Many countries have pressured Israel to develop a plan for “the day after” the war for Gazans. It is a curious question, as many of those same countries have condemned Israel for operating in Gaza and demand that it leave immediately. Furthermore, they all know that any plan developed by Israel will likely be viewed with hostility and rejected outright by Gazans.
A more relevant question for Israel is what the day after will look like for Israel.
There are many aspects to that question.
What is the plan for rebuilding Israeli towns near Gaza? Will there be new codes for security, safe rooms, layouts of the streets and homes, etc.?
How will Israel manage security with Gaza? Will it construct a different type of fence and monitoring system to better protect Israelis? Arm the military bases there differently?
Will it allow work permits for Gazans, and if so, how will it manage it?
How will it monitor materials flowing into Gaza as part of a rebuilding operation?
Gazans smash through security fence into Israel on October 7, 2023
As it relates to what the world most wants to hear, a restart of a political process with the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) in Gaza and East of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL), much depends on reforms made by the counterparty.
It will also depend on the United Nations.
First, the UN must clearly state that the future of their so-named “Palestinian Refugees” who never lived in Israel will not move into Israel. Their future is in a future state of Palestine, which the UN claims already exists and is “occupied.” As part of crystalizing that, it must announce plans to close all UNRWA operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Second, to bring Israel to the table and engage with the UN as part of the process, the UN Security Council should revoke UNSC 2334, a blatantly antisemitic resolution. That resolution demands an ethnic cleansing of all Jews from E49AL, including Judaism’s holiest location, the Old City of Jerusalem.
Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN (left) and US Secretary of State, John Kerry (right) enabled the antisemitic UNSC 2334 to pass in the waning days of the Obama administration
There is precedent for such action. In 1991, the UN rescinded UNGA 3379, which declared that Zionism was a form of racism, to get Israel to participate in the Madrid Conference, which ultimately yielded the Oslo Accords. Such action ended the First Intifada and could help end the Iranian Proxies Intifada of today.
The UN has long been the biggest instigator of the regional conflict by making promises to local Arabs on behalf of Israel, and then pressuring Israel to meet those demands. It is time for the UN to either shift course and be constructive with each party, or desist from the matter.
Israel is engaged in a war in Gaza it didn’t start or want, and will end immediately if Hamas surrenders and returns all of the hostages. Israel doesn’t need a plan for “the day after” in Gaza but should be consulted to ensure that a new regime will bring stability in the region and be a counterpart with whom to coordinate the transfer of goods and people.
Israel should be focused on its own “day after” plans. To the extent that the world wants to encourage a path to an eventual “peace process,” the UN needs to make significant reforms, including rescinding UNSC 2334.
President Donald Trump nominated former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to be the next US ambassador to the State of Israel. In advance of his senate confirmation interview, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a letter strongly opposing his confirmation and suggested a few questions for senators to ask Huckabee.
A few Democratic senators picked up CAIR’s line of questions including Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sen. Chris van Hollen (D-MD).
Huckabee’s responses were mostly diplomatic and said his role would be to carry out the president’s policies, not his own. Therefore, below are more direct responses that I imagine Huckabee and many Christian Zionists would share outside of a public hearing.
The Denial of “Palestinian identity”
CAIR asked senators to get Huckabee to state whether he believed in “Palestinian identity.” In the typical usage of English terms, adding “ian” is a recognition of a country like “Italian” means people from Italy and “Costa Rican” means citizens of Costa Rica. As the United States does not recognize a country called “Palestine,” there is nothing inconsistent with people not using “Palestinians.” Some people call the local Arabs “Stateless Arabs from Palestine” or SAPs for short, or maybe just “Gazans” and “West Bank Arabs.”
In the early 20th century, there were Palestinian Jews and Arabs in the region before nationalism brought new countries into the world. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s charter attempted to redefine a “Palestinian” as narrowly related to Arabs. The Palestinian Authority crafted a constitution similarly said “Palestine is part of the Arab nation…. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations.” By its own definitions, Palestinian Arabs refer to themselves as regional Arabs, not necessarily distinct as a “people.” It’s call to be part of “Islamic Nations,” seemingly calls for Islamic Supremacy and ignores historic reality of Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians before the creation of nations in the Middle East.
People do not call people today “Constantinoplians” as there is no place called Constantinople today. They certainly wouldn’t insist on using such concoction to only mean a subset of people who lived in that area, such as only Muslims. So it is with “Palestinians.”
Refusal To Use Term “West Bank”
CAIR was upset by Huckabee not using the term “West Bank” and asked senators to ask him about it at the confirmation hearing.
