Mother of kidnapped hostage confronts UN: “UNRWA is the attacker, not the victim”

March 11, 2025

Samerano’s son, Yonatan, was shot, abducted, and remains in captivity in Gaza, allegedly at the hands of a UNRWA employee.

During her emotional testimony, Samerano took aim at the recent claims made by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, who stated that UNRWA was “under attack.” In response, Samerano made a stark and direct assertion: “No, UNRWA is not under attack. UNRWA is the attacker.”

The mother explained that her son had been shot during the horrific attacks on October 7th, and after being injured, he was taken by Mohammad Abu Ittiwi, an employee of UNRWA, who then handed him over to Hamas captors. Samerano’s anger and grief were palpable as she described Ittiwi’s betrayal: “A UN social worker, paid by this organization, kidnapped my son into Gaza,” she said.

The tragic incident comes amidst growing concerns about UNRWA’s potential ties to Hamas. Investigations have revealed that several UNRWA staff members were involved in the October 7th massacre, including engaging in acts of violence and taking hostages. Reports have surfaced showing that at least 12 UNRWA employees participated in the attack, prompting nations such as the United States, Canada, and Germany to suspend funding to the organization.

Despite this, the UN has continued to defend UNRWA, asserting that its humanitarian mission should not be overshadowed by these accusations. For Samerano, this defense is a slap in the face, especially as the UN continues to turn a blind eye to the agency’s ties to Hamas.

Her plea to the UN was simple but devastating: “Where is my son?” Unfortunately, no official from the UN Human Rights Council or UNRWA has responded to her question, leaving the mother of the hostage in a state of agonizing uncertainty. Samerano’s question resonates not just for her, but for all the families who have had loved ones abducted or harmed in the wake of the terrorist attacks, with the UN’s silence speaking volumes.

Clean Dealing with UNRWA – full interview

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 11, 2025

Description

David Bedein is the Director of the Center for Near East Policy Research which is dedicated to proactive, investigative research and the publication of well-documented data on the core issues of Israeli-Arab relations, in order to provide insight into the complex reality of Israel for decision makers, journalists and the general public.

To this end, the Center for Near East Policy Research commissions top-flight journalists, film makers, academics and researchers to produce investigative reports and documentary films on Israeli-Palestinian relations, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the media and schools of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Authority security force and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), with the focus in our interview being on the latter.

How the UN turned Palestinians into permanent refugees

March 11, 2025

Three weeks ago, US president Donald Trump set the cat among the pigeons when he announced his plan to turn Gaza into a ‘Riviera in the Middle East’. At a joint press conference with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said America would take over Gaza, re-develop it and, most shocking of all, relocate Gaza’s 2.2million Palestinians elsewhere, perhaps to Jordan and Egypt. He followed all this up this week by sharing an AI-generated music video on his Truth Social page. It depicted a futuristic ‘Trump Gaza’, complete with golden Trump statues and bearded belly dancers.

Palestinians have responded to the White House’s plan for their future with understandable outrage. Like most other people the world over, they are fundamentally attached to the land in which they live. As one inhabitant told the Guardian, ‘We would rather die here than leave this land’.

But here’s the curious thing. The vast majority of those living in Gaza, those professing strong feelings of attachment to their homeland, are actually classified as ‘refugees’. For all the international outrage over Trump’s threat to turn Gaza’s Palestinians into a displaced people, the truth is that the vast majority are already viewed and treated as such by the UN. Indeed, the refugee status of Palestinians is one of the unique features of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1948, a combination of the foundation of Israel and the Arab-Israeli war displaced around 750,000 Palestinians, turning them into refugees. Incredibly, nearly 80 years on, the number of Palestinians classified as refugees has actually increased, to nearly six million.

Compare this situation to that of the 11.4million Europeans displaced and classified as refugees after the Second World War. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was set up to deal with the crisis in 1950. By 1954, millions had been successfully resettled, and the number still classified as refugees had fallen to below 200,000.

At about the same time, at the insistence of Arab states, a second UN refugee organisation was established to deal specifically with the 750,000 Palestinian Arab refugees. It was called the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, otherwise known as UNRWA.

UNRWA was only meant to exist temporarily, while the post-1948 refugee crisis was sorted out. Yet it’s still going strong nearly 80 years later. Not only has it failed to tackle the original refugee crisis. It has also actively overseen an 800 per cent increase in the number of Palestinian refugees it is responsible for.

