RSS
Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’
(JTA) — In pressing for a deal that could see the release of 50 of the more than 200 hostages held in Gaza in return for a four-day pause in hostilities the release of 150 Palestinian prisoners, Israel’s National Unity Party Minister Benny Gantz described the return of the hostages as a “moral imperative and part of the resilience that enables us to win wars.”
But what if negotiating with Hamas, considered a terrorist group by Israel, creates a dangerous precedent and further encourages its enemies to view hostage-taking as a weapon? By putting its war on Hamas on a four-day hold, does Israel appear to be giving in to an enemy it has vowed to destroy? And by releasing three Palestinian prisoners for every hostage returned, does Israel risk allowing violent prisoners to go free?
These are the unbearable tensions Israeli and American negotiators faced in the leadup to the deal, announced Tuesday night. To understand the dilemmas and pressures Israel is facing, I spoke with law professor Robert Mnookin, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School and author of the 2010 book, “Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight.” Mnookin advises governments and corporations on negotiating strategy and conflict resolution and has written about Israel’s controversial hostage swaps with Hamas and other adversaries.
He is also the author, in 2019, of “The Jewish American Paradox: Embracing Choice in a Changing World,” a book about Jewish peoplehood and identity.
We spoke Wednesday about the political pressure on Israel to strike a deal, how religious and national values play a role in hostage negotiations and why a “no-win” scenario is sometimes the best you can do.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Before we get into the details of this specific hostage exchange, I wonder if you could provide a theoretical framework for hostage negotiation, especially with an enemy deemed terrorists. What should any power consider before embarking on negotiations essentially with kidnappers?
One hard question, of course, is, are they likely to keep to the deal that you make with them? Kidnappers aren’t necessarily a reliable partner to a negotiation.
A second big issue is the question of precedent. What kind of precedent are they setting by being willing to negotiate? For many years, the United States government took the position that it would not negotiate with terrorists to try to release kidnap victims. And there was a lot of tension [between the government and victims’ families]. The stated policy was often informally violated by the U.S. government, that is, they sometimes did participate. And in fact, it turns out that European countries were negotiating with various — often Islamic — terrorist groups in the last decade, were paying money to get people released. The United States wasn’t and it changed its formal policy.
That they would pay ransom?
Not necessarily, but they no longer had an absolute policy that there should not be any contact between the government and terrorist groups with respect to kidnap victims.
You wrote an op-ed critical of the decision in 2011 by an earlier Netanyahu government to release about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 and held hostage in Gaza. What made you call that a “crazy deal” and what might be different about the current situation?
There were lots of things wrong with that deal. First, the price was absurdly high. Second, it set a terrible precedent. And third, as it turns out, that deal strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, because the Israeli government was negotiating with Hamas, who made sure the Palestinian Authority would get no credit. And comparatively few of the Palestinian Authority’s prisoners were released. And finally, it turns out of course, that among those released are at least some who now are apparently leaders of Hamas.
On the other hand, obviously, I’m thrilled that Shalit was released.
Robert Mnookin directs the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School. (Jon Chase/Harvard University News Office)
When you heard the terms of the deal Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, how did it strike you as someone who has an expertise in negotiations? Was there a winner? Was there a loser?
Well, listen, these kinds of negotiations often involve tragic choices. Who could not be very happy that women and children are being released? On the other hand, while we don’t really know the details of who’s being released by the Israeli government, I gather many of them are minors who participated in rather violent acts or very violent acts.
Should Israel worry that negotiating over hostages in this case is going to encourage its enemies to engage in more kidnapping?
They absolutely should.
Israel has a national ethos of returning its soldiers and protecting its citizens above all else — including by taking actions, like lopsided hostage swaps, that might endanger soldiers and civilians in the future. Do these sort of emotional goals — for the sake of national solidarity or morale, or even the religious imperative of pidyon shvuyim, or redeeming hostages — strike negotiation experts as irrational?
I don’t want to call it irrational because it may reflect and reinforce values that are really quite important. Israel has a tradition that no soldier would be left behind. Given that Israel has an army in which nearly all Jewish people participate, a truly citizens’ army, the Shalit deal was, for all its flaws, a valuable reinforcement of that ideology.
