In the Book of Numbers, chapters 32 and 34, we find a powerful and enduring lesson for Jews living outside the land of Israel. The tribes of Reuben and Gad, later joined by half of the tribe of Manasseh, approached Moses with a bold request. They asked to settle on the east side of the Jordan River, outside the boundaries of the Promised Land, because the land there was suitable for their abundant livestock. Moses was skeptical: was this another rebellion, like the spies who had refused to enter the land decades earlier?
But the tribes made a solemn vow. They would not only join the conquest of the Land of Israel—they would be on the front lines. Only after the land was secured for their brethren would they return to their homes across the Jordan. They could live outside the Promised Land, but they could not abandon their people or their mission.
Wallis’s New map of The Holy Land (1815)
Fast forward thousands of years, and the question still echoes: Do Jews living in the diaspora bear a similar responsibility toward Israel today?
The modern State of Israel, reborn in 1948, has been under near-constant threat. From surrounding Arab nations launching wars to terrorist regimes like Hamas slaughtering civilians, Israel’s security is never guaranteed. The battlefield has expanded beyond the physical: anti-Israelism masquerades as social justice in Western institutions, and Jewish students face intimidation on campuses from New York to London to Sydney.
And yet, many diaspora Jews seem detached from the fight. Some claim that Israel’s policies are the cause of antisemitism. Others go further, actively criticizing the Jewish State in public forums – leading with “AsAJew” credentials – hoping that distancing themselves will spare them from scorn.
The lesson of Reuben and Gad was clear: you can live outside the land, but not outside the mission.
Reuben and Gad did not ask to be exempt from the battle. In fact, they pledged to be the vanguard. Likewise, Jews living in the diaspora, particularly those in free and prosperous nations, must recognize their role. They may not carry rifles in the IDF, but they must arm themselves with truth, courage, and commitment.
They should defend Israel in public discourse. They must call out antisemitism cloaked as “anti-Zionism,” a calling card demanding the destruction of Israel. They ought to support accurate Israel education, advocate with elected officials, and give generously to causes that strengthen Israel’s security and society. It is the price of living across the river.
Moses demanded a commitment from the tribes outside the land. Jewish history demands one now.
The tragic farce of modern human rights discourse reached a grotesque milestone. According to the defenders of Palestinian “human rights,” Israel should not be allowed to defend itself—even when civilians are under direct rocket fire from foes eager to destroy the Jewish State.
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s so-called “Special Rapporteur on Palestine,” brazenly declared that Israel, as an “occupying power,” has no right to self-defense. In Albanese’s warped worldview, a Jew in Israel has no right to life.
Albanese claims that Israel cannot defend itself from Hamas, the popular and dominant Palestinian political party and ruling power in Gaza.
This is policy for many. When the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to fund Iron Dome, a purely defensive missile shield that intercepts rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, a coalition of radicals opposed it. Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Marjorie Taylor Greene— antisemitic-bedfellows —voted against the funding.
When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted for the funding, the backlash from anti-Israel radicals was immediate. Vandals defaced her headquarters. They threatened her life. “How dare she support saving Jewish lives?” was the clear message, sprayed in graffiti.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez office vandalized after voting to fund Israel’s missile defense system
At Rutgers University, Noura Erakat, a Palestinian professor decried Iron Dome, essentially arguing that protecting Israeli civilians is an act of war. The Democratic Socialists of America demanded that Israel be isolated while defending itself in a multifront war. And many echoed the ridiculous claim that it is unjust for Israelis to have bomb shelters when Gazans do not—ignoring that Hamas has built hundreds of kilometers of military tunnels, used exclusively to shield terrorists and smuggle weapons, while civilians are left to die on purpose, to feed propaganda.
The global double standard is grotesque: Israel must accept rocket fire, massacres, and kidnappings—and not respond. Not defend. If it does, it is called an aggressor hell-bent on genocide. No country on Earth is asked to withhold defending its citizens.
The latest iteration of perverse Palestinian “human rights” demands that Jews die quietly, with neither fight nor protest. Palestinian “dignity” demands that Arabs stand atop Jewish graves, personal and physical manifestations mirroring the Islamic mosques sitting atop the Jewish Temples. Just as the world believes Jews should be silent at their holiest site, Jews must die quietly in their holy land.
