Why Mamdani is Bad for the Jews and Bad for New York

Cuomo, Mamdani, and Sliwa (Newsday)

I have to admit that one of the more depressing things I have ever encountered is the likelihood of a mayor in New York that will be so vehemently anti-Israel. In my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined that. And yet, it seems that unless an upset of gargantuan proportion takes place, the polls predict that this will happen.

What makes me even more depressed is that Jews may be one of the key factors in getting him elected. I never realized there were more than just a few Jews whose politics reflected strong socialist values. I had always thought these extremist progressive Jews were on the fringes of the Jewish body politic. I believed that most Jews were indeed liberal and voted Democratic, but were nevertheless very supportive of Israel. I think that is still true even though that support has waned somewhat, for reasons beyond the scope of this post.

What I didn’t realize is that there are enough Jews that are so progressive that they can swing an election in favor of someone who believes that Israel is an apartheid state that oppresses indigenous Palestinians with a brutal occupation, and that it should be boycotted  if not dismantled entirely as a Jewish state. Although they are still in the minority, they are growing in number and are increasingly found among younger Jews whose connection to Judaism is, at best, tenuous.

These progressive young Jews have joined their non-Jewish progressive counterparts in supporting a candidate who shares their values. A candidate enthusiastically endorsed by perhaps the most famous Jewish socialist in the US, Bernie Sanders. 

What these people are voting for are Mamdani’s socialist promises of better economic times once his progressive policies are implemented. After all, who doesn’t like total rent control, free transportation, and government-subsidized grocery stores? All of which promise to save voters tons of money in their everyday lives. It’s therefore not surprising that even some mainstream Democrats might vote for someone making promises like that.

Honestly, it’s hard to argue with Mamdani’s promises. Why vote for a status quo that has failed you? Give someone with fresh ideas a chance to show he can change things for the better – as promised.

This is what’s going to get Mamdani elected. His being so anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian is not really on the radar of the typical New York voter — unless they are Jewish or Muslim.

I’m not going to go into why this type of thinking is a big mistake — other than to say there is no such thing as a free lunch! And that socialism has failed every time it has been tried. 

Aside from Mamdani’s policies being doomed to failure, the biggest concern for mainstream New York Jewish voters is his anti-Israel stance and rhetoric. Although his policies will not directly affect Israel - other than perhaps divesting any municipal funds currently invested in the Jewish state - the very idea of arresting the Prime Minister of Israel is an image I never thought I’d see in a city with the largest Jewish population in the world. Calling Israel’s war against Hamas genocide - and blaming him entirely for all Palestinian deaths in Gaza without the slightest reference to Hamas’s part in that is yet another thing I never thought I would see from the mayor of New York.

His anti-Israel rhetoric will surely increase anti-Zionist activism. Which he will surely support if not join personally.  Resultant antisemitic violence that might ensue might be opposed by Mamdani and he will not tolerate it. But it will surely be his own rhetoric that will be responsible for inflaming it in the first place.

This is why so many rabbinic leaders across denominations have urged their members to vote against Mamdani in the upcoming election. As of the last count, over 1,000 heterodox rabbis as well as virtually all mainstream Orthodox rabbis and organizations have signed on to that message.

Some might say it’s a waste of time when the polls show what seems like an insurmountable lead for Mamdani. But as I’ve said, that does not free the Jewish voter in New York from doing their civic duty. Besides, polls have been wrong before. Even lopsided ones like his. You never know.

As it turns out, Mamdani’s ‘insurmountable’ lead is shrinking. Although he still leads Cuomo by a substantial margin, Mamdani is not projected to get a majority of the vote. That’s because of a third candidate — Republican Curtis Sliwa will get a small percentage of the vote. Which might otherwise go to Cuomo. If Sliwa were to drop out of the race, it might become competitive.

I believe the entire mainstream Jewish establishment — from Orthodox to Reform — would agree that Cuomo is far from ideal. Under normal circumstances, he would be getting very little, if any, support from any of these organizations or rabbis. But I think they all agree that Cuomo is by far the lesser of two evils. A city government led by a centrist Democrat would fare far better than one led by a socialist.

