How many generations should someone be called a “refugee?” Two? Ten? My parents were refugees and I consider myself the son of refugees. But not a refugee. To do so would be a mockery of millions of people fleeing homes to faraway lands where they have no family, infrastructure or knowledge of the local language.
Alas, while every year the world adds and removes refugees from the global tally, there is a permanent exception.
There are roughly 122 million displaced people worldwide (68 million internally displaced, 38 million refugees and millions of others seeking protection), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is tasked with helping them. Its mission is clear: assist people fleeing conflict or persecution to either return home when it’s safe, or resettle in a new country where they can rebuild their lives and become citizens. Refugee status, according to UNHCR, is meant to be temporary. A tragic but manageable step toward normalcy.
But for one group of people, the rules were rewritten.
In 1949, the United Nations created a separate agency: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Its job was not to help all refugees, but a specific set—Arabs who left or were displaced from what became the State of Israel during the 1948 war.
Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA never intended to help these refugees resettle or gain citizenship elsewhere. In fact, when Jordan annexed the to be named “West Bank” in 1950 and granted full Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs living there in 1954 (Jews were specifically excluded from Jordanian citizenship) —including the so-called refugees—UNRWA still kept them on its refugee rolls. Why? They were no longer stateless, no longer displaced from their community, and in most cases, were living just miles from where they or their families once resided.
No other refugee population in the world is treated this way.
The Palestinians under UNRWA are not counted based on where they live or whether they’ve rebuilt their lives. They’re counted based on ancestry—any descendant of someone who lived in Mandatory Palestine in 1946 and left during the war is considered a “refugee.” That includes people who are now citizens of Jordan who have never set foot in Israel, and those who live under Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Gaza.
This isn’t about resettlement. It isn’t about a “two-state solution.” It’s about return. Not return to a country they fled—but to homes where their grandparents once lived, in a country that has since fought multiple wars for its survival and established itself as a sovereign nation.
This has locked the Middle East into a perpetual state of conflict. UNRWA doesn’t just preserve the status of Palestinian refugees—it amplifies it, funds it, and builds an international bureaucracy around it. It has denied Israel’s right to control its own immigration, and basic principle of sovereignty.
Worse, the UN’s actions have turned a situation normally considered a humanitarian issue into a real estate dispute. By insisting that people return to a house—not a country, as outlined in international human rights law—the global political body has exceeded its own mandate. This isn’t a question of national self-determination, but one of personal property claims. UNRWA isn’t so much a champion of the creation of a state beside Israel; it champions individual return to specific homes, decades abandoned or destroyed, now occupied by others in a sovereign country.
Meanwhile, the descendants of every other refugee group in the world—from Sudan to Ukraine—are helped by the UN to find a path forward. Only the Palestinians are encouraged to walk backward, into the houses of their grandparents.
UNHCR helps refugees stop being refugees. UNRWA helps them stay that way.
Every year, new wars create new displaced people. But only one group stays on the list year after year, generation after generation.
For Palestinian Arabs, the 1948 war is still being fought. Generations of people haven’t been birthed into refugee status as much as the region is in a 100 years war. While the world may use political terminology of an UNRWA ward who has never been to Israel as a descendant of a “refugee,” Palestinians simply see a permanent property right which will never be forfeited. The UN simply provides cover under the “refugee” monicker.
In political and ideological debates, few words carry as much quiet weight as “counterproductive.” It is a term that cloaks deep moral issues in the language of strategy, substituting ethical clarity with tactical calculus.
Recent uses of the word by political figures and organizations—such as Cenk Uygur’s response to the murder of two Israeli diplomats in Washington, D.C., and J Street’s condemnation of the student takeover of Columbia University’s Butler Library—highlight the way moral outrage is increasingly filtered through the lens of utility.
Alt-left commentator Cenk Uygur comments about the murder of a young couple from Israel on the streets of Washington, DC by a man yelling “Free Palestine”
The Language of Outcomes
When Cenk Uygur called the murder of the diplomats “counterproductive” and “stupid,” he minimized his “obviously immoral” charge. He reframed the cold-blooded murder of two young Israelis at a Jewish event through a critique that the violence would “harm the Palestinian cause.” Similarly, J Street’s reaction to the Butler Library takeover focused not on the pain caused to students studying for finals but on the effectiveness of the mass action.
J Street commentary on violent takeover of Columbia University library during study week
Both statements imply a worldview where the ends can justify the means IF the means produce desired outcomes. Violence and disruptions aren’t inherently wrong, full stop; they’re wrong if they don’t work.
This mode of thinking belongs to a form of strategic utilitarianism—actions are weighed not on whether they are ethically sound, but whether they are instrumentally successful. Murder isn’t condemned for its cruelty or injustice, but for its inefficiency. Protest isn’t wrong because it defies norms, but because it alienates potential allies or invites political backlash as in: it “provide[s] the Trump Administration with ammunition…” and “it allows people to frame the whole peace movement as violent.”
The Profound Delusion
How is the October 7 massacre of 1,200 people and mass rape of women and butchering of babies a “peace movement?” a sane person would ask. How is the killing of a young couple in Washington – thousands of miles from Gaza – an issue of “framing” for the masses (read “potential allies”)?
