The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a major topic of international debate, often influenced by the actions of global organizations like the United Nations (UN). The UN, with its 193 member states, includes 22 Arab nations that are part of both the UN and the Arab League. This substantial representation allows these nations to wield significant influence over UN decisions, raising concerns about potential bias against Israel.

One clear example of this bias is the UN's overwhelming support for pro-Palestinian positions. The bloc of Arab nations, along with many countries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and several European countries, regularly backs resolutions criticizing Israel. This global coalition often passes resolutions that disproportionately target Israel, while other serious global conflicts receive less attention.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a key platform where this bias is most evident. Between 2012 and 2022, 47% of country-specific resolutions focused on Israel, while far fewer addressed countries like Syria and Iran, despite their ongoing human rights abuses. Similarly, in 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted 17 resolutions against Israel, compared to only a handful against Syria and Myanmar. Since 2006, over 140 resolutions have targeted Israel, highlighting the disproportionate scrutiny the country endures compared to others like North Korea or Iran.

The bias is not limited to the UN. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has also been criticized for focusing on alleged war crimes by Israel while overlooking other nations. Current prosecutor Karim Khan, who has a background that some critics argue may influence his impartiality, has raised concerns about the ICC's neutrality when it comes to Israel. His past involvement with Palestinian legal defense has led to accusations that the court may be biased in its handling of cases involving Israeli actions.

The recent conflict, which escalated after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacre, has further highlighted these concerns. The UN's responses have often seemed to disproportionately emphasize Israel's actions while downplaying Hamas's role in the violence. Calls for ceasefires and humanitarian aid tend to focus more on Israel, contributing to a narrative that appears to favor Palestinian perspectives over the complexities of the conflict.

This troubling pattern of bias within international institutions, particularly the UN and ICC, raises serious questions about their impartiality. Addressing these biases is crucial to ensuring a more balanced and fair approach to global human rights issues.

The post The anti-Israel bias in global forums appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The presidential debate made it clear: Unless something very unexpected happens, Donald Trump is poised to become the next president of the United States. With five months remaining until the election, this reality already has profound implications, particularly for the Middle East.

While Trump's impulsive, unstable, and unpredictable personality is often highlighted, his stance on Israel and its adversaries has shown remarkable consistency. Trump's unwavering support for Israel is evident. He perceives Iran as a terror hub that needs to be economically crushed and, if necessary, addressed militarily. This was clearly demonstrated by his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, a move that heightened tensions and demonstrated his hardline stance against Iran. Moreover, his authorization of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian military commander, on January 3, 2020, further underscored his approach toward Iran. These actions also reflect his understanding of the threats posed by Iran's proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which he views as entities that need to be dismantled to ensure Israel's security.

In contrast to the Biden administration's passive-aggressive stance toward Israel, Trump's return would signify a shift to almost unequivocal support. History shows that when the US president has a clear and firm position on Israel, many world leaders, driven by the necessity of maintaining good relations with the world's leading superpower, tend to follow suit. This alignment can reshuffle the Gaza conflict dynamics and the possible escalation in Lebanon.

Iran, the primary sponsor of terrorist organizations in the region, is well aware of Trump's hardline policies. In the shadowy corridors of this oppressive regime, preparations for an anticipated shift in US policy under Trump might already be underway.

Trump's return to the White House and the anticipated rise of far-right political governments in several European countries (The Netherlands, Poland, France, and others) will have widespread implications. The current Israeli government is expected to benefit from broader maneuvering space if it remains in power. This shift suggests that the likelihood of a ceasefire under Hamas's terms is diminishing while at the same time, if Hezbollah keeps its militant aggression towards the north of Israel, the chances of conflict in the north of Israel are increasing. Under Trump's watchful eye, Iran would be extremely cautious about engaging in such a conflict, knowing the unpredictable nature of the US president.

These factors create a new reality, predicting a significant shift in the balance of power between Israel and Iran and its proxies. Both Israeli and Iranian leaders understand this.

However, this new landscape could present an opportunity: a realization by Hamas and its sponsors that their political or military survival is untenable, and Hezbollah recognizing that war in the north would lead to Lebanon's destruction. This may lead to their willingness to end this conflict now under Israeli terms before Trump's presidency begins.

On the other hand, it is essential to acknowledge that some factions within the Israeli government might welcome a significant escalation, viewing Trump's presidency as a green light to pursue their ambitions.

Regardless, the repercussions of Trump's expected victory in the upcoming election will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the Middle East, not just in the future but also at present.

