (or Siberia) than in a multi-billion-dollar gilded chamber in Manhattan."

Thinkers and experts need to apply themselves diligently to this task. It is time for those with know-how, resources, and genuine goodwill toward future generations to take an in-depth and non-polemical look at the opportunity cost to the West of cleaving to the UN.

The post Defund and replace the UN appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

I. Taiwan's return to China: an unshakable historical fact

Since the 12th century, successive imperial central governments of China have established administrative bodies in Taiwan. In 1895, following Japan's war of aggression against China, the Qing government was forced to cede Taiwan, resulting in the island's occupation by a foreign power for half a century. In 1945, with the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Taiwan was restored to China. The 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation both explicitly stipulated that Taiwan, which Japan had stolen from China, should be restored to China. Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, in which it pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations laid down in the Potsdam Proclamation.

As a result of the civil war in China and the interference by external forces, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have fallen into a state of protracted political confrontation, giving rise to the Taiwan question. However, the sovereignty and territory of China have never been divided, and Taiwan's status as part of China's territory has never changed. In the decades after 1949, the Taiwan authorities consistently maintained the position that Taiwan is part of China. After the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) assumed power, it has obstinately pursued a stance of "Taiwan independence", colluding with external forces to provoke separation. Such attempts to divide the country cannot alter the fundamental fact that Taiwan is a province of China, nor can they reverse the historical trend toward national reunification.

II. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758: The definitive international legal document

At its 26th session in 1971, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 2758 by an overwhelming majority, with Israel casting an affirmative vote. The resolution decided to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China in the UN and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the UN, and to expel forthwith the representatives of the Taiwan authorities from the UN and all the organizations related to it. This resolution resolved once and for all the question of the representation of the whole of China, including Taiwan, in the UN, as a political, legal and procedural issue. It made clear that there is only one China in the world, that Taiwan is part of China, and that notions such as "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" do not exist.

The UN system has consistently followed UNGA Resolution 2758 since its adoption. The only reference to the Taiwan region in the UN is "Taiwan, Province of China".  The one-China principle has also become a prevailing international consensus and a basic norm of international relations. A total of 183 countries in the world, including Israel, have already established and developed diplomatic relations with China on the basis of the one-China principle. The China-lsrael Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations clearly states that "the Government of the State of Israel recognizes that the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China."

III. The "undetermined status of Taiwan" Theory: A fallacious notion of division

Taiwan is China's Taiwan. The question of Taiwan's status was fundamentally resolved in 1945, when the Chinese people won the great victory of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and has been clearly affirmed by a series of internationally binding legal instruments. For some time, the DPP authorities and certain countries have deliberately distorted or challenged UNGA Resolution 2758, hyping up the so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan" theory and unscrupulously advancing the "Taiwan independence" agenda. Such actions constitute a distortion of historical facts, a trampling on international law, and a blatant challenge to the international order and rules. They represent the greatest current threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait. To clamor for "Taiwan independence" is to split the country, to support "Taiwan independence" is to interfere in China's internal affairs, and to connive at "Taiwan independence" is to undermine the stability of the Taiwan Strait. If peace in the Taiwan Strait is truly desired, one must resolutely oppose all forms of "Taiwan independence" and firmly support China's national reunification.

"Territory cannot be divided, the country cannot fall into chaos, the nation cannot be dispersed, and civilization cannot be interrupted." These are the deepest convictions of the Chinese nation. Eighty years ago, China defeated the brutal Japanese invaders and restored Taiwan to its territory. Eighty years later, a rejuvenated and strong Chinese nation will never allow Taiwan to be separated from China. I hope that friends in Israel will fully recognize the importance and sensitivity of the Taiwan question, resolutely oppose any form of "Taiwan independence", and firmly support the Chinese government in achieving national reunification.

Xiao Junzheng is the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of The People's Republic of China to the State of Israel.

The post The 80th anniversary of Taiwan's recovery: Irrefutable historical evidence and international consensus appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

With voter turnout around 65% of 218,000 registered voters, the mandate signals broad Turkish Cypriot support for reviving peace negotiations with Greek Cypriots Erhürman campaigned on reinvigorating stalled talks and pursuing a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution to Cyprus's decades-long division. In contrast, Tatar had staunchly advocated a two-state policy, in line with Turkey's recent stance, seeking international recognition of the north as a separate sovereign state – an approach firmly rejected by the Greek Cypriot south. Erhürman's victory is therefore widely viewed as a pivotal turning point that could reopen the door to UN-backed reunification efforts after an eight-year stalemate.

