Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Natural Retreats

Healing Trauma through Nature and Wildlife Encounters

Healing Trauma through Nature and Wildlife Encounters.

(courtesy)

During my ongoing emissary mission with Bedein—Agents of Hope, I embarked on a journey with my family to explore the breathtaking wilderness of Alaska and the bordering Yukon Canadian province. Immersed in these stunning natural landscapes, I researched and documented several extreme nature resorts, focusing on their unique environments and opportunities for encounters with wildlife. Through our experiences, I witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of these settings on individuals grappling with trauma.

Our family’s explorations illuminated the profound healing potential of nature. Each retreat we visited provided not only a picturesque backdrop but also an environment conducive to emotional processing and restoration. The immediate surroundings, rich with wildlife and natural beauty, became a powerful tool for fostering connection, introspection, and recovery.

The insights gained from these explorations underscore the necessity of creating accessible retreats for Israeli and Jewish families grappling with the year-long conflict, intensified by the October 7th atrocities and the significant rise in antisemitism. These challenges have compounded societal trauma, highlighting the urgent need for spaces where individuals can recuperate. With this understanding, I aim to leverage my years of expertise in innovative tourism development to serve as a curator of healing nature retreats and resilience experiences, witnessing participants reconnect with nature—and, in turn, themselves.

As trauma and mental health challenges continue to grow worldwide, there is a marked shift in how we approach healing. Today, an increasing number of practitioners and trauma survivors are recognizing the profound impact of nature-based retreats and wildlife encounters in the healing process. Beyond conventional therapy, these experiences offer restorative environments that can calm the mind, relieve stress, and foster resilience—benefits uniquely derived from immersing oneself in the natural world.

(courtesy)

Nature’s Role in Trauma Recovery

Research increasingly supports the benefits of “ecotherapy” or “nature therapy” in treating symptoms of trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. A pivotal study by Bratman et al. (2015) at Stanford University revealed that individuals who spend 90 minutes in a natural setting experience reduced neural activity in areas of the brain associated with mental illness. This significant reduction in rumination and stress response highlights how time spent in nature can directly influence mental clarity and calm.

The therapeutic benefits of natural environments are rooted in the concept of “biophilia,” the human tendency to seek connections with nature. Pioneering psychologist Erich Fromm described biophilia as essential to mental health, suggesting that our bond with nature provides us with a crucial sense of grounding. For individuals dealing with trauma, immersion in nature offers a break from the sensory overload of urban environments, creating space for introspection, emotional processing, and restoration.

(courtesy)

Benefits of Wildlife Encounters

While exposure to natural landscapes alone is beneficial, encounters with wildlife bring an added dimension to the healing process. Research in animal-assisted therapy has shown that interactions with animals can lower blood pressure, reduce cortisol levels, and improve overall mood, especially in trauma survivors. The American Psychological Association (APA) notes that such encounters enhance mindfulness, empathy, and presence—all essential elements for trauma recovery.

Wildlife encounters, particularly with large mammals like deer, wolves, or birds of prey, allow trauma survivors to engage in non-verbal connection and experience feelings of awe and mutual respect. A study published in the journal Animals found that observing wildlife helps combat feelings of isolation and disconnection, common in trauma survivors. This nonjudgmental engagement fosters trust, lowers hypervigilance, and aids emotional regulation, all of which contribute to trauma healing.

(courtesy)

Case Studies: Wilderness Retreats and Trauma Recovery

Across the globe, programs and retreats are leveraging nature’s therapeutic power to assist trauma survivors on their journey to recovery. Programs such as Project Healing Waters in Alaska, designed for trauma survivors like veterans and first responders, immerse participants in nature through activities like hiking, fishing, and guided wildlife observation. These retreats have been shown to improve mental clarity, reduce anxiety, and offer a renewed sense of purpose, highlighting the effectiveness of structured nature experiences for trauma recovery.

In another instance, the Scottish Wildlife Trust has incorporated nature-based programs for mental health. These retreats use Scotland’s scenic landscapes and wildlife as the focal point, helping participants release stress, process emotions, and reconnect with the present moment. Participants often report a marked reduction in stress levels, as well as improved resilience and clarity, underscoring the long-term benefits of ecotherapy.

Ecotherapy as a Vital Tool in Trauma Treatment

Given the significant rise in mental health needs worldwide, nature-based healing is quickly becoming an essential complement to traditional therapeutic models. For those impacted by trauma, traditional settings can sometimes feel restrictive, while natural environments offer a sanctuary that promotes healing. Many schools, workplaces, and community centers are now incorporating ecotherapy concepts into their programming, with green spaces and outdoor activities becoming more prevalent as a method for supporting emotional well-being.