Dotan Rousso was born and raised in Israel, holds a Ph.D. in Law, and was a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He lives in Alberta and teaches Philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT).

The post Trump's return is a new dawn for US-Israel relations appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and over the years, Iran has meticulously crafted a strategy of sponsoring and arming proxy groups across the region, amplifying the strategic threats posed to Israel. This support for proxies has been steadily escalating, evidenced by the increasing sophistication and frequency of attacks directed towards Israel.

Israel, in response, has adopted a policy of containment, engaging in targeted strikes against threats emanating from Iran and its proxies, particularly in Syria and Lebanon. Despite these efforts, Iran has managed to significantly tighten its grip around Israel, building a formidable network of alliances and military capabilities, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice. Recent events, such as Iran's failed attempt at attacking Israel, underscore the regime's cautious approach, indicating a reluctance to escalate into a full-blown regional conflict.

This presents a strategic opportunity for Israel and its Western allies to pursue actions aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime. Data from various sources reveals a growing discontent among the Iranian populace towards the oppressive rule of the ayatollahs. Surveys conducted within Iran indicate widespread dissatisfaction, particularly among the younger generations, who increasingly express a desire for regime change.

To capitalize on this internal dissent, Israel and its allies must focus on providing the Iranian people with the necessary tools and support to overthrow the regime. This could involve supplying technological solutions that enable internal dissent and communication, cultivating relationships with influential figures within the regime to encourage defections, and even facilitating the distribution of militant capabilities to Iranian citizens willing to resist the regime's ruthless suppression.

The lessons learned from the "Arab Spring" serve as a testament to the potential for mass uprisings against oppressive regimes. In countries like Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, people took to the streets in massive protests, demanding political reform and an end to authoritarian rule. This serves as a poignant reminder of the potential for grassroots movements to challenge entrenched power structures and effect significant change. For example, in Egypt, the protests led to the ousting of then-President Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled for nearly 30 years, demonstrating the impact of sustained popular mobilization. This historical context underscores the importance of supporting similar movements within Iran, where discontent with the ruling regime is palpable and ripe for catalyzing meaningful change.

The explosive elements for such an uprising already exist within Iran, waiting for the right conditions to ignite. It is incumbent upon Israel and its allies to support and facilitate this process, as it represents the most viable path toward effecting real change in the region. By leveraging the discontent within Iran and actively supporting efforts to overthrow the regime, Israel and its allies have the opportunity to reshape the Middle Eastern landscape, potentially paving the way for peace and stability in the region.

The post Strategies for Israel and the West appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The State of Israel has unequivocally lost the battle for international public opinion, a reality further solidified by the recent decision of the International Court of Justice on Jan. 26, 2024.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Diverse factors contribute to this predicament. 

Notably, Israel and world Jewry, totaling approximately 15 million, face a numerical disadvantage compared to the approximately 1.8 billion Muslims globally, with nearly one in four people being Muslim. Most of the Muslim population instinctively identifies with the plight of their co-religionists in Gaza. 

The media, operating 24/7, exhibits bias by extensively highlighting the consequences of the war on Gaza's residents, while mainstream outlets tend to prioritize the Palestinian narrative, often neglecting the Israeli perspective. The outbreak of war, the Oct. 7 massacre, and Hamas leaders' repeated statements forecasting ongoing aggression often go unmentioned, even in countries like Canada (my country of residence) considered relatively balanced.

Individual actors, armed with fingers and keyboards, exploit social media for incitement and defamation against the State of Israel.

Furthermore, a disheartening aspect is the contribution of many Jews worldwide, including academics, to the delegitimization and vilification of Israel. They utilize their Jewish identity to lend credibility to the demonization of Israel, as seen in figures like professors Norman Finkelstein, Avi Loewenstein, Raz Segal, and others.

In addition to these challenges, there is a natural human tendency to perceive the weaker side as a victim, eliciting increased sympathy, even if not justified.

Given the magnitude and strength of the global wave against Israel, further investment in public relations is unlikely to bring significant changes, especially after the International Court of Justice decision.

Moreover, even compliance with international demands, such as extinguishing the conflict, withdrawing forces from Gaza, and allowing free passage of goods, would likely fall short of altering Israel's deeply ingrained negative image. Determined critics are unlikely to be deterred by any actions Israel takes.

Faced with this reality, a plausible conclusion is that Israel should free itself from the futile pursuit of international approval. Instead, the focus should shift to other priorities, with top emphasis on neutralizing Hamas as a political and military force in Gaza and securing the return of captives.