Prospects for Reunification Talks

Erhürman's win raises cautious optimism for the resumption of Cyprus peace talks under the long-established UN framework of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. The new Turkish Cypriot leader has pledged to explore a federal reunification deal, aligning with the solution model favored by the United Nations and the Republic of Cyprus. Greek Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides promptly welcomed Erhürman's victory and reiterated readiness to meet "as soon as possible" to restart negotiations. The return of a pro-federation partner in the north stands in stark contrast to Tatar's term, during which formal peace talks languished. Erhürman sharply criticized his predecessor's refusal to engage in negotiations over the past five years as a "costly loss of time" that left Turkish Cypriots isolated from the European Union and on the international periphery.

However, significant hurdles remain. Any new talks will revisit core disputes that derailed the last major reunification effort in 2017. Questions of political equality and security guarantees loom large. Erhürman insists that Turkish Cypriots must enjoy political equality in a new federation – a principle agreeable in theory but contentious in practice (earlier talks stumbled over the extent of Turkish Cypriot veto power in federal decisions).

Likewise, the issue of Turkey's military presence and guarantor rights will test the negotiations. Ankara maintains over 35,000 troops in Northern Cyprus and claims an intervention right as the Turkish Cypriot community's protector. Greek Cypriots view those troops and any unilateral intervention rights as threats to their security and sovereignty, a key reason the 2017 Crans-Montana talks collapsed. Erhürman has already reassured that he does not intend to eliminate Turkey's guarantor role outright, reflecting a pragmatic recognition that any deal must assuage Turkish security concerns.

From a realpolitik perspective, the success of renewed negotiations will depend on hard bargaining and trade-offs: each side must secure its vital interests – for Greek Cypriots, a reunified state free of perpetual foreign military control, and for Turkish Cypriots (and Turkey), sufficient power-sharing and security guarantees to protect their community's rights.

Turkey's Influence and Calculations

Turkey, as the only country that recognizes the TRNC, remains the decisive external actor in Northern Cyprus. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly praised the Turkish Cypriot election as a sign of democratic maturity and congratulated Erhürman, affirming Turkey will "continue to defend the sovereign rights and interests" of Turkish Cypriots on all platforms. Despite this cordial message, Ankara's strategic posture bears watching. As recently as September, Erdoğan told the UN General Assembly that Turkey "backs a two-state deal" on Cyprus.

Erhürman's ascent could thus test whether Turkey is willing to recalibrate that stance. The new TRNC leader has promised to coordinate closely with Ankara – "in consultation with the Republic of Türkiye" – on all foreign policy steps, a clear acknowledgement of Turkey's leverage. Indeed, Northern Cyprus is economically and politically dependent on Ankara's support, meaning Erhürman has limited room to maneuver without Turkey's consent.

Ankara's acceptance of federation talks will likely be driven by pragmatic interest. Former Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat suggested Turkey could yet adapt its approach "depending on what Turkey can get out of a solution". In realpolitik terms, Erdoğan's government may calculate that re-engaging in UN negotiations could yield benefits – for example, improved relations with the EU (where Cyprus wields veto power over Turkey's stalled accession bid) or a share in Eastern Mediterranean energy development.

If these gains outweigh the advantages of the status quo, Turkey might support Erhürman's outreach. Conversely, should Ankara judge that a federal compromise endangers its strategic foothold on the island, it may quietly rein in the Turkish Cypriot leader's ambitions. Erhürman's challenge will be balancing his voters' mandate for a settlement against Turkey's determination to safeguard its regional influence and security red lines.

Southern Cyprus' and regional reactions

In the Republic of Cyprus (the internationally recognized Greek Cypriot south), Erhürman's victory has been met with cautious hope. President Christodoulides hailed the election result and signaled readiness to resume talks immediately. For the Greek Cypriot leadership, a partner in the north who embraces a federation is a welcome change after years of impasse under Tatar. It potentially opens the way to restart negotiations from where they left off in 2017. Nonetheless, Nicosia will approach talks pragmatically. Greek Cypriot officials insist any deal remain within the agreed UN parameters – no outright partition or two-state arrangement – and they will be mindful of domestic constituencies wary of excessive concessions.