Studies support the notion that nature exposure is not simply beneficial but necessary. Dr. MaryCarol Hunter, an ecotherapy expert at the University of Michigan, points out that even short, regular time in natural settings can reduce symptoms of mental distress and foster an increased sense of peace. According to Dr. Hunter, “Nature is not a luxury; it’s a necessity,” underscoring the essential role of nature in supporting overall mental health resilience.

(courtesy)

Looking Ahead: Mainstreaming Nature-Based Healing Approaches

While nature-based healing shows great promise, continued research and program development are necessary to fully integrate ecotherapy into mainstream trauma treatment. The potential for wildlife-based retreats and wilderness therapy lies not only in the therapeutic impact on trauma survivors but also in fostering a collective reconnection with the natural world.

Healing trauma through nature and wildlife encounters offers a unique approach to emotional recovery. For trauma survivors seeking peace and resilience, the natural world provides a path to reconnect with oneself, rebuild trust, and regain balance. As ecotherapy continues to expand, mental health professionals and community organizations are poised to support a new era of trauma recovery—one where nature serves as a restorative force, offering solace, strength, and, ultimately, healing.

Noam Bedein
Curator of Nature-Based Healing Resorts & Resilience Experiences
Crafting transformative, nature-inspired retreats that foster healing, resilience, and personal renewal.

Sources

  • Bratman, G. N., et al. (2015). “Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(28), 8567-8572.
  • American Psychological Association. “The benefits of animals for mental health.” APA, 2020.
  • Fromm, E. (1973). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  • Hunter, M. C., et al. (2019). “The role of nature in enhancing mental health.” Nature & Health, University of Michigan.
  • Project Healing Waters. “Restorative wilderness retreats for veterans and first responders.”

Nature can heal the trauma of war in a post-October 7 Israel

GLACIER VIEW resort in Alaska, nestled amid vibrant autumn forests and near the enchanting Matanuska Glacier, offers a serene escape for families. It seamlessly blends adventure and tranquility in a breathtaking natural setting, says the writer. (photo credit: Courtesy Noam Bedein)

In the wake of profound societal trauma, particularly among Israeli and Jewish families affected by the ongoing war, I find myself reflecting on a transformative journey my family and I undertook.

As part of our emissary mission with Bedein – Agents of Hope, we explored the breathtaking wilderness of Alaska and the neighboring Canadian Yukon province.

Immersed in nature’s stunning landscapes, I documented several extreme nature resorts and witnessed firsthand the healing potential that these environments offer.

Our experiences in these serene settings opened my eyes to nature’s remarkable ability to foster emotional processing and restoration.

Each retreat served as more than just a picturesque backdrop; it became a sanctuary for connection and introspection.

The breathtaking wildlife and natural beauty around us were not merely aesthetic; they were instrumental in facilitating a powerful therapeutic process.

This journey underscored an urgent truth: we must create accessible retreats for those grappling with trauma, especially in light of the rising antisemitism and recent atrocities that have compounded societal wounds.

The mental health community desperately needs spaces for rehabilitation where individuals and families can reconnect with themselves and the world around them.

As trauma and mental health challenges continue to escalate globally, we are witnessing a significant shift in healing paradigms.

The profound impact of nature on healing 

Increasingly, practitioners and trauma survivors are recognizing the profound impact of nature-based retreats and wildlife encounters.

These experiences transcend conventional therapy, offering restorative environments that can calm the mind, relieve stress, and cultivate resilience – benefits that can be found only in the embrace of the natural world.

The concept of “ecotherapy” or “nature therapy” is gaining traction as research reveals its effectiveness in treating symptoms of trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression.

A pivotal study by Bratman et al. (2015) found that spending just 90 minutes in a natural setting reduces neural activity in areas of the brain associated with mental illness.

Such findings illustrate how immersion in nature can directly enhance mental clarity and emotional well-being.

Equally important are the benefits of wildlife encounters.

Research in animal-assisted therapy shows that interactions with animals can lower blood pressure, reduce cortisol levels, and improve mood – crucial for those affected by trauma. Engaging with wildlife fosters trust, lowers hypervigilance, and aids emotional regulation, creating a healing atmosphere that nurtures recovery.