The idea that victims’ deaths were simply “counterproductive” is chilling. It suggests they were not wronged, but miscalculated. Their humanity becomes a variable in someone else’s flawed strategy. The moral frame disappears; only the tactical one remains.
There is a profound gap between calculated language and moral reality. For the political commentators, everything is a chessboard; for the people on the ground, it is their lives.
Question If The Entire Movement Is Unjustified And Immoral
Uygur and J Street – different parts of the socialists-jihadi alliance – use of “counterproductive” is an attempt to separate the actions of the violent offenders in the United States from the Hamas-led war in Israel. It seeks to sanitize the Gazan war to “Free Palestine” as a noble goal, while the tactics of some people – including possibly the October 7 massacre itself – are flawed.
Lost on those absorbing this insidious narrative of “Free Palestine” is that the movement is immoral. The chants of an “ongoing Nakba” are not cries for peace but a desire of SAPs and their supporters to destroy Israel and ethnically cleanse the Jewish Promised Land of Jews, marketed under the banner of human rights. Yes, local Arabs deserve self-determination which can be achieved in multiple ways. No, they don’t have an “inalienable right” to their own country nor to move into houses where grandparents once lived.
The only way of achieving their stated desired goal of ending Israel is via violence, both there and here. The murder of two Israelis outside a Jewish event in America’s capital city isn’t “counterproductive” but an unspoken essential component of the global jihad. It is the definition of “by any means necessary.”
Conclusion
Language shapes how we see the world. When murder is called “counterproductive” – whether of two Israelis in Washington or 1,200 people in Israel – the victims’ moral worth is sidelined in favor of strategic impact. Worse, the soft wording obfuscates not only the evil of the immediate killings but that the entire “Free Palestine” mission is about the mass murder of Jews.
The issue isn’t optics. There is a reason the hordes are yelling “we are all Hamas,” “gas the Jews” and “Heil Hitler,” and it isn’t coexistence. The alt-left’s shielding of violent antisemites has made them complicit in both the violence against Jews and the ongoing trauma the Jewish community is enduring.
The world sees Gaza through the lens of curated sympathy – smoke trails from missile strikes, wounded children, crumbled buildings – rendered by the media and United Nations. The headlines scream “siege” and “occupation,” and the images are carefully framed to elicit tears, not questions. For them, Gaza is a tragedy.
But Israelis? They see something very different.
They see a terrorist enclave. A society ruled by Hamas – not just tolerated but elected – with a charter calling for genocide against Jews. They see neighbors who have fired over 30,000 rockets at them since Israel left Gaza in 2005, and who used humanitarian aid to dig terror tunnels and stockpile weapons.
Israelis are haunted by October 7, 2023 – the day when 1,200 of their people were butchered. Burned alive. Shot in their homes. Raped in front of their families. And they remember what came next: polls showing 75% of Gazans supported the massacre. The popularity of other Palestinian Arab terrorist groups skyrocketed as well, including Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Brigade and al Qassam. This wasn’t some fringe radical cell that commited the vile pogrom – this was public approval for mass murder. It was the fulfillment of their long-standing desire to attack Jewish civilians inside of Israel since 2000.
They also see something deeper: three-quarters of Gazans consider themselves “refugees” living in temporary homes. Not because of displacement from this war but because they believe they’re entitled to homes inside Israel. They don’t see Gaza as their future – they see Tel Aviv.
To the United Nations, Gaza is a moral play where Israel is always cast as the villain. They see Gaza not as a failure of Palestinian leadership, not as a society hijacked by jihad, but as a tragedy authored entirely by Israel. Why? Because Israel won’t allow these “refugees” to move into the homes of Israeli Jews – the very homes where grandparents fled in 1948 after five Arab armies attacked the new Jewish state.
The world has condemned Israel for responding “disproportionately” to the October 7 massacre. The UN saw Israeli counterstrikes as war crimes, not defense. They ignored the slaughter of Israeli children and focused on fuel shortages in Gaza. They accused Israel of starvation, ignoring the trucks of aid Israel itself let in, even while its soldiers were under fire. They paid scant lip service to Israeli hostages kept in tunnels by Hamas, viewing them as collateral to Israel’s ongoing “Nakba”.
The Arab and Muslim world is not fooled but is not helping. They don’t see Gazans as brothers and sisters in need of refuge. They see them as Palestinians – a distinct, useful political weapon. If Gazans were Syrians, they would’ve been taken in by now. But they’re not. They’re left to fester – a long-term tool to weaken and delegitimize the Jewish state.
Even in America, Gaza has become a kind of geopolitical Rorschach test. Leaders like Donald Trump and Jared Kushner see opportunity: beachfront real estate with the potential to be the Singapore of the Middle East. A future riviera. But that future depends on changing a mentality – one that for decades has been more obsessed with destroying Israel than building Gaza.
Because this is the reality: Gaza could have been Dubai. It had the backing of the international community, billions in aid, and a chance to chart its own path. Instead, it chose jihad. It chose hate. It chose martyrdom over medicine, tunnels over technology, indoctrination over innovation.
The world sees rubble. Death. Tragedy. Not on both sides; for Palestinians.
They can’t see the Israeli hostages through their clouded moral lenses. They don’t see the Jewish parents still waiting for their children. They don’t see the decades of restraint Israel exercised before finally saying “enough”. They are caught in an empathy swamp and have mentally baptised Gazans as martyrs instead of genocidal jihadists.
