Rabbi Yaakov Menken, executive vice president of the Coalition for Jewish Values, warned that the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America within the Democratic Party endangers the American Dream and the nation’s future.

In a Fox News appearance on Monday, Menken described the DSA as a dangerous movement whose ideology and recent actions pose a serious threat to core American values and the country’s long-term stability.

Menken has previously labeled the DSA “objectively antisemitic.” He issued that characterization after DSA co-chair Megan Romer told The New Yorker that the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel were “largely inevitable,” remarks that drew widespread condemnation from pro-Israel organizations.

The Coalition for Jewish Values is the largest rabbinic public-policy organization in the United States. Menken’s comments come amid heightened concerns in Jewish communities about the DSA’s expanding political footprint and its positions on Israel and related issues.

Photo: Rabbi Yaakov Menken, courtesy of Coalition for Jewish Values

American Jews are dealing with the reality of distressing Jew hatred, manifested by sporadic physical attacks and more prevalent verbal confrontations. Worse, it has become mainstreamed in the Democratic Party, with elected officials and prominent nominees unafraid to spew hatred against Jews poorly disguised as anti-Israel “activism.” Some of these Democrats are poor excuse for Jews, such as Bernie Sanders, while others, like Chuck Schumer, are so blinded by ambition that they pretend it doesn’t exist or rationalize its presence by blaming Israel.

Increasingly, this is becoming a viral strain in the Republican Party as well, engendering an insipid debate over who is or isn’t an anti-Semite, and ignoring its true causes. Why, indeed, has Jew hatred exploded in America and become commonplace across the world? Is it because of Gaza, as if Israel should have just accepted the October 7 massacre and the brutalization of its hostages, licked its wounds, and prepared for the promised, next massacre? Is it because the world has suddenly determined that Israel – alone among countries and Jews unique among nationalities – really has no right to exist? Burundi and Bhutan have an undisputed right to exist – but not the Jewish state of Israel?

That doesn’t seem credible, and for the apparently abrupt escalation in Jew hatred we must look elsewhere. As is often the case, history is quite instructive.

The United States was founded upon religious tolerance. Indeed, there were very few Jews living in colonial America (not many more than 1000 Jews lived there during the Revolutionary War), and Jews were treated well – better than well. In President George Washington’s famous letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation in 1790, using language literally borrowed from Moses Seixas, Washington wrote:

“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Tolerance? No. Jews are no different than any other group in America and are not “tolerated” but fully accepted.

As such, Jew hatred was largely unknown for almost the first century of the United States. Sure, there were some states that took time eliminating electoral provisions that barred any non-Christians (i.e., Jews) from holding public office, and General Ulysses Grant temporarily banned all Jews from entering the Tennessee territory during the Civil War, but there were few recorded attacks on Jews and Jews lived essentially unimpeded lives.

Could this be attributable to the dearth of Jews in America?

Possibly, but not necessarily. There are plenty of Jew-hating countries in the world today where no Jews live. Jew hatred can flourish without Jews, as long as there are a sufficient number of Gentiles reared with this spiritual and psychological malady.

Even the large influx of German Jews to the United States in the mid-19th century did not provoke any Jew hatred, perhaps because they were generally assimilated, their temples and services reminiscent of churches, their day of rest not Shabbat but Sunday, and their intense desire to blend into American life, which they did quite successfully. In fact, there was far more fear and hatred of Catholics in 19th century America than there was of Jews.

Of the 300,000 Jews who lived in the United States in 1880, more than 200,000 were German Jews. But in the next forty years, more than two million European Jews came to America, such that by 1920, the Jewish population of the United States had increased tenfold, to over 3,500,000 people.

By the early 20th century, Jew hatred had become more common in the United States. Leo Frank was falsely accused of murder, freed, and then lynched. A host of Jewish “defense” organizations arose (they all still exist). Jews were hassled on the teeming city streets. The 1920’s university quotas and job restrictions limiting Jewish opportunities became standard and even persisted into the 1950’s when civil rights laws cracked down on private conduct that had any public nexus.

What changed? Was it the mass influx of Jews that attracted Jew hatred?

No – it was the mass influx of European Gentiles. While two million Jewish immigrants came to America in that period, that number was dwarfed by the more than twenty million Gentiles who came – Poles, Germans, Russians, Italians, Irish, Slavs, and others. These immigrants, arriving from lands where they imbibed Jew hatred with their mother’s milk, brought their Jew hatred with them.

Jew hatred was never indigenous to the United States. It was imported, along with these millions of immigrants. Some of it was religious based – Polish, Irish, Italian Catholics reared on Jew hatred in their native lands – and some of it was sociologically based. Some of these newcomers, the lowest tier on society’s totem pole, simply sought out an ethnic group long despised in their native land, and disparaged them, persecuted them, and harassed them.

