News Monday that President-elect Trump was eyeing three hawks for top slots in his administration has put a bit of a damper on the headiness that restrainers on the right were feeling over weekend news that Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo would not be joining the administration.
By 8 p.m. Monday, there was confirmation that Elise Stefanik, arch-defender of Israel who once worked for the neocon outfit Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Bill Kristol's Foreign Policy Initiative, is Trump's pick for UN ambassador.
China hawk Rep. Mike Waltz, who spent much of his time on Capitol Hill this year saber rattling about Chinese military and spies in our backyard, and calling for a "new Monroe Doctrine" and a lot more military build-up to confront them, is Trump's pick for National Security Advisor. He worked in the George W. Bush Pentagon and for Vice President Dick Cheney as a counterterrorism advisor.
Add to that, he resisted Trump's efforts to get the U.S. military out of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, and like many uber-hawks in Congress, has been open to bombing Iran.
Some point out that he recently voted against Ukraine aid, and has said the war in Ukraine must end in a negotiated settlement. However, on Israel and Iran he has never wavered. Rubio, who was reportedly close to late-pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson and other big neocon donors, has supported illegal settlement building in the West Bank and has suggested that the U.S. may have to go to war with Iran over its nuclear program. On the current conflict, he has defended Israel's every move in the war in Gaza and Lebanon. He has warned that Iran wants to make Israel "an unlivable place."
He has always been a staunch opponent to any U.S. deal that would hem in Iran's nuclear program, including the JCPOA.
Later Monday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical Christian supporter of Israel who has been a vocal supporter of illegal settlements in the West Bank, was named by Trump as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. By night it was announced that FOX News personality and Iraq/Afghanistan war vet Pete Hesgeth is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense.
The appointments of Stefanik, Waltz, Huckabee, and Hesgeth have been announced by Trump. As of Monday afternoon, Rubio's nomination had yet to be confirmed. But the day's news has left observers with the feeling that it is déjà vu all over again.
"Trump often deviated from the views of his top advisers. And I know @DonaldJTrumpJr and others are doing what he said below," said Glenn Greenwald, pointing to a X post reply by Don Trump Jr. about keeping neoconservatives out of the administration. "But Trump's last 3 appointees - Elise Stefanik, Mike Weltz (sic), and Rubio - are war hawks fully aligned with the worst prongs of bipartisan DC consensus."
Top photo credit: Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition receive medical care at Al-Rantisi Children's Hospital, July 24, 2025, Gaza. Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages Gaza city Gaza Strip Palestinian Territory 240725_Gaza_OSH_0014 Copyright: xapaimagesxOmarxAshtawyxxapaimagesx
The prospects for negotiating a ceasefire and an end to the humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip appear as dim as ever. Israeli and U.S. representatives walked out of talks with Hamas in Qatar that had been mediated by the Qataris and Egyptians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is talking about “alternative” means of achieving Israel’s goals in the territory.
President Donald Trump, echoing Netanyahu’s levying of blame on Hamas, asserted that “Hamas didn’t really want to make a deal. I think they want to die.” Trump went on to mention a need to “finish the job,” evidently referring to Israel’s continued devastating assault on the Strip and its residents.
I have been thinking for a long time about the negotiation of ceasefires. Nearly 50 years ago, I wrote a book, “Negotiating Peace: War Termination as a Bargaining Process,” which explored the diplomatic and military dynamics of how two belligerents negotiate a peace while simultaneously fighting a war.
What is taking place in Gaza now is mostly not a war, even though that term commonly is applied to the violence there. It is instead a largely unilateral assault on a population and its means of living. It is a situation in which one side, Israel, has — as Trump might put it — nearly all the cards.
The news stories emerging almost daily from Gaza are not about pitched battles between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas fighters. They are mostly not about battles at all. Instead, they are about the latest large-scale killing by Israel of Gazans, mostly civilians, at a rate that has averaged about 150 deaths per day since the current round of carnage began in late 2023. Civilians are killed largely with airstrikes but also more recently through getting shot while seeking ever-scarcer food.
Mass starvation has become perhaps the most gut-wrenching part of the Gaza catastrophe, and one where Israel has again tried to shift blame onto Hamas. A longtime Israeli accusation in endeavoring to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—the principal international organization with the mission of aiding Palestinian refugees, including in Gaza—is that Hamas supposedly was stealing UNRWA-supplied food. Trump has echoed that accusation.
