Memorandum: Why Ending U.S. Weapons Sales to Israel Would Undermine American National Security and Moral Responsibility Subject: The Strategic, Economic, Military, and Moral Consequences of Ending American Weapons Sales to Israel

Memorandum: Why Ending U.S. Weapons Sales to Israel Would Undermine American National Security and Moral Responsibility Subject: The Strategic, Economic, Military, and Moral Consequences of Ending American Weapons Sales to Israel Executive Summary The relationship between the United States and Israel provides benefits that extend well beyond Israel's own defense. Israel is a major strategic partner in one of the world's most volatile regions. The two countries cooperate on intelligence, missile defense, counterterrorism, military technology, and the development of weapons systems that have implications for American forces and American security. Ending U.S. weapons sales to Israel would not simply deprive Israel of military equipment. It would weaken an established security partnership, reduce opportunities for technological cooperation, potentially diminish American intelligence advantages, and create opportunities for competing powers to expand their influence. The consequences would extend to America's ability to deter Iran, protect its regional partners, maintain military superiority, and preserve its influence in the Middle East. American military cooperation with Israel is not a one-way transaction. The United States receives substantial strategic benefits in return. Moreover, America has a moral responsibility to help a democratic ally defend itself against those who seek its destruction. 1. Intelligence and Military Cooperation Israel possesses extensive intelligence capabilities concerning Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, regional terrorist organizations, and other threats in the Middle East. The United States benefits from cooperation with Israeli intelligence and military organizations in several areas: Identifying terrorist networks and their financing. Monitoring Iranian military activities and weapons development. Tracking missile and drone threats. Understanding the capabilities and tactics of Iranian-backed organizations. Sharing operational information relevant to protecting American personnel and installations. A decision to terminate weapons sales would not automatically end intelligence cooperation. However, it could seriously damage the trust and institutional relationships on which broader security cooperation depends. American military personnel and diplomatic facilities operate throughout the Middle East, where many of the same threats facing Israel also threaten American interests. 2. Israel Is an Important Partner in Developing American Military Technology One of the most important and often overlooked benefits of the relationship is joint weapons development. The United States and Israel have cooperated in developing and improving sophisticated defensive weapons systems, including: Iron Dome: A system designed to intercept short-range rockets and other incoming threats. David's Sling: Designed to intercept medium- and longer-range rockets and missiles. Arrow: A system designed to intercept ballistic missiles, including threats at high altitudes. These programs involve American investment, Israeli engineering, joint testing, and technological exchanges. The cooperation is not merely theoretical. It provides opportunities to develop and improve technologies that can benefit American and allied missile-defense capabilities. The United States faces growing threats from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and other weapons. Technologies developed through cooperation with Israel can contribute to American security. Ending weapons sales and disrupting the broader defense relationship could reduce opportunities for this kind of cooperation. 3. American Weapons Sales Support American Jobs and Industry Military sales are not simply money leaving the United States. When Israel purchases American aircraft, precision-guided munitions, helicopters, engines, and other military equipment, American defense manufacturers receive contracts. These contracts support: American manufacturing jobs. Defense engineering and research. Production facilities and skilled labor. Economies of scale that help sustain American defense production. Long-term relationships between American and Israeli defense companies. The existing security-assistance agreement has directed substantial Israeli military purchases toward American manufacturers. If Israel were prohibited from purchasing American weapons, it would have a powerful incentive to purchase more equipment from alternative suppliers or accelerate development of its own systems. That would mean lost business for American manufacturers and potentially greater dependence by Israel on foreign defense industries. 4. Weakening Israel Could Strengthen Iran and Its Regional Partners Israel is one of the principal military powers capable of confronting Iranian military expansion in the Middle East. Iran supports and supplies a network of armed organizations, including Hezbollah and other militant groups. These organizations threaten Israel, but they also threaten American interests and regional stability. American weapons enable Israel to maintain its ability to deter and respond to these threats. If Washington were to prohibit Israel from purchasing American military equipment, Israel would have to find alternative suppliers, increase domestic production, or adjust its military capabilities. Over time, these changes could weaken the military integration and technological advantages that currently characterize the U.S.-Israel relationship. There is also a strategic consequence: adversaries could interpret a complete arms cutoff as evidence that the United States is less willing to support established security partners. That perception could affect American credibility well beyond Israel. 5. An Arms Cutoff Could Surrender American Influence to Competing Powers If the United States stopped supplying Israel with weapons, Israel would not simply stop needing weapons. It would seek alternatives. Potential suppliers include countries such as France, Germany, South Korea, and other defense-producing nations. Russia and China would also have an interest in exploiting any deterioration in the American-Israeli relationship, although their ability to replace American systems would be limited by existing technological and political considerations. The consequences could include: Reduced American influence over Israeli military procurement. Less American leverage in discussions concerning military technology and its use. Greater opportunities for foreign defense manufacturers. Less integration between Israeli and American defense systems. American influence is not maintained simply by having allies agree with Washington. It is also maintained through long-term economic, technological, intelligence, and military relationships. Weapons sales are an important part of that relationship. 6. The Relationship Helps Maintain America's Military Advantage Israel is an unusually sophisticated military partner. Its armed forces operate many American weapons systems, including the F-35, and participate in military training and technological cooperation. The relationship creates opportunities for the United States to learn from Israel's operational experience, including: The effectiveness of American weapons in actual combat environments. The performance of missile-defense systems against real threats. The effectiveness of drones and counter-drone technologies. The challenges of modern urban warfare. The integration of intelligence, surveillance, and precision weapons. Combat experience is particularly valuable because it provides information that cannot always be obtained through laboratory testing or military exercises. This does not mean that every Israeli operational experience automatically transfers to the American military. It does mean that the relationship offers opportunities for valuable military learning. 