Paradoxically, there may be some advantages amid the disadvantages in the damage to Israel's global standing. This could liberate Israel from the need to balance between the struggle for reputation and the imperative for national security.

In this context, Israel can reevaluate its approach. Former constraints, imposed with the assumption that positive public opinion could be shaped or changed, may be lifted. The focus can now shift towards actions serving legitimate security and existential goals, acknowledging the unattainability of reshaping global perceptions.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel should abandon the futile pursuit of approval appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The proposal to release all security prisoners in exchange for the liberation of the 137 Israeli captives held by Hamas has both captivated and unsettled the Israeli public.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Reports indicate that there are approximately 7,000 security prisoners, including 539 with "blood on their hands," along with a thousand administrative detainees, 190 minor detainees, and 53 female detainees.

The arguments advocating for such a deal predominantly revolve around three key points. Firstly, Israel holds a supreme moral obligation to release its citizens. Secondly, releasing security prisoners now doesn't eliminate the possibility of apprehending them again in the future. Thirdly, public sentiment recoils at the notion that numerous Israelis, including babies and the elderly, are at the mercy of sadistic murderers, while Israel possesses the means to bring them home.
It is self-evident that the heart of every Israeli empathizes with our captives, considering the unimaginable suffering they and their families endure. Yet, alongside the fervent desire to secure their release and the emotional inclination to engage in a deal at any cost, we must also be cognizant of the full spectrum of considerations, both supporting and opposing such an agreement.

Here is a compilation of weighty considerations elucidating why such a deal may not be a straightforward choice:
Releasing 539 prisoners with blood on their hands essentially translates to freeing abhorrent murderers, including some mass murderers.
The inevitable assumption is that at least some of the released security prisoners will return and carry out terror attacks in the future. In other words, their release may lead to the deaths of many more.

Additionally, such a release will significantly undermine the deterrence of terrorists. This deal may serve as an incentive for many perpetrators to carry out future terror attacks, assuming they will be released in the next deal.

One should also recognize that since the war began, many soldiers paid with their lives. At least some of them did so under the belief that fully achieving the goals of the war justifies their ultimate sacrifice: the release of captives, along with neutralizing Hamas and creating a different and sustainable reality for the residents of the south. A deal as mentioned might be interpreted by some who sacrificed dearly as failing to fulfill our duty to the fallen.

The message received by Israeli enemies on all fronts is likely to be that there is no price that Israel will not pay for its captives. Consequently, in the future, the price for the release of captives might include unrelated concessions beyond the release of prisoners, such as strategic compromises.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that releasing all prisoners would provide Hamas with the greatest achievement it could have hoped for. Undoubtedly, their prestige would soar, significantly increasing support for their murderous ideology.

This list does not aim to definitively determine the most correct and moral decision. It involves choosing between evils. Nevertheless, as we engage in a discussion on this topic, our opinions must encompass the full implications of our stance, whatever it may be.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The hostage dilemma appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It was Albert Einstein who once said that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

As an ex-Israeli prosecutor who has spent many years immersed in intensive legal work and presenting arguments in court, I can attest that sometimes the legal system fails when it attempts to convey the simplest thing in the most complex way possible.

This observation may hold when examining how Israel defends itself against accusations of "genocide" in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Despite the sophisticated legal arguments adorned with abstract concepts, elevated language, precedents, and nuanced analyses, a simple truth emerges.

According to international law, the legal basis for the charge of "genocide" (a term introduced in the 1940s by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor, to ensure the absence of impunity for mass killings like those in the Holocaust) requires the accusing party to convince the court that acts were committed with the specific intention to bring about the destruction of a nation, race, or religion, either wholly or partially.

By this, when genocide is committed without specific intention or when the intent is present, but the actual destruction does not occur, the legal conditions for conviction in a genocide case are not met.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

It seems unlikely that anyone with basic knowledge of the balance of powers between Israel and Gaza would dispute that Israel has the military power and means to bring about the complete destruction of Gaza within days if it desires.

However, even if we assume that it has the intention to do so, the fact remains that as of today, it did not.

According to the data provided by the Health Ministry under Hamas control (an organization whose reliability is at the very least questionable), the overall number of deaths in Gaza is about 23,000 people. Even if one chooses to accept these figures as true, it is crucial to subtract the number of Hamas fighters claimed by the IDF, around 9,000.