The Global South sees Gaza not just as another flashpoint – but as a pawn in a bigger game. The narrative is not just about “liberation” but “redistribution.” From peace talks to class war. Israel, to them, is just the first domino in toppling the Western-led world order.
Gaza isn’t just a local issue anymore. It’s global. It’s ideological. And for Israelis, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
In this backdrop of viewpoints, an international conference at the U.N. headquarters in New York will take place from June 17 to 20 co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. The Global North will join the Global South in trying to find near-term and longer-term solutions to the 100-year Arab-Israeli conflict.
In this Coliseum, the General Assembly serves as the unruly crowd seeking the torture of the Jewish State, while the Security Council acts as caesar empowered with the pen to draft international law. Will the United States protect Israel in such forum on the heels of Trump’s visit to the Gulf? Will Trump seek to trade an unwinding of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 to get Israel to agree to short-term and longer term movements towards a permanent divorce between local Jews and Arabs?
Israel was blind to the October 7 attack. Does it see what the world sees in Gaza now and the positions being orchestrated for the June U.N. conference? Will the modern blind Samson bring down the house if it only hears calls for its demise and cannot see a path to live in peace?
Across Western cities, “Nakba” protests fill the streets in May, marking what Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) call the “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding. Protesters chant slogans of “liberation,” wave Palestinian flags, and brandish large symbolic keys—representing homes lost in the Arab-Israeli 1948 War, and a longed-for return.
In London, British actor Khalid Abdalla holds a key symbolising the supposed Palestinian “right of return” (photo: Middle East Eye)
To the casual observer, these demonstrations appear to be non-violent expressions of secular nationalism: a displaced people demanding justice and return. The rhetoric is packaged in the language of “anti-colonialism,” a phrase from the Global South marketed at western universities.
The terminology is secular and political but the facts on the ground tell a different story.
The actual war against Israel is not being led by nationalists. It is driven by radical Islamist groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The attack launched on October 7, 2023, was not called the “Nakba Response” or “Operation Liberation.” It was named “Al-Aqsa Flood”—a title soaked in religious meaning, not national aspiration. It invoked Islam’s third-holiest site which sits atop Judaism’s holiest site.
The strategic use of “Nakba” language in western cities is a deliberate effort to mask a religious war in secular terms. It is designed to resonate with Western leftists who are comfortable championing national self-determination but uneasy with theocratic zeal. It reframes an Islamic holy war as a freedom struggle, making it seem modern, rational, and even “progressive.”
But the religious reality will not remain buried forever.
Because just as SAPs speak of return, so do Jews. If Jews are forced to lose their sovereignty, perhaps diluted in a binational state, it will likely not lead to secular coexistence—it may unleash something far older and deeper: the demand for rebuilding the Third Jewish Temple.
Today, the Temple Mount is controlled administratively by the Jordanian Waqf, which bans Jewish prayer. Since the Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD, Jews have dreamed of rebuilding it, and while that has remained marginal in the modern secular Jewish state, it may surge forward in a post-Zionist situation in which Jews are compelled to relinquish so much.
If Israel is converted to a binational state in which everyone has equal rights, Jews would obviously insist on the same rights as Muslims enjoy today, to pray openly by the thousands on the Temple Mount. The demand to rebuild the Jewish Temple could move from the fringe to the center. The so-called “liberation” of Palestine would be matched by calls to liberate the Mount—from Islamic control.
In that light, the pro-Palestinian protest chants of “liberation” are a double-edged sword. They echo with reciprocal cries: not just the return of SAPs to Jaffa but the return of Jews to the Temple Mount. The religious war launched by Gazans wrapped in secular “Nakba” terminology in the west would be laid bare for what it is.
Muslims and Jews hold keys for places that don’t exist in the holy land anymore – for homes and a Temple. Should one side pursue a “right of return” to create a future-past, the mirrored key will do no less.
On Friday, May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence—one day before the British ended their Palestine Mandate and left the region. The timing wasn’t accidental. Israel’s founding leaders wanted the moment to be marked with reverence, not paperwork, so the declaration was made in advance of the Jewish Sabbath, allowing the entire Jewish people to enter its rebirth with dignity and joy.
The joy wasn’t shared. Within hours, neighboring Arab armies invaded the nascent state, launching a war to crush Jews in the shadow of the European Holocaust. That contempt hasn’t faded. It echoes today in the halls of foreign governments, NGOs, and the mouths of extremist politicians thousands of miles from the region.
To “commemorate” Israel’s 77th birthday, the United Nations hosted a session dedicated not to peace or coexistence—but to “the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” One speaker after another vilified Israel, slandering its conduct in defending itself in a war it never wanted. Accusations of “racism,” “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” flowed freely—from China, South Africa, Guyana, and others eager to hijack human rights rhetoric for anti-Israel theater.
Not to be outdone, U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced a resolution to formally mark Israel’s independence as Nakba Day—”the catastrophe.” The language mirrored the UN’s smear campaign, ignoring context, facts, and Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. The resolution outrageously called on Israel to accept seven million Arab descendants of refugees and internally displaced people—almost all of whom have never set foot in Israel—negating a fundamental right of statehood by erasing Israel’s right to control its own borders. It called for the United States to withhold all diplomatic and military support from Israel as it defends itself in the midst of a multi-front war, to facilitate a genocide of Jews.