When “human rights” for a particular group demands the sacrifice of another, basic moral math needs to be applied. When the perversion infects United Nations and U.S. government officials calling to strip and bind Jews in the Middle East, the terrifying equation yields a final solution.
On July 20, 2025, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan made a remarkable statement, considering his years of rebuke for Israel in the area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines with Jordan (E49AL/ the “West Bank’). He said that “it is time for the international community to come to terms with the facts on the ground” – in regards to Turkey’s presence in northern Cyprus.
Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and maintains 35,000 troops on the island to protect roughly 200,000 Turkish Cypriots. During the invasion, roughly 60,000 Turkish Cypriots moved to the northern Turkish section, while an estimated 150,000 Greek Cypriots moved south. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared itself independent in 1983, in an action the entire international community still considers illegal. Turkey has continued to illegally move parts of its population into TRNC, also illegal.
Turkey’s Erdogan stresses “facts on the ground”… for Cyprus
The Turkish Cyprus dynamic is much more severe than between the oft-discussed Israel- West Bank situation.
Ethnic Cleansing
Islamic Turkey ethnically cleansed Orthodox Greeks from northern Cyprus when it invaded. It echoed the actions of 1923 when Turkey and Greece exchanged their religious and ethnic populations, as though Cyprus wasn’t a distinct entity. More harshly, the Arab Muslim Jordanian kingdom ethnically cleansed all Jews from the land of Israel it illegally seized in 1949 and banned Jewish citizenship in 1954. However, in sharp contrast, when Israel took back the West Bank from Jordan in a defensive war in 1967, it did not remove any Arabs from the region.
Colonization
Further, Turkey already had an enormous country. Its colonial arm seizing northern Cyprus was seemingly to make up for the shame of losing the vast Ottoman Empire. That is completely dissimilar to the West Bank which has always been an integral part of the Jewish homeland, and was part of the British Mandate in 1922. Yet people have come up with a distinct term for Israeli Jews in the West Bank, “settlers,” even if they live in established cities (not new settlements).
Legality
No country recognizes Turkey’s illegal seizure of northern Cyprus. Yet several countries recognize Israel’s capital of Jerusalem and consider the West Bank to only be disputed land, especially as many western countries do not recognize a State of Palestine and Jordan abandoned all claims to the land in 1988.
Population and troops
The Arab population in the West Bank has increased dramatically since Israel retook the land in 1967. Israel granted the vast majority of Arabs self determination as part of the Oslo Accords, specifically in Areas A and B of the West Bank. However, there aren’t even any Greeks in TRNC to consider.
Israel has roughly 10,000 troops in the West Bank protecting 450,000 Israelis, in normal circumstances. During periods of conflict, the number of soldiers can double. That ratio is roughly 45 civilians to 1 Israeli soldier, quite different than the one soldier per 5 civilians in TRNC. TRNC is essentially a fort.
Conclusion
While both cases involve territorial disputes and ethnic tensions, the moral, legal, and historical justifications differ greatly. The Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus is a blatant violation of international law, resulting in displacement and ethnic separation. The Jewish presence in E49AL/ the “West Bank” reflects a historic Jewish return, legal ambiguity, and an attempt at coexistence under a negotiated peace process.
Denying Jews the right to live in their ancestral homeland while excusing Erdoğan’s illegal occupation of Cyprus highlights a dangerous double standard: these disputes are really not about land or international law, but appeasing Islamic authoritarianism and ratifying antisemitism.
There are two wars taking place in Gaza: one is a textbook definition of a genocidal war while the other is a reluctant war of ethnic cleansing.
While critics of the Jewish State hurl the term “genocide” as a weapon, a blood libel designed to strip Israel of its legitimacy, it is an inversion: it is Hamas and only Hamas that is engaged in a genocide.
Hamas’s 1988 foundational charter is not a vague political platform. It is an open call to murder Jews. Article 7 quotes an Islamic hadith that urges Muslims to kill Jews wherever they find them. Article 13 states that “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Peace is forbidden. Coexistence is a crime.
And the Palestinian people did not reject this vision; they embraced it. In 2005, they elected Mahmoud Abbas as president — a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. In 2006, they voted Hamas into power, giving the genocidal group 58% of the parliament. These were not fringe votes. These were popular, democratic choices made in full view of Hamas’s open ideology.
Then came October 7, 2023.