In a very short time, this imported Jew hatred spread to the establishment as well, and Jews (and blacks) became conventional targets for discrimination. For Jews it didn’t last or even sting as much because we were successful, skilled at adaptation, ambitious, educated, social climbers, and blessed. Law firms, hospitals, and country clubs didn’t want us? We just made our own, and better ones too. And built businesses. And Hollywood.

In time, and the Holocaust played a role in this as well, Jew hatred receded from American life (although you wouldn’t know it from the billions of dollars spent for many decades combating it) and became unfashionable.

Jew hatred is again fashionable, and not because the culture changed, or Israel became too bellicose, or Netanyahu is unlikeable, or Jews are too successful. The same dynamic that swept America over a century ago has repeated itself in the last thirty years – the large influx of Muslims, especially radical Muslims, who have brought with them the endemic Jew hatred that characterizes their native lands.

Millions of Arabs and Muslims have immigrated to the United States in the last fifty years, many claiming refugee status because of the depraved conditions in their countries of origin. To be sure, not every Arab or Muslim is a rabid Jew hater (any more than all of the twenty million European Christians who came to the US were), and many have become productive citizens, embodying the American ethos. But many have not.

Armed with literal fortunes in money – donated by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Muslim countries – they have poisoned the American bloodstream with their radical ideas, even insisting in some locales on the implementation of Sharia law. They have infiltrated local school boards and endowed university chairs, not surprising then that most Jew hatred in America has emerged on college campuses. Their culture is one of hatred of Jews and Israel, if not America itself. And it did not take long for some of their most radical imports – immigrants or children of immigrants, like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Zohran Mamdani, and others – to achieve important political positions.

They did it very slyly, cleverly, and surreptitiously. Who would have thought that a radical Muslim NYC mayor could preside next month over the 25th anniversary of the Arab terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? It is because their PR teams and useful idiots in the media immediately identified the major crisis in US life after 9/11 as “Islamophobia,” statistically insignificant as a social phenomenon but dominant and pervasive as a deflection. What better evidence than the universal hesitation to characterize the attacks of 9/11 as “Arab” or “Muslim”? Instead, it is just a date, 9/11, no perpetrators need be identified, for propriety’s sake.

Not only is “Islamophobia” used as a shield against exposing odious behavior on the part of Muslims, but it also rests on a fundamental hypocrisy. “Islamophobia” is premised on the reasonable idea that all Muslims should not be blamed for the detestable acts of a violent few, or even many. Yet, that same deference is not showed to Jews, who must be held accountable, hounded, beaten, attacked, vilified, and persecuted for the (righteous) acts of the State of Israel.

It is not just that “Islamophobia” is a crock of drivel as a real phenomenon, but rather that it is employed as armor against any criticism of even the most radical Muslims, and in turn is used as a weapon that has intimidated many Americans into silence and acquiescence in the transformation of their country.

Similarly, the infiltration of billions of petrodollars into the university system in the US has changed curricula and radicalized students. When American campuses erupted in anti-Jewish fury on October 8 (!), with spirited defenses of the Hamas massacre and vile accusations of genocide in Gaza even before Israel had responded militarily (!), these campuses had literally been preparing for years for just such a moment. Tents, signs, fences, loudspeakers resolutions had all be readied in advance, and pressure points against vulnerable Jews had already been identified.

And, just like a century ago, the Jew hatred that emigrated to America along with the Arabs and Muslims, slowly spread to other classes as well – including some American blacks and Hispanics (who are disproportionately assaulting Jews in NYC for no discernible reasons) and the old WASP class that has long resented Jewish success.

Undoubtedly, the Jew hatred in Europe over the last several decades has a similar provenance – the large, and until recently, unstoppable incursion of Arabs and Muslims into the UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere. It is no surprise that all those countries, like the USA, has been visited multiple times by Arab mass terror attacks, and no surprise that Jews are repeatedly victimized there. The Jew hatred in Australia and New Zealand follows the same pattern – Muslim immigration that is accompanied by Muslim Jew hatred. But go ahead and blame Israel for it.

Is there a solution to this problem? A century ago, time played the largest factor and Jew hatred receded within several decades because of our prosperity and societal integration, each a divine blessing of sorts. But time may not be our ally here. And the hoary staples of outreach and dialogue will be of limited value when dealing with an entrenched, religious-based hatred, which is not to say it won’t be tried, and when it fails, tried again.

America is changing. Its establishment is reproducing itself far below replacement rates and thus it is becoming ever more distant from the Enlightenment roots that spawned the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Hence, the current demand of the Socialists to gut the Constitution, the product of dead, white, European males. Jews, who do have a homeland that will welcome them happily if they so choose, will mostly try to ride out the wave, making deals with the devil when necessary (including turning on Israel), and wondering why the US continues to elect more and more radical Jew haters rather than the pareve Protestants who made the US such a palatable home for so many for so long.

