RSS
What Is Next for Ukraine and Russia?
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens during a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, New York, US, September 25, 2019. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.
There are two weeks to go before Donald Trump, elected to a second term on November 5, 2024, returns to the White House, but the outlines of the first “100 days” of his policy, albeit at the declarative level, are already quite clear. In addition to mass deportation of illegal immigrants, abolishing the education policy of the outgoing administration, “streamlining” the executive branch by cutting thousands of federal government positions, and other ambitious measures, there are also steps to implement one of the main campaign promises. Namely, to end as quickly as possible the “hot phase” of regional armed conflicts that could trigger political and economic instability in the world at large.
Trump’s promise to bring the war in Ukraine to an end through diplomatic measures is not the lowest on this list. Although the campaign promise to bring Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table and end the conflict within 24 hours has already disappeared from the Trump team’s rhetoric, they remain confident that after January 20, 2024, the White House and the US State Department will have enough political and material resources to bring the hostilities to a relatively quick halt. And to convince Ukrainian and Russian leaders to accept Washington’s proposed roadmap, if not for a peaceful settlement, then for a long-term ceasefire (i.e., freezing the conflict). Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war during his December 7 meeting in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Possible offer for Russia
According to observers, the compromise arrangements that Trump intends to offer to both sides do not satisfy either Kyiv or Moscow so far. Thus, Putin, although showing glimmers of interest in ending the conflict, continues to insist that peace is possible only if, as a result of the negotiations, Kyiv officially refuses to join NATO and if Ukraine and the West agree to Russia’s annexation of five Ukrainian regions. Specifically, Crimea, officially annexed back in 2014, and four regions – Donetsk, Luhansk (the former self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics”), Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. Moreover, Moscow wants to receive these regions in their entirety within their administrative boundaries, not only those parts that are already occupied by Russian troops.
Although according to Reuters sources in Moscow, “Russia may also be open to withdrawing from the relatively small patches of territory it holds in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions, in the north and south of Ukraine.” Basically, Putin is in no hurry. Western sanctions against the Russian economy have not yet had the expected effect, internal opposition to the regime is weak, and Russian troops continue to push through the AFU defenses in the east of the country, albeit slowly. And to him, observers believe, dragging out does make sense in order to gain more by pursuing further land grabs. Finally, the level of public support for the SMO (“Special Military Operation,” as Russia officially calls the war with Ukraine) is still quite high. For example, at the end of November, according to the Moscow-based sociological Levada Center, the level of this support was 77% — despite the fact that a third of respondents confirmed that the country was still experiencing difficulties related to the SMO, and about 40% believed that real difficulties lay ahead. This may be why, judging by the same survey, support for the idea of peace talks in November 2024 stood at 57%, while support for continued military action fell to 35%. However, these figures hardly mean anything more than passive readiness of Russians to agree with any decision of the country’s leadership — to continue or end the SMO, but the latter, most likely, on the terms officially announced by the authorities.
Trump’s team seems to recognize this reality, which probably explains why the three options for a plan to end the war offered by his team to Putin, according to media reports, appear to contain more “carrots” than “sticks” for Russia. According to the first option, which was presented by Trump’s incoming Russia-Ukraine envoy, retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg together with former National Security Council official Fred Fleitz, as an analytical report by The America First Policy Institute, a think tank close to Trump, calls for freezing the current battle lines.
The second and third scenarios, presented respectively by Vice President-elect JD Vance, and by Richard Grenell, Trump’s former acting intelligence chief and ambassador to Germany, are essentially very close to the Kellogg/Fleitz ideas, except for some technical additions of varying degrees of importance. The Vance project also envisages the creation of a demilitarized zone at the existing front lines that would be “heavily fortified” to prevent further Russian incursions. The Grenell plan suggests the creation of “autonomous zones” in eastern Ukraine, without much detail as to what exactly is meant. (Purely theoretically, one can assume that it could be a territorial autonomy within Ukraine with expanded sovereignty; a quasi-state like the “Palestinian autonomy” under a de facto Russian protectorate, or a Russian-Ukrainian condominium with the participation of some external forces; or some third option).
The stick in all these scenarios is a threat to Moscow to dramatically increase military and other aid to Kyiv should it refuse to accept US proposals.