In a simple calculation, during 100 days of conflict, approximately 14,000 civilians have died (a ratio of one Hamas militant to 2.5 civilians), all within one of the most densely populated areas in the world, facing an enemy that does not prioritize the lives of its civilians and often seeks to increase casualties in its population for strategic (using them as human shields) and public relations reasons.

While the death of any single civilian is tragic, these numbers cannot support an explicit intent to commit genocide.

The numbers speak for themselves and do not require additional interpretation, legal or otherwise. Israel is not carrying out genocide in practice, and it has no intention to do so.

Indeed, critics of Israel may argue that the death toll in Gaza (which does not align with genocide) is not due to an absence of will or intention to commit such an act but rather to avoid international criticism, pressure, and accountability. However, whether true or not, this argument doesn't add or subtract from reality.

Regardless of the reasons behind Israel's avoidance of committing genocide, the fact remains that genocide is not taking place.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Judge Israel with the real figures appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Since the murderous attack by Hamas on October 7th, the Israeli government has reiterated the three goals of the war: the destruction of Hamas, the return of the hostages, and the creation of a significantly improved security reality for the Israeli residents at the kibbutzim and villages on the border with Gaza.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

These three goals pose various challenges. Firstly, there is ambiguity regarding the practical meaning of "the destruction of Hamas." Does it mean the elimination of all its operatives, or merely neutralizing its control and leadership capabilities? Are these goals achievable at all, and what is the time frame required to fulfill them?

Similar questions arise regarding the change in the security reality in the border communities: what level of security would be considered sufficient for the recurrence of similar massacre events and to allow the residents on the border to go back to their homes?

These questions become even more apparent considering the Israeli public sentiment that perceives a weakening momentum in the war. Given all these, it is worth asking whether there is another purpose for the war that is indeed achievable, one that might also advance the other mentioned goals.

Upon closer examination, it seems that the answer may primarily be this one: deterrence. Although Israel does not explicitly declare it and makes noticeable efforts to argue the opposite, it is quite clear that the conduct of the war so far and its outcomes are intended to leave a lasting impression on the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and other enemies of Israel.

Considering the tiny size of Israel and its population, its vulnerability, and the number of fronts and threats it is facing, winning a war is not enough. Military victories, even if achieved, come at almost unbearable costs to the Israeli population.

Therefore, the required strategy must focus on preventing war rather than winning it. Indeed, for over a decade, Israel has relied on the power of deterrence, reinforcing, and strengthening it. In this regard, some argue that the events of October 7th demonstrated the failure of the deterrence policy, as Hamas proved itself not to be deterred by Israel.

However, this argument may be wrong.

What was likely proven was that the strength of deterrence and its effectiveness before October 7th was not enough to prevent an attack of this nature. This is what the current war aims to rectify and rebuild.

According to various reports, to this day, since October 7^th, about 8,500 Hamas terrorists have been killed, 1.9 out of 2.2 million residents of Gaza were displaced from their homes. Entire neighborhoods were erased, buildings were leveled to the ground, and thousands died or were injured. The destruction is evident everywhere, and with the arrival of winter, there are fears of epidemics, disease, and hunger. The suffering the population of Gaza is experiencing now is almost unprecedented.

Israeli media may downplay the severity of the situation, but international and certainly Arab media surely do not. The continuous display on Arab television screens 24/7 undoubtedly leaves the viewer with anger and deep frustration. But, more importantly, from Israel's strategic point of view, it instills deterrence.

The impression is that Israel "completely lost it." Its leaders, officers, and army are on a revenge spree without limits. Moreover, the Israeli prime minister keeps stating that its government has no intention to stop, and no international pressure will prevent it from carrying out its mission.

From the Israeli government's perspective, the declared goals of the war may mainly serve as a cover for one ultimate goal which is simply deterrence. Once one realizes this, the Israeli strategy of the war becomes much more apparent.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Seemingly unattainable goals converge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on his call for an immediate long-lasting ceasefire in Gaza

Mr. Prime Minister,

On October 7th, the nation of Israel experienced its most horrific event since its establishment in 1948. That morning, about 3000 Hamas activists and supporters broke the fence and stormed the nearby villages and towns, raping many and massacring 1200 people, including babies, children, and seniors.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Hamas did not try to hide its actions. Instead, it wanted us all to see it. The terrorists took an endless number of photos and videos of their sadistic actions and shared them with the whole world, some in real time. But this wasn't all. During and after their unimaginable cruel attacks, they kidnapped 240 people of all ages, including 90-year-old holocaust survivors and dozens of toddlers as hostages. Out of this group, there were also toddlers and little children who were taken hostage right after brutally murdering their parents.