Is it possible that the children of radical Muslim immigrants will over time mainstream and Americanize, what once was the dream of every class of immigrants? It certainly is possible, but the early returns are not good. The children of radical Muslim immigrants are just as radical but they have sufficiently acclimated to American society to perceive how to attract votes, money, and support, how to camouflage the most despicable ideas behind the toothiest and oleaginous smiles.

Immigration changes every nation, and many for the better, the United States among them. But some types of immigration transform in ways that obscure the national purpose and obliterate the founding ethos. That is what has occurred in Europe and is occurring now in the United States.

This is one of the ways in which exiles come to an end.

Photo: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, courtesy of the Coalition for Jewish Values

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary was a clarifying moment. By endorsing the winner, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) abandoned all pretense of serving as a shomer, or “guardian,” of the beleaguered Jewish community. It is not just that Schumer indicated that he would endorse even an antisemite for political gain; it is that he did.

El-Sayed has not hidden his attitude toward Jews, which wallpapers slogans about Israel and Zionism over classical antisemitism. No one of intelligence could fail to see the similarities between his beliefs and those that overtook Germany less than a century ago.

He regards the Jews as a collective threat, stating without evidence that the Israeli government is “just as evil as Hamas,” the genocidal terrorists responsible for the worst anti-Jewish massacre since the Holocaust. El-Sayed claimed that rescuing hostages from torture and rape, and neutralizing those genocidal terrorists, constitutes “genocide.” Jewish lives, in other words, have no value in his view.

In a modern spin on the old “Chosen People” myth, he accuses Jews of racism, calling the only Middle Eastern country that gives both Jews and Arabs civil rights an “apartheid” state. And like his ideological forebears, he considers a boycott of Jews an appropriate “response.” Perhaps worst of all, El-Sayed used these depraved lies about Israel to justify violence against Jews in his home state. This is no different than the Nazis blaming Jews for the violence of Kristallnacht in 1938.

No one who values Western civilization or basic human decency would consider El-Sayed remotely fit to be a U.S. senator.

This brings us back to Schumer, who is placing political gain ahead of moral principle. During the primary, he backed the more moderate, pro-Israel candidate Rep. Haley Stevens. But once El-Sayed prevailed, Schumer immediately pivoted and was quite forthright about why. He issued a statement with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that declared they were “united by a common purpose” with El-Sayed: “taking back the Senate.”

To Schumer, party cohesion and electoral math come first, while the character of the nominee takes a distant second. That is why he and Gillibrand both supported the now disgraced Senate candidate Graham Platner in Maine, despite his Nazi tattoo and a series of scandals, until a sexual assault accusation from a former Platner girlfriend sent them scurrying like rats abandoning a sinking ship.

For a lesson in moral courage, Schumer could learn from Boy George, who released a new song, “Od Nirkod” (“We Will Dance Again”), standing with the Jewish community at great professional and personal cost. In fact, he could study a political leader Schumer himself has accused of antisemitism in the past: U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump has openly stated that El-Sayed hates Jews and Israel. Though entirely accurate, one could dismiss this as political posturing based upon party affiliation. This, however, would fail to recognize Trump’s penchant for repeatedly getting it right about hatred of Jews and Israel. He demonstrates this most clearly not when his targets are his political adversaries or adversarial college administrators, but his fellow Republicans.

Trump has distanced himself even from former allies over antisemitism, pushing back when they cross into anti-Jewish bias and conspiracy theories. He forcefully rejected former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and actively campaigned against soon-to-be-former Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), both Republicans.

After podcaster Tucker Carlson’s interviews with a series of antisemitic bigots and his subsequent attacks on Trump’s policy on Israel and Iran, including claims that attacked Jewish organizations, Trump declared that Carlson “has lost his way,” is “not MAGA” and does not represent “America First.” Trump has said his movement has no room for antisemites.

This difference in attitude has an obvious practical impact upon the two parties. The most powerful Democratic leaders, including one who proudly trots out his personal Jewish identity whenever it suits him, treat fighting antisemitism and the demonization of the Jewish state as secondary to gaining power.

Leaders on the other side, including Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), dismiss erstwhile allies and refuse to include them and their bigoted views for political profit.

This is what Jews in America need: not calculations of which candidate is electable in a purple state, but clarity on who will defend their security and legitimacy without apology.

El-Sayed’s primary victory, coupled with Schumer’s subsequent endorsement, demands a moral choice that transcends political inclinations. True friendship with the Jewish community is evaluated based on actions and adherence to principles, rather than on birth certificates or party affiliations. In this regard, the Democrats’ record is not even close to that of the Republicans.

