Uncategorized
How Hamas Can Still Win. Yes, Really.
Hamas fighters on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: Majdi Fathi via Reuters Connect
The Hamas terror organization has a weapon that can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat: the fact that Western democracies want the illusion of success, but will never follow through on what is required to achieve it. That’s what’s happening right now at the United Nations.
The UN Security Council is preparing to vote this month on the future of Gaza, a plan that requires Hamas to disarm.
The terror organization is “cooperating” by declaring it will give up “offensive” weapons, but not “defensive” weapons — whatever that means. Hamas knows it’s not truly fooling the Security Council. Rather it’s giving Western democracies the opportunity to say to their constituents, “we’ve disarmed Hamas,” without actually disarming it.
The Security Council’s plan involves international stabilization forces, meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and political future.
Hamas is already arranging to quietly choose the stabilization force’s leadership, thus maintaining its power regardless of who pretends to take charge. The West just might accept this, in order to avoid a bloody conflict between stabilization forces and a still armed and active Hamas. The only other option would be the hard and dangerous work of true disarmament, which Western democracies tend to avoid.
Hamas’ strategy works because Western democracies relish the opportunity to declare “success,” knowing that if and when an arrangement falls apart, it will be after the next election cycle, and somebody else’s problem.
When I was a child, the neighborhood kids had a slang expression for bad ideas: “let’s not, and say we did.” For example, your immature friend might say, “hey let’s go throw rocks at pigeons,” and you’d respond, “let’s not, and say we did.”
This is exactly the philosophy that Hamas is proposing to the Western world: let’s not disarm, let’s not rebuild, let’s not stabilize — but say we did.
Winston Churchill famously said, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Indeed, life under democracy beats dictatorships and terror regimes any day of the week, but there’s a downside that occurs when democratic “leaders” follow the whims of a largely uninformed public, even on complex questions that require real expertise. The time horizon for “success” is sometimes no longer than the next midterms, and many decisions are therefore not only short term, but superficial and dangerous, like covering up a crumbling foundation with a fresh coat of paint.
This thinking characterized the JCPOA, also known as the 2015 Iran “Nuclear Deal.” The Nuclear Deal gave the Islamic Republic of Iran access to significant cash and time, which it used to advance the very nuclear program it was supposed to give up. The same resources also helped Iran fund its terror proxies throughout the Middle East.
This philosophy also motivated a bizarre idea in the 1990s to essentially pay North Korea to not develop nuclear weapons. Pyongyang, predictably, accepted billions of dollars in aid and sanctions relief, and then successfully tested its first nuclear bomb just a few years later.
How is it possible for such an obvious game to fool the West?
The key is to present a seductive (and dishonest) narrative that the public wants to believe.
North Korea, for example, sold the idea that its push for nuclear weapons had resulted from poverty and desperation. The poverty was real, the logic was not. The West enthusiastically jumped on the idea that it could resolve everything by giving North Korea aid, fuel, and sanctions relief. The “solution” was meant to look easy, elegant, and most of all, to sound great in the next State of the Union address. And it did — though it required utterly ignoring North Korea’s openly stated goal to “blast the United States from the face of the Earth.”
Similarly, Iran claimed to seek nuclear capacity only for “peaceful purposes,” and objected to Western “bullying,” thus tapping into the West’s aversion to war and its adulation of negotiations and diplomacy.
This narrative worked not because it fooled most experts, but primarily because much of the voting public wanted to believe it. Much like in the case of North Korea, this delusion required ignoring routine chants of “Death to America” in the Iranian parliament, not to mention that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program was, suspiciously, hidden under a mountain.
Even Israel, a country typically more savvy than most (out of existential necessity) is not entirely immune.
For decades, terror groups including Hamas, sold the idea that terrorism is the result of poverty and desperation rather than ideology: the old North Korea trick. The “solution”? Flood Gaza with aid, including Qatari cash. According to non-public sources in Israel’s COGAT unit (which handles coordination with the Palestinian territories), Hamas modulated its terror activity up and down in response to how much cash came into Gaza — thus reinforcing the narrative.
Even entrepreneur-turned-politician Naftali Bennett, Israel’s loudest critic of sending Hamas “suitcases full of cash,” did essentially the same thing once he became Prime Minister himself.
The terror group’s publicly declared raison d’être (annihilating Israel and wiping out all Jews) was minimized or ignored. The narrative was just too seductive, and the alternative (all out war) was unacceptable to much of the Israeli public. In the end, all out war happened anyway: beginning in the most horrific possible way, with Hamas’ massacre on October 7, 2023.
In fairness to Israel, the relative quiet before October 7 filled a deep social and emotional need for the war-weary Israeli people, and enabled the country to build significant prosperity and resources — which proved vital to Israel’s economic resilience during its two year “combat marathon,” which continues even now.