To this moment, there are still 129 hostages, including women and children who are held as prisoners.

To get an idea of the scale of this event, per capita, it is equal to the massacre of 50,000 Americans and taking 8500 hostages, or for that matter 4800 Canadians and 1000 hostages (including babies and children). All in just one day (!)

As hard as it is to believe, while the mass rape, slaughter, and kidnapping took place by a few thousand, it was celebrated all over Gaza by much of the population. The people in Gaza were filming themselves celebrating the events, providing sweets to one another, and posting their satisfaction and gratitude to those who committed the atrocities.

However, as you surely know Mr. Prime Minister, this wasn't planned to be a one-time event. As the Hamas spokesman declared, October 7th was just the first, and there will be "the second the third, and the million".

Despite this, your government, under your leadership, is constantly demanding Israel end the war immediately, calling for a "sustainable ceasefire", knowing very clearly this means: a call for an immediate end of the war, while allowing Hamas to keep the hostages and remain in power and continue practicing its murderess ideology against Jews.

Mr. Prime Minister, as it is well known, apart from the humanitarian cause, the common arguments, that align with your call for the end of the war now are mainly these two:

One, that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and Hamas is a resistance movement fighting against its occupier (some would even go as far as arguing that Israel, as an occupier force, bears responsibility for the October 7th events);  and the second, that even if Israel has the right to defend itself, its actions in Gaza are "nonproportional" and must be stopped, regardless of any other consideration.

As to the first argument: let me state what you, the prime minister know very well: Hamas and the population that supports it state clearly that the only "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that they will accept must be the elimination of the state of Israel. Hamas' original charter states that it is the religious obligation of any Muslim to kill any Jew he encounters (in Israel or outside of it). So, this is not about occupation. It is about an ideology that sees its goal in the killing of any Jew, just as was carried out in the recent events.

As for the second argument, one may ask what would be considered a "proportional response" to an event of such an unprecedented terror attack on civilians and holding babies and 90-year-olds as hostages. What country in the world would allow such a terrorist organization to remain in power and threaten its population with similar massacres? Would you, Prime Minister Trudeau, allow that if Canada was facing such a massacre and constant threat right on its border?

The death of any civilian, and children in particular (although mostly due to Hamas using them as human shields), is a tragedy, and Israel is doing more than any other army in the world did or would do under similar circumstances to reduce the number of innocent casualties (as I am sure I do not need to remind you, Mr. Prime Minister,  the 210,000 civilians who were indiscriminately killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attack, 200,000 civilian Iraqis during the Iraqi war, the 50,000 Afghan civilians – in a war that Canada took part in, and the list goes on and on).

Given all this, Israel could not and would not end this war without achieving its most justifiable right to defend itself. No responsible democratic government would. Not even you, prime minister.

As a Canadian citizen and a Jew who was born and raised in Israel, I would expect my prime minister to be honest with himself, with his government, and with his people, even when this requires a firm stand in the face of popular criticism. Unfortunately, your call for an immediate long-lasting ceasefire fails to do so.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A response to Justin Trudeau appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On December 6^, the Mayor of Calgary, Jyoti Gondek made a statement, in which she canceled her attendance at the yearly Jewish community Menorah lighting due to its "political intentions". This is a ceremony that marks the first night of Hanukkah and has been conducted at Calgary City Hall since 1989 and is traditionally attended by the Mayor of Calgary.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

I saw this statement on my social media feed when I arrived in Israel from Calgary to visit my family after the loss of my nephew, Ofek Rousso, who was a commando soldier and was killed exactly two months ago while rescuing dozens of families from the Hamas massacre in Be'eri, one of the villages surrounding Gaza.

There are no words to describe the disappointment and pain I felt as a Canadian citizen and a Calgarian myself to read the mayor's statement. To me, it was a pure example of a complete failure to hold a moral stance regarding one of the most horrific terror attacks to occur to the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Let me be blunt. The attempt to address a Jewish holiday celebration in which the Jewish community declares that it stands with Israel in these horrible times as a "political" does not only show ignorance and a lack of common sense but may also hint at a sentiment of antisemitism.

First, Israel is not just another state. It is the state of the Jewish people and their homeland. It is the one tiny piece of land (just about 3 times the size of Banff National Park) that the Jewish people were exiled from and longed to return to for 2000 years. It is the only place in the entire world where Jews can rule and protect themselves.