The commonly used term “West Bank” – as well as “East Jerusalem” – are both politicized and dated. For 4,000 years of history, neither term existed. The contours of both were manufactured because on the 1948-9 war initiated by five Arab armies to destroy the nascent State of Israel. The 1949 Armistice Agreement that Israel struck with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan created both entities. Jordan illegally annexed both in an action not recognized by any country other than the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Jordan then launched another attack on Israel in 1967 and lost both territories it had illegally annexed. The United Nations only started to use the term “West Bank” after that war.
The actual historic regions of Judea and Samaria existed for centuries, not 18 years of illegal Jordanian occupation from 1949 to 1967. Judea and Samaria actually have a larger footprint than Jordan’s “West Bank,” so it is also the wrong term to apply. Discussing the region today would be best using “East of the 1949 Armistice Lines” or E49AL.
CAIR’s ongoing use of the short-lived “East Jerusalem” is politicized and dated, and perhaps highlights why it gets triggered by people refusing to use the manufactured “West Bank.”
Refusal to Recognize Israeli “Occupation.”
CAIR (and the UN) believe that Israel “occupies Palestinian land.” This notion has many problems.
First, the occupation narrative is integral to the antisemitic view that Jews are “European settler colonialists.” It is nonsensical, as Jews have 3,700 years of history in the Holy Land. Judaism is a unique religion that has ties to a specific piece of land, the land of Israel. Judaism was designed in the Bible as a small regional tribe, not a global religion like other monotheistic faiths.
Second, when Israel declared itself a state in May 1948 as the British ended their mandate, the entirety of that mandate became Israel. The fact that Jordan seized the eastern part of the country and Egypt took Gaza, only made international recognition of the de facto borders of Israel more narrow. When Israel took those areas back during its 1967 defensive war, it opted to only incorporate eastern Jerusalem and left the other areas as Israeli territories to possibly swap for an enduring peace with its neighbors.
Third, most of the Global North, including Israel and the United States, do not recognize a State of Palestine. It is therefore impossible to occupy “Palestinian land.”
Gaza as “Ancestral Homeland.”
It is puzzling to see CAIR refer to Gazans as being tied to the land for centuries while simultaneously arguing that 80% of Gazans are “1948 refugees” who should move into Israel. If today’s Gazans aren’t really Gazans according to the United Nations and Arab countries, why the uproar in trying to move them out of a war zone which caused thousand of casualties? Why the uproar in trying to move them out of the rubble to rebuild the region which was decimated in a war their leaders started and they supported?
“Right of Return” and “Right To Remain”
CAIR used terms “right of return” and “right to remain” in its letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It attempted to anchor local Arabs everywhere in the land, including in Israel. Simultaneously, CAIR advocates – as does the United Nations per UNSC 2334 – that Jews should be expelled from the “West Bank” / E49AL. This is an extremist Islamic Supremacy agenda and not one based on mutual dignity.
CAIR’s leadership made troubling statements about the Gazan war against Israel and called Jewish groups “enemies” of Muslims. It is distressing that some Democratic senators like Van Hollen and Merkley echoed the group’s questions to Mike Huckabee at his confirmation hearing. Hopefully these responses articulate what was omitted from that session.
Mike Huckabee during confirmation hearing to become US ambassador to Israel, March 2025
The World Zionist Congress is holding elections now through May 4, 2025.
To read the news, one would think that this is a matter of Jews around the world getting to vote for Jewish and Israel-related matters, with each country getting a vote based approximately on the percentage of the Jewish population in that country. For example, the United States which has roughly 40% of global Jewry gets 152 of the 525 delegates at the WZC (29%) and Israel get 38%. There are only 13 other countries which are participating in the elections which will get 33% of the delegates: Romania, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Venezuela, Sweden, Spain, France, Peru, England, Hungary, Brazil, and Uganda. Israel gets the majority of delegates.
The allocation based on country would suggest that countries represent a unit but that is far from the case. The 22 US slates are competing aggressively AGAINST each other with religious right and left attacking the other, as well as political left and right. The handful of centrist parties tout unity to appeal to the middle swath of Jews.
The reality is that religious and political affiliations and philosophies are driving the delegates, not their countries of origin.
Consider Jamie Geller, an American influencer who moved to Israel several years ago. Despite not living in the US, she is using her platform from Israel to try to get the vote out for Aish Ha’am in America, in which she says she chairs the advisory committee.
