Uncategorized
Will Israel Return to War in Gaza?
Kibbutz member Yael Raz Lachyani, 49, walks by the fence of Kibbutz Nahal Oz in southern Israel, Oct. 28, 2025. Hamas gunmen killed 15 people from Nahal Oz and took eight more hostage to Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Before beginning my “deep dive” into Gaza, here’s the long and short of it:
- Israel, the United States, and Arab powers in the region all want the war in Gaza to end; but
- every element of peace, including international stabilization forces and reconstruction is impossible until Hamas disarms and dismantles its power structure; and
- Hamas is ideologically incapable of doing so voluntarily.
All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion: the path to peace may very well lie on the other side of renewed combat.
Here’s the full story:
US President Donald Trump, speaking before the Israeli Knesset on October 13, announced the end of the war in Gaza and the “historic dawn of a new Middle East.”
All remaining live Israeli hostages held by Hamas returned home, and the Israeli people responded with an elation that continues to this day. Yet that euphoric moment marked only the beginning of a train of problems, obstacles, and deadly battles that seem to be growing only worse over time.
This doesn’t mean the end of Trump’s self-named “Great Peace,” but merely the beginning of a very Middle Eastern process.
During the two weeks since Trump’s declaration of peace, Hamas failed to return the bodies of many of the deceased hostages as it had agreed to, launched attacks against IDF positions resulting in several injuries and deaths, and brutally executed dozens of Palestinians, many of them publicly, while blindfolded and kneeling in the street.
For its part, Israel responded with limited but severe air strikes. Nonetheless Trump, Israel and Hamas all continue to insist that a ceasefire is still in effect, a sentiment that Trump summed up succinctly, “They [Hamas] killed an Israeli soldier. So the Israelis hit back. And they should hit back… Nothing is going to jeopardize the ceasefire.”
So it seems we have a ceasefire – but one that includes, well … firing.
Given how the Middle East works, returning to combat may actually be a necessary step toward achieving genuine, regional peace.
Trump’s “Great Peace,” aka “the Deal,” is meant to occur in two phases. Phase 1 involves:
- an immediate ceasefire,
- the return of all Israeli hostages (living and dead),
- a partial pullback of IDF forces, and finally, the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian security prisoners from Israeli jails, including many convicted and high ranking terror operatives.
Phase 2, which has yet to be fully negotiated, is meant to include:
- Hamas completely disarming and giving up control over Gaza,
- further IDF withdrawals,
- and the implementation of some kind of international governing force that will oversee reconstruction.
Strictly speaking, we are still in Phase 1: Israel has fulfilled its obligations, but Hamas continues to hold the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages, which is of high emotional importance to Israelis. Hamas insists that the bodies are hard to find, yet Israeli intelligence claims that the terror organization has custody of most of the remains. The Israeli claim was evidenced the other day by drone footage which showed Hamas operatives removing an Israeli body from a building, burying it under rubble, and then calling the Red Cross to report their “discovery.”
Trump threatened on October 25 to take some kind of action against Hamas if it did not return the Israeli bodies within 48 hours, yet that deadline has passed, and bodies continue to return only in a trickle.
Phase 1 problems notwithstanding, the disarmament of Hamas presents a critical barrier to Phase 2.
In the wake of October 7, 2023, the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Israel will not tolerate a Hamas controlled enclave on its border. In a further obstacle, neither neighboring Arab countries nor local Palestinian clans will take responsibility for Gaza’s future if that means having to fight against an armed and active Hamas.
Yet the terror group is already refusing to disarm, saying (at best) that the agreement is ambiguous, and in some cases, expressing outright refusal.
Both Jerusalem and Washington seem quite aware of this sticking point: speaking from the White House last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed disarmament with the warning, “This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done.”
President Trump later echoed the sentiment more bluntly, saying, “If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the Deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.” Trump added further threats against the terror group in recent days, including, “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.”
Some headlines claimed that the United States is pressuring Israel against violating the ceasefire, including comical terms like “Bibi-sitting,” yet the rhetoric coming out of Washington is actually far more aggressive than that coming from Jerusalem. According to non-public sources inside the Israeli government, much of the pressure against resuming combat stems not from America, but from Israel’s desire to return the remains of as many deceased hostages as possible before engaging in an operation that might put them forever beyond reach.
Indeed, events on the ground seem to demonstrate a high degree of coordination between the two countries — a coordination based on the shared understanding that peace requires appropriate enforcement, and that it may prove impossible to remove Hamas’ influence by any means other than combat.
There is precedent for this approach.