Photo: Chuck Schumer official photo by U.S. Senate Photographic Studio/Jeff McEvoy, public domain (U.S. federal government work), via Wikimedia Commons

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s bogus threat against Israel’s prime minister revealed something essential about his political career — and even more about his sycophants. When Mamdani promised to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu should he set foot in the United States, only to admit that this would be both impossible and illegal just days later, his fan club did not blink, much less assess whether he was prone to reckless, false claims. They simply moved on.

That indifferent reaction is the point: Mamdani’s followers are not impressed by truth or history.

A fact-free mob is dangerous, often more likely to justify violence than to condemn it. One can expect that they will respond to his new call for “protest” by conducting themselves like those described on CNN as “mostly peaceful” while stores burned in the background. As NYPD Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Hendry put it, “violent agitators will assume they have permission to cause as much havoc as possible.” Already, a deranged man yelling Allahu Akbar attacked bystanders (including a Jew coming from prayers) in NYC just days after Mamdani’s racist tirade.

And Mamdani must have known he was inciting his crowd. He gave them not only permission but pretense, stating as fact that Netanyahu was a “war criminal,” deserving of a violent welcome. He claimed that Israel’s rescue of hostages being tortured, starved and raped, and the elimination of the terrorists responsible, constituted a “genocide.”

He wants us to imagine that it’s simply coincidence that the victims whose rescue he condemned were primarily Jews. Surely he would deny being the monster and sexual deviant that such condemnation makes him out to be.

But, crucially, his entire effort is based upon such obvious lies. Equating the neutralization of terrorists to murder of civilians is the least of his problems.

That honor goes to the underlying narrative of “Palestine,” which Mamdani and his followers defend with fervor and without curiosity.

The Bible refers to Israel thousands of times as both a nation and a homeland. “Palestine,” on the other hand, was invented by Greco-Roman colonialists, and instituted by Hadrian to replace the indigenous name Judea, identified with the Jews he was driving out.

The “Palestinian” flag flown at rallies is derived from that of the Arab Revolt of 1916, representing no new identity, but the Jihadists’ dream of a unified Arab kingdom from Syria to Yemen. Old administrative maps of the British Mandate, and similar bureaucratic charts dating back hundreds of years, are exploited to rewrite the historical record of the land they depict.

The history of the region called Palestine is real — and overwhelmingly Jewish. It produced the Palestinian Talmud (also called the Jerusalem Talmud) and the Palestinian Gaonate.

The four central cities of Jewish scholarship — Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias — fundraised together for centuries as “the Four Holy Cities of Palestine.” Maimonides, Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Ari, and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero all lived and taught there. Safed alone produced a revolution in Jewish mysticism.

None of the foregoing related to “Palestine” as anything more than the name used by Greco-Roman and Christian scholars. And notably, there is no parallel Arab or Muslim, much less “Palestinian,” intellectual tradition tied to the region, until Arafat’s PLO determined that manufacturing one would serve their bigoted cause.

In other words, the modern Palestinian national narrative is a mid-20th-century political fiction, built upon the erasure of two millennia of Jewish history and the denial of the land’s holy status to Jews as their homeland and center of Jewish religious practice. That is not a judgment about any individual Arab or Muslim, much less “Islamophobia.” It is simply historical fact.

Thus it is fair and accurate to describe Mamdani’s followers as indifferent to the truth. The tragedy is not that Mamdani is so wrong, so malevolent, and so clearly adversarial towards American values, but that his followers have lost the ability to care.

That is why his reelection isn’t just plausible, but likely — at least until New Yorkers recognize that following in the historical footsteps of Berlin and Moscow is a truly bad idea.

Photo: Zohran Mamdani Speaking at a DSA 101 Meeting at the Church of the Village in NYC by Bingjiefu He, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

When Tucker Carlson described the Book of Esther as celebrating a “genocide of Persians,” he did the world a favor. Not because his perspective was correct or well-informed, but just the opposite. His obvious lie, so clearly detached from reality, unwittingly revealed the true nature of the more contemporary charges of genocide leveled at the same People of Israel.

The Book of Esther offers no possibility for error regarding who was responsible for the violence. It tells us that Haman convinced the Persian king, whose empire stretched to the very limits of the civilized world, to issue a decree seeking annihilation of the Jews. When Queen Esther intervened, disclosing that she was a Jew herself, the king was bound by Persian law that his decrees not be rescinded. Instead he issued a second one, permitting the Jews to defend themselves. The fighting that followed, per the Biblical text, was not an offensive campaign, but self-defense against a genocidal mob.

The text emphasizes this in the same verse that tells us that 75,000 were killed (Esther 9:16). It tells us that, contrary to Carlson’s delusional retelling, the dead were neither Persians nor members of any one nation or faith. Instead, the casualties are described as “from those who hated them.” Their one unifying characteristic was that they had come out to kill Jews.