The surprising big winner of the 2020 WZC US election was Eretz Hakodesh which had over 20,000 votes and secured 16.2% of the American delegates. The enormous slate of delegates in 2025 – multiples larger than any of the 22 slates – is packed with ultra-Orthodox rabbis and influencers who are directing their communities to vote for that slate. Much of the community is opposed to the secular nature of the State of Israel and look at local rabbinic positions that support (like Rav Avrohom Gurwicz, Rosh Yeshivas Gateshead) and oppose (like Rav Malkiel Kotler from BMG in Lakewood) participating in the election, but also look at international opinion (like Rabbi Dov Landau of Bnai Brak who opposes voting).
The center and right in Israel are not the only influencers on the American votes. The left-wing flank, consisting of A New Union, Hatikvah, Arza-Reform and Jewish Future, have gotten Israelis like Yair Golan of the Democrats Party, to lobby votes for left-wing slates.
The global nature of lobbying makes sense. After the elections, all 525 delegates will be together for votes regarding priorities and allocation of resources. The country of origin makes much less difference over the next five years.
Which leads one to conclude that the enormous effort placed on the US elections is misplaced tactically.
While Israel and US Jewry account for over 80% of world Jewry, they get only two-thirds of the delegates. Most of the rest of world Jewry doesn’t even hold elections. That leaves one-third (174) of the delegates getting an outsized impact relative to the Jewish population in the 13 countries holding elections or some sort of convention: Romania (9,000), Canada (393,000), Argentina (175,000), South Africa (75,000), Venezuela (6,000), Sweden (15,000), Spain (13,000), France (490,000), Peru (2,000), England (292,000), Hungary (47,000), Brazil (92,000), and Uganda (2,000). That’s a total Jewish population in these 13 countries of roughly 1.611 million. That equates to roughly 108 delegates per million Jews compared to only 27 per million for the United States, FOUR TIMES THE IMPACT.
Influencers should target international markets, not the United States to get real influence at the WZC. The aggressive marketing in the US may get more followers on Instagram but yield much less than focusing on Jews in Brazil and Hungary.
Many people discussing the election are not that concerned about the outcome and are using this time to engage millions of Jews with Israel. Some slates, like Israel365, are using the election to further engage Christian Zionists who cannot vote in the WZC elections but are very influential in US politics. The left-wing Israeli Policy Forum is showcasing new voices whom they hope will become emerging leaders.
The election is a tool to enlist people in preferred ideologies, even more than having influence on policy.
The World Zionist Organization amended its Jerusalem Program in February 2024, not long after the horrible massacre of around 1,200 people in Israel by thousands of Gazans. The original WZO platform was the “Basel Program” of 1897, adopted at the First Zionist Congress convened by Theodor Herzl. It has been amended through the years, including in 1951 (after Israel was established), 1968 (after Jerusalem was unified) and 2004 (amidst the “Second Intifada”).
The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;
Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli society.
Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world.
Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language;
Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism;
Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.
Encouraging recruitment and service in the Israel Defense Forces and the security forces and strengthening them as the protective force of the Jewish people living in Zion, as well as encouraging full National Service for anyone exempted in law from service in the IDF.
The various statements above can be unpacked into three general categories: Global Jewry; the Land of Israel; and the State of Israel. It echoes Gil Troy’s definition of Zionism: Jews are a nation; Jews have ties to their particular homeland in the land of Israel; and that Jews have a right to establish a state in that homeland.
Global Jewry
“The unity of the Jewish people”: Global Jewry likely appreciates and believes in the concept of unity, whatever that term means.
“Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli society.”: The statement lacks an introduction – is this encouraging and supporting aliyah or physically making aliyah? Whether they move to Israel or not, diaspora Jewry likely wants to see new immigrants absorbed into Israel effectively.
“Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew … education,”: Most of diaspora Jewry attends public school and has assimilated into the local culture. In the United States, this is particularly true of Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism. While many diaspora Jews may appreciate Jewish and Hebrew education, they do not necessarily want to be viewed as “distinct” from their fellow countrymen. “Zionist education,” is perhaps even more foreign to Reform and Reconstructionist diaspora Jews. Using Zionist education as a tool for “distinctiveness” likely rings hollow for many, especially if “Zionism” relates more to a country or government, rather than the land.
“Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation” and “struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism”: Antisemitism in the diaspora is against Jews as a people, while antisemitism in Israel is against Jews as both a country and a people.
Land of Israel
“bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael”: The land of Israel is the Jewish homeland. It is part of what binds Jewish people together, the common inheritance from our forefathers.
“Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli society.”: As above, making “aliyah” is about the holiness of the land. Jews have made aliyah for thousands of years before there was the modern State of Israel.
“Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education”: Zionism, as it relates to the land of Israel would not be controversial to even unaffiliated Jews.
“Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism”: The phrasing here is interesting. It refers to settling the “country,” not the land. Does that mean only within the internationally recognized borders rather than the entirety of the land of Israel which would include east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL / Judea and Samaria / West Bank)? The clause describes “practical Zionism.” Does that limit where Jews move or does it encourage Jews moving to certain parts of the land? This clause is very open to interpretation.