Beginning with the famous “pager” operation last year, Israel conducted a series of strikes that devastated the Hezbollah terror organization in Lebanon, finally resulting in a November 2024 “ceasefire” agreement. Under the terms of this “ceasefire,” Israel retained the right to continue firing against Hezbollah as necessary, and has carried out several hundred strikes since that time. Both the government of Lebanon as well as the United States have generally accepted these strikes as being not only consistent with the ceasefire agreement, but also a necessary step toward building a peaceful Lebanese government, safe from Hezbollah’s violent control.
Another example began last April, when Trump gave Iran a 60 day deadline to negotiate the dismantling of its nuclear program. The deadline expired on June 11, and was followed immediately by a devastating Israeli air operation, which culminated in the famous American B-2 bombardment of Iran’s most deeply buried nuclear facilities. The result was a quick and decisive end to what Trump named “The Twelve Day War,” followed by a period of sustained quiet, though Iran is rumored to be rebuilding its capabilities.
The current phase in Gaza is reminiscent of the 60 day Iran negotiation: there is a slim possibility that Hamas might agree to disarm and depart peacefully, but if not, the parties have been clear that combat remains not only an option, but a functional tool for achieving eventual peace.
It is relatively rare that an aggressive dictatorship transforms into a safe and prosperous neighbor, but there are at least two historical examples: Germany and Japan after World War II. In both cases, the previous regime had to be completely defeated and entirely disarmed before reconstruction, much less any hope of a better future. Can one imagine that today’s prosperous, modern Germany would exist if the allies had given the Nazis a role in reconstruction? Can one imagine international partners physically entering Germany to help govern and rebuild, while under the threat of an armed and active Nazi regime?
Until October 13, Hamas held living Israeli hostages — they were enduring abuse, starvation, and rapidly running out of time. Under these circumstances, Israel entered a deal to return the live hostages immediately, while delaying the deconstruction of Hamas, and the reconstruction of Gaza, until later. Yet in many other respects, the situation in Gaza parallels post-war Germany: before the region can hope to imagine a better future, the existing regime must be disarmed, dismantled, and dismissed. The fate of the entire Middle East, and Trump’s “Great Peace,” depend on it.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
Uncategorized
Lander unseats Goldman on winning congressional election night for Mamdani
Former City Comptroller Brad Lander handily defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in the New York Democratic primary Tuesday night, while lesser-known Assemblymember Claire Valdez secured the nomination for another House seat — both after campaigning as sharp critics of Israel and with the endorsement of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Preliminary results showed Lander with about 66% of the vote to Goldman’s 34%. Valdez won with 56% of the vote for the open seat being vacated by Rep. Nydia Velazquez. Both are virtually assured of winning the general election in November in their heavily Democratic districts.
A third candidate whom Mamdani had endorsed, former Columbia Gaza war encampment organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, held a slight lead over Rep. Adriano Espaillat on Tuesday night.
Representing a spectrum ranging from liberal Zionist critic (Lander) to longtime activist for the Palestinian cause (Avila Chevalier), the strong results for Mamdani’s chosen candidates is being closely watched nationally in a Democratic Party where many voters say they want the U.S. to distance itself from Israel. All three candidates say they will support cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel, including for the Iron Dome defense system.
At a campaign rally last week, Mamdani compared the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to “monsters” who “move millions in dark money to accomplish a single goal — to preserve their power, so that they can turn us against one another.” The remarks drew widespread condemnation from Jewish leaders, including some Mamdani supporters.
Lander is a high-profile Jewish politician allied with Mamdani, who this election cycle threw his weight behind a slate of progressive candidates who have critiqued hardline pro-Israel money and use the terms “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
Setting out to challenge the incumbent, Lander zeroed in on Goldman’s support for U.S. military aid to Israel and his past ties to the campaign fundraising group AIPAC during the campaign.
Lander told the New York Times that criticizing AIPAC makes him “queasy” given “the antisemitic tropes at play,” but that he feels an obligation to call out its funding nonetheless as he promises to curtail U.S. military aid to Israel.
In NY-7, another candidate backed by Mamdani defeated the incumbent’s handpicked successor. democratic socialist Valdez won against Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, who had the endorsement of outgoing Rep. Velázquez.
But Mamdani’s brand of Israel politics didn’t succeed everywhere: In the Bronx, Rep. Ritchie Torres — one of the Democratic party’s most staunch supporters of Israel — handily defeated Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman who allied with Mamdani during the mayoral primary last year.
For state comptroller, incumbent Thomas DiNapoli — who made additional purchases of Israel bonds in the aftermath of Oct. 7 — won over Jewish challenger Drew Warshaw, who argued that the state should divest from Israel bonds because they help “finance Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wars.”
State Assemblymember Micah Lasher won the race to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler, who retired after 33 years in the House and served as one of Congress’ leading voices for liberal Jews. In that race, the leading candidates Lasher and Alex Bores had broad agreement in their support of Israel.