Incentives and warnings for Ukraine
In fact, this is what the outgoing administration of Joe Biden intends to do: according to media reports, it has developed a “last-minute” program that provides for an “avalanche” of military aid. In any case, this is what Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak. He said that by mid-January 2025, the USA intends to supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces with hundreds of thousands of additional artillery shells and a large number of missiles and armored vehicles, as well as to train new Ukrainian troops at sites outside Ukrainian territory.
And all of this comes in a package with a promise to transfer roughly $9 billion in military aid to Kyiv through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and defense packages under the president’s authority. As well as a new set of sanctions against Russia, which, according to the same reports, are called to complicate “Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort and boosting Ukraine’s bargaining power at the negotiation table that could lay the groundwork for a future settlement.” However, there are doubts in American media and political circles that the outgoing administration has enough time to utilize these resources. Just as it is clear that all this large-scale and, from the point of view of many in Ukraine, very late influx of weapons cannot be carried out in a matter of weeks, so it will have to be implemented — or abandoned — mostly by the new administration.
This scenario may be convenient for Trump’s team as a “stick” for Moscow. However, judging by what is being reported from the president-elect’s inner circle, so far they would prefer, in response to Kremlin, to start with incentives rather than intimidation. It is indicative, for example, that all three scenarios of completing the war in Ukraine that were produced by Trump’s inner circle, denied the NATO membership for Ukraine in the foreseeable future. The difference is that while in the plans of Vance and Kellogg/Fleitz this looks like an inevitable concession to Putin in exchange for his agreement to end or freeze the conflict on terms more or less satisfactory to all parties involved, the plan of Grenell, who was one of the few people at a September meeting in New York between Trump and Zelensky, presents Ukraine’s non-participation in NATO as a conceptual judgment (“NATO membership for Ukraine was not in America’s interest”).
Yet, this is precisely what Kyiv is not ready to accept by definition. Ukraine’s joining, or initiating the process of joining NATO, was a critical element of the “Victory Plan” presented by Volodymyr Zelensky in September 2024, amid a perceived decline in Western interest in Ukraine and accumulated war fatigue in Eastern Europe. Key points of the plan included recognizing Ukraine’s absolute right to be a member of any alliance, regardless of the opinion of “third countries” on the matter; large-scale investments in military production facilities in Ukraine; auditing and expanding anti-Russian sanctions; and diplomatic pressure on Moscow.
This plan, presented in the Verkhovna Rada and at various high-profile international events, as well as Zelensky’s earlier proposed “peace formula,” did not evoke much enthusiasm among Ukraine’s allies. Therefore, at this stage Kyiv is ready for a minimal alternative — to be “invited” to the alliance, and to receive some “guarantees of Ukraine’s security” from American and European leaders, and to have a “deterrence potential”, including an arsenal of conventional weapons sufficient to deliver a sensitive blow to the Russian Federation in case it violates the ceasefire regime. And at this stage — to obtain weapons and other resources capable of turning the situation on the front line and creating conditions for negotiations.
Kyiv would clearly be satisfied with such an arrangement if it became a fundamental element of Ukraine’s obtaining the status of “major US ally outside NATO,” which would at least partially raise the level of relations to that which binds the US, for example, with Israel, Japan, or Australia. However, Ukraine rejected such a partnership back in 2021, and although the question seems to have returned to the agenda after February 24, 2022, the chances of its implementation are slim. As a result, the position of the Ukrainian leadership in relations with the incoming US administration is rather weak.
Unlike Russian leaders, who still have a considerable amount of time and room for maneuver, Zelensky’s team has significantly less of these two resources. Ukraine experiences manpower shortages, growing territorial losses, a drop in public morale due to accumulated war fatigue, lack of prospects, and the feeling that Western allies are “preventing Ukraine from winning” by rationing aid. There is also outrage at corruption at all levels and a sense of injustice regarding the distribution of the war burden within Ukrainian society. Therefore, Zelensky has to be open to negotiations to find diplomatic solutions, especially since it is quite obvious that the public has such a demand.
Under these circumstances, Trump has much more leverage over Zelensky than over Putin, and it is possible that at some point the balance of “carrots and sticks” in Ukrainian politics will shift in favor of the latter. So far, the more or less openly articulated position of the Trump team fits into a simple formula: Kyiv should agree to negotiations with Moscow based on the White House and the State Department’s understanding of the optimal arrangement for a diplomatic solution under the threat of halting military aid, but boosting assistance if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses.