Around the world, programs like Project Healing Waters in Alaska are already harnessing nature’s therapeutic power.

These initiatives immerse trauma survivors – like veterans and first responders – in activities such as hiking, fishing, and wildlife observation, demonstrating the effectiveness of structured nature experiences for recovery.

However, the promise of nature-based healing must be further integrated into mainstream trauma treatment.

While traditional therapeutic settings can feel restrictive, natural environments offer a liberating sanctuary.

Schools, workplaces, and community centers must embrace ecotherapy concepts, transforming green spaces into vital hubs for emotional support.

As Dr. MaryCarol Hunter, an ecotherapy expert at the University of Michigan, emphasizes, “Nature is not a luxury; it’s a necessity.”

This perspective must shape our approach to mental health, recognizing that access to nature is crucial for fostering resilience and healing.

In light of these insights, I urge mental health professionals, community organizations, and policymakers to prioritize the development of nature-based retreats.

By creating accessible spaces for emotional recovery, we can provide a path for trauma survivors to reconnect with themselves and rebuild their lives.

The journey toward healing can begin with a simple step into the natural world.

Together, we can support a new era of trauma recovery – one where nature serves as a restorative force, offering solace, strength, and, ultimately, healing.

The writer is on a family emissary mission across North and Central America and is the curator of Healing Nature Retreats and Resilience Experiences.

The Peace Process Failed, but Its Bad Assumptions Live On

Shany Mor’s essay identifies four “concepts” that he believes blinded us to the approaching disaster of October 7. The first is what he sees as Benjamin Netanyahu’s tendency to inertia, the second is the political project of religious settlers, the third is the lingering effect of the “peace process,” and the last the warped structure of political sovereignty in Gaza by which outside powers take financial responsibility for the well-being of the population, freeing the actual rulers to concentrate on terrorism.

Of the four, the third, which points to the faulty logic of the so called “peace process,” is, I think, most convincing—which is why the second, blaming religious settlers, is the least so. Many Israelis feel October 7 vindicated the settlers: had we not evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005 none of this would have ever come about. That’s a hard point to dispute.

That said, Mor’s insight into the lingering effects of the defunct peace process is profound. Not the process itself, but the frame of mind that animated it, continues to inform Israeli, American, and European actions—political, administrative, and military—in unexpected ways; it even informs the actions of the peace process’s opponents.

This is because the peace process isn’t an opinion on a single issue, but a conceptual framework rooted in a particular worldview. Perhaps this worldview can best be understood if we look at the misconceptions it created as a kind of Russian matryoshka doll, in which each doll is contained in a larger one; that is, each idea is imbedded in, and informed by, a more general idea at a higher level of abstraction.

With this in mind, we can classify the misconceptions that led to the disaster from the inside out: the technological-defensive strategy at the military level; the two-state paradigm behind the Oslo process and the Gaza disengagement at the political level; the ideological view of international relations as interplay between independent nation-states pursuing rational self-interest; and finally, a distinctly Western philosophical conception of human nature, which underpins the others.

Israel’s right-wing coalition, in power for many years now, is actually more immune than the opposition to most of these conceptions. Nonetheless, the conceptions were powerful enough to have a decisive effect—less because Netanyahu and his government shared this or that fragment of any particular conception, and more because the conceptual framework was so pervasive, on all levels, that it imposed external constraints on the government which were powerful enough to prevent radical policy departures.

Above all there was never a time when the Netanyahu government could have initiated a full-scale war in Gaza, which even now enjoys too little international legitimacy, and no little domestic criticism. Still, because October 7 happened on Netanyahu’s long watch, he bears a share of the responsibility, despite having spent most of his career trying to fight many of these misconceptions. I shall return to his role at the conclusion of this essay.

But first a word of caution is in order. Reality is frustratingly messy. Not all failed conceptions die from the force of one blow. More often they crumble slowly, losing their hold on some people first and then on others. October 7 swept away an already dilapidated edifice of beliefs. And when there isn’t just one erroneous conception but numerous, concentric errors, they don’t all vanish at once, or in any predictable order.

Even if October 7 has doomed this body of ideas to political irrelevance, it can still run about headless—or even run for office. Remember: it took four years after the end of the Yom Kippur War for the political sea-change of 1977, when Menachem Begin’s Likud won power for the first time. Likewise, the political results of October 7 may still remain far off, and we can only conjecture what they will be.

With that in mind let’s look at the concepts.

I. Defensive Posture

At the lowest tactical level, the smallest, innermost doll, Israel assumed a defensive, rather than offensive military posture reliant on technological superiority.