And perhaps most importantly for the mainstream Jewish community, Cuomo is not anti-Israel. He is a longtime supporter of the Jewish state. We will not be hearing talk about Israel as an apartheid state or accusations of genocide in Gaza. Nor would anyone be talking about arresting the Prime Minister of Israel.

It is late in the game. Early voting has already begun. The media is reporting the highest early voting turnout in New York history. The stakes are high. Many New Yorkers know that and are responding by voting early. The only question is: how are they voting? Is it a progressive surge or an anti-progressive backlash – a surge driven by fear a New York governed by socialism? It’s hard to know.

One thing seems clear: Sliwa is not backing out, even though he has no chance of winning. It’s also clear that people that will vote for Sliwa would never vote for Mamdan If Sliwa were out, they would likely switch their vote to Cuomo.

I strongly urge people who do not want to see a Mamdani mayoralty in New York not to help elect him by voting for Sliwa. Because every vote for Sliwa is, in effect, a vote for Mamdani. I urge every Sliwa supporter to switch their vote to Cuomo. If enough Sliwa voters do that; and if my hunch is right that most New Yorkers don’t want to see their city turn socialist; then the polls may be wrong and Cuomo might win.

If he does, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. If Mamdani wins, Jews may find themselves in a very precarious situation, as pro-Palestinian rallies will surely increase - rallies that will be heartily supported by the new mayor. And that is surely something not to look forward to.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts you must subscribe. It's free.

When a Religious Leader Loses His Sense of Moral Clarity

Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef (TOI)

One must respect the opinions of rabbinic leaders in every generation. They generally earn their titles as leaders by virtue of their Torah knowledge, piety,  and their life-long experiences. They are the ultimate Chareid L’Dvar HaShem - trembling lest they violate the word of God - especially since they guide the Jewish people.

It is therefore a mistake to denigrate or worse - humiliate - these great figures. Regardless of how much one disagrees with them. They did not become leaders by accident. They became leaders because many other rabbinic authorities recognized them as such. That, together with the wisdom that comes with age, makes them leaders.

So, I respect those leaders even when I disagree strongly with them. Some would say that my very disagreement is an insult regardless of how respectfully I state it. That is pure nonsense. Others might say that my disagreement is meaningless in the face of their superior Torah knowledge, wisdom, and piety. That may  - or may not be true. But that has never stopped me from expressing my difference of opinion about some of their policy positions and statements. Most often those disagreements are the product of influences from my own rabbinic mentors who - even though many are no longer alive - were nonetheless great leaders who themselves possessed Torah knowledge, wisdom, piety, and life experience.

But sometimes lines are crossed where I cannot in good conscience respect such a leader. When I read something like the following, I lost any level of respect I ever had for him. I dare say that my rabbinic mentors might even agree with me. I am talking about a story involving Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the rabbinic leader of the Sephardic Shas party and former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel.

If what the Times of Israel reports is true, I can no longer respect Rabbi /Yosef. No matter how much piety, Torah knowledge, and life experience he may have.

It isn’t only that I have profound differences with him; it is what he said about another rabbinic leader:

Former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who is also the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, calls a fellow rabbi and bereaved father a heretic for advocating conscription for yeshiva students.

“Who is an apikores?” Yosef is heard saying in recordings first leaked by Kol Chai radio and published by Ynet, referring to the traditional Jewish term for a heretic. “He says, ‘Everyone should go to the army.’ What do you mean by everyone [should go] to the army? They study Torah. Just as there is an air force, there is the ‘God force’ of those who sit and study Torah and protect the entire people of Israel.”

In the recording, Yosef explicitly criticizes Rabbi Tamir Granot, who serves as the head of the hesder yeshiva Orot Shaul in Tel Aviv — which combines Torah study and military service — and whose son, Cpt. Amitay Granot, was killed by an anti-tank missile on the Lebanon border in October 2023.

“Several heads of yeshivot attacked me,” Yosef says. “There was one rabbi — I don’t know if he’s a rabbi — Granot, the head of a hesder yeshiva. The way he spoke against us on television. Aren’t you afraid of the humiliation of the Torah scholars?”

“I think there are some of them who, if they were to come to join a minyan (prayer quorum), we would not include them in the minyan,” Yosef continues. “They fall under the category of apikores. Not all of them.”