UNRWA has played a central role in fuelling the conflict with Israel. In 1967, it unilaterally extended the definition of refugee to include third-generation descendants. And then, in 1982, it decided to include the descendants of all male Palestinians. Under UNRWA’s unique classification rules, refugee status had become hereditary. It had effectively created a permanent and perpetually expanding population of Palestinian refugees.

This cuts against the grain of international law, which says that once a refugee acquires citizenship in a country, he or she loses his or her refugee status. But for UNRWA, citizens in other countries can still be Palestinian refugees. Indeed, according to a recent UNRWA document, most of the two million refugees in Jordan have full citizenship there.

To illustrate the absurdity of what has been happening, take the case of Mohamed Anwar Hadid. His father fled Nazareth in 1948 because he ‘did not want the family to live under the Israeli occupation’. He ended up in California where he became a property developer building luxury mansions and hotels in Beverly Hills.

You might not have heard of Hadid. But you are likely to have heard of his daughters, supermodels Gigi and Bella Hadid, both of whom are American-born citizens. Bella, who reputedly earns up to $20million a year, regularly posts anti-Israel sentiments on social media, and has been attending pro-Palestine rallies, chanting ‘From the river to the sea’. Amazingly, the two sisters, their father and other members of the Hadid family are all still registered as Palestinian refugees with UNRWA.

That’s not all. Under the auspices of the UN, people of Palestinian heritage the world over don’t just have a permanent refugee status, they also have a so-called right of return.

Over several decades, the ‘right of return’ has allowed successive Palestinian political leaders to continue a war against Israel by other means – by insisting on their right to return to land ‘occupied’ by Israel. No other group of refugees has been granted a similarly inalienable right of return.

For the Palestine Liberation Organisation, this right was the ‘foremost of Palestinian rights’. Hamas is equally attached to it. In 2018, it organised a massive protest along the border fences with Israel. The objective of this ‘great march of return’ was, according to Hamas’s then leader, Ismail Haniyeh, to ‘break the walls of the blockade, remove the occupation entity and return to all of Palestine’. No wonder novelist Amos Oz, the founder of Israel’s Peace Now movement, has argued that ‘the right of return is a euphemism for the liquidation of Israel’.

The twin issues of refugee status and the right of return have taken on enormous symbolic significance for Palestinians. They have also made, and will continue to make, any peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis inordinately difficult.

Now would be a good time to start reassessing Palestinians’ permanent refugee status and the right of return. That way we might finally start taking some of the heat out of this interminable conflict.

Barry O’Halloran is an Irish author, journalist, and broadcaster. Visit his website here.

Israel Knew What It Was Doing In Syria

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 10, 2025

Ever since Israel reacted to the fall of Bashar al-Assad by sending the IDF to keep its border with Syria demilitarized, it has faced criticism for its aggressive posture.

Those complaints have aged like milk in August. And in one recent case, Israel’s intervention came not a moment too soon.

When Assad was first overthrown by the rebel armies led by Ahmed al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda figure, Israel moved immediately to create a buffer zone just beyond the Israeli-Syrian border, including the area around Mount Hermon. Then the IDF pushed to demilitarize the area between Damascus and that buffer zone, all the while eliminating chemical-weapons depots and arms stockpiles that could be used by the remnants of the Iran-directed Assadists left in the country. More generally, securing that buffer zone was an attempt to prevent the creation of a lawless region that could become a playground for Islamist militias beyond the control of the central government, similar to the one that has long predominated in South Lebanon.

Beyond the obvious rationality of this goal, there was also the question of timing: If Israel didn’t act fast enough it would lose its window to act at all. So while much of the world wanted Shara to have a chance to set up a new government without outside interference, it was simply unreasonable to ask Israel to join the honeymoon. After all, Israel has been fighting a multi-front war precisely because power vacuums were allowed to develop on its other borders.

Israel’s desire for Syrian stability has long been a point of policy divergence between Jerusalem and much of the West, going back to the Arab Spring. Fearing chaos in its backyard, Israel looked on with some trepidation as the civil war dragged on for a decade.

But Israel and the U.S. do have the same long-running allies inside Syria in the Druze and Kurdish communities, and Israeli and American interests are largely aligned on that count. The Kurds have taken the lead in America’s anti-ISIS coalition in the region; they currently guard about 20 prisons full of ISIS militants as well as camps holding relatives of those fighters. Shara’s key patron, Turkey, is a sworn enemy of the Kurds and thus Kurdish security cannot be taken for granted.

When it comes to the Druze, the situation is a bit more personal for Israel. There are about 150,000 Druze living in Israel; 25,000 or so on the Golan Heights alone. The Druze serve in the IDF as well.