A study by the U.S. Agency for International Development (before the Trump administration dismantled the agency) of reported incidents of loss or theft of U.S.-supplied humanitarian assistance in Gaza found no evidence that Hamas has engaged in widespread diversion of aid. More recent press reporting shows that the IDF itself has found no evidence of Hamas seizing or diverting aid.
Israel’s opposition to UNRWA has nothing to do with Hamas or with theft of humanitarian aid. It instead concerns how UNRWA — because it is a United Nations agency explicitly focused on Palestinians — constitutes an international recognition that the Palestinians are a nation and that many of them are refugees from their homeland.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza got worse once Israel succeeded in pushing UNRWA aside. The U.S.-backed and Israeli-controlled alternative aid scheme is not only woefully inadequate in meeting immediate needs but also designed as an adjunct to Israel’s ethnic cleansing objectives. The limitation of aid to a few distribution points facilitates the forced relocation of surviving Gazans into what amounts to a concentration camp, as a possible prelude to removal from the Gaza Strip altogether.
Some aid has recently been dropped into Gaza by air. Airdrops are an ineffective and inefficient way of trying to relieve the starvation. The amounts delivered are a tiny fraction of what is needed. The cost of delivery is far higher than by land. As demonstrated by an earlier U.S. effort to deliver aid this way, some of the supplies are lost because they fall into the sea or, even worse, kill people crushed by falling pallets. But for some donors, an airdrop serves as a visually dramatic conscience-calming gesture.
For Israel, it serves as a distraction from the fact that the biggest impediment to getting humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip is Israel’s continued land blockade of the territory. Valuing that distraction, Israel itself has joined in the airdrop gesture. At the same time, however, Israel continues to allow only a trickle of aid to cross the land border, with many hundreds of truckloads left to spoil and be destroyed by the IDF.
In my decades-old book, I identified a type of war ending that is an alternative to a negotiated settlement as “extermination/expulsion,” meaning that the militarily dominant side physically obliterates its opponent or pushes it out of contested territory. Extermination/expulsion of the opponent is an appropriate label for Israel’s objective in Gaza.
The prevailing Israeli conception of the opponent, or enemy, in Gaza is the entire Palestinian population, an attitude that was already well rooted on the Israeli Right before the Hamas attack in October 2023 and has grown even stronger and wider since then. The deaths already inflicted, directly or indirectly, by the IDF have significantly advanced the extermination objective. The expulsion part has mostly been the stuff of internal Israeli deliberations, although it came more into the open when Trump gave Netanyahu’s government the gift of endorsing the ethnic cleansing with his Riviera-in-Gaza proposal.
Insofar as Hamas is defined as the enemy, the Israeli objective of extermination has been more explicit. The Trump administration has declared its support for Israel’s repeatedly stated objective of “eradicating” Hamas. Netanyahu, speaking to an internal IDF audience last year, said that “we will kill the Hamas leadership” and that this killing as well as acting “in all areas in the Gaza Strip” was part of “total victory” that would be needed before military operations would end.
The objective of extermination/expulsion is an obvious deal-killer. It makes no sense to expect the other party to a conflict to negotiate its own eradication.
Netanyahu also has other personal and political reasons to keep Israeli military operations going indefinitely. These include delaying his full reckoning with corruption charges and keeping intact his coalition with right-wing extremists who are especially vehement about eliminating or expelling Palestinians from Gaza and who strongly oppose a ceasefire.
For Netanyahu’s government, any talk of a ceasefire has little to do with getting closer to peace in Gaza. Instead, it is only a temporary pause in operations that this government finds expedient for whatever reason, be it logistical resupply, relief from diplomatic pressure, or something else. As with the ceasefire earlier this year, the Israelis will feel free to break it whenever they no longer find it expedient.
Hamas has wanted a ceasefire for some time, and why shouldn’t it? Much of its leadership has indeed been killed, and its ability to resist further Israeli attacks is badly battered though not eliminated. The longer the suffering of the Gazan population continues, the more that Hamas may lose support among those who blame it for triggering the devastation with its 2023 attack. The group has nothing to gain, and only more to lose, as the violence continues.
Throughout off-and-on ceasefire talks since last year, the main sticking point has been that Hamas wants a clear route to a permanent end to hostilities while Israel wants to retain the ability to resume its attacks. Hamas also has tried to use what few cards it has to gain relief for the civilian population of Gaza, by calling for unimpeded humanitarian aid and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from densely populated areas so that residents can return to their homes. In addition, it has sought freedom for some of the Palestinians in Israeli prisons.
Press reporting based on internal documents from the recent round of talks in Qatar shows that the Hamas negotiators worked closely and carefully with the Qatari and Egyptian mediators to try to craft a viable ceasefire agreement. Hamas had already agreed to the great majority of the content in a framework document that the mediators said Israel had accepted.
The amendments Hamas sought were mostly focused on relief for Palestinian civilians and aimed at getting greater precision and clarity in the framework agreement. For example, regarding withdrawals of Israeli troops, instead of the draft’s vague language about withdrawal to lines “close” to what was in the January 2025 ceasefire agreement, Hamas insisted that the negotiators talk in detail about specific lines on maps. The Hamas negotiators offered their own proposals that made some refinements of only 100 or 200 meters from the maps they finally were given.
Regarding release of Palestinian prisoners, in response to the vague framework language, the Hamas representatives wanted to negotiate specific numbers, to match the specific numbers of Israeli hostages to be released in the framework. On humanitarian aid, Hamas wanted a return to United Nations administration of aid distribution and a reopening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt.
Having negotiated seriously on these and other points, the Hamas representatives were taken aback by the subsequent U.S. and Israeli walkout and by Trump’s accusations about Hamas’s alleged responsibility for the breakdown.
Trump’s assertion that Hamas “didn’t really want to make a deal” and instead wanted “to die” is nonsense. The talks in Qatar ended because Netanyahu’s government decided it did not want to make a deal at this time. As with most things involving Israel, the Trump administration fell in line behind Netanyahu.
Blaming Hamas for continuation of the Gaza catastrophe is another instance of treating a Palestinian resistance group—whether it is Hamas or any other, and there have been many of them—as the cause of violence associated with the subjugation of Palestinians and occupation of their homelands, rather than as an effect of the subjugation and occupation.
Netanyahu in the past has found it expedient to treat Hamas as something other than the evil incarnate that Israel portrays it as today. Netanyahu earlier facilitated Qatari payments to Hamas as a way of building up the group as a counterweight to the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.
This tactic was part of a continuing Israeli strategy to keep Palestinians divided, so that Israel can say that it “does not have a negotiating partner”—a line echoed by Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States. That approach is yet another indication of unwillingness to reach a negotiated peace with the Palestinians.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi in Cairo, Egypt, June 2, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany
In the heart of old Cairo last month, one of the Middle East’s longest-running rifts was being publicly laid to rest.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, flanked by Egyptian officials, walked through Cairo’s historic Khan el-Khalili bazaar, prayed at the Al-Hussein Mosque, and dined with former Egyptian foreign ministers at the storied Naguib Mahfouz restaurant. Araghchi was unequivocal when he posted during his trip that Egyptian-Iranian relations had “entered a new phase.”
This visit was more than routine diplomacy, but a signal of a potentially seismic shift between two Middle Eastern powers, drawn together by the pull of shared crises.
The rupture began in 1979, when Iran’s revolutionary leaders severed diplomatic relations after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel — a betrayal in Tehran’s eyes. The schism deepened when Cairo granted asylum to the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was just overthrown by a popular revolution which birthed a new Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. He died and was buried in Egypt in 1980.
During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), Egypt’s material support for Saddam Hussein’s regime cemented Tehran’s view of Cairo as an antagonist. For decades thereafter, diplomatic relations remained frozen, with only intermittent and largely fruitless attempts at dialogue.
Against this backdrop of accumulated grievances, Tehran’s recent renaming of "Khalid al-Islambouli Street," is a particularly significant gesture. The street had honored the chief suspect in Sadat’s 1981 assassination, whom Iranhailed as a "martyr" after his court-mandated execution by firing squad. The new name, “Hassan Nasrallah Street” instead pays tribute to Hezbollah’s slain leader, killed by Israeli airstrikes in 2024, rectifying a decades-old insult to Egypt.
This renaming represents a strategic concession, resolving what Araghchi called the “final hurdle” to normalization weeks earlier. Cairo’s swift public embrace of the move, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ambassador Tamim Khallaf calling it a "positive step" that "helps put matters back on the right track," demonstrated Egypt’s willingness to turn the page.
During marathon meetings with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty in June, Araghchi asserted that "trust between Cairo and Tehran has never been this high." The tangible outcome of the meetings was an agreement to establish regular political consultations at the sub-ministerial level — a structured channel absent since 1979.
Crucially, Abdelatty carefully framed the visit as a pragmatic necessity, not as unconditional alignment. "There is a mutual desire to develop our relations, taking into account the concerns and perspectives of each side," Egypt’s chief diplomat said.
This nascent détente is less about newfound affection than cold-eyed calculation amid emerging and converging crises. First, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, launched in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza but enabled by Iranian arms and training, struck Egypt’s economic jugular. Billions of dollars in Suez Canal revenues evaporated as shipping rerouted around Africa.
While Araghchi publicly downplayed direct control over the Houthis, insisting that Yemen "makes its own decisions," Cairo desperately needs Tehran’s leverage to restore maritime security. Abdelatty’s blunt emphasis on "protecting freedom of navigation in the Red Sea" during a March phone call with Araghchi underscores this vital priority.
While Yemen’s Houthis maintain operational independence from Tehran, Iranian support for the group is well-documented, and statements from Egyptian leadership calculate that Iran could exert significant influence on the Houthis.
For Iran, reeling from last month’s Israeli and U.S. strikes on its nuclear and military infrastructure, normalization with Egypt — the Arab world’s cultural heart and an important U.S. ally — helps establish its regional legitimacy and expands its diplomatic options. This outreach is all the more urgent now that its traditional "Axis of Resistance" is faltering, with Hezbollah battered in Lebanon, Hamas under siege in Gaza, and Bashar Al-Assad ousted in Syria.
Larger regional dynamics are increasingly conducive to Iranian-Egyptian normalization. China’s 2023 brokering of Saudi-Iranian rapprochement removed a critical veto. With Riyadh restoring ties with Tehran, Cairo gained freedom to engage Iran without fear of alienating its vital Gulf financiers.
This new diplomatic freedom is being accelerated by the brutal reality of Sudan’s civil war. The conflict has pushed the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to revive a dormant alliance with Iran in a desperate search for military support. Since Egypt is also a key backer of the SAF, Cairo and Tehran now share a mutual ally in a war raging on Egypt's southern doorstep, creating an unexpected arena of common interest.
These regional realignments, coupled with shared economic pain — Egypt’s debt crisis and Iran’s crippling sanctions — make tangible cooperation on trade, and religious tourism (primarily for Iranians to visit Shiite sites in Egypt) suddenly viable.
Additionally, Israel's 12-day assault on Iran further intensified cooperation between Cairo and Tehran.
The offensive created parallel crises for both: for Iran, Israeli strikes — conducted with U.S. assistance — against its defense and nuclear infrastructure deepened its isolation, violated its territory, and derailed nuclear diplomacy. Concurrently, Egypt suffered collateral damage to its energy security when Israeli-operated gas fields, supplying 15-20% of its needs, were shuttered. This forced emergency measures and sparked blackout fears, revealing a shared vulnerability exploited by the conflict.
The attacks also amplified Egypt’s mediating role while drawing Iran and Egypt closer. Sisi’s late-night call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, just hours before U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — in which Sisi condemned Israeli "escalation" — highlighted Cairo’s unique positioning. Egypt’s foreign minister has since embarked on a diplomatic blitz, coordinating with Oman, which has mediated U.S.-Iran talks, U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steve Witkoff, and Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in hopes of reviving nuclear negotiations.
Despite the momentum, full diplomatic trust remains constrained by structural divides. Egypt's pro-Western orientation — anchored in U.S. military aid and its 46-year-old treaty with Israel — clashes with Tehran’s revolutionary ethos. Hostility toward the U.S. (“the Great Satan” as the Islamic’s Republic’s founders called it) has remained a core, albeit flexible pillar of Iranian foreign policy.
For Cairo, its relationship with Israel is non-negotiable, for reasons both strategic and existential. Israel is not only a critical energy supplier, but also an indispensable counterpart in Gaza ceasefire talks aimed at ending the brutal war raging on Egypt’s Sinai border. Iran's anti-Western posture, meanwhile, has been hardened by a series of Israeli escalations: direct strikes killing senior military and scientific figures, and explicit threats to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Significantly, Iran's support for Hamas — the militant group Israel has been fighting in Gaza for nearly two years — isn't merely a complication; it's a structural barrier.
Egypt, in addition to being a key mediator in the Gaza conflict, is also a significant stakeholder with sensitive national security interests on the line. Its primary objectives are to secure a ceasefire, establish a governing authority in a post-war Gaza, and, crucially, prevent a mass influx of Palestinian refugees into the Sinai Peninsula.
However, Cairo’s goals clash head-on with Iran's public declarations in support of the militant group.For Egypt, Hamas is not a partner but a dangerous security threat. Cairo views the group as a hostile offshoot of its primary domestic arch-nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and has long accused it of fueling the brutal Islamist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. This deep-seated animosity is irreconcilable with Tehran's position.
After Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi hailed the attacks as a "victorious operation" that "made the Islamic Ummah happy." In a recent interview with Fox News, Iran’s Foreign Minister called Hamas “freedom fighters...fighting for a just cause.”
This praise is not just political, it was backed by operational links managed by figures like the recently assassinated Revolutionary Guard commander Saeed Izadi, who reportedly oversaw military coordination with Hamas. While reports indicate Iran did not participate in the October 7th attack, its praise for Hamas is backed by decades of material support that built the group's military strength.
Iran’s support for Hamas, and its fundamental hostility towards Israel, which itself is a necessary albeit frustrating partner for Egypt, will continue to complicate the burgeoning relationship.
The Cairo-Tehran rapprochement therefore is not a grand strategic embrace but rather a marriage of convenience. Its trajectory leans toward deeper engagement because mutual necessity — securing waterways, averting an all-out regional war, surviving economically — now outweighs the costs of avoidance.
It looks probable that the two nations will soon upgrade their current low-level missions to full embassies, that economic ties will continue to grow, and that diplomatic channels will remain active on flashpoints like the Red Sea crisis and U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. However this relationship will remain inherently transactional, constrained by their competing national interests.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: David Ellison, CBS News (Photo By Sthanlee B. Mirador/Sipa USA) and Bari Weiss, Free Press (REUTERS/Mike Blake)
Bari Weiss + CBS: Shoddy, pro-Israel journalism wins the day
A thought experiment: would anyone who referred to the killing of 50 Jewish people, many of them “entirely innocent non-combatants, including children,” as “one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Palestinian liberation’s dream turned into the reality of self-determination,” ever be hired by a major television news network?
Would their news outlet ever be potentially offered more than $200 million to merge with that major news network?
Of course not, and for good reason. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening, only with one small but major difference: the writer and her news outlet responsible for this statement, Bari Weiss and The Free Press, were not talking about Hamas’ murder of Israelis, but rather about Israel’s killing of 50 Palestinians — “Zionism’s dream turned into the reality of self-determination,” as Weiss described it in 2021.
Weiss is currently in talks to sell The Free Press to CBS News for between $200-$250 million, after reportedly winning over its new owner, David Ellison, “by taking a pro-Israel stance,” according to the Financial Times. Ellison “wants to position The Free Press alongside CBS News,” the paper reported, while another source told the New York Times that Ellison is weighing up giving Weiss “an influential role in shaping the editorial sensibilities of CBS News.”
If so, it would be a major new development in a pervasive double standard we’ve seen in the past nearly two years. Weiss and her outlet have engaged in rhetoric and professional behavior that would ordinarily never pass muster in a newsroom — but are considered acceptable because they are in support of Israel’s war against Palestinians.
For one, The Free Press has repeatedly spread misinformation. In May 2024, the outlet charged that the UN had “admit[ted]” the civilian death toll was 50 percent lower than what was being claimed, a quickly debunked and borderline willful misreading of a UN document, a misreading that the UN secretary-general’s office swiftly came forward to correct (a fact left out of The Free Press’ piece).
One year later, The Free Press declared the idea that Israel was engineering a man-made famine that was underway in Gaza a “myth,” even as Israel was in its third month of blocking all food, fuel, and medicine into the territory and at least 57 civilians had already starved to death, most of them children. As recently as this past Sunday, another Free Press article argued that “there isn’t mass starvation as claimed by pro-Hamas propaganda,” which flies in the face of not just basic reality, but testimony from doctors, major news organizations with journalists on the ground, and even the conclusion of President Donald Trump, a supporter of the war.
Just this past June, The Free Press charged simultaneously that there had both been no massacre of Palestinian aid seekers, and that, if there was, Hamas may have been responsible. Of course, since then, not only have Israeli soldiersadmitted to shooting aid-seekers but U.S. contractors are coming forward to back up their gruesome stories. These accounts are becoming a near-daily occurrence, with over 1,000 Gazans killed at or close to aid distribution sites in the past two months.
In late May, The Free Press even published a puff piece on the group running these virtual slaughterhouses, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), painting it as an unsung success story, despite amplecontroversyat the time over its reliance on mercenaries and lack of independence. Two months of bloodshed later, condemnation and calls for GHF’s dismantling are widespread, with one former GHF staffer — a retired U.S. special forces officer — saying he had never witnessed such brutality and indiscriminate violence against “an unarmed, starving population” as at GHF’s distribution centers.
All of these pieces are still up, uncorrected on The Free Press website. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
When it’s not spreading outright misinformation, The Free Press engages in more insidious propaganda. For instance, it has, depending on the public relations needs of the moment, shifted between ignoring, indignantly denying, and justifying Israel’s attacks on Gaza’s hospitals.
When a blast in the war’s first month that killed hundreds at al-Ahli Hospital ignited global outrage, The Free Press jumped on evidence that it may have been an errant Hamas rocket to chargeagain and again and again, even as recently as two days ago, that the media were rampantly defaming Israel through fake news of crimes it had never committed.
Since then, The Free Press has simply ignored the Israeli attacks on hospitals, often openly done and fully admitted to by the IDF, that have left 94 percent of hospitals in Gaza damaged or destroyed, including just this year attacking al-Ahli at least twice. In fact, both the outlet and Weiss personally pivoted quickly from denying Israel would do such a terrible thing to actively justifying its targeting of hospitals.
Of course, the vast majority of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza are simply never discussed by the outlet. The same goes for Palestinian suffering more generally and the massive and ever-mounting Palestinian death toll, which a group of experts last year concluded is likely undercounted by hundreds of thousands. Typically, the only time these topics are discussed by the outlet is to denythem and to lament their negative effecton Israel.
This is hardly surprising, considering new revelations that The Free Press has serially regurgitated content pushed by the Center for Peace Communications — an organization staffed by figures from pro-Israel think tanks and funded by money from pro-Israel donors.
Another largely absent topic: antisemitism, which is a charge The Free Press exclusively reserves for antiwar protesters, college campuses, teachers unions, Peter Beinart, Ireland, and anyone else who expresses pro-Palestinian sentiment, while it dutifully ignores accusations of antisemitism among Trump appointees and nominees and allies who also happen to be supporters of Israel’s war.
That brings us to the conduct of Weiss herself. She has a personal history of both playing fast and loose with the truth and what can only be described as a high degree of tolerance for anti-Arab and Islamophobic bigotry.
Weiss first rose to prominence due to her efforts to get Muslim and Arab professors at Columbia University fired by accusing them of racism, only for the resulting investigation to find “no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic.” She then later misleadinglyclaimed she had never tried to get them fired.
The supposedly rabid bigotry of ordinary Muslims is a favorite topic of Weiss, who has previously blamed rising antisemitism in Europe on the Muslim presence there, and warned that European Jews have “reason to worry” because of it. Soon after October 7, she approvingly shared a Free Press article whose central argument was that protests against Israel’s war — dishonestly characterized as hateful antisemitic rallies “celebrat[ing] mass murder in the streets” — were thanks to immigrants from Middle Eastern countries who could be either “80-year-old Armenian retirees or jihadi terrorists plotting another 9/11.” The Free Press later published an error-riddled article explicitly blaming a surge in Canadian antisemitism on Muslim immigration.
At the same time, Weiss has often promoted, often throughThe Free Press, her “friend” Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali believes that “we are at war with Islam,” which she has called “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death,” that “there is no moderate Islam,” and that it must be “defeated” and “crush[ed],” including by closing all Muslim schools.
Ali has been a favorite of Islamphobic think tanks and neoconservative activists since the Global War on Terror. She has written that “every devout Muslim” at the very least “approved” of Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks and wrote a book that argued that Muslim immigration threatens the rights of Western women, partly because of Muslim men’s supposedly rapacious appetite for sexual violence.
Weiss eagerly promoted that book, spending an hour teeing Hirsi Ali up in a question and answer session to hold forth unchallenged about the dangers of ordinary Muslim men. Elsewhere, Weiss has waxed lyrical about her pride in associating with Hirsi Ali, and that she regards someone’s support for her as a “litmus test.”
If Weiss expressed or promoted any of these same views about Jewish immigrants and Judaism, she would likely be blacklisted in U.S. media, and for good reason. Instead, because they are aimed at Muslims, she is now being richly rewarded.
That a major network like CBS is seriously considering giving Weiss and The Free Press an even bigger platform and the imprimatur of mainstream legitimacy — given not just its promotion of anti-Muslim views, but its history of spreading outright, uncorrected falsehoods — is a sad reflection of the degradation of press standards.
And it seems to only be happening because a top media executive regards Weiss’ history of shoddy journalism less important than her support for Israel’s wars.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.