In the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas — the ruling government of Gaza — unleashed its long-promised war of annihilation. They murdered 1,200 people, from babies in cribs to elderly women in wheelchairs. They burned families alive, filmed their atrocities, and broadcast their bloodlust to the world. The Palestinian street erupted in celebration. Polls showed 75% of Palestinian Arabs supporting the massacre of Jews.
This was not a surprise. This was fulfillment. A generation raised on genocidal propaganda in schools, mosques, and television carried out what they had been taught. They were not rebelling against Hamas — they were Hamas. Thousands of Gazans participated in the October 7 slaughter.
Israel, faced with an existential threat, responded. It had tried the diplomatic route. It had withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. It had allowed billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to flow into the Strip. It had mostly tolerated rocket fire and bus bombings and flaming kites with modest responses. But after October 7, there was no possibility of a tepid response with a group with an increasing capacity to carry out its genocidal intent.
Israel launched a war of necessity — a war to end the Hamas threat once and for all. The goal was not genocide, but defense. Not extermination, but eradication of a terrorist force.
But the nature of this war is highly complex. Hamas does not engage Israel’s army on an open battlefield but underneath hospitals, mosques and homes. It warehouses missiles in schools and launches them from playgrounds. There is no ability to eliminate the terrorists without severe destruction to dual-use civilian-military infrastructure and significant collateral damage.
And that looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.
Gaza ruins
Ethnic cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic or religious group from a territory. And yes, it is possible that the outcome of Israel’s war will be a Gaza without many Palestinian Arabs. Gaza cannot be rebuilt atop terrorist tunnels and booby traps. The terrorist enclave that Gazans built since 2007 cannot remain nor be replicated.
It has long been a sign of instilled antisemitism that the United Nations has accused Israel of genocide, at least as far back as 2013, as a mask for Palestinian Arabs genocidal intentions. It is a classic form of the adage “the best defense is a good offense,” accusing Israel of the crimes of Palestinian Arabs, forcing Israel into a defensive posture, both militarily and politically.
But it is another level of tragic irony that in this defensive war, Israel is open to the accusation of ethnic cleansing.
No nation on earth has faced the choices Israel faces. No other country is expected to coexist with a neighbor whose elected leaders seek its annihilation. No one wants to see civilian suffering but Israel has tried every alternative — and the price has always been paid in Jewish blood.
The world is watching a premeditated war of genocide – which it enabled and encouraged through the United Nations’ statements and actions – be defeated by a small, determined country. The contours of that victory may appear to the casual viewer as ethnic cleansing, and will certainly be marketed as such by Israel haters, as a cruel collective punishment against civilians and so-called “refugees.”
The Global North will consider “ethnic cleansing” as the lesser charge relative to the smear of “genocide” long advanced by the Global South. Will the resulting actions encourage and enable the next genocidal war against the Jewish State remains to be seen.
The situation for Jews in Australia is rapidly becoming intolerable. Much of it is because of violence directed at Jews. And much of it because of the reactions that rally to the attackers.
In the immediate aftermath of the genocidal jihad of Gazans against Israelis in October 2023, a mob assembled at Australia’s Sydney Opera House shouting what sounded like “Gas the Jews”, “F*ck the Jews”, and “Allahu Akhbar.” The local police concluded that the mob only wanted to know where the Jews were and did not pursue charges against anyone.
Riot of people in Australia carrying Palestinian, Lebanese and ISIS flags calling for a jihad in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel by thousands of Gazans.
In response, the Muslim community said the incident “caused significant damage and distress to Arab and Muslim communities in Australia,” inverting victims and perpetrators.
This week, Australians looked to England for new inspiration.
After a music festival in England featured a band leading the audience in chants of “death, death to the I.D.F.,” the Israeli Defense Forces, scores of people echoed the call on the streets of Melbourne, Australia. A few days later, as Jews began their Sabbath, a man set fire to the front door of a synagogue in Melbourne with people inside. At the same time, around 20 people ransacked an Israeli restaurant, throwing tables and food while screaming the death chant and that they don’t want Zionists in Australia.
Australian news reports discussed the Jew hatred… while adding that Muslims have also faced hate lately.