According to some reports, Israel offered work permits to Druze living in the Syrian buffer zone. Then last week Israel made its position more explicit: The Druze minority in Syria were to be left alone, a suggestion that they were under an Israeli security umbrella. Another possibility was that, as Turkish saber-rattling against the Kurds increased, the U.S. and Israel were securing opposite ends of a corridor that would run through Kurdish territory and neighboring Druze territory into the Israeli buffer zone.

A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post complained about Israel’s intervention, saying “the source of the danger to Israel was unclear.” But this week everything became clear—and the danger wasn’t necessarily to Israel directly but did justify Israel’s involvement.

Government security personnel have been seeking to secure the loyalty of various Syrian minority armed groups in recent days. When Shara’s men held talks with Druze leaders, it was after Israel’s warning. Damascus ended up granting the Druze militias autonomy and permission to keep their weapons. It was a major win for the Druze. “Israel’s intervention may well have convinced Damascus of the necessity for such a compromise,” commented Joshua Landis, an occasional informal adviser to past Democratic administrations on Syria.

Shara’s attempts to get other factions under control, in contrast, have been disastrous. Security personnel went into Latakia, Syria’s key port and a stronghold of Assad loyalists, where the latter were waiting for them with guns drawn. Sixteen government security men were killed. Shara then stepped up attempts to pacify Latakia and Tartus, another port city, where his forces clashed further with Assad loyalists. By Friday afternoon, about 150 people had been killed in the two-day skirmish and the new Syrian government was in danger of losing control over the Mediterranean coast.

Israel’s worries, it turned out, were far from unfounded; they were prescient. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the Israeli security establishment’s pessimistic instincts were on target. Post-Oct. 7, Jerusalem is serious about keeping complacency off the menu.

America’s Hamas Talks Set a Dangerous Precedent

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 7, 2025

The Trump administration has broken with decades of diplomatic precedent. Presidential hostage envoy Adam Boehler now sits across from Hamas representatives in Doha in a dialogue with a designated terrorist organization. Are such talks necessary, or do they represent a dangerous capitulation undermining American principles?

Washington’s official stance long has been to not meet with or negotiate directly with terrorists. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter fired Andrew Young, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, after he met directly with Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representatives. Within a decade, however, U.S. diplomats like Dennis Ross were building careers upon the same thing. Ross’s efforts legitimized the PLO and culminated in the Oslo peace process that transformed it into a recognized political entity, all without securing lasting peace or Palestinian disarmament.

The Hamas Covenant calls for the elimination of the State of Israel and genocide against Jews.

The Obama and Trump administrations pursued a similar engagement with the Taliban, conducting negotiations in Qatar that culminated in the February 29, 2020, Agreement. That accord empowered the forces the United States had spent two decades fighting. The Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra affair represented another compromise, engaging Hezbollah indirectly through Iranian intermediaries. Exposure of those contacts created a scandal that paralyzed Reagan’s second term and damaged U.S. credibility without diminishing the threat.

The Hamas Covenant calls for the elimination of the State of Israel and genocide against Jews. Just weeks into the Obama administration, Senator John Kerry became the first U.S. lawmaker to visit Gaza in about a decade. Until Kerry’s visit, congressmen avoided visiting the Gaza Strip because it was run by Hamas. The terror group was thrilled. “We believe Hamas’s message is reaching its destination,” Ahmed Yusuf, Hamas’s chief political adviser, said. In effect, Kerry legitimized Hamas.

Proponents argue the current hostage crisis necessitates such face-to-face talks. Fifty-nine hostages remain in Hamas custody, with at least 22 still alive, including American citizen Edan Alexander. History, however, suggests that government-level negotiations with terrorist organizations backfires.

Negotiating with terrorists presents a paradox: The impulse to save lives today can strengthen those who would take more lives tomorrow. Yahya Sinwar, architect of the October 7, 2023, massacre, is a case in point: Israel released him in a 2011 exchange of one Israeli hostage for more than 1,000 Palestinian terrorists and security prisoners. Such exchanges reward terror, allow terror groups to reconstitute, and encourage further hostage-taking. Any agreement with Hamas must be understood as a temporary, tactical necessity—not a strategic realignment. Once American and Israeli hostages return home safely, U.S. policy must refocus immediately on Hamas’s defeat.

Moreover, diplomatic necessity appears questionable when alternative approaches exist. Israel has previously employed specialized military units to extract hostages, a high-risk but potentially more effective strategy than negotiations that strengthen Hamas politically.