As Israel marked its 75th year in 2023, Jewish civilians were massacred by genocidal jihadi Arab terror groups on the Sabbath and Simchat Torah, a holiday celebrating the Jewish Bible. Rockets, kidnappings, and slaughter were launched from Gaza, with terrorists using Palestinians as human shields and Jewish hostages as bargaining chips—while cheering voices thousands of miles away offered rhetorical cover.
Today’s political war against Israel is led by the unholy alliance of far-left ideologues and Islamist extremists. They’ve inherited the mantle of the Arab armies defeated in 1948—and continue their campaign, not for coexistence, but for the erasure of the Jewish homeland. This is a Global Intifada dressed in human rights language but aimed at ethnic cleansing. In 1948, the horde successfully removed all Jews from eastern Jerusalem, the “West Bank” and Gaza. They strive to finish the job.
For them, Jewish sovereignty in the ancestral Jewish homeland remains a “catastrophe,” and Israel’s Independence Day is a day for revolutionaries to perpetuate the war. Not just for the 30 countries which continue to refuse to recognize Israel—but for shrill voices in the U.S. Congress who speak as if the past 77 years never happened.
After Arab armies failed to destroy Israel in 1967, the Arab League produced its “Three No’s“: no peace with Israel; no negotiations with Israel; and no recognition of Israel. It has an underlying three principles which continue to drive Jew haters: Jews have too much; Jews enjoying fundamental human rights is a provocation; and Jewish joy is triggering.
The trifecta of Israel’s Independence Day is too rich for global antisemites to ignore.
After a few months of not being able to conduct a poll of Arabs in Gaza and the “West Bank,” the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research released its latest findings on May 6, 2025. As summarized by PCPSR, “favorability of the October 7 attack, the belief that Hamas will win the war, and support for Hamas continue to decline, but the overwhelming majority is opposed to Hamas disarmament and does not believe that release of the hostages will bring an end to the war. Nonetheless, about half of Gazans support the anti-Hamas demonstrations and almost half want to leave the Gaza Strip if they could.”
Unpacking the May 2025 findings when the Hamas military is almost wiped out and the surviving members spend their time boobytrapping buildings and stealing food and aid from Gazans, Palestinians:
support the October 7 massacre;
do not want Hamas to disarm;
prefer the Hamas over Fatah
Figure 1 in the poll shows that support for the barbaric attack of October 7 has declined more in Gaza, from 71% in March 2024 to 37%, while support in the West Bank only declined from 71% to 59% over the same time. As of May 2025, half of all Palestinian Arabs still believe that the attack was “correct”, down from three-quarters right after the massacre.
The pollsters speculate that “most of the public continue to believe the attack and the following war have placed the Palestinian issue at the center of global attention. Unlike previous polls, today’s findings show that the majority of the public does not believe Hamas will win the current war. Still, a plurality of the public believes that Hamas will continue to control the Gaza Strip after the war.”
Despite virtually the entire command structure of Hamas being killed, 57% of Palestinian Arabs are satisfied with Hamas’s performance, with 67% believing as much in the West Bank, a much higher figure than the 39% in Gaza. For those who believe that Gazans are reluctant to express negative opinions about Hamas because of threats from the ruling party in Gaza, the high figure from the West Bank where Hamas holds no power tells a different story. Palestinians like Hamas.
Further, “when asked whether it supports or opposes the disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to stop the war on the Gaza Strip, an overwhelming majority (85% in the West Bank and 64% in the Gaza Strip) said it is opposed to that; only 18% support it.” Palestinian Arabs would rather fight until the last bullet, rather than end the war with a surrender.
Overall, the opinion of Gazans about Hamas has barely changed from before the war until today. In September 2023, Gazans supported Hamas over Fatah by 38% to 25%, compared to 37% to 25% in May 2025. West Bank Arabs have generally become more supportive of Hamas since 20 months ago, but the favorability has been declining, as shown in Figure 13 of the May poll. Third parties are becoming a bigger factor in Gaza.
Overall, “40% (compared to 43% seven months ago) believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people today while 19% (compared to 19% seven months ago) believe that Fatah led by president Abbas is the most deserving,” a two-to-one ratio, despite Hamas leading to the destruction of Gaza and becoming a shell organization.
While Gazan support for two states has remained relatively constant since before the war, West Bank support has increased from 30% in September 2023 to 45% today. Overall, 57% oppose a “two state solution.”
But the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) still think the best way to GET Israel to end the “occupation” is via war, albeit now less than half of the population (41%).
Some other notable findings in the poll:
“While the majority says it does not want to leave the Gaza Strip after the war ends, a large minority wants to do that. Similarly, about half of Gazans are willing to apply to Israel to help them emigrate to other countries via Israeli ports and airports”
Among “satisfaction with Arab/regional actors, the highest satisfaction rate went to Houthis in Yemen, as we found in our previous polls, today at 74% (84% in the West Bank and 61% in the Gaza Strip), followed by Qatar (45%), Hezbollah (43%), and Iran (31%).”
“Al Jazeera is the most watched TV station in Palestine”
Vast “majority (87%) said it [Hamas] did not commit such atrocities [on October 7], and only 9% said it did.”