7. An Arms Cutoff Could Damage American Credibility With Other Allies There is another consequence that extends beyond the Middle East. American allies purchase American military equipment partly because they believe the United States will remain a dependable long-term supplier. If Washington abruptly terminates weapons sales to an established security partner, other countries may begin questioning whether their own access to American weapons could be interrupted by political disagreements. Countries in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East make enormous long-term investments in American military equipment. Those investments depend on continuing access to spare parts, maintenance, ammunition, training, and upgrades. A complete cutoff could therefore raise questions about the reliability of American defense commitments. This is not an argument that the United States should never restrict weapons transfers. It is an argument that restrictions should be carefully considered because they can have consequences for the broader American defense-export system. 8. There Is a Difference Between Ending Financial Assistance and Ending Weapons Sales This distinction deserves particular attention. Israel receives American military financing, but it also purchases American military equipment through commercial and government-to-government arrangements. The existing 2019–2028 memorandum of understanding provides for $38 billion in assistance, subject to congressional appropriations: $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing. $5 billion for cooperative missile-defense programs. It is possible to debate the amount of American financial assistance, the conditions attached to it, or the future structure of the agreement without prohibiting Israel from purchasing American weapons with its own money. Indeed, these are different policy decisions with different consequences. A complete prohibition on weapons purchases would go substantially further than simply reducing financial assistance. 9. American Weapons Sales Should Be Subject to Oversight, Not Abandoned Entirely There are legitimate policy questions about American weapons transfers, particularly concerning civilian casualties, compliance with international humanitarian law, and whether particular weapons should be supplied for particular military operations. Those questions deserve scrutiny. The United States has laws governing arms transfers and requirements concerning the use of American-supplied weapons. It can impose restrictions, conduct reviews, and condition particular transfers. But there is a significant difference between restricting a particular weapon or shipment because of specific concerns and terminating the entire military supply relationship. The former can be a targeted policy instrument. The latter risks damaging a much broader strategic relationship. A policy that preserves the ability to review individual transfers while maintaining the overall defense partnership would allow the United States to address legitimate concerns without unnecessarily sacrificing other security interests. 10. The Moral Obligation of the United States to Help Israel Defend Its Existence Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has faced repeated threats to its very existence. Its neighbors and regional adversaries have included governments and movements that have openly called for Israel's destruction. Most notably, the Iranian regime has repeatedly threatened Israel's annihilation while financing, arming, and supporting terrorist organizations committed to that objective. Israel is a small country with a relatively small population, situated in a region where powerful governments and militant organizations have, at various times, sought its destruction. Its citizens face continuing threats from ballistic missiles, rockets, drones, terrorism, and the possibility of regional war. The moral obligation of the United States is not simply to stand by while Israel confronts these threats. It is to help ensure that a democratic nation facing persistent threats to its existence has the means to defend its population. America has a particular responsibility because it has been Israel's principal security partner and has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to Israel's security. This does not mean that Israel should be exempt from American oversight, that every military operation should receive automatic American approval, or that legitimate concerns about civilian casualties should be ignored. But there is a profound moral difference between scrutinizing how a democracy uses its weapons and denying that democracy access to the weapons necessary to protect its people. A country whose enemies openly declare their intention to destroy it should not have to wonder whether its principal democratic ally will continue supplying the means of its survival. The United States has both a strategic interest and a moral responsibility to ensure that Israel can defend itself. Abandoning that responsibility would represent not only a serious strategic mistake but a failure of American moral leadership. Conclusion: It Is in America's Interest to Maintain Its Military Relationship With Israel The United States should evaluate its military relationship with Israel through the same strategic lens it uses when evaluating other important alliances. Israel is not simply a country that receives American weapons. It is a military and technological partner whose intelligence capabilities, battlefield experience, defense research, and regional position offer advantages to the United States. A complete cutoff of American weapons sales would risk: Weakening a significant regional security partnership. Disrupting joint development of advanced military technology. Reducing opportunities for intelligence and military cooperation. Transferring defense business and technological opportunities to foreign competitors. Creating openings for Iran and other American adversaries. Weakening American military advantages and interoperability. Undermining confidence in American security commitments. Sacrificing the economic and industrial benefits of defense cooperation. Eliminating an important instrument of American strategic influence. Abandoning a moral responsibility to help a democratic ally defend its existence. The fundamental question is not whether the United States should have the right to determine how its weapons are used. Of course it should. The question is whether eliminating an important military relationship serves American national security or advances American moral leadership. There is a strong strategic and moral case for maintaining the ability to sell American weapons to Israel while retaining American oversight and the authority to restrict particular transfers when circumstances warrant. America should continue selling weapons to Israel not merely because it is in America's interest, but because it is strategically wise, morally defensible, and consistent with America's responsibility to stand with a democratic ally whose very existence remains threatened.