The optics alone—U.S. officials meeting Hamas representatives in Doha’s luxury hotels—grants Hamas a diplomatic victory it leverages internationally.

International pressure on Qatar—Hamas’s primary enabler and current host—represents another lever. For years, Doha has channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas under humanitarian pretexts while providing luxury accommodations for its leadership. This financial and diplomatic support has enabled Hamas to construct elaborate tunnel networks and stockpile weapons. Rather than engaging Hamas directly, the United States could apply maximum pressure on Qatar through financial sanctions and legal measures targeting state sponsors of terrorism.

Direct engagement risks conferring unwarranted legitimacy upon Hamas. The optics alone—U.S. officials meeting Hamas representatives in Doha’s luxury hotels—grants Hamas a diplomatic victory it leverages internationally. Hamas portrays these talks as recognition of its political status, undermining efforts to isolate the organization.

If engagement is unavoidable, it must operate concurrently with—not replace—efforts to destroy Hamas. The Trump administration must establish parameters if these talks continue. Any hostage negotiations must exclude political concessions that preserve Hamas’s operational capacity. Discussions must maintain a humanitarian focus rather than addressing broader ceasefire terms that Hamas would exploit to rebuild. Diplomatic engagement must terminate upon hostage resolution with public commitment to Hamas’s destruction. There can be neither diplomatic recognition nor normalization of Hamas’s status.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected Hamas’s blackmail attempts, recognizing that any agreement preserving Hamas’s capability would make another October 7 “a question of time.” His stance reflects a clarity earned through decades of terrorist attacks: Hamas seeks not peace but Israel’s destruction. American policymakers likewise must resist the temptation to accommodate Hamas, maintaining a commitment to Hamas’s defeat regardless of tactical necessities.

Better safe than sorry

Michael Kuttner

March 7, 2025

Far too many times in the past, we have seen how a refusal or reluctance to take decisive action has resulted in disastrous consequences.

Conditioned by two thousand years of Diaspora experiences, an inability to take proactive measures has resulted in an inbuilt genetic reluctance to act. A fear of retribution by the ruling authorities for any display of assertiveness has inculcated over the millennia a tendency to remain invisible.

This tactic of keeping safe resulted in waves of assimilation and even conversions when remaining Jewish was a dangerous reality. It also had a negative spinoff whereby even overt and blatant threats to Jewish lives were dismissed as inconsequential and able to be weathered. The Shoah years should have finally put an end to these fantasies, but unfortunately, that is not the case for many.

If indeed the lessons of history had been learnt, those countries who had stigmatized, hounded, discriminated and then finally murdered entire Jewish communities would not today still be home to Jews.

It is all very well to boast that the persecutors didn’t win because we have returned to the scenes of the crime. The question is, are those Jews who have returned to Germany, Spain and Portugal or those who remain in Ukraine, Russia, Poland, South Africa and Venezuela safer today? Are the volcanoes of hate rumbling beneath their feet going to vanish, or will their illusory safety prove to be yet another disaster in a long line of fatal decisions?

Places once deemed safe and secure for Jewish life are now questionable as the virus of hate rampages unchecked.

Critics argue that living in Israel is no safer. The difference, of course, is that here, we are able to defend ourselves, while elsewhere, we are dependent on the goodwill and beneficence of others. Some point out that many Israelis have abandoned the Jewish homeland and fled to the “safer” havens of Europe, USA, Canada, Ireland and Australia. Unfortunately, as many have shockingly discovered, safety in foreign lands is somewhat illusory. In Berlin, for example, the community newspaper now does not print in its social columns for births, deaths, marriages, or any family names and instead uses initials. The threat of terror against anyone exposed is now so great that, once again, invisibility is the preferred option.

In countries where graffiti and acts of vandalism against Jews and Jewish properties have become commonplace, many Jews have removed mezuzot from the front doors of their homes. In some countries, enrollment at Jewish schools has dropped because of the fear of terrorism.

The lesson we should learn is that those who rely on others to safeguard them from danger are living a precarious existence. Fickle friends are liable to morph into disinterested bystanders or, even worse, join the perpetrators. Submerging one’s identity and attempting to blend into the prevailing culture has never, at the end of the day, been a successful strategy.

History should have taught us that hard lesson.

Now that Jewish sovereignty has been re-established in part of the Land promised to our ancestors, the question arises as to what course of action to follow to ensure our safety.

For the first time since the Roman Empire’s ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland, we are in a unique position to respond against the revival of the longest-surviving virus of hate.