I cannot understand how someone who is supposed to be a leader of the Jewish people can be so callous as to call a fellow rabbi a heretic merely because he suggested that yeshiva students should serve in the army. That would be bad enough. But to call the head of a Hesder yeshiva who lost his son in battle an apikores is beyond disgusting.

Even if I grant that Rabbi Yosef is entitled to his view against conscription of yeshiva students, to call a Rosh Yeshiva, who believes that Torah study and military service can coexist to protect the Jewish people... and Rabbi Yosef calls him an apikores?! That he said it about a man who lost his son in battle makes it one of the worst things I have ever heard a rabbinic leader ever say. It is the height of insensitivity and callousness. 

Although I profoundly disagree with him, Rabbi Yosef is entitled to his religious views exempting yeshiva students from army service. But tin my view he has lost any claim to moral authority with those comments. I believes it disqualifies him from any claim of leadership among the Jewish people..

I would therefore advise anyone who considers Rabbi Yosef their spiritual leader, to find another one. Because I believe Rabbi Yosef has lost his way.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts you must subscribe. It's free.

No New Post Today.

In an effort to improve the reading and commenting experience for my readers,  I am experimenting with another format - Substack - and do not have enough time to research and write a new post today. 

For what it's worth I have not had any great success thus far. New post tomorrow. 

Annexing the West Bank Versus a Palestinian State

I don’t get it. Or sadly, maybe I do.

What we have in the Israeli Knesset is a conflict between ideologues who do not understand the value of restraint of not trying to advance their ideals in the face of the horrible consequences of doing so - versus ideologues who understand that compromise is often necessary in order to survive. In fact, compromise may very well be the best of all possible outcomes.

But to the hardcore ideologues of the extreme right, compromise is not an option. They are true believers in their cause — to the point of thinking that God will ultimately assure their victory, despite the obvious and impossible challenges that promoting their policies will bring.

It is, in fact, ironic that the ideals and beliefs that inspire right-wing fanatics to lose all rational thought and proceed carelessly with goals that will almost surely bring tragedy to the people of Israel (and possibly to Jews all over the world by virtue of their association with Israel) are the very same beliefs and ideals that I share. I too believe that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, as promised by God in the Bible. There is no denying that fact. It is stated in black and white several times and was the ultimate goal of our exodus from Egypt.

The difference between us is that the conditions on the ground do not allow us to restore our sovereignty over all of the land. There is simply no possible way to accomplish that now. First, because there are people living there who have their own religious claims to the Land of Israel — and they will certainly not relinquish the parts they now occupy. They have their own right wing, whose religious beliefs require them to fight to the death to achieve what they see as their rightful claim to the land.

Israel has been denying that possibility in a variety of ways — most importantly, through security measures designed to thwart Palestinian terrorist attempts to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, these measures make life very hard for most Palestinian families. That is why Israel’s critics (increasingly including Europe) call Israel a brutal occupying force and even an apartheid state — a big lie that much of the world has bought into.

The idea of taking that land away from Palestinians outrages Israel’s critics — which include most of Europe and several Arab states that have recently indicated an interest in making peace with Israel. They believe Israel has no business occupying that land in the first place.

The most important reason for not even suggesting annexation of the West Bank is that Israel could lose the support of its only true ally — the United States. The president has already suggested as much after the Knesset’s foolish vote to do so a few days ago.

If Israel were to act on the notion of annexing the West Bank, the bloodshed that would follow would be unprecedented. Palestinians will not sit idly by while Israel tries to remove them from land their families have lived on for generations. They will fight back — and the world will cheer them on.

All of this means that the only way we can restore our sovereignty over all the Land of Israel is when Moshiach comes. Now is not the time. Any attempt to do so now is beyond foolhardy — if not entirely suicidal.

These circumstances are why I originally supported the concept of “land for peace.” I once believed that a compromise could be reached that would allow both peoples to gain some of what they wanted — even if neither got everything they desired. I believed that peaceful coexistence was the only way out of generations of war and terror — that Palestinians would ultimately choose peace over Israel’s destruction.

I have long been disabused of that notion after realizing that they want a Jew-free Palestine more than they want peace. Peaceful coexistence was a one-sided dream — Israel’s dream.