Issues like rotating presidency in a federation, power-sharing ratios, and the withdrawal of Turkish troops will be politically delicate to sell internally. The south also retains a powerful card: as an EU member, it can influence Turkey's European ambitions. The prospect of unlocking EU benefits could be used to encourage Ankara's cooperation in a Cyprus deal. At the same time, Greek Cypriots know that if this new round of talks fails, the island's de facto partition may deepen. Thus, while expressing optimism, the south's strategy will be grounded in hard-nosed calculations of security and diplomatic leverage. Any compromise will likely be incremental and contingent on tangible guarantees that Turkish Cypriot intentions – and Turkey's – align with a reunified, EU-member Cyprus that protects the interests of both communities.

East mediterranean energy and Israel's stake

Erhürman's win also reverberates in the context of Eastern Mediterranean energy diplomacy. A reunified or more cooperative Cyprus could significantly alter regional energy plans. The island sits near substantial natural gas deposits under the seabed off its southern coast. These resources have been a source of tension – with the Republic of Cyprus licensing exploration in its exclusive economic zone, and Turkey (on behalf of Turkish Cypriots) contesting some areas. From a realpolitik standpoint, a Cyprus settlement might unlock joint exploitation of these gas fields, benefiting all parties. In fact, observers note that peace "could expedite the exploitation of sizable natural gas deposits" off Cyprus, supplying markets in Egypt and Europe Cooperation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots would remove a major obstacle to developing these resources and could attract international investment currently deterred by the dispute.

Beyond hydrocarbons, regional infrastructure projects could gain momentum. One example is the planned electricity interconnector linking Israel, Cyprus, and Greece. Ankara has objected to portions of this project, which aims to tie Cypriot and Greek power grids to each other and possibly to Israel. A political resolution might lift Turkish objections to an undersea cable connecting Cyprus with Greece, and Israel is reportedly keen on extending that link to its own grid. Israel's broader interest lies in a stable Eastern Mediterranean where energy cooperation is maximized.

For the past decade, Israel, Cyprus, and Greece have bolstered ties – forming an energy partnership and even a regional forum excluding Turkey – partly as a response to Turkish assertiveness. If Cyprus reunification talks progress, it could ease regional frictions and potentially bring Turkey into a more collaborative framework. For instance, a settlement could revive consideration of an Israel-Turkey gas pipeline, a project that was politically unthinkable amid the Cyprus impasse.

In short, Erhürman's presidency introduces a new variable in East Med energy calculus: the possibility of redirecting competition into cooperation. Still, much depends on whether Turkey moderates its approach. Israel will pragmatically assess whether any Cyprus deal leads to a more predictable environment for its energy exports and whether Turkey's posture shifts from zero-sum rivalry to pragmatic engagement. Until concrete changes materialize, Israel is likely to continue its close energy partnership with Cyprus (South) and Greece, while remaining open to opportunities a Cyprus peace might create.

Geopolitical alignments and outlook

Regionally, the change in Northern Cyprus could influence the East Mediterranean's geopolitical alignment. Turkey's decade-long estrangement from Greece, Cyprus, and at times Israel has produced competing blocs. The Greek Cypriot south has entrenched itself in a strategic partnership with Greece, Israel, and Egypt, partly to counterbalance Turkey's claims in regional waters.

A breakthrough on Cyprus would be a game-changer: it might soften the Greece-Turkey rivalry and reduce one flashpoint in Turkish-EU relations. In turn, that could shift Ankara's calculus in the wider region, potentially easing tensions with Israel and others. Indeed, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan's recent diplomacy hints at interest in mending ties with the West, and a solution in Cyprus could be one element of a broader realignment.

On the other hand, if reunification efforts falter despite Erhürman's good intentions, the likely outcome is a continuation – or even acceleration – of existing trends. Turkey may double down on integrating Northern Cyprus economically and militarily, cementing the "two-state" reality on the groun. The Turkish Cypriot community, if left without a peace prospect, could drift further into Ankara's orbit, deepening the island's division. That scenario could in turn harden the Greece-Cyprus-Israel alignment, as unresolved Cyprus tensions often spill over into broader regional disputes.

