Uncategorized
The Left Can’t Cheer for Peace When Trump Is Involved
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One to depart for Quantico, Virginia, from the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
President Donald Trump has done what few thought possible: he helped broker a sweeping ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the release of hostages, and achieved the first genuine breakthrough toward calm in nearly a year. For Israelis, the deal means quiet skies and the return of abducted families. For Palestinians, it offers desperately needed relief. For Americans, it represents a rare moment of when diplomacy actually worked.
And yet, the reaction from much of the American Left has been silence. The same political and moral voices that have spent months demanding a ceasefire in Gaza have fallen mute now that one has arrived. Even Barack Obama, who cautiously said we should all be “encouraged and relieved,” stopped short of acknowledging Trump’s role. Progressive leaders and influencers who once posted daily about “ending the killing” have said little. Media outlets that elevated every previous diplomatic setback have moved on.
It is a remarkable dissonance: the very outcome so many claimed to desire — peace, de-escalation, humanitarian access — has been achieved, but by the wrong hands. That contradiction tells us something profound about the state of American civic life. Our politics have become so saturated by affective polarization, so defined by visceral emotional hostility toward the other side, that many cannot even celebrate peace if it arrives through a political rival.
Affective polarization is more than disagreement. It is the phenomenon, now well-documented by scholars like Shanto Iyengar and Lilliana Mason, in which partisans grow to hate and distrust their opponents as people, not merely oppose their ideas. It is a moral emotion more than a rational stance: disgust, fear, contempt. The more one side is loathed, the more moral it feels to reject everything associated with it. This emotional sorting has turned politics into a theater of identity rather than a contest of policy.
That is why so many on the Left cannot bring themselves to give Trump credit for this deal. In a healthy political culture, a ceasefire and hostage release would be an occasion for shared relief, if not gratitude. But in our polarized one, positive feelings toward an opponent are experienced as betrayal. To say that Trump succeeded is not, in the mind of many progressives, to acknowledge a fact; it is to wound one’s tribe. The reaction becomes moralized: silence as purity, acknowledgment as contamination.
Political sorting has made this response all but inevitable. Over the past several decades, many Americans have come to live, worship, and socialize with those who think like themselves. Partisanship now defines moral boundaries and social identity. To be “on the Left” no longer simply means favoring redistributive policies or progressive reforms, it means belonging to a moral community defined in opposition to Trump and the movement that supports him.
When identity is at stake, the ordinary norms of evaluation break down. The achievement of peace becomes inseparable from the personality associated with it. The act cannot be good if the actor is, in the tribe’s imagination, evil. As affective polarization deepens, moral reasoning collapses into reflex. Emotion crowds out judgment.
This isn’t unique to the Left, of course. Conservatives behaved similarly under Obama, dismissing or minimizing his role in successes such as the raid on Osama bin Laden or sanctions on Iran. But today’s reaction carries a different weight. The moral intensity that animates the modern progressive movement — its conviction that it alone occupies the side of justice — makes acknowledgment of an opponent’s virtue especially threatening.
Affective polarization doesn’t just distort how people feel about politics; it reshapes how they feel about truth. Once emotions determine perception, facts that contradict the emotional order must be ignored or reframed. This is why even a genuine diplomatic success can be spun as suspect: perhaps the deal was coerced, perhaps it was opportunistic, perhaps it will fail. These rationalizations serve an emotional function, they preserve the purity of contempt.
Former President Obama’s muted response captures the dilemma perfectly. He offered relief without recognition, validation without credit. The avoidance is deliberate. He knows that open praise of Trump would fracture the progressive coalition that still reveres him. Acknowledging the achievement would invite accusations of appeasement or betrayal. In an era of affective polarization, even measured generosity risks being reinterpreted as treason to the cause.
But this silence comes at a moral cost. When leaders cannot acknowledge good done by their adversaries, they model a politics of negation. They teach citizens that truth is partisan and that virtue is contingent on affiliation. The habit of withholding praise corrodes the civic trust that democratic life requires. It signals that what matters most is not reality but narrative: the preservation of emotional coherence over empirical fact.
