Recent remarks by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris addressed the current war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. She pledged that if elected president, she would continue a U.S. policy that encourages Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a “two-state solution.” That solution envisions two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security, with Jerusalem as their shared capital.

Tragically, the Palestinians have never embraced this ideal. They have consistently rejected two-state offers from the United States, Israel and other parties. Starting long before the 1948 creation of modern-day Israel, they tried all possible means—military, economic, legal and political—to rid the area of Jews. They declined two-state opportunities in 1919, 1937, 1947, 1967, 1978, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2020. Through that period, their motivating ideology nurtured a strain of militant Islam.

The militant tradition is illustrated by the current war. Hamas’s charter promotes the murder of Jews. The invasion of Oct. 7 was Hamas’s fifth war on Israel in the past 16 years. Participants in the genocidal slaughter included members of Islamic terrorist groups in both Gaza and the West Bank. They titled the massacre the “Al-Aqsa flood,” a tribute to the highly-revered mosque in Jerusalem. The killing began on a Jewish holiday. They justified the butchery as a “jihad” composed of “martyrdom operations” against the “Zionist entity” to recover “Muslim Land.” The aggression followed their interpretation of Sharia law, which purportedly allows them to exploit their own people as human shields and target Israeli civilians with kidnapping, sexual torture, burning, beheading and bodily mutilation. (See, in contrast, the statement issued by the Global Imams Council on Sept. 1.)

A July 2024 opinion poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 65% of Palestinians do not want a two-state solution; 75% approve of the Oct. 7 attack; and 63% welcome further “armed struggle.” In short, the two-state theory naively offers sovereign coexistence to people who, by all appearances, crave sovereign exclusivity.

Attempts to frame Palestinian nationalism as a liberation movement never fit the facts. There was never a state called “Palestine.” Until World War I, Arabs in and around present-day Israel were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, not any Arab state. Their early-20th-century offspring denounced “Palestine” as a European invention for Jews. The mid-20th-century Arabs in Israel became Israeli citizens, while Arabs in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank became Jordanian citizens and Gazan Arabs remained non-citizens under Egyptian occupation. Only after Israel’s creation did these diverse communities allege the existence of a common pre-existing Palestinian state.

The geographic scope of the supposed Palestine has also morphed over time. Before World War I, the eastern Mediterranean region consisted of Ottoman colonies. In the 1920s, when the League of Nations allocated the “mandatory” districts that prefigured present-day Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Israel, the Arabs developed the Arab districts into Arab states but still attacked Mandatory Palestine, the district earmarked for the Jewish state. They claimed pre-state Israel was southern Syria. In the early 1960s, they associated Israeli territory with the Arab Nation, a tenuous pan-Arab political alliance headed by Egypt. Their manifesto claimed ownership of Israel but expressly excluded Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank because those domains were already controlled by Arab states. Today, Palestinians reference Israel, Gaza and the West Bank as Palestine or Palestinian land, labels that erase Israel.

The only legally cognizable two-state solution is one Palestinians want to forget. In 1922, the League of Nations severed 77% of Mandatory Palestine to create Jordan. Nevertheless, the Arabs kept skirmishing for the remaining 23%—namely, Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Most Jordanians are Palestinians. Therefore, it is argued, Palestinians already have a state in Jordan.

To be sure, a two-state solution was the contemplated end product of the only peace agreements signed by the Palestinians with Israel—the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. In those agreements, Israel essentially awarded the Palestinians temporary control over the Palestinian population centers of the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for a halt to terrorism as a first step toward a permanent arrangement. But the Palestinians breached the deal. In fact, they murdered more Israelis in the 10 years after the start of the accords than in the 10 years before.

The world community should pressure the Palestinians to abandon their antisemitic warpath and comply with the Oslo Accords. There are sound arguments for a two-state solution, and, some would argue, compelling reasons for Israel to avoid actions that foreclose that possibility. But a credible demonstration that the Palestinians actually desire that result is necessary before it can be realistically pursued.