The problem of ending Aid to Israel

ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA NEWS RELEASE Statement From ZOA President Morton A. Klein on Ending U.S. Aid to Israel Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein released the following statement: ZOA is concerned that President Trump stated today that the U.S. will cut off all of the $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel at the end of 2026. This is almost two years earlier than provided for in the current U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which authorizes aid through the end of fiscal year 2028 (September 30, 2028). The ZOA is questioning why the U.S. isn’t also ending the more than $4 billion in annual U.S. aid to the Arab Muslim countries of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority entity – especially when those countries vote with the U.S. less than 10% of the time at the United Nations. (By contrast, Israel is a reliable ally that votes with the U.S. at the United Nations over 90% of the time – more than any other nation.) Incidentally, the U.S. gave Pakistan $67 billion from 1947-2011; $32 billion over past 20 years, plus energy investments and $80 million for pandemic relief; and Pakistan is now seeking a $10 billion economic stabilization fund from the U.S. in exchange for Pakistan helping mediate a useless, bad, promptly violated deal with Iran. The U.S. gives Egypt $2 billion per year (over $74 billion since 1979); Jordan (which harbors terrorists) $1.45 billion per year ($33.8 billion through 2025); Lebanese armed forces $230 million in 2025 to disarm Hezbollah (but LAF did not yet disarm Hezbollah); Afghanistan $150 billion from 2001 to cut off in 2025; and Ukraine $195 billion from FY2022-26. We are also concerned that an abrupt cutoff will harm the U.S. defense industry and the almost 300,000 jobs that the aid to Israel supports, due to the MOU requirement that the aid to Israel must be spent in the U.S. We hope that new joint defense technology arrangements reportedly under discussion will benefit industries in both the U.S. and Israel. The affordability of an early end to aid to Israel does not seem to be clear-cut. Over the last three years, Israel has had to spend approximately $177 billion to degrade the arch enemies of America and the killers and kidnappers of Americans, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We very much appreciate that President Trump also said today that the U.S. would help Israel if the country needed assistance. But we are concerned that ad hoc aid may not adequately substitute for agreed aid under the MOU. The $3.8 billion of U.S. aid has been of great benefit to America. Former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence General George Keegan stated that the U.S. would need five CIAs to gather the intelligence provided by Israel. Then-U.S. Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig famously said that Israel is "the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.” (One American aircraft carrier costs $15 billion to build, $6.5 million a day to maintain, plus crews, fuel and other costs, totaling over $50 billion.)  Continue Rea ding DONATE zoa.org Copyright © Zionist Organization of America 2026. All rights reserved.

Zionist Organization of America | 633 Third Ave 31 B | New York, NY 10017 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice

why are we asking if el sayid is Muslim brotherhood?