State of Israel
The statements in the Jerusalem Program as they relate to the State of Israel are arguably difficult for a few slates in the 2025 World Zionist Congress (WZC) election in the United States run by the American Zionist Movement (AZM), based on public statements to date. This is true of the Hatikvah slate which includes Reconstructionist and Renewal branches of Judaism, and progressive groups like New Jewish Narrative (merger of Americans for Peace Now and Ameinu), T’ruah and J Street, as well as Vote REFORM.
“centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation”: Several members on the slates mentioned above have openly stated that they believe that Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel and not central to Judaism or the Jewish nation.
“Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state”: There is arguably little for diaspora Jews to do regarding the internal workings of the state of Israel. How and why should Jews from around the world get involved with Israel’s political dynamics and rules put in place to strengthen or weaken its democratic character. People would not want Israeli Jews messing with their own government structure.
“representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people”: It makes sense for Israel to represent “Zionist interests” as it is the embodiment of the Zionist goal. The statement seems self-evident, unless there is a movement to create a second Jewish state somewhere else.
“Encouraging recruitment and service in the Israel Defense Forces and the security forces and strengthening them as the protective force of the Jewish people living in Zion, as well as encouraging full National Service for anyone exempted in law from service in the IDF.”: This sentence was added in the latest 2024 Jerusalem Program as a reaction to the October 7, 2023 massacre. The military conscription policies of the sovereign State of Israel are only matters for the government of Israel and its citizens, and should not be a matter of diaspora Jewry influence. Therefore, this language must be a call to encourage diaspora Jews to join the IDF. While many people do volunteer service even if not a dual-citizen, the statement is problematic. While it is not inherently illegal to serve in a foreign armed service, it could be construed as a step to relinquishing citizenship in the home country, and particularly problematic as governments and situations change.
One must be amazed that there are many current members of the Israeli Knesset who could not affirm this Jerusalem Program which is being demanded of American Jewry to participate in the WZC elections.
As detailed above, the Jerusalem Program has continued to evolve with pivotal changes to the State of Israel. It suggests that Zionism has morphed with and for the State of Israel, while it may or may not have changed for diaspora Jewry.
Consider Troy’s definition of Zionism referred to above: that Jews are a nation with ties to the land of Israel and have a right to sovereignty in that land. The current Jerusalem Program extends Zionism to encourage diaspora Jews to join the Israeli army to fight for that country. That is a long way from believing in the right of a Jewish State.
The calls for Jewish unity have been consistent and not controversial. The statements related to the Land of Israel get a tad more thorny as the text is ambiguous about the borders of the land, and whether they reflect the full holy land or just internationally recognized borders. Lastly, the State of Israel text is the most difficult for many diaspora Jews.
Many Jews participate in the WZC election who do not believe in the Jerusalem Program. Rabbi Alissa Wise, co-founder of the Rabbinical Council of the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace ran on a progressive slate some years ago as did Peter Beinart. Today, the Reform Movement is attempting to get out the vote deliberately not telling people about the Jerusalem Program. It does this to funnel monies – over $1 billion per year – to advocate for THEIR causes, not the causes outlined in the Jerusalem Program.
The Vote Reform site makes no mention of affirming the Jerusalem Program as a condition to vote
Voting for the World Zionist Congress runs from March 10 until May 4, 2025 and people are lobbying to get people to vote for their slates without knowing the incorporated affirmation. People should read the Jerusalem Program before they vote, and see whether they are comfortable with the 2024 amended language, and believe that people on the slates really endorse such program as well.
The British Foreign Minister David Lammy and the UK Ambassador to Israel Simon Walters took aim at the Jewish State for launching fresh attacks against Hamas in Gaza. Despite the political-terrorist group still controlling the region and continuing to hold dozens of Israeli hostages, Walters said “at some point the fighting has to stop and the diplomacy begin. That point is now.”
It is worth reminding the British about June 6, 1944, known as D-Day. The British declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939 after Germany invaded Poland, even though Germany hadn’t killed a single Brit. Five years of war later, the British decided that it needed to take the war to Germany and invaded Europe. The British lost 350 soldiers on that day and about twice that number were wounded. The British would continue to battle the Nazis for almost another year, including firebombing campaigns on Dresden and Hamburg. It is estimated that 25,000 German civilians died in Dresden alone, a subset of over 2 million German civilians who were killed during the war.
Eventually, the Nazis surrendered and agreements with Great Britain were struck.