That logic now governs much of American political life. The reaction to Trump’s Middle East deal is simply the latest and starkest case.
This is how affective polarization hollows out moral courage. It makes sincerity dangerous and honesty costly. It turns politics into a form of emotional hygiene, where purity must be maintained at all costs. The moment we fear that recognition of another’s good deed might “taint” us, civic reasoning has already given way to tribalism.
The tragedy is that this pattern is self-reinforcing. Each refusal to acknowledge the other side’s success deepens distrust and confirms the caricature.
The result is a democracy that can no longer experience joy together. A moment of peace in the Middle East becomes not a unifying event, but another test of loyalty. Even moral goods, saving lives, freeing captives, are recoded through partisan emotion.
There was a time when American leaders resisted that temptation. When Richard Nixon opened up to China, Democrats recognized its strategic value. When Jimmy Carter mediated peace between Israel and Egypt, Republicans offered credit. When Ronald Reagan forged arms agreements with Gorbachev, Democrats applauded the breakthrough. These gestures were not signs of weakness, but of civic strength. They reflected a shared moral confidence that truth and goodness could exist outside partisan lines.
We have lost that confidence. Affective polarization has made cross-party acknowledgment feel morally dangerous. It has replaced civic humility with moral narcissism.
The solution begins with a small but radical act: honesty. A willingness to recognize good wherever it appears, and to praise virtue even when it originates in the hands of a rival. That act does not diminish one’s convictions; it dignifies them. It affirms that truth exists independently of our tribes, that moral worth is not determined by partisanship, and that peace — real, tangible, human peace — is a universal good.
The ceasefire and hostage release will face challenges, as all fragile peace deals do. But for now, lives have been spared, families reunited, and the possibility of stability renewed. That is cause for gratitude, not partisan discomfort.
Peace, like truth, does not belong to one party or president. It belongs to all who value life over politics. To say so should not require courage. But in today’s polarized America, it does.
And that, perhaps, is the clearest measure of how much work remains to be done.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Uncategorized
Anti-Israel US Lawmakers Largely Silent Amid Release of Final Living Hostages From Gaza
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) addresses attendees as she takes part in a protest calling for a ceasefire in Gaza outside the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, US, Oct. 18, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
Several of the US Congress’s most outspoken critics of Israel have remained notably silent following the release of the remaining living Israeli hostages from Gaza on Monday.
Progressive lawmakers such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) have not issued statements acknowledging or reacting to the agreement as of this writing, nor have conservative critics of Israel such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY).
Two lawmakers who often castigate Israel, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), did end up issuing statements that seemed to focus more on the damage caused by the Israeli military campaign in Gaza than the hostages.
“Seven weeks ago I met with families in Hostages Square and I am relieved their long nightmare has finally come to an end with the return of the remaining living hostages,” Van Hollen posted on social media. “I also witnessed the utter devastation in Gaza and am relieved by the ceasefire & surge of humanitarian aid to civilians there.”
Meanwhile, Sanders in a statement lambasted what he described as Israel’s “barbaric campaign” in Gaza and described US support for the Israeli campaign to target Hamas as an “extremely dark chapter.” He briefly mentioned the hostages in one sentence.
“Today, we welcome the long overdue release of the 20 remaining Israelis held by Hamas and the freeing of almost 2,000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails,” Sanders said. The senator appeared to be comparing Israelis kidnapped by invading Hamas fighters to Palestinian security prisoners, inclduing hundreds of convicted terrorists serving life sentences.
The silence of many US lawmakers is striking given their frequent, vocal demands for an immediate ceasefire while condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza and calling attention to alleged human rights abuses. Many of these lawmakers, including Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Pressley, Sanders, and Greene, have accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza. Massie has accused Israel of indiscriminately targeting civilian infrastructure, and Van Hollen has accused Israel of deliberately starving civilians.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel has been Hamas’s widely recognized 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.