OCTOBER 20, 2026  DAILY NEWSLETTER The Disavowal Game By Abe Greenwald At a town hall this past weekend, a young man named Tommy stood up and asked Abdul El-Sayed whether he would disavow the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed responded, “Yes, absolutely,” and then turned the question on his questioner: El-Sayed: But I want to ask the question that you’re asking. Why are you asking the question? Tommy: Well, because they’re a terrorist group. El-Sayed: Okay. No, no, but what are you implying? Do you assume that I wouldn’t? Tommy: Yes. El-Sayed: Why not? Tommy: Because I have not heard you disavow them yet. El-Sayed pointed out that he had just disavowed the Brotherhood and framed the entire question as an expression of Islamophobic bigotry.  It wasn’t exactly a win for El-Sayed, but it was a loss for truth and clarity. That’s what happens when the wrong people ask the right questions.  There’s a stronger response to El-Sayed’s “Why are you asking me?” jiu-jitsu, and it goes like this:  Well, Abdul—may I call you Abdul?—to begin with, there are the verified Brotherhood, Islamist, and terrorist connections of most of your immediate family.  Your father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, the largest individual donor to your campaign, is a member of the Islamic Society of North America and a founder and board director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Both groups are unindicted coconspirators in the USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case, in which Holy Land Foundation leaders were convicted of terrorism-related charges. Federal prosecutors also linked both groups to the Muslim Brotherhood. Your half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, delivered an October 7 “blessing” on Instagram, one year after the Hamas massacre in Israel. “I want to say, Allahu Akbar," she began. "That phrase means God is greater, and it's an important phrase in the Muslim tradition. It's one that I've been thinking about a lot over the last year, because it's a phrase that reminds us that no matter how great the brutality, the oppression, the intensity of what we're going through, the horizon of justice is just around the corner." There was not a word about October 7 itself or the slaughter of Jews. But she urged viewers to “grieve all the siblings that we’ve lost over the past year.”  According to social media posts from this same half-sister, your mother, Fatten Fathy Elkomy, had been involved in the Muslim Brotherhood, and many other family members continue to be active in the organization. Additionally, your mother worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 for financially supporting Osama bin Laden and various terrorist organizations. Your sister-in-law, Mariam Jukaku, was reportedly placed on a federal terrorism watchlist during the Obama administration. She joined a lawsuit to get her name taken off the list and, despite your claims, did not win.  Of course, it’s not fair to pass judgment on someone based solely on the sins of his family. Which is why I’ll now turn to you. I’d imagine that it would be traumatic for a non-extremist Muslim to find himself in a family of committed Islamists and terrorist enablers. I’d think you’d make a point of distancing yourself from their extremism. And yet, you speak and act as if you’re in their camp.  In 2012, you signed a letter of support for Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, urging him to purge the country’s dissenting media and police. You empathized with the terrorist who tried to blow up the Temple Israel Synagogue and day school in March. “Hurt people,” you explained, “hurt people.” You continually refuse to renounce the theocratic Iranian regime. Nor have you said whether Iran or Israel poses a greater threat to the United States. You’ve defended the existence of shariah law in the U.S. You’ve boasted, to select audiences, that you’re actually an Egyptian immigrant. Why? Your friend Hasan Piker is a supporter of every Brotherhood terrorist offshoot I can think of. And you’ve not denounced him either.   So that’s why I asked you about the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, what is it you thought was behind my question? And if you want to know why I don’t believe El-Sayed’s 11th-hour disavowal, just reread the above. Abe Greenwald is the executive editor of COMMENTARY. Today’s Podcast

The ridiculous award of Nobel Peace prize

Here's how sick the Nobel prize for peace award is. The lady who won it presided over the international criminal court decision that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. No mention that there would not have been a single casualty in Gaza. Had combassinat invaded Israel and killed 1200 Israelis taken hostages and wounded thousands. No mention of the fact that every single household entered by the IDF in Gaza had some connection to terror, no mention of the fact that every terrorist in Gaza fighting violated international law by not wearing uniforms. No mention of the fact that Hamas tried very hard to have their own civilians killed. No mention of the fact that the population of Gaza has massively increased, hardly a genocide. No mention of the fact that before the atrocities of October 7th come on, which hamasque Bradley and happily recorded, they sent 20,000 missiles from Gaza into Israel to try and kill civilians. No motion of the fact that the hummus charter calls for the death of every Jew in the world. No mention of the fact that when you compare civilian deaths to terrorist deaths and Gaza impartial observers admit that it's got the lowest recorded rate of civilian death to combatant deaths of any major conflict. And no mention of the fact that just recently a huge number of American leading military officials said there was no genocide in Gaza.. 