Like the rest of the West, Israel believed that its technological advantage was a sufficient deterrent. A “small, smart army,” as the now-infamous phrase had it, would therefore suffice, because, the logic went, technology had made large ground wars obsolete. In the last two decades Israel repeatedly cut the size of its armored divisions and other ground forces. It relied instead on a large and robust air force, special operations, sophisticated rocket and projectile interceptors, cyber intelligence, and a technologically sophisticated border fence.

Taken together, these do not constitute an effective force in a full-scale multi-front ground war. Relying on them exclusively was a reckless gamble. And having taken that gamble, Israel fell into complacency behind the slurry wall on the Gaza border, under an iron dome.

This strategy was mistaken on almost every level. First, our enemies were not deterred by our superior technology. They adapted to it and used low tech to subvert it: Yahya Sinwar knew Israel could penetrate cell phones, so he communicated with handwritten notes. He knew Israel was over-reliant on border-fence censors and found a way to blind them using cheap commercial drones. He knew that the border wall was almost impossible to dig under, so he used bulldozers to breach the fence above it, and paragliders to fly over the fence. He did not have tanks, but a fast Toyota pickup truck can carry RPGs. As Michael Doran and Can Kasapoglu have explained, Israel was ready for Star Wars, and Hamas gave it Mad Max: a hybrid low-tech battlefield for which it was ill prepared.

Hamas and its Iranian mentors also understood the fatal flaw of purely defensive strategies: defenders inevitably fall into routines. The attackers will study these routines and use the advantages of initiative and surprise against them.

Above all, defense cannot win wars. We assumed, however, that we could simply avoid them. Under the shadow of a protective technological umbrella, we progressively lost sight of the very idea of military victory.

II. The “Two-State Solution”

The high-tech Gaza border wall is the physical manifestation of the policy of unilateral partition. But that was not Israel’s first choice. Partition was once contained in a larger conception: a peace agreement that would offer a territorial solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. According to this paradigm, negotiations would establish an agreed-upon border between two nation-states, tired of wars and determined to move toward cooperative coexistence.

But peace was not forthcoming, as most Israelis came to understand in 2000, when then-prime minister Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat all the Israeli public could stomach and then some, only to be turned down and rewarded with the second intifada. So Israelis chose unilateralism and imposed in Gaza the partition they had hoped to negotiate at Camp David 2000. Independence, or something close to it, was thus forced on Gaza.

In this way the basic logic of the Oslo process survived its collapse and informed the disengagement from Gaza. The seduction of unilateral partition is obvious: like a peace accord, it combined self-interest with moral duty. If implemented in both Gaza and the West Bank, as originally planned, it would solve Israel’s demographic problems and ensure a Jewish majority in Israel proper, release Israel from administering a large Palestinian population, and relieve it of the moral burden of military rule over a civilian, non-citizen population. In other words, it would do much of what peace could have done, without the Palestinians able to veto it.

But unilateral partition was never a goal in itself. It was a stop-gap measure on the way to eventual peace. It was a trial-run for Palestinian statehood, based on the hope that the Palestinians would come around and realize, after tasting political independence and economic opportunities, the folly of endless war.

The trial failed almost immediately. Rockets kept raining on Israel’s southern towns after disengagement; Hamas won the election in 2006 and then, in 2007, violently eliminated the PLO in the Strip. It established a terror quasi-state, which Mor rightly describes as a constitutional anomaly where Hamas devotes its resources to building terror infrastructure, making the population’s day-to-day needs someone else’s problem. A regular, unending influx of international aid would render economic development unnecessary.

Much is now made of the money from Qatar that Israel allowed to flow into Gaza in the form of suitcases of cash. Supposedly this was Netanyahu’s great mistake that enabled Hamas to grow into the monster that it had become in 2023. In reality the money from Qatar was just a drop in a sea of financial aid offered by the international community in many guises, not least through the terror-supporting UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

The truth is that after disengagement Israel had little room to maneuver. Since public opinion within Israel and outside it offered not a shred of legitimacy for a full-scale invasion of Gaza to topple Hamas, nor for a full-scale siege, Israel could only do its best to treat civilian administration separately from military challenges. This made for an unstable, uneasy dynamic: aid flowed in because Israeli intelligence believed a higher standard of living would help pacify the Strip, while rockets were periodically answered with a round of limited military action, mostly from the air. These were the carrots and the sticks by which the conflict was managed.