Australian news reporting on antisemitic attacks from July4, adding comment that “anti-Arab hate” (3:25) also has spiked
The New York Times also felt compelled to add several paragraphs about “Islamophobia” in an article about the two antisemitic attacks. As it did, it recharacterized the antisemitic chants of the mob after the October 7 attack at the Sydney Opera House as simply “accusations of hate speech” and “new laws restricting protestors rights and criminalizing certain types of statements,” seemingly rallying around the haters.
Jews are under direct attack yet the public is attempting to misdirect and rationalize the situation to their Victims of Preference. Somehow, concerns for 2 billion Muslims who market themselves as “minorities” in the West, overshadow 15 million Jews under violent assault.
In February 1998, Osama Bin Laden called for a “Jihad Against Jews And Crusaders.” In it, he issued a ruling to “kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” It is an echo of Hamas’s 1988 foundational charter which calls to “raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils, (Article 3)” and “It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. (Article 15)” Hamas doesn’t demand that everyone kill Jews; fostering fertile ground is also a key part of the jihad: “Jihad is not confined to the carrying of arms and the confrontation of the enemy. The effective word, the good article, the useful book, support and solidarity – together with the presence of sincere purpose for the hoisting of Allah’s banner higher and higher – all these are elements of the Jihad for Allah’s sake. (Article 30)”
Yes, the news is part of the jihad.
Years after his death, Bin Laden – together with Hamas – are conducting western music festivals and choirs outside opera houses to come for “the Jews and Crusaders.” The infidels love the energy and are screaming the chorus as they incinerate their own societies.
The West has enlisted in the jihad upon itself, starting with Jews.
On February 18, 1947, senior members of the British Kingdom’s government assembled to discuss the Palestine Mandate. By this point, the British had already separated the area east of the Jordan River and handed it to the small Hashemite tribe who created the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. The people assembled at this meeting were at an impasse of how to handle the remaining portion of Palestine in regards to the roughly 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews.
It is worth reading the discussion in full, but I will only highlight a few points here.
By way of background, the British had assumed the Palestine Mandate as well as for Iraq in 1922, while France had mandates for Syria and Lebanon. Due to Arab revolts in Palestine which started in 1936, the British – contrary to their mandate – limited Jewish immigration to Palestine to only 75,000 during the European Holocaust; they placed no limits on Arab migration into Palestine, allowing the Arab population to grow rapidly (more than doubling from 1918, whereas Syria only grew by 50% over the period).
An interesting observation is that the word “Palestinian” appears nowhere in the discussion, as the current notion that it only means Arabs would not be concocted for decades. At this point in time, the idea of a possible “Palestinian State” would incorporate both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, a term without meaning today.
In discussing the desire of the local Arab population in Palestine, Bevin said that the Arabs were “unwilling to contemplate further Jewish immigration into Palestine,” even when survivors of the European Holocaust were desperate to come to the Jewish homeland. He added that the Arabs “are equally opposed to the creation of a Jewish State in any part of Palestine.“
Bevin would go on to state the position of Zionists who wanted an independent state, in line with the mandate which called for Jews “reconstituting their national home in that country.”
Again, he made the position clear that “for the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” He saw “no prospect of resolving this conflict by [negotiated] settlement,” consequentially leading to persistent violence. The competing demands of the Arabs and Jews made the situation “irreconcilable.”
Willie Gallacher (1881-1965), a communist who had opposed Britain’s involvement in WWII asked during the back-and-forth whether the UK’s “Balfour Declaration is recognised to be utterly unrealistic,” giving priority to Arab claims. He failed to comprehend that the declaration served as the very basis for which Britain had been handed the mandate for Palestine. The members therefore concluded that the matter should go to the United Nations General Assembly to decide how to reconcile the irreconcilable.
The discussion proved prophetic. Even today (“to the last”), the majority of the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) refuse to accept a Jewish State “in any part of Palestine.” They continue to fight it by any means at their disposal, including war, terrorism and boycotts. Their actions do not only make life difficult for Jews in Israel but for Americans. The US embassy in Israel issued “travel advisories” suggesting people reconsider travel to Israel and the West Bank and to not go to Gaza because of the activities of various Palestinian Arab terrorist groups.
The SAPs are fighting Jews on two fronts, via the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. The PA is fighting for a Palestinian State without a single Jew living in it. It has the United Nations endorsement, with the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016. Hamas and other terrorist groups are fighting to ensure no Jewish State exists “in any part of Palestine.”