That “dream” persists to this day among many nations of the world that, for some reason, still believe what I once did — that Palestinians would choose peace over constant oppression and war. Many Israelis (mostly on the left) naively believed that as well. But after October 7th, 2023, most Israelis finally came to their senses and realized that this was not a viable possibility. One way or another, Palestinians would continue to try to turn Israel into a Jew-free Palestine.

And yet, the Knesset voting to annex the West Bank was still the stupidest thing Israel could have done. I’m glad to hear that the prime minister distanced himself from it — but the fallout from that foolish stunt hasn’t ended yet. What it does is lend credence to all of Israel’s enemies who claim that Israel has no interest in ending its “brutal” occupation of the West Bank and is determined to occupy Gaza in the same way.

I’ve given this some thought. If I were the prime minister, I would look at the situation now — at the weakening of our enemies, the willingness of Arab nations to make peace with Israel, and the creation of worldwide goodwill — and I would publicly embrace the concept of a future Palestinian state.

How, one may ask, does that square with my belief that such a state is impossible today and could destroy Israel?

I still believe that if a Palestinian state were to be established now, it would be suicidal. There is no possible way to create a Palestinian state with people whose ultimate agenda is to destroy you.

No, I am not schizophrenic. What I am suggesting is that any agreement for a future Palestinian state must be conditioned on a long-term transformation — at least a generation (25 years or so) — beginning with a complete restructuring of Palestinian education.

This must include the rejection of all materials and rhetoric that vilify the Jewish people or the State of Israel. It must start in the home, in mosques, and especially in schools. Curricula must be developed that teach young Palestinians the opposite of what they are being taught now. They need to be immersed in a culture that rejects the old anti-Israel, anti-Jewish paradigm their parents were subjected to. It must be made illegal to refer derogatorily to Israel or the Jewish people.

Independent monitors with expertise in antisemitism should oversee Palestinian life during this transition. The point being: once Palestinians stop hating us, the chance for peace will arise — and it could take the form of a provisional Palestinian state. That state, too, should be monitored by international experts to ensure compliance.

After a period of genuine peaceful coexistence under these conditions, a two-state solution might actually work.

Who might lead such a state in 25 years can be determined then. But it would have to be someone who rejects the idea of destroying Israel as a Jewish state, agrees in principle to peaceful coexistence, and has no terrorist ties or sympathies.

Will it happen? I strongly doubt it. It is nigh impossible to disabuse people of hate instilled in them generationally for well over a hundred years. The logistics of implementing such a plan would be just as nearly impossible. But Israel could accept the idea in theory - IF these or similar conditions were implemented. The world would gladly welcome any such gesture from Israel - and the U.S. might even endorse it. 

Which is a far better idea than trying to annex it.

Annexing Judea and Samaria / Electing Zohran Mamdani

Vice President Vance and Prime Minister Netanyahu meet in the PM's office 

 Although this is not what I want to talk about today, I would be remiss if I didn’t comment on it first.

The Knesset voted yesterday to annex Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). It is a meaningless vote since it will never become law. As noted in the JTA:

“Most members of Netanyahu’s party boycotted the votes, and the bills are seen as unlikely to advance to become law.”

Although this area is part of biblical Israel and belongs to the Jewish people by virtue of the word of the Creator Himself, asserting that right legislatively now was a huge mistake for a variety of reasons. One of which became obvious immediately when Israel’s most important ally condemned it. You do not want to bite the hand that feeds you—especially one that has been as generous as the U.S., in spite of the rest of the world doing nothing but criticizing Israel for its war tactics. That alone should have been enough reason not to proceed.

But it doesn’t even make sense politically. There is no chance that Israel will have sovereignty over all of biblical Israel when the Palestinian people, all of Israel’s neighbors and potential peace partners, and the rest of the world reject it.

Annexing the West Bank sends the wrong message. It will only increase the already intolerable number of terrorist attacks from Judea and Samaria. And while Israel has done a decent job of minimizing those attacks over the last few years, they have not disappeared entirely. Annexation would surely increase them to the point where they would overwhelm Israel’s security apparatus.

This was a victory for right-wing extremists and nothing more. I hope I’m wrong—but I see nothing good coming out of this. What were they thinking?!