What can account for these statistics? Nazi Germany ultimately surrendered after it was pummeled in the war, so why do the local Arabs still support the war and want Hamas to continue to fight on, much like the Houthis in Yemen where over 250,000 have died over the last decade of war?
An interesting question was added to this poll which may provide a clue. “A majority of 57% (70% in the West Bank and only 38% in the Gaza Strip) believes that the steadfastness of the residents of the Gaza Strip despite heavy human losses and massive destruction is due to their deep belief in God, fate and destiny while 25% (40% in the Gaza Strip and 15% in the West Bank) believe they have no other option, and 15% (22% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) believe it is due to their belief in their Palestinian national identity.” A majority of SAPs are holding on to the war because of religious conviction, not because of nationalist aspirations. It is a belief held more widely OUTSIDE of the Gaza Strip (70% to 15% in the West Bank) where people are not facing the consequences, then inside (38% to 40% in Gaza). It may also be that Gazans know better than West Bank Arabs that they committed vile sexual assaults and brutal torture of children and the elderly.
Such observation may add clarity as to why 9 out of 10 local Arabs do not believe Hamas committed the atrocities of October 7 despite the video and forensic evidence: because they believe that members of Hamas are deeply religious warriors. Perhaps the antidote would therefore be for the U.S. to pressure Qatar’s Al Jazeera to showcase the evidence.
The other takeaway from the poll is that Palestinian Arabs know that they cannot beat Israel militarily on their own. They need other actors joining the fighting (like the Houthis) and “global attention” to apply pressure on the small Jewish State.
While the world bemoans the destruction of Gaza, the local Arabs remain supportive of launching the war and for Hamas. Western empathy for radical jihadism may stop when the victims are no longer Jews, but at that point, it will be too late to stop the scourge.
ACTION ITEMS
Contact the White House to 1) get Qatar’s Al Jazeera to make clear that Hamas committed heinous crimes against humanity on October 7, including raping women and burning children alive; 2) insist that whichever entity assumes control of Gaza (if not Israel) must disarm Hamas; 3) facilitate Gazans leaving the strip to other countries; and 4) condemn the socialist-jihadi alliance attacking Israel and democratic values.
The title of this article will likely throw off readers who are familiar with the articles on First One Through, a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, pro- American and pro-fact site. Ending the World Zionist Congress (WZC) would appear at first blush to to be a call from anti-Zionists who want to end the Jewish State, whether groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, or left-wing journalists like Peter Beinart.
There are a number of reasons that the WZC should end which I will review here, a mixed bag of positive and negative realities.
Background of WZC
The WZC began in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, with Theodore Herzl presiding. He called on Jews around the world – and a few Christian Zionists like Henri Dunant, the winner of the first Nobel Peace Prize – to assemble to develop a plan to solve the problem of global antisemitism. He called for Jews to return to their homeland in the land of Palestine, then a province in the Ottoman Empire, and gain self-determination there.
Every five years or so since that time, the WZC has held elections for Jews around the world, even post-1948, after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. At the time, the nascent country was surrounded by enemy forces and struggling to survive. Israel desperately needed Jews and support from around the world and used the WZC to entice people to move to the reestablished Jewish State.
The latest WZC election ran from March 10 to May 4, 2025. In the United States, 22 slates were vying for votes among American Jews who subscribed to the “Jerusalem Program.” The U.S. was allocated 152 seats of the 525 seats at the congress (29%), even though it makes up over 40% of global Jewry. Israel gets 38% of the seats and the rest of the world gets one-third, even though many countries with Jews didn’t have elections.
The pitch to get people to vote is to have an influence on how Israel allocates over $1 billion a year. Slates from the religious left and right, as well as the political left and right lobby members of their communities about how their participation in the elections will shape the future of Israel over the next five years.
Voting was open to all Jews over 18 years old who subscribe to the “Jerusalem Program.” It is a series of points that many members of the Israeli parliament don’t even believe, but it is meant as a guiding principle to include global Jewry in making decisions that BENEFIT Israel. For example, people who subscribe to the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) of Israel are not invited to participate in the elections.
The turnout in the United States this year was great. Over 211,000 people voted, with results not yet finalized as of now while mail in ballots are being counted. This was the largest turnout in the United States ever, amidst the war from Gaza, and terrible spike in global antisemitism.
Shouldn’t that point to the tremendous NEED for the WZC? Jews in Israel make up a plurality of world Jewry and global antisemitism is at a level not seen since World War II. In the aftermath of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, people turned out in droves to this WZC election, with Israel and antisemitism at the center of people’s consciousness.
So what are the arguments for this to be the final World Zionist Congress?
At its core, Zionism was an ideology while Israel is a reality. When Herzl assembled the first WZC, he was looking to pitch a solution to global antisemitism. That solution was realized in 1948 with the establishment of modern Israel. It reached the next level of success when Israel became the country with the greatest number of Jews in 2008. Israel will likely surpass the 50% threshold of global Jewry over the next decade.
Zionism was successful. It is time to retire the word.
