שחרור ברגן בלזן, 1945.

I strongly condemn today's Israeli strikes on Beirut. The strikes took place despite the ceasefire & at a time when the US & Iran are expected to reach an agreement that will pave the way to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. This conflict is having a devastating impact on the world's economy. I urge all parties to show maximum restraint at this crucial moment & I strongly hope for a successful outcome of the ongoing efforts by the US & Iran.

With all due respect, Mr. Vice President, World War II is probably the worst example you could have chosen. The whole reason World War II happened in the first place was because World War I ended with a deeply flawed post-war settlement. If anything, it is a warning about what happens when you fail to properly resolve the causes of a conflict. And when World War II did happen, how did it end? Not through negotiations. It ended with a decisive military victory. In Germany, Allied forces were literally within meters of Hitler’s bunker. In Japan, it took two nuclear bombs before the Imperial leadership finally accepted reality and surrendered unconditionally. I don’t even need to go digging through distant history or obscure corners of the world to find examples. Let’s stay in your own backyard. How did the American Civil War end? It ended with a decisive Union victory, the surrender of the Confederacy, Reconstruction, and accountability for those who had taken up arms against the Union. It did not end with everyone sitting around a table and agreeing to disagree. The lesson from history isn’t that wars should end through vague compromises that leave the underlying issues unresolved. Quite often, the lesson is the exact opposite: unresolved conflicts tend to come back, usually bigger and bloodier than before.

The Lancet, one of the most important medical journals in the world, published a petition today calling for the suspension of the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) from the World Medical Association (WMA). 1,150 professionals signed the petition because the IMA "failed to condemn the genocide of the Palestinians, the destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system, and the torture of detainees." The IMA has, in actuality, spent the entire war advocating for Gazans, petitioning the government to ensure medical supplies were entering Gaza, and demanding that hospitals in Gaza remain safe havens. But they're evil because they didn't use the word genocide? It doesn't matter what you do for Palestinians or how you fight for them if you don't use a certain word? What happened to "actions speak louder than words?"

INSANE 🇨🇦 Canada sending $100,000,000 to Palestine, announced just now from Paris France 🤯 $100 MILLION. I’m sure Ukraine is next

Will Europe Save Hamas in Gaza? I recently met with a high-ranking European official from a country deeply involved in the Israel and Palestine file to discuss Gaza’s future and immediate options for relieving civilians trapped under Hamas’s grip. I presented a simple proposal: create safe zones across the "Yellow Line" into the Israel‑controlled green zone and support new, organized, secure, Hamas‑free communities where Gazans could finally begin rebuilding their lives. Whether the issue is humane living conditions, deradicalization, education, healthcare, or shielding civilians from both Hamas or Israeli strikes, the green zone is the only place where meaningful action is possible. Instead of engaging, the official launched into a long monologue about their country’s contributions to the Palestinian Authority, UNRWA, and other institutions, all while insisting on their own “humility” as a faraway European nation. Then came the truly alarming part: a casual normalization of Hamas. The official proudly described how easy it had been to work with Hamas before October 7, praising the group for providing “excellent security” and being “easier to work with than others.” What they called pragmatism was, in reality, a twenty‑year pattern of enabling a violent terrorist organization responsible for immense civilian suffering. When I explained that any Hamas‑free zones would require vetting at the Yellow Line to prevent weapons or operatives from entering, the official reacted with shock. “This vetting would violate international law,” they repeated, insisting that their country could not fund projects with any checks on who enters. I noted the absurdity: I had undergone extensive vetting just to enter their country, and even this building, yet they believed Hamas fighters should be able to walk into new civilian safe zones unimpeded. Their only response was vague appeals to “international law,” which, in their interpretation, seems to require allowing terrorists to hide among civilians. The meeting ended on an even more surreal note. When the official asked what would happen to Hamas fighters left in the red zone, I said I didn’t care; they could fight the Israeli military on their own all they wanted once they no longer held two million civilians hostage. The official lamented that “this isn’t the old American West” and expressed concern for what would happen to Hamas without human shields. Disgust doesn’t begin to describe my feelings and reactions. I left convinced of something long suspected: Hamas’s twenty‑year rule was sustained not only by its own brutality but by an ecosystem of NGOs, donor nations, Western European governments, journalists, academics, activists, lawyers, and even self‑styled human‑rights defenders who normalized Hamas, treated it as a legitimate authority, or tolerated its abuses because their hostility toward Israel outweighed their concern for Gazans.