None of the lawmakers responded to The Algemeiner‘s requests for comment on the hostage release, which came as part of the US-brokered ceasefire to halt fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
However, some pro-Israel lawmakers were quick to release statements marking the release of the hostages. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), one of the most vocal allies of Israel in Congress, praised the “great American leadership” of US President Donald Trump in securing the release of the hostages. He urged the Hamas terrorist group to “lay down their weapons and step away from all governing responsibilities” in the Gaza enclave.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), another strident supporter of the Jewish state, praised the resilience of the surviving hostages.
“Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Torres wrote, referring to Hamas’s Oct. 7, invasion of southern Israel during which the hostages were kidnapped.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote on X that “we will never again allow Hamas to threaten the United States and our friends.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) added, “Today is a victory for Israel, President Trump, and peace.” However, Cruz cautioned that “Hamas remains incredibly dangerous” and will likely attempt to attack Israel again in the future.
Uncategorized
‘Death to Zionism’: Students for Justice in Palestine Parrots Hamas Propaganda as Civil War Looms in Gaza
Hamas fighters on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: Majdi Fathi via Reuters Connect
National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), a primary organ of the student anti-Zionist movement in the US, has appeared to call for executing Muslim “collaborators” working with Israel in retaliation for the death of Palestinian influencer Saleh Al-Jafarawi during a brewing conflict between the Hamas terrorist group and a rival clan, Doghmush, in Gaza City on Sunday.
“Saleh’s martyrdom is a testament to the fact that the fight against Zionism in all its manifestations — from the [Israel Defense Forces] to its collaborators — must continue,” the group said in a statement posted on social media. “In the face of hundreds of thousands of martyred Palestinians these past two years alone, collaborators and informants maintain their spineless disposition as objects of Zionist influence against their own people.”
The statement went on to volley a series of unfounded charges alleging that anti-Hamas forces are “exploiting Gaza’s youth for money” and pilfering “desperately needed aid to the killing of their own people in service of Zionism.” NSJP concluded, “Death to the occupation. Death to Zionism. Death to all collaborators.”
Despite NSJP’s characterization of Doghmush as a “collaborator” of Israel, sources from Gaza have reportedly denied any affiliation. The group has for years held ties with radical Islamist groups, including allies of al-Qaeda, and has participated in anti-Western terrorism. However, it has also clashed with Hamas within Gaza.
Hostilities escalated as Hamas began implementing components of a ceasefire with Israel over the weekend, when Doghmush members allegedly killed two Hamas fighters. The incident, according to the BBC, prompted the deployment of Hamas fighters into the streets of Gaza, some of whom concealed their identities by appearing in civilian clothing.
Reporting of the Hamas-Doghmush conflict suggests that the issue between the groups is not about support for Israel as NSJP argued but over the future of the governance of Gaza, of which Hamas terrorists forcibly seized control nearly two decades ago. Experts told the BBC that the situation is ripe for civil war, a possibility for which Hamas is preparing by proactively waging a propaganda campaign which depicts Doghmush as advancing Israeli security objectives in the region.
“We cannot leave Gaza at the mercy of thieves and militias backed by the Israeli occupation,” Hamas told the outlet in a statement. “Our weapons are legitimate … to resist occupation, and they will remain as long as the occupation continues.”
NSJP later parroted Hamas’s characterization of Doghmush, a point which social media users pointed to as cause for a federal investigation.
“Why is this group operating in the US?” wrote Documenting Jew Hatred on Campus at Columbia, a nonprofit advocacy group, on the X social media platform. “They love Hamas and want anyone who opposes them dead.”
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, NSJP, which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations, has publicly discussed its strategy of using the anti-Zionist student movement as a weapon for destroying the US.
“Divestment [from Israel] is not an incrementalist goal. True divestment necessitates nothing short of the total collapse of the university structure and American empire itself,” the organization said in September 2024. “It is not possible for imperial spoils to remain so heavily concentrated in the metropole and its high-cultural repositories without the continuous suppression of populations that resist the empire’s expansion; to divest from this is to undermine and eradicate America as we know it.”