Israel is also a small country, and the degree of separation among its citizens is incredibly small. I imagine that any idea that it won’t negotiate with terrorists is impossible to maintain politically and morally when there are so many stories and they are so personal.
This is something I talked about in my oped many years ago, which is a very important psychological finding that people, in order to save identifiable individuals, are willing to take actions that are far more costly than actions that could save many more unspecified individuals. The classic example of this is when an individual is trapped in a coal mine: It becomes national news, and rescuers might spend millions of dollars to get them out — while the same government authorities are unwilling to spend anywhere near an equivalent amount on safety measures that would ultimately save many more people.
What we’ve seen in Israel, with so many victims, the political pressure is very, very substantial. You’ve seen these posters of all the individual kidnap victims. The families are trying to personalize it — appropriately, because it’s a good strategy. My wife last night was brought to tears with interviews of the family of one of the victims because their story was so sad. There’s this little girl, for example, who’s going to be 4 on her birthday, which is Friday. [Abigail Edan was kidnapped on Oct. 7; Hamas killed her parents, Roy and Smadar Edan; she is a U.S. citizen and President Joe Biden said he expects her to be released.]
Of course a government should be willing to work very hard to get her release. How can you feel they should not do so? These are very hard choices that governments have to face.
What did each side achieve in this deal?
What the Israelis achieved, of course, is that some fraction of the 200-plus hostages are being released and that there are going to be children and women among them. And the suspension of hostilities from Israel’s perspective is comparatively brief. As for Hamas, they’re getting credit for the release, they’re getting a rest in terms of hostilities and there’s going to be substantial humanitarian aid.
The other thing that I think is interesting about this arrangement, of course, in part goes to the reliability issue. They’re doing an arrangement where the hostages are going to be released partially each day, which is a way of reinforcing the ceasefire. Whereas if they were all released right in the beginning, Hamas would be taking the risks that the Israelis might immediately resume hostilities.
Do you accept the idea that a successful negotiation is one in which both sides are disappointed?
No. If the people are rational actors, it should create an outcome that each side views as superior to what their best alternative otherwise would be. Now, it is often the case that the negotiated deal is disappointing in comparison with a perfect world. But on the other hand, almost by definition, if you and I settle a terrible dispute, we wouldn’t have made a deal if we didn’t think it was superior to our expected alternative. And what’s often true is sometimes you and I could settle a conflict with an arrangement that makes us feel positive about doing business together in the future.
—
The post Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Barnard College Expels Students Who Stormed Israeli History Class, Sources Say
Anti-Israel agitators disrupting an Israeli history class at Columbia University, New York City, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Barnard College has expelled two students who disrupted an active class at Columbia University last month to distribute antisemitic literature and spew pro-Hamas propaganda, The Algemeiner has learned.
As previously reported, the agitators stormed into Professor Avi Shilon’s course, titled “History of Modern Israel,” on the first day of the semester. Clad in keffiyehs, which were wrapped around their faces to conceal their identities, they read prepared remarks which described the course as “Zionist and imperialist” and a “normalization of genocide.” As part of their performance, which they appeared to film, they dropped flyers, one of which contained an illustration of a lifted boot preparing to trample a Star of David. Next to the drawing was a message that said, “Crush Zionism.”
Another flyer proclaimed, “Burn Zionism to the ground.”
News of the expulsion was shared with The Algemeiner on Sunday by a knowledgeable source. However, the college has so far declined to confirm the validity of the report, saying only that expulsion is an immense disciplinary sanction it is willing to impose on any student whose conduct infringes on the right to learn in an environment that is free from discrimination. Until now, it was not widely known that Barnard students had participated in the January demonstration.
“Under federal law, we cannot comment on the academic and disciplinary records of students. That said as a matter of principle and policy, Barnard will always take decisive action to protect our community as a place where learning thrives, individuals feel sage, and higher education is celebrated,” college president Laura Rosenbury said in a statement. “This means upholding the highest standards and acting when those standards are threatened.”