In order to do this, a major change in attitude and resolve is necessary. Many find this too much of a hurdle and instead prefer to follow the old discredited “don’t upset the haters” line of thinking. Thankfully, we now have a generation of Jewish Israelis who are no longer slaves to past disastrous policies.

The ability to fight back and take action that may mitigate or negate adverse results is a refreshing break from past experiences. It does, however, come with a cost. The spectacle of Jews fighting back is frightening not only for the haters but also for those Jews still stuck in appeasement mode and conditioned to bend in the face of disapproval.

In 1948, when Arab nations attacked the reborn Jewish State, none of them expected any sort of meaningful resistance. Likewise, even so-called friends confidently predicted a massacre and urged surrender. When, against all odds, Israel prevailed, the scene was set for future revisionist mantras. From the very outset, Israel had to undertake an agenda guaranteeing safety rather than being sorry.

On every occasion when a fight back against terror was called for, Israel was constrained by those who preferred appeasement, meaningless dialogue and illusory visions of constraint. After every war for survival, Israel was expected to sacrifice any gain achieved and urged to put its trust in worthless guarantees.

In 1967, USA “guarantees” of freedom of navigation vanished as an Egyptian-led alliance prepared to massacre every Israeli man, woman and child. Rather than waiting for the inevitable pogrom, Israel in a classic “better safe than sorry” mode, acted to eliminate the existential threat. This, in turn, led to the birth of the “Palestinian occupied territories” myth which has become embedded in UN-sponsored lies.

Whenever Israeli policymakers have embraced internationally anointed gestures, disaster has been sure to follow.

In 1973, not wanting to “upset” so-called friends and lulled into a false sense of security, Israel did not pre-empt the Yom Kippur attack. The Oslo debacles of 1993 and 1995 resurrected Arafat from Tunisian exile and welcomed him and his terrorist legions into our backyard. The suicide bombers, bus explosions and unleashed terror that followed were a direct result of falling into the fatal trap of believing that a “new Middle East” was being born. The debacle of creating a corrupt Jew-hating Palestinian Authority and ignoring its poisonous offshoots continues to afflict all concerned to this very day.

The handing over of Gaza to terror gangs and the refusal to deal with the takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah and Iran have been more examples of failed attempts at placating rather than being resolute. As a result, when it has come to the inevitable showdown, the fallout has been worse than it otherwise would have been.

The 7 October disaster need not have happened if those in charge had not been once again lulled into a false sense of security. Iran marches to nuclear blackmail status as deals are contemplated. Egypt is consolidating military equipment and bases in Sinai, and our experts tell us not to worry.

How many times have we heard all these false assurances before?

Despite all evidence to the contrary, delusional masses still peddle mirages of peace, tolerance and brotherhood, resulting if only we would acquiesce to the establishment of a terror entity in our heartland. The Abraham Accords are held up as an example of what could be achieved. Left unsaid is the stark reality that the signatories to this historic pact have more or less abandoned the vilification of Jews and Israel. Their citizens are being exposed to genuine friendship and co-operation which is something entirely absent in the cold “peace” with Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom.

The self-loathers and the brain-addled legions of the progressive left and Greens inhabit a universe impervious to facts. Occasionally, however, enlightenment dawns, and when it does, we should acknowledge it.

One such significant event occurred recently.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, President of the New York Board of Rabbis and an influential Reform leader in the USA, confessed to a startling revelation. In a week when the Bibas family drama played out in all its sordid detail, he articulated these heartfelt words:

“This was the week that finally ended the hope, at least in my lifetime, for a Palestinian State and a Jewish State existing side by side. The Palestinians themselves strangled this fragile hope in its crib.

Until such time as the Palestinians themselves say they want peaceful coexistence, two states living side by side, we must cease deluding ourselves that a two-state solution is available now.

The polite lie that we tell ourselves over and over again is that Hamas does not represent the Palestinians. It is simply not true. We recite this like a mantra so that we do not have to face the terrible truth that Hamas is the Palestinians. That Palestinianism is more about destroying the Jewish State than creating a state of their own.”

These self-evident truths articulated by a long-time progressive Jewish leader should be circulated and sent to the foreign ministries of each and every country that has voted at the UN to recognise a Palestinian State.

If we do not take heed we won’t be safe and we will definitely be sorry.

Diplomatic achievement: Anti-Israel conference prevented

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 7, 2025

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and the Foreign Ministry conducted an intensive diplomatic campaign in recent days and succeeded in preventing an anti-Israel conference by countries that are signatory to the Geneva Convention, which was expected to conclude with resolutions aimed at defaming the State of Israel.