In a sense, such an approach stymies Ukraine’s president, who signed a decree in 2022 forbidding Ukraine from negotiating with Russia as long as Putin is in power. Theoretically, Ukraine could formally cede some of its territory if such a move is approved in a national referendum, which, judging by opinion polls, is unlikely. In other words, there is obviously a built-in contradiction in the vision of the Ukrainian political establishment: a clear understanding of the lack of prospects for defeating Russia on the battlefield and the need to seek a diplomatic solution, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the impossibility of removing from the official discourse the declared goal of resisting Russian aggression, that is the restoration of Kyiv’s sovereignty over the entire territory of Ukraine within the 1991 borders.
Today, Zelensky’s team does not have many other options. One of them is to continue to insist on inviting Ukraine to NATO with the help of the so-called contact group consisting of France, Poland, Great Britain and Germany, which was launched on December 9, 2024 by Friedrich Merz, candidate to the German chancellor from the CDU party, to develop a common position on ending the war. The Ukrainian presidential administration pitched the initiative as a group of countries that have long-range weapons, that are investing the most in Ukrainian defense production, and on which Ukraine’s accession to NATO depends.
Nevertheless, it is clear that eventually everything will depend on the US position. And it is still unclear whether Kyiv and Moscow are impressed enough by Trump’s reputation as a “hard pragmatist” on foreign policy issues, and by the set of “carrots and sticks” voiced by his men for each side of the conflict, to soften their unyielding positions.
Prof. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin lectures in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and is Academic Chairman of the Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies in Herzliya, Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post What Is Next for Ukraine and Russia? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Brooklyn Woman Denied Bail, Claims She Didn’t Kill Anyone in Car Crash That Killed Jewish Mother, Two Daughters
An overturned auto in a car crash flipped on its roof landing on a mother and her three children, killing two children on March 29, 2025, in Brooklyn, New York. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
A Brooklyn woman denied killing anyone when she appeared in court on Thursday, less than a week after a Jewish woman and her two daughters died when she crashed her car into them at a crosswalk.
Miriam Yarimi, 32, appeared in Brooklyn Criminal Court via a video stream from her room in NYU Langone Hospital-Brooklyn, according to the New York Daily News. She is undergoing a psychological evaluation at the hospital following Saturday’s deadly car crash.
After the crash, Yarimi told first responders she was “possessed” and believed the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was following her. She has made similar claims about being pursued by the CIA on social media several times in the past, The Algemeiner previously reported.
Yamini, who is also Jewish, faces a slew of charges that include three counts of second-degree manslaughter, three counts of criminal negligent homicide, and four counts of second-degree assault.
“The devil is in my eyes. I am haunted inside. I didn’t kill anyone. I didn’t hurt anyone. Prove it. Show me the proof. You have no proof,” Yarimi said in a statement after Saturday’s crash, according to Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Nocella. “I need CT scans in my eyes. I need to get the scanning done now … Where’s my daughter? My daughter’s always in my heart.”
“People are out to get me,” added the single mother. “I need CT scans on my entire body. F— you. I need a whole work up to get whatever is in my body out of it. I did not hurt anyone. All the evidence is on my phone.”
Nocella called Yamini a flight risk and asked the judge that she be held without bail due to the “nature and severity” of the allegations, as reported by the Daily News. Judge Jevet Johnson agreed with Nocella and ordered Yamini to be held without bail. Nocella said prosecutors are prepared to present grand jury indictment on the manslaughter charges.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams said his administration is “committed” to taking more action to prevent traffic violence and deaths following the fatal car crash that killed Natasha Saada, 35, along with her daughters Diana, 8, and Deborah, 5. Saada’s 4-year-old son Philip was injured in the crash and is still being hospitalized in critical condition.
Adams’ office announced on Wednesday that there were 41 traffic deaths during the first three months of 2025 — 24 fewer than last year and the second fewest since they started being recorded by the city. Despite the decline in traffic deaths, Adams admitted that more work needs to be done to keep New Yorkers safe on the streets, as evident by Saturday’s deadly car crash.
“In order to make New York City the best place to raise a family, we need to be safer at every level — including on our streets,” he said in a released statement on Wednesday. “Our administration’s investments in intersection safety improvements, treating traffic violence as the serious crime that it is, and our expanding automated camera enforcement are all helping ensure we’re leading the way toward a safer future for all New Yorkers — whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists.”