refuting the book Polarized: Why American Jews are Divided and What to Do About it by Roberta Rosenthal Kwall

Response to the Book on Polarization I appreciate your effort to tackle an important subject in American Jewish life. However, I think you are wrong on every single issue you discuss, and I offer the following points of rebuttal. Number One: Like many in American Jewry, you think that you can gain credence with the haters of the Jews by trying to appease them with your leftist talking points. This is only going to undermine your security and the security of the State of Israel, and it will add fuel to their fire. Our enemies are aggressively trying to undermine Israel and delegitimize the Jewish people, drawing on a classic antisemitic playbook that has been used for centuries. Rather than recognizing this as a propaganda strategy, you are playing defense with tired old lines that do not change anything. We should learn from Israel's example: be strong, stand firmly, and act with the confidence that comes from knowing we are in the right and have a mission to accomplish. We should not apologize for defending ourselves, our people, or our state, nor should we bend to the forces trying to weaken us and destroy us. Number Two: Your entire premise is flawed. Jews have always been polarized. It is built into the Jewish system. I could give you every example you could possibly want from the Bible, the Second Temple period (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and others), the medieval and premodern periods (Hasidim, Mitnagdim, the Enlightenment), and modern times (Zionists versus anti-Zionists, denominations, Democrats versus Republicans, etc.). Just as the name Israel means the struggle with God, it also suggests struggling among ourselves. It is inherent and not fixable. Number Three: You assume that polarization is bad. The Talmud suggests that disagreements can be very good, as long as their purpose is to disagree for the sake of Heaven and not for your own personal aggrandizement. Number Four: All of your proposed policy points, which you think we can rally around to end polarization, are terrible and dangerous and undermine our security and well-being. A. The Two-State Solution You suggest the two-state solution. There is virtually no support for it among the vast majority of Israelis, who now have to live with the consequences of that decision after decades of terrorism and, especially, October 7. The two-state solution would leave Israel only nine miles wide in the center of the country's population, which would make it indefensible. It is also clear that there is virtually no support among the Palestinians for a two-state solution. They want one state without any Jewish control. For the small faction that pays lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, the real agenda is to use it as a launching pad to destroy Israel. Take note of the fact that the main chant arising among the left now is “Free Palestine,” which means no Jews, “from the river to the sea,” which means no Jews. And where do you get the idea that you could get a consensus of American Jews on this issue? Just as one example, I write this as someone who participates with Chabad. Are you unaware that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who set the agenda for the movement, said that not one inch should be given over to the so-called Palestinians? How in the world are you ever going to convince the adherents of Chabad, and so many Israel-loving Jews, to adopt this ridiculous idea of two states? B. The Right to Criticize Israel You say that we can all agree that we have a right to criticize Israel. That is the ultimate arrogance and hubris on your part. You live in Highland Park, Illinois, in the United States of America, and do not have to live with the consequences of decisions made by the millions of Jews who actually vote in Israel and who live in Israel and live and die with the consequences of their votes. Who are you to tell the citizens of Israel that their decisions are wrong and that the government they elect is wrong? There are plenty of Jews in Israel who can do that just fine. They don't need you adding fuel to the fire of the antisemites and Israel-haters here, who will take what you say and respond, “Oh, even Jews say this.” Even if you claim that you say it out of love, and even if you are criticizing only 5% of Israeli policy, the Israel-haters and Jew-haters will use it to demonize and delegitimize Israel. C. Condemning Settler Violence You say we can all agree on condemning settler violence. “Settler violence” is widely exaggerated, misleadingly defined, and used to delegitimize Israel and Jews living in Judea and Samaria. We do not deny that some incidents involving Jewish violence occur; rather, we dispute how frequently they occur, how incidents are classified, and how they compare with Palestinian violence against Jews. The term itself is misleading. Reports inflate the scale of the problem by counting incidents that do not constitute violence by Jewish settlers. Examples include: Palestinian attackers being injured or killed during attacks on Israelis. Clashes involving Israeli security forces. Jewish visits to the Temple Mount. Visits to archaeological sites, traffic accidents, and alleged trespassing without harm to people or property. Incidents in which the reporting does not establish who initiated a confrontation. The overwhelming majority of violence in Judea and Samaria consists of attacks by Palestinian terrorists who try to kill Jews. When you talk about agreeing that settler violence is a bad thing, you are shielding the real perpetrators of the violence. D. The Palestinian People You are giving legitimacy to an illegitimate people. Historically, there is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab people, and I could give you many examples of Arab leaders over the course of time who have said that. As you probably know, Palestine was the name given to the area by the Romans in 135 CE in an attempt to de-Judaize it. Since that time, the name Jewish Palestine was used in various contexts. The Palestine Post is now The Jerusalem Post. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra is now The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. Palestinian currency all had Jewish symbols on it. There was a chief rabbi of Palestine, etc. Yasser Arafat and the Russians made up the Palestinian people in the 1960s to try to delegitimize Israel, and they convinced people like you to use their terminology. E. Israel's Right to Exist as a Jewish State You say we can get a consensus around the idea that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Where do you come up with that idea? Democrats might give lip service to the idea that Israel should exist as a Jewish state, but they obviously don't mean it when 40 out of 47 senators, including Jews in the Senate, vote for an arms embargo against Israel, or when 100 Democratic congressmen, including Jews, vote for an immediate cutoff of aid to Israel. What are they saying when the highest-ranking Jew in the country, Chuck Schumer, endorses a candidate from Maine who wears a Waffen-SS tattoo and endorses what I consider the biggest antisemite ever to run for public office? That candidate is also endorsed by most Democrats, including the Jewish senator from Michigan. Or consider the Jewish attorney general of Michigan, who said that perhaps Judaism has to sacrifice itself for world peace. There is a synagogue in Chicago that explicitly identifies itself as an anti-Zionist synagogue, and there is a new Jewish day school opening that advertises itself as anti-Zionist. There is no consensus among American Jews that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. If you do not listen to all the American Jews who now say, “I vote here, not there,” or “Why do I need to support Israel just because I'm a Jew?” you are ignoring what I hear people saying explicitly. So, no, you are wrong on this issue, too. F. The Desire for Peace You suggest that we can all agree that we want peace. Jews want peace. We pray for it constantly, but the Palestinians do not want peace. Every home the IDF entered in Gaza was, in your view, part of a society participating in the effort to kill Jews. They aided and abetted thousands of missiles coming into Israel, and they cheered wildly when Jews were killed on October 7. Hamas specifically calls for the killing of every Jew in the world. Abbas, who still refuses to call elections after more than 20 years, continues to pay terrorists who killed Jews through the “pay-to-slay” system. There is no real effort for peace in the Palestinian world, and to believe otherwise is delusional. So what good does it do for us to pray for peace and pretend that the other side also wants peace? G. Fighting Antisemitism on the Left and the Right You say we can get a consensus around the idea that we should fight the antisemitism of both the left and the right. The problem with that is that it is completely one-sided: 95% of the antisemitism comes from the left. Every single undeclared candidate for president in 2028 on the Democratic side has made strong anti-Israel statements, and I could give them to you if you'd like. Their last candidate for president said that she empathized with the students on 300 college campuses who were calling for “from the river to the sea” and “globalizing the intifada.” The candidates being elected to office and winning their primaries now, who are openly antisemitic and openly anti-Israel, are all on the left. The one Republican who was openly antisemitic lost his primary, and Tucker Carlson is himself a Republican. So to pretend that the situation is balanced is just nonsense. You are a professor of law, and the law is supposed to be about justice and truth. In sum, your book is completely flawed. The polarization that you want to fix is unfixable until the Messiah comes, and the ideas that you believe we could rally around to achieve consensus are ridiculous. There will never be a consensus on those issues. Giving in to these leftist ideas to try to appease our haters never works. Just look at what has happened since October 7. The State of Israel is immeasurably stronger today because of its own fortitude, its willingness to fight hatred and evil, and President Trump's support. Hamas is weaker. Hezbollah is weaker. Syria has a new government. Iran is weaker. Israel is by far the dominant power in the Middle East. By contrast, American Jewry is on its heels. We now spend a billion dollars trying to defend our synagogues and schools, and we have no answer for combating the virulent antisemitism that has arisen on the left. Your appeasement of those forces has never worked; it will only further endanger us and the State of Israel. We need to rally around the ideas of intensifying Jewish life and education, as well as educating people about the fundamental role that Israel plays in the world and its strategic value to the United States. We are never going to convince the antisemites, but we can try to win over the vast majority of Americans who are not crazy. Your book does not help. You're playing defense with tired old ideas that won't move the needle at all and will Aid and a bett our enemies. Israel did not become the dominant power in the Middle East by playing defense and shrinking back. you have to play offense aggressively. call out the lie that they're saying about us and assert proactively that the brilliance of our tradition in our Jewish