Other jihadists – countries and groups – also rallied to fight a Jewish State “in any part of Palestine.” From 1948 to the 1970s, the Arab world routed 850,000 Jews from their nations. Most still refuse to recognize Israel. Many boycott Israel and do not allow Israelis to enter their country. Islamic countries which are not Arab – foremost Iran and Turkey – actively support Hamas. Turkish President Recep Erdogan said right after the October 7 massacre that “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a liberation group, ‘mujahideen’ waging a battle to protect its lands and people.”
Jihadi groups like al Qaeda rally radical Muslims to attack “Americans and Jews” around the world because of Israel, and attack tourists and fellow Muslims in Egypt and Jordan because those countries struck peace agreements with the Jewish State. The presence of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine has generated a call to history of 1,000 years ago, with the “World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.“
The conflict is cast in western circles as a local conflict over land between Jews and Arabs which can find compromise, but radical Islamists see it as a global religious matter between Muslims and Jews. The violent extremists cannot accept Jewish sovereignty “in any part of Palestine” as an “essential point of principle.” Current efforts to “Globalize the Intifada” is their rallying call to end the Jewish State in its entirety, with Jews and Christians (“Crusaders”) fair marks for attack.
For decades, diplomats, academics, and international institutions have spoken in rote terms about a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. The problem is that such framing is intellectually dishonest and dangerously outdated.
There already is a state—Israel. It is not a hypothetical solution; it is a living reality. A sovereign nation with a vibrant democracy, a powerful military, a thriving economy, and a diverse citizenry, including over two million Arab citizens. Israel has fought for its survival, defended its borders, absorbed Jewish refugees from around the world, and became the most advanced and liberal society in the Middle East.
It is not a concept to be debated—it is a geopolitical fact.
Framing Israel as one part of a “two-state solution,” as if it were an idea or obstacle fundamentally misrepresents the situation. It inherently delegitimizes the struggle of millions of Israelis who sacrificed to build their nation since 1948 and casts their future into uncertainty.
We are not in 1947.
So let’s reframe the question. The only real debate is about the SAPs—the stateless Arab from Palestine. What is the just, secure, and realistic political future for them?
That opens multiple options—not a binary choice between creating “Palestine” or “occupation,” but a nuanced discussion based on facts on the ground and historical behavior. It reorients the discussion to the SAPs who seek an answer and thereby considers THEIR statements, sentiments, and actions rather than placing the scrutiny and opprobrium on Israel, which inherently strips SAPs of agency and responsibility.
Should the SAPs get a full sovereign state even after the dominant political party engaged in genocidal acts? Can SAPs be trusted with statehood and a military while state media glorifies terrorism and denies both Jewish history and Israel’s right to exist, and tramples on human rights?
Now, under the misguided focus on Israel as part of the “two-state solution,” the United Nations Human Rights Council has a standing item (Agenda 7) focused only on Israel. Similarly, UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which only reviews the actions of Israel. Nowhere does the UN focus on the actions and statements of SAPs and their leadership to consider the best course for their future. It’s a fatal flaw, one of many self-inflicted tragedies that the UN has instilled into the region.
The UN fails to comment and address:
The Palestinian Authority (PA) priority on paying salaries to the families of terrorists.
The barbaric attack of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on October 7, 2023, and overwhelming support it had amongst SAPs.
A PA media and school system that promotes antisemitism and incites hatred.
A society with various armed groups which refuse to disarm that are more popular than the PA.
Instead, the UN focuses on misdirection towards Israel and masquerades the reality of SAPs. It gives the PA seats at UN panels and committees even though it has no power, support or authority, parading a fake caricature of the situation. This does nothing to help SAPs address the failure of its society nor hold it accountable for its actions.
For the UN, the answer to the question of SAPs is the creation of a new state for local Arabs which should be Jew-free. Remarkably, the global body cannot ponder that such goal is deeply antisemitic. Equally as pathetic, the failure to consider any other solution to statehood grants SAPs a free hand to commit any sort of atrocity.
The Question of SAPs must not have a forgone conclusion. That approach has failed for years at the price of thousands of lives.
Maybe SAPs can have a state-minus—something akin to post-WWII Japan: self-governance, civil services, education, cultural autonomy—but demilitarized, with security handled by an external guarantor to prevent further war and terror.