The entire intelligence brass believed the strategy was working. If one were to pinpoint a single glaring misconception, a Yom Kippur War-magnitude intelligence failure, this was it: the belief that we had a reliable understanding of Hamas’s incentives, and that we were manipulating them successfully. So convinced was the leadership of the military and other security services in its analysis that even when the signs of an imminent attack were multiplying on the fateful night between October 6 and 7, it never thought it necessary to wake up the minister of defense or the prime minister.

In a most glaring example of this groupthink, only two months before the October 7 massacre, reserve Major General Tamir Hayman, the former head of IDF intelligence and current director-general of the prestigious Institute for National Security Studies think-tank, said publicly that we are not on the eve of a war. One does not need to survey the intelligence to know this, he argued; it is enough to understand the interests involved. That is as pure a case as one can imagine of the danger preconceptions pose to intelligence work: they rule out consideration of new data. The IDF had the October 7 Hamas plan in its hands. There was a power-point presentation about it, prepared by lower-level officers, titled the Wall of Jericho. Their superiors dismissed it as fanciful.

III. Peace Among Sovereign Nation-States

Unilateral partition was born out of the collapse of the Oslo Accords. But both were anchored in the same misconception of the Palestinian national movement. We imagined it in the image of ours. We assumed that national self-determination was its goal and that Palestinians would seize the opportunity to assume political independence so they could build their political and economic future.

But nation-building was never on their agenda. We would have understood this if we had studied their political culture seriously, instead of assuming they share ours. The nation-state is not a stable political structure in the Arab world, and national identities such as “Syrian” or “Jordanian” are weak. The Arab Spring and the internecine conflicts it unleashed made this abundantly clear.

In retrospect it was folly to imagine that of all Arab peoples, the Palestinians would prove the exception that would produce a stable nation-state. That was never the goal of Palestinian leaders and political factions from the mufti of Jerusalem onwards. As Mor himself has put it, “the principal grievance of the Palestinian cause . . . is not the absence of a desired nation-state but the existence of another one.” And every decision made in the service of that cause, from the rejection of partition in 1947 to the insistence on an unprecedented “right of return,” supports that fact. The so called “right of return” which is at the center of the Palestinian national ethos, is just a euphemism for the demographic destruction of the Jewish state.

IV. Homo Economicus

But misunderstanding runs deeper. It is not only that we imagined the Palestinian national movement in the image of ours. We also projected our own misconceptions of human nature onto the Palestinians. We misunderstood them, in other words, in the same way that we misunderstand ourselves.

Contemporary Western elites mostly assume as a matter of course that we all want, above all, a decent job, food on the table, and a safe environment to raise our children. But when we conceive of all life in these materialistic terms, we lose the ability to imagine the human capacity for the sublime and the evil alike. And, encouraged by fuzzy-headed liberal and socialist assumptions from America, Europe, and the global NGO industry, Israelis failed to believe in their neighbors’ sinister intentions.

When, one after the other, IDF intelligence chiefs reassured us that the Palestinians are deterred because it was not in their interest to risk the economic gains we helped them achieve, it is because they project our ideas of human motivation onto them. So self-evident do their presuppositions seem that they become invisible to those who hold them.

These presuppositions serve as filters by which any contradictory information is labeled as pessimism, fear-mongering, fantasy, absurdity, or deception—and so never enters intelligence calculations. The same projections and misunderstandings predominate departments of Middle East studies throughout the West.

It was on the basis of these Western conceptions of human nature that we assumed our technology would be intimidating enough; it was this view that informed our belief that, once freed from Israeli occupation, Gazans would naturally devote their efforts to nation-building and economic betterment; it is on the basis of this outlook that we also convinced ourselves that they’ll see that perpetual peace was better than perpetual war.

And this is why we did not take seriously their theology of hate, their deep-seated racism, and the depth of their barbaric sadism.

We did not take ourselvesseriously either, and so we did not understand the forces within ourselves that were now awakened.

In his masterful essay “Churchill in 1940,” Isaiah Berlin wrote that Winston Churchill did not create the fortitude that the British people displayed in their determination to fight the evil of Nazism. He only awakened something that was already in them, but that they themselves had forgotten. In a less poetic way, but with no less ferocity, Benjamin Netanyahu tapped a force within the hearts of Israeli Jews that most of us no longer remember we possessed. He did it simply and straightforwardly: he insisted on total victory from day one, and has never wavered since.