Yet in Carlson’s twisted version, all of this context was erased. The initiating threat vanished. The murderous mob disappeared. All that remained was a single statistic reframed as evidence of Jewish aggression, self-defense recast as “genocide.” Carlson only found the Book of Esther “controversial” after he had deprived the sacred text of both meaning and value.

This was no innocent misreading of the Bible. On the contrary, it exposed a broader pattern which is as evident regarding Israel the modern country as Israel the ancient people. The side responding to violence is recast as the initiator, while the culpability of those that launched the attack is ignored. The mechanism is simple: remove chronology, agency, and intent. Reduce everything to a single, emotionally charged statistic, and then use that casualty figure to invert reality.

And that brings us to the recent conflict in Gaza.

Here, too, numbers were presented without the events that produced them. The initiating attack was omitted, along with the stated intent of the attacking party. The distinction between targeting civilians and combatants was blurred or erased. And what remained was a false narrative in which the party responding to violence was portrayed as the aggressor, while the party that initiated the violence was treated as a passive backdrop.

To be clear, the parallel is not between Esther and Gaza as historical events, but between the use of the same rhetorical mechanism to distort them. In both cases, context is erased in favor of an immoral calculus in which the side with the lower casualty count is presumed to be the villain. Numbers alone determine guilt, while history is deemed irrelevant.

Reality, of course, does not work that way, but all too many political and media figures routinely partner with Haman’s ideological descendants to demonize Jews.

It is a criminal violation of the laws of warfare to store weapons in a school, or to use a hospital as a military base. Moreover, once this crime has been committed, the former school or hospital becomes a legitimate military target as a result. Yet Hamas knew that it could commit such crimes with impunity, because global media outlets would falsely report that Israel bombed a school or hospital, rather than the Hamas base that they had become.

To take a specific example, when Israel bombed the Hamas Command and Control center located in the Nasser Hospital building in Khan Younis, CNN reported upon the “outrage” that Israel bombed a hospital and “killed journalists, health workers and emergency response crews.” It failed to mention that the erstwhile hospital was a base for Hamas fighters that had been used to imprison hostages.

This sort of omission of relevant context happened far too often to be brushed away as an innocent error. In a just and decent world, CNN executives would have faced federal charges under the Antiterrorism Act for having provided material support to Hamas.

Such lies have a real human cost: Hamas puts journalists, doctors, and children at risk knowing both that Israel will risk her own soldiers’ lives to take more efforts to avoid harming them than would any other military force, and that despite this, when civilians are inevitably harmed, Israel rather than Hamas will be blamed. Gazan children died in the conflict because Hamas knew it could rely upon CNN to cover for its crimes.

Antisemitism does not merely harm Jews.

The Book of Esther is deliberately structured to highlight the reversal of fortune-the oppressed rising up against their would‑be oppressors. But the story is also careful to preserve the moral logic of that reversal. The Jews defend themselves; they do not plunder, nor do they initiate violence. The text is a celebration of survival, not slaughter.

When Carlson stripped away that context, he was not offering a “new interpretation” but a grotesque distortion. He took a story of self‑defense and deliverance and turned it into a false tale of aggression.

The lesson of Esther, and Carlson’s distortion thereof, is not that numbers are irrelevant, but that numbers without context are dangerous. They can reverse victims and villains. They can invert the moral order of a story. And they can mislead us into condemning those who are simply fighting for their survival.

In an age saturated with data but starved for context, the ancient text offers practical lessons as applicable today as at any time in the past.

Image Credit: Book of Esther by Anita Gould with CC BY-NC 2.0 license on Flickr

Provoking outrage from the United Nations, human-rights organizations and Arab governments, Israel is blocking further aid to Gaza. It comes as the first phase of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has ended and Hamas refuses to agree to a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire extension. But even without this valid reason, and despite the condemnations, Israel has adopted the morally correct approach.

For more than a year, the Biden administration’s insistence that Israel provide support to its mortal enemies prolonged the conflict, trapped Palestinian civilians in a war zone, and condemned innocent hostages to months of torture, abuse and death.

There is a saying in the Midrash: “Those who are compassionate to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the compassionate.”

The billions of dollars that have flowed into Gaza over the past two decades under the guise of humanitarian aid enabled the governing genocidal junta to solidify its control, arm for war and indoctrinate the Arab populace to seek death and destruction. Hamas then carried out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust and has broadcast its intent to repeat its atrocities if allowed to survive. The requirement that Israel sustain the same terrorists it must eliminate only further demonstrates the truth of this aphorism.

Days after Oct. 7, 2023, I predicted and dismissed the disingenuous calls for “restraint” that would hound Israel in the aftermath of the slaughter. This did not reflect a lack of concern for the costs of war; it was born of a commitment to human rights and an opposition to antisemitic double standards. As I wrote then, world leaders and members of Congress don’t call for restraint when people are fighting totalitarian regimes or terrorists, unless the victims are Jews.