Institute for National Security Studies blaming Israel for diaspora problems is classic shtetl mentality

the article https://www.jta.org/2026/10/18/ideas/report-israeli-policies-erode-diaspora-jews-security-and-influence?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_20450508&utm_source=JTA_Iterable&utm_campaign=JTA_Sunday_Ideas&utm_medium=email I read with great interest and then disgust,,the report by the Institute for National Security Studies about supposed Jewish leaders across five countries and the price the diaspora is paying for Israeli policies. It's a typical example of shtetl mentality: a report by Jews who think that appeasing antisemites will make things easier for us. Has that ever worked? It has only made things worse.

Their assertion is that Israeli policies regarding Gaza and the settlers exacerbate tensions in the diaspora and endanger diaspora Jews.

This is ridiculous and dangerous on two different levels.

First, have they forgotten that there are millions of Jews in Israel who have lived under threats to their very existence since the country's inception? Israel tried to play Mr. Nice Guy in Gaza. After completely withdrawing in 2005, it adopted a policy of “mowing the lawn,” conducting limited military operations to kill terrorists over the years while facing tens of thousands of missiles launched from Gaza.

Israel tried the peace approach by inviting its Gaza neighbors to work in the kibbutzim near Gaza. How did that work out? Those jihadis simply used their work there as a way to scout out how best to kill the citizens. Have they forgotten October 7? Israel was invaded by thousands of bloodthirsty terrorists who beheaded babies, raped women, mutilated victims, and committed other atrocities. They took hundreds of hostages, killed 1,200 people, and wounded thousands. And these people think Israeli policies are the cause of the problems we're facing?

The very next day, charges of genocide against Israel began. Encampments on more than 300 college campuses across the United States sprang up almost instantly, well financed, as evidenced by the $500 designer tents in which students were living. They were chanting “From the river to the sea,” which means no Israel. They were chanting “Globalize the intifada.” They were calling for genocide. This began on October 8. Do these people really think Israeli policies caused that?

Who's the victim here?

The charge of genocide is a complete lie. The population of Gaza is larger than it was before the war. If Israel were trying to commit genocide, it would be doing a pretty awful job. Hamas doesn't wear uniforms. Its terrorists hide among the civilian population and enjoy support from many civilians. The IDF has reported that there was evidence of Hamas activity in virtually every home or building its forces entered. The wild cheering in the streets of Gaza on October 7 demonstrates that support.

How did the United States and its allies respond to the Japanese and the Nazis? We dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities and firebombed Tokyo and Dresden. Israel was much more careful about protecting civilians in Gaza. Many reports have argued that the ratio of civilian deaths to terrorist deaths was lower than in almost any other conflict in history. And yet this report by Jews blames Israel.

Then there are the settlers. First of all, they're not settlers. They are Israeli citizens living on historic Jewish land that was illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. And the vast, vast, vast majority of violent incidents in Judea and Samaria involve Arabs trying to kill Jews, not Jews trying to kill Arabs. This is another classic left-wing attack on Jews, and this report supports that attack.

The enemies of the Jewish people aren't worried about niceties. They don't believe Israel has a right to exist. Just look at the candidates running for office in the United States today. There is a report that the mayor of Boulder cannot say whether Israel should exist. The Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan cannot say whether Iran or Israel poses the greater threat.

You're not going to appease these antisemites. There is no appeasing them.

Have the authors of this report no understanding of Jewish history? The focus of the Jewish community should be on the fact that the genocide charges are a lie and that the famine charge was a lie. These terrorists threaten Western civilization, not just Jews. After they're done with the Saturday people, they're going to go after the Sunday people.

Israel has every right to defend itself, and it has done so in a much more careful way than the Allies did regarding civilians during World War II.

This is a shameful report. Classic shtetl mentality

Jews in the diaspora are not going to be better off. if the Jewish leaders start turning on Israel. we'd be much better off if you defend Israel vigorously. just take Israel as the example. they're in a much more dangerous neighborhood than we are and they are much stronger after October 7th because they took a strong position. You're not going to get the anti-semites to like us. you have to have them fear us. The irony of October 7th is that Israel is much stronger. today. Hamas is weaker. Hezbollah is weaker Iran is weaker. Syria's got a new government Israel's by far the dominant military and economic power in the Middle East and yet diaspora Jews are reeling in a defensive mode and we're taking a weak position. based on this report. It's nonsense.