Second, it is astonishing that the mayor found it suitable to say that "when a celebration of community is turned into something with political intentions, it goes against the mission to uphold diversity and inclusion". Should we remind the mayor that the only reason the 1200 victims of this massacre were slaughtered, beheaded, raped, and burned to death was that they were Jewish? Should we explain to her that the reason that 240 people, including toddlers and babies, were kidnapped, and put into tunnels under the hands of barbaric terrorists after murdering their parents in front of them, was only BECAUSE they share the same faith as their Jewish brothers around the world and in Calgary too?

In what world does showing sympathy and solidarity with people who have just experienced these atrocities is seen as a "political" stand? In what mind, this is something that should be boycotted and condemned?

Would the honorable mayor have the same approach if instead of Jewish solidarity with its people, it was a Canadian community somewhere around the world showing solidarity with Canadians if they were to be victims of such a terror attack, or if it was the Ukrainian community?

Finally, the mayor ends her statement by saying: "The killing must stop in Gaza because it is spreading division and hatred far and wide". As it turns out, Calgary's Mayor thinks that the "division" is an outcome of the Israeli attempt to eliminate a terror organization encounter (just like the Western world did against ISIS) that states in its original charter that it is a religious obligation of any Muslim to kill any Jew they encounter. It also turns out that the mayor knows exactly how it is possible to fight this terror organization (which hides behind civilians and its' spokesmen declared just recently that the October 7 massacre was only the first, and there will be "the second, the third, and the millionth"), without civilian casualties.

If the mayor had been more willing to educate herself with the facts, she would have discovered that Israel goes above and beyond to avoid civilian casualties even at the price of sacrificing many of its soldiers.

Unfortunately, as the mayor failed to acknowledge, Israel faces only two options: either to stop the war now and let Hamas remain in power to continue massacring Jews or fight it until it is destroyed. No nation would allow such a terror organization to remain in power right on its border, constantly threatening its citizens.

As it was made clear, Mayor Gondek feels very comfortable in attending the Jewish Hanukkah celebration when it serves her political image of being pluralistic and accepting in an "interfaith manner" but not when it comes to standing by one of Calgary's communities as it faces a time of grief, fear and rising antisemitism.

What a disgrace. What an insult. What a shame.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Calgary's mayor made a shameful decision appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Remember this: On June 3, 2016, roughly the same amount of time before the last presidential election, a Reuters poll gave Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 45% of the vote to Trump's 35%. Given these numbers, and other polls, analysts were in agreement: Clinton would win. The result, as we all know, was different. Like then, plenty of Americans could still vote for Trump even though they don't support everything he says or does. Many even say that the president embarrasses them. For them, looking in the mirror of their vote is not a happy experience, so they don't rush to share it with pollsters. But they also know that polls don't change reality – elections do.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Despite the opening numbers, it's too early to eulogize Trump. Many could vote for him again, for the reason that they are witnessing reality becoming radicalized: the culture of political correctness is collapsing. Many are sick of pretty words, of people saying the "correct thing" instead of pointing out the simple truth. The Trump phenomenon is mainly a protest against the post-liberal approach, whose main motto is aesthetics rather than honesty, pretense over authenticity. A dictatorship of thought in the disguise of liberalism.

True, the culture of political correctness grew out of an aspiration to fix societal ills like racism or gender-based discrimination. It sought to create standards for discourse that were clean of prejudice and offense toward groups considered weak or excluded. But in many people's eyes, the regime of political correctness led to hypocritical, and mostly artificial discourse.

Under skilled politicians, a legitimate protest turns into a display of vandalism, property damage, and wholesale destruction of historical monuments. As the smoke rises from a shop of a hard-up merchant in Arizona after it was set on fire by "protesters" demanding "social justice" and "equality," all of a sudden former President Barack Obama's polished words to the graduating class of 2020 appear: "You can create a new normal, one that is fairer and gives everybody opportunity and treats everyone equally and builds bridges between people instead of dividing them."

Many in America are sick of rules about correct speech and pretty words and prefer a leader who says what he thinks instead of overly scripted, "correct" words.

And that is what Trump gives them: he is not always precise when it comes to details (to say the least), he is clumsy, emotional, crude, and offensive. But, and this is the main thing, the product is authentic. What you see is what you get. At a time when simple honesty is so rare, average Americans know how to value that. This is why they voted for him, and this is why they are likely to vote for him again. In the bitter choice between embarrassing and crude, but real, or self-righteous, tiresome political correctness, many will vote for the "anti." It happened in 2016, and it might happen again in 2020. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Don't write off Trump just yet appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.