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
Do you suffer from ‘Israel Derangement Syndrome’? This ad says there’s a cure
It opens like a two-minute infomercial pulled off a 1990s VHS tape. Soft lighting, Clinton-era fashion, a narrator whose voice has the reassuring cadence of a prescription drug ad. “Do you or someone you love suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome?” he asks.
The two-minute ad has become one of the most-shared clips on Jewish and pro-Israel social media this week — posted Wednesday morning, it garnered 2.6 million views on X by Thursday afternoon.
“Israel Derangement Syndrome” is presented like a real illness, complete with a fictional treatment center, the Clarity Center, and patients who describe “recovering.” The “symptoms” are a list of ways people criticize Israel and its supporters — bringing up the conflict unprompted, refusing to see any other issue in the world as important, being unable to acknowledge nuance. The “cure,” according to the ad, is just reading more and checking your sources. It ends with a rapid-fire list of side effects: “reading past the headline, a sudden interest in Middle East history, and a constant urge to touch grass.”
The ad’s target is obvious: people who are sharply critical of Israel. The name isn’t new. It’s modeled on “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a term used to dismiss criticism of the president as pathology.
Why it lands the way it does
Anita Atwell Seate, a professor of communication at the University of Maryland who studies how people’s group identities shape the way they respond to criticism, called what’s happening in the video a textbook case of tribalism.
Our group memberships, she said, shape our psychological processes, since they’re so tied to our sense of self. That pushes us to process information in self-protective ways: “When we feel good about our social groups,” she said, “we feel good about ourselves.”
There’s a well-documented pattern researchers call the “intergroup sensitivity effect,” where people are far more willing to accept criticism from members of their own group than from people they see as outsiders. When criticism comes from outside, the instinct isn’t to engage with it; it’s to discredit whoever’s delivering it. “They’re deranged, they don’t understand facts,” Atwell Seate said, describing that reflex, which is more or less the whole premise of the ad.
She doesn’t see the video as an attempt at persuasion at all. “It doesn’t do anything to help change hearts and minds of the out-group,” she said “But it certainly does something important for the in-group, which is reify their beliefs.” Videos like this, she says, are like a pep talk — aimed at people who already agree, meant to bring them closer together.
Where it came from
It’s not entirely clear who actually made the video. What’s clear is that it was shared — and got millions of views — from an X account called the Trencher Broadcasting Company, whose bio reads: “Building the future of AI media. Mostly satire, always entertaining.” It appears to have been made with AI video tools, part of a broader wave of AI-generated political videos that have flooded social media this year.
TBC has posted this kind of thing before. Last week, the account shared an AI-fabricated video appearing to show Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and YouTube personality Ms. Rachel discussing Israeli “colonizers” with children — a conversation that never actually happened.
Ms. Rachel had, notably, donated to El-Sayed’s campaign, and both have been outspoken advocates for children in Gaza, which may have inspired the video.
The “Israel Derangement Syndrome” video ends with a display of fake contact info, which comes with its own punchline.
Call the phone number and it’s like spinning a roulette wheel. The first time I called, the robotic voice wanted to sell me a home security system. The second time: a medical alert device. And the third time, I got this message: “If you received a call displaying this telephone number on your caller ID, it has been spoofed, meaning the caller ID has been faked by a scammer trying to hide their actual telephone number. We are sorry this is occurring. Unfortunately, we cannot stop this from happening.”
The ad also promotes a website IDSHelp.org, a domain that was registered on Tuesday and redirects to DerekhLearning.com, the homepage of an AI-powered app for studying Torah and Talmud. It’s a fitting coda for a video built around telling people to check their sources.
The post Do you suffer from ‘Israel Derangement Syndrome’? This ad says there’s a cure appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Did this field trip to a mosque violate the First Amendment? A group of Palo Alto parents think so.
A group of Jewish, Hindu and Zoroastrian parents and students are suing a California school district, alleging that a high school program’s field trip to a mosque — and no other houses of worship — violated the First Amendment.
The suit, brought forth by Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools – San Francisco Bay Area, focuses on two trips that were part of a social justice program at Palo Alto High School.
According to the complaint filed in the Northern District of California on August 7: “The district failed to maintain religious neutrality, failed to ensure equal treatment among faiths, failed to protect student privacy and failed to vet, supervise, and monitor religiously divisive outside speakers during the school-sponsored event.”
Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools nor the Palo Alto Unified School District immediately responded to requests for comment.
The trip was part of Palo Alto High’s Social Justice Pathway, where according to a promotional video, students in 10th through 12th grades take English and history courses “through a social justice lens rather than the standard analytical lens, where facts and dates are memorized.” Palo Alto High started the program in 2014.
Field trips around the Bay Area are a hallmark of the program, including travels to Angel Island, where many Asian immigrants arrived in the U.S. in the early 20th century, and to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Students also have heard from a variety of speakers, including a Holocaust survivor and a Cambodian refugee.
The field trips to the mosque happened in 2022 and 2025. The plaintiffs include three Jewish Palo Alto High students, at least one of whom took part in the Social Justice Pathway.
The parent plaintiffs allege that the school had not fully informed them that their children were going to participate in “religiously inflected activity.”
According to the complaint, female students were encouraged to observe the customary dress code of wearing head coverings inside the mosque. They also observed a midday prayer, interacted with participants of a Quran memorization program, received Qurans as gifts and were “taught that Islam, in particular, promotes social justice,” the suit says.
“[The plaintiffs] belong to religious traditions that practice social justice,” the suit says. “The government’s endorsement of Islam in particular as a social justice faith denigrates their respective traditions and their identities as members of faith communities due equal treatment and appreciation within the District, State and country.”
The plaintiffs allege that the visit violated the First Amendment, since the public school was promoting a specific religion, and the 14th amendment, for elevating one religion over others.
A student at Palo Alto High who is part of the Social Justice Pathway disagreed, describing it as part of a broader religion unit.
“There was never a point on this trip where I felt in any way that the mosque or the school was trying to even suggest conversion,” he wrote in an Instagram comment on a local news post about the lawsuit. “The goal was obvious to us: Learn about an underrepresented religion present in our community.”
But plaintiffs also objected to the history of one of the speakers. Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who has faced allegations of antisemitism.
In 2019, Billoo was removed from the board of the Women’s March for past remarks she had made. She faced criticism for a 2021 Facebook post, where she warned against “polite zionists” like Hilllel and the Jewish federations, saying “they are not your friends.” A tweet of hers from October 7, 2023, following the Hamas-led terrorist attacks against Israel, also has faced scrutiny: “Pray for Gaza. We are witnessing decolonization,” she wrote.
In an emailed statement to the Forward, Billoo wrote, “Public schools have an obligation to remain neutral toward religion, but neutrality does not mean shielding students from learning about religion or religious communities.”
“Visiting a mosque, observing Muslims practice their faith, or learning about Islam is not the same as being compelled to practice Islam,” she wrote. “We are concerned that this lawsuit risks turning ordinary engagement with Islam and Muslims into something suspicious and could have a chilling effect on educators who want their students to learn about the diverse communities around them.”
But plaintiffs said allowing Billoo to speak with the students demonstrated negligence on the part of the school.
“Ms. Billoo was allowed unfettered access to students to advocate personal religious and political views without balancing perspective or adequate supervision.”
The school also allowed photos of the high schoolers to be taken at the event without parents’ permission, the suit says.
The post Did this field trip to a mosque violate the First Amendment? A group of Palo Alto parents think so. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Remains of last Israeli soldier missing from First Lebanon War’s Sultan Yacoub battle found
(JTA) — The remains of Yehuda Katz, the last Israeli soldier still missing from the 1982 Battle of Sultan Yacoub during the First Lebanon War, have been recovered after 44 years, the Israeli military said Tuesday, bringing to a close one of the country’s longest-running missing soldier cases.
Katz, a 22-year-old tank gunner and yeshiva student who disappeared just 10 days before he was due to complete his military service, was one of three soldiers whose fate was unknown for decades after Israeli forces became trapped by Syrian troops in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley on June 11, 1982.
Twenty Israeli soldiers were killed and dozens more were wounded in the battle, with six initially listed as missing. Three were later returned or confirmed dead, leaving Katz, Zachary Baumel and Zvi Feldman as the only soldiers whose fate were unknown. The remains of Baumel and Feldman were recovered in separate operations in 2019 and 2025.
Katz’s remains were located during a special overnight operation carried out by the IDF in cooperation with Mossad and based on intelligence obtained in recent months. They were returned to Israel and military representatives informed Katz’s family of the discovery Tuesday morning.
For the soldiers who survived Sultan Yacoub, the news ended a wait that had followed them for much of their lives.
Avi Rath, who fought alongside Katz, said the unresolved fate of his comrade had stayed with him for decades. “The look on the family’s faces stays with you your entire life, a look that says, ‘You didn’t finish the job,’” Rath said in an interview on Tuesday with KAN public radio’s “Kalman Liberman” program. “Thank God, this closes a circle and resolves some of the uncertainty, but there is also great pain. It weighs on our conscience.”
Katz had studied in the Hesder program at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh, combining Torah study with military service. According to the yeshiva, he slept barely four hours a night while immersed in his studies. He had planned to become a rabbi and teach at a yeshiva after completing his military service.
On the night before the battle, Katz gathered fellow soldiers around him and taught them Maimonides’ laws governing the conduct of Jewish soldiers in battle, the yeshiva said on its website. He then led them in singing Psalm 23, including the verse about walking through the valley of the shadow of death.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Remains of last Israeli soldier missing from First Lebanon War’s Sultan Yacoub battle found appeared first on The Forward.