The pro-Israel community – those who subscribe to the “Jerusalem Program” – do not appreciate that “Zionism” is a living and dangerous word among a great many people. Anti-Israel people see its continued use as an expression of the ongoing desire for “greater Israel,” to take more land and push out local Arabs. They see global Jewry playing an active part in those efforts under the banner of “Zionism,” rather than supporting a country fighting a just defensive war or wanting to see the Jewish State thrive. Influential left-wing Jewish journalists like Peter Beinart are marketing that “Zionism” means “Jewish Supremacy.” Rather than fight the stupid notion, we should lock its definition in the past, and not let it morph into new twisted interpretations.
The retirement of the word “Zionism” into an important slice of history is critical, like “New Amsterdam,” “Continentals” or Essenes. A company has an IPO and becomes public; it does not stay in active IPO status. Similarly, the name WZC is dated and reflects the goals of a different time which have become realized.
But more than its name must change; the congress should be retired.
All Jews Are Not Israelis
Israel has matured into a country which is a leader in technology, economy, the sciences and culture. It should be treated as an independent sovereign country, especially as it relates to local decisions and its budget.
Yet the WZC explicitly is about influencing the direction of monies INSIDE OF ISRAEL. Consider statements from various WZC slates about the election like Mizrachi: “development of border and peripheral Israeli communities in the Golan, Galilee, Negev, Judea and Samaria,” Reform: “curb funding for and prevent de facto/de jure annexation of the West Bank or the resettlement of Gaza” and ShirAmi worried about the right gaining power to “Advance policies that weaken democracy and the Israeli judicial system,” which are policies for the government of Israel to make, not Jews in Hendon.
I can appreciate the WZC spending money on programs in the Jewish Diaspora. Israel education and sending shinshinim to Jewish communities and schools helps establish strong bonds between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. But why should Diaspora Jewry make decisions impacting Israeli policy, like whether ultra- Orthodox Jews should serve in the army or building new communities east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL/ West Bank)? These are matters for the citizens of Israel to decide – Israeli Jews and non-Jews – not Diaspora Jews.
Antisemitism
Antisemitism around the world was still raging in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Jews migrated to new countries including the United States, Canada and France from Europe and the Arab world from which they were routed. Israel successfully made the case for it to be the destination for Jews: at its founding, there were 590,000 Jews in Israel, or 5% of global Jewry, and today there are roughly 7.7 million, about 48% of global Jewry.
The nature of antisemitism has changed dramatically over this time. While Diaspora Jews still suffer from discrimination because they are Jews, Israeli policies have become the leading cause for antisemitism.
One may agree or disagree with how Israel is carrying out its war against genocidal jihadists from Gaza. The plain fact is that global Jewry is paying a steep price for Israeli actions for which they play absolutely no part.
While the WZC was launched over a century ago to solve global antisemitism with Jewish self-determination in its homeland, today, Israel is the leading cause of antisemitism around the world. The WZC cannot seriously be viewed as a continuation of the fight against global Jew-hatred when its actions indirectly promote global Jew-hatred.
At its most fundamental, Israel is a conflicted actor in the current fight against antisemitism. While it may have the means to help Jews around the world, it is a biased and conflicted participant. Like a woman deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, Israel has the agency to make a decision while the fetus does not. Israeli actions may be good policy for Israel but terrible for Diaspora Jewry.
Pro Israel Is Different Than Israeli
I am and encourage others to be pro-Israel. The country is a remarkable achievement in the midst of a tumultuous Middle East.
That has nothing to do with sunsetting the World Zionist Congress.
I like the New York Mets baseball team and you might like the Brazilian soccer team. We cheer them on and hope they win but we don’t expect to influence the budget or hiring of players. We’re not owners or coaches who run and manage operations. We’re fans.
We should acknowledge and internalize that even while we are welcome to move to Israel and become citizens, we are not. Diaspora Jews – and everyone – should not have undue influence on the budget or policy of an established sovereign country for which they are not citizens.
Global Jewish Congress
There is a benefit for global Jewry to assemble to address common concerns like kosher meat which is under assault in many countries, including in “liberal” Scandinavia. There are issues of Jewish education, writing torahs and many other matters – including Israel – which should encompass Jews everywhere. The continuation of shinshinim, making the process of aliyah streamlined and similar matters between Israel and the Diaspora must continue to be addressed but under a new framework.
The headquarters of the new Global Jewish Congress should be in the capital of the Jewish Diaspora, New York City. The United States accounts for roughly three-quarters of the Jewish Diaspora, is Israel’s largest trading partner and has a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council. The GJC should interface with the government of Israel as a complementary pillar of world Jewry, and not an assembly operating under the wing of the government of Israel like the WZC.
It is time to recognize and adapt to the significant changes that have happened in Israel and global Jew hatred, to sunset the World Zionist Congress and launch the Global Jewish Congress with a new mission for new realities.
Gideon Askowitz, the 22-year old student at Macaulay Hunter who is President of Jewish Students for America, hosted a podcast on Seven Minute Expert with Shai Davidai and Peter Beinart on April 28, 2025. It was a circus of antics for the casual viewer, and a disturbing vision for those who ventured into the panelists’ views.
Shai Davidai is the Israeli Columbia professor who became famous for flagging the university’s gross failures in protecting Jewish students and faculty on campus after the October 7, 2023 brutal massacre by Gazan jihadists inside Israel. Peter Beinart is a left-wing Jewish journalist who used to be editor of The New Republic and now heads Jewish Currents. The gap between the two people would be insignificant for pro-Hamas viewers, but the pro-Israel audience was ready for a confrontation.