Surely there are many people in the West who understand the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism and need to be persuaded that the danger is not Israel. The danger is Islamic terrorism and Israel and President Trump are right now the best basis for fighting it and and the world needs to get behind Israel's efforts to fight it.

The Palestinians are a made-up phony people that never existed before the 1960s. There was virtually no serious peace movement. They have tried to kill Jews from the inception. They want to steal Jewish land and create another terrorist Muslim State. Why in the world would diaspora Jewish leaders not use all their energy to fight that which threatens Jews and the West?

Can't these people understand They're trying to divide us to split the diaspora at community from Israel weaken the Jews. That's what Obama tried to do by setting up j Street. It's never worked. It's dangerous. Stupid counterproductive. We need a unified Jewish community. It's bad enough. We have so many traitors among Us, like all those Jews in Congress voting for arms embargo against Israel Aid cut off against Israel. You have the Michigan Jewish attorney general saying maybe Judaism has to go away to for the benefit of humanity. Get on board!

Democrat senators lie about settler violence

ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA NEWS RELEASE ZOA Outraged by Senate Democrats for Promoting Propaganda Lie of “Settler Violence” Yet Ignoring Daily Palestinian Attacks on Jews Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein released the following message: ZOA is outraged that the entire U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus, except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), fell for the latest anti-Israel propaganda about a supposed existence of and increase of “settler violence” in Judea and Samaria, and sent a letter decrying this fake problem to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This letter urged Netanyahu to intercede to stop the phony “surge” of violence. The Senate Democrats ignore the true daily surge of Arab violence, including big gun and knife attacks against Jews and car rammings against Jews, all of which are promoted by the Palestinian Arab regime and the Imams in the mosques and the Palestinian media. At the same time, many of these same Senators have introduced a bill, along with bigot and Socialist anti-Israel Senator Bernie Sanders, to force the State Department to produce a report on the same fake issue within 30 days. If the report is not issued, Israel would lose all military aid, which many of these same Senators have already voted to eliminate in any case. The propaganda concerning this supposed “surge” relies on statistics from the United Nations ‘Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.’ These fake statistics claim that from 2016 through 2021, there were 6,285 incidents of “settler violence” against Palestinian Arabs. The UN promotes these fake numbers by using a ludicrous definition of “settler-related violence,” including: Arabs injured or killed while they were perpetrating terror attacks against Israeli Jews; misclassified Arab attacks on Jews!; Jewish visits to Temple Mount (16% of alleged incidents); clashes with security forces (14%); tourists visiting archeological sites; infrastructure work legally carried out by Israel; traffic accidents; alleged “trespassing” by Israeli tourists or hikers, with no damage to property or person (19%); incidents outside of Judea/Samaria (20%); involvement in clashes with no indication as to who initiated or was responsible. Further, the UN itself admits that it does not confirm every detail before incidents are added to the list, which makes the numbers even more unreliable. ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: “These allegations against Jews who live in Judea/Samaria are absolute nonsense based on fake data. The UN is well-known for its extreme antisemitic bias against Jews and Israel, and the U.S. Senate should not be relying on its lies for policy. The amount of crimes by Jews there is tiny and handled immediately by Israel. But the average of 14 daily terrorist attacks by Palestinian Arabs is horrifically huge and is ignored by the Senate’s Democratic caucus. Shame on them. ZOA condemns these Democratic Senators for inspiring Jew-hatred and Israel-bashing by promoting this lie. We urge them to stop! “Where is their letter condemning the real violence and murder of Jews by Palestinians? And the Palestinians are paid by the Palestinian regime to commit murder of Jews. The dictatorship of the Palestinian regime spends $400 million per year paying Arabs a lifetime pension to murder Jews. “Many people ask me why Jew-hatred has become such a problem in our own country. Part of the answer is the failure of Jewish leaders to push back on slanders against the Jewish People that have become endemic in our country. There is no genocide committed by Israel. There is no apartheid in Israel. And there is no crisis of ‘settler violence.’ Continue Reading Share This Email Share This Email Share This Email DONATE zoa.org Copyright © Zionist Organization of America 2026. All rights reserved.

Zionist Organization of America | 633 Third Ave 31 B | New York, NY 10017 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice