Insights on the machinations of mounting a diplomatic coup against Israel.

By Andrew Fox

Canada, the UK and Australia have now formally recognised the State of Palestine. It goes without saying that the declaration of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank is likely to follow. Hamas is now further from agreeing to a deal than ever, as they are rewarded for 7^th October and riding high in Palestinian polling. Peace in the Middle East looks further away than ever, thanks to this foolish and premature move.

There is more to it, though. How did these three countries align and synchronise in this manner?

An influential progressive think tank, aligned with Qatar’s agenda, has been quietly orchestrating a significant shift in Western policy towards Israel and Palestine. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington, D.C.–based NGO described by critics as a “pro-Qatar” organisation, has used its global network to encourage allied governments to recognise a Palestinian state and adopt more hardline positions against Israel. Under its international initiative Global Progress Action (GPA), CAP has brought together progressive leaders from Canada, Australia, the UK, and beyond at high-level summits. Within months of these coordinated gatherings, left-leaning governments across several countries publicly announced plans to recognise Palestine formally, echoing talking points remarkably similar to those crafted by CAP’s policy arm.

This orchestrated campaign constitutes a diplomatic coup. It advances Qatar’s interests by isolating Israel, but it also produces dangerous side effects. As CAP/GPA’s influence has increased, all three Western countries involved have adopted sharply adversarial policies towards Israel, accompanied by a rise in antisemitic incidents at home. The evidence indicates that this is no coincidence: CAP and its GPA affiliate have promoted a narrative that delegitimises Israeli actions and extols the Palestinian cause, fostering an environment permissive to hostility towards Jews. What follows is an exposé of how this NGO network, funded and flattered by Doha, manipulates democracies abroad while secretly tolerating hatred within their borders.

Founded in 2003, CAP has long been a pillar of the American left, but in recent years its stance on Middle East issues has noticeably shifted in favour of Qatar’s foreign policy goals. Reports suggest that CAP’s close engagement with Qatari institutions is evidence of their increasing tilt towards Doha; for instance, sending senior officials like COO Gordon Gray to forums at Georgetown’s Qatar campus. CAP’s reports on Gulf affairs frequently portray Qatar positively (as a victim or mediator), while sharply criticising its regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Although CAP denies any direct funding from Qatar, its consistent alignment with Qatar’s narrative has raised eyebrows in policymaking circles, earning CAP a reputation as a de facto pro-Qatar advocacy organisation.

It is against this backdrop that CAP’s Global Progress Action initiative must be understood. GPA is essentially CAP’s international arm – an “incubator” for progressive strategies on a global scale. Launched through CAP’s 501(c)(4) Action Fund, GPA acts as a hub connecting left-of-centre parties and leaders across countries. Notably, Qatar’s interests align perfectly with GPA’s recent focus:

Using Western progressives to promote policies that pressure Israel and bolster the Palestinian cause.

By advocating for “inclusive societies” and opposing “authoritarianism” abroad, CAP cloaks its Qatar-friendly agenda in the language of human rights and democracy. This clever disguise has deceived many well-meaning liberals.

The main vehicle for CAP/GPA’s influence has been a series of Global Progress Action Summits. These glamorous high-level gatherings bring together prominent progressive politicians, strategists, and activists from around the world. At the 2024 summit in Montréal, for instance, global progressive elites assembled under CAP’s guidance to “collaborate on bold new ideas” for governance. The key figures alone demonstrate the network’s reach: Canada’s then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shared the stage with former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Mark Carney (then a UN envoy and Canada 2020 think-tank chair, now Canada’s Prime Minister). Also present was Paul Ovenden, Director of Political Strategy at 10 Downing Street until last week – a top aide to British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, reflecting that party’s support. CAP Action’s CEO Patrick Gaspard and Canada 2020’s CEO Braeden Caley (a key summit organiser) explicitly described the gathering as an “essential” meeting of the “global progressive movement” to strategise against common adversaries.

These summits serve as transnational war rooms for the progressive left. Behind closed doors, CAP’s operatives share polling, messaging, and policy templates, aligning strategies across continents. It is no coincidence that senior campaign operatives from multiple countries are deeply involved in GPA’s activities.

In Canada, Liberal Party strategist Tom Pitfield (a long-standing GPA partner) and Braeden Caley were crucial in planning the Montréal summit; within months, Pitfield became principal secretary to new PM Mark Carney, and Caley his deputy chief of staff.

In Australia, Paul Erickson, the Labor Party’s national secretary and campaign director for PM Anthony Albanese, has likewise been a GPA participant and conduit for CAP’s ideas.

In Britain, Starmer’s team has relied on Paul Ovenden (the then No. 10 strategy chief who joined GPA forums) to introduce CAP-endorsed tactics into UK Labour’s playbook. Through these “GPA partners” embedded at the highest levels of Canadian, Australian, and British politics, CAP quietly influences the direction of left-wing parties, especially on foreign policy towards the Middle East.

One striking pattern emerged 21 September, 2025: within minutes, progressive-led governments in Canada, the UK, and Australia all recognised a Palestinian state, a policy long championed by the far left but historically resisted by the political mainstream. The coordination was palpable. On 30 July 2025, Canada’s newly appointed Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced that Canada “intends to recognise the State of Palestine at the 80th Session of the U.N. General Assembly in September 2025” – a radical shift after decades of aligning with Israel. Carney justified the move by citing collapsing prospects for a negotiated two-state solution, blaming both Hamas terror and Israeli settlement expansion and annexation votes. Crucially, his statement stressed that Canada’s recognition is conditional: the Palestinian Authority must enact governance reforms, hold elections (excluding Hamas from power), and commit to demilitarisation. In other words, Carney framed a dramatic pro-Palestine step as an effort to “save” the two-state solution from Israeli intransigence and Hamas’ malign influence.

Carney’s declaration follows similar announcements by France and the UK to recognise Palestine formally. Indeed, just days earlier, Britain had clarified its position. Keir Starmer stated that the UK “would recognise the state [of Palestine] in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace”. This ultimatum, threatening to recognise Palestine if Israel didn’t halt its military campaign, was unprecedented for a major Western power. It signalled a complete break from the traditionally staunch pro-Israel stance of Britain’s foreign policy, and Starmer’s language closely mirrored the demands of progressive activists during the Gaza conflict.

Then came Australia, which had already moved towards a pro-Palestinian stance under Labour. On 11 August 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, along with Foreign Minister Penny Wong, announced that “Australia will recognise the State of Palestine at the 80th UN General Assembly in September.” The Australian government framed this as a way to support “international momentum” for a two-state solution and a Gaza ceasefire. Echoing Carney, Canberra highlighted new “major commitments” by the Palestinian Authority as justification, such as ending payments to terrorists and reforming schools, while explicitly condemning Israel’s actions. Albanese himself admitted that the timing of the recognition was aimed at achieving “a breakthrough in negotiations,” asserting lifelong support for both Israel’s security and Palestinian statehood.

Thus, within a few weeks, Ottawa, London, and Canberra all aligned behind the same historic policy shift that was enacted on 21 September, 2025:

Immediate recognition of Palestine, conditional on certain criteria, as a means to apply pressure on Israel.

They were soon joined by others, including New Zealand and several European states, in what was described as a wave of historic global momentum for Palestinian statehood. It is hard to imagine such coordination occurring by chance. All signs suggest that CAP’s Global Progress network facilitated this wave: the New York meeting, where a joint declaration was drafted (the so-called “New York Call” published by France), included Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and others, all pledging to recognise Palestine. That declaration explicitly reaffirmed commitment to two democratic states and the unification of Gaza and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority – themes also highlighted by Carney, Starmer, and Albanese in their speeches. Essentially, the GPA summits and side meetings acted as the organising hubs: progressive governments exchanged ideas and decided to act together. CAP’s influence was covert but vital in this choreography.

If the policies being adopted now sound familiar, it is because CAP pre-wrote much of the script. On 15 May 2024, as the Gaza war and its fallout dominated headlines, the Center for American Progress published a policy manifesto titled Principles and Positions on Israel and Palestine. This document can only be described as a progressive blueprint for rebalancing Western policy away from Israel. It called for what would once have been unthinkable for a mainstream D.C. think tank:

• suspending arms transfers to Israel due to alleged war crimes,
• holding Israeli officials accountable under international law, and
• pushing aggressively for Palestinian rights and statehood.

CAP did not mince words – it labelled Israel’s occupation since 1967 as “illegal,” deemed Israel’s recent military offensive in Gaza “indiscriminate…represent[ing] grave violations of international humanitarian law,” and urged the US to halt lethal aid until Israel protects civilians and averts famine in Gaza. Simultaneously, CAP condemned Hamas’s atrocities on 7 October and supported efforts to bring Hamas terrorists to justice, but the main message of the paper was clear:

Western nations must leverage their power to force a change in Israel’s behaviour, while prioritising the Palestinian cause.

One particularly revealing section of CAP’s manifesto praised President Biden’s then-new Executive Order authorising sanctions on individuals involved in West Bank settlement expansion: “a welcome step to accountability for illegal settlement expansion,” CAP wrote, adding “the administration must apply these sanctions to all those responsible…to curtail continued illegal activity.” Fast-forward one year, and this is exactly the stance taken by progressive governments abroad. The conditional recognitions of Palestine by Canada and others carry an implicit threat of sanctions and isolation for Israeli officials who continue expanding settlements or resisting peace efforts.

In essence, CAP provided intellectual ammunition and moral cover for friendly governments to take unprecedented steps against Israel. By May 2024, CAP had established the rationale; by mid-2025, its GPA allies were implementing it. The CAP–GPA network thus served as a policy transmission belt, facilitating a progression from think-tank white papers to coordinated action by multiple national governments, all in pursuit of a progressive realignment on Israel-Palestine.

It is crucial to recognise that Qatar’s influence is evident throughout this agenda. Qatar is a key supporter of Hamas and has long sought greater international recognition of Palestinian claims (even as it plays double games mediating hostage releases). CAP’s positions (demanding a ceasefire, highlighting Palestinian humanitarian needs, condemning Israeli military tactics, and prioritising “Palestinian self-determination” in peace efforts) could have been taken directly from Qatari diplomats’ speeches. The difference is that CAP cloaks these stances in the credibility of a Western liberal institution and then spreads them through influential progressives worldwide. It is a nuanced influence operation: CAP is the idea factory and GPA is the distribution network, ultimately hijacking the foreign policies of democratic nations to align with Doha’s objectives. That is why this seemingly benevolent push for Palestinian statehood must be recognised for what it truly is: a dangerous, foreign-aligned campaign masquerading as grassroots progressive policy.

What we are witnessing is the culmination of a polemical grand strategy orchestrated by a supposedly progressive NGO that is anything but benign. The Center for American Progress and its Global Progress Action network have exploited the goodwill of the left (its desire for peace, justice, and human rights) to advance a highly polemical, one-sided agenda scripted in Doha. This dangerous pro-Qatar NGO has succeeded in coordinating Western recognition of Palestine, an outcome Qatar’s regime has long desired, by co-opting influential voices in Canada, Australia, the UK, and beyond. In doing so, CAP and GPA have helped install an anti-Israel orthodoxy in progressive governments, strengthening the influence of left-wing elites under the guise of moral principles while marginalising more moderate or pro-Israel perspectives (indeed, far-left fringe parties were electorally crushed as their platforms were absorbed by the mainstream left, which then moved even further left).

The repercussions are profound. A key Western ally, Israel, finds itself diplomatically under siege not only from traditional opponents but also from friends who have embraced CAP’s narrative. Western unity has fractured: while the United States (under Trump in 2025) stood resolutely with Israel, its allies in Ottawa, London, and Canberra have broken ranks, emboldening groups like Hamas by signalling international impatience with Israel. Qatar’s propaganda could not have achieved this alone; CAP provided the professionalism and networks to turn it into reality. As a final indignity, Jewish communities in those very countries have been left to bear the brunt, facing increased threats and violence as antisemitic actors exploit the new political climate.

It is time to expose this cynical game. When a think tank, armed with influence and linked to foreign interests, orchestrates policy from behind the scenes, democracy is undermined. When that policy happens to appease terrorists and threaten minority communities at home, it must be revealed and denounced. CAP and GPA cloaked themselves in progressive rhetoric, but their campaign to coordinate recognition of Palestine, however well-intentioned some participants may be, is anything but a simple fight for human rights. It is a geopolitical power move that has compromised the moral integrity of progressive governments, turning them into instruments of a despotic Gulf state’s agenda and weakening the global stance against jihadist terrorism.

The lesson here is clear: beware the “friendly” NGO that talks of peace but takes sides in a brutal conflict. By supporting the discrediting of Israel, CAP and Global Progress Action have shown their true colours. They are not defenders of liberal values but agents of division. The free nations of the world must recognise this and adjust accordingly. Supporting a two-state solution and Palestinian rights does not have to mean undermining Israel’s existence or condoning hatred. It is possible to promote justice without bowing to Qatar.

Those truly committed to peace and liberal democracy must root out the toxic influence of groups like CAP/GPA from the halls of power. Transparency and accountability are key: voters deserve to know which foreign players and ideologues are influencing their leaders. Only then can we ensure that “global progress” is more than a marketing slogan: that it actually means progress for all people, and not the agenda of an authoritarian benefactor hidden in the shadows.

*Feature picture: Men behind the Move. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a coordinated strategy, recognized on the same day, 21 September, 2025, a Palestinian state, thus endangering the hostages and deepening Israel’s isolation on the world stage.

About the writer:

A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, and is currently studying for a PhD in History.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

As countries  trip over each other to recognise a Palestinian state, do they care they are midwifing a giant military base to perpetuate endless jihadi war?

By Dr. Gad Amar

The past failure of coexistence between two states, Christian and Muslim, in the same European country should give pause for thought, particularly to Europeans, and even more so to the French and Spanish, who were the first to be affected. This reflection is all the more necessary now that France announced on July 24, 2025, its intention to submit a draft resolution in favor of the creation of the State of Palestine at the next session of the UN General Assembly, to be held from September 9 to 23, 2025. In practice, this draft resolution aims to impose the coexistence of two states, Jewish and Muslim, on a small territory of 28,165 km² in the Middle East, comprising the State of Israel (22,145 km²) and the “Palestinian territories” (6,020 km²), controlled by Israel. The European country that has experienced such coexistence is Spain.

Long before France’s announcement, a large majority of countries had already recognized the State of Palestine. The process, which began in Algiers on November 15, 1988, had gained the support of 75 states in the days that followed. By February 5, 2025, 148 of the 193 UN member states had already recognized the State of Palestine. The announcement of France’s plan ultimately convinced many European countries to join in, against the backdrop of the current war in Gaza and strong pro-Palestinian unrest among Muslims and left-wing extremists in European countries (see the list of countries recognizing the State of Palestine on Wikipedia).

“THERE IS A TIME FOR EVERYTHING UNDER HEAVEN” (Ecclesiastes, 3:1)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to create a Palestinian state, inspired by empathy for the Palestinians but nonetheless marked by a certain casualness, is in any case flawed by a stubborn underestimation of the current situation. It could be motivated by France’s desire to position itself at the center of the game of influence among foreign powers in the Middle East. Having lost all influence in its relationship with Françafrique, then in its efforts at arbitration in Lebanon, France is trying its luck again by antagonizing Israel.

The proclamation or theoretical creation of a Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution is not a good solution for either side today. The clamor rising from pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world demands a single, exclusively Palestinian state, and no one will be able to quell this fanatical fervor, which has its roots in a jihadist heritage. And barring a miracle, it is difficult to imagine that a young Palestinian state would escape totalitarian, fundamentalist, and corrupt rule. As in all dictatorships around the world, this regime would have no choice but to legitimize itself by presenting its people with a perpetual, fantasized enemy, Israel, thereby justifying jihad. It would be no better for its people than the Hamas government in Gaza or the Islamic State of Iran.

The proof? This ideal state could have come into being in the Gaza Strip, which has been free since 2007, self-governing and aided by the entire world, including Israel. The West Bank operates according to an identical ideology. It is the path of jihad that reigns in both territories, destroying any hope of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with Israel. And since the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023, nothing has changed, neither in the rhetoric nor in the actions of the Palestinians or their leaders.

If they had a state, would they renounce jihad, a fundamental principle of their religion that is now deeply ingrained in them? It is essential to ensure this before granting them a country that could, as was the case in Gaza, become a military base for the perpetual war that is jihad.

But through the voice of its president, France does not seem to care about a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous future for the Palestinian people. It pits Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, against each other in a situation that promotes neither peace nor prosperity. Antisemitism has become the norm in France, but the president ignores it. This casual attitude reflects the president’s headlong rush forward in the face of the very complicated economic and political situation in which he has placed his country.

“WHY DO THE NATIONS CONSPIRE, AND THE PEOPLES PLOT IN VAIN?” (Psalm 2:1)

The almost daily pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Western Christian countries, where there is a visible Jewish community, but not in Muslim countries with no Jewish population, testify to their antisemitic nature. If we go further, we see the outdated Christian theology of substitution in its Muslim version, still alive in the Ummah (the Muslim people), proclaimed “the best” of all by the Koran (3:110). This theology, a deeply rooted legacy, fuels the fantasy of social substitution for Jews in the suburbs. Regarding “this sweet poison”, a modern commentator on the Quran (Dr. Al-Ajami) writes:

“What could be more comforting when you are at the bottom of the social ladder, and what could be more triumphant when you are at the top?”

Originally, this was a deviation from the status of “chosen people” granted to the people of Israel by the One God, and expressed in the Bible, at a time when the only monotheistic people were the people of Israel. All those who choose the One God, Father of all men without distinction, are in fact also chosen by God.

This fantasy of substitution is at the root of this campaign to reverse values and roles, in which Palestinians, the instigators and perpetrators of the genocide of October 7, 2023, are transformed into victims of imaginary apartheid and genocide.

A HUNDRED-YEAR WAR AND ITS ROOTS

Mr. Macron expects French Jews to adhere to his project, in accordance with their universalist tradition. It is true that there is a Jewish universalist tradition of a future messianic world in which peoples will live in peace with one another. Two universalist currents coexist today within Judaism: those who believe that this time is already present and those who believe that it has not yet come. The former were barbarically and atrociously massacred by Hamas on October 7, 2023; only the latter remain, who are contemptuously referred to as “messianists.”

Some proclaim that this war has gone on too long, having lasted for nearly two years. In reality, it began with the pogroms perpetrated by Muslims against Jews in 1929. It is therefore approaching its hundredth anniversary and can be compared to another hundred-year war in the Holy Land 25 centuries ago. Returning from a 50-year exile in Babylonia after the edict of Cyrus in 539 BC, the Jews suffered 100 years of harassment from foreign populations settled in the Holy Land by Assyrian invaders and other populations recently established in the country. This century only ended with the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, which finally ensured the safety of the inhabitants and allowed the city to develop.

The unrest in the Muslim world over the war in Gaza stems from one of their rules, which forbids Jews from defending themselves if they are attacked.

There is another rule: the pre-Islamic period in Arabia is called Jahiliyya, meaning “ignorance”. According to this principle, everything that preceded Islam must be forgotten and erased. This is the case with Judaism.

THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IN LIGHT OF EUROPEAN HISTORY

The reflection we propose here is a priori neutral, because Christian Spaniards and Muslim jihadists, notably the Almohads, mistreated the Jews of Spain with equal inhumanity.

The Spanish tyrannized the Jews on the eve of the invasion of Spain by Arab armies (forced conversions, prohibition of synagogues), then expelled them in 1492, out of religious intolerance and antisemitism. Muslims subjected Jews to the abuse of dhimma, a form of “protection” granted to citizens who had previously been declared illegal on the pretext that they had not adhered to a new religion imposed by violent and illiterate combatants.

The lessons of European history should serve everyone, especially Europeans. It is a matter of reviving memories of a tumultuous European past, specifically Spain’s past, in which the two-state solution, one Christian and the other Muslim, could not flourish.

The story begins in 711 when four-fifths of Spain and southern France are invaded by Arab jihadists supported by recently Islamized Berbers. The Arabs were stopped in France by Charles Martel in 732. The fifth, which remained independent, rose up in 1037, after three centuries of occupation, for a war of reconquest that would last four and a half centuries (1037-1492). Spain could have accommodated the presence, since 1350, of the Muslim kingdom of Granada in the south, which was less threatening than in the past and placed under the tutelage of the Christian kingdom of Castile. But history, undoubtedly marked by violence, led it to eradicate it. We must not delude ourselves: the jihadists of the past were no better than those of today, whether ISIS or Hamas. The Spanish undoubtedly believed that the demon of jihad could one day reawaken – and with greater force – from the kingdom of Granada.