“We understand there is more work to do, as evidenced this past weekend’s tragic crash in Brooklyn because one lift [sic] lost to traffic violence is one life too many, but our administration remains committed to reducing traffic violence as much as any other form of violence,” Adams added.
On Saturday afternoon, Yarimi crashed her car into an Uber and then slammed into four members of the Saada family as they were trying to walk across the street at an intersection on Ocean Parkway in Midwood.
Yarimi was speeding at the time of the incident, “probably doing close to twice the speed limit,” and “ran a red light” just before the crash, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez revealed on Wednesday while speaking to Eyewitness News. Yamini was also driving on a suspended license and has accumulated almost 100 parking and camera violations, including 21 speed camera tickets and five red light tickets.
“It actually exceeds just being reckless, it’s almost being wanton, we’re not going to tolerate that,” Gonzalez told Eyewitness News. “Her vehicle had been ticketed many times by red light cameras and speed cameras, that car was a frequent violator of both speed laws and red-light laws, and there is no excuse for running a red light.”
Saada and her daughters were buried in Israel this week. Four-year-old Philip remains at the hospital for his injuries and is facing “tough straights,” Gonzalez said. “We expect him to make some kind of recovery, but it’s going to be a long road for him.”
The boy lost one of his kidneys during treatment at Maimonides Medical Center, according to New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. “It’s heartbreaking,” Lander said after he visited the home of the Saada family, according to the New York Post. “He’s still in critical condition. He lost one kidney but they are hopeful about his prognosis.”
Five people in the Uber hit by Yarimi’s car suffered minor injuries.
Supporters of a proposed state law that would stop repeat super speeders in New York have rallied together since the car accident on Saturday, calling for the passage of the bill that they said could have prevented the crash. The legislation would require speed limiters to be installed on vehicles owned by repeat reckless drivers, like Yarimi. The device automatically limits the vehicles to within 5 mph of the legal speed of the road. The “Stop Super Speeders” bill was sponsored by New York State Assembly Member Emily Gallagher and Senator Andrew Gounardes.
The New York City Comptroller, Brad Lander, supports the bill and criticized Adams for not already implementing such measures.
The post Brooklyn Woman Denied Bail, Claims She Didn’t Kill Anyone in Car Crash That Killed Jewish Mother, Two Daughters first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hungary Announces Withdrawal From ‘Political’ ICC as Netanyahu Visits Country, Defying Arrest Warrant
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban speaks to the media next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Budapest, Hungary, April 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Bernadett Szabo
Hungary on Thursday announced that it will withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) as the country welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the capital city of Budapest, defying an ICC arrest warrant against him over allegations of war crimes in Gaza.
Despite Hungary’s status as a signatory of the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, Netanyahu was not taken into custody upon his arrival in Budapest. Instead, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed his Israeli counterpart with full military honors.
GREAT meeting with a GREAT friend, @PM_ViktorOrban. Together, we’re making the GREAT alliance between
and
even stronger! pic.twitter.com/Svphzb61Gn
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) April 3, 2025
Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, which is scheduled to last until Sunday, is his first trip to Europe since the ICC issued an arrest warrant against him last year. In February, he made his first foreign trip altogether since the ICC’s decision to the United States, where he met with US President Donald Trump.
As Orban and Netanyahu met to discuss regional developments and bilateral cooperation, Hungarian Minister Gergely Gulyas released a statement announcing that “the government will initiate the withdrawal procedure” from the ICC, which could take a year or more to complete.
After their meeting, Orban said he believes the ICC is “no longer an impartial court, not a court of law, but a political court.”
“I am convinced that this otherwise important international judicial forum has been degraded into a political tool, with which we cannot and do not want to engage,” Orban said during a press conference.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar praised Budapest’s decision to withdraw from the international court, highlighting the country’s “strong moral stance alongside Israel and the principles of justice and sovereignty.”
“I commend Hungary’s important decision to withdraw from the ICC,” Saar wrote in a post on X. “The so-called ‘International Criminal Court’ lost its moral authority after trampling the fundamental principles of international law in its zest for harming Israel’s right to self-defense.”