The British casualties from D-Day are in contrast to the toll of dead Israelis on October 7, who were mostly civilians. Gazans murdered 3.4 times the number of people in Israel than the Germans killed British soldiers on D-Day. The number of injured Israelis on that terrible day was over four times the number of British soldiers during their massive invasion of Europe.
When Lammy said “Diplomacy, not more bloodshed, is how we get security for Israelis and Palestinians,” he has seemingly forgotten that diplomacy will only come about once the genocidal jihadists are defeated and moderate leadership has assumed control, to ultimately forge a viable and sustainable relationship with Israel.
Lammy made that comment after he told the British House of Commons that Israel’s blockade on Gaza violates international law, even though a 2011 report stated that the Gaza blockade is “legal” and complies “with the requirements of international law.”
The current reality is that Hamas has said that they will not surrender and release the hostages. They continue to gather new recruits – all educated by UNRWA to despise Jews and that their future is in Israel – to attempt to repeat their barbarism in Israel again-and-again.
Israel has a genocidal war machine ON ITS BORDER which INITIATED A BARBARIC ATTACK and which refuses to surrender. It is quite a different dynamic than the British opting to fight the Nazis 80 years ago.
But time and place afford the British foreign minister to play armchair warrior and judge, neither one well.
As penned on these pages a decade ago after the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket terrorism in Paris, “Today’s war on terrorism will continue to be waged when nations see their interests being threatened. The outpouring of emotion will also be rooted in selfish preservation.” Some of the leaders in Britain see their interests and self preservation advanced by throwing Israel under the bus, hoping to keep the jihadists in their midst at bay, sitting out the war on terror 3,600km away.
The British foreign minister would do well to remember that defeat is often a precondition for diplomacy and a path towards enduring security.
The barbaric October 7 massacre was the largest slaughter of Jews in the Jewish holy land in almost 2,000 years. Gazans perpetrated the attack on the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, when Jews celebrate finishing and restarting reading the Pentateuch each year. The pogrom was on Saturday, the Jewish holy day of rest. It was also on the fiftieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, when Islamic Arab armies invaded Israel in 1973, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
In covering the war in various articles on that dark day, The New York Times did not mention that thousands of Gazans decided to invade Israel during the joyful holiday of Simchat Torah. Whether deliberate or not, the large media company headquartered in the city with the largest number of Jews in the Jewish diaspora did not add color that the Palestinian jihadists murdered Jews while the Jewish State celebrated an important religious holiday.
Not so for the woke paper’s coverage of the Gazan-initiated war regarding Islamic holidays.
The Times made a point of telling its readers that the latest fighting in the War From Gaza happened during the month-long Islamic holiday of Ramadan. The insertion of the fact had nothing to do with recounting the military timeline in the sentence or paragraph. It had nothing to do with the entire article. Unless it was the Times’ intent to tell its readers that “the Israeli assault” happened while the parties were “negotiating the next steps in the truce” while Muslims in Gaza were celebrating a religious holiday, to make the Israelis out to be particularly heartless.
New York Times article on March 18, 2025
Perhaps it was just trying to inform its increasing Muslim readership that it the paper is halal.
The Times has long proved its anti-Israel and antisemitic bona fides. It is seemingly looking to promote its pro-Islamic credentials at this time.
Hamas, the political-terrorist group which rules Gaza, refused to release the remaining Israeli hostages and step down from power, after weeks of stalled negotiations with Israel. In the face of the impasse, Israel restarted its military campaign, killing at least five members of Hamas leadership.
In a statement about the death of the terrorists, Hamas offered a eulogy as reported in the Jerusalem Post, saying that its genocidal jihad against Israel was “fulfilling our national duty” and that it remains “committed to our religious obligation and our ethical and professional role… supporting their [Gazans] resilience.” The Hamas War, which it initiated amidst a long stretch of calm with Israel and refuse to abandon, has laid waste to Gaza. In the face of death and destruction, the last of Hamas leadership says that it is “standing firm.”
Hamas believes that it is serving a religious calling to destroy the Jewish State. It cannot compromise on its mission or face a deep reckoning with its religious beliefs. It refers to its antisemitic killing squad members as “martyrs” for a holy jihad, with many more to willingly follow. No compromise is possible with such party.
Hamas is not simply eulogizing five slain leaders of its death cult; it is eulogizing the future of Gazans.
The United Nations has 193 countries in the General Assembly, and 134, roughly 70%, are located in what is generally called the “Global South”, a term that has emerged to replace “third world” and “developing economies.” The region accounts for about 80% of the global population, with the difference in figures mostly due to the two largest populations – India and China – being located in the region.