Gal Haimovich, 49, pleaded guilty on Monday to violating sanctions on Russian companies, including by smuggling airplane parts, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

“As part of his plea agreement, Haimovich admitted that his scheme involved deceiving U.S. companies about the true destination of the goods at issue and that the defendant and others attempted to conceal the scheme by submitting false information in export documents filed with the U.S. government,” the department said.

“Between at least March 2022 and May 2023, Haimovich facilitated the export of aircraft parts and avionics, including those with missile technology applications, from the United States, through the Southern District of Florida, to various third-party transhippers on behalf of Russian customers,” it added. “These Russian end customers routinely instructed Haimovich to deceive the U.S.-based manufacturers and suppliers about the ultimate destination of the goods.”

The Israeli man is slated to be sentenced on Nov. 22.

As part of the plea deal, Haimovich agreed to forfeit more than $2 million that he charged in fees.

Seeking to transcend the religious and political divisions among the United Kingdom’s Jewish communities, the Board of Deputies of British Jews released a plan on Thursday naming five priorities it intends to address in the next few years.

It calls for fighting antisemitism and defending religious freedom; standing up for peace and security in Israel and the Middle East; greater unity among Jews; more inclusive and outward-looking attitudes; and the celebration of the faith, heritage and culture of British Jews.

“The plan displays the fresh ideas, energy and drive of the new honorary officer team,” said Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies. “There is no doubt that our community finds ourselves at an inflection point, but we have resilience in our DNA, and I am determined that we will come back stronger.”

The priorities named in the report feature a bullet-point list of dozens of planned initiatives. One is the creation of a “Commission on Antisemitism” geared “to ensure focus on the issue and make recommendations to tackle the issue at root.”

“We look forward to working with deputies and all parts of our community towards a brighter future for the UK Jewish community,” said Rosenberg.

Also in the works is marking the 80th year of the end of World War II and the Holocaust in 2025.

The Board of Deputies has existed for 264 years. Today, it includes 300 deputies who represent approximately 200 Jewish synagogues and organizations.

JNS senior contributing editor Caroline Glick speaks with author Ron Schleifer, an acclaimed expert on psychological warfare, about the role of propaganda in Israel’s ongoing war with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip.

Schleifer stresses that psychological warfare has sometimes proven more dangerous than the military battle on the frontlines due to its long-lasting effects.

Watch this episode of "The Caroline Glick Show" as Schleifer and Glick take a deep dive into Hamas’s propaganda tactics and how the terror group is trying to defeat Israeli morale.

The U.S. International Trade Commission decided on Monday that the Israeli company Finkelstein Metals “materially injured” a U.S. industry by importing brass rod subsidized by the Israeli government and undercutting American competitors by selling it at “less than fair value.”

Following the commission’s 3-1 decision—with the chair voting in the affirmative and the lone Republican in the negative—the U.S. Commerce Department “will issue antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of this product from Israel,” the commission stated. 

Eitan Finkelstein, the CEO of Finkelstein Metals, told JNS that nothing like the commission’s “terrible decision” has ever been leveraged against an Israeli company.

“The three Democratic people over there fought against our company,” he said. “It’s against Israel. I think it was a political decision, and not because they brought evidence that showed that we are doing something wrong for the market. Because we are so small.” (JNS sought comment from the commission.)

“I don’t know what we’re going to do,” Finkelstein told JNS. “It could be that we will close in the future because we have to build a new market.”

But the company would face an uphill battle exploring markets outside the United States, according to Finkelstein. “At the moment, with the situation in Israel, to find a new market, it’s not easy,” he said.

Down to brass tacks

Finkelstein Metals is a small Afula-based alloy producer, which employs some 80 people. The sole Israeli producer of brass, bronze and copper alloy products, its U.S. exports represent less than 3% of the total U.S. market but account for 75% of the company’s total sales, with American customers buying brass by the ton.

The company does business in Israel with the defense industry, where it is reportedly a key cog, and with mom-and-pop businesses, which buy by the kilogram. (The company declined to comment on its role within the Israeli defense industry. JNS sought comment from the Israeli embassy in Washington.)