Or perhaps certain areas of the West Bank could be confederated with Jordan, whose population is majority SAPs already. Maybe Jordan itself should be divided whereby a section would be part of a Palestinian State together with parts of the West Bank.
The area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) might remain under Israeli sovereignty with SAPs having semi-autonomous status—akin to Native American reservations in the U.S., which have self-rule in many areas but rely on the larger state for defense, currency, and diplomacy. Or the areas get annexed and the residents get Israeli citizenship.
These are serious, legitimate proposals worthy of debate.
Buildings on both sides of Security barrier in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)
But let’s be clear: any outcome is about solving the question of what to do with the SAPs. It is not about creating two states. Israel is already there.
The time has come to retire the “two-state solution” slogan. Not because peace is impossible—but because clarity and focus are essential.
For years, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spared no insult for U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration. He called Trump’s peace plan the “slap of the century.” He labeled U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman a “son of a dog.” Abbas publicly refused to meet with any Trump envoy after the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, cutting off nearly all formal ties with Washington. He refused to stop paying salaries to the families of terrorists despite Trump’s demand that he do so.
PA President Abbas issues prayer that President Trump’s “house be destroyed” in 2018
But now, in a stunning reversal, Abbas is praising Trump following America’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, hoping to reengage with the man he once vilified. The about-face reveals not only Abbas’s desperation but also a familiar tactic in Middle Eastern politics: appealing to the ego of strongmen to gain leverage in diplomacy.
Just two weeks ago, Abbas condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, in a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Abbas had never done so before. He is seemingly attempting to distance himself from the dominant Palestinian political party which is struggling to stay alive.
Somehow, Abbas wants to bury reality and history. Just one year before the October 7, 2023 massacre, Palestinian factions agreed to a reconciliation in Algiers, Tunisia. Hamas, Fatah (Abbas’s political party), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and eleven other movements signed an agreement to “get rid of this [political] split and cancer that has entered the Palestinian body.” This move was an attempt to unify the Palestinian people under new elections with a single unified government representing all groups. The United Nations celebrated the integration of Hamas and PFLP – which the U.S. designates as terrorist groups – into a unity government.
A total of 14 Palestinian factions signed reconciliation agreement in Algiers to end their 15-year-long division. (photo: Xinhua)
But Abbas now recognizes the endgame of the current battle: Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas have failed in their attempt to destroy the Jewish State. Abbas would have welcomed such outcome, so stayed quiet for over 600 days. Now, while his decimated fellow Muslims sort through the rubble, Abbas is attempting to distance himself from the losing side, of which he was a silently cheering member.
Appealing to Trump’s Vanity
As he throws Hamas under the bus, the nearly-90 year old unpopular Abbas is looking for a lifeboat. Imagine his dismay to realize that even after Hamas led Gaza to a war of destruction, Palestinian polls still show Hamas to be more popular than his Fatah party, and over 80% of Palestinians want Abbas to resign.
In Abbas’s worldview, perhaps aligning himself with a winner will salvage some dignity and allow a few more years of relevancy. Despite spitting on Trump’s Abraham Accords and vilifying Trump & Co., Abbas is replacing his vitriol with flattery.
This is not just a change in tone; it’s a strategic pivot. Abbas’s flattery is designed to appeal directly to Trump’s vanity. Trump craves recognition and praise, particularly when it comes from those who previously doubted him. Abbas is betting that Trump, flattered by the turnabout, might seek to craft a renewed deal between Israel and the Palestinians, this one closer to the Arab Initiative crafted by Saudi Arabia in 2002, rather than Trump’s “deal of the century.”
The logic is simple: Trump, the dealmaker, might relish the chance to win the Nobel Peace Prize by securing an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement, alongside a broad opening of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia and other nations whom would likely follow.
There is little indication that Abbas has changed his position on any of the core issues — recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the so-called “right of return” principal among them. His newfound praise for Trump is not based on ideological alignment or shared values but on the simple belief that stroking Trump’s ego might yield results.
Israel’s View
From Israel’s perspective, Abbas’s pivot will likely be met with skepticism. Israeli officials have long regarded the Palestinian Authority as duplicitous — speaking the language of peace in English while praising and funding terrorists in Arabic. Abbas’s credibility is further diminished by years of internal repression, a stagnant economy, and a populace which despises him.