She continued, “When rules are broken, when there is no remorse, no reflection, and no willingness to change, we must act. Expulsion is always an extraordinary measure, but so too is our commitment to respect, inclusion, and the integrity of the academic experience. At Barnard we fiercely defend our values. At Barnard, we always reject harassment and discrimination in all forms. At Barnard, we always do what is right, not what is easy.”
Columbia University and Barnard College’s chapter of Hillel International, the largest campus organization for Jewish students in the world, has since praised the college for enacting a policy which other higher education institutions have largely eschewed since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, an event which precipitated an explosion of antisemitic hate incidents, property destruction, and other illegal conduct on campuses across the US.
“We applaud Barnard College for taking decisive action and hope Columbia follows suit with the other perpetrators who have infringed on student rights in the past year — from the encampments to the takeover of Hamilton Hall,” said Brian Cohen, executive director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel. “This will send a clear message that the harassment of Jewish students and faculty will not be tolerated at Columbia.”
Elisha Baker, a junior who was present in Professor Shilon’s class during the January incident, welcomed the news as well, telling The Algemeiner via iMessage that he is a “strong believer in accountability.”
He continued, “In this case, the disruption targeted Jewish and Israeli students including myself inside the classroom, which is supposed to be a sacred place of learning on a college campus. These protestors undermined the very purpose and function of the university. I am curious to see what Columbia will do following Barnard’s strong actions.”
Columbia University has said in a previous statement that it suspended one student and banned from campus several others who participated in the demonstration, punishments that it says will hold until a “full investigation and disciplinary process.”
It added, “The investigation of the disruption, including the identification of additional participants, remains active. Disruptions to our classrooms and our academic mission and efforts to intimidate or harass our students are not acceptable, are an effort to every member of our university community, and will not be tolerated.”
However, Columbia has a history of amnestying violent and destructive anti-Israel protesters. In August, a US congressional education committee report revealed that only a few students who were involved in occupying the Hamilton Hall administrative building in April 2024 were ultimately punished despite the university’s threatening to expel them. Meanwhile, its faculty recently called on administrative officials to do more to combat antisemitism on campus. Writing in a letter which amassed over 200 signatures, the professors called for adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is widely used by governments and private entities around the world, banning the wearing of face masks which conceal the identities of those who commit violence and destroy school property, and expelling students who, for the purpose of furthering an extremist political agenda, pollute the learning environment.
Today, Columbia must operate in a new political and legal landscape, as the re-election of US President Donald Trump to a rare, nonconsecutive second term in office brought to Washington, DC a chief executive who has vowed not only to purge antisemitism from American schools but also to go as far as taxing the endowments of colleges and universities which refuse to aid the effort. So far, Columbia has remained high on the list of the Trump administration’s priorities, and earlier this month it announced that the university is one of five higher education institutions which will be subjected to an exhaustive investigation of antisemitism that will be led by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Barnard College Expels Students Who Stormed Israeli History Class, Sources Say first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Kanye West Wears Swastika Shirt in X Video, Hints at New ‘Swasticoin’ and Wearing Nazi Symbol at Next Super Bowl
Kanye West walking on the red carpet during the 67th Grammy Awards held at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles, CA on February 2, 2025. Photo: Elyse Jankowski/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, wore a swastika shirt in a video he posted on his X account over the weekend, and it closely resembled the shirt with the Nazi symbol he recently sold on his website.
In the clip, which has since been deleted, the 47-year-old “Runaway” singer wore a black long sleeve shirt that was emblazoned on front with a large white swastika, the symbol of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party during World War II that is still used today by extremists.
The Yeezy founder wore the offensive shirt while responding to an accusation made by Barstool Sports founder and owner Dave Portnoy, who claimed Ye’s meme coin is a scam. On Saturday, Portnoy – who is famous for his Barstool pizza review videos – called Ye the “worst human alive” in a post on X while claiming the rapper’s meme coin is fake.
“Rumor is Kanye (worst human alive) may be launching a scam meme coin and morons will buy it,” wrote Portnoy, who is Jewish. “Snipers will get rich. Normal people will get crushed. People will cry. I fear I was the only honest man to ever exist in celeb coins.”
A meme coin is a type of cryptocurrency that is often inspired by internet memes or other trends.