Uncertainties and scenarios ahead

Erhürman's triumph in the 2025 TRNC election opens a window for diplomacy, but the trajectory of Cyprus's future is far from predetermined. Several uncertainties will shape what comes next. First, Turkey's true intentions remain a wildcard – whether Erdoğan will allow a pivot back to federation talks or quietly insist on his two-state red lines will determine the scope of what Erhürman can achieve. Secondly, the Greek Cypriot side must be willing to strike a balance between safeguarding its national interests and accommodating Turkish Cypriot equality; without mutual compromise, even a well-intentioned dialogue could stall. The role of external players is another factor: the European Union's appetite to facilitate a deal (perhaps by offering incentives to Turkey), and the United States' or United Nations' engagement, could bolster momentum or leave the parties to their own devices.

In the energy arena, a lot hinges on whether stability on Cyprus materializes – a deal could herald new energy corridors and cooperation, whereas a breakdown may keep the Eastern Med in a competitive posture over gas and infrastructure. From a realpolitik viewpoint, each actor will pursue its perceived national interest: Turkey will seek strategic advantage or concessions, the Cypriot sides will maneuver for security and legitimacy, and regional states like Israel will watch for opportunities to secure energy and alliances.

The coming months may see confidence-building steps and renewed negotiations, but also potential spoilers if trust falters. In sum, the 2025 Northern Cyprus election has reset the board in a longstanding conflict; whether this leads to a historic settlement or a return to deadlock will depend on how pragmatically the leaders navigate the intricate balance of power, interests, and diplomacy in the Eastern Mediterranean

The post Erhürman victory shifts Northern Cyprus course, alters regional balance for Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"You forget can't forget October 7…That was genocide at the highest level…" in response to a question regarding Israel committing genocide in Gaza…" –President Donald Trump, –Forbes Breaking News, Sept. 20, 2025.

As if being caught up in a surreal time warp that whisks the onlooker back to the early 1930s, when the Jew was the perpetual culprit and the ubiquitous villain, responsible for all and any misfortune that befell humanity – from the iniquities of capitalism to the scourges of communism.

Global call to antisemitism

Today, the latest call to antisemitic arms centers on Israel's military campaign in Gaza, where Israel is being branded for committing genocide in its quest to eliminate the Nazi-like Islamo fascist terror organization Hamas and its affiliates.

Consequently, across the academic world, many Jewish students, collectively identified as an extension of Israel, have reportedly being harassed, excluded, or targeted with slurs, and their personal safety severely compromised. Likewise, Jewish faculty and administrative staff have been subjected to similar abuse and harassment. Moreover, protests against Israeli policy frequently find expression in antisemitic rhetoric – for example, invoking derogatory anti-Jewish tropes and stereotypes.

In the USA, this grievous behavior manifested itself in a myriad of hallowed institutions across the entire country, including prestigious campuses such as Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Cornell, and Pennsylvania.

But why the latest manifestation of Jew-hatred is particularly outrageous and infuriating is not only because it is maliciously misleading, but because it is a total inversion of the truth.

The antithesis of "genocide"

Indeed, ever since its inception, Israel's behavior has been the very antithesis of genocidal. Not only have its groundbreaking achievements in science and technology served to enhance and save human lives across the globe (rather than to degrade and destroy them), but it has a long and proud tradition of dispatching humanitarian aid to disaster areas hit by earthquakes, floods, famine, and other life-threatening calamities. (For a brief synopsis of Israel's humanitarian efforts in recent decades – see here). Moreover, when engaging in warfare, typically imposed on it by its adversaries' aggression, the IDF has exercised significantly more care in avoiding and/or reducing civilian casualties than any other military- even to the extent of putting its own soldiers at risk. Indeed, West Point urban warfare expert, John Spencer, determined that "Israel has taken more measures to avoid needless civilian harm than virtually any other nation that's fought an urban war". Sadly, however,  it seems that even such unequivocal expert opinion cannot put paid to blatantly fabricated accusations of Israeli "genocide".

The missing element of "intent"

Indeed, further analysis of past legal proceedings regarding charges of "genocide" will underscore how ludicrous the endeavor to ascribe such crime to Israel is. According to a recent NYT piece,  "the only case in the court's  [the ICJ] 79-year existence in which its judges have determined that genocide definitively occurred", was in its decision regarding the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Indeed, in numerous other cases of mass killing – from Darfur, via Biafra, to the Yazidis, the ICJ refrained from designating the actions as "genocide".