Still, Israeli leaders will watch closely. If Trump signals willingness to broker another deal — one perhaps based on regional normalization and security guarantees rather than the moribund Oslo framework — Abbas’s outreach could become a diplomatic variable worth tracking.
Conclusion: Desperation Dressed as Diplomacy
Mahmoud Abbas’s pivot from name-calling to praise is more than political theater. It’s a sign of deep weakness — a recognition that time, allies, and leverage are all slipping away. By appealing to Trump’s vanity, Abbas is hoping for a personal reprieve and a political lifeline.
But Trump will likely recall the years of insults and rejection. Whether he’s willing to forgive and forget — and whether Abbas is willing to concede more than just compliments — remains to be seen.
What is clear is that Abbas, who once derided Trump as a destroyer of peace, now sees him as his best hope to remain relevant.
On June 18, 2025, Columbia University announced that it had produced its third report on antisemitism. One would imagine that it would give people hope that the administration was seriously tackling Jew hatred on campus.
Alas.
The “Task Force On Antisemitism” did not focus on Jew hatred at Columbia; it did a poll of ALL students about how they felt about the anti-Israel encampments on campus during the 2023-2024 school year. The “antisemitism” task force wanted to understand everyone’s feelings. It was as though the Black Lives Matter movement put out a research paper that ALL Lives Matter. Not incorrect, just deaf, dumb and blind to the mission.
The report was called “Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report,” and polled 9,000 undergraduate and graduate students at the university in the summer of 2024. The responses were broken down between Jewish, Muslim, Christian, None and Other religious groups.
Jews fared the worst on each question.
Whether the question was about “a sense of belonging at Columbia” where only 34% of Jewish students felt welcome (compared to 41%, 54%, 51% and 49% for each of the other religious categories), or don’t feel accepted because of one’s religion where 62% of Jews felt unwelcome (compared to 53%, 13%, 3% and 11%), Jews were outliers, with Muslims trailing.
Jews were the most likely to have felt discrimination (53% versus 43%, 6%, 1% and 7%) and were uncomfortable sharing their beliefs (87% versus 82%, 64%, 58% and 58%). The fact that the majority of Columbia students were uncomfortable expressing their beliefs – including atheists – is a damning finding about university culture, beyond antisemitism.
Jews lost the most friends because of the encampments and campus environment (29% versus 16%, 7%, 6% and 9%) and had strained relationships (53% versus 30%, 27%, 22% and 20%). That is a sad state that extends to the personal student level, passed the administration and faculty.
And while Jews felt the most stress over the period, they are learning the least. The campus protest barely taught them anything about the regional dynamic. But Christian and other faiths learned a lot – of pro-Palestinian narrative.
How does one know that students have only been absorbing a pro-Palestinian narrative from a year of encampments? While half of the student body participated or supported the protests, virtually none supported Israel. The pro-Israel protests were almost exclusively Jewish. While 21% of Jews sided with the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs), a mere 1% of Christians, atheists and other faiths supported Israel. No Muslims supported the Jewish State.
Israel is a pariah at Columbia University. It is only supported by a number of Jews.
How can an institution that claims to champion an open exchange of ideas have a majority of students afraid to express their beliefs? How is it that only Jews support Israel on campus?
It is obvious why nearly two-thirds of Jews at Columbia feel unwelcome on campus. It is unclear why any Jew continues to attend.
Banner hung at Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall supporting “intifada,” violence against Jewish civilians
For centuries, antisemitic violence has been a grotesque feature of Jewish history—pogroms in Tsarist Russia, inquisitions in Catholic Europe, and, ultimately, the Holocaust engineered by Nazi Germany. These atrocities were largely confined to the Global North, where much of world Jewry lived and where the modern tools of mass murder were industrialized.
Global North in blue, Global South in red
But on October 7, 2023, the locus of mass antisemitic violence shifted decisively. The massacre orchestrated by Hamas, the ruling authority of Gaza, against Israeli civilians was not merely another terror attack—it was the first state-sponsored pogrom to originate from the Global South on the Global North in centuries. It marked a turning point in the nature of antisemitic violence: no longer the work of loosely organized mobs in the South or repressive imperial regimes of the North, but the deliberate, systematic assault by a democratically-elected government in the Muslim world, targeting Jews as Jews, and Jews and “colonizers.”