---

Conservative Rabbi Elliot J. Cosgrove 

On to the subject I do want to talk about: the upcoming election for mayor of New York.

According to most polls, the openly anti-Zionist Zohran Mamdani will win the election against his two opponents handily. The polls don’t even make it close. Mamdani is a shoo-in. And ironically, it may very well be the case that progressive Jews will hand him that victory. Because to most progressive Jews - if they even have an opinion about Israel - it is usually very similar to that of the Palestinians: that Israel is an apartheid state whose decades-long ‘brutal occupation’ over Palestinians must end. And that everything possible must be done to make that happen, including supporting BDS.

This is precisely Mamdani’s position. He is open and unapologetic about it.

This man is about as anti-Israel as one can get. Which is why I am happy to see that, more than ever, not only are Orthodox rabbis and organizations (like Agudah) urging people to vote against Mamdani, but even heterodox rabbis and organizations are doing so.

As noted in the JTA:

As the New York mayoral election draws near, more than 850 rabbis and cantors from across the United States have signed onto a letter voicing their opposition to mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani and the ‘political normalization’ of anti-Zionism.

The letter, titled A Rabbinic Call to Action: Defending the Jewish Future, cited Mamdani’s previous defense of the slogan ‘globalize the Intifada,’ his denial of Israel’s legitimacy, and his accusations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

The letter quotes Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, the leader of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on the Upper West Side, and includes a wide range of rabbis and cantors from over 30 states as well as Toronto. It was organized by the new Jewish Majority advocacy group, led by AIPAC veteran Jonathan Schulman.

The letter also quotes Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of the Conservative Park Avenue Synagogue on the Upper East Side, who urged his congregants during a sermon last week not only to vote against Mamdani but to convince other Jews they know to do the same.”

I am both surprised and pleased that heterodox rabbis - who generally lean left of center - have come out publicly against voting for Mamdani. They are usually reticent to endorse or oppose candidates. And a progressive like Mamdani is only a bit further left than many of them. Not to mention that younger secular Jews tend to lean even more progressive. So it’s refreshing to see a bit of cross-denominational unity among the Jewish people. At least on this one, very important issue.

Thing is, this may all be beside the point. As noted the polls are predicting a near landslide for him. This does nrt mean the New York Jews should give up and stay home on election day. They need to do what they can. You never know. 

Does this mean the Jews of New York are doomed? Are they, for example, going to lose protections against antisemitic acts? I don’t think so. Mamdani is too smart to let that happen - thereby lending credence to those who have accused him of antisemitism. My guess is that he will go out of his way to protect the Jewish community from antisemitic attacks, if only to ‘prove’ he is not an antisemite.

But what his election may do is increase those attacks indirectly by emboldening people to act against us based on anti-Israel sentiment. The anti-Israel rhetoric, which is vile but with which he agrees will surely be defended by Mamdani as ‘free speech’. That will inevitably generate more violence against us.

The day Mamdani takes office will be a sad day for the Jewish people. Not only in New York, but for Jews all over the world. If attacks increase there, they will increase elsewhere. We will simply have to be more vigilant for at least the next four years. Until Mamdani is defeated in the next election. May it be God’s will.

Conflicted Emotions and Unfinished Wars

I have had a number of conflicting emotional thoughts about a confluence of events which, at first glance, might not seem related . And yet I believe they are profoundly intertwined. I’ll try to express them as clearly as possible without rambling. So here goes.

If Hamas refuses to disarm in short order, the president has made it abundantly clear — in no uncertain terms and on multiple occasions — that “we will eradicate them.” As the Daily Wire headline succinctly put it:

“Trump: ‘End to Hamas Will Be Fast, Furious & Brutal.’”

That seems to be the likely scenario in the coming days (or weeks, depending on how much time the president decides to give Hamas to comply). It will be the IDF that does it.

Sadly, I find myself in complete agreement with Mali Brofsky. My heart goes out to her and others like her for what they have gone through and continue to go through. She wrote the following in the Times of Israel:

For those of us with family members in the army, that see war is not over. Our loved ones are holding the line against the Hamas terrorists who are constantly testing the boundaries. Our soldiers will be the ones to ‘take care of it’ (in the parlance of the president of the United States) if Hamas does not disarm.

