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
At Grossinger’s in the Catskills, Jews learned how to be American
Jewish resort culture in the Borscht Belt peaked in the mid-1950s when there were 538 hotels, 50,000 bungalows, and 1,000 boarding houses. Among the best known was Grossinger’s where Jewish singles mingled with the likes of Lucille Ball, Milton Berle and Elizabeth Taylor over the course of the resort’s more than seven-decade existence.
We Met at Grossinger’s, a documentary directed by Paula Eiselt (Under G-d, 93 Queen), explains how Grossinger’s became so successful despite the fact that its founder had only a sixth grade education. In 1900, at the age of 8, Jennie Grossinger immigrated with her family from Galicia, Austria to New York. She dropped out of school and began working as a buttonhole maker to help support her family, until her father became sick and they moved to the Catskills. Her father hoped to start a farm, but the family found the rocky land was better suited for a boarding house than crops. Jennie managed the inn while her mother oversaw the kitchen, and she eventually made enough money to purchase a larger building down the road.
The documentary features a range of interviewees, including Grossinger’s descendants, historians, and celebrities, such as Jackie Hoffman and Joel Grey, who frequented the resort. With its snappy editing and in-depth approach to the history of the culture, the film brings the past back to life and captures how the resort became ingrained in people’s personal lives.
Grossinger’s grandson Mitchell Etess estimates that thousands of couples met there. Hoffman says it’s where she had her first makeout session with a boy. Former employees say Grossinger’s elite guests motivated them to pursue better education and careers. Multiple interviewees say the resort was a home away from home.
Archival footage of people dancing, swimming, dining, and being entertained takes viewers back to the glitz and glamor of the Catskills in its heyday. Although Jewish resorts were founded in response to antisemitic exclusion at other places, the joy Jews were able to create for themselves diminishes the darkness of this bigotry.
The resorts gave Jews a place to escape antisemitism and be among people with a shared culture. For Holocaust survivors it provided the opportunity to connect with others who could understand their trauma. Jewish athletes like boxer Barney Ross (born David Rosofsky) relied on Grossinger’s as a place where they could train and get kosher food. Jews also got a crash course on assimilation, learning how to engage in American social activities like golfing and playing tennis without fear of judgment.
It wasn’t just Jews that fled to the Catskills. Bard College professor Myra Armstead’s grandparents moved there during the Great Migration and opened the Gratney M. Smith, a boarding house for Black workers and vacationers. Jackie Robinson was an invited guest at Grossinger’s and became friends with Jennie. The Jewish Vacation Guide, which pointed Jews to safe housing and dining in the area and around the country, inspired the Green Book, which provided the same functions for Black people.
But in the 1970s, when it became easier for Jews to vacation with non-Jews, the resorts became less of a necessity. Buildings in the city now had air conditioning, so people didn’t have to escape to the mountains for cooler weather. Teenagers and young adults began to prefer to spend their vacations with friends or doing activities that didn’t involve being attached at the hip to their parents or grandparents.
In 1987, a year after Grossinger’s closed, the lost culture it had once embodied was given renewed attention in Dirty Dancing. Although the film avoided explicit mentions of Judaism, the fictional Kellerman’s was based on Grossinger’s and the script was written by resort regular Eleanor Bergstein.
Now, younger generations are starting to take an interest in the Borscht Belt culture. The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel has exposed new audiences to this old form of Jewish vacation culture. Photographers Marisa Scheinfeld and Isaac Jeffreys have created photography collections of abandoned Catskill resorts. The Borscht Belt Museum teaches visitors about this bygone period.
But unlike fictional media and photos of the past, We Met at Grossinger’s offers firsthand accounts of life in the Catskills from those who lived it, adding a personal dimension to this new wave of Jewish nostalgia.
We Met at Grossinger’s will have its world premiere at DOC NYC on November 13, with subsequent screenings on November 16 and 19.
The post At Grossinger’s in the Catskills, Jews learned how to be American appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why won’t pro-Palestinian protesters turn their attention to Darfur?
Here’s a stark fact: More people may have been killed in Sudan in just the past week than in Gaza in the past two years.
“They’re killing everyone that moves,” said Nathaniel Raymond, executive director at Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab, in a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan. Raymond’s lab has tracked the carnage via satellite imagery, witnessing the slaughter of innocent civilians in real time.
And the main source for the weapons destroying the Black, non-Arab population in Darfur is the United Arab Emirates, one of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East.