The other candidate in the race, Kennedy political scion Jack Schlossberg, had called for conditioning aid to Israel and attempted to draw contrast with Bores and Lasher on the issue. But Schlossberg’s campaign struggled to gain traction amid questions about his lack of political experience.
The post Lander unseats Goldman on winning congressional election night for Mamdani appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Pro-Israel Democrats battle to take on vulnerable Republican Rep. Mike Lawler
(New York Jewish Week) — Voters in New York’s Hudson Valley on Tuesday are choosing a Democrat to challenge the staunchly pro-Israel Republican Rep. Mike Lawler in a heavily Jewish swing district.
Two candidates have emerged as frontrunners in the Democratic primary in New York’s 17th Congressional District, a suburb of New York City that includes about 30,000 Orthodox Jews.
Cait Conley, a military veteran and former national security adviser, leads by double digits in polls this month and prediction markets over Beth Davidson, a member of the Rockland County Legislature who has highlighted her Jewish identity. A poll from Tavern Research last week found that 28% of voters were still undecided as the election approached.
Both are appealing to residents anxious about the cost of living, housing, healthcare and foreign conflicts. The winner will also aim to claw back moderate voters who supported Lawler, one of the most vocally pro-Israel members of Congress and a representative who has forged close ties with Orthodox Jewish voters.
Davidson and Conley have both said they support the United States alliance with Israel while opposing actions by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. During a candidate forum in April, they distanced themselves from Democratic efforts in the Senate to block certain military sales to Israel.
Polling far behind Conley and Davidson is Effie Phillips-Staley, a progressive who says Israel is an apartheid state that has committed genocide in Gaza.
Conley and Davidson say they are marrying pro-Israel views with a liberal agenda, including fighting President Donald Trump. Davidson told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that she wants to create a political home for “Jews that have felt lost in the Democratic party.” She previously served on the board of her White Plains synagogue, Beth Am Shalom, and has touted Jewish values as driving her public service, including tikkun olam, or repairing the world, and welcoming the stranger.
Conley has presented her military experience as an advantage. A former national security adviser in the Biden administration, she has said that she supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and views Israel as a critical national security ally.
The winner will face off with Lawler, who has become so closely identified with the district’s Jewish community that he was recently attacked in comments by Sen. Rand Paul’s son, William Paul, who accused the lawmaker of being one of “you people,” although Lawler is not Jewish.
Often working with Democrats, Lawler has proposed a spate of legislation aimed at supporting Israel since he entered Congress in 2023. He co-sponsored the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require the Department of Education to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, a move championed by major Jewish groups and criticized by progressives for classifying some forms of Israel criticism as antisemitic. The bill passed in the House in 2024 but stalled in the Senate amid free speech concerns and was reintroduced in the House last year.
Lawler also introduced in 2024 the bipartisan Stand with Israel Act, which seeks to halt funding for United Nations agencies that “expel, downgrade, suspend, or otherwise restrict the participation of the State of Israel.” His bipartisan 2025 Bunker Buster Act seeks to equip Israel with massive bombs to target Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
This year, Lawler has partnered with Democrats on two new measures that he says will combat antisemitism. The Jewish American Security Act introduced this month proposes expanding federal security support for Jewish institutions, and a House resolution from April condemns leftist streamer Hasan Piker and far-right podcaster Candace Owens for “antisemitic hate-filled rhetoric and content.”
Phillips-Staley represents the rising progressive wing of the Democratic party that is sharply critical of Israel, differentiating herself from Lawler as well as Conley and Davidson. Phillips-Staley has said that her views solidified after she traveled to Israel and the West Bank in February. She was criticized by some Democratic officials for doing an interview with Piker.
She told JTA in March that many Jewish residents supported her belief that Israel has committed genocide and the United States should sever military aid.
“I get the most encouragement, from lots of people, but a lot of encouragement from Jews who really challenged me, especially in the beginning, to be brave and say it like it is,” said Philips-Staley.
Republicans are suspected of jumping into the late stage of the race by funding a shadowy new group called Progressive Champions PAC, which mirrors GOP efforts to influence other Democratic primaries nationwide. Davidson publicly disavowed the PAC, which has spent $1.5 million on ads attacking Conley for her contract work for an AI company that works with the Department of Homeland Security, according to the Cook Political Report.
The primary winner will quickly rocket to national prominence in the general election, as Lawler’s seat is considered one of the most likely to flip in November. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district, which former presidential candidate Kamala Harris won by less than one percentage point in 2024.
The post Pro-Israel Democrats battle to take on vulnerable Republican Rep. Mike Lawler appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Primary battle between rabbi and Jewish lawyer is a referendum on Mamdani and buffer zones
(New York Jewish Week) — A primary race on New York’s Upper West Side for a state legislative battle pits a rabbi against a Jewish lawyer in a referendum on where Jews stand on Mayor Zohran Mamdani and on the right to protest outside houses of worship.