This would have been the fourth such conference of these countries regarding the war, with its concluding statement intended to include elements portraying Israel in a negative light, without acknowledging that Israel is a democratic state fighting against the Hamas terrorist organization.

Foreign Ministry officials noted that “the meeting was even expected to produce anti-Israel resolutions that Israel’s enemies could have used in international forums, as well as follow-up mechanisms that would continue to vilify Israel.”

The conference of the countries that are signatory to the Geneva Convention is meant to convene only on general matters related to the convention, not on specific issues. Nevertheless, Switzerland, which is responsible for implementing the convention, has so far convened the signatory countries three times, and on all three occasions, the countries gathered to address the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict.

U.S. Ambassador-Designate To The United Nations Elise Stefanik Delivers Address At Anti-Defamation League’s “Never Is Now” Summit, The World’s Largest Summit on Combating Antisemitism

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 7, 2025

United States Ambassador-Designate to the United Nations Elise Stefanik spoke at the Anti-Defamation League’s “Never Is Now” Summit, the world’s largest summit on combating antisemitism.

Read U.S. Ambassador-Designate to the United Nations Elise Stefanik’s full remarks as prepared below:

“Thank you to ADL for your leadership on combating antisemitism. And a special thanks to Jonathan Greenblatt for the invitation and your work with Congress on this critical issue.

Never again is now.

That is the reason we are all here today – to ensure that these words are actually acted upon.

On October 7th, and in the 513 days since, we have seen antisemitic atrocities that we never thought would happen in our lifetimes both at home and abroad.

The worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and the open celebration of those heinous acts of terrorism in our streets and on our college campuses.

Enough is enough.

From capitals to campuses, we have watched too many with the power to act, do nothing.

But there is hope.

In the famous words of Holocaust Survivor and Jewish Advocate Simon Wiesenthal , who dedicated his life to ensuring the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten, he said, “For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”

Under President Trump, America refuses to do nothing.

I , as a leader in the United States Congress and the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations, refuse to do nothing.

You see, Israel and the Jewish people hold a special place in my heart which has fueled my dedication and deep held commitment to ensuring the evils of antisemitism are extinguished.

As a young girl from Upstate New York, I grew up with many Jewish friends. I attended many bar and bat mitzvahs. I have joined many families over the years for Shabbat dinners.

As a Harvard student, I went with college friends to events at Harvard Hillel and have celebrated britot for friend’s sons and signed the ketubah at a friend’s wedding.

Throughout my life, the importance of the state of Israel was clear.

A shining beacon of freedom and civilization in the Middle East and intrinsically entwined with the success of America.

And I have had the privilege to visit Israel many times throughout my life, both before and during my time in Congress, and each time I am moved by Israel and her spirit.

And today, it is more important than ever that the United States of America shows moral leadership and stands with Israel and the Jewish people.

Under President Trump, there will be no daylight when it comes to the United States’ support for Israel. There is a reason Prime Minister Netanyahu calls him the “best friend that Israel has ever had”.

The horrors of October 7th changed everything.

It made crystal clear. That this fight is not just Israel’s fight but the West’s fight, a fight against the evil of Hamas, a war between good and evil, civilization and barbarity.

We will not and must not rest until every single hostage is returned home and Hamas terrorists are eradicated from the face of the earth.

And what happened in our own country after this horrific day?

In the aftermath of the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust– and the days since– we saw our “most elite universities” utterly fail their Jewish students.

The world saw– in what is now the most viewed congressional testimony in history with over a billion views– the moral rot of America’s higher education.

Let me take you into that committee room.

After seeing the skyrocketing rise in antisemitism including at my own college alma mater, I encouraged the Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx that we needed to have a hearing with university presidents of MIT, Penn, and Harvard.

I’m a Harvard alumna– the first member of my immediate family to have the opportunity to graduate from college— Harvard has never been perfect, but when I attended I could never have imagine what the campus would turn into or tolerate.

We held the hearing with the university presidents to demand answers and accountability.

But instead we were met with weak and morally bankrupt university leaders who evaded our questions and refused to answer direct questions with direct answers.

And it was only in the final moments that my now famous questioning happened.

The media and majority of attendees had largely left when I decided to ask an incredibly simple question.

And it was not a political question, it was a moral one.

It was actually not one of my prepared questions but one that I had written down in pencil five minutes before because I thought it would force them to answer correctly.

And that question was this:

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?

And one after the other after the other said “it depends on the context.”

And the world heard.

At the time, I had no idea the earthquake that that questioning would set off in American higher education. It was truly the question heard around the world.