Framing Various “Anti-s”
Askowitz was not able to get through the introductions without Davidai jumping in. Shai objected to Gideon’s characterization of him being a “strong pro-Israel voice” and noted that he is Israeli but not “pro-Israel” in the sense that some might believe him to be “anti-Palestinian Arab.” Davidai’s interruptions would continue throughout the hour-long talk.
Continuing the “anti-” theme, Askowitz decided to start the discussion by asking both panelists why so many people in the Jewish community objected to their views. Bret Stephens, a journalist with The New York Times, recently penned an article in the Winter 2025 edition of Sapir where he sits as Editor-in-Chief, that Beinart’s views had migrated to “far left anti-Zionism” and he would no longer appear on panels with him. Ronn Torossian, a public relations specialist was removed from the World Zionist Congress election slate because of his personal attacks on Davidai.
Davidai declined to speculate about why people object to his stances and shared that he personally debated whether to appear with Beinart on the podcast because he views the format as falsely projecting equivalency of their views of Israel, when Beinart’s views are considered on the extreme fringe of world Jewry.
Beinart strongly disagreed and said that his views may be viewed on the fringe in Israel but that recent polling of Jews in the United States suggested 30% think Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.
That set off Davidai (8:50) and he was never able to regain his composure. While Davidai was talking about Beinart’s fringe opinion to dissolve Israel as a Jewish State, Beinart moved the conversation to the current war from Gaza. Davidai would not let Beinart continue from his alternative soapbox, and despite Askowitz’s best efforts to allow Beinart to speak, Davidai abruptly left the podcast at 10:00.
Beinart used the open floor to quote a number of polls of American Jews which showed a decent percentage believing Israel was practicing apartheid which undermined any legitimacy of the country.
Davidai had been listening to the livestream and jumped back on at 12:12.
Askowitz tried to unpack Beinart’s “anti-Zionism” as well as American polls to consider where the “fringe” begins. He asked the panelists to weigh in about negative sentiment regarding Israel’s prosecution of the war (perhaps more mainstream) as opposed to ending the Jewish State (a fringe unpopular view). As Beinart started to respond, Davidai flew off the handle again and persistently talked over Beinart, causing Beinart to threaten to leave the podcast.
It was a Zionism catfight, and the only losers were those who cared about Israel.
Reframing “Zionism”
Askowitz got the cats back in a bag by 18:30 but the mudslinging would continue.
Beinart quoted a Canadian poll which asked if people were in favor of Zionism if Zionism meant Jewish supremacy, a bogus definition, which Davidai retorted with a sheet of paper that read “LIE.” While correct, it made Davidai appear foolish.
When Davidai took the mic at 20:30, he made several important points but unfortunately, many people were probably already tuned out because of his theatrics. He correctly pointed out that Beinart’s definition of Zionism was fictitious and inflammatory, and using the views of a cohort of young American Jews to be the baseline of global Jewry opinion distorts reality.
Beinart started to define Zionism again at 23:05 using the term “cultural Zionism” which he framed as seeking a binational state, and that “political Zionism” meant Jewish supremacy over non-Jews, at least since 1948. Askowitz stepped in at 25:20 to use the actual definition of Zionism as the right of Jews to self determination in their ancient homeland. Beinart said that it’s not his definition, which is not just a fringe view but a wildly incorrect one.
Political Islamic Extremism Directed Towards Terrorism Or One State
Askowitz moved the conversation at 26:30 to the nature of Islamism and whether the deeply religious nature of Hamas made peace with Israel impossible. Beinart stated that the Palestinian terrorists of the 1970s were leftists and secular nationalists, not Islamic extremists. He also pointed to the Ra’am Party, an Islamist Israeli political party which joined the Naftali Bennett coalition a few years ago, arguing that the problem is “armed resistance” against civilians (Beinart refuses to use the term terrorism regarding Palestinian Arabs), not political Islam inherently. Beinart continued that armed resistance will go down once all Arabs have a voice in government, which could happen in a one state solution.
Davidai strongly disagreed and pointed to the expulsion of 850,000 Jews from several Arab countries and their status as inferior “dhimmis” before being ethnically cleansed. He saw a one state solution as putting nearly half of world Jewry at existential risk. Further proof was in the current Arabic chants at demonstrations which are not for democracy but the eradication of Jews from the land. He hopes for a two state solution slowly evolving with a deradicalization of local Arabs which might provide a pathway for a new country of Palestine in a generation.
Beinart’s response that Jews living in the “West Bank” / east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) made a two state solution impossible, didn’t seem to make any sense, even though Davidai nodded in agreement. If Jews and Arabs can live peacefully in a one state solution as Beinart contends, why couldn’t they live together in an Arab-majority country of Palestine? Does Beinart actually believe that defenseless Jews would get slaughtered, and if so, why won’t he see such threat in his one state proposition?
Antisemitism In the United States
The conversation pivoted to antisemitism at 41:20 when Askowitz shared his group’s involvement in the DETERRENT ACT and the influence of foreign countries (monies and students) at universities and the impact on antisemitism on campuses. While neither Beinart nor Davidai had read the bill, they were in favor of providing transparency of all university funding by countries or companies.