Despite some conspiracy theories to the contrary, Israel’s mistakes do not “cause” Hamas’ violence, any more than America “caused” Iran or North Korea’s hatred and nuclear ambitions. To the contrary, the entire Western world tries constantly to balance the need for day-to-day quiet and prosperity against the need for long-term safety. Both priorities are important, yet when the West blunders in trying to achieve this balance, its enemies are quick to take advantage.
In a recent article, I discussed why Israel and Hamas are likely to resume combat. In summary: every element of peace, including international stabilization forces and reconstruction, is impossible until Hamas disarms and dismantles its power structure; but Hamas is ideologically incapable of doing so voluntarily. (The article is a thorough deep dive, and well worth checking out!)
Israel is now raising concerns about the proposed UN framework – in short, the plan appears to encapsulate the principle of “let’s not, and say we did”: let’s not disarm Hamas, let’s not make a meaningful change in Gaza, let’s not make the world any more peaceful or any more safe — but say we did.
Yet there is hope.
Last April, US President Donald Trump gave Iran 60 days to negotiate the dismantling of its nuclear program. Israelis saw this as a mistake, fearing that Trump had fallen into the same trap that seduced former Presidents Obama and Biden: allowing Iran to play for time as it races toward “the Bomb.” Yet immediately after the deadline, rather than allowing extensions, Trump and Israel coordinated a devastating attack on Iran’s nuclear program, achieving in 12 days what years of negotiations had not.
Two years ago, Israel learned the real cost of willful blindness in the most painful possible way, and now insists on nothing less than true safety. For his part, Trump learned last June that negotiation can sometimes be useless and dangerous, whereas appropriate military action can be both limited and effective.
Between Israel’s hard-won wisdom, and Trump’s recent history of learning from prior mistakes, the world just may stand a chance of defeating Hamas after all. Yet if Hamas wins (and it very well might), the philosophy of “let’s not, and say we did” will be the reason why.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
Uncategorized
When Jewish Students Are Afraid, Leaders Must Be Visible, Says US Rep. Randy Fine
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) leaves the US Capitol after the last votes of the week on Sept. 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
At a moment when many Jewish students are hiding Stars of David and removing mezuzahs from dorm-room doors, US Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) has chosen the opposite approach. He is the first US lawmaker to wear a kippah on the House floor — asserting publicly what others feel compelled to conceal.
“You shouldn’t have to shrink to be safe,” Fine said. “Not in America.”
Speaking on The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast with host David M. Cohen, Fine explained that the decision began with his son.
Before a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism, Fine’s teenage son urged him to wear
his kippah so Jewish students — especially those afraid to show their identity — would know
they had an advocate in the room.
“The reaction was overwhelming,” Fine recalled.
Jewish families across the country reached out in support. That night, his son told him: “You should keep wearing it until every Jewish student in America feels safe.” Fine acknowledged that could take years — or forever.
“And that’s fine,” he said.
Cohen reflected that the moment captured “what so many Jewish parents feel — that their children are inheriting a world where being visibly Jewish requires bravery.”
Fine’s comfort with Jewish visibility was not always assured. Growing up in Kentucky, he was one of the only Jewish children in his school and was taunted with the nickname “Kentucky Fried Jew.” At age 13, he made a vow: that he would never again feel afraid because he is Jewish. That conviction now guides his public life.
Before entering Congress, Fine served in the Florida legislature, where he championed protections for Jewish students and helped secure funding for synagogue and school security. He sees this work not as politics, but as responsibility. His urgency reflects what he described on “J100” as a major shift in the lived reality of Jewish students.
“We’re seeing Jewish students who won’t wear a Star of David necklace, who won’t walk across campus alone,” he said. “No one in America should be afraid to be Jewish.”
Fine believes these conditions represent not only safety concerns but also a failure of leadership. For Fine, the kippah has become a visible reminder that Jewish identity and American patriotism are fully aligned — and that the burden of courage should fall on leaders first.
“This is a moment where Jews need to be proud, loud, and unafraid,” he said. “Not only in private spaces, but in the places where power is exercised.”
Cohen emphasized that visible Jewish leadership signals “not just courage, but character.”
And if a kippah in Congress helps one Jewish student feel braver, “it’s worth it,” Fine said.
Fine’s full conversation with Cohen is available now on the “J100” website as well as Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Substack, and YouTube.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see.
Jewish leaders spent the final weeks of New York City’s mayoral race writing letters, delivering fiery sermons and sharing countless infographics warning about the threat an anti-Zionist mayor would pose for Jews.
Zohran Mamdani won anyway.
Now, those in charge of institutions that have shaped Jewish life in New York for decades are facing a new challenge: How to work with an incoming mayor after joining in a scorched earth campaign against him?