And the reality is that everyday Americans like my wonderful constituents know without hesitation that the answer to that question is an easy one. It is YES and it certainly does not depend on the context.

In a matter of months and additional hearings, university presidents from Harvard, Penn, Columbia and others were forced to resign.

Five down and so many to go.

But now here we are. Just look at the actions of Barnard College’s so-called leadership last week.

On the same day that the world was mourning the murders of the Bibas babies by Hamas terrorists, pro-Hamas terrorist sympathizers took over Barnard college campus building, spewing antisemitic and anti-Israel hate, assaulting a staff member and sending him to the hospital.

Meanwhile Barnard’s leadership held off on calling in the law enforcement stationed outside instead offering up a meeting with the college president to negotiate.

This is not leadership.

As Jewish students at Barnard and colleges and universities around the nation fear for their lives, college leaders continue to pander to their demands.

To the Jewish students listening. Do not relent or give in. America and the force of the Trump Administration are behind you and we will not stop fighting.

President Trump has made clear the importance of this issue.

In his first month in office he signed a historic executive order to combat antisemitism on our campuses and streets using every tool the government has. Any foreign student participating in these antisemitic acts must be stripped of their visas and immediately deported.

President Trump’s Administration has already initiated civil rights investigations of hotbeds of campus antisemitism including at Columbia and Northwestern.

I know incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and their teams including Leo Terrell, will hold these universities accountable for their failures. The ADL’s work helping expose the rot on campus has been invaluable to these efforts.

I am honored to join President Trump in this fight, earning his nomination to serve in his Cabinet as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

The United Nations in indeed a deep den of antisemitism, infected with the same rampant anti-Israel and anti-American hate and moral rot that has polluted America’s higher education system.

Especially since the barbaric Hamas attacks of October 7th, the UN has continuously betrayed Israel, betraying America in the process, acting as an apologist for Iran and their terrorist proxies.

Under President Trump, as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, the days of propping up organizations that run counter to our interests are long gone.

We will no longer fund terrorism, antisemitism, and anti-Israel hate.

It is an indisputable fact that President Trump has the strongest record of any American president when it comes to standing with Israel. From moving the U.S. Embassy to its rightful place; Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem.

To negotiating the historic Abraham Accords, the greatest stride toward peace normalization in more than a quarter century.

To aligning U.S. Central Command with Israel, a change that fostered daily communications with the IDF, joint exercises, and crucial coordination with British and Arab partners that helped defend against the unprecedented Iranian attacks last year.

It is quite obvious to the world that if President Trump had remained in office, October 7th would never have happened.

And he has brought back his pro-Israel policies to the White House.

In just a month, the world has watched as President Trump reasserts America First peace through strength foreign policy and is taking note.

Only 12 hours after his re-election, Hamas terrorists called for an ‘immediate end’ to the war — a direct result of President Trump’s restoration of strong American strength to the world stage.

Innocent hostages taken by Hamas terrorists have been returned home as President Trump promised “all hell” if they are not brought back.

He restored maximum pressure on Iran and imposed sanctions on the illegitimate International Criminal Court.

And at the United Nations, we took the decisive action to defund UNRWA– the pro-Hamas terrorist front group who committed atrocities on October 7th.

And I can promise you, that as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, we are not only going to just defund UNRWA, we will totally dismantle it.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of Ambassador Moynihan’s historic opposition to the United Nations’ disgraceful “Zionism is Racism” resolution, the time has come to bring about needed change.

We must redirect the course of history away from the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias Ambassador Moynihan described as “a great evil [that has been] loosed upon the world”.

Let me be clear.

Everyday Americans understand the need to support Israel’s fight and that the same pro-Hamas terrorist sympathizers who chant ‘Death to Israel’ also chant ‘Death to America.’

These terrorists want to topple Israel, topple the U.S., and we must never yield.

Never again is right now.

Under President Trump, America will always stand up for the Jewish people both at home and abroad. Israel has our unequivocal support. We will not rest until every single hostage is brought home and Hamas terrorists are eradicated.

Together we must remind the world about the moral imperative of standing with the Jewish people, Israel and together we will combat the evils of antisemitism.

We will win this fight for the Jewish people, we will win this fight to save America and our moral values, we will win this fight for our most precious ally Israel, and we will win this fight for all of Western civilization and humanity.

And my message for Turtle Bay is this… hear me clearly here and now: the antisemites at the United Nations better buckle up, because I’m coming.

The university presidents were just a warm up. And believe me, anyone who knows me knows that I’m just getting started.