In late October 2023, amid closed border crossings into Gaza, Biden administration officials predicted a humanitarian crisis, saying that fuel supplies were expected to last “a couple of days.” They did not mention at that early date that Hamas was considering trading hostages for that fuel. Rafael Hayun, an analyst and civilian hacker who monitors Hamas communications, went further in a recent interview with Ami Magazine. He claimed that had the siege lasted longer, “we would have had everything,” with Hamas fighters flying a white flag and turning over Yahya Sinwar, architect of the Oct. 7 murderous assault, to Israel.

Even as Israel worked to provide Gazan hospitals with fuel, the Biden administration forced Israel to surrender its critical bargaining chips and supply Hamas with all the fuel it needed, plus enough food and other aid to stock every pantry in Gaza. This is why—after months of cries from the United Nations and others of “impending famine”—healthy, well-fed Hamas fighters and supporters were dancing and cheering as they paraded the coffins of Kfir and Ariel Bibas, babies they kidnapped and slaughters had slaughtered. The only emaciated victims in sight were the surviving hostages they had deliberately starved.

None of these lies were incidental, they are key to the strategies of Hamas and its Iranian, Qatari and European allies throughout the conflict. For nearly two decades Hamas built tunnels under civilian buildings and stored weapons in mosques, schools and shelters. They set up a data center beneath and borrowed connectivity from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) headquarters. Palestinian Authority officials noted that Hamas was maximizing civilian casualties for PR reasons, while world outlets unanimously blamed Israel for Hamas Health Ministry death counts so inflated and unrealistic as to be statistically impossible. Despite the cries of “genocide,” Israel remains the only party in the conflict working to save civilians from harm, and it has succeeded to an unprecedented degree.

It is also worth considering how innocent Gazan civilians truly are. During the Nazi era, civilians in every country under Hitler’s control—including Germany, Poland, France, Holland, Austria and Hungary—saved Jews from harm at great personal risk. Since Oct. 7, Israel has broadcast Arabic-language announcements on radio, television, social media and in print, promising security and a generous financial reward to anyone helping rescue a hostage. Not one Gazan has responded. Instead, they participated in the kidnappings, rapes, imprisonment, humiliation, torture of hostages and desecration of their bodies.

Where are the decent, innocent Gazans? Sadly, they are dead. Hamas has long since murdered anyone identified as gay or as a supporter of the Palestinian Authority, as well as anyone who opposed their iron-fisted and antisemitic agenda.

The withholding of aid has always been, and remains, a just and moral course of action. Hamas must release the hostages, abandon its explicitly genocidal mission and permanently disband. Aid should only come afterward to support the de-Nazification and rebuilding of Gaza. Until then, blame for all of the suffering in both Israel and the Strip must be placed firmly at the feet of the terrorists and their supporters around the world.

Photo Credit: Israel Foreign Ministry video on X/Twitter.

CJV President Rabbi Yoel Schonfeld issued the following statement:

The accusation of “genocide” against Israel is not merely risible, but was created by Jew-haters anxious to cover for the atrocities committed by the Hamas terror organization and its declared intent to implement Hitler’s Final Solution.
 
Pope John XXIII prayed in 1963, ‘Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews.” Pope Francis should recall these words by his predecessor, and the improvement in Catholic-Jewish relations they helped bring about.

Photo Credit: “General Audience with Pope Francis” by Catholic Church of England and Wales on Flickr.

CJV President Rabbi Yoel Schonfeld issued the following statement:

While the First Amendment requires that even the most repugnant voices have a chance to be heard, the first obligation of a university is to provide a safe environment in which students can learn. The judge simply ignored the fact that the rally will, like similar events at schools across the country, descend into not just glorification of hatred but actual harassment and threats to the safety of Jewish students—the reason the University correctly decided to prohibit the event in the first place.

We commend Governor Moore for the correct tenor of his response, recognizing that incitement to violence is unacceptable, and that October 7 should be remembered for the “heinous terrorist attack on Israel that took innocent lives.” Instead, thanks to distortion of law by a federal judge, that day will see students and others march across the UMD campus in support of bigotry and hate, couched in the obscene claim that it is somehow “genocidal” to halt the effort of the genocidal Hamas terror organization to murder innocent Jews.

Image credit: Ryan Kosmides at Unsplash

We are drowning in a sea of clichés that purport to provide guidance needed to navigate the manifold strategic challenges that confront us. The problem is that clichés contain some truth but rarely furnish a complete picture and, as such, tend as much to obscure as to enlighten. Some examples present.