Finkelstein has imported metals into the United States since 1989. It opened a warehouse in Chicago in 2017, according to the company’s CEO, who told JNS that it will no longer be able to afford to export its brass products to the United States.

The federal commission that voted against the company is supposed to be split evenly along party lines, but U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had yet to nominate candidates to fill two vacancies at the obscure but powerful agency, which enforces trade laws, until recently.

On Jan. 7, 2021, then-President Donald Trump nominated William Patrick Joseph Kimmitt, of Virginia, to be a member of the commission—for a term expiring on June 16, 2029—to fill the expired term of Scott Kieff. On July 11, 2024, Biden nominated Kimmitt for the role.

Per a White House release, the president “announced his intent to nominate” Kimmitt and others “to serve as Republican members of boards and commissions that are required, by statute or longstanding practice, to include bipartisan membership.” 

The nomination was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, and no official action has been taken on the nomination, per congressional records.

The commission’s determination, which upholds its prior decision, represents the first time that the United States has decided that an Israeli company is injuring the U.S. market. 

The Tariff Act of 1930, which governs the commission’s decisions, states that several countries can be accused collectively of harming a U.S. market by adding together—or “cumulating”—the effects of their imports. 

In the case of brass rods, Israeli imports were lumped together with those from Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. 

But an exception found in section 771(G)(ii)(iv) of the Tariff Act states that the commission cannot lump a country, which is a party to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area, with other nations unless the country in question—Israel, in this instance—is determined to be harming the domestic market on its own first.

The U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement has been in place since 1985.

Given his company’s limited U.S. market share, Finkelstein’s company would appear to have limited exposure under the Tariff Act. However, the commission still determined that the Jewish state was damaging the U.S. market, subjecting the company to countervailing duties, which are import taxes that counteract the benefits that an exporter gains due to government subsidies.

In 2018, U.S. Magnesium brought a trade petition against the Israel Chemicals Group, now the ICL Group—which held a significant share of the U.S. market—but the commission denied the petition. No small Israeli company has been pursued in this way before, according to Finkelstein and a search of public records. 

Who is losing?

Finkelstein told JNS that the case against his company was brought by the two dominant U.S. players in the sector, Mueller Industries and Wieland Copper Products, which account for about 85% of the market.

Finkelstein said the duopoly is driving up prices for the U.S. consumer, with the same copper pipe that costs $5 in Europe or Israel going for $12 in the United States. 

“So who is losing? The guy there making a building or buying in Home Depot,” Finkelstein said. “They want to pull 80% to 85% of the market, and they do whatever they want. That’s why we went to the United States.” (JNS sought comment from Mueller and Wieland.)

Finkelstein told JNS that the CEOs of the two companies earn salaries that are larger than the entire revenue that the Israeli company generates in the United States. A Finkelstein Metals official previously told JNS that the company has a turnover of $35 to $40 million globally.

Jennifer Andberg, a spokeswoman for the federal agency, told JNS that there is no appeals process in place following its final determination. 

Finkelstein Metals could opt to pursue action in international courts, she said. 

The commission will publish its final report, which will include the views of commissioners and information gathered during the investigation, on Oct. 17.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump referred to Iran a few times each during their televised debate on Tuesday night. “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel,” Harris said.

“Iran was broke under Donald Trump. Now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had,” Trump said of the Biden administration, including Harris. “Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror.”

Mike Pompeo, a former CIA director and former U.S. secretary of state under Trump, noted on Wednesday that Harris didn’t address the former president’s charge.

“One thing that Kamala failed to explain last night: How was it in America’s interest for the Biden-Harris administration to give hundreds of billions to Iran?” Pompeo wrote. “This administration’s appeasement of Iran has led to war, terrorism and put Americans at risk.”

As the debate began, Robert Greenway, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security, wrote that “Iran would like to remind everyone the Biden-Harris administration has consciously dismantled our deterrence and judges it can attack our forces via proxies with impunity.”