God Bless You, God Bless Israel, and God Bless the United States of America.”

Did Trump just crown Saudi with leadership of Gaza ‘day after’ plan?

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 7, 2025

A month into the fragile ceasefire, Gazans are experiencing a brief respite from violence and the continuing release of Israeli hostages and imprisoned Palestinians. But debate over the future of Gaza reflects the agendas of states with a stake in the ongoing crisis — rather than the grim day-to-day reality Gazans face on the ground.

Once the ceasefire got underway, Gaza faded from the headlines — until Trump reignited the debate when he declared that the U.S. would occupy Gaza, relocate its residents, and transform it into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”

“We’re going to take it,” he proclaimed just last week. “We’re going to hold it.”

This is an outcome not even the Israeli government believed it could achieve. Although early in the war, it had broached the idea that Egypt and Jordan could accept some Gazan refugees, the government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had settled on a policy of internal displacement for the Palestinians, moving large sectors of the population within the enclave to facilitate the IDF’s mapping and destruction of tunnels and to carry out attacks on remaining Hamas fighters.

Trump cut to the chase. If Hamas is going to be eliminated from Gaza, everyone has to go. No more whack-a-mole. Trump’s remarks handed Netanyahu a convenient “day-after” plan, something missing from his bomb-first, plan-later approach to Gaza. Trump’s framing of his pitch – that wholesale transfer was the only feasible way to relieve Palestinian suffering – was deceptively cunning.

To those repulsed by the prospect of adding to the Palestinian diaspora, the real damage of Trump’s gambits is not that it will become reality but rather that it has diverted attention from efforts to develop a genuine post-war strategy. Or has it?

Perhaps, as Prof. Gregory Gause recently argued, Trump’s threat serves a different purpose. By proposing to expel Palestinians from Gaza, Trump is making an intentionally provocative move to pressure Gulf Arab states — especially Saudi Arabia — into funding Gaza’s reconstruction and normalizing ties with Israel. According to Gause, such a gambit mirrors Netanyahu’s 2020 threat to annex parts of the West Bank. This ultimately led to the UAE normalizing relations with Israel partly in exchange for pausing the annexation plan.

Whether this is truly Trump’s strategy matters less than the fact that rebuilding Gaza — and starting soon — is essential for any meaningful negotiations or a sustainable end to the conflict, let alone a comprehensive peace agreement. More fundamentally, it is essential to averting a humanitarian catastrophe and the multigenerational degradation of Palestinian society.

While many Gazans are critical of Hamas as corrupt or ineffective, they have largely supported armed struggle against Israel and embraced the genuine belief that Palestine will eventually emerge victorious. The wholesale destruction of Gaza risks strengthening this maximalist mentality among Gazans, who may now feel they have little left to lose.

Allowing Gaza to fester in its present squalor and destruction would be a grave mistake, although, for Israel, this is probably not an issue. It can keep Gazans from penetrating its territory directly from the enclave and maintain tight control over ports of entry. Hamas might reconstitute to some extent, but God help the leader who sticks his head above the parapet.

Furthermore, many Israelis likely also share the Gazan view that there is little left to lose, and armed confrontation is the sole pathway to eventual victory.

Trump’s Middle East envoy calls on Israel to uphold ceasefire ahead of visit

Center for Near East Policy Research

March 7, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, called on Israel Wednesday to uphold a ceasefire until his visit there and the region.

Israel’s Yediot Ahronot daily said that Witkoff’s visit has been postponed several times for various reasons.

The report said that Witkoff called for the preservation of the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas until his arrival and that the visit is expected to take place next week.

“Witkoff stressed that Israel must maintain the ceasefire in Gaza until he arrives in the region—even if Hamas refuses to release the hostages,” it added.

1...606162...1,281 Page 61 of 1,281

Israel Behind the News

Mother of kidnapped hostage confronts UN: “UNRWA is the attacker, not the victim”

Clean Dealing with UNRWA – full interview

How the UN turned Palestinians into permanent refugees

Israel Knew What It Was Doing In Syria

America’s Hamas Talks Set a Dangerous Precedent

Better safe than sorry

Diplomatic achievement: Anti-Israel conference prevented

U.S. Ambassador-Designate To The United Nations Elise Stefanik Delivers Address At Anti-Defamation League’s “Never Is Now” Summit, The World’s Largest Summit on Combating Antisemitism

Did Trump just crown Saudi with leadership of Gaza ‘day after’ plan?

Trump’s Middle East envoy calls on Israel to uphold ceasefire ahead of visit

Column from the Director