The UN has many committees and agencies. Of all of them, the UN Security Council is the most significant, being the sole entity that can pass international laws. It has five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA – and ten non-permanent members which serve two year terms. More than 50 members of the UN have never served on the UNSC, including Israel.
The current UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, thinks that the current UNSC needs to be refashioned for the modern world. He bemoans the fact that no African country has a permanent seat on the council, and the ability for the five permanent members to veto resolutions has allowed some wars – like in Ukraine and Gaza – to continue for too long. He also believes that capitalism as dictated by the Global North has kept the Global South in poverty by charging higher rates of interest and not forgiving debt.
US President Joe Biden favored allowing two African countries to become permanent members of the UNSC but objected to their obtaining veto powers. He thought that the current system of veto rights already made the committee unproductive and adding more members with such rights would impede it further. Others countered that it was time to remove all veto rights. Still others like India, the world’s most populous country, demanded a seat on the committee as well. Arab countries took the opportunity to demand the same.
Negotiations will play out over 2025, with a new US administration under Donald Trump who is much more weary of multilateralism and the United Nations generally. The discussions will mainly focus on Africa, where most of the global growth in population is occurring.
China has invested heavily in Africa, accounting for roughly one-third of the infrastructure projects, and now has global trade of $282 billion with the continent. Its actions helped it surpass the United States in terms of popularity (58% to 56%). The US must consider how it interacts with the African continent directly and what steps it takes at the UN as it fights its shadow war with China.
Those who spend their lives focused on the UN and global politics have been debating which two countries should join the UNSC. If the seats go to the countries with the largest economies, it would favor South Africa ($373 billion) and Egypt ($347 billion). If it is awarded based on population, it would go to Nigeria (232 million) and Ethiopia (132 million). Others consider the Democratic Republic of Congo (109 million and one of the fastest growing population at +3.3% in 2024) which has been decimated by ongoing violence. Including a country which has longed for peace might make sense at the Security Council.
For people who focus on another country which has dreamed of calm – the Jewish State of Israel – the changes to the UNSC are extremely important.
Overall, the Global South is much more anti-Israel than the Global North. All 28 countries that refuse to recognize the State of Israel are located there. Almost every country in the Global South recognizes Palestine while a minority of the Global North recognizes such entity.
Since the Iranian Proxies War on Israel, South Africa has led the charge against Israel at the International Court of Justice, claiming Israel’s defensive war was a “genocide.” Those joining South Africa were almost all from the Global South, with the exceptions of Belgium, Ireland and Spain from Europe.
The dynamic of a change at the UNSC will not only impact Israel but possibly Jews around the world as witnessed by the spike of global antisemitic attacks since the October 7 massacre. In the United States, the majority of international students at universities come from the Global South, and an empowerment of their voices at the Security Council may exacerbate Jew hatred everywhere.
While people are focused on the genocidal jihad that brought violence against Jews in Israel and the United States watching movies like October 8, attention must include the impending harm that may come to Jews everywhere with changes at the United Nations Security Council.
ACTION ITEM
Write the White House to share your concerns of changes to the United Nations Security Council
Fewer people are going to college and graduate schools. Some of the drop-off relates to people having fewer children so the absolute number of people going to school has been declining. But the percentage of students going from high school to advanced degrees has also fallen considerably. Even in the years before the pandemic, the decline in high schoolers going to college dropped from 70% in 2016 to 63% in 2020. The figure dropped to 61.4% in 2023, with men being the most likely to skip college with only 57.6% opting for that education. The rates for Whites and Blacks were roughly the same at 59.9% and 59.6%, respectively, with Hispanics being lower at 51.8% and Asians surpassing every group at 84.7%. The overall impact can be seen in 2010 college enrollment of 10.2 million women and 7.8 million men, dropping to 8.9 million (-12.7%) and 6.5 million (-16.7%), respectively in 2021.
The reasons that most Americans are skipping college include a strong job market paying good wages, the desire to avoid college debt, people pursuing jobs that don’t require advanced degrees, and the ability to learn many skills online.
To address the declining enrollment, universities are taking many more international students. In the 2023/24 academic year, U.S. universities had over 1.1 million foreign students, a record. These students mostly came from the “Global South,” the emerging, principally non-White economies. The majority of students came from southeast Asia including India (331k), China (277k), Nepal, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Taiwan. No European country was in the top ten. The only countries in the top ten which are part of the Global North were South Korea and Canada. The countries with the largest spike in students over the past year were all from the Global South including Ghana (+45%), Bangladesh (+26%), India (+23%), Iran (+15%) and Nigeria (+13%).
Global North in blue and Global South in red
The student exchange is not reciprocal. Only 280,000 Americans studied abroad and the majority (64%) went to Europe, with Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, and France dominating the destinations. Two-thirds of those students identified as White.