Responding to Portnoy’s claims, the “Flashing Lights” rapper said in a now-deleted video, while wearing the swastika shirt: “Dave Portnoy, I don’t know you. I saw you was tweeting… I have no idea who you are, we’ve gone back and forth joking. But when you start telling people that my coin is not real and you try to play with my money, that is the last time that we’ll be talking online.”
“Never mention money,” West wrote in the caption of his video.
Portnoy re-posted the clip on this X account and continued to attack Ye. “I thought Adam Sandler cured him of being a Nazi,” he wrote.
Sandler wrote and performed a song celebrating 50 years of “Saturday Night Live” earlier this month, and the lyrics included a mention of the Jewish actor discovering 50 years later that his favorite musician – Ye – is antisemitic. Portnoy also said of Ye, “I f–king hate this guy so much.”
On Friday, Ye took to X to explain his affinity for the swastika symbol. “The swastika to shows n—as that we don’t have to be afraid of white people,” he wrote in the since-deleted message. “When I grew up in Chicago there were gang bangers who were scared to go downtown where the white people were.” The rapper – who has four children with his ex-wife Kim Kardashian – also talked on X about possibly launching a new meme coin called “Swasticoin.”
Ye said in a separate, and now-deleted, post on Thursday that he will wear his swastika shirt at next year’s Super Bowl. “Next year I’m performing at the superbowl wearing my wittle T shirt,” he wrote. “People with money bought my wittle t shirt.”
He also posted a photo of Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious and his girlfriend Nancy Spungen. In the picture of the infamous punk rock couple, Vicious is wearing a shirt that features a swastika in the center. Spungen was murdered in 1978 and Vicious was arrested for her murder, but before his case when to trial, he died of a heroin overdose in 1979. In the photo’s caption, Ye posted an emoji of a goat, which is most likely a nod to the acronym GOAT (greatest of all time). The photo has since been taken down.
Since the early morning of Feb. 7, Ye has continued to make a series of antisemitic and offensive comments on X, all of which he deleted shortly after posting. He talked about disliking Jews, praised Hitler, and called himself a Nazi and a racist – comments which he said he is “never apologizing” for. He also sold on Yeezy.com a t-shirt featuring a swastika and bought a commercial that aired during Super Bowl LIX this month to direct viewers to his Yeezy website to purchase the item. The website was then shut down by Shopify, the e-commerce platform that the Yeezy website uses to sell its products. Yeezy.com is back online but only features a message on the home page that says “Yeezy stores coming soon.”
Ye said on X this month he would never “trust or work with Jewish people” again, he doesn’t “like or trust any Jewish person,” “I love Hitler”, and “Me loving Hitler is old news.” He insisted that he was “completely sober” while writing the series of antisemitic posts and said, “This is how I really feel how I really felt and how I will always feel.”
“Some of my best friends are Jewish, and I don’t trust any of them,” Ye added. In some of his other deleted comments this month, the rapper claimed, “I stand on everything I said And nobody finna ever make me apologize again.” He additionally shared a screenshot of a search he did on Google that read “in 2025 how do you apply to become a Nazi.”
More recently, Ye contradicted some of his previous statements. On Feb. 19, he wrote on X, “after further reflection I’ve come to the realization that I’m not a Nazi” and wrote on Feb. 21 that he does like Jewish people “very much.”
Portnoy called Ye “one of the absolute greatest pieces of s–t of all time” while speaking to the Daily Mail shortly after the rapper’s Feb. 7 antisemitic rant on X.
“I am Jewish and proud of it, so anyone who is pro-Hitler and says he is a Nazi, I have no room for in my life,” he said. “I think the people who prop him up, surround him and say he’s not a jerk — if he’s sick, put him in a hospital. I have no room for people like Kanye in my world. Kanye is one of the worst humans of all time … Kanye may be sick. In which case, get him his meds and put him in a mental institution.”
Ye also went on an antisemitic rant on X in 2022. He later apologized for his remarks and said he “definitely was drinking” when he made the comments.