“They have repeatedly done so,” he said.

Harris and Trump received both praise and criticism for their comments about Israel.

“Americans were better off under Donald Trump. From the economy to foreign policy, Kamala Harris’s record is a total disaster,” wrote Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), after the debate ended on Tuesday night.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) wrote during the debate that Harris “does an excellent job of reminding us about the horrific attack on Israel on Oct. 7.” 

“I appreciate her commitment to making sure Israel has the tools to defend itself,” he wrote.

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) wrote mid-debate that “the first thing Kamala did as a nominee was boycott Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.”

“Now she’s pushing for a ceasefire just to get the pro-Hamas protestors off her back,” he wrote. “Does that sound like an ally of Israel?”

Democratic Majority for Israel stated during the debate that Harris “is and has always been a steadfast supporter of Israel. She made that very clear tonight, and we are proud to support her.” 

“Only one candidate said the word ‘hostage’ on last night’s debate stage,” it added on Wednesday. “Only one candidate reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists. That candidate was Kamala Harris.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition wrote that “Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have undermined the U.S.-Israel relationship to unprecedented lows.”

“Forcing a two-state solution on Israel now—after Oct. 7—would be a reward for the terrorists,” the RJC said. “She would be a total disaster as commander-in-chief.”

The apparent bias of the ABC TV moderators in failing to call out the falsehoods reportedly spoken by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, in the debate with former President Donald Trump this week has attracted much critical comment.

It remains to be seen, however, how that debate influenced voters.

When looking at a set-piece contest like this, voters aren’t necessarily swayed by behavior they’ve already priced in. They know that politicians evade, lie and bloviate. Voters usually focus on different issues, such as which candidate might make them better off.

The point isn’t that journalistic bias is irrelevant. On the contrary, over the past few years, the media’s shocking pro-Democrat, anti-Trump partisanship has destroyed its role as the guardian of democracy and established it instead as an army of ruthless activists for a political cause.

Nevertheless, when it comes to assessing rival candidates for the presidency, the media’s narrative has to compete with the mass of information that voters already know about them: their achievements and failures, their strengths and flaws.

The media’s effect on public attitudes towards Israel, however, is very different indeed. That’s because the Western public, by and large, knows virtually nothing about Israel, the Middle East or Jewish history. On Israel, the public mind is therefore a blank page on which can be imprinted whatever picture the media wishes to paint.

And the picture of Israel that’s been painted over the last few decades—and even more intensely since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led pogrom against southern Israel communities—is a vicious and wildly distorted caricature.

Last week, a high-ranking delegation of former NATO military officers was in Israel on a fact-finding mission to assess the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces in the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Members of the group subsequently expressed admiration for the way the IDF has been conducting the war in an unprecedentedly challenging combat environment.

Gen. Sir John McColl, the British former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, said: “I came away from the trip satisfied that the IDF’s operations and rules of engagement were rigorous compared to the British Army and our Western allies … Israeli soldiers are fighting in conditions of extraordinary complexity and risk.”

This was a sharp if tacit rebuke to Britain’s Starmer administration, which has announced a partial arms embargo against Israel on the grounds that such weapons “might” be used in a “serious violation” of humanitarian law and that there had been “credible” claims about the mistreatment of detainees.

But what was particularly striking about McColl’s remarks was that he had apparently arrived in Israel predisposed to believe the allegations made against it. He said: “Basing my views about the Israel-Hamas war on U.K. media coverage, I arrived in Israel critical and skeptical of their military operations. … There is balance missing in the reporting of events in Gaza.”

The impression given by the British media for the past 11 months of this war has been that Israel is willfully killing huge numbers of Gaza’s women and children, recklessly bombing hospitals and schools full of displaced people, and preventing humanitarian aid from getting to civilians.

Those claims are the reverse of the truth. Yet a very senior military figure seems to have believed them because this media narrative is omnipresent. Even in newspapers whose editorial line is broadly sympathetic to Israel, the reporting is massively distorted by the promulgation of Hamas propaganda as news reports.