The Americans abroad tended to go during their undergraduate years, spending just a few months away (only 2.4% went for a year). They tended to be women (67%), and studied business and management (20%) and social sciences (18%). This is in sharp contrast to international students coming to the United States who were typically graduate students pursuing a degree in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) at 56%.
The international students are older and come for longer periods of time. They often marry and have kids while pursuing their degrees, establishing a foothold in America, while Americans-in-Europe simply have a quick experience away from home.
The universities are very happy to have these paying students fill their classrooms which are being abandoned by Americans. In 2019 and 2020, 49% of all STEM master’s degrees and 57% of all STEM doctorate degrees were conferred to international students. The economics of running courses and an institution without half the students would have required eliminating courses and teachers, and perhaps shutting whole departments.
Technology companies want and need these skilled students as future employees. Google, Apple and Microsoft count on new STEM graduates to fill their ranks each year and lobby the government accordingly. Open Doors estimates that these international students contribute roughly $50 billion to the U.S. economy, or about $5,000 per student.
The U.S. government plays a heavy hand in all of this, not only seeking to salvage American university programs and building feeders to the American technology landscape, but on a political level as well.
Two situations highlight U.S. politics driving international students to these shores: Saudi Arabia and Israel.
As the United States ramped up pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its nuclear program from 2007 to 2015, the U.S. sought to reassure its ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is a foe of Iran. During those years, the number of Saudi students in American universities climbed from just a few thousand to over 61,000. The Saudi students learned courses like petroleum engineering to better extract and process oil, as well as nuclear physics to be able to build nuclear power on their own. Just after the nuclear agreement was signed, the number of Saudi students dropped significantly, down to under 15,000 in the 2023/24 academic year.
American politics playing out for international students from Israel is more explicit, and targets high school students, as long as they are Arabs.
On September 12, 2023, the U.S. embassy in Israel posted an advertisement that the U.S. State Department “is seeking a group of Arab citizens of Israel secondary school students to participate in a Study- in-the-USA initiative for high school students during the 2024-2025 school year.” (bold in original) It is backed by the YES Program Scholarship which gives “many countries with significant Muslim population an opportunity to study at American high schools and live with American host families for one academic year,” funding “all expenses in connection with the study tour including airfare, room and board, pocket money and most other costs.” It is part of the broad U.S. policy to make amends for the “War on Terror,” and selected only non-Jews from the Jewish State to learn in America.
The cherry-picking of certain types of international students demands a deeper exploration of the segments of the Global South that are in American schools.
The Global South has two principal regions as it relates to American immigrants: Latin America and everywhere else.
The United States was primarily populated by European migration from 1840 to 1920. World War I, the Great Depression and World War II stemmed immigration for several decades before it picked up with the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Since that time, 49% of immigrants have come from Latin America and 27% from Asia. These groups are very different. The typical immigrant from Latin America had little formalized education (only 9% of Mexicans in the US in 2022 had a college degree). That compared to those from South Asia where 72% had a college degree, 55% from Central Asia and 49% from East and Southeast Asia.
Those coming from Latin America typically came for jobs not requiring a college degree while those coming from Asia came with degrees or obtained them at American universities.
The demographics between Latin America and Asia are also very different regarding religion.
About 50 million Muslims live in the Global North which has a population of roughly 1.6 billion, or about 3% of the population. It is even lower in Latin America which has roughly 4 million Muslims out of a population of 665 million, or about 0.6%. That is is sharp contrast to roughly 1.8 billion Muslims living in the Global South with a population of 6.4 billion, or roughly 28%, or 31% x-Latin America. If one were to exclude China as well which has around 25 million Muslims, the Global South is over 41% Muslim (x-China and x-Latin America).
While China does not resemble much of the Global South in both religious demographics and not having a history of European countries on its soil, it is now in an aggressive competitive battle against the Global North for power. As such, China is leveraging its regional position alongside the Global South to wage a cultural and economic war against the West.
China and the Global South have advanced efforts to promote anarchy in the United States alongside far-left non-White movements like Justice Democrats. The calls to Defund the Police and Abolish ICE were designed to tear down walls of protection and flood the United States with people from the Global South. The chants to “Globalize the Intifada” on American campuses and streets are calls to dismantle Western civilization’s capitalism and support for the Jewish State, with a broad redistribution of wealth and power to the preferred people in the Global South.