The post Kanye West Wears Swastika Shirt in X Video, Hints at New ‘Swasticoin’ and Wearing Nazi Symbol at Next Super Bowl first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ilhan Omar Says Trump Has ‘No Legal Right’ to Take Over Gaza, Blames Harris Loss on Israel-Hamas War
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) speaks at a press conference with activists calling for a ceasefire in Gaza in front of the Capitol in Washington, DC, Dec. 14, 2023. Photo: Annabelle Gordon / CNP/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) blasted President Donald Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinian civilians in Gaza, arguing in a new interview that the United States has “no legal right” to take over the enclave and calling on the leaders of neighboring Arab countries to “stand in solidarity” against Israel.
During a Friday interview with progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan on Zeteo, Omar fielded questions about the Trump administration’s approach to resolving the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Hasan asked Omar to reveal her feelings about Trump’s suggestion that Palestinian civilians be transferred out of the war-torn enclave in order to rebuild it.
“Well, I just think the irony of Trump being elected to be the anti-imperialist president coming in and talking about taking over Canada, Greenland, and now kicking all the Palestinians out of Gaza to turn it into a resort for himself and his billionaires, and then the fact that the American people don’t see it is just fascinating,” Omar responded.
The Minnesota Democrat argued that Trump has “no legal right to take over Gaza” and that the Palestinians are going to “fight for that right” to stay in the coastal enclave, which borders southern Israel.
Earlier this month, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was visiting the White House, held a press conference following their private meeting in the Oval Office. Trump asserted that the US would assume control of Gaza and develop it economically into “the Riviera of the Middle East” after Palestinians are resettled elsewhere. Trump’s proposal was met with widespread backlash and skepticism across the US Congress.
Omar also blasted leaders of neighboring Arab countries for their “cowardice in allowing for the destruction of the Palestinian people,” urging them to “stand in solidarity” with the civilians of Gaza.
Hasan, who is also an outspoken opponent of Israel, said that Democrats “haven’t given a damn about Palestinian livelihoods over the past 18 months,” noting the pro-Israel stances of high-profile liberals such as Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). He then asked Omar if she believes the Democratic Party will become more adversarial toward Israel in an effort to counter the Trump administration.
Omar said she’s “not sure” if the Democratic Party will adopt a more anti-Israel ideological bent, citing the alleged “erasure of the Palestinian people, the ethnic cleansing, the genocide” that has supposedly happened in Gaza over the past 16 months. She cautioned that Democratic support for Israel will continue “until there is a price to pay and that price is felt.” The congresswoman claimed that American support for Israel will undermine its moral authority in speaking up against genocides that occur in the world.
Omar also suggested that 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris lost the White House in November because of the Israel-Hamas war. The lawmaker pointed to polling data that indicated large swaths of voters “stayed home because of the bloodshed, the genocide that was televised on their phones.”
However, according to polling data compiled by Blueprint, a Democratic-aligned data analytics firm, the Israel-Hamas war had minimal impact on Harris’s election performance. Voters largely rejected Harris and supported Trump due to the Biden administration’s record on inflation and immigration, the poll found. Perception of Harris being “too pro-Israel” ranked among the bottom three “reasons to not choose” Harris. Notably, perception of Harris being “too pro-Palestine” ranked higher in the list of concerns among respondents.
Since being elected to Congress in 2018, Omar has established herself as a harsh critic of Israel. She has accused the Jewish state of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and erecting an “apartheid” government in the West Bank. The lawmaker has also publicly declared support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS), which seeks to turn the Jewish state into an international pariah as a first step toward its eventual destruction.
In the 16 months following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, slaughter of roughly 1,200 people and abduction of 250 others in southern Israel, Omar has positioned herself as one of the most vocal opponents of the Jewish state’s defensive military efforts. Omar was among the first members of Congress to call for a ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza, falsely arguing that the Jewish state’s military operations “indiscriminately” killed Palestinian civilians. She has repeatedly issued calls for an “arms embargo” on Israel and has suggested that the Jewish state could violate the terms of the current ceasefire deal to continue its so-called “genocide.”
The post Ilhan Omar Says Trump Has ‘No Legal Right’ to Take Over Gaza, Blames Harris Loss on Israel-Hamas War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login