The Muslim jihad that led to the conquest of Spain between 711 and 716 was followed by the Christian crusade that reclaimed the entire country in 1492. But history had not yet had its final say. Jihad continued at sea through the activities of pirates and privateers for three centuries, between Spain and other European countries on one side, and Morocco and Algeria on the other, with the Ottoman Empire entering the fray. Although the jihad of the North African corsairs no longer sought to conquer Christian lands in Western Europe after 1492, the Ottoman Empire was already filling the gap, having begun the conquest of Christian countries in Eastern Europe in the 15th century. Twice, Ottoman jihadists attacked Vienna, in 1529 and then in 1683, but without success, and their advance into the heart of Europe was thus halted. Can we imagine how far they would have gone if they had succeeded in either of their two sieges of the city?

This long history must be pondered. Christian Europe must not forget that it was only by a miracle that it was able to recover its territorial integrity and security.

Today, Western Europe, including Spain, France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, is considering voting to create a Palestinian state, without even ensuring that it will not be jihadist, leaving Israel alone with the impossible task of eradicating this philosophy of Islam, particularly among Palestinians. One observation should challenge all these states, especially Spain: could we now envisage a two-state solution in Europe, more specifically in Spain, not for the Palestinians, but for the descendants of the Arabs expelled from Spain by the Reconquista five centuries ago? Why should those who were expelled five centuries ago have fewer rights than some of the Palestinian Arabs who were expelled for the same reasons more than 75 years ago? Why not at least give the Arabs expelled from Spain their former kingdom of Granada back?

It should be remembered that the Semites introduced civilization to Spain, in the literal sense, twenty centuries before the Christian era, and that their presence thus lasted thirty-five centuries. This presence is attested to by the names of several major cities on the Iberian Peninsula, from north to south, from Barcelona to Cadiz, and from east to west, from Almería to Lisbon. The very name of Spain, formerly Hispalis, derives from the “Great Baal”, Eth-Baal, celebrated by the name of the “River of the Great”, the Guad-al-Quivir, which flows through the city of Seville. This river is comparable to the river Kébar of Babylonia, mentioned by Ezekiel, in Akkadian Naru-Kabari, and to the Nahr al-Kabir, on the northern border of Lebanon with Syria. The original name of Seville is Esh-bilia, which also refers to Eth-Baal.

Europe, Spain, and France would do well to reflect on the long history of their own countries, for no one knows what tomorrow may bring.

THE JEWISH STATE IN MINITURE

Christian Europe was attacked by jihad on two fronts: in the west by jihadists from Morocco and in the east by the Ottomans. Europe was caught in a pincer movement by this merciless war. Israel is now similarly caught in a pincer movement, in the west by Hamas’ jihad in Gaza and in the east by Fatah’s jihad in the West Bank.

Europe today faces a serious challenge due to the massive immigration of Muslims who are committed to their religion, which is their right. But fundamentalists are also part of the mix. Similarly, Israel is challenged by Israeli Arabs, a minority of whom identify primarily as Palestinian and are represented by elected officials who are largely anti-Israeli.

Western Europe must not believe that its support for the creation of a Palestinian state in the Holy Land will permanently remove the Islamist threats it faces. Such support will not be enough to remove the Islamist threats it faces.

A COMMON STRUGGLE

The fight against jihad is everyone’s business, and first and foremost that of Muslims themselves. With its ignorant and barbaric followers on the ground, this movement that claims to represent Allah has become an irreparable offense to Allah. It damages the image and sanctity in Islam, which should above all be a religion of peace and brotherhood with all humanity, and especially with the other two monotheistic religions.

Christians believe that the Son of God sacrificed himself for humans; Muslims believe that human sacrifice pleases God. Instead of such sacrifices, human beings should first love and tolerate one another, letting God do his work without seeking to take His place.

*Feature picture: The map above is a tongue‐in‐cheek (and purely satirical) take on the Israeli–Palestinian “two‐state solution.” It color‐codes only two “states” Spain (in yellow) and Portugal (in purple) then shades almost the entire globe (including Israel/Palestine) as “Portugal.”

About the writer:

Dr. Gad Amar, Chirurgien retraité, hébraïsant et arabisant, auteur d’études juives en hébreu et en français .
(Dr. Gad Amar, retired surgeon, Hebraist and Arabist, author of Jewish studies in Hebrew and French.)

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).