“Intifada” protest at Columbia University streets
When people in the Global North hear the chants of “Intifada,” they recognize the vile terrorism of Palestinian Arabs blowing up buses and pizza stores in the Second Intifada. However, the Global South considers it an Arabic term meaning “shaking off” the colonialism and imperialism of the West. The South’s overriding desire of taking on western civilization overwhelms the facts that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel and that the Intifada is a premeditated violent attack on civilians. The Islamist Global South rallies to its coreligionists.
Banner with “Intifada” hung outside Columbia University
The population on America’s campuses does not resemble the rest of America. The disproportionate number of Asians and Muslims enrolled at America’s universities come from regions which are in active competition with the West, and embrace the Stateless Arabs from Palestine’s (SAPs) jihadi war against the Jews. The universities which enroll the international students of the Global South, attempt to tie them with American minority groups whose ancestors originated from those regions. Remarkably, a cause like Black Lives Matter which has nothing to do with the Global South, becomes hitched to the Israeli Defense Forces.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) on hearing about antisemitism at universities showcasing “Intifada”
The declining enrollment at American universities has led to them being taken over by international students from Asia and Africa. This has led directly to antisemitism on campuses and in the streets. It was true before the October 7 massacre and has only accelerated since then.
New York City march to “Globalize the Intifada” in September 2021, two years before the October 7 massacre by Gazans
Americans and the Global North are watching the initial battles of the Global South on the beachheads of American universities and are dumbstruck. The West would be well served to reevaluate those international students admitted to study here, and use this time to prepare for the battles to come.
ACTION ITEM
Contact the White House to vet international students coming to study at American universities, trimming the numbers coming from the Global South and making their visas conditional to peaceful behavior.
The Global South in downtown New York City taunting Jews and Israelis attending an exhibition about music lovers slaughtered by Gazans on October 7, 2023
International humanitarian law (IHL) has been established for decades, and many are principally designed to protect civilians during armed conflict. In the case of the Gaza war against Israel, it is questionable whether the laws can be applied to Israel’s actions in the war, not whether Israel is abusing such laws.
Principle of Distinction
The driving themes of IHL surrounds mitigating the harm to non-combatants during hostilities. The first driver is, therefore, to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. In most battles, this is easy to accomplish: during a clash on a battlefield, the only participants are soldiers. In urban warfare, this is much more difficult.
In the dense Gaza strip, this is virtually impossible.
The various military groups in Gaza are embedded and underneath almost every building and road. Hamas, the popular political-terrorist group that rules Gaza, built an entire infrastructure underneath the city with a maze of 500 kilometers of tunnels and storerooms. The hundreds of exit shafts for much of this infrastructure is located in houses and schools.
Hamas soldiers in Gaza tunnels
Additionally, Gazan combatants dress in civilian clothing and are members of groups which are touted to be neutral including the United Nations, the press and hospital staff.
UNRWA employees and Hamas militants
If civilians and related infrastructure are enmeshed by premeditated design with an active military, then the civilians have become integrated into the war effort and renounced protections of distinction.
Principles of Proportionality and Precaution
IHL’s Principle of Proportionality is designed to minimize collateral damage to civilians when attacking legitimate military targets. It calls for a review of the situation and reducing armaments to make any incidental civilian harm be aligned to the relative military gain achieved. The related Precaution principle is one step further, to try to prevent any military action, if possible.
Israel has taken many actions to limit the harm to civilians – which have been harshly criticized, nevertheless.
Withholding electricity and other aid. Israel has attempted to pressure Hamas and other militant groups – which seize all goods into Gaza – by withholding basic items like electricity so Israel would not have to use military force in the region. For those efforts, Israel is accused of causing a humanitarian catastrophe, rather than adhering to the Principles of Precaution
Move civilians out of the field of battle. Israel has moved and continues to urge civilians to leave “hot” areas, only to be accused of “ethnic cleansing”
Using ground forces. Israel could minimize its own casualties by only using air power against the terrorist enclave. Instead, it seeks a more targeted effort to eliminate combatants and protect civilians, for which it is criticized.
While Gazan authorities threaten to commit the October 7 barbarity over and again, Israel attempts to adhere to international law yet is criticized for it. Even though Israel left Gaza in 2005, and put in place a blockade only when Hamas took full control of the strip in 2007 to follow the Principle of Precaution, it is laughingly accused by international “human rights” groups of a “belligerent occupation.”
The terrorist enclave of Gaza has removed distinctions between civilians and militants, aid workers and terrorists, state and non-state actors, locals and international operators, and civilian infrastructure and military bases in a toxic brew. It defecates on all humanitarian norms while pointing both armaments and accusing fingers at Israel.
As the United Nations and Gazans have themselves destroyed all distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, and declared that Israel can never meet the standards of international humanitarian law, there is no basis to criticize Israel’s handling of its defensive war on such basis.
First One Through 