A Historic Shift
Historically, Jews living under Muslim rule experienced discrimination and periodic violence, but the scale of the bloodshed never approached that of Christian Europe. Pogroms in places like Fez (1912), Constantine (1934) and Baghdad (1941), were undeniably horrific, but they typically resulted in the deaths of dozens, not thousands. In most cases, these events were local eruptions of violence, not centrally planned exterminations.
That changed dramatically in the 1950s. The rise of Arab nationalism, fused with pan-Islamic identity and antisemitic European ideologies, led to the near-total ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Muslim world. From Iraq to Egypt, from Yemen to Libya, ancient Jewish communities were uprooted. Between the late 1940s and 1970s, over 850,000 Jews were forced to flee Muslim-majority countries. They resettled primarily in Israel, France, and North America. But while the Jews left, the hatred remained. For Jews, and for Western “imperialism.”
Hamas and the Theology of Erasure
Hamas is not just a terrorist organization; it is the elected governing body of Gaza, a polity not recognized by much of the Global North but very much embraced within the Global South. Its 1988 charter is steeped in genocidal antisemitism. It doesn’t distinguish between Israeli combatants and civilians. It doesn’t merely call for “resistance” against Israeli policy—it calls for the annihilation of Jews in the land, whom it labels foreign interlopers and infidels contaminating Muslim soil.
On October 7, 2023, this ideology became mass action. Roughly 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered—women, children, the elderly—tortured, raped, and mutilated in their homes and at a music festival, and 250 people were taken captive. The violence wasn’t spontaneous. It was premeditated, coordinated, and state-executed. It echoed the darkest moments of European Jewish history, but this time the origin was a Muslim-ruled territory in the developing world.
Hamas had launched many wars against Israel since it took over Gaza in 2007, most notably in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. But it never did a mass coordinated invasion of Israel. It never took hundreds of hostages. It never counted on regional allies of Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran to join the jihad.
While Muslims are a minority in the Global North, they are the plurality on the Global South
A Government Pogrom
What separates October 7 from prior attacks is its nature: it was not a riot nor mob action. It was not a fringe group operating in defiance of authorities. It was the government. Hamas planned the massacre for years. It diverted foreign aid and resources meant for schools and hospitals to build tunnels, train fighters, and manufacture weapons. And then it unleashed them— on civilians.
The western world has been slow to reckon with this fact. The idea of a pogrom—an antisemitic mass killing—carried out by a government of the Global South against the Global North challenges dominant narratives in international politics, which often frame power dynamics as North exploiting South, not the other way around. But facts do not bend to ideology.
The Silence and the Hypocrisy
Western voices that once said “Never Again” have hesitated to name October 7 for what it was. Some have even rationalized it as “resistance,” blurring the line between anti-Zionism and rank Jew hatred. But no cause justifies the butchery of innocents. No political grievance legitimizes the burning of children or the beheading of elderly Holocaust survivors.
October 7 was a pogrom. Not the first in Jewish history, but the first of its kind, launched from the Global South by a sitting government, acting with genocidal intent against a Jewish population it deems foreign and expendable.
It will not be the last. Members of the Global South have been moving to the Global North post de-colonization. The numbers have ramped considerably over the past decade, as the poorly named “Arab Spring” and civil wars launched tens of thousands of people from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) into Europe and North America.
The First Pogrom from the Global South was greeted in western city streets with chants to “Globalize the Intifada,” because this war of annihilation is infused with radical Islamism and nationalism. The first battle is against the perceived island of the Global North inside the Muslim Global South: Israel. Europe and the United States are to follow.
Antisemitism is not bound by geography or ideology; it infects the right and left around the world. But the Muslim Crusade of colonizing the Global North is very much a function of region and philosophy. It is coming for a broad redistribution of power and wealth from North to South, and indoctrination of Islamic principles from South to North. It will achieve its aims through force of arms and diplomatic cover of an altered United Nations.
“the Jewish people suffering the worst and most murderous pogrom since the Holocaust.
Thinking of October 7 in terms of the worst slaughter of Jews since the European Holocaust blinds people to the tectonic earthquake that is taking place. History is not simply repeating itself in killing Jews. A new chapter of crusades is upon us in which Jews are the first victims but will not be the last.
First One Through 