One incessantly repeated refrain is that “ransoming captives (Pidyon Shvuyim) is the most important mitzvah in the Torah,” to which all other interests are secondary, if that.

Most highways in Israel feature such signs. It is certainly understandable that the relatives of hostages feel this way. Their loved one is the world to them and little else matters.

The kernel of truth is that Rambam (Laws of the Gifts to the Poor, 8:10) stated that “there is no greater mitzvah than the redemption of captives,” so great that Rambam repeats this point again in the same paragraph. Yet, the context sheds a different light; Rambam did not include this law in the “Laws of Preservation of Life” or the “Laws of War” but in the “Laws of Tzedakah.” That is to say, ransoming captives is a great mitzvah because it incorporates all the different varieties of tzedakah, “for a captive is among those who are hungry, thirsty, unclothed and is in mortal peril.” In terms of tzedakah there is no greater mitzvah – but even in terms of tzedakah, there are limitations derived from the Talmud (Gittin 45a) that Rambam also embraces (ibid 8:12), that “we do not redeem captives for more than their worth for the benefit of civilization.”

How can these two ideas – the importance of the mitzvah v. the inherent limitations imposed on its fulfillment – coexist? It is quite comprehensible as long as we do not reduce the teaching of our sages to a simplistic cliché. Our sages assumed that ransoming captives required only money, and even then placed limitations on its practice, because the survival of the community takes precedence over the survival of any one individual. (For that reason, the laws of Pikuach Nefesh [preservation of life] are much more liberally applied when the endangered party is the community than when it is an individual.)

Thus, the Talmud taught that we do not ransom captives for “more than their worth” either “due to the financial pressure on the community,” which could be bankrupted by recurring kidnappings for monetary ransom, or because “an exorbitant ransom will incentivize the seizure of additional captives.”

In our agonizing situation, winning the release of our innocent hostages by paroling vicious murderers places enormous pressure on the community, which has paid and will again pay an awful price for such releases. Unrepentant terrorists, pledged to murder Jews, will once again be afforded the opportunity to do so. This is not speculation; this is reality. It has happened, it is happening (just a few weeks ago a precious Jewish soul was extinguished by an Arab murderer released in November’s hostage deal), and it will happen again.

Just as egregious, these deals “incentivize the seizure of additional captives.” There is no way to avert our eyes from that fundamental and infuriating reality. If we continue to make these deals, as we have for 40 years, we are stating quite clearly to our enemies that this tactic works, and they might as well do it again. Why wouldn’t they?

Add to this the insanity of withdrawing from Gazan territory we have conquered for the seventh time, which mocks the sacrifices of our soldiers and paves the way for the next round of conflict and more dead Jewish soldiers fighting over the same land. It is a poor reflection on our leaders that they have acquiesced so readily and for so long to these execrable exchanges instead of categorically ruling them out and applying real pressure on our enemies and the civilian population that supports them.

It is heartbreaking for the families and a trauma for our nation. It is reminiscent of a terminal illness in which the family is left to pray for a miracle because multiple life-saving organ transplants would require the deaths of the donors. We can only pray alongside them.

It is a trauma that will remain with us for decades which, perhaps, only victory can somewhat alleviate.

Another empty cliché frequently uttered is that the government must take every risk because “it breached the fundamental covenant with the people.”

There is a kernel of truth in that as well. There is an unwritten compact between the government and the governed in which the primary obligation of the former is to provide security for the latter. The Hamas invasion and subsequent atrocities breached that covenant as October 7 was a colossal failure at all levels of the establishment – military, security and political.

Nevertheless, if we think a little more deeply, that was not the only breakdown of the covenant. Every time a Jew is rammed, shot, stabbed, or hammered to death, or cannot live in his or home in the north or south – that is a breakdown of the covenant. The government of Israel had a covenant with the residents of Gush Katif whom it sent there to settle – that covenant was brutally mocked. If we cannot ride our roads without being stoned or sit in restaurants without being blown up, then these “covenants” are empty clichés, or, better, clichés recently invented for the purpose of bringing down this government.

The government owes all of us security – not just some – and the governments that supported Oslo, invited in our enemies and gave them money and weapons (what could possibly go wrong with that?), and then have coddled our enemies for decades, “mowing the lawn” rather than seeking solutions, and then releasing thousands of terrorists (including Sinwar) who then indulged in more barbarism against us, those governments also abrogated whatever covenant might exist.

Furthermore, we are entitled to be governed by the leaders we elect and not by unelected Supreme Court justices and unelected bureaucrats, both of whom have usurped the people’s power.

And we have the right to expect to live in our homes anywhere in our country without the constant fear of missiles, rockets, and drones falling on our heads.

A “covenant” between government and governed in Israel has hardly existed for many decades.

Such a cliché might play well in television studios and in opposition politics, but it is disconnected from reality.