Moreover, whatever the legal niceties, they cannot be allowed to mask the absurdity of the attempt to bring charges of "genocide" against Israel.

Significantly, central to establishing the charge of genocide is the matter of intent, which is crucial for making the case. Indeed, "genocidal intent" is the specific mental element (mens rea) required to classify an act as "genocide" under international law,   particularly as stipulated in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which comprises the generally accepted definition of "genocide". Perpetrators must be shown to have had the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Indeed, "genocidal intent" necessitates a deliberate aim to eliminate the targeted group rather than to merely displace or harm its members.

Debunking "genocide":  Netanyahu at UN

In his recent address to the UN General Assembly, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made short shrift of the accusations of genocide and starvation against his country. Compellingly, he demonstrated why it is impossible to equate genocide – and certainly genocidal intent –with Israeli actions on the ground – such as pleading with civilians to flee the fighting zones and facilitating far-reaching humanitarian supplies, including copious supplies of food. Caustically, he asked: "Would a country committing genocide plead with the civilian population it is supposedly targeting to get out of harm's way?"
As to the charges of forced starvation, he scoffed: "Israel is accused of deliberately starving the people of Gaza, when Israel is deliberately feeding the people of Gaza. Since the beginning of the war, Israel has let into Gaza more than 2,000,000 tons of food and aid… one ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza; Nearly 3,000 calories per person, per day. Some starvation policy!"

A hijacked legacy?

But perhaps the most grotesque illustration of abuse of the term "genocide" relates to the man credited with coining the term itself, Raphael Lemkin, and an institute, which, allegedly, has hijacked his name for the purposes of propagating anti-Israel slander – in contradiction to the strong pro-Zionist views held by Lemkin himself – a multiple nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The situation has become so grave that recently, members of the Lemkin family and the European Jewish Association (EJA) engaged a firm of lawyers to petition Pennsylvania officials, including Governor Josh Shapiro, to review allegations of misappropriation of the late jurist's name by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (LIGP) The Institute presents itself as a genocide-prevention think-tank, publishing frequent papers accusing Israel of genocide, which are seized upon anti-Israeli figures such as UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese. (For some anti-Israel LIGP works-see here.)

Lemkin's relatives and the EJA argue that the organization never sought permission to use Raphael Lemkin's name and that the choice creates the false impression that its positions reflect his legacy.

Indeed, Lemkin's work – including coining the term "genocide" – focused on the archetypal instance of genocide – the Holocaust – while the Nazi genocide and the events in Gaza could be more different.

Truth turned on its head

On the one hand, the Nazis slaughtered their own unarmed citizens (and those of is neighbors), who had no a-priori intention of destroying the German state, merely because of their ethno-religious identity. On the other hand, Israel, after decades of intermittent attacks from Gaza by Hamas and its affiliates, was subjected to an unprovoked assault in which 1200-1400 of its citizens were murdered and mutilated, and which was widely supported by a clear  majority of Palestinian society both in Gaza and Judea-Samaria.

Netanyahu tersely summed up the almost obscene absurdity of the recriminations against Israel: "The truth has been turned on its head. Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews on the planet, this genocidal organization is given a pass".

So true. So sad.

The post Fabricating genocide? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The most perilous shifts in international diplomacy often unfold with a veneer of moral inevitability. The current stampede of Western nations to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state is one such maneuver a catastrophic reward for terrorism that will deepen the region's conflicts and undermine the very foundations of a future resolution.

It is as if there were a race among the free nations of the world, where established democracies compete to grant Hamas the grand prize: recognition. This frenzy, ignited by the Saudi French "Two-State Solution Conference" at the United Nations, culminates in a summit-level conference from which the United States is conspicuously absent. In a rush to preempt the gathering, Australia, the United Kingdom, and most recently Canada have leapt forward. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's declaration on X that Canada "recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building a peaceful future" is based on a profound deception.

A senior Canadian official justified this recognition by claiming, "The Palestinian Authority has renounced violence, recognized Israel, and is committed to a two-state solution". This statement represents the height of distortion. Which authority does he mean? The one led by Mahmoud Abbas Fatah Chairman who began a Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee meeting with a moment of silence for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar? The authority that continues to pay monthly stipends to the families of terrorists?