The tweet was the latest in a series of revelations of SJP’s revolutionary goals and its apparent plans to amass armies of students and young people for a long campaign of subversion against US institutions, including the economy, military, and higher education. Like past anti-American movements, SJP has also been fixated on the presence and prominence of Jews in American life and the US’s alliance with Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
On the same day the tweet was posted, Columbia University’s most strident pro-Hamas organization was reported to be distributing literature calling on students to join the Palestinian terrorist group’s movement to destroy Israel during the school’s convocation ceremony.
“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said a pamphlet distributed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an SJP spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”
Other sections of the pamphlet were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose is to build an army of Muslims worldwide.
“We call upon the masses of our Arab and Islamic nations, its scholars, men, institutions, and active forces to come out in roaring crowds tomorrow,” it added, referring to an event which took place the previous December. “We also renew our invitation to the free people and those with living consciences around the world to continue and escalate their global public movement, rejecting the occupation’s crimes, in solidarity with our people and their just cause and legitimate struggle.”
Middle East experts have long suspected that foreign agents are conspiring with SJP chapters.
In July 2024, then-US National Intelligence Director Avril Haines issued a statement outlining how Iran has encouraged and provided financial support to the anti-Israel campus protest movement and explaining that it is part of a larger plan to “undermine confidence in our democratic institutions.” Haines also confirmed that US intelligence agencies have “observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Chelsea Film Festival to Open in NYC With Seven Titles From Israeli Filmmakers
A scene from Remnants. Photo: Provided
The 13th annual Chelsea Film Festival is opening in New York City this week and will feature seven titles from Israeli filmmakers that include short films, animations, and world premieres.
“Not My Weekend,” directed by Rona Segal, is a 19-minute short film making its international debut at the Chelsea Film Festival. The drama from Israel takes place during a single night and follows Sharon, a divorced woman in her 40s, who gets invited to a rave party on her free night, but when her ex-husband stands her up, she must find someone to watch her child if she wants to attend the party. The film stars Liat Tamari, Tamar Reinhertz, Meir Swissa, and Sahron Shaha.
From director Ronald Geronimo, “Not Supposed to Happen” is a short film starring Itay Greenberg and Almog Michaelson as a couple who try to spend an intimate evening together at one of their parents’ houses, while hiding their sexual identity and relationship. “The pressure from distractions and interruptions by the family outside the room forces the couple to confront the real issues between them,” according to a synopsis of the film provided by the Chelsea Film Festival. The film is making its world premiere at the festival.
Making its New York City premiere is “Remnants,” directed by Roman Shumunov. Fourteen-year-old Rona struggles to cope with the loss of her sister, who is violently killed in the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and as her school prepares for the National Memorial Day ceremony, Rona is worried about her sister’s memory fading. “In response, she decides to take an extreme course of action, according to a synopsis of the film. “In that moment, she meets Oren, who, much like her, wrestles with grief after his father was killed when he was a little boy; but unlike her, Oren guards a hidden truth: he has no recollection of his father.” Rona and Oren ultimately form a bond that forces them to confront their pain and families. The cast includes Achinoam Moyal, Barak Shmuel-Drechsel, Rita Shukrun, Yael Karpalov, Yali Akunis, Ohad Knoller, and Michal Yanai.
“Sunday” is a short film about an 84-year-old whose life is forever changed one Sunday by an unexpected guest. Directed by Elkie Leonie Hershberg, Tom Kouris, and Hani Dombe, the film stars Danielle Jadelyn, Steve Weizman, and Jamie Tuckett. “The Visits of the Tooth Fairy” is an 8-minute animation about a five-year-old on a quest to discover the truth about the Tooth Fairy, and “Underdog” is about a rebellious young woman who, during her community service, helps a rejected dog find a family and finds meaning in her life for the first time. “Out of Sleep,” from directors Elian Lazovsky and Yuval Erez, is a short film in which a divorced couple is forced to confront unresolved issues when their eight-year-old daughter disappears in the middle of the night while sleepwalking. “Out of Sleep” is making its international premiere at the Chelsea Film Festival, and the cast includes Riki Blich, Shlomi Tapiero, Ilanit Ben Yaakov, and Arieli Kats.
This year’s Chelsea Film Festival will present the seven Israeli films at Regal Theatres Union Square from Oct. 16-19 and online from Oct. 15-31.