I commend Hungary’s important decision to withdraw from the ICC. FM Péter Szijjártó and I dealt with this matter extensively. The so-called “International Criminal Court” lost its moral authority after trampling the fundamental principles of international law in its zest for…
— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 3, 2025
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which until a recently imposed blockade had provided significant humanitarian aid into the enclave throughout the war. Israel also says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, despite Hamas’s widely acknowledged military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
After the court issued the warrant against Netanyahu, Orban rejected the decision by inviting the Israeli leader to Budapest and accusing the court of “interfering in an ongoing conflict for political purposes.”
During Thursday’s news conference, Netanyahu commended Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC, calling it a “bold and principled action” as “the first state that walks out of this corruption and this rottenness.”
“The ICC directs its actions against us fighting a just war with just means,” Netanyahu said. “I think [this decision will] be deeply appreciated, not only in Israel but in many, many countries around the world.”
After the Israeli leader was welcomed in Budapest, Hamas issued a statement calling on the Hungarian government to reverse its decision and extradite Netanyahu to the ICC to stand trial, calling the decision an “immoral stance that shows collusion with a war criminal who is running away from justice.”
In a post on X, Israel’s top diplomat reiterated his support for Hungary’s decision, arguing that Hamas’s statement only proves the country is taking the correct stance in this matter.
“Whoever needed further proof as to how justified, moral and necessary Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the ICC is: Hamas just condemned it,” Saar wrote.
“Hamas is defending the politicized and twisted so-called ‘International Criminal Court.’ And that’s the whole story.”
Whoever needed further proof as to how justified, moral and necessary Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the ICC is: Hamas just condemned it.
Hamas is defending the politicized and twisted so-called “International Criminal Court”.
And that’s the whole story.— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 3, 2025
After the ICC’s decision to issue the warrants, several countries, including Hungary, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, France, and Italy, have said they would not arrest Netanyahu if he visited.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2o23.
The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel as it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. Other countries including the US have similarly not signed the ICC charter. However, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction by accepting “Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, despite no such state being recognized under international law.
The post Hungary Announces Withdrawal From ‘Political’ ICC as Netanyahu Visits Country, Defying Arrest Warrant first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Individualism Will Not Work, But Solidarity Must
The Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
During the events of Purim, Haman approached King Xerxes I and said, “There is a certain race of people scattered through all the provinces of your empire who keep themselves separate from everyone else. Their laws are different from those of any other people, and they refuse to obey the laws of the king. So, it is not in the king’s interest to let them live.”
Queen Esther’s solidarity with her dispersed people in Persia, and her profound loyalty to her Jewish identity, saved them from Haman’s genocide and secured their self-defense when she courageously revealed her heritage to Xerxes I.
Today, Israeli Jews are once again fighting for their Jewish and Zionist survival. Since Oct. 7, 2023, this Jewish Armageddon has extended anew to Diaspora Jews, who have felt the past’s chilling draft. Antisemitism has reawakened, infecting non-Jews and Jews alike. Few people contribute to antisemitic attitudes more than “self-loathing” Jews. These “self-loathing” Jews, who cynically reveal only the negative aspects of their Jewishness, believe they can avoid antisemitic attacks if they condemn Israel. But they achieve only self-betrayal, gaining neither acceptance nor respect from those who hate all Jews. Jews are a nation of people who question, not people who answer.
Questions pervade the Jewish mind to such a degree that the adage, “two Jews, three opinions,” has become a common characteristic of Jewish identity. Moreover, the pursuit of an answer often serves as a springboard for further inquiry. For us, as Jews, the ultimate answer, akin to the messianic ideal, remains a distant, undefined future. This traditional perspective has granted Jews a sort of perpetual license to disagree. Jews enjoy engaging in debate with others, but they sometimes find particular delight in debating amongst themselves, which allows their intellects to roam and their sardonic wit to playfully engage with each other’s vulnerabilities, finding humor without causing offense.
This love for discourse, for questioning everything in sight, including Hashem himself, is by no means the only puzzle that makes up our Jewish identity. Another crucial element of our makeup is solidarity. In times of major upheavals, we have always stood together against the masses who rose against us. To our enemies, we Jews — atheists, nihilists, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Haredi, religious Zionists, non-religious Zionists, or undecided — look, taste, and feel the same. They care nothing for our ingrained liberalism. Our enemies seek cracks within our communities in order to break us apart and cause irreparable damage.