So where are the American protesters?
A major reason American protesters have relentlessly focused their time and energy on Israel, they say, is that the U.S. is Israel’s most significant ally, as well as an arms supplier to the IDF. There are real actions the U.S. could take to sway the course of events in Israel, so protesters aim to influence the U.S. government to do so.
But the U.S. has ties to conflicts all over the world, especially in Sudan, where a major American ally is helping supply the weapons of slaughter. The idea that its ability to pressure Israel is unique, and therefore worthy of unique focus, is misguided.
“Only American pressure can stop the killing in Sudan,” wrote Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, in Foreign Affairs. So why aren’t American activists, well, active?
A genocide to rival Rwanda
The UAE has $29 billion in active defense contracts with the U.S. It is also host to — and protected by — the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing and Jebel Ali Port, the U.S. Navy’s largest port of call in the Middle East.
And while UAE officials have denied that they are arming the Arab militia, known as the Rapid Support Forces, responsible for the genocide, diplomats, humanitarian groups and journalists have confirmed the link. Three of the same organizations that pro-Palestinian activists regularly cite in their brief against Israel — the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — have established the UAE’s complicity.
Every crime American protesters accuse Israel of — killing civilians among military targets, rape, starvation as a weapon, destroying hospitals and killing patients in their beds — is happening now, at a far greater scale, in Darfur.
“Rebels hurl racial insults at fleeing women and children,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “Black women with long hair are systematically separated and raped.”
Humanitarian groups say the ongoing slaughter is likely to rival that of Rwanda genocide, and of the genocide that took place in the same Darfur region 30 years ago. That atrocity, led by a predecessor to the RSF, claimed 200,000 lives.
Why would the UAE supply weapons to be used in such a context? Perhaps because it uses Sudan’s mines to supply gold and other resources, and wants to stay on the good side of a group primed to exercise control over ongoing access.
“The war would be over if not for the UAE,” Cameron Hudson, a former chief of staff to successive U.S. presidential special envoys for Sudan, told the Wall Street Journal. “The only thing that is keeping them in this war is the overwhelming amount of military support that they’re receiving from the UAE.”
In the U.S., silence
So where are the protesters shouting at their representatives in town halls to suspend the recent $2 trillion investment agreement between the U.S. and UAE? Pushing sanctions against the UAE? Or demanding New York University shutter its Abu Dhabi campus?
Where are the movie stars and director refusing to engage with the UAE, which according to Variety is the “prime Middle East hub” for Hollywood production? Javier Bardem, who recently said he will no longer work with the Israeli film industry, filmed part of his last movie, F1, in Abu Dhabi last year. What if he said no more?
Imagine the impact if, instead of unveiling her new fragrance, Orebella, at a splashed-out event last week in Abu Dhabi, supermodel Bella Hadid announced that just as she calls relentlessly for the world to boycott Israel, she will no longer visit the Emirates until it ends funding for the genocide in Darfur?
This is not an argument for whataboutism, and none of this is to deflect attention from the injustices and suffering happening in the West Bank and Gaza. Everyone has a right to choose their battles. I don’t ask the Save the Whales people, “But what about the rainforest?”
But if someone is actively bombing the rainforest, today, as you read this — and your country is in bed with the bomb suppliers — then claiming to care about the planet and doing nothing is inexcusable.
“This is not only a crisis of violence but also a crisis of indifference,” wrote Reena Ghelani, CEO of Plan International in Al Jazeera. “Each day the world looks away.”
And the go-to excuse, that Americans lack leverage and influence over the slaughter, is utter BS.
The post Why won’t pro-Palestinian protesters turn their attention to Darfur? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Toronto’s Mayor Encourages Antisemitic and Anti-Israel Harassment — as She Struggles to Govern the City
Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow speaks to reporters in Toronto, March 8, 2025. Photo: Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press via ZUMA Press via Reuters Connect
A ceasefire is holding in Gaza. In places like Ypsilanti, Michigan, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, where the mayor’s tenure was interrupted by a seven-year prison stint, local governments will have to drop their calls to end the war and get back to the boring business of running their cities.
Beleaguered Jewish residents across North America, who have gritted their teeth through an unprecedented spike in antisemitic attacks, are surely breathing a sigh of relief.
Earlier this month, however, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow decided to dust off the Israel punching bag for one last go.