I can tell you that I am still holding my breath. I am still not sleeping at night. And I am not alone. There are countless parents with children in active service and in the reserves — some with one in each. There are wives waiting anxiously for their husbands’ return; one newly married woman moves back and forth between the apartment she should be sharing with her husband and her parents’ home, praying for his safety. There are mothers caring for four young children on their own while their husbands guard Israel’s many fronts.

For those brave Israelis who have risked their lives in combat with these 21st-century Islamist Nazis - the war is not over. It will resume soon, likely with more ferocity than before. As much as I hope and pray that I am wrong, and that Hamas will lay down its arms and disappear, I fear that will not happen. Sadly, more blood will be spilled. Plenty of it.

When I predicted that the ceasefire deal would be a win for Israel, I was careful to include the possibility that such a ‘win’ might take the form of the complete destruction of an unrepentant Hamas. One that still believes it can survive even in defeat. Should that happen, Prime Minister Netanyahu will have the full backing of the president to do whatever is necessary to finish the job.

If the world again declares him a war criminal because of the inevitable Palestinian casualties — well, that has already happened. Israel will do what it must to ensure its security, and only then can the business of peace proceed as envisioned in the original agreement.

Meanwhile, across the ocean in New York City, another scene has unfolded. Tens of thousands gathered to protest in front of the Israeli consulate. But this time, it wasn’t the usual crowd of progressive anti-Israel activists. It was Satmar Chasidim. The two Satmar Rebbes - brothers who have long vied for leadership of the sect joined forces to condemn Israel. Not for its conduct in the war, but for its ‘’audacity” in seeking to draft Charedim into the IDF.

This is what outrages them. This is what animates their anger and frustration. Not the loss of Israeli lives. Not the soldiers who have fallen or been wounded. That, apparently, does not move them to gather in protest - or in support. On the contrary, they believe that the State of Israel is the creation of the devil, and that the IDF serves him, even if the soldiers themselves are unaware of it.

They claim to have waited until the war was over and the hostages returned before holding this protest. The problem is — as noted — it is not over. Are they unaware of Hamas’s obstinance? And what it will inevitably lead to?

The non-Chasidic Yeshiva world in Israel, led by two elderly Roshei Yeshiva, shares Satmar’s outrage  though for slightly different reasons. Their students are the ones being called to register for the draft, some even arrested for refusing to do so. Their Yeshivos have also lost the substantial government funding they long received while enjoying draft exemption. Now they face a dual crisis: the fear of conscription and the challenge of survival without state stipends.

I have no doubt the Yeshiva world takes some comfort in Satmar’s support, even though they share little else in common.

Still, I cannot help but feel anger and depression when I see tens of thousands of Chasidim protesting the draft  while Jewish soldiers, many of them religious, have laid down their lives for their people and are likely to be called upon to do so again.

I feel the same anger when I hear two revered Roshei Yeshiva publicly declare their agreement with Satmar’s position on the evil that is State of Israel. While they themselves live within its borders, enjoy its benefits, and contribute nothing to its defense. Others are spilling blood; they are not.

I have in the past been beyond angry about this state of affairs in the observant world.

And yet, setting aside these two painful issues (which should never be ignored), I still  respect both communities. Satmar’s piety and their extraordinary generosity toward fellow Jews in need are legendary. Their sense of family and communal solidarity is something to behold.

Likewise, the Yeshiva world’s devotion to Torah study is unparalleled. Many there willingly forgo comfortable middle-class lives in order to dedicate themselves to learning. And in both communities, there are individuals who manage to achieve great financial success while remaining deeply committed to their ideals. I do not - and cannot - dismiss them.

But I cannot understand how the very religious values that define these communities can lead them so far astray from what I believe to be the Derech HaYashar — the straight path.

How can people whose religious lives are built upon self-sacrifice fail to appreciate the sacrifices of others? How can they protest a government that seeks only to spread the burden more equally? How can Satmar, and those who think like them, not recognize the heroism of others who are risking everything. While they do nothing?

Even if they disagree with the policies, how can they not at least respect the sacrifice?