A third clichéthat confounds us is the pursuit of “total victory.”

That is surely a worthy goal and most of the people who oppose it are the defeatists who have (mis)guided security policy for decades. The desire to surrender, to acquiesce in Hamas’ survival, to make another lopsided terrorist exchange that will just kill many more Jews in the future, are all products of self-loathing and/or a hatred for the Netanyahu government.

My objection to the cliché is not its substance; it is that our government’s current strategy cannot achieve it.

There is no way around this basic truth: the Arab world equates defeat with loss of land. That is why the establishment of Israel in 1948 sticks in their craw – but that is also why Egypt no longer perceives the Six Day War as a defeat and does construe the Yom Kippur War as a great victory. We have already surrendered most of the land won in 1967 in a war of self-defense. And the Yom Kippur War ended – at least the diplomacy ended – with Egypt (and Syria) gaining territory at Israel’s expense, and within a decade, Egypt had recovered every inch of land it lost in 1967.

There cannot be victory, total or otherwise, unless Israel controls Gaza, period, and resettles it. Seeing Israeli flags flying over thriving Jewish communities is the only image of “total victory” that the Arabs will recognize, grieve over, regret their ruthless assault, and be deterred from attempting again.

The sad reality is that we do not – maybe even cannot – understand the mentality of our enemies. When they say they “prefer death to life,” we shrug our shoulders and deem it hyperbole. The devastation of their buildings and infrastructure means nothing to them. The arrest and incarceration of their terrorists, rapists, and butchers mean nothing to them. They diverted billions of dollars in international aid just to build underground terror tunnels with which to harass us, leaving Gazans as indigent as they were before the money poured in.

They do not think like we do.

Sure, they might laud “martyrdom” and then (falsely) accuse us of genocide, which, if you think about it, is a reasonable means of achieving the martyrdom they crave. It is somewhat inconsistent – but is logical when we realize that the accusations are only made as part of their rhetorical warfare designed to weaken us, make us reassess our strategies and objectives, and allow them to continue to murder Jews unimpeded.

They really believe that they are entitled to murder Jews because of the “occupation” but Jews are not entitled to defend themselves because that is “genocide.” They are genuinely evil – but this belief is sincerely held.

If defeat is synonymous with loss of land, and Israel’s government has ruled out permanent Jewish sovereignty over Gaza, then “total victory” will never be achieved. Why then are we wasting our soldiers’ lives for an unachievable goal? Why would we even consider giving Hamas at this point the gift of survival through a deal that will only endanger all of us?

They need to fear us, and only then will they be deterred and learn to respect us.

The main obstacle that is still unaddressed is that Gazans – most or all of them – remain implacably opposed to Israel’s existence. They have been brainwashed or believe naturally that Jews are malevolent usurpers and that eventually they will succeed in destroying Israel. We cannot wish this away. We can kill ten Sinwar’s and he will be replaced instantly with ten other rabid haters who will rebuild Gaza – again – as a terror nest.

The only solution that secures Israel and provides a better life to Gazans is evacuation to other countries; if not, we are staring at the same morass that will bedevil us in just another few years. If they remain, they will rebuild in order to attack us again. Nothing will change and we will manufacture new clichés for the next massacre, the next brief conflict, and the next series of negotiations – all as equally vacuous as the current ones.

Right now, we are negotiating with ourselves and against ourselves.

Hamas is not an interlocutor so Israel is the only party that can be pressured and pressured without end. No one can say yes for Hamas, even their “yes” will not be credible, so we assume we hear “no” and keep conceding, but never enough for our enemies, or for some of our friends.

Unilateral negotiations are never sensible so here is some advice:

Antony Blinken has visited Israel nine times since the war started but has never visited Sinwar in Gaza. Sinwar is nominally the other party to these discussions. Blinken should visit Sinwar and find out what he will offer, what concessions he is willing to make, and how Sinwar proposes to realize Blinken’s dream of a “secure and prosperous Middle East for all.”

Of course, Blinken might rightfully argue that he cannot trust Sinwar, that Blinken himself might be taken hostage in Gaza, and that he would rather not take the word of a homicidal maniac.

Then he would know how we feel. Blinken will not even visit Sinwar and yet expects us to live next door to him and give him the means to survive and kill us another day.

It would therefore be helpful if Blinken learned to keep his clichés to himself, for empty clichés are potent, time bombs that will harm us.

He should be asked at a news conference if he (or Biden or Harris) wants Hamas to survive. That will tell us all we need to know – and how total victory, if it is to be achieved, will require Israel to act in its own interest, resettle Gaza, evacuate those in the local population who refuse to accept Israel’s sovereignty or generally see no future for themselves under any Arab rule, and exact a real and enduring price from those who attacked us.

Then the better world we all want will be much closer.

Originally published in the Israel National News