When it came to voiding visas of foreign students, Davidai was against punishing students who only engaged in matters of free speech, however, once engaged in problematic conduct, they should be penalized. Beinart went further and said that people should be allowed to protest and even call for a “genocide or terrorism” as long as they did not physically harm someone (50:35).
Conclusion
The optics of the debate gave Beinart the win even while his content was problematic. Beinart’s definition of Zionism is ridiculous and his ambivalence about the safety and rights of Jews in Israel as well as Jews on American campuses being barred from buildings by people calling for their genocide is chilling.
On video, it appears that a wolf in sheep’s clothing only needs to retain composure.
Let’s state something openly and clearly: “Anti-Zionism” deserves to be in quotation marks. Israel exists. It is not a theory. Being “anti-Zionism” is anti-Israel, so be clear.
Under this framework of anti-Israel feelings and behavior, “anti-Zionists” claim they are just against the government of Israel or policies of the government of Israel. That’s fine. Many people dislike their own government and some policies. However, it is a curious thing to be consumed by hatred of government policies far away from your own shores, flagging something deeper like a potential hatred of Jews, but let’s just put a pin in that observation for now.
The ongoing deliberate mislabelling of Jews as something other than Jews – say “colonists” or “settlers” – is part of a vilification campaign and clearly antisemitic.
It is true on college campuses, in the media, at the United Nations and of course, from the Palestinian Authority itself.
When Jews – whether from Israel, east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL), or around the world – visit the Jewish Temple Mount during regular visiting hours, it should not be news. Yet it is for the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority.
Wafa, the official media of the PA, repeatedly stated that a handful of Jews were “colonists” because they dared to step over the 1949 Armistice Lines. Walking around the Temple Mount was called “storming Al- Aqsa compound.” Their presence disturbed “Palestinian worshippers,” a.k.a. Muslims.
The blatant antisemitism was marketed under a political struggle. Jews were transformed into a combative illegal horde under a political monicker. The PA is not antisemitic, just anti-colonists. It is a mere coincidence that all Jews are considered colonists (Israeli Arabs are called Palestinian citizens of Israel to shed them of potentially being called “settlers.”)
Concealing the word “Jew” does not hide the antisemitism. They are not illegal people and they are not doing anything nefarious. The veneer of United Nations-sanctioned political obfuscation does not wash the religious animus nor absolve the antisemitic hatred.
The “al aqsa flood” being waged by the popular jihadi extremists of Hamas is being vanquished by the Israeli army. It is time to terminate the political and libelous “al aqsa storm” fought by Fatah and the PA, by all people of good conscience.
In an ongoing insult to Jews around the world, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said at the 32nd Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Council meeting on April 23, 2025 that the two Jewish “Temples were in Yemen.”
PA President Abbas claiming the Jewish Temples were in Yemen, April 23, 2025
Abbas falsified history in an attempt to deny Jews any rights or privileges at their holiest location. The fact that it was an insult to over 2 billion Christians who believe that Jesus was in Jerusalem and not Sanaa was a slight he was willing to make to claim the site as purely Islamic.
The United Nations adopted the same position. In a 1949 map of the holy places in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was marked as only holy to Muslims, while the Western Wall was marked as holy to both Muslims and Jews.
1949 UN map of Jerusalem’s holy places
The United States should therefore adopt a resolution called “Status of the Temple Mount,” similar to the twisted United Nations resolutions called “Status of Jerusalem,” to correct the wrong. Its passage in Congress will serve as a template for other countries to adopt before being submitted to the United Nations General Assembly.
Key phrases should be included in the resolution, to combat the disgraceful UN remarks about Jewish rights:
The United States abhors the “aggressive and dangerous” comments made by the president of the Palestinian Authority which “could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that has no boundaries.”
Comments made by the PA president “serve the forces of extremism around the world.”
Incendiary remarks that deny Jews their heritage and history “do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs,” and simply “push back the Middle East peace process.”
“The Temple Mount built by King Herod two thousand years ago has been and will always be the holiest location of Judaism.”
On December 9, 2021, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) expressed his disgust with a December 3 UN General Assembly resolution about Jerusalem saying “The recent vote by the United Nations disavowing Jewish historical ties and exclusivity to the Temple Mount—the holiest and most sacred Temple in Judaism—is an outrageous act of religious persecution. This is a transparent effort, supported by 129 nations but opposed by the United States, to rewrite history, cleanse the holy area of its religious ties to the Jewish faith and deny that Israel has roots to the Middle East…. The Jewish Temple, located in the heart of Jerusalem’s Old City, is holy ground to Jews and it belongs solely to their faith. I object to any effort to ethnically cleanse the Jewish people from their sole historic claim to this land and temple.”
It is time for U.S. Congress to endorse a resolution to correct the shameful religious persecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews, by passing the “Status of the Temple Mount” resolution.
ACTION ITEM
Write Paul Gosar (if you are in his district), your representatives in Congress and the White House (comments@whitehouse.gov) to clearly stand by historic truth and correct the ongoing slander and religious persecution of Jews. “In light of the ongoing antisemitic insults by the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations, please pass a resolution which clearly states that the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem and that the site has been the holiest site for Jews for 3,000 years. https://primarybowman.com/2025/04/29/resolution-recognizing-the-jewish-temples-stood-on-the-temple-mount-in-jerusalem/“
First One Through 