Unlike Churchill who commandeered the whole of British society, Netanyahu has had to manage the war despite opposition from much of the state and military bureaucracy, fickle coalition partners, a hostile press, and an elite that loathes him. That elite includes much of the top brass of the IDF and Shin Bet, who have more than once tried to undermine him. Instead of the unwavering support Britain received from the Roosevelt administration even before Pearl Harbor, the current U.S. government has repeatedly tried to bring about the end of Netanyahu’s term as well as an end to the war without Israeli victory. It is also undermining Israel’s long-term security with its strategy of appeasing Tehran. Notwithstanding all this, Netanyahu has persisted on the path to victory and now Israel seems close to achieving it, perhaps even to removing the Iranian nuclear threat. That’s a breathtaking feat of statesmanship by any standard—one that most of us, myself included, did not believe was possible at all.

All the same, October 7 did happen on Netanyahu’s watch. The question of his responsibility awaits inquiry when this war is over. What he did and did not do before that day will have to be weighed against what he did since.

But the truth is that Israelis care very little about that now, which is why the attempts to pin responsibility for the disaster on the prime minister have failed to gain traction. After a string of extraordinary operational successes in the conduct of the war, and after resisting external pressure to buckle in the face of Israel’s enemies, Netanyahu is steadily rising in the polls. That’s because a solid majority in Israel understands the existential danger we are in, and so does not dream of replacing the one man who has never wavered on “total victory.”

Philippe Lazzarini was officially notified four months ago in July that this Hamas Nukhba terrorist commander was on his UNRWA payroll—and he did nothing.

 

Understanding the indoctrination faced by Gaza residents under the rule of Hamas lead by Sinwar

Iran Debuts Blood-Splattered ‘No Hostage Will Be Released’ Mural in Tehran

The barbaric mural was Iran’s response to the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who masterminded the October 7 atrocities. Sinwar was killed by Israeli forces last week while attempting to flee into Egypt.

“The new mural is being unveiled while, following the martyrdom of Yahya Sinwar, the Zionist regime had claimed that the time for the release of Israeli prisoners held by Hamas was approaching,” reported the Fars news service, which is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated terrorist organization.

The Jerusalem Post contended that despite Iran’s savage boast that all of the hostages will be killed, at least one of the kidnapped civilians depicted in the mural has already been rescued: Noa Argamani, who was rescued along with three other hostages in June by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

On a more dismaying note, the Jerusalem Post quoted fears from both hostage families and counter-terrorism experts that Sinwar might have instructed his henchmen to execute all of the remaining hostages after his death.

Some still hold out hope that his elimination might make Hamas more willing to negotiate the release of its remaining prisoners. If the mural was intended as a “threat” to Israel, that threat would imply the hostages have not all been murdered yet.

Former Israeli hostage negotiator Gershon Baskin suggested Israel could bypass what remains of Hamas leadership to offer individual terrorists a deal: “Anyone who’s holding a hostage that releases them will be given free passage for themselves and their family out of Gaza to another country, as well as a lot of money.”

Iran established “Palestine Square” in Tehran specifically to put outrageous pro-Palestinian propaganda in a place where global media can see it. Shortly after Hamas raped, murdered, and kidnapped over 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, Iran hung a banner in Palestine Square that showed missiles racing towards buildings shaped like the Star of David. The banner bore the message, “The Beginning of the End of Zionism.”

Palestine Square is also where the Iranian regime organizes acts of public mourning for slain terrorists. There have been quite a few of those lately.

After Israel killed Hassan Nasrallah, longtime leader of the Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists of Lebanon, Iran held a public funeral for him in the square, filling it with angry mourners waving yellow Hezbollah flags and chanting “Death to Israel.”

Meanwhile, outside of the staged rally in Palestine Square, Iranian dissidents celebrated the death of Nasrallah by passing out candy and literally dancing in the streets.

Nordic countries express ‘deep concern’ over Knesset bill to halt UNRWA operations

The five Nordic countries say they are “deeply concerned by the recent introduction of draft legal bills in the Knesset that, if adopted, would prevent the UNRWA from continuing its operations in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”

In a joint letter signed by the region’s foreign ministers, they say that if the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees “would no longer be able to exercise its core tasks,” it could further destabilize the situation in the region, “and may fundamentally jeopardize the prospects for a two-state solution.”

In the letter, they “strongly urge Israel to ensure continued and unhindered humanitarian access” to Palestinian refugees for the UN body known as UNRWA.