Speaking at a fundraiser for The National Council of Canadian Muslims in Brampton — Canada 7th largest city — Chow claimed, “the genocide in Gaza impact [sic] us all.”
Encouraged by the audience’s applause, she then got personal: Chow told the audience that when her mother was 13, Chow’s grandmother died of dysentery as a result of Imperial Japan’s invasion of China during World War II, leaving Chow’s mother alone to care for her siblings.
Reasonable people can disagree about the proportionality of Israel’s response to the barbarity of Hamas and fellow terror groups’ attack on October 7, 2023. But to compare it to a war whose explicit goal was conquest — and which resulted in an estimated 20 million Chinese deaths — is more of an apples to elephants comparison than apples to oranges.
More troubling was Mayor Chow’s glib use of the phrase “genocide.”
A sculptor by training — who spent her professional career in mostly local politics, with a stint as a member of parliament for Canada’s perennial also-ran socialist party — Chow is not well qualified to be making legal conclusions.
The timing was particularly ham-fisted, given the fact that only days earlier, reports had surfaced of a massacre in Sudan, one in which the blood of more than 2,000 unarmed civilians ran so deep that it could be seen in satellite images.
In Israel, the country’s roughly 6,600 Sudanese refugees see little daylight between the murderers of Darfur and Hamas.
But for devout leftists, when an Arab-supremacist Muslim paramilitary murders African Muslims, the Intersectional Bingo scorecard gets to be a confusing place.
Nevertheless, if one is looking to lob the “genocide” grenade or to find modern comparisons to the Rape of Nanjing, Sudan would be the most intellectually honest place to start. One suspects the applause from the Brampton crowd would have been somewhat thin if Chow had gone there.
Ultimately, Chow was hoping to score political points to salvage a re-election campaign that seemed assured months ago and is suddenly sagging.
Her predecessor, John Tory, beat her soundly in 2014, but after winning 62% of the vote and a third term in 2022, he abruptly resigned less than four months later after it emerged that he had a consensual extramarital affair with a staffer.
Chow won a snap election in which she was the sole candidate on the left, and was buoyed by the support of an outfit called Progress Toronto. With an election scheduled for next October, she suddenly finds herself governing a city that has woken up to its many problems, including public safety, a crumbling public transit system, and a lack of affordable housing.
More alarming for the mayor, Torontonians seem to have reached the audacious conclusion that the problems might have something to do with her leadership.
With talk of a Tory comeback, and centrist Councillor Brad Bradford openly campaigning, the road suddenly looks a lot bumpier for Chow.
It would appear that Toronto’s Jewish community has also had enough. After two years of harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and arson, Toronto’s Jewish community might have naively believed the Gaza ceasefire would bring it peace.
At my own synagogue, which is one of the city’s oldest and has been in operation since 1914, High Holiday services are usually held in the main synagogue building, with overflow at the nearby Jewish Community Centre. This year, there was no service in the main building, presumably to focus the large security presence at a single location.
In addition to being warned of “heightened security,” congregants were told that there would be no Yom Kippur food drive to support a local charity this year, and that they should instead donate cash. Think about that for a moment: when Toronto Jews want to commemorate their holiest day of the year by donating non-perishable goods to a non-Jewish charity, they now have to consider the possibility of being blown up in a terror attack.
The week after Chow made her comments was a busy one for the city’s antisemites and Israel haters. On Tuesday, a Toronto synagogue was vandalized for the 10th time in 18 months.
The following day, a group at Toronto Metropolitan University called Students Supporting Israel held an event at which speakers from the IDF came to share their stories. The organizers had been refused a permit on campus, so they held the event off-campus and took steps to keep the location secret.
Nevertheless, they were hunted down by protestors organized by Students for Justice in Palestine, some of whom stormed the building, broke a glass door, and caused minor injuries to one of the IDF vets.
Five arrests were made, and the university offered a milquetoast statement. Given the light touch approach Canadian authorities tend to apply in such cases, it seems unlikely the perpetrators will face any consequences.
Welcome to Canada in 2025.
Advocacy group B’nai Brith has circulated a petition to the city’s integrity commissioner alleging that the mayor’s comments violated the city’s code of conduct for members of council. It remains to be seen whether that allegation will hold up. But hopefully the message will be received regardless: while Toronto has no foreign policy, it does have many serious problems, including rampant intimidation of the Jewish community. If the current mayor isn’t up to fixing these problems, voters should find someone else who will.
Ian Cooper is a Toronto-based lawyer.