“I genuinely want to be like, ‘The water is warm — just come on in!’” said Audrey Sasson, chief executive of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a social justice group that campaigned aggressively for Mamdani. “It’s actually going to be so awesome.”
It’s safe to say many Jewish leaders are skeptical of Sasson’s invitation. The mayor-elect is such a divisive figure among Jewish New Yorkers — a majority of whom backed his opponents, exit polls showed — that a mere meeting with his transition team can be too inflammatory for some Jewish leaders to share publicly.
And yet the old guard will still need to work with the new mayor’s office. For example, UJA-Federation of New York, whose post-election statement vowed to hold Mamdani accountable, partners with health and human service agencies that receive millions of dollars from the city. Rabbis who signed a letter condemning Mamdani’s rhetoric will want the mayor to be attentive to their concerns.
“The Jewish community needs to figure out a way to work with the administration however possible,” said Amy Spitalnick, chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which did not take a position on Mamdani’s candidacy.
Even Jewish groups whose entire focus is Israel and antisemitism hope the mayor-elect reaches out once he’s in office. Jewish on Campus, a student group, praised Mamdani this week for giving “voice to young New Yorkers on issues such as affordability” while simultaneously asking him to meet with pro-Israel leaders at local universities.
Interviews with community leaders revealed a range of approaches to managing a relationship with Mamdani. Some are anticipating a delicate balancing act, cooperating professionally even amid public disagreements. Others, bracing for the worst, may become resistance-like figures, expecting to go all-in on their opposition, as the Anti-Defamation League did in creating a Mamdani Monitor.
Navigating impasse
Jewish New Yorkers who criticized Mamdani for his stance on Israel had lots to point to.
He was reluctant to condemn “globalize the intifada,” a controversial slogan some Jews consider to be a call for violence, and he called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide. As a state lawmaker, he introduced the Not On Our Dime bill, which he said would strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits that fund Israeli settler violence in the West Bank but which critics claimed targeted mainstream Jewish charities. He has raised the possibility of the city divesting from Israel bonds and said he would seek to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he traveled to New York City.
And Mamdani repeatedly declined to assert Israel’s right to exist “as a Jewish state,” instead stating his belief that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all.
Many seized on that as incontrovertible proof of Mamdani’s animus toward Jews who support Israel, unsatisfied by a later commitment to hire Zionists to work in his administration.But he also promised an eightfold increase in city funding for anti-hate crime initiatives, including security grants for houses of worship.
Hindy Poupko, UJA-Federation’s senior vice president of community strategy and external relations, doesn’t know which promises he’d make good on.
“The question is really for mayor-elect Mamdani: how is he going to work with us?” Poupko said. “He needs to demonstrate through actions and not just words that he will protect Jewish New Yorkers and that he will not seek to weaponize City Hall in an effort to demonize the State of Israel.”
There are reasons for Poupko to be optimistic.
Mamdani’s circle is stocked with people who have worked in the New York government for years — Bill de Blasio alumni, former Kathy Hochul advisers, Jewish state assemblymen — and with whom UJA-Federation and its dozens of local agencies have long-established professional relationships.
The strength of those ties may enable the federation to continue to lead opposition on Israel-related matters without undermining the work of partners like the Met Council, which fights hunger, or the Hebrew Free Burial Association.
“Our agencies will continue to work with relevant city agencies that they need to advance their priorities,” Poupko said. “We will continue our close partnership with NYPD to ensure that Jewish communities are safe, and at the same time, we will continue to make our values and priorities clear.”
Wait and see
Israel policy was not central to Mamdani’s campaign or his platform, and he has insisted that his focus as mayor will be on making New York safe and affordable for everyone. But that does not preclude him from taking steps to roll back the city’s cozyness with Israel. He has said, for example, that he plans to discontinue the New York City-Israel Economic Council established by current Mayor Eric Adams, who has professed his love for Israel and said he wants to retire in the Golan Heights.
And Mamdani could influence the future of Cornell Tech, a partnership between Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, whose campus is on city-owned Roosevelt Island. A Mamdani spokesperson told The New York Times prior to the election that Mamdani — who as an assemblyman urged a boycott of the campus — would “assess” the partnership if he won.
New York Solidarity Network, a pro-Israel advocacy group, issued multiple statements criticizing Mamdani during the campaign and executive director Sara Forman said she’s not waiting for a call from Mamdani’s office.
“What are we going to talk about?” Forman said. “I just don’t think there’s any moderation on his part in regard to many of the issues that the mainstream Jewish community holds dear.”
Like most of the leaders I spoke to, Forman was taking a wait-and-see approach to the mayor-elect. But she was also seeing a silver lining in his electoral breakthrough.
“A lot of Jews in New York are now awake,” she said, due to their anxiety about Mamdani. “We need to have more participation. And I think we’re going to get it.”