The dispute between Abbas's faction, Fatah (which translates as "Conquest"), and Hamas is not a moral rejection of violence, but a tactical squabble over its monopoly and timing. Fatah itself, the foundational movement of the PLO, was built on guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and its leaders were instrumental in the process that established the Palestinian Authority. This history underscores that the internal Palestinian conflict is a struggle for power, not principle.

The core tension is not Israeli intransigence, but a century of Palestinian and Arab refusal. Contrary to the prevailing narrative, Israel has repeatedly presented initiatives for a fair resolution, only to meet an impenetrable wall of rejection. The pattern began with the 1937 Peel Commission, which proposed a Jewish state on a fraction of the land and a larger Arab state connected to Transjordan. The Jews accepted; the Arabs refused.

The ideological roots of this rejection are dark. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, allied directly with Adolf Hitler, visiting Auschwitz and securing from the Führer a promise to annihilate the Jews of the Middle East. The UN Partition Plan of 1947, calling for separate Arab and Jewish states, was again accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. Most tragically, in 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Abbas a deal including a Palestinian state on nearly all the West Bank, land swaps, and a shared Jerusalem. Olmert warned it was the best offer Abbas would ever receive. Abbas hesitated, and the opportunity vanished.

The parallels between past and present are stark. From al-Husseini's embrace of the Final Solution to Hamas's repeated declaration since October 7^th, calling for repeat massacres until Israel's annihilation, the thread of rejectionism is unbroken. Hamas itself has confirmed that the current wave of recognition is a "direct result of what we achieved on October 7." By recognizing a state now, the West is not promoting peace; it is validating a strategy of mass murder, and heinous crimes against humanity, including the kidnapping and murder of babies. This alignment places these nations in the camp of Hamas's backers: Iran, and other regional proxies, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and a network of Iraqi militias.

The danger of this recognition is threefold, accelerating a regional fragmentation that rewards violence.

• First, it represents an existential betrayal of freedom-loving Middle Eastern voices in the West.Hundreds of thousands fled to Europe and North America to escape the very Islamist tyranny that Hamas embodies. This recognition normalizes the ideology they escaped, reproducing their nightmare at the gates of the West itself.
• Second, it establishes a disastrous double standard.When democracies grant political legitimacy to entities that have not renounced terrorism, they make violence a viable political currency. The message is clear: atrocities like those of October 7 are an effective path to relevance, legitimacy and statehood. This poisons the well for future generations, normalizing violent rhetoric over the values of freedom and equality.
• Third, and most critically, it paralyzes any genuine peace process.By granting the prize of statehood unconditionally, the international community removes any incentive for Palestinian leaders, or Hamas, to finally compromise, recognize Israel's right to exist, and end the campaign of violence, or at least release the hostages. They have condemned the hostages, many Israelis and Palestinians to much more suffering than they needed to.

Western leaders face a dilemma: they seek a quick diplomatic win but in doing so, they undermine long-term regional stability. The coming years will likely see calibrated escalation increased militancy, emboldened terror groups, and the entrenchment of Hamas's rule all under the legitimizing banner of statehood.

Ultimately, this potentially well-intentioned but foolish rush may prove more damaging to the prospects of peace than any single war. It rewards the very forces that have consistently destroyed peace and plants the seeds for future conflict. As Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition in the U.K., stated: "Disastrous. Absolutely disastrous. We will all rue the day this decision was made". The silent rift this creates between the West and the realities of the Middle East will have consequences far graver than today's headlines suggest.

The million-dollar question for Western leaders remains: why act before the hostages were freed?

Mohamed Saad Khiralla is a political analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and Islamist movements, an opinion writer and member of PEN Sweden.

Khaled Hassan is an Egyptian British national security and foreign policy expert and council member of Israeli President Isaac Herzog's Voice of the People Initiative.

The post The rush to recognize Palestine rewards terrorism and ignores history appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The most perilous shifts in Middle Eastern geopolitics are often preceded not by declarations of war, but by a slow, deliberate poisoning of the diplomatic well. The calculated deterioration of Egyptian-Israeli relations is one such shift. What was once the region's most stable if cold peace is now fracturing under the weight of Cairo's incendiary rhetoric and strategic provocations, pushing both nations toward an unthinkable confrontation.

President Sisi's address to the Arab-Islamic summit on September 15th where he declared Israel an "enemy" who is "aborting existing peace deals", and accused Israel of "reckless conduct that destabilizes regional security" is not merely criticism; it is a public legitimization of Cairo's confrontational pivot. By framing Israel as a regional aggressor that threatens the "security of all nations," Sisi is diplomatically constructing a casus belli, effectively inviting a broader coalition to support or at least condone Egypt's confrontational stance.