The most egregious serial offender is the BBC, whose global reach and reputation for integrity and trustworthiness make it the most influential media outlet in the world. For decades, it has sanitized Palestinian Arab terrorism and painted Israel falsely as the aggressor in the region. And during the current war in Gaza, its coverage has been overwhelmingly malevolent.

A major study published this week by Trevor Asserson, a British lawyer based in Tel Aviv, laid bare the staggering scale of this betrayal of BBC and journalistic standards.

A dedicated team he set up used AI to crunch four months of war coverage. It identified 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s own guidelines on impartiality and accuracy. It also revealed moderate or strong pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli sentiment in more than 90% of broadcasts on the network’s flagship shows.

Israel was associated with war crimes in BBC reporting 592 times but Hamas (whose entire campaign from Oct. 7 onwards has consisted of war crimes against both Israeli and Gaza civilians) only 98 times.

Worse still—because far more explosive—was the distorted coverage on the BBC Arabic service whose output displayed 90% bias. Most shocking of all, across all its output the network repeatedly used journalists who had shown hostility to Israel, sympathy for Hamas or outright Jew-hatred.

BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek reportedly called for “death to Israel” and defended a journalist who tweeted: “Sir Hitler, rise, there are a few people that need to be burned.”

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s international editor, whose relentless prejudice against Israel necessitated a schedule to the report devoted entirely to him, is accused of excusing Hamas’s terrorist activities and comparing Israel to Putin’s Russia. Chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet is said to have downplayed Hamas’s culpability.

In response to this devastating body of evidence, the BBC simply brushed it aside. Two days after its publication—and after sundry executives had dismissed it in public—the BBC’s Director-General requested a copy. BBC sources accused Asserson of bias, criticized the report’s methodology and said that its claims lacked context.

These weaselly criticisms are merely a way of dodging the fact that the evidence is true.

Take, for example, the claim made by numerous media outlets last October that the IDF had targeted Gaza’s Al Ahli Hospital in an airstrike, killing 500 people. It was soon revealed that the blast had occurred in the hospital grounds killing fewer people—and had been caused by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that was misfired and fell inside Gaza.

Several media outlets subsequently apologized. But at the BBC, Bowen doubled down. He said: “I don’t regret a single thing in my report, because I think I’m measured all the way, I don’t feel bad at all.”

The network’s double standards in item after item, the soft-soaping of Palestinian supporters and the aggressive interruptions of Israel’s defenders, the acceptance of Hamas propaganda and blood libels about Israeli “war crimes” as fact and the equally knee-jerk assumption that the Israelis are lying, all demonstrate the true context of the examples produced by the Asserson team—that the BBC is institutionally hostile to both Israel and the truth. It is therefore a national disgrace.

The reason its executives airily dismiss such evidence is that they genuinely believe they are upholding the highest journalistic standards of balance and fairness. And that’s because they believe everything they stand for as “progressives” is the political center ground.

So anyone pointing out the murderous lies they are promoting is by definition extreme. The BBC is thus a hermetically sealed thought system.

As a result of this mental distortion in liberal circles, the BBC and other media outlets have left the public in the dark about a number of crucial issues arising from the war against Israel.

They have failed to report on Hamas’s role as the military arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which operates in Britain and America and seeks to conquer the West.

They have failed to report the war in Gaza “in context” as part of an eight-front war by Iran to destroy Israel and America.

They have failed to report the hailstorms of rockets and missiles fired daily at northern Israel by Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. They have failed to investigate the corruption by Hamas of the United Nations and international courts.

Instead, they have been inciting often murderous hatred of Israel around the world.

The media may have subverted and undermined American democracy. But when it comes to Israel, it has blood on its hands.

The Israel Defense Forces has defeated Hamas’s Rafah brigade, the military declared on Thursday after four months of targeted raids in the area of the Gaza Strip’s southernmost city near the border with Egypt.

Since the start of the Rafah operation on May 6, troops have killed more than 2,000 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists and destroyed some eight miles of underground smuggling and attack routes, according to an Israeli army statement on Thursday evening.