Biden-Harris envoy accused of pressuring Israeli lawmakers to drop bill banning terror-linked UN agency

As the Israeli Knesset prepares to debate legislation aimed at severing ties with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), U.S. pressure on Israeli lawmakers is said to be mounting against the bill.

Fox News Digital has learned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leaders, including Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid and Avigdor Lieberman, have received requests from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jacob Lew to halt the proposed laws.

The current legislation seeks to end all relations between UNRWA and the Jewish state, including diplomatic visas granted to UNRWA workers and other services provided by the State of Israel.

“There is a difference between dialogue and pressure,” Yulia Malinovsky said about the alleged interference from the ambassador. Malinovsky is a Knesset member from the Yisrael Beiteinu party and one of the authors of the legislation.

She told Fox News Digital, “UNRWA is a terrorist organization, and Hamas is an integral part of it. Its existence perpetuates the conflict.”

She expressed commitment to ensuring the legislation moves forward, claiming, “Around half of UNRWA employees are affiliated with Hamas, and the first weapons found in UNRWA were back in 2014. They were involved in the October 7 Massacre. This agency is part of the problem perpetuating the status of refugees to benefit its workers.”

The Biden administration sent a letter to Israeli leaders last week demanding that Israel take steps within 30 days to improve the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza or risk the supply of U.S. weapons to Israel, according to a copy of the letter published by Axios. In the letter, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stressed that passing the law against UNRWA would be devastating for the humanitarian effort in the Gaza Strip at a critical time and would prevent education and welfare services for tens of thousands of Palestinians in Jerusalem.

They emphasized this could also constitute a violation of U.S. laws.

“As a matter of policy, we do not comment on private diplomatic conversations,” a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital regarding telephone calls said to have been made by the U.S. ambassador to Israeli politicians.

However, the spokesperson noted the involvement of UNRWA personnel on Oct. 7 was “reprehensible,” leading the U.S. to halt funding and “calling for those involved to be held accountable and for UNRWA reforms to address serious concerns about its facilities and personnel being involved in terrorist activities.

“At the same time,” they added, “UNRWA provides vital services in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Jordan — including humanitarian assistance, health benefits and sanitation. Pending legislation would make it impossible for UNRWA to operate and would leave a vacuum that Israel would then be responsible for filling. Adding to the humanitarian crisis that already exists would undermine stability and security for Israel and the region.”

Earlier this month at the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador to the world body Linda Thomas-Greenfield made clear the Biden Administration’s concerns over the pending legislation, telling council members that, “We are following with deep concern the Israeli legislative proposal that could alter UNRWA’s legal status, hindering its ability to communicate with Israeli officials, and removing privileges and immunities afforded to U.N. organizations and personnel around the globe.”

These concerns follow mounting criticism from various countries and the United Nations, which has blamed Israel for a dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where nearly 2 million people have been displaced since the war began.

Despite U.S. pressure, opposition leader Yair Lapid said in a statement to Fox News Digital, “UNRWA played an active role in the brutal massacre on October 7. From its institutions, terrorist attacks against Israel were launched, hostages were held, and young women were raped.”

Lapid has supported the closure of UNRWA since 2013, maintaining his position amid diplomatic pressure.

Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, also made his stance clear after the issue was brought up by the U.S. ambassador, telling Fox News Digital, “Messages were received, but I firmly refuse. This law is critical for Israel’s security, and it will be brought forward.”

He expressed full support for his party member’s initiative, reiterating that the law aims to disconnect Israel from an organization linked to terrorism.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office told Fox News Digital it was confirmed that “the proposed law has not been taken off the table and is being discussed in the Knesset.”

The Israeli Shin Bet, Israel’s security agency, stated in a discussion last week in the Knesset that “UNRWA is a threat to Israel’s national security.”

Jonathan Conricus, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a retired lieutenant colonel from the IDF, said, “As an Israeli, I fail to comprehend Israel’s policy or lack thereof towards the organization. Legislators and diplomats raise concerns about why they donate money to UNRWA, allow personnel to be sent and grant diplomatic protection. This Israeli legislation is the bare minimum required.

“Eventually, for a better reality in the Middle East, UNRWA needs to be dismantled in its entirety from Gaza and all other places of activity.”

The parents of Yonatan Samerano, whose son’s body is being held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists said in a statement, “In recent days, there has been pressure from the U.S. on members of the government to oppose the bill by Yulia Malinovsky, Dan Illouz and Yoav Bismuth to expel UNRWA from Israel.”