Years of relative peace and prosperity since the Holocaust have allowed us to gather again and engage in countless polemics over the fate of Israel, Jews, Judaism, and Zionism. However, we have failed to notice that we are at war again, and that our enemies eagerly exploit the divisions within a nation that comprises only 0.2% of the world’s population. These enemies — radical Islamists and progressive Western leftists who view Jews and Israel as white oppressors and colonizers — avidly listen to Jewish internal squabbles and criticisms of the Israeli government.
Despite the significant progress the Shin Bet and IDF have made in dismantling much of Hamas’s leadership and terrorist infrastructure, destroying its complex network of tunnels and command centers, and weakening Hezbollah, in addition to eliminating tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists, many Jews remain critical of, and disagree with, what Israel represents today. Aware of government problems, Israelis desire improvement. However, their rage and almost addictive pattern of anti-government protests have provided their adversaries with more opportunities to exploit perceived weaknesses.
This has resonated with some Jews worldwide. In New York, some Jewish intellectuals have defended “free-Palestine” and pro-Hamas protesters harassing Jewish students, invoking freedom of speech. They appear to have fallen prey to what they perceive as the lies of progressive anti-Zionist media, which systemically omits crucial facts about Israel. This includes the IDF’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties, and its role in eliminating thousands of Hamas terrorists and dismantling their terror network, which posed a significant threat to Israel (and innocent Palestinians themselves).
These “romantic” progressive Jews also forget that no matter how critical they are of that “brutal” IDF, it is still fighting on their behalf, because it is fighting on behalf of every Jew. Civilian deaths do occur, but they are either unfortunate incidents of war or, more often, a direct result of Hamas’s cruelty, as Hamas terrorists purposefully embed themselves within the civilian population. I once sat at dinner in Israel with a wealthy American Jewish couple who came on a sympathy tour a few months after Oct. 7. Nevertheless, the husband was convinced that the IDF was deliberately killing Palestinian children.
Those were wealthy, educated American Jews who thought they were charitable because they donated to Jewish causes, and therefore, believed they had the right to express their views on everything. This is where I, a Soviet Jew who grew up deprived of Judaism yet targeted by antisemitism, felt differently. To begin with, the husband was completely wrong. Second, in times of existential crisis, we, as Jewish people, must set aside our irresistible urge to disagree and criticize Israel on basic premises such as Israel’s fight to ensure Jews don’t live through a second genocide. The freedom to speak our minds has been ours for thousands of years. We conversed with Hashem, we obeyed Him, we sacrificed for Him, and then we quickly learned to disobey and question Him, even before we began arguing amongst ourselves.
Still, throughout our dotted and punctured history, it wasn’t our tongues or our disagreeable minds that kept our small nation together; it was our solidarity. In solidarity, we walked out of Egypt. In solidarity, tens of thousands of Eastern European Jews came to their promised land as early as the 1920s and began to build from nothing. In solidarity with his orphans, Dr. Janusz Korczak, despite being given the chance to save himself, chose to march with them, hand in hand, through the ghetto to the deportation point, on their way to Treblinka, where they met their final hour. In solidarity with other Jews across the Soviet Empire, Soviet Jews secretly tried to remember who they were, despite years of persecutions and purges.
In solidarity with their Soviet brethren, powerful American Jewry fought for Russian Jews to be able to emigrate to Israel and the United States. One of the main reasons our small nation has not disappeared into the abyss is because, in Diaspora, across oceans, and through impenetrable iron curtains, we never ceased to support one another. We knew we could not afford the luxury of neglecting our faith, traditions, and, most importantly, we could never abandon defending ourselves against our enemies.
Caesar’s “Divide et impera” (“Divide and Conquer”), though a cliché, is particularly relevant here. Seeing fractures within our communities, our enemies have intensified these divisions through incessant anti-Zionist and antisemitic propaganda and violence. Therefore, only as an undivided people, united by a single purpose — eradicating our enemies and protecting our promised land — do we stand a chance of survival. Perhaps only then will the day come when Jewish people gather on virtual street corners to argue and ask questions to which they seek no answers.
Anya Gillinson is an immigration lawyer and author of the new memoir Dreaming in Russian. She lives in New York City. More at www.anyagillinson.com.
The post Jewish Individualism Will Not Work, But Solidarity Must first appeared on Algemeiner.com.