"During these operations, the troops have dismantled the Rafah brigade of the Hamas terrorist organization," the military formally declared.

In recent weeks, the IDF's Nahal Brigade, Givati Brigade, 401st Brigade, Yahalom combat engineering unit and Shayetet 13 naval commando unit have been operating in Tel al-Sultan, western Rafah, the IDF said.

In "intelligence-based targeted" operations, troops killed more than 250 terrorists, including the commander of Hamas's Tel al-Sultan Battalion, Mahmoud Hamdan, and most of the battalion’s chain of command.

Troops destroyed some 80% of tunnels located near and beneath the Philadelphi Corridor, the army statement noted, using the IDF’s name for the 8.5-mile-long land strip along the border with Egypt. It added that forces continue to discover and destroy underground routes.

Speaking with reporters on Thursday, 162nd Division commander Brig. Gen. Itzik Cohen declared that "four battalions have been destroyed, and we have completed operational control over the entire urban area."

The Rafah brigade and its four battalions—Yabna (south), east Rafah, Tel al-Sultan (west) and Shaboura (north)—was the terror group's final functioning brigade, according to past Israel military assessments.

On Aug. 21, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant during a visit to Gaza first declared that the IDF had achieved victory over the Rafah brigade.

"I came here first and foremost to express my appreciation [to the soldiers]. The IDF's 162nd Division defeated the Rafah brigade," the defense minister stated following a tour of the Philadelphi Corridor.

At the time, the IDF had located and destroyed around 150 tunnels, and after Gallant ordered the destruction of the remaining smuggling routes, some 50 more were blown up by the forces, Cohen said on Thursday.

"Most of them we have destroyed," the Israeli general told journalists, adding: "We are operating at the other sites to investigate them, and when we finish investigating, they will be destroyed."

The Rafah operation resulted in a great deal of friction with Washington. In addition to some 3,000 terrorists, more than a million Gazans sought shelter in the southernmost city earlier this year when the IDF fighting was concentrated in the northern and then central sections of the coastal enclave. Once Rafah was slated to be the new operations area, concerns focused on potential harm to the congested civilian population, so the determination was made to evacuate them.

Within a fortnight after the start of the operation in Rafah, around 950,000 civilians were moved from the city to humanitarian zones.

Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized that telling Jerusalem not to operate in Rafah is equivalent to demanding that it lose the war, warning in March that Hamas could "regroup, rearm and reconquer Gaza."

On Aug. 31, the bodies of hostages Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23, Eden Yerushalmi, 24, Almog Sarusi, 25, Alexander Lobanov, 32, Carmel Gat, 40, and Master Sgt. Ori Danino, 25, were found in a Rafah tunnel.

As many as three-quarters of Jewish Israelis and a majority of Israelis overall supported expanding the military operations to Rafah, according to a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in March.

Matt Meyer, 52, the county executive in New Castle County, beat the state’s Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long and Collin O’Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, to win the Democratic primary in Delaware on Tuesday.

If he wins in November, he could be the second Jewish governor after Jack A. Markell, who took office in 2009 and served two terms.

Meyer, who is married with three young children, described his experiences growing up in an interview with Jewish Insider, which included his mother driving an hour and a half to Lakeview, N.J., to buy kosher meat and his leadership in Jewish youth organizations.

“We’ve got to go out and do something to fix, and to help do our part to heal a broken world. It’s really ingrained in who I am, and certainly how I’ve led the county and how we’re going to lead the state,” he said, mentioning the Jewish imperative to repair the world.

Meyer worked on then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden’s first presidential campaign in 1988. He praised the current president as possessing “a Jewish soul somewhere in there” and noted that he attended junior high with Biden’s sons.

In addition to his opposition to the anti-Israel BDS movement, Meyer advocated for more collaboration between Jerusalem and Dover.

He emphasized that “Israel is going through a really challenging time right now, and we have to do what we can to support what is one of America’s strongest allies in the world.”