Stephanie Ruskay would be the first female rabbi elected to state office in U.S. history. Her opponent is the Mamdani-endorsed Eli Northrup, a public defender and the grandson of a Jewish civil rights lawyer who worked on Supreme Court cases to combat antisemitism and racial segregation in the 1950s.
The hotly contested Democratic primary is for the State Assembly’s District 69, which covers much of the Upper West Side and all of Morningside Heights, including the Columbia University campus roiled in 2024 by pro-Palestinian protests over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Endorsements tell a story of two New York establishments vying over prime legislative real estate: Mamdani’s Israel-critical progressives facing off against the city’s storied Jewish liberals.
Along with Mamdani’s blessing, Northrup has won prized endorsements from left-wing icons who ran now legendary insurgent campaigns: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose energetic presidential primary run in 2016 helped doom Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose ouster of top Democrat Joseph Crowley in a 2018 primary paved the way for the youthful congressional “Squad.” Mamdani has roiled this election season with endorsements of democratic socialists challenging incumbent congressional Democrats.
Ruskay has been endorsed by leading Jews in New York politics, such as City Council Speaker Julie Menin, City Comptroller Mark Levine, Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and former Borough President Ruth Messinger. She also has the backing of ActJew, a nonprofit focused on combating antisemitism, and the New York Solidarity Network, a pro-Israel group.
Ruskay and Northrup, who both identify as progressives, are battling in a neighborhood where nearly one-third of households are Jewish. The Assembly seat opened in the fall when current Assembly member Micah Lasher, who is also Jewish, decided to run for Congress.
The district overwhelmingly supported Mamdani in the 2025 mayoral race, when his sharp criticism of Israel broke with the city’s Democratic establishment and fomented ongoing tensions with segments of the Jewish community.
Northrup is a full-throated supporter of the mayor who volunteered for his campaign. Ruskay has voiced more tepid views on Mamdani, acknowledging that many Jewish New Yorkers disagreed with his views about Israel.
“When we agree, I’ll be very excited to work together, and when we don’t agree or when I know that I represent people who have a very different perspective from what’s happening, then my job is to bring that into the room,” Ruskay told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in December.
Ruskay joined New York’s annual Israel Day Parade in May, which Mamdani skipped. She said on X that she was “proud” to attend the gathering, which she described as a reminder of “the deep bonds between New York’s Jewish community and Israel, and of the strength, resilience, and vibrancy of Jewish life.”
Northrup has resisted the long tradition among Jewish Democrats of identifying as a Zionist. “I don’t know that it’s serving us to be categorizing people as Zionist or anti-Zionist,” he told JTA last month. “I certainly don’t see myself in those terms.”
Both candidates have cited their faith and Jewish values as driving their politics. They agree on building more affordable housing, filling the district’s many vacant storefronts, supporting unions and enforcing labor laws. Both have also voiced their commitment to fighting President Donald Trump and his crackdown on immigration.
One of their rare areas of disagreement is the fight over “buffer zones” to insulate synagogues from protests, a flashpoint in New York politics. The city and state both recently passed legislation that restricts demonstrations outside houses of worship. Some Jewish leaders and lawmakers championed the measures in the aftermath of a string of pro-Palestinian rallies outside synagogues, which were hosting events that promoted migration to Israel and real estate sales in Israel and the West Bank.
Ruskay supports the buffer zones. She has argued they are necessary to protect Jews from intimidation, saying during a candidate forum in May, “In the world as we wish it was, I don’t think that you should have [to] have a buffer zone. But in the world that we actually live in right now, I think that we do need one.”
Northrup, meanwhile, said in the forum that outlawing protest within a certain distance of an institution “wouldn’t pass constitutional muster,” citing Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. He told JTA that buffer zones were more symbolic than effective in addressing rising antisemitism, and that he instead supported multifaith education and building alliances across communities.
Various civil rights groups and Jewish progressives, such as Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, have said that buffer zone laws infringe on free speech and assembly. JFREJ has endorsed Northrup.
Northrup’s skepticism of the laws aligns with Mamdani’s views. The mayor resisted signing the City Council’s buffer zone bill pertaining to houses of worship, though it became law with a veto-proof majority, and he vetoed a separate bill implementing buffer zones around schools.
Ruskay has received $25,000 from the American Centerpoint PAC, which was formed on June 11, according to City and State. The PAC’s sole contributor was Adeena Rosen, a key figure in the Solidarity PAC that boosted pro-Israel candidates in 2024 state races.
In a race lacking publicly available polls, fundraising is a significant indicator. The candidates were neck-and-neck in fundraising on Election Day, with Ruskay gathering $436,381 and Northrup raising $443,522, according to Transparency USA.
The post Primary battle between rabbi and Jewish lawyer is a referendum on Mamdani and buffer zones appeared first on The Forward.