The Cease Fire - So Far So Good

Will Hamas disarm? (CNN)

The cease fire deal between Israel and Hamas is not unraveling. Contrary to claim of the many Trump and Netanyahu haters. (Some of whom salivate at that prospect because their disgust for those two leaders is so great, it outweighs their concern for the safety of the Israeli people. So they favor looking at the cease fire as a bad deal in a variety of creative ways. They feel good because their views have been vindicated.)

Their evidence for their claim is the recent airstrike in Gaza that killed dozens of Palestinians in retaliation for the Hamas attack that killed two IDF soldiers. 

Living up to their proven bias, the media gave equal credence to the claims by both sides that it was the other side that violated the cease fire. God forbid they believe Israel over Hamas. The “even-handed” mainstream media will dare not believe the belligerent Netanyahu over the peace-loving Hamas ‘fighters’ who are simply fighting for a cause they believe in. Which is to end Israeli occupation and apartheid. But I digress.

The point here is that both Hamas and Israel said they are still adhering to the cease-fire agreement — even though Hamas has not yet disarmed as the agreement requires. What they have been doing is executing the criminal element among them, which they mostly define as Palestinian collaborators with the Zionist enemy.

So much for their peaceful intentions. The president, for his part, was misled by Hamas to believe that they actually were just restoring law and order. What he didn’t realize was that this meant executing Palestinian ‘rats’.

It appears that Hamas has no real intention of complying with that most vital portion of the cease-fire agreement, and are using the cease fire to reconstitute their ranks — which, ‘sure as shootin’, they are doing right now!

Well, aren’t the naysayers right, then? If they don’t disarm, isn’t that a deal breaker? Of course it is. Does that mean it was a bad deal and a mistake to make that deal in the first place? 

Absolutely not. That deal accomplished the impossible: It got all the living hostages returned at once. And for now, the IDF is not in harm’s way in active combat. At least for the short term. These heroes of the Gaza war are out of harm’s way for the moment and can surely use the break.

What about the fact that Hamas is trying to restore itself to its former ‘glory’? What about all the Palestinian prisoners who were released as part of the deal, some of whom were convicted of terrorism and murder? Was that price too steep? 

Not in my book. 20 innocent lives were saved. What happens in the future will be dealt with then. Hopefully Israel has finally learned its lessen after October 7^th and will never ‘drop the ball’ again!

But to reiterate the question: if Hamas reneges on what I believe to be the most important part of the deal -  complete disarmament and no possibility of a role in governing Gaza - isn’t that the worst outcome? Will they not have been the ultimate winner – surviving to do it all over again in the future? I don’t think so. Here’s why:  

President Donald Trump on Thursday warned that if Hamas keeps killing people in Gaza, “we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.” 

“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 wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.” Trump later clarified that U.S. forces would not be involved in the renewed offensive he had threatened.

Well, if U.S. forces will not be involved (and they shouldn’t be), how will ‘we’ kill them? I’ll give you three guesses.

Never mind.  I’ll just spell it out: IDF. They will go right back in and do whatever it takes to eradicate Hamas regardless of how many Palestinian civilians Hamas puts in Israel’s way.

If Hamas has learned anything about Trump, it is that he doesn’t bluff. All they have to do is look at what he did to Iran at Fordow.

The president has repeated those comments several times in a variety of ways. Will the world scream bloody murder (at both Israel and the US)? Of course they will. Many more ‘innocent’ Palestinians will be killed. But as always they will be screaming at the wrong parties.

Besides, it doesn’t make any difference. Once Hamas is out of the picture as any kind of organized fighting force, the cease-fire agreement can be restored and the world that approved this deal in the first time will surely approve it again. Not because they love Israel (they hate Israel despite the platitudes we sometimes hear from their leaders). But because it will be in their own economic interests to do so as well as it will be in the best interests of the Arab states, the U.S., and, not least of all, Israel.

Meanwhile, the vice president is in Israel to make sure Netanyahu does not ‘jump the gun’ and restart the war prematurely. He wants to give peace a chance. 

Frankly, so do I. It’s just that I don’t have any confidence in Hamas living up to their part of the bargain. We will have to see what the deadline is for them to lay down their arms. If they do, it’s a win for Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the free world. If they don’t, it will still be a win — it will just take a bit longer and be a lot bloodier.

These are my thoughts as things stand now.