The new power brokers
While many of the largest Jewish groups absorbed the news of Mamdani’s win with trepidation, JFREJ’s Sasson was — in her words — “over the moon.”
The nonprofit, which works on a range of local issues that include housing and immigration and vocally opposed Israel’s war in Gaza, has been connected to the mayor-elect for years, and hundreds of its members canvassed for him.
“This campaign spoke our language,” Sasson said.
Sasson can now imagine a level of influence in city affairs that JFREJ has never before enjoyed.
Where some saw shades of antisemitism in Mamdani’s stances on Israel, JFREJ and other groups on the progressive Jewish flank — organizations such as Bend The Arc, T’ruah and IfNotNow — defended him. Bend The Arc wished Mamdani a “Mazal Tov!” after his victory in stark contrast to the omission of congratulations in statements issued by the UJA-Federation and other groups.
To Sasson, Mamdani’s victory — and the sizable Jewish support he received — is a sign that things are changing in New York as power flows away from traditional Jewish organizations and toward more progressive community nonprofits.
“The Jewish institutions that find themselves a little bit on the back foot right now, I think it’s a moment to do some reflecting and some of their own outreach,” Sasson said.
Spitalnick, who sits on the board of New York Jewish Agenda, a progressive umbrella group, said that while Jewish New Yorkers have “real, legitimate concerns about antisemitism, including the ways in which policies or rhetoric can play a role,” the response of some Jewish organizations threatened to sow division and fear and undermines Jewish safety in the long term.
The appropriate tack for Jewish organizations, Spitalnick said, was to build trust with the administration on areas of policy alignment, whether on crime or education or other issues, to fortify their relationship for moments of opposition.
“Part of what we need to do to advance Jewish safety,” she said, “is to engage across deep lines of disagreement.”
Jacob Kornbluh contributed reporting.
The post Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Austria Launches Investigation After Kristallnacht Commemoration Disrupted by Hitler Speech
A shop damaged in Magdeburg, Germany, during Kristallnacht. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Austrian authorities have launched an investigation after a Kristallnacht commemoration ceremony in a local town was shockingly disrupted by the blaring sound of a speech by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
On Sunday, about 50 people gathered in Mödling, a town in Lower Austria just south of Vienna, for a memorial ceremony at the former site of the town’s synagogue — burned down during the November 1938 pogroms — to honor the victims.
However, the event was abruptly disrupted when, during a planned musical segment of the ceremony, a clip of a speech by Hitler was blasted from a nearby residential building for about a minute and a half.
On Nov. 9, 1938, Nazi paramilitary forces launched a coordinated nationwide attack on the German Jewish community — burning synagogues, destroying homes and businesses, and deporting thousands — a violent event that has come to be remembered as Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass.
The onslaught left at least 91 Jews dead and 30,000 Jewish men arrested and sent to concentration camps. Over 7,000 Jewish-owned stores were looted.
Shortly after Sunday’s commemoration event was disrupted, the city of Mödling swiftly filed an official complaint.
City councillor Stephan Schimanova told Austrian media that the recording was “extremely loud,” leaving attendees completely “speechless.”
“There was a great deal of consternation. It was just sick,” he continued.
Now, local authorities have launched an investigation into the suspect’s alleged neo-Nazi activity, after police searched his home on Wednesday and seized “technical equipment.”
This latest incident comes amid a wave of attacks across Europe that disrupted commemorations of the November 1938 pogroms and targeted Jewish communities in an increasingly hostile climate.
In Germany, about 15 people gathered on Sunday in a local park in Baden-Württemberg, in the southwest of the country, many waving Israeli flags, to pray and take part in a commemoration honoring the victims of Kristallnacht.
The event was also disrupted when a group of men stormed the ceremony, waving Palestinian flags and shouting “Free Palestine” along with other antisemitic insults.
Attendees told German media that the assailants hurled insults, calling them “sons of bitches” and shouting “death to Israel.” One of the attackers also snatched an Israeli flag from a participant and fled, later attempting to set it ablaze.
According to local police, a 17-year-old Syrian refugee was arrested shortly afterward, though the investigation into the incident remains ongoing.
The Interior Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Thomas Strobl, condemned the attack, sounding the alarm over the growing entrenchment of antisemitism in German society today.
“It is shameful and completely unacceptable how antisemitic hatred, incitement, and violence have spread through our streets,” Strobl said.
In Denmark, meanwhile, local authorities in Randers, a city in the eastern part of the country, are investigating reports of vandalism at a Jewish cemetery that occurred during the anniversary of the 1938 Nazi pogroms.
While there was no graffiti or political slogans found on site, several headstones were toppled and some were damaged, with authorities considering a possible antisemitic motive.
Five years ago, two men with ties to a neo-Nazi group were convicted of extensive vandalism at the same cemetery.