The rupture has now officially moved from whispered tensions to an overt diplomatic confrontation at the highest level. Cairo's refusal to accept the credentials of Israel's newly appointed ambassador, Ori Rothman confirmed by former Israeli ambassador Amira Oron and reported by Saudi media marked the initial fundamental breach of diplomatic protocol. This act, leaving Egypt without an ambassador in Tel Aviv following Khaled Azmi's departure, is a deliberate signal of hostility, effectively downgrading relations without an official announcement.

The core of the crisis is a profound clash over sovereignty and security. According to an exclusive report from Middle East Eye, a high-ranking Egyptian security source alleges that Israel has planned assassinations of Hamas leaders on Egyptian soil, with Cairo claiming to have already thwarted one attempt. This accusation, whether substantiated or not, provides the pretext for a dramatic reorganization of Egypt's security contacts with Israel, moving them to a lower level and fundamentally undermining the cornerstone of their relationship for decades.

This diplomatic offensive is amplified by a coordinated campaign of vitriolic rhetoric from figures closely linked to the Sisi regime. Major General Samir Faraj, a retired Major General in the Egyptian Army with a career spanning key infantry and intelligence roles, closely linked to President Sisi, repeatedly claimed that Egypt has "surprises" for Israel in the Sinai peninsula a strong hint at military buildup. Likewise, the head of Egypt's State Information Service (SIS- the Egyptian President's PR body) warned that the distance from Egyptian soil to Tel Aviv "doesn't exceed 100 KM". These statements, evoking the bellicosity preceding the 1967 war, are not fringe opinions; they are sanctioned provocations, spread widely through media channels with ties to Egyptian intelligence and the Presidency.

Most critically, this rhetoric has been translated into an official warning. As reported by CNN, Cairo sent a message to the United States threatening "serious consequences" should Israel attack Egyptian territory, directly mirroring the threats made by its television generals. This formalizes the brinkmanship, moving it from social media speculation to the realm of state-to-state ultimatums.

The driving force behind this dangerous pivot is Cairo's desperate bid to reclaim the "Gaza card." For years, the Hamas-controlled strip guaranteed Egypt international relevance, drawing U.S. presidents to the phone with Sisi to request mediation. Qatar's successful brokering of a ceasefire stripped Cairo of this leverage. The Israeli strike on Doha presented a golden opportunity: by offering to host and protect Palestinian faction leaders, Egypt positions itself to wrest back control of this vital strategic asset, even at the risk of war.

Crucially, Egypt's invitation to Hamas leaders despite Israel's explicit ultimatum targeting hosts of Hamas figures is a deliberate assertion of sovereignty and regional influence. By providing sanctuary to figures like Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah, Cairo signals that it alone dictates terms, directly challenging Israel's policy of extraterritorial targeted assassinations. This move is less about ideological alignment with Hamas whom Cairo still views with suspicion and more about reclaiming its historical role as the indispensable Arab mediator, a status recently usurped by Qatar. The message is unequivocal: Egypt will not be intimidated by Israeli threats nor sidelined in regional diplomacy, even if it means escalating tensions to a breaking point.

President Sisi faces an impossible calculus. His regime, one of the world's most authoritarian, is built on nationalist fervor and military control. By orchestrating this confrontation, he diverts attention from profound domestic failures. Yet, this gambit risks triggering a conflict that could shatter Egypt's fragile economy and destabilize the entire region.

The coming months will likely witness calibrated escalation rhetorical threats, security posturing, and diplomatic cold shoulders.

Yet as Cairo continues this collision course, it plays with fire. The peace treaty, once a cornerstone of regional stability, now looks like a brittle relic. Ultimately, this manufactured crisis may achieve what decades of open enmity could not: a return to a state of war, perhaps a cold war, between the Middle East's most populous nation and its most powerful military.

Mohamed Saad Khiralla is a political analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and Islamist movements, an opinion writer and member of PEN Sweden.

Khaled Hassan is an Egyptian British national security and foreign policy expert and council member of Israeli President Isaac Herzog's Voice of the People Initiative.

The post Egypt's dangerous gambit: Cairo is inviting a confrontation with Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.