The world does not understand: UNRWA must be dismantled

View of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) building in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash90.

Once upon a time, the United Nations launched a refugee agency called UNKRA, distinct from UNRWA. While similar, UNKRA was established as the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency in October 1950, aiming to aid Korea’s recovery and address the needs of three million war-displaced refugees. In practice, UNKRA only started its operations in 1953, after the war ended, with a budget of under $200 million (less than $2 billion in today’s currency) and wrapped up its mission by 1958.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA was born a year earlier, under UN General Assembly Resolution 302 passed in December 1949. This resolution partially hinged on Resolution 194, which allegedly conferred a “right of return” to the refugees. It’s worth remembering that all Arab nations opposed both the partition resolution and Resolution 194, due to their resistance to a Jewish state and the return conditional upon recognizing such a state. This hasn’t stopped Palestinians from zealously backing Resolution 194 – focusing only on the aspects that suit them.

Regardless, UNRWA was supposed to rehabilitate the refugees and resolve the issue, according to repeated UN General Assembly resolutions. The majority of refugees, both those who fled and those expelled, ended up in regions where they shared the same language, culture, religion and often familial ties. Furthermore, most found themselves in the exact areas – the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—designated for the Arab state (which only years later became known as “Palestinian”), according to the UN partition plan.

Yet, none of the original UN resolutions materialized. Today, refugees have become a matter of lineage rather than immediate crisis. Arab states resisted any efforts to integrate these Arabs, who were their kin. The decision effectively became one of perpetuating their refugee status.
Here and there, attempts at rehabilitation did occur. In their insightful book “The War of Return,” Dr. Einat Wilf and Dr. Adi Schwartz recount the initiative by Musa Alami, a leading figure among Palestinian Arabs, who in the early 1950s established a prosperous farm near Jericho. This farm supported hundreds of families, housed a school and a center for orphaned children, and even secured international export agreements. However, the creation of a flourishing farm was viewed as a betrayal of the victimhood narrative. Following incitement, an Arab mob descended upon it, leaving destruction and ruin in their wake. The farm, in a much diminished form, still exists today.
UNRWA succumbed to Arab pressure. There was no rehabilitation, resettlement or economic initiatives, and no exit from the refugee camps. Quite the opposite, in fact. Journalist David Bedein has conducted numerous investigations revealing how UNRWA’s educational institutions have become breeding grounds for indoctrinating hatred against Israel, by nurturing illusions about the “right of return.” Tens of millions became refugees in the last century. They did not receive a “right of return.” Jews, too, endured a harsh Nakba in Europe, and another in Arab countries. They were expelled, their properties confiscated. But they lacked an agency of their own to foster hatred and support destruction and terrorism. The Palestinians, however, have had just that.
No one needed to wait until October 7 to realize that under UNRWA’s auspices a monster of terror support had been established. A series of testimonies have been gathered regarding UNRWA employees’ involvement both in the massacre on October 7 and in Hamas terrorist activities, as well as Hamas’ use of UNRWA facilities. In September, Israel neutralized Fathi Al-Sharif, a man who served as the coordinator between Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet his salary was paid by UNRWA, where he was magnanimously called principal of an UNRWA school and president of the UNRWA Teachers Union in Lebanon. An exemplary educator indeed.
This backdrop sets the stage for two legislative proposals by Knesset members Boaz Bismuth and Yulia Malinovsky, aimed at severing Israel’s ties with UNRWA and revoking the agency’s international immunity. Even opposition members have signed onto the second proposal. However, there is doubt whether these laws will pass, as both the U.S. and the European Union are exerting unbearable pressure to prevent their passage. Even in a letter threatening an embargo from U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense Blinken and Austin, there is a clear demand to freeze the legislative processes against UNRWA.
It’s unfortunate, because time and again it’s not just progressive circles but also leaders of Western countries, including the U.S., that contribute to the perpetuation of the refugee problem, propaganda against Israel, and essentially fund a UN agency that aids terrorism. Western countries advocate for a two-state solution for two peoples. How can peace be achieved when UNRWA institutions educate for the eradication of Israel?
How can one support a UN agency whose facilities have been used by Hamas? How can one endorse an agency that perpetuates misery? Israel has failed miserably in presenting its rightful stance, yet relenting is not an option. This terror-supporting agency must be dismantled – not to hinder the prospects of a peace agreement, but rather to eliminate one of the main obstacles to any accord, paving the way for an agency like UNKRA to replace UNRWA.